Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Weight gain in the American population 1960-2000 [View all]BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)45. Well said
The reason there's no benefit is that the dietary recommendations are 180 degrees out of phase with human biochemical reality
Eating meat and primarily animal fat is what allowed humans to grow bigger brains. Our large brains take a huge amount of calories, more than can be supplied by an exclusively vegetarian diet. It is how humans evolved to eat differently than other primates. Our digestive tracts are far more similar to dogs than to any herbivore.
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter
Animal fat from healthy, pastured animals also contains vitamins and EFAs. Even lard, so maligned is full of Vitamin D which is the reason why your D levels might be low even if you get plenty of sun. Animals do the work of conversion for us in many cases. That's why we're considered the top of the food chain. It has even been studied that subjects on an all meat diet do not get deficiencies, such as scurvy, which was a surprise because humans cannot make their own Vitamin C. But those who do not consume any animal products do have problems, such as sometimes Vitamin B12 deficiencies.
You're absolutely right that the recommendations are 180 degrees wrong.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My parents got their first remote control in the early '80s when they got cable TV
bklyncowgirl
Aug 2014
#90
That would be my first choice. Also, obesity is linked with poverty in affluent societies
eridani
Aug 2014
#8
the suburbs themselves changed as well in the 80s--they were easier to invest in
MisterP
Aug 2014
#61
Two 1980 factors. Corn sugar replaced real sugar in soft drinks and we got Nutrasweet.
McCamy Taylor
Aug 2014
#13
The body recognizes fructose as food but absorbs it more easily than other sugars (sucrose, lactose)
KurtNYC
Aug 2014
#34
^^THIS^^ But also add the introduction of the two-liter bottle of soft drinks
Turn CO Blue
Aug 2014
#49
The OP was actually about vastly higher rates of population weight gain after 1980 as
eridani
Aug 2014
#97
Unhealthiness is profitable to well-heeled private interests, so we subsidize unhealthiness.
Romulox
Aug 2014
#18
My primary go-to book on nutrition science is Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories"
GliderGuider
Aug 2014
#48
Red Yeast Rice Extract, the natural source of all statins has been around
McCamy Taylor
Aug 2014
#73
Another factor: The rise of all-day snacking and the growth of the availability of
Arugula Latte
Aug 2014
#23
My "vote" is for HFCS. Whatever the reason, you can bet we're fatter due to some
ChisolmTrailDem
Aug 2014
#39
keep on subsidizing cheap food grown with agrotoxins, inhumane treatment of animals
wordpix
Aug 2014
#76
probably a combination of easily available junk food and TV, Video Games, Computers
JI7
Aug 2014
#70
I'll weigh in with this tidbit. I was just thinking the other day about 4 ounce juice glasses.
snagglepuss
Aug 2014
#78