 |
|
Reply
| |
As I was trained to do in graduate school, I take any criticism of my arguments (almost all of which have been made by those with Ph.D.s in various scientific fields previously) seriously. What I have found is that most people fail to understand the point I am making, and so there is little that can be done, but here is one that deserves closer scrutiny:
“…your experiment tests one thing: how long animals live when given
abnormal diets high in PUFA or coconut oil. This is not surprising as
you have a blinkered obsession that how long an animal lives is the
only thing that matters.�?BR>
This was posted on another forum by “MattLB�?on August 16, 2006.
First, this person declares that my dietary proposal is "abnormal," when in fact diets high in PUFAs are now common in many if not most Western diets. Moroever, studies have already been done on humans who eat diets very high in saturated fatty acids. Thus, this is one of those criticisms that is nonsensical and deserves no response, except that it is well within the realm of scientific inquiry to attempt to determine if a particular diet is especially healthy, whether or not anyone thinks the diet is peculiar. The "big bang theory" may strike a person as peculiar as well, but this does not mean that scientists should dismiss it out of hand. In fact, this is what the scientific method is meant to prevent, that is, subjective notions acting as obstacles to a determination of the actual forces and mechanims at work.
A point that may be more interesting concerns the point about longevity. Leaving aside how all kinds of "health experts" extoll this or that diet based upon the supposedly long lives of those who consume it, one question stands out: how can a very "bad" diet lead to a longer life than those on a very "good" diet? I dismissed this criticism at first as beyond ludicrous, and yet a month or so later someone made the same argument. The experiment in question should not be a problem in this context in any case; one group of animals woul be fed a "normal" diet, with 25% of daily calories coming from canola and fish oil (or safflower and fish oil), while the other group would only get fresh coconut oil (my choice of brand) at 25% daily calories.
There would be a basic mulit-vitamin and mineral supplement only. There would be no other fat sources, and no other major source of any lipids, such as eggs (due to the potentially deleterious effects of oxidized cholesterol, for example).
Since the coconut-fed animals would be "essential fatty acid deficient" on such a diet, how could they possibly live longer than the other group? How could something that is "essential" cause one group of animals to live shorter lives than another group of animals (same species) that is deprived of this "esential" item? The 1948 experiment showed that no deficiency symptoms resulted for rats on an entirely fat-free diet, and so the only factor that is relevant in this context involves longevity.
It is difficult for me to comprehend what the motivations of this "MattLB" person might be, but I am assuming in this post that he/she is interested in knowing what the scientific reality is, however misguided he/she may be. Most people I talk to about these kinds of subjects are only interested in longevity, perhaps because they know that they could always discontinue a diet if they don't feel well on it, but I was a bit taken aback by a few people who don't seem to care about longevity, and yet do not explain what other criteria shouild be used instead. Now let us assume that they believe, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, that there is a diet that will result in all kinds of terrible symptoms that persist for years, and yet somehow leads to a much longer life than those who are eating what they believe is an optimum diet. It is the task of scientific investigation to determine this, using the scientific method, nothing more and nothing less. Once it is determined, people can decided for themselves which diet they want to consume.
The problems I have found in many studies that attempt to address these kinds of dietary issues is that none of the diets are ones that I would even consider eating, and so the scientific method is violated (because all possible factors need to be taken into account, even ones thought, subjectively, by at least some people, to be "abnormal"), and also that the studies are short term, and longevity is not determined. Additionally, many researchers remark on "deficiency symptoms" when in fact any major dietary change may result in temporary adaptations that the researcher subjectively considers a "symptom of deficiency." I am willing to allow these kinds of experiments to be videotaped so that everyone who is interested will be able to see that any changes are short term, and that the longevity is accompanied by good health, but of course the experiments must be allowed to run for the duration of the animals lives. In most of these kinds of studies, the animals are killed prematurely, and biopsies are done to look for various "markers," but in my research, I have discovered that the markers being used are mostly based upon incorrect assumptions (such as the refuted "essential fatty acid" claim), and so if one does this kind of study, one only finds what one assumes to be correct, not what the scientific reality is.
If longevity is considered of minimal importance, then what is of maximal importance? As I said, it was such a ludicrous claim that I just laughed at it and ignored it at first. Why should anyone do any dietary study if longevity is dismissed as irrelevant? Ancel Keys, a sort of "founding father" of the diet/cholesterol/heart disease claim pointed out that in his "Seven Countries" study, those with total serum cholesterol in the 200-220 range lived longest, for example. Most humans do not worry about exactly what they die from, but rather how long they live before they die. And yet now the "establishment" wants people to lower their cholesterol to around 180, because they are so focused on markers for "heart disease," even though these markers are only of some use for certain segments of the population (men who are within a narrow age range), and even though oxidized cholesterol has been demonstrated to be the problem in this context, down to the molecular level.
Science is about quantity, not quality. Longevity can be measured and graphed or charted, for example, but not feelings of well being. If a diet is found to maximize longevity, why would anyone not want to try it to see if it feels well? Where is the problem? If the diet led to greatly increased rates of heart disease, for instance, then how could it also maximize longevity? In any case, the scientific method is designed to prevent people like "MattLB" from making these kinds of absurd claims. It is up to each of us, individually, to determine whether the scientific method is being followed when authorities present us with claims they deem to be "scientific." As I have demonstrated in many places on this web site, it is often the case that "experts" who put forth medical and nutritional claims have not adhered to the scientific method, though some may be so misguided as to think that they have.
|
|
 First
Previous
2-3 of 3
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
| One point of clarification to the above post: when I state "almost all of which have been made by those with Ph.D.s in various scientific fields previously," I am referring to the points I make, not the criticisms of those points. I always cite my sources, so that if you read other posts and the essays on this site, you will see that this is the case. |
|
Reply
| |
A few hours after writing up the above post, I remembered that a few years back there was a bit of "mainstream media" coverage of the calorie-restriction movement. On one television show, several people were presented as adherents to this kind of diet. One man said he was often hungry and had mostly lost his "sex drive." Another man was gaunt and said he didn't have much "energy" on his calorie-restricted diet. A question was raised, implicitly or explicitly (I don't remember); how many people would want to eat a diet that produced such effects?
This is what I meant in the post above about people trying a diet that had been demonstrated to prolong life substantially. However, this is not the kind of diet I would recommend to anyone, and few would follow it in any case. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the people presented by the "journalists" were eating a diet that scientists who have studied calorically-restricted animals which lived long lives would recommend. Any diet that produced signs of physical distress, even excessive gas, I would advise against, though gas, bloating, abdominal pains, etc., could be signs of something else, such as too little stomach acid production, and it would be best to sort this out before switching to a new diet.
Instead, the diet I am on now is very tasty, satisfies my hunger for hours, and causes no noticeable physical distress. After following it for several years now, I have seen "chronic conditions," some of which I have had for well over a decade, simply vanish. This is what one would expect on an optimal diet, not fatigue, listlessness, frequent hunger, etc. If this was not the case, I would not recommend anyone try the diet I now follow. Thus, there is absolutely no reason for a person who has had these experiences to think that such a diet is dangerous in any way, if we do what "MattLB" suggests and disregard or minimize the longevity factor. As is often the case, critics tend to be vague, and often harp on minor points. For example, "MattLB" has criticized me for using the phrase, "degraded by free radicals." When this happens to lipids, most people call it rancidity, while some scientists who specialize in this field will say, "lipid peroxidation." My phrase is the clearest and most concise, for both scientists and non-scientists, and this is the way I was taught to communicate in graduate school. Whether or not a few dozen specialists might feel offended in some way is not my concern. Exactly what is happening is captured by the phrase, nothing more or less, and even non-scientists will be provided with enough information so that they can do some research on their own if they wish. The phrase "lipid peroxidation" confuses most people (in my experience), and the term rancidity does not make clear what is occurring at the molecular level.
Again, this is what the scientific method is designed to do; one controls for all relevant factors and lets the evidence speak for itself. One does not go into an experiment with preconceptions and only look for "markers" that may be based upon incorrect assumptions (as is the case in experiments that control for total cholesterol, LDL, or HDL, since the oxidation factor is not taken into account). Assuming that a diet is satisfying, tasty, makes one feel better, and maximizes longevity, what could be "wrong" with it? Sadly, it does appear that more than a few people are swayed by such sophomoric claptrap, and so all I can do is to attempt to clarify the issue as best I can (as I am trying to do here), as well as challenge those who make absurd remarks to formal, moderated debates or experimental challenges that are directly on point.
Note that there is a "Life Extension Foundation" at www.LEF.org. It is dedicated to maximizing longevity. I have never read a post on any forum criticizing the LEF for attempting to maximize longevity. The LEF sells very expensive supplements that are supposed to useful in maintaining health at the molecular level. After conducting my own research, my determination is that such supplements are not necessary. One can simply eat a diet that does no such harm, and perhaps supplement with very small amounts of inexpensive items like nutritional yeast. On point experiments would now be useful. Some critics have cited experiments of pregnant cats fed truly unnatural diets, but the actual findings of these studies did not support the claims made by the researchers conducting them. I am willing to "put my money where my mouth is" but there have yet to be any takers. Instead, I encounter criticisms about longevity not being particularly important. While this may be something to consider in the context of diets that are tasteless, unsatisfying, distasteful, or cause various kinds of physical distress, it is beyond ludicrous in the context of a diet that includes coconut, chocolate, coffee, cheese, butter, eggs, fruit, potatoes, pickled cabbage, and homemade bread (and without calorie restriction). This has led me to question the motivations of critics like "MattLB" - what he/she argues makes absolutely no sense, no matter how one considers it. In graduate school, I was taught to attempt to construct the best argument for my "opponent," rather than to attack minor or tangential points, and then to examine that argument. Unfortunately, and perhaps due to the political climate in the USA today, there are people like "MattLB" who, for whatever reason, seek to be the Pied Pipers of "nutritional science." |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
