Ad Widget

Collapse

Want to go full Carnivore?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hmmmm.... people in the blue-zones eat an almost vegan diet - I've said many times that the "almost" is important, because we truly do need meat. But I also believe that veggies are quite important. The inuit have mutations to keep them out of ketosis, just like people from Northern Europe has evolved to tolerate dairy. These developments usually happen when there is a nutritional need that can only be met one way, so those who don't have the genetic variation die or become very sick - i.e. less likely to reproduce. Those with the variation thrive. Remarkably, the blue-zones are generally in tropical or sub-tropical areas, people have an over-abundance of food, and what they choose to eat is mostly greens and a little fish. I think that says a lot.

    That Bear guy ... if the picture on the zero-carb site is him, he looks older than my mom, who is the same age - and she smokes and drinks and has had cancer and has COL...

    But if it works for you rock on!

    Comment


    • #17
      Some people in the book on blue zones are nearly vegan. Epidemiology is fickle of course regardless. Not all are so vegan inclined, and certainly nothing close to a substantial amount among long lived and healthy ancestral societies. The average ancestral society has been observed to get approximately 80% of caloric load from animal sources. That's on average! Some are much higher (Inuit, Chukotka, Plains Indians, Mongolian nomads, Masai ect..). They had little to no chronic disease documented and remained vibrant into old age. Mutations to the Inuit are specific to that arctic environment alone, and not found in all largely carnivorous societies.

      Vegetables are net neutral at best based on any decent research I have read. When they promote health it is most likely due to displacement of "junk food" and healthy user bias. Our inability to rely on them for any significant caloric sustenance promotes a hypocaloric and perhaps even a fasted like state (vegans). This is great if they are displacing sugar, vegetable oil, and grains in an ever hypercaloric western society. Not so great, and certainly not necessary, in context of a nutrient dense diet centered on animal sources. If you review the literature, getting people to eat more vegetables does nothing to improve health outcomes in most trials.

      As to the bear...meh....Given his history touring with the dead and everything else, diet can only do so much! I would say it mitigated the damage quite well.
      Last edited by Neckhammer; 11-03-2017, 10:51 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by WestCoastFire View Post
        I tend to agree with Neckhammer on this one, mainly because it comes down human physiology, and the fact that humans aren't Ruminants. A Ruminant is an animal has a special compartment in their stomach specifically meant for fermenting down plant foods. Humans don't have this. These animals essentially ferment fiber down into short chain fatty acids and further extract the full nutrient profile from plant foods. That means these animal's energy source is ultimately being derived from fat, not carbs/glucose/plants.

        What does that mean for us? Well we clearly aren't designed to eat plants, we need to derive our fat from elsewhere, and that is the animal itself. Obviously most us still do eat plants, and will continue to do so. The way I look at it; they need to be a small portion of the diet, and a small portion of each meal, not heaping on the plate. Basically think about it like a block of nutrients. An animal eats this block, ferments the block down and pulls the nutrients out and creates some short chain fatty acids. A human eats this block, the block will simply run through the digestive track and out the other end. It's not like one needs fiber, fat plays a similar role by keeping things moving. Where people are getting backed up is when they start sticking to lean non-fatty proteins like chicken breast, turkey, tuna, and the like.

        Some people also just like to simply have variety and a little color on their plate, nothing wrong with that. Those with gallbladder issues (or no gallbladder at all), will likely find an all meat diet nearly impossible due to the difficulty of breaking down fats.
        Yup. We are certainly on the same page.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by sharperhawk View Post
          Huh, what? Plants are definitely part of the human dietary repertoire. We have multiple genes for salivary amylase. Grain residues have been found on paleolithic tools and teeth. Not being a ruminant (true) and minimizing all plant foods (a questionable practice) are not logically connected. There are many, many plant foods that can be digested just fine without having four stomachs. Previous species in the Homo lineage ate mostly plants. HS brought more protein-rich foods into the diet without eliminating all plants.
          From an anatomical and physiological standpoint I would say fruit and tubers "make sense" as a significant proportion of caloric load. But leafy greens, cuciferous vegetables, and the like? I'm just not seeing how we are well adapted to making these things big contributors.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
            Vegetables are net neutral at best based on any decent research I have read. When they promote health it is most likely due to displacement of "junk food" and healthy user bias. Our inability to rely on them for any significant caloric sustenance promotes a hypocaloric and perhaps even a fasted like state (vegans). This is great if they are displacing sugar, vegetable oil, and grains in an ever hypercaloric western society. Not so great, and certainly not necessary, in context of a nutrient dense diet centered on animal sources. If you review the literature, getting people to eat more vegetables does nothing to improve health outcomes in most trials.
            I think certain vegetables can be useful when considered more as medication than as food. Been watching a few videos and reading up on sulforaphane, and its ability to bind to various carcinogens and help excrete them from the body is impressive. In an ideal world where everyone has access to clean, healthy animals as a foodsource, vegetables might be largely superfluous, but in our current society where even the pastured grass-fed cows are probably breathing in air pollution and ingesting a non-trivial amount of contamination from the soil and water (not to mention our own everyday exposure, living in cities as most of us do), I consider it a good idea to crunch down on a few raw cloves of garlic or blend up some broccoli sprouts in a smoothie every once in a while.

            The emphasis should probably slant towards "herbs" or "spices" or whatever plants were traditionally supposed to have healing and medicinal properties. I still enjoy eating salads with a bunch of stuff like cucumbers and lettuce, but it's more for fun and dietary variety rather than an attempt to nutritionally supercharge myself.

            Comment


            • #21
              ^ Yeah, I think their use is best exemplified by the chicken soup my wife made the other day. Whole chicken boiled (skin on), removed and shredded so carcass could cook for 12 hours, remove bones and add meat, add some celery, onion, carrot, spice and herbs....cook. On the whole 90+ calories in this is animal derived and the plat material, while small, adds flavoring as a condiment would.

              Comment

              Working...
              X