• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Diet consensus on this forum? Vegan? Paleo?

paleo vegan diet

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#1 ancap_2

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:44 PM


So I'm relatively new to this forum and made an account mainly because i have been lurking int he nootropic section for a while and wanted to post. However now that I'm here I figured I'd go exploring in other sub-forums.

Is there a consensus on broad nutrition/macros? I'm guessing most people are either vegan or paleo... or is there not really a clear consensus in terms of diets and everyone is just experimenting with what works for them?

If there have ever been any interesting and thorough "Vegan vs Paleo" threads that anyone has handy, please link it to me.

Thanks in advance.

#2 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:03 PM

Good question. My guess is there are more paleos than vegans here. A poll might be nice, but first you would have to come up with a list of all the popular diet philosophies that are out there.

I'd be interested to know what macro nutrient ratios people try for and their reasoning.

As for me, I don't know what to eat any more. I try to limit my glycemic load and overall calories. I limit dairy, no uncultured dairy (causes acne for me).

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

The way I see it is there are two kinds of people on this forum (without trying to downgrade the discussion); those who enjoy meat and try to justify their consumption of it (with some very convincing arguments I must say) and those who don't mind not eating meat and eat a mostly plant based diet which has excellent longeviety evidence for it.

The thing is wether vegan or paleo they both agree that sugar, processed food, trans fats, refined carbs are to be avoided.
They both agree on some foods which have to be present in any diet (dark leafy vegetables, olive oil, berries...). They both agree that your omega 3 to 6 ratio has to be as close to 1:1 as possible, they both agree that your zinc to copper ratio has to be 10:1 and they both agree that eating lots of fiber is good for your health.

I honestly think that the best way to construct a diet (if money is no object) is to simply go on cron-o-meter, fill in your CRed calorie requirement (without worrying too much about macros as long as you keep protein low to moderate) and just add in a nice blend of foods that you enjoy with foods that have strong evidence for their health properties (garlic, spinach, coconut oil, cooked tomatoes, olive oil...) and try to reach the RDA for all nutrients.
Wether you decide to eat more starchs, fruits ( more vegan), animal protein or animal fat (more paleo) it's your own choice and frankly if you really think about it you'll still have a better diet than most people out there.
Just make sure you pick something you know you can follow for years (decades?) to come, I wouldn't worry much about the vegan vs paleo debate because the arguments for both sides are very strong.

Disclosure; I consider myself a mostly vegan-ish person (vegies,starch and fruit based diet), but I do enjoy the occasional sushi or cup of fermented milk.
  • like x 6

#4 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:15 PM

I think everyone here agree that fruits and vegetables are an important part of the diet. Everyone else agrees that processed-foods, simple-sugars and refined-oils are harmful. The main issue seems to be centered on the: center of the diet.

3/4 of the forum believes the diet should be based around animal-fat and animal-protein (eggs, bacon, milk, steak, eggs, fish, chicken, butter, cheese etc.). The other quarter believes that the diet should be based around complex-carbohydrates (corn, rice, potatoes, pasta, beans, lentils, bread, wheat, barley, oats, etc.)

I personally believe the starch based diet is optimal. The macro’s break down to 80% starch, 15% protein, 5% fat. Even if (and that’s a big if) the paleo-diet was the correct diet for humans… it would not be sustainable for the entire populace.

Edited by misterE, 04 October 2013 - 04:15 PM.

  • like x 4
  • dislike x 2

#5 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:10 PM

I think everyone here agree that fruits and vegetables are an important part of the diet. Everyone else agrees that processed-foods, simple-sugars and refined-oils are harmful. The main issue seems to be centered on the: center of the diet.

3/4 of the forum believes the diet should be based around animal-fat and animal-protein (eggs, bacon, milk, steak, eggs, fish, chicken, butter, cheese etc.). The other quarter believes that the diet should be based around complex-carbohydrates (corn, rice, potatoes, pasta, beans, lentils, bread, wheat, barley, oats, etc.)

I personally believe the starch based diet is optimal. The macro’s break down to 80% starch, 15% protein, 5% fat. Even if (and that’s a big if) the paleo-diet was the correct diet for humans… it would not be sustainable for the entire populace.


Has there ever been a concise summary/debate of each side - ideally with each side arguing it's points versus the others (I have no interest in reading about why either of them are better than the naive diet)?

Other than "searching the archives" randomly - have there ever been any noteworthy threads where some of the more knowledgeable advocates of each side mixed it up a bit? If there's no links handy, does anyone remember any key terms I could search for these types of threads (does this forum not have "stickies"?)?

Edited by ancap_2, 04 October 2013 - 05:11 PM.


#6 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:33 PM

Has there ever been a concise summary/debate of each side - ideally with each side arguing it's points versus the others (I have no interest in reading about why either of them are better than the naive diet)?



