Veggies may not be that good for you

[FireDragon76]

Our body is designed to a specific diet after millions of years of evolution. Our digestive system has some specifics etc.

Neo-Darwinian evolution doesn't involve any kind of design, teleology or purpose, except the propagation of genes.

Its difficult to claim that the diet we ate for hundreds of thousands of years is unhealthy and a diet we can eat for few decades because of globalization is better. You would need a really strong evidence, not just weak associations.

The human diet wasn't consistent for hundreds of thousands of years, and it certainly wasn't exclusively carnivorous for the vast majority of the human population. Horticulture is also far older than was the assumption decades ago. For instance, we know now humans have been cooking tubers for at least 120,000 years:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/humans-cooked-plant-roots-tubers-120-000-years-ago-study-119051900455_1.html

Study explains early humans ate starch — and why it matters

Findings on Neanderthal oral microbiomes offer new clues on evolution, health.

news.harvard.edu

First evidence of farming in Mideast 23,000 years ago

Until now, researchers believed farming was 'invented' some 12,000 years ago in an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. A new discovery offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier -- some 23,000 years ago.

www.sciencedaily.com

Some anthropologists now believe horticulture is potentially quite ancient. The sort of horticulture that was practiced by Native Americans, or contemporary indigenous people such as the Yanomamo, or the Trobriand Islanders of Papua New Guinea, could have been done by people living in the deep Paleolithic, as it basically uses stone age technology only (no plows, no domestication of animals).

 

[trophy33]

Neo-Darwinian evolution doesn't involve any kind of teleology or purpose, except the propagation of genes.

We are not talking about purpose or teleology, but about diet. As for example cows are designed to eat grass and we are not. Because of our different evolution.

Why would something we did not eat before be better for our bodies? Based upon what mechanism?

The human diet wasn't consistent for hundreds of thousands of years, and it certainly wasn't exclusively carnivorous for the vast majority of the human population.

One thing was consistent - meat. There were no todays vegetables and just very few low sugar fruit with so much fiber that it was hardly edible. No sweet fruits of our modern ega, imported from South America.

During ice ages, meat was the main diet for humanity. They might eat a bit of nuts or forest fruit here or there, but thats it.

 

[FireDragon76]

We are not talking about purpose or teleology, but about diet. As for example cows are designed to eat grass and we are not.

Cows, as domesticated, selectively-bred livestock, eat whatever keeps them alive and puts on mass, and will thrive on a wide variety of foods. In the US, they've fed cows old phone books.

Why would something we did not eat before be better for our bodies? Based upon what mechanism?

In actual science, we look for empirical evidence, not theory based on speculation, and certainly not an appeal to teleology, purpose, or design. That's why the gold standard is a double-blind, placebo controlled intervention, followed by other kinds of evidence, such as cohort studies (where trials wouldn't be practical or ethical).

 

[RDKirk]

Define "plenty" and quote them that its easy. Also, find those who do not use highly processed unnatural industrial vegan products like pea proteins.

Personally, I do use quite a bit of pea protein because I have a slight allergy to milk products. I'm not lactose intolerant (I can drink gallons of milk without gastric distress), but it fills my head with mucus. I recognize my pea protein supplements for what they are not, however, and "natural" they are not.

Realistically, vegans are deficient in many things, because in veganism its very hard to get everything one needs.

Theoretically, mostly B12 will be lacking, but practically - many things. It requires basically alchemy to mix all the plants from around the world to get all nutrients on the one hand and not to be poisoned by plant toxins on the other hand.

That's why I said earlier there were no people groups who were vegan because that diet is not sustainable generation after generation through local natural food sources anywhere.

 

[RDKirk]

Sugar consumption has actually been decreasing in the United States in the past two decades. Despite this, obesity continued to rise.

Has it really?

Or has sugar been more cleverly hidden in food processing? I say that because corn sugar production has not decreased.

 

[RDKirk]

Your claims lack sources. My post was not about obesity, though.

Regarding obesity, the main culprit seems to be the combination of plant oils and fructose:

Death by Vegetable Oil: What the Studies Say

In a world without vegetable oil, we may be twenty pounds lighter, have half the amount of heart disease and cancer, live longer, think clearer, feel better, and be happier and less depressed.

www.jeffnobbs.com

Also, the way we eat, particularly:
Eating under stressful conditions (such as at our desks)
Eating too frequently (many people consume calories in some form every waking hour of the day)

Those plus the prevalence of highly processed and chemicalized foods, are the primary differences between the diet we had up to the 1970s.

Through the 1960s (I remember...I was there), practically everyone ate whole foods three times a day, nothing but water or coffee in between. Junk food and treats were occasional treats, and even "fast food" back then was whole food.

 

[trophy33]

Cows, as domesticated, selectively-bred livestock, eat whatever keeps them alive and puts on mass, and will thrive on a wide variety of foods. In the US, they've fed cows old phone books.

Cows can eat phone books and you can eat spinach or drink cola. But neither is the ideal species' diet and both lead to problems.

In actual science, we look for empirical evidence, not theory based on speculation, and certainly not an appeal to teleology, purpose, or design. That's why the gold standard is a double-blind, placebo controlled intervention, followed by other kinds of evidence, such as cohort studies (where trials wouldn't be practical or ethical).

You posted none double-blinded, placebo controlled study for plant based diet. That species have their ideal natural diet is not a speculation, its a fact. Why would people be an exception?

 

[trophy33]

Personally, I do use quite a bit of pea protein because I have a slight allergy to milk products. I'm not lactose intolerant (I can drink gallons of milk without gastric distress), but it fills my head with mucus. I recognize my pea protein supplements for what they are not, however, and "natural" they are not.

I also used pea and other plant proteins for some time before. I am currently eating enough of meat and dairy, so I do not supplement protein anymore.

 

[RDKirk]

I also used pea and other plant proteins for some time before. I am currently eating enough of meat and dairy, so I do not supplement protein anymore.

I eat quite a bit of animal protein as well. The pea protein is supplemental, not primary.

 

[trophy33]

Also, the way we eat, particularly:
Eating under stressful conditions (such as at our desks)
Eating too frequently (many people consume calories in some form every waking hour of the day)

Those plus the prevalence of highly processed and chemicalized foods, are the primary differences between the diet we had up to the 1970s.

Through the 1960s (I remember...I was there), practically everyone ate whole foods three times a day, nothing but water or coffee in between. Junk food and treats were occasional treats, and even "fast food" back then was whole food.

Yeah, eating under stress (or even stress eating) is also terrible for health.

 

[trophy33]

I eat quite a bit of animal protein as well. The pea protein is supplemental, not primary.

Plant protein powders frequently contain heavy metals, so a good certified brand with tested products is useful.

 

[FireDragon76]

Personally, I do use quite a bit of pea protein because I have a slight allergy to milk products. I'm not lactose intolerant (I can drink gallons of milk without gastric distress), but it fills my head with mucus. I recognize my pea protein supplements for what they are not, however, and "natural" they are not.

I have been lactose intolerant for the last decade or so, and developed a Lactaid habit. My digestive system was a total wreck at one time.

Cows can eat phone books and you can eat spinach or drink cola. But neither is the ideal species' diet and both lead to problems.

I don't believe there is an ideal species-specific diet for humans in the abstract. However, there's widespread agreement among scientists that present large-scale farming of animals for food isn't sustainable. Global livestock accounts for more CO2 emissions than transportation. In the United States, the majority of corn and soybeans are grown to feed livestock, and those all have petrochemical inputs.

You posted none double-blinded, placebo controlled study for plant based diet.

It's largely impossible to have a double blind study of a plant-based diet. There's no way to blind obvious differences in a wide variety of foods like that. There are, however, cohort studies of plant-based diets, comparing them to omnivorous diets, suggesting they have some health advantages.

 

[FireDragon76]

Has it really?

Or has sugar been more cleverly hidden in food processing? I say that because corn sugar production has not decreased.

It's been in decline too

Domestic use of high fructose corn syrup continues to decline

Domestic use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been generally in decline since 2006. With the exception of marketing year 2013/14, when there was a slight uptick, usage numbers generally leveled off since 2012/13. The latest yearly data, however, indicates that domestic HFCS use may still...

www.ers.usda.gov

 

[CoreyD]

Something is good for you, then it's not so good for you, then it's bad for you, then it's not so bad for you, then it's good for you again.

You noticed it too. Not only that. One minute something is correct/right, the next minute it is incorrect/wrong.
That's the pattern we have been seeing for the most part, since the 19th century.
I think there is a message there for us.
1 John 5:19; Daniel 1:12-20

 

[CoreyD]

As a Christian, I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. Science would not disagree with Genesis entirely if you accounted everything.

- Experts frequently say the main problem with veggies is the high amount of carbs in it. True.

- Yet, science also discovered human beings if well trained, can run farther and maintain higher average speeds for longer distances than most animals could no matter how hard you train the animal. So it would seem we're not designed for sedentary lifestyles. God did not design us to be couch potatoes but to be one of the best, if not, the best long distance running creature on the planet. And for someone who is physically active enough and does not over-eat, a high carb diet would not be an issue.

- Our longest lived relative ate nothing but vegetables. Lived to the age of 95 without access to modern medicine, they were poor (but grew their vegetables which provided free source of food). They were the only known relatives who lived over the age of 80.

I have seen this many times, in the latter centuries, where opinions vary on subjects, but suddenly, one opinion is taken as "the science".
So many scientists disagree on subject matter today, we need to be careful not to throw away what has worked so well for us in the past, and latch on to new ideas, called "the science".

Eat more plants, fewer animals
November 29, 2018
By Monique Tello, MD, MPH, Contributor
Science has shown us over and over again that the more meat we eat, the higher our risk of diabetes, heart disease, and strokes. Conversely, the more fruits and vegetables we eat, the lower our risk for these diseases, and the lower our body mass index.
Why is eating meat bad? High-quality research shows that red meats (like beef, lamb, pork) and processed meats (bacon, sausage, deli meats) are metabolized to toxins that cause damage to our blood vessels and other organs. This toxic process has been linked to heart disease and diabetes. (Want to know more? Read about how these animal proteins harm the body here and here).

Mayo Clinic Minute: Why eating more vegetables, less meat is healthy
August 1, 2019
Share to facebook Share to twitter Share to linkedin Share to email Share to print
Is eating more vegetables and cutting back on meat really good for your health? Dr. Donald Hensrud, director of the Mayo Clinic Healthy Living Program, encourages people to include more plant-based foods in their diets.

When I look at what is happening in the world today - Governments spending, or looking to spend billions on weapons, drones, etc, to "beef up their security, just in case a terrorist attack occurs", while millions are in serious poverty; Millions dying from cancer due to products Government allows; a whole long list of other things. The world looks backward to me.
Not that it's any surprise, since the Bible never get it wrong. 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9

I'll be sticking to what has for years been known to work..The older people lived longer on the ground. the natives lived longer on the herbs.
I'm not throwing away the Bible, for the world that is designed to encourage that either.
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

There is a reason everything is going contrary to God's word.
The thing is, the problem is not with the vegetables, and other product they tell us not to use. The problem is with the world that takes away one of the most important health benefits - exercise. 1 Timothy 4:8

The most time I see people walking, is when they are trying to get off the weight they gained.

In the meantime, more and more people are gaining weight because
->> they get out their bed, and get in their car in the morning, and sit behind the wheel for a few minutes to an hour; sit behind a desk all day for eight to 10 hours, get in their car, and sit behind the wheel for a few minutes to an hour; sit at their dining table and gouge down a whole plate of _; sit on the couch in front of the television for a few hours, while munching on some _; get in their bed for six to eight hours ->>

They are not burning anything that goes in their body. So they have problems that build up, and not only that, they train their body to adapt to reject or complain about the foods that are good for them. As quoted by @Akita Suggagaki Genesis 1:29.

Man's evolution does not look very positive. It reminds me, of a movie with a really nice moral.

 

[CoreyD]

I actually stopped Dr. Berry's video, within the 3rd minute. Nothing is wrong with having an opinion, but when it comes to people's health, especially, I think doctors, especially, should not do that. If anything, I think they should give the science, and let persons know they are sharing their opinion. That's just my opinion.

 

[CoreyD]

Are you sure? They look pretty tasty!

Healthy dogs. No meat. Wow. I love that owner.

 

[RDKirk]

Healthy dogs. No meat. Wow. I love that owner.

That video does not claim those dogs have no meat in their diet.

 

[trophy33]

I don't believe there is an ideal species-specific diet for humans in the abstract.

Then humans would be an exception. Why? We evolved according to our environment like other species. We did not evolve for a diet possible in 2023.

However, there's widespread agreement among scientists that present large-scale farming of animals for food isn't sustainable.

No, there is no such agreement. Actually, large-scale plant farming is not sustainable. Its terrible for ecosystems, kills millions of wild animals and is bad for people (pesticides), insects (namely bees) and CO2 emissions.

Also, its estimated that only few plant farming cycles are left till the land will become dead and this way of getting food will have to end - and animals will need to return to pastures to make it fertile again. Its called regenerative farming.

It's largely impossible to have a double blind study of a plant-based diet.

Why do you mention it, then?

There are, however, cohort studies of plant-based diets, comparing them to omnivorous diets, suggesting they have some health advantages.

Only when "omnivorous" means standard American diet, i.e. junk food, sugar, smoking, alcohol, plant oils. Vegans mostly do not smoke, exercise, do not eat junk food. So there is a healthy user bias.

When you compare people in countries with more rural life style (i.e. without industrial junk food), eating meat is actually associated with better health and longevity:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358754564_Total_Meat_Intake_is_Associated_with_Life_Expectancy_A_Cross-Sectional_Data_Analysis_of_175_Contemporary_Populations

Quote from the analysis: The association between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and extended life span is increasingly criticised since it may be based on the lack of representative data and insufficient removal of confounders such as lifestyles.

 

[RDKirk]

Only when "omnivorous" means standard American diet, i.e. junk food, sugar, smoking, alcohol, plant oils. Vegans mostly do not smoke, exercise, do not eat junk food. So there is a healthy user bias.

This part. Vegetarians and vegans by definition are careful with their diets. There has never been a study, not a single one, comparing vegetarians with omnivores who are equally careful to eat whole foods.