If we can't beat them, let's poison them

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
If we can't beat them, let's poison them

Can't compete with those pesky BRIC nations? Then let's poison their kids:

Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Kraft Foods Inc., the world’s biggest confectioner after buying Cadbury Plc, will start making Tang powdered beverage and chocolate next year at a new plant in Brazil, fueling expansion in faster-growing developing markets.

The $50 million Brazilian plant, in the Northeastern state of Pernambuco, will employ 600 and may also eventually make Trident gum, a Cadbury brand whose Brazilian sales have climbed 30 percent this year, Kraft Brazil president Marcos Grasso said in an interview.

Another big brand is Kraft’s Club Social crackers, the top- selling cracker in Brazil. Club Social is now sold in small packages - dubbed the “iPod pack,” which can fit in back pockets and kids’ backpacks. The packaging has helped increase sales 27 percent this year.

Sales of Tang have surged 40% this year in Brazil, its single largest market, Grasso said. He’s fueling sales partly with a marketing campaign that encourages kids to recycle Tang packages so they can be made into backpacks and pencil cases.

“Tang in Brazil is on fire,” [Kraft CEO Irene] Rosenfeld said. The recycling campaign, she said, reminds her of work she did early in her career in marketing to revitalize brands such as Kool-Aid and Jell-O.

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9d7ra2Uj2O8&pos=7

Addicting kids to sugary, over-processed, nutritionally worthless foods -- what a strategy! All that's missing here is a program for kids to recycle cigarette packs and chewing tobacco tins.

Oh wait -- they already did that! Kraft was spun off from tobacco giant Altria (the former Philip Morris) three years ago. Obviously, the sales strategy of hooking kids on stuff that's not good for them carried on in the Kraft spin-off.

If Brazil cared about the future of its children, it would jail predatory corporate criminals like Rosenfeld and Grasso, who are poisoning the food supply. But the sugar cane growers lobby loves its Big Food Industry customers. Shame about the kiddies ...

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
machinehead wrote:

But the sugar cane growers lobby loves its Big Food Industry customers

Sugar? What Sugar? Its all high fructose corn syrup these days, and the government itself is the lobby for the corn growers.

Got diabetes?

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
JAG wrote:
machinehead wrote:

But the sugar cane growers lobby loves its Big Food Industry customers

Sugar? What Sugar? Its all high fructose corn syrup these days, and the government itself is the lobby for the corn growers.

Got diabetes?

Anyone care to guess what the largest crop in the world by weight is? Hint it is not corn. It is not rice. It is not soybeans, it is not wheat.

It is sugar cane.

The world has a huge sweet tooth.

V

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3125
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
V wrote:
JAG wrote:
machinehead wrote:

But the sugar cane growers lobby loves its Big Food Industry customers

Sugar? What Sugar? Its all high fructose corn syrup these days, and the government itself is the lobby for the corn growers.

Got diabetes?

Anyone care to guess what the largest crop in the world by weight is? Hint it is not corn. It is not rice. It is not soybeans, it is not wheat.

It is sugar cane.

The world has a huge sweet tooth.

V

And that doesn't include sugar beets.

Doug

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
JAG wrote:

Got diabetes?

My mother used to say I'd get diabetes due to the amount of sugar I used in my tea. As I told  her it's nonsense. The likelihood of getting diabetes is genetically determined. In fact the high incidence of diabetes is thought to be due to a selective advantage since individuals so predisposed were less likely to die from starvation during famines. In todays current plentiful supply of food these individuals, who are very efficient in food utillization, become fat and develop diabetes.

Now sugar will tend to rot your teeth but fluoridation has overcome that issue. Nevertheless sugars (refined) are essentially empty calories that have no nutritional value (e.g. vitamins, minerals, proteins etc.)

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
JAG wrote:
machinehead wrote:

But the sugar cane growers lobby loves its Big Food Industry customers

Sugar? What Sugar? Its all high fructose corn syrup these days, and the government itself is the lobby for the corn growers.

Got diabetes?

I meant the Brazilian sugar cane lobby. Just as Americans burn corn for fuel, Brazilians burn sugar cane ethanol (barred from the US by tariffs, though it's cheaper than corn ethanol). But there's plenty of cane left over for candy.

In response to my email suggesting that he seek some critical comments, Bloomberg reporter Matthew Boyle sent me a link to an earlier article of his, about the difficulty of introducing healthy menu choices into fast food chains:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/08/09/377886/index.htm

This is not too surprising. It's like proselytizing for chastity at a whorehouse -- a tough sell, given the proclivities of the customers. But just like Kraft, the fast food chains have their kiddie gyms and birthday crowns and smiling clowns, to inculcate the fatty roasted meat, salty fried potatoes, fizzy sugar drink and ice cream with candy topping habit at an impressionable age.

Hook 'em young, and they'll exhibit early-stage arterial plaques before they even hit puberty. No child left behind! Surprised

But though there's no cure, Big Pharma's got a palliative, accompanied by the 'Big Kaching' -- 'You'll be on this medication for the rest of your life.' Money mouth

yobob1's picture
yobob1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 132
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

...to inculcate the fatty roasted meat, salty fried potatoes, fizzy sugar drink and ice cream with candy topping habit at an impressionable age.

Hook 'em young, and they'll exhibit early-stage arterial plaques before they even hit puberty. No child left behind! Surprised

But though there's no cure, Big Pharma's got a palliative, accompanied by the 'Big Kaching' -- 'You'll be on this medication for the rest of your life.' Money mouth

 

Hmmm, not so fast Mr. Slim Lipitor.

More astounding then what Dr. Ravnskov found in questioning the lipid hypothesis is what he found when looking at cholesterol and overall mortality.  To use his words,

"People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with high cholesterol.(1) Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

But it is not an exception; there are now a large number of findings that contradict the lipid hypothesis. To be more specific, most studies of old people have shown that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for coronary heart disease. This was the result of my search in the Medline database for studies addressing that question.(2) Eleven studies of old people came up with that result, and a further seven studies found that high cholesterol did not predict all-cause mortality either."

1. Krumholz HM and others. Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in persons older than 70 years. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 1335-1340, 1990.
2. Ravnskov U. High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis. Quarterly Journal of Medicine 96, 927-934, 2003.

http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/10/do-people-with-high-choles...

Contrary to what was previously assumed, overweight is not increasing the overall death rate in the German population. Matthias Lenz of the Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Natural Sciences of the University of Hamburg and his co-authors present these and other results in the current issue of Deutsches Ärtzeblatt International (Dtsch Artzebl Int 2009; 106[40]: 641

yobob1's picture
yobob1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 132
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

Sorry having some issues with posting - lack of familiarity with this format.

But my contention is that conventional wisdom regarding cholesterol and weight are possibly dead wrong. (We've never seen the medical community change its mind, have we?  I guess practice is the correct term for a doctor's efforts) The cholesterol scare was driven purely by the drug companies as the correlation between high cholesterol and arterial or heart disease is extremely low. It is so weak that the FDA (the drug companies best friend) had them remove a lot of the claims from their earlier advertising.  The only thing I can see that the drug companies have proven is that they can alter your cholesterol levels - and in the mean time subject you to all of the well known and by my personal observations, cumulative (the longer you take them, the more likely you are to show them) side effects.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Food For Thought ...

Super Size Me

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1432315846377280008

[quote=]

Wikipedia Review

Super Size Me is a 2004 American documentary film directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock, an American independent filmmaker. Spurlock's film follows a 28-day time period (The month of February 2003) during which he eats only McDonald's food. The film documents this lifestyle's drastic effects on Spurlock's physical and psychological well-being, and explores the fast food industry's corporate influence, including how it encourages poor nutrition for its own profit. Spurlock dined at McDonald's restaurants three times per day, eating every item on the chain's menu. He always chose to "super-size" his meal, if he was offered. Spurlock consumed an average of 20.92 megajoules or 5,000 kcal (the equivalent of 9.26 Big Macs) per day during the experiment. As a result, the then-32-year-old Spurlock gained 24½ lbs. (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation to his liver. It took Spurlock fourteen months to lose the weight gained from his experiment.

The reason for Spurlock's investigation was the increasing spread of obesity throughout U.S. society, which the Surgeon General has declared "epidemic", and the corresponding lawsuit brought against McDonald's on behalf of two overweight girls, who, it was alleged, became obese as a result of eating McDonald's food [Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., [237 F. Supp. 2d 512. Spurlock points out that although the lawsuit against McDonald's failed (and subsequently many state legislatures have legislated against product liability actions against producers and distributors of "fast food"), much of the same criticism leveled against the tobacco companies applies to fast food franchises whose product is both physiologically addictive and physically harmful.

The documentary was nominated for an Academy Award for Documentary Feature.

~ VF ~

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
yobob1 wrote:

Sorry having some issues with posting - lack of familiarity with this format.

But my contention is that conventional wisdom regarding cholesterol and weight are possibly dead wrong. (We've never seen the medical community change its mind, have we?  I guess practice is the correct term for a doctor's efforts) The cholesterol scare was driven purely by the drug companies as the correlation between high cholesterol and arterial or heart disease is extremely low. It is so weak that the FDA (the drug companies best friend) had them remove a lot of the claims from their earlier advertising.  The only thing I can see that the drug companies have proven is that they can alter your cholesterol levels - and in the mean time subject you to all of the well known and by my personal observations, cumulative (the longer you take them, the more likely you are to show them) side effects.

Yobob, I share your skepticism about the motives of Big Pharma. But I'm confused here. In what is supposedly the largest nutritional study ever done, Dr. T. Colin Campbell found that 'diseases of affluence' such as heart disease, stroke and cancer were nearly nonexistent in rural China. Some counties of 250,000 residents had NO cardiac deaths in some years. 

Dr. Campbell concluded that animal protein is the main culprit, with fats (present in all meat) a secondary malefactor. Starches and carbohydrates along with fruit and vegetables would be an ideal diet, he concluded.

http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

On the other hand. along the lines of what you said, Dr. Joseph Mercola published an article yesterday denouncing the lipids hypothesis. He urges to avoid grains and sugars (carbohydrates), while saying that animal fat and protein (within limits) are quite alright.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mercola51.1.html

Both articles are written by medical experts, sound convincing, but largely contradict each other. What is a layperson to eat?

Increasingly I feel that nutritional medicine resides in the same dark ages as economics. Practitioners know lots of detailed lore, but can't agree on basic questions such as 'What proportions of protein, carbohydrate and fat constitute a healthy diet? Animal protein or vegetable protein? What explains 'diseases of affluence'? And what is causing the obesity epidemic?' They are like astronomers who can't agree whether we're in a geocentric or heliocentric solar system. It's terribly frustrating.

Nevertheless, to return to the original post, I think there's enough evidence to say that sugar-laden, artificially flavored, 'no natural anything' Tang is just plain bad for you. So, as US schools start to impose some nutritional standards, opportunistic corporations such as Kraft go peddling their crap products to kids in developing countries. That's what they're paid to do, but it sure does suck.

p.s. Regarding posting issues, if you click 'Disable rich-text' at the bottom of the comment window, then it's possible to manually fix some of the garbled html code.

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

Machinehead

"If Brazil cared about the future of its children, it would jail predatory corporate criminals like Rosenfeld and Grasso, who are poisoning the food supply. But the sugar cane growers lobby loves its Big Food Industry customers. Shame about the kiddies ..."

Think of the implications of what you are advocating here, pretty much anything can be considered unhealthy if overdone, too much water can kill you. It's about choice, these corporations which you despise are not forcing you to buy their products. That idiot who ate fast food three times a day should have known what the consequences would be, duh! The thing with freedom is you have to learn to mind your own business, I like the choices that we have here in the US, would you jail the people who make alcoholic beverages, coffee, candy bars, donuts? Maybe the parents should be the ones who are jailed for letting their children eat all kinds of crap, my parents never let us drink sodas, we drank a lot of milk, probably had fast food three times in 17 years, they took most of our Halloween candy away and doled it out a little at a time. I had my first cavity in my late twenties, thanks mom and dad. gotta go

kemosavvy's picture
kemosavvy
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 254
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

As anyone who has children knows, the trap is already set (by our culture, the corporations, the government, the Rothschilds, or whomever) to fill our children with food that is absent of nutrition (it is up to the parent to counter this tidal wave of crappy food... good luck). I attribute this nutritinally-absent food we are eating to the high incidences of metabolic syndrome, which is a combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes.[1] It affects one in five people, and prevalence increases with age. Some studies estimate the prevalence in the USA to be up to 25% of the population.

This is not just the 'American Diet' it is the 'Advanced Economies Diet' as Machinehead has suggested (disease of affluence). Brazil is now quickly becoming an advanced economy (oil and ethanol wealth) and thus must accept the diseases of affluence. I don't believe the corporations are responsible for addicting the children, it is the other way around. The Brazilians are desiring a diet high in dog-poo and the corporations are satisfying that need, with a little prodding of  course.

I have read The China Study and I follow the diet and have seen firsthand as relatives have reversed the symptoms of metabolic syndrome in a matter of weeks. For those that believe that people are genetically disposed to diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, etc. I have to say that I agree with you but you have the ability to either express those genes or not and when you follow a diet high in nutrients you almost have a zero percent chance of expressing those genes.

Steve

 

 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

I see the rising cost of good food, or the propensity to buy cheaper more affordable ready made foods high in E numbers and preservative's very much the norm in western society, in part due to a faster pace, and anually, year on year poorer way of life, where the microwave meal is the present generation of twenty something’s best friend. What is hidden in plain sight is easy to find, simply by looking into their shopping baskets. Is it really 100% beef (I had no idea there was such an animal called a 'Beef') or, inside that 100%, are there eyeball, lung, trachea, bone and gristle? What makes what more acceptable? Nothing can be bettered than a bit of time; say a generation or two, and marketing the whole shebang as 'choice' where there's no real choice, or very little, other than an illusory one. 

What, as the state of the US devolves down, are the present number's of people on food stamps? Seems pretty clear to me that quantity over quality foodstuff combined with poverty and a healthy dose of ignorance flows the sickly-grey-hewn general public into the lovingly waiting outstretched arms of Pfizer / Glaxo Smith Kline Incorporated. You have to be able to afford moderation with an education to feed it ...

Without contradiction, Edward Bernays book Propaganda (1928) makes for an eye opening and interesting read from many perspectives. How to double the cigarette market in little under 2 years, is another of his little peccadillo’s. Of course the biggest task was to reduce the citizen into a consumer through a uniform one size fits all education system ready made to consume, but that's a whole different subject altogether ...

 

~ VF ~

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
kemosavvy wrote:

For those that believe that people are genetically disposed to diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, etc. I have to say that I agree with you but you have the ability to either express those genes or not and when you follow a diet high in nutrients you almost have a zero percent chance of expressing those genes.

Ding, ding, ding.  The winner!  But I'd temper that last sentence to say that the likelihood of expressing those genes is greatly diminished.

Plus, an individual's metabolic type determines how they react to various macronutrient (i.e. protein, fat, carb) ratios and the type of those macronutrients.  Hence, the problems with applying the China study to a broader population.

Plus, the micronutrient content (or lack thereof) of the foods is a huge factor.  Hence, the people in a certain area in Switzerland who could be healthy eating a diet laden with meat, cheese, milk, eggs, etc. since the food is very high in micronutrients because of the rich, glacially enriched soil it is grown on.  Hence, cholesterol is not the issue.

Plus, it's the combination of certain unhealthy fats with simple carbohydrates that is the deadly factor.  Simple sugars are far more dangerous than the fats though.   

Plus, one can have whistle clean arteries but still die from cardiovascular disease from factors related more to stress than to diet.

And on and on it goes.

In summary though, if one eats correctly according to their metabolic type, eats foods grown on rich alluvial or glacial soils with a high and diverse mineral content, refrains from simple carbohydrates devoid of micronutrients, reduces their stress level, and exercises properly, they can have minimal risk of heart disease or diabetes, given their genetic proclivities.

Oh yeah ... a distantly related family member who holds a PhD in biochemistry who is brilliant in the field related to cardiovascular disease (and holds numerous drug patents) says he will NEVER take a statin. 

 

And SteveW,

I'm sure you're aware that fluoridation has its own set of significant health issues.  Also, even though science supposedly debunks what your mom said, there's definitely some truth to her wisdom.  Moms usually know best.;-) 

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
kemosavvy wrote:

I have read The China Study and I follow the diet and have seen firsthand as relatives have reversed the symptoms of metabolic syndrome in a matter of weeks. For those that believe that people are genetically disposed to diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity, etc. I have to say that I agree with you but you have the ability to either express those genes or not and when you follow a diet high in nutrients you almost have a zero percent chance of expressing those genes.

Steve

Ditto -- I've read The China Study (as well as related works by Ornish and Esselstyn), followed the diet, found it surprisingly easy to give up meat, dairy, eggs, etc., and have seen beneficial results.

But Dr. Campbell is very much 'old school' when it comes to cholesterol. He says there's no such thing as 'too low' cholesterol. In those rural Chinese counties where coronary disease was virtually unknown, he cites cholesterol levels as low as 70, versus a guideline of 200 here. And he emphatically claims that low cholesterol equates to less coronary disease. Campbell denounces programs such as the Atkins diet as a scam.

Then Dr. Mercola -- fairly convincingly, I think -- suggests that factors other than cholesterol, such as inflammation and C-reactive protein, are the real culprits in coronary disease. Yet, at the end of his essay, I can't see how his dietary recommendations help to explain or avoid 'diseases of aflluence.'

The slow march of science being what it is, we may not get definitive answers in our lifetime. But it would be nice to have a little more clarity on the subject. My portly grandfather died of a massive coronary at 48, after what I suspect was a bounteous repast of chicken-fried steak, mashed potatoes slathered with gravy, pecan pie with ice cream and whipped cream, and the like. Did his diet kill him? I suspect so. I'd like to know for sure, though.

 

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

I think the best study ever done on the subject was done by Weston Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. It is an excellent read that was first published in the Thirties. Sally Fallon the prez of the Weston Price foundation has a very good book called Nourishing Traditions.

Also I would suggest investigating the work of Max Gerson who cured Albert Schweitzer of diabetes at the age of 70. Schweitzer called him the foremost medical genius of the twentieth century

V

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

Hmm ... here's how it's done ...

Examine all of the ingredients of a Big Mac, then head off out into the sticks and buy up the very best produce you can find to create a super healthy equivalent that tastes like you've died and gone to heaven, with fresh tomato ketchup and homemade mayonnaise from free range eggs and virgin olive oil. Centrally place your fast food outlet into a large city where there are (surprisingly) no McDonalds or Burger King within three miles in any direction. Set yourself the goal of providing a 600% return on the product before all costs (hypothetical) ... and wait ...

Even to suppose that your start up costs were four times as much as an equivalent McDonalds franchise purchase, the product you're providing would be many times more healthy (moderation and common sense assigned) and of a higher nutritional equivalent than McDonalds board of fare (citation needed), yet, within a certain time-frame, and proven time and again in the UK since 1985, a corporate response of marketing and demographics by McDonalds would have you hemmed in by at least one of their 'establishments', at prices and advertisement levels you'd be unable to compete with.

