next »

[gimymblert]

science never say you need meat, it say you need protein which is in meat, but also we have tooth that handle meat so it safe to say we were build in for it, but science also say we don't know everything, there is micro nutriments and other stuff that aren't well known, so while removing a specific diets can be feasible we don't really know the cost benefit that came with it, the same with all food. Also a recent development was micro biomes  in the guts, how this biomes need certain nutrients to generate one we need remain to be seen, it has been establish they affect our cognition so the effect is not small, it as also shown that underfed children remain weak even when well fed because their micro biomes is defectives. This as lead to poop transplant to culture micro biomes, would you know that poop was good food your health? But that might lead to extrem measure, like saying that poop based diet is healthy for you, which is a kind of exaggeration. The problem is that diet theories is full of these exaggeration when in reality it's a multidimensional problem (with environmental and individual problem think lactose intolerant vs non intolerant). The good thing is that these "trends" force experiment and with time we will be able to look at cost benefit, and it will add to our portfolio of diet to mix and match. Fad like vitamin intake, salt omission, soylent, etc ... all have proven to be imbalance while highlighting some benefit. But replacing diet because their benefit is ambiguous and unproven by another new one similarly ambiguous is just shifting the problem around instead of addressing it.

[J-Snake]

The good thing is that these "trends" force experiment and with time we will be able to look at cost benefit, and it will add to our portfolio of diet to mix and match.

There are enough experiments and clues already. But most won't look it up since food industry hardwired the opinion "meat and cow milk is good for you" since early school days. You can see that even intelligent people blindly take things for granted which should be questioned.

[gimymblert]

There isn't controlled epidemiologic experiments and that would be just the start as it is correlation (as a first pass to investigate those correlation). Vitamin use too be good, when we discovered that it's actually a very delicate balance, fat and sugar use to cause diabetese and obesity when we discovered that in fact it's the combination of the two that break the innate satiety mechanic, fat itself has been promoted to two kind of fat, good and bad, until we realize that cooking with the good one produce bad fat, etc ...

I'm not talking from the perspective of conspiracy theory that are actually real (see the politics behind any food related stuff). I don't say it shouldn't be questioned, I question the fact of jumping to a new miracle diet as gospel. Diet is an open question it doesn't have easy answer like "vegan" or "raw food" or "soylent".

[J-Snake]

It's not hard to see what's reasonable though and act according to it. The nutrients in a banana are certainly more balanced than those in a snickers. And you will actually start feeling what's healthy for you when you start eating healthy.

[oahda]

Veganism isn't generally a diet, tho, but an act against what certain people consider wrong, such as the meat industry. The general drill isn't that vegans avoid meat because they think it's unhealthy but because they think it's fucking disgusting.

It's rarely primarily about health (even tho it seems to often come as a neat byproduct), even tho there seems to be another group of people treating it like a miracle diet as well, which is sad, but nonetheless still help the cause of the general veganists. And there are those in between, who oppose meat while also trying to eat healthy, of course. But there are a lot of vegans out there who happily gorge themselves on candy so long as it's vegan!

[J-Snake]

Regarding oils, just from a reasonable point of view:

Everything that is isolated, like vitamin pills or oils, is by a reasonable assumption not balanced anymore. It's toxic. Thus you have to be careful with those intakes. Eat fruits instead of fruit juices and you won't risk imbalanced food intake. Food has to grow with a balanced set of nutrients by nature. The more you work on preparing food the more imbalance can potentially arise.

[gimymblert]

@j-snake
That's not as clear cut also economical factor gate access.

But so far you talk on faith rather than facts, you are purpose led and it fill your purpose need. I haven't said it is bad, I said it's unproven in the large scale of things, also situation based. Opposing banana to snickers is really only a caricature.

Also cooking really break down something we couldn't process into digestible stuff, that's why it was beneficial, it help us grow a bigger brain. let's start with a digestible source: http://testtube.com/dnews/what-did-prehistoric-humans-actually-eat/ hunt better source but that's a start



banana


diet is about balance

BTW http://testtube.com/dnews/can-you-trust-the-calorie-counts-on-food-labels/ about nutrition labels

[J-Snake]

But so far you talk on faith rather than facts

I am talking about reasonable assumptions, you are showing me snickers and banana stats. Even when you are not a biologist just think for a moment. Life is a very complicated process, do you think something fabricated can ever be as balanced as a banana? What's more likely to assume, that our body adapted to simplified fabricated products or to the sophisticated natural balance that is necessary to grow life?

[J-Snake]

About faith and facts:

If you let an apple fall down you assume it will do so the next time aswell. Then you will also assume that if you let the apple fall down in Brasil, it will also fall down in Africa. But you cannot take infinite mesuarements around the globe to be completely sure. However it is a reasonable assumption that the apple will fall down in any place. You can do the same observation and assumption about food. Ignore the cultural conditioning of our daily life for a moment and look around the nature around you. Where ever you look, the intake of food isn't simplified into few isolated ingredients. It is always complex living food. And in any subsystem of an organism you won't find something simplified like a snickers. Thus it is at least reasonable to assume that a snickers is ill-suited to the balance of your body.

[Torchkas]

Uncooked and red meat increases the risk of bowel cancer. If that's what you meant with raw foods anyway. There are some real nutjobs out there who eat uncooked meat and it's really not good for you. Our digestive systems have adapted to our agriculture, the agriculture we made. We aren't supposed to eat completely natural.

Your best bet in proteins is usually fish.
I've actually been trying to convince my family to eat way less meat because it isn't super healthy to eat a giant amount of it, they're super stubborn and keep buying it because it's cheap. Cheap meat is a pretty huge problem in the bio-industry. It convinces people to eat unhealthy.

Also, the purpose of candy is not to be healthy. Of course you'll get more benefit from eating a plate of lettuce over a bar of snickers, but that's not why people eat it. They eat it because it's addictive and sweet, which will probably cheer them up more than chewing on lettuce.

[gimymblert]

forget about the snickers damn! It's emotion control rather than food!

Also reasonable assumption is at the core of "religion", it does not resist scrutiny, BTW science show that common sense often break down and is based on culture, see quantic physics. It's a fallacy as much as syllogism.

I'm still hasn't said raw stuff is "bad", just saying, more research is needed.

[J-Snake]

Uncooked and red meat increases the risk of bowel cancer. If that's what you meant with raw foods anyway.

No, I mean vegan food. But I also prefer eating fish caught in the sea than industry meat, which has to have a lot ill-suited contaminants. There are a lot of proteins in kidney beans for example. Also note that a powerful animal like gorilla is mostly vegan, and he often doesn't even have as much choice in fruits as we have.

BTW science show that common sense often break down and is based on culture, see quantic physics.

That's correct, but newton mechanics don't break down on a macroscopic level in our daily practice, no matter how accurate any post quantum theory will ever be. Similarly, no matter what food science finds out, you won't be able to argue the balance of fruits and vegetables.

[gimymblert]

yeah but we are arguing about a generalization of diet rules as in the "raw" movement, banana raw make sense, but potato raw don't, raw meat have some sanitary problem and fished fish has ecological consequence if you try to feed the whole earth. It does break down at our level in observable ways.

[J-Snake]

I think any radical proposition for a diet is not optimal. In the end there is also toxic in our raw fruits. So it only seems natural to mix things up to follow the balance rule. Better consume small amounts of varying toxics than a huge amount of one and the same toxic.

[Schoq]

if you're worried about toxins or the environment you should basically not eat fish

[J-Snake]

Toxics are everywhere, it is just that your body can work it out as long as you don't have one of them to extremes. For that reason adding cooked food has its benefits as long as you don't exaggerate with its intake.

[J-Snake]

banana raw make sense, but potato raw don't, raw meat have some sanitary problem and fished fish has ecological consequence

Btw, you also have the option to not eat potatoes, meat and fish at all. There is enough variation without it. And ecological problems only arise if we eat too much of the same food, like with meat. Roughly 10% of consumed flora goes into building mass of the fauna. That's how inefficient it is to have serving farm animals. That's why they are pumped up with growth hormones and what not. Really no one needs a university degree to see that the concept of balance just has to work. All clues are pointing towards it.

[SirNiko]

All input in this current discussion would be infinitely more valuable if you'd just link to some research that supports your positions.

'cause the last place I'm going to take dietary advice from is a video game forum.

[J-Snake]

Here is a start

[Pfotegeist]

But so far you talk on faith rather than facts

I am talking about reasonable assumptions, you are showing me snickers and banana stats. Even when you are not a biologist just think for a moment. Life is a very complicated process, do you think something fabricated can ever be as balanced as a banana? What's more likely to assume, that our body adapted to simplified fabricated products or to the sophisticated natural balance that is necessary to grow life?

Just because you brought up bananas. Of course like most top ## lists, this does not take into account all possibilities, just a few of the ones we enjoy.

http://www.medicinenet.com/constipation_foods_5_foods_to_avoid_and_5_to_eat-page3/views.htm