Veganism, Human Health and Conspiracies.

[woodgeek]

I grew up eating tons of junk food as a kid and hungry teen, bc my Mom didn't really like to cook, and when she did it was pretty rough.

I happily ate lots of meat eggs and dairy my whole life. My cookbooks are more french classic than anything else. I occasionally decided to eat 'vegetarian' for awhile, but that was kinda silly tbh, bc I was still getting a ton of calories and fat from cheese and eggs.

My BMI was probably 26-27 or so from ages 25 to 50, and my BP and lipids were normal all that time. After 50, I developed hypertension and a variety of CVD warning signs. From my POV this was 'sudden' and quite surprising, but ofc not that surprising to my doctor!

Now as I approach 55 yo, my BMI is down to 25, my BP is back to the normal range, my other CVD symptoms are resolving, and I will have my lipids checked in the next month. And I feel 20 years younger.

YMMV.

The pleasantly surprising part (for me) is that I am not at all sad about the diet change, despite assuming I would be. I was able to find new ingredients and recipes. I look forward to every meal now, and eat a lot more food, with seconds, than I did before, and don't need to guess portion sizes. I only stop eating when I am 'full', and I still lost 10 pounds (and then stopped) without trying.

 

[begreen]

I think we agree. But the Chindia Point is misleading... our off scale meat and dairy consumption compared to those countries, along with our third most populous status... our US food choices DO matter.

Country habits vary and this includes meat consumption. By a OECD study, the annual per capita consumption of meat in the US (219#) is not a lot more than in Australia, (203#), Argentina (198#), or Israel (195#). Another study by Cutin University had slightly different numbers placing the US closer. Note that these surveys did not include fish, which would certainly weigh the scales. (ducking).

Meat Consumption by Countries | Mappr

According to the US Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute the average per capita meat consumption per person in the world was 38.7 kilograms.

www.mappr.co

But it's not just dairy and meat. We are gluttons and our girth speaks for itself. This is a relatively modern phenomenon. Look at a beach picture from 1960 and compare it to one from 2020. The difference is immediately apparent. Some of this is the consumer, but mostly it is the outcome of aggressive advertising and relentless marketing by the food industry. If you looked down a grocery aisle from that time you might see 5 or 10 types of chips taking up maybe 5-6ft of space. Now entire aisles are dedicated to just chips. You really notice this when traveling abroad and shopping there. Junk food is much less present, if at all. Well, in some places. In others, like Ukraine before Russia's invasion or in Moscow, the amount of aisles dedicated to booze is staggering (literally and figuratively).

 

[PaulOinMA]

I had a protruding disc in October. Gave up beer because of the acetaminophen containing drugs. Great! I'll lose the weight I want.

Gained 7 pounds. Someone commented that I'm probably eating more, as my body is looking for those missing carbs.

Also couldn't exercise. I was a lump for 8 weeks.

 

[PaulOinMA]

Exactly. Our 1990s wedding picture is on the mantle by me. Used to call my SIL chunky. She is slender in the picture by today's standards.

 

[PaulOinMA]

On girth ... anyone else stil have their old belts in the closet under the delusion that they'll be used again?

And put them around, see well-worn hole and think, "nope. No way that's happening again."

 

[Vg3200p]

How do you think original caveman type humans ate? I would assume they foraged fruit, tree nuts, fungus, any naturally occurring plant, and any animal they could kill. To me this is the most healthy way to eat I bet they at alot more tree fruits and berries and meat than they did vegtables. Almost all modern vegtables have been gmo throughout history I belive kale cauliflower broccoli were all gmos of the mustard plant. If I remeber right. Don't think humans were eating much of that when we first existed

 

[woodgeek]

How do you think original caveman type humans ate? I would assume they foraged fruit, tree nuts, fungus, any naturally occurring plant, and any animal they could kill. To me this is the most healthy way to eat I bet they at alot more tree fruits and berries and meat than they did vegtables. Almost all modern vegtables have been gmo throughout history I belive kale cauliflower broccoli were all gmos of the mustard plant. If I remeber right. Don't think humans were eating much of that when we first existed

A great question, and I wasn't there, so I don't know.

Modern hunter gatherers eat a lot of calorically dense wild grains and tubers (which are frequently available) and meat when they can get it. The latter is often in small amounts on average, or eaten for (rare) feasts. Fruit and greens are not very calorically dense, while still being nutritious.

The human digestive tract is very similar to that of the other great apes... there are no obvious changes to the human GI or our biochemistry that are obvious adaptations to eating meat. Carnivore animals have very different GIs, and don't get high LDL cholesterol or CVD from eating a very high saturated fat diet (by human standards). While humans have been eating some meat for a long time, either the amount was not great enough, nor the time long enough to lead to significant adaptation.

Ofc 35% of humans (like Northern Europeans) have a mutation to digest lactose in adulthood. Dairy consumption is not that old (10s of thousands of years?), or a huge part of the diet, and yet we (or a third of us) have an adaptation to that.

Comparison of humans to other great apes does show one adaptation. The gene for making the amylase enzyme in our saliva (for digesting starches) is present in all the great apes, but is duplicated in all humans (so it is an ancient change). So we have much more amylase in our saliva than other apes, and can break down and digest starches better/faster.

Humans do have bigger brains that require a lot more calories than an ape of the same body weight would require. Brains run on glucose (almost exclusively), which is the main product of digesting starches. Fruits ofc contain fructose, which the brain does not use, it all gets broken down in the liver.

The 'story' here is that humans moving into grasslands from a forest would've shifted their diet to get a lot more starches (wild grains and tubers). This would have been well suited to powering our big brains, and anecdotally, we seem to be adapted to eating more starch than the fruit and greens eating apes.

Ofc, humans were probably more active than other apes, so had higher needs for protein and fats too. Meat could've certainly provided useful macronutrients, or useful calories when starches were in short supply. But there is little molecular evidence of millions of years of human carnivory. If lots of our ancestors lived on a carnivore diet, they did not live long enough to feel the ill effects.

Oh, inuit people who live on high meat diets do have a mutation. It doesn't protect them from CVD, but it prevents them from going into ketosis on that diet. Whatever that means... ketosis is bad?

Many ancient cooking fires have been found, often with bones around them. Tubers are also improved by cooking (removing anti-nutrients that deter animals from eating them), so those fires may have also been used for cooking them... but potatos don't have bones. Seeing a pile of bones is also not useful for assessing how much meat was eaten... bc you don't know how long the fire/camp was occupied... a few days or a few months or years?

Cave paintings that show people hunting animals? Yup. They also show people gathering plant foods, along with what kinds of plants are good for gathering.

IOW, nobody knows nothing.

 

[Poindexter]

There is also individual differences to consider. Thanks to this thread I have bumped my daily vegetable consumption from 5 servings daily to 10-12 servings daily.

I feel awesome, and I am suspecting the half life of B vitamins in my body (important for the mitochondria to make ATP (energy) at the intracellular level) is only about 4 hours. For me personally, having about 2 cups (4 servings) of dark leafy green vegetables every 4 hours lets me run with my 20 something coworkers. I am in my mid 50s.

Other individuals who aren't my first cousins, like everyone in this thread, are likely to have somewhat different results.

However, it is cheap to try for a week or so, and has changed my life.

 

[Vg3200p]

For me personally. My body runs through calories very fast. I have tried vegetarian/vegan for a couple months at a time a few years ago. My body gets weaker as time goes on on that time of diet. I literally can't eat enough to sustain myself in vegan diet. The diet my body feels best on is an all meat diet. Did that for about 5 months. Felt strong I was lean(almost 6 pack) higher energy. Better at everything in the man dept. But i had to stop as I was constantly having diarrhea from meat only. I work outdoors so #2 bathroom is not always available in a customer's yard. So now I try to balance it more. Still eat alot of meat (I think humans were made to eat meat we are a dominant species and in nature the dominant species is almost always a predator) I also eat alot of fruit and nuts. Very few vegetables besides tubers(carrots potatoes beets) and some fungus. To each his own.

 

[PaulOinMA]

Friends on OBX. Wife and two daughters went to visit family in Ohio. Aaron hunts and fishes. Decided he would only eat things he would kill that week. If he didn't kll it, he wouldn't eat. 😀

 

[Vg3200p]

There is something so satisfying about hunting your own food. One of my favorite meals is a freshly killed squirrel cooked over a fire with no seasoning. Just smoke and meat. For me killing and eating an animal is a very spiritual process. Respect and appreciation of the life you took to sustain your own it makes the food more satisfying and more "real"

 

[PaulOinMA]

Aaron and family have chickens. Lots of eggs. Went out to collect them. None or very few. Perplexed. No idea why.

Neighbor later told him he had little food at home and raided the pen.

 

[woodgeek]

For me personally. My body runs through calories very fast. I have tried vegetarian/vegan for a couple months at a time a few years ago. My body gets weaker as time goes on on that time of diet. I literally can't eat enough to sustain myself in vegan diet. The diet my body feels best on is an all meat diet. Did that for about 5 months. Felt strong I was lean(almost 6 pack) higher energy. Better at everything in the man dept. But i had to stop as I was constantly having diarrhea from meat only. I work outdoors so #2 bathroom is not always available in a customer's yard. So now I try to balance it more. Still eat alot of meat (I think humans were made to eat meat we are a dominant species and in nature the dominant species is almost always a predator) I also eat alot of fruit and nuts. Very few vegetables besides tubers(carrots potatoes beets) and some fungus. To each his own.

Makes sense. The #1 problem folks have with a WFPB diet is not getting enough calories. The #2 problem (no pun) is not being able to deal with the fiber intake if they do get enough calories (most will usually adapt).

The thing is that folks think vegans just eat salad (or a smoothie made from salad) all the time. No way. Can't live on salad. Too much fiber if you tried to do that.

In addition to legumes to get a lot of protein (more important for those that are more athletic or physical) they also need to pound caloric veggies like potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, squash. Whole wheat bread, crackers, wraps and chips are aok too.

But a lot of folks are trained by Atkins-ism to think that starchy veg makes you instantly fat, or gives you instant diabetes. (If you are already pre-diabetic, it might not be a good idea, consult a doctor). So folks that try WFPB diets then leave out the one thing that is needed to survive.... starchy veg.

Ofc, I also upped my consumption of peanut butter and hummus and stuff like that, buying the ones with minimal or zero added oil. But they are still calorically dense and have some fats. And several avocados a week.

 

[PaulOinMA]

My body gets weaker as time goes on on that time of diet.

I'm cold mid-afternoon Monday when we fast during the day. Digestion is exothermic.

 

[PaulOinMA]

"I've only been gluten-free for a week, but I'm already annoying."

 

[SpaceBus]

A great question, and I wasn't there, so I don't know.

Modern hunter gatherers eat a lot of calorically dense wild grains and tubers (which are frequently available) and meat when they can get it. The latter is often in small amounts on average, or eaten for (rare) feasts. Fruit and greens are not very calorically dense, while still being nutritious.

The human digestive tract is very similar to that of the other great apes... there are no obvious changes to the human GI or our biochemistry that are obvious adaptations to eating meat. Carnivore animals have very different GIs, and don't get high LDL cholesterol or CVD from eating a very high saturated fat diet (by human standards). While humans have been eating some meat for a long time, either the amount was not great enough, nor the time long enough to lead to significant adaptation.

Ofc 35% of humans (like Northern Europeans) have a mutation to digest lactose in adulthood. Dairy consumption is not that old (10s of thousands of years?), or a huge part of the diet, and yet we (or a third of us) have an adaptation to that.

Comparison of humans to other great apes does show one adaptation. The gene for making the amylase enzyme in our saliva (for digesting starches) is present in all the great apes, but is duplicated in all humans (so it is an ancient change). So we have much more amylase in our saliva than other apes, and can break down and digest starches better/faster.

Humans do have bigger brains that require a lot more calories than an ape of the same body weight would require. Brains run on glucose (almost exclusively), which is the main product of digesting starches. Fruits ofc contain fructose, which the brain does not use, it all gets broken down in the liver.

The 'story' here is that humans moving into grasslands from a forest would've shifted their diet to get a lot more starches (wild grains and tubers). This would have been well suited to powering our big brains, and anecdotally, we seem to be adapted to eating more starch than the fruit and greens eating apes.

Ofc, humans were probably more active than other apes, so had higher needs for protein and fats too. Meat could've certainly provided useful macronutrients, or useful calories when starches were in short supply. But there is little molecular evidence of millions of years of human carnivory. If lots of our ancestors lived on a carnivore diet, they did not live long enough to feel the ill effects.

Oh, inuit people who live on high meat diets do have a mutation. It doesn't protect them from CVD, but it prevents them from going into ketosis on that diet. Whatever that means... ketosis is bad?

Many ancient cooking fires have been found, often with bones around them. Tubers are also improved by cooking (removing anti-nutrients that deter animals from eating them), so those fires may have also been used for cooking them... but potatos don't have bones. Seeing a pile of bones is also not useful for assessing how much meat was eaten... bc you don't know how long the fire/camp was occupied... a few days or a few months or years?

Cave paintings that show people hunting animals? Yup. They also show people gathering plant foods, along with what kinds of plants are good for gathering.

IOW, nobody knows nothing.

A few things;

The human GI is actually closer to swine, which can definitely digest small amounts of meat and do so regularly. Furthermore the presence of a gall bladder and pancreas with enzymes for breaking down animal fats suggest that we are indeed evolved to consume them. I do agree that ancient humans would have been eating few, if any large animals. However, I think invertebrates, finfish, and slow moving mammals like porcupines would have been on the menu. This obviously does not indicate humans were carnivores, but omnivores like racoons, swine, and most other small mammals. Like you mentioned, apes and primates eat a lot of leaves and stuff that humans get almost no nutritional value. I disagree with you about fructose, it is easy converted into glucose by the small intestine. The issue is that most fruits have a ton of fiber tied up with the fructose, so much of it does just pass right on through. I'm not sure how much I believe the anecdote, but apples are said to have "negative calories" due to the energy required to digest them. However, I think a lot of that digestion happens in the large intestine by microbes, which get energy from the fiber, not our own bodies. Therefore the apple is definitely a net gain in energy, but still pretty healthy, just can't eat exclusively apples.

 

[semipro]

Woodgeek always has to be right lol. No point in arguing him. He's apparently the smartest man in every thread he makes. Thus is a common theme in woodgeek threads

I disagree.
My observation; he argues intelligently and is willing to have his mind changed. In fact, I'd say in many cases he's looking to have his perspective altered -- though with objective information sources, not anecdotes or "we've always done it this way". I've countered his views here many times and never felt insulted or talked down to.
He speaks strongly when he has the knowledge and reads on when doesn't.
I appreciate the obvious time and effort he puts into research and debate and the contributions by him and others that use solid sources of info to present their points here. Its why I keep coming back.

 

[Caw]

Fruits ofc contain fructose, which the brain does not use, it all gets broken down in the liver.

I disagree with you about fructose, it is easy converted into glucose by the small intestine.

I think we should clarify the metabolism of fructose:

The body/brain does in fact use fructose and is very capable of handling normal fructose intake from fruits and vegetables. It's primarily metabolized by Fructokinase and Aldolase B in the liver. The end result is glucose, lactate, and glycogen. Glucose and lactate are pure energy and glycogen is short-term stored energy.

People run into trouble when they ingest too much fructose on a regular basis, which, is quite easy to do this day and age with all the refined sugar available. There is high fructose corn syrup in everything. Soda, cereal, candy, etc. When you digest too much fructose you're sending this metabolic pathway into overdrive. The body now has more glucose than it needs, therefore produces more insulin (fructose itself isn't an insulin secretagogue but glucose is and the liver is converting fructose to glucose), glycogen storage gets maxed out, and the excess insulin prompts the body to convert the extra glucose to triglycerides which are stored as fat. The potential long term end results are devastating, including obesity and fatty liver amongst other complications.

There are other issues people can have with fructose digestion like basic intolerance (shortage or absence of Aldolase B). Discomfort, bloating, gas etc are also possible like mentioned in previous posts. But primarily it's just eating way too much and sending the whole metabolic pathway into overdrive.

Fructose via liver --> glucose/lactate/glycogen is normal and healthy.

Fructose via liver --> glucose excess --> insulin --> triglycerides/fat is bad in the long run.

