Discussions on potato diets, resistant starch, gut health, prebiotics, probiotics, oil-pulling, cold thermogenesis, and other affairs of plain living...
Could you help me understand more about Hi-Maize. . How does it keep its resistance with heat? Is there a temperature that it loses its usefulness. If I add some to my oatbran/corn meal mush does it stay beneficial or lose the resistant starch content?
The official website for Hi-Maize says: "HI-MAIZE resistant starch is a natural bioactive ingredient obtained from a special non-GMO corn that is high in amylose content. In the last 20 years, more than 350 published studies – including more than 70 human clinical trials – have demonstrated a range of potential health benefits obtainable from eating foods containing HI-MAIZE resistant starch. "It's available on Amazon in 50 pound bags, or at King Arthur Flour in 12oz bags (see link at top right, not an affiliate link!). I will probably get in the habit of keeping some around. It does not mix with water as well as potato starch, but it makes an excellent extender for gluten free baking, sauces, gravy, or in smoothies.Yes, you can heat it to normal baking temperatures and the high RS2 content will stay stable. This feature makes it very attractive to food manufacturers who use it to increase the fiber content of snack and junk foods. Here is a website devoted to Hi-Maize, and it's not run by the company that makes it:http://www.resistantstarch.us/news/
Thanks for the info. I was having some fun on that website and it talked about emerging benefits. One of the benefits was eye health. Before I learned about your blog I had just bitten the bullet and accepted that I needed to start using reading glasses. I bought a bunch of cheap "old lady reading glasses". Now, my husband uses them. I don't need them. I thought maybe I had just improved the nutritional content of my diet. Which I am sure has contributed but now I am thinking I bet it has also been the increase in fiber and resistant starch.
Thanks for sharing that, Allison. So potato starch reduced presbyopia? How much potato starch were you using and how often?My presbyopia seems to be less advanced, and advance more slowly, than that of other folks my age. I have also noticed what seem to be slight improvements in myopia from mung bean starch, apparently temporary, which I posted about in one of Tim's threads at Mark's Daily Apple. They weren't enough to reduce my eyeglass prescription. I was starting to take it more often and avoid things that seem to worsen myopia to see if I can increase the impact and you've piqued my curiosity about it.
I have just just been using 1-2 Tablespoons of potato starch every day in my homemade kefir/yogurt smoothie along with other fiber sources per fiber recommendations that Tim has discussed on this blog-- Inulin, Oat Bran, Benefiber etc.Recently, I have added Hi-Maize also because I like making a whole grain corn, oatbran, psylium porridge as part of my breakfast. I add 1-2 Hi Maize into that concoction and psylium at the end of cooking. There is a local food storage company, Honeyville, that sells it for a good price. I still use potato starch in anything that isn't heated or if I feel I haven't met my fiber recommendations I will take a "shot" at night.I noticed today that my husband is finally coming along, it has been however old this blog is that I have been taking potato starch. Recently, I noticed it was depleting faster. Come to find out my husband has finally started using it. He has had bad digestive issues since he had his gall bladder removed. He told me he just prefers the potato starch because it is something that he could make himself. And, that is great! I will be extremely happy if he stays with just the potato starch. My diversity scores on UBIOME were better with mainly potato starch as my fiber. I don't fully understand all this stuff which why this blog has been so helpful. Just harvested from my garden my first batch of Jerusalem artichokes. I have loved using those in vegetable pureed soups and raw in salads.
I've been thinking about this a lot. After I started my gut project, I had big improvements is presbyopia, particularly in low-light situations like restaurants. Before, mine was worse than my wife's, and I needed lights in restaurants. Now, I almost never need lights while my wife still does. She is not as diligent about the fibers. I have changed lens prescription twice in two years, becoming less myopic. I understand this might happen as a natural color nsewuence of aging. All this being said, while I could focus pretty well up close, I curiously found myself not enjoying reading. I've enjoyed reading my entire life. My eye doctor showed me what things would look like with progressive lenses. I discovered that, while a could focus, it was an effort. The reading glasses make it effortless. Now I'm back to my old reading self. YMMV
It took me a while to understand "color nsewuence".Has anyone tried Todd Becker's print pushing to reverse myopia?Incidentally - and more on-topic - Todd Becker also has an article "Is charred meat bad for you". He says the answer is mostly no, arguinging mosty on the basis of hormesis and evolutionary adaption. But also see tomR's comments on this thread on the latter.
Autocorrect hates me.
I feel the same. I've been frustrated for a while that meat consumption and fiber consumption are largely negatively correlated. We all know somebody who just eats hamburgers everyday with cheese and bacon. Anybody know one that loves veggies too? Or if you go to a steakhouse, you can get a 24 oz steak, but the family sized veggies are, what, 8 oz and loaded with bacon (Brussels sprouts) or cream (spinach). At home, the proportions are nearly exactly reverse of restaurants. Even the one that promote veggies. In fact, based on recent experience, we eat way more veggies than is in the typical vegetarian meals at restaurants (which typically have low-fiber fillers such as pasta, polenta, and the like). So is it meat causing cancer or is it that the lack of fiber causes the immune system to fail at its job?
