|
Pemalite said: Incorrect. [...]
[...] I don't care what someone does to someone else, that's not my circus, not my problem. :P Correct. But when you start consuming an obscene amount of cholesterol, your starting amount of Cholesterol tends to be irrellevent. |
Fair game to say you haven't had enough coffee (strange to me, as a non coffee drinker, to think that Imight need to medicate myself to reply to a forum post! :) ), but I'd be eager for you to reply to the rest when you feel up to it. What point in saying you agree with some points and not with others if you're never going to point out which are which? :)
I didn't say the Inuit (or humans in general) were unable to adapt, or never adapted, I said we did so slowly and are poorly adapted to eating meat, dairy, and eggs since we haven't been eating very much of them through the majority of our evolution and adaptation, to date. Here's a good summary of the so-called "Inuit paradox", and it's extremely well cited if you look at the description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU Among other things, it looked at mummified Inuit from a couple of hundred years ago, and Inuit mummies had more signs of cardiovascular disease than mummies from any other part of the world. Remote Inuit today who report eating their traditional diet and have little access to the standard North American diet also are terribly unhealthy (though one possible argument there is that our oceans are vastly more polluted now, making modern seafood drastically less healthy than traditional seafood!).
You say everything in moderation? I wonder how many people wouldd say several cigarettes a day would be fine, as everything in moderation, right? Back to food: by dropping animal products to less than 2% of their diet, the Okinawans used to live longer and (more importantly) *better* in their later years than other communities in Japan. Despite how the Okinawan diet is normally portrayed, less than 1% of their diet was fish, and less than 1% of their diet was all other animal products put together, and they had incredible longevity. It was a highly anti-inflammatory diet, and a highly anti-oxidant diet. Of course, under American occupation, in two generations they went from the longest-living and most vibrant Japanese to the shortest-living Japanese.
Back to everything in moderation, the longest living population ever studied is a large seventh-day adventist population in California. About half their community is vegetarian, and the other half is vegan. Whichever side of that fence they're on, either way they eat no meat at all, as not eating meat is generally seen as a religious requirement and people born into that community have tremendous cultural support for not eating meat (the opposite of people born in most other communities on the planet). The men live to an average age of 83.3, and the women to an average of 85.7 years. Those are *averages*, whereas they'd be outliers in any other community in North America. They eat no meat at all, not even small amounts in moderation, and they are massively bucking the rest of the North American trend. This is a strong argument against "everything in moderation" with one's diet, IMO. SOURCE: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-okinawa-diet-living-to-100/
As I noted, omnivores push a lot of things onto non-omnivores without meaning to. This argument reminds me a lot of when straight people complain about homosexuals pushing their lifestyle on people ("Why do they need parades just because they like to have sex with the same gender?"), but straight people often don't realize that we're pushing our lifestyle on them in ways both subtle and not so subtle. The pushiest people in this thread are the angry omnivores offering nothing of substance besides pictures of steaks, for example. And of course, omnivores suffer the most disease, put the most dietary-related stress on the environment, and the most stress on publically funded health care, so that's another way omnivores push their lifestyle on others without realizing it.
I'm not sure why you went to "obscene amout of cholesterol". I didn't suggest the increase was massive. Studies have been done on both small increases and large increases, and in both cases before and after comparisons of bad cholesterol show it going up when animal fat consumption increases. Though larger amounts magnify the effect, as you might imagine.
