Protein will kill you ...

[laurence]

I'd have something snappy to say but this twig is stuck in my teeth.

30 days isn't much of a commitment, but I think we'll be able to feel a difference by then, if so we'll try another 30....

 

[laurence]

I'm all for this with the exception of the alcohol part. Rather give everything else up, but the wine is mandatory.

we love wine, and will add it back in moderation at some point, but we want to add things back in a slow, methodical way and isolate how we feel. Basically, after being pretty good for 18 months, we've been trashing ourselves for the last two with the stress of her finishing up all her projects and coming home and long work days for me. So we want to clean the slate....

 

[audreyh1]

Hey it's pretty well established that a daily glass of wine (or equivalent) is healthy - especially for men. So there is no reason to cut it down to zero!

Audrey

 

[Nords]

Wab, DW and I discussed it, we are going to go 30 days on a "cleansing" diet, no sugars, alcohol, refined carbs red meat etc.

Yikes, is that cleansing with a jackhammer and a wire brush?!? I would've started with a more achievable goal like not eating after bedtime!

I don't know who's going to suffer more-- you having to go to the office while your body's trying to "adjust", your co-workers (who, for their own safety, really deserve to be warned of what's going on in your life), your wife having to be home all day with twigs & nuts, or, even worse, having to clean out the fridge & freezer while dealing with the cravings.

Could you post your progress daily so that we know when to have the rescue service check on you guys? If we don't hear from you in 24 hours we'll know there's trouble...

 

[Cool Dood]

I think we live in an unusual window of time, when everyone cares about all this health nut stuff. Throughout all of history until about thirty years ago, no one knew or cared what nutrients were carcinogenic or antioxidants or good or bad cholesterol; they just went about their lives and derived nourishment and pleasure from food. In about thirty years, what you eat will have a completely negligible impact on your health compared to pills, nanobots, genetic engineering or whatever; people will just go about their lives and derive pleasure from food.

It's only in this little window of time that anybody can plausibly claim to give a crap whether you eat "whole foods" or meat, or drink alcohol or smoke tobacco or other goodies. And the whole period will have lasted for less than the duration of an average human life in the first world.

I think I'll just skip out, and consume pretty much what I please within moderation.

 

[HFWR]

Or, to quote a bumper sticker:

"Back in the 70s you did acid; now you won't eat white bread..." :

 

[Cool Dood]

Oh, and just to clarify, I mean no offense whatsoever to anybody. Other people are free to believe in what they want and live how they want, and it's no skin off my back. I'm merely offering my observations, and not trying to criticize anyone else's choices. I guess words like "health nut" could be taken as offensive, but it's just my mental shorthand as I quickly jotted down my post.

 

[wabmester]

Personally I believe that a predominantly plant-based, low-protein, high-carb diet combined with a sedentary lifestyle is a recipe for disaster.  What you see in developed countries is a big rise in metabolic syndrome when the refined carb intake is high and exercise is low.

I'm not an expert, but I believe you are correct about the refined carbs, and wrong about high-carb in general.

Campbell stresses *whole* plant-based foods. Even the traditional low-fat guys like Ornish are now agreeing with the low-carb guys about refined carbs. This is one area in which everybody seems to be in agreement, and that is that highly refined carbs are too easy to digest, so they cause a spike in insulin, and those insulin spikes are bad for you in the long-term. If you're always awash in insulin, then you'll probably develop insulin resistance, which is the precursor of type-II diabetes.

So, my interpretation of Campbell's *whole* plant thing is that unrefined carbs take longer to digest and don't cause the same sort of insulin spikes you see with other carbs.

I used to think that a calorie was a calorie, and a carb was a carb, but now I'm convinced that there are important differences.

I've seen how a low-carb diet improves my blood chemistry, but now I'd like to see what a high-carb diet does where the carbs are all in their native hard-to-digest forms.

 

[wabmester]

Wab, DW and I discussed it, we are going to go 30 days on a "cleansing" diet, no sugars, alcohol, refined carbs red meat etc.

