Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : vitamins herbs supplements longevity and aging -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (12925)	10/29/2015 11:12:27 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17056

Just based on the country studies on Cancer and HD including Ancel Keys' 7 country study, it would seem advisable to up vegetable intake, and if possible stick to organic foods, i.e. raised without herbicides and pesticides. This apparently reduces the pesticide load by 70% according to some studies. And reduce meat consumption by 2/3's per serving, and increase fish especially north sea fish consumption to 2-3 times a week. I would as well reduce calories by 1/3 and reduce simple carbs such as white bread, cakes etc, by at least 2/3rds. Increase cold pressed oils and eschew all processed vegetable oils such as canola and corn oil. Eat mostly brightly coloured dark red, purple, blue, yellow, green orange carbs, and leave white carbs alone for the most part. Increase intake of phytochemicals and bioflavonoids and soy. Reduce dairy to a minimum. Avoid heating cholesterol containing foods where possible. If u must eat bread then eat sourdough or dark rye, as it will not affect the blood sugar. Get the equivalent exercise to 3 miles walking per day. This altogether puts u in the low risk group for Cancer and heart disease. If u are over 50 take folic acid and vitamin b12 at 2000 mcg per day. Take 2000 iu of vitaminD3 per day. Drink skim milk, not fat. Drink Orange juice from fresh squeezed oranges. Apple juice is also good for you, as is grape juice, and pomegranate. Despite what contradictory studies say about active cancers for prevention, no amount of anti oxidants can be overdone. I base this partly on the dietary advice given by physicians tohomocysteneurics who cannot be treated for their extreme hypercholesterolemia by drugs. They are told to go on a super anti oxidant diet as the only therapy possible. I also base it on the Danish experience with terminal hypercholsterolemics who can be cured or given a new lease on life by a mere 6 months on the Greenland eskimo traditional diet which includes whale fat. or muktuk which BTW the Greenland eskimo knew was a health given per se. And on the experience of Victor Herbert, long an adviser for the FDA who advised despite his scorn for vitamins supplementation that bread be fortified with folic acid and B12 as well as riboflavin. Since this fortification, the curve of incidence of HD has declined in the USA. Co incidence? Perhaps not. That is my advice.

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (12925)	10/29/2015 11:25:38 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17056

I decided to do a bullshit sandwich. Two pieces of sage advice surrounding thickly sliced bullshit. Now you are championing medical doctors where several posts ago they were idiots. How Donald of you. Well ok, at least he is interested in the subject. The trouble with medical doctors of the heart, is that while their medical knowledge is valuable, their exposure to research statistics vis a vis diet and the outcomes or markers is not necessarily better than any other analyst. To ignore what happens to a million people or 300 million, is perhaps unwise. I find myself at odds with Davis as his markers and decisions are very hardbound based on his own limited research. These subjects take a LOT of study and MANY studies to make up one's mind. Your statement that several accepted ways of looking at diet and the conclusions the advisories made are flawed based on these logical levels: 1. One that the conclusions and advice were widely made and accepted. 2. That the advice given was followed to the letter. 3. that given the following of the advice e.g. eat more polyunsaturates, the results were decidedly negative. 4. that these results are valid, due to use of blind control groups and elimination of confounding factors. 1 has a generality problem. Who found what from which study. 2 has a compliance problem. Who followed the advice, and for how long and how strictly? You will never know as there were no clinical studies done probably that carry any weight. Reporting studies sometimes called introspective studies are notoriously innaccurate and imprecise as people like confabulate and can't remember. They want to please researchers and look good. 3 has a results problem. See 2. How were the results collected and what analysis was made? 4 flows from all 3 preceding. Confounding factors not controlled for with no control groups, blind(v) results. “Reduce your intake of cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat.” “Use more polyunsaturated fats.” “Move more and eat less.” “Oats are heart healthy.” “Follow a balanced diet.” “Eat more healthy whole grains.” None of the above has been disproven. If so, quote the group of studies which do so. And it is not enough to say so, or we now know. At least give a link or reference.

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (12925)	10/29/2015 11:46:41 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17056

Ancel Keys made no assumptions or statements about saturated fat in his 7 countries study. What he found was that people with more Omega-3 or alpha linolenic acid in their diet, supposedly derived from fish, had far less heart disease and lived longer on average. These people were from Crete, where they exercise/walk a whole lot, get lots of sun, and eat a great deal of Tuna which is rich in Brain and blood vessel selenium. Their meat is also does not contain antibiotics, hormones, or much insecticide, as it is grass fed. Even their vegetables had Omega-3 in them. And they used purslane commonly and grew their own gardens. A very similar dietary pattern and agriculture, seafood harvesint is found among a mountain dwelling Island people of Okinawa where they live the longest of any group in the world on average. All in all it helps to live on an island, eat seafood, grow your own presumably organic garden, get a lot of sun, walk a lot, eat little and eschew salt. The reason we know it is diet is when these people come to the US and start eating our food, their HD and mortality figures soon match ours. This is enough of a control group for the penny to drop. Diet matters. There also is ample evidence that less food/calories really matters too. Not many clinical studies, but widespread observation of wartime disease rates. just about every wartime population saw a general health increase. Two things happened in these instances, less food in general and far less meat. It is relatively easy to come up with pro meat anything goes, lets return to our bad diet. But something is causing our epidemic heart disease and cancer rates.

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (12925)	10/29/2015 11:48:35 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 17056

Regarding straw men: "corn oil, high-fructose corn syrup, pasta, low-cholesterol and low-fat products" Who the hell said that such slop was advised from the retreat from standard western developed country diets? Hooey.

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (12925)	10/29/2015 12:11:29 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17056

Davis wants you to partake/indulge/gluttonize (I think u will take your pick it is safe to say) of products that show a 17% increase in Cardiac problems and Cancer, based on: 1. 17% more Cancer and HD is a small difference.. 2. The factors that could have caused the difference are most probably hidden. i.e. piggybacking lifestyle factors such as more meat, the more booze and sin, cigarettes, sedentary behaviour etc.. 3. The effect of meat eating was offset by fiber intake. 1 is dangerous. 17% given that it is only an observational study is what is called a smoking gun. It is very hard to measure quantities and over a large amount of time. 2. is highly assumptive. To ignore the primary factor is perhaps dangerous as well. To make up probable other causes is not required. Granted your have to rule out other factors. More study, but preliminary indictions are troubling. And this is the result of 100 studies, actually the real number. Not 1. So 100 times more troubling, wouldn't u say? 3, And how pray tell do we know that? That fiber is offsetting If it were, then meat is more dangerous. Of course it makes intestinal flora not the least effect is to make b12 which is vital. Meat per se in small quantity all other toxins being equal is probably not a loaded gun, but given the country information, amounts matter. The subject dances around well known facts. Vitamins and pro anthocyanidins are contained in vegetables and fruit. Without such micronutrients we quickly succumb to malnutrition. Given our 3 squares, without micronutrients but with sufficient calories, we starve to death in less than a year. Without vitamin b12 we live only 5 years. The discovery of micronutrients such as bioflavonoids and sterols was made from about 1938 to 1945. Their importance was not realized until after the war. It is a fact, if u don't eat your vegetables and u don't avoid overcooking some of them sonny, u gonna die. The danger in telling people that meat is fine, eat all u want, we made a big mistake is we never made any mistake in the first place. And we eat far too few vegetables. And the monogram u wrote is right in one respect only a very difficult and very long term controlled clinical trial could establish the right and wrong of it. So in the absence of this we must observe and tease out factors from existing populations as finely and precisely as we can. Factor analysis on 60 factors for such a population can burn out a million computers over year of computing. But the data must also be correct. The country observations constitute 138 or more imperfect control groups. We can collect the data and we must do a better job. It is difficult. But broad correlational patterns can be seen, that defeat confounding factors to a degree because we can know the agricultural practices, toxins in food very finely by test. Amounts can be guessed at fairly well. From that alone we know the correlation of meat intake and Cancer in general. It is far greater than 17%. IT is 100%. The more meat u eat the more Cancer u get. Plain and simple. What are the mitigating factors? Well that is a study as well, isn't it. I never said it was over, but the meat gun is on fire, it ain't just smoking.