How can we be natural driving cars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucas
How can we be natural if we deny our own nature?
Yea let's all run nekkid in the forest. Just make sure bawang isn't behind you. :eek:
Maybe we should be in the health forum section
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
[There are plenty of plant sources of saturated fat ]Other than coconut and palm?
Absolutely, in fact here are some I eat on a daily (or at least consistent) basis:
Almonds, pecans, pumpkin seed, sunflower seeds, hemp seed, pistachio ex. virgin olive oil, organic peanut butter.
There are other plant sources as well (mostly seeds/nuts)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
Lacking fat soluble vitamins, essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, improper balance of omega 3 to omega 6 all have such correlation to bad health too. Heck, if you include offal, there's no comparison on a nutritional scale.
All found in plant sources:
Fat soluble vitamins are plentiful:
--Vitamin A
--Vitamin D is tougher - unless genetic makeup (or latitude) interferes, adequate sun exposure should do. Most cereals, non-dairy milks, and various other plant-based productsare fortified with D2
Mushrooms have D2 as well, although less.
--Vitamin E is in many nuts/seeds and other plants
--Vitamin K found in lots of plants
--Good Omega 3 & 6 balance is easily kept with hemp, chia, and flax seed in various proportions.
I keep a big premixed container in my fridge that I add into most meals. Not only easy to do, but is a good quick source of complete amino acids, fiber, and micronutrients.
This is best website I know for planning/tracking nutrient content & intake to see what our diet is missing: http://nutritiondata.self.com/
It has nutrient search functions, food searched functions, and can pick out different nutrient profiles depending on how you cooked the food:
Example: Spinach, boiled, drained, unsalted
Although there are foods doesn't include (like Hemp seed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
Is this an indictment on a specific diet or simply consuming a Standard American Diet? I don't see how a lack of phytochemicals is an indictment against consumption of animal products.
Shouldn't this fit a national level? I don't see evidence that meat eating at current levels is a sustainable long term population alternative (given the current 'SAD'). Maybe if average family dramatically reduced their emphasis/%intake of it.. and I'm sure more ethical local/free-range sourcing would help on all fronts..
This argument may not apply for 2nd/3rd world countries that don’t have infrastructure we have, access to food variety we do, or otherwise, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
Soy has been studied more extensively (although it is an industry favorite), and that shows that it's not healthy to consume unfermented. Again, to my knowledge, this is regardless of quality.
Probably because the biggest soy producers are the meat producers – who push for bigger margins no matter what they sell.
I eat very little soy. When I do, it is usually from various soy beans directly rather than processed soy products. If you are getting enough calories on an adequately varied diet, you should be getting more than enough protein without it(the reason people eat soy that I hear).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
[Eating plants is] In exchange for fat soluble vitamins, essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, saturated fat and cholesterol.
Yes, but all of that is found in complete nutritional profiles in plants (other than cholesterol). With better disease protecting packaging (fiber, antioxidants, etc).
If I understand right, Plant sterols and stanols are structurally similar to cholesterol, and may simulate higher cholesterol, while actually lowering LDL levels while maintaining total and HDL ratios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
Is there any data that shows that potential carcinogens from isolated nitrates and nitrites and from HCA is still dangerous despite the numerous anti-cancerous compounds in quality food?
Dunno, but aren't you getting nearly All those anti-cancerous compounds from plants? (Phyto in phytochemicals means plants)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
Except, humans are omnivores. Humans evolved as omnivores. Even chimps are omnivores... I'm talking about something that was continuous and present in every day life for millions of years and affected our dietary requirements.
Chimps are hardly omnivores with some ~5% of their diet being animal product.. so they don’t help the omnivore comparison much (unless you argue people should reduce their animal intake less than ~5% of caloric intake.. then I’d be happier).
In any case, as we know, obviously this is only a semi-supported appeal to nature and not indicative of what our diet should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
These [bowel movement studies] are the types of flimsy cohorts I'm talking about and that the article I linked to in my first reply specifically talked about.
Point taken, depends on what people want the data to infer or suggest.. and how selectively data was mined.
When you try to determine "correlation between a specific food product and a Disease X" maybe many co-factors can't be controlled, because they often aren't even in the data set (genetic profile, activity/exercise level specifics, quality of food intake, etc). The more uncontrollable factors, the less reliable we take it as, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
SAD does not = meat. SAD = every screwy thing you can think of. This in no way is an indictment of meat.
Right, and we both see there are people of all dietary choices eating poor. We both agree believe education needs to improve. I'm only drawing distinctions to stay relevant to this "Shaolin thread".
More relevant to the "SAD" I think it's important our national guidelines reflect how minimal the role of dietary animal is.
That is where the my indictment comes - the American misconception that meat is such a significant part (both in amount and nutrient makeup) of our diet. (I have worked in education centers/youth clubs in my city, where the kids are sometimes fed lunch with only meat, little processed mac and 'cheese' and an apple...that’s like 60% of their caloric intake from meat…)
America also needs vastly more education on what plant-sources to eat, and how to eat a strong-disease protective varied diet (whether or not individuals choose to continue eating animals).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
So my position is: if dietary cholesterol is a risk factor, then why doesn't it correlate with heart disease?
Right, which is exactly what Dr. Stephen's blog you posted is exploring.
It’s really interesting.. how many studies do well to account for genetic makeup, activity level specifics, quality of the food actually reported, self-reporting bias, etc.?
So it's not conclusive that it does or doesn't correlate with heart disease in and of itself.. maybe biochemical markers research is more pertinent than analyzing correlation for such common diseases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
Cholesterol is something the body needs, so at a minimum, I think this suggests that a lcato-ovo vegetarian diet would be more prudent than a vegan diet.
Well, being 40 points below average meat eaters isn't convincing that vegan diet should at all concerned. Not saying you’re right or wrong, but our body should ‘naturally’ produce adequate cholesterol without needing dietary increases.
Also, Vegans aren't that much lower and their Total to HDL ratios seem good. Not to dismiss your points, but I'll need to spend a couple years understanding metabolism before I'm really meaningfully able to discuss any of these points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kymus
A no-cholesterol diet begets very low cholesterol, does it not?
Not necessarily. Metabolism is crazy complex, and sometimes consuming or not consuming something can cause changes in bodily production, bodily demand, metabolic precursers, adaptive functions of related things..
I don't fully understand the interactions of Sterols and Stanols (which comes from plants in abundance), but being structurally similar to cholesterol should be relevant. (I'll search more when I get time).
As to your posted psychology study, it's a lot of conjecture.
Not only could we instead be looking at reverse-causation for why it saw low-cholesterol associations with depression (and those associations were weak from few small studies).. but there could further be other mechanisms that might explain it.. if such a causative relation did even exist.
She is a psychiatrist, and not an actively researching biochemist in any way. That doesn't discredit her work, but her associations in that article serve as no causative evidence for increasing dietary cholesterol for cognitive health.
I meant about the running about nekkid part
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucas
wait what do you mean?
Are you actually trying to stay on topic? How refreshing. :)
Necessity is the mother...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LFJ
It is in our nature to be inventive.
Oh absolutely. Just look at all the new foods we have invented.
I'm just being devil's advocate here. Truth be told, while I watch my own diet, I don't really care what other people eat, as long as they don't eat my monkey. :eek: