[mjlangiii]

nutritionfacts.org was created for this reason, to consolidate the evidence from nutritional studies so that you don't have to.

spoiler alert - the comprehensive review lead them to the conclusion to eat plants, unprocessed.

But anyway, it is a nice resource to get a round up of studies on a similar topic.

[throwpupper]

nutritionfacts.org is an extremely biased site that has been created by a vegan who built his whole career on speaking about health issues. While it has the word "facts" in its title nothing prevents them from cherry-picking studies to support their original views.

If you cherry-pick different studies you might actually find that consuming large amount of plants stresses our digestive system way more than a fatty steak with potatoes.

[cies]

> If you cherry-pick different studies you might actually find that consuming large amount of plants stresses our digestive system way more than a fatty steak with potatoes.

You really, REALLY, believe with all information being out there nowadays that a diet of only "fatty steak with potatoes" will be healthier for humans that the "balanced WFPB diet" that is nutritionfacts.org claims is scientifically proven to be the healthiest?

I think you have nothing to back that up. Please cherry pick how you please and present your evidence.

Dr Greger, who started the non-profit nutritionfacts.org, is often attacked for being an ethical vegan. Since people reason that would impair his ability to present unbiased evidence. Though no-one has ever gotten beyond claiming he's cherry picking. I wish someone would describe a different diet that is as well supported by scientific evidence, as what nutritionfacts is doing for WFPB.

There is some scientific evidence building up in for the Keto diet. But that is --as far as I know-- not a diet for life.

On the other hand there is the raw diet movement (basically an uncooked WFPB diet), but that has little scientific and mostly anecdotal evidence.

[debacle]

The keto diet's main difficulties are the prevalence and preponderance of available sugary foods, the near inability to eat socially, and the extreme difficulty in adopting the diet in the first 3 weeks for people regularly consuming 200g+ of carbohydrates a day.

The raw diet is mostly a trendy thing people write about. The bioavailability of nutrients in many raw foods is just too meh.

We know what the best diet is. A plant and fish based diet with small amounts of other meat. Meat that doesn't subsist on a diet primarily of corn or other, less edible things. This diet is completely unsustainable on a global scale and would result in even more ecological havoc.

The discussion between plants or plants + meat is complicated, but for now I'm going to ignore it because there's more important considerations:

- Companies are making our produce harder to digest as they try and make products with a longer shelf life.

- Eating industrially produced meat (of any sort) is very unhealthy and in many ways unsafe.

- This entire discussion removes dairy from the equation, which is a large part of the puzzle for most people.

- The low-carb vegan and the low-carb omnivore are far better off than anyone consuming 200g+ of carbohydrates a day.

- Hydroponically grown carrots taste gross.

[cies]

> We know what the best diet is. A plant and fish based diet with small amounts of other meat.

Nope. Fish (most fish) as a central part of diet, will contribute a lot to build up of heavy metals in humans. And what is "small amounts of other meat"? 3x per week? This is basically an omnivorous diet. Compared to the SAD is probably just the junk cut out.

This, SAD-processed, is a very unhealthy diet, compared to a balanced WFPB diet. There are lots of studies to back this up.

> - Companies are making our produce harder to digest as they try and make products with a longer shelf life.

Yups.

> - Eating industrially produced meat (of any sort) is very unhealthy and in many ways unsafe.

Not a problem for those eating WFPB.

> - This entire discussion removes dairy from the equation, which is a large part of the puzzle for most people.

Dairy is a killer. Prolly more so than meat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3c_D0s391Q

> - The low-carb vegan and the low-carb omnivore are far better off than anyone consuming 200g+ of carbohydrates a day.

Any study on this?

There is a lot of studies (long running, with large size populations) claiming the opposite. Here some arguments: http://www.masteringdiabetes.org/ketosis-ketogenic-diets-mis...

> - Hydroponically grown carrots taste gross.

Personal taste. It prolly has less phytonutrients. Not sure how this is an important consideration.

[debacle]

The site you linked is thick which propaganda which makes me doubt your bias and arguments. Choosing your sources is important for making a compelling argument.

[cies]

One man's truth is another's propaganda, what are your sources? (I've shown mine, and I must say it's pretty convincing and lines up with what I already knew about the human body)

I'm not at all saying there's no use for keto, I just think it should never be a mainstream diet (but something applied in specific cases, under medical supervision). As far as sci evidence goes, WFPB seems to be the "best" diet for the human species as a whole.

[throwpupper]

I never said that you should _only_ eat steaks and potatoes, did I?

This diet recommends a pound of fatty meat per day: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/the-diet/

The book that describes the diet cites over 1000 studies and empirical evidence to prove that the diet is healthy. Now who am I to believe?

[cies]

This website is seriously one of the best places to find science backed nutrition info. The advice comes down to: eat a balanced Whole Food Plant Based (WFPB) diet with a minimal supplementation regimen:

https://nutritionfacts.org/2011/09/12/dr-gregers-2011-optimu...