204 replies to this topic

[JLL]

And below is what the authors of the Okinawa Diet say about carbs. They don't seem to be promoting low carbs

http://www.okinawapr...ails.html#carbs

I haven't read this book, but sometimes authors seem afraid of saying carbs are bad, even when their own studies would suggest it.

I recently read a book about glycemic index, and everything they said in the book pointed to starchy vegetables and grains being bad - they even stressed that whole-grain bread has the same GI as ordinary bread - and yet they conclude that it's "okay to eat potatoes and bread as long as you balance them with low-GI foods". So they acknowledge that they are high-GI and unhealthy but refuse to say that there's no need to eat them. I find this very strange - why did they write the book in the first place?

[Not_Supplied]

I don't think we are carnivores. Animals like the big cats that live on other animals usually eat raw meat, straight from the carcass, and do it with relish and delight.

I watched the last series of the 'Tribe' documentary on the BBC. A guy called Bruce Parry lives with indigenous tribes. One group he was living with hunted an antelope and cut out the liver and other vital organs and ate them raw out of the carcass...he seemed pissed off to give Bruce any liver...like this was a prestige food.

The rest of the time, the main food source for the tribe was wild honey, which doesn't fit with the paleo low carb scenario.

Out of the other hunter gatherer tribes he lived with IIRR, at least two of them had a major source of carbohydrates - one ate sago palms, the other ate pounded water lily roots which were found to be toxic in the long run.

[DukeNukem]

And below is what the authors of the Okinawa Diet say about carbs. They don't seem to be promoting low carbs

http://www.okinawapr...ails.html#carbs

This link makes several claims as fact that are flat-out wrong. For example, high-fat diets lead to weight gain, and low-carb diets lead to muscle mass loss. I'd talk more about this but about to catch a flight.

[DukeNukem]

And below is what the authors of the Okinawa Diet say about carbs. They don't seem to be promoting low carbs

http://www.okinawapr...ails.html#carbs

I haven't read this book, but sometimes authors seem afraid of saying carbs are bad, even when their own studies would suggest it.

I recently read a book about glycemic index, and everything they said in the book pointed to starchy vegetables and grains being bad - they even stressed that whole-grain bread has the same GI as ordinary bread - and yet they conclude that it's "okay to eat potatoes and bread as long as you balance them with low-GI foods". So they acknowledge that they are high-GI and unhealthy but refuse to say that there's no need to eat them. I find this very strange - why did they write the book in the first place?

This is so true. There are numerous low-carb/high-fat studies showing superior health benefits (versus higher-carb diets) and the study's authors almost always try to explain this "anomaly" away with some twisted logic, and then fall back on a claim something like "We of course all know that a lower fat diet is healthier in the long run, blah, blah..."

[kismet]

Would it be incorrect to conclude that in the case of limited consumption of whole grain bread/pasta vs white bread/pasta, that because of higher gluten content in whole grains it might be less damaging to eat white bread/pasta? Obviously the effect on insulin and rapid conversion to sugar is worse with white bread/pasta. But is that outweighed by the gluten issue?

Processed > whole grains? As far as I'm concerned this could go either way, but I don't think you can post this without some, even limited, proof. When you go against the mainstream and common sense in such an extreme way, the burden of proof is on you. Elaborate please.

If you want to avoid gluten eat oats.

Mind, I'm aware of the bacteria-making-O2 hypothesis, and I think it's correct. But where did you learn that this event wiped out so much life on Earth?

This is a pretty common theory. My simple understanding is: Oxygen either generates free radicals or oxidises cell constituents and needs to be somehow detoxified (different kinds of antioxidants?). The first microorganisms did not waste any energy on building those defenses, because such a thing like oxygen was not common place.

Edited by kismet, 08 December 2008 - 01:41 PM.

[Mouser]

Would it be incorrect to conclude that in the case of limited consumption of whole grain bread/pasta vs white bread/pasta, that because of higher gluten content in whole grains it might be less damaging to eat white bread/pasta? Obviously the effect on insulin and rapid conversion to sugar is worse with white bread/pasta. But is that outweighed by the gluten issue?

Processed > whole grains? As far as I'm concerned this could go either way, but I don't think you can post this without some, even limited, proof. When you go against the mainstream and common sense in such an extreme way, the burden of proof is on you. Elaborate please.

It's not so much a statement of fact or even an argument - simply a question. Is the reduced gluten content in white flour worth the trade off of higher glycemic index that comes with it?

[ajnast4r]

If you want to avoid gluten eat oats.

gluten contamination of oats is significant enough that celiacs (like myself) can not eat them without getting sick. i have to buy certified gluten free oats, which are nearly 6$ per pound!

Is the reduced gluten content in white flour worth the trade off of higher glycemic index that comes with it?

absolutely not. wheat should be avoided in general in my opinion... even if i didn't have celiac, i would not be consuming wheat other than in trace amounts

and low-carb diets lead to muscle mass loss.

i think this has a lot to do with genetics. less than 50g carbs per day, i will lose muscle mass even if my diet is hypercaloric. I'm also unable to gain musclemass on less than 120g carbs per day, again even if my diet is hypercaloric.

Edited by ajnast4r, 09 December 2008 - 02:16 AM.

[DukeNukem]

If you want to avoid gluten eat oats.

gluten contamination of oats is significant enough that celiacs (like myself) can not eat them without getting sick. i have to buy certified gluten free oats, which are nearly 6$ per pound!

Is the reduced gluten content in white flour worth the trade off of higher glycemic index that comes with it?

absolutely not. wheat should be avoided in general in my opinion... even if i didn't have celiac, i would not be consuming wheat other than in trace amounts

and low-carb diets lead to muscle mass loss.

i think this has a lot to do with genetics. less than 50g carbs per day, i will lose muscle mass even if my diet is hypercaloric. I'm also unable to gain musclemass on less than 120g carbs per day, again even if my diet is hypercaloric.

Relevant blog post today regarding gluten, and why I consider it the most evil of all proteins:
http://wholehealthso...disease-is.html

BTW, this guy has quickly become the best health blogger on the Net.

[Mind]

Dr. Davis (heart scan blog) claims the best way to help people with CVD is to eliminate wheat from their diet.

[DukeNukem]

Dr. Davis (heart scan blog) claims the best way to help people with CVD is to eliminate wheat from their diet.

What is the upside to eating grains?

Zero.

Grains were required to create civilization. But now that we've arrived, they should be dropped from a civilized diet.

[DreemWeaver]

So how about the traditional Asian Indian diets, especially the vegetarian ones? From the Asian Indians I know (and I admit, this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence), they are extremely long lived. And healthy. But many of their diets are strictly vegetarian--no fish, even--and heavy on the grains and lentils, including white rice for most dinners. They don't seem plagued with the host of Western health related diseases, either. A lot of their diets run counter to a lot of the advice/positions on these boards, especially by the paleo-diet folks, so I am curious as to theories as to why it is successful and has been successful for, err, probably at least a couple thousand years.

Hi suspire,

Indians are not really healthy even though 70% of the world's vegetarians are Indians. People are becoming diabetic at the age 30+. The World Health Organization (who) estimates that 60 per cent of the world's cardiac patients will be Indian by 2010.

Indian diet is basically lot of sweets, hell lot of grains,milk and over cooked vegetables .

[ajnast4r]

Relevant blog post today regarding gluten, and why I consider it the most evil of all proteins:
http://wholehealthso...disease-is.html

BTW, this guy has quickly become the best health blogger on the Net.

good blog, good post. id be interested in any other blogs/sites you wanna share... im always looking for new stuff to read thats updated regularly.

i think later on down the line we're going to see gluten popping up as a cause of or factor in many diseases in non-celiacs... especially depression and mental disorders.

[JLL]

Dr. Davis (heart scan blog) claims the best way to help people with CVD is to eliminate wheat from their diet.

What is the upside to eating grains?

Zero.

Grains were required to create civilization. But now that we've arrived, they should be dropped from a civilized diet.

But there's not enough meat to go around. I'm all for people eating grains if they want to, except for friends and relatives and myself.

[wydell]

Here is an interesting link on low carb studies

http://www.lowcarb.c...esearchfor.html

[Rolle]

Here some more info to support consumptoin of fish.
When in Finland listing professions according to life expectancy, fishers made the top. Of course they are also getting a lot of fresh air etc.. The interesting point is that they fish in the baltic sea which is known for heavy pollution. It seems that the positive effect of fish etc. it outweighing the negative effects of pollution etc. in the fish they consume. Maybe the effect of those environmental poisons is overrated, which still may have the positive effect that they are not used so liverately any more.

[Johan]

I think Dr. Weil's food pyramid looks alright, but I would probably switch the placements of the "healthy fats" block with the "whole grains, pasta and legumes" blocks. At least that's how my diet looks like - about 15% protein, 55-60% carbs, and 25-30% fat. I'm on CR, mind you, so the absolute amount of carbs I consume is less than it would be for someone eating ad lib with the same P:C:F ratio. Also, I'd probably replace the pasta with something other than grains (or perhaps a gluten-free grain, like oats). What's so good about pasta, compared to legumes and beans, for example?

[suspire]

Dr. Davis (heart scan blog) claims the best way to help people with CVD is to eliminate wheat from their diet.

What is the upside to eating grains?

Zero.

Grains were required to create civilization. But now that we've arrived, they should be dropped from a civilized diet.

But there's not enough meat to go around. I'm all for people eating grains if they want to, except for friends and relatives and myself.

You know, ImmInst members would make a great source of food! With all of our super-charged regimens, you'd get quite the haul of vitamins, minerals and exotic supplements! We'd have to start with Duke and work our way down...

[Adolescentman]

I'm seeing a lot of anthropological arguments for why we should eat a certain way versus modern scientific evidence that we shouldn't. Essentially those who are arguing in favour of a high meat low grain diet are saying 'because our ancestors did this, we must do this'. This is not only unscientific, but it is nostalgic non-sense. Every comparative study I have read regarding the issue of vegetarian whole grain versus meat, low grain diets have all led to the same conclusion. The former is more conducive to positive, long lasting health than the latter. Now I am sure some of the results have to do with cultures in which they are conducted, but many of these studies partaken in europe, france, switzerland have all pointed to the same conclusions. Meat causes heart disease, meat may lead to many other variable medical conditions.

But I don't think it is because of it being mixed with bad carbs even. I think it is essentially because most meat, specifically beef, is high in saturated fat. Even of you strip the meat down to its leanest components there is no promise you are not getting a good dose of bad saturated fats with each serving, especially in ground meat. And many of you are talking about 2-3 servings daily. This coupled with horrible processing methods, animals fed antibioitics and growth hormone induced grain and other animal parts, make for a very bad combination. The bottom line here is that it is useless to have anthropological arguments about modern health and nutrition. We have methods at our disposal that our ancestors did not, therefor our ancestors could not pick and choose their dietary regimens nor supplement them with herbology and modern scientific findings. We can, therefor we do not need to bandy back and forth about what anthropologists say the better diet is.

Bear in mind also that the average life-span of our ancestors who partook of these high meat diets most of you espouse was about 25-30. Thanks, in part, to their diets, and in part to exposure to the elements.

Edited by Adolescentman, 11 December 2008 - 06:01 PM.

[Not_Supplied]

Infant mortality, disease, warfare

[DukeNukem]

Meat causes heart disease, meat may lead to many other variable medical conditions.

I can show you many studies that do not indicate this. Can you even show me ONE that does? When I get home tonight, I'll look up the pro-meat/pro-fat studies. There's no greater myth in nutrition than meat causes heart disease. Despite the ongoing brain-washing efforts of PETA and similar groups.

[mpe]

Reading this topic only demonstrates the value of genetically engineering our food to achieve optimal results
for humanities needs. We dont need to eat suboptimal foods anymore thanks to science, all we have to overcome is
politics and prejudice! Hmmm seems familiar

[TheFountain]

Infant mortality, disease, warfare

Several people on this thread have pointed to studies that show this to be true. Meat contributes to advanced aging also. The evidence is in the way middle aged meat eaters versus middle aged non-meat eaters look. I've known a 47 year old vegan who looked late 20s, never knew a 47 year old meat eater who didn't look 47. Knew a 34 year old vegetarian who looked 19, never knew a 34 year old meat eater who didn't look 34. I know looks aren't everything, but in terms of cellular decay, they do reveal on the outside what diets are best and what diets are not for living longer, healthier lives. Someone pointed to Jared leto on another thread, saying he looks 25 when he is in fact 37. He is a well known vegetarian. This is just a macro-fact that supports all the micro-facts. By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just pointing out some macro-facts to go along with the micro-facts. I'm opened to reading any and all comparative studies. What i'd be interested in knowing is what specific effect vegetarian diets have on the cellular structure of the human organism versus non-vegetarian diets that contribute to advanced aging.

Edited by TheFountain, 12 December 2008 - 11:41 AM.

[Brainbox]

I can show you many studies that do not indicate this. Can you even show me ONE that does?

I cannot find the study I wanted here, but this one might be of interest as well, although the summary is a bit to cryptic for my Dutch mind.
So I don't know if the relation I seem to read (bold) is correct.

Diet and survival of elderly Greeks: a link to the past.
Trichopoulou A, Kouris-Blazos A, Vassilakou T, Gnardellis C, Polychronopoulos E, Venizelos M, Lagiou P, Wahlqvist ML, Trichopoulos D.

Department of Nutrition and Biochemistry, Athens School of Public Health, Greece.

In 1988 and 1989, we investigated in three Greek villages the dietary patterns of 182 men and women aged > 70 y by using a validated semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire and compared these dietary patterns with the traditional Greek diet as ascertained in the late 1950s by Keys and his colleagues. As in the traditional diet, olive oil dominated fat intake, total fat exceeded 35% of total energy intake, average daily consumption of fruits and vegetables exceeded 500 g, and average ethanol intake for men corresponded to two to three glasses of wine per day. In contrast, consumption of meat and meat products has substantially increased and intake of bread and other cereals has apparently declined. We observed no differences between the two periods with respect to consumption of legumes, eggs and egg products, and sugar confectionery. We have also attempted to assess whether a gradient of adherence to the traditional Greek diet can be identified in the diets of the study subjects, and whether it can subsequently predict total mortality. During a follow-up period of approximately 5 y, 53 deaths were observed. The risk of death was apparently higher among the minority of study subjects whose diet deviated substantially from the traditional Greek pattern, compared with the majority whose diet adhered closely to the traditional pattern.

PMID: 7754986 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Here you go, found the study I had in mind. One of the reasons for me to limit meat since the conclusion towards "high protein" should be adjusted to " high meat" IMO.

Low-carbohydrate-high-protein diet and long-term survival in a general population cohort.
Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Orfanos P, Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos D.

Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. antonia@nut.uoa.gr

OBJECTIVE: We have evaluated the effects on mortality of habitual low carbohydrate-high-protein diets that are thought to contribute to weight control. DESIGN: Cohort investigation. SETTING: Adult Greek population. SUBJECTS METHODS: Follow-up was performed from 1993 to 2003 in the context of the Greek component of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition. Participants were 22 944 healthy adults, whose diet was assessed through a validated questionnaire. Participants were distributed by increasing deciles according to protein intake or carbohydrate intake, as well as by an additive score generated by increasing decile intake of protein and decreasing decile intake of carbohydrates. Proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relation between high protein, high carbohydrate and the low carbohydrate-high protein score on the one hand and mortality on the other. RESULTS: During 113 230 persons years of follow-up, there were 455 deaths. In models with energy adjustment, higher intake of carbohydrates was associated with significant reduction of total mortality, whereas higher intake of protein was associated with nonsignificant increase of total mortality (per decile, mortality ratios 0.94 with 95% CI 0.89 -0.99, and 1.02 with 95% CI 0.98 -1.07 respectively). Even more predictive of higher mortality were high values of the additive low carbohydrate-high protein score (per 5 units, mortality ratio 1.22 with 95% CI 1.09 -to 1.36). Positive associations of this score were noted with respect to both cardiovascular and cancer mortality. CONCLUSION: Prolonged consumption of diets low in carbohydrates and high in protein is associated with an increase in total mortality.

PMID: 17136037 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

The problem with these kind of studies is that the different diet parameters are measured in a insufficient level of independence and with (IMO) funny interpretations. "High protein" differs from " high meat" in this study that is about a situation were the majority of protein is obtained from meat. "High meat" could in addition mean "high animal fat".

It's very difficult to draw sensible conclusions, additional to the fact that these kind of cohort studies are inaccurate to begin with. But it gives factors that cannot be omitted either.

Edited by Brainbox, 12 December 2008 - 12:12 PM.

[JLL]

Here some more info to support consumptoin of fish.
When in Finland listing professions according to life expectancy, fishers made the top. Of course they are also getting a lot of fresh air etc.. The interesting point is that they fish in the baltic sea which is known for heavy pollution. It seems that the positive effect of fish etc. it outweighing the negative effects of pollution etc. in the fish they consume. Maybe the effect of those environmental poisons is overrated, which still may have the positive effect that they are not used so liverately any more.

Yup, I agree that eating fish won't cause problems in the brain if you leave to a 100, but who knows what happens if/when we live to be older than that? The studies show that mercury accumulates in the brain; it's just that the subjects die before any possible negative effects manifest themselves.

Infant mortality, disease, warfare

Several people on this thread have pointed to studies that show this to be true. Meat contributes to advanced aging also. The evidence is in the way middle aged meat eaters versus middle aged non-meat eaters look. I've known a 47 year old vegan who looked late 20s, never knew a 47 year old meat eater who didn't look 47. Knew a 34 year old vegetarian who looked 19, never knew a 34 year old meat eater who didn't look 34. I know looks aren't everything, but in terms of cellular decay, they do reveal on the outside what diets are best and what diets are not for living longer, healthier lives. Someone pointed to Jared leto on another thread, saying he looks 25 when he is in fact 37. He is a well known vegetarian. This is just a macro-fact that supports all the micro-facts. By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just pointing out some macro-facts to go along with the micro-facts. I'm opened to reading any and all comparative studies. What i'd be interested in knowing is what specific effect vegetarian diets have on the cellular structure of the human organism versus non-vegetarian diets that contribute to advanced aging.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the supercentenarians are vegetarians.

[JLL]

Bear in mind also that the average life-span of our ancestors who partook of these high meat diets most of you espouse was about 25-30. Thanks, in part, to their diets, and in part to exposure to the elements.

This is a meritless argument. Their lifespan has nothing to do with their diet. Chewing on carrots wasn't going to make them live any longer.

[TheFountain]

Here some more info to support consumptoin of fish.
When in Finland listing professions according to life expectancy, fishers made the top. Of course they are also getting a lot of fresh air etc.. The interesting point is that they fish in the baltic sea which is known for heavy pollution. It seems that the positive effect of fish etc. it outweighing the negative effects of pollution etc. in the fish they consume. Maybe the effect of those environmental poisons is overrated, which still may have the positive effect that they are not used so liverately any more.

Yup, I agree that eating fish won't cause problems in the brain if you leave to a 100, but who knows what happens if/when we live to be older than that? The studies show that mercury accumulates in the brain; it's just that the subjects die before any possible negative effects manifest themselves.

Infant mortality, disease, warfare

Several people on this thread have pointed to studies that show this to be true. Meat contributes to advanced aging also. The evidence is in the way middle aged meat eaters versus middle aged non-meat eaters look. I've known a 47 year old vegan who looked late 20s, never knew a 47 year old meat eater who didn't look 47. Knew a 34 year old vegetarian who looked 19, never knew a 34 year old meat eater who didn't look 34. I know looks aren't everything, but in terms of cellular decay, they do reveal on the outside what diets are best and what diets are not for living longer, healthier lives. Someone pointed to Jared leto on another thread, saying he looks 25 when he is in fact 37. He is a well known vegetarian. This is just a macro-fact that supports all the micro-facts. By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just pointing out some macro-facts to go along with the micro-facts. I'm opened to reading any and all comparative studies. What i'd be interested in knowing is what specific effect vegetarian diets have on the cellular structure of the human organism versus non-vegetarian diets that contribute to advanced aging.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the supercentenarians are vegetarians.

Correct me if I am wrong, but most supercentenarians have longevity genes that tend to run in their family. I am not saying all of them, but the ones who do not have attributed their longevity to diets low of fat and high in vegetable consumption, at least according to the interviews I have read. The bottom line is there needs to be more extensive research into what genes are responsible for life extension and what genes aren't and to find a way to simulate the function of these genes. Then to use this data to reverse the effects of sarcopenia (which is largely responsible for elderly people becoming so weak and frail) and cellular decay.

We're also at a point in history where the level of diet and supplementation we are seeing has never been attempted before. So this is unprecedented. We can only conclude from micro and macro observable facts what is going well versus what is not. Like I said, I never saw a 47 year old meat eater who did not look 47. Whereas I have seen the converse in strict long time vegetarians who looked much younger at that age.

Edited by TheFountain, 12 December 2008 - 12:50 PM.

[sthira]

It's not as simple as saying "meat causes heart attacks..." Other factors beyond diet are at work. In terms of cardiovascular disease, obviously if you're running across the savannah trying to escape a lion and your blood pressure is 180/140, you're not suffering from hypertension, you're saving your life. On the other hand, if your blood pressure is 180/140 every time you think about your income taxes, you're not saving your life, you're being hypertensive, and if you do that on a regular basis you will get damage to your cardiovascular system regardless of your diet.

Chronic elevation of blood pressure, stress-induced hypertension gets you into trouble after a while because you begin to damage the surface of your blood vessels and that's exactly the place that fat and glucose and cholesterol love to stick and start forming plaques and clogging up your arteries and forming scar tissue and inflamed areas surrounding the scar tissue... And where's the fat and glucose and cholesterol coming from? That's what you're mobilizing when you eat a diet high in animal fat. But to say "meat causes heart attacks" is too simplistic, it's more complex than diet alone -- factor in also exersize and stress habits -- there are tremendous individual variations. How well you handle stress? If you're a heavy meat and animal fat-eater, then I think you had better also be a very calm person who is extremely adept at handling stressful situations...among other things

[suspire]

Here some more info to support consumptoin of fish.
When in Finland listing professions according to life expectancy, fishers made the top. Of course they are also getting a lot of fresh air etc.. The interesting point is that they fish in the baltic sea which is known for heavy pollution. It seems that the positive effect of fish etc. it outweighing the negative effects of pollution etc. in the fish they consume. Maybe the effect of those environmental poisons is overrated, which still may have the positive effect that they are not used so liverately any more.

Yup, I agree that eating fish won't cause problems in the brain if you leave to a 100, but who knows what happens if/when we live to be older than that? The studies show that mercury accumulates in the brain; it's just that the subjects die before any possible negative effects manifest themselves.

Infant mortality, disease, warfare

Several people on this thread have pointed to studies that show this to be true. Meat contributes to advanced aging also. The evidence is in the way middle aged meat eaters versus middle aged non-meat eaters look. I've known a 47 year old vegan who looked late 20s, never knew a 47 year old meat eater who didn't look 47. Knew a 34 year old vegetarian who looked 19, never knew a 34 year old meat eater who didn't look 34. I know looks aren't everything, but in terms of cellular decay, they do reveal on the outside what diets are best and what diets are not for living longer, healthier lives. Someone pointed to Jared leto on another thread, saying he looks 25 when he is in fact 37. He is a well known vegetarian. This is just a macro-fact that supports all the micro-facts. By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just pointing out some macro-facts to go along with the micro-facts. I'm opened to reading any and all comparative studies. What i'd be interested in knowing is what specific effect vegetarian diets have on the cellular structure of the human organism versus non-vegetarian diets that contribute to advanced aging.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the supercentenarians are vegetarians.

Correct me if I am wrong, but most supercentenarians have longevity genes that tend to run in their family. I am not saying all of them, but the ones who do not have attributed their longevity to diets low of fat and high in vegetable consumption, at least according to the interviews I have read. The bottom line is there needs to be more extensive research into what genes are responsible for life extension and what genes aren't and to find a way to simulate the function of these genes. Then to use this data to reverse the effects of sarcopenia (which is largely responsible for elderly people becoming so weak and frail) and cellular decay.

We're also at a point in history where the level of diet and supplementation we are seeing has never been attempted before. So this is unprecedented. We can only conclude from micro and macro observable facts what is going well versus what is not. Like I said, I never saw a 47 year old meat eater who did not look 47. Whereas I have seen the converse in strict long time vegetarians who looked much younger at that age.

I think you can attribute a reasonable amount of success on any diet to genetics. As is being discussed in this thread: http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=26329, it seems that the apoC-III gene, when turned off, gives the individual a huge advantage when it comes to what they eat versus heart health. It looks like they can eat just about anything without a whole lot of worry about their triglycerides, LDL or HDL.

As for the anecdotal evidence, I'd go in the opposite direction. I've met a number of vegetarians who looked older than their years. Why, because they were white and tended to spend a lot of time out in the sun (which did not do well for their skin health). Conversely, I've met a number of Asians and South Asians who were meat eaters who looked much younger than their age: in this case, it was an issue of genetics/skin pigmentation that played a factor. But all in all, just because you see or don't see someone who does or doesn't look their age, you cannot conclude it is their diet that is the cause for it. There are numerous mitigating factors. Vegetarians, for instance, tend to be more health conscious as a whole (as a sub-category of the larger population), so I suspect they may take more effort to keep in good health, which may be the reason why some of them look younger than their years. And your average meat-eater tends to lead an unhealthy lifestyle; that is not indicative of a health conscious meat-eater, the type that may frequent these forums and take the steps outlined to improve their health.

I am not saying that meat-eating is good or bad; I am just saying that: 1) Genetics seems to play a major role. Moreso than diet. 2) Anecdotal evidence on whether a vegetarian looks younger or not than a meat-eater misses so many marks that would be required of a proper scientific study as to be useless as a starting point on whether or not eating meat does or does not play a negative role on health.

Edited by suspire, 12 December 2008 - 08:13 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Andrew Weil doesn't look particularly young for his age, however since we don't know his metabolic history and how we lives IRL he shouldn't be judged for that. As I've thought from eating his book his advices are really good with the exception of as mentioned the large amount of carbohydrates.

[suspire]

Andrew Weil doesn't look particularly young for his age, however since we don't know his metabolic history and how we lives IRL he shouldn't be judged for that. As I've thought from eating his book his advices are really good with the exception of as mentioned the large amount of carbohydrates.

I like eating his books, too! They're better for you than meat!

Sorry, couldn't resist.