What I see here is conventional medicine promoting their conventional ideas which also just happens to promote the sale of lots of statin drugs.
I've got no issue with you, MS. Indeed, I always enjoy reading your posts, but I must draw you up on this.
The study in question (post 1) is the result of a 25 year study, carried out by the University of Umea, which is the Swedish equivalent of Oxford or Harvard. They aren't in the pay of Big Pharm, nor anybody else.
Certain people here may not like the results, but that is what they found.
@Mad Scientest :
What Weston Price did was so amateurish, vague and unmethodical compared to modern epidemiology. Further the Weston Price Foundation that hijacks his name likely serves pro big business, livestock interests and thus they advocate a diet that due to ample research and historical knowledge, we know is suboptimal via spreading confusion. The best they could manage was to find a totally unqualified and fat women to be their President. But sadly that does not matter, most Americans only consider themselves with earning as much money as they can, entertaining themselves, and adjusting themselves around addictions of comfort. So a Sally Fallon, despite being a bad lifestyle example and unqualified will have an easier time attracting followers than a John McDougall, who is exemplary in both criteria. People don't want to leave their known comforts and instead want to be convinced they can make micro changes and miraculously have a healthy diet and lifestyle. That is why fad health gurus like Robert Atkins and the newest fad movement like Paleo are so attractive, they allow people to adjust around their comforts with false constructed knowledge that it is healthy.
You cannot make an argument for meat eating based on health claims, ethical or environmental concerns. Many people have tried in this thread and others and failed. The agricultural policies, laws and regulating bodies in developed countries are biased toward making animal products abundant and cheap. There is no real money in promoting a plant based diet compared to a meat based one, because it requires less resources, labor and reduces chronic medical conditions. This is why meat advocating groups like Weston Price Foundation are able to fund ghost writers like Denise Minger and Lierre Keith just to discredit vegans and vegetarians who make up only a small fraction of the population in the USA. They have alot of money behind them since their way is not only dominant, but more expensive.
I'll just get in the middle of this and put my two cents in about the atkins diet. I used to yoyo diet a lot with atkins and I lost a lot of weight. I can see any diet healthy or not if fat is coming off that you'll have a lot of good health indicators when do a check up. If your obese and from an atkins you maintain a healthy weight then I'd imagine cholestrol, blood pressure and most other signs will improve. I personally feel it's a sleeping aid, what is worse sleeping 4-5 hours or the side effects of a sleeping aid. If atkins helps maintain a healthy weight then I think it's great for those people.
Personally I would yoyo all time until recently that now I eat more fruits and vegtables and have more variety in my diet than the mostly meat diet. I have less bodyfat than any time i was on an atkins diet and I've kept it off for a year of not coming on two years, because I changed my life style and eating habits. Atkins is too restrictive for me, especially with the fruits, grains...etc
Hmmm. Please, let us all be civil. All diets have their pros and cons. The problem in the US is the quality of the meats. Unless you get free range here, you are basically getting tons of chemicals. As for diet, this is what I see in elderly greek and italian populations in our part of the counrty: The ones that go light on meats and heavy on veggies, tend to have much better health.
The two biomarkers that matter most are C reactive protein and cholesterol, especially LDL.
I disagree with this statement.
I would suggest replacing the cholesterol biomarker with that of homocysteine.
I am not a vegetarian or vegan (yet) however, realize this is the only way to go since enormous amounts of natural resorces are wasted on lower life forms. This includes water, replacing rain forests with soy crops for feed, millions of methane producing animals, etc..
I agree with alot (not all) of what Gary Null states, and can say without doubt he is correct when he says vegans are healthier and live longer than meat-eaters. However, he also states vegans must supplement with B12, and carnosine, and goes on to list several other supplements that are needed by everyone.
One other point that Gary states over and over is that anyone who is overweight cannot be healthy.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
I would suggest replacing the cholesterol biomarker with that of homocysteine.
I am not a vegetarian or vegan (yet) however, realize this is the only way to go since enormous amounts of natural resorces are wasted on lower life forms. This includes water, replacing rain forests with soy crops for feed, millions of methane producing animals, etc..
I agree with alot (not all) of what Gary Null states, and can say without doubt he is correct when he says vegans are healthier and live longer than meat-eaters. However, he also states vegans must supplement with B12, and carnosine, and goes on to list several other supplements that are needed by everyone.
One other point that Gary states over and over is that anyone who is overweight cannot be healthy.
Vegetarians need taurine also, but I agree, If you do it correctly, vegetarianism is much better.
From William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. site Nutty researchers want YOU on statins NOW!
Think you're healthy? Well, Oxford researchers have news for you: You're NOT healthy, and you need to start taking meds pronto.
That's right. There's no such thing as drug-free aging anymore because these researchers claim everyone needs to take statins once they hit 50.
And this means YOU.
Not at risk for heart problems? Take 'em anyway!
Worried about the side effects, like diabetes and crippling muscle pain? Stop being such a sissy!
Don't even have high cholesterol? Shut up and take your meds!
Oxford researchers claim their new study shows that statins can save thousands of lives if everyone will just put up with the side effects -- which, along with muscle pain and diabetes, can include everything from memory loss and depression to vision problems and sexual dysfunction.
But before you rush out to fill that prescription, take a closer look at what's being billed as a "huge new study."
Turns out it's neither huge nor new nor even a real study -- because it's a meta-analysis, aka the best way to "prove" a point by pre-selecting data that'll help you reach your pre-determined conclusion.
In this case, they chose 27 of the most industry-friendly studies on statins they could have possibly found.
Need proof? Take a look at this interesting statement from the analysis:
"The authors reported that most of the trials in this report were supported by research grants from the pharmaceutical industry."
Why would they do such a thing? Hmmm... d'ya think this next sentence might've had something to do with it?
"Some members of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration writing committee have received reimbursement of costs to participate in scientific meetings from the pharmaceutical industry. Two CTT writing committee members also received honoraria from Solvay for lectures related to these studies."
So the drug industry funded the studies and paid off the researchers -- and they just so happened to find that everyone should be taking these meds.
Gee, what a coincidence!
Fact is, you don't need statins for "high" cholesterol and you certainly don't need them for "normal" or "low" cholesterol, either.
Bad research on good cholesterol
One little flawed study comes along and finds that maybe HDL doesn't prevent heart problems, and suddenly everyone is down on the so-called "good" cholesterol.
But once you see the details on this one, you'll wonder why anyone is even giving it the time of day -- because the study was botched from start to finish.
The researchers didn't choose two groups of people with similar heart risk and then raise levels of HDL cholesterol in one of them.
Nope. That's a little too much like work, since it can't be done with drugs and has to be done with diet.
So instead, they just looked at a group of people with genetic factors that cause them to have higher-than-normal-HDL levels naturally. And it turned out these people had the same heart risks as everyone else.
Big whoop -- this proves exactly nothing, because the notion that genetically high HDL levels automatically come with health benefits is flawed from the get-go.
That same argument implies that someone with naturally high HDL levels can eat all the KFC they want -- and drink a quart of soda a day (Why not? You're genetically protected, right?) -- and have the same lower risk of heart problems as someone who earns their high HDL levels through a healthy diet.
Cholesterol is good -- but it ain't THAT good!
And when I say "cholesterol," I mean both HDL and LDL -- because despite what you've heard, there's no such thing as "good" and "bad."
Forget trying to remember which is which and just focus on your TOTAL cholesterol. Keep it between 200 and 300, naturally, and you'll have nothing to worry about since those "high" levels can actually PROTECT your heart.
If that's not enough, cholesterol can also prevent cancer, ward off dementia, boost your sex life and even slash your risk of dying.
Want to learn more about the benefits of high cholesterol? Read this!
Giving my all for cholesterol,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. They say only if you run...jump...swim...bike...
eat less fat...and lower your cholesterol right now can you keep your heart healthy!
I he also states vegans must supplement with B12, and carnosine, and goes on to list several other supplements that are needed by everyone.
One other point that Gary states over and over is that anyone who is overweight cannot be healthy.
How many over weight vegetarians have I known.... lets see... not enough fingers and toes to count them on.
Oh, and a diet that requries supplementation for basics is not a natural diet. What would people do without pills and shots? How did they ever manage... well of course they were depleted and paid whatever consequences that came.
But of course we know that the human body was meant to be vegetarian.. as god ordained and fanatics state and environmentalists decree... because we all have access to supplements... part of the natural evolution eh?
__________________
Please be advised
I advocate all health blogs linked to NMT.
Read them and explore MMS and CS.
It may be the best chance that you have to heal yourself
What makes this such a sensitive topic is we all care about health and make food choices based on creating health. No one wants to be wrong. There is scientific evidence supporting the benefits on each side. This debate is getting to be like a debate on religion or politics. If we had all the answers clearly laid out then we could all agree but there's so much controversy or if you want to look at it another way, there is always evidence to find that supports whichever belief system you have. We've got to start looking at what we do agree on......decreasing chemicals, sugar consumption, transfats, etc. while increasing antioxidants, amino acids, omega 3's, pure water, minerals, vitamins, etc..
1) How many over weight vegetarians have I known.... lets see... not enough fingers and toes to count them on.
2) Oh, and a diet that requries supplementation for basics is not a natural diet. What would people do without pills and shots? How did they ever manage... well of course they were depleted and paid whatever consequences that came.
3) But of course we know that the human body was meant to be vegetarian.. as god ordained and fanatics state and environmentalists decree... because we all have access to supplements... part of the natural evolution eh?
1) Post 21 you said how rude and uncalled for it was to make an issue of people's weight and yet here you are...
Maybe those people, as you yourself said, had eating disorders or hormonal imbalances.
2) I take a MV every day as 'insurance'. No matter how natural and healthy your diet, the nutrient content of the food is directly related to the richness of the land it was grown on.
Thanks to industrialized farming farmland has suffered depletion of topsoil and loss of what might one term the natural richness and goodness of the soil, rendering the land impoverished in terms of nutrients.
3) The human body was meant to be vegetarian!
All well and good to sneer at vegetarianism, you were one yourself for years till you fell off the 'compassion wagon'.
What makes this such a sensitive topic is we all care about health and make food choices based on creating health. No one wants to be wrong. There is scientific evidence supporting the benefits on each side. This debate is getting to be like a debate on religion or politics. If we had all the answers clearly laid out then we could all agree but there's so much controversy or if you want to look at it another way, there is always evidence to find that supports whichever belief system you have. We've got to start looking at what we do agree on......decreasing chemicals, sugar consumption, transfats, etc. while increasing antioxidants, amino acids, omega 3's, pure water, minerals, vitamins, etc..
It seems you have very low standards for people who advocate to eat lots of animal products and position themselves so that they make lots of money from passing off bad advice. But you are very hyper-critical of anecdotal vegetarians that we cannot cross-check. It is possible to became fat as a vegetarian, especially if you consume alot of milk, cheese or junk food. Since you are so enamored with the battle of the bulge, on a diet where 90% of food calories come from whole food, plant based sources, it is almost impossible to become overweight. Instead you want to defend diets(Atkins, Paleo) that promote prolonged states of ketosis to get around the obvious fact that prolonged consumption of a decent proportion of animal sources for your calories correlates greatly to obesity as an outcome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowwind09
But of course we know that the human body was meant to be vegetarian.. as god ordained and fanatics state and environmentalists decree... because we all have access to supplements... part of the natural evolution eh?
Carnism the ideology behind eating meat is about dominance, social status, peculiar human created hierarchies interposed on the animal kingdom, etc. Thus and you don't see North Americans eating local animals either. What they eat is are the few select animals that the European imperialist conquerors considered as food animals: pig, cattle, chicken, etc. How unnatural is that?
Meat cannot be eaten raw healthy, infact that is the most unhealthy way to eat it. And to cook it properly you have to cause numerous disease and aging promoting compounds. How natural is it that meat can only be eaten in ways that are overall disease promoting? Meanwhile most plant foods provide more nutrition, anti-oxidants, many are overall disease preventive and restore health. I will take the dietary advice that leads to longer lifespan, less of a carbon footprint and greater ethics. Even by your own criteria, your diet is actually far more unnatural using the one-sided criteria you fail to apply.
A good point. Consider the Masai. They eat plenty of what some people here would call "healthy" free range organic meat and plenty of what the same people would call "healthy" animal fat, throw in near nakedness in a sunny, tropical climate -so plenty of vitamin D! - and yet...the average lifespan of a male Masai is 42.
The theory doesn't stack up.
The answer to the obesity problem lies in cutting out the unhealthy animal fats and sugary processed foods, and eating instead healthy natural foods i.e. fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds and grains. Together with daily exercise of some sort.
the average lifespan of a male Masai is 42.
The theory doesn't stack up.
But why do they die?
Quote:
the causes of death of the 50 were: 15 due to combat wounds, 13 due to infection, 8 due to CV renal, 6 due to accidents, 3 due to maligancy, 2 due to instestinal obstruction, 2 due to suicide and 1 due to diabetic coma.
****
Linear Mode
