Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism

[Robson Valley]

The chemical compositions of smokes, even nanoparticulates, does vary with source.
The soot from years of kudlik is bad news of course. Yet, those people have survived.
Who else living in a similar habitat has a documented longer life span, a better survivorship, to be correct?
I can't recall the eastern people but the Aleut, to the west, must share some heritage.

In any case they sure as Hello are not vegan or vegetarian by any stretch of imagination.

Vegetable oils. None is chemically pure.
All are mixes of lipids with different chain length fatty acids and different degrees of unsaturation.

Human fats are not vegetable oils.
Human fats are far more easily synthesized from animal fats which share chemical similarities.

 

[Janne]

Herring fish heads make a good stock, albeit a strong 'fishy' flavor.

They do have one use though. Fertilizer. My old friend up in Lofoten told me how he used to place a bucketful of herring in a hole, a couple of cm of soil on top, then a potato and more soil on top.

Also one cod head, and the same process.
But that Viking camp was an overwintering place I think? So no agriculture.

I do not know if they had dogs with them on their 'excursion'. Would make a good dog food.

 

[Janne]

I would love to meet Mr Robinson. First I would shake his hand for his excellent tv shows, then slap him for his archeology.

 

[Toddy]

The chemical compositions of smokes, even nanoparticulates, does vary with source.
The soot from years of kudlik is bad news of course. Yet, those people have survived.
Who else living in a similar habitat has a documented longer life span, a better survivorship, to be correct?
I can't recall the eastern people but the Aleut, to the west, must share some heritage.

In any case they sure as Hello are not vegan or vegetarian by any stretch of imagination.

Vegetable oils. None is chemically pure.
All are mixes of lipids with different chain length fatty acids and different degrees of unsaturation.

Human fats are not vegetable oils.
Human fats are far more easily synthesized from animal fats which share chemical similarities.

There's a Russian set of notes from the early 19th century. In it they note the ages of the Inuit they met. They wrote that every camp had some elderly people, but the average life expectancy still worked out around 44 years.
No, I agree, they aren't, and weren't vegetarian.

I reckon humans can make fat from most surplus calories, regardless of source. Some oils though do seem to cause issues with long term storage in the liver. Fatty liver disease...is that a new thing though ? from a world where more and more of us are obese ?

M

 

[Toddy]

I would love to meet Mr Robinson. First I would shake his hand for his excellent tv shows, then slap him for his archeology.

It made good tv, and it spurred a generation to value their own cultural heritage, to take an interest, to actually engage with the remains of the past.
It made archaeology look too quick a process though.
Three days ? Yeah, right, it can take three days to wade through permissions to set up an origin point to run a grid, let alone the months post excavation to analyse, record, interpret and publish.

M

 

[Janne]

We are going Off topic ( maybe a good thing?) :

I always wondered if they continued the investigations on site after the programs. Some were to good to leave.

 

[Robson Valley]

Follow the Central Metabolic Pathway in human biochemistry.
At the end of the Embden Meyerhof pathway, all humans get to a 2-carbon molecule called Acetyl-S-CoA.
(Maybe some intermediates pulled off along the way as well to make amino acids and other good things.)

I don't care what you eat, the carbon chains all get cleaved this far.

Anyway, you now have a metabolic choice to use that Acetly-S-CoA:

a) are you going to totally trash that for the energy it contains or,
b) put that molecule away with so many of its bretheren as an energy reserve (FAT) for a rainy day?
This alone explains why the fat molecules contain even numbers of carbon atoms.
Yes, there are odd numbered ones as well which are used for structural purposes, NOT energy reserves.

How to decide? It's a feed back mechanism based on the level of readily available energy as ATP.
What have you got? As the [ATP] falls, more Acetyl-S-CoA gets demolished for it's energy content.

Right away, you can see why dieting is so very difficult
as you get huge amounts of energy from so very little 2-carbon pieces of body fat!

 

[The Noble Savage]

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

I'm afraid I don't understand you or the inference you're drawing from the data.

So, let's assume that the Inuit have (a) always been exposed to high levels of carcinogens from smoke, and (b) don't live as long as urban Canadians.

How does (a) tell us anything about diet affecting (b)?

You are trying to exclude the impact of cigarette smoking on Inuit health and life expectancy by suggesting that it's been a historical constant. You're point, evidently, is to place diet front and centre. But even accepting your premises, that does not leave diet as the remaining cause.

Access to healthcare, among other things, is clearly an intervening variable.

And again, if smoke has been shortening Inuit lifespans for many millennia, what does that tell us about their diet exactly?

 

[The Noble Savage]

Let me put this another way:

A group of people eat. That same group smokes at far greater than average rates. That same group lacks average access to healthcare.

Epidemiologists report that this group has a shorter than average life expectancy.

It must be the diet, right?

 

[Janne]

I recall that they found (Canada Inuits? Greenland Inuits?) with severe lung changes due to oil smoke inhalation, mummified.

I think Toddy managed to find a link last year.

I truly believe we are not " alike". Maybe we are CREATED the same, but have adopted to the environment in more than one way..

For example, the Finns and Swedes have a very similar diet. Always had. When they got richer, post WW2, the diet changed. More sugar, more cream, more butter. More meat, less fish.
The Swedes continued an increase in expected life span, but the Finns' shortened.

A massive info campaign, plus the finnish invention of a special cholesterol lowering spread containing plant esterols (?) and the incidence of heart related problems went down and life expectancy seems to go up.

Different genetic background. Maybe a factor?

Dark skinned people have a Vit D deficiency above the line of Boston, USA. Unless they take supplements.
Swedes do not have much of that, as the skin tone is much lighter, but get nasty crap on the skin instead.
My DNAshows my ancestry is Scandinavian, Germanic and recently Slavic. Yes, in 10 years I have managed 4 operations on my face and 3 on my upper body. Normal Basal Cell Carcinomas, plus one very agressive and invasive basal Cell Carcinoma affecting my hooter and below one eye.

We react differently to foods. And Environment.

Today, people tend to focus on food as the only health determing factor. "Superfoods"

But how was that Superfood produced? Without pesticides and chemicals?
How was it treated? By Radiation to stop it moulding and getting bad? Chemical immersion?

How is food treated before it reaches us?

 

[Janne]

As I pointed out earlier, the Japanese have very high levels of cancers in the intestinal tract, yet eat much less red meat than us. Much more fish, and whale meat
Almost no obesity.
So, the conclusion would.should be: Do not get obese. Eat more red meat and less sea food.
Correct?
No. More factors are at play!

 

[santaman2000]

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.

One professional hunter killed nearly 500 hogs in a single day just to protect one farm.

 

[Janne]

he needed a good massage after that! Shoulder must have hurt like mad!

 

[santaman2000]

Where does this idea come from that we can't digest raw meat? From sushi to beef steak, raw is and always has been my favorite. Cooking is only to kill parasites. I dislike raw poultry though. Vegetables are much more varied regarding cooking. Some are fine raw (both in taste and nutrition) while others taste better cooked and have better nutrition (we can't break down cellulose)

Toddy I get your point regarding the nutritional value of sugar cane, but be advised, you don't eat it. You chew it like gum (when the juice and flavor has been extracted, you spit out the fiber)

Regarding the Canadian Inuit access to healthcare I have to agree with Noble Savage and RV. My cousin has been working in the Alaska education system for the last three years; one year in each of three native (Inuit) villages. First as a teacher, then as an assistant principal, and finally as a principal. In each and every village the nearest doctor was at least a couple of hours away by bush plane. I'm open to correction but I have no reason to believe the Canadian Inuit villages are any less remote.

Toddy you mentioned something about lifespans increasing as ancient societies shifted slowly from hunter gatherer to calorie rich grains. I have to agree based on nothing more than logic. That said, you do realize the calorie rich grains are synonymous with carbohydrates? With that in mind It would also seem logical to believe that the increased lifespan was due to a couple of factors related to less reliance on hunting and gathering:
1) A more reliable food source from primitive farming meant less malnutrition (starvation)
2) It would also mean less risk than pursuing game.

 

[Robson Valley]

Sugar cane is pulped for the juice, factory or teeth, same thing and yeah I've "eaten" cane. a lot.
The pulp is called bagasse.

Inuit in Canada are just as far from any medical services as any others in the REAL north.
I know a kid that likes the money to be a dentist up there. Got his own Otter now. I'd sit in his chair, any day.

Look. The Canadian north, Alaska included all the way east into Greenland, is really freakin' brutal.
I despise the sometimes obvious arrogance of the caucasian masses of a$$es, pontificating about survivorship.
Get outa your chair, live with them for 5 years or more. Then argue for discrimination.

I'll admit that I was very biased until I learned just how systematic the crushing discrimination really turned out to be.

 

[santaman2000]

We never "ate" it in the cane growing states. We'd chew it like i described but even that was minor. Most was milled into juice that was either bottled and sold as is or boiled down into molasses. The Caribbean cane fields are the ones that supply the rum distilleries.

 

[Janne]

Cane is a very common sweet for kids from poorer families. Most patients from Jamaica has chewed, or chew cane.
Weirdly enough - very little decayed teet.
The reason is the fibers have a cleaning action

 

[The Noble Savage]

Previously TNS pointed issues to the studies of vegan diet vs ASD, as basically not being a fair comparison. One group may be super healthy and into watching what they eat, so yes they will be healthier than the other. If compared a vegan and meat eating diet where both are super healthy and ultra interested in what they eat, would the vegan option really be the overridingly healthy option? has anyone done such a study?

Mousey,

I found something that may interest you about this. The EPIC-Oxford study tracks health-conscious eaters, both omnivorous and not. That's about as good as it's going to get.

I found this report http://jacknorrisrd.com/nutrient-intakes-of-vegans/ that summarises nutritional input.

He notes that with the exceptions of consumption of vitamins A and zinc (and of course B12), the vegans are doing ok. But the omnivores-at least as far as nutrient consumption--are doing better.

Here's the full study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844163/

The data from this study aren't ideal, because they tell us little about long-term health. But they do tell us something. And I'll note that one of the authors disclosed a conflict of interest as a member of the Vegan Society.

From the abstract, "Highly significant differences were found in estimated nutrient intakes between meat eaters and vegans, with fish eaters and vegetarians usually having intermediate values. Meat eaters had the highest energy intakes, followed by fish eaters and vegetarians, whereas vegans had the lowest intakes. Vegans had the highest intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber, vitamins C and E, folate, magnesium, iron, and copper. Meat eaters had the highest intake of saturated fatty acids, protein, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, zinc, and iodine. Fish eaters had the highest intakes of calcium and selenium. There were no statistically significant differences in sodium and potassium intakes between dietary groups. With the exception of sodium intake, compliance with population dietary goals was high across diet groups."

So, first of all, we have a pretty good sense that everyone in the EPIC-Oxford study is health conscious, meaning "apples to apples" comparisons. And we have a pretty good sense that healthy diets--across a broad range of diet patterns--deliver different nutrients.

And according to the authors, "the estimated prevalence of dietary inadequacy was low", meaning that pretty much everyone was doing well on whatever diet they chose.

It's important to highlight that, again, when the authors write that "Previous studies in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)–Oxford cohort showed associations between the vegetarian dietary pattern and lower risk of IHD [4], diverticular disease [5], cataract [6], hypertension [7], kidney stones [8], and some types of cancer [9]," that the causes that are attribute to these differences in some of citied studies are linked to BMI, not diet per se.

"Non-meat eaters, especially vegans, have a lower prevalence of hypertension and lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures than meat eaters, largely because of differences in body mass index," write the authors of the hypertension study cited above, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12372158

But, and this is huge, the ischemic heart disease study suggests that "Consuming a vegetarian diet was associated with lower IHD risk, a finding that is probably mediated by differences in non-HDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure".

In plain English, vegetarians enjoy a lower risk of IHD, due to better cholesterol and blood pressure.

The authors also--I think misleadingly--report that "A recent meta-analysis concluded that vegetarians have a significantly lower ischemic heart disease (IHD) mortality (29%) and overall cancer incidence (18%) than do nonvegetarians [3]."

This is again an "apples or oranges" comparison of the health conscious against the SAD. Please see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895 for the full study. This is not drawn from EPIC-Oxford data, but rather from the same bad samples I've discussed before.

What can we conclude from these?

1. health conscious eaters tend to get the nutrients they need, although vegans need to be careful about supplements.
2. you want to keep BMI, blood pressure, and cholesterol in check. (I have some reservations about BMI as a metric--the same ones that pretty much everyone has).
3. given that vegans consume less total calories, they generally have lower BMIs and everything else that goes with that. (Here, I may be drawing a bad inference. Help me out!!! Is this related to something other than caloric intake?)
4. it looks like vegetarianism offers some unique health benefits relative certain types of cancer, etc.

 

[Janne]

Interesting the Vegans did not have any major issues with Vit D.

 

[The Noble Savage]

I think they probably did, and so does Jack Norris, the dietitian and vegan I sited above.

One significant weakness of the EPIC-Oxford study is that it tracks consumption and makes assumptions about nutrients from that.

Another is that is assumed that some of the foods that vegans eat are fortified to provide some of these "vegetable rare" or "not very bio-available from vegetable" vitamins and minerals.

He--and others--suggest a wide range of vitamins and minerals are likely to demand supplementation for vegans.

The study i cite that tracks these differences notes that, even with these assumptions in place, "Vegans had the lowest intakes of vitamins B2, B12, and D, whereas meat eaters had the highest intakes of these nutrients."

It's also worth nothing that the stated purpose of the study was, given an assumption that vegan diets are superior, to assess the nutritional adequacy of eliminating meat for the broader public. As they write, "Although it is generally accepted that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are nutritionally adequate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle and across all physical activity levels, concerns exist about their potential inadequacy in regard to some nutrients, especially in vegans."