• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* - - - - 9 votes

Contest this paleo/atkins people!

paleo atkins hyperlipid

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#31 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 03 January 2012 - 02:38 AM

^^^I've always been pretty critical of the low carb/paleo thing, but after experimenting for a bit I'm starting to feel the same the way. My body runs surprisingly well on fat. Individual genes maybe?

Diseases associated with high fat are probably the result of AGEs and excess protein.

I fell for the anti-fat hysteria for a long time, and it was quite an eye opener when I figured out what I was missing. Individual genes? Yeah, ApoE, at the very least, and probably a dozen others.

The main disease associated with fat is arterial plaque, and that is influenced strongly by various micronutrients and inflammation, among other things. Depending on these things, your genes, and the rest of your diet, lipids certainly play a role in plaque formation, but they aren't the only factor, and may not be that important of a factor.


I have some questions for you Niner:

-Could you please explain to me what's bad about excess protein in regards to longevity?

-How do you find out what type of genes you have that make you at higher risk for forming arterial plaque?

- Is inflammation we experience in our blood vessels just from free radicals?

- Omega 6 and 3 oils and high glycemic index foods are some of the causes of arterial imflamation right? Is it because they oxidize once in your bloodstream and create free radicals that attack your blood vessel walls? If this is correct why is saturated fat less prone to oxidizing?

- Is there any other foods and other things we can avoid to prevent arterial inflammation? I've heard dairy can cause imflamation, is that true? Is dairy only bad if you have an allergy to it or is it not good for anybody?

#32 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 03 January 2012 - 02:48 AM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


Please refrain from using straw man arguments unless you want this thread to continue being a 1 star thread,

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 January 2012 - 03:21 AM

-Could you please explain to me what's bad about excess protein in regards to longevity?

-How do you find out what type of genes you have that make you at higher risk for forming arterial plaque?

- Is inflammation we experience in our blood vessels just from free radicals?

- Omega 6 and 3 oils and high glycemic index foods are some of the causes of arterial imflamation right? Is it because they oxidize once in your bloodstream and create free radicals that attack your blood vessel walls? If this is correct why is saturated fat less prone to oxidizing?

- Is there any other foods and other things we can avoid to prevent arterial inflammation? I've heard dairy can cause imflamation, is that true? Is dairy only bad if you have an allergy to it or is it not good for anybody?


Excess protein will suppress autophagy, the process in which the body breaks apart old proteins in order to get amino acids to make new proteins. Autophagy is good because it gets rid of damaged old proteins that aren't working right.

You can find out your ApoE genotype from 23andMe or your doctor could probably order it and maybe get your insurance company to pick up the tab. There are other places as well that would do it for a fee that may or may not be worth it.

I'm not an inflammation expert, but there's more to it than just free radicals. Exogenous AGEs, for example. Omega 6 oils are precursors to inflammatory mediators. Polyunsaturates in general are more subject to oxidation than MUFA or SFA. Rather than trying to make sense of the mechanism of action, I think it's better to look at the outcomes of various nutritional regimens. Omega 6 oils (in excess) and high glycemic foods are not associated with great outcomes. Oxidation happens at the double bonds in fatty acids, and SFA doesn't have any double bonds.

I don't know about the dairy inflammation connection. Again, I think it's best to look at outcomes: If you compare people who consume more dairy with people who consume less, the ones who consume more live longer. It would certainly be bad if you have an allergy to it, and like anything else there is such a thing as "too much".

#34 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 03 January 2012 - 03:27 AM

Here's more..

Basis for Weight Loss

No scientific evidence exists to suggest that the low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet has a metabolic advantage over more conventional diets for weight reduction. The fact remains, however, that some patients have lost weight on the low-carbohydrate diet "unrestricted in calories." Why is this so? Yudkin and Carey[23] have reported experiments that provide an adequate explanation of the long-term weight loss that can occur when a "ketogenic" diet is consumed. These workers studied six obese adults who were carefully instructed in the weighing and recording of their complete diets. They were told to eat their usual food for two weeks. At the end of this time, they were asked to reduce the carbohydrate in their diets to about 50 gm/day for an additional two weeks and to eat as much protein and fat as they liked. Specifically, the subjects were told that they could eat unlimited amounts of such foods as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter, margarine, and cream. The intake of calories, protein, fat, and carbohydrate from the daily dietary records was then calculated.

