It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Recipe For Longevity: 33 Of The Healthiest Foods On Earth

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

A Recipe For Longevity: 33 Of The Healthiest Foods On Earth


www.huffingtonpost.com

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
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
This is the stuff that the pharm industry does not want you to see. Eating the proper diet and exercising regularly(1hr everyday) can have the biggest positive effect on health.

Your cardiovascular system is so important to, not only longer life but a better quality of life.

Lots of raw fruits and veggies and limit the animal fat.

For those interested in more food conspiracy, check out the documentary, The Beautiful Truth. It is an excellent film.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Americans have decreased their animal fat consumption over the past 40 years and yet heart disease has increased. So animal fat is the culprit?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
This is good info, but I am not sure I want to live to be 125.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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?


No animal fat is not the culprit but can have negative side effects when combined with a sedentary lifestyle. You need to look closer at what replace animal fat in the American diet. That would be sugar and hydrogenated oils.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
thank you so much :-)

Synchronicity never ceases to amaze me, infact it never ceases at all



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
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



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

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


could not agree more with you man. the reason hemp and related products are illegal is because they contain beneficial properties that the big pharmaceutical corps are trying to keep suppressed. Big pharma, partnered with tabacco and alchohol industry = never going to see it legalized or decriminalized due to massive lobbying. god damn corrupt system..



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Whole Health Source


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.


That data is directly from the NHANES.

That is an increase in grains, sweetener and vegetable oils. Not the healthiest of foods.

What are the side effects of eating animal fat?

Edit to Add source.

-Dev

[edit on 21-5-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


First off I'm not trying to get into an argument about animal products = bad, vegetarian =good. It seems as though that is what are trying to imply that I am saying. You posted a large amount of data from that blog and it is useful information for sure. 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.

All animal fat and products are not bad, i was not trying to make that point. My exact words were limit animal fat. A diet high in animal fats can lead to heart disease, high cholesterol and higher rates of colon cancer and a 20% increase in developing type 2 diabetes. So with regards to side effects of high consumption of animal fat, there are some and I have listed 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. Olive oil is mostly unsaturated fat and has many health benefits. It is very likely that the increase in vegetable oil, includes partially hydrogenated oils, which are very dangerous and linked to many health problems. 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.

This blog also doesnt point out that the increase in artificial sweeteners has gone up significantly in the last 30 years and studies have shown that people who consume these sugars, consume more calories per day than someone who does not consume them.

These graphs also do not show the increase in processed foods that are very high in sodium and other preservatives and usually consist of mostly refined carbohydrates, hydrogenated oils and poor quality meats.

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. So while animal fat may be better for you than partially hydrogenated oil, it is not better for you than unsaturated oils such as olive oil.

In my original post i was merely pointing out a link that showed some very healthy foods and make a point that daily exercise, lots of fruits and veggies and decreasing animal fat can have a drastic increase on the length and quality of life. I was not trying to argue whether a vegetarian diet is superior to a meat based diet. I should have maybe said that decreasing refined sugars and grains is also a great thing you can do to improve your health. 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.

I have provide most of the links where I found my data, if you want I can access my medline account and provide you with the abstracts for the exact studies performed. I was just trying to provide some professional advice to the people of this forum via a very basic and general guide as to which foods are very healthy for you and what you can limit in your diet to help, lose weight, and live a longer and healthier life. You can take or leave my advice I dont really care, but if you are going to dispute it. Please provide more than an opinion based blog on casual connections.



NY Times- Animal fat/colon cancer

Animal fat/colon cancer

Animal Fat and Diabetes

Hydrogenated Oil Dangers

Trans Fats

Carbohydrate and energy balance

Simple Carb Increase

Artificial Sweeteners and Weight Gain

Mediterranean Diets

Mediterranean Diet info

Mediterranean Diet and Weight Loss



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Well, most of the foods on that list I actually like, so this is good news for me :p There's a few others I don't like as much, but I'll still eat, like spinach. I've never heard of Kale or Arugula before. I'll have to go look those up.

I'm pretty skeptical that this alone would carry people's ages to 125-150, but I think if people ate right and exercised that the average life span would probably be in the 90s, maybe even up to 100. I'm not basing that number on anything, except that the people I've known who have lived in a healthy manner live to around 90, give or take.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Oh, Good find by the way. I have no problem with the article you provided, only the commentary you brought with it. And I consider this a discussion, not an argument.



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.


You asked me to look at what replaced animal fat in the american diet and I simply responded with the data you requested.


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.


All you have to do is walk through the grocery store isle labeled "Oils" and you'll see what kind. It's the polyunsaturated kind. It's the omega-6 fatty acid kind.


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.


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.


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.


Simple vs. complex is an outdated way of looking at carbs. Here's a short video featuring Dr. Jonny Bowden on Carbohydrates.

With carbs, it's all about how quickly they raise your blood sugar and how quickly they raise your insulin. It's likely that the increase in carbs was in the form of grains, breads, sugars and potatos, all of which spike blood sugar and insulin levels.



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.


Where did you get that? Hydrogenated oils are responsible for the increase in vegetable fats? Come on. What kind of oil do you think every single deep fryer in america has in it's belly?

Whole Health Source

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.


That post is full of graphs too, reader beware.


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.


I'm not arguing against vegetarianism. How do you know that it's the reduction in animal fat that is improving the health of people in these studies vs "____"(reduction in omega 6 fatty acids via vegetable oil; increase in healthy fats such as olive oil; lack of processed foods; reduction in carbohydrate consumption)?

See what you're doing here? You accused me(and the blog guy) of making assumptions based on information that showed "certain things going up and certain things going down" and yet you're doing it yourself.....


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.


Do you honestly think that this guy is basing his claims on graphs and surveys alone? Hell no. The data he provides reflect the hundreds of studies/clinical trials that demonstrate the exact same thing. This is not circumstantial.


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.


The bolded is highly debatable.



It baffles me that anyone would suggest that americans need to consume less animal fat to decrease Heart Disease. We've been decreasing animal fat for 100 years and it, if anything, has made things worse. The data(graph) alone should be enough to convince anyone of this.

Heart Disease wasn't prevalent in America until after World War II, at which point Dr. Ancel Keys decided to inform the public that, based data from his very controversial Seven Country Study, high cholesterol, due to a diet high in saturated fat, is directly associated with artherosclerosis. So the people listened and lowered their animal fat consumption, as recognized by the graph.

Dr. Keys at 100 years of age, after following his own advice

Wait, what happened? We did what Dr. Key's suggested and yet Heart Disease has increased. You see, the hypothesis that saturated fat, by increasing cholesterol, causes heart disease scientifically lacks any substance.




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.


My god, you made a statement and I replied with a source that simply made visual graphs out of surveys data.

I'll address the links you provided in another post as I'm a little busy with other things at the moment.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Stay away from Hydrogenated fats (trans fats).
They say people who drink Glacial Milk live long because of its superior mineral content.
Glacial Milk is the alluvial flow flom beneath a glacier. As the ice melts a cocktail of "milking looking" liquid is harvested and drank.
Lots of fruit is all well and good, but what about genetic modification?
The foods tht we have these days simply do not have the mineral content of previous generations.
This can be due to over planting also.
When crops are harvested, the mineral content of the soil becomes compromissed.
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.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
www.nytimes.com... cer.html

In the study, being published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers asked 88,751 women from 34 to 59 years old to fill out questionnaires describing their diet and medical history. The women, all nurses, were followed for six years, and 150 of them developed colon cancer. The more animal fat the women ate, the more likely they were to get colon cancer. Those eating the most animal fat were nearly twice as likely to develop colon cancer as those eating the least animal fat.


Purely epidemiological. It's an observational study that correlates meat consumption with colon cancer. Correlation does not imply causation.

carcin.oxfordjournals.org...

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).


A marked increase in fat intake, as the text says, that is almost 100% vegetable oil. The link also places an emphasis on oxidated lipids, of which unsaturated fats are more prone to.

You linked this study with the following text: Animal Fat/Colon Cancer

It's funny, throughout text provided I found "n-6" mentioned quite often yet you decided to focus purely on animal fat. Bias?

findarticles.com...

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.


Not one mention of carbohydrate consumption which happens to have a possitive correlation with Diabetes. And, once again, an epidemiological study that relies on questionaires and surveys. There's nothing wrong with an observational study, just don't think it proves anything.


I have no problem with the conclusion that hydrogenated/trans fats are harmful, as demonstrated by the links you provided.

I also have no problem with the carbohydrate links you provided.

The effects of artificial sweeteners are still debatable. I personally think that the consumption of these chemicals are harmful but the clinical evidence of this correlation is not conclusive. It is worth noting, however, that most people I see drinking these drinks are usually overweight.

www.americanheart.org...
www.drweil.com...
content.nejm.org...

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.

More to come? Maybe......

-Dev



[edit on 25-5-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

[edit on 25-5-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd] extra DIV



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 





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.

Wouldn't the key factor in the "Mediterranean diet" be, the ingestion of generous amounts of Olive Oil?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

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.


This is vital information to anyone who cares about their health.
Unsaturated fats should never be heated to high temperatures, as that oxidises them and turns them carcinogenic.

Any frying or deep-frying should be done in a natural saturated fat.

As anti-intuitive as it may may, it is far better for your health to deep-fry in lard than to use even the most expensive, healthy looking unsaturated oil. Of course coconut oil is far preferable, and better tasting, than lard.


Of course if you have a sedentary lifestyle any deep-fried food is bad news.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

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.


So, those people living by the nile are healthy because of the mineral content in soil?



Wouldn't the key factor in the "Mediterranean diet" be, the ingestion of generous amounts of Olive Oil?


Says who? How does consuming one very nutritional oil lower heart disease and cancer rates to the extent that the Med. diet does? The following is an excert from The Great Cholesterol Con, authored by Dr. Malcom Kendrick:


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?

Dr. Eades

Assuming that the reduction in heart disease is simply due to their moderate intake of olive oil is a classic ad hoc hypothesis.

 


In response to your Animal Fat and Diabetes link:

The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objective

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.

Conclusion

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.


-Dev



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


there was a tv report (forget the show) about a small village in Japan that had the highest longevity rates on earth. The people lived to be at least 100, some decades longer. The reason stipulated, was that it was due to their diet. They ate mostly fish, vegetables and melon, lots of melon. They did not (for the most part) consume any beef or poultry or related products. Go figure.




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
look no further than the white collar slave lifestyle when trying to figure out why heart disease in this contrary continues to rise. The average american works 45+ hours a week and commutes an hour or more a day. More time slaving away doing pointless work, the less time you have to actually exercise



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join