Wilbur: 24 ounce steak? Anyone who can shove that much down the gullet is a glutton. Disrespectful. Deranged appetite.
Well, I'm not going to cast stones. If there was something special about the cut, I might. I've got two hounds, after all, that gobble meat so fast that I can't imagine how they even taste it. My fam of three did order a whole smoked lamb shoulder at a restaurant and enjoyed leftovers for several days after. But try to order the inversion of the standard meat to veggie ratio. Can't be done in most cases.
My fallback in a restaurant would always be to order a double cheese burger and eat everything but the bread, but lately I find myself getting the biggest salad they have. And, yeah, ordering a standard entree at any restaurant will ensure a measley helping of oil-soaked vegetables. If they have baked potatoes, I'll get one of those and use about half the butter and sour cream they provide.
Tim, maybe low flavour food makes people eat more. Last time I had a fastfood hamburger was probably back in 2004. Wendy's. What I noticed was it had very little flavour and the bun glommed onto my teeth. Prior to, it must have been back in about 1994 when I ate a Burger King hamburger (on two occasions) and got the dire rear thing happening. Something wrong with them burgers for sure. But maybe Americans gorge on fastfoods because they are, in fact, not flavourful at all.
I think most fast food joints also put stuff in their meat to make it tastier, and some people have reactions to it. We'd all probably be shocked to look behind the curtain of fast food.
It is prudent in scientific quests to define one's terms beyond the general. What exactly is "red meat" - from what kind of cow, what kind of life did it live, what kind of food did it eat (since that seems to be important for human animals?!) and so on.
True! The WHO paper defines red and processed meat:"Red meat refers to unprocessed mammalian muscle meat—for example, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, or goat meat—including minced or frozen meat; it is usually consumed cooked. Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance fl avour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but might also contain other red meats, poultry, off al (eg, liver), or meat byproducts such as blood."Personally, I tend to think that most people overdue "meat" in general, with way too many big servings, multiple times per day, much of it processed.I used to eat meat a minimum of 3 times a day on SAD, then twice a day on paleo, but much more total. Now I've kind of evloved to going meatless most days until dinner, and then eating a much smaller serving than most people are used to. It's probably a unique era in dieting that "peasants" like us (ie. not kings or billionaires) can eat their fill of meat several times a day. Just as with fiber, I don't think anyone really has a complete understanding of just how much we need to eat daily. My intuition says most people would do better with less meat and more fiber.
A Hungarian refugee from 1956: "I came to Canada to eat meat!" Died in 2013 due to complications of type 2 diabetes. (most likely not from meat).
@Tim, not to change the subject but about your comment... "Personally, I tend to think that most people overdue "meat" in general, with way too many big servings, multiple times per day, much of it processed." I don't disagree with this. Many people eat too much meat. Many people eat too much (or too often) of everything. Especially, I think the much bigger problem with most people is overdoing "carb" consumption three, four, five or more times per day. Being obese, fat, or anything more than mildly over-weight combined with not exercising regularly is more likely to kill you (increased all-cause mortality risk) even from cancer, than eating some "red" meat. No amount of fiber or squeaky clean colon health is gonna matter if you're a fat cow who never exercises. I'm being purposely harsh here to make a point.
No problem, it's a worthy topic. I guess there are two populations we are talking about...those eating SAD who don't know any better and those trying really hard to eat right.The only "diet plan" that embraces meat is Paleo. In fact, it is kind of the calling card. Bacon! Meat! Eat like a caveman (cue cartoon of caveman eating meat)!But what Paleo really does that is so magical for many, me included, is to get people to learn what food is truly crap and to be avoided at all costs. Sure, they got it all wrong about potatoes, rice, and beans, but they were spot on about rancid vegetable oils, refined flour, and refined sugar as well as artificial colors and flavors and even hormone-laden meat, etc...I just don't see how people can go wrong on a paleo template, heavier in plant matter than animal matter. There are some byproducts of meat digestion that appear to be somewhat toxic, and thus must be dealt with by gut bacteria. The same can be said about "antinutrients" from some plants. As to an ancestral angle in all this...a daily buffet of fresh muscle meat, cured meats, and freshly prepared carby treats is undoubtedly not they way we evolved.An imbalance in fiber consumption and meat consumption probably plays a part in the current state of world health, but just a piece in the puzzle.
Case in point: Curious, I looked at the source for the photo. At home, my plate would never look like that. The meat is too lean for me. I'd prefer a ribeye cap or something. The size of my portion of meat would be about 1/3 of that in the picture, about roughly equal to the size of the potato. The funny part for me was the description in the original blog that the potato was "topped with chives." Huh? Those little green specks? If I top a single potato like that, it's with probably half a bunch of green onions or, lately, a big handful of Chinese chives. You have to look under the green stuff to find potato, not squint at the potato to find green stuff. The room created by eating 1/3 of the meat would be filled with something green and fibrous, most likely broccolini in this case. But some nice roasted green beans would be good too.
The other pictures on that blog are just as bad. The potato is an excuse for the steak. Further down there's a picture of flat, some sort of beans with a sprinkle of amaranth. I gotta cook that stuff. Have a bag of it in the fridge. I thought it was just 'cook like rice'. Maybe someone around here has experience with amaranth?
I used to eat like this. Potato and baskets full of fluffy rolls were just for soaking up grease and filling the far reaches of my stomach...covered in butter, of course.Angelo Coppola remarked the other day, that vegans are more suited to eating meat than the average meat eater.I think meat is needed for humans to thrive, but massive slabs of meat not required.
Pop amaranth! It's a blast! Like popcorn. Only tiny and cute. My kids were enthralled! What to do with it after popping? I used it in bars.
Also this meat containst black, charred parts - this is where the carcinogens (HCAs) hide in. Grilling is like cancer-causing tradition: high temperatures for the HCAs (or acrylamide if starch is grilled), fat dropping on hots stuff forming PAH, and smoke itself contains carcinogens.
@Tim... "I think meat is needed for humans to thrive, but massive slabs of meat not required."Exactly. But also, imagine how our ancestors likely ate meat. When a kill was made they pigged out on meat and (perhaps) sun dried some of it or stored it in the snow or cold stream? When no success hunting, that was likely when they went for the starchy tubers, fruit, fish/shellfish, nuts, etc. if found. Now contrast that with modern day meat eating where ALWAYS carbs, fats, and meat are mixed in one meal. Is that optimal for digestion? Or, is it extracting less nutrition at the same time as inducing more body fat accumulation - such as the worst case scenario of things like pizza and ice cream?
Terri, are you using an air popper? I don't have one of them. But I've popped sorghum in the past and it was mehh.. Some popped and some didn't. Was cool though to see 'mini popcorns'.
amaranth seeds in hot oil = darker amaranth seeds. No popping. How disappointing. Seeing is how popping was not going to be happening, I've added some water. I didn't want porridge. Darn things before adding water were like biting on grains of sand........ will see what happens now.
Nothing happened. I eventually put them in the Nurti Bullet an cooked them some more. Sort of okay. I'm soaking seeds overnight to see if that helps. A bum batch?
Why low fat? Is it because your getting butyrate from the rs?
Not sure what you mean by "Why low fat?" I have never recommended a low fat diet, or high fat, or even counting fat, really. I think eating a well-balanced diet that includes lots of fiber, veggies, fruit, nuts, dairy and meat will get you just the right amount of fat you need. Going to great lengths to increase or decrease fats is not required.
In order to reduce the carcinogenity of red meat you also have to deal with Neu5Gc issue. You could for example geneticaly engeneer cows not to have the genes for production of Neu5Gc - you can copy ones from humans.
There is no "carcinogenity of red meat". That has not been proven.
Good point. And I did not mean to imply there was, or even get into that debate. Click any of the links above from Sisson, Kresser, Cordain and you will see they quite handily debunk the myth.That said, there does seem to be a direct correlation to certain cancers in people who consume large amounts of red meat, especially when overcooked and preserved.Quite possibly, Neu5Gc aside, all that needs done to remove the risk is to consume a high-fiber diet.
@Tim, is this *correlation* with one type of cancer - intestinal/colon?From what I read on this subject is that while that *one* correlation might be true, when you look more broadly at the stat's that all-cause mortality goes down. Certainly focusing on reducing risk of death from ALL causes is the intelligent choice. What chaps my hide is how freaking dumb most of these studies are... because they are making "findings" based on the usual poor lifestyles of these high meat eaters... low fiber intake as as you pointed out... and MUCH more often than not a sedentary lifestyle - little or zero exercise. Even the later has been shown to effect intestinal health as well as health and longevity overall.
Brad: agreed. Eat your fibre foods and walk! Walk. Not just from the parking lot to the grocery store.
@Brad - you wrote the following sentence "There is no "carcinogenity of red meat". " This is a very strong claim. What is the evidence for this exact claim?
I used to eat lots of meat (1kg per day). Now being quite high fibre (100g approx per day from supplements + whole foods), my meat consumption is much lower and I specifically avoid red meat. I'll eat chicken, but mainly eggs and fish. I feel much better.Not sure if I have the Neu5Gc problem or not, but while I used to enjoy steak etc. It nearly always gave me gum pains when eating, no other foods have done this.
Tom and Rob - I am not sure what to make of the Neu5Gc issue. I wish I knew how many were effected and precisely what the symptoms are. The symptoms I've seen attributed to Neu5Gc, ie. autoimmune disorders, joint pain. Can also be caused by many things besides meat.Truthfully, I think it is much ado about nothing.For instance, there is a creature living in biotech labs all over the world called a "hybridoma". These are ungodly hybrids of immune cells from lab mice and human cancer cells. These hybridomas live forever, and are used in research and production of monoclonal antibodies for medicine and research.In 1996, the issue was raised about Neu5Gc in hybridomas, and this paper (Failure of human immunoresponse to N-glycolylneuraminic acid epitope contained in recombinant human erythropoietin.) concluded: "The above results indicated that therapeutic administration of rHuEPO to patients to patients with chronic renal failure is safe from allergic-like side effects associated with the production of Neu5Gc-specific antibodies, and it was concluded that Neu5Gc epitope of rHuEPO is minimally antigenic in humans."I just don't know. I'd say it would be worth it for people in doubt to give up red meat for a year or so to see if certain symptoms clear up. It's not unfathomable to give up red meat for the rest of one's life if it meant living without autoimmune symptoms.I just hate to see people grasping at this straw when so little is known.
I think that's an important aspect. I think when you get your gut straightened out, you figure out what diet suits you best. The specifics seem to vary across individuals, but I'd bet we'd agree on which grocery store aisles to shop!For some reason, my beef consumption is pretty low. Maybe once every couple of weeks? But I eat other red meats more frequently, like goat and lamb. Chicken is always chicken thighs, unless I do roasted chicken. I feel like it is the fat and connective tissue that my body wants. Shoulders, legs, chewy stuff. A standard chicken breast, what I ate so much of in my low fat days, is the antithesis of what I seem to need. Rob, so things are going well? High fiber makes you happy? Two years in now, I'm convinced that there are long run improvements too. They seem to be "under the hood" so to speak, so I don't know what they are. I just know that I feel many decades younger than I am.
Just followed some related papers to the 1996 one above, it seems in 2010, the issues was raised more alarmedly as many mouse-based recombinant therapies were not working as designed, and neu5Gc was again suspected:Implications of the presence of N-glycolylneuraminic Acid in Recombinant Therapeutic Glycoproteins (2010)"Overall, we suggest that the potential significance of the presence of Neu5Gc on glycoprotein biotherapeutics should be revisited. While a natural tendency is to downplay potential new problems involving currently useful drugs, it is worthwhile considering lessons from other fields, where initial enthusiasm was not balanced by full appreciation of immune risks31. In this regard, we have also suggested that Neu5Gc contamination of stem cells and other cell types intended for human therapy could pose risks32,33. Also, others have recently reported that Cmah null mice can reject Neu5Gc-positive wild-type organ transplants via complement-fixing anti-Neu5Gc antibodies."And this has led to creation of a new line of "fully human" recombinant proteins.
Tim - this sounds like something from a film. For me personally the lack of gum inflammation and easier to digest proteins means I'll be keeping away from red meat.Wilbur- - I'm doing good thank you. Whilst I'm not totally 'cured', I continue to feel better, albeit slowly. Ive adopted further ideas to help rebuild my system, some from people on here:1. Daily goats milk kefir2. Sauerkraut and other ferments3. Digestive enzymes with each meal4. High doses of l glutamine (30g)5. ColostrumNot to mention the fibres! I couldn't imagine going back to eating the way I did before, the benefits are too good. I never crave junk.Yesterday I craved almond butter, so ate quite a lot. Today I didn't fancy any but wanted 100% chocolate which I haven't had much lately. I believe in your ideas of listening to your gut!
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Tim - there is a known link between cancer and non-acute inflammation, examples:http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/4/4/221.fullhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/http://news.mit.edu/2015/link-between-inflammation-and-cancer-0115One of the types of chronic inflammation is one caused by the immune system (autoimmune) attack on Neu5Gc containing human cells.Why would a human have Neu5Gc containing cells at all? After all humans are those rare mammals (Squirrel Monkey and something else too) that don't produce Neu5Gc. Have been doing this for 2.7 million years. Might bee a good thing for brain development, as in mammals that prodce it is rare in the brain anyway. But although we have lost the ability to produce Neu5Gc we can still incorporate it in our cells, just like a proper mammal does - but only if we get it externally.Unfortunately it can happen that a human immune system may (it's not deterministic) recognize cells with Neu5Gc as foreign and attack them - thus starting a chronic inflamation. Which is a mechanism (not deterministic again) for cancer.Unfortunately Neu5Gc is inherent to red meat (mammal meat) except for the aforementioned brains. Birds, fish, reptiles don't have it. Perhaps one of the reasons they are safer than red meat when it comes to cancer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D42GJsV-2I4
@Rob - glutamine helps cancer grow. Is a basic and critical food for a cancer! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917518/" Paradoxically, some cancer cell lines also display addiction to glutamine despite the fact that glutamine is a nonessential amino acid that can be synthesized from glucose. The high rate of glutamine uptake exhibited by glutamine-dependent cells does not appear to result solely from its role as a nitrogen donor in nucleotide and amino acid biosynthesis. Instead, glutamine plays a required role in the uptake of essential amino acid and in maintaining activation of TOR kinase. Moreover, in many cancer cells, glutamine is the primary mitochondrial substrate and is required to maintain mitochondrial membrane potential and integrity as well as support of the NADPH production needed for redox control and macromolecular synthesis."http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/biofiles/glutamine-metabolism.html"Although a large proportion of tumor cells utilize aerobic glycolysis and shunt metabolites away from mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, many tumor cells exhibit increased mitochondrial activity. In these cells, glutamine uptake is markedly enhanced and far exceeds the metabolic requirements of the cell. Much of this glutamine is inefficiently used and secreted from the cells as lactic acid, ammonia, or alanine, a situation with many parallels to the inefficient metabolism of glucose by many cancer cells.1 Glutamine is used by the cell for both bioenergetic and biosynthetic needs. Glutamine can be used as an amino acid for protein synthesis, as a carbon source, or as the primary nitrogen donor for multiple essential biosynthetic reactions in the cell. Once taken up by the cell, much of the glutamine is converted to glutamate by mitochondrial glutaminase, an enzyme whose levels are often upregulated in tumors and tumor lines.2,3 Glutaminase is required for the proliferation of both a human B lymphoid tumor line and PC3 prostrate cancer cells, suggesting that targeting this pathway is a viable therapeutic option.It is now well appreciated that many of the signaling pathways that promote oncogenesis also reprogram glutamine metabolism, and in many cells the dependence on glutamine is absolute, a condition termed glutamine addiction"
Interesting, TomR. Thanks! Part of my not worrying about the Neu5Gc thing is that it seems like an evolutionary adaptation, if we have been eating red meat to our detriment for 2 million years, you'd think we'd have learned not to eat it, or that the aberrant genes would be gone by now. So, either being allergic to a component in red meat is a very, very recent turn of events, or it is something we've dealt with for millions of years.I think that people who have unexplainable auto-immune problems should be counseled to give up red meat and see if it helps. Who knows? Maybe this is the root of more AI disease than we realize.
