132 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

---This is an extremely broad statement, and I'd like to see your basis for this. I am sure you have heard of the deCODE genetics project going on in Iceland. For one specific type of breast cancer, they were able to trace a genetic mutation to one single person (a monk, I think) in the 1600s whose gene is now responsible for a significant number of breast cancer cases. Is it the fault of the people carrying this gene for getting cancer?

Here's what you need to understand: Yes, genetics plays a role, but in MOST cases, poor diet, nutritional short-comings, and external toxins (smoking, food additives, pollution, etc.) trigger much faster expression of these genetic tendencies. Meanwhile, a healthy diet overwhelms these minor genetic errors such that they never manifest into a life threatening condition. Basically, if we survive our first year, then we are genetically okay to the extent that with excellent nutritional support and toxic avoidance, we can overcome the vast majority of genetic misfires.

By far MOST cancer and heart disease cases are premature and self-inflected. Had these people eaten well, for example, most would have NOT experienced their condition until much later in life, if ever.

Survive our first year and we are genetically OK? I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that is utter bull. All sorts of genes can lie dormant for years. I remember the story of this one guy, I think it was on 20/20, where he got his stomach removed because there was a gene in his family that confered a 70% chance of stomach cancer. He was in his 30s or 40s. There wasn't much he could do or take other than remove his stomach to remove this risk. And for the rest of the claims in this quote, you REALLY need to start providing sources.

This is not my opinion, it is the opinion I've read from numerous people working in this field. You will always find exceptions, of course. But, I fully agree with the opinion that MOST cancers are triggered by poor diet, nutritional deficiency, and/or toxic exposure. For example, a family history of heart disease is not fait de compli. My father's family has such a history, and my father had a heart attack ten years ago (and prostate cancer around the same time). This doesn't worry me in the least. And in fact, since he's changed his diet 8 years ago, all indications of heart disease have significantly regressed, and he's no longer on the 10 medications he used to take (he only takes supps now -- no FDA drugs). His cancer is entirely undetectable, too.

Genetics are not the last word in our health -- they are merely predispositions. People love to believe otherwise, as it then removes the blame from their own actions. Genetics is the the excuse that says: Well, it doesn't matter what I do anyway, might as well eat what I want. Lookie there, a McDonald's up ahead!

[gregandbeaker]

Survive our first year and we are genetically OK? I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that is utter bull. All sorts of genes can lie dormant for years. I remember the story of this one guy, I think it was on 20/20, where he got his stomach removed because there was a gene in his family that confered a 70% chance of stomach cancer. He was in his 30s or 40s. There wasn't much he could do or take other than remove his stomach to remove this risk. And for the rest of the claims in this quote, you REALLY need to start providing sources.

Was he actually diagnosed with stomach cancer or just had a high risk? I would think taking 8000iu of vitamin D is far more conservative than having your stomach removed because you *might* get cancer. Especially considering you can make 20,000iu in 1/2 hour in bright midday sun. He could also have taken the course that many of us here on imminst take: keep as healthy as possible until the first bridge arrives. Citing uncommon genetic diseases and mutations doesn't refute the active genotype theory that people like Art De Vany and others use as their models for diet and exercise.

Duke is really referring to our common, active, expressing genotype. Feed it and exercise it the way it has evolved to eat and move, and your genes will likely express health and vitality. This may not confer longevity, we don't know that yet, but it does confer health. I don't see my genetic make-up as a static blueprint set in stone. The way I eat, my stress levels, the type of exercise I do, the work I engage in, and the environment around me affects day to day, hour to hour, and minute to minute expression. Hormones cascade through my body based on my actions and the world around me, and through those things I can influence my own health. It isn't written in stone and unmutable.

Most of the information I have seen regarding Niacin is that 1000-1500mg is the "therapeutic" dose for raising HDL levels. 100mg is far below that, and the popular vitamin brands usually sell the B range at 50mg each. Personally I have trouble reaching RDA's for Niacin with just food, so I supplement it at 100mg a day.

[OneScrewLoose]

First of all, your body has a limit of 10000IU Vitamin D a day. And if only 15min of sun were all that was needed, you wouldn't see blood levels below 40ng/dl. Probably not even below 50. We would not supplementing if this were true. There would also probably be no white people if this were true.

I am not saying it's set in stone, but people are still going to get heart disease, cancer, and diabetes even with a good diet, albeit at a lesser rate. It sounds like you are saying that this type of disease would be very rare if everyone followed a good diet. It would be less, but I doubt it would be rare.

