Chips: was Anchovy experiment

[Guest guest]

>How do you deal with the fact that they are fried in some kind of

>indeterminate vegetable oil? We just ate our monthly mexican last night and

>I was feeling guilty about the bad fats even as I was eating away.

>

>Ron

I don't deal with it, which is why I don't eat them very often. We go out to eat

maybe once every two months, and I figure the food is gluten-contaminated too,

and I used to get pretty ill the next day regardless from that, so the vegie oil

was the least of my concerns. I seem to be getting more " robust " in that

department. It means a lot to my family to eat out sometimes, and it really IS a

good restaurant for the most part.

The more I read about vegie oil though, the more I think one SHOULD avoid it. In

Science News, they ran an article about heart disease and mice, and I guess they

can induce plaque just by feeding the mice corn oil ... not corn oil used for

frying, or hydrogenated corn oil, mind you, just plain corn oil. Their thoughts

now are that cholesterol, the " bad " kind, is harmless until it gets oxidized,

and the corn oil acts as an oxidant. Since heart disease skyrocketed about the

time America switched to corn and safflower oil (the worst two) it makes sense.

At home I make corn chips sometimes by rubbing coconut oil on the tortilla and

baking them in the oven til crispy, or frying in coconut oil. They are still

addicting, but so much work that I can't eat too many!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

I'm glad I asked this question. Lots of great answers.

> I don't deal with it, which is why I don't eat them very

> often. We go out to eat maybe once every two months,

I hear you. We eat out far more than that, but it's becoming a real

problem now that I'm aware of what passes for food in most restaurants.

Seems like you can't real food for much less than $80 for a dinner for two.

> and I

> figure the food is gluten-contaminated too, and I used to get

> pretty ill the next day regardless from that, so the vegie

> oil was the least of my concerns. I seem to be getting more

> " robust " in that department. It means a lot to my family to

> eat out sometimes, and it really IS a good restaurant for the

> most part.

Got it.

>

> The more I read about vegie oil though, the more I think one

> SHOULD avoid it. In Science News, they ran an article about

> heart disease and mice, and I guess they can induce plaque

> just by feeding the mice corn oil ... not corn oil used for

> frying, or hydrogenated corn oil, mind you, just plain corn

> oil. Their thoughts now are that cholesterol, the " bad " kind,

> is harmless until it gets oxidized, and the corn oil acts as

> an oxidant. Since heart disease skyrocketed about the time

> America switched to corn and safflower oil (the worst two) it

> makes sense.

Check out this article. Just got the link on another list.

http://www.gastronomica.org/pages/sample3.1.html

I would actually be interested in any comments anyone might have on her

attack on saturated fats by using the evidence from Finland in the 50's and

60's. Is there something missing from her argument? The article is very

well written and persuasive but, based on my somewhat limited knowledge,

seems to contradict itself in several places. I thought she did a nice job

of attacking vegetable oils, though.

>

> At home I make corn chips sometimes by rubbing coconut oil on

> the tortilla and baking them in the oven til crispy, or

> frying in coconut oil. They are still addicting, but so much

> work that I can't eat too many!

Any more that a few is carb overload for me. I love them anyway, though.

Ron

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:46:32 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> At home I make corn chips sometimes by rubbing coconut oil on the tortilla and

baking them in the oven til crispy, or frying in coconut oil. They are still

addicting, but so much work that I can't eat too many!

>

>

> Heidi Jean

Oh thanks for the idea! I think I will deep fry me some tortilla chips

in my little fry daddy tonight.

(who is still in touch with his feminine side - you have to be

on NT_Politics to understand).

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>I would actually be interested in any comments anyone might have on her

>attack on saturated fats by using the evidence from Finland in the 50's and

>60's. Is there something missing from her argument? The article is very

>well written and persuasive but, based on my somewhat limited knowledge,

>seems to contradict itself in several places. I thought she did a nice job

>of attacking vegetable oils, though.

This is a good example of the problems with epidemiological studies. Finns

smoked like chimneys, for example. And what sorts of fatty foods were they

eating? The article doesn't go into detail, but sausage is mentioned, and

commercial sausage is often disastrous, though I don't know what pigs were

fed then and there, and canned meat is mentioned.

-

[Guest guest]

>http://www.gastronomica.org/pages/sample3.1.html

>

>I would actually be interested in any comments anyone might have on her

>attack on saturated fats by using the evidence from Finland in the 50's and

>60's. Is there something missing from her argument? The article is very

>well written and persuasive but, based on my somewhat limited knowledge,

>seems to contradict itself in several places. I thought she did a nice job

>of attacking vegetable oils, though.

=========

Well, my take, first off, is that EVERYONE ignores this whole problem of IgA

intolerance, which some folks (like me) think is at the root of a whole lot of

the current problems, and I base that on the quick turnaround of the folks that

solved that one problem and had the other ones just kind of disappear. That

said, trans fats and veggie fats do cause a lot of problems.

=========

They ignore studies indicating that one family of polyunsaturated fats protects

against weight gain and heart disease, while the other may actually promote both

of these conditions. And in the growing cracks and confusion between these new

findings and the antiquated advice, Taubes’s article bloomed and the Atkins Diet

thrives.

--> right.

=========

In the early 1970s, the Finnish government and Department of Health set out to

lower the incidence of chd in their country by changing the dietary risk

factors: encouraging Finns to switch from lard and butter to unsaturated

vegetable oils and from full-fat to low-fat dairy products, as well as to lower

their salt intake and increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables. And

by 1997, the mortality rate from chd had been cut in half, still a high rate by

some countries’ standards (in Greece, for example, it was 176 deaths per 100,000

in 1997), but an astonishing achievement in such a short period of time. So try

telling the Finns that the link between saturated fats and heart disease is

weak.

--> There are a lot of factors here, not just the saturated fats. First, which

vegie oils did they switch to? Olive oil seems to be great for people.

Increasing fruits and vegies seems to be good for people. " Lowering salt "

usually means " lowering nitrates " , because most of the salted meats nowadays are

high nitrate. However, chd seems to be related to OXIDIZED fats plus

inflammation, not just fats, which is why nuts and fruits and vegies might be so

protective, and why the dietary info might be so confusing. Vitamin D intake is

a real big part of it too ... has their Vit D intake changed?

Milk and butter are really confusing issues too. RAW milk and butter, and/or

fermented milk products, are very different than the usual milk and butter

purchased at a store. And genetic issues get in here too. For folks who are

casein intolerant, milk and butter might cause problems that don't happen for

other populations. Also dairy products contain more linoleic acid, which is

associated with heart disease when it is in corn oil, which makes me wonder.

============

The Greeks seemed to be teaching us the difference between a diet rich in

vegetable fats and one rich in animal fats, but, in fact, the lesson of Greece

and other Mediterranean countries is more about the virtues of olive oil than

vegetable fats in general. Populations in Greece consume some forty percent of

their calories as fat, mostly olive oil, and they have a very low rate of

virtually all cardiovascular diseases and all cancers, except liver cancer,

which is largely viral in origin.

--> Right. Olive oil is mainly monosaturated, not much linoleic acid, which is

the nasty stuff in corn/safflower oil.

============

Israelis are not the only population experiencing the effects of a high omega-6

diet. There was a similar sharp increase in the prevalence of diabetes and heart

disease in the upper socioeconomic classes in India after vegetable oils were

substituted for the traditional cooking fat of ghee or clarified butter,14 and

there is much concern among certain researchers that America may be going the

same way as Israel, since omega-6 consumption in the United States is second

only to Israel. In the past two decades, a growing body of research is linking a

dietary excess of omega-6s (and/or deficiency of omega-3s) with most of our most

common and intractable illnesses, not only heart disease and Syndrome X, but

stroke, arthritis, allergies, many mental illnesses including depression and

add, autoimmune disorders, and certain forms of cancer.15

--> I totally agree about the Omega 6's (linoleic acid). There is a good deal of

evidence they cause chd. However, the others, arthritis, allergies, depression,

autoimmune disorders: have been shown to have high correlation to IgA

intolerances. Maybe linoleic acid provokes IgA intolerances too, but folks who

avoid the allergen seem to have those problems go away even WITH a diet full of

nasty bad fats.

==========

Interestingly, the Finns have escaped any of the negative consequences of

switching from saturated animal fats to unsaturated vegetable oils because the

oil they switched to was rapeseed or canola oil,16 which has a more balanced

ratio of omega-3s and omega-6s (as well as a high proportion of monounsaturated

fats).

--> However, rapeseed has other side effects that are not so good. Like, it

causes lung cancer in folks who breathe the fumes, and causes diarrhea and

sun-sensitivity in ruminants (and people!).

=========

Grain products may have been absent from the human diet until the invention of

agriculture ten thousand years ago, as Taubes points out, but before humans ate

grains, they ate carbohydrates and sugars in the form of tubers, roots, shoots,

nuts, fruits, berries, leafy and starchy vegetables, and that most concentrated

form of sugar­honey.

--> Right. Humans CAN eat carbs and do fine on them., if they are the right kind

of carbs. Or on fats, if they are the right kind of fats. Wild animals tend to

have the right kinds of fats. Grain fed animals don't.

The basic problem here is that for the past 20 years or so, we've been

concentrating on macronutrients. In the past, people concentrated more on

" what's your staple? " (as one guy was asked as he travelled thru Africa). Tribes

each had a staple food that they knew how to gather and cook and were adapted to

.... Jujuba nuts, Goxa roots, Frufu fruit, salmon, whatever, plus a mess of other

gathered fruits and vegies and meats when available. The " staple foods " in the

US are mainly ones that hardly anyone ate 200 years ago.

=============

Anyway, nice article! I did have a subscription to Gastronomica but it must have

lapsed. It's a great mag.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> >I would actually be interested in any comments anyone might

> have on her

> >attack on saturated fats by using the evidence from Finland

> in the 50's and

> >60's. Is there something missing from her argument? The

> article is very

> >well written and persuasive but, based on my somewhat

> limited knowledge,

> >seems to contradict itself in several places. I thought she

> did a nice job

> >of attacking vegetable oils, though.

>

> This is a good example of the problems with epidemiological

> studies. Finns

> smoked like chimneys, for example. And what sorts of fatty

> foods were they

> eating? The article doesn't go into detail, but sausage is

> mentioned, and

> commercial sausage is often disastrous, though I don't know

> what pigs were

> fed then and there, and canned meat is mentioned.

Thanks for your comments. The article makes it appear as though all other

things were equal -- the Finns simply shifted from saturated fat to canola

oil and their rates of heart disease cut in half. That is disconcerting if

it is true. And I also realize that they don't discuss total mortality.

Truth is I'm going through one of those cycles where I'm questioning

everything I think I know nutritionally. Seems to happen about twice a year

since I started eating right in late 2001. Right now I'm dealing with

severe doubts about saturated fats. Ansel Key's death really triggered the

whole thing. Here's a guy who's body was probably made up of 90% corn oil

and he lived a vigorous, conscious life until he died at 100 years of age.

Dr. Price went in his 80's. Atkins went in his 70's. What is the truth of

the situation?

Ron

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

> >http://www.gastronomica.org/pages/sample3.1.html

> >

> >I would actually be interested in any comments anyone might

> have on her

> >attack on saturated fats by using the evidence from Finland

> in the 50's and

> >60's. Is there something missing from her argument? The

> article is very

> >well written and persuasive but, based on my somewhat

> limited knowledge,

> >seems to contradict itself in several places. I thought she

> did a nice job

> >of attacking vegetable oils, though.

>

> =========

> Well, my take, first off, is that EVERYONE ignores this whole

> problem of IgA intolerance, which some folks (like me) think

> is at the root of a whole lot of the current problems, and I

> base that on the quick turnaround of the folks that solved

> that one problem and had the other ones just kind of

> disappear. That said, trans fats and veggie fats do cause a

> lot of problems.

Got it. I've been reading as much as I can of your's and 's debate of

this issue and your comment above clarified your position a little bit for

me.

> =========

> In the early 1970s, the Finnish government and Department of

> Health set out to lower the incidence of chd in their country

> by changing the dietary risk factors: encouraging Finns to

> switch from lard and butter to unsaturated vegetable oils and

> from full-fat to low-fat dairy products, as well as to lower

> their salt intake and increase their consumption of fruits

> and vegetables. And by 1997, the mortality rate from chd had

> been cut in half, still a high rate by some countries'

> standards (in Greece, for example, it was 176 deaths per

> 100,000 in 1997), but an astonishing achievement in such a

> short period of time. So try telling the Finns that the link

> between saturated fats and heart disease is weak.

>

> --> There are a lot of factors here, not just the saturated

> fats. First, which vegie oils did they switch to? Olive oil

> seems to be great for people. Increasing fruits and vegies

> seems to be good for people. " Lowering salt " usually means

> " lowering nitrates " , because most of the salted meats

> nowadays are high nitrate. However, chd seems to be related

> to OXIDIZED fats plus inflammation, not just fats, which is

> why nuts and fruits and vegies might be so protective, and

> why the dietary info might be so confusing. Vitamin D intake

> is a real big part of it too ... has their Vit D intake changed?

Yes, there are many questions. The implications of her writing are that all

other things were equal and the switch from saturated fats to

polyunsaturated canola oil is what was largely responsible for the drop in

CHD. This is in direct contradiction to the NT/NN philosophy and does

appear to be somewhat evidenced based and disconcerting.

> Israelis are not the only population experiencing the effects

> of a high omega-6 diet. There was a similar sharp increase in

> the prevalence of diabetes and heart disease in the upper

> socioeconomic classes in India after vegetable oils were

> substituted for the traditional cooking fat of ghee or

> clarified butter,14 and there is much concern among certain

> researchers that America may be going the same way as Israel,

> since omega-6 consumption in the United States is second only

> to Israel. In the past two decades, a growing body of

> research is linking a dietary excess of omega-6s (and/or

> deficiency of omega-3s) with most of our most common and

> intractable illnesses, not only heart disease and Syndrome X,

> but stroke, arthritis, allergies, many mental illnesses

> including depression and add, autoimmune disorders, and

> certain forms of cancer.15

>

> --> I totally agree about the Omega 6's (linoleic acid).

> There is a good deal of evidence they cause chd. However, the

> others, arthritis, allergies, depression, autoimmune

> disorders: have been shown to have high correlation to IgA

> intolerances. Maybe linoleic acid provokes IgA intolerances

> too, but folks who avoid the allergen seem to have those

> problems go away even WITH a diet full of nasty bad fats.

Yes. I thought this was the most compelling part of her article. Perhaps

because it jives with what I already believe. LOL.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

> > Well, my take, first off, is that EVERYONE ignores this whole

> > problem of IgA intolerance, which some folks (like me) think

> > is at the root of a whole lot of the current problems, and I

> > base that on the quick turnaround of the folks that solved

> > that one problem and had the other ones just kind of

> > disappear. That said, trans fats and veggie fats do cause a

> > lot of problems.

>

>Got it. I've been reading as much as I can of your's and 's debate of

>this issue and your comment above clarified your position a little bit for

>me.

I'd just like to reiterate an important point: Heidi estimates that 30% of

the US population is IgA intolerant. Much more than 30% of the US

population has serious health problems drawn from the set of problems Heidi

attributes to IgA intolerance. Ergo IgA intolerance *CANNOT* account for

all the possibly-IgA-related health problems out there. Heart disease,

impaired digestion, obesity, diabetes, syndrome X, etc., must by virtue of

this simple statistical fact have other causes, whether or not IgA

intolerance is one cause for some people.

> > --> There are a lot of factors here, not just the saturated

> > fats. First, which vegie oils did they switch to? Olive oil

> > seems to be great for people. Increasing fruits and vegies

> > seems to be good for people. " Lowering salt " usually means

> > " lowering nitrates " , because most of the salted meats

> > nowadays are high nitrate. However, chd seems to be related

> > to OXIDIZED fats plus inflammation, not just fats, which is

> > why nuts and fruits and vegies might be so protective, and

> > why the dietary info might be so confusing. Vitamin D intake

> > is a real big part of it too ... has their Vit D intake changed?

>

>Yes, there are many questions. The implications of her writing are that all

>other things were equal and the switch from saturated fats to

>polyunsaturated canola oil is what was largely responsible for the drop in

>CHD. This is in direct contradiction to the NT/NN philosophy and does

>appear to be somewhat evidenced based and disconcerting.

Writers deal in those kinds of false implications all the time. While I

would not endorse the WAPF/NT diet without a few qualifications and

modifications, the fact is that Price's work is pretty much

incontrovertible on the subject of saturated fat.

The trick is that food quality, and thus the *source* of the saturated fat

(or any other food element or supposed nutrient) is very important. One

example: remember that the article mentioned canned meats as a major source

of saturated fat in the high-CHD Finnish diet. Another, though it may well

not apply in this case: historically, researchers and journalists conflated

PHO and HO with saturated animal fat. Obviously a no-no.

Unfortunately, error and deception are overwhelmingly present in research

and journalism, and it can be very difficult or even functionally

impossible to pick through it all.

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Thanks for your comments. The article makes it appear as though all other

>things were equal -- the Finns simply shifted from saturated fat to canola

>oil and their rates of heart disease cut in half. That is disconcerting if

>it is true. And I also realize that they don't discuss total mortality.

The total mortality point is extremely important, but if you think about

it, there's literally no way for all else to be held equal in a dietary

context unless you feed a population exclusively with refined isolates and

thus can actually replace one isolated component with another.

>Right now I'm dealing with

>severe doubts about saturated fats.

Look at Price's work if you have doubts, and remember that food quality and

sourcing are very, very important.

>Ansel Key's death really triggered the

>whole thing. Here's a guy who's body was probably made up of 90% corn oil

>and he lived a vigorous, conscious life until he died at 100 years of age.

>Dr. Price went in his 80's. Atkins went in his 70's. What is the truth of

>the situation?

Lifespan (as opposed to quality) seems to be at least in part genetic,

though people are going way overboard with the everything's-genetic

attitude nowadays. Once you control for accident and disease, Keys

probably was going to live more or less as long as he lived. That said, do

you actually know what he ate himself? Lots of dietary gurus turn out to

be liars, practicing something quite different from what they

preached. Also, it's important to consider what he (and others of his ilk)

ate when he was a child and a young man, and what his mother ate and so

on. On top of one's early-years diet, the intrauterine environment and the

quality of mother's milk have profound effects (and it may be that these

have a much greater role than genes in determining lifespan). Price didn't

always eat well, and neither did Atkins -- and Atkins, remember, died from

an accident, not of natural causes.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> <snip> While I

> would not endorse the WAPF/NT diet without a few qualifications and

> modifications, the fact is that Price's work is pretty much

> incontrovertible on the subject of saturated fat.<snip>

Hi ;

I am still rather a newbie to this group, and am always learning from

the posts here. Are you willing to relate (in a nutshell, if it is

easier for you) your qualifications and modifications of the WAPF/NT diet?

Thank you,

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> >Thanks for your comments. The article makes it appear as

> though all other

> >things were equal -- the Finns simply shifted from saturated

> fat to canola

> >oil and their rates of heart disease cut in half. That is

> disconcerting if

> >it is true. And I also realize that they don't discuss

> total mortality.

>

> The total mortality point is extremely important, but if you

> think about

> it, there's literally no way for all else to be held equal in

> a dietary

> context unless you feed a population exclusively with refined

> isolates and

> thus can actually replace one isolated component with another.

Sure. I completely understand.

>

> >Right now I'm dealing with

> >severe doubts about saturated fats.

>

> Look at Price's work if you have doubts, and remember that

> food quality and

> sourcing are very, very important.

What I'm realizing from this discussion is that my view of health is now

actually splitting into two parts. The first, and of primary importance to

me right now, is what foods will give us robust good health and heal us from

our past transgressions? The second question is what foods will allow us to

live to the maximum extent possible? Are they the same foods?

I think that Price's work applies to question 1. Does it apply to question

2? And that's more of a rhetorical question on my part. Realizing that the

questions are separate will be very useful.

>

> >Ansel Key's death really triggered the

> >whole thing. Here's a guy who's body was probably made up

> of 90% corn oil

> >and he lived a vigorous, conscious life until he died at 100

> years of age.

> >Dr. Price went in his 80's. Atkins went in his 70's. What

> is the truth of

> >the situation?

>

> Lifespan (as opposed to quality) seems to be at least in part

> genetic,

> though people are going way overboard with the everything's-genetic

> attitude nowadays. Once you control for accident and disease, Keys

> probably was going to live more or less as long as he lived.

Hmm. I wonder.

> That said, do

> you actually know what he ate himself? Lots of dietary gurus

> turn out to

> be liars, practicing something quite different from what they

> preached.

Of course. I had considered that but I'm taking his life and death at face

value. It's more an archetypal thing with me rather than specifically about

Ancel Keys. (just realized I have been mis-spelling his name.) He is a

model. Ate corn and soybean oil, avoided the evil animal fats (supposedly)

and was still working in his lab at age 99.

> Also, it's important to consider what he (and

> others of his ilk)

> ate when he was a child and a young man, and what his mother

> ate and so

> on. On top of one's early-years diet, the intrauterine

> environment and the

> quality of mother's milk have profound effects (and it may be

> that these

> have a much greater role than genes in determining lifespan).

Now that's interesting. I wasn't aware of that connection, although it

makes perfectly good sense. Guess I'm doomed to kick off at 55 since Mom

gave me the nasty bottle. :-( It just wasn't fashionable to allow your

child to suck on your breast in 1961. Fortunately, she did feed me pretty

well until I was 14 and could begin to get junk food on my own. Too much

sugar and flour but the sources were better than average for the time.

> Price didn't

> always eat well,

I did not know that about him.

> and neither did Atkins -- and Atkins,

> remember, died from

> an accident, not of natural causes.

>

Maybe. Might he have recovered had he been in a different state of health

at the time of his accident? I realize that this is unanswerable, but I

like to ask lots of questions.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> >Got it. I've been reading as much as I can of your's and

> 's debate of

> >this issue and your comment above clarified your position a

> little bit for

> >me.

>

> I'd just like to reiterate an important point: Heidi

> estimates that 30% of

> the US population is IgA intolerant. Much more than 30% of the US

> population has serious health problems drawn from the set of

> problems Heidi

> attributes to IgA intolerance. Ergo IgA intolerance *CANNOT*

> account for

> all the possibly-IgA-related health problems out there.

> Heart disease,

> impaired digestion, obesity, diabetes, syndrome X, etc., must

> by virtue of

> this simple statistical fact have other causes, whether or not IgA

> intolerance is one cause for some people.

>

I understand.

I did not say that I agreed with Heidi, just that I better understood her

position. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue you have been discussing

and I don't really feel qualified to comment, not that I've ever let that

stop me in the past. lol. I think to some degree you guys are arguing

around each other because there is insufficient data to prove either of your

points. Despite that your discussion has been very, very helpful for me to

read. To the extent I've been able to follow the thread -- not enough to

time to really study the posts -- I've learned a tremendous amount and it is

pointing me in several directions that I had not considered before in

understanding my own health.

