39 replies to this topic

[Hebbeh]

Have you actually read peer reviewed studies on these subjects or are you just making this up as you go?

I'd seriously have to ask you the same. You've offered no proof for your wild claims as to the long term (or lack of) health effects of the SAD and as I've stated, it's both ridiculous to suggest there are no studies of or health consequences to the consumption of the SAD. As someone previously stated, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Food for thought FWIW....I eat a disciplined diet avoiding practically everything associated with the SAD (processed carbs, industrial seed oils, convenience and processed foods, fast foods, junk foods, etc, etc) while my brother eats the classic SAD. Unlike my brother, I have absolutely no health issues and have absolutely no requirements for any type of medications. My brother has already had prostrate cancer (multiple treatments) and serious issues with high cholesterol and blood pressure which he takes meds for both. Sadly, I'd say it's a fair bet I'll outlive my brother by 20 or 30 years (as he's not looking well). The only difference I can see between my brother and me has been our dietary habits over the last 20 years.

And I see the same comparisons at work. I'm the only one (and it's well known by all) that never partakes in the ritual donuts at meetings etc or will eat any kind of fast food (the American way...hot dogs, baseball, and apple pie). And virtually all my co-workers (even those half my age) have various health issues. It's especially become apparent with the standard health clinics at work (spin off of Obama Care) where it's actually become a joke about the old man (me) whose health markers and blood markers are better than the kids.

And it's ironic but sad my co-workers readily acknowledge my good health but just like you, laugh at my dietary choices.

But I wish you the best of luck with your future dietary experiences. I've found what works (very well) for me and wish the same for you.

[Hebbeh]

Brett, I'm starting to wonder if you even know what the SAD is? A quick and very basic overview is on wiki including references to health and morbidity issues....please note the last sentence. And yes. this is just wiki but if we need to go to Pubmed, there is do doubt the evidence is NOT in your court.

http://en.wikipedia....d_American_Diet

Standard American Diet[edit]

The "Standard American Diet" (S.A.D.) is a similar term, specifically used to describe the stereotypical diet of Americans. The typical American diet is about 50% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 35% fat,^[5] which is over the dietary guidelines for the amount of fat (below 30%), below the guidelines for carbohydrate (above 55%), and at the upper end of the guidelines for the amount of protein (below 15%) recommended in the diet.^[6]
The quality of the carbohydrate, protein, and fat is at least as important as the quantity. Complex carbohydrates such as starch are believed to be more healthy than the sugar so frequently consumed in the Standard American Diet. Fischer 344 rats fed cornstarch ad libitum lived nearly 10% longer than Fischer 344 rats fed sucrose ad libitum.^[7]
Fischer 344 rats fed soy protein ad libitum suffer less kidney damage than Fischer 344 rats fed casein or lactalbumin ad libitum.^[8][9]
The Standard American Diet is high in saturated fat, but it is estimated that for every 1% of saturated fat energy that is replaced with polyunsaturated fat there would be more than a 2-3% reduction in coronary heart disease incidence^[10] And even for polyunsaturated fat, the high levels of omega-6 fatty acids compared to omega-3 fatty acids in the Western diet is believe to contribute to autoimmune and inflammatory diseases as well as cancer and cardiovascular disease.^[11]
A review of eating habits in the United States in 2004 found that about 3/4 of restaurant meals were from fast-food restaurants, where as only 1% were fine food dining restaurants. Nearly half of the meals ordered from a menu were hamburger, French fries, or poultry — and about one third of orders included a carbonated beverage drink.^[12] From 1970 to 2008, the per capita consumption of calories increased by nearly one-quarter in the United States and about 10% of all calories were from high-fructose corn syrup.^[13]

Health concerns[edit]

Compared to the "prudent" diet,^[vague] the Western pattern diet, based on epidemiological studies of Westerners, is positively correlated with an elevated incidence of obesity,^[3] death from heart disease, cancer (especially colon cancer),^[4] and other "Western pattern diet"-related diseases.^[14]

Edited by Hebbeh, 18 December 2013 - 06:14 AM.

[Brett Black]

Have you actually read peer reviewed studies on these subjects or are you just making this up as you go?

I'd seriously have to ask you the same. You've offered no proof for your wild claims as to the long term (or lack of) health effects of the SAD

You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Can you show me a quote of mine, in this thread, where I have made these supposed "wild claims as to the long term (or lack of) health effects of the SAD"?

and as I've stated, it's both ridiculous to suggest there are no studies of or health consequences to the consumption of the SAD. As someone previously stated, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, show me a quote from me that makes these claims. I never claimed there are no studies of the health consequences of SAD consumption. Where are you getting this from?

Food for thought FWIW....I eat a disciplined diet avoiding practically everything associated with the SAD (processed carbs, industrial seed oils, convenience and processed foods, fast foods, junk foods, etc, etc) while my brother eats the classic SAD.

Your diet *might be* healthier than the SAD, I don't know, but that has not been my concern here. The driving thrust of my arguments here, has been to expose the naturalistic fallacy and associated misunderstanding of the ramifications of evolved dietary adaptions that underly much paleo thinking.

Unlike my brother, I have absolutely no health issues and have absolutely no requirements for any type of medications. My brother has already had prostrate cancer (multiple treatments) and serious issues with high cholesterol and blood pressure which he takes meds for both. Sadly, I'd say it's a fair bet I'll outlive my brother by 20 or 30 years (as he's not looking well). The only difference I can see between my brother and me has been our dietary habits over the last 20 years.

Are you and your brother identical twins, live in the same house, do the same job etc etc etc? There are a lot of genetic and environmental differences that could explain different health outcomes other than(and/or in combination with) diet. But then maybe your diet is responsible, the point is: it's very hard to know.

And I see the same comparisons at work. I'm the only one (and it's well known by all) that never partakes in the ritual donuts at meetings etc or will eat any kind of fast food (the American way...hot dogs, baseball, and apple pie). And virtually all my co-workers (even those half my age) have various health issues. It's especially become apparent with the standard health clinics at work (spin off of Obama Care) where it's actually become a joke about the old man (me) whose health markers and blood markers are better than the kids.

And it's ironic but sad my co-workers readily acknowledge my good health but just like you, laugh at my dietary choices.

Oh come on, I haven't been laughing at your dietary choices. I didn't even know what your dietary choices were until your described some of them in this very post that I'm replying to.

But I wish you the best of luck with your future dietary experiences. I've found what works (very well) for me and wish the same for you.

Thanks, I wish the same for you and everyone (so long as said diet isn't somehow supporting net negative outcomes, like keeping a sadistic killer continuing his killing spree ;-) .)

[Hebbeh]

You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Can you show me a quote of mine, in this thread, where I have made these supposed "wild claims as to the long term (or lack of) health effects of the SAD"?

The quote...

What I have said about the modern Western diet is all true, your bluster and empty rhetoric above is no argument and doesn't change that truth one bit (though it might ease your mind of it.)

sums up your position in regards to repeatedly defending the SAD. I am not the only poster to apparently "read things into your posts". To now claim you didn't endorse the SAD is absurd.

Again, show me a quote from me that makes these claims. I never claimed there are no studies of the health consequences of SAD consumption. Where are you getting this from?

One example from the following...

We have indisputable evidence that the modern Western diet supports this type of lifespan. Not only that, but the Western lifespan continues to increase and the diet is eaten within the context of an environment much more similar to yours than the environment of populations eating a paleolithic diet. Given all this, surely the precautionary principle would calculate that the modern Western diet is more proven and less risky.

That's certainly not true without serious medical intervention and serious drugs to counter the negative sides of the SAD and the obesity that has come with it.

There is no scientific consensus on what has caused the rise in obesity.

....although there may be some truth to your retort in the above quote, it was made in response to my statement on strictly the contributions of the SAD to obesity (I never said the SAD was the SINGLE cause...but studies certainly indicate it is a SIGNIFICANT contributor). Therefore that was one response where you have repeatedly either directly or indirectly tried to establish no scientific proof of the health consequences of the SAD. The entire tone of your posts throughout the thread have been in defense of the SAD and (supposed) lack of scientific evidence to any negative health consequences to the SAD and to attempt to deny otherwise now is absurd. I am certainly not the only poster (supposedly misinterpreting) the tone of your posts in regards to (and defense of) the SAD but if you are now admitting the SAD has been proven to be a disastrous diet in terms of health consequences, I can accept that.

Unlike my brother, I have absolutely no health issues and have absolutely no requirements for any type of medications. My brother has already had prostrate cancer (multiple treatments) and serious issues with high cholesterol and blood pressure which he takes meds for both. Sadly, I'd say it's a fair bet I'll outlive my brother by 20 or 30 years (as he's not looking well). The only difference I can see between my brother and me has been our dietary habits over the last 20 years.

Are you and your brother identical twins, live in the same house, do the same job etc etc etc? There are a lot of genetic and environmental differences that could explain different health outcomes other than(and/or in combination with) diet. But then maybe your diet is responsible, the point is: it's very hard to know.

You conveniently omitted this part of my post....

Food for thought FWIW...

Where It's clearly indicated I'm not making a definitive causative statement but simple comparisons.

Regardless, It certainly seemed your entire line of posting in this thread was in defense of the SAD which, if so, defies scientific consensus. If not, than I apologize for missing your point.

[Brett Black]

[quote name='Hebbeh' timestamp='1387426276' post='630729']
[quote name='Brett Black' timestamp='1387420060' post='630716']
You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Can you show me a quote of mine, in this thread, where I have made these supposed "wild claims as to the long term (or lack of) health effects of the SAD"?

