The Danger of Low Carb Diets..

[TromboneAl]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

 

[ERD50]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

I don't think so, I think healthy skepticism of all food we eat is reasonable.

Many things were believed to be true for millions of years. It is only through questioning them that we learn.

"That's the way we've always done it."


-ERD50

 

[haha]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

This sort of dangerous thinking could severely cripple discussion boards.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

I don't think so, I think healthy skepticism of all food we eat is reasonable.

Many things were believed to be true for millions of years. It is only through questioning them that we learn.

"That's the way we've always done it."

-ERD50

Then I need some randomized, controlled studies on the safety of water.

 

[TromboneAl]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

Here's my point, which I was trying to make in a concise way, since I was posting on my iPod touch.

Remember that I was a low-fat whole grains guy for many years. Then I was convinced that carbs were a problem, but still wary of fat. I felt that fat was OK only in that it let you eat less carbs.

Then, I had a revelation. What if there really is no good evidence that fat is bad for you? Just consider that for a moment. Imagine that Ancel Keys had never misinterpreted the WWII rationing study or the 7 countries study, and we had never gotten on this anti-fat bandwagon.

In that world, no one would think twice about eating fat.

Yes, healthy skepticism is good, but remember, you have to eat something. So until fat is proven to be bad, you shouldn't avoid it. To continue the legal theme, you have to go with the preponderance of the evidence.

My take is that the evidence against sugars and whole grains is stronger than the evidence against fat.

 

[harley]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

Obviously a bogus argument. The earth is only six thousand years old.

 

[bld999]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

Humans have canine teeth. Unless you want to argue that they evolved to break up and tear extremely tough vegetables, meat seems to be the next logical fodder. Fat is usu. attached. That does not prove anything about whether fat is good or bad, but fat has lots of useful energy.

 

[haha]

Humans have canine teeth. Unless you want to argue that they evolved to break up and tear extremely tough vegetables, meat seems to be the next logical fodder. Fat is usu. attached. That does not prove anything about whether fat is good or bad, but fat has lots of useful energy.

I have my doubt that any non-meat beyond leaves and the above ground parts of plants were eaten in the cold climates before the discovery of fire. Ever dug up a Camas root? Eating these things raw would soon wear out your teeth, if it didn't poison you.

Ha

 

[bld999]

I have my doubt that any non-meat beyond leaves and the above ground parts of plants were eaten in the cold climates before the discovery of fire. Ever dug up a Camas root? Eating these things raw would soon wear out your teeth, if it didn't poison you.

Ha

Once I heard the term "Death Camas" I dropped any inclination to try it...cooked or otherwise. Huckleberries are close enough to "reenactment" for me, plus they taste good.

 

[Texas Proud]

Here's my point, which I was trying to make in a concise way, since I was posting on my iPod touch.

Remember that I was a low-fat whole grains guy for many years. Then I was convinced that carbs were a problem, but still wary of fat. I felt that fat was OK only in that it let you eat less carbs.

Then, I had a revelation. What if there really is no good evidence that fat is bad for you? Just consider that for a moment. Imagine that Ancel Keys had never misinterpreted the WWII rationing study or the 7 countries study, and we had never gotten on this anti-fat bandwagon.

In that world, no one would think twice about eating fat.

Yes, healthy skepticism is good, but remember, you have to eat something. So until fat is proven to be bad, you shouldn't avoid it. To continue the legal theme, you have to go with the preponderance of the evidence.

My take is that the evidence against sugars and whole grains is stronger than the evidence against fat.

I think the problem with this is that man was not really have a concern for healthy eating until recently... the average age of man even 1,000 years ago was not that old... heck, almost everybody posting on this board would have been dead... was it because of fat or something else.... who knows for sure...

I think fat, and I am going to say meat for this, was eaten by early man is it has a lot of calories by weight and you can hunt for it easily...


On a side note, I just watched the report on 60 minutes about sugar.... it was interesting... one thing that I learned is that there is nothing on earth that has fructose in it is poisonous to us.... which is why we crave sugar...

 

[haha]

On a side note, I just watched the report on 60 minutes about sugar.... it was interesting... one thing that I learned is that there is nothing on earth that has fructose in it is poisonous to us.... which is why we crave sugar...

This is an interesting idea, but I have doubts. Some wild poisonous berries at least smell sweet, and that may inciate the presence of fructose. Anyway, did primitive man carry around a chem lab?

