Re: Re: VegSource.Com strikes again: The Truth About the WAPF

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/06, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> The Inuit and Masai had clearly better health than the mostly-

> vegetarian Bantu. Price's main stated reason for his journey was

> to find a plant that made eating animal products unnecessary.

On the other hand, Price didn't study their lifespan, which is what

relates to the author's claim. However, of the two references he

listed for a short lifespan among the Masai, one appeared to be some

type of general Kenyan tourist web site with no immediately available

information on lifespan, and the other was a WHO web page that simply

said, paraphrasing, " the web page you are looking for does not exist

in english. "

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>On 12/29/06, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

>> The Inuit and Masai had clearly better health than the mostly-

>> vegetarian Bantu. Price's main stated reason for his journey was

>> to find a plant that made eating animal products unnecessary.

>

>On the other hand, Price didn't study their lifespan, which is what

>relates to the author's claim.

However Stefansson DID study the longevity of the Inuit (among other

things). IIRC, they were not all dropping like flies in by the time they

reached 60 as Furhman contends. Many were living into their 70's and 80's

and some into their 90's. The drawback is that it was hard to verify their

claimed ages. However, one glaring, major, humongous issue that Furhman

overlooks is the fact that the Inuit led dangerous lives in an extreme

environment. Surely this must affect a population's longevity? According to

one local Doc that Price interviewed, there had not been a single case od

cancer in the decades he had served the Inuit. They were more likely dying

of causes related to their hunting and living in an extreme environment.

Furhman would have us believe, rather, that they were dying of degenerative

diseases like cancer, due to their high animal product diet.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> However Stefansson DID study the longevity of the Inuit (among other

> things). IIRC, they were not all dropping like flies in by the time they

> reached 60 as Furhman contends. Many were living into their 70's and 80's

> and some into their 90's. The drawback is that it was hard to verify their

> claimed ages.

The last time this came up on one of these lists, I recall finding

that the Russian church, whose mortality statistics Steffanson relied

on, was not in Alaska long enough to have generated baptisimal

certificates for the people who had died at the time he read them.

Were we to know that there were reliable written records of births and

deaths, I think Steffanson's numbers would be good data to go by. But

if the churches had just asked the people their ages with no written

records kept in them, which seems to be the case, the data is

substantially less worthy of confidence.

Steffanson remarked elsewhere that the Inuit seemed to age much faster

than whites and questioned whether the high-meat diet, while great for

stamina, also caused faster aging. (I would question whether, if this

was a solid observation, which is tough to judge, this could also have

been attributable to their high intake of PUFA.)

>However, one glaring, major, humongous issue that Furhman

> overlooks is the fact that the Inuit led dangerous lives in an extreme

> environment.

You mean lead? Furhman's article doesn't deal with the Inuit

historically, but presently.

>Surely this must affect a population's longevity? According to

> one local Doc that Price interviewed, there had not been a single case od

> cancer in the decades he had served the Inuit. They were more likely dying

> of causes related to their hunting and living in an extreme environment.

> Furhman would have us believe, rather, that they were dying of degenerative

> diseases like cancer, due to their high animal product diet.

He gives one citation that I haven't read for their current cancer and

mortality statistics. He doesn't quantify their increased risk of

cancer but only their mortality. I think it's reasonable to question

whether environmental pollutants, which accumulate in the arctic and

have not been declining there as they have been in the rest of the

world over the past few decades, and mode of life (though I imagine

they live more comfortably now than when Price and Steffanson studied

them), contribute to cancer and life expectancy. It isn't clear from

Fuhrman's article whether the adults are dying younger from diseases

or whether infant mortality or accidents are equally or more greatly

contributing to the decreased life expectancy.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

,

> If we are to believe Price's statements about the Masai versus the

> Bantu, then what Fuhrman is asking us to assume is that a diet that

> produces better teeth and bones will also produce a shorter lifespan.

> I find that unlikely. How about you, Chris?

Whether it is likely or not, there is nothing illogical or impossible

about it, and therefore it is not valid to assume that Price's tooth

decay statistics can be used to estimate their lifespan. If there is

good data out there showing that the Masai rarely live beyond 60, then

we would have to accept both findings -- their observed tooth decay

rate and their observed lifespan. Whether or not that is the case,

however, I do not yet know.

> I tried all that vegetarian nonsense, raw vegan lowfat fruitarian,

> etc. for years. My teeth couldn't take it. I will be the first to

> say that a raw fruitarian diet with some greens will give you plenty of

> energy, and can do a lot for your health, depending on the quality of

> the fruit. However, I need my teeth, and the fruit diet wasn't letting

> that happen.

My experience with vegetarianism was awful too, though I didn't do raw

or fruitarian. There is good data from a large-scale study of raw

vegans showing that ill health is the norm among them. But, that

tells us little, or rather nothing, about the lifespan of the Masai.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

,

> In today's modern world, and even with the healing power of raw milk

> on their side, the average Maasai male can expect to live for only 43

> years, compared to 77 years for males in the U.S.

This seems to support Fuhrman's claim somewhat, but without a deeper

analysis it isn't very useful information. I'd like to see numbers

more like, a Masai at age 50 has an x% chance of living to 70, or

something that introduces some type of control for infant mortality.

I'd like to know what they are dying of as well. If not heart

disease, what do they die of if they live to old age? Cancer? No

apparent cause?

> And still more " The Misinformation of Barry Groves and Weston Price " :

>

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-misinformation-of-barry-grov\

es-and-weston-price.html

>

> Maybe you would care to post a rebuttal at that last link?

> It still has a post comment box at the bottom - go for it!

> (let us know if you do)

I think Barry Groves would be a better person to respond, since it is

written as a response to his initial comments. And I would have to do

research on lifespans and so on in order to respond, and I don't have

the time at the moment. I do, however, hope to have a response to

on my web site soon.

> Dr Fuhrman extolls his book with 1500 references.

> I wonder if he has seen Colpo's book with 4000 references?

Fuhrman claims to have reviewed 60,000 studies. The quantity isn't

the overriding factor, of course. It is one thing to read a bunch of

abstracts and another thing to critically analyze the data within

them, and to practice sound logic in drawing conclusions.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Mike,

> I may have to say I respectfully disagree. Bone and teeth are being

> constantly dissolved and re-formed throughout life. I'm not sure how

> much sense it makes to assume that the same diet (including lots of

> organ meats) that supports that process of bone dissolving and re-

> forming better would cause faster aging and higher mortality than a

> vegetarian diet. I'm not saying I think it's impossible, but it goes

> against all common sense, IMHO.

Rather than debating how sensible it is, I'd rather just see real life

expectancy data for the Masai.

As to the sensibility:

Your own experience supports the dissociation of health parameters --

you got lots of energy, you say, on a fruitarian diet, but your teeth

fell apart. I would think that a diet that makes you feel great would

be good for longevity, just like I'd think one that supports a healthy

skeletal system would as well. But all signs of health apparently do

not fit perfectly together all the time.

Although I think there is some evidence that growth and cancer can be

dissociated, there is nevertheless the mainstream view with

substantial evidence to support it that, as cancer is abberant growth,

things that tend to support growth also support cancer. I would be

interested to hear weigh in on this becuase she has described

Ayurveda's view on this before which seems similar to me --

" nourishing " (by Ayurveda's definition) foods promote cancer in

excess, and the amounts needed by anyone depend on their constitution

and circumstance.

There is a wide gap between the nearly vegetarian diets of the Bantu

and the nearly carnivorous diets of the Masai, and it seems entirely

possible that there could be an ideal level of animal foods in the

diet that is above what the Bantu consumed but below what the Masai

consumed.

I'm not ready to support this theory as the likliest possibility, but

it is certainly undoubtedly logical and possible and has enough

support that someone could believe it without being an unreasonable

person.

Since we were discussing lifespan, I thought I'd take a look at what

was in the literature on the Okinawans, who are, I understand,

considered to be the longest-lived people on the planet.

It appears they consume more animal foods than those who are not as

longly lived:

==========

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=Abstra\

ctPlus & list_uids=1407826 & query_hl=8 & itool=pubmed_docsum

The present paper examines the relationship of nutritional status to

further life expectancy and health status in the Japanese elderly

based on 3 epidemiological studies. 1. Nutrient intakes in 94 Japanese

centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher

proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary

average Japanese. 2. High intakes of milk and fats and oils had

favorable effects on 10-year (1976-1986) survivorship in 422 urban

residents aged 69-71. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase

in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the

10 years. 3. Nutrient intakes were compared, based on 24-hour dietary

records, between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life

expectancies at birth and 65 were the longest in Japan, and a sample

from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter.

Intakes of Ca, Fe, vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy

from proteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in

the latter. Intakes of carbohydrates and NaCl were lower.

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

Nevertheless, the abstract doesn't tell us what proportion of their

calorie was provided by animal foods. If there is an ideal proportion

from animal foods that fully supports all of the pro-growth processes

of the body without contributing to abberant growth (to utilize one

theory that would require such a balance), then we would expect more

to be better within a certain range and less to be better within a

different range. The Inuit (who Steffanson thought aged faster than

whites on a moderate-meat rather than high-meat diet, though I don't

consider this observation to be a rock solid datum) and Masai might be

within the range where less is better while the Bantu and Japanese

might be in the range where more is better.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> However, one glaring, major, humongous issue that Furhman

> overlooks is the fact that the Inuit led dangerous lives in an extreme

> environment. Surely this must affect a population's longevity? According to

> one local Doc that Price interviewed, there had not been a single case od

> cancer in the decades he had served the Inuit. They were more likely dying

> of causes related to their hunting and living in an extreme environment.

> Furhman would have us believe, rather, that they were dying of degenerative

> diseases like cancer, due to their high animal product diet.

I haven't yet read the paper that Fuhrman cites on the Inuit life

expectancy and cancer incidence, but it appears they Inuit abandoned

their traditional diet long before 2001, the year it was published.

According to this reference:

Nobmann ED, Byers T, Lanier AP, Hankin JH, M. The diet

of Alaska Native adults 1987-1988. Am J Clin Nutr 1992; 55: 1024-32.

.... as of the late 80s, these were the top ten foods eaten by Alaskan

natives, ranked by frequency of consumption:

1. Coffee and tea

2. Sugar

3. Whitebread, rools, crackers

4. Fish

5. Margarine

6. White rice

7. Tang and Kool-aid

8. Butter

9. Regular soft drinks

10. Milk (whole and evaporated)

Notice that the only native food in the top 10 is fish, and that it is

out-ranked in consumption by coffee, eat, sugar, and white bread.

Compared to the US population in the NHANES II data, native Alaskan

men consumed 28% more protein, 11% more fat and 7% more carbohydrate.

Native Alaskan women consumed 48% more protein, 28% more fat, and 18%

more carbohydrate. Native Alaskan men and women even consumed 24% and

37%, respectively, more vitamin C than Americans, the principle source

of which was orange-flavored breakfast drink.

Native Alaskan men and women had 30% lower risk of heart disease,

women had a 20% higher risk of cancer, men had a 60% lower risk of

diabetes and women had a 50% lower risk of diabetes. Cancer of

breast, uterus, prostate, bladder and melanoma are comparatively low,

whereas cancers of the nasopharynx, salivary gland, liver, gallbladder

and cervix greatly exceeded those of US whites. Iron-deficiency

anemia was found at high rates, 13% of men and 15% of women.

Their intake of fat remained stable since the 1950s, at between 34%

and 39% of calories. In 1987-88, fish supplied 11% of the fat, seal

oil supplied 6%, and whale blubber supplied 3%. Rivaling fish was

agutuk or " Eskimo ice cream " at 10% of the fat contribution, which " is

currently often made with hydrogenated vegetable shortening. . . .

Although individual recipes vary, typical ingredients for fish agutuk

include flaked cooked whitefish, whipped shortening, sugar and corn

oil. Fruit agutuk consists fo whipped shortening, corn oil, sugar,

water, and blackberries or other berries; meat agutuk consists of

caribou tallow, seal oil, caribou meat, and cooking broth. "

So it would appear that modern native Alaskans continue to eat some

native foods but have been eating highly modernized diets full of junk

food for decades.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 12/29/06, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> > The Inuit and Masai had clearly better health than the mostly-

> > vegetarian Bantu. Price's main stated reason for his journey was

> > to find a plant that made eating animal products unnecessary.

>

> On the other hand, Price didn't study their lifespan, which is what

> relates to the author's claim.

This, IMO, is one of the few " weaknesses " of NAPD and I say that

guardedly, because that wasn't Dr. Price's purpose in his studies and

travel.

On the other hand, Dr. Fuhrman appears to be comparing apples and

oranges (modern day lifespans versus Price's day) and any lifespan

studies that do not account for infant mortality (or other variables

that may be relevant) are not all that credible and really tell us

very little.

--

What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper

representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a

labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and

bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed,

but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the

most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies.

~ R. Tucker

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/06, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> If we are to believe Price's statements about the Masai versus the

> Bantu, then what Fuhrman is asking us to assume is that a diet that

> produces better teeth and bones will also produce a shorter lifespan.

> I find that unlikely. How about you, Chris?

Although not logically impossible, given the centrality of our bone

system it seems to me it would be highly unlikely, but actual numbers

would be needed methinks to lay to rest the naysayers. BTW, Price is

not the only one who has tracked, studied, and correlated bone and

teeth health with overall health.

http://www.price-pottenger.org/page.htm

> I tried all that vegetarian nonsense, raw vegan lowfat fruitarian,

> etc. for years. My teeth couldn't take it. I will be the first to

> say that a raw fruitarian diet with some greens will give you plenty of

> energy, and can do a lot for your health, depending on the quality of

> the fruit. However, I need my teeth, and the fruit diet wasn't letting

> that happen.

On the other hand, it seems to me that " energy " is not necessarily a

good tracking device for overall health, at least in the short term.

While healthy people tend to be " energetic " (subject to individual

differences of course), " energetic " people aren't necessarily healthy

and in fact may be catabolizing their own body or have other factors

that allow them to be " energetic " despite poor health.

--

What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper

representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a

labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and

bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed,

but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the

most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies.

~ R. Tucker

[Guest guest]

,

> > If we are to believe Price's statements about the Masai versus the

> > Bantu, then what Fuhrman is asking us to assume is that a diet that

> > produces better teeth and bones will also produce a shorter lifespan.

> > I find that unlikely. How about you, Chris?

> Although not logically impossible, given the centrality of our bone

> system it seems to me it would be highly unlikely, but actual numbers

> would be needed methinks to lay to rest the naysayers.

Our bone system is certainly central to our quality of life, but at

least in some other species, length of life is to some degree

inversely proportional to some measure of quality or functionality of

life, like growth and reproduction. But the more important point, I

think, is that there is a wide gap between the amount of animal

products needed in the diet to prevent tooth decay and the amount of

animal products consumed by the Inuit and the Masai. You can't keep

lowering tooth decay beyond the point where you essentially eliminate

it. So, the question would be whether the Masai passed that point and

thereby consumed an amount of growth-promoting foods that fell within

the range of what might shorten lifespan (to entertain the unproven

hypothesis that such might happen).

For a snippet of empirical support for the concept that what is good

for the bones could contribute to negative effects that could

conceivably shorten lifespan, while I was working on some research

this morning I came across a citation of a study finding an increased

risk of prostate cancer with increasing bone density.

