re: Thinking About Starting An All Plant Based Diet

The question isn't whether the body can survive on noting but animal fats and protein, the question is whether it's healthy. It's terrible for your cardio-vascular health. All these paleo people are going to have quadruple bypasses by the time they turn 60. Yes your body is designed so it can live off of animal fats but that doesn't mean it's designed to live off 1500+ calories of animal fat per day for 40 years. No cave men or Indian trappers ever did that.

quote:

---

The question isn't whether the body can survive on noting but animal fats and protein, the question is whether it's healthy. It's terrible for your cardio-vascular health. All these paleo people are going to have quadruple bypasses by the time they turn 60. Yes your body is designed so it can live off of animal fats but that doesn't mean it's designed to live off 1500+ calories of animal fat per day for 40 years. No cave men or Indian trappers ever did that.

---

That sounds fairly reasonable and thought out. On principles of this site and this subject I must tell you to go frick yourself.

quote:

---

Your body only needs 30-50 grams of protein a day. Easily attainable with no meat or dairy.

---

And you need way more fat than that.

quote:

---

Not sure why you argue over dairy. Think about, yes other animals eat meat, some eat plants, but humans are the only species that drink milk after infancy. And we drink another animas milk. Why? Because someone said it's important for your bones? That was proven to be bullshite. It's why the milk industry quit the "It does your body good" campaign.

---

I drink cream and eat butter for the vital fat content. Agreed that calcium is an absurd talking point. Milk has too much sugar in it for me.

quote:

---

Exactly. We are not cavemen and their diet lead to health problems. Modern man is not the same as our ancestors.

---

I'm not talking about cavemen. I'm talking about us here and now. Look in any direction and you'll see the devastating impact of the recommended abandonment of animal fats and proteins over the past 100 years.

quote:

---

Neither Paleo or Vegan is the right way. A good diet is somewhere in the middle.

---

This is the correct answer, imo.

One important aspect to diet that goes undiscussed in these threads is the role of antioxidants in promoting health and preventing heart disease. Plants such as fruits and vegetables are awash in antioxidants. Animal products are notably low in antioxidants. The main sources of antioxidants in animal products are the food sources of the animal itself. Hence, one main reason why eating grass-fed beef is important. Even still, you're only getting the antioxidants second-hand, and the antioxidant count is much lower than fruits and veggies. A diet high in antioxidants is important in combating a myriad of diseases, such as CVD and many types of cancers. These are most readily attained from fruits and vegetables. Even those with carbohydrates :oh noes:

This idea that humans have subsisted mainly on animal products is just wrong. For large periods of European history, ready access to meats was reserved only for the nobility and elite classes. Think about the goose on Christmas day in A Christmas Carol. It was a huge deal to have meat that one day a year, and some families couldn't even afford that. Even into the 1800s, there was a potato famine that killed off a large Irish population (to whom many early Americans linked a heritage), not a meat famine.

In the U.S., ready access to meat for the masses was a privilege into the 20th century. Herbert Hoover was elected president in 1928 on the slogan "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." This was during an age of prosperity and consumerism prior to the Depression later sparked by the market crash in 1929. That slogan wouldn't have meant shite if everyone was already eating meat all the time. In the 1800s (as BigScrub has mentioned), animal products were a part of the diet for some farmers but certainly not for all Americans. Early settlers in this country didn't have much traction until they learned how to farm in North America. Agrarian products such as beans and corn have always been a strong contributor to the diet in this country, hence why farmers are valued so highly in America to this day.

Meat is good, and animal products are good. It was access to animal protein that allowed the human brain to grow and, thus, allowed our species to develop and evolve. However, history and biology just don't dictate that humans should subsist on a diet heavy in animal products alone. Fruits and veggies - even those with carbs - are also good and provide health benefits not easily provided by other sources.

quote:

---

In the U.S., ready access to meat for the masses was a privilege into the 20th century. Herbert Hoover was elected president in 1928 on the slogan "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." This was during an age of prosperity and consumerism prior to the Depression later sparked by the market crash in 1929. That slogan wouldn't have meant shite if everyone was already eating meat all the time. In the 1800s (as BigScrub has mentioned), animal products were a part of the diet for some farmers but certainly not for all Americans. Early settlers in this country didn't have much traction until they learned how to farm in North America. Agrarian products such as beans and corn have always been a strong contributor to the diet in this country, hence why farmers are valued so highly in America to this day.

---

Also lets not discount the readily available amounts of food that can easily be obtained now compared to the past.

And the readily available processed garbage that Americans still buy (which in my opinion is the real reason for the downfall of our health as a nation)

quote:

---

One important aspect to diet that goes undiscussed in these threads is the role of antioxidants in promoting health and preventing heart disease. Plants such as fruits and vegetables are awash in antioxidants. Animal products are notably low in antioxidants. The main sources of antioxidants in animal products are the food sources of the animal itself. Hence, one main reason why eating grass-fed beef is important. Even still, you're only getting the antioxidants second-hand, and the antioxidant count is much lower than fruits and veggies. A diet high in antioxidants is important in combating a myriad of diseases, such as CVD and many types of cancers. These are most readily attained from fruits and vegetables. Even those with carbohydrates :oh noes:

---

Yes and no. The evidence is mixed.

quote:

---

This idea that humans have subsisted mainly on animal products is just wrong. For large periods of European history, ready access to meats was reserved only for the nobility and elite classes. Think about the goose on Christmas day in A Christmas Carol. It was a huge deal to have meat that one day a year, and some families couldn't even afford that. Even into the 1800s, there was a potato famine that killed off a large Irish population (to whom many early Americans linked a heritage), not a meat famine.

---

You're mixing concepts. Yes, through vast tracts of human history, the unprivileged have been forced to eat crappy diets at the expense of the nobility. That says nothing about what they SHOULD have been eating. And this was flipped somewhat on its head in the sugar era - diabetes was found in the 1700s, essentially only in the nobility because their sugar consumption was drastically higher. There is no evidence of heart disease in the nobility.

quote:

---

In the U.S., ready access to meat for the masses was a privilege into the 20th century.

---

Simply not true.

quote:

---

Meat is good, and animal products are good. It was access to animal protein that allowed the human brain to grow and, thus, allowed our species to develop and evolve. However, history and biology just don't dictate that humans should subsist on a diet heavy in animal products alone. Fruits and veggies - even those with carbs - are also good and provide health benefits not easily provided by other sources.

---

Yes, nuts, seeds and some fruits and vegetables are good and fine. However, be careful equating a modern day apple with the piece of fruit that someone 200 years ago might have had access to.

quote:

---

Completely false, but they were diseases of the rich.

---

Diabetes, yes. The historical evidence of heart disease is quite scant. It isn't some biological imperative of human aging. It's mostly caused by diet - a diet high in carbs. Vegetable oils don't help either.

quote:

---

In the U.S., ready access to meat for the masses was a privilege into the 20th century.

---

Coming back to this, I'll quote some stats from LINK this book: A 1909 survey revealed that the poorest Americans ate 136 pounds of meat per year (the wealthy, 200+). Even slaves in 1800 were eating 150 pounds per year. He estimates that, for the 1800s, Americans were eating about 175 pounds of meat per year (compare that to 100 pounds at present day.) And like I mentioned, that's before you adjust for chicken, which is now half of the 100. Chicken back in the day was the luxury meat. This puts red meat consumption today somewhere around 40-70 pounds per year - way off of what it used to be. The USDA would have you believe that meat consumption is high now. It isn't. And red meat consumption is particularly low. This is because Americans by and large have listened to the "expert" and government nutrition prescriptions of the last 60 years. Meat-eating began to plummet in 1906 after The Jungle was published - which was coincidentally right around the time coronary disease took off (and also around the time the authorities began foisting Oleo/Crisco/vegetable oils onto the eating public.)