Gamechangers...
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
Designed by God.
Many of us don't believe that God designed us and even some who don't wouldn't agree that God designed us to require animal products. This is the type of argument that will be very convincing to those who already agree with you on fundamentals, but doesn't do that much for anyone else.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.
Never said we had to limit ourselves to foods based on our anthropological ancestry. Not once. If you choose to eat that way, then its a valid choice. Our bodies are designed, to eat both meat and plants. And different societies at different ratios of plants vs meats.
If a person requires (key word) supplementation/fortification to thrive or be optimal, then i would make an arrangement that there are better diets. Again, it's a pedantic argument.
Overall, a person needs a find a diet that is optimal for themselves. And there is no one diet that works for most. Going plant based is no healthier than a diet that has both plants and meat. For me and my goals, as an athlete, a plant based diet will not be sufficient for my needs. No documentary will change that.2 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »There are plenty of societies that have been strictly vegetarian for years. There are also plenty of societies that almost exclusively eat meat or fish. Humans have, as a species, adapted to a variety of diets and thrived. What we tend to forget is that those individual populations with diets at one or the other end of the spectrum have adapted over time and have different gut flora and/or sensivities than those of us who come from populations that have been have had more catholic* diets through the centuries. Thus, I don't find it surprising that someone moving from one type of diet to another might need supplementation to be healthy on that diet.
*note the lower case c
Your point about adaptation is very material, but I think limited in applicability in this context. To my knowledge, the very best evidence is that fully plant-based diets require supplementation for best odds of long-term good health. I think Psu is correct about that, but disagree with the idea that "needs supplements" = "not thriving", when said supplements are readily available to a person, and they're using them.
Some potential deficiencies can be mitigated through food choice (iron, calcium . . . ), but B12 is . . . hard. Maybe impossible. Perhaps others know of specific, long-term successful *fully* plant-based societies. I don't, but I've never made a study of the question. If there are some, the B12 case is strong enough that I'd be looking to see whether they consume something quite unusual that makes up for the deficiency.
Maybe we'll learn, someday, that some specialized gut microbiota do the trick. (I gather that bacteria play a role in the manufacture of vegan-friendly supplements). But that's not all that helpful for modern-society fully plant-based eaters: Needed bugs of specific types don't appear through magic, though changes in diet do foster certain changes over a period of time, as I understand it . . . but there needs to be a source for those specific microbes in the first place. Even if there's an explanation in microbiology for historical fully-plant-based societies that thrived (heh), I'd put zero dollars on the idea that taking any available broad-type probiotic supplement would accomplish anything on the B12 front. (OTOH, I've never bought a lottery ticket, either. 😉)
1 -
Continuing the pedantry:janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.
Never said we had to limit ourselves to foods based on our anthropological ancestry. Not once. If you choose to eat that way, then its a valid choice. Our bodies are designed, to eat both meat and plants. And different societies at different ratios of plants vs meats.
If a person requires (key word) supplementation/fortification to thrive or be optimal, then i would make an arrangement that there are better diets. Again, it's a pedantic argument.
If you'd phrased it that way in the first place, I probably wouldn't have quibbled. Your PP essentially suggested that supplementing (when required) means the organism doesn't thrive. Thriving is the outcome, not the path to get there.
I agree that a chosen dietary pattern that requires supplementation in order for a person to thrive can be considered suboptimal from a purely technical nutritional standpoint. People choose their eating styles for a variety of reasons, only some of which are about nutrition. I personally think it's silly when people make choices that *ignore* nutritional needs, or don't meet sensible minimums somehow, but it's still their choice, of course. Making choices for other than nutritional reasons, in ways that still allow for good nutrition, seems perfectly rational to me. (Talking about either veganism, or your choices in pursuit of performance, here.)
I think we mostly agree - thought so when I posted - but as an ol' liberal arts major, sometimes I get picky about the implications of word choice. Apologies for that . . . but I still think thriving is a state of the organism, not a feature of the food choices. Vegans can thrive. Less nutritionally optimal? Sure, I'll buy that (though I would've chosen different words myself).
Of course, just being omnivorous doesn't guarantee optimality, either. 😉 You didn't say that, and I'm quite certain you don't believe it, either. 😆
FWIW, over and over here, I encourage people to reconsider a planned move to vegetarianism (my pattern) if they're doing it "for health" or "for weight loss". It has no magic in those realms. There are reasons for the choice, but they're elsewhere.
Overall, a person needs a find a diet that is optimal for themselves. And there is no one diet that works for most. Going plant based is no healthier than a diet that has both plants and meat. For me and my goals, as an athlete, a plant based diet will not be sufficient for my needs. No documentary will change that.
I agree, of course.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.
Never said we had to limit ourselves to foods based on our anthropological ancestry. Not once. If you choose to eat that way, then its a valid choice. Our bodies are designed, to eat both meat and plants. And different societies at different ratios of plants vs meats.
If a person requires (key word) supplementation/fortification to thrive or be optimal, then i would make an arrangement that there are better diets. Again, it's a pedantic argument.
Overall, a person needs a find a diet that is optimal for themselves. And there is no one diet that works for most. Going plant based is no healthier than a diet that has both plants and meat. For me and my goals, as an athlete, a plant based diet will not be sufficient for my needs. No documentary will change that.
I don't think I'm arguing that veganism/plant-based is necessarily the BEST diet, assuming we could even agree on what measures made a diet the "best" (generally for a wider discussion, not necessarily that you and I couldn't agree). My point was that our very nature as omnivores means that -- at least in present conditions -- we (meaning at least some individuals of the species) can thrive without consuming animal products.
I would never argue that going plant-based is healthier than a diet including plants and meat because I have not seen evidence to convince me it's true.
I am not trying to persuade you to accept the claims of this documentary. I don't accept them myself. I was responding to the comment above, in this discussion, that we were "designed" to be omnivores as if that REQUIRES us to include animal products in our diet. You have made your own call based on your observations of your body and performance, which I am not second guessing. Here is my call: I do not require animal products in my diet and there are many other vegans/plant-based eaters who have made the same observation, which is backed up by long-term studies of vegan populations and their health outcomes.
Observing that some individuals do very well on a vegan diet is NOT me arguing that every individual would have the same outcome. I can't know that and obviously studying groups of vegans who have been practicing the diet long-term is going to skew your group to people who tend to feel good and perform well on a vegan diet. I realize the limitations of what these studies can prove -- they aren't going to prove that the person who tried veganism for six months and quit because they didn't feel good would have done great if they'd only tried different foods or stuck with it. We can't eliminate the possibility that some people will have an easier time thriving on a vegan diet than others (or even that some people CAN'T thrive as vegans). But the point remains that if we REQUIRED animal products, as a species, to thrive, we wouldn't see the results we see.
Clearly at least a portion of the human population doesn't require animal products, which is why I push back against statements that eating them is required for any human to have good health.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
Designed by God.
Disclaimer: I’m a life long atheist.
Oh, my mistake, I thought it was the Garden of Eden - not the Livestock Farm of Eden! 😂0 -
cmriverside wrote: »forensicanthropology wrote: »find me a platform where there is no agenda. Fortunately, I am intelligent enough to search out the peer reviewed literature myself. I was simply curious if anybody had any other thoughts.
Netflix is over the top with its agenda, though. Way too biased and easily refuted.
Netflix doesn't have an agenda other than getting and retaining subs. they do tend to pick "documentaries" with obvious agendas because they get people to debate on the internet1 -
I just like when documentaries/articles/whatever about veganism reference world-class athletes with extremely muscular physiques who follow the lifestyle, but don't mention that they built those physiques before they adopted the lifestyle.2
-
extra_medium wrote: »I just like when documentaries/articles/whatever about veganism reference world-class athletes with extremely muscular physiques who follow the lifestyle, but don't mention that they built those physiques before they adopted the lifestyle.
That's a big thing with Keto, too.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions