Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_ir36z34 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir3bqv9 wrote

Eating meat is normal. Eating meat at every goddamn meal is not normal. Is this just a western cultural thing? Because most eastern countries have loads of vegetarians and vegans and they are seen as the norm.

45

Corrupted_G_nome t1_ir3fccg wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#32,848)

Its a western thing. Unfortunately sometimes other cultures immitate it and the results are becomming wide spread.

The heathiest people eat meat occasionally amd on holidays (blue zones! They do light but regular labor and don't have access to highways. Their economies are slow and the folks who live lingest are women taking care of many grandkids.

Keep busy and keep communities close and do everything but in moderation. Slow down and relax and you may just live forever.

−7

HelluvaKnight t1_ir3ffko wrote

Mediterranean diet wins every time hands down. It has yet to be dethroned as king.

63

WithinFiniteDude t1_ir3qxq8 wrote

In the study they compared three plant based diets against each other.

While I'm sure that evidence exists in the bibliography, this is not the study to use to prove that vegan diets are better than meat based diets for colon health.

268

healthmadesimple t1_ir4a215 wrote

Replying to DigitalSteven1 (#34,163)

Not OP, but I read Blue Zones which had to do with centireans and longevity. There were some examples but keep in mind there are so many other reasons too like exercise and exceptions to the rules.

If you look at countries that have the best health there is no indicators that they are on plant based diets.

8

HungerMadra t1_ir4apyr wrote

Replying to healthmadesimple (#34,484)

Also I read an interesting observation that all the blue zones have universal Healthcare that focus on preventative care. While diet may be important, so is making sure everyone gets regular doctor visits.

13

SerialStateLineXer t1_ir4bcwt wrote

Replying to WithinFiniteDude (#33,692)

Well, no. They have indexes (PDI, hPDI, and uPDI) which are used to measure the extent to which an individual's diet matches a certain pattern.

> Higher adherence to the PDI, particularly the hPDI, was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, whereas greater adherence to the uPDI was associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Compared with the lowest quintile, the adjusted ORs in the highest quintile were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.95) for the PDI, 0.45 (95% CI: 0.38-0.55) for the hPDI, and 1.45 (95% CI: 1.18-1.78) for the hPDI, respectively.

So people whose diets scored highest on the PDI were less likely to have colorectal cancer than people whose diets scored lowest (although this was just barely statistically significant), and people whose diets scored highest on the hPDI (healthy PDI) had about half the risk as people whose diets scored lowest. On the other hand, people whose diets scored highest on the uPDI (unhealthy PDI, which I assume means lots of unhealthful plant foods and not much animal food) had significantly higher risk of colon cancer than those who scored lowest.

The ORs are not the result of comparing different PDIs to each other.

The main takeaway here seems to be that healthy diets reduce risk of colon cancer, and unhealthy diets increase it; the effect of vegan vs. omnivorous diet was much weaker and barely statistically significant.

Also, this probably indicates an underpowered study rather than sex differences in how diet affects cancer risk.

> In stratified analysis, the inverse association between the PDI and colorectal cancer risk was not observed in women, and the positive association between the uPDI and colorectal cancer risk was not observed in men.

79

CelestineCrystal t1_ir4cc3g wrote

yes it is, along with preventing and mitigating plenty of other cancers and diseases

−1

healthmadesimple t1_ir4dov3 wrote

Replying to healthmadesimple (#34,453)

A lot of cultural diets are healthy.

Mediterranean diet was popularized by Ancel Keys and the seven studies diet in the 1960s. Had they did a more comprehensive studies in other countries, I’m sure they’d find other beneficial diets and lifestyle.

Instead we base everything on this diet which was approached (and accepted) with cultural biases.

When you look at obesity, cardiovascular disease, and longevity you got countries like Korea and Japan who rank high on health list that aren’t on the Mediterranean diet.

42

ResilientBiscuit t1_ir4evfp wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#34,601)

I would imagine there is an argument to be made that this sort of behavior is unhealthy and might lead to a shorter lifespan on average.

I know there are studies that look simply at body size regardless of things like BMI and simply being bigger (e.g. taller without being fat) is correlated with higher rates of cancer because you simply have more cells.

1

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir4ij2u wrote

Replying to Ok_Tax7195 (#34,774)

Yes. It's been a health problem a lot of body builders face. I believe the effect on the kidneys is particularly bad. Processing all that extra protein overworks the kidneys and can lead to scarring and eventually decline. Drinking tons of water can mitigate the harm, however.

But that's just the effect on the kidneys. The liver damage and effect on the heart due to high cholesterol intake can't be mitigated with extra water.

Although, the high cholesterol can be countered by using vegan protein supplements instead of whey or animal based.

Still, intentionally overdosing on protein had it's risks.

2

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir4jplc wrote

Replying to Evergreen_76 (#34,815)

Meat for our ancient ancestors was a treat, not a staple. Nuts, grains, roots and tubers, and carbs.

https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/early-human-diets#:~:text=Prior%20to%20about%203.5%20million,modern%2Dday%20gorillas%20and%20chimpanzees.

"Prior to about 3.5 million years ago, early humans dined almost exclusively on leaves and fruits from trees, shrubs, and herbs—similar to modern-day gorillas and chimpanzees."

16

JohnCavil t1_ir4qh9q wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#34,876)

My ancestors were inuit, i'm pretty sure they ate a lot of meat and not many fruits.

People can keep going back further nd further until they can say all our ancestors ate grass because some ancient mammal did so. Modern humans did not exist prior to 3.5 million years ago so who cares what some ancient ape ate. I dont really care what species other than homo sapiens eat.

17

gotchostupidass t1_ir4rawp wrote

Replying to healthmadesimple (#34,622)

Yeah theres plenty of diets that are perfectly fine. At the end of the day what leads to obesity is overconsumption, and cardiovascular disease is obviously very associated with obesity. The problem is that people don’t understand that eating nutrient dense foods is very important. We are all on different difficulty levels due to the fact that we all have different levels of hunger cues, but eating nutrient dense foods that are satiating and understanding to not eat over your basal metabolic rate would fix a lot of our problems.

15

gotchostupidass t1_ir4rj9t wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#32,848)

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with eating non-processed meat, especially leaner cuts. What leads to most of the health issues we have today such as obesity is overconsumption of food. There are various types of diets that are perfectly healthy as long as you aren’t consuming over your metabolic rate. Going into a caloric surplus and becoming overweight is where most of our problems are.

4

gotchostupidass t1_ir4roic wrote

Replying to Corrupted_G_nome (#33,059)

Correlation ≠ causation. You can consume meat 3 times a day and be a perfectly healthy individual like myself who lifts weights, runs, etc. Overconsumption of food is what leads to obesity, which ultimately leads to CVD if something else doesn’t get you first.

1

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir4wges wrote

Replying to JohnCavil (#35,092)

You're not who I was replying to, but sure. Inuits were a special case because they ate almost every part of the animal to gain nutrients. This includes parts that the average person today would balk at. They certainly didn't eat the prime cuts for every meal.

7

rootmonkey t1_ir50w2i wrote

Replying to gotchostupidass (#35,130)

My father is suffering from colon cancer. I’ve been trying to make changes to my own diet. I’ve traditionally eaten lunch meat daily for many years due to convenience. I cut it out of my diet lately, and could be a coincidence but my bowel irritably has really improved. having his colon removed plus chemo did remove my fathers cancer but the cancer should up elsewhere later. Would be nice to have a cure, but preventing is better.

13

Corrupted_G_nome t1_ir55mnd wrote

Replying to DigitalSteven1 (#34,163)

Sure the US department of health. The Heart and Stroke foundation. The new Canadian food guide. The WHO recommends it too.

So its common knowledge and generally accepted and provable via science. The reason is simple, trans fats and salts. People simply eat far too much and get sick.

Blue zones were discovered through study so that is its own datum.

1

Corrupted_G_nome t1_ir55xkn wrote

Replying to musexistential (#34,961)

Blue zones is referring to a study.

Its recommended by many countries health associations including the US, Canada and the WHO. Both government and NGO seem to come to the same findings. Limited meat diets are better than high in meat diets. Im not sure the same rigor goes into studying vegan or vegetarian diets.

I thibk just less fat and less salt typically found in cheap meat is bad for the heart.

2

Corrupted_G_nome t1_ir567wd wrote

Replying to gotchostupidass (#35,141)

Thats not what the data shows. Fitness is not equal to health, one cannot see clogging arteries or excess fat on the heart.

Obviously being active and working out is healthy.

One can also smoke a pack of cigs a day and drink whisky and never work out and be healthy for decades. Observation is not data. Correlation can be positively correlated otherwise thats just whataboutism one could say for anything. But is gravity really due to mass? Correlation is not causality. Like please, thats a bad faith argument.

−1

JohnCavil t1_ir589x7 wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#35,344)

Again i think when you say things like "the average person today would balk at" you're assuming that average is some american/english person.

Even here in northern europe one of the most common foods for lunch is liver. As in pretty much everyone, from 4 year olds to 90 year olds consume it. It's probably a top 3 common food for lunch. Not to mention China where all kinds of weird parts and organs of the animal are regularly eaten. Africa too.

My point is and was just that when people discuss these sorts of things, they almost only do it from a western, but even more so an American perspective.

What did ancient humans eat? Some ate mostly fish. Some mostly fruits, berries and grains. Some mostly meat. Some a lot of roots and potatoes. Some ate a mix of everything. The inclination to say "oh well red meat is bad" or "well grains are bad" or "no meat is bad" because some group of humans 120,000 ago didnt eat x or y, completely ignores the fact that humans ate what was available, not what was healthy. You can't conclude anything based on ancient diets.

If you lived by the sea you ate fish. if you lived in a rainforest you ate fruits, if you lived on the steppes you ate meat. This has nothing to do with health. I know you weren't claiming that, but i think even discussing what the "average" person ate is completely irrelevant.

1

26Kermy t1_ir58igv wrote

Replying to healthmadesimple (#34,622)

Aren't Japanese diets (specifically Okinawan) very similar to Mediterranean diets in composition though? Tons of rich fish and veggies, legumes, and fruit are staples for both. The main difference is simple grains which are more common in Western diets.

6

StuartGotz t1_ir5b66q wrote

  1. food frequency questionnaire

this method is good for preliminary research but questionable for medical conclusions

  1. “In stratified analysis, the inverse association between the PDI and colorectal cancer risk was not observed in women, and the positive association between the uPDI and colorectal cancer risk was not observed in men.”

Did you conveniently omit this fron your headline? You’re cherry picking.

2

IngsocInnerParty t1_ir5flai wrote

Replying to rootmonkey (#35,538)

> Would be nice to have a cure, but preventing is better.

Make sure to see a gastroenterologist and see if they want you to start yearly colonoscopies. They may also want to test you for Lynch Syndrome.

My mother had colon cancer and Lynch Syndrome. I had genetic testing done and found I have it too, so they want me to get a colonoscopy every year.

2

RiverDragon64 t1_ir5g0ue wrote

Still not interested in plant based diet.

−5

Leading-Okra-2457 t1_ir5glx6 wrote

Is it true that human colon is longer like herbivores?

−1

gotchostupidass t1_ir5hg4f wrote

Replying to sufjanfan (#36,259)

To start, here’s a great article on what causes obesity (overconsumption) : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450866/

Here is a great study on the major health risks of obesity : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088226/

When it comes to studies on red meat, association is not very strong on red meat being inherently cancer-causing (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/), and for those who are concerned, adequate fiber consumption seems to cancel out the risk: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4588743/

Processed meats are obviously great to avoid, and you should watch your saturated fat consumption just because it does nothing to help your LDL to HDL cholesterol ratio, but generally eating lean meat (red or not) isn’t going to be a problem for a normal healthy individual. It’s one of the most nutrient dense foods you can get. For someone like me who is trying to gain muscle, it’s an amazing protein source as well. For people who are trying to lose weight, lean cuts of red meat would be greatly assisting as eating nutrient dense foods while in a caloric deficit helps with hunger cues and makes you feel more satiated. To demonize unprocessed lean meat is just flat out wrong.

1

FlounderOdd7234 t1_ir5hrnb wrote

Scientists have been working on this. It would be great people still want meat

−3

gotchostupidass t1_ir5hxaz wrote

Replying to Corrupted_G_nome (#35,800)

My LDL to HDL ratio and my triglycerides are completely okay in my results. Of course it’s important to regularly test yourself and see how you respond to consumption. I am a healthy individual and I don’t encounter issues with regular red meat consumption.

Of course someone can smoke regularly and be lucky to be healthy in the long run but of course the risk of all sorts of issues are incredibly high, and that level of risk is not comparable to the weak associations found in observational studies on red meat.

1

gotchostupidass t1_ir5j6ec wrote

Replying to rootmonkey (#35,538)

I’m sorry to hear about your father. I’m glad that he’s still here and that they were able to do something about. If I can suggest any changes to your diet, make sure that you have adequate fiber consumption. The weak association with colon cancer that is found with red meat consumption seems to be negated by adequate fiber consumption in studies.

And of course processed meats like lunch meat have clear association as carcinogens, like lunch meats, bacon, some sausages etc, so if you’re willing to cut them out that’s great! And the fact that you feel better if even better even if it isn’t due to cutting it. Do what feels best for you. If you’re a healthy individual, I wouldn’t be too scared of unprocessed lean cuts of red meat if you tolerate it okay. Always be sure to get your levels checked regularly, I believe every 5 years is what recommended but I try to go in once a year.

1

rootmonkey t1_ir5j74y wrote

Replying to IngsocInnerParty (#36,304)

Thanks for the tip, hope you avoid it. I’ve had one colonoscopy and have another planned this year. My sibiling has chrons.. so something I need to stay on top of. Sadly my father was getting regular colonoscopies but it didn’t catch it in time to avoid removing the colon. Will be nice with blood tests are the standard or supplement the other screenings.

2

gotchostupidass t1_ir5jn8k wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#35,328)

Lean cuts of unprocessed red meat have weak associations with colon cancer and CVD in studies. Chicken and fish are great of course, but not as nutrient dense as red meat, outside of fish like salmon. As long as you are getting your levels checked on a regular basis (every 5 years recommended), and you tolerate red meat, and you are a healthy individual who doesn’t overconsume calories, you will be okay eating red meat. And also, the weak association with colon cancer seems to be completely negates with adequate fiber consumption.

0

spilfy t1_ir5m757 wrote

Another study based off questionnaires, we really shouldn't trust these studies.

3

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir5m84c wrote

Replying to JohnCavil (#35,905)

I never said meat was bad. I said eating meat at every meal was bad. Everything in moderation. By the way, the near all meat diet of the Inuit people does take a toll on the body. Here's a few interesting links.

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1814937!/httpFile/file.pdf "Inuit have a similar prevalence of CAD (coronary artery disease) as non-Inuit populations, they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, their overall mortality is twice as high as that of non-Inuit populations, and their life expectancy is approximately 10 years shorter than the Danish population."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23489753

"Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards." (Note that the word "Eskimo" is used here because this article was written in 1974, before the word was ultimately replaced) https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/27/9/916/4911797?redirectedFrom=PDF

Due to their habit of eating raw meat, up to 12% over the age of 60 had trichinella. But eating raw meat was crucial to the Inuit, because their main source of vitamin C was raw seal and whale blubber. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20144253/

So maybe the Inuit diet isn't the best example. It worked, sure, but I wouldn't write home about how healthy it was.

4

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir5n6sx wrote

Replying to gotchostupidass (#36,533)

Sure, red meat every once in a while as a treat. But not every day, and certainly not at every meal. The World Cancer Research Fund acknowledges that lean red meat is better than fattier pieces, however, it should still be limited in your diet. Other sources recommend three servings a week or less. https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-processed-meat/

3

ramonycajal88 t1_ir5rxcf wrote

More and more of these studies are making me wonder if the key factor here is the fiber ratio? There is absolutely zero fiber in meat, dairy, sugar, and most highly processed foods.

I would love to see a study arm with a high fiber diet including meat compared to the plant based diet.

1

Aelok t1_ir66nwr wrote

I get real tired of whole comment chains removed by mods, it really starts to feel like mods enforce an echo chamber. It's on just about every interesting topic. Unless people just being blatantly racist or something, let the discourse stand!

4

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir674ru wrote

Replying to Mindless-Day2007 (#37,480)

Were they living in huts in the 1970s? If it was caused by cold weather, then the non-Inuit people of the same region would be experiencing it to, thus evening out the numbers. But that wasn't the case.

2

healthmadesimple t1_ir6b2im wrote

Replying to 26Kermy (#35,923)

Okinawan/Uchinanchu diet is different than Yamato (mainland Japanese) diet as they didn’t eat as much fish. Some theorize because of the extremely hot/humid weather they didn’t have as much fish as the Japanese.

Another thing about Okinawan diet is “Hara Hachi Bu” eat until you are 80% full which implies lower caloric intake.

Interesting enough less eating = longer life according to some researcher but there are trade offs.

Okinawans have a shorter average height and the older generations even more so.

Veggies, legumes are staples. I think of Goya which is bittermelon, kabocha (winter squash), etc. as well as Okinawan sweet potatoes. Less rice than the Japanese counterparts though. Some grains.

Alcohol and for the older generations ocassional pork (nowadays it’s a lot more meat). Interesting even enough in the late 1800s, Japanese didn’t really eat pork but Okinawans did and Okinawans eat all the different parts of pork, feet, ears, organs. Sources say less than 1% of diet.

Also: Okinawa has a unique culture, language, diet that is different than the average Yamato Japanese and was it’s own separate kingdom until the 1600s and had its own king until the late 1879.

2

healthmadesimple t1_ir6cedh wrote

Replying to gotchostupidass (#35,126)

I wouldn’t say as people don’t understand as much as ultra processed foods which are refined carbs and fat are convenient, affordable and hyper palatable. We’ve lost our traditions of making traditional meals at home with fresh ingredients.

You are absolutely right, more fiber (veggies or whole grains) and micronutrients, or protein have high satiety. Fat by itself or with protein is also good for satiety. Fat with refined carbs (eg donut, fries, ultra processed foods) have low satiety and also cause inflammation and have low amounts of micronutrients and polyphenols.

As for BMR, that could fluctuate based on many factors… and like you said if people aren’t eating high satiety food, they will basically try to override their hunger cues with willpower which is not good long term and may result in weight loss but may not necessarily be good with metabolic weight (weight cycling, yo yo dieting) eating the right foods and honoring hunger cues is a much more gentler approach while increasing lean muscle tissue through exercise may help increase BMR. So I totally agree with you there.

1

TerribleAttitude t1_ir6cmjv wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#32,848)

I’d say that at least for Americans, yes, there is a cultural expectation among many groups to eat meat at every meal, and for meat to be the predominant aspect of the meal. A lot of that is regional or generational though, and it’s starting to change.

What other people have said is pertinent though. A lot of eastern countries are tropical, so their habits can’t always be applied to temperate or cold climates. It’s very easy to center your eating habits around fresh produce and rice when you live in a place where those things can be grown year round and are essentially falling off of trees for free. Historically, people in cold climates (including eastern countries) eat a lot more meat, or even base their diet around meat. Even today with modern conveniences, a lot of people in parts of Alaska and Canada just don’t eat fresh vegetables as a daily thing because they can’t grow there and shipping them, even frozen vegetables, there makes them an extremely pricey luxury. And the people living there have been living on meat and fish for as long as they’ve been there. While the idea that people in temperate areas are somehow entitled to meat on a thrice-daily basis is obviously ridiculous and overprivileged, so too is it a privilege to live someplace where eating fresh plant based dishes for every meal is cheap and easy, and to assume everyone has the same access to those things.

0

healthmadesimple t1_ir6dmdj wrote

Replying to Corrupted_G_nome (#35,769)

Isn’t almost trans fat consumption from hydrogenated vegetable oils and some margarines which are plant based and not meat based?

Doesn’t ruminant trans fats (from dairy) have less health risk than trans fats from hydrogenated vegetable oil and margarine?

1

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir6exi6 wrote

Replying to TerribleAttitude (#37,836)

The Americas, aside from Canada, can hardly be considered a cold climate. There's plenty of farms and growing season in the northern US, and anything south of the border is considered the tropics. People just like to make excuses for their terrible eating habits. Portion sizes have almost doubled in the past few decades, and that includes the meat portion.

0

Corrupted_G_nome t1_ir6feif wrote

Replying to healthmadesimple (#37,906)

Nope, if it returns to solid at room temperature its semi solid inside you and can lead to health issues over a long term. Trans fats do resolidify.

People seem to think animals have some magical quality that makes them different. The cow got its fats (and proteins) from plants. Its made of the same stuff as you or I and we basically synthesize the same nutrients. Other than insoluble fiber that ruminants have a yeast ally to break down your building blocks and its building nlocks are made of the same stuff.

1

Haptoh t1_ir6gzgg wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#34,876)

Yeah humans 3.5 millions ago ate vegetarian diet. Except modern humans have been around for 300 thousand years.

Humans 2 billion years ago ate bacteria, maybe you should eat them too.

0

healthmadesimple t1_ir6jtes wrote

Replying to Corrupted_G_nome (#38,008)

The reason why vegetable trans fat is called “artificial trans fat” is because it’s not naturally occurring in plants

Artificial trans fats (or trans fatty acids) are created in an industrial process that adds hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils to make them more solid.

You may be right, functionally similar to natural ruminant trans fat

Except that foods containing ruminant trans fat has small amount while processed foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils has a lot more.

Tl;dr: most of the trans fat consumption in the US is from plants not from meat due to high consumption of highly processed foods.

The reason? Crops like soy, corn and canola are highly subsidized and are used in a lot of food processing

1

Mindless-Day2007 t1_ir6n6ib wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#37,558)

Some of them still living in huts right now, 70s? Plenty.

Non Inuit may not living in the huts and inhaled smokes or heavily smokers like Inuit. Again, there is plenty of reasons to get CVD, not only meat, or even worse is meat cause no cvd or little trouble but was being blamed for majority of cvd.

1

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir6o4z7 wrote

Replying to Mindless-Day2007 (#38,445)

High cholesterol diets have time and time again been linked to heart disease, so I think I'd been hard pressed to believe that a culture that lives almost exclusively off of meat and fats isn't victim to heart disease because of their diet. Smoke may play a part, but the diet certainly doesn't help.

1

skerpz t1_ir7b923 wrote

I’ve known both a vegan and a guy with colorectal cancer. Give me the colorectal cancer, as that was fixed with a surgery and brief chemo. Nothing has yet fixed the vegan.

0

Mindless-Day2007 t1_ir7ms7u wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#38,480)

And also dietary cholesterol has found no to little effect on body cholesterol. While smoking, smoke exposure, cold weathers, stress affect cholesterol. Therefore Inuit diet has little to do with CVD, or even if it does, insignificant part of it.

2

sufjanfan t1_ir7o01b wrote

Replying to gotchostupidass (#36,414)

>What leads to most of the health issues we have today such as obesity is overconsumption of food.

I was asking for a source on overconsumption being "most of the health issues we have today". Unless you were just talking about obesity.

3

Mindless-Day2007 t1_ir7p8nu wrote

Replying to HadMatter217 (#39,142)

Quite wrong there. Most of soy use to feed animals is low price while most soy use for human consumption is more expensive than using for feed. Why they want to sell 1$/kg for farmers instead 10$/kg for people?

1

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir7ui24 wrote

Replying to Mindless-Day2007 (#40,052)

I don't know where you are getting that information from but

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/cholesterol/#:~:text=The%20biggest%20influence%20on%20blood,cholesterol%20you%20eat%20from%20food.

"The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats and carbohydrates in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food."

The main contributor to a high cholesterol level is a high fat, low fiber diet . There are different types of fat, some good, some bad. The very worst of the worst are trans fats and saturated fats. Saturated fats are found almost exclusively in animal products, with the odd exception of coconut.

Inuits ate/eat a high fat, low fiber diet almost exclusively. That diet is loaded with saturated fat. While other environmental factors might also elevate the risk of cardiac disease, what they put in their bodies is inarguably the biggest factor.

1

Mindless-Day2007 t1_ir82jde wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#40,438)

Also > Although it remains important to limit the amount of cholesterol you eat, especially if you have diabetes, for most people dietary cholesterol is not as problematic as once believed.

> The discovery half a century ago that high blood cholesterol levels were strongly associated with an increased risk for heart disease triggered numerous warnings to avoid foods that contain cholesterol, especially eggs and liver. However, scientific studies show a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a person consumes and his or her blood cholesterol levels

> For most people, the amount of cholesterol eaten has only a modest impact on the amount of cholesterol circulating in the blood. (24) For some people, though, blood cholesterol levels rise and fall very strongly in relation to the amount of cholesterol eaten. For these “responders,” avoiding cholesterol-rich foods can have a substantial effect on blood cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, at this point there is no way other than by trial and error to identify responders from non-responders to dietary cholesterol.

Also Inuit diet is high in Inuit's wild-caught game are largely monounsaturated and rich in omega-3 fatty acids, aka good fats, yet they still have higher cvd, because mostly they eating raw which higher carbohydrates than regular Western diet.

1

Danofireleg33 t1_ir8dnsx wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#32,848)

The concept of eating meat with every meal goes back a long time. Eating meat used to be a status symbol, if you ate lots of meat it meant you could afford it so higher class people ate it and served it to guests whenever they could to show off thier wealth

0

Danofireleg33 t1_ir8dnss wrote

Replying to Fantastic_Beans (#32,848)

The concept of eating meat with every meal goes back a long time. Eating meat used to be a status symbol, if you ate lots of meat it meant you could afford it so higher class people ate it and served it to guests whenever they could to show off thier wealth

1

healthmadesimple t1_ir8i49u wrote

Replying to Aberbekleckernicht (#41,296)

Absolutely, though their life expectancy is similar to the US ranking around #50-60. Still impressive especially with the population size and rapid industrialization.

Hong Kong on the other hand tops the list.

China has made a lot of progress in health and longevity since the 1990s (and before that).

2

Fantastic_Beans t1_ir8p4gw wrote

Replying to Mindless-Day2007 (#40,823)

Yes. Cholesterol in food has a mild affect on cholesterol blood levels. However, fat and carbohydrates have a massive effect on blood cholesterol levels. Saturated fats in particular.

Inuit people include raw blubber in their diet; it's their main source of vitamin C. Blubber is mostly fat. Saturated fat.

I don't think I should have to explain this any further. Since you don't seem to understand and your grip on nutritional science is lacking, I won't be responding any further to you. Feel free to research the topic on your own, but I'm not being paid to tutor.

1