|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
General:
Re: [gmggg] Climbers who eat meat vs vegetarian :
Edit Log
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2011, 7:42 PM
Views: 4975
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
gmggg wrote: I forgot to remind you that I agree completely about the claims you are making re:health. I'm just of the mind that moderation is sufficient. If that assumption is wrong in some way I would be genuinely interested to hear it. I imagine that moderation can mean a lot of different things biologically. So maybe it's a silly thing to talk about from any sort of scientific or verifiable standpoint.
There are some health of effects of diet, such as blood cholesterol levels, that are easy to quantify. There is generally a dose–response relation between the ratio of animal fats to plant oils in the diet and the ratio of LDL-to-HDL-cholesterol, which predicts heart disease risk, in the blood. So you can, in a sense, quantify the effects of a diet of "moderation," compared with a terrible diet or an excellent one. Different people have different tolerance levels for putatively heart-unhealthy foods. You can actually experiment on yourself, since blood cholesterol levels adjust to a change in diet in 2 to 3 weeks: have your cholesterol checked to get a baseline, change your diet, and have your cholesterol checked again a few weeks later.
In reply to: Can "healthy eating" be achieved with out the wholesale sacrifice of superfluous foods such as alcohol, butter, bacon, et. al.
First of all, alcohol in moderation is healthy. There is a consistent body of evidence showing that moderate drinkers live longer than both heavy drinkers and abstainers, and there are plausible biological hypotheses to explain this observation.
Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung. There is a growing body evidence showing a dose-response relation between the amount of bacon (and other processed meats) consumed and the incidence of digestive tract cancers. Is there a level of consumption below which there is no increased risk of cancer? Is there a level of cigarette smoking below which there is no increased risk of cancer? I don't know the answer to either question, and, personally, I don't need to know. The research findings are enough for me to avoid any intake of either substance.
With respect to butter, that's the kind of question that can be at least partially answered by doing a pre–post check of your cholesterol levels, as per my first paragraph.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 23, 2011, 6:31 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:23 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:25 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:25 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:26 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:28 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:30 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:30 AM
|
|
Post edited by jt512
() on Mar 23, 2011, 6:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
