Did We Climb The Food Chain?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

In this program I look once again at our food choices and see if they are matched by our biology.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amBXdtNdYgU]

[masonman]

Have you read this before?

Many large-scale studies have explored the relationship
between Lp(a) and cardiovascular diseases, consistently
finding an association between high Lp(a) levels and
atherosclerosis, heart attacks, or stroke; Lp(a) has been
validated as a significant, independent risk factor for heart
disease. Despite these significant correlations, the precise
role of Lp(a) in elevating the risk for heart disease and
stroke remains speculative.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/fw12/lipoprotein.html

[Guest darkskyabove]

What's your point?

Is it that humans eat too many animals? Is it that eating the flesh of animals will kill you? Is it that eating animals is wrong (immoral)?

Though I agree that many humans consume far more animal flesh than necessary, what does the research say about someone who consumes limited portions of animal protein, gets regular exercise, and has low stress? Don't just present one side.

Your video comes across as fear-mongering. I don't mean that as a dismissal, for many elements seem based on truth. Presentation is 9/10's of the process. If you only meant to "preach to the choir", preach on...

Do you expect people who consume animal products to change their behaviour based on watching this?

I wouldn't.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

What's your point?

 

As I made clear, the point is that humans didn't climb the food chain.

 

 

Is it that humans eat too many animals? Is it that eating the flesh of animals will kill you? Is it that eating animals is wrong (immoral)?

 

Yes humans clearly eat too much animal food and yes it is killing people prematurely. The moral debate I'll leave for another program

 

 

Though I agree that many humans consume far more animal flesh than necessary, what does the research say about someone who consumes limited portions of animal protein, gets regular exercise, and has low stress? Don't just present one side.

 

No consumption of animal flesh is necessary, it mostly persists as an irrational tradition/habit. I have tried to present the scientific evidence impartially, if you think there was a bias please identify it.

People who eat small amounts (as suggest by my program) of animal matter such as the traditional Okinawans can live long lives fairly free of degenerative illness. It's noteworthy that these populations enjoy additional longevity due to genetic factors. The quantites matter, talking about "limited portions" or "far more" is vague and unhelpful, each person would define their own intake subjectively, that's why numbers are required and I have tried to supply estimates.

 

 

Your video comes across as fear-mongering. I don't mean that as a dismissal, for many elements seem based on truth. Presentation is 9/10's of the process. If you only meant to "preach to the choir", preach on...

Do you expect people who consume animal products to change their behaviour based on watching this?

I wouldn't.

 

I reject your allegation of fear-mongering, the risk of heart attack is not an unsubstantiated concern. A heart attack is a painful, suddent and often violent death for a great number of people, it has many negative impacts.

The purpose of my program is educational, my hope is that it helps some people to improve their food choices and also to counter the ignorance that persists around human biology.

I also greatly dislike your allegation of "preaching" - since when is presenting scientific facts "preaching"? I think you are engaging in some kind of projection.

[Wesley]

People who eat small amounts (as suggest by my program) of animal matter such as the traditional Okinawans can live long lives fairly free of degenerative illness. It's noteworthy that these populations enjoy additional longevity due to genetic factors. The quantites matter, talking about "limited portions" or "far more" is vague and unhelpful, each person would define their own intake subjectively, that's why numbers are required and I have tried to supply estimates.

My understanding is that primitive isolated societies who do not have food industrialization, as well as tribe pre-agriculture often lived long lives without degenerative lifestyle illnesses. There are tribes with diets that were 95% protein, ones that were 85% fat and ones that were 70% carbs in macro nutrient breakdown and they all did not have high instances of cancer, heart disease, tooth decay, allergies, obesity, etc, etc, etc.

Thus, the problem is not necessarily food type, but food quality. When the meat i anot grass fed wild animals, but penned animals eating corn and wheat and getting sick and fat having never moved in its life, then it becomes a problem. Wild fats are fine, but industrialized GMO seed and vegetable oils have massive Omega 6 leading to ratios in the average movern human as high as 60:1 Omega 6: Omega 3, when 3:1 - 1:1 was the historical average. Carbs arent bad, until you have GMO wheat and corn, not to mention the ridiculous amount of high fructose corn syrup that can be very difficult to fully avoid.

I would say that eating meat is negative, because the meat that the average person sees at their local grocery store is garbage. I also would say that hunting for meat or eating local grass- fed animals would lead to higher meat prices, more sustainable meat production, and less meat consumption overall.

Unfortunately the video or program or whatever is blocked at work so I can't see/listen to whatever it is (it just looks like blank white space to me) but when I get home I will give it a listen and would like to apologizr if what I have detailed here was an exact repeat of what you said.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

My understanding is that primitive isolated societies who do not have food industrialization, as well as tribe pre-agriculture often lived long lives without degenerative lifestyle illnesses. There are tribes with diets that were 95% protein, ones that were 85% fat and ones that were 70% carbs in macro nutrient breakdown and they all did not have high instances of cancer, heart disease, tooth decay, allergies, obesity, etc, etc, etc.

 

That's interesting, can you give any credible scientific sources for this claim?

 

Thus, the problem is not necessarily food type, but food quality. When the meat i anot grass fed wild animals, but penned animals eating corn and wheat and getting sick and fat having never moved in its life, then it becomes a problem. Wild fats are fine, but industrialized GMO seed and vegetable oils have massive Omega 6 leading to ratios in the average movern human as high as 60:1 Omega 6: Omega 3, when 3:1 - 1:1 was the historical average. Carbs arent bad, until you have GMO wheat and corn, not to mention the ridiculous amount of high fructose corn syrup that can be very difficult to fully avoid.

 

The problem is that meat contains fats, proteins and other substances that are bad for humans. I refer you to Dr Gregers youtube channel for the scientific literature on this. This is true irrespective of the origins. We are not a species adapted to eat meat which is what the program demonstrates and therefore it should come as no surprise that meat is not good for us.

 

[Wesley]

Taking a Large Sample of Primitive Tribes and What They Ate

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n1s/abs/1601353a.html

 

Method and Results:[/b] In this review we have analyzed the 13
known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate that animal
food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source, while gathered
plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is consistent with a
more recent, comprehensive review of the entire ethnographic data (n=229
HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered
plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for animal foods. Other
evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid collagen
tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain
enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of
meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat consumption in
Western diets is frequently associated with increased risk for CVD
mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies, who consume
the majority of their energy from animal food, have been shown to be
relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD.

Conclusion:
The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have necessarily
elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the hypolipidemic
effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58%
energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in Western
diets, it is likely that important qualitative differences in fat
intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and PUFA and a lower -6/-3
fatty acid ratio, would have served to inhibit the development of CVD.
Other dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants,
fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake may have
operated synergistically with lifestyle characteristics (more exercise,
less stress and no smoking) to further deter the development of CVD.

 

http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/59677

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6505%281999%298:1%3C11::AID-EVAN6%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract;jsessionid=D08A131ABD18E4913BC39ABCAB2EC45E.d02t02

http://references.260mb.com/Paleontologia/Aiello1995.pdf

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/23/2/e20.short

 

Kitavan Diet as a High Carb Primitive Tribe

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.1993.tb00986.x/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kitava+AND+%22Lindeberg+S%22

http://www.healwithfood.org/diet/kitavan-diet-foods.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049599902585

 

This is just what I found in brief searching, though I'm sure there probably is more out there.

[Wesley]

I also would like to briefly go over that evolutionary development is a good way of establishing theories, however it doesn't mean it it true. For instance, I am of European descent, however coconut oil is very good for me even though it is novel to my bloodline. It is possible to have novel food sources that are beneficial or neutral. You establish a theory by looking to the past, but through testing and science you begin to try to prove out the theory as true or not. It is not true that an identical diet as our ancestors ate would be the optimal diet for us (or for them, really).

I am sure you are already aware of this though.

[fingolfin]

It seems to make sense intuitively that we experimented heavily with food sources throughout our history, and as adaptable omnivores simply took whatever we could get and ate as efficiently as possible within a given ecology. So, our diet has always been shifting, depending on the given culture in question, our location and availability of food sources to a given populace. Basically, we just eat differently now to before, that's all. Some things are "better" or "worse" for some, other things are "better" or "worse" for others, and vice versa. There's no perfect universal rule beyond the basic minimum requirements for sustenance.

Eskimo diets are largely meat based, and some remaining indigenous tribes I've seen seem largely vegetarian but will eat meat (and honey!) where they can get it more as a delicacy. I suspect that'smore to do with availability of large game.

Anyways, I still think meat was more popular because it's just so efficient, pre-agriculture. You kill a beast, cook it, and eat. It has protein and works fast. You can carry big chunks of it around. Agriculture (later, cereal crops) had a massive effect sure, but then again so did mass dairy farming as well.

I agree that quality and freshness are a large part of it as well. Then again, what we potentially eat in the way of polluted food (e.g. mercury pollution) we make up for in general health and well-being, i.e. prolonged and improved lives through medicine, more choice and availability in food in general.

Great thread!

[masonman]

 

Have you read this before?

Many large-scale studies have explored the relationship
between Lp(a) and cardiovascular diseases, consistently
finding an association between high Lp(a) levels and
atherosclerosis, heart attacks, or stroke; Lp(a) has been
validated as a significant, independent risk factor for heart
disease. Despite these significant correlations, the precise
role of Lp(a) in elevating the risk for heart disease and
stroke remains speculative.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/fw12/lipoprotein.html

 

 

To clarify this: The idea that eating meat is a huge contributor to heart disease is sort of being overshadowed by the massive effect Lp(a) seems to have on causing heart disease, and that consumption of Vitamin C and Lysine do much more to help prevent heart disease than concerns about meat consumption ("Unfortunately, neither diet nor exercise has been found
to lower Lp(a) levels").

There is also an issue that there is quite some debate over the notion that all high cholesterol leads to heart disease:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/the-problem-isnt-cholesterol-its-the-wrong-kind-and-oxidation-of-cholesterol.html

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Yes humans clearly eat too much animal food and yes it is killing people prematurely.

 

 

I'd like to see some statistical evidence for vegetarian/vegan health and longevity.

 

[Wesley]

 

Then again, what we potentially eat in the way of polluted food (e.g. mercury pollution) we make up for in general health and well-being, i.e. prolonged and improved lives through medicine, more choice and availability in food in general.

 

 

Just as a quick note, yes mercury is toxic, but only in isolation of selenium. Selenium in sufficient quantities to neutralize mercury toxicity exists in all fish except I think whale blubber (or some other fish I have never even thought of eating). Thus, to a mild extent at least, mercury isn't that large of an issue.

http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/articledetail.aspx?id=4294995864

[Wesley]

 

I'd like to see some statistical evidence for vegetarian/vegan health and longevity.

 

 

I have not done extensive research, but I did see a documentary that laid out two studies arguing for veganism.

The first was the China study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China-Cornell-Oxford_Project

 

The China-Cornell-Oxford Project was a large observational study
conducted throughout the 1980s in rural China, jointly funded by
Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of
China.^[1] In 1991 The New York Times called it "the Grand Prix of epidemiology."^[2]

The first two major studies were led by T. Colin Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell, who summarized the results in his book, The China Study
(2004). Other lead researchers were Chen Junshi, Deputy Director of
Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene at the Chinese Academy of
Preventive Medicine, Richard Peto of the University of Oxford, and Li Junyao of the China Cancer Institute.^[3]

The study examined the diets, lifestyle and disease characteristics of 6,500 people in 65 rural Chinese counties, comparing the prevalence of disease characteristics, excluding causes of death such as accidents.^[4]

 

 

The study examined mortality rates from 48 forms of cancer and other
chronic diseases from 1973 to 75 in 65 counties in China, and correlated
them with 1983–84 dietary surveys and bloodwork from 6,500 people, 100
from each county. It concluded that counties with a high consumption of
animal-based foods in 1983–84 were more likely to have had higher death
rates from "Western" diseases as of 1973–75, while the opposite was true
for counties that ate more plant foods in 1983–84. The study was
conducted in those counties because they had genetically similar
populations that tended, over generations, to live in the same way in
the same place, and eat diets specific to those regions.^[7]

 

Of course, it is a piece of evidence, but it is only correlative not causative. For those who may not see the problem with this, here is a silly example:

It has been known for years that Ice cream consumption is heavily correlated with shark attacks. Those who hear this for the first time are confused and ask something like "does the ice cream make you smell sweeter causing you to be irresitible to sharks?" This is not the case. Rather, it is correlative and both things are caused by hot weather. In the summer, more people eat ice cream, and more people go swimming (aka more people potentially encounter sharks).