I suspect that this correlation reflects the substantially supported

hypothesis that calcium intake suppresses the activation of vitamin D,

which, since vitamin D protects against prostate cancer, increases the

risk of prostate cancer. If this is true, the risk can probably be

obviated by consuming sufficient vitamin D and the Masai would

probably not be at risk as the association seems to be specifically

associated with calcium from supplements and low-fat or skim milk

while having no relationship to whole milk at all.

Nevertheless, it fits within the what-promotes-growth-promotes-cancer

paradigm, and although, as I said I believed before, on the whole the

evidence suggests that the growth-promotion and cancer can be

dissociated, it nevertheless supports a general association under some

circumstances.

I am not arguing that the Masai probably had short lifespans because

of high animal product consumption, but simply trying to show that it

is logical enough that if it is claimed that there is empirical

evidence that it is so, that evidence should be looked at rather than

dismissed because it appears fundamentally illogical, which it isn't.

Speaking of which, I think I will contact Fuhrman at some point and

ask him for citations on the Masai because the links he provides

appear to be in one case not particularly scholarly or relevant and in

the other case a dead link to what should be a page on the WHO site,

which is probably hard data if the working page actually exists.

> On the other hand, it seems to me that " energy " is not necessarily a

> good tracking device for overall health, at least in the short term.

> While healthy people tend to be " energetic " (subject to individual

> differences of course), " energetic " people aren't necessarily healthy

> and in fact may be catabolizing their own body or have other factors

> that allow them to be " energetic " despite poor health.

I'll concede that point, especially since he remarked that his energy

is more " even " now. I think there are different types of energy and

some can be distinguished as healthful or unhealthful, but certainly

one can get energy from things that are unhealthful.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, although I must say that what

first caught my eye with the article was not the hard details involved, but

the many typos like " Sally Fellon " and leaving off Enig's title (to

make her look less of an " expert " ?).

But I think the most problematic issue I found with the article was on

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_facts_fiction.htm where he says:

" The Weston A. Price website states that " people with high cholesterol live

the longest, " and that it is a myth that " for good health, serum cholesterol

should be less than 180 mg/dl, " adding, " There is no greater risk for heart

disease, even at levels as high as 1,000 mg/dl. " This doesn't jibe with

every respected scientific authority in the world and is utterly ridiculous

in light of thousands of respectable studies. "

First of all, there is no citation in his article to link back to the page

he is quoting. Shouldn't someone like him know the importance of such a

citation? Not to mention the fact that he takes what looks like several

quotes and puts them togther out of context. Isn't the " no greater risk for

heart disease, even at levels as high as 1,000 mg/dl " refering to women

specifically? I think I remember reading it was part of the conclusion

reached by a panel discussion and published in " Circulation " back in 1992?

Anyone know what page he is quoting?

He accuses the WAPF of relying on the " ignorance about nutrition " when it

appears he himself is relying on his reader's ignorance in this above issue

in order to paint a darker picture.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

> Unfortunately, longevity is a deceptive statistic. As we all know,

> statistics can vary quite a bit depending on the agenda of the

> publisher of those statistics. For instance, it is accepted as a

> general rule that smaller dogs live longer than larger dogs. I don't

> think anyone would argue that. But larger dogs do not have a lot of

> the quality of life issues that smaller dogs have. Larger dogs

> decline quickly when their time is coming. Smaller dogs linger on,

> developing a multitude of problems that they may live with for years

> before their time.

In humans, a longer life can be associated with more ill health at the

end of that life or with great health through an even longer life. A

simple life expectancy statistic doesn't help us distinguish, but we

can certainly distinguish with more data.

> Another point, moving away from dogs, is that our

> current medical science can do wonders to keep a person alive, whether

> that person's own body can support it or not.

True, but good health can keep people living past 100. If a diet

can't support that, then, it isn't the best diet. I don't think

Fuhrman substantiated very well that the Masai and Inuits diet can't

support longevity, but were he hypothetically correct, it would be a

valid criticism of the shortcomings of their diet (or lifestyle, or

whatever factors contributed to the failure of longevity to be

supported).

