I have a cast on my hand so can't type much, but curious on your thoughts. They are comparing a veggie diet to one full of grain-fed meat. Wondering what the results would have been had they had a grassfed-eating test group as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/vegetarianism-stress-happiness-_n_1335664.html?ref=topbar&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
|
2
|
||||||||||
|
|
5
|
Dr. Emily Deans already wrote about this http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2012/02/meatless-and-happy-in-short-term.html |
||
|
|
|
3
|
Yeah, this is the same idiot who wrote that paleo is bunk a while back. From the article:
Ha ha, grains are associated with lower risk of obesity!!! Oh, right, just whole grains. Yeah keep on saying it, maybe close your eyes and try clicking your heels together and it'll come true. Diseases of civilization can be cured by eating a lot of grains, imagine that. But the paleo diet is bunk because it's not based on 'science'. That word does not mean what you think it means. |
||
|
|
|
2
|
That vegan nonsense is no help. Vegans are like the church down the street that became a cult. You can't rely on anything they say because everything they say and think is designed to lead you in the wrong direction. The best approach is switch them off, wait, then send Denise Minger in to rip it up. :) |
||
|
|
|
1
|
Looks like it confirms one of the core paleo mantras: that Omega 3:6 ratio has an incredibly important role in health (or in the case of the study "mood"). The part about the veggie test group having negligible EPA&DHA was a little scary. Lower Omega-6, good; no Omega-3, bad. |
||
|
|
|
1
|
It's odd to me that there's so much focus on the arachidonic acid in animal products when the human animal will make its own arachidonic acid from the N6 PUFA in seed oils. Personally, I don't worry about the N6 that is naturally found in "real" foods because my diet has long been completely devoid of all the industrial N6 seed oils found in modern diets. |
|||||||||||
|
|
1
|
Okay first of all there should be a serious red-flag reading through this study that makes most all of it's conclusions useless. It's a self-report study, but the three groups participating were given broad, general instructions for what to include and exclude from their diet. "OMN participants were directed to continue consumingmeat and/or poultry at least once daily. FISH participants were directed to avoid meat and poultry and consume at least 3-4 servings of seafood weekly (eggs were permitted). VEG participants were directed to avoid all animal foods except dairy for the 2-wk trial period. Participants were given written diet instructions and directed to maintain their activity pattern and lifestyle habits." This tells us absolutely nothing about what else they were eating besides that (we hope) the omnivores were eating some meat every day. The vegetarians for all we know opted for more nutrient dense foods and avoided the junk. The fish group were eating seafood most likely, once again what else were they eating? They managed a report of >95% compliance to the "diet" but this is terribly easy when the requirements are simply "avoid this" and "continue eating this". Plus, high compliance is not at all suprising in a self-report, because people often report they complied when they in fact did not. They feel breaking the rules will somehow invalidate their contribution. |
||||||
|
