3 ms·
I'm assuming by "best results" you mean "the greatest probability of not consuming any animal products whatsoever" For the "best results nutritionally", you're
by viggity 17y ago
I'm assuming by "best results" you mean "the greatest probability of not consuming any animal products whatsoever"
For the "best results nutritionally", you're probably better of eating animal products, including ones that have been cooked.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/09/15/he_cooked_up_a_new_theory_on_evolution/ http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/09/15/he_co...
- grandalf 17y agoQuite the contrary (that research makes the common logical error of assuming that just because something may have conferred a selection advantage over eons of evolution, that it does so today in a world with no calorie/nutrient scarcity). See the following thread and article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=676446 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=676446 and http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246301048&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Im...
- dejb 17y agoThere is also an alternative theory that "Man's ability to digest starchy foods like the potato may explain our success on the planet" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6983330.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6983330.stm So does this mean that a diet rich in potato is best nutritionally? Of course not. In evolutionary times whatever could deliver the most calories was 'best nutritionally'. Our inbuilt instinct to follow this path has most likely lead to the current obesity epidemic. To work out what is the best diet for our current circumstances you need to actually study how different diets impact health. And the results are clear - the best diet includes little or no meat (excluding fish).