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.

 

The Mummies' Curse: Heart Disease

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Why do you think they had heart disease? I don't think it was just the meat but a correlation of many factors as i stated.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


Exactly, there are many factors involved which makes it impossible, when observing, to pin point cause. That's all I'm saying....

What do I think caused the heart disease? It's hard to know for sure, but, based on biochemistry (what clinical studies show us) and corroborating observational evidence, I'd say large amounts of bread consumed would do the trick. Of course, the beer could very well have contributed significantly as well....

....but, I'm making an educated guess based on real science.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
People, you can not blame your health on the Egyptians. However, that is kinda shocking. Maybe it was stress? And physically abusing their body by too much labor? Those are just guesses though. Then again, it should be obvious that anyone can die of heart disease, being that it is a 24/7 functioning muscle, it's inevitable for it to not cramp up eventually.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
People, you can not blame your health on the Egyptians. However, that is kinda shocking. Maybe it was stress? And physically abusing their body by too much labor? Those are just guesses though. Then again, it should be obvious that anyone can die of heart disease, being that it is a 24/7 functioning muscle, it's inevitable for it to not cramp up eventually.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

I'm involved in the "cardiac" business & I'm with you


Eat less carbs.

Eat more protein (fish first, protein supplements second, red meat third)

Balance out the calorie/kilojoule intake with fats (mono as much as is possible).

And then.....

Push those weights really hard 4 times per week.

Get on the road or the treadmill & pound out the running 4 times per week.

There are no shortcuts to good health!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Eat less carbs.

Eat more protein (fish first, protein supplements second, red meat third)



You do realize every cell in your body needs glucose??? I'm all for eating less complex carbs but you need simple sugars(fruits). Whether you eat them or not your body is gonna convert whatever you eat to those sugars so why not just give it what it needs?

Also fish is one of the most dangerous meats to eat imo, the oceans are highly polluted and most fish are laden with mercury and other dangerous chemicals. I don't get why people think something that is so dirty and chemical laden is healthy???



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


I want to understand something from you.

Why are you against complex carbs?

Firstly let me agree with you on the fact that in the end, complex carbs get converted to simple ones anyway. But complex carbs go on a longer and slower path to achieve that.

Also, complex carbs are considered to have a slow/steady-release property compared to instantaneous absorption simple sugars that spike insulin.

I thought it was an agreed upon fact among endocrinologists who specialize in pancreas and diabetes, to registered nutritionists that complex carbs are to be preferred over simple sugars.

Complex carbs do less insulin spikes because of its digestion stability.

Eating whole grains with beta glucans like oats, barley and rye, which are all complex carbs plus their beta glucan delays the release while pushing it to elimination faster, avoiding insulin spikes.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by jjjtir]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


I want to understand something from you.

Why are you against complex carbs?

Firstly let me agree with you on the fact that in the end, complex carbs get converted to simple ones anyway. But complex carbs go on a longer and slower path to achieve that.

Also, complex carbs are considered to have a slow/steady-release property compared to instantaneous absorption simple sugars that spike insulin.

I thought it was an agreed upon fact among endocrinologists who specialize in pancreas and diabetes, to registered nutritionists that complex carbs are to be preferred over simple sugars.

Complex carbs do less insulin spikes because of its digestion stability.

Eating whole grains with beta glucans like oats, barley and rye, which are all complex carbs plus their beta glucan delays the release while pushing it to elimination faster, avoiding insulin spikes.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by jjjtir]


Complex carbs come from starchy foods which are less than ideal imo. Most contain anti-nutrients and harmful by products, they also require cooking to be consumed for the most part. Simple sugars from refined products may cause insulin spikes but this is not the case with whole unrefined products(fruits etc.) because of the fiber.

Starch is flavorless and this increases the toxicity of the product because it requires many spices and salt to be added for it to be palatable. Cook any starchy food at 100 degrees and it turns into a plaster like paste, this is what happens when you eat the stuff. It also takes energy to break the complex version down to simple carbs, so why not just bypass this altogether?

If you do some more research you'll see that grains and starchy material in general are not ideal human foods and never have been.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp
You do realize every cell in your body needs glucose???


For what? Fuel? That's absolutely false. Glucose is only "required" only required by the brain and central nervous system, both of which, in total, need about 130g. And, eventually, that quantity can be reduced if the body is burning ketone bodies.


