142 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

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.

yea we talk about this in class regularly... about how the mypyramid pyramid is basically made with the different lobby groups in mind. it is, imo, complete garbage and the walter willet pyramid you mentioned is the REAL food pyramid people should be following.


http://www.hsph.harv...utritionsource/

[DukeNukem]

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.

yea we talk about this in class regularly... about how the mypyramid pyramid is basically made with the different lobby groups in mind. it is, imo, complete garbage and the walter willet pyramid you mentioned is the REAL food pyramid people should be following.


http://www.hsph.harv...utritionsource/

This food pyramid is also a health disaster. Whole grains are only slightly less unhealthy than processed grains. They have no place in ANY pyramid. And the "healthy oils" list included decidedly unhealthy choices, like soy, corn and peanut oils -- all of which promote inflammation out the waazoo! Healthy oils: butter/ghee, olive oil, avocado oil, macadamia nut oil, coconut and palm oil, all animal-based fats. (All of these are <12% in polyunsaturated fatty acids.)

Low HDL, as I've been saying, should be considered a deficiency in saturated fat intake.

Want to improve your cholesterol profile? Replace refined carbs and sugars with saturated fat and cholesterol
As one increases dietary cholesterol and fat consumption, particularly saturated fat, circulating HDL cholesterol increases significantly.
http://healthcorrela...holesterol.html

[DukeNukem]

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.

I've seen AMPLE evidence (in studies, in books like Anticancer, and personally) that diet can profoundly halt and reverse various "diseases". I have see no evidence that exercise is a meaningful treatment, except--as I stated before--in treating obesity and metabolic syndrome. But still, even in this case, diet plays the overwhelming role.

If a person has heart disease, diet and supplements are the best treatment, not exercise. After all, it's poor diet that got the person where they are, in most heart disease cases. Not a lack of exercise. And too many people who jog die of heart disease -- I'm utterly convinced it plays practically no meaningful role, versus diet.

[frederickson]

This food pyramid is also a health disaster. Whole grains are only slightly less unhealthy than processed grains. They have no place in ANY pyramid. And the "healthy oils" list included decidedly unhealthy choices, like soy, corn and peanut oils -- all of which promote inflammation out the waazoo! Healthy oils: butter/ghee, olive oil, avocado oil, macadamia nut oil, coconut and palm oil, all animal-based fats. (All of these are <12% in polyunsaturated fatty acids.)

While Harvard's pyramid is unquestionaly better than that of the USDA, you make a great point about the error in classifying whole grains vs. refined grains as entirely different entities. It really baffles me that very smart people can claim in good conscience that there is such a meaningful difference between whole grains and refined grains, when in reality, there is not. Most of the evidence upon which they base these claims is from population-based studies, in which consumption of whole grains was probably simply a marker of a healthier lifestyle than those who eat white bread, cookies, cakes, etc. The antioxidant and fiber content of whole grains is trivial in comparison to non-starchy vegetables, which should be the base of any truly healthy diet.

My current belief - supported by some of the industry funding of such studies at Tufts University - is that the whole grain craze is just another industry-influenced campaign (as low-fat diets were). On the surface, one could claim that they are disparaging refined grains, some of their own products. However, those that eat chips, white bread, cakes, etc. generally don't give a damn about health, so disparaging refined grains is not going to have much of an effect on them. On the other hand, it is a simple step on the part of the food industry when marketing to the health-conscious to claim a product "contains whole grains" on the label, thus appealing to these well-meaning but misguided consumers. Whole grains as health food are the con of the modern era, in my opinion.

[Mind]

I'm utterly convinced it plays practically no meaningful role, versus diet.

I could fill up 20 pages in this forum with research that shows exercise is beneficial in dramatically improving HEALTH, AGING, and DISEASE markers. Even the Blue Zone studies showed the the longest lived people IN THE WORLD, have higher levels of physical activity. Are you just ignoring the evidence? You seem to think everyone who exercises is a marathon runner. Why do you keep mentioning that. They are only like .00001 percent of the population, if that. Even if diet is waaay more important, it seems illogical and irresponsible to keep telling people that exercise is worthless.

Several studies shows exercise also improves the health of heart disease sufferers

(NaturalNews) At the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation meeting recently held in Barcelona, Spain, new heart research was presented that shows one treatment in particular can provide remarkable help for patients with certain forms of serious heart disease. It's not a new drug or surgical procedure. Instead, it's a natural therapy -- plain old-fashioned regular exercise.

In fact, in several studies just presented at the meeting, exercise reduced the markers of heart disease in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). What's more, it improved indications of disease in people with heart failure, a condition usually thought to be incurable and often just treated with symptom-relieving drugs. But the news that's perhaps most likely to make some interventional cardiologists' hearts skip a beat or two was the evidence presented that showed that exercise improved cardiac event-free survival in coronary patients better than angioplasty with stents.

Dr. Marcus Sandri from the University of Leipzig presented data showing that a moderate exercise program daily for four weeks improved the function of endothelial cells in patients with heart failure. This is important because endothelial cells, which line the circulatory system, are associated with the progression of heart disease and heart failure when they don't function properly.

[TheFountain]

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

Don't forget the visual evidence. Most raw vegans look alot better upon entering middle age than those on typical western meat centric diets. Also do not forget the pro-growth implications of diets high in meat and dairy. Check it out.

http://news.bbc.co.u...alth/782959.stm

[DukeNukem]

I'm utterly convinced it plays practically no meaningful role, versus diet.

I could fill up 20 pages in this forum with research that shows exercise is beneficial in dramatically improving HEALTH, AGING, and DISEASE markers. Even the Blue Zone studies showed the the longest lived people IN THE WORLD, have higher levels of physical activity. Are you just ignoring the evidence? You seem to think everyone who exercises is a marathon runner. Why do you keep mentioning that. They are only like .00001 percent of the population, if that. Even if diet is waaay more important, it seems illogical and irresponsible to keep telling people that exercise is worthless.

Several studies shows exercise also improves the health of heart disease sufferers

(NaturalNews) At the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation meeting recently held in Barcelona, Spain, new heart research was presented that shows one treatment in particular can provide remarkable help for patients with certain forms of serious heart disease. It's not a new drug or surgical procedure. Instead, it's a natural therapy -- plain old-fashioned regular exercise.

In fact, in several studies just presented at the meeting, exercise reduced the markers of heart disease in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). What's more, it improved indications of disease in people with heart failure, a condition usually thought to be incurable and often just treated with symptom-relieving drugs. But the news that's perhaps most likely to make some interventional cardiologists' hearts skip a beat or two was the evidence presented that showed that exercise improved cardiac event-free survival in coronary patients better than angioplasty with stents.

Dr. Marcus Sandri from the University of Leipzig presented data showing that a moderate exercise program daily for four weeks improved the function of endothelial cells in patients with heart failure. This is important because endothelial cells, which line the circulatory system, are associated with the progression of heart disease and heart failure when they don't function properly.

That's interesting that endothelial cells had improved function.

But, I still think an anti-inflammatory low-glucose/fructose diet and supplements (D3, K2, resveratrol, pterostilbene, pomegranate extract, marine lipids, magnesium, etc.) will help most patients with heart disease FAR more than exercise. Diet and supplements can reverse heart disease, and restore healthy function. If patients do not change their diet and instead on rely on exercise, they will not extend their life nearly as long as WITH diet and supplements added to their treatment.

It's really a matter of degree. Yes, exercise can help. But, not nearly so much as diet and supplements. We'll never see exercise alone as a cure for heart disease. But, diet and supplements alone CAN do just that.

[Mind]

If patients do not change their diet and instead on rely on exercise, they will not extend their life nearly as long as WITH diet and supplements added to their treatment

Right, both diet and exercise are beneficial, and the easiest/quickest one to modify is diet.

[ajnast4r]

This food pyramid is also a health disaster. Whole grains are only slightly less unhealthy than processed grains. They have no place in ANY pyramid. And the "healthy oils" list included decidedly unhealthy choices, like soy, corn and peanut oils -- all of which promote inflammation out the waazoo! Healthy oils: butter/ghee, olive oil, avocado oil, macadamia nut oil, coconut and palm oil, all animal-based fats. (All of these are <12% in polyunsaturated fatty acids.)

i agree the oils listed leave a bit to be desired, but they are not listen in order or preference & if you read the details of the WW pyramid it does talk about limiting process PUFA's and favoring MFA.

i have quite a few references that show (whole) grain intake correlates to better nutritional status & decreased disease. i have yet to see you show even a single reference showing that (whole) grain consumption is correlated to increased disease... i will read any scientific reference you have to offer that shows whole grain consumption is correlated to increased disease or negative effects on humans.


http://www.ajcn.org/...t/full/70/3/307

Whole-grain foods are emerging as a dietary constituent that delivers significant health benefits. Several observational studies have provided strong support for a beneficial role of whole-grain intake in reducing the risk of CHD (2 4). In addition, whole-grain intake is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes (5), hypertension (6), and some types of cancer (7).

