Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alcohol damaging to liver _only_ when combined w/unsaturated oils!?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alcohol damaging to liver _only_ when combined w/unsaturated oils!?

    Video channel of paleo diet yearly symposium (love this channel so much!) has a new vid about liver disease, that really surprised me. It claims that when inducing liver disease by alcohol in animals, you can later reverse the disease by replacing all fats with saturated fats, while keeping the alcohol intake unchanged.

    This contrary to the fact that pretty much everyone assumes sugar and alcohol are the actual causes of the disease... (You may already know that fatty liver disease is always present in early stage of type II diabetes. You may also know, if you watched the Robert Lustig talk on fructose, that fructose (part of sugar) acts a bit similar to alcohol in the liver..)

    All of this makes me think.. if sugar is as bad as we think, or if its just really bad in tandem with the Ω6 oils. (Following the paleolithic way of thinking about nutrition, sugar is easy to find in nature (fruits, honey).. so humans should have evolved to thrive on this food source.. while getting a lot of Ω6 kinda requires modern processing methods, so highly unlikely that this was part of our evolutionary background, right?)

    Whoa, tons of food for thought here..

  • #2
    Very interesting thanks ijjjji.. there is a problem anyway with the thinking in the research. Alcohol induced liver changes at the stage of alcoholic hepatitis are totally reversible when alcohol income is stopped. I think the research should be done on livers that have already reached the stage of cirrosis hepatica which is not reversible anymore.. then I would begin to be even more suprised if that would revert this stage of alcohol induced liver problems.
    Books For Men, Dating And Female Relationships Coaching That Actually Works! By Franco

    Comment


    • #3
      The Paleo diet and Dr. Lustig are both laughable and moronic. Here is Alan Aragon discussing both topics:

      AA on Paleo: http://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NS...ook/Aragon.pdf

      AA on Lustig (the debate between Dr. Lustig and Alan Aragon is in the comments): http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

      http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/
      I am available for Skype. We can discuss Pick-Up, or other stuff (fitness, nutrition, etc).

      If my posts intrigue you and you'd like to pick my brain... get in touch via PM and we can work something.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GoldenDilemma View Post
        The Paleo diet and Dr. Lustig are both....
        Lol, are you trying to get on my troll-radar? DONT ANSWER!! (Rhetorical question!) Guys, stay on topic (liver/alcohol) if you want to post in this thread. No more 'diet X is good/bad' type posts or similar!! (everyone are hereby warned)

        Comment


        • #5
          I very much agree that a lot of the foods people call bad are actually good and vice versa. Processed cereal in a box is promoted as healthy and organic dairy products as unhealthy.

          It is massive industry and therefore prone to corruption. It is hard to know who and what to believe. Especially annoying are these "my scientists are smarter than your scientists" circular debates.

          When I hear any strong assertions about diet the first thing I want to know is, what does this guy LOOK LIKE.

          The second thing I want to know is what have traditional healthy societies done before the scientists came in and told them they were all wrong and used ridicule combined with science to beat them into submission. Dairy milk and olive oil are two strong examples I can think of. Also organic meat vs the vegetarian craze. Also I suspect we will soon see new studies about how good baked bread and pasta in the right quantities also are for people.

          We know that countries that have high levels of chemically processed foods have very high cancer rates. We also know that alcohol has been considered a food staple since forever, and also a dangerous one because a strong minority of people simply cannot use it properly.

          Statistics seem so meaningless because you can always point to counter examples. My mother was a heavy drinker and smoker but generally ate quite healthy. Died of cancer at 72. My father neither drank nor smoke but was an average-poor eater, died of cancer at 62. This doesn't mean that I should drink and smoke more and expect to live longer. It does mean however that there is no way to definitely predict the outcome of these decisions. We are dynamic and far more complex than a number on an actuarial chart.

          At the age of 44 one of the blessings is getting to know my own body. I know better what combination of food to eat and with what timing. A scientist may say it's the right combination of xyz and he is probably right, however I have to really pay attention to my body. If it feels good on a sustainable basis (as opposed to an intense narcotic high followed by depression) then it's probably the right thing for me. This took me many years of trial and error.
          Practical Female Psychology for the Practical Man!
          NOW AVAILABLE ON KINDLE

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ijjjji View Post
            Lol, are you trying to get on my troll-radar? DONT ANSWER!! (Rhetorical question!) Guys, stay on topic (liver/alcohol) if you want to post in this thread. No more 'diet X is good/bad' type posts or similar!! (everyone are hereby warned)
            Your warning has absolutely no merit to me given your track record with spreading absolute nonsense on matters involving nutrition and fitness.

            The links I provided, which you likely have not looked at, will provide you with accurate information. Go read them and stop talking about Paleo and Dr. Lustig (both of which deserve no attention or praise).
            I am available for Skype. We can discuss Pick-Up, or other stuff (fitness, nutrition, etc).

            If my posts intrigue you and you'd like to pick my brain... get in touch via PM and we can work something.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is massive industry and therefore prone to corruption. It is hard to know who and what to believe. Especially annoying are these "my scientists are smarter than your scientists" circular debates.
              It shouldn't be annoying.

              Scientist #1 makes an assertion which he uses studies to draw conclusions from. Scientist #2 realizes the flaw in the first assertion, perhaps the studies are outdated (or there are new studies which show otherwise, and are better testing methods, etc), and makes a new assertion with better data which disproves what scientist #1 said.

              In the case of Lustig - he is an absolute moron. Alan Aragon schooled the shit out of him and it is right there in the links. You shouldn't be "annoyed" with a proper presentation of information.

              When I hear any strong assertions about diet the first thing I want to know is, what does this guy LOOK LIKE.
              This is a fundamental problem with your understanding regarding nutrition and human physiology.

              For example, there are plenty of shredded bodybuilders who have orthorexia and have obtained their bodies through an incredibly restrictive diet usually consisting of low fat, "clean food", and an otherwise boring meal which is incredibly restricted.

              We know however (through science) that prolonged periods of low fat is incredibly unhealthy.

              We also know (through science) that food choice is largely irrelevant for determining body composition... it is cals in vs. cals out: http://impruvism.com/why-calories-count/

              We also know that an incredibly restricted meal plan will likely result in micronutrient deficiencies as you are not eating a balanced palate of food\

              So, there are many paths to obtain the body which you deem acceptable or unacceptable... and it is just coming down to total energy balance. It has nothing to do with diet x vs. diet y

              Society has perpetuated this idea that food choice or "what diet you are on" is the root of body composition issues (i.e.: if you are too fat it's from too much of X food or if you wanna drop all that fat jump on the next best thing called the Y-diet, etc)

              The second thing I want to know is what have traditional healthy societies done before the scientists came in and told them they were all wrong and used ridicule combined with science to beat them into submission. Dairy milk and olive oil are two strong examples I can think of.
              What credible scientists (or studies), unless you are referencing a whackjob like Dr. Lustig (who has made asinine claims regarding sugar consumption), have suggested that dairy milk or olive oil are bad for you?

              We know that countries that have high levels of chemically processed foods have very high cancer rates. We also know that alcohol has been considered a food staple since forever, and also a dangerous one because a strong minority of people simply cannot use it properly.
              Chemically processed is one piece to the puzzle when it comes to high cancer rates.

              The problem of obesity in America: mass consumption of food plus an incredibly sedentary and inactive society.

              Statistics seem so meaningless because you can always point to counter examples. My mother was a heavy drinker and smoker but generally ate quite healthy. Died of cancer at 72. My father neither drank nor smoke but was an average-poor eater, died of cancer at 62. This doesn't mean that I should drink and smoke more and expect to live longer. It does mean however that there is no way to definitely predict the outcome of these decisions. We are dynamic and far more complex than a number on an actuarial chart.
              I agree.

              However, we do know that mass consumption of trans fat is bad for you. We also know smoking is a carcinogen. We also know that obesity leads to a plethora of diseases.

              This does not mean one can put themselves above this and think they are the exception to the rule.

              If someone wants to partake in any of the above activities, whether it is smoking or weighing 600lbs: they should do it with 100% understanding and acceptance that it will likely increase their odds of a premature death... and consider themselves very lucky and fortunate if it doesn't.
              I am available for Skype. We can discuss Pick-Up, or other stuff (fitness, nutrition, etc).

              If my posts intrigue you and you'd like to pick my brain... get in touch via PM and we can work something.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah I understand what you mean about looking good and having poor health. I'm taking about the anti meat dudes who show up pale and sickly with toothpick arms. Not going to listen to him no matter how many credentials behind his name. Who has the time for that?

                I'm sure the scientists you cited are morons and the other scientist "proved it". It's interesting though that when presenting a nutrition counter argument, they have to pick the stupidest and most moronic candidate as a foil. They rarely take someone credible with an opposing view, and I can guarantee, there IS someone credible for the opposite view. There's never just one study, and if there is, most scientists would say that's "inconclusive".

                Qlue put up some scientists who mocked and ridiculed ethnic use of olive oil. The one professor seemed knowledgeable, however he never addressed the fact of why Italians and Greeks seem to have no different mortality than people who don't eat all of oil. It was a lot of grand assertions about how foolish people are to eat it because "now we (scientists) know all about it". I'm still eating it.
                Practical Female Psychology for the Practical Man!
                NOW AVAILABLE ON KINDLE

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah I understand what you mean about looking good and having poor health. I'm taking about the anti meat dudes who show up pale and sickly with toothpick arms. Not going to listen to him no matter how many credentials behind his name. Who has the time for that?
                  Yes, I agree. There is not much credibility to back those dietary decisions given what we know from science.

                  I'm sure the scientists you cited are morons and the other scientist "proved it". It's interesting though that when presenting a nutrition counter argument, they have to pick the stupidest and most moronic candidate as a foil. They rarely take someone credible with an opposing view, and I can guarantee, there IS someone credible for the opposite view. There's never just one study, and if there is, most scientists would say that's "inconclusive".
                  Dr. Lustig is by no means the stupidest or most moronic candidate - he is credible and has a formal education which otherwise gives him "merit" within the academic or scientific world.

                  However, his presentation and representation of information to support his argument, is very poor which is what Alan Aragon demonstrates.

                  Dr. Lustig actually responds to Alan (who is also a credible guy in the science world) and they debate it out in the comments section. The second link summarizes what happened over the debate, so if you want the tl;dr version, check that: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/

                  Qlue put up some scientists who mocked and ridiculed ethnic use of olive oil. The one professor seemed knowledgeable, however he never addressed the fact of why Italians and Greeks seem to have no different mortality than people who don't eat all of oil. It was a lot of grand assertions about how foolish people are to eat it because "now we (scientists) know all about it". I'm still eating it.
                  One has to learn the ability to discern good information from bad information.

                  Dr. Lustig presents a convincing argument about sugar and "why it's bad" to people who are otherwise ignorant on this matter.

                  If you've done your homework, you can see the flaws in his argument. When someone steps up to the plate and debates him, or otherwise shows the flaws in his argument and has scientific reference to back it up, the original argument is thrown out of the window and now lacks credibility. This is what Alan has done.
                  I am available for Skype. We can discuss Pick-Up, or other stuff (fitness, nutrition, etc).

                  If my posts intrigue you and you'd like to pick my brain... get in touch via PM and we can work something.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GoldenDilemma View Post
                    One has to learn the ability to discern good information from bad information.

                    Dr. Lustig presents a convincing argument about sugar and "why it's bad" to people who are otherwise ignorant on this matter.

                    If you've done your homework, you can see the flaws in his argument. When someone steps up to the plate and debates him, or otherwise shows the flaws in his argument and has scientific reference to back it up, the original argument is thrown out of the window and now lacks credibility. This is what Alan has done.
                    I don't have time to read it right now... I am in line with Alan's thinking already without having to read it all.. I think naturally occurring sugars are fine, otherwise they wouldn't be there and no one would have ever eaten them. I just ate an organic banana, then some re-heated mushrooms with garlic and butter. I feel great!
                    Practical Female Psychology for the Practical Man!
                    NOW AVAILABLE ON KINDLE

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Franco View Post
                      Very interesting thanks ijjjji.. there is a problem anyway with the thinking in the research. Alcohol induced liver changes at the stage of alcoholic hepatitis are totally reversible when alcohol income is stopped. I think the research should be done on livers that have already reached the stage of cirrosis hepatica which is not reversible anymore.. then I would begin to be even more suprised if that would revert this stage of alcohol induced liver problems.
                      Hey Franco
                      Yes, that would certainly beg a whole new set of questions..

                      I found it interesting _only_ because they were still feeding alcohol to the rats as the state was reversed. (Making me ask if the alc is a catalyst rather than a founding cause... and if so, can the same be said for sugar?)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can alcohol have some health promoting effect at low dosage? Kinda interesting vid:

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X