FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » I agree with this guy. (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I agree with this guy.
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've done that. As a dietary principle raw foodism has shown me how it is possible to cook my food less so that I can fart all the time and have less energy but has never induced a more appropriate "time to stop eating" effect in me and I have never, ever been shown credible data which supports this supposed reality.

If raw food advocates want to establish that this is a benefit of their diet, [citation needed]. The biggest red flag a supposed better diet can give me (so that I can promptly avoid it) is when its circles of ideological advocacy commonly make claims that are no more than the anecdote of tightly knit circles of the faithful.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The China study is of a Neolithic society. Humans developed their eating habits and adaptations long prior to the Neolithic. There are still some Paleo human groups around, like the Inuit, who still eat their traditional diet in more remote areas.

Is this supposed to invalidate the CS in some way? Why should only older societies be studied?

quote:
Try it yourself. Take some food that is fairly tasty in its raw form, and then try eating it raw versus eating it heavily cooked, with spices and condiments.
Isn't it very likely that the placebo effect can explain any positive results of such a one-person test?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw a BBC Horizon program on this. Its argument was that human brains had evolved because of the more intensive nutrients (along with better storage through the cooking and similar processes) made available to humans because of cooking.

I, like most people, eat a combination of raw and cooked (or otherwise processed) foods.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My main problem with mostly-vegan diets is that people are usually eating grains to replace their animal foods."

Last night for dinner we had a curry tofu scramble with red cabbage and red onion (made delicious by caraway seed), with a small side of baked latkes topped with unsweetened applesauce.

Tonight we're having spaghetti squash with olive oil, lemon juice, and garlic.

The only people who end up making their vegan diet grain-based are those who don't know how to eat in the first place.

"Vegan diets don't include enough of the brain-healthy fats that come with high-quality animal products."

I get plenty in olive oil and flax seeds, thank you.

Edit: Occasionally we'll make something like pierogies as the main, but this is a once in a while thing, rather than a regular dish.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing I really wish I knew about nutrition, but which I suspect no one knows, is the extent to which one can "get away" with eating a less ideal diet if one is not the type to gain weight and does well on blood tests.

In my case I mainly adapt my diet to the fact that I have fairly bad acid reflux. This leads me to eat a lot of carbs. But I'm skinnier than a rail, and cholesterol levels etc are very good.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I get plenty in olive oil and flax seeds, thank you.

My understanding is that only fish oil, and in particular not flax seeds, has had its effectiveness experimentally demonstrated as a healthy source of Omega-3s. So you're still taking a risk of sorts. The effectiveness of fish oil is proven, while flax's effectiveness is just conjecture.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080912/flaxseed-oil-pills-vs-fish-oil-pills

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good to know. Looks like I'll have to order some EPA/DHA supplements.
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/omega3#veganDHA
Edit (I do this often, don't I?): I'm not too worried about the cardiovascular effects, but the cognitive benefits would be nice.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good idea. My other piece of advice for vegans is, don't take calcium supplements or drink milk substitutes fortified with calcium carbonate. There's some reason to think that stuff will clog your arteries. Not scientifically that well established, but it's enough that I wouldn't risk it unless I had high osteoporosis risk or something.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
One thing I really wish I knew about nutrition, but which I suspect no one knows, is the extent to which one can "get away" with eating a less ideal diet if one is not the type to gain weight and does well on blood tests.

Well, there are comprehensive blood tests which will let you know if you're doing too much in the way of saturated fats, bad cholesterol, are taking in too much sugar or sodium to process healthy, and other tests which just otherwise let you know if you are setting yourself up for arteriosclerotic vascular disease. As far as has been shown, the healthiest possible diets aren't excluding of anything specific (i.e., no vegetarian, vegan, raw, anti-carb, no fast food, etc) but simply measure out what portion of your calories come bundled with fat, carbohydrate, protein, and fiber, and balance these against each other.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps, but being vegan is a magic cure for cancer.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/28979.php

And apparently we smell better, too.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.abstract

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure if this is visible to everyone, but it seems relevant: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Skinny-on-Fat/136911/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
The China study is of a Neolithic society. Humans developed their eating habits and adaptations long prior to the Neolithic. There are still some Paleo human groups around, like the Inuit, who still eat their traditional diet in more remote areas.

Is this supposed to invalidate the CS in some way? Why should only older societies be studied?

quote:
Try it yourself. Take some food that is fairly tasty in its raw form, and then try eating it raw versus eating it heavily cooked, with spices and condiments.
Isn't it very likely that the placebo effect can explain any positive results of such a one-person test?

Neolithic societies, by definition, are not eating an ideal human diet. We've been eating grains in large amounts for less than 6 thousand years (and much less than that in many cases. The Middle East and East Asia are mostly the only places that have been eating large amounts of grains for around that long). That's not to say that all grains and all dairy are created equal. For that matter, not all cooking methods are equal, either. However, a diet extremely high in starches isn't necessarily a good fit for many people.

And no, the taste change isn't placebo effect. Like I said, try it.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I've done that. As a dietary principle raw foodism has shown me how it is possible to cook my food less so that I can fart all the time and have less energy but has never induced a more appropriate "time to stop eating" effect in me and I have never, ever been shown credible data which supports this supposed reality.

If raw food advocates want to establish that this is a benefit of their diet, [citation needed]. The biggest red flag a supposed better diet can give me (so that I can promptly avoid it) is when its circles of ideological advocacy commonly make claims that are no more than the anecdote of tightly knit circles of the faithful.

Common sense would tell you that raw (or at least not-heavily-cooked) food is going to be more easily-recognized by your body, as well as more compatible with your body chemistry. We are raw food. Raw meat, to be exact.

If you farted a lot and had no energy, you were probably eating a lot of raw veggies, right? They're hard to digest. I recommend meat, fish, and the drier fruits like banana and dates. Those are the easiest to digest. Fermented foods are easier to digest as well. I eat a good bit of fermented fruit and fish, myself.

I'll readily admit that raw food is sometimes not as easily-digested. However, if I have to make the choice between a little gas and having painful acid reflux (as an example--I'm prone to both gas and acid reflux), the choice is simple. Raw might make me fart, but some cooked foods cause actual acid damage to my esophagus.

Generally, though, if I avoid watery fruits, I don't have gas. I still eat them sometimes, though, because they have vitamin C, anthoxanthins, etc.. I'll gladly fart in exchange for some protection against cancer, etc..

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Not sure if this is visible to everyone, but it seems relevant: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Skinny-on-Fat/136911/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

It's behind a paywall. Can you summarize?
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Good idea. My other piece of advice for vegans is, don't take calcium supplements or drink milk substitutes fortified with calcium carbonate. There's some reason to think that stuff will clog your arteries. Not scientifically that well established, but it's enough that I wouldn't risk it unless I had high osteoporosis risk or something.

Calcium is bad for your arteries. It's definitely been shown to be positively correlated with heart disease, in multiple studies.

Magnesium is the opposite. In fact, magnesium and calcium balance each other out in the body. This is why I generally supplement with magnesium when I eat cheese. Too much magnesium does have a laxative effect, though, unfortunately. There was a time when I was having a lot of trouble with loose stools, because I was supplementing with lots of magnesium but no calcium. It got a bit annoying.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
Good to know. Looks like I'll have to order some EPA/DHA supplements.
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/omega3#veganDHA
Edit (I do this often, don't I?): I'm not too worried about the cardiovascular effects, but the cognitive benefits would be nice.

Dude, just eat a few ounces of fatty wild-caught fish once every week or two. I know too many vegans with serious, progressive cognitive issues to feel safe recommending veganism long-term. I don't know if it's the lack of B-12, the lack of high-quality animal fats, or what, but a lot of vegans have progressive brain deterioration. It's sad to watch.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Neolithic societies, by definition, are not eating an ideal human diet. We've been eating grains in large amounts for less than 6 thousand years (and much less than that in many cases. The Middle East and East Asia are mostly the only places that have been eating large amounts of grains for around that long).
So by definition, the healthiest diet is the one we started out eating? Why is that a matter for definition rather than empirical scientific investigation?

One excellent point I've seen made by one of the China Study guys: evolution only selects for traits that increase your odds of reproducing, not your odds of living longer. So if 98% of people on Diet A die at 90 and 2% die young because Diet A's food is hard to find, while 99% of people on Diet B die at 50 and 1% die young, evolution will select Diet B over Diet A, even though Diet A is healthier.

(I should be clear, I don't buy the China Study. But that's only because I'm not convinced that anthropological studies are the best way to learn about nutrition. If I thought they were, I would believe the China Study.)

quote:
And no, the taste change isn't placebo effect. Like I said, try it.
Trying something, by itself, is not a way to tell whether its benefits result from the placebo effect. Unless the benefits would be impossible without the stimulus. You can't tell subjectively whether it's placebo effect or not.

quote:
Calcium is bad for your arteries. It's definitely been shown to be positively correlated with heart disease, in multiple studies.
Might not be causation, though. As with any bare correlation, there might be a common cause.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Common sense would tell you that raw (or at least not-heavily-cooked) food is going to be more easily-recognized by your body, as well as more compatible with your body chemistry. We are raw food. Raw meat, to be exact.

This is, again, a classic example of a set of assertions that needs a citation. If it were true, you could demonstrate it in short order with data. A "common sense would tell you" is not going to fly.

Also to note: the idea that we ought to deduce that we "recognize our food" better if it is raw because we are raw food too is probably one of the weirdest I have heard in a long time, and it does not follow anything I know of in nutritional science. It also flies in the face of our understanding of current human evolution as one that has been, for millions of years, based off of the advantages that cooking our food gave us, so we can't say that we are somehow better biologically "attuned" to raw food. We've been a cooked food eater for pretty much the duration of our entire species, essentially.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's why I eat human, raw. Because my digestive system is raw human, it recognizes raw human instantly and it is way easier to digest. I'm feeling really healthy as I evade ever being found as a cannibal, though that may be the bath salts talking.

Seriously, I just came into the room and caught the package of designer drugs typing.

Seriously though, we evolved in manner that supports omnivorous but processed diets. Other omnivorous creatures can eat just about anything, some merely scrounge through one or the other if they are really that hungry. But humans are far more fragile than bears and raccoons, and smarter, and more adaptable to foreign environments, and totally mastered the whole thumb problem. Do you see? Raccoons don't cook their meat and they suck, we will cook stuff we already cooked just for fun and we rule. How's that for common sense?

Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Steven - I think you almost have the keys down for a healthy life. Have you looked into homeopathy? I think it could complete your quest for a healthy and natural lifestyle.

Lots of interesting responses but the bottom line is the vast majority of fat people aren't fat because of a medical condition. They're fat because they eat more calories then they burn off. So it's either them not wanting to lose weight, or it's a willpower thing. Choosing to eat the whole bag of chips.

That doesn't mean that they need to be rounded up into exercise camps or anything. But they should at least be treated the same way as smokers.

Lastly here's a link to a short lecture on the subject from a British scientist.

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=RXTq2_3LfXM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRXTq2_3LfXM

Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:

That doesn't mean that they need to be rounded up into exercise camps or anything. But they should at least be treated the same way as smokers.

I don't particularly think smokers should be treated the same way as smokers.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Steven - I think you almost have the keys down for a healthy life. Have you looked into homeopathy? I think it could complete your quest for a healthy and natural lifestyle.
I can't tell if you're mocking Steven or not...
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Steven - I think you almost have the keys down for a healthy life. Have you looked into homeopathy? I think it could complete your quest for a healthy and natural lifestyle.
I can't tell if you're mocking Steven or not...
He is.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If this diet didn't work, I wouldn't eat it.

All the anthropological and biochemical evidence aside, that's why I stuck with this diet, instead of cooked vegan, high-raw vegan, low-fat raw vegan, fruitarian, modified Weston Price, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. I find it so funny that it's usually the very people who are hugely obese, eat junk constantly, and have never experimented with diet who want to see 50,000 peer-reviewed double blind studies on the healthiness of eating an apple or a piece of sashimi. I don't have much of an answer for those people. I'm in such a different place with my diet that it is literally hard to communicate with them.

Think about it--if we were in Japan, none of you would think to question my eating of raw fish/meat. You would not only ACCEPT it without question, you would also be DOING it too. For that matter, the Japanese have a longer life span. What dietary credibility should sashimi-criticizing Americans have, when compared with the Japanese?

Let's extrapolate that a little farther. What if we had evolved on a planet where raw fruit, meat, and fish were (for whatever accidents of plant and animal evolution) still pretty much 100% of our diet, even into the age of modern technology? We wouldn't be having this argument. We'd all simply be eating raw Paleo.

That's my point. You people don't eat the way you do because of science. Even I don't. Our eating habits are some mixture of socialization, availability, etc., etc. Science is way down of the list of priorities when it comes to choosing our food, individually-speaking. I can at least claim that my diet is the most similar to our ancestors' diet, and that it appears not to be highly-correlated with the major (and most of the minor) degenerative diseases. Unlike the typical American diet, for instance. You know what I mean, Vern?

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Steven - I think you almost have the keys down for a healthy life. Have you looked into homeopathy? I think it could complete your quest for a healthy and natural lifestyle.
I can't tell if you're mocking Steven or not...
He is.
Really? I was wondering that myself.

And for the record, I'm not interested in homeopathy. Anyone who wants to make further cracks along those lines, let me offer you a raw paleo meal. For free.

It's in my pants.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Think about it--if we were in Japan, none of you would think to question my eating of raw fish/meat. You would not only ACCEPT it without question, you would also be DOING it too. For that matter, the Japanese have a longer life span. What dietary credibility should sashimi-criticizing Americans have, when compared with the Japanese?
I'm not terribly familiar with day-to-day japanese cuisine, but sashimi doesn't seem to be the primary food. It was way easier to find noodle shops or McDonalds than sushi places. As far as I can tell the Japanese diet revolves around assorted noodles, seaweeds, and rice. Almost all of it was cooked or otherwise processed, not exactly raw food.

And I eat raw fish here, since I like to have sushi more often than I get to Japan.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Steven - I think you almost have the keys down for a healthy life. Have you looked into homeopathy? I think it could complete your quest for a healthy and natural lifestyle.
I can't tell if you're mocking Steven or not...
He is.
Really? I was wondering that myself.

Maybe not, I guess? I don't know for sure. But homeopathy is such a joke that it's hard to imagine he meant it any other way.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
And for the record, I'm not interested in homeopathy. Anyone who wants to make further cracks along those lines, let me offer you a raw paleo meal. For free.

It's in my pants.

Classy.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Think about it--if we were in Japan, none of you would think to question my eating of raw fish/meat. You would not only ACCEPT it without question, you would also be DOING it too. For that matter, the Japanese have a longer life span. What dietary credibility should sashimi-criticizing Americans have, when compared with the Japanese?

What percentage of the Japanese diet is uncooked fish and meat versus cooked food?
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexbrit
Member
Member # 12945

 - posted      Profile for Alexbrit   Email Alexbrit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its not so bad I agreed but weight increase may be one of its causes.I do like fast foods.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Think about it--if we were in Japan, none of you would think to question my eating of raw fish/meat. You would not only ACCEPT it without question, you would also be DOING it too. For that matter, the Japanese have a longer life span. What dietary credibility should sashimi-criticizing Americans have, when compared with the Japanese?

What percentage of the Japanese diet is uncooked fish and meat versus cooked food?
Sam we know Japanese folk all eat sushi constantly. Not gyoza, not yakisoba, not katsu don or katsu curry, not tempura sushi. It's all sashimi!

Ignore KFCs huge popularity there.

And don't let this picture tell you any different!

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also they have mystical powers from their martial arts, and a samurai could totally beat a knight.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, raw fish doesn't make up a very large percentage of Japanese food. But you can't prove steven wrong by throwing up the examples of McDonald's and KFC. The longevity and health of the Japanese people has suffered in recent history from the increased consumption of Western fast food. So while steven can't argue that the Japanese live longer because they eat nothing but raw fish, we also can't argue that they live longer in spite of fried crap.
Posts: 6366 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The longevity and health of the Japanese people has suffered in recent history
This is an easily measureable fact which you could back up, if necessary, by pointing to readily available statistics.

quote:
from the increased consumption of Western fast food.
This is opinion. It is not impossible to prove such a thing, but it requires a lot more than the observation that Western food consumption increased while longevity went down.

Please distinguish between the two types of assertion.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
So while steven can't argue that the Japanese live longer because they eat nothing but raw fish, we also can't argue that they live longer in spite of fried crap.

Their typical diet is on the whole healthier than the upper med western diets and most of it comes down to portion control and a (relative) lack of saturated fats. The overabundance of rice in the diet isn't particularly good, and they consume colossal amounts of sodium, but it's well better than what someone typically ends up eating in the food deserts of american urban and poor areas, especially in the south, which create modern-day dietary regimens that practically guarantee rising obesity and health risk.

On the whole, though, a singaporean or central mediterranean diet would be better, and would dispense with the unhealthy sodium qualities. None of the reasons why any of these diets (and the cultural factors that go into eating patterns and portion control, which are usually more important) are better measurably because they are, in greater portion, uncooked.

I mean, the primary staple is rice. How often is that consumed uncooked by the japanese? Does it somehow count as "uncooked" using some special bizarre raw foodie exemption?

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought the saturated fat thing was hotly contested these days (by Gary Taubes types).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KoM, you're right, and I have sources. Unfortunately they're all in Japanese so it wouldn't do me any good to link to them without translating the pertinent passages. If this discussion is still going on the next time I can get online, I'll try to do that. I'm in a hurry this morning.

But it's true that I can't yet directly show causation between the diet and shorter life span. Only diet and increased obesity.

Posts: 6366 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PSI, shhhhh.

Didn't you know? Being fat is like being black or gay. It's not a choice.

Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
KoM, you're right, and I have sources. Unfortunately they're all in Japanese so it wouldn't do me any good to link to them without translating the pertinent passages. If this discussion is still going on the next time I can get online, I'll try to do that. I'm in a hurry this morning.

Fair enough. Please do not go far out of your way or do a lot of work to translate the sources; I do not actually care that much about the subject, I merely wanted to point out an apparent case of bad statistical reasoning. Don't put yourself to a lot of trouble over snarking on my part. [Smile]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
KoM, you're right, and I have sources. Unfortunately they're all in Japanese so it wouldn't do me any good to link to them without translating the pertinent passages. If this discussion is still going on the next time I can get online, I'll try to do that. I'm in a hurry this morning.

Fair enough. Please do not go far out of your way or do a lot of work to translate the sources; I do not actually care that much about the subject, I merely wanted to point out an apparent case of bad statistical reasoning. Don't put yourself to a lot of trouble over snarking on my part. [Smile]
Also, the consensus on this forum is that it is not your responsibility to source any assertions you make. Unfortunately the thread where that was discussed got deleted.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
I thought the saturated fat thing was hotly contested these days (by Gary Taubes types).

I really seriously doubt, given how readily you can reduce various types of prevalence of cardiovascular incident and degenerative disease by switching up saturated fats with polyunsaturated, that research is going to show that saturated fats is not something that should have an upper limit for a healthy diet.

Probably what's going to happen is that continued diet and genetic study is going to show there is a wide variability in a person's safe limit of saturated fats based on their lineage. A real significant variability. Which means that dietary plans on saturated fat content will likely come down to family cardiovascular history. But, honestly, there's going to be a sane limit.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
PSI, shhhhh.

Didn't you know? Being fat is like being black or gay. It's not a choice.

What if, due to technology or magic or whatever, being black or being gay was a choice?

Would that change how we treat people who fit those descriptors? Should it?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Black, no. Gay in only a very small and unlikely set of circumstances. Like, say, a community is in dire need of genetically diverse children and for whatever reason, healthy adult numbers are vanishingly small. Think OSC's Homecoming series.

I'll throw out a mea culpa here. The reason morbidly obese people annoy me is because my disease manages to make an enemy out of food and of my own body. So when I see people who have the gift of a potentially healthy body and metabolism, almost effort free, and they just throw it away because cake tastes good? It gets my dander up a little.

And yeah, sure, that's entirely my cross to bear. But it doesn't change the fact that it'll probably be mine/our tax dollars paying for the heart disease treatment, or the disability payments that will go to people who ate so much and exercised so little that they literally can't stand up anymore.

Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sylphiae
Member
Member # 12944

 - posted      Profile for Sylphiae   Email Sylphiae         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wanted to address the OP's article, which I found absolutely appalling. I'm not an obesity apologist, but very little mention has been made of systematic factors that contribute towards weight gain.

Obese and overweight people are not universally lazy. The worldwide increase in the prevalence of obesity demonstrates this: in Britain 25% of all women are obese, in the Czech Republic 30% of men are obese, in Brazil 53% of adults are overweight. In China, 25% of all adults are overweight or obese.

Clearly all of these adults across cultures are too fat and lazy to do anything but keep eating chips and cake and soda.

It doesn't help that genetics do play a minor factor. Human beings are predisposed to maintaining their weight. A study by Proietto at the University of Melbourne demonstrates that after patients had lost 10% of their body weight through dieting, a year later they still had low levels of leptin (hormone that signals to the brain that you're full) and high levels of ghrelin (hormone that signals that you're hungry).

As countries across the world get wealthier, people have more money to spend on eating out. In America, portion sizes have gotten bigger. As countries get wealthier they also improve their infrastructure--if you're driving or riding on a bus to work, you're not walking as much as you used to. Urban sprawl may not be a unique American problem.

Food companies in particular are problematic. I'm not advocating that an obese person ought to sue McDonald's. But overconsumption of processed food has probably played a greater role in increasing rates of obesity than personal choice. Corn subsidies in America in particular are incredibly damaging to health. Pop might as well be liquid corn.

Then there's the availability of healthier food. Not everyone can afford quinoa in their budget, and some urban neighborhoods don't even have access to supermarkets. I'm from Chicago, and while Whole Foods are ubiquitous in suburbia, it's difficult to find sources of food other than McDonald's and corner stores in the poorer areas of the city.

What would actually help solve the obesity problem other than telling a significant portion of the world's population that their sloth is to blame? More education, equal access to healthy food, construction of infrastructure that is conducive to health such as parks, and perhaps a controversial approach: technology

IBM's Watson is currently being trained to treat cancer patients; I see no reason why a supercomputer tied to an app on our smartphones couldn't help people monitor their health, especially their weight. Patients see doctors only a few times a month or year, and that's not enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Obese people, when not under direct oversight, may slip up on diets or health regimens. Technology can help people stay healthy, lose weight, and prevent many of the diseases that plague the overweight.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
So while steven can't argue that the Japanese live longer because they eat nothing but raw fish, we also can't argue that they live longer in spite of fried crap.

Their typical diet is on the whole healthier than the upper med western diets and most of it comes down to portion control and a (relative) lack of saturated fats. The overabundance of rice in the diet isn't particularly good, and they consume colossal amounts of sodium, but it's well better than what someone typically ends up eating in the food deserts of american urban and poor areas, especially in the south, which create modern-day dietary regimens that practically guarantee rising obesity and health risk.

On the whole, though, a singaporean or central mediterranean diet would be better, and would dispense with the unhealthy sodium qualities. None of the reasons why any of these diets (and the cultural factors that go into eating patterns and portion control, which are usually more important) are better measurably because they are, in greater portion, uncooked.

I mean, the primary staple is rice. How often is that consumed uncooked by the japanese? Does it somehow count as "uncooked" using some special bizarre raw foodie exemption?

IIRC, I have criticized grains a number of times in this thread. As well, I have also mentioned rice as the least problematic of the grains. I actually occasionally eat a little rice with my sashimi, every few months, if I find I am still hungry after I finish all the sashimi I order at a particular restaurant. It's no big deal to me. I certainly don't notice any negative symptoms from it.

And you're right about the excess sodium in the Japanese diet.

Just to be clear, I think the Japanese would be a lot healthier if they replaced their noodles and rice with some raw fruit and some more sashimi. However, they are the only large, modern society that eats a fair amount of raw meat/fish, so they are the example I have to go with. There are plenty of rural traditional societies that eat lots of raw meat/fish, but studies of them are few, for various reasons.

See here...to act like cooking food is some kind of magic method of food-improving is, well, SILLY. Cooking has advantages and drawbacks, both. it generally makes animal protein less absorbable, but it makes most plant foods MORE absorbable, at least in some ways. However, it also creates heterocyclic amines (google it) and advanced glycation end-products (also google it). In addition, heavier cooking methods reduce the amount of water-soluble nutrients like the B-complex and C vitamins.

I don't want to jump on lighter cooking methods as somehow turning food from awesome to terrible, though. It's a sliding scale, despite what some raw foodists say/believe. The problem is probably slightly more with the excessive eating of refined grains and sugars. In addition, the feeding of livestock/poultry with these same grains in large amounts is a real problem. I avoid grainfed meats except on very rare occasions.

One of the main reasons I insist on raw versus lightly-cooked for my everyday diet is the extra aerobic capacity and general higher energy levels I have. My wife and I recently spent time in Costa Rica, and I convinced her to eat pretty much what I eat while there (ceviche and fruit, pretty much). She tends to eat a fair amount of cooked food when at home. She mentioned, without prompting, that she felt much lighter and more energetic after eating that way for about a week. As a contrast, I feel that way pretty much all the time. It's nice to have the energy to do all the things you want to do, instead of dragging around all the time.

\

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, they are the only large, modern society that eats a fair amount of raw meat/fish, so they are the example I have to go with.
And has there been literally any study done that shows that any of their longetivity is from the raw meat and fish consumption? Like, any data at all you could source for the claim you're effectively making?
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
However, they are the only large, modern society that eats a fair amount of raw meat/fish, so they are the example I have to go with.
And has there been literally any study done that shows that any of their longetivity is from the raw meat and fish consumption? Like, any data at all you could source for the claim you're effectively making?
I'm not even sure that it actually IS from the raw meat/fish. I only know that

1. I generally feel better (lighter, more energetic) when I'm eating nearly or totally 100% raw (and that is VERY commonly reported from people trying a mostly or all-raw diet)

2. Cooking meat/fish makes the protein less absorbable

3. cooking creates toxic compounds (heterocyclic amines and advanced glycation end-products)

4. cooking reduces the amount of water-soluble nutrients in food

5. The Japanese people have the greatest longevity of any large population on earth

6.the Japanese eat quite a bit more raw fish/meat than any other developed nation. (if you disagree, please feel free to look up the derivation of the word sashimi).

Those things I know.

However, their longevity could also be explained (and almost certainly IS, at least partially) by their higher consumption of seafoods, which are, by definition, extremely rich in trace minerals and other minerals.

But let's be honest, Sam. You're asking for studies, but studies have little to do with what you actually have eaten throughout your life. Socialization and availability have played a much larger role. That's true for nearly every human who has ever eaten anything, including myself. I'm sure you agree.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
[QUOTE]
2. Cooking meat/fish makes the protein less absorbable

3. cooking creates toxic compounds (heterocyclic amines and advanced glycation end-products)

4. cooking reduces the amount of water-soluble nutrients in food


I thought that the scientific consensus was that cooking made nutrients more available, not less, and that this is partly why humans have developed to the state we are now. (for example http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.USmGx6q3PMI)

Can you provide some backup for your assertions? Do you "know" these things because they have been proven/demonstrated or because you just happen to believe them?

Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by just_me:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
[QUOTE]
2. Cooking meat/fish makes the protein less absorbable

3. cooking creates toxic compounds (heterocyclic amines and advanced glycation end-products)

4. cooking reduces the amount of water-soluble nutrients in food


I thought that the scientific consensus was that cooking made nutrients more available, not less, and that this is partly why humans have developed to the state we are now. (for example http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.USmGx6q3PMI)

Can you provide some backup for your assertions? Do you "know" these things because they have been proven/demonstrated or because you just happen to believe them?

The water-soluble vitamins are most definitely damaged at the temperatures used in high-heat cooking. Of course, if cooking times are short, or high-enough temperatures are not reached, then there's not much actual loss. I can provide this (sorry, it's a long PDF) link:

USDA study on cooking and nutrient loss

Cooking (to a certain point) does make some nutrients in PLANTS more bioavailable, like lycopene in tomatoes. Here's a link:

lycopene and cooking

Granted, that's not an actual link to a study, but Consumer Reports is usually pretty trustworthy on specific factual issues.

As far as protein in meat goes, here's a study done on nitrogen excretion and growth rates in rats. it's from 1933, but it looks fairly rigorous, given the usual poor state of nutritional science:

Rat study

Here's another study on how heat decreases protein digestibility

cooking and protein study

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and that article you linked to is by Richard Wrangham, who thinks getting enough nutrition from raw meat would require 5 hours of chewing a day. ROFL

Seriously, he's just hilarious. There are plenty of omnivores in nature that are just fine on a combination of raw animal and plant foods. Proto-humans, as well as plenty of other primates, did just fine on a raw omnivorous diet. Wrangham is conflating raw vegans and raw omnivores. I'm not a raw vegan. I think veganism is foolish and dangerous.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a page with multiple links to studies (scroll to the bottom) on protein digestibility in raw versus cooked protein. The studies are on various different species of cats, but it's something, at least.

Cats and raw versus cooked meat

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2