Had a heart attack yesterday, other than that happy new year

Otis,
It is hard to find gastric ph data for carnivorous animals. I found some information claiming that human gastric pH can reach 4-5 when food is present in the stomach, which goes back to ph 1-3 as HCl increases.
However I am not gonna dig that subject and lost in the details any further, because I came to conclusion that it doesn't matter if the humans are anatomically carnivorous or someOtherOrous. I do not need the nature's approval to decide what kind of diet I should follow. There are other scientific studies helping us finding the best diet that suits our lifestyle. Best knowledge comes from experiment, and our bodies are quite tolerant to various diets as we try out.

As a final note I'd like to point out another reason to balance your diet with whole foods & lots of vegetables: Colon health.
While everybody is focused on heart health, as we speak colon cancer has risen to 2nd place in the leading cause of the cancer deaths in the US.
There is another disease hits the colons nobody knows but effects more than %50 of the entire population (above 60 yo) in US: Diverticular disease (DD)

It is directly associated with fibre deficiency which vegetables have plenty.
In the link below(on page 3) you'll find a study from Greece compared people who frequently consumed vegetables but rarely ate meat with people who frequently consumed meat but rarely ate vegetables. Risk of developing DD was almost 50-fold higher for meat eaters. They also found chicken & fish didn't increase the risk of DD.

http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/48/10/1632.pdf

So eat your organic meat(especially fish) with plenty of organic vegetables for a healthier life... That simple.
 
50x? There has be something seriously wrong with the study. Danger does not multiply 50x on anything regarding diet really. Most studies barely manage a 2x increase despite the high quality work.

This is the one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1432747/pdf/gut00379-0008.pdf

Only 100 patients, 80 food items on interview, first time diagnosis, other problems present, it does not sound like something one could trust. I know how these things are conducted. I don't believe the average person can be trusted to recall his dietary habits and quantify them with precision.

Here is another study:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/60/5/757.pdf

This looks much more scientific. This shows (page 763) about 50% higher risk from low to medium meat consumption but no change after that (which is a little strange if meat is the problem). It also shows that fiber helps by decreasing by 50% or so. But low fiber+low meat, medium fiber+medium meat, high fiber +medium meat, high fiber+high meat are roughly the same! So, you will get some real benefit only if you consume high fiber + low meat, a factor of 2x decrease and real risk (80% increase) only if your fiber is very low and you meat consumption very high. Moderation:)

EDIT: A little bit lower there is a graph for fat. On that one high total fat helps when there is enough fiber. Are we sure doctors know statistics?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top