15 replies to this topic

[Lola Burns]

http://nutritiondata.self.com/

So I'm thinking, this is kind of neat. Type in the name of a food and it tells you what's "good" and what's "bad" about it, all it's nutrition information and... it's "inflammation factor".

This seems like it could be useful. Or it could be a total crock. (I've been skeptical of everyone with nutrition advice ever since Dr.Perricone conned me.)

http://inflammationfactor.com/

Thoughts?

[Tunnelvisionary]

That's a pretty awesome website, it's got really detailed info. I like that it gives you the nutritional content of individual antioxidants and amino acids, and such.

The only thing I can see wrong with it is that its ideas are based off of the commonly accepted ideas of whats healthy (Saturated fats are bad, cholesterol should be avoided, etc.) rather than what is actually healthy. Bold claim, I know, but from what I've read and researched personally, (at the risk of sounding arrogant) most people's ideas about healthy are just...wrong.

The inflammation factor thing is nice touch to the site, though.

[AutonomousOne1980]

i go there all the time, its awesome, but i wonder how accurate it is sometimes, its probably very close, but i dont really know.

[takenimpulse]

Yeah, it's a great site. Just looked up my diet and the only things mildly-moderately inflammatory seem to be lentils, chickpeas, nuts/seeds, chicken, turkey & lamb. (Beef isn't? Weird) I guess all the leafy greens & spices I eat make up for that, plus the daily sweet potato. And then salmon, whoa. Turmeric, garlic powder & olive oil seem great as well. Been consuming them daily.

Edited by takenimpulse, 29 January 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Lola Burns]

Tunnelvisionary, on 28 January 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

That's a pretty awesome website, it's got really detailed info. I like that it gives you the nutritional content of individual antioxidants and amino acids, and such.

The only thing I can see wrong with it is that its ideas are based off of the commonly accepted ideas of whats healthy (Saturated fats are bad, cholesterol should be avoided, etc.) rather than what is actually healthy. Bold claim, I know, but from what I've read and researched personally, (at the risk of sounding arrogant) most people's ideas about healthy are just...wrong.

The inflammation factor thing is nice touch to the site, though.

Yeah, the cholesterol thing bothers me. They don't specific if a food contains the good kind or the bad kind and just lump it all together. And some of the things I searched for I found no information for. Like Greek yogurt (only for "regular" yogurt), pizza crust (we make our own pizza at home, from scratch) and matcha. And how do I calculate the GI or IF if I eat a larger or smaller portion than is rated on that site?

Edited by Lola Burns, 29 January 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[alternativista]

Yep. Nutritiondata has widely used by most of us for years.

[Tunnelvisionary]

Lola Burns, on 29 January 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Tunnelvisionary, on 28 January 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

That's a pretty awesome website, it's got really detailed info. I like that it gives you the nutritional content of individual antioxidants and amino acids, and such.

The only thing I can see wrong with it is that its ideas are based off of the commonly accepted ideas of whats healthy (Saturated fats are bad, cholesterol should be avoided, etc.) rather than what is actually healthy. Bold claim, I know, but from what I've read and researched personally, (at the risk of sounding arrogant) most people's ideas about healthy are just...wrong.

The inflammation factor thing is nice touch to the site, though.

Yeah, the cholesterol thing bothers me. They don't specific if a food contains the good kind or the bad kind and just lump it all together. And some of the things I searched for I found no information for. Like Greek yogurt (only for "regular" yogurt), pizza crust (we make our own pizza at home, from scratch) and matcha. And how do I calculate the GI or IF if I eat a larger or smaller portion than is rated on that site?

Yeah, I just typed in chicken, and got like a thousand results for chicken sandwhiches from fast food places, and canned foods.

As for the GI thing, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to calculate it. It might not be the most helpful advice, but I feel like if you eat healthy long enough, you'll start to gain an intuition for when a meal you ate was too sugary.

Woah, it just hit me how awesome the site is in regards to amino acid information. It's so in depth.

[alternativista]

Lola Burns, on 29 January 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Tunnelvisionary, on 28 January 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

That's a pretty awesome website, it's got really detailed info. I like that it gives you the nutritional content of individual antioxidants and amino acids, and such.

The only thing I can see wrong with it is that its ideas are based off of the commonly accepted ideas of whats healthy (Saturated fats are bad, cholesterol should be avoided, etc.) rather than what is actually healthy. Bold claim, I know, but from what I've read and researched personally, (at the risk of sounding arrogant) most people's ideas about healthy are just...wrong.

The inflammation factor thing is nice touch to the site, though.

Yeah, the cholesterol thing bothers me. They don't specific if a food contains the good kind or the bad kind and just lump it all together. And some of the things I searched for I found no information for. Like Greek yogurt (only for "regular" yogurt), pizza crust (we make our own pizza at home, from scratch) and matcha. And how do I calculate the GI or IF if I eat a larger or smaller portion than is rated on that site?

You can change the proportions via the drop down. And there's no such thing as good cholesterol and bad. If you are thinking of HDL and LDL, those are not cholesterol, they are the lipids your body makes that transport cholesterol to and from your cells. And neither are bad. However, if you high levels of LDL vs low levels of HDL in relation to total cholesterol and triglererides, that is an indicator of a problem.

It breaks down all the fats pretty well. You have to click on the more details tab. Sat fats are broken down into far more forms than I know any thing about. You could look them up to learn which are 'good' such as lauric acid.

Lola Burns, on 28 January 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/

So I'm thinking, this is kind of neat. Type in the name of a food and it tells you what's "good" and what's "bad" about it, all it's nutrition information and... it's "inflammation factor".

This seems like it could be useful. Or it could be a total crock. (I've been skeptical of everyone with nutrition advice ever since Dr.Perricone conned me.)

http://inflammationfactor.com/

Thoughts?

The inflammation factor is not a crock. It's what you should be most concerned about regarding diet and health.

How did Perricone con you? I've found his advice to be generally good. Just don't buy into his supplements or buy his high priced products.

[Lola Burns]

alternativista, on 29 January 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Lola Burns, on 29 January 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Tunnelvisionary, on 28 January 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

That's a pretty awesome website, it's got really detailed info. I like that it gives you the nutritional content of individual antioxidants and amino acids, and such.

The only thing I can see wrong with it is that its ideas are based off of the commonly accepted ideas of whats healthy (Saturated fats are bad, cholesterol should be avoided, etc.) rather than what is actually healthy. Bold claim, I know, but from what I've read and researched personally, (at the risk of sounding arrogant) most people's ideas about healthy are just...wrong.

The inflammation factor thing is nice touch to the site, though.

Yeah, the cholesterol thing bothers me. They don't specific if a food contains the good kind or the bad kind and just lump it all together. And some of the things I searched for I found no information for. Like Greek yogurt (only for "regular" yogurt), pizza crust (we make our own pizza at home, from scratch) and matcha. And how do I calculate the GI or IF if I eat a larger or smaller portion than is rated on that site?

You can change the proportions via the drop down. And there's no such thing as good cholesterol and bad. If you are thinking of HDL and LDL, those are not cholesterol, they are the lipids your body makes that transport cholesterol to and from your cells. And neither are bad. However, if you high levels of LDL vs low levels of HDL in relation to total cholesterol and triglererides, that is an indicator of a problem.

It breaks down all the fats pretty well. You have to click on the more details tab. Sat fats are broken down into far more forms than I know any thing about. You could look them up to learn which are 'good' such as lauric acid.

Lola Burns, on 28 January 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/

So I'm thinking, this is kind of neat. Type in the name of a food and it tells you what's "good" and what's "bad" about it, all it's nutrition information and... it's "inflammation factor".

This seems like it could be useful. Or it could be a total crock. (I've been skeptical of everyone with nutrition advice ever since Dr.Perricone conned me.)

http://inflammationfactor.com/

Thoughts?

The inflammation factor is not a crock. It's what you should be most concerned about regarding diet and health.

How did Perricone con you? I've found his advice to be generally good. Just don't buy into his supplements or buy his high priced products.

