jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I weigh less than I did in high school, by a solid 20 to 30 lbs. I had no idea how the hell to eat right and didn't really care. Grew up around a lot of really unhealthy habits with godawful food.
Trolling for Dr. Bruce, trolling for Dr. Bruce...
- Thread starter dtuuri
- Start date
I weigh less than I did in high school, by a solid 20 to 30 lbs. I had no idea how the hell to eat right and didn't really care. Grew up around a lot of really unhealthy habits with godawful food.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Again, until you hit 40 all bets are off. I have friends who ,despite advanced age, can eat just about anything and never gain and ounce. I hate their guts. Most of us will pick up weight if we aren't careful. That's where a good diet and regular exercise can help.
No one lives forever. But you can live substantially longer with a healthy lifestyle. Not to say one guarantees you of anything. You are just playing the odds.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
So, I'm pretty much 40. How am I supposed to get back down to 130lbs?
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Why would you want to?
dtuuri
Final Approach
His published study as described in his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease makes no comparisons although he does devote two pages to describing the Lyon Diet Heart Study. One year ago a Spanish study investigated a Mediterranean diet with added nuts and oils: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200303?query=OF
on which he commented in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/h...-disease-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 .
To see a preview of his upcoming expanded study, which he does compare to the Lyon Diet Study, see the minutes immediately before :58 here (same one I pointed Henning to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6pLRdawBw0&feature=player_embedded#t=3461
You had it in your list. Look in the :38 minute frame: Omega-6 polyunsaturated oils.
dtuuri
steingar
Taxi to Parking
No, I said that I was 8 lbs heavier than I was a quarter century ago and was somewhat satisfied (I liked it better when I was 5 lbs heavier than a quarter century ago, but I digress). Of course, everyone is different. I was comparing my weight now to that in graduate school, when I had done all the adult "filling out" I was ever likely to do. I'm probably 20 lbs heavier than when I was in high school, but I was a skinny little kid in high school.
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,944
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
I was 6'2" and weighed 140 when I got married. That was right after 6 weeks of Army ROTC summer camp. "Ballooned" to about 150 after I got married (my wife said she would put weight on me, my mother laughed). Got up to about 170 or so and stayed there for years. Then something happened and I gained more weight. Running just short of 220 these days. Would I like to drop 40-50 pounds? Sure would. Get back to my high school weight (128 pounds)? No way will that happen. Not unless I get some disease that causes me to waste away. High school was many decades ago. I think I saw something on Facebook that suggested that the reason it's harder to lose weight when you get older is that your body and your fat have become such good friends. 
dtuuri
Final Approach
If he had done that I bet, after driving across town to listen, the room full of vegetarians he was preaching to would have instantly converted to flesh-eaters--his!
I suppose for guys like you I could have said the 'meat' of the presentation is within the second twenty minutes.
Sorry.
dtuuri
Lawreston
En-Route
And you'll certainly never encounter an affliction of "flabitis." However, phlebitis, if in your genes, could be a problem.
HR
Lawreston
En-Route
Probably the only one on this board who can confirm my following observation is Ghery, who has witnessed that I'm a short guy, at 5'6" or so and not overweight. You name it, I'll eat it; was born to eat. Since a Junior in high school(1960-1961) I've been at 136-138 lbs. I've seen a few pounds added after some fabulous soiree but the extras will be gone in a couple days. Last Saturday I attended the blood drive at Lewiston-Auburn Harley Davidson to share some of my rare B- type blood(and to attend the Chili Cook-off). Man, the questions one has to answer these days just to donate blood. Very personal stuff! So, as usual, they took my blood pressure: 117/70. And at 70 years old(January 06) I've qualified for the Seniors Season Pass at Saddleback Ski Area. Those 13 varieties of chili I sampled were really good. The last guy said, "Mine is the hottest." He was right. There was already a lingering tang in the back of my throat. His concoction caused a slow burn, all the way down. Food? Bring it on!I was 6'2" and weighed 140 when I got married. That was right after 6 weeks of Army ROTC summer camp. "Ballooned" to about 150 after I got married (my wife said she would put weight on me, my mother laughed). Got up to about 170 or so and stayed there for years. Then something happened and I gained more weight. Running just short of 220 these days. Would I like to drop 40-50 pounds? Sure would. Get back to my high school weight (128 pounds)? No way will that happen. Not unless I get some disease that causes me to waste away. High school was many decades ago. I think I saw something on Facebook that suggested that the reason it's harder to lose weight when you get older is that your body and your fat have become such good friends.
