Yeah, I would agree. Devil's advocates are important. That guy was just literally in a forest coming out of left field. Ok, I get it. He's in shape. That is great. It almost reminded me of some fake wrestling promo. Now, I do not need a MD in a suit and tie for it to be a worthwhile presentation...
There should be some introduction to what he is going to discuss though.
Cows should eat grass, not modified corn and drugs.
Cats should eat meat, and they do.
Humans should eat???
I dunno guys. That question fascinates me. Omnivore's Dilemna is working through the answer. Great book so far. The corn industry is bananas.
1
asdf2000 United States. Aug 30 2016 01:33. Posts 7690
so the deal with nutrition is that the specifics are complicated and I don't think science has gone far enough down the rabbit hole for us to really be able to outline what healthy eating is when it comes to the specifics
but in general, it doesn't really matter what you eat. the building blocks that our cells use to make more cells and cell organelles can be found in an abundance of different food. as long as our guts can digest them, it's really not a big deal.
just, like, don't eat very much unless you need to for some reason, eat reasonable stuff, and you'll be healthy as far as diet goes.
(if you don't believe this then look at the diets of top level athletes and you'll find that many of them have vastly different diets, and yet they all excel in their fields)
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
All of the farmers are in debt and broke. It is not like "oh, what about the poor farmers?" No. Let us figure something else out and if people want to farm they can try their hand at farming how evolution intended and not how greedy corporations and "public servants" intend. I am not even against subsidizing if it makes sense. I do not want media making shit up and distracting people while promoting their sponsors. I do not want corporations spending profits from the farmers work and government policies to advertise and market and seduce and hypnotize the public. Coca-Cola is part of the problem here. Cargill, Monsanto, Tyson. The list goes on. $19 billion dollars to make the public sick and corporations and certain government officials rich. I could not find a good statistic on how much diet related illness pharmaceuticals get subsidized but it drives me nuts.
Man, I really want to go way deep on:
- Appropriate use of violence (ethical use of violence) as it relates to the Middle East as it relates to petroleum (or as it relates to anything). The human urge for sex, money, and power and that relationship to violence, deception, and war. The human urge for sex, money, and power in general. Man, I just get so fired up in the belief that human beings can evolve. We are evolving but there are so many suffering people. So much legitimate suffering in lack of water and food. Also, legitimate suffering in the form of fear, anger, self-centeredness. So much deceptive programming.
how evolution wanted? thats stupid, we use technology in everything in our lives, food shouldnt be the exeption, GMOs are the future, they are currently saving millions of lives in Africa the fact that Monsanto are assholes it doesnt have anything to do with the potential of GMOs
On August 29 2016 03:25 RiKD wrote:
I am going to need some evidence from Dr. John McDougall, Loco, or anyone else that supports that humans are herbivores and not omnivores. That is an outlandish statement from one of his cholesterol webinars I am watching.
It would be helpful if you provided the exact statement. I don't remember him ever saying that we are herbivores, or at least not strict herbivores. In fact, I don't know of a single plant-based doctor who believes that. What they'll say is that, biologically, we look a lot closer to strict herbivores than strict carnivores and so we do a lot better on plant-foods as our main fuel. Certainly not an outlandish claim. I just watched McDougall talk about this briefly in this new documentary preview: http://www.foodchoicesmovie.com/
He mentions the Inuit Eskimos as being the exception to the rule of people who were able to survive in extreme circumstances as carnivores. If he believed we were strict herbivores, he certainly wouldn't acknowledge that this population lived almost exclusively on animal foods. He's written extensively about them too and how the low carb gurus use this population without conceding that they had a lot of documented health issues like atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.
We are essentially scavengers who evolved to be able to gain energy from both eating plants and animals. But this doesn't mean that eating both plants and animals are necessary or optimal, which is what people generally think omnivory means. We're not strict or obligate omnivores. But it's true that we can live on plant foods alone, and in that sense we could be said to be herbivores whereas we cannot be said to be carnivores since we can't produce our own vitamin C like carnivores do and we know for a fact we need fiber in our diets for long term health. If you're looking for evidence of us being non-strict herbivores, Dr. William C Roberts makes the case that atherosclerosis only affects herbivores here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1849886/
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Some shirtless guy in the forest has better evidence than a guy practicing medicine for 40+ years with the benefits of experience with a large sample size of patients?
I am going to need a reason to watch this.
to be open minded and a critical thinker, one must be able to argue the other side better than their supporters.
This man you linked to (for the second time now) is a lunatic and doesn't represent any side. If you think he represents raw foodism, think again. He talks about reversing the "fall of mankind" so his motives are very clearly religious. He doesn't make any claims about the nutrition and how McDougall's proposed diet is unhealthy other than the "live enzymes" that we supposedly need from raw foods, which is a claim that is easily falsified. Seriously, even gurus who follow raw food diets and have been associated with the movement for many years know that this is untrue. Frederic Patenaude being one of them, says that this is the easiest claim to rebuke, and he's right. There's only a very few exceptions where enzymes actually make a difference, like with Broccoli.
There have certainly been critics of McDougall's diet advice though: the low carbers and those promoting the mainstream "well-balanced" diet of eating factory farmed meat and dairy in addition to some fruits and vegetables. What I found in hearing them out is that those critics all have something to sell, and fail to present a truly scientific case for not eating a plant-based (starch-based) diet. Not only that, but their concerns are purely egocentric. They do not care about the larger effects that their diets have on the environment or about the welfare of animals other than humans, which is irrational and absurd. I should add also that McDougall's wikipedia page has been smeared, then semi-protected and essentially censored by an unreasonable editor with power (Alexbrn) and who is attempting to do the same thing on other doctors' pages because he is strongly biased against plant-based diets. Unfortunately, wikipedia cannot be said to be an objective source of information on some topics where people have agendas.
I'd also restructure your sentence with the old adage from G.K. Chesterton and make it the following: to be and remain a critical thinker, you have to be careful not to be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On August 29 2016 03:25 RiKD wrote:
I am going to need some evidence from Dr. John McDougall, Loco, or anyone else that supports that humans are herbivores and not omnivores. That is an outlandish statement from one of his cholesterol webinars I am watching.
It would be helpful if you provided the exact statement. I don't remember him ever saying that we are herbivores, or at least not strict herbivores. In fact, I don't know of a single plant-based doctor who believes that. But this is probably just a question of semantics and what is meant by herbivore. I just watched McDougall talk about this briefly in this new documentary preview: http://www.foodchoicesmovie.com/
He mentions the Inuit Eskimos as being the exception to the rule of people who were able to survive in extreme circumstances as carnivores. If he believed we were strict herbivores, he certainly wouldn't acknowledge that this population lived almost exclusively on animal foods. He's written extensively about them too and how the low carb gurus use this population without conceding that they had a lot of documented health issues like atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.
The general consensus from scientists afaik when it comes to our biology is that we are clearly more adapted to thrive on mostly plants than on mostly animal foods. We are essentially scavengers who evolved to be able to gain energy from both eating plants and animals. But this doesn't mean that eating both plants and animals are necessary or optimal, which is what people generally think omnivory means. We're not strict or obligate omnivores. But it's true that we can live on plant foods alone, and in that sense we could be said to be herbivores whereas we cannot be said to be carnivores since we can't produce our own vitamin C like carnivores do and we know for a fact we need fiber in our diets for long term health. If you're looking for evidence, Dr. William C Roberts makes the case that atherosclerosis only affects herbivores here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1849886/
It was in his webinar on cholesterol somewhere. I think it was in relation to talking about how our livers have difficulty synthesizing animal meat/cholesterol. He was talking about how carnivore livers are very adept at handling animal meat. Listening to this Rich Roll podcast they are talking about substantial evidence that the iron in animal meat is damaging to the pancreas. Studies about animal meat and their effect on atherosclerosis, diabetes, weight gain, and longevity. The Epic Study. The Adventist Health Study. I am learning. That is a lot of strong evidence supporting a whole food plant based diet. It makes sense that human beings CAN eat meat. Similar to how cows CAN eat corn. Cows can eat cows too they just get even sicker. I do not like the cow analogy though. With the humans and meat the diseases are more subtle. Some people can likely get away with it. I realize I am basically parroting Dr. Garth Davis and have faith that he is unbiased and seeking truth.
Thanks again by the way. I went back through this thread and there is tons of great information. That was part of my hope in starting it. I also watched the Joe Rogan Experience with Aubrey de Grey which in part had me thinking fuck it I will just pray for the artery healing hack he spoke of. 10 years away from clinical trials, 15 years away from approved therapy. Boom. Bring on the steaks. Sonic boom. Aubrey also mentioned the importance of vitamin c and vitamin e (doh)... I just look at a group like the adventist group and think they likely get more value out of the 50-80 range (even 30-50 range) and man if we as a people can get value out of 80+ that is pretty fucking strong. 1,000 would be incredible. If we have the technology for 1,000 diet may not matter but for the chance at the higher numbers of quality age, a good diet, not smoking, movement, not abusing drugs and alcohol just has to be a consideration.
I ate some Okinawa sweet potatoes today with a creme fraiche, lime zest, lime juice, ginger, and lemon grass topping (Ottolenghi). It was the star of the show for sure. Some local tomato insalata caprese as well. I suppose I am trending towards vegan but tonight's meal was so delicious it would be tough to give up dairy completely. Are dairy cows grass fed? Any evidence on why dairy is considered bad?
On August 30 2016 06:06 Baalim wrote:
how evolution wanted? thats stupid, we use technology in everything in our lives, food shouldnt be the exeption, GMOs are the future, they are currently saving millions of lives in Africa the fact that Monsanto are assholes it doesnt have anything to do with the potential of GMOs
I can definitely agree with the Monsanto are assholes part.
I wrote the how evolution wanted part in relation to cows. Cows stomaches to be exact. Cows have evolved to eat grass and not corn. There is a lot of cow eugenics technology in the mix but it is not all that effective. Pumping cows full of antibiotics is also problematic.
I do not know much about GMOs. They seem promising. Better yield of healthier crops that can feed suffering people is great. My concerns are mostly with unintended consequences. Butterfly theory type stuff but I am uneducated on the subject and do not really care to research it.
On August 30 2016 00:17 RiKD wrote:
Cows should eat grass, not modified corn and drugs.
Cats should eat meat, and they do.
Humans should eat???
I dunno guys. That question fascinates me. Omnivore's Dilemna is working through the answer. Great book so far. The corn industry is bananas.
I think the idea that we should eat our "natural diet" is part of what leads to so much confusion and makes it easy for people to jump on the Paleo bandwagon because most people have no clue what we ate as a species and it involves a lot of wishful thinking. Secondly, we know that we evolved by natural selection, and natural selection doesn't "intend" long-term health and longevity. In other words, even if we have a good idea of what we naturally evolved eating, we do not know that this is in fact the optimal way to eat. I think I made this point earlier in the thread but it bears repeating. Natural selection is only about passing one's genes. Clearly, we don't want to just pass on our genes and die of a heart attack when we're 39, so this shouldn't be our focus.
Our focus should be based on adopting (as much as possible) the best diet -- the one that has the most evidence supporting it currently. This diet has to be pleasant and palatable, otherwise it's not going to help us for very long. I would argue that it also has to be sustainable, because even from the most selfish perspective there is no logic in making choices that will destroy the planet and empty it of resources that your family will be needing in the future. The idea that the best diet for our health would happen to be the most destructive (like Keto) doesn't make sense at all to me. When I consider all of this, it's very clear to me that a plant-based diet is the only choice. It doesn't have to be plant-exclusive, like in my case I throw some bivalves in there. But it's really a no brainer that it has to be plant-centered.
In your search for the "truth" here, make sure that you do not miss the forest for the trees. If you want to appreciate a beautiful painting, I doubt you would just look at it under a microscope. In nutrition, it's too easy to get stuck in a reductionist paradigm. Reductionism is helpful, but we have to be able step back from it. We might not have definitive or absolute answers, but we can look at history, we can look at different populations, and we can clearly see what has worked and what hasn't worked so far.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I know I am an alcoholic + drug addict when I start thinking about the ability to regenerate livers and kidneys and brain damage. Well, if I can snap regen a liver and be under surveillance 24/7 and someone with a tranquilizer gun on call I could go on some proper benders again. No answer for the eventual want/need to be drunk/high just about 24/7 or how I would pay my bills. Perhaps I could get coaching from Stanhope.
On August 30 2016 06:06 Baalim wrote:
how evolution wanted? thats stupid, we use technology in everything in our lives, food shouldnt be the exeption, GMOs are the future, they are currently saving millions of lives in Africa the fact that Monsanto are assholes it doesnt have anything to do with the potential of GMOs
I can definitely agree with the Monsanto are assholes part.
I wrote the how evolution wanted part in relation to cows. Cows stomaches to be exact. Cows have evolved to eat grass and not corn. There is a lot of cow eugenics technology in the mix but it is not all that effective. Pumping cows full of antibiotics is also problematic.
I do not know much about GMOs. They seem promising. Better yield of healthier crops that can feed suffering people is great. My concerns are mostly with unintended consequences. Butterfly theory type stuff but I am uneducated on the subject and do not really care to research it.
Sure its a concern but Its mainly an irrational one, we think that if there is a lab involved its dangerous, but we have been genetically modifying food since the first day of agriculture, most fruit and vegetables were awful, they were small, hard and tasted like shit, we used the seeds of the best vegetables and kept repeating the process until we got our current vegetables that look nothing like they were before.
Its the same thing but instead of breeding we go straight to the DNA, and Im sure most of you are smart enough to not instantly correlate GMOs as a bad thing, but many if not most people do.
On August 30 2016 06:06 Baalim wrote:
how evolution wanted? thats stupid, we use technology in everything in our lives, food shouldnt be the exeption, GMOs are the future, they are currently saving millions of lives in Africa the fact that Monsanto are assholes it doesnt have anything to do with the potential of GMOs
Agreed, and it's not just GMOs either; our normal every day fruits and vegetables are man-made hybrids which were never found in nature. We bred into them what we liked and wanted the most of, and there is no evidence demonstrating that we committed some grave folly by doing so. With that said, there are limits to how much we can "improve on nature". Soylent, for example, is not an improvement. It's a reductionist's wet-dream of a food and adopting it as a staple food isn't scientifically sound.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On August 30 2016 06:06 Baalim wrote:
how evolution wanted? thats stupid, we use technology in everything in our lives, food shouldnt be the exeption, GMOs are the future, they are currently saving millions of lives in Africa the fact that Monsanto are assholes it doesnt have anything to do with the potential of GMOs
I can definitely agree with the Monsanto are assholes part.
I wrote the how evolution wanted part in relation to cows. Cows stomaches to be exact. Cows have evolved to eat grass and not corn. There is a lot of cow eugenics technology in the mix but it is not all that effective. Pumping cows full of antibiotics is also problematic.
I do not know much about GMOs. They seem promising. Better yield of healthier crops that can feed suffering people is great. My concerns are mostly with unintended consequences. Butterfly theory type stuff but I am uneducated on the subject and do not really care to research it.
Sure its a concern but Its mainly an irrational one, we think that if there is a lab involved its dangerous, but we have been genetically modifying food since the first day of agriculture, most fruit and vegetables were awful, they were small, hard and tasted like shit, we used the seeds of the best vegetables and kept repeating the process until we got our current vegetables that look nothing like they were before.
Its the same thing but instead of breeding we go straight to the DNA, and Im sure most of you are smart enough to not instantly correlate GMOs as a bad thing, but many if not most people do.
Yeah, I read a stat today on that last part that GMO acceptance among scientists is absurdly high versus the acceptance of the general public. Marketing and advertising bullshit pushing non-GMO food is certainly playing a part. I also read that food getting labeled non-GMO can greatly effect public opinion which in turn can greatly effect millions of starving, suffering Africans. I don't know. I never had an opinion besides suffering Africans is bad and compassion and love and science is good. Now, that I have looked into it a little bit I trust the scientists. I remember when something like 99.99999% of global warming scientists believed that global warming existed and that humans did play a role and then like an alarming number of people saying it was all bullshit. I would imagine something similar is going on with GMOs.
On August 30 2016 00:33 asdf2000 wrote:
so the deal with nutrition is that the specifics are complicated and I don't think science has gone far enough down the rabbit hole for us to really be able to outline what healthy eating is when it comes to the specifics
but in general, it doesn't really matter what you eat. the building blocks that our cells use to make more cells and cell organelles can be found in an abundance of different food. as long as our guts can digest them, it's really not a big deal.
just, like, don't eat very much unless you need to for some reason, eat reasonable stuff, and you'll be healthy as far as diet goes.
(if you don't believe this then look at the diets of top level athletes and you'll find that many of them have vastly different diets, and yet they all excel in their fields)
Excelling in a field doesn't mean that food choices don't matter. Seriously, this an absurd statement, how can you believe that for one second? First of all, it doesn't matter to whom? There is at least some variety in diet that is caused due to genetic variability: some people do well on some foods and bad on others and it definitely matters to them what they eat. Secondly, being a top level athlete doesn't say anything about the long term consequences of your diet, which certainly matters. Or would you say to the family of a top level bodybuilder who dies of a heart attack at age 38 that his diet didn't matter? We know very well the predictable consequences of eating tons of meat, eggs, dairy -- which is the typical bodybuilder diet. I know that you said "don't eat too much" but then you completely negated that comment by asking us to look at athletes to prove your point.
And really, it's very rarely that much different within the specific sport, only when you compare different sports. You won't see a Tour de France competing athlete eating like a bodybuilder and you won't see a bodybuilder fueling himself like a Tour de France cyclist. But if you ask the top athletes in those competitions what they eat, it's more or less the same.
Lastly, re. the specifics of nutrition: we actually do have a lot of data which paints a very clear picture, but there will never be enough when people aren't looking correctly. Truth is, we don't actually need any definitive answers from people in white coats to know how to eat. We have enough evidence from the field of anthropology and population studies alone to make intelligent choices. It's no coincidence that the 5 areas where people live the longest and with the lowest morbidity rates all happen to have a plant-based diet in common:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On August 29 2016 03:25 RiKD wrote:
I am going to need some evidence from Dr. John McDougall, Loco, or anyone else that supports that humans are herbivores and not omnivores. That is an outlandish statement from one of his cholesterol webinars I am watching.
It would be helpful if you provided the exact statement. I don't remember him ever saying that we are herbivores, or at least not strict herbivores. In fact, I don't know of a single plant-based doctor who believes that. But this is probably just a question of semantics and what is meant by herbivore. I just watched McDougall talk about this briefly in this new documentary preview: http://www.foodchoicesmovie.com/
He mentions the Inuit Eskimos as being the exception to the rule of people who were able to survive in extreme circumstances as carnivores. If he believed we were strict herbivores, he certainly wouldn't acknowledge that this population lived almost exclusively on animal foods. He's written extensively about them too and how the low carb gurus use this population without conceding that they had a lot of documented health issues like atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.
The general consensus from scientists afaik when it comes to our biology is that we are clearly more adapted to thrive on mostly plants than on mostly animal foods. We are essentially scavengers who evolved to be able to gain energy from both eating plants and animals. But this doesn't mean that eating both plants and animals are necessary or optimal, which is what people generally think omnivory means. We're not strict or obligate omnivores. But it's true that we can live on plant foods alone, and in that sense we could be said to be herbivores whereas we cannot be said to be carnivores since we can't produce our own vitamin C like carnivores do and we know for a fact we need fiber in our diets for long term health. If you're looking for evidence, Dr. William C Roberts makes the case that atherosclerosis only affects herbivores here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1849886/
Are dairy cows grass fed? Any evidence on why dairy is considered bad?
They're grass-fed if you're sourcing them to be. Otherwise, they are not.
As for evidence on why dairy is considered bad, I would ask on what level? They are all important.
On the ethical level, it is arguably the most cruel industry on the planet:
Foie Gras, Foie Gras... that shit is plain fucked up
Right, that's unbelievably cruel. I guess I'll re-word it and say they are arguably responsible for the most suffering in total. Foie gras isn't a regular part of the diet of the average human being, and it's banned in many countries, so the industry is much smaller at least.
Fun fact: when I went to the PCA in the Bahamas we had a couple LP meals and one of the guys we were eating with who doesn't post here ordered Foie gras. He laughed and said, "it's fine, ducks don't have feelings anyway."
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
United States. Aug 29 2016 18:08. Posts 8535