[/quote]

The quote...

"What I have said about the modern Western diet is all true, your bluster and empty rhetoric above is no argument and doesn't change that truth one bit (though it might ease your mind of it.)"

sums up your position in regards to repeatedly defending the SAD.[/quote]

In no way could that quote of mine, no matter which way you read it, be considered one of the supposed "wild claims as to the long term (or lack of) health effects of the SAD" you say I have made. It doesn't even contain any claims about the diet!

[quote name='Hebbeh' timestamp='1387426276' post='630729']
I am not the only poster to apparently "read things into your posts".[/quote]

Probably. I think that may be due to a reactive over-defensiveness about your/their chosen non-SAD diet. Have you had bad experiences with the SAD?

[quote name='Hebbeh' timestamp='1387249211' post='630336']
[quote name='Brett Black' timestamp='1387420060' post='630716']
Again, show me a quote from me that makes these claims. I never claimed there are no studies of the health consequences of SAD consumption. Where are you getting this from[/quote]

One example from the following...

[quote name='Brett Black']
[quote name='Hebbeh']
[quote name='Brett Black']
[quote name='Hebbeh']
We have indisputable evidence that the modern Western diet supports this type of lifespan. Not only that, but the Western lifespan continues to increase and the diet is eaten within the context of an environment much more similar to yours than the environment of populations eating a paleolithic diet. Given all this, surely the precautionary principle would calculate that the modern Western diet is more proven and less risky.
[/quote]

That's certainly not true without serious medical intervention and serious drugs to counter the negative sides of the SAD and the obesity that has come with it.[/quote]

There is no scientific consensus on what has caused the rise in obesity.
[/quote]

....although there may be some truth to your retort in the above quote, it was made in response to my statement on strictly the contributions of the SAD to obesity (I never said the SAD was the SINGLE cause...but studies certainly indicate it is a SIGNIFICANT contributor). Therefore that was one response where you have repeatedly either directly or indirectly tried to establish no scientific proof of the health consequences of the SAD. [/quote][/quote]

I repeat: I never claimed there are no studies of the health consequences of SAD consumption.

My statement that you are having trouble with: "There is no scientific consensus on what has caused the rise in obesity." is actually *derived* from the results of studies into the health effects of SAD. In fact, the very next sentence I wrote was "Experts in the relevant scientific fields have studied these issues for years and there is no consensus."

How did you read that and come to the conclusion that I claimed there was "no scientific proof of the health consequences of the SAD."? I said there is no scientific *consensus*, regarding the cause(s) for the rise in obesity, which is very different.

[quote name='Hebbeh']
The entire tone of your posts throughout the thread have been in defense of the SAD and (supposed) lack of scientific evidence to any negative health consequences to the SAD and to attempt to deny otherwise now is absurd.[/quote]

I think you are projecting this "tone" onto my posts.

[quote name='Hebbeh']
I am certainly not the only poster (supposedly misinterpreting) the tone of your posts in regards to (and defense of) the SAD but if you are now admitting the SAD has been proven to be a disastrous diet in terms of health consequences, I can accept that.[/quote]

If you read what I have actually posted so far, and not allow yourself to be swayed by any supposed "tone", I think you'll find I have made precious little judgement of the SAD...

[quote name='Hebbeh']
[quote name='Brett Black' timestamp='1387420060' post='630716']
[quote name='Hebbeh']
Unlike my brother, I have absolutely no health issues and have absolutely no requirements for any type of medications. My brother has already had prostrate cancer (multiple treatments) and serious issues with high cholesterol and blood pressure which he takes meds for both. Sadly, I'd say it's a fair bet I'll outlive my brother by 20 or 30 years (as he's not looking well). The only difference I can see between my brother and me has been our dietary habits over the last 20 years.[/quote]

Are you and your brother identical twins, live in the same house, do the same job etc etc etc? There are a lot of genetic and environmental differences that could explain different health outcomes other than(and/or in combination with) diet. But then maybe your diet is responsible, the point is: it's very hard to know.

[/quote]

You conveniently omitted this part of my post....

"Food for thought FWIW..."

Where It's clearly indicated I'm not making a definitive causative statement but simple comparisons.[/quote]

I must have missed that bit, sorry.

[quote name='Hebbeh']
Regardless, It certainly seemed your entire line of posting in this thread was in defense of the SAD which, if so, defies scientific consensus. If not, than I apologize for missing your point.
[/quote]

I don't consider my posts to this thread to be a defense of SAD, I consider them, ideally, to be an attempt to point to the best available scientific evidence, as objectively as possible(maybe in the midst of idealogues.)

I think the current best evidence is that there are better diets than the SAD, but even so, I don't think SAD(without simultaneous obesity and/or sedentary lifestyle) is anywhere near as bad as some propose, and I also think SAD has better evidence of supporting ~80 years lifespan in the current modern environment than many typical paleo diets(I know they vary) and that the theoretical justifications often used for the paleo diet are in error.

[Hebbeh]

I don't think SAD(without simultaneous obesity and/or sedentary lifestyle) is anywhere near as bad as some propose, and I also think SAD has better evidence of supporting ~80 years lifespan in the current modern environment than many typical paleo diets(I know they vary) and that the theoretical justifications often used for the paleo diet are in error.

You claim I have misinterpreted your intent and tone while in the same breath continue to defend the SAD. That statement right there seems to sum up your entire argument that you claim not to have made. And I don't recall anybody arguing for/against the stereotypical paleo diet in the thread...other than you. The whole thread degenerated into your argument that you just repeated in regards to defending the SAD diet in spite of you now finally (reluctantly) acknowledging that there is scientific evidence to the health consequences of the SAD while still attempting to dismiss same evidence in favor of the SAD.

[Brett Black]

I don't think SAD(without simultaneous obesity and/or sedentary lifestyle) is anywhere near as bad as some propose, and I also think SAD has better evidence of supporting ~80 years lifespan in the current modern environment than many typical paleo diets(I know they vary) and that the theoretical justifications often used for the paleo diet are in error.

You claim I have misinterpreted your intent and tone while in the same breath continue to defend the SAD.

Honestly, what the hell. Now you're just trying to intentionally misrepresent me.

You obviously intentionally cut out the very first part, of the very first sentence, of my paragraph that you quoted above. It said:

"I think the current best evidence is that there are better diets than the SAD..."

With that original *leading part* of the sentence and paragraph intact, it hardly sets a "tone" of defending SAD now does it?

I discuss these things with good faith and this is what I get. Why? Does a blind hatred of SAD make my unbiased analysis of it that offensive to you? Are you incapable of following my arguments?

Whatever the case may be, your now intentional misrepresentation of my views mean I'm no longer going to bother trying try to get you to see some sense. However, before I go, I can't resist:

And I don't recall anybody arguing for/against the stereotypical paleo diet in the thread...other than you.

Your recall is faulty then:

This doesn't mean that the modern diet is going to kill us instantly, nor does it mean that the paleo diet will extend our lifespan by decades; it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat.

[Hebbeh]

Brett, I never misrepresented you. Your quote was clear and in context. I simply have attempted to point out why I (and apparently others) have surely interpreted your posts in this thread as a clear and repeated endorsement of the SAD. Whether you agree that there may be better diets is irrelevant when you continue to endorse and defend the SAD in response to all other posts pointing to the contrary (as the SAD became the topic of contention). That is clear. You seemed to continue to be surprised and confused as to why everybody is interpreting you in this way and to me it is clear that is your intent and I was simply pointing out statements that you continue to make in support of the SAD. So nobody is misrepresenting you, it would appear. And your reference to the one quote in regards to paleo was vague and certainly not the topic the discussion was revolving around (SAD), But regardless, I don't understand your argument. In reference to your apparent confusion in regards to how people may be interpreting your position, are we incorrect that your have a strong bias in defense of the SAD (regardless if you admit there may be better diets after the fact)? Have you not argued in favor of the SAD and continue to do so in spite of the evidence against it? Am I wrong in interpreting your position in support of the SAD? My apologizes if so!

[Nate-2004]

In the book "Ending Aging" Abrey de Grey talks about the effects of antioxidants as a treatment for reducing the load of AGE cross linking in diabetics. He goes on to conclude that antioxidants or dealing with free radicals are not a good approach after all, and in fact increased the number of crosslinks to the surprise of researchers. He theorizes that it'd be better to go in and clean out the large "clumps" of AGEs before they can accumulate to any harmful degree.

 

He also says that ketosis associated with attempts in experiments with an adkins or paelo like diet actually made things worse.

 

Reading the first original post in this thread it's assumed (with a link to a paper I can't access on research gate), that Olive Oil has some (positive?) effect on AGEs. Is this the case? Are there any accessible references to this?

 

The treatments described in the books used green tea extracts among other known antioxidants.

 

The book is 8 years old now so I assume we've got more data on the progress with AGEs, and reading that Olive Oil may have some effect is encouraging since I'm trying out the C60 thing (homemade with quality olive oil). I'm also replacing butter with olive oil where I can in cooking, so it was alarming to read in the original post that cooking with it affects the results somehow. Is there some reference to this somewhere?

 

 

[Nate-2004]

I read about glucosepane and the failure of Alagebrium in human trials. It's tragic that this research is not being continued enthusiastically despite how close this drug got to the goal of breaking up AGEs. What's the current status of all this and is there some way to crowd fund this? How much would it cost to restart the research?