Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 126827 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2557
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1470 on: December 29, 2018, 07:25:46 PM »
Given that the oldest person on record died two and a half years short of that, take a guess.

Haven’t we gone off topic again?
If it's such a huge problem for you, just report the post instead of participating in the very discussion you're going to complain about.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10188
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1471 on: December 29, 2018, 07:28:13 PM »
This topic has come up a few times in this and other threads. The article covers it pretty well.



Think everyone died young in ancient societies? Think again | Aeon Ideas


Quote
So it seems that humans evolved with a characteristic lifespan. Mortality rates in traditional populations are high during infancy, before decreasing sharply to remain constant till about 40 years, then mortality rises to peak at about 70. Most individuals remain healthy and vigorous right through their 60s or beyond, until senescence sets in, which is the physical decline where if one cause fails to kill, another will soon strike the mortal blow.

Why didn't you quote this line: "While an individual living to 125 in the distant past would have been extremely rare, it was possible."

Makes you wonder what the agenda of the authors really is.

Had I quoted that line, though, I would have quoted it in full context:

Quote
The maximum human lifespan (approximately 125 years) has barely changed since we arrived. It is estimated that if the three main causes of death in old age today – cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer – were eliminated, the developed world would see only a 15-year increase in life expectancy. While an individual living to 125 in the distant past would have been extremely rare, it was possible. And some things about the past, such as men being valued for their power and women for their beauty, have changed little.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10188
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1472 on: December 29, 2018, 07:37:59 PM »
Before agriculture was developed, there was a short phase in which people settled down in one location and stopped being nomadic, so that elderly people with valuable knowledge could have had food brought to them instead of having to find it for themselves.

That's not the case for all pre-agriculture populations, if any. Some were nomadic, others were not. This short phase you speak of sounds made up rather than evidence based. It's not known precisely when or where or under what conditions agriculture took root (so to speak) in the human population. (There are isolated examples in the record of crop cultivation and animal domestication that predate the accepted dates, but no evidence that agriculture was established).

Also, some populations remained nomadic after the introduction of agriculture.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2290
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1473 on: December 29, 2018, 07:58:48 PM »
This topic has come up a few times in this and other threads. The article covers it pretty well.



Think everyone died young in ancient societies? Think again | Aeon Ideas


Quote
So it seems that humans evolved with a characteristic lifespan. Mortality rates in traditional populations are high during infancy, before decreasing sharply to remain constant till about 40 years, then mortality rises to peak at about 70. Most individuals remain healthy and vigorous right through their 60s or beyond, until senescence sets in, which is the physical decline where if one cause fails to kill, another will soon strike the mortal blow.

Why didn't you quote this line: "While an individual living to 125 in the distant past would have been extremely rare, it was possible."

Makes you wonder what the agenda of the authors really is.

Had I quoted that line, though, I would have quoted it in full context:

Quote
The maximum human lifespan (approximately 125 years) has barely changed since we arrived. It is estimated that if the three main causes of death in old age today – cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer – were eliminated, the developed world would see only a 15-year increase in life expectancy. While an individual living to 125 in the distant past would have been extremely rare, it was possible. And some things about the past, such as men being valued for their power and women for their beauty, have changed little.

I'm not sure how that would have helped you.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1474 on: December 29, 2018, 08:38:11 PM »
Before agriculture was developed, there was a short phase in which people settled down in one location and stopped being nomadic, so that elderly people with valuable knowledge could have had food brought to them instead of having to find it for themselves.

That's not the case for all pre-agriculture populations, if any. Some were nomadic, others were not. This short phase you speak of sounds made up rather than evidence based. It's not known precisely when or where or under what conditions agriculture took root (so to speak) in the human population. (There are isolated examples in the record of crop cultivation and animal domestication that predate the accepted dates, but no evidence that agriculture was established).

Also, some populations remained nomadic after the introduction of agriculture.

I didn’t write that ‘all people’ settled down in one location before adopting agriculture, just ‘people.’  Some nomads would have seen farmers and more or less immediately settled down and adopted agriculture for its benefits.

There’s archaeological evidence that humans had settled down in one location, but were still hunter-gatherers.  It’s a reasonable hypothesis that the practice of deliberately planting and tending crops (which necessitates being in the one place in order to protect the crops from foraging animals) followed accidents in which gathered seeds were dropped on the ground in the vicinity of settlements, which then germinated providing a concentration of desired food, and the idea of doing it deliberately.

It’s implausible that a nomad would come up with the idea of burying food (ie seeds) with the intention of coming back to the same location weeks or months later, to find unconsumed crops.  The original agriculturists, harvest ants, don’t do it.

Your last sentence is ambiguous.  Do you mean that some nomads declined to adopt agriculture?  Or that some nomads planted crops, and moved elsewhere - leaving the crops to the ravages of nature - coming back later in the hope that there’ll be something for them to eat?


Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10188
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1475 on: December 29, 2018, 09:23:33 PM »
This topic has come up a few times in this and other threads. The article covers it pretty well.



Think everyone died young in ancient societies? Think again | Aeon Ideas


Quote
So it seems that humans evolved with a characteristic lifespan. Mortality rates in traditional populations are high during infancy, before decreasing sharply to remain constant till about 40 years, then mortality rises to peak at about 70. Most individuals remain healthy and vigorous right through their 60s or beyond, until senescence sets in, which is the physical decline where if one cause fails to kill, another will soon strike the mortal blow.

Why didn't you quote this line: "While an individual living to 125 in the distant past would have been extremely rare, it was possible."

Makes you wonder what the agenda of the authors really is.

Had I quoted that line, though, I would have quoted it in full context:

Quote
The maximum human lifespan (approximately 125 years) has barely changed since we arrived. It is estimated that if the three main causes of death in old age today – cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer – were eliminated, the developed world would see only a 15-year increase in life expectancy. While an individual living to 125 in the distant past would have been extremely rare, it was possible. And some things about the past, such as men being valued for their power and women for their beauty, have changed little.

I'm not sure how that would have helped you.
Given the bias here nothing would have helped me in this thread.

But her point was not that humans lived to be 125, but that the full range of human lifespan has been the same throughout human history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10188
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1476 on: December 29, 2018, 09:35:02 PM »
Before agriculture was developed, there was a short phase in which people settled down in one location and stopped being nomadic, so that elderly people with valuable knowledge could have had food brought to them instead of having to find it for themselves.

That's not the case for all pre-agriculture populations, if any. Some were nomadic, others were not. This short phase you speak of sounds made up rather than evidence based. It's not known precisely when or where or under what conditions agriculture took root (so to speak) in the human population. (There are isolated examples in the record of crop cultivation and animal domestication that predate the accepted dates, but no evidence that agriculture was established).

Also, some populations remained nomadic after the introduction of agriculture.

I didn’t write that ‘all people’ settled down in one location before adopting agriculture, just ‘people.’  Some nomads would have seen farmers and more or less immediately settled down and adopted agriculture for its benefits.

There’s archaeological evidence that humans had settled down in one location, but were still hunter-gatherers.  It’s a reasonable hypothesis that the practice of deliberately planting and tending crops (which necessitates being in the one place in order to protect the crops from foraging animals) followed accidents in which gathered seeds were dropped on the ground in the vicinity of settlements, which then germinated providing a concentration of desired food, and the idea of doing it deliberately.

It’s implausible that a nomad would come up with the idea of burying food (ie seeds) with the intention of coming back to the same location weeks or months later, to find unconsumed crops.  The original agriculturists, harvest ants, don’t do it.

Your last sentence is ambiguous.  Do you mean that some nomads declined to adopt agriculture?  Or that some nomads planted crops, and moved elsewhere - leaving the crops to the ravages of nature - coming back later in the hope that there’ll be something for them to eat?
We can’t just take your word for archeological evidence.

There were hunter gatherers who were not nomadic but you seem to be suggesting there is evidence that nomadic people stopped traveling and that evidence would be interesting to see.

As for nomads engaged in agriculture, there’s more that meets the definition of agriculture than merely planting, tending and harvesting crops.

Some humans domesticated animals, harvested wild grass and grain to feed them, and stored the same for the winter before they migrated with their herds (and with wild herds) to warmer climates. Then returned with the herds in the spring.

Pretty clever, those early agriculture humans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1477 on: December 30, 2018, 01:08:23 AM »
Before agriculture was developed, there was a short phase in which people settled down in one location and stopped being nomadic, so that elderly people with valuable knowledge could have had food brought to them instead of having to find it for themselves.

That's not the case for all pre-agriculture populations, if any. Some were nomadic, others were not. This short phase you speak of sounds made up rather than evidence based. It's not known precisely when or where or under what conditions agriculture took root (so to speak) in the human population. (There are isolated examples in the record of crop cultivation and animal domestication that predate the accepted dates, but no evidence that agriculture was established).

Also, some populations remained nomadic after the introduction of agriculture.

I didn’t write that ‘all people’ settled down in one location before adopting agriculture, just ‘people.’  Some nomads would have seen farmers and more or less immediately settled down and adopted agriculture for its benefits.

There’s archaeological evidence that humans had settled down in one location, but were still hunter-gatherers.  It’s a reasonable hypothesis that the practice of deliberately planting and tending crops (which necessitates being in the one place in order to protect the crops from foraging animals) followed accidents in which gathered seeds were dropped on the ground in the vicinity of settlements, which then germinated providing a concentration of desired food, and the idea of doing it deliberately.

It’s implausible that a nomad would come up with the idea of burying food (ie seeds) with the intention of coming back to the same location weeks or months later, to find unconsumed crops.  The original agriculturists, harvest ants, don’t do it.

Your last sentence is ambiguous.  Do you mean that some nomads declined to adopt agriculture?  Or that some nomads planted crops, and moved elsewhere - leaving the crops to the ravages of nature - coming back later in the hope that there’ll be something for them to eat?
We can’t just take your word for archeological evidence.

There were hunter gatherers who were not nomadic but you seem to be suggesting there is evidence that nomadic people stopped traveling and that evidence would be interesting to see.

As for nomads engaged in agriculture, there’s more that meets the definition of agriculture than merely planting, tending and harvesting crops.

Some humans domesticated animals, harvested wild grass and grain to feed them, and stored the same for the winter before they migrated with their herds (and with wild herds) to warmer climates. Then returned with the herds in the spring.

Pretty clever, those early agriculture humans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Archaeological evidence of settlement before agriculture?  At Catalhoyuk in Turkey 9500 years ago.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-seeds-of-civilisation-78015429/

It’s relatively easy to have permanent settlements, but still have a hunter-gatherer society, if you’re fortunate enough to be living in a region of abundance, such as the Northern Pacific coastal tribes.

I don’t think that herders harvesting wild grasses to feed their herds (if it ever occurred, and I would interested seeing your evidence for this) would anyone’s definition of agriculture.

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4746
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1478 on: February 10, 2019, 12:22:22 PM »
Two very good conversations with regards to eating (first) and growing (second).  Dianne and I both have our conflict of interest oars in the water, but both of these interviewees have the intellectual (and political) chops that ekae them worth listening to. 


https://sustainabledish.com/podcasts/sustainable-dish-episode-84-meat-as-scapegoat-with-frederic-leroy/

https://sustainabledish.com/podcasts/sustainable-dish-episode-83-the-truth-about-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-livestock-production-with-frank-mitloehner/
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Billzbub

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4091
  • I know you know I know
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1479 on: February 20, 2019, 10:58:40 AM »
I think this guy is worth listening to as well:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/keto-diet/

Steve Novella addresses the current evidence regarding keto diets as treatment for a couple of medical issues.  His bottom line, I think, is that we don't know enough about the benefits or risks of the keto diet to make a good risk-vs-benefit analysis, but that there is enough plausibility that science definitely SHOULD try harder to figure it out.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10188
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1480 on: February 20, 2019, 12:17:24 PM »
I think this guy is worth listening to as well:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/keto-diet/

Steve Novella addresses the current evidence regarding keto diets as treatment for a couple of medical issues.  His bottom line, I think, is that we don't know enough about the benefits or risks of the keto diet to make a good risk-vs-benefit analysis, but that there is enough plausibility that science definitely SHOULD try harder to figure it out.

One of the issues I have with the way Steve makes his case it the way he frames the position of the other side.

His description of the mechanisms that proponents of the Ketogenic diet claim is not what they claim and his fudges and misses a few points.

In an open and honest debate it's best if you frame the opposing side's position in a way that the opposing side's experts would agree with.

He doesn't, and it's misleading and even a bit self-serving, in that he makes their position seem less reasonable.

Also, the Modified Atkins Diet is in some ways stricter than other versions of the Ketogenic diet. The fact that it has a better retention rate is not an indication that it's easier to adhere to, but that the way it's usually used is by prescription for sufferers of epilepsy with careful and continual monitoring by medical professionals. Comparing that context to the typical implementation of Ketogenic diets in studies is not an equal comparison.

(I made this comment on SBM post)
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 03:18:06 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4746
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1481 on: February 20, 2019, 01:04:04 PM »
A ketogenic diet isn't expensive or risky.  A well constructed keto diet is certainly better for you that what most people actually eat every day.

Enough people using it are getting what they want from that diet, athletic prowess, better mental facility, weight loss or reduced inflammation.

Personally, I just do LCHF and daily intermittent ketosis.  I like to eat too much protein.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5435
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1482 on: February 22, 2019, 06:42:24 PM »
A ketogenic diet isn't expensive or risky.

Expensive, compared to what, and where?

Whether it's 'risky' over the long term is yet to be determined.


A well constructed keto diet is certainly better for you that what most people actually eat every day.

Any well constructed diet is better than what most people actually eat every day.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4746
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1483 on: February 23, 2019, 03:55:07 AM »
A ketogenic diet isn't expensive or risky.

Expensive, compared to what, and where?

Whether it's 'risky' over the long term is yet to be determined.


A well constructed keto diet is certainly better for you that what most people actually eat every day.

Any well constructed diet is better than what most people actually eat every day.

Expensive? No reason it should cost an more than any good diet.

Risky?  Well, as the thousands of people that have been on keto for decades, especially, say, the couple that won the rowing race (set the record) from CA to HI a couple of years ago.

True, most people eat crap, IMHO, but I only care because they are sucking a lot of my taxes into their hospital bills and adding to hospital queues. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5435
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1484 on: February 23, 2019, 09:49:45 PM »
A ketogenic diet isn't expensive or risky.

Expensive, compared to what, and where?

Whether it's 'risky' over the long term is yet to be determined.


A well constructed keto diet is certainly better for you that what most people actually eat every day.

Any well constructed diet is better than what most people actually eat every day.

Expensive? No reason it should cost an more than any good diet.

So that's your answer? "There's no reason it should cost any more"?

So you've never actually compared the cost of a LCHF diet to other diets which contain less meat? 


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-food-less-energy/

Meat, poultry and fish cost more time, energy, and resources to produce, therefore it is generally far more expensive per-calorie than vegetables and grains.


Risky?  Well, as the thousands of people that have been on keto for decades, especially, say, the couple that won the rowing race (set the record) from CA to HI a couple of years ago.

Nice narrative there, but doesn't say anything about actual reality. I don't care about hasty generalizations or tales of athletic prowess.

Lets see some actual data.


True, most people eat crap, IMHO, but I only care because they are sucking a lot of my taxes into their hospital bills and adding to hospital queues.

Oops, you said the quiet part loud.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 02:59:57 AM by John Albert »

 

personate-rain
personate-rain