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 February 2010 - 10:03 PM.

[DukeNukem]

This food pyramid is also a health disaster. Whole grains are only slightly less unhealthy than processed grains. They have no place in ANY pyramid. And the "healthy oils" list included decidedly unhealthy choices, like soy, corn and peanut oils -- all of which promote inflammation out the waazoo! Healthy oils: butter/ghee, olive oil, avocado oil, macadamia nut oil, coconut and palm oil, all animal-based fats. (All of these are <12% in polyunsaturated fatty acids.)

i agree the oils listed leave a bit to be desired, but they are not listen in order or preference & if you read the details of the WW pyramid it does talk about limiting process PUFA's and favoring MFA.

i have quite a few references that show (whole) grain intake correlates to better nutritional status & decreased disease. i have yet to see you show even a single reference showing that (whole) grain consumption is correlated to increased disease... i will read any scientific reference you have to offer that shows whole grain consumption is correlated to increased disease or negative effects on humans.


http://www.ajcn.org/...t/full/70/3/307

Whole-grain foods are emerging as a dietary constituent that delivers significant health benefits. Several observational studies have provided strong support for a beneficial role of whole-grain intake in reducing the risk of CHD (2 4). In addition, whole-grain intake is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes (5), hypertension (6), and some types of cancer (7).

Here's the problem with these studies: They are compared against people eating unwhole grains, so yeah, these whole grain eaters are going to see some improvement.

Imagine people eating 100 grams of fructose a day, versus another group eating only 50 grams a day. Holy crap, we'd learn that SOME fructose is healthy because, whaddaya know, when you eat 50 grams daily you live longer! Headlines: Don't neglect your fructose. Study shows 50g daily adds to longevity.

But, what we need to see are studies of whole grain eaters versus no grain eaters. Then the whole-grains-are-healthy con will be fully revealed.

Edited by DukeNukem, 18 February 2010 - 12:43 AM.

[DukeNukem]

If patients do not change their diet and instead on rely on exercise, they will not extend their life nearly as long as WITH diet and supplements added to their treatment

Right, both diet and exercise are beneficial, and the easiest/quickest one to modify is diet.

And diet is by far the most beneficial. I will not drop this all-important caveat. ;-)

[ajnast4r]

Here's the problem with these studies: They are compared against people eating unwhole grains, so yeah, these whole grain eaters are going to see some improvement.

Imagine people eating 100 grams of fructose a day, versus another group eating only 50 grams a day. Holy crap, we'd learn that SOME fructose is healthy because, whaddaya know, when you eat 50 grams daily you live longer! Headlines: Don't neglect your fructose. Study shows 50g daily adds to longevity.

But, what we need to see are studies of whole grain eaters versus no grain eaters. Then the whole-grains-are-healthy con will be fully revealed.

thats just your assumption. an assumption worth exploration big a BIG ole assumption considering you didnt even read the studies i linked...one of them actually adjusts for this factor and found no increase in CVD among refined grain eaters but significant decreases in CVD for whole grain eaters.

it is completely possible that the [theoretical] "50g of fructose per day" IS actually causing some sort of benefit not related to the 50g reduction.

[frederickson]

Here's the problem with these studies: They are compared against people eating unwhole grains, so yeah, these whole grain eaters are going to see some improvement.

Imagine people eating 100 grams of fructose a day, versus another group eating only 50 grams a day. Holy crap, we'd learn that SOME fructose is healthy because, whaddaya know, when you eat 50 grams daily you live longer! Headlines: Don't neglect your fructose. Study shows 50g daily adds to longevity.

But, what we need to see are studies of whole grain eaters versus no grain eaters. Then the whole-grains-are-healthy con will be fully revealed.

thats just your assumption. an assumption worth exploration big a BIG ole assumption considering you didnt even read the studies i linked...one of them actually adjusts for this factor and found no increase in CVD among refined grain eaters but significant decreases in CVD for whole grain eaters.

it is completely possible that the [theoretical] "50g of fructose per day" IS actually causing some sort of benefit not related to the 50g reduction.

i think a better example to prove duke's point (since fructose intake is somewhat controversial) is that those who smoke 5 cigarettes are healthier than those that smoke 20. therefore, smoking 5 cigarettes a day is healthy.

we could be seeing the same thing (though to a lesser extent) here in that consuming whole grains are healthier than refined grains, but not necessarily a healthy practice in and of itself.

[DukeNukem]

Here's the problem with these studies: They are compared against people eating unwhole grains, so yeah, these whole grain eaters are going to see some improvement.

Imagine people eating 100 grams of fructose a day, versus another group eating only 50 grams a day. Holy crap, we'd learn that SOME fructose is healthy because, whaddaya know, when you eat 50 grams daily you live longer! Headlines: Don't neglect your fructose. Study shows 50g daily adds to longevity.

But, what we need to see are studies of whole grain eaters versus no grain eaters. Then the whole-grains-are-healthy con will be fully revealed.

thats just your assumption. an assumption worth exploration big a BIG ole assumption considering you didnt even read the studies i linked...one of them actually adjusts for this factor and found no increase in CVD among refined grain eaters but significant decreases in CVD for whole grain eaters.

it is completely possible that the [theoretical] "50g of fructose per day" IS actually causing some sort of benefit not related to the 50g reduction.

I did follow that link, and it was merely an editorial, based on observational studies, the least reliable type. Here's a quote from that link: "However, as the authors concede, a major limitation of observational studies is that even strong associations do not ensure causal relations. Prospective, controlled clinical trials are required to assess strong links between dietary components and disease states, but they are difficult to perform because it is almost impossible to provide control foods that are similar enough to the study foods to ensure blinding of investigators and volunteers. Long-term clinical trials with specific foods have not been done; therefore, this evidence is not available."

As I said, we need a controlled whole-grain vs no-grain study, which would be somewhat reliable even under non-controlled conditions because of its binary nature, versus trying to measure certain amounts of grains, for example. I aware of no such study.

In any case, I've yet to see any convincing evidence that grains are healthy. Meanwhile, there's LOTS of convincing evidence that grains reduce health, going back to when human first began eating them and immediately suffered health consequences as easily seen in their fossils.

Everyone I know who's ceased eating grains--over 100 people now--have reported positive health benefits (along with making other changes in their diet, too, I grant). But still, as I said, every thing points in favor of grains being a big-time net negative.

[e Volution]

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

I agree the food pyramid is great! Even has a pretty low amount of fruit by conventional standards which I sure like! Of course the grains at the top is purely political peace keeping (the evidence for some degree of gluten intolerance looks to be easily the majority of the population) as it would be too controversial if they excluded grains entirely. But make those grains gluten-free and I'd say it's close to perfect. The fountain of misinformation haha (I think I woke someone up with that laugh) lets remember this is a food pyramid for impeccable (or unimpaired) health for the masses, not optimum longevity, an issue that 99% of people seem not to enjoy dwelling on much...

As far as the exercise & diet issue go I do come down on the side of DukeNukem in its generally overratedness, but I feel it plays a little bit more of the equation than say 10%. It's all context though; you could easily make an argument for conventional (possibly even any) exercise being a net-negative in certain situations such as in extremely unhealthy, overweight, metabolically ruined individuals whose body is severely wrecked and inflamed. In this instance all that really matters is diet and supplements so the point is made that diets is where its at.

Its all contextual though! A few times i've seen these type of arguments between you guys and as an observer it can often feel like there are contextual or framing issues underlying them...
You got the longevity forum context (primarily benefiting ourselves in the path for optimum health)
Then you have the context of this thread being about a famous individuals bad health. ontop of that the cause of this ill-health is fingered at conventional wisdom, which then frames it in an analysis of optimum health for the masses or average individuals, where theres often a great divide between what we may practice for optimum longevity. But then constantly in the background, always we try to relate all the new information we learn into our own model containing our own conditions. I probably didn't convey very well what I mean but often its like you guys are in agreeance just arguing from different angles

[ajnast4r]

Meanwhile, there's LOTS of convincing evidence that grains reduce health

i'm willing to read them if you want to post them. also there was 5 links in my post, the reference numbers are actually links to full studies.

observational studies may be limited, but that doesnt mean they should be dismissed outright. i would consider modern observational studies to be a more accurate predictor than ancient fossil records when it comes to nutrition.

its very unlikely we'll see any real controlled nutrition studies... no one wants to spend the bucks on that unfortunately.

[Mind]

its very unlikely we'll see any real controlled nutrition studies... no one wants to spend the bucks on that unfortunately.

And we are rapidly approaching the day when technological repairs to metabolic damage (due to poor diet choices) become a reality. That is where the money will and should go, instead of studying the same things that have been studied extensively for over a century already. The returns on further nutritional research investment are diminishing.

[ajnast4r]

And we are rapidly approaching the day when technological repairs to metabolic damage (due to poor diet choices) become a reality. That is where the money will and should go, instead of studying the same things that have been studied extensively for over a century already. The returns on further nutritional research investment are diminishing.

while I agree that said technology is an important are a of investment, i disagree that this should be the only area of investment. Taking good care of a car AND having a good mechanic usually nets a much longer life than taking bad care of a car & having a good mechanic. Nutritional science is fairly new and was somewhat lacking until the past 15-20 years... other than the basics, almost all of the really important discoveries have been in the past 10 years... another 20 years or so would give us an infinitely better understanding of how nutritional actually works.

I think understanding how and on what the body functions optimally is just as important as understanding how to fix it when it doesnt.

Edited by ajnast4r, 18 February 2010 - 06:45 PM.

[SonofSocrates]

Let's not write Clinton off people...he could seriously reverse it through exercise and the rest..let's just hope he's getting the best information...that is up to date of course.

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. The high percentage of marathon and triathlete runners who die <45 is quite remarkable -- but of course the general public mistakenly believes these people were doing something supremely healthy. Whoops!!! Not quite. Just another in the long list of health and diet myths that have become conventional wisdom.

More fun myths that most ill-informed Americans (including Clinton's doctors) merrily believe in an obedient manner:

o Low fat diets are healthy.
o Saturated fat is a cause of heart disease.
o Total cholesterol over 200 is something be concerned about.
o Statins reduce mortality.
o Whole wheat is healthy.
o Red meat is unhealthy.
o Corn, canola and soy oils are heart healthy (American Heart Association says so!)
o Fructose, a low-GI sugar, is a healthy choice.

By this statement you would think that Dr. Dean Ornish's program would be killing people left and right, but in fact he has shown in numerous clinical trials that any intelligent person can look up on pubmed that his low fat vegan diet can reverse heart disease. No disrespect meant to you Duke, but from your statements it makes me think that if the evidence doesn't fit your perspective its disregarded.

Edited by SonofSocrates, 19 February 2010 - 05:45 AM.

[SonofSocrates]

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.

I've seen AMPLE evidence (in studies, in books like Anticancer, and personally) that diet can profoundly halt and reverse various "diseases". I have see no evidence that exercise is a meaningful treatment, except--as I stated before--in treating obesity and metabolic syndrome. But still, even in this case, diet plays the overwhelming role.

If a person has heart disease, diet and supplements are the best treatment, not exercise. After all, it's poor diet that got the person where they are, in most heart disease cases. Not a lack of exercise. And too many people who jog die of heart disease -- I'm utterly convinced it plays practically no meaningful role, versus diet.

You refer to Anticancer as evidence of diet's effect on the body, well anyone that has read Anticancer (which I also highly support people reading) know the author argues for a plant based diet with little or no meat for cancer prevention and treatment, he has a chapter were he review's the work of Dr Campbell who is known for the China Study, which again argues for a vegan diet that is low in fat.

[Johann]

Duke,
You're absolutely right about the popular diets being all wrong. Would you be willing
to aggregate a list of the best supps/vitamins that would be good for the heart?

Also, what do you know about Taurine and Arginine for regular preventatives?

Btw, I love your sarcastic way of putting heart healthy in quotations. Watching cereal or kashi commercials and having that two word phrase uttered right next to "whole grains" is a big lie.
Wheat (the modern kind), corn, and soybeans and sending Americans to an early grave all the while they are popping their statins.

[DukeNukem]

Let's not write Clinton off people...he could seriously reverse it through exercise and the rest..let's just hope he's getting the best information...that is up to date of course.

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. The high percentage of marathon and triathlete runners who die <45 is quite remarkable -- but of course the general public mistakenly believes these people were doing something supremely healthy. Whoops!!! Not quite. Just another in the long list of health and diet myths that have become conventional wisdom.

