The simple diet switch that could add almost a decade to your life
Quote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...st-decade-life/ |
I'm sure that the 'researchers' picked and chose from the epidemiological studies using food frequency questions and ignored all the problems with such studies. I'm sure that they have zero data on how accurate their model is in real life.
Almost twenty years ago, I was eating a low-fat, high whole grains, lots of vegetables diet, and taking quite a few prescription drugs to control bad cholesterol levels and high blood glucose. I was overweight and pre-diabetic and the longer I followed that 'healthy' diet, the worse things got. I was doing a lot of exercise. Many of the foods that I was eating didn't taste very good. My physician advised me to try low-carb eating (Atkin's) and I did so. My foods were most tasty, my weight dropped, my blood chemistry improved and I was rather quickly off all the meds. At almost twenty years my last blood test showed everything was perfect, I was still down the 55 pounds that I had lost and I was feeling more energetic. I doubt that getting a weekly injection for twenty years would have the same result. I know that I would have less money though. |
Quote:
I reacted similarly. I suspect a garbage in garbage out paradigm, an algorithm built on a very questionable foundation of data, untested in the real world. In other words it's a sand castle. |
Deserves to be in the War Zone. Sounds like it's being recommended by a cult. Convenient to cite research that supports this obvious confirmation bias. Now . . . where's my hard salami? I want an appetizer before I season my rib eye . . .
|
Considering the prospects in world politics, I'm not sure that extending my lifespan is such an appealing idea. :lol:
Still, at 75, having escaped (so far) many of the afflictions of "old age," I believe that I should thank: Lucky genes. Devotion to exercise. One-Minute Muffins. Dr. Atkins (for starters). Comfortable economic status. Loving communities of faith and social engagement. It's not as simple as any research concludes. |
I can't live that long. My retirement funds only hold out until I'm 90, at best. :-)
|
Thanks Barbara for being gutsy.... I removed my first response before posting. Im not interested in an extra 8 years.. for a different reason: why outlive friends and my children....
Last fall I started to feel old. I eat better than ever, but the old body has multiple injuries and general wear n tear. As for the study, my thoughts on beef is two fold. Commercial meats raised or find shed on a grain based diet is far different than wild, grassfed choices. And there is some information that a minority of people are intolerant of beef, which causes heart disease. Yet beef, and bacon and cold cuts get wrapped together as "bad". American made meats are NOT local artisan made meats made in Europe. Problems lie in grain filled, grain laced with herbicides or fungicides or pesticides. Round up used here, banned in Europe. Addatives ..... Yuk. A friend told me recently that drinking Monster makes him lighted headed and dizzy and crappy. Yet he can drink caffinated coffee with out issue. I pointed out one of the other "ingredients" could be the trigger. Monster is a concoction of additives. Additives are as common as pesticides in our foods.... I do think about this study as half my genes originated in that northern region.... |
I'm quoting bits and pieces our of order for various reasons.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Funny how they barely mentioned sugary drinks and refined grains as a problem, but harp on how bad red and processed meat are for you over and over. This next bunch... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My first thought was concerning how that works out with the fact that there's mercury in all fish Quote:
https://www.websitewithnoname.com/2...ent-levels.html Yes, that website sounds rather sketchy - "website with no name"? :lol: Still, the general information seems to be accurate - small fish with short lifespans have less mercury than larger fish with longer lifespans. My point is that even the 200 g of herring this optimal diet says you need to eat every single day is the equivalent of the maximum you should consume twice a week to avoid excess mercury. (specifically mentioned for young children and pregnant women, but that doesn't mean more than that is good for someone over age 60 who has consumed any mercury contaminated fish at all during their life) Then there's the fruit. legumes, and whole grains: Quote:
We don't need to go into the details about which of those are technically fruits and which are technically vegetables to meet the requirements of this diet, but the carb content alone is more than a lot of people should be eating, especially anyone with diabetes who hopes to truly control their blood sugar - and that's before you add in the amount of carbs from the legumes (1 cup daily) and 7 servings of whole grains. Quote:
So the question I would need to ask myself - is it really worth how miserable that diet would make me feel, just to gain a few extra years of life? It's not just because of how all those carbs would mess with my overall health, but also the lack of red meat and the pitiful amount of other protein sources, the gut misery from pushing that much legume, whole grain, fruit and veggie consumption every single day - Is dealing with all that really worth it just to live a few extra years, years that will be miserable years as that diet continues to deteriorate my health? I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I believed they haven't twisted the data to come to that conclusion, I don't see the advantage of living a few extra years if I need to spend more than 30 years feeling awful to do it. |
Here is a good counterpoint to the very misguided plant-based claims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VY8YNhEpXw |
When they change everything at once it's impossible to pinpoint which changes do any good. They should start with eliminating sugar and go on from there with wheat & other grains. Of course, it would be a very difficult & expensive study.
|
My biggest health crisis (ranked in terms of bodily suffering) was the holidays of 2019, where the stress of DH's serious illness resulted in too much sugar and gluten free frozen meals which had corn, which I know now is a cross-reactor for me.
I had the worst flare-up of my autoimmune ever (and hopefully so moving into the more informed future) and was panicked about the next step, the immune-suppressing drugs, which my GP warned me about before he retired. Fortunately, I remembered the Wahls Protocol was based on all autoimmune disease having the same source, and I went on a crash program to implement it. And it worked! AND I need more protein that those charts say. Especially now, when I'm healing. I have to dodge carbs AND lectins AND fiber so they would try to kill me in many many ways... And this seems made up to me. They didn't actually do this for thirty years and then unveil it, right? |
Quote:
Has anyone come across any evidence that they actually did a 30 year controlled study to come to their conclusions? Or were they just using (highly unreliable) food recall questionnaires? If that's the case, who in their 80's and 90's can recall how many servings they ate daily of specific types of foods 1 year ago, much less 30 years ago? I think this shows exactly what they actually did to come to the conclusion that you could follow this highly restrictive diet and extend your life by a few years: Quote:
They apparently punched all those different (supposedly) desirable foods into their life expectancy computer program, and the (supposed) life extension benefit of eating a certain amount of each one, then added those up, and - TA-DA!!! An extra 8.1 to 9.1 years of life, assuming you make each and every one of those changes every day of your life for a period of 30 years after age 60. And if you succumb to accident, communicable disease, or even to family genetics before you're able to spend the full age 60-90 on their diet, then you obviously didn't fully follow the 30 year timetable, so of course it won't work. Yes I'm quite skeptical about it. I'm seeing the required timetable as a built-in excuse and proof that their diet really works - you just need to be able to live long enough to stick to it for 30 years after you reach age 60. |
Quote:
So it's literally pie in the sky when you die? :lol: :lol: :lol: |
Seems like every day the veggies come up with another "meat is bad" article.
If I ate that suggested diet, I'd be 300 pounds like my parents were and my siblings are. That's not good for longevity. Personally, I think eating meat is good for your brain. Just think of the animal kingdom. Does anyone say "smart as a cow?" They do say "Sly as a fox". I think eating grass-fed beef is good for you. I have no studies to back that up, but I'm 75, on zero medications, and my doc says I have the circulation system of a healthy 50 year old. Without a long term CONTROLLED double-blind study with a lot of participants you can easily manipulate the statistics to say anything you want. Even then you still can, but it's more difficult to do. And a long term study like this on humans is not ethical. Mark Twain said this. "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics." I think we may be dealing with the third option here. :D You can look at the 'blue zones' and say they all eat the Mediterranean Diet, but they don't. You can also say they all have high mineral content in their drinking water, which they do. But neither statement proves anything. One more thing, if one diet plan was best for everybody, there would only need to be one diet book. Bob |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:10. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.