Trolling for Dr. Bruce, trolling for Dr. Bruce...

I did my homework and the answer is meat and veggies. No grains no sugar.

This.
My cholesterol was good before I started eating this way. After I started eating food high in saturated fat plus veggies and limited fruits and nuts my cholesterol got even better. It's very hard to eat more than 2000-2500 in fat and protein. Very easy to do with carbs. I like lifting weights. Vegetarian wouldn't work for me. And no I'm not going to eat soy. It has estrogen mimics.
 
Dude you can get a justification link for any lifestyle belief you want on the internet. Better you can probably find a forum that has embraced that lifestyle in an unhealthy cultish way(pilots anyone.) I'm glad meatless works for you, if it stops working try something else. Personally I believe in paleo/atkins whatever they are calling it this week, I just don't get cultish about it. If it is sugar, grain, or processed I avoid it to the greatest extent possible. We could find stories of sick vegans being cured by meat/low carb(and vice versa) but why bother? You aren't going to convince anyone especially Bruce, Bruce ain't home man.
Jack Lalane had it right 50 years ago when he said 'if it is man made don't eat it, if it tastes good spit it out.' Wonder how he felt about bacon.:D
 
Those who ate an American Heart Assocoation diet ate the same stuff, except for one difference, as those on a Mediterranean diet, but they fared so much worse an ethics committee stopped the Lyon study after two years. That one difference is a thing meat eaters and vegetarians eat in common, but not vegans on the Esselstyn diet. So, to achieve the Mediterranean result no matter which of the two diets you're on... you need to know what that one thing is, then don't eat it. Anyone on an Esselstyn diet oughtn't be tarred with the same brush as studies done on typical vegetarians and vegans.

Good one on the Obama paraphrase, btw. :D

dtuuri
And that "one thing" would be... ? :rolleyes:

(IIRC the main difference between the two diets was that the AHA diet was "balanced", the Med diet was rich in olive oil and nuts. Esselstyn criticized the study because it didn't compare the Med diet with a true low-fat diet.)
 
I wonder when I read these diet threads if some POAers have any kind of life?

Ever eat at a restaurant?

Ever eat at a friend or family members house?

Ever eat at a fast food place?

Ever read the labels on a can of vegetables, or tuna, or soup?

I try to eat a balanced healthy diet and be as reasonable as possible with food choices. Still having dessert once in a while is nice, so is a steak, or a piece of copper river salmon.

It just seems that these "diets" sure make life boring.
 
And that "one thing" would be... ? :rolleyes:
Eeow. I don't want to say because seeing how everything fits--all those omegas, EPA & DHAs, fatty acids, certain vitamins, enzymes, inflamation, etc., on those charts the good professor draws is the single best description I've ever seen. Even meat eaters could benefit from knowing exactly what is protecting them the most and what's not. I'd rather have an expert explain it than me. I will say that the main part of the story begins at the 19:00 min mark.

dtuuri
 
A science teacher lost 37 pounds in three months on an all-McDonald's diet by limiting himself to 2000 calories a day and walking 45 minutes a day. His meal selections were also planned to approximate the recommended daily amounts of protein, fat, etc. His blood work improved a lot, too.

http://screen.yahoo.com/science-teacher-gets-surprising-results-122737570.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmLI4i4m_5c

http://www.examiner.com/article/iow...s-37-pound-weight-loss-on-all-mcdonald-s-diet

"It's our choices that make us fat, not McDonald's."
 
Eeow. I don't want to say because seeing how everything fits--all those omegas, EPA & DHAs, fatty acids, certain vitamins, enzymes, inflamation, etc., on those charts the good professor draws is the single best description I've ever seen. Even meat eaters could benefit from knowing exactly what is protecting them the most and what's not. I'd rather have an expert explain it than me. I will say that the main part of the story begins at the 19:00 min mark.

dtuuri

Wow, talk about trying for a captive audience! :rolleyes:

I think you gave it away in post #40: sugar.
 
Eeow. I don't want to say because seeing how everything fits--all those omegas, EPA & DHAs, fatty acids, certain vitamins, enzymes, inflamation, etc., on those charts the good professor draws is the single best description I've ever seen. Even meat eaters could benefit from knowing exactly what is protecting them the most and what's not. I'd rather have an expert explain it than me. I will say that the main part of the story begins at the 19:00 min mark.

dtuuri
Yes I watched the whole thing. It was good. The two main takeaways as regards CAD mortality were: decrease saturated and omega-6 rich polyunsaturated fats, increase monounsaturated and omega-3 rich polyunsaturated fats, eat no trans fat; and keep your homocystine levels down, most importantly by adequate vitamin B-12 intake.

It just doesn't boil down to "one thing" that you shouldn't eat, other than trans fat, which wasn't the main difference between the Med diet and the AHA diet anyway.
 
It just doesn't boil down to "one thing" that you shouldn't eat, other than trans fat, which wasn't the main difference between the Med diet and the AHA diet anyway.
Your Cliff Notes are good, but of the six or seven items you mention I'm still standing by my statement that just one of them is the significant difference between the control group (American Heart Association Diet) and the Mediterranean group that lowered their risk of heart attack by 70%.

Of the two 'suspects' listed as possible explanations for the irony that vegetarians and vegans, despite their much lower cholesterol, didn't live any longer than meat eaters, homosysteine might--I say 'might' need to be ruled out. Since this video was made, several studies have shown no benefit from vitamin therapy to lower those levels in the blood. It's a medical riddle I'm sure a lot of folks are working to solve right now. But if lowering homosysteine, a known artery antagonist has no benefit--then it's the other suspect listed. The culprit has to be that 'one thing' not eaten by the Mediterraneans!

Dr. Esselstyn's diet, though, restricts even more than that and has been shown to have far better results than the Lyon Heart Study showed for Mediterraneans--about 40 times better.

It was good, wasn't it? I've watched it three times. :)

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
I love people who think you shouldn't eat grains...

The cultivation and consumption of grains is literally what permitted human beings to cease their nomadic existence, and spend time on things other than food gathering. Without grain cultivation, civilization would not exist in any form.
 
Of the two 'suspects' listed as possible explanations for the irony that vegetarians and vegans, despite their much lower cholesterol, didn't live any longer than meat eaters, homosysteine might--I say 'might' need to be ruled out. Since this video was made, several studies have shown no benefit from vitamin therapy to lower those levels in the blood. It's a medical riddle I'm sure a lot of folks are working to solve right now. But if lowering homosysteine, a known artery antagonist has no benefit--then it's the other suspect listed. The culprit has to be that 'one thing' not eaten by the Medeterraneans!
The only thing clearly not eaten by the Mediterranean diet group is trans fat. It's not clear to me though whether the other group ate trans fat -- it is, after all, listed by AHA as having a maximum daily intake of "zero", as the speaker said several times.

It's also not clear how much, if any, trans fat was consumed by the vegetarians and vegans in the cited studies. Perhaps some, but I don't think that was ever specifically mentioned as a factor in the no-better mortality of those two groups.

Dr. Esselstyn's diet, though, restricts even more than that and has been shown to have far better results than the Lyon Heart Study showed for Medeterraneans--about 40 times better.
Where has that been shown? Maybe I'm misremembering his comment, but Esselstyn's criticism of the study was that it didn't compare the Mediterranean diet to a "true low-fat" diet.

It was good, wasn't it? I've watched it three times. :)
Sure, but I don't expect to get another free 1:16 to just sit and watch it again until, say, March.
 
Last edited:
Veggies and no sugar is good... meat's loaded with cholesterol and transfats. When I cut out meat my cholesterol was cut nearly in half, LDL too. A statin drug lowered it even more. Without meat, though, I have to eat beans and lentils and to make sure all the essential amino acids are there--grains. Corn is a grain. I agree with 'minimizing' pastas, rice and breads and eating the whole grain versions.

dtuuri

What works for one person may not help another.

I could eliminate ALL red meats and my cholesterol would still be "too high." it is my understanding that your own body is the main source of your cholesterol - dietary intake of cholesterol can have little effect - some people absorb cholesterol more readily than others.
 
True. People got shorter and less healthy as well. Grains allow more marginal individuals to survive at a total cost to everyone's health. Those chaps paid for progress with their health no reason to keep on eating grains now.
I love people who think you shouldn't eat grains...

The cultivation and consumption of grains is literally what permitted human beings to cease their nomadic existence, and spend time on things other than food gathering. Without grain cultivation, civilization would not exist in any form.
 
As far as I'm concerned, based on countless hours of research, almost everybody has atherosclerosis in this country. It's only a matter of "to what degree?" Some cardiologists say all men over 65 should be treeated for it, symptoms or not, and women over 70.
dtuuri
The pharmaceutical companies love this line of thinking.
 
Eeow. I don't want to say because seeing how everything fits--all those omegas, EPA & DHAs, fatty acids, certain vitamins, enzymes, inflamation, etc., on those charts the good professor draws is the single best description I've ever seen. Even meat eaters could benefit from knowing exactly what is protecting them the most and what's not. I'd rather have an expert explain it than me. I will say that the main part of the story begins at the 19:00 min mark.

dtuuri

Protecting them from what?:dunno:
 
Do you one can't eat meat without becoming overweight loaded with cardiovascular issues?

First off, no. Meat has far more caloric density and far more trans-fat than even the least healthy thing I eat now.

When you reach my age we'll see how well you do. It's fine to act like an expert when you're in your twenties. Screw it, when I was in my twenties I could eat anything, it didn't matter. Things change after you hit forty, at least for most of us. Even with the meatless whole-grain diet I employ now and the regular exercise I have to utilize fairly strict portion control to keep from gaining weight.

That said, I or anyone else could probably do likewise on a diet loaded with sad animal flesh. Tighter portion control is all that's needed. Me, I like to eat.
 
The only thing clearly not eaten by the Mediterranean diet group is trans fat. It's not clear to me though whether the other group ate trans fat -- it is, after all, listed by AHA as having a maximum daily intake of "zero", as the speaker said several times.
It isn't trans fat, since both groups ate meat and according to the professor meat has trans fats. Also, it was the National Academy of Sciences that said zero is the upper limit for them, not the AHA during the Lyon study.
Dr. Esselstyn's diet, though, restricts even more than that and has been shown to have far better results than the Lyon Heart Study showed for Mediterraneans--about 40 times better.
Where has that been shown? Maybe I'm misremembering his comment, but Esselstyn's criticism of the study was that it didn't compare the Mediterranean diet to a "true low-fat" diet.
I think you are referring to Dr. T. Colin Campbell's comments below Dr. Esselstyn's letter, I believe to the NY Times: http://heartattackproof.com/spanish_study.htm
In that letter, Esselstyn is taking issue with the Spanish study that claimed to validate the Lyon study's (mediterranean diet's) benefits. He offers up his own published study of 18 severe cases of heart disease beginning in the 1980s for comparison and tantalizes us with a promise of his larger study to be published soon.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
That said, I or anyone else could probably do likewise on a diet loaded with sad animal flesh. Tighter portion control is all that's needed. Me, I like to eat.
You gave it away. Leaf eating is an emotional diet not a scientific one.
 
When you reach my age we'll see how well you do. It's fine to act like an expert when you're in your twenties. Screw it, when I was in my twenties I could eat anything, it didn't matter. Things change after you hit forty, at least for most of us. Even with the meatless whole-grain diet I employ now and the regular exercise I have to utilize fairly strict portion control to keep from gaining weight.
.

If you think breaking 40 was bad, wait til you pass 65 (even with strict portion control and expanded exercise) ....

:(
 
Sudden cardiac arrest. Certain things work to protect, others do damage. No matter what you eat it helps to know which is which.

dtuuri

Not a bad way to die, I'd prefer it to a degenerative neurological condition.
 
Not a bad way to die, I'd prefer it to a degenerative neurological condition.

Amen to that.

One of the people in my life that I admired for some time ended up with "Pick's Disease", related to Alzheimer's, but different. His life comprised of time as a TV reporter, then he moved into politics, becoming Mayor of Calgary, and later Premier of Alberta.

The disease manifested itself in aphasia...he could understand everything happening around him, but he could not speak or write. For someone whose whole life revolved around communicating ideas to others to be be locked up to the point where he knew what was happening, but could not participate in the discussion, must have been one of the purest forms of torture on this earth.

If my mind starts to go, I hope death takes me quickly, not in a lingering way.
 
When I reach into my mouth I feel a couple of pointy cuspids. When I look at a horse, I don't see the same kinds of teeth.

I wonder if nature is trying to tell us something?
 
First off, no. Meat has far more caloric density and far more trans-fat than even the least healthy thing I eat now.

When you reach my age we'll see how well you do. It's fine to act like an expert when you're in your twenties. Screw it, when I was in my twenties I could eat anything, it didn't matter. Things change after you hit forty, at least for most of us. Even with the meatless whole-grain diet I employ now and the regular exercise I have to utilize fairly strict portion control to keep from gaining weight.

That said, I or anyone else could probably do likewise on a diet loaded with sad animal flesh. Tighter portion control is all that's needed. Me, I like to eat.

True it has a lot of caloric density, but it fills you up quickly. If you were to eat a diet with a 50/50 ratio (not recommending,just easy math) based on a 2500 calorie diet that's about 300 grams of protein (10 chicken breasts) and 140grams of fat (just over 1 stick of butter). And don't know of trans fats in meat. I've also never looked at animal flesh as sad. It always make me extremely happy
 
When I reach into my mouth I feel a couple of pointy cuspids. When I look at a horse, I don't see the same kinds of teeth.

I wonder if nature is trying to tell us something?

There is also the fact that we don't digest cellulose, so for a human to be vegan is highly wasteful.
 
I'm inventing a completely new diet. It's called the "Don't eat stuff that Nonna (Italian for "Grandma") wouldn't have eaten" diet. That's the name of the diet and the main rule.

I've become persuaded that the worst thing thing you can eat is not defined by whether it walked, swam, flew, or waved in the breeze before it was food, but rather how much it was processed since before it was food. The more processing, the worse it is for you.

-Rich
 
First off, no. Meat has far more caloric density and far more trans-fat than even the least healthy thing I eat now.

When you reach my age we'll see how well you do. It's fine to act like an expert when you're in your twenties. Screw it, when I was in my twenties I could eat anything, it didn't matter. Things change after you hit forty, at least for most of us. Even with the meatless whole-grain diet I employ now and the regular exercise I have to utilize fairly strict portion control to keep from gaining weight.

That said, I or anyone else could probably do likewise on a diet loaded with sad animal flesh. Tighter portion control is all that's needed. Me, I like to eat.
I've certainly never been able to eat anything I want without gaining weight. I gain weight quickly when I do that. I'm pretty damn strict with my diet, certainly more strict then basically every forty year old I know.

Cut out all carbs except for the ones that come from vegetables, nuts, and limited fruit. Watch your net carb intake like a hawk and you can eat as much meat as you can stand without gaining any weight.
 
True it has a lot of caloric density, but it fills you up quickly. If you were to eat a diet with a 50/50 ratio (not recommending,just easy math) based on a 2500 calorie diet that's about 300 grams of protein (10 chicken breasts) and 140grams of fat (just over 1 stick of butter). And don't know of trans fats in meat. I've also never looked at animal flesh as sad. It always make me extremely happy

First, I meant to say "dead animal flesh" but the bloody spell check changed it to "sad" and the rest, as they say, is history. I suspect most meat animals are fairly sad given the conditions to which they are subjected. Most of us would be.

I can be just as "filled up" by far healthier foods that have lower caloric density and far fewer fat calories. Average adult human only needs about 50 grams of protein per day, easily attainable from vegetable sources. Kids do need a little more, though I've seen kids grow big and tall out of vegetarian households.

Sorry, I come from a family of fat and fairly sick people. A diet devoid of meat or fowl has been a part of my solution to avoid the fate dictated by my genes. That it has mostly worked for the last 20 years or so would suggest I am on the right track. Your results of course may vary. You can achieve good health with many different diets, the human digestive system is quite malleable.
 
It isn't trans fat, since both groups ate meat and according to the professor meat has trans fats. Also, it was the National Academy of Sciences that said zero is the upper limit for them, not the AHA during the Lyon study.
I stand corrected on who gave the upper limit of zero. However I'd like to see a reference for meat having trans fats. I'm aware that meat is loaded with SATURATED fats -- but cis fats can be saturated too. I was under the impression that trans fats are a by-product of the hydrogenation process, and that naturally occurring fats are exclusively (or almost exclusively) cis.

I think you are referring to Dr. T. Colin Campbell's comments below Dr. Esselstyn's letter, I believe to the NY Times: http://heartattackproof.com/spanish_study.htm
In that letter, Esselstyn is taking issue with the Spanish study that claimed to validate the Lyon study's (mediterranean diet's) benefits. He offers up his own published study of 18 severe cases of heart disease beginning in the 1980s for comparison and tantalizes us with a promise of his larger study to be published soon.
And the 18 case study, what exactly does he compare? His diet versus Mediterranean diet? Or something else? (Also, it it clear that results on individuals with diagnosed, severe heart disease can be extrapolated directly to "normals"?)

Anyway, if there is still one single thing the control group ate that the Med diet group didn't, then I missed it. So what was it?
 
Last edited:
...You can achieve good health with many different diets, the human digestive system is quite malleable.

I think this is a point that many people overlook when arguing about diet.

I also have the feeling that genetic differences cause different diets to be better for different people, to some extent. What's your take on that?
 
Okay, I did some quick searching and see that I was wrong, and that fat from ruminants does have a small trans component, though nowhere near the amount in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Still, the Med diet group would have eaten little to no red meat, so I'm not sure you can rule out trans fat as "the culprit", if you're looking for a single culprit. Personally, I would bet it isn't any one BAD FOOD that no one should eat, but a combination of factors blocking the chain of events that leads to atherosclerotic plaque rupture and heart attacks.
 
I think this is a point that many people overlook when arguing about diet.

I also have the feeling that genetic differences cause different diets to be better for different people, to some extent. What's your take on that?

I am in compete agreement. Someone allergic to legume based protein would make a poor vegetarian, for example, as would a Celiac sufferer. I make a poor carnivore, as such calorie-laden foods promote weight gain, which in turn can promote cardiovascular disorders. At least diabetes doesn't run strongly in my family. Thank Odin for small favors.

I suppose I am verbose in favor of a vegetarian (or near vegetarian, which applies better to yours truly. I still put anchovies on my pizza) diet because it has preserved me better than practically anyone I know. Today I weigh 8 pound more than I did a quarter century ago. If you can say that and you're past 40, I'd say whatever you're doing is working for you. Keep doing it.
 
I am in compete agreement. Someone allergic to legume based protein would make a poor vegetarian, for example, as would a Celiac sufferer. I make a poor carnivore, as such calorie-laden foods promote weight gain, which in turn can promote cardiovascular disorders. At least diabetes doesn't run strongly in my family. Thank Odin for small favors.

I suppose I am verbose in favor of a vegetarian (or near vegetarian, which applies better to yours truly. I still put anchovies on my pizza) diet because it has preserved me better than practically anyone I know. Today I weigh 8 pound more than I did a quarter century ago. If you can say that and you're past 40, I'd say whatever you're doing is working for you. Keep doing it.

Poor anchovies. They're treated like vegetables. :nonod:

-Rich
 
Today I weigh 8 pound more than I did a quarter century ago. If you can say that and you're past 40, I'd say whatever you're doing is working for you. Keep doing it.

I turn 40 in May, and I didn't fill out until well after high school. The absolute closest I can get is within 50lbs and that's even with less than 10% body fat. At 15-18 I was probably around 130lbs 140lbs tops. That's nigh impossible on a 6'3" frame with a 44/46 jacket. I suppose I could amputate a leg or something.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top