28 replies to this topic

[Bram]

It seems likely to me that nutrition can have some impact on healthspan, but I actually found it quite hard to find what *exactly* I should eat and drink for optimal health. There's all the information of the dietary reference intake etc, but that seems to require a lot of work; counting & analyzing everything you take in, etc. And of course on the other hand there's the basic stuff about "eat whole grains", "eat more fruit & vegetables", but how much? And which? And when?

So my question: is anyone aware of a weekly or so list that says "eat exactly this at so and so time" (based on solid scientific data, of course)? I know the optimal nutrition would probably vary from person to person, but it's got to be better than what I'm doing now (which is just getting whatever I feel like).

I realize I probably sound like I'm asking for a 'quick fix' without doing the proper research myself - forgive me for that. I'm just not really into the 'nutrition-scene' so I don't know where to start looking. The only 'meal plans' I did find seemed to have some specific goal in mind (mostly weight loss, or among the life extensionists: CR), which is not really what I'm after - I'm really quite healthy, I'd just like to keep it that way for the rest of my life (ie, indefinitely ).

Edited by Bram, 12 January 2008 - 04:10 PM.

[rabagley]

So my question: is anyone aware of a weekly or so list that says "eat exactly this at so and so time" (based on solid scientific data, of course)? I know the optimal nutrition would probably vary from person to person, but it's got to be better than what I'm doing now (which is just getting whatever I feel like).

Well, you asked, so I hope that I don't get lambasted for my advice (which is based on the body of knowledge that I've read, so it almost certainly isn't 100% complete and authoritative).

First, the science of "the ideal diet" is very much contested at this point. The low-fat group has the authorities on its side. The low-carb group looks like it has the science on its side (again, according to what I've read). Specifically, the "eat more whole grains" advice does not seem to be supported by the scientific data. If anything, that advice is contradicted many times over.

I do know of two books that together make a very effective set of science-based argument sabout how to eat a life-extending selection of foods. The plan is in "The Protein Power Lifeplan". A solid explanation of the history of diet and the science of diet (which, along the way, substantiates much of what's in the first book) is in "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

Now the diet plan provided in "The Protein Power Lifeplan" does not schedule each and every meal. Nobody considers that a reasonable thing to ask for, so nobody does that. What they do provide is a list of foods and portion sizes that yield something close to their "ideal diet". To clarify what that means, the paleolithic hunter-gatherer diet (with the emphasis most definitely on hunter) is considered nearly ideal since that's what our bodies were provided for tens of thousands of generations and that's what our bodies are still adapted to best utilize. Most of us are less than a hundred or even fifty generations away from that lifestyle, so evolutionarily speaking, we're hunter-gatherers who have access to grocery stores.

But as I mentioned at the beginning of my reply, the scientists, nutritionists and the authorities are still wrangling over what the ideal human diet really is. You're going to have to do some learning and then make up your own mind as to what dietary information you find most credible.

[Bram]

Well, you asked, so I hope that I don't get lambasted for my advice.

Lol, of course not - thanks for the suggestions.

First, the science of "the ideal diet" is very much contested at this point. The low-fat group has the authorities on its side. The low-carb group looks like it has the science on its side (again, according to what I've read). Specifically, the "eat more whole grains" advice does not seem to be supported by the scientific data. If anything, that advice is contradicted many times over.

I figured there was a lot of disagreement in the field, but I actually hoped science (as opposed to all those popular figures proclaiming this or that diet) had at least some agreement by now..

To clarify what that means, the paleolithic hunter-gatherer diet (with the emphasis most definitely on hunter) is considered nearly ideal since that's what our bodies were provided for tens of thousands of generations and that's what our bodies are still adapted to best utilize. Most of us are less than a hundred or even fifty generations away from that lifestyle, so evolutionarily speaking, we're hunter-gatherers who have access to grocery stores.

Hmm, I'm quite skeptical about the "hunter-gatherer diet". We're probably not that genetically different indeed, but our lifestyles most definitely are, let alone our lifespans. Hunter-gatherers really didn't have to worry about age-associated disease; but instead about getting enough energy for the next hunt or migration or whatever. But then again, that's just my uninformed guess.
Plus, those perfect American smiles and people in white coats to appear scientific on the cover really freak me out .

Now the diet plan provided in "The Protein Power Lifeplan" does not schedule each and every meal. Nobody considers that a reasonable thing to ask for, so nobody does that.

It's just that all the details of which specific nutrients you need and how much etc, is really rather dull if you ask me - I'd much rather spend my time studying other life-extension science. Hence the hope that there was a list with an ideal diet. Forgive my laziness - is it indeed really that unreasonable?

[DukeNukem]

Bram,

I've never seen one single book that gets everything right, IMO.

Generally...

o Avoid red meats, dairy and most grains (oatmeal is a worthy exception, but in moderation).
o Avoid anything unnatural, such as artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, trans fats, etc.
o Try to eat whole foods versus processed foods.
o Avoid overly processed drinks of any kind, include sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, premade protein drinks, etc.
o And avoid fruit drinks of any kind (even unprocessed).
o Try to eat a variety of berries and vegetables. The bigger fruits, like apples, bananas and oranges, should be rare treats.
o Eat high-quality, lean protein each meal, at no less than 30% of the total caloric intake.
o If you eat fish, make sure it's not farm raised -- instead eat cold water (stream or ocean) fish.
o Avoid omega-6 vegetable oils, especially salad dressings (the exception is extra virgin olive oil as a salad dressing, an omega-9 oil).
o No fried foods. Ever.
o Keep starches to a minimum, such as rice, potatoes, pasta, etc.
o Do not burn foods, and never eat anything burnt.
o Generally, eat a lot more salads with salmon, chicken and turkey, and eat a lot more non-creamy soups that contain a high-quality protein.

I probably forgot a few tips, writing this off the top of my head.

No one is perfect, and it's okay to break some of these guidelines once in a while. Stick to in 90% of the time.

[drmz]

Bram,

I've never seen one single book that gets everything right, IMO.

Do you (or somebody else) have some book recommendations despite the fact that they don't cover 100% about optimal nutrition ? I find it difficult and time consuming to gather all information on the net and i like books.

[rabagley]

Hmm, I'm quite skeptical about the "hunter-gatherer diet". We're probably not that genetically different indeed, but our lifestyles most definitely are, let alone our lifespans. Hunter-gatherers really didn't have to worry about age-associated disease; but instead about getting enough energy for the next hunt or migration or whatever. But then again, that's just my uninformed guess.
Plus, those perfect American smiles and people in white coats to appear scientific on the cover really freak me out .

Personally, I wouldn't have bought it if they weren't offering it for "free" ($8 shipping) on their blog. The cover is the husband and wife pair of doctors (practicing M.D.'s) who have used low-carb, high fat diets to manage diabetes, reverse heart disease, etc in their medical practice. Also, it is getting slightly old in the tooth (2000). I'd like to see an update based on new science since then (which makes it even more plain that natural saturated fats are more beneficial than previously thought). One issue that annoyed me was a frequent recommendation for Cod Liver Oil as a source of EPA and DHA without a single mention of simple Fish Oil for the same beneficial fatty acids without the potentially toxic levels of Vitamin A.

As for your argument about our lifestyle being different as well, you're correct that there are significant differences. They take some time to point out that paleolithic humans tended (and tend) to live longer than modern humans once environmental risks are normalized. They also go into some detail on the question of activity levels and choose to resolve the issue by again moving towards the paleolithic norm. Basically, it's not a diet book, as it includes arguments and advice for changing your lifestyle, including how much time is spent outdoors (lots more, with more unprotected skin exposed) and what to do when you're out there (don't try to exercise all the time, but be more active). I think some of their no-equipment exercise ideas are a little hokey, but some are quite widely respected in athletic training (interval training, to name one, and a variety of routines changed on a daily basis, to name another).

