PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[sadsack]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

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 ...)

Same story here - I ran around to everyone I knew to be afflicted with ulcers - "Great news!" They thought I was crazy.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that big pharma had been developing Prevacid, Nexium, Prilosec, etc. during this time :rolleyes:

[jimmygu3]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Same story here - I ran around to everyone I knew to be afflicted with ulcers - "Great news!" They thought I was crazy.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that big pharma had been developing Prevacid, Nexium, Prilosec, etc. during this time :rolleyes:

Ding, ding, ding! Why solve a problem when you can sell somebody a pill they have to take every day for the rest of their lives?

Jimmy

[swgprop]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Ding, ding, ding! Why solve a problem when you can sell somebody a pill they have to take every day for the rest of their lives?

Jimmy

Just so. There's no money in curing diseases. Plenty of money in treating them.

There are a lot of "cures" for cancer that don't involve slash and burn practices promoted by big pharma and oncologists. Many are likely worthless but could some of them be for real? You'll never see the FDA endorse any. And the system precludes "legitimizing" them because there's no ROI potential.

So people continue to subject themselves to the horrendous treatments offered up by orthodox medicine.

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Just so. There's no money in curing diseases. Plenty of money in treating them.

There are a lot of "cures" for cancer that don't involve slash and burn practices promoted by big pharma and oncologists. Many are likely worthless but could some of them be for real? You'll never see the FDA endorse any. And the system precludes "legitimizing" them because there's no ROI potential.

So people continue to subject themselves to the horrendous treatments offered up by orthodox medicine.

the fda doesn't do research. to license a drug, the sponsor/manufacturer has to submit 2 positive trials designed according to certain standards, collecting side effect data and submitting that as well. this is expensive. thus no one is doing research on already available generic drugs, let alone herbs, etc. the issue is always- "who will pay for the research?" got a cure for cancer? great! now prove it.

the other side of this coin is revealed by herbs and supplements. they are not regulated. you don't really know what they do, because there is little research. furthermore, even if you had proof that supplement x is a wonder drug, you can buy a bottle with the label "supplement x" and, upon testing, learn there is NO supplement x in it, whatsoever. [i subscribe to consumerlab.com - they purchase supplements and send them to commercial labs for testing to see what's really in the bottle. i also subscribe to the natural medicines database - they pull together all the published research on supplements- it's skimpy.]

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

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.

If Goldberger said pellegra was caused by a high carbohydrate diet, he was wrong.

Pellegra is caused by ignoring traditional food practices.
Chemically, the mechanism is niacin deficiencty . . . .

The traditional food preparation method of corn (maize), nixtamalization, by native New World cultivators who had domesticated corn required treatment of the grain with lime, an alkali. It has now been shown that the lime treatment makes niacin nutritionally available and reduces the chance of developing pellagra. When corn cultivation was adopted worldwide, this preparation method was not accepted because the benefit was not understood. The original cultivators, often heavily dependent on corn, did not suffer from pellagra. Pellagra became common only when corn became a staple that was eaten without the traditional treatment. (Wiki)

The price paid for ignoring traditional food practices based on evolutionary imperatives is often severe, yet people unwittingly do it every day to their detriment. Below is a more extreme example:


Pellegra victim

[swgprop]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[i subscribe to consumerlab.com - they purchase supplements and send them to commercial labs for testing to see what's really in the bottle. i also subscribe to the natural medicines database - they pull together all the published research on supplements- it's skimpy.]

Thanks for the info on ConsumerLab and Naturaldatabase, will check them out.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Just so. There's no money in curing diseases. Plenty of money in treating them.

There are a lot of "cures" for cancer that don't involve slash and burn practices promoted by big pharma and oncologists. Many are likely worthless but could some of them be for real? You'll never see the FDA endorse any. And the system precludes "legitimizing" them because there's no ROI potential.

So people continue to subject themselves to the horrendous treatments offered up by orthodox medicine.

Interesting to consider a very implausible scenario: if someone outside the mainstream establishment actually invents a cure, let's say for multiple types of cancer, a cure that runs counter to a current theory or 2 that's a favourite of a powerful government muckety-muck apparatchik; how will it ever become mainstream? Not having an MD & PhD, how would that person avoid the quack label?

Yeah, it's completely become a "who do you trust" situation.

It really looks like the "medical establishment" is about to take a serious kick in the gonads on the manufactured demonizations of cholesterol and saturated fat.

I really don't know if that's good or bad - it's good that some chicanery may be outed, but more may go the Philipino psychic surgeons route.

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Interesting to consider a very implausible scenario: if someone outside the mainstream establishment actually invents a cure, let's say for multiple types of cancer, a cure that runs counter to a current theory or 2 that's a favourite of a powerful government muckety-muck apparatchik; how will it ever become mainstream? Not having an MD & PhD, how would that person avoid the quack label?

Yeah, it's completely become a "who do you trust" situation.

It really looks like the "medical establishment" is about to take a serious kick in the gonads on the manufactured demonizations of cholesterol and saturated fat.

I really don't know if that's good or bad - it's good that some chicanery may be outed, but more may go the Philipino psychic surgeons route.

you seem to think that someone will discover a cure without research or clinical testing- implausible to say the least. how do you know a cure is a cure? how do you know if it's safe? you have to do lots of trials, first in animals and then in humans. these trials are a big deal, and expensive. without the trials all you have is speculation, not a cure.

[swgprop]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Interesting to consider a very implausible scenario: if someone outside the mainstream establishment actually invents a cure, let's say for multiple types of cancer, a cure that runs counter to a current theory or 2 that's a favourite of a powerful government muckety-muck apparatchik; how will it ever become mainstream? Not having an MD & PhD, how would that person avoid the quack label?

At the risk of further exposing my quack-leaning ways I find this disturbing:

Gates to Donate $10 Billion for Vaccine Research

I'm sure big pharma is happy to ramp up production.

I often wonder what might transpire if a Gates or Buffet were to put that kind of money behind testing and trials of some alternative treatments (Laetrile, hemp oil, essiac, etc.)

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps something amazing.

[dummass]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

you seem to think that someone will discover a cure without research or clinical testing- implausible to say the least. how do you know a cure is a cure? how do you know if it's safe? you have to do lots of trials, first in animals and then in humans. these trials are a big deal, and expensive. without the trials all you have is speculation, not a cure.

It's fairly well documented that cancers will go into remission when excess calories are cut from the diet. Sugar, in particular, feeds cancer. By reducing dietary calories, particularly sugar calories, the body will produce less IGF (insulin growth hormone), a necessary precursor to the growth of cancer.

There are documented studies, both animal and human. Several books point this out, not the least of which is Good Calories, Bad Calories- by Gary Taubes, as suggested by Roger Mexico earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, the medical establishment doesn't advertise theories, studies, products or procedures that are not profitable to their business. Why should they?

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

It's fairly well documented that cancers will go into remission when excess calories are cut from the diet. Sugar, in particular, feeds cancer. By reducing dietary calories, particularly sugar calories, the body will produce less IGF (insulin growth hormone), a necessary precursor to the growth of cancer.

There are documented studies, both animal and human. Several books point this out, not the least of which is Good Calories, Bad Calories- by Gary Taubes, as suggested by Roger Mexico earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, the medical establishment doesn't advertise theories, studies, products or procedures that are not profitable to their business. Why should they?

i have read that, too, and it makes sense. i have no idea if oncologists talk about this with their patients, but i suspect not.

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

This article seems to indicate that meat wasn't a big factor, at least for this particular human relative:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/27/459...opithecus.html

COLLEGE STATION, Texas, June 27, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --Australopithecus sediba, believed to be an early relative of modern-day humans, enjoyed a diet of leaves, fruits, nuts, and bark, which meant they probably lived in a more wooded environment than is generally thought, a surprising find published in the current issue of Naturemagazine by an international team of researchers that includes a Texas A&M University anthropologist.

Darryl de Ruiter, associate professor in the Department of Anthropology, says the new findings are in contrast to previously documented diets of other hominin species and suggests that Australopithecus sediba had a different living environment than other hominins in the region. Previous research had shown that the australopiths of South Africa lived in the vicinity of grassy and open savannah-like areas, though it was unclear whether they actually occupied a savannah habitat, or if they lived in forested margins near the grasslands.

The team examined teeth from skeletal remains of a group of newly discovered hominins found several years ago in a South African cave about 30 miles northwest of Johannesburg and dated to about 1.98 million years old. The team, comprised of researchers from the United States, Africa, Europe and Australia, named the new species Australopithecus sediba and demonstrated that it displayed a mosaic of both human-like and ape-like characteristics shared both with other forms of Australopithecus and with modern-day humans.

"By examining material recovered from their teeth using diverse tools ranging from dental picks and laser ablation devices, we were able to determine precisely what they were eating," de Ruiter explains.

"This gives us a very clear picture of their diet, and it was surprising. It shows that they ate more fruits and leaves than any other hominin fossil ever examined, more like what a chimp might eat. There was no evidence of them eating native grasses of the area at that time, which is what we see in other australopiths in the region."
Australopithecus is a genus of hominins that is now extinct. Ape-like in structure, yet walking bipedally similar to modern humans, they are considered to have played a significant role in human evolution, and it is generally held among anthropologists that a form of Australopithecus eventually evolved into modern humans.

The Texas A&M anthropologist says the analysis of phytoliths – structures found in plants that often get trapped in plaque on teeth – alongside examination of the chemical makeup of the hominin teeth, suggests that they had a varied diet, and diet of early Australopithecus is a key component central to the study of human origins.

"It shows they had a diet more similar to that of a chimp than anything else," he notes, "though we cannot yet say how much overlap existed between the diets of hominins and chimps.

"They ate fruits, tree bark, nuts, leaves, and sedges, plants such as papyrus or cypress. They might also have consumed some type of animal protein, perhaps in the form of insects or meat, but a lot more research will be required before we can say for sure one way or the other.

"Our findings clearly show they had access to more food sources than we had previously established," he notes.

The team's work was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, the Institute for Human Evolution at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, the Ray A. Rothrock '77 Fellowship in the College of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M and the Max Planck Society.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: PaNu --Zone diet & suggestions

I enthusiastically welcome serious commentary, questions and criticism.


1 Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all flour

2 Start eating proper fats - animal fats and monounsaturated fats like olive oil - substituting fat calories for carb calories. Drink whole milk or half and half instead of skim.

3 Eliminate grains

4 Eliminate grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils) Cook with butter, coconut oil, olive oil or animal fats.

This idea is similiar to "zone diet" of Barry Sears.

Eliminate sugar: definitely agree with that. however, Honey and fruit were available to primitive people (not as "juice" of course.

"Proper fats" might not include whole milk. Dairy foods are the result of agricultural revolution, and not Paleo diets. Dairy has a lot of saturated fats. Paleo diet would have little saturated fat. Grass fed wild animals would have much lower fat than farm animals.

On this same argument, butter is probably not better for you than seed derived oils. It seems to be primarily the high glycemic sugar and flour that are the problems of the agricultural diet, not the oil.

Eat lots of nuts, and more fiber!

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu --Zone diet & suggestions

This idea is similiar to "zone diet" of Barry Sears.

Eliminate sugar: definitely agree with that. however, Honey and fruit were available to primitive people (not as "juice" of course.

"Proper fats" might not include whole milk. Dairy foods are the result of agricultural revolution, and not Paleo diets. Dairy has a lot of saturated fats. Paleo diet would have little saturated fat. Grass fed wild animals would have much lower fat than farm animals.

On this same argument, butter is probably not better for you than seed derived oils. It seems to be primarily the high glycemic sugar and flour that are the problems of the agricultural diet, not the oil.

Eat lots of nuts, and more fiber!

Ha Ha You sure are late to the party!

I don't agree with any of your objections, and it is not at all similar to the bogus "zone" diet, which I have criticized extensively. Saturated fat and milk are not dietary poisons, whether they are "paleo" or not (a term I abandoned using years ago). Glycemic index is not an important parameter in the genesis of health problems, only an issue for diabetics.

Read my blog and especially those listed on my blogroll if you'd like to learn more. My core dietary recommendations listed above remain quite sound. I would only add the principle of avoiding manufactured and processed foods of all kinds as much as possible - eating a whole foods diet.

I don't waste any time trying to argue about diet or help people with these things these days. I have better uses for my time.

PS Eliminate sugar means eliminate sucrose crystals added to foods, not eliminate fruit or vegetables.

[Slimprofits]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Did you all already see this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_1...n-doctor-says/