Sixty Fiver

They were problems but not to the degree they are now... odds would have been good that you did not know anyone with diabetes and the rate of heart disease was about 1/3 of what it is today so you may have not known anyone with a bad heart.

Diabetes was first recognized in antiquity but because it was rare, it was usually fatal in either form since no-one knew how to treat it and people weren't sure what caused it save for one having sugar in their urine.... there were actually human tasters who worked with physicians to test for this.

Diabetes did not make the top ten in the US until 1922... more people were dying of senility than they were diabetes and type 1 was still fairly rare. Type 1 is on the increase and type 2 is no longer considered an adult onset disease as it is afflicting children and younger adults. Because diabetes can cause heart and stroke issues there is a good possibility that many of the heart related deaths are an effect of the surge in diabetes which may not be the thing that kills you but helps other things along.

https://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-bas...es-statistics/

The combined mortality rate for heart disease was 137 per 100,000 in 1900, it was 368 / 100,000 when I was born in 1965.

The number of deaths due to heart disease in the U.S were 268 / 100,000 in 2010 according to the CDC.

Machka 

But of course, we don't actually know that.


Well that's good ... so the more recent lean meat, whole grains, and lots of veg diet is working then

GeorgeBMac

The calories that replaced the fat that I used to eat have PARTIALLY been replaced with complex carbs. The difference has, so far, been taken from the fat of my belly.

And, I know the meat people say that "a carb is a carb" and they all increase insulin production. But, frankly, I would disagree. Our society has been flooded with simple sugars and refined carbs that do tend to put us on a cycle of sugar highs and insulin lows. But I do not experience that with complex carbs which release more slowly into the blood stream. Plus, in addition, I have been trying to eat meals that are balanced between carbs and protein -- so that reduces the issue even further...

And actually, the salads that I eat are low in the "fat soluble" vitamins D & E but high in A & K. But I am not sure that that is relevant because the body absorbs them "in the same way that it absorbs lipids" so they do get absorbed quite well in a low fat diet except that "any condition that interferes with fat absorption can precipitate a deficiency of the fat soluble vitamins" - but, I have no reason to think that that is happening.

And besides, I do not eat the salad ONLY to get a few vitamins. The green leafies and veggie's provide far more benefit (such as antioxidants) than it's ham & cheese on rye equivalent.

And, I would argue that fat intake -- whether good or bad fat -- tends to add calories at more than double the rate of carbs or protein and therefor increases BMI. So any benefit you may receive from them is mitigated by the increase in your weight --which has even more undesirable consequences. But, I do try to get in 15-20% of my calories in fats high in the 'good' fats... I could reduce it down to the 10-12% recommended by Esselstyn, but have chosen not to do that...

And, I would argue with you that a high carb diet does not provide satiety. I feel just as full and satisfied after a high carb meal as I feel after a high protein meal. And, if I eat starchy foods like potatoes, the satiety is actually higher. But, I would say that the carbs do not tend to stick with you as long as a protein does -- so I tend to eat a snack between meals...

But, to me, all of that is not the main point. I believe like Campbell and McDougal have pointed out that societies that ate the higher carb low protein meals tended to have fewer cardiovascular, auto-immune and cancer related diseases than the societies that ate the high animal fat and protein meals. And plus, most accepted (aka "mainstream") modern science tends to support that belief. Yes, there are those like Atkins who argue against it. But, to me, although they have made SOME points, they have yet to prove their point to the scope and degree that the "mostly plants" diet people have.

And, while I keep an open mind on values of the animal based high fat, high protein diets, I simply find that the evidence supports a whole food, plant based diet far more convincingly. And, in addition, just the way that I feel when I eat a whole food, plant based diet supports that opinion as well: My cravings are much reduced, I no longer feel hungry, my energy levels are higher and far more stable, I sleep better and wake up refreshed -- I even recently stopped drinking morning coffee because I just don't really need it anymore...

No, I continue to try to learn from the animal based diet proponents, but I do not want to go there until I hear evidence that is far more convincing than what I have so far heard.

Carbonfiberboy 

I think that is because the major use of milk in nature is weight gain. That's what it's for, but that's not in my best interest. Or Ms. Muffet's for that matter. I think it likely that whey and casein protein together might be a better idea and I'm probably going to change to that mix. Cost is about the same.

I don't think that there's any scientific evidence that a meat-based dietary intervention has a positive influence on long-term health either. You'd be hard pressed to find unequivocal scientific endorsement of any dietary intervention, except perhaps for a plant-based diet: https://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/plant_based.html

Fat Boy

I know of a couple. One for William Banting and one for President Taft. Regardless of what USA Today says, I think calling Taft's diet 'low-carb' is not even close. I don't know many 'low-carbers' who snack on gluten biscuits.

You get my point, though. I think a lot of what we've 'learned' over the last 100 years on diet has not been particularly helpful and has been fueled more by individual interests rather than hard data.

Fat Boy

Agreed on milk's primary goal. It makes little mammals into bigger mammals and it does a good job of it.

As far as a meat-based diet goes, I should point out that this is not what I am advocating, but the Iniut do quite well on their traditional diet. Having said that, so do the Kitavian people. What we see from both people is a lack of modern Western foods. This should be a pretty good clue that what our general population is eating is wrong. I think this is a point at everyone in this thread can agree on.

Fat Boy

Primarily, doctor's records.

You want to know a place a long time ago that it was a problem? Ancient Egypt, particularly among royalty. They ate a lot of grain/honey and they paid the price for it.

wolfchild

+ 1...and lets not forget what happened to all the Native and Aboriginal cultures who adopted a western diet of processed refined wheat flour and sugar. The result is nothing but health problems, obesity and diabetes. In the old days, sweet things such as honey and maple syrup were only eaten seasonally in very small amounts. In our modern society people eat sweet sugary foods all day long.

Carbonfiberboy 

Stimulated to look around some more, I found a study which looked particularly at supplementing with whey or casein:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19153580
and the subject of much of this thread, Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868
You pays your money and you takes your choice.

In an interesting look at consumption of antioxidants, we find Simvastatin and Niacin, But Not Antioxidants, Reduce Risk of Coronary Heart Disease:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/Da...ses.0102.shtml

Myosmith

Agreed. But even the farm raised tilapia can be a good protein source in moderation, as long as you are getting adequate Omega 3's to properly balance with the Omega 6's. The Western diet in general is too high in Omega 6's and low in 3's.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909

elcruxio

You really think that a specialized diet of a people who have adapted for that particular extreme diet for millenia can directly be implemented for the general populace of the western world?
That is as absurd as saying the okinawan diet or the japanese diet is the perfect system for everyone.

I find that the Kitavian study was highly suspect due to several factors but for the most part comparing people from two different continents with completely different gene structures is a bit of a stretch when comparing nutritional values. Hereditary factors weigh most when looking at type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and heart disease. Sweden and other scandinavian countries rank pretty high in all of these even though the nutrition in these countries is fairly good. Especially the actual scandinavia has a large portion of fish in the weekly diet. The national nutrition recommendations in these countries are almost perfect and if people were to stick by them most nutritional causes for the aforementioned diseases could be eliminated. Second part in the elimination of those diseases would be to make people move more but this isn't perfect world so...

Some things are just bad for you, no one is denying that, but carbs are not bad. Saying they are is simply not true. Or if they were we should be seeing mass deaths of professional athletes when they reach 50 years. The carbo loading pro cyclists do before races is insane for a normal person but they don't drop dead like flies because of it.
Proteins are not bad either but one should not eat them too much either. Same with fat. No carbs diet has the balance skewed in one direction where the sedentary eat choclate all day is skewed in the other.

Balance is everything. Eat something too much and it's going to be bad for you. Too much meat? Higher bowel cancer risk. Too much carbs? diabetes. Too much protein? Risk for kidney problems especially on the onset of diabetes when people go for extreme diets in order to get healthy. Glocose in urine and too much protein is not a good combination. Too much veggies? ...Umm... I don't think you can eat too much veggies but eating too much can deprive you from fat/protein/carb intake otherwise necessary.

Too much water for crying out loud. Too much water will kill you! Everything in excess is bad for you but if everything is ingested in moderation one should stay free of the most common nutrition caused diseases. Or not. thats genetics and luck for you.

Myosmith

Agreed. I eat whole eggs, but I also sometimes add extra egg whites for the boost in protein. The yolks are very nutritious but also high in calories. When I make an omelette for instance, I often use one whole egg and two additional egg whites. Extra yolks don't need to be thrown away. They freeze nicely in an ice cube tray and can be transferred to a freezer bag for storage. There are some recipes for sauces and baked goods that call for extra yolks so I use them when making an occasional rich treat. I eat a moderate to slightly high fat diet but get most of my fats from fresh nuts, nut butters, avacados, oily fish like salmon and mackrel, and olive and peanut oil. I try to limit (not eliminate) the amount of saturated fat though I'm keeping a close eye on the research which has partially exonerated this formerly demonized lipid. I'm still not a proponent of the high saturated fat diets.

wolfchild

I use a little bit of whey protein, 15 grams per day as my post-workout supplement. I always mix my whey with full fat milk or yogurt or kefir...I think whey powder is good to use as a supplement for people who workout a lot, but I would never use is as a replacement or substitute for protein from real whole foods. Some whey powders are really expensive, it seems that vegetarian protein such as brown rice/pea protein is even more expensive then whey.

