Heretic wrote:This is partially true but probably not quite. Masai men live through the "muran" warrior stage when their diet is prescribed by their custom (high fat, almost zero carbs). During that stage they have no atherosclerosis and no markers for inflammation (see below). After a certain age, they are allowed to eat any food (and they do eat all kinds of food) which results in a discontinuous worsening of their markers on the chart (see the link below). Thus it is quite conceivable that if you section the "muran" men aortas (as in the earlier Mann's paper) you may find no plaque but if you do section 50 years old non-muran Masai then you may find some plaque. Mann's papers are in fact quite suggestive of the cardiovascular protectiveness of Masai muran diet but not of their other post-muran diet. This data is only reproduced in the full text of Dr. G. Mann's paper, not in the abstract. The graphs from Mann's Masai papers are available on this site:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... rosis.htmlAnd a quote (from Mann's paper):
"We believe... that the Muran escapes some noxious dietary agent for a time. Obviously, this is neither animal fat nor cholesterol. The old and the young Masai do have access to such processed staples as flour, sugar, confections and shortenings through the Indian dukas scattered about Masailand. These foods could carry the hypothetical agent."
This is partially true but probably not quite.
Atherosclerosis takes years if not decades to develop so something they were doing years if not decades earlier contributed to their increases in plaque and not just the change in the last few years. This is also part of the rationale behind the French Paradox as their increase in unhealthy foods takes decades to show up in their health outcomes.
No one is arguing here for that foods such as flour, sugar, candy and shortening are healthy. I posted an article in this the Lounge of an study where they lived on a diet that was 47% refined sugar and saw no increase in those markers so there is more to the picture.
But again, the human body is incredible and if this tribe was able to adept and those who can handle those noxious foods better survived, why would anyone want to recommend such a program? Especially when lifespan is so low.
There is a small island in the Pacific where their main diet includes fish that is high in mercury and they inhabitants have adapted and suffer none of the consequences. Should we then recommend this to our children?
All it proves is that humans are incredibly adaptable.
Personally, I would not want to hedge my bets on such isolated tribes under extreme conditions. Especially when we look at common denominators of long lived populations around the world which shows us that the dietary behaviors and lifestyles of these isolated tribes is not amongst these common denominators. Getting to 110 is pretty impressive. The success of these long lived populations leaves more than clues. They are well studies and published. You are welcome to interpret and implement them anyway you want.
BTW, Do you really beleive that the WHO, FAO, NAS, WCRF, AICR, etc have all been dubbed and mislead?
The l/t study above that you post supporting a low carb diet, had only 16 people and only 7 who did the cross over. They were obese and (only for the first few months) losing weight which would have shown some benefit no matter what they ate. Most of them gained much if not most of their weight back and at the end of 44 months, they difference was only from a BMI Of 36.1 to a BMI of 33.4. Think about it, 44 months and their BMI changed only 1.7 points and they were still obese. They were still at high risk. Is that what you are recommending?
In addition, only at the 3 month period, during the 44 months, were their A1c's in the (upper end of the) acceptable range and then they shot back up to over 6.5 for the remaining time of the 44 months. Their Total cholesterol barely changed at all and their TGs remained the same so most of the "supposed" lipid benefit was de to an increased HDL, which I have thoroughly discussed in this forum that raising HDL on a high fat diet may not be beneficial in the long run.
Even the authors themselves said
"However, both mean HbA1c and weight have increased over the last 2 years."
In addition, the control group was your typical high carb, low fat, junk food diet so it does not apply here.
How does that compare with the study I posted on 4,000 subjects on a diet like this where 70% were medication free in 3 weeks and 40% were insulin free in 3 weeks and stayed that way at 3 & 5 year follow ups?
Or the famous Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) which was a 27-center randomized clinical trial that studied more than 3,200 adults who were 25 years or older and who were at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. It included included 55 percent who were Caucasian and 45 percent who were minorities -- 20 percent African American, 16 percent Hispanic, 5 percent American Indian, 4 percent Asian American.
The participants followed the intensive low fat diet and exercise, reduced their risk of developing diabetes by 58 percent compared to 31% for those who took medication. This finding was true across all participating ethnic groups and for both men and women. Lifestyle changes worked particularly well for participants aged 60 and older, reducing their risk by 71 percent.
Similar results were seen in the famous Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS).
So, with all due respect, now that you have been able to post continually here without any editing, banning or deleting, what is your point?
More importantly, how can I help you?
In Health
Jeff
