Author Topic: Episode #666  (Read 7949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline esterin

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2018, 11:51:03 PM »
Third, the extracellular fluid pH homeostasis comes with a cost. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." That "narrow" range is kept in large part at the expense of much wider pH changes in urine pH. Those frequent urine pH excursions outside the well-trodden path may by themselves contribute to a variety of health issues.
First, I appreciate the effort!

I think you are correct, in that "there is no free lunch" the body strives to maintain Homeostasis by compensating for any input that is out of "normal operating conditions" by adjusting other parameters - this is metabolic derangement by definition, although the measured parameter like PH seems in "normal range".

The naive researcher by measuring some parameter usually short term will conclude that everything is just fine, and that the long term harm claimed by the "purveyors of pseudo science" (i.e. the accumulated experience of generations) is therefore just a myth invented to sell something, as if there are no much stronger commercial interests in medicine.

If this compensation process is short term, no harm is done, but if it is chronic it'll cause some type of metabolic derangement and slow but certain harm to the "machine" which is probably undetected by the mostly observational research methods and will be hard to identify because it'll take the form of common problems like obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney, heart disease, cancer, weak immune system, allergies etc....

The body is extremely complex, it is not designed i.e. there is no convenient separation between the different modules and systems, it is analog in nature, there are endless amount of feedback loops preventing any easy analysis and determination of cause and effect - any engineer will understand what I am talking about....and there are no datasheets available.

In addition long term investigations of complex multi system changes like diet and life style (vs. narrow simple changes like the effect of some drug/molecule) are basically impossible.
Hence there is no reason to think that the long term effects of changes and medical advice are understood.

So I think that the only reasonable advice we should accept from medical professionals for now, is keeping our diet and lifestyle as natural as possible i.e. try to understand what is natural for humans prior to the agricultural revolution (i.e. prior to being subverted by culture) and try to come as close as we can to that state - not because it is the best whatever that means but because we do not have any better guide.

Sadly the unjustified arrogance and the presumption of knowledge by the medical profession is pushing in the exact opposite direction, the above comments would be labeled the "Naturalistic fallacy" dismissed, without any real effort to dismiss it with evidence or arguments.

When I was a child I brought home many animals, birds, dogs, kittens, turtles  and a snake, to understand how to treat and feed them I would ask what is their natural diet in the wild, and try to come close to it as much as I can, with good results  - apparently this obvious practice is elevated by "Skeptics" to the level of the "Naturalistic fallacy" and dismissed as a myth when applied to humans.

Again, from my experience during an investigation the worst thing is the existence of bad data and the presumption of knowledge and not the lack of data.
This is obvious when considering the case of nutrition science from the 50s-60s till now, and the harm caused since.

Offline God Bomb

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2018, 03:07:41 AM »
diet science once again proving to be the most controversial topic. 
Fell deeds awake. Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the red dawn.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2018, 12:42:39 PM »
Third, the extracellular fluid pH homeostasis comes with a cost. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." That "narrow" range is kept in large part at the expense of much wider pH changes in urine pH. Those frequent urine pH excursions outside the well-trodden path may by themselves contribute to a variety of health issues.
First, I appreciate the effort!

I think you are correct, in that "there is no free lunch" the body strives to maintain Homeostasis by compensating for any input that is out of "normal operating conditions" by adjusting other parameters - this is metabolic derangement by definition, although the measured parameter like PH seems in "normal range".

The naive researcher by measuring some parameter usually short term will conclude that everything is just fine, and that the long term harm claimed by the "purveyors of pseudo science" (i.e. the accumulated experience of generations) is therefore just a myth invented to sell something, as if there are no much stronger commercial interests in medicine.

If this compensation process is short term, no harm is done, but if it is chronic it'll cause some type of metabolic derangement and slow but certain harm to the "machine" which is probably undetected by the mostly observational research methods and will be hard to identify because it'll take the form of common problems like obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney, heart disease, cancer, weak immune system, allergies etc....

The body is extremely complex, it is not designed i.e. there is no convenient separation between the different modules and systems, it is analog in nature, there are endless amount of feedback loops preventing any easy analysis and determination of cause and effect - any engineer will understand what I am talking about....and there are no datasheets available.