Ron

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 7:07:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

That's partly true, but I'm a stickler for rigor, and I have no patience

for South Park Science.

_____

I apologize for not quoting your original post, but didn't save it. I

wanted to mention, regarding your point that there is a phenomenon between mouth

and rectum called " digestion, " that I believe Heidi in the past provided some

information indicating that some people do not produce the enzyme that is

needed to break down certain peptide fractions of alpha-gliaden. I have no

idea

whether the evidence for this is solid or not (and I have difficulty

conceiving, without the details explained to me, how any given protein could

contain

a unique bond between amino acids that isn't contained in many other

proteins), but if it is true, then it would inhibit that phenomenon, and it

would

equal the hypothetical evidence you suggested, such as an immune reaction at

the

mouth or stomach that inhibits digestion.

Also, I saw that SP episode. Hilarious.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 7:10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

I'm not clear on what you mean by " live to the maximum extent possible " ,

but I'd assume that one would be able to live maximally by being in

robustly good health.

____

I disagree. There is compelling evidence, I think, that there is a

trade-off between growth and reproductive capacity and life extension. I

personally

consider " robustly good health " to involve the ability to be powerful, to be

somewhat tall and considerably muscular (like Pavel, not like Arnold), to be

possess stamina and sexual vitality, etc. (As well as more obvious things

like freedom from disease, but I would consider a life of physical mediocrity

that was disease free to be health, but not necessarily " robust. " )

It seems like the optimal way to balance the life-extending benefits of

calorie restriction with the growth and reproductive benefits of a full and rich

diet is to periodically fast, and make up with it by feasting. Intermittent

fasting/feasting animals have the same life extention benefits as

calorie-restricted ones, but are much healthier in many respects, and have

higher than

normal, rather than lower-than-normal, concentrations of growth factors. I

haven't read anything, but suspect that their reproductivity remains robust

just as their growth capacity does, unlike the temporary compromises that

calorie-restricted animals experience.

The fasting-feasting phenomenon seems to indicate that growth and

reproduction are not necessarily at odds with longevity, but it also seems to

indicate

that longevity requires additional factors beyond what robust health requires.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>I think to some degree you guys are arguing

>around each other because there is insufficient data to prove either of your

>points.

That's partly true, but I'm a stickler for rigor, and I have no patience

for South Park Science.

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>What I'm realizing from this discussion is that my view of health is now

>actually splitting into two parts. The first, and of primary importance to

>me right now, is what foods will give us robust good health and heal us from

>our past transgressions? The second question is what foods will allow us to

>live to the maximum extent possible? Are they the same foods?

>

>I think that Price's work applies to question 1. Does it apply to question

>2? And that's more of a rhetorical question on my part. Realizing that the

>questions are separate will be very useful.

I think you're splitting the questions the wrong way. I might break them

down something like as follows:

First, if one is starting from a position of robust good health, what sort

of diet will enable one to maintain that robust good health?

Second, if one is starting from a position of impaired health, what sort of

diet will allow one to attain a state of robust good health?

I'm not clear on what you mean by " live to the maximum extent possible " ,

but I'd assume that one would be able to live maximally by being in

robustly good health.

I think Price's work applies more to my first question and less to my

second question.

>Guess I'm doomed to kick off at 55 since Mom

>gave me the nasty bottle

Well, hey, breast milk isn't always ideal either. I once read that if your

mom was bottle-fed and she breast-feeds you, you have a much better chance

of becoming carb-intolerant (i.e. prone to blood sugar fluctuations, weight

gain, etc.). That certainly fits me to a 'T', though I've been unable to

find the article since.

>Maybe. Might he have recovered had he been in a different state of health

>at the time of his accident? I realize that this is unanswerable, but I

>like to ask lots of questions.

Who knows? But while people who eat well are much more resilient, nobody's

fully bullet-proof, and like I said, Atkins did a lot of damage at various

times in his life. IIRC he actually started down the low-carb road because

of his own weight problems.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi

This was a fascinating post. Very helpful.

Interesting that you are aware of Pavel. He's a kind of local hero here at

the house. We've got a bunch of kettlebells in the exercise room. I got

turned on to him when I started doing Body For Life exercise back in 2002.

Too bad I didn't implement his ideas sooner -- might have saved me the

shoulder surgery I had last Feb and the one I'm going to have on Tuesday.

Live and learn.

My wife and I actually met him at the 2003 Arnold Classic in Columbus, OH.

Pretty cool guy. Powerful.