Fructose ingestion from fruits is perfectly healthy and useful to your body and brain. Its very hard to "overdose" on fruits and vegetables. Its mostly just low caloric density food you can eat often. The key is avoiding or rather limiting the refined sugar intake.

That concludes today's biochemistry talk with Caw lol.

Edits - I am bad at typing.

 

[woodgeek]

I think we should clarify the metabolism of fructose:

The body/brain does in fact use fructose and is very capable of handling normal fructose intake from fruits and vegetables. It's primarily metabolized by Fructokinase and Aldolase B in the liver. The end result is glucose, lactate, and glycogen. Glucose and lactate are pure energy and glycogen is short-term stored energy.

People run into trouble when they ingest too much fructose on a regular basis, which, is quite easy to do this day and age with all the refined sugar available. There is high fructose corn syrup in everything. Soda, cereal, candy, etc. When you digest too much fructose you're sending this metabolic pathway into overdrive. The body now has more glucose than it needs, therefore produces more insulin (fructose itself isn't an insulin secretagogue but glucose is and the liver is converting fructose to glucose), glycogen storage gets maxed out, and the excess insulin prompts the body to convert the extra glucose to triglycerides which are stored as fat. The potential long term end results are devastating, including obesity and fatty liver amongst other complications.

There are other issues people can have with fructose digestion like basic intolerance (shortage or absence of Aldolase B). Discomfort, bloating, gas etc are also possible like mentioned in previous posts. But primarily it's just eating way too much and sending the whole metabolic pathway into overdrive.

Fructose via liver --> glucose/lactate/glycogen is normal and healthy.

Fructose via liver --> glucose excess --> insulin --> triglycerides/fat is bad in the long run.

Fructose ingestion from fruits is perfectly healthy and useful to your body and brain. Its very hard to "overdose" on fruits and vegetables. Its mostly just low caloric density food you can eat often. The key is avoiding or rather limiting the refined sugar intake.

That concludes today's biochemistry talk with Caw lol.

Edits - I am bad at typing.

Question... I thought that a byproduct of too much fructose was fatty liver disease, bc of the excess products. And that fatty liver disease (and fats in other organs) was correlated with insulin resistance. Agree?

 

[Caw]

Yes, fatty liver disease can occur from excessive fructose ingestion over a period of time. I was trying to explain how that occurs. Insulin resistance can also be a cause by being unable to stop lipolysis, depositing fatty acids.

Excess fructose ingestion over time is just plain bad. I personally don't drink soda outside of an occasional ginger ale and don't put sugar in things because I a) don't like the taste and b) it's pretty bad for you. There are plenty of ways to destroy you liver. Excess sugar and alcohol are two of the main ways. Acetaminophen OD, morbid obesity, drugs, STDs are others just to name a few.

Easier to just let folks read about it versus me explaining it:

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

Edit - I really don't mean to argue about any of this stuff. This side topic is just one I happen to know a little about so I wanted to contribute to the discussion. I had to take a lot of biochemistry back in college may as well use some of it.

Everyone back to their wood burning ways!

 

[woodgeek]

At the risk of stirring the pot re eating saturated fat (or beef eggs and dairy) being like smoking...

In the 'What the Health' netflix documentary there are a number of claims re the perils of meat eating (seen by many as 'vegan propaganda').

One of the many claims stated in the documentary is that eating an egg has the same effect in reduced lifetime as smoking five cigarettes a day. As in " 1 egg = 5 cigarettes ". And this equality has since been made into memes shared widely through social media.

This more than any other statement in the doco has riled up angry responses. Not the least from the US Egg Board.

Here is a URL that tries to 'fact check' the claim: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32KT7G3

Therein the author of the study which was cited in the documentary re this results said:
"I don't know where the 'one egg per day is equivalent to smoking five cigarettes' came from."

which sounds pretty damning! Those pesky vegans making stuff up again....

But he goes on to say:
"The beta values in the linear regression indicate that (eating) eggs (is) about half as bad as smoking,"

which sounds like he saw an overall mortality effect from egg eating and smoking, and one effect was half as big as the other. How that got turned into 1 egg = 5 cigs presumably requires some assumptions about how many eggs an egg eater eats in a day, versus how many cigs a smoker smokes in a day. Whatever.

The fact checker then goes on to find some other folks with opinions to offer a counter opinion (both sidesism). Then cites studies that show no effect, a negative effect and a positive effect of egg eating!

One states that Japanese people eat way more eggs than US folks do, and have less heart disease. I looked it up, Japanese people eat 50% more eggs than we do. Given a small effect, I don't find the 'Japan argument' compelling in this case.

IMO, the latter unexpected positive benefit of egg eating could easily be 'reverse causation.' As in, a small subset of people are sick with CVD or just have high cholesterol. Their doctors have told them to stop eating eggs. A few such people in a sample pool will make it look like eating no eggs increases CVD risk.

What is reverse causation?

Reverse causation (also called reverse causality) refers either to a direction of cause-and-effect contrary to a common presumption or to a two-way causal relationship in, as it were, a loop.

www.pritikin.com

The idea that drinking one glass of wine per day is good for your heart... it is now seen as a demonstration of reverse causation. A few sicker people are told not to drink... and so non-drinkers seem slightly sicker than average. Correcting for such effects carefully suggests that the people with healthiest hearts drink zero glasses per day all else being equal. Which is not to say that the risk from 1 glass per day is very large. ofc. 🍷

 

[woodgeek]

Talking about Japan, they are a useful control group for dairy consumption.

Japanese people drink about half as much fluid milk as in the US, and eat about 85% less cheese, per capita.

中央酪農会議

Dairy consumption has been implicated in prostate cancer by many studies.

The rate of prostate cancer is 85% lower in Japan than in the US.

Prostate Cancer in the United States and Japan

The highest incidence of cancer in American men, next to cancers of the skin and lung, is prostate cancer. Present estimates indicate that about one out of 11 American men will develop prostate cancer. In 1990 there were an estimated 106,000 new cases annually in the...

link.springer.com

The top link suggest that the French, Italians and Germans eat more cheese than US folks do, up to 50-100% more. And a little googling suggests their prostate cancer rates are up to 2X higher than in the US too.

A study out of Iceland suggested that it was dairy consumption by males during puberty that caused the effect decades later.

 

[Caw]

The reason that comparison is so irresponsible, in my opinion, is that smoking offers you zero health benefits. Nothing good comes from it other than perhaps personal enjoyment. They are pure poison. Eating an egg or drink red wine while, having drawbacks, has numerous health benefits. Its nothing like smoking.

If you want to discuss the morbidity and mortality of eggs vs smoking break it down to what you're actually comparing. Overeating fat/cholesterol from the egg yolks to smoking. That is the actual comparison. High fat and cholesterol diets are just as dangerous as smoking. That is something I can get behind.

The answer is the same as it's always been. Moderation. Be smart, don't over do certain foods, exercise, and enjoy your life. Whether that's veganism or eating meat and eggs. Some folks have better genetics and can get away with more than others. Thats just how it is.

As it relates to me personally Ive been fortunate to eat what I like and remain thin and healthy. I keep a close eye on all my relevant health numbers and have over the last 20 years. I look good, I feel good, and the science says I am good. Once any of that begins to change I will make changes to my diet. Buy I don't begrudge anyone for making preemptive changes or eating how they'd like. You do you.

 

[woodgeek]

The reason that comparison is so irresponsible, in my opinion, is that smoking offers you zero health benefits. Nothing good comes from it other than perhaps personal enjoyment. They are pure poison. Eating an egg or drink red wine while, having drawbacks, has numerous health benefits. Its nothing like smoking.

What are the health benefits of wine drinking? Are there nutrients in eggs that cannot be obtained from other foods?

 

[Caw]

What are the health benefits of wine drinking? Are there nutrients in eggs that cannot be obtained from other foods?

Sigh...

Red wine in moderation health benefits are simple enough to Google. I don't need to list them. We can even skip the red wine argument if you want that's fine. Call it a wash.

I never said eggs weren't replaceable nutritionally, I said they provide health benefits where smoking does not and I am 100% correct. Eggs provide nutrients. Smoking provides nothing. The fact that you can't acknowledge that is incredible.

I thought we were getting somewhere with our discussion here...I was wrong. I've made a mistake coming back to this thread. You are just going to bonehead argue with me and say whatever you want. So go ahead. I won't be back.