Best Video I've Seen Debunking The Inuit/Esikmo High Fat Eaters, And Mummmies Had Heart Disease Pre-

[Westside PUFAs]

If you're interested in health/nutrition but you're too dogmatic to have a discussion with someone who also shares your interest but happens to be vegan then this is not for you, aka in b4 "oh a vegan, screw him." But if you value evidence, then this lad provides many studies with the links in the decryption of the YT video. Don't resort to ad hominem. If you disagree, you must debunk the actual studies he references.

One particular study that stands out for me here is the one about mummies having heart disease. It is my current belief that PUFA cooking oils and their breakdown products are largely responsible for atherosclerotic buildup but this study really throws a monkey wrench in that idea because cooking oils weren't around back then.

If you don't want to watch the video, I provided most of his links below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU

"Where the Myth Started (1970's Study):"

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/28/9/958.full.pdf

"Study by team of Canadian and Danish Scientists:"

http://bit.ly/1Xjw3et

"Mummies around the world & atherosclerosis:"

http://bit.ly/1lMYReq

"Lower bone density in Inuit:"

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/27/9/916.full.pdf

"High mercury levels in Inuit:"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8871682

"High Cholesterol Despite Eating Traditional Diet Study:"

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/12/12/1371.full.pdf

"Canadian Inuit live 10 years less:"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208

"Greenland Inuit live 10 years less & fish oil statement:"

http://bit.ly/1IkD0zG

 

[Nicholas]

lad?

 

[James IV]

The issue I have with using traditional
Population studies as indicators of optimal diet composition, is that most of us are not living in an environment that is even close to the populations studied. The Okinawins were generally eating under 1200 calories a day, even the men. They were not atheletes, nor were they even close to the size of most modern humans. Heck, American high school kids these days are routinely hitting 6 feet or more by 18 years old.
That being said, I do believe that a higher carb, lower protein, lower fat diet, potentialy may be optimal for longevity. However, with the way most modern humans live, it's really hard to actually implement that type of diet,(especially if you are avoiding grains,) and consume sufficient calories to support a health metabolism in our high stress world.
Inveriably, fat and protein are going to have to be higher. It's dificukt to eat 3-4000 calories without significant amounts of fats, if you don't want to force feed yourself smoothies and pounds of potatoes.

 

[messtafarian]

Several viruses cause atherosclerosis by colonizing vascular epithelial cells, specifically all 30 variations of coxsackie virus. Several viruses also colonize heart muscle; toxins from the natural environment such as clostridia can absolutely destroy the nervous system and find their way to the heart.

The higher cholesterol in these people were probably actually helping them fight disease through hormonal adjustments.

But back to atherosclerosis ,-- every single named or identified virus, from herpes to epstein barr to coxsackie to polio to enterovirii and adenoverii have all been noted in literature to cause arterial disease by colonizing epithelial cells inside the vascular system. You can consider bacteria, toxins or virii all to be toxic insults which are capable of doing this.

It is a serious toxic insult, and whether a person will survive and manage it is really a question of host immunity. To RP, the real basics of host immunity are adequate protein, *protection from further insult(such as endotoxin)*, and hormonal regulation. That's the essential difference between sick and well. Eat beans or pumpkins or dolphin meat or whatever but the person in this video has not even approached any topic related to health.

 

[Strongbad]

post 112253 The issue I have with using traditional
Population studies as indicators of optimal diet composition, is that most of us are not living in an environment that is even close to the populations studied. The Okinawins were generally eating under 1200 calories a day, even the men. They were not atheletes, nor were they even close to the size of most modern humans. Heck, American high school kids these days are routinely hitting 6 feet or more by 18 years old.
That being said, I do believe that a higher carb, lower protein, lower fat diet, potentialy may be optimal for longevity. However, with the way most modern humans live, it's really hard to actually implement that type of diet,(especially if you are avoiding grains,) and consume sufficient calories to support a health metabolism in our high stress world.
Inveriably, fat and protein are going to have to be higher. It's dificukt to eat 3-4000 calories without significant amounts of fats, if you don't want to force feed yourself smoothies and pounds of potatoes.

That is true, but c'mon Petarians already don't conform to the masses ! We eat (OMG) tons of sugars, ice cream, fruits, gelatin, milk, yogurt, avoid PUFA, use coconut oil to cook stuff. Our diet is already considered "weird" by mainstream. I mean "no vegetable oil"? That's so weird So going low fat is not a problem, really. It's only one more "weirdness" to add into our already niche diet. Who give a damn, anyway? If we can say to our friends that we don't eat junk food like McDonald, we can certainly say that we eat certain things on certain time and certain way. It's about our health, not theirs.

Beside, chugging pounds of potatoes is not that bad. It's certainly much better than chugging gallons of orange juice back in my early Peating days. Ugh, now that was bad.

post 112259 Several viruses cause atherosclerosis by colonizing vascular epithelial cells, specifically all 30 variations of coxsackie virus. Several viruses also colonize heart muscle; toxins from the natural environment such as clostridia can absolutely destroy the nervous system and find their way to the heart.

The higher cholesterol in these people were probably actually helping them fight disease through hormonal adjustments.

But back to atherosclerosis ,-- every single named or identified virus, from herpes to epstein barr to coxsackie to polio to enterovirii and adenoverii have all been noted in literature to cause arterial disease by colonizing epithelial cells inside the vascular system. You can consider bacteria, toxins or virii all to be toxic insults which are capable of doing this.

It is a serious toxic insult, and whether a person will survive and manage it is really a question of host immunity. To RP, the real basics of host immunity are adequate protein, *protection from further insult(such as endotoxin)*, and hormonal regulation. That's the essential difference between sick and well. Eat beans or pumpkins or dolphin meat or whatever but the person in this video has not even approached any topic related to health.

FYI, there are food containing high cholesterol but very low fat, such as shrimps. Shrimps have very high cholesterol but miniscule fat content. You do not need high fat food to get enough cholesterol (to convert to pregnenolone and other hormones)

 

[tara]

post 112253 The Okinawins were generally eating under 1200 calories a day, even the men. They were not atheletes, nor were they even close to the size of most modern humans.

I haven't studied Okinawans at all But if they were eating little from birth, and therefore small in stature, that puts them in a very different situation than more generously fed youngsters turning to such a diet as a large adult. Being short seems to confer a health advantage of it's own.

 

[YuraCZ]

post 112253 The issue I have with using traditional
Population studies as indicators of optimal diet composition, is that most of us are not living in an environment that is even close to the populations studied. The Okinawins were generally eating under 1200 calories a day, even the men. They were not atheletes, nor were they even close to the size of most modern humans. Heck, American high school kids these days are routinely hitting 6 feet or more by 18 years old.
That being said, I do believe that a higher carb, lower protein, lower fat diet, potentialy may be optimal for longevity. However, with the way most modern humans live, it's really hard to actually implement that type of diet,(especially if you are avoiding grains,) and consume sufficient calories to support a health metabolism in our high stress world.
Inveriably, fat and protein are going to have to be higher. It's dificukt to eat 3-4000 calories without significant amounts of fats, if you don't want to force feed yourself smoothies and pounds of potatoes.

Exactly.. And I really don't have idea what westside tries to prove here all the time. People are so different from each other. Each person has different starting point etc.. You simply can't implement one macro ratio for people all over the world. It's just nonsense..

 

[Westside PUFAs]

The issue I have with using traditional
Population studies as indicators of optimal diet composition, is that most of us are not living in an environment that is even close to the populations studied. The Okinawins were generally eating under 1200 calories a day, even the men. They were not atheletes, nor were they even close to the size of most modern humans. Heck, American high school kids these days are routinely hitting 6 feet or more by 18 years old.
That being said, I do believe that a higher carb, lower protein, lower fat diet, potentialy may be optimal for longevity. However, with the way most modern humans live, it's really hard to actually implement that type of diet,(especially if you are avoiding grains,) and consume sufficient calories to support a health metabolism in our high stress world.
Inveriably, fat and protein are going to have to be higher. It's dificukt to eat 3-4000 calories without significant amounts of fats, if you don't want to force feed yourself smoothies and pounds of potatoes.

1200 calories? More like 1800: http://okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_diet_2 ... 4_434s.pdf

Also, it doesn't matter if we live in the same environment in this context as long as that environment is not toxic. We are genetically the same as the humans that were alive 200k years ago, our skeletons are the same, we're the same animal. The skeletons match. A group of Eskimos a flash of a second ago is nothing so special in a special environment. I personally don't eat 4kcal daily so I don't care about added fats to get more calories.

Like I said in my OP, actually try to debunk the studies he references. You didn't do that here. I'm looking for someone to show what's wrong with those studies, I don't see how talking about high-schoolers does that.

post 112278 Exactly.. And I really don't have idea what westside tries to prove here all the time. People are so different from each other. Each person has different starting point etc.. You simply can't implement one macro ratio for people all over the world. It's just nonsense..

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply researching in effort to avoid heart disease and colon cancer. But I disagree with your statement that people are so different from each other. I don't think we are. We all produce adrenaline, cortisol, serotonin. We all pee, poop, sleep, and sneeze. We all have the same number of organs (5 vital) and bones (206). We all need an amount of glucose in our blood at all times or else we die. The "we're all different" thing is just something people say to justify their own habits. Just because you or a group of people do one set planned thing doesn't mean that you or a group can only do that, it's just what you've done, it's nurture vs. nature.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Several viruses cause atherosclerosis by colonizing vascular epithelial cells, specifically all 30 variations of coxsackie virus. Several viruses also colonize heart muscle; toxins from the natural environment such as clostridia can absolutely destroy the nervous system and find their way to the heart.

The higher cholesterol in these people were probably actually helping them fight disease through hormonal adjustments.

But back to atherosclerosis ,-- every single named or identified virus, from herpes to epstein barr to coxsackie to polio to enterovirii and adenoverii have all been noted in literature to cause arterial disease by colonizing epithelial cells inside the vascular system. You can consider bacteria, toxins or virii all to be toxic insults which are capable of doing this.

It is a serious toxic insult, and whether a person will survive and manage it is really a question of host immunity. To RP, the real basics of host immunity are adequate protein, *protection from further insult(such as endotoxin)*, and hormonal regulation. That's the essential difference between sick and well. Eat beans or pumpkins or dolphin meat or whatever but the person in this video has not even approached any topic related to health.

Thanks. I never knew this. I'll look into it.

 

[haidut]

post 111294 If you're interested in health/nutrition but you're too dogmatic to have a discussion with someone who also shares your interest but happens to be vegan then this is not for you, aka in b4 "oh a vegan, screw him." But if you value evidence, then this lad provides many studies with the links in the decryption of the YT video. Don't resort to ad hominem. If you disagree, you must debunk the actual studies he references.

One particular study that stands out for me here is the one about mummies having heart disease. It is my current belief that PUFA cooking oils and their breakdown products are largely responsible for atherosclerotic buildup but this study really throws a monkey wrench in that idea because cooking oils weren't around back then.

If you don't want to watch the video, I provided most of his links below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU

"Where the Myth Started (1970's Study):"

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/28/9/958.full.pdf

"Study by team of Canadian and Danish Scientists:"

http://bit.ly/1Xjw3et

"Mummies around the world & atherosclerosis:"

http://bit.ly/1lMYReq

"Lower bone density in Inuit:"

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/27/9/916.full.pdf

"High mercury levels in Inuit:"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8871682

"High Cholesterol Despite Eating Traditional Diet Study:"

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/12/12/1371.full.pdf

"Canadian Inuit live 10 years less:"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208

"Greenland Inuit live 10 years less & fish oil statement:"

http://bit.ly/1IkD0zG

Not meant to throw a counter money-wrench but it looks like ancient Egyptians did consume PUFA in their diet. Forgive me for quoting Wikipedia but the other references I found are usually from expensive anthropology books that Google Books does not allow me to copy from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_cuisine
"...There was even a hieroglyph (nedjem/bener) depicting a carob pod that bore the primary meaning of "sweet; pleasant." Oils would be made from lettuce or radish seed, safflower, ben, balanites and sesame."

And this certainly does not help either:
"...The cuisine of ancient Egypt covers a span of over three thousand years, but still retained many consistent traits until well into Greco-Roman times. The staples of both poor and wealthy Egyptians were bread and beer, often accompanied by green-shooted onions, other vegetables, and to a lesser extent meat, game and fish."

So they ate PUFA and starch and irrigated the meal with plenty of one of the most estrogenic substances produced by men - beer.

 

[YuraCZ]

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply researching in effort to avoid heart disease and colon cancer. But I disagree with your statement that people are so different from each other. I don't think we are. We all produce adrenaline, cortisol, serotonin. We all pee, poop, sleep, and sneeze. We all have the same number of organs (5 vital) and bones (206). We all need an amount of glucose in our blood at all times or else we die. The "we're all different" thing is just something people say to justify their own habits. Just because you or a group of people do one set planned thing doesn't mean that you or a group can only do that, it's just what you've done, it's nurture vs. nature.

I agree that inuit-eskimo diet is not optimal, but that doesn't mean that meat or fat is bad. For people in general is ideal have some vegetables (vitamins, minerals and fiber from them). You just have this black and white mentality that fat is bad, meat is bad and only low fat plant based diet is good. But it is not that simple..

 

[Strongbad]

It really depends on the context. If a person has relatively healthy metabolism, it wouldn't hurt to have higher amount of saturated fat in his/her diet.

Most of us here, though are hypothyroid with lots of PUFA in us so going low-fat is the best way to deplete it out of our system. Unless you're down with the 4-years PUFA depletion period, which may or may not be longer depending on how much PUFA you have in your body and how often you cheat on the diet during that 4-years period.

Again, if people are healthy and have great metabolism, they won't even be here hanging around in this forum.

Even Ray Peat is going low-fat, kinda Okinawan-ish: https://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6370

post 76000On the other hand, the study shows that the saturated fats are stable - they do not cause growth but do get stored as fuel. Hence, Peat's recommendation to limit the amount of fat you consume if you want to lose weight. He is not pro-fat (saturated), he is pro-carb (especially fructose). He does say that some fat is necessary for proper absorption and you have to consume fat you better consume saturated fat to avoid the hormonal (estrogenic) effects of PUFA. Peat himself has said that he tries to limit fat consumption to no more than 10% of daily calories.

Another great thread started by haidut: PUFA depletion can (probably) be accomplished in 30 days! (Not exactly 30 days, though. It's definitely much longer than that, at least in my case)

 

[DaveFoster]

post 112253 The issue I have with using traditional
Population studies as indicators of optimal diet composition, is that most of us are not living in an environment that is even close to the populations studied. The Okinawins were generally eating under 1200 calories a day, even the men. They were not atheletes, nor were they even close to the size of most modern humans. Heck, American high school kids these days are routinely hitting 6 feet or more by 18 years old.
That being said, I do believe that a higher carb, lower protein, lower fat diet, potentialy may be optimal for longevity. However, with the way most modern humans live, it's really hard to actually implement that type of diet,(especially if you are avoiding grains,) and consume sufficient calories to support a health metabolism in our high stress world.
Inveriably, fat and protein are going to have to be higher. It's dificukt to eat 3-4000 calories without significant amounts of fats, if you don't want to force feed yourself smoothies and pounds of potatoes.

Under 1200 is a bit of an exaggeration, but in the context of macronutrient ratios, the calories from protein and fat should remain relatively constant as calories increase, with carbohydrates providing the majority of the surplus energy. Thus, a 10% fat and 10% protein consumption on a 6000 calorie diet would equal 30% fat and 30% protein on an 1800 calorie diet, so saying low-protein and low-fat is ideal in the context of a high metabolic rate tends to mislead people.

Ideal protein consumption for protein synthesis in muscle tissue lies somewhere between .63 and .82 g protein per lb of lean body mass. Ideal fat consumption lies somewhere between .5 and .8 grams per lb of lean body mass. Ideal calorie consumption exists as the most debatable subject, but I'm convinced it's somewhere between 4000 and 10000 calories depending on activity level.

 

[YuraCZ]

Another "common sense" guy without dogmatism. Much better look at things than just "high carb or low fat" sheep..

[bbvideo=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKvyMFXkmbo[/bbvideo]

 

[YuraCZ]

[bbvideo=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_E3iMrq-UA[/bbvideo]

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 112447 Another "common sense" guy without dogmatism. Much better look at things than just "high carb or low fat" sheep..

Sigh.

Dude, I didn't want to turn this into a fat/meat/vegan debate. By posting that, you are diverting the conversation elsewhere. I wanted to discuss the studies the guy talks about in the OP.

But since you've brought it up, I guess I'll retort.

""common sense guy without dogmatism" you say? I don't think so.

Your first video is Paul Chek. I'm sure Paul Chek is a cool guy and stuff but I don't take anything he has to say about nutrition seriously. I've heard podcasts with him, the Underground Wellness podcasts, where Paul talks about magic woo-woo wands or something, and he was serious. He occasionally has some good things to say about how westerners should adopt some aspects from the east, as in Ying/Yang old Chinese stuff but that's about it. Rob Turner and Josh Rubin are just two examples of people who did some of the Chek programs but later found Peat's work to be much more compelling. In fact, so many former Paul Chek "students" became "Peatarians" that Paul was forced to respond:

"Why are many Practitioners prescribing Ray Peat's Approach and others when such advice seems to go against what C.H.E.K stands for?"

http://chekinstitute.com/Trained_Professional/

I'm not bashing Paul. I just don't look to him for nutrition. He sounds like a cool fun guy to hang out with though.

The second video you posted is a guy named David Getoff. He is on staff at Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, the sister of The Weston A. Price Foundation. I met him in person in 2011. I took his class "Attaining Optimal Health in the 21st Century," which was an 8 week class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcrgNrzaYpo

He's a nice guy but when it comes to nutrition, he says some crazy things. From his website:

"1 piece raw, fresh fruit per day if desired and after a meal. Portion size equal to an apple (Apple or berries)"

http://www.naturopath4you.com/21DayDiet.htm

"Just one now, you hear, just one fruit!!! You wouldn't want too much sugar ya know!!!"

He says:

"Avoid Completely:

Potatoes or potato products, breads, rice, pastas, cereals, crackers, i.e. ALL grains, all beans, and potatoes or any product made from or with these."

http://www.naturopath4you.com/21DayDiet.htm

I strongly disagree.

The class was fun and all but looking back it was strange how many supplements David was pushing, as in literally selling to the class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF-6O3wWWLg

But David has a special place in my memory because when I took his class, it was right around the time I was getting into Peat. In fact, shortly after the last week of the class, I called him to ask him what he thought about Ray Peat. He basically said "he's a quack." I asked him about cod liver oil and Peat's view on EFA's. David is really big on the CLO. He was just too brash about me asking him about Peat. He clearly didn't like Peat and I could tell from his response that others have been inquiring about Peat before, as if he had some kind of default response.

So you wanna talk about low carb or low fat sheep? Well you just posted a video by one big low carber, David, and as far I remember Paul Chek is also a low carber so...what's your point? They both greatly misunderstand carbohydrates from fruits and roots and they would think you are absolutely crazy if you ever used cane sugar. But as I said about Chek, I think David is a cool guy and it was fun to take his class and I like his fellow East Coast attitude that I share with him and our interest in nutrition. I just think they miss the boat on fruits, roots and sugar (and squash and some grains).

If you wanna debate about being 100% vegan etc., that is a whole other topic. Though I largely agree with vegans on topics such as animals for entertainment like Sea World etc., mainly because I feel like a goofy redneck if I were there like "Oh wow, luk at da whale, ahh my gad..hahaha" - said in stupid person voice, and I don't care to wear leather and fur, though I agree with them on that I'll probably always have a bit of cheese or quality meat, but not too much.

You're a bodybuilder right? Or were at one point? I remember that picture of yourself you posted. Well if you're into bodybuilding you must like Arnold on some level and you should know that Arnold had heart disease:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... river.html

Like I said, I'll probably never be 100% vegan in the dietary sense but the more research I do, the more open I am to eating more plant foods and less meat, cheese, and even eggs. Don't take that out of context. I didn't say never eat them, I just said eat less.

But nonetheless, you've inspired me to think about a vegan diet though a Peat perspective. I'll do a post on that soon.

 

[YuraCZ]

Westside and who claims here that inuit-eskimo diet is healthy? I think nobody.. It is extreme diet in extreme environment. Is it ideal diet? No.. But that doesn't mean that fat or meat is bad lol.. Btw I don't have idea who is the guy with the grey beard. I just like this specific video, that's it. I respect guys like Dr.Mcdougall, because he doing way more than ordinary Dr.. But I hear so many nonsense from him and I think it's because he see things black and white...

 

[James IV]

I apologize for my 1200 calories typo, that was supposed to say 1700. I'm not sure how I flubbed that one. Anyway, either one of those would leave me feeling like crud.

Honestly, I am not trying to debunk anything. I'm simply saying that health is definitely a matter of food, but our environment (internal and external) will change our dietary needs. Would the Inuit thrive on a okinawan style diet? I don't know. And it's fairly irrelevant to my own health. I tried a low fat (less than %10 of calories) for some time and my health became worse. At the time I could not handle starches because of my poor metabolism, so I was drinking tons of juice. When I gave up and added back in saturated fats, I my health improved quickly and after a month or so I was able to eat potatoes with no issues. Eventually I was able to eat other starches like rice and pasta, and had no issues. Now, since I can eat a lot more starch, it's easier for me to get digest sufficient calories, and I am slowly dropping down my fats, and still improving.
My point is that what may be "healthy" for a person may change depending on their current state of health. And saying a particular macronutrient ratio is best for everyone, may hinder people path to long term good health.
Dr Peat may be doing a very low fat diet now, but he did a very high fat (%50 of calories) diet for a while, and apparently has lowered it more and more as time progressed. Is this simply a result of research, or was it a result of responding to his bodys feedback. I don't know because I have not asked, but with my understanding of Dr Peats mind, I'd imagine it's the latter.

 

[EIRE24]

post 112522 I apologize for my 1200 calories typo, that was supposed to say 1700. I'm not sure how I flubbed that one. Anyway, either one of those would leave me feeling like crud.

Honestly, I am not trying to debunk anything. I'm simply saying that health is definitely a matter of food, but our environment (internal and external) will change our dietary needs. Would the Inuit thrive on a okinawan style diet? I don't know. And it's fairly irrelevant to my own health. I tried a low fat (less than %10 of calories) for some time and my health became worse. At the time I could not handle starches because of my poor metabolism, so I was drinking tons of juice. When I gave up and added back in saturated fats, I my health improved quickly and after a month or so I was able to eat potatoes with no issues. Eventually I was able to eat other starches like rice and pasta, and had no issues. Now, since I can eat a lot more starch, it's easier for me to get digest sufficient calories, and I am slowly dropping down my fats, and still improving.
My point is that what may be "healthy" for a person may change depending on their current state of health. And saying a particular macronutrient ratio is best for everyone, may hinder people path to long term good health.
Dr Peat may be doing a very low fat diet now, but he did a very high fat (%50 of calories) diet for a while, and apparently has lowered it more and more as time progressed. Is this simply a result of research, or was it a result of responding to his bodys feedback. I don't know because I have not asked, but with my understanding of Dr Peats mind, I'd imagine it's the latter.

James,

What symptoms did you get that your body was not able to handle starches very well? And when you re introduced saturated fat what kind of source was it from? I find that interesting how it improved your ability to handle starches.

 

[tara]

post 112522 My point is that what may be "healthy" for a person may change depending on their current state of health. And saying a particular macronutrient ratio is best for everyone, may hinder people path to long term good health.

:1