I'm from a mediterranean country, currently living in London.
It is just my very biased opinion but Brits' diet seems to be one of the causes of why so many Britons dying sooner than expected [0]. The average Londoner eats rather poorly. So many greasy sandwiches and crisps, even their salads have to be all greased up in ways that would make my grandmother cry. Fish and seafood are seen as a "chic experience". Copious amounts of beer. And then all the snacks, munching on stuff the entire day (it says "healthy" in the package so it's good right?). Are we cows to be ruminating all day long? They're not even good snacks like some nuts or whatever.
Massive breakfast, then a mid morning break for "coffee" (it's just milk and sugar), then lunch (sandwiches or salads filled with sauces), then midafternoon snack then several pints of lager after work and a dinner to finish the day. It's a lot of calories, and lot of bad nutrients. No wonder so many people are obese, if you don't have a very active lifestyle it's easy to get really fat.
By no means I'm saying my country is perfect, I see there people moving further and further away from what our ancestors usually ate and it shows on obesity rate is increasing, kids are getting more diabetes diagnosis and so on. But here in the UK it's just too much, a walk through Tesco makes me cringe.
As the East coast of the United States wakes up and checks in, yeah... this place is, for too many people, a food desert. The amount of doughnuts, sweets, chips eaten in my workplace boggles my mind.
I have been working pretty hard to improve my diet and now mostly eat vegetables and meat. Very little processed food, and we prep our food daily.
The last time I was there for some reason I started looking at what everyone else had in their cart. 90% of people just had straight garbage. A lot of snacks, processed foods, almost no vegetables. I never really paid attention to it.
Maybe it is caused by two parents working and just not having the energy to prep food? Social media and shorts stealing free time? Or poor education?
I outsource mine to someone who does it for a living, it costs more than the majority of people can afford. The idea that you can work a full time job, have time to cook, clean and eat and also have enough money to buy ingredients that aren't sugar by another name is laughable.
My wife and I both work full time and have a toddler. You can cook soup, prep ingredients before hand, use a slow cooker. You can meal prep. You can cook more, so there is left overs, I could go on and on. If there is a will, it is easy to eat mostly home cooked meals.
Same! We're in a unique situation though. Due to some disease issues, we have to prepare every meal ourselves. We work full time, we have kiddos, we cook and clean, all ourselves. It's not easy per se, but it's more than doable.
Cooking steak and eating it with fresh veggies is one of the fastest meals you can imagine to prep. It probably feels more expensive to people, but when you actually compare the nutrient and protein profile, the steak+veggies will be a lot closer in price compared to carbohydrate junk food.
> The idea that you can work a full time job, have time to cook, clean and eat and also have enough money to buy ingredients that aren't sugar by another name is laughable.
I do this and also have time to play videogames and spend hours hiking with my dog (also cooking for my dog sometimes). It's hard, but not impossible. But then so are most things worth doing in life.
The idea that people in the past had a diet they could keep to is completely laughable the second you start reading the accounts of the number of famines _in the 19th century_. This gets progressively worse the further back you go.
That does not mean however, that their "diet" cannot coincidentally have been healthier than what some people eat today. They surely ate food back then, that was less processed and less unnecessary stuff added to it. Eating whatever you can get your hands on in a less developed time, can mean, that people ate healthier, at least when they had something to eat and did not starve. There does not have to be a nutrition expert around at the time or any intentional process by people to "keep a diet".
Given that their 'diet' resulted in them being chronically malnourished with such lovely diseases as rickets and pellagra I'd take what we have today thanks.
People today seriously underestimate how common famines were.
The food situation in London is not good, despite having some of the best restaurants and cuisine from all over the world.
A lot of people will eat "meal deal" for launch and that "meal" often means a pack of crisps and a soda. The better ones are usually a greasy sandwich or salad and bowl of fruits.
Before getting my first white collar job in the UK, I worked for a few months as a waiter in 5 star hotels and upscale restaurants and I actually had much better food than the average white collar worker since being fed a proper food at job is part of the deal. I got in shape in those 3 months(good food + no sitting at work), only to ruin it once re-joined the laptop class.
The meal deal is a tragedy, the bottom and the top of the pay-grade eats much better at work.
Oh, also being poor or rich helps with the food at home too. Cheap neighbourhoods with lots of immigrants have excellent street markets with good quality vegetables and immigrant shops directly importing good quality Mediterranean stuff like olives and cheese. The more well off neighbourhoods have all that too but its "gourmet" or "speciality", the neighbourhoods in the middle tend to have only Tesco/Sainsbury's/M&S and the vegetables sold here tastes dull and everything is packaged for longevity of the product.
On of my first story submissions [0] (way before covid, 2 points only) was about how fastfood could prime the immune system for an overreaction.
Reduction or even prevention of systemic/chronic inflammation should be the prime goal of any diet and all the rest ((mental) health, weight, ...) will follow automatically. I guess a lot of research is still needed but a mediterranean diet is at least a small step in the right direction.
The UK is a food disaster, and is the reason so many people here are overweight and obese (64% of adults) and die early.
The meal deal is the staple of almost any office workers lunch, and easily packs around 1000 calories in the form of a sandwich (400-600), pack of crisps / chocolate bar (300) and drink (up to 200).
Anecdotally, from what I experience in my office, home-made lunches aren't much better. As you stated, it's always washed down with a pack of crisps and soda (or multiple). When people do cook, it falls under the British triumvirate of home cooking:-
- Spag' bol' (pasta, beef mince and sauce)
- Stir fry
- Pasta bake (pasta with sauce and cheese and things thrown on top)
Where I live, and when I go to the gym, I see Deliveroo, Just Eat, Uber Eats delivering constantly. All high fat, high calorie, salty and oily fast food (eg. McDonalds) or standalone takeaway joints (arguably worse). There's a huge trend in my city (Leeds) for people to eat lunch out, which is not only expensive, but calorie expensive too.
Supermarkets are 80% junk food. Do we really need 100 types of biscuits and cakes? Take a glance at the basket/trolley of the people around you, and there's typically a lot of crap in there.
You also tend to see a lot of fat kids (22% age 4-5, 37% age 10-11) everywhere. High school kids flood the supermarkets after school every day, eating huge packs of crisps and cakes (designed for multiple people and portions), and university students (from what I remember at uni) seem over-reliant on takeaways and ready meals.
I haven't looked it up, but I'd wager the average British energy intake is around 3000 calories, despite most people living completely sedentary lifestyles.
I've always received weird responses to eating fish (unless it's battered and served with chips, in which case it's a national delicacy), and people seem to make out as if it's something fancy, despite the fact we live on an island.
This, coupled with lack of exercise, is a ticking time bomb for our country. Everybody is just slowly killing themselves with various beige-coloured food.
Do you genuinely think a 50-fold difference in dementia incidence sounds remotely plausible?
That would probably be the strongest incidence gradient signal in medical history. Dementia research would be laser-focussed on the Albania-North Macedonia-Bulgaria axis and the Singapore-Malaysia axis as they'd be near-ideal comparative populations.
If the data isn't compatible, the table doesn't mean much at all, since it has merged reporting bias with the actual incidence rates.
My conclusion is (1) god this map is terrible. My eyes, dear god. Why is the clear button blinking? But on a more serious note
(2) there isn't really a conclusion to be drawn from this map. Correlations are all over the place. Some western countries are high, but others are low. African countries are mostly high (because green is second highest for some reason). This map also does not correlate with age. I'm sure countries with a longer average lifespan have higher rates of Alzheimers/Dementia deaths. E.g. Russia has a lower average lifespan and a low rate of Alzheimers/Dementia deaths. That may be correlated.
Italy, Greece & Egype are low, but basically al others are high? Spain, France, Turkey, Libya, Morroco? I'm not really sure what is it that is enough for you.
where do you live? for me it's local food, mostly raw vegetables, lots of fruit, olive, nuts, figs, dates, clementines, oranges, persimmons, onions, garlic, leek (fermented), rice sometimes, rarely (few times per year, raw eggs or small fishes) as I'm full with fibers. It makes a lot of sense to do that as we don't spend as much energy as our ancestors or wild animals, and the climate is getting hot and dry due to climate destruction
onions, garlic, mushroom, leek, carots, peppers (with lemon or fermented - I let them get very ripe and soft or I get them at the market, that's the ones nobody want but are the most nutritious)
You should cook mushrooms for better nutrient absorption. They have thick cell walls full of chitin that needs to break down during cooking, so eating them raw isn't great for you
I live in Germany and went vegetarian some 15 years ago. Traditional German food is hardly agreeable with a vegetarian diet, so I learned other dishes. Then at some point, I started eating fish again, and that's where I ended up.
I also came to be on a high fiber diet for a while, as you describe, but I got some stomach issues from it and had to adjust it.
Ok, I'm in France, I can relate because the traditional French food is bread, cheese, meat, etc.. even around mediterranean. I haven't eat bread since years and for fibers, it takes time to transition (your guts bacteria), and also relearn how to masticate efficiently, typically I eat almost everything (seeds for example grapes, melons, watermelons, skin when possible, e.g kiwis, persimmons, grapes, mangoes, many others), I like it more than the juice itself
I eat the med diet because it’s much nicer. It doesn’t taste fatty, sugary or greasy: I simply don’t like these tastes and don’t want to eat them. Unfortunately when I travel for work, mostly to uk/us, it is very hard to manage stuff that doesn’t taste like I just at a tub of lard.
Basically anything that isn't the standard western/American diet where "balanced" is supposed to mean: 3 meals, snacks in between, excessive fructose from fruit, excessive polyunsaturated fats from manufactured seed oils, constant eating and all energy coming from at least 60% carbodydrates (primarily processed, pre-digested, pulverized grains with a massive glycemic load).
Anything that is not the above, many variations low carb high fat or carnivore - will make your risks of modern chronic diseases (aka, hyperinsulinemia, diabetes, chronic inflammation, dislipidemia) go down dramatically. Especially if you are strict about your feast and fast cycles.
Humans are not omnivores we are obligate carnivores with a beneficial tolerance for a tiny number of plants. Plants have anti-nutrients that many are sensitive to.
It's funny how well the "seed oils bad" myth infected every diet camp. You see it in every HN thread on diet even though seed oils like canola oil improve health outcomes in humans, especially when compared to saturated fat.
Even my dad randomly started railing against seed oils once the nonsense started popping up on his youtube recommendations.
I wonder how much of it is "grassroots diet fad" and how much is the meat lobby throwing out FUD to confuse the issue. Having lived through several diet fads already, neither would surprise me.
What other apes are obligate carnivores? What carnivores have our dental structure? And what separates "obligate carnivores with a beneficial tolerance for a tiny number of plants" from a facultative carnivore?
I think you're making a logical flaw in saying that "excess {blah} is bad, therefore any {blah} is bad" which is untrue.
Once I went carnivore, my dental and gum health became perfect. The reason other carnivores don't have our dental structure is that other carnivores don't use fire, and other carnivores use their teeth to kill their prey.
I am not a carnivore, my dental health is perfect - never had a cavity. What does that mean for our two anecdotes?
Regarding your second point - our dental structure is roughly the same as the great apes (who are NOT obligate carnivores), but with less emphasis on canine teeth (which are used for display in the apes) - so when did we develop the carnivore teeth then develop teeth that match our fellow great apes? Our dental structure is not suited for a carnivorous lifestyle, but somehow the rest of our digestive track is?
Edit: Sorry, should specify, I meant "I am not an OBLIGATE carnivore". I still eat meat.
Neither means anything. I'm not inclined to believe that humans should be obligate carnivores, given vegans seem to live more or less fine. Though I wouldn't exclude the possibility of some essential or highly beneficial nutrients that are only abundant in meat.
There's clearly nutrients that have better sources in meat and can be vital - if one suffers from heavy menstruation sometimes the only solution to prevent anemia is heme iron, which is found in animal flesh.
I suggest you do some further reading. Here is a passage from Not By Bread Alone by Vilhjalmur Stefanson, written in 1946:
> "A clean tooth never decays. Brush your teeth after every meal, and visit your dentist twice a year. These slogans carry the faith of our people. It is said and believed that we have the best dentists in the world, that we have more tooth brushes, and use them more, than any other people. Many agencies, from kindergarten to university, from town council to and through the governments of city, state, and nation, strive for the spread of dental knowledge and the enforcement of its discipline... During the same time the ether was filled and the magazine pages were crowded with advertising which told that mouth chemistry is altered by a paste, a powder, or a gargle so as to prevent decay; that a special kind of toothbrush reaches all the crevices; that a particular brand of fruit, milk, or bread is rich in elements for tooth health. There were toothbrush drills in the schools. Mothers throughout the land were scolding, coaxing, and bribing to get children to use the preparations, eat the foods, and follow the rules that were said to guarantee perfect oral hygiene. There was endless repetition of the slogan: A clean tooth never decays.
Meantime there appeared a statement from Dr. Adelbert Fernald, Curator of the Museum of the Dental School, Harvard University, that he had been collecting mouth casts of living North Americans of all racial derivations from blond to black, from the most northerly Eskimos through Canada and the States south to Yucatan. The best teeth and the healthiest mouths were found among people who never drank milk since they ceased to be suckling babes and who never in their lives tasted or tested any of the other things which we usually recommend for sound teeth.
These people, Eskimos not as yet influenced by white men, never used tooth paste, tooth powder, toothbrushes, mouth wash, or gargle. They never took any pains to cleanse their teeth or mouths. They did not visit their dentists twice a year or even once in a lifetime. Their food was exclusively meat. Meat, be it noted, is not mentioned as good for the teeth in the advertisement sponsored by the Commissioner of Health of the City of New York. Teeth superior on the average to those of the presidents of our largest tooth paste companies are found in the world today, and have existed during past ages, among people who violate every precept of current dentifrice advertising."
Yes, our increased exposure to carbohydrates increases the rate of cavities without preventative cleaning. This is like saying "yeah, but now that you have a job where you need to devote time to exercise means that hunting and gathering is a superior lifestyle" - sure, in one facet it would be better but in others it's a lot worse. And there's an easy solution - just brush your teeth. It's also falling for the same fallacy as the other user - "excess {blah} is bad, therefore any {blah} is bad". It's all or nothing, black and white, thinking.
But I'm not just talking about whether we have cavities or not. I'm talking tooth structure itself. Humans have teeth and digestive tracks that are built to consume plants alongside meat. There are no other apes that are obligate carnivores and our teeth haven't (substantially) changed since before we mastered fire.
Some of the carnivore stuff approached flat eartherism in terms of its denial of reality. Anyone can look into their own mouth in the mirror and see that it's half full or flattened molars, similar to other omnivores. But no, we're "obligate carnivores".
You're absolutely correct. I preach the carnivore diet as well, and people on Hacker News constantly spew contempt at me for doing that, but the carnivore diet really works. It is practically a panacea.
So do I... There is a (literally) visceral feeling you get when eliminating plants (and frankly, even most supplements except minerals) that the gut is finally at rest / not disturbed, it becomes impossible to ignore that our digestive apparatus is primarily adapted for eating meat. Judging from the many anecdotes I've come across, breakdown of the gut barrier brought about / contributed by most plants is at the root of many diseases. Not the sole cause, I think gut microbiome disruption plays a big part in the bad effects from plants, but that's another story and there doesn't seem to be a solution for that yet (not enough to just chug copious amounts of probiotics).
what comparison? If what you are saying is true - that eating plants = bad gut health = bad health outcomes - then we would see that in the data but instead we see the opposite.
Would you say that cows are adapted for eating plants? Because boy do those animals fart, even just standing there in a field eating grass. I don't know what a gut "at rest" means, but I would suggest that it's not necessarily indicative of a diet that you're adapted to. In fact it seems like it's more of a psychological thing than anything else.
Because it seems like the sort of thing something would say when they want to observe a change to justify a choice.
And yes, cows are specifically adapted to consume plants and their guts are noisy. I'm using this as an example that just because you sensed a quieting in your intestines it doesn't mean it's positive. I'm admitting I don't know what it means and provided an example where a loud gut is indicative of adaptation, but you seem to be under the impression a quiet gut is a good thing. If you're using fasting as the comparison that seems to indicate you aren't digesting much at all, and I don't know how that's positive if your intestines are full.
I'm doing this for health reasons (as are hundreds of thousands of others, see "carnivore diet" or "zerocarb"). I was just sharing an observation I had because prior to eating this way I always had gut issues.
In that case I honestly hope that you have luck with this diet. But keep in mind that millions of people in the 90's would have used health reasons as the reason they are cutting out animal fats and switching to margarine. It's hard to tell what's a harmful diet fad until it's over.
In that case it's not, that's a specialized diet, much like cutting out peanut butter for someone allergic to peanuts is a specialized diet. It doesn't mean it's generally biologically advantageous and that everyone should cut out peanut butter, it means it's what your body needs, and in that case it makes perfect sense.
If you explain to me why it is somehow biologically advantageous that we don't fart I'll consider that as a pro of some sort. Because, as I've been pointing out, cows are super specialized to consume plants and they fart, so farting isn't indicative of them eating something incorrect, but simply part of the biological process of them consuming plant matter. It doesn't mean they should switch to a meat diet.
This is a common response that I get. People will just tell me that they enjoy farting and that, in fact, farting is wonderful.
Also, they have an attitude that indicates they are absolutely certain that they are correct.
They'll probably tell me next that they enjoy having diabetes.
Anyone can try this diet for 90 days and transform their health for the better (even if they think they are already in top shape), yet almost everyone has a massive mental block and can't even conceive of trying it. It's a bizarre situation.
But keep farting and living with joint pain for all I care.
The guy whose comment this is in response to is arguing that he should fart because cows fart without considering the fact that he is not a cow. It is not worth my time to engage any further, but I will leave this comment here in case there are some genuinely curious onlookers.
Well, you've now gone to ad hominem, even though you're arguing that not only do your farts not stink, they don't exist. The arbitrary decision that farting is bad (though we know that isn't the case as other animals eating their native diet fart), which you need to prove, somehow means that because you claim you don't fart your diet must be good. Ultimately you're making the argument we are obligate carnivores when you have no proof of that outside of anecdotes of "joint pain" and "farts".
You realize that you're basically the stereotype of a vegan - preaching the ethical/health benefits of their diet - just with a different dietary preference?
Isn't this a strike against the carnivore diet? Not only do I have to restrict myself to a narrow range of foods, but there's not even an ethical benefit to doing so. Why would one "preach" something like this?
The difference is that I have better arguments on my side, both from a health and from an environmental perspective, than the vegans do.
I get that some people think Trump won the 2020 election and some people think he lost the 2020 election, and so faux-sophisticates will just throw up their hands and say “who knows who is right?”, but I am of the camp that believes in reason and evidence.
If you think the vegans have the better argument then you are free to eat that way and further the destruction of the planet while rationalizing away your ill health, of course. Bummer for you, but it’s a free country.
but the article kind of contradicts you in regards to plants. Vegetables, fruits and nuts are the base of a mediterranean diet with a small portion of meat
Many Hindus adopt a vegetarian diet (details in scriptures and Ayurveda), I remember when I was younger I'd be asked but how do you get your protein? :D
92 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadIt's not necessarily the modern diet of mediterranean countries, but it is inspired by the local traditional cousine.
Yep, they eat the same shit as everybody else does these days: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/share-of-adults-who-are-o...
May not.
No one knows.
But let's pretend this is a finding and we haven't just wasted our time.
It is just my very biased opinion but Brits' diet seems to be one of the causes of why so many Britons dying sooner than expected [0]. The average Londoner eats rather poorly. So many greasy sandwiches and crisps, even their salads have to be all greased up in ways that would make my grandmother cry. Fish and seafood are seen as a "chic experience". Copious amounts of beer. And then all the snacks, munching on stuff the entire day (it says "healthy" in the package so it's good right?). Are we cows to be ruminating all day long? They're not even good snacks like some nuts or whatever. Massive breakfast, then a mid morning break for "coffee" (it's just milk and sugar), then lunch (sandwiches or salads filled with sauces), then midafternoon snack then several pints of lager after work and a dinner to finish the day. It's a lot of calories, and lot of bad nutrients. No wonder so many people are obese, if you don't have a very active lifestyle it's easy to get really fat.
By no means I'm saying my country is perfect, I see there people moving further and further away from what our ancestors usually ate and it shows on obesity rate is increasing, kids are getting more diabetes diagnosis and so on. But here in the UK it's just too much, a walk through Tesco makes me cringe.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35128440
I have been working pretty hard to improve my diet and now mostly eat vegetables and meat. Very little processed food, and we prep our food daily.
The last time I was there for some reason I started looking at what everyone else had in their cart. 90% of people just had straight garbage. A lot of snacks, processed foods, almost no vegetables. I never really paid attention to it.
Maybe it is caused by two parents working and just not having the energy to prep food? Social media and shorts stealing free time? Or poor education?
I outsource mine to someone who does it for a living, it costs more than the majority of people can afford. The idea that you can work a full time job, have time to cook, clean and eat and also have enough money to buy ingredients that aren't sugar by another name is laughable.
My wife and I both work full time and have a toddler. You can cook soup, prep ingredients before hand, use a slow cooker. You can meal prep. You can cook more, so there is left overs, I could go on and on. If there is a will, it is easy to eat mostly home cooked meals.
No. Full stop.
Cooking steak and eating it with fresh veggies is one of the fastest meals you can imagine to prep. It probably feels more expensive to people, but when you actually compare the nutrient and protein profile, the steak+veggies will be a lot closer in price compared to carbohydrate junk food.
> The idea that you can work a full time job, have time to cook, clean and eat and also have enough money to buy ingredients that aren't sugar by another name is laughable.
I do this and also have time to play videogames and spend hours hiking with my dog (also cooking for my dog sometimes). It's hard, but not impossible. But then so are most things worth doing in life.
Whatever they could find so not to starve.
The idea that people in the past had a diet they could keep to is completely laughable the second you start reading the accounts of the number of famines _in the 19th century_. This gets progressively worse the further back you go.
People today seriously underestimate how common famines were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines?useskin=vector
If you filter by country until the 20th century you had a famine roughly every 5 years.
A lot of people will eat "meal deal" for launch and that "meal" often means a pack of crisps and a soda. The better ones are usually a greasy sandwich or salad and bowl of fruits.
Before getting my first white collar job in the UK, I worked for a few months as a waiter in 5 star hotels and upscale restaurants and I actually had much better food than the average white collar worker since being fed a proper food at job is part of the deal. I got in shape in those 3 months(good food + no sitting at work), only to ruin it once re-joined the laptop class.
The meal deal is a tragedy, the bottom and the top of the pay-grade eats much better at work.
Oh, also being poor or rich helps with the food at home too. Cheap neighbourhoods with lots of immigrants have excellent street markets with good quality vegetables and immigrant shops directly importing good quality Mediterranean stuff like olives and cheese. The more well off neighbourhoods have all that too but its "gourmet" or "speciality", the neighbourhoods in the middle tend to have only Tesco/Sainsbury's/M&S and the vegetables sold here tastes dull and everything is packaged for longevity of the product.
Reduction or even prevention of systemic/chronic inflammation should be the prime goal of any diet and all the rest ((mental) health, weight, ...) will follow automatically. I guess a lot of research is still needed but a mediterranean diet is at least a small step in the right direction.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16133976
I would note that nobody is forcing anyone to eat like this. Perhaps the root problem is one of self-control and health awareness. Also see: smoking.
The UK is a food disaster, and is the reason so many people here are overweight and obese (64% of adults) and die early.
The meal deal is the staple of almost any office workers lunch, and easily packs around 1000 calories in the form of a sandwich (400-600), pack of crisps / chocolate bar (300) and drink (up to 200).
Anecdotally, from what I experience in my office, home-made lunches aren't much better. As you stated, it's always washed down with a pack of crisps and soda (or multiple). When people do cook, it falls under the British triumvirate of home cooking:-
- Spag' bol' (pasta, beef mince and sauce) - Stir fry - Pasta bake (pasta with sauce and cheese and things thrown on top)
Where I live, and when I go to the gym, I see Deliveroo, Just Eat, Uber Eats delivering constantly. All high fat, high calorie, salty and oily fast food (eg. McDonalds) or standalone takeaway joints (arguably worse). There's a huge trend in my city (Leeds) for people to eat lunch out, which is not only expensive, but calorie expensive too.
Supermarkets are 80% junk food. Do we really need 100 types of biscuits and cakes? Take a glance at the basket/trolley of the people around you, and there's typically a lot of crap in there.
You also tend to see a lot of fat kids (22% age 4-5, 37% age 10-11) everywhere. High school kids flood the supermarkets after school every day, eating huge packs of crisps and cakes (designed for multiple people and portions), and university students (from what I remember at uni) seem over-reliant on takeaways and ready meals.
I haven't looked it up, but I'd wager the average British energy intake is around 3000 calories, despite most people living completely sedentary lifestyles.
I've always received weird responses to eating fish (unless it's battered and served with chips, in which case it's a national delicacy), and people seem to make out as if it's something fancy, despite the fact we live on an island.
This, coupled with lack of exercise, is a ticking time bomb for our country. Everybody is just slowly killing themselves with various beige-coloured food.
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/alzheimer...
Edit: I did look it up. It seems that this is indeed the case.
https://www.healthline.com/health/dementia/can-you-die-from-...
but I do not have a truly reliable source.
Or Singapore being right at the very bottom, 40 times less that Malaysia, and 20 times less than Japan.
It feels like this might be a table of countries that do and do not often include dementia as a cause of death.
That would probably be the strongest incidence gradient signal in medical history. Dementia research would be laser-focussed on the Albania-North Macedonia-Bulgaria axis and the Singapore-Malaysia axis as they'd be near-ideal comparative populations.
If the data isn't compatible, the table doesn't mean much at all, since it has merged reporting bias with the actual incidence rates.
(2) there isn't really a conclusion to be drawn from this map. Correlations are all over the place. Some western countries are high, but others are low. African countries are mostly high (because green is second highest for some reason). This map also does not correlate with age. I'm sure countries with a longer average lifespan have higher rates of Alzheimers/Dementia deaths. E.g. Russia has a lower average lifespan and a low rate of Alzheimers/Dementia deaths. That may be correlated.
Clearly much lower than
UK, US, Finland.
That is enough for me.
TIL I eat a Mediterranean diet, by coincidence. I just do this because it is the stuff I like though.
I see what you mean, for example for tomatoes as well, but it's a compromise, cooking destroys other valuable things
I also came to be on a high fiber diet for a while, as you describe, but I got some stomach issues from it and had to adjust it.
People in the southern Europe also like to gather and talk a lot, so I suspect that might help too (the article mentions it in the final paragraph).
So you live in a beautiful country, you eat well, you interact a lot with your friends and neighbours; you don't need much else.
I would also add garlic to your grandfathers' list.
Yes, I do like some pork grease or beef but that's if I'm planning on drinking some heavy liquors.
Anything that is not the above, many variations low carb high fat or carnivore - will make your risks of modern chronic diseases (aka, hyperinsulinemia, diabetes, chronic inflammation, dislipidemia) go down dramatically. Especially if you are strict about your feast and fast cycles.
Humans are not omnivores we are obligate carnivores with a beneficial tolerance for a tiny number of plants. Plants have anti-nutrients that many are sensitive to.
Now bring on the downvotes I know they're coming.
Even my dad randomly started railing against seed oils once the nonsense started popping up on his youtube recommendations.
Fortunately, it's pretty easy to redpill yourself by looking at outcome data: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
I think you're making a logical flaw in saying that "excess {blah} is bad, therefore any {blah} is bad" which is untrue.
Regarding your second point - our dental structure is roughly the same as the great apes (who are NOT obligate carnivores), but with less emphasis on canine teeth (which are used for display in the apes) - so when did we develop the carnivore teeth then develop teeth that match our fellow great apes? Our dental structure is not suited for a carnivorous lifestyle, but somehow the rest of our digestive track is?
Edit: Sorry, should specify, I meant "I am not an OBLIGATE carnivore". I still eat meat.
100% agree.
There's clearly nutrients that have better sources in meat and can be vital - if one suffers from heavy menstruation sometimes the only solution to prevent anemia is heme iron, which is found in animal flesh.
> "A clean tooth never decays. Brush your teeth after every meal, and visit your dentist twice a year. These slogans carry the faith of our people. It is said and believed that we have the best dentists in the world, that we have more tooth brushes, and use them more, than any other people. Many agencies, from kindergarten to university, from town council to and through the governments of city, state, and nation, strive for the spread of dental knowledge and the enforcement of its discipline... During the same time the ether was filled and the magazine pages were crowded with advertising which told that mouth chemistry is altered by a paste, a powder, or a gargle so as to prevent decay; that a special kind of toothbrush reaches all the crevices; that a particular brand of fruit, milk, or bread is rich in elements for tooth health. There were toothbrush drills in the schools. Mothers throughout the land were scolding, coaxing, and bribing to get children to use the preparations, eat the foods, and follow the rules that were said to guarantee perfect oral hygiene. There was endless repetition of the slogan: A clean tooth never decays. Meantime there appeared a statement from Dr. Adelbert Fernald, Curator of the Museum of the Dental School, Harvard University, that he had been collecting mouth casts of living North Americans of all racial derivations from blond to black, from the most northerly Eskimos through Canada and the States south to Yucatan. The best teeth and the healthiest mouths were found among people who never drank milk since they ceased to be suckling babes and who never in their lives tasted or tested any of the other things which we usually recommend for sound teeth. These people, Eskimos not as yet influenced by white men, never used tooth paste, tooth powder, toothbrushes, mouth wash, or gargle. They never took any pains to cleanse their teeth or mouths. They did not visit their dentists twice a year or even once in a lifetime. Their food was exclusively meat. Meat, be it noted, is not mentioned as good for the teeth in the advertisement sponsored by the Commissioner of Health of the City of New York. Teeth superior on the average to those of the presidents of our largest tooth paste companies are found in the world today, and have existed during past ages, among people who violate every precept of current dentifrice advertising."
But I'm not just talking about whether we have cavities or not. I'm talking tooth structure itself. Humans have teeth and digestive tracks that are built to consume plants alongside meat. There are no other apes that are obligate carnivores and our teeth haven't (substantially) changed since before we mastered fire.
And yet we have a unending amount of evidence that consuming plants results in better health outcomes...
Re: cows. They have a rumen. And they are aided by bacteria to convert the plant matter into usable energy.
And yes, cows are specifically adapted to consume plants and their guts are noisy. I'm using this as an example that just because you sensed a quieting in your intestines it doesn't mean it's positive. I'm admitting I don't know what it means and provided an example where a loud gut is indicative of adaptation, but you seem to be under the impression a quiet gut is a good thing. If you're using fasting as the comparison that seems to indicate you aren't digesting much at all, and I don't know how that's positive if your intestines are full.
Also, they have an attitude that indicates they are absolutely certain that they are correct.
They'll probably tell me next that they enjoy having diabetes.
Anyone can try this diet for 90 days and transform their health for the better (even if they think they are already in top shape), yet almost everyone has a massive mental block and can't even conceive of trying it. It's a bizarre situation.
But keep farting and living with joint pain for all I care.
The guy whose comment this is in response to is arguing that he should fart because cows fart without considering the fact that he is not a cow. It is not worth my time to engage any further, but I will leave this comment here in case there are some genuinely curious onlookers.
Biggest diet dogma red flag. It sounds like you might be spending too much time in an echo chamber.
inb4 << a bunch of anecdotes >>
So it's worse than stereotypical veganism?
I get that some people think Trump won the 2020 election and some people think he lost the 2020 election, and so faux-sophisticates will just throw up their hands and say “who knows who is right?”, but I am of the camp that believes in reason and evidence.
If you think the vegans have the better argument then you are free to eat that way and further the destruction of the planet while rationalizing away your ill health, of course. Bummer for you, but it’s a free country.