>(a) It remains to be established, as far as I know, that eating a
>'natural' diet is in fact the best thing for humans to do. Using
>antibiotics and vaccines is hardly natural, but is healthier than
>not using them. It makes intuitive sense, but it is an empirical
>question.
It is obviously so. And yet what I can say is that it is unlikely that
this will ever be empirically proven beyond all question. The amount of
variables to juggle is simply impossible. A winnowing tool is needed;
that's what testable theory is for.
Of any theory of what is going to be the most healthy diet for humans, the
only sensible one to START with is the theory that the most healthy diet
will consist of whatever humans evolved to eat, and will not include that
which humans did not evolve to eat. This theory has proven out in every
other animal it's been tried in; wild animals raised in captivity generally
get sick or fail to thrive when fed diets foreign to what they would eat in
the wild. When zookeepers switch animals to diets resembling their natural
diets as much as possible, the animals generally become visibly healthier
and usually happier.
Generally speaking the idea that the healthist diet for any animal will be
the diet it evolved to eat should be so self-evidence that it should be the
standard against which any other diet should be measured. If a foreign,
un-natural diet should prove healthier, so be it, but the competing theory
should be the one with something to prove since it must necessarily rest on
something besides evolution to make its case.
To put this in more direct terms: It may well be that my pet boa
constrictor would be healthier on a diet of force-fed tofu than eating the
mice, rats, and rabbits he evolved to eat, but why should I BELIEVE this
unless you give me some strong evidence that it's so?
>(b) Food is the sum of its parts. I think it is important to note
>that a natural diet should be able to be analyzed in terms of
>macronutrients,
>micronutrients, fibre, fatty acids, additives, etc etc.
This is an interesting theory, but is it legitimate? Macronutrients may be
far less important than is now so commonly believed. The body is a complex
system with marvelous adaptation abilities; why should the most important
component be X amount of protein with Y amount of lysine and Z amount of
linolenic acid and etc.? Given that humans clearly evolved as omnivores
eating a wider variety of foods than practically any other animal on the
planet, why should we believe that macro- and micro-nutrients are the most
important feature of a diet, let alone the only thing. There are people in
this world who are happy and healthy on diets of about 25% protein, 70%
fat, and 5% carbohydrate. There are others who are happy and healthy on
about 10% protein, 20% fat, and 60% carbohydrate.
This theory of yours also overlooks the troubling fact that we very likely
do not have anything like a complete understanding of everything in foods
that is beneficial or necessary to human health. In fact we likely never
will have a complete understanding of that.
My pet ferret may be healthier on a diet of nothing but ice cream with
added vitamins and minerals, I admit, but why should I think she would be?
>If one could
>theoretically construct a vegetarian diet that was chemically
>equivalent to a 'natural' diet, why not eat that way?
Well, no reason that I can think of except the proving it bit is probably
trickier than you think. It will not only require you to get the right
chemical shake of micro- and macro-nutrients while missing nothing, but
will also require you to chemically REMOVE things that don't exist in the
natural human diet. A lot of work, and very hard to prove.
But possible? Theoretically, yes.
>(c) I don't know if I'd say that vegetarianism isn't 'at all' natural.
>Hunter-gatherers have no doubt had periods of poor hunting, etc. I would
>tend to characterize diets as more or less natural, since there really
>is no SINGLE natural hunter-gatherer diet.
Short periods wherein meat is unavailable have probably hit many humans and
I suspect that we've evolved mechanisms to cope with this. It may even be
that short-term excursions into vegetarianism are healthy for at least some
people.
Vegetarianism as a permanent lifestyle isn't at all natural to the human
animal.
>Couple of quick questions Dean: can you point me to any of the evidence
>that vegetarianism is a potent health hazard, or anyway mention what
>specific health problems tend to develop and why?
The only two things I can point you to in the scientific literature are the
studies showing that vegetarians usually suffer from mineral deficiency and
the enormous amount of data which shows that the consumption of cereal
grains is extremely unhealthy, since most vegetarians consume grains as
their primary food source. These have been discussed at length over on the
Paleodiet Symposium list (the technical sister to this list). Look through
our archives for messages by Staffan Lindeberg and Loren Cordain for the
most citations on that.
Beyond that I can only give you the individual, non-scientific accounts of
the many vegetarians who have defected from vegetarianism because of the
health problems it caused them. One of the best you'll find on that is the
account nutritionist Anne Louise Gittleman gives in her book YOUR BODY
KNOWS BEST, describing her years as a dedicated True Believer in
macrobiotic diet, studying under some of the world's pre-eminent experts on
the subject, before her health finally almost completely collapsed. Her
husband's story is equally compelling--he used a macrobiotic diet to cure
his own cancer, but long term also found that he could not maintain good
health without bringing animal flesh back into his life.
Ward Nicholson, who I hope is still on this list, has many stories to tell
as a reformed macrobiotic dieter and natural hygienist who used to run a
newspaper on the subject. Ward came across many people whose health was
clearly being harmed by the diet they believed so fiercely in, even though
most of them refused to contemplate this possibility.
Then of course there was the month wherein my wife and I committed to a
100% vegan diet filled with brown rice, beans, fresh vegetables, small
amounts of vegetable oils, and fresh fruits and vegetables. I gained 5
pounds; my wife gained 20. We both had serious fluctuating energy levels,
and aside from somewhat more regular bowels otherwise didn't feel
particularly good at all.
In general every person I've ever met who is a long-term, committed
vegetarian tends to be unusually thin, pasty skinned, and practically
exhudes lack of vitality. To repeat myself, however, I DO acknowledge that
it's very possible that short-term excursions into vegetarianism are fine
and may even be healthy; but I have yet to meet a vegetarian committed to
such a regimen for more than a year or two who wasn't suffering visible
signs of ill health. I don't leave out the possibility that such people do
exist, but I also suspect that they are a tiny percentage of the population
whose bodies, for whatever reason, have adapted well to an unnatural
regimen.
|
