If there is overwhelming evidence it should be easy to find 1 paper but you can’t because it doesn’t exist
#1) It’s not my job to do your research for you.
#2) I’ve had these sorts of discussions before. And, no offense, people don’t come to the sorts of conclusions you’ve come to by being open to accepting new concepts shown in professional literature, or opinions by professionals. A paper isnt going to change your mind.
1 Like
I don’t necessarily disagree on your red meat statement. The problem is that the majority of red meat is NOT lean at all.
1 Like
Well, then just don’t buy the crappy stuff. You just can’t lump it all together because you don’t want to differentiate.
I’ve got two freezers fill of mostly lean and healthy red meat. I get there’s a cost aspect, but the healthier stuff is available.
Where the hell is THAT coming from? ‘Poor oral health’?
Animals for human consumption are laced with pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and shouldn’t be eaten as a large component of human diet. And the ‘meat industry’ has a hugely powerful lobby and is able to distort society to a shocking level. I wouldn’t put the lobbying groups past employing ‘sock puppets’ on social media to push their agenda. They wouldn’t be the first, or last, to do that.
IF meat was to be a large part of the human diet, we would have evolved the dental structure to support that diet. Dogs, and their genetic relatives do depend on meats of animals they killed (in the wild) and developed the teeth to handle that diet. Human teeth are more suited for grains and vegetative matter, lacking the strong prominent canine teeth to rip and tear flesh.
So from an evolutionary standpoint, meat should be an ancillary part of the human diet, not the focus. And any ‘processed meat’ is a mess of additives and chemicals that are poorly regulated and can cause health issues. I gave up red meats, and eat much less of other meats than I did when I was younger. Just from the contribution to climate change, reducing meat consumption (and the destruction of massive quantities of tainted meats) would help everyone. (Except the lobbying groups)
But chose to eat what you want. It’s your life, but stop haranguing people to defend your agenda. That’s not productive.
1 Like
I had totally forgotten about this crazy story, but this post brought it back to me:
How Two British Orthodontists Became Celebrities to Incels https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/magazine/teeth-mewing-incels.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Probably behind a pay wall. Excerpt: “Changes in our lifestyle and environment since the 18th century, Mew contends, are inducing our jaws to grow small and recessed. The teeth do their best to come in straight, but our misformed faces cause them to twist and turn and compete for space. As a result, we’ve been robbed not only of tidy smiles but also, Mew says, of the well-defined faces that were the birthright of our ancient ancestors, and which Mew regards as the mark of true beauty.” Guy exprimented on his own kids. Was quite a read.
1 Like
Just look at the rabid belief that adding fluoride to drinking water was a form of mind control to see how unhinged some people can become. And yet MTBE was added to our gasoline, and it’s done far more damage to the environment, and us, than fluoride ever did/will. (OMG! Chemtrails!!)
I explained earlier, no crabs = no caries, and plants contain enamel damaging acids too. This is pretty well established science not some spurious correlation from epidemiology
we evolved brains to make tools but in the process also lost out ability to absorb b12 in the colon, which gives us a pretty good clue our ancestors ate lots of meat (or else they wouldn’t have been able to get their b12)
so you blame the other stuff not meat itself
We malabsorb B12 because we made tools? Hmm… There are other sources of B12, and many vegan or vegetarians should know what they aren’t getting in their diet and how to compensate for it. I’m sure many don’t, but still. Yes, eating meat does provide some benefit, but if I have to give up using tools to eat meat, I’ll chose to not eat meat.
Personally, I eat fish, and chicken occasionally, and love cheeses. I couldn’t see giving up all of that permanently, but that’s me.
But I won’t belabor the point. There are alternatives to eating meat and people seem to survive it just fine. It’s all the extra ‘baggage’ that comes with the production of meat that is a huge negative for me. The multi-acre CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations) and the waste disposal, and pharmaceuticals and diseases, and regulations, and horrific processing plant conditions for workers, and shipping meat to and from China by some companies for ‘processing’, and it all makes me uncomfortable and I don’t want to participate.
And I’m out… Ride on!!
The biggest thing I see for me is the insane amounts of sugars and salt in everything. WOW!! I used to be concerned about fats, but seeing sugars showing up in such huge concentrations, and salt! OMG, salt!! It’s showing up in high concentrations too.
But, to the brain, sugar is like crack cocaine supposedly. Yuck…
We don’t malabsorb b12 but we can only absorb it in the ileum, proximal to the location where b12 is synthesized in our body, which means we require dietary intake of b12 to get our daily requirement. Since our ancestors couldn’t just buy supplements and the mutation is so widespread and b12 only occurs in animal products it must mean we had no vegan ancestors
unlike medicine and dentistry in which I both a have a degree I know little about agriculture. I do know this however, without meat production there would be far less food in the world as livestock can thrive on our indigestible leftovers, moreover a lot of the land on earth is so called marginal land and cannot grow crops, it can grow grass however on which ruminants can thrive
Just saying it as plainly as i can - this is utter nonsense and any source of nutrition info that pushes stuff like this should be disregarded immediately.
1 Like
assuming this was supposed to read “no carbs = no cavities”, it then assumes no one ever invented a toothbrush or fluoride.
The idea that fruits are bad for your health because if you practice poor oral hygiene , you’ll get cavities is….a stretch.
1 Like
And I believe it’s a stretch to believe that foods that require modern inventions to mitigate the ill effects are healthy (and fortunately even with modern interventions people often fail)
Toothbrushes of various designs date back to BC dates, in both the Chinese and Egyptian cultures.
Proper oral hygiene is essential for your overall health, not as a way to allow you to eat fruit.
I also think you hypothesis re: fruits is severely flawed….there are a host of other health benefits that come from eating fruits (vitamins, electrolytes, anti-oxidants, etc) that far outweigh any potential harmful effects to your enamel from their sugars.
3 Likes
and acids…
I am not going to argue the potential benefits, the negative effects of fruits are pretty well established and there are foods (such as meat) which provide all the positives without any known harmful effect
The fact that you skipped over almost the entirety of my post to nitpick about the acid in fruit is kinda telling……
If you think meat provides all the same benefits as fruit, have at it. I don’t think there is a good faith argument happening here, so I’m gonna bow out.
8 Likes
Not true. At all. I’d start checking sources different from what you’ve previously been getting your info from, because I guarantee you they are beyond suspect.
3 Likes
I’m baffled by the content of these posts re:fruit being harmful. Is that you in your avatar photo featuring the prominent glass of wine? Recognize the irony there?
1 Like
Intermittent sugar access also acts by way of opioids in the brain. There are changes in opioid systems such as decreased enkephalin mRNA expression in the accumbens (Spangler et al., 2004). Signs of withdrawal seem to be largely due to the opioid modifications since withdrawal can be obtained with the opioid antagonist naloxone. Food deprivation is also sufficient to precipitate opiate-like withdrawal signs (Avena, Bocarsly, Rada, Kim and Hoebel, unpublished, Colantuoni et al., 2002). This withdrawal state involves at least two neurochemical manifestations. First is a decrease in extracellular DA in the accumbens, and second is the release of acetylcholine (ACh) from accumbens interneurons. These neurochemical adaptations in response to intermittent sugar intake mimic the effects of opiates.
The theory is formulated that intermittent, excessive intake of sugar can have dopaminergic, cholinergic and opioid effects that are similar to psychostimulants and opiates, albeit smaller in magnitude. The overall effect of these neurochemical adaptations is mild, but well-defined, dependency (Hoebel et al., 1999, Leibowitz and Hoebel, 2004, Rada et al., 2005a). This review compiles studies from our laboratory and integrates related results obtained by others using animal models, clinical accounts and brain imaging to answer the question: can sugar, in some conditions, be “addictive”?
So it would seem that the answer is yes, sugar can be addictive.
Look around you, look at all the ‘food’ laced with sugar. Drinks too. Sunny D is a sugar delivery system that kids get addicted to. It’s damned disgusting. I grabbed one for an awkward breakfast in Ditsy World, and threw it out, and almost threw it up! OMG, such garbage!!
From an evolutionary perspective, it is in the best interest of humans to have an inherent desire for food for survival. However, this desire may go awry, and certain people, including some obese and bulimic patients in particular, may develop an unhealthy dependence on palatable food that interferes with well-being. The concept of “food addiction” materialized in the diet industry on the basis of subjective reports, clinical accounts and case studies described in self-help books. The rise in obesity, coupled with the emergence of scientific findings of parallels between drugs of abuse and palatable foods has given credibility to this idea. The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
From the very first study on the subject I found. Is sugar addictive? Try to keep a Sunny D kid from their daily sugar fix.