The main differences I'd say from growing up with local food compared now with other international food is the extra use of olive oil (vs other oils or butter), that normally in our food it's easier to tell where the ingredients came from vs some other more processed diets, extra bread/wheat use, and that even when we eat meat, it's not a "meat fest" like American bbq, it's normally accompanied with other food. And of course the use of local ingredients, which is particular to our diet but I'd guess most "regional diets" have this in common (with their particular ingredients).
No. They think it's less meat-heavy than the typical American diet. (Or less of a "meat fest," I guess you could say.)
From the Mayo Clinic[0]:
"Plant-based foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, seeds, herbs and spices, are the foundation of the diet. Olive oil is the main source of added fat.
"Fish, seafood, dairy and poultry are included in moderation. Red meat and sweets are eaten only occasionally."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
You could consider in the same way as the explanation for altruism - that families and communities who can rely on helpful old people to raise the children perform better and out-compete families/communities without that resource.
We should also consider that any dietary pressure will have only existed for at most a few thousands of years which, in evolutionary terms, 1000 generations perhaps, is basically nothing.
If they want to reproduce, don't they have to search outside their tribe for a sperm/egg donor and possibly surrogate? So at least 50% or more of their reproductive health comes from outside the tribe?
Attempts to characterize behavior show homosexuals more commonly staying with parents and supporting relatives. The usual explanation for this is that they are not interested or able to compete in the usual mating and paring rituals. It isn't that they want to reproduce so much as they want to contribute to the tribe and in doing so result in the reproductive capacity of the entire tribe being increased.
This sounds like it would be fascinating in general.
You’re speaking to modern times. Rebeccu, for instance, is a gorgeous town abandoned by Sardinians in the 14th century because of famine. Furthermore, the children of a famished mother are less likely to survive to reproductive age, and a family whose elderly died of famine will be less stable than one with multi-generational structures in place. These prenatal, neonatal and group selection dynamics bias the dice.
Bugs might reproduce primarily constrained by their LDL uptake but humans are far more complex.
Ireland https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/22/northern... Netherlands https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/15/netherla... Belgium https://www.brusselstimes.com/251313/government-advisors-pro...
No, this is not true.
More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326741/
Additionally, ApoB is an excellent biomarker of cardiovascular health risk.
Might just be semantic quibbling, though.
Even if the people ate meat there at the same proportion as a modern city dweller did: no hormones, probably orders of magnitude less toxins, traces of pharmaceuticals etc.
A lifestyle that doesn't know many sources of anxiety or stress and includes daily physical activity (walking instead of driving for a start) and an air quality opposite that of any big city just remove a lot of sources of what mostly kills people that could live longer otherwise.
Heart disease, cancer, stroke and (possibly) Alzheimer's disease.
The Mediterranean diet also means you can strike diabetes off the list.
Following WWII, my gruncle lived in Africa as his skin grafts wouldn't take in the British climate. He was like a patchwork quilt of grafts following his plane being shot down. Most white expats in Africa got nose cancer from the sun eventually. He moved back eventually, but had stayed out of the sun and never got nose cancer.
I can tell when I'm eating American beef because it stinks. As in there's literally a hint of feces in the smell and flavor. Pork also has an indescribably foul taste. I was born and raised in America and avoided mammal meat quite a bit because I couldn't stand the foulness. It wasn't until I moved out of the country that I realized beef and pork don't have to taste awful.
I can still tell immediately when I'm eating an imported piece of US beef. People I know who've traveled to American and find out that I'm American often mention the foulness of US meat whenever the topic of US food comes up (without me mentioning it).
Some people probably don't notice it or they're so acclimated to it that it tastes good. But when I see "finest US beef" on a menu, I'm ordering local chicken. And definitely not US chicken since that stuff is pumped full of saline and "flavor enhancers" to the point it looks like a breast implant.
in Paris you get better quality meat for 30-35$. and if you put 65$ you get something out of this world.
Both of these are probably true but the latter is more likely the significant margin.
Also may be worth noting the type of meat: e.g. the Sicilian staple I'm most familiar with myself is spleen.
No, it really isn't.
Many of them can't accept studies which prove that a good life can sometimes also come out from what they view as a "sinful" behavior.
Old Italians never saw meat eating and alcohol consumption as a negative aspect of life and enjoyed it just because it was part of their culture.
And, against all these calvinist principles, they still enjoyed a pretty long life.
Of course I understand that the antibiotic and and heavy metal infested meat and fish we eat is way less healthy then the meat our ancestors would eat.
If you live in modern day north europe the typical meat and dairy you get is heavily polluted and often processed. You can get veggies, fruits, seeds, nuts, legumes, mushrooms all year round. You can be fully nutrient complete based on the and skip the toxins in meat and dairy (and i forgot fish, especially sea fish is usually very toxic with mercury nowadays).
The gold standard tool is cronometer.com; try to make a diet there with only plant/fungi source and you probably only lack some b12 (which we used to get from drinking untreated surface water).
Saying we need animal products is simply not backed up by science. You are commenting on a book that has shown that some of the healthiest+longlived groups of people on the planet are vegan or near-vegan (okinawa and the adventists in calif).
What you sprout is unfounded "meat is needed for a balanced diet" propaganda. The plant based diet is backed by lots of research.
Combine that with the fact that nutrients from vegetables are not as easily accessible by our bodies, meaning that for some people with digestion problems it could cause dangerous deficiencies.
And last but not least, yes meat can be contaminated or polluted, so you should be very careful when choosing your cuts. But the same can be said about vegs and fruits I'm afraid:
"European citizens have been exposed to a dramatic rise in the frequency and intensity of residues of the most toxic pesticides on fruits and vegetables sold in the EU. This report and its primary conclusion contradict official claims that toxic pesticides use is declining and that food residue levels are under control. This report also exposes a complete failure by Member States and the European Commission to implement EU Regulation and protect consumers. "
https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/publ...
The majority of meat eaters also have vitamin and micronutrient deficiencies, I don't think plant based diets are the issue here but general culture. Bread and salt have iodine added, but when B12 gets added to plant milks it's suddenly "supplemented". No, most diets have vitamins supplemented, and most western people are having sub optimal diets.
If you are comparing a health conscious vegan to the average fast food freak then yes, I can agree with you.
Still, the deficiencies caused by meat avoidance are usually more dangerous with worse consequences.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316194551.h...
Toxins are bad. But all research has shown that persistent toxins are much more common in animal products than in plant foods. In some German research they found glyphosate concentrations were lowest in vegetarians and vegans.
But still I don't buy this whole meat avoidance stunt. Most studies show only small effects linked to meat avoidance which can be usually be well explained by the fact that vegetarians are usually health conscious people:
For example, Dan Buettner (the author of Blue Zones) suggests that Okinawans eat a 98% plant based diet which is...I won't say "fraudulent" because I think it's possible it's an honest mistake but it's definitely not "correct" at all. It's based off of some sketchy anecdotal accounts of WWII starvation diets where the only ate potatoes. Western centenarian researchers and health gurus repeated that factoid a bunch and it became "the okinawan diet is basically a potato-heavy vegan diet" in some twisted game of telephone.
In actuality both modern and ancient Okinawans have the highest meat consumption in Japan. Lard is the go-to frying oil even for vegetable dishes. The largest proportion of calories come from animal products. The Okinawan diet is a high fat, high carb, moderately high meat diet whose main "secret" is conscious portion restriction (the local "eat until you are 80% full" mantra). They do eat plenty of fish too, just not as much as the mainlanders (the idea that the okinawan diet is low in fish is crazy because the okinawans have a super unique and proud local history of fishing and seafood foraging traditions).
Idk about production methods, but am forced to eat vegetables due to a medical condition. First concern, it is still not healthy after half a year and few consultants. Second, all highly available fruits and vegetables are so identical piece-wise that their semi-synthetic origin isn’t even a question to me, please correct me if I’m wrong. I think that access to really healthy/natural vegetables is as expensive and nontrivial as to healthy meat. I even know where I can get healthy meat in bulk (village economies), but have no idea where to start with plants.
I dont undertstand this.
> but have no idea where to start with plants
I'm willing to help, please send me a message ([email protected]).
not to mention whenever i eat a homegrown fruit or vegetable it tastes so much more vibrant than anything I’ve had at the supermarket.
for meat it is different, usuallu people do not like to eat it without applying technology (heating (baking), salting, spicing with plant products, saucing with plant products) to it.
we do not actually like meat in its raw form, or when we have to manually strip it from animal bones.
Correlation is not science. It has its place in science but it's pretty limited tool. Sardinian research shows the longest living people there are meat eaters.
There's even a solid reason to believe that most of your "heavy research" if based on fake science: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/blue-zones-diet-speculation...
Why did I say your comment is ridiculous, because it simply is for anyone who has basic understanding of macro and micro nutrients and their presence in food. Especially amino acids. Plant based diet may work only if you are an office worker with minimum activity and access to synthetic vitamins.
Majority of pro-vegan drives are ideologically charged or have business intent behind them.
Nutrition beyond basics is freakishly complex and nuanced. There is no place for blanked statements such as "meat is bad" here.
And some smokers live long lives, we should look at these things not as isolated anecdotes but as risks on population levels.
>Nutrition beyond basics is freakishly complex and nuanced. There is no place for blanked statements such as "meat is bad" here.
Or "meat good", for that matter.
Any citations? I have one for your with a different evidence: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-bee....
"People from the anglosphere comes with their own idea of health, which is for the most part originated by their past religious idea of purity more than rock solid science. Many of them can't accept studies which prove that a good life can sometimes also come out from what they view as a "sinful" behavior.
Old Italians never saw meat eating and alcohol consumption as a negative aspect of life and enjoyed it just because it was part of their culture.
And, against all these calvinist principles, they still enjoyed a pretty long life."
Thanks, I have admit that imagining an early 1900 shepherd "following a fad diet" made me laugh.
In the mountain areas is typical to eat sheep and on the costal area is typical to eat fish
By the way, I am also under the impression that he doesn't mention that Okinawans eat, on average, way more Spam than their less Blue-Zoney(R) counterparts.
"The classic Sardinian diet is plant based, consisting of whole-grain bread, beans, garden vegetables, and fruits. Meat is largely reserved for Sundays and special occasions. Sardinians drink wine moderately."
Truth is that the Shepherds (the centenaries are mostly found in this group) were actually eating more animal protein and fat compared to the rest of the population.
https://snipboard.io/gbi9JY.jpg
They can keep lying to most people just because you can't understand Italian but whenever people from those towns are interviewed they always repeat that they were not vegetarians. Here a quick translation from this yt video:
Graziano who got to 102 got asked if he got to 102yo because he had always followed a mediterranean diet. He asked what's that? It means that you always ate vegetables. Vegetables are bad for you, I ate the grass of 100 sheeps because I ate the sheeps. And indeed he only ate meat, meaning that this whole alimentation thing should be checked again.
https://youtu.be/LQTocSMm7tw?t=647