Much of what is written here is accepted widely: that many types of fats are not really the issue driving heart disease; that fructose and other sugars are problematic; that lifestyle interventions can have a real impact; that stenting stable atherosclerosis has no benefit; and that atherothrombosis is the killer.
The ongoing effort by these authors to dismiss the LDL hypothesis weakens this paper. That LDL is a primary contributor to cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, and death is supported by human genetic data and by hundreds of thousands of individuals followed in clinical trials, as well as millions of people in post marketing monitoring. The casual dismissal in this article by referring to low quality, confounded evidence (observational studies) is not responsible and it taints an otherwise useful summary.
It's not a trial, meta-analysis, or even a systematic review.
Which you can find here:
Conclusions Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations. Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality, probably because of higher levels of intake of industrial trans fats than ruminant trans fats. Dietary guidelines must carefully consider the health effects of recommendations for alternative macronutrients to replace trans fats and saturated fats.
Note "but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations" and "Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality"
LDL correlates trouble, but evidence that it is part of the problem when I last looked was not well supported (though it is generally accepted in the medical community)
I didn't get the sense that they were being dismissive, so much as pointing out that the risk has been exaggerated.
This goes directly against everything the AHA says and what countless other sources are saying.
If this is the case, then it shouldn't be published in any reputable journal outside of a very clearly marked "opinion" or "editorial" column.
As a nicotine addicted person, currently on recovery (but very aware of the lifelong fight that it is for me), and as a LCHF dieter, to me the relation is very clear. In my case, sugar has the same addictive effects than nicotine, and apparently, it has as most or even worst malign effects.
This is not to say that everyone should follow a LCHF diet, or that it will work for everyone. I do think that if you keep your carbs under 100g daily, and they are low profile insulin type, you should be good and safe. But for me, as an addicted person, if I deviate from 15g is very easy to get into a slippery slope and the next thing I know I am eating donuts and flurries. If I smoke a cigarette on a night out, the next thing I know I am smoking a pack daily or more.
The thing is, as with tobacco before, the sugar industry (which is probably the 90% of volume of the whole food industry world wide) has gone ways and beyond to hook us to their products and to cover the negative effects. Too many people is addicted to High Carbs without even knowing it.
I hope this studies get more and more attention in the mainstream media and many more people could at least review their lifestyle with more information and asses what is best for each of them.
I was told I've got Rheumatoid Arthritis after extensive testing and doctor visits with specialists over a few months. I'm shopping around ideas on how to review and track my day to day life.
Also traking your physical activity could be done with several combinations of devices and apps.
But also, very important, is to track your mood and overall feeling and wellness (or lack of). Again several apps are out there, but a old good pen and paper diary goes a long way.
Then, is a matter of correlate, and review back to when you were feeling better and try to replicate and optimize.
Of course this is nothing new, Tim Ferris and several other authors had dedicated a lot of ink to the subject of traking and self-improvement.
The other way to do it is hear your body, and do what you know it works. It's a lot more relaxed, but prone to biases.
This is not to say that any condition can be treated with lifestyle adjustments. I don't know about your condition and I am not giving any medical advice. But for sure I will try to see if any specific diet helps me to feel better if I were in your situation
The basic idea I believe many of the "cronic", "infammetory", "auto-immune" and/or "unfixable by MDs" diseases lies in a diet that is not for humans. Hummans are frugavores (fruit eaters, that can only tolerate minescule, bug-size, amounts of meat), like primates. Technically frugavores are a sub-category of omnivores, but in practise there are a lot of differences (dog/bear/swine = omnivore). Herbivores are different too: they graze and have multiple stomachs. Understand that you are a frugavore, and live up to it, or --as I understand it-- the "unfixable by MDs diseases" will get you. They cannot fix it, because you need to stop something, not add a drug or cut-out/radiate a piece of body.
You can look for natural remedies of RA. Flax seed powder (high in ALA-O3) and high DHA-O3 algae extract oil capsules are great. So is turmeric.
More info see Dr Greger and Dr Bergman. They have videos on the topic of RA. These guys base their advice on science.
Then there is the, not so well scientifically supported, next level (first eat "clean" for a while) and that is detoxing. This basically starts by a colon cleanse and "getting your kidneys to filter". Dr Robert Morse is your guy here. This will involve some types of fasting for most people. Once your colon and kidneys can properly eliminate waste, you lymph system will be able to drain the acidic waste from you inflamed joints and your body will heal you RA, naturally.
G'luck! You can fix this 100%. With the emphasis on you, as your condition is due to a lack of some pharmaceutical (patented medicine). It is MOST probably due to your body's been obstructed in fixing itself somehow.
I'm not talking about survival. Some people survive smoking for 50 years. I'm talking about us being frugavores, and thus being most healthy on a frugavorous diets like the primates.
I believe different. We are frugavores.
> Sugary stuff, forget it.
Indeed, bad for ever human. (I took it as processed sugary stuff, not fruit which is great for humans)
> Got fat when I became officially dad.
These things are unrelated, you're a man. Lol. Jokes aside, a frugavorous diet can melt your fat. And the health impact from bad diets can take years to show (like smoking or exposure to heavy metals).
Not to mention, and probably worse, refined sugar. It is basically crack cocaine.
To put this into context. I've been on refined sugar for about 50 years now. The health effects are - I have 2 fillings and and a BMI somewhat above the recommended.
It's basically not crack cocaine.
A 2017 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Which fats are pro- or anti-inflammatory also seems to be an area of active research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4424767/
Nutrition is pretty terrible. It seems to me that laymen have zero chance of getting useful advice out of the research, other than "Eat a varied diet, move regularly".
I completely agree, and it also appears to change every other decade.
Suddenly, drinking coffee became healthy, eggs stopped being unhealthy and drinking a glass of wine a day became a major risk for CVD.
Engineers are spoiled when it comes disentangeling relationships between causes and effects because our systems are relatively simple compared to the huge and complicated mess that is human (or, indeed, any) biology.
Luckily, fasting does. Whatever your metabolic and inflammation markers are, they will all trend worse after energy input.
If your waking day is 16 hours long, reducing your "feeding window" by even four hours increases your time spent in "low inflammation mode" by 50%.
Looking for a drug or a novel intervention is silly when you haven't picked even the lowest hanging fruit. It's like installing a fancy air filter in your car but neglecting to even change the oil.
unfortunately if you're asthmatic there is a decent chance you are allergic to aspirin
> eat mostly (or entirely) plants
So, Veganism is "established wisdom". More like unproven dogma...
A paleo diet is far more supportive of overall health. What that looks like for the individual is really down to them discovering what their body prefers, in terms of nutrients, carbs, fats and protein.
A paleo diet can be mostly veges, mostly meat, and anywhere in between.
"Paleo diet," as a concept, is uh... not based in reality. I honestly don't mean to be mean when I say that, there just isn't any other way to put it.
First, to recreate a "Paleolithic diet" we'd have to know exactly what Paleolithic humans ate, in which proportions, and we really don't. The evidence we have is incomplete. It's extremely doubtful humans in different groups in different geographic locations all ate the same thing - it's more likely humans adapted to their environment as that is exactly what humans tend to do.
It's not possible to eat a Paleo diet today, as the plants and animals that existed in paleolithic times no longer exist today. Natural and artificial selection has changed our food supply so drastically that the foods available today are almost completely unrecognizable compared to their Paleolithic ancestors.
(Ignoring for a second that humans have evolved since Paleolithic times as well. Also ignoring for a second the diseases of aging might not have appeared much in Paleolithic humans, to our knowledge, because there wasn't a whole lot of aging going on during that time...)
If you feel better following a fad diet, that's perfectly fine, just don't pretend it's any less "unproven dogma" than any other diet. The "Paleo diet" is based on a bad understanding of science, history, and anthropology.
A modern day Paleo diet is merely about eating as closely to natural foods as possible, eating those foods optimal for our individual health, and cutting out all processed junk foods.
Simple. It is certainly based in reality, much more so than the dogma of Veganism.
I swear some people just downvote without even trying to understand what I'm trying to convey... then again, maybe I could have explained a little better.
The modern "paleo" diet loaded with animal fat and protein is a modern invention that serves mostly to help people rationalize their taste preferences.
Paleo man definitely had access to multiple giant portions of meat a day -- just not every day.
After you kill the auroch, all that meat has to go somewhere.
Paleo man also ate the whole thing, not just the muscle meat. Some days, you might just have a giant bowlful of fat. Other days, you're eating paste made from acorns that have been leaching out their bitter compounds under a waterfall for a week.
Depending on where you lived, your tribe might have had access to many portions of meat every day for weeks, and then nothing but low-nutrition or semi-poisonous plants for months. It was a great incentive to develop either food preservation technology, agriculture, or a nomadic lifestyle. Which is to say: follow the meat, keep the meat from rotting until the herd passes through again, or eat more nutritious plants.
So there wasn't any one archetypal paleo diet. Paleo man had to adapt to his environment or die. The "paleo" idea is to reject foods that did not exist 10000 years ago, because supposedly human physiology hasn't evolved to deal with them yet. You invent a caricature of a cave man in your head and let him tell you what's food and what isn't.
~I don't recommend it. When I tried it, my cave man slipped on a wet rock while hunting, got a bad compound fracture, and died from an infection a week later, because antibiotics hadn't been discovered yet. My cave woman was out collecting sour berries and army worms, fell into a creek, and drowned. Then my cave baby was raised by wolves. I couldn't find the wolf milk and regurgitated caribou section in the supermarket, so I had to abandon the diet.~
It's difficult to know what the diet in the Paleolithic was but there is, I think, a component of the diet that we can be pretty sure about: occasional hungry. How we use that knowledge it's a different issue.
Not true ~ there is no "true" paleo diet ~ it varies vastly from culture to culture. Look at the Eskimos ~ their traditional diet was mostly animal, high in nutrients, protein, fat, and sugar in the form of glycogen, and very little in the way of plants. Then in other tribal cultures, they may subsist mostly on plant foods.
There's no One, True Diet. Veganism is actually rather unhealthy, because it excludes foods which contain highly bioavailable forms of nutrients not found in plant foods ~ Omega 3s, iron, etc.
An animal-based diet isn't unhealthy ~ it can be the most nutritious of all. Organ meats are extremely nutritious.
An animal-based diet isn't the problem ~ modern human societies run by greedy corporations and governments are, because they have created and supported the problems of animal abuse, because it is profitable.
> The modern "paleo" diet loaded with animal fat and protein is a modern invention that serves mostly to help people rationalize their taste preferences.
Bullshit. Paleo isn't all about fat and protein. That's keto. Paleo can be full of healthy carbs.
And the "paleo" diet most people eat is really just a rebranding of what people used to call the Atkins diet.
I feel the root cause of much of these issues is the practice of corporate farms to wall things off into atomic monocultures, and to separate animal husbandry from farming. I believe this is easier, for many reasons, but not more productive. It may be more economical, based on externalized pollution costs, and subsidized energy costs. I.E it has more to do with our arrangement of politics, rather than underlying fundamentals.
All one has to do is lookup bioavailable sources of iron.
I'll bet if you look at foods in a supermarket the main changes in ingredients will be more processed sugars and oils. This seems to happen in the UK when companies are taken over by USAmerican companies.
Processed meat is since a few years on the carcinogens lists (next to asbestos and smoking). But strange enough still on the hospital menus (also consumed by cancer patients)!
It takes a while I guess... Sadly.
The quality of the evidence that processed red meat causes cancer is now as good as the evidence that smoking causes cancer.
The strength of the effect is very very different. Smoking causes a lot of cancer. Red meat causes very little cancer.
It's completely incorrect to suggest red meat is equivalent to smoking for cancer.
Did I? Please read again. Just saying it's on the same list.
> Red meat causes very little cancer.
Could you please quantify how little cancer? Prolly not. This is difficult stuff. We do not know dosages, etc.
BTW, I was talking about "processed meat" (like hotdogs, bacon and nuggets), you now talk about red meat. Red meat is not on the cancer list (yet).
If you down voted me, please reconsider. Because I'm right.
You should be able to experiment with this by taking a CAC test every year or two.
The above is overly cynical and not completely true, but it is a good guide to the types of science that can be done in nutrition.
Here's an example of what you will see at the store: https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Made-Burpless-Omega-3-Softgels...
Notice there's 1000mg of fish oil there, but only 300 mg Omega-3 (only 250mg of which is actually DHA/EPA) and they don't even give you the ratio of DHA to EPA in that 250mg - you need an even split to see best benefits as they work together.
What you need to look for is pharmaceutical grade Omega-3, which is basically just concentrated so you don't get the filler oils. I'm a huge evangelist for OmegaVia (https://omegavia.com/), since they also use a enteric coating on the pills so they do not dissolve until they hit your small intestine. As a result there are zero fish breath/burp side effects. Give it a try, it's a game changer.
I've provisionally concluded that this is because of shelf life -- the O-6s have good shelf life, but the O-3s do not, so essentially need to be made fresh or kept in special containers, cooled, etc.
I feel like supplements can be good as a supplement, but I'm looking to improve my eating system. Any suggestions welcome!
I've seen various ratios, but even with that, the processing involves high heat and hexane, both of which can substantially alter the molecules, and it's high in polyunsaturated fats, so goes rancid easily, destroying the n-3s, but it's hard to detect because of the processing...
Here is a review of 395 direct feeding experiments, which are much more appropriate for measuring the effects of diet:
This video sums up the issues well:
So in this scenario, is it eating saturated dietary fat which causes unhealthy levels of cholesterol in the blood?
Or is it because the person's diet has caused them to become overweight/obese and therefore the body's cholesterol levels have increased as a result?
In my own experience, I lost 20% of my body weight (57 lbs) by eating a high fat low-carb diet, supplemented by intermittent fasting. I was on statins (cholesterol medication) and an ARB (for hypertension), and was able to stop taking these meds 18 months after losing the weight.
There are lots of reasons to avoid saturated oils/fat. I think it's misleading and overly simplistic to say or imply that dietary fat leads to high cholesterol.
My blood chemistry is better than it ever has been. My A1C is great. My LDL and VLDL are very low. I eat saturated fat and olive oil. I eat fish 2 or more times a week. Some white fish (cod) but mostly salmon and a little tuna. I have more weight to lose, maybe another 40 lbs. I was trending towards metabolic syndrome before keto. I exercise for 40 to 50 mins a day, 5 days a week. Strength training walking and more.
Since going keto (2 years ago) I have had no colds, no ear infections, no sinus infections. I have had the flu once. That is it. I used to get a lot of ear infections and colds and more. Several times a year.
I have heart disease. I had 4-way bypass more than 10 years ago. I take a statin and aspirin.
I am under two doctors care, a primary and a cardiologist. They support my keto diet. My primary says my systemic level of infection is very low resulting in less sickness.
I am a sample size of one so take that for what it is worth.
But the causal link between saturated fat consumption and blood cholesterol levels is very well established. See my earlier comments for links. There are a lot of people out there with very questionable agendas out there trying to confuse people on this issue.
"The total body of evidence suggests that attention should
be shifted from the harmful effects of dietary SAFA per
se, to the prevention of the accumulation of SAFA in
body lipids. This shift would emphasise the importance
of reducing dietary CHO, especially CHO with a high
glycaemic index, rather than reducing dietary SAFA"
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD"
"High intake of cholesterol results in less atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particles in men and women independent of response classification"
"A high-fat, high–saturated fat diet is associated with diminished coronary artery disease progression in women with the metabolic syndrome."
Yes, saturated fat can raise cholesterol (in some people).
> And the correlation between high cholesterol levels and CVD has been known for decades.
Correlation is not enough!
By the same logic:
Building fire stations (eating saturated fat) leads to more firefighters (cholesterol). Firefighters are highly correlated with burning buildings (CVD). So firefighters cause CVD? The body is way to complex for such a simple statement.
There are also literally hundreds of studies that show the opposite.
Can you cite some? Actual feeding experiments and not self-reported diets?
You can easily find more yourself.
The thing in those studies, and many others, is how they handle the carbs intake. I would like very much to read about metabolic ward studies in the following terms
Baseline Macros and Overall Isocaloric Intake
Baseline blood levels (Cholesterol, Insuline, Lipid curve, triglycerides, etc)
Baseline BMI or any measure that could gave information of the subject energy reservoir.
Macros and Overall Isocaloric Intake during study and duration
Resulting blood levels after study and BMI.
If anyone can provide links would love to read that
Ray Cronise has done some interesting work on the body’s metabolic priorities:
In short, you’re basically right that eating fat along with carbs or protein will cause your body to store the fat and burn the other fuels it has available instead because storing fat is cheap.
Heart attack is caused by the "plaque" that "breaks off". So I'm thinking it wouldn't be a plaque with just the cholesterol alone. It needs the calcium to really turn dangerous.
I think everyone needs to do a CAC test. But it seems most doctors believe only the US president and astronauts are good enough for it.
This documentary on it is a good one:
I have had really bad luck finding a doctor that will discuss natural solutions. A nurse friend was suggesting I find a functional medicine doctor or lab scientist.
saturated fat intake <-> CVD
All the "blue zone" diets are low in animal protein and saturated fat:
Eat mostly plants, especially beans. And eat meat rarely, in small portions of 3 to 4 ounces. Blue Zoners eat portions this size just five times a month, on average.
High cholesterol --> higher rates of plaque deposition -> heart disease.
Inflammation --> plaque deposition that is highly sensitive to cholesterol levels --> heart disease.
No Inflammation --> no plaque deposition --> no heart disease.
If story one is true, inflammation is unimportant. If story two is true then inflammation is what's important and going after cholesterol levels is treating a secondary cause instead of the primary cause. One gets fooled by the dose/disease relationship in the context of inflammation.
You'd need to study the relationship directly. Otherwise, your ignoring the whole range of effects that eating saturated fat may have that would counteract CVD. You're just picking one effect (cholesterol) and making invalid transition from that to correlation between saturated fat and CVD.
Your rebuttal is good in as much as it points to study but surely the reappraisal of these more modern meta analyses carry some weight or are you refuting by appeal to authority?
The guardian article says the peer review had misgivings so obviously the epidemiological aspects of this are up in the air. I'm not on statins but I wouldn't stop if I was. I might however take heart that moderate exercise and med diet appears to have upsides?
What's worse, "studies" like these are used as excuse for people to adopt diets very high in saturated fat and animal protein which are not only disastrous for the environment and animal welfare, but have also been shown to be the absolutely worst diets in terms of overall mortality risk:
I believe that's the fancy terminology for "We fed people with substance X and blood marker Y went up", correct me if I'm wrong. How is that in any way reliable unless it's proven that elevated blood marker Y causes CVD? It's only reliable if you want to prove that food X causes elevated Y.
Also, I find it amusing that you're deriding observational studies, yet the study you're quoting is observational. And a big problem with a study like this is that it wouldn't discern between a high-protein diet consisting of bacon/sausages and one consisting of grass-fed beef. Processed meat contains all kind of shit, it's a major staple in people's diets and it's not surprising to me at all if people eating that have more health problems.
Of course the elephant in the room is that it's ecologically impossible to feed the Earth's population a diet high in animal protein so even if you have convinced yourself it's healthier it's really not an option for the long term.
One would also hope that the monstrous cruelty of industrial animal agriculture would factor into your considerations at least a little bit.
Simple, lock lots of people in a building, feed them the same thing for 50 years and then measure :) That's impossible, of course, which is why I try to take all these studies, no matter what the type, no matter which side of the argument they are on, with a monstrous grain of salt. When trying to find the perfect diet, I think it's better to look into the diet of our ancestors and to refer to the works of Dr. Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. What they did might not be considered technically "science" because it's not peer-reviewed, doesn't have confidence intervals, mortality rates and whatnot but I consider it much more valuable as they spent years on the field studying people's diets and their health, not sitting in a comfy chair measuring blood cholesterol levels.
Inuit lived practically on very fatty meat only. One can only imagine their LDL. Why weren't they dropping dead of cancer, diabetes and heart attacks at 30 years of age? Dr. Price says that in all his travels he didn't come upon a group that thrived on plant food only. If I remember correctly there was a community in the Swiss Alps that lived exclusively on wholegrain rye bread, cheese + some meat once a week and they were very healthy. That's was the diet closest to vegan that he described.
Of course, these days with all the nutrition science advancements, with the addition of supplements, it's may be possible to thrive as vegan but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig.
And yes, I'm well aware that feeding everyone animal protein is not sustainable in any way but that doesn't have much to do with the discussion whether animal protein is bad for your health or not. Given the problems with modern agriculture, it's questionable whether the Earth can sustain 9 billion vegans in the long term either.
I try to take into account the cruelty of industrial farming when choosing my food, at least to certain extent. However, you need to note that the very fact of my existence means hundreds/thousands of critters are being killed. From ecological point of view, the best option would be for me to kill myself, not become a vegan. I just have to draw the line somewhere.
IMO all creatures have a right to fight for their survival, including killing and eating meat if necessary. But humans don’t have to so why should we?
I checked all the studies in your link and didn't see anything to contradict the notion that they had healthy enough lives. First study is behind a paywall so it's hard to comment but the most damning thing in the abstract is "The mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined is not lower among the Inuit than in white comparison populations". Shouldn't it be significantly higher when you consider the copious amounts of "unhealthy" food they consume (allegedly 5-10 pounds of meat per day).
The paleopathology study involves a grand total of 3 mummies, that all died from trauma, 1 of which was 53 year old woman with signs of atherosclerosis but otherwise no evident heart problems, 1 apparently healthy young woman and 1 woman with severe heart and other health issues, some of which the researcher suggests are the result of a bacterial infection.
The Canadian Eskimos study mostly talks about ailments related to their way of life - worn teeth (which were still in excellent condition!!), snow blindness and the like. No mention of degenerative diseases. In fact you'll see a comparison between "traditional" Eskimos and "civilized" ones. If you intended to prove how unhealthy the traditional diet is, this study says just the opposite.
Doesn't saturated fat trigger inflammation? Because if I remember that correctly, then this is a "guns don't kill people, bullets do" argument.
Similarly, doesn't it also cause arterial stiffening? It is not the same process as arterial clogging but definitely makes it worse and is part of heart disease.
Again, I may be misremembering this - I could be confusing fat and meat, for example. Either way it boils down to "eat mostly plants"
Benford's law strikes again: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available
> It is time to shift the public health message in the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease away from measuring serum lipids and reducing dietary saturated fat.
It may be of interest.
The Mediterranean diet is a diet inspired by the eating habits of Greece, Southern Italy, and Spain in the 1940s and 1950s. The principal aspects of this diet include proportionally high consumption of olive oil, legumes, unrefined cereals, fruits, and vegetables, moderate to high consumption of fish, moderate consumption of dairy products (mostly as cheese and yogurt), moderate wine consumption, and low consumption of non-fish meat products.
Pasta is an essential item of Mediterranean Diet and Pizza or bread are the same thing, the discussion is more about making them with "whole grain" or "white, refined" flour.
Today common flours tend to be much more refined than traditional ones, so "real world" Mediterranean Diet (i.e. what actually people eat daily in Mediterranean countries following the tradition) misses some ingredients of the "whole grain" flours, and the use sparingly warning in the "Harvard Food pyramid":
is only for those items made of "white" flour.
As a Greek person, I'm a bit surprised that pulses are rarely mentioned in what is supposed to be "my" diet. We eat lots of beans, chick peas and lentils in Greece- "fasolada", a soup of dried beans, is our national dish.
What do you mean?
Do you need a (say) weekly example?
Mind you this would greatly depend on where you live, and which products you can find (and the actual quality/originality of those products).
Personally I am an advocate of the Mediterranean Diet (not really as "coded" by the various scientists, but more like traditional eating), but you need to have "real", "good" ingredients not the kind of stuff that you can normally buy at a supermarket - say - in the UK (with no offence intended to the British or to their supermarkets, of course, only an example) if you want to have the "right" experience, at least regarding taste, but I suspect that also the (supposed) health benefits come from fresh, genuine ingredients.
And I would add - OT but connected to other recent discussions on HN about Vitamin D and sun - that most probably part of the generic Mediterranean good health might come from eating "right" while living in the "right" climate.
Do people fry food in olive oil along the Mediterranean or is it only eaten fresh? In fact, I'm not even certain that I can buy olive oil anywhere locally, but rather everything labeled olive oil may be something else.
There is, however, the traditional Okinawa diet. This is much better defined (a much small geographic region), and know to be one of the healthiest in the world. There's this book Blue Zones, that talks about this.
I bet that would be equally anti-inflammatory, and be good for heart health.
Processing isn't all bad. In fact, the most basic processing brought great gains to humanity: Cooking. It made meat less dangerous to eat and frees up nutrients in some vegetables. Sometimes, processing is what allows us to eat a food (acorns, for example) or lets us get through the winter (drying, fermenting, and whatnot).
Similarly, freezing foods isn't such a bad thing. Be it freezing fruits and vegetables or freezing leftover home made soup. You don't need lots of preservatives nor special ingredients to do this either at home nor with commercially prepared foods.
Milk products are keen to be processed as well. Cheeses, yogurts, and so on aren't bad things to eat. Pasteurization keeps milk available longer.
Processed doesn't mean bad, its just a few of the things we've come up with aren't so wonderful.
The question is why I bring up the processing that we make good use of, actually. :)
Looking for a "good for health" diet: see WFPB.
> Finally out intestine is too long, and not acidic enough to meat, it may rot in our intestine causing inflammation.
These claims don't even seem remotely scientific, lol.
There are so many studies on this.
Your right here. You may call rotting on all things passing our colon. But rotting meat is just a little more "dangerous" I guess. Again, your right: no science to back up this claim I could find.
As opposed to our cousins the apes, who have larger colon and shorter small intestine because they evolved on a plant-based diet.
Would you say this kind of chart is not true?
Just being inquisitive here... I want to learn.