Hippocrates Diet

Has anyone tried or considered the Hippocrates Diet? I've been looking into using food to help heal or at a minimum not feed cancer.. cutting out sugars including natural sugars. Also balancing PH to the alkaline side. It also helps eliminate autoimmune diseases, HPB, cholesterol, diabetes.. The list goes on.. Anyone ever give this a shot?

TW,

We have lots of guys here on lots of different diets. Hadn't heard of the Hippocrates Diet. Googled for it and did a bit of reading. Think I will stick to my high fat, low carb (hopefully ketogenic) diet . I'm afraid the Hippocrates diet lost me on the wheat grass bit.

If you decide to try the Hippocrates Diet, let us know how you do.

Peter -- are you\ on the atkin's diet? how is it working for you/

ed

No question about it: the better you eat, the healthier you will be--within certain limits. Nutritious foods, good BMI, exercise, on average you will be less prone to illness and disease with those. But beyond that, and especially with the claims for these very specific and sometimes odd "diets," you're on shaky ground, in my opinion. There are too many people in their 80s and 90s walking around in good shape who have consistently violated even the undisputed rules of a healthy lifestyle. My mother is one: the main staples of her diet seem to be Edys strawberry popsicles and Cadbury milk chocolate bars, of which she consumes an enormous quantity, and I know this because I get them for her. I also try to get her things I think she should be eating, with varying degrees of success. Now, this is a woman who lives alone, with her little dog, in the house I grew up in the 1950s. She's 91, and has NO health issues at this time. And there's no lack of examples of those who have done everything perfectly and died an early death. I eat well, work out, and am at my ideal weight. Am I going to give up Cheetos and desserts because somebody has postulated that giving up salt and sugar might keep my prostate cancer from returning? The answer is a resounding no. Life's still a crapshoot, no matter what you do. And, as somebody once said, "Doing everything right might not get you to 100, but it will seem like it!"

Phenom -- you should do what you want to do but your argument for doing so is weaker than puppy piss

ed

I like Phenom's post best of all on this thread.

I think some (no one person in particular) get too obsessed about the whole diet thing. Life is too short to be on radical diets. Balance and moderation is what I am constantly being told by the oncology dieticians. Not extreme diets, not elimination of entire food groups or types.

Moderation in general, cutting back portion sizes, and incorporating exercise in your life - that's just a good general health rule to follow.

You either eat to live, or live to eat. Food is an important part of even our social lives, and too many people - adds quality to their lives, as opposing eating simply to stay alive.

David

So, Tim, who is your favorite nutrition writer since you don't seem to think much of mine?

Tim,

Did you notice that the article you linked to has several Taubes quotes? I am aware of the Willett / Taubes feud which I think is unfortunate since they share a number of insights. I tend to share Taubes opinion that observational studies can never prove causation, even at Harvard, but I wish they wouldn't focus so much on their differences which, mostly, seem to be about red meat, although Taubes is also bigger on the insulin hypothesis that is Willett.

I don't think it's just PC that these low-fat, low-salt, restricted diets seem to prevent in other countries--I think it's probably most of the diseases to which the industrialized world is prone: heart disease, diabetes, other cancers, etc. Studies in animals have shown that caloric restriction improves longevity. A rice and vegetable based diet will add a couple of years to your lifespan, on average, it seems. So how many of us are going to be willing to give up the foods we enjoy every day to try to achieve this? Not many, I'd guess. It's a good guideline, and something to be aware of, but eating the full variety of available foods for pleasure is too big a part of the enjoyment of living for many people to sacrifice for this limited reward, in my estimation.

Peter--  Gary Taubes's problem is that he creates a hypothesis, then 'proves' it by cherry-picking evidence for it by using old, low-quality studies, where newer, high-quality data is available that refutes his claims: To wit, he is unwittingly swayed by confirmation bias.  Regrettably, most of the diet gurus are guilty  of the same problem.

Willett does, as you say, rely on observational studies using thousands of subjects in longitudinal studies, but does so in a way that is excruciatingly scientific. He is a ploddingly boring and thorough nutritional scientist (we won't hold his association with Harvard against him) who is highly respected among scientists for the quality of his work.   

   

I recommend avoiding the Socrates diet. His drink was a killer...

InTheShop:

On the other had, if you only consider PCa-specific mortality Socrates' drink cures cancer.