It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Is it possible to live to 125 or maybe 150? It's certainly a possibility, as discussed on Oprah Winfrey's recent show on longevity. She visited me at my farm to learn how, at 86, I am enjoying the robust health, energy, and mental creativity of someone many decades younger. My secret: large quantities of fruit and vegetables, plus an hour of daily exercise.
No pills, not even aspirin, and certainly no supplements ever enter my mouth -- everything I need comes from my fish-vegetarian diet, which incorporates 30-40 different kinds of fruit and vegetables every week. Even though I am Chairma
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Americans have decreased their animal fat consumption over the past 40 years and yet heart disease has increased. So animal fat is the culprit?
Originally posted by GhostR1der
A massive and not so surprising omission to the list....
Hemp seeds and the rest of hemp derived products.
If it's illegal, it must be bad for you
Between 1970 and 1980, something changed in the U.S. that caused a massive increase in obesity and other health problems. Some combination of factors reached a critical mass that our metabolism could no longer tolerate. The three biggest changes in the American diet since 1970:
-An increase in cereal grain consumption, particularly wheat.
-An increase in sweetener consumption
-The replacement of meat and milk fat with industrial vegetable oils, with total fat intake remaining the same.
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
But you are looking at 20 different graphs and dietary factors and making the assumption that because certain things went up and others went down that you can make a determination of what caused or didnt cause them.
Now in your link the graph on fat says that we are consuming more vegetable fat, but it doesnt indicate what kind, which is very important.
And much more harmful than any animal fat in the form of butter. But Olive oil will beat out butter in terms of healthy fats.
Your link also states that we are consuming 250 more calories per day in the form of carbohydrate. Now this doesnt identify whether or not the extra carbs are simple or complex carbs. The lower graph states that we are consuming 100 extra calories per day of HFCS(bad sugar/simple carb). So thats 100 of the extra 250 calories but we are still consuming 150 more calories of carbohydrate. Most research shows that americans are consuming more refined carbohydrates, which alters the glycemic index of the food, resulting in overeating and less body energy required to digest. Which leaves more unused calories that are turned in to stored fat. So it is very likely that the 250 extra calories come from simple refined carbohydrates in some form.
Your link does not show that the increase in vegetable fats and the decrease in animal fat is mostly the result of hydrogenated oil such as margarines.
One of the major changes in diet that I didn't mention in the last post was the rise of industrial liquid vegetable oils over the course of the 20th century. In the U.S. in 1900, the primary cooking fats were lard, beef tallow and butter.
I was not trying to argue whether a vegetarian diet is superior to a meat based diet. Some examples of how decreasing animal fat and eating more un-hydrogenated oils can improve you life, can be found in the studies regarding the diets of the Mediterranean area. These people consume less animal fat, more unsaturated oils, more fruits and vegetables and they have much lower rates of heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes.
The link you provide is merely showing dietary trends over the last 30 years and the author is trying to make circumstantial connections about those trends. That is not how you perform a scientific evaluation of something. You need to have controls in place and define what you are tying to measure. The author has made a causal connection or what another poster has referred to as Synchronicity.
I was just giving some good general advice that was taken by you to mean that increase in heart disease = animal fat consumption. That is not the case there are many factors but limiting animal fat is a good start to a healthier life.
During the sixty-year period from 1910 to 1970, the proportion of traditional animal fat in the American diet declined from 83% to 62%, and butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four. During the past eighty years, dietary cholesterol intake has increased only 1%. During the same period the percentage of dietary vegetable oils in the form of margarine, shortening and refined oils increased about 400% wh
I dont really care, but if you are going to dispute it. Please provide more than an opinion based blog on casual connections.
Because of extensive changes to lifestyles over the last 50–60 years, Western diet has undergone significant modifications, now including a marked increase in fat intake.
Numerous studies have underlined the role played by an unbalanced, excessive intake of animal-derived omega-6 fatty acids, namely linoleic acid and arachidonic acid (AA) in the pathogenesis of these chronic diseases (1,10–13).
The subjects included 35,988 women aged 55-69 years, without a diagnosis of diabetes at baseline. Baseline questionnaires included questions pertaining to known or suspected risk factors for diabetes such as age, body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ration (WHR), physical activity, alcohol consumption, and smoking history. The subjects were asked to report their frequency of moderate and vigorous physical activity with examples provided defining both forms of exercise. Participants also provided information pertaining to their marital status, educational attainment, residence, and use of hormone replacement therapy. A 127-item food-frequency questionnaire, similar to the one utilized in the 1984 Nurses' Health Study, was used to assess typical food intake over the previous year.
The Mediterranean Diet is a significant step above the modern westernized diet. The problem is the assumption that their(Mediterranean Dieters) decrease in animal fat and egg consumption is the cause for their decrease in mortality in heart disease and cancer.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Well, that depends on what you're doing with it. On salad, olive oil is hands down better. To cook with, saturated fat is hands down better. There really is no argument there. Unsaturated fats are unstable and breakdown under high heat, thus oxidization. Saturated fats, because they are saturated with hydrogen atoms, are much stronger and tend to do well under heat. Butter and coconut oil are the best!
Coconut oil is a super food. The benefits of this oil, mostly saturated fat, are off the charts.
Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Only areas near a natural flood plain, such as the Nile, are re-silted regularly, giving the minerals back.
Unfortunatley as there are many more people in the world, food must be produced in mass-proportion in less than ideal soil environments.
Wouldn't the key factor in the "Mediterranean diet" be, the ingestion of generous amounts of Olive Oil?
Here is Dr. Kendrick on the ad-hoc hypothesis
But there is no evidence that any of these three factors [he’s just been talking about how people claim that garlic, red wine, and lightly cooked vegetables are protective against heart disease] are actually protective. NONE. By evidence, I mean a randomized, controlled clinical study. Not epidemiology, meta-analysis, discussions with French wine producers or green-leaf tea growers, or a trawl through the Fortean Times. In reality, the only reason that these three factors appeared was to protect the diet-heart hypothesis. They are what Karl Popper would call ‘ad-hoc hypotheses,’ which are devices that scientists use to explain away apparent contradictions to much-loved hypotheses.
Ad-hoc hypotheses work along the following lines. You find a population with a low-saturated-fat intake (and a few other classical risk factors for heart disease) – yet, annoyingly, they still have a very high rate of heart disease. One such population would be Emigrant Asian Indians in the UK. The ad-hoc hypothesis used to explain away their very high rate of heart disease is as follows. Emigrant Asian Indians are genetically predisposed to develop diabetes, which then leads to heart disease. Alakazoom! The paradox disappears.
On the other hand, if you find a population with a high-saturated-fat intake, and a low rate of heart disease, e.g. the Inuit, you can always find something they do that explains why they are protected. In their case it was the high consumption of Omega 3 fatty acids from fish. Yes, indeedy, this is where that particular substance first found fame, and hasn’t it done well since?
Dietary carbohydrate is the major determinant of postprandial glucose levels, and several clinical studies have shown that low-carbohydrate diets improve glycemic control. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that a diet lower in carbohydrate would lead to greater improvement in glycemic control over a 24-week period in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Dietary modification led to improvements in glycemic control and medication reduction/elimination in motivated volunteers with type 2 diabetes. The diet lower in carbohydrate led to greater improvements in glycemic control, and more frequent medication reduction/elimination than the low glycemic index diet. Lifestyle modification using low carbohydrate interventions is effective for improving and reversing type 2 diabetes.