re: Your low carb diet is probably killing you

Yeah those people's diet seems totally reasonable and probably nicely compatible with their genes (however the hell that works).

To me, time restriction, scarcity, caloric restriction, and eating what grows (and lives) around you + steady aerobic activity combined w good genes and epigenetic factors is a recipe for a long health span, without macros obsession.

quote:

---

sun flower seed oil, once in a while use canola oil.

---

Those are bad too.

High oleic sunflower seed oil is almost all monounsaturated fat, similar to olive and avocado. What I don't know is how processing it affects the quality.

Canola is higher PUFA% and I also don't know much about the overall quality.

I look at two things with oils: omega 6 content and how processing affects stability/oxidation.

That’s a tad extreme.

Update: Nina Teicholz had an absolutely devastating Op-Ed in the WSJ today on this stupidity. This passage shocked even me:

quote:

---

Diet questionnaires are inherently unreliable since people tend to under- and overestimate food quantities to make their diets look better. The Lancet authors’ treatment of the data also falls short. They make no mention of adjusting their results for alcohol consumption, for example, which is a critical factor in longevity.

It gets worse. The authors threw out any data on carb consumption from subjects who “developed heart disease, diabetes, and stroke” before the second diet visit, “to reduce potential confounding.” They don’t reveal how much evidence was dropped, but this seems like it would be the most relevant portion of any study about the relationship between carb consumption and disease.

---

LINK

Nutrition "science" has truly been nearly entirely corrupted and hollowed out. How could any "leading publication (The Lancet)" have accepted such drivel...and how could the media be so credulous as to report on it uncritically.

I'm not sure if it's disheartening or encouraging to delve into the science and contrast it with the outright corruption and misinformation campaigns. But I do love the fact that journalists and other non-medical-researchers, such as Feldman and Taubes (I know 777 thinks he's an idiot, but he has made some solid contributions) are voices in the wilderness. Nina and Amy Berger are badasses too.

Then there are the medical doctors and PhD scientists whose incredible kmowledge, innovations and insights just make you shake your head at the pseudoscience and bad dogma.

I'm listening to Peter Attia interviewing Rob Lustig and wondering what the f went wrong w humankind and the basic act of feeding ourselves (well we know now, but it's still pretty unbelievable given the considerable scientific nutrition knowledge we had already as early as the 1920s and 30s, and the basic history of mankind).

Anyway, this is a must-listen for anyone who wants to know more about NAFLD, fructose metabolism, some basic metabolic science and lipidology.

I don't like linking mp3 files or rss feeds and it isn't on youtube. Y'all just look up Peter Attia's The Drive. They are all good, but I'm referring to the latest published ep w Lustig.

One thing that blows my mind is how "normal" reference ranges are wholly population based. So you can be within normal range on a particular marker and still be way out of whack and at risk.

NAFLD is a perfect example. The high end of the normal range for a key liver enzyme, ALT, which is a marker for liver function/NAFLD was 25 u/L in 1976. It is now...52. MORE THAN DOUBLE.

Fyi, I had this tested twice a month all during chemo, which is a bitch on the liver, and was between 14 and 17. I've remained in that range since.

quote:

---

Personally I think AST & ALt are alomst like testing total cholesterol, doesn't mean a whole lot. I pay much more attention to Bilirubin and if possible checking for fatty liver. 

---

Interesting. I haven't looked into it deeply but Attia and Lustig seem to think it's important for fatty liver. Need to research more.

But in any event, I would think a doubling of the upper end of population ref range indicates something not great.

My last bilirubin level was 0.4mg/dl (.3 to 1.0 is ref range) it has been at that level consistently since I started regular blood tests in 2016. It did spike to .8 in Jan 17. That is an outlier and was just after start of chemo.

quote:

---

But in any event, I would think a doubling of the upper end of population ref range indicates something not great.

---

100% agree, and AST and ALT can be important just not the end all be all like they are made out to be.