157
What's a bit of good advice that's really bad advice?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
157 points (93.9% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27277 readers
1383 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ever since the US Department of Agriculture (not health) started their nutritional recommendations, once-rare diseases like cardiovascular disease, Diabetes II, obesity, and a whole host of mental illnesses have become extremely common.
People are only recently discovering that we can reverse/improve Diabetes I & II, arthritis, obesity, PCOS, psoriasis, depression, autism, anxiety, bipolar disorder, etc. by eating what humans have been primarily eating since becoming human ~2 million years ago when we left the trees, lost the ability to digest fiber, and evolved distinctly human traits for hunting (e.g. a skeletal composition that allows humans to throw heavy things accurately further than any other species, the ability to out-run every other land animal long-distance, and a large brain and complex communication for coordinated attacks on much larger animals).
Humans are still biologically evolved to be persistence pack hunters subsisting on fatty meat, a hyper-apex species that all other animals we evolved alongside (including other apex predators) fear just from the sound of our voices. We've lost sight of who we are as a species.
What..?!
From the studies I've seen, meat does indeed carry higher endemic carcinogen and cardio-disease risks, particularly when processed, particularly when fried, compared to other foods.
And yes, too much fruit can lead to glycemic issues, but assuming properly washed and/or cooked, fruits & veggies are indeed an extremely important part of a healthy diet.
A purely vegan diet means one needs to be careful about getting a full range of amino acids and IIRC some vitamins, but besides that, yes-- a core vegan diet (assuming properly varied) is indeed arguably one of the healthiest diets for most people.
Personally I don't think one needs to be super-strict with it, but the point is that it's a great base to build on.
The major problem with most studies in the field of nutrition is that most of them are correlation studies, which are useful in creating hypotheses but are not sufficient in determining causation.
I won't argue that as a layman, but I feel that there are nutritional meta-studies, plus evidence from inter-disciplines (such as physiology of the colon, how the body processes food at the micro & molecular level, and what H.s.s's typical diet was across many centuries) to suggest that what I posited above is true.
AFAIK the body of nutritionists and the national academies have to take all of this in to account (including the limitations of correlational studies) when making hypotheses about best diet, making for a reasonably clear picture that the human body (outside of people like the Inuit I guess) typically doesn't handle excess meat well, and that we likely evolved as omnivores who didn't eat processed foods, and who mainly ate vegetables & some fruit with opportunistic protein supplementing such.
If this is indeed what our bodies evolved to handle, it shouldn't really be a surprise that we do best health-wise maintaining that approach. Not to mention, there are plenty of studies to suggest the various ways we can get in to health problems straying from that baseline.
Nutritional meta-studies are based on individual studies. If the foundation is composed of correlation studies, such a meta-study would still not be able to show causation.
I was disappointed in the science of nutrition compared to other disciplines, which is why I looked to adjacent fields of study, like anatomy, evolution, biology, psychology, anthropology, archeology, and the history of the study of nutrition itself.
Modern humans have been around for ~300,000 years, and humans have been around for ~2 million years. Looking at our diets across the last several centuries isn't enough to get a clear understanding as we haven't significantly changed anatomically for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans have become apex predators not from scavenging for vegetables and fruits.
Humans have thrived through multiple ice ages where vegetables and fruit were scarce as hunters of megafauna. Our anatomy and unique adaptations suggest that there were strong evolutionary pressures that shaped us into the apex predators we are, despite not having large claws, horns, teeth, jaws, etc. that are typical of other apex predators.
Humans handle fatty meat very well. The growing popularity of the carnivore diet is a testament to this, with several practicing medical doctors starting to speak out in support of it. On the other hand, various populations handle different vegetation with mixed results. For example, a large minority of many populations still can't handle bread, of all things, very well.
You should double-check those studies, as they are likely to be correlation studies that do not prove causation and are riddled with confounding factors.
What's your basis of conceiving of humans as apex predators? I haven't heard them described that way before, moreso that we're fantastic opportunists who can indeed hunt successfully when such is called for. But historically, based on the findings, I don't know of any evidence that suggests we were universally 'apex predators' for any significant amount of time.
This is starting to sound pretty disingenuous or poorly-informed based on my impressions of the science.
Feel free to have the last reply, and if there's something to learn from it, I'll try.
Going off memory:
I'm not sure what science you're referring to, but from what I've learned, nutrition science is very much not a mature field of study, especially compared to adjacent disciplines. If you immediately discount the carnivore diet, I would ask you to ask yourself why (for example, is it because "everyone just knows that fruit, vegetables, and grains are healthy for you"?), and approach the question of what humanity's species-appropriate diet is from first principles.