Toast or Biscuits

[HitRed]

What’s your choice Toast or Biscuits?

[Dukasaur]

Makes no difference. Pure toxic waste, either way. Just different forms of wheat starch, the food of slaves. Not fit for freedmen.

[DoomYoshi]

What’s your choice Toast or Biscuits?

Etymologically, toast makes sense since it is toasted. Biscuits make no sense since they are not twice-cooked, which is what the name means.

[2dimes]

You know, you don't have to suffer through biscuits, you can make bannock over a fire.

[KoolBak]

Lol @ DoD

You know, that statement is triggering in this current state of enlightenment

These food items are secondary. ..eg....IMHO they are based on what meal you're having. Toast with bacon and eggs. Biscuits with gravy.

I actually know no one that just makes a biscuit solo as one would toast.

[2dimes]

Mrs dimes sometimes gets extra biscuits from Popeyes then puts honey on them. Go figure.

[KoolBak]

But....she didn't MAKE them.

After she puts honey on them, does she mash them in yo face hole? I'd like to see that.....

[jonesthecurl]

Mrs dimes sometimes gets extra biscuits from Popeyes then puts honey on them. Go figure.

That would make them scones, then.

[jusplay4fun]

Makes no difference. Pure toxic waste, either way. Just different forms of wheat starch, the food of slaves. Not fit for freedmen.

what should freedmen eat instead of bread, Duk?

JP

[KoolBak]

He's a hoser. Gotta be poutine....

[2dimes]

Brace for the potato protest.

Mrs dimes sometimes gets extra biscuits from Popeyes then puts honey on them. Go figure.

That would make them scones, then.

Go to Popeyes and straighten them out, "Look here governor, this is no way to run a chippy! Your tea is cold, I'm missing the biscuit that was supposed to be in the box and someone has put a scone in it.."

But....she didn't MAKE them.

After she puts honey on them, does she mash them in yo face hole? I'd like to see that.....

No. I was just explaining she was not eating them with gravy or butter.

I'm not as anti biscuit as Dukasaur, I just don't love them.

Speaking of a single biscuit that was made in a larger batch.

I didn't eat the one in my two piece spicy combo last week, so it ended up in the fridge with the left over thigh. Then when I went to eat the piece of chicken a day or two later, there it was. Hard as cookie. I ate it but it was not better than fresh.

[Dukasaur]

Makes no difference. Pure toxic waste, either way. Just different forms of wheat starch, the food of slaves. Not fit for freedmen.

what should freedmen eat instead of bread, Duk?

Short answer: damn near anything. Long answer is a bit more complex and depends on whether you are more interested in a strictly health-based perspective or the political perspective.

I'm sure you've seen the flurry of articles about Blue Zones ever Buettner coined the term in 2005. The collection of Blue Zones leads to a pretty restrictive regimen, but it's worth looking at as a starting point. Personally, I look at research from a wider selection of healthy populations, including people like the Hanza which are not Blue Zone material but still tremendously healthy. Overall you find four major dietary trends in high-health populations:

• a high percentage of diet from pulses and other legumes,
• lots of leafy greens,
• a strong emphasis on fish and other seafood,
• most oils come from trees (olive oil among Europeans and West Asians, Coconut oil among Polynesians) or from legumes (peanut oil in China, sesame oil in Africa and parts of Asia).

Blue zone diets and so-called Mediterranean diets are the kings of the health world, but other diets are nearly as good.

A fifth pillar can debatably be added, which is meat. Meat is surrounded by misunderstandings and misconceptions. It is true that the very healthiest populations, like the Sardinians, eat very little red meat, and this is endlessly reiterated in vegan propaganda. On the other hand, other populations such as the Kyrghyz, which are almost as healthy, are almost entirely carnivorous. Still others, such as the Hanza, are 50/50. I think it's wrong both to categorically love or hate meat -- more nuance is needed. I could go on at some length about this, but suffice it to say that in general I think it's good to eat meat, as long as one:

• keeps an eye on the total quantity,
• Eats fish and other seafood more often than land animals
• eats as much as possible of the whole animal, including the skin, the bone marrow, and the organ meats, not just chops and steaks, and
• whenever possible, eats free-range or wild-caught animals over grain fed factory farmed ones.

