My thoughts exactly. As I move foward I think a diet exactly as you describe will be something I transition into. Do you have any resources you might recommend? Thanks.
On Mar 28, 2011 12:35 PM, "Heather Twist" <HeatherTwist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other side of the coin, there isn't any culture that has lived on a
> nothing-but-meat diet either, which is the other extreme. If you look at all
> the global cultures, the majority eat some kind of "staple" starch (yams may
> have been the first staple food for hominids), with a lot of vegetable/fruit
> matter, and a fair amount of eggs, dairy, seafood, poultry, nuts. (Plus
> reptiles and insects in more Paleo cultures). And meat on feast days or
> after a big hunt. Plus, per Fast-5, the tendency is to eat one or two meals
> a day, since the meals are a lot more work to prepare.
>
> That is a diet that is high in soluble fiber, iodine, Omega 3 fatty acids,
> and has a balanced amount of fats, carbs, protein. Most of those kinds of
> cuisines are really yummy too, and it's not a hard diet to stick to. It's a
> diet that has been successful for eons, and like you say, the real test is
> does a diet work for many generations.
>
> The "European diet" (which the American diet is based on) has not been
> working for some time though, and I think people are experimenting, trying
> to figure out why, ever since the explorers first noticed how healthy the
> "natives" were. But the issue isn't "meat" vs. "not meat". Europeans
> typically ate more muscle meat than "natives" did, and that is, I think,
> still true. None of the native groups were "vegan", but their sources of
> protein were (and are) more the ones I mention above. Which used to be the
> definition of a "vegetarian" diet (or a "fasting" diet on church "no meat"
> days). So a "vegetarian" diet in the sense of basing the protein content on
> fish, eggs, milk, nuts, poultry ... HAS been tried, and it works fine.
>
> The current diet people are calling "high protein" isn't a diet that has
> been used in any culture over several generations, at least not
> successfully. There are people who rely on mainly ruminant meat for their
> protein ... like the sailors and pioneers ... but they had fairly serious
> health problems. There are loads of people who have used it short term and
> it seems to work short term for them ... as does veganism for the people who
> use it short term. No one really knows what would happen long term, because
> the experiment hasn't been done. But both extremes are low in different
> nutrients, so I don't think either one would be good for a developing fetus.
>
> Personally, I think the issues with the European diet are likely:
>
> 1) The reliance on wheat as the "staple". Esp. when it's finely ground
> (feeds yeast) and enriched with too much iron, and full of bromine (which
> blocks iodine).
>
> 2) The reliance on beef, pork, sheep, and goat as the main meats. In America
> we have further narrowed "meat" down to mean mainly beef and pork muscle
> meat. Neither is an ideal source of protein.
>
> That is a diet that is low in Omega 3 fatty acids, low in iodine, low in
> glucosamine, too high in iron, and pro-inflammatory (all the protein comes
> with neu5gc, and wheat promotes gut inflammation for many people). Anyway,
> it's a diet that has NOT worked well in Europe or the US. There are hundreds
> of other diet possibilities that would work fine, with or without "meat" per
> se.
>
>
> *** At this point someone always brings up the Inuit and the Maasai. I might
> point out that neither group relies mainly on "meat" in the American sense.
> The Inuit eat mainly seafood, including sea mammals, which are just not the
> same thing as land animals. The Maasai are pastoralists who drink mainly
> milk, with some blood, and rarely kill or eat their cows.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> You really can't tell if someone is "healthy" unless you draw blood and run
>> several series of tests to determine the composition of the blood and the
>> levels of important elements/hormones in the body.
>>
>> In America, someone who appears to be "healthy" is usually a visually based
>> observation which is based upon physical thinness. Not an accurate reading
>> at all.
>> And yes, there are "healthy" vegans. And there are "healthy" people who
>> live on a diet of Jack Daniels and Twinkies. That still does not mean that
>> the rest of us can thrive under those conditions.
>>
>> There isn't any ancedotal or scientific evidence that vegan/vegetarianism
>> is the optimal diet for humans. Zero.
>>
>> Even if you take a look at the list of Earths super-centurians, the oldest
>> living people who are healthy-they all eat animal products (meat, milk,
>> eggs, honey) and drink. Not one vegan or vegetarian in the bunch.
>>
>> Vegan/Vegetarianism is a political philosophy based on emotion ( I am more
>> humane, I am more ethical, I am more moral) not evidence.
>>
>> Think about it.
>>
>>
>> AMA
>>
> On the other side of the coin, there isn't any culture that has lived on a
> nothing-but-meat diet either, which is the other extreme. If you look at all
> the global cultures, the majority eat some kind of "staple" starch (yams may
> have been the first staple food for hominids), with a lot of vegetable/fruit
> matter, and a fair amount of eggs, dairy, seafood, poultry, nuts. (Plus
> reptiles and insects in more Paleo cultures). And meat on feast days or
> after a big hunt. Plus, per Fast-5, the tendency is to eat one or two meals
> a day, since the meals are a lot more work to prepare.
>
> That is a diet that is high in soluble fiber, iodine, Omega 3 fatty acids,
> and has a balanced amount of fats, carbs, protein. Most of those kinds of
> cuisines are really yummy too, and it's not a hard diet to stick to. It's a
> diet that has been successful for eons, and like you say, the real test is
> does a diet work for many generations.
>
> The "European diet" (which the American diet is based on) has not been
> working for some time though, and I think people are experimenting, trying
> to figure out why, ever since the explorers first noticed how healthy the
> "natives" were. But the issue isn't "meat" vs. "not meat". Europeans
> typically ate more muscle meat than "natives" did, and that is, I think,
> still true. None of the native groups were "vegan", but their sources of
> protein were (and are) more the ones I mention above. Which used to be the
> definition of a "vegetarian" diet (or a "fasting" diet on church "no meat"
> days). So a "vegetarian" diet in the sense of basing the protein content on
> fish, eggs, milk, nuts, poultry ... HAS been tried, and it works fine.
>
> The current diet people are calling "high protein" isn't a diet that has
> been used in any culture over several generations, at least not
> successfully. There are people who rely on mainly ruminant meat for their
> protein ... like the sailors and pioneers ... but they had fairly serious
> health problems. There are loads of people who have used it short term and
> it seems to work short term for them ... as does veganism for the people who
> use it short term. No one really knows what would happen long term, because
> the experiment hasn't been done. But both extremes are low in different
> nutrients, so I don't think either one would be good for a developing fetus.
>
> Personally, I think the issues with the European diet are likely:
>
> 1) The reliance on wheat as the "staple". Esp. when it's finely ground
> (feeds yeast) and enriched with too much iron, and full of bromine (which
> blocks iodine).
>
> 2) The reliance on beef, pork, sheep, and goat as the main meats. In America
> we have further narrowed "meat" down to mean mainly beef and pork muscle
> meat. Neither is an ideal source of protein.
>
> That is a diet that is low in Omega 3 fatty acids, low in iodine, low in
> glucosamine, too high in iron, and pro-inflammatory (all the protein comes
> with neu5gc, and wheat promotes gut inflammation for many people). Anyway,
> it's a diet that has NOT worked well in Europe or the US. There are hundreds
> of other diet possibilities that would work fine, with or without "meat" per
> se.
>
>
> *** At this point someone always brings up the Inuit and the Maasai. I might
> point out that neither group relies mainly on "meat" in the American sense.
> The Inuit eat mainly seafood, including sea mammals, which are just not the
> same thing as land animals. The Maasai are pastoralists who drink mainly
> milk, with some blood, and rarely kill or eat their cows.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> You really can't tell if someone is "healthy" unless you draw blood and run
>> several series of tests to determine the composition of the blood and the
>> levels of important elements/hormones in the body.
>>
>> In America, someone who appears to be "healthy" is usually a visually based
>> observation which is based upon physical thinness. Not an accurate reading
>> at all.
>> And yes, there are "healthy" vegans. And there are "healthy" people who
>> live on a diet of Jack Daniels and Twinkies. That still does not mean that
>> the rest of us can thrive under those conditions.
>>
>> There isn't any ancedotal or scientific evidence that vegan/vegetarianism
>> is the optimal diet for humans. Zero.
>>
>> Even if you take a look at the list of Earths super-centurians, the oldest
>> living people who are healthy-they all eat animal products (meat, milk,
>> eggs, honey) and drink. Not one vegan or vegetarian in the bunch.
>>
>> Vegan/Vegetarianism is a political philosophy based on emotion ( I am more
>> humane, I am more ethical, I am more moral) not evidence.
>>
>> Think about it.
>>
>>
>> AMA
>>
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment