/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.4523412]

> implying the complex carb filled shit you eat is better than a diet of meat, non-starchy vegetables, nuts and fruits cavemen ate; i.e the thing we've spent millions of years evolving to be fueled by aren't the healthiest foods

The foods you eat might be better for us than a typical modern diet, but such diets are not natural. Reverting to a diet which is composed exclusively of the things we've evolved to eat, would surely be massively healthier, wouldn't it?

> protip: it is. look into the work of dr natasha campbell mcbride

[Anonymous No.4523415]

i'd rather eat fruit and veg than meat as a main source.

mmm that joocy joocy fruit.

[Anonymous No.4523426]

>the work of dr natasha campbell mcbride
Well, fuck. I'm convinced.

[Anonymous No.4523444]

>>4523426
okay, try elaine gottschall, or dr sydney valentine haas. or the hundreds of thousands of people online who have used this diet to not only improve their general health, but also to cure supposedly incurable diseases.
i'm alive because of this dietary approach to overcoming health problems. i'm not alone. if darwin was still breathing, i think he'd agree too.

[Anonymous No.4523484]

>>4523415
I avoid meat as much as I can nigga, but there's no way you would survive on vegs and fruits alone. You need calcium and protein, and shit. Soy, nuts, that kind of shit.

[Anonymous No.4523490]

>>4523484
oh don't get me wrong, i eat all types of food. meat, grain,nut, fruit, veg, soy. i just really love fruit and veg and its a bigger part of my daily diet than meat.

[Anonymous No.4523511]

>>4523484

>but there's no way you would survive on vegs and fruits alone. You need calcium and protein, and shit.

Many people survive on fruit and veg. Leafy greens are a major calcium source, and everything has protein in it. Do you think a rhino or a gorilla doesn't get enough protein from eating vegetation?

[Anonymous No.4523512]

>>4523412
Dr John McDougall has disproved paleo time and time again.

Ancient men would mainly eat fruit, vegetables and nuts because that's what you can gather. You gather a lot more than you can hunt.

You could not hunt as much meat as you eat on your stupid diet.

Call it low carb, Atkins or whatever your stupid low energy diet is, but don't call it paleo.

[Anonymous No.4523521]

>>4523412
Better Food pyramid, 5000 eons in MSPaint

[Anonymous No.4523535]

>>4523511
Well, good point.

[Anonymous No.4523546]

>>4523512
>Ancient men would mainly eat fruit, vegetables and nuts because that's what you can gather.
> The foods we've evolved to eat are inferior, our bodies have evolved incorrectly
1: The things we've been eating for the majority of the time we've existed are the things our bodies are designed to be fueled by. I'm sorry, but they just are.

[Anonymous No.4523549]

>>4523546
2: Fuck McDougall
3: Evolution is a force of nature.
4: Dicks.

[Anonymous No.4523555]

>>4523484
There are vegetable sources of calcium, including in a lot of vegan staples such as soy, lentils, sesame, chickpeas, etc.

[Anonymous No.4523554]

>>4523546
>>Ancient men would mainly eat fruit, vegetables and nuts because that's what you can gather.
I think that's what OP is saying.

[Anonymous No.4523552]

>>4523511

Do you think a Human has the same digestive system as a Gorilla or a Rhino?

[Anonymous No.4523563]

>>4523552

Do you think a rhino and a gorilla have the same digestive system? That's just how nature works. We don't need a hundred grams of protein a day, despite what the meat, milk, and protein powder industry will tell you

[Anonymous No.4523574]

>>4523546
>>4523549

We don't have a lot of the evolutionary parts of an omnivore who mainly eats meat. We're more herbivorous in nature.

We did not EVOLVE into eating meat. I'm sure humans ate meat when they could get it, but fruit is far easier to get and easier to digest. We live in the 21st century, where we can eat in abundance. We don't need meat. We can just eat fruit, as much as we want. It's a glorious time, so revel in it.

[Anonymous No.4523575]

>>4523563

>Implying your average vegetarian has the time and finances to consume their own weight in vegetables every day.

>Implying you won't harm an orangutan by removing the meat from it's diet.

Humans are omnivores, rhinos are not.

Evolution has spoken.

[Anonymous No.4523577]

I read into it and tried it to get a feel for it but I soon concluded that is was simply a remarketed Atkins diet.
Don't get me wrong because there is a lot to be said for eating more foods that are closer to their natural sources.
Ditching all legumes, grains (including alcohol), rice, corn, potatoes, dairy, and according to some even spices won't work for me because I love cooking with them and I doubt their adverse effects.
Stuffing my face with piles of eggs, nuts and sausages all day sounds appealing but in practice, for me, it really isn't.
Not my cup of tea.

[Anonymous No.4523580]

>>4523575

If you think a vegetarian only eats vegetables, you need to stop trying to take part in these kinds of conversations. Frugivore diet is best diet

[Anonymous No.4523581]

>>4523577
>remarketed Atkins diet.
it makes me so sad to read this.
the atkins diet is extremely healthy, for those who are suffering from the presence of pathogenic intestinal microorganisms. the SCD is massively better, is largely the same; albeit more restrictive; but is still extraordinarily healthy for those who diet not for weight loss, but for general health.

[Anonymous No.4523605]

>>4523580

I believe vegetarian - the term I used - is defined as "the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat". That said, if what you're saying is that it's proper to consume meat in healthier moderation than the American-style steak, I would agree with you.

The best diet is dependent on the individual's body and genetics. There is no one-size fits all for food. Look at lactose-intolerance. It's more about healthy preperation, and what your lifestyle and energy levels are like.

What's the climate where you live? If it's dry you'll need more liquids in your system - if it's wet then you need less.

[Anonymous No.4523606]

>>4523574
>We did not EVOLVE into eating meat
Well, we ate meat, and as such we developed a digestive system which is capable of turning meat into energy. You doubt this? Do you even K9?

The foods we've been eating for the majority of the time we've existed are the healthiest foods, simply because our bodies have been constructed in such a way that they simply must be. Vegetarians no doubt eat a healthier diet than most, but not than their ancestors from whom their genes were inherited.

lrn2evolve.

[Anonymous No.4523610]

>>4523581
Oh I'm not attacking the diets.

When I said
>I doubt their adverse effects.
I was referring to me personally.

I'm sure they can be very beneficial to other individuals and possibly to me as well but I find them too restrictive.

[Anonymous No.4523624]

I've been leaning to a less-grainy diet lately. the past year I've been having some bad problems with breads, pastas, yeasty stuff and grain alcohols. The doc said it could just be a gluten sensitivity and that it could be stress related or because I lost a whole bunch of weight a few years ago and was trying to re-introduce shit to my diet i hadn't really eaten much of in years.

bonus, my skin is a little better and I get to drink hard cider and wine instead woo. i have less of a craving for sugar too which helps my skin as well. i go to bed not wanting to eat a whole bottle of tums or in severe pain.
I've still been eating some rice, oat and 'ancient' grains here and there for sake of simplicity and doesn't do much to me, if anything. i think its wheat related. I have some family members with similar problems, so I'm not surprised.

[Anonymous No.4523622]

>>4523606
We've been eating fruits, vegetables and nuts longer than meat, though.

My body runs better than yours because I eat 100% fruit

[Anonymous No.4523626]

>>4523606

>Implying someone who's willing to work on their diet enough to be a vegetarian is not already pre-disposed to be more healthy just by caring what's in their body.

There are unhealthy vegetarians for sure, but most are healthier simply because they care. There's a reason vegetarians aren't the standard among athletes. It's possible for sure, but it's not the ideal.

[Anonymous No.4523627]

>>4523622
>My body gets the runs better than yours because I eat 100% fruit

[Anonymous No.4523644]

>>4523521
Get rid of fats you should be getting your dietary allowance from grains, nuts, and meats. Get rid of sweets, I never understood why it's allowed to be on a dietary recommendation.

[Anonymous No.4523662]

>>4523626
Quite right. Surely the "ideal" must be the things our environment has provided us with. The things mankind has lived on for thousands of years.
Cavemen didn't know of bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, and they CERTAINLY didn't know of the almost incomprehensible amount of complex carbs which we eat today. These are alien entities to our bodies. They're simply not able to cope with something so new. We've been eating complex carbs for 2,000 years.
We've been evolving for much longer.
There are some root vegetables which contained starch and were an occasional part of our diets, but they were laborious to gather and not nearly as tasty as the alternatives.

Starch is everywhere, all of a sudden.
Just because it doesn't immediately kill you, doesn't mean it's as healthy as the foods we've been designed to eat.

[Anonymous No.4523681]

>>4523626
Quite right, except that you imply vegetarianism is healthier than a diet which contains meat. Surely the "ideal" must be the things our environment has provided us with. The things mankind has lived on for thousands of years.
Cavemen didn't know of bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, and they CERTAINLY didn't know of the almost incomprehensible amount of complex carbs which we eat today. These are alien entities to our bodies. They're simply not able to cope with something so new. We've been eating complex carbs for 2,000 years.
We've been evolving for much longer.
There are some root vegetables which contained starch and were an occasional part of our diets, but they were laborious to gather and not nearly as tasty as the alternatives.

Starch is everywhere, all of a sudden.
Just because it doesn't immediately kill you, doesn't mean it's as healthy as the foods we've been designed to eat.

[Anonymous No.4523687]

>>4523644
True.
You can use some oil for cooking or dressing salads but don't over do it.
Processed sugars in sweets are unnecessary and as far as I'm concerned fall into the category where I put recretional drugs.
I don't say don't use it but use moderation and realise they don't contribute to your diet.

[Anonymous No.4523703]

>natural
>healthy

so, not enjoying that +70 year life expectancy OP?

[Anonymous No.4523707]

>>4523703
> i know better than nature

[Anonymous No.4523710]

>>4523681

I think for the most part, we agree. I was disagreeing with the idea in the last post that "vegetarians no doubt eat a healthier diet than most"

I believe that's a misconception caused by the fact that someone who cares enough to adopt any dietary lifestyle is also likely to care enough to try and be healthy within it.

The majority of western diets have too many carbs (bread/pasta are not healthy for you, I agree) and too much meat. Not to say one should eliminate meat entirely, which is also terrible for you, but you'll find most athletes don't have a dinner-plate sized steak every night.

tl;dr eliminating meat or "everything white" and thinking it's a blanket fix is inherently unhealthy. Paying attention to what you're eating, how it's prepared and in what amounts is where it's at, to my experience anyway.

[Anonymous No.4523711]

>>4523703
Remind me what is killing most people now? Dietary habits? What?

[Anonymous No.4523717]

>>4523681
>We've been eating complex carbs for 2,000 years.
Um, a little longer than that broski.

Also, domesticated dogs have already adapted to a starch-based diet versus their wild counterparts. These things aren't as slow as you think.

[Anonymous No.4523719]

>>4523711
Meth? Cigarettes? Soda?
I've no idea and frankly it's irrelevant. I don't doubt that your dinner of sprouts and tofu is healthier than the average maccy d's and milkshake, but that doesn't make it the healthiest diet humans can possibly eat. Evolution decides that.

[Anonymous No.4523729]

>>4523711

In North America? Cancer, which is linked to genetically modified food, which is and has been the standard here for a long time now. 85% of all corn grown in the U.S. is modified.

In essence one could argue it is indeed diet - just not in the way OP is looking at it.

[Anonymous No.4523732]

>>4523729
Find a source linking cancer with GMO food, I've yet to see that.

Pretty sure it is a result of overeating and lack of exercise.

[Anonymous No.4523733]

>>4523719
>Evolution decides that.
Things have changed so much in the last few thousand years you can't possibly believe we should emulate the dietary habits from 1,000,000 y.a.

[Anonymous No.4523737]

>>4523622
>because I eat 100% fruit

That would put me in a horrible sugar dip rollercoaster coupled with explosive diarrhea and highly concentrated regret.
Also bad teeth.

[Anonymous No.4523740]

>>4523622
>We've been eating fruits, vegetables and nuts longer than meat, though.
Our ancestors were chemotrophs and consumed hydrogen sulfide longer than we've been eating fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Guess we should do that.

[Anonymous No.4523742]

>>4523733
> should
yes.
> can
another matter. just because not everyone can do it, doesn't mean that the well informed shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.4523744]

>>4523740
>2013
>not being a filter feeder

[Anonymous No.4523747]

>>4523742
You seem to think evolution is static and we should mimic our ancestors because, "it is the best way".

[Anonymous No.4523765]

>>4523747
I think evolution is such that we cannot within a few thousand years so comprehensively alter the foods by which we're fueled. It doesn't happen overnight.
If vegetarianism is in fact so much healthier, why is your body designed to process meats?

[Anonymous No.4523778]

>>4523765
>why is your body designed
Closet creationist detected.

>I think evolution is such that we cannot within a few thousand years so comprehensively alter the foods by which we're fueled.
See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html

You realize the microflora of your body comes from your mother and changes according to your diet and, subsequently, culture?

You can't pretend humans are all the same and we are stuck in time millions of years ago prior to the explosion of genotypic diversity we see today.

In short, you are relying on broscience and a hunch.

[Anonymous No.4523800]

>>4523687
You realize the microflora of your body comes from your mother and changes according to your diet and, subsequently, culture?
The intestinal microflora is unique to every person. It is absolutely not defined by your parents. Your mother gives you the first batch, then thereafter you're on your own. Antibiotics and the foods you eat tend to be the things which determine which probios we're incubating.

> You can't pretend humans are all the same and we are stuck in time millions of years ago prior to the explosion of genotypic diversity we see today.

Nope, but we're MASSIVELY similar genetically - as such, we react in much the same way to toxins and irregular diets.

> In short, you are relying on broscience and a hunch.

I'm relying on science which emerged in 1940 and has been researched and implemented to this day, by the people I've already mentions.

Furthermore, Dawkins once said: "It's a sad state of affairs when one must choose between health and budget"

Oh, and Hippocrates stated: "All diseases begin in the gut".

I'm not trying to appear condescending, but having spent 13 years battling disease by way of dietary approach, online as opposed to via sources which seek solely to make profit: I know my shit.

[Anonymous No.4523804]

>>4523732

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

[Anonymous No.4523811]

>>4523800
>It is absolutely not defined by your parents. Your mother gives you the first batch
Pick one. Also, what is the founder effect?

>Nope, but we're MASSIVELY similar genetically - as such, we react in much the same way to toxins and irregular diets.
Then why do Asians metabolize soy isoflavones, like genistein, differently? Because their microflora is different than that of a Westerner.

>Hippocrates
Please find a better source.

[Anonymous No.4523828]

>>4523811
> Pick one. Also, what is the founder effect?
Your initial exposure to bacteria comes from your mother's cunt. After that, your microflora goes through massive changes to best suit your body.
If you were to have an (impossible) colon transplant, you'd die. Your flora is your own, it is absolutely unique to you. Go to China for a week, eat their food, and see how well your intestine copes with these new; healthy to some; organisms make you feel. Take plenty of toilet roll.

> Then why do Asians metabolize soy isoflavones, like genistein, differently? Because their microflora is different than that of a Westerner.
See above.

> Find a better source than the very father of medicine

No.

[Anonymous No.4523830]

>>4523804
While I'd like to see a research article showing this definitively, that paper you are citing was very flawed.

[Anonymous No.4523833]

>>4523828
>Find a better source than the very father of medicine
Remind me if he had access to next generation sequencing technology, let alone a basic microscope?

[Anonymous No.4523839]

>>4523833
> Einstein was a fool because he had inferior tech
Sweet.

[Anonymous No.4523841]

>>4523828
>After that, your microflora goes through massive changes to best suit your body.
So then why do you think we have to eat like our ancestors did?

[Anonymous No.4523847]

>>4523839
So we should follow Humorism because of some appeal to authority?

[Anonymous No.4523873]

>>4523841
I can answer this, but it'll take all night.

In a nutshell, it's because the micro organisms which live inside us now, evolve so fast that we can literally watch it happening in real time under a microscope. They evolve faster than we, with our 1 babby every 9 months, ever could.

Mono saccharides can be absorbed in the small intestine, as they don't need to be broken down in order to be absorbed as simple sugar mono saccharides.

The caveman diet is comprised almost entirely of simple sugars (i.e not starch), meats, fats, simple carbs from veg and fruits.

In the last 200 years our intake of complex carbs has increased from around 0.5% of our diet, to around 70%. Our cases of intestinal disease such as colitis, crohns and cancer have increased approximately proportionally to the cases of intestinal and mental disorder we've seen within the same timeframe.

i feel like i should be posting on /x/. this all sounds like conspiracy, but a single appointment with mcbride may well just change your life.

[Anonymous No.4523880]

>>4523839
>> Einstein was a fool

He never suggested such a thing so you're using a cheap sophism.
Stop that.

[Anonymous No.4523882]

>>4523873
that was a little too condensed, not sure i got my point across.

google the "specific carbohydrate diet", it'll explain massively better than i'm able to. it's not a weight loss diet, it's a diet which will make you live decades longer than you will if you keep stuffing your faces with shit you erroneously consider to be healthy.

[Anonymous No.4523885]

>>4523873
>In a nutshell, it's because the micro organisms which live inside us now, evolve so fast that we can literally watch it happening in real time under a microscope. They evolve faster than we, with our 1 babby every 9 months, ever could.
Again, if our microflora can "evolve" so fast and allow us to assimilate complex carbohydrates, why should we avoid eating them?

>The caveman diet is comprised almost entirely of simple sugars (i.e not starch)
Based on what evidence? Many indigenous peoples rely on starchy tubers and rhizomes as a source of energy. Why do we produce amylase?

How does glycogen fit in your view?

[Anonymous No.4523894]

>>4523885
>Again, if our microflora can "evolve" so fast and allow us to assimilate complex carbohydrates, why should we avoid eating them?
Because you're feeding yourself, not solely the bacteria which live inside you

If anyone is reaaaally interested in this stuff, and wants to live longer, buy a book named "breaking the vicious cycle". It's sole aim is to provide quite simply, the most healthy diet it is possible for any human to consume. The doc who wrote it, did so because her son's life depended on it.

[Anonymous No.4523911]

>>4523894
>If anyone is reaaaally interested in this stuff, and wants to live longer, buy a book named "breaking the vicious cycle"
You can't discuss this objectively and openly, based on peer-reviewed evidence and logic. You rely on dubious books created by people hocking their fad diet without any actual empirical evidence.

Sorry, I need a little more data to go on than, "this diet will make you live decades longer because someone said so".

[Anonymous No.4523924]

>>4523911
aw, well that's a shame, because it works precisely as prescribed, but i'm too stoned to prove it to you.

you can however google "specific carbohydrate diet". for every 1 negative review, you'll find 100 positive reviews. it has literally changed lives. prince charles used it in the 1980's to cure himself of intestinal disease.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=specific+carbohydrate+diet+testimonials&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

[Cavemen were stupid No.4524212]

>>4523412
>Implying evolution
>implying that you are dietarily speaking, similar to creatures that lived thousands of years ago
>Implying we would not have evolved past that
>Implying you are not a retard who did not think this through
>implying implications

>Protip: You are not as clever as you believe

[Anonymous No.4524217]

>>4523924
>aw, well that's a shame, because it works precisely as prescribed, but i'm too stoned to prove it to you.
>but i'm too stoned to prove it to you.
>you can however google "specific carbohydrate diet". for every 1 negative review, you'll find 100 positive reviews. it has literally changed lives.
>prince charles used it in the 1980's to cure himself of intestinal disease.

Oh wow, it has great Yelp reviews and Prince Charles used it? That's proof for me!

[Anonymous No.4524242]

>>4523412

>No milk
>Implying milk isn't a goddamn super food in liquid form

I know exactly zero worthwhile human beings that don't drink milk.

[Anonymous No.4524293]

>>4524242

[Anonymous No.4524386]

>>4523828
So why are fecal transplants a thing?

[Anonymous No.4524409]

>>4524386

Because people are stupid, and someone somewhere is willing to try or do just about anything, and often times they belive it works even if it really doesn't. See: confirmation bias, "Emperor's new Clothes", etc. It doesn't have to work or have any benefit in order for people to attempt it. For example, "pyramid power", crystal healing, homeopathy, etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.4524414]

>>4524409
Then why is it supported in peer reviewed journals? Put some effort in before you call bullshit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223289/

[Anonymous No.4524422]

>>4524409
gut bacteria is a real thing, einstein.

[Anonymous No.4524427]

I'm going to start a new blog: The Ignorant Skeptic.

[Anonymous No.4524430]

>>4523606

2000 years from now, people like this guy will be saying "you NEED ice cream and soda and burgers in your diet, that's what we evolved to eat, look at our ancestors during the McDonalds period!"

[Anonymous No.4524456]

Pro-tip:

Evolution doesn't give a fuck about your gay little diet.
If you are at an age where you are worrying about the difference between paleo and normal carb shit, then it doesn't fucking matter.

[Anonymous No.4524479]

>>4524456

More or less. It's only really relevant if you have certain preexisting health concerns, and then there are far more important factors then diet. There is no "optimal diet" because evolution doesn't care about what is optimal for long-term human health, it just cobbled together anything that allowed us to extract enough energy from our environment to fuel us long enough to reproduce.