when i made my last blog post, i sort of expected people to come out in defense of veganism or against meat-eating. it’s a topic that tends to ruffle feathers. i was very happy, then, when the discussion came around and it wasn’t the same old straw man and ad hominem stuff that you tend to see. yay, friends!

at any rate, i did have thoughts on the matter that ended up getting too lengthy for a comment reply, so here we go, in blog form:

one problem that occurs when discussing nutrition is that there is a line between diet and philosophy that is blurred, sometimes intentionally so.

and, although my blog post inadvertently did such a thing–arguing that the best human diet is a carnivorous, high fat, low carb diet, because that’s how it’s been for all of human history–my personal view on it is that the science says so, and not just because the idea of it makes sense (which, it also does).

in other words, i’m not a paleo guy (though, i eat much closer to paleo than the standard american diet). as such, i try not to argue explicitly from the standpoint that we should eat like paleo man, because paleo man didn’t have cancer or heart disease. but, i do recognize that paleo man ate a diet that science would definitely back.

so, i hope that’s clear. i’m not arguing for ancestral diets from a philosophical point of view. i’m arguing for science, and giving ancestral diet as a great corroborating example.

THAT SAID, i will try to keep separate the science from the ethical/moral implications. and, i will still attempt to address both, so long as it’s within the same scope.

1. cancer cells feed on glucose. cancer can be slowed or stopped, on a carb-restricted diet, studies have shown. cancer doesn’t exist in non-westernized societies, including places where they eat meat, almost exclusively. any study linking meat to cancer is an observational study, with many confounders, which can give non-conclusive results. in other words, maybe people who eat meat ALSO tend to be the ones that do OTHER THINGS that might make them prone to getting cancer (a great example would be that the many hamburgers we consume in the standard american diet also happen to come on buns). correlation does not equal causation.

2. heart disease is caused by small, dense LDL that can get stuck and cause inflammation. animal products do not make this kind of LDL. animal products make large, fluffy LDL, which hold more cholesterol (so, your “total cholesterol”–a meaningless measure–might be higher), but are harmless. this also explains why some people get heart disease, while having “low total cholesterol”. because that tells you nothing about the LDL pattern type.

further, animal products increase your HDL and lower your triglycerides. carbs do the opposite–they raise your triglycerides and lower your HDL. again, i would reiterate that when we consume a typical hamburger with a bun, we may end up with heart disease, but the blame could be almost exclusively placed on the bun, and not the meat.

3. toxic substances are toxic substances. some are even naturally occurring. peter attia gives a great example of the tetrodotoxin, naturally found in puffer fish, toads and other animals, as well as tobacco, ethanol, etc. does moderation make them ok? i don’t know.

is even a small amount of soy and fruit bad for some? perhaps. every body reacts in varying degrees, but they all react. just like we all react to the sun, but some of us burn more easily than others. does that mean we should all avoid the sun? i don’t know. maybe moderation? maybe sunblock? that’s up to the individual to figure out.

4. vegans tend to consume more carbs than any other diet, simply based on the fact that they restrict so many fats and protein sources. while you could certainly eat nothing but olive oil and avocados (in order to match the caloric ratio of, say, paleo man or the inuit), that’s certainly not the typical foods that vegans eat.

in fact, not to talk too much trash, cause vegans are good people, but i’ve been fed “vegan cookies” many a time, and there’s nothing in those but animal-safe sugar and animal-safe starch.

5. there is a large body of science that certainly seems to implicate animal products as the culprits in the diseases of modern man, certainly. but, that doesn’t make it good science. epidemiology is a beast, and i’ve been learning more and more about its flaws. again, i’ll refer back to the problem of confounders.

the size of tv screens have been going up, along with our waistbands. tv screen size, thus, correlates with obesity. but, does that mean that buying a big screen tv will make you fat?

well, maybe.

because, maybe the types of people that buy big screen tv’s tend to watch a lot of tv and never go for a walk? or maybe they drink a lot of belgian beer? haha.

or, maybe they don’t! that’s the point. there’s absolutely no conclusion that could be drawn. likewise, there’s no conclusion that can be drawn from studies like the china study (the study that gave birth to the vegetarian movement of the 60s, with help from the coinciding attack on saturated fat, from the likes of ancel keys, a scientist who was a very bad scientist).

finally,

6. with regard to sustainability and the moral dilemma of being humans that have higher thinking abilities, such as the ability to feel empathy towards other sentient beings (because, let’s face it, this is a human issue. bears and tigers will not stop to consider whether or not it’s “cruel” to eat you. they will simply eat you)… this is something that cannot be argued for, either way, because morals are a product of our environment.

in other words, depending on where you were born and when you were born and to which parents, you are going to have a different moral compass. this is why they have no problems eating dogs, in some parts of the world, while we would be horrified at the thought, here in the states.

alas, i can’t offer any food for though (pun intended), other than this: we are a part of the circle of life. and even though the agricultural and industrial revolutions dramatically changed our role in the local ecology, we are nonetheless a part of the food chain, on a bigger scale.

as a wise, talking, animated lion once said: “when we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. and so we are all connnected in the great circle of life.”

much like pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion, being a meat eater doesn’t mean i’m pro-factory-farming. does my demand for meat contribute to the need for factory farming? certainly.

but, no industry is free of faults. the very computers we are doing our learning and discussing on were probably built by people in less-than-desirable conditions.

so, we have to pick our battles. of course, i dream of a world where apple computers are made by unionized workers in america, with universal health, and where i can walk a block to my local butcher to buy some locally-grown grass-fed beef. i get hard thinking about it.

but, for now, baby steps. starting with fixing my body, so that i can live long enough to see the changes that i’d love to see in the world, so that we’re all living better.