Duke

Can Diseases of Civilization be Caused by Diet?

123 posts in this topic

A person could go to a website and listen to people debate a subject that they have no fundamental understanding of and then come to conclusions on which diet is proper for man. Or, one might first try to get a fundamental understanding of the nature of man, specifically man's metabolism, and then come to their own conclusions of what really happens when one ingest food/energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A person could go to a website and listen to people debate a subject that they have no fundamental understanding of and then come to conclusions on which diet is proper for man. Or, one might first try to get a fundamental understanding of the nature of man, specifically man's metabolism, and then come to their own conclusions of what really happens when one ingest food/energy.

Ray,

We've been over this on several threads for a few years now, and, if you recall, I had raised the epistemological problem at the time (borrowing from then regular Burgess Laughlin). I have not come to any "conclusions" beyond those I can support by my own understanding of logic, and my own observations. This is what I do when I go to a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant. I do not see why this should be different for diet and exercise.

The effects of Fuhrman's style on me are evident, and his explanations *make sense* to me [i cannot vouch for Campbell as I am not too familiar with him]. Until Fuhrman's advice becomes destructive or illogical, I will continue to follow it.

You will recall that I had good words for your exercise regimen and even agree(d) with caloric restriction (which you advocate) in general. My bone of contention with your framework straddles two areas: (1) that it doesn't adequately address the role of nutrition in weight-gain; and (2) that it has not been presented in a systematic form [book, monograph, etc.] in which a layman such as myself can use to digest, practice, and validate it.

If (2) were done, perhaps (1) would be unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will recall that I had good words for your exercise regimen and even agree(d) with caloric restriction (which you advocate) in general. My bone of contention with your framework straddles two areas: (1) that it doesn't adequately address the role of nutrition in weight-gain; and (2) that it has not been presented in a systematic form [book, monograph, etc.] in which a layman such as myself can use to digest, practice, and validate it.

His framework can be understood well by going to its sources, two of which are books by Objectivist bodybuilder Mike Mentzer and Dr. Doug McGuff, M.D.

Here is the entire chapter on nutrition from Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty 2: Mind and Body, fortunately for those who happen to be looking for just that chapter. I suggest buying the book; $30 is peanuts compared to the value to be gained from it.

Link

Dr. McGuff's book is even more inexpensive and covers ground in great detail including an explanation of metabolic processes for those who are so interested. It is another source of excellent knowledge regarding fitness.

Link

I think these two books cover just about everything one needs to know about nutrition from a layman's perspective (and much more, in fact). Fortunately for the vast majority who have no genetic disorders, the subject of nutrition is not so terribly complicated as to be a huge mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will recall that I had good words for your exercise regimen and even agree(d) with caloric restriction (which you advocate) in general. My bone of contention with your framework straddles two areas: (1) that it doesn't adequately address the role of nutrition in weight-gain; and (2) that it has not been presented in a systematic form [book, monograph, etc.] in which a layman such as myself can use to digest, practice, and validate it.

His framework can be understood well by going to its sources, two of which are books by Objectivist bodybuilder Mike Mentzer and Dr. Doug McGuff, M.D.

Here is the entire chapter on nutrition from Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty 2: Mind and Body, fortunately for those who happen to be looking for just that chapter. I suggest buying the book; $30 is peanuts compared to the value to be gained from it.

Link

I read a little bit about Mike Mentzer several years ago. If Ray agrees that these books are representative of his system, I'll check them out.

One thing that stuck out to me about Mentzer at the time, however, is that he was barely 50 when he died. According to Fuhrman, bulking up is not conducive to longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will recall that I had good words for your exercise regimen and even agree(d) with caloric restriction (which you advocate) in general. My bone of contention with your framework straddles two areas: (1) that it doesn't adequately address the role of nutrition in weight-gain; and (2) that it has not been presented in a systematic form [book, monograph, etc.] in which a layman such as myself can use to digest, practice, and validate it.

