How can one reach optimal health without meat? De-evolve back?

I respect your religious beliefs, but they should be acknowledged as such, opinions and religious bias.

If you have any logical arguments, please feel free to share. It's been several posts so far, and all with vague titles such as "optimal health, healthy" etc. Which obviously means what you consider healthy. That's fine, but it's not healthy, it's just what you think is healthy.

Would be nice if you read a bit before to educate yourself, before attempting to inform others. I hope you don't get offended, and this is not meant as an insult, but people should read some, before starting to debate issues they haven't read, and just take on personal beliefs.

Wa'il

hi tamarian,
i am christian. but i stopped eating meat, solely for nutritional reasons. now at this point, i would not revert for both nutritional and moral reasons, but the moral did not develop until long after i stopped for nutritional reasons.

however, i would not call it religious. there are many proclaimed atheists who also feel the same away about taking another animal's life. i would simply label it as "believing another life is as special to that animal as mine is to me".

i know my mom had extreme worries when i stopped eating meat. she had been taught that it was necessary for correct protein (i wonder if the meat lobby had anything to do with that - LOL). well it has been 28 years without meat, and while i am 48, i still can perform at my peak energy levels.

thanks for your input.

Hi Gymeejet,

I think it’s great for anyone to show compassion for all living species on Earth. Truly, I think the world would be a far better place for everyone if we all held such compassion equally for all under the Sun.

However, that is a philosophical issue (by the way, loved Animal Liberation, though it didn’t sway me to give up meat), and not pragmatic nutritional one. I appreciate that while you feel it is optimal in regards to aggregate values in your life to abstain from eating animal flesh, this in no means extends to optimal nutrition per se. Refraining from animal sustenance based on religious, philosophical, or even palate preference has absolutely no bearing on the values of nutrition.

Now, as you saliently observed earlier, there are countless studies—both from the beef and vegan cliques—which substantially bolster each respective side of the issue. All other considerations aside, in my view, I’d have to assert that the newest research has swayed the argument in favor that eating animal products would be more conducive to optimal health than abstaining from it.

I agree that it would be pointless to offer you the tons articles and research reports which validates the veracity of my view, which you’ve probably already read; and, equally, it would be futile for you to offer studies in return, since I’ve no doubt read them at one time or another. Nonetheless, I will offer this. First, eating animal products was essential to our brains evolution—there is no dispute in the scientific community that if our ancestors had not become carnivorous, our brain capacity not be anywhere near what it is today. Secondly, vitamin b12, an essential nutrient is ONLY found in animal products (I mean absorbable b12, and not the unusable ones in seaweed). Finally, there have been countless documented cases of “failure to thrive” for many who have adopted Vegan diets over a period of time; but, there has never been such a case for those who eat primarily animal products.

I’m glad you are thriving while keeping to an eating regimen consistent not only with your personal views on nutrition but also on your wider philosophical views. However, respectfully, in my view, your assertions that animal products are less than optimal should be qualified by your philosophical views more so than pure nutritional concerns. I think in recent years, the science of this debate is becoming clearer, and will be even more so until eventually the murky pools of this issue can’t be denied by any rational person.

With kindest regards,

Frederick

Hi Gymeejet,
I was wondering if you read the whole article that you provided a link for.
In the paragraph imediately following the coma or death line that you quoted, they found that there was no direct correlation between sucrose and carb consumption and the risk for diabetes. However, there is a link between high glycemic loads and diets high in refined grains and the risk for diabetes. So GI does matter, coming from the article you provided.
Most of the article seems to defend sugar. But, when I read stuff like "there is no evidence that refined sugars such as sucrose behave any differently from other types of simple carbohydrates." I don't get their message that sugar is good. I get the message that simple carbs and sugar have the same effect regardless of where they come from. And from my experience, sugar is bad for me.

Unneeded for what? According to what I've read, saturated fats increase the pattern A LDL particles and decrease the pattern B LDL particles which decreases risk for cardiovascular disease.
Dietary fat is also needed for calcium absorption.
Conjugated Linoleic Acid can only be obtained through intake of ruminant products (beef fat, full-fat cheese, full-fat milk).
Fat is one of the body's primary energy sources.




First of all, the brain can and does function quite well on ketones as an energy source. Secondly, the body maintains blood glucose within a certain range in non-diabetic individuals (70-110), either through converting carbohydrates to glucose or through gluconeogenesis if carbohydrates are unavailable. It is only in diabetic individuals where blood glucose can fall to the levels that would induce coma or death.




I've read 2 studies recently where they tested this theory. Results? In a study of trained male and female runners, those with 44% of their calories coming from fat increased their endurance time by up to 14% over the low fat group (13% of calories from fat). In another study of cyclists, those with up to 70% of their caloric intake from fat nearly doubled their resistance to fatigue during prolonged moderate intensity cycling.



low carb does distinguish between good food and crap food (hint...you won't find anyone on low carb eating crap food as you call it). As for the difference in GI between the potato and the twinkie, the twinkie is actually lower as would be a Snickers bar, but both of those are also nutritionally empty and neither are part of a low carb program.



I see. So it doesn't matter how many or what types of high glycemic grains and veggies you consume as long as they are fresh and natural? Studies (yes, I know...you don't care about studies) have shown that diets that contain a lot of high GI foods, and the source didn't matter; when it comes to GI, your body doesn't care if it's a Twinkie or a potato, lead to lower HDL which increases risk for cardiovascular disease.
You can throw the glycemic index out the window if you like, but I'll continue to use it as a basis for how good or not good any food is for me as well as the vitamin, mineral and phytonutrient content. Once again, those that are highest in all these categories also tend to be the lowest in carbs and lowest on the glycemic index, so I win on all fronts.



And she was right to be concerned since animal protein is the only source of complete essential amino acids. Without using animal protein as your source of essential amino acids, most people have a tough time getting enough of them.



Let's see....that's a total of 640 calories from fat and protein. If I'm shooting for about 1,600 calories total per day, that means that the other 960 have to come from carbs. That's 240 grams of carb per day. Can we say "Diabetic developing complications and needing to go on insulin therapy because blood sugars are shooting into the atmosphere"? Sorry...tried it that way (ala the ADA high carb/low fat/low protein diet) and wound up with my blood pressure sky high and my blood sugars out of control. No, thanks. I'd rather eat like this and have normal blood pressure, normal blood sugar, no need for medications and picture-perfect blood work.

Let's see. Dr. Atkins not only used his nutritional approach to treat his patients, he followed it himself. Same for Drs. Sears (The Zone), Bernstein (Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution), Eades (Protein Power), Heller (Carbohydrate Addict's Diet) and Schwarzbein (The Schwarzbein Principle). Their experience in themselves and in their patients directly contradicts yours.
Furthermore, since you base your opinions on what you have put into practice, how are you then qualified in any way to give an opinion on a low carb diet since you yourself said that you have never tried it nor do you ever intend to?
At least I have the benefit of experience on both sides of the fence and in comparing the two, feel that this is far better for my health than the high carb/low fat way. My doctor and my blood studies agree.

hi frederick,
just to reiterate one point, that i am not sure you understood. i stopped eating meat SOLELY for nutritional reasons. i was interjecting my philosophy because the one post hinted that my reasons were not of a nutritional nature.

and though i am extremely disciplined with my diet, i do also take pills twice a day. while i can not be sure, i feel that extra supplies of some nutrients may be important for optimal health. at worse, i have more expensive urine than average - LOL.

whether i would be getting enough b12 without meat is not known, since i think for most of my adult life, i have taken supplements. for example, i take about 3 grams of C, another 3 of bio-flavonoids, full b complex, multi-mineral, and a few others.

thanks for your input.

hi mnbooger,
somehow my message or point about GI is not sinking in. perhaps it is my poor explanation. let me try again.

if your car needs 85 octane to run efficiently, and all the pumps at your station meet that requirement, then octane is not an issue for you.

likewise, if you eat a good natural foods diet, full of fresh produce, the glycemic index of your foods in your diet will not cause the average person any problem. it is only when processed sugar foods became a staple of the american diet, and thusly the extreme abuse of sugar, did sugar become a problem.

i skimmed through parts of the article, but did not read it in complete detail.

gymeejet, I'm sure it would be instructive to meet some of those "others whom i help." Hear what they have to say about your medical and dietary advice.

hi lisa,
i have also earlier mentioned taking flax for omega3, and i said at least 100 grams of protein. basically finding out how much protein and essential fats that you need, and then the rest as good carbs.

the body does try to burn fat whenever possible, during exercise, simply because it has a very limited supply of glycogen. moderate intensity bicycling would be one such exercise where fat may be used for energy, especially if we are talking about a somewhat consistent routine (i.e. flat land, as say opposed to uphill, downhill, uphill, downhill).

as you know, i do not buy into studies anywhere near as much as you do. i use my life experience, and others that i know, because at least with these results, i know they can be trusted to be accurate.

as far as other doctors putting their plans into action, that is good. might i ask what they have accomplished, or able to do ?

i am 48. people are amazed at how young i look, and more importantly, the energy level that i have. i know of no one, at any age, who can exercise at my level of intensity and endurance. i do not expect you to believe me. but for sake of argument, let us just assume that this is true. would you not wonder how a 48-year old can outlast a 21-year old ? do sears, and atkins, and the rest make such claims. when i went in to have my special blood tests done, the doctor had me come in again to re-do my heart electrical tests. he said he does many professional soccer players, and had never seen a heart as strong as mine.

i do a lot of high-intensity training. without sugar, you just can not do it. fat is for prolonged, slower types of activity. but vigorous exercise requires sugar. and you will not get to your highest level of fitness and health without doing some high intensity workouts.

i have absolutely no doubts that my original advice will have the last word. it leads to "optimal health". and i do not intend to worry about the GI of the potatoes and carrots that i eat.

hi lisa,
http://www.nutricia.com.my/facts_lactose.htm

above article stresses the need for lactose for calcium absorption. i have no doubts it was funded by the dairy industry. i suspect that someday you will not be so willing to believe in "studies". i can find you some study supporting just about anything you say. heck, there is a whole society out there, who still believes that the earth is flat, and has studies proving it - LOL.

i do not consider my diet to be low-fat. i now get an overabundace of essential fats, based upon any reading. so if fat is indeed needed for calcium absorption, that is fine with me. i may take as much as 4 tablespoons of safflower oil each day, and eat a half cup of flax meal 5 days out of 7. once again, saturated fat is not needed in one's diet. our body will manufacture whatever we need.

I have no doubt that "optimal health" is the right way to go. Unfortunately, I don't think you know what that means Just judging by how you view it, and how you base it not on reason but on faith.

You might look like a knock out young lady at 48, but that makes you no different than my old roomate Bob, A 2 pack smoker, 6-pack drinker, and a baby face, healthy, eats all junk. That doesn't mean much in the genetic pool.

By religion, you misunderstood that to mean "organized" religion, doesn't have to be so. Many members of organized religions have their own superstitions. I would use the word philosophy, but it won't apply in this case, as philosophy implies some form of deduction and reasoning.

It may seem reasonable to you that people should ignore scientific studies and imperical evidence, and follow some anonymous poster named gymeejet who found a new buzz word for them like "optimal health". But it's not So, feel free to keep ignoring science, nutrition and biochemistry, but don't feel bad if your valuable advice gets ignored as well.

Wa'il

hi tamarian,
i am a full believer in empirical knowledge. what we read is all third-party. we have no idea whether it is true or not. i "empirically" put theories to work. i have first-hand empirical knowledge of what i say. i guess i should be called thomas - LOL. btw, i am a male. i did not intend to say that i was a knockout, but just young looking. but again, the activity/energy of youth is what is of main importance.

you seem to think that your side has all the scientific evidence. actually, my side probably has tons more. but i am not here to argue studies supporting low carbs versus studies not suppoirting low carbs. but rather, to inject some good advice from someone who EMPIRICALLY practices it, and has had tremendous results from it - moreso than i think all of your low-carb doctors can claim.

Umm, so why are you afraid to show them? We've gone through the effort to publish all these scientific studies on the website and in the studies forum. There's nothing to hide.

Why would you "refrain" from showing such evidence? Should the world just follow you because you say you're healthy? Even if I believe all the great health you describe for yourself, how imperical is one's personal account? Even if you submit personal photos and medical records, that's one person. An evidence of one person is not scientific, and mathematically weak. Otherwise, I'd recommend everyone follow my old roomate Bob's diet, of 2-packs a day, and 6 bears a day for "optimal health". At least I've seen Bob.

Wa'il

do you recall my mentioning of the 1 person in nutrition that i respect ? in the 50's, he was considered a kook by the medical field. exercise was bad for you, so the doctors told us. and studies by the gross to prove it. Jack LaLaane just kept preaching and doing, and now look who has crow on their faces. If I want to know about something, i go to someone who does it, not someone who writes about it.

i loved that quote by yul brynner in the king and i that went something like positively knowing, and then not so sure. i am sure one of you can recite it exactly. but the point is how knowledge that we are so sure has been proven, turns out to be wrong. use studies, but do not let studies use you.