It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tribewilder
Let's say you dropped them into the middle of Ethiopia where the peoples survive on one bowl of rice a day, and have very little water to drink. Would they survive if they have to live on the same diet as those who are "used" to it? Or do those indigenous peoples bodies survive in this area because they have adapted to the environment around them.
I think that the human body will adapt and change more so than most people think, and will also end up having a diet that will end up compensating for what is lacking in their diet. As well as adapting to a diet that has too much of something.
Stefansson is also a figure of considerable interest in dietary circles, especially those with an interest in very low-carbohydrate diets. Stefansson documented the fact that the Inuit diet consisted of about 90% meat and fish; Inuit would often go 6 to 9 months a year eating nothing but meat and fish—essentially, a no-carbohydrate diet. He found that he and his fellow European-descent explorers were also perfectly healthy on such a diet. When medical authorities questioned him on this, he and a fellow explorer agreed to undertake a study under the auspices of the Journal of the American Medical Association to demonstrate that they could eat a 100% meat diet in a closely-observed laboratory setting for the first several weeks, with paid observers for the rest of an entire year. The results were published in the Journal, and both men were perfectly healthy on such a diet, without vitamin supplementation or anything else in their diet except meat and entrails.
Like a study on the French and their high intake of fats and the results of such a study don't take into account the rest of their diet that just might compensate for this. I believe that this is where the benefits of reservatrol came into being. ( I could be wrong on this)
So for a study to state that this or that is good or bad for you, well that depends on what your diet is like now, as well as your environment, and not all factors are being brought into play when the study is done. In my opinion anyways.
They would have us believe that he published extensive data to support the health value of cow's milk and high cholesterol animal based foods and, further, that he 'discovered' a fat soluble factor in milk that is likely responsible for these healthy effects of cow's milk.
Indeed, the so-called fat soluble factor mentioned by Price was noted at a time during the early days of vitamin discoveries when little was known about their metabolism and biochemical effects,
Wheat protein, unlike casein for example, did not stimulate cancer development but when its limiting amino acid, lysine, was restored, it acted just like casein.
While it may seem reasonable to assume that grass-fed animal products compared with feed lot animal products are somewhat healthier on some accounts (perhaps due to a more favorable fatty acid composition, slightly more--but still minimal--tissue antioxidants derived from the plants being consumed), they do not come close to the health value of plant based products.
Originally posted by Sourdough4life
Who knows tho, comparing isolated protien to whole food sources is ridiculous.