I was one of the last ones out; some drool and negotiation times had been in effect.
HR
Attachments
Last edited:
Another vegan kook who thinks he can beat death.
Hey, it worked for Steve Jobs, right?
dtuuri
Final Approach
Ok, getting back on track now...
I didn't start this thread to find out or to change what anybody eats. What you eat doesn't affect me, but what you believe can hinder my ability to apply for a medical again. Your ability too, dear reader, if you wind up like me--and I think the odds are you will.
Most of the meat eaters posting their ages here are running about 30 years behind me. When I was that age I ran four miles per day because while in the Air Force I believed in Dr. Cooper's advice (Cooper Clinic founder) re: aerobic exercise and official USAF doctrine. I also ate most of my lunches on the company dime at restaurants with salad bars, ate my veggies and had a salad with every dinner and I ate meat two or three times a day--the leanest kind of cuts and mostly chicken or fish. I was health-conscious and kept in mind the Flight Surgeon's advice at United Airlines, "Learn to eat meat as a condiment or not at all." While I respected it, I didn't fully abide by it because I was a little skeptical.
Down the road, no matter what you believe your diet should be now, you may wind up with a slight chest discomfort along your breast bone, say as you're mowing the lawn, like I did. Within hours of your appointment for a stress test, without even taking the arranged test, you may have a stent in your heart and some words in your record that would cause an antiquated FAA to likely deny your application for a medical--ending your ability (as in my case) to make a living.
Well, my health-conscious "Plan A" didn't work and yours might not either, so If and when it doesn't, if and when you survive the first symptoms of coronary artery disease (a very high percentage don't)--you will need a "Plan B" if you want to keep flying. That plan will have to be based on scientific evidence for the FAA to buy into it. Even if the science exists, in a widespread apathetic and skeptical atmosphere, the FAA won't be moved to change in your favor.
Dr. Bruce is a skeptic, but also probably my best avenue (and yours) as an advocate. The video in the OP gets to the root of that skepticism and shows why the Mediterranean (Lyon) diet lowered risk. The diet I've chosen, my "Plan B", is even 40 times better than that! It's an avenue you meat eaters will want to keep open as a hedge even if you believe you're on the right track today.
dtuuri
I didn't start this thread to find out or to change what anybody eats. What you eat doesn't affect me, but what you believe can hinder my ability to apply for a medical again. Your ability too, dear reader, if you wind up like me--and I think the odds are you will.
Most of the meat eaters posting their ages here are running about 30 years behind me. When I was that age I ran four miles per day because while in the Air Force I believed in Dr. Cooper's advice (Cooper Clinic founder) re: aerobic exercise and official USAF doctrine. I also ate most of my lunches on the company dime at restaurants with salad bars, ate my veggies and had a salad with every dinner and I ate meat two or three times a day--the leanest kind of cuts and mostly chicken or fish. I was health-conscious and kept in mind the Flight Surgeon's advice at United Airlines, "Learn to eat meat as a condiment or not at all." While I respected it, I didn't fully abide by it because I was a little skeptical.
Down the road, no matter what you believe your diet should be now, you may wind up with a slight chest discomfort along your breast bone, say as you're mowing the lawn, like I did. Within hours of your appointment for a stress test, without even taking the arranged test, you may have a stent in your heart and some words in your record that would cause an antiquated FAA to likely deny your application for a medical--ending your ability (as in my case) to make a living.
Well, my health-conscious "Plan A" didn't work and yours might not either, so If and when it doesn't, if and when you survive the first symptoms of coronary artery disease (a very high percentage don't)--you will need a "Plan B" if you want to keep flying. That plan will have to be based on scientific evidence for the FAA to buy into it. Even if the science exists, in a widespread apathetic and skeptical atmosphere, the FAA won't be moved to change in your favor.
Dr. Bruce is a skeptic, but also probably my best avenue (and yours) as an advocate. The video in the OP gets to the root of that skepticism and shows why the Mediterranean (Lyon) diet lowered risk. The diet I've chosen, my "Plan B", is even 40 times better than that! It's an avenue you meat eaters will want to keep open as a hedge even if you believe you're on the right track today.
dtuuri
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
No. Being a vegetarian for me is the equivalent of living the last 30 years of my life needing to wear diapers due to constantly ****ting myself, having to be pushed around in a wheelchair, and drooling because I've lost all motor control.
I may be alive, but I'm not living.
Stereoscopic vision, incisors, and canines tell me I'm supposed to eat the things that eat plants. You can keep your bean paste, tofu, and gruel. I'll continue gnoshing on a good steak, pan seared chicken, and many other things that used to have a face.
I may be alive, but I'm not living.
Stereoscopic vision, incisors, and canines tell me I'm supposed to eat the things that eat plants. You can keep your bean paste, tofu, and gruel. I'll continue gnoshing on a good steak, pan seared chicken, and many other things that used to have a face.
dtuuri
Final Approach
That's perfectly fine with me, just don't try to marginalize the science I need to get back in the cockpit. Smokers can smoke without denying the science, you can too.
dtuuri
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
There's enough studies out there that I can cherry pick anyone I want to say what agrees with my point of view. Sounds like you're the one marginalizing everyone else. Maybe some people aren't meant to be in the cockpit (anymore).
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,263
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
I may be totally out in left field, but this is my take on diet:
Imagine when God/Buddha/FSM/insertfavoritedietyhere first plunked man down on earth. There were no tools, no implements, no ovens, and no factories making Oreo cookies. What did man eat?
I'd wager he mostly ate what grew on the land. Once in a while he might catch an animal or fish to eat, but he mostly ate vegitation
That is how I manage my diet, mostly veg, with the occasional meat/fish. The meat is usually chicken, I rarely eat red meat anymore and steak just doesn't do it for me like it did a decade ago.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Why don't you list the studies that show disease reversal then? The only ones I know of are Ornish and Esselstyn's, which are vegan diet studies. You just want to do what you please without any guilt.
dtuuri
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Your science is no better then anyone else's science. Crap. Since you like science so much here is a link promoting the paleo lifestyle. Tons of articles linking to science that is the opposite of your chosen deity. I will continue to eat meat and mock the hollowed out lifeless shells of humans that call themselves vegetarians.
azure
Final Approach
Thanks for the references. No time to check them out right now, but I will.
Of course, the talk mentions it as a factor. But not as a killer food, and I'm not sure why you say the Med diet group didn't consume any at all. Their omega-6/omega-3 ratios were not zero, and omega-6 are essential according to the talk, so the body has no way to make them from something else. So where did their serum omega-6 come from?
ron22
Cleared for Takeoff
I believe based on my limited knowledge of human anatomy is humans were meant to eat what ever we could find.
We do not have the digestive track of a true carnivores or herbivores.
We were are capable of eating meats and plants.
It is the highly processed crap that is the problem. Soda Pop is one of the worst things out there.
We do not have the digestive track of a true carnivores or herbivores.
We were are capable of eating meats and plants.
It is the highly processed crap that is the problem. Soda Pop is one of the worst things out there.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Well, if you believe The Bible, meat was more important. You know, the whole Cain and Abel story. Giving up meat was more of a sacrifice - ergo it was more important, and that's why Cain was banished. Even God doesn't want vegetables. If you believe The Bible that is. If you don't, then the vegetarian lifestyle completely argues against our physiology.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Right. After waiting for all the ads to load (talk about wasting time) I searched for "Esselstyn" to see what he (Mark of the daily apple) might have to say about him. What turned up (after another long wait) was a comment section with this question:
"My question is, if carbs are horrible for your health how come Dr. Esselstyn’s heart patients are able to reverse their heart disease eating a no added fat veggie and fruit based diet with some grains thrown in. I do not know of any proof of someone with heart disease to start a high fat paleo diet w/ no carbs and have complete reversal of their heart disease. I am just hear to hear others opinions of this , This crap is confusing for someone with heart disease."
Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/weekend-link-love-173/#ixzz2rhytJfis
That was followed by several more comments saying, "Yeah, Mark, what about that? We'd really like to know."Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/weekend-link-love-173/#ixzz2rhytJfis
Well, ol' Mark didn't even answer them. Not much to say I guess. If you have the time to wait for all the ads, you're welcome to continue the search and inform me of what his critique of the study was.
dtuuri
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
The Med group was told to throw it out.
Microwave popcorn?
Bread from the supermarket has added soybean oil. I get a lot from the omega-3 rich flax seed in the same spoonful.dtuuri
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Prior to the flood, according to the Bible, it appears that humans may have been herbivores:
God said:
There are two additional references to human diet prior to the Flood: Gen 2:16-17, and 3:18-19. Both reference only plants (although there is no recorded, specific prohibition against eating meat).
After the Flood, meat was explicitly added to the menu, with the restriction that the blood could not be eaten:
God said:
-Rich
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Then why was the animal sacrifice viewed as more important than the plant sacrifice? And the clean meat definition must have been established, although not written, prior to the flood, because Noah was to bring two of every animal, except for the clean ones - of which he was to bring seven pairs.
Then again none of it was written down until after the Flood.
Then again none of it was written down until after the Flood.
Last edited:
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
You need an ad blocker and a faster connection. Anyway I found this real quick:http://www.marksdailyapple.com/unrestricted-low-carb-diet-wins-hands-down/
This study looked at over 300 people who followed their assigned diets strictly for two years, making this one of the longest diet studies in recent history. The bottom line was that the low-carb diet was hands-down the most impressive at improving health in all areas. Those on the low-carb plan lost more weight, experienced a greater reduction in the dangerous C-reactive protein, lowered their triglycerides, raised their HDL cholesterol and dropped their A1C more than those on either the Mediterranean or the low-fat diets, although the Mediterranean was a close second most of the time. Of course, for those who read MDA religiously, you’ll be interested to hear that the low-fat diet was “restricted” to only 1500 calories per day for women and 1800 for men, as was the Mediterranean diet, but the low-carb diet was “unrestricted”, meaning those participants could eat all they wanted of non-carb foods (fat and protein, people). They started out at only 20 grams carbs a day for two months, then eased up to 120 grams a day maintenance at the end. Compliance was fairly high, too: of the 109 people assigned to the low-carb plan, 85 finished the entire two years.
For those of you asking for more “evidence” that the way Grok ate was healthful, I can now add this study to the ever-increasing body of work. Of course, we here at MDA can speculate (and do we ever) on why carbs are not-so-great from purely a gene-expression POV, on why fats are our “healthy friends” from an evolutionary biology perspective and why proteins should form the basis of a fat-burning, muscle-building Primal eating program. But it sure helps that a study like this – with zero attachment to any evolutionary rationale – comes up with a parallel conclusion. This quote is taken from the paper:
This study looked at over 300 people who followed their assigned diets strictly for two years, making this one of the longest diet studies in recent history. The bottom line was that the low-carb diet was hands-down the most impressive at improving health in all areas. Those on the low-carb plan lost more weight, experienced a greater reduction in the dangerous C-reactive protein, lowered their triglycerides, raised their HDL cholesterol and dropped their A1C more than those on either the Mediterranean or the low-fat diets, although the Mediterranean was a close second most of the time. Of course, for those who read MDA religiously, you’ll be interested to hear that the low-fat diet was “restricted” to only 1500 calories per day for women and 1800 for men, as was the Mediterranean diet, but the low-carb diet was “unrestricted”, meaning those participants could eat all they wanted of non-carb foods (fat and protein, people). They started out at only 20 grams carbs a day for two months, then eased up to 120 grams a day maintenance at the end. Compliance was fairly high, too: of the 109 people assigned to the low-carb plan, 85 finished the entire two years.
For those of you asking for more “evidence” that the way Grok ate was healthful, I can now add this study to the ever-increasing body of work. Of course, we here at MDA can speculate (and do we ever) on why carbs are not-so-great from purely a gene-expression POV, on why fats are our “healthy friends” from an evolutionary biology perspective and why proteins should form the basis of a fat-burning, muscle-building Primal eating program. But it sure helps that a study like this – with zero attachment to any evolutionary rationale – comes up with a parallel conclusion. This quote is taken from the paper:
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Good observation. The retrospective aspect is one that people often miss.
There's a lot of Christian theology that could go into an answer, mainly discussing the different ways in which each dispensation related to and symbolized the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.
But the more generic answer is that during the time of the Patriarchs, God is recorded to have communicated with his people in very direct, almost casual ways. There was no need for intermediary priests nor written laws. But as you observed, some of the principles that later would be incorporated into the Mosaic law already existed by the time it was given. This is presumably because God already had taught those things to the patriarchs during their frequent chats.
This makes perfect sense in terms of the practical importance of the dietary laws in the historical context. What later became codified as Kashrut may have previously been told to Noah (for example) as "Hey, Noah, don't pigs. They're filthy and not good for you."
-Rich
EDIT: In Christian theology, the animal sacrifices were more valuable because they were types of Christ's substitutionary death. In Jewish theology, they were more valuable because of the Noahic declaration that in the blood, was life; making an animal sacrifice of great value.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Y'know, that can be parsed in a way that God doesn't exactly tell man to actually eat meat, only that it's available for him. Could the "accounting" for man's "lifeblood" be ... wait for it ... Elevated cholesterol?! Just a thought.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
I have to give the devil his due. This made me call my 89 year-old mother, who once taught Sunday school. Unfortunately the phone was busy, so I grabbed my new Jeremiah Study Bible and read this in the explanation section:
"Those who become angry when someone in authority legitimately corrects them reveal selfish hearts."
Cain's sacrifice wasn't the best offering he had, just an ordinary one. Abel's was the finest, "first-born" one he had.dtuuri
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Sorry, that study doesn't compare to a low fat diet. From the study referenced:
"Low-Fat Diet
The low-fat, restricted-calorie diet was based on American Heart Association20 guidelines. We aimed at an energy intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men, with 30% of calories from fat..."
The Esselstyn diet is 10% fat.The low-fat, restricted-calorie diet was based on American Heart Association20 guidelines. We aimed at an energy intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men, with 30% of calories from fat..."
Same goes for the Spanish study mentioned earlier. They say they're low fat, but when all's said and done they're basically the average run of the mill good old Western diet under an alias.
dtuuri
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Did your super diet get your medical back?
Unless someone is forcing others to eat an unhealthy diet, there is no guilt.
Exaggerate much?
How would paleolithic humans have gotten a high fat diet? My impression is that the meat available for them to eat would have been much leaner than what is typically available at supermarkets.
If you're writing all this to influence Dr. Bruce, I don't think we know if he is even reading this board anymore.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Not yet. The trouble is, if you get denied you can't even legally fly a sport plane (not that it would do me a lot of good). So it has to be a slam dunk. With the way the FAA regards stenoses, about 20 years in arrears, it would be too great a risk to apply now. I've been eating my way back toward the cockpit for 30 months now, hoping to undo the damage enough to get below the unpublished screening limit. It would help for the FAA to come into the 21st century before I apply. I guess they're content to leave things be.
Current knowledge, and Gary can correct me if this isn't so, is that larger stenoses are more stable, less likely to burst. Calcium scans have shown that, for a given calcium volume, the denser the calcium the more stable. Calcium density correlates with degree of stenosis, IIRC. The science is there for the FAA to get off their collective duffs and do the peoples' work.
I might have to go through another angiogram to satisfy the FAA, something I cannot afford and something insurance may not cover, since I'm now just the picture of health! It would help if the FAA conceded that lifestyle changes, if done well enough, can toughen the caps over the stenoses they are fearful of. Dr. Esselstyn has made the claim that after just three weeks on his diet, "You're heart attack proof." I Believe that! Considering the tests I've put my heart through, including almost 13 minutes on the Bruce Protocol stress test six months after my stent, such as sprinting up hills on my daily walks through the woods with my dog--if there's a plaque ready to rupture it would have done so long ago.
It doesn't help when people poison the waters the FAA swims in with mocking comments belittling the science this man (Esselstyn) brings to us. It does the mockers no good in the future either, if they should need to eat their way back to the cockpit like me. All I'm asking is to not reject his studies so you meat eaters can continue to eat guilt-free, if that's how they make you feel.
Now to wrap my unairworthy heart in a down-filled ski jacket, at the age of 66, and get back out in the below-zero weather for the umpteenth time and shovel the drive again--by hand!
dtuuri
pilot_dude
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,793
- Display Name
Display name:
pilot_dude
