Slashdot Mirror

:headspin:

How do you figure? Meat is the *least* efficient food.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

Feeding food to someone else then eating their bodies is dramatically less efficient than eating the food directly. And these figures don't even include the energy spent on producing animal feed.

Humans evolved and spread because they discovered cooking, which increased the calories available to them. Carnivores are necessarily always far fewer in number than herbivores. And don't let your penis-ego delude you into thinking that humans are biologically carnivores.

[citation needed]

Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s

Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317

Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198

Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.

Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.

Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.

Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.

Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.

Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.

[citation needed]

Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s

Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317

Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198

Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.

Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.

Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.

Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.

Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.

Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.

[citation needed]

Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s

Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317

Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198

Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.

Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.

Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.

Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.

Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.

Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.

[citation needed]

Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s

Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317

Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198

Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.

Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.

Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.

Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.

Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.

Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.

[citation needed]

Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s

Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317

Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198

Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.

Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.

Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.

Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.

Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.

Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.

No way. That animal weighs about 250 kg, and will easily provide 125 kg of edible meat, at about 3000 kcal/kg. I'm guessing the 8 hour run would cost somewhere between 3000 and 6000 kcal, depending on how fast he was going.

You assume that a sole hunter would hunt one animal for himself only. This assumption is false and an animal as large as you describe would give a sole hunter the finger. You also assume that the hunter would be able to find and kill a large animal every day, which is even more ridiculous.

The typical size of a hunting party is 3-4 men. So at 125*3000 ~ 375.000 kcal/kg per carcass out of which the hunters would consume 9000kcal/kg to recoup the 8 hour run there is plenty left over for the rest of their group. The average size of a hunter gatherer band can range between ~12 to 50 individuals. If we assume a meat consumption of one kilo of meat per day for each individual in a group of 30 hunter gatherers, one carcass like that would last them for four days. However, a group of 30 would easily be able to field two hunter teams of 3-4 men each (or women, since women hunted in some of these societies) with, one group hunting and one either preparing for a hunt, or inbound with a carcass. At the same time these 6-8 people are out hunting the rest of the group would be out gathering fruits, vegetables, seeds roots herbs to supplement the diet and easily matching the contribution of the hunters while others are making equipment, clothing shelters etc... in short religionofpeas numbers seem perfectly plausible to me, especially since hunter gatherers ate every scrap of the animal down to the offal and the marrow in the bones and then used inedible parts including bones to make arrowheads, harpoons spear heads, knives and sinew to make rope, thread and as a component in bow making. Leather of course would not have been wasted either nor would horn or the wool of the animal if any. Many apex predators leave that stuff behind, a large animal killed by humans was likely to completely disappear simply because every bit of it's carcass was used up for some purpose.

A small comment about everyone's assumptions: It seems that most hunter-gatherers consume far more of the animal than muscle tissue. Which just means that hunting is even more efficient than the numbers you give.

Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the claims about saturated fat were "unhelpful and misleading".He added: "Decades of research have proved that a diet rich in saturated fat increases 'bad' LDL cholesterol in your blood, which puts you at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke." Knapton states a fact coupled with an assumption. It's a fact that three chain lengths of saturated fat (12, 14, and 16) raise LDL cholesterol somewhat. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont... It is also a fact that 18 carbon chain stearic acid, which has no affect on LDL cholesterol levels is the most prominent fatty acid in unstable arterial plaques. http://circgenetics.ahajournal... I mention unstable arterial plaques because of this. "Numerous studies have demonstrated that coronary atherosclerosis affects all eutherian animals with a body mass comparable to or larger than humans, regardless of diet specialization and LDL levels. Surprisingly, in these mammals, lipid accumulations in arterial walls were more common in herbivores than carnivores." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... So the debate should not be about LDL levels. It should center on what causes plaque build up and what generates unstable plaques. It's peculiar that nobody mentions mercury toxicity. Quite likely mercury toxicity contributed significantly to heart attack risk among middle aged men during the first half of the 20th Century. "Mercury activates phospholipase A2 (PLA-2) which increases the risk for coronary artery and cerebral plaque rupture with MI and CVA. In addition, mercury induces formation of arachidonic acid metabolites such as total prostaglandins, thromboxane B2 and 8 isoprostane in vascular endothelial cells and activates vascular endothelial cell phospholipase D. Even very low levels of chronic mercury exposure promote endothelial dysfunction (ED) as a result of increased inflammation, oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, reduced oxidative defense, reduction in nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability. Many of the cardiovascular consequences of mercury are mitigated by concomitant intake of fish containing omega 3 fatty acids and by the intake of selenium. All of these pathobiological findings will increase the risk of hypertension, CHD, MI, CVD and CVA." https://www.esciencecentral.or... Note the mention of arachidonic acid metabolites. Why it that important? "Arachidonic acid (AA) in the diet can be efficiently absorbed and incorporated into tissue membranes, resulting in an increased production of thromboxane A2 by platelets and increased ex vivo platelet aggregability. Results from previous studies have shown that AA is concentrated in the membrane phospholipids of lean meats." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... "The highest level of AA in lean meat was in duck (99 mg/100 g), whereas pork fat had the highest concentration for the visible fats (180 mg/100 g). The lean portions of beef and lamb contained the higher levels of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) compared with white meats which were high in AA and low in n-3 PUFA. The present data indicate that the visible meat fat can make a contribution to dietary intake of AA, particularly for consumers with high intakes of fat from pork or poultry meat." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is unfortunate that scientists debating the saturated fat issue ignore endocannabinoid system (ECS) research. "We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in -6 fatty acids, and changed a

And don't think that a vegan or vegetarian diet does ANYTHING for you. It doesn't.

I guess all those dummies that study nutrition don't know as much as you.

OK prick, since you want to play the "argument from authority fallacy", how about:

The American Society for Nutrition
The American Medical Associaton
Tom Sanders, Prof. Emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College

P.S. I notice you didn't refute a single point the paleo guy made. Qualifications aside, Lustig has an axe to grind, and he cherry-picks his data shamelessly.

What I DO think people are saying is that the correlation between increasing use of HFCS, and increasing obesity, is suggestive of a link.

The problem with that "study" is that it really is just "suggestive." It cites a lot of research showing the problems of increased sweetener consumption in general, including studies that show obesity problems with sucrose too. (That includes a European study on cane sugar-sweetened soft drinks, which your link says indicates we need a study on HFCS since that's more dominant in the U.S., since none existed at that time.) And the problem is that most of its argument is based on the circumstantial data that HFCS became available in the 1970s, and its rise correlates with the the rise in obesity in America. The problem with that argument is that per capita sugar consumption overall increased something like 40% from the 1950s to the year 2000. So yeah, obesity rose at the same time HFCS rose, but it also rose along with sugar consumption in general.

In addition to that, there is strong clinical evidence, not just of correlation, but of causation.

Yes, that's one of the studies I've seen, along with 2 or 3 others. I've also seen quite a few showing no significant difference between HFCS vs. sucrose. It's fair to say the "jury is still out" in scientific terms, but there MAY be a minor effect for HFCS. I'm NOT trying to downplay that possibility, but the hysteria around HFCS seems mostly based on chemophobia and its name, rather than actual evidence.

Also, when you think about it, a 10% increase in content is not trivial. If you were to raise the caloric content of your diet by 10% and change nothing else, you would expect steady weight gain to ensue.

Yep, kinda like how Americans raised their per capita sugar consumption in general by roughly 40% over the past 50 years. Again, HFCS may have some greater impact here, but arguing about which sugar is the "true demon" is overlooking the much larger issue... people just need to consume less sugar, whatever the source.

The other part is satiation, and insulin response. Higher levels of fructose do not trigger a normal insulin response, and while food sweetened with sugar vs HFCS will have a similar caloric value --- you wont "feel" satiated due to the unbalance and irregular insulin response. Thus you are more inclined to continue to consume more.

Coca-cola for example, anywhere else in the world, except the U.S. is made with sugar. You will (should) feel satiated after consuming a bottle of a sugary beverage. Whereas with HFCS you will be more inclined to have another.

This information has been known for more than a decade. This article Consumption of sugars and the regulation of short-term satiety and food intake, is from 2003.

I imagine the Corn Industry lobby has done their best to suppress this information. The corn industry is heavily subsidized in the US, along with Sugar having import tariffs.

Hell, a few years back know their was a campaign to rename HFCS to Corn Sugar --- as HFCS has gotten too much bad press. I think it didn't get past the FDA

The real question is whether 55% fructose HFCS is meaningfully different from 50% fructose cane sugar. That's a difference of 2 grams (21.5 vs 19.5) in a 12 ounce soda. It seems intuitively silly to say that 19.5g of fructose in a cane-sugar sweetened soda is just fine, but that 21.5 in an HFCS soda is deadly.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "19.5g of fructose in a cane-sugar sweetened soda is just fine, but that 21.5 in an HFCS soda is deadly". What I DO think people are saying is that the correlation between increasing use of HFCS, and increasing obesity, is suggestive of a link. In addition to that, there is strong clinical evidence, not just of correlation, but of causation.

Also, when you think about it, a 10% increase in content is not trivial. If you were to raise the caloric content of your diet by 10% and change nothing else, you would expect steady weight gain to ensue. (No, I'm not saying that fructose is more calorie dense - I'm just using an example of the significance of 10% that's relevant to the current discussion). Even looking at the most visible and quantifiable effects of excessive fructose consumption, (fatty liver and increased insulin resistance), 10% may be quite important. Add in the less tangible effects, (lower satiation, increased craving, inflammation and the related immune system response, etc), and the net result might be far more ominous than the 10% increase would initially suggest.

My Vegan Diet Almost Killed Me talks about orthorexia, which stems from "righteous fixation on healthy eating". Lets not forget Death by Veganism where two vegan parents were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and cruelty to their 6 month old child. Anecdotally, I have a vegetarian friend whose pediatrician told her she needed to start eating meat to promote the health and growth of her infant. The diet has worked well for her for years (decades?), yet when faced with breastfeeding, it just wasn't high enough on proteins the kid could use for growing up.

Everyone's body chemistry is different and we all have different dietary needs. You could have also pointed out those regions whose diets typically result in longer lifetimes (read: basically every diet that isn't "American"). As can be seen here:

The lower mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was greater at younger ages and was restricted to those who had followed their current diet for >5 y. Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined.

From this study we see that an asian diet (lots of vegetables, some fish, very little red meat) is actually better that strict veganism.

While I haven't actually read all of the articles you linked, I would suggest that lowering the amount of deep fried foods, fatty red meat, and focusing more on fish and vegetables would be promote overall health for a wider number of people.

That's been pretty much disproved. The real culprits seem to be flour and sugar. Enjoy your vegetarian diet.

"Disproved"? If you don't believe in science, then perhaps the evidence isn't very strong. If you read newspapers and industry sponsored "scientific journalism", you might also think there are health benefits to eating meat. For everyone who does believe in science however, start your investigation here:

Diet Patterns and Mortality: Common Threads and Consistent Results Marjorie L. McCullough Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA J. Nutr. June 1, 2014. vol. 144 no. 6 795-796 http://jn.nutrition.org/conten...

Below are a handful more studies (with lifestyle, age, location, and income adjustments included) that all suggest that meat/dairy is the primary cause of the major diseases we are discussing. Even when you adjust to include "junk-food vegans", you see that they come out ahead. It's not just processed foods that are to blame, although an increased consumption of processed foods is linked to elevated heart disease in all populations.

M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365

M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477

J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797

Thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on the large-scale studies below support the treating of lifestyle diseases by reducing or eliminating animal product consumption, paired with an increased consumption of whole plant-based foods. These are clinically valid paths to eliminating the diseases, which are most often more effective than prescription drugs, which are geared toward relieving symptoms (e.g. statins) but not the underlying causes of disease.
Large scale, long-term studies:
PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
The Adventist Health Studies: https://publichealth.llu.edu/a...
The China Studies: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
The Nurses Health Study: http://www.nurseshealthstudy.o...
The EPIC Study: http://epic.iarc.fr/

When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop. To anyone with a scientific mind, modern nutritional-science's data should pretty much indict animal based foods as the direct cause of obesity, along with the consumption of heavily processed foods. It's no wonder that the nations with the highest meat consumption have the highest rates of lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

A

When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop. To anyone with a scientific mind, modern nutritional-science's data should pretty much indict animal based foods as the direct cause of obesity, along with the consumption of heavily processed foods. It's no wonder that the nations with the highest meat consumption have the highest rates of lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

A tiny sample of the tens of thousands of papers stemming from clinical studies of meat's role in disease
Non-industry funded Research

Meat consumption is associated with obesity and central obesity among US adults
International Journal of Obesity (2009) 33, 621–628; doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.45; published online 24 March 2009
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n6/abs/ijo200945a.html

DIET, OBESITY, AND RISK OF FATAL PROSTATE CANCER
Am. J. Epidemiol. (1984) 120 (2): 244-250. 1.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/2/244.short

Diet and body mass index in 38000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans
International Journal of Obesity (2003) 27, 728–734. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802300
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v27/n6/abs/0802300a.html

Prevalence of obesity is low in people who do not eat meat.
Key T, Davey G. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1996;313(7060):816-817.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352221/

Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study.
Vergnaud AC1, Norat T, Romaguera D, Mouw T, May AM, Travier N, Luan J, Wareham N, Slimani N, Rinaldi S, Couto E, Clavel-Chapelon F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Cottet V, Palli D, Agnoli C, Panico S, Tumino R, Vineis P, Agudo A, Rodriguez L, Sanchez MJ, Amiano P, Barricarte A, Huerta JM, Key TJ, Spencer EA, Bueno-de-Mesquita B, Büchner FL, Orfanos P, Naska A, Trichopoulou A, Rohrmann S, Hermann S, Boeing H, Buijsse B, Johansson I, Hellstrom V, Manjer J, Wirfält E, Jakobsen MU, Overvad K, Tjonneland A, Halkjaer J, Lund E, Braaten T, Engeset D, Odysseos A, Riboli E, Peeters PH.
Am J Clin Nutr August 2010. vol. 92 no. 2 398-407
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/398.short

Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes
Serena Tonstad, Terry Butler, Ru Yan, Gary E. Fraser. Diabetes Care May 2009, 32 (5) 791-796; DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1886
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/5/791.short

Citation required.

Ask and ye shall receive. Here's a meta-review of some of the best and biggest studies comparing vegetarians to health-conscious omnivores. Almost all studies showed a longevity benefit, and pooled they found a significant longevity beneift. This is a nice plot of the risk ratio as the study data is cumulatively pooled.

It goes without saying that this field of research is tricky -- evidence is never iron-clad and you can always find a study or two to support your biases. But, as a medical student and someone interested in nutrition, I'll go out on a limb and say that there is no diet except the Mediterranean diet that has so much supportive evidence of health benefits. (Prove me wrong!) But in any case, this should be enough to at least stop the FUD about vegetarianism causing everything from diabetes to psychosis as per above. It's at least not causing harm.

Now, the question is -- will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?

The study you quote is looking at "low meat consumption", not "no meat consumption". But generally vegatarian diets are not problematic, like a normal diet it just requires variation and good eating habits. The problem is veganism, which is getting really popular despite being very unhealthy.

Citation required.

Ask and ye shall receive. Here's a meta-review of some of the best and biggest studies comparing vegetarians to health-conscious omnivores. Almost all studies showed a longevity benefit, and pooled they found a significant longevity beneift. This is a nice plot of the risk ratio as the study data is cumulatively pooled.

It goes without saying that this field of research is tricky -- evidence is never iron-clad and you can always find a study or two to support your biases. But, as a medical student and someone interested in nutrition, I'll go out on a limb and say that there is no diet except the Mediterranean diet that has so much supportive evidence of health benefits. (Prove me wrong!) But in any case, this should be enough to at least stop the FUD about vegetarianism causing everything from diabetes to psychosis as per above. It's at least not causing harm.

Now, the question is -- will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?

Link: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

stop acting like your opinion is the one true enlightened path

I never said that, you did.

Just because you think you're older than me. Is time what's gonna cure my ignorance? Another decade or two is gonna overwrite everything I've learned up to now and suddenly I'm gonna agree

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- who's trying his absolute best to come across as the smuggest blowhard in the entire slashdot comment section?

- I can clearly see you are striving to uphold a longstanding tradition of

Not sure you're a qualified psychic to know my intentions.

I've also been here for years, and while I don't think you deserve that title yet,

1999, HAY?

- The non-anglosphere world doesnt get so desperate to pig out on crappy mystery meat hot dogs.

- I'm still waiting for you to explain how you could only afford cheap shitty food and not cheap healthy food like the rest of the world tries to eat.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

http://journalistsresource.org...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://jn.nutrition.org/conten...

Let Google be your Guide.

My parents told me they ate cat before i was born! I hope I never have to

I have eaten Dog, it was the most delicious thing I had eaten in months. Would I again? If I ever got that hungry again you betcha. You would be amazed at what you would eat when you're hungry.

You just dont get it. You think you have all the answers because you've had a tough life and you're so old. You have no wisdom, only bitterness.

Nope, I have been there, and done that. I have the answers for some of the questions life has posed of me, and when you get old there are new questions. You are one of them.

So are you using an alt account to upvote all of your comments here? I'm pretty sure nobody else is following us this deep into a personal discussion, so it must be all you

Nope, I wasn't even paying attention TBH.

That's probably why you make sure to smugly get the last word over and over.

I participated in a workshop in Los Angeles when I was 19 to help find ways to help ease hunger in the area and the majority of the participants couldn't even identify a homeless person. My effort here is to hopefully educate you, or others that may be lurking in this thread to understand how people really are not getting proper nutrition and how it's a very real issue that needs attention, not dismissal 'This has all been settled, it doesn't happen in America'. There's starving children in Africa, AND America. There are people that don't believe or understand this, and then there's the people that dismiss the claims.

Smug has nothing to do with it. Nobody should have to suffer for the sake of ignorance of the topic.

Happy reading.

1) "Eating late may influence the success of weight-loss therapy. "
You're not losing any weight from Circadian-rhythm eating. It might (literally: "may") affect the effectiveness of a diet that you are already on. Also, late-lunch = starving yourself.
2) Time-restricted eating helped stop the mice from gaining weight. It didn't help any of them lose weight.

Actually, the diets of the mice were wildly different and makes the conclusion suspect:
Normal chow (29% protein, 13% fat, 58% carbohydrates) vs. High fat diet (18% protein, 61% fat, 21% carbohydrates)
Low-protein and low-carbs mean those high-fat mice would be hungry all the time. Fat just isn't very filling.

On top of that, the high-fat mice just ate less (only about half as much). To me, those charts show that the time-restricted mice on the high-fat diet didn't gain weight because they were simply starving. Meanwhile, the ad lib high-fat mice were able to spread out their feeding times, which likely kept them from feeling so hungry, and they gained more weight because they weren't starving all the time. Single meal weight maintenance is well-known, supported, and fits the experimentation better.

So, yep, Circadian rhythm weight-loss is bullshit. But you can always just starve yourself to a better waistline with one meal a day. Well, as long as you're on a high-fat diet at least.

Read a few of the numerous studies done on the SAD vs Vegan diet with respect to both renewable and non-renewable resources.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
http://www.gracelinks.org/1361...

These noodles will help people to cut out energy dense material within their diet, and will therefore help obesity all other things being equal.

You'll see that energy-depleted fake noodles will not counter obesity, just like all the other "light" products, they will rather promote overweight than reducing it.

And cooked noodles aren't even particulary energy dense to start with - as they consist of more water than carbohydrates. Walnuts, for example contain far more energy per mass and per volume, and still recent studies showed a long-term decrease of body weight when spoilt first-world people ate 75g of them per day, rendering their diet "more energy dense" than before.

The sense of a "full" or "empty" stomach is simply different from "becoming hungry" from a lack of energy supply. Actually, food leaves the stomach quite fast, and you can experience hours of not feeling hungry at all even after what was in your stomach has long traveled into the colon. Playing tricks on your sensation of a "full stomach" may have a short term effect on your energy intake during one meal - but sense of becoming hungry again depends on your available supply of engery, not on the fullness of your stomach.

No, they cure it 100% of the time.

This is factually wrong: read page 742. Starving these research subjects on 600 calorie a day in a controlled environment failed to reduce their weight.

Sorry, but have you ever read anything about this, or are you just going on what your Crossfit trainer told you? Ok, fine:here's a study.

I didn't even read it, but if you don't like it, try googling "scientific study bmr" and I'm sure you'll find some more. It's a plain, ordinary, well know, uncontroversial fact that different people have different metabolic rates. You may as well be asking me to find you a study that shows, "shooting yourself in the foot will probably hurt." I used an example from my life in the hopes of giving you something really simple that you could wrap your little head around, so maybe you'd quit being such a tool.

The only thing I know that works is actually eating less.

Not for everyone, no.

"Resistant obese" people have been known since the 1960s in nutrition science: they are people who won't lose weight even when locked in a metabolic ward (=unable to cheat) and limited to just 600 calories a day of food. Read one such study here for example (see page 742: no weight loss on hospital-controlled, drastically restricted-calorie diet). Your advice will NOT work for these people.

I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

Yeah, the scientists involved in these studies like to call the resistant obese people "walking thermodynamic paradoxes" because they can only wonder, too. And calling them that won't help them in any way, nor will it help science understand why. You have to change paradigm to do that.

No, I'm not a shill; I just recognize bullshit when I see it. HFCS is NOT that different from "natural" sugar. The reason food producers use it is because it's cheaper than cane or beet sugar, and the corn producers do have a vested interest in pushing their product. Politics are involved, but the chemistry is not in question.

The thing is, people are eating more and exercising less, and suddenly they find themselves overweight so they point to the label and say, "HFCS - my God, it's in everything! That's why I'm fat!" This despite study after study showing that it's basically the same as other sugars and digested similarly. Consuming too much of any sugar will affect your health.

