• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Did humanity evolve through cooked food?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 May 2009 - 07:28 PM


http://www.nytimes.c...7...nted=1&_r=1

This article claims this is a new idea, but I'm pretty sure I had heard it before or considered it before somehow. Nevertheless, it seems like a pretty decent hypothesis.

In particular, this article cites some pretty unflattering evidence against the raw food diet. Yet, I know Matt and others have presented some impressive evidence pointing the other way. How can we reconcile this conflicting information? Perhaps humans only cooked certain types of food? Or at certain temperatures?

I am a vegetarian, and want to avoid the negative health effects of meat. Yet, I also try to compensate for the nutrients I lack (carnitine, carnosine, b12, iron, taurine, creatine). This article makes a blanket statement that cooking our food is more important than eating meat. I haven't read the book so I don't know if it makes any specific claims about the mechanisms by which cooked food benefits us, except its more efficient digestibility. Could this be implying that AGEs are overhyped as a factor of aging, or that they simply don't affect us soon enough to matter in terms of natural selection? I'm assuming the latter is true, if this topic was even covered.

Edited by progressive, 31 May 2009 - 07:30 PM.


#2 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:09 PM

In particular, this article cites some pretty unflattering evidence against the raw food diet.

The article did not cite anything at all, considering there are no foot-notes.

I am a vegetarian, and want to avoid the negative health effects of meat.

I think you might be mistaken. At best I've seen only weak, mechanistic evidence that "white" meat is detrimental (fish, poultry).

"He cites studies showing that a strict raw-foods diet cannot guarantee an adequate energy supply, and notes that, in one survey, 50 percent of the women on such a diet stopped menstruating. "
Considering he's ignorant of CR, I don't think he can mount a successful attack. People should read actual scientific papers dealing with the subject...

Could this be implying that AGEs are overhyped as a factor of aging, or that they simply don't affect us soon enough to matter in terms of natural selection?

Endogenous vs exogenous AGEs. We're pretty damn sure endogenous AGEs produced as a side-effect of (glucose) metabolism play an important role.

There are some (probably outstanding) papers about that topic and I'd love to read them but I haven't had the time.

Dietary advanced glycation end products--a risk to human health? A call for an interdisciplinary debate.
Henle T.
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Sep;51(9):1075-8. Review.

Evidence against dietary advanced glycation endproducts being a risk to human health.
Ames JM.
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Sep;51(9):1085-90. Review.

Edited by kismet, 31 May 2009 - 08:13 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 openeyes

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Chapel Hill, NC

Posted 01 June 2009 - 02:53 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...7...nted=1&_r=1

This article claims this is a new idea, but I'm pretty sure I had heard it before or considered it before somehow.


The first place I saw cooking food and it's potential impact discussed in an evolutionary sense was on page 186 of Life Without Bread by Christopher Allen and Wolfgang Lutz:

http://books.google....j3o2sC&pg=PA186

#4 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:18 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...7...nted=1&_r=1

This article claims this is a new idea, but I'm pretty sure I had heard it before or considered it before somehow.


The first place I saw cooking food and it's potential impact discussed in an evolutionary sense was on page 186 of Life Without Bread by Christopher Allen and Wolfgang Lutz:

http://books.google....j3o2sC&pg=PA186


Good find. I believe it has been discussed in these forums before as well. In any event, the guy in the article isn't the first to propose this... just the loudest. Of course we still need to consider the implications

#5 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:44 AM

I think you might be mistaken. At best I've seen only weak, mechanistic evidence that "white" meat is detrimental (fish, poultry).


Meat, especially red meat, is high in saturated fats, especially palmitic acid which is known to raise LDL cholesterol and lower HDL cholesterol. Factory-farmed cows are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics (even if they are healthy). Also, they are fed pesticide-ridden corn, instead of their natural diet of grass creating an imbalance of omega-6 and omega-3.

Raw meat often contains salmonella and other diseases, and even cooked ground beef is known to cause infection. On the other hand, cooked meat contains AGEs, and no amount of cooking can protect you from prions. I haven't yet reviewed the studies you cited, but from my current understanding the AGEs in meat are worrisome and many people here such as Mind go to great lengths to avoid them.

Of course the ethical, economic, and ecological aspects of industrialized meat production alone should be enough reason to stop eating meat, and the life-shortening aspect of it is merely a footnote. Everyone with a conscience knows in the back of their mind that it is wrong, and no amount of rationalization can justify it. The fact that it is conveniently cut, rinsed, irradiated, and wrapped in plastic does not change the fact the the purchase creates a demand signal for others to commit acts of extreme brutality.

Edited by progressive, 01 June 2009 - 07:46 AM.


#6 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:56 AM

contains AGEs, and no amount of cooking can protect you from prions.


Have you never heard of the mailard reaction?

#7 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 08:11 AM

contains AGEs, and no amount of cooking can protect you from prions.


Have you never heard of the mailard reaction?


Yes, I have. Except, the reactions which occur during cooking are not strong enough to kill mad cow disease and other prions

Will cooking (including microwave cooking) kill the BSE agent?
Current scientific research indicates that cooking will not kill the BSE agent.

Will irradiation kill the BSE agent?
Current scientific research indicates that irradiation will not kill the BSE agent.

http://www.fsis.usda...sease/index.asp


Edited by progressive, 01 June 2009 - 08:12 AM.


#8 CobaltThoriumG

  • Guest
  • 256 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Arizona Snow Bowl

Posted 01 June 2009 - 05:48 PM

I think you might be mistaken. At best I've seen only weak, mechanistic evidence that "white" meat is detrimental (fish, poultry).


Meat, especially red meat, is high in saturated fats, especially palmitic acid which is known to raise LDL cholesterol and lower HDL cholesterol. Factory-farmed cows are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics (even if they are healthy). Also, they are fed pesticide-ridden corn, instead of their natural diet of grass creating an imbalance of omega-6 and omega-3.

Raw meat often contains salmonella and other diseases, and even cooked ground beef is known to cause infection. On the other hand, cooked meat contains AGEs, and no amount of cooking can protect you from prions. I haven't yet reviewed the studies you cited, but from my current understanding the AGEs in meat are worrisome and many people here such as Mind go to great lengths to avoid them.

Of course the ethical, economic, and ecological aspects of industrialized meat production alone should be enough reason to stop eating meat, and the life-shortening aspect of it is merely a footnote. Everyone with a conscience knows in the back of their mind that it is wrong, and no amount of rationalization can justify it. The fact that it is conveniently cut, rinsed, irradiated, and wrapped in plastic does not change the fact the the purchase creates a demand signal for others to commit acts of extreme brutality.


Eating meat is wrong? I have a conscience and I don't know that it's wrong. I appreciate there are arguments that it's wrong. Things devour each other, or themselves, depending on how you view the connectedness of it all. Up to and including galaxies, perhaps universes. That's how nature works. Is that wrong? And if you say it is, who made you the judge other than for yourself? I tend to not eat much meat. But not because I think it's wrong. I don't like AGEs or iron.

#9 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 08:42 PM

Eating meat is wrong? I have a conscience and I don't know that it's wrong. I appreciate there are arguments that it's wrong. Things devour each other, or themselves, depending on how you view the connectedness of it all. Up to and including galaxies, perhaps universes. That's how nature works. Is that wrong? And if you say it is, who made you the judge other than for yourself? I tend to not eat much meat. But not because I think it's wrong. I don't like AGEs or iron.


That is probably the ultimate logical extension of the naturalistic fallacy. To clarify, I don't think consuming flesh itself is unethical, but contributing to the industrialized brutalization of animals is. Any action or purchase which contributes to this is unethical. When we can produce cultured meat from stem cells there would be no more ethical issues and far less ecological issues... and we could probably engineer it to contain any nutrients we like.

#10 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:01 PM

Eating meat is wrong? I have a conscience and I don't know that it's wrong. I appreciate there are arguments that it's wrong. Things devour each other, or themselves, depending on how you view the connectedness of it all. Up to and including galaxies, perhaps universes. That's how nature works. Is that wrong? And if you say it is, who made you the judge other than for yourself? I tend to not eat much meat. But not because I think it's wrong. I don't like AGEs or iron.


That is probably the ultimate logical extension of the naturalistic fallacy. To clarify, I don't think consuming flesh itself is unethical, but contributing to the industrialized brutalization of animals is. Any action or purchase which contributes to this is unethical. When we can produce cultured meat from stem cells there would be no more ethical issues and far less ecological issues... and we could probably engineer it to contain any nutrients we like.


I have cognitive dissonance with this.

Veganism, at least the version I was on, destroyed my teeth and caused other problems. I adopted the paleo diet and that disappeared. What I considered normal health on other diets is pretty bad in retrospect. I'm experiencing all kinds of improvements.

That said the diet clashes with my metaphysics — at least seems to; I have to think it through. But it's not enough (for me) to just think in terms of utility maximization. And I agree that the naturalistic argument is no good either.

I'm willing to go vegetarian (eggs, butter); I'm a high-fatter. But I worried that very high amounts of sat fat and cholesterol may be unprecedented in the human dietary history. And this might be a particular problem, if it isn't matched with adequate activity level. The paleo and high-fat people might be overgeneralizing with sat fats.

All options I've thought of aren't satifactory within my current understanding.

