Is Nutrition Philosphical?

[Jakethehuman]

Yes, the body does produce cholesterol. Where do you find this "scientific fact" that cholesterol harms health? Cholesterol is actually a healing agent produced in response to inflammation. It's like saying "science proves scabs are harmful." *Even so, there is no evidence that dietary cholesterol increases blood cholesterol levels.*

 

People don't want to change their diets/lifestyles unless/until they know they're doing the right thing. Militant vegan propaganda is not scientific proof. Again I ask, where is your ironclad proof of the link between meat and cancer?

[Jakethehuman]

Some philosophical nutrition advice:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIaCicdTpjE

More sophist crap, do you have an actual response to my arguments or the links I provided that you asked for? Quite an interesting approach to ask for links then ignore them. These guys do a great job of building straw men, he says bacon is good and that scientists have said to eat 400 pounds of wheat a day? The points they are arguing against are in no way related to reality, let alone to my own views.

[AccuTron]

Jake thanks for the links; I'll be reviewing them.  For now, one thing.  Being on the toilet for 5 minutes is still too much.  Any animal that takes that long in the wild, is sick.  Or ate a Brillo pad.  I noted that one of those links mentioned cancer in colon vs rectum.  Well, if something bad is stuck in there, it's going to hyper expose the rectal tissues.  So I see an issue that is not as clarified as it might be, at least on first pass.

We are all different one way or another.  For myself, I've had historically elevated levels of blood stuff, including during the Haagen-Daz ice cream eating years, and later with an improved diet, less but still "elevated" according to what I call alarmism.  Yet three body scans show ZERO defects, all normal healthy systems.  I shudder to think what condition I'd be in if I'd followed the scare tactics and downed Lipitor.

[AccuTron]

Report in progress:  I'm looking at those links re cancer and meat.  So far, I'm finding that it's weak. Animal studies used mega doses.  And this:Risk of colorectal cancer in relation to frequency and total amount of red meat consumption. Systematic review and meta-analysis

"Although numerous epidemiological studies have aimed to confirm the positive relationship between the consumption of red meat and formation of colorectal cancer, their results were not strongly convincing [6–10]. The evaluation of red meat intake in colorectal cancer development was very difficult, due to many environmental factors modulating colorectal carcinogenesis, which has been reviewed recently [1]."

 

I also see claims that it's related to how many doses of red meat per day, not the absolute amount per se.  50g per day as a test level, seen here and there, was chosen arbitrarily, as there seemed to be no clear cut off.

 

The meta-analysis of these studies showed that red meat intake more frequently than once per day induces colonic cancer (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09–1.71; Figure 4) as well as rectal cancer (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24–1.64; Figure 5).

 

 

This is perhaps the smoking gun, pardon the BBQ pun:  

 

A review of the literature on this subject suggests a positive association between the consumption of red meat and colon and/or rectal cancer. High intake of red meat causes an increasing concentration of biliary acids in the bowel content. The biliary acids can upset the balance between the maturing and apoptotic cells [10, 21]. The products of their metabolism, including deoxycholic acid, have the property of destroying cytoplasmic membrane in epithelial cells of the large intestine. That process indirectly results in increased cell proliferation and their higher sensitivity to mutagenic factors; consequently, it may be the cause of malignant transformations [21–24]. The process of neoplasm formation with the participation of the biliary acids may also be associated with their ability to activate cyclooxygenase 2, which may, in turn, lead to excessive prostaglandin production. This results in resistance to apoptosis and stimulates malignancy and invasiveness [22].

 

What I keep seeing is a dose relationship.  Above it says "high intake."  Elsewhere I see that what data there is suggests it's more about how many times a day, vs absolute amount.  (RED meat we're talking about, not the birds, don't know about pork.)  

Consider a home near a busy urban street.  On a normal day, lots of cars, but they move well, and fumes into the home are minimal, due to wind dispersion, car velocity, etc.  Now consider a traffic jam or slowdown.  The fumes become horrendous in the home, and lungs and heart suffer.  Is the bowel like this?  Somebody taking minutes on the poop platform is testimony to that person's bowel having chronic traffic jams inside.  (By the way, anyone see the ads for SquattyPotty?)

 

More: 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, formed during high temperature processing of meat, are considered as possible carcinogenic factors. No studies have confirmed these observations so far [25, 27].

[Jakethehuman]

 

Report in progress: I'm looking at those links re cancer and meat. So far, I'm finding that it's weak. Animal studies used mega doses. And this:Risk of colorectal cancer in relation to frequency and total amount of red meat consumption. Systematic review and meta-analysis

"Although numerous epidemiological studies have aimed to confirm the positive relationship between the consumption of red meat and formation of colorectal cancer, their results were not strongly convincing [6–10]. The evaluation of red meat intake in colorectal cancer development was very difficult, due to many environmental factors modulating colorectal carcinogenesis, which has been reviewed recently [1]."

 

I also see claims that it's related to how many doses of red meat per day, not the absolute amount per se. 50g per day as a test level, seen here and there, was chosen arbitrarily, as there seemed to be no clear cut off.

 

The meta-analysis of these studies showed that red meat intake more frequently than once per day induces colonic cancer (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09–1.71; Figure 4) as well as rectal cancer (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24–1.64; Figure 5).

 

 

This is perhaps the smoking gun, pardon the BBQ pun:

 

A review of the literature on this subject suggests a positive association between the consumption of red meat and colon and/or rectal cancer. High intake of red meat causes an increasing concentration of biliary acids in the bowel content. The biliary acids can upset the balance between the maturing and apoptotic cells [10, 21]. The products of their metabolism, including deoxycholic acid, have the property of destroying cytoplasmic membrane in epithelial cells of the large intestine. That process indirectly results in increased cell proliferation and their higher sensitivity to mutagenic factors; consequently, it may be the cause of malignant transformations [21–24]. The process of neoplasm formation with the participation of the biliary acids may also be associated with their ability to activate cyclooxygenase 2, which may, in turn, lead to excessive prostaglandin production. This results in resistance to apoptosis and stimulates malignancy and invasiveness [22].

 

What I keep seeing is a dose relationship. Above it says "high intake." Elsewhere I see that what data there is suggests it's more about how many times a day, vs absolute amount. (RED meat we're talking about, not the birds, don't know about pork.)

Consider a home near a busy urban street. On a normal day, lots of cars, but they move well, and fumes into the home are minimal, due to wind dispersion, car velocity, etc. Now consider a traffic jam or slowdown. The fumes become horrendous in the home, and lungs and heart suffer. Is the bowel like this? Somebody taking minutes on the poop platform is testimony to that person's bowel having chronic traffic jams inside. (By the way, anyone see the ads for SquattyPotty?)

 

More:

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, formed during high temperature processing of meat, are considered as possible carcinogenic factors. No studies have confirmed these observations so far [25, 27].

It seems to me that the truth is coming out, and within a decade or two we will have conclusive evidence, the science seems to be moving in the direction of a negative result for meat, obviously just an opinion.

 

The whole conversation is a desperate attempt to reassure people that they are safe and don't need to change their lifestyle in any significant way, again so strange to see this on a philosophy forum. Whole food plant based is the way we are meant to eat, there are no physiological reasons to eat meat anymore. People who spend so much time convincing themselves, and others, that just a bit of meat is OK are not helping address the obesity issue. You tell people it's ok to eat bacon sometimes and they will inevitably use your arguments as an excuse to eat way too much bacon, not to mention eggs and deep fried hash browns and maybe a sausage or two.

 

Instead of moderating and restricting yourself to one steak a week, why not come up with a diet you can eat all day everyday without worrying if you are causing harm.

Jake thanks for the links; I'll be reviewing them. For now, one thing. Being on the toilet for 5 minutes is still too much. Any animal that takes that long in the wild, is sick. Or ate a Brillo pad. I noted that one of those links mentioned cancer in colon vs rectum. Well, if something bad is stuck in there, it's going to hyper expose the rectal tissues. So I see an issue that is not as clarified as it might be, at least on first pass.

We are all different one way or another. For myself, I've had historically elevated levels of blood stuff, including during the Haagen-Daz ice cream eating years, and later with an improved diet, less but still "elevated" according to what I call alarmism. Yet three body scans show ZERO defects, all normal healthy systems. I shudder to think what condition I'd be in if I'd followed the scare tactics and downed Lipitor.

 

I'm not sure what Lipitor is but I sure wouldn't be taking it, I'm happy to hear you're in good working order

 

yes anything more than a few minutes is not good news in the loo

[Jakethehuman]

Hydrogenated vegetable oils have been shown to cause cancer and heart disease. So, although we don't have conclusive evidence yet, I feel confident that science will show all plant foods will eventually be shown to be negative for humans. Just my opinion of course.

 

The whole conversation is an attempt for people to cling to their plant foods and feel safe eating them. The inuit have eaten completely animal-based diets for centuries, as people were meant to. Plants are not necessary to be healthy, and people who spend so much time convincing themselves that a salad here and there is okay are kidding themselves and others. People will just go and use that advice to justify eating Oreos, Doritos, nutter butters, hershey's syrup, swedish fish and Kool-Aid.

 

Instead of moderating your plant foods and only eating one salad per week, why not eat nothing but whale blubber all day? You can have as much as you want with no worry of causing harm.

Hahahaha thanks for that it was very intelligent and funny.

 

Seriously though you haven't added much of value besides your first two posts, you didn't review the links I shared, have clearly not done any first hand hard research and your emotional investment is significant judging from your last reply and your claim of "militant vegan propaganda".

 

Just answer the arguments like a good little philosopher and we will be fine otherwise keep posting dumb videos and sarcastic comments and be ignored.

[brucethecollie]

Based on my studies of nutrition it seems that some people can eat all animal food and thrive and other people eat almost none and too, thrive.  This makes sense when we think about studies where different people react differently to fructose, salt, and different types of fat.  In one study I thought was interesting, of the people monitored regarding salt intake and response on blood pressure after a meal, about as many people had a lowering of blood pressure as those whose blood pressure rose and still others had no change in blood pressure.  Why would people react differently?  The same has been seen in people eating animal fat versus olive oil.  And some people maintain very healthy blood panels when consuming lots of fructose but others quickly see a detriment to their blood sugars and liver.  Perhaps people evolved slightly based on the foods they had to consume around them and their bodies adapted to better make use of those foods.  

 

I think it's interesting to note that the people of the "Blue Zones", the areas around the world with the most centenarians, don't all eat the same.  And hasn't genetic testing found that people from certain parts of the world (0 Blood types) often can't digest dairy?  Due to having less time to evolve alongside cows.  

 

I myself have done a lot of blood tests to find out what food keeps my cholesterol, blood pressure, and triglycerides in better shape-and for me, less animal fat versus more, does it.  I have asked doctors about this and one of them told me that most people where I'm from have 0 blood type, but I have A, which is a newer blood type and possibly more acclimated to the age of agriculture. There isn't enough science done on this stuff yet but hopefully they will do more.  

 

As a health coach, I recommend real food (obviously a good place to start) and then if someone lacks energy or has any blood and lipid test results out of range, I recommend changing the type of real food to see what their body responds to best. 

 

I've even noticed that in my two kids, one will get a lot more energy than the other out of certain types of food.  My son doesn't get hungry after an apple, my daughter does.  My daughter doesn't get hungry after eating nuts, my son does.  To me, that says something.  When food satiates us and gives us energy, I think it is working efficiently for us.  I'm not sure of course, and that's why I don't force on them any extreme way of eating aside from severely limiting processed crap, since that can only be good for them.

 

If there is anything to what I'm saying, it would help make sense of the passionate vegans who feel amazing and the paleo types who may too, feel wonderful and both swear that their way of eating is the way for all.  

[Jakethehuman]

Based on my studies of nutrition it seems that some people can eat all animal food and thrive and other people eat almost none and too, thrive.  This makes sense when we think about studies where different people react differently to fructose, salt, and different types of fat.  In one study I thought was interesting, of the people monitored regarding salt intake and response on blood pressure after a meal, about as many people had a lowering of blood pressure as those whose blood pressure rose and still others had no change in blood pressure.  Why would people react differently?  The same has been seen in people eating animal fat versus olive oil.  And some people maintain very healthy blood panels when consuming lots of fructose but others quickly see a detriment to their blood sugars and liver.  Perhaps people evolved slightly based on the foods they had to consume around them and their bodies adapted to better make use of those foods.  

 

I think it's interesting to note that the people of the "Blue Zones", the areas around the world with the most centenarians, don't all eat the same.  And hasn't genetic testing found that people from certain parts of the world (0 Blood types) often can't digest dairy?  Due to having less time to evolve alongside cows.  

 

I myself have done a lot of blood tests to find out what food keeps my cholesterol, blood pressure, and triglycerides in better shape-and for me, less animal fat versus more, does it.  I have asked doctors about this and one of them told me that most people where I'm from have 0 blood type, but I have A, which is a newer blood type and possibly more acclimated to the age of agriculture. There isn't enough science done on this stuff yet but hopefully they will do more.  

 

As a health coach, I recommend real food (obviously a good place to start) and then if someone lacks energy or has any blood and lipid test results out of range, I recommend changing the type of real food to see what their body responds to best. 

 

I've even noticed that in my two kids, one will get a lot more energy than the other out of certain types of food.  My son doesn't get hungry after an apple, my daughter does.  My daughter doesn't get hungry after eating nuts, my son does.  To me, that says something.  When food satiates us and gives us energy, I think it is working efficiently for us.  I'm not sure of course, and that's why I don't force on them any extreme way of eating aside from severely limiting processed crap, since that can only be good for them.

 

If there is anything to what I'm saying, it would help make sense of the passionate vegans who feel amazing and the paleo types who may too, feel wonderful and both swear that their way of eating is the way for all.  

 

You make some good points and I would love to know if people have genes that affect the digestion of different macros at different rates. One thing with this debate is that we are so far from having all the answers we need to say things for certain, which is why I didn't start a thread about "what is the best diet" but we certainly know enough that for most people overconsumption of meat, eggs and dairy is bad for health and underconsumption of fruits and vegetables is a serious problem.

 

Evolutionarily speaking our species has spent a lot more time eating plants than any kind of animal products, so any adaptations that lead to better absorption of different macros may not mean that animal sources are best for long term health.

[Jakethehuman]

Nutrition Myths (with sources cited):

 

https://authoritynutrition.com/5-contenders-for-the-worst-diet-advice-ever/

I'll get to the first two, but as for the last 3 strawman alert!

I don't know anyone who thinks vege oil is good, any oil for that matter, I use the juice from a can of beans when I do any frying, which is rarely. Whether a calorie makes you feel full or not doesn't matter, if you eat a maintainance calorie load of ANY macro you will not gain weight, very simple. Butter and margarine are both bad throw it all away and buy an avocado for goodness sake!

 

Eggs are good because they contain all the ingredients to make a chicken... Well god damn I might go eat a baby fetus that's sure to make me even bigger and stronger! Ovulation smoothie anyone? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/eggs/

The idea that not a single study has shown correlation is ludacris. Harvard suggest one a day for healthy individuals, but then make an excellent point in cautioning people to avoid the usual add ons that go with a fried egg. Also the fact that uncooked eggs and contaminated egg shells can make you SHIT BLOOD might be a warning to find alternative safe sources of b12, riboflavin, folate and vitamin D. Saying that an egg has certain micronutrients is no argument for eating them, the plant foods that contain the aforementioned nutrients are all healthier, much safer and much better for the environment. The body makes cholesterol, what makes you think you need to eat more?

 

Also if eating cholesterol doesn't impact blood cholesterol why eat a dangerous food, taken from an animal at massive cost to the environment when you can get the same benefits from bananas, mushrooms, spinach, almonds???? The answer is you like the taste and you have an emotional investment in eggs that is clouding your vision.

 

Sugar is not the enemy! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/

Glucose is the brains sole source of energy, except in

extreme starvation, it is the most energy demanding organ in the body it needs a CONSTANT supply of sugar, do you know how hard the liver has to work to convert fats and protein into glucose?

Also muscles prefer to use glucose for bursts of activity, so a healthy active person eating a lot of fruit and doing some rigour would exercise everyday is giving their bodies the best possible fuel.

 

Think evolution, so much of what Stefan has been talking about lately relates to evolution. What do our closest cousins mainly eat? What did we mainly eat during our own evolution? What makes you feel good when you eat lots of it? Plants, Plants, Plants!

 

Ps it's easy to find an article that agrees with us, a little bit harder to do the research first hand, but much more rewarding I assure you.

[st434u]

The bottom line is, nobody knows for a fact what type of nutrition is the one that will maximize health. Nobody even knows if the same type of nutrition will be ideal for different individuals. If you think you do - that's fine. If you want to encourage others to try your nutritional approach, that's fine. But to go over and above that and to claim that anybody who doesn't eat exactly what you think they should, and in the amounts and frequencies you think they should, is intentionally damaging their health, and their children's, and is therefore immoral... That's just crazy. Which is why some of you are rightfully being called militant here. Because your tactics are the same as the socialists who think building a business and making a profit is immoral and do whatever is in their power to ensure that you are robbed on a daily basis, while claiming to be on the moral high ground themselves.

 

Even if you knew for a fact what exact type of nutrition would be ideal for a particular person, or for everybody, where does individual choice enter into all this? Should children who want to eat something that is proven to be bad for their health be prevented from doing so? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it varies by age and the ability to comprehend concepts, my cut off point being somewhere around 2 years old, others are free to choose other arbitrary points at which children gain moral agency and can make their own choices, and that's fine too.

 

Do parents have an obligation to feed their children a diet of the child's choosing? I don't believe so.

 

Do they have an obligation to feed the children a diet that is believed to be ideal for health? I don't believe so.

 

I have my own views about what I think is ideal nutrition and lifestyle, and they have changed several times through the years. At none of those points have I ever tried to force my views on anybody else. I tell them what I think, and that's it. Who knows if I'm right. I think I am, but others can disagree. Lots of experts disagree, not only in the present but throughout history, about what ideal nutrition and lifestyle comprises, and it could very well be that every single one of them has always been wrong. Unfortunately, very few people even attempt to be scientific about this, and those that do, usually employ faulty science that's full of assumptions and fails to tease out causation from correlation. There is now more information about nutrition than ever before, and at the same time degenerative diseases (which are believed to be caused largely by poor nutrition) are at an all-time high, not just going by percentage of the population but also by age groups.

[Jakethehuman]

If you'd like to talk about evolution, perhaps the fact that meat consumption was the means for humans to evolve bigger brains and consciousness should be considered. I suppose that's inconvenient for you to acknowledge. True, nonetheless.

 

Don't assume. I am an evidence based lifeform and therefore have roughly zero preconceived notions that I consider "inconvenient" to acknowledge. I understand that the calories from meat and the ease with which cooked food is chewed and digested freed up a lot of time that we had previously spent foraging and chewing. 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/?no-ist

 

What is the argument here anyway? early humans needed meat to be smart so it must be healthy in the long term and improves iq in the short term? There is no argument, just another sound bite.

The bottom line is, nobody knows for a fact what type of nutrition is the one that will maximize health. Nobody even knows if the same type of nutrition will be ideal for different individuals. If you think you do - that's fine. If you want to encourage others to try your nutritional approach, that's fine. But to go over and above that and to claim that anybody who doesn't eat exactly what you think they should, and in the amounts and frequencies you think they should, is intentionally damaging their health, and their children's, and is therefore immoral... That's just crazy. Which is why some of you are rightfully being called militant here. Because your tactics are the same as the socialists who think building a business and making a profit is immoral and do whatever is in their power to ensure that you are robbed on a daily basis, while claiming to be on the moral high ground themselves.

 

Even if you knew for a fact what exact type of nutrition would be ideal for a particular person, or for everybody, where does individual choice enter into all this? Should children who want to eat something that is proven to be bad for their health be prevented from doing so? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it varies by age and the ability to comprehend concepts, my cut off point being somewhere around 2 years old, others are free to choose other arbitrary points at which children gain moral agency and can make their own choices, and that's fine too.

 

Do parents have an obligation to feed their children a diet of the child's choosing? I don't believe so.

 

Do they have an obligation to feed the children a diet that is believed to be ideal for health? I don't believe so.

 

I have my own views about what I think is ideal nutrition and lifestyle, and they have changed several times through the years. At none of those points have I ever tried to force my views on anybody else. I tell them what I think, and that's it. Who knows if I'm right. I think I am, but others can disagree. Lots of experts disagree, not only in the present but throughout history, about what ideal nutrition and lifestyle comprises, and it could very well be that every single one of them has always been wrong. Unfortunately, very few people even attempt to be scientific about this, and those that do, usually employ faulty science that's full of assumptions and fails to tease out causation from correlation. There is now more information about nutrition than ever before, and at the same time degenerative diseases (which are believed to be caused largely by poor nutrition) are at an all-time high, not just going by percentage of the population but also by age groups.

 

Do I take that to mean that after a child hits 2 years old a parent no longer has a responsibility to feed it right? Are you insane man...

 

You don't shove broccoli down children's throat you set up a household environment where processed foods and sweets are not available, you make all your meals at home, you involve your kids in the process and teach them the benefits of all the healthy fruits and vegetables they are eating, and every once in awhile you buy some treats.

 

Again I did not start this thread to talk about "perfect health" which is not really up for debate (more fruit, vege, legumes, tubers, less grains, meat, eggs, dairy) but about the people who knowingly feed their kids rubbish day in day out, send them to tuck shop with money everyday to buy whatever they like, binge with chocolate and ice cream and chips in front of kids until it becomes normalized. When it gets to the point where the child is obese, that is child abuse, and forcibly preventing this in not militant it is a moral imperative.

 

I am not advocating busting down the doors of parents who feed their kids an egg on toast for breakfast in the morning, but if you think bacon and sausages is an appropriate meal option than you belong in an asylum as these have been put on the  WHO known carcinogen list and certainly cause CAD when consumed to excess. 

 

Saying that science has changed its mind in the past is not an argument.

Saying that you prefer to keep your opinions to yourself is not an argument.

 

Parents have a responsibility of their children the entire time they share a roof! of course you can't chase them down the street and slap the ice cream the are sharing with friends out of their hands, but you create a healthy food environment at home, you are in charge of the groceries and it is not immoral to tell a sooky child in a grocery store that they can't have a can of soda! You sound very nihilistic Sir examine you philosophy in regards to this subject because there most certainly are absolutes in nutrition and exercise.

[st434u]

What is the argument here anyway? early humans needed meat to be smart so it must be healthy in the long term and improves iq in the short term? There is no argument, just another sound bite.

The argument is that humans and proto humans evolved for millions of years eating lots of meat, so chances are our bodies are more adapted to function better eating meat than not eating meat. A vegetarian or vegan diet simply was not available year-round in evolutionary times other than perhaps in the tropics, and even there it's a stretch. Other great apes such as chimps have bodies that are better adapted for moving around tree branches, where the fruits are. Our bodies are better adapted for moving on flat land, where hervibores you can hunt are. And even chimps supplement their diet with meat.

 

Again I did not start this thread to talk about "perfect health" which is not really up for debate (more fruit, vege, legumes, tubers, less grains, meat, eggs, dairy) but about the people who knowingly feed their kids rubbish day in day out, send them to tuck shop with money everyday to buy whatever they like, binge with chocolate and ice cream and chips in front of kids until it becomes normalized. When it gets to the point where the child is obese, that is child abuse, and forcibly preventing this in not militant it is a moral imperative.

Your claim that it's not up for debate does not make it so. And again, you're not addressing the argument. You say I'm nihilistic which I'm not, but you are extremely authoritarian when you claim your view is the holy word of god in terms of nutrition and that everybody must feed their children exactly what you think their children need to eat, else their children be taken from them "for their own good". I wonder when they're gonna make a dystopian movie or book featuring your views for a totalitarian big brother food police state.

 

if you think bacon and sausages is an appropriate meal option than you belong in an asylum as these have been put on the  WHO known carcinogen list and certainly cause CAD when consumed to excess.

If someone wants to eat those or feed them to their kids that is their choice, just like it's your choice to eat or feed your kids a broccoli and kale smoothie every morning. And btw, just about every country now follows the WHO guidelines on health care and nutrition, and as I said in the other post, health is worse than ever. It's interesting how people can distrust government in all levels except in the one where the government's view happens to agree with their own biases; even when there is ample evidence that these views could be mistaken.

 

Saying that science has changed its mind in the past is not an argument.

Sure it is. If it's constantly changing it's mind even as we speak, and there are plenty of experts who disagree, then clearly the science is not settled. Not that the science would be settled if this wasn't the case, but this just makes it easier to realize that it's not.

 

Saying that you prefer to keep your opinions to yourself is not an argument.

But that's not what I said. I could tell you my opinions, but that's not what this thread is about, like you said. All I said was that I don't force my views on others the way you are trying to do.

[rosencrantz]

The argument is that humans and proto humans evolved for millions of years eating lots of meat, so chances are our bodies are more adapted to function better eating meat than not eating meat.

 

If that is the case why do our set of teeth and our digestive tract resemble omnivores that have a bit of meat occasionally? Just by looking at the forms of teeth that carnivores and humans have you can see the difference. 

[st434u]

If that is the case why do our set of teeth and our digestive tract resemble omnivores that have a bit of meat occasionally? Just by looking at the forms of teeth that carnivores and humans have you can see the difference. 

 

I didn't say humans are carnivores. Also most carnivores require particular teeth for killing as well as for butchering their prey, whereas humans use tools so that in effect all we need to do is crush the meat down with our molars and mix it with saliva to begin the digestive process. Different meat eating animals evolved differently. It's true that in our recent evolutionary history, say 10 million years ago, our ancestors were only occasional meat eaters, but over the past 2.5 million years that changed. This is all according to the mainstream view of human and proto-human evolution, which could certainly be wrong, but let's assume that it is correct.

[Jakethehuman]

Jakethehuman, you brought up "think evolution," so I did. If it's irrelevant that we evolved eating meat, then it's even less relevant that our closest ancestors don't eat it.

Yes and I rebutted your point by saying it was the calories in meat and the value of cooked food that lead to the growth in brain size, not anything inherently healthy about meat. Your comment was aggressive and presumptuous, and it's clear you are just recycling talking points you've read on various articles.

The argument is that humans and proto humans evolved for millions of years eating lots of meat, so chances are our bodies are more adapted to function better eating meat than not eating meat. A vegetarian or vegan diet simply was not available year-round in evolutionary times other than perhaps in the tropics, and even there it's a stretch. Other great apes such as chimps have bodies that are better adapted for moving around tree branches, where the fruits are. Our bodies are better adapted for moving on flat land, where hervibores you can hunt are. And even chimps supplement their diet with meat.

 

 

Your claim that it's not up for debate does not make it so. And again, you're not addressing the argument. You say I'm nihilistic which I'm not, but you are extremely authoritarian when you claim your view is the holy word of god in terms of nutrition and that everybody must feed their children exactly what you think their children need to eat, else their children be taken from them "for their own good". I wonder when they're gonna make a dystopian movie or book featuring your views for a totalitarian big brother food police state.

 

 

If someone wants to eat those or feed them to their kids that is their choice, just like it's your choice to eat or feed your kids a broccoli and kale smoothie every morning. And btw, just about every country now follows the WHO guidelines on health care and nutrition, and as I said in the other post, health is worse than ever. It's interesting how people can distrust government in all levels except in the one where the government's view happens to agree with their own biases; even when there is ample evidence that these views could be mistaken.

 

 

Sure it is. If it's constantly changing it's mind even as we speak, and there are plenty of experts who disagree, then clearly the science is not settled. Not that the science would be settled if this wasn't the case, but this just makes it easier to realize that it's not.

 

 

But that's not what I said. I could tell you my opinions, but that's not what this thread is about, like you said. All I said was that I don't force my views on others the way you are trying to do.

Broccoli and Kale? Ahh you have just shown how simple you are.

 

So I'm guessing you also disagree with the recommended 5 serves of veg and 2 serves of fruit a day? The government has been recommending that for a long time and still many people don't do it, just because a government has guidelines clearly doesn't mean a majority of people will listen or even read what they are.

 

Just because a kid goes around bullying others all day at school doesn't mean he's going to fail his maths exam.

 

The human brain evolved that's to cooked meat among other foods due to the increase in calories and aid to digestion. 2.5 million year of eating meat compared to the how many tens of millions years eating plant based? Out bodies can't completely change to process a radically different food source in that time span, and cave men weren't that big on living past 20 years old so why do you think that diet would be healthful for a modern human living up to 80?

[Jakethehuman]

I didn't say humans are carnivores. Also most carnivores require particular teeth for killing as well as for butchering their prey, whereas humans use tools so that in effect all we need to do is crush the meat down with our molars and mix it with saliva to begin the digestive process. Different meat eating animals evolved differently. It's true that in our recent evolutionary history, say 10 million years ago, our ancestors were only occasional meat eaters, but over the past 2.5 million years that changed. This is all according to the mainstream view of human and proto-human evolution, which could certainly be wrong, but let's assume that it is correct.

 

Humans are Frugivores (our guts are adapted to eating mainly fruit) while our primate cousins are Folivores, they are not swinging around the trees picking fruit, they are on their asses chewing leaves for 8 hours a day. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/300099?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I actually notice my digestion is usually a ton better when I eat lots of berries - like a package a day, besides other fruit. Just based on my personal experience it definitely seems like my body loves fruit, so I am not surprised we had an ancestor with fruit eating tendencies.

 

Jake made this claim a while ago and it got me thinking:

 

"Evolutionarily speaking our species has spent a lot more time eating plants than any kind of animal products, so any adaptations that lead to better absorption of different macros may not mean that animal sources are best for long term health."

 

And I think I am better understanding now Jake the point Shirgall was making. I tended to agree with you (not that it means anything towards proving it) that a muscle man is not a very healthy person overall, but if you extract the principle from the example Shirgall was providing, maybe you will see it is valid.

 

Since sometimes we have values more important than living the longest life possible, at what point would we sacrifice a portion of our life in terms of age if it means that we will do something more important to us which somehow excludes the possibility, to some extent, of eating in a vegetarian lifestyle?

 

Some people take on daring jobs which required a ton of calorie consumption, and wouldn't it be cumbersome (especially if you are eating a lot of cucumbers) to eat a vegetarian diet if meat is a less costly alternative in terms of time and money? Also, if meat provides other benefits not accounted for in these studies because they are not the focus, then isn't there a valid trade off to be made between nutrition towards living as long as possible, and nutrition towards some other goal which requires what meat is more efficient in offering?

 

 

 

By the way, as if anyone didn't already see this before me, but the fact that Jake would continue a conversation with a person while at the same time thinking apparently so little of them as to insult their intelligence shows in my opinion there is a self knowledge gap here between his intended purpose of replying and the content of his replies. If he were posting for onlookers, why would he insult the other person? If he were posting to convince the person he's talking to, and not have them conform to his attempts to dominate the conversation, then he wouldn't continue insulting them, but would bring up the error being made, or leave the conversation.

 

I didn't see Mello Mama insult, and if she did I thought it was defensively but if I am missing information then I apologize. My personal feeling from reviewing this thread is that Jakethehuman's arguments about nutrition are not as consistent as they could be, and that his conduct when he is challenged is not productive towards arguing the actual point of whether a vegetarian lifestyle is preferable and morally preferable for children. If Jake would answer my question about nutrition more directly or point me to where he covered it previously, then I would respect that.

 

 

 

Jake do you see room to include meat as part of any healthy diet? I wasn't sure so I just wanted to be more clear where you stand on that, too.

[Jakethehuman]

I actually notice my digestion is usually a ton better when I eat lots of berries - like a package a day, besides other fruit. Just based on my personal experience it definitely seems like my body loves fruit, so I am not surprised we had an ancestor with fruit eating tendencies.

 

Jake made this claim a while ago and it got me thinking:

 

"Evolutionarily speaking our species has spent a lot more time eating plants than any kind of animal products, so any adaptations that lead to better absorption of different macros may not mean that animal sources are best for long term health."

 

And I think I am better understanding now Jake the point Shirgall was making. I tended to agree with you (not that it means anything towards proving it) that a muscle man is not a very healthy person overall, but if you extract the principle from the example Shirgall was providing, maybe you will see it is valid.

 

Since sometimes we have values more important than living the longest life possible, at what point would we sacrifice a portion of our life in terms of age if it means that we will do something more important to us which somehow excludes the possibility, to some extent, of eating in a vegetarian lifestyle?

 

Some people take on daring jobs which required a ton of calorie consumption, and wouldn't it be cumbersome (especially if you are eating a lot of cucumbers) to eat a vegetarian diet if meat is a less costly alternative in terms of time and money? Also, if meat provides other benefits not accounted for in these studies because they are not the focus, then isn't there a valid trade off to be made between nutrition towards living as long as possible, and nutrition towards some other goal which requires what meat is more efficient in offering?

 

 

 

By the way, as if anyone didn't already see this before me, but the fact that Jake would continue a conversation with a person while at the same time thinking apparently so little of them as to insult their intelligence shows in my opinion there is a self knowledge gap here between his intended purpose of replying and the content of his replies. If he were posting for onlookers, why would he insult the other person? If he were posting to convince the person he's talking to, and not have them conform to his attempts to dominate the conversation, then he wouldn't continue insulting them, but would bring up the error being made, or leave the conversation.

 

I didn't see Mello Mama insult, and if she did I thought it was defensively but if I am missing information then I apologize. My personal feeling from reviewing this thread is that Jakethehuman's arguments about nutrition are not as consistent as they could be, and that his conduct when he is challenged is not productive towards arguing the actual point of whether a vegetarian lifestyle is preferable and morally preferable for children. If Jake would answer my question about nutrition more directly or point me to where he covered it previously, then I would respect that.

 

 

 

Jake do you see room to include meat as part of any healthy diet? I wasn't sure so I just wanted to be more clear where you stand on that, too.

Very valid point about me insulting and continuing the conversation, it has brought me back into focus a bit. I can point you to an earlier post on this thread where I got offensive and questioned dsayers intelligence, and yet was completely on point and was backed up by Kevin Beal.

 

I can be aggressive, but only when the subject matter is extremely important to myself and others, namely philosophy, nutrition and exercise.

 

Mello mama has been repeating tired old talking points about nutrition that I disagree with and have evidence to support, which she hasn't reviewed, even though she asked for them. She hasn't contributed any links to scholarly articles of her own. This behaviour does not deserve respect in a debate.

 

It's not just "living long", like I said before it can be the difference between dying peacefully at 80+ or having cancer in your ass.

 

I have been working as a labourer in various physical jobs since I was 16 and have been working in a precast concrete yard for the past 6 months, there is no shade and I just went through a brutal Australian summer, 9 hour days and 5 on Saturday. This is pretty much the most physically demanding job you can do outside of being a professional athlete. Although I am often sore I never get sick and I have never felt better ( been vegan for 9 months) I do gym a couple of times a week, and spend a couple of hours in the surf every week.

 

So I would say my calorie requirements are well above average. I could have just mentioned Patrik Baboumian, but now you know I have personal experience.

 

Here is the big thing for many people, and what I think you are getting caught up on too. Meat makes you strong and fit and healthy IN THE MOMENT, it has everything we need to recover and has tons of essential vitamins and minerals, obviously because the animals we are eating need all of those things too! But they make it themselves, just like we are designed to do.

 

Yes I consider dying at 60 of a heart attack even though you exercised regularly and kept in shape a result of an unhealthy lifestyle. If you can't stand up straight or catch a ball when you are 80 you've done something wrong, to me being healthy includes the caveat "for as long as possible"

[Jakethehuman]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291490702320X

 

While this study also includes moderate exercise and daily meditation, high carb low fat is surely the most important factor here.

[st434u]

Evolutionarily speaking our species has spent a lot more time eating plants than any kind of animal products, so any adaptations that lead to better absorption of different macros may not mean that animal sources are best for long term health."

 

Well it wasn't our "species" by definition, but anyway, by the same token our ancestors have spent more time living underwater than on land. But you wouldn't say it's a good idea for our long-term health to try to breathe exclusively underwater.

 

 

 

By the way, as if anyone didn't already see this before me, but the fact that Jake would continue a conversation with a person while at the same time thinking apparently so little of them as to insult their intelligence shows in my opinion there is a self knowledge gap here between his intended purpose of replying and the content of his replies.

 

 

Of course there is. Which is why he likely won't get any more responses from me.

[Jakethehuman]

 

Well it wasn't our "species" by definition, but anyway, by the same token our ancestors have spent more time living underwater than on land. But you wouldn't say it's a good idea for our long-term health to try to breathe exclusively underwater.

 

 

Of course there is. Which is why he likely won't get any more responses from me.

If you want to be nitpicky homosapiens yes have only been around for 200,000 years. I'm not sure exactly what logical fallacy you used when comparing our primate ancestors to our fish ancestors, but it was bad logic sir. Our guts are made for fruit, did you read that link are you arguing with that fact by using any of your own?

 

I called you simple because your comment about broccoli and kale was passive aggressive and sarcastic and I won't tolerate that in a discussion. I then wrote 3 paragraphs, none of which you responded to, instead you want to discredit me by encouraging someone else who doesn't like the way I am conducting myself in this debate. How bout you wipe your nose and respond to the arguments otherwise yeah don't reply.

Haha. "Surely" it would be; only because that would fit your narrative. There was no control group! Compared to what? What a joke.

"In recent studies including Asian populations, a “vegetable-rich” pattern10 and a pattern characterized by a frequent consumption of vegetables, fruit, soy products, seaweeds, and fish9 were inversely related to cardiovascular mortality, whereas a pattern characterized by a frequent consumption of meat and butter was directly related to this outcome."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC274877/

 

I say surely because any rational persons understand that exercising 3times a week and meditation is nothing compared to what you put in your mouth all day every day!

[Jakethehuman]

It's a shame this post has died because there are quite a few unanswered arguments on my behalf, especially when I took the time to respond to all the opposing arguments with research and reason.

[rosencrantz]

The argument is that humans and proto humans evolved for millions of years eating lots of meat, so chances are our bodies are more adapted to function better eating meat than not eating meat.

 

Where does that show up in our anatomy?