Mine is probably the least meat-eating generation on both sides of my family. Both my great-grandfathers were heavy meat-eaters and were ambulatory into their eighties. Both my grandmothers were heavy meat-eaters and were ambulatory into their nineties.
There are a diverse set of approaches to answering a question like what is best for us to eat. The evolutionary adaptation inference method you are employing is a popular one. I like it too, but the method has been justly criticized as risking the generation of “just so” stories. Indeed, these hypotheses are notoriously difficult to falsify, so you sometimes get people using this line of thinking to argue that women’s large hips show they are designed to hunt and carry large game on their hip shelf. I also think the influence of genes is under-appreciated by the general public, so I respect the use of identical twins in the (admitted underpowered and short term) study cited above. Since diet science is so littered with exploratory observational studies with multiple comparisons, seeing controlled experimental twin study is refreshing. Anyway, I have no interest in taking your food. I am just interested in the question of what are the real effects of different diets on our bodies, and I think such studies can help us toward that end.
I suspect to a large extent Genes load the gun. And pull the trigger. I suspect that this applies to certain medical conditions as much as diet.
How do you think the diets of other primates factor into your point? Joe Rogan had a funny bit about how gorillas eat mostly plants (they do eat snails and small insects) and how they will mess you up. Not saying that's definitive either, but I find the evolutionary side of the discussion interesting. I am a meat eater by the way so not preaching. Even the Dalai Lama eats some amount of meat. I am still skeptical about completely vegetarian or vegan diets for people, although I do know people that swear they're healthier and happier with them.
Genetics obviously play a factor, but at the extremes so does diet. I don’t think we need scientific studies to tell us McDonalds 2+ time a day is going to eventually lead to bad health. Perhaps people with “bad genes” or prone to heart disease just see the effects faster. Long term studies of well rounded diets including meats, compared to rounded diets of vegan proteins would be more interesting. But even those might have “noise” in the data given alot of meatless products are processed and high in sodium… thus actually not all that healthy. The study would need to control for things like processed foods and sodium content. I’m sure a 99% lean ground chicken burger cooked at home is healthier than one of those “Beyond Meat” patties, maybe 90% lean beef is too, and at home you can season with minimal or zero sodium. Those products go for mimicking taste (I’ve tried several and they weren’t bad) but health wise they might be more akin to a fast food burger, loaded with salt.
I think we do need scientific studies showing that junk food leads to poor health … Man celebrates 50 years of eating a Big Mac every day I believe the body’s primary nutritional need is energy in the form of calories. Starvation kills untold millions annually. Is there any proof that Big Macs are killing people ? Even the notion of balanced diet needs clarification. I believe the body is more resourceful than we know.
Big Macs contain calories. Sure enough. Can say the same for chugging a 2L coke. So if the standard is merely “not starving to death this week” a diet of Big Macs will keep you alive and may even pack on some fat pounds. That doesn’t make it an optimal diet, or even a good idea.
Made some chili with Impossible Beef the other night. Pretty good, but the texture isn't quite there. Still, I'll be adding it to the dinner repertoire going forward.
Maybe others are different, but I certainly don't feel good after eating fast food or tons of carbs (although I apparently don't feel bad enough that it outweighs the search for the dopamine hit). I imagine a lot of dietary questions can probably be answered by listening to our own bodies/brains, although even then I'm not sure everybody is going to be exactly the same.
To each his own. And I do believe in “listen to your body.” But for some reason people don’t obey listen to body when it comes to the subject of body weight. There, people think the body is stupid and needs to be reined in.
There is no “optimal diet”, none are proven. That’s why all those different fad diets all seem stupid to me… and I say eat a well rounded diet. That means a little bit of everything and don’t eat more calories than you burn (a concept that is proven if you want to maintain a healthy weight). But certain “junk foods” are not part of ANY optimal diet. That’s the shit that should be had in moderation - if at all. Reason? Because most of it blows you right past 2000 calories as well as your daily sugar and sodium intakes. Perhaps just in one single meal (let alone 2 or 3). Not even intending to single out McDonalds, there’s definitely worse meals in casual dining restaurants, it’s more of a “big food” problem in general.
More on the questionable concept of bad foods … So-called bad foods are commonly thought to be less satiating. Why should that be? Why would nature create calories that are inherently less satiating, especially calories that taste good, ones that humans might seek out to end their hunger? Why would the homeostatic hunger drive be based on some intrinsic satiety of a food rather than its calorie content? Mystifying.
