Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Hobbies, Interests & Entertainment
Fitness, Health & Nutrition
Cholesterol and fraud - Anthony Chaffee, MD
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77516944" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>I think another big part of the problem is that while terms like "herbivore" and "carnivore" are pretty descript and specific, "omnivore" is more of a broad catch-all term that people falsely equate to "that means I can eat however much I want of either".</p><p></p><p>For instance, both Chimps and Wolves are "omnivores" (in that, they possess the digestive tract and enzymes to be able to digest both plant and animal foods)</p><p></p><p>...but the ratios of each that would keep them in optimal health are very different. (Chimps only get about 5% of their caloric intake from animal foods, for Wolves, that number is 70-80% depending on where they live)</p><p></p><p>Genetically speaking (and in terms of digestive tract), we're much closer to the former, but a lot of people eat closer to the latter. (Our intestinal composition is such, that we're a <em>little </em>better suited for fats and proteins than chimps, and they're a <em>little </em>better suited for plant roughage)</p><p></p><p>So my gut tells me (pun intended) that for Humans, the sweet spot is probably somewhere in the ballpark of a 20:80 ratio of Plant:Animal</p><p></p><p>Another confounding factor is that with regards to diet/nutrition, just about every <em>diet </em>(even the fad ones), are a step up (at least in the short term for metrics like weight/BMI) in comparison to the SAD (Standard American Diet).</p><p></p><p>When the starting place is so bad, anything is going to feel like an improvement in the first 6-24 months.</p><p></p><p>If you have 3 people who are 350lbs, low-energy, knee pain, etc... who've been eating nothing but fast food, pizza, and soda for 20 years.</p><p></p><p>And one goes on a whole foods vegan diet</p><p>One goes on a paleo diet</p><p>And the other goes on a carnivore diet</p><p></p><p>Odds are, after 6-12 months, all will have lost a significant amount of weight and "feel better overall"</p><p></p><p></p><p>The analogy I've used in the past to compare is that of smokers.</p><p></p><p>You take two people who were 2-pack a day (40 cigs) smokers for 25 years....</p><p></p><p>One quits altogether</p><p>The other cuts their cig intake down to 5 cigarettes a day</p><p></p><p>Both are going to feel a lot better in a year compared to how they felt before.... However, we wouldn't say "oh, look how much better that second guy is doing compared to how he was before, 5 cigs a day must be good for your health"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77516944, member: 123415"] I think another big part of the problem is that while terms like "herbivore" and "carnivore" are pretty descript and specific, "omnivore" is more of a broad catch-all term that people falsely equate to "that means I can eat however much I want of either". For instance, both Chimps and Wolves are "omnivores" (in that, they possess the digestive tract and enzymes to be able to digest both plant and animal foods) ...but the ratios of each that would keep them in optimal health are very different. (Chimps only get about 5% of their caloric intake from animal foods, for Wolves, that number is 70-80% depending on where they live) Genetically speaking (and in terms of digestive tract), we're much closer to the former, but a lot of people eat closer to the latter. (Our intestinal composition is such, that we're a [I]little [/I]better suited for fats and proteins than chimps, and they're a [I]little [/I]better suited for plant roughage) So my gut tells me (pun intended) that for Humans, the sweet spot is probably somewhere in the ballpark of a 20:80 ratio of Plant:Animal Another confounding factor is that with regards to diet/nutrition, just about every [I]diet [/I](even the fad ones), are a step up (at least in the short term for metrics like weight/BMI) in comparison to the SAD (Standard American Diet). When the starting place is so bad, anything is going to feel like an improvement in the first 6-24 months. If you have 3 people who are 350lbs, low-energy, knee pain, etc... who've been eating nothing but fast food, pizza, and soda for 20 years. And one goes on a whole foods vegan diet One goes on a paleo diet And the other goes on a carnivore diet Odds are, after 6-12 months, all will have lost a significant amount of weight and "feel better overall" The analogy I've used in the past to compare is that of smokers. You take two people who were 2-pack a day (40 cigs) smokers for 25 years.... One quits altogether The other cuts their cig intake down to 5 cigarettes a day Both are going to feel a lot better in a year compared to how they felt before.... However, we wouldn't say "oh, look how much better that second guy is doing compared to how he was before, 5 cigs a day must be good for your health" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Hobbies, Interests & Entertainment
Fitness, Health & Nutrition
Cholesterol and fraud - Anthony Chaffee, MD
Top
Bottom