# Nutrition



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Nutrition seems to be one of those fields that is in constant flux. For example, for over 3 decades we had the war on colestrol, and everyone, it seemed, was on some kind of low fat diet, and or colestrol lowering drug. But these days, there is a loss of belief in such matters. 

So I'd like to know what is your source for nutrition information? What is your advice for a healthy diet?


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Pluto said:


> Nutrition seems to be one of those fields that is in constant flux. For example, for over 3 decades we had the war on colestrol, and everyone, it seemed, was on some kind of low fat diet, and or colestrol lowering drug. But these days, there is a loss of belief in such matters.
> 
> So I'd like to know what is your source for nutrition information? What is your advice for a healthy diet?


My advice for a healthy diet (I've studied nutrition informally for 10 years) is the following.

1) Control carbs (avoid refined carbs like breads and pastas and sugars)
2) Prioritize protein (beef, fish, lamb, pork, etc)
3) Fill with fat (absolutely avoid vegetable and seed oils)

And fast periodically, even up to 2-3 days without food.

This advice was originally coined by Ben Bikman (except for the fasting part) but fits my philosophy for general advice. Myself, I've followed a ketogenic diet for the past 13 months and see no signs of changing.

The thing I cannot stress enough....is that nutrition science has been totally bastardized. It is either being driven by food companies or drug companies. It sounds conspiratorial but it is absolutely the truth once you look into it. There is a reason why fasting is never recommended to treat pre-diabetes or diabetes, because no one makes any money off of it. Most of the nutritional advice focuses on two baseless fears...that cholesterol is bad for you or that sugar is benign as long as you control calories. Most nutritional claims are based on flawed epidemiology. And with some statistical creativity association can be shown between anything (even moon phases and computer viruses)

But to avoid going to far down the rabbit hole....in terms of sources of information, there is

*Books*
- The Big Fat Surprise (a book written by Nina Ticholz)
- The Diabetes Code (Jason Fung)
- Lore of Nutrition (Tim Noakes)
- Why we Get fat (Gary Taubes)

*Youtube channels*
- Low Carb Down under (literally hundreds of hours of ted-talks from researchers, physicians, journalists, etc)
- High Intensity Health (lots of hour long one-on-one discussions with nutritional experts on a variety of topics)

*Twitter*
- Ben Bikman (PhD academic expert on metabolism)
- Ted Naimen (physician)
- Jason Fung (nephrologist)
- Dave Feldmen (engineer and expert on lipoproteins and cholesterol)
- Ivor Cummins (engineer and expert on lipoproteins and cholesterol)
- Andreas Enfeldt (physican)
- Nina Ticholz
- Zoe Harcombe

*Podcasts*
- Low carb cardiologist (Bret Scher)
- Peak Human 
- Human performance outliers
- 

That should be a good start


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I think that keeping a healthy weight is far more important than any kind of nutrition advice. 

Nutrition is a field rife with scams and questionable advice from people wanting to sell you a book or a product. I think as long as you're eating a wide variety of foods most people are already getting enough nutrients.

The one thing I agree is that too much sugar is probably bad, but most people on take that advice way too far. A can of coke a few times a week isn't going to have any impact on your health. Drinking a 2-liter a day might, though.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Onagoth said:


> My advice for a healthy diet (I've studied nutrition informally for 10 years) is the following.
> 
> 1) Control carbs (avoid refined carbs like breads and pastas and sugars)
> 2) Prioritize protein (beef, fish, lamb, pork, etc)
> ...


It's so difficult sometimes. I was vegan for 17 years, and then went paleo, mainly following what you recommend here. I feel paleo is the closest to our natural "hunter/gatherer" diet that we evolved on, and therefore is likely the healthiest overall. But then again, now there is all this evidence coming out about the role of TMAOs in heart disease- TMAOs are produced by your gut bacteria when consuming foods that contain high levels of carnitine and choline- eggs and meat. Vegans do not possess the gut bacteria that produce this compound. So research continues...


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

indexxx said:


> It's so difficult sometimes. I was vegan for 17 years, and then went paleo, mainly following what you recommend here. I feel paleo is the closest to our natural "hunter/gatherer" diet that we evolved on, and therefore is likely the healthiest overall. But then again, now there is all this evidence coming out about the role of TMAOs in heart disease- TMAOs are produced by your gut bacteria when consuming foods that contain high levels of carnitine and choline- eggs and meat. Vegans do not possess the gut bacteria that produce this compound. So research continues...


As a serious question, did you get very sick as a vegan? Or why did you abandon it? My working theory is that nutritional deficiencies take years to develop, but 17 years vegan is longer than I would have expected.

With respect to the TMAOs, research is still developing but I don't believe eggs were implicated. Diet Doctor has some good references on the role of TMAOs in CHD or mortality risk, it can be found here. Because of the importance of carnitine in keto diets, this is just something I am keeping an eye on.

I try not to go all out on anything though....I don't eat excessive amounts of meat, I simply prioritize it based on my body weight and physical goals (I Target around 125-150g per day). I also think fasting significantly lowers the risk of any diet in particular, so this is something I think is very important. I fast for 12-16 hours every day and for 24 hours 1 or twice every week. Once every year I fast for 3-4 days to get the benefits of autophagy. These are just target though and not hard and fast rules of life. This approach should provide some protective benefit in case TMAO or MTOR proves to be a problem with higher protein diets (I'm not yet convinced it is problematic though).

Like you, I try to replicate what history teaches us that humans traditionally ate. I think that means consuming animals head to toe and opportunistically consuming veggies and fruit. I do consume organ meats to ensure adequate mineral and vitamin intake.

Regardless, there are key take aways that almost no one disagrees on:

- avoid sugars
- focus on nutrient dense foods (this usually means avoiding highly processed hyper palatable food)
- get your sleep
- minimize alcohol intake
- stop smoking if you are a smoker
- exercise regularly, and add weights if you can.

These simple things alone are generally uncontested and together can provide significant improvements to overall health. Add in some occasional fasting and I think you're 90% of the way there, even if you have no interest in any particular diet plan.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Onagoth said:


> As a serious question, did you get very sick as a vegan? Or why did you abandon it? My working theory is that nutritional deficiencies take years to develop, but 17 years vegan is longer than I would have expected.
> 
> With respect to the TMAOs, research is still developing but I don't believe eggs were implicated. Diet Doctor has some good references on the role of TMAOs in CHD or mortality risk, it can be found here. Because of the importance of carnitine in keto diets, this is just something I am keeping an eye on.
> 
> ...


I did get sick- extremely sick. I had to leave the Cayman Islands for six months, where I was living, and come back to Canada to reinstate my healthcare. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly which of several possible things was happening (or combination thereof), but I think a lot of it had to do with the amount of soy product I was consuming. I definitely had a severe intracellular magnesium depletion. The phytic acid in soy binds to magnesium in the gut and prevents absorption. There were some other issues going on- all metabolic. Essentially, I had an acquired mitochondrial dysfunction- not fun, as all of my body's systems were shutting down at the cellular level because I wasn't really producing ATP. Took me months of research with no medical training to put it together- I saw over 35 doctors, none of whom had any explanation for the three pages of weird symptoms I was experiencing. Cured it with the help of an extremely knowledgeable naturopath and a huge amount of supplements.

What I have read about TMAOs is that eggs are in fact a culprit. As I say, research is continuing. I was interested in keto for a while last year, but something about it made my wary. I've become more and more convinced that grain (and sugars) are really bad for us, hence my mostly paleo diet. Even though I know grain and sugar are bad, I do still consume them- just not anywhere near the level of most people. For me it's an ice cream once or twice a month, a few slices of pizza here and there. Most of my meals are piles of veg or enormous salads with protein. I supplement with magnesium, vitamin D, and lots of Omega-3. If I can recommend an excellent book, check out "SPARK" by John Ratey. He also wrote a great book that espouses keto and other interesting life changes called Go Wild! (exclamation point is in the title). Spark is one of the best books I've ever read on health, and I've read a lot of them.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I have read probably a hundred books on diet and nutrition and sought out the stories of health gurus going back 100 years or more to see how they ended up. I have reached certain conclusions, here are a couple that I consider most important.

Eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, preferrably raw.80% to 90% of what you eat should come from the produce department. Avoid junk food of all kinds. You know what I mean. Go easy on the alcohol, don't smoke or do drugs.

If you asked an expert anatomist or biologist what is the natural diet of man, he would tell you we should be classed with the fruit and vegetable eating mammals. Our teeth, jaws, stomach, digestive system are all adapted to a fruit and vegetable diet and are completely different from the meat eating or grass and grain eating animals.

I looked up a lot of old time health nuts like Jack LaLanne, Jay "the juice man" Kordich, Charles Atlas, Paul Bragg, Gaylord Hauser, J.I. Rodale, Adele Davis to see how they wound up and found out a couple of things. One was that they often had pretty severe health problems when young which is why they became obsessed with health. The other is, they did not necessarily live longer than anyone else, although they usually lived into their seventies, eighties or nineties. But what I noticed is, they kept their physical and mental faculties up to the end. They did not end up bedridden, or with Alzheimer's, or dragging an oxygen bottle around. They were active to within a few weeks, in some case a few hours of their death.

According to US census reports the longest living set of people in America are Seventh Day Adventists. On average they live from 4 to 9 years longer than other people. Their religion forbids drinking, smoking, and frowns on eating meat and spices. Loma Linda California is a hot bed of Seventh Day Adventists and has more centenarians per capita than any other town in America. It is classed with the Blue Zones like Okinawa, and certain towns in Greece and Italy that have remarkably healthy long living populations. What they have in common is they don't over eat and they eat mostly plants, and go easy on the meat.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

I've also read a lot about nutrition and have basically reduced my eating to a few simple easy to follow guidelines:

- an average plate of food is 25% protein, 25% rice or potatoe, 50% fruit and veggies
- I drink 2-3 cups of coffee in the morning but then only drink water all day long. I never drink milk or juice
- junk food is okay on occasion...the goal is to eat 80% healthy and not worry about the other 20%
- most of my snacks are nuts or raw veggies but I don't sweat it if I have potato chips every now and then
- I've never fasted and will spread my eating out over the day, so will always eat first thing in the morning and normally have a snack shortly before bed


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Our teeth, jaws, stomach, digestive system are all adapted to a fruit and vegetable diet and are completely different from the meat eating or grass and grain eating animals.


I would disagree with that. For one, humans have a very short cecum which means we cannot ferment vegetable fibers as readily as other mammals. Furthermore, fruit contains fructose, which can only be metabolized by the liver. While I doubt fruit alone can cause a problem, fact is that the fruit we eat these days is far larger, sweeter and less fiberous than it was 100 years ago. 

Excess fructose consumption (albeit via sucrose or HFCS and not necessarily fruit) is thought to be the leading cause of NAFLD. Personally, I don't consume any fruit other than berries, and only occasionally at that...IMO berries contain optimal amounts of vitamins and minerals with relatively low amounts of fructose. I find it funny that people eat so many bananas apparently for the potassium considering that avocado and spinach both have more potassium (without the 14-18g of sugar). 

Also, to me humans are clearly predators. Are eyes are positioned forward in the skull like many other predators out there. Also, looking at our evolutionary history, our brains roughly tripled in size once we started hunting (and eating) animals. And although I am no dentist, I would say our teeth are more like a dog than a cow, we have incisors and canine's which are intended for biting/shredding. Some dentists even go so far as to say modern day problems like sleep apnea and snoring are caused by vitamin K2 deficiency, which was brought on by lack of meat/animal consumption. K2 seems to be very important in developing bones and in particular, maxillofacial bones. 

Digestively speaking, a lot of the fiber and minerals in vegetables pass through our systems without being absorbed, so I wouldn't say at all that we evolved optimally for vegetables or fruit. The calcium in broccoli for example, is barely absorbed at all, whereas the calcium in cow's milk is almost entirely absorbed. Similar stories can be told for other micro-nutrients like Omega 3s (plant vs animal sourced) and Vitamin A (beta carotine in carrots vs retinol in beef liver)


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

indexxx said:


> I did get sick- extremely sick. I had to leave the Cayman Islands for six months, where I was living, and come back to Canada to reinstate my healthcare. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly which of several possible things was happening (or combination thereof), but I think a lot of it had to do with the amount of soy product I was consuming. I definitely had a severe intracellular magnesium depletion. The phytic acid in soy binds to magnesium in the gut and prevents absorption. There were some other issues going on- all metabolic. Essentially, I had an acquired mitochondrial dysfunction- not fun, as all of my body's systems were shutting down at the cellular level because I wasn't really producing ATP. Took me months of research with no medical training to put it together- I saw over 35 doctors, none of whom had any explanation for the three pages of weird symptoms I was experiencing. Cured it with the help of an extremely knowledgeable naturopath and a huge amount of supplements.
> 
> What I have read about TMAOs is that eggs are in fact a culprit. As I say, research is continuing. I was interested in keto for a while last year, but something about it made my wary. I've become more and more convinced that grain (and sugars) are really bad for us, hence my mostly paleo diet. Even though I know grain and sugar are bad, I do still consume them- just not anywhere near the level of most people. For me it's an ice cream once or twice a month, a few slices of pizza here and there. Most of my meals are piles of veg or enormous salads with protein. I supplement with magnesium, vitamin D, and lots of Omega-3. If I can recommend an excellent book, check out "SPARK" by John Ratey. He also wrote a great book that espouses keto and other interesting life changes called Go Wild! (exclamation point is in the title). Spark is one of the best books I've ever read on health, and I've read a lot of them.


Glad you got better. Your story is like many others I have read since keto diet discussion often get butted up against vegan diet approaches, and the discussion invariably leads to the worst things that can happen (cholesterol spikes on keto, nutrient deficiencies with veganism, etc, etc)

I will check out that book


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

What I don't understand is why Pluto would have any interest in good nutrition at all. One of the side effects of good nutrition is a delay in dying and getting to heaven. Since no true believer would ever want to delay the day they meet their god, is it possible that you are not completely sold on its reality. Maybe somewhere down deep in you think that there is a good chance it is a complete load of malarkey. You may not like it and I am sure you won't agree, but your action here speaks a lot louder then your words ever have.

Anyway, on to nutrition for those of us that may want a longer life. The idea that a little sugar is OK, is about the same as saying a little arsenic is OK. I am sure there are quantities of arsenic that won't kill you but do you really want to consume it? The reason we desire sweet foods and drinks is a combination of the fact that our bodies tend to enjoy the experience of consuming sweets, accompanied by our ignorance of the affects those sweets have on our bodies. We look at sweet foods fonder then we really should. If we saw them for what they are, we would be able to pass on them a lot easier.

Sure a coke now and then is much better then 2 litres per day, but whenever you consume processed sugars your body significantly slows down its ever continuing repairs it does on your body, every minute of the day. Repairs where you had no idea there were problems and soon hopefully, there won't be. You see, the body does not really digest sugar like it does other foods. It has to generate insulin to do so. When high levels of insulin are in the body it becomes inflamed and that reduces the internal repair process the body needs for a healthy and longer life. Yes. One coke and then nothing allows the body to slow down and then continue the repairs, as opposed to a constant intake of sugary substances, where the body never has a chance to heal, but all sugars will still interfere. Keep the quantities of sugar intake as low as you can...just as you would arsenic.

The verdict is not out whether other carbs found in wheat products and pasta act exactly like sugar, but what is known, is that they virtually have no nutritional value for your body. They literally are empty calories. The calories will keep you alive, but it won't be a long life. The problem in our world is that we eat so much wheat that it replaces the stuff our body actually needs. We can only eat so much and wheat takes up too much of what we can and do eat.

Every inch of your height and every pound of your weight comes from what you put in your mouth. If you were going to build something very valuable to you, like a house, would you prefer to use high quality materials that your house really needs to survive the longest possible length of time, or would you be happy to use any materials you could find, regardless of their quality. This analogy works the same with your body. Your body needs, fruits, vegetables, nuts and meat. Everything else negatively effects your structure, just like crappy shingles would do to your house.

I have no problem with fruits. I have heard that fruit has enough stuff in it to breakdown the sugars so that the body does not need to increase its insulin levels as much, to help out. Therefore, I would suggest eating all the fruit you can eat. Don't drink fruit juices. That is just another example of man removing everything that is good for you and leaving you with the poison. 

It is not the only time we do this. If you go into an average grocery store, probably 80% of everything you find in there is crap. Rusty nails, broken shingles, cracked windows. Do you really want to build your house with that?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Pluto said:


> ... So I'd like to know what is your source for nutrition information? What is your advice for a healthy diet?


Source for nutrition information? Osmosis over the years I suppose.
Healthy diet? Same as investing - diversity and moderation (not too much of any one thing).

While illness and/or genetics can affect the nutrition or diet that a person requires to stay healthy, outside of that most of us are just fine with a diverse and varied diet bought at our local grocery store, eaten in moderation, accompanied by modest regular exercise (i.e. a healthy body weight as well).

I did notice a change in metabolism in my mid-50's which meant I could no longer eat indiscriminately without it adding weight, so some readjustment in calories and activity was needed. I fast every 3 to 5 years when my scheduled colonoscopy requires it. Not getting as much sun as I used to in the winter months, I've started taking supplemental vitamin D this year as an inexpensive 'precaution'.

Just like the investment industry, the food, diet and exercise industries will willingly sell you junk food, health food, miracle diets, and a multitude of books or programs that explain it all. And just like in the investment industry, there are some who will spend money out of interest or need.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> The idea that a little sugar is OK, is about the same as saying a little arsenic is OK. I am sure there are quantities of arsenic that won't kill you but do you really want to consume it? The reason we desire sweet foods and drinks is a combination of the fact that our bodies tend to enjoy the experience of consuming sweets, accompanied by our ignorance of the affects those sweets have on our bodies. We look at sweet foods fonder then we really should. If we saw them for what they are, we would be able to pass on them a lot easier.
> 
> Sure a coke now and then is much better then 2 litres per day, but whenever you consume processed sugars your body significantly slows down its ever continuing repairs it does on your body, every minute of the day. Repairs where you had no idea there were problems and soon hopefully, there won't be. You see, the body does not really digest sugar like it does other foods. It has to generate insulin to do so. When high levels of insulin are in the body it becomes inflamed and that reduces the internal repair process the body needs for a healthy and longer life. Yes. One coke and then nothing allows the body to slow down and then continue the repairs, as opposed to a constant intake of sugary substances, where the body never has a chance to heal, but all sugars will still interfere. Keep the quantities of sugar intake as low as you can...just as you would arsenic.


I'm surprised you don't extend that same thinking to alcohol. It's a far more damaging substance than sugar, yet many health-conscious people seem to have a blind spot when it comes to alcohol.

Our bodies are actually fairly efficient at metabolizing sugars, but we've evolved to metabolize only very small amounts of alcohol, such as in fermented foods -- certainly not the huge amounts in a bottle of beer or a glass of wine.

Not only that, but alcohol is also a known carcinogen. You're damaging your cells every time you drink it, but you just hope your body can keep up and make the necessary repairs. There is no guaranteed safe amount. Yeah, one beer a week probably won't damage your health noticeably, but you should still keep your intake as low as you can. As an added incentive, alcohol is extremely easy to avoid -- unlike sugar. You can even get de-alcoholized beer or wine, so there is really zero excuse to drink any alcohol at all. (Unless you're willing to accept the risk of course.)


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

nathan79 said:


> I'm surprised you don't extend that same thinking to alcohol. It's a far more damaging substance than sugar, yet many health-conscious people seem to have a blind spot when it comes to alcohol.


The Italians have known this for years.

ltr


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> The Italians have known this for years.
> 
> ltr


It's not the alcohol making them live longer, it's the other lifestyle factors. If they cut out the alcohol they'd probably live even longer.

https://www.livescience.com/61824-drinking-alcohol-longer-life-explainer.html
https://blog.bulletproof.com/limitations-alcohol-longevity-study/


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

nathan79 said:


> It's not the alcohol making them live longer, it's the other lifestyle factors. If they cut out the alcohol they'd probably live even longer.


haha, good one.

They should cut out food too, then they'd live really long. I learned that in this thread from all the talk about fasting. :very_drunk:

ltr


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> I'm surprised you don't extend that same thinking to alcohol. It's a far more damaging substance than sugar, yet many health-conscious people seem to have a blind spot when it comes to alcohol.
> 
> Our bodies are actually fairly efficient at metabolizing sugars, but we've evolved to metabolize only very small amounts of alcohol, such as in fermented foods -- certainly not the huge amounts in a bottle of beer or a glass of wine.
> 
> Not only that, but alcohol is also a known carcinogen. You're damaging your cells every time you drink it, but you just hope your body can keep up and make the necessary repairs. There is no guaranteed safe amount. Yeah, one beer a week probably won't damage your health noticeably, but you should still keep your intake as low as you can. As an added incentive, alcohol is extremely easy to avoid -- unlike sugar. You can even get de-alcoholized beer or wine, so there is really zero excuse to drink any alcohol at all. (Unless you're willing to accept the risk of course.)


I won't disagree with you because like most of what I said, there is only anecdotal evidence of most of it. Alcohol is obviously a poison as well. Except for a little stress relief, it has virtually no healthy attributes at all...but I like it. I try not to drink it in excess and no one should drink it if they cannot control it, but at the same time, I understand that we are all terminal. No one will live forever and therefore one must find the things that reduce their time on this earth, that they can live without, and avoid them and embrace moderately the things they find great enjoyment in, even if they reduce the number of days they get for that enjoyment. I never mentioned pot either and I can assure you it is of no nutritional value, and most likely quite bad for you, but I enjoy it all the same.

Sweets on the other hand are a lot easier for me to pass on. I look at a candy bar the same as a rusty nail, where neither is one I would like to put in my mouth. If sweets are what makes for a happy life for you, then by all means, gorge away. You may reduce your lifespan a little, you may huff and puff a little more as you ascend a set of stairs, but if it is what makes you smile and feel like you are getting the most out of life, then it won't kill you today, so enjoy the day as you would like.

It's the ignorance that it is having little effect on you that I completely dislike. I may have my own vices but definitely have no denial of their affects.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Some of the thoughts on sugar are a little extreme. Sugar isn't great for you, but just like most things...a little bit in moderation won't kill you. The fact that tens of millions of people have eaten sugar their entire lives and lived into their 90's and 100's relatively healthy is proof of that.

Eat a variety of healthy, unprocessed food in reasonable portions and most people will do just fine. Strive for low consumption of sugar and alcohol, but a few drinks a week or the occasional sugar treat won't kill you.

Grocery store rule of thumb: Walk around the outside of the store and ignore most of the stuff in the inner aisles. The outside of the store is where the fruit, veggies, meat, and frozen items are located. The inner aisles are where most of the processed food is located.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

We crave sugar because we are built to eat fruit, and ripe fruit is sweet while green fruit gives you the belly ache. The problem is modern fruit is bred to have way more sugar than we need, plus we can make sweet things that are nearly pure sugar.

I agree that too much sugar is bad, and too much starch as in grains is almost as bad. But if you stick to fresh fruit in moderation you won't go far wrong.

Look up Dr Hindehede and his experiments in the late 19th and early 20th century. He had the theory that man can get all the protein he needs from vegetable foods, and does not need to eat meat. He proved this in a series of experiments. His research paid off in WW1 when he was put in charge of the food rationing program for Denmark. He put the whole country on a diet of black bread, barley porridge, cabbages, potatoes, and whatever fruit and vegetables will grow in a northern climate with limited amounts of eggs, milk, meat and beer. During this time the death rate fell to the lowest ever recorded in a European country. He calculated that 6000 lives were saved out of a population of 8 million. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis fell by about 10% while lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and gout fell by 30% to 40%. This national experiment only lasted 18 months. He believed the results would have been even better if the experiment had continued but all health statistics were thrown into disarray by the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 - 1920.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"What I don't understand is why Pluto would have any interest in good nutrition at all. One of the side effects of good nutrition is a delay in dying and getting to heaven. Since no true believer would ever want to delay the day they meet their god, is it possible that you are not completely sold on its reality. "

I'm surprised at your lack of theological knowledge. All great religions recommend moderation in diet and in drinking, some going so far as to prohibit certain foods and alcohol. Saints and religious leaders are known for their limited diets and fasting. Same with the great philosophers. Many endorse fasting for spiritual reasons, and to clear and enlighten the mind. 

Medical experts condemn gluttony and excessive drinking as well, and often recommend diets and limiting or eliminating certain foods to cure disease.

When you have religion, philosophy, and medical science all pointing in the same direction it should tell you something.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> Some of the thoughts on sugar are a little extreme. Sugar isn't great for you, but just like most things...a little bit in moderation won't kill you. The fact that tens of millions of people have eaten sugar their entire lives and lived into their 90's and 100's relatively healthy is proof of that.
> 
> Eat a variety of healthy, unprocessed food in reasonable portions and most people will do just fine. Strive for low consumption of sugar and alcohol, but a few drinks a week or the occasional sugar treat won't kill you.
> 
> Grocery store rule of thumb: Walk around the outside of the store and ignore most of the stuff in the inner aisles. The outside of the store is where the fruit, veggies, meat, and frozen items are located. The inner aisles are where most of the processed food is located.


Prairie Guy, stop being so damn reasonable. That's not what this thread is about. 

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

like_to_retire said:


> Prairie Guy, stop being so damn reasonable. That's not what this thread is about.
> 
> ltr


I don't have time to waste on silly fads and ridiculous diets...healthy, unprocessed food in moderation and reasonable portions. 

My fitness routine is the same...20 minutes a day with a few simple exercises and I'm in better shape than many people that spend hours a week in the gym.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> "What I don't understand is why Pluto would have any interest in good nutrition at all. One of the side effects of good nutrition is a delay in dying and getting to heaven. Since no true believer would ever want to delay the day they meet their god, is it possible that you are not completely sold on its reality. "
> 
> I'm surprised at your lack of theological knowledge. All great religions recommend moderation in diet and in drinking, some going so far as to prohibit certain foods and alcohol. Saints and religious leaders are known for their limited diets and fasting. Same with the great philosophers. Many endorse fasting for spiritual reasons, and to clear and enlighten the mind.
> 
> ...


It would if it did.

Anyway, I am just giving Pluto the gears. Having a little fun. I was not running to exits back in the day when my parents had brainwashed me with all this stuff either. It does say a lot but I suppose it proves very little and is definitely not something for this thread.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Most people I know on goofy diets or trying vegen etc are already sick from who knows what and are trying to feel better. I do feel sorry for them.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

like_to_retire said:


> haha, good one.
> 
> They should cut out food too, then they'd live really long. I learned that in this thread from all the talk about fasting. :very_drunk:
> 
> ltr


Except food provides micro-nutrients whereas alcohol does not.

To conflate fasting with abstinence from alcohol is to completely miss the point. Fasting provides profound and well defined metabolic benefits.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Some of the thoughts on sugar are a little extreme. Sugar isn't great for you, but just like most things...a little bit in moderation won't kill you. The fact that tens of millions of people have eaten sugar their entire lives and lived into their 90's and 100's relatively healthy is proof of that.
> 
> Eat a variety of healthy, unprocessed food in reasonable portions and most people will do just fine. Strive for low consumption of sugar and alcohol, but a few drinks a week or the occasional sugar treat won't kill you.
> 
> Grocery store rule of thumb: Walk around the outside of the store and ignore most of the stuff in the inner aisles. The outside of the store is where the fruit, veggies, meat, and frozen items are located. The inner aisles are where most of the processed food is located.


The problem with sugar, for a lot of people, is that it is hard to be moderate. It's like telling an alcoholic that one drink won't kill them. I find sugar/carbs addictive, and eating a diet higher in carbs just puts me on a hunger treadmill.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> We crave sugar because we are built to eat fruit, and ripe fruit is sweet while green fruit gives you the belly ache. The problem is modern fruit is bred to have way more sugar than we need, plus we can make sweet things that are nearly pure sugar.
> 
> I agree that too much sugar is bad, and too much starch as in grains is almost as bad. But if you stick to fresh fruit in moderation you won't go far wrong.
> 
> Look up Dr Hindehede and his experiments in the late 19th and early 20th century. He had the theory that man can get all the protein he needs from vegetable foods, and does not need to eat meat. He proved this in a series of experiments. His research paid off in WW1 when he was put in charge of the food rationing program for Denmark. He put the whole country on a diet of black bread, barley porridge, cabbages, potatoes, and whatever fruit and vegetables will grow in a northern climate with limited amounts of eggs, milk, meat and beer. During this time the death rate fell to the lowest ever recorded in a European country. He calculated that 6000 lives were saved out of a population of 8 million. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis fell by about 10% while lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and gout fell by 30% to 40%. This national experiment only lasted 18 months. He believed the results would have been even better if the experiment had continued but all health statistics were thrown into disarray by the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 - 1920.


If you think back to a state of nature, fruit was only available part of the year. And the fact that it made you put on fat was a feature. These days, we have domesticated fruit that is available year-round, and bred to be sweeter than anything we would have seen in nature.

I don't doubt that a more carb-based diet can be healthy as well, but I think you still have to lay off the sugar. Your body can only metabolize so much fructose per day, and it is all in the liver.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I'm curious about what people think about rice. I feel terrible (fatigue) after eating bread, so I stopped it. so that made me think grains are bad, at least for me. But when I eat rice, I feel fine, and in fact eat less food on days I eat rice. some have claimed rice isn't good due to the abundance of carbohydrates in it, but I seem to thrive on it.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Pluto said:


> I'm curious about what people think about rice. I feel terrible (fatigue) after eating bread, so I stopped it. so that made me think grains are bad, at least for me. But when I eat rice, I feel fine, and in fact eat less food on days I eat rice. some have claimed rice isn't good due to the abundance of carbohydrates in it, but I seem to thrive on it.


Why look any deeper than that? 

If you feel good eating it, and you're at a healthy weight...there isn't much need for any confirmation from others. Maybe have your bloodwork done to make sure everything is humming along, but other than that....stick with what works.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I don't believe in diets of any kind and for any reason. I eat what my body tells me it wants me to eat and always have. My belief is that every individual is different and NO ONE can tell any given individual what will result in them living a longer life or not. That is after all the end result everyone is trying to achieve in regards to this topic is it not?

One person can tell you their relative ate, drank and smoked every day of their life and lived to be 105. Someone else can tell you their relative died relatively young and they are sure it was because they did something wrong diet wise, ate potato chips and drank Coke every day of their life. Yup, that did it. 

It's all hogwash. We all have different genes, different metabolisms, different everything and while some things obviously are not a good idea like drinking a bottle of whiskey every day of your life, even then, they are not necessarily what kills you. That guy got hit by a truck, try telling him his drink problem killed him.

So, I drink coke, eat potato chips, have a Big Mac, as often as I feel like it. I've always been healthy, rarely even have a cold, have never been overweight (I still wear the same size waist as I did when I was in my 20s) and am coming up on 73 in a couple of months. That's my 'three score and ten' past without every having wasted a minute on thinking about my diet. Will my method work for everyone? Of course not, but nor will anyone else's telling you how their plan is the 'one' will necessarily work for you at all.

I do have one kind of belief that I follow and that is 'all things in moderation'. Now how any individual defines 'moderation' of course will also vary. When I look around me, what I see is a lot of overweight people. Obviously, their idea of moderation when it comes to eating probably isn't the same as my idea. When I go into a restaurant and order a meal, I rarely am able to finish it. There is simply too much on the plate.

I recall going to dinner at an acquaintances house some time ago and was served a huge plate of food. It was all I could do to eat half of it. The man of the house had seconds. He's thin as a whip. Metabolism I guess. His idea of 'moderation' and mine, don't have to be the same obviously. What would the point in my saying to him, 'you know, you should eat less.' It may make sense to say that to someone who is overweight as many are but not to everyone.

If someone is diabetic it may make sense to say, 'watch your sugar intake' but we can only advise someone to avoid something when we know it is bad for them, assuming everyone has to avoid something is ridiculous. Avoid dairy, avoid meat, avoid alcohol, avoid sugar, etc. etc. we hear them all. What then is there left for us to eat or drink if we listen to all of that?

If I have a wish to eat potato chips and drink coke at 11pm, then that's what I do. I'm still kicking, so it must be OK for ME. Or as the guy who jumped off a high rise building was heard to be saying as he fell, 'so far so good, so far so good'.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Pluto said:


> I'm curious about what people think about rice. I feel terrible (fatigue) after eating bread, so I stopped it. so that made me think grains are bad, at least for me. But when I eat rice, I feel fine, and in fact eat less food on days I eat rice. some have claimed rice isn't good due to the abundance of carbohydrates in it, but I seem to thrive on it.


I would say with almost 100% certainty that it is gluten that is at issue here, if rice seems ok but wheat causes issues. As more research is coming out, gluten is emerging as problematic for many people and for many reasons. It's not just celiacs that can have pretty serious reactions. And there are also a class of short-chain carbohydrates referred to as FODMAPs that some think cause some of the problems that people associate with gluten. Some symptoms associated with gluten and/or FODMAPs include skin problems like eczema, various digestive issues, tiredness, depression, autoimmune responses, and many others.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Some people have a problem with bread in North America where it is made of GMO grain and chemical leavening but not in Europe where there is no GMO grain and they use yeast. Gluten sensitivity, Crohn's disease etc were rare before GMO grains came in.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Onagoth said:


> My advice for a healthy diet (I've studied nutrition informally for 10 years) is the following.
> *
> 1) Control carbs (avoid refined carbs like breads and pastas and sugars)
> 2) Prioritize protein (beef, fish, lamb, pork, etc)
> ...


That is about the same conclusions I have come to as well. I did a 2 day fast a couple months ago. And I would add that even without the corrupt and inadequate nutritional / food science research, there is enough variability in people's personal genetic traits that even hypothetically perfect health food science information is probably only perfect for 75% of the population, and 25% have some disorder, condition, tolerance issue etc. that makes their situation non-optimal. Add in potential racial genetic differences where different people's might have bodies optimized for different macro nutrient ratios, and it's almost impossible to come to an overarching conclusion that doesn't get widely refuted because there is some significant population for which it doesn't work.

-Add in the fact that changing a diet significantly can have a long break-in period of digestional turmoil where the addicts, weak-willed, and liars - another large portion of the population - won't be able to commit and change from their current habits.
-Add in the religious Vegan liars, and the for-pay nutrition/exercise salesman youtube liars, and you get even further muddled information.
-Add in the notion that not everyone has even the same health/food goals for life - Some are looking for increased energy, athleticism, weight loss, pain management, longevity, etc., some of which may need different recipes, and no wonder there's no right answer. 


Onagoth said:


> Why look any deeper than that?
> 
> If you feel good eating it, and you're at a healthy weight...there isn't much need for any confirmation from others. Maybe have your bloodwork done to make sure everything is humming along, but other than that....stick with what works.


It's both obviously correct, and scientifically annoying, that this is the "most right" answer.

I have almost given up on even trying to determine whether a specific food item is "healthy" or not anymore via research.

Once I have kids I'm sure I'll come back to it, and become frustrated all over again trying to determine whether little Johnny should be drinking cow's milk or not, and how much.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Some people have a problem with bread in North America where it is made of GMO grain and chemical leavening but not in Europe where there is no GMO grain and they use yeast. Gluten sensitivity, Crohn's disease etc were rare before GMO grains came in.


There is no evidence that GMO grains causes gluten sensitivity, or any other issues. Some people have a legitimate gluten sensitivity, but many others are just following the current fad.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

peterk said:


> That is about the same conclusions I have come to as well. I did a 2 day fast a couple months ago. And I would add that even without the corrupt and inadequate nutritional / food science research, there is enough variability in people's personal genetic traits that even hypothetically perfect health food science information is probably only perfect for 75% of the population, and 25% have some disorder, condition, tolerance issue etc. that makes their situation non-optimal. Add in potential racial genetic differences where different people's might have bodies optimized for different macro nutrient ratios, and it's almost impossible to come to an overarching conclusion that doesn't get widely refuted because there is some significant population for which it doesn't work.
> 
> -Add in the fact that changing a diet significantly can have a long break-in period of digestional turmoil where the addicts, weak-willed, and liars - another large portion of the population - won't be able to commit and change from their current habits.
> -Add in the religious Vegan liars, and the for-pay nutrition/exercise salesman youtube liars, and you get even further muddled information.
> ...


Yep...and there is a lot of value in N=1 experiments so long as people do them constructively. 

I still have some hope that good science will prevail in the nutritional world, and that grass roots movements will be able to influence things like the food guides and dietary advice coming from medical establishments like the AHA, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's one reason why you gotta do your own review if you're looking for nutritional advice. So much corruption. Jason Fung speaks/tweets about corruption in the nutritional science field fairly regularly.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Those who have netflix or amazon should watch "The Evolution of Us". It's an accessable 2-part documentary that provides some interesting examples of genetics affecting human nutrition/diet and the course of history.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm not sure why people spend so much time agonizing over such a simple topic. Nutrition and basic biochemistry is pretty straight forward (micro/macro nutrients, caloric balance, etc). Human's tends to complicate things and disregards mother nature's physiological signs (hunger, satiety, etc.). At least in the developed world gluttony appears to be the root of most evil. We blame sugar, fat, gluten, cholesterol, dairy, carbs, salt, red meat, trump, etc. but in reality it's excessive calories that often start the cascade of illness - insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

Most people need coaching, psychological counseling, etc. not nutritional advice, fad diets, guru's, etc. We need to stop blaming foods, food groups, the industry, marketing, etc. and take responsibility for our own bodies.

The majority of people have a good idea what they should be eating or not eating but they just can't seem to mustard up enough will power, motivation, etc. Always looking for a quick fix, a way to have their cake and eat it to.

It's basic supply and demand. If people stopped eating **** the industry would have no choice but to stop producing it.

CMF Tip - buy health care related stocks! Even after a major scare like a heart attack, etc. people seem to return back to their old habits relatively quickly. Hence why we now have a pill for almost every ill.

Good luck to us all in the New Year.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> There is no evidence that GMO grains causes gluten sensitivity, or any other issues. Some people have a legitimate gluten sensitivity, but many others are just following the current fad.


So what would you suggest people do, who have found that grains disagree with them and make them sick, but they get well if they don't eat them? Because I am one of them. Are you saying I am nuts? Not that I would disagree with you if you did.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> So what would you suggest people do, who have found that grains disagree with them and make them sick, but they get well if they don't eat them? Because I am one of them. Are you saying I am nuts? Not that I would disagree with you if you did.


I said some people...not all people.

I am unable to confirm your nuttiness leve... :biggrin:


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Other than those with specific medical conditions, the majority of people will be perfectly fine eating a variety healthy, unprocessed food in reasonable proportions. As Synergy stated, it's not that difficult.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Had to revive this thread to add the following.

A new Canadian Food Guide is apparently coming out with updates in line with current thinking. So a reporter went on to the street to ask if anyone reads it or pays any attention to it at all. The answers were of course predictable, a resounding no. Which makes it pretty useless. However, one responder gave a response I think worth writing about here.

Asked, do you follow the Food Guide, his answer was, 'no, I'm on a seafood diet.' Pause.............I see food I eat it.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Had to revive this thread to add the following.
> 
> A new Canadian Food Guide is apparently coming out with updates in line with current thinking. So a reporter went on to the street to ask if anyone reads it or pays any attention to it at all. The answers were of course predictable, a resounding no. Which makes it pretty useless. However, one responder gave a response I think worth writing about here.
> 
> Asked, do you follow the Food Guide, his answer was, 'no, *I'm on a seafood diet.' Pause.............I see food I eat it*.


I heard that report and laughed at that response. Momentarily I was wondering "what the hell is a seafood diet?"

It will be interesting to sea the new guide. The challenge (which they recognize) is that so many today seem to eat out and/or order in these days. Both nutrition and the pocketbook suffer.

View attachment 19254


https://globalnews.ca/news/4831246/canada-food-guide-draft-food-groups/


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

There are many side issues to nutrition, such as a guy I know who went on a mediterranean diet to lower his cholesterol. Once lowered to an apparently safe healthy level, the docs still wanted him to take cholesterol lowering drugs. What gives?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Pluto said:


> There are many side issues to nutrition, such as a guy I know who went on a mediterranean diet to lower his cholesterol. Once lowered to an apparently safe healthy level, the docs still wanted him to take cholesterol lowering drugs. What gives?


I would ask the doctor why. My doctor has told me that lifestyle changes are better than medication, and that he doesn't like to prescribe a medication if the problem can be resolved by a lifestyle or dietary change.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> I would ask the doctor why. My doctor has told me that lifestyle changes are better than medication, and that he doesn't like to prescribe a medication if the problem can be resolved by a lifestyle or dietary change.


My doctor recently told me that hereditary high LDL can't be lowered by diet and lifestyle; anyone know more about this?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Fun fact: for older people, higher cholesterol is associated with _reduced_ mortality.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

The people who live the longest are the Japanese whose traditional diet is high in vegetables and seafood and low in red meat, sugar and processed food. To me, that is not a bad dietary template to follow.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Spidey said:


> The people who live the longest are the Japanese whose traditional diet is high in vegetables and seafood and low in red meat, sugar and processed food. To me, that is not a bad dietary template to follow.


actually...amongst centenarians...they all seem to have very little in common. Some drink, some smoke, some eat veggies, some exercise.

Not much nutritionally in common though I've read that centenarians seem to all have strong social circles.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I thought they stopped prescribing cholesterol lowering drugs when they found out they cause more harm than good? If you are concerned about cholesterol, plaque etc take vitamin C and Lysine. Look up Linus Pauling heart protocol for more details.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Onagoth said:


> actually...amongst centenarians...they all seem to have very little in common. Some drink, some smoke, some eat veggies, some exercise.
> 
> Not much nutritionally in common though I've read that centenarians seem to all have strong social circles.


that reminds me of a tv documentry some 20 years ago. There was a guy in Mongolia, I think it was, who supposedly was the oldest person in the world at that time. So they went ot see him with the film crew in his mountain village. When they found him he was crouched by an open fire making a coffee or something, and smoking a Marlbourgh. LOL.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Fun fact: for older people, higher cholesterol is associated with _reduced_ mortality.


please expand andrew


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I thought they stopped prescribing cholesterol lowering drugs when they found out they cause more harm than good? If you are concerned about cholesterol, plaque etc take vitamin C and Lysine. Look up Linus Pauling heart protocol for more details.


Statins are still one of the most-prescribed drugs in the world. My doctor prescribed Lipitor a few months ago and said it was up to me if I wanted to take it, as he knows my view, which is that they do too much definite harm.


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

indexxx said:


> My doctor recently told me that hereditary high LDL can't be lowered by diet and lifestyle; anyone know more about this?


Greetings to all!
I've found these articles are very interested & useful. 
Keep in mind, it's up to us choose limited abilities or go beyond. 

- Epigenetics: How You Can Change Your Genes And Change Your Life
http://reset.me/story/epigenetics-how-you-can-change-your-genes-and-change-your-life/

”Only 5% of disease-related gene mutations are fully deterministic, while 95% can be influenced by diet, behavior, and other environmental conditions. Current models of well-being largely ignore genes, yet studies have shown that a program of positive lifestyle changes alter 4,000 to 5,000 different gene activities.
” Tanzi and Chopra go on to say: “You are not simply the sum total of the genes you were born with. You are the user and controller of your genes, the author of your biological story. No prospect in self-care is more exciting.”

This is exciting news! It means that you’re not at the mercy of your genetic makeup at birth. You actually have a great deal of control over your health and your future no matter what genetic hand you have been dealt.

*Epigenetics Changes Last For Generations
One of the most amazing and controversial discoveries is that epigenetic changes don’t stop with you. Epigenetic signals from the environment can be passed from one generation to the next, sometimes for several generations, without changing a single gene sequence.


- Placebo: Cracking the Code – BrainStrom
http://brainstrom.org/placebo-cracking-code/

Placebo: Cracking the Code – that includes members of the the Harvard Placebo Study cluster, “Placebo: Cracking the Code” examines the facility of belief in assuaging pain, solidifying illness, and therefore the healing of injuries.
Acclaimed documentary regarding the science of the result. that includes the Harvard Placebo Study Group: Anne Harrington, bishop Humphrey, Fabrizio Benedetti, Dan Moerman, Howard Fields.

Amazing placebo experiment with knee surgery +more


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Onagoth said:


> actually...amongst centenarians...they all seem to have very little in common. Some drink, some smoke, some eat veggies, some exercise.
> 
> Not much nutritionally in common though I've read that centenarians seem to all have strong social circles.


Ok, I went back and checked my books. There was one study of centenarians some in 2005 linking longevity partly to insulin status and IGF1/insulin signaling


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

indexxx said:


> My doctor recently told me that hereditary high LDL can't be lowered by diet and lifestyle; anyone know more about this?


Sounds like a little bit of BS to me. The statement should read - most people with hereditary high LDL can't follow strict diet and lifestyle recommendations so I prescribe medication instead or in combination with...

Can't blame them. People don't follow advice well and pills are the easier solution...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

According to US Census reports the longest living set of people in America are Seventh Day Adventists. Their religion forbids using drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and frowns on eating meat and spices. There is a large percentage of Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda California and also the largest percentage of centenarians.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

The burden of no coffee, steak or chipolte sauce... living in the confines of that religion :distress:... 
I'll take my chances. I may die sooner but I'll die happy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

fatcat said:


> please expand andrew


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442317/

Evidence suggests that low cholesterol in elderly people increases the risk of mortality. The cholesterol story is much more complicated than the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges. Higher LDL is not necessarily bad. Statins are probably not worth the side effects, and are not as good as lifestyle adjustments to improve lipid profile.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

andrewf said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442317/
> 
> Evidence suggests that low cholesterol in elderly people increases the risk of mortality. The cholesterol story is much more complicated than the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges. Higher LDL is not necessarily bad. Statins are probably not worth the side effects, and are not as good as lifestyle adjustments to improve lipid profile.


Although the conclusions of this study are generally in line with my views, it did suffer from some pretty big weaknesses. Also, it was published in 2010 and to my knowledge, almost no lipidologists research total cholesterol anymore. Much more research is now being done on modified LDL and HDL in general. Even in practice total cholesterol is less important now....my latest blood test doesn't even provide a reference range for Total Serum Cholesterol, whereas a couple years ago the target was <5.2 mmol/L. I think the medical community in general has lost all interest in total cholesterol.

In terms of the study though, it didn't correct for smoking, obesity or insulin resistance. Smoking and insulin resistance are big ones though insulin resistance is often not corrected for. Maybe a randomly selected population would have equal amounts of smokers in both groups, but we don't know. The study did only look at 500 people. 



I really think the cholesterol boogey man needs to be forgotten. Quite simply, insulin resistance underpins so much chronic disease it is actually quite remarkable. Then again, insulin resistance is curable with diet alone (for most people) so why would drug companies care or sponsor trials that show improving mortality by only adjusting lifestyle factors. Not much money to be made with that strategy


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> According to US Census reports the longest living set of people in America are Seventh Day Adventists. Their religion forbids using drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and frowns on eating meat and spices. There is a large percentage of Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda California and also the largest percentage of centenarians.


i suspect the effect is from abstinence from both alcohol and tobacco, the rest in moderation are not unhealthy at all



> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442317/
> 
> Evidence suggests that low cholesterol in elderly people increases the risk of mortality. The cholesterol story is much more complicated than the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges. Higher LDL is not necessarily bad. Statins are probably not worth the side effects, and are not as good as lifestyle adjustments to improve lipid profile.


thanks andrew, my sister takes statins and i don't, she tells me that high cholesterol is 70% hereditary ... my cholesterol is normal though there are doctors (a lot actually) who practically want to put statins in the drinking water and i wonder if i should be taking it, i will be 70 next month, this study would imply that i shouldn't

i bet that these longer living higher cholesterol people have another yet undiscovered factor that mitigates the negative effects of total cholesterol


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

nathan79 said:


> I'm surprised you don't extend that same thinking to alcohol. It's a far more damaging substance than sugar, yet many health-conscious people seem to have a blind spot when it comes to alcohol.
> 
> Our bodies are actually fairly efficient at metabolizing sugars, but we've evolved to metabolize only very small amounts of alcohol, such as in fermented foods -- certainly not the huge amounts in a bottle of beer or a glass of wine.
> 
> Not only that, but alcohol is also a known carcinogen. You're damaging your cells every time you drink it, but you just hope your body can keep up and make the necessary repairs. There is no guaranteed safe amount. Yeah, one beer a week probably won't damage your health noticeably, but you should still keep your intake as low as you can. As an added incentive, alcohol is extremely easy to avoid -- unlike sugar. You can even get de-alcoholized beer or wine, so there is really zero excuse to drink any alcohol at all. (Unless you're willing to accept the risk of course.)


I just came across this today and, while I seldom see the merit of reviving old threads, I do when they spout pure nonsense in the guise of learned discourse.

The above post I expect has been ignored by most here, since most know better, but I would defy the poster to maintain his advice in the face of this rather dated video but, a video that still carries a valid message. If it has been shown to be wrong, then I trust nathan79 to show us evidence to the contrary. What the speaker here said, long before the post to which I object, and was well-known by the time of that post, was taught to me by my parents 50 years ago. They expressed it in different language, but the message was the same. Sugar and alcohol are equally deadly. Don't get all high and mighty because you eschew alcohol. Believe what you like, but please do not try to convince others of something you must know to be wrong.

Anyone here have anything to prove this man wrong?:


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

1. I'm not going to spend 90 minutes watching that.

2. I don't abstain from alcohol.

3. Neither is good, and they're both bad in large amounts. If you want to believe that drinking a 6-pack of Coke is the same as drinking a 6-pack of beer, you're welcome to it. I already know which one is worse for me health-wise, not that I make a habit of either one.

4. I'm not going to search for evidence. You're the one reviving a discussion that I was finished with over a year ago. Other than this, I have nothing more to say on the matter.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Seems like a gross overgeneralization to say that sugar and alcohol are equally bad.

Consider a fruit such as an orange. An orange has a lot of good stuff in it, but it also has 9 grams of sugar. What if this orange had 9 grams (mL) of ethanol instead.

Would the ethanol-orange be just as healthy as the sugar-orange?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Jack LaLanne said you would do better to drink a glass of wine than a glass of coca cola. He often took a glass of wine with his meals and lived to 95 while maintaining excellent health and fitness. I don't drink myself but am fond of sweets but I agree, too much of either is bad for your health.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Too much of anything can be bad. All the research I am aware of says that being underweight leads to better health and longevity than being overweight and this goes for everything from flatworms to guinea pigs to cats and dogs to us. My own experience bears this out. My health problems all come from being overweight most of my life.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Too much of anything can be bad. All the research I am aware of says that being underweight leads to better health and longevity than being overweight and this goes for everything from flatworms to guinea pigs to cats and dogs to us. My own experience bears this out. My health problems all come from being overweight most of my life.


Off topic, but here's a video worth watching. The scientist in this claims that reducing food intake helps prevent premature ageing, and offers other methods of slowing ageing too.

Here's his list of things that keep a person young:

Eat less
Eat less protein
High intensity training
Be uncomfortably cold or hot


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I tend to think of both alcohol and sugar as a poison. I think we all knew and know that alcohol has many qualities that would place it into the category of a poison. The issue I find surrounds sugar. The alcohol I enjoy immensely, but I find I don't enjoy the sugar stuff nearly as much. It's good, but not that good.

Christmas is a good example of this. Everywhere you go (pre & post pandemic of course) you will probably be offered some form of alcohol and sweets. Since I like the alcohol and get quite a bit of enjoyment out of it, I look at that offer and say, sure its a poison, but for me it is worth it. Use it sparingly, of course, and try to correct the bad behavior elsewhere. Next will be the offer of desert and chocolates or Nestle Turtles or a coke with my dinner. All that stuff sounds wonderful until I remind myself that it is a poison. That idea makes it a lot easier to turn it down. Plus, it allows me to substitute it with beer or wine later.

The term poison can be debated but it, at best, is a weak poison. Would you really want that piece of cake if they told you that they flavored it with small amounts of arsenic, but don't worry, it won't kill you tonight. Kind of takes the desire I had to begin with and produces a big NO from me very quickly. No problem avoiding the chocolates on the table and I gave up pop and fruit juices a long time ago. Nothing nutritional is in a coke and not much is in a glass of orange juice.

It is all poison.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I so rarely drink booze I don't have to worry about that. I do eat some sweets (made whipped shortbread cookies last week) but again, it doesn't really impact my regular food intake. As long as I keep exercising and eating mostly balanced healthy meals to keep my BMI in check I don't worry about the small stuff.

For me, I just look at booze/sweets as calories I'll have to burn off. I may lower my regular meal intake knowing I'll be eating a dessert afterwards or say to myself ... Are those 2 cookies worth riding my bicycle for an extra hour today?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^
Fascinating video, MP. Can't prove it wrong, and I believe it. Wow. thanks for bringing it to our attention.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> I so rarely drink booze I don't have to worry about that. I do eat some sweets (made whipped shortbread cookies last week) but again, it doesn't really impact my regular food intake. As long as I keep exercising and eating mostly balanced healthy meals to keep my BMI in check I don't worry about the small stuff.
> 
> For me, I just look at booze/sweets as calories I'll have to burn off. I may lower my regular meal intake knowing I'll be eating a dessert afterwards or say to myself ... Are those 2 cookies worth riding my bicycle for an extra hour today?


Most people would need to ride their bike all day AND all night to burn off the garbage that they eat in a day, and that is probably the average person, not the glut bunnies we all like to point our superior fingers at. The more efficient and therefore, more effective way really is to not eat it. If you truly believed, as I do, that those cookies contain arsenic, sorry I mean sugar, would you still want to play that game of exercising it off? If the answer is yes. Go for it. I do with alcohol, but at least I know the real question that is being asked of me. For sugars, the answer is an easy no.

Use exercise for where it can be effective. Losing weight and helping out with diet is certainly not one of those. That has been proven.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Most people would need to ride their bike all day AND all night to burn off the garbage that they eat in a day, and that is probably the average person, not the glut bunnies we all like to point our superior fingers at. The more efficient and therefore, more effective way really is to not eat it. If you truly believed, as I do, that those cookies contain arsenic, sorry I mean sugar, would you still want to play that game of exercising it off? If the answer is yes. Go for it. I do with alcohol, but at least I know the real question that is being asked of me. For sugars, the answer is an easy no.


I do consume sugars (cookies/regular soft drinks) but there are not part of my regular food intake. I also think many don't properly equate the amount of exercise vs comsumption correctly ... no way you're going to "walk off" over eating at xmas dinner, well, unless you're walking for 10 hours at a brisk pace afterwards.



OptsyEagle said:


> Use exercise for where it can be effective. Losing weight and helping out with diet is certainly not one of those. That has been proven.


Not sure I follow this statement ... Are you saying exercise isn't effective in maintaining or losing weight?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I forgot to mention that the video mentioned paleo diet near the end. 

I tried the paleo diet after it got mentioned here and else where and the change to my wellbeing was remarkable. More energy, less sleep needed, brain works better, eat less food overall without feeling hungry. Now that I saw the video, and its critique of fructose, I realize that with paleo I have eliminated all sources of fructose. (I cheat sometimes, but it is very minimal). In addition I have eliminated most sources of gluten.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Not sure I follow this statement ... Are you saying exercise isn't effective in maintaining or losing weight?


Yes. That is what I am saying.

Have you ever worked out on a treadmill or piece of equipment that tells you how many calories you burned. You can run hard for 1/2 an hour and maybe see 150 calories burned away. To deal with the 1000s of extra calories we tend to eat, when we overeat, exercise is really a drop in the bucket, against that. To work out that much would cause other health issues.

The only thing that can combat overeating is not to overeat. Exercise helps but it is really wishful thinking when it comes to weight loss.

That said, exercise is great for stress, heart, blood pressure and quite a few other health issues...but when it comes to losing weight, it fails miserably.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> What I don't understand is why Pluto would have any interest in good nutrition at all. One of the side effects of good nutrition is a delay in dying and getting to heaven. Since no true believer would ever want to delay the day they meet their god, is it possible that you are not completely sold on its reality. Maybe somewhere down deep in you think that there is a good chance it is a complete load of malarkey. You may not like it and I am sure you won't agree, but your action here speaks a lot louder then your words ever have.


Since this thread got revived I decided to review it, and came across this troll like comment. I do remember reading it originally but decided to ignore it and let the topic of nutrition develop. However, now that we have the nutrition theme covered to some considerable extent, I'll bite on your troll hook. 
1. I assume you are an atheist. I have never encountered an empirical atheist. However, I met one who was a deep thinker, a university prof of mine, who after he read my paper acknowledged to me, "We all have our metaphysics". He means you too. What's stopping you from straightening out your metaphysics in lieu of the drive by shooting at someone else?
2. "Getting to heaven" has never been a goal of mine. That's all in your overactive unempirical imagination. I don't suppose you would like to explain what made you think going to heaven after death was a belief of mine. "Getting to heaven" isn't a Biblical theme. If you were empirical, you would know that. 
3. Recently I made a small study of the atheist Krauss and his faith concerning the origin of the universe. He claimed it came from nothing , only nothing for him is something, namely, cosmic radiation, that he said "burped" and "out popped the universe." Totally convoluted and unempirical atheist fable under the guise of science. If there ever was malarkey, that's it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Pluto said:


> Since this thread got revived I decided to review it, and came across this troll like comment. I do remember reading it originally but decided to ignore it and let the topic of nutrition develop. However, now that we have the nutrition theme covered to some considerable extent, I'll bite on your troll hook.
> 1. I assume you are an atheist. I have never encountered an empirical atheist. However, I met one who was a deep thinker, a university prof of mine, who after he read my paper acknowledged to me, "We all have our metaphysics". He means you too. What's stopping you from straightening out your metaphysics in lieu of the drive by shooting at someone else?
> 2. "Getting to heaven" has never been a goal of mine. That's all in your overactive unempirical imagination. I don't suppose you would like to explain what made you think going to heaven after death was a belief of mine. "Getting to heaven" isn't a Biblical theme. If you were empirical, you would know that.
> 3. Recently I made a small study of the atheist Krauss and his faith concerning the origin of the universe. He claimed it came from nothing , only nothing for him is something, namely, cosmic radiation, that he said "burped" and "out popped the universe." Totally convoluted and unempirical atheist fable under the guise of science. If there ever was malarkey, that's it.


I don't even understand half of what you said. So you win. Let's let it go. Hope you feel better now. I imagine it was important to get all that off your chest.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Yes. That is what I am saying.
> 
> Have you ever worked out on a treadmill or piece of equipment that tells you how many calories you burned. You can run hard for 1/2 an hour and maybe see 150 calories burned away. To deal with the 1000s of extra calories we tend to eat, when we overeat, exercise is really a drop in the bucket, against that. To work out that much would cause other health issues.
> 
> ...


For sure many people can't do enough exercise to offset serious and/or regular overeating. Chances are that if they are well over their target calorie intake they won't be ones to exercise anyways. Also, as I mentioned earlier, people generally do poor calorie to workout comparisons like your 150 per run above. On average a 30 min run will use up between 280 and 520 calories but "you" have to gauge how much "you" are burning.

That being said, I have to adjust my intake a fair bit throughout the year due to changes in my activity level. As an example, in the fall (normally at my peak fitness and weight level) I can consume 1000-2000 calories a week more than I do in spring without putting weight on. To translate that into food people know (not that I eat that), it's 2-4 Big Macs every week!


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> I don't even understand half of what you said. So you win. Let's let it go. Hope you feel better now. I imagine it was important to get all that off your chest.


You don't even understand what you wrote.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I had a major craving for shortbread cookies a few days ago, so I bought some Walkers cookies yesterday.

Very much looking forward to opening those up. Food (and treats) are about more than just nutrition. There is something very pleasant about _occasionally and sparingly_ enjoying something truly delightful (same goes for wine). It adds to quality of life.

All in moderation of course.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I could go months without chips or cookies, but if we buy them, I’ll finish them off in 2 days. I was the same with smoking. Would smoke all year (away from my family)...then go on vacation for 2 weeks with them, and not smoke at all. Never smoked at home in the evenings or weekends. I always said I wasn’t addicted, just had a bad habit. haven’t Had a smoke since I left the workforce and got out of the routine. 

I guess I don’t have cravings, but if something is readily accessible, I get weak.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I let myself indulge once in a while, and I think that's healthy.

I have some great chocolate treats lined up for the holiday ... can't wait to get into these.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Money172375 said:


> I could go months without chips or cookies, but if we buy them, I’ll finish them off in 2 days. I was the same with smoking. Would smoke all year (away from my family)...then go on vacation for 2 weeks with them, and not smoke at all. Never smoked at home in the evenings or weekends. I always said I wasn’t addicted, just had a bad habit. haven’t Had a smoke since I left the workforce and got out of the routine.
> 
> I guess I don’t have cravings, but if something is readily accessible, I get weak.


That is a very good point. We all have our weaknesses. I figure if within all those bad things there are a few where they only become a problem if you are around them, then get them to heck out of the house. My wife will always say "I thought you liked those xxxxx " and I remind her that I am only eating them to get rid of them. That gets defeated pretty quickly when they keep getting bought again.

Other then the big list of things I don't want to eat, that I can live fine without, I also remind her that I don't like letting the retailers determine my diet by what they put on sale on any given week. Yes. 99 cents is a great price for a bag of chips and yes I know the sale ends tomorrow. That does not mean we need to buy them. If we buy them, we will eat them. If we don't buy them, we won't.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

nathan79 said:


> 1. I'm not going to spend 90 minutes watching that.
> 
> 2. I don't abstain from alcohol.
> 
> ...


I realize you thought you had the last word on the topic when you wrote that alcohol is "a far more damaging substance than sugar, yet many health-conscious people seem to have a blind spot when it comes to alcohol." You might think the physician delivering the videotaped lecture to which I posted a link is dead wrong when he says they are the same, but I prefer his scientific analysis to your bald assertion that you know better.

I agree wholly with him when he says that a can of coke and a can of beer are equivalents and that most would not gives their kids a Budweiser, but don't hesitate to give a can of coke, when the nutritional/health outcome is the same. All well explained starting about about 1:14 on the video.








The speaker also points out, correctly in my view, that we (including governments for about 1500 years) have been diligent about controlling alcohol use, yet the "blind spot" relates to sugar, for governments and individuals alike.

I claim no superiority here. I am guilty of consuming both alcohol and sugar. So does the lecturer in the video, who refers to alcohol as his "favourite carbohydrate". He does not purport to have staked out the moral high ground. I try to limit both poisons, and I have consumed little soda in my time and none at all in the past 30 years or so. I generally avoid "sweets". I long ago adopted my parents' ritual of a couple of glasses of red wine most evenings. That's my alcohol of choice. I would no doubt be better off without it, but I accept the associated risks. My mum died at 96 and my dad at 98 and they lived in their own home with no support until they died, and I hope to do as well, but then they grew up in a generally less toxic world, so that might have given them greater longevity.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Seems like a gross overgeneralization to say that sugar and alcohol are equally bad.
> 
> Consider a fruit such as an orange. An orange has a lot of good stuff in it, but it also has 9 grams of sugar. What if this orange had 9 grams (mL) of ethanol instead.
> 
> Would the ethanol-orange be just as healthy as the sugar-orange?


Did you watch the video? Did he not explain about consuming fruit starting at about 1:13 on the video?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Pluto said:


> ^
> Fascinating video, MP. Can't prove it wrong, and I believe it. Wow. thanks for bringing it to our attention.


You are very welcome. Nice to know that someone here took time to watch.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Off topic, but here's a video worth watching. The scientist in this claims that reducing food intake helps prevent premature ageing, and offers other methods of slowing ageing too.
> 
> Here's his list of things that keep a person young:
> 
> ...


Interesting video j4b.

Good timing too. I intend to skip Christmas dinner and sit outside in shorts and a T-shirt while others shorten their lives at the dining table. I fact, I might just take a deck chair and go sit on our dock, where there are almost always moon jellyfish to be seen in the surrounding sea. According to the video, they hold the key to longevity (something Ponce de León failed to realize) and maybe they'll impart to me some of their wisdom on the topic.

I just read your list again. Maybe I'll omit the deck chair and, instead, skip rope or lift weights while observing jellyfish from the dock. Or dive in with them, for more of an in-depth experience of uncomfortable cold.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> You are very welcome. Nice to know that someone here took time to watch.


I've watched most of it and it is pretty good ... will finish it off later.

One glaring error on his part, though I understand he's being a "salesmen" for his point of view, is exercise is not for calorie reduction. I see this error often, though usually not this bad, where he said something like "a Big Mac would take 10 hours of mountain biking to burn off". That was a big mistake on his part.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Finished watching the video and he makes some good points about "bad sugars". Of course, if some people choose not to monitor their weight and adjust their consumption it kind of doesn't matter what you over eat. Yes, some foods and/or additives will be worse for you and may make you gain weight (fat) faster, as he points out.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Whole fruit is not so bad--relatively little sugar in the amount you would be inclined to eat. Try eating more than one apple in a sitting. But process it a little (juice, puree, jams, fruit snacks, smoothies) and add some sugar and it is easy to consume a lot of fructose. 

And really, most of the nutrients one might get from fruit can be obtained from vegetables without the sugar.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cainvest said:


> I've watched most of it and it is pretty good ... will finish it off later.
> 
> One glaring error on his part, though I understand he's being a "salesmen" for his point of view, is exercise is not for calorie reduction. I see this error often, though usually not this bad, where he said something like "a Big Mac would take 10 hours of mountain biking to burn off". That was a big mistake on his part.


I am not sure he set out to elucidate how many calories would be burned off by specific activities. Maybe a bit of hyperbole on his part, but I do not believe that what you have pointed out as a "big mistake" seriously undermines the thrust of the lecture. Not even slightly.

Moreover, it is clear he was not intending to lay down any precise measurements when he mentioned a Big Mac in terms of mountain biking. I do not think he intended anyone to take him too literally. Otherwise, far more precision would have been required. We would have to know the assumed calories in a Big Mac. We would have to know more about the activity of "mountain biking". Or is it commonly understood the level of activity that involves? Me, as a non mountain biker, I would think it would involve a very wide range of intensity. Perhaps not. Can one mountain bike on level ground? Or must one be ascending, on average, a grade of 20% or more to be considered engaged in mountain biking? Does the equipment matter. Does it make a difference if the rider is 120 lb. or 300 lb. (note, not lbs., ugh)? I have no idea.

He also talks about 20 minutes to burn off a chocolate chip cookie. Is there a DIN (German Industrial Standard...a term I have not heard for 40 years) for chocolate chip cookies? Me, I have seen chocolate chip cookies as large as a saucer and as thick as a brick, while others are positively dinky. I suspect ingredients may vary. I suppose we should take him to task for not setting out the specifications for the cookie to which reference is made. Again, I see these matters as wholly peripheral to his thesis.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> Moreover, it is clear he was not intending to lay down any precise measurements when he mentioned a Big Mac in terms of mountain biking.


Ok, maybe not a big mistake but I don't think it helps his presentation to make such claims unless he backed it up with data ... like he mostly does with the rest of it. For me, it does take something away from the rest of the lecture even though I understand the point he was trying to make. BTW, only about 550 calories in a Big Mac.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Mukhang pera said:


> Anyone here have anything to prove this man wrong?


I'll watch this video with my spouse and I'll tell you later (she's a dietitian/nutritionist).

Eating healthy is pretty easy once you understand that all what you need to do is to stop buying processed/transformed foods and make sure to balance properly fats, carbs and proteins and get all your vitamins and minerals.

My spouse and I are cooking everything from raw. That means there's about 80% of the aisles of the grocery store that we just never visit.

Everything that we buy are one-ingredient items with very few exceptions.

There's no need to buy sauces, vinaigrettes, cookies, chips, crackers, snacks, juices and soft drinks. Hell, I don't even recall what's in those aisles and why there are so many of them.

We just need fruits, vegetables, rice, oils, nuts, seeds, cereals, herbs and spices, beans, lentils, tofu, tempeh, almond milk, yeast, apple cider vinegar, tahini, soy sauce, maple syrup and that's about it. It's not all one-ingredient, but we're renovating our kitchen and soon we'll make absolutely everything by ourselves.


----------

