Here you go: Liver, heart, kidney, eggs, canned mackerel/sardines/oysters/clams. Hard to beat these-- they usually range from dirt cheap to cheap-when-on-sale/discount.
I don’t know if anyone reading this will find this useful but I just now discovered canned mackerel in olive oil as a meat source and it is incredible. It almost feels like taking an antidepressant. Some magic about eating the fish that I have never experienced taking omega-3 pills or fish oil pills. I even started looking better and my brother noticed I looked healthier.
If you don't get the same effect from salmon it might be because they have a large amount of phosphatidylserine which is a anti-inflammatory/immune suppressant.
Try adding some chilli sauce. Mixed with the olive oil and fish it's amazing. After experimenting with quite a lot of chilli sauce with mackerel/oil over a period of years, I really recommend "Encona West Indian Hot Pepper Sauce".
If the 'sunflower oil' etc versions of the mackerel are available it also mixes extremely well with those and they can be cheaper than the olive oil tins.
Agree on all counts except the sunflower oil. In general, avoid seed/vegetable oils, especially if they are used in high-heat cooking as in this example.
Vegetable/seed oils are not whole foods or naturally stable. They are modern frankenfoods made from leftover agri-waste via industrial chemical processes. Under high heat these oils become highly oxidated and not the kind of stuff you want your body to deal with.
Comparison of the oxidative stability of soybean and sunflower oils enriched with herbal plant extracts (Kozowlski, Gruczyńska, Chem Zvesti. 2018; 72(10): 2607–2615.)
Canned mackerel generally has mercury at levels near that of salmon.
King Mackerel is known to contain a lot of mercury, but that is a different species of Mackerel which is quite large (in general, larger predatory fish have greater concentrations of mercury).
As long as you are eating the tinned Mackerels, the kind which are small like sardines, I don't think you have significant mercury risk. Canned/tinned mackerel and sardines are considered some of the safest and most sustainable fish you can consume.
Thank you! I plan to buy some after work. I want to try to incorporate fish into my diet. Final question: raw or cooked? Does cooking deplete some of the good stuff inside?
Cooking usually changes some of the vitamin/nutrient content, but honestly if you like cooked fish, cook it. If you prefer sushi/sashimi, go for that. With diet try not to let perfection get in the way of obvious improvements. I could get way more nutrients by eating liver raw, but y'know, um no thanks.
Close your eyes and pretend it is what it says on the tin. Any kind of processed fish, even if they aren't explicitly adulterating it with something else, is going to have a bunch of other stuff caught up in the nets that winds up in the can.
I'd guess rice & lentils might be cheaper (especially since they be can bought in bulk & stored), more nutritious, more readily available world wide and more sustainable.
Rice, lentils, beans, all are much less nutrient dense than most animal foods.
It's important to account for the fact that plant foods often come with antinutrients (lectins, phytates, oxalates) which block absorption of vitamins. Most plant sources also supply only incomplete amino acid profiles.
Also, plant foods often have their vitamins amounts listed in the form of precursors and not the bio-available kind that your body can utilize without a conversion process. So, iron in spinach? It's not heme-iron, so it's not so great when you consider the above along with a high oxalate payload. Vitamin A in carrots? It in carotinoids such as beta-carotine rather than retinol which is the format your body uses. Your body prefers bioavailable forms of vitamins and nutrients, rather than spending energy converting to usable formats.
This is why animal foods are so hard to beat for nutrient density. E.g., herbivore animals graze on plants, converting the nutrients into animal-appropriate formats and fuller-spectrum proteins.
Everybody is different. Some people tolerate fiber well. Others have gut issues (e.g. diversticulitis, colitis) or overdo it and end up with digestive problems.
From what I've read, the fiber guidelines are basically made-up and not based on any formal nutritional controlled studies. When you think about it, fiber is literally undigestible plant material. It seems a bit strange for your health/body to depend on consumption of something which cannot be digested.
Nothing strange about hunter gatherers evolve eating a lot of fiber. Think about the other extreme, what if you took in all your energy and nutrients through fluids. How well would your bowels work with nothing in them but liquids? I know my bowel movements are much easier after I've eaten some salad than after a low fiber meal.
There's plenty of articles about fiber, here's just a short list I just found.
I'm talking about whether or not they are essential. I eat very little plants and don't have any problems. I also practice fasting from time to time, and I don't have any problems with no food of any kind for days at a time. Go figure.
I've never heard of anyone dying from lack of fiber. Have you? Is there a medical condition for this?
I'm sure that some hunter gatherers ate plants containing fiber. We are omnivores and able to get calories from many different sources depending on availability in our environment. That still doesn't mean that fiber is a necessity or requirement.
"This article reviews the physiology of ingestion of fiber and defecation. It also looks into the impact of dietary fiber on various colorectal diseases. A strong case cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Neither has fiber been found to be useful in chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome. It is also not useful in the treatment of perianal conditions. The fiber deficit - diverticulosis theory should also be challenged. The authors urge clinicians to keep an open mind about fiber. One must be aware of the truths and myths about fiber before recommending it.
... a strong recommendation cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Despite a lack of evidence however, current recommendations are still to increase dietary fiber. In the latest position statement of the American Dietetic Association[3], increasing dietary fiber is still promoted to protect against colon cancer despite stating that there is no proof of efficacy in this regard
...
Whilst it is not the intention of the authors to totally discourage fiber in the diet and the use of fiber supplements, there does not seem to be much use for fiber in colorectal diseases. We, however, want to emphasize that what we have all been made to believe about fiber needs a second look. We often choose to believe a lie, as a lie repeated often enough by enough people becomes accepted as the truth. We urge clinicians to keep an open mind. While there are some benefits of a diet high in natural fiber, one must know the exact indications before recommending such a diet. Myths about fiber must be debunked and truth installed."
Nope. Lack of fiber is not a cause of colon cancer.
A more objective view of the science is:
“...the interactions between meat, gut and health outcomes such as CRC [colorectal cancer] are very complex and are not clearly pointing in one direction... Epidemiological and mechanistic data on associations between red and processed meat intake and CRC are inconsistent and underlying mechanisms are unclear... Better biomarkers of meat intake and of cancer occurrence and updated food composition databases are required for future studies.”
I don't know why you feel so strongly about this subject that you return to it four days later, but she is not an objective expert. She sounds like yet another low carb high fat preacher that wants to sell books, and she makes a flippant remark about how you emit methane after eating beans while "the vegans are blaming the cows". Oh, and she seems to eat plenty of fiber herself:
> I eat fruit most days, but not too much and because I like it, not because I think it is good for me. I eat a lot of vegetables/salads – locally grown/in season wherever possible. [...]. I do eat starchy carbs – just not daily. I enjoy porridge (plain oats and whole milk) – especially in the winter. I like brown rice and (veggie) curries/chilli.
Even if you don't believe in or care about any health benefits fiber may have, two benefits are immediate after eating them: they fill you up and make you feel full without containing any energy which helps mediate calorie consumption, and they make bowel movements easier, at least if you drink enough water. I believe most people would feel better if they ate more fiber instead of red meat and fries.
> There is so much wrong with your post that I don't even know where to begin.
There is so much going on in these posts that I don't even know where to begin.
Above poster makes claims. I'm like "I don't know nutrition, but this sounds good". You make counter-claims. "Those sound good too".
Crap. Now I can start digging into your respective sources...but of course those will just be people making claims too, they just get different sources of authority.
This happens everywhere anymore. Do guns improve safety? Are immigrants bad for the economy? Do immigrants commit more crime? Is climate change real?
With the Alabama abortion ban in the news I looked into rates, but couldn't find good numbers. (Superficially it looks like there are 10x the number of abortions than infant mortality, but good luck figuring out how many of those abortions were purely voluntary and not due to health reasons).
Trying not to be misled feels both futile and exhausting. Not ripping on your post at all, just reacting to the pent-up emotions it evoked.
Actually, one option is to consider the dietary trends common to blue zones-cultures of the world with the highest rates of centenarians. Their diets share plant based, whole foods as a commonality. Some of these diets include animals, but sparingly. A fun read for this was “how not to die.” But there are many sources of info on plant based whole food diets.
Edit-the conception that any animal food would be more economical than plants/whole foods is suspect in itself. I’m familiar with the societal meme of “eating beans and rice to save money.” Never heard similar for animal foods.
I've tried both ends of the spectrum (hard paleo/keto, and vegan) and find, that, n=1, for me, mostly plants, a small amount (10-20% roughly) super-nutrient dense, high quality animal, works the best long-term. There are benefits to going to the extremes temporarily but I think what Blue Zones highlights is that these are long-term sustainable diets and not fad diets designed to (detox | reduce weight | build muscle | etc).
The Blue Zones diets are also unique in that they're not "ancestral" but are currently working today.
Roughly opposite percentages for me. I eat about 80% animal (protein + fat). My plants come from liver and onions, and eat lentils (for molybdenum) and some tomatoes once a week. If I want a crunchy cracker for paté, I'll eat some was wasa flaxseed flatbreads.
I don't hold much stock in the Blue Zones. There are regional/genetic and lifestyle differences in different parts of the world, particularly in isolated places. On the other hand, if you look at Hong Kong, it has the highest per-capita meat consumption in the world and the highest longetivity. I'm not implying that meat is the reason for their longetivity-- just point out that longevity is more complicated than the food in your diet.
Your Blue Zones comment doesn’t account for Loma Linda, California. Not isolated, generic American suburbia. Low smoking, low drinking, high vegetarian.
You have a very odd diet. It may work for you. You may feel decent. But it’s not backed by the scientific at all. The American Heart Association, among others, have embraced a vegetarian/vegan (ideally full vegan) diet approach for optimal health.
What are your numbers? Blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI, etc?
I'm very fit and in excellent health. 50 year old male, a performance athlete, 6'4" 230 lbs, 14% body fat (i.e., lean and muscular). BP is 120/65, lipid panel is:
Total: 235
HDLC: 69
LDL: 154
TRIG: 58
I got a Coronary Calcium Scan (CAC) this year and my score was zero, i.e., no arterial calcification. This is a far superior indicator of heart/cv health than a lipid panel.
Nutrition is a backwater of poor science, mostly backed by epidemiological survey studies rather than randomized control trials. Eating meat is a proxy or associative marker for people with poor lifestyle habits eating a (terrible) standard american diet. The health orgs are usually political animals, esp the AHA who still believes that dietary cholesterol is a cause of heart disease, that polyunsaturated oils are good for heart health, etc. They look at nutrition as follows: "Let's see, you consume sugar soft drinks and beer, you eat hot dogs, bacon-cheeseburgers, pizza, cheesesteaks, french fries, wings, donuts, waffles and pancakes, eggs and sausage, candy bars and ice cream. You don't exercise, don't sleep well, you're obese, pre-diabetic and show signs of cardiovascular disease. THE PROBLEM HERE IS YOU NEED TO CUT ALL THAT UNHEALTHY MEAT OUT OF YOUR DIET!!"
The whole world is developing an anti-meat bias, and it's going to come at the cost of our collective health. About 60% of Western diet is plant-based already, in the form of sugar, flour, seed-oils and processed foods. Continuing to push plant-based food means that the obesity/T2 diabetes epidmic is going to explode even further over the next 15-20 years. If the meat industry hadn't f*ed up so royally with factory farming and mad cow disease, I wonder if meat would be less demonized today.
It's usually best to start out with your goals. What is your primary goal? Weight loss, fitness, longetivity?
If it's weight loss, there are generally three (successful) ways to go about it:
1. Change nothing in your diet, but eat fewer (but larger) meals per day while maintaining a calorie deficit for your age/gender/weight. This is known as intermittent fasting. It may or may not work for you.
2. Eat mostly plants and/or low-fat meats such as chicken (and low fat fish). Plants are carby, so you'll need to keep your total calories from fat under 10% or the plant carbs will block fat burning. This diet tends to be a difficult adjustment for many, since it is a bit like eating like a rabbit.
3. Eat as few carbs as possible, and get your calories from predominantly meat (aka carnivore diet) or fat (keto diet) or a mix. Aim for > 65% calories from fat (while still keeping under daily calorie expenditure). Both carnivor or keto lend themselves well to lipolysis aka fat burning, especially if you also layer in intermittent fasting from item #1 in this list. If you don't like meat/dairy or fat, this option is pretty much dead-in-the-water.
There are a ton of sources for all of the above approaches and their various rules, tips and pitfalls. I recommend trying each for 6-8 weeks and seeing which diets feel like something you could see yourself living with for the next 12-18 months.
Do whatever feels good and keeps your energy up and mind sharp. You may experience a significant positive shift with a new diet but when you feel like it's not helping, or even hurting, don't blindly stick to it - re-evaluate and change things up.
I personally don't have the microbiome for beans (not to mention the high phytate [antinutrient] concentration), but I do eat macadamia nuts because they have a good omega 6:3 ratio (ideally close to 1:1 for Americans because our diet is generally very high in omega 6 from vegetable oils).
It is certainly possible to do keto completely plant based but you'll be eating a lot of macadamias, avocados and coconut oil, and a lot of leafy greens with maybe some low-sugar citrus like lime and lemon mixed in for flavor. Don't think that's sustainable for very long but could be a good cleanse. Not a plant keto expert (or any expert, or a doctor, or nutritionist, or lawyer, or your lawyer....so do your research.)
I agree with QuantumAphid's suggestions for you, especially around intermittent fasting. IF is like your body's garbage collection process - stop eating long enough (ideally 16 hours) and your body starts to divert metabolic processes towards cleanup and restoration [1] in addition to burning fat for weight loss [2]. A combination of this and choosing a relatively low carb diet with high quality (organic) plant foods is great. For animal foods, go with pasture raised/grass fed - you want your food eating the food it naturally eats, not some processed, bastardized grain byproduct out of a freight car shipped from ADM or Cargill.
For now and the foreseeable future, minimize fish. If you really want fish, go with wild-caught Alaskan salmon or small fish like another poster said. Sardines are great. Stay at the bottom of the food chain... but monitor mercury levels over time. Seems like Pacific ocean mercury is on the rise from Chinese/Indian coal burning and Atlantic is finally on the decline from coal plants in the US closing down.
I will have to strongly caution against going long term carnivore or keto, however. Regardless of the quality of your meat products, animals still have metabolic processes that concentrate toxins, especially higher in the food chain. You need to set your body up for success by giving it a varied diet with nutrients from different kinds of food. This is anecdata on my part, but a combination of plants, which tend to detoxify and animals, which tend to nourish is my preferred long-term diet. It's not a popular stance out there because only extremes sell these days, but I am in favor of a balanced diet, a little of everything, mostly plants, and high-quality animal organ meats. Ruthlessly eliminate processed/fast and most packaged foods. My wife says this: is it food that your great grandmother would recognize as food? If not, don't eat it.
My wife and I have tried the extremes and have harmed ourselves, and had to recover from deficits. Each camp has their "just stick to it" reasons; there are many well-meaning people on the internet that are pro-vegan or pro-keto/paleo/carnivore and you have to assume that there is a need to continue getting clicks. There also may be a strong survivorship bias out there... however, the vegan survivorship bias is starting to show cracks (google "Rawvana" for details).
"I will have to strongly caution against going long term carnivore or keto, however."
I tend to agree here. Again it gets back to your goals. (Strict) Carnivore and (strict) keto are great tools to achieve your diet/fitness goals, but I don't really consider these diets in their strict form to be "maintenance" diets. Once you achieve your goals I would relax things and reintroduce more diversity of foods. On the other hand, if keto/carnivore is the only thing that seems to work for you, I'd keep doing it and just listen carefully to your body.
"Regardless of the quality of your meat products, animals still have metabolic processes that concentrate toxins, especially higher in the food chain."
I recommend eating primarily ruminants (cattle, bison, sheep, goats, deer, moose, etc.) and small fish / shellfish. With regard to ruminants, these animals are plant-eating herbivores and are on the bottom of the food-chain-- they are "predators" of only plants. Biomagnification of toxins is more of an issue for consumption of omnivores (e.g., pig, chicken, dunno... bear meat?) and predators (e.g., tuna, shark, swordfish)-- the animals which eat other animals.
"You need to set your body up for success by giving it a varied diet with nutrients from different kinds of food. ... I am in favor of a balanced diet, a little of everything, mostly plants, and high-quality animal organ meats."
I like this advice very much. I'm not much of a detoxification proponent, I don't think there's much science to support a lot of the kooky practices out there. I think your body is surprisingly good at sequestering and eliminating toxins from your system. If you eat a natural, whole-food and simple/unprocessed diet which is varied (including plant and animal sources), this is going to give you great odds of being metabolically fit and free of toxins. Once you get that down, I'd also be sure to try to address other lifestyle factors such as sleep, stress, exercise, personal connections, etc.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was asking as a “proof of existence”. Is it possible and what would a plant based keto diet look like. As a curiosity.
I have zero inclination and no interest in meat and/or keto. Thank you though.
Specifically for diet, I feel exactly like this every time I try to get nutrition advice, online or elsewhere. It seems like everyone disagrees, but in the end I don't have a concrete answer to "how do I not die" and have to choose something as eating is an obligation. Eventually I decided to stick to simple foods like lentils on a daily basis and to stay away from processed things. I feel hungrier on average, but I guess it's a tradeoff for not dying too early. I tend to remember Michael Pollan's mantra: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
> I don't have a concrete answer to "how do I not die"
Michael Greger, MD does: How Not to Die [0]. Basically, to save you from reading the book, go vegan. He has a great cookbook too based on the advice in the book [1]. His nutritionfacts.org site in general is an excellent, science/fact-based resource.
Not so. A person can get a complete range of essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals by eating a balanced and varied diet (which includes plants and animal foods).
Some diets, including a standard american diet but especially exclusionary diets like vegan, vegetarian, keto, carnivore/paleo diets can have major nutrient gaps. Those types of diets require careful planning of meals and/or supplementation to address gaps.
Magnesium isn't hard to get. Vitamin D and EPA/DHA are easy to get if you eat animal foods (esp fatty fish, liver, cheese and eggs).
Probiotics is a vague category and hasn't been shown to be necessary in a diet. Medical science understands so little about the gut-biome that you should be extremely suspicious of anyone claiming to be an expert. The advice usually boils down to general platitudes like,"Fermented foods and fiber feed our gut bacteria and is good for overall gut health." without defining what any of that means or how it works. I guess other animals/omnivores that don't eat fermented foods or fiber must really be undercutting their lifespan potential.
If you want to see what the term "skinny fat" means, I invite you to look at the hard-core vegans, especially the fruitarians and others who look like their lifeforce is slowly draining away.
It's a shame from a nutrition standpoint, but veganism is NOT a diet for optimal nutrition. It is an interesting diet from an ethics standpoint, I grant them that. And despite the long-term wasting away effects, veganism is superior to a standard american diet loaded with sugar, heavily processed carbs and vegetable/seed oils.
I ended up having to go with something, because not eating isn't an option. But Pollan doesn't really specify exactly what to eat on a day to day basis. It's only a general principal. I guess having to plan everything out and decide for oneself is a challenge, but also a skill people should learn eventually to stay healthy.
Sometimes I kind of wish I knew someone who I know is healthy so I could ask about precisely what they eat for each meal, what kind of things they aim for buying at market, etc. Not to just copy, but to use as one source of info. I feel clueless when it comes to this kind of thing.
When you get right down to it, the only plausible
evidence to suggest that red meat might be risky to human
colon health is contained in two, that’s TWO, human
studies, both of which were very small and poorly
designed, and therefore unable to give us useful
information about the effects of red meat on cancer risk.
These studies are inconclusive at best, and worthless at
worst.
I know that HackerNews has a vegan/ vegetarian bias in the recent years if not all the way back to 2010[1], however fortunately that seems to be changing, as evidenced by the parent comment by QuantumAphid saying "Rice, lentils, beans, all are much less nutrient dense than most animal foods." still at the top of this thread.
> a “zero carb” pseudoscience follower
Laymen like you often use science and rhetoric to advance a dietary agenda. What's hilarious is that you are not actually interested in advancing scientific knowledge. Do you read studies in detail enough to critique them[2]? Find out its faults? Nope.
Nevermind that calling me a "pseudoscience follower" amounts to personal attack, and is prohibited in Hacker News - but you have no idea what lead me to this way of eating. And why don't you take out your anonymous mask?
> Your diet is accelerating your cancer risk.
This is nothing but fear mongering. If meat is so carcinogenic, why was cancer so uncommon until the last century or so? We are not eating any more meat now than we did a hundred years ago, yet cancer incidence is skyrocketing. So, why do we believe that meat causes cancer?
There have been numerous research studies claiming to tie red meat to cancer (particularly colon cancer), however, these were weak epidemiological studies, and are not representative of results in the field as a whole. The fact is that studies of meat and cancer yield very mixed results. Many studies show no connection at all between meat and cancer, and some studies even show a protective benefit. There is simply no solid scientific evidence to support the belief that red meat increases cancer risk.
This did not stop the World Health Organization (WHO) from proclaiming to the planet in October 2015 that red and processed meats cause cancer. Unfortunately, the WHO report is all smoke and mirrors[3].
> Please be aware of that.
I'm more than aware of people like with an anti-meat agenda arousing fear in public minds. It is no wonder that nutritional science is in the state that it currently is.
Nutrient density and bioavailability are two very different things. Kale is extremely nutrient dense but as the parent poster has pointed out, the anti-nutrients [1] reduce the absorption of said nutrients.
You can take kale into a lab and determine that it has so much of nutrient X and Y but in reality, do you absorb it?
"This article reviews the physiology of ingestion of fiber and defecation. It also looks into the impact of dietary fiber on various colorectal diseases. A strong case cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Neither has fiber been found to be useful in chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome. It is also not useful in the treatment of perianal conditions. The fiber deficit - diverticulosis theory should also be challenged. The authors urge clinicians to keep an open mind about fiber. One must be aware of the truths and myths about fiber before recommending it.
... a strong recommendation cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Despite a lack of evidence however, current recommendations are still to increase dietary fiber. In the latest position statement of the American Dietetic Association[3], increasing dietary fiber is still promoted to protect against colon cancer despite stating that there is no proof of efficacy in this regard
...
Whilst it is not the intention of the authors to totally discourage fiber in the diet and the use of fiber supplements, there does not seem to be much use for fiber in colorectal diseases. We, however, want to emphasize that what we have all been made to believe about fiber needs a second look. We often choose to believe a lie, as a lie repeated often enough by enough people becomes accepted as the truth. We urge clinicians to keep an open mind. While there are some benefits of a diet high in natural fiber, one must know the exact indications before recommending such a diet. Myths about fiber must be debunked and truth installed."
"Plant foods are vastly more nutritious than animal sources."
Well, the question I responded to was about inexpensive nutrient-dense foods. Based on this organ meats, eggs and fish/shellfish beats plant foods all to hell.
"Where is the fiber..."
Fiber is nutrient-dense? Nope, it's not. It's not even digestible by the body. Why start out a criticism by leading with your worst card? Let's move on to the rest of your hand...
"Or the vast array of phytochemicals, polyphenols/flavonoids"
What value do these supply? Serious question. I know there is a lot of interest in them as an area of study, but they sound like the hope/hype behind anti-oxidants, for which the science has not panned-out favorably.
"the WHO has recently pointed out that processed/red meat is carcinogenic."
Their recommendation is based on epidemiological surveys, not randomized control trials. I could just as easily point to studies showing higher cancer rates of vegetarians [0] versus meat eaters. But it doesn't matter, because virtually all nutrition studies are based on questionnaires where they ask "How much steak did you eat last week?" or "What percentage of your total diet was leafy greens last month?" which is about as reliable as you might expect. It is extremely difficult to arrive at meaningful conclusions from epidemiological studies, because there are so many built-in confounders and biases. Even then, the associations are extremely weak (For comparison, the p-value of relative risk for smoking causing lung cancer is: 8.96. The p-value of meat causing cancer is... 1.5. [1] Values under 2.0 are typically considered tenuous/weak.). It's fairly ridiculous to believe that animal flesh, something that has been a major component of our diet since pre-human times (2 million years +) is detrimental to our health. By contrast, humans incorporated more plants and grains in the last 12k years-- relatively recent, about 350 generations ago from an evolutionary perspective.
"I don't think you understand what "nutrient density" means."
Sure I do. I _also_ bothered to read the definition put forward by the poster I was responding to [2]. Thanks for the link to your preferred nutrition expert, Dr. Furhman, but I'll pass-- by all appearances the guy is an alt-science (veggies cure cancer!!) anti-vaxx detoxification quack [3].
Look, I replied to a post about cheap (but healthy) nutrient-dense foods. I wasn't trying to trigger the plant-based religious fanatics. I never told anyone not to eat plants, and I think everyone should experiment and keep pushing to find what works for their personal health. Over the last 6-8 years I've done mediterranean (DASH), vegetarian, keto, and paleo/carnivore.
I'm happy to continue the conversation but I think you're the one who could benefit from a bit more homework, particularly on the specific question I was replying to.
Google said: a rhythmical throbbing of the arteries as blood is propelled through them, typically as felt in the wrists or neck.
edit: No need for the downvotes guys, I was genuinely curious. I bet not everyone knows pulses are legumes. Also OP used "pulse" in the singular, which most people (I think?) understand as the definition I pasted from Google.
I love pairing my legumes with greens. Cabbage would be good too. Potatoes tend to agree more with my physiology than rice, too. The more “intact” your rice is the better.
Probably the best food you can put in your body, bar none.
It depends what you like. Most people don't care for organ meats, which is why they're so cheap. In general, any of those organs from cattle/bison, sheep, goats, pigs, or poultry are great. My favorite liver is bison liver (you can order it online, but it's $10 for 8 ounces, not so cheap.). Those of you who prefer something closer to steak, try any kind of heart. Beef heart is great and super cheap ($1 lb or less?), but lamb/sheep heart is my favorite. I've got some kidney in my freezer, but I haven't gotten into it yet-- since I enjoy liver, heart and tongue-- that pretty much covers my nutrient needs.
Grass fed animals, typically beef. The nutrient density is off the charts. When I eat dessicated beef liver (available in pill form), the code just flows out of me...
It's not cheap unfortunately, feedlot beef and chicken muscle meat is typically cheaper than grass fed beef liver.
Oh whoops - I just remembered that once upon a time in Orlando you could get them at like half a doller an oyster. Here in the UK you can easily spend up to £5 a shuck
Not that this is a practical solution for everyone or that it's easy, but oyster larvae/seeds are remarkably cheap. 1 mm seeds are $10.00 for 1,000 and 40 mm seeds are $135.00 for 1,000 in Maryland. So $0.01 per oyster or $0.13 1/2 a piece if you can't wait long to eat them.
The conclusions drawn on colorectal cancer here are in direct contradiction with many other studies, before and since. Of course fibre-loading a chronically constipated IBS patient is a stupid thing to do, but seriously, "fibre is protective against CRC" is not a controversial statement.
Yeah but to what degree are they absorbed and used versus just peed out? What is the mechanism by which nutrients are absorbed? Does the gut recognize a nutrient indirectly only because it comes along for the ride with XYZ plant or animal? Or does the gut directly recognize the nutrient?
Well if in blood test you are diagnosed with vitamin deficiency, it's treated with pills. So they are effective.
1. Take it together with food (containing fat) so it gets dissolved. 2. For each micronutrient check if it's in the best available form, and big enough dose.
Sometimes vitamin deficiency is treated will pills. I know people who have to get vitamin shots because pills don't work for their condition.
I always tell people treat vitamin deficiency with a healthy diet, if that doesn't work you have a gut problem and pills won't fix it either. I'm not a doctor, but it is a reasonable claim.