@Tim, as you prob know, but many people don't, or they forget... ancestral meat... FRESH meat... is quite different that what we eat today. The animal's diet and so fat and nutritional content was different, and it was not aged like modern day beef is.
Sure. Modern beef is a travesty.If you ever go to the Big Island of Hawaii, there is one of the largest private cattle ranches in the world there. These cows are raised on Hawaiian grasses in a tropical setting.Then, they get herded onto a ship, send to California, and "finished" in a feedlot right alongside all the other CAFO cows in America, and sold in Safeway and Krogers just like any other crappy beef. Such a shame.
@Rob, one of the human body's most important antioxidants is Glutathione which is derived from glutamate - which "red" meat is high in. Eggs and dairy are also good sources.
@Tim,What do you mean by "unexplainable auto-immune problems"?
Well, most AI problems are "unexplanable". Nobody really knows what causes Hashimoto's, Lupus, or T1D. Several people have put forth that meat's Neu5Gc may be at the root of some AI.This is a pretty good paper:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586336/"Therefore, Neu5Gc is in fact a unique novel type of antigen modifying the surface of human cells in many diverse ways. While it is recognized as “self” by the cellular biochemical machinery, it is recognized as “non-self” by the immune system and hence becomes a ‘xeno-auto-antigen’. Here, we lay the foundation for studying the potential role of anti-Neu5Gc antibodies under human conditions associated with chronic inflammation, such as cancer, atherosclerosis, and autoimmune disease. In this regard, it is also interesting that such diseases appear to be rare in nonhuman primates (Olson and Varki 2003), which naturally express Neu5Gc, but not anti-Neu5Gc antibodies."
@Tim - you wrote "it seems like an evolutionary adaptation". Never trust evolution. It's insidious: gives us great stuff when we are young; but tries to make you worse after some time! Have you heard about the "programmed aging" aging theory? One of the less than twenty prominent aging theories; but the one that - when coupled with stem cell depletion theory looks like the most explanatory for aging as we see. I'll start from the easier part - the stem cell depletion. Look at an example supercentenarian who died from cancer. How so? A person living longer than ninety should have a strong immune system after all? Well yess, but only until you have stem cells left to make immune system cells! After that you have no immune system and you die from a diesease :-(http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40567/title/In-Old-Blood/"She and her colleagues scanned the genomes of the supercentenarian’s white blood cells and found something they hadn’t expected: the vast majority of the cells had apparently descended from just two hematopoietic stem cells. “The way the mutations were distributed over all the blood cells, it could only mean they were parented by two blood stem cells,” explains Henne Holstege The geneticist didn’t know it was possible for a person to survive with just two hematopoietic stem cells, which give rise to crucial immune cells, including macrophages, neutrophils, dendritic cells, T cells, B cells, natural killer cells, and more. The homogeneity of van Andel-Schipper’s blood cells at the time of her death is an indication that the woman’s stem cell population must have decreased over her lifetime, Henne Holstege says." Notice it means it's not good for longevity to have autoimmunity - loosing your stem cells faster. Especially stupid to waste them for fully avoidable factors like Neu5Gc. Hunter gatherers don't live to old ages like >80, so they don't have issues with stem cell depletion - they can waste immune cells first on Neu5Gc autoimmunity, then to fight mini-cancers caused by this process, because they just don't live long enough to face the consequences. So there's no "adaptation" to autoimmune stuff if you assume modern, rather than past evolutionary lifespans.
Programmed aging is more twisted theory; but when it is fully proven then all the talk about evolutionary adaptation or doing stuff as our ancestors goes to the toilet - as it means evolution works AGAINST US, becomes our ENEMY when we cross certain years. The idea is that evolution is producing newer generation that are superior to previous generations in genetic potential (of becoming faster, more intelligent, stronger etc.), but these new generations need an environment to live - currently occupied by generations prior to them. That have the advantage of being grown up, having experience etc. -a llowing old, inferior generations to win the means to live with new generations, preventing the newer generations superior in potential to win before the new guys grow up to achieve greatness :-( Enter aging - a genetic mechanism that artificially tries to make older generations uncompetitive, thus leaving the environment, the means to live to the new generations: weaker by experience, superior in genetic potential. Thus the biology improves - new, superior generations replace older ones. Had the older ones stayed forever there would be no progress.http://www.vincegiuliano.name/Antiagingfirewalls.htm#Programmedgeneticchangestheoryhttp://mathforum.org/~josh/bydesign.htmlI think that in humans in top financial position (but not the average people) have already achieved this state, where older generations ameliorated aging process with medicine enough to leave no room for the newer, superior ones! Look at the ages of US presidential candidates, most popular ones being around 70s. Or elderly businesmann like Soros or Buffet still holding grip on business, instead of giving it to the successors. Or British queen - if she lives to 120 then who should inherit the throne. And yes, the top people by talent in the new generation are superior to the top people in the old generations because of those additional generations of assortative mating of top people by talent with other top people by talent. This still doesn't beat having billions that the old guys have. Going back to biology: even without theories the existance of aging in humans - as compared to so called neglible senescence species, that age minimally - means that evoltution is not your friend if you are a human old by age, that it didn't provide us with appropriate adaptations for good performance at old age. Bad adaptations. They cause mental slowdown, physical handicap, vunerability to dieseases, disgusting look. You have to work against them, not with them! It means we have to give up on hoping the adaptations are going to save us, and use novel and artificial means to perform well at old age. This means doing things differently than our species did in the past. No Paleo. Worst style of the modern stuff are those 6 heart transplants of David Rockefeller, but they allowed him to live to 100. More than our Paleo ancestors did. Of course I don't avocate this style of antiaging :-) And it is not like we can even afford 6 heart transplants. Or that it is moral to egoistically take 5 additional hearts, that could save someone else. This brings us back to red meat, Neu5Gc in a proper context. Avoiding them costs nothing, may even save you money (turkey being cheaper than beef), right now it's even official, has blessing from world leaders, medicine, is easy to justify to those questioning it and so on. So you eliminate these cancer risks associated with red meat at no cost. Not compatible with our evolutionary history, or with what we are adapted to do, but hey, our adaptations are not adapted to what we want as individuals either.
As an addition to this long wall of text I've written that somehow moved to the topic of aging and evolution - cancer and aging are intimately related. Explaination here:http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2013/05/07/part-1-slaying-two-dragons-with-one-stone-how-to-prevent-cancer-and-aging-with-the-same-strategy/http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2013/05/13/part-2-slaying-two-dragons-with-one-hail-of-stones-the-silencing-of-good-genes-in-aging-and-cancer-and-how-polyphenols-can-prevent-that/http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2013/05/20/part-3-slaying-two-dragons-with-the-sound-of-silence-how-to-keep-your-repetitive-dna-turned-off-with-3-songs-sirtuins-polycomb-proteins-and-dnmt3-and-a-master-list-of-dru/
TomR - Great "wall of text", thanks! Very interesting points, and two of my favorite topics, aging and cancer.You said: "So you eliminate these cancer risks associated with red meat at no cost."I think that in some respects people are dancing all around the real topic, and that is to simply eat a diet higher in fiber and devoid of processing additives.When you stop eating processed foods, ie. those made with stabilizers, emulsifiers, colors, flavors, oils, and the radiated/pasteurized/sterilized, you get closer to giving your body access to the nutrients it requires.When you eat lots of fiber, your gut, immune system, and bacteria can do waht it was designed to do: detoxify foods and give you access to micronutrients and chemicals they produce which you need.
It's really funny, I am a compulsive eater by nature, will eat virtually anything, and yet I cannot stand steak and any other meat that you have to really chew. I can't get over how much people love steak! (I'm not counting hotdogs, burgers - preferably with buns - or tender lamb or chopped liver.) In fact, I had tried to eat red meat, at least organic chopped meat, but found my digestive issues flared up. I decided red meat probably wasn't for me, but worry about missing out on some important nutrients.Debbie
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never seen any evidence that we need red meat. I'm quite sure that all the meaty-goodness we need can be had from seafood or poultry, even organ meat and bone broth from seafood and poultry is fine.
I don't believe that most poultry meat has as much nutrition as properly raised ruminants and other graminivores. Even naturally raised pork is more nutritious overall (broader range of nutrients) than poultry meat.Frankly I think the term "red meat" should be banned from any serious discussions about nutrition just as other general labels like "carbs". You just cannot talk intelligently about a group of foods because individually members of the group often differ greatly in nutritional content and health effects... often even just preparing them differently makes a huge difference - eg. undercooked roots/tubers (RS!) - let alone their contents. Do we "need" ruminant meat - is it required to live? No. That's not the same as saying if it's a beneficial addition to a diet - which I think most surely it is. Between fish, poultry, and ruminant meat if I had to give one up, the "red" meat would be the last one. Of all animal based foods, free-range eggs would be the very last one I'd give up.
A great example is ruminant liver. Perhaps the single healthiest food you could eat. So nutrient dense that you really don't have to eat much of it. Granted it's not "red meat". Btw, prepared properly (undercooked) and it can be easy to chew and pretty tasty, albeit a flavor not to everyone's liking.