Ron

> I disagree. There is compelling evidence, I think, that there is a

> trade-off between growth and reproductive capacity and life

> extension. I personally

> consider " robustly good health " to involve the ability to be

> powerful, to be

> somewhat tall and considerably muscular (like Pavel, not like

> Arnold), to be

> possess stamina and sexual vitality, etc. (As well as more

> obvious things

> like freedom from disease, but I would consider a life of

> physical mediocrity

> that was disease free to be health, but not necessarily " robust. " )

>

> It seems like the optimal way to balance the life-extending

> benefits of

> calorie restriction with the growth and reproductive benefits

> of a full and rich

> diet is to periodically fast, and make up with it by

> feasting. Intermittent

> fasting/feasting animals have the same life extention benefits as

> calorie-restricted ones, but are much healthier in many

> respects, and have higher than

> normal, rather than lower-than-normal, concentrations of

> growth factors. I

> haven't read anything, but suspect that their reproductivity

> remains robust

> just as their growth capacity does, unlike the temporary

> compromises that

> calorie-restricted animals experience.

>

> The fasting-feasting phenomenon seems to indicate that growth and

> reproduction are not necessarily at odds with longevity, but

> it also seems to indicate

> that longevity requires additional factors beyond what robust

> health requires.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> >What I'm realizing from this discussion is that my view of

> health is now

> >actually splitting into two parts. The first, and of

> primary importance to

> >me right now, is what foods will give us robust good health

> and heal us from

> >our past transgressions? The second question is what foods

> will allow us to

> >live to the maximum extent possible? Are they the same foods?

> >

> >I think that Price's work applies to question 1. Does it

> apply to question

> >2? And that's more of a rhetorical question on my part.

> Realizing that the

> >questions are separate will be very useful.

>

> I think you're splitting the questions the wrong way. I

> might break them

> down something like as follows:

>

> First, if one is starting from a position of robust good

> health, what sort

> of diet will enable one to maintain that robust good health?

Yes.

>

> Second, if one is starting from a position of impaired

> health, what sort of

> diet will allow one to attain a state of robust good health?

Yes. My current operating position.

>

> I'm not clear on what you mean by " live to the maximum extent

> possible " ,

> but I'd assume that one would be able to live maximally by being in

> robustly good health.

I was not clear. I was talking about living as long as possible. So

quality of life versus length of life. Are they obtainable from eating the

same foods?

Ron

[Guest guest]

On Saturday, February 26, 2005, at 08:16 AM, RBJR wrote:

> Hi

>

> This was a fascinating post.  Very helpful.

>

> Interesting that you are aware of Pavel.  He's a kind of local hero

> here at

> the house.  We've got a bunch of kettlebells in the exercise room.  I

> got

> turned on to him when I started doing Body For Life exercise back in

> 2002.

> Too bad I didn't implement his ideas sooner -- might have saved me the

> shoulder surgery I had last Feb and the one I'm going to have on

> Tuesday.

>

> Live and learn.

>

> My wife and I actually met him at the 2003 Arnold Classic in Columbus,

> OH.

> Pretty cool guy.  Powerful.

>

> Ron

>

Well, my dh is wanting me to exercise and I am having problems with

motivation...what books do you all recommend?

Sandy

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 2:49:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

The problem -- and it's a big one -- is that a rectal challenge would fail

to distinguish between people who can digest the protein and people who

can't. Imagine injecting a foreign protein into people's

bloodstream. It'll tend to provoke immune responses. What the test won't

determine is which of those people would have digested the protein if it

had been consumed the normal way, and thus which of the people wouldn't

have experienced any immune reaction. I'd argue that a rectal challenge

has a pretty much identical problem. It bypasses digestion.

____

That explains why the gluten caused the villi to " sleep " even in people who

are NOT gluten intolerant. I remember, a long time ago, when we discussed

this I was confused about this fact and said that there must be some problem

with the definition of " gluten intolerance " if this is true, but in retrospect,

I think I either didn't realize it was a rectal challenge, or the

implications of that went unregistered.

It would seem that a rectal challenge would be more or less meaningless, at

least with respect to this debate.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I apologize for not quoting your original post, but didn't save it. I

>wanted to mention, regarding your point that there is a phenomenon between

>mouth

>and rectum called " digestion, " that I believe Heidi in the past provided

>some

>information indicating that some people do not produce the enzyme that is

>needed to break down certain peptide fractions of alpha-gliaden. I have

>no idea

>whether the evidence for this is solid or not (and I have difficulty

>conceiving, without the details explained to me, how any given protein

>could contain

>a unique bond between amino acids that isn't contained in many other

>proteins), but if it is true, then it would inhibit that phenomenon, and

>it would

>equal the hypothetical evidence you suggested, such as an immune reaction

>at the

>mouth or stomach that inhibits digestion.

IF that phenomenon exists (and like you, I have difficulty conceiving of

it, and I've also read evidence to contradict Heidi's statement that gluten

isn't digested) then a rectal challenge might somewhat resemble reality in

certain cases.

