Re: Evolutionary arguments

[Guest guest]

I was a biology major in college, however I couldn't have said it better.

on 6/11/2003 8:38 AM, oc9 at crsupport@... wrote:

> Remember that evolution relies on the most successful organisms

> surviving.

>

> Success is generally being able to survive to procreate.

>

> Evolution does not really care about the individual after they breed.

>

> It may be that the foods available and beneficial to survival to

> breeding age are a detriment after that point. A certain level of

> body fat allows females to better ovulate and carry a pregnancy to

> term, and nurse an infant. The same foods may not contribute to

> later longevity, when lower body fat may be the best choice.

>

> While there is some argument for tribal elders contributing to the

> success of a given group, there were relatively few of them, and this

> has not a lot to do with individual survival past the age of

> procreation.

>

> Iris

[Guest guest]

that's a great point! i've often wondered about the same thing, although i

suspect healthy food is pretty much the same for young and old, and the

body fat/pregnancy thing is more about quantity than food choices, besides

the obvious need for more organ meats, fish eggs, and whatever to feed another

person.

Mike

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, oc9 wrote:

> Remember that evolution relies on the most successful organisms

> surviving.

>

> Success is generally being able to survive to procreate.

>

> Evolution does not really care about the individual after they breed.

>

> It may be that the foods available and beneficial to survival to

> breeding age are a detriment after that point. A certain level of

> body fat allows females to better ovulate and carry a pregnancy to

> term, and nurse an infant. The same foods may not contribute to

> later longevity, when lower body fat may be the best choice.

>

> While there is some argument for tribal elders contributing to the

> success of a given group, there were relatively few of them, and this

> has not a lot to do with individual survival past the age of

> procreation.

>

> Iris

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

: If one follows your reasoning, then much of the science of Ornish,

Pritikin, not to mention Walford, is being tossed out the window. These are

giants in the field of nutrition and health and it's taken a long time for

mainstream medicine to accept their findings and give them the recognition

they deserve. I, for one, wouldn't be so quick to turn back the clock in

the name of " eating more naturally " or trying to mimic Paleo man.

on 6/11/2003 10:20 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

> that's a great point! i've often wondered about the same thing, although i

> suspect healthy food is pretty much the same for young and old, and the

> body fat/pregnancy thing is more about quantity than food choices, besides

> the obvious need for more organ meats, fish eggs, and whatever to feed another

> person.

>

> Mike

[Guest guest]

Right. And their ideas were not necessarily original.

I don't want to eat "naturally" anyway. I want "unnatural" stuff to live longer than "natural".

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:34 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Evolutionary arguments

: If one follows your reasoning, then much of the science of Ornish,Pritikin, not to mention Walford, is being tossed out the window. These aregiants in the field of nutrition and health and it's taken a long time formainstream medicine to accept their findings and give them the recognitionthey deserve. I, for one, wouldn't be so quick to turn back the clock inthe name of "eating more naturally" or trying to mimic Paleo man.

[Guest guest]

Actually I somewhat agree with here, 10% is too low for fat. IMHO

Positive Dennis

Francesca Skelton wrote:

: If one follows your reasoning, then much of the science of Ornish,

Pritikin, not to mention Walford, is being tossed out the window. These are

giants in the field of nutrition and health and it's taken a long time for

mainstream medicine to accept their findings and give them the recognition

they deserve. I, for one, wouldn't be so quick to turn back the clock in

the name of "eating more naturally" or trying to mimic Paleo man.

on 6/11/2003 10:20 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

that's a great point! i've often wondered about the same thing, although i

suspect healthy food is pretty much the same for young and old, and the

body fat/pregnancy thing is more about quantity than food choices, besides

the obvious need for more organ meats, fish eggs, and whatever to feed another

person.

Mike

[Guest guest]

I think 10% is even not attainable if all fatty acid sources are added in. Ornish touts <10% sat fat but that's a therapeutic diet to remove fat deposits. On TV he offered a diff diet to those that don't have CAD. I analyze my intake and <20% fat is hard to do even excluding refined fats/oil intake. Also I think there's confusion in the words "sat fat" being used to describe animal fat. Olive oil has some sat fat.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dennis De Jarnette

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:48 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Evolutionary arguments

Actually I somewhat agree with here, 10% is too low for fat. IMHOPositive DennisFrancesca Skelton wrote:

: If one follows your reasoning, then much of the science of Ornish,

Pritikin, not to mention Walford, is being tossed out the window. These are

giants in the field of nutrition and health and it's taken a long time for

mainstream medicine to accept their findings and give them the recognition

they deserve. I, for one, wouldn't be so quick to turn back the clock in

the name of "eating more naturally" or trying to mimic Paleo man.

on 6/11/2003 10:20 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

that's a great point! i've often wondered about the same thing, although i

suspect healthy food is pretty much the same for young and old, and the

body fat/pregnancy thing is more about quantity than food choices, besides

the obvious need for more organ meats, fish eggs, and whatever to feed another

person.

Mike

[Guest guest]

Actually I too eat healthy fats pretty liberally. Nevertheless, Ornish is a

great pioneer in this field. Imagine a heart surgeon telling the world that

diet alone, without surgery, could cure heart disease. Just because these

great scientists (genuises, I would call them) did not get every i dotted

and every single t crossed, is no reason to disregard their very major

contributions which currently are the best science we have available.

on 6/11/2003 11:52 AM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> I think 10% is even not attainable if all fatty acid sources are added in.

> Ornish touts <10% sat fat but that's a therapeutic diet to remove fat

> deposits. On TV he offered a diff diet to those that don't have CAD. I analyze

> my intake and <20% fat is hard to do even excluding refined fats/oil intake.

> Also I think there's confusion in the words " sat fat " being used to describe

> animal fat. Olive oil has some sat fat.

>

> Regards.

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Dennis De Jarnette

>

> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:48 AM

> Subject: Re: [ ] Evolutionary arguments

>

>

> Actually I somewhat agree with here, 10% is too low for fat. IMHO

>

> Positive Dennis

>

> Francesca Skelton wrote:

>

> : If one follows your reasoning, then much of the science of Ornish,

> Pritikin, not to mention Walford, is being tossed out the window. These are

> giants in the field of nutrition and health and it's taken a long time for

> mainstream medicine to accept their findings and give them the recognition

> they deserve. I, for one, wouldn't be so quick to turn back the clock in

> the name of " eating more naturally " or trying to mimic Paleo man.

>

>

> on 6/11/2003 10:20 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

>

>

> that's a great point! i've often wondered about the same thing, although i

> suspect healthy food is pretty much the same for young and old, and the

> body fat/pregnancy thing is more about quantity than food choices, besides

> the obvious need for more organ meats, fish eggs, and whatever to feed another

> person.

>

> Mike

[Guest guest]

Actually, I use the Ornish diet mostly for 3+ years. Low fat, Lacto vegetarian, also low sodium. I don't criticize his techniques. He was preceded by others, like W. Kempner 30's- 50's, who have been largely ignored. I'm just saying it's a technical fact you'll find it hard to get below 10% fat.

Also, on his web page, he's saying a little fish is ok.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:12 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Evolutionary arguments

Actually I too eat healthy fats pretty liberally. Nevertheless, Ornish is agreat pioneer in this field. Imagine a heart surgeon telling the world thatdiet alone, without surgery, could cure heart disease. Just because thesegreat scientists (genuises, I would call them) did not get every i dottedand every single t crossed, is no reason to disregard their very majorcontributions which currently are the best science we have available.on 6/11/2003 11:52 AM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:> I think 10% is even not attainable if all fatty acid sources are added in.> Ornish touts <10% sat fat but that's a therapeutic diet to remove fat> deposits. On TV he offered a diff diet to those that don't have CAD. I analyze> my intake and <20% fat is hard to do even excluding refined fats/oil intake.> Also I think there's confusion in the words "sat fat" being used to describe> animal fat. Olive oil has some sat fat.> > Regards.

[Guest guest]

Just to make certain the point is clear -

Just because we evolved on a given diet does NOT make it the one to

extend life. Evolution only gets you to the point where you can

procreate. It has nothing whatever to do with how long you live

after that. As most young men will attest - the eating habits they

developed in their teens and twenties, meaning they ate as much as

they wanted of anything they wanted and didn't gain weight, will not

serve them well later on.

My husband became a runner in his late 30's, and is more consistently

athletically active now than when he was in his 20's, but he can't

eat what he used to and maintain his weight - and his eating habits

were never all that bad.

And the diet that gets you to a healthy 18 or 24 is unlikely to be

the one that will most contribute to healthy longevity.

Iris

>

> > Remember that evolution relies on the most successful organisms

> > surviving.

> >

> > Success is generally being able to survive to procreate.

> >

> > Evolution does not really care about the individual after they

breed.

> >

> > It may be that the foods available and beneficial to survival to

> > breeding age are a detriment after that point. A certain level of

> > body fat allows females to better ovulate and carry a pregnancy to

> > term, and nurse an infant. The same foods may not contribute to

> > later longevity, when lower body fat may be the best choice.

> >

> > While there is some argument for tribal elders contributing to the

> > success of a given group, there were relatively few of them, and

this

> > has not a lot to do with individual survival past the age of

> > procreation.

> >

> > Iris

[Guest guest]

Even in his second book, he says fish is ok for prevention. He says he doesn't know if it will work for reversal, because he didn't try it.

Ed

----- Original Message -----

From: jwwright

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:21 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Evolutionary arguments

Actually, I use the Ornish diet mostly for 3+ years. Low fat, Lacto vegetarian, also low sodium. I don't criticize his techniques. He was preceded by others, like W. Kempner 30's- 50's, who have been largely ignored. I'm just saying it's a technical fact you'll find it hard to get below 10% fat.

Also, on his web page, he's saying a little fish is ok.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:12 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Evolutionary arguments

Actually I too eat healthy fats pretty liberally. Nevertheless, Ornish is agreat pioneer in this field. Imagine a heart surgeon telling the world thatdiet alone, without surgery, could cure heart disease. Just because thesegreat scientists (genuises, I would call them) did not get every i dottedand every single t crossed, is no reason to disregard their very majorcontributions which currently are the best science we have available.on 6/11/2003 11:52 AM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:> I think 10% is even not attainable if all fatty acid sources are added in.> Ornish touts <10% sat fat but that's a therapeutic diet to remove fat> deposits. On TV he offered a diff diet to those that don't have CAD. I analyze> my intake and <20% fat is hard to do even excluding refined fats/oil intake.> Also I think there's confusion in the words "sat fat" being used to describe> animal fat. Olive oil has some sat fat.> > Regards.

[Guest guest]

Francesca,

" Actually I too eat healthy fats pretty liberally. "

What would you consider good fats?

-