142 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Anyway, listen to what Jullian Michaels says in response to Garys assertion that exercise has little effect on weight loss here.

[DukeNukem]

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...

Yes, and I've stated many times with ImmInst, going back several years, that phytic acid (IP-6) would be one of primary supplements to take if I had cancer. This should be easy to look up and verify. I'm a fan of IP-6, under the right circumstance.

[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.

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

Remember, Taubes has likely only been on a lower-carb diet for a few years -- since beginning research for his book. Meanwhile, Dr. Ornish has likely been a low-fat dieter for at least two decades. And it shows.

[DukeNukem]

Anyway, listen to what Jullian Michaels says in response to Garys assertion that exercise has little effect on weight loss here.

Anyone listening to Jullian Michaels for advice is in deep poo-poo to begin with. I've seen her archaic, non-healthy ways of driving down people's weight on The Biggest Loser. She is as clueless as they come, and insane for pushing those utterly out-of-shape people the way she does. These people need to ramp up much more slowly, but given the show's time-line, she forces them to ramp up far too quickly. It's quite telling that less than a handful of people who've been on that show have been able to retain their end-of-show weights -- the rest have all ballooned back to fatness.

These people where not correctly taught which foods to eat, and without that knowledge, no amount of exercise is going to help them. Unless you exercise for several hours a day, poor eating will always outdo the exercise efforts.

[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!).

Remember, Taubes has likely only been on a lower-carb diet for a few years -- since beginning research for his book. Meanwhile, Dr. Ornish has likely been a low-fat dieter for at least two decades. And it shows.

Oh I wasn't sure if you were referring to the vegetarian equation of his diet. I definitely agree that Ornish doesn't have his finger on the pulse of proper dieting and likely eats things he perceives as healthy which aren't. But I also don't think Gary taubes has his finger on the pulse either. I think the truth is somewhere between both of them with some defiinite adjustments that need to be made to both perspectives.

[TheFountain]

Anyway, listen to what Jullian Michaels says in response to Garys assertion that exercise has little effect on weight loss here.

Anyone listening to Jullian Michaels for advice is in deep poo-poo to begin with. I've seen her archaic, non-healthy ways of driving down people's weight on The Biggest Loser. She is as clueless as they come, and insane for pushing those utterly out-of-shape people the way she does. These people need to ramp up much more slowly, but given the show's time-line, she forces them to ramp up far too quickly. It's quite telling that less than a handful of people who've been on that show have been able to retain their end-of-show weights -- the rest have all ballooned back to fatness.

These people where not correctly taught which foods to eat, and without that knowledge, no amount of exercise is going to help them. Unless you exercise for several hours a day, poor eating will always outdo the exercise efforts.

I never watched that pitiful program but I think she made a good point with reference to the way hormone is effected by exercise and how this alters metabolic pathways. But her execution of her principles sucks. Reality TV is a terrible medium for anyone to get proper info.

Edited by TheFountain, 21 February 2010 - 08:28 PM.

[DukeNukem]

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

As I said, until we have a whole grain vs no grain study, it's up to us as individuals to make our best guess giving inconclusive puzzle pieces. Some of us have concluded whole grains are bad, others of us have concluded they're good.

One day we'll know for sure. Until then, I'm quite happy to live with my conclusion as I think it's sound and backed up by evidence that takes me beyond reasonable doubt.

Additionally, since grains are entirely unnecessary to mammalian life, the precautionary principle guides me to play-it-safe and avoid them.

[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.

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.

Come on now, if we are using how a person looks as the means to test if their beliefs about nutrition are correct, then we should just ask the longest living people on the planet what they eat and use that as our guide. Well if we did that, we would find that they across the board in Loma Linda, Costa Rica, Okinawa, etc. eat a plant based diet. You can't have it both ways and say that anything less then clinical trials is not with thinking about and then support your perspective based on a observational study of one person, in this case Dr. Ornish, with quite limited observations, in this case his physical apperrence.

[SonofSocrates]

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.

If I understand you correctly, your like the Karl Marx of nutrition. Your saying that just as capitialism is a needed step on the way to communism, that going from proccessed food and grain to unproccessed foods and grain is a needed step on the way to the ideal social order, I mean diet, of sat fat and animal protein.

Do I have this right comrade?

[spp]

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

OK, I'll bite.

Phytates reduces the bio-availability of minerals in food. Bioavailability of Minerals in Legumes

Lectins and Wheatgerm agglutinin display binding of insulin and receptors to fat and liver tissues.
... Direct Interactions with Insulin Receptors

Link between lectins and leptin resistance. ... Do evolutionary novel dietary lectins cause leptin resistance?

Wheatgerm agglutinin affects leptin binding. Contribution of leptin receptor N-Linked glycans to leptin binding


Paleo diet is better for bio-markers than a cereal based diet in pigs. A Paleo Diet confers ... in domestic Pigs


I don't think these studies are conclusive, but they are suggestive, especially in the context of species appropriate diets.

[Mind]

If I understand you correctly, your like the Karl Marx of nutrition. Your saying that just as capitialism is a needed step on the way to communism, that going from proccessed food and grain to unproccessed foods and grain is a needed step on the way to the ideal social order, I mean diet, of sat fat and animal protein.

Do I have this right comrade?

No need for that.

Everyone is free to espouse what they think is a good diet. You are free to disagree. If Duke doesn't have good evidence, then point it out. No one here is forcing (nor has the power to force) anyone to eat this food or that food.

Let me remind everyone that diet is really a very small part of the picture. What we will need to achieve unlimited lifespans is new technology.

[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

OK, I'll bite.

Phytates reduces the bio-availability of minerals in food. Bioavailability of Minerals in Legumes

A. this doesn't matter, because it does not lead to deficiency in commonly consumed diets, at common intakes in industrial nations.

B. even if were true that this effect is significant, it'd be still a red herring. You can easily supplement minerals, but you cannot make up the beneficial effects of phytate on CVD, kidney health and possibly cancer with anything else.

(I cannot address lectins)
If anyone would like to share a this recent review, feel free: "Phytate in foods and significance for humans: Food sources, intake, processing, bioavailability, protective role and analysis. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Sep;53 Suppl 2:S330-75. Review."

Edited by kismet, 22 February 2010 - 12:18 AM.

[spp]

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

OK, I'll bite.

Phytates reduces the bio-availability of minerals in food. Bioavailability of Minerals in Legumes

A. this doesn't matter, because it does not lead to deficiency in commonly consumed diets, at common intakes in industrial nations.

B. even if were true that this effect is significant, it'd be still a red herring. You can easily supplement minerals, but you cannot make up the beneficial effects of phytate on CVD, kidney health and possibly cancer with anything else.

(I cannot address lectins)
If anyone would like to share a this recent review, feel free: "Phytate in foods and significance for humans: Food sources, intake, processing, bioavailability, protective role and analysis. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Sep;53 Suppl 2:S330-75. Review."

Hey, no fair attacking my weakest argument

Well you're right that phytates have some positive effects, such as inhibiting tumor formation.
Inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) as an anti-neoplastic and lipid-lowering agent.

On the other hand, traditional cultures usually applied techniques to grains that tended to reduce the amount of phytic acid in the food (Effects of soaking, germination and fermentation on phytic acid ...) and I tend to believe that there was a survival of the fittest effect that allowed the healthier food preparation techniques to win out over time. I'll admit that it is not real strong evidence.

[Forever21]

If I understand you correctly, your like the Karl Marx of nutrition. Your saying that just as capitialism is a needed step on the way to communism, that going from proccessed food and grain to unproccessed foods and grain is a needed step on the way to the ideal social order, I mean diet, of sat fat and animal protein.

Do I have this right comrade?

No need for that.

Everyone is free to espouse what they think is a good diet. You are free to disagree. If Duke doesn't have good evidence, then point it out. No one here is forcing (nor has the power to force) anyone to eat this food or that food.

Let me remind everyone that diet is really a very small part of the picture. What we will need to achieve unlimited lifespans is new technology.

Amen to that.

[SonofSocrates]

If I understand you correctly, your like the Karl Marx of nutrition. Your saying that just as capitialism is a needed step on the way to communism, that going from proccessed food and grain to unproccessed foods and grain is a needed step on the way to the ideal social order, I mean diet, of sat fat and animal protein.

Do I have this right comrade?

No need for that.

Everyone is free to espouse what they think is a good diet. You are free to disagree. If Duke doesn't have good evidence, then point it out. No one here is forcing (nor has the power to force) anyone to eat this food or that food.

Let me remind everyone that diet is really a very small part of the picture. What we will need to achieve unlimited lifespans is new technology.

Mind,

I couldn't agree more with you that we have no chance of radically extending out lifespans via diet and we should never for that. My last post was in no way meant to be a personal attack on Duke, if fact I was a thinking of responding to his reply regarding the work documented in Anticancer with the comment of how I support his continued effort to state was he thinks is true in this matter. To me it why I chose my user name, not that I actually think I am Socrates's son, but that I try my best to questions beliefs not attack those who hold them. My comments were meant to be sarcastic in nature, so maybe I was unsuccessful in my wording to create that effect. In my life experience I have found that most people don't think nearly enough about the beliefs they hold for anything from diet to politics so when you question them and point out what you see as flaws they take personal offense and sometimes make you drink hemlock. I am not one of those people, so please debate away.

[ajnast4r]

Whole grains contain gluten

as i've said to you atleast 10 times over the past year, not all grains contain gluten... i have celiac disease and CANT consume gluten but i still manage to get a pretty diverse selection of grains in my diet.

we will just have to agree to disagree, but the scientific evidence still lands on the side of whole grains consumed in moderation being healthy. any statement to the contrary is simply just speculation.

Edited by ajnast4r, 22 February 2010 - 05:59 PM.

[Mind]

If I understand you correctly, your like the Karl Marx of nutrition. Your saying that just as capitialism is a needed step on the way to communism, that going from proccessed food and grain to unproccessed foods and grain is a needed step on the way to the ideal social order, I mean diet, of sat fat and animal protein.

Do I have this right comrade?

No need for that.

Everyone is free to espouse what they think is a good diet. You are free to disagree. If Duke doesn't have good evidence, then point it out. No one here is forcing (nor has the power to force) anyone to eat this food or that food.

Let me remind everyone that diet is really a very small part of the picture. What we will need to achieve unlimited lifespans is new technology.

Mind,

I couldn't agree more with you that we have no chance of radically extending out lifespans via diet and we should never for that. My last post was in no way meant to be a personal attack on Duke, if fact I was a thinking of responding to his reply regarding the work documented in Anticancer with the comment of how I support his continued effort to state was he thinks is true in this matter. To me it why I chose my user name, not that I actually think I am Socrates's son, but that I try my best to questions beliefs not attack those who hold them. My comments were meant to be sarcastic in nature, so maybe I was unsuccessful in my wording to create that effect. In my life experience I have found that most people don't think nearly enough about the beliefs they hold for anything from diet to politics so when you question them and point out what you see as flaws they take personal offense and sometimes make you drink hemlock. I am not one of those people, so please debate away.

Cool, its all good. I like a good debate.

[DukeNukem]

Whole grains contain gluten

as i've said to you atleast 10 times over the past year, not all grains contain gluten... i have celiac disease and CANT consume gluten but i still manage to get a pretty diverse selection of grains in my diet.

we will just have to agree to disagree, but the scientific evidence still lands on the side of whole grains consumed in moderation being healthy. any statement to the contrary is simply just speculation.

I usually say "gluten grains" just to make this distinction. Sure enough, one of the few times I don't, something thinks I made a mistake! ;-)

But my point was that whole grains contain gluten (not all whole grains, for example, rice does not) and therefore are no more healthy than processed grains, in this respect. The nutrients in whole grains are minimal, compared to nutrient density in vegetables, berries and meats. In fact, no grain ranks in the top 10 of any nutrient, versus other food choices. Grains are good for cheap calories, not cheap nutrients.

Note too, that practically everyone is intolerant to gluten to some degree. In effect, intolerance is universal among humans, which only a small percentage of the population being an exception (potentially less than one percent). This intolerance manifests itself sooner in some people, due to genetic variance. But, make no mistake, practically everyone is negatively affected by this trash protein. Here's a place to start:
http://wholehealthso...disease-is.html

This is merely another reason to not eat gluten grains. Grains, in general, are just nutritionally lame calories. Gluten grains, in particular, and wheat at the top of the list, should be removed from the food supply, for humans and our mammalian pets. (I haven't fed my dog or cats cheap-ass grain-filler dog food in 5+ years.)

[ajnast4r]

again i disagree about non-gluten grains, but theres no point in going back and forth anymore


i do, however, agree about gluten... i think the prevalence of autoimmune reaction to the gliadin fraction, specifically subclinical reactions, are MUCH MUCH higher than is commonly believed.

[DukeNukem]

again i disagree about non-gluten grains, but theres no point in going back and forth anymore


i do, however, agree about gluten... i think the prevalence of autoimmune reaction to the gliadin fraction, specifically subclinical reactions, are MUCH MUCH higher than is commonly believed.

Well, in that case, we basically are closer to agreement than I thought. My three primary food to avoid are gluten-grains, processed oils, and fructose. Non-gluten-grains, while merely a junk food, are not nearly as deleterious to health as gluten grains (whole or processed).

[ajnast4r]

Well, in that case, we basically are closer to agreement than I thought. My three primary food to avoid are gluten-grains, processed oils, and fructose. Non-gluten-grains, while merely a junk food, are not nearly as deleterious to health as gluten grains (whole or processed).

i avoid those as well for the most part, although i'm never 100%... i'm obviously 100% on gluten and im also very close to 100% on casein.. i wll selectively eat cheese but it makes me sick.

do you avoid casein? casein and gluten have a very similar molecular structure and it causes most celiacs, including myself, quite a bit of problems.

[DukeNukem]

Well, in that case, we basically are closer to agreement than I thought. My three primary food to avoid are gluten-grains, processed oils, and fructose. Non-gluten-grains, while merely a junk food, are not nearly as deleterious to health as gluten grains (whole or processed).

i avoid those as well for the most part, although i'm never 100%... i'm obviously 100% on gluten and im also very close to 100% on casein.. i wll selectively eat cheese but it makes me sick.

do you avoid casein? casein and gluten have a very similar molecular structure and it causes most celiacs, including myself, quite a bit of problems.

I want to avoid casein, but I find it harder to do. I buy/choose goat dairy products whenever I can, because the casein appears to be closer to human casein. But, I still eat cow's cheese and use cow's heavy cream milk for my decaf coffee. Since I measure my inflammation and numerous other blood markers, if I ever see a concerning rise in any value, I will likely drop casein to see if that's the cause.

[DairyProducts]

Also in the news, a former vice president had a heart attack (his fifth!)
http://latimesblogs....m-hospital.html
He had his first at 37 (he's 69 now.)

[biochemie]

I want to avoid casein, but I find it harder to do. I buy/choose goat dairy products whenever I can, because the casein appears to be closer to human casein. But, I still eat cow's cheese and use cow's heavy cream milk for my decaf coffee. Since I measure my inflammation and numerous other blood markers, if I ever see a concerning rise in any value, I will likely drop casein to see if that's the cause.

Any specific reason for using Decaf coffee? Don't espresso and such provide some health benefits?

[biochemie]

Also in the news, a former vice president had a heart attack (his fifth!)
http://latimesblogs....m-hospital.html
He had his first at 37 (he's 69 now.)

I'm pretty impressed that he's survived 5 Heart attacks though a quadruple bypass helped.

[DukeNukem]

I want to avoid casein, but I find it harder to do. I buy/choose goat dairy products whenever I can, because the casein appears to be closer to human casein. But, I still eat cow's cheese and use cow's heavy cream milk for my decaf coffee. Since I measure my inflammation and numerous other blood markers, if I ever see a concerning rise in any value, I will likely drop casein to see if that's the cause.

Any specific reason for using Decaf coffee? Don't espresso and such provide some health benefits?

Don't like caffeine headaches if I can't get a coffee for whatever reason. Anyway, I don't need caffeine--I just like the taste of coffee.

[VidX]

Whole grains contain gluten

as i've said to you atleast 10 times over the past year, not all grains contain gluten... i have celiac disease and CANT consume gluten but i still manage to get a pretty diverse selection of grains in my diet.

we will just have to agree to disagree, but the scientific evidence still lands on the side of whole grains consumed in moderation being healthy. any statement to the contrary is simply just speculation.

Eat buckwheat and forget all the gluten issues. Best source of energy for me, out of any carb I've tried till this day.

[DairyProducts]

President Obama gets his first presidential checkup.
http://www.newser.co...on-efforts.html
His HDL is down a bit to 62 and his LDL (total, so yeah, it's meaningless) is up to 138, he has a pulse of 56, and his bp is 105 over 62. Still smoking a bit too but probably using a patch or gum.
It would be fun to compare past health records of presidents to see who was the healthiest in office .

[Black]

I recall that Clinton was a follower of the South Beach Diet at least when his condition become known before the first problems in 2004. This is not a terribly strict diet but does emphasize the glycemic index of foods and elimination of white bread, etc. Developed by a cardiologist, it would likely help more than hurt.

Edited by Black, 05 March 2010 - 12:04 AM.

[niner]

President Obama gets his first presidential checkup.
http://www.newser.co...on-efforts.html
His HDL is down a bit to 62 and his LDL (total, so yeah, it's meaningless) is up to 138, he has a pulse of 56, and his bp is 105 over 62. Still smoking a bit too but probably using a patch or gum.
It would be fun to compare past health records of presidents to see who was the healthiest in office .

Jeez, those are pretty good numbers for a president. Healthiest prez: William Howard Taft.