Myosmith

I used to be a photojournalist and once interviewed a woman who was over 100 years old (I don't remember the exact number). She had been a farm wife most of her life and lived alone from her husbands death in their 70s until she was well into her late 90s. She had lived in assisted living for a couple of years and only recently entered a nursing home. She was still sharp as a tack and in generally decent health and only recently had developed problems walking. One of the questions I asked her was about the changes moving into the nursing home after being independent for so long. I'll have to paraphrase but her response was something along the lines of:

You know, when I came here they started telling me what to do and what and when to eat. Low salt, low sugar, low fat (with a scoffing tone), what do they know. I ate eggs for breakfast every day. I'm over 100 years old and I don't need somebody 40 years old telling me how to live longer, they should be taking notes.

God Bless her and I wish I could remember her name.

Fat Boy

Again...take it easy, Francis.

Your DNA, my DNA and the DNA from a Inuit or Kitavin is all very, very, very close. People who have adopted these eating habits have adapted readily.

You want to argue. Prepare for disappointment.

GeorgeBMac

I'll go back to an earlier post of mine that pointed out that much of the nutrition debate leaves a critical question unanswered. Namely: It's not which diet is 'best', but simply 'What is "best"?'
- Is it weight loss?
- Is it cancer reduction?
- Is it risk markers like LDL and HDL?
- is it insulin levels?
- Is it mortality?
- Is it overall health and well being? (and what IS overall health and well-being?)

So, this study proves this and that study proves that. And the debate goes on, and on, and on, and on....

For me, overall health is the goal that I chose -- and it seems to me that the "whole food, plant based" diets are the most effective way to get to that overall goal... Sure, other diets can boost this or reduce that -- but when overall health is the end product, I have not seen anything superior to a whole food, plant based diet. But, unfortunately, how does one "prove" that that is the case with an RCT? You can't because, very simply, you cannot measure "good health".

And that is pretty much the criticism that Campbell raises with all the different studies proving that 'this nutrient' is better than 'that nutrient'. He says you need to look at the overall affect using the overall diet...

hamster

There is heart disease and then there is heart disease.

In 1900, that was primarily rheumatic heart disease. Basically a bacterial infection, caused by staphylococcus, often occurring due to antisanitary conditions and overcrowding, and treatable with antibiotics. Look at the table here: https://books.google.com/books?id=3tE...page&q&f=false
Today it's virtually eliminated (in the developed world) and replaced with atherosclerotic heart disease (plaque buildup in the arteries.) But it's still a major source of mortality in Africa and South Asia.

And mortality is affected by treatment. Heart disease was pretty much untreated till 1950's or 60's. Since then doctors have learned how to manage it effectively, through blood pressure reducing drugs, statins, surgeries, etc. If you look at the more fundamental metric - prevalence of hypertension - it's been growing continuously all this time, it is even higher now than in 1965 and it's something like 5x higher (age adjusted) now vs. 1900. (There have been some positive developments since the 60's, mainly the reduction in smoking, but they've been countered by a large increase in obesity.) .

Carbonfiberboy 

As I pointed out, gram for gram whey protein is cheaper than meats or any other dairy. It's also much less expensive per gram than vegetable sources including "real whole foods" both in terms of dollars and calories. The great expense of whey/casein protein is a frequently stated myth.

15g of dry whey/casein protein costs 54-58 calories and $0.43 - $0.54. The cheapest canned salmon costs 126 calories and $1.14 for the same amount of protein. Round steak costs 131 calories and $0.60 for the same amount of protein.

Thus low cost is a great attraction in a whey/casein supplemented plant-based diet for athletes interested in weight loss and improving their lipid profile.

elcruxio

Small differences in genetics can have large effects. We share 50% of our dna with cabbage.
Might I also point out that the kitavin diet is by no measure low carb. Also you could point out the average lifespan of the inuits. There is much more to nutrition than just heart disease

hamster

15g of protein in the form of boneless/skinless chicken breast costs $0.28 - $0.35.

P.S. It is also not true that whey protein is less expensive than vegetable sources. 15 g of protein in the form of dry lentils costs $0.20 .. $0.25 (you get 115 g of protein per pound and they go for less than $2/pound). Dry chickpeas
break even with whey protein if you get them for $3/pound, and they can be found cheaper than that. As an added benefit, you get tons of fiber, which most people don't get enough of anyway.

hamster

We've learned a lot on diet, but there is a large gap between what we've learned and what we're practicing. For example, there has been a lot of talk about reducing saturated fat and added sugars and increasing vegetables since at least the 70's, and it all remained exactly that - talk - while the actual diet consumed by Westerners remains the same.

hamster

This should be a required reading before anyone tries to look for low-carbohydrate studies in Google:

https://www.plantpositive.com/37-cher...research-by-a/
https://plantpositive.squarespace.com...research-by-a/
https://plantpositive.squarespace.com...research-by-a/

It may be a bit hard to follow because it's a transcript of the video and it's supposed to be accompanied with slides.

The essence is that there are many, many studies comparing low-fat vs low-carb where "low-fat" happens to be clearly deficient in a number of ways. This source goes through the list of studies provided by a pretty well-known low-carb activist, and looks closely at what's happening there. You repeatedly see things like "low-fat" diets that turn out to have 12-16 g/day of fiber and no reduction in % of calories in saturated fat vs baseline;
low-carbers who manage to lose 10+ lbs but fail to see any improvement in LDL, or result in worsening LDL (indicating that, at constant weight, low-carb clearly worsens LDL); and studies that simply neglect to report dietary fiber in the low-fat group and/or LDL in the low-carb group.

Sixty Fiver

There are many LCHf proponents that consume a vegetarian diet... they simply replace the carbs in that diet with more healthy fats and people should not confuse this with a diet that has to be based on animal sources.

As for the climb in heart disease / mortality from 1900 to 1965 (where it peaked)... if follows the introduction of processed oils and higher carbohydrate consumption. Correlation does not always equal causation but the fact is that heart disease kills more people now than it did in 1900 and the thing that has changed is the much higher consumption of carbohydrates and processed foods. We are afflicted with the diseases that used to be the realm of the wealthy and indulgent and we really do eat like kings and queens here and most eat way too much.

For me this points to dietary changes as being the best method to improve health and as it applies to the original topic, it should demonstrate that stains are really not the answer for the majority of people.

So your cholesterol numbers are a spec high... is this a reason to take a drug that will increase your chances of developing diabetes and experiencing serious side effects when there is no evidence to show that statin use prevents heart attacks. Maybe you are supposed to have a slightly higher lipid level in your system and it has been shown that higher cholesterol levels benefit us as we get older.

Our brains need healthy fats.

phoebeisis

I don't buy chicken- but 15 grams of chicken-roughly .75 boneless skinless chicken breast- just 35 cents??
Milk- 400 cents/128 grams 3 cents per gram- chicken 35/15= 2.3 cents per gram?
I didn't think chicken was that cheap?
Figure 80 grams protein for 454 grams wet weight chicken breasts- 80x2.3=184 cents-
Boneless skinless chicken breasts are just #1 .84lb??
Didn't think it was that cheap?

Plant proteins-not as valuable or as high Biological value as animal proteins-incomplete if you use a single plant based protein-hence beans and rice
peanuts and bread
Hard to beat milk as a food if you are short of money-maybe eggs too
20 cents/egg- 6 grams or so of protein high biological value protein.
An older diet for kidney and even liver disease-featured eggs- because the MDs didn't want to expose the patient to any more nitrogen load than their diseased kidneys or even liver could tolerate.
Pretty sure they could get by on as little as 20-25 grams of high biological protein-roughly 1/3 of the usual requirement.
Might be a little off in my numbers
that diet was attached to two Italian names-forget the names??
Probably more important before dialysis was widely available-it-blood dialysis- is still HORRENDOUSLY expensive
Europeans frequently go for peritoneal dialysis-cheaper safer too-but more time consuming and it takes more involved patients.

GeorgeBMac

Dry chickpeas have become sort of a staple of mine...

One of my favorite snacks is: chickpeas, green peas, corn with a little brown rice or whole wheat pasta in a 'sauce' of basalmic vinegar, mustard, soy sauce and lemon juice. Provides 15 - 20 grams of protein.

Another snack food has become roasted chickpeas: after soaking overnight and boiling about 1 1/2 hours, coat with a mixture of olive oil, and your favorite spices (cumin, paprika, seasoned salt work well) and bake on a baking sheet for about 15 minutes. They become a finger food while watching TV instead of chips... a quarter cup has 1g fat, 11g carb, 4g protein and 3g fiber.