Dietary Debates

Just wanted to note, I don’t think anyone, including myself, has ever stated sugary foods, “simple sugars” of junk food is healthy. We all agree most likely that is unhealthy.

But sugar intake increasing , though it may be relative to people gaining weight, it’s not related to meat only diets or intermittent fasting and originally
part of the argument was too many calories consumed is related to gaining weight, which you seemed to have disagree with. Surely you don’t think increased sugar intake was less calories being consumed. Which is why I just ignored it.

2 Likes

All interesting replies.
All in the same mode as the rest of this thread. Complete absence of scientific or otherwise curiosity, interest in seeing another point of view, even provide alternative explanations.
Now, just a few feeble ad hominem criticism rather than addressing the point.
Predictable.
Who can provide an explanation to this:


The US is no different, what happened after the fifties that did not happen in previous thousands of years? I am happy to debate any facts, fiction or beliefs.
Graph taken from Dr Harcombe video. The best talk on the obesity epidemic.
The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it?

Dr Zoe Harcombe Summary: The Diabetes/Obesity epidemic begins in 1980 three years after the introduction of the low fat dietary advice by the United States Department of Agriculture. In this presentation I present information detailed in my book Obesity, of the factors driving the obesity epidemic in the United Kingdom and globally. Attempts to reverse the obesity epidemic require that the special role of hunger and addictive food choices must be considered. A return to eating of real foods and avoidance of addictive highly processed foods is central to any future attempts to reverse the current obesity epidemic. This requires interventions that go beyond what individual physicians and dieticians can achieve.

This is something I found earlier that I found interesting too. Seems in the 30s-50s there was a spike in heart disease caused by an increase in smoking and an increase in cholesterol consumption. That then begin to decrease a bit as those that moved away from smoking and high cholesterol consumption. Though some areas, like the Bible Belt, still had an above average rate.

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(14)00354-4/pdf#:~:text=deaths%20in%20the%201930s%2C%201940s,a%20decrease%20in%20cholesterol%20levels.

Here is a chart with cited sources. Someone would have to fact check it all. It can be expanded to the 1950s.

But as mentioned the Bible Belt seems to be higher.

Here is a map of heart disease per population.

Unrelatedly, here is one of voting habits.

1 Like

Both of those are probably in some part derived from being an on-average more rural area.

1 Like

Yes, the spike in cardiovascular disease was due to tobacco. Both industries, the sugar industry and the tobacco, saw themselves in danger and acted fast to deflect blame.
The first to act however was “big sugar” and one of their lobbyist alerted “big tobacco” and helped them to pull the necessary strings.
The hypothesis that dietary fat causes heart disease, called the “diet-heart hypothesis” was the trump card for all the dietary recommendations of the last 70 years and still is. Even when there has been evidence to the contrary for decades, the bias and reluctance from professionals to admit they got it badly wrong still has them prescribing statins like lollies.

“For decades following the introduction of the diet-heart hypothesis, many scientists were unaware of the lack of evidence for this theory. However the rediscovery of rigorous clinical trials testing this hypothesis and the subsequent publication of multiple review papers on these data have provided a new awareness of the fundamental inadequacy of the evidence to support the idea that saturated fats cause heart disease. The observed resistance against considering this new science by successive DGACs can potentially be seen as reflecting longstanding biases in the field and the influence of vested interests. Until the recent science on saturated fats is incorporated into the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the policy on this topic cannot be seen as evidence-based.”

A short history of saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/#:~:text=The%20concept%20that%20saturated%20fat,policy%20for%20some%2060%20years.

Another myth worth challenging is the fallacy that eating animal products is in some peculiar way “unethical”.
I can kill one cow and live off the carcass for one year. That is one animal killed for my sustenance.
If you like your “plant based” food, make sure you understand that millions of animals die for your bread, pasta potatoes and lettuce. If you don’t believe this, just talk to the driver of a combined harvester.

Let me explain.
I found the OP offensive and out of place in a (at least in appearance) Christian forum.
So … I set of challenging the “facts” most rely on for their high horse points of view, point being that many so called facts turn out to be pure fiction.
Second I introduce a topic dear to me, that I was sufficiently confident none of you had a clue about.
The way this evolved was perfectly predictable.
Non mainstream topics when presented, provide the perfect opportunity for observers, to use rebuttals using safe and mainstream reasoning, even when ignoring the matter completely.
The classic fringe, unorthodox case was heliocentrism.
Here we have the diet-heart hypothesis, challenged by a few well versed yet non mainstream professionals.The reaction from the participants of this thread is again predictable.
Ad hominem comments, mainstream defence, or both.

How much science do I have to expect from those who reply to my posts?
Well … I have no right to “expect” much at all.
There is always a level of hope that some may be interested in something they know nothing about and venture some leftfield reasoning.
An unkind participant would have quoted Dunning-Kruger effect, but I am not unkind, only curious.
:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Few things because many are very ignorant in this matter and often use the same argument, without thinking it through.

People who eat meat also still eat plants. So the are responsible for the same amount of animals killed for plants, plus for meat. The animals that die in the process of eating meat is not just the animal being killed and eaten, but all all of the livestock feed.

Around 80% of all crops and pastures are for livestock. Around 20% of crops are for human consumption. The majority of new crops popping up are livestock crops.

But have fun with your YouTube videos.

And yeah, you have a few people challenging the consensus. So do young earth creationist.

2 Likes

As for the ethics there is something I like to bring attention to.

Do you agree with animal abuse? Like beating a dog just because it makes you feel better? Most likely people will say no and genuinely mean it.

But my next question is why is it wrong if it’s something that you enjoy? What makes it wrong? Is it the physical pain you are causing? Is it the emotional suffering you are causing them? Do you think that dog would show signs of being sad? Of being traumatized? Don’t worry about trying to justify killing a pig. Just walk me through all the reasons why it’s bad for the dog to be abused and why it’s wrong.

1 Like

Ummm … yes!!! Anyone who really needs to have it explained to them why cruelty is bad, is - I submit, probably beyond the help of any rationality or reasoning. At that point, evil has just taken over their lives, and logic/reason would just be yet one more tool of torture their devilish selves find useful.

But if any do want to persist in thinking that such evil as that needs explanation, then - yeah, I’m reasonably sure any pet owner or veterinarian can inform you that beaten and abused animals don’t tend to thrive. They do tend to become just like their owners, though - vicious and dangerous to everyone around them.

3 Likes

I agree.

But you would be surprised at how many have a major disconnect when it comes to this without even realizing it. But I’m specifically waiting for the other persons response.

1 Like

Tell me Skovand … are you vegetarian or vegan?

You know, in Australia, many are employed as contractors by farmers to defend their crops, mainly from kangaroos wild pigs and rabbits. To a lesser extent from water buffalo, camels and donkeys.
Contractors operate at night mainly and shoot 222 or 223. Some better shot, even 22LR
Some of this animals are killed and just let there to rot, others like pigs and Kangaroos, can be sold if headshot, mainly for european markets that lost access to their own boars after Chernobyl or as pet food. Kangaroo meat is available in the supermarket.

The point is that all this slaughter is there for one reason alone, and that is to prevent losses in crops. Sure intensive animal husbandry requires grain feeding to finish in some cases, but the large majority of stock feeds in pastures. In fact animals that are grass fed and grass finished, fetch a much higher price.
Pastures are a much better use of the land then agriculture from any possible point of view.

So crops are there for human consumption, to make bread, pasta, potato chips and the rest of the food that corporations turn into billions whilst at the same time undermine human health with the aid of corrupt politicians and health “advisers”, not to mention Glyphosate.

I gave you an opportunity to look into the biggest deception in human history, probably only second to the “climate change” con.
The main reason corporations and their lackey politicians favour “plant based” over animal products is simple. A beef carcass may fetch 30 to 50% mark up from pasture to consumer with the farmer keeping perhaps 5 to 10%.
The prime materials for so called plant based food, processed in factories, are bought and sold several times, transported over long distances across country borders and can achieve a mark up of 1000% or more.
Which one do you think will be the target of greed and corruption?

Your attempt at comparing the meat market to pet abuse is commendable. The level of intellectual gymnastics required to achieve such conclusion is worthy of a better cause.
I wonder what do you feed your dog? Do you feel guilty?

The fact remains that in nature, death sustains life always. We do not escape such rule. To pretend moral superiority because your food does not complain when killed, even when millions of animals are killed for crops to be sustainable, is a logical fallacy to put it mildly.
Nevertheless, I enjoy the exchange and look forward to talk about what is proper human food.

Acts 10:13-15 KJV

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Perhaps vegetarians who claim eating meat is wrong because God commandment says you shall not kill, may consider the above passage somewhat contradictory … :wink:

Hooroo
Marc

PS
Thank you to the one cropping the diet debate out of the other intellectual grandstanding debate.
Wasn’t my intention but welcome nevertheless.
All the best
M

I can’t help but to notice that you never answered the questions about what makes animal abuse wrong and what does the animal experience because of it and how it impacts them.

You are aware that the only use of land is not types of farming right? But that’s besides the point of what I was mentioning. It was brought up to highlight the silliness of the argument.

When people are cornered in a debate they often try to create a doorway, here, climate change, to run through. You were not giving me an opportunity for anything. You are not the first to mention fringe beliefs or conspiracy theories to me. Hence why with the animal abuse question I mentioned “ don’t worry about trying to justify why you kill the pig” because I already knew that’s what you were going to do, and you did, with kangaroos and so on. Believe me, the mental gymnastics is not being done by me. I’m not the one who has to explain why doing it to one animal is bad but another is ok. I can already tell you ar every anti science and that’s why the original question two threads ago about “ how much science should we expect them to know” offended you.

I’m just going to assume this is how the discussions will go. You’ll link to fringe beliefs supported by the most minute experts that ignores the general scientific consensus on a subject, and I’ll be expected to watch several different YouTube videos by them. I’ll see bad science and weird beliefs. Honestly it’s just not something I have much time with anymore in my life. So I’m just going to pull out of the discussion.

woah there amigo…despite what the wikipedia article says, that statement is not quite right.

John Harvey Kellog did not found Kellogs, he founded what eventually became known Sanitarium Health food company. A company which has always been and is still wholy owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church!

It was his brother Will Keith Kellogg who formed Kelloggs Cereals!

Whilst initially the two started out together in a single endeavour at Sanitarium (which wasnt called that back then of course), they had a falling out and WK Kellogg went his own way forming what years later became known as Kelloggs Cereal).

Kelloggs Cereals has never had any ties with the SDA church or Sanitarium Health Food Company. Only that the two brothers once worked together in Sanitarium and separated after a falling out. Kelloggs was started in direct competition to Sanitarium and that is not disputed by either side.

You are right about JH Kelloggs infatuation with enemas. I can only offer the defense that he had the wrong idea of 1John 5:6. The man seemed to love pumping water up peoples asses and flushing them out! I may be an SDA myself, but i have never been able to reconcile that! Fortunately, medicine has come a long way since then!

1 Like

Interesting history. I grew up near Post, Texas, which was founded by C.W. Post and has a link to the Kellogges. Post Consumer Brands - Wikipedia

1 Like

I didn’t because it is obviously a rhetorical question.
Cattle are raised for the purpose of milk or meat production and also to reproduce. Farm animals don’t get abused, in fact farmers love their animals and treat them like family. You want to enumerate exceptions of mentally ill people mistreating their stock? Be my guest. I know a string of cases of people abusing their fellow man.

When it comes to slaughter, I myself worked in an abattoir as a fitter in maintenance, and have witnessed every step of the way. No room for abuse to the animals, at risk of getting the establishment closed down.

If you think it is cruel to kill an animal to eat it, you live in a bubble. Everything we eat, was once alive, and in order to eat it we kill it. The difference between doing it personally or paying someone to do it for us, is academic.
The difference between killing a lamb, a fish or a plant is purely emotional. When it is understandable, it is what nature intended, and what God gave us to survive since we can not digest rocks or sand. To think that it is OK to kill a lettuce yet not OK to kill a rabbit, is rather puerile in my view.
However since everyone is entitled to an opinion and is also the master of his emotions, I don’t judge vegans even when they are clearly doing damage to themselves.
Yet I don’t accept being judged for what I choose to eat.

The argument against eating meat is as false as the “anti hunters” charade that is rife in Australia. Apparently it’s OK to fish but it is wrong to hunt. Oh and if you fish, catch and release, you are higher up in the moral status.
:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Mm … I think you are splitting hairs. Ellen White assistent did found what eventually became Kellogs. A few corporate jumps here and there are irrelevant.
And his main fixation was to stop constipation and masturbation. Both very sinful … apparently.

I’ve not read this book yet but just downloaded it this morning. Or last night. It’s supposed to be pretty good and get science heavy during it. He also highlights contention within his arguments. Lots of it is focused on medical costs influences on people and companies. I found it on hoopla digital though each library is different .

2 Likes

On T. Colin Campbell, a sincere man and the hero of the 7DA church.

Why I Am Not A Vegetarian: The China Study

by Jonny Bowden | Blog, Everything Else, Nutrition, Weight-Loss | 5 comments

I am not now, and have never been, a vegetarian.

OK, that’s not entirely true, I flirted with vegetarianism briefly a few decades ago, right around the time I was also experimenting with sideburns and dashikis. But for most of my adult life- and certainly for all the time I’ve been a nutritionist- I’ve been an unrepentant consumer of animal products.

It’s not that I’m not sympathetic to the animal welfare folks- in fact, I count myself among them (it’s a big tent, folks!) I belong to just about every animal activist group on the planet and care deeply about animal welfare. But while I share with my vegan friends a deep concern for all sentient beings, I happen to believe that we humans do better with some animal products in our diet.

Of course, God is in the details, so let me be a little more specific.

Despite arguments to the contrary, the fact remains that we humans are omnivores. We can eat- and thrive- on most anything edible. And for all of the 2.4 million years the human genus has been on the planet, we have eaten from what I call the “Jonny Bowden Four Food Groups”—food we could have hunted, fished, gathered or plucked. The exact proportions of animal vs. vegetable food that we consumed varied widely depending on where we lived. The Inuit, for example, thrived on a diet largely consisting of seal meat and whale blubber (very few vegetables grow in the freezing cold) while the Bantu of South Africa thrived on a diet very high in carbohydrates and the Masai did quite well on a diet rich with cow’s blood.

But it’s almost impossible to point to a society or a culture that has thrived and prospered without eating any animal products. (The only group I can think of that does it successfully is Tibetian monks, and they don’t reproduce.) When Dan Buettner did his landmark research on the areas of the globe where there are the greatest numbers of healthy centenarians (areas known as “The Blue Zones”) he found that three of the four societies studied did indeed eat meat (albeit not that much of it). The only exception was the Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda.

Despite vegan and vegetarian wishful thinking, some nutrients are simply not adequately represented in a vegetarian or vegan diet. Although the vegans will tell you otherwise, you simply can’t absorb any reasonable amount of bioavailable B12 from plant foods. Sorry. (And this is not just my opinion. The Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements, put together by a blue ribbon committee of scholars from the National Institutes of Health says “Because vitamin B12 is found only in animal source foods, strict vegetarianism has long been associated with a greater risk of deficiency of this vitamin”.) Heme iron, the most absorbable form of iron, is found only in animal foods. And while vegetarians love to point to plant based sources of omega-3 fats like flax, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of studies on the health benefits of omega-3’s have been done on the two omega-3’s found in fish- EPA and DHA. The benefits of the omega-3 in flax, ALA, are far less clear.

So what about all those studies showing horrible things happen to meat eaters?

Well, this is a blog, not a book, so to go into depth about all the problems that “link” meat eating to bad things would take dozens and dozens of pages. Certainly, when you investigate dietary patterns you find that heavy meat eating is associated with a higher risk of certain bad outcomes, for example, prostate cancer. But in virtually every epidemiologic study ever done that links meat eating to bad outcomes, what’s missing is the fact that the “meat eaters” are

  1. getting their meat from factory farmed sources, meat that is loaded with hormones, steroids and antibiotics
  2. usually not eating very many vegetables or fruits
  3. usually eating very low amounts of fiber
  4. living very high stress lives with multiple risk factors

There has yet to be a study showing that reasonable amounts of grass-fed meat, wild fish, free-range eggs and other non-contaminated animal protein sources consumed as part of a diet high in fiber, vegetables, fruits and omega-3 fats, is associated with any bad outcomes at all. Quite the contrary.

And before you bring it up, let me address “The China Study”.

The “China Study” refers to a popular book that came out in 2005 by Professor T. Colin Campbell. Campbell was a researcher on a massive project called “The China Project” (also known as the China Study). Campbell’s book is not “The China Study” despite having the same name as the original. Rather, his book contains his conclusions about the research. Those conclusions can be summed up as this: protein is really bad for you, animal protein is the worst of all, a vegan diet is the healthiest diet on earth, and every nutrient you need you can get from plants.

The book is frequently used by vegans and vegetarians to “prove” that a vegetarian diet is healthier than any on the planet, and that protein- especially animal protein- is bad for you. They consider the book “conclusive proof” of that position.

To repeat: Colin Campbell’s book “The China Study” is not the actual China Study (also known as the China Project). The “real”, full-length study is titled “Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties [Chen J].”; it’s an enormously thick and difficult book that gathered data on 367 variables across 65 countries involving 6500 adults and yielding over 8,000 statistically significant associations. The popular book “China Study” by Campbell represents, as mentioned, his conclusions about this data – conclusions which have been fiercely debated, by the way. He uses hand selected, cherry picked data from the study to support his rabid pro-vegan position and leaves out everything that contradicts it.

(Campbell is associated with Physicians for Responsible Medicine, a vegan animal rights group masquerading as a responsible medical organization.)

It’s interesting that no one with a research background takes Campbell’s work very seriously. It’s too easy to spot the biases, the methodological problems, the cherry-picking and the spinning. And some statements are so patently ridiculous that all you can do is roll your eyes. (Example: “Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy”.) But this is not the place to take Campbell’s book apart. For those who are interested in hearing “the other side” to Campbell’s propaganda—excuse me, I mean arguments—I suggest the excellent article by Chris Masterjohn on the Weston A. Price Foundation website, or you can find a version of it here:

There is also the stunning debate between Professor Loren Cordain, PhD and Campbell which you can find all over the internet by googling “The Protein Debate: Loren Cordain and T. Colin Campbell”. Highly worth reading. As is the comments by my good friend Michael Eades, MD, on the debate.

I have a personal story about Campbell which I think is pretty amusing. Campbell- who is a very charming and sincere man, by the way- came to speak at the Boulderfest Conference in Nutritional Medicine, a group not known for it’s affinity for veganism and high carb diets. (It was actually quite brave of him to come and speak to this group.) At the end of the day, there was a panel discussion in which all the speakers of the day sat at a dais on the stage and participated in a Q and A with the audience, including Campbell.

At one point, defending his “anti-animal protein” position, Campbell quoted a study done at Harvard University which, he said, had reached the exact same conclusion that he, Campbell, had reached. Even Harvard researchers agreed with him, was the implication.

A man sitting at the other end of the dais got up and introduced himself. “Excuse me, Dr. Campbell”, said the man.”I happened to be the lead researcher on that study you mentioned. And we made no such conclusions” It was David Ludwig, MD, of Harvard University.

So yes, I continue to struggle with the issue of how animals that are raised for food are treated. And no, I can never recommend factory-farmed feedlot meat to anyone. But I still believe that there is nothing inherently more healthy about a vegetarian diet, which, after all, could still qualify as vegetarian even if it consisted exclusively of pasta and Captain Crunch.

And I do believe that a diet with reasonable amounts of grass fed meat, plenty of wild fish, whole eggs from free-range chickens, raw organic milk, lots of omega-3’s, tons of vegetables, some low-sugar fruits, nuts, avocados, berries, real fermented foods like sauerkraut, miso and yogurt, olives and the occasional slice of truly whole-grain bread is a hard diet to beat for overall vitality.

At least it is for me.

And … the other elephant in the room:

7 Reasons Seed Oils are Bad for Your Health. – REP Provisions.

Let’s go back to butter, beef tallow, bacon and eggs. :blush: