Not really, because restrictive is a relative term. We don't eat just anything. To take that to its logical extreme: how restrictive is it not to eat arsenic? The further the enculturated diet from the evolved diet, the less it seems like restriction and the more like prudence.
-
-
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
Ok then: restrictive of micro/macronutrients known to prevent disease Honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's no more problematic to say that low-carb diets may increase your risk of, say, bowel cancer than to point out that vegan diets can cause anemia
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
Bowel cancer? Now you're bringing in a whole other belief based on problematic methodology. It's not comparable to anemia in vegetarians at all. Vegetarians are known to get anemia. Low carb ancestral societies historically had negligible cancer rates before Westernisation.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @GidMK and
Anaemia is easily predicted by the low availability of heme iron, and phytates/other anti-absorbants in typical vegetarian diets. There is no equivalent coherent mechanism that blames meat: and as Amber says, cancer is rare in even long-lived ancestral meat eaters.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @bokkiedog @GidMK and
As to restriction of micro and macronutrients known to prevent disease, how does a low carb diet restrict micronutrients, and are you saying that carbohydrates are known to prevent disease?
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
? By restricting most foods rich in micronutrients (I.e. multigrains) and no mostly talking about fibre there
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
There is nothing we need from grains that we can't get from low carb foods. Grains are a cheap source of calories. That's their raison d'être. We fortify them because poor people subsisting on them fail to thrive. Fibre is not a nutrient, it's by definition not even digestible.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
What? We fortify grains because folic acid is often hard to come by for low-income people and a small expenditure on flour saves countless lives. We fortify salt for similar reasons. That reads like an ideological rant, sorry
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
Let's back up a bit. I was so astonished to hear that you think grains are an essential source of nutrition that my tone was probably affected by it. We didn't even have a reliable source of grain until ~10K years ago. It doesn't make sense to think we need them as a species.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @GidMK and
It sounds to me like you're submitting that until we had grain agriculture we didn't have sufficient micronutrients to avoid metabolic diseases, but this was never tested because people didn't live long enough to develop them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That's not at all what I'm saying. Micronutrients are not largely preventive of metabolic disease. The main reason we didn't have metabolic disease previously was that we didn't live long enough to develop it in most cases
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.