Assuming fresh unspoiled produce and an average human male?
Someone told me that our intestines are too long to be meat eaters whose intestines are generally very short. I am also assuming that the diet that we are naturally equiped to eat is the best (efficiency of energy and general health)but am prepared to accept that this may change.
Human beings are perfectly capable of eating and digesting meat, as long as it is eaten on its own. As cave men, or more obviously, as mamals do, they eat one type of food at a time, leaving it sufficient time to digest.
Different types of food take different amounts of time to digest and they digest in different places. For example starchy foods start to be digested in the mouth following the action of enzymes in saliva. Meats however take much longer to digest and need the powerful acids of the stomach to break them down.
For an deeper understanding of health and nutrition, read the Optimum Nutrition Bible by Patrick Holford.
You’ve opened pandora’s box on this one.
Generally, a variety of approaches will work, so there is no one magic answer.
A diet that emphasizes balance, moderation and includes exercise as part of the formula. Much research is showing that it’s really total caloric intake held to a minimum with maximum nutritional benefit that has the most promising outlook on longevity and health. At least someone who knows how to do real scientific research is doing it.
low cal, nutritionally dense. To get there, it means restricting, but including, meats and fats, while emphasizing vitamins, protein, and minerals. Supplements don’t count and show no signs of working.
Read the link.
A true carnivore like a cat a has a short, simple intentinal tract, because it doesn’t need anything else. A cat couldn’t possibly survive on grass. But nor could a human. That requires something much more complicated to do efficiently, like a cow has. Humans have intestinal equipment somewhere in between the two extremes. Humans are capable of digesting meat, and some plant matter, but not pure cellulose. A cow is perfectly capable of digesting meat, fruit, pure cellulose, anything. They just aren’t equipped to actually catch meat.
Medically, a “better” diet has been shown to include ample fish and vegetables, chicken rather than red meat, nuts and olive oils rather than butter and highly saturated fats.
Human intestines handle both meat and vegetables well.
Philster got the idea with minimum calorific intake and maximum nutritional benefit.
I am a bit dubious about his suplement comment. I thought that as long as they were from natural sources, and preferable timed release they could provide benefit…
Dr Walford at UCLA and some of his peers at other schools have controlled studies running for years on the use of supplements (especially anti-oxidants), and the evidence seems to indicate that the supplements don’t do a lick versus obtaining the nutrition in low cal/ nutritionally dense meals. This guy has geriatric mice (by age only) that have the youth and vigor of young mice, and mice that got nutrition boosts thru supplements that show no improvements over other mice eating regular meals.
Research has been extended to primates, with similar results, but this was done later, so data continues to pour in.
When asked about the supplements, one of the researchers said, “I still take them”, but acknowledged there was a total lack of evidence for their effectiveness.
The emphasis still falls on low calorie living (we’re talking 1500-1800 cals for an adult male) with all calories packing nutritional punch (along the 100% RDA for vitamins, minerals, protein). Fat takes a natural back seat, as does sugar, because they are ‘empty calories’…high in cal quantity, low in nutritional benefit.
Humans are equipped to process meat and veggies. Veggies generally digest better, but that’s not to say that meat shouldn’t be eaten, correct? I would conclude however, that one should not eat solely meat…
Supps are only effective if you have a crappy diet. And if you have a crappy diet, you should eat better. So, i guess that means that supps really don’t have any use, except for lazy people who don’t want to take the time to eat several required servings of fruit a day.
After reconsideration, supps can help one get nutrition if they are also trying to control bodyfat. If one has a restricted fat-loss diet, they are usually not getting sufficient micro-nutritents, so supping with calcium pills and such is a good idea at that point.
I wonder about the cellulose, timed-release pills though, sounds shaky…
Eh, I find this a little hard to agree with. I’d say that the proper role of supplements (multivitamins and whatnot) is as insurance: if your diet’s pretty good, they help make sure that you’re getting everything you need. If your diet sucks, no supplement on earth will save you.
Also, people with food allergies may find them useful.
It seems to me there must be a middle ground – if your diet is good, you may get most of the nutrients you need from food.
But if you’re restricting caloric intake; have problems digesting certain types of foods); or engage in exercise that may raise some of your requirements, supplements would seem to offer benefit to even a good diet.
E.g., I seem to not thrive on dairy products – no full-blown lactose intolerance, just a lousy feeling if I eat/drink them. (I also weightlift and run pretty intensely 5-6 days a week). I consequently take ample calcium supplements, figuring I’d rather find out as a healthy 80-year-old that I’ve wasted a few dollars a year than learn I could have avoided shrinking 6 inches in height.
This segues into something I strongly believe about diet – there is variation among individuals, and one should experiment some, avoiding foods don’t agree with you. The diet cited by Philster, however, sounds like a perfectly good place to start.
Cecil column of some relevance:
This guy has geriatric mice (by age only) that have the youth and vigor of young mice, and mice that got nutrition boosts thru supplements that show no improvements over other mice eating regular meals.
Research has been extended to primates, with similar results, but this was done later, so data continues to pour in.
The emphasis still falls on low calorie living (we’re talking 1500-1800 cals for an adult male) with all calories packing nutritional punch (along the 100% RDA for vitamins, minerals, protein). Fat takes a natural back seat, as does sugar, because they are ‘empty calories’…high in cal quantity, low in nutritional benefit. **
[/QUOTE]
I have recently increased my supplement level to that of the optimum as suggested by Patrick Holford http://www.patrickholford.com/default.asp
and i have noticed massive increases in energy, all aches and pains (however temporary they may have been) have since dissapeared, my skin if cut heals more quickly, my body is less prone to colds and flu to name but a few improvements.
I have been training for 5 years now and i noticed that about 6 weeks into my supplement programme my recovery time had reduced significantly.
For me at least i can conclude that supplements work.
The other factor is that because of the change in farming methods from natural crop rotation to pumping the ground full of chemicals, fruit and veg nolonger have the same amount of vits and mins. And meat is the same - animals are ‘farmed’ as opposed to bred naturally, so their meat lacks the nutrition it used to have in abudance.
Easy, and not to hard.
Step 1) No Complex Carbs. AT ALL (Pasta, bread, etc…)
Step 2) Dont mix food groups. Especially Carbs and Protein. (Veggies & Meat)
Step 3) No Candy, Desserts, Fried/Breaded Stuff
Step 4) If trying to loose weight cut out Potatoes & Rice, and go easy on the fat and fruits.
Simple!
Fugazi79, why no complex carbs?
I think theres only one way to know for sure - try the diet, people somehow react differently to different foods. I’m just not going to try one that doesn’t contain pasta… 
Anyway aren’t Italians renowned for longevity?
Cecil gives a pretty comprehensive argument for eating meat, but i’m still not convinced…