Cholesterol and fraud - Anthony Chaffee, MD

[trophy33]

We know that the genes that allow the consumption of large quantities of milk are relatively recent, and only appear in a minority of the global population, so from there we can extrapolate to the past, and see that they very likely didn't drink milk tens of thousands of years ago.

All people consume large quantities of milk after birth. So the genes are in us naturally. But many people loose it in adulthood, in their 30's, 40's. (there is actually a possibility that its more about the weird kind of milks we buy in regular shops than about milk as such).

However, milk can be quite easily fermented and the bacteria will consume the milk sugar, therefore the result of this process is not problematic for most people.

 

[timewerx]

We are not birds Birds are from dinosaurs, we are mammals.

I learned a lot from reading studies on bird metabolism. They're a lot like ours and you can acquire many good adaptations birds have by copying the parameters of their exercise and feeding routine. Some of these adaptations are dramatically increased resistance to inflammation and oxidative stress, rapid healing of injuries, strong resistance to muscular catabolism, prolonged resistance to dehydration, strong natural antioxidant response from the body that could prevent premature signs of aging like bone loss, chronic inflammation, etc.

Apparently, many of these adaptations are critical to lifespan and birds are generally longer lived compared to mammals and barely displays physical signs of aging.

The Holy Spirit did asked me to look up on bird physiology and metabolism. Probably the best advice I can give is listen to that "little voice". You'll never be wrong there no matter how ridiculous the thing you're asked to do.

Eating a diet both high in carbs and high in fats leads to metabolic problems (The Randle cycle).

Only if the energy supply exceeds energy demand - calorie intake exceeds calories burned from little physical activity for example.

A simpler way to determine this is your Body Mass Index (BMI). If you're borderline overweight, overweight, or worse, your energy supply vs energy demand is probably at an unhealthy level already.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They are maybe those who eat a lot of honey Some Hadza hunters go for it.

Members of the Maasai tribe, who are basically carnivores (plus drink milk), seem to be taller and more consistently lean.

With regards to the Maasai people, what's their average lifespan? (I'm seeing estimates ranging from 44-60)

The problem with some of the studies that were done of indigenous populations is is that they were largely inadequate.

They were popularized by people like Weston Price and Stephenson, and they made many bold (unprovable) claims about what they were observing, which basically laid the ground work for more modern dietary theories (that also make some bold unprovable claims).

When you have a population that's regularly dying before the age that people would typically reap the consequences of an inferior diet, how can you assert one way or the other that their diet is healthy?

"We didn't see many strokes or heart attacks in this population"... -correct, much like you wouldn't see many strokes or heart attacks among 45 year old Americans either (even the ones eating poorly)

 

[timewerx]

With regards to the Maasai people, what's their average lifespan? (I'm seeing estimates ranging from 44-60)

The problem with some of the studies that were done of indigenous populations is is that they were largely inadequate.

They were popularized by people like Weston Price and Stephenson, and they made many bold (unprovable) claims about what they were observing, which basically laid the ground work for more modern dietary theories (that also make some bold unprovable claims).

When you have a population that's regularly dying before the age that people would typically reap the consequences of an inferior diet, how can you assert one way or the other that their diet is healthy?

"We didn't see many strokes or heart attacks in this population"... -correct, much like you wouldn't see many strokes or heart attacks among 45 year old Americans either (even the ones eating poorly)

Their short lifespan is being blamed on their diet of eating raw meat and raw blood from cattle.

The shorter lifespans of Inuit compared to the rest of Canada is also blamed on their diet of raw meat. Although the Inuits live longer than the Maasai because people in cold/temperate climates tend to have longer lifespans than people in hotter climates from less parasites, less harmful pathogens and many other factors.

 

[trophy33]

With regards to the Maasai people, what's their average lifespan? (I'm seeing estimates ranging from 44-60)

Average lifespan can be misleading in these situations. They have high infant mortality rate, many injuries etc. Those of them who survive the dangers of a primitive and isolated life in Africa, live to a high age in full health, without any known civilization diseases (diabetes, cancer or CVD).

The more omnivorous Hadza people have an average life expectancy at birth of around 31.5 year, i.e. almost just half of the Maasai.

On the other hand, vegan populations do not exist in similar wild life areas at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

Average lifespan can be misleading in these situations. They have high infant mortality rate, many injuries etc. Those of them who survive the dangers of a primitive and isolated life in Africa, live to a high age in full health, without any known civilization diseases (diabetes, cancer or CVD).

Otzi the iceman mummy found in the Alps had atherosclerosis, living on a diet that included alot of meat.

On the other hand, vegan populations do not exist in similar wild life areas at all.

That's not a serious argument against veganism.

 

[trophy33]

Otzi the iceman mummy found in the Alps had atherosclerosis, living on a diet that included alot of meat.

I am talking about Maasai. Interestingly however, a lot of indigenous tribes have some signs of atherosclerosis, but without CVDs, i.e. no heart attacks, no strokes and similar. Not even in their high age members.

That's not a serious argument against veganism.

What is serious or not is obviously kind of subjective. In any case, this is a serious argument from the evolutionary standpoint. If vegan tribes were significantly better off, such populations would be discovered throughout the world, thriving and dominating others. Their non-existence is telling.

 

[timewerx]

and dominating others.

Europeans dominated other races in historic times as the devil would - steal, kill, and destroy.

Perhaps successful from an evolutionary standpoint but are we sure that "success" is going to last?

If vegan tribes were significantly better off, such populations would be discovered throughout the world

I think veganism is more of a religion. It did exist around religious settings since ancient times.

Native Americans lived on mostly plant-based diet. They would still be today if Europeans did not occupy the American continent.

 

[trophy33]

Europeans dominated other races in historic times as the devil would - steal, kill, and destroy.

Perhaps successful from an evolutionary standpoint but are we sure that "success" is going to last?

Politics and technological superiority is a different topic.

Native Americans lived on mostly plant-based diet. They would still be today if Europeans did not occupy the American continent.

I have not studied native American diets, but I heard they were mostly carnivores - living off the bison herds. Thats why colonists were massively killing out the bison population, to make the native American tribes starve.

However, because the American continent is quite large, from jungles to dry places to huge savannas, I guess that various native tribes had various diets, depending on their specific environment.

 

[FireDragon76]

Politics and technological superiority is a different topic.


I have not studied native American diets, but I heard they were mostly carnivores - living off the bison herds. Thats why colonists were massively killing out the bison population, to make the native American tribes starve.

However, because the American continent is quite large, from jungles to dry places to huge savannas, I guess that various native tribes had various diets, depending on their specific environment.

It depended on the tribe. The bison hunting cultures of the plains only really existed after the arrival of the horse. Most Native
Americans were horticulturalists, they got most of their calories from small-scale farming and gardens. Corn and beans were a significant part of most diets. The natives of the northeast consumed a dish called succotash, made of the principle crops they grew together: corn, beans, and squash, and this style of food still exists today in the US, usually served as a regional side dish.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Average lifespan can be misleading in these situations. They have high infant mortality rate, many injuries etc. Those of them who survive the dangers of a primitive and isolated life in Africa, live to a high age in full health, without any known civilization diseases (diabetes, cancer or CVD).

The more omnivorous Hadza people have an average life expectancy at birth of around 31.5 year, i.e. almost just half of the Maasai.

On the other hand, vegan populations do not exist in similar wild life areas at all.

Actually, those lifespans take that into account. Many researchers suggest that some of the culprits are factors such as limited access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene practices that contribute to health challenges

I wasn't suggesting that their life span was a a proof of their diet one way or the other, I'm saying that their lifespan is too short to know what impact their diet is having.

If heart disease doesn't tend to manifest itself in serious ways until 55 in most cases, and you have a population of people who commonly die at 44 due to lack of clean water and medicine, you can't really use the "look, they don't have heart attacks" as a proof that their diet is good.


For instance, let's take something most all of us would agree is bad, smoking cigarettes.

The manifestation of lung cancer as a result of smoking rarely ever catches up with a person before 40. So if you had a population with a lot of smokers that were people that mostly died in their 30's from other hazards, the fact that you don't find lung cancer a lot in that population doesn't disprove what we know about the link between the two.

 

[timewerx]

It depended on the tribe. The bison hunting cultures of the plains only really existed after the arrival of the horse.

Influence of the European culture alone was devastating to the Native Americans. Warfare between tribes grew, tribes that were at peace with one another started waging war with one another with greater lethality due to introduction of firearms and the horse.

Insecurities grew as well from getting infected by the materialistic and insecure nature of Europeans which triggered warfare and violence between tribes.

Going back to topic, Europeans who largely descended from tribes who used to live in arctic and subarctic climates during the Ice ages would have adapted to carnivorous diets naturally as edible plants tend to be scarce in those conditions and difficult to grow crops.

Colored races living in warmer climates on the other hand, are able to find many edible plants and grow crops. Thus, adapting to a more plant-based diet.

My point is that it's pointless to say that carnivorous diet is the best for everyone. We know it's NOT and races living in warmer climates have been adapting for many thousands of years on diets with large portion of plants in them.

To say that adaptation takes millions of years is not the case at all, not even thousands of years but can even take place within one's lifetime as cells in the body gets replaced constantly and genetic expressions are modified to adapt to a changing environment. The incredible adaptability of God's creations is not to be underestimated.

 

[trophy33]

Actually, those lifespans take that into account. Many researchers suggest that some of the culprits are factors such as limited access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene practices that contribute to health challenges

I wasn't suggesting that their life span was a a proof of their diet one way or the other, I'm saying that their lifespan is too short to know what impact their diet is having.

If heart disease doesn't tend to manifest itself in serious ways until 55 in most cases, and you have a population of people who commonly die at 44 due to lack of clean water and medicine, you can't really use the "look, they don't have heart attacks" as a proof that their diet is good.


For instance, let's take something most all of us would agree is bad, smoking cigarettes.

The manifestation of lung cancer as a result of smoking rarely ever catches up with a person before 40. So if you had a population with a lot of smokers that were people that mostly died in their 30's from other hazards, the fact that you don't find lung cancer a lot in that population doesn't disprove what we know about the link between the two.

The solution is quite easy, simply looking at those who live to a higher age. In that case we will ignore the average lifespan, though, and will focus only on the old people.

Do their old people die of cancer, CVD, diabetes or similar diet-related problems?

 

[FireDragon76]

Influence of the European culture alone was devastating to the Native Americans. Warfare between tribes grew, tribes that were at peace with one another started waging war with one another with greater lethality due to introduction of firearms and the horse.

Insecurities grew as well from getting infected by the materialistic and insecure nature of Europeans which triggered warfare and violence between tribes.

Going back to topic, Europeans who largely descended from tribes who used to live in arctic and subarctic climates during the Ice ages would have adapted to carnivorous diets naturally as edible plants tend to be scarce in those conditions and difficult to grow crops.

Europeans cultures have their origins somewhere in southern Eurasia, near modern day Ukraine and southern Russia, thousands of years ago. They practiced herding and some of them spread southward and eastward into modern-day Turkey, India, Iran, and parts of China... and not just Europe.

My point is that it's pointless to say that carnivorous diet is the best for everyone. We know it's NOT and races living in warmer climates have been adapting for many thousands of years on diets with large portion of plants in them.

You can have plant-based diets in alot of regions, though, even regions that aren't near the tropics. Places like Ireland, where the traditional diet was almost all root vegetables. Even in parts of Sweden or Finland, a diet of root vegetables could be easily sustained without the need for much in the way of modern technology.

 

[trophy33]

We know it's NOT and races living in warmer climates have been adapting for many thousands of years on diets with large portion of plants in them.

To say that adaptation takes millions of years is not the case at all, not even thousands of years but can even take place within one's lifetime as cells in the body gets replaced constantly and genetic expressions are modified to adapt to a changing environment. The incredible adaptability of God's creations is not to be underestimated.

I do not think this is true. South Americans are quite visibly damaged by sugars and high carb diet, they have even higher rate of diabetes and CVD than Europeans/European descendants.

If they were genetically better equipped for a high carb diet, this would not happen. Therefore, it does not seem that the human body is able to accommodate to sugars in just few thousands of years, after hundreds of thousands of years (or possibly millions) on a meat based diet.

And from the point of human biochemistry, sugar in blood acts as a toxic substance. This biochemistry is the same for all races. And fructose is even several times worse than glucose, similar to alcohol. This is not different between races, we are all humans.

 

[trophy33]

You can have plant-based diets in alot of regions, though, even regions that aren't near the tropics. Places like Ireland, where the traditional diet was almost all root vegetables. Even in parts of Sweden or Finland, a diet of root vegetables could be easily sustained without the need for much in the way of modern technology.

But this is all relatively modern. For the majority of the human history, all these areas were under snow and ice. People did not live in a warm climate.

The first agriculture was developed after the last ice age, when the huge animals, that were hunted by people, died out and people needed to find some other source of food, in the new warm climate that came approximately 10,000 years ago.

 

[trophy33]

It depended on the tribe....this style of food still exists today in the US, usually served as a regional side dish.

This is a modern dish, non-existent in the past. Today's corn and other agricultural plants are not looking as they were before and have much more sugars and pesticides in them. Almost nothing plant-based we eat today existed just few hundreds years ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is a modern dish, non-existent in the past. Today's corn and other agricultural plants are not looking as they were before and have much more sugars and pesticides in them. Almost nothing plant-based we eat today existed just few hundreds years ago.

Maize was domesticated many thousands of years ago. It's undergone relatively little change since then.

The tradition of eating beans and maize together was widespread in north and central America, and they formed the staples of many Native American diets. They are still important foods in Mexico, Central America, and the Carribean.

 

[FireDragon76]

But this is all relatively modern. For the majority of the human history, all these areas were under snow and ice. People did not live in a warm climate.

The first agriculture was developed after the last ice age, when the huge animals, that were hunted by people, died out and people needed to find some other source of food, in the new warm climate that came approximately 10,000 years ago.

What does the ancient past have to do with what a human diet should be? The assumption that what is ancient is better can lead to fallacious thinking.

 

[timewerx]

I do not think this is true. South Americans are quite visibly damaged by sugars and high carb diet, they have even higher rate of diabetes and CVD than Europeans/European descendants.

If they were genetically better equipped for a high carb diet, this would not happen. Therefore, it does not seem that the human body is able to accommodate to sugars in just few thousands of years, after hundreds of thousands of years (or possibly millions) on a meat based diet.

And from the point of human biochemistry, sugar in blood acts as a toxic substance. This biochemistry is the same for all races. And fructose is even several times worse than glucose, similar to alcohol. This is not different between races, we are all humans.

Could be because Hispanics are also the most sedentary ethnic group in USA.

Adult Physical Inactivity

Outside of work, 25% of US adults are physically inactive.

www.cdc.gov

The problems that comes with sedentary lifestyle, not all can be reversed by the perfect diet. Accelerated bone and muscle loss as you get older for example, can be mitigated by exercise + good diet but not good diet alone.

Cardiovascular fitness is also a strong factor for all-cause mortality (including CVD and cancer probability) while better with good diet, optimum fitness can only be achieved with exercise + good diet. Hence why some exercises are classified as "cardio" because, they do just that, build cardiovascular fitness.