This is Me Getting All 'Aristotelian' on Grains

Aristotle was perhaps the first to popularize the notion that human beings are rational animals, that reason is simply a part of human nature. It is also commonly recognized that arguments must be structured according to reason; therefore, so should our personal decisions.

For those that are still on the fence about grains, or are having trouble seeing the Reason surrounding them, I've laid out all the reasons here for you, for and against.


Reasons to Eat Grains

1. They have lots of fiber*
2. They contain vitamins and minerals**
3. They are inexpensive***
4. They taste good****

*Though, it's insoluble fiber, which does not create habitat for healthy gut flora, may disturb a sensitive gut, and may even promote bad gut bacteria colonization.

**Once cooked, which is necessary in order to digest them, grains are among the least nutrient dense foods. And they are dramatically inferior to their carbohydrate alternatives in fruit, tubers, and starchy vegetables.

***Does not account for indirect health care costs, which, upon inclusion, may place grains among the most expensive foods along with sugar and vegetable oil.

****You're damn right they do.


Reasons to Not Eat Grains

1. They might be toxic to you (gluten, gliadin peptides)*
2. Grain production via annual monocropping is environmentally destructive and unsustainable**
3. They are highly rewarding (opioids) and palatable (sugars), which fuels their overconsumption***
4. They are nutrient-sparse compared to all other carbohydrate sources****

*Although up to 80% of the population may see inflammatory markers go up with the consumption of these proteins, classifying these things is difficult, arbitrary, and the lines have not been clearly defined in regard to who can and can't safely consume grains.

**Does not apply to traditional grain farming that promotes biodiversity, polycultures, etc.

***Palatability applies to anything that tastes good.

****Except for refined sugars and sweeteners, obviously.

Three Glaring Red Flags in "Forks Over Knives"

***This is a cross post from HackingEvolution.com***

I've heard an awful lot about this movie from my friends, some of whom acquiesced to their deceptive endorsement of a "whole foods" diet, so I reluctantly gave it a watch. Since this vegan propaganda isn't worth much of my time, I'm gonna keep this short. Here are four red flags that should have you discounting everything this movie endorses -- except, of course, the importance of whole foods.


Red Flag #1: Fear Factor

Among all the things that motivate people, fear is largely regarded as the most potent. The entire beginning of this movie is a conflation of the fact that you are going to die. Soon. You will get heart disease. You will get cancer. And it's all because of your western diet: processed foods and industrialized meats.

Well, everyone agrees with that idea. But they don't need to instill the fear of God in me before presenting the facts, because that's overtly manipulative. A logically sound presentation will suffice. So from the very outset of this movie, we are already immersed in a world of emotion and sensationalism, then dragged through image of heart surgery after image of fat-attaching-to-our-arteries (an idea from the Eighties, by the way). That's a red flag.


Red Flag #2: False Designation

I'd guess that they said the phrase "whole foods, plant-based diet" about 100 times throughout the mindless drivel and half-truths that were this film. But guess what? This vegan diet is not composed entirely of whole foods, because grains are not whole foods -- even 'whole grains' are still highly processed. Their processing is necessary to make them edible. So, they're lying.

Also, double lie, because this is not a plant-based diet. This is a plant-dominated diet, consisting of 100% plants. The USDA food pyramid is plant-based. Hell, almost every diet is plant based. McDonald's menu is plant-based. It's clear they're using false buzzwords to further deceive us. That's another red flag.


Red Flag #3: Campbell Got Fired

The shady meat-loving secret police must have had it out for Campbell because he had the courage to tell the truth. That, or not that, are two possibilities.

One thing I love about scientists: they are very careful about what they say. You'll often see an abstract where their data overwhelming concludes something, yet they will still end up saying, "More research is needed in this area." It's nearly ubiquitous. I love that. It's humble and responsible.

Another thing. Scientists understand clearly that correlation is not causation. They understand that if you find a correlation, which is what Campbell did, you still need to take that idea to the lab and conduct real science: randomized controlled trials. Then, after you find something, and others confirm it, and a biological mechanism is revealed. Then and only then can you start running around, declaring that you have something to say.

Campbell went around spouting that all animal foods cause all the degenerative diseases, based almost entirely on correlations he found with the worst kind of data: government data. A scientist would never something like this because it drastically oversteps the boundaries of their evidence. Anyone with any level of statistical knowledge would not say this. I wonder why he got fired.


If you'd like more detail about the half-truths, check this out.