Early Retirement Extreme Forums

The internet can be an extremely useful tool, but it can also be a minefield when it comes to sifting the truth from the rubbish.

After viewing public comments I’d have to say , don’t take anyone’s advice in nutrition, unless you can see them in person or maybe on video. If there is any depth in the nutrition question, the only way to find the answer is through personal experimentation. And the great thing here is that, results come pretty quick, and the down side is that the body heals slowly, especially if it’s been abused for decades… the optimization process can easily go on for years before it fully corrects itself.

When a person is eating right they will be thin or HWP, their skin and eyes will be clear and bright and they will be overflowing with energy. Another great thing about a clean, high energy diet is that most chronic ailments and disorders like depression and anxieties start to fall away by themselves over time. When your energy starts to go through the roof you will automatically start to look for ways to exercise, thus paving the way for greater improvement. If you really have good health you will know it, and what’s more, people see it in you! It’s not uncommon for a people to walk past you and give a second glance, it’s almost as if they say, “something about that person looks different”. And why not, almost everyone is eating a sickly diet, maybe 2% of the population goes on to optimize their own health… most don’t know it’s even possible. If you want health insurance, this is it.

Like any good theory, it can be tested and self-proven though sacrifice and will power. Things to watch out for:
• Anything the herd (sheep) are doing is almost always backwards
• The optimal path, almost always starts off as difficult, but the rewards pay for themselves a thousand times over in the long run
• Follow the money or advertising and you will see why things are, the way they are
• What’s good for you, is good for the environment, is good for nature, is good for every living being on this planet. It’s almost as if “as you sow, so shall you reap” is a self-fulfilling prophecy


There is an older nutrition book, but it holds up very well, it's called: “Living Foods for Optimum Health” (Brian Clement). After refining my diet for about twenty years, this is was the key that unlocked the magic. Personally I don’t get into an all raw diet, but increasing your raw to cooked ratios make a huge difference... I never go though a day without eating a good amount of raw fruits and dark leafy greens.

Check out a nutrition writer named Ray Peat, only science based health writer out there.

Michael_00005 wrote: ↑

Tue May 09, 2017 6:03 pm

The internet can be an extremely useful tool, but it can also be a minefield when it comes to sifting the truth from the rubbish.

After viewing public comments I’d have to say , don’t take anyone’s advice in nutrition, unless you can see them in person or maybe on video.

Basically what Paul Chek (Eat, Move, Be Healthy) says.

He's also the creator of the famous "Poopie Policemen" lineup illustration that has been misappropriated by everyone, including this guy who is essentially reading from Chek's book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHXosEZNuP0

Read " the hungry brain", if you actually want to know what's up with the mixed advice. It breaks down the competing theories, without really endorsing any of them.

Is obesity caused by insulin resistance, leptin uptake, lack of exercise? I'm not sure one answer works for everyone, so knowing all the theories will give a good starting point for self experimenting.

But it sounds as though you found what works for you, so further reading may not interest you.

The mixed advice about diet can be blamed on food questionnaires and p-hacking.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you ... nutrition/

All studies correlating diet with some health outcome are intrinsically flawed. They rely on people's faulty memory about what they 'typically' eat, and then misuse statistical methods to correlate a particular food with some health outcome. But media (including books written by "gurus") profit from our fear of disease. Experts can't agree, because the highest quality studies don't agree. So people religiously support the diet that fits their preexisting worldview, and disregard the one's that don't.

A diet of wine, tomatoes, lemon, carrot, olive, and onion (selected because the minimum risk estimate "appears" to excur from neutral less that the maximum risk estimate) is the way to go I guess. Yum.

@IlliniDave
That's just for cancer. The meta analysis for heart disease or body composition would look very different.
Case in point; meat. That chart makes meat look like the devil because it doesn't prevent cancer. But Atkins dieters definitely lose weight, improve their glucose tolerance, and probably slow or reverse coronary artery disease. That's because glucose, one of the most fundamental building blocks of all living things, is toxic to endothelial cells and leads to blood vessel injury and organ damage. Atkins tried for years to find some evidence that cancer risk was improved with a meat-heavy diet to no avail. Vegans call this a victory, but a plant diet isn't magic either. Look up cucurbitin/toxic squash syndrome. The vegetables aren't there to keep us healthy. Like every other edible organism, they're only looking out for themselves.

The graph is very interesting, there should be more images like this; it's a great way to see the data. They should also show who funds the studies, that seems key.

But Atkins dieters definitely lose weight, improve their glucose tolerance, and probably slow or reverse coronary artery disease.

; wow, where does this come from, Atkins died of heart disease, did he not? When Dr. Greger started spilling the beans on the negative effects of the diet, the Atkins company threatened to sue him, it was something like "shut up, or we will sue you", shortly after that he posted their letter online and created this site... quiet funny. http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

Turns out they never sued him. There were probably thinking "what a PR nightmare, this guy knows how to research!".

"Heart bypass surgery typically costs about $70,000-$200,000" http://health.costhelper.com/heart-surgery.html

The facts are always good to hear, no matter the results, but almost always the pro-meat side post comments with no source/proof, and that means absolutely nothing. When it comes right down to it though, studies are nice for reference, and they give you a place to start. But the only thing that really counts is practice, a correct diet will prove itself.

I've been vegetarian for over twenty years (a few years back moving toward a plant based diet to optimize) and know hundreds of people following the lacto veg. diet, many in their 60-80, and I have never once heard of anyone having atherosclerosis. Almost everyone has excellent health and a normal body weight, also they generally look 10-20 years younger than their actual age.

At 48, and a biometrics test 3-21-17 – here are the numbers
Weight 169 (same as college)
BMI 22.1
Glucose 82
TC 151
HDL 46
Blood P. 108/73

These are very normal numbers, for anyone following a PBD. My numbers were about the same 5 years back, and expect same 10 years forward assuming there’s still wick on the candle. Atherosclerosis, the same disease that brutalized my father, will never be an issue in my life.

Michael_00005 wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2017 7:27 pm

wow, where does this come from, Atkins died of heart disease, did he not?

Atkins slipped on ice and hit his head.

Weight 169 (same as college)
BMI 22.1
Glucose 82
TC 151
HDL 46
Blood P. 108/73

TC of 151 is just out of normal range: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... T-20048186
HDL: 46 isn't dangerous, but it's not good either. >60 is considered desirable. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... t-20046388

trig/HDL ratio is considered the best predictor of heart disease. 151/46=3.28 isn't quite "at danger", which is >4. but it's also far from ideal (<2). for reference, brute eats mostly meat and has a ratio <2. brute's fasting glucose is also lower, though 82 isn't bad. brute's blood pressure is higher.

main point not being that brute is awesome, but that vegetarianism doesn't seem to necessarily lead to better health markers. brute has eaten a stick of butter today, and that's in addition to lots of red meat. animal products, incorporated in the right diet, can lead to very good health.

Good catch there, did not know that. I was reading some material about his autopsy where he had atherosclerosis. I'd have to research to confirm it, but probably won't because I'm lazy! --- edit and correction -- the article was medical records showing he had heart problems, not autopsy, which must be public info once a person passes.

A vegetarians numbers will never be normal, in a society which bases it's food on meat. They don't even know how to rate optimal health, what they assume are low numbers for a person is still eating meat... in this case they could be correct for imbalance. But in regards to plant based eating this is perfectly normal and superior in every way to the standard diet.

I don't see us coming to an agreement here, which is perfectly fine. It would be of great interest to check back 10+ years forward and see who has the better health. This of course would depend on your age, most people start to go down hill in health in their 40-60's. If you are pre-40, you're still operating under the grace period of general good health.

Best of luck in your chosen path, the truth of the matter will indeed show itself in time. I've seen what a poor diet can do to a man's health, and would not wish the suffering on anyone.

he did apparently have atherosclerosis, that's why he started researching his diet in the first place. but he did not die from it, according to what brute has read. there are also stories about his weight at time of death that are disputed, and his wife seems to have denied interested parties access to his medical records, which some of those parties interpret as "Atkins diet == unhealthy".

in any case, brute doesn't care much for Atkins the person, he cares that eating meat and animal fats don't seem to cause bad health markers. quite the opposite, actually.

Michael_00005 wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2017 8:11 pm

I don't see us coming to an agreement here, which is perfectly fine. It would be of great interest to check back 10+ years forward and see who has the better health.

deal. good luck to Michael_00005 as well.

I think the mixed advice is because there isn't one specific diet that's beneficial to everyone. Genetics is proving that. When you read a book like The Sports Gene, you realize how different we all are under the hood.

Even in my house, DH and I thrive on very different diets. I'm low carb all the way and can't tolerate wheat and certain types of beans. DS18 is the same. DH does better on a carb/fruit rich diet with less meat, and his numbers are always better when he eats mostly healthy carbs and beans. DD21 is the same. DS14 is on a high-salt high-fat diet that's for a specific disease so that doesn't really count, except that it does show how unique each person's optimal diet can be.

If I ever get up the nerve, I'll show before and after pictures of me to show how life-changing a low carb diet can be for some people. I still find it a little shocking when I look back at some older pics.

Michael_00005 wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2017 7:27 pm

But Atkins dieters definitely lose weight, improve their glucose tolerance, and probably slow or reverse coronary artery disease.

; wow, where does this come from

There's lots of studies on the effect of diet on CAD risk factors. Here's a meta analysis of studies comparing randomized controlled trials of low fat vs. low carb diets:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530364/

Both diets reduced participants' blood pressures, total to HDL cholesterol ratios, and total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose, and serum insulin levels and raised HDL cholesterol; however, participants on low-carbohydrate diets had greater increases in HDL cholesterol and greater decreases in triglycerides but experienced less reduction in total and LDL cholesterol compared with persons on low-fat diets.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Sun May 14, 2017 7:14 am

I think the mixed advice is because there isn't one specific diet that's beneficial to everyone.

I think this a really frequently overlooked point. Humans are very genetically diverse. Even before we invented agriculture, we were well established on six continents where none of the same food grew. The Inuit have lived for thousands of years on a diet of fish and blubbery mammals. Native south americans got most of their calories from a variety of wild fruits and vegetables, and had meat only every few weeks. My favorite example of this is dairy foods. If you're ancestry is Middle Eastern, West African, or Northern European, there is a good chance you can drink unprocessed milk without getting GI issues. That's not true for most adult humans, or even most adult mammals. There are probably several other genetic adaptations for drinking milk yet to be discovered beyond just the lactase persistence gene. The same logic applies to other foods as well. You may be better adapted to eating certain foods your ancestors ate than someone else from a different part of the world.

Right, I just read "Unprocessed: My City-Dwelling Year of Reclaiming Real Food" by Megan Kimble, and learned a few new things. There's a lot of damned if you do, and damned if you don't in nutritional decisions. For instance, raw milk products and whole grains that are not stored properly or eaten quickly after initial crude "processing" can cause some rather serious health or nutritional problems. Eating a whole bag of Doritos may kill you slow motion if oft repeated, but eating a giant bag of raw almonds as your main food source for a week is not a good idea either.

People wish to find a simple, linear-like, solution set to what is a very, very complex problem involving multiple complex systems, inclusive of everything from soil science to exercise physiology to inheritable mental health conditions. As soon as any one of us knows as little as 3 things about ourselves that differentiates us from some average person in a statistical study, we likely ought to attempt to make our own best decisions. For instance, I am female, suffered from severe asthma as a child, have hormonal tendency towards storing most of my body fat subcutaneously, mild inherited manifestation of bi-polar disease symptoms (cyclothymia) and I am pigeon-toed on the right side. Therefore, for instance, any study/article that attempts to argue that running is the best exercise for all humans will instantly be dismissed from my consideration, because I know that it is not the best exercise for me, and I am a human.

My mother, 3 sisters and I all have the inherited symptom tendency of strong sugar craving that accompanies bi-polar disease. My two children did not inherit this tendency, so one of our family jokes has to do with how often I baked cookies "for my children" when they were young. What works best for me in terms of subjective feeling of health/balance is increased fat and more healthy sugar source consumption. For instance, whole milk yogurt with nuts and banana or catfish with spinach/blue cheese and big bowl of cherries. And, one hour of moderate exercise and one hour of being outside/combined if possible, at least 6 days/week. I have also often found it to be true that this is a realm in which the "great" can be the enemy of the "good." Sometimes the desire to signal the appearance of health/fitness for status reasons will trump more moderate practice that would actually better serve the purpose. For instance, to my knowledge nobody has yet died from cellulite on their thighs, so anything done with sole motivation of banishing thigh cellulite could run risk of ill effect.

There is a lot of money to be made, hence we get mixed advice. Advertisers play you like sheep, these people are not stupid when it comes to their money and future interests... this is what they say in their secret meetings, "just slip in a little doubt, and the sheep will throw up their hands in defeat and say what's the point", and because people are lazy it works.

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Sun May 14, 2017 7:14 am

I think the mixed advice is because there isn't one specific diet that's beneficial to everyone.

We see countries where they mostly eat a simple plant based diet, do indeed have superior health, but yes, avoid allergy foods. Most will never experience it, due to a lack the will, desire, or we could call it addiction. A lot of the science that has been coming out originated from this fact. One example here, an older video but exceptional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOj4rzSkqok. The medical community effectively buried this information for a long time, but this guy knows how to research!

A couple points to make in the graph above, the negative studies for potatoes and corn is almost certainly related to processed foods like potato chips, greasy fry's, and other junk foods. Generally this is how people get their potatoes and corn, it has nothing to do with the whole plant foods which are healthy.

You're on the right track if you are researching diet, the average health care costs in retirement are around $260,000, and of course this number is going up much faster than the pace of inflation. The most important factor has to do with chronic aliments, “the twenty-year old from the 1990’s might live ten of those years with chronic disease, whereas now it’s more like thirteen years with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or a stroke.” - from the book, "How Not to Die", where almost every comment is based on a referenced study.

brute is allergic to plants

https://chriskresser.com/why-you-should ... gan-diets/

Vegan diets lack a lot of essential nutrients that humans cannot make without consuming animals. Many plants actually contain antinutrients that inhibit absorption of specific micronutrients.

Cholesterol is an essential building block of every one of your cells. Its also necessary for making steroid hormones, like testosterone and estrogen. Fortunately, your body can make cholesterol out of glucose. In fact, you are much more likely to develope high cholesterol on a high calorie, high carbohydrate diet than you are on a low calorie, high fat diet. In other words, being overweight and out of shape can raise your blood cholesterol levels regardless of the specifics of your diet.

Michael, is there anything that would change your mind about the perfect diet? Not that its important for me to change your mind, I'm just curious if anything would.