There is one thing certain: populations that eat large quantities of grain or grain-derivatives have high rates of diabetes, arteriosclerosis, cancer. You name it, it's higher in grain-fed populations.

I used to think that was just because of the high carb load of grains and the insulin response, but I'm seeing more and more signs that it's even worse than that. There's limited evidence that high-carb non-grain populations can in some cases be healthy, so there's something there besides the carbs that's making people sick. The answer seems to be polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are the predominant type of fat in grass seeds and grass seed oils (like corn oil, etc.) The harm done by PUFAs seems to happen even if we don't eat the grain directly: grain-fed beef has dramatically higher PUFA levels than grass-fed beef. Grains are like the gift that keeps on giving; even when we filter them through the bodies of other animals, they're still capable of poisoning us afterward.

That's the health perspective. I was going to do the political/historical perspective, but I'll save that for another time.

[jusplay4fun]

Makes no difference. Pure toxic waste, either way. Just different forms of wheat starch, the food of slaves. Not fit for freedmen.

what should freedmen eat instead of bread, Duk?

Short answer: damn near anything. Long answer is a bit more complex and depends on whether you are more interested in a strictly health-based perspective or the political perspective.

I'm sure you've seen the flurry of articles about Blue Zones ever Buettner coined the term in 2005. The collection of Blue Zones leads to a pretty restrictive regimen, but it's worth looking at as a starting point. Personally, I look at research from a wider selection of healthy populations, including people like the Hanza which are not Blue Zone material but still tremendously healthy. Overall you find four major dietary trends in high-health populations:

• a high percentage of diet from pulses and other legumes,
• lots of leafy greens,
• a strong emphasis on fish and other seafood,
• most oils come from trees (olive oil among Europeans and West Asians, Coconut oil among Polynesians) or from legumes (peanut oil in China, sesame oil in Africa and parts of Asia).

Blue zone diets and so-called Mediterranean diets are the kings of the health world, but other diets are nearly as good.

A fifth pillar can debatably be added, which is meat. Meat is surrounded by misunderstandings and misconceptions. It is true that the very healthiest populations, like the Sardinians, eat very little red meat, and this is endlessly reiterated in vegan propaganda. On the other hand, other populations such as the Kyrghyz, which are almost as healthy, are almost entirely carnivorous. Still others, such as the Hanza, are 50/50. I think it's wrong both to categorically love or hate meat -- more nuance is needed. I could go on at some length about this, but suffice it to say that in general I think it's good to eat meat, as long as one:

• keeps an eye on the total quantity,
• Eats fish and other seafood more often than land animals
• eats as much as possible of the whole animal, including the skin, the bone marrow, and the organ meats, not just chops and steaks, and
• whenever possible, eats free-range or wild-caught animals over grain fed factory farmed ones.

There is one thing certain: populations that eat large quantities of grain or grain-derivatives have high rates of diabetes, arteriosclerosis, cancer. You name it, it's higher in grain-fed populations.

I used to think that was just because of the high carb load of grains and the insulin response, but I'm seeing more and more signs that it's even worse than that. There's limited evidence that high-carb non-grain populations can in some cases be healthy, so there's something there besides the carbs that's making people sick. The answer seems to be polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are the predominant type of fat in grass seeds and grass seed oils (like corn oil, etc.) The harm done by PUFAs seems to happen even if we don't eat the grain directly: grain-fed beef has dramatically higher PUFA levels than grass-fed beef. Grains are like the gift that keeps on giving; even when we filter them through the bodies of other animals, they're still capable of poisoning us afterward.

That's the health perspective. I was going to do the political/historical perspective, but I'll save that for another time.

Thanks for this "food for thought" Duk.

Also, when I hear the phrase "grain fed" I think of cattle and livestock being fattened for the slaughter.

JP

[KoolBak]

DoD, you're right....I love bread and bread products. And I got cancer. Never correlated the two.

Just wondering why it was melanoma....I don't typically rub it on my skin.....hmmmmmmm

[Dukasaur]

DoD, you're right....I love bread and bread products. And I got cancer. Never correlated the two.

Just wondering why it was melanoma....I don't typically rub it on my skin.....hmmmmmmm

Sorry to hear about your melanoma. Hope you've beaten it! If not yet, I hope a good outcome is in your future.

You're right, skin cancer is one of the few cancers not strongly correlated with diet. Lung cancer is another.

Beyond those two, almost all major cancers have a correlation with diet. It's not hard to understand why the digestive ones do -- cancers of the stomach, pancreas and intestines -- but it's also all the sexual cancers. Breast, ovarian, testicular, prostate cancer all correlate strongly with living in a society based on grain consumption. So do bone marrow cancers.

But what correlates most strongly of all is arteriosclerosis -- hardening of the arteries -- which is responsible for the majority of heart attacks. And, while arteriosclerosis doesn't cause emphysema (smoking and environmental pollutants do) it does correlate with emphysema patients having a bad outcome. Arteriosclerosis is almost unheard of in hunter-gatherer societies.

And then there's the brain-degenerative killers -- Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Again, strongly correlated with living in a grain-fed society. Even very conservative researchers are grudgingly admitting that "there seems to be a link" between brain degeneration and diet. More cutting-edge researchers have come right out and started calling Alzheimer's "Type 3 diabetes."

[jusplay4fun]

DoD, you're right....I love bread and bread products. And I got cancer. Never correlated the two.

Just wondering why it was melanoma....I don't typically rub it on my skin.....hmmmmmmm

Sorry to hear about your melanoma. Hope you've beaten it! If not yet, I hope a good outcome is in your future.

You're right, skin cancer is one of the few cancers not strongly correlated with diet. Lung cancer is another.

Beyond those two, almost all major cancers have a correlation with diet. It's not hard to understand why the digestive ones do -- cancers of the stomach, pancreas and intestines -- but it's also all the sexual cancers. Breast, ovarian, testicular, prostate cancer all correlate strongly with living in a society based on grain consumption. So do bone marrow cancers.

But what correlates most strongly of all is arteriosclerosis -- hardening of the arteries -- which is responsible for the majority of heart attacks. And, while arteriosclerosis doesn't cause emphysema (smoking and environmental pollutants do) it does correlate with emphysema patients having a bad outcome. Arteriosclerosis is almost unheard of in hunter-gatherer societies.

And then there's the brain-degenerative killers -- Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Again, strongly correlated with living in a grain-fed society. Even very conservative researchers are grudgingly admitting that "there seems to be a link" between brain degeneration and diet. More cutting-edge researchers have come right out and started calling Alzheimer's "Type 3 diabetes."

I have not researched these links to diet and disease. But I want to make a few points.

1) Correlation does not equal causality.

2) Diet is important to overall health and possibly contributes to getting a disease. As a body (especially the immune system) weakens, the more likely a disease will manifest itself in a person.

3) Medical matters are often an issue of individual differences; what applies to one person (or group) does not apply to ALL. Diet is too pervasive an issue to isolate and prove causality beyond reasonable doubt for many diseases, it seems to me.

4) Most of the grain fed societies that I am aware of are rather affluent and so deaths due to bacterial infections (such as from bad water) or lack of proper anti-biotics means that death is more likely from 1) cancer, 2) heart disease, 3) dementia, or 4) some obscure disease. Those in less affluent societies are more likely to die from things that are treated medically by good health care that is not available to many of the poor. I use bacterial infections deaths as one example of rather easily eliminated cause of death in affluent societies. What killed our grandparents will likely NOT kill us and thus the rates of longevity increase.

5) As far as

Arteriosclerosis is almost unheard of in hunter-gatherer societies.

I would advance the argument that hunter-gathers die of other causes (such as hunting accidents or bacterial infections) and will likely not live long enough to have arteriosclerosis actually become a factor in their death. And honestly, do these people get an autopsy or even medical care to detect arteriosclerosis? I have serious doubt about that.

This reminds me of the streetlight effect.

The streetlight effect, or the drunkard's search principle, is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.[1][2][3][4] Both names refer to a well-known joke:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".[2]
The anecdote goes back at least to the 1920s,[5][6][7][8] and has been used metaphorically in the social sciences since at least 1964, when Abraham Kaplan referred to it as "the principle of the drunkard's search".[9] The anecdote has also been attributed to Nasreddin. According to Idries Shah, this tale is used by many Sufis, commenting upon people who seek exotic sources for enlightenment.[10]

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

One reason many take fish oil supplements is that Eskimos (or whatever is the proper term for people indigenous to the polar regions in North America; Innuits??) never died of heart disease and they ate lots of fish. The problem is that most of these indigenous people were never given an autopsy to determine the actual cause of death and were often listed of dying of less specific causes. We really do not know if fish oil does indeed reduce heart disease. This was the example given of the streetlight effect in medicine and why many "findings" and truths are later changed. For example, do we need multi-vitamin supplements or not? Do we only need vitamin C, E or D? (I actually used all these at different points in my life. I no longer do.)

Now since I read about this some 20 years ago, there may have been research done to 1) establish the benefit of fish oil supplements; 2) deny the likely link and causality, or 3) studies say that more studies are needed since a definitive link cannot yet be determined.

6) I am aware that there are those who claim wheat and barley are causes of many health issues, and that rice is a better source of carbohydrates to avoid these issues.

[DoomYoshi]

I used to think that was just because of the high carb load of grains and the insulin response, but I'm seeing more and more signs that it's even worse than that. There's limited evidence that high-carb non-grain populations can in some cases be healthy, so there's something there besides the carbs that's making people sick. The answer seems to be polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are the predominant type of fat in grass seeds and grass seed oils (like corn oil, etc.) The harm done by PUFAs seems to happen even if we don't eat the grain directly: grain-fed beef has dramatically higher PUFA levels than grass-fed beef. Grains are like the gift that keeps on giving; even when we filter them through the bodies of other animals, they're still capable of poisoning us afterward.

All the cereal crops are grasses. Grain = grass. False dichotomy.

[Dukasaur]

I used to think that was just because of the high carb load of grains and the insulin response, but I'm seeing more and more signs that it's even worse than that. There's limited evidence that high-carb non-grain populations can in some cases be healthy, so there's something there besides the carbs that's making people sick. The answer seems to be polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are the predominant type of fat in grass seeds and grass seed oils (like corn oil, etc.) The harm done by PUFAs seems to happen even if we don't eat the grain directly: grain-fed beef has dramatically higher PUFA levels than grass-fed beef. Grains are like the gift that keeps on giving; even when we filter them through the bodies of other animals, they're still capable of poisoning us afterward.

All the cereal crops are grasses. Grain = grass. False dichotomy.

I get your point but it's not exactly correct.

Grains are a specific subset of grasses that have been selectively bred for unusually large seeds. We harvest mainly the seeds and discard the leaves.

When we talk about grass-fed beef we are talking about a cow that eats in the natural fashion: it eats the entire grass plant -- mostly leaves. It also includes stems, (naturally tiny) seeds, and sometimes even the roots. There's also a meat component -- insects and mites that infest the grass are consumed also. So there's a lot of different things there, but the dominant thing is leafy greens -- the leaves of the grass plant.

When we talk about grain-fed beef we are talking about a cow being fed a grain crop (mostly sileage corn but others are sometimes used.) It's not just the seeds here either -- the husks and cob of the corn are included -- but the (selectively bred to be very large) seeds are the dominant component.

The leafy green buffet that the grass-fed cow eats does not contain unusual levels of PUFAs. The mostly-seed diet of the grain fed cow does. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The chemical composition of grain-fed and grass-fed beef is significantly different:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/

[KoolBak]

Thanks for the kind thots DoD...yeah I theoretically dodged a massive bullet. It was stage 4 and I'm past although my doc regularly digs chunks of my hide out in defense of future shit...lol. It's from going to Kauai every year and getting burnt AF before sunscreen was a thing.

I find all this entertaining...however one point hits home. You mentioned altzheimers and parks....does it correlate to dementia in general or just the specific disease altz?

And are you simply saying communities that eat grain shit have higher rates? Or is there a medical link? Cause when my beautiful mother suffered horribly and died from D (NOT altz), the docs certainly never mentioned that.

And you haven't linked it to ALS either - that got my 30 year old bro in law.

I am skeptical.....our society eats lots of popcicles too. And has Tuesdays in every week. I'm thinking no frozen treats mid week, just to be safe....

Yanking yo chain manno

[Dukasaur]

6) I am aware that there are those who claim wheat and barley are causes of many health issues, and that rice is a better source of carbohydrates to avoid these issues.

I'll dispense with that one first. All grains are dangerous reservoirs of short-chain starches and unhealthy. Unless you have a specific allergy (which some people do) to something in wheat or barley, rice is just as bad. Corn is generally considered the worst grain as it is slightly higher in fructose than the others, but differences are trivial. All grains are to be avoided.

3) Medical matters are often an issue of individual differences; what applies to one person (or group) does not apply to ALL. Diet is too pervasive an issue to isolate and prove causality beyond reasonable doubt for many diseases, it seems to me.

Of course there is a high degree of variability between individuals. Nonetheless trends do emerge when studying large populations. Otherwise epidemiology would be useless.

4) Most of the grain fed societies that I am aware of are rather affluent and so deaths due to bacterial infections (such as from bad water) or lack of proper anti-biotics means that death is more likely from 1) cancer, 2) heart disease, 3) dementia, or 4) some obscure disease. Those in less affluent societies are more likely to die from things that are treated medically by good health care that is not available to many of the poor. I use bacterial infections deaths as one example of rather easily eliminated cause of death in affluent societies. What killed our grandparents will likely NOT kill us and thus the rates of longevity increase.

5) As far as

Arteriosclerosis is almost unheard of in hunter-gatherer societies.

I would advance the argument that hunter-gathers die of other causes (such as hunting accidents or bacterial infections) and will likely not live long enough to have arteriosclerosis actually become a factor in their death. And honestly, do these people get an autopsy or even medical care to detect arteriosclerosis? I have serious doubt about that.

Of course on a routine basis they do not. Nonetheless, researchers do go among these people and subject them to detailed analysis. Groups like the Hadza, the iKung, the Tsimane, the Hiwi, etc., are among the most-studied people on earth.

It is quite difficult to find a good study that isn't behind a paywall. You're lucky I like you. I was persistent did finally find one.
https://www.gurven.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.anth.d7_gurven/files/sitefiles/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

The myth that aboriginal societies die too young to get degenerative diseases has often been repeated and just as often debunked. Yes, overall, aboriginal tribes do have a lower life expectancy, due mainly to infectious diseases which in our society are treatable. They often die in childhood from childhood diseases that we have mostly vaccinated our way out of, and if they suffer an injury in adult life it is more likely to be fatal due to a lack of things like antiseptic dressings that we use to prevent infection and antibiotics that we can use to treat such infections. All that is true, and yet many individuals in these tribes do reach ages of 70, 80, or 90.

In our society, if you take a random sample of 80 year olds, you will find they are mostly sick. You will find more than half are diabetic, more than half have arterial plaques and more than 20% have arterial plaques that are life threatening. You will find many with renal failure, glaucoma, emphysema, mobility issues, dementia, the list goes on and on. In an aboriginal population, you will find little of that. Yes, there will be fewer 80 year olds because many succumbed to injury or infectious disease. But of the ones that are left, almost all are healthy. One study of the Tsimane found less than 15% with arterial plaques of any kind, and the plaques that were found were mostly tiny. Those with life-threatening arterial plaques? 0%.

Among the Hadza, the men walk an average of 20 miles/day and sometimes up to 40 miles/day on their hunting/foraging trips. All men are expected to participate. Nobody begs off on account of old age. What percentage of geriatrics that you know could walk 20 miles to look for food?

All the degenerative diseases that we consider a normal part of growing old are either rare or completely absent in hunter-gatherer societies. Men hunt and gather until they are killed or die from an acute disease of some kind. Or they drop dead suddenly of true old age (mitral valve prolapse) at a respectable age in their 80s or 90s. Your end-of-life expectation is a decade of sitting in a wheelchair drooling on yourself while pharmacists pump you up with shit to keep you "alive". To the aboriginal, that would be a bizarre concept.

[Dukasaur]

Thanks for the kind thots DoD...yeah I theoretically dodged a massive bullet. It was stage 4 and I'm past although my doc regularly digs chunks of my hide out in defense of future shit...lol. It's from going to Kauai every year and getting burnt AF before sunscreen was a thing.

I find all this entertaining...however one point hits home. You mentioned altzheimers and parks....does it correlate to dementia in general or just the specific disease altz?

And are you simply saying communities that eat grain shit have higher rates? Or is there a medical link? Cause when my beautiful mother suffered horribly and died from D (NOT altz), the docs certainly never mentioned that.

And you haven't linked it to ALS either - that got my 30 year old bro in law.

I am skeptical.....our society eats lots of popcicles too. And has Tuesdays in every week. I'm thinking no frozen treats mid week, just to be safe....

Yanking yo chain manno

I'm out of time for today, but I would like to address some of these things tomorrow.

[KoolBak]

Cool....

[jusplay4fun]

I failed to get all the quotes right, but this is my first attempt to intersperse my comments among the point made by my "debate" foe in this post, but it is somewhat clear and I cannot afford to spend more time on this. I have work to do. I am enjoying the debate and discussion, Duk. I hope this does not confuse too many others reading this.

6) I am aware that there are those who claim wheat and barley are causes of many health issues, and that rice is a better source of carbohydrates to avoid these issues.

I'll dispense with that one first. All grains are dangerous reservoirs of short-chain starches and unhealthy. Unless you have a specific allergy (which some people do) to something in wheat or barley, rice is just as bad. Corn is generally considered the worst grain as it is slightly higher in fructose than the others, but differences are trivial. All grains are to be avoided.

I will keep your same order. I suppose the best advice here is from the Greeks: Nothing in Excess, not even grains. And, of course, eat a balanced diet. So is the food pyramid ALL wrong or do we overdue grain (and the converse is that we do not eat enough of [mostly fresh] fruits and vegetables)?

3) Medical matters are often an issue of individual differences; what applies to one person (or group) does not apply to ALL. Diet is too pervasive an issue to isolate and prove causality beyond reasonable doubt for many diseases, it seems to me.

Of course there is a high degree of variability between individuals. Nonetheless trends do emerge when studying large populations. Otherwise epidemiology would be useless.[/quote="Dukasaur"]

Agreed, but variability really makes NEW findings difficult to work into the minds and habits of many persons.

4) Most of the grain fed societies that I am aware of are rather affluent and so deaths due to bacterial infections (such as from bad water) or lack of proper anti-biotics means that death is more likely from 1) cancer, 2) heart disease, 3) dementia, or 4) some obscure disease. Those in less affluent societies are more likely to die from things that are treated medically by good health care that is not available to many of the poor. I use bacterial infections deaths as one example of rather easily eliminated cause of death in affluent societies. What killed our grandparents will likely NOT kill us and thus the rates of longevity increase.

5) As far as

Arteriosclerosis is almost unheard of in hunter-gatherer societies.

I would advance the argument that hunter-gathers die of other causes (such as hunting accidents or bacterial infections) and will likely not live long enough to have arteriosclerosis actually become a factor in their death. And honestly, do these people get an autopsy or even medical care to detect arteriosclerosis? I have serious doubt about that.

[/quote]
Of course on a routine basis they do not. Nonetheless, researchers do go among these people and subject them to detailed analysis. Groups like the Hadza, the iKung, the Tsimane, the Hiwi, etc., are among the most-studied people on earth.

It is quite difficult to find a good study that isn't behind a paywall. You're lucky I like you. I was persistent did finally find one.
https://www.gurven.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.anth.d7_gurven/files/sitefiles/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

[quote="Dukasaur"]
The myth that aboriginal societies die too young to get degenerative diseases has often been repeated and just as often debunked. Yes, overall, aboriginal tribes do have a lower life expectancy, due mainly to infectious diseases which in our society are treatable. They often die in childhood from childhood diseases that we have mostly vaccinated our way out of, and if they suffer an injury in adult life it is more likely to be fatal due to a lack of things like antiseptic dressings that we use to prevent infection and antibiotics that we can use to treat such infections. All that is true, and yet many individuals in these tribes do reach ages of 70, 80, or 90.

In our society, if you take a random sample of 80 year olds, you will find they are mostly sick. You will find more than half are diabetic, more than half have arterial plaques and more than 20% have arterial plaques that are life threatening. You will find many with renal failure, glaucoma, emphysema, mobility issues, dementia, the list goes on and on. In an aboriginal population, you will find little of that. Yes, there will be fewer 80 year olds because many succumbed to injury or infectious disease. But of the ones that are left, almost all are healthy. One study of the Tsimane found less than 15% with arterial plaques of any kind, and the plaques that were found were mostly tiny. Those with life-threatening arterial plaques? 0%.

Among the Hadza, the men walk an average of 20 miles/day and sometimes up to 40 miles/day on their hunting/foraging trips. All men are expected to participate. Nobody begs off on account of old age. What percentage of geriatrics that you know could walk 20 miles to look for food?

All the degenerative diseases that we consider a normal part of growing old are either rare or completely absent in hunter-gatherer societies. Men hunt and gather until they are killed or die from an acute disease of some kind. Or they drop dead suddenly of true old age (mitral valve prolapse) at a respectable age in their 80s or 90s. Your end-of-life expectation is a decade of sitting in a wheelchair drooling on yourself while pharmacists pump you up with shit to keep you "alive". To the aboriginal, that would be a bizarre concept.[/quote="Dukasaur"]

IF all persons get that much exercise and activity as the hunter-gatherers do, then those persons would be JUS as healthy, assuming they all live to the same age. Our society has "traded" diseases of one type to die from another, to oversimplify things. Our "easier" and more convenient life must be moderated by good discipline and occasional sacrifices by the person (to not overeat or overdo and to get enough exercise and activity.) I have read that to fast on occasions can be beneficial, too. Prayer and/or meditation is also good for the mind and body.

Exercise, good diets, not too much of any one food (or drink), a good network of friends and family, and a purpose in life are THE KEYS to a good, long, and productive life, it seems to me. OH, and GOOD GENES, too; they help LOTS.

[Dukasaur]

Thanks for the kind thots DoD...yeah I theoretically dodged a massive bullet. It was stage 4 and I'm past although my doc regularly digs chunks of my hide out in defense of future shit...lol. It's from going to Kauai every year and getting burnt AF before sunscreen was a thing.

I find all this entertaining...however one point hits home. You mentioned altzheimers and parks....does it correlate to dementia in general or just the specific disease altz?

And are you simply saying communities that eat grain shit have higher rates? Or is there a medical link? Cause when my beautiful mother suffered horribly and died from D (NOT altz), the docs certainly never mentioned that.

And you haven't linked it to ALS either - that got my 30 year old bro in law.

Yeah, your average doctor won't support these ideas. They're too new, too much against the flow of existing orthodoxy. Based on studies I've read, I'm fairly confident. General acceptance of new ideas takes time, and doctors in private practice are a very conservative bunch, reluctant to embrace new ideas.

It has seemed intuitively obvious to a lot of people that living cells are designed to be balanced between anabolic and catabolic processes. Until the last 20 years or so, that was just intuitive, and lacked any real experimental evidence. Only since the discovery of the mTor pathway in 1994 has actual, solid scientific evidence started to emerge.

The 2016 Nobel Prize in physiology went to Yoshinori Ohsumi for his discoveries in the field of autophagy. That was the turning point, I think. Ideas which previously had been considered outlandish have for the first time started getting mainstream acceptance. But, that was 2016, only 5 years ago. Again, mainstream acceptance takes time, and 5 years is not long.

Researchers on the fringes have been calling Alzheimer's and other degenerative brain diseases "Type 3 diabetes" for a while now, but again, it is taking time to reach mainstream acceptance. The first open use of the term by a more-or-less mainstream school is here in a public release by the Mayo Clinic. If you're interested in a deeper discussion, here's a fairly in-depth discussion.. That was just 2017.

The National Institute on Aging has gone as far as to say that diet can slow down the progression of Alzheimer's. They're not yet willing to go further and say that diet causes Alzheimer's or that it can be reversed, but at least they are telling people that diet can slow down the disease, so that's a step. (I'm being real careful here to give you only links to mainstream institutes and organizations and not taint the discussion with any of the more out-there publications that I might read.)

Specifically about ALS, there is still no solid evidence. Theoretically, since it is a degenerative disease similar to Alzheimer's and Parkinsons, it should be attackable by similar methods. One study did succeed in reversing ALS in mice, but so far nobody has had any luck with humans. Two studies on treating ALS with a ketogenic diet have both been abandoned. Of course, there's a lot of reasons why a study might be abandoned, but the most common is that things just aren't working as they hoped and they cut their losses and get out early. Here's a good survey of the existing literature on ALS and diet. Theoretically promising, but sadly, no real results yet.