Veganism, Human Health and Conspiracies.

[woodgeek]

Can you cite a reference for this without too much bother? This has bothered me for decades. "How come gorillas and chimpanzees don't seem to suffer from pernicious anemia?" If the correct answer is "The other great apes don't rinse their veg in clean water like zealous puritans," then I will sleep better. I truly have not made time to look this up in the last 30 years.

I don't have any good sources.

Here are two articles, both speculative about prehistoric diet:

Vitamin B12: What Everyone Should Know

Vitamin B12 is often cited as a key nutrient that vegans may be deficient in. However, there's a lot of mystery and misinformation surrounding it.

thepeskyvegan.com

The Evolutionary Quirk That Made Vitamin B12 Part of Our Diet

If animal products are our only source of B12, and it's vital to survival, how do herbivores survive?

www.discovermagazine.com

The first includes the speculation that our ancestors got B-12 from dirt and dirty water. The second goes into greater detail and claims that colonic bacteria in both humans and our ape cousins/ancestors synthesize plenty of B-12. But a quirk in humans is that we can only absorb B-12 from our small intestine, so we excrete all the B-12 synthesized in the colon! It claims the apes (and other herbivores) retain the ability to absorb B-12 from the colon. This article takes this as evidence of regular meat eating among our ancestors, but it seems to me that it could be evidence of regular dirt ingestion, dirty water ingestion, or herbivore dung ingestion/handling/picking.

It is also clear that many traditional fermented foods (sauerkraut, miso, kimchi) can be decent sources of B-12. Depending on the cobalt content of the source plants, these might have been important for these cultures when meat was limited or unavailable.

It seems that much of this is going to be speculative. Field work suggests that B-12 ingestion and synthesis depends strongly on cobalt content in soils, which is low in many areas, and why cattle are commonly given synthetic B-12. As pointed out by the first article.

I am also left wondering if the soil in East Africa is much higher than elsewhere in the world? Perhaps our B-12 'quirk' says we evolved in or around the Congo...

I found this abstract: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166248108701703

Cobalt is found in all the rocks of the earth's crust, the contents varying with the nature of the rock. The average content of cobalt in the lithosphere is about 30 ppm. There are only few data concerning the parent rocks corresponding to the different types of soils studied. The total cobalt contents of soils vary widely: 0.05 ppm. (podzols of the U.S.S.R.) to 300 ppm (vertisols of the Central African Republic). In soils, these contents vary in relation to those of the rocks from which the soils originate and in relation to the types of soils whose characteristics are more or less directly related to the climate, which has dominated their evolution, and to the major geographical zones. Total cobalt contents for the soils of these regions range from values of 0.05 to 200 ppm. They depend closely on the parent rocks, even though they tend to vary from one horizon to another in relation to certain pedologic processes. The soils of arid and semiarid regions have higher average cobalt contents than those of temperate and boreal regions. Cobalt is an important element for animals. Its compounds play a role in the formation of hemoglobin; and in several regions of the globe, sheep and cows may become anemic because of eating vegetation grown in cobalt-deficient soils.

But I could not retrieve the article nor the author's names from the Journal, even with my Uni tools (frickin Elsevier).

But this suggests that tropics+semi-arid+Africa means lots of cobalt and B-12 everywhere, versus wetter, temperate or boreal and non-Africa... much harder to find.

The chimps and gorillas are gonna be ok.

ETA: Found a paper from 1970: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1258/002367770781036526

It indicates that Old World Monkeys kept in captivity and fed an unsupplemented entirely plant-based diet suffer from B-12 deficiency that resembles that in humans on the same diet. So perhaps the 'quirk' in human absorption did not occur recently, but is universal to African primates.

And so we are back to speculations about trace eating of meat/eggs/insects/feces/dirt.

Also, there is plenty of evidence of humans eating insects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy_in_humans

It could be argued that in many non-Western cultures, eating insects is more common than eating dairy.

And just for @Ashful, there are in fact Cave paintings and paleolithic carvings that show edible insect collection and honey sources.

Entomophagy in humans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[EbS-P]

I agree genetics is a factor. I know you are somewhat active to process all the wood you process, even with power assist. I assume you do not smoke any substance at all ever. If the dietary statement above is true, you are on a collision course with a wheelchair and a home care nurse. Your genes may buy you a few extra years, as might your activity level, but if the dietary statement is true, you are statistically screwed.

Not that many years ago (I am 55), I could honestly say the vast majority of my calories were from BBQ, dairy, beer and grains, with BBQ sauce making up an astonishing portion of my vegetable intake.

For me, the break point was my arthritis. I decided to try hitting the salad bar regularly instead of going on percocet. I am about one year in eating 5 vegetable servings a day, two dark leafy green, two pretty colors and one serving of whatever. I never did go on percocet. I am off all Rx and OTC meds for joint pain. No Mobic, no ibuprofen, no turmeric, blah, blah, blah, I am off all meds. I still process 8-10 cords annually, outdoors, at 64 degrees north latitude. I prefer to deal with cordwood in the winter months when there are no mosquitos, and I prefer to have less expensive 16" long rounds dropped in my driveway so I can split them myself with my (slow) electric splitter.

I do have appropriate clothing for this process.

Besides the 5 veg daily, I eat all the BBQ I still want with spinach leaves taking up a bunch of room in my stomach.

I did go on the "Whole 30" diet 2-3 years ago, cutting out all refined sugar for 30 days, and it was eye opening. Week 2 was really really hard to stay the course. Refined sugar has been a problem in the American diet since the colonial era.

If your dietary statement is accurate, the top three things you can do would be 1) drink at least 3 liters of water daily to keep your system flushed, 2) start taking a B complex supplement in the morning to replace the B vitamins stripped by your alcohol consumption each evening and 3) start walking 30 minutes daily on the days you are not handling high volume cordwood.

There is no shame in getting old, it is inevitable. There is no shame in managing the aging process with intelligence. There is no shame in walking, it can be quality time with your spouse that leads to grownup stuff later in the evening.

Peace be with you.

What would cutting out alcohol do to life expectancy? I imagine the alcohol abusers have a larger influence on average life expectancy than those who don’t drink.

 

[sloeffle]

First off I’d like to commend you for making a lifestyle change later in life. Hats off to you.

I had my lifestyle change a few years ago when I the doctor told me stop drinking booze, and start on a low fat diet due a health issue. I wasn’t a big drinker anyways, but keeping with a low fat diet has been tough.

I agree, the Nova documentary definitely points out that a western lifestyle is a huge cause of obesity in our country, and others. I believe they showed a map showing obesity across the world. I did find the genetics part very interesting though. Too many people like my kid that are glued to a screen 24x7. ☹️

I do raise cattle on grass so I take my view point with a grain of salt. I agree, the world needs to eat a lot less meat. Especially with meat consumption rising in counties that traditionally never ate a lot of meat. We definitely need to eat less dairy too, humans don’t even need to drink milk. That’s probably another topic for another day. The problem that I have is, if you get rid of ruminants that have the ability to turn a blade of grass into a nutrient dense product you end with more monocultures of corn and soybeans. This leads to more chemicals being sprayed ( roundup, 2,4-D, paraquat and the list goes on ), more fertilizer being spread ( water pollution ), more diesel being burned ( air pollution), and at least in my area more trees getting cut down. How’s this better for the environment as a whole ? My cows don’t need fertilizer to grow, they don’t need diesel, and the don’t need chemicals sprayed on them. And by they recycle ( poop )80 - 85% of what they eat. That goes back into the soil to grow more grass and sequester more carbon. Some of the soils on my farm are close to 5% organic matter, I guarantee there isn’t a non-organic monoculture based farm with 10 miles of me that’s has organic matter that high.

If humans aren’t suppose to eat meat, how have cultures in northern latitudes flourished this long ? You can’t grow a lot of vegetables or greens in frozen tundra of the arctic.

The Secret To The Inuit High-Fat Diet May Be Good Genes

A new study on Inuit in Greenland suggests that Arctic peoples evolved genetic adaptations that allow them to get by mostly on seal blubber and meat without developing health problems.

www.npr.org

 

[woodgeek]

First off I’d like to commend you for making a lifestyle change later in life. Hats off to you.

I had my lifestyle change a few years ago when I the doctor told me stop drinking booze, and start on a low fat diet due a health issue. I wasn’t a big drinker anyways, but keeping with a low fat diet has been tough.

I agree, the Nova documentary definitely points out that a western lifestyle is a huge cause of obesity in our country, and others. I believe they showed a map showing obesity across the world. I did find the genetics part very interesting though. Too many people like my kid that are glued to a screen 24x7. ☹️

I do raise cattle on grass so I take my view point with a grain of salt. I agree, the world needs to eat a lot less meat. Especially with meat consumption rising in counties that traditionally never ate a lot of meat. We definitely need to eat less dairy too, humans don’t even need to drink milk. That’s probably another topic for another day. The problem that I have is, if you get rid of ruminants that have the ability to turn a blade of grass into a nutrient dense product you end with more monocultures of corn and soybeans. This leads to more chemicals being sprayed ( roundup, 2,4-D, paraquat and the list goes on ), more fertilizer being spread ( water pollution ), more diesel being burned ( air pollution), and at least in my area more trees getting cut down. How’s this better for the environment as a whole ? My cows don’t need fertilizer to grow, they don’t need diesel, and the don’t need chemicals sprayed on them. And by they recycle 80 - 85% of what they eat. That goes back into the soil to grow more grass and sequester more carbon.

If humans aren’t suppose to meat, how have cultures in northern latitudes flourished this long ? You can’t grow a lot of vegetables or greens in frozen tundra of the arctic.

The Secret To The Inuit High-Fat Diet May Be Good Genes

A new study on Inuit in Greenland suggests that Arctic peoples evolved genetic adaptations that allow them to get by mostly on seal blubber and meat without developing health problems.

www.npr.org

I would like to see an analysis of what fraction of animal-based foods are cultivated by pure grazing on undeveloped or wild land. I would think that it is quite small.

If that is correct, and much/most animals for food are fed from agricultural crops like corn, alfalfa, etc, then just a portion of that land currently used to create animal feed could be repurposed to creating foods for humans (corn/wheat/legumes). Mono-culture for mono-culture. The emphasis being on 'portion' given the low efficiency at which may animals convert feed to meat.

This seems obvious to me, based upon the practice of factory farming of cattle, pigs and chickens, and thermodynamics, but I have not dug up a source.

The Inuit and Alaskan Islanders are not particularly healthy. Their life expectancy is shorter than their European neighbors on a western diet, and they do suffer from extensive CVD. Analysis of ancient mummies from northern areas also shows many signs of CVD. There is, interestingly, a common mutation in these populations that prevents them from going into ketosis on a low carb diet, suggesting that ketosis is not a beneficial state/trait in humans.

Cardiovascular Disease Prevalence and its Relation to Risk Factors in Alaska Eskimos

Although Eskimos were thought to be protected from cardiovascular disease (CVD), state health data show a large proportion of deaths from CVD, despite traditional lifestyles and high omega-3 fatty acid intake. This article explores CVD prevalence and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[semipro]

Well, I wasn't planning any resolutions for this new year other than being nicer to my very tolerant wife -- and I've already failed once on that one this morning.
After reading through this thread I'm now considering changing my ways with diet and exercise.
I've got a long way to go.
Maybe we should create a related Hearth.com challenge.

edit: It just occurred to me the potential irony of my eating a fried egg sandwich while reading/writing here.

 

[sloeffle]

Cattle / sheep / goats aren’t factory farmed like pigs, and chickens are. The packer ( Smithfield, Cargill, JBS, Tyson etc etc ) doesn’t own the animal from birth to death like they do for pigs or chickens.

Beef cattle are either born ( outside more than likely ) on a ranch of a farm and then weaned at roughly 6 months old. Depending on what the market is for the cattle they are either bought by a backgrounder or sent to a feed lot. Are feed lots horrible, yep. Does all of our beef come from feedlot fed animals, nope. Roughly 40% of all beef in U.S. are old dairy cows. That cheap steak you are eating at your favorite chain restaurant was probably and old dairy cow. I don’t have the time nor do I care enough to figure out the percentage of cattle born in the wild places. My guess is >50%, since the majority of cattle are born out west.

Wheat is sprayed with 2,4-D to help keep weeds at bay. Soybeans are a legume. Again, more chemicals, pesticides being sprayed, and more diesel fuel being burned. You won’t be able to feed the world growing those organically either.

Another thing I forgot to mention in my last comment. My grass lands never go bare either, unlike a monoculture. Where does bare soil go in the late winter and early spring. Into our rivers and streams causing further damage to the environment.

If you have Spotify I highly recommend listening to this podcast with Will Harris even if you don’t like Joe Rogan or not. Will drives home some of the points in trying to make.


Good luck on your journey. You don’t need to rebuke my comments, as we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Highbeam]

As this thread drifts to the appropriate source of veganism which is some sort of philosophical origin vs. an actual superior or needed diet, my little midlife diet change included a couple of other big improvements that may be of interest.

They have these fitness trackers called fitbits that you wear like a watch that continuously monitor your pulse, blood oxygen level, activity, temperature, heart rate variability, breathing rate, and other things. Very interesting for nerdy people. You can see the effect on your body when you eat well, eat poorly, exercise more, drink alcohol, eat sugar, eat fat, etc.

As has been pointed out in this thread, each of us is different in how we react to our chosen poisons. The science has obviously not been settled, and feeling like you must say that only proves that there is no consensus. It’s the equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling blah blah to ignore any future discussion after you’ve been convinced. Get your head out of the vegan hole and understand both sides of the debate. Any teacher should preach open mindedness in this age of disinformation.

I have found by using these fitness trackers that alcohol has a huge impact on me. Poorer sleep, racing pulse, low heart rate variability, etc. Same with sugar. I stopped drinking for about a year and now only drink for special occasions and whoa, it’s pretty hard on my body.

I found that moderate excersize, like 300-600 minutes per week in the cardio zone, lowers my resting heart rate and improves sleep. I don’t exercise for weight loss, that’s a bad idea, I exercise for health. Too much or too little exercise cause problems for me.

My body thrives on animal products. Eggs, dairy, meat and as many vegetables as I want. Eating fat is essential, eating protein is essential, there are no essential carbohydrates. Zero vegetables are required. To get the necessary amount of essential proteins and fat would require a lot of vegetables but it’s possible if your philosophical beliefs prevent you from eating delicious animal products. The cow I eat has already eaten all of those tons of veg and with his four stomachs and ability to digest grass has condensed those bales of grass into delicious protein and fats for me to eat.

Veganism is not about a better diet, it is about not eating animals. The ideal diet is not known, the science has not been settled. With increasing obesity and death rates we are finding that the current guidance is not working. The vegans I’ve seen or known did not look healthy, they looked weak and deprived. So I admit some bias in not wanting to be like that.

 

[woodgeek]

@Highbeam. I agree with much that you say.

I too have been tracking my bio data (with a Garmin watch), for three years now. I've also measured my blood pressure several hundred times over the same span, and my sleeping pO2 on many nights to track apnea.

We agree on the alcohol... the signals in the data are clear. I too have cut back.

Also agree that veganism is a philosophy, and WFPB is a diet. I"m not tossing out my leather belt, selling my cars with the leather seats, or refusing to cook my kid their favorite homemade mac and cheese. So I guess I'm not vegan then.

As I said earlier, my biggest diet problem was processed foods and dairy, not meat, which I have eaten in moderation for years. My hypertension appears to mostly be from the high sodium/ low potassium properties of that (former) diet.

My body thrives on animal products. Eggs, dairy, meat and as many vegetables as I want. Eating fat is essential, eating protein is essential, there are no essential carbohydrates. Zero vegetables are required. To get the necessary amount of essential proteins and fat would require a lot of vegetables but it’s possible if your philosophical beliefs prevent you from eating delicious animal products. The cow I eat has already eaten all of those tons of veg and with his four stomachs and ability to digest grass has condensed those bales of grass into delicious protein and fats for me to eat.

Veganism is not about a better diet, it is about not eating animals. The ideal diet is not known, the science has not been settled. With increasing obesity and death rates we are finding that the current guidance is not working. The vegans I’ve seen or known did not look healthy, they looked weak and deprived. So I admit some bias in not wanting to be like that.

While I am doing a stint with a WFPB (vegan) diet to try to see the effects on MY own system, this is motivated by my efforts over the last 5 months, which have been 'mostly vegan' with exceptions when traveling or going out with friends. Tracked with my own measurements. I can see my blood pressure and weigh dropping towards 'normal' levels under the vegan diet, and popping back up when I get away from it. I can also see the variability of my blood pressure dropping, along with my resting heart rate on the WFPB diet.

My choices are motivated by tracking as much as yours are. I"m not trying to tell others what they have to do, or shame anyone.

Agree that the ideal human diet is not known. But the science is also clear that a high saturated fat, meat-based diet with low carbs is associated with a much higher risk of cardiovascular disease in the average person. Carbs ARE required. The body runs on carbs, and will synthesize sugar from fats under extreme duress (ketosis). A high fiber diet (carbs) regulates cholesterol (allowing you to eat more meat if desired) and significantly reduces appetite to control weight.

I too have known a lot of puny sickly vegans, mostly decades ago. I suspect they were 'junk food vegans' and/or not getting enough B-12, neither of which is an issue for my current experiment.

Have you watched 'The Game Changers'? https://www.netflix.com/title/81157840

 

[woodgeek]

If you have Spotify I highly recommend listening to this podcast with Will Harris even if you don’t like Joe Rogan or not. Will drives home some of the points in trying to make.


Good luck on your journey. You don’t need to rebuke my comments, as we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

You are clearly closer to the cattle/dairy industry than I am (meant in the good, informed sense).

That said, my own readings on the sustainability of Will Harris' 'White Oak Pastures' project have been very disappointing. Its a bit of a boondoggle funded by General Mills to create a line of 'green beef' for sale at top $$$ as jerky. Originally touted as 'carbon negative beef' in company promotional materials, that claim was later retracted in their peer-reviewed publications. Those showed modest (and highly model dependent) reductions in global warming effects in WOP beef. Modest reductions that came with a significantly larger (2.5X) land footprint than conventional grazing.

I am yet to see much reliable come out Joe Rogan's show. IMO the WOP snow job is par for the course.

Whether we like or dislike feedlot cattle, they release far less methane per pound of beef than grazed cattle, for a much smaller overall AGW-forcing, in addition to lower land use (due to higher productivity of their feed farming operation). It seems unlikely that we could raise the same amount of beef as currently by grazing alone (not nearly enough land), let alone with the 'sustainable' approach being popularized by Harris and Rogan.

ETA: Here is a peer reviewed paper about the climate impacts of the WOP project:

Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System

Regenerative agriculture is a newly codified approach to agriculture that emphasizes reducing reliance on exogeneous inputs, as well as restoring and enhancing ecosystem services such as soil carbon (C) sequestration. These regenerative agriculture principles suggest that modern livestock...

www.frontiersin.org

It confirms that land use is 2.5X higher (Figure 4) than producing the same animal products conventionally.
It also states (Figure 3) that the greenhouse gas emissions are about 40% higher than a 'commodity' model without accounting for carbon sequestration by the soil.
The sequestration data is pretty noisy (Figure 2) and appears to have saturated in the first 5-10 years of the 20 year project.

Combining these points suggests that WOP-type animal raising has a lower climate impact than conventional methods transiently for a few years after setting up the system, and then long-term has higher emissions.

NB: This paper and analysis was performed by a consulting firm HIRED and PAID by WOP and General Mills. One can nit-pick some aspects of the analysis that make it look better than it is, but there is no need. It looks pretty bad even how the WOP team presents it.

 

[SpaceBus]

You are clearly closer to the cattle/dairy industry than I am (meant in the good, informed sense).

That said, my own readings on the sustainability of Will Harris' 'White Oak Pastures' project have been very disappointing. Its a bit of a boondoggle funded by General Mills to create a line of 'green beef' for sale at top $$$ as jerky. Originally touted as 'carbon negative beef' in company promotional materials, that claim was later retracted in their peer-reviewed publications. Those showed modest (and highly model dependent) reductions in global warming effects in WOP beef. Modest reductions that came with a significantly larger (2.5X) land footprint than conventional grazing.

I am yet to see much reliable come out Joe Rogan's show. IMO the WOP snow job is par for the course.

Whether we like or dislike feedlot cattle, they release far less methane per pound of beef than grazed cattle, for a much smaller overall AGW-forcing, in addition to lower land use (due to higher productivity of their feed farming operation). It seems unlikely that we could raise the same amount of beef as currently by grazing alone (not nearly enough land), let alone with the 'sustainable' approach being popularized by Harris and Rogan.

Cows in general are not very efficient. The rise of beef as a common food is only because of rail and refrigeration. Prior to the industrial age it was more about the sheep, goats, and camels. There are tons of advantages to these animals, mainly that they can produce fiber in addition to the meat, dairy, and leather, which makes their land use much more efficient. The manure is also of a much higher quality and the meat is leaner. However, you can't feed them grain in a CAFO (factory farm/feedlot/etc.) and they require forage/hay. As Sloeffle pointed out, humans can't eat grass and weeds, but sheep, goats, and camelids can. They need much lower quality pasture than horses and cattle do as well. Goats can even eat evergreen boughs which are otherwise turned into mulch or burned in big piles after logging operations. The manure from these animals is also much higher quality than that of cattle and horses. There's a lot more efficiency that could be going into livestock production, it's just not profitable when you can ship cattle/beef all over the world with rail and big ships.

 

[boomfire]

While I am not in a position to confirm @woodgeek 's recent findings, I know from clinical experience WG is essentially correct in every conclusion.

When I was making home visits the range of nutritional choices I saw was mindboggling.

Imagine an active 70 year old, blew out their knee on the cross country ski trail, has a minor wound infection at the knee surgery site. What did you have for breakfast? Two cups of raw Kale with some lemon juice and cracked pepper for flavor, and about half a cup of tree nuts for some protein. I might have a banana in a few minutes.

Next stop, 62 yo with metabolic syndrome, 100# overweight, poorly controlled blood sugars, cardiovascular disease, already had one stroke and two heart attacks. Struggles to make it from the couch to the bathroom from shortness of breath. Still smoking cigarettes, admits to "about" a pack a day. How many vegetables did you eat last week? I had french fries with my cheeseburgers three times, and I had a big bag of potato chips.

My wife's grandpa recently died at 90 years old. He had his health issues. but for a 90 year old, he worked almost till his last day fiddling with his tools in his garage, doing projects for his grandkids and around the house, always busy. He ate anything and everything and drank beer. But all in moderation.

My grandma, is close to 90 years old, she eats pretty much anything. But in moderation and small portions. Her eyes started failing a decade ago otherwise healthy.

I used to weigh 220lbs about 13 years ago. I ate anything and everything but changed my habits to reduced portions.
Eg: 1 large pie of pizza with 1 Slice, 2 Whole subs with half a sub. half a dozen pancakes with 1 pancake. 6 pack beer with 1 or 2 light beer. I have been able to maintain my weight between 125 and 130 lbs for the last decade. I simply eat less but anything. I also live a moderately active lifestyle.
I do have 1 issue of high BP (always had it), I know i need to make certain adjustments but alas I do love my salt and sweet :D

 

[Highbeam]

@Highbeam. I agree with much that you say.

I too have been tracking my bio data (with a Garmin watch), for three years now. I've also measured my blood pressure several hundred times over the same span, and my sleeping pO2 on many nights to track apnea.

We agree on the alcohol... the signals in the data are clear. I too have cut back.

Also agree that veganism is a philosophy, and WFPB is a diet. I"m not tossing out my leather belt, selling my cars with the leather seats, or refusing to cook my kid their favorite homemade mac and cheese. So I guess I'm not vegan then.

As I said earlier, my biggest diet problem was processed foods and dairy, not meat, which I have eaten in moderation for years. My hypertension appears to mostly be from the high sodium/ low potassium properties of that (former) diet.



While I am doing a stint with a WFPB (vegan) diet to try to see the effects on MY own system, this is motivated by my efforts over the last 5 months, which have been 'mostly vegan' with exceptions when traveling or going out with friends. Tracked with my own measurements. I can see my blood pressure and weigh dropping towards 'normal' levels under the vegan diet, and popping back up when I get away from it. I can also see the variability of my blood pressure dropping, along with my resting heart rate on the WFPB diet.

My choices are motivated by tracking as much as yours are. I"m not trying to tell others what they have to do, or shame anyone.

Agree that the ideal human diet is not known. But the science is also clear that a high saturated fat, meat-based diet with low carbs is associated with a much higher risk of cardiovascular disease in the average person. Carbs ARE required. The body runs on carbs, and will synthesize sugar from fats under extreme duress (ketosis). A high fiber diet (carbs) regulates cholesterol (allowing you to eat more meat if desired) and significantly reduces appetite to control weight.

I too have known a lot of puny sickly vegans, mostly decades ago. I suspect they were 'junk food vegans' and/or not getting enough B-12, neither of which is an issue for my current experiment.

Have you watched 'The Game Changers'? https://www.netflix.com/title/81157840

Why do you think dietary carbs are essential? Surely you understand the scientific definition of the word essential. Carbs are absolutely not essential as can be proven by the many who eat zero carbohydrates and thrive.

Your body creates any glucose needed by your organs from your body’s stores of fats and proteins.

Here’s another bender for you, fiber is not essential either. That’s another myth.

Obviously the science in saturated fat being bad for you is not settled. Every time you want to say “the science is settled” or “consensus” I suggest thinking again. Dietary science is not at all settled.

My BP was the health issue that started me down this path. My GP prescribed low carb and I also lost some weight, dropped caffeine, dropped alcohol, and exercised more to lower BP. Here’s another bender, it’s not sodium. That’s another myth.

Vegans and carnivores, and the rest of us in the middle can find health in the overlapping qualities. Healthy weight, reasonably active, and of course limiting or eliminating drugs/alcohol/tobacco.

 

[woodgeek]

Why do you think dietary carbs are essential? Surely you understand the scientific definition of the word essential. Carbs are absolutely not essential as can be proven by the many who eat zero carbohydrates and thrive.

Your body creates any glucose needed by your organs from your body’s stores of fats and proteins.

Where is this large, well studied population of humans who eat zero carbs? What are their long-term health outcomes?

There are several non Western populations that eat over 70% carbs, and who thrive. Like the population of Okinawa whose traditional diet is mostly whole plants and quite high in carbs.

The Okinawa Diet: Eating and Living to 100 - Blue Zones

Okinawa is one of the blue zones regions and has some of the highest life expectancy rates in the world. So what are they eating?

www.bluezones.com

 

[Highbeam]

My wife's grandpa recently died at 90 years old. He had his health issues. but for a 90 year old, he worked almost till his last day fiddling with his tools in his garage, doing projects for his grandkids and around the house, always busy. He ate anything and everything and drank beer. But all in moderation.

My grandma, is close to 90 years old, she eats pretty much anything. But in moderation and small portions. Her eyes started failing a decade ago otherwise healthy.

