chlorox Ultimately i am no expert on this topic but my own feeling as an observer to this debate is that while ancel keys may have been found to be incorrect in his thesis that linked dietary cholestrol to blood cholesterol and heart disease and dietary saturated fats have been wrongly demonised, some of his detractors may be making a similar mistake as his to go to the other extreme to lionise meat based saturated fats as being totally safe to the extent of even advocating for meat only or carnivorous diets. There was a tweet by nina telchotz where she entertained rhe idea of adopting such a diet. While it may be helpful for certain auto immune conditions (most famously jordan and Michaela peterson), for otherwise healthy people to adopt such a diet may be as unwise as adopting the pufa rich oxidised fats and processed diet thar many people have currently adopted because yet again it is not borne out by any of the traditional cultures that are famed for producing a populace of general good health and extremely long longevity…

Yes its true that cancer, heart disease and dementia WERE known hundreds of years ago the point is they were vanishingly rare. And yes they COULD accurately diagnose these conditions not least by performing autopsies. Have you read the work of Weston Price? A dentist who became fascinated by the deteriorating health of the Americans, he toured many parts of the world. In areas where American Junk Food had gained a foothold the local population became fat, sick and had terrible teeth. Where the traditional diet was followed, this did not occur.

The US city of Boston is an interesting case in point. They have amazing cause-of-death records for the entire population going back to the 1800s. For example in 1811, the population was 34,737 and there were 942 deaths. Records show 5/942 Cancer deaths (0.53%); Heart Disease ZERO; Apolplexy (Possible stroke) 13/942. Death by drowning (!) 13/942 I could go on. The MAJOR causes of death were infections and death in and around childbirth.. we’re back at life expectancy AT BIRTH

As for “going carnivore” I’m neither in favour nor against. As you note its a bit extreme but certainly works for some people. But the key point is that there’s been a world wide DROP in red meat consumption while there’s been a RISE in CV death. So its pretty hard to argue that eating red meat gives you a heart attack. There’s also no correlation between all cause mortality (dying of anything) and red meat consumption.

Nina Teicholz Book “Big FAT Surprise” is well worth reading if you want to understand the history of the seed oils. She spoke at the PHC conference recently

https://phcuk.org/phc-conference-2023/

      Grahamsphillips

      The paucity of references to AMD appears to hve been complicated by the lack of understanding of the disease to the point when evne describing it was a protracted issue - different names were used at different periods and it’s mechanisms were very poorly understood along with the tissues of the eye itself.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5091095/

      This study tracks the history of research into AMD.

      So paucity of literature refernces to AMD doesn’t mean that there was no AMD in earlier times - it would just be called going blind….

          Grahamsphillips

          The problem is that what you describe is an argument from silence. Firstly there are usually not available demographic records in ancient times surviving till now and secondly even for Boston in the 19th century, the diagnoses of causes of death in an age without autopsies for every death nor the complete medical kmloweldge to give dependable findings. Thirdly how many would have died before cancer would have struck them down in a time when they’re was lower life expectancy? In 1700, the average age when men died in Virginia was at the age of 48! https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/six-unbelievable-but-true-facts-about-colonial-life/

          On the rate of death on going all meat diet or carnivore, there may be insufficient data on this as there are no substantial human populations that I am aware of who are purely meat eating except for the inuit ans the latter was by necessity not choice due to their environment. The evidence of every civilisation producing positive health outcomes and longevity having a predominantly plant based diet with comparatively less meat to supplement it does tend to militate against the advisability of such a lifestyle choice. Furthermore it is a rich man’s lifestyle choice as going all meat in diet is considerablymore expensive than eating plant based food predominantly…

          But even so, there are studies that seem to show negative results for those choosing a predominantly meat based protein source as opposed to plant protein…https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27479196/

          Suggesting that the rate of meat consumption has gone down while the rate of death has gone up would at best only point to something else contributing to the mortality rate more than meat - it doesn’t give meat a pass since exposure of meat would be dropping. In other words that is a logical fallacy to make that argument.

          However are u sure there has really been a drop in meat consumption globally? According to this website there has actually been a very substantial RISE in global meat consumption since 1961 in accordance with rising prosperity all over the world…

          https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#:\~:text=As%20a%20global%20average%2C%20per,the%20rate%20of%20population%20growth.

          If so then if there is rising mortality rate then meat consumption is part of the problem?

            @chlorox Well I suggest you read some of the fully-referenced texts by the various scientists I’ve mentioned in this thread, and some of the original papers and reach your own conclusion. As I have done.

            I see the benefits of lifestyle interventions on a daily basis with my clients. I can see objectively and from the data that it works..

              Grahamsphillips

              On paucity in the literature, I was referring to what you said “There were FIFTY reports of AMD in the world literature upto 1930. Now its the world’s leading cause of blindness…”

              I trust your work is helping many people indeed. I am merely commenting on the dangers of going to the opposite extreme to go all meat in one’sdiet instead.

                  chlorox On paucity in the literature, I was referring to what you said “There were FIFTY reports of AMD in the world literature upto 1930. Now its the world’s leading cause of blindness…”

                  I trust your work is helping many people indeed. I am merely commenting on the dangers of going to the opposite extreme to go all meat in one’sdiet instead.

                  The point about AMD is that its not difficult to diagnose- you simply view the back of the eyeball with an ophthalmoscope and you can see it. The ophthalmoscope was invented in 1851 and perfected within 10years and adopted world wide. If AMD had been present then, it would have been seen and reported. It wasn’t reported because it didn’t exist.

                  Anyways I said as much as I usefully can now. Back to my ACS Evo!

                    Slightly back on topic, I find it fascinating how different coffees can have drastically different effects on stomach sensitivities.

                    My partner has had bouts of IBS and finds that different coffee, roasts, and even preparation methods (pourover vs espresso) can have wildly different results. So a big cup of a black PNG can have one effect, but a Brazilian blend prepared in the same way can have completely different results.

                    And yes by results I mean urgency for the toilet…

                    Grahamsphillips

                    Thanks, it’s not debilitating so much these days. After extensive investigation via the NHS (not much help…) and things like self-funded tests it seems most closely linked to stress. The exact same foods, meals even, could produce different results on different days so things like elimination tests proved fruitless.

                    However stress management appears to have significantly improved it to the point it’s quite irregular and relatively minor when it appears.

                    Coffee however, especially on an empty stomach is still avoided!

                      Grahamsphillips
                      Edited for relevance.
                      This was/is in response to your question about an extra 10 years life.
                      Whilst I am a beef producer in my retirement, our farm is carbon neutral and the stock are basically pets that we eat.(yep.)
                      We also grow our own veg and fruit and eat more fish and chicken than red meat.

                      That is a very individual trope.
                      I have a very good friend in their mid sixties who has an incurable lung disease.
                      They know the condition well, one of their parents died from the same disease.
                      They are currently questioning whether they want to proceed with a lung transplant.
                      Their issue is both their quality of life AND the quality of life of their partner who would/will have to nurse them for years.
                      Healthy, vital, years not drinking wine, eating meat/seafood etc are not necessarily years that everyone would desire.

                          Amberale This was/is in response to your question about an extra 10 years life.
                          Whilst I am a beef producer in my retirement, our farm is carbon neutral and the stock are basically pets that we eat.(yep.)
                          We also grow our own veg and fruit and eat more fish and chicken than red meat.

                          That is a very individual trope.
                          I have a very good friend in their mid sixties who has an incurable lung disease.
                          They know the condition well, one of their parents died from the same disease.
                          They are currently questioning whether they want to proceed with a lung transplant.
                          Their issue is both their quality of life AND the quality of life of their partner who would/will have to nurse them for years.
                          Healthy, vital, years not drinking wine, eating meat/seafood etc are not necessarily years that everyone would desire.

                          There’s considerable debate about how well “The War on Cancer” has worked. Truth is there have been some great successes (breast cancer; leukaemia etc) but solid tumours? VERY little progress. And how much of a benefit is a 3 month life extension if the QUALITY of life is atrocious?

                          This begs the bigger question of WHY has cancer gone from a vanishingly small cause of death (see eg from Boston above) to the No2 killer after ASCVD..

                          This by Szofia Clemens is compelling

                              Grahamsphillips

                              Do you think there’s a causal link between meat consumption (regardless of type) and cancer?

                              I have no opinion either way nor the slightest level of expertise to have an educated guess, just curious.

                                  Ernie1 Do you think there’s a causal link between meat consumption (regardless of type) and cancer?

                                  Yes but not the one you might have been led to believe. The more red meat we eat, the LESS cancer and LOWER all cause mortality. What’s killing us isn’t Red meat, its (mainly) ultra processed food, poor sleep and physical INactivity. In other words lifestyle. But that’s not what Big Food or Big Pharma want us to believe

                                      Cancer is a product of

                                      • genetics
                                      • age
                                      • environment
                                      • diagnostics

                                      We see more cancer because:

                                      • We’re generally living longer
                                      • our environment is quite different and we are exposed to more things (chemicals, hormones, artificial ingredients, radiation emitters, foreign holidays etc..)
                                      • we have much better diagnostics for cancer, which we didn’t have many years ago (in the olden days people died, often they never knew why)
                                      • Genetics - not sure but the gene pool doesn’t have weaker genomes weeded out as it did in the olden days, this must have a knock on effect over many generations.

                                      Contact me

                                        DavecUK I agree Dave but what is the primary driver? Why has cancer gone from extremely rare to incredibly common in 120y during which town air is cleaner and smoking rates have dropped massively? There’s a fascinating book called RAVENOUS by Sam Apple. It’s about the theory of cancer and the life of Otto Warburg. He of the Warburg effect. He discovered that cancer cells have a different metabolism and originated the idea of cancer as a metabolic disease. More here

                                            Ernie1 in many ways it’s a statement of the bleedin obvious! Two million years of evolution. We are designed to consume animals and specifically red meat. Why would it kill us! Evolution isn’t stupid!!

                                                Grahamsphillips

                                                With the deepest respect, i think the basic assumption underneath your premise that cancer in ancient times was vanishingly rare, is flawed. Cancer and heart disease were with the ancients too all the way to the present day and the rates were not appreciably lower - especially for heart disease. We just don’t have enough historical data to support your hypothesis…on the contrary historical writings show that ancient medical texts were well acquainted with tumours and had extensive explicit references to cancerous tumours…if canxers were not common this would not.be the case…https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.29134

                                                Further, the evidence of traditional societies throughout the world show that there is no society famed for producing longevity that subsists predominantly on meat. Instead plant based diet is the predominant source of calories. If we ignore that, it will be at our peril…

                                                  Grahamsphillips

                                                  You said “in many ways it’s a statement of the bleedin obvious! Two million years of evolution. We are designed to consume animals and specifically red meat. Why would it kill us! Evolution isn’t stupid!!”

                                                  However human teeth, jaw and digestive tract were designed to be omnivorous, not carnivorous.

                                                  https://www.biologyonline.com/articles/humans-omnivores

                                                  Furthermore chimpanzees have the nearest teeth to us (though their canines are far more pronounced) and though they do eat meat and can even be cannibalistic on other chimpanzees, meat typically only forms 6 per cent of their diet with insects forming another 4 per cent. Plant based foods form the other 90 per cent! Figs alone account for 50 per cent of their diet…

                                                  https://a-z-animals.com/blog/what-do-chimpanzees-eat/

                                                  So if chimpanzees that have more carnivorous type teeth than humans only eat meat as 6 per cent of their diet, how can humans be assumed to be designed to eat predominantly meat based diets?