Loops, I had no idea that mussels were carby! I have been enjoying them because they are inexpensive. Maybe that is what caused my cravings...thanks for the info. I looked it up in fitday and a cup of cooked mussels is 6 carbs. Not horrible, but more than I want to eat.

And just to add some anecdotal evidence to your case....

I was eating veggies. Constantly. And I never came close to that many nutrients, except B12 for some reason. Vit A, B6, C, D, E and on... if I hit 50% it was a big deal. Usually was much less.

For quite a while now, I have felt that veggies and fruit taste fake, like they're really made out of cardboard or something. I don't eat fruit now, and the only veggies I eat are raw cultured organic veggies, and that is because I'm using them for a non-dairy probiotic to balance out a candida overgrowth. The reasons I believe produce today is somewhat worthless, or even dangerous, is due to soil depletion and genetic engineering. The articles below expand upon my assumptions. The genetic engineering article is about 4 years old, and I believe the GE campaign has grown exponentially since then.

http://www.natural-health-informati...eted-soils.html

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/ge_food.htm

Just two more reasons why plant food is not necessarily the life-giving panacea assumed by most.

Thanks for the links Jennifer. Hope you are feeling better

I admit I am personally biased in favor of pro-veggie omnivorism. I also have an objective reason to favor omnivorous diets.
Personally I enjoy vegetation greatly, and I tend to think it augments my health. I strongly object to theBear's insistence that a diet contains any vegetation compromises health. I believe veggies enrich both physical healthy, by providing nutrients at a low calorie cost, and emotional health, by increasing eating satisfaction.

I have objective rational reasons to favor veggie-eating.
There's the known, for one. Plants contain nutrients that are much more common in a much wider variety of sources than animal foods. Plant food supplementation is more likely to prevent serious deficiencies.
Furthermore, many plants are less concentrated in energy, and many nutrient factors are higher calorie per calorie compared to meat source alternatives; for example, vitamin A and vitamin C. If your metabolic needs are lower, it is much harder to fall deficient in these nutrient factors if you are eating some veggies. Older people, smaller women, people losing lots of excess weight, and many others tend to slower metabolisms. Those people might not use enough energy to consume enough of all nutrient factors on an all animal diet.
These people would be forced in a position of having to raise energy using just to avoid falling deficient in nutrition.
Raising energy using, assuming otherwise good health, means either exercising more or gaining weight. Both these choices come with some sacrifice. Exercise does not hurt health, but lots of people hate it and realistically will not sustain a program for long (like myself). Weight gain is passive and requiring of no commitment or dedication, however, it is physically unhealthy, and likely would mitigate any increase in health from consuming more nutrition.

On the other hand, if someone with a more sedentary lifestyle and slower metabolism eats more of the less calorically dense plants for nutrients, they can preserve nutrition status without having to exercise or gain weight.


The second factor is that omnivorism and varied eating errs on the side of sense and caution... you know, "balance".
Fitday does not tell the whole story. If it did, I can assure you my diet would consist of nothing but vitamins, oils, and protein powders supplemented to LC "fun foods" . I would eat WAY more protein bars than I do.
But I don't because that's not balanced, and it is "risky" to assume fitday tellst he whole story. We simply don't KNOW everything about how food affects our body, so, it is not possible to say with certainty that dietary extremism is sound. It is possible that plants contain unique, beneficial nutrients not available in meat. It is also possible that meat contains deleterious factors which are less or not present in plants. We simply do not yet know everything "good or bad" about food; therefore, eating a diet with as much variety as possible is the best way to avoid over or underconcentration of food factors, both good AND bad.

HOWEVER...

I must agree with you, Frederick, that this thread has lead me to conclude that veggies are not essential. I still think they are the better course for most people (because of the aforementioned reasons). However, I am now much more accepting of the choice not to eat them, provided one is extremely mindful of their nutrition.
It is probably no worse to not eat veggies than it is to be vegetarian and not eat meat (although I still maintain veganism is unhealthy, since I am of the position the human diet is only to be supplemented with plants).

OMG, this sounds like my DH's favorite saying when he gets disgusted with my low-carbing: you should eat "a little bit of everything, but not too much of one thing". He says it's an old Chinese proverb, as if that validates the statement somehow. Frederick? Ever hear this one before?

Of course, I do agree with your assessment here. There can be no question that, in terms of calories vs. nutrient density, plant foods win this battle hands down. One of the appeals of veggies is that it is by far the densest nutrient to calorie food. I’ll be the first to admit that my “meat” based diet can never be construed as a low-calorie one by any stretch of the imagination; and, can appreciate where my higher calorie intake would pose significant challenges to weight equilibrium for one with a slower metabolism.



Again, I readily agree that vigorous exercise may not be for everyone, especially for those who are severely overweight where intense cardio may pose more of harm than benefit. However, for most people, I believe exercise to be extremely beneficial. Be that as it may, of course, I can both appreciate and empathize with the individual’s decision to maintain weight equilibrium by curtailing excess calories rather than increase energy output. After all, as a palate preference, I’m consciously making a decision to forgo any beneficial effects that may exist in plant foods.



From all that I’ve read, it would not surprise me in the least that eschewing veggies may turn out to be less than “optimal” when all things are finally considered. We can infer from much of the research that veggies may very well contain certain nutrients, phytochemicals, flavonols, antioxidants, or a combination thereof that is extremely beneficial to overall health. If only as a hedge, there is considerable logic to your rationale that “if we don’t know, than it makes sense to cover our basis” by eating plant foods. On the other hand given that we can adequately and in abundance acquire all known necessary nutrients, the price (the bitter taste of veggies) isn’t commensurate with the promised benefits that may or may not exist.

Above and beyond all else, I believe in science and the scientific method. Should a day arise when science shows that eating veggies are beneficial (the veracity of it’s proposed benefits proven), I will “suck it up” plaster my veggies with cheese drowning them up a gallon of butter and eat them.



Woo, this is what I’ve gotten most from this thread. It just seems that over the years, the phrase “eating your veggies” has become such a fixture in our society that no one ever questions the merits of the statement. I see it brandied about far too often. You’d think eating veggies were some kind of miracle cure for any kind of ailment that might exist. I’m just thankful to have been a small part of a thread that makes an effort to examine that unchallenged notion a little more closely.

Of course, to breath a sign of relief that, at least for the moment, I can eschew veggies without suffering nutrient deficiency.

LOL...yes, I heard it growing up.

However, the Chinese are nothing if not supremely pragmatic. There is another saying that goes something like this, "nothing succeeds like excess," which is the proverb of choice pertaining to all things beneficial, such as money, property, and good luck.

Just checking, but is this the same USDA that prescribes almost identical macronutrient ratios for fattening livestock as it does for weight loss and maintenance in humans?

Hahahaha...ah, yes, that USDA.

For a lack of anything better, think of it as a barometer that appeals to the lowest common denominator?

I remembered the glowing reference to tongue on Sat while I was shopping, and bought a nice veal tongue. It was A$ 4.20/kg- equivalent to US $ 1.43/lb. In the same meat cooler sirloin steak was A$ 21.00/kg. I just don't see tongue as either expensive or difficult to find, at least here in Oz. Tongue is about the only meat I can take well-cooked, but of course it is only eaten as an occasional treat. Tongue is not quite edible rare- it is so tough it could be used to make shoe soles- the only other cut that tough is beef cheeks- even ground up for burger that cut is TOUGH and very chewy.

Locally here the standard liver is ox, rather than calf . You must search for tender calve's liver. Chickens sold here do not come with giblets, they are sold separately. I have some difficulty finding lamb's brains, and no luck finding calf or ox brains. The organs are called 'variety meats' in the US but 'offal' down here, a term which does not enhance sales.

I am tired of the endless tooth-wrangle. Arguing over evolution and the exact style of our teeth is not productive in the face of empirical, real life experience: All my friends who eat a mixed diet have lost teeth by means other than trauma. Many of those now 60 and older have to wear complete sets of dentures. Everyone who has kept (most of) their teeth brushes immediately after each meal (animals don't brush, yet keep their teeth).

Vegetation contains abrasives, acids, sugars and starches, all of which damage our teeth, especially the fruits- with citrus being the worst. Orange juice and chewable Vit C rapidly dissolve teeth, as does most common soft drinks, even the diet type- due to citric and/or phosphoric acid. Any fruit or vegetable like rhubarb which is tart contains an organic acid. If you are on a n all meat diet and don't eat vegetation or drink lactose/galactose containing dairy, brushing is completely optional- it is only advisable to do so once a day to remove meat particles from between the teeth, as common mouth bacteria quickly attack it and make your breath smell pretty foul- even though these bacteria do not cause any damage to the teeth like those who feed on sugar and starch do. Brushing with a firm or hard toothbrush has the added benefit of stimulating the gums (feels as good as scratching an itch) and removing dead cells from its surface, thereby helping prevent the all too common gum disease people have. I am unsure if gum problems are diet- related, I have never had any problem with my gums, nor any bone loss in my jawbone or skull.

As a note here: Muscle cells need calcium to function, therefore heavy red-meat consumption supplies calcium in abundance and in the most assimulatable form possible. The way archeologists can easily separate stone-age-diet Eskimo/Inuit skulls from modern Inuit (western-diet) skulls is by the former's extremely dense bone structure (coupled with evidence of no caries).

Animals whose diet is tooth-damaging have the ability to replace teeth or have teeth which grow out continuously. Our teeth do neither, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the modern diet we eat is NOT the correct one, as I have indicated in the title of this thread.

Now, Let's give the tooth thing a rest, shall we?

I do not like well-cooked liver from any animal. Calves liver or ox liver should have no reticulated mottling on the surface like pork liver does and should have a sweet, mild smell. It tastes best raw. If there is mottling or a metallic smell it will taste bad no matter how cooked. Lamb liver is not good, extremely dry, and has a poor flavour. I never eat pork liver. Chicken livers are very good when barely cooked through, and are still very soft and succulent, not hard and dry. Poach (in water) or saute in butter at a low temperature, about the same as simmering water- I call this 'poached in butter', it is also a good technique for eggs and fish. I am basically very fond of raw meats, the cooking I do is only for adding a touch of different flavour and dealing with surface bacteria if any. I love fresh-cut raw meat and fish. I don't eat raw chicken, but I like it only just barely cooked, and still very soft.

Ah, mussels. very tasty, but.... Main problem with fresh mussels is they quickly go bad- and if eaten in that condition they can make you VERY sick. Marinated mussels like the NZ greenlip are always pickled in a high sugar-content brine.

Candida albicans (monilia/thrush) requires carbs to grow- an 'overgrowth' of this common yeast commensal indicates the presence of starch and or sugar in the diet.

So far as the subject of the necessity or utility of vegetation in diet, I once more call your attention that what you eat is what you were brought up to eat, it has no connection with good nutrition, and it seems to you to be 'instinctive'. Diet is extremely tightly bound into your consciousness at a very primitive level and most people will find it so difficult to abandon or change it, no matter how strongly they accept the intelligence about diet, that they will only be able to partially alter their eating habits and if they can manage the carnivore lifestyle at all, will generally insist on retaining some veggie content. All the arguments I have read on this forum seem to my way of thinking, hopelessly naive, but illustrate perfectly the truth of the above analysis.

So, just accept that your culture is going to rule your life, make whatever adjustments you can handle and try to approach my example if you can, but do not despair so long as you are able to acquire and maintain a normal body form and are comfortable with it. I am still trying to work out how I managed to make this total transition. If I could do that, it may be possible to show others how it is done, but so far it seems to me as though the way I eat is just totally simple, natural and normal. That this is not so for everyone else has become manifest to me over time.

The Chinese eat anything and everything that will not kill you quickly. If it moves or grows, they will eat it- pets included. Only the French even come close- i.e.- both like to eat tiny songbirds.

As a soil scientist by profession I’m, quite frankly, shocked by the statements made in this article. I don’t know who has written this but this person has definitely no idea about agroecosystems at all. This myth about mineral soil depletion and reduced mineral/vitamin contents in crops has been around for years though there’s no scientific evidence at all for such a relationship. Reduced mineral/vitamin contents is mainly the result of modern varieties which were mainly selected for high yields and less for mineral/vitamin content, e.g. the mineral uptake capacity of their root systems was improved to a lesser degree than the growth of the plants’ harvestable parts. This is the simple explanation.

Soil depletion has become a serious issue with soil organic matter, mainly as a result of intensive tillage practices. This situation has become better in recent years since many farmers adopted a technique called minimal- or no-tillage. In these systems tillage is kept to a minimum allowing organic matter to build up again. Regarding mineral/vitamin contents in crops, there’s no issue with soil organic matter since the latter has almost no influence the former.

Soil depletion drives farmers to grow GM crops because yields are declining? Where does the author have this information from? The main reason for growing GM crops is simply more profit through improved herbicide efficacy leading to less competition by weeds. Furthermore they have to spray less. This combined leads to higher yield + less costs for spraying = more profit.

Who cares on this thread about soil depletion? I have not seen anything like that criticised, on the thread. Links are not messages. Here is the point:

We are here about diet, particularly a meat-oriented one, which is not dependent on the condition of agricultural soils. Giving any reason for avoiding veggies is quite valid, even if SOME soils used to grow the highly modified plants-as-foodstuffs consumed by moderns are not as bad as most of us think, if we think about it at all, that is.


Now- there are no 'deleterious factors' in any meat, so long as the animal from which is comes is healthy. There are, of course some salt water FISH which are dangerous to eat, either due to defensive toxins or algal blooms. Some fresh water fish in some places may have parasites, but they are not 'healthy'

Bottom like again, is myself, and my experience of better than normal health while eating no vegetation at all for 47 years. I exclude small amounts of garlic and chillies used for spice.

It is not necessary to defend the eating routines and foods that you were trained as a child to eat. No science is needed, no 'reasons' are pertinent. It is what you want to eat and it matters not whether it is either good for you or not, nor even if it is very bad for you, you will eat it. If you look long enough and hard enough you will find somewhere some 'information' to support your contention. But you need to realise, I am not going to fall for fairy tales and dietary myths.

I have a lifetime of watching the same people over nearly a half century on normal mixed diets, both the common ones and all the faddish 'healthy foods' ones, and I have not seen them as being good, nor in any way equaling the effects I have had in my body during such a period. So, say what you like, you have not proven the 'correctness' of your particular dietary viewpoint by applying it over a lengthy period in life, and thus whatever format your ideal mixed diet is, (or the 'balanced' one), as you claim will yield good health and longevity, has not been established by practice and is merely a dream in your head.

It doesn't surprise me that you have no problem with leaving false information uncommented.

Bear,

I hope you don't mind one more question, but since I first started reading this thread, one thing has interested me that I don't believe I've seen discussed so far.

You have mentioned that you and your wife met 21 years ago and in that time she has ceased being a vegetarian, but she still eats certain things you have no interest in.

I'm assuming (and this may be a bold assumption on my part) that she is probably around your age, give or take a few years.

Over the past 21 years, while you have followed your diet and she has followed hers, what have your differences in health been? I think it would stand to reason that if your diet is as good as you claim (and I don't dispute that it is. As it stands, I'm trying it out for myself.) her's, by comparison, would probably be less so in which case she would probably show some health problems that you didn't have to deal with... which would, in turn, give more evidence to support your case and ease some minds about this.

I say this not to offend, nor do I hope your wife has suffered any illnesses, but it seems to me that your marriage, in and of itself, would be a prime example of a 21 year study in the nutrition of carbs vs. no carbs.


I did see you speak of your wife before, but not on this exact topic. So if you brought this up and I missed it, someone please point it out to me. This was a long thread to digest in one sitting - low carb or not