Why are HDL and LDL so often called cholesterol, even on webmd? I don't really understand fats or how the body processes them. The mass of information on the subject is so overwhelming when you're just starting to learn about nutrition.

As for Perricone... http://www.quackwatc.../perricone.html
And yes, I did buy all his crap. Why? Because I was 19 and didn't know any better.

[Tunnelvisionary]

Quackwatch is lame. They always put doctors who practice alternative medicine (the alternative being living a healthy life) on there because they don't prescribe antibiotics or cholesterol meds for every condition you have.

Edited by Tunnelvisionary, 29 January 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[Lola Burns]

Tunnelvisionary, on 29 January 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Quackwatch is lame. They always put doctors who practice alternative medicine (the alternative being living a healthy life) on there because they don't prescribe antibiotics or cholesterol meds for every condition you have.

To take ANYONE'S advice as if it were gospel is naive. Quackwatch just poke's holes in theories. And that site isn't the first place I've read that criticizes Perricone and his research (or lack thereof).

[Tunnelvisionary]

I suppose it is useful, because there is a lot of unsubstantiated information out there. I just posted what I posted because I feel like sites like those have a bias against those who go against conventional wisdom. Could just be me, though.

[corgisoulpower]

For real, quackwatch is a bunch of negative nancys. After I was skeptical about having muscle testing done I looked up that method of testing for allergies on QW and it had nothing good to say about the practice, which kind of made me ignore my results. It was only up until recently that I'm learning how accurate they really were.

[alternativista]

Lola Burns, on 29 January 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Tunnelvisionary, on 29 January 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Quackwatch is lame. They always put doctors who practice alternative medicine (the alternative being living a healthy life) on there because they don't prescribe antibiotics or cholesterol meds for every condition you have.

To take ANYONE'S advice as if it were gospel is naive. Quackwatch just poke's holes in theories. And that site isn't the first place I've read that criticizes Perricone and his research (or lack thereof).

Except the role of inflammation in disease and acne aren't Perricone's ideas. It is aging and damaging and at the root of most degenerative diseases. And acne. Most of his advice on diet is good. And the nutrients he wants you to sell you supplements are also very important. The only thing I know of that's dubious is his claims about DMAE.

And it's pretty easy to poke holes in quackwatch's articles as well. Like in that recent thread here on the 'truth' about organic food.

Edited by alternativista, 29 January 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[alternativista]

Lola Burns, on 29 January 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

Why are HDL and LDL so often called cholesterol, even on webmd? I don't really understand fats or how the body processes them. The mass of information on the subject is so overwhelming when you're just starting to learn about nutrition.

Because they dumb it down. I think even so much doctors don't understand that they aren't cholesterol. Not only are they not cholesterol, and not bad, cholesterol isn't bad either. And very little of the cholesterol floating around in your body came from food. Most of it is made by your liver out of Carbs. For a reason. It's what your hormones and vitamin D are made from. And it's spackle to repair damage to cells, especially blood vessels, caused by high blood sugar, high blood pressure, inflammation and free radicals.

What you want is to eat mostly anti-inflammatory fats like omega 3s from fish, mono-unsaturated fats like olive oil and avocados, and the lauric acid which is a saturated fat found in coconut oils. And limit inflammatory omega 6 fats from grains and products from grain fed animals. Omega 6 are essential, but most people get far, far too much.

[Lola Burns]

alternativista, on 29 January 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Lola Burns, on 29 January 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

Why are HDL and LDL so often called cholesterol, even on webmd? I don't really understand fats or how the body processes them. The mass of information on the subject is so overwhelming when you're just starting to learn about nutrition.

What you want is to eat mostly anti-inflammatory fats like omega 3s from fish, mono-unsaturated fats like olive oil and avocados, and the lauric acid which is a saturated fat found in coconut oils. And limit inflammatory omega 6 fats from grains and products from grain fed animals. Omega 6 are essential, but most people get far, far too much.

Woo hoo! I eat a lot of salmon (I'll admit, that was Perricone's influence initially but I do love salmon) and avocados and use olive oil as salad dressing (I'm a daily salad eater).

Edited by Lola Burns, 29 January 2012 - 07:57 PM.