Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

This decades “health woo”

Options
1…1213151718…20

Replies

  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Real estate developer Steve Wynn does, according to many media reports, identify as a vegan. He's also a billionaire. I do not believe he is funding any health research, although I could be mistaken.

    Biz Stone, from Twitter, is a billionaire and is a vegan (at least of 2016). No idea what his foundation funds, but he appears to give a fair amount away.

    Elizabeth Holmes, of Theranos infamy, *was* a billionaire and claimed to be vegan. She's absolutely not a billionaire any longer, no idea if she's still vegan or even if her initial claim was really true (she was very into image promotion and idolized Steve Jobs, which may have factored into her claims to live on green juice).

    There are probably at least one or two other people who are billionaires and also identify as vegan, but it's not exactly a huge group and none of them appear to be dedicated to pouring their funds into deceiving people into giving up meat.

    My point exactly. Somehow I doubt two billionaires are funding all the environmental research in universities all over the world, most of which has been going on for many years, and suppressing any research that opposes it. You would need a shadow cabal of dozens of evil vegan billionaires for that. And anyway, the better way to enact the evil vegan conspiracy would be to just pay off governments to get rid of agricultural subsidies on meat and dairy so people have to pay the full market value which would be something like 3-4x higher than current prices.

    Elizabeth Holmes was never actually a billionaire. She lied about the company's valuation which led to falsely inflated claims of her net worth.

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    One of the senators from my state is a vegan, but he's certainly not a billionaire.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.

    They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.

    I don't know how we have people eating the same quantity of meat, eggs, and dairy that they're currently eating without using modern farming practices. So focusing on the consumption, if one is concerned about the environmental impact, is likely the right call.

    I discussed it as area appropriate. Beef makes sense where I live. A lot of fruit, coconuts and seafood is not. Some area would get more beef than others. If I lived on the coast, I would expect people to eat more fish in that area.

    I think a universal guideline to cut back on all meat for all for the sake of possibly improving the environment, with our addressing farming practices or food processing, or shopping, is fully.

    Humans can't eat much on the grasslands unless it is grazers, shipped in foods or use intensive farming practices... and I do agree that current practices are a problem, but I think that should be fixed before global dietary guidelines are given
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    One of the senators from my state is a vegan, but he's certainly not a billionaire.

    One of the former senators from my state (4 terms so served 24 years until he retired in 2013) is a vegetarian and close to a billionaire (especially after he sold the Milwaukee Bucks for $600 million) and even chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Never pushed his vegetarianism on the US people even though he was in a position to do so.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ) I did say
    At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
    And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.

    Citation needed.

    This is now common knowledge.
    And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.

    It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.

    I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.
    You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.

    Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.

    I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.
    I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.

    Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?

    Strawman.
    I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?
    I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.

    Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.

    You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.

    EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.

    I am 44.
    More sugar than beef. LOL

    That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).

    But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.

    I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...

    Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?

    I said Willet was pro vegan and vegetarian. Low fat low meat plant based has been his agenda for a long time.

    The Stordalen Foundation is the main contributor.
    https://eatforum.org/partner/stordalen-foundation/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjn8uuvyv_fAhWpGTQIHXz9Ct0QFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3o4xHFqjhYzys-pf1dpwwL&ampcf=1
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,392 MFP Moderator
    Options
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Nvketomom is thinking there is a larg majority have IR based on projective statistics. 8% of the population have been diagnosed with IR or diabetes. But they project that 32% are "undiagnosed" which means they might get IR sometime in their lifetime if they don't take actions.

    Having said that, if you need a citation that those with actual IR benefit from a low carb or keto diet, than you haven't done much research. Its pretty well established that those with IR benefit from lowering carbs.

    Really?

    https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/diet-eating-physical-activity
    "The key to eating with diabetes is to eat a variety of healthy foods from all food groups, in the amounts your meal plan outlines. (and they go on to list all the healthy food groups). Also "Use oils when cooking food instead of butter, cream, shortening, lard, or stick margarine."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820526/
    "Nutritional recommendations for the treatment of patients with T2DM and subjects at high risk of developing diabetes generally recommend weight loss of at least 7% in overweight/obese patients; restriction of the intake of saturated fats to <7% of energy intake; a cholesterol intake <200 mg/day; restriction of trans fat intake; a high-fiber intake of at least 14 g/1000 kcal; in newer guidelines, lifted restrictions of protein intake, for example, protein intake of 15–20% of energy as long as kidney function is normal. It is also assumed that the use of low glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) carbohydrates may provide a modest additional benefit for glycemic control over that observed when total carbohydrate is considered alone...."

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/in-depth/diabetes-diet/art-20044295
    "A diabetes diet is a healthy-eating plan that's naturally rich in nutrients and low in fat and calories. Key elements are fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In fact, a diabetes diet is the best eating plan for most everyone."

    I will agree that people probably see benefits from low-carb diets because most people in the West eat a lot of refined flours and sugars as opposed to whole grains, and if you get rid of all of those, your health will improve. But I don't see anything from reputable sources indicating people with IR or diabetes have to cut out or severely reduce whole grains and eat more meat and animal fat.

    Also it's worth noting that 85% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight and many times losing weight reverses diabetes regardless of how the weight is lost. Being overweight doesn't have much to do with the specific foods you are eating, just the total amount. When people say low-carb diets "reverse" diabetes because usually it's just that they lost the weight. Generally the weight loss happens because of a restriction of food choices. I'm not even overweight and I know I would eat under TDEE if I could only eat meat and vegetables because really, how much meat can a person eat in a day (or afford to eat...especially if they're only eating free-range grass-fed meat like everyone on the internet claims they are doing). It's similar when people say WFPB diets reversed their diabetes (I've actually met people IRL who have said this) -- it's most likely because of the restriction of food options.

    I am fully aware that the majority of people with type II diabetes are overweight and that reversing symptoms is largely achieved by weight loss. This is some basic information. Weight loss and exercise both increase insulin sensitivity which improves our ability to utilize carbs. Reducing carbs helps manage blood glucose. Again, basic science. A combination of all 3 is going to be the most effective approach. So from an efficacy standpoint, controlling all three variables will yield greater results than if you don't control carbs.


    https://drc.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000354


    "The magnitude of this greater glucose-lowering effect of low to moderate carbohydrate diets in the first year of intervention was related to the reported intake of carbohydrates measured as energy% (figure 4) (eight trials, R −0.85, p<0.01). The effect on glycemic control increased with the reported degree of carbohydrate restriction. The reported intake of carbohydrate in grams was available in four of these studies15 ,18–20 and ranged from 57 to 198 g in the LCD groups, and from 133 to 205 g in the HCD groups. The two studies with the lowest daily carbohydrate intake in the LCD groups, 57 and 58 g, respectively, found the largest reduction in HbA1c (figure 4).18 ,19 Substituting carbohydrate with high fat, high protein, or both had no significant impact on the effect."

    Most diabetics will also tell you that limiting carbs will provide greater stability to their glucose reading. And often recommended to keep their carb levels below 150g.

    Also, you have to consider success and individual compliance. Considering a lot of the evidence is more recent regarding low carb diets and the benefits for insulin resistance and diabetes, companies/research institutes are looking for the highest probability of success. So instead of cutting foods (which often leads to binging or non compliance), they look for a more moderate approach. A body in a disease stage is going to need a multifaceted approach to address individual preference. So having them focus on low GI fruits over high GI ones, or limiting/excluding grains in favor of fatty fish, are all basic strategies. Also, there still is conflicting evidence regarding how harmful or beneficial SFAs are. So its difficult for people recommend a diet high in fats, because people often choose the wrong types of fats.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ) I did say
    At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
    And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.

    Citation needed.

    This is now common knowledge.
    And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.

    It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.

    I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.
    You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.

    Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.

    I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.
    I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.

    Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?

    Strawman.
    I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?
    I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.

    Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.

    You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.

    EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.

    I am 44.
    More sugar than beef. LOL

    That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).

    But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.

    I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...

    Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?

    Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!

    I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?

    That is my problem with the diet. They are recommending a global diet based on environmental issues and not what is best for health for all.

    I think it's pretty well accepted that trans fats aren't good for human health. That's not an environmental concern, it's actually based on research.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    The whole commission is coming at this from an environmental, sustainable angle.

    Funding comes from Stordalen foundation, which focuses primarily on climate change.

    Funding also comes from the Stockholm Reslience Center, which focuses on sustainability, and from Wellcome Trust, which focuses on health initiatives.

    Here's the thing. Gunhild Stordalen claims to care about the environment. As far as we can access claims like this, we have no particular reason to doubt she actually cares as she gives money away in support of this cause. She also has adopted a diet that is consistent with what many experts consider to be a way to reduce human impact on the world, limiting or eliminating the consumption or meat.

    Now we can debate whether this is the best diet, but I don't think the fact that she has personally adopted such a diet is a sign of nefariousness. It's actually a sign that she does have some genuine concern for the issue at hand. At this point in human history, many people are taking concrete steps to minimize or adjust their impact to the planet and it makes sense that someone who cares enough about the issue to give away significant money would be in the group. It would be odder if she hadn't adopted specific dietary practices of some kind related to the environment.

    I don't see this as a reason to specifically doubt the work of her foundation or the causes it is funding, although there may be legitimate issues with their work to discuss. I just don't think "But they associate with vegetarians" is a compelling argument.

  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    You build a company valuated at $9 billion due to deceptive claims, its value is still $9 billion until your deception is discovered and nobody is willing to engage with your company on those terms anymore. At that point, your net worth is likely to quickly plummet (as was the case with Holmes). But it doesn't make the previous valuation any less real . . . the market is just a shared perception of what a company is worth, for good or bad.

    Well that kind of gets into semantics but the point is the revenues of her company were much smaller than she claimed.
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    That is my problem with the diet. They are recommending a global diet based on environmental issues and not what is best for health for all.

    The WHO predicts climate change will cause 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 (of course, they will be mostly poor people who can't afford grass-fed beef and maybe you don't care about them) and it is already causing additional deaths now. Limiting climate change is definitely best for health.

    https://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/quantitative-risk-assessment/en/

    And they have said recently 250,000 is a conservative estimate.

    Also just because some rich people are hypocrites doesn't mean that climate science is a lie. Believe me, scientific researchers are generally not rich at all (in fact I left the sciences in order to make a living wage) and definitely aren't as a general rule getting money poured in from rich shadow billionaires.
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I am fully aware that the majority of people with type II diabetes are overweight and that reversing symptoms is largely achieved by weight loss. This is some basic information. Weight loss and exercise both increase insulin sensitivity which improves our ability to utilize carbs. Reducing carbs helps manage blood glucose. Again, basic science. A combination of all 3 is going to be the most effective approach. So from an efficacy standpoint, controlling all three variables will yield greater results than if you don't control carbs.


    https://drc.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000354


    "The magnitude of this greater glucose-lowering effect of low to moderate carbohydrate diets in the first year of intervention was related to the reported intake of carbohydrates measured as energy% (figure 4) (eight trials, R −0.85, p<0.01). The effect on glycemic control increased with the reported degree of carbohydrate restriction. The reported intake of carbohydrate in grams was available in four of these studies15 ,18–20 and ranged from 57 to 198 g in the LCD groups, and from 133 to 205 g in the HCD groups. The two studies with the lowest daily carbohydrate intake in the LCD groups, 57 and 58 g, respectively, found the largest reduction in HbA1c (figure 4).18 ,19 Substituting carbohydrate with high fat, high protein, or both had no significant impact on the effect."

    Most diabetics will also tell you that limiting carbs will provide greater stability to their glucose reading. And often recommended to keep their carb levels below 150g.

    Also, you have to consider success and individual compliance. Considering a lot of the evidence is more recent regarding low carb diets and the benefits for insulin resistance and diabetes, companies/research institutes are looking for the highest probability of success. So instead of cutting foods (which often leads to binging or non compliance), they look for a more moderate approach. A body in a disease stage is going to need a multifaceted approach to address individual preference. So having them focus on low GI fruits over high GI ones, or limiting/excluding grains in favor of fatty fish, are all basic strategies. Also, there still is conflicting evidence regarding how harmful or beneficial SFAs are. So its difficult for people recommend a diet high in fats, because people often choose the wrong types of fats.

    From this study that I previously posted (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820526/):
    However, long-term adherence to any diet is a key factor for maintained weight loss [67], with many studies indicating that initially successful high-protein intake is often not sustained in the longer term, even in the setting of controlled dietary interventions [49, 50, 68]. Therefore, relevant long-term adherence to these diets with sustained weight loss may be difficult to achieve. More importantly, evidence is accumulating casting doubt on the long-term safety of these diets, with novel data from longer term prospective cohort studies indicating potential adverse effects on both the risk of developing T2DM [69] and cardiovascular risk factors [70]."

    "However, recent studies also indicate that high-protein diets could have detrimental effects on health in the longer term [114, 115]. Wang and colleagues have investigated the metabolite profiles in 2.422 normoglycemic individuals who were followed for 12 years. Of these participants, 201 developed diabetes [116]. Five branched chain and aromatic amino acids (isoleucine, leucine, valine, tyrosine, and phenylalanine) showed significant associations with future diabetes, and results were replicated in an independent, prospective cohort. [116]. Authors proposed amino acid profiling as a potential predictor for future diabetes, but a potential causal link between dietary protein intake and future diabetes cannot be excluded. In fact, there is increasing evidence that longer term high-protein intake may have detrimental effects on insulin resistance [68, 117–123], diabetes risk [69], and the risk of developing cardiovascular disease [70].

    Therefore, the long-term safety of high-protein diets remains to be investigated [46, 69, 70]. In the Diet, Obesity and Genes (DiOGenes) trial weight regain at 1 year was only marginally lower with a higher protein intake [46]. Insulin sensitivity was not measured in DiOGenes but both the high-protein and the high GI diets significantly increased markers of low-grade inflammation [124], which could result in worsening of insulin resistance.

    Below 150g isn't low-carb as compared to keto or carnivore. And it doesn't mean you have to eat more meat or specifically more red meat. There are people doing vegetarian and even vegan low-carb diets. But so far it seems like the evidence is limited on the long-term health effects of low-carb diets. Definitely not enough evidence to say "people with insulin resistance should live off red meat and water" like the poster in question advocates. Or to say "the health benefits of eating tons of meat outweigh the health benefits of limiting climate change to 2 degrees C of warming."


  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    You build a company valuated at $9 billion due to deceptive claims, its value is still $9 billion until your deception is discovered and nobody is willing to engage with your company on those terms anymore. At that point, your net worth is likely to quickly plummet (as was the case with Holmes). But it doesn't make the previous valuation any less real . . . the market is just a shared perception of what a company is worth, for good or bad.

    Well that kind of gets into semantics but the point is the revenues of her company were much smaller than she claimed.




    Yes, but until people discovered that fact, she was a billionaire.

    For some companies, technology companies in particular, a big part of the value is considered to be the potential for future profit. People were not giving the company money because of claims for specific revenue for that year, they were attempting to buy a share of the profits they anticipated for the future.

    For me to claim that Holmes was a billionaire at one point isn't a defense of her business practices or Theranos as a company. She's a fraud and the company is worse than worthless. It's just a fact. At one point she held 50% of a company valued at $9 billion. The value was based in deception, but it was worth that until people discovered what was going on.
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    If you read what I wrote, compliance is key. For anyone to succeed, they have to be able to adhere. It's why I pointed out, most agencies aren't willing to recommend highly restrictive diets. Why? Because compliance tends to be terrible as compared to having more focused approach on limiting foods. It's also worth noting that most of the benefits of "diets" are actually driven by weight loss and exercise. But for short term improvements, especially if one is in very poor health, would benefit from lowering carbohydrates. At the very least, do it until one is able to lose weight and improve metabolic markers.

    Well, yeah...who wants to eat nothing but meat and vegetables for the rest of their life? But that's the point. If people aren't going to adhere to a diet, and worse will go out and binge on sugar and refined carbs after they can't take it anymore, then it's not a realistic diet. If a diet is going to contribute to tanking the ecosystem which will cause even worse health effects long-term, then it's not a realistic diet. If most of the benefits are from weight loss and exercise, which I agree with and is exactly what I said before, then there's no point adopting this diet. The carnivore and keto people are not generally advocating it as a short-term fix.

    I also don't see doctors advocating carnivore or keto for diabetes and IR. If they do advocate a low-carb diet, which is not always, it's generally a moderate low-carb diet where whole grains and legumes are allowed, which doesn't necessarily mean eating more animal products but does mean changing which foods are eaten. Usually though the recommendations are just to cut out the usual "unhealthy" culprits, lose weight, and exercise. The evidence that I presented indicates that low-carb diets, and especially the extreme low-carb diets being discussed, are generally not necessary to manage diabetes and may raise additional health concerns.

    I guess the question is what "low-carb" means in this debate. I agree carbs *may* need to be limited to some extent for some people that have diabetes (though again, not all). But "low carb diet" in the public lexicon currently means "no grains or legumes." A 150g carbs/day diet would have room for whole grains and legumes and could even be done vegetarian or vegan.
    Additionally, I never advocated for keto or carnivore. Any diet that you are unable to get adequate fiber, is ridiculous. There are tons of meta-analyses showing the benefits of fibrous foods. Fibrous foods in general have been correlated to improved mortality, reduced risk of CVD, stroke and many cancers. This is personally why I am a huge believer in diets in whole grains, fruits, veggies, adequate levels of proteins (1.5-2.2.g/kg) and fats (especially Omega 3s PUFA and MUFAs). In fact, while I cut, I limit fats because they aren't satiating compared to proteins and fiber. Also, the thermogenic effects of protein and fiber are nice boost to metabolism, albeit small.

    Furthermore, not once did I advocate for an all meat based or largely meat based diets. There are plenty of plant based proteins that are healthy and beneficial. Personally, I recommend limiting SFA, just like added sugar, because there is no benefit from them. In fact, I am running a n=1 this year. I am working to reduce SFA and replace it with more fish and plant based proteins (like yakisoba). I am also working on incorporating more veggies.

    So then I'm not sure what we are debating about? This is exactly what I am saying. I was responding to the poster who eats a carnivore diet (they posted about this on a carnivore diet thread recently) and insists that people with IR should eat diets comprised mostly or entirely of animal products. This person insists that beef is good for the environment if farmed sustainably, despite a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. They also said in their original post on this thread as examples of "woo":
    That we need grains.

    Fibre's necessity.

    Basically this person is presenting prime examples of woo as "the truth."

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ) I did say
    At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
    And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.

    Citation needed.

    This is now common knowledge.
    And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.

    It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.

    I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.
    You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.

    Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.

    I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.
    I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.

    Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?

    Strawman.
    I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?
    I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.

    Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.

    You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.

    EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.

    I am 44.
    More sugar than beef. LOL

    That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).

    But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.

    I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...

    Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?

    Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!

    I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?

    Yeah, the quotes I saw just now were him talking favorably about the Mediterranean-style diet, specifically including fish. He does seem to come down on the side on the average person eating *more* plant foods, but that obviously doesn't equate to veganism.

    I wish I had more time for this today.

    Willet is not vegan but is pro vegan and vegetarian. I believe he eats vegetarian but us not 100% strict about it.

    This article from a few years ago see to portray him accurately. He is a very well known epidemiogist who is excellent at correlating health issues from data, and has heavily influenced US food recommendations for many years.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/07/27/what-eat-harvard-walter-willett-thinks-has-answers/5WL3MIVdzHCN2ypfpFB6WP/amp.html

    I dont agree with all of his conclusions (like meat causing t2d or people keeping sodium under 1500mg) but he is an epidemiologist who shows possible correlation and not causation, so that makes sense.

Categories