4 ms·

We do know, all the evidence points in the direction that the western diet, high in animal products and processed foods is the number explanation for the rampan

by vfc1 7y ago

We do know, all the evidence points in the direction that the western diet, high in animal products and processed foods is the number explanation for the rampant increase of cancer, diabetes and heart disease in the west. This argument is old: we don't know because the perfect experiment has not been conducted and never will and because the studies that we have don't say what we want to hear. If the news is bad, question the source and keep doing the same thing. This was what was done for decades with tobacco, for decades the validity of the argument that it causes cancer was questioned. Here we are in 2019 and still 15% of adults smoke in the US. And still, the perfect experiment was never done and never will. Take any population that is healthy, they move to the west and develop these illnesses. The places in the world that have the best health are the ones that eat fewer animal products. The Inuit that eat only meat and fish have rampant arteriosclerosis. People on the paleo diet have been found to have much higher levels of a biomarker linked to heart disease than people on a normal diet, for which cancer rates are increasing - https://www.sbs.com.au/news/study-links-paleo-diet-to-heart-disease https://www.sbs.com.au/news/study-links-paleo-diet-to-heart-... When a whole country stopped eating animal products for a year (during WW one) their health as a population massively increased. The list goes on and on, we have epidemiological studies, we have population studies, we know some of the mechanisms through which cancer is developed, we know that a plant-based diet reverses heart disease. But we still prefer to keep saying that we just don't know, because we don't like the news.

smarkov 7y ago
From the article you linked: > Eating more red meat under the Paleo diet paired with a lack of whole grains results in higher levels of a biomarker linked to heart disease WITH A LACK OF WHOLE GRAINS. Does that mean that red meat is the cause or that the lack of a balanced diet is the cause? > The places in the world that have the best health are the ones that eat fewer animal products. Where's the evidence for that claim? If we look at the life expectancy for each country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... The US ranks at #30 out of 180 which is quite decent despite their huge consumption of animal and more importantly processed foods. The countries which are at the bottom are there not because they consume animal products but because they have poor living conditions and little to no health care available. Meanwhile Japan is at #1 and all kinds of meats including raw are a frequent part of their diet.
- vfc1 7y ago
  It just means that the population cancer rates in general just keep rising, and adopters of the paleo diet which is promoted as a meat-based health diet have even higher levels of certain cancer biomarkers. The current science says that processed meat is a known carcinogen, and red meat a likely carcinogen. This The places with the highest lifespan have all low animal product diets and are known as the blue zones - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone The health in the US is pretty bad, the rates of cancer, stroke, heart disease, and diabetes are at all-time highs and keep rising. You can give drugs to people and keep them alive for longer, but in which conditions? Did you see the source of the article? It's a journal sponsored by the meat industry - https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About
  - smarkov 7y ago
    What if the adopters of the paleo diet have turned to it because they are already suffering from a disease and it's the most popular healthy option? While the animal products consumption per person has increased in the US, so have other factors such as stress, depression, loneliness, alcohol consumption and a sedentary lifestyle which all contribute to diseases. And if you pay close attention, the reduction of all these factors is what countries in the "blue zone" all have in common.
    - vfc1 7y ago
      The level of the TMAO biomarker is higher in meat eaters especially paleo eaters, and lower in strict vegetarians. Actually, strict vegetarians when fed meat won't even produce TMAO, because they don't have the gut bacteria that produces it as its a meat-eating bacteria. Note that depression is also linked to food consumption and impaired gut health, which is linked to a diet heavy in animal products. In the blue zones, clearly the biggest factor is the diet which is almost 100% plant based. There is this correlation between health and plant-based diets everywhere. In the US for example, meat eaters have higher body weight than vegetarians, which have a higher body weight than strict vegetarians. Actually, strict vegetarians are the only ones of those groups that have a normal body weight.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
> We do know, all the evidence points in the direction that the western diet, high in animal products and processed foods is the number explanation for the rampant increase of cancer, diabetes and heart disease in the west. Here's the thing: we don't know that, at least not with the kind of certainty you're claiming. In particular, "high in animal products" and "processed foods" are totally divorced from one another, and can't be lumped into the same causal bucket without a good reason for doing so. Are the animal products in our diet causing diabetes, or is it the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup, or is it something else entirely? I have my own suspicions, and plenty of people more qualified than me have their suspicions, but they're still just suspicions, not proven facts. Same thing with heart disease. Red meat was blamed for coronary troubles for years, but there are plenty of people on paleo diets that seem to improve all of the important markers for heart disease. There are also plenty of people on vegan diets that seem to improve all of the important markers for heart disease. I think we can say, without any controversy, that eating more vegetables is better for us, and that eating foods that come in cans or boxes is worse than eating food that comes farm-to-table. But aside from those two broad categories, I don't think we can make sweeping claims about what foods are "good" or "bad" for us, simply because there is no consistent, conclusive research to prove it.

by vfc1 7y ago

smarkov 7y ago

From the article you linked: > Eating more red meat under the Paleo diet paired with a lack of whole grains results in higher levels of a biomarker linked to heart disease WITH A LACK OF WHOLE GRAINS. Does that mean that red meat is the cause or that the lack of a balanced diet is the cause? > The places in the world that have the best health are the ones that eat fewer animal products. Where's the evidence for that claim? If we look at the life expectancy for each country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... The US ranks at #30 out of 180 which is quite decent despite their huge consumption of animal and more importantly processed foods. The countries which are at the bottom are there not because they consume animal products but because they have poor living conditions and little to no health care available. Meanwhile Japan is at #1 and all kinds of meats including raw are a frequent part of their diet.

vfc1 7y ago
It just means that the population cancer rates in general just keep rising, and adopters of the paleo diet which is promoted as a meat-based health diet have even higher levels of certain cancer biomarkers. The current science says that processed meat is a known carcinogen, and red meat a likely carcinogen. This The places with the highest lifespan have all low animal product diets and are known as the blue zones - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone The health in the US is pretty bad, the rates of cancer, stroke, heart disease, and diabetes are at all-time highs and keep rising. You can give drugs to people and keep them alive for longer, but in which conditions? Did you see the source of the article? It's a journal sponsored by the meat industry - https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About
- smarkov 7y ago
  What if the adopters of the paleo diet have turned to it because they are already suffering from a disease and it's the most popular healthy option? While the animal products consumption per person has increased in the US, so have other factors such as stress, depression, loneliness, alcohol consumption and a sedentary lifestyle which all contribute to diseases. And if you pay close attention, the reduction of all these factors is what countries in the "blue zone" all have in common.
  - vfc1 7y ago
    The level of the TMAO biomarker is higher in meat eaters especially paleo eaters, and lower in strict vegetarians. Actually, strict vegetarians when fed meat won't even produce TMAO, because they don't have the gut bacteria that produces it as its a meat-eating bacteria. Note that depression is also linked to food consumption and impaired gut health, which is linked to a diet heavy in animal products. In the blue zones, clearly the biggest factor is the diet which is almost 100% plant based. There is this correlation between health and plant-based diets everywhere. In the US for example, meat eaters have higher body weight than vegetarians, which have a higher body weight than strict vegetarians. Actually, strict vegetarians are the only ones of those groups that have a normal body weight.

thomascgalvin 7y ago

> We do know, all the evidence points in the direction that the western diet, high in animal products and processed foods is the number explanation for the rampant increase of cancer, diabetes and heart disease in the west. Here's the thing: we don't know that, at least not with the kind of certainty you're claiming. In particular, "high in animal products" and "processed foods" are totally divorced from one another, and can't be lumped into the same causal bucket without a good reason for doing so. Are the animal products in our diet causing diabetes, or is it the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup, or is it something else entirely? I have my own suspicions, and plenty of people more qualified than me have their suspicions, but they're still just suspicions, not proven facts. Same thing with heart disease. Red meat was blamed for coronary troubles for years, but there are plenty of people on paleo diets that seem to improve all of the important markers for heart disease. There are also plenty of people on vegan diets that seem to improve all of the important markers for heart disease. I think we can say, without any controversy, that eating more vegetables is better for us, and that eating foods that come in cans or boxes is worse than eating food that comes farm-to-table. But aside from those two broad categories, I don't think we can make sweeping claims about what foods are "good" or "bad" for us, simply because there is no consistent, conclusive research to prove it.