Healthspan, lifespan, exercise - Jordan Peterson, Peter Attia

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Eating whole fruits isn't responsible for the obesity and diabetes epidemic in the US. Most Americans don't even come close to eating the USDA's recommended quantity of fruits and vegetables every day. Even given the relatively minor changes in fruit hybrids over the past two hundred years towards greater shelf life and somewhat higher sugar content, fruits are still more nutrient dense and much lower in calories than junk food. For instance, a small bag of potato chips has about 240 calories, but a Fuji apple (which is a variety of apple relatively high in sugar) has only about 72 calories: you'ld have to eat about three Fuji apples to equal the same amount of calories in a snack bag of potato chips.

Sure, even a modern apple is still a better choice than the worst industrial junk food. But some people cannot eat even fruit or else they will binge. The sugar in fruit will activate their sugar cravings. They will start with an apple and end up with ice cream and cookies.

Fruit was seasonal in our past, so our bodies are programmed to think "I ate fruit, that means its summer and winter is coming, I must fatten up to prepare". Fruit is a signal to eat more and to gain fat. This signal may be very problematic for people who constantly struggle with being overweight. It may help people who want to get more fat, though.

Food is not just about calories, but also about signals.

FireDragon76 · Sep 24, 2023

myst33 said:
Sure, a modern apple is still a better choice than the worst industrial junk food. But some people cannot eat even fruit or else they will binge. The sugar in fruit will activate their sugar cravings.

Even if one were to binge on whole fruit, a person wouldn't be able to become obese just by eating fruit alone, for various reasons. Adults that attempt to live on fruit alone usually become quite thin, and this is because the caloric density of fruit is quite low, as compared to other foods. In addition, the body doesn't absorb fructose as efficiently when it is consumed in large amounts. Nearly half of all people of European descent, for instance, have a limited ability to absorb fructose.

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Even if one were to binge on whole fruit, a person wouldn't be able to become obese just by eating fruit alone, for various reasons.

You do not understand my point. People will not get obese from fruit as such, but fruit can lead to eating that will make them obese. Fruit signals to body "eat more!".

FireDragon76 said:
People that attempt to live on fruit alone usually become quite thin, and this is because the caloric density of fruit is quite low, as compared to other foods.

Sure, they are constantly starving. They must eat enormous amount of fruit daily, but their body still does not get enough of nutrition. It may also lead to cancer.

RDKirk · Sep 24, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Even if one were to binge on whole fruit, a person wouldn't be able to become obese just by eating fruit alone, for various reasons. Adults that attempt to live on fruit alone usually become quite thin, and this is because the caloric density of fruit is quite low, as compared to other foods. In addition, the body doesn't absorb fructose as efficiently when it is consumed in large amounts. Nearly half of all people of European descent, for instance, have a limited ability to absorb fructose.

.

Larniavc · Sep 24, 2023

myst33 said:
I think that till 1900, there were like just one or two medically described cases in USA.

To be fair medical knowledge around that time wasn’t good. How would heart disease be diagnosed by a doctor in that era?

Larniavc · Sep 24, 2023

timewerx said:
I don't eat in moderation on each my meal. I eat until I'm no longer comfortable taking another bite.

You shouldn’t eat until that point. If you want to maintain a healthy body you should plan what you eat sensibly and stick to that plan.

Eating to what your feel like will cause your weight to increase.

Work to the plan not the feeling.

High Fidelity · Sep 24, 2023

Larnievc said:
To be fair medical knowledge around that time wasn’t good. How would heart disease be diagnosed by a doctor in that era?

This is an important point.

A lot of issues are perceived as 'beginning' after or around a certain period, rather than the reality of medical knowledge expanding, diagnostic tools developing and things being understood better.

A lot of these issues have always existed, they just haven't been observed and understood for lack of the ability to observe them and understand them.

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

Larnievc said:
To be fair medical knowledge around that time wasn’t good. How would heart disease be diagnosed by a doctor in that era?

Autopsy. How do you think its determined today?

Larniavc · Sep 24, 2023

Blood test.

And just what would a 1900s doctor be looking for in the autopsy? And how often would an autopsy be down when an older guy drops dead?

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

Larnievc said:
Blood test

On dead people?

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

High Fidelity said:
This is an important point.

A lot of issues are perceived as 'beginning' after or around a certain period, rather than the reality of medical knowledge expanding, diagnostic tools developing and things being understood better.

A lot of these issues have always existed, they just haven't been observed and understood for lack of the ability to observe them and understand them.

We know the causality of heart attacks and strokes. One must, for example, have insulin resistance for arteries to get clogged.

And we know that insulin resistance is a modern civilization problem (as is for example obesity), so we can quite safely conclude heart attacks were not spread before as they are today. Similar to type 2 diabetes, allergies and other modern problems.

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

Larnievc said:
And just what would a 1900s doctor be looking for in the autopsy? And how often would an autopsy be down when an older guy drops dead?

I dont know. But death from heart attack (or any other heart disease) is visible in autopsy.

Larniavc · Sep 24, 2023

myst33 said:
On dead people?

In living people of course. There are loads of ways to detect it pre mortem with the current technology.

Detecting it post mortem is almost certainly beyond the ability of your average 1900s doctor.

It wasn’t until 1948 that the reasons for heart attacks became common knowledge in the medical world.

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

Larnievc said:
In living people of course. There are loads of ways to detect it pre mortem with the current technology.

I agree that early detection of clogged arteries, arrhythmia and other problems is a modern thing. We have also modern ways of treatment. Thats why heart attack deaths rate is going down, while heart attack incidents are growing and in younger and younger people, even children.

Larnievc said:
Detecting it post mortem is almost certainly beyond the ability of your average 1900s doctor.

No, they were neither blind nor stupid. They could recognize healthy and unhealthy heart.

RDKirk · Sep 24, 2023

Larnievc said:
In living people of course. There are loads of ways to detect it pre mortem with the current technology.

Detecting it post mortem is almost certainly beyond the ability of your average 1900s doctor.

It wasn’t until 1948 that the reasons for heart attacks became common knowledge in the medical world.

There is a lot of space between identifying the cause of a heart attack (blocked artery at the heart, easily visible post mortem) and understanding the reason why it's blocked.

RDKirk · Sep 24, 2023

myst33 said:
I agree that early detection of clogged arteries, arrhythmia and other problems is a modern thing. We have also modern ways of treatment. Thats why heart attack deaths rate is going down, while heart attack incidents are growing and in younger and younger people, even children.

Most significantly, the growth rate of these problems has been exponential in just the last 50 years, since the time we have definitely had a handle on heart attacks and how they occur.

I've seen the exponential rise in obesity and diabetes just in my own memory.

All you young people have to do is search through Google images of people from the 50s and 60s and compare them to people today. The difference between the propensity toward slenderness back then and the propensity toward obesity today is startling.

FireDragon76 · Sep 24, 2023

RDKirk said:
Most significantly, the growth rate of these problems has been exponential in just the last 50 years, since the time we have definitely had a handle on heart attacks and how they occur.

I've seen the exponential rise in obesity and diabetes just in my own memory.

All you young people have to do is search through Google images of people from the 50s and 60s and compare them to people today. The difference between the propensity toward slenderness back then and the propensity toward obesity today is startling.

Even normal-weight people can have heart disease. In fact, in the 50's and 60's, that was typically the case.

RDKirk · Sep 24, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Even normal-weight people can have heart disease. In fact, in the 50's and 60's, that was typically the case.

Are you making an argument that obesity is not a major factor in those problems and can be ignored?

Because if not, you're just arguing to be argumentative.

trophy33 · Sep 24, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Even normal-weight people can have heart disease. In fact, in the 50's and 60's, that was typically the case.

Yeah, but it was because of heavy smoking, i.e. another modern "nutrition" problem. Obesity is not the only risk factor, but the main one, today (together with high blood pressure, not enough exercise and type 2 diabetes, but all these correlate with obesity, too).

timewerx · Sep 25, 2023

Larnievc said:
You shouldn’t eat until that point. If you want to maintain a healthy body you should plan what you eat sensibly and stick to that plan.

Eating to what your feel like will cause your weight to increase.

Work to the plan not the feeling.

Perhaps what I said there doesn't apply to everyone.

But in my case, I only eat two meals a day without eating anything in between meals and I discipline myself to stick to the routine. The majority of the food I eat by weight is rice, the rest is either meat or protein-rich vegetables. The meat I eat is usually fatty because I'm on a tight budget and fatty meats are cheaper.

I burn twice the amount of calories per day compared to most people on average thru high intensity cardio and strength workouts. I also do all my workouts during my fasting window and without eating anything during the workout.

I believe this eating and workout routine I have will certainly force your body to metabolize body fat and help lose weight. Of course, you won't be losing weight quickly at first as the body will first try to adapt to fat metabolism.

If I gain visible fat in my belly and several lbs after a week indulging in free food, I can lose it all in a day just doing fast paced 40 mile bicycle ride without eating anything and before any meals. The next morning, they'll be all gone and back to flat abs and coke bottle waist. :angel:

Such are the advantages of having fat metabolism. If you gain body fat, it's easy to lose it and makes fasting easier without headaches and and without hunger pangs.

Healthspan, lifespan, exercise - Jordan Peterson, Peter Attia

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Leading a blameless life

Leading a blameless life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Leading a blameless life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Leading a blameless life

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

the village i--o--t--

Similar threads