Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon/

[Guest guest]

> Isn't it possible that the way Okinawins eat affects their health

> instead of how much they eat? In any case, I think CR works but

> perhaps only because it's tied to another factor.

>

> -

~

I would suggest that you are looking for certainty, based on the tone

I pick up in your posts. You are seeking to KNOW exactly how the

mechanism of aging, and age-retardation, works. I suspect the

pathways of aging are highly variegated; that there are a host of

factors that allow the Okinawins to experience the longevity they

do.

It's a complex and complicated universe out there. Every event that

happens has infinite causes, although the human brain is conditioned

to seek the few which appear to be most temporally connected. Life

isn't like that, although our brains tell us this is so. It is one

way the human mind staves off the chaos " out there, " preventing it

from becoming overwhelming, allowing us to " make sense " out of a

universe that clearly doesn't make sense.

Someday, perhaps even within the next century, we may know how aging

truly occurs and what needs to be done to slow it down. But that

ain't happening now, brother. So, go with your gut, as we all do,

and enjoy! Recognize that you are not in control anyway, and

whatever you ultimately decide will be the right decision.

The universe does not make mistakes. ;-)

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

> I personally don't favor listening to the common orthodoxy which has

> declared the benefits of breads and pastas, vegetable oils and

> hydrogenated margarines.

*****So you've made your " position " known, and it is becoming clear

that any evidence which is presented to you will be viewed through

this " perspective " you hold. (Do you hold it, or is it holding you,

I wonder.)

That is not wrong. It is how we all are, to a greater or lesser

degree. But it might help if you recognize it. You have

an " agenda, " a " stance, " and are predisposed - one might

say " programmed " (as we all are) - to view any material which is

critical of your position as suspect or plainly wrong. Or you will

come up with ANOTHER study which refutes what the last person said to

you. Just another tactic to keep it together.

> I've seen many studies already illustrating the benefits of raw

> milk. It should be reminded that there is a risk of disease but

> this would be limited if proper measures were taken.

*****The bottom line, , the truth, is that one can find multiple

studies that support ANY F'ing THING one wants, both in the

scientific and non-scientific camps.

And that is what we (humans) do. We develop, (why? how? who knows?)

certain Belief Systems and we see, interpret, and experience the

world THROUGH those Belief Systems.

We see the world and other people not as they are, but as we are.

So: you have a worldview about this stuff and it is apparently

important to you; you are invested in it. Nothing wrong with that.

I have my own: CRON as espoused by Walford. If possible, however,

just be aware that having taken a particular stance you will

automatically perceive the world (and contrary scientific studies,

for example) through that agenda. Again, that is fine. It is what

we all do. It's just a game, my friend. You can view and review all

the studies you want, come up with a " position, " and the next person

will duplicate your exact tracks, and come up with an

alternate " position. " Who is " right " ?

Or more importantly, is there any " right " ? Who is aksing these

questions?

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

> > " 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.

*****Bingo! (Or, a bit more accurately, if you will, " excessive

calories do. " ) You hit the nail on the head . As far as I

know, the scientific thesis of thermogenics and conservation of

energy has not been repealed. Calories in - calories out. Period.

The rest is just the dream of the ego. :-))

> > 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...

> 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.

*****I agree. It doesn't get much plainer than that.

> 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 suspect this is why I lean towards the CRON diet & lifestyle

as advocated by Walford et al.

> > 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.

*****And you don't need much fat, a few grams in the stomach, to

absorb even the fat-soluble ones.

> > 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.

*****Excellent retort! And even prior to that, recognize that " gut

feeling " is just that: from the gut which is often a result of one's

prior conditioning/belief system. Holding an invested agenda, one's

gut will usually support that position.

> 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.

*****Yes, and I think this is another reason why I fall into the

Walford camp: his position on virtually everything he asserts comes

across to me as balanced and as free of personal bias as possible.

When he is in doubt, he SAYS so. He only posits " facts " that have

been repeatedly " proven " in two or more labs around the world. Where

he *suspects* something, he says that, specifically. He doesn't

assert his " gut feelings " as factual.

He even has a sense of humor (something lacking in the Enig-Fallon

group). Note his final paragraphs in Chapter 7 on " Practical

Supplementation " :

" ly, I find the stress of deciding from among all these

supplement-contenders fo the title of 'champion soma pill of the

moment,' to be age generating in and of itself. In the one month

spent writing this chapter, with malice towards none and charity for

all -- and notwithstanding my own calorie restriction -- I have

probably aged two months. To Hell with it! "

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

Damn, you're right...I do really want to know. In the end it probably

will make little difference as long as I eat clean but it would be

infinitely more satisfying if I KNEW (for sure) that I was 100% on the

right track. And even if I don't get there at least I might learn a

thing or two in the process.

Cheers,

-

>

> > Isn't it possible that the way Okinawins eat affects their health

> > instead of how much they eat? In any case, I think CR works but

> > perhaps only because it's tied to another factor.

> >

> > -

>

>

> ~

>

> I would suggest that you are looking for certainty, based on the tone

> I pick up in your posts. You are seeking to KNOW exactly how the

> mechanism of aging, and age-retardation, works. I suspect the

> pathways of aging are highly variegated; that there are a host of

> factors that allow the Okinawins to experience the longevity they

> do.

>

> It's a complex and complicated universe out there. Every event that

> happens has infinite causes, although the human brain is conditioned

> to seek the few which appear to be most temporally connected. Life

> isn't like that, although our brains tell us this is so. It is one

> way the human mind staves off the chaos " out there, " preventing it

> from becoming overwhelming, allowing us to " make sense " out of a

> universe that clearly doesn't make sense.

>

> Someday, perhaps even within the next century, we may know how aging

> truly occurs and what needs to be done to slow it down. But that

> ain't happening now, brother. So, go with your gut, as we all do,

> and enjoy! Recognize that you are not in control anyway, and

> whatever you ultimately decide will be the right decision.

>

> The universe does not make mistakes. ;-)

>

> ~ Andy

[Guest guest]

To be frank, I don't buy into that kind of relativistic mumbo jumbo.

Most people do, and that's why they're getting cancer and heart

disease at age 50.

I'd like to think of myself as very objective. I read everything I get

my hands on and it takes me a while before I change my mind. Do I hold

an opinion on things? Yes I do. So what?

-

>

> > I personally don't favor listening to the common orthodoxy which has

> > declared the benefits of breads and pastas, vegetable oils and

> > hydrogenated margarines.

>

>

> *****So you've made your " position " known, and it is becoming clear

> that any evidence which is presented to you will be viewed through

> this " perspective " you hold. (Do you hold it, or is it holding you,

> I wonder.)

>

> That is not wrong. It is how we all are, to a greater or lesser

> degree. But it might help if you recognize it. You have

> an " agenda, " a " stance, " and are predisposed - one might

> say " programmed " (as we all are) - to view any material which is

> critical of your position as suspect or plainly wrong. Or you will

> come up with ANOTHER study which refutes what the last person said to

> you. Just another tactic to keep it together.

>

>

> > I've seen many studies already illustrating the benefits of raw

> > milk. It should be reminded that there is a risk of disease but

> > this would be limited if proper measures were taken.

>

>

> *****The bottom line, , the truth, is that one can find multiple

> studies that support ANY F'ing THING one wants, both in the

> scientific and non-scientific camps.

>

> And that is what we (humans) do. We develop, (why? how? who knows?)

> certain Belief Systems and we see, interpret, and experience the

> world THROUGH those Belief Systems.

>

> We see the world and other people not as they are, but as we are.

>

> So: you have a worldview about this stuff and it is apparently

> important to you; you are invested in it. Nothing wrong with that.

> I have my own: CRON as espoused by Walford. If possible, however,

> just be aware that having taken a particular stance you will

> automatically perceive the world (and contrary scientific studies,

> for example) through that agenda. Again, that is fine. It is what

> we all do. It's just a game, my friend. You can view and review all

> the studies you want, come up with a " position, " and the next person

> will duplicate your exact tracks, and come up with an

> alternate " position. " Who is " right " ?

>

> Or more importantly, is there any " right " ? Who is aksing these

> questions?

>

> ~ Andy

[Guest guest]

" *****Bingo! (Or, a bit more accurately, if you will, " excessive

> calories do. " ) You hit the nail on the head . As far as I

> know, the scientific thesis of thermogenics and conservation of

> energy has not been repealed. Calories in - calories out. Period.

> The rest is just the dream of the ego. :-)) "

Woah, I sure hope you don't think is true when it comes to weight gain

and loss, right? A calorie is NOT a calorie. This, I'm afraid, is a

document ~fact~....

If anyone is biased here, it seems to be YOU, ironically enough. It

seems you're the one who can't accept to get contradicted.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

No malice here, but I think you've found some data that doesn't add up.

Macronutrients can influence satiety, and hence how much one actually ends

up eating on an ad lib programme. To claim that the energy one consumes has

nothing to do with the energy one expends or retains as fat/muscle is simply

unrealistic. I cannot create fat or muscle without ingesting energy in some

form or another, nor can I get rid of ingested energy without 'burning' it

or storing it. It really doesn't make much of a difference what source it

comes from, unless you're arguing that the calories in some foods are not

bioavailable, but that is generally taken into account by the FDA charts on

caloric content...

If someone has told you otherwise, they're probably confusing

bioavailability or satiety per calorie with actually caloric content.

Cheers,

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

> From: paultheo2000 [mailto:paultheo2000@...]

> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 5:40 PM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally

> Fallon/

>

>

>

> " *****Bingo! (Or, a bit more accurately, if you will, " excessive

> > calories do. " ) You hit the nail on the head . As far as I

> > know, the scientific thesis of thermogenics and conservation of

> > energy has not been repealed. Calories in - calories out. Period.

> > The rest is just the dream of the ego. :-)) "

>

> Woah, I sure hope you don't think is true when it comes to weight gain

> and loss, right? A calorie is NOT a calorie. This, I'm afraid, is a

> document ~fact~....

>

> If anyone is biased here, it seems to be YOU, ironically enough. It

> seems you're the one who can't accept to get contradicted.

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There's much more, but this for starters:

http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/175app.html

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

> Hi ,

>

> No malice here, but I think you've found some data that doesn't add up.

>

> Macronutrients can influence satiety, and hence how much one

actually ends

> up eating on an ad lib programme. To claim that the energy one

consumes has

> nothing to do with the energy one expends or retains as fat/muscle

is simply

> unrealistic. I cannot create fat or muscle without ingesting energy

in some

> form or another, nor can I get rid of ingested energy without

'burning' it

> or storing it. It really doesn't make much of a difference what

source it

> comes from, unless you're arguing that the calories in some foods

are not

> bioavailable, but that is generally taken into account by the FDA

charts on

> caloric content...

>

> If someone has told you otherwise, they're probably confusing

> bioavailability or satiety per calorie with actually caloric content.

>

> Cheers,

>

>

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

> > From: paultheo2000 [mailto:paultheo2000@y...]

> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 5:40 PM

> >

> > Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally

> > Fallon/

> >

> >

> >

> > " *****Bingo! (Or, a bit more accurately, if you will, " excessive

> > > calories do. " ) You hit the nail on the head . As far as I

> > > know, the scientific thesis of thermogenics and conservation of

> > > energy has not been repealed. Calories in - calories out. Period.

> > > The rest is just the dream of the ego. :-)) "

> >

> > Woah, I sure hope you don't think is true when it comes to weight gain

> > and loss, right? A calorie is NOT a calorie. This, I'm afraid, is a

> > document ~fact~....

> >

> > If anyone is biased here, it seems to be YOU, ironically enough. It

> > seems you're the one who can't accept to get contradicted.

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> " *****Bingo! (Or, a bit more accurately, if you will, " excessive

> > calories do. " ) You hit the nail on the head . As far as I

> > know, the scientific thesis of thermogenics and conservation of

> > energy has not been repealed. Calories in - calories out.

> > Period. The rest is just the dream of the ego. :-)) "

> Woah, I sure hope you don't think is true when it comes to weight

> gain and loss, right? A calorie is NOT a calorie. This, I'm afraid,

> is a document ~fact~....

*****OK. Educate me. Go further with this please. I'm listening.

In what way(s), specifically and with scientific backing please, is a

calorie NOT a calorie?

[sounds weird to me! A chair is not a chair? A book is not a book?

Hmmm.... but seriously, I know what you are getting at by that

statement, and I would just appreciate your explaining the

physiological process behind the statement so that I have a better

understanding. Thanks.]

> If anyone is biased here, it seems to be YOU, ironically enough. It

> seems you're the one who can't accept to get contradicted.

*****If you reread my posts you'll see I *repeatedly* add that I have

my own position and thus have fully admitted to being " biased "

although the term I used is " conditioned " or " programmed. " There is

a pov expressed in my posts, as there is in yours. I don't agree

with yours. That is all. So f'**king what? Do you think any of

this *means* anything?

Please understand that regardless of any disagreement here,

there is not, however, any contentious or belligerent intent behind

my words. I don't hold any of this " stuff " very seriously. And, as

such, I haven't the slightest problem being contradicted. The world

does that to me all the time! <LoL> And I have virtually no

investment in how this dialogue turns out. Which is why it is fun

for me. :-)) Ultimately, I know that I am not doing any of it,

anyway. I'm not doing anything at all.

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

> To be frank, I don't buy into that kind of relativistic mumbo jumbo.

> Most people do, and that's why they're getting cancer and heart

> disease at age 50.

>

> I'd like to think of myself as very objective. I read everything I

> get my hands on and it takes me a while before I change my mind. Do

> I hold an opinion on things? Yes I do. So what?

*****I was only pointing out that the opinion you hold " colors " how

you view " new evidence. " It biases (to employ the word you used)

one's perspective.

[i apologize if this is too off-topic for this list. If so, let me

know and I'll shuddup! :-)))]

And before you feel that you are being in any way " attacked, " let me

add that this is how it is for ALL human beings. Thought - past

tense of thinking - is essentially memory. And our memories play a

PROFOUND role in how the present moment is seen and experienced. The

present moment is seen " through the eyes of the past " and that

inherently distorts what is seen.

This is not mumbo-jumbo. The notion of being " objective " is simply

not how the human brain operates. The way we talk about things and

the way we think about things affects HOW we see them. For instance,

if you have printed words which are a bit too far away to be seen and

somebody tells you what the words are, you actually see them (where

you couldn't a moment earlier). There are many examples of that

kind - how the word or the thought affects what you see.

This is the point I was making before: thought is affecting what you

see and how you interpret what you see. It is kind of like being in

a hypnotic trance (and not knowing it). [For more details on this

see Bohm, Phd, noted quantum physicist, in " Thought As A

System. " ]

So you come to this dialogue with a set of thoughts that predisposes

you to See and Interpret in a preset way (as do I and all the other

critters posting here). Sometimes the predispositions change. Then

there is a new mindset with which to view the world. And sometimes

they don't, and we persist in our rigidly-held belief system. We are

all of us condemned to live out of our conditioning (although that

changes moment to moment).

This is so for all of us, much of the time. It is neither good or

bad, right or wrong. Just...how it is. :-)

~ Andy

[Guest guest]

> There's much more, but this for starters:

>

> http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/175app.html

>

> -

I don't think you'd find anyone here who would argue that a 'calorie is a

calorie' when it comes to nutritional content, satiety, etc... Your

contention was that the following points are NOT accurate:

-- To claim that the energy one consumes has nothing to do with the energy

one expends or retains as fat/muscle is simply unrealistic

-- I cannot create fat or muscle without ingesting energy in some form or

another, nor can I get rid of ingested energy without 'burning' it or

storing it

-- It really doesn't make much of a difference what source it comes from,

unless you're arguing that the calories in some foods are not bioavailable

Berardi would seem to agree with each of these assertions I made (while you

claim they are false and that you're not talking about bioavailability), and

he doesn't really make any terribly unusual claims here and basically argues

that in terms of nutrition and short-term weight loss, varying macronutrient

profiles can have different effects on the body. He never claims that

calories in don't equal calories out... As for the kcal/cal issue, that

only shows that Berardi is directing his comments to those who are

completely ignorant of any scientific literature -- you can write 'kcal'

here if you want, but 'cal' is still the popularized term, and everyone on

this list knows what it means.

His point on celery is actually the same one I made, but that your refused

to accept -- energy in some foods is less bioavailable, and in others it is

so minimal that it does not exceed the energy used in digestion. That

doesn't mean that it's calorically neutral -- it's the equivalent of eating

a pound of sugar, then working out to burn off the energy (ie: you use the

calories going in on activity -- digestion in this case).

It seems silly to carry this on if you're only going to refer me to people

who make the same argument I made, but then claim they're saying something

else...

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford