Bookmark and Share

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
The "Lipid Hypothesis" Has Officially Failed (Part 2 of many)
Read the original blog post
March 8, 2011
2:14 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

"We spend more time sick now than a decade ago
Despite longer life spans, fewer years are disease-free"

Original paper: Mortality and Morbidity Trends: Is There Compression of Morbidity? Eileen M. Crimmins and Hiram Beltrán-Sánchez. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci (2010)

A 20-year-old today can expect to live one less healthy year over his or her lifespan than a 20-year-old a decade ago, even though life expectancy has grown.

Actually, it's even worse than that...more below.

The average number of healthy years has decreased since 1998. We spend fewer years of our lives without disease, even though we live longer.

Apparently 1998 is…

Bookmark and Share
March 8, 2011
7:33 pm
chuck
Guest

another beauty. nice job. you stole some of my blog post ideas or i should say you beat me to it.

Bookmark and Share
March 8, 2011
9:38 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Chuck:

Thanks! I've been scooped before, too: Dr. Harris recently wrote a post I was hoping to write.

Where is your blog?

Frankly, I'm surprised no one grabbed this article before, since it was from December.  

JS

Bookmark and Share
March 9, 2011
9:45 am
Cornelius
Guest

Yes, it amazes me that we keep hearing that Americans are getting fatter and fatter, and yet almost no one seems to get the connection between the low-fat high-sugar diet and fat Americans. For the last 50 years or more, we have been getting fatter, and for the last 50 years or more, almost everyone has been trying to eat a "healthy" low-fat diet. Reminds me of the Biff quote from "Back to the Future." "Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!"

Yup, order a latte with low-fat, non-fat, or soy milk, (another can-o-worms) add a lot of sugary syrup to make it taste somewhat less than crappy, then have a gigantic low-fat chocolate chip muffin with it, and call it lunch. Then wonder why you keep gaining weight and having health problems. :P

And the thing that REALLY amazes me is that many nutritionists don't have a clue as to how and why the body makes fat. I recently heard one say that beer can't make you fat, because there is no fat in it. According to her, what makes beer drinkers fat is the poor choices of food they make while drinking, like fried foods. Idiocy abounds. (Aside from the breading, of course, fried foods are fine, as long as they are fried in real lard. And in many cases, the breading is not that big of a deal.)

If even nutritionists don't understand the very basics, most people are screwed, unless they take it upon themselves to learn the truth. Ingesting fat does not make you fat, people. If you think it does, you need to study basic biology. As you may know, pigs are considered to be the omnivores with the digestive system that is the closest to ours. Ask a pig farmer what he feeds his pigs to fatten them up. I'll give you a hint, it is not fat.

Bookmark and Share
March 9, 2011
1:22 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Cornelius:

We all know that the way to fatten any animal as quickly as possible is to feed it grains. Did you know that the way foie gras ("fatty liver") is made is by force-feeding corn to geese? There is a lesson here for us all.

As far as "nutritionists", I don't think there is any field more full of total baloney.  What passes for nutritional "knowledge" contradicts basic biology and chemistry. We might not know all the answers -- but when someone says that "beer can't make you fat because there's no fat in it", we know right away that this person doesn't understand the first thing about how food is digested, absorbed, metabolized, and stored.

JS

Bookmark and Share
March 10, 2011
2:09 pm
tracker
Guest

Great article. I'm off to eat some saturated fat :D

Bookmark and Share
March 29, 2011
2:01 am
Around the Web; and
Guest

[...] Declining health since 1998: Via J. Stanton at gnolls.org, lifespan isn’t correlated with health, and health may have peaked in 1998. Our lifespans are [...]

Bookmark and Share
April 1, 2011
12:18 am
If today's (typ
Guest

[...] 20-year-old can expect 9.8 years without mobility, compared to 7.3 years a decade ago." The “Lipid Hypothesis” Has Officially Failed (Part 2 of many) - GNOLLS.ORG Reply With Quote   + Reply to [...]

Bookmark and Share
April 2, 2011
12:01 pm
Perfect Health Diet
Guest

[...] One topic I’ve gotten a bit interested in is the effect of obesity on lifespan, which is not large. If one effect of obesity is to reduce metabolic rate, this may tend to extend life. Perhaps this is why lifespan is extending even as morbidity is increasing. [...]

Bookmark and Share
May 20, 2011
2:22 am
Paleo Pepper »
Guest

[...] Living healthier longer: The Lipid Hypothesis has Officially Failed: Part II [...]

Bookmark and Share
July 12, 2011
5:21 pm
Mis razones para ser
Guest

[...] gusta saber que mi nivel de colesterol ya no es un problema da igual lo que mida me fijo en los triglicéridos y en la glucosa, el colesterol me protege ahora lo [...]

Bookmark and Share
August 12, 2011
5:40 am
If You’re R
Guest

[...] The Lipid Hypothesis Has Officially Failed- Part II (Gnolls) [...]

Bookmark and Share
December 6, 2011
10:04 am
WalterB
Guest

I have to disagree about lack of mobility with a full body is equivalent to being dead. I have a friend who survived a stroke and lost the use of his right foot and hands arms and legs and he still is glad to be alive albeit that he is in a nursing home, but expects to get out shortly. He seems to be his old self even with some cognitive difficulties which seem to be lessening.

It is a terrible loss, however, and all reasonable steps should be taken to prevent it. Eating yourself into a lack of mobility is however beyond stupid.

Bookmark and Share
December 6, 2011
9:35 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

WalterB:

Point taken.  I wish your friend the best recovery possible.

JS

Bookmark and Share
January 8, 2012
1:20 am
Mike
Guest

i teach 16-19yr old students in a sports college (UK), your research & work which i was intoduced to 6 months ago has had a real impact upon what i deliver to students. It all makes so much sense. Tomorrows potential fitness instructors and coaches are now receiving a balanced view on nutrtion and not just what the government or curriculum endorse. Keep up the great work.

Mike

Bookmark and Share
January 11, 2012
2:32 am
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Mike:

I'm glad that I can contribute to the education (and perhaps even the health) of the young!  It's an honor to be cited by educators like yourself as a reliable source of information.

JS

Bookmark and Share
January 31, 2013
9:36 pm
Name (required)
Guest

What has people eating lots of fast food junk and becoming more fat, sick and diabetic got to do with the lipid hypothesis? If you really think the health of the nation would be improved by telling people to eat more bacon, eggs and butter then I don't know what to say. The lipid hypothesis is accepted by the major health organizations all over the world who have reviewed the literature compiled over the last 100 years.

Bookmark and Share
February 5, 2013
12:33 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Name (required):

What is your evidence that fast food has caused the obesity crisis? 

As I point out in Part I, obesity only began to skyrocket somewhere around 1980...and as I point out at the beginning of my 2013 AHS presentation, 1980 doesn't coincide with any sort of parallel increase in fast food consumption.  (Quite the opposite, in fact.)

"The lipid hypothesis is accepted by the major health organizations all over the world who have reviewed the literature compiled over the last 100 years."

Once we accepted it, and it became official nutrition policy, in the late 1970s, obesity skyrocketed -- as I point out in Part I.  I believe that is known as "epic failure".

Also, if you go back before the 1960s, it's considered a loaf of baloney, e.g. "The great progess in dietary control of obesity was the recognition that meat was not fat producing; but that it was bread and sweets which lead to obesity." Here's a timeline of the relevant research. 

Result: yes, the health of the nation would absolutely be improved by telling people to eat more bacon, eggs, and butter.  However, red meat is better for your health than industrially-produced bacon, and I both prefer it and recommend it to my readers.  

Meanwhile, I'm sorry you're still bamboozled by the dry-whole-grain-toast propaganda: you'll enjoy life much more, and probably live longer, by ditching all that unpleasant junk and enjoying some real food. 

JS

Bookmark and Share
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 86

Currently Online:
5 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2456

Members: 3434

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 247

Posts: 8433

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2105