204 replies to this topic

[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.

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.

Well I should emphasize that by 'vegetarian' I am not merely referring to those who cut meat out of their diets. I am referring to holistic health conscious individuals whose entire concept of health encompasses a wide range of variables, INCLUDING but not limited to diet. This is not Anectodal. First hand experience and observation never is. Now whether or not this is just a small aspect of a much larger issue remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is most meat is high in bad fats. There is never really a point when one can cut these fats out entirely, even in the leanest meats. There is also the issue of growth hormones being pumped into live stock and the correlative effects this might have on those who consume much of this meat. I am not saying this is the be all, end all argument to be made, merely that a macro-indicator such as physical appearance should not be ignored either, as superficial as it may seem at the outset. I would not concur that genetics is the holy grail either. One might just as easily suggest that the choice of being vegetarian is genetic in origin as well, so why try if you are not dreaming about being a vegetarian at a very young age. But this, I suppose, would be 'anectodal' too.

[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.

Well I should emphasize that by 'vegetarian' I am not merely referring to those who cut meat out of their diets. I am referring to holistic health conscious individuals whose entire concept of health encompasses a wide range of variables, INCLUDING but not limited to diet. This is not Anectodal. First hand experience and observation never is. Now whether or not this is just a small aspect of a much larger issue remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is most meat is high in bad fats. There is never really a point when one can cut these fats out entirely, even in the leanest meats. There is also the issue of growth hormones being pumped into live stock and the correlative effects this might have on those who consume much of this meat. I am not saying this is the be all, end all argument to be made, merely that a macro-indicator such as physical appearance should not be ignored either, as superficial as it may seem at the outset. I would not concur that genetics is the holy grail either. One might just as easily suggest that the choice of being vegetarian is genetic in origin as well, so why try if you are not dreaming about being a vegetarian at a very young age. But this, I suppose, would be 'anectodal' too.

Not to be a stickler about this, but actually, yes, it is still anecdotal. You are basing your conclusions that vegetarians look younger than their years verus meat-eaters who, according to you, never look younger than their years on first hand experiences and casual observations. This is anecdotal. If you had done a rigorous or scientific study, it would not be anecdotal. I gave you counter observations based on my own anecdotal evidence. I am not saying your position on meat is incorrect--I am saying that you're basing your position on observations that are done by casual observation of a single individual (your observations, that is), without any consideration of other factors. You cited Jared Leto as an example to prove your point, without taking a slew of other possibilities into account (maybe he has had plastic surgery, maybe he's on special regimen for skin care since he's an actor, etc). These sorts of claims do not have weight without more data and study.

Your statement about vegetarianism being or not being genetic is a non sequitur, actually, because it does not connect with the rest of the argument. That said, it is also anecdotal, since I've yet to see any study that states vegetarianism is genetic.

Edited by suspire, 12 December 2008 - 10:42 PM.

[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.

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.

Well I should emphasize that by 'vegetarian' I am not merely referring to those who cut meat out of their diets. I am referring to holistic health conscious individuals whose entire concept of health encompasses a wide range of variables, INCLUDING but not limited to diet. This is not Anectodal. First hand experience and observation never is. Now whether or not this is just a small aspect of a much larger issue remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is most meat is high in bad fats. There is never really a point when one can cut these fats out entirely, even in the leanest meats. There is also the issue of growth hormones being pumped into live stock and the correlative effects this might have on those who consume much of this meat. I am not saying this is the be all, end all argument to be made, merely that a macro-indicator such as physical appearance should not be ignored either, as superficial as it may seem at the outset. I would not concur that genetics is the holy grail either. One might just as easily suggest that the choice of being vegetarian is genetic in origin as well, so why try if you are not dreaming about being a vegetarian at a very young age. But this, I suppose, would be 'anectodal' too.

Not to be a stickler about this, but actually, yes, it is still anecdotal. You are basing your conclusions that vegetarians look younger than their years verus meat-eaters who, according to you, never look younger than their years on first hand experiences and casual observations. This is anecdotal. If you had done a rigorous or scientific study, it would not be anecdotal. I gave you counter observations based on my own anecdotal evidence. I am not saying your position on meat is incorrect--I am saying that you're basing your position on observations that are done by casual observation of a single individual (your observations, that is), without any consideration of other factors. You cited Jared Leto as an example to prove your point, without taking a slew of other possibilities into account (maybe he has had plastic surgery, maybe he's on special regimen for skin care since he's an actor, etc). These sorts of claims do not have weight without more data and study.

Your statement about vegetarianism being or not being genetic is a non sequitur, actually, because it does not connect with the rest of the argument. That said, it is also anecdotal, since I've yet to see any study that states vegetarianism is genetic.

I already pointed out that it was Anectodal, to reveal the fact that, after a certain point everything everyone here is spouting is 'Anectodal' in nature. According to your theory of observation and analysis, you cannot point to the forementioned studies and state that they are not adequate, because this observation would indeed be, as you so punctually stated earlier, ANECTODAL. There is also, absolutely no evidence that the counter studies pointed to were in direct response to these studies, thus they have absolutely no impact when it comes to refuting their claims. Now, with regard to physical appearance, let me make it clear that 1-My observations are not limited to a single individual as you so erroneously put it and 2-I was referring, in the main, to white males and white females. So let me once more state that my observation of white males and white females has been such that most middle-aged white males and white females I have met, who have been maintaining a vegetarian diet most of their lives, tend to (whether it is purely genetically related or not) take on a younger appearance (sometimes by decades) than most white male and white female meat eaters of the same age groups whom I have encountered. This is, of course, an incomplete observation, but it is based on approximate interactions of about a hundred people in the course of the past 5 years, since I was 19 years of age. I hope this is a more clear explanation and that it gives rise to people calming down and balancing their estrogen levels out.

[JLL]

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.

Do you have evidence for this? How do you get glucose from animal fat?

[TheFountain]

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.

Do you have evidence for this? How do you get glucose from animal fat?

Saturated fat consumption affects glucose metabolism and insulin production. Another reason why those who've been strict vegetarians most of their lives do not succumb to type 2 diabetes as much as meat eaters.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 December 2008 - 02:44 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

saturated fat does not rise glucose a lot. If you eat a diet with lots of saturated fat and little carbohydrates you would not get diabetes.
The majority of health-related problems in the western society has to do with sugar and not fat.

Even those who are against saturated fat acknowledges that it does not elevate glucose a lot.

Meat-eaters may get diabetes because they also consume a lot of sugar, vegetarians may escape it by eating less sugar and not being overweight or whatever.

[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.

Well I should emphasize that by 'vegetarian' I am not merely referring to those who cut meat out of their diets. I am referring to holistic health conscious individuals whose entire concept of health encompasses a wide range of variables, INCLUDING but not limited to diet. This is not Anectodal. First hand experience and observation never is. Now whether or not this is just a small aspect of a much larger issue remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is most meat is high in bad fats. There is never really a point when one can cut these fats out entirely, even in the leanest meats. There is also the issue of growth hormones being pumped into live stock and the correlative effects this might have on those who consume much of this meat. I am not saying this is the be all, end all argument to be made, merely that a macro-indicator such as physical appearance should not be ignored either, as superficial as it may seem at the outset. I would not concur that genetics is the holy grail either. One might just as easily suggest that the choice of being vegetarian is genetic in origin as well, so why try if you are not dreaming about being a vegetarian at a very young age. But this, I suppose, would be 'anectodal' too.

Not to be a stickler about this, but actually, yes, it is still anecdotal. You are basing your conclusions that vegetarians look younger than their years verus meat-eaters who, according to you, never look younger than their years on first hand experiences and casual observations. This is anecdotal. If you had done a rigorous or scientific study, it would not be anecdotal. I gave you counter observations based on my own anecdotal evidence. I am not saying your position on meat is incorrect--I am saying that you're basing your position on observations that are done by casual observation of a single individual (your observations, that is), without any consideration of other factors. You cited Jared Leto as an example to prove your point, without taking a slew of other possibilities into account (maybe he has had plastic surgery, maybe he's on special regimen for skin care since he's an actor, etc). These sorts of claims do not have weight without more data and study.

Your statement about vegetarianism being or not being genetic is a non sequitur, actually, because it does not connect with the rest of the argument. That said, it is also anecdotal, since I've yet to see any study that states vegetarianism is genetic.

I already pointed out that it was Anectodal, to reveal the fact that, after a certain point everything everyone here is spouting is 'Anectodal' in nature. According to your theory of observation and analysis, you cannot point to the forementioned studies and state that they are not adequate, because this observation would indeed be, as you so punctually stated earlier, ANECTODAL. There is also, absolutely no evidence that the counter studies pointed to were in direct response to these studies, thus they have absolutely no impact when it comes to refuting their claims. Now, with regard to physical appearance, let me make it clear that 1-My observations are not limited to a single individual as you so erroneously put it and 2-I was referring, in the main, to white males and white females. So let me once more state that my observation of white males and white females has been such that most middle-aged white males and white females I have met, who have been maintaining a vegetarian diet most of their lives, tend to (whether it is purely genetically related or not) take on a younger appearance (sometimes by decades) than most white male and white female meat eaters of the same age groups whom I have encountered. This is, of course, an incomplete observation, but it is based on approximate interactions of about a hundred people in the course of the past 5 years, since I was 19 years of age. I hope this is a more clear explanation and that it gives rise to people calming down and balancing their estrogen levels out.

Easy there, tiger.

My bit on anecdotal evidence was because I felt you were misunderstanding the word in your rebuke. I continue to think you are misunderstanding the word in your further explanation, but that is irrelevant to the larger argument. As an aside, however, when I said observations of a single individual, I meant that all observations came from a single observer--yourself. Not that your sample size was one. I should have been more clear.

Basically, these forums have seen unreliable posters and information time and again. We've seen people try to pimp products for corporations. In another thread, we have someone making bold claims about how he was impacted by a certain product--he asked if we doubted his results. The answer was: Yes. At least one poster called BS, while others showed a healthy amount of skepticism. What I am trying to say is we have no way of knowing if your observations are correct, biased, deluded or politically motivated. Maybe you're a member of PETA. Maybe your observations are faulty. Etc.

I am not for or against your position. I've said this numerous times. I have some skepticism for the paleo-folks, too. I am, however, against giving any weight to your statements based on personal observations. I am equally skeptical of other posters on other threads who say similar things. Post peer-reviewed studies that support your argument and we'll all be a little happier.

[TheFountain]

saturated fat does not rise glucose a lot. If you eat a diet with lots of saturated fat and little carbohydrates you would not get diabetes.
The majority of health-related problems in the western society has to do with sugar and not fat.

Even those who are against saturated fat acknowledges that it does not elevate glucose a lot.

Meat-eaters may get diabetes because they also consume a lot of sugar, vegetarians may escape it by eating less sugar and not being overweight or whatever.

First of all people must and I emphasize MUST start actively differentiating between good carbs and bad carbs. Good carbs will not raise arterial plaque because most of them, due to their fiber content, will be shunted directly into the colin for deposition and cleansing. Secondly, saturated fat, no matter how you express it, and through what method, whether or not it is from inducing weight gain, arterial blockages or otherwise, DOES raise glucose levels. It is not the direct mechanism, but it gives rise to the mechanisms by which glucose levels rise. I think any nutritionist would tell you this bluntly. There is no reason to use semantics to skirt around this issue.

[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.

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.

Well I should emphasize that by 'vegetarian' I am not merely referring to those who cut meat out of their diets. I am referring to holistic health conscious individuals whose entire concept of health encompasses a wide range of variables, INCLUDING but not limited to diet. This is not Anectodal. First hand experience and observation never is. Now whether or not this is just a small aspect of a much larger issue remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is most meat is high in bad fats. There is never really a point when one can cut these fats out entirely, even in the leanest meats. There is also the issue of growth hormones being pumped into live stock and the correlative effects this might have on those who consume much of this meat. I am not saying this is the be all, end all argument to be made, merely that a macro-indicator such as physical appearance should not be ignored either, as superficial as it may seem at the outset. I would not concur that genetics is the holy grail either. One might just as easily suggest that the choice of being vegetarian is genetic in origin as well, so why try if you are not dreaming about being a vegetarian at a very young age. But this, I suppose, would be 'anectodal' too.

Not to be a stickler about this, but actually, yes, it is still anecdotal. You are basing your conclusions that vegetarians look younger than their years verus meat-eaters who, according to you, never look younger than their years on first hand experiences and casual observations. This is anecdotal. If you had done a rigorous or scientific study, it would not be anecdotal. I gave you counter observations based on my own anecdotal evidence. I am not saying your position on meat is incorrect--I am saying that you're basing your position on observations that are done by casual observation of a single individual (your observations, that is), without any consideration of other factors. You cited Jared Leto as an example to prove your point, without taking a slew of other possibilities into account (maybe he has had plastic surgery, maybe he's on special regimen for skin care since he's an actor, etc). These sorts of claims do not have weight without more data and study.

Your statement about vegetarianism being or not being genetic is a non sequitur, actually, because it does not connect with the rest of the argument. That said, it is also anecdotal, since I've yet to see any study that states vegetarianism is genetic.

I already pointed out that it was Anectodal, to reveal the fact that, after a certain point everything everyone here is spouting is 'Anectodal' in nature. According to your theory of observation and analysis, you cannot point to the forementioned studies and state that they are not adequate, because this observation would indeed be, as you so punctually stated earlier, ANECTODAL. There is also, absolutely no evidence that the counter studies pointed to were in direct response to these studies, thus they have absolutely no impact when it comes to refuting their claims. Now, with regard to physical appearance, let me make it clear that 1-My observations are not limited to a single individual as you so erroneously put it and 2-I was referring, in the main, to white males and white females. So let me once more state that my observation of white males and white females has been such that most middle-aged white males and white females I have met, who have been maintaining a vegetarian diet most of their lives, tend to (whether it is purely genetically related or not) take on a younger appearance (sometimes by decades) than most white male and white female meat eaters of the same age groups whom I have encountered. This is, of course, an incomplete observation, but it is based on approximate interactions of about a hundred people in the course of the past 5 years, since I was 19 years of age. I hope this is a more clear explanation and that it gives rise to people calming down and balancing their estrogen levels out.

Easy there, tiger.

My bit on anecdotal evidence was because I felt you were misunderstanding the word in your rebuke. I continue to think you are misunderstanding the word in your further explanation, but that is irrelevant to the larger argument. As an aside, however, when I said observations of a single individual, I meant that all observations came from a single observer--yourself. Not that your sample size was one. I should have been more clear.

Basically, these forums have seen unreliable posters and information time and again. We've seen people try to pimp products for corporations. In another thread, we have someone making bold claims about how he was impacted by a certain product--he asked if we doubted his results. The answer was: Yes. At least one poster called BS, while others showed a healthy amount of skepticism. What I am trying to say is we have no way of knowing if your observations are correct, biased, deluded or politically motivated. Maybe you're a member of PETA. Maybe your observations are faulty. Etc.

I am not for or against your position. I've said this numerous times. I have some skepticism for the paleo-folks, too. I am, however, against giving any weight to your statements based on personal observations. I am equally skeptical of other posters on other threads who say similar things. Post peer-reviewed studies that support your argument and we'll all be a little happier.

Review the links. There have been at least a dozen links of studies posted. You are choosing to ignore them for 'anectodal' reasons. Those reasons being that other studies, that have no direct relation to these, have through obfuscating facts, stated something different, but again was not in direct response to these studies and have thus failed to prove them wrong point for point. Someone already pointed to a study which showcased high meat, low carb diet which pointed to the similar end result I pointed to earlier. You and a few other's here are saying this study is invalid because you happen to think their methods were not sound. Is the latter not the epitome of Anectodal refutation? You are saying the methods were not sound, not through scientific analysis of them, but through your own observation of what you would have liked done in such studies. I would say this is the very definition of an anectodal position. Why am I not afforded such?

Edited by TheFountain, 13 December 2008 - 03:55 PM.

[wydell]

You can find studies to support both low carb and moderate carb. And you can definitely find studies that support low meat consumption as being possibly beneficial, probably more so than finding studies that high meat consumption is possibly beneficial - (e.g., Okinawans, Seventh Day Adventists). I don't think think the proof is clear cut on this issue by any means.

In terms of my eating, I shoot for one or two 8 ounce serving of beef or chicken per day, a couple of whey protein drinks, one or two serviings of whole grain (oatmeal, and sometimes popcorn for a snack) and and large quantities of green vegetables, cruciferous, and tomoto products. My guess would be that a diet that focusses on meat and fat and low vegetable content probably would not be the healthiest diet. I used to think of my diet as low carb, but I think I will describe it now as "quality carb."


I am going to look for studies to support some carb intake. Here is a link to the first study. The sudy indicates that diets too low in carbohydrates may lead to bone loss.


http://www.scienceda...71217150506.htm

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.

Edited by wydell, 13 December 2008 - 04:12 PM.

[Mind]

TheFountain: Good carbs will not raise arterial plaque because most of them, due to their fiber content, will be shunted directly into the colin for deposition and cleansing.

Then I would say that the actual "carbs" are not "good", just that eating carbs with a high fiber content prevents some of the carbs from being absorbed, which could be considered positive for health.

I am not a huge advocate either way (although I do personally stick close to paleo). I just started this thread because I thought Dr. Weil's food pyramid could be improved by cutting back on some of the carbs.

[TheFountain]

TheFountain: Good carbs will not raise arterial plaque because most of them, due to their fiber content, will be shunted directly into the colin for deposition and cleansing.

Then I would say that the actual "carbs" are not "good", just that eating carbs with a high fiber content prevents some of the carbs from being absorbed, which could be considered positive for health.

I am not a huge advocate either way (although I do personally stick close to paleo). I just started this thread because I thought Dr. Weil's food pyramid could be improved by cutting back on some of the carbs.

I think it can be improved by first differentiating between good carbs and bad carbs and then making adjustments to include good carbs. People have a blanket conception of the affect of all carbs it seems, which shows they do not study nutrition as much as they ought to.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 December 2008 - 04:47 PM.

[ajnast4r]

I think it can be improved by first differentiating between good carbs and bad carbs and then making adjustments to include good carbs. People have a blanket conception of the affect of all carbs it seems, which shows they do not study nutrition as much as they ought to.

pay this man...

15 years ago low-fat was all the craze... didnt work out so great.
now low-carb is all the craze... not gonna work out so great.

then, as now, a balanced diet is what the human body prefers and what real science has shown time and time again to be most beneficial.

[sthira]

I think it can be improved by first differentiating between good carbs and bad carbs and then making adjustments to include good carbs. People have a blanket conception of the affect of all carbs it seems, which shows they do not study nutrition as much as they ought to.

pay this man...

15 years ago low-fat was all the craze... didnt work out so great.
now low-carb is all the craze... not gonna work out so great.

then, as now, a balanced diet is what the human body prefers and what real science has shown time and time again to be most beneficial.

Yep. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. I think it's human nature to make simple things complicated. A lot of the confusion is market-driven. It's easy to make money off of fats and supplements and weird protein powders. But who can make a buck off fresh whole fruits and vegetables? Eat simply, live simply, and live a long time.

Edited by sthira, 14 December 2008 - 06:01 AM.

