Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The diminishing returns of healthy eating

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.