I see that the European Boar was introduced into the US around 100 years ago, as a game species!
Big misstake!
Big misstake!
Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism
- Thread starter Janne
- Start date
Hogs were first released by the Spanish (pretty much everywhere they ever explored in the New World) from about 500 years ago. Then many areas farmed by simply leaving their hogs semi feral until rounded up in the Fall for slaughter. Add to that the Russian Wild Boar that misguided sportsmen released and the current genetic makeup of the feral population is muddled.
I choose to eat meat. I don't deny that doing so increases suffering.
I agree with this; it's impossible not to.
The points I've tried to make:
1. A variety of moral assumptions and ethical systems apply to nearly any issue. As a result, claiming to hold the "most moral" position is nonsense.
2. A variety of healthy diets exist, including those that contain animal proteins and fats.
3. Veganism is not unequivocally better for the environment than omnivorism.
4. We're not clear what the environmental costs of switching our food supply would be, at least as long as we continue current practices of agriculture and animal husbandry.
5. People probably want to think carefully about beef consumption, at least in so far as there is evidence that it is associated with higher mortality in the amounts typically consumed in Western diets.
As you can see from my posting history, this will make 37 posts in nearly 9 years. I typically stay out of these (and other) arguments, too.
I agree with this; it's impossible not to.
The points I've tried to make:
1. A variety of moral assumptions and ethical systems apply to nearly any issue. As a result, claiming to hold the "most moral" position is nonsense.
2. A variety of healthy diets exist, including those that contain animal proteins and fats.
3. Veganism is not unequivocally better for the environment than omnivorism.
4. We're not clear what the environmental costs of switching our food supply would be, at least as long as we continue current practices of agriculture and animal husbandry.
5. People probably want to think carefully about beef consumption, at least in so far as there is evidence that it is associated with higher mortality in the amounts typically consumed in Western diets.
As you can see from my posting history, this will make 37 posts in nearly 9 years. I typically stay out of these (and other) arguments, too.
I suppose there is a massive difference between nicely cooking someone in your pan on the stove with some good seasoning vs in a diesel / petrol / high octane fuel fed fire and really burning the heck out of them.
Janne, would you consider using your equipment to cut through pig, muscle and fat skin for a comparison?
Janne, would you consider using your equipment to cut through pig, muscle and fat skin for a comparison?
I'm a little Scottish lady of a certain age 
Childhood school prizes were often of the kind of books that were considered good for developing character and moral rectitude; in embueing the reader with a sense of altruism, service, etc.. Scottish education had a long reach. Some of those books were of the Scottish Missionaries and their works. One, James Chalmers was killed, cooked and eaten by cannibals. The report in the book mentioned that in an earlier letter/report home he had made mention that the long pig was well named, that he'd sat with a cannibal chieftain who had eaten human flesh in front of him, and it smelled and looked like pork.....so I took it as 'evidence'. Lot of such stories among those early 'anthropologists'.
I also know someone who organised, arranged and attended a funeral pyre, and he commented that it put him off bacon and the like for life.
That was backed up by a bit of archaeology that is now so totally not on to be denied right across the board. So take this as apocryphal evidence (as in "An apocryphal story is one which is probably did not happen, but which may give a true picture of someone or something")
Tiny wee rib bones often look just like that regardless of what species they come from. Put one into a microwave and cook it on high for thirty seconds. By the smell you can get a fair idea of what it was. Chicken smells like chicken, iimmc ? and until recently we didn't have wild boar in the UK.
Personally, I have no experience beyond a badly burnt friend when I was a child, and the stink of burning nylon was not the only thing we noticed, the lady whose garden was where the accident happened, gave up eating bacon entirely.
I've never cooked/roasted a human, and freely admit my ignorance of such other than as above.
As for the rest, we are animals, we are entirely tied into the eco system of this planet, but we change it to best suit ourselves.
If that change is a moral one, it has no less effectiveness than an economic one.
It is estimated, with a fair degree of certainty that the genes that allow many to digest milk beyond childhood are a fairly recent thing in human evolution (within the last 20,000 years or so) and it's not yet a world wide human characteristic, though good estimates put it at around 35% of the population (my own dna is apparently entirely of European heritage, but I am lactose non-persistent, while my sons, and brothers, have no issues. This is not unusual in Northern Europe, there is evidence to suggest that the lactose persistent gene came into the population with the population expansion of people from further south, i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22643754)
Drinking milk must have had some huge benefit to humanity. Longer, healthier life, more children surviving to productive adulthood, etc., seems reasonable though, as does higher quality food without so much effort to gather it, and good protein stores for over Winter and for trade.
