Sugar substitute

There is no SS because if you keep sweet memory taste in your brain you will eat it again.

NAD+ supplements and the heart: improving energy metabolism

NAD supplements and AF: what about the JACC paper?
If the reference paper of your comment is this one (http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/51/1/68) and this related editorial (http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/51/1/75) you should keep in mind that the study was done in cardiac surgery. This means that patients under an extracorporeal bypass did have cardiac arrest following the infusion of a cardioplegic solution. This is more or less generating an ischemic time usually of 30-90 minutes. In this setting, after surgery, blood NADPH oxidase is associated with an increased rate of atrial fibrillation in this study. It means that if the heart is poorly protected or poorly oxygenated or in bad shape before the operation an increase redox activity in mitochodrias of the heart is observed and could be associated with AF. This is a consequence of heart damage but not a direct cause of AF. However, this observation could lead to advise you a stress test in order to eliminate a resting ischemic state which TruNiagen could have unmasked.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4660643/

https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-016-0267-y

Meat, human health and environment: the fallacy of solutions despite a good start...

https://www.nutriting.com/actu/faut-il-diminuer-sa-consommation-de-viande-rouge-pour-la-sante/?fbclid=IwAR1Gv7gZdjLVEZk7vKXaJ4lBD53ufi-Qzdx73dBxcRAFxLnmNIkpcvdXk9Y&v=11aedd0e4327

They just forgot smart innovations in energy. You shouldn't need to live like a caveman.

Lactose

Lactose is Glucose-Galactose
Donc 1g  de lactose = environ 0,5g de chaque.
Masse moléculaire:
Glu 180,155
Gal 180,156
Lac 342,296

Is TMAO dangerous?

https://www.dietdoctor.com/new-study-raises-an-old-question-eating-red-meat-increases-tmao-levels-should-we-care


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mnfr.201700363

Human nutrition in crisis of rationality: "experts" have warnt against a risk of 18% for processed meat eating equally as they did for a risk of 1900% for tobacco smoking

Experts who did not do a new study who did not do a meta-analysis met in Lyon to tell us what we already knew: it's sworn to spit eating red meat is burdened with a low risk of increased colorectal cancer and eating processed meats is associated with a significant relative risk of 18% per daily serving.
To understand smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 1900%. Having chronic pancreatitis (often related to alcohol) increases the risk of pancreatic cancer by 1900-2000%.
Smoking and drinking increase the risk of cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract by approximately 29900%!
This is the media storm is emotional and seduces the irrational people. Which are numerous.

Nutrition humaine en période de crise de rationalité: les "experts" ont mis en garde contre le risque de 18% pour la viande transformée, de la même manière que pour le risque de 1900% pour le tabagisme

Des Experts qui n'ont pas fait une nouvelle étude qui n'ont pas fait une méta-analyse se sont réunis à Lyon pour nous dire ce que nous savions déjà: c'est juré craché manger de la viande rouge est grevé d'un faible risque d'augmentation de cancer colorectal et manger des viandes transformées est grevé d'un risque relatif significatif de 18% par portion journalière.
Pour comprendre fumer augmente le risque de cancer du poumon de 1900 %. Avoir une pancréatite chronique (souvent liée à l'alcool) augmente le risque de cancer du pancréas de 1900-2000 %.
Fumer et boire augmente le risque de cancer des VADS d'environ 29900 %!
Voilà la tempête médiatique est émotionnelle et elle séduit les irrationnels. Qui sont nombreux.

Nutrition is in an unsustainable crisis of credibility

https://elemental.medium.com/diet-research-is-deeply-flawed-heres-what-you-should-know-to-eat-healthy-6e27ff47efb0

Is energy the key factor in aging?

https://time.com/5159879/is-an-anti-aging-pill-on-the-horizon/

Futurist
https://futurism.com/basis-anti-aging-nad-booster/amp

The deadly wave of sugar

https://www.insider.com/sugar-in-starbucks-dunkin-fall-drinks-nutrition-facts-2019-10?fbclid=IwAR0woDhFU4PnSM3ObwN4befW5MwjMS-AukQftaaHupbN0_-82SqUHyjDmKU#starbucks-pumpkin-cream-cold-brew-contains-31-grams-of-sugar-in-a-grande-size-3

If you suppress sugar, don't forget to add salt... Overall if you exercise

I have discovered that by chance. In winter we were in half pension for skiing and we ate a lot of cheeses, alone or in omelettes or in "fondue". I noted that at the end of the week my sweet tooth after a full day of ski decreased and even disappeared. I began to translate this fact for biking (the sport where I was the most in-demand of sugar) and it worked.

