Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism
Options
Replies
-
Great discussion. Do RD have continuing education? Is carnivore approach too new to be included in a continuing education program. I am low carb / high fat, and pretty satisfied. Carnivore is appealing and hits my curiosity button. I have watched JRE podcast with a young lady, her story is very compelling. She the daughter of Jordan Peterson. Googling him is a very interesting rabbit hole. Have a great day0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.
Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.
The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.
Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.
If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.
Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..
Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.
When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.
Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.
Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.
But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?
People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this. Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.
I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.
I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.
I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.
Americans, on the whole, are not eating "plant based diets." Even if some people are more interested in this lifestyle, it's not realistic to think we'd see an immediate change in the length of lives. It's like saying that higher fat diets don't help because they've had a boom over the past couple of decades. Do you really think it works that way? You can't see population-level information that rapidly.
The 7th Day Adventists aren't typical in what they eat. That's exactly what makes it significant. If they were eating the typical diet of others Americans and living ten years longer than average, their diet would be irrelevant. Since they do live longer and eat differently, that makes it worth looking at.
Nobody is saying all plant-based foods are equal. That's why it's silly when you talk about Doritos. Nobody is recommending a diet of Doritos and Oreos when they talk about a "plant-based diet."
11 -
ruffneckred wrote: »Great discussion. Do RD have continuing education? Is carnivore approach too new to be included in a continuing education program. I am low carb / high fat, and pretty satisfied. Carnivore is appealing and hits my curiosity button. I have watched JRE podcast with a young lady, her story is very compelling. She the daughter of Jordan Peterson. Googling him is a very interesting rabbit hole. Have a great day
RDs do have continuing education, but a lot of it is based on research. There is very little non-anecdotal research about humans attempting to live as carnivores, so there won't be much for RDs to study.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.
Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.
The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.
Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.
If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.
Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..
Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.
When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.
Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.
Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.
But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?
People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this. Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.
I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.
I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.
I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.
Americans, on the whole, are not eating "plant based diets." Even if some people are more interested in this lifestyle, it's not realistic to think we'd see an immediate change in the length of lives. It's like saying that higher fat diets don't help because they've had a boom over the past couple of decades. Do you really think it works that way? You can't see population-level information that rapidly.
Agree with everything you said, but want to emphasize this.
What percentage of people in the US now in their 70s (and so relevant to the living longer conversation) ate a plant-based diet for any length of time? For that matter, what percentage ate even the amount of vegetables (and fruits and whole grains vs. refined and beans and legumes) as the nutrition guidelines recommend?
On the whole Americans eat way more meat and way fewer veg than the guidelines recommend.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.
Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.
The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.
Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.
If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.
Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..
Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.
When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.
Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.
Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.
But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?
People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this. Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.
I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.
I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.
I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.
Americans, on the whole, are not eating "plant based diets." Even if some people are more interested in this lifestyle, it's not realistic to think we'd see an immediate change in the length of lives. It's like saying that higher fat diets don't help because they've had a boom over the past couple of decades. Do you really think it works that way? You can't see population-level information that rapidly.
Agree with everything you said, but want to emphasize this.
What percentage of people in the US now in their 70s (and so relevant to the living longer conversation) ate a plant-based diet for any length of time? For that matter, what percentage ate even the amount of vegetables (and fruits and whole grains vs. refined and beans and legumes) as the nutrition guidelines recommend?
On the whole Americans eat way more meat and way fewer veg than the guidelines recommend.
IMO, this is where studies of populations who *have* spent a big chunk of their lives eating this way can be helpful. While the group studied in Loma Linda, CA aren't completely plant-based (although certain individuals might be), they get a lower percentage of their calories from animal-based foods than we see in many other parts of the US. Their diet certainly doesn't appear to be hurting them and is probably contributing to their longer lives, which helps establish that diets low in calories from animal-based foods is one of the healthful diet patterns available to us.5 -
I'll mostly just respond to all since some seem to say the same thing.
I did not say that most Americans are eating plant based diets; I said that it is growing in popularity and use. When I was young, maybe 1 in 100 was a vegetarian, but now it s closer to 1 in 10, and even higher if you include vegans. https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/veganism-skyrockets-by-600-in-america-over-3-years-to-6-of-population I think carnivore diets are probably fewer than 1% of the population - less than vegetarianism 50 years ago.
People may be eating a bit more meat, or a bit less overall, but as percentage of total calories consumed, it appears that animal products have decreased. People are eating more of their calories from foods from plants.
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.amorfati601070 wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.
Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.
The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.
That's the most hilarious pseudoscience post I've seen yet!.
Seriously..if we evolved to be carnivores our heads would look like this...
Here's a vegetarian skull:
Here's an omnivore's skull:
Posting skulls of other animals is amusing but does not prove what I think that you think it does.
“From the viewpoint of the clinician, perhaps the most important finding about ascorbic acid activity is its competition with glucose within the body. In 1975, Mann proposed that, because of their structural similarity, ascorbic acid and glucose might utilize the same membrane transport. This extremely important concept was eventually confirmed experimentally, and ultimately led to an understanding of how glucose and ascorbic acid compete for transport by insulin and entry into cells.” Please see their article “Ascorbic Acid and the Immune System” in The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 20, Number 3, pg. 179-183, 2005
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/pdf/2005-v20n03-p179.pdf
From this discussion: https://zerocarbzen.com/vitamin-c/7 -
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.12 -
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
Obviously. Only about 1/10 to 1/8 are vegetarian or vegan. Cutting back on meat does not make one vegetarian.
Plant based diets as a definition have a lot of variation. I consider a plant based diet to be one where most calories come from plants, which may or may not be vegetarian or vegan. Where most calories are from plant based foods. Like a spaghetti meal with some meat in its sauce and a small side salad, as opposed to a steak dinner with a small side salad. My plate looks more like the spaghetti meal, IMO.That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
I'm in Canada so our medical access is different. For major medical issues we are all set. For the dentist, we go every few years. Physiotherapy is out. Only some things are covered but major illness is.As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
It's not the debate section, we don't need to argue it.
Anecdotal evidence is all there is for comparing high meat to no/little meat diets. We can look at past cultures and guess what works and whether it was diet.Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.
I think that is correct for all diets. A poorly planned vegetarian diet of mainly sugars and flours would be unhealthy, just like a carnivorous diet of someone who lives on bacon and pork rinds would be unhealthy.0 -
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
Obviously. Only about 1/10 to 1/8 are vegetarian or vegan. Cutting back on meat does not make one vegetarian.
Plant based diets as a definition have a lot of variation. I consider a plant based diet to be one where most calories come from plants, which may or may not be vegetarian or vegan. Where most calories are from plant based foods. Like a spaghetti meal with some meat in its sauce and a small side salad, as opposed to a steak dinner with a small side salad. My plate looks more like the spaghetti meal, IMO.That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
I'm in Canada so our medical access is different. For major medical issues we are all set. For the dentist, we go every few years. Physiotherapy is out. Only some things are covered but major illness is.As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
It's not the debate section, we don't need to argue it.
Anecdotal evidence is all there is for comparing high meat to no/little meat diets. We can look at past cultures and guess what works and whether it was diet.Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.
I think that is correct for all diets. A poorly planned vegetarian diet of mainly sugars and flours would be unhealthy, just like a carnivorous diet of someone who lives on bacon and pork rinds would be unhealthy.
You're defining "plant-based diet" differently than the people who are using it in this thread. That's fine, but that is also leading you to misunderstanding the arguments that people are actually making.
It's hard to compare blue zone-style/plant-based diets to the carnivore diet when we have abundant information on the benefits of the former and only anecdotal evidence (as you admit) for the healthfulness and/or benefits of the latter.9 -
I did not say that most Americans are eating plant based diets; I said that it is growing in popularity and use. When I was young, maybe 1 in 100 was a vegetarian, but now it s closer to 1 in 10, and even higher if you include vegans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#United_States
"According to a report in 2017, the number of consumers claiming to be vegan has risen to 6% in the US.[138] In 2015, a Harris Poll National Survey of 2,017 adults aged 18 and over found that eight million Americans, or 3.4%, ate a solely vegetarian diet, and that one million, or 0.4%, ate a strictly vegan diet."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201109/why-are-there-so-few-vegetarians
"The reason for the widespread but mistaken belief that America is rapidly going veg is the mismatch between what people say they eat and what they actually eat. Take a 2002 Times/CNN poll on the eating habits of 10,000 Americans. Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian. But when asked by the pollsters what they had eaten in the last 24 hours, 60% of the self-described "vegetarians" admitted that that had consumed red meat, poultry or fish the previous day. In another survey, the United States Department of Agriculture randomly telephoned 13,313 Americans. Three percent of the respondents answered yes to the question, "Do you consider yourself to be a vegetarian?" A week later the researchers called the participants again and this time asked what they had eaten the day before. The results were even more dramatic than the Times/CNN survey: this time 66% of the "vegetarians" had eaten animal flesh in the last 24 hours."
Also as we have said many times, the plant-based diet advocated by nutritionists is not the same as what a vegetarian or vegan might typically eat. The term "junk food vegan" or "junk food vegetarian" exists for a reason.
Also I posted a scientific article from the NIH with evidence on the health of whole-foods plant-based diets. You just chose to ignore it. When you choose to pretend that evidence which doesn't support your point doesn't exist, you will always "win" the argument in your own mind. So far you have not posted a single piece of research indicating the health benefits of a meat-based diet. Until you do that, how can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
Obviously. Only about 1/10 to 1/8 are vegetarian or vegan. Cutting back on meat does not make one vegetarian.
Plant based diets as a definition have a lot of variation. I consider a plant based diet to be one where most calories come from plants, which may or may not be vegetarian or vegan. Where most calories are from plant based foods. Like a spaghetti meal with some meat in its sauce and a small side salad, as opposed to a steak dinner with a small side salad. My plate looks more like the spaghetti meal, IMO.That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
I'm in Canada so our medical access is different. For major medical issues we are all set. For the dentist, we go every few years. Physiotherapy is out. Only some things are covered but major illness is.As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
It's not the debate section, we don't need to argue it.
Anecdotal evidence is all there is for comparing high meat to no/little meat diets. We can look at past cultures and guess what works and whether it was diet.Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.
I think that is correct for all diets. A poorly planned vegetarian diet of mainly sugars and flours would be unhealthy, just like a carnivorous diet of someone who lives on bacon and pork rinds would be unhealthy.
You're defining "plant-based diet" differently than the people who are using it in this thread. That's fine, but that is also leading you to misunderstanding the arguments that people are actually making.
It's hard to compare blue zone-style/plant-based diets to the carnivore diet when we have abundant information on the benefits of the former and only anecdotal evidence (as you admit) for the healthfulness and/or benefits of the latter.
is plant based vegan or not? Are the 7th day adventists vegan or just vegetarian? I do not think any other blue zones are vegan, are they? I honestly do not know. I assumed they are all omnivores who mostly eat plants.
And the anecdotal evidence is for both types of diets. As far as I know, they have never tested the same populations, with the same lifestyle and health factors but with differing amounts of animal and plant products. If they have, I'd live to read it.
We have anecdotal evidence of healthy inuits, first nations, mongols, maasai, as well as healthy populations who eat less animal products. I don't believe
there are any historical cultural anecdotes of vegans except those individuals of the recent past who are able to buy supplements.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
Obviously. Only about 1/10 to 1/8 are vegetarian or vegan. Cutting back on meat does not make one vegetarian.
Plant based diets as a definition have a lot of variation. I consider a plant based diet to be one where most calories come from plants, which may or may not be vegetarian or vegan. Where most calories are from plant based foods. Like a spaghetti meal with some meat in its sauce and a small side salad, as opposed to a steak dinner with a small side salad. My plate looks more like the spaghetti meal, IMO.That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
I'm in Canada so our medical access is different. For major medical issues we are all set. For the dentist, we go every few years. Physiotherapy is out. Only some things are covered but major illness is.As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
It's not the debate section, we don't need to argue it.
Anecdotal evidence is all there is for comparing high meat to no/little meat diets. We can look at past cultures and guess what works and whether it was diet.Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.
I think that is correct for all diets. A poorly planned vegetarian diet of mainly sugars and flours would be unhealthy, just like a carnivorous diet of someone who lives on bacon and pork rinds would be unhealthy.
You're defining "plant-based diet" differently than the people who are using it in this thread. That's fine, but that is also leading you to misunderstanding the arguments that people are actually making.
It's hard to compare blue zone-style/plant-based diets to the carnivore diet when we have abundant information on the benefits of the former and only anecdotal evidence (as you admit) for the healthfulness and/or benefits of the latter.
is plant based vegan or not? Are the 7th day adventists vegan or just vegetarian? I do not think any other blue zones are vegan, are they? I honestly do not know. I assumed they are all omnivores who mostly eat plants.
And the anecdotal evidence is for both types of diets. As far as I know, they have never tested the same populations, with the same lifestyle and health factors but with differing amounts of animal and plant products. If they have, I'd live to read it.
We have anecdotal evidence of healthy inuits, first nations, mongols, maasai, as well as healthy populations who eat less animal products. I don't believe
there are any historical cultural anecdotes of vegans except those individuals of the recent past who are able to buy supplements.
"Plant-based" is different than veganism, there is no one set meaning. However, in the context of this thread, people clearly aren't using in the sense of "Oreos are plant-based," which is what you seem to keep assuming. That's why I am clearing it up.
Seventh Day Adventists aren't strictly vegetarian, some of them do eat meat. But the diet style, as detailed in their lifestyle studies, contains fewer calories from animal products than the average US diet.
There are no vegan blue zones, but veganism isn't what we're discussing here. In this thread, we're discussing that the diets that have the best association with longer lives tend to get *fewer* calories from animal products, as we see in Loma Linda, CA (and other blue zone areas throughout the world). This evidence isn't anecdotal.
There are long-term studies of vegetarian health and even vegan health, but when we talk about the "blue zone" diets, we're talking about something else. When people are talking about the diet style associated with the "blue zones," that isn't anecdotal. When people share information from studies on vegan and vegetarian health, those aren't anecdotal. I don't know why it would matter that these people may be supplementing. We don't exclude people who may be supplementing from other long-term health studies, do we?
I realize it must be frustrating to be advocating for a diet style that hasn't yet produced any reliable long-term data on lifespan and mortality. I probably would have felt the same way if I was discussing diets with lower percentages of animal products or even vegan diets in the days before we had better studies. But I strongly suggest that you don't let that lead you into throwing up your hands and deciding that we can't know anything. The best evidence that we have to date strongly supports the notion that a diet that is low in animal products is a diet style that can support good health.
We may know more about carnivores and the long-term impacts someday. People who are choosing to be carnivores today may actually be part of that process. All the tools that we've used to understand the diets and health of people in the "blue zones" and people around the world who are choosing veganism are there to use for carnivores as well, it just hasn't really been done yet.6 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »I did not say that most Americans are eating plant based diets; I said that it is growing in popularity and use. When I was young, maybe 1 in 100 was a vegetarian, but now it s closer to 1 in 10, and even higher if you include vegans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#United_States
"According to a report in 2017, the number of consumers claiming to be vegan has risen to 6% in the US.[138] In 2015, a Harris Poll National Survey of 2,017 adults aged 18 and over found that eight million Americans, or 3.4%, ate a solely vegetarian diet, and that one million, or 0.4%, ate a strictly vegan diet."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201109/why-are-there-so-few-vegetarians
"The reason for the widespread but mistaken belief that America is rapidly going veg is the mismatch between what people say they eat and what they actually eat. Take a 2002 Times/CNN poll on the eating habits of 10,000 Americans. Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian. But when asked by the pollsters what they had eaten in the last 24 hours, 60% of the self-described "vegetarians" admitted that that had consumed red meat, poultry or fish the previous day. In another survey, the United States Department of Agriculture randomly telephoned 13,313 Americans. Three percent of the respondents answered yes to the question, "Do you consider yourself to be a vegetarian?" A week later the researchers called the participants again and this time asked what they had eaten the day before. The results were even more dramatic than the Times/CNN survey: this time 66% of the "vegetarians" had eaten animal flesh in the last 24 hours."
Also as we have said many times, the plant-based diet advocated by nutritionists is not the same as what a vegetarian or vegan might typically eat. The term "junk food vegan" or "junk food vegetarian" exists for a reason.
Also I posted a scientific article from the NIH with evidence on the health of whole-foods plant-based diets. You just chose to ignore it. When you choose to pretend that evidence which doesn't support your point doesn't exist, you will always "win" the argument in your own mind. So far you have not posted a single piece of research indicating the health benefits of a meat-based diet. Until you do that, how can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?
I am choosing not to conflate healthy diets and environmental questionable science which is why I stopped responding. I find your "science" links weak, and you seem not to be hearing what I am saying.
I eat a whole foods diet too. Just fewer plants. Any evidence that this is worse for health, besides environmental complaints? Remember, correlation =/= causation.
You have not posted research showing that avoiding meat is more healthful than a diet that is heavy in meat. Until you do that, how can you expect me to take your argument seriously?
Eating plants can be healthy. I know that. I get it. Do you have anything that shows that eating animal products and meat, and few plants, is not healthy?6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
Obviously. Only about 1/10 to 1/8 are vegetarian or vegan. Cutting back on meat does not make one vegetarian.
Plant based diets as a definition have a lot of variation. I consider a plant based diet to be one where most calories come from plants, which may or may not be vegetarian or vegan. Where most calories are from plant based foods. Like a spaghetti meal with some meat in its sauce and a small side salad, as opposed to a steak dinner with a small side salad. My plate looks more like the spaghetti meal, IMO.That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
I'm in Canada so our medical access is different. For major medical issues we are all set. For the dentist, we go every few years. Physiotherapy is out. Only some things are covered but major illness is.As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
It's not the debate section, we don't need to argue it.
Anecdotal evidence is all there is for comparing high meat to no/little meat diets. We can look at past cultures and guess what works and whether it was diet.Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.
I think that is correct for all diets. A poorly planned vegetarian diet of mainly sugars and flours would be unhealthy, just like a carnivorous diet of someone who lives on bacon and pork rinds would be unhealthy.
You're defining "plant-based diet" differently than the people who are using it in this thread. That's fine, but that is also leading you to misunderstanding the arguments that people are actually making.
It's hard to compare blue zone-style/plant-based diets to the carnivore diet when we have abundant information on the benefits of the former and only anecdotal evidence (as you admit) for the healthfulness and/or benefits of the latter.
is plant based vegan or not? Are the 7th day adventists vegan or just vegetarian? I do not think any other blue zones are vegan, are they? I honestly do not know. I assumed they are all omnivores who mostly eat plants.
And the anecdotal evidence is for both types of diets. As far as I know, they have never tested the same populations, with the same lifestyle and health factors but with differing amounts of animal and plant products. If they have, I'd live to read it.
We have anecdotal evidence of healthy inuits, first nations, mongols, maasai, as well as healthy populations who eat less animal products. I don't believe
there are any historical cultural anecdotes of vegans except those individuals of the recent past who are able to buy supplements.
From the guy who wrote that book about the Blue Zones: https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/
"People in the “Blue Zones” eat an impressive variety of garden vegetables when they are in season, and then they pickle or dry the surplus to enjoy during the off-season. The best-of-the-best longevity foods are leafy greens such as spinach, kale, beet and turnip tops, chard, and collards. Combined with seasonal fruits and vegetables, whole grains and beans dominate Blue Zone meals all year long.
Many oils derive from plants, and they are all preferable to animal-based fats. We cannot say that olive oil is the only healthy plant-based oil, but it is the one most often used in the “Blue Zones.” Evidence shows that olive oil consumption increases good cholesterol and lowers bad cholesterol. In Ikaria, we found that for middle-aged people, about six tablespoons of olive oil daily seemed to cut the risk of dying in half.
People in four of the five “Blue Zones” consume meat, but they do so sparingly, using it as a celebratory food, a small side, or a way to flavor dishes. Research suggests that 30-year-old vegetarian Adventists will likely outlive their meat-eating counterparts by as many as eight years. At the same time, increasing the amount of plant-based foods in your meals has many salutary effects. Beans, greens, yams and sweet potatoes, fruits, nuts, and seeds should all be favored. Whole grains are OK too. Try a variety of fruits and vegetables; know which ones you like, and keep your kitchen stocked with them.
RETREAT FROM MEAT
Averaging out consumption in “Blue Zones,” we found that people ate about two ounces or less
about five times per month. And we don’t know if they lived longer despite eating meat.
The Adventist Health Study 2, which has been following 96,000 Americans since 2002, has found
that the people who lived the longest were vegans or pesco-vegetarians, who ate a plant-based diet that included a small amount of fish. So, while you may want to celebrate from time to time with chicken, pork or beef, we don’t recommend it as part of a Blue Zones Diet. Okinawans probably offer the best meat substitute: extra firm tofu, high in protein and cancer-fighting phyto-estrogens...."
I am not putting this forth as advice, I think there are woo-ish elements and the argument that meat is a problem for longevity has many holes and on the whole I think people are better off eating in a way that makes them feel good and is easy and non stressful and otherwise being a healthy weight and having a healthy lifestyle. (I do think eating vegetables as part of the diet is generally better and healthier, however, but you knew that.) I also, however, do not dismiss good correlation studies, such as those that follow large groups over a long period of time, and that there is consistently a positive association with eating lots of vegetables and less meat is significant for me (not saying it has to be for you, I have zero desire to tell you how you should eat, but I do think that those claiming that humans should be carnivores and it's a healthier way to eat are wrong. I also do not think you are doing that.)
Anyway, why I am putting this forth is that it explains what people mean by "plant-based" or eating like the Blue Zones, and it has very little to do with the average American diet, period.7 -
amorfati601070 wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.
Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.
The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.
That's the most hilarious pseudoscience post I've seen yet!.
Seriously..if we evolved to be carnivores our heads would look like this...
If you look into it, you will find that insulin and vitamin C compete for some of the same pathways for uptake. A carnivorous diet is pretty close to zero carb and requires much less insulin, therefore less competition for vitamin C uptake. "Carbs raise C needs" is a simpler way to say the same thing.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
If vegetarianism caused good health for all, simply because a diet is based in plants, I imagine that some of those effects may have become apparent in the last few decades. I don't see it. We have better medicine,fewer smokers, better safety measures but more metabolic and chronic lifestyle diseases.
I know that plant based diets can be healthful, and I'm a big believer in a whole foods omnivorous diet. I just have not seen evidence that compels me to believe that avoiding or limiting meats and animal products is helpful for achieving good health for most people. I know people like to believe that, but the evidence is not there. Maybe it will be one day, but it isnt there yet. The evidence that carnivore is better is not there yet either.
Just because the population as a whole is maybe eating a bit less animal products, doesn't even begin to make the standard American diet plant-based or vegetarian. My dad eats 6 oz of steak instead of 8 oz and one sausage with his pasta instead of two doesn't mean he now qualifies as plant based and should see the same health benefits as the vegetarian Adventists in Loma Linda.
Obviously. Only about 1/10 to 1/8 are vegetarian or vegan. Cutting back on meat does not make one vegetarian.
Plant based diets as a definition have a lot of variation. I consider a plant based diet to be one where most calories come from plants, which may or may not be vegetarian or vegan. Where most calories are from plant based foods. Like a spaghetti meal with some meat in its sauce and a small side salad, as opposed to a steak dinner with a small side salad. My plate looks more like the spaghetti meal, IMO.That better medicine and safety only applies to the lucky few who have access to it. And we're talking about diet, many people get to adulthood with absolutely zero understanding of basic health and nutrition. They are getting chronic lifestyle diseases that require that better medicine because they aren't eating any kind of diet either of us would consider healthy.
I'm in Canada so our medical access is different. For major medical issues we are all set. For the dentist, we go every few years. Physiotherapy is out. Only some things are covered but major illness is.As far as there not being evidence limiting animal products is helpful for achieving good health, I honestly don't know how to argue that, as there is ample evidence over hundreds of years. But if you're going to discount something as basic as the Blue Zones, I doubt that exploring that evidence here would move the conversation forward at all.
It's not the debate section, we don't need to argue it.
Anecdotal evidence is all there is for comparing high meat to no/little meat diets. We can look at past cultures and guess what works and whether it was diet.Regardless, I think any individual who tries to eat well for their health and actually puts intentional thought behind what they eat, regardless of what particular diet they choose, will be healthier than the average Joe who just eats whatever whenever and doesn't bother to care. I'd bet someone can do it with a well-thought-out carnivorous diet. I just think it is probably not practical for many folks, and would be easier to end up unhealthy if you don't plan well due to access and limited choices.
I think that is correct for all diets. A poorly planned vegetarian diet of mainly sugars and flours would be unhealthy, just like a carnivorous diet of someone who lives on bacon and pork rinds would be unhealthy.
You're defining "plant-based diet" differently than the people who are using it in this thread. That's fine, but that is also leading you to misunderstanding the arguments that people are actually making.
It's hard to compare blue zone-style/plant-based diets to the carnivore diet when we have abundant information on the benefits of the former and only anecdotal evidence (as you admit) for the healthfulness and/or benefits of the latter.
is plant based vegan or not? Are the 7th day adventists vegan or just vegetarian? I do not think any other blue zones are vegan, are they? I honestly do not know. I assumed they are all omnivores who mostly eat plants.
And the anecdotal evidence is for both types of diets. As far as I know, they have never tested the same populations, with the same lifestyle and health factors but with differing amounts of animal and plant products. If they have, I'd live to read it.
We have anecdotal evidence of healthy inuits, first nations, mongols, maasai, as well as healthy populations who eat less animal products. I don't believe
there are any historical cultural anecdotes of vegans except those individuals of the recent past who are able to buy supplements.
From the guy who wrote that book about the Blue Zones: https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/
"People in the “Blue Zones” eat an impressive variety of garden vegetables when they are in season, and then they pickle or dry the surplus to enjoy during the off-season. The best-of-the-best longevity foods are leafy greens such as spinach, kale, beet and turnip tops, chard, and collards. Combined with seasonal fruits and vegetables, whole grains and beans dominate Blue Zone meals all year long.
Many oils derive from plants, and they are all preferable to animal-based fats. We cannot say that olive oil is the only healthy plant-based oil, but it is the one most often used in the “Blue Zones.” Evidence shows that olive oil consumption increases good cholesterol and lowers bad cholesterol. In Ikaria, we found that for middle-aged people, about six tablespoons of olive oil daily seemed to cut the risk of dying in half.
People in four of the five “Blue Zones” consume meat, but they do so sparingly, using it as a celebratory food, a small side, or a way to flavor dishes. Research suggests that 30-year-old vegetarian Adventists will likely outlive their meat-eating counterparts by as many as eight years. At the same time, increasing the amount of plant-based foods in your meals has many salutary effects. Beans, greens, yams and sweet potatoes, fruits, nuts, and seeds should all be favored. Whole grains are OK too. Try a variety of fruits and vegetables; know which ones you like, and keep your kitchen stocked with them.
RETREAT FROM MEAT
Averaging out consumption in “Blue Zones,” we found that people ate about two ounces or less
about five times per month. And we don’t know if they lived longer despite eating meat.
The Adventist Health Study 2, which has been following 96,000 Americans since 2002, has found
that the people who lived the longest were vegans or pesco-vegetarians, who ate a plant-based diet that included a small amount of fish. So, while you may want to celebrate from time to time with chicken, pork or beef, we don’t recommend it as part of a Blue Zones Diet. Okinawans probably offer the best meat substitute: extra firm tofu, high in protein and cancer-fighting phyto-estrogens...."
I am not putting this forth as advice, I think there are woo-ish elements and the argument that meat is a problem for longevity has many holes and on the whole I think people are better off eating in a way that makes them feel good and is easy and non stressful and otherwise being a healthy weight and having a healthy lifestyle. (I do think eating vegetables as part of the diet is generally better and healthier, however, but you knew that.) I also, however, do not dismiss good correlation studies, such as those that follow large groups over a long period of time, and that there is consistently a positive association with eating lots of vegetables and less meat is significant for me (not saying it has to be for you, I have zero desire to tell you how you should eat, but I do think that those claiming that humans should be carnivores and it's a healthier way to eat are wrong. I also do not think you are doing that.)
Anyway, why I am putting this forth is that it explains what people mean by "plant-based" or eating like the Blue Zones, and it has very little to do with the average American diet, period.
I agree that what the blue zones eat differs from that of what Americans eat. My point was that Americans are moving towards a plant based diet, and that foods do not need to be whole foods to be considered plant based. As I mentioned before, Oreos are vegan.
I think the term plant based is about as useful as clean eating, tbh. It can feel very moralistic to me.9 -
Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Hmmm... I think the disconnect here is that in general usage, "plant based" is usually whole plant foods like grains, beans, vegetables, legumes, fruit. It may or may not include meat, eggs, and/or dairy. It encompasses a couple of different eating styles. It seems to me that you're defining "plant based" as "anything that isn't meat".
I'm failing to understand the moralistic angle here, could you expound on that? To me, it's just descriptive. I'm trying to see where you're coming from.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Hmmm... I think the disconnect here is that in general usage, "plant based" is usually whole plant foods like grains, beans, vegetables, legumes, fruit. It may or may not include meat, eggs, and/or dairy. It encompasses a couple of different eating styles. It seems to me that you're defining "plant based" as "anything that isn't meat".
I'm failing to understand the moralistic angle here, could you expound on that? To me, it's just descriptive. I'm trying to see where you're coming from.
I think part of the issue is nvmomketo is equating vegan is plant based. So while an oreo is vegan, it is not a plant based food.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions