PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[Spartacus]

observational study alert !!!

I am EXTREMELY suspicious

I've read about Okinawan diets (very high pork, IIRC)[3] and Sardininian diets before and this is the first time I've read that they're low meat

One Okinawan scientist studied this. His theory, and I’m not sure I agree with it completely, is that because pig is the most genetically similar to humans, there’s something in the pork protein that helps repair arterial damage

right, Okinawans eat next to zero meat, but an Okinawan scientist studied pork ...


The further implicit claim that everyone needs to eat the same way also raises my suspicion [2]

The Longevity Expedition / Dan Buettner's search for the fountain of youth

The only proven way to slow down aging in mammals is caloric restrictions.

We should take in about 40 percent fewer calories than we normally eat—but that’s unrealistic

Text by Josh Dean

unrealistic and COMPLETELY UNPROVEN in humans. There has been TONS and TONS and TONS of research on rats and yes, even chimps that when applied to humans completely failed. Until the actual intervention studies are done in humans it's unproven.

The artful way he slips from talking about mammals to "We should take in about 40 percent ... ".

Proven in mammals (don't mention it's NOT proven in humans humans), but "we should ..." . Suspicion meter just keeps creeping upward. Why was this artful sneak needed? Someone have an axe to grind?

These diets [like Atkins, or the low-fat craze] are the worst.

mmm .... riiiiight. He's been looking at societies that he CLAIMS don't do Atkins (not one) or low fat (not one) , so he wouldn't know a rabid Atkins dieter if one bit him on the arse, but he knows Atkins or the low-fat ones are "the worst".

What has been proven is that over 1 year Atkins beat out Ornish and McDougall and Zone diets on all measures of cardiovascular health.

This was the recent Stanford "ATOZ" study (not observational), run by Chris Gardner, a scientist who has been a vegetarian for 23 years, has raised 2 vegetarian kids and plans to raise "the one that's coming" as a vegetarian.

http://med.stanford.edu/news_release...arch/diet.html
http://www.ehcafe.com/2009/10/23/sta...s-atkins-wins/


But this (that Atkins beats all the others) is unproven for the lifespan of human beings because the study was not for a lifetime. Note that I'm willing to state what's proven and what's not. What I'm objecting to is the way Buettner sling around "proven" and "unproven" in exactly the wrong places, and if he has good evidence (intervention studies, not biased obervational studies) they're not presented.

We've had 40 years of terrible science and national "diet associations" and "diabetes associations" and "heart associations" pushing the WORST DIET IMAGINABLE[1] for heart and diabetic patients. They thought their diets were "proven" too (based on observational studies).

On the Greek island of Ikaría, more people reach a healthy age 90 than anywhere else on the planet. We’re investigating the benefits of a local larval honey and the island’s radon-rich hot springs.

What, he's not going to collect rigorous evidence of how many calories they consume? Wouldn't that go a LOT further to prove his major point about calorie restriction than springs and Radon? Unless he had already decided before doing anything else that calorie restriction works ...

(note very carefully - he says calorie restriction is proven, yet there's nothing in there about the calorie counts. I Wonder why. A quick Google search didn't associate "count calories" with Buettner either. My suspicion meter is running way into the red area now. Maybe he doesn't need to count the calories, it's proven, so why bother?)


If you want another view on lowering calories, on this page look for "obesity paradox"

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/


[1] if the recent research results on Atkins(good), Ornish(bad), saturated fat (good for you or neutral), polyunsaturated fats (terrible), small dense ldl(really, really bad), fructose(really, really bad), wheat(really, really bad), oxidized ldl(really, really bad) and apoB is verified in further trials, the new diet, this time with proven results, will be the exact opposite of the last 40 years of cr*p shoved down our throats for obesity, heart health & diabetes management.

Richard Bernstein's clinical results are already far, FAR better than anything the ADA has put out for the last 30 years.

[2] note that Atkins always maintained that not everyone should be on his diet, while most of the current crop of vegetarians and low-fatters (Ornish & McDougall, and definitely a lot of the vegetarians) still maintain EVERYONE MUST cut the fat to near zero and cut meat, and MUST devour vegetables like a combine harvester. Atkins could have been 100% wrong about everything else and that one piece of advice would still put him leagues ahead of 99.9% of the world's dieticians. Who ever heard of a doctor saying EVERYONE with an infection should take pennicillin (or any drug?) Yet the d

[dummass]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Thank you Spartacus for an excellent rebuttal. One could also add as reference, The Vegetarian Myth, by Lierre Keith.

Ms. Keith was a vegan for twenty years, until illness caused her to rethink her politics and diet. Quoted from the back of her book: The truth is that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet, and more of the same won't save us. In service to annual gains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself.

(My apologies if this has already been posted)

http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...2451159&sr=1-1

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Thank you Spartacus for an excellent rebuttal. One could also add as reference, The Vegetarian Myth, by Lierre Keith.

Ms. Keith was a vegan for twenty years, until illness caused her to rethink her politics and diet. Quoted from the back of her book: The truth is that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet, and more of the same won't save us. In service to annual gains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself.

(My apologies if this has already been posted)

http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...2451159&sr=1-1

I've come across that, I'll have to get it soon, after I finish the 10¹⁰ items on the reading list. ; )

To be fair to Buettner, he's not dogmatically vegetarian. While not seeming to have rigorously counted calories he's at least reporting what he thinks he saw - lots of vegetables and some meat.

[swgprop]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

observational study alert !!!

I am EXTREMELY suspicious

Great response Spartacus, thanks.

[peakishmael]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Thank you Spartacus for an excellent rebuttal. One could also add as reference, The Vegetarian Myth, by Lierre Keith.

Ms. Keith was a vegan for twenty years, until illness caused her to rethink her politics and diet. Quoted from the back of her book: The truth is that agriculture is a relentless assault against the planet, and more of the same won't save us. In service to annual gains, humans have devastated prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, altered the climate, and destroyed the topsoil--the basis of life itself.

Dummass, I may be misunderstanding you, but are you arguing that if we had more vegans and vegetarians, it would cause an INCREASE in agriculture, which would be a Bad Thing?

A very high percentage of crops go towards feeding livestock. Ignoring all other pro/con nutritional arguments, meat is a very inefficient means of getting calories. That's why I went vegetarian: it's better on the planet, as it requires LESS agriculture, at least compared to commercial (non-hunted) meat. I may become a hunter after I move out of the city.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Keith's point is there are "farms" that are raising animals on grassland where they cannot grow corn or wheat or whatever. this grassland is better for the topsoil than monoculture.

the claim is directed at cattle & pig & chicken growers inefficiently diverting grain to animal feed and to vegetarians who think the only way to grow animals is through massive grain operations

Dummass, I may be misunderstanding you, but are you arguing that if we had more vegans and vegetarians, it would cause an INCREASE in agriculture, which would be a Bad Thing?

A very high percentage of crops go towards feeding livestock. Ignoring all other pro/con nutritional arguments, meat is a very inefficient means of getting calories. That's why I went vegetarian: it's better on the planet, as it requires LESS agriculture, at least compared to commercial (non-hunted) meat. I may become a hunter after I move out of the city.

[dummass]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Keith's point is there are "farms" that are raising animals on grassland where they cannot grow corn or wheat or whatever. this grassland is better for the topsoil than monoculture.

the claim is directed at cattle & pig & chicken growers inefficiently diverting grain to animal feed and to vegetarians who think the only way to grow animals is through massive grain operations

Exactly right, Spartacus.

We have a cattle ranch, here in Panama. All grass fed and organic. In our efforts to create a sustainable environment, we have introduce many native tree species, along water ways and hedge rows. We also maintain large areas of natural forest. The trees planted as hedge rows provide a pathway for the natural migration of wild animals; they also build soil nutrients and top soil.

There is a strong market for grass fed, organic, beef. As more people become educated on the subject, demand will increase. Feed lots do not produce healthy meat. The animals are sick and kept alive with antibiotics. Grain is not natural to their diets; it puts a tremendous strain on the animals.

I would be happy to provide reference material for anyone who's interested.

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i just finished keith's book, as well as michael pollan's omnivore's dilemma, and they make a powerful argument against industrial agriculture- monocultures planted fencerow to fencerow as well as against industrial animal production on feedlots and in battery cages. they also point clearly to that system's enormous dependence on cheap oil.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

thanks, I should have been clear about this:

the MEDIA will report on the book's arguments against vegetarianism because those are the most inflammatory, the most likely to generate ratings & media sales

A lot of (not all) vegetarians will try to distract from the message

The books' MAIN ARGUMENT IMHO (I don't care what the authors say, this is the main argument) is for growing animals on land that cannot be used for other purposes,

The books' MAIN ARGUMENT IMHO (I don't care what the authors say, this is the main argument) is against various agricultural practices (10 miles of neat hedgerows is not good for soil, corn is not good for cows)

(I haven't read the books, just a couple of synopses - most of the synopses, of course, focus mainly on the "angry recovering vegetarian" angle)

Exactly right, Spartacus.

We have a cattle ranch, here in Panama. All grass fed and organic. In our efforts to create a sustainable environment, we have introduce many native tree species, along water ways and hedge rows. We also maintain large areas of natural forest. The trees planted as hedge rows provide a pathway for the natural migration of wild animals; they also build soil nutrients and top soil.

There is a strong market for grass fed, organic, beef. As more people become educated on the subject, demand will increase. Feed lots do not produce healthy meat. The animals are sick and kept alive with antibiotics. Grain is not natural to their diets; it puts a tremendous strain on the animals.

I would be happy to provide reference material for anyone who's interested.

[peakishmael]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Keith's point is there are "farms" that are raising animals on grassland where they cannot grow corn or wheat or whatever. this grassland is better for the topsoil than monoculture.

the claim is directed at cattle & pig & chicken growers inefficiently diverting grain to animal feed and to vegetarians who think the only way to grow animals is through massive grain operations

Thanks for the clarification. We haven't seen grass-fed beef at our local farmer's markets, but I'll keep my eyes open.

[*T*]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

We haven't seen grass-fed beef at our local farmer's markets, but I'll keep my eyes open.

What a depressing statement. How sad they come to be fed anything else.

[Spartacus]

(since I make such a big deal out of this all the time - the correlation vs causation
point's been made before, but few go to these lengths to make it)


(incidentally, here's a little on Joseph Goldberger, if you're inclined to read more on him: )

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/goldberger/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goldberger

good reading, a little long; don't know where I got it, it was on my hard drive
...

The Third-Variable Problem:
Goldberger and Pellagra


In the early 1900s, thousands of Americans in the South suffered and died of
a disease called pellagra. Characterized by dizziness, lethargy, running
sores, vomiting, and severe diarrhea, the disease was thought to be infec-
tious and to be caused by a living microorganism of "unknown origin." It is
not surprising, then, that many physicians of the National Association for
the Study of Pellagra were impressed by evidence that the disease was
linked to sanitary conditions. It seemed that homes in Spartanburg, South
Carolina, that were free of pellagra invariably had inside plumbing and
good sewerage. By contrast, the homes of pellagra victims often had infe-
rior sewerage. This correlation coincided quite well with the idea of an
infectious disease transmitted, because of poor sanitary conditions, via the
excrement of pellagra victims.

One physician who doubted this interpretation was Joseph Goldberger,
who, at the direction of the surgeon general of the United States, had
conducted several investigations of pellagra. Goldberger thought that pella-
gra was caused by inadequate diet—in short, by the poverty common
throughout the South. Many victims had lived on high-carbohydrate,
extremely low-protein diets, characterized by small amounts of meat, eggs,
and milk and large amounts of corn, grits, and mush. Goldberger thought
that the correlation between sewage conditions and pellagra did not reflect a
causal relationship in either direction (much as in the toaster-birth control
example). Goldberger thought that the correlation arose because families
with sanitary plumbing were likely to be economically advantaged. This
economic discrepancy would also be reflected in their diets, which would
contain more animal protein.


But wait a minute! Why should Goldberger get away with his causal
inference? After all, both sides were just sitting there with their correlations,
Goldberger with pellagra and diet and the other physicians with pellagra
and sanitation. Why shouldn't the association's physicians be able to say
that Goldberger's correlation was equally misleading? Why was he justified
in rejecting the hypothesis that an infectious organism was transmitted
through the excrement of pellagra victims because of inadequate sewage dis-
posal? Well, the reason Goldberger was justified has to do with one small
detail that I neglected to mention: Goldberger had eaten the excrement of
pellagra victims.




W h y Goldberger's E v i d e n c e Was Better

Goldberger had a type of evidence (a controlled manipulation, discussed
further in the next chapter) that is derived when the investigator, instead of
simply observing correlations, actually manipulates the critical variable.
This approach often involves setting up special conditions that rarely occur
naturally—and to call Goldberger's special conditions unnatural is an
understatement!


Confident that pellagra was not contagious and not transmitted by the
bodily fluids of the victims, Goldberger had himself injected with the blood
of a victim. He inserted throat and nose secretions from a victim into his own
mouth. In addition,

he selected two patients—one with scaling sores and the other with diarrhea.
He scraped the scales from the sores, mixed the scales with four cubic centime-
ters of urine from the same patients, added an equal amount of liquid feces,
and rolled the mixture into little dough balls by the addition of four pinches of
flour. The pills were taken voluntarily by him, by his assistants and by his wife.
(Bronfenbrenner & Mahoney, 1975, p. 11)
Neither Goldberger nor the other volunteers came down with pellagra.

In short, Goldberger had created the conditions necessary for the infectious
transmission of the disease, and nothing had happened.
Goldberger had now manipulated the causal mechanism suggested by
others and had shown that it was ineffective, but it was still necessary to test
his own causal mechanism. Goldberger got two groups of prisoners from a
Mississippi state prison farm who were free of pellagra to volunteer for his
experiment. One group was given the high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet
that he suspected was the cause of pellagra, while the other group received a
more balanced diet. Within five months, the low-protein group was ravaged
by pellagra, while the other group showed no signs of the disease. After a
long struggle, during which Goldberger's ideas were opposed by those with
political motives for denying the existence of poverty, his hypothesis was
eventually accepted because it matched the empirical evidence better than
any other.

[swgprop]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

(since I make such a big deal out of this all the time - the correlation vs causation
point's been made before, but few go to these lengths to make it)


(incidentally, here's a little on Joseph Goldberger, if you're inclined to read more on him: )

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/goldberger/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goldberger

good reading, a little long; don't know where I got it, it was on my hard drive
...

Good stuff, thanks for posting.

[sadsack]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

(since I make such a big deal out of this all the time - the correlation vs causation
point's been made before, but few go to these lengths to make it)


(incidentally, here's a little on Joseph Goldberger, if you're inclined to read more on him: )

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/goldberger/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goldberger

good reading, a little long; don't know where I got it, it was on my hard drive
...

Thanks. This reminds me of the discovery that the vast majority of stomach ulcers were caused by H. Pylori infections. Unfortunately, it took the better part of two decades for the work of Dr. Marshall to be recognized.

Marshall similarly swallowed H. Pylori, except in this case, the infection hypothesis was proven when he developed ulcers as a result of his ingestion:

http://www.patienthealthinternationa...ture-articles/

The proof is in the eating
When Drs Marshall and Warren first announced they had discovered a bacterium that lived in stomachs, most experts dismissed the notion outright. After all, the stomach juices are so acidic that surely no living organism could survive in such a hostile environment? But the Australians persisted with their belief. First, Dr Warren showed that H. pylori was present in the stomachs of the vast majority of patients with peptic ulcers and grew the bacterium in the laboratory so that it could be studied further. Then, in the face of significant scepticism from gastroenterology specialists, Dr Marshall earned himself a place in medical history by swallowing an H. pylori-laced broth. One week later he began suffering headaches and stomach pains, felt nauseous and vomited, and an examination of his stomach revealed the classic signs of gastritis – the first stage in the development of a peptic ulcer.

An infectious disease
Luckily, Marshall recovered from his risky experiment. But, by proving that H. pylori infection could cause peptic ulcers, Drs Marshall and Warren pioneered a totally new approach to the diagnosis and treatment of the condition. Instead of being viewed as a “lifestyle” illness, ulcers are now known to be an infectious disease, and can therefore be treated with widely available antibiotics. Moreover, once the infection has been treated successfully it rarely comes back, sparing countless people the pain and suffering of a lifelong ulcer.

Almost all ulcers caused by H. pylori
Since the discovery of H. pylori, several tests have been developed that can tell whether someone is infected with the bacterium. These show that a staggering 90% of all patients with an ulcer are infected and are therefore eligible for antibiotic treatment. Intriguingly, however, not everyone who is infected with H. pylori develops a peptic ulcer. In fact, it is estimated that around two-thirds of the world’s population harbours the bacterium, yet most people do not have ulcers. This suggests that other factors must also be present for the damage to take place.

I remember when this went down -- this was my "Aha" moment that the average doctor didnt know WTF he was talking about.

Indeed, the saying is true . . .

"Trust, but verify"

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...obacter_pylori

funny you should post that ... I thought of including it in that post, and

I had a co-worker years ago who, in the late 1990s, had his gall bladder removed from what later turned out was a probable case of H.Pylori infection. None of his doctors in upstate NY had ever heard the news ... DAMN ... even I knew about this in the late 90s.

(Although you can never tell with these anecdotal stories exactly what the doctors did and why they thought they had to do it ...)

Thanks. This reminds me of the discovery that the vast majority of stomach ulcers were caused by H. Pylori infections. Unfortunately, it took the better part of two decades for the work of Dr. Marshall to be recognized.

Marshall similarly swallowed H. Pylori, except in this case, the infection hypothesis was proven when he developed ulcers as a result of his ingestion:

http://www.patienthealthinternationa...ture-articles/



I remember when this went down -- this was my "Aha" moment that the average doctor didnt know WTF he was talking about.

Indeed, the saying is true . . .

"Trust, but verify"