Duke

Can Diseases of Civilization be Caused by Diet?

123 posts in this topic

I once talked to a medical doctor who was telling me about the wonderful herbal shampoo she had just purchased, together with organic soaps (whatever that is) at 10x the cost of the normal stuff you guys buy at your local shop.

I asked her what she thought of people who treated others with herbal medicines and remedies. She said they are idiots, it doesn't work - medical science represents the best in treating people, with chemicals, and if by chance some plant has compounds that are better at the job, within years those compounds will have been isolated and mass produced and incorporated into treatments. Thus the only "value-add" if there was any by the herbal guys was placebo effects for irrational people.

She then paused and realised what I was getting at.

(as an aside, borrowing girlfriends' organic/herbal/whatever shampoos throughout the years, I have found that not ONE of those expensive Herbal Essences etc. shampoos was as good, in terms of comfort, ease of application, shine in the hair thereafter, softness, etc. as the simple mid-range stuff I bought from my local supermarket for £2-3 a bottle, which came in a green bottle and whose brand I can't even remember. Seth Godin nailed it: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/20...-the-label.html )

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.

Regarding salt or sugar, remember, the people who typically come to Fuhrman are those requiring drastic intervention. Fuhrman recommends one go the whole way in order to derive quick reversal and maximum results. He is not writing for regularly healthy types. Once healed, some of his patients re-introduce some salt and/or sugar into their diet. I use a sodium substitute ('NoSalt'), for instance. That judgment call is up to the individual. But, as a doctor trying to steer you back to health, Fuhrman is simply recommending what the medical research has turned up. Note his careful wording, which is careful to not attribute causality to probabilities: "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...I do not recommend that salt be added to any food."

His view of organic food is a mixed bag. I am not sure that the FAQ you quote from was even on his website at the time I received his book. What he writes in that book, Eat To Live, is not as "viro"-ish as what you have quoted. (I post that excerpt below.) Still, even your quote from his website is mixed. Note the words I've emphasized.

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.

Remember also that Fuhrman is quoting the EPA, whose reporting, before ClimateGate, some mainstream people thought had some validity. Fuhrman is (was?) apparently not immune to these tendencies. I got the impression, from his videos and books, that he is not altogether comfortable with the viro agenda. For a while, the blogger he employed on DiseaseProof.com went viro - and I even had to write in to complain about it. I don't know whether others complained, but I noticed recently that the fellow is no longer blogging for Fuhrman.

It is true that *some* people react to treated produce. I know - and have reported on THE FORUM - someone who has this problem. There is no contradiction here, and no need to yell "viro!" just yet. The existence of a population of allergy-sufferers is a matter for science. As Ayn Rand wrote in The Anti-Industrial Revolution:

It is possible, however, that the leftists may have outsmarted themselves, this time. The issue may be stolen from them and dissolved by American common sense, which may take them at their word, accept the semiplausible bait and reject the rest of the ecological package deal.

What is the semiplausible bait? The actual instances of local pollution and dirt, which do exist. City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem—not a political one—and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.

Here is the relevant section in Eat To Live concerning organic produce:

Is it dangerous to eat more fruits and vegetables because of the increased consumption of pesticides? Do I have to buy organic?

The effects of ingesting pesticides in the very small amounts present in vegetation are unknown. Bruce Ames, Ph.D., director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of California at Berkeley, who has devoted his career to examining this question, believes these minute amounts pose no risk at all.

He and other scientists support this view because humans and other animals are exposed to small amounts of naturally occurring toxins with every mouthful of organically grown, natural food. The body normally breaks down self-produced metabolic wastes and naturally occurring carcinogens in foods, as well as pesticides, and excretes these harmful substances every minute. Since 99.99 percent of the potential carcinogenic chemicals consumed are naturally present in all food, reducing our exposure to the 0.01 percent that are synthetic will not reduce cancer rates.

These scientists argue that humans ingest thousands of natural chemicals that typically have a greater toxicity and are present at higher doses than the very minute amount of pesticide residue that remains on food. Furthermore, animal studies on the carcinogenic potential in synthetic chemicals are done at doses a thousandfold higher than what is ingested in food. Ames argues that a high percentage of all chemicals, natural or not, are potentially toxic in high doses - "the dose makes the poison" - and that there is no evidence of possible cancer hazards from the tiny chemical residue remaining on produce.

Others believe a slight risk may be present, though that risk may be difficult to prove. There is certainly a justifiable concern that some chemicals have increased toxicity and are potentially harmful at lower doses than are used in rodent experiments. No scientist believes that this means we should reduce our consumption of vegetation, but many (including me) believe it prudent to reduce our exposure to the multiple toxic residues present in our food supply. I certainly advocate avoiding the skins of foods that are reported to have the most pesticide residue. And, of course, all fruits and vegetables should be washed before eating.

If you are concerned about pesticides and chemicals, keep in mind that animal products, such as dairy and beef, contain the most toxic pesticide residues. Because cows and steers eat large amounts of tainted feed, certain pesticides and dangerous chemicals are found in higher concentrations in animal foods. For example, dioxin, which is predominantly found in fatty meats and dairy products, is one of the most potent toxins linked to several cancers in humans, including lymphomas.[12] By basing your diet on unrefined plant foods, you automatically reduce your exposure to the most dangerous chemicals.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (www.fda.gov) the most contaminated produce, ranked from highest to lowest, are:

< He then lists 12 items here taken from FDA and EPA reporting.>

These twelve foods account for more than half of the total pesticide exposure. They are the key foods to avoid (unless you purchase organically grown ones).

It makes common sense to peel fruits, if possible, and not to eat potato skins unless you are able to purchase them pesticide-free. Remove and discard the outermost leaves of lettuce and cabbage, if not organically grown; other surfaces that cannot be peeled can be washed with soap and water or a commercial vegetable wash. Washing with plain water removes 25-50 percent of the pesticide residue. I personally avoid strawberries completely unless we purchase organic - my children often eat frozen organic strawberries from the health-food store.

Every study done to date on the consumption of food and its relation to cancer, though, has shown that the more fruits and vegetables people eat, the less cancer and heart disease they have. All these studies were done on people eating conventionally grown, not organic, produce. So, clearly, the benefit of conventional produce outweighs any potential risk.

Now, the above excerpt will probably still raise some people's hackles, but I post it in order to demonstrate what I consider to be Fuhrman's mindset: that of a medical doctor who is acting upon the latest research available to him, and perhaps too trusting of government research. This is the vein in which I view his remarks on mercury in fish.

Still, these problems do not, in my view, necessarily invalidate his attempt at a theory of nutrition. In fact, such an attempt at integration, at making a whole of many parts - even if flawed - is to be encouraged. Even if his work turns out (after the causes of longevity are fully discovered and/or medicine is freed from government malice) to be what, say, "conservatism" is to Objectivism, I still think his efforts should be applauded. The huge, self-evident successes he has recorded - and is recording - should not be glibly dismissed as "junk science" without systematic investigation. When a scientist disagrees with him, it should not be a disagreement borne of cursory glances and hasty dismissals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality will be the final arbiter on this subject, but until then I would like to point out a few things. First, sodium/salt is a vital part of all body fluids and without it we would die. Sodium/Salt is responsible for the production of hydrochloric acid, the digestive enzyme secreted by the stomach in order to digest protein. Sodium/salt is also required for the proper functioning of our nerves and the contraction of our muscles (to include the muscle known as the heart). Finally sodium is necessary to maintain several kinds of equilibrium - fluid balance, electrolyte balance and pH (acid/alkaline) balance which are all of the utmost importance to the body.

There are three different types of hypertension; volume, squeezing and a mixture of both. Volume hypertension is caused from excess sodium/salt intake which increases the amount of water in one's blood/circulation which pushes out on the blood vessel/artery walls causing an increase in one's blood pressure. Squeezing hypertension happens when the kidneys produce excessive amounts of a hormone called renin which causes the muscles surrounding the blood vessels/arteries to constrict which raises one's blood pressure. Avoiding salt intake for the person that has squeezing hypertention (vasoconstrictive hypertension) will not reduce their blood pressure and can actually cause it to become worse. The kidneys can overreact to the shrinking volume of blood and release even larger amounts of renin which can cause the squeezing to increase and raise one's blood pressure. The increased blood pressure of either type can result in damage to the blood vessels/arteries. But the squeezing type of hypertension causes extra damage because the constriction of the surrounding muscles causes larger amounts of traumatizing to the vessels/arteries which worsens the whole situation.

I have already discussed in large amounts the nature of all carbohydrates (which includes simple sugars and complex) and how the body deals with them and other macronutrients, so if anyone wants to read further they can just use the search engine. Overall, we humans can eat a wide variety of foods within rational amounts and have no illeffects. So, I still recommend one eat, drink and be merry, within reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

You already mentioned the ratios required in a normal diet (with varying quantities depending on goals, e.g. 1500 calories for thinning, 2500 for growth, etc. but keeping the same ratios).

Could you briefly give us numbers, in grams, of fat and protein required per day on a standard, 2100 calories per day intake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rtg24,

For the most part the ratios of carbohydrates, protein and fat should remain very similar no matter how many calories one takes in. And on a daily 2100 calorie diet that average can look something like this: 60% carbohydrates which equals 1260 calories or 360 grams, 20% protein which equals 420 calories or 105 grams of protein, 20% fat which equals 420 calories or 46 grams of fat (for those that do not know fat carries more than twice the amount of calories per gram than carbohydrates and protein). Women actually require about 300 calories less per day to maintain their weight, so about 1800 calories of which the ratios should remain about the same: 60% carbohydrates which equals 1080 calories or 270 grams, 20% protein which equals 360 calories or 90 grams, 20% fat which equals 360 calories or 40 grams.

The average adult male's brain requires about 600 calories from sugar alone per day just to function properly and the aveage adult female requires about 500 calories. As one can see almost half the calories of the 1260 and 1080 calories of carbohydrates a day diet goes to the brain alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

Does that mean people in professions which require heavier use of the brain have higher calorific needs, or does the brain function on the same quantity of fuel regardless of activity?

Does staying awake longer for work require more calories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray,

Does that mean people in professions which require heavier use of the brain have higher calorific needs, or does the brain function on the same quantity of fuel regardless of activity?

Does staying awake longer for work require more calories?

The person that uses their intellect to an immense degree would require slightly more calories for the brain's usage. But I doubt they would need to take in any extra calories as they would not be expending them on physical activities. In other words I would not recommend extra calories be taken in just because someone does more mental activities than physcial activities. An individual does require more calories if they stay awake longer, but again it is not that much extra. I would offer that if anyone has noticeable fat on their body that they would not need any extra calories while staying awake longer as their body would just pull the excess from one's stored fat, but they should keep eating every 3-5 hours that they remain awake and in accordance to the other 2 principles I have mentioned in the past. The problem with staying awake longer is that one is stimulating their body to retain calories because if one is staying awake they must be searching for food. Multiple studies have shown that people gain weight/fat without adding any calories by staying awake and not gaining proper amounts of rest and recuperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with staying awake longer is that one is stimulating their body to retain calories because if one is staying awake they must be searching for food. Multiple studies have shown that people gain weight/fat without adding any calories by staying awake and not gaining proper amounts of rest and recuperation.

Very interesting, thanks for this information. Would you mind going over the mechanism behind this in more detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going without sleep increases the overall stress on the body as a person misses out on the most replenishing part of their daily cycle. It has been shown that when the body misses out on this extremely beneficial aspect it causes the release of the hormone grehlin (which is the same hormone released from steady state acitivies such as running and cycling and hence why they are not good activities for losing fat) which increases appetite and slows down one's metabolism to conserve resources until the excess stress is overcome. When one discards the excess stress or gets more sleep their body will release larger amounts of the hormone leptin which has been shown to decrease one's appetite and once again return one's metabolism to normal. Now a mentally strong person might be able to go without a large amount of sleep and even learn to deal with the mental aspects of a desire to eat more, but they cannot mentally control the grehlin slowing down their metabolism and the gaining of fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes in my haste to post a response I forget to include something important, so I like to go back and reread my post (and others) to make sure I have not forgotten certain items. Well, I did forget to add something important when discussing salt/sodium and it's benefits to the human body.

