142 replies to this topic

[Mia K.]

At the time (Sept, 04) of his bypass surgery, the former President was following the South Beach diet contrived by a cardiologist, Dr. Agatston (practicing, I believe).  Wouldn't be surprised to see a disavowal/disassociation issued from the SoBe camp.

See story:   http://www.foxnews.c...,131551,00.html

From what I remember of the maintenance version of the diet it would be very easy to slip into the SAD.

Regards, Mia

[mustardseed41]

Bill has also talked about eating more healthy, so it is likely he has already radically changed how he eats.

That guy cheats on his diet every chance he gets I bet. Hillarys thighs are proof of that. Did I just say that????.....lol

[Sillewater]

Yea on the maintenance diet for SB its fairly similiar to a SAD diet. Dr. Agatson also recommends intake of PUFA and limit intake of saturated fat.

[DukeNukem]

Duke, I think you need to look over the exercise & aging thread. The evidence that exercise (perhaps not repetitive exercise to exhaustion like marathon running, but most exercise) improves almost every bio-marker of aging is incredibly overwhelming and has been proven for decades.

If you are referencing Taubes (on exercise), his specific argument is not that exercise is not healthy, but that it is not a guaranteed way to lose weight. Anyway, that is what he mentioned when we had him on the Sunday Evening Update.

I've been holding my stance on exercise since well before Taubes' book. But, what I've been saying is easily misunderstood. Basically, yes, exercise improves many bio-markers, the key two being insulin sensitively and immunity (through lymphatic pumping).

BUT

Exercise will not have any meaningful helpful effect on heart disease, cancer, brain disease, and inflammatory conditions.

These areas are MUCH BETTER SERVED with diet and supplements. End of story.

Heart disease is almost always preventable, and/or somewhat reversible, with diet and supplements. Exercise of any kind will have practically no effect on heart disease. Same for cancer, etc.

Have I made myself clear now?

If Clinton, for example, is running to stay healthy, it will NOT help his creeping heart disease in the least. Fitness does not equal health. Bad diet trumps good exercise every time, hands-down.

Note, too, that immunity is hurt by long-duration steady-pace activities. The best exercises for improving biomarkers are high-intensity, low-duration, and high-variety in nature. Intensity is the goal. NOT duration. I've been stressing this since I first joined here. I'm only more convinced now.

Edited by DukeNukem, 15 February 2010 - 11:45 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Bill has also talked about eating more healthy, so it is likely he has already radically changed how he eats.

Sadly, I'm sure the advice he's gotten to eat better is merely more food pyramid BS along with specific low-fat advice and to stay away from saturated fats -- poor Bill is digging his own grave listening to these morons.

I wonder if any of his health advisors read MSNBC. They might just find an article there that tickles their long stagnated minds.

Edited by DukeNukem, 15 February 2010 - 11:53 PM.

[Forever21]

Pretty strong words DukeNukem.

Food Pyramid by Harvard Nutrition is BS then?

I wish your confidence in your current understanding of nutrition will last the test of time.

[Shepard]

Exercise will not have any meaningful helpful effect on heart disease, cancer, brain disease, and inflammatory conditions.

These areas are MUCH BETTER SERVED with diet and supplements. End of story.

Can we at least get a basic biochemical mechanism by which exercise is ineffective, even though many of the (considered) favorable events are brought on by it? (direct and indirect affects on insulin sensitivity, lowered average blood pressure, increased HDL, perhaps telomere length in some tissues, increased autophagy and sirtuin expression, even increased ketone levels if that's your thing, etc. etc. etc)

I do think diet is obviously the most important for maximum lifespan, and probably average lifespan. But, that doesn't automatically make exercise worthless.

Edited by Shepard, 16 February 2010 - 01:40 AM.

[mustardseed41]

Kinda contradicting Duke. First you say that exercise will not have any meaningful helpful effect on heart disease, cancer, brain disease, and inflammatory conditions. Then you say the best exercises for improving biomarkers are high-intensity, low-duration, and high-variety in nature. Intensity is the goal.
Moral of the story....overtraining bad. Just like eating a pound of chocolate a day is not good but eating a smal amount of dark chocolate is. Glass of red wine (healthy)...whole bottle not so.

[sentrysnipe]

how is canola oil bad for the heart? i am really seriously genuinely interested why.

edit: all i can find is the use of hexane in the production of the oil which is not inherent

Edited by sentrysnipe, 16 February 2010 - 05:17 AM.

[e Volution]

how is canola oil bad for the heart? i am really seriously genuinely interested why.

edit: all i can find is the use of hexane in the production of the oil which is not inherent

Good article on Canola Oil from Mark's Daily Apple:

Canola was a hybrid derived from rapeseed to reduce the high erucic acid content of traditional rapeseed oil, which had a bitter taste and toxic effects from the acid. Canola oil is also called LEAR (Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed). Like most cash crops, the largest share of the market is by far GMO-based, and one corporate GMO giant, Monsanto, has been accused more than once of the release of unapproved GMO seed varieties. Despite all the genetic engineering, somehow canola remains one of the most heavily pesticide-treated crops

How its processed:

Once harvested and graded, seeds are heated to facilitate oil extraction. Most canola oil is chemically extracted using the harsh petroleum-derived solvent hexane. Even when expeller pressing is used, a process common to organic brands, the massive force of industrial presses still produces heat. True “cold-pressed” canola oil (extracted with millstones) does exist but can be hard to find and is more expensive.

Following extraction, canola oil must be de-gummed to remove unappealing solids that settle during storage. The process involves heat and sometimes the addition of acids. Next stop, the oil is then bleached and separated. Finally, the oil (known for its stench) must be deodorized through heating methods that use temperatures as high as 500 Fahrenheit.

Also The Great Con-ola by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig

[DukeNukem]

Exercise will not have any meaningful helpful effect on heart disease, cancer, brain disease, and inflammatory conditions.

These areas are MUCH BETTER SERVED with diet and supplements. End of story.

Can we at least get a basic biochemical mechanism by which exercise is ineffective, even though many of the (considered) favorable events are brought on by it? (direct and indirect affects on insulin sensitivity, lowered average blood pressure, increased HDL, perhaps telomere length in some tissues, increased autophagy and sirtuin expression, even increased ketone levels if that's your thing, etc. etc. etc)

I do think diet is obviously the most important for maximum lifespan, and probably average lifespan. But, that doesn't automatically make exercise worthless.

Like I made clear, exercise DOES have numerous health benefits. What I'm saying is that it will not have a meaningful positive effect against heart disease and cancer. Diet and supplements have a far far far greater impact. I would never rely on exercise alone to reverse heart disease, for example. But I would rely on diet and natural supplements to do this.

[DukeNukem]

Kinda contradicting Duke. First you say that exercise will not have any meaningful helpful effect on heart disease, cancer, brain disease, and inflammatory conditions. Then you say the best exercises for improving biomarkers are high-intensity, low-duration, and high-variety in nature. Intensity is the goal.
Moral of the story....overtraining bad. Just like eating a pound of chocolate a day is not good but eating a smal amount of dark chocolate is. Glass of red wine (healthy)...whole bottle not so.

Not sure where you see a contradiction. For example, exercise will not improve rheumatoid arthritis (an inflammatory condition). While diet and supplements can have a profound positive impact.

Exercise will help you live longer. But, the part of my message that appears to be hard for me to explain is that exercise is NOT (in the vast majority of cases) good intervention for the conditions I've listed. Meanwhile, diet and supplements are excellent intervention for all of these.

Edited by DukeNukem, 16 February 2010 - 04:56 PM.

[Shepard]

Like I made clear, exercise DOES have numerous health benefits. What I'm saying is that it will not have a meaningful positive effect against heart disease and cancer. Diet and supplements have a far far far greater impact. I would never rely on exercise alone to reverse heart disease, for example. But I would rely on diet and natural supplements to do this.

Okay...and why are you saying what you're saying?

[Mind]

Exercise cannot slow or reverse heart disease, nor affect cancer, nor hardly any health matters (obesity/diabetes is one of the rare cases were exercise actually has a benefit -- though not nearly as much benefit as diet).

Anyone who exercises for "health" needs to be re-educated. Exercise affects fitness, but as health insurance it pays meager dividends, and often does more harm than good.

This is some of the original content that made everyone raise their eyebrows. No one is saying diet and supplements do not matter, just that exercise is important for good health as well. Based on epidemiological evidence exercise is one of the top interventions for preserving your health. The evidence is incredibly overwhelming (I suspect you didn't look too far into the exercise and aging thread start here). Not only that, there is also epidemiological evidence that sedentary lifestyles are a significant negative for health. There is at least one study posted here that indicates better cancer survival with exercise and numerous studies that show improved cognitive health through exercise. It is odd that anyone would say don't exercise, it is worthless.

Nitpicking the edges of exercise (elite athletes and marathon runners, although even here the data is not all negative) is a poor indictment of exercise as a whole.

[Shepard]

To be fair, I think Duke is talking about exercise in already established pathologies, and not necessarily from a preventative standpoint.

But, I don't know what to make of these two sentences:

Exercise affects fitness, but as health insurance it pays meager dividends, and often does more harm than good.

Like I made clear, exercise DOES have numerous health benefits.

Edited by Shepard, 16 February 2010 - 10:56 PM.

[DukeNukem]

To be fair, I don't think Duke is talking about exercise in already established pathologies, and not necessarily from a preventative standpoint.

But, I don't know what to make of these two sentences:

Exercise affects fitness, but as health insurance it pays meager dividends, and often does more harm than good.

Like I made clear, exercise DOES have numerous health benefits.

Basically, while I know exercise does positively impact some health parameters, I think its positive contributions to health are entirely dwarfed by diet. In other words, exercise plays a small role in longevity, versus diet. My guess is that diet plays 90% of the role, and exercise 10% of the role.

Moreover, if you have heart disease, cancer, or a brain disease, diet, NOT exercise, is your salvation. Exercise may contribute slightly, but diet is the make or break intervention.

Mind, when I talk about the negative effects of exercise, I specially refer to long-duration, steady-pace exercises, such as jogging. These are catabolic, they stress joints and connective tissues, and they can weaken immunity. I truly feel sorry for people who jog and do similar types of exercise. They simply have no idea that the are putting in hard effort for what could very well be a net-negative on their health. They would be 1000 times better off doing max-intensity, short-burst runs, such as 15 second max intensity, followed by 3 mins recuperation walk, then repeat this 2-step cycle 3-4 more times. Do this twice a week at most. This avoids all the negative issues with the long-duration stuff, and actually produces better fat-burning results.

Edited by DukeNukem, 16 February 2010 - 09:57 PM.

[Mind]

Agreed, long duration repetitive exercise is not the best. The people running an hour on the treadmill in the gym are probably hurting their joints.

[DukeNukem]

Agreed, long duration repetitive exercise is not the best. The people running an hour on the treadmill in the gym are probably hurting their joints.

And they're burning thru muscle tissue.

Exercise is like LDL, both good and bad. Lower-intensity long-duration exercises are generally bad. The main benefits of exercise come from resistance training, which is generally short-duration, high-intensity, and builds muscle. Think sprinters versus long-distance runners. The sprinters are far and away more healthy than the long-distance runners. That's because they are well-muscled, have a higher proportion of the faster-twitch muscles (which are the healthier muscle fibers, IMO), and muscle = health benefits. Long-distance runners are low-fat, yes, but low-muscle, too. Their immunity is weak. If you pay attention, you always here about long-distance runners always getting sick. A weak immunity sets the stage for cancer development, and other negative health conditions.

Edited by DukeNukem, 16 February 2010 - 10:04 PM.

[Shepard]

I might take up running. It lets the Tarahumara and get boozy and carb load while still being healthy. My kinda people.

Anyway, the predictions and thoughts are all well and good...but what metabolic occurences happen during a proper diet (however loaded that issue may be) that are not part of the adaptations to exercise?

If a longevity mix is to be concocted, I fail to see how the top two things could be anything other than CRON (again, loaded as to the how) and a mixture of smart aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Everything else seems to be shaky hypotheses not supported by research.

[DukeNukem]

I might take up running. It lets the Tarahumara and get boozy and carb load while still being healthy. My kinda people.

Anyway, the predictions and thoughts are all well and good...but what metabolic occurences happen during a proper diet (however loaded that issue may be) that are not part of the adaptations to exercise?

If a longevity mix is to be concocted, I fail to see how the top two things could be anything other than CRON (again, loaded as to the how) and a mixture of smart aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Everything else seems to be shaky hypotheses not supported by research.

Quite simply, heart disease, cancer, etc. are primarily caused by an inflammatory, metabolic-syndrome-causing diet*. Therefore, the best prevention and intervention is to NOT eat such a disease-promoting diet. CRON, btw, is anti-inflammatory. But so is paleo. Paleo-CRON would be the best combination of all. MR's gf, April, is close to doing this now. No grains at all, and she recently switched to a lower-carb diet overall.

BTW, "smart aerobics" is meaningless unless explained, in the same way that "healthy diet" is meaningless unless explained. Everyone has their own opinion of what is healthy. IMO, smart aerobics is as I previously described: short-max-burst interval trailing.



* Genetics and toxins play a role, too. Genetics the smallest role, by a long shot (though ill-informed people believe that genetics is the biggest role).

[niner]

* Genetics and toxins play a role, too. Genetics the smallest role, by a long shot (though ill-informed people believe that genetics is the biggest role).

A lot of ill-informed people think that the role of toxins is huge. Unless they work in a toxic waste dump or are counting ill-chosen macronutrients, they are also in error.

[spp]

I might take up running. It lets the Tarahumara and get boozy and carb load while still being healthy. My kinda people.

Anyway, the predictions and thoughts are all well and good...but what metabolic occurences happen during a proper diet (however loaded that issue may be) that are not part of the adaptations to exercise?

If a longevity mix is to be concocted, I fail to see how the top two things could be anything other than CRON (again, loaded as to the how) and a mixture of smart aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Everything else seems to be shaky hypotheses not supported by research.

Quite simply, heart disease, cancer, etc. are primarily caused by an inflammatory, metabolic-syndrome-causing diet*. Therefore, the best prevention and intervention is to NOT eat such a disease-promoting diet. CRON, btw, is anti-inflammatory. But so is paleo. Paleo-CRON would be the best combination of all. MR's gf, April, is close to doing this now. No grains at all, and she recently switched to a lower-carb diet overall.

BTW, "smart aerobics" is meaningless unless explained, in the same way that "healthy diet" is meaningless unless explained. Everyone has their own opinion of what is healthy. IMO, smart aerobics is as I previously described: short-max-burst interval trailing.



* Genetics and toxins play a role, too. Genetics the smallest role, by a long shot (though ill-informed people believe that genetics is the biggest role).

But isn't the right kind of exercise also anti-inflammatory? At least, Art Ayers seems to think so ( Cooling Inflammation ), although he doesn't give a lot of specifics.

[DukeNukem]

* Genetics and toxins play a role, too. Genetics the smallest role, by a long shot (though ill-informed people believe that genetics is the biggest role).

A lot of ill-informed people think that the role of toxins is huge. Unless they work in a toxic waste dump or are counting ill-chosen macronutrients, they are also in error.

I include smoking as exposure to toxins.

[DukeNukem]

I might take up running. It lets the Tarahumara and get boozy and carb load while still being healthy. My kinda people.

Anyway, the predictions and thoughts are all well and good...but what metabolic occurences happen during a proper diet (however loaded that issue may be) that are not part of the adaptations to exercise?

If a longevity mix is to be concocted, I fail to see how the top two things could be anything other than CRON (again, loaded as to the how) and a mixture of smart aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Everything else seems to be shaky hypotheses not supported by research.

Quite simply, heart disease, cancer, etc. are primarily caused by an inflammatory, metabolic-syndrome-causing diet*. Therefore, the best prevention and intervention is to NOT eat such a disease-promoting diet. CRON, btw, is anti-inflammatory. But so is paleo. Paleo-CRON would be the best combination of all. MR's gf, April, is close to doing this now. No grains at all, and she recently switched to a lower-carb diet overall.

BTW, "smart aerobics" is meaningless unless explained, in the same way that "healthy diet" is meaningless unless explained. Everyone has their own opinion of what is healthy. IMO, smart aerobics is as I previously described: short-max-burst interval trailing.



* Genetics and toxins play a role, too. Genetics the smallest role, by a long shot (though ill-informed people believe that genetics is the biggest role).

But isn't the right kind of exercise also anti-inflammatory? At least, Art Ayers seems to think so ( Cooling Inflammation ), although he doesn't give a lot of specifics.

Absolutely. Long-duration, steady-pace, repetitive motion exercises are inflammatory in the long-term. Short-burst high-intensity exercises is inflammatory for only a short time.

ANY reasonable acute stress builds the body in a positive way (including short-term exposure to extreme cold and warmth, thrills, short-term fasting, on and on). LONG-TERM stress exposure breaks down the body in a negative way.

A few simple rules-of-thumb like this will take you a long way.

[Shepard]

Quite simply, heart disease, cancer, etc. are primarily caused by an inflammatory, metabolic-syndrome-causing diet*. Therefore, the best prevention and intervention is to NOT eat such a disease-promoting diet. CRON, btw, is anti-inflammatory. But so is paleo. Paleo-CRON would be the best combination of all. MR's gf, April, is close to doing this now. No grains at all, and she recently switched to a lower-carb diet overall.

You're still talking about diet, and not what led you to the conclusion regarding exercise. I don't disagree regarding the importance of diet, but that doesn't imply anything about the futility of exercise as a treatment.

BTW, "smart aerobics" is meaningless unless explained, in the same way that "healthy diet" is meaningless unless explained. Everyone has their own opinion of what is healthy. IMO, smart aerobics is as I previously described: short-max-burst interval trailing.

I mean aerobic exercise in a manner that is condusive to health. Opinions don't matter, and I don't deal in 'one size fits all' prescriptions, anyway.

But, since supramaximal training is by its very definition anaerobic, that's not what I meant.

Edited by Shepard, 17 February 2010 - 04:10 AM.

[frederickson]

Pretty strong words DukeNukem.

Food Pyramid by Harvard Nutrition is BS then?

I wish your confidence in your current understanding of nutrition will last the test of time.

the harvard food pyramid is considerably better than the glorified marketing device put forward by the grain/dairy industry and their puppets at the usda... but, it is still not great.

behold the ideal pyramid... if bill clinton wanted to reverse his heart disease, he would a diet according to the following! though i might move olive oil and other healthy oils (coconut, unrefined palm, etc.) below the fruits/berries.

Edited by frederickson, 17 February 2010 - 04:56 AM.

[TheFountain]

Sadly, I'm sure the advice he's gotten to eat better is merely more food pyramid BS along with specific low-fat advice and to stay away from saturated fats

Did you see the post I did in response to your other one stating the exact same thing about the food pyramid wherein I posted a quote of clinton saying that, leading up to his initial heart surgery, he ate 'alot of high fat foods'? Why do you thus persist in suggesting he was on a low fat diet the entire time? I know healthy fat is not what hurt him. More than likely transfatty acids, refined carbs, sugar. Not just one thing. But you are ignoring what clinton himself has stated in favor of the need to caricature Gary Taubes position. I'm not trying to start an argument, just pointing out that you are blatantly ignoring what clinton himself said in an interview with Sanjay Gupta. He was not, leading up to his heart surgury, on a low fat diet. And this is by his own admission! I think he is intelligent enough to know whether or not he was eating high fat foods. But this is not to say these foods contained the healthy kinds of fat and obviously not that they weren't high in sugar as well. But at no point leading up to his surgery was he on a low fat dieti

Edited by TheFountain, 17 February 2010 - 10:06 AM.

[TheFountain]

Pretty strong words DukeNukem.

Food Pyramid by Harvard Nutrition is BS then?

I wish your confidence in your current understanding of nutrition will last the test of time.

the harvard food pyramid is considerably better than the glorified marketing device put forward by the grain/dairy industry and their puppets at the usda... but, it is still not great.

behold the ideal pyramid... if bill clinton wanted to reverse his heart disease, he would a diet according to the following! though i might move olive oil and other healthy oils (coconut, unrefined palm, etc.) below the fruits/berries.

Behold nothing. Remove the meat. It is not a necessary component, contains way too much protein and is just not as nutritionally necessary as many vegetables. All beef has is some B vitamins, phosphorous and ALOT of protein. You don't need it. And anything useful that it contains can be supplemented. Raw food vegans who do not eat grains are a testimony to this. There are 40 something year old raw foodists who outrun people half their age.

[Forever21]

A pyramid with grains, pasta, corn, dairy, processed cheese, fruits, citrus, read meat, roasted chicken and eggs.

LOL

There's something missing here.

Pizza.

Edited by Forever21, 17 February 2010 - 12:11 PM.

[frederickson]

A pyramid with grains, pasta, corn, dairy, processed cheese, fruits, citrus, read meat, roasted chicken and eggs.

LOL

There's something missing here.

Pizza.

the grains, pasta, dairy, and corn are at the top of the pyramid... meaning consuming sparingly if at all. every other pyramid has the grains at the bottom, which is the biggest shortcoming. maybe it's out there, but i would be surprised if you could find a published food pyramid that is more nutrient dense and would favor better body composition and markers of heart disease.

but hey, the fountain of misinformation knows of a few 40 year old raw food vegans that can outrun some other people. with such strong evidence, i guess we should all be raw food vegans