I like and agree with many of the entries on DukeNukem's list. The only disagreement I can see is that I am strongly in favor of red meats and dairy, specifically grass fed(*) meat/dairy and wild game, including non-muscle tissues (kidney, liver, heart, marrow, etc.) along with the full portion of natural fats found in healthy animals. In most ways other than that one caveat, I think Duke's got a great list there. Two statements in particular may bear repeating:

One: avoid processed foods. No need to be pedantic, since vitamins could be considered processed food products, but generally avoid products that come in a sealed plastic wrapper or that have one or more ingredients you can't easily pronounce.

Two: eat whole foods. Whole vegetables, whole fruits, whole eggs, whole poultry, whole fish, etc., (for me, add whole milk and whole meats to that list). Fragments or extracts of foods rarely convey all of the possible benefits of foods, and most of the time, upset a beneficial balance.

If you start working on those two, most of the rest can be learned as you find out what works for you over time.

(*) To clarify my point about grass-fed meats only: grain-fed animals are no healthier than you or I on the same diet (horrifically unhealthy and in constant misery) and the resulting meat is not very well nutritionally balanced. These meats have unusually high quantities of saturated fats, as well an unhealthy mix of fatty acids (w-6 to w-3 ratio of 20:1, or worse, in grain fed animal tissue). There are also a number of unfunded economic externalities caused by purchasing CAFO-fed animal products Antibiotic/hormone accumulation in groundwater, unmanaged toxic waste, increased risk of e coli contamination in nearby irrigation, etc.

IMHO, grain-fed meat is bad enough that I basically become a vegetarian when travelling. Even though I'm essentially a carni/ovo/lacti-vore when cooking at home. YMMV.

Edited by rabagley, 14 January 2008 - 08:21 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Rabagley, when it comes to eating red meat, certainly free-run*, grass-fed, hormone-free, organic is the way to go. I eat a steak of this type once in a while -- a rare treat. But, 90% of your meat should still be lean white (and likewise organic, natural fed, etc.). Here's why: iron. Men, especially, and women over 40, should avoid excess iron intake. Excess iron is a chronic killer.



* Free-range is more of a marketing term now, and most "free-range" animals never take advantage of their free-range fields, and instead stay in their limited enclosures. The Omnivores Dilemma is a good reference for this, and talks about this in fascinating detail. In Canada I've seen the phrase "free-run" used to refer to animals that are truly free-range, roaming their fields, properly exercising their muscles, and leaving generally normal lives.

Edited by DukeNukem, 14 January 2008 - 03:19 PM.

[rabagley]

Rabagley, when it comes to eating red meat, certainly free-run*, grass-fed, hormone-free, organic is the way to go. I eat a steak of this type once in a while -- a rare treat. But, 90% of your meat should still be lean white (and likewise organic, natural fed, etc.). Here's why: iron. Men, especially, and women over 40, should avoid excess iron intake. Excess iron is a chronic killer.

I give blood to keep tested ferritin levels on the "lowish" side of the normal range. I don't have any problems with iron metabolism (no hemochromatosis in my family), so my giving blood every three months or so keeps the lid on stored iron despite a diet very high in red meat, eggs (with yolks), etc. This issue (excess iron intake) and one solution (regularly giving blood) is also discussed extensively in the Protein Power book above, so I didn't mention it in my post. Perhaps I should have.

As for the Michael Pollan reference, I completely agree and also highly recommend "The Omnivore's Dilemma" to Bram as a part of his education. One of my favorite recently-read books. You're quite right to mention that words like "organic" and "free range" have been co-opted by industrial food concerns to suit their purposes, and though there is still some benefit to buying "organic", it's not nearly what food consumers are thinking. Michael Pollan makes a particularly effective argument there (among many good arguments).

So far, pastured and pasture-fed seem to be the terms that I've seen which actually capture the desired intent. Who knows if industrial food will find a way to co-opt those as well...

Edited by rabagley, 14 January 2008 - 04:34 PM.

[caston]

Duke: I am trying to eat more nuts and berries and less fruit but the former is quiet expensive.

I like to eat:

* Apples
* Pears
* Kiwi fruit (I eat about 5 a day for their DNA repair benefits)
* Grapes with seeds

* Blue berries but I'm paying $5AUD for 100g that were transported from the other side of the continent ):

* Macadamia nuts but I'm paying ~$25AUD a kilo
* Almonds which aren't to bad for price

* Spinach
* Bok choy
* Carrots
* Raw cauliflower
* Red cabbage
* Beans
* Brussel sprouts


I avoid nightshades. I hate the taste of tuna but love eating Salmon. I mainly avoid processed meats but sometimes pick up a ham sandwich when in a hurry.

So yeah i'm eating a lot of fruit and I should possibly get my insulin checked but I think our bodies can handle the fructose in fruit a lot better than in candy and corn syrup for example. I'd love to know what is the least damaging basic fuel that our bodies can use.

Edited by caston, 14 January 2008 - 04:51 PM.

[rabagley]

So yeah i'm eating a lot of fruit and I should possibly get my insulin checked but I think our bodies can handle the fructose in fruit a lot better than in candy and corn syrup for example. I'd love to know what is the least damaging basic fuel that our bodies can use.

Based on what I've read, the most beneficial basic fuels are first class proteins (meat, eggs, dairy) and a balanced mixture of fatty acids. Aim for a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 of 3:1 or better and as wide a variety of sources as you can manage. Carbohydrates are not strictly necessary as your body prefers ketones (from fat metabolism) for most energy sources (the brain especially) and can make glucose from protein when necessary in a process called neoglucogenesis. Muscle glycogen is one place where glucose is necessary. If you lift weights, you will find that some dietary carbohydrates will improve your performance and may be required to maintain oversized type II muscle fibers.

High levels of dietary fructose (>20g/day) are implicated in high serum triglycerides, liver insulin resistance, and an unfavorable blood lipid profile (leads to the synthesis of IDL, which become the atherosclerotic "small, dense LDL particles"). A small amount per day won't cause any real issues, but be careful with how much non-berry fruits you consume. Also, starchy fruits, like mango, apple, and banana, have quite a bit of carbohydrates, more than most people think.

Edited by rabagley, 14 January 2008 - 05:46 PM.

[DukeNukem]

>>> I think our bodies can handle the fructose in fruit a lot better than in candy and corn syrup for example.

Fructose is the least healthy of all natural sugars, by a long shot. Fruits generally have little fructose so they can be tolerated as treats. But think of fructose as the sugar that makes you fat, regardless of the source. I rarely eat large fruits, and stick to limited quantities of berries on a daily basis. I prefer to get my fruit-based polyphenols from dried fruit and berry extracts, like New Chapter's Berry Green (I take about 10 grams daily). If I were more active, I would be more relaxed about my avoidance of fruits/berries.

>>> I'd love to know what is the least damaging basic fuel that our bodies can use.

There's no one class of food, the key is to get a mix of high-quality macro-ingredients (fats/oils, protein, carbs). Low fat is not as important as good fat, and if your fats/oils are good quality and in good ratios, a diet higher than one-third fat/oil daily is perfectly healthy. Generally, I try not to exceed one-third fat/oil cals per meal. Carbs are best if they're are fibrous veggies. Proteins are best if they are natural, or high-quality supp powders, like egg whites or whey. Your body will fuel itself most effectively with a good mix of the macros.

Edited by DukeNukem, 14 January 2008 - 09:19 PM.

[Mind]

* Apples
* Pears
* Kiwi fruit (I eat about 5 a day for their DNA repair benefits)
* Grapes with seeds

Kiwi would be tolerable, I think. I have read a few good things about kiwi. The rest are more treats if you are going for optimal health. If you really like to eat apples and you want to avoid all the useless sugar, then eat mostly the skin and leave a large core behind, or buy smaller apples.

[HaloTeK]

How are we to explain studies like this? Less fruits and vegetables as beneficial?

Green tea extract only affects markers of oxidative status postprandially: lasting antioxidant effect of flavonoid-free diet.Young JF, Dragstedt LO, Haraldsdóttir J, Daneshvar B, Kall MA, Loft S, Nilsson L, Nielsen SE, Mayer B, Skibsted LH, Huynh-Ba T, Hermetter A, Sandström B.Research Department of Human Nutrition, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Epidemiological studies suggest that foods rich in flavonoids might reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effect of green tea extract (GTE) used as a food antioxidant on markers of oxidative status after dietary depletion of flavonoids and catechins. The study was designed as a 2 x 3 weeks blinded human cross-over intervention study (eight smokers, eight non-smokers) with GTE corresponding to a daily intake of 18.6 mg catechins/d. The GTE was incorporated into meat patties and consumed with a strictly controlled diet otherwise low in flavonoids. GTE intervention increased plasma antioxidant capacity from 1.35 to 1.56 (P<0.02) in postprandially collected plasma, most prominently in smokers. The intervention did not significantly affect markers in fasting blood samples, including plasma or haemoglobin protein oxidation, plasma oxidation lagtime, or activities of the erythrocyte superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase and catalase. Neither were fasting plasma triacylglycerol, cholesterol, alpha-tocopherol, retinol, beta-carotene, or ascorbic acid affected by intervention. Urinary 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine excretion was also unaffected. Catechins from the extract were excreted into urine with a half-life of less than 2 h in accordance with the short-term effects on plasma antioxidant capacity. Since no long-term effects of GTE were observed, the study essentially served as a fruit and vegetables depletion study. The overall effect of the 10-week period without dietary fruits and vegetables was a decrease in oxidative damage to DNA, blood proteins, and plasma lipids, concomitantly with marked changes in antioxidative defence.

PMID: 12064344 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Also, I think there needs to be more work done on determining optimal protein intake. It seems that for most species, restricting protein intake leads to longevity- any comments on how humans should interpret the data? High protein intake for me seems to wreak my immune system and gives me inflammation- i don't see how people can consume 20-30% protein on a non-caloric restricted diet.

Restricting fat intake might also lead to longevity because of the increase in SHBG on a low fat diet- Increases in IGF-1 and other hormones might increase your muscle- but it doesn't seem to increase longevity. Once again I point out- shorter people like longer than taller people- mainly because of the reduction in circulating hormones <------ or do people really think that is not right? Doesn't it make sense that a relatively small muscled person(lean) would live longer than a large muscled person.

And- if we have to increase our carb consumption- we need to find the right type- maybe asians were onto something with certain forms of white rice- very clean carb source- can be lower glycemic (when compared with other grains) (basmati-converted), doesn't have many anti-nutrients at all - doesn't usually provoke the immune system. Or do we need to find some sort of whole grain- who knows?

[caston]

Also, I think there needs to be more work done on determining optimal protein intake. It seems that for most species, restricting protein intake leads to longevity- any comments on how humans should interpret the data? High protein intake for me seems to wreak my immune system and gives me inflammation- i don't see how people can consume 20-30% protein on a non-caloric restricted diet.

I think we should find out what genes get turned when each of the basic amino acids are restricted.

One theory is that if the body has less amino acids to work with it is more careful about how proteins get folded.

As for high protein and inflammation excess protein may be opportunistically consumed by prions. This might not be an invading prion it could also lead to an
overgrowth and perhaps evolutionary change in good prions. The body doesn't recognise this change in prion activity as part of its own codebase and mobilises more leukocytes to quell the unrest.


Duke: Despite eating a lot of fruit I'm actually *very* lean at the moment. I weigh only 55 kilos and I do have an athletic figure. I think eating more protein would cause me more inflammation so I try to stick to getting my basic amino acids from vegetables. I think the fructose in fruit is much better tollerated if you remain active and keep good overal vascular health.

Edited by caston, 15 January 2008 - 03:29 AM.

[Shannon Vyff]

When I had my BMI at 16.5, I was eating less than 50g protein each day--and had severe problems with wound healing. (I am 5' 10'') I stayed at 16.5 for a year, then increased to 17.5 for the next 5 years. I increased my protein (and pretty much follow DukeNukem's eating tips listed in this thread--to a tee!). With my protein at around 80g, there was a big difference in my health compared to my extreme CR year.

I'm now 18.7, and have been for about a year. I gained weight (very hard when I won't eat anything I see as 'unhealthy') in order to carry another pregnancy. My point with all this is to say if you are exploring eating healthy, and are starting to restrict calories -- watch your protein

[eldar]

Great suggestions, everyone, however I have a slight problem. I've been trying hard to adopt a healthy diet for the past few weeks, however while there seems to be plenty of good advice on what not to eat, I'm a bit stumped as to what I actually should eat.

Because of that I end up eating very little, become starved, and then eat the first thing I can get my hands on (which isn't too healthy);

Can anyone please make a list of good foods that I can include in my diet? Preferably something that will help me fill my 1800 calories per day quota.

Good question. Looking at Duke's exhaustive list of what not to eat, I would find it hard to get the required calories for the day. Especially while trying to build muscle.

At the moment my "core" foods are whey protein, olive oil and oats + lots of veggies. I eat the oats uncooked so I can consume more of them.
Of course there is more to it, like chicken or egg protein at night + some rice or bread occasionally but the above are where I get most of my calories.

Avoid red meats, dairy and most grains (oatmeal is a worthy exception, but in moderation).

Could you clarify what you mean by "in moderation"? Is there something wrong in getting most of the carbs from oats/oatmeal? I've tried to look but haven't found any negative aspects about them. (Other than having somewhat large amounts of iron, but as I don't eat red meat I don't see that as a problem.)

On another note I recall you saying earlier somewhere that you also workout, so I'm interested how you get your fill of daily calories if, as you say, rice, pasta and grains should be minimized?

Edited by ceth, 20 January 2008 - 03:50 PM.

[Mind]

Ceth, Duke is writing from the perspective of squeezing every last second out of your lifespan. If you are an athlete, bodybuilder, or something else that you desire as well as living healthy for a long time, then you will have to adjust. Depending on what you want, you might need more carbs, more protein, whatever. Generally speaking, if you eat a balanced diet, with good porportions of protein, carbs, fats, then you are going to make it to the average lifespan, 80 or so, not bad. You can even eat red meat, consume diary products, and other things that some say are bad, and expect to be pretty healthy, as long as you exercise, and consume these things in moderation.

However, if you are going for extreme life extension, with the knowledge that we have today, then fewer calories, no sugar, and only low glycemic carbs are the best bets.

[eldar]

Ceth, Duke is writing from the perspective of squeezing every last second out of your lifespan. If you are an athlete, bodybuilder, or something else that you desire as well as living healthy for a long time, then you will have to adjust.

The reason I asked, is because I have many times seen Duke posting about his success in gym training. It is this fact combined with the above list of foods that should be avoided that got me intrigued of what his diet might actually consist of.
I wouldn't ask people who do calorie restriction how they get their calories, because that is of course a whole different scenario.

[Bram]

Sorry it took me a while to get back. Very useful and interesting information, thanks!

Duke, most of the things on your list make sense to me, but there were a couple that raised an eyebrow.

o And avoid fruit drinks of any kind (even unprocessed).
What's wrong with those? And what does that leave for drinking? Just green tea and water?

o No fried foods. Ever.
Does that include stir frying etc? For deep frying I can see why that would be wrong. But if you use minimal amounts of oil and are careful of burning the food, I don't see what would be any worse about frying compared to cooking.

o Avoid omega-6 vegetable oils, especially salad dressings (the exception is extra virgin olive oil as a salad dressing, an omega-9 oil).
Aren't omage-6 oils one of the essential fatty acids? Or do we already get them in sufficient quantities elsewhere?

[rabagley]

o And avoid fruit drinks of any kind (even unprocessed).
What's wrong with those? And what does that leave for drinking? Just green tea and water?

Too much sugar, not enough of the rest of the fruit (pulp, peel, etc.). Also, juice allows you to consume those iffy parts of the fruit much faster than if you were eating the whole fruit. You can drink the juice of six oranges in under a minute without giving your body any opportunity to alter appetite-regulating hormones. If you're eating your way through a pile of oranges, your body has much more time to regulate appetite. The other parts of the fruit also cause the digestion process to slow, which further improves appetite regulation.

As for what to drink, I drink black tea, green tea, various herbal infusions (Tazo Passion is wonderful), water, milk from pastured cows, wine, and sometimes one of those flavored waters. My wife likes to dilute juice down by 1:6 or so using a sparkling water, which creates a rather refreshing drink that's not too sugary.

On the question of tea and fluoride, remember this relationship: the more expensive the tea the lower the fluoride levels. This is primarily because the newest leaves are reserved for the most expensive teas and the newest leaves simply haven't been around as long to take up atmospheric fluoride. There's also an effect due to newer tea plantings occurring in less ideal locations, usually closer to industrial sources of fluoride. So I tend to purchase very expensive loose-leaf teas in bulk and enjoy them for many months.

o No fried foods. Ever.
Does that include stir frying etc? For deep frying I can see why that would be wrong. But if you use minimal amounts of oil and are careful of burning the food, I don't see what would be any worse about frying compared to cooking.

As I understand it, the risk of frying is the risk of creating lipid oxides, which spawn free radicals, lead to inflammatory markers, and appear to be particularly athersclerotic (among other negative effects on your body). This is especially likely to happen to polyunsaturated fatty acids, but also happens to monounsaturated and fully saturated fatty acids to a lesser degree. The lipid oxidation process is also temperature and time dependent. Because of the extreme fragility of polyunsaturated fatty acids, stir-frying in olive oil may create more lipid oxides than using butter or another oil rich in fully saturated fats (virgin coconut oil, for instance).

Duke's approach almost entirely removes the risk of taking in lipid oxides, but completely cutting out cooking in oil would limit my food choices too much and I think there are other ways to keep lipid oxidation down. As an alternative approach, I will sautee foods in lard, butter, virgin coconut, or red palm oil, and rely on the measurements which show that the presence of significant quantities of saturated fatty acids "protect" the other fatty acids and the vitamins in the oil and food from oxidation. But I don't try to reuse oil. If there's enough left over and it's in good shape (not scorched, etc.), I'll make a pan sauce and serve that with the dish. Otherwise, it gets pitched.

o Avoid omega-6 vegetable oils, especially salad dressings (the exception is extra virgin olive oil as a salad dressing, an omega-9 oil).
Aren't omage-6 oils one of the essential fatty acids? Or do we already get them in sufficient quantities elsewhere?

Yes, some Omega-6's are essential, and yes, we consume much more than we need. Right now, most USians get fifteen to twenty times as much Omega-6 fatty acids as Omega-3 fatty acids. That should be much closer to 1:1 to make the highest quality cell walls throughout your body. A better balance of Omega-3 to Omega-6 is also strongly anti-inflammatory. So if you do your best to avoid Omega-6's and seek out Omega-3's, you'll be heading back towards the paleolithic lipid balance that your body is most directly adapted.

Edited by rabagley, 23 January 2008 - 07:14 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

Duke's list was as if I wrote it myself! I don't think it is that hard to follow, but it is how I've been living for the past 5 years... I'm brainwashed into thinking things that are good for me are yummy, and things I used to like, I have an aversion to --won't eat them, because I think they are bad for me. If change the way that you eat, it becomes natural and you don't see it as 'restrictive anymore'--you see it as giving the best chance at a long life and it makes you happy .

[luminous]

I pulled this thread up because I'm searching for the optimal salad dressing. I've started eating LOTS of raw, green, leafy vegetables. I really would like to put just a bit of something flavorful on them, but I can't seem to find a commercial brand made of wholesome ingredients which is both oil-free AND sugar-free. Even the often-recommended Annie's Goddess salad dressing has less-than-ideal ingredients:

Ingredients: Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Water, Tahini, Apple Cider Vinegar, Soy Sauce (Water, Soybeans, Wheat, Salt), Lemon Juice, Sea Salt, Garlic, Sesame Seeds, Parsley, Chives, Xanthan Gum.

Note that canola oil is the #1 ingredient. I suspect olive oil is a more healthful choice, but I'd prefer to go oil-free. Recommendations would be most welcome. Also, if anyone knows of a recipe for salad dressing that is both tasty and easy to make, please let me know. TIA!

Edited by luminous, 03 August 2008 - 12:55 AM.

[Shepard]

I pulled this thread up because I'm searching for the optimal salad dressing.

I've come to love Naturally Fresh Balsamic Vinaigrette.Basically no Calories, and a great bite to it.

[Mind]

My taste buds never really agreed with vinaigrette. I mix fresh herbs with extra virgin olive oil and just mix that with fresh or steamed veggies/leafys. Of course, I grow my own herbs (like basil, thyme, oregano, garlic, mints, etc...) so it is easier to make it, but you could always buy the spice shakers from the store.

[rombus]

I used to enjoy balsamic vinaigrette until I started noticing prop 65 warnings by where it was being sold. Seems there is small amounts of lead in it. Here is a link with some more info

http://tangergreen.c...lsamic-vinegar/

[Moonbeam]

Note that canola oil is the #1 ingredient. I suspect olive oil is a more healthful choice, but I'd prefer to go oil-free. Recommendations would be most welcome. Also, if anyone knows of a recipe for salad dressing that is both tasty and easy to make, please let me know. TIA!

Something I've been doing lately to use as salad dressing that's really quick and easy is just dilute salsa with a little apple cider vinegar and olive oil. Sometimes I leave out the oil, and it's OK like that. I usually put kimchi on my salads, which has the spicy sauce with it and that helps too. A lot of times I also put in sardines in tomato or mustard sauce, adding some more taste to it.

[Yann]

When it comes to high-quality protein, what do you guys think about tempeh? It's a fermented soy product so it doesn't interfere with the absorption of minerals like tofu does. I hear it's an outstanding source of high quality protein, maybe even better than fish or eggs.

[Dmitri]

>>> I think our bodies can handle the fructose in fruit a lot better than in candy and corn syrup for example.

Fructose is the least healthy of all natural sugars, by a long shot. Fruits generally have little fructose so they can be tolerated as treats. But think of fructose as the sugar that makes you fat, regardless of the source. I rarely eat large fruits, and stick to limited quantities of berries on a daily basis. I prefer to get my fruit-based polyphenols from dried fruit and berry extracts, like New Chapter's Berry Green (I take about 10 grams daily). If I were more active, I would be more relaxed about my avoidance of fruits/berries.

>>> I'd love to know what is the least damaging basic fuel that our bodies can use.

There's no one class of food, the key is to get a mix of high-quality macro-ingredients (fats/oils, protein, carbs). Low fat is not as important as good fat, and if your fats/oils are good quality and in good ratios, a diet higher than one-third fat/oil daily is perfectly healthy. Generally, I try not to exceed one-third fat/oil cals per meal. Carbs are best if they're are fibrous veggies. Proteins are best if they are natural, or high-quality supp powders, like egg whites or whey. Your body will fuel itself most effectively with a good mix of the macros.

Do you think it would be better if I consumed one of those supplement fruit blend powders instead of eating a lot of fruits? I used to eat a lot of fruits for the antioxidant content, but now people are telling me the fructose is bad. I have reduced my intake to simply a cup of strawberries, wild blue berries, red grapes and banana for daily intake.

Anyway, why don’t you recommend whole grain foods? I was under the assumption they were healthy; my current diet consists of eating whole grain rice, breads, and cereals (as well as vegetables, fish, chicken, nuts, milk, eggs and the fruits I mentioned above).