Thoughts on diet and health

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom NJ

$100 Site Donor 2026
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
2,932
Location
Southwest Virginia
This seems to be a popular subject here on BITOG, and one that often makes me smile and bite my tongue. So I thought I would jot down some thoughts for what it’s worth.

Most people’s beliefs on nutrition and healthy diet are not formed by scrutinizing volumes of gold standard studies, i.e. randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, statistically significant, peer reviewed, and published by a reputable journal. Instead our opinions are usually formed or influenced mainly by media reports and repeated headlines as this is what we have access to, and the information we glean is both dubious and ever changing.

Media makes its money by readership and so has a strong driver to sensationalize to get attention, even to the extent to intentional distortion. Any study that associates a nasty disease such as cancer with a common food, no matter how bad the study was, will generate headlines for years until it becomes an excepted fact. That is until the next study contradicts it. How many times have we heard that coffee is good for you/coffee is bad for you, wine is good for you/wine is bad for you, eggs are good for you/eggs are bad for you, margarine is good for you/margarine is bad for you, meat is good for you/meat is bad for you, etc., etc., etc. The result of this flood of profit driven information is often false, incomplete, or misleading “facts” that become imbedded in the minds of otherwise intelligent people and debated ad nauseam.

As an example, I Googled “health benefits of garlic” and in short order found 73 diseases, ailments, or conditions that garlic is purported to cure, prevent, treat, or support, ranging from nine different cancers to erectile dysfunction! This was not a surprise because if a study, any study, finds that garlic has, say, an anti-inflammatory component, no matter how small, food and supplement marketers will jump on it and connect garlic with every ailment that has ever been “associated” with inflammation. If it nudges your cholesterol down a couple of points it instantly becomes “heart healthy” and even earns (or buys) a symbol on the label to prove it. This same nonsense exists for numerous other common foods, vitamins, and supplements in an endless effort to sell or promote some product.

And this should come as no surprise. The fact is that the chemistry of our bodies, the food we eat, and the processes they undergo and interact with is extraordinarily complex, so much so that trying to isolate a single food chemical component and quantify its long term effect on health and longevity is virtually impossible. There are just far too many variables to correct for, even in most gold standard studies, making cause and effect conclusions bewildering at best and absurd at worse. A perfect playground for marketers to peddle their wares. The lack of a scientific consensus is apparent when one considers that there are literally thousands of books written by doctors on diet and health, loaded with much disagreement and conflicting information. If we actually knew the facts we would only need one book.

So what should we believe? In this complex and ever changing subject that is a difficult question. At least be sure to carefully consider the source of the information you are reading – the words “study” and “doctor” guarantee nothing, and most social media sources are infiltrated with endlessly repeated nonsense. Even apparently credible TV reports, newspapers, and magazines fall victim to the same need to gather readers for profit, and the internet seems to have more clickbait than facts. Shun testimonials, and avoid confirmation bias by reading opposing opinions. If no reasonable and scientific consensus is apparent then avoid forming and spreading unsupported opinions. Debating is useful, but preaching is not. In short, question what you read and hear, and think critically – blind faith leads to blindness. It’s okay to not know the answer to everything.

Personally I have always found my mother’s advice to be rather sensible – eat a wide variety of foods with nothing in excess. Perhaps she should have written a study! So finally, take all information you read on nutrition and healthy diet with a large grain of salt (oh wait, never mind, salt is unhealthy!).
 
Rural Polish and Russian peasants around the turn of the twentieth century ate a diet that consisted entirely of potatoes and brown bread. They worked very hard, under very harsh conditions, and were very healthy.

Rural Africans in the mid twentieth century (and today) ate a traditional starch based diet. Cardiovascular disease, type 2, breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, Crohn's disease, IBD, Lupus, MS, rheumatiod arthritus, etc, all of the common western diseases were unheard of in all of rural Africa. Not rare, unheard of. Same with other rural populations eating starch based diets.

So no, a wide variety of foods is not necessary or helpful.
 
That is such a terrible take lol.

You don't need sugar in all its forms, you don't need alcohol, you don't need milk, you don't need preservatives (other than salt), you don't need seed oils or trans fats or deep fried foods. These are the uh, "low hanging fruit" that you can wipe from your diet and become healthier with low effort and no risk of bad side effects.

Lots of stuff people eat "in moderation" is inflammatory. It absolutely needs to minimized or dropped completely. Even many vegetables people consider healthy (like nightshades) can be problematic for people with gut issues. It gets worse for people who need low FODMAPs etc etc.

"Everything in moderation" is so completely off the mark and way too simplified (there is a kernel of truth in it but people stop there instead of going further). It's like saying "oil is oil".

Also keep in mind that "everything in moderation" is an oxymoron; if you eat a bunch of inflammatory foods in moderation, you're no longer minimizing your exposure to inflammatory foods, right? A little sugar/milk/alcohol/transfats etc and suddenly your health goes for a dive. Whereas if you had just a single shot of whiskey on a weekend but nothing else then your body can handle it better. If you have an intolerance to milk and fry just your eggs with a tiny bit of butter, fine, but having small amounts of butter/cheese/yoghurt/soups with milk etc "in moderation" suddenly means your no longer eating milk products in moderation.


I've struggled with dietary/gut issues for years. Yeah I'm not the majority, but most people are "fine" until it happens to them. One thing I've noticed is that it's not just the amount over a set period of time, it's the frequency. So if I have a small bite of milk chocolate (two major triggers for me, milk + sugar) and dribble that out over a week, by day 7 I'm in serious trouble. Instead if I eat that same amount all in one setting it's a smaller hit (to how I feel) and the effects are gone quite quickly. By day 7 (with 6 days of no milk chocolate) I cannot tell I had that large portion on day 1. So for me, a large dose quickly and very infrequently, is far, far better than a small dose continually.

So many intricacies play into our diet, and what works for some people is terrible for others. Comfy phrases like "everything in moderation" is just an excuse to get lazy with our health. That might work for a while, but it probably won't last forever.
 
Back in 2005 I started on the Atkins diet....My weight was 268 and am 5 ft 9 in tall. I had a 45 inch waist...In a two year period I went from 268 to 185 and a year later down to 165. I started to eat more carba and adjusted the amount based on my weight. I have keept the weight off since then and currently weight 146 with a 31 inch waist..I am 71 years old....I still watch my carbs a little and every Friday I have a splurge day....Like Blue Bell ice cream of some pei or cake or whatever I have the taste for.....Like I said I have maintained my weight doing this.....
 
I believe in vitamin and mineral supplementation. A multi vitamin alone just doesn't cut it. It is very difficult to get everything the body needs just by consuming a healthy balanced diet. If we could absorb all the good that healthy eating has to offer, we would be all set. For most, that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
That is such a terrible take lol.

You don't need sugar in all its forms, you don't need alcohol, you don't need milk, you don't need preservatives (other than salt), you don't need seed oils or trans fats or deep fried foods. These are the uh, "low hanging fruit" that you can wipe from your diet and become healthier with low effort and no risk of bad side effects.

Lots of stuff people eat "in moderation" is inflammatory. It absolutely needs to minimized or dropped completely. Even many vegetables people consider healthy (like nightshades) can be problematic for people with gut issues. It gets worse for people who need low FODMAPs etc etc.

"Everything in moderation" is so completely off the mark and way too simplified (there is a kernel of truth in it but people stop there instead of going further). It's like saying "oil is oil".

Also keep in mind that "everything in moderation" is an oxymoron; if you eat a bunch of inflammatory foods in moderation, you're no longer minimizing your exposure to inflammatory foods, right? A little sugar/milk/alcohol/transfats etc and suddenly your health goes for a dive. Whereas if you had just a single shot of whiskey on a weekend but nothing else then your body can handle it better. If you have an intolerance to milk and fry just your eggs with a tiny bit of butter, fine, but having small amounts of butter/cheese/yoghurt/soups with milk etc "in moderation" suddenly means your no longer eating milk products in moderation.


I've struggled with dietary/gut issues for years. Yeah I'm not the majority, but most people are "fine" until it happens to them. One thing I've noticed is that it's not just the amount over a set period of time, it's the frequency. So if I have a small bite of milk chocolate (two major triggers for me, milk + sugar) and dribble that out over a week, by day 7 I'm in serious trouble. Instead if I eat that same amount all in one setting it's a smaller hit (to how I feel) and the effects are gone quite quickly. By day 7 (with 6 days of no milk chocolate) I cannot tell I had that large portion on day 1. So for me, a large dose quickly and very infrequently, is far, far better than a small dose continually.

So many intricacies play into our diet, and what works for some people is terrible for others. Comfy phrases like "everything in moderation" is just an excuse to get lazy with our health. That might work for a while, but it probably won't last forever.
.
That’s quite a lecture and reprimand. FOR ME, all things in moderation works. Oh yeah, that’s what I said in my first post. Of course I was negligent in saying what my personal “all things” are, and that is how it shall remain because I will not get into it.
.
 
Rural Polish and Russian peasants around the turn of the twentieth century ate a diet that consisted entirely of potatoes and brown bread. They worked very hard, under very harsh conditions, and were very healthy.

Rural Africans in the mid twentieth century (and today) ate a traditional starch based diet. Cardiovascular disease, type 2, breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, Crohn's disease, IBD, Lupus, MS, rheumatiod arthritus, etc, all of the common western diseases were unheard of in all of rural Africa. Not rare, unheard of. Same with other rural populations eating starch based diets.

So no, a wide variety of foods is not necessary or helpful.
Evidence? Sources? Anything other than a bold statement that runs contrary to much of what's known about nutrition for the human body?

People respond differently to different diets but a diet deficient in protein and fat will be unlikely to benefit anyone. Surviving and thriving are two different things. Suggesting that starch based diets is a causal factor in eliminating disease, without citing anything, is such BS. Any diet composed of real foods is probably better than one composed of modern, processed, Western "food". One of the wonderful aspects of the human body is that if you somehow manage to be deficient in carbohydrates then the body will manufacture its own through protein gluconeogenesis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis --there is no mechanism to convert carbohydrates into protein. And bread is not a fantastic source of protein, just my opinion on that one. Grains are easily eliminated from the diet and health stays the same or improves. Grains are also a relatively new addition to the human diet and simply because something can be consumed doesn't mean it should be--kind of like rapeseed/canola oil. Anatomically modern humans have been eating a diet of fruit, vegetables, and meat for a very long time and that's the diet that got us this far so I will stick with a proven winner.
 
My father is 81 years old and still doing great. He is healthy, active, lives independently, and is not overweight. His diet consists of bar food and beer. He is the guy sitting in the bar parking lot, waiting for it to open at 11:00 AM...every day. He has been a chronic alcoholic for decades.

My mother died at 58. She ate healthy foods, exercised, and drank very little alcohol.

I have only three logical explanations for this:

1) Genetics
2) Luck
3) Alcohol is a preservative

🤷‍♂️
 
My father is 81 years old and still doing great. He is healthy, active, lives independently, and is not overweight. His diet consists of bar food and beer. He is the guy sitting in the bar parking lot, waiting for it to open at 11:00 AM...every day. He has been a chronic alcoholic for decades.

My mother died at 58. She ate healthy foods, exercised, and drank very little alcohol.

I have only three logical explanations for this:

1) Genetics
2) Luck
3) Alcohol is a preservative

🤷‍♂️
And the cliche example is often Jim Fixx who is credited with starting the 'jogging' craze and then died of a heart attack while jogging. Sometimes you're behind the 8-ball and no maneuvering will get you outta' trouble.

Edit: What kind of a bar doesn't open until 11AM--a juice bar? One of my old haunts was open at 6:30 AM and I do love morning drinkers. Tomato beer anyone?
 
I have an in law in their early 90's. Eats carbohydrates for breakfast lunch and dinner along with candy throughout the day and some ice cream when available. Hardly has any protein, no veggies. When we take her out to eat for lunch at Bob Evans she orders french toast and syrup. On the way home she wants to stop at Dairy Queen and get junk. At her age we let her eat what she wants.
If I ate like that I would be dead long ago.
 
When I worked in the mental health industry I noticed how many patients would only eat carbs, candy, and other sources of sugar. The human body can take a lot of abuse and keep going and I always wonder how people actually feel, but there's no way of ever knowing. I often end up thinking that if a person is truly happy and enjoying their life that it helps them to stay healthier regardless of diet, vices, etc.

My grandmother smoked for 70 years, enjoyed cocktail hour, rare red meat and still reached 83.
 
Rural Polish and Russian peasants around the turn of the twentieth century ate a diet that consisted entirely of potatoes and brown bread. They worked very hard, under very harsh conditions, and were very healthy.

Rural Africans in the mid twentieth century (and today) ate a traditional starch based diet. Cardiovascular disease, type 2, breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, Crohn's disease, IBD, Lupus, MS, rheumatiod arthritus, etc, all of the common western diseases were unheard of in all of rural Africa. Not rare, unheard of. Same with other rural populations eating starch based diets.

So no, a wide variety of foods is not necessary or helpful.
What was the life expectancy of those places?

I thought a lot of the massive increase in cancer in Western nations coincided with longer life expectancy. My mother was diagnosed with cancer at 65. Beat it - still here at 85. Life expectancy in the US only passed 65 after WW2.

Of course you would also argue my mother ate a lot of vegetables we grew ourselves, she never drank or smoked, and worked hard her entire life. So in reality I doubt her cancer was caused by her diet either.
 
I think that the OP is entirely correct.
All things in moderation is the best approach to diet and health for almost all of us.
Yes, there are outliers, one of whom posted in this thread.
For most of us, red meat, red wine, bagels with brie (or lox), fresh vegetables and even risotto and mashed potatoes will do no harm.
You want the occasional high fat, high calorie indulgence? Won't do you any harm if done in moderation.
Who wants to worry about what they eat on a daily basis?
 
Rural Polish and Russian peasants around the turn of the twentieth century ate a diet that consisted entirely of potatoes and brown bread. They worked very hard, under very harsh conditions, and were very healthy.

Rural Africans in the mid twentieth century (and today) ate a traditional starch based diet. Cardiovascular disease, type 2, breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, Crohn's disease, IBD, Lupus, MS, rheumatiod arthritus, etc, all of the common western diseases were unheard of in all of rural Africa. Not rare, unheard of. Same with other rural populations eating starch based diets.

So no, a wide variety of foods is not necessary or helpful.
I simply must point out an inconsistency of comparing a diet low in fiber and high simple carbohydrates with one which is high in fiber and complex carbohydrates. There's probably a difference in the amount of trans and hydrogenated fats consumed.
 
I think it’s all common sense. It all depends on what we think is food.
Food to me is protein, fruits, nuts and vegetables

If you’re buying a snack food or other product that has ingredients which you cannot identify, chances are significant that you shouldn’t be eating it.
We all know snack foods are no good for you, we all know seed oils are no good for you, we all know we shouldn’t eat fried food.
We all know that food rich in carbohydrates is going to make you insulin resistant

It’s really to me just a matter of basics. Animal or plant protein, fruit, and vegetables. Really simple formula however, the vast majority of us consume corporate concoctions of garbage that we know gets the brain addicted to it if you let it.

I mean, the factual data on the American public is out there. The obesity rate and diabetic rate in this country is off the charts.
We complain about the cost of medical care but 70% of the country is overweight and we rely on doctors and drug drugs to keep us alive.

If we got back to eating like we did in the 1960s and 70s when food was more wholesome, we would be in pretty good shape. Or one has to do is compare pictures of young adults in the 1960s and 70s and compare them to today.
Yikes!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom