Animal v. plant foods in human diets and health.

[Darryl Shaw]

Animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: is the historical record unequivocal?

An ideal diet is one that promotes optimal health and longevity. Throughout history, human societies have developed varieties of dietary patterns based on available food plants and animals that successfully supported growth and reproduction. As economies changed from scarcity to abundance, principal diet-related diseases have shifted from nutrient deficiencies to chronic diseases related to dietary excesses. This shift has led to increasing scientific consensus that eating more plant foods but fewer animal foods would best promote health. This consensus is based on research relating dietary factors to chronic disease risks, and to observations of exceptionally low chronic disease rates among people consuming vegetarian, Mediterranean and Asian diets. One challenge to this consensus is the idea that palaeolithic man consumed more meat than currently recommended, and that this pattern is genetically determined. If such exists, a genetic basis for ideal proportions of plant or animal foods is difficult to determine; hominoid primates are largely vegetarian, current hunter–gatherer groups rely on foods that can be obtained most conveniently, and the archeological record is insufficient to determine whether plants or animals predominated. Most evidence suggests that a shift to largely plant-based diets would reduce chronic disease risks among industrialized and rapidly industrializing populations. To accomplish this shift, it will be necessary to overcome market-place barriers and to develop new policies that will encourage greater consumption of fruits, vegetables and grains as a means to promote public health.

http://journals.cambridge.org/produc...ltextid=795468

[Robert Johnson]

File not available, it says.

[Scott Kustes]

So it's pure speculation?

[Jay Cohen]

Every time I see the OP's name, along with another URL, pointing to another study to reinforce his point of view, I think of the Talking Heads on TV, Right or Left slant, doesn't matter.

Posts the link then scurries away, no comments, just link after link supporting his agenda.

It's almost like Spam and wonder why it continues, day in, day out, Same Old Sh-t.

[Duke McCall]

I agree with the first sentence, but submit that is the only point on which there is "scientific consensus."

[Darryl Shaw]

Originally Posted by Robert Johnson

File not available, it says.

Try it now.

[Darryl Shaw]

Originally Posted by Scott Kustes

So it's pure speculation?

No, it's far more scientific than that, it's an educated guess + Occam's razor.

[Scott Kustes]

Where's Occam's razor when the French, Italians, Masai, and Inuit come up with their high-fat diets and supreme health? Oh, and I suppose if I put this it means I'm just being friendly, right? Hah!

[Darryl Shaw]

Originally Posted by Scott Kustes

Where's Occam's razor when the French, Italians, Masai, and Inuit come up with their high-fat diets and supreme health? Oh, and I suppose if I put this it means I'm just being friendly, right? Hah!

The French (and possibly Italian) paradox can be explained by the time lag between them adopting diets high in saturated fat and the onset of disease and it appears that although the Masai do develop atherosclerosis their low body weight, high energy expenditure and high levels of fitness protects them from heart disease.

Why heart disease mortality is low in France: the time lag explanation

Daily energy expenditure and cardiovascular risk in Masai, rural and urban Bantu Tanzanians.

Atherosclerosis in the Masai.

[Scott Kustes]

Ahh yes, so Occam's Razor only applies when it's in your favor huh? It couldn't possibly be that diets high in saturated fat aren't unhealthy could it? It has to be genetics, red wine, exercise, or some other factor. Well how about this...if it's exercise, why aren't all of those exercising Americans being protected from their diets?

How about all of those Polynesian societies that subsist on the highly saturated coconut fat with no ill effects? What's the story there? What kind of excuse can we come up with to sidestep the obvious facts?