Stef, stop talking about exercise, start talking about diet

[jimofflorida]

as an old geezer I would like to toss in a question here regarding all this lively "healthy eating" chat...

 

If you look at your average lifespan, and consider your declining years, to what extent will quality of life truly improve if pick a specific dietary path?

 

Some very healthy unhappy people die at 50, some obese happy people die at 90; is the measure of a good life the years you make on the calendar, or the personal goals you met?

My personal previous generation of relatives (aunts, uncles, grandparents) lived off bacon, eggs, smoking and drinking and every single one of them (yes, literally, everyone that did not die from "un-natural" causes/accidents) lived to late 80's and healthy until, well, in the end we all die!

Cholesterol thru the roof, turns out not to matter a bit to them...

 

Is our genetic makeup so tightly coupled to our expected lifespan that in order to really impact your lifespan negatively, you have to go wayyyy overboard (yea, if you weigh 300+lbs that is an issue!) and maybe you can only tip things on the plus side a "tiny" amount? (I know, The joys of anecdotal experiences)

 

Is each person, or perhaps family tree, unique enough such that the right diet for you is, well, personal?

You may be basically immune to cholesterol problems, or heart issues; maybe cancer is your only Achilles heal.

Is this a fatal flaw in studies that try and use large populations to obfuscate what may be a bit more genetic (and therefore probably politically incorrect to talk about)?

 

Maybe everyone is right that a particular diet type can really help...but it is like a lock and key...you need to match them up or it makes no difference at all.

 

should your first meeting with your doctor focus on a genetic marker test not a CBC?

[Songbirdo]

as an old geezer I would like to toss in a question here regarding all this lively "healthy eating" chat...

 

If you look at your average lifespan, and consider your declining years, to what extent will quality of life truly improve if pick a specific dietary path?

 

Some very healthy unhappy people die at 50, some obese happy people die at 90; is the measure of a good life the years you make on the calendar, or the personal goals you met?

My personal previous generation of relatives (aunts, uncles, grandparents) lived off bacon, eggs, smoking and drinking and every single one of them (yes, literally, everyone that did not die from "un-natural" causes/accidents) lived to late 80's and healthy until, well, in the end we all die!

Cholesterol thru the roof, turns out not to matter a bit to them...

 

Is our genetic makeup so tightly coupled to our expected lifespan that in order to really impact your lifespan negatively, you have to go wayyyy overboard (yea, if you weigh 300+lbs that is an issue!) and maybe you can only tip things on the plus side a "tiny" amount? (I know, The joys of anecdotal experiences)

 

Is each person, or perhaps family tree, unique enough such that the right diet for you is, well, personal?

You may be basically immune to cholesterol problems, or heart issues; maybe cancer is your only Achilles heal.

Is this a fatal flaw in studies that try and use large populations to obfuscate what may be a bit more genetic (and therefore probably politically incorrect to talk about)?

 

Maybe everyone is right that a particular diet type can really help...but it is like a lock and key...you need to match them up or it makes no difference at all.

 

should your first meeting with your doctor focus on a genetic marker test not a CBC?

And some smokers can live that long and not get lung cancer... doesn't mean smoking is not unhealthy.

[jimofflorida]

And some smokers can live that long and not get lung cancer... doesn't mean smoking is not unhealthy.

 

actually, that is another good example where we have declared something to be absolutely unhealthy, and yet, there seem to be people that are simply, well, not impacted by what we "know" to be true.

 

If I drink an ounce of cyanide, I, and everyone else that tries it, is dead... good example of "this is definitely bad"!

 

Regarding your example, How did those people avoid lung cancer? Clearly all the warnings for them were in fact, well, pointless.

 

To what extent is the focus on cholesterol, diets, soft drinks, sugars, carbs, smoking etc. etc. etc. fall into that same category.

How much would you change your lifestyle if it only impacts your life a fraction of a percent?

 

I guess that is my point, there seems to many more exceptions to the rules that we in general take as gospel (more than I would expect) when it comes to modern medicine.

Is that not the same thing that always happen in history; each generation/culture is sure that they have it all figured out when it comes to medicine and science because we trust our educational leaders who have told us "this is so".

[Songbirdo]

Regarding your example, How did those people avoid lung cancer? Clearly all the warnings for them were in fact, well, pointless.

 

To what extent is the focus on cholesterol, diets, soft drinks, sugars, carbs, smoking etc. etc. etc. fall into that same category.

How much would you change your lifestyle if it only impacts your life a fraction of a percent?

 

I guess that is my point, there seems to many more exceptions to the rules that we in general take as gospel (more than I would expect) when it comes to modern medicine.

Is that not the same thing that always happen in history; each generation/culture is sure that they have it all figured out when it comes to medicine and science because we trust our educational leaders who have told us "this is so".

Despite statistically significant evidence showing what will most likely happen, it doesn't dissuade you from doing potentially dangerous things. Or am I misunderstanding your view?

 

Making general claims about what is healthy or not healthy is like saying to this community "Children brought up in single parent households are more likely to have a negative outcome compared to two parent households" or "most terrorism is committed by Muslims". NOT ALL. Yes, we know and acknowledge there are exceptions to the general trend. The exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. This is biological science, not physical. A two headed horse does not invalidate the theory of evolution; it is identified and classified as a deviation from the norm. The 1% of the population with gluten intolerance does not mean everyone should have to avoid gluten. Medication gives intended results in the majority of people and has side effects in a minority of people.

 

Are you going to reject a modern medical procedure or pill because "It's fad medical science and in 20 years we'll be doing something way better!"? (Maybe you will. I don't know.) You are told the risks, you keep an eye on the symptoms and report them to your doctor if they appear because you could be the exception to their general trend. Even if you had an adverse effect to the treatment doesn't mean the medicine doesn't work for most other people. The FDA requires not only safety but effectiveness in their drug/procedure trials or else it doesn't get approved.

 

To your last sentence I need to add something: "Based on the available evidence at the time, this is so." That's the beauty of science: when better information comes along the theory changes.

 

(Edit: phrasing)

[AccuTron]

On 3/27/2017 at 1:09 AM, themortalgod said:

I experienced the same when I was younger. Though it had the unfortunate side effect of always feeling hungry. Personally I find I am healthiest on a mostly plant based diet with no starchy carbs (remember plants ARE carbs but no one is ever going to argue that eating salad is bad. Its that extra glucose molecule in starchy carbs that is the enemy.) I reached the best BMI of my life when on that sort of diet but it meant a grumbling, hungry, stomach 24 hours per day. Which kinda sucks. So I think, personally, that striking a balance is key.

Keep handy ripe bananas, also a palmful of mixed nuts and raisins together.  They stave hunger very well for at least a half hour and are healthy face stuffing.  I've moved much more plant based, and never have a grumble tummy.  Don't forget that a glass of water also fills the belly awhile.

[jimofflorida]

On 4/10/2017 at 0:19 PM, Songbirdo said:

Despite statistically significant evidence showing what will most likely happen, it doesn't dissuade you from doing potentially dangerous things. Or am I misunderstanding your view?

 

Making general claims about what is healthy or not healthy is like saying to this community "Children brought up in single parent households are more likely to have a negative outcome compared to two parent households" or "most terrorism is committed by Muslims". NOT ALL. Yes, we know and acknowledge there are exceptions to the general trend. The exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. This is biological science, not physical. A two headed horse does not invalidate the theory of evolution; it is identified and classified as a deviation from the norm. The 1% of the population with gluten intolerance does not mean everyone should have to avoid gluten. Medication gives intended results in the majority of people and has side effects in a minority of people.

 

Are you going to reject a modern medical procedure or pill because "It's fad medical science and in 20 years we'll be doing something way better!"? (Maybe you will. I don't know.) You are told the risks, you keep an eye on the symptoms and report them to your doctor if they appear because you could be the exception to their general trend. Even if you had an adverse effect to the treatment doesn't mean the medicine doesn't work for most other people. The FDA requires not only safety but effectiveness in their drug/procedure trials or else it doesn't get approved.

 

To your last sentence I need to add something: "Based on the available evidence at the time, this is so." That's the beauty of science: when better information comes along the theory changes.

 

(Edit: phrasing)

I think the statement "it doesn't dissuade you from doing potentially dangerous things" is the key point...

I have engineers curse, I focus on outliers. This is the fundamental problem I see with the push we have in medicine/health today. It is a focus based on the premise we are all basically the same biological machine. As you start to shrink you viewpoint down to the molecular part of that machine, the differences start to become rather significant.

If I declare something absolutely "bad" for you, well, no surprise if you do it and something bad happens. That is exactly what I would expect. When it comes to diets and sensitivities to cholesterol, smoking, sugars , alcohol, fats, carbs, etc., there are a "lot" of outliers. So many that it makes me question the validity of the foundational argument, we are all the same and fall under the same standard distribution. I suspect that there are, much like cancer markers, much stronger sensitivities in our molecular machine works that will really drive what hurts and what helps us. Consider cholesterol, every doctor today will want to slap you on the current fad cholesterol drugs, and yet, we know that there are absolutely cholesterol sensitivity markers that are passed on.  I recall a study that had some interesting results based on your markers (say american Indian/Asian vs European) things like drinking alcohol, good for one group, harmful for the other. Exercise was another one, aerobic vs anaerobic was very different ratio based on markers to get benefits. carbs were the same from one end of the spectrum to the other; one group needs low-fat high cards, the other, high fat and low cards!

I agree that we only know what we know, but the issue may be not what we know, but "who" knows it to help each person. If your doctor is only treating you as the midpoint of the distribution, they can be really off the mark. Sadly, no group seemed to be high fat and high carbs  Oh the agony, I hear the doughnuts crying out...