Interesting. But it also feels like this helps to return the body to a more natural state. The question then becomes: What in modern living is knocking the body off its center? How could the need for this "cure" be prevented?
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Abundance and industrial processing.
Europe doesn't have the same problem the rest of the 1st world has with obesity. They also have crazy strict food purity laws. No additives. Very little processing. What you get is what's on the label[0]. I don't think it's a coincidence that people see improvements in their health once they start eating "closer to the farm."
We're also a victim of our own success in many ways. The human body is still adapted to operate under pre-agricultural conditions. Food consumption was more along the lines of "binge and starve" than "steady grazing". Our bodies deteriorate quickly in space when we no longer have Earth's gravity to fight against. Is it really a surprise that our bodies also deteriorate when we no longer have hunger to fight against?
[0]: Before anybody says that what's on the label is accurate in the US, look into what 'natural flavor' means. There's nothing natural about them and they aren't necessarily flavorings.
I do not know. And i can not judge, if we have enough data to judge.
But i think, calling out abundance and industrial processing, i am sure, there are correlations, but as reason for knocking people off center? Its just energy, no?
Hell we have an unnecessary organ just for binging on fat.
Why do we keep "curing" that which can be prevented? Instead we keep grabbing the balloon, and then pay (more) to add that "cure" to our lives.
T2 Diabetes is not normal. It is preventable. We have a "cure." But instead of using that cure, we're investing - read: wasting - resources looking for a cure that will need to be paid for.
Inflamation is (likely) the same. Mind you, baking soda is inexpensive. But as cures go, prevention (and a return to a natural norm) is #1.
Europe has the same problem, only to a lesser degree. According to [1]: Weight problems and obesity are increasing at a rapid rate in most of the EU Member States, with estimates of 51.6 % of the EU’s population (18 and over) overweight in 2014.
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
Simple carbs spike up blood sugar through the roof, the body responds by dumping insulin, the insulin causes blood sugar to be sequestered in fat and muscle cells (as intended), but if the dump is large it may overshoot and the blood sugar falls through the floor. Aka "sugar crash". The crash will of course make you crave food again, the same simple carb kind. Vicious cycle.
This sort of see-saw messes you up real bad. So I was told [1]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259
It's not.
It's normalized. So normalized that suggesting otherwise make you the crazy one.
The remedy is to breath less, both less frequent and less voluminous. Very little breathing is needed to saturate the blood O2 levels, as can be checked with a simple pulse oxymeter.
The cell, and life by extension/function, is a reverse entropy machine. Is must be continually off centre in order to be able to go on generating its functions, such as enabling you to ask questions based on feelings
I've always thought the same thing myself. Posits some interesting mind experiments on the possibility of the big crunch vs. heat death of the universe.
There is a whole lot of "death" in the dirt.
Vegans still die, non-vegans can still outlive them, anyone can get hit by a bus, etc.
Period.
Nutrition science is a joke. It’s basically all short term studies which tell you nothing about long term effects of diet, or it’s long term epidemiological studies which are fundamentally incapable of controlling for confounding variables.
So yeah. No long-term studies. It's not even clear if we have hope for such. The military could summon the discipline, but soldiers do retire early. Maybe the officers, I don't know.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-the-medite...
That, to me, makes sense.
If that's the case, what is the ideal diet for genetic "hybrids"? Does mixing gene pools __and__ diets lead to more disease?
Modern First World dietary habits are driven by want, not needs. Does this confuse (?) the body and lead to more disease?
If evolution is about survival, and health is tied to survival, it's not as crazy as it sounds.
What are you saying/meaning by disease? Cancer is tied to length of life, and to a small degree, diet (bowel ca) and other modifiable risk factors (ie fat people have higher rates of cancer due to increased numbers of cells... which is interesting because most data says we don't produce new cells for fat, the fat cells just get bigger. So there is a mismatch there that isn't entirely explained by the data i've seen)
Osteoarthritis is clearly linked to weight, so people put their knees/hips/backs out at higher rates.
lack of exercise/modern lifestyle again ties in with the sports injuries.
On everything else, I challenge you to Prove that there is actually more disease. More disease of what? We have reduced or eliminated huge volumes of disease through vaccination and other preventable health. The other stuff is life/longevity linked, or reduced activity linked (ie T2DM/Metabolic Syndrome).
It is a very modern and pseudoscientific concern to be trying to link all this to diet. Yes, you should probably try and eat fresh stuff more than processed stuff. Yes your life should include an exercise regime. But your body is pretty good at breaking down macronutrients into micronutrients, and even though some of those micronutrients can function as drugs, there is not enough evidence to say anything too exciting here
Whereas vegans don't die?
Also "toxic to the human body" is just bad dietary advice.
Plants and vegetables were "alive" in some capacity before they were torn from their natural habit, violently macerated and forced into a highly acidic stomach to be digested over a period of hours.
You'd be surprised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
>Also unlike dead flesh
This has a tone of religious indignation in it. You do know that it's not only perfectly natural, but that there are species that have evolved evolutionary to eat meat, the ones we call carnivores, right?
And then, what is your second point there? Are you a carnivore?
Why is "dead flesh" triggering you so much? Are you ripping into live animals in the wild and swallowing them whole? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would love to meet the first lion using HN.
No, but I'm an omnivore, and belong to a species that has been known to be eating meat all throughout its evolutionary history [1], and throughout all its 4+ millennia of actual civilization and history, all around the world. So, there's that.
>Why is "dead flesh" triggering you so much?
Don't confuse someone objecting to morally loaded language like "dead flesh" with being "triggered".
In fact, don't use cheap parlor tricks like "why are you triggered" to shift the discussion from arguments to sentiments and ad hominem.
>Are you ripping into live animals in the wild and swallowing them whole?
If live oysters qualify, then yes.
But usually we don't call what we eat "dead flesh", in the same way we don't say we eat "ground wheat" when we eat bread or pasta. we eat steaks and meatballs and so on. We also don't eat just the flesh. We also eat the skin -- and some of us, we enjoy the bone marrow too.
So your phrasing is just a cheap (and insulting to our intelligence) trick to impose a sentimental undertone to the discussion. Which is part of the reason you have been downvoted to grayness.
Plus, fruits and plants are still alive when you eat them (their cells are still working fine) -- so, are you eating them alive? You monster!
[1] https://www.americanscientist.org/article/meat-eating-among-...
The very act of living produces toxins, period.
As opposed to proper vegans, who live forever?
>And if you believe that nothing you can eat can be toxic to your body, you already lost in life.
Plenty can be toxic, including all kinds of plants (heroin is made from a plant). But the best diets according to longevity statistics and scientific studies still include meat, e.g. the Mediterranean diet.
Or you can ignore those, and opt for some semi-mystical, culting fad diet.
Obviously no one is saying vegans live forever. It's not what this is about. Even if we all die eventually, why not have the best quality if life possible and have as few health problems possible, if any at all?
That's not what's disputed here though. That a vegan diet is the best way to achieve that, is.
Well, you now get all subtle on us, whereas a few comments before you summed consuming meat as "eat death, get death".
Turns out there's not a single concept as a "non vegan diet" either. It doesn't mean one gorges on huge steaks all day, or one doesn't have a perfectly healthy and balanced diet.
Again, afaik.
Meat can be extremely healthy but some types are rich in oils that can't break down easy. Bacon vs lean pork
Pure glucose would be ideal, from a 'breakdown' perspective.
Large protein consumption? Like what many many people do for health reasons, keto, body builders, etc? People in prime health condition?
And what about fructose malabsorption with certain fruits and vegatables? Some people can't eat certain things otherwise it will make them sick due to this illness.
Go back to reddit with your pseudo science trolling. HN is one of the few decent spots on the internet for discussions and it certainly isn't improved by people like you.