Iodized salt (which can be had from simple table salt) is one of the primary ingredients needed within the Thyroid Gland to produce T1, T2, T3 and T4. Today, and for quite some time there has been a push by the US government and doctors to cut out salt as it is believed that salt is a major contributor to heart disease which as I have explained is false. The negative of this believe is that the Thyroid Gland cannot properly prerform it's functions without the iodine (iodized salt/table salt) that is needed to create the above mentioned hormones that control one's metabolism. So the person that wants to lose weight and discards iodized salt might still be able to lose wieght. But they are making it much harder than it needs to be to achieve their goals as they are shutting down or blunting the primary gland that controls one's metabolism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iodized salt (which can be had from simple table salt) is one of the primary ingredients needed within the Thyroid Gland to produce T1, T2, T3 and T4. Today, and for quite some time there has been a push by the US government and doctors to cut out salt as it is believed that salt is a major contributor to heart disease which as I have explained is false. The negative of this believe is that the Thyroid Gland cannot properly prerform it's functions without the iodine (iodized salt/table salt) that is needed to create the above mentioned hormones that control one's metabolism. So the person that wants to lose weight and discards iodized salt might still be able to lose wieght. But they are making it much harder than it needs to be to achieve their goals as they are shutting down or blunting the primary gland that controls one's metabolism.

The kind of salt people use in their cooking impacts flavor. Avoiding iodized salt has been de rigour for at least two decades. It's hard to find good restaurants, takeout places or foodies in urban American that haven't replaced table salt with either Kosher salt or, further up the food obsession scale, gourmet salts (from specific seas, specific salt deposits, etc.)

Personally, I hate the taste iodine. I cook with Kosher salt almost exclusively, using table salt only for baking (Kosher salt granules are too large to dissolve as they need to in baking.) Apparently, this can be a problem.

It's easy to forget that salt was iodized for good reason, that milk, flour, tap water, etc., received additives for reasons that were vindicated by the better health stats that emerged after these staples were enriched.

Are iodine supplements OK, RayK? What dosage would you recommend? Are there supplement manufacturing approaches and/or labels you favor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are iodine supplements OK, RayK? What dosage would you recommend? Are there supplement manufacturing approaches and/or labels you favor?

I see no problem with taking supplements (ethical or biological) if a person cannot get their daily intake from food which might happen to someone with certain food allergies. But for the average person that lives in a first world country supplementation is probably not needed. As a matter of fact if a person eats almost any man-made/processed food they will get their needed supply without taking any supplementation. So, I instead offer that people vary their intake of foods and reap the benefit of not making your body waste it's limited resources on getting rid of extra nutrients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reply here comes many months after the last post, but I've followed this discussion and debate about diet for a decade or so now. Years ago I tried the Atkins diet and I did lose weight. Big deal. I may have lost weight on it, but I was rather miserable due to all the restrictions in what I was 'allowed' to eat.

For years I maintained my weight for the most part and added occasional weight training to the mix. One thing that changed about three years ago was I had a relationship end, which sapped me of my motivation for some time. I was not a particularly happy guy for quite some time, and I let myself go a bit. The one major positive over two years ago was my relocation to Australia, which was the best thing I could have done for myself.

Early in 2009 I decided to resume my exercise regimen, but this time I hired a personal trainer to assist me. With her I have made very good improvements but also kept Ray's advice in mind when selecting a trainer. I made it clear I had no intention of working out five days a week or any such nonsense. She actually agreed with me and respected that I'd done some reading on my own. My workouts with Alison last about 30 minutes per session. I also take time off from the gym on occasion to allow myself to recover.

More recently, I decided to lose the last bit of weight I had intended to, but didn't three years ago due to my unhappy state. Again, I took Ray's advice to heart. I reduced the size of my meals and stopped skipping meals. I didn't change WHAT I ate, just how much and how frequently. Since May of this year, I've lost approximately 8 kg. I intend to drop another 4 kg or so over the next couple months, at which point I will have reached my goal weight.

Some time ago, Ray expressed dismay on this forum for all his tireless arguing in favor of actual science, as opposed to the pseudo science we see pushed by proponents of various diets. I got the sense he felt demoralized. One reply said just because he wasn't reaching one person directly didn't mean there weren't many other people reading his posts and getting value from them. I am one such person.

Therefore, I want to thank Ray publicly for his insights and his indefatigable spirit in fighting on the side of the facts. I have personally benefited from his advice and couldn't be happier for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, Jason! I am happy to hear that you are achieving your goals and look forward to hearing about your losing of those last 4 kg (for those that do not know 8 kg equals 17.6 pounds and 4 kg equals 8.8 pounds). Thank you for your kind words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations, Jason! I am happy to hear that you are achieving your goals and look forward to hearing about your losing of those last 4 kg (for those that do not know 8 kg equals 17.6 pounds and 4 kg equals 8.8 pounds). Thank you for your kind words.
You're very welcome. As a side note, I put the weight in kilograms only because Australia is metric and therefore that's what the scales use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As most of you know I have been making the claim that man can "eat, drink and be merry within reason" for years. I have also been stating that the key to weight loss is how many calories one takes in and that one can be healthy eating in this manner. I have many clients that eat according to the principles I teach them and they all lose weight and gain other positive benefits such as lowering their blood pressure, pulse rate, cholesterol and more. Well, a nutrition professor has conducted a study on himself by eating sweets such as twinkies and he lost 27 pounds in 2 months with no exercise.. He also had a reduction in his total cholesterol and triglyceride level.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2010/...inkie_diet.html

Eat, drink and be merry within reason and you can enjoy any form of food/energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As most of you know I have been making the claim that man can "eat, drink and be merry within reason" for years. I have also been stating that the key to weight loss is how many calories one takes in

So has everyone with any basic knowledge of physics.

and that one can be healthy eating in this manner.

In what manner, eating anything but with a caloric deficit? There are thin people that suffer from the diseases of civilization too. Calories in and out determines whether energy is stored and fat is gained or lost, but the type of food you eat bears on whether you suffer from certain diseases. Diseases of civilization are literally absent from present day hunter-gatherer societies, including in their elderly. They are uniformly present when those people industrialize.

I have many clients that eat according to the principles I teach them and they all lose weight and gain other positive benefits

Do you have clients that fail to remain on your protocol? Do you have a 100% follow through with your advice? The fact is, different foods have different effects on satiety. Very few people have the willpower to be on an 800 calorie per day long term, especially not an 800 calorie per day junk food diet which is even less satiating. And it is very clear that even if you are losing weight you are not necessarily getting healthier. The amount of muscle wasting that went on in that man is very high.

Here are some comments on the study: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010...r-fat-loss.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what manner, eating anything but with a caloric deficit? There are thin people that suffer from the diseases of civilization too. Calories in and out determines whether energy is stored and fat is gained or lost, but the type of food you eat bears on whether you suffer from certain diseases. Diseases of civilization are literally absent from present day hunter-gatherer societies, including in their elderly. They are uniformly present when those people industrialize.

Duke began this thread with wild claims pertaining to the "diseases of civilization", and even wilder claims that hunter gatherer tribes suffered no health problems, and that we needed to return to "paleolithic" vs "neolithic" lifestyle in our diet.

Professional Anthropologists regard these claims as naive, and grossly oversimplifying reality. I have repeatedly pointed this out in these posts:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...mp;#entry107546

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...mp;#entry107530

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...mp;#entry107548

In this post particularly

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...11675&st=20

I explained in detail how the authors you were citing (Eaton et al.) obviously cherry-picked data to fit their hypothesis, and the larger relevant facts did not mesh well at all with their hypothesis. The unescapable conclusion was that it was genuine pseudoscience.

You can't act as if you are using science to back your theory while simultaneously ignoring the vast bodies of work that exist on this subject, work that contradict this naive theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this post particularly

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...11675&st=20

I explained in detail how the authors you were citing (Eaton et al.) obviously cherry-picked data to fit their hypothesis, and the larger relevant facts did not mesh well at all with their hypothesis. The unescapable conclusion was that it was genuine pseudoscience.

You can't act as if you are using science to back your theory while simultaneously ignoring the vast bodies of work that exist on this subject, work that contradict this naive theory.

Bad link.

Here is the correct link:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...st&p=103061

The references 6,7,10 and 11 are studies of nomadic peoples of a different race, living in a different location and possibly even time than the group of people studied in reference 12.

In my last post I provided a link to an exhaustive review of the literature that covered major works of different researchers on this subject. As I stated, some groups got better and some got worse, and some remained mostly the same under the transition from nomadic to agriculture living.

Whomever "Eaton, et al" are, what they apparently have done is to choose a study of nomads who had good health and longevity, and compare it to a study of a different agrarian group who apparently had poor health and longevity. So out of an overwhelming abundance of diverse facts and studies to choose from (nomads with good health, nomads with bad health, agrarian groups with good health, agrarian groups with bad health) the authors specifically only chose facts/studies which fit with his hypothesis and then made it seem as if that were the only truth; this is poor, poor science... it's barely even science at all, it's exactly what the environmentalists do: out of a wealth of facts available, choose only those which fit your hypothesis, leave your reader in ignorance to the contradicting facts, then in a final leap claim that correlation implies causation and your hypothesis is vindicated.

This is identical to what global warming scientists do: out of hundreds of millions of years of temperature/CO2 records, they choose only the last half million years that fortuitously shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, then say that correlation implies causation. Of course on the larger scale CO2 and temperature don't correlate well at all, but if they present only a careful slice of data to the reader they can 'prove' anything they want.

In both cases what is happening is the same. Eaton and the global warming scaremongers are trying to present only a careful slice of data that fits their preconceived hypothesis, and then are trying to depict their issue of study in a crudely simplified and inaccurate way where they claim that one major factor (neolithic vs agrarian diet, CO2) is the fundamental causative variable that drives health/global temperatures, despite the fact that there are a gross number of variables that remain essentially unknown and not understood. From that standpoint it appears that their fundamental goal is to promote their theory, not to actually do honest scientific work.

I think it's been demonstrated irrevocably that this is pseudoscience Duke. The paleodiet.com site appears to exist primarily as a promotional webpage for their diet and the books they are marketing. If you wish to waste your time studying it I guess go ahead, but don't try and claim that this is an earthshaking revolution in science when you haven't even apparently seriously studied the full context of pertinent knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke, I have nothing to say to you that will change your mind nor do I care to. It seems that you are set in your thoughts and all of the evidence that I bring to the discussion is not worthy, that is fine. I will keep eating as I see fit and you can do the same, I really do not care to convince you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that post-meal "insulin coma" is lowered or removed by not having as many calories in one sitting, regardless of the meal's composition of food energy types, which is what Ray claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting thread. There are so many different theories in this area. I have made a few changes over the past couple of years. Going tuna fishing each year is producing a great supply of yellowfin flesh. I eat a lot more of that now (often raw, with a good serving of nori) and only eat read meat or pork a couple times per month. I chose to stop consuming aspartame, have cut way back on high fructose corn sweetener and on processed foods that contain ingredience I don't recognize. My wife makes great salads! I mention this because my health has actually improved from this. I'm in my mid-40s now and am as strong as I was half this age. It feels as though my mind is sharper than my coworkers'. I'm able to concentrate better now than I could a few years ago. These are things that have worked for me. I became a father late in life and my joints, neck, and probably my brain took a pretty severe beating when I was playing football. Staying healthy through my mid-life will help me be the kind of father I want to be. It's an interesting challenge, as I watch many of my contemporaries develop big bellys and skinny arms and legs - like spiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the lecture that originally got me interested in paleo.

Given by Gary Taubes:

In it he tries to point to some signs of the emergence of diseases of civilization. It's basically a summary of his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149

Points: (It's been years since I've seen it so I can't remember all the points he made)

Living on Indian Reserves vs Traditional Indian living

Some studies High Fat/Protein unlimited calorie diet vs Restricted calorie, standard diet

The effect of insulin in mice --->related to humans

Weston A. Price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites