5 ms·

I find it bad that scientific results get censored, and I am also wondering if there is proof that a plant-based diet is more healthy. My suspicion is it might

I find it bad that scientific results get censored, and I am also wondering if there is proof that a plant-based diet is more healthy. My suspicion is it might be for the average American, but it is based on gut feeling (pun intended). I remember margarine (plant-based) was all the rage too and IIRC it was much less healthy than butter (animal-based). My guess is it depends on the specific meals.

colordrops 4y ago
Margarine is a synthetic product, with the oil created in complex refineries then hydrogenated. You can't compare this to something like lentil stew or a salad. If the recommendation is that eating anything you want as long as the origin can be traced back to plants, then I agree, plant based diets aren't necessarily healthier. A WFPB (whole foods plant based) diet is undeniably healthy though. The problem with margarine is orthogonal - it's due to processing. Processing has been shown to be very unhealthy whether with plant based products like margarine, or animal based products like hot dogs. In any case the IPCC's recommendation is about the environment, and there is no doubt that animal foods are far worse for the environment.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Those are very good points. I agree on animal foods being worse for the environment too. Cheers.
- vintermann 4y ago
  The idea that "processed food" is bad annoys me, because it's so impossibly broad. Milling, roasting, fermenting, freezing, drying, smoking, chopping, soaking, skimming, distilling, salting, curing, pickling, sieving, threshing, squeezing, and yes, hydrogenation - Anything we do to food is processing, and a lot of food is not safe to eat without processing. Veganism is one thing, but the "raw food" diet is damn near impossible to make work, so much that the alternative people who embrace every other fad like that warn against it. It is specific forms of processing which are bad, in specific circumstances. Smoking is, sadly, bad because the substances which preserve the food are carcinogenic. Partial hydrogenation of oils is bad because half of the partially hydrogenated products will be trans fats which the body really isn't good at handling.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Many concerns are a matter of degree and involve complex fuzzy boundaries. It's difficult to find hard and fast rules when it comes to processed foods. When talking about processing, you need to do research to determine which sorts of processing are harmful and why. There is a lot of information available. This means understanding what you are putting into your body and what happens inside your body when you take in various food products. How deep you take this is also a choice. It doesn't matter what diet you choose.
mft_ 4y ago
There’s pretty good evidence that an unprocessed plant-based diet is the healthiest option. This is a good place to start: https://nutritionfacts.org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/
- mejutoco 4y ago
  For the benefit of other readers, the closest I could find in there to answer my question was: > Only one diet has ever been proven to reverse the progression of heart disease, our number one killer, and be effective in treating, arresting, and even reversing other deadly diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. And, that same diet—a whole food, plant-based diet—appears to be the most effective diet for healthy weight loss.
  - mft_ 4y ago
    Most of the content is in video form, and meat is often dealt with more directly on older videos, which are catalogued thus: * https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/3/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/3/ * https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/4/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/4/ e.g. How Much Does Meat Affect Longevity? - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-does-meat-affect-longevity/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-does-meat-affect-l... The Health Risks vs. Benefits of Meat Consumption - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-health-risks-vs-benefits-of-meat-consumption/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-health-risks-vs-benefit...
  - nradov 4y ago
    That is factually incorrect. Actual clinical research had shown that other diets can also be effective in reversing type-2 diabetes. That disease is primarily a matter of insulin resistance so the key point is to reduce carbohydrates. Whether the remaining nutrients come from plant or animal sources is largely irrelevant. https://www.virtahealth.com/reversediabetes https://www.virtahealth.com/reversediabetes Diets based on animal products have also been proven effective for weight loss. And the goal for most people isn't just to lose weight but rather to lose adipose tissue while retaining lean muscle; diets high in animal proteins tend to be a little more effective on that score. https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1743-7075-4-23 https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1743-7075-4-23
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The Eat Lancet report covers this from health, carbon and pollution angles: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/ https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/ The results are pretty much what you'd think.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Thanks. To spare a click to others. The part I found relevant to my question: Animal-based being healthier or not, independently of the environment in general. > Current overconsumption of meat in Western diets is a significant contributor to poor health and increases a person’s risk of becoming overweight, obese or developing certain noncommunicable diseases. Projections show that a global adoption of a Western diet high in meat intake matched with global population and economic growth will drive significant health burdens and push food systems well beyond environmental limits – multiple studies make the same predictions. > Avoiding these risks calls for a significant reduction of unhealthy food consumption – particularly poorly produced meat – in high- income countries, in addition to avoiding increasing consumption trends in middle-income countries. At the same time, it is critical that the food system ensures sufficient access to healthy levels of protein that are sustainably produced where hunger and malnutrition persist. It seems overconsumption of meat and poorly produced meat are the health problems, according to this report (with respect to individual health, environment concerns aside). I wonder how overconsumption is defined. Will try to dig in later.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That's such a bizarre and unscientific statement. People become obese and insulin resistant primarily from excessive consumption of carbohydrates, not from meat. Most people who try a carnivore diet actually lose weight. (I am not recommending that diet, but it is a fairly effective means of weight loss.)
    - kiko123 4y ago
      It is well known that the anti-meat and anti-animal-fat propaganda was funded by the sugar industry in the 1960s. Although I'm currently on a carnivore diet and finally seeing some health benefits after a long time experimenting and battling with debilitating health issues, I would not promote it either. The bottom line is that with the intense lobbying from both sides of the discourse, we've drifted really far from the original intention of nutritional science – to understand how our body processes foods and what nutrition will lead to best health outcomes. Fundamentally, I just want to do the best for my body and will gladly switch my diet at any point given enough data and consensus. This is tough to do when certain groups are directly benefiting from you not being in an optimal health. At this point I've resorted to experimenting on myself and trusting my gut, body and instincts when it comes to food. Also, reading smaller, hopefully-independent studies looking at certain micronutrients and their utilization – it's quite interesting to look at Vitamin A vs beta-carotene, ALA to DHA and EPA conversion, anti-nutrients and many more.

colordrops 4y ago

Margarine is a synthetic product, with the oil created in complex refineries then hydrogenated. You can't compare this to something like lentil stew or a salad. If the recommendation is that eating anything you want as long as the origin can be traced back to plants, then I agree, plant based diets aren't necessarily healthier. A WFPB (whole foods plant based) diet is undeniably healthy though. The problem with margarine is orthogonal - it's due to processing. Processing has been shown to be very unhealthy whether with plant based products like margarine, or animal based products like hot dogs. In any case the IPCC's recommendation is about the environment, and there is no doubt that animal foods are far worse for the environment.

mejutoco 4y ago
Those are very good points. I agree on animal foods being worse for the environment too. Cheers.
vintermann 4y ago
The idea that "processed food" is bad annoys me, because it's so impossibly broad. Milling, roasting, fermenting, freezing, drying, smoking, chopping, soaking, skimming, distilling, salting, curing, pickling, sieving, threshing, squeezing, and yes, hydrogenation - Anything we do to food is processing, and a lot of food is not safe to eat without processing. Veganism is one thing, but the "raw food" diet is damn near impossible to make work, so much that the alternative people who embrace every other fad like that warn against it. It is specific forms of processing which are bad, in specific circumstances. Smoking is, sadly, bad because the substances which preserve the food are carcinogenic. Partial hydrogenation of oils is bad because half of the partially hydrogenated products will be trans fats which the body really isn't good at handling.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Many concerns are a matter of degree and involve complex fuzzy boundaries. It's difficult to find hard and fast rules when it comes to processed foods. When talking about processing, you need to do research to determine which sorts of processing are harmful and why. There is a lot of information available. This means understanding what you are putting into your body and what happens inside your body when you take in various food products. How deep you take this is also a choice. It doesn't matter what diet you choose.

