Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

A Link Between Diet and Myopia? 52

Posted by timothy from the girls-also-cause-myopia dept.
lxmeister writes: "This article from New Scientist suggests that the refined starches in western food such as white bread and cereals may be the cause of an increased level of short-sightedness. Myopia now affects 30 percent of people of European descent. So brown bread is better after all!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Link Between Diet and Myopia? More

A Link Between Diet and Myopia?

Comments Filter:

  • Er, after all? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @08:56AM (#3302697)
    Brown bread has always been known to be better for you. Even considering "enriched" white bread, and I use the term loosely, brown bread contains more nutrients and more fiber than white bread, and has a lower glycemic index to boot.

    • Re:Er, after all? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Careful though, not all brown loaves are bread.

    • Re:Er, after all? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cavedave ( 264535 )

      The agricultural revolution took place between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand years ago.
      Before that humans had evolved to digest a diet of nuts,fruit,vegtables,meat and fish not cereals. I've seen evidence from average cranial capacity that humans were on average better developed (i.e had better nutrition) then.


      The health problems discussed in the article could be seen as evidence for this theory that humans had better diets before the agricultural revolution.


      Another piece of evidence for this is that Irish people suffer high incidence of ceoliac disease (Irish times Thursday about a month back). This is presumed to be because we share a genetic heritage with hunter gatherers for longer then people fron other countries where agriculture took over first. Hence haven't adapted to processed cereals. Irish people having higher rates of Myopia would be evidence for the cereal hypothesis.


      Most of us now recognise problems with uncontrolled salt and sugar intake that have occured in a huge degree since the Second World War. Could it be other health problems we suffer are due to consuming a diet we are not fully adapted to?

    • Re:Er, after all? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spike hay ( 534165 )
      I've always eaten whole wheat. Especialy after you get used to it, you won't go back to white bread. Whole Wheat is much more flavorful, as well as more nutrious. White bread just tastes bland to me.

  • Brown bread probably isn't better Myopia (Score:5, Informative)

    by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @09:08AM (#3302753) Homepage
    In the past I've checked the Glycemic Index (GI is a measure of how quickly glucose is absorbed from food as regards insulin requirements) for brown bread. Contrary to popular belief, brown bread has almost exactly the same Glycemic Index; ok, its very slightly better, say 98 compared to 100, but this is far too small to make much difference.

    Therefore brown bread would be unlikely to improve your sight.

    On the other hand brown bread is more nutritious in other regards, so it's still better for you.
  • I was diagnosed with myopia years ago and have recently started Atkins [atkinscenter.com] which eschews white bread, flour and other refined carbohydrates. Though the article doesn't say, I wonder if the effects of myopia are reversible.
    • Possibly, but unlikely. The insulin presumably triggers permanent growth in the length of the eye.
    • ... recently started Atkins which eschews white bread, ...
      It's a really good idea to eschew white bread -- much healthier than swallowing it whole.
    • To dead penis bird:
      You really should get off the Atkins diet. Virtually all doctors think it is dangerous to avoid carbs altogether. Besides, you will get much more fat off of bacon. I guess the thing with your diet is you're supposed to go into some kind of digestive state where you don't absorb many calories. That has to be extremely unhealthy. Stay away from the fad diets. Just reduce your caloric intake around 500 calories a day and exercise.

      to CaveDave:
      The agricultural revolution did not take place 100 thousand years ago. More like 10,000 years ago. 100,000 years ago H. Sapiens had just evolved and we were in the early paleolithic.
      • The evidence is finally accumulating in favor of the low-carb approach. No links, yet, but there's a real study in progress, somewhere in Pennsylvania, I seem to remember.

        And Atkins is a cardiologist !

        You don't avoid carbs altogether, just reduce them drastically. 20 grams a day for two weeks, then 50 grams a day thereafter is reasonable.

        Reducing caloric intake just causes your body to stop using calories. Lethargy does not make for effective weight loss.

        If you can lose weight with your plan, you never had a problem to begin with.
        • Dickens:

          And Atkins is a cardiologist !

          Yes. He is a cardiologist. 1 cardiologist out of tens of thousands in the U.S., most of which vehemently disagree with him.

          Reducing caloric intake just causes your body to stop using calories. Lethargy does not make for effective weight loss.

          Depends on how many calories you cut. Fasting will make you fatter in the end, because it raises your metabolism. Also, you lose a lot of muscle mass. But if you cut about 500 calories a day (not that much, really), you can lose a pound a week without lowering your metabolism. And it is perfectly healthy. And while you cut your calories by 500 each day, of course you have to exercise. In addition to burning calories, exercising raises your metabolism.

          Now if you really want to lose weight, take up backpacking. On a rigorous backpack trip in areas like the North Cascades or the Sierras, you can burn 6,000 calories a day, assuming an average of 10 miles each day on rough terrain and a 60 pound pack. On a week long trip, at least with me, you can only carry about 2,000 calories each day. Since there is about (i believe, correct me if im wrong) 3,500 calories to a pound of lard, you end up losing a little over a pound a day. In addition to that, after the backpack trip, your stomach shrinks quite a bit so you don't overeat, plus you are very fit and energetic.
      • Not a link to the studies, but some citations [lowcarb.ca].

  • Gosh, maybe Grandma was right! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Snodgrass ( 446409 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @09:18AM (#3302785) Homepage
    and I quote: "The whiter the bread, the sooner you're dead"

    Doh, I say!
  • People have known this for years; they just haven't had the scientific evidence that backs it up. I'm glad somebody has proven it now!

  • wheat bread still bread (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @10:52AM (#3303353)
    Get thee to a nutritionist!

    Wheat bread is still bread. Brown rice is still rice. The whole-grain products are essentially identical to the "refined" products at the macronutrient level (protein, carbs and fat), where they differ is the micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.)

    Somewhat surprisingly, the same analysis applies to frosted vs. unfrosted cereal. Unfrosted "corn flakes" have a little less sugar than "frosted flakes," but the glycemic index of corn is so high that the frosting really doesn't make much of a difference.

    When you take the time to look at what we actually eat, as opposed to what we think we're eating, it's scary.
    • yes, and knowing little about what the western medical opinion on nutrient absorbtion is, I'll still argue that all of those micronutrients are *VERY* *VERY* important. It's like fertilizers, they just don't properly reproduce micronutrient levels that occur naturally in healthy soil.

      From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

      -shpoffo
      • But at what cost?

        Nobody is arguing that the micronutrients aren't important, or that there's no need to go with whole-grain breads instead of the refined crap whenever possible.

        Our concern (excluding everyone who still believes in the FDA food pyramid) is that this causes people to focus on the wrong thing. They eat the whole-grain bread and think that they're doing something healthy, while in fact the main effect is still the sugar and insulin spike from consuming a large quantity of high GI food. They would be better off eliminating most of the bread and getting their micronutrients from vegetables.

      • Re:wheat bread still bread (Score:4, Interesting)

        by raduga ( 216742 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @02:56PM (#3304924)
        From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

        I'll concede that our ignorance of nutrients and the broad web of interplay within the dynamics of our bodies is appalling but I understood the promotion of cancer to "epidemic proportions" to be more a function of our reducing infectious disease from endemic to much lower levels of threat. We're living longer; when our bodies get old, they break down and cancer is one of the major ways we break. With better nutrition (and elimination of the major sources of free radicals) we should be able to live longer and healthier for a longer time, but as things are, Western humans have better quality of life for longer periods than most historical societies have ever had. There are some communities who have managed to do better, but they tend to be very localised and at very low population densities.

        Western Medicine works pretty well from birth to circa. age 40 or so, then gradually decreases in efficiency as we age. Medicine alone is not the problem here; most of us do not take as good care of our bodies as we can, most of us do not know how, or have any macro or micro understanding of how our bodies work, beyond the Sesame Street level. There's a widespread notion (the legacy of Pasteur no doubt) that cancer is a disease with a systematic cause and a systematic cure, if we can only discover them, but it seems to me more the case that cancer is what bodies do when faced with ultimate entropy. Galen/Vesalius/Pasteur et al didn't invent cancer. What they did was to eliminate most everything else. Whether their children will find way to postpone entropy and rebuild telomeres (and prevent cell metabolism from going wacko) isn't certain, but it seems evident that they will try. Westerners have a good track record for persistence, if nothing else.

        It all might be missing the point. If quality and longevity are what we really want, lifestyle and environment changes may be more effective and more direct-

        -but as long as there ARE Westerners living in Western cities, drinking Western poisons and eating Western abominations, they will continue to try Western medicine, and have some fair success. Its a cultural thang.

        • Galen/Vesalius/Pasteur et al didn't invent cancer.

          I thought Philip Morris and Jack Daniels invented cancer

        • From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

          Western medicine is one of humanity's greatest technological triumphs. It has raised average lifespans from 45 to 80 years. (in Japan, where they are not fat, the average life expectancy is 80. I used that figure because the 78 life expectancy in the US is because we are all fat)

          And you think Western Medicine is to blame for high cancer rates? Well, in effect it is. Before the advent of antibiotics and modern surgical procedures, people usualy lived only to about 45, dying young because of infectious diseases. The reason cancer rates have gone up since the 1800's is because people never lived long enough before to get cancer. Cancer usualy doesn't kick in untill about 60 or 70. People rarely lived that long.

          Anyway, my psychic powers have told me that you are into herbal medicine and you live in either the Bay Area or Seattle. Anyway, herbal medicine is more dangerous than conventional medicine. Most people think that natural means safe. Munch on some Water Hemlock and we'll see.

          Herbal medicines were not made for our consumption. Any supposed medicinal properties that they have is just an accident of nature. Also, levels of the supposed medicinal compounds in herbal plants vary widely. Also, herbs go through no testing for their safety and effectiveness. That is dangerous. By contrast, modern medicine was actually made to better people's health. It was designed that way. It is put though rigorous safety trails.

          I will outline some harmful herbs now This is from a University of Virginia site:

          Chan Su: Topical aphrodisiac sold as "Stone," "LoveStone," "RockHard." It has caused death when swallowed.

          Chaparral tea: From leaves and twigs of the desert creosote bush, this is promoted as an antioxidant, a pain reliever, etc. It has caused liver failure requiring liver transplantation.

          Coltsfoot (for respiratory problems), comfrey (for arthritis, infections), and sassafras (a general tonic) have caused liver problems and cancer in laboratory animals.

          Jin Bu Huan: An ancient Chinese sedative and analgesic containing morphine-like substances. It causes hepatitis.

          Kombucha tea: Made from mushroom culture (used as a cure all), this has caused death from acidosis.

          Lobelia: Used for respiratory congestion, this has caused respiratory system paralysis and death.

          Ma huang or ephedra: An herbal form of the central nervous system stimulant commonly known as speed. It is sold with names like Herbal
          Ecstasy, Cloud 9, and Ultimate Xphoria. It causes heart attacks, seizures, psychotic episodes and death.

          Pennyroyal: This is a tea made from leaves that treats coughs and upset stomach. Its oil is highly toxic to the liver and interferes with blood clotting.

          Yohimbe bark: Used as aphrodisiac this raises blood pressure and is associated with psychotic episodes.

          Here are a few others:

          Kava- It's used by S. Pacific islanders as an intoxicant. Causes high blood pressure as well as skin problems.

          St. Johns Wort- Can cause exteme sensitivity to sunlight. Causes drug interactions.

          Valerian- Sleep aid. Works like a tranquilizer. Just as dangerous as Valium.

          So, as you can see, herbal drugs can cause psycotic episodes, liver failure, heart attacks, strokes, skin problems, death, etc. I'm not saying that some RX drugs don't do the same. But at least the RX drugs are more effective and they are better tested. And a knowledgable doctor prescibes them to you, which is a bonus.

          Most herbal drugs have no effect other than placebo. Just go with the vitamins. It's not worth the risk to take an innefective drug with unknown dangers.
          • So, did you just get your medical Ph.D? because you sound just about as ingorant as most clinical doctors I've spoken to...

            I ask you then, in all of your wisdom on the Cancer epidemic: how is it that any case of cancer can disappear and go into "permenant remission" within the space of 4-8 hours? Disappear, i.e.: no biopsy is possible because no cancerous tissue can be located in any area. You may use any reference materials you likea nd you may take as long as you feel necessary to respond.

            This sceanrio has happen many times, and you aren't going to find an answer looking through the annals of the AMA.

            Cancer is a cessation of energy flow to an area of the body, which eventually causes that area to 'die' and begin to be reclaimed by opportunistic organisms that break down decaying matter. Similar tot he concept of 'bions' but without the mysticism. If this isn't getting though I encourage anyone who's interested to email me, there are several good places to start.

            ..and unless you're a total ass (debatable), you'd know that Western Medicines are extracts derived from plants in nature. (other cultures call them "herbs" - go figure). The only thing "we" do here in the West is refine the substance down to the only compound that we think is necessary for the reaction we think we need. EVerythign is 'natural' in origin, it's just that peopel often seem to try to make thigns as unnatural as possible. Similarly, many poisons and venoms have been used to create powerful curatives - the same poisons that can kill you inmoments of reaching the bloodstream. Maybe you ought to carry a copy of the Merck index next time you pick up your prescription from your 'dealer' and find out just where your fix originated from before they slapped a (TM) on it...

            Anyway, my psychic powers have told me that you are into herbal medicine and you live in either the Bay Area or Seattle.

            and thank you for being a demographic bigot. If I was to carry that attitude myself I might assume you're a "nigger" because "you're so fucking stupid"

            wake up
            -shpoffo
            • you're a fucking retard. It's too bad you came just shy of invoking Godwin's thread, and ending this rediculously offensive and idiotic thread.

              You show me a tumor that goes into remission in 4 to 8 hours, and I'll show you a broken MRI.

              • And by attempting to cite Godwin you were perhaps attempting to wriggle out of your unfounded arguement?

                Go do through some medical journals and do a bit of actual research - there are many such cases of radical tumor remission recorded in both the U.S. and other nations. The major thing that is preventing you from learning anything here is you're being so beligerent about your ignorance.

                If you had any point you might go about citing some refence to your claims, but you didn't - you just attempt to try a bitch-slap in order to avoid an arguement that you feel you're "losing". Grow up, take some responability for the ignorance you've been promogulating and get a bit broader perspective on things.

                -shpoffo
                • Next time you insult me (without citing any reference for your rediculous argument), you should at least pick words which exist in unabridged dictionaries. Promogulate isn't a cromulent word at all.

                  As for research into cancer, I've done a lot of it, I've probably spent a solid 6 months reading medical journals while attempting to see if there was anything that the doctors hadn't considered. Not ONCE have I read of a sizeable tumor disappearing in 4 to 8 hours. A week, two weeks, sure. 4 hours? Hell no.

                  You're just an idiot who read something in some new-age book and spouts it out as though you've actually done research. Go back into your hidey-hole, before you set medicine back another thousand years.

                  • I've set a note on this thread, when i dig up the reference to the cases that i'd come across I'll reply them here or find a way to contact you otherwise. You, unfortunately, seem unwilling or unable to look beyond your own fears. Something you are holding onto precludes you from accepting that there is indeed a possibiliy for cancer to fade within a few hours. What would it mean to you if the universe suddenly allowed for this to happen?

                    So much time you've put into this - have you lost someone to a cancer and are unable to accept that they harbored the problem within themselves? You're so afraid of my premise that you have to revert to nit-picking my spelling.

                    I do hope you find solace in whatever burns inside of you.

                    -shpoffo
            • Cancer is a cessation of energy flow to an area of the body, which eventually causes that area to 'die' and begin to be reclaimed by opportunistic organisms that break down decaying matter. Similar tot he concept of 'bions' but without the mysticism.

              Whaddaya mean, "without the mysticism"?

  • and i thought i got it from staring at the sun!

    damn cheerios!

  • When I was born, I was allergic to gluten (found in most grains), so I couldn't eat any cereal or breads or pasta until I was older. It was all soy-based stuff for me, along with peanut buttered-rice cakes.

    I've worn glasses since 2nd grade, and have a prescription that rivals most 40-year-olds. Genetics can't be thrown out the window just yet.

    • So, you were NOT eating the good good brown bread that lowers the chances of myopia? And you've been wearing glasses since 2nd grade? How unexplicable!

      Its not the white bread that has evil stuff in, its the brown bread that has good stuff. And, no, genetics can't be thrown out the window, nor does indoor living. Myopia is probably caused by a mixture of many different things.

    • Also, it's not necessarily cereals that would cause this effect, high glucose sources, rice or candy bars or even lack of exercise for example, probably can induce this effect.

      The other main theory is that myopia is related to close work, e.g. reading

      There's a correlation between having lights on in a bedroom and developing myopia. My take on that is it allows reading in bed, and when reading in bed, the book is held closer.

      The theory behind it is that doing lots of close work triggers growth hormones in the eye that optimise the eye for close work.

      Possibly both theories are true; or one is more important.

      And yeah, genetics definitely play a part too.

    • It was all soy-based stuff for me, along with peanut buttered-rice cakes.
      I think you'll find that the rice cakes are processed to a degree very similar to white bread.

      The thing I do not see explained in the article is why the parts of the world where rice is a huge part of the diet don't have a high incidence of myopia. If the bran layer effectively neutralizes the starches, switching from wheat bread to brown rice would be simple for most people. I wonder if anyone's getting ready to do a longitudinal study?

      • It might be explained by exercise levels in the different countries.

        If you have a lot of exercise then the muscles burn up a lot of glucose.

        They then are a lot more sensitive to insulin, and the level of insulin won't go as high, and the eyes will be less effected.
  • Interesting web page about the genetic contribution to myopia here [upenn.edu].
  • Myopia is near-sightedness. Short sightedness is haplessly removing nutrients from food and then having it affect your health.
  • In the Zone, Dr. Barry Sears talks about the negative effect of food with high glycemic index. High glycemic index elevates insulin levels and according to him causing all sorts of problems, like obesity, heart problems, high blood pressure and increased diabetes II risk.

Slashdot Top Deals

Pause for storage relocation.

Close