Thoughts on diet and health

[Donald]

I generally avoid threads like this because I can't stand all the holier-than-thou pontificating of some posters(not directed at you) who can't help but "alarm" about things they know little about...

With that said, I often read statements about X,Y, or Z disease being "more common" now than in the past.

I really don't think that's a statement that can really be taken as true without really looking into the details, and especially of modern diagnostics verses the past. I have no medical training but am a trained, degreed scientist who does actually know how to read peer reviewed literature critically(and recognize where I don't understand it). I'd welcome an actual MD/Physician or other degreed medical provider to comment on these statements, but I think we can make the following statements about diseases-in general-in today's world

1. 100+ years ago, particularly in rural and/or impoverished areas, people could go their entire life without receiving any kind of medical care. Now, an annual physical is considered bare minimum care for everyone. We are more like now to catch a disease now that wouldn't have been diagnosed in the past because the average person has FAR more contact with healthcare providers(and more routine preventative screening) than in the past

2. Our ability to detect conditions is unmatched compared to even 20 years ago. Within my field-analytical chemistry-detections of some molecules at the part per trillion level ins considered routine and reliable now, where at best detections at that level were either very iffy(I can see some molecules at that level on my late 1990s mass spectrometer, but the data gets REALLY difficult to tease out from background noise and I won't quantitate at that level). That's one small area where I'm familiar, but quite literally EVERYTHING is better now-test sensitivity, imaging, etc.

3. On the whole, we are living longer and develop conditions that people just didn't live long enough to develop in the past

4. In some cases, diagnostic critera has changed and broadened to the point where, even if all of the above were true in the past, a person may not have been diagnosed 50 years ago under older criteria, but are now...

The net is the medical care is much better in the past 25 years but the diet has gotten significantly worse. People are now being told eat what your grandmother would cook.

The sugar industry convinced the FDA a few decades ago fat was the bad thing in our diet not added sugar. But as it turns out added sugar is the culprit. Trans fat is bad however but that's not really a naturally occuring fat (I don't think).

 

[Snagglefoot]

Love Bluberry pie. One ninth of a pie is 300 calories. Only 2700 calories per pie.

 

[Pablo]

I generally avoid threads like this because I can't stand all the holier-than-thou pontificating of some posters(not directed at you) who can't help but "alarm" about things they know little about...

With that said, I often read statements about X,Y, or Z disease being "more common" now than in the past.

I really don't think that's a statement that can really be taken as true without really looking into the details, and especially of modern diagnostics verses the past. I have no medical training but am a trained, degreed scientist who does actually know how to read peer reviewed literature critically(and recognize where I don't understand it). I'd welcome an actual MD/Physician or other degreed medical provider to comment on these statements, but I think we can make the following statements about diseases-in general-in today's world

1. 100+ years ago, particularly in rural and/or impoverished areas, people could go their entire life without receiving any kind of medical care. Now, an annual physical is considered bare minimum care for everyone. We are more like now to catch a disease now that wouldn't have been diagnosed in the past because the average person has FAR more contact with healthcare providers(and more routine preventative screening) than in the past

2. Our ability to detect conditions is unmatched compared to even 20 years ago. Within my field-analytical chemistry-detections of some molecules at the part per trillion level ins considered routine and reliable now, where at best detections at that level were either very iffy(I can see some molecules at that level on my late 1990s mass spectrometer, but the data gets REALLY difficult to tease out from background noise and I won't quantitate at that level). That's one small area where I'm familiar, but quite literally EVERYTHING is better now-test sensitivity, imaging, etc.

3. On the whole, we are living longer and develop conditions that people just didn't live long enough to develop in the past

4. In some cases, diagnostic critera has changed and broadened to the point where, even if all of the above were true in the past, a person may not have been diagnosed 50 years ago under older criteria, but are now...

I suspect you knew this would be difficult to refute. Because, well there is not anything wrong with these viewpoints. Although I guess I have more/less filter, because I don't see any holy attitudes here. Normal internet vibe, but no one coming down hard......

Anyway what you write is true - I mean look at the softer field of mental issues. The whole "attention spectrum" for example. I mean some kids were just different, now they have some kind A#$@ disorder or another.

Yet I will argue the shear magnitude of Type 2 diabetes and related deaths. I think you can look at the details and see something statistically changed and I don't think it was just diagnoses and reporting. Sure there were adult onset cases, and MD science maybe wasn't great but seems like any good problem there are quite a few factors at play. It's easy to point at crap diets. And probably true in this case, plus you can look better at cause and effect at the N=1 level and studies of N=XXXXXXX people. OTOH I never knew I was type 2 until A1C was measured. Point there, many people in the past may have never known!

 

[Pew]

People are now being told eat what your grandmother would cook.

I'd get so fat if I ate what my grandma would cook...the food is healthy but not when I eat 10 servings of it.

 

[Pablo]

I'd get so fat if I ate what my grandma would cook...the food is healthy but not when I eat 10 servings of it.

In those days you did all the predawn chores then you pulled stumps before breakfast, breakfast then off to 14 hours of work and back for lunch and more stump pulling and brick stacking then do an engine replacement and rebuild before dinner, after dinner walk up the mountain and bring back both the oak and redwood trees

 

[Pew]

In those days you did all the predawn chores then you pulled stumps before breakfast, breakfast then off to 14 hours of work and back for lunch and more stump pulling and brick stacking then do an engine replacement and rebuild before dinner, after dinner walk up the mountain and bring back both the oak and redwood trees

I called it.

 

[Al]

The sugar industry convinced the FDA a few decades ago fat was the bad thing in our diet not added sugar. But as it turns out added sugar is the culprit. Trans fat is bad however but that's not really a naturally occuring fat (I don't think).

This

 

[alarmguy]

I generally avoid threads like this because I can't stand all the holier-than-thou pontificating of some posters(not directed at you) who can't help but "alarm" about things they know little about...

With that said, I often read statements about X,Y, or Z disease being "more common" now than in the past.

I really don't think that's a statement that can really be taken as true without really looking into the details, and especially of modern diagnostics verses the past. I have no medical training but am a trained, degreed scientist who does actually know how to read peer reviewed literature critically(and recognize where I don't understand it). I'd welcome an actual MD/Physician or other degreed medical provider to comment on these statements, but I think we can make the following statements about diseases-in general-in today's world

1. 100+ years ago, particularly in rural and/or impoverished areas, people could go their entire life without receiving any kind of medical care. Now, an annual physical is considered bare minimum care for everyone. We are more like now to catch a disease now that wouldn't have been diagnosed in the past because the average person has FAR more contact with healthcare providers(and more routine preventative screening) than in the past

2. Our ability to detect conditions is unmatched compared to even 20 years ago. Within my field-analytical chemistry-detections of some molecules at the part per trillion level ins considered routine and reliable now, where at best detections at that level were either very iffy(I can see some molecules at that level on my late 1990s mass spectrometer, but the data gets REALLY difficult to tease out from background noise and I won't quantitate at that level). That's one small area where I'm familiar, but quite literally EVERYTHING is better now-test sensitivity, imaging, etc.

3. On the whole, we are living longer and develop conditions that people just didn't live long enough to develop in the past

4. In some cases, diagnostic critera has changed and broadened to the point where, even if all of the above were true in the past, a person may not have been diagnosed 50 years ago under older criteria, but are now...

I too avoid discussions like this as there is nothing "special" about learning the data. Though some work on theories without knowing the data or educating themselves by reading up on Insulin resistance, Pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

So you should be "alarmed" if you were aware that the three mentioned above affects almost every organ in the human body. We dont have to go back 100 years, or 50 years and blame diagnosis for the increase of those three mentioned above, which is host to an enormous range of human afflictions. I do agree modern medicine and longer lifespans brings more into the data pool but the data on these three have been known for decades and it correlates to the obesity epidemic brought about by ultra refined garbage that we eat and careless eating habits.

We are looking at up to an 18% INCREASE of type 2 diabetes over a 10 year period in some areas. Data will vary by source but it all points in the same direction for the last 20 to 30 years. It's all about the food we eat and the obscene weight increase over the decades, regarding these three which brings on countless other afflictions which account for a percentage of all organs of the body.
And this is only diabetes, (throw in pre diabetes and fasting high insulin levels)

https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.15797?af=R

Have no idea what this is but its a cool chart you can customize
https://diabetesatlas.org/data-by-location/country/united-states-of-america/

 

[bunnspecial]

It's all about the food we eat and the obscene weight increase over the decades, regarding these three which brings on countless other afflictions which account for a percentage of all organs of the body.
And this is only diabetes, (throw in pre diabetes and fasting high insulin levels)

How about a peer-reviewed reference that demonstrates a causational relationship between the factors you cite? The reference you provided only cites correlations, and honestly is pretty thin on anything other than just looking at correlational data.

 

[55hambone]

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.

In my youth i remember eating breakfast with my grandfather when visiting the grandparents on their farm. He would spread yesterdays bacon fat on his toast. When he was a child, his parents would sell any butter that their farm produced, so he used bacon fat in it's place. He had few health problems and passed away at 95 years of age. He worked in a factory and worked his farm until he retired and then just worked the farm. I think that genetics and a sedentary lifestyle (or lack thereof) play a large role in health and lifespan.

 

[hemioiler]

How about a peer-reviewed reference that demonstrates a causational relationship between the factors you cite? The reference you provided only cites correlations, and honestly is pretty thin on anything other than just looking at correlational data.

Random Human: did you know beating your leg with a 2x4 will eventually cause it to fall off?

Average Human: <while beating himself with a 2x4>... got any peer reviewed papers for that bro?

 

[Donald]

I think it's generally agreed that diabetes became more prevalent around the same time as refined sugar became more common. I am sure there were people with diabetes around before refined sugar but doctors did not know about diabetes and/or how to test for it.

And its not just refined sugar, it's processed foods in general. Whole wheat flour vs white flour. Apples vs apple juice.

Some people will likely have problems with diabetes unless they are super careful with what they eat. But there is a much larger percentage of people who might have issues with diabetes if they eat what Americans typically eat. But would likely be fine if they ate the Mediterranean Diet.

 

[johnmyster]

But there is a much larger percentage of people who might have issues with diabetes if they are what Americans typically eat. But would likely be fine if they ate the Mediterranean Diet.

Diabetes is the extreme case. The reality is that our diets are far too carb heavy in general. Sugar gets the attention but modern meal planning is dangerously rice/pasta/bread/potato/cereal heavy.

Even the meat we eat - commercially raised chicken/pork/beef (and farmed fish) is much lower in omega 6 because we raise meat on grain vs grass/algae.

By the time you're an adult, you've spent decades giving your bodies food that doesn't belong. The biggest gift I can give my children is a childhood/youth of clean food and an appetite for it. Their grandparents have nothing to loose from their trash diets as the damage has already been done.

 

[bunnspecial]

I think it's generally agreed that diabetes became more prevalent around the same time as refined sugar became more common. I a

And again correlation does not equal causation.

I've seen some research that's beginning to tease out causes of diabetes, but unless I'm wrong nothing beyond careful, nuanced statements under controlled conditions has actually been established. Those conclusions MAY be generalizable to larger society, but I'm not aware of the work having been done.

Yes, the correlation is there. Society itself and the factors I cited above have also changed a lot in the last ~50 years(or more). In my reading of literature and my understanding of the current body of knowledge are WAY too many variables at play in the discussion to draw a conclusions about causal relationships between the two just from looking at society-wide correlational data.

This is why I asked the specific question I did to one particular poster.

And comments like this are why I usually avoid trying to discuss ACTUAL science on here. The lack of scientific literacy in our society at large is alarming, and it leads to ignorant statements like the below that actually have no relationship to the discussion at hand.

Random Human: did you know beating your leg with a 2x4 will eventually cause it to fall off?

Average Human: <while beating himself with a 2x4>... got any peer reviewed papers for that bro?

 

[Pablo]

And again correlation does not equal causation.

I've seen some research that's beginning to tease out causes of diabetes, but unless I'm wrong nothing beyond careful, nuanced statements under controlled conditions has actually been established. Those conclusions MAY be generalizable to larger society, but I'm not aware of the work having been done.

Yes, the correlation is there. Society itself and the factors I cited above have also changed a lot in the last ~50 years(or more). In my reading of literature and my understanding of the current body of knowledge are WAY too many variables at play in the discussion to draw a conclusions about causal relationships between the two just from looking at society-wide correlational data.

It really is - the data points to - multiple causes.

Do we know what causes obesity?

Pretty sure you can find papers on that.

So look for a few more papers and then this:

https://health.stonybrookmedicine.edu/the-link-between-obesity-and-diabetes/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12282511/

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/diabetes/diabetesatlas-statsreport.html

 

[hemioiler]

And comments like this are why I usually avoid trying to discuss ACTUAL science on here. The lack of scientific literacy in our society at large is alarming, and it leads to ignorant statements like the below that actually have no relationship to the discussion at hand.

No, I have a degree in STEM and spend my days problem solving. It's not about ignorance, its about some people who put abstract science on a pedestal and think that A) nothing can be useful/proven without the most rigourous of testing, B) that society is perfect and will never get science wrong or twist studies for a pre-defined outcome.

Many papers/studies related to our health have been fabricated/pushed by bad actors and are simply not true; think only of the studies that showed fat was bad for us and we need to go low fat.

 

[Donald]

So for me at age 72 and knowing I have several risk factors for a heart attack and/or stroke I need to take the best path forward to reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke. And from my readings of books by cardiologists and preventative medicine doctors the best things for me are to get below the prediabetes level, loose weight and exercise more.

Eating less carbs in general and specifically less refined carbs including added sugar seems the best way to loose weight and get below prediabetes.

Now thats what's best for me, my set of genes and the knowledge I have gained from doctors and reading books. Others will obviously be different. Different age, genes, etc.

I don't have the time to wait for studies to be conducted. And peer reviewed.

Lots of studies are mentioned in the books I am reading. Do the authors cherry pick the studies that agree with the direction they are writing about? Maybe.

And not sure there is full agreement among doctors about metabolic health. Maybe I try and seek out doctors who agree with my thinking rather than find the most knowledgeable doctor and go with what they say.

One thing I have conclude is that even at the prediabetes level there is some damage being done. One needs to get below prediabetes level. But by what measure? A1C? An A1C blood test is only valid if you turn over red blood cells at the average rate. If you turn over red blood cells faster or slower then the A1C is not accurate for you. The OGTT is more accurate but it takes time (2 hours) for you to sit at the testing site reading. You can do it at home if you have the right things (75 gram package of glucose and a finger stick meter).

 

[Al]

So for me at age 72 and knowing I have several risk factors for a heart attack and/or stroke I need to take the best path forward to reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke. And from my readings of books by cardiologists and preventative medicine doctors the best things for me are to get below the prediabetes level, loose weight and exercise more.

I have always exercised, weigh 140 pounds and try to heat healthy. Couple of months ago I seriously reduced the amount of carbs and A1c went from 5.7 to 5.4. In the last month I have started a mini fast each day no food after 6PM nor before 9AM. I feel and sleep better. I will expect my blood sugar to drop even further. I would guess for an 80 year old I am in the top couple % in terms of fitness.

Like anything else..no pain no gain. Been taking BP meds for many decades and also do statins. Normal resting BP is 115/70. I only do 5 mg of lisinopril and no diuretic.

 

[johnmyster]

And again correlation does not equal causation.

A pre-diabetic can go on a carb restricted diet and change their markers. But that's only correlation, not causation. I guess.

One can hem and haw about population data all you want, but if it creates the desired change for a person then it's valid. But I guess that's cherry picking and anecdotal. I guess.

Things can be true and helpful without an eight round triple blind peer reviewed study.

 

[Pablo]

A pre-diabetic can go on a carb restricted diet and change their markers. But that's only correlation, not causation. I guess.

One can hem and haw about population data all you want, but if it creates the desired change for a person then it's valid. But I guess that's cherry picking and anecdotal. I guess.

Things can be true and helpful without an eight round triple blind peer reviewed study.

I provided somewhat of a flimsy response and so far = crickets. Interesting!