Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 The reason is stopped eating fish was because I found out they set the Hg content in the beginning at what it was currently in the fish catch. That meant to me they didn't know what it should be. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: freebird5005 Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:08 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? , what two govt agencies are at odds?? Also, do you know AT what level of Mercury becomes harmful? Is ANY level safe? What are the tradeoffs as you see them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Tyramines are also bad. Just force them to label the cans with the contents and we'll probably get a better dialog. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:43 PM Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? EPA and FDA.... I think they finally made up and agreed to a jointstatement.http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.htmlMercury is bad stuff. Especially for developing fetus. Since mercury isstored in our body I suspect women of child bearing age and inclinationshould be stricter than other adults about consumption. For the rest of usthere may be a hormetic effect but I wouldn't count on any level being"good". One concern I have may be knowing what is actual level in specifictins of tuna.I am sure I consumed my share as a child (swordfish was a regular familymeal probably once every two weeks at least). Ate lots of canned tuna as anadult (gee maybe that explains.... :-). While I am not afraid of mercurypoisoning from eating tuna, it doesn't hurt that canned wild salmon is farcheaper and looks better on paper...I suspect better communication of tuna's risk to pregnant women will end upscaring men and women away from eating fish entirely. I wish the publiccould be more thoughtful about how and what they eat but it's not in ournature.JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 > > What I am suggesting is we now have a successful model that stops or > even reverses atherosclerosis, so why speculate on fish? > because > vegans never live long lives, so why is that? - its because they > don't eat fish and dairy. - we are not sure yet what it is in fish > and dairy and maybe meat that is protective, but its there, VEGANS > DO NOT HAVE VERY LONG LIVES show me some long lived vegans. -----Are you suggesting that adding fish or meat to one's diet will allow a longer life? If so, thru what mechanism would fish or meat allow a significant increase in lifespan? Give us a plausible mechanism or proof. > > What you are suggesting here is exactly my point: Pritikin/Ornish are > better superior diets and that they do less harm > They do not do > less harm, they are protective against CHD, that is not the same as > less harm, whats the point of surviving CHD if cancer kills you. The > okinawan elders beat all the odds with only a little calorie > restriction but fish, fish, fish. --------Do you think it possible that their genetics played some role in a few living longer lives? Can you rule this out? Furthermore, thru what mechanism is fish protective for CHD? The " Dean Ornish " model is PROVEN effective for significant improvement in CHD.. no speculation needed. Why look further? > > You seem to be suggesting that you allow yourself a 'slightly less' > than optimum diet (at least cardiovascular wise) because you don't > have any problems. But that if you DID you would adopt a 'better > diet', ie one proven to produce results > Ornish may be the best to > protect from CHD, but if you are not at risk of CHD then why bother > with ornish ? --------Isn't virtually everyone at risk for CHD? It is a leading killer. The goal is CRON isn't it? By definition that means OPTIMUM NUTRITION.. that means the BEST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Rodney here are some more facts to consider. This is the " Results " from your study: Results: Compared with lower fish intakes, consumption of & #8805;2 servings of fish or & #8805;1 serving of tuna or dark fish per week was associated with smaller increases in the percentage of stenosis (4.54 ± 1.37% compared with –0.06 ± 1.59% and 5.12 ± 1.48% compared with 0.35 ± 1.47%, respectively; P < 0.05 for both) in diabetic women after adjustments for age, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and dietary intakes of fatty acids, cholesterol, fiber, and alcohol. These associations were not significant in nondiabetic women. Higher fish consumption was also associated with smaller decreases in minimum coronary artery diameter and fewer new lesions. Not sig in non-diabetic women, smaller lesions, smaller decreases in damage etc.. Are these better results than Dean Ornish?? > > > > > > > > > While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the " Platinum > > > Standard " is for now " Okinawa " - SIMPLE FACT. > > > > > > show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to > > > talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life. > The > > > fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90 > plus, > > > they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives, > never, > > > never, never. Full Stop. > > > > > > There has always been mercury in the sea, we haven't just > polluted > > > every ocean in the last 50 or so years, its mainly the inland > > > waterways near factories and dumping grounds that get > contaminated > > > and the fish that live long lives (sardines are the safest bet, > but > > > not as tasty as wild pacific salmon which is also damn cheap and > > > very low mercury). So even the Okinawans will be eating > contaminated > > > fish. > > > > > > if you want to make 100 plus you would be very foolish to avoid > oily > > > fish. Whatever Ornish and Pritkin say, they are unproven as far > as > > > serious longevity is concerned, but the Okinawa study is a proven > > > fact, those okinawa elders who reached 100 all had a few things > in > > > common: They ate fish, loads of veg, some fruit, plenty of > > > grains/legumes, some dairy, some meat. Notice I say Okinawa > elders, > > > not the other okinawans who have started eating more western > foods. > > > Okinawa has the highest number of centarians, three times more > than > > > Mediterranean per hundred thousand people. > > > > > > the data on actual cholesterol in foods (not the fat) being bad > for > > > you is weak in my opinion, and there is counter data suggesting > some > > > cholesterol in the diet may help emotion levels (I for one feel > > > wretched on a low fat vegan diet, it makes life dull and not > worth > > > living, just my increased happiness on a medium fat diet with > some > > > animal protein will help my longevity). > > > > > > OKINAWANS also calorie restricted (maybe 10 percent based on > their > > > size). > > > > > > richard ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I think you might be right. But, I've never seen that data. Do you have any reason(data) at all to think that vegans don't live longer? And you certainly can't say that all vegans do not live healthy lives, without some data. I think they won't be vegan in a rest home, maybe. Secondly, Ornish and Okinawa are not comparable diets. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: rwalkerad1970 Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the "Platinum Standard" is for now "Okinawa" - SIMPLE FACT.show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life. The fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90 plus, they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives, never, never, never. Full Stop.richard ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Hi Francesca. I agree with you but I don't think the suggestion to eliminate fish from one's diet is too extreme. Dean Ornish and others are successful with it. That is my point all along. > > > Maybe we don't need fish except maybe for a few grams of fish oil per > > day. Maybe we don't even need that. maybe we can get sufficient > > quantities from our plants and avoid this whole issue of potential > > additional stressor from fish cunsumption. > > > > My thoughts anyway... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Agree. Fish may or may not be the food of choice for a CRONie. And, in fact, there are many variations in the diets of CRONies today. WE probably ARE NOT going to decide what the CRON diet should be. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: freebird5005 Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? IMO many of you are missing my point, ie the dietary goal is CRON,right? Restriction of calories with OPTIMUM nutrition. A part ofoptimum nutrition is choosing foods that cause the least amount ofnecessary harm to the physiology. Many studies [i posted four here. Isaw more..] suggest fish INCREASES lipid peroxidation and oneconsequence of this is potential damage to arterial walls.Furthermore, a vegan diet such as the 'Dean Ornish model' whichexcludes all fish and nut consumption holding all fats to less than10% and cholesterol to less than 10mg daily, produces considerableMEASUREABLE improvement in cardiac risk factors and measureableimprovement in aterial angiograms etc.What I am suggesting is we now have a successful model that stops oreven reverses atherosclerosis, so why speculate on fish?So, my question remains, assuming half of one's goal to be optimumnutrition [the other half - caloric restriction], and speaking to thephysiology only.. Why place fish in the equation at all?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Not sure Ornish stops/reduces atherosclerosis except in coronary arteries and everyone does not have CAD. It's possible that Ornish diet is not optimum for the thin group that does not have CVD. Maybe fish is better for the group that dies of cancer. By cutting calories, which seems to me the forte of Okinawa diet, we lower the risk of CVD, but not necessarily cancers. One notable scientist thinks fish oil accelerates aging. That one thing (not a fact yet) causes me to limit but not necessarily eliminate the fish oil. If I could believe it was anti-inflammatory for me, I'd use it regularly. And I don't really care what the 100 yo vegans, fish eaters or tobacco chewers think anyway. The olders I have talked to seem too varied and they could be mostly outliers as far as any data set is concerned. (even if we could figure out what they ate for 90 years.). The oldest guy I ever knew smoked, chewed tobacco, ate fried catfish, drank a 1/2 pint whiskey per week, and could run a rototiller a lot better than I, 30 yrs younger. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: rwalkerad1970 Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:08 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? What I am suggesting is we now have a successful model that stops oreven reverses atherosclerosis, so why speculate on fish? > because vegans never live long lives, so why is that? - its because they don't eat fish and dairy. - we are not sure yet what it is in fish and dairy and maybe meat that is protective, but its there, VEGANS DO NOT HAVE VERY LONG LIVES show me some long lived vegans.What you are suggesting here is exactly my point: Pritikin/Ornish arebetter superior diets and that they do less harm > They do not do less harm, they are protective against CHD, that is not the same as less harm, whats the point of surviving CHD if cancer kills you. The okinawan elders beat all the odds with only a little calorie restriction but fish, fish, fish.You seem to be suggesting that you allow yourself a 'slightly less'than optimum diet (at least cardiovascular wise) because you don'thave any problems. But that if you DID you would adopt a 'betterdiet', ie one proven to produce results > Ornish may be the best to protect from CHD, but if you are not at risk of CHD then why bother with ornish ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 My comments below: >>> From: " freebird5005 " <freebird5005@y...> Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:32 pm Subject: Re: Do you eat fish? > What I am suggesting is we now have a successful model that stops or > even reverses atherosclerosis, so why speculate on fish? > because > vegans never live long lives, so why is that? - its because they > don't eat fish and dairy. - we are not sure yet what it is in fish > and dairy and maybe meat that is protective, but its there, VEGANS > DO NOT HAVE VERY LONG LIVES show me some long lived vegans. -----Are you suggesting that adding fish or meat to one's diet will allow a longer life? If so, thru what mechanism would fish or meat allow a significant increase in lifespan? Give us a plausible mechanism or proof. == From: " freebird5005 " <freebird5005@y...> Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:42 pm Subject: Re: Do you eat fish? Hi Francesca. I agree with you but I don't think the suggestion to eliminate fish from one's diet is too extreme. Dean Ornish and others are successful with it. That is my point all along. >>> Freebird, From your posts, I am getting the feeling that you are pushing veganism or something similar. Nobody is likely to change their diet based on this type of discussion. I have always been curious about why people choose to be vegetarian or vegan. When I have asked, it boils down to two reasons: 1) religion, or 2) philosophical convictions. Nutritional considerations of vegetable-only diets always get hung up on the vitamin B availability, quality of the protein, etc. When someone decides on a vegan diet in spite of nutritional considerations their decision falls in category 2, in my opinion. One of my neighbors from India is vegetarian for religious reasons and he consumes eggs and milk. When I asked why, he said that his religion permits any food which can obtained without making another being suffer, and since eggs and milk can be obtained without killing the animals, they are allowed. This sounds very reasonable to me. In contrast, adding fish oil to a vegan diet would violate this kind of respect for nature, since you would have to kill the fish to get its oil. The quest for optimum nutrition should be made on the basis of health considerations that include the ability to support children's growth, adult maintenance, and normal reproductive function. What is " optimum " may vary based on our sex and our current stage of life. Vegan diets have been shown to be deficient for pregnant and lactating mothers. I recall a newspaper story about children being taken away from a vegan couple because they malnourished them through their dietary practices. That's my two-cents worth. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Citpecs has so eloquently summed up some of my views in his last post, but a few more comments are: " Do you have any reason (data) at all to think that vegans don't live longer? " > the data is life, 6 billion people and where is the book, the article or anything written by the 90 year old vegans. Don't you think Ornish and other vegans would be trumpeting any vegan society/group that had reached their nineties (of course he would, that would make him more money), there should be at least a few books by older vegans saying how healthy they are after taking up veganism in the nineteen fifties and sixties when it was popular and talking about what they eat - there would be pubmed studies on these vegans - but no, nothing, the vegan world is silent on this matter, because there is not a 90 plus vegan group, they are dead by then (or else why do we not hear their voice, think of all the minority groups of people who make their voices heard, why can the 90 year old plus vegans not do that, because there must be none) and I doubt a B12 supplement will make much different, nature is more complex than that, there is something more in fish that is protective not just the oil. But with the fanaticism of freebird, they hope with B12 supplements to break the mould. Will they - I think not. And why take the gamble, unless, like I say you have been overweight/abused yourself throughout life, then you need medical intervention (which I see Ornish as, not a diet for a healthy life, but a diet to reverse damage, but only CHD damage.) And I do not believe CHD is inevitable, its just the effect of bad food choices, if we start CRON in early life, those bad choices do not get made, end of story. And the WUSTLE study show that even CRON in later life leaves the subjects with healthy arteries. As to Raes fish theory - he admits himself that is of little importance compared to his mantra " calories, calories, calories " , I am willing to bet that if MR is correct it will save you a few months of life, not years, just months, but the extra fish benefits will outweigh those months somewhere down the line. Interestingly, this group being CR Support Group and not Ornish Appreciation Society is based on ideas such as those presented by Dr. Walford. Now Walford did not write a book with just three words in it (calories, calories, calories) he wrote a book that covered a persons exercise and diet giving his own " Optimal Nutrition " food pyramid (Which by the way is almost identical to the Okinawa food pyramid shown by Wilcox and Suzuki in " The Okinawa Program " , p.115. So is it just a coincidence that on one side of the planet Walford analysed thousands of papers and carried out experiments that suggested a specific calorie intake and food pyramid was best. While at the same time Okinawa had the largest number of centarians who just happened to be following Walfords pyramid. No, its it not a coincidence, Walford new damn well what he was doing with his food pyramid and what is very prominent in that pyramid " FISH, fish, fish " - so was Walford just a bit weak willed and threw the fish in because he liked a tasty treat, NO - he made fish an important part of his pyramid because he had seen hundreds of studies showing the benefits of fish. Since he wrote the book more and more studies come out showing more and more benefits of fish. Walford could easily have chopped the top three layers off his food pyramid leaving an ornish style diet, but he did not, instead he added three top layers, (1) Fish being the largest then (2) dairy, eggs, poultry, lean red meat. (3) selected supplements. So look here, again was Walford a bit weak willed, could not give up his eggs and chicken, No,No,No, he had studied nutrition for decades, something from that knowledge made him add dairy, eggs etc to his food pyramid. Not in huge quantities, but it is their on page 93 of Beyond 120year diet. So we have a tidal wave of evidence for fish and a few drops of rain against fish, why take the gamble, CALORIES CALORIES CALORIES, VEG VEG VEG, FRUIT FRUIT FRUIT, FISH FISH FISH, EXERCISE EXERCISE EXERCISE etc. ..... and why does freebird care, he (or she) is a die-hard ornish worshiper, who would not consider eating fish but who brings the subject up just to start an argument which involves many people spending time typing responses when freebird has no intention of moving away from his gold standard ornish - so what was the point ? I use to use tactics like that when debating things at college in my teenage years, but in the wider world it is unfair as freebird was never likely to alter his views, the question about fish was not from the heart as a need to understand why cronies eat fish, it was just a pointless argument. (in my opinion) - although it does convince me more than ever to eat plenty of fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Tony (Citpeks) and : thanks. Other responses have been posted during this thread citing scientific studies detailing the benefits of fish. I get the feeling that these responses are being ignored. That does not make for good discussion. Rather that anyone pushing their own agenda here, perhaps a better idea is to glean what NEW knowledge/ideas can be learned. Nutrition is a young science and none of us has all the answers, even if we like to think we do. on 10/25/2004 6:49 AM, rwalkerad1970 at rwalkerad1970@... wrote: > > Citpecs has so eloquently summed up some of my views in his last > post, but a few more comments are: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Hi All, I was disappointed by the below meta analysis. However, the results appear to me to be significant and I like to present at least some of the papers such as this suggesting that fish intake is not clearly indicated to be a health plus. It makes it appear that omega-3 fatty acids do not really make much differnce, irrespective of whether the long-chain fatty acids are taken directly or synthesized from foods such as flaxseeds and their oil. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD003177. Omega 3 fatty acids for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Hooper L, R, on R, Summerbell C, H, Worthington H, Durrington P, Ness A, Capps N, Davey SG, Riemersma R, Ebrahim S. ... To assess whether dietary or supplemental omega 3 fatty acids alter total mortality, cardiovascular events or cancers using both RCT and cohort studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to February 2002. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies were checked and authors contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included where omega 3 intake or advice was randomly allocated and unconfounded, and study duration was at least six months. Cohorts were included where a cohort was followed up for at least six months and omega 3 intake estimated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for inclusion, data extracted and quality assessed independently in duplicate. Random effects meta-analysis was performed separately for RCT and cohort data. MAIN RESULTS: Forty eight randomised controlled trials (36,913 participants) and 41 cohort analyses were included. Pooled trial results did not show a reduction in the risk of total mortality or combined cardiovascular events in those taking additional omega 3 fats (with significant statistical heterogeneity). Sensitivity analysis, retaining only studies at low risk of bias, reduced heterogeneity and again suggested no significant effect of omega 3 fats.Restricting analysis to trials increasing fish-based omega 3 fats, or those increasing short chain omega 3s, did not suggest significant effects on mortality or cardiovascular events in either group. Subgroup analysis by dietary advice or supplementation, baseline risk of CVD or omega 3 dose suggested no clear effects of these factors on primary outcomes.Neither RCTs nor cohorts suggested increased relative risk of cancers with higher omega 3 intake but estimates were imprecise so a clinically important effect could not be excluded. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear that dietary or supplemental omega 3 fats alter total mortality, combined cardiovascular events or cancers in people with, or at high risk of, cardiovascular disease or in the general population. There is no evidence we should advise people to stop taking rich sources of omega 3 fats, but further high quality trials are needed to confirm suggestions of a protective effect of omega 3 fats on cardiovascular health.There is no clear evidence that omega 3 fats differ in effectiveness according to fish or plant sources, dietary or supplemental sources, dose or presence of placebo. PMID: 15495044 [PubMed - in process] Cheers, Alan Pater > > Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to > eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non- > existent for mercury contamination. The levels in canned/fresh/frozen > were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of > Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and > chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to > here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I > don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is > like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-| > > So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If > so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make > up for the difference'? > > Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think > it was who said about buck and half per can). The > problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find > it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis- > believe. ;-) > > Again, what do YOU do? > > TIA. > > > Here are tables (very well laid out i might add): > > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Recent discussions with Ornish have shown he favors some fish now. You can ask him at ornish.com. PCa doctors seem to like some fish. Their clinical evidence may not be reported for a while. I think what we're missing here, is the assumption that ALL people can be treated with the same diet. That has got to be immensely false. I can't see how we would determine what a 100yo person actually ate. They didn't eat the same thing every day - not in this country (US) - probably true in other countries. What seems to be common is lower calorie intake. Ornish, Kellogg, Kempner, Atkins, Banting, Pritikin, were not working to extend life, just maintain it. I think maybe Walford is closer to the "CR" diet. Just my take. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: freebird5005 Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? Hi Francesca. I agree with you but I don't think the suggestion toeliminate fish from one's diet is too extreme. Dean Ornish and othersare successful with it. That is my point all along.> And maybe we DO need fish. Previous posters in this thread havementioned> some of the many benefits. To those benefits I might add that fattyfish> has the elusive Vit D which we have noted in many past posts may be much> more important than previously thought. And who knows what else isin fish> that we dont know about?> > I try to eat fish several times a week. I also eat meat every so often,> maybe once a month. In the past people have suggested cutting outgrains,> fruit, starch, and now fish.> > Extremism can be dangerous.> > Moderation and Variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 My comments below. >>>From: " old542000 " <apater@m...> Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:10 am Subject: Re: Do you eat fish? I was disappointed by the below meta analysis. However, the results appear to me to be significant and I like to present at least some of the papers such as this suggesting that fish intake is not clearly indicated to be a health plus. It makes it appear that omega-3 fatty acids do not really make much differnce, irrespective of whether the long-chain fatty acids are taken directly or synthesized from foods such as flaxseeds and their oil. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD003177. Omega 3 fatty acids for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. >>> Al, There may not be a reason to be disappointed. This may be a case of a misguided experiment. It is my impression that most polyunsaturated fatty acids, including omega-3, are found in the nervous system (brain, nerves, axons), rather than as constituents of the cardiovascular system (heart, arteries, capillaries). If so, you would expect omega-3 fatty acids to have a greater effect on the nervous system than on the cardiovascular system. The experiment may be the equivalent of studying the effect of carbohydrates on nail growth. A priori, we can predict neglegible effect because we know that nails are made of protein. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Rather than admire one or another, perhaps we should examine new info that we can add to Banting (ha). I don't think I'll depend on any one hypothesis. If I search Medline for vegan and lifespan: Med Hypotheses. 2003 Jun;60(6):784-92. A low-fat, whole-food vegan diet, as well as other strategies that down-regulate IGF-I activity, may slow the human aging process.McCarty MF.Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, California 92109, USA.A considerable amount of evidence is consistent with the proposition that systemic IGF-I activity acts as pacesetter in the aging process. A reduction in IGF-I activity is the common characteristic of rodents whose maximal lifespan has been increased by a wide range of genetic or dietary measures, including caloric restriction. The lifespans of breeds of dogs and strains of rats tend to be inversely proportional to their mature weight and IGF-I levels. The link between IGF-I and aging appears to be evolutionarily conserved; in worms and flies, lifespan is increased by reduction-of-function mutations in signaling intermediates homologous to those which mediate insulin/IGF-I activity in mammals. The fact that an increase in IGF-I activity plays a key role in the induction of sexual maturity, is consistent with a broader role for-IGF-I in aging regulation. If down-regulation of IGF-I activity could indeed slow aging in humans, a range of practical measures for achieving this may be at hand. These include a low-fat, whole-food, vegan diet, exercise training, soluble fiber, insulin sensitizes, appetite suppressants, and agents such as flax lignans, oral estrogen, or tamoxifen that decrease hepatic synthesis of IGF-I. Many of these measures would also be expected to decrease risk for common age-related diseases. Regimens combining several of these approaches might have a sufficient impact on IGF-I activity to achieve a useful retardation of the aging process. However, in light of the fact that IGF-I promotes endothelial production of nitric oxide and may be of especial importance to cerebrovascular health, additional measures for stroke prevention-most notably salt restriction-may be advisable when attempting to down-regulate IGF-I activity as a pro-longevity strategy. PMID: 12699704 I like Ornish because he is willing to change as new info arises, not because he wrote a book 14 years ago. {vegan and longevity} http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity. {These studies do not mean to me don't eat any fish. Okinawa theory does not mean to me eat an Okinawan diet - I'm from N. Eu stock. I'm not Okinawan - how could I possibly assume I'd benefit from their diet?} Med Hypotheses. 2003 Sep;61(3):323-34. IGF-I activity may be a key determinant of stroke risk--a cautionary lesson for vegans.McCarty MF.Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, California 92109, USA.IGF-I acts on vascular endothelium to activate nitric oxide synthase, thereby promoting vascular health; there is reason to believe that this protection is especially crucial to the cerebral vasculature, helping to ward off thrombotic strokes. IGF-I may also promote the structural integrity of cerebral arteries, thereby offering protection from hemorrhagic stroke. These considerations may help to explain why tallness is associated with low stroke risk, whereas growth hormone deficiency increases stroke risk--and why age-adjusted stroke mortality has been exceptionally high in rural Asians eating quasi-vegan diets, but has been declining steadily in Asia as diets have become progressively higher in animal products. There is good reason to suspect that low-fat vegan diets tend to down-regulate systemic IGF-I activity; this effect would be expected to increase stroke risk in vegans. Furthermore, epidemiology suggests that low serum cholesterol, and possibly also a low dietary intake of saturated fat--both characteristic of those adopting low-fat vegan diets--may also increase stroke risk. Vegans are thus well advised to adopt practical countermeasures to minimize stroke risk--the most definitive of which may be salt restriction. A high potassium intake, aerobic exercise training, whole grains, moderate alcohol consumption, low-dose aspirin, statin or policosanol therapy, green tea, and supplementation with fish oil, taurine, arginine, and B vitamins--as well as pharmacotherapy of hypertension if warranted--are other practical measures for lowering stroke risk. Although low-fat vegan diets may markedly reduce risk for coronary disease, diabetes, and many common types of cancer, an increased risk for stroke may represent an 'Achilles heel'. Nonetheless, vegans have the potential to achieve a truly exceptional 'healthspan' if they face this problem forthrightly by restricting salt intake and taking other practical measures that promote cerebrovascular health. PMID: 12944100 {so maybe we should worry more about CVD? This is about the beat review I've seen recently.} http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/533S Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians. Please read this recent, not hard to read study and tell me if you see how you would favor one diet over another. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: rwalkerad1970 Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:49 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? Citpecs has so eloquently summed up some of my views in his last post, but a few more comments are:"Do you have any reason (data) at all to think that vegans don't live longer?" > the data is life, 6 billion people and where is the book, the article or anything written by the 90 year old vegans. Don't you think Ornish and other vegans would be trumpeting any vegan society/group that had reached their nineties (of course he would, that would make him more money), there should be at least a few books by older vegans saying how healthy they are after taking up veganism in the nineteen fifties and sixties when it was popular and talking about what they eat - there would be pubmed studies on these vegans - but no, nothing, the vegan world is silent on this matter, because there is not a 90 plus vegan group, they are dead by then (or else why do we not hear their voice, think of all the minority groups of people who make their voices heard, why can the 90 year old plus vegans not do that, because there must be none) and I doubt a B12 supplement will make much different, nature is more complex than that, there is something more in fish that is protective not just the oil. But with the fanaticism of freebird, they hope with B12 supplements to break the mould. Will they - I think not. And why take the gamble, unless, like I say you have been overweight/abused yourself throughout life, then you need medical intervention (which I see Ornish as, not a diet for a healthy life, but a diet to reverse damage, but only CHD damage.) And I do not believe CHD is inevitable, its just the effect of bad food choices, if we start CRON in early life, those bad choices do not get made, end of story. And the WUSTLE study show that even CRON in later life leaves the subjects with healthy arteries.As to Raes fish theory - he admits himself that is of little importance compared to his mantra "calories, calories, calories", I am willing to bet that if MR is correct it will save you a few months of life, not years, just months, but the extra fish benefits will outweigh those months somewhere down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Hi Al: Thanks for that study. I can see what seem to be several possible difficulties with it, at least based on what was posted. First, it does not seem to differentiate between the effects of ALA, DHA and EPA separately. It is my impression that they each have different effects. Too many studies seem to lump these together without considering the effects of each. And some of the effects, you may recall, I believe are negative (ALA). Second, the Physicians Health Study found no CVD benefit from fish oil SUPPLEMENTS. Which is why I eat the fish itself. So the following quote is no surprise: " Pooled trial results did not show a reduction in the risk of total mortality or combined cardiovascular events in those taking additional omega 3 fats " . They do not seem to make clear whether the data they reviewed showed whether there was a difference between eating whole fish directly compared with taking fish oil only as a supplement. If they have enough evidence to show that ***EATING FISH*** has no benefit, then I would certainly sit up and take notice. They do talk of " fish sources " but do not make it clear whether in that case the fish was eaten or the oil extracted from fish was taken. Of course the entire study may clarify that. Rodney. --- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I was disappointed by the below meta analysis. However, the results > appear to me to be significant and I like to present at least some of > the papers such as this suggesting that fish intake is not clearly > indicated to be a health plus. It makes it appear that omega-3 fatty > acids do not really make much differnce, irrespective of whether the > long-chain fatty acids are taken directly or synthesized from foods > such as flaxseeds and their oil. > > Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD003177. > Omega 3 fatty acids for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular > disease. > Hooper L, R, on R, Summerbell C, H, Worthington > H, > Durrington P, Ness A, Capps N, Davey SG, Riemersma R, Ebrahim S. > > ... To assess whether > dietary or supplemental omega 3 fatty acids alter total mortality, > cardiovascular events or cancers using both RCT and cohort studies. > SEARCH > STRATEGY: Five databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were > searched to > February 2002. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies > were > checked and authors contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included > where > omega 3 intake or advice was randomly allocated and unconfounded, and > study > duration was at least six months. Cohorts were included where a > cohort was > followed up for at least six months and omega 3 intake estimated. > DATA > COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for inclusion, data > extracted and > quality assessed independently in duplicate. Random effects > meta-analysis was > performed separately for RCT and cohort data. MAIN RESULTS: Forty > eight > randomised controlled trials (36,913 participants) and 41 cohort > analyses were > included. Pooled trial results did not show a reduction in the risk > of total > mortality or combined cardiovascular events in those taking > additional omega 3 > fats (with significant statistical heterogeneity). Sensitivity > analysis, > retaining only studies at low risk of bias, reduced heterogeneity and > again > suggested no significant effect of omega 3 fats.Restricting analysis > to trials > increasing fish-based omega 3 fats, or those increasing short chain > omega 3s, > did not suggest significant effects on mortality or cardiovascular > events in > either group. Subgroup analysis by dietary advice or supplementation, > baseline > risk of CVD or omega 3 dose suggested no clear effects of these > factors on > primary outcomes.Neither RCTs nor cohorts suggested increased > relative risk of > cancers with higher omega 3 intake but estimates were imprecise so a > clinically > important effect could not be excluded. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: It is > not clear > that dietary or supplemental omega 3 fats alter total mortality, > combined > cardiovascular events or cancers in people with, or at high risk of, > cardiovascular disease or in the general population. There is no > evidence we > should advise people to stop taking rich sources of omega 3 fats, but > further > high quality trials are needed to confirm suggestions of a protective > effect of > omega 3 fats on cardiovascular health.There is no clear evidence that > omega 3 > fats differ in effectiveness according to fish or plant sources, > dietary or > supplemental sources, dose or presence of placebo. > > PMID: 15495044 [PubMed - in process] > > Cheers, Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Hi Alan! Yes, this is precisely what I have been reading too. One study suggested fish/fish oil reduced cardiovascular events by helping to stabilize soft plaque in atherosclerotic lesions. Seems those who regularly eat fish or consume fish oil have larger amounts of it in their plaque. However, fish/fish oil consumption often increases LDL and REDUCES HDL through the mechansim illustrated below (The following is a great read and gives some insight into lipid metabolism): This study was designed to test the effects of n-3 fatty acids from fish oils on the regression of atherosclerotic lesions in the Yucatan miniature pig. The P/S ratio of the diet is known to have an effect on plasma cholesterol,24 25 which in turn has an effect on atherosclerosis.26 27 Therefore, a control oil was used that matched the P/S ratio of the fish oil. Thus, any effects observed would be primarily a result of the presence or absence of n-3 fatty acids in the diet. Atherosclerotic lesions were induced by dietary means alone; after 8 months, the atherogenic agents were removed and the normal (regression) diets supplemented with fish oil or a control oil to promote lesion regression. Atherosclerosis was evaluated by examining the percentage of the surface area of the major arteries covered by lesion. The ranges of cholesterol (15 to 20 mmol/L) and triglyceride (0.5 to 0.7 mmol/L) concentrations observed during the progression phase of this study are consistent with results we have previously obtained15 and those found by other investigators using the same model.16 Within 2 months of the removal of the atherogenic stimulus, the plasma cholesterol levels returned to baseline values. These effects have also been seen in other regression studies using swine, with8 9 and without28 fish oil supplements. The decrease in VLDL and increase in LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels seen in our fish oil group are consistent with changes caused by n-3 fatty acids in humans.29 Other swine regression studies using fish oil found significant decreases in the total plasma, VLDL, and LDL cholesterol levels in groups supplemented with fish oil compared with those supplemented with lard.8 They also reported significant decreases in the total plasma triglyceride levels in the FO groups. In this experiment, however, the P/S ratio of the control oil (0.2:1) was significantly less than that of the fish oil (1.5:1). A regression study on monkeys11 in which the same total polyunsaturates were supplied by the fish oil and control diets found that fish oil caused no significant changes in the plasma or lipoprotein fraction cholesterol or triglyceride levels. However, the daily fish oil and control oil supplements averaged 168.9 and 76.6 mg/kg body wt, respectively, which may be too low to influence the parameters measured. In contrast, the animals in our study received 435 mg/kg body wt of oil supplements with equal P/S ratios. On average, the fish oil supplement in our study provided 4.4 g EPA and 3.2 g DHA daily (143 mg·kg-1·d-1), which more closely approximates the consumption of Greenland Eskimos ({approx}157 mg·kg-1·d-1 EPA and DHA).30 It is well documented that fish oils cause a decrease in triglycerides (and consequently VLDL, the main triglyceride carrier). This decrease has been suggested to result from the interference of fish oil with the enzymes responsible for triglyceride production and secretion by the liver.31 32 33 34 Fish oil has also been shown to cause an increased conversion of VLDL remnants to LDL particles in pigs35 36 and a downregulation of the LDL receptor.36 37 38 These changes would result in an increased number of LDL particles due to the combination of increased production and decreased removal from the plasma. Consistent with the work of others, in our study fish oil caused an increase in LDL protein concentration, suggesting that there was an increased number of LDL particles in the plasma of these animals. The saturation levels of the fatty acids in the diet have been shown to be reflected in the fatty acid composition of the lipoprotein (LDL) particles.39 40 For example, the enrichment of 18:1 fatty acid in the diet results in an increased level of 18:1 in the LDL particle.40 The differences in the fatty acid compositions of the LDL particles from the FO and CO groups can be explained by examining the fatty acid composition of the oil supplements. The fatty acids 18:0, 18:2, and 20:4 are found in very low levels in MaxEPA ({approx}5%) compared with the control oil ({approx}52%), whereas the fatty acids 16:1, 18:3, 20:5, and 22:6 are found in higher proportions in the fish oil (30.5% in MaxEPA versus 1.3% in the control oil). Similar differences in the LDL fatty acid profiles from the terminal LDL particles are seen when the FO and CO groups are compared. Regression studies in both monkeys and pigs9 11 showed increased incorporation of the n-3 fatty acids 20:5 and 22:6 into plasma lipids at the expense of the n-6 fatty acids 18:2 and 20:4. The increased levels of the highly unsaturated fatty acids in the FO LDL would suggest that these particles would be more susceptible to oxidation15 40 and hence, more atherogenic41 and less likely to allow lesion regression. Results from conjugated diene analysis, showing fish oil LDL particles with a lag time less than half that of the other groups, confirm that the fish oil particles were more susceptible to oxidation. Our laboratory has previously shown that, in addition to decreased lag time during conjugated diene production in LDL from FO pigs, there was an increase in electrophoretic mobility of these particles on agarose gels.12 It has also been shown that LDL from humans eating fish oil–supplemented diets are more susceptible to copper oxidation and macrophage-mediated modification and that both particles are more easily taken up by cultured macrophages,42 suggesting that these particles may be more atherogenic in vivo. In contrast, Nenseter et al43 demonstrated that n-3 fatty acid supplementation did not result in an increased susceptibility of human LDL to copper-induced oxidation. On the basis of the oxidation profile of the LDL particles as well as the increase in LDL and decrease in HDL cholesterol (all factors that have been shown to be associated with increased atherosclerosis), one would predict that the lesion regression in the FO group would have been retarded by the oil supplement. Our results show that fish oil did not enhance or retard the regression of the atherosclerotic lesions compared with the control oil. Sassen et al8 concluded that in pigs, fish oil enhanced the regression and retarded the progression of coronary atherosclerosis compared with lard-fed animals. In a later experiment,9 however, they showed a significant reduction in the right coronary artery luminal encroachment but no significant reduction in aortic atherosclerosis with fish oil supplementation. It is important to note that in both of the above studies, the P/S ratios of the fish oil and control diets were not matched. In contrast, using monkeys, Fincham et al10 found no enhanced lesion regression with fish oil supplementation compared with a control oil with an equivalent P/S ratio. In summary, this study examined the effects of a fish oil supplement on lesion regression in the pig model of atherosclerosis. After a switch from a high-fat/high-cholesterol diet to a low-fat/low-cholesterol diet, it was confirmed that lesion regression will occur under these conditions. The addition of a control oil supplement to the regression diet resulted in higher HDL cholesterol levels; however, this favorable change did not affect the extent of lesion regression. In contrast, the addition of a fish oil supplement caused an increase in LDL and a decrease in HDL cholesterol and caused the LDL particle to be more susceptible to oxidation. However, these unfavorable changes were also not reflected in the extent of lesion regression compared with the P/S-matched CO group. The addition of a fish oil supplement to a regression diet did not influence lesion regression in pigs. http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/688 This is not an isolated study, I've come across many others with same or similar conclusions. But this one outlines the processes in question very well! > > > > Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to > > eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non- > > existent for mercury contamination. The levels in > canned/fresh/frozen > > were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of > > Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and > > chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to > > here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I > > don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is > > like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-| > > > > So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If > > so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make > > up for the difference'? > > > > Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think > > it was who said about buck and half per can). The > > problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find > > it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis- > > believe. ;-) > > > > Again, what do YOU do? > > > > TIA. > > > > > > Here are tables (very well laid out i might add): > > > > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 jw thanks for those! What is also interesting is Okinawon's eating their Okinawon diet have a greater risk for stroke than do Americans eating an American diet! Go figure???? Does anyone have an explanantion for this? > Rather than admire one or another, perhaps we should examine new info that we can add to Banting (ha). I don't think I'll depend on any one hypothesis. > If I search Medline for vegan and lifespan: > Med Hypotheses. 2003 Jun;60(6):784-92. > > > A low-fat, whole-food vegan diet, as well as other strategies that down-regulate IGF-I activity, may slow the human aging process. > > McCarty MF. > > Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, California 92109, USA. > > A considerable amount of evidence is consistent with the proposition that systemic IGF-I activity acts as pacesetter in the aging process. A reduction in IGF-I activity is the common characteristic of rodents whose maximal lifespan has been increased by a wide range of genetic or dietary measures, including caloric restriction. The lifespans of breeds of dogs and strains of rats tend to be inversely proportional to their mature weight and IGF-I levels. The link between IGF-I and aging appears to be evolutionarily conserved; in worms and flies, lifespan is increased by reduction-of-function mutations in signaling intermediates homologous to those which mediate insulin/IGF-I activity in mammals. The fact that an increase in IGF-I activity plays a key role in the induction of sexual maturity, is consistent with a broader role for-IGF-I in aging regulation. If down-regulation of IGF-I activity could indeed slow aging in humans, a range of practical measures for achieving this may be at hand. These include a low-fat, whole-food, vegan diet, exercise training, soluble fiber, insulin sensitizes, appetite suppressants, and agents such as flax lignans, oral estrogen, or tamoxifen that decrease hepatic synthesis of IGF-I. Many of these measures would also be expected to decrease risk for common age-related diseases. Regimens combining several of these approaches might have a sufficient impact on IGF-I activity to achieve a useful retardation of the aging process. However, in light of the fact that IGF-I promotes endothelial production of nitric oxide and may be of especial importance to cerebrovascular health, additional measures for stroke prevention-most notably salt restriction-may be advisable when attempting to down-regulate IGF-I activity as a pro-longevity strategy. PMID: 12699704 > > I like Ornish because he is willing to change as new info arises, not because he wrote a book 14 years ago. > > {vegan and longevity} > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S > Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity. > > {These studies do not mean to me don't eat any fish. Okinawa theory does not mean to me eat an Okinawan diet - I'm from N. Eu stock. I'm not Okinawan - how could I possibly assume I'd benefit from their diet?} > > Med Hypotheses. 2003 Sep;61(3):323-34. > > > IGF-I activity may be a key determinant of stroke risk--a cautionary lesson for vegans. > > McCarty MF. > > Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, California 92109, USA. > > IGF-I acts on vascular endothelium to activate nitric oxide synthase, thereby promoting vascular health; there is reason to believe that this protection is especially crucial to the cerebral vasculature, helping to ward off thrombotic strokes. IGF-I may also promote the structural integrity of cerebral arteries, thereby offering protection from hemorrhagic stroke. These considerations may help to explain why tallness is associated with low stroke risk, whereas growth hormone deficiency increases stroke risk--and why age-adjusted stroke mortality has been exceptionally high in rural Asians eating quasi-vegan diets, but has been declining steadily in Asia as diets have become progressively higher in animal products. There is good reason to suspect that low-fat vegan diets tend to down-regulate systemic IGF-I activity; this effect would be expected to increase stroke risk in vegans. Furthermore, epidemiology suggests that low serum cholesterol, and possibly also a low dietary intake of saturated fat--both characteristic of those adopting low-fat vegan diets--may also increase stroke risk. Vegans are thus well advised to adopt practical countermeasures to minimize stroke risk--the most definitive of which may be salt restriction. A high potassium intake, aerobic exercise training, whole grains, moderate alcohol consumption, low-dose aspirin, statin or policosanol therapy, green tea, and supplementation with fish oil, taurine, arginine, and B vitamins--as well as pharmacotherapy of hypertension if warranted--are other practical measures for lowering stroke risk. Although low-fat vegan diets may markedly reduce risk for coronary disease, diabetes, and many common types of cancer, an increased risk for stroke may represent an 'Achilles heel'. Nonetheless, vegans have the potential to achieve a truly exceptional 'healthspan' if they face this problem forthrightly by restricting salt intake and taking other practical measures that promote cerebrovascular health. PMID: 12944100 > > {so maybe we should worry more about CVD? This is about the beat review I've seen recently.} > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/533S > Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford > Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians. > > > > Please read this recent, not hard to read study and tell me if you see how you would favor one diet over another. > > > Regards. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rwalkerad1970 > > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:49 AM > Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? > > > > Citpecs has so eloquently summed up some of my views in his last > post, but a few more comments are: > > " Do you have any reason (data) at all to think that vegans don't > live longer? " > the data is life, 6 billion people and where is the > book, the article or anything written by the 90 year old vegans. > Don't you think Ornish and other vegans would be trumpeting any > vegan society/group that had reached their nineties (of course he > would, that would make him more money), there should be at least a > few books by older vegans saying how healthy they are after taking > up veganism in the nineteen fifties and sixties when it was popular > and talking about what they eat - there would be pubmed studies on > these vegans - but no, nothing, the vegan world is silent on this > matter, because there is not a 90 plus vegan group, they are dead by > then (or else why do we not hear their voice, think of all the > minority groups of people who make their voices heard, why can the > 90 year old plus vegans not do that, because there must be none) and > I doubt a B12 supplement will make much different, nature is more > complex than that, there is something more in fish that is > protective not just the oil. But with the fanaticism of freebird, > they hope with B12 supplements to break the mould. Will they - I > think not. And why take the gamble, unless, like I say you have been > overweight/abused yourself throughout life, then you need medical > intervention (which I see Ornish as, not a diet for a healthy life, > but a diet to reverse damage, but only CHD damage.) And I do not > believe CHD is inevitable, its just the effect of bad food choices, > if we start CRON in early life, those bad choices do not get made, > end of story. And the WUSTLE study show that even CRON in later life > leaves the subjects with healthy arteries. > > As to Raes fish theory - he admits himself that is of little > importance compared to his mantra " calories, calories, calories " , I > am willing to bet that if MR is correct it will save you a few > months of life, not years, just months, but the extra fish benefits > will outweigh those months somewhere down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Below. ----- Hi Francesca. I agree with you but I don't think the suggestion toeliminate fish from one's diet is too extreme. Dean Ornish and othersare successful with it. That is my point all along. Ornish recommends fish oil capsules currently for his reversal diet. His preventive program has never suggested that one should not eat fish, dairy, or anything else. He says check your lipids. If tc is below 150, eat your fruits and vegetables and keep doing what you're doing about fat and protein. If your tc is above 150, or your ldl is too high, follow the reversal program, increasing compliance incrementally as you continue to refer to blood lipids. In other words, we're all different. Design the program that fits you. Neither Ornish nor Pritikin is a vegan diet. Even Pritikin's reversal diet allows some fish once weekly (the program he followed)and 2 glasses of skim milk daily, as well as some egg whites in cooking. Both recommend daily moderate aerobic exercise. They do not consider the diets separately from the exercise. Ed S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I agree 110% that we need to measure how our individual physiology is responding to our personal dietary regeime and we need to check it often! However, even if your lipid profile is great this doesn't speak to the question is fish necessary. Perhaps your lipid profile would be even better w/o the fish (as some recent studies posted here suggest). Certainly you'd be better off w/o the additional mercury/PCB exposure no matter how slight. Also, Please don't confuse me with being a Dean Ornish groupie. I am a champion of CRON. I just don't see where fish is a necessary ingredient in that plan. > Below. > ----- Hi Francesca. I agree with you but I don't think the suggestion to > eliminate fish from one's diet is too extreme. Dean Ornish and others > are successful with it. That is my point all along. > Ornish recommends fish oil capsules currently for his reversal diet. His preventive program has never suggested that one should not eat fish, dairy, or anything else. He says check your lipids. If tc is below 150, eat your fruits and vegetables and keep doing what you're doing about fat and protein. If your tc is above 150, or your ldl is too high, follow the reversal program, increasing compliance incrementally as you continue to refer to blood lipids. In other words, we're all different. Design the program that fits you. > > Neither Ornish nor Pritikin is a vegan diet. Even Pritikin's reversal diet allows some fish once weekly (the program he followed)and 2 glasses of skim milk daily, as well as some egg whites in cooking. Both recommend daily moderate aerobic exercise. They do not consider the diets separately from the exercise. > > Ed S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Actually looking again Americans have lowest risk for stroke than all the other samples! What gives with this? I am sure someone must know.. > > Rather than admire one or another, perhaps we should examine new > info that we can add to Banting (ha). I don't think I'll depend on any > one hypothesis. > > If I search Medline for vegan and lifespan: > > Med Hypotheses. 2003 Jun;60(6):784-92. > > > > > > A low-fat, whole-food vegan diet, as well as other strategies that > down-regulate IGF-I activity, may slow the human aging process. > > > > McCarty MF. > > > > Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, California 92109, USA. > > > > A considerable amount of evidence is consistent with the proposition > that systemic IGF-I activity acts as pacesetter in the aging process. > A reduction in IGF-I activity is the common characteristic of rodents > whose maximal lifespan has been increased by a wide range of genetic > or dietary measures, including caloric restriction. The lifespans of > breeds of dogs and strains of rats tend to be inversely proportional > to their mature weight and IGF-I levels. The link between IGF-I and > aging appears to be evolutionarily conserved; in worms and flies, > lifespan is increased by reduction-of-function mutations in signaling > intermediates homologous to those which mediate insulin/IGF-I activity > in mammals. The fact that an increase in IGF-I activity plays a key > role in the induction of sexual maturity, is consistent with a broader > role for-IGF-I in aging regulation. If down-regulation of IGF-I > activity could indeed slow aging in humans, a range of practical > measures for achieving this may be at hand. These include a low-fat, > whole-food, vegan diet, exercise training, soluble fiber, insulin > sensitizes, appetite suppressants, and agents such as flax lignans, > oral estrogen, or tamoxifen that decrease hepatic synthesis of IGF-I. > Many of these measures would also be expected to decrease risk for > common age-related diseases. Regimens combining several of these > approaches might have a sufficient impact on IGF-I activity to achieve > a useful retardation of the aging process. However, in light of the > fact that IGF-I promotes endothelial production of nitric oxide and > may be of especial importance to cerebrovascular health, additional > measures for stroke prevention-most notably salt restriction-may be > advisable when attempting to down-regulate IGF-I activity as a > pro-longevity strategy. PMID: 12699704 > > > > I like Ornish because he is willing to change as new info arises, > not because he wrote a book 14 years ago. > > > > {vegan and longevity} > > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S > > Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North > America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that > includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity. > > > > {These studies do not mean to me don't eat any fish. Okinawa theory > does not mean to me eat an Okinawan diet - I'm from N. Eu stock. I'm > not Okinawan - how could I possibly assume I'd benefit from their diet?} > > > > Med Hypotheses. 2003 Sep;61(3):323-34. > > > > > > IGF-I activity may be a key determinant of stroke risk--a cautionary > lesson for vegans. > > > > McCarty MF. > > > > Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, California 92109, USA. > > > > IGF-I acts on vascular endothelium to activate nitric oxide > synthase, thereby promoting vascular health; there is reason to > believe that this protection is especially crucial to the cerebral > vasculature, helping to ward off thrombotic strokes. IGF-I may also > promote the structural integrity of cerebral arteries, thereby > offering protection from hemorrhagic stroke. These considerations may > help to explain why tallness is associated with low stroke risk, > whereas growth hormone deficiency increases stroke risk--and why > age-adjusted stroke mortality has been exceptionally high in rural > Asians eating quasi-vegan diets, but has been declining steadily in > Asia as diets have become progressively higher in animal products. > There is good reason to suspect that low-fat vegan diets tend to > down-regulate systemic IGF-I activity; this effect would be expected > to increase stroke risk in vegans. Furthermore, epidemiology suggests > that low serum cholesterol, and possibly also a low dietary intake of > saturated fat--both characteristic of those adopting low-fat vegan > diets--may also increase stroke risk. Vegans are thus well advised to > adopt practical countermeasures to minimize stroke risk--the most > definitive of which may be salt restriction. A high potassium intake, > aerobic exercise training, whole grains, moderate alcohol consumption, > low-dose aspirin, statin or policosanol therapy, green tea, and > supplementation with fish oil, taurine, arginine, and B vitamins--as > well as pharmacotherapy of hypertension if warranted--are other > practical measures for lowering stroke risk. Although low-fat vegan > diets may markedly reduce risk for coronary disease, diabetes, and > many common types of cancer, an increased risk for stroke may > represent an 'Achilles heel'. Nonetheless, vegans have the potential > to achieve a truly exceptional 'healthspan' if they face this problem > forthrightly by restricting salt intake and taking other practical > measures that promote cerebrovascular health. PMID: 12944100 > > > > {so maybe we should worry more about CVD? This is about the beat > review I've seen recently.} > > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/533S > > Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results > from EPIC-Oxford > > Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the > nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. > Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not > significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but > the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease > among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction > previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western > vegetarians. > > > > > > > > Please read this recent, not hard to read study and tell me if you > see how you would favor one diet over another. > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: rwalkerad1970 > > > > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:49 AM > > Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish? > > > > > > > > Citpecs has so eloquently summed up some of my views in his last > > post, but a few more comments are: > > > > " Do you have any reason (data) at all to think that vegans don't > > live longer? " > the data is life, 6 billion people and where is the > > book, the article or anything written by the 90 year old vegans. > > Don't you think Ornish and other vegans would be trumpeting any > > vegan society/group that had reached their nineties (of course he > > would, that would make him more money), there should be at least a > > few books by older vegans saying how healthy they are after taking > > up veganism in the nineteen fifties and sixties when it was popular > > and talking about what they eat - there would be pubmed studies on > > these vegans - but no, nothing, the vegan world is silent on this > > matter, because there is not a 90 plus vegan group, they are dead by > > then (or else why do we not hear their voice, think of all the > > minority groups of people who make their voices heard, why can the > > 90 year old plus vegans not do that, because there must be none) and > > I doubt a B12 supplement will make much different, nature is more > > complex than that, there is something more in fish that is > > protective not just the oil. But with the fanaticism of freebird, > > they hope with B12 supplements to break the mould. Will they - I > > think not. And why take the gamble, unless, like I say you have been > > overweight/abused yourself throughout life, then you need medical > > intervention (which I see Ornish as, not a diet for a healthy life, > > but a diet to reverse damage, but only CHD damage.) And I do not > > believe CHD is inevitable, its just the effect of bad food choices, > > if we start CRON in early life, those bad choices do not get made, > > end of story. And the WUSTLE study show that even CRON in later life > > leaves the subjects with healthy arteries. > > > > As to Raes fish theory - he admits himself that is of little > > importance compared to his mantra " calories, calories, calories " , I > > am willing to bet that if MR is correct it will save you a few > > months of life, not years, just months, but the extra fish benefits > > will outweigh those months somewhere down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I agree 110% that we need to measure how our individual physiology isresponding to our personal dietary regeime and we need to check itoften! However, even if your lipid profile is great this doesn't speakto the question is fish necessary. I agree, it does not. There is evidence that fish may enhance average life span, but no proof, as such. Perhaps your lipid profile would beeven better w/o the fish (as some recent studies posted here suggest). I was a vegan vegetarian for two years. An Ornish lacto/ovo vegitarian for about the same length of time. My lipids are better with some fish and fish oil caps. But, you're right, they might not be. It's important to find out. Certainly you'd be better off w/o the additional mercury/PCB exposureno matter how slight. Probably not. I'm 72. The possibility that I would live long enough to create a mercury/pcp problem is slight, even with cron. In addition, I eat fresh (frozen by me) pacific salmon (wild), sardines. I'm thinking about going to the coast (200 miles round trip to Newport, where the herring live. There I may catch or buy fresh herring, put 'em on ice and skedaddle home, the freeze 'em quickly. In any case, I only eat about 6 to 8 ounces of fish a week. I also eat some chicken, which is not a very good idea. Also, Please don't confuse me with being a Dean Ornish groupie. I am achampion of CRON. I just don't see where fish is a necessaryingredient in that plan. I don't see proof that fish is necessary, either, just probably beneficial. I, too am a champion of cron. At my age, when I adhere to the program perfectly, I feel terrific. I don't need any other benefit than that. Ed S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 What is also interesting is Okinawon's eating their Okinawon diet have a greater risk for stroke than do Americans eating an American diet! Go figure???? Does anyone have an explanantion for this? > Salt, salt: " The okinawan elders eat a little too much salt, at about 7 grams per day, but much less than the mainland Japanese, who eat 12 grams " And the general okinawans (not the elders) tend to eat more salt now than the elders, but not as much as the Japanese. " The Okinawa Program, p.72, 2001 " - Don't know why Americans have low stroke rate (maybe CHD gets them first) or maybe their salt intake is not as high as in Japan. Also Japanese tend to have low cholesterol maybe that increases stroke risk. The new anti-fish studies posted today - still just raindrops in an ocean full of positive fish studies. Needs to be more anti-fish studies than pro-fish studies before I am convinced. And each month brings new pro-fish studies, but the anti-fish studies - well, you need to do a bit of searching to find those. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Please post links to this ocean full of great fish studies you possess. I look foward to reading them all and getting back to eating fish again! > > What is also interesting is Okinawon's eating > their Okinawon diet have a greater risk for stroke than do Americans > eating an American diet! Go figure???? Does anyone have an > explanantion for this? > > > Salt, salt: " The okinawan elders eat a little too much salt, at > about 7 grams per day, but much less than the mainland Japanese, who > eat 12 grams " And the general okinawans (not the elders) tend to eat > more salt now than the elders, but not as much as the Japanese. " The > Okinawa Program, p.72, 2001 " - > > Don't know why Americans have low stroke rate (maybe CHD gets them > first) or maybe their salt intake is not as high as in Japan. Also > Japanese tend to have low cholesterol maybe that increases stroke > risk. > > The new anti-fish studies posted today - still just raindrops in an > ocean full of positive fish studies. Needs to be more anti-fish > studies than pro-fish studies before I am convinced. And each month > brings new pro-fish studies, but the anti-fish studies - well, you > need to do a bit of searching to find those. > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Besides all the studies cited in answer to your questions in this thread, our archives are full of them!! on 10/25/2004 2:00 PM, freebird5005 at freebird5005@... wrote: > > Please post links to this ocean full of great fish studies you > possess. I look foward to reading them all and getting back to eating > fish again! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.