In all subjects, there was a reduction in calories ranging from 13% to 55% during the time they were consuming the low-carbohydrate diet. Interestingly, none of the six subjects ate more fat, and three of them showed a significant reduction of fat intake, ranging from 22 to 35 gm/day. It was concluded that weight lost on such diets was principally due to the consumption of fewer calories.

http://www.atkinsexp...Association.htm


Also don't forget those ketones you need to piss out in your urine and loss of glycogen stores in the muscles also causes a significant amount of water loss.

#35 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:01 AM

Much as I hate to feed the trolls, TheFountain here is clearly the arrogant one. He should do some rudimentary research into the areas he criticizes from less biased sources, and quit complaining about others' failure to engage his "evidence" when he exhibits same vice. Better still, he should go peddle his nonsense at the pro-Paleo and pro-carbohydrate restriction forums and see whether he can convert the poor, benighted masses there. Those people will put Fountain's tail between his legs in short order.


Not one of you arrogant fools has been able to contest the following factual statement:

There is absolutely NO evidence that insulin causes weight gain in healthy individuals, despite what gary, mister super arrogant taubes, claims.

Yet you fools continue to down vote these factual statements, with no evidence to back it up at all.

Who's arrogant again?

All this forum is, is a series of biased posts by bias people who seek to ostracize anybody with contrary experience and/or contrary evidence.

You're a bunch of fucking children, despite how civilized you act in your passive little pussy aggressiveness toward people who don't concur with your unproven so called facts.

YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY WHERE PROVEN FACTS ARE CONCERNED! NOT MY VIEW!

THE BURDEN IS THUS ON YOU, NOT ME, TO PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS!

I would be really fucking depressed if the only kind of people who reached escape velocity are the kind who think like you people do. That would be tragic to the future of our species. As far as I can tell, most of you have little to no compassion for the poor and needy. You sit here all day trying to prove actual facts wrong with nothing but shitty opinions based on you thinking you know better than every reputable scientist in the world and then have the audacity to say I need evidence? Where is yours?

Really, I am caring less and less if I get fucking banned from this forum by the day. Because I don't feel in place on this forum, and on top of it, there is an active effort on the part of the FOOLS who dominate this forum to get me out with their little passive pussy aggressiveness and their little COCK SUCKING down voting.

You are all obviously too pussy to admit when you hate someone, so you have to do so in your little weak, passive way. That is, by down voting FACTUAL MOTHER FUCKING STATEMENTS! Tell me, how can any of you down-vote factual statements?

Edited by TheFountain, 03 January 2012 - 10:11 AM.

  • dislike x 6

#36 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:12 AM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


Please refrain from using straw man arguments unless you want this thread to continue being a 1 star thread,

I AM STATING FACTS! Where is the evidence that insulin causes weight gain in healthy people?

The answer is, NO WHERE!
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 1

#37 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:19 AM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


Please refrain from using straw man arguments unless you want this thread to continue being a 1 star thread,

I AM STATING FACTS! Where is the evidence that insulin causes weight gain in healthy people?

The answer is, NO WHERE!


The insulin mechanism is a straw man in this thread, because the thread is about the overall value to our health of the various diets, not about mechanisms. At least that was the way it started out. No one else is arguing about insulin.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#38 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:22 AM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


i have a phd in epidemiology and am on faculty at a tier 1 school of medicine, that's why i feel qualified to discuss the flaws of these studies :)

the major flaw of these studies is that dietary fat was generally guilty by association and improper causal inference was rampant. namely, most people in the general population that consume more dietary fat are a.) consuming unhealthy fats and b.) consuming tons of sugar along with it. no epidemiological analysis with which i am familiar ever included total sugar or refined carbohydrate consumption in the regression models used to determine the associations. very few make distinctions of the types of dietary fat consumed, which has a tremendous health impact. these are two massive sources of confounding that weaken the causal inference substantially.

epidemiology is an incredibly powerful tool, but the major nutritional epi studies to date are fatally flawed. the rct data is much more meaningful, and the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of a lower-carbohydrate approach when it comes to weight loss and reduction in cvd risk factors.


Still, no amount of you saying you know better than the studies makes it so. Regardless if you THINK that false correlation is the cause. Were you there? Do you know every minutiae of detail that was and was not accounted for? Did you partake in conducting the studies?

Also, from what I know epidemiological surveys are not the only evidence, there are actual studies on it outside of epidemiology. Are they ALL flawed? Really? I somehow do not think so.


With regard to weight loss, there is absolutely no evidence of metabolic advantage in the macronutrient composition of high fat, low carb diets. Where is the evidence of this? All indications are that paleo dieters EAT LESS CALORIES than normal western dieters.

The simple law of thermodynamics would explain that. It seems.

You guys always suit yourselves with 'fill in the gaps' explanations. Another is when someone brings up the fact that high carb cultures, such as asiatics on their TRADITIONAL diets, do not suffer obesity epidemics. But of course you guys fill in the gaps with comments like 'oh it must be this aspect of their diet, or that aspect of their lifestyles'. And this haphazard guess work is science?

And then you have the audacity to vote down my factual comments about how there is no evidence insulin drives weight gain in healthy humans?

Edited by TheFountain, 03 January 2012 - 10:24 AM.

  • dislike x 3

#39 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:31 AM

the problem is that 'could be' and 'is' are not the same things.

Our universe 'could be' made up of holographic frequency patterns. Does that mean it is?

We may or may not prove that the universe is a hologram some day, but it does not directly effect our lives or health if we do not prove it to be so within the next 20 years.

Guessing is not the best approach to dietary science. Especially guessing with such unfounded arrogance behind it.


My question is, if saturated fat really is the culprit, then how exactly is it doing its dirty work? Until we have that answer, we won't know if it's the saturated fat or something else. Also consider the french 'paradox'.


there are already studies indicating that an over-abundance of saturated fat in the diet can reduce the pancreas's ability to secrete insulin.

There is also research indicating too much that saturated fat may not be the best thing for womens health either, causing polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Yea, womens health issues, remember those? Didn't think so. I sometimes forget that I am on a majority male forum, since so many of you are passive aggressive most of the time.

At least my occasional aggression is not of the passive variety!

Edited by TheFountain, 03 January 2012 - 10:32 AM.


#40 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:33 AM

Denying that because you think you are smarter than a study environment is plain arrogant.

You sitting here and guessing that you are smarter than a study environment is very arrogant

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do

unfounded arrogance


It's not nice to call people arrogant.

It's not nice to vote down FACTUAL STATEMENTS niner. But you do not seem to mind when people do that, one bit now, do you?
  • dislike x 3

#41 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:45 AM

results after a year looked pretty good for atkins.


That had nothing to do with metabolic advantage and everything to do with eating less calories.

Why do you insist on acting like the paleo movement is not still in its infancy and does not lack adequate study to indicate that it is a healthy long term diet?

Why do you act like there are not even more studies indicating that other diets are better for long term metabolic advantage than atkins or paleo?

Why this intentional ignoring of perfectly fine data?


These were free-living ad libitum humans. If a higher fat got them to eat fewer calories, then that's a win in and of itself, though the paper didn't address that specifically. I never said anything about metabolic advantage. How are you defining that, anyway?

Isn't the paleo diet about 1.5 million years old? I just posted a paper that contests the anti-Atkins thing from the AMA. Atkins is not necessarily paleo, though it could be, and paleo may not be Atkins. Neither are necessarily hyperlipid and vice versa. Have you posted studies showing that other diets are better than paleo? If so, I must have missed them. I don't mean to ignore good data. The RCT that Frederickson posted was good data, right? How can you beat an RCT? Are you ignoring it?


One of the doctors mentioned in the article of research citations I pasted was someone with hundreds of scientific articles under his belt. Does that mean absolutely nothing?

You are not aware of there being RTC's on other diets? Really? As far as I am aware there have been several. \

Why are you not convinced that statistical correlation does not mean anything?

Believe me, I am not against fat. I don't like you weaving that web of deceit. I never said fat is horrible. But 60% of calories? I see no evidence that this is healthy for long term consumption.

And MUCH less evidence that saturated fat is.

My point about metabolic advantage was more a point about thermodynamics. Any diet that involves less consumption of calories will lead to weight loss, which is something gary taubes contested with his unfactual statements about insulin driving weight gain, right?
I have incorporated aspects of 'paleo' into my diet some time ago. For example, adding HEALTHY fat, and a lot more vegetables (which was already an aspect of vegan diets).

The problem is none of you will listen to my side of things. You have this snarky attitude about it, as if I am making things up as I go along.

I got voted down on my thread about how a high fat diet caused symptoms of fear of heights and agorophobia.

Who admitted without reluctance that maybe too much fat could be the culprit? Nobody as far as I recall.

By too much fat, I am talking hundred and fifty or so grams. That is why I consume SOME healthy fat without going overboard like people like Duke suggest!

If I followed dukes dietary recommendations, who knows what the outcome would be? I don't want to find out because I already tried consuming that much fat, with very low carb intake and it seemed to lead me astray.

But then here comes that 'fill in the gaps' logic you all have again. It MUST have been anything but the fat! Right?

#42 mpe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 275 posts
  • 182
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 January 2012 - 11:22 AM

the problem is that 'could be' and 'is' are not the same things.

Our universe 'could be' made up of holographic frequency patterns. Does that mean it is?

We may or may not prove that the universe is a hologram some day, but it does not directly effect our lives or health if we do not prove it to be so within the next 20 years.

Guessing is not the best approach to dietary science. Especially guessing with such unfounded arrogance behind it.


My question is, if saturated fat really is the culprit, then how exactly is it doing its dirty work? Until we have that answer, we won't know if it's the saturated fat or something else. Also consider the french 'paradox'.

e

From the little I have read, the plaques are made up of unsaturated fat, calcium and other components, but not saturated fats so how can saturated fats cause the problem ?
  • dislike x 1

#43 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 January 2012 - 01:12 PM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


Please refrain from using straw man arguments unless you want this thread to continue being a 1 star thread,

I AM STATING FACTS! Where is the evidence that insulin causes weight gain in healthy people?

The answer is, NO WHERE!


The insulin mechanism is a straw man in this thread, because the thread is about the overall value to our health of the various diets, not about mechanisms. At least that was the way it started out. No one else is arguing about insulin.


How is it the straw man when the whole reason people bash carbohydrates is the claim that it causes weight gain more than fat due to insulin production?
  • dislike x 2

#44 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:35 PM

there are already studies indicating that an over-abundance of saturated fat in the diet can reduce the pancreas's ability to secrete insulin.

There is also research indicating too much that saturated fat may not be the best thing for womens health either, causing polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Yea, womens health issues, remember those? Didn't think so. I sometimes forget that I am on a majority male forum, since so many of you are passive aggressive most of the time.

At least my occasional aggression is not of the passive variety!


I think you are over-generalizing. For example, PCOS is related to hyperinsulinemia, so reduced insulin secretion, meaning increased sensitivity AND PCOS doesn't fit. Really man, I don't mean to come off as passive aggressive. I've only been semi-paleo for a little over a month, depending on my 23andme results, I may change back or go full paleo. I think you and Michael Rae make some good arguments against high saturated fat, and I'm definitely in the low protein camp, but I'm far from convinced either way..

#45 trance

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Dallas, Tx

Posted 03 January 2012 - 05:47 PM

Excess protein will suppress autophagy, the process in which the body breaks apart old proteins in order to get amino acids to make new proteins. Autophagy is good because it gets rid of damaged old proteins that aren't working right.

You can find out your ApoE genotype from 23andMe or your doctor could probably order it and maybe get your insurance company to pick up the tab. There are other places as well that would do it for a fee that may or may not be worth it.



I looked around here, but found nothing specific during my search.

So I'll just ask ... if 23andme says that I do not have the APOE ε4 variant, how does that translate to a recommended dietary plan?

Thanks.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#46 Ron

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 13

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:05 PM

You would want to limit dietary cholesterol and fat intake. Even low carb advocates tend to agree on this.
http://www.trackyour...o-low-carb.html
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#47 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:55 PM

Denying that because you think you are smarter than a study environment is plain arrogant.

You sitting here and guessing that you are smarter than a study environment is very arrogant

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do

unfounded arrogance


It's not nice to call people arrogant.


Niner, can you look closely through out the history of this thread before dispensing statements like this?

I was not the first, during the course of this thread, to begin with 'calling people' things. frederickson was. He called me 'ignorant'.

So, that gets a pass, but somehow calling people arrogant in a blanket statement does not?

Can you comprehend why I assume there is a bias here? Your judgment is not being evenly dispensed.
  • dislike x 2

#48 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 January 2012 - 01:00 PM

there are already studies indicating that an over-abundance of saturated fat in the diet can reduce the pancreas's ability to secrete insulin.

There is also research indicating too much that saturated fat may not be the best thing for womens health either, causing polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Yea, womens health issues, remember those? Didn't think so. I sometimes forget that I am on a majority male forum, since so many of you are passive aggressive most of the time.

At least my occasional aggression is not of the passive variety!


I think you are over-generalizing. For example, PCOS is related to hyperinsulinemia, so reduced insulin secretion, meaning increased sensitivity AND PCOS doesn't fit. Really man, I don't mean to come off as passive aggressive. I've only been semi-paleo for a little over a month, depending on my 23andme results, I may change back or go full paleo. I think you and Michael Rae make some good arguments against high saturated fat, and I'm definitely in the low protein camp, but I'm far from convinced either way..


May I ask why blanket statements on the paleo side are allowed, without anyone so much as pointing it out, but when any non-paleo argument engages in so called generalization, it is not permitted and pointed out almost immediately? Can you explain the psychological approach to that please? I am having a difficult time comprehending it.
  • dislike x 1

#49 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 January 2012 - 03:10 PM

Denying that because you think you are smarter than a study environment is plain arrogant.

You sitting here and guessing that you are smarter than a study environment is very arrogant

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do

unfounded arrogance


It's not nice to call people arrogant.


Niner, can you look closely through out the history of this thread before dispensing statements like this?

I was not the first, during the course of this thread, to begin with 'calling people' things. frederickson was. He called me 'ignorant'.

So, that gets a pass, but somehow calling people arrogant in a blanket statement does not?

Can you comprehend why I assume there is a bias here? Your judgment is not being evenly dispensed.


Yes, I've looked closely at this thread, and others like it. Frederickson's post got a pass because it was extremely on point, providing excellent data that contests your argument, which is exactly what you asked for. I don't think you've ever acknowledged that paper. His mention of your ignorance was frankly pretty mild, as you did seem to be unaware of the state of nutritional RCTs. It wasn't "nice", but it happened only once. Your insults occurred four times before I even mentioned it, and they were directed at the whole community. The reason I posted that is because you think that people are opposed to you because of your ideas. I think people really are having a problem with your manner. Finally, there is a big difference between 'ignorance' and 'arrogance'. Ignorance just means not knowing something. It's not a character defect, and is correctable. Arrogance is more of a character defect, and accusing someone of it is pretty insulting. Blanket statements directed at 100 people are, given equal insults, 100 times worse, wouldn't you think?
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#50 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 January 2012 - 03:30 PM

Denying that because you think you are smarter than a study environment is plain arrogant.

You sitting here and guessing that you are smarter than a study environment is very arrogant

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do

unfounded arrogance


It's not nice to call people arrogant.


Niner, can you look closely through out the history of this thread before dispensing statements like this?

I was not the first, during the course of this thread, to begin with 'calling people' things. frederickson was. He called me 'ignorant'.

So, that gets a pass, but somehow calling people arrogant in a blanket statement does not?

Can you comprehend why I assume there is a bias here? Your judgment is not being evenly dispensed.


Yes, I've looked closely at this thread, and others like it. Frederickson's post got a pass because it was extremely on point, providing excellent data that contests your argument, which is exactly what you asked for. I don't think you've ever acknowledged that paper. His mention of your ignorance was frankly pretty mild, as you did seem to be unaware of the state of nutritional RCTs. It wasn't "nice", but it happened only once. Your insults occurred four times before I even mentioned it, and they were directed at the whole community. The reason I posted that is because you think that people are opposed to you because of your ideas. I think people really are having a problem with your manner. Finally, there is a big difference between 'ignorance' and 'arrogance'. Ignorance just means not knowing something. It's not a character defect, and is correctable. Arrogance is more of a character defect, and accusing someone of it is pretty insulting. Blanket statements directed at 100 people are, given equal insults, 100 times worse, wouldn't you think?


None of what you just said explains why you feel so eager to point out how wrong it is for me to call other people arrogant, but not for them to call me ignorant. Mild? Either way it is name calling, is it not? Can you please explain in logical detail how referring to someone as 'ignorant' is mild by comparison to referring to someone as arrogant? To say someone is 'ignorant' is a direct insult to their intelligence. Hypothetically speaking, if someone does possess the 'character defect' of arrogance, is it not of the utmost importance, despite their educational level, that we point out this defect? Ignorance is still a derogatory term, which implies that you are in possession of something the individual you are referring to as 'ignorant' is not, this term was used to describe black people for the longest time, remember that? Niner, I have tried speaking to you, and you are simply and irrevocably being an outright ass kisser to paleo people, and siding with them as per your unreasonable bias, despite any counter points made. So much so that now, according to your quite inadequate explanation, it is alright to call someone 'ignorant' because (in your opinion) they were 'on point' with what they said. But wait, according to you, I cannot call someone arrogant while being 'on point' at the same time, that is entitled to negative votes, right?

Niner, as a student of psychology, I ask you to please reflect on your habits and biases. Because you are obviously not seeing them objectively, and are forming any and all spur of the moment explanations to justify and explain it away.

As far as not addressing the RCT he pointed out, it seems like a common theme to ignore things here, doesn't it? I have not had one reasonable explanation as to why all the studies on saturated fat and meat consumption linking to cancer should be ignored. Only guess work. But then the RCT you are referencing does not point out long term disease correlation, does it? Because it is not designed that way, is it?

We can all play this game. What I want to know is, why is it seemingly alright for you to do it, but not me?

Edited by TheFountain, 04 January 2012 - 03:36 PM.

  • dislike x 2

#51 enfield

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 17
  • Location:California

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:16 PM

I have not had one reasonable explanation as to why all the studies on saturated fat and meat consumption linking to cancer should be ignored.


the "link" seems primarily due to the types of meats that are included in the studies (i.e cooked and processed meats). Plain, raw, grass-fed or wild meats are unlikely to increase ones risk for cancer.

and the link hasn't always been very convincingly demonstrated among all types of cancer. It seems even the kinds of meat that people commonly eat cause less cancer than the sources of carbohydrates they would replace the meat with. Take these studies with prostate and stomach cancer, for example:


http://onlinelibrary...CO;2-Y/abstract

The relationship between incidence of prostate cancer and intake of dietary fat and foods rich in fat was studied in 25,708 men aged 16–56 years attending a Norwegian health screening in 1977–1983. Linkage to the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway ensured a complete follow-up until December 31, 1992. Diet was recorded on a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire at the time of screening, and 72 cases of prostate cancer were identified during follow-up. At the end of follow-up, mean age of the total study sample was 56 years (range 19–68), while mean age at diagnosis of prostate cancer was 60 years (range 47–67). No association was found between energy-adjusted intake of total fat, saturated fat, mono-unsaturated fat or poly-unsaturated fat and the incidence of prostate cancer. Significant positive associations were found for body mass index (BMI) and consumption of hamburgers/meatballs, while no association was found with consumption of frankfurters/sausages and a significant negative association with the weekly number of main meals with meat. A significantly increased risk of prostate cancer was associated with skim milk as compared to whole milk. Milk preference (skim vs. whole) was associated significantly positively with BMI. Our study of a relatively young cohort does not confirm previous case-control and cohort studies suggesting that dietary fat, especially from animal sources, is associated positively with risk of prostate cancer.




http://onlinelibrary...CO;2-P/abstract

Stomach cancer remains the second leading cancer in incidence in Shanghai, China, despite its decline over the past 2 decades. To clarify risk factors for this common malignancy, we conducted a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China. Included in the study were 1,124 stomach cancer patients (age 20–69) newly diagnosed in 1988–1989 and 1,451 controls randomly selected among Shanghai residents. Usual adult dietary intake was assessed using a comprehensive food frequency questionnaire. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression models. Risks of stomach cancer were inversely associated with high consumption of several food groups, including fresh vegetables and fruits, poultry, eggs, plant oil, and some nutrients, such as protein, fat, fiber and antioxidant vitamins. By contrast, risks increased with increasing consumption of dietary carbohydrates, with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–2.1) and 1.9 (95% CI 1.3–2.9) in the highest quartile of intake among men (p for trend = 0.02) and women (p = 0.0007), respectively. Similar increases in risk were associated with frequent intake of noodles and bread in both men (p = 0.07) and women (p = 0.05) after further adjustment for fiber consumption. In addition, elevated risks were associated with frequent consumption of preserved, salty or fried foods, and hot soup/porridge, and with irregular meals, speed eating and binge eating. No major differences in risk were seen according to subsite (cardia vs. non-cardia). Our findings add to the evidence that diet plays a major role in stomach cancer risk and suggest the need for further evaluation of risks associated with carbohydrates and starchy foods as well as the mechanisms involved


Edited by enfield, 04 January 2012 - 10:23 PM.

  • like x 1

#52 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:58 AM

With regard to weight loss, there is absolutely no evidence of metabolic advantage in the macronutrient composition of high fat, low carb diets. Where is the evidence of this? All indications are that paleo dieters EAT LESS CALORIES than normal western dieters.

The simple law of thermodynamics would explain that. It seems.


most low-carb and/or paleo (somebody correctly posted that these are not interchangeable the way you use them) are high in protein. there is clearly a metabolic advantage to diets that are high in protein as they have a greater thermic effect than diets high in carbohydrate. the

thermic effect of nutrients, expressed as percentage of their energy content, is 6-8% for carbohydrates and 25-30% for proteins.


Edited by frederickson, 05 January 2012 - 04:01 AM.

  • like x 4

#53 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:51 AM

if 23andme says that I do not have the APOE ε4 variant, how does that translate to a recommended dietary plan?


You would want to limit dietary cholesterol and fat intake. Even low carb advocates tend to agree on this.
http://www.trackyour...o-low-carb.html


That trackyourplaque link is for people who are ApoE 4. Trance is either 2 or 3. The chart in this post is the nicest summary of ApoE effects that I've seen. If you are ApoE 2, eat a moderate fat diet, alcohol is good for both HDL and LDL, and take fish oil. (not low fat due to effect on small dense LDL) If you are ApoE 3, eat either a low or moderate fat diet (moderate preferable for effect on small dense LDL and, though not mentioned in chart, HDL), alcohol is good for HDL only, and take fish oil. If you're Apo E 4, limit fat and don't drink. Fish oil is a mixed bag for you.

#54 Ron

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 13

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:57 AM

Sorry, misread trance's post.

#55 trance

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Dallas, Tx

Posted 05 January 2012 - 05:05 AM

if 23andme says that I do not have the APOE ε4 variant, how does that translate to a recommended dietary plan?


You would want to limit dietary cholesterol and fat intake. Even low carb advocates tend to agree on this.
http://www.trackyour...o-low-carb.html


That trackyourplaque link is for people who are ApoE 4. Trance is either 2 or 3. The chart in this post is the nicest summary of ApoE effects that I've seen. If you are ApoE 2, eat a moderate fat diet, alcohol is good for both HDL and LDL, and take fish oil. (not low fat due to effect on small dense LDL) If you are ApoE 3, eat either a low or moderate fat diet (moderate preferable for effect on small dense LDL and, though not mentioned in chart, HDL), alcohol is good for HDL only, and take fish oil. If you're Apo E 4, limit fat and don't drink. Fish oil is a mixed bag for you.


Yeap, I figured it all out reading the referenced blog, and further explanations I found elsewhere. I knew the advice from Ron was for ApoE 4 when I read his reply.

I'm ApoE 3 according to the SNP markers on 23andme.

#56 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:06 PM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


Please refrain from using straw man arguments unless you want this thread to continue being a 1 star thread,

I AM STATING FACTS! Where is the evidence that insulin causes weight gain in healthy people?

The answer is, NO WHERE!


He never mentioned Taubes in the first place. How do you know if he agrees with Gary Taubes or not? You don't. You should have just left it at "how exactly are these studies flawed?"
  • dislike x 1

#57 hggh

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 13
  • Location:California

Posted 06 January 2012 - 08:25 PM

What about low carb plant based diet beats Atkins / animal based one on mortality @5min : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iojFtL4jMao&feature=BFa&list=PL53AA35449C7DD652&lf=plpp_video#t=4m59s
(can someone look up the 2 studies -- video is a whole playlist btw http://is.gd/9WAfHW)

Eades has yet to respond
http://twitter.com/#...415770524565504 & Denise minger hasn't responded to this http://rawfoodsos.co...v-comment-15605
-
Offtopic on Cashews discussed months/years ago:
http://www.reddit.co..._nuts_in_their/

Edited by hggh, 06 January 2012 - 08:32 PM.

  • like x 1

#58 mpe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 275 posts
  • 182
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:04 AM

Hggh,
Your example seems to be a result of vitamin c deficiency, a problem which a non supplementer would likely encounter on the Atkins diet, but probably not on the Paleo diet. In fact I don't think you would suffer any defiencies on Paleo but would likely suffer many on Atkins.

I don't think it is useful to link Paleo and Atkins together as the only things they have in common is the inclusion of meat(grass fed, pastured animals not factory farmed) and exclusion of grains.
  • dislike x 2

#59 ViolettVol

  • Guest
  • 275 posts
  • 163
  • Location:London

Posted 14 January 2012 - 01:34 PM

What about low carb plant based diet beats Atkins / animal based one on mortality @5min : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iojFtL4jMao&feature=BFa&list=PL53AA35449C7DD652&lf=plpp_video#t=4m59s
(can someone look up the 2 studies -- video is a whole playlist btw http://is.gd/9WAfHW)

Eades has yet to respond
http://twitter.com/#...415770524565504 & Denise minger hasn't responded to this http://rawfoodsos.co...v-comment-15605
-
Offtopic on Cashews discussed months/years ago:
http://www.reddit.co..._nuts_in_their/



So what is everyone's opinion on this video?

#60 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 January 2012 - 03:51 PM

So what is everyone's opinion on this video?


I haven't gone through the sources, but it paints a pretty ugly picture of hyper-animal product and hyperlipid diets. The sources look pretty good. The guy seems to have a bit of an axe to grind, in terms of wanting to "expose" Atkins, but then again, maybe this part of Atkins needs some exposing.

There's a great deal of needless argument around here because we don't seem to be communicating accurately. When I make a "pro fat" statement, it's a intended as a counterweight to the Low Fat extremism of the last 30 years. Other people might make "anti fat" statements that are intended to oppose a hyperlipid diet. Regardless of the macronutrient ratio that we select, our nutrients could be sourced either from plants, animals, or some mixture thereof. It's sometimes hard to tell if pro plant nutrition advice is coming from a perspective of health or a perspective of Vegan ideology. The term "Paleo" is constantly being conflated with Hyperlipid or hypermeat, though it is neither of those in reality, being mainly defined by the abscence of evolutionarily modern foods. I just think we need to do a better job of defining what it is we are for or against.
  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: paleo, atkins, hyperlipid

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users