Instead of hunting one must keep cattle or goats, sheep or mares, fed and healthy too, and safe from wolves and other predators.
But to do so, yet again humanity changed the world to best suit itself, and the reality is that for most of us in the 'West' it is no longer necessary to eat meat. It's a choice.
I don't think either side will ever agree, but, we don't need to eat animals to live long healthy lives, vegans and vegetarians live very well indeed, and as a whole society is aware of what really does constitute a healthy diet. It's easily obtainable from plants. Very few societies exist solely on what they hunt, and recent studies show that they do not live as long or as healthily as has previously been touted. (very quick and readable article....http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/)
It's interesting to read the opinions of those on either side of this debate, but to be honest, I think most folks are somewhere in the middle, but very few in the first world would happily kill and butcher an animal themselves nowadays.
That we put in place so many 'humanitarian' guidelines and rules for animal husbandry is a very new thing really. I think it's a very good thing to be aware of the treatment of the animals that people farm, I really do, and to be very aware of how that life is ended too.
I think it's a very good thing to be aware of how our arable crops are produced too though.
Childhood school prizes were often of the kind of books that were considered good for developing character and moral rectitude; in embueing the reader with a sense of altruism, service, etc.. Scottish education had a long reach. Some of those books were of the Scottish Missionaries and their works. One, James Chalmers was killed, cooked and eaten by cannibals. The report in the book mentioned that in an earlier letter/report home he had made mention that the long pig was well named, that he'd sat with a cannibal chieftain who had eaten human flesh in front of him, and it smelled and looked like pork.....so I took it as 'evidence'. Lot of such stories among those early 'anthropologists'.I also know someone who organised, arranged and attended a funeral pyre, and he commented that it put him off bacon and the like for life.
That was backed up by a bit of archaeology that is now so totally not on to be denied right across the board. So take this as apocryphal evidence (as in "An apocryphal story is one which is probably did not happen, but which may give a true picture of someone or something")
Tiny wee rib bones often look just like that regardless of what species they come from. Put one into a microwave and cook it on high for thirty seconds. By the smell you can get a fair idea of what it was. Chicken smells like chicken, iimmc ? and until recently we didn't have wild boar in the UK.
Personally, I have no experience beyond a badly burnt friend when I was a child, and the stink of burning nylon was not the only thing we noticed, the lady whose garden was where the accident happened, gave up eating bacon entirely.
I've never cooked/roasted a human, and freely admit my ignorance of such other than as above.
As for the rest, we are animals, we are entirely tied into the eco system of this planet, but we change it to best suit ourselves.
If that change is a moral one, it has no less effectiveness than an economic one.
It is estimated, with a fair degree of certainty that the genes that allow many to digest milk beyond childhood are a fairly recent thing in human evolution (within the last 20,000 years or so) and it's not yet a world wide human characteristic, though good estimates put it at around 35% of the population (my own dna is apparently entirely of European heritage, but I am lactose non-persistent, while my sons, and brothers, have no issues. This is not unusual in Northern Europe, there is evidence to suggest that the lactose persistent gene came into the population with the population expansion of people from further south, i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22643754)
Drinking milk must have had some huge benefit to humanity. Longer, healthier life, more children surviving to productive adulthood, etc., seems reasonable though, as does higher quality food without so much effort to gather it, and good protein stores for over Winter and for trade.
Instead of hunting one must keep cattle or goats, sheep or mares, fed and healthy too, and safe from wolves and other predators.
But to do so, yet again humanity changed the world to best suit itself, and the reality is that for most of us in the 'West' it is no longer necessary to eat meat. It's a choice.
I don't think either side will ever agree, but, we don't need to eat animals to live long healthy lives, vegans and vegetarians live very well indeed, and as a whole society is aware of what really does constitute a healthy diet. It's easily obtainable from plants. Very few societies exist solely on what they hunt, and recent studies show that they do not live as long or as healthily as has previously been touted. (very quick and readable article....http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/)
It's interesting to read the opinions of those on either side of this debate, but to be honest, I think most folks are somewhere in the middle, but very few in the first world would happily kill and butcher an animal themselves nowadays.
That we put in place so many 'humanitarian' guidelines and rules for animal husbandry is a very new thing really. I think it's a very good thing to be aware of the treatment of the animals that people farm, I really do, and to be very aware of how that life is ended too.
I think it's a very good thing to be aware of how our arable crops are produced too though.
Sorry I'm only getting back to this now. I realised that I actually posted the land study rebuttal (or one of them) rather than the initial study.
So yes regarding the defending crops from big animals, I suppose its still well within what veganism is all about, as there would still be a net reduction in the number of animals killed. No matter how we live, even if we were all vegan, we would still have to kill animals. It's all about minimising that.
So yes regarding the defending crops from big animals, I suppose its still well within what veganism is all about, as there would still be a net reduction in the number of animals killed. No matter how we live, even if we were all vegan, we would still have to kill animals. It's all about minimising that.
I will do the very unscientific test this weekend.
If you chrck Dr Csmpbells other articles, you will see the fails the unbiased criteria.
That is the problem, so much research, and the compilations of, are biased.
I just read that fish oils seem to damage our livers.
If you chrck Dr Csmpbells other articles, you will see the fails the unbiased criteria.
That is the problem, so much research, and the compilations of, are biased.
I just read that fish oils seem to damage our livers.
That's unfortunately true, Janne.
Dr Campbell has been criticised for using good data to draw biased conclusions.
From http://www.airc.it/cancro/disinformazione/the-china-study/:
"The negative effects of meat consumption would be seen above all in the development of breast cancer, a tumor whose incidence (ie the number of women who get sick) would be five times lower in China than in the United States. In addition to the vegetarian diet, the Chinese can also count on the beneficial effects of unrefined cereals.
These data are not a real novelty and have also been confirmed by other studies, such as the EPIC study in Europe . What the scientific community has found poorly demonstrated is the fact that, according to the calculations of the China Study , the consumption even of very small quantities of fats and animal proteins (including those coming from dairy products, indicated as particularly dangerous) would lead to an important increase in risk. This is a noticeable difference compared to other epidemiological studies, which have shown an increase in risk, but gradual, such as to allow a reasonable consumption of these foods that have always been part of the human diet."
The researchers at this institute also point to the lack of peer-reviewed articles stemming from this study, itself not published in a venue subject to scientific scrutiny.
Dr Campbell may well be correct in the article Toddy cites, but we can't know. For instance, a confounding variable is very high rates of smoking among the Inuit. See, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981096/
As the authors there note, though confirming that cardiovascular disease is not at all uncommon among their sample, "diabetes prevalence was low and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations were high, but a large proportion smoked and had high pathogen burden." Given what we know about the effects of smoking on cardiovascular health, it would be very hard indeed to differentiate that from diet in this study, limiting the implications we can draw. I note that this is something Dr Campbell should have pointed out in his summary of Inuit health, lending credence to his critics like Janne.
And as Dr Campbell admits, studies of diets and disease among the Masai show consistently high animal fat diets and low mortality. See http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/2/121.short
What's the truth of this. I'm not sure, but i don't think it's as clear as The China Study or Dr Campbell suggest.
Dr Campbell has been criticised for using good data to draw biased conclusions.
From http://www.airc.it/cancro/disinformazione/the-china-study/:
"The negative effects of meat consumption would be seen above all in the development of breast cancer, a tumor whose incidence (ie the number of women who get sick) would be five times lower in China than in the United States. In addition to the vegetarian diet, the Chinese can also count on the beneficial effects of unrefined cereals.
These data are not a real novelty and have also been confirmed by other studies, such as the EPIC study in Europe . What the scientific community has found poorly demonstrated is the fact that, according to the calculations of the China Study , the consumption even of very small quantities of fats and animal proteins (including those coming from dairy products, indicated as particularly dangerous) would lead to an important increase in risk. This is a noticeable difference compared to other epidemiological studies, which have shown an increase in risk, but gradual, such as to allow a reasonable consumption of these foods that have always been part of the human diet."
The researchers at this institute also point to the lack of peer-reviewed articles stemming from this study, itself not published in a venue subject to scientific scrutiny.
Dr Campbell may well be correct in the article Toddy cites, but we can't know. For instance, a confounding variable is very high rates of smoking among the Inuit. See, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981096/
As the authors there note, though confirming that cardiovascular disease is not at all uncommon among their sample, "diabetes prevalence was low and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations were high, but a large proportion smoked and had high pathogen burden." Given what we know about the effects of smoking on cardiovascular health, it would be very hard indeed to differentiate that from diet in this study, limiting the implications we can draw. I note that this is something Dr Campbell should have pointed out in his summary of Inuit health, lending credence to his critics like Janne.
And as Dr Campbell admits, studies of diets and disease among the Masai show consistently high animal fat diets and low mortality. See http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/2/121.short
What's the truth of this. I'm not sure, but i don't think it's as clear as The China Study or Dr Campbell suggest.
Inuit smoking rates:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2017002/article/14773-eng.htm
Indeed, as Dr Campbell says in his article, "...chances are that you haven’t heard the whole story. There has been some important information missing..."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2017002/article/14773-eng.htm
Indeed, as Dr Campbell says in his article, "...chances are that you haven’t heard the whole story. There has been some important information missing..."
My background is archaeology.
That in itself is biased because we only have excavation results from tiny fragments of humanity, but we know that when someone claims that people did not live long, that we can usually point to specific excavations with reliable dates, and clearly show that they are mistaken, and that some most definitely did live long. That the potential for long healty lives is, and was, there within the human population.
We have really good evidences from archaeology of the lifespans of folks right across the world, right through human history.
We know that those who live longest, and healthiest (that bit's important, the skew for much of the Western world re longevity is healthcare and modern medicine to counteract ill health, i.e. diabetes, heart disease and even dental abcesses) do not consume much meat (we can actually analyse the diet of those of the past from their bones and teeth, and in some cases tell you where they grew up too because of the mineral content) they do consume a seasonal diet of vegetables and fruits, and a limited amount of carbohydrates, and their bones tell us clearly that in the past most worked hard or at least walked most of the day. Sedentary people they were not.
In comes modern anthropology though, and it gives us very clear cut comparisons. The Inuit on average live ten years less than the rest of the Canadian population, while among the Masai their average life expectancy is that of their countrymen at the lower end of the world comparison rates of life expectancy...and both those ages are now, with good health care available at least in Canada.
That's hardly any basis for claiming that a meat based diet is the healthiest one.....the Masai 'good health' is also to be balanced with their almost constant activity. They walk at least twelve miles every day, unlike the more sedentary among us.
Smoking is nothing new. Inuit mummies dating back centuries showed clearly under autopsy that their custom of cooking and lighting with animal fat left their lungs blackened like those of a chain smoker. I've seen the slides, it'd put you off even lighting a campfire if you thought about it long enough.
With that in the 'evidence' I think it pretty much negates the smoking issue.
The Masai average lifespan, like that of their countrymen, is pretty much that of most of the 'undeveloped' world pre industrial revolution, but their diet, despite the claims to the contrary is not solely meat based, but then neither is, nor was, that of the Inuit. The Masai drink 'soups' of vegetables (these contain saponins that also help reduce cholesterol, Dr Campbell mentioned about the evidence not all being taken into account, this is a case in point) and now eat calorie rich grains too. They only migrated to the area in the 15th century though, and the area they came from the people traditionally do eat more vegetables, the Masai don't have the millennia rich heritage of plant knowledge of their lands. Instead they relied on their herds to crop that land instead. Basically they chose to consume the animals they knew were safe in their new environment.
There is another people who now live on a very meat and meat fat rich diet, and it's killing them. The islanders of the South Pacific now don't even average sixty years old, and endure severe ill health. They do consume a lot of sugary drinks too though, so that must play some part in it. Their historic diet was rich in fruit and vegetables, but that's now considered 'poor' food.... that changing cultural bias at work again.
Out own cultural bias for the three score and ten forgets that that was an attainment for most in the past, and today around 71 years is the average world wide. Neither Inuit or Masai reach those figures, even as an average.
If we look instead at our own physical selves. We are told that we are omniverous, but that is very misleading. We cannot eat everything and certainly for most foods we cannot obtain the optimum benefit without cooking (the cooking ape analogy again).
There's a balance that must be maintained. If we eat the sugar cane as sugar cane we might well get raw calorific energy, but we expend so much energy eating it, and the concommitant wear and tear on our teeth and jaws, that it really is better if we expend some energy preparing it first. The same is true of grains, nuts, and meat. Our digestive systems are not built to digest raw meat, yet we can easily digest raw fruits and many vegetables, and latterly, dairy products. Cooking meat, and fat, introduces another health issue though. Our teeth aren't those of a carnivore though, but neither are they those of the rodents which are truly omnivorous, or the grazers (our gut doesn't suit that either).
I think we really need a new word for the Human diet, neither omniverous or carnivorous; we are choice eaters.
On balance, for most of us a decently varied vegetarian (ovo, lacto, or none, of choice) is probably the healthiest for our modern lifestyles. If the individual chooses to add meat and high carb foods into that diet, that's up to them. I suspect high sugar and heavy fat/salt rich diets are probably worse than one rich in meat though.
Had enough; I'm away to play with some willow, and maybe take a wander and see if I can find some jelly ears to add to my stir fry
M
That in itself is biased because we only have excavation results from tiny fragments of humanity, but we know that when someone claims that people did not live long, that we can usually point to specific excavations with reliable dates, and clearly show that they are mistaken, and that some most definitely did live long. That the potential for long healty lives is, and was, there within the human population.
We have really good evidences from archaeology of the lifespans of folks right across the world, right through human history.
We know that those who live longest, and healthiest (that bit's important, the skew for much of the Western world re longevity is healthcare and modern medicine to counteract ill health, i.e. diabetes, heart disease and even dental abcesses) do not consume much meat (we can actually analyse the diet of those of the past from their bones and teeth, and in some cases tell you where they grew up too because of the mineral content) they do consume a seasonal diet of vegetables and fruits, and a limited amount of carbohydrates, and their bones tell us clearly that in the past most worked hard or at least walked most of the day. Sedentary people they were not.
In comes modern anthropology though, and it gives us very clear cut comparisons. The Inuit on average live ten years less than the rest of the Canadian population, while among the Masai their average life expectancy is that of their countrymen at the lower end of the world comparison rates of life expectancy...and both those ages are now, with good health care available at least in Canada.
That's hardly any basis for claiming that a meat based diet is the healthiest one.....the Masai 'good health' is also to be balanced with their almost constant activity. They walk at least twelve miles every day, unlike the more sedentary among us.
Smoking is nothing new. Inuit mummies dating back centuries showed clearly under autopsy that their custom of cooking and lighting with animal fat left their lungs blackened like those of a chain smoker. I've seen the slides, it'd put you off even lighting a campfire if you thought about it long enough.
With that in the 'evidence' I think it pretty much negates the smoking issue.
The Masai average lifespan, like that of their countrymen, is pretty much that of most of the 'undeveloped' world pre industrial revolution, but their diet, despite the claims to the contrary is not solely meat based, but then neither is, nor was, that of the Inuit. The Masai drink 'soups' of vegetables (these contain saponins that also help reduce cholesterol, Dr Campbell mentioned about the evidence not all being taken into account, this is a case in point) and now eat calorie rich grains too. They only migrated to the area in the 15th century though, and the area they came from the people traditionally do eat more vegetables, the Masai don't have the millennia rich heritage of plant knowledge of their lands. Instead they relied on their herds to crop that land instead. Basically they chose to consume the animals they knew were safe in their new environment.
There is another people who now live on a very meat and meat fat rich diet, and it's killing them. The islanders of the South Pacific now don't even average sixty years old, and endure severe ill health. They do consume a lot of sugary drinks too though, so that must play some part in it. Their historic diet was rich in fruit and vegetables, but that's now considered 'poor' food.... that changing cultural bias at work again.
Out own cultural bias for the three score and ten forgets that that was an attainment for most in the past, and today around 71 years is the average world wide. Neither Inuit or Masai reach those figures, even as an average.
If we look instead at our own physical selves. We are told that we are omniverous, but that is very misleading. We cannot eat everything and certainly for most foods we cannot obtain the optimum benefit without cooking (the cooking ape analogy again).
There's a balance that must be maintained. If we eat the sugar cane as sugar cane we might well get raw calorific energy, but we expend so much energy eating it, and the concommitant wear and tear on our teeth and jaws, that it really is better if we expend some energy preparing it first. The same is true of grains, nuts, and meat. Our digestive systems are not built to digest raw meat, yet we can easily digest raw fruits and many vegetables, and latterly, dairy products. Cooking meat, and fat, introduces another health issue though. Our teeth aren't those of a carnivore though, but neither are they those of the rodents which are truly omnivorous, or the grazers (our gut doesn't suit that either).
I think we really need a new word for the Human diet, neither omniverous or carnivorous; we are choice eaters.
On balance, for most of us a decently varied vegetarian (ovo, lacto, or none, of choice) is probably the healthiest for our modern lifestyles. If the individual chooses to add meat and high carb foods into that diet, that's up to them. I suspect high sugar and heavy fat/salt rich diets are probably worse than one rich in meat though.
Had enough; I'm away to play with some willow, and maybe take a wander and see if I can find some jelly ears to add to my stir fry
M
Toddy,
That's a thoughtful reply. I'll try to take it as seriously as it deserves. I've learned a lot from lurking here and reading your posts--you've always struck me as sensible.
Yes, that's my understanding, too.
But this I take issue with. Given the very high rates of smoking among the Inuit, and given how remote their population is, it's very, very hard to take your claims about the non-impact of smoking and the salutary impact of Canadian health care at face value.
I haven't suggested that a mostly meat diet is the healthiest option--far from it! And i think I've been very clear about that. But the Inuit and Masai also can't be used as evidence against that diet for reasons that are pretty clear--and should be to Dr Campbell.
The citation I provided from the Canadian government is pretty clear on Inuit health. "Smoking-related diseases account for the largest percentage of the difference in female life expectancy between residents of Inuit Nunangat and the rest of Canada." Whether the Inuit have been breathing smoke for millennia or not doesn't change that direct mortality is resulting from cigarette smoking during the period in which dietary studies are being conducted. According to health officials and epidemiologists, smoking--not diet--is the largest link to mortality.
How then are we to differentiate the effects of diet from that? Are we to wave away the known effects of smoking to point a finger at meat consumption?
And we can't use modern health care as a catch-all either, ignoring differential access to suit. As per Canada's own statistics about Inuit health, cited above, "73% of whom lived in remote communities in the four regions collectively known as Inuit Nunangat: Nunatsiavut (Labrador); Nunavik (northern Quebec); Nunavut; and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories)." Given what we know about the distribution of health care, it is unlikely indeed that these people have access to Canada's best. On that, I think we'd all agree.
So what you're saying is, though "52% of Inuit aged 15 or older smoked cigarettes daily―more than three times the rate (16%) of the total population of Canada," and though they have diminished access to healthcare in comparison to urban populations, we should attribute a 10 year life expectancy difference to their diet, not their smoking?
To say that the Masai live lives roughly as long as their countrymen suggests that factors other than diet: poverty, access to healthcare, smoking, etc. are the issue, as I'm sure you understand.
Yes, I agree.
None of this changes that Dr Campbell's work has been, and continues to be, criticised for cherry-picking and biased analysis.
In short, if the Inuit have very high rates of smoking, we can expect, too, that their cardiovascular health will suffer, with or without access to healthcare. To test any hypothesis about the impact of diet on cardiovascular health and cancer, we would first need to control for smoking, as I'm sure you would agree.
As yet, I have not seen a study that does so, including the ones Dr Campbell cites.
I simply don't see how you've arrived at the conclusions you have from the evidence we share.
That's a thoughtful reply. I'll try to take it as seriously as it deserves. I've learned a lot from lurking here and reading your posts--you've always struck me as sensible.
Yes, that's my understanding, too.
But this I take issue with. Given the very high rates of smoking among the Inuit, and given how remote their population is, it's very, very hard to take your claims about the non-impact of smoking and the salutary impact of Canadian health care at face value.
I haven't suggested that a mostly meat diet is the healthiest option--far from it! And i think I've been very clear about that. But the Inuit and Masai also can't be used as evidence against that diet for reasons that are pretty clear--and should be to Dr Campbell.
The citation I provided from the Canadian government is pretty clear on Inuit health. "Smoking-related diseases account for the largest percentage of the difference in female life expectancy between residents of Inuit Nunangat and the rest of Canada." Whether the Inuit have been breathing smoke for millennia or not doesn't change that direct mortality is resulting from cigarette smoking during the period in which dietary studies are being conducted. According to health officials and epidemiologists, smoking--not diet--is the largest link to mortality.
How then are we to differentiate the effects of diet from that? Are we to wave away the known effects of smoking to point a finger at meat consumption?
And we can't use modern health care as a catch-all either, ignoring differential access to suit. As per Canada's own statistics about Inuit health, cited above, "73% of whom lived in remote communities in the four regions collectively known as Inuit Nunangat: Nunatsiavut (Labrador); Nunavik (northern Quebec); Nunavut; and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories)." Given what we know about the distribution of health care, it is unlikely indeed that these people have access to Canada's best. On that, I think we'd all agree.
So what you're saying is, though "52% of Inuit aged 15 or older smoked cigarettes daily―more than three times the rate (16%) of the total population of Canada," and though they have diminished access to healthcare in comparison to urban populations, we should attribute a 10 year life expectancy difference to their diet, not their smoking?
To say that the Masai live lives roughly as long as their countrymen suggests that factors other than diet: poverty, access to healthcare, smoking, etc. are the issue, as I'm sure you understand.
Yes, I agree.
None of this changes that Dr Campbell's work has been, and continues to be, criticised for cherry-picking and biased analysis.
In short, if the Inuit have very high rates of smoking, we can expect, too, that their cardiovascular health will suffer, with or without access to healthcare. To test any hypothesis about the impact of diet on cardiovascular health and cancer, we would first need to control for smoking, as I'm sure you would agree.
As yet, I have not seen a study that does so, including the ones Dr Campbell cites.
I simply don't see how you've arrived at the conclusions you have from the evidence we share.
Last edited:
The Inuit have no access to the quality of health care that we have come to expect in the south. The very nature of the maps
distorts the distances to delude you into thinking that things are not so far apart. Wrong.
You fly or walk.
Maybe it's built already but there's a new all-weather road going into Tuktoyaktuk, about 100 miles, I think.
You have heard of the Residential schools fiasco and the "Sixties Scoop."
Wait until the details come out about the utter discrimination against First Nations in the hospitals.
That their survivorship is far less than for most of the rest of us comes as no surprise to me.
However, I can't help but wonder if it has not always been so.
Mortalities are not at all the same for all populations of all species.
distorts the distances to delude you into thinking that things are not so far apart. Wrong.
You fly or walk.
Maybe it's built already but there's a new all-weather road going into Tuktoyaktuk, about 100 miles, I think.
You have heard of the Residential schools fiasco and the "Sixties Scoop."
Wait until the details come out about the utter discrimination against First Nations in the hospitals.
That their survivorship is far less than for most of the rest of us comes as no surprise to me.
However, I can't help but wonder if it has not always been so.
Mortalities are not at all the same for all populations of all species.
Yes, exactly. So, irrespective of their diet--but certainly in light of their smoking habits--it's reasonable to expect lower life expediencies, higher rates of cancer, greater incidence of cardio-vascular disease, etc.
And as the Canadian government reports in the citation I provided, "Inuit have the highest incidence of lung cancer in the world."
That's going to have a huge impact on their life expectancy, in and of itself. To say that they live shorter lives due to diet, in the face of these health issues, simply isn't warranted by the evidence that's been discussed.
And given that the Masai are outliers on diet and exercise, but not (as far as I know) in any other sense relative their countrymen, if their life expectancy is lower than the global average, how are we going to conclude that this is the result of diet?
By that same logic, it could be too much walking!
Again, I'm not suggesting that either the Masai or the Inuit are eating optimal diets. I'm merely insisting that the arguments and evidence that Dr Campbell uses to discredit these diets is unwarranted by the evidence he cites.
If the guy wants to discredit their diet, let me remind him that their diet has kept them very much alive
for some 14,000 (?) years in one of the planet's most hostile environments.
Maybe they are a short-lived variant in the human population.
for some 14,000 (?) years in one of the planet's most hostile environments.
Maybe they are a short-lived variant in the human population.
I think it's more that he's trying to discredit these particular animal-protein heavy indigenous diets as examples for modern eating.
He may be right, but the evidence he presents is problematic, to say the least.
He may be right, but the evidence he presents is problematic, to say the least.
I am sure some populations (Inuit, Same, Siberian indigenous tribes) have developed to thrive on their diet.
The Samoans/Micronesians thrived on their trad diet ( fish, breadfruit, coconuts, taro etc) and when exposed to our diet fare very, very badly, worse than us .
One problematic factor is that people of past did not live as long as we do today. Some diseases are old age diseases. Cancer one of them.
If the average age in a population is 45, and the cause of death infections and diseases they will not die from Heart diseases, cancer and so on.
I do not think science will be able to give us perfect answers to diets.
The Samoans/Micronesians thrived on their trad diet ( fish, breadfruit, coconuts, taro etc) and when exposed to our diet fare very, very badly, worse than us .
One problematic factor is that people of past did not live as long as we do today. Some diseases are old age diseases. Cancer one of them.
If the average age in a population is 45, and the cause of death infections and diseases they will not die from Heart diseases, cancer and so on.
I do not think science will be able to give us perfect answers to diets.
Just remembered that I read last night that Fish Oil can cause an increased incident of liver disease.
Two days ago Fish Oils were super good for you. Today they can cause liver problems.
It was only one study though I think.
Two days ago Fish Oils were super good for you. Today they can cause liver problems.
It was only one study though I think.
Toddy, do you recall the BBC program with Tony Robinson, TimeTeam?
In one episode they dug a Viking midden, somewhere in the Wild Scotland.
They could not understand why the midden was full of Herring vertebrae and rib bones, but no head bones. Enigma!
I sent an email to the program maker and informed them that they probably were eating Surstromming, which is still eaten in Sweden.
Lactic Acid fermented Herring. Heads do not ferment well and have to be removed before the process, to much structures for the process to penetrate so you get an uncontrolled rotting.
(They never answered, maybe did not receive it?)
In one episode they dug a Viking midden, somewhere in the Wild Scotland.
They could not understand why the midden was full of Herring vertebrae and rib bones, but no head bones. Enigma!
I sent an email to the program maker and informed them that they probably were eating Surstromming, which is still eaten in Sweden.
Lactic Acid fermented Herring. Heads do not ferment well and have to be removed before the process, to much structures for the process to penetrate so you get an uncontrolled rotting.
(They never answered, maybe did not receive it?)
My comment on the smoke. Modern Inuit do not live, in the main, in small lodges, etc. all through the dark of the year where they constantly breath the soot from the burning fat.
Smoke is smoke, we know that it's all very bad for us, now. I know of no smoke that is not considered carcinogenic over time, do you ?
So, one smoke negates the other in that while the smoke is an issue, historically smoke has always been a health issue for these people.
That leaves diet as a factor, especially when compared to their countrymen who live in similar habitats and lifestyles.....and live ten years longer.
Their diet isn't increasing their average lifespan was the crux. Neither is the diet of the Masai.
Janne ? is that the article in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry ? about the build up of the different types of fat in the liver ? the one that says only Olive oil isn't a problem.....written by a Spanish professor.....they grow olives there, don't they ?
I wish we could grow olives here, or pine nuts
Smoke is smoke, we know that it's all very bad for us, now. I know of no smoke that is not considered carcinogenic over time, do you ?
So, one smoke negates the other in that while the smoke is an issue, historically smoke has always been a health issue for these people.
That leaves diet as a factor, especially when compared to their countrymen who live in similar habitats and lifestyles.....and live ten years longer.
Their diet isn't increasing their average lifespan was the crux. Neither is the diet of the Masai.
Janne ? is that the article in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry ? about the build up of the different types of fat in the liver ? the one that says only Olive oil isn't a problem.....written by a Spanish professor.....they grow olives there, don't they ?
I wish we could grow olives here, or pine nuts
I do remember it, and said to myself at the time that they needed a food historian (probably someone with a wide ranging background like your Mum) to tell them what you can use fish heads to make....there's a lot of meat on a fish head, and most of them are thrown away or mashed into pet food now. Traditional diets used them though. Soup or stew made from fish heads are world wide foods. From Scandinavia to the Caribbean. Fish bones make good stock too.
I hadn't thought about just the bodies being used for fermented fish.