The problem -- and it's a big one -- is that a rectal challenge would fail

to distinguish between people who can digest the protein and people who

can't. Imagine injecting a foreign protein into people's

bloodstream. It'll tend to provoke immune responses. What the test won't

determine is which of those people would have digested the protein if it

had been consumed the normal way, and thus which of the people wouldn't

have experienced any immune reaction. I'd argue that a rectal challenge

has a pretty much identical problem. It bypasses digestion.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I disagree. There is compelling evidence, I think, that there is a

>trade-off between growth and reproductive capacity and life extension.

True, I hadn't considered the possibility that Ron meant life extension via

something like calorie restriction. My bias, but that's because I think

calorie restriction is a crock.

From the evidence I've seen, it's a fallacy in several ways:

(a) Calorie restriction appears to be most effective only for very

primitive species, such as certain worms.

( The higher up the complexity ladder you climb, the less effective it

apparently is.

© The supposed gains in lifespan observed in calorie-restricted complex

organisms in lab conditions appear to be merely the recovery of something

approaching the full natural lifespan of those animals due to the reduction

in consumption of harmful food (animal chow as opposed to natural,

wholesome foods) chimps being one prominent example thereof.

(d) The anemic life lived by calorie-restricted higher animals isn't at

worthwhile even if they are living longer than their healthy wild brethren,

which they apparently aren't.

>Intermittent

>fasting/feasting animals have the same life extention benefits as

>calorie-restricted ones, but are much healthier in many respects, and

>have higher than

>normal, rather than lower-than-normal, concentrations of growth factors. I

>haven't read anything, but suspect that their reproductivity remains robust

>just as their growth capacity does, unlike the temporary compromises that

>calorie-restricted animals experience.

Inasmuch as the tradition of fasting appears to be bound up with notions of

" cleansing " and " purifying " oneself, and inasmuch as fasting does appear to

be useful, at least for some people, for ridding themselves of certain

accumulated toxins, it seems likely to me that fasting is more likely to be

of use to people eating poorly than to be people eating ideally.

But who knows. It's an infant field.

>The fasting-feasting phenomenon seems to indicate that growth and

>reproduction are not necessarily at odds with longevity, but it also seems

>to indicate

>that longevity requires additional factors beyond what robust

>health requires.

Well, are we talking genetic factors, like those which give women longer

life because men were selected for vigor and martial prowess to some extent

at the extent of longevity, or nutritional factors?

-

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

>

> (d) The anemic life lived by calorie-restricted higher

> animals isn't at worthwhile even if they are living longer

> than their healthy wild brethren, which they apparently aren't.

Normally I would agree with you on this point, but we live in a very

interesting age. Therapies which can radically or indefinitely extend

lifespan (organ replacement, gene therapy, stem cells, etc.) are

conceivable--and I would say likely, barring total meltdown of industrial

civilization--in the next 30-100 years. Because of this, adding 10-15 years

onto your natural lifespan could, if the timing is right, add hundreds or

thousands of years onto your actual lifespan. I'd sit through fifty years of

anemia for that.

It's a gamble, though.

[Guest guest]

-

> > (d) The anemic life lived by calorie-restricted higher

> > animals isn't at worthwhile even if they are living longer

> > than their healthy wild brethren, which they apparently aren't.

>

>Normally I would agree with you on this point, but we live in a very

>interesting age. Therapies which can radically or indefinitely extend

>lifespan (organ replacement, gene therapy, stem cells, etc.) are

>conceivable--and I would say likely, barring total meltdown of industrial

>civilization--in the next 30-100 years. Because of this, adding 10-15 years

>onto your natural lifespan could, if the timing is right, add hundreds or

>thousands of years onto your actual lifespan. I'd sit through fifty years of

>anemia for that.

>

>It's a gamble, though.

A very valid point, but there's a further danger: even if calorie

restriction *could* add 10-15 years to a human life (and based on the

evidence I've seen, I think it's much more likely that a person eating the

best possible diet would live longer than a CR type, or at worst a similar

amount of time) you also have to consider whether the anemic, fatigued life

you'd be living would enable you to earn enough money to position yourself

to take advantage of those prospective life extension advances. My guess

is that unless you've already amassed lots of wealth, you've inherited

sufficient wealth or you win the lottery or something like that, the answer

would be a resounding no.

That's completely aside from the question of what will happen to society if

people start living really, really long lives. I might want to live

indefinitely myself, particularly if technology also develops to the point

that intelligence and mental capacity can be augmented further and further,

but who knows, it might wind up being a disaster.

-

[Guest guest]

> That explains why the gluten caused the villi to " sleep " even in people

> who

> are NOT gluten intolerant.

>

> Chris

Wild guess, could be the opioids. Wonder if dairy opioids put everyone's

villi to sleep.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 2/27/2005