[suspire]

Review the links. There have been at least a dozen links of studies posted. You are choosing to ignore them for 'anectodal' reasons. Those reasons being that other studies, that have no direct relation to these, have through obfuscating facts, stated something different, but again was not in direct response to these studies and have thus failed to prove them wrong point for point. Someone already pointed to a study which showcased high meat, low carb diet which pointed to the similar end result I pointed to earlier. You and a few other's here are saying this study is invalid because you happen to think their methods were not sound. Is the latter not the epitome of Anectodal refutation? You are saying the methods were not sound, not through scientific analysis of them, but through your own observation of what you would have liked done in such studies. I would say this is the very definition of an anectodal position. Why am I not afforded such?

1) If I missed your links, my apologies. I'll look back and read through them. If they have peer-reviewed scientific studies, then you have my apologies, doubly-so. That's all I wanted.
2) I think you've mistaken me for someone else, because I haven't said or did half the things you're accusing me of having said and done. I've tried to repeatedly state that I am not against your position; all I wanted was more than personal observations (I am avoiding the term of "anecdotal evidence", because it seems to cause you to flip out). My own personal opinion is one for a "balanced diet" (if there is such a thing): I have more than a few reservations about the paleo-diets, or high fat/meat diets, etc. I just took issue to your repeated statements of "I've only met vegetarians who look younger than their age, but never meat eaters"--you kept repeating this as if it had merit on its own.
3) Err, I think that's it.

[Mind]

Suspire: My own personal opinion is one for a "balanced diet" (if there is such a thing)

From an evolutionary perspective, the Paleo diet is balanced. Grains/carbs/sugar were not available in large quantities for the vast majority of time during which human metabolism evolved. Meat, fish, eggs, leafy greens, cruciferous veggies, nuts, fruits, a few other small seeds, seems like a pretty balanced diet to me. I fail to see how adding large amounts of carbs/grains to a diet would improve it, unless you are a professional athlete, bodybuilder, or someone with a high energy job.

Eades weighs in on some bad experimental design

[DukeNukem]

Suspire: My own personal opinion is one for a "balanced diet" (if there is such a thing)

From an evolutionary perspective, the Paleo diet is balanced. Grains/carbs/sugar were not available in large quantities for the vast majority of time during which human metabolism evolved. Meat, fish, eggs, leafy greens, cruciferous veggies, nuts, fruits, a few other small seeds, seems like a pretty balanced diet to me. I fail to see how adding large amounts of carbs/grains to a diet would improve it, unless you are a professional athlete, bodybuilder, or someone with a high energy job.

Exactly, the paleo/evolutionary diet is a very healthy, vegetable-embracing diet. Research shows that that our pre-agriculture ancestors relied heavily on animals as food. As I said before, even though I am on high-fat diet, I likely eat a higher quantity of QUALITY carbs than most "healthy eaters." I do not eat gluten-containing carbs (most grains), I eat practically no grains, and I don't eat starchy carbs (might as well eat a handful of glucose). This pretty much leaves healthy carbs. I eat a large green salad every day, drenched in seasonings and olive oil. I eat berries quite a lot. But, my caloric intake is still dominated by fat/oil, then proteins, and lastly, quality carbs. Pretty much what our ancestors ate.

[wydell]

That seems like a balanced diet and is mostly what I follow, except for some treats, and oatmeal for breakfast.

Suspire: My own personal opinion is one for a "balanced diet" (if there is such a thing)

From an evolutionary perspective, the Paleo diet is balanced. Grains/carbs/sugar were not available in large quantities for the vast majority of time during which human metabolism evolved. Meat, fish, eggs, leafy greens, cruciferous veggies, nuts, fruits, a few other small seeds, seems like a pretty balanced diet to me. I fail to see how adding large amounts of carbs/grains to a diet would improve it, unless you are a professional athlete, bodybuilder, or someone with a high energy job.

Eades weighs in on some bad experimental design

[TheFountain]

I think it's a mistake to base our model of a healthy diet on evolutionary science. It's almost as bad as basing what our social structure should be on anthropological studies of apes in the wild. A lot of advancements have been made, we can get our essential amino acids and nutrients in supplemental whole foods without foraging around jungles with our noses steeped in filth. Our ancestors did not have it so good. Instinct has been a powerful evolutionary mechanism, but it only goes so far. What we should base our modern-day healthy and balanced diets on are the comparative, unbiased studies of nutritionists as these are the people trained in this field, not evolutionary scientists.

[DukeNukem]

I think it's a mistake to base our model of a healthy diet on evolutionary science. It's almost as bad as basing what our social structure should be on anthropological studies of apes in the wild.

This comparison is misguided. Evolution has everything to do with the content of what we should eat because we are genetically identical to these pre-agriculture ancestors. I shouldn't have to state the obvious that apes are a different species, genetically far removed from humans.

Edited by DukeNukem, 14 December 2008 - 03:58 PM.

[TheFountain]

I think it's a mistake to base our model of a healthy diet on evolutionary science. It's almost as bad as basing what our social structure should be on anthropological studies of apes in the wild.

This comparison is misguided. Evolution has everything to do with the content of what we should eat because we are genetically identical to these pre-agriculture ancestors. I shouldn't have to state the obvious that apes are a different species, genetically far removed from humans.

But at the same time we are attempting to augment and extend our genetic disposition through:

1-Advanced adaptation to our environment (partly by altering said environment), the likes of which our ancestors did not know.

2-The modification of our chromosomal structure relative to senescence for the purpose of life-extension.

3-The elimination of disease from the human Genome.

These three primary goals involve the transcendence of the previously established evolutionary cul de sac established by our ancestors through what is termed 'natural selection'. I would thus contend that part of what we define as 'natural selection' is a conscious mechanism whereby we alter our conditions willfully which may serve to give rise to punctual changes in our biochemistry and molecular make up. One such mechanism being modern nutritionism, which is indispensable to any life extension food pyramid.

Edited by TheFountain, 14 December 2008 - 04:41 PM.

[Not_Supplied]

If a high tech diet was developed that was shown to be better than a paleo diet, then sure I'd be interested. In the meantime though it seems to be a reasonable idea to eat roughly what we evolved to eat, adjusting for changes in food sources.

I'm not that nutritionally literate yet, but I just haven't seen anything that convinces me that basing a diet on grains and starchy carbs is any better.

FWIW anecdotally I know a few indian vegetarian families and they look great when they're younger, and are relatively long lived, but seem to have all manner of health problems and age very quickly after 30ish. Also have to eat lots of calories to get enough nutrients.

[DukeNukem]

I think it's a mistake to base our model of a healthy diet on evolutionary science. It's almost as bad as basing what our social structure should be on anthropological studies of apes in the wild.

This comparison is misguided. Evolution has everything to do with the content of what we should eat because we are genetically identical to these pre-agriculture ancestors. I shouldn't have to state the obvious that apes are a different species, genetically far removed from humans.

But at the same time we are attempting to augment and extend our genetic disposition through:

1-Advanced adaptation to our environment (partly by altering said environment), the likes of which our ancestors did not know.

2-The modification of our chromosomal structure relative to senescence for the purpose of life-extension.

3-The elimination of disease from the human Genome.

These three primary goals involve the transcendence of the previously established evolutionary cul de sac established by our ancestors through what is termed 'natural selection'. I would thus contend that part of what we define as 'natural selection' is a conscious mechanism whereby we alter our conditions willfully which may serve to give rise to punctual changes in our biochemistry and molecular make up. One such mechanism being modern nutritionism, which is indispensable to any life extension food pyramid.

You mention three things, but none of them apply to food content needs of current, unmodified humans. Until we meddle with our genes, we should stick with what brought us here. And that wasn't grains. In fact, oddly enough, every grain embracing culture becomes deformed with fat.

[TheFountain]

I think it's a mistake to base our model of a healthy diet on evolutionary science. It's almost as bad as basing what our social structure should be on anthropological studies of apes in the wild.

This comparison is misguided. Evolution has everything to do with the content of what we should eat because we are genetically identical to these pre-agriculture ancestors. I shouldn't have to state the obvious that apes are a different species, genetically far removed from humans.

But at the same time we are attempting to augment and extend our genetic disposition through:

1-Advanced adaptation to our environment (partly by altering said environment), the likes of which our ancestors did not know.

2-The modification of our chromosomal structure relative to senescence for the purpose of life-extension.

3-The elimination of disease from the human Genome.

These three primary goals involve the transcendence of the previously established evolutionary cul de sac established by our ancestors through what is termed 'natural selection'. I would thus contend that part of what we define as 'natural selection' is a conscious mechanism whereby we alter our conditions willfully which may serve to give rise to punctual changes in our biochemistry and molecular make up. One such mechanism being modern nutritionism, which is indispensable to any life extension food pyramid.

You mention three things, but none of them apply to food content needs of current, unmodified humans. Until we meddle with our genes, we should stick with what brought us here. And that wasn't grains. In fact, oddly enough, every grain embracing culture becomes deformed with fat.

We are already modifying ourselves by taking a plethora of supplements and in combinations that our ancestors never introduced into their bodies. Some of which bind to receptor sites in our nervous systems associated with physical stresses and defenses. Agriculture has also significantly changed. Most factory farming methods employed in the united states involve the induction of growth hormones and antibiotics, amongst other chemical additives to animal and plant products. This is changing our biochemistry as we speak. The conventional solution to this is to eat organic, but with industry being as it is, there is only so far one can eat organic before this label is watered down as well. My point is, in the face of these facts, we cannot possibly eat the same diet as our ancestors, because the purity of foods they ate is not available to us, it has been chemically altered by generations of industry. All we can do is have a diet guided by modern nutritional wisdom.

And your last statement about most cultures who embrace grains is biased, because it is probably based on third world cultures who have had nothing but consumption of grain and starchy foods. Malnourishment can bloat people just as much as over-eating. And the obesity epidemic in america is at a frightening level compared with other civilized cultures that, ironically, embrace a lot of grainy foods. But herein again lies the truth about how little some people here are studied in modern nutrition, as there is a very important difference between processed grains and whole grains, just as with good carbs and bad carbs, good fats and saturated and trans fats. I suggest more of you take time to read up on modern nutritional studies to supplement your vast scientific knowledge (which I do appreciate greatly I must add).

Edited by TheFountain, 14 December 2008 - 07:57 PM.

[DukeNukem]

And your last statement about most cultures who embrace grains is biased, because it is probably based on third world cultures who have had nothing but consumption of grain and starchy foods.

Third-world countries like America, Canada, Japan and England?

We are already modifying ourselves by taking a plethora of supplements and in combinations that our ancestors never introduced into their bodies.

Supplements don't modify genes, they trigger genes, just as food does. Supplements do not modify us. They optimize our intake of nutrients. In any case, food and food management play by far the largest role in our health and longevity. Exercise and supplements play a small role, at the most 25% combined. This is why the right diet is critical, and the right diet ain't a grain, gluten-filled diet. For most of us gluten causes inflammation to varying degrees, and grains just convert to unnecessary, nutritionally lacking glucose in our body. We lived for a million years without grains, now, within a blink on the evolutionary timeline, they calorically represent 40-60% of the average Western diet. And it's the Western-modern diet that has resulting in a catastrophic rapid rise in unhealthy, deformed fat people.

Just out of curiosity, what diet do you do (and for how long), how old are you, and in what health condition are you in?

Edited by DukeNukem, 15 December 2008 - 12:07 AM.

[sthira]

When considering paleo, a premise is that nature served us correctly to start with. So, what was right for our bodies then should be right for our bodies now, since we are structurally and physiologically the same. If you accept this premise, then a small amount of meat sometimes is probably harmless. And I think it's the same for grains, starchy roots and tubers, legumes, nuts, and dairy -- a small amount occasionally is harmless, possibly even beneficial. To what degree are these foods harmful and beneficial? One key is quantity. But how much of them do we consume? Is there any one size fits all? And that's why we quibble.

However, I've never heard of anyone, anywhere whose diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and other modern diseases of affluence were caused by eating too many whole fruits and vegetables. Have you?

Also, I'm not sure how supplements optimize our intake of nutrients -- probably just my own ignorance. Nor am I convinced that food and food management play by far the largest role in our health and longevity. Diet is important, of course, but how you would quantify such a statement would be interesting. Stress-reduction, I think, is as much a factor in the prevention of the diseases of affluence as is exercize, maintaining healthy relationships, a sense of humor, avoiding accidents, good sanitation, an evolving sense of wonder about the world we live in, what is the meaning of our lives, and all the rest of the more mundane aspects of life we so easily take for granted -- I myself take so much of my good fortune entirely for granted. And, if you look at Weil's writing beyond simply his nutritional pyramid, he states similar ideas.

[DukeNukem]

When considering paleo, a premise is that nature served us correctly to start with.

This statement is not correct. Nature doesn't serve us (humans), we evolved/adapted to survive best of what nature is serving. And we evolved to hunt and gather nature's available foods. For reasons that are off-topic here, those foods were high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carb. Animals, in particular, provide the greatest source of fats, and therefore energy. It's believed that paleolithic humans ate the organ meats first (like the remote Inuit did even last century), because that's where the most fats and nutrients are. Muscle meat was not the prized meat, and likely used to feed dogs once humans and dogs began living together (which some researchers believe happened over 130,000 years ago).

But, the key point is the humans adapted to what nature was serving. And large animals, in particular, where sought to feed the entire tribe, and required the skill of hunting in groups, which as much as anything likely spurred the need to communicate.

a small amount occasionally is harmless, possibly even beneficial.

I have to laugh at this statement. There were no vegetarian humans in our pre-agricultural history. Vegetarianism is a crazy notion than can exit in modern times because of supplements and processed foods.

and if you look at Weil's writing beyond simply his nutritional pyramid, he states similar ideas.

And one look a Dr. Weil is all you need to see to know that whatever he's teaching, ain't worth listening to. Dr. Phil is in a similar boat, with his diet book. It's hard to take the diet advice of a deformed fat person seriously.

[Brainbox]

Another study regarding saturated fat and linoleic acid. It's not a simple issue. Where's the link between some of the theories presented in this thread and the real world?

Markers of dietary fat quality and fatty acid desaturation as predictors of total and cardiovascular mortality: a population-based prospective study.
Warensjö E, Sundström J, Vessby B, Cederholm T, Risérus U.

Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Desaturase indexes, as markers of endogenous fatty acid desaturation, and a characteristic serum fatty acid (FA) composition are related to cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, but the relation to mortality is poorly investigated. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the relation between dietary fat biomarkers, desaturase indexes, and mortality. DESIGN: In this community-based prospective sample, 50-y-old men were followed for a maximum of 33.7 y. Cox proportional hazard analysis was conducted to investigate desaturase indexes (stearoyl-CoA-desaturase and Delta(6)- and Delta(5)-desaturase) and the relation of individual serum esterified fatty acids (FAs) in relation to total and cardiovascular mortality in the total study sample (n = 2009) and in a healthy subsample (n = 1885). Desaturase indexes were estimated as product-to-precursor FA ratios. RESULTS: During follow-up, 1012 men in the total sample died and 931 men in the healthy subsample died. Desaturase indexes predicted both total and cardiovascular mortality. The relations were independent of smoking status, physical activity, BMI, total cholesterol, and hypertension. The adjusted and standardized (per SD) hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for cardiovascular mortality were 1.15 (1.04, 1.27) for stearoyl-CoA-desaturase, 1.12 (1.0, 1.24) for Delta(6)-desaturase, and 0.88 (0.80, 0.98) for Delta(5)-desaturase, respectively. The proportion of serum linoleic acid was inversely related, whereas serum FAs associated with saturated fat intake (palmitic, palmitoleic, and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acids) were directly related to total and cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Altered endogenous FA desaturation might contribute to mortality risk because we observed independent associations between desaturase activity indexes and mortality. The proportion of linoleic acid was inversely related, and FAs reflecting saturated fat intake were directly related to mortality.

PMID: 18614742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[TheFountain]

And your last statement about most cultures who embrace grains is biased, because it is probably based on third world cultures who have had nothing but consumption of grain and starchy foods.

Third-world countries like America, Canada, Japan and England?

We are already modifying ourselves by taking a plethora of supplements and in combinations that our ancestors never introduced into their bodies.

Supplements don't modify genes, they trigger genes, just as food does. Supplements do not modify us. They optimize our intake of nutrients. In any case, food and food management play by far the largest role in our health and longevity. Exercise and supplements play a small role, at the most 25% combined. This is why the right diet is critical, and the right diet ain't a grain, gluten-filled diet. For most of us gluten causes inflammation to varying degrees, and grains just convert to unnecessary, nutritionally lacking glucose in our body. We lived for a million years without grains, now, within a blink on the evolutionary timeline, they calorically represent 40-60% of the average Western diet. And it's the Western-modern diet that has resulting in a catastrophic rapid rise in unhealthy, deformed fat people.

Just out of curiosity, what diet do you do (and for how long), how old are you, and in what health condition are you in?

Your last statement is simply not true with regard to why obesity has sprung forth in america. It is a combination of consuming a lot of processed foods and meat induced with hormones and high fat. I do not know a lot of obese people who eat lentils on a regular basis, just as an 'anectodal' add on. I eat lentils about 4 times a week, amongst other, whole-grain foods. I am 154 lbs at 5'9 inches in height, 24 years of age and am otherwise on a vairiation of the moderate calorie pritikin diet, although some days I consume more calories than other's (these would be exercise days). My body fat is at approximately 10% with exercising 4-5 days a week and more of my weight is in muscle than it is in fat. I do not consume any meat other than fish, particularly shrimp, salmon and tuna, and I consume vegetables as regularly as possible, otherwise supplementing them with a regular intake of spirulina powder (which some professionals suggest has 5 times the nutrients as 4 servings of vegetables daily). My supplement intake is fairly sparse compared to many people here, but I am adding and subtracting to it as breakthroughs in scientific knowledge abound. I recently added resveretrol, and plan to add astral fruit (astragalus IV extract) to my regimen, as well as a natural HGH releaser (secretagogue one).

But to clarify, I consume a lot of carbs, approximately 200-300 daily. But these are good carbs from whole grain/high fiber sources, which is why they are not tacking weight on me. I know people 5 years younger than me who, through a bad carb, high meat/high fat diet, are in much worse shape than I am. I also eat Organic dairy products 98% of the time when I do consume dairy (Occasionally I will eat a non-organic egg when I am at someone elses house). I keep my fat intake to somewhere between 25-35 grams daily, but again of the good fats, with a definite mix of Omega 3s and 6s. I make a conscious effort to avoid all consumption of saturated and trans fat. If I didn't my body fat would probably be a few percentage points higher thus my overall health would suffer greatly. But part of the reason I am healthy is that the high fiber content in the grains I consume keep my digestive tract clean and my immune system strong. I learned this all through vast studies of modern nutrition. I know people 20 years older than me on very similar diets, who do very well on them and look younger than their ages. But again, these are people who have been practicing strict nutrition for most of their adult lives.

Edited by TheFountain, 15 December 2008 - 04:49 PM.

[Not_Supplied]

Wholehealthsource opines that it may not matter all that much what proportion of protein, carb and fat we eat. Maybe the massive differences of opinion stem from the fact that it's possible to be healthy on a variety of diets??