| palou said: If I remember correctly, we actually agreed that a significantly plant-based diet wa healthier for a modern human. The argument, and my comments, in context, relied more on if a significantly plant-based diet was necessarily "natural". The differences you can find between vegans/non-vegans, as stated by your studies, are mostly lower rates of heart diseases, cancer. That's however quite irrelevant whne analyzing the advent of civilization, as people generally died much too early to be affected by *any* of that. My argument was that a vegan diet can help us stay healthy for longer, but that that is relevant but in a modern context. Also, that guy in the second video does NOT know how to source his stuff properly. His sources are good; they just don't say what he claims that they do. For the "mostly grains" thing, his articles either only claim specific cases, only claim existence of grains in the diet, not predominance, or both. |
We did largely agree as I recall too. However, there is evidence of gatherer-based societies that were mostly plant-based where it was common for people to live into their 70s (if the apparent age of their bones, hair, etc., at death is any indication).
And fair enough about the "mostly grains" thing, I'll dig into his sources a little more again, it's been a while since I read up on them. I'll look at them through the lense you suggest and see where that leads me. Thank you for your comments. :)
