decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

I think age is what makes people grow old :) | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Read! N/T
Authored by: Winter on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 05:50 AM EDT
Read! N/T

Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think age is what makes people grow old :)
Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 09:30 AM EDT
When in history have people lived longer than they do now?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not attributed to modern diet
Authored by: Boundless on Tuesday, July 02 2013 @ 03:36 PM EDT

Any attempt to attribute cancer to modern diets fails ...

Perhaps I wasn't clear, because Seyfried's book doesn't even imply that.

It asserts that cancer, once established, can be largely remissed by switching to a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet. Keto is both a modern and an ancient diet, being the current diet of some Inuit and a few other remote cultures beyond the reach of Twinkies.

.. all animals will die of cancer when getting old enough. Irrespective of their diet.

Possibly not, but I'm not aware of low carb advocates having predictions of what we will die of instead, and when. I went low carb 2 years ago, for other reasons, but I'm now musing that my cancer risk might be much lower than it previously was. (I made the change due to a family member finally discovering that they were acutely reactive to wheat. When I switched, my weight promptly dropped by 40 years and two chronic conditions remissed.)

There are "modern" causes known that can increase the risk of cancer:

Seyfried's (actually Warburg's) hypothesis is that the common root path of cancer is mitochondrial damage, but yes, there are legions of things that are the precursors for that damage, although perhaps a slightly smaller list than the State of California would have us believe ☺.

Seyfried even addressed cell phones in the book (probably a FAQ) and conjectured that if there's a risk, it's not genetic damage from ionizing radiation, but simple thermal damage.

That said, the modern diet (full-time high glycemic) feeds cancer, and I would add that a few novel and inflammatory foods may well trigger it via mitochondrial damage.

Attempts to blame it on "diet" are largely "blaming the victim".

The victims are just victims.
Take a gander at the trend charts for most chronic ailments. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is perhaps the poster child: not just high, not just rising, but accelerating. Yet this obviously out of control malady is a 100% avoidable condition caused by a chronic high gly diet, and is fully reversible with diet if caught prior to serious complications (rhetorical question:does the ADA tell you this?).

So why don't people (victims) dodge T2D? Because they are getting fatally flawed dietary advice from the USDA's MyPlate on down.

It is not blaming the victim because these victims have no idea that what they are being told to eat/not_eat is in fact causing the problems. They are eating an incorrect allocation of macronutrients (high carb, low fat), and the carbs are loaded with addictive, appetite-stimulating, weight-gain-promoting substances. They are being told to deal with it by 'starve'n'strive' (portion control and jog your buns off).

The top 3 consensus diet errors:

  1. "healthy whole grains"
    i.e. wheat: See "Wheat Belly" (Davis) for the full indictment and escape plans.
  2. added simple sugars, but fructose in particular (oddly enough)
    HFCS is the supervillain here: See "The Fat Switch" (Johnson) for the biochemistry.
  3. low fat mania
    Attia's blog, particularly The straight dope on cholesterol is instructive here, as is Wheat Belly.

Yep, this means the consensus diet is almost upside down. Someone is clearly incorrect. What to do about that is a matter of individual choice, and yes, we're betting our lives and health on that choice.

We may not know for some years yet what the ideal human diet is (some paleo advocates think it may take 50 years), but it's clear from the trend charts that today's consensus diet ain't it. My view is that most of our chronic health problems are likely to turn out to be totally optional ailments, avoided by simple diet changes.

... and the recent news on gene patents is probably not going to be a major factor in whatever develops.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )