A simple idea about food.

As everything has already been said about the food and the plans, I decided that I do not make me in the fight.

And "to force with force" to observe veterans...

I saw an idea to escape the melee:

The good food, it is one that is good for the body and for the morale.

If you follow a diet that makes you suffer, mentally or physically, you are on the wrong track.

Your aim must be to make feel you good at the end of every meal. If you feel congested, vaguely disgusted, with a beginning of evil skull and a strong desire to sleep, you did probably not ate as needed.

Conversely, if you feel hungry and in a bad mood, it is not good sign not more...
 
If you again hungry an hour after table, there is also a problem. Normally, you should be full digestion and this is the time where the liver works. If you ate properly, there is no reason that your body launched you already a new appeal.

In short, as for all the pleasures, the target table must be satisfaction in the long term (horizon an hour...). Choose foods that you like and that you satisfy the appetite without clog you the digestive system, or delivering you a coup de bamboo on the head.

And it is not so difficult.

Your body naturally knows what is good for him

Normally, we shouldn't even have to think. Naturally, our body knows what is good for him. He knows that if the paprika chips are greatly envy when you are hungry... try to food can only lead to a feeling unpleasant to have both too and not eaten enough.

And it is the same for all foods that make us "crack": chocolate in the fruit yogurt bars, through cookies, fruit juices, pistachio nuts, pizzas, and the McDonald, the sensation of "fun" when the food enters the mouth is almost replaced by a feeling of revulsion or "ball in the stomach" when has swallowed it.

What does clear messages that our body is not in train to assess the so-called "fun" that it is.

The food problem could therefore theoretically be resolved very easily: simply look at the point where it starts to eat, to feel the best at the end of the meal. And to choose his food as a result.

But our reflexes "natural" food have been deeply distorted and we can really trust them.

Beware of cereals

For millions of years, humans ate fruit, berries, roots, plants, nuts, wild game, fish, shellfish. It is the regime for which we are made.

With the invention of agriculture in the Neolithic (10,000 years ago; it was very recently!), the man began to consume large quantities of carbohydrates present in cereals.

However, digestion very quickly turns the carbohydrates into glucose, a substance poorly supported by the body. Glucose may even become fatal to the organism poison, as soon as it exceeds the doses in the blood!

Fortunately, we have our pancreas which injects insulin in our bodies as soon as he feels the level of glucose increase. Insulin opens "doors" of our cells, which begin to absorb the glucose until its level again becomes normal in our blood.

In addition, humans long consumed its cereal as wholegrain cereals, with a lot of fiber which slows down digestion and therefore the absorption of glucose. Long continued to eat a lot of vegetables. In the poor regions of France, walnuts and chestnuts have continued to represent an essential part of food until the 19th century.

But the introduction of starchy foods in our diet from the Renaissance (beans of America, then potato in the 18th century), the agricultural Revolution and the gradual industrialization of agriculture caused a disruption of our food, with a strong increase in our consumption of carbohydrates.

Consumption of starch in the pure State (potato or refined grains) increased up to 60% of the calories per day. However, should know that potato starch, for example, begins to turn into pure sugar once it is in contact with the saliva, to the extent that the rate of glucose in your blood increases faster still when you eat the potato when you capture pieces of sugar!

Greaseproof propaganda causes a catastrophe

The disaster has accelerated from the 1960s, when the public authorities (probably ably guided by the agricultural lobby) led major campaigns to discourage people to eat fats, and turn more massive still cereals.

The decline in the consumption of fats in Western populations, and the increase in the consumption of carbohydrates triggered the epidemic of overweight, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

We were in the absurd situation where a high proportion of the population, eating too little fats, is hunger (grease is excellent to give a feeling of satiety) and thus to establish regimes which, always rich in carbohydrates, led to more weight!

And I'm not talking depressions, and personal dramas that this misfortune has generated, in addition to "diseases of civilization" cited above.

Miss fat is to enlarge!

I went recently to a conference of Isabelle Robard on diet and obesity epidemic in industrialized countries, where she presented absolutely parallel curves between the increase in consumption of carbohydrates in the United States for 40 years, and the increase in obesity.

According to Walter Willet, Chairman of the Department of nutrition of the Harvard public health school, one of the largest American universities, that it cited:

"The scientific community has contributed to the obesity epidemic by passing the message according to which only count the calories from fat, and this has led many to believe that could consume a large amount of cereals."