Ha

 

[Texas Proud]

This is an interesting idea, but I have doubts. Some wild poisonous berries at least smell sweet, and that may inciate the presence of fructose. Anyway, did primitive man carry around a chem lab?

Ha

Just passing on what I heard... but I would say that smelling sweet and tasting sweet are two different things... and even tasting sweet and having fructose in it might be something different... but you still did not disprove the statement...

Plus, when you see the guy who ate that berry first keel over dead, you will probably leave it alone.... I guess that was their chem lab....

 

[ERD50]

Then I need some randomized, controlled studies on the safety of water.

Water is a good example of something that science has been skeptical of. A few hundred years ago, sanitation issues with water were identified as a cause of disease.

And before science, people learned that they were better off drinking beer or rum than bad water.

Steps were taken to assure our water was clean, and that included mechanical, chemical, heat and UV treatment. Along the way, each was tested for safety.

I've never suggested anyone eliminate things from their diet that we've eaten for a million years, unless we have clear evidence of harm. So I don't even know why you would present that non sequitur?

-ERD50

 

[jclarksnakes]

Then I need some randomized, controlled studies on the safety of water.

I quit drinking water when I realized that it is the only place that fish have to fornicate.

 

[haha]

Just passing on what I heard... but I would say that smelling sweet and tasting sweet are two different things... and even tasting sweet and having fructose in it might be something different... but you still did not disprove the statement...

....

Oh, I realize that. I have no chem lab, no do I want to test the claim by tasting.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

I think the problem with this is that man was not really have a concern for healthy eating until recently... the average age of man even 1,000 years ago was not that old... heck, almost everybody posting on this board would have been dead... was it because of fat or something else.... who knows for sure...

I think fat, and I am going to say meat for this, was eaten by early man is it has a lot of calories by weight and you can hunt for it easily...

I used to argue that early man only lived to be 30 or so, so things that would cause him CVDor other problems when he was 60 were irrelevant. I've changed my thinking a bit, having read that although the average lifespan of man then was short, a significant number of prehistoric men did indeed live to 60 or more years of age, and they had value to the society (and to man's survival).

 

[REattempt]

I used to argue that early man only lived to be 30 or so, so things that would cause him CVDor other problems when he was 60 were irrelevant. I've changed my thinking a bit, having read that although the average lifespan of man then was short, a significant number of prehistoric men did indeed live to 60 or more years of age, and they had value to the society (and to man's survival).

Based on what I understand about advances in medicine during the early 20th century is that the rise of sanitation, medicines (particularly anti-biotics), safety awareness, rise of communication and education had a big impact on causes of death. In 1900, the biggest causes of death were:

Pneumonia (all forms) and influenza----40,362
Tuberculosis (all forms) ---------------38,820
Diarrhea, enteritis, and ulceration of the intestines------ 28,491
Diseases of the heart ----------------- 27,427
Intracranial lesions of vascular origin ---21,353
Nephritis (all forms) -------------------17,699
All accidents --------------------------14,429
Cancer and other malignant tumors ----12,769
Senility-------------------------------10,015
Diphtheria-----------------------------8,056

Reference here from CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

BTW, be careful with the most recent list. My understanding is that things like Pneumonia and influenza that are still on the list, are no longer due to not being able to address it early in life, but that many people who die older in age actually are classified as Pneu & Influenze because they are bed ridden and have fluid build-up in the lung and/or are older with a decreased ability to fight influenza.

Obviously our understanding and classification changed over time, so there may be some things that actually are "cancers"...however, it is obvious to me that the issues of CHD and Cancers becoming center stage and our longevity increasing is that we vastly reduced the major INFECTIOUS diseases that killed people early, allowing people to live longer and exposing or elevating those things that kill us later in life...CHRONIC disease.

I'm interested what happens when if/when we solve major chronic disease [with LCHF diets ]...

Oh, BTW...BACON!

 

[eytonxav]

I am not sure what the value is in comparing caveman diets to what we eat today. Heck, meats are now ladden with hormones and who knows what and fruits and veggies have been treated with pesticides/fertilizers/etc and then you have all the highly processed foods.

I still believe that some diets may be better suited for particular individuals based on their body composition, metabolism and underlying medical conditions vs one diet is best for everyone. Actually, diet is probably the wrong term to use, nutrition plan seems better.

 

[Nords]

I quit drinking water when I realized that it is the only place that fish have to fornicate.

... and defecate...

 

[web_diva]

And here's another article debunking the China Study from an independent source. It is from a non-profit foundation "dedicated to restoring nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism." Translation, not in bed with any industries.
http://www.westonaprice.org/vegetarianism-and-plant-foods/the-china-study-myth

 

[web_diva]

Should fats, eaten for millions of years, be innocent until proven guilty?

This non-profit nutritional foundation shows a lot science saying fats are high in vitamins and innocent.
"
For example, a study comparing Jews when they lived in Yemen, whose diets contained fats solely of animal origin, to Yemenite Jews living in Israel, whose diets contained margarine and vegetable oils, revealed little heart disease or diabetes in the former group but high levels of both diseases in the latter.14 (The study also noted that the Yemenite Jews consumed no sugar but those in Israel consumed sugar in amounts equaling 25-30% of total carbohydrate intake.) A comparison of populations in northern and southern India revealed a similar pattern. People in northern India consume 17 times more animal fat but have an incidence of coronary heart disease seven times lower than people in southern India.15 The Masai and kindred tribes of Africa subsist largely on milk, blood and beef. They are free from coronary heart disease and have excellent blood cholesterol levels.16 Eskimos eat liberally of animal fats from fish and marine animals. On their native diet they are free of disease and exceptionally hardy.17 An extensive study of diet and disease patterns in China found that the region in which the populace consumes large amounts of whole milk had half the rate of heart disease as several districts in which only small amounts of animal products are consumed.18 Several Mediterranean societies have low rates of heart disease even though fat—including highly saturated fat from lamb, sausage and goat cheese—comprises up to 70% of their caloric intake. The inhabitants of Crete, for example, are remarkable for their good health and longevity.19 A study of Puerto Ricans revealed that, although they consume large amounts of animal fat, they have a very low incidence of colon and breast cancer.20 A study of the long-lived inhabitants of Soviet Georgia revealed that those who eat the most fatty meat live the longest.21 In Okinawa, where the average life span for women is 84 years—longer than in Japan—the inhabitants eat generous amounts of pork and seafood and do all their cooking in lard.22 None of these studies is mentioned by those urging restriction of saturated fats.
The relative good health of the Japanese, who have the longest life span of any nation in the world, is generally attributed to a lowfat diet. Although the Japanese eat few dairy fats, the notion that their diet is low in fat is a myth; rather, it contains moderate amounts of animal fats from eggs, pork, chicken, beef, seafood and organ meats. With their fondness for shellfish and fish broth, eaten on a daily basis, the Japanese probably consume more cholesterol than most Americans. What they do not consume is a lot of vegetable oil, white flour or processed food (although they do eat white rice.) The life span of the Japanese has increased since World War II with an increase in animal fat and protein in the diet.23 Those who point to Japanese statistics to promote the lowfat diet fail to mention that the Swiss live almost as long on one of the fattiest diets in the world. Tied for third in the longevity stakes are Austria and Greece—both with high-fat diets.24
As a final example, let us consider the French. Anyone who has eaten his way across France has observed that the French diet is just loaded with saturated fats in the form of butter, eggs, cheese, cream, liver, meats and rich patés. Yet the French have a lower rate of coronary heart disease than many other western countries. In the United States, 315 of every 100,000 middle-aged men die of heart attacks each year; in France the rate is 145 per 100,000. In the Gascony region, where goose and duck liver form a staple of the diet, this rate is a remarkably low 80 per 100,000.25 This phenomenon has recently gained international attention as the French Paradox. (The French do suffer from many degenerative diseases, however. They eat large amounts of sugar and white flour and in recent years have succumbed to the timesaving temptations of processed foods.)
A chorus of establishment voices, including the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the Senate Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, claims that animal fat is linked not only with heart disease but also with cancers of various types. Yet when researchers from the University of Maryland analyzed the data they used to make such claims, they found that vegetable fat consumption was correlated with cancer and animal fat was not.26 "

The Skinny on Fats - Weston A Price Foundation

 

[harley]

In all this conversation about carbs and fats and what have you, an important food product seems to have been all but forgotten. Mice That Eat Yogurt Have Larger Testicles: Scientific American