In addition long term investigations of complex multi system changes like diet and life style (vs. narrow simple changes like the effect of some drug/molecule) are basically impossible.
Hence there is no reason to think that the long term effects of changes and medical advice are understood.

So I think that the only reasonable advice we should accept from medical professionals for now, is keeping our diet and lifestyle as natural as possible i.e. try to understand what is natural for humans prior to the agricultural revolution (i.e. prior to being subverted by culture) and try to come as close as we can to that state - not because it is the best whatever that means but because we do not have any better guide.

Sadly the unjustified arrogance and the presumption of knowledge by the medical profession is pushing in the exact opposite direction, the above comments would be labeled the "Naturalistic fallacy" dismissed, without any real effort to dismiss it with evidence or arguments.

When I was a child I brought home many animals, birds, dogs, kittens, turtles  and a snake, to understand how to treat and feed them I would ask what is their natural diet in the wild, and try to come close to it as much as I can, with good results  - apparently this obvious practice is elevated by "Skeptics" to the level of the "Naturalistic fallacy" and dismissed as a myth when applied to humans.

Again, from my experience during an investigation the worst thing is the existence of bad data and the presumption of knowledge and not the lack of data.
This is obvious when considering the case of nutrition science from the 50s-60s till now, and the harm caused since.

esterin,

Well, if you want to eat the ‘natural’ diet consumed by humans before the agricultural revolution in the hunter-gatherer state then you have a lot of choices to make with regard to your suppositions as to what a ‘natural’ diet is for hunter-gatherers. 

Would it include semi-decomposing raw meat and bone marrow scavenged from kills brought down by predators such as lions?  Starchy tubers of plants?  Small hard fruits in season (prior to fruit such as apples and peaches being selectively bred to be the large sweet fruit of today)?  Small difficult to gather grass seeds used to produce flour? 

There’s no practical way in which the current global population of 7+ billion can be fed on a pre-agricultural revolution diet, particularly since many of the food items consumed then are no longer available.

And the human body isn’t as fragile as you seem to believe, requiring a diet that is so precisely defined with regard to the proportion of major nutrients (carbohydrates, fats and proteins) that any deviation from an optimum results in disease.

Humans are natural omnivores, eating whatever is available and easiest to acquire.  ‘Natural’ human existence was one of feasts and famines, during which human diets varied greatly in amount and composition.  There’s no single diet that’s ‘best’ for health.  If there were, humans would be extinct by now, because the ‘natural optimal’ diet would hardly ever be obtainable.  Humans would be in the position of other animals which consume a limited diet because that’s all their brains evolved to be able to acquire.

Humans on agricultural revolution diets are very long-lived.  The oldest human recently died at 117 years.  Neither lived on your ‘natural’ diet.  The current record holder is 115 years old.  The animals you brought home and fed on their natural diets didn’t live as long as long-lived humans on modern non-‘natural’ diets.

Humans evolved intelligence to be able to acquire a very wide range of delicious and nutritious food items.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline esterin

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2018, 03:01:04 PM »
Well, if you want to eat the ‘natural’ diet consumed by humans before the agricultural revolution in the hunter-gatherer state then you have a lot of choices to make with regard to your suppositions as to what a ‘natural’ diet is for hunter-gatherers. 
yes, i agree, this is 100% true, but there are clear and unambiguous trends we can adopt:
Almost no sugar, only a little grains, no vegetable oils, much more meat and animal products.

Would it include semi-decomposing raw meat and bone marrow scavenged from kills brought down by predators such as lions? 
Really? that what you will allow for the most terrifying hunter-species the earth had ever known? a species that exterminated most of the large mega fauna? all large mammals in Americas?
All the studies that investigate currently living hunter gatherers are 100% clear (and i can back it up if challenged) Homo Sapiens is a proficient hunter and most of the diet are animal products, it is 100% animal products at northern latitudes and decreases up until the equator, yet it is always much greater than the current western diets.

Starchy tubers of plants?  Small hard fruits in season (prior to fruit such as apples and peaches being selectively bred to be the large sweet fruit of today)?  Small difficult to gather grass seeds used to produce flour? 
Sounds right, but just a little of this, as you write "difficult to gather grass seeds" and "small hard fruits in season" couldn't have been big part of the diet - the diet was based on hunting, this is unambiguous, hunting was so abindant .

There’s no practical way in which the current global population of 7+ billion can be fed on a pre-agricultural revolution diet, particularly since many of the food items consumed then are no longer available.
Those are guidelines as i wrote, the only reliable guidelines we have, we should strive toward them, i.e. it should inform our decisions, so when you thinking bread and pasta vs. liver with onions  - choose liver, whatever the resources available the diet if informed by those principles will be better than the alternative.

And the human body isn’t as fragile as you seem to believe, requiring a diet that is so precisely defined with regard to the proportion of major nutrients (carbohydrates, fats and proteins) that any deviation from an optimum results in disease.
Again, this is not "precisely defined diet", as i mentioned the diet varied widely over the latitudes, but the important is the trend, where should you aim, what guideline would inform your decisions when trying to decide between options.
Regarding whether the body is fragile, nobody said that, it is extremely resilient, you might see the results of incorrect diet in 40-50 years, like those Asian Indians starting to get heart disease at 40 from their perfectly AHA/USDA compliant diet. 

Humans are natural omnivores, eating whatever is available and easiest to acquire.  ‘Natural’ human existence was one of feasts and famines, during which human diets varied greatly in amount and composition.  There’s no single diet that’s ‘best’ for health.  If there were, humans would be extinct by now, because the ‘natural optimal’ diet would hardly ever be obtainable.  Humans would be in the position of other animals which consume a limited diet because that’s all their brains evolved to be able to acquire.
You reiterate the obvious, still there are obvious guidelines,  little grains, little sugar, little wild fruits only in season, much more meat and organ meat, no vegetable oils, definitely no industrialized food imitations and food like substances and no exclusively vegan or vegetarian, not a single such example exists.
BTW, "feast and famine" theory that is used to explain obesity, is an unproven and unlikely hypothesis, every survey of hunter gatherers as Jared Diamond notes show that hunt was bountiful at all times hence hunter gatherers basically socialize and play all their days, they require only few hrs a week to hunt and gather all their need, they definitely had much more leisure then we have.
For example Kalahari desert bushmen require 12-19 hrs a week, 14 hrs a week for the Hadza tribe of Tanzania, note this is today, when the nomads were pushed to the most remote and hardest places by the much more numerous agriculturalists.

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race


If there were, humans would be extinct by now, because the ‘natural optimal’ diet would hardly ever be obtainable.  Humans would be in the position of other animals which consume a limited diet because that’s all their brains evolved to be able to acquire.
No, we wouldn't be extinct, but we would be unhealthy since we are living in manner that is not best suited to our natural state...i.e the famous "Naturalistic Fallacy" .
Nothing is more clear when excavating human remains than the difference between pre agricultural revolution to post skeletons. the later are in horrible condition, Jared Diamond gone to call the agricultural revolution as the "worst mistake"
Obviousely this is in relation to our health and well being not culture, science etc....(so don't comment on this)
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race


Humans on agricultural revolution diets are very long-lived.  The oldest human recently died at 117 years.  Neither lived on your ‘natural’ diet.  The current record holder is 115 years old.  The animals you brought home and fed on their natural diets didn’t live as long as long-lived humans on modern non-‘natural’ diets.

Humans evolved intelligence to be able to acquire a very wide range of delicious and nutritious food items.
As Jared Diamond noted this is exactly the opposite of correct, it is only now we begin to approach in some rich places the health, height dental health, leisure time of hunter gatherers and only in the richest places. 
This is also a manifestation of the "they lived to 35 back then, hence why would you take their example?" arguments which are common in these type of discussions they used to dismiss any argument, more about this later.
This is also a statistical fallacy (a real fallacy not the fake fallacies used frequently in this forum), life expectancy at birth is not the same as longevity, they lived to ripe old age only now rivaled by the current condition in the rich industrialized west, and they didn't die from chronic disease (age adjusted), but rather (in order) by violence, accidents and parasites.

Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian
Quote
”The US currently has the greatest number of known centenarians of any nation with 53,364 according to the 2010 census, or 17.3 per 100,000 people.”  i.e.  173 per million.

Google the below text, those are populations much closer to hunter gatherers than us, note those are the same population that are now enjoy the worst average health in US on western diets.
Note this is without antibiotics, sterile surgeries, heart cathetarizations and without the benefit of the current wonderful AHA/USDA/Steven Novella diet recommendations and no statins and no BP lowering medication....still 224 centenarians per million vs the 173 today.... today: at the pinnacle of self congratulatory medical science.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 34,  PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL OBSERVATIONS AMONG THE INDIANS OF SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES AND NORTHERN MEXICO, by ALES HRDLICKA 1908.
Quote
Extreme disproportion of centenarians observed, 224 per million of Indians to 3 per million of whites (esterin: that is in 1908). The relative excess of aged persons (80 years and above) among the Indians can signify only that the infirmities and diseases known ordinarily as those of old age are less grave among them — a conclusion in harmony with general observation.

BTW, In this survey of the health of the native population, where many thousands of people were survived (read the the report, available online) no single case of cancer was found and he writes (today you'll enjoy 30% chance to die of cancer).

Quote
Malignant diseases, if they exist at all — that they do would be difficult to doubt — must be extremely rare. The writer heard of "tumors," and saw several cases of the fibroid variety, but has never come across a clear case of an epithelioma or other cancer; “nor has he as yet encountered unequivocal signs of a malignant growth on an Indian bone”.

I can go on and on about the observations that were made about the state of hunter gatherers and the more primitive societies and their health.

This is the "big lie" that medical authorities and sadly Skeptics use to subvert the discussion when confronted with current state of health and chronic disease i.e. they simply lie about the evidence and use life expectancy at birth statistics to dismiss the discussion away from evidence to a dishonest apologetics for the current medical regime and practices.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 06:24:35 PM by esterin »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2018, 03:36:46 PM »

It should be distinguished the acidity or alkalinity of the food you consume with the acidifying or alkalinising effect that the metabolisation of that food may cause in your body. The argument wielded by some of the panelists that since the pH of your blood (and other extracellular fluid) is kept within "narrow" range then such effects must be negligible doesn't hold water.
(click to show/hide)

This is all nonsense. Nearly any food you eat is going to have a higher PH than the acid produced in your stomach. Even foods with the highest acid content are not as acidic as the acid your body produces to breakdown foods. If you're eating high PH foods, your body will simply produce more stomach acid to properly digest the food (usually via the food staying in the stomach longer).

So on the one hand Steve is right, that the alkaline or acidity of your food is irrelevant, and what matters is how the food is metabolized.

However, he is wrong when he says there is no food you can eat that will change your blood PH. If you go into nutritional ketosis, your blood (and Urine) ph will fall, and this is entirely due to the acidity of ketone bodies in circulation. For alcoholics or type 1 diabetics (an in rare cases, T2 diabetics) that rise in acidity can get out of control and become ketoacidosis.



T

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 Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2018, 10:38:48 PM »
It should be distinguished the acidity or alkalinity of the food you consume with the acidifying or alkalinising effect that the metabolisation of that food may cause in your body. The argument wielded by some of the panelists that since the pH of your blood (and other extracellular fluid) is kept within "narrow" range then such effects must be negligible doesn't hold water.

This is all nonsense. Nearly any food you eat is going to have a higher PH than the acid produced in your stomach. Even foods with the highest acid content are not as acidic as the acid your body produces to breakdown foods. If you're eating high PH foods, your body will simply produce more stomach acid to properly digest the food (usually via the food staying in the stomach longer).
So on the one hand Steve is right, that the alkaline or acidity of your food is irrelevant, and what matters is how the food is metabolized.

— Ever heard of the "alkaline tide"?:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Alkaline tide refers to a condition, normally encountered after eating a meal, where during the production of hydrochloric acid by parietal cells in the stomach, the parietal cells secrete bicarbonate ions across their basolateral membranes and into the blood, causing a temporary increase in pH.
During hydrochloric acid secretion in the stomach, the gastric parietal cells extract chloride anions, carbon dioxide, water and sodium cations from the blood plasma and in turn release bicarbonate back into the plasma after forming it from carbon dioxide and water constituents. This is to maintain the plasma's electrical balance, as the chloride anions have been extracted. The bicarbonate content causes the venous blood leaving the stomach to be more alkaline than the arterial blood delivered to it.
The alkaline tide is neutralised by a secretion of H+ into the blood during HCO3− secretion in the pancreas.
Postprandial (i.e., after a meal) alkaline tide lasts until the acids in food absorbed in the small intestine reunite with the bicarbonate that was produced when the food was in the stomach. Thus, alkaline tide is self-limited and normally lasts less than two hours.
Postprandial alkaline tide has also been shown to be a causative agent of calcium oxalate urinary stones in cats, and potentially in other species.
A more pronounced alkaline tide results from vomiting, which stimulates hyperactivity of gastric parietal cells to replace lost stomach acid. Thus, protracted vomiting can result in metabolic alkalosis.

"Alkaline tide." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_tide

Quote from: Margaret E. Smith PhD DSc, Dion G. Morton MD DSc
Acid–base disturbance
Secretion of acid by the stomach during a meal is accompanied by transport of HCO3− ions into the blood (the alkaline tide). When the food reaches the duodenum it is mixed with the alkaline secretions from the pancreas, liver and walls of the intestines. The cellular mechanisms whereby these alkaline juices are secreted are in some ways the reverse of those whereby acid is secreted in the stomach (Fig. 3.7). Thus transport of HCO3− ions into the glandular ducts of these organs occurs simultaneously with the transport of an equal number of H+ ions into the blood serving these organs. The consequent increase in blood H+ concentration is normally neutralized by the HCO3− ions of the alkaline tide of the blood from the stomach. In addition the H+ ions secreted by the stomach into the lumen are neutralized by the HCO3− ions present in the digestive juices (bile, pancreatic juice and intestinal juice) acting in the small intestine (Fig. 3.8). This balance can be upset by gastric resection that restricts acid production. Feedback control mechanisms normally regulate the secretion of H+ and HCO3− ions to keep the pH values in the gut lumen within appropriate limits. Many metabolic functions in the body are extremely sensitive to pH change, and the pH of body fluids such as plasma, must therefore be maintained within a very narrow range.

Abnormalities can occur in the acid–base balance of the patient who has undergone partial gastrectomy but the body usually compensates for these disturbances. After removal of the stomach, the ‘alkaline’ tide obviously does not occur, but during a meal H+ ions are still transported into the blood from the secreting pancreas, liver and intestines and the blood tends to become acidic. This ‘metabolic’ acidosis can be compensated in the short term by the respiratory system that responds with an increase in the rate and depth of breathing. This results in CO2 being blown off from the blood. The reaction:

H++HCO3-→H2CO3→CO2+H2O

is consequently driven to the right (the law of mass action) and the H+ ion concentration in the blood falls towards normal. However, full compensation of the acidosis takes longer and depends on processes in the renal tubules that conserve HCO3− and secrete acid. In the presence of impaired renal function, the patient’s blood tests would show a low pH, low HCO3− concentration and a low PCO2. In a compensated patient, following a meal, acidotic urine would be excreted. A detailed explanation of the control of acid–base balance can be found in the companion volumes on the Respiratory and Renal systems.

— Chapter 3: "THE STOMACH: BASIC FUNCTIONS." Margaret E. Smith PhD DSc, Dion G. Morton MD DSc, in "The Digestive System (Second Edition)." Elsevier (2010) p. 45
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/alkaline-tide
http://b-ok.xyz/book/2801108/2affec

Further reading:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/alkaline-tide
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-veterinary-medicine/alkaline-tide

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 10:51:15 PM by Isranner »

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2018, 11:14:33 PM »
esterin,

You’ve written a lot of nonsense.  I don’t disagree that the adoption of agriculture wasn’t a disaster for the early adopters because the early farmers were relying on a limited number of food items, which were nutrionally unbalanced and not as good as modern crops - because there hadn’t been the time to artificially select the best varieties.

We now have a very wide range of nutritious crops which are available in large amounts.

The San hunters in the Kalahari aren’t a typical hunter-gatherer society.  They were pushed into very marginal land by the much more successful farmers and grazers.  You can’t extrapolate what a typical hunter-gatherer society was like from the special case of the San.

I don’t disagree that there are a very wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, provided they provide sufficient (but not excessive) calories, and adequate vitamins and minerals, and adequate essential fatty acids and amino acids.

You can be just as healthy (or unhealthy) on a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet as you can be on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet.  Or one of the many vegetarian diets.

Metabolism is complex because it evolved to cope with a wide variety of different food sources.  Bacteria as domains of life can metabolise virtually every chemical compound capable of releasing excess energy, but individual bacteria are restricted as to what they can metabolise.  Complex eukaryotic life (such as humans) can metabolise a much wider range of food stuffs, including a wide range in food compositions.

There’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable healthy diets.  But it’s important to avoid being 1. Overweight or obese.  2. Sedentary (it’s important to be adequately physically active most if not all days).  3. Consuming excessive simple sugars, such as sucrose and fructose.

All of these are associated with an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline esterin

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2018, 01:34:01 AM »
esterin,

You’ve written a lot of nonsense. 
fine,  hopefully you'll be able to prove this with arguments and evidence.

I don’t disagree that the adoption of agriculture wasn’t a disaster for the early adopters because the early farmers were relying on a limited number of food items, which were nutrionally unbalanced and not as good as modern crops - because there hadn’t been the time to artificially select the best varieties.

We now have a very wide range of nutritious crops which are available in large amounts.
So? nobody disputes this, agriculture is a success of numbers, what about quality?
Note that nothing fundamental had changed , rotten teeth, obesity, height, chronic disease, we are only getting to hunter gatherer height, teeth, chronic skeletal damage and physical deterioration with age and longevity in rich industrial west and only now.   

The San hunters in the Kalahari aren’t a typical hunter-gatherer society.  They were pushed into very marginal land by the much more successful farmers and grazers.  You can’t extrapolate what a typical hunter-gatherer society was like from the special case of the San.
It is not fun arguing when you make my point, yes they were driven to marginal by more numerous farmers (it is a numbers game) and still they never experienced any feast-famine i.e. no famine and they need need only 12-19 hrs a week for their whole subsistence.
The famine is a problem only for farmers who are strongly attached to the land, due t investment, tend to over populate and depend to a high degree on weather and lack of marauders and pest, it is safe to say humans did not  developed in state of feast and famine it is a "new" (~10Kyrs)  phenomenon.

I don’t disagree that there are a very wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, provided they provide sufficient (but not excessive) calories, and adequate vitamins and minerals, and adequate essential fatty acids and amino acids.
This is all unproven hypothesis, a product of nutrition "science", please be skeptical, or are we only skeptical of fun stuff like Astrology?
Skepticism to have any meaning or utility is the skepticism in the pronouncement of experts.
I already commented on the current research methodologies that are incapable of separating cause and effect.

A bit off topic but, the unequivocal pronouncement that is always made by "experts" is that you should provide "sufficient (but not excessive) calories" and that excessive calories are the underline cause of obesity and T2DM.
This is the basic "fact" of obesity research. How this "fact" was proven? why wouldn't it be that excessive consumption is not a symptom of a bad diet?

You can be just as healthy (or unhealthy) on a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet as you can be on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet.  Or one of the many vegetarian diets.

Metabolism is complex because it evolved to cope with a wide variety of different food sources.  Bacteria as domains of life can metabolise virtually every chemical compound capable of releasing excess energy, but individual bacteria are restricted as to what they can metabolise.  Complex eukaryotic life (such as humans) can metabolise a much wider range of food stuffs, including a wide range in food compositions.
It doesn't mean the type of food has no metabolic difference in the long run, I think you admit this when you claim we should avoid sugars, why than avoid sugars if we are "Complex eukaryotic life...that metabolize wide range of foods"?

There’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable healthy diets.  But it’s important to avoid being 1. Overweight or obese.  2. Sedentary (it’s important to be adequately physically active most if not all days).  3. Consuming excessive simple sugars, such as sucrose and fructose.
All of these are associated with an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes.
Looking at the whole data, as we already discussed previously, type 2 diabetes is most commonly associated with vegetarianism and not obesity, only looking at a small self selected part of the data you can claim this, half of T2DM's in the world are Asian Indians who are not particularly obese and not at all overeating, and are probably quite active..
Obesity is a symptom not a cause.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2018, 01:59:06 AM »
esterin,

You’ve got ideological blinkers on which is obscuring your sense of scepticism.

I’m sceptical that there’s any one ‘best’ diet.  Thinking that there is is just ‘magical’ thinking.

Vegetarian diets don’t cause type 2 diabetes, as I’ve noted many times.  The incidence of type 2 diabetes increases in the following order; lowest in vegans, then ovo-lacto vegetarians, then pisco-vegetarians, then semi-vegetarians, and highest in non-vegetarians.  Vegans of healthy body weight have half the incidence of type 2 diabetes than non-vegetarians of similar weight.  But vegans with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m^2 have a 4 fold increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.  Being overweight is the associated factor, not the diet.

You persist in making the ecological fallacy in asserting that characteristics of a group are characteristic of the population as the whole.  You commit it numerous times.  Indians with type 2 diabetes aren’t characteristic of Indians in traditional society or vegetarians in other societies.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2018, 01:27:11 PM »
It should be distinguished the acidity or alkalinity of the food you consume with the acidifying or alkalinising effect that the metabolisation of that food may cause in your body. The argument wielded by some of the panelists that since the pH of your blood (and other extracellular fluid) is kept within "narrow" range then such effects must be negligible doesn't hold water.

This is all nonsense. Nearly any food you eat is going to have a higher PH than the acid produced in your stomach. Even foods with the highest acid content are not as acidic as the acid your body produces to breakdown foods. If you're eating high PH foods, your body will simply produce more stomach acid to properly digest the food (usually via the food staying in the stomach longer).
So on the one hand Steve is right, that the alkaline or acidity of your food is irrelevant, and what matters is how the food is metabolized.

— Ever heard of the "alkaline tide"?:

Yes, that's a temporary phenomena, which there is temporary lowering in acidity (increase in PH) after meals. It's a regulated part of the ebb and flow of PH.

Again, nothing to see here. No harm. Changing the ph of your foods would only have a marginal effect.
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
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2018, 10:42:53 AM »

It should be distinguished the acidity or alkalinity of the food you consume with the acidifying or alkalinising effect that the metabolisation of that food may cause in your body. The argument wielded by some of the panelists that since the pH of your blood (and other extracellular fluid) is kept within "narrow" range then such effects must be negligible doesn't hold water.
(click to show/hide)

This is all nonsense. Nearly any food you eat is going to have a higher PH than the acid produced in your stomach. Even foods with the highest acid content are not as acidic as the acid your body produces to breakdown foods. If you're eating high PH foods, your body will simply produce more stomach acid to properly digest the food (usually via the food staying in the stomach longer).

So on the one hand Steve is right, that the alkaline or acidity of your food is irrelevant, and what matters is how the food is metabolized.

However, he is wrong when he says there is no food you can eat that will change your blood PH. If you go into nutritional ketosis, your blood (and Urine) ph will fall, and this is entirely due to the acidity of ketone bodies in circulation. For alcoholics or type 1 diabetics (an in rare cases, T2 diabetics) that rise in acidity can get out of control and become ketoacidosis.



T

CarbShark,

As you certain that that is true?  That if you have circulating ketone bodies the pH of your blood will decrease (you’ll have a metabolic acidosis)?

There’s natural buffers which prevent the pH of the blood changing.  And ketone bodies are naturally metabolised, so the level of ketone bodies even in starvation or extreme carbohydrate restriction doesn’t increase to high levels (insulin is necessary to metabolise ketone bodies). It’s only when there’s a deficiency in or insensitivity to insulin that ketone bodies can increase to high levels which exceeds the natural buffering resulting in (keto)acidosis.

It’s not the acidosis that gets out of control.  It’s the ketosis that gets out of control, resulting in acidosis.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Episode #666
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2018, 11:35:25 AM »
The test for ketone levels is a litmus test.

Yes ketone bodies are naturally metabolized, but they circulate freely and blood and urine levels can rise significantly.

Ketosis does not get out of control. Ketoacidosis can, in diabetics and alcoholics, but they are different conditions with different morphology.


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
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2018, 01:30:38 PM »
The test for ketone levels is a litmus test.

Yes ketone bodies are naturally metabolized, but they circulate freely and blood and urine levels can rise significantly.

Ketosis does not get out of control. Ketoacidosis can, in diabetics and alcoholics, but they are different conditions with different morphology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CarbShark,

No, no, no... Ketosis is not detected (or measured) by a ‘litmus test.’  Ketosis is detected by measuring the level of ‘ketone bodies’ in the blood or urine.

You’re confused in claiming that ketoacidosis has ‘different morphology’ (morphology is something that I deal with as an anatomical pathologist, and I can guarantee you that ketoacidosis doesn’t have morphology- it has biochemical changes).

Ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis aren’t different conditions - they just are varying degrees of severity of the same biochemical changes, ranging from largely normal to grossly abnormal.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2018, 03:16:16 PM »
The test for ketone levels is a litmus test.

Yes ketone bodies are naturally metabolized, but they circulate freely and blood and urine levels can rise significantly.

Ketosis does not get out of control. Ketoacidosis can, in diabetics and alcoholics, but they are different conditions with different morphology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Quote
No, no, no... Ketosis is not detected (or measured) by a ‘litmus test.’  Ketosis is detected by measuring the level of ‘ketone bodies’ in the blood or urine.


That's flat out wrong. The measurement of ketones in urine is a measure of acidity and urine ketone strips are litmus paper.



Quote
You’re confused in claiming that ketoacidosis has ‘different morphology’ (morphology is something that I deal with as an anatomical pathologist, and I can guarantee you that ketoacidosis doesn’t have morphology- it has biochemical changes).

Morphology was the wrong word.  :-[

Nutritional ketosis and ketoacidos are different conditions caused by a different chain of events.

Quote
Ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis aren’t different conditions - they just are varying degrees of severity of the same biochemical changes, ranging from largely normal to grossly abnormal.

Again, flat out wrong. The cause of ketoacidosis and the metabolic requirements for it to happen have nothing to do with nutritional ketosis, and the amount of ketones in circulation is far greater.


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
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Episode #666
« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2018, 10:40:10 PM »
The test for ketone levels is a litmus test.

Yes ketone bodies are naturally metabolized, but they circulate freely and blood and urine levels can rise significantly.

Ketosis does not get out of control. Ketoacidosis can, in diabetics and alcoholics, but they are different conditions with different morphology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Quote
No, no, no... Ketosis is not detected (or measured) by a ‘litmus test.’  Ketosis is detected by measuring the level of ‘ketone bodies’ in the blood or urine.


That's flat out wrong. The measurement of ketones in urine is a measure of acidity and urine ketone strips are litmus paper.



Quote
You’re confused in claiming that ketoacidosis has ‘different morphology’ (morphology is something that I deal with as an anatomical pathologist, and I can guarantee you that ketoacidosis doesn’t have morphology- it has biochemical changes).

Morphology was the wrong word.  :-[

Nutritional ketosis and ketoacidos are different conditions caused by a different chain of events.

Quote
Ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis aren’t different conditions - they just are varying degrees of severity of the same biochemical changes, ranging from largely normal to grossly abnormal.

Again, flat out wrong. The cause of ketoacidosis and the metabolic requirements for it to happen have nothing to do with nutritional ketosis, and the amount of ketones in circulation is far greater.



CarbShark,

Are you really, really certain that ketosis is detected by a simple litmus test in blood or urine?  And if in blood, what sort of sample of blood?

Perhaps you ought to do some of the ton of research you’re so proud of in order to see whether that’s true.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

 

personate-rain