More fun myths that most ill-informed Americans (including Clinton's doctors) merrily believe in an obedient manner:

o Low fat diets are healthy.
o Saturated fat is a cause of heart disease.
o Total cholesterol over 200 is something be concerned about.
o Statins reduce mortality.
o Whole wheat is healthy.
o Red meat is unhealthy.
o Corn, canola and soy oils are heart healthy (American Heart Association says so!)
o Fructose, a low-GI sugar, is a healthy choice.

By this statement you would think that Dr. Dean Ornish's program would be killing people left and right, but in fact he has shown in numerous clinical trials that any intelligent person can look up on pubmed that his low fat vegan diet can reverse heart disease. No disrespect meant to you Duke, but from your statements it makes me think that if the evidence doesn't fit your perspective its disregarded.

Dr. Ornish's diet has a lot of good qualities, like avoiding processed foods. So, overall, it will likely result in healthier people versus the USDA Pyramid of Pouchiness Diet. Have you seen Dr. Ornish lately--he is not aging well at all. He is not a good example of a healthy diet.

[DukeNukem]

You refer to Anticancer as evidence of diet's effect on the body, well anyone that has read Anticancer (which I also highly support people reading) know the author argues for a plant based diet with little or no meat for cancer prevention and treatment, he has a chapter were he review's the work of Dr Campbell who is known for the China Study, which again argues for a vegan diet that is low in fat.

I've said before--maybe not in ImmInst--that Anticancer has certain areas I disagree with. But, overall, it's a worthwhile book. Primarily, the author comes to realize through his research into existing studies, and talking to other doctors, that diet is essential to preventing and treating cancer, as well as numerous key supplements. He also strongly recommends against processed foods and processed grains.

Baby steps!

Eventually, we'll all understand--just as we do with trans fats--that whole grains are really no better than processed grains, especially in the case of whole wheat.

[ajnast4r]

that whole grains are really no better than processed grains

evidence?

[DukeNukem]

that whole grains are really no better than processed grains

evidence?

It's very easy to find via google.

Counter question: Why would whole grains be more healthy than processed grains.

And, if you agree that processed grains are horribly unhealthy, are whole grains so much more healthy that they climb out of that deep hole and emerge on the healthy side of the line?

What the heck, here's a place to start:
http://bradmarshall....tion-maybe.html

Note that as I've said many times, you're not going to find many studies that show that whole wheat is unhealthy, because the comparison is always against processed wheat, a feeble opponent.

Additionally, wheat consumption, whole or processed, lowers total LDL, which the majority of doctors thinks is a good thing (silly doctors!). And based on this alone, they proclaim: "Wheat is healthy!"

One day soon, this will all be seen as a huge whoops no less so that the low-fat whoops. All the clues are there, even without the definitive studies. It just takes longer for some to piece the puzzle together.

[ajnast4r]

It's very easy to find via google.

Counter question: Why would whole grains be more healthy than processed grains.

i cant find any reliable information saying whole grains are unhealthy... just lots of theory and speculation.

the reason whole grains are healthier are numerous...

the removal of fiber, fat, protein & micronutrients changes the way they are digested & metabolized, the glycemic 'index' and load are all increased. the speed and efficiency with which the CHO in the gut & the glucose in the blood are processed is changed. its not the CHO in and of itself that is unhealthy, its the way the body is processing and utilizing the CHO. this is exactly why we DONT see the same increases in disease among people who favor whole grains as we do those who favor refined. similar to the way that EVOO is healthier than refined clear olive oil.

Edited by ajnast4r, 21 February 2010 - 04:19 PM.

[DukeNukem]

It's very easy to find via google.

Counter question: Why would whole grains be more healthy than processed grains.

i cant find any reliable information saying whole grains are unhealthy... just lots of theory and speculation.

the reason whole grains are healthier are numerous...

the removal of fiber, fat, protein & micronutrients changes the way they are digested & metabolized, the glycemic 'index' and load are all increased. the speed and efficiency with which the CHO in the gut & the glucose in the blood are processed is changed. its not the CHO in and of itself that is unhealthy, its the way the body is processing and utilizing the CHO. this is exactly why we DONT see the same increases in disease among people who favor whole grains as we do those who favor refined. similar to the way that EVOO is healthier than refined clear olive oil.

Whole grains contain gluten, lectins, and phytic acid, all of which are NOT healthy. The fiber is a red herring -- while it does slow down digestion, it merely draws out the inevitable: These unhealthy foodstuffs still enter your system. Gluten is a trash protein unsuitable for mammalian consumption. It is inflammatory, addictive (numerous gluten peptides excite opioid receptors in the brain), and cannot be fully disassembled into amino acids. This is why it is NEVER used by bodybuilders as a protein source -- while they may not be aware that's it's unhealthy, they ARE aware that it's ineffective, just through experimental trial.

There are SO MANY red flags with whole grains, and NO evidence that they are healthier versus no grains, that the smart play is to stay away. Everyone I know who has eliminated grains is better off, health-wise.

[kismet]

Phytate is a red herring, too. As I have elaborated in a dozen posts that can be found via the search.  And if I had to guess grain-lectins are probably also a non-issue. So, I challange anyone to provide evidence* that those two grain-derived substances (the latter, actually is more a class) are detrimental. And of course the data on health outcomes is much more interesting concerning net effects on health. Therefore, it'd be interesting to see the studies of whole vs refined vs no grain consumption (if ajna did not already cite that one).

*peer-reviewed

Edited by kismet, 21 February 2010 - 06:17 PM.

[TheFountain]

Whole grains contain gluten, lectins, and phytic acid, all of which are NOT healthy.

Except that phytic acid has been shown to have anticancer potential. Mister 'i know better' than everyone And just to clarify, I do not dislike you or anyone else here. I just find you to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever encountered with regard to nutrition. It's amazing to me how much smarter you believe yourself to be than virtually everyone else talking about this. There is good and bad to both fats and carbs, including grains. The way you frame it is very misleading and confusing to the uninformed.

'Phytic acid, an anticarcinogenic food component, stimulates apoptosis of tumor cells. Similar to apoptosis, human erythrocytes may undergo suicidal death or eryptosis, characterized by cell membrane scrambling and cell shrinkage. Triggers of eryptosis include energy depletion. Phytate intake could cause anemia, an effect attributed to iron complexation. The present experiments explored whether phytic acid influences eryptosis. Supernatant hemoglobin concentration was determined to reveal hemolysis, annexin V-binding in FACS analysis was utilized to identify erythrocytes with scrambled cell membrane, forward scatter in FACS analysis was taken as a measure of cell volume, and a luciferin−luciferase assay was employed to determine erythrocyte ATP content. As a result, phytic acid (≥1 mM) did not lead to significant hemolysis, but significantly increased the percentage of annexin V-binding erythrocytes, significantly decreased forward scatter, and significantly decreased cellular ATP content. In conclusion, phytic acid stimulates suicidal human erythrocyte death, an effect paralleling its proapoptotic effect on nucleated cells.'

Edited by TheFountain, 21 February 2010 - 06:42 PM.

[TheFountain]

Let's not write Clinton off people...he could seriously reverse it through exercise and the rest..let's just hope he's getting the best information...that is up to date of course.

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. The high percentage of marathon and triathlete runners who die <45 is quite remarkable -- but of course the general public mistakenly believes these people were doing something supremely healthy. Whoops!!! Not quite. Just another in the long list of health and diet myths that have become conventional wisdom.

More fun myths that most ill-informed Americans (including Clinton's doctors) merrily believe in an obedient manner:

o Low fat diets are healthy.
o Saturated fat is a cause of heart disease.
o Total cholesterol over 200 is something be concerned about.
o Statins reduce mortality.
o Whole wheat is healthy.
o Red meat is unhealthy.
o Corn, canola and soy oils are heart healthy (American Heart Association says so!)
o Fructose, a low-GI sugar, is a healthy choice.

By this statement you would think that Dr. Dean Ornish's program would be killing people left and right, but in fact he has shown in numerous clinical trials that any intelligent person can look up on pubmed that his low fat vegan diet can reverse heart disease. No disrespect meant to you Duke, but from your statements it makes me think that if the evidence doesn't fit your perspective its disregarded.

Dr. Ornish's diet has a lot of good qualities, like avoiding processed foods. So, overall, it will likely result in healthier people versus the USDA Pyramid of Pouchiness Diet. Have you seen Dr. Ornish lately--he is not aging well at all. He is not a good example of a healthy diet.

You're right, he doesn't look any younger than his chronological age than, say, this guy does (so maybe they're both wrong!).