I'm on day three now.   I eat nuts and fruits for snacks, and soups, salads, and stir-fry veggies for other meals.   So far, I feel great!  Cleaner, faster, smarter, and taller.

The placebo effect is an amazing thing. 

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I dont think Ornish was ever "pro refined/simple carb" or even neutral on it.

His diet stresses using beans and legumes, fruits, grains and vegetables, going moderate on nonfat dairy and commercial non/lowfat packaged goods and avoiding as much as possible meat, oil, avocado's(!), olives, nuts and seeds, dairy that isnt nonfat, sugar and sugar derivatives and alcohol.

Its not just an "avoid fat" diet, its an "avoid fat and simple carb" diet.

My wife and I both lost weight on his diet last year, felt great, energetic and we have great bloodwork numbers. We fell off of it during her pregnancy...there was something about "I WANT A STEAK AND CHEESE RIGHT NOW OR I'LL KILL YOU" moment...but I think we'll get back to it this summer. Its preparation intensive (but I have time), fairly flavorful and interesting recipes, filling, and pretty dang inexpensive.

 

[wabmester]

Its not just an "avoid fat" diet, its an "avoid fat and simple carb" diet.

There's a difference between "simple carbs" and refined/processed carbs.

For example, fructose is a simple carb, but apples and other fruits lock fructose into the fruit matrix, where it's not as easy to digest as refined sugar.

On the other hand, the starch in potatoes is considered a "complex" carb, but it is easily digested and absorbed and may cause insulin spikes. I've never seen a study on potatoes per se, but I have looked at some stats for the Irish. Ireland is the biggest consumer of potatoes in the EU, and they also have the highest incidence of heart disease in the EU. Of course, there could be other (hic!) factors at work too.

 

[Cool Dood]

...fruit matrix...

I know there's a joke in there somewhere...

 

[veritasophia]

I think that everyone is different and you just have to find what works for you.

That's pretty much the bottom line isn't it? There are tests that can be performed to discover what macronutrient ratio is best for you. I believe these are mainly based on genetics and how you feel after meals with different macronutrient ratios. You then eat whole, natural foods according to your "type": carb, protein, or mixed. "The metabolic typing diet" is a book on the subject. Dr. Mercola also pushes this idea: http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/26/metabolic_typing.htm (watch the hype! Mercola likes raking in the cash)

My great grandparents on both sides were farmers. They ate tons of cheese, meat, lard, vegetables in season, and whole grain bread. All of them enjoyed good health with no chronic diseases into their late 80s, early 90s. I now eat a similar, high fat diet and I'm satisfied and feel great.

I was a vegetarian for 5 years, my health seemed to improved at first (dropped the processed crap) but then it started slipping downhill. To remedy this I tried extreme veganism for 1/2 year (raw vegan with a Carb/Protein/Fat ratio of 80/10/10), again I felt good at first but then I noticed I was often moody and depressed. I had digestion problems and I was constantly hungry (eating 3000+ calories/day). Finally switched to my current diet, the reverse happened. I felt worse at first but now I feel great, I eat fewer calories and have a sunnier disposition.

Like Grumpy said "find what works for you"

 

[Cut-Throat]

These diet discussions remind me of the spending vs. saving threads. It's all about Moderation and Balance. Whether eating, drinking or spending.

 

[Cool Dood]

Hey Cut-Throat........... We agreed on something

 

[wabmester]

Hey Cut-Throat........... We agreed on something 

Danger, Will Robinson!

Already mentioned in this thread, but I'll repeat: Moderation and balance doesn't seem to work. What seems to work (according to Campbell, Ornish, et al) is pretty radical diet changes that will slow and reverse the progression of chronic diseases.

 

[Cool Dood]

Work for what? What are you trying to achieve? Weight loss? Muscle gain? Immortality?

Balance and moderation work fine for keeping an ordinary body reasonably fit and healthy, and I'm afraid that no diet has ever provided immortality. If you're looking to prevent all kinds of serious disease, good luck with that but I suspect that diet will have a very limited impact in that regard, at least in the course of my life. Maybe things look different if you're already older than I am?

Also I have no idea who Campbell and Ornish are. Is he the soup guy?

 

[wabmester]

If you're looking to prevent all kinds of serious disease, good luck with that but I suspect that diet will have a very limited impact in that regard, at least in the course of my life. Maybe things look different if you're already older than I am?

Right, I'm on a holy quest to reduce my risks of chronic diseases now that I've hit 40 and my past behavior and diet is starting to catch up with me.   Maybe you could elaborate on why diet is irrelevant, especially in light of this Campbell guy's long-term study that strongly suggests otherwise.

I did the moderate balanced low-fatish thing for over 20 years.    My total cholesterol was never over 200, so all the MD's I visited (none of whom studied nutrition for more than an hour) all told me that I was in great shape.

Then I found a doc who actually did his post-doc work in nutrition.    He said "d00d, go low-carb to get those TriG's down and HDL up -- stat!"    That's what got me interested in this stuff.

And last week, Dad got diagnosed with prostate cancer.    Another disease of old age.    My chances of getting the disease are very high, especially as I get older.   You too.    But not the people of rural China.

So, yes, I like to do low-cost things to mitigate high risks.   I don't like the idea of getting cancer, having a quadruple bypass operation, or dealing with various "stones" and sludge in my body as I age.

 

[Gone4Good]

Ummmm! Animals are tasty.

If I have to give up stuff that gives me happiness just to squeeze a few extra years into what will become a barren and joyless existence, I say pass the bacon!

 

[Cut-Throat]

Right, I'm on a holy quest to reduce my risks of chronic diseases now that I've hit 40 and my past behavior and diet is starting to catch up with me. Maybe you could elaborate on why diet is irrelevant, especially in light of this Campbell guy's long-term study that strongly suggests otherwise.

I did the moderate balanced low-fatish thing for over 20 years. My total cholesterol was never over 200, so all the MD's I visited (none of whom studied nutrition for more than an hour) all told me that I was in great shape.

Then I found a doc who actually did his post-doc work in nutrition. He said "d00d, go low-carb to get those TriG's down and HDL up -- stat!" That's what got me interested in this stuff.

And last week, Dad got diagnosed with prostate cancer. Another disease of old age. My chances of getting the disease are very high, especially as I get older. You too. But not the people of rural China.

So, yes, I like to do low-cost things to mitigate high risks. I don't like the idea of getting cancer, having a quadruple bypass operation, or dealing with various "stones" and sludge in my body as I age.

I agree with you on this. If you've got a family history of chronic diseases, it probably helps to do all you can to avoid them. Although any diet that claims certain foods are evil, are eventually proven untrue.

Obesity seems to be biggest risk factor of many diseases. And there are proponents of a starved calorie diet promotes longevity. Common sense Fruits and vegetables and plenty of excercise are probably the bst that you can do. I think if you can maintain your health until age 80, you're doing pretty good. After that, it's icing on the cake.

But I'm also realistic that at age 80, most of us will look at life a little differently than we do today. Remember how excited you were on Christmas Morning when you were 8 years old? I don't know of too many folks that are that excited when they're 45-50 years old on Christmas morning.

 

[Cool Dood]

No need to be combative, we can have different opinions.

It seems to me that by the time I'm looking at diseases of old age, it will be ten thousand times more effective to take a pill, or have the HDUltraSound treatment, or get the robots put in me or whatever, than changing what kind of bread I eat. I don't even know what kind of studies you're looking at or how diet is supposed to help me, but I wouldn't count on any diet to beat your serious diseases. Feel free to show me how diet is relevant to my life in the year 2030, when I'll be going in for my early prostate detection exam and we'll all be eating SynthoMeat.

I wouldn't follow some diet anyway -- who the hell wants to keep track of all that information every time they eat, and limit what they eat for decades on end? No thanks. Just the fact that you could compare, however tangentially, your approach to health and disease with the approach of a Chinese peasant, tells me all I want to know. Who cares if you don't get prostate cancer if you're a Chinese peasant?

