Plant Based Diet Thread

[Nobody]

Thanks for posting WH1.

Even Esselstyn - from his book - isn't against a bit of flax if one doesn't have any sign of atherosclerosis. Unfortunately high BP is a sign of atherosclerosis. Flax/chia increased my cholesterol without any other fats. But the animal products are obviously going to contribute more fat than a bit of flax. Tested my BP 4 days ago. Average of 4 tests was 90/57. Final test was 88/57. Yeah I'd say that super low fat is working for lowering BP. About 5 mm Hg both sys and dia from when I was eating more fat.
You could try cutting out as much fat as you can tolerate for a month and then see what your BP looks like then. At least then you'd know what difference, if any.

I've had some prostate issues in the recent past. The worst of it was when I was taking DHA supplements. Soon ditched that. Then earlier this year I ditched the flax or chia to see if it was helping drive my tumour growth. The previous blood test 3 months ago for ALT (primary liver marker) was good at 15. Interestingly I subjectively noticed a significant drop in prostate issues and some hematomas I was getting on my forearms for possibly unknown reasons. The issues slowly got better over months. To me that showed that it took some time for the fat - possibly stored as well - to exit my system and to start healing better. My dietary fat total is only about 2.3% of energy, 7g per day, which is 0.1% by weight according to my spreadsheet. Virtually nothing. Believe it or not, that is the McDougall, Peter Rogers and Forks Over Knives diets. No overt fats. And if you don't eat other higher fat foods like oats, grains, beans etc, then total fat is extremely low. As I've posted previously, people have survived quite well with only 1% fat by energy in their diet when studied. Time will tell if my health generally improves further or not.

I'm not worried about dementia as yet. That fear is used to sell chia, flax, fish, fish oil and DHA supps. I'm more focused on still being alive in 5 years, so 20 years time doesn't rate at the moment. However I did go for an eye inspection yesterday. They took retina photos and nerve photos. They also did an eye pressure test. All of tbose were good. Since the retina relies on DHA like the brain, if I have a problem with that, it isn't surfacing yet. I saw the image results myself for retinas and nerves and couldn't see any evidence of atherosclerosis either.

However I did score 3 out of 10 for cataract on my left eye. Having said that, this is first cataract scan I've heard of, so I don't know how long it's been like that for. They said it could get up to 6 to 8 in the next 5 to 10 years. Hopefully it won't be any worse on the next scan. I'd laugh if next time it's zero. If it is, that should make them think. I don't know why my right eye is testing low and my left eye is 3. So I'm hoping it's just a scan error. Time will tell.

[Nobody]

I had a look. I am still on the flaxseed.
June 2002 is the date of the article.
Will need to do some more investigation. It makes the case that any fat at all is metastasizing.
First and only place I had read that. Yes I try not to eat much fat however already.

It's easier to look through Peter Roger MD's videos on McDougall and the references to studies on cancer than it is to dig through McDougall's website for his newsletters on it.




The first time I read about fat and cancer promotion was from McDougall too, many years ago. McDougall was known by his contemporaries mainly for his honesty. To the point of costing him personally in various ways through his life. So I trust what he says.

In the end, the list of cancer tumour promoters isn't real short. After much reading & watching, It mainly comes down to what drives certain hormones like IGF-1, ILGF, mTor and others to promote growth. Cancer quickly grows under the influence of these various growth hormones and outruns one's immune system. The result In my case is that it drives up my ALT (Liver enzyme associated with decay. So the lower the better).

So what increases the hormones? Fats, and proteins are the major players. Some types of both protein and fat are more cancer promoting than others. The proteins, fats and heme iron in animal products are particularly promoting. In the end meat is just protein and fat. My blood tests have found even chicpeas promote tumour growth for me as seen by ALT increase. When I reduct fat and protein as much a feasible for my diet, my ALT returns to almost normal levels for me. I hope to get further confirmation of this in a week or so from my latest blood test results.

I've found that reducing tumour promoters easily has more effect than including foods that are said to inhibit tumour growth.

[Nobody]

Plant Protein Is Equal To Meat, Beef Industry-Funded Study Finds - PBN
This subject was addressed in a recent post linked below.
viewtopic.php?p=1623679#p1623679

Protein deficiency is almost impossible for those getting enough energy intake (enough to eat). This obviously undermines the main marketing point of the animal industries, so why I'm surpirsed the study ever got published.

I sometimes wonder if the animal industries have ever sponsored bodybuilding, since it seems like the ideal marketing platform for them. My son goes to the gym twice a week. When I mentioned to him that at least one study has shown that chicken promotes weight gain more than any other meat, he saw it as a benefit. I suppose at age 26 he is at a very different stage of life to me.

[Nobody]

As usual, I don't necessarily agree with all of it. Just another perspective to take in and maybe provide some balance.

[Nobody]

I thought the bit on how many farm animals are on the planet was interesting. Also how much land would be freed up and how much easier it would be to feed everyone if we stopped farming them.

[Nobody]

This video raises some questions.

The short video suggests by the extremely improbable longevity of the 17 person, Seven Countries study team, that their saturated fat model is true. The implication from this is that saturated fat is a proxy for animal fat.

Questions:
- Is saturated fat a proxy for all fats in general?
Science has shown that all fat types increases atherosclerosis in herbivores.
My self experimentation with different "good fat" levels in reference to cholesterol, gives a yes answer to the above question.

- Is the Mediterranean Diet the ultimate longevity diet?
Studies comparing low fat vegan to the modern version of the Mediterranean diet say that other than blood pressure, low fat vegan is better by all immediate health markers. However blood pressure is important.

- If the Mediterranean Diet was the ultimate longevity diet for these people, then what was the exact makeup of the Mediterranean Diet they ate?

[Nobody]

Regarding the above post. I had a quick dig around for Ancel Keys and the diet to find the following in Wikipedia. This confirms what the evidence shows in regard to fat in general. That is all fat causes atherosclerosis and that substituting one fat for another shouldn't help.

Completed in 1973, the study wasn't published until 2013 with the conclusion below. Keys however would have known the results and so likely applied the findings to his own diet, avoiding fat in all forms.

Conclusions – Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.[51]

[My bold]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys

Yet more evidence that science often isn't as transparent and honest as we would hope. So it should be no surprise as to why we are still confused about the optimal diet for humans, many decades later. Pritikin, Kempner, Esselstyn, and McDougall were correct. Regarding optimal human health. Beyond the small amounts found in their whole food packages of low fat fruit, vegetables, and starches, all types of fat are unhealthy. Especially in the most processed forms of oils.

My take on dietary fats so far is you can get enough essential fats from just the general plant foods eaten. No need to add higher fat foods to get the essential fats. Your body gets enough and it's clever. It can work it out. There is hardly any essential fats in a standard diet. Yet there is no evidence of essential fat deficiency in the general population. And it doesn't appear to be a concern for people in the related health professions.

[Nobody]

Just in case you miss it. A well known person promoting a plant based diet is Chef AJ. She has reported in a recent YouTube video that she has stage-3 lung cancer. I won't post the video because it's hard to watch.

I don't know specifically what she eats, but I'd guess there isn't much more scope for diet to help reduce the rate of growth further. Especially as fasting hasn't appeared to help. Maybe fully raw, low protein, low fat. Maybe adding some cheap, easy to access immunity boosters like nutritional yeast, etc. It must be a fairly aggressive tumour. It has also metastisized (therefore stage-3). As said previously, there are many aspects to lifestyle that can help with the cancer battle and all must be addressed for best effect. She seems so high strung in some respects that I think the emotioinal control aspects are going to be the hardest part for her. Not that I'm a master of any of it.

This reminds me that I should get another ultrasound scan of my tumours soon.

Let's not kid ourselves about cancer. A plant based diet can lower risk, but if you have a big genetic risk like me (with haemochromatosis) or Chef AJ (strong family history) then it's almost inevitable regardless of how you eat, or your lifestyle.

[warthog1]

It does suck mate. Strong familial Hx here too.
I hope your scans are positive.
Very impressive your fight against it and the way you are arming yourself with dietary knowledge and also sharing it with the rest of us.

[Nobody]

It does suck mate. Strong familial Hx here too.
I hope your scans are positive.
Very impressive your fight against it and the way you are arming yourself with dietary knowledge and also sharing it with the rest of us.

Thanks for the encouragement.
I've got a script for the scan already. Just a matter of making a booking. I suspect it will still be static, but I need to know for sure.

I'm starting to see a formula for slowing or even inhibiting tumour growth. It involves lowering the dietary stimulus of the common growth hormones. While also giving the immune system every advantage. Even stimulating the immune system if possible.
I got a script for Hep B vaccinations from the GP. Not because I think I'll get it. But those who have immunity get less liver tumours according to a study I heard about. Worth a shot...
I'm trying to piece together everything I hear that might be an advantage. Added all together they could make a difference. Like the incremental gains that pro road racing teams used to talk about.

[warthog1]

All above my level of knowledge.
You are doing very well.

[Nobody]

You are doing very well.

Thanks.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm posting this video because Rogers is playing his strengths as someone who analysis scans for a living to show you why only diet will fix issues at the small vascular level in the heart and brain. Operations only bypass/patch large arteries and drugs are only a patch.

[Nobody]

As people have heard me say before. These days studies can't often be fully trusted on face value. It looks like the study taking down the Blue Zones validity, was deceptive.

So it looks like the Blue Zones are back. Which I'm happy about since it's a large dataset to back the benefits of a good lifestyle and a plant based diet.

[Nobody]

3 surprising vegan foods that can make you sick this summer - The Conversation

Not that I'm a big fruit eater these days anyway. But I stay away from rockmelon. Last time my wife gave me some I was sick for at least 2 days.

[Nobody]

The answer to the question most are thinking, but no one has asked.

So it appears the primary advantage of being low fat vegan is being mentally sharp into old age. Just that benefit and reducing my tumour growth should be enough to make it worth the effort for me. Although there are many other advantages, as regular readers would know.

[Nobody]

From 9 posts above:

Yet more evidence that science often isn't as transparent and honest as we would hope. So it should be no surprise as to why we are still confused about the optimal diet for humans, many decades later. Pritikin, Kempner, Esselstyn, and McDougall were correct. Regarding optimal human health. Beyond the small amounts found in their whole food packages of low fat fruit, vegetables, and starches, all types of fat are unhealthy. Especially in the most processed forms of oils.

My take on dietary fats so far is you can get enough essential fats from just the general plant foods eaten. No need to add higher fat foods to get the essential fats. Your body gets enough and it's clever. It can work it out. There is hardly any essential fats in a standard diet. Yet there is no evidence of essential fat deficiency in the general population. And it doesn't appear to be a concern for people in the related health professions.

https://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/view ... 0#p1624887

Rogers spells it out in more detail below.



So it's my belief that adding overtly fat foods like seeds to get what the authorities believe are the minimum amounts of essential fats, is more harmful than beneficial. Yes, I know how that sounds. But I'm betting my long-term mental health that Kempner, Pritikin, Esselstyn, McDougall, and Rogers (above) know more about this than the authorities.

[baabaa]

Think this is a worth a watch.

The Food Pyramid is a Giant Scam Paid for by Big Corporations

[Nobody]

Think this is a worth a watch.

The Food Pyramid is a Giant Scam Paid for by Big Corporations...

Whether it was worth a watch is debatable, but I agree the USDA food pyramid was/is a deceptive mess. Where it has its biggest power is in dictating what are in the free school lunches. With the influence of future generations from that. Every food pyramid video I've seen have all been different to each other. No one seems to be able to agree what really happened.