His framework can be understood well by going to its sources, two of which are books by Objectivist bodybuilder Mike Mentzer and Dr. Doug McGuff, M.D.

Here is the entire chapter on nutrition from Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty 2: Mind and Body, fortunately for those who happen to be looking for just that chapter. I suggest buying the book; $30 is peanuts compared to the value to be gained from it.

Link

I read a little bit about Mike Mentzer several years ago. If Ray agrees that these books are representative of his system, I'll check them out.

One thing that stuck out to me about Mentzer at the time, however, is that he was barely 50 when he died. According to Fuhrman, bulking up is not conducive to longevity.

Both he and his brother, if I remember well, died of a genetic heart disorder. Careful with empirical evidence...

I am sure that stuffing yourself with steroids and shakes and bashing your body 4h a day is not conducive to good health, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both books mentioned by LJH are very good at reprensenting what I agree with on diet and exercise and one of the reasons I see no sense in writing a book that only restates what has already been stated. For those that care to have a further understanding I can also recommend many other books (such as ones by Arthur Jones and Hans Selye) and articles which I have done many times in the past. But to state that I have not laid out a systematic way for one to eat according to principles is almost laughable considering the thousands of post I have written on this one subject alone. My goal has never been to teach people the totality of what I have learned, but to lay out the prinicples which I have derived from close to 30 years of study on this subject. At my office (and many other places before I had an office) most people I have met with could care less of how the body functions as long as the rational and logical principles I teach them work which they do very well and without any type of supplementation or weird irrational dieting habits.

I have never advised (nor did Mike Mentzer and Doug McGuff) that people bulk up (if bulking up means gaining fat) as being healthy. But gaining lean body tissue (without using steriords) is something I advise as lean body tissue is the primary thing that makes one's life functions much easier as one will gain the strength and stamina to do the things they rationally desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will recall that I had good words for your exercise regimen and even agree(d) with caloric restriction (which you advocate) in general. My bone of contention with your framework straddles two areas: (1) that it doesn't adequately address the role of nutrition in weight-gain; and (2) that it has not been presented in a systematic form [book, monograph, etc.] in which a layman such as myself can use to digest, practice, and validate it.

His framework can be understood well by going to its sources, two of which are books by Objectivist bodybuilder Mike Mentzer and Dr. Doug McGuff, M.D.

Here is the entire chapter on nutrition from Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty 2: Mind and Body, fortunately for those who happen to be looking for just that chapter. I suggest buying the book; $30 is peanuts compared to the value to be gained from it.

Link

I read a little bit about Mike Mentzer several years ago. If Ray agrees that these books are representative of his system, I'll check them out.

One thing that stuck out to me about Mentzer at the time, however, is that he was barely 50 when he died. According to Fuhrman, bulking up is not conducive to longevity.

Both he and his brother, if I remember well, died of a genetic heart disorder. Careful with empirical evidence...

I am sure that stuffing yourself with steroids and shakes and bashing your body 4h a day is not conducive to good health, though.

I'm not sure they both died of heart disease. Mike Mentzer reportedly suffered a heart attack, but I haven't been able to find any information as to the actual cause of death. But, even then, that raises some questions, including what could have been done nutritionally. And, yes, I've heard the "genes" argument - it's inconclusive. Quite a number of men have been able to outlive their fathers by as much as 20 years. This is why more research needs to be done on these topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never advised (nor did Mike Mentzer and Doug McGuff) that people bulk up (if bulking up means gaining fat) as being healthy. But gaining lean body tissue (without using steriords) is something I advise as lean body tissue is the primary thing that makes one's life functions much easier as one will gain the strength and stamina to do the things they rationally desire.

Fuhrman was referring to muscled bulk. I don't think he meant that muscle-building is a bad idea, only too much muscle, he considered bad for longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never advised (nor did Mike Mentzer and Doug McGuff) that people bulk up (if bulking up means gaining fat) as being healthy. But gaining lean body tissue (without using steriords) is something I advise as lean body tissue is the primary thing that makes one's life functions much easier as one will gain the strength and stamina to do the things they rationally desire.

Fuhrman was referring to muscled bulk. I don't think he meant that muscle-building is a bad idea, only too much muscle, he considered bad for longevity.

And he would be wrong as building muscle is what enhances one's body and life and hence the loss of muscle is what leads to a loss of function. The only reason someone would have "too much muscle" in accordance to their nature is if they took steroids or growth hormone which is what a lot of bodybuilders do or did which includes the Mentzer brothers. The dangers of steroids are well known (damage to the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the brain and the pancreas just to name a few) and can be found in many research articles if one cares to look for them.

With that said, I have never taken steroids nor growth hormone and think of myself as a walking talking example of my ideas on exercise and diet. I eat any type of food that I enjoy within the principles that I have mentioned many times and still retain my health, there is no such thing as "super healthy." I have the physical strength and stamina to do many things that most people half my age cannot accomplish (although some of that could be mental). I do not spend an immense amount of time wasting my life's resources in the gym attempting to gain something that is not within my genetic capacity to do. As I have stated many times before a rational exercise and diet plan should act as an adjuncts and enhance one's life not overwhelm it. To do that though one has to recognize that exercise and diet are no panaceas and can enhance or destroy one's life and that is up to you to choose. Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never advised (nor did Mike Mentzer and Doug McGuff) that people bulk up (if bulking up means gaining fat) as being healthy. But gaining lean body tissue (without using steriords) is something I advise as lean body tissue is the primary thing that makes one's life functions much easier as one will gain the strength and stamina to do the things they rationally desire.

Fuhrman was referring to muscled bulk. I don't think he meant that muscle-building is a bad idea, only too much muscle, he considered bad for longevity.

And he would be wrong as building muscle is what enhances one's body and life and hence the loss of muscle is what leads to a loss of function. The only reason someone would have "too much muscle" in accordance to their nature is if they took steroids or growth hormone which is what a lot of bodybuilders do or did which includes the Mentzer brothers. The dangers of steroids are well known (damage to the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the brain and the pancreas just to name a few) and can be found in many research articles if one cares to look for them.

Actually, no, he would not "be wrong" as you yourself go on to state in the next sentence. To maintain otherwise is to take him out of context.

With that said, I have never taken steroids nor growth hormone and think of myself as a walking talking example of my ideas on exercise and diet. I eat any type of food that I enjoy within the principles that I have mentioned many times and still retain my health, there is no such thing as "super healthy." I have the physical strength and stamina to do many things that most people half my age cannot accomplish (although some of that could be mental). I do not spend an immense amount of time wasting my life's resources in the gym attempting to gain something that is not within my genetic capacity to do. As I have stated many times before a rational exercise and diet plan should act as an adjuncts and enhance one's life not overwhelm it.

Fuhrman is a "walking talking example of [his] ideas on exercise and diet." And those ideas have saved thousands of people.

Good day.

Good day to you, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury,

No, you are wrong as what I stated is not what you stated that Fuhrman stated. One can actually add bulk to their frame without drugs (which is not what you stated) and it is something that is advisable as it enhnaces one's body and life. Maybe you should read your own sentence once again.

When it comes to weight loss of which two different people both achieve similar goals but are applying two different sets of principles then one should search out the true cause of the effect. In other words, I and my clients, have achieved weight loss and health by applying my principles, but by you and your doctor's principles it should have been unobtainable. And because it was and is constantly obtained by different principles then you state then one might call into the light their held premises. Once again, in other words, the fact that I and my clients do acheive our goals without any irrational, nonreality based diets should lead you to question what is the real cause of weight loss and health. And I have never denied that peolpe that eat according to your doctor's plan cannot lose weight, I have stated that eating that way is not needed and if you ever do your own research on how man's metabolism actually works you might grasp the real cause of why they lost weight.

I have attached a picture of one of my younger cleints who at the age of 14 had gained a large amount of fat by eating to many calories. Her mother asked me to teach her about my principles, of which I did, and with that knowledge alone she has lost 60(+) pounds and is able to maintain her weight loss 2 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo I mentioned above was not uploaded, so I am attempting it once again.

And I would add that what this young girl has obtained is obtainable by anyone that applies the 3 mentioned principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercury,

No, you are wrong as what I stated is not what you stated that Fuhrman stated. One can actually add bulk to their frame without drugs (which is not what you stated) and it is something that is advisable as it enhnaces one's body and life. Maybe you should read your own sentence once again.

Whatever you say, Ray, whatever you say.

Once again, in other words, the fact that I and my clients do acheive our goals without any irrational, nonreality based diets should lead you to question what is the real cause of weight loss and health.

No, not really. That fact will not lead me to question it. The issue is not just weight-loss but also the bio-chemical and psychological effects of nutrition, i.e., you could be Lance Armstrong and still have cancer.

And anyone can bandy the word "irrational" irresponsibly in alleged defense of a thesis. For instance: I had tried the irrational self-deprivation diet methods calling for ridiculously reduced portions in the past, but only Fuhrman's much superior nutritional approach worked.

As for your young client, people aged under thirty generally do not have trouble keeping weight off if they are fairly active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury,

What bio-chemical effects other than cholesterol? What about the good aspects of cholesterol? Where is the evidence that supports this?

How are Dr. Fuhrman's thoughts on the health benefits of a reduced calorie diet related to the way human metabolism functions? And have you ever tried anything close to what I recommend?

Finally, I do not like anyone scaring people into giving up foods that have nothing wrong with them. So, in other words I am here to enlighten anyone that has a rational concern for their health by teaching them the fundamental nature of the human body and how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for your young client, people aged under thirty generally do not have trouble keeping weight off if they are fairly active.

The client mentioned above has been following my diet advice for the last 2 years, but did not actually start exercising to just a few months ago. She has not done anything abnormal in her activities that she was not already doing. The reason she wanted to finally start exercising is that she wanted to increase her tone and gain more strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercury,

What bio-chemical effects other than cholesterol? What about the good aspects of cholesterol? Where is the evidence that supports this?

You can take the cholesterol case up with Fuhrman. His books and articles are out there, and can be analyzed by any sufficiently motivated person. As a layman, I do not pretend to have detailed scientific knowledge. As for *basic* evidence of clients who have healed from autoimmune disease, see here. For other ailments, see here. Fuhrman references other cases in his books.

How are Dr. Fuhrman's thoughts on the health benefits of a reduced calorie diet related to the way human metabolism functions? And have you ever tried anything close to what I recommend?

See his books (Eat To Live and Fasting and Eating For Health) for details.

Finally, I do not like anyone scaring people into giving up foods that have nothing wrong with them. So, in other words I am here to enlighten anyone that has a rational concern for their health by teaching them the fundamental nature of the human body and how it works.

There is nothing "scary" about an individual recognizing that he is not Winston Churchill who ate and drank what he wished and lived to be ninety even though overweight.

Until the science of longevity is conclusive, some will try starvation; some healthy nutrition; some will take their drugs and live with low sex drives and all the other encumbrances; some will do nothing at all. So long as you are happy with what you are doing and are prepared to face the consequences of your choices, go for it.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, I do not like anyone scaring people into giving up foods that have nothing wrong with them. So, in other words I am here to enlighten anyone that has a rational concern for their health by teaching them the fundamental nature of the human body and how it works.

There is nothing "scary" about an individual recognizing that he is not Winston Churchill who ate and drank what he wished and lived to be ninety even though overweight.

Until the science of longevity is conclusive, some will try starvation; some healthy nutrition; some will take their drugs and live with low sex drives and all the other encumbrances; some will do nothing at all. So long as you are happy with what you are doing and are prepared to face the consequences of your choices, go for it.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

I don't think Ray is talking about scaring people out of obvious extremes in bad dieting habits, but rather other things that are just trivial, such as salt or sugar.

On Fuhrman's website he recommends to literally stop adding salt to your food. That's patently ridiculous, no matter how you look at it. Moderately salting your food is not going to kill you, nor dramatically increase your risk of heart disease.

Things such as

Any excess salt added to food, outside of what is contained in natural foods, is likely to increase your risk of developing disease. Salt consumption is linked to both stomach cancer and hypertension. (1) I do not recommend that salt be added to any food. The DASH study indicates that Americans consume five to ten times as much sodium as they need and that high sodium levels have a predictable effect on raising blood pressure. (2) Elevated systolic blood pressure is an important risk factor for future development of heart disease in middle aged and older adults. Even if you don’t have high blood pressure now, you probably will if you keep eating lots of salt over the years.
are poor science. Yes, of course excessive salt intake is bad, but there's no ground for making a blanket claim that all salting of food should cease in a rational diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think Ray is talking about scaring people out of obvious extremes in bad dieting habits, but rather other things that are just trivial, such as salt or sugar.

On Fuhrman's website he recommends to literally stop adding salt to your food. That's patently ridiculous, no matter how you look at it. Moderately salting your food is not going to kill you, nor dramatically increase your risk of heart disease.

Things such as

Any excess salt added to food, outside of what is contained in natural foods, is likely to increase your risk of developing disease. Salt consumption is linked to both stomach cancer and hypertension. (1) I do not recommend that salt be added to any food. The DASH study indicates that Americans consume five to ten times as much sodium as they need and that high sodium levels have a predictable effect on raising blood pressure. (2) Elevated systolic blood pressure is an important risk factor for future development of heart disease in middle aged and older adults. Even if you don’t have high blood pressure now, you probably will if you keep eating lots of salt over the years.
are poor science. Yes, of course excessive salt intake is bad, but there's no ground for making a blanket claim that all salting of food should cease in a rational diet.

Here he says something even worse

Organic vs. Conventional?

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the majority of pesticides now in use are probable or possible cancer causes. Studies of farm workers who work with pesticides suggest a link between pesticide use and brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple myloma, leukemia, lymphoma and cancers of the stomach and prostate. (1) The question remains, however, does the low level of pesticides remaining on our food present much of a risk?

Some scientists argue that the extremely low level of pesticide residue remaining on produce is insignificant and that there are naturally occurring toxins in all natural foods that are more significant. The large amount of studies performed on the typical pesticide treated produce have demonstrated that consumption of produce, whether organic or not, is related to lower rates of cancer and increased disease protection. Certainly, it is better to eat fruits and vegetables grown and harvested using pesticides than not eat them at all. The health benefits of eating phytochemical rich produce greatly outweigh any risk pesticide residues might pose.

If it is available, organic food is certainly your best bet to limit exposure to toxic chemicals. Foods with the most pesticide residue are spinach, strawberries, peaches, raspberries, blackberries, grapes, cherries, apples, and celery. Imported produce is also more likely to contain higher levels of pesticides. (2)

Organic food usually has more nutrients than conventional. (3) One study performed at the University of California at Davis found that foods grown organically had higher amounts of flavonoids, which have protective effects against both heart disease and cancer. The researchers found that flavonoids were more than 50% higher in corn and strawberries. They theorized that when the plants are forced to deal with the stress of insects, they produce more of these compounds, which are beneficial to humans. (4) Overall, organic foods taste better, and organic agriculture protects farmers and our environment.

This is nothing but pseudo pop-science promoting the organic food craze. Organic food is nothing but inefficiently farmed food. Whatever link there may be between pesticides in farming and cancer are at most speculative, and probably primarily driven by the same kind of ideology that fuels other environmental science mumbo-jumbo like global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another gem:

The bottom line regarding fish is . . . eat it infrequently or not at all. If you do have fish on occasion, only choose the lowest mercury types such as shrimp, tilapia, haddock, scallops, squid, trout, hake and ocean perch. Never eat the high mercury content fish- swordfish, shark, tuna, snapper, lobster, grouper and sea bass.

Maybe if you live near a preposterously polluted Chinese seaport I could take this advice seriously, otherwise this is junk science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlos,

You are entitled to your view. Those of us who have benefited from Fuhrman's methods have our evidence. Your disagreement cannot change the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Organic food is nothing but inefficiently farmed food.

As an example of this, we regularly used ammonium nitrate fertilizer on our wheat fields. Without this chemical fertilizer, the amount of bushels per acre you could harvest would be dramatically reduced for the amount of seed planted, meaning that the price of all wheat-derived goods would be substantially higher. This goes without mentioning that without fertilizers you would probably have to leave a field dormant for several years, so as to prevent exhausting the soil.

Chemical fertilizers aren't poison. I remember many times when I was loading our fertilizer spreader I'd be standing thigh-deep in 2,000lbs of it, breathing the dust; it doesn't harm you. And besides, there are natural mechanisms that prevent a farmer from wanting to over-fertilize, which is the fact that if you put out too much chemical fertilizer for how much rain the crop is getting, you will kill it.

All of this is true for pesticides as well. We would plant seeds that had their surfaces treated with a pesticide chemical, and the most precaution one would have to take would be to wear cotton gloves while directly handling it, or at least wash your bare hands afterwards. If me being buried elbows deep in this stuff didn't hurt me, then consuming 3 residual molecules of it with your corn and mashed potatoes isn't going to hurt you either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos,

You are entitled to your view. Those of us who have benefited from Fuhrman's methods have our evidence. Your disagreement cannot change the facts.

Of course it doesn't change facts. Dr. Fuhrman tells people certain things that apparently do help them, as it is a fact that some people have improved their life.

The disagreement is when he tries to form an over-arching scientific theory of nutrition, as many of the things he ends up saying are patently false, and have no health benefit at all. Telling people to eat organic food instead of normal food isn't going to help them lose weight, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos,

You are entitled to your view. Those of us who have benefited from Fuhrman's methods have our evidence. Your disagreement cannot change the facts.

Of course it doesn't change facts. Dr. Fuhrman tells people certain things that apparently do help them, as it is a fact that some people have improved their life.

The disagreement is when he tries to form an over-arching scientific theory of nutrition, as many of the things he ends up saying are patently false, and have no health benefit at all. Telling people to eat organic food instead of normal food isn't going to help them lose weight, for example.

Nor have the so called "organic foods" ever been shown to produce less toxins within the body than man made/processed foods. Remember that the so called "organic foods" one eats have made it through billions of years of evolution and did not make it here because they are good for humans, they made it to this point because they carried their own protection from other species in nature.

But, all of this and more has been discussed and explained many times before in many different threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chemical fertilizers aren't poison. I remember many times when I was loading our fertilizer spreader I'd be standing thigh-deep in 2,000lbs of it, breathing the dust; it doesn't harm you.

[...]

If me being buried elbows deep in this stuff didn't hurt me, then consuming 3 residual molecules of it with your corn and mashed potatoes isn't going to hurt you either.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chemical fertilizers aren't poison. I remember many times when I was loading our fertilizer spreader I'd be standing thigh-deep in 2,000lbs of it, breathing the dust; it doesn't harm you.

[...]

If me being buried elbows deep in this stuff didn't hurt me, then consuming 3 residual molecules of it with your corn and mashed potatoes isn't going to hurt you either.

Thank you for pointing this out.

What some forget, is that natural foods can be naturally poisonous, deadly, while some man made food won't harm you at all. What about chemicals? they cry, forgetting that everything is chemical. Forgetting that it was found that the natural toxins in an apple were worse than the alar chemical it was treated with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites