# Veganism, Human Health and Conspiracies.



## woodgeek (Dec 30, 2022)

Okay, this is a rather large and rambly and potentially polarizing subject.  I am interested in your collective opinions and conversation.  It is a 'green' topic, if not a space heating one.

As touched upon last August in a Climate Change thread, I have been moving in a vegan diet direction, perhaps better termed a 'Whole Food Plant Based' WFPB diet.  Veganism is a philosophy that includes the ethical treatment of animals, and has a plant based diet as just one component.

I have been doing a deep dive on human nutrition and health, largely via science-based YouTubers.

'Gil' at 'Nutrition Made Simple':  https://www.youtube.com/@NutritionMadeSimple
'Mic' at Mic The Vegan:  https://www.youtube.com/@MictheVegan

Gil is an MD Nutritionist in his 40s, Mic is a Nutrition Master's student in his 30s (I think).  Both make a point of interviewing actual scientists doing the research, and cite peer-reviewed studies heavily in their work.

Both people eat a 100% vegan diet.  Gil is 'live and let live' about people's dietary choices.  Mic strongly advocates for a WFPB diet and veganism.

Where they stand on the science overlaps about 98% as far as I can tell.

I have learned a number of things.

1.  A high-fiber diet is needed for heath.  it both reduces/regulates blood cholesterol and regulates hunger.  Our livers actually excrete cholesterol (and other fat soluble compounds) into our small intestine, and then we selectively reabsorb the molecules we need lower in the GI.  I had always heard that 'fiber lowered cholesterol', and never believed it, bc it made no sense to me.  But this 'non-selective excretion plus selective re-adsorption' is exactly how our kidneys work for water soluble species.  The point being that a low fiber diet leads to much higher readsorption than would otherwise occur... boosting cholesterol.  Check.  Also, bacteria digesting fiber in our GI release small molecules (short chain fatty acids, SFAs) that go into our circulation, cross the brain-blood barrier and help regulate hunger.  So a low fiber diet can directly lead to higher hunger, over eating and weight gain.

2. Saturated fat is worse than you have been led to believe.  Basically *everyone* eating a Western/omnivore diet has some form of cardiovascular disease, CVD, defined as artery lesions and plaques. This includes most of us before we hit puberty, even if only 30% of us will eventually die from it.   The same plaques are present in the brain, in the kidneys, in peripheral circulation, and are a leading cause of ED.  I had previously believed that the problem was just one of excess... that 'moderation' in meat eating would be OK... we're omnivores, right?  But you can look at peer reviewed studies and ask how much animal (or plant) based saturated fat can you eat, and have essentially zero cardiovascular disease... what is the 'threshold for harm'??  And the answer is: essentially ZERO meat/dairy and very LITTLE refined vegetable oil.  To have a 'healthy' cardiovascular system you need to not ONLY be vegan, but also to eat refined oils sparingly!  Also, chicken is no more healthy in terms of CVD than red meat with the same saturated fat content!

Around the world the people that eat like that are handily the longest living people, and are often very fit/sharp to an advanced age!

But but, we're omnivores! you say.  Well, a dog eats a diet of mixed animal and vegetable matter (omnivorous)...  do they get cardiovascular disease?  They do NOT get cardiovascular plagues on a meat based diet!  They are biologically suited to such a diet, while we clearly are not.  Our animal cousins (the great apes) are all herbivores, and our digestive tracts and biochemistry remain very similar to theirs.  So science says that we humans are, sadly, herbivores, and there is no 'safe dose' of meat eating.

3. Obesity and (type II) Diabetes are not caused by an excess of 'carbs'.  Obesity is caused by an excess of calorie consumption, period.  This is likely exacerbated by the eating of very energy-dense foods (junk food with refined sugar and fats, which are low in fiber).  But carbs do not get transformed into fat by the body in any significant amount.  If you eat too much of mixed carbs and fats, you body will store the fat as fat and store the carbs as glycogen.   So its excess total calories (and lack of satiety), not macro nutrients, that leads to obesity.  Type II diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, and insulin resistance is caused by the excess storage of fat inside muscle cells: 'intramyocellular lipids', which inhibits insulin receptors.  What causes such intracellular fat storage?   When we eat a high fat diet, that fat enters our bloodstream (in carriers) and is absorbed by our muscle cells for future energy demands.  So persistent, excess fat consumption, especially saturated fats such as animal fats leads to excess fat INSIDE our muscle cells, which then refuse to respond to insulin by absorbing sugar.    A low carb, high fat or 'keto' diet thus increases insulin resistance (even if it lowers blood sugar) perpetuating the disease.

4.  Cancer and hormones.  Processed meats (with nitrites) are potently carcinogenic, higher consumption of those foods a century ago (prior to refrigeration) led to stomach cancer being the #1 killer.  Unprocessed red meats are also human carcinogens (independent of how they are cooked), with colon cancer being the strongest association.   Dairy products contain significant amounts of bio-active sex hormones and growth factors.  Eating dairy transiently increases estrogen and decreases testosterone in the blood of humans.  Some of these hormones and growth factors are implicated in cancer progression/growth, with prostrate cancer in men and endometrial cancer in women having the strongest associations.

The major protein in dairy, casein, metabolizes into short chain peptides called casomorphins, that actually engage the same brain receptors as morphine and other narcotics (at about 5% of the potency).  There is currently speculation that this might literally make dairy products such as cheese biochemically addictive.  This chemistry is probably functional, as it leads to more stable nursing behavior in baby mammals, that are getting a bigger 'hit' from these compounds.

5.  Plant proteins and nutrients (e.g. calcium) are sufficient for human dietary needs.  We are supposed to eat a lot of dairy to stave off osteoporosis... yet osteoporosis is much rarer in countries around the world where dairy is NOT consumed.  Western vegans do not appear to suffer from protein deficiency in detectable numbers, nor do they have unhealthy bone density.  Historical studies of plant protein and nutrient absorption appear to have been flawed.  Omnivores have a microbiome that is poorly adapted to eating plants and fiber, leading to gas, bloating and poor absorption from many plant foods.  Those on a vegan diet get an adapted microbiome (in a week or two) that processes plant foods efficiently, including high absorption!

The exception is B-12.  B-12 is made by bacteria, and drinking dirty water would have given ancient people enough B-12.  With clean water, vegans must take B-12 supplements or eat fortified or fermented foods.

-------------------------

The takeaway from all of this is that the healthiest diet for humans is a WFPB diet.  It is healthier than ovo-lacto vegetarians, or pescatarians, or flexitarians, or whatever.
Corroborating the five findings above:
1) Vegans are the only group to have an average BMI in the Normal range.
2) People eating a WFPB diet have far less CVD (and LDL markers well below govt guidelines).  A low-fat WFPB diet has been shown to reverse CVD.
3) Vegans have 78% lower incidence of Diabetes.  Many patients report a reversal of disease on a vegan diet.
4) Vegans have about 20% lower incidence of cancer mortality.
5) Vegans have higher blood protein (albumin) and higher blood testosterone than omnivores.  Most take B-12 supplements.

------------------------

Now, none of this make me happy at all.  I LIKE non-vegan food.  But I am going to switch in the New Year.

------------------------

This all begs the question of, if all of the above is something like scientific consensus (and has been for years or decades), why aren't we getting a clear message from the USDA, or the AMA, or the American Heart Association, or the Diabetes Society or the Cancer Society?  And instead we get influencers, and snake oil, and the Liver King and Joe Rogan telling us how to eat!

This is where we come to our Green Room trope: Tobacco Lawyers.  There are a bunch of people out there being PAID to lobby for unhealthy foods, by agriculture and pharma companies.

Here is a documentary on NetFlix called 'What the Health?' that makes this case:  https://www.netflix.com/watch/80174177

Many would dismiss it as 'Vegan Propaganda'.

I don't love 'gotcha documentaries', which I think often get things wrong.  But given the scientific case around human health, and the lack of action being taken by our govt and medical establishment, I find this one sadly plausible.  I think just looking at research funding sources is limited. In the interest of full disclosure, I, woodgeek, have received a $200,000 research grant from the American Petroleum Institute.   You may discount all my postings in the Green Room henceforth since I am clearly a shill for the oil industry.  

May you all have a Happy and Healthy New Year!


----------



## Newbie78 (Dec 30, 2022)

Just don't eat commercially grown food that relies on chemicals.

good dirt equals good food whether beast or plant.

 I have a really hard time with unethical treatment of animals. At least my own have a very nice stress free life with lots of food, water, and space to roam before they go to slaughter. I have been considering veganism over the past several years for one reason alone; I'm not sure if I can continue killing animals. I don't think eating meat is the least bit bad for us as part of a varied diet, as long as that meat has not suffered unduly while alive. Stressed meat is bad juju.

I won't start on the rest of it regarding our corrupt food system and chemical companies...


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 30, 2022)

Newbie78 said:


> Just don't eat commercially grown food that relies on chemicals.
> 
> good dirt equals good food whether beast or plant.
> 
> ...



I have seen many studies that indicate that plant and animal products raised intensively/industrially have lower levels of certain nutrients, such as minerals that get depleted in soil, or lower omega-3s in corn-fed beef.  One example is magnesium.  Deficiency of magnesium is implicated in several problems including depression.

It is currently trendy to say that 'grass fed beef' or 'cage free chicken eggs' are healthy, even if the other kinds are not.  I have seen one study on humans eating grass-fed vs industrial beef, and no difference was seen in heart disease risk.  More study is certainly warranted.


----------



## tlc1976 (Dec 30, 2022)

I have had digestive problems all my life. 4 surgeries and counting. Cramps and urgent bathroom trips and queasiness were the norm. Even getting the food down in the first place due to esophagus damage. Nothing will be perfect, but I have found that eliminating a lot of things helps me feel quite a bit better. Also don’t smoke or drink, but never did anyway.

I have eliminated all meat. Most dairy. Most sugar and sodium. Most bread. Don’t remember the last time I had a soda. Basically WFPB as much as I can reasonably get. I will eat fully cooked eggs sometimes, I like them and never have a problem with them. But that’s about it.

I eat a lot of oatmeal, canned vegetables with no sodium added, and plant based meats such as Morning Star.

I will only label myself mostly plant based. I do it for my own health only. I’ve already got a full plate keeping myself going. I like my leather coat and boots, so I’ll leave the actual vegan label for others.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 30, 2022)

While I am not in a position to confirm @woodgeek 's recent findings, I know from clinical experience WG is essentially correct in every conclusion.

When I was making home visits the range of nutritional choices I saw was mindboggling.  

Imagine an active 70 year old, blew out their knee on the cross country ski trail, has a minor wound infection at the knee surgery site.  What did you have for breakfast?  Two cups of raw Kale with some lemon juice and cracked pepper for flavor, and about half a cup of tree nuts for some protein.  I might have a banana in a few minutes.

Next stop, 62 yo with metabolic syndrome, 100# overweight, poorly controlled blood sugars, cardiovascular disease, already had one stroke and two heart attacks.  Struggles to make it from the couch to the bathroom from shortness of breath.  Still smoking cigarettes, admits to "about" a pack a day.  How many vegetables did you eat last week?  I had french fries with my cheeseburgers three times, and I had a big bag of potato chips.

One small step anyone can make is to eat more vegetables.  Shoot for 5 servings daily.  I know, I know, baby steps.  If you got a food processor, you can toss in a tomato, half an onion and some seasonings, you got pico de gallo faster than McDonalds is currently pushing out burgers.  Put a half cup on your breakfast eggs, have another half cup with some corn chips in the afternoon, boom, vegetables.  I shoot for two servings of dark leafy green daily, two of pretty colors, and one of whatever.  The reds and orange and purple and so on are all bringing you varied antioxidants.  You need those.  Doesn't matter if you have a (not fried) blue or purple potato, or a carrot, or a tomato.  All those different colors bring you different stuff, your body wants a little bit of all of them.  Purple salad greens.  Olives.  Avacado.

I got hooked on relatively high end ramen noodles about a year ago.  But in a decent sized serving bowl I can drop in a few chunks of frozen broccoli, a couple scallions crosscut in half, then pour the hot broth and noodles over that, boom, vegetables that don't taste like vegetables.

I agree with woodgeek that establishing and maintaining a good gut biome pays many dividends.  Juicing vegetables is OK if that is what you have to do to get the nutrients in your diet, but your body does want the fiber too. 

I personally think homegrown vegetables you stick in your mouth the moment you pick them are the best, but I don't know how much DDT is in your garden dirt.  In general fresh produce at the market, vegetables frozen on the farm the day they were picked canned vegetables are all perfectly acceptable (and a step up for the sickest people in Fairbanks).  Most commercially canned produce is out of the canner and cooling off within 24 hours of harvest, often much quicker.

I do think hand harvested organically grown produce is 'more nutritious' than the stuff at the grocery store, but the same produce is a lot more expensive.  My wife and I have three categories, 1. Stuff we grow at home in our own garden.  2. stuff we prefer to purchase organic/ local farmer.  3. Stuff we eat that is commercially produced.  We are a bit limited on our growing season up here, so category one is a bit constrained. 

You got to read the labels to know what else is in there with the veg once they are packaged.   Flash frozen stuff where the only ingredients are "broccoli with a splash of ascorbic acid" is pretty good stuff.  A spaghetti sauce with 34 ingredients you cannot pronounce is probably a vegetable, but really spaghetti sauce is not hard to make at home.  Home canned (safe recipe) yellow summer squash has a LOT of sugar in it, but my kids gobble it and I am sneaking antioxidants into them, so I send them all a few home canned jars every year.

Also fruits.  All those colors.  Blueberries are amazing little rascals.

If you are not there already and looking for a New Year's resolution, nutrition is a great option for most Americans.  Try having one dark leafy green vegetable, one vegetable of pretty color, and one fruit colored other than white every day for the first six weeks of 2023.

You may have apples and bananas, but try to get some blackberries and oranges and so on into the mix.  Get back to us around Valentine's Day.  Dried mango slices.  Dried apricot, the options are unlimited.

Nice going woodgeek.  Can you look into fermented foods a bit more and let us know what you find on your own?  There are 3-4 home fermenters here that I know of already.   I have moved to an indoor job this autumn, I am now taking care of medical inpatients, so all of the RSV, influenza and Covid in town, that are sick enough to be hospitalized, they all get a chance to cough on me.  I have at least a tablespoon of home fermented veg every day.

I will probably die with a rack of spareribs on the plate in front of me, but I am not going to have to deal with a bunch of chronic medical BS along the way attributable to poor nutrition.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The takeaway from all of this is that the healthiest diet for humans is a WFPB diet.  It is healthier than ovo-lacto vegetarians, or pescatarians, or flexitarians, or whatever.
> Corroborating the five findings above:
> 1) Vegans are the only group to have an average BMI in the Normal range.
> 2) People eating a WFPB diet have far less CVD (and LDL markers well below govt guidelines).  A low-fat WFPB diet has been shown to reverse CVD.
> ...


Great post, as always, @woodgeek.

When I see these lists, I always wonder how much of it is actually causation, versus just correlation?  We must admit that those proactively choosing a vegan or WFPB diet are generally going to be the fraction of the population more interested in their general health and diet, and so it would be no surprise of their sum of lifestyle choices does lead to lower incidence of abnormal BMI, CVD, and diabetes.  It's difficult to isolate this particular life choice against the many others which may generally go along with a given personality type or religion.

I'd elaborate, but I know you already know what I'm saying, without beating the point to death.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Great post, as always, @woodgeek.
> 
> When I see these lists, I always wonder how much of it is actually causation, versus just correlation?  We must admit that those proactively choosing a vegan or WFPB diet are generally going to be the fraction of the population more interested in their general health and diet, and so it would be no surprise of their sum of lifestyle choices does lead to lower incidence of abnormal BMI, CVD, and diabetes.  It's difficult to isolate this particular life choice against the many others which may generally go along with a given personality type or religion.
> 
> I'd elaborate, but I know you already know what I'm saying, without beating the point to death.



A very reasonable concern.  The summary list you quote IS based upon epidemiology observations, and indeed can be correlative. 

However, the corresponding findings I mentioned above that ARE verified by multiple, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). where large numbers of participants are assigned to have one of two or more different diets for the period of months or years.  Moreover, in many cases the biochemical mechanisms of the observed effect have been elucidated.

Most impressive from a 'causation' POV are the reports of reversal of disease states (CVD, Diabetes) that are commonly considered to be irreversible chronic diseases requiring a lifetime of intensive medical interventions and pharmaceuticals.

I list the epidemiology results as merely corroborating that the RCT findings are operative in the general population.

Also, many (most?) people choose a WFPB diet in mid-life as a more or less desperate response to poor health effects or scares, not because they are lifetime overachievers in following healthy nutrition and exercise advice.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 31, 2022)

One I found particularly compelling was the decreased incidence of CVD in the Scandanavian countries while the locals were forced into a more vegan diet since the occupiers were taking all the livestock in the early 1940s.  Once the conflict was over and red meat returned to the local diet, CVD returned as well.


----------



## mpaul (Dec 31, 2022)

Great post. I’m originally from the Midwest and grew up on a meat and potatoes diet.  I have since moved to the northeast where I met my wife who has been a complete  vegan for 11 years now. She is an oncology nurse and came upon a patient who asked about the links of diet to cancer. She was completely amazed by the amount of research done that links our western meat, dairy and processed  diets to cancer and other co-morbidities. In 25 years in oncology she has never had to give chemo or radiation to a vegan.  Yet we see billions of dollars made by corporations keeping our population chronically ill for decades. The healthcare system doesn’t make money off of healthy people and therefore are not incentivized to educate them. 
One convincing argument to me on why humans are herbivores is we don’t have canines as seen in natural omnivores. Those canines are needed to shred and tear the meat from the animal they hunted. We simply don’t have that type of tooth structure or digestive system. 
Another selling point to me is we have often heard the philosophy that we need to eat red meat in order to get the necessary proteins  and nutrients in our diets. Those red meats that we consume are large, herbivorous animals who get their protein and nutrients from plant based diets. 
We can all do better and it starts with decisions. I applaud Woodgeek’s decision to go vegan.


----------



## sloeffle (Dec 31, 2022)

I’d highly recommend watching this episode of Nova before coming to a conclusion that a western diet causes obesity.


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

I subscribe to sugar being responsible for obesity and many of the accompanying diseases modern man suffers from. Taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar in processed food (just about everything inside the outer perimeter aisles of the grocery store), IMO has led to an alarming global health situation in the developed countries. When the world went berserk over fats, the food industry scrambled to take them out, but the food tasted like cardboard. Enter sugar. It brought the taste back and addicted people. I do NOT subscribe to any type of diet (Keto, Paleo, Vegan, Mediterranean, Plant Based, etc.), but just cut out as much sugar as possible (both obvious and not-so-obvious sugars). I have seen too many people regulate their weight without trying, get off things like cpap's, high blood pressure medication and inflammation medications, and reverse conditions like arthritis, diabetes, etc., just to name a few. For me, I can't believe how much weight I was able to lose without trying, how many pains and ailments disappeared, and the medications I no longer have to take, and how much better I feel. My blood tests are good, and I eat whatever I want, as long as it has no or is very low in refined sugars.

If you look at the mainstream diets today, no matter how different or opposed they are to each other, you'll see the common thread that they are all very low refined sugars.

As far as I am concerned, folks are addicted to sugar, and it is making their life a living hell and killing them.

Here are a few YouTube Vids if you wish to look further into this:


			https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sugar+is+killing+us
		


Perhaps a little off subject, but I was just thinking of this too...probably the 2nd biggest killer in our diet are the "healthy" vegetable oils that we consume and that are pushed on us by the big food industry. Their unstable and rapid oxidation properties make them toxic. And if you watch a video on how vegetable oils are made, you will probably never eat any of them again.


			https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+is+vegetable+oil+made


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 31, 2022)

Our GI is also pretty well adapted for eating meat, just not as the main food source. Source: I am an animal science major at Unity College.  However, most wild animals are not full of saturated fats like grain fed poultry and meat. When I hunt for wild game animals I'm always impressed at the basically near zero fat content of the muscle and the near total lack of subcutaneous fat. You can eat meat without having tons of saturated fats, just not with any industrially farmed meats. I agree that most people do eat too much fatty meat and other processed foods.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 31, 2022)

This is the internet age of disinformation. There are just as many equally qualified influencers with just as much documentation and studies saying the opposite.

If you want to support your theory on either side of this (vegan or carnivore) all you have to do is selectively listen.

It’s pretty amazing really. One thing I hope we can all agree on is that

1) the standard American diet with all of the processed food and refined sugar has been a failure.
2) staying active and not being obese are far more important than most anything else.

Personally, I was put on a low carb diet by my doctor. I was not overweight but it was for blood pressure and it worked. You can be a vegan or carnivore but low carb. Carbs are sugar and low carb does not mean no carb.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 31, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> I’d highly recommend watching this episode of Nova before coming to a conclusion that a western diet causes obesity.



Am I the only one for whom the primary turn-off to sumo wrestling is the outfit?  I mean, I could probably watch and enjoy it, if they wore more than a thong.

How many of us are playing the odds, that coffee, bourbon, or exercise will somehow mitigate the effects of their poor diet, against all statistical evidence to the contrary.  Anyone?  Am I alone here?    

@woodgeek, what turned you onto the WFPB thing?  We've not met, but I always had the impression you lead a pretty healthy lifestyle.  Was this a "desperate response to poor health effects or scares"?


----------



## Ashful (Dec 31, 2022)

Highbeam said:


> This is the internet age of disinformation.



You mean, these guys?    







Trouble is, disinformation was around long before the internet.  We just have better access to it, now.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> You mean, these guys?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I chuckled at the meme, but lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence in the favor of something else. Perhaps green and blue pigments simply don't stand the test of time like red and brown


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> You mean, these guys?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I mean there is a stack of “studies” and a pile of MDs that could go to the OP and tear it to pieces while stating the opposite is true but only if you choose to listen. These fad diets are like religions in many ways.

I believe that there is huge overlap among the fad diet extremes and it’s the biggest issues with the best benefit. Cut sugar and seed oils, be a normal weight, and be active.

I find the fact that vegans will die without vitamin supplements repulsive. With thumbs and tools, humans don’t need wolf like canine teeth. I eat lots of eggs, as I want complete proteins with all of the essential amino acids.


----------



## sloeffle (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Am I the only one for whom the primary turn-off to sumo wrestling is the outfit?  I mean, I could probably watch and enjoy it, if they wore more than a thong.
> 
> How many of us are playing the odds, that coffee, bourbon, or exercise will somehow mitigate the effects of their poor diet, against all statistical evidence to the contrary.  Anyone?  Am I alone here?
> 
> @woodgeek, what turned you onto the WFPB thing?  We've not met, but I always had the impression you lead a pretty healthy lifestyle.  Was this a "desperate response to poor health effects or scares"?


My grandfather lived to 89, and he had a bowl of soup and a glass of wine everyday. He was however very active until his latter years in life.

Look at all of the people that lived into their 90’s and smoke like freight train their whole life.

I think what a lot of these studies don’t take into account is genetics. I have a very low BMI but I have high cholesterol, that goes against the norm. Guess who else has high cholesterol, my parents and brothers.


----------



## sloeffle (Dec 31, 2022)

Highbeam said:


> I believe that there is huge overlap among the fad diet extremes and it’s the biggest issues with the best benefit. Cut sugar and seed oils, be a normal weight, and be active.


This is spot on. Especially the sugar, and being active part.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 31, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> My grandfather lived to 89, and he had a bowl of soup and a glass of wine everyday.
> 
> Look at all of the people that lived into their 90’s and smoke like freight train their whole life.
> 
> I think what a lot of these studies don’t take into account is genetics. I have a very low BMI but I have high cholesterol, that goes against the norm. Guess who else has high cholesterol, my parents and brothers.


What if….. blood cholesterol didn’t matter? The guidelines have changed in the last several years. Turns out, cholesterol is not that bad and can actually be a good thing to shuttle the energy around in your body once you become less dependent on glucose for energy.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 31, 2022)

Highbeam said:


> I mean there is a stack of “studies” and a pile of MDs that could go to the OP and tear it to pieces while stating the opposite is true but only if you choose to listen. These fad diets are like religions in many ways.
> 
> I believe that there is huge overlap among the fad diet extremes and it’s the biggest issues with the best benefit. Cut sugar and seed oils, be a normal weight, and be active.
> 
> I find the fact that vegans will die without vitamin supplements repulsive. With thumbs and tools, humans don’t need wolf like canine teeth. I eat lots of eggs, as I want complete proteins with all of the essential amino acids.


"Complete protein" is kind of a myth. The essential amino acids, or the parts to make them, are present in all foods. You could get all the amino acids you need from plants, but you would need more plant volume than meat to get the same results. Kind of like hardwoods vs softwoods for BTUs, all wood is 7,000 BTU/lb, but you need more volume of softwoods because of the lesser energy density.  Eggs are great though, not trying to say otherwise. I actually agree with you that it's not necessarily meat vs all plant diet that is the problem, but the composition of the overall diet. There's also no "one size fits all" for human diet. Some people can eat more meat than others, some people can't digest dairy after a certain age, and so on. 

You are also spot on that you could find peer reviewed evidence to support most opinions. I think this is related to everyone having a different microbiome and "metabolism". You can find a cohort that is particularly good at digesting only plant based diets, and then find one that does better on meat. I think some things are universal, and totally agree that there is way too much refined sugar. I myself am trying to cut back, but it's hard! However, I disagree that carbs in general are the problem, because there are a lot of different types of carbs. For instance sourdough bread made from whole grains is mostly carbs, but the fiber and protein are also present. This is unlike plain white bread which is lacking a lot compared to whole grain sourdough. Fermenting carbs seems to be the key to consuming them with less or no issues, as most of the sugars and other carbs are converted to short chain fatty acids and microbial protein.


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

Highbeam said:


> What if….. blood cholesterol didn’t matter? The guidelines have changed in the last several years. Turns out, cholesterol is not that bad and can actually be a good thing to shuttle the energy around in your body once you become less dependent on glucose for energy.


This also is spot on, but it is hard for most folks to move from the "truths" that were preached and believed for years.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> I’d highly recommend watching this episode of Nova before coming to a conclusion that a western diet causes obesity.




Okay, I watched it, and I think it explicitly DOES say that the 'Western Lifestyle' causes obesity.  The only difference between 'Western Lifestyle' and 'Western diet' is the amount of exercise.  And then, elsewhere, they say that exercise is not that effective at controlling obesity, leading to maybe 10-13% weight loss in obese patients (when sustained over long term) such that they are still clinically obese or overweight!    So, logically, to me that suggests that the 'Western diet' is a significant part of the problem!

While I am huge fan of Nova (and probably a scientist due to watching the show as a kid in the 70s), their murky messaging is IMO one of discouragement:  diets don't work, a lot of it is genetics, exercise doesn't work that well either, drugs can help protect against CVD if you are obese.

They did talk about how junk food was bad.  Check.  This is also true for vegans.... there are 'junk food vegans' that live on chips, meat substitutes and beer...  and some of them are obese too!

But.

1)  The common genetic factors in obesity lead to a + 5-10 lbs of body weight relative to those that don't have them.
2)  Folks on a WFPB diet, **eating as much as they want** (ad libidum) typically achieve a normal BMI and maintain it as long as the stay on the WFPB diet.  And this is because fiber-derived SFAs are part of the satiety circuit in humans, just not one that a pharma company can patent.
3) I would've loved to hear the percent animal protein and fat those hunter gatherers were getting versus their total.  My expectation is that most of their calories would be complex carbs from the tubers and seeds they were gathering.  IOW, a mostly WFPB diet with no refined oils,  not dairy, and just some unreported fraction of meat protein/fat and honey.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> Our GI is also pretty well adapted for eating meat, just not as the main food source. Source: I am an animal science major at Unity College.  However, most wild animals are not full of saturated fats like grain fed poultry and meat. When I hunt for wild game animals I'm always impressed at the basically near zero fat content of the muscle and the near total lack of subcutaneous fat. You can eat meat without having tons of saturated fats, just not with any industrially farmed meats. I agree that most people do eat too much fatty meat and other processed foods.


The major source of saturated fat in the US diet is DAIRY, not fat in any meat.  Chicken is #1 among meat sources.

Eliminating dairy and eating (truly) lean meat in moderation will be a big health move in the WFPB direction relative to the average US diet.   And would probably be healthier than a vegetarian who eats a lot of dairy and sugar, or a 'junk food vegan' that eats a lot of food with tons of sugar and refined oils.


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The major source of saturated fat in the US diet is DAIRY, not fat in any meat.  Chicken is #1 among meat sources.
> 
> Eliminating dairy and eating (truly) lean meat in moderation will be a big health move in the WFPB direction relative to the average US diet.   And would probably be healthier than a vegetarian who eats a lot of dairy and sugar, or a 'junk food vegan' that eats a lot of food with tons of sugar and refined oils.


According to the American Heart Association, the main source of saturated fat in the American diet comes not from just dairy, but from animal sources and tropical fats: "Most come from *animal sources, including meat and dairy products, as well as tropical fats like coconut, palm and palm kernel*." 

Examples:

beef
lamb
pork
poultry, especially with skin
beef fat (tallow)
lard and cream
butter
cheese
ice cream
coconut
palm oil
palm kernel oil
some baked and fried foods









						Saturated Fat
					

Eating too much saturated fat can raise the level of LDL cholesterol in your blood.




					www.heart.org


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

Highbeam said:


> What if….. blood cholesterol didn’t matter? The guidelines have changed in the last several years. Turns out, cholesterol is not that bad and can actually be a good thing to shuttle the energy around in your body once you become less dependent on glucose for energy.



Cholesterol is needed for life, which is why we make it in our bodies, and the amount in our cells is very tightly regulated.  The complex way the cholesterol is packaged in blood (LDL, HDL, etc) has taken decades to elucidate, but the science is now clear.  Total cholesterol is merely _correlated_ with progression of CVD, while LDL (specifically the LDL particles tagged with the ApoB protein) is _causally_ linked to progression of CVD plaques.   

Drugs that DO lower ApoB (statins and others) DO slow the progress of plaque formation and reduce the risk of CVD events in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).  Drugs that affect things like HDL or total cholesterol without changing ApoB-LDL do not have detectable health benefits, and failed in RCT testing.

A WFPB, low vegetable oil diet where people eat as much as they want reduces LDL cholesterol levels more than any other diet studied, to a level where CVD is essentially non-existent (and well below current US guidelines).



Dan Freeman said:


> This also is spot on, but it is hard for most folks to move from the "truths" that were preached and believed for years.



Um, I'm not following preachers.  I'm reading information gleaned from decades of studies, mostly RCTs involving tens or hundreds of thousands of people, as summarized by entities like the US National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine, their European counterparts and the WHO.


----------



## PAbeech (Dec 31, 2022)

Eat organic food. Simple as that


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Um, I'm not following preachers.  I'm reading information gleaned from decades of studies, mostly RCTs involving tens or hundreds of thousands of people, as summarized by entities like the US National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine, their European counterparts and the WHO.


No need to feel like that was directed to you. I know you do your studying. In fact, I know you are meticulous in your study from other topics.

By "preaching", I meant what was most believed and taught from our understanding on the topic. It is now getting looked at again with the possibility we didn't have all the answers for years. Remember when the best minds thought the earth was flat or the sun revolved around the earth. It still happens today. Not always, but it does. We need to be open.


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

PAbeech said:


> Eat organic food. Simple as that


OMG...no! Have you read some of the things on organic labels? Talk about sugar bombs! 

Organic just means nothing artificial or chemical. (produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents) In addition, *organic foods have a reputation for being healthy and nutritious*, but studies show that there is actually very little difference in nutritional value between organic and conventional foods grown and prepared.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The major source of saturated fat in the US diet is DAIRY, not fat in any meat.  Chicken is #1 among meat sources.
> 
> Eliminating dairy and eating (truly) lean meat in moderation will be a big health move in the WFPB direction relative to the average US diet.   And would probably be healthier than a vegetarian who eats a lot of dairy and sugar, or a 'junk food vegan' that eats a lot of food with tons of sugar and refined oils.


I always forget about dairy, because I consume so little in my personal life. Some cultured dairy products, like cheese and butter, seem to to be fine for me in moderation, but I'm certain there are people that would be better off with none. I suspect the microbial activity converts a majority of the constituents that would be described as toxic or antinutrients into short chain VFAs and microbial protein. I think we both agree it's less about what we eat, and more about how we prepare it for consumption. A meal made with lean beef is great, until you start frying it, adding breading (mostly processed white flour), etc. Donuts are usually vegan, but far from healthy. 

Most naturally occurring fats are also not hydrogenated, and combined with a lot of fiber and other beneficial food components. I would guess the hydrogenated fats added to most food, usually in the form of palm oil, are probably worse than any dairy fats. However,  the dairy fat used in the western diet is usually saturated by some processing step and there are just caves full of milkfat and "government cheese" removed from most milk sold in stores. That stuff is often added back into foods making them pretty unhealthy. 

How are most people getting so much dairy fats? Is it all from the hydrogenated fake cheese products? A lot of stuff called "cheese" is actually just milk fat and hydrogenated oils. The "cheese" at some fast food joints doesn't eve have dairy at all! When I worked at Waffle House the "cheese", cooking oil, and "butter" all had the same ingredients, none of it was dairy. From my casual observations most "dairy" products are actually just thinly disguised hydrogenated vegetable fats. I'm not convinced authentic real dairy products are even a problem, since there are actually not that many on the market. The processed sugars always stand out to me as the real threat to human health. Sugar is also addicting and food addictions are the hardest to treat. It's hard to break a habit that is hijacking your survival response for sustenance. 

Conveniently for the food industry as a whole, the movement to less meat is ok, because sugar is not a meat product! Like you say, there are plenty of unhealthy vegan/vegetarian foods. I do understand the desire to reduce emissions from animal products, but I don't think the animals are the problem. It's how humans manage the animals. Overgrazing/exploitation of land results in desertification creating a positive feedback loop with the climate. Instead of letting all of the animal waste from CAFOs run into groundwater sources, why not collect it and use it for fertilizing soil, which can then be used to feed more animals without destroying the soil. Poor management of livestock is the problem, not the livestock themselves. Feeding grain to ruminants is the primary means by which humans get beef, but it's horribly inefficient and bad for the animal. With a livestock industry that doesn't have to pay to clean up after itself, they've focused instead on how to make the most money on the least amount of land. A holistic approach to animal husbandry needs to be adopted by global livestock producers. The ranchers out in the west that let huge herds graze naturally actually have it right! The animals leave their waste where they ate, creating more future pasture for grazing. The problem is too many animals will be concentrated in one place in the name of profits which goes back to the overgrazing/exploitation of natural resources. Cultures which use rotational grazing and waste recycling have no desertification and no real problems with GHG/ammonia pollution. Prior to trading with cultures that had vastly larger land areas Japanese farmers paid for human waste for fertilizing productive land. 

So much is wasted in a capitalist livestock industry, and as a result livestock appears to be a default climate change driver when it doesn't have to be.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

Highbeam said:


> I mean there is a stack of “studies” and a pile of MDs that could go to the OP and tear it to pieces while stating the opposite is true but only if you choose to listen. These fad diets are like religions in many ways.
> 
> I believe that there is huge overlap among the fad diet extremes and it’s the biggest issues with the best benefit. Cut sugar and seed oils, be a normal weight, and be active.
> 
> I find the fact that vegans will die without vitamin supplements repulsive. With thumbs and tools, humans don’t need wolf like canine teeth. I eat lots of eggs, as I want complete proteins with all of the essential amino acids.



1.  Science doesn't work by accumulating studies that are contradictory such that no conclusion can be found.  In fact, none of the issues around saturated fat and LDL causing CVD have been controversial for a couple decades now.

2.  Most MDs are NOT scientists, receive very little training on nutrition while in med school, and are not required to keep up to date on nutrition science.

3.  The Western diet is SUCH a freaking mess  that eliminating many different things will result in improved health.  Cutting refined sugars and refined oils (such as seed oils) and having high activity and normal BMI will be very healthy moves.  But they are not the ONLY healthy moves.  And may not be sufficient to protect you from CVD if you have high LDL cholesterol.

4.  If you prefer, I could get the needed micrograms of B-12 by eating a teaspoon of dirt per week, just like our ancestors did, and where the B-12 in your meat animals get it from.  Instead I get it in purified form, extracted from bacteria.  Disgusting!  

5. The complete protein stuff is a non-issue on a varied WFPB diet.  Massively overstated by studies a hundred years ago.  Modern folks today on a WFPB diet do not have problems with protein deficiency or other nutrients (like calcium or iron).  That is all BS propaganda from the Beef and Egg Lobby.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 31, 2022)

Dan Freeman said:


> OMG...no! Have you read some of the things on organic labels? Talk about sugar bombs! Organic just means nothing artificial or chemical. Not all organic things are good for you either. In addition, *organic foods have a reputation for being healthy and nutritious*, but studies show that there is actually very little difference in nutritional value between organic and conventional foods grown and prepared.


The USDA organic certification is also a bit of a fantasy. I work on an organic farm and the rules are kind of insane. It makes everything so much more energy intensive to comply with the rules. My preference would be for products to just be made without any kind of added pesticides, poisons, toxic chemicals, etc. I don't care if something is GMO free, no animal products used, etc. I just don't want it to have added toxins. That goes for animal feed products as well, I don't want residual toxins ending up in the products from my own farm. 

I often supplement my chicken flock feed with animal products when they are available, but that would prevent me from getting a USDA organic sticker, should I want one. For instance, I filled two five gallon buckets while fishing for mackerel this year, and I gave the residual products to my chickens to supplement the feed I normally give them. Whenever we go out to the tidal flats we like to collect invasive crabs and feed those to the chickens as well. Both are totally against the rules if you want that USDA Organic label. 

When shopping I do get organic products when I can afford to, but it's unrealistic for most people.


----------



## EbS-P (Dec 31, 2022)

Is the data to the point where they can make estimates about life expectancy increases?    Following along……


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> I always forget about dairy, because I consume so little in my personal life. Some cultured dairy products, like cheese and butter, seem to to be fine for me in moderation, but I'm certain there are people that would be better off with none. I suspect the microbial activity converts a majority of the constituents that would be described as toxic or antinutrients into short chain VFAs and microbial protein. I think we both agree it's less about what we eat, and more about how we prepare it for consumption. A meal made with lean beef is great, until you start frying it, adding breading (mostly processed white flour), etc. Donuts are usually vegan, but far from healthy.
> 
> Most naturally occurring fats are also not hydrogenated, and combined with a lot of fiber and other beneficial food components. I would guess the hydrogenated fats added to most food, usually in the form of palm oil, are probably worse than any dairy fats. However,  the dairy fat used in the western diet is usually saturated by some processing step and there are just caves full of milkfat and "government cheese" removed from most milk sold in stores. That stuff is often added back into foods making them pretty unhealthy.
> 
> ...



I think we (and scientists) agree that trans fats (as in hydrogenated oils) are WORSE for CVD than animal saturated fats.

Added trans fats (as opposed to the trace amounts present naturally) are mostly banned now in the US, we lagged the EU by several years due to lobbying by the big food cos.  Good riddance.

As per our previous discussions, I will respectfully disagree about the sustainability of meat production... half of the habitable land in the lower 48 is used to graze animals or to grow their feed.  A tiny fraction of that would suffice to replace the calories and protein needed if we stopped raising animals.  We could rewild 40% of the US land area, in principle.  And that does not touch the avoided water use, methane emissions, carbon emissions or zoonotic diseases.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Is the data to the point where they can make estimates about life expectancy increases?    Following along……



If I get the question...

Seventh Day Adventists are very careful about their diet, with 40% being vegan, and the other 60% eating only select meat products they deem healthy.









						Seventh-Day Adventist Diet: A Complete Guide
					

The Seventh-day Adventist diet is a whole-foods, plant-based diet that has been associated with many health benefits. This article explains everything you need to know about the Seventh-day Adventist diet.




					www.healthline.com
				




Studies show that as a group they live about 10 years longer than other americans, and the vegan ones live a couple years longer than the non-vegan ones.

**I think this (+2 years) fits in well with the discussion here, that lean, quality meat in moderation, and maybe low-fat dairy, are not a big deal if the rest of your diet is WFPB.**

They also have 78% lower incidence of diabetes and very low CVD rates.  To me, I would guess this gives a higher quality of life at these extreme ages, not just the longer lifespan.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

Dan Freeman said:


> No need to feel like that was directed to you. I know you do your studying. In fact, I know you are meticulous in your study from other topics.
> 
> By "preaching", I meant what was most believed and taught from our understanding on the topic. It is now getting looked at again with the possibility we didn't have all the answers for years. Remember when the best minds thought the earth was flat or the sun revolved around the earth. It still happens today. Not always, but it does. We need to be open.



Fair.  The trick here is to tell the difference between a new surprising result being (1) Copernicus saying the Earth actually goes around the Sun and (2) Tobacco funded scientists finding that low tar cigarettes are actually OK in 1985.

As a working scientist, I see other scientists (and myself) wedded to old/wrong paradigms all the time.  But (IMO) as a group we do a pretty good job of letting go of old paradigms in the face of compelling new data, and young scientists (with new untested paradigms) know that getting that compelling data (to change paradigms) is the fastest route to fame and fortune.  Works waaay better than azz-kissing old grey beards with outmoded ideas.


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Fair.  The trick here is to tell the difference between a new surprising result being (1) Copernicus saying the Earth actually goes around the Sun and (2) Tobacco funded scientists finding that low tar cigarettes are actually OK in 1985.
> 
> As a working scientist, I see other scientists (and myself) wedded to old/wrong paradigms all the time.  But (IMO) as a group we do a pretty good job of letting go of old paradigms in the face of compelling new data, and young scientists (with new untested paradigms) know that getting that compelling data (to change paradigms) is the fastest route to fame and fortune.  Works waaay better than azz-kissing old grey beards with outmodes ideas.


And that's fair enough, too!


----------



## Ashful (Dec 31, 2022)

Well... chit, guys.  Remove dairy and meat, and my caloric intake would be mostly cereal, coffee, beer, and bourbon!   

Somehow, I'm still fit and lean, despite a diet most would call atrocious.  I know others who appear to try much harder, but with less success in managing weight and related problems.  Thinking back 50 years, I cannot recall a single case in my family of any advanced or life-altering disease related to CVD, diabetes, or heart disease.

Point is, while discussing undoubtedly valid statistics, we can't ignore genetics.  It would seem to this medically-uneducated observer that you might nudge your genetic disposition a bit one way or another with diet, you're still only playing the hand you were dealt.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> @woodgeek, what turned you onto the WFPB thing?  We've not met, but I always had the impression you lead a pretty healthy lifestyle.  Was this a "desperate response to poor health effects or scares"?



Meh, I'm a 54 yo nerd that sits behind a desk all day.   I don't hit the gym, do a lot of physical labor other than light yard work/snow shoveling.  I train commute and walk about 40-50 minutes a day between that and my job.  During the pandemic, I substituted the same amount of walk time around my neighborhood.  I do a little light cardio running from time to time, but usually get tendonitis and quit.

I'm 6'1" and about 190 lbs.   My legs are cut, but I'm pretty spindly otherwise.

I was maybe 205 lbs for many years when married, crashed my weight to 185 in 2018 when I was getting separated (and also got Hep A, detected months afterwards).  My weight creeped back up over 4 years back to 200 this summer.   Dropped to 190 after ditching dairy and most meat last August.

My diet was 'junk food vegetarian/flexitarian'.  I probably ate meat 1-2 servings per week, but tons of dairy and eggs.  My cholesterol is high, but not super high.  Last time I was to a doctor was 2018, they discovered the HepA and that I had high blood pressure (Stage I).  My blood pressure in managed by diet and avoiding apnea from sleeping on my back.

No scares or crises, just clear that I am not 100% in terms of cardiovascular health, and finally owning up to my own denial about it.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Well... chit, guys.  Remove dairy and meat, and my caloric intake would be mostly cereal, coffee, beer, and bourbon!
> 
> Somehow, I'm still fit and lean, despite a diet most would call atrocious.  I know others who appear to try much harder, but with less success in managing weight and related problems.  Thinking back 50 years, I cannot recall a single case in my family of any advanced or life-altering disease related to CVD, diabetes, or heart disease.
> 
> Point is, while discussing undoubtedly valid statistics, we can't ignore genetics.  It would seem to this medically-uneducated observer that you might nudge your genetic disposition a bit one way or another with diet, you're still only playing the hand you were dealt.


This change is hard for me bc I am an avid cook, and have a kitchen full of equipment and a dozen cookbooks.  I make everything, and make a lot of amazing baked stuff.  99% of all those recipes... gone.

There is absolutely a genetic factor to all these diseases, and family history is a huge part of that.

My family seems to be pretty good with CVD and Diabetes, my mom passed after 87 years living on butter and shellfish and my Dad is still sharp at 88.  They both obv lived on a high fat diet, and smoked for more than a decade when they were younger.  Dad's Dad lived to 84 never setting foot in a hospital.

I'm just on a kick of feeling my age a bit, and deciding to get a bit more serious about my health (before going to my first well-visit in 5+ years).


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Point is, while discussing undoubtedly valid statistics, we can't ignore genetics.  It would seem to this medically-uneducated observer that you might nudge your genetic disposition a bit one way or another with diet, you're still only playing the hand you were dealt.



You will always have your anomalies, like the person who eats all the wrong things and lives to be 100 and the person who eats well and develops one of these medical conditions we've been throwing around or drops dead. I do agree with you; genetics plays such an important role. However, it doesn't seem like the huge majority of people have great genetics looking at the current weight/health statistics.  Hopefully, someday, science will be able to "tease out" the genetics side of the big equation.

And another thought, some folks may have good genetics and live to be 85 when they could have lived to be 95 if they had changed some eating habits.


----------



## Dan Freeman (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I'm just on a kick of feeling my age a bit, and deciding to get a bit more serious about my health (before going to my first well-visit in 5+ years).



Well, I'm 12 years ahead of you, and if you can change this aspect of your life, you will reap great benefits IMO. Believe me, the earlier you start, the easier it is to reverse, stop, or slow down the effects of diet and age.

I have great genetics in my family. While my father died at 71 (alcoholism), his side lived well into their 80's and 90's with few problems. (LOL, my paternal GF lived into his 90's and he used to pour bacon grease on his morning toast along with his bacon/sausage and eggs!) My mother lived to be 4 months shy of 102 and her mind was still sharp. My problem, my fear, is how I may have damaged myself or put a dent in my genetics in years past, even though I continue to turn things around.


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I think we (and scientists) agree that trans fats (as in hydrogenated oils) are WORSE for CVD than animal saturated fats.
> 
> Added trans fats (as opposed to the trace amounts present naturally) are mostly banned now in the US, we lagged the EU by several years due to lobbying by the big food cos.  Good riddance.
> 
> As per our previous discussions, I will respectfully disagree about the sustainability of meat production... half of the habitable land in the lower 48 is used to graze animals or to grow their feed.  A tiny fraction of that would suffice to replace the calories and protein needed if we stopped raising animals.  We could rewild 40% of the US land area, in principle.  And that does not touch the avoided water use, methane emissions, carbon emissions or zoonotic diseases.


Areas can be wild and still suitable for grazing. You just have to put the right animals in the right places. Think about all of the countless wild bison that used to roam the plains of North America before Europeans shot them all.


----------



## begreen (Dec 31, 2022)

Dan Freeman said:


> OMG...no! Have you read some of the things on organic labels? Talk about sugar bombs!
> 
> Organic just means nothing artificial or chemical. (produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents) In addition, *organic foods have a reputation for being healthy and nutritious*, but studies show that there is actually very little difference in nutritional value between organic and conventional foods grown and prepared.


The post-processing of the food is a bit off the point. Yes, one should be aware of what they eat with any processed food, organic or not. 

The important part is that organic means that environment-destroying herbicides and pesticides were not used to grow the crop. It means that carbon-negative synthetics were not used to grow the crops. The organic label also has strong requirements for meat with regard to the farming conditions, feed, antibiotics, hormones, etc. 








						Are 'Organic' Foods Worth the Money?
					

If there's one thing we can say for sure, it's that foods labeled 'organic' will cost more. But are they worth the money?




					lifehacker.com


----------



## maple1 (Dec 31, 2022)

begreen said:


> The post-processing of the food is a bit off the point. Yes, one should be aware of what they eat with any processed food, organic or not.
> 
> The important part is that organic means that environment-destroying herbicides and pesticides were not used to grow the crop. It means that carbon-negative synthetics were not used to grow the crops. The organic label also has strong requirements for meat with regard to the farming conditions, feed, antibiotics, hormones, etc.
> 
> ...


There are certain crops where the organic label is marketing ploy, and there is no difference between organic and non-organic products. Reference my forum name for one.


----------



## begreen (Dec 31, 2022)

maple1 said:


> There are certain crops where the organic label is marketing ploy, and there is no difference between organic and non-organic products. Reference my forum name for one.


That can happen especially with a natural product like maple syrup. There are those that want to profit from the label without effort or commitment.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 31, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> 4.  If you prefer, I could get the needed micrograms of B-12 by eating a teaspoon of dirt per week, just like our ancestors did, and where the B-12 in your meat animals get it from.  Instead I get it in purified form, extracted from bacteria.  Disgusting!


Can you cite a reference for this without too much bother?  This has bothered me for decades.  "How come gorillas and chimpanzees don't seem to suffer from pernicious anemia?"  If the correct answer is "The other great apes don't rinse their veg in clean water like zealous puritans," then I will sleep better.  I truly have not made time to look this up in the last 30 years.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 31, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Well... chit, guys.  Remove dairy and meat, and my caloric intake would be mostly cereal, coffee, beer, and bourbon!
> 
> Thinking back 50 years, [...]



I agree genetics is a factor.  I know you are somewhat active to process all the wood you process, even with power assist.  I assume you do not smoke any substance at all ever.  If the dietary statement above is true, you are on a collision course with a wheelchair and a home care nurse.  Your genes may buy you a few extra years, as might your activity level, but if the dietary statement is true, you are statistically screwed.

Not that many years ago (I am 55), I could honestly say the vast majority of my calories were from BBQ, dairy, beer and grains, with BBQ sauce making up an astonishing portion of my vegetable intake.

For me, the break point was my arthritis.  I decided to try hitting the salad bar regularly instead of going on percocet.  I am about one year in eating 5 vegetable servings a day, two dark leafy green, two pretty colors and one serving of whatever.  I never did go on percocet.  I am off all Rx and OTC meds for joint pain.  No Mobic, no ibuprofen, no turmeric, blah, blah, blah, I am off all meds.  I still process 8-10 cords annually, outdoors, at 64 degrees north latitude.  I prefer to deal with cordwood in the winter months when there are no mosquitos, and I prefer to have less expensive 16" long rounds dropped in my driveway so I can split them myself with my (slow) electric splitter.

I do have appropriate clothing for this process.

Besides the 5 veg daily, I eat all the BBQ I still want with spinach leaves taking up a bunch of room in my stomach.  

I did go on the "Whole 30" diet 2-3 years ago, cutting out all refined sugar for 30 days, and it was eye opening.  Week 2 was really really hard to stay the course.  Refined sugar has been a problem in the American diet since the colonial era.

If your dietary statement is accurate, the top three things you can do would be 1) drink at least 3 liters of water daily to keep your system flushed, 2) start taking a B complex supplement in the morning to replace the B vitamins stripped by your alcohol consumption  each evening and 3) start walking 30 minutes daily on the days you are not handling high volume cordwood.

There is no shame in getting old, it is inevitable.  There is no shame in managing the aging process with intelligence.  There is no shame in walking, it can be quality time with your spouse that leads to grownup stuff later in the evening.

Peace be with you.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 31, 2022)

One thing we have only touched on here tangentially is attitude or outlook.  My great grandpa signed up to join the army as a cook when the Zimmerman telegram was released to the American public.  He was underaged that day, and wasn't allowed to join until he turned 18  a few months later.  He came home from France smoking 2 packs of non filtered Camel cigarettes daily, and was still smoking two packs a day of non filtered Camels when he passed in his late 80s.

He would come to our farm every summer for a month or two when I was little.  I think it was the year I was nine, we had a huge late spring  hailstorm, with seven acres of young corn sprouts.  We had a milk cow, a beef steer, and three or four horses.  We needed the corn.    

I still remember sitting on the front porch with him the next morning.  He was working on his coffee and sucking down non filtered Camels.  I was seeing devastation.  He said "No one is shooting at us, this is going to be fine."

How you interpret the world around you does matter.


----------



## MikeK (Jan 1, 2023)

Poindexter said:


> "No one is shooting at us, this is going to be fine."


It matters so much.  I need to borrow that one for the new year and beyond.  Thanks to your great grandpa for that!


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Poindexter said:


> Can you cite a reference for this without too much bother?  This has bothered me for decades.  "How come gorillas and chimpanzees don't seem to suffer from pernicious anemia?"  If the correct answer is "The other great apes don't rinse their veg in clean water like zealous puritans," then I will sleep better.  I truly have not made time to look this up in the last 30 years.


I don't have any good sources.

Here are two articles, both speculative about prehistoric diet:








						Vitamin B12: What Everyone Should Know
					

Vitamin B12 is often cited as a key nutrient that vegans may be deficient in. However, there's a lot of mystery and misinformation surrounding it.




					thepeskyvegan.com
				











						The Evolutionary Quirk That Made Vitamin B12 Part of Our Diet
					

If animal products are our only source of B12, and it's vital to survival, how do herbivores survive?




					www.discovermagazine.com
				




The first includes the speculation that our ancestors got B-12 from dirt and dirty water.  The second goes into greater detail and claims that colonic bacteria in both humans and our ape cousins/ancestors synthesize plenty of B-12.  But a quirk in humans is that we can only absorb B-12 from our small intestine, so we excrete all the B-12 synthesized in the colon!  It claims the apes (and other herbivores) retain the ability to absorb B-12 from the colon.  This article takes this as evidence of regular meat eating among our ancestors, but it seems to me that it could be evidence of regular dirt ingestion, dirty water ingestion, or herbivore dung ingestion/handling/picking.

It is also clear that many traditional fermented foods (sauerkraut, miso, kimchi) can be decent sources of B-12.  Depending on the cobalt content of the source plants, these might have been important for these cultures when meat was limited or unavailable.

It seems that much of this is going to be speculative.  Field work suggests that B-12 ingestion and synthesis depends strongly on cobalt content in soils, which is low in many areas, and why cattle are commonly given synthetic B-12.  As pointed out by the first article.

I am also left wondering if the soil in East Africa is much higher than elsewhere in the world?  Perhaps our B-12 'quirk' says we evolved in or around the Congo...

I found this abstract:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166248108701703

_Cobalt is found in all the rocks of the earth's crust, the contents varying with the nature of the rock. The average content of cobalt in the lithosphere is about 30 ppm. There are only few data concerning the parent rocks corresponding to the different types of soils studied. The total cobalt contents of soils vary widely: 0.05 ppm. (podzols of the U.S.S.R.) to 300 ppm (vertisols of the Central African Republic). In soils, these contents vary in relation to those of the rocks from which the soils originate and in relation to the types of soils whose characteristics are more or less directly related to the climate, which has dominated their evolution, and to the major geographical zones. Total cobalt contents for the soils of these regions range from values of 0.05 to 200 ppm. They depend closely on the parent rocks, even though they tend to vary from one horizon to another in relation to certain pedologic processes. The soils of arid and semiarid regions have higher average cobalt contents than those of temperate and boreal regions. Cobalt is an important element for animals. Its compounds play a role in the formation of hemoglobin; and in several regions of the globe, sheep and cows may become anemic because of eating vegetation grown in cobalt-deficient soils._

But I could not retrieve the article nor the author's names from the Journal, even with my Uni tools (frickin Elsevier).

But this suggests that tropics+semi-arid+Africa means lots of cobalt and B-12 everywhere, versus wetter, temperate or boreal and non-Africa... much harder to find.

The chimps and gorillas are gonna be ok.  

ETA:  Found a paper from 1970: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1258/002367770781036526

It indicates that Old World Monkeys kept in captivity and fed an unsupplemented entirely plant-based diet suffer from B-12 deficiency that resembles that in humans on the same diet.   So perhaps the 'quirk' in human absorption did not occur recently, but is universal to African primates.

And so we are back to speculations about trace eating of meat/eggs/insects/feces/dirt.  

Also, there is plenty of evidence of humans eating insects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy_in_humans

It could be argued that in many non-Western cultures, eating insects is more common than eating dairy.

And just for @Ashful, there are in fact Cave paintings and paleolithic carvings that show edible insect collection and honey sources.








						Entomophagy in humans - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## EbS-P (Jan 1, 2023)

Poindexter said:


> I agree genetics is a factor.  I know you are somewhat active to process all the wood you process, even with power assist.  I assume you do not smoke any substance at all ever.  If the dietary statement above is true, you are on a collision course with a wheelchair and a home care nurse.  Your genes may buy you a few extra years, as might your activity level, but if the dietary statement is true, you are statistically screwed.
> 
> Not that many years ago (I am 55), I could honestly say the vast majority of my calories were from BBQ, dairy, beer and grains, with BBQ sauce making up an astonishing portion of my vegetable intake.
> 
> ...


What would cutting out alcohol do to life expectancy?  I imagine the alcohol abusers have a larger influence on average life expectancy than those who don’t drink.


----------



## sloeffle (Jan 1, 2023)

First off I’d like to commend you for making a lifestyle change later in life. Hats off to you. 

I had my lifestyle change a few years ago when I the doctor told me stop drinking booze, and start on a low fat diet due a health issue. I wasn’t a big drinker anyways, but keeping with a low fat diet has been tough. 

I agree, the Nova documentary definitely points out that a western lifestyle is a huge cause of obesity in our country, and others. I believe they showed a map showing obesity across the world. I did find the genetics part very interesting though. Too many people like my kid that are glued to a screen 24x7. ☹️

I do raise cattle on grass so I take my view point with a grain of salt. I agree, the world needs to eat a lot less meat. Especially with meat consumption rising in counties that traditionally never ate a lot of meat.  We definitely need to eat less dairy too, humans don’t even need to drink milk. That’s probably another topic for another day. The problem that I have is, if you get rid of ruminants that have the ability to turn a blade of grass into a nutrient  dense product you end with more monocultures of corn and soybeans. This leads to more chemicals being sprayed ( roundup, 2,4-D, paraquat and the list goes on ),  more fertilizer being spread ( water pollution ), more diesel being burned ( air pollution), and at least in my area more trees getting cut down. How’s this better for the environment as a whole ? My cows don’t need fertilizer to grow, they don’t need diesel, and the don’t need chemicals sprayed on them. And by they recycle ( poop )80 - 85% of what they eat. That goes back into the soil to grow more grass and sequester more carbon. Some of the soils on my farm are close to 5% organic matter, I guarantee there isn’t a non-organic monoculture based farm with 10 miles of me that’s has organic matter that high.

If humans aren’t suppose to eat meat, how have cultures in northern latitudes flourished this long ?  You can’t grow a lot of vegetables or greens in frozen tundra of the arctic. 









						The Secret To The Inuit High-Fat Diet May Be Good Genes
					

A new study on Inuit in Greenland suggests that Arctic peoples evolved genetic adaptations that allow them to get by mostly on seal blubber and meat without developing health problems.




					www.npr.org


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

sloeffle said:


> First off I’d like to commend you for making a lifestyle change later in life. Hats off to you.
> 
> I had my lifestyle change a few years ago when I the doctor told me stop drinking booze, and start on a low fat diet due a health issue. I wasn’t a big drinker anyways, but keeping with a low fat diet has been tough.
> 
> ...


I would like to see an analysis of what fraction of animal-based foods are cultivated by pure grazing on undeveloped or wild land.  I would think that it is quite small.

If that is correct, and much/most animals for food are fed from agricultural crops like corn, alfalfa, etc, then just a portion of that land currently used to create animal feed could be repurposed to creating foods for humans (corn/wheat/legumes).  Mono-culture for mono-culture.  The emphasis being on 'portion' given the low efficiency at which may animals convert feed to meat.

This seems obvious to me, based upon the practice of factory farming of cattle, pigs and chickens, and thermodynamics, but I have not dug up a source.

The Inuit and Alaskan Islanders are not particularly healthy.  Their life expectancy is shorter than their European neighbors on a western diet, and they do suffer from extensive CVD.  Analysis of ancient mummies from northern areas also shows many signs of CVD.  There is, interestingly, a common mutation in these populations that prevents them from going into ketosis on a low carb diet, suggesting that ketosis is not a beneficial state/trait in humans.









						Cardiovascular Disease Prevalence and its Relation to Risk Factors in Alaska Eskimos
					

Although Eskimos were thought to be protected from cardiovascular disease (CVD), state health data show a large proportion of deaths from CVD, despite traditional lifestyles and high omega-3 fatty acid intake. This article explores CVD prevalence and ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## semipro (Jan 1, 2023)

Well, I wasn't planning any resolutions for this new year other than being nicer to my very tolerant wife -- and I've already failed once on that one this morning.
After reading through this thread I'm now considering changing my ways with diet and exercise. 
I've got a long way to go. 
Maybe we should create a related Hearth.com challenge.

edit: It just occurred to me the potential irony of my eating a fried egg sandwich while reading/writing here.


----------



## sloeffle (Jan 1, 2023)

Cattle / sheep / goats aren’t factory farmed like pigs, and chickens are. The packer ( Smithfield, Cargill, JBS, Tyson etc etc ) doesn’t own the animal from birth to death like they do for pigs or chickens.

Beef cattle are either born ( outside more than likely ) on a ranch of a farm and then weaned at roughly 6 months old. Depending on what the market is for the cattle they are either bought by a backgrounder or sent to a feed lot. Are feed lots horrible, yep. Does all of our beef come from feedlot fed animals, nope. Roughly 40% of all beef in U.S. are old dairy cows. That cheap steak you are eating at your favorite chain restaurant was probably and old dairy cow. I don’t have the time nor do I care enough to figure out the percentage of cattle born in the wild places. My guess is >50%, since the majority of cattle are born out west.

Wheat is sprayed with 2,4-D to help keep weeds at bay. Soybeans are a legume. Again, more chemicals, pesticides being sprayed, and more diesel fuel being burned.  You won’t be able to feed the world growing those organically either.

Another thing I forgot to mention in my last comment. My grass lands never go bare either, unlike a monoculture. Where does bare soil go in the late winter and early spring. Into our rivers and streams causing further damage to the environment.

If you have Spotify I highly recommend listening to this podcast with Will Harris even if you don’t like Joe Rogan or not. Will drives home some of the points in trying to make.


Good luck on your journey. You don’t need to rebuke my comments, as we’ll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

As this thread drifts to the appropriate source of veganism which is some sort of philosophical origin vs. an actual superior or needed diet, my little midlife diet change included a couple of other big improvements that may be of interest. 

They have these fitness trackers called fitbits that you wear like a watch that continuously monitor your pulse, blood oxygen level, activity, temperature, heart rate variability, breathing rate, and other things. Very interesting for nerdy people. You can see the effect on your body when you eat well, eat poorly, exercise more, drink alcohol, eat sugar, eat fat, etc. 

As has been pointed out in this thread, each of us is different in how we react to our chosen poisons. The science has obviously not been settled, and feeling like you must say that only proves that there is no consensus. It’s the equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling blah blah to ignore any future discussion after you’ve been convinced. Get your head out of the vegan hole and understand both sides of the debate. Any teacher should preach open mindedness in this age of disinformation. 

I have found by using these fitness trackers that alcohol has a huge impact on me. Poorer sleep, racing pulse, low heart rate variability, etc. Same with sugar. I stopped drinking for about a year and now only drink for special occasions and whoa, it’s pretty hard on my body.

I found that moderate excersize, like 300-600 minutes per week in the cardio zone, lowers my resting heart rate and improves sleep. I don’t exercise for weight loss, that’s a bad idea, I exercise for health. Too much or too little exercise cause problems for me. 

My body thrives on animal products. Eggs, dairy, meat and as many vegetables as I want. Eating fat is essential, eating protein is essential, there are no essential carbohydrates. Zero vegetables are required. To get the necessary amount of essential proteins and fat would require a lot of vegetables but it’s possible if your philosophical beliefs prevent you from eating delicious animal products. The cow I eat has already eaten all of those tons of veg and with his four stomachs and ability to digest grass has condensed those bales of grass into delicious protein and fats for me to eat. 

Veganism is not about a better diet, it is about not eating animals. The ideal diet is not known, the science has not been settled. With increasing obesity and death rates we are finding that the current guidance is not working. The vegans I’ve seen or known did not look healthy, they looked weak and deprived. So I admit some bias in not wanting to be like that.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

@Highbeam.  I agree with much that you say.

I too have been tracking my bio data (with a Garmin watch), for three years now.  I've also measured my blood pressure several hundred times over the same span, and my sleeping pO2 on many nights to track apnea.

We agree on the alcohol... the signals in the data are clear.  I too have cut back.

Also agree that veganism is a philosophy, and WFPB is a diet.  I"m not tossing out my leather belt, selling my cars with the leather seats, or refusing to cook my kid their favorite homemade mac and cheese.  So I guess I'm not vegan then.

As I said earlier, my biggest diet problem was processed foods and dairy, not meat, which I have eaten in moderation for years.  My hypertension appears to mostly be from the high sodium/ low potassium properties of that (former) diet.



Highbeam said:


> My body thrives on animal products. Eggs, dairy, meat and as many vegetables as I want. Eating fat is essential, eating protein is essential, there are no essential carbohydrates. Zero vegetables are required. To get the necessary amount of essential proteins and fat would require a lot of vegetables but it’s possible if your philosophical beliefs prevent you from eating delicious animal products. The cow I eat has already eaten all of those tons of veg and with his four stomachs and ability to digest grass has condensed those bales of grass into delicious protein and fats for me to eat.
> 
> Veganism is not about a better diet, it is about not eating animals. The ideal diet is not known, the science has not been settled. With increasing obesity and death rates we are finding that the current guidance is not working. The vegans I’ve seen or known did not look healthy, they looked weak and deprived. So I admit some bias in not wanting to be like that.



While I am doing a stint with a WFPB (vegan) diet to try to see the effects on MY own system, this is motivated by my efforts over the last 5 months, which have been 'mostly vegan' with exceptions when traveling or going out with friends.  Tracked with my own measurements.  I can see my blood pressure and weigh dropping towards 'normal' levels under the vegan diet, and popping back up when I get away from it.  I can also see the variability of my blood pressure dropping, along with my resting heart rate on the WFPB diet.

My choices are motivated by tracking as much as yours are.  I"m not trying to tell others what they have to do, or shame anyone.

Agree that the ideal human diet is not known.  But the science is also clear that a high saturated fat, meat-based diet with low carbs is associated with a much higher risk of cardiovascular disease in the average person.  Carbs ARE required.  The body runs on carbs, and will synthesize sugar from fats under extreme duress (ketosis).  A high fiber diet (carbs) regulates cholesterol (allowing you to eat more meat if desired) and significantly reduces appetite to control weight.

I too have known a lot of puny sickly vegans, mostly decades ago.  I suspect they were 'junk food vegans' and/or not getting enough B-12, neither of which is an issue for my current experiment.

Have you watched 'The Game Changers'?    https://www.netflix.com/title/81157840


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

sloeffle said:


> If you have Spotify I highly recommend listening to this podcast with Will Harris even if you don’t like Joe Rogan or not. Will drives home some of the points in trying to make.
> 
> 
> Good luck on your journey. You don’t need to rebuke my comments, as we’ll just have to agree to disagree.




You are clearly closer to the cattle/dairy industry than I am (meant in the good, informed sense).

That said, my own readings on the sustainability of Will Harris' 'White Oak Pastures' project have been very disappointing.  Its a bit of a boondoggle funded by General Mills to create a line of 'green beef' for sale at top $$$ as jerky.   Originally touted as 'carbon negative beef' in company promotional materials, that claim was later retracted in their peer-reviewed publications.  Those showed modest (and highly model dependent) reductions in global warming effects in WOP beef.  Modest reductions that came with a significantly larger (2.5X) land footprint than conventional grazing.

I am yet to see much reliable come out Joe Rogan's show.  IMO the WOP snow job is par for the course.

Whether we like or dislike feedlot cattle, they release far less methane per pound of beef than grazed cattle, for a much smaller overall AGW-forcing, in addition to lower land use (due to higher productivity of their feed farming operation).  It seems unlikely that we could raise the same amount of beef as currently by grazing alone (not nearly enough land), let alone with the 'sustainable' approach being popularized by Harris and Rogan.

ETA:  Here is a peer reviewed paper about the climate impacts of the WOP project:








						Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System
					

Regenerative agriculture is a newly codified approach to agriculture that emphasizes reducing reliance on exogeneous inputs, as well as restoring and enhancing ecosystem services such as soil carbon (C) sequestration. These regenerative agriculture principles suggest that modern livestock...




					www.frontiersin.org
				




It confirms that land use is 2.5X higher (Figure 4) than producing the same animal products conventionally.
It also states (Figure 3) that the greenhouse gas emissions are about 40% higher than a 'commodity' model without accounting for carbon sequestration by the soil.  
The sequestration data is pretty noisy (Figure 2) and appears to have saturated in the first 5-10 years of the 20 year project.

Combining these points suggests that WOP-type animal raising has a lower climate impact than conventional methods transiently for a few years after setting up the system, and then long-term has higher emissions.

NB: This paper and analysis was performed by a consulting firm HIRED and PAID by WOP and General Mills.   One can nit-pick some aspects of the analysis that make it look better than it is, but there is no need.  It looks pretty bad even how the WOP team presents it.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> You are clearly closer to the cattle/dairy industry than I am (meant in the good, informed sense).
> 
> That said, my own readings on the sustainability of Will Harris' 'White Oak Pastures' project have been very disappointing.  Its a bit of a boondoggle funded by General Mills to create a line of 'green beef' for sale at top $$$ as jerky.   Originally touted as 'carbon negative beef' in company promotional materials, that claim was later retracted in their peer-reviewed publications.  Those showed modest (and highly model dependent) reductions in global warming effects in WOP beef.  Modest reductions that came with a significantly larger (2.5X) land footprint than conventional grazing.
> 
> ...


Cows in general are not very efficient. The rise of beef as a common food is only because of rail and refrigeration. Prior to the industrial age it was more about the sheep, goats, and camels. There are tons of advantages to these animals, mainly that they can produce fiber in addition to the meat, dairy, and leather, which makes their land use much more efficient. The manure is also of a much higher quality and the meat is leaner. However, you can't feed them grain in a CAFO (factory farm/feedlot/etc.) and they require forage/hay. As Sloeffle pointed out, humans can't eat grass and weeds, but sheep, goats, and camelids can. They need much lower quality pasture than horses and cattle do as well. Goats can even eat evergreen boughs which are otherwise turned into mulch or burned in big piles after logging operations. The manure from these animals is also much higher quality than that of cattle and horses. There's a lot more efficiency that could be going into livestock production, it's just not  profitable when you can ship cattle/beef all over the world with rail and big ships.


----------



## boomfire (Jan 1, 2023)

Poindexter said:


> While I am not in a position to confirm @woodgeek 's recent findings, I know from clinical experience WG is essentially correct in every conclusion.
> 
> When I was making home visits the range of nutritional choices I saw was mindboggling.
> 
> ...



My wife's grandpa recently died at 90 years old. He had his health issues. but for a 90 year old, he worked almost till his last day fiddling with his tools in his garage, doing projects for his grandkids and around the house, always busy. He ate anything and everything and drank beer. But all in moderation.

My grandma, is close to 90 years old, she eats pretty much anything. But in moderation and small portions. Her eyes started failing a decade ago otherwise healthy.

I used to weigh 220lbs about 13 years ago.  I ate anything and everything but changed my habits to reduced portions.
*Eg*: 1 large pie of pizza with 1 Slice, 2 Whole subs with half a sub. half a dozen pancakes with 1 pancake. 6 pack beer with 1 or 2 light beer. I have been able to maintain my weight between 125 and 130 lbs for the last decade. I simply eat less but anything.  I also live a moderately active lifestyle.
I do have 1 issue of high BP (always had it), I know i need to make certain adjustments but alas I do love my salt and sweet :D


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> @Highbeam.  I agree with much that you say.
> 
> I too have been tracking my bio data (with a Garmin watch), for three years now.  I've also measured my blood pressure several hundred times over the same span, and my sleeping pO2 on many nights to track apnea.
> 
> ...


Why do you think dietary carbs are essential? Surely you understand the scientific definition of the word essential. Carbs are absolutely not essential as can be proven by the many who eat zero carbohydrates and thrive.

Your body creates any glucose needed by your organs from your body’s stores of fats and proteins.

Here’s another bender for you, fiber is not essential either. That’s another myth. 

Obviously the science in saturated fat being bad for you is not settled. Every time you want to say “the science is settled” or “consensus” I suggest thinking again. Dietary science is not at all settled. 

My BP was the health issue that started me down this path. My GP prescribed low carb and  I also lost some weight, dropped caffeine, dropped alcohol, and exercised more to lower BP.  Here’s another bender, it’s not sodium. That’s another myth. 

Vegans and carnivores, and the rest of us in the middle can find health in the overlapping qualities. Healthy weight, reasonably active, and of course limiting or eliminating drugs/alcohol/tobacco.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> Why do you think dietary carbs are essential? Surely you understand the scientific definition of the word essential. Carbs are absolutely not essential as can be proven by the many who eat zero carbohydrates and thrive.
> 
> Your body creates any glucose needed by your organs from your body’s stores of fats and proteins.


Where is this large, well studied population of humans who eat zero carbs?  What are their long-term health outcomes?

There are several non Western populations that eat over 70% carbs, and who thrive.  Like the population of Okinawa whose traditional diet is mostly whole plants and quite high in carbs.









						The Okinawa Diet: Eating and Living to 100 - Blue Zones
					

Okinawa is one of the blue zones regions and has some of the highest life expectancy rates in the world. So what are they eating?




					www.bluezones.com


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

boomfire said:


> My wife's grandpa recently died at 90 years old. He had his health issues. but for a 90 year old, he worked almost till his last day fiddling with his tools in his garage, doing projects for his grandkids and around the house, always busy. He ate anything and everything and drank beer. But all in moderation.
> 
> My grandma, is close to 90 years old, she eats pretty much anything. But in moderation and small portions. Her eyes started failing a decade ago otherwise healthy.
> 
> ...


On the BP issue, since you’re active and at a healthy weight, boy oh boy does stress increase my BP. I have a home cuff BP checker thing and even just seeing work emails popup in my in box can send my BP up 10 points.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Where is this large, well studied population of humans who eat zero carbs?  What are their long-term health outcomes?
> 
> There are several non Western populations that eat over 70% carbs, and who thrive.  Like the population of Okinawa whose traditional diet is mostly whole plants and quite high in carbs.
> 
> ...


Is that a straw man? To be essential, means nobody could live without carbs. You don’t need carbs to live period. It’s not about averages or philosophy. This is a rubber meets the road issue.

All you have to do is look at the carnivore community to find people who eat zero carbs and don’t die because of it.

I personally like the taste of vegetables accompanying the animal products in my diet but I know it’s just for enjoyment. A garnish.

Head in the sand vegans just can’t imagine any world in which the vegetable is not the primary dietary source for everything. You literally do not need to eat any vegetables.

If you modeled your diet after some Okinawan or whatever that ate lots of vegetables I’m sure you could thrive but that’s not because of the vegetables. Look at their essential protein and fat sources, look at their BMI, look at other environmental factors like stress, drugs. Pollution.

In this disinformation age you need to be a darn detective.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> Is that a straw man? To be essential, means nobody could live without carbs. You don’t need carbs to live period. It’s not about averages or philosophy. This is a rubber meets the road issue.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the carnivore community to find people who eat zero carbs and don’t die.
> 
> I personally like the taste of vegetables accompanying the animal products in my diet but I know it’s just for enjoyment. A garnish.



Ah.  There certainly is a 'carnivore community'.  Many of them go on social media (or Joe Rogan) and boast about their eye-popping cholesterol scores and talk about how great they feel and healthy.

Many of them were unhealthy or overweight before, eating or overeating some sort of 'Western junk food diet', and lost weight and feel better since going carnivore/paleo/keto/low-carb etc.  Given the weight loss, ofc they feel better.

That said, I have never seen a single peer-reviewed study that suggests that they get chronic diseases at a lower rate than the general population, or live longer.  AKA 'thrive'.  Given what we know about the origin of Diabetes and CVD, it seems very unlikely I ever will.

So, there are some folks that have 'gone carnivore' for a couple years and post about it on social media.  What about the life-long (or long-term) vegan super-athletes and Olympians in 'the Game Changers?'

Essential is a funny term:  Are fiber and 'complex carbs' essential?  Can you live without it?  Sure.  But what if that leads you to have a much higher BMI, higher cholesterol and cuts your life short by 10 years on a population average?   It seems to me that that is at least as scary as anecdotes about 'puny and weak' vegans.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Ah.  There certainly is a 'carnivore community'.  Many of them go on social media (or Joe Rogan) and boast about their eye-popping cholesterol scores and talk about how great they feel and healthy.
> 
> Many of them were unhealthy or overweight before, eating or overeating some sort of 'Western junk food diet', and lost weight and feel better since going carnivore/paleo/keto/low-carb etc.  Given the weight loss, ofc they feel better.
> 
> ...


Some progress, we agree that carbs and fiber are non essential( I might argue the carbs are also inflammatory, addictive, and toxic but not today) Protein and fat are essential for life. Anybody reading this including woodgeek, please be sure you are getting enough complete protein and fat. Even if you insist on loading up on nonessential vegetation as a filler. Can we even digest vegetation?

Once you get enough protein and fat from animal or plant sources I suggest your appetite will be satisfied and weight control easier.

Another grey area of dietary science is how much protein to eat. The USDA publishes a minimum number that most authorities feel is far less than ideal. I’ve never read anything from Joe Rogan but the MDs that specialize in this area prescribe 80-100 grams per day to maintain muscle mass as we age. I just ate half of that for breakfast. Did you?

If you want to talk to long term carnivore dieters that are MDs I can find you several. I don’t like to listen or read information from non MDs or from people selling things so “influencers” are not my choice for information. Trouble with doctors and scientists are all the dang studies with different funding sources, biases, and just lack applicable studies. Those things cost money and guess who funds them? Who do you trust?

The good news is that guidelines are already changing to recognize cholesterol is not actually causing deaths. Oops. New guidelines say I can have an LDL of 190 before any concern. Those old studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were wrong. Guess who funded them.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> Some progress, we agree that carbs and fiber are non essential( I might argue the carbs are also inflammatory, addictive, and toxic but not today) Protein and fat are essential for life. Anybody reading this including woodgeek, please be sure you are getting enough complete protein and fat. Even if you insist on loading up on nonessential vegetation as a filler. Can we even digest vegetation?



I appreciate the concern.  I am getting plenty of high quality protein from legumes and whole grains, both of which are highly digestible.  I love fat as much as the next guy, and still cook with them, but try to keep saturated fats to less than 10% of total calories, consistent with the American Heart Association guidelines.

Part of the problem might be confusion are the word 'carbs'.  Refined sugar is a carb.  White rice is a carb.  Fiber is a carb.  Complex carbohydrate is a carb.  A WFPB diet minimizes the refined sugars and starches (table sugar or equivalent and white rice) but says that complex carbs and fiber (as in potatoes, sweet potatoes and whole grains) are AOK, even up to 50+% of dietary calories.  And result is sustainable weight loss and healthy BMI maintenance.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> If you want to talk to long term carnivore dieters that are MDs I can find you several. I don’t like to listen or read information from non MDs or from people selling things so “influencers” are not my choice for information. Trouble with doctors and scientists are all the dang studies with different funding sources, biases, and just lack applicable studies. Those things cost money and guess who funds them? Who do you trust?
> 
> The good news is that guidelines are already changing to recognize cholesterol is not actually causing deaths. Oops. New guidelines say I can have an LDL of 190 before any concern. Those old studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were wrong. Guess who funded them.



Huh.  You and I are reading different guidelines...

The American Heart Association says that the threshold for no concern in high risk patients is *70* for LDL, not 190!
It also says that LDL>190 is called '*severe primary hypercholesterolemia*' and requires high-dose statin therapy, including other drugs if the number does not drop below 70 after maximum statin treatment.



			https://professional.heart.org/-/media/Files/Health-Topics/Cholesterol/Cholesterol-guide-for-HC-Practitioners-English.pdf
		


The guidelines are a mess, but basically they strive to compute a 10 year risk of major CVD based upon LDL AND other factors like age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, smoking and race.  Above 5% requires intervention.  LDL is a major component of that risk calculation.

While confusing, this is an improvement over the earlier 'one size fits all' threshold, and is science driven.

Here is the calculator if you have the data:  https://www.cvriskcalculator.com/

What the guideline says (which might be confusing) is 'for LDL >190 no risk calculation needs to be done'.  This is not bc there is no concern, but rather, because in that case the risk is DEFINITELY above 5% and requires action!!  A very important difference.

And yeah, there are plenty of crazy MDs out there.  Just like all the chain smoking doctors in the 60s and 70s.  Including one I saw posting on social media about his >500 cholesterol score.  And saying that statins were a scam that will waste your muscles away.  And that he is a carnivore.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> I appreciate the concern.  I am getting plenty of high quality protein from legumes and whole grains, both of which are highly digestible.  I love fat as much as the next guy, and still cook with them, but try to keep saturated fats to less than 10% of total calories, consistent with the American Heart Association guidelines.
> 
> Part of the problem might be confusion are the word 'carbs'.  Refined sugar is a carb.  White rice is a carb.  Fiber is a carb.  Complex carbohydrate is a carb.  A WFPB diet minimizes the refined sugars and starches (table sugar or equivalent and white rice) but says that complex carbs and fiber (as in potatoes, sweet potatoes and whole grains) are AOK, even up to 50+% of dietary calories.  And result is sustainable weight loss and healthy BMI maintenance.


Oh good. I’ve never eaten a lentil in my life but I can only imagine the feast of lentils it would take to get 100 grams of protein. 

Yes, a low carb diet reduces all sources of carbs but I agree that some carb sources are better than others. That’s when we go to the glycemic index and consider the blood sugar spike associated with each type of carb source. White potatoes may as well be donuts! That’s why I cut way back on them alongside a juicy beef steak. Increased my broccoli though which is a carb.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Huh.  You and I are reading different guidelines...
> 
> The American Heart Association says that the threshold for no concern in high risk patients is *70* for LDL, not 190!
> It also says that LDL>190 is called '*severe primary hypercholesterolemia*' and requires high-dose statin therapy, including other drugs if the number does not drop below 70 after maximum statin treatment.
> ...



You might be misunderstanding the risk factor issue. I’m on a phone so can’t look it up for you. My doctor actually help me understand it. If you have no other risk factors like smoking, diabetes, or a past heart attack then no intervention is needed under a 190 LDL score. He referenced the Framingham (sp) score method.

Problem is that a 50 year old doctor went to med school 30 years ago reading a text written 30 years before that by a guy at the end of his career. It takes a long time for a woops to get cleared out.

The old garbage studies funded by the statin companies have been thrown out. Those were written by the smoking doctors! I’m just not too worried about high LDL in isolation. The current science is convincing but you won’t find it with your head in the vegan hole. That would be like asking a liberal about preferred handgun caliber!

I am willing to trade higher LDL for better health. There is a limit for me somewhere in the 200s where I would consider dietary changes to reduce LDL. It’s super easy, just add some carbs of any type, even jelly beans.

In summary, I propose you can do pretty well and indeed thrive (compared to average Americans) on almost any way of eating if you pay attention to your weight and activity level. I don’t think anybody here was proposing veganism or carnivore.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

Our saliva literally contains the enzyme responsible for digestion of carbohydrates. Our bodies are grain eating machines! The only carbs we can't digest are cellulose and chitin. For cellulose you need enzymes produced by the microbes in ruminant, psuedoruminant, and hind gut fermenting animals (horses, deer, etc.). 

As Woodgeek mentioned, simple carbs, typically called sugars, are the problem. You can eat a lot of whole legumes and grains without any problems. Once you start getting into refined white flours and sugars, then you have the dietary disease problems.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> Our saliva literally contains the enzyme responsible for digestion of carbohydrates. Our bodies are grain eating machines! The only carbs we can't digest are cellulose and chitin. For cellulose you need enzymes produced by the microbes in ruminant, psuedoruminant, and hind gut fermenting animals (horses, deer, etc.).
> 
> As Woodgeek mentioned, simple carbs, typically called sugars, are the problem. You can eat a lot of whole legumes and grains without any problems. Once you start getting into refined white flours and sugars, then you have the dietary disease problems.


Sorry, I meant to ask about the digestion of cellulose. So as you say enzymes in our saliva breaks down carbohydrates (linked together sugars) into simple sugars almost immediately. So would you say that when you eat carbohydrates, you are actually just eating sugar? It doesn’t matter if it’s whole grain or complex, that carbohydrate becomes sugar in your system? 

The refined and concentrated forms of carbohydrate get more sugar zipped into your blood slightly quicker but it’s all sugar.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> Sorry, I meant to ask about the digestion of cellulose. So as you say enzymes in our saliva breaks down carbohydrates (linked together sugars) into simple sugars almost immediately. So would you say that when you eat carbohydrates, you are actually just eating sugar? It doesn’t matter if it’s whole grain or complex, that carbohydrate becomes sugar in your system?
> 
> The refined and concentrated forms of carbohydrate get more sugar zipped into your blood slightly quicker but it’s all sugar.


So literal sugars get digested in the mouth immediately. Think of hard candy and such. It then gets absorbed by your stomach. Other more complex chains of carbohydrates take a lot longer. It just starts in the mouth. You also produce the enzyme in your stomach. If you have a high fiber (insoluble carbs, usually cellulose) bound with your soluble carbs then you can't really digest all of them. This is why whole legumes and grains are fine for humans, but refined carbs are not. When you eat whole grains, it's not all carbs either, there's lots of fiber (the bran), protein, some fat, vitamins, and trace minerals. When you eat white bread, it's almost entirely digestible carbs, but whole grain or multigrain sourdough has all of the grain components. 

There's also a difference between digestion and absorption. Some compounds can only be absorbed in certain places in your digestive tract (GI). On top of that, there's only a limited amount of nutrients that can be absorbed and/or used in the time that food spends in each part of your GI. Some fiber in our large intestine is digested down by the same kinds of microbes found in ruminant stomachs, but our large intestines cannot absorb the short chain fatty acids or microbial protein (the best kind) created by digestion of fiber.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> You might be misunderstanding the risk factor issue. I’m on a phone so can’t look it up for you. My doctor actually help me understand it. If you have no other risk factors like smoking, diabetes, or a past heart attack then no intervention is needed under a 190 LDL score. He referenced the Framingham (sp) score method.
> 
> Problem is that a 50 year old doctor went to med school 30 years ago reading a text written 30 years before that by a guy at the end of his career. It takes a long time for a woops to get cleared out.
> 
> ...


We are saying the Same Thing. That is what the guidelines I posted and quoted say.

I just opened the calculator, and put in my data.  Said I had NO risk factors and normal BP, and that my total cholesterol was 240 and my HDL was 60, implying LDL = 190.  I pressed the button, and it said my risk of CVD in 10 years was 5.1%, and that above the risk threshold for intervention.

So, you are saying that you have no other risk factors?  Good for you!

Playing with the calculator, and saying I have hypertension at 130/90, I hit 5% risk at 160 LDL, versus 131 last time I tested.

Note however, that what you originally said about cholesterol not being associated with CVD is incorrect.  The fact that the the threshold changes with risk indicates its contribution!


----------



## qwee (Jan 1, 2023)

"The length of human intestines is much more like that of* herbivorous animals* than that of carnivores. Humans tend to have intestines that are 10 to 11 times their body length. Herbivores, like humans, have long intestines of 10 to 12 or more times their body length — to provide ample space for digestion of plant matter." (from mouth to anus not mouth to feet).


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> We are saying the Same Thing. That is what the guidelines I posted and quoted say.
> 
> I just opened the calculator, and put in my data.  Said I had NO risk factors and normal BP, and that my total cholesterol was 240 and my HDL was 60, implying LDL = 190.  I pressed the button, and it said my risk of CVD in 10 years was 5.1%, and that above the risk threshold for intervention.
> 
> ...


Are you sure that I stated cholesterol is not associated with cvd?


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> So literal sugars get digested in the mouth immediately. Think of hard candy and such. It then gets absorbed by your stomach. Other more complex chains of carbohydrates take a lot longer. It just starts in the mouth. You also produce the enzyme in your stomach. If you have a high fiber (insoluble carbs, usually cellulose) bound with your soluble carbs then you can't really digest all of them. This is why whole legumes and grains are fine for humans, but refined carbs are not. When you eat whole grains, it's not all carbs either, there's lots of fiber (the bran), protein, some fat, vitamins, and trace minerals. When you eat white bread, it's almost entirely digestible carbs, but whole grain or multigrain sourdough has all of the grain components.
> 
> There's also a difference between digestion and absorption. Some compounds can only be absorbed in certain places in your digestive tract (GI). On top of that, there's only a limited amount of nutrients that can be absorbed and/or used in the time that food spends in each part of your GI. Some fiber in our large intestine is digested down by the same kinds of microbes found in ruminant stomachs, but our large intestines cannot absorb the short chain fatty acids or microbial protein (the best kind) created by digestion of fiber.


Hmm, whether it’s immediate or “a lot” longer, all digested and absorbed carbs turn into sugar. I agree that some sugars take longer to reach the bloodstream which is why the glycemic index is so important for those wishing to eat carbs to minimize the damage done by peaking blood sugar levels.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

qwee said:


> "The length of human intestines is much more like that of* herbivorous animals* than that of carnivores. Humans tend to have intestines that are 10 to 11 times their body length. Herbivores, like humans, have long intestines of 10 to 12 or more times their body length — to provide ample space for digestion of plant matter." (from mouth to anus not mouth to feet).


I’ve pulled the intestines from deer and they were long but I would be amazed if it was 40 feet long! I also don’t see what that has to do with whether humans can digest, absorb, or thrive on plants as well as a herbivore.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> Hmm, whether it’s immediate or “a lot” longer, all digested and absorbed carbs turn into sugar. I agree that some sugars take longer to reach the bloodstream which is why the glycemic index is so important for those wishing to eat carbs to minimize the damage done by peaking blood sugar levels.


Not all carbs reach the bloodstream because not all carbs are digestible, or because they are not digested fast enough to be absorbed by the correct part of the GI. Again, the problem is not "Carbs" but simple carbs. Whole grains good, refined white flour and sugars bad.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> The good news is that guidelines are already changing to recognize cholesterol is not actually causing deaths. Oops. New guidelines say I can have an LDL of 190 before any concern. Those old studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were wrong. Guess who funded them.



This is what I read....

cholesterol does NOT CAUSE deaths.  I can have a LDL = 190 before ANY concern.  The studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were WRONG.

These statements are incorrect and or very misleading, according to the guidelines we are quoting to each other above.  LDL, in particular apoB DOES cause atherosclerosis, CVD and DEATH.  It increases risk of those things is a DOSE dependent manner, such that if you have a LDL = 190 score and NO OTHER FACTORS then you have a 5% 10 year risk of bad CVD outcomes no matter what age you are!  And that is enough of a concern to merit intensive interventions including statin therapy.  But if you have 189 and no other factors, your risk drops to 4.9%, and that is the arbitrary point below which intervention is not strongly recommended.  This is very different from 'No Concern' at 189.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> Not all carbs reach the bloodstream because not all carbs are digestible, or because they are not digested fast enough to be absorbed by the correct part of the GI. Again, the problem is not "Carbs" but simple carbs. Whole grains good, refined white flour and sugars bad.


That’s the point, all carbs that enter the bloodstream are the problem whether somebody calls them simple or complex. It’s sugar. 

Also, I don’t think any carb is bad in appropriate doses. As in small amounts. Whether some sugar in my coffee or a potatoe with my steak. It’s the dose that does the damage.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> Hmm, whether it’s immediate or “a lot” longer, all digested and absorbed carbs turn into sugar. I agree that some sugars take longer to reach the bloodstream which is why the glycemic index is so important for those wishing to eat carbs to minimize the damage done by peaking blood sugar levels.


The next can of worms here is that you probably think excess carbs causes type II Diabetes, and not high fat consumption!

Eat no or very little carbs and problem solved!  Right?  Well, carnivores, even those that lose a lot of weight, still usually remain insulin resistant and diabetic.

Conversely, those that lose weight by adopting a high COMPLEX carb, low fat diet like WFPB often see their insulin resistance RESOLVE.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> This is what I read....
> 
> cholesterol does NOT CAUSE deaths.  I can have a LDL = 190 before ANY concern.  The studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were WRONG.
> 
> These statements are incorrect and or very misleading, according to the guidelines we are quoting to each other above.  LDL, in particular apoB DOES cause atherosclerosis, CVD and DEATH.  It increases risk of those things is a DOSE dependent manner, such that if you have a LDL = 190 score and NO OTHER FACTORS then you have a 5% 10 year risk of bad CVD outcomes no matter what age you are!  And that is enough of a concern to merit intensive interventions including statin therapy.  But if you have 189 and no other factors, your risk drops to 4.9%, and that is the arbitrary point below which intervention is not strongly recommended.  This is very different from 'No Concern' at 189.


So you see the leap you made in your interpretation and then misquoting of me. As an educator you should know better.

LDL does not cause anything. Do you know what LDL is? It’s a lipoprotein. It’s just a delivery vessel.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> So you see the leap you made in your interpretation and then misquoting of me. As an educator you should know better.


Did I misquote you?  Where?  I quoted the statement you made that I think are contrary to the published, current AHA guidelines.  

When asked, I explained.  Please explain my leap and misquotes in post #81.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> The next can of worms here is that you probably think excess carbs causes type II Diabetes, and not high fat consumption!
> 
> Eat no or very little carbs and problem solved!  Right?  Well, carnivores, even those that lose a lot of weight, still usually remain insulin resistant and diabetic.
> 
> Conversely, those that lose weight by adopting a high COMPLEX carb, low fat diet like WFPB often see their insulin resistance RESOLVE.


Now you’re telling me “what I probably think”? Sorry. I believe you’ve fallen off the deep end into head in sand veganism.Let’s go ahead and end my part of our discussion since you are not interested in the other side of that long standing debate. Good luck on your journey and please continue this thread.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

qwee said:


> "The length of human intestines is much more like that of* herbivorous animals* than that of carnivores. Humans tend to have intestines that are 10 to 11 times their body length. Herbivores, like humans, have long intestines of 10 to 12 or more times their body length — to provide ample space for digestion of plant matter." (from mouth to anus not mouth to feet).


This is not an accurate representation of anything. Plant matter can be almost anything, and horses and cows are obligate herbivores with totally different diets both composed 100% of plant matter. Herbivores range from ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats), pseudoruminants (camelids), and hind gut fermenters (horses, rabbits, deer, squirrels, etc.) and they all have different GI systems despite having all plant based diets. Humans are very clearly omnivores like raccoons and pigs, and our digestive systems are very similar. Then you have wild cards like panda bears, which have a carnivore GI, but subsist entirely on plant matter. This has a huge effect on their behavior as well, not just because it takes a lot of bamboo to sustain a bear. With the exception of the ruminants, psuedoruminants, and hind gut fermenters, there are no obligate herbivores. 

Before someone mentions primates, they mostly eat fruit. Humans that mostly eat fruit get diabetes. 

I think "wild" humans without complex tools, knives, etc. would have used their extremely dexterous hands to harvest nutritious insects, fish, shellfish, nuts/seeds, and select legumes. Cooking is the only reason we can eat most of the meat in the contemporary human diet. However, the animals I mentioned earlier can usually be eaten raw, and these are the food remains historically found in pre-agricultural/cooking societies. Eating large animals like deer and cattle only works if you can cook the meat, otherwise you will probably die of some kind of infection.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> So you see the leap you made in your interpretation and then misquoting of me. As an educator you should know better.
> 
> LDL does not cause anything. Do you know what LDL is? It’s a lipoprotein. It’s just a delivery vessel.



LDL is a nanoparticle vessel filled with cholesterol.  Most of them have an ApoB protein tag.  This subset of the zoo of different fat carriers is _literally_ what sticks to vessel walls, and builds up into plaques and blockages/stenoses.

At LDL = 190, there is a 5% 10 year CVD risk, not a 0% risk.  The risk drops linearly with LDL score, and reaches zero at roughly LDL = 70, below which there is zero risk.  And THAT is what I said in my original post, as a matter of fact!

At least that is what the AHA guidelines your doctor tried to explain to you say, and the calculator you can punch in different factors to, along with the raft of peer reviewed papers they are based on.


----------



## Mirco22 (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> The next can of worms here is that you probably think excess carbs causes type II Diabetes, and not high fat consumption!
> 
> Eat no or very little carbs and problem solved!  Right?  Well, carnivores, even those that lose a lot of weight, still usually remain insulin resistant and diabetic.
> 
> Conversely, those that lose weight by adopting a high COMPLEX carb, low fat diet like WFPB often see their insulin resistance RESOLVE.


It is certain that fats worsen insulin resistance. It's like you want to paste on oil. I see a great debate, but nobody with a complete view. Refined carbohydrates today are no good because people have butts, on armchairs. But when grains were started to grind, thousands years ago, people didn't watch tv, and refined carbohydrates were good for restoring carbohydrate stores in muscles. Another distinction should be made in blood type (A - B - 0) The same diet can be excellent for one guy, but disastrous for another. Reading these threads makes me hungry


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> Before someone mentions primates, they mostly eat fruit. Humans that mostly eat fruit get diabetes.



Source?


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

Highbeam said:


> That’s the point, all carbs that enter the bloodstream are the problem whether somebody calls them simple or complex. It’s sugar.
> 
> Also, I don’t think any carb is bad in appropriate doses. As in small amounts. Whether some sugar in my coffee or a potatoe with my steak. It’s the dose that does the damage.


It's not the dose, it's the type. It's not so simple as "carbs are carbs". Potatoes in particular are mostly STARCH which is a simple carb. So are all root vegetables. This is a lot different than grain and legumes, which can be consumed to your hearts desire in whole form. You will simply poop out most of the carbs, fiber, protein, and other stuff because you simply cannot absorb all of it before it passes through your GI. 
Eating a potato is not much different than eating white bread, they are both converted into simple absorbable sugars very quickly, in your mouth even. This is way different than eating a piece of rye bread, eating roasted peanuts, soaked and boiled whole beans, raw or steamed snap peas/green beans, and other whole grains or legumes. The rye bread isn't perfect, and you can't eat a diet solely of whole/multigrain bread, but you could eat soaked or sprouted whole grains and prepared whole legumes until you got tired of them. There's just so much insoluble carb content that you simply pass a lot of that stuff. 

I'm not saying that potatoes, white bread, or other simple carbs are 100% evil, but you definitely have to observe some moderation, as you said. I'm a big fan of potatoes and had them with my shepherds pie tonight, but I don't have them very often or in large quantity. There's also some good stuff in there like whole green beans, lamb, chicken broth (home made), and carrots from our garden. I'm not shy with the carbs, but I do like to keep it whole grains and even mixed whole grains. Brown rice instead of white rice, multigrain whole bread, whole beans, lots of peanuts, actual nuts, and other stuff that's a whole food, like Woodgeek has really been stressing this whole time.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Source?




"For instance, most arboreal primates focus on ripe fruits and young leaves, often supplementing their mostly herbivorous intake with insects and other animal matter. Fruits tend to be of high quality (rich in easily digested forms of carbohydrate and relatively low in fiber), but they provide little protein. Because all animals need a minimal amount of protein to function, fruit eaters must find additional sources of amino acids. Furthermore, the highest-quality items in the forest tend to be the most scarce. Leaves offer more protein and are more plentiful than fruit, but they are of lower quality (lower in energy and higher in fiber) and are more likely to include undesirable chemicals."


----------



## Mirco22 (Jan 1, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> "For instance, most arboreal primates focus on ripe fruits and young leaves, often supplementing their mostly herbivorous intake with insects and other animal matter. Fruits tend to be of high quality (rich in easily digested forms of carbohydrate and relatively low in fiber), but they provide little protein. Because all animals need a minimal amount of protein to function, fruit eaters must find additional sources of amino acids. Furthermore, the highest-quality items in the forest tend to be the most scarce. Leaves offer more protein and are more plentiful than fruit, but they are of lower quality (lower in energy and higher in fiber) and are more likely to include undesirable chemicals."


the problem is that we find everything in the fridge. If the fruit is on a tree 1km away, I doubt I'll get diabetes. If I have to go hunting for meat, I doubt that I will accumulate blood fat. if I have to drive cows around, then get milk from them, and then make a little cheese, I don't think it will be bad for my health. and so also for cereals


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 1, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> "For instance, most arboreal primates focus on ripe fruits and young leaves, often supplementing their mostly herbivorous intake with insects and other animal matter. Fruits tend to be of high quality (rich in easily digested forms of carbohydrate and relatively low in fiber), but they provide little protein. Because all animals need a minimal amount of protein to function, fruit eaters must find additional sources of amino acids. Furthermore, the highest-quality items in the forest tend to be the most scarce. Leaves offer more protein and are more plentiful than fruit, but they are of lower quality (lower in energy and higher in fiber) and are more likely to include undesirable chemicals."


I was asking for a source for 'Humans that mostly eat fruit get diabetes.'


----------



## Mirco22 (Jan 1, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> I was asking for a source for 'Humans that mostly eat fruit get diabetes.'



I suppose this was said because doctors often discourage sweet fruits for people with diabetes. This happens here, I don't know in other parts of world.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 2, 2023)

There was a question about alcohol earlier, I did not find this evening on a quick rescan looking to quote somebody.

The question, more or less, was "How much alcohol is safe to drink?"  

The answer is "it depends" and even with that the answer is a moving target.  I spent a little time today looking for a recent meta-analysis, where someone reads a bunch of scholarly articles on a particular subject, and then writes a scientific paper on the aggregate data set.  I didn't find one in the time I had.

Briefly, ethanol, beverage alcohol, is cytotoxic.  Ethanol will kill cells.  Within the hospital we can do this intentionally, I did find a short article today about using ultrasound guidance to inject cystic thyroid lesions with absolute alcohol (medical grade, 200 proof hooch) for definitive treatment.  We can use it for pain control in cases of chronic pancreatitis by killing off some of the nerve cells that connect from the pancreas to the pain centers in the brain.

In some drinkers, alcohol kills brain cells.  In others, we sometimes see peripheral alcohol induced neuropathy like diabetics can get from diabetes.  In some folks ethanol kills heart muscle cells.  Liver damage you have probably heard of.  I know there is a strong correlation between high alcohol consumption for both strokes and heart attack.  There may be a causal link between alcohol and CVD - I went to school 25+ years ago and simply cannot keep up with everything.

I have noticed over the decades the amount of drinking that is considered safe keeps getting lower and lower.  

The studies I have read are fairly uniform, when looking at moderate to large sample sizes, the more you drink, and the more often you drink whatever amount, the higher your risk of complications from drinking.

So like much in life, dose dependent.

But there is another angle here.  The good Lord put yeast cells right on the skin of the grape.  You simply could not make grape juice (and not end up with wine) from prehistory up to Mr. Welch figuring out how to pasteurize grape juice in 1869.  It is speculated the Wesleyan Methodists were steeping raisins in hot water so they could give valid Holy Communion to recovering alcoholics until Mr. Welch ( a staunch Wesleyan and teetotaler) had his breakthrough.

In my bedside experience, I find folks that admit to six drinks a day and up are already having deleterious health effects in their early 50s and are clearly on the road to ruin, no matter how good their genes are.  Their hair doesn't look right, their skin doesn't look right, some of them are getting a red nose already, as a group they are taking damage points faster than they can self repair, and they are not in hospital for a nap on the way to the golf course.  This isn't a process that can turn around in one week, and for many folks the damage is visible earlier.

I find folks I suspect are drinking six drinks daily, even though they admit to 2-4 drinks daily, those ones I can spot definitively in their mid 50s.

On the other hand a couple Guinness in the evening dramatically lowers my risk of killing stupid people.  So do I want to live to be 80 in a penitentiary somewhere with no Guinness for 20 years, or kick off in my mid 70s, at home, with Guinness in the fridge for tomorrow?

There are a fair number of pages under this umbrella at cdc.gov.  I am confident if you look again in ten years whatever counts as moderate drinking in 2033 will be lower amounts than what you will read today.  https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/index.htm


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 2, 2023)

Best wishes @woodgeek .  I agree with a previous poster you do not screw around when you choose to read up on a subject.  

30 years ago, the only two downsides to a vegan diet were adequate protein and vit B12.  You have the knowledge to handle both of those, and science has changed the number of essential amino acids since I was tutoring nutrition in the 1990s.  If your CBC looks good a year from now, with a decent RBC count and reasonable hemoglobin, you will probably be fine.

Long term I am mildly concerned about dietary iron - not because of your dietary choices but rather soil depletion.  If your doc starts ordering labs like TIBC - total iron binding capacity - it won't kill you to have a cheeseburger a month (with tomato) for a year.

You might consider making up a small raised bed for gardening next.  Perhaps 4x4 or 4x8 feet.  Once you have your soil alive and amended correctly you might could grown a crop or two of spinach or kale every summer, freeze some of it with known excellent iron content, and not need the monthly cheeseburgers.

Good luck.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 2, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> I was asking for a source for 'Humans that mostly eat fruit get diabetes.'


I didn't realize I needed a source to tell you that a foodstuff made primarily of sugars is not healthy. 

Too much fruit is bad for humans. I did like that the article does mention high fiber combined with carbs is actually quite good.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 3, 2023)

So, I have sat with this awhile, and cross-referenced my avid vegan youtuber (MIC) against my MD scientist youtuber (Gil) and looked up a few papers.

I am landing on the Michael Pollan Credo:  *Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants.*
IOW,
Eat Food:  Avoid junk food and highly processed foods
Not Too Much:  Manage your weight
Mostly Plants:  Minimize your animal products, including things like saturated fat, but you don't need to eliminate.

The science/nutrition statements in my OP I still agree with.  And were eye-opening to me through all the BS we americans have around food and nutrition.

I still believe that a WFPB diet is either very healthy OR the healthiest diet for most people, based upon statements by professional bodies (AHA say <10% of calories from saturated fat), peer reviewed studies (including RCTs) and meta-analyses.  To take the other side, I think the evidence of harm from rather modest meat/low-fat dairy consumption (like 1-3 servings per WEEK, not 2-3 servings per day) is non-existent.

And bc I'm getting older and think I have done some CVD harm to myself from many years of bad eating, I am still embarking on a WFPB diet, bc I have already been feeling healthier (and seeing improved tracking data), as I have moved in this direction.

The trick is to find recipes that are easy and satisfying and nutritious, so one doesn't feel deprived.

I found this author and book:  Amazon product

I have already made two recipes from it, and they were really easy, yummy and super satisfying (like I couldn't stop eating them until I was stuffed), and kept attacking the leftovers!  She also has a starter section with a shopping list of things you will need to stock your pantry with to cook from the book, all of which were easily found in my two usual grocery stores...nothing too weird.  So I can just cook new recipes from my pantry without having to source a bunch of weird stuff every time I turn the page.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 3, 2023)

The above post is the Good News.

The Bad News is that the environmentalists ARE going to come for your Cheeseburger!

Diving into the impact of animal agriculture on AGW and the life in the Oceans (putting aside the vegan ethical argument)... it was worse than I thought.

The IPCC says that animal agriculture causes ~15-20% of total human CO2e/forcing emissions, which is JUST on the convenient line where it seems like a _second tier_ problem after fossil fuels/electricity/transportation.  And that is what the major environmentalist groups are pushing these days... its all fossils, don't worry about your diet!

But digging into the numbers (and reading peer reviewed analyses that try to do so), it seems that that figure is low-balled.  Mostly by averaging methane impacts over 100 years, versus its 12 year half life.  This choice essentially reduces its impact by 8X.  Other analyses put animal agriculture at 50% or higher current contribution to AGW.

Much of that impact is ofc BEEF, and grazed beef is far worse than factory farm beef (cellulose digestion produces methane, eating grains much less so).    But grazed beef is a small percentage of total animal protein (and beef) currently produced.

But, but, how is that possible... what about the giant BUFFALO herds all over N America... how did THEY not cause global warming?

This ignores OVERSHOOT.  It is estimated that the total mass of all human raised animals alive at any given time is 6X the mass of ALL wild vertebrates 10,000 years ago.  So the effluvia of those animals CAN change the climate.  In 1950 this figure was only 2X.  And this is when very few people around the world eat as much meat as we do in the West!

This sort of figure is backed up by more than 35% of global dry land currently being used to graze livestock (while excluding other large animals and predators from that land), and grazing still yielding only a small fraction of animal products by weight/calories.

So I am calling it, another incovenient truth.

While we need to transition to Reneweable Energy and Electrify Everythine to manage (not solve) the CO2 problem, even that will NOT BE ENOUGH.  Global meat production/consumption is still climbing, and as I said, some estimates already put it at 50% of current global AGW forcing.  So in 20+ years, even when we have done (globally) much that needs to be done to fix the climate, the climate will not be fixed.  It will still be getting worse.

And then they WILL come for your cheeseburger.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 4, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> I am landing on the Michael Pollan Credo:  *Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants.*
> IOW,
> Eat Food:  Avoid junk food and highly processed foods
> Not Too Much:  Manage your weight
> Mostly Plants:  Minimize your animal products, including things like saturated fat, but you don't need to eliminate.



This is totally awesome,  a set of dietary choices I can endorse for anyone.  No one I can think of is going to get sicker or die younger if they follow this.  I talked to 3 of my RN colleagues today, 44, 41 and 38 years experience respectively.  I am a relative n00b with my lousy 26 years at the bedside in this group.  All three of them agree with this exactly.  Americans eat too much garbage, Americans are overweight, and Americans need to eat more vegetables.  That is 149 years of RN experience coming up with exactly this same diet, today.  My total time in three interviews aggregate was under 6 minutes.

All three of them also said to quit smoking, turn off the TV and get off the couch.

We do have a local cardiologist promoting the MOM diet.  Don't eat anything that has a mother.  No eggs, no dairy (milk is from nursing moms) , no beef, no fish, ...vegan.  The doctor does look fabulous.  I happen to know how old he actually is, most folks would guess 20-30 years low if asked his age after meeting him.  If you have  a strong family history of heart disease, getting as much of your protein from plants as reasonably possible might be beneficial.

When you are sick, especially if you have a wound that needs healing, you are going to need your maintenance protein, plus some other added protein to build new tissue to close the wound.

While I am intellectually OK with tofu, when I see "Faking Bacon" at the market, I see a highly processed food.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 4, 2023)

My partner has been a nurse for 20 ish years and, while I agree that most Americans are overweight, most nursing samples include only the worst off patients. That's not quite the case for a clinic nurse, but if you work at a hospital you exclusively see some of the least healthy folks. It's also hard to get sick people to absorb protein. Usually the GI goes into inflammation/infection mode and you don't get much absorption, and usually the body switches to breaking down muscle tissues for an amino acid source. Perhaps there are some processed amino acid supplements that could be absorbed easily, but it's hard getting nutrients into a sick person, and most Americans have some kind of disease process.


----------



## Wisdomoak159#19 (Jan 4, 2023)

I have not read every post in this thread. But I will say I think @Dan Freeman  hit the nail on the head. Refined sugar is #1 enemy for health in my opinion. #2 enemy for me is any kibd of processing chemical or preservative used in modern age. #3 enemy i think is mass produced foid of any kind. All the chemicals, same crop grown in same fields over and over. Personally I eat a high meat and high fruit diet. With some tree nuts and some mushrooms as well. This is what my body feels best on. I'm not nearly as educated as some here. But I my research I don't think there is a vegtable out there that has not been gmo over the course of human history. If I were to survive in the wild I would eat lots of berries mushrooms fruit from trees nuts from trees and lots of animal. Just my 2cents


----------



## sloeffle (Jan 4, 2023)

If the average American drank as much water as they do pop ( soda / coke / whatever you want to call it ) we'd be a lot further ahead as a country health wise. The main ingredient ( corn sugar / syrup ) comes from a plant so I guess it's perfectly healthy for us.


----------



## Shank (Jan 4, 2023)

Interesting read.  I have always eaten the meat and potatoes diet as stated earlier in the thread and have been thinking how little nutritional value there is in a lot of what I have been eating (plus the need to lose weight).  I am fortunate to be young and have already began exercising far more than I have in the past but certainly need to improve my diet.

There is a huge convenience factor to eating horrible food as it's easy to walk to the break room and grab a granola bar or similar.  I am beginning to explore growing vegetables year round (summer we always have a great garden).  

I do not know that I could completely switch away from meat, but certainly can cut out fried foods and processed junk.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 4, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> most nursing samples include only the worst off patients. That's not quite the case for a clinic nurse, but if you work at a hospital you exclusively see some of the least healthy folks.


Yes and no.  

Have you ever been hanging out at church before the service starts and slipped quietly out to make sure the AED is in the box on the wall because you see someone about to code?  

One of the joys I take from going out to eat is seeing the vascularity on the forearms of professional food servers.  The irony is they are in good enough health I never get to start IVs on them.

But something anyone can do is observe.  I am not trying to incite you into getting a restraining order.  Next time you are in the grocery store, start in the produce section and spend a reasonable (but not creepy) amount of time observing the sorts of people that include fresh produce in their regular diet.  Maybe pick one apple and one avocado in 3-5 minutes.

The head to the frozen food section.  Take your time comparing say store brand versus national brand tater tots.  Look over the TV dinner selection.  Be observant of the demographic in the aisle with you.

Which group do you want to be in 20 years from now?


----------



## begreen (Jan 4, 2023)

Poindexter said:


> On the other hand a couple Guinness in the evening dramatically lowers my risk of killing stupid people. So do I want to live to be 80 in a penitentiary somewhere with no Guinness for 20 years, or kick off in my mid 70s, at home, with Guinness in the fridge for tomorrow?


Best rationalization yet.



woodgeek said:


> I am landing on the Michael Pollan Credo: *Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants.*
> IOW,
> Eat Food: Avoid junk food and highly processed foods
> Not Too Much: Manage your weight
> Mostly Plants: Minimize your animal products, including things like saturated fat, but you don't need to eliminate.


This aligns well with the way we have eaten for the past 50 yrs. We eat almost no processed foods and no sodas or other items with corn syrup, etc. Up until the second child we were vegetarian, but then my wife craved proteins so chicken and fish were added. My wife is a good cook and makes most everything from scratch, always has. Our diet is pretty low fat, salt, and sugar, but not obsessively so. Unfortunately,  my body creates extra cholesterol so saturated fats and unfiltered coffee are out. That said, we love food and eat well. Our diet is mostly Mediterranean and Asian. We grow as much as possible to ensure the best quality ingredients. Yes, our lifestyle costs more, but our doctor bills are lower. And we don't freak out the waiter with exotic order instructions when eating out.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 4, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> The Bad News is that the environmentalists ARE going to come for your Cheeseburger!
> 
> it was worse than I thought.
> 
> And then they WILL come for your cheeseburger.



After that "they" will notice that 70-80% of the electric usage in my home audio system is used for bass reproduction, and come after my subwoofers and mid basses.

Blue tooth (and .mp3) audio  sucks donkey parts.  

I am very much in favor of pursing macro-biotic (local) diets where feasible.  On the one hand, ordering a salad in upstate New York in January is going to bring some not impressive veg to your table, but ordering the same in Montreal tomorrow is asking for good food.  How can that be, and how much oil are they burning to heat the green houses in Quebec?

On the other hand wild caught salmon and wild caught sardines bring omega 3 and omega 6 to my system that just aren't available anywhere else, save highly processed fish oil capsules.

Would it be 'better' to make fish oil capsules in Alaska and Portugal, or ship fish meat from Alaska and Portugal?  I honestly do not know the answer to this question.  The acreage on the planet that can fully support a completely healthy (macro biotic) diet with minimal diesel for shipping is probably very limited, perhaps 40 degrees N to 40 degrees S latitudes with a very broad brush.

Other than cabbage, potato and wild game meat, the vast majority of the food I eat at 64 degrees N is shipped in from Seattle.


----------



## mcdougy (Jan 5, 2023)

NASA at Your Table: Where Food Meets Methane
					

Today, human sources are responsible for 60% of global methane emissions, coming primarily  from the burning of fossil fuels, decomposition in landfills and the agriculture sector. Nearly a quarter of methane emissions can be attributed to agriculture.




					www.nasa.gov
				




I find this discussion very informative in many ways 👍  Also a rabbitt hole that leads to an endless amount of questions and queries when it turns to the future of mankind and Our time on this planet. Maybe its my beef fed brain? Or the 3 garbage bags I carry to the mailbox. causing the ruin of my body and Earth. I can never come up with a harmonious relationship of modern man and mother earth unfortunately. Is this reality? Should I feel guilty for the way I live? Should I feel overwhelmed or turm myself into a super human somehow? Maybe I should be asking chatgt what the answer is?  Or should i call a professor?  See , I'm in the rabbit hole. I kinda like it tho. Kinda like enjoying a cheeseburger that my wife cooks on the bbq. Is she trying to kill Me or the planet? Is she evil or a super wife?  So many questions....


Rice  production creates more methane than beef /dairy production.

*WILL* they come for rice ?

 There is a method to reduce  methane production in cattle by 99% by feeding them a chemical from seaweed.
Sounds like the cows don't like the taste.
 Further study is needed to determine if the cattle can pass the the seaweed chemical to human via our consumption of the meat and milk. The  chemical is a carcinogen to humans.

Will it be better to eliminate cattle or rice?
 Or is it both?

 But the seaweed that I start eating might cause cancer? We can make it so cows come off the "Bad" list but the world lives on rice i think?

 What the hell is a guy to do?  Is this life even mine or do I live my life for someone else's life? So many questions.   I'm back in that rabbit hole aren't I?  Am I asking too many questions?  Don't mind me, I'm human.
Seaweed is the answer but it's not the answer?
  Let's find the answer. or f#$k the answer ?
Having a beer should be good, but I had 2 on Monday. 

Is there even an answer to humans living forever on Earth?  Is forever real? 

 What's a guy to do? I think I will have a beer. A smoke and beer go great together. But that will kill.me. If I separate them in  a 20 minute interval is that better than having them at the same time? So many questions.....

 I'm going to bed. Maybe I will have more answers tomorrow.  Or maybe I won't?

  Maybe we can figure this all out together, or maybe someone has and they are keeping it a secret?  Is there a perfect age to live to? Me and Earth. So many questions...Do I ever really die?  Damn rabbit.

The end .....or is it?


----------



## TWilk117 (Jan 5, 2023)

mcdougy said:


> NASA at Your Table: Where Food Meets Methane
> 
> 
> Today, human sources are responsible for 60% of global methane emissions, coming primarily  from the burning of fossil fuels, decomposition in landfills and the agriculture sector. Nearly a quarter of methane emissions can be attributed to agriculture.
> ...


Life is a scam.  Eat bugs! 

Not really.  I find that Costco has the best steaks!


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2023)

Poindexter said:


> On the other hand wild caught salmon and wild caught sardines bring omega 3 and omega 6 to my system that just aren't available anywhere else, save highly processed fish oil capsules.
> 
> Would it be 'better' to make fish oil capsules in Alaska and Portugal, or ship fish meat from Alaska and Portugal?  I honestly do not know the answer to this question.  The acreage on the planet that can fully support a completely healthy (macro biotic) diet with minimal diesel for shipping is probably very limited, perhaps 40 degrees N to 40 degrees S latitudes with a very broad brush.



The fish get omega -3 from eating algae.  There are now many firms that grow the algae directly and remove the omega -3, specifically EPA and DHA.  This is now available at scale and cheap enough to be added to dairy and plant milks as a fortification.  I take one as a supplement, no fish involved.  Algae oil is also cheap enough to be used as a feedstock for soaps and detergents (e.g. the 'Method' brand).

There are many omega -6 oils in plants.

Shipping food does not significantly increase its carbon footprint, with the exception of air transport.   Usually shipping veggies from a warmer climate is lower carbon than growing locally in winter.  Obviously WFPB staples like whole grains and legumes and roots and tubers are quite storable, as well shippable by slow methods.  Having a heated greenhouse for some fresh greens and tomatoes is not going to get a WFPB diet anywhere close to the AGW impacts of, for example, beef consumption.


----------



## Wisdomoak159#19 (Jan 5, 2023)

For humans to be truly green the only option is to go back to being cavemen. Hunter gatherers. Small population. No gov. No laws. Just survival. Besides that. Living green is a fallacy and a joke. Everything humans do is destructive.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> My partner has been a nurse for 20 ish years and, while I agree that most Americans are overweight, most nursing samples include only the worst off patients. That's not quite the case for a clinic nurse, but if you work at a hospital you exclusively see some of the least healthy folks. It's also hard to get sick people to absorb protein. Usually the GI goes into inflammation/infection mode and you don't get much absorption, and usually the body switches to breaking down muscle tissues for an amino acid source. Perhaps there are some processed amino acid supplements that could be absorbed easily, but it's hard getting nutrients into a sick person, and most Americans have some kind of disease process.



It is clear that there are some sick people, and rather old folks with reduced appetites who SHOULD worry about getting enough protein.  A lot of those folks are already being told to supplement with protein fortified shakes.  These can be either whey protein OR soy-based protein.  So we don't need a dairy industry for these people.

For the rest of us, the dietary guidelines for how much protein we need (as children and adults) are very easily met met by a WFPB diet.  Whole grains and legumes are both quite high in protein.  It would be better to say that WFPB foods come in two categories... calorie dense (whole grains, legumes, root veggies) and not calorie dense (greens, crucifers, fruit).  If you tried to live on the low calorie plant foods, you would not be able to get enough calories OR protein.  The flip side is that the calorie dense staples you NEED to eat to get 2000+ calories a day have way more protein than needed.  Unless you did something weird like getting all your calories from a single grain product, the 'quality' of that protein would not be an issue either.

The western diet has way more protein than needed, and there is evidence that an excess of protein consumption has negative health effects too.


----------



## Wisdomoak159#19 (Jan 5, 2023)

@woodgeek  if everyone went vegan. Don't you think we would starve? As in not enough farm land to produce what we as a whole would need to survive? In an all vegan world I see alot of animals being killed to protect crops. Animal population would surely rise as would destruction of more natural habitat for more and more farms. I don't doubt that eating only vegtables makes your body feel good. And good for you for doing it. I just don't think it's feasible for everyone to do it from a food production standpoint. And for some people's bodies a vegan diet is not good. I have tried vegan a few years ago and I feel weak and tired when I do it. If I eat beans for protein I have nonstop bathroom problems.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2023)

mcdougy said:


> NASA at Your Table: Where Food Meets Methane
> 
> 
> Today, human sources are responsible for 60% of global methane emissions, coming primarily  from the burning of fossil fuels, decomposition in landfills and the agriculture sector. Nearly a quarter of methane emissions can be attributed to agriculture.
> ...



Right on.  We all have to think about our own health, that of our families, and our impact, and try to make the decisions that are right for us.

Rice cultivation DOES release methane.  Scientists can see in antarctic ice bubble methane when the Chinese first started large scale rice-production thousands of years ago, and the decent amount of global warming that that has caused ever since!  They can also see the signals from the multiple Black Deaths and forest regrowth in Europe centuries ago.  And the extra carbon added in the 1800s from harvesting and burning most of the world's whales.

Humans have been messing with the atmosphere and changing the climate for millennia.

I would say that without a moral implication, neither good nor bad.

I guess I would try to summarize it like this.  We have remade the natural/wild world to suit our needs, and now control it, if perhaps poorly.  We get the weather and biosphere that we make.

We are in OVERSHOOT.  If the total mass of all land animals (birds and mammals) and fish 10,000 years ago was X, then nowadays just the mass of humans is 3X.  The mass of all the animals we raise for food is 6X.  So the Earth is generating and supporting 9X the amount of 'meat' that it did prehistorically!

And yet we walk around thinking that WE are living sustainably in balance with nature, or almost so.   Our beef is grazing sustainably on some land that is not suitable for agriculture.  The fish we eat is caught from a sustainable wild fishery.  That the grains we eat could be grown organically without the addition of chemical fertilizers (e.g. just crop rotation and manure).

And NONE of those things are remotely close to being true bc of overshoot.

We have taken over MOST of the arable land in the entire world, and by bathing synthetic fertilizers on it (including mined phosphate), we are extracting 9X the human and animal feed biomass than the natural world used to produce for millions of years!  We are extracting fish protein from the seas to the point that most stocks are badly depleted around the world.  The waste and runoff of the 9X fertilizer and animal manure is running into the seas and creating huge algae blooms and dead zones.

And social media is saying that if we recycle our cardboard and switch to metal straws, global warming and the ocean will be just fine.

The major environmental organizations are telling people 'happy stuff' to keep the donations coming.  And stuff where we can blame others (those terrible electric utilities and oil companies).  And they are collecting big money from the Ag and food companies.  Those companies aren't as stupid as the Tobacco and Oil companies... they captured the USDA, the school lunch program and the Sierra Club and Greenpeace (!).  Imagine if they were handing out cigs in elementary school instead of govt cheese and chocolate milk.  That is the world we live in.

The actual state of food production in the overshoot world is NUTS.  We can talk about the merits of crop rotation, or organic farming or grazing animals sustainably... and all of that would work OK maybe in a world with about 300 million people in it, not 8000 million.

So we shouldn't be surprised that this effort of feeding 8 billion large mammals (humans) and another 80 billion food animals will perturb the atmosphere in a significant way.  Its almost impossible to engineer an agriculture system that DOESN'T.

So, what we will do is go after different foods and methods of production that have the highest AGW impacts FIRST, and work our way down.  

Maybe rice will need to go, or how it's grown will need to change.

As for beef, the methane problem is DUE to their cellulose digestion.  Grain-fed beef on a feedlot are WAAAY greener, even if it doesn't appeal to our sustainable low impact beef FANTASY in overshoot world.  The land required to grow the feed is a lot smaller, and the methane release is a lot less.  So if we eliminated GRAZED cattle, we could reduce the AGW footprint of beef significantly.  Most beef production NOW is already feedlot cattle (by pounds produced, not by land use).  And of course, with animals grown indoors, we can capture and remove any methane, if we like, in principle.  And those dead zones from manure (pigs and chickens), well, we could build sewage systems to process that waste (currently 10X the volume of human sewage, and mostly untreated).

But, but... won't that cost a lot?  Yup.  But probably not as much as we think. 

Summary:  Meat/fish production as currently is not sustainable, and has large negative 'externalities' for the natural world, in overfishing, land degradation, habitat destruction, sewage runoff and global warming.  The industry does not pay for these externalities AND gets large govt subsidies to boot.

Sounds like the fossil companies, doesn't it?  I suspect that politicians fear an increase in the price of meat as much as the price of gasoline.

So we will need to reduce the impacts of meat/fish production.  That will be a combination of reduced consumption (which is good for our health) and engineering more sustainable production (which will look LESS natural).  The true price of meat and fish is already far higher than we think (bc of subsidies and externalities), and our consumption is thus also a market failure.  It needs subsidy reduction, and better engineering through regulation of land use, gas emissions and sewage runoff.  And let the prices rise 2-3X.

People will then eat less (or pay more if they prefer), and they will be healthier for it.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2023)

Wisdomoak159#19 said:


> @woodgeek  if everyone went vegan. Don't you think we would starve? As in not enough farm land to produce what we as a whole would need to survive? In an all vegan world I see alot of animals being killed to protect crops. Animal population would surely rise as would destruction of more natural habitat for more and more farms. I don't doubt that eating only vegtables makes your body feel good. And good for you for doing it. I just don't think it's feasible for everyone to do it from a food production standpoint. And for some people's bodies a vegan diet is not good. I have tried vegan a few years ago and I feel weak and tired when I do it. If I eat beans for protein I have nonstop bathroom problems.



First off, I don't think a vegan world will ever happen.

But from a technical POV, the amount of animal protein coming from grazing is a small fraction of the total, today.  Most animal protein is coming from animals fed grains and soybeans raised on farms, currently.  Humans eat grains and legumes, not exactly the same as chicken feed, but pretty close.  Humans can't live on broccoli and lettuce.

So cutting out the middle man means we would need significantly LESS plant agriculture to just feed humans.  We would need to grow slightly different grains and legumes, that is all.

----------------

Switching to a WFPB diet is harder than I (and perhaps most people) appreciated.  On this diet you need to eat a large amount of volume (until you are full) and you need to eat calorie dense foods.

If you don't get enough calories, you will feel like chit and weak.  This is a funny problem to have, but a common one.

As for beans, I used to get gas when I ate a lot of beans.  Now I eat beans all the time and no gas.  ???

Scientists have shown that microbiome in folks on a Western/omnivore/low fiber diet is completely DIFFERENT from the microbiome of folks eating WFPB.

This hardly seems surprising if you think about it.

So, a lot of people get indigestion from eating fiber... and then eat less fiber.  This is because they are getting a lot of their calories from meat, and eating low fiber for years and years.  Their system adjusted.

As a corollary... a lot of older studies that suggested poor nutrient absorption for plant protein, or plant iron, or plant calcium or whatever, were carried out on folks eating a lot of meat everyday, and with a omnivore microbiome.  When you repeat the experiments on people adjusted to a WFPB diet... the absorption of those amino acids and minerals is just great, thank you, bc their microbiome actually digests the food.

Indigestion comes from having undigested food in your GI.  But to your microbiome, that is a wasted opportunity that will not last forever.  Most folks say adapting to the new food takes 1-2 weeks.  This is consistent with my experience.

After the adjustment, whenever I eat anything with fiber, I get very satiated and no desire to eat anything for 4-6 hours.  Science suggests that this is due to short-chain fatty acids SCFAs like propionate that are produced by microbiome digesting non-cellulosic complex carbs.  And that is where the large WFPB weight loss comes from, reduced hunger.


----------



## RockCastile (Jan 5, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> We are in OVERSHOOT





woodgeek said:


> So we will need to reduce the impacts of meat/fish production. That will be a combination of reduced consumption (which is good for our health) and engineering more sustainable production (which will look LESS natural).


The astounding degree of our overshoot shows just how averse we are to reducing consumption. It's not how we roll. Instead we await miracle solutions from the same engineering oracle that got us into our situation in the first place. The campaign for dramatic reduction in energy consumption only seemed like the only way as long as there was no way solar and wind would ever put a dent in the grid or the gas pump, but here we are, watching a completely different story unfold, and marvelling at recent advances in BEV range that mean, thank god!, we don't actually have to drive less after all. Go vegan? Farm better? This will be the only way for as long as we think it's impossible to make a solar panel that directly synthesizes food.


----------



## Shank (Jan 5, 2023)

RockCastile said:


> The astounding degree of our overshoot shows just how averse we are to reducing consumption. It's not how we roll. Instead we await miracle solutions from the same engineering oracle that got us into our situation in the first place. The campaign for dramatic reduction in energy consumption only seemed like the only way as long as there was no way solar and wind would ever put a dent in the grid or the gas pump, but here we are, watching a completely different story unfold, and marvelling at recent advances in BEV range that mean, thank god!, we don't actually have to drive less after all. Go vegan? Farm better? This will be the only way for as long as we think it's impossible to make a solar panel that directly synthesizes food.



The unfortunate reality is that we are all selfish and unwilling to make sacrifices (and probably always will be this way).  I can personally say that I also fall into this category but try to be somewhat conscious.

As you say until there are ways that have almost no effect on the consumer to improve things I don't see it getting much better.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2023)

RockCastile said:


> The astounding degree of our overshoot shows just how averse we are to reducing consumption. It's not how we roll. Instead we await miracle solutions from the same engineering oracle that got us into our situation in the first place. The campaign for dramatic reduction in energy consumption only seemed like the only way as long as there was no way solar and wind would ever put a dent in the grid or the gas pump, but here we are, watching a completely different story unfold, and marvelling at recent advances in BEV range that mean, thank god!, we don't actually have to drive less after all. Go vegan? Farm better? This will be the only way for as long as we think it's impossible to make a solar panel that directly synthesizes food.



Agreed.  But we can always just make meat from thin air:









						AIR PROTEIN
					






					airprotein.com
				




I have been watching this space for 20 years.  Basically, you can grow autotrophic microbes from a collection of minerals, hydrogen gas, CO2 and N2.  The organism gets all its energy needs from the hydrogen, and we can make the H2 from solar electrolysis.  The bugs excrete CH4, which we can reform (by process heat) back into more H2.  Closed system:  energy and air products in, biomass protein and oils out.

Bc photosynthesis is so inefficient (<1% for conventional plants), and the above processes are >20% efficiency, an acre of solar panels could create as much high protein biomass as 20 acres of conventional agriculture.

Of course, in a non-vegan world, we will just use it to make chicken feed.

Right now, our overconsumption of animal products is because of both a large govt and a natural subsidy (much as the case with fossil fuels).  It costs taxpayers and the natural world far more than what we pay in the grocery store.  We could simply end that by cutting of govt subsidies, maybe taking them out of public schools, and making animal producers actually protect the environment (like pay a fair price for grazing, water and requiring sewage treatment).

In a world where an Impossible Whopper and a Whopper cost the same amount, why would I pick the Impossible?  If however the latter cost 3X as much as currently (reflecting its true cost), the Impossible one looks a lot more appealing.

ETA:  I last posted here about making food from hydrogen in 2013:  https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/oil-doom-doom-doom-plenty-doom.108355/page-4#post-1430449


----------



## mikey (Jan 5, 2023)

Life is to short not to eat ice cream, who wants to outlive their children anyway. My father lived to 90 and had say goodbye  to one of his kids, living to 75 or 80 with my family intact is my goal, a long life is not always a blessing.


----------



## TWilk117 (Jan 5, 2023)

Coffin dodgers.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 5, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Right on.  We all have to think about our own health, that of our families, and our impact, and try to make the decisions that are right for us.
> 
> Rice cultivation DOES release methane.  Scientists can see in antarctic ice bubble methane when the Chinese first started large scale rice-production thousands of years ago, and the decent amount of global warming that that has caused ever since!  They can also see the signals from the multiple Black Deaths and forest regrowth in Europe centuries ago.  And the extra carbon added in the 1800s from harvesting and burning most of the world's whales.
> 
> ...



I agree that nobody is paying the true cost of energy and food. If consumers had to pay what the food is actually worth, diet habits would be very different


----------



## RockCastile (Jan 5, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Right now, our overconsumption of animal products is because of both a large govt and a natural subsidy


Agreed. But ending them won't make animal producers protect the environment, it'll send us at warp speed toward Air Protein.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 5, 2023)

One thing I want to mention about microbial products in the large intestine: none if it is absorbed. The only things your large intestine or colon can absorb are water and salt. Unfortunately all of those volatile fatty acids (aka scfa) and microbial protein produced are lost in our waste. Only the stomach and small intestine are involved in nutrient absorption. I think there are other benefits of microbial activity in our large intestine, just not nutritional.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> One thing I want to mention about microbial products in the large intestine: none if it is absorbed. The only things your large intestine or colon can absorb are water and salt. Unfortunately all of those volatile fatty acids (aka scfa) and microbial protein produced are lost in our waste. Only the stomach and small intestine are involved in nutrient absorption. I think there are other benefits of microbial activity in our large intestine, just not nutritional.


Here are two papers that suggest otherwise:
1.  https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(19)30508-6/pdf
2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00185/full

The first is an older paper that measured colonic absorption of 3 SCFAs in vivo in humans.
The second describes the formation of SCFAs in the colon, and their transport to the liver, in more detail.

The amount of SCFAs is not small, but they don't need to be nutritionally relevant to be part of the satiety response.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 6, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> Here are two papers that suggest otherwise:
> 1.  https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(19)30508-6/pdf
> 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00185/full
> 
> ...


I'm not saying the SCFA/VFA have no use in the body, simply that they are not nutritionally relevant if produced in areas they can't be absorbed. I'm surprised to hear that  VFA can be absorbed in the hind gut, because my animal nutrition lectures and materials did not say this.  Your links are the only sources I've found that indicate the colon can absorb fats and protein.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 6, 2023)

SpaceBus said:


> I'm not saying the SCFA/VFA have no use in the body, simply that they are not nutritionally relevant if produced in areas they can't be absorbed. I'm surprised to hear that  VFA can be absorbed in the hind gut, because my animal nutrition lectures and materials did not say this.  Your links are the only sources I've found that indicate the colon can absorb fats and protein.


The second paper, ofc, is a review that cites dozens of other papers over the last 20 years that look at absorption and metabolism of small molecules by the human colon.

They say that 'the colon only absorbs water and salts' was the canon decades ago, and we now know that the colon can also absorb a number of other small molecules... at least three SCFAs, some B vitamins, biotin and vitamin K, and small organic nitrogen molecules.  The vitamins have specific transporters that are expressed in the colon.

The review talks about how the SCFAs get shipped to the liver by the hepatic vein, and used as substrates for fatty acid synthesis, and mention that a dearth of SCFAs (due to a lack of complex carbs/correct microbiome) may contribute to perturbed lipid chemistry and metabolic disorders in the Western diet.  Ofc, this remains a hypothesis.

Radiolabel Nitrogen on amino acids (AAs) placed in the colon also show up in proteins throughout the body.  It is not clear if the AAs are directly absorbed or if bacteria are breaking down the AAs into smaller nitrogen containing species that get absorbed, and used in AA synthesis in the liver.  Evidence seems to point to the latter.

Evidence that the amount of absorption of any of these species in biologically essential amounts is lacking.  But they seem to be happening is measurable amounts for many species.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 6, 2023)

woodgeek said:


> The second paper, ofc, is a review that cites dozens of other papers over the last 20 years that look at absorption and metabolism of small molecules by the human colon.
> 
> They say that 'the colon only absorbs water and salts' was the canon decades ago, and we now know that the colon can also absorb a number of other small molecules... at least three SCFAs, some B vitamins, biotin and vitamin K, and small organic nitrogen molecules.  The vitamins have specific transporters that are expressed in the colon.
> 
> ...


To be honest, I've always doubted the "only water and salt" claim by my nutrition instructor and course  materials, because many mammals do the huge bulk of their digestion in the hind gut/large intestine (including colon). In fact the majority of game animals on my property are hind gut fermenters; deer, squirrels, and snowshoe hares, all three of which also lack gallbladders for digesting lipids in the "fore gut" (stomach and small intestine) and depend on microbial digestion in the hind gut for all lipids. Speaking of the gallbladder, the fact that we have one at all tells me that humans are evolved/adapted to eat meat, specifically the fats found in animals. 

I am in total agreement that the current status quo for farming animals is not working. As you said, even grazing cattle is not going to do anything for us. Still, I'm firm in my position that we are simply farming the wrong types of animals. Most animals chosen for domestication/agriculture is simply because they are herd animals that can eat things that humans can easily provide. I believe that a "wild human" diet would be mostly grains, legumes, and animals that can be caught without complex tools (sedentary or sessile shellfish, shallow water finfish, small mammals, "bugs", etc.). Essentially your WFPB diet, but without any larger mammal input. The future certainly does not have cattle as a primary food animal, but I think smaller multi-purpose animals (sheep, goats, camelids) will remain in our diets, even if in smaller amounts. Perhaps aquaculture could become a more prominent part of agriculture, which may help provide animal based foods with less carbon emissions. Specifically I think bivalve shellfish will be a large part of our diets in the future.


----------



## Poindexter (Tuesday at 7:00 PM)

So data point.  I upped my game from 5-7 vegetables daily.  About five days ago I increased to 10-15 servings of vegetables daily and I feel like a million bucks.

A (14 oz) can of spinach or green beans is 3 servings of high quality fuel.  While perhaps an unfamiliar taste to most Americans, it is the flavor of wholesome goodness - and the whole point of eating is to fuel the body, not seduce the tongue or entertain the brain.

I have made no other changes to my diet.  Just get the vegetables in and eat whatever.


----------



## semipro (Tuesday at 8:38 PM)

Poindexter said:


> So data point.  I upped my game from 5-7 vegetables daily.  About five days ago I increased to 10-15 servings of vegetables daily and I feel like a million bucks.
> 
> A (14 oz) can of spinach or green beans is 3 servings of high quality fuel.  While perhaps an unfamiliar taste to most Americans, it is the flavor of wholesome goodness - and the whole point of eating is to fuel the body, not seduce the tongue or entertain the brain.
> 
> I have made no other changes to my diet.  Just get the vegetables in and eat whatever.


Nice1
Funny, I keep canned green beans at work as a lunch option.  Don't even need a can opener with the new style cans.


----------



## EbS-P (Tuesday at 9:10 PM)

Report from the trenches.  Still working trough the 30# of beef I smoked over the holidays.  But for the last two weeks 4/5 week day dinners were vegetarian with  at least 2-3 full vegan.  Last night was roasted cauliflower, Brussel sprouts and home made bread.  Kids didn’t complain.  Let them have what ever sauce or dressings they could find in the fridge.  

We will have fish tomorrow.   I’m definitely hungrier.  I have a few holiday pounds to lose.  

I’m committing to a hydroponic garden.  We will see how that goes.  And I’m going to to make a non alcoholic (or at least 1% or less) beer.   Looking forward to that.  

I need more kid friendly veggie recipes.  Man it’s hard to get 5 a day in them.  They do ok if we add fruit.


----------



## SpaceBus (Wednesday at 5:44 AM)

Poindexter said:


> So data point.  I upped my game from 5-7 vegetables daily.  About five days ago I increased to 10-15 servings of vegetables daily and I feel like a million bucks.
> 
> A (14 oz) can of spinach or green beans is 3 servings of high quality fuel.  While perhaps an unfamiliar taste to most Americans, it is the flavor of wholesome goodness - and the whole point of eating is to fuel the body, not seduce the tongue or entertain the brain.
> 
> I have made no other changes to my diet.  Just get the vegetables in and eat whatever.


Agree to disagree. If this flesh mobile requires fuel, I will only chose things I enjoy eating. Thankfully, healthy food can also be enjoyable.


----------



## SpaceBus (Yesterday at 7:53 AM)

I was thinking about this topic this morning while getting feed ready for my chickens and alpacas. The crops grown for animal feed are not usually considered food grade by humans. Jeremey Clarkson made a sort of documentary show about him trying to operate a farm. Obviously this is for entertainment, but there is one part where Clarkson is trying to sell his wheat (could have been barley) harvest. Clarkson was worried that his wheat would not be high enough quality for human consumption and would be sold at a much lower value for chicken feed.


----------



## EbS-P (Yesterday at 9:08 AM)

SpaceBus said:


> I was thinking about this topic this morning while getting feed ready for my chickens and alpacas. The crops grown for animal feed are not usually considered food grade by humans. Jeremey Clarkson made a sort of documentary show about him trying to operate a farm. Obviously this is for entertainment, but there is one part where Clarkson is trying to sell his wheat (could have been barley) harvest. Clarkson was worried that his wheat would not be high enough quality for human consumption and would be sold at a much lower value for chicken feed.


No distinction was made in our farming community.  It all went to the the same elevator. When it was full it got piled on the ground.  Moved by front end loaders.  The exception is now the GMO and organic,  those must be separated.   We pulled corn off the truck to burn.  Would sift and mill.   Wheat we would usually pull off the seed truck as it had been cleaned once more.   

Smaller markets may do thing differently.


----------



## EbS-P (Yesterday at 12:10 PM)

Another if @woodgeek ’s thread has influenced real change.  Brewed my first batch of nonalcoholic beer   Figure I’m not going 100% vegan so cutting alcohol consumption down has to help right 

All grain super simple.  Cold mash 3.25# of malt.  In 2-3 gallons of 37 degree water for 24 hours.  Decant off all the start sludge.   Bring up to 150F and hold for a 1 hour mash.  Then boil for an hour with hops.  Cool and pitch yeast.  It should finish out at .4-.5 ABV.


----------

