107 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

Checking through my father's old library of books, I found a 1965 book, Let's Get Well, by Adelle Davis, one of the nation's top recognized nutritional experts and authors (masters degree) at the time. The book has a chapter on heart disease, and points out that "the first case of heart disease as it is known today was reported in 1912, the second in 1919, and since then it has developed into a major killer. Stress, though often blamed, has been universal throughout the ages. The obvious changes have been the ever-increasing consumption of refined foods and hydrogenated fats. The populations of the world living today on unrefined foods do not have heart disease. This insane process can be halted or the tragic path which has become a form of national suicide can continue. The choice lies with each individual."

This book is extremely well referenced, and I was able to look-up through these references the man who first categorized heart disease:
http://en.wikipedia....ames_B._Herrick

I've said many times, heart disease is a self-inflicted condition. Apparently, back in 1965, this was still understood.

I'm sure heart disease in humans occurred starting with the domestication of grains, but it was rare until processed oils also entered our food supple, just over 100 years ago.

I looked up the author of that book, Adelle Davis -- a fascinating person, to be sure:
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Adelle_Davis

I was surprised to learn she only lived 70 years. Then I saw on her website an example recipe she had in one of her books:

-5 Cups Old- Fashioned Oatmeal
-1 Cup of each: Cut Almonds, Un-Refined Sesame Seeds, Sunflower Seeds, Shredded Coconut, Soy Flour, Powdered Milk, Wheat Germ
-Combine all DRY Ingredients
-Combine 1 Cup honey and 1 cup vegetable oil in separate dish

This recipe is a health disaster! And oddly, it doesn't even hold true with what Davis believed to be a healthy diet: avoid unprocessed foods. For example, vegetable oil is definitely processed, but in her favor, at the time, faulty research showed that vegetable oils were the healthiest of all oils (merely because they lowered cholesterol, which we now know has no correlation to heart disease). So, even with the best intentions, Davis unknowingly sabotaged her health with a bad diet, because...

o whole grains are unhealthy
o honey is loaded with fructose
o vegetable oils are highly inflammatory
o powdered milk rather than whole milk??

If this is an example of the her dietary choices, she was doomed to die before her time.

Yet, here's something she said about the proliferation of processed and industrial foods during a health conference: "This is what's happening to us, to America, because there is a $125 billion food industry who cares nothing about health."

On this note, Davis was and continues to be correct.

Edited by DukeNukem, 07 November 2009 - 07:40 PM.

[forever freedom]

How is it my fault if not even nutrition experts know what's best to eat? It really bothers me that "experts" in nutrition can not make up their fucking minds on what's definitely better to eat. Some say processed fats are good, some say it's bad, some say a vegetable/high carb diet is good, some say a high protein diet is better, even others tell us to have a high fat diet.


I've been wanting to make a topic about what i said above for a while. No one really knows what's best for us, it appears, this is a highly annoying and demotivating situation. Makes me think sometimes of just eating whatever the heck i feel like and screw "good eating habits" because no one really has a clue about what they are.



The only thing every "expert" seems to agree on is that a high glycemic index diet is bad. So that's a start. But is there any other point where everyone agreees?


This pisses me off.

Edited by forever freedom, 07 November 2009 - 07:51 PM.

[tunt01]

oatmeal seems ok to me.

i think most heart disease in the non-western world is not self-inflicted. it can be epigenetically programmed.

search pubmed for "fetal origins heart disease"

[DukeNukem]

I agree there are conflicting opinions on practically every aspect of diet and health.

But with enough self-education, the picture becomes more and more clear. Also, find a few really smart, educated people who you really trust and pay attention to what they say. Here's a few I trust:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://high-fat-nutr...n.blogspot.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

Finally, test your own diet. I've been testing my diet (via extensive blood and body tests) for years, and through constant improvements to my diet my health markers continue to improve. Currently, they are almost at the point where no further improvement is possible.

If you test your health markers and your HDL, triglycerides, Lp(a), fasting insulin, and CRP are not great (I do 80 additional tests, too, but these are among the most critical), then you know you haven't found your best diet, yet. These tests (I do once every 6 months) should be your ultimate guide.