@anonymous, I can identify with you on the chewing aspect. Muscle meat can be tough depending on cut, quality, and prep/cooking. Try ground beef and add stuff to it... spices, etc. Maybe make a meat loaf with thinks like garlic, minced onions, and whatever else mixed in (eggs, breadcrumbs?).
@anonymous. What Brad said. The cut of meat needs to matched with the cooking method. Flank steak is a canonical example. Prepared wrong, it's a nasty cut of meat. But cooked medium rare, cut on a diagonal across the grain, it can be a tasty, mostly tender cut. Or cooked forever, shredded into strands, and then "fried" in oil, it makes a terrific tinga. Pork butt cooked to 145 and sliced right makes terrific sandwiches. Pork butt cooked to 195 and pulled makes great BBQ Shoulders and legs can be cooked for hours and be tender. Or they can be cut by a butcher into steaks or chops that can be eaten medium rare. It's I,portent to match the cooking method to the cut. Or, for instance, if you eat only well done meat, you have to match the cut to that. Well marbled meat will be your friend.
...had to look up 'tinga'.
I love tinga! The first few times were traumatic, cooking a beautiful cut of meat to death. But that seems to be the nature of flank steak. Cook it hardly at all, or to death. I think it's something you'd like. It would be fantastic in a salad or soup. I'd bet you could do Thai or Korean versions.
flank steak, definitely need to visit the Korens. Expensive though. I'll look around.Have you ever cooked pork jowls? I see them everywhere.
Pork jowls, yum! I found some pork cheeks and that was the best! I made barbacoa with the cheeks along with tortillas made with Bob's Red Mill Masa! Another favorite pork belly. To me, if you can find a butcher shop that supplies local pork the taste is incredible. I totally agree with Wilbur on the cuts of meat. Love lamb heart too!
navillus, that's one thing I need to try making: lamb heart. But around here it's the whole pluck for sale. What on earth do I do with the lungs? Definitely pork side belly is a regular item around here. The quality of the pork sold at the Korean supermarket is excellent. Beef? They sell all sorts of different cuts but I've found most of them kind of chewy. Probably the way I've cooked them. But I'm not a huge beef fan anyway. Are pork jowls really fatty? I can't 'analyze' the meat based on it's unique appearance.
I seem to need beef. I can eat all other kinds of animal protein for a while and then one day I just seem to have to eat beef for a while. Probably depends on the individual. I have chronically low ferritin (known health issues) so this may be a driver of the craving for me.
Amy, when I read your first sentence, I thought, she's got low iron.... and there ya go. Do you eat the organ meats at all? Liver, kidney, heart? Heart is interesting. Slice it thin and fast fry to keep it soft. Different texture from skeletal muscle meat. I haven't cooked beef heart yet but have done pork. Just I stir fried it and it was kinda chewy. Tim cooks moose heart.Lamb kidneys are good too. Easy to do. Chicken livers are easy and if you overcook them, they do not get tough.If you eat the liver you get copper too. A la Jane Karlsson (who is vegetarian but anyway). And with kidneys you get vitamin K2. Chicken liver has vitamin K2 but beef does not.
I don't quite understand the mechanism, but that's interesting that chicken liver has K2, but beef doesn't.Would duck have K2? RM
And lamb liver!
Well, well, well: I went to Starsky supermarket today. It's Polish with lots of Ukrainian and German and other eastern European products. There's a BIG counter where they sell smoked sausage of every possible persuasion. Another counter full of salamis, hams, bacon, you name it, they got it! Clearly the WHO fear mongering has not penetrated the customer base of this supermarket. Or me either. I loaded up on smoked sausages and naturally smoked bacon... yum yum yum and to hell with the WHO. I think they've been infiltrated by vegetarians. ;)
I've done a bit of sleuthing. Everything I say can be found on the Web. Maybe it's true; maybe not. Apparently the WHO is funded 3:1 with voluntary contributions. Funds that can be withdrawn. Moreover, these funds are directed toward specific projects specified by the donors. They are not general purpose funds. And -drumroll - the largest voluntary donor iiiiiissss..The Gates Foundation. Who advocates for a more plant-based diet for environmental reasons.
EU has rules that limit some of the most carcenogenic substances in smoked meat, but not all. Eg. there are limits on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons called benzo(a)pyrene. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-1211_en.htmSo it looks like EU tries to limit carcinogenity of foods by multiple small steps, rather than a single radical revolution - that would be faster and more efficinent when it comes to people's health, but disruptive for businesses.
The EU has much more strict rules for food additives. In the US, food additives are allowed, until they are determined to be harmful to health. In the EU, manufacturers must go through a long process to show the additives are not harmful, and if they cannot do this, they cannot put it into food.The FDA caters too much to "Big Food."
Wilbur - Sure. 100% agreed. There are many groups who would love to see a vegan world. I try to look through all that when deciding what to eat.
.............mmmmmmm, natural hickory smoked sausage......... yum. What a way to die! I eat smoked meats during autumn and winter. It's my inborn seasonal eating. Same with the sauerkraut and kimchi: winter foods. It's darn tooting cold outside right now. Nasty nasty cold wind too. I am here today because my ancestors put away smoked meat and fermented vegetables. If it worked for them..... well, there you go. Spring, summer and autumn are for fresh stuff. Still cooking collard greens, kohlrabi greens and amaranth leaves... for now. Sauerkraut soup rocks, btw. Good for what ails 'ye.
I just burned the bacon (left it unattended in the oven too long) and ate it anyway. :-) So this is good news. I'll add a few tbsp of RPS today and get over the guilt. Yay! Thanks again for more great info, Tim!
Bacon in the oven? Are you crazy, Amy? Bacon is supposed to splatter all over the stove top, and then you are supposed to fry eggs in the grease! lol
Amy, have you ever seen the bacon hack? The Crazy Russian! LOL! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzTpOJl7RGM
Correction: here's the bacon sandwhich hack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g04YCgCte_c
Correction: I can't spell...........sheeeeesh........sandwich! There!
There is surely a difference between traditionally preserved meats, ie. sausages, salamis, smoked or honey cured hams, that sort of thing, and modern, processed meats, ie. deli ham, bacon, and sausages bought at the big grocery store.
Tim & Amy - New Year's day breakfast in our (Scottish) family - sausage, bacon, blood pudding fried up in the electric frying pan, then bread fried in the grease. Hangover cure.
Gabi - Nooo, not the crazy russian hacker! That's the most addictive youtube channel there is!And it's spelled "sammich".
Thanks for the 'correction', Cukey.
Amy, I'm new here... what is RPS? Thanks.Dan
RPS = Raw Potato Starch
I am not a great fan of Red meat or processed meat. Give me Chicken or fish and lot of veg any day! However, meat on its own is not the cause of Cancer, etc. It is what happens to the Protein in meat that escapes digestion in the Stomach and small intestine and reaches the colon. Protein that arrives in the Colon undergoes Fermentation and the metabolites produced (Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulphide, Phenols, Etc) are mutagenic , Carcinogenic, inflammatory. How much meat you consume (portion size!) and your ability to process (ie: Digest) the protein content of meat decides how much reaches the Colon for Proteolytic Fermentation and production of Toxic metabolites.Tim provides a link above (Review article: insights into colonic protein fermentation, its modulation and potential health implications) that explains a lot. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apt.13456/pdfIf you want to eat red meat, it would make sence to eat small, digestible portions, or perhaps enhace your bodies ability to produce digestive enzymes and bile by including Spices in the diet ( Black Pepper, Coriander, Ginger, Turmeric, etc)Digestive stimulant action of spices: a myth or reality?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15218978http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12577586
Ashwin, I watched a video of a verdant spice plantation in India. The guy giving the tour said black pepper is laxative. If this is true, then putting it on meat will possibly flush more protein into the colon. ??? In my family of origin, we didn't use black pepper except rarely and not at the table. I agree with you though: eat small amounts and NOT more than once per day. This whole thing about people eating pounds of steak in one meal is outrageous and disrespectful. I'd hazard 4 to 6 ounces of meat is plenty!
@Gabriela - black pepper slows down excretion of substances from the organism - wich is good if one has just ingested some health-promoting substances (vitamins don't become expansive urine!), but which is bad if one has ingested health-degrading substances, toxins, carcinogens etc.http://examine.com/supplements/black-pepper/
Gabriella, Its all in the Dose! Laxative (upregulates intestinal motility) at low dose and the opposite at high doses! Black pepper is never used at the table in Indian homes. Only used in spice mixes during cooking or added at the end of cooking (to retain the Volatile actives, which may be lost by heating). To add to the confusion, there is also a distinct black pepper in India called LONG PEPPER or Piper Longum. This pepper is rarely used in cooking but extensivley used in Ayurvedic medicine. A good example of an Ayurvedic Formulation used as a Digestive is TRIKATU. A mixture of equal quantites of Long Pepper, Black Pepper and ginger.http://www.himalayawellness.com/products/pharmaceuticals/trikatu.htm
Ashwin, the Ethiopians use that long pepper too. So small dose = laxative. Large dose = constipation. (!!!)Unlike chili peppers which large dose = boohoo on the toilet. ;0
Nice one Anon!
Unless you were Irish.
A friend sent this to me, comments appreciated!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DCjwIVJmMw&feature=youtu.be
I stopped at where the guy says 'stress management'. That's a HUGE component. We can be under so much overwhelmingly negative stress that it ages us like crazy. I think that a healthy diet can include meat and fish and shellfish. But no matter what you eat, heavy duty stress is going to show.I've seen people on what I think is crappy diet a year after retirement. They look like they've had a face lift. Go on a good vacation for 3 weeks. Come back. Your co-workers are going to say how wonderful you look. 3 days later after you've had to catch up on all the garbage that's accumulated over the 3 weeks you've been away on vacation and you look like you never went.Been there.
Which reminds me: too many Americans don't get to go on vacations. Or they choose to not do so. The Germans, Danes and whatnot get something like 6 weeks per year. No wonder they are healthier. Plus the Europeans have umpteen stat holidays (due to religious holidays) compared to Americans.
It looks like the promoters of carcenogenic meat processing methods (grilling) just throw resistant starch out (1 m 33s and 3 m 36s) in order to have "crispy fries". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQwckIZiVA