Blog

1

1

Possible Duplicate:
Valid study? Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality

Would you?

Is your answer impacted by THIS ARTICLE?

"According to a study published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a low-carb diet may reduce the risk of death from all medical causes, especially heart disease—if it's heavy on proteins and fats from plants, not animals."

flag
Because articles claiming this or that reduces the risk of death doesn't come out almost daily. Why is this one any more true than any of the others? I say find what works for you, what makes you feel good, healthy, and strong and get on with it. – HeatherC Mar 19 2011 at 0:53
See the link that Ambimorph posted to a previous paleohack. There are one quadzillion flaws in the study that various people astutely point out. So the takeaway is that "No, you answer would not be impacted by this article" :) – Kamal♦ Mar 19 2011 at 1:37
Some people need a plant diet for detox. I thrive well for some time on my plant diet. i gone for meat not for health reason. I went for meat cause i was living in the cold bioregion now and it was more senseful. When i start eating meat again i notice that i not differ between good and worse meat and i failed. after i go more on a paleo Western price diet. Now i have vegan times between to detox my body. vegan diet is for me no grains. no lentisl or beans. raw fresh vegetables or slightly steamed – oak0y Mar 19 2011 at 11:56

closed as exact duplicate by Bread-Eating Beelzebub Mar 20 2011 at 12:18

9 Answers

6

No, I wouldn't. That's a one-way ticket to bone loss. Most plant proteins have low or no glutamine and I'd wind up buffering from my calcium stores.

The number one cause of death is birth. If you didn't wanna die you shouldn't have showed up. :P The key is how you spend your life. Personally I'd rather spend mine with as little disability as I can manage. I can't control everything, but of what I can control... you know what I mean?

link|flag
6

NO human society has EVER thrived without Meat. Why would that be? WE NEED IT, and we have ample proof backing up B12, K2, etc, etc.

stop reading vegan propaganda and go have a Steak, preferably Grassfed. Then remember to smile and thank a farmer!

link|flag
2 
 Best answer I have ever seen against vegetarian religion...or worse yet vegan religion. – Aaron Curl Mar 19 2011 at 1:56
3 
 Those are bold statements, and using caps may be the downfall of these statements. Hundreds of millions of people in western India, going back to the 6th century BC, have been lacto-vegetarian with pretty much no meat intake at all. Unless you define thrive so as to fit your preferences, these people have done quite alright in comparison to other parts of the world with respect to major health indicators. Huge swaths of these people have not, in fact, been cut down by chronic disease (that is, until western foods started creeping into the diet). – Kamal♦ Mar 19 2011 at 7:14
THere are a lot people thriving without meat. The blue zone people eat less meat. A lot people through history eat less meat. Some eat a lot meat. Some eat a lot vegetable and rarely meat. Some eat vegetables if it is warm. – oak0y Mar 19 2011 at 11:52
I will respectfully disagree. Strongly. Lacto is not veg. Thrive is important. And I still stand that no long term groups have thrived... Eating crappy for a couple generations proves only that you can survive. But just like paleo, we have to look further than recent, ad we have to consider the absence of diseases + issues. There is a ridiculous amount of literature debunking veg*nism... I won't waste any more of my time suggesting you go read more. – Stephen-Aegis Mar 19 2011 at 12:49
1 
 My point is more semantic than pro-veg. Being an Indian whose ancestors for at least a couple thousand years have not eaten meat, your statement is not true. You said "without meat" not "without yogurt and ghee". My family eats yogurt and ghee, but no meat or fish or eggs. Going back three generations, the elders have lived to at least 75 years of age, without fancy medical care. This pattern is repeated for many millions of people in several Indian states. If your post is more about veganism that "without Meat", than it makes more sense. But many lacto-vegetarian societies have done okay. – Kamal♦ Mar 19 2011 at 16:18
4

No way jose. I was a vegetarian at one point in my life and since going paleo I am now a no-return-to-the-abyss carnivore convert. I like my diet consisting mainly of meat. Mmmhmm

link|flag
4

This study has been discussed in detail here already: http://paleohacks.com/questions/9751/valid-study-low-carbohydrate-diets-and-all-cause-and-cause-specific-mortality

link|flag
3

never........plant based diets also have this hidden bomb few seem to talk about.....Omega 6 profile goes up in relations to omega 3. Not good at all. Plants are supplements! Never forget that.

link|flag
For our purposes a plant-based low carb diet would be horrible. What is it supposed to be all coconut? Laaaame. However in this study I reckon that the plant side had a better ratio. If you look at the omega 3s the authors said that they didn't change at all through any of the deciles in any of the groups (which is bull and demonstrates bias) but the plant side would have more omega 3 due to ALA in canola, flax and whatnot. The animal side (apparently) ate little beef so it would have been more pork and chicken fat, without extra omega 3s. Could that explain the difference? I think so. – Stabby Mar 19 2011 at 15:53
Vegans never want to talk about omega six profiles in their diets.....they are much higher than they think. that is why they have higher inflammatory blood tests and suffer from many chronic diseases – The Quilt Mar 19 2011 at 17:26
Except for the low fat ones. But that has its own problems. – Stabby Mar 19 2011 at 21:19
1

Uhh, lowcarb and plantbased is an oxymoron

link|flag
Veggies + tons of coconut and olive oil. Nuts, beans, soy (some of these are very non-paleo...). It can definitely be done. – Turnkey Mar 19 2011 at 21:51
0

I've seen these studies over time, and plan to go lighter on meat and heavier on the plant fat and plant protein. The nutrition profile of meat is good, but excessive protein and specifically iron are apparently detrimental to health. And unlike things like B6, eating more B12 (your big animal only source) is of limited help.

There is also some argument for simply broadening the food base. The less you are concentrated over a few items the less likely you are to eat enough of 1 thing to get the present toxins up to a level that can hurt you (every plant, and to a lesser extent every animal that eats them, will have something bad from you. And your body overcoming such things is probably important to health - but there is such a thing as to much).

I'm also keen on the argument that at least half the food in paleolithic times would have been gathered, ie. the non-hunters truly pulled their weight.

link|flag
You can be keen all you like, wanting something doesn't make it a fact. Not much to gather in winter.. – Alan Mar 20 2011 at 8:43
0

Interesting! I'm a converted pescatarian - in my studies there is a recommendation that one's meat ingestion should be equal to your weight in grams - that being the case I eat approximately 6 oz meat a day! That "ain't" a lot!

link|flag
0

NO, NO WAY NO HOW! At best plants are a mildly interesting garnish but mostly unnecessary. And who in their right mind would want to consume plant oils?

link|flag

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.