The more I've moved to a high natural fat, animal protein, low-carb, no grain, low starch, no processed fructose, no processed oil diet, the more my health markers have improved. BTW, my low carb diet is packed full of salad and colorful vegetable carbs, and moderate berry carbs. Too often people mistake a low carb diet for a near-no-carb diet. The volume of carbs I eat is high, but the key is that they are nutritious high-water-mass carbs. (BTW, fiber is unimportant to my diet -- more and more I am coming to believe that fiber is a net-negative.)

[immortali457]

There's no way you can prove whole grains are unhealthy.

[DukeNukem]

There's no way you can prove whole grains are unhealthy.

Perhaps you can prove they are healthy?

[VidX]

I'd say - go RAW. Most of the ppl I saw/red who went that route are healthy, young looking and jusr overall well going.. I don't really care if some "expert" says that this or that is bad (in raw, for ex.) while he's old, crippled, overweight or even dead.. It's a tricky situation actually.

[forever freedom]

I agree there are conflicting opinions on practically every aspect of diet and health.

But with enough self-education, the picture becomes more and more clear. Also, find a few really smart, educated people who you really trust and pay attention to what they say. Here's a few I trust:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://high-fat-nutr...n.blogspot.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

Finally, test your own diet. I've been testing my diet (via extensive blood and body tests) for years, and through constant improvements to my diet my health markers continue to improve. Currently, they are almost at the point where no further improvement is possible.

If you test your health markers and your HDL, triglycerides, Lp(a), fasting insulin, and CRP are not great (I do 80 additional tests, too, but these are among the most critical), then you know you haven't found your best diet, yet. These tests (I do once every 6 months) should be your ultimate guide.

The more I've moved to a high natural fat, animal protein, low-carb, no grain, low starch, no processed fructose, no processed oil diet, the more my health markers have improved. BTW, my low carb diet is packed full of salad and colorful vegetable carbs, and moderate berry carbs. Too often people mistake a low carb diet for a near-no-carb diet. The volume of carbs I eat is high, but the key is that they are nutritious high-water-mass carbs. (BTW, fiber is unimportant to my diet -- more and more I am coming to believe that fiber is a net-negative.)

Yes, that seems to be the only way i'll get a diet that is supposedly good for me. I'll have to get A LOT of education in the area, then spend months if not years experimenting on me which foods make my biomarkers better (as it appears that what's better for each person varies dramatically), and then slowly refine my diet, nevermind the other external and internal (genetic) factors that may be also influencing the biomarkers.

Makes me wonder what's the point of nutrition studies and extensive researches with thousands of human/animal subjects if what is better for somebody may not be ideal for somebody else.


Maybe once we have a high enough level of knowledge of the human genome we'll be able to know what's better for each person based on their genetics. Until then it appears we're shooting in the dark.

There's no way you can prove whole grains are unhealthy.

Perhaps you can prove they are healthy?

Yea, no one can prove anything, how great is that.

Edited by forever freedom, 07 November 2009 - 09:25 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I agree there are conflicting opinions on practically every aspect of diet and health.

But with enough self-education, the picture becomes more and more clear. Also, find a few really smart, educated people who you really trust and pay attention to what they say. Here's a few I trust:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://high-fat-nutr...n.blogspot.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

Finally, test your own diet. I've been testing my diet (via extensive blood and body tests) for years, and through constant improvements to my diet my health markers continue to improve. Currently, they are almost at the point where no further improvement is possible.

If you test your health markers and your HDL, triglycerides, Lp(a), fasting insulin, and CRP are not great (I do 80 additional tests, too, but these are among the most critical), then you know you haven't found your best diet, yet. These tests (I do once every 6 months) should be your ultimate guide.

The more I've moved to a high natural fat, animal protein, low-carb, no grain, low starch, no processed fructose, no processed oil diet, the more my health markers have improved. BTW, my low carb diet is packed full of salad and colorful vegetable carbs, and moderate berry carbs. Too often people mistake a low carb diet for a near-no-carb diet. The volume of carbs I eat is high, but the key is that they are nutritious high-water-mass carbs. (BTW, fiber is unimportant to my diet -- more and more I am coming to believe that fiber is a net-negative.)

Yes, that seems to be the only way i'll get a diet that is supposedly good for me. I'll have to get A LOT of education in the area, then spend months if not years experimenting on me which foods make my biomarkers better (as it appears that what's better for each person varies dramatically), and then slowly refine my diet, nevermind the other external and internal (genetic) factors that may be also influencing the biomarkers.

Makes me wonder what's the point of nutrition studies and extensive researches with thousands of human/animal subjects if what is better for somebody may not be ideal for somebody else.


Maybe once we have a high enough level of knowledge of the human genome we'll be able to know what's better for each person based on their genetics. Until then it appears we're shooting in the dark.

There's no way you can prove whole grains are unhealthy.

Perhaps you can prove they are healthy?

Yea, no one can prove anything, how great is that.

Your attitude will serve you well in life.

[DukeNukem]

I'd say - go RAW. Most of the ppl I saw/red who went that route are healthy, young looking and jusr overall well going.. I don't really care if some "expert" says that this or that is bad (in raw, for ex.) while he's old, crippled, overweight or even dead.. It's a tricky situation actually.

There have been several long-time vegan and vegetarian practitioners who've abandoned their diet in favor of a meat-eating diet, and have had remarkable health improvement. And they've written books, such as these two recent ones:





The following talk is given by a 25-yr vegetarian, after doing research on low-carb diets, and admitting that higher-fat, low-carb comes out as healthier. He said that he cannot argue with the data.
http://www.youtube.c...layer_embedded#

I challenge any non-meat-eater to a comparison of health markers. I've yet to lose a challenge.

[VidX]

Well it's really hard to tell... My grangranddmother ate a hell lot of carbs (simple mostly.. sweets, wheat products..) and she died at 90+ from her panreas (or THAT other organ, responsible for fat digestion I can't name at the moment) suddenly failing (ate a super high fat diet too, till her last day..).. And she was COMPLETELY healthy, aside that, markers were perfect, mind clear and overall everyone was just amazed by her condition. So it's really complicated to make assumptions based solely on controlled/isolated studies. And that's really bad, and probably will be so until we'll be able to get a complete diet plan based on a personal genome. Though seems like it shouldn't take too long.

Edited by VidX, 07 November 2009 - 10:27 PM.

[kismet]

I challenge any non-meat-eater to a comparison of health markers. I've yet to lose a challenge.

W/ or w/o ignoring cholesterol (i.e. LDL-C/HDL ratios and total LDL-C)? Biomarker comeptitions, that'd be pretty enticing a. if people agreed on the underlying evidence and b. and if they didn't cheat. 

VidX, can't argue with personal anecdotes, can you? The messenger afterall is more important than the message...

"My grangranddmother...[therefore] it's really complicated to make assumptions based solely on controlled/isolated studies. "
No! It's not. Please learn basic statistics before making claims that burn as many brain cells as your anecdote. I beg you, start with gaussian distributions and "anecdotal evidence" over at wikipedia.

Edited by kismet, 07 November 2009 - 10:32 PM.

[immortali457]

There's no way you can prove whole grains are unhealthy.

Perhaps you can prove they are healthy?

Only after you prove their unhealthy...lol

[DukeNukem]

W/ or w/o ignoring cholesterol (i.e. LDL-C/HDL ratios and total LDL-C)? Biomarker comeptitions, that'd be pretty enticing a. if people agreed on the underlying evidence and b. and if they didn't cheat.

I'd want to test these below as a start. The results need to be faxed or emailed (PDF) to a third-party for verification.

o Triglycerides
o HDL
o Lp(a) -- the most damaging of all the LDLs, I think
o CRP -- best inflammation marker, most likely
o fasting insulin (one of the best indicators of long-term health, based on centenarian research)

Basic total cholesterol and LDL are somewhat meaningless, I think we can all agree.

I'm happy to add in more tests, but I'm also willing to limit to these few to keep costs low.

Edited by DukeNukem, 07 November 2009 - 10:40 PM.

[ensun]

Grains usually contain gluten, raise insulin, and are less nutritionally dense than other foods. This is a fine argument. They are not the worst food out there but not the best either. But are there other factors that I am missing?

Edited by ensun, 07 November 2009 - 10:55 PM.

[VidX]

VidX, can't argue with personal anecdotes, can you? The messenger afterall is more important than the message...

"My grangranddmother...[therefore] it's really complicated to make assumptions based solely on controlled/isolated studies. "
No! It's not. Please learn basic statistics before making claims that burn as many brain cells as your anecdote. I beg you, start with gaussian distributions and "anecdotal evidence" over at wikipedia.

I can add to this anecdotical evidence - similar thing goes in my whole family. Getting overweight or high cholesterol is almost impossible, no matter how bad the diet is that field wise. So statistics may say one thing, while I have a completely different situation. As I said - it's a slippery field. Statistically significant data means just that - statistically you'd probably be better doing this, or that, but there's no guarantee you'll fall in the "right" part of statistics. 