Also, you seem to be suggesting a one-size-fits all diet. I am sure some fats are metabolized well in some people and poorly in others. Coffee is a good example of something that can be good for some and bad for others. You may not be meaning this, but this is what comes across when you make superlative comments about vegetable oils and saturated fats.

Another result of these superlative comments is the lack of room for change. Comments like those imply certainty, when I guarantee you 5 years from now a good portion of that may be considered wrong. This also goes along with you going whole-hog when studies come along showing benefits of some substance, ie Niacin and Vitamin D.

About the Niacin, 100mg is the exact amount of Niacin load used for testing in the study. Click here. The study also suggests that an increase in diabetes might be a result of niacin fortification in our foods. I guarantee you that the level of fortification the majority of people recieve per day from all their food combined is a good deal less than 100mg. I fail to see how someone could still take this risk unless they have significant cholesterol problems.

Simply stating that these are someone elses opinions does not exclude you from supplying sources. I am sure that you would hold me to the same standard.

[Shepard]

Duke, your dietary advice has changed a good bit over the past few years. What is it that caused you to believe this is the final word on nutrition?

[DairyProducts]

Simply stating that these are someone elses opinions does not exclude you from supplying sources. I am sure that you would hold me to the same standard.

I think what people are forgetting about this thread is that it is titled, "Duke's 2009 Health Summary." It is clearly intended as a summary of what he has brought up this year, not as a place to cite his research. People should first read his posts from earlier this year where he goes into these bullet points with greater depth. Of course that would require reading instead of asking him to retype something for the 20th time, but if he doesn't mind retyping it then I guess that's fine with everyone.

Edited by DairyProducts, 03 January 2010 - 07:40 PM.

[OneScrewLoose]

He doesn't have to retype, a simple link to his threads would be nice below each point he posts.

Every place in imminst is a place to cite research.

[DukeNukem]

Duke, your dietary advice has changed a good bit over the past few years. What is it that caused you to believe this is the final word on nutrition?

Our knowledge in this field continues to accumulate, so I expect that more refinements will come.

Here's what I tell people when starting a new diet: Get your blood work done, and not just blood lipids -- there's about 8-10 worthwhile tests that act as a great benchmark for improvement. Then re-check these every 4-6 months to test if the new diet is leading to expected improvement. Also, your the hole in your belt is another great benchmark. And how you feel during the day (and sleep at night).

The bloods tests are key, assuming you get the right ones and interpret them correctly.

My blood tests a few years ago, back when I was still eating whole grains, for example, would show puzzling problem areas (inflammation and glycated hemoglobin, for example) that I wanted to correct. Because I test my blood every six months, often extensively, it was just a matter of time before I honed in on the best diet for me. And when I discovered later that this diet was essentially a paleo diet, it all clicked into place and made total sense. The paleo diet is the one diet that actually makes historic (or evolutionary) sense for humans -- every other diet is more or less arbitrary, a non-natural invention.

While I'm perfectly open to the idea of a superior diet, I want to see the proof in terms of blood work and other health measurements.

BTW, I certainly don't practice a strict paleo diet, as I still eat dairy (raw when I can get it, usually goat in origin, and also full fat), and I take supplements, and cheat occasionally. Again, my health and blood work are my guide. All of my health stats are currently better than I've ever measured. Doesn't mean there is no more room for improvement.

Edited by DukeNukem, 03 January 2010 - 09:08 PM.

[Luna]

hey duke, which blood tests are you recommending to do?
Recently I made a thread what bloodwork should I do but no one replied :( can you advise?

[DukeNukem]

hey duke, which blood tests are you recommending to do?
Recently I made a thread what bloodwork should I do but no one replied :( can you advise?

Luna, these provide a great base line:

o HDL
o triglycerides -- over 70 is bad, and is a clear sign of eating too many carbs, especially fructose
o Lp(a) -- a very bad type of LDL
o A1c (glycated hemoglobin) -- long-term blood glucose measurement
o C-reactive protein (C-RP) -- measures inflammation
o fasting glucose -- above 100 is way too high (probably long-term carb-over-consumption damage)
o fasting insulin
o serum D (vit D level) -- below 50 is too low
o Liver enzymes -- good test to make sure your liver is not under stress from food, alcohol, environmental toxins, illegal or OTC drugs.
o homocysteine -- strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular event

If you're over 35 (and I know you're not), then I also recommend testing thyroid hormones, IGF-1 and sex hormones.

Of course, any lipid panel will include total cholesterol and LDL, but these are basically unimportant. Although, I try to keep my total cholesterol around 220-230, but the key is the composition of your cholesterol, NOT the total. You want HDL to be at least 70 -- anything less is a strong indication of a less-than-optimal diet, IMO.

[nameless]

My blood tests a few years ago, back when I was still eating whole grains, for example, would show puzzling problem areas (inflammation and glycated hemoglobin, for example) that I wanted to correct.

Slightly off-topic, but have you posted your before and after glycated hemoglobin values anywhere? I'm curious what they are on a semi-paleo diet, and also what you consider optimal.

And I agree that links to past threads or sources would be nice... especially for newcomers who just see the summary.

[OneScrewLoose]

That diet might be working great for you, but that doesn't mean it is going to be optimal for everyone else. You may not mean that, but your initial post definately comes across like that. And like previously mentioned, evolution does not account for longevity, but rather reproductive fitness. The reasons why it could work for you might not have anything to do with evolutionary history, or it might, but I think it's unfair to people reading this, especially the noobs, to come to that sort of conclusion for everyone.

As for the vitamin D, I don't think it would be a good idea for the population at large to take more than 2000IU of Vitamin D a day unless they can get bloodwork to check their levels and see if it's below 40 still. Whenever people as humans come across something that seems this good, we go too far and suffer the results later. If the niacin/diabetes connection is correct, and it is a result of fortifying foods with it, this would be an example of this kind of error. It would be wise to wait ten years until we start seeing some long-term results. What we take based on findings here is one thing, but on a large-scale level, I think we need to be more conservative. The SJW cataract thing is another example.

But, beyond that, I am curious about the exact blood changes you found when you switched to this diet. Why were you worried about the previous numbers in the first place? What went up and down? Did you change it slowly and do tests in between or all at once? Do you feel better, or just feel better knowing the tests have improved?

[maxwatt]

That diet might be working great for you, but that doesn't mean it is going to be optimal for everyone else. You may not mean that, but your initial post definately comes across like that. And like previously mentioned, evolution does not account for longevity, but rather reproductive fitness. The reasons why it could work for you might not have anything to do with evolutionary history, or it might, but I think it's unfair to people reading this, especially the noobs, to come to that sort of conclusion for everyone.

As for the vitamin D, I don't think it would be a good idea for the population at large to take more than 2000IU of Vitamin D a day unless they can get bloodwork to check their levels and see if it's below 40 still. Whenever people as humans come across something that seems this good, we go too far and suffer the results later. If the niacin/diabetes connection is correct, and it is a result of fortifying foods with it, this would be an example of this kind of error. It would be wise to wait ten years until we start seeing some long-term results. What we take based on findings here is one thing, but on a large-scale level, I think we need to be more conservative. The SJW cataract thing is another example.

But, beyond that, I am curious about the exact blood changes you found when you switched to this diet. Why were you worried about the previous numbers in the first place? What went up and down? Did you change it slowly and do tests in between or all at once? Do you feel better, or just feel better knowing the tests have improved?

There is a nutritionist, Laurent Bannock, who tailors a diet to you based on ancestry and extensive blood work. Some people thrive on a paleo diet, others more vegetarian, some no dairy, others cheese is OK. Most of us are of mixed ancestry, but if you are an Eskimo (Innuit, I mean) then lots of fish and meat, no grain, not much vegetable. An East Asian might get an Okinawa style diet. But he insists on the blood work, and tailors the diet to your genotype.

His was featured as one of five diets a reporter (John Bradley) tried, one after another, with blood work before and after each one. (Outside Magazine, January 2010, page 48). The Paleo diet did not work for the author his triglycerides went up, his HDL did not improve. The Okinawan (Ornish style) diet was a disaster for LDL. Bannock's diet for the Irish-American reporter included eliminating or dialing back chicken, tomatoes, coffee, dairy, and soy.

One thing troubling to me about the paleo diet for life-extension purposes, is that most of the effects of CR seem to be associated with protein restriction, especially methionine. The paleo diet may be good for health for many people, but it would not seem to be an ideal one for maximal life-span because of the amount and type of protein consumed.

[DukeNukem]

The paleo diet may be good for health for many people, but it would not seem to be an ideal one for maximal life-span because of the amount and type of protein consumed.

A paleo diet, as has been said over and over (and no doubt this will continue) is a normal protein diet. Fat goes way up, carbs go way down. Protein does NOT go up.

A paleo-diet is a high-fat diet, NOT a high-protein diet.

[maxwatt]

The paleo diet may be good for health for many people, but it would not seem to be an ideal one for maximal life-span because of the amount and type of protein consumed.

A paleo diet, as has been said over and over (and no doubt this will continue) is a normal protein diet. Fat goes way up, carbs go way down. Protein does NOT go up.

A paleo-diet is a high-fat diet, NOT a high-protein diet.

Even normal protein amounts are not conducive to life extension given what is coming to light vis-a-vis CR and protein restriction.

[Forever21]

Hey Duke,

Do you miss the soy hot dogs?

[sthira]

Why not pursue a CRON-ish diet rather than Paleo? CR seems to have the most science behind it with regard to life extension.

[RighteousReason]

The paleo diet may be good for health for many people, but it would not seem to be an ideal one for maximal life-span because of the amount and type of protein consumed.

A paleo diet, as has been said over and over (and no doubt this will continue) is a normal protein diet. Fat goes way up, carbs go way down. Protein does NOT go up.

A paleo-diet is a high-fat diet, NOT a high-protein diet.

Do you have the numbers on the amount of carbs our bodies produce vs. brain requirements? What about empirical studies of ketogenic vs. carb diets on brain function?

[Skötkonung]

Hi Skot,

Could you point me towards some studies showing the connection of the methylglyoxal pathway and low-carb diets. And what do you mean by the "failure of rate limiting mechanisms". If you get glucose via gluconeogenesis then your body can't regulate glucose levels?

Also what are your macronutrient ratios like now?

Basically, it appears, that in unrestricted animal models, a KD causes problems with glucose regulation. Even in moderate - normal ranges of protein intake, or when carbohydrate restricting for long periods of time, ketones become undetectable as glucose re-establishes itself as a dominant energy source. Superior gluconeogenesis regulation seems to occur only when there is no dietary protein or fat, IE the person needs to be starving (fasting) to get the primary benefits of ketosis (reduced ROS, etc). That is why the JH protocol for KD calls for 8% dietary protein.

Study: Ketosis leads to increased methylglyoxal production on the Atkins diet.

Also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15607912



New ratios are 50% fat, 10-15% protein, 35-40% carbohydrate according to CRON-o-meter. Most fats from mono-unsaturated / saturated, most carbohydrate from fruits, vegetables, and berries. Most proteins from a mixture of animal meat and plants.

Edited by Skotkonung, 04 January 2010 - 08:11 AM.

[gregandbeaker]

Basically, it appears, that in unrestricted animal models, a KD causes problems with glucose regulation. Even in moderate - normal ranges of protein intake, or when carbohydrate restricting for long periods of time, ketones become undetectable as glucose re-establishes itself as a dominant energy source. Superior gluconeogenesis regulation seems to occur only when there is no dietary protein or fat, IE the person needs to be starving (fasting) to get the primary benefits of ketosis (reduced ROS, etc). That is why the JH protocol for KD calls for 8% dietary protein.

Study: Ketosis leads to increased methylglyoxal production on the Atkins diet.

Also:

I can attest through my own personal experience after trying a strict ketogenic diet for a month. My fasting blood glucose levels rose from the high 70's to the low 90's. Adding my regular servings of vegetables back into my diet renormalized them in about a week. I was eating about 60-70% fat during the ketogenic diet test.

[DukeNukem]

Why not pursue a CRON-ish diet rather than Paleo? CR seems to have the most science behind it with regard to life extension.

Check out this blog, by the wife of ImmInst Advisor and co-author of the book, Ending Aging, Michael Rae: http://www.mprize.org/blogs/
She is a long-time CRONer, who very recently became a paleo CRONer, and is singing the praises. in other words, she is combining both, and her results, according to her, and spectacular. The main result is that because she's avoiding all of those carbs (I pointed this issue out to her years ago!) she no longer has to fight constant hunger. Also, she feels so much better. She started about 4-6 months ago on the paleo version of her CRON diet.

[VesperLynd]

Much of this advice appears to mirror that given by the Track Your Plaque cardiologist - Dr. W. Davis.


CL

[Mind]

Even normal protein amounts are not conducive to life extension given what is coming to light vis-a-vis CR and protein restriction.

In animal models. I am a little leery about restricting essential nutrients like protein...too much. Carbs I know I can do without for a long time and still live relatively healthy. Vitamins, protein, fat, and minerals, are essential (with a capital E), therefore the evidence needs to be pretty strong for me, before I would experiment with significant restrictions.

[health_nutty]

New ratios are 50% fat, 10-15% protein, 35-40% carbohydrate according to CRON-o-meter. Most fats from mono-unsaturated / saturated, most carbohydrate from fruits, vegetables, and berries. Most proteins from a mixture of animal meat and plants.

I'm coming to a similar conclusion about low carb. Various studies have concerned me. I'm bumping up my carbs a by adding more low glycemic carbs (oatmeal, yams and a bit more fruit). My fats still come mainly from olive oil ,almonds, some eggs and a bit peanut butter and whatever I get in lean meat. My goal is to minimize my polysaturated fats and saturated fat and eat mostly monosaturated. I have yet to see a study where saturated fat beats monosaturated. I still eat tons of kale, broccolli, spinach, tomato paste, and other super-veggies

[DukeNukem]

Getting back to the issue of genetics again, just saw this blog post by Dr. Art Ayers:

What We Eat Contributes More to Disease Risk than Genetics
I started this blog to try to understand how food, exercise, sun exposure, etc., contribute to health and disease, because I was shocked that recent, comprehensive studies demonstrated that genetic defects were only minor contributors. I am trained as a molecular biologist and I search for explanations of disease in terms of the interactions of the proteins coded by the genes in our cells. History of defective genes that code for defective proteins in sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease or ALS, suggested that personal genetic defects might explain personal diseases. Fortunately, it appears that in most cases genetic defects only matter when our actions produce chronic inflammation. What we eat is far more important than our genetics in determining if we are going to suffer from allergies, autoimmune diseases, degenerative diseases, various forms of mental illness or cancer. If we eat to avoid inflammation, in most cases it doesn’t matter how genetically defective we are.
http://coolinginflam...-last-year.html

[Recortes]

 

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.

Duke,


  an easy question here. I usually take three pieces of fruit per day (1 orange+2 apples, 3 oranges, 1 orange+kiwi+watermelon, and so on, depending on the season), do you think that's too much fructosa intake?. I'm trying to introduce more berries, but not easy to find where I live to decent prices, with the exception of strawberries. 




 Thanks. 

[oehaut]

 

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.

Duke,


  an easy question here. I usually take three pieces of fruit per day (1 orange+2 apples, 3 oranges, 1 orange+kiwi+watermelon, and so on, depending on the season), do you think that's too much fructosa intake?. I'm trying to introduce more berries, but not easy to find where I live to decent prices, with the exception of strawberries. 




 Thanks. 

The studies where they found that fructose induced negative metabolic effect were 1) under hypercaloric condition and 2) fructose % of calorie was 2-3 time higher that what is consummed by the average american population.

As an example, in this study, under hypocaloric condition, 59g of fructose versus 23g fructose did nothing in term of bodyfat, bodyweight, and blood lipid.

So no, 3 serving of fruits a day really is not a concern under a healthy diet. Maybe if you were to eat 10 serving of fruits per day. Maybe.

Edited by oehaut, 07 January 2010 - 08:18 PM.

[nameless]

As an example, in this study, under hypocaloric condition, 59g of fructose versus 23g fructose did nothing in term of bodyfat, bodyweight, and blood lipid.

So no, 3 serving of fruits a day really is not a concern under a healthy diet. Maybe if you were to eat 10 serving of fruits per day. Maybe.

Unless I am misreading that study, aren't they studying sucrose, not fructose? They aren't the same thing.

[oehaut]

As an example, in this study, under hypocaloric condition, 59g of fructose versus 23g fructose did nothing in term of bodyfat, bodyweight, and blood lipid.

So no, 3 serving of fruits a day really is not a concern under a healthy diet. Maybe if you were to eat 10 serving of fruits per day. Maybe.

Unless I am misreading that study, aren't they studying sucrose, not fructose? They aren't the same thing.

Isn't sucrose 50% fructose and 50% glucose? If you look at table 2 from the full paper (available online) you can see that it's 121g of sucrose versus 11 g of sucrose. I'm sorry, i've actually counfonded these number with another paper that I was looking at the same time. But the difference is even more pronounced : it add up to about 60g of fructose versus 5.5g of fructose.

Note that i'm not defending sucrose or fructose here... just that seeing fruits as not healthy because of the fructose content might be a misrepresentation of the research, since you would need a very very high fruit consumption to get enough fructose to induced metabolic defect that it can induce (and probably need to be hypercaloric too)

[Skötkonung]

As an example, in this study, under hypocaloric condition, 59g of fructose versus 23g fructose did nothing in term of bodyfat, bodyweight, and blood lipid.

So no, 3 serving of fruits a day really is not a concern under a healthy diet. Maybe if you were to eat 10 serving of fruits per day. Maybe.

Yes, but what about fructation?

[oehaut]

As an example, in this study, under hypocaloric condition, 59g of fructose versus 23g fructose did nothing in term of bodyfat, bodyweight, and blood lipid.

So no, 3 serving of fruits a day really is not a concern under a healthy diet. Maybe if you were to eat 10 serving of fruits per day. Maybe.

Yes, but what about fructation?

Ah... that's probably a bad thing that I had not consider Would 3 serving a day make a lot of it?