Meat: evol perspective by an Israeli researcher

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miki_Ben-Dor

We need a better agriculture id est with higher added value and less subsidies

OECD: value-added by agriculture, fisheries, forestry. 

It is a little bit heterogenous this list of top10 superfoods

https://chriskresser.com/the-top-10-digestive-superfoods/?fbclid=IwAR0ULcBTfVQ6qqm6FzkEae01ZwbVxnsmozyz3tZE5JZYlc-Mv3pHmw1Ua2c

Metabolic shift

https://andrewskurka.com/metabolic-efficiency-testing-explanation-and-motivations/

Low carb brand

https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2019/10/16/Hunter-Gather-talks-keto-paleo-and-gluten-free-trends?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=18-Oct-2019&c=dC5HnbRQjql3HR20zdnh81P2WdmgJvwz&p2=

Meat: the debate is not over

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5989/rr

https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/features/red-meat-bashing-and-human-ancestral-diet/

https://knowridge.com/2019/10/red-meat-study-caused-a-stir-heres-what-wasnt-discussed/

To peel or not to peel your fruits and veggies?

https://www.rtl.fr/actu/bien-etre/e-m6-au-carre-faut-il-enlever-la-peau-des-fruits-et-legumes-7799242830?fbclid=IwAR32O_ulWmSU3pWtLWpibmsWWDHdFnQyGEY0hYn63pnZ3TeuQVKC-ZcCC04 


https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/peeling-fruits-veggies#section1

Gastric cancer: smoking and Helicobacter led to a higher risk

https://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/12/10/667

Because of the lack of understanding of the complex and serial events which precede a gastric tumour, we under-estimate the carcinogenic potential of smoking and we let people playing Russian roulette

"Smoking is an established risk factor for gastric cancer development. In this study, we aimed to assess prospectively the association of smoking with gastric cancer risk in 1,446 non-cardia gastric cancer cases and 1,796 controls from China, Japan, and Korea with consideration of Helicobacter pylori infection as a potential effect modifier. Applying logistic regression models stratified by study and adjusted for age and sex we found that current, but not former, smoking was significantly associated with gastric cancer risk [OR = 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.65]. However, the association was significant only in H. pylori sero-positive individuals determined by 3 different sero-markers: overall sero-positivity, sero-positivity to the onco-protein CagA, and sero-positivity to the gastric cancer associated sero-marker HP0305 and HP1564. Specifically, a significant interaction was found when stratifying by HP0305/HP1564 (Pinteraction = 0.01) with a 46% increased risk of gastric cancer among HP0305/HP1564 sero-positive current smokers (95% CI, 1.10–1.93) as opposed to no increased gastric cancer risk among HP0305/HP1564 sero-negative current smokers (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65–1.33). We confirmed that current smoking is associated with an increased gastric cancer risk, however, only among individuals that are simultaneously sero-positive for the leading causal factor for gastric cancer, H. pylori."

Gastric cancer and especially its deadly form named signet-ring cell gastric carcinoma is poorly understood despite its association with HP. 

In conclusion, our results from this large prospective
consortium of East Asian studies confirmed that current
smoking increases the risk of developing non-cardia
gastric cancer, however, only among study participants simultaneously harboring antibodies to H. pylori, CagA-positive H. pylori, or the gastric cancer risk marker H. pylori HP0305/HP1564. Our findings suggest that in areas of
high H. pylori prevalence like East Asia, smoking status is a
further risk marker of gastric cancer incidence,and potentially smoking cessation could be an effective strategy to reduce gastric cancer risk.

Gastric cancer 

Fat in the paleo dish

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/science/marrow-israel-cave.html?fbclid=IwAR2yv4lgsRWpzjXkPGYi1zD1aIvGCq9aArBhzaHgOmGGhWW2D3eZV7jkacM

Fallacy of the so called longevity drinks: milk, orange juice and coffee

https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2643433/association-coffee-consumption-total-cause-specific-mortality-among-nonwhite-populations?doi=10.7326%2fM16-2472
Perhaps

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jmf.2013.0034
Certainly not look at the type of proof: it is completely biased. the study is about measuring antioxidants in the blood after drinking orange juice not about life expectancy or any other chronic disease prevalence! And above all those study is done in hyper cholesterolemic and hyper triglyceridemic patients

https://foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/794

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950929/

 https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6015/rr/804415

Vitamin D: debate about optimal serum concentrations

http://darwinian-medicine.com/the-vitamin-d-levels-of-the-hadzabe-and-the-maasai-an-important-study-that-flew-under-the-radar/?fbclid=IwAR1PyCsHdKCaAR95aLSaiyomz83_Ouqoq7N7yz4AvqaupypyGbPNbQ0dSsc


The question is: does our genome optimally function with less D?

Some definitions about LC diets

LC or ULC diets are an input advice diet: you monitor input id est what you eat

Ketogenic diet is an output metabolic marker diet: you monitor ketonuria and ste that yu get a ketogenic metabolic state

Ketone diet is a supplementary diet: you monitor what you eat because you add ketones bodies

It is complicated that is why I advise doing a LC diet, it is simple, efficient and sustainable. don't forget to monitor very closely (I mean suppress usually) the different starches.

Some advices for >40 years males

https://medical-news.org/40-foods-to-avoid-for-men-over-40/11177/17/

Cow milk casein and mucus secretion

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lary.27287

Irish genome and Neolithic diet.

"Modern Europe has been shaped by two episodes in prehistory, the advent of agriculture and later metallurgy. These innovations brought not only massive cultural change but also, in certain parts of the continent, a change in genetic structure. The manner in which these transitions affected the islands of Ireland and Britain on the northwestern edge of the continent remains the subject of debate. The first ancient whole genomes from Ireland, including two at high coverage, demonstrate that large-scale genetic shifts accompanied both transitions. We also observe a strong signal of continuity between modern day Irish populations and the Bronze Age individuals, one of whom is a carrier for the C282Y hemochromatosis mutation, which has its highest frequencies in Ireland today."

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/22/1518445113

"The Neolithic and Bronze Age transitions were profound cultural shifts catalyzed in parts of Europe by migrations, first of early farmers from the Near East and then Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe. However, a decades-long, unresolved controversy is whether population change or cultural adoption occurred at the Atlantic edge, within the British Isles. We address this issue by using the first whole genome data from prehistoric Irish individuals. A Neolithic woman (3343–3020 cal BC) from a megalithic burial (10.3× coverage) possessed a genome of predominantly Near Eastern origin. She had some hunter–gatherer ancestry but belonged to a population of large effective size, suggesting a substantial influx of early farmers to the island. Three Bronze Age individuals from Rathlin Island (2026–1534 cal BC), including one high coverage (10.5×) genome, showed substantial Steppe genetic heritage indicating that the European population upheavals of the third millennium manifested all of the way from southern Siberia to the western ocean. This turnover invites the possibility of accompanying introduction of Indo-European, perhaps early Celtic, language. Irish Bronze Age haplotypic similarity is strongest within modern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh populations, and several important genetic variants that today show maximal or very high frequencies in Ireland appear at this horizon. These include those coding for lactase persistence, blue eye color, Y chromosome R1b haplotypes, and the hemochromatosis C282Y allele; to our knowledge, the first detection of a known Mendelian disease variant in prehistory. These findings together suggest the establishment of central attributes of the Irish genome 4,000 y ago."

Meat

http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0

Years without disability and diet

”In the United States 60% of our calories come from refined sugar, refined grains and refined omega-6 seed oils and
1)More than 1 in 2 adults has prediabetes or diabetes
2)3 out of 4 adults has hyperinsulinemia
3)1 in 2 women will develop cancer
4)1 in 3 men will develop cancer
5)1 in 4 adults has fatty liver disease”
J Dinicolantonio

The question observational studies cannot answer

I suppose that and observational study found that red meat consumption above 300 grams a week increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 10%.
Is it a random distribution of the relative risk or is it a selective risk in a sub population with both genomic and environmental factors which are linked with the carcinogenic effect of red meat?
The difference between a random effect and a selective effect on redmeat conception in some people only cannot be solved by observational studies.

Vitamin C

From James Dinicolantonio

Blood levels of vitamin C in the 70-80uMol level have been associated with a lower risk for numerous chronic diseases. Studies have shown that for the majority of people to reach these levels in the blood around 500 mg of vitamin C is needed per day.

However, at vitamin C levels above 70uMol, there can be drops below this level unless another 500 mg is given around 4 hours later. Basically, it appears that in order to continually maintain such levels 500mg may need to be consumed around 4 times per day.


Some vitamin C experts have suggested that taking vitamin C every 2-4 hours is optimal and would match patterns that would occur in animals who can’t synthesize vitamin C like humans but get vitamin C continuously throughout the day during foraging.

Some experts believe around 6-9 grams of vitamin C per day (divided into at least 4 smaller doses per day) is optimal based on maintaining continuous high blood levels of vitamin C.

Additionally, there appears to be no real evidence that higher doses of vitamin C actually causes kidney stones (and some evidence that vitamin C may actually reduce kidney stones as ascorbic acid can bind calcium potentially preventing calcium oxalate stone formation). The upper limit of 2 grams of vitamin C per day was set to due to some people getting diarrhea at that level. That would be like someone saying don’t eat more than 2 prunes per day because you could get diarrhea. That doesn’t seem to be a very good justification on capping the dose of vitamin C to just 2 grams per day when animals that make vitamin C produce well over 2 grams per day when matched for human size (and if stressed their production of vitamin C can go up exponentially making much more than 2 grams per day).

This is not medical advice.

What is the right dose?

Veg proteins

Le problème des protéines végétales c'est que les plantes n'aiment pas être mangées.

Vegan propaganda in the BMJ

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/10/09/bacon-rashers-statistics-and-controversy/?fbclid=IwAR2453O8TZURygfDz3cz4871bsXTAHhHJ16mhKDHnq7p_3-zjJacTRMmnII

Hi,
there are some very disputed assertions in this short opinion which has been apparently peer-reviewed.
It is simple but for scientists, it is fundamental to point that the authors began their piece with a big mistake. Bacon is not red meat. So they perfectly exemplified the huge risk of error of questionnaires in observational studies. Reason why those studies are imprecise, weak and without any evidence of causality whatever the sens of it. The reason why randomization will balance this kind of mistakes and control will suppress them.
As it is their mantra they continued in this path.  "The criteria are well suited to studies of pharmaceuticals when there are randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials available, but not for studies of meat, eggs, vegetables or any specific food." No. It is nonsense to make a rule for drugs and another for diets. Simply this is at heart of the problem. The high profile authors, evoked in this opinion, made their career by making such a double standard an obvious knowledge and in the same time selling their observational studies with a low association between factors as fuzzy as grains, fat or meat... It is a shame that observational studies on diet of 10 years or more were published with only one assessment by questionnaire at the beginning of the "prospective" study. Aside from the fact that academic authors and organisations disagree with this impossibility to do RCT in diets, several very high-quality papers were published and recently Kevin D Hall did a study which shows that junk food is efficient in gaining weight on a short time basis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31105044). So patients and physicians worth high-quality studies. I mean RCT in order to solve the obesity epidemics that high profile nutritionists failed to curb. It is also very untrue to reassess: "Given that RCTs with foods or food groups are not possible". The authors concentrated their criticism against RCT only because they took the side of observational studies. They chose the weakest evidence, aka association of factors because they don't want to embark in causality studies.
Furthermore the authors made two assertions in the same sentence which are not relevant about red meat. "The authors also chose to leave out all artificial ex-vivo lab studies and animal studies, included in other meta-analyses, that have, for example, implicated nitrites or acrylamides as carcinogens. " The carcinogens quoted are totally out of the subject. Is it necessary to point out that nitrites and acrylamide are not present in red meat? How this could be possible in a peer-reviewed opinion? Technically, processed meat means pork, beef or duck that has been salted and cured, with or without smoking. A fresh pound of red meat is not processed. A hard stick of cured salami is. The health risk of bacon if any is largely to do with two food additives: potassium nitrate (also known as saltpetre) and sodium nitrite. The major food sources of acrylamide are French fries and potato chips; but also crackers, bread, and cookies; breakfast cereals those last foods that high profile nutritionists advise eating if they are made of whole flour. The animal studies and other "mechanistic studies" are not relevant to the new strict analysis of the observational studies about red meat by Canadian authors. Indeed those studies are only warning studies for launching clinical trials. No more no less. And another time the great carnivores do not exhibit cancers or CVD after eating meat all their life. Another bad study is to give meat to a non-carnivore as it is a poor mechanistic study to give a high-fat diet to rabbits. Last but not least they didn't mention the 2010 review which showed that eating charred, smoked, well done red meat is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer only in smokers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769029/)! Interestingly one of the study reviewed in this paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027510702001641?via%3Dihub) didn't find an association between well done or very well done meat (processed or not) below 5 steaks/week. We are very near to the advice of the Canadian authors who concluded that until 3 steaks per week there is no assessable and measurable risk. it is rather surprising that they didn't mention the true carcinogens in high temperature cooked red or processed meat: heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These organic compounds which are also produced by high-temperature cooking of white meat, fishes and vegetable protein although in less quantity.
Then they came to the demonstration that Canadian authors cherry-picked studies. Doing that they also destroyed observational studies as the meta-analysis of RCT is far less subjected to contest; If red meat is the hypothesis you cannot eliminate an RCT which stated that. Then they discussed the Lyon heart study and PREDIMED but they don't prove that taking into account these studies would have changed the conclusions of the revision meta-analysis about red meat.   Eventually, they backed the Canadian authors: "Previous summaries, which have been more inclusive, have shown modest health risks for red meat, but clear links between processed meat, heart disease and early death. The evidence for cancer causation is less clear-cut, and several trials of meat reduction have not resulted in lowering of cancer risks. ". In the same paragraph, they also recognize that the issue is not red meat but junk food. We mentioned previously the RCT on processed food that they quoted and it is a pity that they didn't recognize in quoting it that such a paper, so rare that it is,  is more powerful than dozens of observational studies. the following statements are interesting because they are only authors opinion. We were waiting for a better backing than wishful thinking and political correctness.
Two very obvious errors, however, were made at the end.
First, they compare the review about meat with an, according to them, complacent subsidised review about sugar from the same lead author. The Canadian meat meta-analysis would be corrupted by a precedent study on sugar because of hidden conflict of interests? We don't need such a suspicion. It is only a matter of good sense or bayesian evidence: we eat sugar approximately since 1800 and meat since at least 500 000 years. That could help in finding the truth.
Secondly, it is hard to believe that the authors decided to conclude their opinion piece by a so predictable greenwashing. The EAT-Lancet initiative that they quoted, is not a new study. It is not a meta-analysis. It is indeed a very sophisticated but biased piece of statistical manipulation in order to impose a vegan diet.
Then they came to the demonstration that Canadian authors cherry-picked studies. Doing that they also destroyed observational studies as the meta-analysis of RCT is far less subjected to contest; If red meat is the hypothesis you cannot eliminate an RCT which stated that. Then they discussed the Lyon heart study and PREDIMED but they don't prove that taking into account these studies would have changed the conclusions of the revision meta-analysis about red meat.   Eventually, they backed the Canadian authors: "Previous summaries, which have been more inclusive, have shown modest health risks for red meat, but clear links between processed meat, heart disease and early death. The evidence for cancer causation is less clear-cut, and several trials of meat reduction have not resulted in lowering of cancer risks. ". In the same paragraph, they also recognize that the issue is not red meat but junk food. We mentioned previously the RCT on processed food that they quoted and it is a pity that they didn't recognize in quoting it that such a paper, so rare that it is,  is more powerful than dozens of observational studies. the following statements are interesting because they are only authors opinion. We were waiting for a better backing than wishful thinking and political correctness.
Two very obvious errors, however, were made at the end.
First, they compare the review about meat with an, according to them, complacent subsidised review about sugar from the same lead author. The Canadian meat meta-analysis would be corrupted by a precedent study on sugar because of hidden conflict of interests? We don't need such a suspicion. It is only a matter of good sense or bayesian evidence: we eat sugar approximately since 1800 and meat since at least 500 000 years. That could help in finding the truth.
Secondly, it is hard to believe that the authors decided to conclude their opinion piece by a so predictable greenwashing. The EAT-Lancet initiative is not a new study. It is not a meta-analysis. It is indeed a very sophisticated but biased piece of statistical manipulation in order to impose a vegan diet. This kind of reasoning is reductionist as it leads to blaming people around the planet for eating too much meat. While for instance, south European people eat a very moderate amount of meat and numerous other populations don't eat sufficient animal products and suffer several deficiencies. It is the same reasoning which is used by bad teachers who punish all the classroom instead of targeting those who are making the heckling. Another time this assertion is not backed by evidence. All agricultural practices have been found to have a variety of effects on the environment. Some of the environmental effects that have been associated with meat production are pollution through fossil fuel usage, animal methane, effluent waste, and water and land consumption. The issue is destructive farming — not whether you eat meat or vegetables or grains. Another issue is the quantum of those impacts. Contrary to different assertions in the different EAT-Lancet papers, the matter of anthropogenic emissions is extremely complex and still poorly known in details. Particularly meat production which is managed very differently in the different countries and according to ancestral or new practices. In a recent paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799208/), C. Christie et al brought the evidence that excess calories whatever it comes from do have a bigger impact. Among those excess calories, processed foods have a bigger impact in general because they need more energy to be produced, packaged, transported and finally more frequently treated as waste. Excess calories are consumed in developed countries (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS/visualize), but it is not meat which brings calories in excess because meat and poultry are composed of naturally occurring water, muscle, connective tissue, fat, and bone. The muscle is approximately 75% water (although different cuts may have more or less water) and 20% protein, with the remaining 5% representing a combination of fat, carbohydrate, and minerals. On the contrary sugar and fats in processed foods, which are in excess, are very dense foods with minimal water.

Finally, we have to recall the nutritional advantages of meat for humans a life long.
Meat is a very good source of nutritionally complete and digestible proteins, bioavailable iron, zinc, and selenium and the exclusive source of vitamin B12. Consumption of red meat decreases since 2000 in developed countries and the average consumption in Europe is around three portions a week. This amount of red meat is not associated with any increased risk in observational studies.  When consumed in moderation, meat and offal have an important role in maintaining good health through its supply of high-quality nutrients. In the setting of a flexitarian diet like in the blue zone countries, the benefits of meat add those of fishes and seafood, more high fibre, plant-based foods, with the nutritional durability of an omnivorous diet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6559336/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191767


"This is a good example of what I call nutritional nihilism, an approach that insists that because observational studies are based on self-reported information and necessarily flawed, their conclusions are unscientific and should be discounted.  Therefore, because we can’t do more rigorous studies, we should not advise the public about diets best for health or the environment."

"The conclusions fall into the category of “everything you thought you knew about nutrition is wrong.”  This rarely happens.  Science usually works incrementally, not in one enormous reversal like this."
Are we collectively biased by this idea that conventional medicine is wrong and that at one point we shall see the disruption?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2712745


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__FEUvehZA4 

Barres pour le sport à 80€ le kg: il vaut mieux jeûner

https://www.taracking.fr/product-page/10-barres-d-%C3%A9nergie-2?fbclid=IwAR35LFetNt5eZhg9CTz-KastXRg85E3DTrJr6klRzZXVsj83ed90t8lSXeE


https://www.taracking.fr/?fbclid=IwAR35LFetNt5eZhg9CTz-KastXRg85E3DTrJr6klRzZXVsj83ed90t8lSXeE

Pâte à tartiner le grand n'importe quoi du nutriscore...

https://fr.openfoodfacts.org/produit/3501940000213/pate-a-tartiner-noisettes-chocolat-noir-bovetti

Nutella

Informations  nutritionnelles	Tel que vendu pour  100 g / 100 ml	Tel que vendu par portion  (15g)	Pâtes à tartiner  aux noisettes et  au cacao
Énergie	2 252 kj (538 kcal)	338 kj (81 kcal)	+1 %
Matières grasses  Lipides	30,9 g	4,63 g	-7 %
dont  Acides gras saturés	10,6 g	1,59 g	+30 %
Glucides	57,5 g	8,62 g	+13 %
dont Sucres	56,3 g	8,44 g	+20 %
Protéines	6,3 g	0,945 g	-7 %
Sel	0,107 g	0,016 g	-46 %
Sodium	0,043 g	0,006 g	-46 %
Score nutritionnel - France	26	26	+26 %
Nutri-Score	E	E	E

Bovetti

Informations  nutritionnelles	Tel que vendu pour  100 g / 100 ml	Pâtes à tartiner  aux noisettes et  au cacao
Énergie	2 560 kj (612 kcal)	+14 %
Matières grasses / Lipides	48 g	+44 %
dont  Acides gras saturés	10 g	+23 %
Glucides	36 g	-29 %
dont Sucres	32 g	-32 %
Protéines	8 g	+18 %
Sel	< 0,01 g	-95 %
Sodium	0,004 g	-95 %
Score nutritionnel - France	23	+11 %
Nutri-Score	E	E

Poor medical training in nutrition: in all developed countries

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519619301718?via%3Dihub

Alcohol and health: what is a J curve?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2752097?utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jamanetworkopen&utm_content=mthlyforyou&utm_term=100619

Fat, meat, human brain

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201903/the-brain-needs-animal-fat?fbclid=IwAR0y60vj67HPg8oN7YOJtlvOmCwcbfHg-HMcZES8yNCss7-roRJVQbr2Yks

e-cigarettes, vaping

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25907-6

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321928.php

Coc-pot or pot-coc from Pyrex for your flavored eggs

http://www.jenaerglas-shop.de/en/wagenfeld-eierkoch-fur-2-eier.html

Coc pot de Pyrex les oeufs coque avec un parfum: fromage, jambon cru, basilic, myrtilles

http://c-est-local-de-saison-et-trop-bon.over-blog.com/2016/08/oeufs-cuit-au-coc-pot-pyrex-ancien.html

Sugar connection to chronic deterioration of health

Salt or sugar?
1)Addiction - sugar is addictive, NOT salt
Addiction is the word that the industry doesn't want to hear of
2)Osteoporosis
Veggies, fatty fish exercise and sun are the treatments and sugar deteriorates bone equilibrium
3)Kidney stones

4)Hypertension

5)Heart Disease
excess calories mainly from carbs increase the number of LDL particles
6)Kidney disease
Sugar is a potent acidity maker

Meat and IQ

Lynn, R., Meisenberg, G., Mikk, J., & Williams, A. (2007). National IQS predict differences in scholoastic achievement in 67 countries. Journal of Biosocial Science, 39(06), 861-874. doi: doi:10.1017/S0021932007001964

Lynn, R. (2006). Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis.
Athens: Washington Summit Books.

Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2006). IQ and Global Inequality. Athens: Washington Summit Books.

The Atlas of Food Who eats what, where and why Erik Millstone and Tim Lang 2008 Earthscan Ltd. London

Nyéléni Synthesis Report. (2007). Forum for Food Sovereignty 23rd - 27th February 2007. Sélingué, Mali.

Le sport et une collation, est ce bien nécessaire?

Cross à l'école. Les choses ont changé on leur fournit du sirop et des viennoiseries avec des neurotoxiques?

ALA and prostate cancer

Epidemiological studies link alpha-linolenic acid to Diseases like prostate cancer. Again: is it the processing or ALA itself? That question is usually not raised in such papers. Cooking is very complex chemistry. I suspect that this ALA is mainly from canola not from leaves. So we have to dig in the process of canola oil production/processing/filtering and other transformations occurring before people eat it. Don't forget that usual pans on gas fires or electric heating are at very high temperatures and people tend to tune the power at max in order to get "fast" food... 

Green tea and cancer

http://www.slate.fr/story/180903/the-vert-vertu-sante-cancer-etude-maladie

Food, control, hunger, binge eating do you tell to your patient that it is in their head?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/article-abstract/2751253?fbclid=IwAR0hbw2pZgqHh3xZ78EkVgWugsZvbWRQacV4fkcLuD8HuL7UdXv4pYtxuD0

Is it possible to personalize nutrition with genomics in the real life?

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/23/nutrigenomics-can-custom-diets-based-personal-genetics-help-lose-weight/

Meat: why the vegan conspiration will fail...

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/09/20/evolution-the-human-diet-and-the-meat-vs-plant-conundrum/?fbclid=IwAR06HYPkmbDAfwECeuYzKSkc93mf1qdQVNgB-mn3iUyIIQufIae3qVh7HEo

Metformin, cancer, metabolism

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2749256

Keto Diet and sport, endurance, resistance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8BY4fyLvZc

Un autre décalogue alimentaire...

https://medical-news.org/30-best-foods-that-help-unclog-arteries/6551/22/

T2D and epigentics: are we fabricating a planetary epigenetic risk of diabetes with high sugar diet?

Developmental Origins of Type 2 Diabetes: Focus on Epigenetics

• August 2019
• Ageing Research Reviews 55:100957

• DOI: 
• 10.1016/j.arr.2019.100957

Alexander Vaiserman

Oleh Lushchak

This is a very interesting paper on T2D epigenetic factors frequently ignored in the crude stats of T2D which tend to focus on the link between recent diet and the onset of the disease.
First I have a question about sugars. You described the influence of low protein diet and HF diet during pregnancy on the subsequent risk of T2D. Usually, an isocaloric low protein diet is also a high carb diet. Is this high glycemic load partly implicated in epigenetic changes leading to a higher risk of T2D? Secondly in the same mechanistic path, you wrote about the consequences of gestational diabetes: "Methylation status at some of these sites was suggested to impair insulin secretion, increase body weight and increase risk of T2D in adulthood.". It was about Pima Indians. In the setting of a western diet where women eat at least 50 % of carbs and a lot of high GI carbs, are you aware of epigenetic changes in caucasian children exposed to the high carb diet of their mother? Are they similar to those of Pima Indians?
Second I would like to know if there is a quantification of epigenetic risk versus genetic risk in T2D.  I mean in term of relative risk what is predominant? We know the heritability of T2D and diabetic families. But with the radical changes in diet which is now mainly processed food, is the epigenetic risk more important?
Thank you for your time,
My regards,

Il s'agit d'un article très intéressant sur les facteurs épigénétiques du DT2, souvent négligé dans les statistiques brutes du DT2, qui ont tendance à se concentrer sur le lien entre le régime alimentaire récent et l’apparition de la maladie.
J'ai d'abord une question sur les sucres. Vous avez décrit l’influence d’un régime pauvre en protéines et d’un régime HF pendant la grossesse sur le risque ultérieur de DT2. Habituellement, un régime isocalorique à faible teneur en protéines correspond également à un régime riche en glucides. Cette charge glycémique élevée est-elle en partie impliquée dans les changements épigénétiques entraînant un risque plus élevé de DT2? Deuxièmement, dans le même processus mécaniste, vous avez écrit sur les conséquences du diabète gestationnel: "Il a été suggéré que le statut de méthylation sur certains de ces sites altère la sécrétion d’insuline, augmente le poids corporel et augmente le risque de DT2 à l’âge adulte.". C'était à propos des Indiens Pima. Dans le contexte d'un régime occidental où les femmes mangent au moins 50% de glucides et beaucoup de glucides à IG élevé, êtes-vous au courant des changements épigénétiques chez les enfants de race blanche exposés au régime alimentaire élevé en glucides de leur mère? Sont-ils semblables à ceux des Indiens Pima?
Deuxièmement, j'aimerais savoir s'il existe une quantification du risque épigénétique par rapport au risque génétique dans le DT2. Je veux dire en termes de risque relatif, qu'est-ce qui prédomine? Nous connaissons l'héritabilité du DT2 et des familles diabétiques. Mais avec les changements radicaux dans le régime alimentaire qui sont maintenant principalement des aliments transformés, le risque épigénétique est-il plus important?
Merci pour votre temps,
Mes salutations,