Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2007
The diminishing returns of healthy eating
|
|
Thread rating:  |
squash@peoriadesignweb.com - 14 Feb 2007 21:50 GMT I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy only end up living 10-20% longer lives? In other words an unhealthy person can consume 500% more fat, sugar, salt than a healthy eater, yet only reduce his life span by 10-20%?
This tells me there is a point of diminishing returns to healthy eating which we never hear discussed in the media.. Are there any good scientific studies on this I can read?
TheGist - 14 Feb 2007 21:54 GMT > I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy > only end up living 10-20% longer lives? In other words an unhealthy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eating which we never hear discussed in the media.. Are there any > good scientific studies on this I can read? Sounds more like philosophy than science to me... The same can be said of smoking and various other bad habits. Do you think people on their death bed from heart disease, say, wish they had a few more years to go or just shrug their shoulders and think wonderful thoughts about corn dogs and fried twinkies as they drift off to oblivion?
squash@peoriadesignweb.com - 14 Feb 2007 22:01 GMT > Sounds more like philosophy than science to me... I am an engineer and know that there is an exponential relationship between 'wear and tear' and life. A car owner who takes 30% better care can expect double the life out of his car.
Maybe humans are so highly evolved that they easily adapt to unhealthy eating diets. So eating extra healthy just marginally improves life span.
spamfree@spam.heaven - 15 Feb 2007 06:52 GMT >> Sounds more like philosophy than science to me... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >unhealthy eating diets. So eating extra healthy just marginally >improves life span. The problem is, all cars off an assembly line are identical. Humans are all very different. It's called biological variation. It's all in the genes. And of course, cars can't repair themselves when they wear. Humans can.
jack
TheGist - 14 Feb 2007 21:57 GMT > I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy > only end up living 10-20% longer lives? In other words an unhealthy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eating which we never hear discussed in the media.. Are there any > good scientific studies on this I can read? Another pithy thought I had... To paraphrase weight watchers(I believe) "No food tastes as good as being alive feels." :)
TC - 14 Feb 2007 22:13 GMT On Feb 14, 3:50 pm, squ...@peoriadesignweb.com wrote:
> I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy > only end up living 10-20% longer lives? In other words an unhealthy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eating which we never hear discussed in the media.. Are there any > good scientific studies on this I can read? The key is quality of life. My father in law suffers from a lifetime of eating crap. He is overweight, has problems with mobility, sleeping, chronic pain, depression, etc. He will probably fall within your 10-20% shorter lifespan. I would not want to experience his quality of life in his last 10 years.
I may only outlive him by 10-20% but I am certain that I will not suffer physically and mentally as he has and will.
TC
TC
squash@peoriadesignweb.com - 14 Feb 2007 22:16 GMT > On Feb 14, 3:50 pm, squ...@peoriadesignweb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I may only outlive him by 10-20% but I am certain that I will not > suffer physically and mentally as he has and will. That is a good point to consider..
spamfree@spam.heaven - 15 Feb 2007 06:47 GMT >On Feb 14, 3:50 pm, squ...@peoriadesignweb.com wrote: >> I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I may only outlive him by 10-20% but I am certain that I will not >suffer physically and mentally as he has and will. Man lived to 112 on sausage-and-waffles diet 'We often find it is in the genes rather than lifestyle,' says expert Updated: 10:31 a.m. ET Oct. 10, 2006 LOS ANGELES - George Johnson, considered California's oldest living person at 112 and the state's last surviving World War I veteran, had experts shaking their heads over his junk food diet. "He had terrible bad habits. He had a diet largely of sausages and waffles," Dr. L. Stephen Coles, founder of the Gerontology Research Group at the University of California, Los Angeles, said Friday. The 5-foot-7, 140-pound Johnson died of pneumonia Wednesday at his Richmond home in Northern California. "A lot of people think or imagine that your good habits and bad habits contribute to your longevity," Coles said. "But we often find it is in the genes rather than lifestyle." Johnson, who was blind and living alone until his 110th birthday when a caregiver began helping him, built the Richmond house by hand in 1935. He got around using a walker in recent years. Johnson was the only living Californian considered a "supercentenarian," a designation for those ages 110 or older, Coles said. His group is now in the process of validating a Los Angeles candidate who claims to be 112 years old. Coles participated in an autopsy Thursday that was designed to study Johnson's health. "All of his organs were extremely youthful. They could have been the organs of someone who was 50 or 60, not 112. Clearly his genes had some secrets," Coles said. 'A mysterious case' "Everything in his body that we looked at was clean as a whistle, except for his lungs with the pneumonia," Coles said. "He had no heart disease, he had no cancer, no diabetes and no Alzheimer's. "This is a mysterious case that someone could be so healthy from a pathology point of view and that there is no obvious cause of death." The family was in favor of an autopsy. Relatives said Johnson wanted them to allow it if it would help science. Born May 1, 1894, Johnson's father managed the Baltimore and Ohio Railway station in Philadelphia. Click for related content World's oldest person dies in Ecuador at 116
Johnson was working in 1917 as a mail sorter for the U.S. Post Office when he was drafted into the Army. The war ended a year later, and he never served in combat. Two years later, he and his wife moved to Northern California. "It was a great adventure in those days. We were young and wanted the experience," Johnson said in a March interview with the Contra Costa Times. The couple settled in Fresno and remained there until 1935, when they bought property in Richmond. They used lumber salvaged from dismantled buildings to build their house. During World War II, Johnson worked at the Kaiser shipyard in Richmond and later managed the heating plant at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland. He remained in good health and continued driving until he was 102, when his vision began to fail. Johnson's wife died in 1992 at the age of 92. The couple had no children. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jack
TC - 16 Feb 2007 15:18 GMT On Feb 15, 12:47 am, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
> >On Feb 14, 3:50 pm, squ...@peoriadesignweb.com wrote: > >> I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages would've clogged his arteries in no time flat. What is this another paradox? What shall we call it? The "Sausage Paradox"? Just happens to go with the French Paradox where a high fat diet shows up as better heart health for the population.
Animal fats rule!!!!!
TC
spamfree@spam.heaven - 17 Feb 2007 14:41 GMT >On Feb 15, 12:47 am, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
>Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages >would've clogged his arteries in no time flat. What is this another [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Animal fats rule!!!!! Whoosh, missed the point again.
You were against junk processed meat yesterday. Have you bought shares in a meat processor overnight?
And who knows what is put in sausages?
And the point is that clogged arteries are mostly genetic, a mechanism that you deny exists
AND What have you to say on all those carbs in the waffles?
You just don't get it.
jack
TC - 17 Feb 2007 16:47 GMT On Feb 17, 8:41 am, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 12:47 am, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote: > >Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And who knows what is put in sausages? Fresh sausages contain meat, fat ans spices.
> And the point is that clogged arteries are mostly genetic, a mechanism > that you deny exists Proof?
> AND What have you to say on all those carbs in the waffles? > > You just don't get it. > > jack The fat slows absorption of carbs. It is a bi-factorial concept. The amounts of carbs in combination with the amounts of fat results in varied post-priandal glyceamic effects. The same amounts of carbs with less fat in the meal will cause a spike the glyceamic response, while the same amounts of carbs with more fats in the meal will attenuate the glyceamic response. I've mentioned this effect several times in this ng. And a meal high in fat will satiate for longer while a meal low in fats will cause hunger and more eating in a shorter period of time.
High fat satiates and attenuates the glyceamic response. Low fat fails to satiate and cause a more pronounced glyceamic response.
This explains why you don't need a very large swing away from fats towards more carbs to get the massive spike in incidences of obesity and obesity related disease that we've experienced in the last 30 years. We eat about 10% lesss fat and about 12% mor carbs than we did in the 1970's.
I know you'll come up with some rhetorical theoretical advanced degree pinhead crap argument to explain this away, blaming genes or poor adherence to low fat diets, or some other mainstream bullshit argument. But thanks for giving me a chance to re-iterate my argument, which makes sense out of your attempts to confuse the issue, yet again.
You are a troll and an industry food cult shill and your argument is pure BULLSHIT.
TC
Leonardo - 25 Feb 2007 23:45 GMT On Feb 17, 9:41 am, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
> And the point is that clogged arteries are mostly genetic, a mechanism > that you deny exists AND .... It exists alright.
My wife eats a higher-fat diet, her blood pressure is 120/65 and her cholesterol is normal. I got off my normal diet for a while and have been eating more like her. Now my cholesterol level is elevated. The doctor said diet alone should bring it back to the normal range. So its back to my old way of eating for good, which would be described as a Mediterranean type diet, fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes and modest amounts of meat (mostly fish and seafood).
Enrico C - 22 Feb 2007 14:38 GMT > Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages > would've clogged his arteries in no time flat. And that the high-carb waffles, made with flour and served with maple syrup, would've caused diabetes...? ;-D
TC - 22 Feb 2007 21:23 GMT > > Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages > > would've clogged his arteries in no time flat. > > And that the high-carb waffles, made with flour and served with maple > syrup, would've caused diabetes...? ;-D I've always wondered....
If fatty foods clog arteries (ie. blood vessels).... would it not clog smaller blood vessels as well as the heart vessels? The heart vessels, being the largest blood vessels in the body, would they not be the last to clog? Kinda like a sieve, the larger holes would remain clear while the smaller ones clog up first.
Anybody got an answer ot this question?
TC
Jeff - 22 Feb 2007 23:03 GMT <...>
> I've always wondered.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > last to clog? Kinda like a sieve, the larger holes would remain clear > while the smaller ones clog up first. Actually, blood vessels in all areas of the body clog up. People who have heart disease often have problems with circulation in the legs, the brain (which is why people with heart disease have more strokes than those who don't), kidneys, e.tc.
While the aorta is the largest blood vessel, it is the coronary arteries which clog up. They are much smaller and only provide blood to the heart, not the whole body as the aorta does.
Excellent question, TC.
Jeff
> Anybody got an answer ot this question? > > TC TC - 26 Feb 2007 15:36 GMT > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Jeff What about veins and capillaries? They are much smaller than the coronary arteries? Should they not clog up way before the coronary arteries? Shouldn't people first show symptoms of these vessels clogging way before the larger coronary arteries show signs? For many, many people, the first sign of any problems at all with fat clogged vessels is angina, not leg or brain circulation. This seems obvious. The smaller vessels, ie. veins and capillaries should clog way before the larger arteries do. Especially the capillaries. Then the next logical step is that those areas with the greatest concemtration of capillaries should be the first obvious areas to show signs of cloggage. Like the lungs and the stomach.
The smaller the hole, the easier it should be to clog. Why are larger holes the first and sometimes the only one to clog?
TC
Z - 04 Mar 2007 23:23 GMT > What about veins and capillaries? They are much smaller than the > coronary arteries? Should they not clog up way before the coronary [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > TC Well, I'm no doctor, but the answer seems obvious to me.
Clogged blood vessels are primarily the result of (gradual) excessive buildup of cholesterol. Not the result of a huge blob of cholesterol getting stuck in a too-small vessel (as your msg seems to imply).
BUT, normally, cholesterol doesn't stick to the interior surface of healthy blood vessels. When the surface of a blood vessel is damaged, it tends to collect cholesterol. Smaller blood vessels like capillaries are more flexible than major arteries (simple material dynamics) and are less likely to experience flexion damage. (They can bend more without being damaged.)
On the other hand, larger vessels are less flexible. When you talk about vessels that are flexed constantly for years on end like coronary arteries, they are more likely than most to gradually accumulate micro- damage that allows the cholesterol to bind at those sites.
... Jolest
TC - 04 Mar 2007 23:48 GMT > In article <1172504166.866494.40...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, > tunder...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You're getting close. Very close. Cholesterol gathering at those locations are attempts at repairing damage from elevated blood glucose and dietary vitamin deficiencies. The deficiencies leads to the vessels walls becoming structural damaged and pitted. The cause is not cholesterol in the diet. It is nutritional deficencies.
TC
Pramesh Rutajit - 23 Feb 2007 00:13 GMT >> > Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages >> > would've clogged his arteries in no time flat. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > TC The Inuit Paradox How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are? http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-04/features/inuit-paradox/
 Signature Pramesh Rutajit - p2976221tongue@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply.
Szczepan Bialek - 23 Feb 2007 08:15 GMT >> > Interesting post. I would've thought that the high fat sausages >> > would've clogged his arteries in no time flat. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Anybody got an answer ot this question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Optimal_Diet
S*
Ron Peterson - 15 Feb 2007 16:16 GMT On Feb 14, 3:50 pm, squ...@peoriadesignweb.com wrote:
> I dont understand why people who eat relatively very healthy > only end up living 10-20% longer lives? In other words an unhealthy > person can consume 500% more fat, sugar, salt than a healthy eater, > yet only reduce his life span by 10-20%? Diets don't vary by very much in practice, so one wouldn't expect a big change in longevity.
There are many different aspects to aging, so we can't expect diet to affect them all. Accidents have little to do with diet.
Exercise is also important for longevity and general health.
> This tells me there is a point of diminishing returns to healthy > eating which we never hear discussed in the media.. Are there any > good scientific studies on this I can read? No. You will just need to read a variety of articles to get the appropriate understanding.
--
Ron
|
|
|