otoumie

Veganism Or Vegetarianism?

80 posts in this topic

@Simon Zackrisson

Now as far as I see it you only linked to the Diet Doctor Website. So wether it is true or not they will only have onesided information on their side.

 

21 hours ago, Simon Zackrisson said:

Why don't you go ahead and demonstrate even one single logical fallacy I made.

I could ask you the same.

On 23.2.2016 at 11:09 PM, Simon Zackrisson said:

The age of our species is the first point, the age of agriculture in second:

  • 3 200 000 years
  • ......10 000 years

One explantion I posted could be this:

On 14.2.2016 at 3:37 AM, ZenMonkey said:

And about the food we ate 10.000 years ago. We evolved much longer on plants. Our digestive system still has the length of herbivores. Carnivore have a shorter one because you don't want to have meat too long in your digestive system because it gets to acid. We also have the teeth for plants and instincts etc. etc.

For the species it only matters if an individual can procreate. So if a human can live long enough on meat to procreate this is a win for the human species but it might not be for the individual. So in cold areas it was an advantage to eat meat because it gave humans the possibility to survive there. But today we have a choice and can eat what also is most benfical for the individual.

So you say the science that is up to date says High Fat is healthy. Well I think you just repeat what you read. You said by yourself that you are "usually way too retarded to interpret studies" so this information is second hand. Maybe from your website?

Well let's see who else has some information about diet. What about the World Health Organistaion? Let's see...

WHO1.thumb.png.12f619a8bbd07fa54970caa01

WHO2.png.ad6aec6ea04fee96f58829b3256187a

So with the recommendations of the WHO you could perfectly eat a vegan High Carb Low Fat diet. They write "less than ..." and point most of the time to high carb vegan foods. But maybe they also have outdated studies?

WHO3.png.7cc96079af2d1ff0e034de659b6e12c

Well...that seems pretty new to me.

But let's stop talking about studies for one moment. Because as we both know you can find out everything you want to if you have the needed money. And neither of us will see the difference.

 

Let's talk about what we can see: results.

The results I can see is that one can prevent and reverse chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes on a High Carb diet.

There are many patients who could safe their life by the dietary advice of Dr. Esselstyn. He is a cardiologist and his "practice took a dramatic turn -- from performing surgery to promoting nutrition. For more than 20 years, the Cleveland Clinic doctor has tried to get Americans to eat like the Papua New Guinea highlanders, rural Chinese, central Africans and the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico."

His promoted diet is a vegan diet that includes "no meat, no eggs, no dairy, no added oils."

So how does it come that patients as for example Anthony Yen (to name a name) safed their lifes on a vegan high carb low fat diet if it isn't healthy?

Personally I saw my grandmother getting cancer in her nose. The doctors said they have to cut the nose. But most likely her cancer would have returned after a few years. So she decided to go on a very strict vegan diet. And today she still lives and still has her nose.


"The death of the mind is the birth of wisdom." -- Nisargadatta Maharaj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess here is the best place to ask this question .. I killed myself googling and looking at nutrition labels to find a plant based product that has good carb/protein balance, or more protein dense one preferable, but has very low fats compared to the cab protein amount, and couldn't find one. Does anyone knows if such a thing even exists.

 Thanks in advance ..

Edited by Clayman

"If you immediately know the candle-light is fire then the meal was cooked along time ago"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clayman said:

I guess here is the best place to ask this question .. I killed myself googling and looking at nutrition labels to find a plant based product that has good carb/protein balance, or more protein dense one preferable, but has very low fats compared to the cab protein amount, and couldn't find one. Does anyone knows if such a thing even exists.

 Thanks in advance ..

Are you looking for a plant-based protein powder or a whole food (aka specific type of bean, ect..) that posses those qualities?

Just to set a realistic expectation, numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have concluded that the optimal amount of protein for athletes and bodybuilders is around .65-.75 grams per pound of lean mass.


"It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

Presence.  Acceptance.  Purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Phocus said:

Are you looking for a plant-based protein powder or a whole food (aka specific type of bean, ect..) that posses those qualities?

Just to set a realistic expectation, numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have concluded that the optimal amount of protein for athletes and bodybuilders is around .65-.75 grams per pound of lean mass.

I am looking for a whole food. I am rebuilding my workout nutrition meal plan and I have some space left, actually about 40g protein, 60g carbs and less than 5g of fats or no fats at all. Almost all of my protein comes from animal products, so I was thinking to mix it up a little, but couldn't find anything of plant origin that is easy to combine, most of the things I have found had either a lot of carbs or enormous amount of fats in them.

Thought you guys might know something :D


"If you immediately know the candle-light is fire then the meal was cooked along time ago"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Clayman said:

I am looking for a whole food. I am rebuilding my workout nutrition meal plan and I have some space left, actually about 40g protein, 60g carbs and less than 5g of fats or no fats at all. Almost all of my protein comes from animal products, so I was thinking to mix it up a little, but couldn't find anything of plant origin that is easy to combine, most of the things I have found had either a lot of carbs or enormous amount of fats in them.

Thought you guys might know something :D

Fenugreek seeds will get you pretty close, as previously mentioned in this thread.  Or... adzuki beans (which are pretty tasty imo) but they will put you over on carbs.  Those are some tight parameters, i think fenugreek is probably the best bet.  a few grams of fat over but otherwise satisfies the needs.


"It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

Presence.  Acceptance.  Purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate so start another showdown, but i'm with  @Simon Zackrisson on this one... 

In my experience as a Biology/Molecular biology Major, also coming with background in Medicine, and after a humongous amout of books and publications I've read, professors I have talked to, doctors, scientists in research work, and also speaking from personal experience there is not enough evidence to support vegeterianism, let alone veganism as the optimum "eating pattern" (for a lack of better word), both from evolutionary, biochemical, genetic and microbial point of view, and also looking from comparative systematics pow.

Someone has already stated that we have longer intestines than carnivores, and that that is a feature of a carnivore. That is only half true. We do have longer intestines than, say, a lion, but much, much shorter than a gazelle. Also, animals that eat large quantities of plant tissue usually have more than one stomack in order to degrade hard cellulose cell walls as much as possible. We have only one.  
As far as teeth are conserned, humans have incisors (found in herbivores and omnivores), mollars and premollars (found predominantely in herbivores) but also fangs (which are found predominantely in carnivorous animals).

Unlike herbivores, our intestine fauna isn't as effective in extracting nutrients from plant tissues, and we do not have enzymes for celulose decomposition. Since we can draw some nutrients from plants, they are obviously benefitial to us, but are not enough for optimum metabolism.

Meat carries all essential amino acids and minerals nice and prepped for use to use immediately, and not have to sinthesyze a whole bunch of building materials. Plants carry only a small amount. Sure, there is fructose in fruit and juice, and our brain needs that to work properly, but muscles (and especially heart) work best on fatty acids. Not a lot of those in fruit.

With all that being said, i should note that this is how things are in nature, and in optimally balanced ecosystem, aka, with as little interference from humans as possible.

(Un)fortunately, we do not live in such a world. We farm and domesticate animals and crops to the point of unrecognition (both phenotypic and genotypic) from their early ancestors. We pollute water and soil with heavy metals, acid and poisonous gasses. That collects in plants, than in animal tissue, and ultimately leading to us.

Add this to sedentary lifestyle, high stress levels, a whole bunch of drugs and alcohol used on regular basis, and the equation becomes evident.

This entire big picture is responsible for heart attacks, aneurisms, energy shortages and pretty much every modern disorder there is.

Ultimately, with the state of food we are presented in supermarkets, it makes little difference what you eat, you are going to accuulate toxins in your body either way. 

Of course, the choice to eat meat or not is entirely individual, but the whole point of this ranty post of mine is to note that if somebody is going to use biology, biochemistry and good quality science as a source material, they should get their facts straight, from reliable sources, AND consider the bigger picture derived therein.

Thank you for your time and have a great day. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Draconis Chaser A note to that, the body is perfectly capable of producing glucose for the brain through protein in the liver; there's no need to eat carbohydrates for that.


Endless nuance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Simon Zackrisson Exactly!

Initially, I was going to write out all of the biochemistry that the body does and the energy derived from them, but then it hit me that would've been an overkill... xD

And would be of no use to anyone. If somebody really is curious about all that, there are millions of books on biochem (I recomend Lehnninger).

And so, I really aplaud you for putting all the references before and going through trouble of explaining everything....
I was waaay too lazy to that... xD

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZenMonkey You are standing in truth in one way, all of us will always have a bias, it is something inevitable since we are indeed humans. I feel I resonate with dietdoctor.com because it does not accept donations from any corporation or government. There is no other incentive than presenting a fair and balanced perspective to its members. It's free of narrative from external sources whose concern is for profits, and not real health for people. In short: lobbyists and special interest groups can go fuck themselves. And ultimately, it's not the site itself that holds scientific weight, it is independent high quality studies that is linked to.

Also, you seemed to have missed the highlight from TIME magazine, so here you go again. The very magazine that initiated the war on fat has now updated itself:

56d83014b615a_ScreenShot2016-02-25at14.1

 

In addition to the updated science, I just used simple logic. While observational data cannot prove causation, this graph is very curious.

56d830fc150c5_ScreenShot2016-03-03at13.4

When the mistake of recommending avoidance for fat was introduced.

 

On 2/26/2016 at 1:21 PM, ZenMonkey said:

Our digestive system still has the length ...

I would need more research to comment about the intestinal length in humans, but it seems @Draconis Chaser has done a bit of study in regards to this. Here is his take on this.

56d834f0476f3_ScreenShot2016-03-03at13.1

This part of your post makes zero sense.

This was a response to Phocus, regarding his accusation of me committing logical fallacies. Why are you quoting this?

 

On 2/26/2016 at 1:21 PM, ZenMonkey said:

Let's talk about what we can see: results.

If you want to talk about anecdotal evidence, real life success stories from people, more and more people keep coming forward to share their personal positive results from lchf. It is almost overwhelming.

Edited by Simon Zackrisson

Endless nuance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Simon Zackrisson But the fact alone that the website gets it money from its members doesn't automactically make true what it says. I am sure if I searched I would find some vegan website which is only payed by members. So who is right then? It's not an argument... And as I said both websites will only have onesided studies which will show that they are right. But can you see the difference in the studies? I can't. So when you say that our science is outdated you just repeat what those guys said, backed up by their own selective choice of studies.

You will find to each niche someone who will make money of it. This website too is dependent. They are dependent on people who believe the LCHF side of the story to make money. So they for sure would not tell you if everything the write were false because they would lose their income. I don't say they do, I just say your argument is lacking.

And to me the World Health Organisation just seems more reliable then this website.

 

To your time images: I didn't miss it but if the time writes as much shit (mostly in politics) as here in Germany I am very cautious. No matter what topic they lost my trust. And I include all big newspapers in we have in Germany in this.

 

31 minutes ago, Simon Zackrisson said:

This part of your post makes zero sense.

This was a response to Phocus, regarding his accusation of me committing logical fallacies. Why are you quoting this?

I quoted this because you used an argument against him which I already picked and pointed out as wrong/not necessarily right. You never replied and still use it, but on the other hand you want him to reply to every point you make, also this argument.

 

39 minutes ago, Simon Zackrisson said:

In addition to the updated science, I just used simple logic. While observational data cannot prove causation, this graph is very curious.

56d830fc150c5_ScreenShot2016-03-03at13.4

When the mistake of recommending avoidance for fat was introduced.

That image only shows that the average american diet got worth since 1980. And if I look at the normal american diet today it's far from either HCLF or LCHF or the dietary guidlines for americans.

 

So to the results. I see success stories with obesity, acne and diabetes when I follow your link. All that can a HCLF diet provide you as well an the personal results are also overwhemling. But I don't find  people who recover from cancer or heart attack there.

 

But if you feel well on your diet, do it. I would just be worried about cancer or heart attack. But form your standpoint you might be worried as well when you see my diet. In the end we are both believing into some kind of diet. It's only belief if we are honest. The good thing: both will be probably more healthy than the standard american diet. So in the end we just have the option to play last man standing. So who lives longer wins, kind of... :P


"The death of the mind is the birth of wisdom." -- Nisargadatta Maharaj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Draconis Chaser First of all good post because even so I don't agree, but I wrote down why. :P

15 hours ago, Draconis Chaser said:

In my experience as a Biology/Molecular biology Major, also coming with background in Medicine, and after a humongous amout of books and publications I've read, professors I have talked to, doctors, scientists in research work, and also speaking from personal experience there is not enough evidence to support vegeterianism, let alone veganism as the optimum "eating pattern" (for a lack of better word), both from evolutionary, biochemical, genetic and microbial point of view, and also looking from comparative systematics pow.

With whom did you spoke? There are also plenty of plant based doctors and scientist, for example Dr. Esslsytn.

15 hours ago, Draconis Chaser said:

Someone has already stated that we have longer intestines than carnivores, and that that is a feature of a carnivore. That is only half true. We do have longer intestines than, say, a lion, but much, much shorter than a gazelle. Also, animals that eat large quantities of plant tissue usually have more than one stomack in order to degrade hard cellulose cell walls as much as possible. We have only one.

So to me it would make sense this way that we are build for something in between meat and plants. So fruits, potatoes etc.

15 hours ago, Draconis Chaser said:

As far as teeth are conserned, humans have incisors (found in herbivores and omnivores), mollars and premollars (found predominantely in herbivores) but also fangs (which are found predominantely in carnivorous animals).

Yes, but monkeys also have fangs and ours are even smaller. Also fangs are for hunting (I think) and we never hunted with our mouth..

15 hours ago, Draconis Chaser said:

Unlike herbivores, our intestine fauna isn't as effective in extracting nutrients from plant tissues, and we do not have enzymes for celulose decomposition. Since we can draw some nutrients from plants, they are obviously benefitial to us, but are not enough for optimum metabolism.

But what about fruit and straches? I think mainly fruit is our natural food.

15 hours ago, Draconis Chaser said:

Meat carries all essential amino acids and minerals nice and prepped for use to use immediately, and not have to sinthesyze a whole bunch of building materials. Plants carry only a small amount. Sure, there is fructose in fruit and juice, and our brain needs that to work properly, but muscles (and especially heart) work best on fatty acids. Not a lot of those in fruit.

But still enough. Otherwise fruitarians would die after some time. If it's enough you don't need more.

15 hours ago, Draconis Chaser said:

Of course, the choice to eat meat or not is entirely individual, but the whole point of this ranty post of mine is to note that if somebody is going to use biology, biochemistry and good quality science as a source material, they should get their facts straight, from reliable sources, AND consider the bigger picture derived therein.

Both sides claim that. :P I can listen to a plant based doctor and a HFLC doctor and they both tell me this.


"The death of the mind is the birth of wisdom." -- Nisargadatta Maharaj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZenMonkey said:

@Simon Zackrisson But the fact alone that the website gets it money from its members doesn't automactically make true what it says.

I didn't say it is true. I said there is no incentive for misinformation, since there is no donating corporation or government. 

There is an incentive to give the current scientific truth about what is healthy to eat. If it turns out that veganism was to be shown in independent, high quality studies, dietdoctor would be the first one to update its recommendations. It is not about a certain diet, it is about what is the scientifically supported healthy thing to eat.

If you have a membership, you're interested in being accountable for the best science that is around, you want your members to know that you are interested in their health, always looking out for the best information around, and not invested in some dogmatic feel-good diet. 

Quote

I am sure if I searched I would find some vegan website which is only payed by members. So who is right then? It's not an argument...

It's not websites that are right, as I already said. It is the independent, high quality scientific studies that is of weight.

Quote

And as I said both websites will only have onesided studies which will show that they are right. But can you see the difference in the studies? I can't. So when you say that our science is outdated you just repeat what those guys said, backed up by their own selective choice of studies.

There definitely is such a thing as independent, high quality studies. Studies that aren't "onesided".

It's not the amount of studies that matters, it is the quality. 

Just because I am too stupid to interpret long academic studies, DOES NOT mean that there is not independent, high quality objective studies which reveal the reality of the situation. 

One example of this is the fact that there has NEVER been a study proving any danger to eating cholesterol.

It doesn't matter if you cherry pick all you want. You got to realise that while some studies indeed are sponsored with an underlying agenda, both from the grain and sugar industry, as well as the meat and dairy industry, some studies are independent

It doesn't matter if you or me understand studies, it still exists such a phenomena as independent high quality studies which shows an accurate picture of reality.

Quote

You will find to each niche someone who will make money of it. This website too is dependent. They are dependent on people who believe the LCHF side of the story to make money.

Quote

So they for sure would not tell you if everything the write were false because they would lose their income. I don't say they do, I just say your argument is lacking

As explained, the website is concerned with up-to-date scientifically supported data. 

It's not us versus them.

It's not "www.lchf.com" vs "www.vegan.com". 

www.dietdoctor.com is about actual health, not a diet. The current scientific supported truth is showcased, not a certain diet. They definitely would update their recommendations, if there is scientific support. That is what is called accountability. 

Quote

And to me the World Health Organisation just seems more reliable then this website.

5 hours ago, Simon Zackrisson said:

accept donations from any corporation or government

 

Quote

To your time images: I didn't miss it but if the time writes as much shit (mostly in politics) as here in Germany I am very cautious. No matter what topic they lost my trust. And I include all big newspapers in we have in Germany in this.

But that doesn't take away that it is this magazine that initiated the war on fat, and now updated its position.

56d86867e8288_ScreenShot2016-02-25at14.1

 

Quote

I quoted this because you used an argument against him which I already picked and pointed out as wrong/not necessarily right. You never replied and still use it,

Enlighten me. Which argument are you referring to? 

Also, where did I commit a logical fallacy?

Quote

but on the other hand you want him to reply to every point you make, also this argument.

Factually incorrect. I wanted Phocus to respond with a single example in his accusation of me being guilty of using logical fallacies. Not reply to every point. 

I find it fascinating that you should quote without actually grasping what the text states.

Quote

That image only shows that the average american diet got worth since 1980. And if I look at the normal american diet today it's far from either HCLF or LCHF or the dietary guidlines for americans.

No, the image shows what happened after the they said don't eat fat. 

56d85e1c9b685_ScreenShot2016-03-03at13.4

Again, correlation does not imply causation. 

But it is, in my opinion, pretty crystal clear. 

 

Quote

So to the results. I see success stories with obesity, acne and diabetes when I follow your link. All that can a HCLF diet provide you as well an the personal results are also overwhemling. But I don't find  people who recover from cancer or heart attack there.

There is both of those there, in science and stories. Look again.

Quote

But if you feel well on your diet, do it. I would just be worried about cancer or heart attack. But form your standpoint you might be worried as well when you see my diet. In the end we are both believing into some kind of diet. It's only belief if we are honest.

You're right. It is ultimately a belief, just like it is a belief to believe in god, that the earth is flat based on bad evidence: the bible. 

And it's also a belief when you're basing your opinion on the newest science, stating that the earth is indeed not flat.

Quote

The good thing: both will be probably more healthy than the standard american diet. So in the end we just have the option to play last man standing. So who lives longer wins, kind of... :P

Well, high five to that brother. :)

It's good that we both avoid direct intake sugar. Perhaps you should eventually consider avoiding carbs too, since they become sugar in your body. ;) 

Edited by Simon Zackrisson
Edit 1: "Offensive language" By Dhana Choko Edit 2: Edited "Offensive language" out by Simon Zackrisson

Endless nuance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Simon Zackrisson I don't know why you have to call me those things? I am  sorry but I don't feel like continuing this discusion with you in any way.


"The death of the mind is the birth of wisdom." -- Nisargadatta Maharaj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZenMonkey

If you're referring to the part Dhana Choko edited,

56d88a5ba63da_ScreenShot2016-03-03at20.0

I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings.

I just felt upset of you misquoting several times, while accusing me of using logical fallacies without even saying when I did it.


Endless nuance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZenMonkey But if you don't want to keep engagement in the conversation it's fine. 

I would just have been happier if you didn't accuse me of using logical fallacies. 

Peace bro


Endless nuance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned posting about this a while ago but never got around to it so... here it is!

I have done extensive research on the subject of how our bodies process macro-nutrients and in this post I hope to explain:

  • A brief history of human evolution as it pertains to our diets
  • How our bodies process macro nutrients
  • How high fat diets work
  • How high carb diets work
  • How heart disease works (and why saturated fat both is and ISN'T the cause)
  • And other considerations related to high fat and high carb diets

One of the challenges of researching a topic like this is that people on both sides of the issue are very passionate that they are "right" but few people take ALL of the data into consideration.  But... What if we're both right?  Regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, please consider ALL of the information presented before forming an opinion or dismissing any of the data points presented that don't support your existing belief system.  It all ties together.

They are just data points.

A Brief History of Human Evolution

Humans have evolved over the course of millions of years (approximately 3.5) and during that time our bodies have been very finely tuned to thrive in a multitude of environments and conditions which include: tropical jungles, the arctic, islands, the great plains, deserts and the GREATEST landscape of all, the wooded forests of the Pacific Northwest ;) .  Starting from our evolutionary roots, we know that we have a close association with primates.  Primates eat a plant-base diet that consists largely of fruits, leaves, nuts, seeds, stems and small amounts of insects and other bugs.  These evolutionary origins can clearly be seen in yourself by simply opening your mouth and looking in the mirror and not so easily observed in ourselves by the length of our digestive tracts.  Herbivores and omnivores require longer digestive tracts because it takes longer to break down the fibrous plant material that we eat and extract as many of the nutrients as possible.  Carnivorous animals have comparatively shorter digestive tracts as protein and fat are much easier for the body to process and store.

As primitive humans began to evolve into more dexterous and intelligent creatures, we began to spread out and needed to adapt to different climates and new ways of nourishing our bodies besides those methods employed by our early chimp relatives.  Scientific research shows evidence of the mastery of fire (used for cooking) around 100,000-200,000 years ago.  Finally, we could start eating meat!  In general, foods that we've evolved to eat taste good in their unprocessed state.  Thus, you wont see anyone gnawing on a raw rib-eye outside of a few unsavory bets...  Unlike carnivorous animals, our bodies aren't well suited for consuming raw meat.  We don't have the flesh-shredding features they do and our bodies can't protect us from the foodborne pathogens present in raw animal tissue.  Cooking GREATLY reduced the amount of chewing required to consume plants and meats (allowing us to consume the great quantities of them needed to power our growing brains) and also protected us from foodborne illnesses.  To facilitate this new lifestyle option, our bodies improved its ability to consume the large amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol associated with eating a diet based on animal products.

How our bodies process macro nutrients

Our Bodies Run on Sugar.  When you look at sports drinks and other post-workout supplements you'll find HEAPS of sugar.  Our muscles burn sugar, which is fed to them by a process called Glycogenesis.  This replenishes our muscles, allowing us to maintain peak performance levels longer and recover from exercise more quickly.  If this doesn't happen, your performance suffers and thus, Gatorade and its associated multi-billion dollar industry was born.  Sugar also stimulates the release of insulin and IGF-1, which is arguably the MOST anabolic (aka muscle building) hormone our bodies produce.  One fitness celebrity (a dumb one, Jim Stoppani...) even went so far as to recommend eating Pixy Sticks and Gummy Bears as a post-workout snack because, it doesn't matter how you get the sugar, you just need sugar.  Some professional cyclists will even mix as much as 200 grams of refined sugar with water for a syrupy sweet drink to keep their blood sugar levels topped off while performing their intense multi-hour exertions.  There is also an emphasis in the fitness community around meal timing; eating directly after a workout so that your spiked blood sugar levels refill your muscles glycogen stores and maximize that nice insulin spike to make the most out of your workout.  Evolutionarily, this also makes sense as we hunt and then feast.  Gather and gorge.  If sugar and carbohydrates are not present though, like our ancestors who ate animal-based diets, our bodies have adapted to meet our needs and avoid Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) by turning non-carbohygrates (protein and fat) into sugar through a process called Gluconeogenesis.

Another critical component of our body is our brain, which also runs on sugar.  Like our muscles, our brain also suffers when it doesn't have access to an abundant supply of sugar in our blood.  As Dr. Kelly McGonigal, a Stanford psychologist and author of The Willpower Instinct (amazing book) and Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit talk about in their books, our brains have evolved over millions of years in a fairly crude manner.  As new portions and functionality were developed, they were just kind of slapped on top of the older, more primitive parts that were still needed to perform basic unconscious and semi-conscious tasks.  Back in the true paleolithic era, nutrition and energy was very scarce and our bodies adapted to be as efficient as possible (there are many other things our bodies do to conserve energy that I won't go into here).  That being said, our brains consume a ton of energy to operate at full power, so our bodies developed a way to throttle back the activity in some of the newer, and more energetically expensive portions, most notably, the Prefrontal Cortex.  Our PFC is responsible for many of the things that make humans "human".  Decision making, planning, deciding between right and wrong and willpower.  Many studies have been done around the effect that blood sugar has on your ability to resist temptations and follow instructions.  Upon further investigation, studies have shown that as soon as our blood sugar levels begin to drop, the brain doesn't just scale down PFC activity linearly to match the dropping blood sugar levels, it dramatically scales back activity as soon as it detects a drop in blood sugar (blood sugar and self-control: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/303.abstract).

Q: But there is substantial evidence sugar and carbs are making Americans fat and sick!

A: This is true.  Refined sugar and refined carbohydrates do bad things to our bodies.  Refined sugar, in the quantities that we consume it in (as discussed in the documentary Fed Up and the book Salt Sugar Fat) from modern chemically-engineered "food products", spike our blood sugar enormously high which doesn't give our body a chance to use the sugar (as described above) like it normally would, triggering a huge insulin response that also results in a blood sugar valley, leaving the consumer fat and lethargic.  Allow me to reference, the stereotype that everyone has of obese people.  Refined carbohydrates (such as white flour and white rice) are also processed by the body much more quickly than their unprocessed counterparts and have a similar effect.

So why are fruit, brown rice and whole grains supposedly "health" foods if they all turn to sugar eventually and our body can't tell the difference between the sugar in fruit and high-fructose corn syrup?  The packaging.  Fruit has something that the other processed foods don't have: Fiber.  Fiber slows down the digestive process and as a result, the sugar is extracted from the fruit slowly while it traverses our longer digestive tract so that you get a slow even stream of sugar to your blood preventing the spikes and crashes that begin the "fat and lazy" cycle associated with refined sugar.  The same is true for whole grains and unprocessed (brown) rice; the additional fiber slows digestion and feeds your brain and muscles a nice slow and steady stream of glucose to keep them running at optimal performance.  This slower rate of absorption helps prevent unused sugar from being stored as fat.

High Fat and High Carb

As discussed in the documentary Forks Over Knives, there is evidence in our stomachs that supports two lifestyles; the mechanisms that triggers satiety (aka, feeling "full").  Our stomachs signal the brain using one of two ways:  it detects the richness of our food via fat content or, it detects how physically full the stomach is by measuring how much it has stretched.  Again, you can see how these mechanisms play into our two diets.  If you're eating rich fatty animal tissue, you don't need as much food to meet your bodies caloric needs.  With a plant-based diet, which is less calorie-dense (and doesn't contain much fat), you need to eat until you're physically full to get enough calories.

To support these theories we have TONS of observational evidence.  There have been hundreds of studies that show, the more plants you eat, the healthier you are.  I mean just talk to any vegan and they'll chat your ear off about all of the amazing health benefits they've experienced since they cut meat, dairy and animal products out of their diets.  But... now we have this new group of people joining the conversation claiming the opposite: "I cut fruit and carbs out of my diet and ate mostly animal products and now I'M experiencing all kinds of health benefits and weight loss" (sources here here and here).  There have also been studies of indigenous tribes who eat diets that consist of 70% of their daily caloric intake from the saturated fat of wild plains-graising animal sources (milk, blood, organs, marrow, brains, ect...) who live normal, healthy lives.  So... what the heck is going on?

 

How heart disease works (and why saturated fat both is and ISN'T the cause)

For decades, research has directly correlated saturated fat consumption with Atherosclerosis and increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.  Studies have even been done where they take a control group of vegetarians, add  8oz of daily meat consumption to their diet and immediately their risk factors for atherosclerosis go up.  When they remove the meat from their diets, their risk factors go down.  So, saturated fat and cholesterol from animals is the problem!  But, that still doesn't explain why all of these people, who eat diets which contain as much as 70%! of their daily caloric intake from saturated fat (most of which is from animals), aren't falling over dead left and right.

To explain my answer to this contradiction, let's take a quick look at a few foods that are more recent additions to our diet and we all seem to generally recognize as being "unhealthy" and see what they have in common...

  • Pizza
  • Cheese Burgers
  • French Fries
  • Ice Cream and Milkshakes
  • Cakes and Cupcakes
  • Potato Chips

All of these foods are high in carbs AND high in fat.  So, knowing that humans can thrive on diets that are high in carbs OR high in fat, how can we explain this interaction?  I would also like to highlight and interesting phenomenon related to these new high-fat diets: when you first start following a high fat diet, people often report symptoms associated with hypoglycemia during their "transition period".  They go through a period of extreme low blood sugar as their body begins to ramp up its Gluconeogenesis.  Cardiac surgeons around the world also KNOW that the atherosclerotic build up that is responsible for heart disease is made up of fat (among other things).   To me, the answer is very obvious and there is only one conclusion that can be made which explains ALL of the data available:

While our bodies blood sugar needs are being met through carbohydrates (and/aka sugar), it is not able to remove saturated fat from the blood quickly enough to prevent the build-up of fatty plaques in our arteries, resulting in atherosclerosis which leads to heart disease, heart attacks and strokes.

There has not been sufficient scientific research done to back up this conclusion and this is my personal opinion based on the research I have done.  I have not seen this theory tested anywhere or even discussed (or if it has been discussed, I haven't seen it).  Again, this is 100% based on my own opinion but there is no other way to explain the evidence both for and against saturated fat as it relates to heart disease.

The Diets and Other Considerations

High Carb: While following a plant-based whole foods vegan diet you'll focus on consuming the following foods:

  • Legumes (beans, peas, lentils, ect..)
  • Oats
  • Brown Rice
  • Starchy Vegetables (Corn, parsnips, potatoes, pumpkin, squash, zucchini, yams ect..)
  • Non-Starchy Vegetables (Lettuce, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, cucumber, spinach, mushrooms, onions, peppers, tomatoes ect..)
  • Fruit

it is very easy to lose weight as plant-based food is naturally very calorie dilute.  1 pound of sweet potatoes is only 400 calories and costs about 99 cents!  And you can bet that will fill you up!  This can cause problems however, as we're socially conditioned to eat sparingly which can result in malnutrition.  As discussed earlier, for low fat diets, satiation is triggered by the stomach being physically full.  When following these natural diets, It is always best to listen to your body.  It is also important to eat a variety of greens and other plants, not just focusing on one - even if it's kale! (just like with any diet)

Because cholesterol is only found in animal products and there are very few plant-based foods that contain large amounts of saturated fat, a plant-based whole-foods vegan diet is the only diet that have been proven to prevent and reverse heart disease.

High Fat: These diets were popularized for their weight loss potential (initially marketed as Low Carb) as American's have a notoriously difficult time giving up fatty meat which doesn't pair well with the sea of carbs found in modern processed foods.  Refined carbohydrates are added to many food items, even some you wouldn't expect.  If you plan to follow a high fat diet it is VERY important that you eliminate ALL carbohydrates possible.  The underlying principal is that your bodies only energy source is fat.  This allows you to maintain the, fat friendly, gluconeogenetic state.  Despite that the diet is called "high fat" you should still be consuming a large volume of vegetables to aid in digestion.  Failing to do so, might be the cause of some cancers (referenced below).

Following a High Fat diet, you'll want to focus your caloric intake on the following:

  • Non-Starchy Low-Sugar Vegetables (Lettuce, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, cucumber, spinach, mushrooms, onions, peppers ect..)
  • High-Fat Meats and Fish
  • Eggs
  • Plant-based oils high in fat such as Olive and Coconut Oil
  • Full-Fat Dairy products such as: Milk, Cheese, Butter an Creams

I want to make two points REALLY clear - if you are following a high fat diet, you need to consume AS FEW CARBS AS POSSIBLE and LOTS OF VEGETABLES.  We are not carnivores.  If you do not do both of these things, you set yourself up for long-term health problems.  When you are first transitioning to a high-fat diet, it is advisable to do so with a short fast (~24 hours).  This will give your body a chance to burn off any remaining blood sugar and kick-start gluconeogenesis.

Various cancers have been associated with red, processed and cured meats.  The World Health Organization even went as far as to group processed and cured meats in the same carcinogen category as cigarettes and asbestos! (http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)  One explanation for this could be that most consumers of animal products don't get an adequate supply of dietary insoluble fiber which results in greatly increased risks for colon and other cancers as the meat fermenting in their digestive tract poisons their body.

High-Fat diets have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but we don't have good data that shows the long-term health consequences of following a diet of this style in the current environment we live in.  We eat factory farmed meat and dairy products (even if its organic), we live 20-40 years longer than our ancestors and we have an enormous amount of environmental pollutants which are up to 100 X more concentrated in animals than they are in the original plants themselves.  If you're substantially overweight though, nothing is more unhealthy than excess body fat and an animal based diet might be easier to follow.

My final thoughts

Another important consideration for the applications of these diets is... CONTEXT!  The plainsmen and women of the tribes in the high-fat examples, as well as our ancient relatives, were consuming animals and animal products that were free range, "organic", pasture raised and living off of food sources which didn't contain any environmental pollutants.  Animals serve as a concentration point for environmental pollutants (which are stored in fat).  Modern farming practices also feed animals diets which are not natural to their evolution in the interest of increased growth rates along with being given hormones and antibiotics.  Beef cows grow at a rate of about 3 pounds PER DAY!  That is not natural.  Before justifying this by saying "well I eat grass fed beef!" every time you eat at a restaurant, you are eating factory farmed meat.  The claims made by the animal agriculture industry related to the conditions in which the animals are being raised are largely done to make consumers feel better about purchasing their products.  For many of the marketing terms used, there is either no legal definition or loose guidelines around what it constitutes to make those claims (which are not enforced by any government agencies) with the exception of Certified Organic products.  For example, "grass fed" cows for the production of beef can, and are, still given hormones and antibiotics to increase their survivability and growth rates (another example of misleading advertising here).

As described in the documentary Cowspiracy, animal agriculture is also wildly unsustainable and animals cannot be raised in an efficient enough way to meet the growing demands that our population has.  As a result, animal agriculture has tried to keep up by bending the rules and side-stepping ethics which has lead to this unfortunate set of statistics...

  • #1 cause for species extinction
  • #1 source of greenhouse gas emissions (51% of all greenhouse gasses world wide)
  • #1 cause for Ocean Dead Zones
  • #1 cause for water pollution
  • #1 cause of rainforest deforestation
  • it consumes 55% of all the water used in the US (2,500 gallons of water per 1 pound of beef produced)
  • livestock or livestock feed cover 1/3 of the Earth's ice-free land

The US government pays out $38 billion each year to the meat, dairy and egg industries in incentivized funding.  Unfortunately, these funds go almost exclusively to massive factory farming corporations.  Fishing isn't much better as 200 million pounds of Bycatch are pulled from our oceans and killed EACH DAY.  Animal agriculture is also notorious for brutal torturings, mutilations and the systematic abuse of animals.  Private organizations began to infiltrate these large operations and expose the abuse with hidden camera footage that proved the abuse was on-going and not isolated incidents which resulted in felony convictions and firings!  Fear of bad press and losing government funding from these exposures, these corporations bought politicians to pass laws that made it illegal to expose animal abuse, known as Ag-gag laws.  Laws such as AETA have also been passed to aid these businesses in using the legal system to attack those that would expose the evils that they are perpetrating.  If that isn't absolutely disgusting and evil then I just don't know what is.

While we are biologically capable of eating both plant-based (carb) and animal-based (fat) diets, I hope you'll consider the impact of your decisions to consume animal products.  Eventually, it wont be a choice.  Animal product production simply cannot keep up with the growing needs of our species and the only reason it has kept up thus far has been from unethical agricultural practices that have taken an enormous toll on the environment.  It is not impossible to raise and slaughter animals ethically, but it is not profitable, scaleable or sustainable enough to meet the current demands.

@Simon Zackrisson @ZenMonkey @Draconis Chaser


"It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

Presence.  Acceptance.  Purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really great read! 

One question, can I eat high carb and s consume varied amounts of healthy fats such as oils, nuts and avacados?

I learned an incredible amount! Thank you so much for your input. I will never view food the same. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Benevolent said:

Really great read! 

One question, can I eat high carb and s consume varied amounts of healthy fats such as oils, nuts and avacados?

I learned an incredible amount! Thank you so much for your input. I will never view food the same. 

 

Thank you! :)

And I wouldn't imagine that to be a problem.  Most of those fats are not saturated.  You can Google "____ nutrition info" (almond, peanut, cashew, avocado, olive oil, ect...) and see that most of the fat contained from these plant-based sources are not saturated.  The most noteworthy source of saturated fat from a plant is actually coconuts (their milk and oil).  Coconut oil is associated with a wide variety of health benefits though so I would do your research on that before making any decisions.  When cooking with plant-based oils, they have a Smoke Point, at which their monounsaturated fat is broken down into saturated fat.  For this reason it is recommended to cook with oils like Avocado, which have an extremely high smoke point that wont likely be reached while cooking.


"It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

Presence.  Acceptance.  Purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone that was raised veggie, worked 10 years in natural foods, and has developed a new perspective in later life, I can offer a unique opinion. I agree that a vegan lifestyle is better for the planet, that said, I do not feel that the meat alternative industry is up to par yet, especially in the realm of fats. The key to health is; a nutrient-dense, natural, unprocessed and unrefined diet. Please see the research of Dr. Weston A. Price, (he saw the link between modern food and health decay). In aprox. 1920's he was able to travel the world and find the last truly healthy cultures. The only healthy plant-based culture he found (I think Africa) ate lots of insects (so vegans could consider cricket flour, cricket burgers, etc, sustainable animal protein). Weston price found that this insect culture was actually the least healthy, of all the traditional cultures, and the inuit, high-animal-fat culture was healthier (this does not mean you should eat big portions modern animal fat). For me, until I can buy/ make something like cricket burgers that contain a similar fat profile to chicken and fish I choose the healthiest, most sustainable animal choices: i drink raw milk from happy goats living in harmony with their babies year round, I drink bone broth/ eat happy chicken from a local farm, I eat pasture raised eggs, honey, and most importantly fermented cod liver oil, or krill oil!
Ethically I'd prefer to be vegan, but my personal experience; as a veggie for 30+ years, I literally had to force myself to eat organic range chicken, but once I started I quickly had more emotional control, less negative emotions, and  vastly improved mental stability and function. I am 100% with the Weston price foundation on PRO RAW MILK, I've witnessed it cure major illness in my child and others. Sauerkraut and fermented veg have awesome probiotics too, but so far the most amazing, powerful, probiotic I've ever discovered is raw milk Kiefer, a miracle of nature to which there is currently no comparable vegan alternative.... but the revolution is coming see: http://futurefood2050.com/what-will-we-be-eating-in-2050/

I also wanted to add my opinion re: veganism and evolution. I truly believe that enlightened future humans could evolve to live on a purely vegan diet. I think the current nutritional needs of humans stem from a vast history of animal fat consumption, and we have not yet evolved beyond this need.... hopefully soon... our minds are awakening, so our bodies could follow suit

 

Edited by Epiphany_Inspired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now