What food has the most calories per dollar? (self.Frugal)

{Frugal}

88 ups - 26 downs = 62 votes

edit: I mean a single ingredient I can buy in a store, not "junk food"

edit 2: and is moderately healthy

150 comments submitted at 07:50:28 on Jan 17, 2013 by Tentacolt

  • [-]
  • surkearotta
  • 33 Points
  • 13:31:38, 17 January

Here is a list made by a redditor by the name of arizonabob that lists the cheapest calories in his diet. He has listed his items as cost per 100kcal.

Here's the top 7:

$0.05 Rice, Costco Basmatti

$0.05 Oats, Costco

$0.05 Beans, Costco 25 lbs

$0.05 Ramen (Reference only)

$0.07 Rice, Lundberg Brown

$0.07 Corn, TJ's popcorn

$0.07 Seeds, TJ’s Sunflower

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 2 Points
  • 15:55:04, 17 January

These are also extremely unhealthy for you too and contain very little nutrition. They will spike insulin and cause obesity.

  • [-]
  • alx3m
  • 4 Points
  • 16:50:04, 17 January

If it's the only thing you eat, maybe, but as a supplement It's pretty good.

  • [-]
  • joeanon
  • 5 Points
  • 21:09:34, 17 January

Oats, rice and beans are not extremely unhealthy for you by any stretch of the imagination. You either have no idea what your talking about or don't understand the meaning of extremely.

  • [-]
  • tynenn
  • 3 Points
  • 16:17:56, 18 January

http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-i http://m.jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=copy+google+click+through+link#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&pbx=1&oq=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-b1&aql=&gssm=e&gsupl=14719l20119l1l20260l23l14l0l6l6l0l166l1439l5.8l19l0&fp=1&biw=1152&bih=911&bav=on.2,or.rgc.rpw.rcp.rqf.&cad=b&sei=oYikUOtJ4j2igLgjYAg http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you http://www.examiner.com/article/atkins-low-carb-diet-reduces-risk-of-heart-disease http://www.naturalnews.com/020294.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/09/flipping-the-switch-that-halts-obesity/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmRFrHyItio&feature=BFa&list=PLF7D1A815D72007DD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/raw-food-big-brains/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16652223/ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa055317 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/inflammation/can-your-food-make-you-fit/ http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1455.short http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000756 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/09/21/what-you-eat-affects-your-genes-rna-from-rice-can-survive-digestion-and-alter-gene-expression/ https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section http://io9.com/5881328/scientists-say-sugar-is-as-toxic-as-alcohol-+-and-there-should-be-a-drinking-age-for-soda http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AncelKeys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamBanting http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science http://imgur.com/a/7zcfu http://martin.ankerl.com/2012/01/15/low-carb-high-fat-big-video-roundup/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-are-trans-fats-bad/#axzz1kh92mu9J http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-nutrition-and-wellness/volume-4-number-2/arguments-in-favor-of-ketogenic-diets.html http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=copy+google+click+through+link#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&pbx=1&oq=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-b1&aql=&gssm=e&gsupl=14719l20119l1l20260l23l14l0l6l6l0l166l1439l5.8l19l0&fp=1&biw=1152&bih=911&bav=on.2,or.rgc.rpw.rcp.rqf.&cad=b&sei=oYikUOtJ4j2igLgjYAg http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you http://www.examiner.com/article/atkins-low-carb-diet-reduces-risk-of-heart-disease http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2012/11/uconn-researcher-dopamine-not-about-pleasure-anymore/

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 7 Points
  • 21:17:59, 17 January

Sorry you are right, my sentence is not correct.

The natural diet of homo-sapiens up until recent times consisted mostly of Animal meat, animal fat, seeds and leafy greens.

Oats, rice and beans are not unhealthy foods if you eat very small amounts of them, but in the modern day diet they cause extremely high insulin spikes which cause heart disease and obesity which have continued to rise as healthy fats and other foods are wrongly substituted for rice and similar carbs. Oats, rice and beans are not part of our natural diet and as such we are not evolved to each such high amounts of carbs, this causes extremely unhealthy effects on the body. This can be seen as heart disease rose sharply when low fat high carb diets were introduced.

  • [-]
  • frugalera
  • -9 Points
  • 00:22:36, 18 January

You're partially right.

Of course oats and rice aren't the healthiest foods.

Did the natural diet of homo-sapiens consist of mostly meat? Far from it. Humans had no way of hunting (no tools to speak of before the neolithic revolution). They scavenged meat left behind by predators when they could, which is why we prefer warm food.

  • [-]
  • gogge
  • 5 Points
  • 16:45:50, 18 January

Right.

> Ancient humans used complex hunting techniques to ambush and kill antelopes, gazelles, wildebeest and other large animals at least two million years ago. The discovery – made by anthropologist Professor Henry Bunn of Wisconsin University – pushes back the definitive date for the beginning of systematic human hunting by hundreds of thousands of years.

The Guardian, "Humans hunted for meat 2 million years ago".

Isotope studies also show that the diets were heavily focused on meat. Dr. Michael Eades has a write up, "Are we meat eaters or vegetarians?" with some charts:

Chart

Richards MP, et al. "Stable isotope evidence for increasing dietary breadth in the European mid-Upper Paleolithic" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 22;98(11):6528-32.

Chart

Richards MP, et al. "FOCUS: Gough's Cave and Sun Hole Cave Human Stable Isotope Values Indicate a High Animal Protein Diet in the British Upper Palaeolithic" Journal of archaeological science. vol. 27, 1-3. Jan, 2000. ISSN: 0305-4403 E-ISSN: 1095-9238

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 5 Points
  • 00:41:00, 18 January

We ate meat, seeds and leafy greens for possibly hundreds of thousands of years. We didn't eat chocolate biscuits and other carbs until the past 100 years, which is exactly the time when heart disease started to kill more people than any war or disease. We have been eating fat for thousands of years without a problem.

Ancel keyes is responsible for starting this incredible snowball of misinformation. It is now widely documented that his work was falsified. He tried to show that dietry fat and heart disease had a correlation, but he faked the data and the world believed him. All of his data was completely faked and inf act his research showed no correlation, this has been proven time and time again since. Not a single study credibly shows that eating saturated fat has increased heart disease. The problem is that a lot of the studies which do show a correlation are actually funded by companies who manufacture statins(cholesterol lowering drugs) and low fat products. So they are incredibly biased.

It is an absolutely incredible scenario and the nearest thing to a real life "conspiracy" you'll ever find. The only thing is, the evidence is right there, but the government and the fat cats with money to lose wont let it become mainstream for as long as they can.

  • [-]
  • miss-havisham
  • -1 Points
  • 03:39:04, 18 January

>Chocolate biscuits and other carbs

What.

Listen, there's nothing wrong with following a Paleo diet, but there is plenty of evidence showing that humans have been eating grains, legumes, tubers and other carbs for tens of thousands of years; [these are the staple foods of most post-agricultural civilisations.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staplefood#Demographicprofileofstaple_foods)

Even Mark Sisson admits there's an ["Asian paradox"] (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-asian-paradox-how-can-asians-eat-so-much-rice-and-not-gain-weight/) - civilisations such as the Japanese and Chinese, Indian and other Asian cultures eat plenty of rice and beans and have much lower rates of heart disease than Western cultures; their rate of heart disease increases when they transition to a Western diet (doesn't everyone's?)

>Not a single study credibly shows that eating saturated fat has increased heart disease.

["The benefit of replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats is proved beyond reasonable doubt... Intakes of saturated fat, and to a lesser extent trans fats, are important determinants of LDL cholesterol, which is a causal risk factor for CHD. Intake of saturated fat in the United States and Europe has fallen markedly since the first recommendations on dietary fat quality were issued 50 y ago. The resulting fall in LDL cholesterol led to a distinct decrease in CHD (9), especially in the early period before the arrival of statins in the 1990s."] (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/459.2.short)

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 3 Points
  • 07:56:10, 18 January

Agriculture dates back around 32,000 years. I know this. But this does not mean we are evolved to eat refined carbs.

Yes some Asian cultures eat a lot of rice, but they do not eat chocolate in the same way we do. Also, genetics play a huge part in this. Gaining weight is not as simple as Calorires in, calories out and how much you eat, it is about genetics, everyone is different. Lastly, Asian cultures have the highest rate of diabetes, especially India.

That report you just showed me reeks of biased opinion. From the start it uses very aggressive language.

They are basically trying best as possible to discredit the meta-analysis, but you will notice that the report is not able to come out and say "there was an increase in heart disease" because the analysis showed there was none.

You, like many others are coming at what i've shown you from the wrong angle. You're also trying to discredit everything without actually looking at the science and observations behind the hypothesis.

If what i've been saying is so wrong, why do more people die of heart disease now when we eat less saturated fat than ever? Surely this situation does not make sense to you?

  • [-]
  • miss-havisham
  • 0 Points
  • 10:58:59, 18 January

Dude you straight-up said that no study linked saturated fat with heart disease. The one I linked you to did. I understand that saturated fat is not the only dietary risk factor in cardiovascular disease but [it appears to be significant.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturatedfatandcardiovasculardiseasecontroversy#Systematicreviewsinreputablemedicaljournals) The findings are somewhat obscured by the lack of specificity in the PUFAs being substituted for saturated fat; replacing it with omega-6 fats probably wouldn't help, but not all studies describe the PUFAs used.

I personally think 32,000 years is plenty of time for evolution to occur, but that's mostly speculation on my part and I ain't a geneticist.

On diabetes, [Asian cultures do not have the world's highest rate of diabetes] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diabetesworldmap-2000.svg); a higher proportion of diabetes cases is Asia are associated with overweight and obesity than in the West, and the rise of diabetes in Asia is believed to be strongly correlated with adopted of a Standard American Diet.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 4 Points
  • 11:41:52, 18 January

I said no study "Credibly" shows. And the study you linked is absolute shite. It shows nothing, have you actually read it?

It has no conclusion to it which shows what it sets out to do.

The study i showed you had 300,000 people, and yet heart disease didn't increase.

This wikipedia article doesn't state anything credibly. Reducing saturated fat lowered cholesterol by 14%? That's suhc a SMALL number and it likely related to the fact that while reducing fat they reduced carb intake.

Seriously why do you try to prove this type of stuff. I feel so bad for people that consistently put all their effort into proving that saturated fat is bad and they are SO WRONG. I don't believe 32,000 years is long enough. It take hundreds of thousands of years for evolution to take place at a significant amount.

http://www.idf.org/latest-diabetes-figures-paint-grim-global-picture

India is the country with the most people with diabetes, with a current figure of 50.8 million,

Also, just a simple question. If saturated fat can also cause diabetes, why do we have such high rates of diabetes in poor countries where they mostly eat carbs and also in rich countries where low fat diets are common?

The link between these rich and poor countries are carbohydrate foods like rice.

Also, do you understand the basic science behind diabetes?

Type 2 Diabetes is caused by INSULIN RESISTANCE. Eating CARBOHYDRATES increase Insulin levels and creates inuslin resistance, this is WELL KNOWN. Why you argue this point and remain ignorant to it is beyond me. A diabetic person has to count carbohydrates in order to stay alive because carbohydrates affect insulin, not fat, not protein. Diabetes is directly related to obesity too. Are you making any of these connections yet?

  • [-]
  • gogge
  • 1 Points
  • 16:57:44, 18 January

The Hooper study linked as the latest study in the Wikipedia article looked at proper RCTs, of 22,012 total studies they found 530 were deemed relevant, and out of those 48 studies fit the design criteria, and what did they find?

> Dietary change to reduce saturated fat and partly replace it with unsaturated fats appears to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, but replacing the saturated fat with carbohydrate (creating a low fat diet) was not clearly protective of cardiovascular events (despite small improvements in weight, body mass index, total and LDL cholesterol).

So eating more carbs doesn't help, you need to eat more unsaturated fats to get a protective effect. And who exactly do this small effect actually affect?

> Subgrouping suggested that this reduction in cardiovascular events was due to studies of fat modification, or fat modification and reduction (not studies of fat reduction alone), seen in studies of at least two years duration, in studies of men (and not those of women), and in those with moderate or high cardiovascular risk at baseline (not general population groups).

Hooper L, et al. "Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD002137. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002137.pub3

So if you're a woman or "general population" with no or low risk of heart disease there's no effect. If you're a male and at risk of heart disease you might want to swap in more unsaturated fat.

  • [-]
  • frugalera
  • -3 Points
  • 02:05:22, 18 January

Chocolate biscuits? Saturated fat? Heart disease? I think you're looking at the wrong discipline there partner. Our discussion pertains to natural history. Here, check this out: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v276/n5690/abs/276815a0.html

edit: Wikipedia has a good cite that will blow your mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#cite_note-2

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 2 Points
  • 08:04:57, 18 January

Sorry but i couldn't find a date for when they found it. I'm guessing within the past 50,000 years.

1) Just because it detects something, doesn't mean we ate copious amounts of it.

2) Is 50,000 years enough time for us to evolve our whole biology onto eating a new type of food? no.

  • [-]
  • frugalera
  • -1 Points
  • 13:29:32, 18 January

If you read carefully, it says "almost exclusively... a plant regime," so yes, it was basically their entire diet. And it's not a new type of food! It's actually very close to our "natural" diet. Seems you're defending something you (along with the rest of educated society) know is wrong.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 4 Points
  • 14:29:18, 18 January

Sorry you're wrong, refined, easily digestible carbohydrates were not being eaten untilt he agricultural revolution 35,000 years ago.

Leafy greens are part of a low carbohydrate diet and are exactly what we should be eating. They are very different from refined carbs like sugar and starch.

Please research this and you will see for yourself. It all concerns how each food affects Insulin.

  • [-]
  • wafedo
  • 3 Points
  • 15:20:39, 18 January

Not to get in the way here, but the snippet that you quote actually says:

" In this study, the time of introduction of maize, a C4 plant, to the prehistoric inhabitants of several regions in woodland North America, almost exclusively a C3 plant regime, was determined through isotopic measurements on human bone collagen."

They're referring to the fact that prehistoric inhabitants in woodland North America ate almost exclusively C3 plants compared to C4 plants. This is not saying that their diet consisted only of plants, but that they exclusively ate one type of plant (C3) until the introduction of maize (C4).

EDIT: I'm not saying I know anything about the diet of prehistoric inhabitants, just clarifying that the study you linked to doesn't show what percentage of the prehistoric diet was plants, meat, etc.

  • [-]
  • US_Hiker
  • -5 Points
  • 01:01:16, 18 January

While high fat diets can be just fine for you (Greenland is one example), the low carb paleo 'we're not evolved to eat carbs' crap is just bullshit. If you want to talk about research, you should be looking into this.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 6 Points
  • 08:01:45, 18 January

I've spent the past five years looking into this.

The farming of sugar is relatively new in our evolution and we're not evolved to eat it. This you should know if you've studied it.

  • [-]
  • sheeplearepeople
  • 1 Points
  • 17:07:42, 18 January

meh

http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/16or0n/sciencemydoctorlikesketoandpaleo_his/

  • [-]
  • marquesbr
  • 0 Points
  • 16:02:29, 17 January

Wrong about both.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 3 Points
  • 16:09:40, 17 January

I've put a lot of time and research into understanding what has gone wrong in the food industry and the actual unbiased science and studies behind it. I'm very convinced of the evidence i've found and even though the facts and science behind it go directly against what the government and most doctors tell us. But they are still facts and cannot be denied.

Here are some interesting links for you to look at;

http://www.sott.net/article/242516-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/fat-cell2.htm

And the most shocking of all is the Ancel Keyes fraud, the man who originally started the "Fat causes obesity and heart disease" falsified his data to show a correlation between dietary fat and obesity when the true data showed no correlation whatsoever.

http://www.healthiertalk.com/greatest-scam-medical-history-1385

Google "ancel keyes fraud" for this informaiton.

  • [-]
  • srslight
  • 9 Points
  • 19:14:10, 17 January

These are awful sources. Did you read proteinpower's explanation of thermodynamics? The author is completely oblivious to even the most basic of chemistry concepts. Please provide peer-reviewed research papers if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

Also, saying any aspect of biochemistry is simply a "fact and cannot be denied" is extremely foolish and completely destroys what little credibility you had.

  • [-]
  • revolutionaryfaggot
  • 5 Points
  • 21:09:20, 17 January

Not to mention one of the basic principles of science is that nothing is 'fact' and anything is open to be disproven at any given time.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 5 Points
  • 19:26:08, 17 January

Here is a Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

It analyses 21 studies on saturated fat and heart disease.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Note this specific part. * During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.*

Surely, out of 21 studies on saturated fat, consisting of 350,000 people it would show some correlation between saturated fat and heart disease?

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 5 Points
  • 19:28:25, 17 January

Here is also a good analysis on what this study means and how the media and others will not pick it up and run with it.

http://summertomato.com/study-exonerating-saturated-fat-tainted-by-industry-funding/

You would think this is brekaing news but these type of studies come out all the time but pressure form the government and other parties stop it from making the news.

Think about how different the world would be if this news was announced formally. Think about how many businesses would go bust. The economical impact would be huge. People make a lot of money from keeping people fat.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 1 Points
  • 19:21:48, 17 January

Want to know something? There are no credible peer reviewed papers on saturated fat ever causing heart disease.

  • [-]
  • marquesbr
  • 2 Points
  • 16:19:34, 17 January

It looks like x-files to me. Hard to believe in such a conspiracy.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 4 Points
  • 16:32:11, 17 January

Yeah it does. But facts are facts. Most conspiracies, like the 9/11 stuff, the 2012 end of the world stuff are based on sketchy evidence at best.

The truth and studies are right there out in the open for this. I mean, you can literally look at a graph of heart disease and obesity next to a graph of the implementation of low fat diets and see that more people died of heart disease the more the government pushed low fat diets.

Science is based on observations and what people are saying now is that yes we see what the government says but based on scientific observations we can no longer give credit to the governments guidlines.

I suppose the most conspiracy like part of this whole scenario is that some docotors in the US who are advisers to the nutrition board are also shareholders in the companies who produce Statins(anti-cholesterol drugs).

But all in all, this is just basic science. Insulin is the hormone which affects body fat and carbohydrates are the food which stimulate the body to release Insulin. This is well known by doctors. But they, like many of the public have had the "low fat, low calorie" diet forced down their throats all their life that they actually believe it even though obesity and heart disease just keep getting worse.

I mean, before the low fat diet, heart disease and obesity were uncommon. Don't you think that's weird?

Sorry for any spelling and typos.

  • [-]
  • iamarobot18
  • 3 Points
  • 18:46:44, 17 January

Just because two things are related does not mean one caused the other. That's basic statistics right there...

  • [-]
  • bawlz_
  • 3 Points
  • 16:15:08, 18 January

oh my my, the irony.

Kind of how being fat is believed to be caused by eating fat, instead of eating sugar which spikes your insulin making it resistant and storing fat.

Just because two things are related does not mean one caused the other. That's basic statistics right there... ;)

  • [-]
  • marquesbr
  • 5 Points
  • 16:39:40, 17 January

You are choosing "facts" from shady sources.

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 0 Points
  • 17:04:03, 17 January

I can only hope that you might make the choice to research and discover for yourself the history and facts behind the current state of the food industry.

I've had this conversation many times and one thign is true, people have been told that fat is bad for so long that they have never questioned why and are convinced that fat is bad, even in the face of the worst epidemic of obesity we've ever seen.

"Why we get fat" is a great short book on the observations behind the hypothesis that Insulin and carbohydrates are the real reason for obesity"

  • [-]
  • Natolx
  • 2 Points
  • 03:28:41, 18 January

Very few people think fat is bad as a whole, only saturated fat. Do you deny there is a link between saturated fat and LDL cholesterol?

Edit: Just the first journal I could find showing the link http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs001250051620?LI=true

  • [-]
  • mattavich
  • 6 Points
  • 07:59:51, 18 January

Dear god, where do these studies come from.

Fat doesn't affect Insulin, it is fundamental. It doesn't cause insulin resistance whatsoever.

Think about the implications of what you're saying.

If this were true, diabetics would have to count the grams of fat they intake otherwise they may die. But they don't do this because it doesn't affect them. Instead they count carbs because it is carbs which affect Insulin.

Also can i just say, there are children who suffer from fits who are prescribed a ketogenic diet (no carbs at all, only protein and fat). They successfully live on this diet for many years and none are overweight of show any signs of heart disease.

  • [-]
  • negative_epsilon
  • 3 Points
  • 16:34:53, 17 January

He kind of jumped at the issue in a conspiratard kind of way, but his point IS valid. Rice, oats, beans (most), noodles, and corn are all very high in carbohydrates per calorie, which your body turns to glucose and, depending on the amount and type of carbohydrate, will spike your insulin level.

Unfortunately, starches are crazy cheap, so if you aren't really concerned about your blood sugar and you're not on a low-carb diet, it doesn't really matter.

  • [-]
  • tynenn
  • 2 Points
  • 16:17:34, 18 January

http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-i http://m.jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=copy+google+click+through+link#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&pbx=1&oq=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-b1&aql=&gssm=e&gsupl=14719l20119l1l20260l23l14l0l6l6l0l166l1439l5.8l19l0&fp=1&biw=1152&bih=911&bav=on.2,or.rgc.rpw.rcp.rqf.&cad=b&sei=oYikUOtJ4j2igLgjYAg http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you http://www.examiner.com/article/atkins-low-carb-diet-reduces-risk-of-heart-disease http://www.naturalnews.com/020294.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/09/flipping-the-switch-that-halts-obesity/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmRFrHyItio&feature=BFa&list=PLF7D1A815D72007DD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/raw-food-big-brains/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16652223/ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa055317 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/inflammation/can-your-food-make-you-fit/ http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1455.short http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000756 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/09/21/what-you-eat-affects-your-genes-rna-from-rice-can-survive-digestion-and-alter-gene-expression/ https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section http://io9.com/5881328/scientists-say-sugar-is-as-toxic-as-alcohol-+-and-there-should-be-a-drinking-age-for-soda http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AncelKeys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamBanting http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science http://imgur.com/a/7zcfu http://martin.ankerl.com/2012/01/15/low-carb-high-fat-big-video-roundup/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-are-trans-fats-bad/#axzz1kh92mu9J http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-nutrition-and-wellness/volume-4-number-2/arguments-in-favor-of-ketogenic-diets.html http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=copy+google+click+through+link#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&pbx=1&oq=hyperinsulinemia+cancer&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-b1&aql=&gssm=e&gsupl=14719l20119l1l20260l23l14l0l6l6l0l166l1439l5.8l19l0&fp=1&biw=1152&bih=911&bav=on.2,or.rgc.rpw.rcp.rqf.&cad=b&sei=oYikUOtJ4j2igLgjYAg http://crossfitimpulse.com/why-grains-are-killing-you http://www.examiner.com/article/atkins-low-carb-diet-reduces-risk-of-heart-disease http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2012/11/uconn-researcher-dopamine-not-about-pleasure-anymore/