Also, I was under the impression that the vast majority of lectins are removed during preparation/cooking of plant foods
Are Vegetarians Healthier than Omnivores? A Soho Forum Debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qDYl4zHmAg
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.
There's plenty of articles about fiber, here's just a short list I just found.
https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/how-fiber-helps-prevent-c...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Dietary_fi...
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."
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.”
Dr. Zoë Harcombe - 'What about fiber?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KrmpK_Lckg
> 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.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zo%C3%AB_Harcombe
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.
Eat as much fiber as you like. I don't think it's necessary to eat fiber to be healthy, but if you like it, eat it.
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.
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.
The Blue Zones diets are also unique in that they're not "ancestral" but are currently working today.
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.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-now-has-the-worlds...
https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/loma-linda-california/
Oh. I didn’t know liver was a plant now?
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!!"
Research gaps in evaluating the relationship of meat and health https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03091...
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.
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 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.
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.
Very noble diet/ethos for many reasons, but it is not optimized for nutrition, it's optimized for other goals.
Also, EPA/DHA is really powerful stuff.
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/adfowt...
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.
Except when it is Michael Pollan's advice, right? :-P
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.
Being healthy is not just a matter of diet, but also ... stress levels.
> I feel clueless when it comes to this kind of thing
But you can find it out for yourself, can't you? By trying out a diet for one month, and see how you feel at the end.
Example instructions for the carnivore diet: http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht...
Finding out the facts for yourself is the best way to go, as listening to other people means you will inevitably be inheriting their biased beliefs.
It is called self-experimentation.
The other side has no sources provided whatsoever.
WHO has been wrong for example in regards to meat and cancer: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/
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.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932295
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/adfowt...
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?
Fiber makes you poop because your body is literally rejecting it.
This article explains it in a simple way. https://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/en/breaking-short-cha...
Fiber and colorectal diseases: Separating fact from fiction - World Journal of Gastroenterology https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v13/i31/4161.htm
"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."
Dr. Zoë Harcombe - 'What about fiber?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KrmpK_Lckg
Myths and Truths about Fiber https://chriskresser.com/myths-and-truths-about-fiber/
The hot air and cold facts of dietary fibre https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2659900/
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.
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065 2. https://chriskresser.com/what-is-nutrient-density-and-why-is... 3. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joel_Fuhrman
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.