Heart Disease dramatically decreased during/after WWI and WWII due to "meat shortage" and diet change to grains


(PJ) #21

Around the world and throughout time, human health in a given region has a marked change during and after a war that affects the region. Inaccurate “assumptions” about the “why” are pretty common.

Things often hit during major economic strain:

  1. Meat, assuming the region is not a ranching region
  2. Sugar, assuming the region is not a cane region
  3. Food supply as a whole including transportation

Protein is required for life. It is the primary nutrient for humans.
Sugar is not required.

Reducing protein is a bad thing, but as long as the minimum is met, it is not immediately shown in most the stats. Reducing sugar causes relatively prompt improvements in health.


(Ken) #22

There’s a very simple explanation, having little to do directly with meat.

It was due to the reduction of people eating carb-fat combinations as meat/fat was less available.

To assert that it’s evidence that meat causes Heart Disease in this instance is typical anti-meat ignorance. Typical obfuscation to deny the actual role of carbs, and the synergistic increase in insulin secretion when they are consumed with fat.

(bulkbiker) #23

Well I’d love to see the “cancer” causality studies that you have … not the “maybe” or “associational” ones but the “meat causes cancer” and the “meat shortens lives” studies that you have just claimed to have…

I’d also love to see what your blood glucose does on a potato, fruit, bread and pasta diet and also for you to see what it does…

(Bunny) #24

Already showed you that several times and as usual you refuse read so no point bringing that up again?

I know for an absolute unmistakeable FACT that excessive consumption of animal products long-term does cause cancer in human beings as demonstrated and duplicated several times under a microscope.

This is true if you are only consuming meat everyday.

No studies needed Mr. Mark.

Remember reading is fundamental?

If you have ever heard the term blinded by the light of your own ignorance this is a good case of it?

Just because people are not dropping like flies left and right does not mean they don’t already have cancer? It’s a slow process that gradually becomes metastic.

How do you counteract that problem?

The answer might be real folate?

You can’t do that eating only meat (not enough in it when cooked) or man made versions of folic acid?

For example in a Vegan they may not show a Vitamin B-12 deficiency because it is being masked by excessive folic acid or folate but get permanent neurological damage if vitamin B-12 is not replenished fast enough?

Folate deficiencies are not the only reason you get cancer from eating only animal products because eventually you get too many micro-RNA’s floating around in the colon and rectum from amino acid eating bacteria that severely shift the microbiome diversity into a state of putrefaction (putrescine and cadaverine). How is that healthy when you smell like death?

So if I’m purposely eating a certain way that encourages the proliferation of cancer in my gut that is not sane?

Your insulin and glucose levels may look good but there is other damage being created?


[1] “…White rice is fortified with folic acid to prevent folate deficiency. …” …More (i.e. that’s the man made stuff when your constantly and slowly digesting a resistant starch you get a steady supply of non-fortified folate (= longevity/IFG-1 switch turns to off position as well as the cancer proliferation being switched to off position) as well as glucose just like only eating meat?

[2] Folic Acid and Its Metabolites Modulate IGF-I Receptor Gene Expression in Colon Cancer Cells in a p53-dependent Manner

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #25

There may have been a negative association between meat consumption and heart disease during the world wars, but be wary about assuming causality from an association.

Other thoughts to consider would be how highly unreliable the data concerning food consumption from a century ago and earlier is known to be, and also the matter of how reliable data were concerning the prevalence of heart disease in those periods. (How reliable were diagnoses, how good was the reporting system, and so forth.) For example, there is actually some dispute about the so-called epidemic of heart attacks in the U.S. after World War II, whether the rate of heart attacks actually increased, or whether the rate was the same but more were being reported.

This is not to say that we can’t draw valid conclusions, merely that our ability to draw such conclusions is a lot more fragile than most people—including most researchers—want to believe.

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #26

Their longevity might not have had anything to do with pork or sweet potatoes, but rather with lack of sugar. The type of cooking fat can apparently make quite a bit of difference, as well, and populations whose principal cooking fat is high in saturates and monounsaturates, and low in polyunsaturates seem to be healthier in general. (Tucker Carlson is promoting the idea that our metabolic health has been more greatly affected by our cooking oils than by our sugar consumption. I’m not sure I believe him entirely, but he sounds extremely plausible.) Or there might have been some other factor that promoted longevity, such as a lower rate of smoking.

I’ve never seen a discussion of the relative risk curves related to the various elements of the supposed Okinawan diet (what it actually was seems to be in some dispute), but I doubt that any such association rises to a level that would have met Bradford-Hill’s criteria for assessing the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. He was able to show that smoking increased the risk of lung cancer by four to thirty-five times, depending on the data being analysed. In most nutritional studies, the risk or benefit is generally in the range of 1.2 to 1.35, or some such. Unless the factor is at least 2, most statisticians won’t give such data even a cursory glance.

One thing that is indisputable, however, is that when Japanese sugar consumption was at levels comparable to those in the U.S. in the 1860’s, so was their rate of diabetes and obesity. As their sugar consumption has risen to U.S. levels, so has their rate of diabetes and obesity. The quantity of rice in their diet seems almost irrelevant, from this perspective. Again, we are discussing correlation, not causality, but still . . . .

It’s all grist for the mill. :bacon:


This discussion makes me wonder about Napoleon’s troops and the travesty of the discovery of margarine. I wonder what the Napoleonic War veterans died of, and in what proportions?

(Bunny) #28

Tasted Almost Like Butter? Cheaper than tallow or suet or not enough of a supply to keep it pure or real butter from milk? Imagine an Army powered on butyrate?


“…Emperor Napoleon III of France offered a prize to anyone who could make a satisfactory butter alternative, suitable for use by the military and the lower classes. …” ”…Margarine is a spread used for flavoring, baking and cooking that was first made in France in 1869. It was created by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès in response to a challenge by Emperor Napoleon III to create a butter substitute from beef tallow for the armed forces and lower classes.[2] It was named oleomargarine from Latin for oleum (olive oil) and Greek margarite (pearl indicating luster) but was later named margarine …” …More

My great grandmother use to call it “oleo” …lol

(bulkbiker) #29

Show me that study on people that eat only animal products… just that one… nothing else and I’ll read it…

The one that shows causality.

Can you imagine if that study actually existed (which I’m pretty sure it doesn’t) how much the vegan hordes would publicise it at every single opportunity!

(Bunny) #30

Lots of epidemiological studies as you very well know that reflect there is a problem somewhere with animal products especially when processed (in my opinion).

But that is not what I would consider proof, proof is when a scientist and doctors who specifically specialize in treating actual gastrointestinal cancer patients is seeing this under a microscope in biopsies and resistant starch eliminating the cancer causing micro-RNA’s from animal proteins, how much more proof do you want? The way this starts is so tiny that you will never know when it will begin because you cannot see it with colonoscopy exam and it might be to late if they do find cancer?

If your only eating meat I can see how the slightest microbiome infection could easily escalate into various types of rectal, colon, duodenum, pancreatic and liver cancers and maybe even promote cancer in other bodily organs.

Many people will get cancer from only eating animal proteins unfortunately because they are growing cancer rather than turning off its proliferation switch; it is just a matter of time before ten or so long-term meat only eaters get it, it’s just a fact but you now know the risk and a risk I would never take.

If I ate only meat with-out resistant starch in my diet I would constantly have stool samples examined and you might catch it before it is too late?

You get any kind of cancer around your intestinal tract you are going to suffer a slow excruciating death if they can’t remove it fast enough before metastasis begins; no amount of fasting, ketogenic dieting is going to save you?

Those little tiny micro-RNA’s from eating only animal based proteins are like little tiny miniature bombs in which their may be thousands just waiting for the opportunistic moment when your immune system becomes weak and slightest infection occurs to do there deed?

(bulkbiker) #31

Ahhh finally some nuance…

It’s all just your “humble” opinion … yet written with such authority…

i.e. no “proof” whatsoever… thanks for at least coming clean on that.

Yes I’m happy to take the risk as are many others.


(Bunny) #32

Exactly Mark because you want it to be my opinion thus I’m wrong?

Only one problem it is not my opinion it is cross validated scientific evidence under a microscope over and over again?

I do wish It was wrong but you provide no evidence or proof that eating only protein does not cause cancer?

If I were doing something as dangerous as only eating animal proteins, I would be sure to warn the person I’m trying to convince of the risk?

Which I can see you have no concern for other human beings?

(bulkbiker) #33

So far you have refrained from providing any proof as requested that eating animal proteins “causes” cancer. It is your opinion that it does. That is fine.

All I want is for you to reflect that in what you write.

Lots of people here think you are pretty smart and read a lot of your posts. When you mislead them by expressing your opinion as fact I feel obliged to point it out.

It is something you do very often and it really bugs me.

I’m a big boy and make my own choices. I suggest that others do the same and are happy to take the consequences.

Your opinion is just that… please write accordingly.

(Bunny) #34

When you make statements that I’m pointing out scientific facts and cross validated research as my opinion then I would probably be the author of such facts which I’m not, so why would you even attempt to make such a dumbfounded accusation?

You talk in circles and make no sense?

If your going to reply to my posts and tell me I’m wrong please provide references so that I can read them instead of attempting to harass people who don’t agree with you?

(bulkbiker) #35

I asked you for proof of these “facts” you did not provide it.
Thus it is all opinion and theory.

All I ask is that you correctly represent theory and opinion as such and not as “fact” .

You seem incapable of doing this.

(Ron) #36

I am completely there with you, bugs me to.

Because you read it does not make it an absolute but an opinion of your interpretation.

Seems of late that vanity is present in many posts. I have chosen to ignore most from you which is sad because you were so helpful with encouragement a couple years ago.

(Bunny) #37

”Interpretation” wow

In your world 2 + 2 does not equal 4 thus the earths gravity does not exist just because you can’t see it?

Again what part of “animal proteins causes cancer” don’t you understand?

That is not my “opinion” it is a scientific observation until proven false.

I would not even dare try to have an “opinion” about something as complex as cancer and what you want to do is shoot the messenger because they are relaying valid scientific data that you don’t like and cross validated at that?

Getting emotional with me will get you nowhere fast!

Animal proteins are less likely to cause cancer if certain dietary precaution are taken one being having resistant starch in the diet and the other natural conversions of folate which control the IFG-1 off/on switch.

And of course you will purposely ignore anything that does not agree with what you may have been mislead to believe because your emotional issues over-ride your common sensibilities which are most likely devotional rather than based on your own common senses; that’s when it’s time for a reality check?

(bulkbiker) #38

So you are saying that a theory is true until disproven?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #39


Also the following, which includes links to multiple studies (many of which I’m sure Bunny is referring to as the ‘science we don’t like and want to ignore’) “proving animal protein causes cancer, etc…”:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #40

If eating ‘animal’ protein is such a bad thing, I think we would not be here arguing about it.