The Blue Zones Debunked (Again)

Written By Miranda Ebner

The field of nutrition is always very exciting. We have documentaries, studies, guidelines, etc. coming out on a regular rhythm often with polarizing subjects: the Blue Zones, meat causes heart disease, everyone including those with diabetes should eat 45-65% of your calories from carbohydrates are some of these topics. The Blue Zones is an interesting look at cultures that live long and healthy lives. It’s essentially one author’s interpretation of what makes the Blue Zones healthy for those that live there.

It unfortunately has zeroed in on a plant-based diet, when in reality there is a plethora of other very important factors like consistent low stress, lots of daily movement, strong social connections and more. PLUS there is the fact that the author, Dan Buettner, omitted cultures that live even longer with healthy lifespans like Hong Kong in order to promote a plant-based diet. He even tweaked diets like the Okinawans to seem more plant-based then they actually were.

Okinawans

You can read about my examination of that here.

This is extremely frustrating because even though the plant-based diet is touted as the gold standard of all diets, it has many overlooked flaws. It leads to nutrient deficiencies (iron, protein, omega 3, zinc, B12, creatine), vegan diets are often high in processed foods and high in pro-inflammatory vegetable oils, they are not very filling or satisfying for most people and they are not more heart healthy or better for the planet.

Ooof…. I said a lot of things that go against the conventional narrative. Here is where I see why we are in this dire situation and yes, it has a lot to do with the bad information we are given. Our culture is obsessed with the latest “health” information, yet almost every single American is metabolically unhealthy.

Why? Based on my clinical experience, junk food bombards us everywhere and our national nutrition guidelines (USDA MyPlate) cause dissatisfaction. It promotes the majority of calories from high carbohydrates especially grains. The high carbohydrate intake perpetuates blood sugar spikes and crashes, causing cravings. It shys away from animal fat and promotes a generally low-fat diet with an emphasis of “vegetable” seed oil. Low fat diets are unsatisfying which leads to snacking, binging and junk food.

Plant-based dairy, cheese, “meat” alternatives are highly, highly processed and are often GMOs and from mono crop farming. Corn, soy and wheat fields are not naturally formed in nature which is why the tend to require intensive watering, pesticides and herbicides. And in case you didn’t know, our pre-species and species has eaten meat for 3.5 million years; we need to eat meat - with the protein and fat - to be satisfied.

Seeds oils are now being shown to cause insulin resistance in fat cells. Seed oils were only introduced into the diet the last 100 years and intake has skyrocketed to the primary fat source, replacing butter, lard, tallow. It’s also an extremely processed food.

Why would our national guidelines do this? There unfortunately tons of conflicts of interest from Big Food and Big Pharma (read + read) vested in addicting us to junk food and making us sick. The US allows businesses to lobby the government, it permits business executives to run for office, it allows businesses to give money to campaigns, stocks for promises and promotion. 95% of the USDA MyPlate committee members had COI with the food, and/or pharmaceutical industries. You name it, it’s happening. Just follow the money.

So it’s no surprise to see that now the USDA MyPlate came up with a study that says you can eat a 90% processed food diet and still get the plant-based nutrition you need. Isn’t this just bonkers?! Many, many studies in the last 10 years have started not only questioning but calling for a change in the “red meat/animal fat is bad” propaganda. At the bottom I have compiled a list of some of those studies plus a well-written article by Chris Kresser here.

All the finger pointing at meat is criminal. 100% pasture-raised meat is wonderful for health and the planet. Study after study is sounding the alarm that all this meat hate will be detrimental to our health.

The role of meat in the human diet: evolutionary aspects and nutritional value: Aspects of human anatomy, digestion, and metabolism diverged from other primates, indicating evolutionary reliance on, and compatibility with, substantial meat intake. Implications of a disconnect from evolutionary dietary patterns may contribute to today’s burden of disease, increasing the risk for both nutrient deficiencies and chronic diseases. As a food matrix, meat is more than the sum of its individual nutrients. Moreover, within the diet matrix, it can serve as a keystone food in food-based dietary interventions to improve nutritional status, especially in regions that rely heavily on cereal staples.

Further, a cow eating on a pasture is grazing in a natural habitat and is also improving the plant ecosystem and helps capture even more carbon out of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the the study that is often used in terms of beef being water intensive compared to plant foods is highly inaccurate as outlined in this podcast.

Lastly, we cannot simplify foodstuffs as good or bad based on how much water they need or carbon they emit. We need to consider our human evolution with food and nutrient density. Savvy carbon researchers are now suggesting that the full nutritional value of foodstuffs needs to be considred when scientests are trying to calculate the environmental impact of producing different foods. In a study, the authors took a measure of protein quality called the Digestible Indispensible Amino Acid Score and used it to create ‘adjusted’ environemental footprint metrics for a variety of foods. Using this method, many animal products’ environmental impacts were almost halved (dairy, beef) whilst the impacts associated with wheat bread, for instance increased by almost 60%.

In summation, pre-humans have been eating meat for millions of years. Our genetics have evolved with needing to eat meat to thrive. Often plant-based diets IE vegetarian and vegan cause multiple nutrient deficiencies. Eating meat improves satiety, muscle mass, strength and overall longevity. By eating meat, you get healthier, nourished people who avoid reliance on the medical system and the medical system is a HUGE single-use plastic and carbon polluter.

And I am not saying these things without the data to back this up. Over and over and over again my clients eat eggs, butter, steak and their biomarkers improve. Their glucose sensitivity improves, their HDL maintains or increases, their triglycerides go down and their waist measurement goes down. They feel better: full longer, less cravings and higher energy. These are not signs of a body in peril and in fact are signs that the body is finally in equilibrium.

How many studies like these do we need before the dietary guidelines in the United States are updated to reflect what the research is saying?​

Miranda Ebner
Previous

Nutrition Myth: Nutrition Guidelines Are Evidence-Based
Next

Eggs: Should we eat them, and why is advice still polarized?