Quote: (04-01-2014 10:31 AM)rottenapple Wrote:
The main argument against this is indeed that the starch they ate in those times is nothing like what we have on offer now. If you read 'wheat belly', it is explained in detail how for instance bread right now is nothing like its ancessor. Look up a picture of ancien corn, you will see the difference very clearly. The starch we have now, became so complex in it's structure that it became very hard to digest, which then causes all kinds of problems in our bodies and along with the high sugar content make that we are susceptible to diseases. Genetic modification has made all these foods incredibly cheap and resistent and most of these products are concentrated in a few companies (Monsanto is well known off course) who are as good as it gets when it comes to lobbying, hence there is propaganda for these types of food in the whole western world. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy is linked somehow as well.
So yes starch could have been very useful in ancient times and no today it is definitly not. Dairy however is also not beneficial to your health, with few exceptions such as non-cow milk and cottage cheese. Enough scientific literature about that.
In general the ideal diet based on all the reading I have done (which is a lot) consists of clean meat, fish (small fish in general), nuts, vegetables, fruit and legumes in general (paleo). It is high in protein and fats and relatively low in carbohydrates, especially white ones.
The problem in this diet on a personal level could be that depending on where you live it is more expensive. The problem on a societal level is that meat is industry heavy. Clean meat for all individuals is in the current food system not an option, due to cost and space limitations (and moral issues as well for some people). Meatfactories as we have now in general are easier, but the quality is lower and even now for many people on this planet meat is a luxury. A difficult problem to overcome, but a first step in the right direction if you ask me would be to manage subsidies better and to tax on unhealthy food. People who are unhealthy are a big cost to society, hence taxing on sugar, colourants, etc. would make the cost of maintaining this lifestyle higher. Simultaneously subsidies for vegetables and other good sources of food can become incentives for people to go in that direction. Advantages of scale can then be used to produce these foods more efficiently without loss of quality.
Plenty more to be said about this, but in general the food industry today is very fucked up and it takes a lot of work to educate yourself properly on how to eat well. A strange thing that I've noticed is that now in many developing countries the well off people actually eat a lot better than in Western world. Fi in many countries in Africa, the main diet is fruit, legumes and vegetables and if you can afford it meat (grassfed) and fish. Whatever other products they produce locally are also likely to not have been modified genetically as much as the ones we have in Western world. Off course if you are highly educated in the topic and have money to spend, you will still have the best options in the Western world, but then we are talking about perhaps 1% of the population.
I just run across this thread and read it.
I ALMOST hate to bump the thread b/c it contains quite a bit of disputes and dietary distraction information, yet I sense that the thread begins in that argumentative vein b/c the subject was being sparked and framed by emphasizing vegetarianism - and worse if you take vegetarianism to the next extreme, which in this case appears to be veganism.
Rottenapple's above post was amongst the best of the thread to attempt to redirect.
Also,
Maciano's mentioning Gary Taubes helps to shed better light on the issue regarding how mainstream scientists seem to frequently in the business of distorting studies in order to lie to us in the names of profits.
Surely, there seems to be some role for starches in the diet, and I have also come around to that thinking - especially after reading through
KGalt's resistance starch thread.
O.k. I do NOT necessarily want to spend considerable time pointing out all the informative nutrition threads on RVF, but I have the sense that a large majority of RVF members seem to realize that having some good meats and fats in their diets is good for a man's health (and a woman's health for that matter too - it is probably more enjoyable to bang healthy, fit and fertile woman).
I think the point of understanding about starch and resistance starch is that these foods do NOT serve well in being a majority of the diet. The resistance starch thread shows that some starch is probably a good thing for the good gut flora. Personally, I believe less than 25% of carbs in the diet is probably adequate for many guys, but some guys, including younger growing guys may be able to tolerate higher amounts of carbs possibly even going up to 50% or more of carbs in their diets. I used to eat a lot more carbs; however, the last three years, I have cut back b/c I realize that they begin to cause a lot of issues for guys as they age.... and focusing too much on getting nutrients from carbs is likely going to lead a lot of people (men and women) to have health issues as they age.