I think I’ve already said some good hints on several topics. If you’ve any question or topic you want to discuss I’m still willing to do it. As I’ve told you already, if you produce an interesting argument that I’ve not heard before and that is not clear nonsense, I may think about it.
The idea carbohydrates are bad for us more or less is at the same plausibility level of the idea that water is bad for us. It’s an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. And the fact that some millions of non-expert people have been fooled by this is not a valid argument.
It actually proves what I’m saying. Let me quote for it:
Food: Because these innovations in transportation were still in their infancy in 1815, however, most Americans ate what they grew or hunted locally. Corn and beans were common, along with pork. In the north, cows provided milk, butter, and beef, while in the south, where cattle were less common, venison and other game provided meat. Preserving food in 1815, before the era of refrigeration, required smoking, drying, or salting meat. Vegetables were kept in a root cellar or pickled.
What do you think he means when he says “corn and beans were common”?
Let’s look at the comment on life expectancy from same link:
Life Expectancy: The boom in native population in the early 19th century was even more remarkable considering the low life expectancies of the time. By one estimate, a white man who had reached his 20th birthday could expect to live just another 19 years. A white woman at 20 would live, on average, only a total of 38.8 years. If measuring from birth, which counted infant mortality, life expectancy would have been even lower. A white family in the early 19th century would typically have seven or eight children, but one would die by age one and another before age 21. And, of course, for slaves, childhood deaths were higher and life expectancy was even lower. About one in three African American children died, and only half lived to adulthood.
So they did rarely arrive at old age at all. So what it does tell us about diet? Pretty much nothing because we’re interested in healthy populations that live longer.
Also explain me, if you’re a 19th farmer, why would you buy meat if it costs more than say beans and it makes you perform less? Please note that the decrease in performance is immediate. You can observe it immediately after a meal. These people weren’t idiots.
Then the other link was about meat consumption:
So I guess I go there, I look at Argentina, and all of sudden all the 100+ years of research proving the link between meat and diseseas will go away? It’s not that easy
It’s just laughable. I have not replied to this because I didn’t want to humiliate you.
Then you have all the conspiratorial argument. Apparently all the non low carb world are part of a single large conspiracy to sell simple sugars to us. You expect that I take this seriously?
it’s such nonsense, and it’s laughable. I’ve told you. Carbs and plants are like 10 times cheaper than fats and animal. They’re more satiating and people naturally consume less. Why would industry have any advantage in promoting them? it doesn’t make any sense. It IS nonsense.
EDIT: Ahah, your chart has only beef!
Look there, Argentina doesn’t consume more meat than other countries. It eats less than USA! And look at the countries at the bottom, 3kg/year instead of 90kg/year! 30x difference! But I’m sure you think that we can’t conclude anything from this about what’s traditional diet of mankind. We must immediately declare total war on grains and legumes! They just have too many carbs! And also fruits, they’ve too many simple carbs!
2nd EDIT: Let’s look at per capita meat consumption in USA:
It nearly doubled in last 100 years. And it was extremely high already in 19th century if you compare with other developed countries at the time:
Almost two centuries ago, he says, meat was one reason why immigrants found America so amazing. “When the Irish come in the 1840s, they write letters back saying ‘I eat meat every day,’” Horowitz says. “And they get letters back saying, ‘You must be kidding. It can’t be true.’”
Then we also have to look at vegetable oil, I’m sure they won’t disappoint. Basically, cheese went up nearly tenfold, meat two fold, vegetable oils who knows by how much. But yeah, overall we can say the health problems are due to Ancel Keys. He’s the cause of health problems!
You’re not even trying anymore are you. You’ve stopped thinking such a long time ago that you’ve lost the ability now.
Your comment some time ago
The link I sent which you just quoted shows that people raised cattle and hunted. They didn’t need to ‘afford’ meat, they went outside and shot it.
What do you think he means when he says “along with pork”
I don’t care. I’m not arguing that life expectancy was better 200 years ago. Common sense says it was not. On the other hand, they ate less meat and had worse life expectancy… hmmm.
This is a compound statement of quite laughable ignorance. As I said they didn’t need to buy meat, they bought guns and shot it or traded it for the stuff they did have. They did this because it tastes nice!!! Again common sense that you don’t seem to have.
Did they have a diet composed 100% of meat? Did they eat more meat than today? I am purely arguing that they could and easily did afford meat as a counterpoint to you saying they rarely ate meat.
The decrease in performance is immediate?? There is no decrease in performance!! If there was then every modern athlete on the planet would be vegan.
So rich people don’t need ‘performance’ or don’t realise that eating meat has an immediate decrease in performance. I guess they spent too much time at schools and universities being brainwashed.
I suspect you haven’t replied because you don’t understand it. You said that over 100 years consumption of meat, cheese and dairy has increased. The link shows that over the last 30 years this is not correct. btw - cheese is dairy.
Your argument that “people eat more meat and cheese and therefore are more ill” fails because they do not eat more meat. Do you see how arguments work?? It also fails because you said that 100 years ago life expectancy was lower, but I don’t need to shoot the whole thing full of holes when one will do.
I expected that you would understand it. I was wrong. I am using the same argument that the cheese hating youtuber made. THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. I am saying that people selling a product are financially rewarded by … selling that product. I’ve given three example of this already but you don’t read or understand them. People who sell cheese tell you cheese is healthy and tasty. People who sell Coke tell you coke is healthy and tasty. People who sell cigarettes tell you cigarettes are healthy and tasty. They are all happy to pay for ‘research’ which agrees with their point.
You’re right. Coke has all these adverts for celery that I must have missed.
That is stupid and I’m not even going to open the link. Why would anyone buy meat when beans are so cheap?
He published research that was willfully misleading. He lied to congress. He lied to the American public. He gave an oversimplified answer to a complicated problem that led to a massive increase in childhood obesity.
He basically pretended to know things that he did not have evidence for.
Anyway - I’m off on holidays to China and Singapore. I’m going to ask people who eat rice and noodles with every meal how it feels to be on a low carb lifestyle.
I’ll reply to this because it summarizes your nonsense. So meat consumption has increased two fold from early 1900, and 19th century USA was already at least two times higher than most of Europe, but you just don’t care. Cheese has increased almost ten fold in 20th century, but again you don’t care. The people who warned public about these trends and wanted to nudge them back to more sensible eating habits like Ancel Keys, they’re the liars and villains. They’ve insufficient evidence. They manipulated the evidence to promote grains and beans.
My arguments are self-refuting because the majority of athlete aren’t vegan (yet), and because people keep eating meat despite beans are cheaper and better for health. And I’m biased because I don’t want to listen to your “rational” arguments. Ok, thank you, you win!
P.S: The immediate decrease in performance is in the postprandial period, Mr Genius!
2nd P.S: On China and their adoption of low carb diets in recent years:
The real problem is that average meat consumption in China is still higher than either the old or the new guidelines recommend. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), daily meat and dairy consumption in China still averages more than 300 grams per day — and that value is expected to keep increasing over the next few decades. The country’s meat consumption alone comes to about 62 kilograms per capita annually, while the dietary guidelines would limit it to just over 27 kilograms.
The grand villain Ancel Key must have an evil influence on the Chinese government! Note that 300 grams per day is 110kg a year! If 60kg are meat, there are 50kg of dairy! Then we would also have to take a look at vegetable oils, because oils are pure fat! Obviously, they’re enthusiastically adopting a low carb diet.
This departure from traditional pork-rich dumplings is a hit with busy, young urbanites, trying to reduce the fat in diets often heavy on fast food.
“They like to try to eat more healthy products once a week or fortnight. It’s a big trend for mainland China consumers, especially those aged 20 to 35,” said Ellis Wang, Shanghai-based marketing manager at U.S. food giant General Mills (GIS.N), which owns top dumpling brand Wanchai Ferry.
For pig farmers in China and abroad, it is a difficult trend to stomach. The producers and other market experts had expected the growth to continue until at least 2026.
Fortunately in China things are changing. Same thing in West. The era of increasing meat and dairy poisoning is over despite low carb promoters running wild over the internet.
Olive oil doesn’t have to be a “highly refined substance” at all. Cold pressed extra vergine olive oil is not highly refined(, and that is the one being considered as generally better than most other oils).
DEL1337, Cold pressed extra virgin olive oil is by far the best. Unfortunately, it’s still an highly refined and toxic substance. Please take a look at nutritional contents of olives vs olive oil:
Let’s make some examples. 100g of oil is 100g of fat. 100g of olives is 15g of fat. 100g of oil is zero grams of fibers. 100g of olives is 3.3grams of fibers. In general oil gets digested very fast and it goes into bloodstream very fast and it causes problems there. Dr McDougall has several videos on youtube for that. It’s a toxic substance if you take more than a few grams per meal. Olive oil relative to olives is like refined sugar relative to fruits. It’s a very bad idea. Oh, and ironically, olives even taste better. The only thing is that you’ve to be careful about salt content of commercially available olives (salt is the traditional way to preserve them).
P.S: I don’t know much about coconut oil (although Dr. Greger has a decent video on it) but I think the sales are driven purely by marketing and paid disinformation. With olive oil at least you get a traditional product that has been used in south europe and middle east for several millennia. With coconut oil, you really don’t know what you get. Probably nothing good. Coconut is a tropical plant, and the people living there were eating it whole.
2nd P.S: What’s amusing is that the low “sugar” movement is completely unaware of this. What’s difficult to understand? People think that high glucose in the blood is bad but high fats in the blood is good?
I don’t do alternative science and i don’t take McDougall very seriously. And mechanically hand-pressed olive oil is anything but highly refined. So far the only thing i can agree on is that it’s generally better to eat whole olives.
"With coconut oil, you really don’t know what you get. Probably nothing good."
Way to science dude. Just assume things.
Olive oil is composed mainly of triacylglycerols (triglycerides or fats) and contains small quantities of free fatty acids (FFA), glycerol, phosphatides, pigments, flavor compounds, sterols, and microscopic bits of olive. Triacylglycerols are the major energy reserve for plants and animals. Chemically speaking, these are molecules derived from the natural esterification of three fatty acid molecules with a glycerol molecule. The glycerol molecule can simplistically be seen as an “E-shaped” molecule, with the fatty acids in turn resembling longish hydrocarbon chains, varying (in the case of olive oil) from about 14 to 24 carbon atoms in length.
So it’s basically pure triglycerides. Pure fat. How is olive oil not highly refined? I think it’s completely absurd to say it’s not highly refined. The only thing you can say is that it’s not obtained via a modern industrial process but rather via a traditional refining process.
I’m not interested in alternative or not alternative science. I’m interested in truth. Everyone who says olive oil is healthy and you can eat without worrying is harming millions of people. After people have understood this, then we can explain to people that it’s much better than butter/cheese/other oils and fats used for frying.
“With coconut oil, you really don’t know what you get. Probably nothing good.”
Way to science dude. Just assume things.
It’s the way to give sensible advice. I admit that I don’t know certain things. I admit you may know better but I’ve my doubts. Coconut oil is a new product for us and it’s surrounded by so much marketing and propaganda.
P.S: I’m in Italy and every time I say to people that olive oil is dangerous people almost want to beat me. Who cares. I care for truth not for popularity. I admire McDougall because he has same attitude.
2nd P.S: I repost this link: USDA ERS - A Look at Calorie Sources in the American Diet. Do you think people are aware that refined/added fats are approxiamtely 20% of their caloric intake on average? I think many are unaware. We need to raise awareness so that people will reduce consumption like they’ve done for added sugars. My point was that the anti-sugar activists should also be anti-oil activists. As I see it, we have exactly the same kind of problem for both ingredients.
3rd P.S: I’ve also read some history of cooking. In ancient rome/greece, honey (almost pure simple carbohydrates, but the refining is done for us by the bees, heh!) was the key ingredient used to make things taste better. Together with olive oil. But I think they knew that these were not healthy food!
I think the following is a fairly reliable description of olive oil production How olive oil is processed
You will struggle constructing an argument if you need recourse to dictionary definitions. It’s easy to lose context or not even realise its importance. Refining has a technical definition specific to oil production & further specific to edible oil production. You’d be better looking into that in this instance.
FWIW I find it hard to justify calling cold pressed virgin olive oil refined although it is obviously subject to processing to get it out of the fruit.
I do definitely not have the same type of problems with both. Free sugar causes cravings in me. Oil doesn’t do anything like that.
From my experience with Overeaters Anonymous I can say that free sugar is the substance the highest percentage of members has to avoid to be without addictive cravings (followed by food high in carbs in general for a smaller percentage), fried/fatty foods only for few. So sugar seems to have a much higher addictive potential than oil (or fat in general).
(Disclaimer: I am not a fan of low carb or high fat diets, I need my grains and stuff. Just no added sugar.)
I don’t understand why you keep arguing with US-American numbers, as if these were relevant for us, when neither you nor the majority of the members here live there. Don’t you eat differently? I certainly do.
I’m very disappointment that some of you guys ignored my earlier post about debating in a pleasant manner. What’s the chances of me being listened to this time? It would be a shame to lock this great thread
You’re right on this, i just have these at hand and I don’t have UK data at hand.
For me it’s opposite, but maybe I’m a special case? We would need reliable data to clarify this issue. I think given consumption patterns, it’s reasonable to assume that they’re approximately equally common.
Thank you for reporting this. This seems a valid point. I’m open to the possibility that sweet taste is more addictive (and the addiction is more common) than fatty taste. For me personally, pure sugar is very pleasant but jam is very disgusting. If someone can explain this to me…
But I’m still extremely skeptical about “carb cravings”, given that most people do eat too few carbs anyway. If you don’t eat what your body wants, then it’s healthy to have “cravings”.
Ok, I didn’t know “refined” had a special meaning for oil. So we’re both right depending on the interpretation of the word. I think in the end the point is, we shouldn’t use a ton of olive oil.
In fact I think a little bit of oil improves absorption of fat soluble nutrients in an healthy low-fat meal, so it’s not entirely bad. And sugar also may have a role to play because it can make healthy food more palatable.
I just came across this post so I’m sorry that I’m late to the party, but if I were to use Huel Hack 1 for breakfast and lunch, then have my own meal for dinner, how many servings of the Huel hack would you reccomend?
That depends on what your sex is, how active you are, what you’re trying to achieve, what you’re having for your other foods and even then it would be a case of eat, monitor and adjut accordingly.
