Topic: Vegan, we are not grizzly bears

[pandamonium]

There was a science friday interview of a Canadian physician that watched the influx of these chronic diseases in the Innuit communities he served.  Basically, no one saw any cancer or heart disease until the population started eating a diet rich in grains, sugar and cheap vegetable oils.  Or maybe it was sattelite TV.

If you ever wanted to know why so many people have issues taking you seriously, please refer to this post.

I heard the same argument at a talk at UC Santa Cruz. This was threeish years ago, though, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. But the "western diet" was blamed for all the ills that indigenous people face after meeting white people. I've meant to read up on it, because I'm skeptical of the claims being made, but it's hard to find legit research on it.

[lonely moa]

Why should I eat what my ancestors ate 20 000 years ago? Don't we have a good idea of what's a healthy diet for 21st-century Western folk based on scientific studies?

There are and they suggest that a diet similar to what pre-agricultural humans ate was pretty good.  The "average lifespan" dropped from the mid 30's in the paleolithic to the high teens with the advent of agicultural and didn't surpass the former until a hundred odd years ago.

There are a lot of problems here. Average lifespan includes things like infant mortality. Agriculture and domestication of animals meant that people started living closer together, which meant that certain diseases had a ball. As far as I've read, the diet switch had very little impact on median or average lifespan.

And even if it did, you're a product of 10,000 years of agriculture, whereas the paleolithic man was not.

The average lifespan in the paleolithic was abput 33 and 20 in the neolithic.  Kind of a big difference.  And you are making a big statement saying that I am a product of 10,000 years of agricure, like that I am not Maori, say.  Maori didn't eat grain until 150 years ago.  Grain based agriculture wasn't introduced to the British Isles until about 2000 years and, of course, only a subset of native Americans had a substantial (or any, for that matter) grain, maize, in their diet.

Taubes is the best resource for the effects of introduction of easily digested carbohydrates and the loss of traditional diets in populations.  "Good Galories Bad Calories" is incredibly well referenced.  You could spend 7 years (like he did) follwing them up.

[Tatyana]

Why should I eat what my ancestors ate 20 000 years ago? Don't we have a good idea of what's a healthy diet for 21st-century Western folk based on scientific studies?

There are and they suggest that a diet similar to what pre-agricultural humans ate was pretty good.  The "average lifespan" dropped from the mid 30's in the paleolithic to the high teens with the advent of agicultural and didn't surpass the former until a hundred odd years ago.

If everyone decided to go back to the paleolithic diet we would have to cull most of the human population.

Yes, those who live in a country where they can afford to choose what they eat can alter such things in their diet, but a lot of the world's population cannot.

The lifespan argument about the shift from hunting and gathering to pastoral has been fully debunked (there are a few more points besides what Panda brought up), I will see if I can drag them from the recesses of my mind or find them again on line.

[WC]

We have Soymilk_gun on the forum. I'm sure you've run across him.

Yes, but I dismissed him outright as a hipster over his insistence on single speeds and fixies. I like soymilk (the bean juice and the man).

(click to show/hide)

[pandamonium]

We have Soymilk_gun on the forum. I'm sure you've run across him.

Yes, but I dismissed him outright as a hipster over his insistence on single speeds and fixies. I like soymilk (the bean juice and the man).

(click to show/hide)

@moa: I don't know taubes, but there are any number of charlatans who've spent the last decade studying balomey i could cite to refute the "he's an expert therefore you should listen to him" portion of your argument. depak chopra is the first that comes to mind. Dr. Oz is another. Whoever a big name is in bigfootology would be a third.

[Caffiene]

There are and they suggest that a diet similar to what pre-agricultural humans ate was pretty good.  The "average lifespan" dropped from the mid 30's in the paleolithic to the high teens with the advent of agicultural and didn't surpass the former until a hundred odd years ago.

Yes... because as Panda said humans stopped living nomadic lives and formed fixed communities, so infant mortality went up due to it being much easier to transmit diseases, and human waste being much harder to get rid of.

As a side note I also find it strange that you, who is such a big advocate of eating beef, is pointing to the period where humans first started domesticating cattle and suggesting that their diet changed for the worse.

And you are making a big statement saying that I am a product of 10,000 years of agricure, like that I am not Maori, say.  Maori didn't eat grain until 150 years ago.

The Maori didnt eat grain in the 1300s when they landed on NZ. If you go back further (ie, the other 9,000 years Panda was talking about) the Maori are thought to be descended from Taiwan and the Asian mainland, which had agriculture for many thousands of years.

[SacredCaramel]

 

Average lifespan includes things like infant mortality.

Yes, once humans survive into their teens in traditional societies, their chances of living to old age are no worse than any other adults.  Human longevity has been part of the make up for thousands of years.

As to the paleolithic diet, the other component people seem to forget about is that people had to find their food (and still do if they live as foragers).  We evolved in an environment that required physical activity to find the 2500 or so calories that were needed every day, either by hunting or by digging it out with a pointed stick.  Eating 3000 calories of meat and raw vegetables while one sits on the sofa playing Skyrim isn't going to make one lose weight or be healthier. 

[lonely moa]

We have Soymilk_gun on the forum. I'm sure you've run across him.

Yes, but I dismissed him outright as a hipster over his insistence on single speeds and fixies. I like soymilk (the bean juice and the man).

(click to show/hide)

@moa: I don't know taubes, but there are any number of charlatans who've spent the last decade studying balomey i could cite to refute the "he's an expert therefore you should listen to him" portion of your argument. depak chopra is the first that comes to mind. Dr. Oz is another. Whoever a big name is in bigfootology would be a third.

Please don't associate Taubes with Oz or Chopra.  Taubes has a masters in journalism, mechanical engineering and physics.  He is a regular contributer to the journal "Science" as well as the New York Times. The references in the book are all factual.  Some are from literature and some from interviews with researchers.   His first books are about CERN, bad physics and one on cold fusion.  He moved onto diet and nutrition where the current science was even worse.  And he and Oz hate each other, btw.  If you can't take the time to read from the source, I don't think watery criticisms are up to your usual standards.

[Caffiene]

Please don't associate Taubes with Oz or Chopra.  Taubes has a masters in journalism, mechanical engineering and physics.  He is a regular contributer to the journal "Science" as well as the New York Times. The references in the book are all factual.  Some are from literature and some from interviews with researchers.   His first books are about CERN, bad physics and one on cold fusion.  He moved onto diet and nutrition where the current science was even worse.  And he and Oz hate each other, btw.  If you can't take the time to read from the source, I don't think watery criticisms are up to your usual standards.

Wow... Thats one of the most pathetic arguments from authority I think Ive seen on these forums. To summarise: "He has masters degrees and has written articles and books".

To compare: Dr Oz also has multiple academic degrees, also has contributed regularly to journals, also has written numerous books, and he even has some patents as well. The misleading nature of having a degree or being able to publish an article is a great part of exactly why the argument from authority is a fallacy.

You havent actually presented anything that addresses what Panda said.

[Guillermo]

Why should I eat what my ancestors ate 20 000 years ago? Don't we have a good idea of what's a healthy diet for 21st-century Western folk based on scientific studies?

There are and they suggest that a diet similar to what pre-agricultural humans ate was pretty good.  The "average lifespan" dropped from the mid 30's in the paleolithic to the high teens with the advent of agicultural and didn't surpass the former until a hundred odd years ago.

There are a lot of problems here. Average lifespan includes things like infant mortality. Agriculture and domestication of animals meant that people started living closer together, which meant that certain diseases had a ball. As far as I've read, the diet switch had very little impact on median or average lifespan.

And even if it did, you're a product of 10,000 years of agriculture, whereas the paleolithic man was not.

The average lifespan in the paleolithic was abput 33 and 20 in the neolithic.  Kind of a big difference.  And you are making a big statement saying that I am a product of 10,000 years of agricure, like that I am not Maori, say.  Maori didn't eat grain until 150 years ago.  Grain based agriculture wasn't introduced to the British Isles until about 2000 years and, of course, only a subset of native Americans had a substantial (or any, for that matter) grain, maize, in their diet.

Taubes is the best resource for the effects of introduction of easily digested carbohydrates and the loss of traditional diets in populations.  "Good Galories Bad Calories" is incredibly well referenced.  You could spend 7 years (like he did) follwing them up.

The rise in population density, the domestication of animals, and the increase in work effort
in the course of the Neolithic Revolution increased the exposure and the vulnerability of humans
to environmental hazards, such as infectious diseases, and led to the decline in life expectancy
during that period,

Thanks for the sources BTW. But your argument is not supported by them.

[lonely moa]

Please don't associate Taubes with Oz or Chopra.  Taubes has a masters in journalism, mechanical engineering and physics.  He is a regular contributer to the journal "Science" as well as the New York Times. The references in the book are all factual.  Some are from literature and some from interviews with researchers.   His first books are about CERN, bad physics and one on cold fusion.  He moved onto diet and nutrition where the current science was even worse.  And he and Oz hate each other, btw.  If you can't take the time to read from the source, I don't think watery criticisms are up to your usual standards.

Wow... Thats one of the most pathetic arguments from authority I think Ive seen on these forums. To summarise: "He has masters degrees and has written articles and books".

To compare: Dr Oz also has multiple academic degrees, also has contributed regularly to journals, also has written numerous books, and he even has some patents as well. The misleading nature of having a degree or being able to publish an article is a great part of exactly why the argument from authority is a fallacy.

You havent actually presented anything that addresses what Panda said.

Articles written in Science are rigourously peer reviewed, I would expect, and to be a regular contributer to such an organ would lend some credibility to one's literary research.  His writing is pedantically referenced to published nutrition science and documentd history.  I was only noting his credentials to distinguish him from bigfoot researchers, etc.

[341gerbig]

I'm a veggie, have been since, oh, '92 or so. "Experimented" with veganism during teh stupid years (teens to early 20s). It was sloppy crap like this article that pushed me towards reality based thinking and evidence based positions. I hate to generalize unduly, but this has been my exeperience over and over and over and over, vegans are loons, and if I ever meet a non batshit vegan, I will eat my hat.

We have Soymilk_gun on the forum. I'm sure you've run across him.

I will need to see photographic evidence of you dining on your hat, sir.

Ah, I remember the argument I had with him, weather soy milk is actually milk by nutrition source of the liquid or by even dictionary definition, and he would not concede that soy milk is soy  juice with a fancy marketing name.

I still think im right, I may be wrong

[WC]

I love bean juice. Even though I depend on dairy (and now fish) for the lion's share of my protein and B vitamins, I always pick up vanilla soymilk on each and every grocery run. Sometimes almond milk juice if I feel like splurging. I'm actually not entirely clear on the process involved in making the stuff. Maybe there's an episode of How It's Made or something. I like the bean juice more than dairy milk, but it comes down to economy and protein for me these days. I still consider it a juice, but I'm fine with what people want to call it, for whatever reason. It's used primarily to supplement milk, and as such, it makes sense to call it soymilk.

You know, on principle, I wish I could do a self sustainable vegan lifestyle (minus the obnoxious extremist woowoo pedaling and the evangelical militarism of vegan culture  ).

[341gerbig]

I love bean juice. Even though I depend on dairy (and now fish) for the lion's share of my protein and B vitamins, I always pick up vanilla soymilk on each and every grocery run. Sometimes almond milk juice if I feel like splurging. I'm actually not entirely clear on the process involved in making the stuff. Maybe there's an episode of How It's Made or something. I like the bean juice more than milk, but it comes down to economy and protein for me these days.

You know, on principle, I wish I could do a self sustainable vegan lifestyle (minus the obnoxious extremist woowoo pedaling and the evangelical militarism of vegan culture  ).

Waaaaaait... there is a separate process for soybean juice and milk?

I may be wrong after all.

[Tatyana]

I love bean juice. Even though I depend on dairy (and now fish) for the lion's share of my protein and B vitamins, I always pick up vanilla soymilk on each and every grocery run. Sometimes almond milk juice if I feel like splurging. I'm actually not entirely clear on the process involved in making the stuff. Maybe there's an episode of How It's Made or something. I like the bean juice more than dairy milk, but it comes down to economy and protein for me these days. I still consider it a juice, but I'm fine with what people want to call it, for whatever reason. It's used primarily to supplement milk, and as such, it makes sense to call it soymilk.

You know, on principle, I wish I could do a self sustainable vegan lifestyle (minus the obnoxious extremist woowoo pedaling and the evangelical militarism of vegan culture  ).

http://www.soya.be/how-to-make-soy-milk.php

I am having chocolate hot chocolate with vanilla soya milk right now, I prefer how it tastes to milk.

Soya milk is mostly raw soya beans.