Are vegetables healthy?

[LCForever]

We know from Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Weston Price, and others that primitive populations living on all-meat diets (i.e., absolutely no fruits and vegetables) were extremely healthy. And, there is also significant evidence to suggest that eating large quantities of vegetables, and especially fruits, is detrimental to health. This evidence comes from population studies, anthropology, and our knowledge about the effect of carbohydrates on insulin.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that (non-starchy) vegetables in moderate quantities are perfectly healthy. Most of the primitive populations that Price observed ate varying amounts of vegetables and grains (in addition to the meat). Although some of these populations were somewhat less healthy, Price observed that the healthiest populations included modest amounts of vegetables in their diets.

Wolfgang Lutz has theorized that our tolerance for carbohydrates may be related to how long we have been exposed to agriculture: Those with a longer exposure may have had some genetic adaptation to be more tolerant. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of genetic variability. Moreover, the type and quantity of edible vegetation has varied considerably throughout time and geographical location. Although it is unclear how much plant matter our ancient ancestors ate, it is fairly evident that humans are primarily carnivorous.

The primary scientific argument in favor of eating vegetables is the vitamin and mineral content. However, meat contains all the essential vitamins and minerals in sufficient quantities, with the possible exception of vitamin C. But, as Stefansson observed, even this might not be an issue, as those on all-meat diets do not develop scurvy.

So, it seems to be an open question as to whether vegetables--in moderate quantity--are beneficial or harmful. Does it matter? Do moderate quantities have a significant impact? Is an all-meat diet the healthiest? Or is it healthier to incorporate some vegetables? On which diet will one live the longest? Does this vary from person to person, due to genetics?

If anybody has looked into this question, and found some relevant--or even intriguing--evidence, I'd be curious to know.

LCForever

[MizKitty]

Interesting topic of discussion, and will probably end up getting moved to the war zone before all is said and done! :lol:

Personally, I am one of those who think they're overrated.

Peter, owner of the Hyperlipids blog
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
has quite a few articles and research studies cited on his site about how vegetables and fruit are actually unhealthy, cause DNA damage etc, due to something about oxidants and antioxidants I haven't quite figured out what he's saying yet.

[Rachel1]

If we assume that the healthiest diet is the one we were evolved to eat, probably the hunter-gatherer type diet is optimal, given that we can't go back in time to see what we were eating thousands of years ago. Those diets, as the OP points out, usually include some amount of plant matter, the amount presumably depending on availability.

Even obligate carnivores like cats will eat grass. Dogs are omnivores and will eat plant matter as well as meat. Humans seem to be omnivores as well.

Having said that, many of the veggies available to us in the west are pretty unlike the plants we evolved to eat, which would have been green leafy ones for the most part, plus a few roots, nuts, and berries.

So maybe for optimal health it's best to stick to green leafy veggies, nuts, and berries - in moderate amounts, probably seasonally, and preferably organic.

All of this is just guessing on my part. And having said all that, I'm not too bothered about it, personally. I'm not sure a couple of ounces of low-carb veggies more or less will make a huge amount of difference to my health.

Rachel

[mike_d]

I would like to know the answer. I know raw veggies cause me various degrees of mild GI distress that meat does not. The argument I hear is our intestinal tract is long so we can digest plant matter, not short like the canines that thrive on mostly meat.

[NorthPeace]

According to the World Cancer Research Fund (http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/?p=er), mostly on p. 392,

In favour of consuming fruits and vegetables:
1. Garlic and foods containing dietary fibre probably decrease the risk of cancer of the colon and rectum.
2. Nonstarchy vegetables probably decrease the risk cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus and stomach.
3. Consumption of allium (onions, garlic, leeks) probably decreases the risk of stomach cancer.
4. Consumption of fruits probably decreases the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, lung and stomach.
5. Consumption of foods containing folate probably reduces the risk of cancer of the pancreas.
6. Foods containing lycopene or selenium probably reduce the risk of prostate cancer.
7. Foods of low energy density, of which non-starchy vegetables are the best example, probably reduce the risk of weight gain, which is itself a risk factor for many forms of cancer.
8. Caffeine consumption convincingly makes no difference to cancer risk (not on p 392).
9. Supplementation with beta carotene and vitamin A is a convincing increased rick for lung cancer, ergo so it is better to get your carotenoids from plants.

Against consuming plants:
1. Aflatoxins found in mouldy foods are a convincing increased risk for liver cancer.

In favour of consuming animal products:
1. Being breast fed by someone of your own species probably decreases the risk of weight gain, which is a risk factor for many forms of cancer.
2. Lactation is a convincing decreased risk for breast cancer.
3. It did not make the summary page (not convincing enough), but in the details of the report, there may be a slight decreased risk from fish consumption.
4. Many animal products are a source of selenium which probably reduces the risk of prostate cancer.

Against consuming animal products:
1. Consumption of red meat and processed meat are convincing increased risk factors for cancers of the colon and rectum.
2. Consumption of energy dense food is a probable increased risk factor for weight gain.
3. Consumption of other sources like fowl, eggs or dairy products have no discernible effect on cancer risk, but consumption of high amounts of animal products will either displace beneficial fruit and vegetables from the diet, or result in excess calorie consumption resulting in weight gain.

Note: Adult weight gain or body fatness are convincing increased risk factors for cancers of the oesophagus, pancreas, colon, rectum, breast (post-menopause), endometrium and kidney; and probable risk factors for cancers of the gall bladder and ovary.

THEREFORE, if you want to adjust your diet to reduce the risk of cancer:
1. Suck booby as long as your mother lets you.
2. Consume a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.
3. Breast feed your children till their fifth birthday, or the next child comes along.
4. Maybe eat some fish, it may help some.
5. A little fowl, eggs or dairy are ok.
6. Avoid mouldy food, red meat, processed meat, vitamin A and beta carotene supplements.
7. Above all, avoid processed foods.

In short, EAT TO LIVE. 8)

[LOOPS]

I don't eat much plant matter, but I do take magnesium tablets, because there is no way you can say there is enough in animal foods (unless you take to eating pounds and pounds of specific types of salmon) - it is one of the minerals that seems to be abundant in spinach/nuts etc but not in animal flesh. And if you eat cheese you can get very unbalanced as it is very rich in calcium and has minute quantities of Mg (I love cheese). And add any salt into the equation and things go from bad to worse as sodium directly antagonizes Mg levels in the body.

I would like to believe the contrary though so someone please tell me I am wrong!!

Vitamin C I have no idea about - it seems there might be another form of it in meat that we don't measure is my guess, seeing as you can cure scurvy by eating fresh meat of any sort.

And regarding fat-soluble vitamins, I personally don't believe the tables - they tell me there is no vitamin E in animal fat so where does the animal store it then?

[Legeon]

Vegetables and fruit effect my mood and body as much as milk and wheat do, though the ones permitted on the Failsafe plan seem okay in small amounts (except for pears). After eating something like spinach I'll be completely over stimulated, unable to socialize or relate to people, and have a weird weak feeling in all my muscles that lasts for days. I just won't be able to move very much. My hypoglycemia also gets worse.

This is some of the stuff I tried seeing a shrink for a few years back and all I had to do was forget about those healthy, good for you vegetables. :/

[Nancy LC]

You might have an enzyme deficiency or something that prevents you from metabolizing something in certain vegetables, oxaltes perhaps.

[Nancy LC]

1. Consumption of red meat and processed meat are convincing increased risk factors for cancers of the colon and rectum.
2. Consumption of energy dense food is a probable increased risk factor for weight gain.
3. Consumption of other sources like fowl, eggs or dairy products have no discernible effect on cancer risk, but consumption of high amounts of animal products will either displace beneficial fruit and vegetables from the diet, or result in excess calorie consumption resulting in weight gain.
Well, 2 and 3 are absolute bunk as anyone on a low carb diet can attest to. I'd say 1 is a conclusion drawn without sufficient clinical evidence.

[Legeon]

You might have an enzyme deficiency or something that prevents you from metabolizing something in certain vegetables, oxaltes perhaps.Whatever it is my brother has similar things happening so it could be genetic. It's mysterious. :cool:

[cs_carver]

"extremely healthy" = what? Died of some small, currently-treatable infection before they had a chance to die from today's more popular degenerative diseases? Lived in populations too small to be ravaged by anything that requires some amount of density, like cholera or ebola? Didn't die in childbirth? Hardly anyone made it through smallpox the first time smallpox hit a population, so what good's all-meat then?

Next, the all-meat of even 2000 years ago has very little to do with the all-meat available today. And then there's everything you eat and breathe, which is a completely different toxic load from what was current even 100 years ago.

Even brains work differently in illiterate populations--who's to say that the brain-changing effect of learning to read doesn't do something to the immune system at the same time?

In other words--I take some of my spiritual guidance from sources that are pretty ancient. I don't put too much stock in dietary pronouncements that hail from a time that has as much lack of overlap with my current conditions.

Dogs and cats eat the whole beastie, in my experience, and in doing so, get a fair amount of vegetable matter.

[mike_d]

Consuming fruits and vegetables probably reduces the risk of cancer ... probably decreases the risk of stomach cancer probably decreases the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus[sic], lung and stomach... probably reduces the risk of cancer of the pancreas...may reduce ... probably ... Well lowering insulin levels by not eating sugar carbs, even vegetable carbs greatly enhances the human immune system. A healthy immune system can identify and then destroy cancerous cells before they become tumors.

[LCForever]

"extremely healthy" = what? Died of some small, currently-treatable infection before they had a chance to die from today's more popular degenerative diseases? Lived in populations too small to be ravaged by anything that requires some amount of density, like cholera or ebola? Didn't die in childbirth? Hardly anyone made it through smallpox the first time smallpox hit a population, so what good's all-meat then?
The most valuable information on the long-term health effects of low-carb diets (with or without vegetables) may very well come from the population studies done in the early 20th century. Numerous researchers compiled huge amounts of information on the diets of "primitive" populations and the prevalence or absence of certain "diseases of civilization."

Weston Price went to a lot of effort to locate populations where he could find parallel groups living either on the old diet or new diet (similar to, but obviously not as good as, randomized control/intervention groups). He focused mainly on teeth and jaw bone development. Other researchers were looking mainly at cancer and heart disease, and also used "controls" to some degree.

Gary Taubes dedicated one chapter of only 11 pages, to this topic.

It would seem to me that there is potential gold mine of raw data in the archives of libraries, research universities, and organizations that have preserved the material collected by the individual researchers in the field.

All these researchers presumably had biases that may have influenced how some of the data was interpreted. With our newer knowledge, it would make sense to re-examine this raw data, and see if better conclusions can be drawn.

In many ways, this would be more promising than controlled/randomized experiments, owing to the length of time necessary to investigate very long-term effects.

That said, I don't know of any data from which a good long-term comparison can be made between LC without vegetables and LC with vegetables.

[csusie]

I think vegetables and fiber can be overrated.

I read in all directions about nutrition since I have allergies (always seemed more like a sensitive stomach to me) and need to avoid poor nutrition. On the other hand, it seems highly individualized. If I'm nauseated Emetrol will make me vomit more. Saltine crackers will cure it every time. Vegetables make me queasy, except spinach and carrots, which are just fine. I try to keep an array of whole foods that are basically healthy, and then just grab what I want at the time. My appetite is so specific that if I want yoghurt, nothing else will do. If I want toast, nothing else will do. I read somewhere that that can be effective in staying slim - staying in touch with your appetite because the body rebels if you ignore the signal and you end up eating more.

Of course, I'm surprised and glad that 6 months of Chinese herbals (mushrooms) diminished my desire for chocolate and sweets. That makes me want to keep mushrooms as part of my supplement plan. I can feel that excess carbs make me miserable physically, so avoiding them is a comfort factor, once I became aware of it.

But... individualized. The non-smokers in my family died young. The smokers lived to their 80's-90's. Even though I hardly eat vegetables, my son loves them. I have to eat a big hunk of sharp cheese in the morning to settle my stomach and help digestion. Instinctive. The allergy doctor said I may lack digestive enzymes, which cheese contains. Method to my madness.

I also was charmed by the aesthetic advertising of New Chapter brand supplements and drawn into trying their products, why? - I like to feel like an artist in touch with the grand forces of Nature, not some pitiful misfit huddled in a corner. Morale does so much! I read everything I come across for new ideas, and then play it by ear in practice.

[Nancy LC]

bleah, already responded to this post.

[NorthPeace]

Cruciferous Vegetables: Cancer Protective Mechanisms of Glucosinolate Hydrolysis Products and Selenium (http://ict.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/1/5)

Compounds Found In Cruciferous Vegetables Block Lung Cancer Progression (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050915003652.htm)

Eat Your Broccoli: Study Finds Strong Anti-Cancer Properties In Cruciferous Veggies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517100315.htm)

Nutrients in cruciferous vegetables found to induce death of cancer cells (http://www.newstarget.com/020839.html)

Linus Pauling Institute - Cruciferous Vegetables (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/foods/cruciferous/)