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Jan,

> So, apparently long life associated with a diet deficient in healthy

> animal products may be due to surviving the earlier problems associated

> with that diet, and building a great many immunities which they may

> carry with them into their older years. Unfortunately, one doesn't

> know when they are born if they will be part of the surviving group or

> the child mortality group.

I don't know about the Hunzans or Georgians, but Okinawa not only is

home to the largest proportion of centennarians, but has had the

highest or one of the highest life expectancies at birth since after

World War II. So in the case of Okinaway, this does not apply.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I don't know about the Hunzans or Georgians, but Okinawa not only is

> home to the largest proportion of centennarians, but has had the

> highest or one of the highest life expectancies at birth since after

> World War II. So in the case of Okinaway, this does not apply.

A counter-point to this could be that the centennarians were children

in the pre-WWII area so as children were subject to the selective

pressure of the low life expectancy era. Still, such selective

pressure is found in many other places without a high proportion of

centennarians and certainly operated to a very large degree among

high-animal product eaters like the Inuit and Masai, who lived very

dangerous lives.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/07, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> > On the other hand, it seems to me that " energy " is not necessarily a

> > good tracking device for overall health, at least in the short term.

> > While healthy people tend to be " energetic " (subject to individual

> > differences of course), " energetic " people aren't necessarily healthy

> > and in fact may be catabolizing their own body or have other factors

> > that allow them to be " energetic " despite poor health.

> >

> >

>

> Excellent points, given the limited iinformation. I personally found

> that there were plenty of other health benefits that have continued

> into my 95% raw organs/shellfish/whole grains + a little fruit diet.

I must have misunderstood you. I was responding to the idea that you

were subsisting on a mostly raw fruit diet, which was of course

killing your teeth. Or maybe you are saying that the benefits from the

raw fruit diet have continued with the new diet without the downside.

> In both cases, I no longer get the itchy bumps from bug bites, I am

> much less likely to sunburn, I have little to no body odor, my knees

> are far more resilient to squatting, I recover from injuries much more

> quickly, and the list goes on and on. The things I have noticed from

> the raw organs and shellfish are

>

> 1. Emotional stability

> 2. Better teeth

> 3. Greater physical strength

> 4. energy level is more " even "

Sounds pretty good to me. How do you eat your grains?

--

What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper

representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a

labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and

bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed,

but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the

most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies.

~ R. Tucker

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> > > If we are to believe Price's statements about the Masai versus the

> > > Bantu, then what Fuhrman is asking us to assume is that a diet that

> > > produces better teeth and bones will also produce a shorter lifespan.

> > > I find that unlikely. How about you, Chris?

>

> > Although not logically impossible, given the centrality of our bone

> > system it seems to me it would be highly unlikely, but actual numbers

> > would be needed methinks to lay to rest the naysayers.

>

> Our bone system is certainly central to our quality of life, but at

> least in some other species, length of life is to some degree

> inversely proportional to some measure of quality or functionality of

> life, like growth and reproduction.

I can buy that as a general principle, what I'm not yet convinced of

is such was the case with the Masai. Sure, we can hypothetically grant

that this could have been the case, but as yet we (or Fuhrman) don't

really know.

But sure in principle I think it is a no brainer. I think what

Ayurveda is referring too (and I'm no expert on this topic) is simply

a variation of the principle of hormesis, i.e. what is good in

moderate amounts might actually be counterproductive or even harmful

in large amounts.

> But the more important point, I

> think, is that there is a wide gap between the amount of animal

> products needed in the diet to prevent tooth decay and the amount of

> animal products consumed by the Inuit and the Masai.

I don't know this to be true of the *Masai*. It may have been true but

it may also have been the case that they consumed so much precisely

because for *them* that is what was needed. The more I study soil

fertility and brix the more I am convinced the biochemical

individuality both among individuals and groups is HUGE, and is a

concept which way pay lip service to but don't fully appreciate.

What is good for the soil in Massachusetts may not be good for the

soil in Washington. Further what may good for your soil may not be

good for the soil of your neighbor across the street. Same for humans

regarding nutrients, which is why the concept of brix applied to

humans so fascinates me (despite the difficulty of learning the

material and wading through some garbage along the way cuz Reams left

so few written materials). It allows in a real and unique way the

individualization of the nutrient complex applied to a specific

individual, while still holding to some general overall principles.

This really isn't all that far from Dr. Price who said over and over

in NAPD that a specific food was not necessarily a magic bullet, but

rather we can view all the diets as a way for us to gather the

bodybuilding materials necessary for our own health. And obviously

that is going to vary from person to person and group to group, while

the general principles remain the same.

> You can't keep

> lowering tooth decay beyond the point where you essentially eliminate

> it. So, the question would be whether the Masai passed that point and

> thereby consumed an amount of growth-promoting foods that fell within

> the range of what might shorten lifespan (to entertain the unproven

> hypothesis that such might happen).

But without knowing when and how they died this is all just guesswork.

I really don't have a beef in general with anything you have said, I'm

just dubious that this is the case with the Masai without seeing any

real numbers. I think it is certainly possible but was that in fact

the case remains to be seen.

> For a snippet of empirical support for the concept that what is good

> for the bones could contribute to negative effects that could

> conceivably shorten lifespan, while I was working on some research

> this morning I came across a citation of a study finding an increased

> risk of prostate cancer with increasing bone density.

>

> I suspect that this correlation reflects the substantially supported

> hypothesis that calcium intake suppresses the activation of vitamin D,

> which, since vitamin D protects against prostate cancer, increases the

> risk of prostate cancer. If this is true, the risk can probably be

> obviated by consuming sufficient vitamin D and the Masai would

> probably not be at risk as the association seems to be specifically

> associated with calcium from supplements and low-fat or skim milk

> while having no relationship to whole milk at all.

>

> Nevertheless, it fits within the what-promotes-growth-promotes-cancer

> paradigm, and although, as I said I believed before, on the whole the

> evidence suggests that the growth-promotion and cancer can be

> dissociated, it nevertheless supports a general association under some

> circumstances.

I don't have any difficulty accepting that, and it reminds me that

your comments should be taken in the context of answering

Grogan who was suggesting (I think) that such was an impossibility

with the Masai.

> I am not arguing that the Masai probably had short lifespans because

> of high animal product consumption, but simply trying to show that it

> is logical enough that if it is claimed that there is empirical

> evidence that it is so, that evidence should be looked at rather than

> dismissed because it appears fundamentally illogical, which it isn't.

I think you should re-read what *I* said. I never dismissed it as

being fundamentally illogical.

I said,

" Although not logically impossible, given the centrality of our bone

system it seems to me it would be highly unlikely. "

That is a far cry from saying it appears fundamentally illogical. I'm

doubting the probability (while being open to being shown otherwise)

not the fundamental logic of it.

--

What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper

representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a

labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and

bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed,

but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the

most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies.

~ R. Tucker

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/07, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> But without knowing when and how they died this is all just guesswork.

> I really don't have a beef in general with anything you have said, I'm

> just dubious that this is the case with the Masai without seeing any

> real numbers. I think it is certainly possible but was that in fact

> the case remains to be seen.

I agree. I don't think we have any disagreement at all thus far and

my comments in the last post were aimed more generally and thus as you

noted to be taken within the context of the discussion as a whole.

I'll report back if I find anything concrete on the Masai.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Jan,

> you are right it doesn't apply to the Okinawans because they

> eat more animal based foods- mostly fish, but also pork. The point was

> that the groups that ate the least animal foods – the Hunzans and

> the Vilcabambans – had poor health in the general population, even

> though some made it to a very long life, while the groups that have a

> much higher animal-based diet, the Okinawans, & Georgians (both the

> Abkhasians, & the Azerbaijanis) enjoy greater health AND a long life.

I see. I mistakenly thought you were making a general point about

longevity rather than a specific point about these two groups.

I've read that later research indicated the Georgians and Hunzas

didn't live quite as long as originally thought. Do you know anything

about this?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com