Yes, but not in an official thread. The basic arguments from the vegan diet are that animal-fat (saturated-fat) and cholesterol significantly contributes to diseases of affluence and are unsustainable for the world and its resources. The basic argument from the paleo-group is that humans are not adapted to grains and that the carbohydrate in grains and beans (along with so-called “anti-nutrients”) contributes to the modern diseases.



The deciding factor for me was the research from Esselstyn, Ornish and Pritikin showing complete reversal of cardiovascular-disease, prostate-cancer and type-2 diabetes using a diet consisting of beans, grains, fruits and vegetables. These incredible feats have yet to be accomplished on a paleo (high-meat) type diet or observed from epidemiological observations.



The largest advantage paleo-diets has over a starch-based diet is the taste. Surely everyone agrees that steak, bacon and cheese tastes better than oatmeal, barley and rice… but that does not make it healthy. And I think theconomist really made a great point in that people don’t want to part with these rich foods and make up excuses to eat them. A hamburger bun isn’t what makes the double bacon cheese-burger unhealthy.

Edited by misterE, 04 October 2013 - 07:34 PM.

  • dislike x 3
  • like x 2

#7 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:16 PM

Has there ever been a concise summary/debate of each side - ideally with each side arguing it's points versus the others (I have no interest in reading about why either of them are better than the naive diet)?



Yes, but not in an official thread. The basic arguments from the vegan diet are that animal-fat (saturated-fat) and cholesterol significantly contributes to diseases of affluence and are unsustainable for the world and its resources. The basic argument from the paleo-group is that humans are not adapted to grains and that the carbohydrate in grains and beans (along with so-called “anti-nutrients”) contributes to the modern diseases.



The deciding factor for me was the research from Esselstyn, Ornish and Pritikin showing complete reversal of cardiovascular-disease, prostate-cancer and type-2 diabetes using a diet consisting of beans, grains, fruits and vegetables. These incredible feats have yet to be accomplished on a paleo (high-meat) type diet or observed from epidemiological observations.



The largest advantage paleo-diets has over a starch-based diet is the taste. Surely everyone agrees that steak, bacon and cheese tastes better than oatmeal, barley and rice… but that does not make it healthy. And I think theconomist really made a great point in that people don’t want to part with these rich foods and make up excuses to eat them. A hamburger bun isn’t what makes the double bacon cheese-burger unhealthy.


I'll take my oatmeal with blueberries, barley porridge with some stevia,cinnamon topping and rice with oriental spices ANY day of the week over steak, bacon and cheese haha and I'm being serious.

One thing I have noticed (which might be useful to those trying or considering a vegan diet) is that your palate is VERY adaptable, once you remove the refined sugar for example, fruit will taste so MUCH better; I'll take a figue over a a chocolate bar anyday of the week.

What I'm trying to say is, if you're on a SAD diet right now and considering a vegan or mostly plant based diet then don't worry; learn to play with spices and give your palate a few weeks to adapte and you'll start loving those steamed broccolis.

Edited by theconomist, 04 October 2013 - 09:16 PM.

  • like x 3
  • Agree x 1

#8 Thorsten3

  • Guest
  • 1,123 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Bristol UK
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:31 PM

The issue for me was always what made me feel the best. I eventually settled on a raw primal diet, which is completely out of the ordinary for a forum like this. I guess I just log to keep learning, from time to time. There are some great guys who post here. People who know far more than me.

For me though, cooked food = a decrease in the quality of my life. Whether that be meat, veg or anything else. Meat is a natural food that has existed since man walked the earth. Of course we've always eaten it. It's only when some bright dick decided to burn the fuck out of it that we started seeing problems developing, with this extremely valuable source of food. Of course oxidised cholesterol is going to cause inflammation in your arterial walls, and all other kinds of issues. Yes, cooked meat contains cancerous particles, toxic end products and damaged proteins/enzymes. Some people prefer extra charcoal with theirs. Super smoked. Perhaps low carb reduces this threat, though? Keep insulin in check, as that's where we are told the problems stem from (Eades, Taubes, etc). I don't know for sure.

But great damage is also done by sugar and all this other rubbish we're not supposed to eat, in the stupid quantities that people consume.

Cholesterol, in its raw form, is a valuable nutrient. I'm certainly not scared of it and my lipid profiles have never been any better.

I guess I am about 95% raw. But a lot of the foods I eat are eaten by both vegans and paleo.

Edited by Thorsten2, 04 October 2013 - 10:33 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#9 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:23 AM

well this is discouraging...

#10 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:48 AM

well this is discouraging...


Not enough discussion, or because the posters are mostly pro-vegan/ vegetarian?

You might be interested in this thread:
http://www.longecity...myloid-plaques/

I'd be happy if I could just find a healthful diet that fixes my GERD. Before it hit I had been a vegetarian with no dairy (almost vegan) for 5 months. I can't have tomato sauce or similar products, onions or garlic, so many of my old recipes are out the window. I'm back to a plant-based diet with modest amounts fish, poultry and eggs. I've tried all the alternative GERD treatments out there and have been through a few proton pump inhibitors and an H2 blocker. This thing sucks. I'm scheduled for an endoscopy in a couple of weeks. Sorry this is a bit off-topic. Some people say paleo helps GERD, not sure how, but I might be desperate enough to try it. I'm not sure the rest of the family would go along, though, and good meat is expensive.

Edited by lemonhead, 05 October 2013 - 12:52 AM.


#11 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 01:24 AM

the fact that the discussion very very quickly just deteriorated to each side basically arguing:

"Well my chosen diet (vegan/paleo) is an improvement over the SAD, and i aesthetically prefer it, so i went with it."

I think it's blatantly obvious that both paleo and vegan are superior to SAD. The issue isn't if it can be shown that vegan (or paleo) vs SAD will show improvement. This is irrelevant. I want to see them compared to each other, not to SAD.

Assume i have infinite willpower, infinite resources, and zero aesthetic preferences. Which is healthier among these two choices and ONLY these two choices and why: 1) vegan 2) paleo. Assume health (defined as you wish) is my sole criterion.

Edited by ancap_2, 05 October 2013 - 01:25 AM.

  • like x 1

#12 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:52 AM

Assume i have infinite willpower, infinite resources, and zero aesthetic preferences. Which is healthier among these two choices and ONLY these two choices and why: 1) vegan 2) paleo. Assume health (defined as you wish) is my sole criterion.[/font][/color]


Healthier for whom? For your own health and only your own health? I've maintained a vegan diet for many years. I think it's a healthy diet in general for individuals. But my primary motive is not exclusively for my own individual, narrow health goals. I also wish to help prevent some suffering to animals. Like you eloquently stated above, both paleo and vegan are healthier than SAD. Yet the vegan is healthier for animals, and perhaps the larger environment, too.
  • like x 4
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Agree x 1

#13 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 05 October 2013 - 04:49 AM

Assume i have infinite willpower, infinite resources, and zero aesthetic preferences. Which is healthier among these two choices and ONLY these two choices and why: 1) vegan 2) paleo. Assume health (defined as you wish) is my sole criterion.[/font][/color]


Healthier for whom? For your own health and only your own health? I've maintained a vegan diet for many years. I think it's a healthy diet in general for individuals. But my primary motive is not exclusively for my own individual, narrow health goals. I also wish to help prevent some suffering to animals. Like you eloquently stated above, both paleo and vegan are healthier than SAD. Yet the vegan is healthier for animals, and perhaps the larger environment, too.


To be honest, domesticated animals would cease to exist without being a food source. There is a reason you never see a cow or chicken running wild around the country side and never will. The definition of domesticated is selective breeding for the benefit of humans. Humans deciding to no longer breed domesticated animals would seal there fate to extinction. Your opinion is only valid if you feel extinction is healthier for cows, chickens, etc. In this scenario, you will never under any circumstances see wild cows and chickens running through the country side. Without humans (ranchers/farmers), domesticated animals would not survive and continue to exist in the world.

I was raised on a ranch and still have family in the business and I can assure you that the livestock are well provided for (it's definitely in the ranchers best interest both financially and morally) and have no doubts that the livestock would prefer their existence to your extinction.

And I don't agree with the large corporate factory farms (which you are probably referring to) but there will always be greed and evil in the world no matter what....whether that greed and evil is directed towards animals or other humans. And if it is large corporate factory farms that you have an issue with, simply don't purchase your meats/dairy from the corporate supermarkets but from local ranchers or cooperatives.

Regardless, the alternative is not an improvement for the animals existence as it is either denial or wishful thinking to believe that domesticated animals would continue to exist in that type of environment (at least in the USA).
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Needs references x 1

#14 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 05:10 AM

Assume i have infinite willpower, infinite resources, and zero aesthetic preferences. Which is healthier among these two choices and ONLY these two choices and why: 1) vegan 2) paleo. Assume health (defined as you wish) is my sole criterion.[/font][/color]


Healthier for whom? For your own health and only your own health? I've maintained a vegan diet for many years. I think it's a healthy diet in general for individuals. But my primary motive is not exclusively for my own individual, narrow health goals. I also wish to help prevent some suffering to animals. Like you eloquently stated above, both paleo and vegan are healthier than SAD. Yet the vegan is healthier for animals, and perhaps the larger environment, too.


my own health only.

If you have to shift the focus to the "health of the animals" it leads me to believe that you're all out of arguments for why vegan is healthy. So far all we seem to have is:
1) healthier than SAD
2) healthier for animals

Is there anything else in its favor?
  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#15 Deep Thought

  • Guest
  • 224 posts
  • 30
  • Location:Reykjavík, Ísland

Posted 05 October 2013 - 07:48 AM

my own health only.

If you have to shift the focus to the "health of the animals" it leads me to believe that you're all out of arguments for why vegan is healthy. So far all we seem to have is:
1) healthier than SAD
2) healthier for animals

Is there anything else in its favor?


The human heart and skeletal muscles prefer fatty acids as a fuel source.

While the brain can use fatty acids, ketone bodies, glucose -> lactic acid as a source of fuel. Glucose is metabolized to lactic acid in the brain.

I read that 70% of the heart's energy supply comes from fatty acids and the rest in the shape of glucose. >> And ketone bodies in the case of starvation?

>>>> So eating fatty fish or grass-fed beef can't be all bad from the perspective of achieveing optimal health (if it's even possible). Although I agree that the conditions on some of the dairy farms seem to be not so good.

So my question is - where does a vegan get omega-3 fatty acids from? Flax seed oil is a great source of ALA, but unfortunately, a human only converts 2 to 5 % to long-chain fatty acids.

And it seems that many vegans have to supplement with taurine, b12 vitamin, carnosine and maybe also carnitine?

>>>> Carnosine comes primarily from meat... right?


The way I see it is that a paleo diet is a more complete diet, you have more choices. Ultimately though you should just cherry-pick the best principles from all diets. (CRON diet and so on.)


On a second note, and I do not intend to hijack your thread...
Following the advice laid out in this quote works very well for me:

Eat 9 cups of vegetables and fruit (3 green, 3 sulfur, 3 color) to ensure you have enough B vitamins, minerals (sulfur, iodine, magnesium), antioxidants, and essential fats through food (greens, seafood, grass fed meat, game, wild fish, flax, walnuts)


Edited by Deep Thought, 05 October 2013 - 07:53 AM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#16 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 05 October 2013 - 10:41 AM

my own health only.

If you have to shift the focus to the "health of the animals" it leads me to believe that you're all out of arguments for why vegan is healthy. So far all we seem to have is:
1) healthier than SAD
2) healthier for animals

Is there anything else in its favor?


The human heart and skeletal muscles prefer fatty acids as a fuel source.

While the brain can use fatty acids, ketone bodies, glucose -> lactic acid as a source of fuel. Glucose is metabolized to lactic acid in the brain.

I read that 70% of the heart's energy supply comes from fatty acids and the rest in the shape of glucose. >> And ketone bodies in the case of starvation?

>>>> So eating fatty fish or grass-fed beef can't be all bad from the perspective of achieveing optimal health (if it's even possible). Although I agree that the conditions on some of the dairy farms seem to be not so good.

So my question is - where does a vegan get omega-3 fatty acids from? Flax seed oil is a great source of ALA, but unfortunately, a human only converts 2 to 5 % to long-chain fatty acids.

And it seems that many vegans have to supplement with taurine, b12 vitamin, carnosine and maybe also carnitine?

>>>> Carnosine comes primarily from meat... right?


The way I see it is that a paleo diet is a more complete diet, you have more choices. Ultimately though you should just cherry-pick the best principles from all diets. (CRON diet and so on.)


On a second note, and I do not intend to hijack your thread...
Following the advice laid out in this quote works very well for me:

Eat 9 cups of vegetables and fruit (3 green, 3 sulfur, 3 color) to ensure you have enough B vitamins, minerals (sulfur, iodine, magnesium), antioxidants, and essential fats through food (greens, seafood, grass fed meat, game, wild fish, flax, walnuts)


The issue with meat is TMAO levels as well as links which have been established between red meat consumption and CVD, some types of cancer and it's high in methionine..;
Fish is very high in methionine which is something you ideally want to restrict (cancer risk) until we learn more about it.
Eggs are interesting, there have been much discussion about them on this forum so one should pick a side really on this issue.
Milk has casein in it which contributes to cancer growth.

It's not so much about what you SHOULD eat as much as it is about what you should NOT eat and for me the evidence for avoiding the above is clear hence I chose to base my diet mainly around starchs,vegetables,fruit,nuts and some oils (coconut, wheat germ, olive).
  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#17 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

the fact that the discussion very very quickly just deteriorated to each side basically arguing:

"Well my chosen diet (vegan/paleo) is an improvement over the SAD, and i aesthetically prefer it, so i went with it."

I think it's blatantly obvious that both paleo and vegan are superior to SAD. The issue isn't if it can be shown that vegan (or paleo) vs SAD will show improvement. This is irrelevant. I want to see them compared to each other, not to SAD.

Assume i have infinite willpower, infinite resources, and zero aesthetic preferences. Which is healthier among these two choices and ONLY these two choices and why: 1) vegan 2) paleo. Assume health (defined as you wish) is my sole criterion.


Thanks, ancap_2, for this discussion. These are things I want to know, also. And thanks Deep Thought and theconomist for your input.

Edited by lemonhead, 05 October 2013 - 02:30 PM.


#18 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

this is exactly the sort of back-and-forth I could be a spectator to for hours :)

To try to stir the pot a bit: do either Deep Thought or Theconomist have any specific views on cholesterol or saturated fat? This is one very significant area where vegan and paleo differ, no? Are these substances things that should be consumed in excess or moderation?

#19 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:17 PM

my own health only.

If you have to shift the focus to the "health of the animals" it leads me to believe that you're all out of arguments for why vegan is healthy. So far all we seem to have is:
1) healthier than SAD
2) healthier for animals

Is there anything else in its favor?


2) should read "needless suffering of animals" and that's a good enough argument for me.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1

#20 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:29 PM

Suppose humankind should discover a source of clean, cheap energy and a way to grow animal flesh in vats in factories, with minimal environmental impact (or equivalent impact to plant crop production) and no animal suffering.

What diet choices would you make in such a scenario?

Edited by lemonhead, 05 October 2013 - 03:29 PM.


#21 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:36 PM

this is exactly the sort of back-and-forth I could be a spectator to for hours :)

To try to stir the pot a bit: do either Deep Thought or Theconomist have any specific views on cholesterol or saturated fat? This is one very significant area where vegan and paleo differ, no? Are these substances things that should be consumed in excess or moderation?


Like most things in life, there is no one size fits all. Individual reactions to macro nutrient ratios and specific nutrients is highly genetically variable and research is constantly progressing with regards to this. Without testing your DNA and applying the SNP mutations to the current known database, it's simply a crap shoot as to how any two individuals will react to the same identical diet. That is the reason various studies have conflicting conclusions....because genetics weren't considered in the results. Of course, even with testing and applying, it's highly confusing due to the thousands of possible SNP's involved and the complexly infinite number of combinations.

Without applying an individuals genetic makeup, and with all things considered, the only true and safe bet is the time tested "all things in moderation".

edit....The only given, as already mentioned, is the losing proposition of the SAD diet. But as previously stated, I believe we have all agreed to the severe problems with standard manufactured food.

Edited by Hebbeh, 05 October 2013 - 03:50 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Needs references x 1

#22 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

Suppose humankind should discover .... (SNIP) ... a way to grow animal flesh in vats in factories, with minimal environmental impact (or equivalent impact to plant crop production) and no animal suffering.

What diet choices would you make in such a scenario?


I'm an enthusiastic supporter of in vitro (artificial) meat; recent progress in this area is really encouraging. There's so much information on this topic that's widely available through casual searches.

#23 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

this is exactly the sort of back-and-forth I could be a spectator to for hours :)

To try to stir the pot a bit: do either Deep Thought or Theconomist have any specific views on cholesterol or saturated fat? This is one very significant area where vegan and paleo differ, no? Are these substances things that should be consumed in excess or moderation?


Like most things in life, there is no one size fits all. Individual reactions to macro nutrient ratios and specific nutrients is highly genetically variable and research is constantly progressing with regards to this. Without testing your DNA and applying the SNP mutations to the current known database, it's simply a crap shoot as to how any two individuals will react to the same identical diet. That is the reason various studies have conflicting conclusions....because genetics weren't considered in the results. Of course, even with testing and applying, it's highly confusing due to the thousands of possible SNP's involved and the complexly infinite number of combinations.

Without applying an individuals genetic makeup, and with all things considered, the only true and safe bet is the time tested "all things in moderation".


Hear, hear!

Absolutely agree with the above; don't eat too much, eat foods that are known to be healthy, avoid does with proven negative health impact (e.g both vegans and paleo agree that overcooked beef is bad), and foods that you enjoy.
The best longeviety advances won't come through diet; penicilin did much more for human lifespan than broccoli ever will (I hope it turns out to be base of a cancer therapy, I'll happily swallow my words).



  • like x 1

#24 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 October 2013 - 04:01 PM

This is a good thread. Thanks everyone for your largely non-ideological contributions. There is a very common perception of paleo that has taken hold in the world, and I doubt I'll be able to change it, but the paleo principle is really that we shouldn't eat food we are not evolutionarily adapted to. That is not the same as a hyperlipid, hyper-meat, "caveman" diet. You can have a diet that follows paleo principles, but does not contain a large amount of meat or animal fat. A hyperlipid, ketogenic diet is one extreme; MisterE is on the opposite extreme with his hyper-starch, minimal fat diet. Both have their place, but I think most people are better off somewhere in the middle. Thorsten2 mentioned the raw diet, which I think is an important part of the discussion of optimal diets. I've been very impressed with the work that's come out of Helen Vlassara's lab that shows the extraordinary damage done by exogenous AGEs and ALEs from cooked food, particularly food cooked at high temperatures.

One way to reduce needless suffering of animals is to eat less meat. Meals can be plant-centric, with meat as a side dish/condiment, or it could be eaten only occasionally. You can get meat from responsible producers rather than factory farms, though it will be more expensive. The health consequences of eating meat are sometimes confounded when treated/processed/cured meats are lumped in with "red" meat. When you separate those classes, red meat looks a whole lot better. The news is not so good for ham, bacon, and some other things that taste awfully good, unfortunately.

I posted this regarding macronutrient ratios a few years ago; it's relevant to the current thread:

...if you want the absolute perfectly best possible, it will depend on your genome and I don't think anyone knows how to answer that question anyway. If you are looking for some good advice that will most likely give you what you want, the answer is: Best carbs are low GI complex carbs. Best Fats are SAFA and MUFA. Best Proteins are... oh, jeez, probably a lab-created protein that restricts certain AAs. If you really want to play that game you could research it. Realistically, just try to get a reasonable balance of essential AAs so you don't need to consume too much protein in order to get all the EAAs that you need. Best macronutrient ratio? Protein below ten % is too little, above 30% is too much. Lower amounts favor longevity, higher amounts favor muscle. You decide where you want to be on that continuum. After that, you just have to split the rest of the calories between carbs and fat. Don't go crazy in either direction, and be sure to construct a diet that is enjoyable and has the micronutrients and phytochemicals that you need. In other words, you want to admit a variety of vegetables and berries. Large fruits are up to you- they cost you because of fructose but many large fruits also have good things in them. So that's it. Just keep your fructose (including sucrose), PUFA, and gluten grains consumption low, and you'll be good to go. Don't stress out over it, and don't be fanatical.


Modifying this for today, I'd say we are starting to understand how genome connects to optimal diet; the ApoE genotype is certainly one I'd look at. SAFA/MUFA optimality may be altered for people with CVD or genetic predisposition. Under the rubric of PUFA, I consider industrial seed oils to be something that should be minimized.
  • like x 5

#25 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 05 October 2013 - 08:49 PM


Meat-Drenched Oktoberfest Warms To Vegans

http://www.npr.org/b...ns?sc=17&f=1001


Oktoberfest, one of the world's largest festivals, is mostly about beer. And to soak up all that froth and alcohol, Bavarians have traditionally reached for meat.

The culinary cornerstones of the Munich festival, which runs this year from Sept. 21 to Oct. 6, include roast pork, ham hock, and weisswurst — a white sausage that complements the 40 different types of local beer. But this year, breaking with a 200-year-old tradition, Oktoberfest is catering to vegans. Claudia Bauer of the Munich City Council, which organizes the festival, says the move is a sign of the times.

"More and more Germans and people from Bavaria and Munich follow the vegan diet," she says.

Vegetables have become so hip in Germany that the Green Party used them as part of their platform in national elections last month. The party campaigned for a weekly "veggie" day in corporate cafeterias, where, in Germany, employees eat a free lunch.

With an average meat consumption in Germany of 132 pounds per person, annually, the manifesto caused outrage.

But vegetarianism in Germany is on the rise. The German Vegetarian Association, or VEBU, estimates 8 to 9 percent of the population, or 7 million people, is vegetarian, the second highest in the European Union, after Italy. And included in the 7 million are 800,000 vegans.

"In the last five years, there has been a huge boost to the vegetarian lifestyle in Germany, and we see evidence of this in our steadily growing membership," says Sebastian Zösch, VEBU's CEO. "The veggies are becoming a more and more important target group in areas like economy, science and politics. The focus is shifting toward them."

Zösch tells The Salt there are many more vegetarian and vegan restaurants in Germany, making it easier for people to adhere to the diet.

That awareness is nowhere more evident than at this year's Oktoberfest, which is expected to bring in more than $1 billion and some 6 million visitors to the Munich.

The idea to offer meat alternatives for everyone came from the Bachmaier family, owners of Herzkasperl. The Munich restaurant, better known for its pork with dumplings than Brussels sprouts, has been serving hearty fare for hundreds of years. The Bachmaiers' son is training to become a vegan cook and inspired the new dishes at Oktoberfest.

Martin Jonas has worked at Herzkasperl for four years and is proud of the recent introductions to the menu, just in time for Oktoberfest.

"A little door is opening [at the festival] for people who don't want to eat meat," he says.

So what's on the menu at Herzkasperl? Ginger-carrot soup, soy medallions to replace pork and mushrooms, and one of Bavaria's most beloved dishes — Käsespätzle, a cheesy egg noodle bake, made sans eggs and cheese.

"We replace the eggs and cheese with a vegan substitute and because it tastes so good people don't believe it's missing the two key ingredients," Jonas says.

Another tent is serving chicken fricassee made with soy cutlets. Bauer says there have long been a few Bavarian options at Oktoberfest for vegetarians: traditional dishes like Reiberdatschi, similar to a potato pancake, and cabbage.

But Jonas' vegan version of Käsespätzle is a sellout.

"They've been selling better than we thought," he says. "One day our cook spent 10 hours just filling orders for Käsespätzle."

Jonas says the older, more traditional generation of Germans take a live-and-let -live attitude to the egg-less, cheese-less dish being served up next to their sausages. "Most people say, 'I don't eat it, but it's cool.' " [Copyright 2013 NPR]

#26 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 10:41 PM

my own health only.

If you have to shift the focus to the "health of the animals" it leads me to believe that you're all out of arguments for why vegan is healthy. So far all we seem to have is:
1) healthier than SAD
2) healthier for animals

Is there anything else in its favor?


2) should read "needless suffering of animals" and that's a good enough argument for me.


Then start a new thread.

I'm clearly asking which is healthier for ME.

To say that I should consider the health of the animals in conjunction with, or instead of, my own personal health, is, quite frankly a separate decision. First I'd like to foster a discussion about what is the healthiest diet in the first place. Only once this is completed am I willing to consider whether this healthiest diet is something I want to be pursuing.

If this sort of mental attacking of the problem is un-familar to you, perhaps an example will help: Let's say for some random reason the absolute healthiest thing I can eat is the slaughtered remains of my own relatives. The fact that this isn't something I am willing to do does NOT make mean that the proper answer to "What is the healthiest thing I can eat?" "Plants or animals". The corect answer is the correct answer, despite my not liking that fact. Rather, under the conditions of the hypothetical, even given that it is not something I am willing to do, the logically correct answer to "What is the healthiest thing I can eat?" is STILL "The slaughtered remains of your relatives." Just that I would then defer tot he second healthiest thing... (or third, etc.)

That being said: I am solely trying to answer the question: were one to not give one iota about "animal welfare", cost, aesthetics, convenience etc.: what is the healthiest diet?

Never-mind that you think i SHOULD care about "animal welfare", cost, aesthetics, or convenience. Nowhere in my question did I actually say that I personally don't care about these factors. Just that IF IF IF IF IF one didn't care about these factors: what is the healthiest diet?

Meat-Drenched Oktoberfest Warms To Vegans

http://www.npr.org/b...ns?sc=17&f=1001


Oktoberfest, one of the world's largest festivals, is mostly about beer. And to soak up all that froth and alcohol, Bavarians have traditionally reached for meat.

The culinary cornerstones of the Munich festival, which runs this year from Sept. 21 to Oct. 6, include roast pork, ham hock, and weisswurst — a white sausage that complements the 40 different types of local beer. But this year, breaking with a 200-year-old tradition, Oktoberfest is catering to vegans. Claudia Bauer of the Munich City Council, which organizes the festival, says the move is a sign of the times.

"More and more Germans and people from Bavaria and Munich follow the vegan diet," she says.

Vegetables have become so hip in Germany that the Green Party used them as part of their platform in national elections last month. The party campaigned for a weekly "veggie" day in corporate cafeterias, where, in Germany, employees eat a free lunch.

With an average meat consumption in Germany of 132 pounds per person, annually, the manifesto caused outrage.

But vegetarianism in Germany is on the rise. The German Vegetarian Association, or VEBU, estimates 8 to 9 percent of the population, or 7 million people, is vegetarian, the second highest in the European Union, after Italy. And included in the 7 million are 800,000 vegans.

"In the last five years, there has been a huge boost to the vegetarian lifestyle in Germany, and we see evidence of this in our steadily growing membership," says Sebastian Zösch, VEBU's CEO. "The veggies are becoming a more and more important target group in areas like economy, science and politics. The focus is shifting toward them."

Zösch tells The Salt there are many more vegetarian and vegan restaurants in Germany, making it easier for people to adhere to the diet.

That awareness is nowhere more evident than at this year's Oktoberfest, which is expected to bring in more than $1 billion and some 6 million visitors to the Munich.

The idea to offer meat alternatives for everyone came from the Bachmaier family, owners of Herzkasperl. The Munich restaurant, better known for its pork with dumplings than Brussels sprouts, has been serving hearty fare for hundreds of years. The Bachmaiers' son is training to become a vegan cook and inspired the new dishes at Oktoberfest.

Martin Jonas has worked at Herzkasperl for four years and is proud of the recent introductions to the menu, just in time for Oktoberfest.

"A little door is opening [at the festival] for people who don't want to eat meat," he says.

So what's on the menu at Herzkasperl? Ginger-carrot soup, soy medallions to replace pork and mushrooms, and one of Bavaria's most beloved dishes — Käsespätzle, a cheesy egg noodle bake, made sans eggs and cheese.

"We replace the eggs and cheese with a vegan substitute and because it tastes so good people don't believe it's missing the two key ingredients," Jonas says.

Another tent is serving chicken fricassee made with soy cutlets. Bauer says there have long been a few Bavarian options at Oktoberfest for vegetarians: traditional dishes like Reiberdatschi, similar to a potato pancake, and cabbage.

But Jonas' vegan version of Käsespätzle is a sellout.

"They've been selling better than we thought," he says. "One day our cook spent 10 hours just filling orders for Käsespätzle."

Jonas says the older, more traditional generation of Germans take a live-and-let -live attitude to the egg-less, cheese-less dish being served up next to their sausages. "Most people say, 'I don't eat it, but it's cool.' " [Copyright 2013 NPR]


Kindly refrain from posting on this thread. You seem entirely incapable of addressing what it is I was asking.

Edited by ancap_2, 05 October 2013 - 10:45 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#27 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2013 - 11:00 PM

eat foods that are known to be healthy, avoid does with proven negative health impact (e.g both vegans and paleo agree that overcooked beef is bad),


well this is what Im trying to better understand. Sure noob advice is out of the way re prior threads. Soda is bad, etc.

But what about the areas that vegan and paleo vehemently disagree on. Like saturated fat. Note that advice like: "Eat what as much saturated fat as your body needs, no more no less" isn't really an answer. That'd be like telling someone who is asking for directions to football stadium: "Just take the streets that will get you to the football stadium". It's a non answer.

The best longeviety advances won't come through diet; penicilin did much more for human lifespan than broccoli ever will


But I'm not a medical researcher. From MY POV as an acting individual faced with making choices in my daily life, very few of them will have a notable effect on what medical breakthroughs happen. Things are going to be developed or not. Several times a day I do decide what to put in my body. I'd like to make sure I'm making the correct decisions here.

Additionally even if I were a medical researcher, the two alternatives (diet vs medicine) are not mutually exclusive. In between discovering cancer cures, I still have to decide what to put in my body. Never mind that what I work on in the lab may be revolutionary, what I eat still might play a marginal role. The impact of diets marginal impact and medicines potentially revolutionary effect are additive, not mutually exclusive.

#28 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 06 October 2013 - 01:40 AM

Kindly refrain from posting on this thread. You seem entirely incapable of addressing what it is I was asking.


Ok, well before I get kicked outta here: try entering your specific food intakes into a nice ap like cronometer. Cronometer tracks RDA, and RDA science is solid.

#29 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:20 AM

Is there anything else in its favor?





Plant-based diets have the ability to reverse cardiovascular-disease, prostate-cancer and type-2 diabetes as shown by Esselstyn, Ornish and Pritikin. No studies have ever been published showing the same for a paleo-diet.



Plus like mentioned before… even if the paleo-diet is healthier, it will never gain worldwide prominence because a meat-based diet is flat-out unsustainable for 7 plus billion people.





J Fam Pract. 1995 Dec;41(6):560-8. A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice. Esselstyn CB Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV.



J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):1065-9. Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer. Ornish D, Weidner G, Fair WR.





Diabetes Care. 1983 May-Jun;6(3):268-73. Long-term use of a high-complex-carbohydrate, high-fiber, low-fat diet and exercise in the treatment of NIDDM patients. Barnard RJ, Massey MR, Cherny S.
  • dislike x 4

#30 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:31 AM

have any specific views on cholesterol or saturated fat?







Saturated-fat and cholesterol defiantly contribute to atherosclerosis, diabetes, and cancer. One high fat meal can sludge the blood for hours (called lipemia) and reduce oxygen content in the body by 25%. Saturated-fat in excessive amounts, accumulates in organs like the muscles, pancreas, heart, kidneys, liver and inhibits insulin from interacting with these tissues (thus causing type-2 diabetes). Saturated-fat also raises the amount of estrogen in both men and women which can over stimulate sexual organs (like the prostate and breast) and contribute to cancer.



Replacing saturated-fat (beef, cheese, eggs, butter, pork) with starch (potatoes, beans, pasta, rice, barley, quinoa) will prevent and cure you of metabolic-syndrome.

Suppose humankind should discover a source of clean, cheap energy and a way to grow animal flesh in vats in factories, with minimal environmental impact (or equivalent impact to plant crop production) and no animal suffering.

What diet choices would you make in such a scenario?

Regardless, meat is the wrong type of fuel for the human body.
  • dislike x 6





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: paleo, vegan, diet

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users