Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:22:17 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:11:42 -0500, Robert Kesterson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>> Yet they didn't live any longer than us.
>
> I thought the issue wasn't so much *length* of life as *quality* of life?
>
Yes, but other things being equal, better diet should mean longer life as
well as better quality.
>
> Surely you wouldn't argue that a kernel of wheat straight off the stalk
> is not the same food as one that has been milled into white flour?
> That's what I was getting at.
I agree, but the component that I remember seem to be found in the milled
version - phytates, xeno-estrogens(?) etc.
>
> Understand, I am eating paleo myself, and I find considerable merit in
> its arguments. But I'm also always looking to better understand these
> things.
Me too. I've wondered if there was a more perfect food source that is now
extinct. There is historical record of such being done deliberately in
Belize - it was the fruit of the soursop tree. It's possible to imagine
that something similar could have been done by paleopotentates to force
people into eating wheat.
>
> That's great! But it's also anecdotal. (For example, there are people
> who smoke all the time yet survive into their nineties, but that doesn't
> really call into question whether smoking is a bad idea.)
Smoking is a good idea for me. Sanity first, longevity second.
Also I hear that at least some of the studies showing the evils of smoking
have been found to be at best dubious.
William
I was
> referring more to studies of populations like the Amish, who have what
> many here would consider an awful diet, yet they live long and healthy.
> Some studies surmise that this is because of their more active lifestyle.
>
My guess is that activity is an antidote to a bad diet.
|
|
|