In the 1950′s through 60′s…for instance..did you see the kind of “obsession” with food tat you see today?
Did you see the “varieties” of junk foods on the shelves in such an expanded array?…
Did you see such a massive “money making machine” in this country around soda and chips?…really now? come on…in the 1960′s?? we would have laughed about it!There were not that many choices!We would have had one bag in the house, no one would have thought twice about it…and there were no OBESE EPIDEMICS THEN. think about it folks…we were NOT OBSESSED ABOUT FOOD in the 60′s I was there, I KNOW!!

The conventional caloric model of obesity cannot explain:

*WHY we have a worldwide epidemic of obese 6 month olds

*WHY we have extreme poverty and malnutrition going hand in hand with obesity

The classic caloric model of obesity is a theory born of logic alone, and completely ignores the data.

There is some evidence that the obese eat more because they are literally starving. A non-obese person with normal insulin levels can access fat stores for energy between meals. An obese person, by contrast, suffers from permanently elevated insulin levels that prevent them from drawing on fat stores for energy, and driving them to crave glucose as a source of energy, which causes them to store more fat, and further elevate their insulin levels.

First, “mainstream” is not necessarily the same as correct. The relevant question is: does the evidence stand up to scrutiny?

The citations for that article are here:
1. Truswell AS. Meat consumption and cancer of the large bowel. Eur J Clin Nut 2002;(suppl 1):S19-S24
2. Key TJ, et al. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). 2009;89(suppl):1S-7S
3. Alexander DD, et al. Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein and colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:1-8

Draw your own conclusions.

I think the question of protein sources for vegetarians is probably misguided, and that they should be more concerned with the quality and sources of fat and fat-soluble vitamins. You mention vitamin B12, but what about K2-MK4, vitamin A, or DHA and EPA or D3? I’m not anti-vegetarian, but it’s probably a sub-optimal way for humans to eat. I am highly skeptical of veganism, but enough people are willing to experiment with their own bodies that we will soon enough understand the long-term consequences.

I’m also not advocating a high-meat diet. But I do think some meats are very good for people, and that there is a politically motivated anti-meat bias that is not firmly rooted in science or tradition.

Secondly, the calories in calories out as the cause of obesity hypothesis just isn’t particularly well-supported by the research. If you are aware of *experiments* that robustly defend, by proving causality, your supposedly iron-clad hypothesis, please post it in the comments.

Taubes goes into great detail explaining how insulin prevents the body from using body fat as fuel, and how carbohydrate consumption elevates insulin levels. High levels of carbohydrate consumption means constantly elevated insulin levels, which means the body is more often storing more fat rather than mobilizing it. Eating fat and protein, by contrast, elevate insulin minimally thus allowing the body to mobilize body fat for usage as fuel. As he notes in the epilogue, “Consuming excess calories dos not *cause* us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller.” That is, we need to consider the regulatory function of hormones, and the way in which hormones respond differently to different types of calories to properly understand the causes of obesity.

To state my biases: If I were to recommend a diet it would include some combination of: meat (especially seafood, and organ meats, and avoiding factory farmed corn- or soy-fed animals), vegetables, fruits, nuts, and some dairy.
It would limit: most processed foods, legumes, grains, and sugar (including those silly “healthy” alternatives like agave or cane sugar).

My primary influences: paleo-anthropology, human culture, Gary Taubes, Weston A. Price, Michael Pollan, and Alice Waters.

I really don’t know what you are looking for at this science-based site? Your references, beginning with Dr. Briffa, are not mainstream, peer-reviewed, or even well-documented. Briffa seems to be a supplement-pushing “media” doctor whose advice I would take with a large dose of skepticism.

No matter how you slice it, the ONLY cause of obesity is MORE CALORIES IN THAN OUT. The amounts of protein, carbs and so on that the body needs are well established scientifically. It doesn’t matter whether the protein comes from flesh or beans or milk or eggs.

I am an anthropologist and I can assure you that the idea that pleistocene people (which is what we are, as well) ate a lot of meat is false. Our species (or a closely related proto-species) most likely began consuming flesh by scavenging bits of it from other animals. Even when we got to hunting it ourselves, it was not a significant part of our diet which consisted mostly of nuts, berries and other plants collected mostly by the women. It is true that meat may be responsible for a growth spurt in the development of the brain, but again–that doesn’t mean we were eating huge quantities of flesh. We are omnivores, but that term doesn’t specify what the ratio of meat to non-meat foods should be. By the way, anthropologists often use the term gatherer-hunter rather than the usual hunter-gatherer to make clear that the emphasis was on collection of plant foods

Anyone can choose to be vegetarian and for a lacto-ovo, there should be no problem at all getting sufficient protein. Vegans CAN get adequate nutrition, but will need B-12 supplementation (the ones I know break down and eat a bit of cheese now and then and do just fine). Eat flesh if you like, and enjoy, but stop with the pseudo-scientific references when you are addressing a scientifically literate audience.