Nutrition planning

[O C Diver]

I hope everyone saw the small tidbit in the China Study that the wealthier areas of China that had more access to protein were healthier than the rest of the general populous.


Sure you can say they had better health care than the rest...but then...so do I.


My Grandfather and Mother have out lived every vegan I know.


I still say genetics blows diet out of the water every day if you are not stupid.


Some of us should have died in our 20s...I would rather keel over in my 80s than sit around like so many have to during their 90s.

Probably the single best thing you can do to improve your chances of a long life, is to pick your parents wisely.

Ted

 

[BandB]

Probably the single best thing you can do to improve your chances of a long life, is to pick your parents wisely.

Ted

Wifey B: Does is count that we picked new parents as adults? Does that help us?

It does!!!!!!!!!!! They provide us love, comfort, and peace of mind which the first sets we had didn't.

Does make you wonder though the old argument of genetics vs. environment. Probably a combination. Our genetic parents are dead but whether that was genetic or not, probably not as they abused their bodies greatly with their habits and mine actually died in an accident.

We have wonderful parents now though. Just odd for a married couple to have the same parents and same sister but that's the way we roll.

 

[Jeffrey S]

We have wonderful parents now though. Just odd for a married couple to have the same parents and same sister but that's the way we roll.

That kind of thing happens in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maine all the time...

Heredity does make a big difference in health. There's no questions about it. But there's also nothing you can do about it. Throwing up your hands probably doesn't produce the best outcomes.

We strive to change and control the things we do have an influence on. Diet, lifestyle, and the environment are all things under our influence. And with regards to some things, like cancer, the findings are tilting way toward lifestyle as the causes, well above genetics.

 

[dhays]

>
I'm not sure I understand your cholesterol statements either. Our bodies create all the cholesterol we need from amino acids and other available molecules. They stop producing it when it reaches the 150 baseline value. It's quite rare, but it does happen, that some people over-produce cholesterol. The vast majority of cholesterol buildup is from eating saturated fats (that only come from animal eating) and cholesterol eating itself (also meat and dairy based).

The relationship between cholesterol and heart disease appears to be quite complex - and appears to happen when artery trauma catches cholesterol that is floating by. The extra cholesterol past the 150 level puts the level too high in the blood stream and makes the molecules too easily available for building. Of course, artery trauma starts it so having less of that means that cholesterol won't matter. It now seems like other oils in the diet create the artery damage although that isn't proved yet. Age damages arteries too and there isn't a cure for that yet either.

Still, are you suggesting that lowering cholesterol intake or reducing your baseline cholesterol levels aren't a goal of medicine today? Why are all those people out there on Lipitor? I mean, let's be honest - 25% of the members of this forum are taking it every day - probably more since people here likely have higher incomes with better medical care.

Cholesterol is an interesting one. You are correct that we make most of our cholesterol. The jury is still out as to how much our diet can really affect our levels.

I have really high cholesterol. I My total cholesterol was just about 240, even if it did have a good relatively mix of LHL and HDL. I asked my PCP to put me on a statin. He said that he would rather I try to bring my cholesterol down by increasing my exercise and altering my diet. I told him that I was currently running about 50 miles per week and how much more exercise did he think I should get? He said "never mind". I did tell him I would look at changing my diet as I was in the habit of eating anything and everything within reach.

So I changed my diet, all but eliminated meats and significantly cut back on mild products. I had spent years eating as a vegetarian so this was easy. So I went back 6 months later for another blood test. My total choleterol had dropped from 238 to 230. Well within the error of the test. Granted, I also was trying to improve my race times and had dropped from 180 lbs to 167 lbs in the process. My marathon race times dropped 10 minutes in the process.

My mother who has always been fit, active and eats very little milk or dairy also have stubbornly high cholesterol levels. In our case, our bodies go way past that 150 level and just keep making more.

 

[BandB]

Cholesterol is an interesting one. You are correct that we make most of our cholesterol. The jury is still out as to how much our diet can really affect our levels.

I see doctors every day pushing "low cholesterol" diets. I think sometimes people are also going for weight loss and get healthier but don't see their cholesterol dropping consistently. I also see all the attention to cholesterol when I really find triglycerides more worrisome. But then if diet doesn't help cholesterol, then should we push statins as we're now doing? I find it all terribly confusing. How do we decide what level of cholesterol to worry about? How do we weigh good and bad? Then how to we weigh the risks of statins, especially taken long term? Do we jump on statins because of cholesterol labs when there are no clinical signs of an issue? Do we do it based on the potential for issues or should we do an ultrasound first to see if anything is developing and, if not, track more carefully?

I don't have the answers nor do I believe anyone does. I'm lucky I guess in that I eat plenty of red meat and plenty of shellfish and all those other things they've said are bad and my cholesterol has always been fine.

 

[Jeffrey S]

I don't have the answers nor do I believe anyone does.

The answers are all out there and incredibly consistent.

Your confusion is the playbook of the industries who want your dollars at the grocery store. They've played you very well.

You're young. Give it another 10-20 years. Make sure you have an AED onboard and a wife who knows CPR.

 

[BandB]

The answers are all out there and incredibly consistent.

Your confusion is the playbook of the industries who want your dollars at the grocery store. They've played you very well.

You're young. Give it another 10-20 years. Make sure you have an AED onboard and a wife who knows CPR.

Actually I have both, AED onboard and a wife who knows CPR. Maybe I'm confused because I'm not a know-it-all. You're obviously never confused. Often wrong, just never confused.

 

[psneeld]

Well...I am pretty health conscious and I don't believe the "truth" is out there or so easy to see...this thread is just a sliver of how many different opinions even by professionals are out there.

One can believe they have the answers, boy I have lived with a few, and in time even they saw the light.

 

[Jeffrey S]

One can believe they have the answers, boy I have lived with a few, and in time even they saw the light.

It's not me saying it. It's the scientific community who's findings have been incredibly consistent. Less data caused the Surgeon General to force a warning on cigarette packs in the 1960's - doctors objected; the AMA wrote a letter in protest. But the science told the truth.

In our lifetimes, there'll be a similar warning on foods high in cholesterol and saturated fats. High volumes of protein will show a causal effect with cancer too - many types. It's inevitable.

It's like it's 1960, 3 years before the Surgeon General's report. You're smoking, telling others that your doctor says it's OK and that there are too many conflicting studies. Someone comes along and lets you know that there is a consistent finding. Instead of listening and checking the facts, you just insult him.

Light up...

 

[psneeld]

I have yet to read or hear of conclusive anything other than generalizations...good to follow but every individual needs to tailor what works for them.

I got pretty inclusive flight physicals for 20 years...recommendations from some pretty talented flight surgeons were never as black and white as what "proponents" of any food regime would make it out to be.

 

[Jeffrey S]

I got pretty inclusive flight physicals for 20 years...recommendations from some pretty talented flight surgeons were never as black and white as what "proponents" of any food regime would make it out to be.

Doctors are the last to get it. Those same flight surgeons in the 1950's would have told you that there's no problem with smoking - maybe just cut down to a pack a day. Heck, they used to say that it was good for your throat.

The great things about history is that there's nothing to make up. It's all right there.

 

[psneeld]

I have a lot of respect for a couple of them...they were a lot more than "docs" and certainly knew as much as you.

Your proof is no different than "other" proof I have been following for years..like I pointed out about the fallacy of reading too much into the China Study.

You keep posting general stats...generally useless in real health issues.

 

[Jeffrey S]

..like I pointed out about the fallacy of reading too much into the China Study.

Uhhh....no you didn't. You made a comment about wealth vs health and you probably did that after looking for something negative about the study on the internet for 10 minutes.

The whole book is there online in pdf form. Read the first chapter. Just do that. Learn about the people involved in the study over the 30 years and see how it was put together.

Using Google is not doing medical research. Simple SEO will effect the results you get to see. There's no one paying for you to get the truth. There are a lot of organizations paying to hide it from you.

If you were smoking in 1960 and knew the results of the studies showing the obvious link between smoking and lung cancer, would you have stopped smoking before the Surgeon General's requirements on packaging? Even when others in the medical community were saying that there was nothing wrong with it?

It's the same thing. We're three years before the World Health Organization is coming out strongly against meat and dairy consumption. They already put processed meats in the exact same category as cigarettes. Many think that was a test to see if their categorization can change behavior prior to going full monty on meat and dairy.

 

[Britannia]

Doctors are the last to get it. Those same flight surgeons in the 1950's would have told you that there's no problem with smoking - maybe just cut down to a pack a day. Heck, they used to say that it was good for your throat.

The great things about history is that there's nothing to make up. It's all right there.

Here's some more history:

and this one

All these and more can be found here:

Cyberdoc's Updates: August 2012

It's always good to have the full picture and access to all the research data, right?

Richard

 

[BaltimoreLurker]

Just tryin' to lighten the mood here .....

 

[RT Firefly]

Danny Sugerman. Hahahaha

 

[BaltimoreLurker]

Danny Sugerman. Hahahaha

LOL! Yeah, he had some dangerous dietary habits!

 

[psneeld]

Uhhh....no you didn't. You made a comment about wealth vs health and you probably did that after looking for something negative about the study on the internet for 10 minutes.

The whole book is there online in pdf form. Read the first chapter. Just do that. Learn about the people involved in the study over the 30 years and see how it was put together.

Using Google is not doing medical research. Simple SEO will effect the results you get to see. There's no one paying for you to get the truth. There are a lot of organizations paying to hide it from you.

If you were smoking in 1960 and knew the results of the studies showing the obvious link between smoking and lung cancer, would you have stopped smoking before the Surgeon General's requirements on packaging? Even when others in the medical community were saying that there was nothing wrong with it?

It's the same thing. We're three years before the World Health Organization is coming out strongly against meat and dairy consumption. They already put processed meats in the exact same category as cigarettes. Many think that was a test to see if their categorization can change behavior prior to going full monty on meat and dairy.

Nope...did quite a bit of research because the new girlfriend wanted to go vegetarian...and I did for 3 years.

In my opinion, yes the research leans...and I say leans a certain way just as the research for tobacco.

But I disagree it proves a historical, we'll balance diet for many is any worse for many individuals than a totally vegetarian diet.

Just like after years of saying being thin was the answer, until researchers found that carrying a bit more weight than was thought healthy at the time was actually better for many and their common diseases.

In the 80s the USCG was leading the US Military on weight standards and nutrition...and not all of it was strictly medical based....much more wholistic.

So yes, starting with 5 years of lightweight sports dating back to the early 70s, I have been educating myself on nutrition way more than the average person.

I just happen to disagree that the research you choose to believe, especially that it applies across the boad, is ABSOLUTELY 100 percent correct or applicable to everyone in the way it is presented.

But that's me....have fun.

 

[Jeffrey S]

I just happen to disagree that the research you choose to believe, especially that it applies across the boad, is ABSOLUTELY 100 percent correct or applicable to everyone in the way it is presented.

So if the World Health Organization came out with a directive showing that eating meat and dairy directly causes heart disease, would you significantly cut back?

If the WHO released undeniable findings that having 50% of your diet consisting of protein was the root of all cancer, would you cut to, let's say, less than 25% protein?

If the WHO put pepperoni in the exact category as cigarettes, would you remove it completely from your diet? (Oh wait, they did that one already - has it effected you?)

 

[psneeld]

Show me the science too...if it is universally accepted...meaning every swinging everyone said holy cow thats right...then maybe.

As far as cutting back...pretty sure I already have to acceptablevlevels...just not completely.

I eat pretty healthy based on old and new concepts....not sure a few ounces of protein every day or so is going to kill me. Already drinking almond milk. Refuse to give up cheese.

But going totally vegetarian or vegan or whatever catchy name is next....I think I will die of a lot of other things long before my nutrition gets me.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. JS is playing with words here. Yes prepared meats and cigarettes ARE in the same CATEGORY meaning there is conclusive evidence they both cause cancer BUT they do not both carry the same risk so in THAT regard, they are NOT equal. The WHO 4 tier rating system is: Conclusive, probable, suspect/possible and insufficient evidence. Mr. ps's closing statement in post #80 pretty well sums up MY opinion as well.

 

[Gmarr]

Most people start their diets shortly after the first heart attack, sometimes it only takes their best friends to do it . I stopped smoking cold turkey after two angioplasties and 5 stents....

 

[BandB]

Most people start their diets shortly after the first heart attack, sometimes it only takes their best friends to do it . I stopped smoking cold turkey after two angioplasties and 5 stents....

Truth is that even Mr. Perfect I'm sure has some aspect of his lifestyle that could be better. I look at the total picture of my health and lifestyle. We exercise regularly and extensively. We drink very little. We don't currently use drugs, although if we took some people seriously we might start. We get good sleep. We live with minimum stress. We don't smoke or use any form of tobacco or dangerous substitute. We are fanatical in the use of sunscreen and shelter. We avoid known dangerous exposure whether to something like smoke from fires or diseases. We carefully maintain our weight. We get regular physicals even though no health issues. We don't drink soft drinks and minimize fried foods. And, yes, we eat beef and we eat some form of meat at nearly every meal. We feel healthy. Our doctor says we are amazingly healthy based on every lab and test.

We're very comfortable with the way we lead our lives and take care of ourselves.

 

[Bigsfish]

BandB
I think you hit a major point and that is the stress level we live under. I also think the genes we inherit play a large part in how healthy we are. I eat pretty good but way too much, my body is broken up from playing sports so I don't get enough exercise, I have a few major things wrong but have lived a great life and if I croaked tomorrow I wouldn't complain. My doctor tells me to lose a few pounds. LOL

 

[Jeffrey S]

I think you hit a major point and that is the stress level we live under.

If you get to live a trust fund life, stress is greatly reduced. Think about it - the need to raise money is often a key stress producer. Mr/Mrs P could probably give more details about that type of life since they appear to be apt to give so much details about all the things they do so well.

 

[Bigsfish]

Hi Jeffery

I understand where you are coming from but I know an extremely wealthy person who puts himself under stress concerning investments and no matter how much I try to explain this should not be a concern of his he makes it stressful. It's in his mental makeup. Sad.

 

[BandB]

I understand where you are coming from but I know an extremely wealthy person who puts himself under stress concerning investments and no matter how much I try to explain this should not be a concern of his he makes it stressful. It's in his mental makeup. Sad.

We're all different and feel stress over different things and worry in different situations. I was a constant worrier over anything and everything I could think to worry about until I met my wife and was cured. I think a lot of mine was not having balance in my life.

To me the key is recovery. If something stresses us, what do we do, how quickly do we recover from it. I've learned, although sometimes still require her help, to refocus on the good.

I have what I would call "concern" over many things, over people and their situations and how they'll deal with the challenges they face. But I have to keep that under control for my own welfare. Do what I can but accept that's all I can do.

the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.​

Such a simple statement but something we all need to keep in mind.

As to stress, we have some friends we greatly admire who raised three beautiful daughters while working very low paying manual labor jobs, most of the time at least three between them and often two each. We first met them about 3 years ago. I know they had to worry sometimes, but I don't think they ever lived stressful lives. They had faith. They knew they couldn't pay for college but they believed their kids would still get an education and be happy in life. They sure provided them with an incredible childhood and example. We find them among the nicest and most inspiring of our friends.

The biggest worriers I've known among those with money were often greedy. It never seemed like enough. They often had no need for it, but just wanted it. I was only an acquaintance with someone who took a horrible job to run a horrible company where lasting more than a couple of years was impossible. The inevitable happened and he called me upon his termination to see if I had any leads for him for a job. Now, his parachute from the employer who terminated him was over $30 million. He said to me he was just beside himself with worry that he wouldn't find another job, that no one would hire him. I asked, "Why do you care?" That shocked him and he said "B...but I need to work." My response was "Why?" Ultimately I told him it would happen but meanwhile work volunteering, work spending time with his family he'd neglected, work on enjoying life. It was sad but that's how he was conditioned. His self value was tied up in his job, it's prestige, and it's pay.

 

[Bigsfish]

BandB

I need to borrow Wifey B everytine I feel stress.. You got a winner!

 

[BandB]

BandB

I need to borrow Wifey B everytine I feel stress.. You got a winner!

Wifey B: I had worries in life before him too and he made the world right for me. Different but still we both needed each other.

 

[Bigsfish]

Well, that's it. I just need to borrow the both of you.