Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
Mutt, I am starting to believe you are nothing but a sophist. My first encounter on these message boards was when you came on after some one had mentioned some study, and you DEMANDED peer reviewed statistically valid studies to back up the claim that vegetarian diet is the proper one for humans. Then you said you were on the paleo diet. I have asked you several times for the same level of proof that the paleo diet is the proper one (assuming you even knew what it was) as you were demanding of vegetarans that our diet is the proper one. We have given you plenty of proof, albeit that they are in the form of prospective longitudinal studies (the China Study) or controled cohort studies (Framingham), which you don't seem to acknowledge. In fact, vritually every study not funded by the meat and dairy association or not studying unique populations such as Lapplanders or Inuits says the same thing - human beings are herbovores. The president of the American Society of Cardiology says we are not designed to eat meat. Every major health group that does not recieve funding from the meat and dairy industry agrees. Yet you are truly playing Fallstaff. Why? You can't provide solid studies to back up your own position, and yet the overwhelming consensus of studies in the area support my position. Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Or do you actually have some thing solid to base your claims on. If so., now is the time to show it. I'm getting bored.
I know it's tempting to twist my words but please don't do that. I never DEMANDED anything, I merely pointed out that many of the China Study's conclusions are based on correlations and hence must be taken with a grain of salt. That's how this all started, I never set out to demand proof that a vegetarian diet is the right one. That is your own neurosis at work which seems to put you immediately on the defensive. I've linked to many more papers than you have, you simply say "China Study" and "Framingham" over and over again. Even Campbell's own colleagues were concerned about a giant exercise in correlation. It proves nothing on it's own but does provide interesting areas for further research as we've argued about for far too long.
It's interesting you mention of the Society of Cardiologists, do you mean the American College of Cardiologists? I can tell you that very few official bodies recommend a vegetarian or vegan diet, I'm not saying they specifically recommend against it, I'm saying they recommend an omnivorous diet by default:
AHA:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/Diet-and-Lifestyle-Recommendations_UCM_305855_Article.jsp#.TxRspvnC7RY
AMA:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/283/16/2198.full.pdf
To follow your line of reasoning which is EVERYONE believes that vegetarian/vegan is the healthiest diet, the science all supports it, every major medical society supports, you name it, everyone thinks meat is bad. If that was the case, again, I'm following your logic here, why isn't it the recommended diet of those organizations above? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why not? I can give you lots of reasons but I'm just following your line of reasoning here.
While we're on the topic of various medical bodies, a former president of the American College of Cardiology wrote a paper published in their journal discussing how he believes low fat, high carbohydrate diets may not have been a good idea. An opinion piece from an expert, yes, but since you were quoting presidents of XYZ association, I thought I would too.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109703016310
He's definitely not recommending a vegetarian of vegan diet in there, although he says nothing about it specifically he does advocate that research on the health impact of Low Carb high fat diets are promising.... hmmm...
In earlier posts when you claimed animal protein causes osteoporosis, there were two links posted supporting my position, quite effectively I might add. I'm struggling to understand why you keep saying I don't support my arguments.
I think the author of that link makes a good point that's relevant right now so I'll quote him:"...because it conforms to current traditional dietary recommendations, by appealing to the authority of its prestigious medical and institutional sponsors or by ignoring an increasingly critical medical literature, is no longer tenable."
In other words, pointing at some society and saying "they recommend XYZ" means very little.
You make these blanket statements about the science supporting your position when it does not. You have not provided sufficient evidence to convince me of your claims you just continue to say "everyone" supports it.0 -
Science certainly supports my position and I have spent a great deal of time looking at proof you and Rocky have posted. You posted a meta analysis which I have told you I put very little faith in, and then you even posted a comment about how dificult it was to know whether a meta study was any good or not. It said, in truth, when done properly, they can be quite valuable. Since I don't have the time to see if these studies were done properly, I ignore them. From the comments you posted, unless they are very familiar with the studies being analyzed, most people ignore them as well.
You also posted anecdotal studies of anthropologists, which have minimal value as well because, ...well, er, they are anecdotal. Examination of bones in say, Catal Huyuk doesn't imply anything about the stone age human race at that time, except possibly in Catal Huyuk.
Rocky posted a bunch of studies, mostly financed by the cattleman's associartion or focusing on unusual or small groups such as Lapplanders or Inuits. These are mostly worthless as to the general population.
You also recommended a book (Good Caleries, Bad Caleries) which I looked into and concluded this was nothing more than unfounded opinions. It was not a study.
I have seen nothing of the quality of evidence I have given you. How about posting a real study, prospective longitudinal or controlled cohort, that actually says the diet you advocate does not cause chronic diseases and is in fact healthy? Rather than just attack the studies I put up, show that there is some science behind what you think.
In other words, to make it as simple as possible, rather than simply post studies attacking what I have put up, post some affirmative studies showing that some other diet is better, or right, or has a positive effect on decreasing chronic illnesses. Anyone can attack any longitudinal study as not controlled, because, well, it isn't. However there are huge correlatiions between the vegetarian diet and lack of certain chronic diseases. In my opinion, there is no question about what these studies show and PROOVE. At the very least, rather than try to undermind these studies show a study (not financed by the Cattleamans Association) that shows some OTHER diet works better to eliminate chronic diseases than the vegetarian diet.
In other words I am looking for an affirmative study, not unwarranted attacks on the studies I have presented, like your claim that the China Study was no good because it was not controlled for soil types! I really do not care about these hypothetical correlations between odd ball possibilities and the results being skewed. Logic, and MANY, MANY, MANY studies from the US, Germany, and China show the same thing : A vegetarian diet permits people to live a healthier longer life. Please just show me one study, ONE on the same scale as the German Study or the China Study, that shows that eating meat has has a high correlation with reducing chronic illnesses. ONE!0 -
I'm agreeing with my husband here. Man up, and present some proof that eating meat provides HEALTH BENEFITS. Yes, I know it has protein and heme iron. But, plants can provide those nutrients. Well, in the case of iron, not heme iron, but iron just the same. Plus, an overabundance of protein and heme iron can be harmful. Hemochromatosis is one of the most common metabolic anomalies in the US. Excess protein needs to be buffered to be eliminated, frequently drawing calcium from the bones. And, plants are coming up roses every single day on breaking nutritional news. So read the lines, and in between the lines: plants rule; meat stinks.
I generally don't argue health benefits of vegetarianism. I think it's a losing game. So don't ask me to. I think the vegetarian diet is the most compassionate, environmentally-responsible way to feed a growing population. I resent my tax dollars going to farm subsidies designed to feed the populace cheap meat and dairy products. The REAL cost of meat and dairy would be so expensive that we wouldn't be having this nit-picky discussion over the China Study. You would all be asking me the best way to cook tofu, beans, seitan and tempeh.
Meat, unless a cheap lab growth version is made available, will soon go the way of the dinosaur, friends. And, I will cheer for the animals who live only to satisfy some barbeque-meister's taste for their flesh.0 -
Just a little food for thought I found:
Fish really is brain food, based on a study presented at the 2011 meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Brain scans showed that people who ate baked or broiled—but not fried—fish at least once a week had better preserved gray matter in key areas of the brain. The researchers calculated that eating fish weekly cut Alzheimer’s risk by almost five-fold.
http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id=11008757
YAY fish!0 -
Just a little food for thought I found:
Fish really is brain food, based on a study presented at the 2011 meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Brain scans showed that people who ate baked or broiled—but not fried—fish at least once a week had better preserved gray matter in key areas of the brain. The researchers calculated that eating fish weekly cut Alzheimer’s risk by almost five-fold.
http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id=11008757
YAY fish!
Due to the omega 3. Which you can also gets from linseeds and chia seeds. I choose not to eat fish because the problems caused by over fishing are amongst the worst environmental disasters we humans responsible for.0 -
Man up, and present some proof that eating meat provides HEALTH BENEFITS.Due to the omega 3. Which you can also gets from linseeds and chia seeds
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I never said you can't get the benefits from a pill or the other forms. I was simply replying to 'VergingOnVegan' when asked for proof that eating meat provides health benefits. Fteale, the point you're making is a environmental, which I'm not arguing with.0 -
Just a little food for thought I found:
Fish really is brain food, based on a study presented at the 2011 meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Brain scans showed that people who ate baked or broiled—but not fried—fish at least once a week had better preserved gray matter in key areas of the brain. The researchers calculated that eating fish weekly cut Alzheimer’s risk by almost five-fold.
http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id=11008757
YAY fish!
Due to the omega 3. Which you can also gets from linseeds and chia seeds. I choose not to eat fish because the problems caused by over fishing are amongst the worst environmental disasters we humans responsible for.
I suspect that plant-based omega 3 is not a substitute for animal based omega 3. Chia seeds are high in omega 3, but it's ALA, more easily oxidized and unable to be converted to EPA and DHA (both of which are found directly in Fish Oil). Some information on that:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-extremely-limited-synthesis-of-long-chain-polyunsaturates-in-adults-implications-for-their-dietary-essentiality-and-use-as-supplements.html
The above link is a review of the link study below.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-034
Agreed on the over fishing and environmental impact, I've seen some really brilliant work with farmed salmon which unfortunately often reduces the omega 3 content, but if they are fed the right foods that can be addressed.0 -
Just a little food for thought I found:
Fish really is brain food, based on a study presented at the 2011 meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Brain scans showed that people who ate baked or broiled—but not fried—fish at least once a week had better preserved gray matter in key areas of the brain. The researchers calculated that eating fish weekly cut Alzheimer’s risk by almost five-fold.
http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id=11008757
YAY fish!
Due to the omega 3. Which you can also gets from linseeds and chia seeds. I choose not to eat fish because the problems caused by over fishing are amongst the worst environmental disasters we humans responsible for.
I suspect that plant-based omega 3 is not a substitute for animal based omega 3. Chia seeds are high in omega 3, but it's ALA, more easily oxidized and unable to be converted to EPA and DHA (both of which are found directly in Fish Oil). Some information on that:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-extremely-limited-synthesis-of-long-chain-polyunsaturates-in-adults-implications-for-their-dietary-essentiality-and-use-as-supplements.html
The above link is a review of the link study below.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-034
Agreed on the over fishing and environmental impact, I've seen some really brilliant work with farmed salmon which unfortunately often reduces the omega 3 content, but if they are fed the right foods that can be addressed.
I've read this too and this is why I went with fish oil pills instead of flax oil. I think krill oil is supposedly superior.0 -
Just a little food for thought I found:
Fish really is brain food, based on a study presented at the 2011 meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Brain scans showed that people who ate baked or broiled—but not fried—fish at least once a week had better preserved gray matter in key areas of the brain. The researchers calculated that eating fish weekly cut Alzheimer’s risk by almost five-fold.
http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id=11008757
YAY fish!
Due to the omega 3. Which you can also gets from linseeds and chia seeds. I choose not to eat fish because the problems caused by over fishing are amongst the worst environmental disasters we humans responsible for.
I suspect that plant-based omega 3 is not a substitute for animal based omega 3. Chia seeds are high in omega 3, but it's ALA, more easily oxidized and unable to be converted to EPA and DHA (both of which are found directly in Fish Oil). Some information on that:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-extremely-limited-synthesis-of-long-chain-polyunsaturates-in-adults-implications-for-their-dietary-essentiality-and-use-as-supplements.html
The above link is a review of the link study below.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-034
Agreed on the over fishing and environmental impact, I've seen some really brilliant work with farmed salmon which unfortunately often reduces the omega 3 content, but if they are fed the right foods that can be addressed.
I've read this too and this is why I went with fish oil pills instead of flax oil. I think krill oil is supposedly superior.
I've heard the same but can't say I've read the research on Krill oil.0 -
It has an antioxidant that passes the blood-brain barrier, unlike other antioxidants... not sure what this means exactly. But it's that antioxidant that differentiates it from other fish oils i think.0
-
Just a little food for thought I found:
Fish really is brain food, based on a study presented at the 2011 meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Brain scans showed that people who ate baked or broiled—but not fried—fish at least once a week had better preserved gray matter in key areas of the brain. The researchers calculated that eating fish weekly cut Alzheimer’s risk by almost five-fold.
http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id=11008757
YAY fish!
Technically, I have to admit you met the challenge. You showed that a diet of fish at least once a week (baked or broiled, not fried) was healthier than the typical American diet. Of course that says nothing for meat, and fish once per week is not a huge amount. Also there are plenty of plant sources for Omega 3, so a fish diet per se is not required.
However, I should have rephrased the challenge. Instead of comparing the "fish diet" to the typical American diet, I should have asked you to compare any other diet to a vegetarian diet. Vegetarian diets also reduce the risk of Alzheimers:
... in a review of studies published during the past two years sheds significant light on another central risk factor in Alzheimers -- high levels of a blood substance called homocysteine.
Homocysteine is an amino acid, and amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The only source of homocysteine for use in our bodies is that which is formed by the liver after the ingestion of another amino acid, methionine. Methionine is found in protein foods -- and animal protein contains two to three times the amount of methionine as does plant protein.
Among recent studies looking at the significance of elevated homocysteine levels and Alzheimer's are:
1) Miller JW; Homocysteine and Alzheimer's disease. Nutr Rev, 1999 Apr, 57:4, 126-9
"In a recent case-control study of 164 patients with clinically diagnosed Alzheimer's disease (AD), including 76 patients with the AD diagnosis confirmed postmortem, mean total serum homocysteine concentration was found to be significantly higher than that of a control group of elderly individuals with no evidence of cognitive impairment."
2) Clarke R, et al; Folate, vitamin B12, and serum total homocysteine levels in confirmed Alzheimer disease Arch Neurol, 1998 Nov, 55:11, 1449-55
"Elevated homocysteine levels were associated with Alzheimer's Disease."
3) McCaddon A, et al; Total serum homocysteine in senile dementia of Alzheimer type Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 1998 Apr, 13:4, 235-9
"Senile dementia of Alzheimer type patients have significantly elevated homocysteine."
This study, also confirming the link between homocysteine and Alzheimer's, was done in the UK.
4) Gottfries CG, et al; Early diagnosis of cognitive impairment in the elderly with the focus on Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm, 1998, 105:8-9, 773-86
"We found serum-homocysteine to be an early and sensitive marker for cognitive impairment. In patients with dysmentia (mild cognitive impairment), no less than 39% had pathological serum-homocysteine levels."
This study, conducted in Sweden, not only showed blood levels of homocysteine to correlate strongly with Alzheimer's disease -- but showed elevated levels of homocysteine were useful in *predicting* who might get Alzheimer's.
In another study, reported at the World Alzheimer's Congress in July 2000, researches looked at 5,395 individuals aged 55 and over who were free from dementia. After examining subjects in 1993 and again in 1999 researchers reported the following:
"On average, people who remained free from any form of dementia had consumed higher amounts of beta-carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E and vegetables than the people in the study who developed Alzheimer’s disease."
The researchers also noted that in this study, family history or the presence of a genetic marker called the ApoE4 allele (both considered risk factors for Alzheimer's) did not alter their findings. In other words, high consumption of vegetables appeared to offset one of the other known risk factors for Alzheimer's.
So your study might just as well say that foods rich in Omega 3 reduce Alzheimers, which I agree with. However, fish are not the only source of Omega 3, and animal protein, as shown above, also has negative effects.0 -
I didn't read the study, but did it look at eating large amounts of beta carotene along with meat? As well as a group who just ate vegetables and no meat?0
-
The fact that fish is actually possibly beneficial to us, unlike other meat does lend credence to the aquatic ape theory.0
-
The fact that fish is actually possibly beneficial to us, unlike other meat does lend credence to the aquatic ape theory.
LOL! And I love your avitar!0 -
I didn't read the study, but did it look at eating large amounts of beta carotene along with meat? As well as a group who just ate vegetables and no meat?
Here is an interesting summary from the Vegan point of view:
http://www.theveganrd.com/2012/01/omega-3-fats-in-vegan-diets-a-quick-primer.html0 -
However, I should have rephrased the challenge. Instead of comparing the "fish diet" to the typical American diet, I should have asked you to compare any other diet to a vegetarian diet. Vegetarian diets also reduce the risk of Alzheimers:
... in a review of studies published during the past two years sheds significant light on another central risk factor in Alzheimers -- high levels of a blood substance called homocysteine.
Homocysteine is an amino acid, and amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The only source of homocysteine for use in our bodies is that which is formed by the liver after the ingestion of another amino acid, methionine. Methionine is found in protein foods -- and animal protein contains two to three times the amount of methionine as does plant protein.
"We found serum-homocysteine to be an early and sensitive marker for cognitive impairment. In patients with dysmentia (mild cognitive impairment), no less than 39% had pathological serum-homocysteine levels."
This study, conducted in Sweden, not only showed blood levels of homocysteine to correlate strongly with Alzheimer's disease -- but showed elevated levels of homocysteine were useful in *predicting* who might get Alzheimer's.
In another study, reported at the World Alzheimer's Congress in July 2000, researches looked at 5,395 individuals aged 55 and over who were free from dementia. After examining subjects in 1993 and again in 1999 researchers reported the following:
"On average, people who remained free from any form of dementia had consumed higher amounts of beta-carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E and vegetables than the people in the study who developed Alzheimer’s disease."
The researchers also noted that in this study, family history or the presence of a genetic marker called the ApoE4 allele (both considered risk factors for Alzheimer's) did not alter their findings. In other words, high consumption of vegetables appeared to offset one of the other known risk factors for Alzheimer's.
So your study might just as well say that foods rich in Omega 3 reduce Alzheimers, which I agree with. However, fish are not the only source of Omega 3, and animal protein, as shown above, also has negative effects.
Yes, Homocysteine and Methionine is often discussed in the Paleo/Primal blogosphere. Although you provided references suggesting a link between Alzheimer's and Homocysteine, the two of them I skimmed do not mention a link between meat consumption an Alzheimer's, even if they did, there are many more variables here. What is important is the Folate Cycle which should, if it's all working neatly, convert Homocysteine back to methionine, however, if you are deficient in B vitamins this cycle is interrupted. In fact, at least one of the articles you linked to mentioned B12 deficiency in the first line of the abstract. The substances necessary to ensure lower levels of Homocysteine can be obtained from green leafy vegetables (spinach is a good one), organ meats such as liver, and egg YOLKs (+1 for eating the whole egg instead of just the white).
In other words, if you eat a diet that includes animal protein, the increased levels of homocysteine are offset by eating the WHOLE animal and eating vegetables. Sounds like a whole food, Primal diet to me.
Back on the omega 3 topic. Yes, there are plant based sources, but as I posted previously, this is largely ALA, green algae does have DHA but no EPA. Your body can partially convert ALA to DHA and EPA although DHA and EPA have been studied a great deal more than ALA. Essentially, DHA and EPA are better options at this point because ALA effects are less well known and men only convert small amounts to DHA and EPA. All of them are essential.0 -
The whole omega-3 to DHA conversion issue is complicated. The standard American diet tends to be very high in omega-6 fats. This hampers conversion of omega-3 to DHA. Other factors can mess with this too. One thing that argues against fish-oils and fish consumption is contamination with mercury, PCB, etc. I would rather supplement with a non-fish DHA supplement made from algae.
This Q and A points to the fact that the research isn't definitive, but provides good guidance in the meantime: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/questions/omega-3/index.html0 -
The whole omega-3 to DHA conversion issue is complicated. The standard American diet tends to be very high in omega-6 fats. This hampers conversion of omega-3 to DHA. Other factors can mess with this too. One thing that argues against fish-oils and fish consumption is contamination with mercury, PCB, etc. I would rather supplement with a non-fish DHA supplement made from algae.
Yes, but ALA to DHA and EPA conversion is only about 8% for men, higher for women (so you may be okay - lol) making it difficult to obtain DHA and EPA from plant sources other than DHA from algae. Omega 6:3 ratio is way out of proportion on SAD (or so it's claimed) which is a major part of Primal, that is, to address this imbalance. Grass fed beef has a similar 6:3 ratio to fish btw although no where near as much overall. Heavy metal contamination is a concern with fish so you need to be careful regarding the source. I should point out that this isn't an argument against fish consumption and health from an evolutionary perspective.
Anyway, to obtain sufficient DHA on a vegan diet one has to take algae based supplements...
0 -
First of all, I want to make something very clear: I am not arguing that the vegan diet is our natural ancestral diet. That issue may interest you, but it doesn't interest me. Optimal modern diets interest me, which for me is a whole food vegan diet, which is supplemented by algal DHA, vitamin B12, calcium and vitamin D2.
We live in a world which is very different than that of our remote ancestors. Unfortunately, it is a highly polluted world which concentrates pollutants all along the food chain. I consider that fact in my dietary choices, and try not to get bogged down in the nuances of what is natural. To me, plants grown organically aren't perfect, but I'm not so evolved that I can rely on water, sun and air to self-generate food. So, I do the best I can.
The nostaglia of aboriginal diets in an unspoiled world is enticing. But, that's not where I'm at.0 -
Mutt,
I have an even more basic question than even V on V has. How do you know WHAT the Paleo Diet was. There were so many diverse environements during Paleolithic times that you could argue that almost any natural diet was Paleo.As I also said a million times, our physiology is unambiguous - we are herbovores. Yes there were meat eating cultures and yes, there were vegan cultures in Paleolithic times, but sadly there were no prospective controlled studies done then to determine which was better. The Paleo diet is a non-starter as far as I am concerned because for every piece of evidence you can find for one Paleo diet, I can find evidence for another, and yet again, our physiology says we are vegetarian.0 -
Mutt,
And there is another important thing you should know. Both animals and vegetables have been altered genetically for the past 6,000 years by unnatural selection. BIrds like chicken have been genetically selected for breeding by humans who wanted more meat on the bone. Ancient corn, which may have had one or two dozen scrawny kernals per ear, now have hundreds, because we like corn with more kernals. The Paleo diet, even if you knew what it was, even if you knew the percentage of veggies to meat, and even if you knew what people in your exact region ate 6000 years ago would nonetheless be impossible to reproduce because of genetic changes between wild oand cultivated food that have occurred over the years.
Although your diet is perhaps closer to mine than most Americans, you philosohy makes little sense to me.0 -
Mutt,
And there is another important thing you should know. Both animals and vegetables have been altered genetically for the past 6,000 years by unnatural selection. BIrds like chicken have been genetically selected for breeding by humans who wanted more meat on the bone. Ancient corn, which may have had one or two dozen scrawny kernals per ear, now have hundreds, because we like corn with more kernals. The Paleo diet, even if you knew what it was, even if you knew the percentage of veggies to meat, and even if you knew what people in your exact region ate 6000 years ago would nonetheless be impossible to reproduce because of genetic changes between wild oand cultivated food that have occurred over the years.
Although your diet is perhaps closer to mine than most Americans, you philosohy makes little sense to me.
Yep, you might enjoy Wheat Belly, haven't read it myself but made a splash in the Paleo community recently the premise of which is that wheat is dramatically different now and that has had a deleterious impact on our health. I've mentioned many times in my posts the fact that there isn't a single Paleo diet. It would have varied based on climate and region. I've often wondered if this could help explain the individual differences in our reactions to macro nutrients. Some people claim they try to eat the diet that suits their ancestry, that could tricky for many though. Regardless, Primal is a framework, a starting point, as I've also said many times before. Part of Primal is your own n=1, how do your respond to dairy for example or potatoes. Again, it isn't a rigid set of rules based on some idealized past that never existed. What it often equates to is eat whole, unprocessed foods, eliminate grains (including corn) and other sources of anti nutrients. The Primal concept is the framework, the lens through which decisions around nutrition may be viewed, informed by science. The science always wins.
As your wife has pointed out, it's impossible to eat the exact diet we evolved eat but the goal of Primal is to move closer to that general ideal. Where we differ in our beliefs of course is the degree to which we evolved to eat animal protein. My reading convinces me we are omnivores and optimal health can be obtained by including animal protein and vegetables in my diet.0 -
Mutt,
And there is another important thing you should know. Both animals and vegetables have been altered genetically for the past 6,000 years by unnatural selection. BIrds like chicken have been genetically selected for breeding by humans who wanted more meat on the bone. Ancient corn, which may have had one or two dozen scrawny kernals per ear, now have hundreds, because we like corn with more kernals. The Paleo diet, even if you knew what it was, even if you knew the percentage of veggies to meat, and even if you knew what people in your exact region ate 6000 years ago would nonetheless be impossible to reproduce because of genetic changes between wild oand cultivated food that have occurred over the years.
Although your diet is perhaps closer to mine than most Americans, you philosohy makes little sense to me.
Yep, you might enjoy Wheat Belly, haven't read it myself but made a splash in the Paleo community recently the premise of which is that wheat is dramatically different now and that has had a deleterious impact on our health. I've mentioned many times in my posts the fact that there isn't a single Paleo diet. It would have varied based on climate and region. I've often wondered if this could help explain the individual differences in our reactions to macro nutrients. Some people claim they try to eat the diet that suits their ancestry, that could tricky for many though. Regardless, Primal is a framework, a starting point, as I've also said many times before. Part of Primal is your own n=1, how do your respond to dairy for example or potatoes. Again, it isn't a rigid set of rules based on some idealized past that never existed. What it often equates to is eat whole, unprocessed foods, eliminate grains (including corn) and other sources of anti nutrients. The Primal concept is the framework, the lens through which decisions around nutrition may be viewed, informed by science. The science always wins.
As your wife has pointed out, it's impossible to eat the exact diet we evolved eat but the goal of Primal is to move closer to that general ideal. Where we differ in our beliefs of course is the degree to which we evolved to eat animal protein. My reading convinces me we are omnivores and optimal health can be obtained by including animal protein and vegetables in my diet.
This is exactly along the lines of how I think about nutrition. Very well worded. I especially like your theory about individuals' responses to different macronutrients being possibly location/climate influenced.0 -
Mutt,
And there is another important thing you should know. Both animals and vegetables have been altered genetically for the past 6,000 years by unnatural selection. BIrds like chicken have been genetically selected for breeding by humans who wanted more meat on the bone. Ancient corn, which may have had one or two dozen scrawny kernals per ear, now have hundreds, because we like corn with more kernals. The Paleo diet, even if you knew what it was, even if you knew the percentage of veggies to meat, and even if you knew what people in your exact region ate 6000 years ago would nonetheless be impossible to reproduce because of genetic changes between wild oand cultivated food that have occurred over the years.
Although your diet is perhaps closer to mine than most Americans, you philosohy makes little sense to me.
Yep, you might enjoy Wheat Belly, haven't read it myself but made a splash in the Paleo community recently the premise of which is that wheat is dramatically different now and that has had a deleterious impact on our health. I've mentioned many times in my posts the fact that there isn't a single Paleo diet. It would have varied based on climate and region. I've often wondered if this could help explain the individual differences in our reactions to macro nutrients. Some people claim they try to eat the diet that suits their ancestry, that could tricky for many though. Regardless, Primal is a framework, a starting point, as I've also said many times before. Part of Primal is your own n=1, how do your respond to dairy for example or potatoes. Again, it isn't a rigid set of rules based on some idealized past that never existed. What it often equates to is eat whole, unprocessed foods, eliminate grains (including corn) and other sources of anti nutrients. The Primal concept is the framework, the lens through which decisions around nutrition may be viewed, informed by science. The science always wins.
As your wife has pointed out, it's impossible to eat the exact diet we evolved eat but the goal of Primal is to move closer to that general ideal. Where we differ in our beliefs of course is the degree to which we evolved to eat animal protein. My reading convinces me we are omnivores and optimal health can be obtained by including animal protein and vegetables in my diet.
Mutt,
Do you realize that Paleo is a phony diet? Not that I am criticizing eating less meat, but there is no way in Hell you could know what people GENERALLY ate 6000 years ago. In a few specific cases remains can be analyzed and things can be surmised from animal bones and ancient seeds and whatever was near sites of ancient human habitations, but as I have said a million times these are all anecdotal. But as you well know, different ancient sites reveal different results. As you also know, there is ample evidence that humans (e.g. Mayans) also ate humans, so you could just as easily argue for canabalism as a dietary choice. You cannot move closer to "that general ideal" when you don't know what the ideal is.
As for us being "omnivores," I have yet to hear a definition of that word that makes sense. Since every herbovore that I know of can eat meat, and since every carnivore I know of can eat plants, what exactly is an omnivore? The word is meaningless. If you define a herbovore as an animal that eats mostly vegetables, and a carnivore as an animal that eats mostly flesh, then that would seem a useable definition, but by that definition, humans are definitely herbovores. If we eat mostly meat, we get chronic health problems. And if these are the definitions you use, what is an omnivore?
So your dietary choices seem to revolve around two undefinable terms,"Primal diet" and "Omnivore." It sounds to me like this is just a cover for "eat anything you want." If I say the most common Primal diet 6000 years ago was "Cheeseburgers and Fries," prove I am wrong.0 -
This is exactly along the lines of how I think about nutrition. Very well worded. I especially like your theory about individuals' responses to different macronutrients being possibly location/climate influenced.
Thanks. I suspect other, much smarter people have thought of the macro nutrient/location link before I ever did. Some people do seem to respond better to low carb diets, some people tolerate grain better than others, even ignoring those with gluten intolerance etc. Certainly it's well known that groups of people can't digest lactose, but it would be interesting if it goes deeper than that. I've heard the odd mention of a carb phenotype and a fat phenotype but never researched it. Well a quick search on Google Scholar found this link for "fat phenotype":
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2440806
I'm going to have to do more reading in this area, it's really interesting. This study isn't exactly conclusive, it studied only 19 or so dudes, but what they found was that after adjusting for BMI and BF%, leptin levels were higher in the HF intake group. That's very cool, suggesting a possible reason why high fat diets can sometimes result in better weight loss. Higher Leptin levels will result in better satiety. They then suggest that this higher Leptin concentration may be a physiological adaptation to high fat intake. Cool stuff, although as I said, small study and really the last is a bit of a leap based on the data I think. Plus they used food questionnaires, oh if we could only lock people away in a metabolic ward for a couple of years. LOL0 -
Mutt,
And there is another important thing you should know. Both animals and vegetables have been altered genetically for the past 6,000 years by unnatural selection. BIrds like chicken have been genetically selected for breeding by humans who wanted more meat on the bone. Ancient corn, which may have had one or two dozen scrawny kernals per ear, now have hundreds, because we like corn with more kernals. The Paleo diet, even if you knew what it was, even if you knew the percentage of veggies to meat, and even if you knew what people in your exact region ate 6000 years ago would nonetheless be impossible to reproduce because of genetic changes between wild oand cultivated food that have occurred over the years.
Although your diet is perhaps closer to mine than most Americans, you philosohy makes little sense to me.
Yep, you might enjoy Wheat Belly, haven't read it myself but made a splash in the Paleo community recently the premise of which is that wheat is dramatically different now and that has had a deleterious impact on our health. I've mentioned many times in my posts the fact that there isn't a single Paleo diet. It would have varied based on climate and region. I've often wondered if this could help explain the individual differences in our reactions to macro nutrients. Some people claim they try to eat the diet that suits their ancestry, that could tricky for many though. Regardless, Primal is a framework, a starting point, as I've also said many times before. Part of Primal is your own n=1, how do your respond to dairy for example or potatoes. Again, it isn't a rigid set of rules based on some idealized past that never existed. What it often equates to is eat whole, unprocessed foods, eliminate grains (including corn) and other sources of anti nutrients. The Primal concept is the framework, the lens through which decisions around nutrition may be viewed, informed by science. The science always wins.
As your wife has pointed out, it's impossible to eat the exact diet we evolved eat but the goal of Primal is to move closer to that general ideal. Where we differ in our beliefs of course is the degree to which we evolved to eat animal protein. My reading convinces me we are omnivores and optimal health can be obtained by including animal protein and vegetables in my diet.
Mutt,
Do you realize that Paleo is a phony diet? Not that I am criticizing eating less meat, but there is no way in Hell you could know what people GENERALLY ate 6000 years ago. In a few specific cases remains can be analyzed and things can be surmised from animal bones and ancient seeds and whatever was near sites of ancient human habitations, but as I have said a million times these are all anecdotal. But as you well know, different ancient sites reveal different results. As you also know, there is ample evidence that humans (e.g. Mayans) also ate humans, so you could just as easily argue for canabalism as a dietary choice. You cannot move closer to "that general ideal" when you don't know what the ideal is.
As for us being "omnivores," I have yet to hear a definition of that word that makes sense. Since every herbovore that I know of can eat meat, and since every carnivore I know of can eat plants, what exactly is an omnivore? The word is meaningless. If you define a herbovore as an animal that eats mostly vegetables, and a carnivore as an animal that eats mostly flesh, then that would seem a useable definition, but by that definition, humans are definitely herbovores. If we eat mostly meat, we get chronic health problems. And if these are the definitions you use, what is an omnivore?
So your dietary choices seem to revolve around two undefinable terms,"Primal diet" and "Omnivore." It sounds to me like this is just a cover for "eat anything you want." If I say the most common Primal diet 6000 years ago was "Cheeseburgers and Fries," prove I am wrong.
VegesaurusRex: Is this thread about using language to provoke those of differing viewpoints?? Or is it to actually discuss differing viewpoints intelligently?? Come on... This is not Logic or Intro to Eating 101... we aren't sophomores in college here (well, it seems most of us aren't anyway)... I am actually here to learn, not attack others because I don't like that they eat or don't meat. (Besides, I could give a rip if they don't eat meat... honestly.)0 -
I just realized the name Veggies vs Meat does imply a knock down drag out... LOL. Oh well. Guess it's just all in fun anyway.0
-
Mutt,
And there is another important thing you should know. Both animals and vegetables have been altered genetically for the past 6,000 years by unnatural selection. BIrds like chicken have been genetically selected for breeding by humans who wanted more meat on the bone. Ancient corn, which may have had one or two dozen scrawny kernals per ear, now have hundreds, because we like corn with more kernals. The Paleo diet, even if you knew what it was, even if you knew the percentage of veggies to meat, and even if you knew what people in your exact region ate 6000 years ago would nonetheless be impossible to reproduce because of genetic changes between wild oand cultivated food that have occurred over the years.
Although your diet is perhaps closer to mine than most Americans, you philosohy makes little sense to me.
Yep, you might enjoy Wheat Belly, haven't read it myself but made a splash in the Paleo community recently the premise of which is that wheat is dramatically different now and that has had a deleterious impact on our health. I've mentioned many times in my posts the fact that there isn't a single Paleo diet. It would have varied based on climate and region. I've often wondered if this could help explain the individual differences in our reactions to macro nutrients. Some people claim they try to eat the diet that suits their ancestry, that could tricky for many though. Regardless, Primal is a framework, a starting point, as I've also said many times before. Part of Primal is your own n=1, how do your respond to dairy for example or potatoes. Again, it isn't a rigid set of rules based on some idealized past that never existed. What it often equates to is eat whole, unprocessed foods, eliminate grains (including corn) and other sources of anti nutrients. The Primal concept is the framework, the lens through which decisions around nutrition may be viewed, informed by science. The science always wins.
As your wife has pointed out, it's impossible to eat the exact diet we evolved eat but the goal of Primal is to move closer to that general ideal. Where we differ in our beliefs of course is the degree to which we evolved to eat animal protein. My reading convinces me we are omnivores and optimal health can be obtained by including animal protein and vegetables in my diet.
Mutt,
Do you realize that Paleo is a phony diet? Not that I am criticizing eating less meat, but there is no way in Hell you could know what people GENERALLY ate 6000 years ago. In a few specific cases remains can be analyzed and things can be surmised from animal bones and ancient seeds and whatever was near sites of ancient human habitations, but as I have said a million times these are all anecdotal. But as you well know, different ancient sites reveal different results. As you also know, there is ample evidence that humans (e.g. Mayans) also ate humans, so you could just as easily argue for canabalism as a dietary choice. You cannot move closer to "that general ideal" when you don't know what the ideal is.
As for us being "omnivores," I have yet to hear a definition of that word that makes sense. Since every herbovore that I know of can eat meat, and since every carnivore I know of can eat plants, what exactly is an omnivore? The word is meaningless. If you define a herbovore as an animal that eats mostly vegetables, and a carnivore as an animal that eats mostly flesh, then that would seem a useable definition, but by that definition, humans are definitely herbovores. If we eat mostly meat, we get chronic health problems. And if these are the definitions you use, what is an omnivore?
So your dietary choices seem to revolve around two undefinable terms,"Primal diet" and "Omnivore." It sounds to me like this is just a cover for "eat anything you want." If I say the most common Primal diet 6000 years ago was "Cheeseburgers and Fries," prove I am wrong.
VegesaurusRex: Is this thread about using language to provoke those of differing viewpoints?? Or is it to actually discuss differing viewpoints intelligently?? Come on... This is not Logic or Intro to Eating 101... we aren't sophomores in college here (well, it seems most of us aren't anyway)... I am actually here to learn, not attack others because I don't like that they eat or don't meat. (Besides, I could give a rip if they don't eat meat... honestly.)
Jennie, I don't think using logic is either an insult to anyone or unfair. If I said to you that I eat "what God eats," you have a perfect right to ask me the following questions:
1. What does God eat?
2. How do you know that?
Same thing with Paleo :
1. What was the Paleo diet?
2. How do you know what the Paleo diet really was?
These are fundamental and important questions. How can you say you eat the same diet as so-and-so, if you have no idea what that diet was. I suggest that the Paleo diet should consist of mostly plants and for meat worms, insects, slugs and carrion.0 -
I seem to remember reading something about Vegetarians having a higher conversion rate of ALA to EPA and DHA. I don't remember where I read this, and I don't know if the conversion rate would be high enough to compensate for a lack of EPA and DHA in the diet.
Guess my $.02 isn't very helpful. Carry on, kids.0 -
I seem to remember reading something about Vegetarians having a higher conversion rate of ALA to EPA and DHA. I don't remember where I read this, and I don't know if the conversion rate would be high enough to compensate for a lack of EPA and DHA in the diet.
Guess my $.02 isn't very helpful. Carry on, kids.
Guessing a report of a European study may be what you saw. Here's a report (maybe not the same one you read):
http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Omega-3-ALA-intakes-enough-for-EPA-DPA-levels-for-non-fish-eaters
Again, the best nutrition scientists concur: this is complicated stuff, and the jury is still out about DHA. Until that time, I think there's algal DHA for vegans, and I'm taking it.0
This discussion has been closed.