There’s been an interesting twist thrown into the mix of dietary discussion, recently.
On August 16, the American Journal of Public Health released a report saying “fruit and vegetable consumption may NOT be INadequate.”
In other words, it’s not about eating more fruits and vegetables so much as reducing other foods that man was never intended to eat — such as refined grains and sugar.
The report points out that, “only after the introduction of white flour and sugar to traditional plant-avoiding diets (of the Masai [Kenya] and Inuit [Arctic] people) did such peoples begin to exhibit diseases like obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.”
Indeed, the report goes on, these people “did just fine” without eating fruits and vegetables.
Does that mean that you can be healthy without eating fruits and vegetables? Not likely in this day and age.
Our world is so permeated with de-natured food and pollution that going “back to the garden” is the only way to truly escape and reverse the ills of today.
It’s almost as if history has come full circle.
A whole foods, plant-based diet was the first and only diet for mankind (Genesis 1:29) — and now it seems it’s our body’s first choice for reversing disease.
We’re intrigued to know how the Masai and Inuit “did just fine” on a meat-only diet since the human body’s stomach acid is only 10% as potent as a carnivore’s.
Did their body’s adapt?
Was their environment so pure that it didn’t matter?
Did they not record death due to disease or recognize what “disease” was?
Or did it have something to do with dietary modesty? After all, disease did exist in the Bible (curiously only after meat was introduced to the human diet after the flood) and King Asa is a primary example of what can happen.
As a king, Asa would have had almost unlimited access to food, and contracted a “foot disease” which many believe to be gout or diabetes, both diet-related illnesses.
Today, the majority of people in Western society eat like kings every day… and maybe that’s the problem.[quote]What’s your take on this research?[/quote]