I'm all for eating less complex carbs but you need simple sugars(fruits).



Your body only requires exogenous (external) amino acids and fatty acids, glucose is not essential.


Whether you eat them or not your body is gonna convert whatever you eat to those sugars so why not just give it what it needs?


This is also absolutely false. Fructose is converted to triglycerides in the liver, especially when eaten in large amounts (such as a frugivorous diet).

Are you seriously saying that all macronutrients are converted to glucose?

-Dev



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
that quantity can be reduced if the body is burning ketone bodies.



This is true but its been proven and accepted by just about every nutritionist, doctor and health professional that glucose is the ideal fuel for our body. Most of these people are also of the opinion that ketosis is harmful to the body. If you wanna run your body on less then ideal fuel by all means go for it but i rather get the most ideal stuff possible and that happens to be carbohydrates



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
(such as a frugivorous diet).


The majority of people on a frugivorious diet have completely normal or lower then average triglyceride levels. Proving this to be false. Maybe fiber less refined fructose causes this problem but whole fresh products do not



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Are you seriously saying that all macronutrients are converted to glucose?



Did i ever say this? that wouldn't even make sense.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp


but its been proven and accepted by just about every nutritionist, doctor and health professional that glucose is the ideal fuel for our body.


I thought you didn't listen to what mainstream health professionals advise?
Typically, nutritionists never studied biochemistry in school; and doctors never studied nutrition in school.

Glucose is not an "idea" fuel for the body; it is the preferred fuel source for the brain and central nervous system, as I pointed out earlier. Free fatty-acids are the predominant fuel for the rest of the body, at rest and during light exercise, including the heart and skeletal muscles. This is not controversial to those who've studied molecular and cell biology.


Most of these people are also of the opinion that ketosis is harmful to the body.


That opinion is not very well researched, and is based on the assumption that Ketosis and Ketoacidosis are similar, when they are in fact two very different physiological effects.


If you wanna run your body on less then ideal fuel by all means go for it but i rather get the most ideal stuff possible and that happens to be carbohydrates


It would be nice if that were true.


The majority of people on a frugivorious diet have completely normal or lower then average triglyceride levels.


I must have missed the data that suggest such a statement. In any case, if it's true, I can understand how a healthy individual could sustain his/her health on a frugivorous diet ( for how long, idk). But, an individual who is insulin resistant (hyperinsulinemia) would not fare well on such a diet.



Maybe fiber less refined fructose causes this problem but whole fresh products do not


Oh, no doubt. HFCS is causing the problem...but once the disease starts, even fruit needs to be limited to fix it.



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Are you seriously saying that all macronutrients are converted to glucose?



Did i ever say this? that wouldn't even make sense.


Well, here's what you said:


Whether you eat them or not your body is gonna convert whatever you eat to those sugars so why not just give it what it needs?


Whatever that means....

-Dev



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
This is not controversial to those who've studied molecular and cell biology.


Do you have a source to corroborate this?

I generally don't listen to mainstream science, doctors or nutritionist but I've tried a high fat diet and its nothing compared to a high carb diet for energy levels. Also if high fat diets were more efficient and "better" why wouldn't athletes utilize them?


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
It would be nice if that were true.


It is for me i guess, the majority of athletes and other people who do a high carb diet. Maybe it doesn't work for you? Don't get how that would be possible tho seeing how all our bodies work the same




Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd But, an individual who is insulin resistant (hyperinsulinemia) would not fare well on such a diet.


People cure insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and get type 1 under controll with barley any insulin shots on my diet (80/10/10)

robbybarbaro.org... he has type 1 diabetes




Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
but once the disease starts, even fruit needs to be limited to fix it.


Not in my opinion


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd


Whatever that means....

-Dev


That does sound like i meant that everything you ate would turn into glucose but it was just worded wrong. I'm just saying whether you eat sugar or not your body will convert some of what you eat to glucose, it all ultimately converts to atp(except for you brain and cns). I've also read that the process of converting fat to atp is 10% less efficient then converting carbs but I'm not too sure on the validity of that statement.





[edit on 25-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
This is not controversial to those who've studied molecular and cell biology.


Do you have a source to corroborate this?


I can look for something but most of the data are found in books. I'll have to search for the abstracts in the online journal archives.....


I generally don't listen to mainstream science, doctors or nutritionist but I've tried a high fat diet and its nothing compared to a high carb diet for energy levels.


I understand why a high fat diet would feel lethargic at first. Anyone whose body is burning glucose for fuel will feel thay way for a few reasons. Carbohydrate restriction leads to decreased insulin secretion leads to sodium retention leads to water retention, thereby, at first, leading to a possible pottassium deficiency.

And until insulin and glucagon are in equalibrium, insulin will induce lipogensis (fat storage) and will not allow fatty acids to be burned as fuel.

So, supplement with pottassium and give the body time to adapt and you'll notice that a high fat diet is very satiating and energy rich.


Also if high fat diets were more efficient and "better" why wouldn't athletes utilize them?


A lot of them do. In fact, most well informed athletes, from strength athletes to endurance athletes, consume high fat diets. They eat clean, low-carb diets and consume easily digestible carbs peri and post workout.

Most of the literature now supports an high/moderate fat, low-carb diet for athletes. I can find some data to support this notion as well, if you'd like.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Also, Lipoprotein Lipase (LPL) will breakdown triglycerides in the blood to allow them access into the cells. The presence of insulin stimulates LPL activity in fat cells (which means fat gain) and decreases LPL activity in muscle cells forcing them to burn glucose for energy. This observation is why many people falsely think the muscles prefer glucose for fuel.

The negative stimulus of insulin (lack of, or equalibrium with glucagon) causes LPL activity in the muscles (so muscles burn fat) and decreases LPL activity in the fat cells (so fat is released from the cells).

Other hormones stimulate LPL activity as well, including hormones produced before/after a workout.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Thanks for the info devolution, you definitely have some points and it has made me take a closer look at my own diet. While i still think lower fat is personally better slightly higher fat might not be all that bad, the evidence for high fat(45% or more) diet still seems to be inconclusive from what i read last night tho.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Here's an interesting study recently done to show the effects of high carb foods on the heart. This basically goes along with what I've been saying the real culprit is High glycemic refined foods, Low glycemic load products such as fruit, vegetables and even whole grains do no seem to cause this problem or not even nearly as much as the high GI foods. The articles not really clear on whether the bran causes this but definitely not to the effect that the white sugar and bread does


www.fao.org...
There has been concern that a substantial increase in carbohydrate-containing food at the expense of fat, might result in a decrease in high-density lipoprotein and an increase in very low-density lipoprotein and triglycerides in the blood. There is, however, no evidence that this occurs when the increase in carbohydrates results from increased consumption of vegetables, fruits and appropriately processed cereals, over prolonged periods.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I think that we agree on principles more than we disagree.

One thing that we do agree on, and is definitely conclusive is that many cultures have lived long and healthily on high fat, animal based diets and many have lived long and healthily on low fat, plant based diets. But the one thing they all had in common was their exclusion of easily digestible, processed/refined carbohydrates, especially sugar (sucrose). That truly seems to be the major culprit.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


^definitely agree with all that^



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Ancient Egyptian priests 'killed by rich ritual food'


"We have been able to show how temple inscriptions, which recorded daily rituals, can be combined with investigation of mummies to provide additional evidence about the priests and their diet."

Co-author Professor Tony Heagerty, from the Cardiovascular Research Group at Manchester University, added: "There is unequivocal evidence to show that atherosclerosis is a disease of ancient times, induced by diet, and that the epidemic of atherosclerosis which began in the 20th Century is nothing more than history revisiting us."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What were they eating?


The translations of inscriptions on the walls of Egyptian temples showed that priests would offer the gods meals of beef, goose, bread, fruit, vegetables, cake, wine and beer three times a day.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Of those foods, bread, cake, wine and beer are the main culprits. Saturated fat had little to do with it.

Understanding that the massive consumption of wheat as bread has harmful effects on blood sugars and, more importantly, LDL. Not to mention the tremendous amounts of beer that was regularly enjoyed, which increases Triglycerides, VLDL and LDL.

The effects of carbohdrates, wheat and alcohol (ethanol) are most likely responsible for the observed incidences of atherosclerosis in ancient egyptians.

-Dev



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join