Also, I'll stress again that the vitamin C argument is a very poor one, since I've always agreed that we're fruit eaters but very little fruit is needed to fill the vitC requirements, specially when you're eating low on carbs. To think that the vitC argument justifies eating like chimpanzees is at least farfetched. Just because we're not lions, doesn't mean we're chimps, there's room in between.
(Not to mention even muscle meat, as long raised naturally, has probably enough vitamin C for a low-carber.)
Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
-
mario91
- Posts: 268
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2011 22:56
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
@ Mario
but what will you do with all the extra protein?
Would not they cause gout?
https://www.health24.com/Diet-and-nutri ... 5-20130210
but what will you do with all the extra protein?
Would not they cause gout?
https://www.health24.com/Diet-and-nutri ... 5-20130210
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
By the way yooou did not answer my questions.Aytundra wrote: ↑Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:14 RRM, more questions:
What about the calcium content of goats milk is it too much calcium?
Would you be speeding up bone formation and bone aging with the milk?
What about egg yolks?
Egg yolks are for baby chickens.
They grow so fast in that egg, chicks have bones by the time they hatch out after 20 days.
Do egg yolks contain too much calcium?
Do egg yolks contain growth factors?
Why does goat milk or cow milk have too much opioid peptides?
Do egg yolks have opioid peptides?
Egg yolks with vitamin A, D, omega 3 acids, are they better or worse than eggs with less?
!Why all the attention to Panacea? {Muuuust come up with more inteerrrestin questions than Panacea! }
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Aytundra,
Maybe, if you eat nothing but protein. There's also something called the rabbit starvation, when people ate nothing but protein (and no fat) and therefore developed disease. That's because both are essential nutrients for humans (carbs aren't). If you eat only 1, or eat little of either of them, you can develop disease. Don't be afraid of protein, we've always been avid consumers. At least Europeans - what else was there to eat before agriculture? Go into the wild and see for yourself. And we've been here for at least half a million years, that's a lot of time to adapt, even if we came from Africa.
Maybe, if you eat nothing but protein. There's also something called the rabbit starvation, when people ate nothing but protein (and no fat) and therefore developed disease. That's because both are essential nutrients for humans (carbs aren't). If you eat only 1, or eat little of either of them, you can develop disease. Don't be afraid of protein, we've always been avid consumers. At least Europeans - what else was there to eat before agriculture? Go into the wild and see for yourself. And we've been here for at least half a million years, that's a lot of time to adapt, even if we came from Africa.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
People have lived for years solely on raw meat, and did not develop scurvy or any vitamin c deficiency effects, they go into a ketogenic state, and in a ketogenic state you need much less vitamin c - vitamin c has a role in helping to utilize carb based foods that the vitamin c comes in. It's not manufactured by the body because it's abundant either in the foods we'd naturally eat, or is just not needed beyond the minuscule levels found in raw animal food when that's all we eat.
Actually though, nutrients are critical to modern people, there are a ton of people on restricted diets, like vegans, that need to supplement animal food nutrients because they don't get these critical nutrients, and can't simply live on 'energy' like protein, fats, and carbs without them. It's almost common sense!
Fruits, which cannot be easily digested in the daily amounts required for sustenance without actually processing the food and removing much of the fiber and other relatively useless junk that gets in the way of digestion. Juicing fruits is a way of making fruits more 'nutrient dense' because all of the shit fiber is no longer blocking its uptake and clogging the gut. Nutrient density isn't important, eat all the fiber and have a bloated gut like a gorilla and see how well you feel.
Actually though, nutrients are critical to modern people, there are a ton of people on restricted diets, like vegans, that need to supplement animal food nutrients because they don't get these critical nutrients, and can't simply live on 'energy' like protein, fats, and carbs without them. It's almost common sense!
Fruits, which cannot be easily digested in the daily amounts required for sustenance without actually processing the food and removing much of the fiber and other relatively useless junk that gets in the way of digestion. Juicing fruits is a way of making fruits more 'nutrient dense' because all of the shit fiber is no longer blocking its uptake and clogging the gut. Nutrient density isn't important, eat all the fiber and have a bloated gut like a gorilla and see how well you feel.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Panacea, exactly. In the modern context we need way more nutrients, to cleanse the overwhelming ammount of toxins we're exposed too, and heal the overwhelming ammount of oxidative stress. Not to mention wild plants are several times higher in nutrients than our farmed, man-made ones. To live on modern farmed plants alone is a recipe for disaster, and vegans are clear proof of that.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
I think though that what RRM was getting at is that we don't need an excess of vitamins and minerals, 'nutrients' was a poor term to attack because actually fats and proteins are nutrients too. It's pretty well understood though that vitamin and mineral toxicity is pretty difficult to achieve with diet alone, most people have these problems by megadosing on supplements. Also a surprising number of people don't have vitamin and mineral deficiencies even though they eat horrible quality food like candy/baked foods primarily. I think that's a pretty good testament to the body's ability to regulate vitamins and minerals no matter how much or how little you eat of them, but it probably puts the body in more stress when you eat too little rather than too much, since it would have to really try hard to find certain things in food when you eat too little, and could just make you pee out the excess if you ate too much of something.
Something I've been reading about a lot lately is the role of enzymes in food, and predigestion of food. Many animals such as birds, dolphins, whales, etc. have stomachs where the food actually digests itself, kind of like an internal sprouting pouch in the case of the birds crop, where seeds 'sprout' internally for 8-12 hours at body temperature.
Rats that are fed boiled foods only will actually eat their own feces, while the same foods fed to rats raw the rats won't eat their own feces. The reason, the researcher believed, was that the feces contained enzymes made by the rat, and boiling the foods destroyed the enzymes, so rather than have to make more enzymes for every meal, the rat considered it worthwhile enough to consume their own feces, and get the enzymes back instead of have to make more. Either that, or the enzymes being there during the early stages of digestion is important, and consuming the feces was the only way to get them there at this critical time since the food was boiled/enzymeless. Interestingly, as long as the rats were able to consume their own feces on the boiled diet, their lifespan was just as long as the raw diet rats.
In fruits, the process of ripening actually depletes a lot of the enzymes (for example, unripe papaya has many more enzymes than ripe papaya). Also, the seeds in many fruits which are often haphazardly ingested (unless juiced) can contain a lot of enzyme inhibitors. In my opinion this is another area that raw animal foods 'win' in compared to any plant foods, very little to no enzyme inhibitors and lots of enzymes in animal foods.
Something I've been reading about a lot lately is the role of enzymes in food, and predigestion of food. Many animals such as birds, dolphins, whales, etc. have stomachs where the food actually digests itself, kind of like an internal sprouting pouch in the case of the birds crop, where seeds 'sprout' internally for 8-12 hours at body temperature.
Rats that are fed boiled foods only will actually eat their own feces, while the same foods fed to rats raw the rats won't eat their own feces. The reason, the researcher believed, was that the feces contained enzymes made by the rat, and boiling the foods destroyed the enzymes, so rather than have to make more enzymes for every meal, the rat considered it worthwhile enough to consume their own feces, and get the enzymes back instead of have to make more. Either that, or the enzymes being there during the early stages of digestion is important, and consuming the feces was the only way to get them there at this critical time since the food was boiled/enzymeless. Interestingly, as long as the rats were able to consume their own feces on the boiled diet, their lifespan was just as long as the raw diet rats.
In fruits, the process of ripening actually depletes a lot of the enzymes (for example, unripe papaya has many more enzymes than ripe papaya). Also, the seeds in many fruits which are often haphazardly ingested (unless juiced) can contain a lot of enzyme inhibitors. In my opinion this is another area that raw animal foods 'win' in compared to any plant foods, very little to no enzyme inhibitors and lots of enzymes in animal foods.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
True, hypervitaminosis is nothing but a toxic reaction to man-made chemicals which we somehow call nutrients. Otherwise the Eskimos and the Maasai would be plagued by it, specially when their animal foods are indefinitely more nutrient dense than what most of us currently have acess to.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
As i said, fruits and animal food are perfectly complementary. They complement each other; together, they give you everything that you need.
That means that you can do with little animal food without any adverse effects.
I'm not saying that 50/50 is not ok. It just means that you don't need much animal food, because with little animal food, you still get all the nutrients that you need. You think that more is better, but that is not always the case. Getting more nutrients than you need does not make you more healthy.
And that means that when considering how much animal food to take, other factors may come into play as well.
1) Lets assume a healthy, active lifestyle.
When you are physically active, you burn mostly sugars for muscle energy.
As far as energy is concerned, animal food is predominantly fats and protein.
Protein is not as good a source of energy as fats and sugars are. Fats, sugars and protein all consist of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, but protein contains another element: nitrogen. When protein is used for energy (by converting it into either fat or sugar-like molecules), that protein is redundant. It may either (for a limited amount) get used for the production of non-essential amino acids, but beyond that, it is simply discarded, by subsequently converting it into ammonia and ureum. So, as far as energy is concerned, fats and sugars are more efficient sources. The primary function of protein is providing building blocks (amino acids) for construction purposes.
2) Animal food is more expensive than fruits
3) Producing animal food is not as good for the environment
4) Producing animal food is not as animal friendly
So, when eating 10/90 or 50/50 makes no difference healthwise, 10/90 might be the better choice.
Great, we found some common ground.Vegans can definitely survive for many years, but no more than survive.
Let us sink this in: We can survive for many, many years (even decades) without any animal food at all.
That means that we can almost do without.
Almost.
And it is true: if you look at the nutrients we really need, and in what quantities, then it is very clear that we don't need much animal food. You think that more nutrients is better, right? But beyond our needs, nutrients serve no purpose. If you need 10 mg of iron daily, consuming 20 mg daily is not better for your health. Normally, your body compensates for a higher intake of iron by lowering the iron absorption rate. That is to prevent elevated serum iron values (as iron has pro-oxidative properties). So, your body obviously does not want more iron than it needs. More is not better.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Which enzymes exactly are you talking about?
All the enzymes in your blood are endogenously produced. Enzymes in food are proteins that are digested and decomposed into peptides and amino acids. They never make it to your blood.
Are you talking about digestive enzymes?
Which digestive enzymes exactly are substantially present in animal food?
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Im very sorry, i completely missed your post!
Yes, about the same as cow's milk
Yes, depending on how much you drink.Would you be speeding up bone formation and bone aging with the milk?
Egg yolks do not contain much calcium because chickens have relatively small bones, due to their small mass.What about egg yolks?
Egg yolks are for baby chickens.
They grow so fast in that egg, chicks have bones by the time they hatch out after 20 days.
Do egg yolks contain too much calcium?
The forces of gravity and resistance are not linearly related to relative bone mass; the bigger the animals, the more robust needs their skeleton to be. The structure of a butterfly, for example, would be insufficient if it was the size of a dinosaur.
Yes.Do egg yolks contain growth factors?
Though daily consuming litres of milk is quite common, whereas drinking litres of egg yolks is not.
Do egg yolks have opioid peptides?Why does goat milk or cow milk have too much opioid peptides?
If you are vegan, then taking a single enriched egg would be healthier than a normal one.Egg yolks with vitamin A, D, omega 3 acids, are they better or worse than eggs with less?
But if you already got all nutrients, you don't need extra.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
Man-made chemcials that are molecularly identical to their synthetic counterparts are exactly that: identical.
That means they have exactly the same properties.
Sure, if the vitamin comes with different ingredients, then it will have different effects.
Mostly, synthetic vitamin C or D are exactly the same molecules as their natural counterparts.
And metals have pro-oxidative properties, regardless of their source. Elevated levels of serum iron means elevated levels of oxidative stress.
Elevated levels of nutrients are due to density and amount, and the lack of sufficient compensatory uptake ratios.
Re: Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs
RRM,
On fruit vs animal foods, ok, I'm glad that you finally answered my question (no offense). Those seem like legit reasons to me, even thought I don't necessarily agree.
As I said before, I'm only spending 20% more since eating animal based. But that's cause I go for the quality stuff. I could spend much less if I wanted. Pork is only 3 euros a kilo. Mackerel/sardines, 2 euros (say 4, since half is bones). That's like 3000 cal, with much more nutrients (micro and macro) than any 3 euros of fruit can buy.
As for the environment, cargo ship pollution is one of the greatest forms of pollution, killing several ocean lives and just being a huge detriment globally. And we necessarily have to rely on this living on non-tropical climates doing fruit diets. Relying in local pastured animals (not fed grain) is way less poluting, in my opinion. Not to mention most of our fruits come from massive crops and orchads which are not too friendly for the soil nor the environment in general. Pasture mimics nature and is much less detrimental.
On animal lives, same thing - that is the dogma, but it's once again not true. All plant agriculture needs to kill many, many insects so that they don't eat the stuff, as well as some other small animals (except permaculture, but no one can live off that). If you eat grass-fed cows only, nose to tail, you only need to kill one animal a year. If you eat mostly fruits, I'd say that count would probably be in the thousands, and add a few more hundreds/thousands with cargo ship pollution. The mainstream blantantly lies on this matter, and not without a certain agenda, in my opinion.
On nutrients, yes, you can definitely easily meet the recommended ammounts even on a 100% fruit diet, but what the current scientific dogma is lacking is that nutrients from plants are much less bioavailable than nutrients from animal foods. Micros and macros. As I said, studies by the Weston A. Price "crowd" (let's call it that way) indicate that plant protein is only 10% absorbable. Doctors like Natasha Campell-McBride stress that plant fats are also much less absorbable. Other studies indicate that the animal versions of certain vitamins are much more bioavailable (A, D, K). The reason I'm more inclined to believe this side of argument is the fact that long-term vegans (past 5 years) are all falling apart, with almost no exception. If plant nutrients and supplements (for animal-exclusive nutrients like B12) would really provide satisfactory nutrition by themselves, then why would they be in such state.
But well, I'm not necessarily compelling you to keep discussing this, you've well represented your side already, and I've represented mine. I'd just like to, in conclusion, invite you into maybe having some more doubt regarding nutrition (I certainly have), to the point of not being so certain that 100 grams a day of animal food is enough for optimal health. Because the hypothesis is still on the table that we've evolved eating primarily animals and not fruits, and all the empirical evidence support the fact that we need the former way more - no population has ever followed a vegan or even 90%+ plant diet, while many have followed a majority or even 100% animal foods diet; and long-term veganism clearly leads to malnourishment and other premature health issues, unlike long-term carnivorism.
(When I said vegans can "no more than" survive for many years, I really meant it!)
On fruit vs animal foods, ok, I'm glad that you finally answered my question (no offense). Those seem like legit reasons to me, even thought I don't necessarily agree.
As I said before, I'm only spending 20% more since eating animal based. But that's cause I go for the quality stuff. I could spend much less if I wanted. Pork is only 3 euros a kilo. Mackerel/sardines, 2 euros (say 4, since half is bones). That's like 3000 cal, with much more nutrients (micro and macro) than any 3 euros of fruit can buy.
As for the environment, cargo ship pollution is one of the greatest forms of pollution, killing several ocean lives and just being a huge detriment globally. And we necessarily have to rely on this living on non-tropical climates doing fruit diets. Relying in local pastured animals (not fed grain) is way less poluting, in my opinion. Not to mention most of our fruits come from massive crops and orchads which are not too friendly for the soil nor the environment in general. Pasture mimics nature and is much less detrimental.
On animal lives, same thing - that is the dogma, but it's once again not true. All plant agriculture needs to kill many, many insects so that they don't eat the stuff, as well as some other small animals (except permaculture, but no one can live off that). If you eat grass-fed cows only, nose to tail, you only need to kill one animal a year. If you eat mostly fruits, I'd say that count would probably be in the thousands, and add a few more hundreds/thousands with cargo ship pollution. The mainstream blantantly lies on this matter, and not without a certain agenda, in my opinion.
On nutrients, yes, you can definitely easily meet the recommended ammounts even on a 100% fruit diet, but what the current scientific dogma is lacking is that nutrients from plants are much less bioavailable than nutrients from animal foods. Micros and macros. As I said, studies by the Weston A. Price "crowd" (let's call it that way) indicate that plant protein is only 10% absorbable. Doctors like Natasha Campell-McBride stress that plant fats are also much less absorbable. Other studies indicate that the animal versions of certain vitamins are much more bioavailable (A, D, K). The reason I'm more inclined to believe this side of argument is the fact that long-term vegans (past 5 years) are all falling apart, with almost no exception. If plant nutrients and supplements (for animal-exclusive nutrients like B12) would really provide satisfactory nutrition by themselves, then why would they be in such state.
But well, I'm not necessarily compelling you to keep discussing this, you've well represented your side already, and I've represented mine. I'd just like to, in conclusion, invite you into maybe having some more doubt regarding nutrition (I certainly have), to the point of not being so certain that 100 grams a day of animal food is enough for optimal health. Because the hypothesis is still on the table that we've evolved eating primarily animals and not fruits, and all the empirical evidence support the fact that we need the former way more - no population has ever followed a vegan or even 90%+ plant diet, while many have followed a majority or even 100% animal foods diet; and long-term veganism clearly leads to malnourishment and other premature health issues, unlike long-term carnivorism.
(When I said vegans can "no more than" survive for many years, I really meant it!)