Freedomain Radio

Stephen C:

I've tried to stay away from dairy, but drinking coffee black is <<shivers>>, ewww. 

Coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins and certainly is not a "Paleo" item anymore than dairy is. If it tastes gross as it comes, then why not follow the natural intuition of the body and not consume?

aelephant:

At the very least, the IGF-1 "picture" is not as clear-cut as Dr. McDougall is making it out to seem.

The doctor bases his views on a broad study of the literature and knowledge of biochemistry, not just one contrary study. He also raises a great many concerns with dairy, IGF-1 is only a single issue.

With many health topics one can obtain contrary findings so unfortunately it is necessary to understand them specifically and consider them in the context of all the other findings. This does not lend itself well to short exchanges on philosophy boards.

aelephant:

I am still researching this. If you have good references / materials for me to read, please post them up. :)

One can spend a lifetime doing health research and still not know enough to decide what to eat at the end of it. This is very profitable for academics, but of little value to you or me in the here and now.

The rational person gives up this approach and starts with what we do know, and that is evolutionary theory, or specifically the theory of adaptation/maladaptation.

Imagine some factory invents a new "food" tomorrow, how do I decide whether to eat it or not? I simply don't bother with it, because I am least well adapted to novel environmental inputs, and most well adapted to my ancestors environment.

Humans are essentially a frugivorous primate with more primitive features (miocene era) when compared to the other great apes. Working from these first principles, one concludes that we should base our diet on fruits and raw veggies.

The dairy industry pays for and fixes research, it receives massive subsidies from the state to help it do so. Dr McDougall explains in this presentation.

 

start at around 15 minutes in to see him explain rigged research

When you understand that the state is essentially funding an industry to fix research for it's own ends, then you understand that working through the research in order to find the truth is a complex task. Cherry picking one or other study needs extreme caution, not all studies are created equal.

SimonF:

The dairy industry pays for and fixes research, it receives massive subsidies from the state to help it do so. Dr McDougall explains in this presentation.

 

start at around 15 minutes in to see him explain rigged research

I'm only getting started on the video, but the claims he makes about the studies don't actually match the data from the studies.

From the Youtube clip:

Study subjects who received the extra milk for a year lost more bone than those who didn't drink the milk.

Pull up the study he cites and have a look:

Bone remodeling rates changed significantly with milk supplementation and, as predicted from our previous studies (14,18), both accretion [bone creation] and resorption [bone breakdown] decreased, resorption more so (-0.060gm/d vs. -0.105gm/d) than accretion. The difference in change between these measurements accounts for the improvement in balance of +0.044 gm/d (+-0.071).

Uhm. So maybe my knowledge of statistics is bad, but doesn't 0.044 (+-) 0.071 mean the actual difference could have been anywhere from +0.115 to -0.027, meaning it could have been 0 and isn't a statistically significant difference?

If so, I disagree with both the researchers' conclusion and Dr. McDougall's... it seems possible that milk supplementation made no difference at all.

His analysis of the review isn't quite right either.

From the actual study:

The overall ratio of favorable to unfavorable effects in the stronger studies was 2.0 (4.0 in <30-y-olds, 1.0 in 30–50-y-olds, and 1.0 in >50-y-olds).

So it looks like the favorable effects predominated in <30 year olds; in anyone 30+ the favorable and unfavorable effects were equal.

30 years is roughly the age at which your body switches over from predominately creating bone to favoring resorption (bone breakdown).

My conclusion so far is that the effects of calcium on bone health AFTER the age of 30 are probably way overblown by the media, medical establishment, etc.

Also from the study:

Dairy food intake generally accounts for a small proportion of the variance in bone mass. In 912 women, Yano et al (23) found that age, body size, hormone replacement therapy status, and thiazide use collectively explained 22–36% of bone mass variation; dairy calcium intake explained <0.3% (23). In 2025 women, Honkanen et al (22) found that age, body weight, years to menopause, and hormone replacement therapy explained 25% of bone mass variation; dairy calcium intake explained <0.7% (22). In 11000 women, Honkanen et al (20) found that high dairy calcium intake was associated with a reduction in the risk of bone fracture of <1% (P = 0.03). These results raise the possibility that dairy food intake has a small effect on bone health.

If it is true that dairy calcium intake explains between <0.3 and <0.7% of bone mass variation, is it really something the media and medical establishment need to be shouting about as loudly as they are?

Regarding the Acid-Alkaline Hypothesis, there are two good articles I found:

The alkaline diet: is there evidence that an alkaline pH diet benefits health?

This article seems balanced to me, leaning more in favor of an alkaline pH diet being beneficial.

Still, they write:

The most recent systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that calcium balance is maintained and improved with phosphate which is quite contrary to the acid-ash hypothesis [29]. As well a recent study looking at soda intake (which has a significant amount of phosphate) and osteoporosis in postmenopausal American first nations women did not find a correlation [30]. It is quite possible that the high acid content according to Remer's classification needs to be looked at again in light of compensatory phosphate intake. There is online information promoting an alkaline diet for bone health as well as a number of books. However, a recent systematic review of the literature looking for evidence supporting the alkaline diet for bone health found no protective role of dietary acid load in osteoporosis [31].

Citation 31 is the other article:

Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease

Both are good reads. The authors of this study don't disclose any competing interests, so I don't think you can claim this is a study funded by the dairy industry.

SimonF:

Stephen C:

I've tried to stay away from dairy, but drinking coffee black is <<shivers>>, ewww. 

Coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins and certainly is not a "Paleo" item anymore than dairy is. If it tastes gross as it comes, then why not follow the natural intuition of the body and not consume?

Is that why coffee intake seems to have a protective effect against Alzheimer's disease?

Can you substantiate your claim that coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins?

SimonF:

Stephen C:

I've tried to stay away from dairy, but drinking coffee black is <<shivers>>, ewww. 

Coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins and certainly is not a "Paleo" item anymore than dairy is. If it tastes gross as it comes, then why not follow the natural intuition of the body and not consume?

Califlower tastes gross as it comes. 

Stephen C:

SimonF:

Stephen C:

I've tried to stay away from dairy, but drinking coffee black is <<shivers>>, ewww. 

Coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins and certainly is not a "Paleo" item anymore than dairy is. If it tastes gross as it comes, then why not follow the natural intuition of the body and not consume?

Califlower tastes gross as it comes. 

And most love the taste of sugar.  Many even crave sugar.  Most kids hate vegetables.  (I love califlower, btw.)

You can definitely learn from the signals your body sends you via cravings, but unfortunately it's not a 100% thing to go by. 

Now how you feel after consumption, on the other hand, I think that is very valuable information.

Aelephant, what have your studies told you about magnesium and bone health?  According to the Magnesium Man in the Underground Wellness link I posted earlier, the body can not process calcium by itself, and when not coupled with magnesium calcium is essentially a toxin!  He claims it is essential to keep your calcium to magnesium ratio in line.  This is why promoting dairy, which has a poor calcium to magnesium ratio, as a cure all could actually be detrimental.

I hear a lot about Vitamin D being good for bone health, coupled with calcium of course, but I haven't heard nearly as much about magnesium.

SimonF:

aelephant:

I am still researching this. If you have good references / materials for me to read, please post them up. :)

One can spend a lifetime doing health research and still not know enough to decide what to eat at the end of it. This is very profitable for academics, but of little value to you or me in the here and now.

The rational person gives up this approach and starts with what we do know, and that is evolutionary theory, or specifically the theory of adaptation/maladaptation.

Imagine some factory invents a new "food" tomorrow, how do I decide whether to eat it or not? I simply don't bother with it, because I am least well adapted to novel environmental inputs, and most well adapted to my ancestors environment.

Humans are essentially a frugivorous primate with more primitive features (miocene era) when compared to the other great apes. Working from these first principles, one concludes that we should base our diet on fruits and raw veggies.

The standard paleo-diet argument that 10ky is not long enough to adapt to the foods of agriculture is more reasonable, though still far from settled. And of course the notion that we are ill-adapted to modern industrial food seems most reasonable, given that it's only been around for a generation or two depending on the food in question, nowhere near enough time for wholesale physiological adaptation (if industrial food even has enough nutrition in it to BE a viable food for health in the first place).

But the notion that we are essentially similar to our frugivorous ancestors physiologically just doesn't hold up IMO. Our dentition and digestive tracts really don't look anything like chimps, our closest frugivorous relatives, or gorillas, or closest foliovore cousin--and they shouldn't, given what we know of our history since we split with those lineages. We're pretty clearly omnivores who are well-adapted to meat consumption.

The most convincing argument I have heard for our physiology to date is the expensive tissue hypothesis, which actually supports the idea that meat-eating, and cooking, paved the way for us to be able to shrink our gut, allowing us to pay for our large, expensive brains (it doesn't explain why we needed the big brains in the first place, and I don't think anyone has really nailed that one down yet). If we had never moved to a meat-heavy diet, and learned to cook, we might not be having internet discussions about it today.

Style:

Stephen C:

SimonF:

Stephen C:

I've tried to stay away from dairy, but drinking coffee black is <<shivers>>, ewww. 

Coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins and certainly is not a "Paleo" item anymore than dairy is. If it tastes gross as it comes, then why not follow the natural intuition of the body and not consume?

Califlower tastes gross as it comes. 

 

And most love the taste of sugar.  Many even crave sugar.  Most kids hate vegetables.  (I love califlower, btw.)

You can definitely learn from the signals your body sends you via cravings, but unfortunately it's not a 100% thing to go by. 

Now how you feel after consumption, on the other hand, I think that is very valuable information.

Aelephant, what have your studies told you about magnesium and bone health?  According to the Magnesium Man in the Underground Wellness link I posted earlier, the body can not process calcium by itself, and when not coupled with magnesium calcium is essentially a toxin!  He claims it is essential to keep your calcium to magnesium ratio in line.  This is why promoting dairy, which has a poor calcium to magnesium ratio, as a cure all could actually be detrimental.

I hear a lot about Vitamin D being good for bone health, coupled with calcium of course, but I haven't heard nearly as much about magnesium.

I feel full of energy after drinking coffee and sometimes I gotta go poopies. 

TenguNation:

 

It's true. 

Style:

Stephen C:

SimonF:

Stephen C:

I've tried to stay away from dairy, but drinking coffee black is <<shivers>>, ewww. 

Coffee contains hundreds of neurotoxins and certainly is not a "Paleo" item anymore than dairy is. If it tastes gross as it comes, then why not follow the natural intuition of the body and not consume?

Califlower tastes gross as it comes. 

 

And most love the taste of sugar.  Many even crave sugar.  Most kids hate vegetables.  (I love califlower, btw.)

You can definitely learn from the signals your body sends you via cravings, but unfortunately it's not a 100% thing to go by. 

Now how you feel after consumption, on the other hand, I think that is very valuable information.

Aelephant, what have your studies told you about magnesium and bone health?  According to the Magnesium Man in the Underground Wellness link I posted earlier, the body can not process calcium by itself, and when not coupled with magnesium calcium is essentially a toxin!  He claims it is essential to keep your calcium to magnesium ratio in line.  This is why promoting dairy, which has a poor calcium to magnesium ratio, as a cure all could actually be detrimental.

I hear a lot about Vitamin D being good for bone health, coupled with calcium of course, but I haven't heard nearly as much about magnesium.

Don't know much about it to be honest. Probably because there isn't a magnesium lobby :P

I don't have the Full Text, but this Abstract makes it sound like what you're saying is true.

This one too:

Chronic Mg deficits have been linked to an increased risk of numerous preclinical and clinical outcomes, mostly observed in the elderly population, including hypertension, stroke, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus, endothelial dysfunction, vascular remodeling, alterations in lipid metabolism, platelet aggregation/thrombosis, inflammation, oxidative stress, cardiovascular mortality, asthma, chronic fatigue, as well as depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

This epidemiological study didn't find a connection between serum Mg levels and hypertension/CV disease. You should keep in mind though that only 1% of Magnesium is found in the serum. I recommend pulling up the Full Text and having a look at the "Limitations" they discuss.

This study had more participants and a 19 year follow-up and found an association with low serum Mg and increased risk of death from ischemic heart disease (i.e. heart attack and so forth) and all-cause mortality.