Is Vegan Gains Right?

[jitsmonkey]

I feel what comes with a healthier metabolism is a mellowing out of sorts - when you're less healthy, its more important to fight with others; when healthy, its less a big deal. When I started Peating, I wanted to tell the world why I was right and they were wrong. Now, healthier, it matters way, way less. More of an observer, now

I would go even further and say

Healthier = a substantially decreased obsession with being "right" (if not outright abandonment of said obsession)
Healthy people cease to see the world as a series of questions/problems with binary answers/solutions

 

[Runenight201]

I’m think it could also be associated with a recognition of wasted energy.

Most people who are adamant about dietary beliefs will fight you tooth and nail, and it’s completely useless because there’s nothing personal to gain from it.

 

[jitsmonkey]

I’m think it could also be associated with a recognition of wasted energy.

Most people who are adamant about dietary beliefs will fight you tooth and nail, and it’s completely useless because there’s nothing personal to gain from it.

;-) I think that falls somewhere between more healthy and more mature maybe both

 

[jitsmonkey]

30 years and counting.... still waiting to see a dietary argument end with one side saying
"wow, your argument was spot on, I agree with everything you said. I'm completely wrong and completely converted to your side" lololol

 

[Runenight201]

Yea, I don’t think it’s worth it much more to get personally invested unless government mandates are put in place against animal consumption.

For every other case, I just default to I feel healthier and stronger eating animals. I’ll usually be called delusional or anti-science (which really is hilarious), and then they’ll wish that me or my family die an early death of cardiovascular disease or cancer =P

 

[jitsmonkey]

Yea, I don’t think it’s worth it much more to get personally invested unless government mandates are put in place against animal consumption.

For every other case, I just default to I feel healthier and stronger eating animals. I’ll usually be called delusional or anti-science (which really is hilarious), and then they’ll wish that me or my family die an early death of cardiovascular disease or cancer =P

Cruelty to animals = Bad
Cruelty to people = Good
Animals = People
People = Animals
Me = Confused AF

 

[Runenight201]

I think if vegans learned more about biology and ecology, they would realize how out of sync veganism really is with how life proceeds on earth.

Everyone is eating someone, and even “herbivores” will eat smaller insects, bugs, and rodents given the chance.

We were also hunted for some thousands of years, and if it were not for our intellect we would be somewhere in the middle of the food chain.

That being said tho, factory farming does seem very out of sync with nature, and I’m empathetic towards arguments of animal suffering and quality of life. I do want to find a way to make sustainable, grass fed, open range animal rearing the economically attractive option.

 

[jitsmonkey]

I agree 100%. The culture of modern animal breeding/production/feeding/etc is beyond abysmal
It is cruel to EVERYONE involved from the animal to the the farmer to the consumer.
It is horrific beyond description.
It is at the core of Peat's consistent discussion of the destruction of our food supply

 

[Sourdoughbanana]

If we want to avoid being out of sync with nature I think that this speech sums things up well.



I'm not fond of anything that comes from agriculture at all. It all just seems to be subpar foods designed to keep masses alive.

Fruit, nuts, seeds, shellfish, plants, roots,honey = anything gathered = snacks all day, vegan, raw, whatever
Game, fish = hard to get = shared for dinner after a day out hunting, carnivore, whole animal nutrition etc.

I don't really see any positive to the "non-wild" way of eating. The "Warrior diet" is for instance a very easy way of planning things around.

Unfortunately fruitarians perceive meat as the absolute demon, and carnivores believe bananas and yams lead to obesity.

 

[jitsmonkey]

@Sourdoughbanana
indoor plumbing
health care
ample food supply
electricity
internet/information dissemination
are just 5 things of many
"out of sync with nature"
I don't think that's the objective at this point.
The objective is to attempt to thrive within a tremendously toxic culture of "progress".

 

[Sourdoughbanana]

you didn't watch the video

I'm sticking to dietary options. We can benefit from all the things you've mentioned, I'm not talking about freezing in caves. Ample fruit and meat supply is quite a wonderful progress.

 

[jitsmonkey]

you didn't watch the video

I'm sticking to dietary options. We can benefit from all the things you've mentioned, I'm not talking about freezing in caves. Ample fruit and meat supply is quite a wonderful progress.

you are correct I did not will not watch the video ;-)

 

[Sourdoughbanana]

yeah right, why receive education for free

 

[jitsmonkey]

yeah right, why receive education for free

Ignorance is my only vice.

 

[TeaRex14]

I'm a little confused about the question here. Is he right about dietary cholesterol raising serum cholesterol? Or is he right about saturated fat and dietary cholesterol causing heart disease? Or both? To answer the first question, yes it's entirely possible for dietary cholesterol to raise serum cholesterol. Our livers (when healthy) are able to regulate the amount of dietary cholesterol that's absorbed. If for whatever reason we aren't producing enough endogenously we will take more up through our diet. With that being said, I would argue (as well as most Peaters) that fruits, sucrose, and fructose stimulate cholesterol production much more efficiently then just eating it directly. That's because our livers don't regulate fructose in the same manner. If you have adequate choline levels, the fructose is converted into cholesterol and that begins the downstream effects of hormone synthesis. If you're choline deficient, the fructose is converted into fat (triglycerides) and you begin to get fatty liver. So sugar will produce cholesterol much more efficiently, when you have enough choline. To answer the second question, no he is wrong. In fact this notion commonly held by vegans is borderline bro science. Before even addressing the specifics, you have to go into this belief believing your own body is inherently trying to kill you. Cholesterol is not a evil substance that's antagonistic to heath, Broda Barnes clearly proved this by basically shattering the Framingham belief about heart disease. Out of 72 predicted heart attacks among Broda Barnes patients, he only had 4. The 4 patients that did have a heart attack, were only on 2 grains of thyroid. He speculated that if the dosage was increased they wouldn't have had heart attacks either. Mark Starr is a present day doctor that treats his patients in the same manner. None of his patients have ever suffered from heart attacks. Besides Barnes and Starr, the only other doctor I know of that's prevented heart attacks is doctor Esselstyn. However Esselstyn basically hacked it and in my opinion didn't really prevent the inflammatory disease, but rather prevented the most deliberating symptom of the disease.

Arterial plaque is just one of the symptoms, if you hack this with statins and very low fat diets you haven't cured heart disease, you've just prevented people from dying due to the plaque. Also it's important to note that some of Esselstyn's patients even received angioplasty surgery. I mean, you could eat doughnuts all day and cure heart disease with angioplasty, lol. Also most vegans recommend low fat starch diets. Starch by itself, without saturated fat or sugar, will raise cortisol levels. The starch triggers a huge insulin demand which will make your blood sugar bottom out, to compensate for this your body will raise the blood sugar back up with cortisol. If this viscous cycle keeps repeating itself you're left with a subject that experiences accelerated aging. Like in the case with Esselstyn, Greger, McDougall, etc. So to summarize, the leading vegan theory about artery disease is based off Esselstyn's work. Esselstyn used pharmaceutical drugs, diet, and in some cases arterial surgery to achieve his desired results. Which again, if you ask me, his desired results didn't even end with the removal of heart disease, just the removal of one symptom. The oxidative stress is still present due to low metabolism. But Broda Barnes, who's worked was covered up by the medical industry, actually cured the disease. I say this because unlike Esselstyn he didn't control cholesterol, diet, exercise, smoking, etc. and his patients still were vastly deficent in heart attacks. The only 4 being due to a dosage problem with NDT. Which Starr confirmed with his present day patients.

 

[boxers]

I'm a little confused about the question here. Is he right about dietary cholesterol raising serum cholesterol? Or is he right about saturated fat and dietary cholesterol causing heart disease? Or both? To answer the first question, yes it's entirely possible for dietary cholesterol to raise serum cholesterol. Our livers (when healthy) are able to regulate the amount of dietary cholesterol that's absorbed. If for whatever reason we aren't producing enough endogenously we will take more up through our diet. With that being said, I would argue (as well as most Peaters) that fruits, sucrose, and fructose stimulate cholesterol production much more efficiently then just eating it directly. That's because our livers don't regulate fructose in the same manner. If you have adequate choline levels, the fructose is converted into cholesterol and that begins the downstream effects of hormone synthesis. If you're choline deficient, the fructose is converted into fat (triglycerides) and you begin to get fatty liver. So sugar will produce cholesterol much more efficiently, when you have enough choline. To answer the second question, no he is wrong. In fact this notion commonly held by vegans is borderline bro science. Before even addressing the specifics, you have to go into this belief believing your own body is inherently trying to kill you. Cholesterol is not a evil substance that's antagonistic to heath, Broda Barnes clearly proved this by basically shattering the Framingham belief about heart disease. Out of 72 predicted heart attacks among Broda Barnes patients, he only had 4. The 4 patients that did have a heart attack, were only on 2 grains of thyroid. He speculated that if the dosage was increased they wouldn't have had heart attacks either. Mark Starr is a present day doctor that treats his patients in the same manner. None of his patients have ever suffered from heart attacks. Besides Barnes and Starr, the only other doctor I know of that's prevented heart attacks is doctor Esselstyn. However Esselstyn basically hacked it and in my opinion didn't really prevent the inflammatory disease, but rather prevented the most deliberating symptom of the disease.

Arterial plaque is just one of the symptoms, if you hack this with statins and very low fat diets you haven't cured heart disease, you've just prevented people from dying due to the plaque. Also it's important to note that some of Esselstyn's patients even received angioplasty surgery. I mean, you could eat doughnuts all day and cure heart disease with angioplasty, lol. Also most vegans recommend low fat starch diets. Starch by itself, without saturated fat or sugar, will raise cortisol levels. The starch triggers a huge insulin demand which will make your blood sugar bottom out, to compensate for this your body will raise the blood sugar back up with cortisol. If this viscous cycle keeps repeating itself you're left with a subject that experiences accelerated aging. Like in the case with Esselstyn, Greger, McDougall, etc. So to summarize, the leading vegan theory about artery disease is based off Esselstyn's work. Esselstyn used pharmaceutical drugs, diet, and in some cases arterial surgery to achieve his desired results. Which again, if you ask me, his desired results didn't even end with the removal of heart disease, just the removal of one symptom. The oxidative stress is still present due to low metabolism. But Broda Barnes, who's worked was covered up by the medical industry, actually cured the disease. I say this because unlike Esselstyn he didn't control cholesterol, diet, exercise, smoking, etc. and his patients still were vastly deficent in heart attacks. The only 4 being due to a dosage problem with NDT. Which Starr confirmed with his present day patients.

Very good. Thanks

 

[TeaRex14]

Very good. Thanks

No problem, I recommend you checkout Broda Barnes's book Solved: The Riddle of Heart Attacks. Very good book with a lot of informative information that has been either lost or covered up. The truth is heart disease is a very profitable illness, probably more so then cancer. There's absolutely no incentive for the medical industry to cure people of this. You can even see a few parallels between Barnes's work and Ray Peat's work too. The last chapter of his book Broda Barnes calls into question the polyunsaturated fats that people are eating.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Very good. Thanks

TeaRex14's post was excellent, but I just wanted to add, if you want one of (if not the) most thorough review of the Lipid and Diet/Heart Hypothesis, I would highly recommend reading Anthony Colpo's "The Great Cholesterol Con." He reviews about 30 observational studies in regards to dietary cholesterol and heart disease (including MONICA, far and away the largest study ever done), all the RCTs where they tested diet, and the Statin trials.

 

[Sourdoughbanana]

dietary cholesterol isn't an issue. My diet packs well over 1 gram of cholesterol. Low fat, and quality fats, and periods of undereating, are what work best to keep blood levels low.

the issue is 24/7 raised levels of blood cholesterol, meaning saturated LDL receptors, very probable hypothyroidism, poor cholesterol metabolism, high PCSK9, potentially NAFLD... people who have LDL way beyond any other mammal and brush it off because "the cholesterol hypothesis is bunk" are funny.

 

[TeaRex14]

dietary cholesterol isn't an issue. My diet packs well over 1 gram of cholesterol. Low fat, and quality fats, and periods of undereating, are what work best to keep blood levels low.

the issue is 24/7 raised levels of blood cholesterol, meaning saturated LDL receptors, very probable hypothyroidism, poor cholesterol metabolism, high PCSK9, potentially NAFLD... people who have LDL way beyond any other mammal and brush it off because "the cholesterol hypothesis is bunk" are funny.

"Way beyond" would probably be a problem, yes. The issue is trying to establish why the cholesterol is elevated in the first place. Unfortunately establishing the cause is not a concern to the medical industry. They'll simply blame your genetics and prescribe you a statin. The mainstream doesn't recognize heart disease as a metabolic issue, yet.