Be it burgers or Starbucks coffee, if you're supplying from an unsupported one-man band from one shop in one High Street location, your excellent product will be off the market in the time it takes to shout "Happy Meal". Your competitor can create a 50% cut against your product, and be backed by a few thousand of its other outlets to take up the slack of running at a loss while squeezing you out of existence ...

This is of course labelled under the guise of 'choice' ...

Whether Madonna or The Federal Reserve Bank, the product is the same, with the exclusion and exception of quality over quantity over profit. Chris Martenson states this well. The rigged game of an individual who has $5,000 000 in the bank who is living off of the interest, or an individual with $1,000 in the bank, making up the rising living expense difference by indirect loans and paying back the interest to the individual living off of interest payments, the key is to produce as little quality as possible so as to maximise profit, while inferring a 'choice' to a shrinking market and a near zero competition unable to keep up with costs. That's my hypothesis anyway. Expand on the premise with a little intelligence and it is faultless, but not necessarily without blame ...

While I'm at it, and since we're on the subject, how about the 'American Dream' ("...because you have to be asleep to believe it" ) and those icon of icons, Coca Cola and Pepsi? Their definitive history: -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1367260784754864363

~ VF ~

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
yobob1 wrote:

 

Hmmm, not so fast Mr. Slim Lipitor.

More astounding then what Dr. Ravnskov found in questioning the lipid hypothesis is what he found when looking at cholesterol and overall mortality.  To use his words,

"People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with high cholesterol.(1) Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

1. Krumholz HM and others. Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in persons older than 70 years. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 1335-1340, 1990.

 

Sorry, but the scientist in me just has to point out the bias in this study. Since the study population consisted of a cohort over 70 it could not exclude the possibility that the majority of persons with high cholesterol die before the age of 70 EXCEPT those whose also have some kind of protective factor. This is the simplest explanation, IMHO, for the observed data.

Furthermore although total cholesterol is a good indicator of predisposition to coronary disease it is LDL (bad cholesterol in popular parlance) that is more immediately implicated. In fact the entire correlation was discovered by Brown and Goldstein (who won the Nobel for Medicine in 1985) in their work on familial hypercholesterolemia, a defect in LDL metabolism where children who inherit two copies of the mutant gene generally have their first heart attack by age 5.

 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
machinehead wrote:

Yobob, I share your skepticism about the motives of Big Pharma. But I'm confused here. In what is supposedly the largest nutritional study ever done, Dr. T. Colin Campbell found that 'diseases of affluence' such as heart disease, stroke and cancer were nearly nonexistent in rural China. Some counties of 250,000 residents had NO cardiac deaths in some years. 

Dr. Campbell concluded that animal protein is the main culprit, with fats (present in all meat) a secondary malefactor. Starches and carbohydrates along with fruit and vegetables would be an ideal diet, he concluded.

http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

On the other hand. along the lines of what you said, Dr. Joseph Mercola published an article yesterday denouncing the lipids hypothesis. He urges to avoid grains and sugars (carbohydrates), while saying that animal fat and protein (within limits) are quite alright.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mercola51.1.html

Both articles are written by medical experts, sound convincing, but largely contradict each other. What is a layperson to eat?

Increasingly I feel that nutritional medicine resides in the same dark ages as economics. Practitioners know lots of detailed lore, but can't agree on basic questions such as 'What proportions of protein, carbohydrate and fat constitute a healthy diet? Animal protein or vegetable protein? What explains 'diseases of affluence'? And what is causing the obesity epidemic?' They are like astronomers who can't agree whether we're in a geocentric or heliocentric solar system. It's terribly frustrating.

MH, I understand your frustration but I think you have to be aware that "fad diets" supported by best selling and wealthy authors come and go. Regarding weight control its simple. If you eat the same number of calories as you burn your weight is stable. Eat more you get fat and fewer you get thin.

The more complex problem of what is a good diet I believe has no single answer. I truly believe that each indigenous ancestral population wherever it existed in the world was genetically selected over hundreds or more generations so that those individuals were well adapted to both the natural environment and their traditional diet. We easily accept the adaptations of skin colour which are associated with the greater difficulty of producing vitamin D in cooler, less sunny climates where a greater part of the body is covered (cmp Northern Europe and Africa), but few academics realise or accept that similar differences likely exist with regard to genetic adaptation to diet.

North American Indians were presumably well adapted prior to European contact but with today's diet they have a high incidence of diabetes with the world's greatest prevalence being found in the Pima Indians of Arizona.

The traditional Inuit diet is almost entirely meat and mostly seal. While they thrive on that diet I would worry about getting gout myself if I had to use that diet.

So my best response is to think your ancestry and try to follow the traditional diet, with attention to portion size.

As a Northern European I use dairy, eat animal protein but in small portions and like to BBQ which reduces fat (but increases carcinogens, can't win all the time), have fish twice a week, drink beer and wine, eat as much fruit and fresh veggies as I can and hope for the best.

I believe the epidemic of obesity is largely fueled (pun intended) by overeating while the diseases of affluence are in part due to the general absence of physical labour.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 854
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

I have to agree with SteveW, heredity and ancestry play a role here. Northern Europeans are meant to eat some meat and a diet as heavy in white rice and lightly steamed veggies,  as the traditional Asian diet, we're not likely to thrive on. That kind of diet is too quickly metabolized by the bodies of Northern Europeans evolved to survive cold winters. This is a guess on my part and based on how my body responds, so I'm flying on intuition here.  My ancestors are from Lapland, Sweden, Northern Scotland.

If you want to keep your risk of heart attack down, raise your hdl cholesterol (plant based oils, nuts, etc...) reduce ldl cholesterol (animal fat) and get plenty of exercise. Sugar consumption, including fruit, has to be carefully scrutinized as well.  Sugar and fruit work in concert to produce a system that is out of whack PH wise. To reduce over all inflammation, be aware of how acidic your system can become on fructose and all the various acids in fruit.  Again, ancestry is probably a key consideration here.

My husband had a heart attack a few months ago. He had high blood pressure and was unmedicated,  but was otherwise in perfect health. The doctors couldn't determine whether blood pressure played much of a role. He  has cardio vascular disease and one of his arteries was blocked in 3 places. The worst block was 95% closed off. Anyway, I've been intimately involved in this subject for a while. His  sense is that the plaquing revolved around lack of exercise in the last  year and all the weird bio-mechanic screw ups that revolve around a more sedentary life style.

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

 hope this does not derail the subject here .    Dump it if you think so .

 I just got an extra boost from the video to get better at my  gardening /homesteading skills .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10951108  

kemosavvy's picture
kemosavvy
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 254
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

SteveW,

you made some excellent comments concerning indigenous ancestral populations and I almost cannot find any fault with that analysis. It seems to be correct just based on hte logic that populations adapted to what the availbale food sources were.

In most cases I think that most populations would become well adapted to fruits and vegetables because they can be farmed more easily than animals. There are obvious exceptions like the Inuits who survive in barren and cold lands but I still think vegetation made up a good deal of their diet (?).

My beleif is that throughout the world, primitive populations consumed a majority of their diet through fruits and vegetables with small amounts of meat. The amount of energy expended in farming animals and hunting and gathering animals would've made animal protein less available and made up a smaller proportion of their diet. I have no evidence of this belief but it certainly makes logical sense.

Flash forward to today where we factory farm almost all of our grocery store food. Meat is not only readily available but it is cheap. Animal protein makes up 30-40% of the American diet.... and watch out for those manly men, they consume 50-60%. No matter what corner of the world you may have come from, the American diet (high amounts of refined carbs and animal protein) is abnormal and unnatural to your genetic makeup.

I will once again throw in my own personal experiences. Everyone that I know that has followed the China Study diet and started the diet taking pharma meds no longer takes them.  Everyone has lost weight and feels great. No one in my small town can argue with the results and the diet is spreading like a virus.... watch out before we get quarantined.

Steve

taxed2death's picture
taxed2death
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 24 2010
Posts: 22
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them

inuit and other tribes actually consumed close to zero plants with no ill side effects.meat is not the problem,what the meat eats and what drugs are pumped into it is.I'm not anti-veg,everyone has a choice.also keep in mind that most items in a persons shopping cart did not exist 100 years ago,it is industrial waste.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
SteveW wrote:

The more complex problem of what is a good diet I believe has no single answer. I truly believe that each indigenous ancestral population wherever it existed in the world was genetically selected over hundreds or more generations so that those individuals were well adapted to both the natural environment and their traditional diet. We easily accept the adaptations of skin colour which are associated with the greater difficulty of producing vitamin D in cooler, less sunny climates where a greater part of the body is covered (cmp Northern Europe and Africa), but few academics realise or accept that similar differences likely exist with regard to genetic adaptation to diet.

North American Indians were presumably well adapted prior to European contact but with today's diet they have a high incidence of diabetes with the world's greatest prevalence being found in the Pima Indians of Arizona.

The traditional Inuit diet is almost entirely meat and mostly seal. While they thrive on that diet I would worry about getting gout myself if I had to use that diet.

So my best response is to think your ancestry and try to follow the traditional diet, with attention to portion size.

As a Northern European I use dairy, eat animal protein but in small portions and like to BBQ which reduces fat (but increases carcinogens, can't win all the time), have fish twice a week, drink beer and wine, eat as much fruit and fresh veggies as I can and hope for the best.

I believe the epidemic of obesity is largely fueled (pun intended) by overeating while the diseases of affluence are in part due to the general absence of physical labour.

The situation you describe in what is meant by metabolic type.  It largely correlates to lattitude and to a lesser extent, altitude.  The problem is fairly simple: wrong type of food for genetic type, inadequate micronutrient content in much modern food, certain synthetic foods containing chemicals not found in nature which "confuse" the metabolism (e.g. diet soft drinks), and insufficient physical activity.  Also, the entire blood lipid (i.e. "cholesterol") issue is more of an effect and less of a cause.  It's all in the literature if you''re willing to winnow out many of the adulterated and biased pharmaceutical company contributions to the literature.  All too much of the scientific literature is not unbiased science.  It has a definite agenda.  Both my wife and I were medical school researchers for a period in our life so we have some firsthand experience with this phenomena.    

 

 

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
ao wrote:

The entire blood lipid (i.e. "cholesterol") issue is more of an effect and less of a cause.  It's all in the literature if you''re willing to winnow out many of the adulterated and biased pharmaceutical company contributions to the literature.  All too much of the scientific literature is not unbiased science.  It has a definite agenda.  Both my wife and I were medical school researchers for a period in our life so we have some firsthand experience with this phenomena.    

Any books, links or pointers you may have for more detailed reading would be welcome.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
machinehead wrote:
ao wrote:

The entire blood lipid (i.e. "cholesterol") issue is more of an effect and less of a cause.  It's all in the literature if you''re willing to winnow out many of the adulterated and biased pharmaceutical company contributions to the literature.  All too much of the scientific literature is not unbiased science.  It has a definite agenda.  Both my wife and I were medical school researchers for a period in our life so we have some firsthand experience with this phenomena.    

Any books, links or pointers you may have for more detailed reading would be welcome.

Here's a start. 

http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Myths-Exposing-Fallacy-Saturated/dp/0967089700

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 846
Re: If we can't beat them, let's poison them
SteveW wrote:

I truly believe that each indigenous ancestral population wherever it existed in the world was genetically selected over hundreds or more generations so that those individuals were well adapted to both the natural environment and their traditional diet.

So my best response is to think your ancestry and try to follow the traditional diet, with attention to portion size.

Cool!  Being Irish and Mexican, this means that my diet can be copious portions of whiskey and 'taters, and frijoles (beans, to you gringos) and tequila. Tongue outThanks Steve!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments