

Reverse Engineering the Human Diet - falsestprophet
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

======
Shooter
One of my first successful start-ups was software that helps make sense of the
35,000+ medical studies that are published each year. (The software helps find
design flaws, does cohort analysis, helps summarize results, etc.) During that
experience, I became very interested in nutrition research as a hobby. I
basically learned that things I grew up eating were unbelievably bad for me.
(I grew up drinking milk, eating meals centered around meat, with lots of
refined, fried and sugary ingredients. Good old Southern cooking and Standard
American Diet.) I also learned that much of what we are taught ("Milk for
strong bones") is complete bullshit when you actually read the studies. Milk
is really for osteoporosis and breast cancer.

We sold that company, and I stopped seriously reading on the subject.
Recently, illnesses in my family (cancer and autoimmune diseases) have caused
me to get into the subject again to an even greater degree. I've also
experimented with my own diet for the last several years and I've arrived at a
very different conclusion than this fellow.

There are tons of people that have an almost religious agenda about pushing
specific diets. They are usually well-intentioned...they just really want to
believe they are right. They publish pseudo-scientific articles like this one
that have just enough logic in them to seduce people into believing them. The
media is also horrible about publishing sensational (but poorly analyzed)
nutrition research. They flip-flop their headlines so much ("Coffee Can Cure
X", then "Coffee Causes X Cancer") that people finally just give up on trying
to understand nutrition and they just continue eating the crap that they have
always eaten. Which is amazingly sad, because proper nutrition is really the
best medicine on earth.

I LOOOOOOOVE steak and ice cream, but a vegetarian/vegan diet has been shown
in almost every study to be a more healthful diet in every respect. And the
studies that fail to show that are usually flawed and/or underwritten by
industry trade groups. There is no "perfect diet" for everyone...there will
always be corner cases. Some people with specific genetic predispositions
SHOULD avoid grains altogether. Apart from gluten sensitivity, there is the
issue of molecular mimicry and genetic autoimmune issues, etc.

Modern people are dying of heart disease, cancer and strokes, though. Those
illnesses are linked to higher consumption of meat (Paleo-coronary, anyone?),
dairy, sugar, cooking oil, and refined foods. We are NOT dying of starvation,
hypothermia, or tooth loss - which were probably some of the more pressing
concerns in the paleolithic era. We are also living 2-4 times longer than our
ancestors, on average, so we have entirely different concerns.

This is really a fascinating area of research...I've noticed that tons of
computer hackers are also very interested in nutrition and body/diet hacks.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> a vegetarian/vegan diet has been shown in almost every study to be a more
> healthful diet in every respect

Vegetarians have a higher death rate than meat eaters of the same socio-
economic class at all ages.

Every study that looks at actual disease and death rates, and not assumed
correlates like cholesterol, has found health benefits from high animal fat
intake.

> heart disease, cancer and strokes, though. Those illnesses are linked to
> higher consumption of meat (Paleo-coronary, anyone?), dairy

Population studies show decreasing rates of heart disease and cancer with
increased dairy and meat consumption. Look at post-war Europe and Japan.

~~~
Shooter
Um...citations?

I'm curious if you got these ideas from a certain organization that was
started by a long-dead dentist? Your use of the phrase "assumed correlates
like cholesterol" made me wonder. I guess you discount the Framingham study
(or the few thousand follow-up studies that were published and peer-reviewed)
that DO show a strong correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart
disease?

I don't have time to post a few thousand citations that contradict your
viewpoint right now, so I'll just start by mentioning the Cornell China Study:

The Cornell China Study is considered the most comprehensive study of health
and nutrition ever conducted. It is a joint research program between Cornell,
Oxford, and the Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine. The data was from
twenty plus years of research in 65 Chinese counties. It is often cited
because of its size, scope, and the fact that there was such a wide range of
diet data represented (high meat consumption populations on down to
populations with little or no meat consumption, for example.) It found a
strong correlation between increasing meat consumption and increasing disease
and mortality. It is an interesting study. You should check it out.

American men eat a great deal more meat (10 to 20X in urban areas) than
Chinese men, on average. American men also die of heart disease at almost 17
times the rate of Chinese men. This trend holds true, in the aggregate, no
matter where or what time period you study. The countries with the highest
meat and dairy consumption have the highest rates of cancer, diabetes and
heart disease. Even in post-war Europe and Japan. Even accounting for genetic
differences.

I don't want to come off as a TOTAL pompous ass, so I'll only cite more
studies if you're actually interested or still want to argue with me. I spend
between 15 and 20 hours researching nutrition each week, so it is a pet peeve
of mine when I hear total BS passed off as truth. Like I said, proper
nutrition is the best medicine on earth...even though eating properly is NOT
necessarily simple, easy or fun. Wanting steaks and ice cream to be healthy
does not make them so.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Apparently you have a problem with the source, but this pretty well dismantles
the China study. <http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html>

Other major flaws are readily found through google.

Elsewhere it comes to light that Colin Campbell has ties to animal rights
activists, calling into question his motives.

~~~
Shooter
Yes, I have a problem with the source. I thought that might be your source
based on your phrasing and the fact that there are so few that criticize
Campbell's research.

I won't go out of my way to criticize the Weston A. Price Foundation, though.
People can make up their own minds. I just find it funny that you question
Campbell's motives, but not the motives of his critics.

Campbell has spent 50+ years as a scientist, largely funded by research grants
from the National Institute of Health, and has arrived at the conclusion that
diets low in animal products are healthier. Since a responsible nutrition
researcher is likely to share and promote news that he believes to be both
lifesaving and actionable, it is only natural that he would ally himself with
other physicians that have also come to the same conclusion (Physician's
Committee for Responsible Medicine) to spread that message. PCRM is a great
organization, in my opinion, and their membership is composed of some of the
leading physicians in the area of nutrition, including the physicians that are
the only ones to have successfully reversed advanced heart disease without
medication.

The Weston A. Price Foundation claims it is 'unbiased', in contrast to the
PCRM. That is bullshit. Follow the money to smell the bias. The Weston A.
Price Foundation's membership is largely composed of family farmers, including
ranchers and dairy farmers. Do you think they might be a bit biased on the
subject? You will notice that the foundation's homepage at
<http://www.westonaprice.org/> currently has logos from eight companies that
sponsor their conferences. What do we see? A meat company, a seafood company,
a supplement company, a publishing company, etc. Yep, no bias there.

By the way, the link you give is for a review of the book "The China Study" by
Campbell and his son, which is not the ACTUAL published China research study I
was citing. Only a chapter of that book is devoted to the China research
study. Campbell wrote a rebuttal to the review you cite, which is reproduced
at:

[http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.h...](http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm)

Masterjohn then wrote a rebuttal to that rebuttal...and then Campbell wrote a
response to that. It's all very tiring, actually, because anyone can just look
at the research studies in the aggregate and see who is right based on the
science.

------
SwellJoe
Citations needed. Otherwise this is the random ravings of a crank on the
Internet. (Which is fine...that's what the Internets are for, but I don't have
to listen to them.)

Sure, some of the suggestions are valid, but other assertions just aren't
backed by science.

~~~
vlad
He doesn't sound angry at all. I've read similar discussions. Most foods in
the supermarket are manufactured and flash-baked, not baked or picked. This
really works and you'll feel great. Avoiding grains, milk, and corn syrup
(found in sodas and juices, hot dogs, and other places you wouldn't think of)
as well as all manufactured foods is exactly the best way to go.

The problem is, this can get much more expensive. I'd love to be able to
follow that for sustained periods of time. On the other hand, everything you
eat that's not manufactured gives much more energy throughout the day. Who
cares how much 'heat' a food generates in calories? What matters is what kind
of energy you get from it.

~~~
wyday
> He doesn't sound angry at all.

Mellow people can be crazy too. Though, whether he's crazy or not, there isn't
a shred of evidence presented besides the picture of "tribal health" he
paints.

~~~
vlad
I don't think he meant this to be a scientific paper, otherwise, as a
physician, he could be liable for giving out medical advice. I can see how he
would make this message appear informal. A lot of writing by nutritionists
aimed at the general public is similarly informal and easy to understand.

I've read many stories and know that avoiding cereals, grains, and milk is a
good idea for weight loss and sugar management.

I was able to google some sources. Note that pesticides may also introduce
toxins. I'm with Steve Pavlina on trying things and seeing if they work. The
advice seems to be true.

<http://www.nourishingourchildren.org/parents/cereal.html>

Like he said in the article, he doesn't mean toxic in the unsafe sense. He
means toxic in terms of, it's not good for your body. He means it's not the
natural way every species on earth has consumed this food for thousands of
years.

~~~
paul
That link is interesting but I can't find any evidence that it's true. How can
I tell that he didn't just make up the story about cereal being bad? It seems
like any easy experiment to reproduce -- just buy a rat and a box of corn
flakes.

~~~
vlad
This article references both studies but includes sources.

<http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/dirty-secrets.html>

~~~
paul
She just says, "Let me tell you about two studies which were not published."

Where did she learn about these two studies? It doesn't say.

Let me tell you about an unpublished study where rats fed cornflakes were able
to live for 100 years...

~~~
vlad
I assume she was still referring to Paul Stitt's book:

"In his book Fighting the Food Giants, Paul Stitt has tells us that the
extrusion process used for these cereals destroys most of the nutrients in the
grains."

(three paragraphs later, the rat study)

"Let me tell you about two studies which were not published. The first was
described by Paul Stitt who wrote about an experiment conducted by a cereal
company in which four sets of rats were given special diets... "

Since the book and study described by Paul are about cereal, and both
paragraphs are near one another, I think the study is better described in that
book. And since the study is attributed to a cereal company, that explains why
it went unpublished.

------
paul
I've seen claims like this a lot: "There are races of people who are all slim,
who are stronger and faster than us. They all have straight teeth and perfect
eyesight. Arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke,
depression, schizophrenia and cancer are absolute rarities for them. These
people are the last 84 tribes of hunter-gatherers in the world."

Is that actually true though? It seems like the sort of thing that should be
easy to verify or disprove. Whether it's actually caused by diet would be
harder to prove, but if these people really are free of all those health
problems, that would be quite remarkable and should be studied more carefully.

~~~
Shooter
There is a really good book out right now called "Healthy at 100" by John
Robbins that speaks to this very subject. It looks at several cultures that
tend to have a larger % of HEALTHY centenarians, such as the Okinawans and
Hunzans. It looks at what they eat, how they live, etc. It is good because he
acknowledges the self-reporting errors in such studies ("Yeah, dude, I'm 110
years old!") and the impact of physical activity and social bonds on
longevity, etc.

John Robbins is biased (toward vegetarianism/veganism), but his bias is based
on sound principles (science, self-experience, environmental impact, ethics,
etc.) The book is not preachy or anything, though. His other books are also
really good. Especially if you're interested in the food industry, animal
cruelty, nutrition and disease, etc.

He's a very interesting guy. He walked away from the Baskin-Robbins fortune to
live a simpler and healthier life after his dad and uncle (Robbins and Baskin,
respectively) both died of heart disease from eating too much of their own
product. His one room, self-built cabin with second-hand furniture was
featured on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" and it became one of their
most requested shows, to everyone's surprise. He's a pretty inspiring guy.

------
zurla
is it true that some of these other cultures don't suffer from schizophrenia
and other illnesses like that?

~~~
asdflkj
It would be difficult to verify. Many cultures have great stigma associated
with mental illness, and their people will go to great lengths to conceal it
in their family. China is a prominent example.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
A lot of these primitivists extolling stone age culture tribes praise their
perfect health without mentioning the infanticide. Many (most?) stone-age
technology tribes kill unhealthy infants. They have a definition of life that
begins at age one. It would be impossible to isolate this effect from diet.

------
gojomo
See also Art Devany's writing, at
<[http://www.arthurdevany.com/evolutionary_fitness/>](http://www.arthurdevany.com/evolutionary_fitness/>).
He sometimes (but not always) refers in his blog entries to recent supporting
research for the 'paleolithic' diet ideal. There's a lot of similarity to
'low-carb' diets that have been popular.

An overview of DeVany's health outlook is in the essay,
<[http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/RevisedEssay.pdf...](http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/RevisedEssay.pdf>).
Interestingly, in DeVany's view, endurance running (as in a marathon) is a
very bad thing for long-term health.

