Science: No evidence that fiber and vegetables required for a healthy diet (blood, avoid)

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Woof

You didn't read my post carefully, Braunwyn.

Sorry, I've read it a couple of times and I'm not getting it.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Woof

Again you're confusing flesh meat with protein. All animal products except butter are high in protein.

No, I'm doing no such thing. It would be helpful if you would remember how this conversation started, I claimed that there are no terrestrial cultures that subsist on a primary meat based based diet and you tried to refute this assertion by mentioning the Masai. But the Masai aren't such a culture, they heavily consume whole milk which derives most of its calories from fat and sugar. The macro-nutrient composition of milk is dramatically different than wild game, wild game is mostly protein with a small amount of fat. The only societies that have had a primarily meat based diet are those consuming fatty marine life. So really, their diet is more fat based than meat based.

Regardless, the human body is "designed" to run off carbohydrates and fat, not protein. Your body can't directly store protein, it can't directly use it for energy either.

Originally Posted by Woof

However I'm a little dubious about the short reference in the article because there are so many people on the Atkins and Paleo diets who report being healthier,

What they "report" and what actually happens long-term are two different things. Have you ever seen a long-term study that shows these diets promote long-term health? I haven't..... Regardless, the people on these diets have a high fat diet, usually fat makes up ~50% of their diet. Protein around 25~30% and the other carbohydrates.

Originally Posted by Woof

As for atherosclerosis, the reason I brought up the Masai is that I'd read long ago that their arteries were cleaner that that of whites on death ......

No, in fact even the children have signs of atherosclerosis. But they seem to avoid developing heart disease, that is likely related to their low lifespan and some protective factors in their diet.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Woof

What do you notice about your list of the countries with the highest meat consumption, User? The thing that jumps right out at me is that they're also mostly in the top rankings for life expectancies.

As the other poster pointed out, there are confounding variables here. Meat is expensive and only the richest countries can in principle afford to consume large amounts of it. But rich nations also have well developed medical systems..... So the correlation is only telling you that wealthy countries have better medical systems. 65% of India's population subsists on less than $2/day.

To make a serious comparison, you need to look at populations that have similar access to health care and other related variables. But when you do this vegetarians are routinely shown to life longer.... Or, more generally, those with low ( < 4 servings a week) to no meat consumption are shown to live longest.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Sorry, I've read it a couple of times and I'm not getting it.

I left out the USA in that comment, right? I did that because there's a stereotype about US citizens only living long lives because they're being kept alive by drugs and respirators. Even though I don't really buy that, I didn't include mentioning the US so that the stereotype wouldn't be used against me.

I'm sorry, but there's no evidence I know of that the entire civilized world is simply keeping old people alive through medication - though older people do use meds, as some degeneration and illness is normal enough as the body's systems run down. That's far from keeping them alive on pills! And on the other hand old people in India use lots of drugs also, that's why their pharmaceuticals are so cheap - there's a tremendous demand and supply for them, which results in economies of scale.

I gave that link to the list of life expectancies for a reason, you might find it interesting to look at it and cross-reference to User's list of meat consumption. Not only do firstworld countries sometimes tend to eat lots of meat (though not all do), but you can see thirdworld nations that traditionally eat plenty of meat, which are higher on the list than second-world India.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Woof

I left out the USA in that comment, right? I did that because there's a stereotype about US citizens only living long lives because they're being kept alive by drugs and respirators. Even though I don't really buy that, I didn't include mentioning the US so that the stereotype wouldn't be used against me.

I'm sorry, but there's no evidence I know of that the entire civilized world is simply keeping old people alive through medication - though older people do use meds, as some degeneration and illness is normal enough as the body's systems run down. That's far from keeping them alive on pills!

It doesn't matter if it's the US. It's any western nation and it's not just meds, tho meds play a huge role. Any person taking blood pressure medication, cholesterol lowering medication, osteo meds, water pills, insulin, you name it, oodles of conditions. Any time a person is taken to the hospital for a heart attack, kidney failure, a cancer, an autoimmune condition, whatever the case. It's an emphatic yes and it is keeping these people alive. This is not even addressing vaccines and cures to disease (via meds) that were once killers. It's not natural. Life expectancy has not gone up naturally. It's due to modern medicine. If anything, western diets are so poor and the western lifestyle has become so sedentary, that our life expectancy would be no where near where it is without modern medicine. We now have obese children developing diabetes.

The evidence, tho, is so abundant that it's undeniable. You are not aware of it. Most people aren't. Most people seem to take modern medicine entirely for granted. If you are interested in learning you can visit the NIH, the WHO, or even better take an epidemiology class.

And on the other hand old people in India use lots of drugs also, that's why their pharmaceuticals are so cheap - there's a tremendous demand and supply for them, which results in economies of scale.

I gave that link to the list of life expectancies for a reason, you might find it interesting to look at it and cross-reference to User's list of meat consumption. Not only do firstworld countries sometimes tend to eat lots of meat (though not all do), but you can see thirdworld nations that traditionally eat plenty of meat, which are higher on the list than second-world India.

I don't see how this is relevant. The over population, poverty, and disease in India simply pull it from any kind of health comparison. All you need to do is look at Vegetarians in the west vs meat eaters in the west. Although, there are caveats there since there tend to be SES differences.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by user_id

No, I'm doing no such thing. It would be helpful if you would remember how this conversation started, I claimed that there are no terrestrial cultures that subsist on a primary meat based based diet and you tried to refute this assertion by mentioning the Masai. But the Masai aren't such a culture, they heavily consume whole milk which derives most of its calories from fat and sugar. The macro-nutrient composition of milk is dramatically different than wild game, wild game is mostly protein with a small amount of fat. The only societies that have had a primarily meat based diet are those consuming fatty marine life. So really, their diet is more fat based than meat based.

Regardless, the human body is "designed" to run off carbohydrates and fat, not protein. Your body can't directly store protein, it can't directly use it for energy either.

.......

I used the Masai as an example of ONE society that lives mainly on ANIMAL (high protein but some fat too) foods. Milk and blood are animal foods that are high in protein (even if milk provides fat and sugar also).

I'm aware that a very low fat, high protein diet is deadly. It's called "rabbit starvation", from the fact that Indians etc have occasionally died when they only had rabbits or birds to eat. But in that case it's the low fat that is the main danger, because as you said it is needed to metabolize protein for energy. But only a tiny amount of fat is needed - the Plains Indians such as the Lakota lived mainly on buffalo (which is a richer), before they were defeated and forced onto reservations. In fact their entire culture was largely based on the buffalo hunts for quite a while, during the time when they first used horses on up to the time they were defeated.

As for directly using protein as energy, there's nothing that directly is used. Even glucose has to be transformed into ATP which is used for it. It's all indirect.

[Sound of Reason]

High protein is said to be linked to cancer. Why in the world would you promote such garbage?

According to some, protein is not easily digested, which causes the body to produce excess amounts of gastric acid. Much of this is absorbed in the cells, leading to the gradual inflammation of tissues. Inflammation is linked to cell malfunction and cancer.

The fact of the matter is that neither high protein or high carbohydrate diets are the way to go, but rather a sensible diet that consist of:

-spring water
-lots of fresh raw fruits and vegetables
-beans (for minimal protein)
-whole grains (good carbohydrate)-rice, in particular
-Seeds, fruits, beans, or berries high in amygdaline (cancer fighter) at reasonable levels.

If one should eat meat, they shouldn't eat more than a 5 ounce portion three times per week, and preferably organic chicken.

[Woof]

People around the world can be healthy eating an amazingly wide variety of foods. We are omnivores.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Woof

I used the Masai as an example of ONE society that lives mainly on ANIMAL (high protein but some fat too) foods.

But we weren't discussing "animal foods", we were discussing meat and you brought them up to refute my claim about there being no terrestrial culture that subsisted on a primary meat based diet. Go look at the conservation.

Originally Posted by Woof

But in that case it's the low fat that is the main danger, because as you said it is needed to metabolize protein for energy.

No, this isn't what I said. To say it again, protein cannot be directly used by your cells for energy (see below), it first has to be converted by the liver into glucose, etc. Rabbit starvation occurs because your liver can only metabolize so much protein in a day, the limit is around 1,200 calories worth of energy, and since your cells can't use the protein directly any additional protein won't provide energy....it will be eliminated.

An active human cannot drive much more than 35% of his/her diet from protein and there are no human cultures that do this, its physiologically impossible. The human body isn't well "designed" to handle high amounts of protein, the fact that there are a few cultures with high protein intake (~30%) doesn't refute that. Nor does the existence of such cultures tell us anything about how healthy such a diet is for general human health.

Also, what you keep saying about the plains Indians just isn't true. Though, you are free to think that the plains Indians some how violated basic human biology.

Originally Posted by Woof

As for directly using protein as energy, there's nothing that directly is used. Even glucose has to be transformed into ATP which is used for it.

You're confusing two different issues. Your cells poses the necessary machinery to convert glucose into energy, that is what I mean by "directly". Protein is a different story, your cells can't convert it into usable energy, instead that has to be done by your liver.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by user_id

But we weren't discussing "animal foods", we were discussing meat and you brought them up to refute my claim about there being no terrestrial culture that subsisted on a primary meat based diet. Go look at the conservation.

As I mentioned, I'm saying "meat" in a loose way to indicate animal products. Please have the manners to accept that.

I've brought up several cultures that live mostly on meat, such as the Lakota before defeat, Alaskan inland natives, the Masai, Mongolians. I also brought up the fact that there have been people on the Atkins and Paleo diets, the former from about the late 50s.

You've simply replied that it is impossible for them to live on their diets, because in your mind there is a hard and fast limit to calories that can be obtained from protein. I don't believe that, largely because of the evidence of such cultures and individual practitioners. I make hypotheses from data, I don't throw out data because it doesn't fit a hypothesis.


[/quote]

Here's my first post in this thread. Notice that I did NOT say the longest-lived nations live only on muscle meat:

Originally Posted by Woof

I'll just say my usual - when I looked at the longevity of nations from around the world, the top ten or so were a very mixed bag. Some of them mostly vegetarian with some fish and a tiny amount of meat such as the Japanese, others such as European countries had traditional diets high in meat and saturated fat.

There's no good evidence that health is significantly related to diet. In my opinion the exception might be highly processed foods, since they are designed to stimulate taste and appetite, and eating a lot of them can result in obesity which is the real problem.

Health is secondary to the impact of public health, sanitation, personal hygiene, and access to good medical care. Those things are MUCH more important than diet. The Japanese and the Swiss lead very long lives, but their diets have little in common - however both are very hygienic peoples, very clean personally and in the environments in which they live.