The low-fat/lean-fat, low-calorie diet I prescribe as a general model for healthy living, and reduced risk of heart diseases, and cancers has a large body of scientific support. Of course, there exist many completely ineffective fad diets that can make the same boast. Unfortunately, there are “men of science,” who will lend a word of favorable credibility for their own personal gain, or purposefully misrepresent results, or offer speciously plausible interpretations of unreliable or manipulated data. Programs such as the Atkins diet and South-Beach diet come to mind. Generally these programs are only successful in temporary weight loss if indeed successful at all.
Nearly any temporarily sustainable diet will not serve as suitable program for healthy and permanent weight loss from https://www.sportzfuel.com/. Programs that insist you eat a much larger portion of one food group than another, or only go after foods of a certain nutritional profile such as “low-carb” or “gluten-free” are in this writer’s opinion, largely bunk. Those that suggest one need not change their diet or behavior at all, equally so. The human diet has evolved to require a specific balance of recourses that can be acquired in a number of healthy foods that can give you everything you need for your body to function optimally without the high levels of fat and cholesterol that kills so many through heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.
There is no doubt about it that these substantial benefits require substantial changes, especially for those on a diet consisting of large levels of animal protein, like that of the average American. Societies that eat low levels of animal protein and higher levels of grains, vegetables, and lean proteins tend to have a significantly reduced rate of instances of several types of cancers and heart diseases. In many of these societies such illnesses are virtually nonexistent; at levels below double-digit percentages.
Compare that to the average American male’s likelihood of heart-failure, which some experts place around seventy-five percent or three quarters. This percentage increases significantly with males over the age of sixty-five, and the elderly are least likely to change their diets. The attitude is that they are already on the cusp of mortality, so why bother to torment oneself of the delicacies in life when one is not long for it? This point of view makes two literally fatal erroneous assumptions.
Foremost, the likelihood of significantly reducing your LDL cholesterol, and clearing up plaque congestion in other venous tissue (such as that found in the capillaries of those eating a diet high in polyunsaturated fats) is near certainty; at or around ninety-three percent. Such a diet has even been shown to be effective in treating diabetics, and has even resulted in nearly complete amelioration of all symptoms in specific cases. Heart disease, many cancers such as prostate or ovarian cancer, and diabetes are all linked to diet, and they are all much harder to treat than prevent.
Secondly, this is not going to be a quick and painless end; heart-disease can often be a terribly painful and inconvenient financial burden to inflict on loved ones. And, you are not guaranteed the comparatively comfortable death of a surprise heart-attack due to unnoticed cardiac congestion. Although this would be a much more tolerable condition, physically and fiscally, than, say, rectal cancer.
Why not instead make preventative changes that still allow you to enjoy flavorful lean meats, and be healthy? Is it more important that you live a short life of unfettered indulgence, or a long one with beneficent discipline? Of course there are those who would say not everyone has the mental constitution to dedicate themselves to really actively have a positive impact on their personal health. Such individuals can be found in the drive-thru at McDonald’s multiple times a day.
I, on the other hand, like to believe that nobody lacks the capacity to make an obvious good choice that will have considerable benefits for them; that the body simply becomes conditioned to desire fatty foods to the point of near dependency. This is one of the reasons that I find more moderate diets less reliable. If your body is still intermittently experiencing the surge in blood-sugars and the other physiological effects that accompany ingestion of high levels of fat, sodium, and sugar then it is still cultivating the chemical signature that actuates the desire for foods of this type.
If you significantly reduce the levels of animal proteins, oils, and sweets your body will naturally adjust and you may likely find that your tastes will begin to accommodate foods that constitute a healthy diet; crisp vegetables, fruits, grains, fish, and lean meats. I have personally always loved such foods, although I also love red-meats and I still eat them from time to time. There are those who struggle with their chemical dependency on these foods, and those whose bodies are so accustomed to processed foods that unprocessed foods like fresh veggies can make them sick. I believe these facts, and the obesity epidemic they represent are the results of systematic distribution of bad medical advice.
Some dieticians are more likely to make a recommendation that they believe will be followed, then one that will actually work. This is mostly only an illusory improvement. In my experience the only thing that works is hard work, and boy do people hate that answer. A ten percent calories-from-fat, approximately two-thousand calorie-a-day diet works at a staggeringly higher level than “less extreme” alternatives, like reduction to twenty or even thirty percent calories from fat. Unfortunately, there are many who would rather make the easy change than the effective one. Until these people get the right information, and make better choices heart disease will continue to be at the top of the list of major causes of death in America.