The Egyptian Mummy Paradox

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

The Egyptian Mummy Paradox

Post by wosnes » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:10 am

We've heard that the high grain diet that Egyptians ate caused atherosclerosis and other health problems. I read this article yesterday. This author blames it on their "rich" diet and mentions 50 years worth of research about the ill-effects of saturated fat in the diet (which has been proven to be based on faulty research).

However, maybe neither one of these hypotheses is right. Maybe it's not the diet high in grains nor the fact that those who were mummified ate rich diets. Maybe it's something else.
Dr. McDougall wrote:Problems with the teeth are found in mummies. The most common abnormality is wearing down of the teeth by friction caused by eating gritty bread made from flour contaminated by windblown sand and other abrasive materials from the soil and grinding stones.


I'm pretty sure that sand was never meant to be part of the human diet. What if eating sand regularly, even though unintentionally, caused chronic low levels of inflammation which leads to many health problems, including atherosclerosis? In addition to their bread, it was probably present in just about everything they ate -- not to mention the rest of their environment, so they probably breathed sand or dust from sand as well.

What if the problems seen in studying these mummies had nothing to do with what they chose to eat, but everything to do with what they ate and breathed unintentionally? Our scientists are so trained to look at diet as the cause of all our health problems, that maybe they forget to look outside the (sand)box.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:03 am

Phew. When I saw the title of this thread, I thought we were going to be pointed to an article called "Egyptian Mummies: How Do They Keep So Slim?" :)

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:01 pm

hahahaha dave mc!!! :lol:
There is no Wisdom greater than Kindness

Sienna
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:00 pm

Post by Sienna » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:38 pm

You know, sand or no sand, there is a correlation between poor dental health and poor cardiovascular health....
Finally a diet that I can make a lifestyle!

Started June 2010
6/27/2010 - 226 lbs
10/17/2010 - 203 lbs - 10% weight loss goal!
1/29/2011 - 182 lbs - 2nd 10% weight loss goal!
5/29/2011 - 165 lbs - 3rd 10% weight loss goal! (one more to go)

Thalia
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by Thalia » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:58 pm

Ha -- the slimming secrets of the dead: Never Eat Again, Lose Weight, Get That Skeletal Physique You've Always Wanted!

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:35 pm

Thalia wrote:Ha -- the slimming secrets of the dead: Never Eat Again, Lose Weight, Get That Skeletal Physique You've Always Wanted!
Exactly! The Mummy Diet is going to happen, it's just a matter of time. Just follow these simple steps: 1) die; 2) have all your internal organs removed (losing dozens and dozens of pounds); 3) dry out for several thousand years. "Many of our clients are initially reluctant about steps 1 and 2", says Dr. S. Nakeoil, founder of the system, "but our compliance rate is unmatched: our clients never regain any of the weight they've lost!"

Who Me?
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:18 pm

Post by Who Me? » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:54 pm

You forgot the part where one's brains are removed through one's nostrils.

ThomsonsPier
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:18 pm
Location: Reading, UK

Post by ThomsonsPier » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:08 am

Who Me? wrote:You forgot the part where one's brains are removed through one's nostrils.
That's three pounds lost right there.
ThomsonsPier

It's a trick. Get an axe.

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:40 am

Well, to be fair, a lot of diets require you to check your brains at the door. The Mummy Diet is just more explicit about it than most.

NoS, fortunately, is fully compatible with intact brains.

(Edit: Oof, this may come across as more harsh than I intended. No offence meant, all around, it's intended to poke fun rather than as savage criticism.)

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:47 am

This has certainly deviated from my intent! :-)
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:16 pm

Right, sorry, wosnes. Your point that not everything has to be about diet is well taken!

I have to admit that I found the original article's point somewhat persuasive, though: as I understand it, the issue was that people were using the blocked arteries in ancient mummies as an anti-carb argument, along the lines of "See? These ancient Egyptians ate mostly carbs, and they had terrible heart and blood vessel problems!" The rebuttal makes a lot of sense to me: he points out that mummies are generally *rich* ancient people, and their diet wasn't the same as everyone else's, including a lot more meat and fat.

I try not to take a side in the fats vs. carbs debate, because I think it's a classic false dichotomy: of course we need both, in moderation.

I'm comfortable coming down firmly on the side of the low-sand diet, however.

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:44 pm

DaveMc wrote:

I'm comfortable coming down firmly on the side of the low-sand diet, however.
Dave, you crack me up! :D

Post Reply