PsychedelicEagle

+1

My point is fiber is not emphasized enough. If you think in terms of food volume, the majority of a healthy diet should be composed of fiber-containing foods. From this POV, fiber-rich foods would dominate the base.

@freddyteisen Saturated fats are not essential; our bodies are highly efficient at synthesizing their own saturated fat from carbohydrates and proteins (lipogenesis). The fats that are essential are the Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids — both polyunsaturated. What you feed the cow modifies their body composition, but at meaningful doses? See this study for example, ratios between Sat-fat and Unsat-fat are roughly the same. The total fat content changes, but overall you're still ingesting more saturates than not. You must therefore limit saturated sources and increase polyunsaturated sources to achieve a better ratio for metabolic health. Even the new guidelines themselves advise to keep Sat-fat below 10% of caloric intake (and some sources would even argue <5-6%) — try tracking all your food intake with the Cronometer app and see how much of these foods you can consume without surpassing it. The guidelines are self-contradictory in this regard. This is a common narrative in the carnivore space. I invite you to take a peek outside and look for contrary evidence, with a serious open mind.

On the sub-thread of genetics, this guy provides an interesting perspective:

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I guess humanity has officially entered the phase of "artificial kidneys". We've polluted the world so much that we need artificial blood filtration

I would suggesting measuring before starting any supplementation, if possible. Then you can assess your baseline and whether supplementing is even necessary. After you start supplementing, you keep tracking to see if the dose is adequate. --- If you feel 'too-wired' with B vitamins, you could be sensitive to methyl donors. There are supplements that target this type of individual variability, such as: https://www.sunday.de/en/bioactive-b-complex-sensitive.html

Quite controversial to write "healthy fats" next to pretty much all major sources of saturated fat; goes against scientific evidence, which favors poly- and monounsaturated fats. Encouraging "whole foods" and disencouraging refined grains and carbohydrates is obviously positive. Btw, are butter, cheese, and yogurt "whole foods", really? They are all refined versions of milk IMHO. Also, emphasizing protein does not really address the major public health issues nowadays which are chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, obesity, etc. Emphasizing fiber would be more positive IMO.

Makes sense, especially glass containers, I think. I live in Europe too (Switzerland), but I am a bit extreme with my health interventions so I like to avoid as much canned/packaged/processed as possible.

I have been SOS-free (with the exception of olive oil) for the last 2y. Sugar I get from whole fruits; never missed any industrialized or more artificial type of dessert. As for salt, my palate adjusted over the course of a month, but of course adding salt (in the rare occasions when I still have it) makes it more tasty. But I love what I eat on a regular basis, so generally quite adapted. The major benefit besides lower sodium intake is you are better able to control how much you eat.

Some random thoughts: After eliminating all animal sources from 98% of my meals, I achieved the best biomarkers of my life (tracking for the last 10+ years), including HbA1c, fasting glucose and fasting insulin, LDLc, ApoB, and inflammation markers (NLR, WBC). "Whole-food plant-based" is the base of any healthy diet, being it vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous; fiber is the most overlooked nutrient; A significant portion of the general population (not only vegan/vegetarian) has suboptimal B12 levels; tracking Homocysteine and serum folate and B12 (alongside other markers) is the safe way to assess your functional levels; You don't need to eliminate all animal sources to have a positive impact (on both your and the planetary health); Bioaccumulation is a real problem; many sources show vegans having lower levels of multiple toxins compared to omnivores. Mineral deficiency can happen with any dietary bias (e.g., carnivores are magnesium deficient); it has to be assessed on a personal level. Personally I need higher intakes of Calcium and Zinc, I supplement with both.

Legumes are super healthy; if you won't eat legumes if not canned, what would you be eating instead? Always compare a food to what you would replace it with. In terms of toxins, canned/packaged foods are known to contain a variety of toxins and endocrine disruptors, including: Bisphenols & Phthalates, PFAS, and the breakdown products of linings (e.g., microplastics from the caps of bottles) and reaction products formed during heat sterilization. Maybe glass jars are better than cans, but who knows. If you plan on consuming it daily (which is really good in many nutritional dimensions), then avoiding canned would be important. Tip: buy an instant pot (or similar electric cooker, preferably pressurized for beans and chickpeas). You can soak the legumes overnight, rinse in the morning, and put them to cook on Monday morning — making a batch for the week. If you have a set of ground spices you enjoy you can prepare a mix in advance and simply add that to the pot before cooking. Bonus for making your own food: you can more easily control the amount of Sugar, Oil, and Salt, or even go completely SOS-free

Sorry, but this is utterly absurd. Humans are much closer to frugivores than carnivores. Just look at the mirror. Look at your dental and facial structure - compare that to frugivores vs carnivores. Look at your eyes, tongue, digestive tract, pancreas, gut, enzymes, hands. It's not rocket science. PS: Frugivore != fructarian. Frugivores can eat meat, occasionally. PS2: Try to eat raw meat in nature or even cooked meat without salt and spices and see how much you like it, compared to a banana. Or do you think early humans were going to the sea, collecting water, evaporating it and crystallizing it, carrying with them crystallized salt for when they were able to eventually kill an animal? Also, if you don't have a pan, how do you season it?

Sure, you don't just believe GPT, you read the studies it will mention. The highest level of scientific evidence are meta-analyses or, even better, umbrella meta-analysis (research studies systematically collecting and evaluating multiple meta-analyses). I dare you to find any type of such studies showing that fiber is more harmful than good. If you suddenly introduce fiber into a gut that's not used to having it yes, you suffer. It's like going to the gym and trying to deadlift 300kg first time. One has to work their way up. Considering they don't have conditions that prevent the microbiota from being modulated. Not everything that makes you feel good in the short term is good for the long term. Fiber is one of such things. What's funny about what you say is that if you eat most of calories from (non-dried) fruits and vegetables, you almost don't need to drink water. So it's rather the opposite. Again, rather the opposite. One has to be strongly disconnected from the body to not eat fiber. Or, perhaps they had their microbiota harmed so much (by our modern ways of living -- with antibiotics (e.g., contained in meat) and other artificial foods) that they don't tolarate fiber anymore. In this case it's not a problem of being disconnected from their bodies, but that their bodies were disconnected from ancestral ways of living. I eat 0% fiber supplements -- see below the breakdown for the corresponding date. I just want to show it is possible to eat a significant amount of fiber, 100% from natural sources, and feel good. Plus, I never had such a good intestinal transit as for when I changed my diet.

The ones you just mentioned above. Just post what you wrote on GPT and ask it to critique it. It will come up with loads of evidence against it -- supporting the idea that fiber improves gut health.

Unclear; for sure >25g/day. There is no evidence justifying eating as much as I eat, besides evolutionary evidence, but one could conjecture that going beyond 25g/day is beneficial. Especially since fiber-containing foods also have a phletora of other nutrients. I'm not saying you need more fiber than protein. I'm saying fiber is the macronutrient (if you allow me to call it so) that is the most underconsumed nowadays. There is way more people having fiber deficiency than protein deficiency.

Where are the studies justifying this mechanism? Plus, notice that one can come up with mechanisms for everything. I can easily mention several mechanisms doing exactly the opposite. Just google "fiber intake and lps" and you will see most results against what you propose.

I deliberately limit my protein intake to stay on medium/lower side of methionine and BCAAs, and I still think I could reduce it further. Consider that your overprioritization of protein is what could be backwards. As I mentioned, overconsuming protein accelerates aging. You don't need more than 0.8g/kg of bodyweight -- and this already has a safety margin to it. Eating way beyond that would only justify if you are extremely active or an older adult (and even here some longevity researchers would disagree). If we are not discussing longevity then it could also justify eating more protein, but realize there's a tradeoff.

Told you that fiber is an essential macronutrient

This is the kind of thinking that leads people to consume loads of protein powder (empty calories, lacking micronutrients) and not real foods.

Btw, this is my Cronometer entry for today -- a normal day.

This mostly happens in dysbiotic, leaky guts or in those with SIBO, when fiber is introduced too fast. The flipside: fiber feeds beneficial gut bacteria (e.g., Bifidobacteria, Akkermansia) that outcompete LPS-producing Gram-negative bacteria. Eating fiber is like going to the gym -- consistency over the long-term sets you up for success.

What I mean is, animal protein has significantly more EAAs than plants, so we end up over upregulating IGF-1. I know the general message nowadays, especially on mainstream venues, is to focus on protein intake and build as much muscle mass as possible to avoid sarcopenia. But this perspective lacks the understanding that upregulating anabolism too much leads to faster aging. As with everything, there's a balance, and my point is that we are far beyond the equilibrium point as a society. People are not dying because they are underactivating mTOR; rather the opposite. EAAs play a role in metabolic syndrome -- it's not only sugar as many like to think. Overconsuming EAAs by eating either animal or plant-based diets hurts longevity; it just happens that it's way easier to overconsume it in animal diets.

This is false. In the same way that Sunlight is not that essential either. Sometimes you WANT to down regulate mTOR. You cannot just be in an anabolic state all the time.

Protein myth. Everyone's worried about protein, when actually the macronutrient people are the most defficient nowadays is fiber. The less protein you eat -- as long as it's not so low to make you defficient -- the better for longevity. Valter Longo for example suggests the 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight target for young adults, which for someone of 80kg would be 64g/day. This you easily get on a whole-food plant-based diet if you're not on a significant caloric deficit. Plus, "essential aminoacids" found in higher concentrations in animal protein are the ones that upregulate IGF-1 via mTOR the most -- metabolic pathways linked to faster aging and insulin resistance. So, the "protein bioavailability" of animal sources is more detrimental than good. Of course, if you are in a state of malnutrition then better to have them, but that's almost no one nowadays. Micronutrients. Instead of worrying about protein, IMO it's more fundamental to take a closer look at other micronutrients such as Zinc, Calcium, B12, Omega 3, etc.

Read the IVU guide. It will cover the most important micronutrients under a solid medical foundation.