Re: Vegetarians VS meateaters
- From: Matti Narkia <mna@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:34:29 +0300
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:10:29 -0400, jonboy42@xxxxxxxxx (J W) wrote:
I've been reading a lot of pretty compelling evidence lately about the
benefits of changing to a vegetarian lifestyle. From what I read it
seems pretty convincing to me that we were not designed to eat meat and
that meat can be pretty toxic to our system.
First of all we were not designed, we evolved. And before the
invention of agriculture some 10000 - 15000 years ago for over two
million years our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and adapted to
a meat based low carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrates provided
22-40% of calories, and where animal meat was an important part of
diet. The agricultural period is probably too short from evolution
point of view to have been able to reverse the evolutionary adaptation
to low carbohydrate, high protein diet. Many people may have "carb
intolerance", because this over 2 million years lasting low carb diet
of our ancestors would have disadvantaged reproduction in
insulin-sensitive individuals and positively selected for individuals
with insulin resistance according to some studies. Natural selection
would therefore have resulted in a high proportion of people with
genetically-determined insulin resistance. The selection pressure for
insulin resistance was perhaps relaxed fairly early for example in
Europe, which was among the first to adopt agriculture and high carb
diet than other populations. Thus the prevalence of genes producing
insulin resistance may be lower in the European population and any
other group exposed to high-carbohydrate intake for a sufficiently
long period of time.
An excerpt from the article
Perspectives on Nutrition in Related Species
Man's Ancestry and Diet
Nutrition by Ron Kennedy, M.D., Santa Rosa, California
<http://www.medical-library.net/sites/_nutrition.html>:
"Fifteen million years ago, Africa was a land of dense jungle,
beginning to give way to open plains and broken forests known
as "savannas." In the forest was a species of ape which had
developed the ability to walk on two, as well as four limbs.
Around six to seven million years ago, one venturesome band of
these apes came out of the forest to live part of the time on
the savanna. The savanna was populated with large carnivores.
Those ape-men/women who dared to walk more frequently on two
legs were able to better see approaching danger by looking over
the vegetation. They survived to reproduce, and thus did this
band of ape-men/women become able, through natural selection,
to walk exclusively upright. With their upper limbs freed, they
found many interesting and useful things to do with them.
They became handy with sticks and stones, and because they
stuck and stoned together, they survived without a lot of
change in their anatomy. This all happened about five million
years ago. This prehuman creature developed into several
different varieties of human-like creatures: Australopithicus
robustus (a giant who remained a vegetarian), Australopithicus
africanus (a smallish creature) and Homo habilis, your direct
ancestor. (This is the short course in paleoanthropology and
human evolution.)
As his name implies, Homo habilis was very good with his hands.
Handyman was so skilled with his hands that he eventually
killed off the other two species of proto-humans. Handyman
perfected his upright posture (paying a certain price in the
form of lower back pain) and doubled the size of his brain; and
by 1.5 million years ago became Homo erectus: the first fully
upright man.
During all this time, "socialization" was proceeding ? which
means that man and woman were coming to depend on each other
for survival. Man, always looking for a shortcut, took to
killing other animals for food, while woman stayed closer to
home and continued to gather plants. Homo erectus, as part of
his newly developed hunting habit, completed the extermination
of Australopithicus africanus and probably also the giant
vegetarian Australopithicus robustus ? unless a few of the
later survived to become Sasquatch (this remains to be proven).
Around 200,000 years ago, Handyman's brain case again expanded,
and this led to the development of Homo sapiens or "thinking
man." Fifty thousand years ago there appeared a new variety of
Thinking Man, Homo sapien sapien, "wise thinking man," with a
high forehead and a new kind of vocal apparatus, allowing the
sophisticated kind of speech to which we are accustomed, an
audible representation of the hand sign language which it.
´ This new kind of man then managed to kill off, or breed and
blend with, another strain of wise thinking man, who we now
call Neanderthal after the valley in Germany where their
remains were first discovered. There evolution stood until the
about four thousand years ago. The next step in evolution did
not occur with an anatomical change, but probably with a neuro-
chemical change. Humans began to appear on the earth, aware of
themselves as more than animals, but also possessed of a soul.
This evolution was a transformation, and we are still in the
midst of it right now. I interpret your participation with this
web site network to represent your stand for forwarding this
stage of evolution. Part of the transformative process is a
heightened awareness of the importance of our physical nature
and the value of attending diligently to the well-being of our
bodies."
Our primate ancestors ate high-carbohydrate diet and the brain and
reproductive tissues evolved a specific requirement for glucose as a
source of fuel. But the Ice Ages which dominated the last two million
years of human evolution brought a low-carbohydrate, high-protein
diet. Furing the last two million years of evolution, humans were
primarily carnivorous, i.e., flesh-eating hunters consuming a
low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet. See
An excerpt from the article:
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet
<http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html>:
"Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa
about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality
of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the
University of California, Berkeley.
It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients,
that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly
the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on
primate diet.
Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans
could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants
available in their African environment at that time to evolve
into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became.
Receding forests would have deprived them of the more
nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates
survive on, said Milton.
Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley
professor Tim White and others that early human species were
butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million
years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the
evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was
routine. It is published this month in the journal
"Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1). ""
Our ancestor living during that period were
Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE
Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE
Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE
Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE
Homo sapiens appeared about 400 000 years ago. Two subspecies emerged:
first Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 000 years ago and then Homo
sapiens sapiens 130 000 years ago. These two coexisted about 100 000
years until Homo sapiens neandertalensis became extinct about 32 000
years go:
Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present
See
Hominid Species Timeline
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html>
Below some related Medline studies:
Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA,
O'Keefe JH, Brand-Miller J.
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the
21st century.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):341-54. Review.
PMID: 15699220 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/341>
"There is growing awareness that the profound changes in the
environment (eg, in diet and other lifestyle conditions) that
began with the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry
approximately 10000 y ago occurred too recently on an
evolutionary time scale for the human genome to adjust. In
conjunction with this discordance between our ancient,
genetically determined biology and the nutritional, cultural,
and activity patterns of contemporary Western populations, many
of the so-called diseases of civilization have emerged. In
particular, food staples and food-processing procedures
introduced during the Neolithic and Industrial Periods have
fundamentally altered 7 crucial nutritional characteristics of
ancestral hominin diets: 1) glycemic load, 2) fatty acid
composition, 3) macronutrient composition, 4) micronutrient
density, 5) acid-base balance, 6) sodium-potassium ratio, and
7) fiber content. The evolutionary collision of our ancient
genome with the nutritional qualities of recently introduced
foods may underlie many of the chronic diseases of Western
civilization.
[...]
Both the current US macronutrient intakes and suggested
healthful levels differ considerably from average levels
obtained from ethnographic (20) and quantitative (21) studies
of hunter gatherers in which dietary protein is
characteristically elevated (19?35% of energy) at the expense
of carbohydrate (22?40% of energy) (20, 21). Although the
macronutrient compositions of hominin diets during the
Paleolithic period cannot be directly determined, recent
isotopic data from Neanderthal (117) and Upper Paleolithic
European (118) skeletons support the notion that protein
consumption may have been substantially higher than current
values."
Mann NJ.
Paleolithic nutrition: what can we learn from the past?
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S17.
PMID: 15294479 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1529447>
"Background - Anthropologists and some nutritionists have long
recognised that the diets of Paleolithic and recent
hunter-gatherers (HG) may represent a reference standard for
modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain
western lifestyle diseases.
[...]
Study of macronutrient energy proportions in the diet of HG
societies (n=229) show a relatively high protein intake 19-35%,
highly variable fat intake 28-47% and low carbohydrate level
22-40%. Conclusions - It is postulated that changes in food
staples and food processing procedures introduced during the
Neolithic and Industrial era have fundamentally altered seven
crucial nutritional characteristics of our ancestral diet: (i)
glycaemic load, (ii) fatty acid balance, (iii) macronutrient
balance, (iv) trace nutrient density, (v) acid-base balance, (vi)
sodium-potassium balance, (vii) fiber content."
Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K.
The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet
non-atherogenic.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S42-52. Review.
PMID: 11965522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11965522>
"CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would
not have necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles
because of the hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein
(19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary
carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58%
energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in
Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative
differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of
MUFA and PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio,
would have served to inhibit the development of CVD. Other
dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants,
fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake
may have operated synergistically with lifestyle
characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to
further deter the development of CVD."
Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.
Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations
in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92.
PMID: 10702160 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682>
"... Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was
ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts
(45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide
hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy)
of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of
these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their
subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on
animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate
content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic
macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated
(19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22-40% of
energy)."
Miller JC, Colagiuri S.
The carnivore connection: dietary carbohydrate in the evolution of
NIDDM.
Diabetologia. 1994 Dec;37(12):1280-6.
PMID: 7895958 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7895958>
"We postulate a critical role for the quantity and quality of
dietary carbohydrate in the pathogenesis of non-insulin-
dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Our primate ancestors ate
a high-carbohydrate diet and the brain and reproductive tissues
evolved a specific requirement for glucose as a source of fuel.
But the Ice Ages which dominated the last two million years of
human evolution brought a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet.
Certain metabolic adaptations were therefore necessary to
accommodate the low glucose intake. Studies in both humans and
experimental animals indicate that the adaptive (phenotypic)
response to low-carbohydrate intake is insulin resistance. This
provides the clue that insulin resistance is the mechanism for
coping with a shortage of dietary glucose. We propose that the
low-carbohydrate carnivorous diet would have disadvantaged
reproduction in insulin-sensitive individuals and positively
selected for individuals with insulin resistance. Natural
selection would therefore result in a high proportion of people
with genetically-determined insulin resistance. Other factors,
such as geographic isolation, have contributed to further
increases in the prevalence of the genotype in some population
groups. Europeans may have a low incidence of diabetes because
they were among the first to adopt agriculture and their diet
has been high in carbohydrate for 10,000 years. The selection
pressure for insulin resistance (i.e., a low-carbohydrate diet)
was therefore relaxed much sooner in Caucasians than in other
populations. Hence the prevalence of genes producing insulin
resistance should be lower in the European population and any
other group exposed to high-carbohydrate intake for a
sufficiently long period of time."
Colagiuri S, Brand Miller JC.
The metabolic syndrome: from inherited survival trait to a health care
problem.
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1997;105 Suppl 2:54-60. Review.
PMID: 9288547 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9288547>
"A critical role is proposed for the quantity and quality of
dietary carbohydrate in the pathogenesis of the insulin
resistance and hyperinsulinaemia which characterise the
Metabolic Syndrome. We propose that an insulin-resistant
genotype evolved to provide survival and reproductive
advantages for the cold-climate, large game hunters of the last
Ice Age who consumed a low carbohydrate, high protein diet with
periodic starvation. Insulin resistance would have minimised
glucose utilisation by muscles thereby facilitating the
preferential utilisation of glucose by the brain, foetus and
mammary gland. But beginning about 10,000 years ago following
the end of the last Ice Age and the development of agriculture,
dietary carbohydrate increased and the selection pressure for
insulin resistance decreased in some groups. Agriculture began
in the Middle East and spread throughout Europe long before it
was developed elsewhere. Hence the prevalence of the insulin-
resistant genotype decreased in Europeans and other groups
exposed to a high carbohydrate intake for sufficiently long.
Some geographically isolated groups such as the Pima Indians
and Nauruans experienced conditions which further diminished
the gene pool diversity and resulted in particularly insulin
resistant populations. Traditional carbohydrate foods have a
low glycaemic index and produce only modest increases in plasma
insulin. However, the constant supply of highly refined high
glycaemic index carbohydrate in modern diets, results in
postprandial hyperinsulinaemia. The insulin-resistant genotype
is now disadvantageous and predisposes to the development of
the Metabolic Syndrome."
Colagiuri S, Brand Miller J.
The 'carnivore connection'--evolutionary aspects of insulin
resistance.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S30-5. Review.
PMID: 11965520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11965520>
"Insulin resistance is common and is determined by
physiological (aging, physical fitness), pathological (obesity)
and genetic factors. The metabolic compensatory response to
insulin resistance is hyperinsulinaemia, the primary purpose of
which is to maintain normal glucose tolerance. The 'carnivore
connection' postulates a critical role for the quantity of
dietary protein and carbohydrate and the change in the
glycaemic index of dietary carbohydrate in the evolution of
insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia. Insulin resistance
offered survival and reproductive advantages during the Ice
Ages which dominated human evolution, during which a high-
protein low-carbohydrate diet was consumed. Following the end
of the last Ice Age and the advent of agriculture, dietary
carbohydrate increased. Although this resulted in a sharp
increase in the quantity of carbohydrate consumed, these
traditional carbohydrate foods had a low glycaemic index and
produced only modest increases in plasma insulin. The
industrial revolution changed the quality of dietary
carbohydrate. The milling of cereals made starch more
digestible and postprandial glycaemic and insulin responses
increased 2-3 fold compared with coarsely ground flour or whole
grains. This combination of insulin resistance and
hyperinsulinaemia is a common feature of many modern day
diseases. Over the last 50 y the explosion of convenience and
takeaway 'fast foods' has exposed most populations to caloric
intakes far in excess of daily energy requirements and the
resulting obesity has been a major factor in increasing the
prevalence of insulin resistance."
I'm not sure I'm ready toThey don't. Vegetarians may have some advantage in heart disease
make that leap and I already have cancer so I'm not sure if it would
benefit me much at this stage but they do present a convincing case.
mortality, when compared with regular meat eaters, but fish eaters
have still lower risk than vegetarians. And vegetarians don't have any
benefit in cancer mortality or overall mortality. Vegetarians also
have higher than average mortality from degenerative brain diseases.
I wonder have there ever been any serious case studies comparing cancerKey TJ, Fraser GE, Thorogood M, Appleby PN, Beral V, Reeves G, Burr
rates and or auto immune disease rates between vegetarians and meat
eaters? i'd be real interested in seeing those results if any exist, I
watched a couple of Dr. Lorraine day's videos today as well and she
seems pretty convinced this change in lifestyle cured her cancer, what
your thoughts are on the subject.
ML, Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Kuzma JW, Mann J, McPherson K.
Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from
a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):516S-524S.
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S
"We combined data from 5 prospective studies to compare
the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with
those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles. A summary
of these results was reported previously; we report here
more details of the findings. Data for 76172 men and women
were available. Vegetarians were those who did not eat any
meat or fish (n = 27808). Death rate ratios at ages 16?89
y were calculated by Poisson regression and all results
were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status. A random-
effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates of
effect for all studies combined. There were 8330 deaths
after a mean of 10.6 y of follow-up. Mortality from
ischemic heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than
in nonvegetarians (death rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62,
0.94; P < 0.01). The lower mortality from ischemic heart
disease among vegetarians was greater at younger ages and
was restricted to those who had followed their current
diet for >5 y. Further categorization of diets showed
that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality
from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional
meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not
meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in
vegans. There were no significant differences between
vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from
cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal
cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or
all other causes combined."
Seespacially the last sentence
"There were no significant differences between vegetarians
and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular
disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer,
breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes
combined."
and the following tables form the study:
TABLE 3. Death rate ratios and 95% CIs and the number of deaths for
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians by study, adjusted for age,
sex, and smoking status, and for all studies combined
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S/T3>
TABLE 4. All-studies death rate ratios and 95% CIs and the number of
deaths for vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians in men and women
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S/T4>
TABLE 5. All-studies death rate ratios and 95% CIs and the number of
deaths for vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians by age at death1
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S/T5>
TABLE 6. All-studies death rate ratios and 95% CIs and the number of
deaths by duration of vegetarian diet
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S/T6
Vegan doctor Michael Greger coments among others this study in the
article
Maximizing Vegetarian Nutrition
by Michael Greger, M.D.
<URL:http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121>
A citation from it:
"August of this year, the BBC reported that the British
Advertising Standards Authority attacked a vegetarian
organization for making "alarmist" and "unsubstantiated"
claims about the risks of eating meat. Headlines like
"Vegetarian group slammed over advertising" splashed across
the evening news. What "exaggerated" claims were targeted by
the Agency? The vegetarian group claimed that meat-eaters were
at increased risk of dying from heart disease and stroke, and
that vegetarians lived longer than meateaters. How could the
agency possibly find fault with such incontrovertible facts?
because, simply put, our "facts" aren't true.
The latest science and the best science that we have that we
have suggests that we vegetarians do not live longer than our
meat-eating counterparts. The latest published results came
out January, 2002 in a journal called Public Health Nutrition.
Eight thousand vegetarians were followed for 18 years, and no
survival advantage was found. Then April, 2002 the results of
a study twice that size were released at the International
Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition held at Loma Linda
University. A study involving seventeen thousand vegetarians
followed for about 9 years confirms the bad news-no survival
advantage for vegetarians. Even more worrisome, both this huge
studies found that vegetarians had an increased risk of dying
from degenerative brain diseases."
Another study compering vegaetarians with omniwvores:
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Allen NE, Spencer EA, Travis RC.
Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results
from EPIC-Oxford.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):533S-538S. Review.
PMID: 12936946 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/533S>
"Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and
the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with
national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major
causes of death was not significantly different between
vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant
reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among
vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction
previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in
Western vegetarians."
See also the study
Pauletto P, Puato M, Caroli MG, Casiglia E, Munhambo AE, Cazzolato
G, Bittolo Bon G, Angeli MT, Galli C, Pessina AC.
Blood pressure and atherogenic lipoprotein profiles of fish-diet and
vegetarian villagers in Tanzania: the Lugalawa study.
Lancet. 1996 Sep 21;348(9030):784-8.
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673696013918/fulltext>
"Interpretation
In these villagers, consumption of freshwater fish
(300-600 g daily) was associated with raised plasma
concentrations of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, lower
blood pressure, and lower plasma lipid concentrations."
More related studies on the AJCN's pages
<http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol78/issue3/#EPIDEMIOLOGIC_STUDIES_OF_VEGETARIANS>
<http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol78/issue3/#VEGETARIAN_DIETS_AND_RISK_OF_SELECTED_CHRONIC_DISEASES>
--
Matti Narkia
.
- References:
- Vegetarians VS meateaters
- From: J W
- Vegetarians VS meateaters
- Prev by Date: mesothelioma cancer
- Next by Date: Re: mesothelioma cancer
- Previous by thread: Re: Vegetarians VS meateaters
- Next by thread: Alimta
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
