But for some reason overwhelming majority of scientists claim that consuming meat in quantities we do in North America is not good for health and environment on multiple dimensions: cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, infections, kidney disease, liver disease, cattle waste, deforestation and many others.
HH & authors attitude towards this article really reminds me some cringe movements like anti-vaxers or some other shit, where people choose what they want first and then find confirmation for it.
It acknowledges the research connecting red and processed meat with cancer and suggests further study be performed to understand the exact mechanisms involved.
If you have any references from a second source that appears to discredit the WHO report, that would be more interesting.
Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease.
As there is no scientific evidence to prove that meat-causes-(bad thing), and as I share no such belief, theory or hypothesis why would I deliberatly want to set out to create an experiment to prove or disprove such a thing?
I like eating meat. I'm healthy eating meat. No scientific evidence exists to suggest the contrary. I would have to be pretty silly to waste my time trying to prove otherwise.
Does your skepticism (which by the way does not really disprove anything what the scientist who wrote this article says, and rather simply tries to discredit it) also extend to these "overwhelming majority of scientists"? Because if it did you will understand that nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here(1) and here(2)], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions.
Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one.
There's research that emerging that is it's what you don't eat that - it's people who are eating meat + other bad things that causes problems and then allows the connection to meat as possibly being linked as the cause; there's barely any research of people just consuming meats and animal products.
Two videos I recommend everyone watch:
Dr. Georgia Ede - 'Our Descent into Madness: Modern Diets and the Global Mental Health Crisis' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlVfwJ6RQU
Dr. Jason Fung - 'Therapeutic Fasting - Solving the Two-Compartment Problem' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
Imaging meat is fine and it's when you hurt the body with other harmful foods that then causes your body to not function as well to process meat and other foods properly - and where other systems to clear/clean the body aren't or can't function optimally (think inflammation, insulin, excess of food/availability of calories, etc) - and not specifically because of the meat?
It's hard to know if oneself is ideology or propaganda, we've all been bombarded by things like government sponsored (influenced by food industrial complex) Food Pyramids, etc. our whole lives - or by fad diets looking to make money and marketing their own flavour of diet. The list goes on. Real research will happen that cuts through the confusion, people are waking up.
Harvard's finding is consistent with the drawdown.org research that found plant-rich diets are a top solution to climate change. (4th of 80).
Joe Rogan hosted a nice debate between two scientists in the field, one of whom was a strict vegan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtqCBimr6U.
I would assume a priori that the vegan side would be more widely supported amongst the experts (to say nothing of its merit), only on the basis of veganism being more congruent with the standard compassion of postmodernism.
Also, while cleanliness is absolutely important, over cleanliness appears to be a potential cause of asthma and allergies in general.
Drawdown.org found that plant-based diets are a top solution for climate change-- something that wasn't a concern 200k years ago.
Harvard research also found that we need to eliminate beef and dairy to avoid climate catastrophe.
Mother nature does have a good filter for harmful things: If humans don't address our contributions to climate change, we may be the thing that's filtered!
Once you take out infant and childhood mortality you can see that rising over time.
You can see the absurdity of veganism as they proudly support locally sourced organic food but their diet makes "locally sourced organic food" an impossibility. A vegan anywhere on earth will die without importing avocados, all kinds of seeds, vegetation, etc from all over the world and still be lacking nutrients and have to resort to lab processed supplements. Real "natural" and "organic".
And omnivore ( a diet of every human society ) can have diet from locally sources. You can have a homestead almost anywhere and as an omnivore survive just from your own homestead. A vegan homestead can't exist anywhere because you can't grow all the necessary vegetation and supplements to survive.
Veganism is one of these great lies that seem "good" on surface but dig a little deeper and people will see what an absurd notion it is.
An overview: https://youtu.be/Hvdgz536ZLE
2) A vegan diet is very healthy.
Both these videos have references in their notes.
But do we grow enough plants to eat a vegan diet? A vegan diet requires a rather narrow set of plants in much higher quantities than we normally consume, eg beans, soy etc. You can't just look at the calories we get from corn or grain and say that we have enough.
>2) A vegan diet is very healthy.
As long as you supplement B12, maybe.
As far as supplementing B12, I say better safe than sorry, but even that is not straight forward when you look into it.
Everything from "fat is bad" or "cholesterol is bad" for you has been pretty much walked back.
And nonsense like "cereal or orange juice is part of a healthy breakfast" are "science" funded by the cereal and orange industries. It's marketing pretending to be a science.
Now the vegan charlatans selling their eating disorder to young and impressionable kids. The saddest part is that it is mostly young females falling for when they are at a critical stage of development. Almost all of them will leave veganism eventually but the curse of veganism will stay with them for the rest of their lives. In 30 years, we are going to have an epidemic of medical issues like osteoporosis, especially among women.
Balanced diet. It's simple. An omnivore diet that was part of ever human society.
You may be interested in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...
High fructose intake in particular leads to a lot of disruption, although increased and continuous carbohydrate and intake of refined oils is seeing more evidence of being a large impact as well. Most of my reading the past couple years seems to indicate that minimizing overly refined foods in general and reducing snacking and increasing fasting cycles (intermittent and extended) are some of the better changes we (as a people) could make beyond sugar specifically and refined foods in general.
edit: note: the only organ that can really process fructose is the liver, and in quantities often consumed, the effect is worse than alcoholism.
Regarding refined grains, do you have a take on house-hold breads? I mean, the breads are highly processed, and yet I do not know of an alternative for sandwiches and the like.
Personally I stick to mostly greens, eggs, fish, meat M-W-F, fast Su-Tu-Th and more flexible in terms of what I eat (bread/pasta, fruit, etc) on Saturdays.
M-W-F, fat coffee with protein in the AM, lunch, dinner keto macros.
Tu-Th, fat coffee in the AM, only tea and water/saltwater the reset of the day.
Saturday, eat 2 meals of whatever (within calories, usually under 150-200g carbs)
Sunday, dry or water fast.
There’s something for everyone! Just decide what you want to eat, search until you find evidence in favor of that diet, and then stop looking.
It's totally unclear to me what that sentence is supposed to mean.
>I'm not opposed to a mostly vegetable sourced diet. A lot of people do it for moral/ethical reasons, but hard science it isn't and has never been.
(That sounds to me (an 'ethical vegan') akin to "I'm not opposed to a mostly non-slave workforce. A lot of people have renounced slavery for moral/ethical reasons, but hard science it isn't and has never been.")
Maybe the "it" of the "hard science it isn't" half of the sentence refers the 'mostly vegetable sourced diet' of people who are vegetarian for reasons of their own health, which the rest of your comment seems to talk about exclusively , but you didn't make that clear. It seems probable that you meant to claim that "there's no scientific consensus that a vegetarian diet is healthier" (i.e. for humans). I won't comment on whether that's true or not, but just note that what you actually said was rather different. I think. It was confusing.
"IT" is vegetarian/vegan diet as being healthier. It started off as a religious PoV and mostly still is. There's never been a closed clinical trial that showed that a vegetarian diet is any better than an omnivore or carnivore diet. Most studies already have a lot of factors and bias.
The "ethical vegan" is one who chooses to do so, because they don't want to be involved in the taking of animal life. This is generally a personal and moral reason. I don't have anything bad to say about someone that chooses this so long as they aren't trying to sway others out of a religious-like zealotry.
Organic is grown without pesticides at all, but given higher prices it does not compete with gmo-non-organic or non-gmo-non-organic.
For non-organic food, both GMO and non-GMO plants are treated with various pesticides because those pests aren't removing themselves. The GMOs are treated with a smaller number of higher doses of glyphosate earlier in the plant's life, and no other pesticides. Non-GMO plants are treated with lower doses of many varieties of pesticides across a longer period of time. If anything, non-GMO products should have more pesticide residue on them, and those pesticides are less studied.
I don't think that is true:
>...Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops.
>...According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by this?
Tom Bilyeu and HVMN channels on youtube also have some great content. DietDoctor.com is another good resource.
edit: if someone could explain the downvotes?
edit2: you know, I didn't have a lot of time to look up a bunch of stuff... I provided what I could... I didn't mean to link to the image, but an article with it, and in the end, whatever... the vegetarians have spoken and down modded anything disagreeing into oblivion without any counter argument with citation, or any actual experiments confirming their own bias.
I mean this file has literally no informational value - it's an opinion of unidentified persons based on unidentified research data. What does this have to do with your earlier assertion about GMO corn being allergenic?
Heart disease in later life was unlikely to be a substantial downside compared with the nutrient and caloric density of the meal throughout most of human history. Now, with much easier access to a wide range of foods, and a much higher chance of surviving to be killed by heart disease, that may no longer be the case.
Combined with reducing snacking in general (2-3 meals a day) and a longer 3-5 day fast once a quarter, we'd all be better off regardless of the macro profiles.
I do feel that a lot of people getting more calories from protein than fat is a bit lopsided though. A lot of natural sources of highly available protein are accompanied with 0.5-3g of fat per g of protein. Meaning calories from fat should be higher than protein (9c:g vs 4c:g).
It might be true even today, let alone in the caveman era.
Maybe our advantage was that we, unlike other primates, had a lot of individuals even only making it to 40 years old in the distant past before they got eaten by tigers or succumbed to all manner of mosquito-borne diseases et cetera.
I'm not saying never have certain things... but there's a huge difference to one snack/dessert with refined sugar once or twice a month, and several times a day. We're also consuming FAR more available simple carbohydrates in general from strains selected for flavor preferences that coincide to higher absorption as well, and more significantly higher yields. We couldn't feed the world without GMO corn, soy and wheat. That doesn't mean they should be preferred when you can make better choices and have a more rounded diet.