mft_ 4y ago

There’s pretty good evidence that an unprocessed plant-based diet is the healthiest option. This is a good place to start: https://nutritionfacts.org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/

mejutoco 4y ago
For the benefit of other readers, the closest I could find in there to answer my question was: > Only one diet has ever been proven to reverse the progression of heart disease, our number one killer, and be effective in treating, arresting, and even reversing other deadly diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. And, that same diet—a whole food, plant-based diet—appears to be the most effective diet for healthy weight loss.
- mft_ 4y ago
  Most of the content is in video form, and meat is often dealt with more directly on older videos, which are catalogued thus: * https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/3/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/3/ * https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/4/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/page/4/ e.g. How Much Does Meat Affect Longevity? - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-does-meat-affect-longevity/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-does-meat-affect-l... The Health Risks vs. Benefits of Meat Consumption - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-health-risks-vs-benefits-of-meat-consumption/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-health-risks-vs-benefit...
- nradov 4y ago
  That is factually incorrect. Actual clinical research had shown that other diets can also be effective in reversing type-2 diabetes. That disease is primarily a matter of insulin resistance so the key point is to reduce carbohydrates. Whether the remaining nutrients come from plant or animal sources is largely irrelevant. https://www.virtahealth.com/reversediabetes https://www.virtahealth.com/reversediabetes Diets based on animal products have also been proven effective for weight loss. And the goal for most people isn't just to lose weight but rather to lose adipose tissue while retaining lean muscle; diets high in animal proteins tend to be a little more effective on that score. https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1743-7075-4-23 https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1743-7075-4-23

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The Eat Lancet report covers this from health, carbon and pollution angles: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/ https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/ The results are pretty much what you'd think.

mejutoco 4y ago
Thanks. To spare a click to others. The part I found relevant to my question: Animal-based being healthier or not, independently of the environment in general. > Current overconsumption of meat in Western diets is a significant contributor to poor health and increases a person’s risk of becoming overweight, obese or developing certain noncommunicable diseases. Projections show that a global adoption of a Western diet high in meat intake matched with global population and economic growth will drive significant health burdens and push food systems well beyond environmental limits – multiple studies make the same predictions. > Avoiding these risks calls for a significant reduction of unhealthy food consumption – particularly poorly produced meat – in high- income countries, in addition to avoiding increasing consumption trends in middle-income countries. At the same time, it is critical that the food system ensures sufficient access to healthy levels of protein that are sustainably produced where hunger and malnutrition persist. It seems overconsumption of meat and poorly produced meat are the health problems, according to this report (with respect to individual health, environment concerns aside). I wonder how overconsumption is defined. Will try to dig in later.
- nradov 4y ago
  That's such a bizarre and unscientific statement. People become obese and insulin resistant primarily from excessive consumption of carbohydrates, not from meat. Most people who try a carnivore diet actually lose weight. (I am not recommending that diet, but it is a fairly effective means of weight loss.)
  - kiko123 4y ago
    It is well known that the anti-meat and anti-animal-fat propaganda was funded by the sugar industry in the 1960s. Although I'm currently on a carnivore diet and finally seeing some health benefits after a long time experimenting and battling with debilitating health issues, I would not promote it either. The bottom line is that with the intense lobbying from both sides of the discourse, we've drifted really far from the original intention of nutritional science – to understand how our body processes foods and what nutrition will lead to best health outcomes. Fundamentally, I just want to do the best for my body and will gladly switch my diet at any point given enough data and consensus. This is tough to do when certain groups are directly benefiting from you not being in an optimal health. At this point I've resorted to experimenting on myself and trusting my gut, body and instincts when it comes to food. Also, reading smaller, hopefully-independent studies looking at certain micronutrients and their utilization – it's quite interesting to look at Vitamin A vs beta-carotene, ALA to DHA and EPA conversion, anti-nutrients and many more.