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

Photo
- - - - -

Dr. Weil's Anti-Aging Food Pyramid


  • Please log in to reply
204 replies to this topic

#1 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:07 PM


Here is a link to Dr. Weil's anit-aging food pyramid.

It has a lot of good stuff. The obvious drawback is the carb-a-palooza near the bottom, which would be very pro-aging and pro age-related disease. Makes me wonder how he could get so much correct and yet ignore/miss the science on grains/carbs/sugar.

#2 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:15 PM

how do we know carbs are bad ? in all food pyramids, carbs always forms the largest portiion, foundation, base of the pyramids
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

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

#3 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:08 PM

Here is a link to Dr. Weil's anit-aging food pyramid.

It has a lot of good stuff. The obvious drawback is the carb-a-palooza near the bottom, which would be very pro-aging and pro age-related disease. Makes me wonder how he could get so much correct and yet ignore/miss the science on grains/carbs/sugar.



the idea that whole, complex carbohydrate sources will accelerate aging and age-related disease is PURELY speculative... the bulk of credible, established scientific evidence suggests otherwise. It's an interesting avenue to explore, but we need to stick with what science has -established- and not speculated on.

suggest giving the walter willet pyramid a read through:
http://www.hsph.harv...ou-eat/pyramid/


specifically the section on carbohydrates:
http://www.hsph.harv...ains/index.html

What Whole Grains Can Do For You

As researchers have begun to look more closely at carbohydrates and health, they are learning that the quality of the carbohydrates you eat is at least as important as the quantity. Most studies, including some from several different Harvard teams, show a connection between eating whole grains and better health.

Cardiovascular Disease

Eating whole instead of refined grains substantially lowers total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or bad) cholesterol, triglycerides, and insulin levels. Any of these changes would be expected to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease. In the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study, women who ate 2 to 3 servings of whole-grain products (mostly bread and breakfast cereals) each day were 30 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die from heart disease over a 10-year period than women who ate less than 1 serving per week (1). A recent meta-analysis of seven major studies showed that cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, or the need for a procedure to bypass or open a clogged artery) was 21 percent less likely in people who ate 2.5 or more servings of whole-grain foods a day compared with those who ate less than 2 servings a week (2).
Type 2 Diabetes

In a study of more than 160,000 women whose health and dietary habits were followed for up to 18 years, those who averaged 2 to 3 servings of whole grains a day were 30 percent less likely to have developed type 2 diabetes than those who rarely ate whole grains (3). When the researchers combined these results with those of several other large studies, they found that eating an extra 2 servings of whole grains a day decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 21 percent.
Cancer

The data on cancer are mixed, with some studies showing a protective effect and others showing none (4). A large, five-year study among nearly 500,000 men and women suggests that eating whole grains, but not dietary fiber, offers modest protection against colorectal cancer (5, 6).
Digestive Health

By keeping the stool soft and bulky, the fiber in whole grains helps prevent constipation, a common, costly, and aggravating problem. It also helps prevent diverticular disease (the development of tiny pouches inside the colon that are easily irritated and inflamed) by decreasing pressure in the intestines.
Staying Alive

An intriguing report from the Iowa Women's Health Study linked whole-grain consumption with fewer deaths from noncardiac, noncancer causes. Compared with women who rarely or never ate whole-grain foods, those who had at least two or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have died from an inflammation-related condition over a 17-year period (7).


Edited by ajnast4r, 02 December 2008 - 08:11 PM.


#4 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:32 PM

Um I hate to be pedantic but when you write something like

"the bulk of credible, established scientific evidence suggests otherwise"

shouldn't it be referenced? I know some people are pretty relaxed about referencing but the above sentence quotes the science directly

"the bulk of credible, established scientific evidence suggests otherwise (ref, ref, ref, ref, ref)"

#5 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:40 PM

Um I hate to be pedantic but when you write something like

"the bulk of credible, established scientific evidence suggests otherwise"

shouldn't it be referenced? I know some people are pretty relaxed about referencing but the above sentence quotes the science directly

"the bulk of credible, established scientific evidence suggests otherwise (ref, ref, ref, ref, ref)"


some references are in the provided links, i was too lazy to make cites for them all lol... also, I go by what I'm taught in school, which is based on established science. its rare that I get worked up enough to dig through my textbooks, find & link all the different references.


References

1. Liu S, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, et al. Whole-grain consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: results from the Nurses' Health Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999; 70:412-9.

2. Mellen PB, Walsh TF, Herrington DM. Whole grain intake and cardiovascular disease: A meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2007.

3. de Munter JS, Hu FB, Spiegelman D, Franz M, van Dam RM. Whole grain, bran, and germ intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study and systematic review. PLoS Med. 2007; 4:e261.

4. Jacobs DR, Jr., Marquart L, Slavin J, Kushi LH. Whole-grain intake and cancer: an expanded review and meta-analysis. Nutrition and Cancer. 1998; 30:85-96.

5. Schatzkin A, Mouw T, Park Y, et al. Dietary fiber and whole-grain consumption in relation to colorectal cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007; 85:1353-60.

6. Strayer L, Jacobs DR, Jr., Schairer C, Schatzkin A, Flood A. Dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, and glycemic load and the risk of colorectal cancer in the BCDDP cohort. Cancer Causes and Control. 2007; 18:853-63.

7. Jacobs DR, Jr., Andersen LF, Blomhoff R. Whole-grain consumption is associated with a reduced risk of noncardiovascular, noncancer death attributed to inflammatory diseases in the Iowa Women's Health Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007; 85:1606-14.

Edited by ajnast4r, 02 December 2008 - 08:42 PM.


#6 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:04 PM

cheers

#7 Sozin

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:08 PM

My optimal food pyramid would be something like this:

Fish: Alaskan salmon, tilapia, sardines all wild .75lb/day
Meat: beef or chicken cooked medium 1-2 servings per day
Nuts: Peanuts and macadamias a handful or two a day
Veggies: 4 servings per week
Fruit: Sparringly

Water, tea, black coffe and wine only to drink

Never get on the grain train.

#8 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:36 PM

My optimal food pyramid would be something like this:

Fish: Alaskan salmon, tilapia, sardines all wild .75lb/day
Meat: beef or chicken cooked medium 1-2 servings per day
Nuts: Peanuts and macadamias a handful or two a day
Veggies: 4 servings per week
Fruit: Sparringly

Water, tea, black coffe and wine only to drink

Never get on the grain train.




aka; the give yourself disease diet. worst diet plan ever... regardless of whether you choose to eat grain of not, eating vegetables and fruits SO sparingly is a HORRIBLE idea... as is eating fish everyday, and beef more than occasionally. your diet needs MAJOR readjusting.

Edited by ajnast4r, 02 December 2008 - 10:38 PM.


#9 Sozin

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 02 December 2008 - 11:54 PM

My optimal food pyramid would be something like this:

Fish: Alaskan salmon, tilapia, sardines all wild .75lb/day
Meat: beef or chicken cooked medium 1-2 servings per day
Nuts: Peanuts and macadamias a handful or two a day
Veggies: 4 servings per week
Fruit: Sparringly

Water, tea, black coffe and wine only to drink

Never get on the grain train.




aka; the give yourself disease diet. worst diet plan ever... regardless of whether you choose to eat grain of not, eating vegetables and fruits SO sparingly is a HORRIBLE idea... as is eating fish everyday, and beef more than occasionally. your diet needs MAJOR readjusting.


What risks could there possibly be with eating fish everyday? It was a main food source for our ancestors, and even if you don't buy into the whole paleolithic ideology, I don't even see how it can be unhealthy (We're talking about salmon, tilapia and sarndines, which do NOT have high heavy metals) -- what exactly is in it that is unhealthy? 1. Large amounts of w-3's -- obviously imperative to a healthy diet. 2. Huge source of absorbable protein. 3. Astaxantin as antioxidants. Yes it is important to consume only wild fish because farmed fish have higher heavy metals and some color-changing chemicals, but please tell me what is bad about eating fish everyday because I haven't read anything.
Also what is unhealthy about beef? Do you still think that fat is unhealthy? I feel that the general concensus around here is that fat can only be unhealthy when combined with carbohydrates... Perhaps I could add some more vegetables in the mix but I don't need to add high sugar fruits in order to attain health. Perhaps some berries wouldn't hurt but I don't consider then essential.

Also, what diseases am I vulnerable to on this diet that a grain consumer is not?

Yeah there is some supporting data that says that a diet rich in whole grains and lots of fruits and vegetables is healthy, but I'd like to see a list of studies that compare the ketogenic to the "ornish" type diet and not see the ornish get consistently crushed... There are moderatley healthy diets and then there are very healthy diets.

#10 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 03 December 2008 - 12:31 AM

aka; the give yourself disease diet. worst diet plan ever... regardless of whether you choose to eat grain of not, eating vegetables and fruits SO sparingly is a HORRIBLE idea... as is eating fish everyday,

Heavy metals? What else? Fish is relatively low in AGEs compared to other meats and could be consumed raw. If it wasn't for the heavy metals I think fish would be perfect.

and beef more than occasionally. your diet needs MAJOR readjusting.

It's true that the epidemiology for beef (heme-iron?) and cooked meats is not looking too rosy. Beef is also  rich in methionine and may be immunogenic. [1]

Veggies: 4 servings per week... per WEEK? I read "day" at first because anything else makes zero, zero sense. Is there any single, one reliable data point for this idea? I'd be amazed if there really is any such data.

ajnast4r, I concur with your criticism.

[1] This very well may be pseudo-science, I'm not sure: http://groups.google...ce4b47f29?hl=de

Edited by kismet, 03 December 2008 - 12:32 AM.


#11 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:51 AM

If you want to see a low-carber argue against vegetables/fruit check out the Hyperlipid blog.

#12 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:07 AM

What risks could there possibly be with eating fish everyday?


AGEs when cooked
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html

Bacteria and parasites when raw
http://en.wikipedia....mi#Safety_notes

Methionine?
http://www.drmcdouga...ueastereggs.htm

Toxic substance PCBs if farmed

Mercury, low but still present.



Also what is unhealthy about beef?



Advanced glycation end products (AGEs)
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html

The China Study: animal protein
http://en.wikipedia....The_China_Study

Meat & cancer
http://en.wikipedia....Red_meat#Cancer

Meat & heart disease
http://en.wikipedia....scular_diseases

Hormones - Why American beef is banned in about 50 countries
http://www.preventca...rmones_meat.htm

Diet world's longevity all-stars share.
http://quest.bluezon...e-longer-better

Edited by Forever21, 03 December 2008 - 04:34 AM.


#13 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:15 AM

If you want to see a low-carber argue against vegetables/fruit check out the Hyperlipid blog.


So I did, and these are refreshing viewpoints, thanks. I'm mostly a raw vegan, but I try not to get too dogmatic about my own shallow opinions, some of which may be supported by studies and others of which are supported only by my laziness and hope. Nutrition, like so much, is an incredibly complicated mystery.

#14 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:58 AM

What risks could there possibly be with eating fish everyday?


AGEs when cooked
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html

Bacteria and parasites when raw
http://en.wikipedia....mi#Safety_notes

Methionine?
http://www.drmcdouga...ueastereggs.htm

Toxic substance PCBs if farmed

Mercury, low but still present.



Also what is unhealthy about beef?



Advanced glycation end products (AGEs)
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html

The China Study: animal protein
http://en.wikipedia....The_China_Study

Meat & cancer
http://en.wikipedia....Red_meat#Cancer

Meat & heart disease
http://en.wikipedia....scular_diseases

Hormones - Why American beef is banned in about 50 countries
http://www.preventca...rmones_meat.htm

Diet world's longevity all-stars share.
http://quest.bluezon...e-longer-better



jesus, i didnt even have to do the work...

exactly what forever21 said.


Yeah there is some supporting data that says that a diet rich in whole grains and lots of fruits and vegetables is healthy, but I'd like to see a list of studies that compare the ketogenic to the "ornish" type diet and not see the ornish get consistently crushed... There are moderatley healthy diets and then there are very healthy diets.


not some... TONS. way way more than for the other side of the coin. i do however agree that its very much worth looking into... but, we must go with what the evidence points towards... and the evidence points towards whole grain consumption extending lifespan

#15 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 03 December 2008 - 07:00 AM

Good, I just ate some hot air popped corn and added olive oil. I am going back to my movie.

Yeah there is some supporting data that says that a diet rich in whole grains and lots of fruits and vegetables is healthy, but I'd like to see a list of studies that compare the ketogenic to the "ornish" type diet and not see the ornish get consistently crushed... There are moderatley healthy diets and then there are very healthy diets.


not some... TONS. way way more than for the other side of the coin. i do however agree that its very much worth looking into... but, we must go with what the evidence points towards... and the evidence points towards whole grain consumption extending lifespan



#16 Sozin

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 03 December 2008 - 07:30 AM

What risks could there possibly be with eating fish everyday?


AGEs when cooked
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html


This article doesn't even contain the word fish once. Anyone with half a brain is not going to char the fish and eat all the black parts. Is that your argument for why fish are unhealthy?

Bacteria and parasites when raw
http://en.wikipedia....mi#Safety_notes


Also who said anything about raw fish being healthy or anyone consuming it? I, and everyone else who cooks their own fish, cook it until it is eatable. What's your next reason for fish being unhealthy going to be, that if you dump chocolate syrup on it it may cause type 2 diabetes?

Methionine?
http://www.drmcdouga...ueastereggs.htm


Methionine is an essential amino acid and just because your biased article puts "troublesome" behind it doesn't prove anything. Also LOL at your article saying that "Infants, growing children, and adults need, at most, 5% of their calories from protein." These are the worst references I've ever seen in a post.

Toxic substance PCBs if farmed

Mercury, low but still present.


Which is why I, and everyone else should, buy wild fish. I've mentioned this in a previous post.

You must be a vegetarian because I can see how PETA has brainwashed you into believing that meat causes people to be unhealthy. Here let me help you reference me: http://www.goveg.com/f-top10cows.asp
Here's a good one: Cows are too nice to eat!

Don't think random BS links are going to prove your point.

#17 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 December 2008 - 07:36 AM

You must be a vegetarian because I can see how PETA has brainwashed you into believing that meat causes people to be unhealthy. Here let me help you reference me: http://www.goveg.com/f-top10cows.asp
Here's a good one: Cows are too nice to eat!

Don't think random BS links are going to prove your point.



the fact that meat exacerbates and causes certain types of cancers is FACT. its taught in all major universities to nutrition students...

http://www.cancer.or...olon_Cancer.asp
http://www.cancer.or...Some_People.asp


http://en.wikipedia....rocyclic_amines
http://en.wikipedia....tic_hydrocarbon

http://ucsdnews.ucsd...dMeatCancer.asp

Edited by ajnast4r, 03 December 2008 - 07:38 AM.


#18 Sozin

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 03 December 2008 - 09:36 AM

It also did not talk about ribs and meat. You must be a **** to think its talking about bar soaps. "LOL"


the argument that cooked fish has AGE's is a little transparent to me because anything cooked has AGE's in it. In addition to this, many of the health risks associated with cooked food rest in its tendency to cause inflammation -- and because salmon and fish in general have quite large anti-inflammatory proporties, much of the health risk posed by cooking should be negligible. Keeping the fish on the rare side should negate any health risks posed by the low level of AGE's in the fish.

No, I was going to talk about Oprah's next episode of galactically stupid morons and I heard you're the featured guest.


I think it goes without saying that eating fish or meat raw is not a very smart idea.

Wild fishes are not free of mercury ****.


Neither is your tap water. According to the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/f...ts/mercury.html) the mercury levels in fresh, canned and frozen salmon were not detected.

It's well known that fish offer CV health and a group of other health benefits -- we can argue the peripherals all day but the point is that fish are healthy when prepared intelligently.

the fact that meat exacerbates and causes certain types of cancers is FACT. its taught in all major universities to nutrition students...


Yes I understand that but do you find it strange that while red meat is said to increase cancer risk, the ketogenic diet is said to decrease it? See

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

A lot of the studies done are done involving people consuming carbohydrates. These studies lack that interference. I think a lot of the harm that meat can do is by mixing it with a lot of carbs. This is just pure speculation, however.
I do believe that well-cooked meat may cause cancer, so I've replaced a lot of those meals with fish. I'm hoping they have lower AGE risk along with higher w-3's etc etc etc

Edited by shepard, 03 December 2008 - 01:38 PM.
Removed quoted vulgarity.


#19 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:48 AM

If you want to see a low-carber argue against vegetables/fruit check out the Hyperlipid blog.

No surprise CR works so well, if everything has been proven to be dangerous and unhealthy. ROFL that hyperlipid blog is crazy, I like that. I really hoped this day would come: now it's definite food is poison.

#20 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 03 December 2008 - 03:29 PM

If you want to see a low-carber argue against vegetables/fruit check out the Hyperlipid blog.

Excellent blog. Just checked it out.

I would perfect this plan by substituting the animal fat with nut butters, chick peas, and cold pressed oils.

Hyperlipid blog

#21 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:53 PM

most of the studies claiming "meat causes cancer" or "whole grains are healthy" are ATROCIOUS in their design and mean very little to me.

1.) in the meat studies, they do not even adjust for consumption of carbhoydrates. let's face it, the majority of people that eat a lot of meat (those who consume it intelligibly aren't the majority) also consume a ton of crappy carbs. just think of your typical fast food patron. he's going to eat a relatively high amount of meat, but also a tremendous amount of refined carbs in the form of soda, french fries, and most likely candy and other junk. these studies to which you refer are trash without adjusting for consumption of carbohydrates other potentially deleterious macronutrients. and no, "total fat" alone won't cut it.

2.) i haven't read too many of the whole grains studies, i am going to get the full text on some of them on campus this evening, but i suspect similar problems. whole grains reduce the risk of disease COMPARED TO WHAT? what did they adjust for in the analysis? the bottom line is, whole grains are not that much different than refined grains. this would drive nutritionists and food pyramid types (God bless their simple hearts) crazy, but physiologically speaking it's true. both raise blood sugar, create an insulin response, and tend towards the storage of body fat. whole grains might just do this a little more slowly is all and have some antioxidants that can easily be obtained from other more nutrient-dense sources. i'm an epidemiologist, and realize epidemiologic studies can be extremely valuable and are the basis for developing clinical work, but when the studies are designed poorly or may have an agenda ("low-fat, whole grain" thinking still dominates funding arena) they don't mean much to me.

the diet that impresses me the most - based on a combination of the available evidence, physiological underpinnings, and personal experience - would be the paleolithic diet high in veggies/fish/meats, relatively low in carbs, with most carbs coming from berries or select root vegetables.

Edited by frederickson, 03 December 2008 - 04:58 PM.


#22 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 December 2008 - 07:43 PM

A lot of the studies done are done involving people consuming carbohydrates. These studies lack that interference. I think a lot of the harm that meat can do is by mixing it with a lot of carbs. This is just pure speculation, however.
I do believe that well-cooked meat may cause cancer, so I've replaced a lot of those meals with fish. I'm hoping they have lower AGE risk along with higher w-3's etc etc etc


it's an interesting idea and it definitely warrants further study.

it looks like you were replying to a deleted post that was pretty nasty... I'm assuming you're new here by your post count. I assure you that's not the way the average imminst member conducts themselves, and I apologize that you had to deal with that.

'whole grains reduce the risk of disease COMPARED TO WHAT?


compared to not


whole grains are not that much different than refined grains.


i would say the difference is substantial. the fiber and the majority of the micro nutrients/phytochemicals are removed, and depending on the processing methods the structure of the starch itself is changed. thats like saying theres not much difference between a Honda and a Ferrari because they're both cars.

Edited by ajnast4r, 03 December 2008 - 07:48 PM.


#23 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:23 PM

I think it goes without saying that eating fish or meat raw is not a very smart idea.

Why? AFAIK the risks of high quality meat/fish are very small, as long as my immune system is strong, I'd take the lower AGE diet *any day*.

the fact that meat exacerbates and causes certain types of cancers is FACT. its taught in all major universities to nutrition students...


Yes I understand that but do you find it strange that while red meat is said to increase cancer risk, the ketogenic diet is said to decrease it? See

Maybe ketosis provides stronger protection that outweighs the risks of red meat. Many possible explanations I guess...

#24 Sozin

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:35 PM

it looks like you were replying to a deleted post that was pretty nasty... I'm assuming you're new here by your post count. I assure you that's not the way the average imminst member conducts themselves, and I apologize that you had to deal with that.


dont worry, my feelings weren't hurt TOO bad, but im inching ever closer to my self-esteem threshold...

The ideas and discussions on these forums are like nothing I've seen anywhere else... I don't mind arguing with a hot-head every now and again, just as long as I can get my point in :)

I think it goes without saying that eating fish or meat raw is not a very smart idea.

Why? AFAIK the risks of high quality meat/fish are very small, as long as my immune system is strong, I'd take the lower AGE diet *any day*.


True, but the risk of infection or illness from the bacteria or parasites is a real danger -- you may be rolling the dice every time you consume raw meat especially if it is a farmed animal. With wild animals the risk should be far less.
That being said I agree that humans definitely are adapted to eating raw meat and fish, but in our age of hormone-injected cows or color-enhanced fish I think you'll be doing yourself a favor by cooking it to rare.

the fact that meat exacerbates and causes certain types of cancers is FACT. its taught in all major universities to nutrition students...


Yes I understand that but do you find it strange that while red meat is said to increase cancer risk, the ketogenic diet is said to decrease it? See

Maybe ketosis provides stronger protection that outweighs the risks of red meat. Many possible explanations I guess...


Yeah the real problem is that studies on the keto diet are few and far between to begin with... getting a study done testing the effect of red meat on a ketogenic group would be way too specific to happen anytime soon... But maybe since the keto and paleo diets are gaining so much momentum we might see better studies being conducted soon. With carbohydrates out of the diet, who knows what the cumulative effects everything else will be -- perhaps they can change.

#25 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 79
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 04 December 2008 - 02:11 AM

What Whole Grains Can Do For You

As researchers have begun to look more closely at carbohydrates and health, they are learning that the quality of the carbohydrates you eat is at least as important as the quantity. Most studies, including some from several different Harvard teams, show a connection between eating whole grains and better health. . . .

I couldn't be confident that whole grains are good. The most famous "bread eaters", the Egyptians weren't healthy despite eating lots of whole grains. David Sinclair, in his book(p 96), "Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science", writes that "Atherosclerosis has been frequently diagnosed in Egyptian and South American mummies." And on another continent, the same trouble.

#26 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 December 2008 - 03:59 AM

I couldn't be confident that whole grains are good. The most famous "bread eaters", the Egyptians weren't healthy despite eating lots of whole grains. David Sinclair, in his book(p 96), "Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science", writes that "Atherosclerosis has been frequently diagnosed in Egyptian and South American mummies." And on another continent, the same trouble.



making the correlation between egyptians eating bread and their high rates of atherosclerosis is a HUGE STRETCH... i would would think that severe malnourishment and extremely high levels of chronic inflammation from work conditions were more likely the cause.

logic would dictate one would be more confident in eating grains based on modern epidemiological studies than convinced otherwise by loose correlations based on anciet societies.

Edited by ajnast4r, 04 December 2008 - 04:03 AM.


#27 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 04 December 2008 - 04:57 PM

A lot of the studies done are done involving people consuming carbohydrates. These studies lack that interference. I think a lot of the harm that meat can do is by mixing it with a lot of carbs. This is just pure speculation, however.
I do believe that well-cooked meat may cause cancer, so I've replaced a lot of those meals with fish. I'm hoping they have lower AGE risk along with higher w-3's etc etc etc


it's an interesting idea and it definitely warrants further study.

it looks like you were replying to a deleted post that was pretty nasty... I'm assuming you're new here by your post count. I assure you that's not the way the average imminst member conducts themselves, and I apologize that you had to deal with that.

'whole grains reduce the risk of disease COMPARED TO WHAT?


compared to not


whole grains are not that much different than refined grains.


i would say the difference is substantial. the fiber and the majority of the micro nutrients/phytochemicals are removed, and depending on the processing methods the structure of the starch itself is changed. thats like saying theres not much difference between a Honda and a Ferrari because they're both cars.


i actually was not responding to an incendiary post, and hope that mine did not come off that way either. to respond to your points...

1.) i have been posting here for over a year and reading much longer than that, so i realize that meat imminst posters are consuming would not be accompanied with horrific carbohyrate sources. but in these studies of the general population, i would be willing to bet (and have read similar arguments) that simply exploring meat consumption whilst not adjusting for other potentially harmful dietary habits aside from total calories/fat consumption (read: lots of refined carbs, no exercise) that usually accompany this consumption is a great mistake. i have read most of these studies and am unconvinced they tell us anything.

2.) as for the whole grains, the reason i asked "compared to what"? was due to similar flaws in the meat studies. i don't think it's as simple as "compared to not". in general, due to medical establishment advice that whole grains should be the basis of our diet, your typical health conscious person tends to do so. again, the posters here who eschew such advice wouldn't qualify as the "typical" health-conscious person who simply follows his doctor's advice or what he sees on tv on how to eat well. so obviously, those that are consuming these whole grains are probably avoiding the atroicious dietary choices, likely exercising, trying to get more sleep, etc. and without adjusting for that tremendous bias is introduced.

has anyone actually read the full text of the studies cited here? if so, could you let me know what they adjusted for in these whole grains studies? if they did not adjust for other dietary habits and a broad range of healthy lifestyle choices in general, again, i don't think they are worth much.

Edited by frederickson, 04 December 2008 - 05:04 PM.


#28 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 December 2008 - 07:36 PM

i actually was not responding to an incendiary post, and hope that mine did not come off that way either. to respond to your points...


that was actually directed at sozin, I was just too lazy to work his name into the quote code :) and no, your posts did not and do not ever come off like that.

1.) i have been posting here for over a year and reading much longer than that, so i realize that meat imminst posters are consuming would not be accompanied with horrific carbohyrate sources. but in these studies of the general population, i would be willing to bet (and have read similar arguments) that simply exploring meat consumption whilst not adjusting for other potentially harmful dietary habits aside from total calories/fat consumption (read: lots of refined carbs, no exercise) that usually accompany this consumption is a great mistake. i have read most of these studies and am unconvinced they tell us anything.

2.) as for the whole grains, the reason i asked "compared to what"? was due to similar flaws in the meat studies. i don't think it's as simple as "compared to not". in general, due to medical establishment advice that whole grains should be the basis of our diet, your typical health conscious person tends to do so. again, the posters here who eschew such advice wouldn't qualify as the "typical" health-conscious person who simply follows his doctor's advice or what he sees on tv on how to eat well. so obviously, those that are consuming these whole grains are probably avoiding the atroicious dietary choices, likely exercising, trying to get more sleep, etc. and without adjusting for that tremendous bias is introduced.

has anyone actually read the full text of the studies cited here? if so, could you let me know what they adjusted for in these whole grains studies? if they did not adjust for other dietary habits and a broad range of healthy lifestyle choices in general, again, i don't think they are worth much.



I agree that the intricacies are in need of further study, and the studies in need of greater control... but the evidence, however rudimentary, points towards the health benefits of whole grain consumption.

#29 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 04 December 2008 - 09:21 PM

I have nothing against Dr. Weil, most of his advice seems at least reasonable, he is definitely well meaning and seems to be a very likable charismatic guy... however taking dietary advice from someone who himself looks very out of shape doesn't sit right with me.

If you are gonna pick a "dietary guru" pick one that at least somewhat looks the part (genetics aside with the proper diet even someone with cr@ppy genetics will look decent).

#30 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 December 2008 - 09:24 PM

I have nothing against Dr. Weil, most of his advice seems at least reasonable, he is definitely well meaning and seems to be a very likable charismatic guy... however taking dietary advice from someone who himself looks very out of shape doesn't sit right with me.

If you are gonna pick a "dietary guru" pick one that at least somewhat looks the part (genetics aside with the proper diet even someone with cr@ppy genetics will look decent).




correct knowledge, and the willpower and desire to apply that knowledge to ones self are two totally different things. I can show you a lot of in-shape "diet gurus" who adhere to and recommend things that will most certainly decrease their lifespan.

dr weil's advice is generally pretty good imo




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users