Diet Debate
We debate the various types of diets.
Plants suck!
Heretk posted:
Humankind has probably been eating some minor amount of fruit and nuts seasonally, supplementing game meat and fish, throughout most part of our ancestry, that is a couple of millions of years, probably. It is highly unlikely that such food would suddenly turn out to be generally harmful. That cannot be said about some more recent plant derived food produce consumed in unprecedently large quantities - most notably the grains.
Ancient Egyptian mummies have been found riddled with "modern" degenerative diseases, including heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, diabets and other. From eating fish and meat? I don't think so! The grains are the most likely culprit!
Mass consumption of grains (and starchy vegetables!) has only been possible since the advent of modern style agriculture, settled communities using fire and cooking, that is around 7500BC in the Middle East and somewhat later elsewhere.
DMW mentioned the plants' anti-oxidant.
I think that is a very complex subject. If you read the refs I posted in the other thread, they may indicate that consumption of plants is a double-edged sword. It adds antioxidants and vitamins but it also accelerates DNA damage.
On the positive side:
- yes it is better to eat plants than nothing, if nothing else is available. Regardless of what has been said a death by starvation is worse than eating some dodgy wild fruit or vegetables, for a short while, until a next successful hunt or fish catch.
- yes, plants do contain soma anti-oxidant and vitamins, but also ...
on the negative side:
- those same plants may contains some phytotoxins and large amount of compounds (notably fructose) that generate troublesome metabolic byproducts using up those anti-oxidants and vitamins (i.e. carbs metabolism requires vitamin C) and tying up a large portion of body's immune system for cleanup.
- most plants' macronutrients are not very compatible with human digestion and requirements. Most commonly available plants are very high (too high) in carbohydrates. Those that are not high in carbs are often (with some rare exceptions) high in the type of fats (polynsaturated) that are not as well tolerated as animal fats, in large meal staple quantities. Those plants that are not very high in carbs and fats, are high in a kind of proteins (aminoacids) that are also not well matched to human requirements.
Heretic
[br>
Ancient Egyptian mummies have been found riddled with "modern" degenerative diseases, including heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, diabets and other. From eating fish and meat? I don't think so! The grains are the most likely culprit!
Mass consumption of grains (and starchy vegetables!) has only been possible since the advent of modern style agriculture, settled communities using fire and cooking, that is around 7500BC in the Middle East and somewhat later elsewhere.
DMW mentioned the plants' anti-oxidant.
I think that is a very complex subject. If you read the refs I posted in the other thread, they may indicate that consumption of plants is a double-edged sword. It adds antioxidants and vitamins but it also accelerates DNA damage.
On the positive side:
- yes it is better to eat plants than nothing, if nothing else is available. Regardless of what has been said a death by starvation is worse than eating some dodgy wild fruit or vegetables, for a short while, until a next successful hunt or fish catch.
- yes, plants do contain soma anti-oxidant and vitamins, but also ...
on the negative side:
- those same plants may contains some phytotoxins and large amount of compounds (notably fructose) that generate troublesome metabolic byproducts using up those anti-oxidants and vitamins (i.e. carbs metabolism requires vitamin C) and tying up a large portion of body's immune system for cleanup.
- most plants' macronutrients are not very compatible with human digestion and requirements. Most commonly available plants are very high (too high) in carbohydrates. Those that are not high in carbs are often (with some rare exceptions) high in the type of fats (polynsaturated) that are not as well tolerated as animal fats, in large meal staple quantities. Those plants that are not very high in carbs and fats, are high in a kind of proteins (aminoacids) that are also not well matched to human requirements.
Heretic
[br>
4 Replies |Watch This Discussion | Report This| Share this:Plants suck!Humankind has probably been eating some minor amount of fruit and nuts seasonally, supplementing game meat and fish, throughout most part of our ancestry, that is a couple of millions of years, probably. It is highly unlikely that such food would suddenly turn out to be generally harmful. That cannot be said about some more recent plant derived food produce consumed in unprecedently large quantities - most notably the grains. <br /><br /><br /> Ancient Egyptian mummies have been found riddled with "modern" degenerative diseases, including heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, diabets and other. From eating fish and meat? I don't think so! The grains are the most likely culprit! <br /><br /><br />Mass consumption of grains (and starchy vegetables!) has only been possible since the advent of modern style agriculture, settled communities using fire and cooking, that is around 7500BC in the Middle East and somewhat later elsewhere. <br /><br />DMW mentioned the plants' anti-oxidant.<br /><br />I think that is a very complex subject. If you read the refs I posted in the other thread, they may indicate that consumption of plants is a double-edged sword. It adds antioxidants and vitamins but it also accelerates DNA damage. <br /><br />On the positive side: <br /><br />- yes it is better to eat plants than nothing, if nothing else is available. Regardless of what has been said a death by starvation is worse than eating some dodgy wild fruit or vegetables, for a short while, until a next successful hunt or fish catch. <br /><br />- yes, plants do contain soma anti-oxidant and vitamins, but also ...<br /><br />on the negative side:<br /><br />- those same plants may contains some phytotoxins and large amount of compounds (notably fructose) that generate troublesome metabolic byproducts using up those anti-oxidants and vitamins (i.e. carbs metabolism requires vitamin C) and tying up a large portion of body's immune system for cleanup.<br /><br />- most plants' macronutrients are not very compatible with human digestion and requirements. Most commonly available plants are very high (too high) in carbohydrates. Those that are not high in carbs are often (with some rare exceptions) high in the type of fats (polynsaturated) that are not as well tolerated as animal fats, in large meal staple quantities. Those plants that are not very high in carbs and fats, are high in a kind of proteins (aminoacids) that are also not well matched to human requirements. <br /><br />Heretic<br /><br /><br /><br />[br>
jc3737 responded:
Heretic,Here is the problem I have with your analysis:Some may be born to eat carbs.
Rural Chinese and also personal experience....
I have a friend who came to this country from Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War.He fought with the Americans as a South V soldier.We often play table tennis and he will leap through the air as quick as a cat and hit the ball at 80mph past me so fast I have no time to react.He is small but very active healthy and alert.Not bad for an 91 yr old.
His diet is over 90% rice.Unlike many who immigrate to the US he has not picked up the SAD.
Rural Chinese and also personal experience....
I have a friend who came to this country from Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War.He fought with the Americans as a South V soldier.We often play table tennis and he will leap through the air as quick as a cat and hit the ball at 80mph past me so fast I have no time to react.He is small but very active healthy and alert.Not bad for an 91 yr old.
His diet is over 90% rice.Unlike many who immigrate to the US he has not picked up the SAD.
Report This| Share this:Plants suck!Heretic,Here is the problem I have with your analysis:Some may be born to eat carbs.<br /> <br />Rural Chinese and also personal experience....<br /> <br />I have a friend who came to this country from Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War.He fought with the Americans as a South V soldier.We often play table tennis and he will leap through the air as quick as a cat and hit the ball at 80mph past me so fast I have no time to react.He is small but very active healthy and alert.Not bad for an 91 yr old.<br /> <br />His diet is over 90% rice.Unlike many who immigrate to the US he has not picked up the SAD.
The idea that South East Asians eat nothing but vegetables is a myth. The main difference compared with the West is that they eat no bread (!).
Thai consume on average 35% fat (coconut, palm oil and pork fat). Vietnamese use fat too. Vegetables yes, vegan - no! Some fish and some meat and some fat too.
I am not claiming that their diet is bad, just not as good as it could have been had they been able to afford more fish, meat and fat. I think they would have been healthier, taller and physically stronger.
H.
Thai consume on average 35% fat (coconut, palm oil and pork fat). Vietnamese use fat too. Vegetables yes, vegan - no! Some fish and some meat and some fat too.
I am not claiming that their diet is bad, just not as good as it could have been had they been able to afford more fish, meat and fat. I think they would have been healthier, taller and physically stronger.
H.
Report This| Share this:Plants suck!The idea that South East Asians eat nothing but vegetables is a myth. The main difference compared with the West is that they eat no bread (!). <br /><br />Thai consume on average 35% fat (coconut, palm oil and pork fat). Vietnamese use fat too. Vegetables yes, vegan - no! Some fish and some meat and some fat too. <br /><br />I am not claiming that their diet is bad, just not as good as it could have been had they been able to afford more fish, meat and fat. I think they would have been healthier, taller and physically stronger.<br /><br />H.
My friend often goes days eating only one food....rice.(no vegetables or fish,just rice)I don't know how much healthier he could be when at the age of 91 he still has greater athletic ability,reflexes,hand eye coordination, and eyesight than most 21 yr olds.Granted he is small and not very muscular.I could not have used him on my football team,but he would be great as a speed or endurance athlete.
Report This| Share this:Plants suck!My friend often goes days eating only one food....rice.(no vegetables or fish,just rice)I don't know how much healthier he could be when at the age of 91 he still has greater athletic ability,reflexes,hand eye coordination, and eyesight than most 21 yr olds.Granted he is small and not very muscular.I could not have used him on my football team,but he would be great as a speed or endurance athlete.
DoloresTeresa responded:
Dr. Mirkin mentions something called Neu 5c which is found in red meat but not fish or poultry. It is supposed to be incompatible with proteins that are matched to human requirements.
How our ancient ancestors managed, upon coming down from the trees, to acquire large quantities of meat remains a mystery.
Most of us will eat what is at hand. (Probably the reason for our killing ourselves with fast food) Even modern hunter gatherers are not successful every time they set out to hunt, but only once every few times. I saw a film once of native hunters somewhere on a monkey hunt. I think they got about 8 monkeys for the whole tribe and I was under the impression that this hunting foray was a big deal. Not very frequent. It didn't look like there was a lot of meat on a monkey.
But the problem with us isn't the same as with our paleolithic ancestors. Nature is happy if we live to reproduce and raise children who become old enough to reproduce. Looking at the diets of most people in the West, you can see that just about any old diet with enough calories will do. However, we all want to live much longer--long enough to see our great grandchildren and retire to a water front home in Florida and sit on our rockers or play shuffle board at the senior center and complain we don't hear from our kids enough. Outside the ken of our ancient ancestors, none of whose fossil remains have been found to be older than fifty. Heck, nowadays you could reach fifty on a diet of potato chips and twinkies.
Dolores
How our ancient ancestors managed, upon coming down from the trees, to acquire large quantities of meat remains a mystery.
Most of us will eat what is at hand. (Probably the reason for our killing ourselves with fast food) Even modern hunter gatherers are not successful every time they set out to hunt, but only once every few times. I saw a film once of native hunters somewhere on a monkey hunt. I think they got about 8 monkeys for the whole tribe and I was under the impression that this hunting foray was a big deal. Not very frequent. It didn't look like there was a lot of meat on a monkey.
But the problem with us isn't the same as with our paleolithic ancestors. Nature is happy if we live to reproduce and raise children who become old enough to reproduce. Looking at the diets of most people in the West, you can see that just about any old diet with enough calories will do. However, we all want to live much longer--long enough to see our great grandchildren and retire to a water front home in Florida and sit on our rockers or play shuffle board at the senior center and complain we don't hear from our kids enough. Outside the ken of our ancient ancestors, none of whose fossil remains have been found to be older than fifty. Heck, nowadays you could reach fifty on a diet of potato chips and twinkies.
Dolores
Report This| Share this:Plants suck!Dr. Mirkin mentions something called Neu 5c which is found in red meat but not fish or poultry. It is supposed to be incompatible with proteins that are matched to human requirements.<br /><br />How our ancient ancestors managed, upon coming down from the trees, to acquire large quantities of meat remains a mystery. <br /><br />Most of us will eat what is at hand. (Probably the reason for our killing ourselves with fast food) Even modern hunter gatherers are not successful every time they set out to hunt, but only once every few times. I saw a film once of native hunters somewhere on a monkey hunt. I think they got about 8 monkeys for the whole tribe and I was under the impression that this hunting foray was a big deal. Not very frequent. It didn't look like there was a lot of meat on a monkey.<br /><br />But the problem with us isn't the same as with our paleolithic ancestors. Nature is happy if we live to reproduce and raise children who become old enough to reproduce. Looking at the diets of most people in the West, you can see that just about any old diet with enough calories will do. However, we all want to live much longer--long enough to see our great grandchildren and retire to a water front home in Florida and sit on our rockers or play shuffle board at the senior center and complain we don't hear from our kids enough. Outside the ken of our ancient ancestors, none of whose fossil remains have been found to be older than fifty. Heck, nowadays you could reach fifty on a diet of potato chips and twinkies.<br /><br />Dolores
Spotlight: Member Stories
Let's see.... I'm the mom of six (three hers, three mine) who used to live in Florida but now lives in the Chicago area. (Don't ask.) I&#...More
Helpful Tips
Scientific Evidence for HCG Weight Loss
The words "scientific evidence" are being thrown around a lot recently in regard to "DIETS" and while those words appear to be "Medically ... More
Was this Helpful?
12
of
29 found this helpful
Related News
Report Problems to the
Food and Drug Administration
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
Other Member Communities
- Dieting Club: 10 - 25 Lbs Member Community Share Your Tips and Support!
- Caregiving Member Community The Support and Understanding You Need!
- Parenting Friends Talking Member Community Get Support from Members Like You!
-
More Related Communities
The opinions expressed in WebMD User-generated content areas like communities, reviews, ratings, or blogs are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. User-generated content areas are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service, or treatment.
Do not consider WebMD User-generated content as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.
Health Solutions From Our Sponsors
About WebMD Advertise With Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sponsor Policy Site Map Careers Contact Us
First Aid WebMD Magazine WebMD Health Record WebMD Mobile Newsletters Dictionary Physician Directory
©2005-2013 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.
WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.