Most striking, Isabelle Robard showed us a graph showing, according to a US study, the inversely proportional relationship between fat consumption and obesity: less you eat fat, you grossissez! Because you are always hungry and fat play essential roles in metabolism.

The invasion of "light in fat" (but often wads of chemicals) products has been that Americans began to suffer from hunger, and therefore eat more cereals and sugar and sugary drinks, with disastrous consequences for their blood sugar. Pancreas is able to inject any necessary insulin, and cells in the body develop a resistance to insulin. Hence the epidemic of diabetes and diseases that followed.

The France follows the path of the United States

And do not imagine that the France is safe. If we have resisted a bit longer, thanks to the prevalence of the regime Mediterranean in several French regions, the survey conducted on 29 January to 12 March 2009 ObEPI found that 31.9% of the French are overweight, and 14.5% are obese, an increase of 10.7% from 2006. (Data presented by Isabelle Robard).

However, Programme National Nutrition health (which spends hundreds of millions of euros each year for us to "eat and move") continues to spread in the head of our unfortunate fellow citizens that they must make hunting for fat and eat more grains: bread, rice, crackers, etc.

The result is that millions of mothers give their children of puffed rice and other corn flakes and Special K in good conscience, while in nutritional terms, it would be exactly the same to give pieces of sugar to eat.

I could go on the subject and speak for example that no scientific study has provided a link any between the amount of fat consumed and the rate of cholesterol in the blood (at least three quarters of our cholesterol are produced by our body), or that the fact of his body "in famine" by imposing low-calorie dietsIt starts in mode "economy." He accumulated fat, in anticipation, precisely the difficult times ahead.

Two simple rules to choose his food

Difficult, therefore, to rely in its common sense, and his only instinct, for good choose his food today. According to biochemist Thierry Souccar, our nutrition specialist, a good way to choose its food is eating those who have:

• a low caloric density : i.e. a number of calories per gram reduces. In other words, prefer fresh grapes to raisins.

• a low glycemic index : glycemic index is the speed at which a carbohydrate into glucose during digestion. More glycemic index is high, over the increase in the rate of glucose in the blood is brutal, and therefore difficult to manage by the pancreas.

These two elements are interesting because they allow to understand why some pop-corns, which are so light, are actually bad for health. Is that the number of calories per grams of the pop-corns is very high, especially if they are "coated with caramel no". Where the sensation of unease that we feel when we ate many pop-corns.

The glycemic index (GI), he is a little more difficult to handle, and it is why Isabelle Robard advocates that food manufacturers are obliged to so indicate on the label of their products.

Hard to imagine, when it does not turned on the question, that starchy foods have a high glycemic index, in other words that they so quickly turn into pure sugar in our body.

High GI foods (> 70) are: potatoes, bread, pizza, white rice, puffed rice, crackers, cereals, small cereal bar lunch, pops corns, chocolate bar.

Low GI foods are most fruits and vegetables, some whole grains, basmati rice, some biscuits, pasta, nuts, Hazel, meat, fish.

The best food, which should be the basis of our food, are of course vegetables, especially the colourful vegetables, which have both a low caloric density and a glycemic index low.

Low GI diets are those that lose weight and, above all, to maintain the loss.

The example type of density calorie and low glycemic index diet is the Okinawa plan. Thierry Souccar wrote a book about it with Dr. Jean-Paul Curtay, entitled "program of long life", found on Amazon.

There are also online resources including the Okinawa plan,: http://www.passeportsante.net/fr/Nutrition/Regimes/Fiche.aspx?doc=okinawa_regime

And you will see that you will end your meal in you feeling much better.
///////////////
This article part of a good idea in denouncing a number of false information which now have freedom of the city to tord seems to me.
 However, when it denounced these practices, it then should be avoided to use:
 -why eat pasta and banish the pain?
 -because it is the inclination of the author?
 -because the wheat pasta manufacturers is better than bakers?
 -because it is not known and an assertion without evidence it is not serious?

This is a detail but what assertions of "caloric density" whose justification is eating fresh grapes rather than dry: a bit serious even because if this concept appear you Central you should explain it properly and not caricature.

"are of course the vegetables, especially the colourful": it is a promotion for paints industry?
 What is this free statement? are you you read?

I am quite close to hear another speech than the cac40 manufacturers but it must be at least credible.

Sorry but I hope that you hold to account for your next ticket.