Cholesterol and fraud - Anthony Chaffee, MD

[FireDragon76]

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.

Hispanics actually live several years longer than white Americans. They tend to have more religious involvement and they eat somewhat better diets, despite typically having less money or access to healthcare.

 

[FireDragon76]

And from the point of human biochemistry, sugar in blood acts as a toxic substance.

This is just sheer nonsense. Glucose (sugar) is not toxic in normal human physiology.

High carb diets don't make people fat. Eating alot of foods of low nutritional value make people fat.

I live in an area with alot of Salvadoreans and Puerto Ricans, and those that eat more traditional foods tend to be thinner than other Americans. They eat beans and rice at nearly every meal. You won't get fat eating beans and rice, quite the opposite is true.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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?

There could be some sampling bias when you have a population where so few actually make it into that "old age" category. As the rare outliers who do make it to 65, and survive all of the other hazards (sans modern medicine) we can assume are of "hearty stock" so to speak.

The entire region has issues with not many people making it to over 65.

Kenya - age structure 2022 | Statista

This statistic shows the age structure in Kenya from 2012 to 2022.

www.statista.com

Compared to the US

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

I think what makes this a somewhat unique conversation is that of all the mammalian species (even other ones that are very similar to us), we don't tend to have these conversations about "what is the best diet?" and "What works for one person may not work for another"

For instance, we'd never say "for some lions a diet of all meat works well, for others they do better when eating mostly plants"

So I'm skeptical of the claims people make where they say "vegetarianism works better for some humans, and others do better on a primarily animal-based diet" Clearly someone has the right answer.

When you boil it down, it's basically making the claim that "of all the vast array of species on the planet, we're the only one that has a such drastic intra-species diversity in terms of of the optimal animal/plant ratio"

Granted, omnivorous species can "survive" for quite a while on a wide variety of ratios, and health scenarios that would've normally killed us "in the wild" no longer have to thanks to some modern medicine (for instance, a person whose diet lacks in one thing or another can take a vitamin or supplement), but "survive" & "optimal" are still two different things in regards to the aforementioned ratio.

 

[Laodicean60]

. Glucose (sugar) is not toxic in normal human physiology.

This is false. That is why insulin gets glucose out of the bloodstream. Prolonged high levels of glucose in part cause hyperinsulinemia then cells turn insulin resistant. Sort of like the noise from our spouses, we tend to tune them out.

 

[timewerx]

I live in an area with alot of Salvadoreans and Puerto Ricans, and those that eat more traditional foods tend to be thinner than other Americans. They eat beans and rice at nearly every meal. You won't get fat eating beans and rice, quite the opposite is true.

There maybe some truth to this. For four years I was semi-sedentary. I did some exercise but it was very little at that time with less than 100 minutes per week considerably less than the minimum recommended by doctors.

My diet consisted mainly of rice, green leafy vegetables, beans, oatmeal, full fat milk, and a small portion of meat.

But never became overweight. My weight maxed out to 148 lbs. To become overweight, I would need to weigh at least 165 lbs. I had no physical problems at that time.

Life became incredibly stressful since 2019 and I think it was a strong contributing factor to my hypertension which I got in the year 2020. Adopting a program of vigorous cardio workouts in the same year reversed my hypertension even though the high stress factors remained.

 

[timewerx]

When you boil it down, it's basically making the claim that "of all the vast array of species on the planet, we're the only one that has a such drastic intra-species diversity in terms of of the optimal animal/plant ratio"

There's at least one species (other than humans) I know and ironically, it's a jumping spider species called "Bagheera Kiplingi". Depending on location, some are entirely vegan while some eat mostly insects but otherwise, remaining omnivorous.

Omnivorous migratory birds can also tolerate hugely varying ratios of plant vs meat in their diet depending on availability of food on their rest stops that can be hundreds or even thousands of miles apart. So they can be vegan in their diet now and then become carnivore diet a few weeks later on the next rest stop. Or can be vegan around the time of their arrival on their breeding grounds and then become carnivore around the time of their departure couple of months later.

Birds are one of the most successful animals on the planet and would probably remain here on Earth, long after we're extinct.

Granted, omnivorous species can "survive" for quite a while on a wide variety of ratios, and health scenarios that would've normally killed us "in the wild" no longer have to thanks to some modern medicine (for instance, a person whose diet lacks in one thing or another can take a vitamin or supplement), but "survive" & "optimal" are still two different things in regards to the aforementioned ratio.

I agree. In times of severe shortage, major calamities, those following dietary extremes like carnivore or vegan could be placed at a major disadvantage.

It takes some time for the body to adapt to dramatically different diets. Even gut bacteria can be considerably affected by the change. During this time, your immune system could be compromised.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is false. That is why insulin gets glucose out of the bloodstream. Prolonged high levels of glucose in part cause hyperinsulinemia then cells turn insulin resistant. Sort of like the noise from our spouses, we tend to tune them out.

Glucose is fuel. Fuel is only toxic if your body isn't processing it correctly, but that doesn't make it essentially toxic.

 

[Laodicean60]

Glucose is fuel. Fuel is only toxic if your body isn't processing it correctly, but that doesn't make it essentially toxic.

I don't want to get into it again. High carbs create high insulin and over time will break the body and cause all sorts of metabolic problems from insulin resistance. Hyperglycemia is also known as glucose toxicity. It is a fuel but if you take in more than you burn it spills onto the ground as fat.

I avoided you guys arguments but you made it sound like you can eat as much sugar as you want. That will eventually harm someone and that's why I chimed in. Once I broke my machine by taking too much sugar "beer" and American diet I had to watch my glycemic load.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree. In times of severe shortage, major calamities, those following dietary extremes like carnivore or vegan could be placed at a major disadvantage.

It takes some time for the body to adapt to dramatically different diets. Even gut bacteria can be considerably affected by the change. During this time, your immune system could be compromised.

I think another big part of the problem is that while terms like "herbivore" and "carnivore" are pretty descript and specific, "omnivore" is more of a broad catch-all term that people falsely equate to "that means I can eat however much I want of either".

For instance, both Chimps and Wolves are "omnivores" (in that, they possess the digestive tract and enzymes to be able to digest both plant and animal foods)

...but the ratios of each that would keep them in optimal health are very different. (Chimps only get about 5% of their caloric intake from animal foods, for Wolves, that number is 70-80% depending on where they live)

Genetically speaking (and in terms of digestive tract), we're much closer to the former, but a lot of people eat closer to the latter. (Our intestinal composition is such, that we're a little better suited for fats and proteins than chimps, and they're a little better suited for plant roughage)

So my gut tells me (pun intended) that for Humans, the sweet spot is probably somewhere in the ballpark of a 20:80 ratio of Plant:Animal

Another confounding factor is that with regards to diet/nutrition, just about every diet (even the fad ones), are a step up (at least in the short term for metrics like weight/BMI) in comparison to the SAD (Standard American Diet).

When the starting place is so bad, anything is going to feel like an improvement in the first 6-24 months.

If you have 3 people who are 350lbs, low-energy, knee pain, etc... who've been eating nothing but fast food, pizza, and soda for 20 years.

And one goes on a whole foods vegan diet
One goes on a paleo diet
And the other goes on a carnivore diet

Odds are, after 6-12 months, all will have lost a significant amount of weight and "feel better overall"


The analogy I've used in the past to compare is that of smokers.

You take two people who were 2-pack a day (40 cigs) smokers for 25 years....

One quits altogether
The other cuts their cig intake down to 5 cigarettes a day

Both are going to feel a lot better in a year compared to how they felt before.... However, we wouldn't say "oh, look how much better that second guy is doing compared to how he was before, 5 cigs a day must be good for your health"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is false. That is why insulin gets glucose out of the bloodstream. Prolonged high levels of glucose in part cause hyperinsulinemia then cells turn insulin resistant. Sort of like the noise from our spouses, we tend to tune them out.

Actually, there are several chemical processes in the body that get certain things out of the bloodstream after the body has satisfied a need and has no use for a surplus.

By that logic, salt would be considered toxic to the body. (as there's a process by which the the body uses aldosterone to regulate sodium levels)

Some things can be toxic at high levels, but beneficial at controlled levels.

Glucose plays an important role in the body.

There's a reason why there's different types of blood sugar issues. Obviously it's bad when it gets to high, but it's no picnic when it gets too low either.

Hypoglycemia - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Laodicean60]

I understand what you are saying because I'm a Type 2 diabetic. I did say prolonged high levels of high glucose. You should check some information on alcoholic fatty liver and when nonalcoholics were getting fatty liver they called nonalcoholic fatty liver in 1980s. The common denominator is sugar from foods. Big sugar is the new Big tobacco someone has to wonder why we have an obesity epidemic.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't want to get into it again. High carbs create high insulin and over time will break the body and cause all sorts of metabolic problems from insulin resistance. Hyperglycemia is also known as glucose toxicity. It is a fuel but if you take in more than you burn it spills onto the ground as fat.

I avoided you guys arguments but you made it sound like you can eat as much sugar as you want. That will eventually harm someone and that's why I chimed in. Once I broke my machine by taking too much sugar "beer" and American diet I had to watch my glycemic load.

A high carb diet is neither necessarily high calorie, nor is it necessarily high in sugar. It just means most of the calories come from carbohydrates.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, there are several chemical processes in the body that get certain things out of the bloodstream after the body has satisfied a need and has no use for a surplus.

By that logic, salt would be considered toxic to the body. (as there's a process by which the the body uses aldosterone to regulate sodium levels)

Some things can be toxic at high levels, but beneficial at controlled levels.

Glucose plays an important role in the body.

There's a reason why there's different types of blood sugar issues. Obviously it's bad when it gets to high, but it's no picnic when it gets too low either.

Hypoglycemia - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

Indeed, if blood sugar gets too low, the liver will make glucose through a process called gluconeogenesis. Glucose is quite necessary for some regions of the brain to function at all.

 

[Laodicean60]

A high carb diet is neither necessarily high calorie, nor is it necessarily high in sugar. It just means most of the calories come from carbohydrates.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/high-carbohydrate-diet

 

[FireDragon76]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/high-carbohydrate-diet

That's more or less what is advocated by conventional high carb diet advice, a high fiber diet.

Most Americans only get about 15g of fiber per day. The biggest source of fiber in the American diet is actually from refined wheat flour, which actually has very little fiber.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I understand what you are saying because I'm a Type 2 diabetic. I did say prolonged high levels of high glucose. You should check some information on alcoholic fatty liver and when nonalcoholics were getting fatty liver they called nonalcoholic fatty liver in 1980s. The common denominator is sugar from foods. Big sugar is the new Big tobacco someone has to wonder why we have an obesity epidemic.

There's no doubt that there's too much sugar in our food supply...I don't think anyone would argue on the other side of that. (our food industry artificially adds sugar to things that are already sweet in order to maintain business relationships)

IE: a bowl of fruity pebbles and a glass of over-sweetened fruit juice certainly isn't a "healthy breakfast"

...but there's a big difference between that and the assertion that "glucose is toxic".

 

[FireDragon76]

There's no doubt that there's too much sugar in our food supply...I don't think anyone would argue on the other side of that. (our food industry artificially adds sugar to things that are already sweet in order to maintain business relationships)

IE: a bowl of fruity pebbles and a glass of over-sweetened fruit juice certainly isn't a "healthy breakfast"

...but there's a big difference between that and the assertion that "glucose is toxic".

At a hotel on my vacation on New Year's day, I actually ate a small amount of sugary breakfast cereal (without milk), along with two bowls of oatmeal, a bagel and an orange. I went to the gym afterwards and worked out on an elliptical and did some barbell curls. I am fairly certain the sugar did me no harm, it certainly didn't break my weight loss diet in any meaningful sense.

Sure, sugar is not health food by any stretch, but it's not solely responsible for the obesity epidemic. Sugar consumption has actually been declining, while obesity has continued to increase.

 

[Laodicean60]

.but there's a big difference between that and the assertion that "glucose is toxic".

For me as a diabetic glucose is toxic and will further damage my body if not controlled. Rat poison is not toxic in small amounts but in high amounts it's toxic.

 

[FireDragon76]

For me as a diabetic glucose is toxic and will further damage my body if not controlled. Rat poison is not toxic in small amounts but in high amounts it's toxic.

If a person has diabetes, they are certainly right to watch what they eat, and avoid excess empty calories, including sugary foods. However, sugar in itself doesn't cause diabetes, and isn't toxic per se. A diseased metabolic condition doesn't define normal human physiology.