Thus, there could be many differences. For instance, I have already conceded that there are problems with industrial meat, which I am sure most of the meat in China is. There could be cultural differences in occupations or something else that was not measured that would lead to more excercise or being happier in general.

I also concede that a vegan lifestyle of natural foods is a vast improvement over the Standard American Diet (SAD) {haha, the abbreviation is SAD} however, this does not necesitate that meat is bad.

 

The other study I do not remmeber as much, but they fed pure casien protein (found ony in dairy) to rats and saw a massive spike in either heart disease or cancer or something. Which is true, however all dairy also has whey protein which counteracts the negative effects of cassein. Thus, this test was sort of stacking the deck. Just like my earlier post about selenium counteracting mercury. You could prove fish is bad and shouldnt be eaten by feeding mercury to rats, but selenium counteracts this, not to mention other possible positive benefits.

I will say that many adults should likely not drink milk that is pasteurized, however for very few people is the problem the cassien content. Lactose (as pasteurization gets rid of the lactase enzymes) is much more likely to be the problem. Thus, milk consumption may be negative, but cheese, butter, kefir, and other dairy products may have less lactose or no lactose by the time you get to clarified butter would see no issues at all.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

I also concede that a vegan lifestyle of natural foods is a vast improvement over the Standard American Diet (SAD) {haha, the abbreviation is SAD} however, this does not necesitate that meat is bad.

 

 

Firstly, thanks for that information. Second, I tend to follow the same logic you are presenting here.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Taking a Large Sample of Primitive Tribes and What They Ate

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n1s/abs/1601353a.html

 

Method and Results: In this review we have analyzed the 13
known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate that animal
food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source, while gathered
plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is consistent with a
more recent, comprehensive review of the entire ethnographic data (n=229
HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered
plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for animal foods. Other
evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid collagen
tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain
enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of
meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat consumption in
Western diets is frequently associated with increased risk for CVD
mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies, who consume
the majority of their energy from animal food, have been shown to be
relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD.

Conclusion:
The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have necessarily
elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the hypolipidemic
effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58%
energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in Western
diets, it is likely that important qualitative differences in fat
intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and PUFA and a lower -6/-3
fatty acid ratio, would have served to inhibit the development of CVD.
Other dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants,
fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake may have
operated synergistically with lifestyle characteristics (more exercise,
less stress and no smoking) to further deter the development of CVD.

 

 

The link between fat consumption, cholesterol elevation and CVD is hard core scientific fact, more so than evolutionary theory. Deny if you wish, but the evidence is clear and plentiful.

Cordain isn't totally above board with his paper. You can achieve cholesterol lowering along with high fat consumption when carrying a high parasite load or suffering various illnesses.

My key point in any case was that atherosclerosis is a disease of plant eating species (with artificially elevated cholesterol levels), and that animals that are adapted to higher fat diets don't get atherosclerosis. So far no one has refuted this. 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbB65uN9goU]

 

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

 

Yes humans clearly eat too much animal food and yes it is killing people prematurely.

 

I'd like to see some statistical evidence for vegetarian/vegan health and longevity.

 

That's another whole topic. My video was about eating a primitive diet high fruit/veg like our early primate ancestors, not necessarily vegetarian, but still minimal amounts of animal food.

Morbidity stats for vegetarians vary, but studies often don't show much benefit in terms of longevity. Replacing meat with plant oils isn't going to get someone very far healthwise, and unfortunately many vegetarians are simply replacing meat with other unhealthy things that we are not adapted to.

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

"Occasionally I see things that I don't agree with and instead of repeat myself endlessly feel a need to have my say".

Is this for real or, does it only apply to what YOU disagree with.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Here's what you are really up against:

[wdiaz03]

... My video was about eating a primitive diet high fruit/veg like our early primate ancestors, not necessarily vegetarian, but still minimal amounts of animal food....

 

 

How early are you talking about? One would think that early humans probably ate more meat that veggies and fruits...Animals are around all the time, but veggies and fruits mght only come by once a year and don't stick around long since other animals might get to them first.

[LovePrevails]

The American Heart Association says over 90% of cases of heart disease could have been prevented by vegetarian diet.