Maybe Campbell or your low-carb doctor is right, maybe they're wrong. Anyway, you can find a doctor specialized in nutrition who agrees with any point of view, so why not just pick the one you like? But seriously, I haven't seen anything that shows me conclusively that one specific diet approach has proven benefits or proven risks (other than an overall moderation and balance), and even if that exists I don't believe it will mean a thing compared to what tiny robots can do by the time I need it (hey, maybe we'll be the tiny robots), and even if that's just a nerdy fantasy that never comes true then I'd still rather enjoy tasty food for decades on end followed by disease, compared to painfully watching and limiting everything I eat for my whole life.

Does that clear things up at all?

Sorry if this was a little random, I was busy doing other stuff while trying to write this....

 

[Zipper]

Get rid of transfats and glucose-fructose corn sweetener.

Inactivity and the 2 items above have resulted in a nation of lardasses.

 

[wabmester]

CT and CD, let me simply suggest that you get yourselves to a library and check out a copy of the book (called the China Study, in case you missed the original post), and then make your own call.

I can tell you that he addresses your points directly.    He seems like a smart guy who did a careful study, and understands the mechanisms in play down to the molecular level.    I don't have that kind of cred, but let me summarize a couple of his points:

1) Consumers are confused about the health effects of diet.    There's lots of blame to spread around, and he does a pretty good job.   He also points out flaws in the studies that "prove" how various things are good or bad for you (the root of much of our confusion).

2) We're brainwashed to believe that drugs and modern medicine will provide a short-cut to health.   He stresses whole foods rather than the traditional reductionist approach to isolated compounds, drugs, and brute-force surgeries.

Maybe he's a quack.   Maybe this book just adds to the confusion.   I honestly don't know, but as I've said before, I think it's worth reading.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Came across this when searching for related articles.


The average lifespan for women in Okinawa is 84 (compared to 79 in American), and the island boasts a disproportionately large number of centenarians. Okinawans have low levels of chronic illness—osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis and stroke—compared to America, China and Japan, which allows them to continue to work, even in advanced years. In spite of Okinawa's horrific role in World War II, as the site of one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific, Okinawa is a breezy, pleasant place, neither crowded nor polluted, with a strong sense of family and community and where the local people produce much of what they consume.

And what do Okinawans eat? The main meat of the diet is pork, and not the lean cuts only. Okinawan cuisine, according to gerontologist Kazuhiko Taira, "is very healthy—and very, very greasy," in a 1996 article that appeared in Health Magazine.19 And the whole pig is eaten—everything from "tails to nails." Local menus offer boiled pigs feet, entrail soup and shredded ears. Pork is cooked in a mixture of soy sauce, ginger, kelp and small amounts of sugar, then sliced and chopped up for stir fry dishes. Okinawans eat about 100 grams of meat per day—compared to 70 in Japan and just over 20 in China—and at least an equal amount of fish, for a total of about 200 grams per day, compared to 280 grams per person per day of meat and fish in America. Lard—not vegetable oil—is used in cooking.

Okinawans also eat plenty of fibrous root crops such as taro and sweet potatoes. They consume rice and noodles, but not as the main component of the diet. They eat a variety of vegetables such as carrots, white radish, cabbage and greens, both fresh and pickled. Bland tofu is part of the diet, consumed in traditional ways, but on the whole Okinawan cuisine is spicy. Pork dishes are flavored with a mixture of ginger and brown sugar, with chili oil and with "the wicked bite of bitter melon."

Weston Price did not study the peoples of Okinawa, but had he done so, he would have found one more example to support his conclusions—that whole foods, including sufficient animal foods with their fat—are needed for good health and long life, even in the Orient. In fact, the Okinawan example demonstrates the fallacy of today's politically correct message—that we should emulate the peoples of China by reducing animal products and eating more grains; rather, the Chinese would benefit by adding more strengthening animal foods to their daily fare.

 

[wabmester]

Weston Price did not study the peoples of Okinawa, but had he done so....

Here's the thing that separates Campbell and the China Study from the *many* anecdotes in this thread.   Campbell did the study.   The most comprehensive study of the effects of diet on health ever done (so says the blurb, anyway).    Read the book, then decide.