Ah, okay. So instead of taking supplemental Vitamin D, you should get it from natural sources, such as..... foods that have been artificially fortified with supplemental Vitamin D.
At worst, the paragraph is just a poorly constructed catch all warning.
Bottom line is, get your Omega-3 from fish. Get your Vit D from the sun as much as you safely can and then from common sources before jumping to a separate supplement.
First, I recall warnings about too much fish consumption due to mercury levels in the fish. So how much fish consumption is necessary to get the required omega 3 and does the benefits balance out over the harm caused by the mercury? And are there any particular kinds of fish to consume to limit mercury exposure while getting the benefits of omega 3?
Second, as far as I know juices are not too great for your health, all the sugars of a large amount of fruit in a quickly absorbable form without the fiber to slow it down. Consuming large amounts of juice might have been the trigger for diabetic conditions in a family member. Also, if I remember correctly, cereal had also been deemed not particularly healthy, although I don't recall the details.
Better not to eat fish at all, as one small bit of tuna (for instance) per week already increases the mercury build up in the body.
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/
Also, you can get high DHA omega 3 supplements made from algae.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-epa-and-dha-...
I’m no nutritionist, but what’s the big deal with eating tuna every now and again, but mostly sticking to smaller fish?
Is there a chance that a diet that is similar to chimps, bonobos and utangs is most healthy for us as well?
No refined food, mostly fruits+leaves and some seeds and bugs. It "maybe" that simple. These doctors are aware of this, and promote --to my best knowledge-- based on science what can logically be derived from our evolutionary ancestery.
Calling it "vegan advocacy" is besides the point. It's WFPB advocacy, because it's showing to work in studies/practices.
High meat cultures never produced the longest living people. High fruit+leaves have, repeatedly.
This is a lie.
Spain has the fourth longest living country in the world according to the WHO, and ranks 11th in the world in meat consumption at 97 kg per person according to the FAO.
Australia, tied at 4th with Spain in life expectancy, consumes a whooping 111 kg per person, 3rd in the world.
Japan and Iceland, first and fifth in life expectancy, consume metric shittons of fish.
How would you bend this crushing evidence to support the argument that "high meat cultures don't produce the longest living people"?
Also in Japan you can find the longest living people, Okinawa, and they barely eat meat (traditionally). A food culture is not defined by national borders: we have to look inside the countries to see what culture work for longevity. See the bluezones book.
Then I must say that I said something wrong: "longest living" alone is not enough, we want to be healthy too. Being sick for the last 30 years of my life, kept on my feet by a medical system (as what happens a lot in developed nations), it not a good prospect for me.
You were specifically arguing against eating tuna. So a plant AND fish based diet might be best after all? Regardless, Spain and Australia trail very closely to Japan, and they are huge meat eaters.
> "longest living" alone is not enough, we want to be healthy too
You seem to be subtly implying now that these long-living countries might have serious public health issues. Again incorrect - according to Bloomberg, Australia, Italy or Spain are in the top-10 healthiest countries in the world, which includes measures other than longevity.
> Being sick for the last 30 years of my life
Well, I am sorry you had to endure that, but I hope you understand that your health and that of the public might not be related at all.
I argue against beef for fat/ cholesterol/ animal protein (not for the iron, but get that from e.g. pommegranades)
> according to Bloomberg
I prefer the method of the BlueZones book (until I can read teh details of the Bloomberg study methods)
> Well, I am sorry you had to endure that
I expect not to endure that. As I do not consume the high-processed, high animal product diet so common in the west.
Evidence based nutrition :) That's my game. Meat causes colon cancer. The ideal consumed cholesterol amount is zero (yes a lot of short term studies like to show otherwise).
In which country? Tuna cans and tuna sandwiches and salads are some of the most popular foods in lots of countries.
Nothing fancy (tuna is no lobster or caviar) or especially expensive about it. It's available as a Subway sandwich for dog's sake!
Don't know, I like both for their own tastes. Some canned tuna is worse than pet food (especially the one made into a mush), but some canned tuna is great.
>perhaps this explains the slip in your last sentence?
No, I wanted to give it a lighter slant than "god's sake" for our American friends, sort of like "heck".
Dry feed is linked to kidney failure in cars and small dogs.
Veterinarian food is marginally better but it still isn't comparable to a close-to-natural diet. Pretty much the same business model used by toothpaste brands sold by dentists (piggy-backing on profession trust).
There are higher quality cans and options like BARF which cost a bit more but are far better (and tastier) for pets. It can also be done at home at a lower cost but it's pretty messy. Time-wise takes around 8 man-hours per month for us (recepie calculation, getting supplements, grinding and cutting meat, getting it all together and packaging).
We've been feeding our cats with it for over 2y now. Their blood tests are far better and there's a visible increase in fur quality. Partner is a vet tech and has easy access to the clinic to checkup on our pets. She also daily sees effects of cheap dry stuff on patients.
Once a week builds up merc in the body. Merc is toxic. That's the big deal. Smaller fish have less of this problem, but still add to it. Better avoid most fish at this point, we've destroyed the oceans to much, sadly.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-brand-of-tuna-has-the...
Mercury bioaccumulates in the ecosystem. That means higher levels in fish that eat fish, and highest levels in fish that eat fish that eat fish. It also accumulates over a lifetime, so longer lived fish have higher levels.
Farmed fish (in this US mostly tilapia and salmon) have other issues, but mercury isn't a generally concern. For wild fish, the small ones--anchovies, herring, sardines--are low in mercury, along with catfish, pollock, shad, and haddock.
The worst for mercury that are widely eaten are tuna (sushi or steak grade, the species they used for canned tuna aren't as bad), certain types of mackerel, and grouper.
I'm an amateur Bay Area fisherman, so as someone eating fish out of the Bay, am often studying up on mercury and PCB levels in species. My understanding is this is not true- farmed salmon are often fed baitfish meal (sardine/anchovy etc). They eat orders of magnitude higher quantities of these fish than they would in the wild, so they bioaccumulate more toxins than they would outside the farm. Let me see if I can find a source.
Some quick googling returns sources supporting both sides, so I'd take either position with a grain of salt.
I believe this is only possible when on a diet that's >10cal% fat. When your fat intake is very low (like the fruit binging chimps/utangs/bonobos), and your cells are (thus) properly sensitive to insulin, you will not suffer from lots of sugar in fruit juice. Fibers help making it digest slower, and will reduce the blood sugar spike further, but the main thing is that your cells quickly absorb the blood sugar, for which proper insulin sensitivity is needed.
It does, but in the absence of fat (>10cal%) in the diet it does not raise it in a significant way.
> but can lead to NAFLD
Do you have a source for that? Here a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the ways NAFLD can come about. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent-non-alcoholic-fatty...
[0]: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes...
[1]: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review
[1]: HNTD (the book) is on the topic of treating disease with whole plant food. Is that a problem? Is he denying that sometimes another approach is needed? (nope) Is he claiming prevention is better than curing? (yups) Now the article does little more that claiming "cherry picking"... 1/4th of the book is refs to scientific publications. Whether you think this was cherry picked or carefully selected is up to you... It more a matter of taste than anything else.
First, fish consumption mercury concerns are mainly relevant with large fish. So stick to smaller fish like salmon, or, if you want the biggest bang for your mercury buck, the healthiest fish to eat is actually anchovies. And frankly if you learn to prepare them right, they are delicious.
Regarding juice, you don't need to drink much juice to get a vitamin D boost. First of all, at least around here, the only juice you typically see with it is orange juice. A glass of OJ a day with an otherwise recommended diet isn't going to give you any problems unless you have an allergy or something. Actually a glass of OJ without supplements is not a bad idea as many popular "healthy" diets lack citrus which is important for numerous reasons. But the key here is quantity. It's true, lots of juice is associated with bad health outcomes. Just stick to a max of 1 cup (~230ml) a day, and be sure to get sufficient fiber. I'd always eat something with 5+ grams of fiber along with my OJ. That said, if you prefer you could always just drink milk or take a supplement. Or go outside. I get my Vit D by going outside. I drink OJ daily because there's very little citrus in my diet otherwise. Plus I like it. It balances my black coffee nicely.
Cereal, again, depends entirely on what you're eating as well as culturally what you even consider cereal to be. There is a near infinite range of foods called cereal with highly varying degrees of nutrition. I personally wouldn't rely on cereal for nutrition. The nutrient rich cereals on the shelf at the store are basically typical low nutrition grains with a ton of added vitamins. You may as well take a multivitamin. The importance of mentioning cereal is that they already have many added nutrients so you should be paying attention to what you are ALREADY getting before choosing to add a supplement.
Honestly, all of these things are VALID concerns, but, your whole post is an exercise in modern blanket nutritional and health guidance. In short, blanket health guidance is crap. For any blanket guidance you encounter, even scientifically support guidance, you are going to have a plethora of nuances that undermine it. Just take the "avoid carbs" advice so popular today. Turns out the healthiest people get about 50% of their daily caloric intake from carbs. But it's the KIND of carbs, and the combination of other factors that matter the most. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/74608 In another recent study it was found the Japan's oldest and most healthy elderly people lived on 80% calories from sweet potatoes, ate hardly any rice, and small amounts of meat/fish. Sweet potatoes are extremely nutritious so I'm not surprised. The carbs are mostly complex as well. That's pretty important.
Point is, be sure to understand the details or you'll end up blanket statement-ing yourself out of every good thing this life has to offer.
That doesn't make any sense in the case of Vitamin D. The amount of fish necessary to get a reasonably high amount of Vitamin D from a diet is so high, you may well get heavy metal poisoning. Fish is pretty much the only viable dietary source of Vitamin D.
There is only two way to get "enough" Vitamin D: Sunlight and supplements. Obtaining enough sunlight in the winter with an office job isn't possible in the northern hemisphere.
I believe the portion of the sentence advising readers on vitamin D sources is this part: "vitamin-D fortified cereals, milk, and orange juice." It is confusing because the order is reversed from the first clause of the sentence.
I do think it's a bit odd that the article criticizes vitamin D supplements and instead advises ... vitamin D supplemented foodstuffs.
A daily 15 minutes of exposure for the face and forarms is enough, and it contributes to recalibrate the mood and circadian rythm as well. It's free, healthy, and simple. Why would anyone recommand a supplement to people that have access to the sun is beyong me.
Omega 3 is harder, but still.
Also eating fish has other problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_oil
I read there:
"""The fish used as sources do not actually produce omega-3 fatty acids, but instead accumulate them by consuming either microalgae or prey fish that have accumulated omega-3 fatty acids."""