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

Photo
* * * * - 10 votes

Duke's 2009 Health Summary


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#61 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 07 January 2010 - 10:41 PM

 

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. 

I'm pretty hardcore about this...

Here's how I eat fruits:

o Mostly berries

o Occasionally a larger fruit, but only those in which I can eat the skin. Therefore, never bananas, oranges, pineapples, etc. The skin of any fruit, almost without exception, is where all the good phytonutrients reside. The inside of larger fruits is mostly a sugar (and much less nutritious carb meat), to feed the seeds. Note that with berries, the skin is always eaten.

#62 MP11

  • Guest
  • 121 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:01 PM

Duke,

What are you views on alcohol? Does it fit in with the type of diet you follow?

#63 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:32 AM

I'm pretty hardcore about this...

Here's how I eat fruits:

o Mostly berries

o Occasionally a larger fruit, but only those in which I can eat the skin. Therefore, never bananas, oranges, pineapples, etc. The skin of any fruit, almost without exception, is where all the good phytonutrients reside. The inside of larger fruits is mostly a sugar (and much less nutritious carb meat), to feed the seeds. Note that with berries, the skin is always eaten.


I'm guessing pomegranates are the exception here... This is pretty much the fruit regimen I have adopted also, by trying to maximise the best bang for buck nutrients vs carbs/fructose intake.

I've got a little query regarding apples, I don't often buy them personally but they always seem to be around wherever free food is provided, so I have just started just eating the skin and a small layer of the flesh (each bite) and tossing the rest. I enjoy this, and I've read 99% of phytonutrients, and 90% of the fibre are in the skin. However as non-organic, with the pesticides and the waxy stuff they coat them in, im struggling to think its much of a net-positive considering my diets already very rich with berries and vegetables. What do you guys think?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:58 AM

Duke,

What are you views on alcohol? Does it fit in with the type of diet you follow?


This is why I do not drink, and why I'm so hardcore against foods with fructose. This is ABSOLUTELY must-watch material:



#65 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:00 AM

I'm pretty hardcore about this...

Here's how I eat fruits:

o Mostly berries

o Occasionally a larger fruit, but only those in which I can eat the skin. Therefore, never bananas, oranges, pineapples, etc. The skin of any fruit, almost without exception, is where all the good phytonutrients reside. The inside of larger fruits is mostly a sugar (and much less nutritious carb meat), to feed the seeds. Note that with berries, the skin is always eaten.


I'm guessing pomegranates are the exception here... This is pretty much the fruit regimen I have adopted also, by trying to maximise the best bang for buck nutrients vs carbs/fructose intake.

Pomegranates are one of the rare exceptions. Good catch.

#66 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:30 AM

He said "OK" so many times I wanted to scream.

#67 Lufega

  • Guest
  • 1,810 posts
  • 274
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:09 AM

Duke,

What are you views on alcohol? Does it fit in with the type of diet you follow?


This is why I do not drink, and why I'm so hardcore against foods with fructose. This is ABSOLUTELY must-watch material:


Thanks for posting this. Very eye opening.

#68 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:41 AM

Duke: sorry if this has been asked already but which foods are good sources of healthy fats?

#69 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:55 AM

This is why I do not drink, and why I'm so hardcore against foods with fructose. This is ABSOLUTELY must-watch material:


This is great! Itunes U has a recording of this, too, and you can import the entire speech uninterrupted into your Ipod. I don't really remember him railing against fruit, though, so I'll go back and re-listen.

#70 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:15 AM

I don't think this guy is saying not to eat fruit, though I did not listen to the whole video.

Here is what I found on the web from http://freetheanimal...t-the-buzz.html

"Alex // Dec 27, 2009 at 16:25

I emailed Dr. Lustig and asked him whether the fiber as built-in antidote to the fructose is in effect, regardless of how much fruit is consumed. I asked because there are people following Dr. Graham’s 80-10-10 diet that is 80% carbs, most of it from sweet fruit. He said that as long as it’s the fruit’s own fiber (and not, say, fruit juice mixed with a fiber supplement) the fruit’s fructose is not a problem. I dunno… knowing how large quantities of sweet fruit can have unpleasant effects on my blood sugar and metabolism, I’m still not convinced that a fruitarian diet is a good idea."

If the above is true, then the authority that Duke is citing seems to be saying that fruit itself is not a problem

#71 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:39 AM

I don't think this guy is saying not to eat fruit, though I did not listen to the whole video.

Here is what I found on the web from http://freetheanimal...t-the-buzz.html

"Alex // Dec 27, 2009 at 16:25

I emailed Dr. Lustig and asked him whether the fiber as built-in antidote to the fructose is in effect, regardless of how much fruit is consumed. I asked because there are people following Dr. Graham’s 80-10-10 diet that is 80% carbs, most of it from sweet fruit. He said that as long as it’s the fruit’s own fiber (and not, say, fruit juice mixed with a fiber supplement) the fruit’s fructose is not a problem. I dunno… knowing how large quantities of sweet fruit can have unpleasant effects on my blood sugar and metabolism, I’m still not convinced that a fruitarian diet is a good idea."

If the above is true, then the authority that Duke is citing seems to be saying that fruit itself is not a problem

This doctor gives a LOT of credit to fiber that I think is misplaced. He says, in the video, that paleolithic humans ate between 100 and 300 grams of fiber daily. I strongly doubt this! Maybe up to 60-80 grams on the highest fiber days, and typically 0-30 grams, I predict. Anyway, he doesn't provide any proof of his fiber claims.

He claims that fiber negates fructose when eaten as whole fruits, and I doubt this, too. Fiber slows down digestion, yes, but I don't see how that negates the unhealthy consequences of eating fructose.

Other than this one area of disagreement, I found this series of videos to be spot on. Fructose really should be considered a toxin to humans.

#72 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:11 AM

This is why I do not drink, and why I'm so hardcore against foods with fructose. This is ABSOLUTELY must-watch material:

Wow, great video. Anyone who thinks "a Calorie is a Calorie" should watch it.

#73 Shepard

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:46 PM

1 Calorie = 1.467 Calories?

#74 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:35 PM

This is why I do not drink, and why I'm so hardcore against foods with fructose. This is ABSOLUTELY must-watch material:

Wow, great video. Anyone who thinks "a Calorie is a Calorie" should watch it.



I've watched it already, and I still believe that a calorie is a calorie. What don't I get then? I think the problem come with the fact that different macronutriment have different role in the body, and carbs which are only energy are store more readibly if not being used, compared to protein and fats that have other roles in the body.

You guys really don't care about all the studies out there that did not find any difference in term of weight loss when the diet is isocaloric and protein is keep constant?

#75 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:38 PM

Duke: When we look at our ancestry and how it affects optimum nutrition should we consider theories that the first human civilisations were settlements of highly advanced space faring civilizations?

#76 gregandbeaker

  • Guest
  • 184 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:23 PM

Duke: When we look at our ancestry and how it affects optimum nutrition should we consider theories that the first human civilisations were settlements of highly advanced space faring civilizations?


Probably not worth it unless you have a way to transport yourself to one of their grocery stores.

#77 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:53 PM

Duke: When we look at our ancestry and how it affects optimum nutrition should we consider theories that the first human civilisations were settlements of highly advanced space faring civilizations?

Joking or not, the best guide we have for any diet is how it normalizes our bodyfat, and how it affects (hopefully improves) our health stats. By this measure, CRON is likely #1. But, most of us won't do CRON, and the life extending benefits to humans are still uncertain.

Paleo plus, IMO, is the next best choice, and one that is far easier to do long-term versus CRON.

I say "paleo plus," because I do believe their are neolithic food additions and supplements that improve long-term health.

#78 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:47 PM

hey duke!

I watched the video (well, watching! middle of part 6 now), it is really interesting, but a bit confusing (like what should I do!). Thank you!

I am not sure how you avoid the fructose then and what to eat.

#79 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:10 PM

no alcohol, bah! I get so stressed out, whatever damage I'm doing with booze I'm probably evening it out with getting less stressed for a few hours a night...

Some good pointers though Duke, aside from the achole one ;)

Edited by captainbeefheart, 09 January 2010 - 08:12 PM.


#80 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:24 PM

hey duke!

I watched the video (well, watching! middle of part 6 now), it is really interesting, but a bit confusing (like what should I do!). Thank you!

I am not sure how you avoid the fructose then and what to eat.

Since Israel is highly Westernized I'm sure the same negative health issues exist. Practically all packaged (long shelf life) foods use fructose and/or processed vegetable oils. Both will shorten your life. (And most packaged foods hit the deadly trifecta, by also including gluten grains.)

Avoiding fructose is simple if you're willing:

o No sweetened drinks of any kind (including naturally and fake sweetened fruit juices)
o No ketchup (has more corn syrup than tomatoes!)
o No processed foods (rare exceptions exist)
o No store bought bread
o No candy
o No honey, maple syple, or fake syrups
o No cane sugar
o Eat limited fruits -- 2-3 servings a day at most. Try to eat berries instead
o Pretty much any desert or sweet food will have fructose

#81 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:49 PM

Neat ^^

How do you define processed foods? what are the rare exceptions? and why is pomegrenate an exception?
If your bad LDL and trigs are low and HDL is high, but the diet still consists some of the things you suggest to take out, would you say that it won't matter keeping them in if the tests results would be as good?

I am trying to improve my diet as much as I can, but there are some things that I can't give up on, at least occasionally ! there are also some things which I just can't put in.

Regardless of any advertisement against meat, fat and so on (I never saw them until recently, and that is on imminst and the opposite way, advertisement against advertisement :D), I just can't seem to eat meat and high fat, it makes me feel bad, walnuts, almonds do the same.
Cheese is fine (high fat cheese is good to!), but I am not sure - you could say "oh well it's mixed with carbs" that's probably true but I thought it might be too low to count? (that is the cheese itself, without whatever I might add it to)

So I am not sure where my aversion from fat is coming from.
What is your opinion about sweet potatoes? I know potatoes are bad but everyone is saying batatas/sweet-potatoes are good, which I hope is right.

I have regular check ups of my blood every now and then because of development disorder I have and medicine I am taking for it.
They already check my lipid profile, I saw you recommended more exact tests regarding the LDL which I will ask if I can do.
They also have liver, kidney, blood count, hormones and some other things I think but I honestly don't know what is important for here other than vitamin D (which I asked them to add recently and they did), HDL, LDL (which needs more precise types of measuring according to you), liver I guess oh and trigs!

I guess they might be measuring for many things which might not even matter for this perspective.

I remember asking about insulin once before and I think someone said they don't do that unless there is *real need*, they said the same about vitamin d and I just told them my gynecologist recommended me (which is only half true :D or more like twisted truth.. but shush...!)

So there is another problem, how does everyone get all the tests you suggest to do when the health care tells you "there is no need to do that".

#82 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:08 PM

I have been following this "Calorie is not a Calorie" debate for quite a while and I think the confusion lies in how our bodies process calories. If you eat 400 calories it is impossible to gain more than 400 calories of fat in weight. So one calorie definitely can't equal more than one calorie (if you do seem to gain more than 400calories of fat, then that may be due to water retention, inflammation, etc...).

I think the issue is that our body is so complex that it is hard to count calories, and when all we have at best is estimations of BMR and RMR, counting calories goes down the drain. Sure RMR may stay within a range of values from day to day, but the thing is we don't know what it will be on that day (I'm a fan of the set point theory). And from a lot of research of fat loss, our metabolism is definitely controlled by many many hormones that are constantly being regulated by what we eat and how me move. So is there a metabolic advantage to low-carb diets? Yes, but I think the advantage is in those that are insulin-resistant. There's no studies that show this, but if you look at controlled ward studies (yes, even though the averages show no difference), there is a lot of individual variation (so I would like to see a study comparing insulin-resistant to insulin-sensitive).

So IMO, is a calorie a calorie? Yes, but we don't have the ability to count the ins and outs of our metabolism with accuracy, so in practical terms its hard to apply.

Just my 2c.

#83 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:06 PM

I have been following this "Calorie is not a Calorie" debate for quite a while and I think the confusion lies in how our bodies process calories.

Bingo. Plus, the human body is NOT a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics always work within a closed system.

But, the key is that different types caloric sources are not treated equally within our body -- some types are quickly stored as fat, and are not released except under conditions that, for many people (frequent or grazing eaters, for example), do not occur often or at all. Therefore, these calories essentially become unavailable for energy usage. This is what happens once metabolic syndrome kicks in.

OTOH, our body constantly tries to normalize bodyfat for survival (~10% for men), and will either up or down regulate metabolism to maintain at the level. Thus, for someone on a healthy paleo diet, for example, when too many calories are consumed, their body will up-regulate and try hard to burn off excess energy.

This makes total sense from an evolutionary perspective, because clearly, humans (and any wild animal, if fact) did not eat nearly perfect calorie counts on a daily/weekly/monthly basis to maintain near perfect bodyfat mass. Instead, we evolved to buffer the ups and downs of caloric intake.

What this means, quite simply, is that we do not need to simply lower calorie intake by 200 cals daily to lose baodyfat. This will work in the short term, but then the metabolism adapts and the effects practically end.

It's better to eat the healthy foods your body wants, and let it do what needs to be done without you having to count calories.

Basically, any diet in which calories must be counted is not a natural diet. Let that sink in.

Edited by DukeNukem, 09 January 2010 - 10:08 PM.


#84 Shepard

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:15 PM

Yeah, dieting drops metabolic rate because you lose metabolically active tissue.

#85 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:49 PM

so I would like to see a study comparing insulin-resistant to insulin-sensitive


Insulin sensitivity determines the effectiveness of dietary macronutrient composition on weight loss in obese women

Comparison of high-fat and high-protein diets with a high-carbohydrate diet in insulin-resistant obese women

Here are two.

#86 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:51 PM

Yeah, dieting drops metabolic rate because you lose metabolically active tissue.



Actually, some researchers at my university just realeased a paper (not yet available online) in which they found that in response to a hypocaloric diet, more than half of the participant RMR actually increased. They have no idea why this is so.

Also, when RMR drops, it drops much more than could be accounted by the loss of tissues. This has been discuss much by Lyle McDonald in various article & books.

On a side note, and not revelant to this quote, I'd just like to add that some of the best trainers out there (such as Leigh Peel or Alan Aragon or Lyle McDonald) all reports that once their client start weighting their food and track calories, weight loss always occur (whereas it was not even if on a low-carb)

As a kinesiologist myself, having work in gym for 4 years, having help (a bit because i'm not a private consultant yet) people trying to achieve a good weight, i've told many ppl to go low-carb and once they had lost the water weight, many of them hit a plateau. One women was eating 20g carbs a day for one month and her weight was not moving. That's when I started questionning if calorie could matter after all.

One is free to believe anything. But since in the upcoming year i'm gonna be working more and more on weight loss with people, I know I would not be doing them a favor if I told them they simply need to go low-carb to loose weight.

Edited by oehaut, 10 January 2010 - 12:03 AM.


#87 Shepard

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

Posted 10 January 2010 - 12:43 AM

Sure, RMR increases in the short term during caloric deprivation or fasting since SNS activity generally increases. I'd be quite interested if they noticed an increase continuing longer than 96 hours, or so.

During prolonged dieting, leptin does drop quicker than can be accounted for with loss of adipose. Periodic diet breaks, free meals, etc. help alleviate some of it.

Edited by Shepard, 10 January 2010 - 03:17 PM.


#88 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 January 2010 - 01:06 AM

Sure, RMR increases in the short term during caloric deprivation or fasting since SNS activity generally increases. I'd be quite interested if they noticed an increase continuing longer than 96 hours, or so.

During prolongeld dieting, leptin does drop quicker than can be accounted for with loss of adipose. Periodic diet breaks, free meals, etc. help alleviate some of it.


It was for 15 weeks (at 5 weeks, half of the group had an increase in RMR from baseline, and it remained so 'till the end of the study, which was 15 weeks)

Here is the paper

Interindividual variations in resting metabolic rate during weight loss in obese postmenopausal women. A pilot study.

I just looked and it's available online now, if you have full acess to Metabolism

Edited by oehaut, 10 January 2010 - 01:13 AM.


#89 Shepard

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

Posted 10 January 2010 - 01:42 AM

Very cool, thanks. I'll check it out when I'm not on my phone.

#90 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 10 January 2010 - 04:26 AM

Well, IF "methionine restriction plus" mimics the benefits of CRON, or is responsible for the benefits of CRON, would that not be superior to Paelo and easier than CRON? I know that I put a big "IF" in there.


Duke: When we look at our ancestry and how it affects optimum nutrition should we consider theories that the first human civilisations were settlements of highly advanced space faring civilizations?

Joking or not, the best guide we have for any diet is how it normalizes our bodyfat, and how it affects (hopefully improves) our health stats. By this measure, CRON is likely #1. But, most of us won't do CRON, and the life extending benefits to humans are still uncertain.

Paleo plus, IMO, is the next best choice, and one that is far easier to do long-term versus CRON.

I say "paleo plus," because I do believe their are neolithic food additions and supplements that improve long-term health.


Edited by wydell, 10 January 2010 - 04:27 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users