Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

[Guest guest]

Hi : What about the high calories involved in butter, oils, high fat

mld and fatty animal protein? If you're a CRONIE, one of your main

considerations is the # of calories in anything you eat.

on 8/14/2003 4:57 PM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> Hi guys,

>

> I just finished 'Nourishing Traditions' by Sally Fallon and it was one

> of the best books I've ever read. I've found some of the information

> quite shocking but I've completely changed my mind about several

> things. It goes against all orthodoxy and even what I think most CRON

> members would advocate. The first 70 pages and last 10 are nutritional

> information and practical tips. I'm going to let my family read it: it

> has great motivational information against trans fat and sugar (but I

Why butter is actually very healthy as well

> as coconut oil and palm kernel oil as well as high fat milk and

> non-lean animal problems.

[Guest guest]

Well, I've been doing a lot of thinking and I'm no longer sure about

anything. It seems that ~insulin~ is the common denominator, not

calories consumed. The tests on mice and monkeys are done with

unnatural foods and experiments with GM mice have shown insulin to be

the key determinant of health.

So I'm not sure anymore. CR does work, but perhaps only because it's

cutting carbs. I don't know what to think currently. I'd be pretty

happy if calorie restriction wasn't necessary though.

-

>

> > Hi guys,

> >

> > I just finished 'Nourishing Traditions' by Sally Fallon and it was one

> > of the best books I've ever read. I've found some of the information

> > quite shocking but I've completely changed my mind about several

> > things. It goes against all orthodoxy and even what I think most CRON

> > members would advocate. The first 70 pages and last 10 are nutritional

> > information and practical tips. I'm going to let my family read it: it

> > has great motivational information against trans fat and sugar (but I

> Why butter is actually very healthy as well

> > as coconut oil and palm kernel oil as well as high fat milk and

> > non-lean animal problems.

[Guest guest]

Genetically Modified mice who produce no insulin have the longest

health spans although they eat as much as ad libitum mice.

Oh, the book says nothing against CR. It doesn't propose a diet per

se. It just illustrates why saturated fats are healthy and aid in

absorption of minerals, etc.

-

> >>

> >>> Hi guys,

> >>>

> >>> I just finished 'Nourishing Traditions' by Sally Fallon and it

was one

> >>> of the best books I've ever read. I've found some of the information

> >>> quite shocking but I've completely changed my mind about several

> >>> things. It goes against all orthodoxy and even what I think most

CRON

> >>> members would advocate. The first 70 pages and last 10 are

nutritional

> >>> information and practical tips. I'm going to let my family read

it: it

> >>> has great motivational information against trans fat and sugar

(but I

> >> Why butter is actually very healthy as well

> >>> as coconut oil and palm kernel oil as well as high fat milk and

> >>> non-lean animal problems.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

What do these Inuit people die of, though? Perhaps it's environmental

factors and such?

I haven't read Walford's book...just got the Anti Aging Plan but from

what I've read laboratory mice don't live longer than mice in the

wild, even if they're calorie restricted.

-

> > >

> > > > Hi guys,

> > > >

> > > > I just finished 'Nourishing Traditions' by Sally Fallon and it

was one

> > > > of the best books I've ever read. I've found some of the

information

> > > > quite shocking but I've completely changed my mind about several

> > > > things. It goes against all orthodoxy and even what I think

most CRON

> > > > members would advocate. The first 70 pages and last 10 are

nutritional

> > > > information and practical tips. I'm going to let my family

read it: it

> > > > has great motivational information against trans fat and sugar

(but I

> > > Why butter is actually very healthy as well

> > > > as coconut oil and palm kernel oil as well as high fat milk and

> > > > non-lean animal problems.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

But mice fed only every second day had the very same benefits and they

ate the same as mice ad lib.

What did Inuit people die of previously? Perhaps they didn't actually

live longer (due to environmental factors, I really have no idea) but

they had the potential to live longer.

Thanks for the info, cheers!

-

[Guest guest]

Perhaps insulin is actually what's postponing it. Insulin is known to

regulate the lifespan of lower species of animals.

-

>

> >> What do these Inuit people die of, though?

> >> Perhaps it's environmental factors and such?

> >

> > Now? Suicide, cancer, heart disease... My point was that they had no

> > reduction in the aging process due to ketosis (*very* low carb

diets). A

> > diet with good fat content may help stabilize blood sugar, insulin

response,

> > and could lead a host of general health benefits, but it won't

make you live

> > longer than normal. That nutrition and disease prevention, not

maximum

> > life-span extension.

[Guest guest]

Hello . Some thoughts on your recent post...

I ran into Fallon et al. several years ago while I was doing

preliminary research on ketogenic diets. In the broadest picture,

she is cut from the same " cloth " as Atkins (in terms of the foods

she " demonizes " and those she asserts are healthful).

Her nutritional " philosophy " - like those of Sears, Atkins, and some

others - is internally logical and sound. What I mean is this: if

one accepts the basic premises of her position (and they are by no

means scientifically factual although to be sure scientific arguments

can be marshalled in their favor), then the rest of the nutritional

arguments, like a row of dominos, fall into place nicely.

The big question is this: are the basic premises correct, from a

scientific pov? The answer to that is not clear-cut: even respected

research gals and guys, well-established PhD's with a great deal of

peer-reviewed literature under their belts, don't agree on many

things (other than the fact that *most* vegetables are good for one's

health; some still argue that relatively high-glycemic veggies such

as white potatoes and corn are pretty unsound food choices. But they

are the ones who don't have a firm understanding on the " Big Picture "

regarding the Glycemic Index. They only focus on specific,

individual components. Scientific Myopia.).

The field of nutrition is rife with myth and prejudice. Once they

have adopted a professional persona, many researchers are simply

unable to see clearly the results of evidence that contradicts or

challenges their own " philosophy. " And furthermore, the field of

nutrition is so broad, and there is so much research being done in

it, that it very difficult for most to keep up with the changing

results.

For example in his " South Beach Diet, " Dr. Arthur Agatston, M.D., a

noted cardiolist mentions how carrots are a high glycemic food that

should be avoided. This is not an uncommon belief. Dr. Walford also

makes that assertion. In the first edition of " The 120 Year Diet, "

circa, 1986, such a belief could be forgiven. By the best methods of

that day, carrots did rate high on the glycemic index. However, the

creators of the index, Brand-, Wolever, et al., have, over the

past 15 years, revised and carefully corrected many of their original

evaluations. Carrots, it turns out, are actually a relatively LOW

gylcemic food (down from a rating of 92 to 47!). I am surprised that

Dr. Walford did not pick this up and incorporate it into his more

recent " Beyond the 120 Year Diet. " (He still lists them as high on

the glycemic scale.)

In any case, this just demonstrates how in the field of nutrition

even the most rigorous of scientists miss things, either by design or

by error or by oversight. There is just too much going on in the

field for any one person to keep it all in perspective.

So...how do lay people like us decide whom to believe: Fallon (high

fat) or Walford (relatively low fat to minimize caloric intake)?

Atkins or Ornish? We read the data and weigh it. And then a

decision is made.

Having studied extensively the field of nutritional science, my

personal opinion is that the nutritional philosophy articulated by

Fallon et al. is simply not correct (if one's aim is to slow the

aging process). Her approach may - possibly - reduce some diseases

of modern society (especially diabetes because of its link to insulin

and her diet, like Atkins, surely reduces that hormone).

However, if the overarching goal is to extend one's lifespan so that

one can be functionally capable well into his/her 80's and 90's, from

all that I have read and studied, it seems that the CRON diet is the

only one that has persistent and consistent success with EVERY

species it was tested on.

But even this has flaws: none of the laboratory critters that were

subjected to a CRON diet were human. While there may not be

significant physiological differences between humans and non-humans

(we are 99.5% genetically similar to several monkey species), it is

safe to suggest that there is a distinct difference between the human

and non-human regarding the manner in whih each species

thinks/cognates/feels. (This is not to say that animals don't think

and feel. There is no doubt that they do.) Will that difference

affect how a CRON diet operates within the bodymind organism? We

don't know. Yet.

Furthermore, it is also likely that " human animals, " living in

complex societies, will probably experience a wider range of emotions

and stresses that lab animals do not undergo. How do these

psychological/emotional features interplay with the body and its

neurochemicals (because it is a sure bet that there is interaction

happening there, both on the cellular and biochemical levels)?

We don't have answers to these questions. Thus the CRON diet, for

humans living in the " wild " of 21st century societies, is not a

scientific " sure thing. " The mental makeup of human beings and the

effects (both physiologically and - just as importantly -

psychologically) of living in modern society may skew the results of

a CRON diet/lifestyle that have been documented in the reified

environment of a laboratory (which, of course, has its own

stresses!). The sense here is that it is not a one-to-one

correlation with the animal studies. How the animal studies play out

will probably not be closely mirrored by human beings. However, the

broader elements of a CRON lifestyle will most likely have a

significant, beneficial impact on most human beings.

Here is one example of what is suggested above.

It is a firm conviction of many neurobiologists that most cancers

have some kind of a psychological component. Walford points this out

also, noting that psychological stress may significantly weaken one's

immune system, thus allowing cancer to take hold. The

exact 'mechanism' by which this occurs is not exactly known, but

scientists believe it has something to do with neuropeptides,

chemical molecules which travel throughout the body, acting

as " messengers " between the brain/thoughts/emotions and the physical

body. (The surgeon Bernie Siegel is well known for popularizing this

understanding.) In this perspective it is not the mind & the body;

it is the mindbody - one individisble unit. Thoughts and feelings

produce *demonstrably* changes on a biochemical, physiological level.

In CRON studies with animals, mice e.g., the critters are

basically " infected " with cancer or bred to be highly susceptible to

a particular type of cancer. In humans, however, the arising of a

malignancy may have just as much to do with " mental states " as with

environmental factors (such as diet). Thus the protective effects of

a CRON diet/lifestyle on animals may not work with the safe

efficiency in humans. It will probably help humans, but perhaps not

to the same extent that it does animals.

Example: is suffering from extreme, intractable grief over the

loss of his child. Unable to come to terms with the grief, unable to

express it (men don't cry), this grief is internalized and over a

period of months weakens the immune system thus allowing cancer (or

some other auto-immune disease) to take hold. A CRON lifestyle will

probably help the immune system " battle " the weakening forces of the

unresolved grief. But it may not be sufficient to prevent the

arising of a (possibly terminal) disease. Had simply

been " infected " with a cancer, and had his mental state not

been " stressed out, " the CRON lifestyle might be sufficient to

marshall the troops of the immune system and destroy the rouge

cells. The human's state-of-mind adds another dimension to the

puzzle, one which may not play much of a role in the laboratory from

where all these " results " are coming.

Do rats, mice, monkeys experience similar psychological " stressors "

on their system? There is no doubt that animals have emotions. They

feel. We have ample evidence of this. The open question is: how

intimately do the animals' emotions interplay with their biological

natures? It is my suspicion that the range of emotions that most of

the " experimental animals " experience is of a lesser-degree than what

most humans undergo. (I use the term " experiemental animals " to

differentiate them from those " in the wild. " )

If this is true then the interaction of mind & body is not as

critical in experimenal animals as it is in humans. And thus the

example of " " above is more species-specific. The close

interaction of emotions-thoughts and physiology in humans may be of a

far greater order than what animals experience. And this difference

may impact how a CRON diet is experienced by humans.

This is not to suggest that a CRON lifestyle won't benefit human

beings. I think it will. I'm counting on it since I am living it!

However, I suspect a one-to-one correspondence will not exist between

the results derived experimentally, in the laboratory, with non-human

animals and the results experienced by human beings living in modern

societies undergoing conflicted psychological states-of-mind.

(Final example: an angry, upset , who is eating a CRON diet and

following a CRON lifestyle, may find that over the years her state-of-

mind/emotions has overwhelmed the positive benefits of the CRON diet

on her immune system. She may awaken up one morning to discover that

despite the CRON lifestyle, she has contracted a severe and

debilitating disease. The diet/lifestyle can't indefinitely

compensate for an unhealthy state of mind/emotion. But experimental

animals may not be subject to this type of stress, or at least to the

degree that humans are. So -- although one doesn't dispute the

laboratory results of CRON experiments, one wonders about the

*degree* to which said results can be applied, directly, to humans.)

Just my two cents worth. :-))

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

Andy,

I commend you on a very thorough post...thanks for your insight.

From what I can gather Fallon differs quite a lot from Atkin. She does

not reject grains or carbohydrates simply in the manner in which we

utilize them. Many of her recipes include potatoes, soaking grains,

and all high-carb vegetables. Her main point is dispelling the myth

that saturated fat is evil. Unlike Atkins she doesn't go ahead and

tell us that carbs are evil, simply that they should be used like our

ancestors used them in order to avoid anti nutrients and increase

enzyme activity.

The opinion I've formed at present is that there is nothing inherently

wrong with saturated fats. In all likilihood they ~are~ healthy

additions to one's diet. However, a more interesting problem is

whether they are healthy in comparison to calorie restriction. Ie:

between the average american foods and eating more coconuts, butter,

cream (unpasteurized) it seems that the latter is a better choice. But

for CRONies it may well be that the benefits of saturated fat are out

weighed by their caloric density in terms of prolonging longevity.

About carrots, I was under the impression that while they did have a

high glycemic index they had a low insulin index. From what I've read

the glycemic index correlates with the insulin index but not in all

cases. The insulin index seems like a more appropriate tool although

it's still in its infancy.

Concerning whom to believe... that's what I'm currently struggling

with. It seems there are three prominent points of view: CRON, CRAN

and minimizing insulin. The last two studies I posted do not favor CR.

That's what's got me all puzzled. Intermittently fasted mice live as

long as CR Mice although they ingest twice the amount of calories. If

this is corroborated, doesn't it shatter the theory of Calorie

Restriction? The study concerning GM mice and insulin is also very

powerful. Unless an explanation can be found or the studies were

defective I find it hard to believe that CR is the true solution to

longevity and health. (So while CR may be correlated to longevity it

may not be the underlying mechanism)

Which brings me to another question: perhaps saturated fat (and a

higher caloric intake of nutritious foods) promotes health without

promoting longevity and vice versa with CR?

I agree with you in the connection between mind and body. That's why

I've always focused primarily on my state of mind. Personally, I've

always considered quality of life to be more important than quantity,

although living another 100 years would be nice.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Cheers,

-

[Guest guest]

> Andy: thanks for your impressive insights. Also we DO have some

> evidence that this works on humans. We have the Okinawans. See

> our " links " section for Okinawan studies.

*****Yes, I am familiar with the Okinawans. That detail slipped my

mind (after researching CRON, CRAN, and Low Insulin for many years

I'm surprised I forgot about that " little " detail! Hahaha!!!). And I

partially agree with you. They are certainly on a restricted calorie

diet. Whether or not it is a " CRON " diet is another thing. But I

concur: it appears, based on the general health and extended logevity

of the overall population (although not to the 120 year goal), that

the Okinawan " diet " approximates (less scientifically) a " CRON diet "

in the " wild. " :-)

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

> Andy,

> I commend you on a very thorough post...thanks for your insight.

*****Thank you . :-)

> From what I can gather Fallon differs quite a lot from Atkin.

*****No disagreement here. I placed her in the " Atkins " camp simply

because she appears to feel high fat, especially saturated fat, is

not the " culprit " that many scientists in the fields of both

cardiovascular research and cancer seem to feel it is.

> Unlike Atkins she doesn't go ahead and tell us that carbs are evil,

> simply that they should be used like our ancestors used them in

> order to avoid anti nutrients and increase enzyme activity.

*****Yes, I recall these arguments of hers. But her argument in

favor of a relatively high saturated fat diet based on our ancestors

food inclinations misses the point that the high protein food sources

which our *ancient* ancestors consumed was really quite low in fat -

all fat, including saturated fat - since the critters were free-

roaming and consuming grass, roots, plants and other similarly-fed

animals. There is no indication, historically, that our ancestors

ate a high fat diet (of course they gorged on fat when they came into

contact with it, but most of their animal-fare, with the exception of

the naturally fatty fish such as salmon - with are low in sat. fat -

... most of their animal food was quite low in fat - at least when

compared with the meats/poultry we consume today).

Basically, I think there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that having a low

level of body fat is HIGHLY protective against cardiovascular disease

as well as cancer. The question on which the jury is still out is

this: if the diet is rich in fruits and vegetables, and moderate in

whole grains, does the amount of fat play a role in preventing

the " diseases of modern society " ? Is something like a CR

Mediterranean Diet " better " for the body or is something like a " Roy

Walford " diet (he suggests something in the area of 20% fat, mainly

comprised of MUFA - *NOT* saturated) more efficacious at producing

longevity. At this point, we just don't know. Which diet produces

better satiety? Both sides have convincing arguments: a more

moderate fat diet may satisfy longer because of the transit time of

fat in the stomach/intestines; a lower-fat diet (a la

Ornish/Pritikin) allows one to eat a substantially higher volume of

food since the caloric density is so low (cited also Volumetrics).

It may come down to personal preference. I've experimented with

both. And I find the very high volume/low density approach DOES

stave off hunger, allowing me to eat every 2-3 hours, but I sometimes

feel bloated and " stuffed " as a result. A moderate-fat diet, while

not permitting me to consume the same volume of food, does leave me

sufficiently satisfied, and yet far less " full. " Some of this may

have to do with individual physiology - we are not all " cut from the

same cloth. "

But I will reiterated that over and over and over I read - from

reputable sources - that two fats are simply UNhealthful: trans (no

arguments from Fallon on *that* one!) AND saturated (beyond a minimal

amount...certainly some sat. fat is necessary for health). Fallon's

argument is that the " hazards " of saturated fat exist because it has

traditionally been combined with a highly refined-food diet. Change

the diet to a highly UNrefined one, and saturated fat is not a

problem. Again, there have been studies done in this area ~ please

don't ask me to quote them!! :-)) ~ which have convinced me that her

argument is not correct. That it is something in the nature of sat

fat which is basically unhealthful when eaten in sufficient quantity.

Perhaps this is because hormones and pesticides reside in the fatty

tissue and when we consume fatty flesh, we consume more of those

nasty toxic substances?

OK, so the answer is: free-range animals. Well, guess what? Those

animals, more like the ones our ancestors consumed, are substantially

LOWER in fat of all kinds, including sat fat. Thus, if we consume

them, we will probably be eating lower-fat (and sat fat) anyway.

Just something to chew on! (Hahaha!!!)

> The opinion I've formed at present is that there is nothing

> inherently wrong with saturated fats. In all likilihood they ~are~

> healthy additions to one's diet.

*****No disagreement here: we NEED saturated fat. The only questions

are (1) how much is required for optimal health and ( is more than

than that amount in some way or ways injurious to health? And the

jury is CLEARLY still out on definitive answers to these questions

(although some diet gurus speak as if there are concrete,

incontrovertible Answers (capital " A " ). Ahhh...oh well...some people

need to feel security in their belief systems. :-))

> However, a more interesting problem is whether they are healthy in

> comparison to calorie restriction. Ie: between the average american

> foods and eating more coconuts, butter, cream (unpasteurized) it

> seems that the latter is a better choice.

*****I am convinced, from extended reading & research, that

the " average american foods " are ... death! I'm referring to the

highly-processed, refined diets that most consume. I have moved to a

diet which is at least 80% UNrefined and 20% mildly so. Example:

the bread I eat is privately baked, coarse, grainy, and requires

substantial chewing. It is quite low on the glyemic index and has

about six ingredients in total. Any discussion of a " healthful "

diet, even before talking about CR, must, imho, consider the quality

and nature of what we put in our mouths. Then, after that is decided

on, the amount can be discussed. Longevity only occurs when the

nutriton is - at least - " Adequate " if not " Optimal, " and it is

fairly clear that most refined foods are not, basically, healthy for

the human being. Regardless of the the nutrients that have been

added back into the foods. We have a very poor understanding of what

has been lost in the refining and little hard-core " proof " that the

replaced nutrients are even USED! by the body. Some of them may be

bio-unavailable (regardless of the fact that they are " in " the

product). Better, I suggest, the consume foods in their as-close-as-

possible-to-natural state, with mild cooking/heating where desired

and appropriate. Lest I come across as a Luddite, this is not an

attack on modern food technology. Just a suspicion that most of our

current crop of foods are nutritionally backrupt and attempting a CR

diet with Weight Watchers foods will not produce the health and

vitality well into 80's and 90's. (Some of this has to do with the

satiation factor that accompanies eating UNrefined foods: they

require substantially MORE chewing and diagestion and that often

leads to less food being eaten - naturally, regardless of whether one

is on a CR diet or not.)

> About carrots, I was under the impression that while they did have a

> high glycemic index they had a low insulin index. From what I've

> read the glycemic index correlates with the insulin index but not

> in all cases. The insulin index seems like a more appropriate tool

> although it's still in its infancy.

*****You are correct and incorrect I think. From the most recent

tests done by Brand-, MS Wolever et al (they who " created " the

GI), carrots are LOW on the index. I have not read any suggestion

that they have a high insulin response. You are correct when you

state that some low glycemic foods spike insulin responses. These

include dairy products, certain sweets [chocolate], a variety of

baked goods, and some " highly palatable, energy-dense " indulgence

foods. " As well, some foods that contain no carbohydate, just

protein and fat (and essentially have a GI value of zero), still

stimulate significant rises in blood insulin. " (Brand- et al.)

The scientists suspect that foods like diary products exhibit this

response because milk proteins are " insulinogenic " and are created,

biologically, that way because they are meant to stimulate the growth

of young mammals. (Perhaps this is an argument for why milk products

should NOT be consumed by those who are fully grown, say 20 years

old? There is a camp which argues this quite cogently.)

Brand- et al. go on to say that " at the present time, we don't

know how to interpret this type of response (low glycemia, high

insulinemia) for long-term health. " But they conclude, " Until

[further] studies are carried out...the glyemic index remains a

proven tool for predicting the effects of food on health. "

Also, one should consider that high glycemic foods, when eaten with

low ones at the same feeding, *drastically* reduce both the glycemic

and insulin responses. (cited: white rice [high GI] and most beans

[very low GI]...result: a very moderate glycemic and insulin reaction)

As important as the glycemic index is, VOLUME of food is critical to

the resulting blood-lipid profile. Which is where a CR diet does a

wonderful job! You simply don't eat THAT much food throughout the

day, let alone at a single sitting. Thus both the glycemic and

insulin responses are kept in check. Good deal! As long one can put

up with a midly less-full tummy feeling. :-)))

> Concerning whom to believe... that's what I'm currently struggling

> with. It seems there are three prominent points of view: CRON, CRAN

> and minimizing insulin. The last two studies I posted do not favor

> CR. That's what's got me all puzzled. Intermittently fasted mice

> live as long as CR Mice although they ingest twice the amount of

> calories. If this is corroborated, doesn't it shatter the theory of

> Calorie Restriction?