#11 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:30 PM

I have cognitive dissonance with this.

Veganism, at least the version I was on, destroyed my teeth and caused other problems. I adopted the paleo diet and that disappeared. What I considered normal health on other diets is pretty bad in retrospect. I'm experiencing all kinds of improvements.

That said the diet clashes with my metaphysics — at least seems to; I have to think it through. But it's not enough (for me) to just think in terms of utility maximization. And I agree that the naturalistic argument is no good either.

I'm willing to go vegetarian (eggs, butter); I'm a high-fatter. But I worried that very high amounts of sat fat and cholesterol may be unprecedented in the human dietary history. And this might be a particular problem, if it isn't matched with adequate activity level. The paleo and high-fat people might be overgeneralizing with sat fats.

All options I've thought of aren't satifactory within my current understanding.



I do think in terms of utility maximization, which includes self-interest, and think that it is possible to acquire milk and eggs in a decent way, but the effort required is more than most are willing to expend. Of course once you start getting into the ecological issues, then the utility curve looks less appealing.

I don't particularly like the term vegan though, and recently I have been experimenting with a vegan diet, but what I really care about is cruelty-free dieting. Certainly chocolate that was grown by african child labor is not something I could buy in good conscience, despite that it is vegan. Same with anything that is ecologically destructive, or any genetic material which has been unjustly stolen from the commons (read: all current GMO crops).

That said, vegan fats such as olive oil, cocoa, coconut, avocado, and almond are the best fats of any type. It is certainly possible to follow a paleo-style diet with regards to macronutrient ratios, and still be a vegan. Not that I'd recommend a paleo diet, but I certainly can understand why there is such an over-reaction against the mainstream low-fat meme.

When you were experiencing health issues were you supplementing with carnitine, lipoic acid, carnosine, taurine, creatine, and B12? I would also suggest watching your iron and calcium levels. Assuming those are taken care of, you would have obtained all the beneficial nutrients of meat, with none of the negative effects.

Some vegans opt to load up on the sugary foods, and obviously that would have bad effects for one's dental health. Yet, assuming one has proper oral care, there should be no problems in that department. Also, green tea is known to promote oral health.

Edited by progressive, 01 June 2009 - 10:37 PM.


#12 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:35 PM

On the other hand, cooked meat contains AGEs, and no amount of cooking can protect you from prions. I haven't yet reviewed the studies you cited, but from my current understanding the AGEs in meat are worrisome and many people here such as Mind go to great lengths to avoid them.

Correctly prepared poultry and fish will be rather low in AGEs.

Of course the ethical, economic, and ecological aspects of industrialized meat production alone should be enough reason to stop eating meat, and the life-shortening aspect of it is merely a footnote. Everyone with a conscience knows in the back of their mind that it is wrong, and no amount of rationalization can justify it. The fact that it is conveniently cut, rinsed, irradiated, and wrapped in plastic does not change the fact the the purchase creates a demand signal for others to commit acts of extreme brutality.

Yes, there are downsides (no, not 'ethical' downsides) to meat consumption, but I will not turn this into a meat vs veg* discussion (and I urge you strongly to keep morals out of this thread! It's a health board), but consider that a. avoiding meat is most probably unhealthy without supplementation and b. you have not provided the slightest evidence that "white meat" is unhealthy (btw, I don't have a clue why you turned this into a discussion about red meat), which probably isn't the case. From here on I will merely continue to discuss the scientific side if you choose to provide any references (I'd like to be proven wrong).

Edited by kismet, 01 June 2009 - 10:39 PM.


#13 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:53 PM

Correctly prepared poultry and fish will be rather low in AGEs.


True. If it is properly marinated and cooked with low heat.

Yes, there are downsides (no, not 'ethical' downsides) to meat consumption, but I will not turn this into a meat vs veg* discussion (and I urge you strongly to keep morals out of this thread! It's a health board),


I'm sorry for intruding upon your cyber-balkanized bubble. May you live a long and carefree life at the expense of others.

but consider that a. avoiding meat is most probably unhealthy without supplementation and b. you have not provided the slightest evidence that "white meat" is unhealthy (btw, I don't have a clue why you turned this into a discussion about red meat), which probably isn't the case. From here on I will merely continue to discuss the scientific side if you choose to provide any references (I'd like to be proven wrong).


There is another thread going on with this topic, and the following article was posted:

http://wholehealthso...omega-fats.html

Clearly the omega-6 content of poultry is worrisome.

Of course if they are pumped full of antibiotics like gentamicin, as is common, that isn't so good. Gentamicin has been known to cause renal failure in rats.

Sundin DP, Sandoval R, Molitoris BA: Gentamicin Inhibits Renal Protein and Phospholipid Metabolism in Rats: Implications Involving Intracellular Trafficking. J Am Soc Nephrol 12:114-123, 2001

#14 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 02 June 2009 - 03:40 AM

I do think in terms of utility maximization, which includes self-interest, and think that it is possible to acquire milk and eggs in a decent way, but the effort required is more than most are willing to expend. Of course once you start getting into the ecological issues, then the utility curve looks less appealing.

I don't particularly like the term vegan though, and recently I have been experimenting with a vegan diet, but what I really care about is cruelty-free dieting. Certainly chocolate that was grown by african child labor is not something I could buy in good conscience, despite that it is vegan. Same with anything that is ecologically destructive, or any genetic material which has been unjustly stolen from the commons (read: all current GMO crops).

That said, vegan fats such as olive oil, cocoa, coconut, avocado, and almond are the best fats of any type. It is certainly possible to follow a paleo-style diet with regards to macronutrient ratios, and still be a vegan. Not that I'd recommend a paleo diet, but I certainly can understand why there is such an over-reaction against the mainstream low-fat meme.

When you were experiencing health issues were you supplementing with carnitine, lipoic acid, carnosine, taurine, creatine, and B12? I would also suggest watching your iron and calcium levels. Assuming those are taken care of, you would have obtained all the beneficial nutrients of meat, with none of the negative effects.

Some vegans opt to load up on the sugary foods, and obviously that would have bad effects for one's dental health. Yet, assuming one has proper oral care, there should be no problems in that department. Also, green tea is known to promote oral health.


*Didn't mean to steer off topic; this discussion may belong in another area he has a point. But I don't think it should be shut out. And I appreciate the thorough response.*

I'll response in reverse order:
*Intuitively* I like the raw vegan diet from every angle except health. At mentally modelling the moral, ethical and environmental impact of various diets is hard. I have to think this through but raw vegan being best, seems intuitively obvious.

But I agree that that diet is often high in sugar/endo-AGEs. I do see a high fat version as possible. But the protein source would be an issue. I like moderately high intake because of satiety and muscles. A lot of the sources they eat make no sense from my perspective. Nuts weren't good for my teeth (during vegan trial), but that may be because they were weak already — old wheat eating habit was especially evil.

A thing I've read about the vegan fats you've mentioned is that they're processed differently than (and not as well as) animal fats. I wish I had citations. But I don't think it's a stretch knowing our evolutionary history. In my experience I feel better eating cocoa butter, coconut milk and olive oil when on high fat diet. Pasteurized dairy didn't feel good at all. I accept butter at the moment — I'd love to try raw dairy. The key seems to be limiting inflammatory factors when eating fats, regardless of whether flora or fauna fats.

To me, the mental effect of the diet is the most important; mind over body — always. Not to say that body isn't important, but it is secondary. Good health will see both well. I really dislike the dissonance right now. There is an elegant solution somewhere. But if it came down to a trade, I'd take a physical hit over a mental one; I'd rather eat suboptimally than stunt personal development — values are the most important.

Another issue here is that a diets' effect is subjective to an extent. The raw fooders seem to go heavily on that. I doubt many know about endogenous AGEs for instance; they're practically unobservable to us. While I think there's truth to subjective well being, at this point I run that as a lens along with an objective one — that's where things like ultility maximizations come in. I'm just trying to figure where the butter and eggs fit in with all this ... :-D

#15 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 June 2009 - 05:08 AM

But I agree that that diet is often high in sugar/endo-AGEs. I do see a high fat version as possible. But the protein source would be an issue. I like moderately high intake because of satiety and muscles. A lot of the sources they eat make no sense from my perspective. Nuts weren't good for my teeth (during vegan trial), but that may be because they were weak already — old wheat eating habit was especially evil.


As someone who does a moderate amount of strength training, I understand your concern in this area. Since moving away from animal products, I have become aware of the wide variety of non-animal sources by which good proteins can be obtained. I like Beans, Lentils, Chickpeas, Quinoa, Hemp Protein, Nuts (especially Almonds), Quorn, Rice Protein Powder, Pea Protein, and some Kamut (5g per serving). I also eat a limited amount of tofu.

A thing I've read about the vegan fats you've mentioned is that they're processed differently than (and not as well as) animal fats. I wish I had citations. But I don't think it's a stretch knowing our evolutionary history. In my experience I feel better eating cocoa butter, coconut milk and olive oil when on high fat diet. Pasteurized dairy didn't feel good at all. I accept butter at the moment — I'd love to try raw dairy. The key seems to be limiting inflammatory factors when eating fats, regardless of whether flora or fauna fats.


You mean processed by the body differently? The fats are chemically identical, so that is simply not true. The lauric acid in avocado and coconut and the stearic acid in dark chocolate is the same as the saturated fats from animal sources. The only difference is that animal products typically have much more of the harmful palmitic acid. Another difference is that there is more fiber in plants, typically, which slows the digestion, but that is mostly a good thing.

As far as reducing inflammation, I agree. However, I'd steer clear of raw milk since the probability of milk being infected is quite high, and not something to shrug off. Certain infections can be quite nasty and permanently affect your inflammation levels, or kill you. Even a small probability of this should weigh heavily in any decisions. Furthermore, if the animal is sick and develops mastitis, pus will get into the milk. Not such a good thing if you are worried about inflammation. Animal products are simply more prone to infection, and only irradiation or high temperatures can fix that, though there are trade-offs... I just recommend ditching the entire thing and moving to plant-based alternatives.

To me, the mental effect of the diet is the most important; mind over body — always. Not to say that body isn't important, but it is secondary. Good health will see both well. I really dislike the dissonance right now. There is an elegant solution somewhere. But if it came down to a trade, I'd take a physical hit over a mental one; I'd rather eat suboptimally than stunt personal development — values are the most important.


This reminds me of a great Einstein quote I heard.

"Although I have been prevented by outward circumstances from observing a strictly vegetarian diet, I have long been an adherent to the cause in principle. Besides agreeing with the aims of vegetarianism for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind." Translation of letter to Hermann Huth, December 27, 1930. Einstein Archive 46-756

Another issue here is that a diets' effect is subjective to an extent. The raw fooders seem to go heavily on that. I doubt many know about endogenous AGEs for instance; they're practically unobservable to us. While I think there's truth to subjective well being, at this point I run that as a lens along with an objective one — that's where things like ultility maximizations come in. I'm just trying to figure where the butter and eggs fit in with all this ..


Edited by progressive, 02 June 2009 - 05:18 AM.


#16 Not_Supplied

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 June 2009 - 10:21 AM

That said, vegan fats such as olive oil, cocoa, coconut, avocado, and almond are the best fats of any type


Why is this the case? I'm not being facetious, I'm just interested to know.

#17 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 June 2009 - 12:22 PM

That said, vegan fats such as olive oil, cocoa, coconut, avocado, and almond are the best fats of any type


Why is this the case? I'm not being facetious, I'm just interested to know.


Extra virgin olive oil, avocado, and almond are great sources of oleic acid, which is a very healthy monounsaturated fat proven to lower LDL cholesterol and raise HDL. Oleic acid is virtually impossible to find in significant quantities in animal sources.

Virgin coconut oil or any MCT oil is high in lauric acid, which is probably the least harmful saturated fat. Saturated fat can be better for high temperature cooking since it doesn't degrade into horrible things in heat. Cocoa butter is high in stearic acid, a relatively benign saturated fat, and also high in polyphenols... oh yea.... and it's chocolate.

Edited by progressive, 02 June 2009 - 12:40 PM.


#18 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 02 June 2009 - 12:41 PM

There is another thread going on with this topic, and the following article was posted:

http://wholehealthso...omega-fats.html

Clearly the omega-6 content of poultry is worrisome.

How come? Poultry is (or can be) pretty low in fat (on the border of 0-5%).  :-D ... and fish can be high in heavy metals, but I think that's about it.
Furthermore, I'm not sure if I subscribe to his (paleo) theories, although, this one looks rather interesting and well-presented.

I urge you strongly to keep morals out of this thread! It's a health board....From here on I will merely continue to discuss the scientific side if you choose to provide any references (I'd like to be proven wrong).


Edited by kismet, 02 June 2009 - 12:42 PM.


#19 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:41 PM

How come? Poultry is (or can be) pretty low in fat (on the border of 0-5%).  :-D ... and fish can be high in heavy metals, but I think that's about it.
Furthermore, I'm not sure if I subscribe to his (paleo) theories, although, this one looks rather interesting and well-presented.

I urge you strongly to keep morals out of this thread! It's a health board....From here on I will merely continue to discuss the scientific side if you choose to provide any references (I'd like to be proven wrong).


I suppose if you only eat the skinless white meat of industrialized poultry which has been bred to be low-fat, then I suppose the fat content could be pretty low. There are still the pesticides that must be considered, which may build up in the meat much like heavy metals do in fish. Pesticides used in poultry production which are sprayed directly on the birds include: Permethrin, Carbaryl, Rabon, and Ravap. Not to mention the numerous pesticides used in the production of the feed.

If you go organic, skinless, marinate, avoid the dark parts, and cook at low temperatures, the negative effects are limited compared to red meat as a result of the reduced saturated fat and omega-6 content, and the reduced amounts of AGEs, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, heterocyclic amines, nitrosamines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Alaskan salmon that is cooked similarly would be comparable or superior in health qualities and low in heavy metals.

I wouldn't have many strong words for someone who followed such a diet, though it would require carefully preparing virtually all of one's own meat dishes, and sticking to a vegetarian diet when this is not possible.

Edited by progressive, 02 June 2009 - 02:52 PM.


#20 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 02 June 2009 - 07:29 PM

Extra virgin olive oil, avocado, and almond are great sources of oleic acid, which is a very healthy monounsaturated fat proven to lower LDL cholesterol and raise HDL. Oleic acid is virtually impossible to find in significant quantities in animal sources.

Virgin coconut oil or any MCT oil is high in lauric acid, which is probably the least harmful saturated fat. Saturated fat can be better for high temperature cooking since it doesn't degrade into horrible things in heat. Cocoa butter is high in stearic acid, a relatively benign saturated fat, and also high in polyphenols... oh yea.... and it's chocolate.


Actually, lard has plenty of oleic acid. Loren Cordain favors oleic and stearic acids. Stearic converts to oleic in the body. Overall he likes MUFAs over SFAs. But many paleo/high-fat bloggers think he's towing the line on the issue, because he's an academic. He's not tyranical over SFAs though.

Most people think lauric acid is fine because it's a MCFA, but it depends on your views of SFAs — it's a particular issue in a high-fat/paleo context. I'm sure coconuts, cocoa and other plant fats were eaten but not in concentrated amounts. For that general reason, I'm skeptical about flora-based fats. That said, that doesn't scare me away from eating them.

#21 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 June 2009 - 12:42 AM

I'm sure coconuts, cocoa and other plant fats were eaten but not in concentrated amounts. For that general reason, I'm skeptical about flora-based fats. That said, that doesn't scare me away from eating them.


Chemically identical is chemically identical. Paleolithic humans didn't swallow nutritional supplements either, but that is irrelevant as long as the chemicals are proven to be safe and effective. The evidence for olive oil especially is overwhelming.

Edited by progressive, 07 June 2009 - 12:43 AM.


#22 Not_Supplied

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 June 2009 - 10:23 AM

Are there any known downsides to olive, coconut, nut oils etc apart from sometimes containing omega 6?

#23 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 June 2009 - 02:25 AM

Are there any known downsides to olive, coconut, nut oils etc apart from sometimes containing omega 6?


Omega 6s are actually a essential nutrients, but the Standard American Diet usually contains freakishly high amounts. Dosage is everything. Olives and so forth contain minimal amounts, and in the form of cold pressed oils the omega 6s are even less than the whole plants. Of course the whole plants usually have a host of other benefits which are worth considering. The main drawback I can see for "good fats" like olives are their high caloric content. Even people who aren't doing calorie restriction need to watch their intake. Just don't go overboard and vary the sources and you can rest assured that your diet is healthful.

In the end, because our metabolism is imperfect, all food is killing us slowly, but these foods will do so at a slower rate. To do better we will need to look beyond immediate concerns like "what am I eating now" and focus on the deeper underlying causes of aging. The evolutionary history of our diet, which this thread is based on, is a good thing to focus on, but only insofar as it can help us fix our bodies even further.

Edited by progressive, 08 June 2009 - 02:26 AM.


#24 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 08 June 2009 - 07:33 AM

I think the question of whether eating meat is moral or immoral is one of the more interesting and difficult problems in moral philosophy.

Since we evolved eating meat, the basic assumption would be that eating meat is okay in a moral sense (this is not a naturalistic fallacy; this is Occam's razor). But it does not follow that this basic assumption is correct. However, those who argue that meat consumption is morally wrong should be able to answer the question: Why is it wrong?

Most people answer that it's wrong to hurt living things. In other words, the key point is the ability to feel pain.

This raises the question: If an animal is unable to feel pain, is it okay to eat it?

If yes, then using an anesthetic would be the solution. If the ability to feel pain is the only thing that matters, then it follows from this that it'd be morally right to eat humans, too, as long as they don't feel pain.

If the answer is no, then the reason for meat-eating being morally wrong must be something else. Another answer is that it's morally wrong to end a life. Then it follows from this that it's morally wrong to kill mosquitoes, snakes, ants, etc.

From this, it follows that either it's also morally wrong to end life in all its forms (including plants) or that the key point is cognition. In other words, it's okay to kill things that do not have any cognitive abilities but wrong to kill things that do.

But, if it's morally right to kill things that do not have cognitive abilities, it means that it's also okay to kill people that are braindead (and possibly also babies), which may be problematic. Another issue that bugs at least me is that it would mean that 99% of humans who have ever lived have been immoral (because they ate meat), whether or not they have mistreated other humans. Any moral theory that proposes such a thing seems odd to me.

Also, if it's wrong for a human to kill a tiger, then it should also be wrong for a tiger to kill a human; clearly this would seem odd, because for all we know, a tiger does not even consider the possibility of killing being wrong.

One theory that I find interesting is that since moral codes can only be communicated through some shared means of communication, all species have their own moral codes; for example, it's wrong for a human to kill a human, but okay to kill an animal. We cannot know anything about the moral code of whales or dogs, because we have no reliable means of communicating with them. We can only communicate with other humans. When a species learns to communicate with us, we can agree on shared moral codes.

Edited by JLL, 08 June 2009 - 07:34 AM.


#25 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 08 June 2009 - 12:35 PM

I cannot resist that "moral" question anymore, now that JLL has chimed in. Why isn't "eating animals" immoral? Well, because eating humans is not immoral either as morals do not exist; there is no "right" or "wrong", there is nothing that you "should" do, nothing that you "must" do, there is no "inherent value" to anything. The concept of morality is so incredibly anthropocentric that it is patently absurd.

Since we evolved eating meat, the basic assumption would be that eating meat is okay in a moral sense (this is not a naturalistic fallacy; this is Occam's razor). But it does not follow that this basic assumption is correct. However, those who argue that meat consumption is morally wrong should be able to answer the question: Why is it wrong?

Occam's razor tells me that "morals" are a petty invention of humans. Nothing can be inherently right or wrong; or exclusively right or wrong. Therefore the question cannot be answered no matter how hard you try.

That's why I'm quickly offended by statements like this:

Everyone with a conscience knows in the back of their mind that it is wrong, and no amount of rationalization can justify it.

Everyone? Or do you mean "some of the speaking apes that accidentally developed on one of the billions of planets in this universe" think they know it is wrong?

Oh, we should feel guilty?

I'm sorry for intruding upon your cyber-balkanized bubble. May you live a long and carefree life at the expense of others.

You mean as if some universal moral-codex that dictates what we should do existed, accepted by every entity on this planet and in the universe? Appealing to guilt will not get you very far.

Morals are pragmatical framework that has evolved both via natural selection and as a necessity of social coexistence. We decide whatever is moral; if enough people convince themselves that they do not want to consume animal products then so be it, but the pragmatical side of the equation will play the biggest role. However, we shouldn't forget that this "moral" was chosen on a whim...

Another issue that bugs at least me is that it would mean that 99% of humans who have ever lived have been immoral (because they ate meat), whether or not they have mistreated other humans. Any moral theory that proposes such a thing seems odd to me.

Calling people "moral" or "immoral" is the odd part and always produces such contradictions. "Morals" are dictated by society today; they are a pragmatical, transient and meaningless (but somewhat important) concept that only applies today.

But, if it's morally right to kill things that do not have cognitive abilities, it means that it's also okay to kill people that are braindead (and possibly also babies), which may be problematic.

The difference between a braindead person and a baby is that the former will never acquire any level of cognition. You cannot kill someone who is already dead, JLL. The only tenable definition of human death (if the person possesed cogntive ability in the first place) is information theoretic death (i.e. braindeath).

Edited by kismet, 08 June 2009 - 12:37 PM.


#26 EmbraceUnity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 June 2009 - 01:05 PM

Great, kismet. Then I'm sure you can agree that there is no point in you arguing for life extension, nor is there a point for your continued existence. If your existence does have value, then you are admitting that value does exist and, by extension, the possibility that other beings have value. There is no objective morality, only subjective morality.

Anyone who has empathy, meaning anyone who isn't a sociopath, would agree that we should take care not to cause unnecessary suffering. Once that premise is accepted, and one takes into consideration the near certainty that animals suffer, especially higher mammals, then the logical deduction is that, unless absolutely necessary, we must forgo meat which has been harvested in a way which causes suffering. Since virtually all meat production causes suffering, there is no excuse for creating demand signals which contribute to the problem.

Clearly, in any modern society there are no health-related reasons necessitating meat consumption, even for immortalists like us. Titillating our palettes is no excuse, and is functionally equivalent to the excuses of thrill killers and rapists.

Other issues such as all the toxic crap they pump into the animals, environmental concerns, economic efficiency issues, and so forth only make animal products even less appealing.

Edited by progressive, 08 June 2009 - 01:27 PM.


#27 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 08 June 2009 - 01:54 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing that moral provably exists external to us — at least I didn't. But I'd argue that I live more intelligently with the concept; it's a net positive.

My concern for animals (or anything) stem from my metaphysics. Metaphysics in the sense of questions like: what are the possible and probable ways in which reality could be setup? And what will I do, considering those possibilities? I want to live without throwing out potentially legitimate perspectives. That makes me consider things from different "lenses", so to speak.

I want to develop my compassion for all things. That goal, among other ones, are a part of the development of my consciousness. And that's a primary goal. That said, I still think in terms of utility maximizing, and I'm completely sympathetic to it. But I like to run different metaphysical lenses to see how they might change my actions.

#28 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 08 June 2009 - 04:50 PM

Several contradictory statements in your post:

Well, because eating humans is not immoral either as morals do not exist; there is no "right" or "wrong", there is nothing that you "should" do, nothing that you "must" do, there is no "inherent value" to anything. The concept of morality is so incredibly anthropocentric that it is patently absurd.

Occam's razor tells me that "morals" are a petty invention of humans.

Morals are pragmatical framework that has evolved both via natural selection and as a necessity of social coexistence.

"Morals" are dictated by society today; they are a pragmatical, transient and meaningless (but somewhat important) concept that only applies today.


Morals don't exist; morals are an invention of human; morals evolved via natural selection; morals are dictated by society. Which is it?

I have never claimed that morals are some kind of a universal truth that each living thing obeys. Morality is a tool; a means to an end. The goal of morality is to allow human beings to coexist. That goal is the yardstick against which to measure various moral rules.

For example, a moral rule that says "it's good to kill people" does not work well if you accept the goal. We can say it's a bad rule. However, we cannot say that "you shouldn't kill people" is some kind of transendent commandment from times beyond the light.

If there is no right and no wrong, why do you use these words in the first place?

The idea that there are no morals is what is patently absurd.

Edited by JLL, 08 June 2009 - 04:51 PM.


#29 Esoparagon

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 32
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 June 2009 - 03:45 AM

If anyone claims the entire human species has evolved to eat cooked foods I have to say, they have no idea what evolution is.

I'm going to become a raw vegan.

Edited by Esoparagon, 09 June 2009 - 03:51 AM.


#30 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:45 PM

Great, kismet. Then I'm sure you can agree that there is no point in you arguing for life extension, nor is there a point for your continued existence.

If your existence does have value, then you are admitting that value does exist and, by extension, the possibility that other beings have value.

I concur that my existence has no value and no meaning. However, the breaking-point of your "counter-argument" is that neither is there a point in my non-existence.

Anyone who has empathy, meaning anyone who isn't a sociopath, would agree that we should take care not to cause unnecessary suffering. Once that premise is accepted, and one takes into consideration the near certainty that animals suffer, especially higher mammals, then the logical deduction is that, unless absolutely necessary, we must forgo meat which has been harvested in a way which causes suffering. Since virtually all meat production causes suffering, there is no excuse for creating demand signals which contribute to the problem.

Sure there is an excuse: There are animals which are slaughtered for meat after having had a better life than wild type animals and without suffering. Furthermore having some form of empathy towards humans does not dictate any empathy towards a different species which cannot even communicate, understand or respect the "rights" we want to give them.

I want to remind that directly or indirectly insulting me won't really convince anyone of your point. Please stop.

Several contradictory statements in your post:
Morals don't exist; morals are an invention of human; morals evolved via natural selection; morals are dictated by society. Which is it?

Come on, that's a very cheap shot. Obviously, I meant that morals, if defined as absolute or self-evident, e.g. as Progressive apparently does, do not exist. If morals are dictated by society, it makes them an invention of the human mind. Additionally, they developed via natural selection (as different "moral codes" exist among animals). No contradictions.

If there is no right and no wrong, why do you use these words in the first place?

oops I misunderstood your question: "right" and "wrong" -- happy now? :)

The idea that there are no morals is what is patently absurd.

That's the reason why people should always define what they mean with the words they use... I suppose we agree that absolute morals do not exist. I can merely agree that morals exist in a "descriptive sense" as Wikipedia defines them, making them just a set of pragmatical rules to achieve certain goals, but the word moral is way to laden, which is why I try to avoid it. E.g. implying they're something that we all can or should be able to agree on...

You did not claim morals are universal per se, however, you entertained the thought that "99% of humans who have ever lived [might] have been immoral" if Progressive's premise were correct. I countered that morals are not only relative but also transient. In any case we can't judge the people of yesterday by the moral codes of today.
Furthermore, assuming people were immoral*, does it matter? You seemed to ascribe way too much importance to "morals" in this sentence, even though you apparently concur that they're just "a tool", which I simply wanted to put into perspective.
*and yes, people in the past were pretty damn immoral going by today's standards, not only when it comes to how they obtained their food. As Dawkins eloquently put it, Hitler's genocide wouldn't have really stood out in the times of the Roman Empire.

Edited by kismet, 09 June 2009 - 06:09 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users