Not that any of it is really important to us health conscious people today. For those who think food pyramids or governement recommendations may be of some value, then both the Canadian and Australian recommendations are reasonable for those who take all the vegan options. Bettter still, read Esselstyn's "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease", or McDougall's "The Starch Solution" would be better guidance than any food pyramid. Not that I fully agree with everything written in either of those books either.

Also we are assuming that people actually take heed of these government recommendations. I believe that isn't the case. People eat whatever marketing and their circle of influence tells them to eat. By circle of influence, I mean family, friends and society/culture in general.

Important to mention; at about 09:50+ in the video, he says that the Keys related study data showed that saturated fat wasn't harmful and that polyunsaturated fat was. From what I've seen of the study in about 11 posts previous, saturated fat was still harmful. But so was the substituted fats. As in all fat in excess - which it ubiquitously is - is harmful to humans. So I believe he got at least that wrong, which is an important point to mention. Otherwise we all should be eating meat, dairy and sugar diets like a century ago and enjoying better arterial health. Which wasn't the case.

The premise of the video was that we are all fat because of government recommendations. Why we are so fat now is multi-facitted, with most of it being high fat, sugar, and salt, processed foods with animal products. With the most basic explanation for losing weight being, lower fat and lower the calorie density of food intake and body weight will drop too.

[warthog1]

The premise of the video was that we are all fat because of government recommendations. Why we are so fat now is multi-facitted, with most of it being high fat, sugar, and salt, processed foods with animal products. With the most basic explanation for losing weight being, lower fat and lower the calorie density of food intake and body weight will drop too.

Correct imo. I make an effort to limit that stuff as you can't out exercise a bad diet. I'd still be in trouble weight wise without cycling so plenty of room for improvement here.

[Nobody]

The premise of the video was that we are all fat because of government recommendations. Why we are so fat now is multi-facitted, with most of it being high fat, sugar, and salt, processed foods with animal products. With the most basic explanation for losing weight being, lower fat and lower the calorie density of food intake and body weight will drop too.

Correct imo. I make an effort to limit that stuff as you can't out exercise a bad diet. I'd still be in trouble weight wise without cycling so plenty of room for improvement here.

Thanks for the support.

Some people reading this thread probably think what I write is from another planet compared to some of the rubbish they have seen in the mainstream media. To them I say this; I don't need to pander to any interests, and I don't sell anything. So I can make recommendations based on evidence based nutritional science. If there is anything you need clarification on, just ask. I can usually post the references.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Eating Dark Chocolate Lowers Type 2 Diabetes Risk, Study Finds - Plant Based News

The research – published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) – found that eating five one-ounce pieces of dark chocolate a week could lower the risk of the condition by 21 percent. Notably, those who ate the servings were less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who ate no chocolate.

Before anyone gets excited by the results above. I'll put them in context. The nurses and medical professional's studies have study subjects who are on a standard western diet. Typically 30%+ fat of energy intake overall. So if you're on the standard western (high fat) diet and you substitute 142g per week of dark chocolate, you'll do better for diabetes. But you'd still do far better with diabetes risk if you eliminate all the overt fat from your diet. Since diabetes is a fat borne disease.

Also if you're going to consume dark chocolate for the supposed health benefits, then you'd be better off avoiding the additives, sugar, dairy, etc and just buying cocoa powder. Even then, you'd have to weigh up what you think the health benefits are going to be - usually over-emphasized by those who want to sell it to you - versus increasing you fat intake. The macronutrient ratio is C29:P34:F37 *. That's a lot of fat, so for health, you wouldn't want to be eating much. Also 23% saturated fat is high. Even Cadbury's serving size is 7.5g, which is only 52.5g per week.
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/cocoa/

Nutrition panel for Cadbury cocoa powder.


* - Macronutrient ratio calculation in percentages at the bottom in orange.