*****Perhaps not. BOTH mechanisms may work well. The fact that one

is effective doesn't rule out another " technique " for achieving the

same goal. Why assume there is only a single " correct " answer.

There very well may be multiple " avenues " for achieving both health

and longevity. Many of us adopt, quite unconsciously, a mindframe

which says " either-or. " Another part of the " religion " of health and

nutrition: creating a belief system impervious to attack and built on

a need for certainty and security. Arising from a (quite human)

desire to have the " one and correct " answer (and everyone else is

wrong). I'm not suggesting that *you* are doing this; just

commenting on a human predliction towards this need for security

(what religions are based on).

> The study concerning GM mice and insulin is also very

> powerful. Unless an explanation can be found or the studies were

> defective I find it hard to believe that CR is the true solution to

> longevity and health.

*****Again, it may be that CR is ONE solution. Not the ONLY one,

however.

> Which brings me to another question: perhaps saturated fat (and a

> higher caloric intake of nutritious foods) promotes health without

> promoting longevity and vice versa with CR?

*****Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions out there (as you

just posed). From all that I have read/researched, I fall into the

Walford camp. Low sat fat, mild fat intake (no more than 20% cal)

and HIGH ingestion of low-density fruits and vegetables (which supply

a plethora of vitamins, minerals, and micro-nutrients) along with

moderate amounts of UNrefined whole grains (that require substantial

chewing: e.g., whole oat groats as opposed to oatmeal).

> I agree with you in the connection between mind and body. That's why

> I've always focused primarily on my state of mind. Personally, I've

> always considered quality of life to be more important than

> quantity, although living another 100 years would be nice.

*****Well, state of mind is certainly important, but I suspect that a

happy, sound, and peaceful person who eats junk day in and day out

will suffer from one (or more) physiological problems later in life

and will probably not achieve a healthful longevity. I know, I know,

there ARE exceptions. But again, I find Walfords' arguments very

convincing: what we put in our bodies (in the manner of food and

drink, not to mention air), plays a VITAL role in the health of the

body mechanism. The state of mind certainly complements that, but a

lifetime of lousy food and gluttony can easily override the

equanimity of a " centered " mindstate (I believe).

> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

*****And now you've had them. This is fun! Let the dialogue

continue (if there is anything more to say on these matters).

Otherwise, pop open a beer, sit down by the campfire, and have a

few " riblets. " :-))) [burp!]

Be well!

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

Wrote:

> Which brings me to another question: perhaps saturated fat (and a

> higher caloric intake of nutritious foods) promotes health without

> promoting longevity and vice versa with CR?

Andy Wrote:

*****Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions out there (as you

just posed). From all that I have read/researched, I fall into the

Walford camp. Low sat fat, mild fat intake (no more than 20% cal)

and HIGH ingestion of low-density fruits and vegetables (which supply

a plethora of vitamins, minerals, and micro-nutrients) along with

moderate amounts of UNrefined whole grains (that require substantial

chewing: e.g., whole oat groats as opposed to oatmeal).

Hey, hey!!! Andy, you need to stick around here! Your posts are very high

quality even w/o the references. ) Excellent. Please tell us a little

about your nutrition studies & interests or CR background, etc. cause I

think you've been at this for awhile! :-)

Andy, if you have time to comment PLEASE check out the recent discussions on

Soy too. I can email you the Hawaiian study & peer reviewed critique as a

..PDF's. Recent Soy posts, with many in between replies on soy, begin here:

/message/7361

/message/7413

My comment would be as far as PFC ratios goes is if you really want to know

what's best for you, then you simply have to do the lab tests & compare to a

good diet record. Test your theories personally! Be a Lab Rat.

I've used a Glucose Meter also to check against various foods ingested to

see my Blood Sugar responses. This is very helpful too as a learning tool

at least.

Thanks for your posts Andy, and I hope you have the time & energy to stick

around here for awhile???

CRBest, numi

..

[Guest guest]

> The reason why modern animals contain saturated fat

> is because they are now fed grains.

What did cows eat before? Pasture fed beef, mutton & poultry are not very

hard to find...

> " Basically, I think there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that having a low

> level of body fat is HIGHLY protective against cardiovascular disease

> as well as cancer. "

>

> Agreed. But fat does not make you fat.

Calories do.

> I've seen a study where people fed 1200 calories

> on a low fat diet (something walford would suggest)

> lost 3X LESS calories than those eating 50% more

> (1800 calories) on a high fat diet! Obviously, a

> calorie is NOT a calorie, which I think changes

> everything...

Not really... A calorie is a calorie, although there is some suggestion

that a high fibre content can reduce the amount that some foods are

digested, and hence how much energy you actually get from them, but I've

never heard of macronutrient profiles influences how many calories one loses

(and what does that mean anyway? How much weight loss occurred? How were

the calories misplaced?).

Bottom line, eat 5000 calories of broccoli a day and you'll gain weight, eat

1800 calories a day of butter & you'll lose weight... They may offer

short-term differences, such as water retention, appetite suppression,

etcetera; however, for long-term weight maintenance, calorie intake is the

gold standard. Likewise, rodent studies have tried varying macronutrient

profiles, feeding schedules, exercise levels, and an endless string of other

variables -- reduction of caloric intake was the only factor that influence

maximum lifespan.

I should add, the article posted about insulin level reductions & alternate

day feedings (via the Weill website) was somewhat confusing, since it really

only claimed that some similar effects were seen with insulin reduction &

alternate day fasting, NOT that the maximum lifespan extension was seen in

animals that still maintained a high caloric intake.

> low cholesterol levels of a man who ate 24 eggs a

> day (6000mg of cholesterol) and was 88 and in good

> health.

Were the eggs raw, lightly cooked, or hard boiled? This degree to which the

yolk is cooked *greatly* alters the bioavailability of cholesterol...

> It's also a question of opportunity cost. Everyone agrees

> about vegetables, fruit and fish (not everyone, but anyway),

> mono fat. Then you've got grains or sat fat to get the rest

> of your calories. Currently I think sat fat is a better

> alternative to most grains.

Grains are not the be all end all, but what do you mean we only have " grains

or sat fat " after veg/fruit/fish/mono fat? What about carbs, protein,

etc...

> 4.) You won't absorb any minerals/vitamins without

> sufficient fat present!

This is a fallacy ( " any " ). You won't get *fat-soluble* vitamins absorbed as

much, and that's the limit of the problem. Most minerals are absorbed

better on an empty stomach. Vit C is water soluble and you need no fat to

absorb it, etc.

> My uneducated feeling is that if Fallon and Walford

> were to debate it publicly she would come out on

> top. Perhaps I'm not justified in feeling this way,

> but that's my gut feeling.

But that doesn't mean she would be right, does it? It just means one writes

more persuasively than the other, regardless of the accuracy of their work.

The benefits of different types of fats are still being debated, and I'd

find myself leaning ever more to a position where moderate intake of good

fats (salmon oil, flax oil, etc...) is very much a good thing, but that's

nutrition, not life extension. In contrast to that uncertainty, hundreds of

animal studies point to dietary restriction of caloric intake as the only

diet-related maximum lifespan extending system. I don't know of anyone who

disputes the life-span extending properties of dietary restriction in

rodents. Alternatively, of the thousands of macronutrient profile studies,

none have ever shown any influence on maximum lifespan, and I'm sure that's

something that would have been noticed.

As for Walford's views on nutrition, he's pretty open in the book about

stating he's not a nutritionist and that he's just playing his hunch based

on the standard scientific literature. He's equally direct in stating that

in rodent studies, the life-extension and disease prevention benefits of CR

are based on animals eating lab chow (basically dog food with adequate

nutrition) at lower caloric levels than normal. In other words, animals

eating an adequate diet (nutritionally speaking) with caloric intake

restricted show disease prevention and life extension in hundreds of

independent studies at labs around the world.

I haven't been on the other CR list for several years now, but this issue

was discussed very extensively there with a great deal of reference to the

literature on the topic. It may be worth investigating their records from

1999-2000.

BTW, are you reading _Beyond the 120 Year Diet_ or the old _120 Year Diet_,

which is quite old now?

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Wrote:

Agreed. But fat does not make you fat. I've seen a study where people

fed 1200 calories on a low fat diet (something walford would suggest)

lost 3X LESS calories than those eating 50% more (1800 calories) on a

high fat diet! Obviously, a calorie is NOT a calorie, which I think

changes everything...

Hi , could you please reference that research study, and more studies

that will support " that " study.

Wrote:

One quirky piece of anecdotal evidence she mentioned and I found

interesting was the low cholesterol levels of a man who ate 24 eggs a

day (6000mg of cholesterol) and was 88 and in good health. I'm also

going to read 'The Cholesterol Myths' but I'm already convinced that

the anti saturated fat/cholesterol propaganda is false.

Let's remember, one person's health food might just be a deadly poison to

another! Until you are willing to do the blood work & lab testing on

yourself TO VERIFY your diet is truly working, you are just flying by the

seat of your UNknown diet. Happy landings are UNknown too!

Wrote:

I think I might feel more comfortable

with alternated fasting and more fats in my diet...and if it offers

the same benefits then why should I stick to CR? I guess what I'm

saying is that perhaps there are more options out there which might

suit people better.

You need a " body of evidence " to make such a case at least for extending

maximum lifespan. Line-up your supporting research, cause if all you can

count is on one hand & five fingers... well, that won't count for much to

draw such conclusions you state above. But let's see what you got.

Wrote:

My uneducated feeling is that if Fallon and Walford were to debate it

publically she would come out on top.

Sounds like you're more a rebel type, cause Fallon is far more a rebel than

Walford is! So, you should focus now on more traditional " hard science " and

seriously check it against Fallon's more radical ideas. Until you take the

time to verify in a serious way, you'll just be a rebel camper in Fallon's

camp. JMHO. YMMV.

..

[Guest guest]

> Hey, hey!!! Andy, you need to stick around here! Your posts are

> very high quality even w/o the references. ) Excellent. Please

> tell us a little about your nutrition studies & interests or CR

> background, etc. cause I think you've been at this for awhile! :-)

*****Thank you Numi for the sweet words. As to whether or not I will

stick around, ... who knows! From one moment to the next I have no

idea what I'll be doing. (Who really does know what will happen in

the next moment?) Hmmm...I suspect this That's one result of being

engaged in Advaita for too many years. Perhaps that *weltanschauung*

has warped my view? Hahaha!!! :-)))

About me? Well, A recently-turned-50-year-old, I'm have been

interested in nutrition, exercise physiology and " related " health

matters for over 25 years and have read, during that time, a wealth

of info. Some " popular " and some " technical. " I was a vegetarian

for about a decade, four years of which I was a vegan (except for ice

cream! Yummers!). That all started out as a diet routine, then

became a " health " concern, and finally a " spiritual " thingy. When

the latter dropped away, and more research was done, the former two

issues evaporated and now I eat anything (within my own proscribed

current " health " concerns).

Exercise-way I walk the walk: have run marathons (years and years

ago), now lift-weights 2-3 x per week, jog (slloooowly) a few miles

several times a week or use a NordicTrack and treadmill for indoor

cardio work. I aim to workout 6 (or more) workouts x per week, at

moderate intensity. Again, basically following Walford's

recommendations for health. Since I've changed my eating habits

(detailed below), the need for excessive exercise to keep the bodyfat

down has diminished. Ahhh ego. Hahaha!!!

Yeah, truth be told, most of my exercise mania was ego driven --

gotta have that buff body, right? ;-) And then, after burning off

500-700 calories in a 60+ minute workout, I'd down (later in the day)

2 (or more) servings of Ben 'n Jerry's hight fat ice cream, or 4

Twinkies or 4 servings of pasta or....well, you get the picture.

Excessive eating (and of highly Questionable Foods at that!) along

with a desire to retain a certain " youthful " body appearance, led to

excessive exercising. The " main " portion of my daily intake was

healthy: lots of veggies, low fat protein sources, and some fruit

and " good " grains. But, on top of that, add 500-1000 calories

of...Junk! Much of it sugar & fat -based. So there was always

a " battle of the bulge " going on. I was clearly using sweets'n

treats to self-medicate in a psychological sense. What demons were

being exorcised? I haven't the slightest idea. I think the sweets'n

treats simply began as a " reward " for training so hard and then it

became an " escape " from the daily " slings and arrows of outrageous

fortune. " Using sweets'n treats was a way to escape (I'll let the

shrinks determine the answer to " from what? " .). And that went on for

two plus decades. All of this is quite ironic, is it not,

considering that during all this time I was doing the research,

reading the journals, and KNEW what I was doing (the sweets 'n

treats) was not optimal - let alone probably injurious! - to overall

health. And yet I persisted. Well...so much for free will. ;-)

Diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma last November, and having

undergone CHOP chemotheraphy this spring (all done, thank god!...and

my hair is finally back, albeit shorter now...talk about a blow to

one's ego! Hahaha!!!), I have finally started walking the walk and

not just talking the talk.

I am currently in the " pre " stage of a CRON diet. What I mean by

that is that in the past three months I have removed about 95%

of " junk " food from my diet. I began when chemo ended; during chemo

I was advised to simply " honor my body's signals " and eat as much as

I wanted of whatever I wanted since the chemo is so hard on the body

anyway...in a way I was rather fortunate: no nausea or stomach

problems with the chemo, and because one of my chemo drugs was

Prednisone - the " P " in the CHOP protocol I underwent - I experienced

major food cravings...and I ended up gaining 13 lbs over three

months. Boy, did I EAT during those three months of treatment:

everything and anything under the sun: meats (ribs, steaks, turkey,

you name it!) - something I don't indulge in much, sweets, veggies, I

just ate and ate and ate. Burp! Excuse me.

I am now eating three relatively small meals a day (500 or less

calories, approximately; I don't actually " count " the calories), and

three light snacks. Most of the food I consume is either highly or

relatively UNrefined. Here's an example of my usual breakfast:

I have a small bowl of oat groats and whole wheat berries in the

morning, having cooked a large bowl of it for a whole week and stored

it in the fridge. Added to that is one serving of some fruit

(berries or bananas - and yes, I know they're high on the GI index

but I don't believe that is a problem, when used in moderation and

consumed along with other low glycemic foods - or a chopped-up apple

or pear). The fruit and cereal requires SUBSTANTIAL chewing and that

makes eating time last longer, allowing the satiation factor to set

in, causing me to eat less. On top of the cereal I add 1 Tablespoon

(T) of: just-ground flax seed, 1 T of unground flax seed, 1 T of

miller's bran, 1 teaspoon of unhulled sesame seeds (for the Omega 6's

which I suspect my diet is low in seeing as how I eat very little

animal products). I top this with 1/2 a packet of Met-Rx Vanilla

powder. This serves two purposes: added protein (slows the insulin

spike from the carbs and gives me some much-needed protein) and

flavoring. The sweet-vanilla taste makes a relatively " flat " cereal

into, for me, an everyday " treat. " Finally I add about 1 cup of

vanilla soy milk (reduced fat and sugars). This meal is about 500

cal and takes a good 20 minutes + to consume and leaves me feeling

VERY satisfied.

My only concern is the amount of soy product I may be consuming. I

also eat baked tofu or soy burgers several times a week and have read

the recent studies that suggest - not prove! - that " excessive soy

consumption in middle-age may lead to accelerated mental

deterioration in later life. " The study that proclaimed this has

been peer-reviewed as " sound, " although it is not, assuredly, the

last word on the subject. (We don't have any idea what the mechanism

is that may be involved in the cognitive decline; right now the

results are based on epidemiology and not rigorous scientific

studies.)

In light of this I am now cutting back on the soy milk (not the tofu

or soy burgers which amount to about 4-5 servings per week). To do

that I am replacing the soy milk with *ORGANIC* skim milk. I much

prefer the taste and consistency of soy milk, but there is that study

which, to my knowledge, has not been refuted by knowledgeable

authorities, only questioned. So, to be safe...

Lunch or dinner is usually a large mixed salad with a variety of

colors and veggie types, followed by a low-carb high-protein bar high

(one of my remaining concessions to " refined " foods). The remaining

meal is either pasta (whole wheat, e.g., Kamut Spirals, high in

protein and fiber) with veggies or a steamed veggie dish topped with

tomato/spaghetti sauce plus either a soy burger or some salmon or

occasinally white-meat chicken.

" Treats " are now fresh fruit, two or three per day, or a slice of

dense, whole-grain brain with a bit of peanut butter (or soy or

cashew or almond) on top. If I'm feeling particularly nasty I'll top

the peanut butter with some organic cherry preserves for added

sweetness. I do snack on small servings of nuts as well.

So my current diet is not aimed at the CR of CRON; rather at the ON.

Even so, I have been losing, effortless I must add!!!!, about .75-

1.00 lb per week, and as I am still weight-lifting and doing cardio,

I suspect most of that weight loss is bodyfat and not lean tissue. I

am not counting calories, but the diet I'm eating leaves me feeling

fully satisfied and never " deprived " of food. The old yearning for

ice cream-cake-candy-cookies-chips has evaporated, and my consumption

of sugar-processed foods is nearly eliminated. I still have an

occasional serving (a SINGLE one! not multiple ones) of dark,

bittersweet chocolate, but that happens 1-2 times per week (as

opposed to previously where it was 1-2 times PER DAY -- ahhh,

confession time! Hahaha!!).

So: given the above, the extra weight is coming off (I was

never " fat " or even " heavy, " just very muscular, my small, but

persistent love-handles are gone (dump the refined stuff, eat

UNrefined foods, and discover that you can exist VERY comfortably on

substantially less calories is what I've found), and I'm feeling

better now, post cancer, than I did for the previous two-decades,

even with all my exercise and " body concern. "

My next step is to eventually begin the CR part. But as long as the

weight is coming off " naturally " with the diet I've described above

and enjoy following, I see no reason to subject myself to the rigors

of CR. I remain, however, been convinced of the health-related usage

of CR and will begin it once the " natural " weight loss here plateaus

off for a month or more. I'm not in any rush; I fully support

Walford's concerns about losing too much body fat too quickly (that

is where the toxic residues are stored: in the fat cells, and you

don't want too much of *that* stuff pouring into the bloodstream too

quickly; the liver may become overloaded and not detox the junk that

well).

> Andy, if you have time to comment PLEASE check out the recent

> discussions on Soy too. I can email you the Hawaiian study & peer

> reviewed critique as a .PDF's. Recent Soy posts, with many in

> between replies on soy, begin here:

> /message/7361

> /message/7413

*****As you know from the above, I AM concerned about " excessive " use

of soy products. I am curious if anyone has seen peer-reviewed (and

considered " valid " ) critiques of the large study I referred to above

(which cautioned against high soy consumption because of cognitive

impairment). I have yet to read anything (scientifically valid) that

debunks the warnings of that study. (Reputable docs such as

Weil, have even cautioned about using lots of soy products.)

> My comment would be as far as PFC ratios goes is if you really want

> to know what's best for you, then you simply have to do the lab

> tests & compare to a good diet record. Test your theories

> personally! Be a Lab Rat.

> I've used a Glucose Meter also to check against various foods

> ingested to see my Blood Sugar responses. This is very helpful too

> as a learning tool at least.

*****Yes, that would be the way to go I suspect. It would certainly

be the most " scientific " method to employ. But it isn't happening

here, at this point (in the future? who knows??).

I am constitutionally lazy in that regard and I find myself

preferring to trust the work of Walford and others and not be my own

lab rat. Eating the way I do, plus the added supplements I take

(more on that later in another post if anyone is interested),

exercising moderately, meditating regularly, (and let's not forget

some damn good Sex too! Hahaha!!!), ... well ... for me, at this

time, that is sufficient. Doing the lab work would take a

pleasurable life-style (CRON) and make it into a " chore. " It just

ain't for me, at least currently.

To follow Walford's CRON too rigorously would make me feel deprived

and we all know that binging is the other end of deprivation. For

example, I suspect that coffee is a far inferior beverage to tea,

esp. green tea, and yet I start every day with ONE single large (8

oz) mug of freshly-ground, dark, rich coffee - sweetened with either

Equal or Splenda and ... don't shoot me now!!! ... " lightened " with

either Creamora or Coffeemate. The latter two are pure JUNK...I know

that well!...but I LOVE how they make the coffee taste. I've tried

alternatives and they just don't suit my tastebuds...so, there are

honest tradeoffs here; concessions to an older lifestyle. And I

still find time, later in the day, to down 1-2 cups of green tea,

which I relish also. So I am not a radical in this regard. There

are still small " pockets " of JUNK in my diet, although the only

*daily* component of that is the Equal/Creamora combo. Ahhh....may I

be forgiven? :-))

Basically these little " excursions " are good because they allow me to

keep on eating (what I consider to be) VERY well 90% of the time.

Although Dr. Roy would be appalled at the Equal/Creamora combo, I am

not that aggressively into CRON at this time. (Remember the term

Walford used about giving a kid a Twinkie? He called it - and I

quote - " criminal " !!!! Hahaha!!!!).

> Thanks for your posts Andy, and I hope you have the time & energy

> to stick around here for awhile???

*****Thank YOU for being here for me (to vent, share, investigate,

discover).

As to whether I will be around for awhile? Well, the best way to

learn the answer is to just show up and see what happens -- cited

Sports Night, for those who get the reference ;-). I truly have no

idea what will happen in and through this bodymind organism until it

does. Oh, thoughts tell me " Yeah, this is a Great Place to hang out

and swap stories, info, recipes, etc. You'll be here a LONG time, "

but that is what thought says NOW. Tomorrow - or even in a few

hours - who knows? All the rest is the dream of the ego. As

Beckett wrote, " All I know is what the words know. And the dead

things. And that makes a handsome little sum. With a beginning, a

middle and an end. As in the well-built phrase. And the long sonata

of the dead. " Go figure. :-)))

~ Andy