I used to weigh 220lbs about 13 years ago. I ate anything and everything but changed my habits to reduced portions.
Eg: 1 large pie of pizza with 1 Slice, 2 Whole subs with half a sub. half a dozen pancakes with 1 pancake. 6 pack beer with 1 or 2 light beer. I have been able to maintain my weight between 125 and 130 lbs for the last decade. I simply eat less but anything. I also live a moderately active lifestyle.
I do have 1 issue of high BP (always had it), I know i need to make certain adjustments but alas I do love my salt and sweet :D

On the BP issue, since you’re active and at a healthy weight, boy oh boy does stress increase my BP. I have a home cuff BP checker thing and even just seeing work emails popup in my in box can send my BP up 10 points.

 

[Highbeam]

Where is this large, well studied population of humans who eat zero carbs? What are their long-term health outcomes?

There are several non Western populations that eat over 70% carbs, and who thrive. Like the population of Okinawa whose traditional diet is mostly whole plants and quite high in carbs.

The Okinawa Diet: Eating and Living to 100 - Blue Zones

Okinawa is one of the blue zones regions and has some of the highest life expectancy rates in the world. So what are they eating?

www.bluezones.com

Is that a straw man? To be essential, means nobody could live without carbs. You don’t need carbs to live period. It’s not about averages or philosophy. This is a rubber meets the road issue.

All you have to do is look at the carnivore community to find people who eat zero carbs and don’t die because of it.

I personally like the taste of vegetables accompanying the animal products in my diet but I know it’s just for enjoyment. A garnish.

Head in the sand vegans just can’t imagine any world in which the vegetable is not the primary dietary source for everything. You literally do not need to eat any vegetables.

If you modeled your diet after some Okinawan or whatever that ate lots of vegetables I’m sure you could thrive but that’s not because of the vegetables. Look at their essential protein and fat sources, look at their BMI, look at other environmental factors like stress, drugs. Pollution.

In this disinformation age you need to be a darn detective.

 

[woodgeek]

Is that a straw man? To be essential, means nobody could live without carbs. You don’t need carbs to live period. It’s not about averages or philosophy. This is a rubber meets the road issue.

All you have to do is look at the carnivore community to find people who eat zero carbs and don’t die.

I personally like the taste of vegetables accompanying the animal products in my diet but I know it’s just for enjoyment. A garnish.

Ah. There certainly is a 'carnivore community'. Many of them go on social media (or Joe Rogan) and boast about their eye-popping cholesterol scores and talk about how great they feel and healthy.

Many of them were unhealthy or overweight before, eating or overeating some sort of 'Western junk food diet', and lost weight and feel better since going carnivore/paleo/keto/low-carb etc. Given the weight loss, ofc they feel better.

That said, I have never seen a single peer-reviewed study that suggests that they get chronic diseases at a lower rate than the general population, or live longer. AKA 'thrive'. Given what we know about the origin of Diabetes and CVD, it seems very unlikely I ever will.

So, there are some folks that have 'gone carnivore' for a couple years and post about it on social media. What about the life-long (or long-term) vegan super-athletes and Olympians in 'the Game Changers?'

Essential is a funny term: Are fiber and 'complex carbs' essential? Can you live without it? Sure. But what if that leads you to have a much higher BMI, higher cholesterol and cuts your life short by 10 years on a population average? It seems to me that that is at least as scary as anecdotes about 'puny and weak' vegans.

 

[Highbeam]

Ah. There certainly is a 'carnivore community'. Many of them go on social media (or Joe Rogan) and boast about their eye-popping cholesterol scores and talk about how great they feel and healthy.

Many of them were unhealthy or overweight before, eating or overeating some sort of 'Western junk food diet', and lost weight and feel better since going carnivore/paleo/keto/low-carb etc. Given the weight loss, ofc they feel better.

That said, I have never seen a single peer-reviewed study that suggests that they get chronic diseases at a lower rate than the general population, or live longer. AKA 'thrive'. Given what we know about the origin of Diabetes and CVD, it seems very unlikely I ever will.

So, there are some folks that have 'gone carnivore' for a couple years and post about it on social media. What about the life-long (or long-term) vegan super-athletes and Olympians in 'the Game Changers?'

Essential is a funny term: Are fiber and 'complex carbs' essential? Can you live without it? Sure. But what if that leads you to have a much higher BMI, higher cholesterol and cuts your life short by 10 years on a population average? It seems to me that that is at least as scary as anecdotes about 'puny and weak' vegans.

Some progress, we agree that carbs and fiber are non essential( I might argue the carbs are also inflammatory, addictive, and toxic but not today) Protein and fat are essential for life. Anybody reading this including woodgeek, please be sure you are getting enough complete protein and fat. Even if you insist on loading up on nonessential vegetation as a filler. Can we even digest vegetation?

Once you get enough protein and fat from animal or plant sources I suggest your appetite will be satisfied and weight control easier.

Another grey area of dietary science is how much protein to eat. The USDA publishes a minimum number that most authorities feel is far less than ideal. I’ve never read anything from Joe Rogan but the MDs that specialize in this area prescribe 80-100 grams per day to maintain muscle mass as we age. I just ate half of that for breakfast. Did you?

If you want to talk to long term carnivore dieters that are MDs I can find you several. I don’t like to listen or read information from non MDs or from people selling things so “influencers” are not my choice for information. Trouble with doctors and scientists are all the dang studies with different funding sources, biases, and just lack applicable studies. Those things cost money and guess who funds them? Who do you trust?

The good news is that guidelines are already changing to recognize cholesterol is not actually causing deaths. Oops. New guidelines say I can have an LDL of 190 before any concern. Those old studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were wrong. Guess who funded them.

 

[woodgeek]

Some progress, we agree that carbs and fiber are non essential( I might argue the carbs are also inflammatory, addictive, and toxic but not today) Protein and fat are essential for life. Anybody reading this including woodgeek, please be sure you are getting enough complete protein and fat. Even if you insist on loading up on nonessential vegetation as a filler. Can we even digest vegetation?

I appreciate the concern. I am getting plenty of high quality protein from legumes and whole grains, both of which are highly digestible. I love fat as much as the next guy, and still cook with them, but try to keep saturated fats to less than 10% of total calories, consistent with the American Heart Association guidelines.

Part of the problem might be confusion are the word 'carbs'. Refined sugar is a carb. White rice is a carb. Fiber is a carb. Complex carbohydrate is a carb. A WFPB diet minimizes the refined sugars and starches (table sugar or equivalent and white rice) but says that complex carbs and fiber (as in potatoes, sweet potatoes and whole grains) are AOK, even up to 50+% of dietary calories. And result is sustainable weight loss and healthy BMI maintenance.

 

[woodgeek]

If you want to talk to long term carnivore dieters that are MDs I can find you several. I don’t like to listen or read information from non MDs or from people selling things so “influencers” are not my choice for information. Trouble with doctors and scientists are all the dang studies with different funding sources, biases, and just lack applicable studies. Those things cost money and guess who funds them? Who do you trust?

The good news is that guidelines are already changing to recognize cholesterol is not actually causing deaths. Oops. New guidelines say I can have an LDL of 190 before any concern. Those old studies blaming cholesterol for CVD were wrong. Guess who funded them.

Huh. You and I are reading different guidelines...

The American Heart Association says that the threshold for no concern in high risk patients is 70 for LDL, not 190!
It also says that LDL>190 is called 'severe primary hypercholesterolemia' and requires high-dose statin therapy, including other drugs if the number does not drop below 70 after maximum statin treatment.

https://professional.heart.org/-/media/Files/Health-Topics/Cholesterol/Cholesterol-guide-for-HC-Practitioners-English.pdf

The guidelines are a mess, but basically they strive to compute a 10 year risk of major CVD based upon LDL AND other factors like age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, smoking and race. Above 5% requires intervention. LDL is a major component of that risk calculation.

While confusing, this is an improvement over the earlier 'one size fits all' threshold, and is science driven.

Here is the calculator if you have the data: https://www.cvriskcalculator.com/

What the guideline says (which might be confusing) is 'for LDL >190 no risk calculation needs to be done'. This is not bc there is no concern, but rather, because in that case the risk is DEFINITELY above 5% and requires action!! A very important difference.

And yeah, there are plenty of crazy MDs out there. Just like all the chain smoking doctors in the 60s and 70s. Including one I saw posting on social media about his >500 cholesterol score. And saying that statins were a scam that will waste your muscles away. And that he is a carnivore.

 

[Highbeam]

I appreciate the concern. I am getting plenty of high quality protein from legumes and whole grains, both of which are highly digestible. I love fat as much as the next guy, and still cook with them, but try to keep saturated fats to less than 10% of total calories, consistent with the American Heart Association guidelines.

Part of the problem might be confusion are the word 'carbs'. Refined sugar is a carb. White rice is a carb. Fiber is a carb. Complex carbohydrate is a carb. A WFPB diet minimizes the refined sugars and starches (table sugar or equivalent and white rice) but says that complex carbs and fiber (as in potatoes, sweet potatoes and whole grains) are AOK, even up to 50+% of dietary calories. And result is sustainable weight loss and healthy BMI maintenance.

Oh good. I’ve never eaten a lentil in my life but I can only imagine the feast of lentils it would take to get 100 grams of protein.

Yes, a low carb diet reduces all sources of carbs but I agree that some carb sources are better than others. That’s when we go to the glycemic index and consider the blood sugar spike associated with each type of carb source. White potatoes may as well be donuts! That’s why I cut way back on them alongside a juicy beef steak. Increased my broccoli though which is a carb.

 

[Highbeam]

Huh. You and I are reading different guidelines...

The American Heart Association says that the threshold for no concern in high risk patients is 70 for LDL, not 190!
It also says that LDL>190 is called 'severe primary hypercholesterolemia' and requires high-dose statin therapy, including other drugs if the number does not drop below 70 after maximum statin treatment.

https://professional.heart.org/-/media/Files/Health-Topics/Cholesterol/Cholesterol-guide-for-HC-Practitioners-English.pdf

The guidelines are a mess, but basically they strive to compute a 10 year risk of major CVD based upon LDL AND other factors like diabetes, smoking and race. Above 5% requires intervention. LDL is a major component of that risk calculation.

While confusing, this is an improvement over the earlier 'one size fits all' threshold, and is science driven.

Here is the calculator if you have the data: https://www.cvriskcalculator.com/

What the guideline says (which might be confusing) is 'for LDL >190 no risk calculation needs to be done'. This is not bc there is no concern, but rather, because in that case the risk is DEFINITELY above 5% and requires action!! A very important difference.

And yeah, there are plenty of crazy MDs out there. Just like all the chain smoking doctors in the 60s and 70s. Including one I saw posting on social media about his >500 cholesterol score. And saying that statins were a scam that will waste your muscles away. And that he is a carnivore.

You might be misunderstanding the risk factor issue. I’m on a phone so can’t look it up for you. My doctor actually help me understand it. If you have no other risk factors like smoking, diabetes, or a past heart attack then no intervention is needed under a 190 LDL score. He referenced the Framingham (sp) score method.

Problem is that a 50 year old doctor went to med school 30 years ago reading a text written 30 years before that by a guy at the end of his career. It takes a long time for a woops to get cleared out.

The old garbage studies funded by the statin companies have been thrown out. Those were written by the smoking doctors! I’m just not too worried about high LDL in isolation. The current science is convincing but you won’t find it with your head in the vegan hole. That would be like asking a liberal about preferred handgun caliber!

I am willing to trade higher LDL for better health. There is a limit for me somewhere in the 200s where I would consider dietary changes to reduce LDL. It’s super easy, just add some carbs of any type, even jelly beans.

In summary, I propose you can do pretty well and indeed thrive (compared to average Americans) on almost any way of eating if you pay attention to your weight and activity level. I don’t think anybody here was proposing veganism or carnivore.

 

[SpaceBus]

Our saliva literally contains the enzyme responsible for digestion of carbohydrates. Our bodies are grain eating machines! The only carbs we can't digest are cellulose and chitin. For cellulose you need enzymes produced by the microbes in ruminant, psuedoruminant, and hind gut fermenting animals (horses, deer, etc.).

As Woodgeek mentioned, simple carbs, typically called sugars, are the problem. You can eat a lot of whole legumes and grains without any problems. Once you start getting into refined white flours and sugars, then you have the dietary disease problems.

 

[Highbeam]

Our saliva literally contains the enzyme responsible for digestion of carbohydrates. Our bodies are grain eating machines! The only carbs we can't digest are cellulose and chitin. For cellulose you need enzymes produced by the microbes in ruminant, psuedoruminant, and hind gut fermenting animals (horses, deer, etc.).

As Woodgeek mentioned, simple carbs, typically called sugars, are the problem. You can eat a lot of whole legumes and grains without any problems. Once you start getting into refined white flours and sugars, then you have the dietary disease problems.

Sorry, I meant to ask about the digestion of cellulose. So as you say enzymes in our saliva breaks down carbohydrates (linked together sugars) into simple sugars almost immediately. So would you say that when you eat carbohydrates, you are actually just eating sugar? It doesn’t matter if it’s whole grain or complex, that carbohydrate becomes sugar in your system?

The refined and concentrated forms of carbohydrate get more sugar zipped into your blood slightly quicker but it’s all sugar.

 

[SpaceBus]

Sorry, I meant to ask about the digestion of cellulose. So as you say enzymes in our saliva breaks down carbohydrates (linked together sugars) into simple sugars almost immediately. So would you say that when you eat carbohydrates, you are actually just eating sugar? It doesn’t matter if it’s whole grain or complex, that carbohydrate becomes sugar in your system?

The refined and concentrated forms of carbohydrate get more sugar zipped into your blood slightly quicker but it’s all sugar.

So literal sugars get digested in the mouth immediately. Think of hard candy and such. It then gets absorbed by your stomach. Other more complex chains of carbohydrates take a lot longer. It just starts in the mouth. You also produce the enzyme in your stomach. If you have a high fiber (insoluble carbs, usually cellulose) bound with your soluble carbs then you can't really digest all of them. This is why whole legumes and grains are fine for humans, but refined carbs are not. When you eat whole grains, it's not all carbs either, there's lots of fiber (the bran), protein, some fat, vitamins, and trace minerals. When you eat white bread, it's almost entirely digestible carbs, but whole grain or multigrain sourdough has all of the grain components.

There's also a difference between digestion and absorption. Some compounds can only be absorbed in certain places in your digestive tract (GI). On top of that, there's only a limited amount of nutrients that can be absorbed and/or used in the time that food spends in each part of your GI. Some fiber in our large intestine is digested down by the same kinds of microbes found in ruminant stomachs, but our large intestines cannot absorb the short chain fatty acids or microbial protein (the best kind) created by digestion of fiber.

 

[woodgeek]

You might be misunderstanding the risk factor issue. I’m on a phone so can’t look it up for you. My doctor actually help me understand it. If you have no other risk factors like smoking, diabetes, or a past heart attack then no intervention is needed under a 190 LDL score. He referenced the Framingham (sp) score method.

Problem is that a 50 year old doctor went to med school 30 years ago reading a text written 30 years before that by a guy at the end of his career. It takes a long time for a woops to get cleared out.

The old garbage studies funded by the statin companies have been thrown out. Those were written by the smoking doctors! I’m just not too worried about high LDL in isolation. The current science is convincing but you won’t find it with your head in the vegan hole. That would be like asking a liberal about preferred handgun caliber!

I am willing to trade higher LDL for better health. There is a limit for me somewhere in the 200s where I would consider dietary changes to reduce LDL. It’s super easy, just add some carbs of any type, even jelly beans.

In summary, I propose you can do pretty well and indeed thrive (compared to average Americans) on almost any way of eating if you pay attention to your weight and activity level. I don’t think anybody here was proposing veganism or carnivore.

We are saying the Same Thing. That is what the guidelines I posted and quoted say.

I just opened the calculator, and put in my data. Said I had NO risk factors and normal BP, and that my total cholesterol was 240 and my HDL was 60, implying LDL = 190. I pressed the button, and it said my risk of CVD in 10 years was 5.1%, and that above the risk threshold for intervention.

So, you are saying that you have no other risk factors? Good for you!

Playing with the calculator, and saying I have hypertension at 130/90, I hit 5% risk at 160 LDL, versus 131 last time I tested.

Note however, that what you originally said about cholesterol not being associated with CVD is incorrect. The fact that the the threshold changes with risk indicates its contribution!