 I'm really scientifically minded person, just there's SO much of these situations when one study "says" this, and another says completely different thing, it's kinda difficult to make a foolproof conclusion. We have a lot of contradicting threads and theories even in this one section. Paleo diet, raw diet, this diet, that diet, and everyone seems to have something to back up their claims, while I SUSPECT - this is a VERY individual field, that's why I'm sure - without a proper way to identify the optimal diet by genome we are doomed to try to "fit" in the "right" statistics and hope it'll be right for each of us (or to have various blood tests made and act accordingly. But still - these tests aren't the most accurate way to determine most of the variables, especially these long term related we may not even be aware at the moment..). 

Edited by VidX, 07 November 2009 - 11:02 PM.

[VidX]

Grains usually contain gluten, raise insulin, and are less nutritionally dense than other foods. This is a fine argument. They are not the worst food out there but not the best either. But are there other factors that I am missing?

Buckwheat. I eat tons of these. Any ideas about it from anyone? 

[forever freedom]

VidX, can't argue with personal anecdotes, can you? The messenger afterall is more important than the message...

"My grangranddmother...[therefore] it's really complicated to make assumptions based solely on controlled/isolated studies. "
No! It's not. Please learn basic statistics before making claims that burn as many brain cells as your anecdote. I beg you, start with gaussian distributions and "anecdotal evidence" over at wikipedia.

I can add to this anecdotical evidence - similar thing goes in my whole family. Getting overweight or high cholesterol is almost impossible, no matter how bad the diet is that field wise. So statistics may say one thing, while I have a completely different situation. As I said - it's a slippery field. Statistically significant data means just that - statistically you'd probably be better doing this, or that, but there's no guarantee you'll fall in the "right" part of statistics. 


 I'm really scientifically minded person, just there's SO much of these situations when one study "says" this, and another says completely different thing, it's kinda difficult to make a foolproof conclusion. We have a lot of contradicting threads and theories even in this one section. Paleo diet, raw diet, this diet, that diet, and everyone seems to have something to back up their claims, while I SUSPECT - this is a VERY individual field, that's why I'm sure - without a proper way to identify the optimal diet by genome we are doomed to try to "fit" in the "right" statistics and hope it'll be right for each of us (or to have various blood tests made and act accordingly. But still - these tests aren't the most accurate way to determine most of the variables, especially these long term related we may not even be aware at the moment..). 

I agree.

[immortali457]

Grains usually contain gluten, raise insulin, and are less nutritionally dense than other foods. This is a fine argument. They are not the worst food out there but not the best either. But are there other factors that I am missing?

Buckwheat. I eat tons of these. Any ideas about it from anyone?

Keep eating it.

[VidX]

Whoa.. just found out - "Buckwheat contains no gluten". And something along the lines of enzymes controlling blood sugar. I need to make a deeper analysis on these grains I've been eating for years (just because I find that a very good carb source and it's hard to get bored with them as the taste is kinda... tasteless, watery..+ I subjectively find them to give me some kind of full but still light/not tired feeling even after a big serving)..

Edited by VidX, 08 November 2009 - 12:56 AM.

[TheFountain]

Davis unknowingly sabotaged her health with a bad diet, because...

o whole grains are unhealthy

Why oh why do you continue to make blanket statements like this when you yourself have admitted that you make exceptions in your assertion to Oatmeal and buckwheat? All you have to say is that 'many grains are bad, but not all' instead of saying that all grains are bad for peoples health. This blurs the truth no less than when people say all fats are bad for you.

[TheFountain]

I'd say - go RAW. Most of the ppl I saw/red who went that route are healthy, young looking and jusr overall well going.. I don't really care if some "expert" says that this or that is bad (in raw, for ex.) while he's old, crippled, overweight or even dead.. It's a tricky situation actually.

There have been several long-time vegan and vegetarian practitioners who've abandoned their diet in favor of a meat-eating diet, and have had remarkable health improvement. And they've written books, such as these two recent ones:





The following talk is given by a 25-yr vegetarian, after doing research on low-carb diets, and admitting that higher-fat, low-carb comes out as healthier. He said that he cannot argue with the data.
http://www.youtube.c...layer_embedded#

I challenge any non-meat-eater to a comparison of health markers. I've yet to lose a challenge.

Well I guarantee you will lose one to a vegetarian who is on a no dairy, low carb, low fructose, high vegetable, moderate protein/calorie diet. Besides we are still figuring out what health markers are the healthiest. What have you to say regarding the studies that show meat consumption may shorten life spans due to IGF-1 activation? What have you to say to correlative evidence indicating that red meat consumption leads to increased chances of prostate cancer? The studies that show vegetarian diets lower IGF-1? Anything? In short, you're arrogant Duke.

[TheFountain]

Grains usually contain gluten, raise insulin, and are less nutritionally dense than other foods. This is a fine argument. They are not the worst food out there but not the best either. But are there other factors that I am missing?

Isn't Gluten levels in grains raised during processing because there is wheat added to just about everything now? Isn't this why processed oats are less healthy than organic oats?

[immortali457]

Davis unknowingly sabotaged her health with a bad diet, because...

o whole grains are unhealthy

Why oh why do you continue to make blanket statements like this when you yourself have admitted that you make exceptions in your assertion to Oatmeal and buckwheat? All you have to say is that 'many grains are bad, but not all' instead of saying that all grains are bad for peoples health. This blurs the truth no less than when people say all fats are bad for you.

I agree.

[HaloTeK]

Well I guarantee you will lose one to a vegetarian who is on a no dairy, low carb, low fructose, high vegetable, moderate protein/calorie diet. Besides we are still figuring out what health markers are the healthiest. What have you to say regarding the studies that show meat consumption may shorten life spans due to IGF-1 activation? What have you to say to correlative evidence indicating that red meat consumption leads to increased chances of prostate cancer? The studies that show vegetarian diets lower IGF-1? Anything? In short, you're arrogant Duke.

If I wanted the best possible health "for the moment" I'd choose Duke's diet in a flash. All of his bio-markers convince me that if he got sick, was shot, was in a car accident, etc. He would be positioning himself for the best possible chance of survival and recovery.

Now, Duke may disagree with me, but I feel the best possible health "for the moment" is different than the best possible health for longevity. This is no different than saying that if you were severely sick, your prognosis is better with a higher BMI (providing you aren't overweight) because you usually have a larger muscle mass reserve to draw upon. Obviously, if you weren't sick, you could keep your BMI as low as is practical.

I believe a low fat diet creates the conditions for the least insulin like-activity <---- this is different than absolute insulin levels, lowest IGF-1, lowest growth factors like HGH, etc.
As long as you keep your BMI low on this diet, you would give yourself the best chance for the best longevity. If you let your weight creep up at all <---- right away, a low carb diet becomes superior to this diet, hense the reason why most people seem to just do better on low carb diets.

Excess muscle leads to faster aging, I feel this is way overlooked by everyone who supplements HGH, and tries to grow big muscles.

And for everyone out there, if I had a low fat diet next to a low carb diet where both diets were barely eating enough to maintain their weights, which one would have more muscle. It is an easy answer, the low carb one. So, the low carb diet creates more growth-like hormones, hense, it ages you faster.


BTW, I'm going to include this quote from ray peat.

Insulin is important in the regulation of blood sugar, but its importance has been exaggerated because of the diabetes/insulin industry. Insulin itself has been found to account for only about 8% of the "insulin-like activity" of the blood, with potassium being probably the largest factor. There probably isn't any process in the body that doesn't potentially affect blood sugar.


http://raypeat.com/a.../glycemia.shtml

[Sillewater]

I remember reading ray peats article (skimmed it actually) and didn't figure out what his point was. Does he or does he not support low-carb?

[Luna]

There's no way you can prove whole grains are unhealthy.

Perhaps you can prove they are healthy?

Replace whole grains with God and healthy/unhealthy with exists/doesn't-exists ^^

I had to ^^

[TheFountain]

If I wanted the best possible health "for the moment" I'd choose Duke's diet in a flash.

Are you blind? Have you read all the accounts of raw foodists who barely if ever get sick? The Vegetarian CR people who never get sick? Or are you just one of those guys who likes meat, thus is arranging this argument to suit your beliefs? And how do you know Dukes body is not simply able to cope with high animal protein consumption better than another persons? I am not sure but I have seen his pictures, he appears somewhat naturally stocky to me, so maybe men of this stature simply have a better ability to cope metabolically with high animal protein and fat consumption than someone like, say, me or matt who are both smaller, naturally small framed guys. Maybe size determines metabolism?

All of his bio-markers convince me

I've talked to guys on the same or similar diet with different biomarkers. Don't be led by someone elses life. Live your own but by all means experiment. See what your biomarkers are on both a paleo and a raw food vegetarian diet and then decide.

that if he got sick, was shot, was in a car accident, etc. He would be positioning himself for the best possible chance of survival and recovery.

Yea he'd be superman.

Now, Duke may disagree with me, but I feel the best possible health "for the moment" is different than the best possible health for longevity. This is no different than saying that if you were severely sick, your prognosis is better with a higher BMI (providing you aren't overweight) because you usually have a larger muscle mass reserve to draw upon. Obviously, if you weren't sick, you could keep your BMI as low as is practical.

There is no direct correlation between BMI and mortality. That recent thread regarding this subject was complete bullshit. It's all about macronutrient absorbtion. As I said in another thread 2 different people of the same BMI can have completely different health outcomes.

As long as you keep your BMI low on this diet, you would give yourself the best chance for the best longevity. If you let your weight creep up at all <---- right away, a low carb diet becomes superior to this diet, hense the reason why most people seem to just do better on low carb diets.

Another thing I have noticed is that people on higher carb diets do not seem to regulate the types of carbs they consume. They always seem to sneak some refined carbs into their diet, thus sabotaging their own efforts and giving vegetarianism a bad rap.

the low carb diet creates more growth-like hormones, hense, it ages you faster.

Not necessarily. High refined carb diets lead to up-regulated gene expressions related to diabetes, kidney disease and an assortment of other age-related diseases. One of the main roads there as we all know is through glycation. I think what induces faster growth on most low carb diets is the consumption of meat and dairy (casein). I.E why it increases IGF-1 whereas vegetarian and vegan diets do not.

Edited by TheFountain, 08 November 2009 - 07:14 AM.

[niner]

VidX, can't argue with personal anecdotes, can you? The messenger afterall is more important than the message...

"My grangranddmother...[therefore] it's really complicated to make assumptions based solely on controlled/isolated studies. "
No! It's not. Please learn basic statistics before making claims that burn as many brain cells as your anecdote. I beg you, start with gaussian distributions and "anecdotal evidence" over at wikipedia.

I can add to this anecdotical evidence - similar thing goes in my whole family. Getting overweight or high cholesterol is almost impossible, no matter how bad the diet is that field wise. So statistics may say one thing, while I have a completely different situation. As I said - it's a slippery field. Statistically significant data means just that - statistically you'd probably be better doing this, or that, but there's no guarantee you'll fall in the "right" part of statistics. 

This is a good argument for nutrigenomics, but I don't think that we are as random as you seem to think. Anecdotes are a lot harder to ignore when you or your family are the anecdote.

I'm really scientifically minded person, just there's SO much of these situations when one study "says" this, and another says completely different thing, it's kinda difficult to make a foolproof conclusion. We have a lot of contradicting threads and theories even in this one section. Paleo diet, raw diet, this diet, that diet, and everyone seems to have something to back up their claims, while I SUSPECT - this is a VERY individual field, that's why I'm sure - without a proper way to identify the optimal diet by genome we are doomed to try to "fit" in the "right" statistics and hope it'll be right for each of us (or to have various blood tests made and act accordingly. But still - these tests aren't the most accurate way to determine most of the variables, especially these long term related we may not even be aware at the moment..). 

We need to be able to distinguish between an article that we might read in People Magazine and something from a peer reviewed journal. Not only are all sources not equally good, but most science reporting in the popular media, particularly where health and nutrition are concerned, is crap. We need to be more careful about our definitions. There is a hell of a lot of difference between a 130 grams of carbs/day diet and a ketogenic diet, though both might be called "low carb". A "vegetarian" diet might be "junk food-aterian", as TheFountain pointed out, or it might be a great diet. Any diet could be a Raw diet; just don't let any of it get too hot, ever. You could undoubtedly craft a diet that was both raw and bad, but a good raw diet is a great diet. Once you really get definitions sorted out, things are a bit less confusing.

[TheFountain]

You could undoubtedly craft a diet that was both raw and bad

Yes, like one that includes meat (which would see you sick often). Hence why some paleo dieters arbitrarily argue against raw food vegetarianism with no basis.