NutritionFacts.org (Michael Greger)

[Outer]

1 hour ago, SgtPepper said:

Vegans have a worse memory compared to non vegans due to creatine deficiency in vegans:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118604

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14561278

Actually, the vegetarians or vegans or whatever, had better memory than the meat eaters after both went under creatine supplementation.

□, Vegetarian; ■, meat-eater.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Outer

[AMS]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

Actually, the vegetarians or vegans or whatever, had better memory than the meat eaters after both went under creatine supplementation.

□, Vegetarian; ■, meat-eater.

 

 

Interesting.  There are so many studies out there claiming a whole bunch of diverse things.  I think this is where we need to get to as a society in not putting our complete trust in current institutionalized nutrition (or science in general).  Back in the 50s Ancel Keys came up with the hypothesis that cholesterol and saturated fat have been causing our problems but that was just a hypothesis.  The field of Nutrition at large has based itself especially off epidemiology studies and a stance has become institutionalized.  It now makes it hard for scientists opposing the status quo (which some have been doing for decades) and it is difficult for them to receive funding.  There is also hardernosed (RCT) science out there showing that people are having health benefits from high fat/low carb diets.  It seems some of us have forgotten that low fat was just a hypothesis, which is clearly getting challenged and has been since it was put forth. 

I don't spend much time on studies personally because often they seem not fully credible (poor data collection, many variables) or else sometimes funded by industry.  So who's to know every time if there is some agenda involved in how the study is analyzed?  But in saying that I wanted to point out that sometimes studies showing funding from the meat industry etc may be assumed to be biased but I have read that sometimes it's the only possible way such a study can be done becuase they can't get any other funding because it opposes the mainstream.  So it seems some industry funded studies may be legit and others I would imagine biased...it's very complex.  I have read that there is a lot of politics behind the scenes in the field of nutrition.

This is why I try to see things from the bigger picture, this is why I think all the anecdotal evidence piling up of people doing well on lower carb diets and people getting sick as vegans...or even just that the SAD standards are also mislead (because they are eating high carb) that these are more important than some give credit.

Is there not a chance that we've simply gotten it wrong?  As I've said in the past form the research/anecdotes/experience I've seen (and who truly knows) every other mammal is eating a diet high in saturated fat, why would humans be the exception?

I think there is a revolution happening atm and over the coming years it will become pretty obvious.  Once again, not to say that some can't do well on a higher carb diet but I don't think that that should be a standard we are shooting for as as a society and imo they would probs do even better with less carbs.  I know people point to the blue zones etc but some of these zones are still eating a decent amount of animal products and there are also lifestyle, community, faith etc factors that need to come to mind.  It should also be known that Hong Kong has the longest life expectancy as a nation and also eats about the most meat so if nothing else then it can be at least seen that meat is not the problem.  Whether or not the blue zones and hong kong could be doing better on a lower carb/higher fat diet? I would say most probs yes, but that's just my opinion of course.

Here's a good book I am reading atm about the politics of nutrition and how as a society we may have gotten it all wrong with the low fat hypothesis.  The researcher took 9 years to write it and interviewed many of the original people that conducted the studies/were involved.  She demonstrates how it's very possible a lot of this initial science is mislead and how society has ran with it too quickly.

https://thebigfatsurprise.com/

Edited December 11, 2018 by AMS

[AMS]

I will share another post from a carnivore advocate.  You may think this automatically discredits him because he has a certain stance but it could also be a trap of it's own to block yourself entirely off from it.

You can do a google search and find a lot of other links about Hong Kong and it's meat consumption/life-expectancy claiming the same (not sure of the 400% figure).  I especially wanted to include this post though because he makes a good point about correlation not equaling causation but at the same time it opens one up to the possibility that maybe they got it wrong with the whole demonization of meat.  In terms of life expectancy, I guess there are a lot of other factors that must go into it too if it can be so varied amongst diets.



 

[SgtPepper]

I just found those studies yesterday, so I'm slowly going through them as well. The thread inspired me to be do more research on nutrition.

In addition, the main reason why I posted it is that I notice, in general, vegans largely use science to back up their lifestyle.

So I just wanted to show that there is a case for animal products. I do not think the answer is to blindly follow what a study says tho.

I think self-experimentation is a more accurate way to know what is healthy for each person, looking at one's genes, the culture behind it, and staying open minded.

12 hours ago, Outer said:

Actually, the vegetarians or vegans or whatever, had better memory than the meat eaters after both went under creatine supplementation.

. that is interesting! In general, I think the study illustrates how important creatine can be for mind-body performance. 

[SoothedByRain]

Next vid isn't me but I watched it yesterday (when it was posted) and its relevant to this thread. Greg eats high carb, mostly fruit.