"The bottom line is that there is no valid reason for HFCS to be any different than sucrose in the way that it affects your body." http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19
"Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516261
"The hypothesis that HFCS is a unique cause of obesity is not supportable in the United States or elsewhere" http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full
"Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different short-term endocrine/metabolic effects." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469239

I really don't know why you think it's strange that I can browse comments and see the newest ones first. It's called sorting.

There's minimal evidence that healthy eating alone lowers your long-term body weight. That's part of the point really. Any diet change, be it fad dieting or more sustainable health eating choices, they are all capable of short-term weight loss. Keeping that weight off on the long-term is is a so much harder problem, it's barely related to what works for losing a large amount of weight in the first place.

If you read studies about people who lose and keep weight off, like Long-term weight loss maintenance, the common factors that always show up are both very low calorie counts and constant feedback. Basically, chart your weight all the time, and cut your calories if it ever goes up. That is brutally difficult to sustain for years at a time. If you follow any sort of hunger-driven diet, with healthy foods or not, you will probably go back to whatever weight your body likes over time. That's how hunger works.

Human health is a complex topic with many interwoven factors that interact with each other. In general, many people who catch many "diseases" don't show significant symptoms because their immune system deals with it and limits the scope of the spread. I was not easily able to find that information about measles from a few minutes of trying though. It seems a bit controversial... Maybe you know if off-hand?
"Risk Analysis for Measles Reintroduction After Global Certification of Eradication"
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...
"Convention holds that asymptomatic measles infections are rare, but there is a significant body of published evidence of acute measles infection among people who are exposed to measles virus but who do not develop classic symptoms [3-5]."

When you boost your immune system, you make it more likely the spread will be contained. Even for measles, the degree of symptoms you show and how long they last is in general probably going to reflect your health state (and also genetics though), as suggested in a link a bit further below to a study from CDC researchers. Humans are exposed to all sorts of potentially problematical viruses and bacteria every day -- doctors especially. A healthy immune system shrugs most of them off (with some dangerous exceptions, especially like Ebola).

A study specific to measles and nutrition, from India:
"Interaction between nutrition and measles"
http://link.springer.com/artic...
"Much has been written about the synergestic interaction and infection in turn adversely affects the nutritional status. Although this relationship is well documented with respect to bacterial infections, it is not clear whether nutrition can influence the incidence or course of viral diseases. Measles is one of the most common viral infections that occur during childhood. The interactions between measles and nutritional status acquire considerable importance in situations where as a result of inadequate food intake, chronic malnutrition is widespread among children."

And:
"Undernutrition as an underlying cause of child deaths associated with diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, and measles"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
"Results: The RR of mortality because of low weight-for-age was elevated for each cause of death and for all-cause mortality. Overall, 52.5% of all deaths in young children were attributable to undernutrition, varying from 44.8% for deaths because of measles to 60.7% for deaths because of diarrhea.
Conclusion: A significant proportion of deaths in young children worldwide is attributable to low weight-for-age, and efforts to reduce malnutrition should be a policy priority."

So if 50% of the death rate is from obvious malnutrition, could at least some of the rest be from more subtle dietary issues?

In the USA from 2010, just to show how the USA is in theory increasingly at risk of an epidemic from malnutrition among children:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"According to a new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.4 million American families - almost 15 percent of U.S. households - are now "food insecure," an almost 30 percent increase since 2006. This means that, during any given month, they will be out of money, out of food, and forced to miss meals or seek assistance to feed themselves. Even those who get three meals a day may be malnourished. Americans increasingly eat cheap, sugary foods whose production is underwritten by government subsidies for the corn and dairy industries. As the New York Times reported this month, the USDA loudly promotes better eating habits while quietly working with Domino's to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese. [There are healthy fats though, including from ch

Unlike smoking, eating is a basic natural drive. More powerful than sex, less than breathing. Your suggestion that some people should walk the fine line between starvation and satiety, feeling hungry most of the time in order to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities is absurd.

Didn't you claim above that there wasn't significant variation in BMR between people? Now you at least acknowledge that that isn't the case but claim it doesn't make a difference.

I'm sorry if you need to look down on others to avoid feeling like a steaming pile. Perhaps if you tried refraining for a while it would help.

In the off chance that you're mis-understanding is sincere, do you REALLY think parroting the same advice that has been given without helping for the last century is at all useful?

But have a look Here.

The research is out there. If you WANT to understand it, it is available to you. If you just want to keep tsk tsking people for failing to ignore a fundamental biological drive, you'll want to avoid reading on the subject. Perhaps you should attempt to maintain a state of voluntary partial hypoxia for a few minutes and then imagine keeping it up for the rest of your life.

BTW, a funny thing about smoking, now that more people are quitting or not starting, the rate of lung cancer hasn't fallen nearly as much as predicted. The problem is simple. Before, if the patient had ever smoked, smoking was the go-to blame. Thus, a fair percentage of those cases attributed to smoking were not actually from smoking. Not that I recommend smoking.

I'm a completely European descended white American, who group up in the hot as hell deep south (bedroom 80+ degrees at night), but it was also slightly cold indoors (55 to 65 degrees F) in the winter. It was always too hot in my room in the summer... my brother and I used to wait till nobody was looking (in bed) and cool off in front of the window unit on the other side of the house and then try to fall asleep. We slept fine in the winter, but it was hard to get us out of bed. I was a thin kid, and while I enjoyed playing outdoors 8+ hours a day in the summer during 95 degree F hot and humid weather, I could not sleep well in the heat.

Fast forward 30 years later... I'm no longer thin, but I still don't much like sleeping in the heat. Actually I despise it. When I visit my wife's family in Japan, I can deal with winter, but can barely sleep/ am really hot in the summer because they barely use heating or cooling in doors. But in trains and cars it was not the case, I was always too hot in the winter when they used heating in vehicles.

My son "got my genes". He is 7, thin as can be, but very active. He regularly sits around... OK he doesn't stop moving for long... the house in nothing but underwear when it is 65 degrees inside during the winter. When we try to get him to put something on he says he is too hot. Outside in the winter, he can run around in shorts and a t-shirt when it is 50 to 55 degrees no problem. My daughter is more moderate in this sense.

Despite there being a huge amount of "getting your body used to" temperatures, I figure there also comes a point where it's mostly genetic. From recent genetic tests I'm about 45% British, 40% German/surrounding areas, and 15% Scandinavian. After reading up on common high calorie foods in European roots, the fact that Europeans evolved to digest cow milk, etc., it seems that European ancestors I'm related to, when healthy and active, must have turned a lot of calories into heat during the winter. I've seen on TV shows that Eskimo type people living in super harsh cold weather eat insane amounts of calories to produce heat. I see an article saying average daily caloric intake for a certain Eskimo group is 3500 to 4000. Page 2: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

I am willing to bet most Japanese have evolved to eat less calories and just bundle up more in the winter. They definitely like it much warmer.

Dammit, here's the link: The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease

It was discovered in 95 by an African doctor who just guessed and saved 7 out of 8 people;

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...

something wasn't right about this though.

http://jvi.asm.org/content/75/...

the who was skeptical and it's only been in the last few months when it's been approved, when it was used out of desperation that the protocol has gained any traction. there are billions at stake with an EBOV vaccine, just as there was in 1948 with the polio vaccine.

"Klenner's paper (Klenner FR. The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. J. South. Med. and Surg., 111:210-214, 1949.) on curing 60 cases of polio in the epidemic of 1948 should have changed the way infectious diseases were treated but it did not." - Robert Cathcart

Now look at these three:

http://en.ird.fr/the-media-cen...
http://orthomolecular.org/libr...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

There's a reason there's no HIV vaccine and it's the same reason there never will nor can be an EBOV vaccine - Coxsackie viruses are different and if you ignore their RNA encoding and subsequent biochemical expression you're gonna have a really bad day. The second paper above explains why they cannot work, see Keshen's disease in Wikipedia, it's the Coxsackie virus disease we figured this out from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

There's no need to mess around with blood, honest and antibodies are not the reason it works - what do antibodies need to do their job - think!. Look at recent work in the field, Google (scholar) "selenium" with words like "hiv", "ebola", "cancer" and pay attention to the work of the last 4-5 years and especially THAT 1995 Zaire paper - the only time Pauling ever posted to the net. Thanks for the warning Linus, you clever clever boy. Now there was a Doctor.

http://scarc.library.oregonsta...

"Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve"

It would be harmless if the virus did not encode for a homologue of the human lipid peroxidase inhibitor glutathione peroxidase. See Keshen's disease (China).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

What they say might be happening but what *also* would explain that (and they did not check, a simple serum selenium test would differentiate) is:

Bloomberg news 2013:
"... selenium for two years were able to delay their need for antiretroviral therapies by about half compared with those given a placebo, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study followed 878 HIV-infected adults from Botswana, a nation with one of the highest rates of infection of the AIDS virus."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

(they need to read Fosters papers, B, C and E boost the immune system but it's Tryptophan, Glutamine and Cysteine that the virus encodes for and strips from the body)

Summary:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Aidsan...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Watch these -
Theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Case study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Then read his (free) book:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/0...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

See also:
http://www.doctoryourself.com/...
http://aras.ab.ca/articles/rfw...
http://www.fosterhealth.ca/nut...

Also:
1. Foster HD. How HIV-1 causes AIDS: Implications for prevention and treatment," Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 62(4), p 549-553, 2004.

2. Foster HD. What really causes AIDS. Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2002. Free download at www.hdfoster.com .

For further reading:

"HIV/AIDS: a nutrient deficiency disease," Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2005, Vol. 20(2), p 67-69.
Environmental factors and the pathogenesis of selenium-CD-4 cell tailspin in AIDS. Chinese Journal of AIDS and STD, Vol. 10(5), p 390-392,402 2004.

AIDS and the selenium-CD4T cell tailspin," World Journal of Infection, Vol. 3(6), p 456-459, 2003.
Micronutrients in pathogenesis and treatment of AIDS," Foreign Medical Sciences: Section of Medgeography, Vol. 24(2), p 49-53, 2003.

Why HIV-1 has diffused so much more rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa than in North America. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 60(4), p 611-614, 2003.

"How HIV-1 kills: Implications for the treatment and prevention of AIDS. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, No. 255, p 76-78, 2002.

"Aids and the 'selenium - CD4T cell tailspin': the geography of a pandemic," Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, No. 209, p 94-99, 2000.

But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families, there is still a variance correlated with race.

Some studies claim that. Other adoption studies have shown that black kids basically do the same as white kids when both are raised by white families. You can argue about which studies are better, but there's not a clear answer, unlike your (pardon the pun) "black-and-white" argument.

Blacks are more exposed to environmental pollutants, are more likely to have deficiencies in micro-nutrients, and are less likely to breastfeed, than whites in similar socioeconomic conditions.

Okay, let's talk about these in turn.

Why do black kids have higher levels of lead in their blood compared to white kids living in the same neighborhood?

Because even if they live in the same neighborhoods, blacks disproportionately end up in worse housing conditions. From that link, which compares randomly sampled groups of Whites and Blacks living in an urban environment in the same city: "Racial disparity in urban children's blood lead levels appears to be due to differences in housing conditions and environmental exposures. While [various factors] contribute to blood lead for both Black and White children, Black children, who in this study were largely impoverished and lived in pooly maintained rental housing, are also exposed to higher levels of lead-contaminated house dust and to painted surfaces and floor that are in poorer condition. Thus, housing condition and exposure to lead-contaminated house dust appear to be major contributors to the racial disparity in children's blood levels.

Next?

Why are poor black kids deficient in folic acid,

Well, we know that black moms are more likely to be deficient in folic acid. Part of it is dietary; from the link: "certain groups, including women of childbearing age and non-Hispanic black women, are at risk of insufficient folate intakes. Even when intake of folic acid from dietary supplements is included, 19% of female adolescents aged 14 to 18 years and 17% of women aged 19 to 30 years do not meet the EAR. Similarly, 23% of non-Hispanic black women have inadequate total intakes, compared with 13% of non-Hispanic white women."

So, diet is a big reason, and if black moms are deficient and feed a similar diet to their kids, well, you might guess that the kids could end up deficient. Other studies have noted that black women are less likely to have access to supplements or pre-natal vitamins that might provide adequate folic acid content.

iodine, and other critical micro-nutrients, when poor white kids are not?

Probably because blacks tend to consume a lot less dairy, which is often known to correlate with iodine deficiencies. From this study, "The NHANES and NCS UI [iodine level] data suggest that non-Hispanic black women have lower UI concentration than other women. Additionally, non-Hispanic black women had lower dairy consumption.... Non-Hispanic black women reporting rates of dairy consumption is consistent with recent data on U.S. population reports of lactose intolerance... among females, 50% were non-Hispanic black, 30% non-Hispanic white, and 20% Hispanic. Self-diagnosed lactose intolerance and consequent avoidance of dairy products may be on the contributing factors in the racial/ethnic differences we have shown in UI concentration."

Tha

There's actually been serious study of this, and it really is tied to potential for weight gain/loss. Here's one recent summary: Energy-balance studies reveal associations between gut microbes, caloric load, and nutrient absorption in humans.

From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense.
I.e. You are trolling.

Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT.
In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body.
I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.

Nor would you spout the 1 : 1 nonsense.
HFCS 55 is a 55 : 42 fructose-glucose mix.

Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose.
Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level.
I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer.
It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.

But then again... you are trolling.
Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready".
And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice.
Which can be gleaned from the link above.

The other part is satiation, and insulin response. Higher levels of fructose do not trigger a normal insulin response, and while food sweetened with sugar vs HFCS will have a similar caloric value --- you wont "feel" satiated due to the unbalance and irregular insulin response. Thus you are more inclined to continue to consume more.

Coca-cola for example, anywhere else in the world, except the U.S. is made with sugar. You will (should) feel satiated after consuming a bottle of a sugary beverage. Whereas with HFCS you will be more inclined to have another.

This information has been known for more than a decade. This article Consumption of sugars and the regulation of short-term satiety and food intake, is from 2003.

I imagine the Corn Industry lobby has done their best to suppress this information. The corn industry is heavily subsidized in the US, along with Sugar having import tariffs.

Hell, a few years back know their was a campaign to rename HFCS to Corn Sugar --- as HFCS has gotten too much bad press. I think it didn't get past the FDA

If you're worried about hardening of the arteries, consider supplementing with K2. Typically until recently there was more of it in our diets than we get now, since a major source is from animals that have fed on fresh green grass (and eggs from such), and our livestock and chickens are much more grain fed now. Also, if you're prone to black circles under your eyes, as I am, it might make them disappear, as it did for me.

The biggest change happened in late 1800's / early 1900's when refined sugar and bleached flour became widely available. There are a bunch of interesting studies when native groups who ate traditional diets transitioned to high refined carb diets. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

This sounds like the protein leverage theory. While it's been known for a while that protein is more satiating than fat or carbohydrates, it's been hypothesized that diluted protein content drives greater total consumption. A reasonable idea, but there's not a lot of support for it. And, coincidentally, new research was just published that does not support the theory:

Protein leverage effects of beef protein on energy intake in humans
Higher protein diets reduced total calorie intake, but lower protein diets did not lead to higher intake.

It's something that's been known for awhile- there are papers on it going back to the early 1980s, though I'd imagine it may not have been heavily publicized at first due to the American preference at the time for paper-filtered drip coffee. Methods that retain more of the oils or the grounds themselves in the finished coffee, like boiled coffee or French press tend to have much higher concentrations.

This paper and this paper have some more information.

I know people have been hating on this article because it only addresses a few specific conditions, but it is one in a long line of studies that have shown vitamin supplements to have no positive (and occasionally negative!) effects, unless you are actually deficient in that vitamin.

People are so taken by advertisements and anecdotes about vitamins that they neglect the reality. If you hear a commercial that says "You might be deficient in X!" you suddenly need to take that vitamin/mineral "just in case." Rinse and repeat for every single vitamin, mineral, or "energy/immune/etc booster," and suddenly you're taking 100+ supplements and spending an excessive amount on useless pills.

The takeaway is this:

Unless you actually have a condition that requires you to supplement a specific nutrient, you do not need to take vitamins, to say nothing of multivitamins.

If you are concerned that you are actually deficient, go get a blood test from your doctor. Saving yourself the cost of supplementation over the next 20 years when you find out that you don't actually need them will more than pay for the appointment.

No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.

Really. Let's see a few more recent studies, then.

No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.

Well then, let's see what major medical and health associations say, then:

• The American Heart Association: (1)
• The Center for Disease Control: (1)
• The European Food Safety Authority: (1)
• The World Health Organization: (1) (2)

It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.

Okay, cool beans. Feel free to explain the pathways and why more ketones is a good thing.

High sugar intake weakens your immune system, and is inflammatory.

Citation required. For both claims.

Maybe for the first one, but if you read even a little into how your diet affects the body then you should know that sugar is inflammatory.. but here you go

Effect of various carbohydrates on immune system. This shows that ingesting sugar weakens your immune system, and that fasting actually boosts it (which may be a reason that we sometimes lose our appetite when we're sick).

Sugar and inflammation. Though if you wanted, you could just try it yourself. Increasing your sugar intake also causes your body to retain more water and salt.

Given that most of the food i have still goes off, clearly its less preserving than your assertion.

Does most of the food that you have also contain artificial preservatives? I doubt it. I have to avoid sulphites. They're found in pretty much all wine, some beers (anything German is usually fine thanks to the Reinheitsgebot), cider, dried fruits, glucose syrup, any processed corn ingredient (maize starch, corn flour, HFCS, etc), and more..

High sugar intake weakens your immune system, and is inflammatory.

Citation required. For both claims.

Maybe for the first one, but if you read even a little into how your diet affects the body then you should know that sugar is inflammatory.. but here you go

Effect of various carbohydrates on immune system. This shows that ingesting sugar weakens your immune system, and that fasting actually boosts it (which may be a reason that we sometimes lose our appetite when we're sick).

Sugar and inflammation. Though if you wanted, you could just try it yourself. Increasing your sugar intake also causes your body to retain more water and salt.

Given that most of the food i have still goes off, clearly its less preserving than your assertion.

Does most of the food that you have also contain artificial preservatives? I doubt it. I have to avoid sulphites. They're found in pretty much all wine, some beers (anything German is usually fine thanks to the Reinheitsgebot), cider, dried fruits, glucose syrup, any processed corn ingredient (maize starch, corn flour, HFCS, etc), and more..

For the body to take advantage of the vitamin A it needs to be consumed with fat.
So the poor people should make sure to have a good kebab with their portion of rice...

If only there was a way to find out whether or not the vitamin A in Golden Rice could be absorbed by humans...like, I dunno, eating some. Nah, you'd have to be a reckless idiot to do that. Much better to sit around on the Internet and imagine ways it might not work.

Oh, wait, somebody did eat some! http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1776.full.pdf

Well, there's an awful lot of "everyone knows" type stuff out there about it, but here's one article about the effects of chloride in rat's thyroids. There's also a lot out there about flouride and thyroid function. Flouride is even worse than chloride apparently, and much harder to expel from your body once it's bound, due to the lighter weight and greater reactivity.

There has been some good research on intermittent fasting for weight loss and longevity. http://www.ahs.uic.edu/news/title,10771,en.html http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69.full

isn't eating random herbs (natural 'additives') from all over the planet equally unwise? [...] What evidence is there that the natural preservatives aren't ten times as 'dangerous' as synthetically produced preservatives?

Certainly I have none, other than the not-too-convincing argument that we've been eating pepper and cumin for millenia. Plus they taste good :-). To me, there's something to the idea that human societies co-developed with and around these sources of food that makes me more prone to use them over synthetic additives that were explicitly engineered to diminish the food's nutritional availability for some organisms. Just my own preference, and not one that I stick to strictly either.

I'm going to go out of order here because this is related:

I am aware that during pretty much all our evolution we did not live past the age of 40. That could mean that our primal diet and digestive system were tuned for a live hard, die young existence.

Well, that's not necessarily true, and I believe infant mortality make up for the largest difference in mean lifespan. I don't think you can make the argument about how our digestive systems evolved based on an average that includes infant mortality. However even without that, I'm pretty sure adult life spans were, on average, shorter due to several factors including diseases, so there's definitely at least some credence to your hypothesis.

Talking about trust, that link is to a PDF trying to sell some kind of supplement.

Touche. I suppose it was a bad idea to just quickly go scouring for links, and it might have been better to just say "I have read somewhere". The point, though, was just that nutrient absorption is not a linear system, and the response to a sum of inputs (nutrients) is different from the sum of the responses to those isolated inputs. So I take any biochemical nutritional analysis with a grain of salt, just as we should all take our calcium with a dose of vitamin D

If your taste or distaste for something is mainly driven by some memory, feeling or state of mind, it is almost certainly less stable than a taste or distaste originating in your biological make-up. The latter is also something you can use when preparing food for others (as opposed to the other factors).

Agreed as stated. To the original point (i.e. not about Scotch), though, the taste receptors on the tongue are only one biological mechanism we developed for finding nutritious food. Sure, they're probably the most important, at least when energy was scarce and poisonous foods could commonly kill us. The contribution of smell to taste must play a pretty large role, though, and I don't think smell has much to do with why sugary food tastes "good". Nor do I think we can say that my stated preferences aren't due to inherent perceptions of smell and taste. But it goes further; there are learned preferences that can still be pretty universal. For example, there is a proposed mechanism by which we learn the association between certain foods and their nutritive (or at least caloric) content. I suspect that relying too consistently on the taste of sugar to make food taste "good" may interfere with our body's regulatory mechanisms for seeking out other nutrients (cravings?)

So I don't consider it some Victorian doctrine of "thou shalt not have fun" (you should see how much lard I cook with and how much butter I put on my bread). Instead, assuming any of the above is even correct, I consider it as not using to their fullest extent the body's several pathways of deriving pleasure and satisfaction from food. Dosing everything with sugar to make it all taste good may also mask our body's other