"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).
Veganism, Human Health and Conspiracies.
- Thread starter woodgeek
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
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.
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
Minister of Fire
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
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.
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.
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
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
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
Minister of Fire
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
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
Minister of Fire
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
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
Minister of Fire
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.
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
Minister of Fire
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.
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 ASIN 0316221902
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.
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 ASIN 0316221902
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
