What should we really be eating...This is not for the faint hearted

Rushbrook60

Hi Everyone

Before you read this, I will warn you that it may contain some information that may disturb you, but I'm really keen to open discussion on what everyone's thoughts are on a safe and healthy diet...

So I recently watched a programme on Netflix's called "What the Health". I would recommend that you watch it, but as I say, be warned you may find some of its contents unsettling. The programme revolved around food production and the USA Government's many reports on the ideal healthy lifestyle/nutritional recommendations. The presenter, Kip Anderson, investigated the nutritional benefits of a plant based diet and how other diets effect our health. He also investigated some of the largest American associations and their claims on how to improve your health; for example, the American Heart Association and their website which suggests healthy meals containing red meat, yet red meat is a contributor to heart diseases. His journey lead him to finding that the sponsors of these associations contained some of the USA's largest producers of foods that actually contribute to a deterioration in health as opposed to recovery. Not only did I find this shocking, but also disturbing as it made me distrusting of the information I'd be likely to find on their site, which in turn could hinder my health. Similar findings were found in other associations where sponsors were found that actually worked against the cause instead of with it.

The programme went on to talk about how humans were always meant to be fed by plants and that we were never meant to be carnivores. It also talked about the benefits of a plant based diet and how simply following this could dramatically improve our health and aid recovery and cure to some of the worlds deadliest diseases, such as cancer. It also explained how the world has created a demand for meat based produce, so much so that it has created battery farming animals and cruelty to them all so that we get a larger stock on the supermarket shelves to feed us. Watching some of the footage was atrocious; overfilled barns, animals contracting illnesses, skin defects such as abscesses, all of which contaminate the meat which we in turn digest. There was footage of a slaughter house bursting abscesses on pigs before butchering them and it literally turned my stomach.

This programme was an American production and talked about the American food supply, but it made me think about what happens in the UK, and how, no matter where in the world, production of food in this manner could be considered safe to our health and wellbeing. I was really intrigued by the idea of a plant based diet, which seems to be the healthiest option, but we also face the whole GMO situation. But while I say this, and I'm really keen to try it, I think I'd miss meat, yet now have a sense of guilt and disgust eating it, wondering really how the meat was created and treated before it reached my plate.

I was wondering what others thoughts on this are, and whether it is wrong of me to feel this way? Has anyone had any success on a plant based diet and is the transition easy? And what do you consider a healthy diet? I'm personally a big believer in everything in moderation, but is this really safe based on the above findings? Is what our Government's feed us (literally and information wise) really something we should trust?

Must admit, I do feel a little unsettled having watched the programme but feel I learnt a lot all the same. I'm a bit of a mixed bag of emotions and would really like your thoughts/views.

Thanking you all in advance x

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Rushbrook60

moosmum1972 wrote: »

Great big steaming Pile of bollocks.

I sincerely hope so! But it's certainly enough to make your stomach turn!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Rushbrook60

moosmum1972 wrote: »

Rushbrook60 wrote: »

moosmum1972 wrote: »

Great big steaming Pile of bollocks.

I sincerely hope so! But it's certainly enough to make your stomach turn!

Let's put it this way.....even vegans think so.

Haha! And that's says a lot. Thank you for your feedback ☺

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Xiaolongbao

moosmum1972 wrote: »

Great big steaming Pile of bollocks.

Which part is bollocks? Most of it seems commonsense to me. Lousy treatment of animals due to the demand for cheap meat. Political influence of food producers.

Personally I actually believe meat in moderation (like once a week) would be good health wise (but not address the ethical concerns) but I suck at moderation (and those damn ethics are worrying to me) so I've been vegetarian for years.

OP to answer your question about a plant based diet. I LOVED meat and could never have imagined giving it up. Then for some reason one day I decided to give it up for a month. It was much easier than I anticipated. After the month I ate it a couple of times (I still had stuff in the freezer) and then I realized I really was fine without it. And I've never eaten it since (about 8 years now). A bonus is that I enjoy cooking much more now because I was forced to get more creative. I never try and convince anyone else to be vegetarian although I'm happy to talk about what I eat if asked. I'm fine with people around me eating meat (and it still smells delicious to me although I don't find it at all tempting to actually eat) and I'm ok with people cooking meat in my house (for example if my parents come to visit).

Why not try giving it up. Maybe you'll be like me and discover you miss it a lot less than you expect. And really, it's amazing what you can cook that is just as good. I'm not at all creative but luckily other people are and they post their recipes online for me! For example yesterday, for the first time, I made an AMAZING bolognaise sauce that tasted just as good as any sauce with mince in it. I do vegan bacon I like much better than I ever liked real bacon. I even do a vegan quiche that's fantastic (I'm not even vegan, I just get a kick out of the fact you can make all these weird things and I enjoy trying new recipes). I'm not a particularly good cook and I pretty much only do recipes that include "simple" or "easy" in the title and yet the range of things I can make is nearly endless.

Or maybe you'll miss it a lot and decide that you're ok with the downsides of the meat industry. That's your choice but if you at least trial giving it up then you'll be making an informed decision (rather than just assuming you'll miss it).

Oh and a word of advice. I didn't eat meat for over 6 months before I referred to myself as a vegetarian. If people asked I just said "oh I'm not eating meat this week" and left it at that. That was I was leaving the door open for me to return to meat eating without it being a big deal if I'd decided that was what I wanted to do.

jgnatca

Disgust should not be the starting point for making informed food choices. You fell for a shock piece of fake news.

Can you list five foods that plainly make you happy when you eat them?

vingogly

Here is my take on it. We and our ancestors have been omnivores, not herbivores, for millions of years. Gorillas and orangutans are herbivores, but our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, are omnivores - as are we. That means our digestive systems and teeth have evolved to eat meat as well as plants. So it's absolutely not true that we were "meant" to eat plants, and no one AFAIK claims that we were "meant" to be carnivores (meaning all or almost all our calories coming from meat). The decision to reduce or avoid meat intake is a different matter.

I have been moving toward more of a lacto-ovo pescatarian diet (eat fish as well as eggs and dairy), for reasons that include the treatment of animals in food production, the knowledge that we tend to be healthier if most of our calories come from plants, and the increasing realization that mammals and birds are likely conscious as well as feeling organisms. I don't have a similar problem with fish and amphibians. I'd like to get to the point that I only eat meat occasionally, and buy only meat that's raised humanely. See this article:

https://www.humaneitarian.org/what-is-humanely-raised-meat/meat-labels/

Regarding the GMO hysteria - that's also a bunch of bollocks as you folks say; see:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

LivingtheLeanDream

One post where the woo button is getting used how it should.

callsitlikeiseeit

propaganda and scare tactics. eat a well balanced diet.

lemurcat12

What the Health (and the issues with it) is pretty widely known by now. Not likely to be shocking or upsetting. In fact, I would strongly recommend taking any "documentary" of that sort with a large grain of salt.

In another of the threads about it, I linked this review, which I recommend (it is pretty similar to my reaction).

https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review-what-the-health/

Read the whole thing, but some selections:

"As a vegan health professional, I am sometimes mortified to be associated with the junk science that permeates our community. And as an animal rights activist, I’m disheartened by advocacy efforts that can make us look scientifically illiterate, dishonest, and occasionally like a cult of conspiracy theorists....

The duo behind the film are Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn, who are animal rights activists....

I wish What the Health had stuck to these kinds of observations and supported them with an informed discussion of the evidence. Instead, it cherry-picked the research, misinterpreted and over-stated the data, highlighted dubious stories of miraculous healing, and focused on faulty observations about nutrition science. The themes of What the Health are that:

a vegan diet is the answer to preventing and treating all chronic disease
meat, dairy and eggs (and fat) are the cause of all these diseases
and non-profit organizations don’t want you to know this because they are funded by Big Food.

Most of the misinformation in the film is due simply to a poor understanding of nutrition science and research. But some moments struck me as overtly dishonest. While he doesn’t directly say it, filmmaker Kip Andersen gives the impression that he is exploring a vegan diet for the first time. He says “Like so many people, I was looking for an excuse not to change my diet.” I found it hard to believe that he was not a vegan while making this film. And the other half of the filmmaking duo, Keegan Kuhn, has stated that he’s been a vegan for decades. So this all felt pretty disingenuous.

The film also employs an obvious double standard. It points to conflicts of interest among national non-profit organizations without acknowledging that most of the doctors interviewed in the film also have conflicts of interest....

When Kip approaches non-profit health organizations for interviews, he finds that no one wants to talk with him. The first people answering the phone can’t respond to his questions about diet and health. I’m not sure why he finds this surprising. They are administrative assistants, not health professionals.

But executives at most of these organizations wouldn’t grant him an interview, either. This was understood to be evasiveness in response to Kip’s effort to have a meaningful discussion about diet and health. And maybe even some kind of conspiracy. “Why would an American Cancer Society rep not want to talk about this?” he wonders.

Well, I can tell him why. These busy professionals don’t have the time or patience to engage in a debate about nutrition with someone who doesn’t understand how extensive, complex, conflicting, and confusing the research is. There have been many times when I’ve not responded to people who want to wave a copy of The China Study in my face as they challenge my statements on oil or protein or vitamin B12. I can sense pretty quickly when a discussion will only waste my time, and when an inquisitor is hostile to fairly considering other points of view. I’m guessing that the director of the American Cancer Society recognizes this, too.

Furthermore, when journalists schedule interviews to discuss nutrition research, they typically provide information about which studies they want to discuss ahead of time. That’s why I sympathized with the Chief Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association who didn’t want to debate diet research. It’s why I understood why no one from the Susan G. Komen organization wanted to defend the fact that there is no warning about dairy and breast cancer on their website.

The folks at Susan G Komen are not ignorant about the relationship of dairy foods to breast cancer. Their website notes that high-fat, but not low-fat dairy foods may increase risk and that the research is conflicting. The resources listed on the What the Health website say pretty much the same thing. For example, they cite a paper that says this: “On the whole, evidence for an increase in risk for breast cancer through consumption of cow’s milk and dairy products is blurry and partially contradictory and equivocal.”

This is also the conclusion of the report from the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) a leading authority on diet and cancer (and a group that promotes a plant-based diet). In their review of all of the research on the subject, they were unable to conclude that dairy foods raise risk for breast cancer. They did say that it is “probable” (but not “convincing”) that dairy raises prostate cancer risk but that dairy consumption probably offers protection against colon cancer. That’s where the science stands right now, and it can’t be negated by one study accompanied by interviews with people who are not experts on the current state of diet and cancer research.

The filmmakers also run into trouble when they try to decipher individual studies. For example, they mistakenly assert that the World Health Organization’s analysis of processed meat and cancer risk is based on 800 studies. But this was a meta-analysis which means it began by identifying potentially relevant studies through a keyword search. In this case, it found 800 of them. But only seven of the studies actually qualified for and were included in the meta-analysis. So their conclusions are based on seven studies, not 800 – a big difference, and a big blunder by the filmmakers....

So What the Health leaves us with a faulty perspective on nutrition research that downplays the importance of both protein and calcium for bone health. This denies vegans and potential vegans the kind of information they need to actually stay healthy....

Kip himself says that after he changed his diet, “within a few days I could feel my blood running through my veins with a new vitality.” It immediately brought to mind Lierre Keith, ex-vegan and author of The Vegetarian Myth. She says this when she eats a bite of tuna fish after many years of veganism: “I could feel every cell in my body—literally every cell—pulsing. And finally, finally being fed.”

I’m quite sure that you can’t feel every single one of your cells pulsing and I don’t believe you can feel your blood running through your veins, either. These are the meaningless testimonials that people offer about every diet under the sun. (Can we not even hold ourselves to a higher standard than the preposterous claims of ex-vegans?)

There is so much more to deplore about this film. The fear-mongering about GMOs and about diet and autism. The body shaming. And of course, the outdated (by about 40 years) insistence that dietary fat is bad....

...the vegan movement’s credibility is undermined when we make claims that are so easily refuted. If we get caught lying or exaggerating about the health aspects of veganism, why should anyone believe us when we try to tell them about the treatment of animals on farms, in zoos, and in research labs?"

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

The whole mockumentary is based on the twisted data from the China study.

They cherry picked the parts of the study that fitted their narrow view point and discarded the rest making their interpretation of it useless at best.

lemurcat12

More specific responses:

Rushbrook60 wrote: »

The presenter, Kip Anderson, investigated the nutritional benefits of a plant based diet and how other diets effect our health.

This was the most disingenuous part of the movie, as he started as an advocate for veganism and was not "finding out" anything or investigating anything (and in many cases was either misstating the evidence or did not understand it). For example, he misunderstands the meaning of processed meat being declared a carcinogen (and I personally largely avoided processed meat even when I was eating meat so have no particular need to defend it). It does not mean meat is the same as cigarettes, that's idiotic.

He also investigated some of the largest American associations and their claims on how to improve your health; for example, the American Heart Association and their website which suggests healthy meals containing red meat, yet red meat is a contributor to heart diseases.

This was also extremely disingenuous, as the AHA does not say red meat is good for you, and red meat in limited amounts is not going to cause heart disease. That the AHA does not say people should all give up red meat completely does not show they are ignoring the evidence, that's all based on twisting and taking things out of context.

The programme went on to talk about how humans were always meant to be fed by plants and that we were never meant to be carnivores.

This was also either disingenuous or bad science. Obviously we are not carnivores, no one seriously claims otherwise. My cat is a carnivore, if he ate 50% carbs as humans tend to, or the amount of vegetable and fruit oods that pretty much everyone recommends, that would be bad for him (let alone grains and beans, etc.). He needs a very high protein diet to live. But we also are not herbivores, our digestive system is very different than, say, a cow, and the claims otherwise are bizarre. We CAN live eating no animal foods, of course, but to claim that's natural and how humans are "supposed to" live is not a scientific claim and not consistent with actual human cultures over time. I am in favor of veganism as an ethical choice, but to claim our digestive system is like cow and we aren't properly able to eat meat healthfully is absurd, period.

It also talked about the benefits of a plant based diet and how simply following this could dramatically improve our health and aid recovery and cure to some of the worlds deadliest diseases, such as cancer.

This was greatly exaggerated.

IMO, WFPB diets, done properly (which is a bit more challenging than doing a healthful WF-based omnivore diet properly) are extremely healthy. But so are other diet options.

On the factory farming stuff, I'm bothered by a lot of factory farming practices, and have tried to opt out of the animal agriculture aspects of it (getting meat/eggs and most dairy from local farms). I'm currently thinking through my own views on the ethics of meat in general and respect those who do this, whatever conclusion they come to, but I think this is a separate matter from the health bit, and I don't think people should allow their feelings about the ethicals to lead to a cherry-picking or twisting of the evidence re health, and I see a lot of vegan advocates doing this (and many, like the woman I cited in my other post) being much more serious and respectful of the real evidence.

the whole GMO situation

I would disagree that there is a GMO situation.

But while I say this, and I'm really keen to try it, I think I'd miss meat, yet now have a sense of guilt and disgust eating it, wondering really how the meat was created and treated before it reached my plate.

One option, again, which may or may not be satisfying to you and may lead to further reflection, is being careful about sourcing your meat/eggs/dairy, and perhaps even meeting and talking to the people who work at the farms from which you buy.

And what do you consider a healthy diet? I'm personally a big believer in everything in moderation, but is this really safe based on the above findings? Is what our Government's feed us (literally and information wise) really something we should trust?

A ton of nutrition information comes from non governmental sources and even people who have been governmental watchdogs of a sort. And people advocating all sorts of diets slam the gov't guidelines from opposite directions. I think we can see where some of the pressure comes from and evaluate those claims appropriately.

As for reasonable health advice, I think the Harvard site is pretty good (I think it's silly on potatoes, though) (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/). I also like this discussion from David Katz: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/

I think Marion Nestle is a good source: https://www.foodpolitics.com/about/ (she has a book that goes into decisions about diet).

I think from a vegan perspective Virginia Messina and Jack Norris are respectable and helpful and give unbiased advice.

Rushbrook60

lemurcat12 wrote: »

What the Health (and the issues with it) is pretty widely known by now. Not likely to be shocking or upsetting. In fact, I would strongly recommend taking any "documentary" of that sort with a large grain of salt.

In another of the threads about it, I linked this review, which I recommend (it is pretty similar to my reaction).

https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review-what-the-health/

Read the whole thing, but some selections:

"As a vegan health professional, I am sometimes mortified to be associated with the junk science that permeates our community. And as an animal rights activist, I’m disheartened by advocacy efforts that can make us look scientifically illiterate, dishonest, and occasionally like a cult of conspiracy theorists....

The duo behind the film are Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn, who are animal rights activists....

I wish What the Health had stuck to these kinds of observations and supported them with an informed discussion of the evidence. Instead, it cherry-picked the research, misinterpreted and over-stated the data, highlighted dubious stories of miraculous healing, and focused on faulty observations about nutrition science. The themes of What the Health are that:

a vegan diet is the answer to preventing and treating all chronic disease
meat, dairy and eggs (and fat) are the cause of all these diseases
and non-profit organizations don’t want you to know this because they are funded by Big Food.

Most of the misinformation in the film is due simply to a poor understanding of nutrition science and research. But some moments struck me as overtly dishonest. While he doesn’t directly say it, filmmaker Kip Andersen gives the impression that he is exploring a vegan diet for the first time. He says “Like so many people, I was looking for an excuse not to change my diet.” I found it hard to believe that he was not a vegan while making this film. And the other half of the filmmaking duo, Keegan Kuhn, has stated that he’s been a vegan for decades. So this all felt pretty disingenuous.

The film also employs an obvious double standard. It points to conflicts of interest among national non-profit organizations without acknowledging that most of the doctors interviewed in the film also have conflicts of interest....

When Kip approaches non-profit health organizations for interviews, he finds that no one wants to talk with him. The first people answering the phone can’t respond to his questions about diet and health. I’m not sure why he finds this surprising. They are administrative assistants, not health professionals.

But executives at most of these organizations wouldn’t grant him an interview, either. This was understood to be evasiveness in response to Kip’s effort to have a meaningful discussion about diet and health. And maybe even some kind of conspiracy. “Why would an American Cancer Society rep not want to talk about this?” he wonders.

Well, I can tell him why. These busy professionals don’t have the time or patience to engage in a debate about nutrition with someone who doesn’t understand how extensive, complex, conflicting, and confusing the research is. There have been many times when I’ve not responded to people who want to wave a copy of The China Study in my face as they challenge my statements on oil or protein or vitamin B12. I can sense pretty quickly when a discussion will only waste my time, and when an inquisitor is hostile to fairly considering other points of view. I’m guessing that the director of the American Cancer Society recognizes this, too.

Furthermore, when journalists schedule interviews to discuss nutrition research, they typically provide information about which studies they want to discuss ahead of time. That’s why I sympathized with the Chief Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association who didn’t want to debate diet research. It’s why I understood why no one from the Susan G. Komen organization wanted to defend the fact that there is no warning about dairy and breast cancer on their website.

The folks at Susan G Komen are not ignorant about the relationship of dairy foods to breast cancer. Their website notes that high-fat, but not low-fat dairy foods may increase risk and that the research is conflicting. The resources listed on the What the Health website say pretty much the same thing. For example, they cite a paper that says this: “On the whole, evidence for an increase in risk for breast cancer through consumption of cow’s milk and dairy products is blurry and partially contradictory and equivocal.”

This is also the conclusion of the report from the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) a leading authority on diet and cancer (and a group that promotes a plant-based diet). In their review of all of the research on the subject, they were unable to conclude that dairy foods raise risk for breast cancer. They did say that it is “probable” (but not “convincing”) that dairy raises prostate cancer risk but that dairy consumption probably offers protection against colon cancer. That’s where the science stands right now, and it can’t be negated by one study accompanied by interviews with people who are not experts on the current state of diet and cancer research.

The filmmakers also run into trouble when they try to decipher individual studies. For example, they mistakenly assert that the World Health Organization’s analysis of processed meat and cancer risk is based on 800 studies. But this was a meta-analysis which means it began by identifying potentially relevant studies through a keyword search. In this case, it found 800 of them. But only seven of the studies actually qualified for and were included in the meta-analysis. So their conclusions are based on seven studies, not 800 – a big difference, and a big blunder by the filmmakers....

So What the Health leaves us with a faulty perspective on nutrition research that downplays the importance of both protein and calcium for bone health. This denies vegans and potential vegans the kind of information they need to actually stay healthy....

Kip himself says that after he changed his diet, “within a few days I could feel my blood running through my veins with a new vitality.” It immediately brought to mind Lierre Keith, ex-vegan and author of The Vegetarian Myth. She says this when she eats a bite of tuna fish after many years of veganism: “I could feel every cell in my body—literally every cell—pulsing. And finally, finally being fed.”

I’m quite sure that you can’t feel every single one of your cells pulsing and I don’t believe you can feel your blood running through your veins, either. These are the meaningless testimonials that people offer about every diet under the sun. (Can we not even hold ourselves to a higher standard than the preposterous claims of ex-vegans?)

There is so much more to deplore about this film. The fear-mongering about GMOs and about diet and autism. The body shaming. And of course, the outdated (by about 40 years) insistence that dietary fat is bad....

...the vegan movement’s credibility is undermined when we make claims that are so easily refuted. If we get caught lying or exaggerating about the health aspects of veganism, why should anyone believe us when we try to tell them about the treatment of animals on farms, in zoos, and in research labs?"

Thank you so much for this response. It actually helps to see things from another perspective and actually settles my thoughts a little about the whole "lying" on sites.

Chieflrg

Hence why I don't watch television and even less take advice from people out to make a buck first.

Rushbrook60

Thank you everyone who has replied. It's insightful to learn other people's views. I've clearly been the typical viewer sucked into the programme and have been left reeling from it, but in the bigger picture, it's only selective information being presented to us.

I will definitely look into trying a plant based diet. I quite enjoy some vegetarian dishes already and have them freely by choice as opposed to being given to me (ie. dinner at friends houses). I will now look at this from an ethical point of view as opposed to gaining benefits from false claims.

Chieflrg

Rushbrook60 wrote: »

Thank you everyone who has replied. It's insightful to learn other people's views. I've clearly been the typical viewer sucked into the programme and have been left reeling from it, but in the bigger picture, it's only selective information being presented to us.

I will definitely look into trying a plant based diet. I quite enjoy some vegetarian dishes already and have them freely by choice as opposed to being given to me (ie. dinner at friends houses). I will now look at this from an ethical point of view as opposed to gaining benefits from false claims.

Sounds good.

wizzybeth

Because so much of what we are "fed" with regard to food is "marketing driven" - I decided to try and be logical and use common sense with my approach to what to eat.

I got hung up - for the last time - on Fat Sick and Nearly Dead. I spent $400 on a "quality" juicer and intended to make a lifestyle change that would eliminate my obesity and give me great health. What it did was give me the runs, empty my wallet significantly, and create way too much work in the kitchen for me. Somewhere around this time I found MFP and the forums. And while I bristled at first at the responses from the "mean people" regarding a juice based diet (because according to F,S & Nearly D, you needed to live off juicing in order to save yourself from eternal damnation, lol) I eventually came to see that I needed a less extreme approach to health. I am so thankful for the Mean People here on MFP! My heroes!!!

I learned a lot...I learned that there is just as much "woo" out there (fake info masquerading as science) as there is real stuff - and everyone has something to gain. Dr. Fuhrman has books to sell (most of them do - they want you to jump on their bandwagon and buy their books so you can learn to eat from them). The Hallelujah Diet is another one that preys on Christians and puts forward this nonsense about how we are meant to eat plants and only plants. And guess what? They have a BUNCH of products to sell to help you follow that lifestyle. A bunch of EXPENSIVE products.

Everyone has an angle and they're just trying to tap in to where they can make $$$$ off unsuspecting suckers.

A common sense approach is best. I have never felt better than when I follow MFP and eat foods that meet my macro requirements. When I get enough protein, fat, fiber, carbs, and vitamins/minerals - I feel terrific. I felt yucky before not because I was eating meat and stuff from Big Food, but because I was choosing poorly and not feeding on foods that meet my nutritional needs.

I eat a bunch of "unclean" food - all the no-nos - sugar, processed foods, lean cuisines, hot pockets, candy, ice cream ....and omg, yes, meat!!! ....and as long as I stay on plan, I feel good.

wizzybeth

Furthermore, life is too short to be fretting over things like this. We are all going to die eventually. My dad beat the odds and died at age 77 in spite of smoking upwards of 1 pack of Camels a day for his entire adult life and a portion of his childhood (he smoked his first cigarette at age 5, and began smoking regularly at age 10). Not only that, but he ate all the bad stuff - sausage, scrapple, eggs, potatoes, grease, butter, red meat, bread...every. single. day. of. his. life. He was never a pound overweight because he was a laborer and had a huge amount of exercise every day plus he was an avid outdoorsman. He probably could have lived to be 100 had he not smoked. Meanwhile, I know more than one "health nut" type person - who ate organic, vegetarian, etc. who succumbed to cancer before the age of 60.

Iwantahealthierme30

Why do we have canine teeth if we weren't meant to eat meat? That documentary sounds like a complete waste of time.

MoveitlikeManda

Iwantahealthierme30 wrote: »

Why do we have canine teeth if we weren't meant to eat meat? That documentary sounds like a complete waste of time.

I was gonna say this,they are for ripping meat off the bone,

Now, where did I put that lamb leg

RodaRose

This is your decision.
I too have an issue with food production in the U.S.
I grew up on a small farm. We treated our animals ethically.
I do not eat much meat but I do eat it.
I do eat eggs and dairy products and lots of beans.
If you choose to eat a certain way, try it, see how it works for you.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

VintageFeline

I'm glad this thread has turned out the way it has.

Myself, I got about 10 minutes in and then in the interests of not having to buy a new TV I can't afford, I turned it off.

Lounmoun

My thoughts are that you should research and get your information from more than one source... preferrably as unbiased as possible. It sounds like this piece had an agenda of pushing a plant based diet.
I don't believe every major health organization is lying about healthy diet.
I don't believe ancient humans ate only plants or that our bodies are adapted to only thrive on plant material. That does not match other evidence and how our bodies work.
Humans are very adaptable to a variety of foods. We can choose what we want to eat from what is available and thrive. What we do need are certain nutrients. If you want to follow a plant based diet make sure you meet your nutritional needs just like if you eat animal products.

esmesqualor

There are certainly many healthy ways to eat. A whole foods, plant based diet is likely the best. Plant based does not have to mean you never eat eggs or fish (or meat). It should mean, as Michael Pollon says," eat mostly plants, lots of them"! I personally, have a very hard time with the meat industry, and with killing animals to eat them (my personal feeling, not pushing on anyone), BUT, sadly for me, I feel better when I eat some animal protein. I have been vegetarian, and vegan, and omniverous. I feel best on a "whole foods" diet that has lots and lots of fresh veg and fruit with some eggs, and fish, and a little chicken. I choose not to eat mammals, with very rare exception, for personal (not health) reasons. The most important thing to do is be honest with yourself about how and what you are eating and how it makes you feel physically and emotionally. I have to be very careful with sweets and simple carbs because they both causes uncomfortable gas and tend to trigger cravings and over-eating of these nutritionally deficient foods, so I try to avoid those for my physical and emotional health. Everyone has an opinion. Be true to yourself.

sijomial

So P.E.T.A. doesn't really stand for People Eating Tasty Animals?

AnvilHead

Another seldom discussed sub-topic - silly propaganda mockumentaries like to talk about the ecological impact of raising animals for food. Imagine the ecological/agricultural impact if the entire world transitioned to a vegan/plant-based diet. The amount of land required to grow the necessary crops would be staggering, as would the amount of manpower and machinery required.

I suppose it’s feasible if we can convince/force the entire world to regress from industrial to agricultural societies. Good luck with that.

Alatariel75

AnvilHead wrote: »

Silly propaganda mockumentaries like to talk about the ecological impact of raising animals for food. Imagine the ecological/agricultural impact if the entire world transitioned to a vegan/plant-based diet. The amount of land required to grow the necessary crops would be staggering, as would the amount of manpower and machinery required.

I suppose it’s feasible if we can convince/force the entire world to regress from industrial to agricultural societies. Good luck with that.

I also wonder what would happen to the existing animals. With no financial incentive to care for them, they wouldn't be fed or cared for... if everyone changed to a veggo/vegan diet tomorrow, would PETA just put down all the livestock, the way they do pets at their shelters?

vingogly

Iwantahealthierme30 wrote: »

Why do we have canine teeth if we weren't meant to eat meat? That documentary sounds like a complete waste of time.

I agree it's a waste of time, but musk deer, peccaries, and gorillas (all herbivores) have impressive canine teeth. Having big canines doesn't correlate very well with diet.