Originally Posted by
elcruxio
Ok... Like, that is literarly the worst argument I have seen in the Internet. Just, wow....
First of all. Not a single harmful compound of grains could be found in your reply. No argument for why grains are bad for you. Nothing.
Second. Your point proves nothing else but the fact that of the two armies one had better nutrition (duh!)
But it is in no way an argument against grains. It is an argument agains monotonous diet. An argument agains not getting enough protein or other nutrients!
You can't compare foodstuffs simply by checking who lives longest with a single foodstuff. Nutritional science does not work that way.
The mongols had a relatively good diet with protein, carbs, vitamins etc. However they might have had fun times with number two if they ate no fiber but that's beside the point. IF they ate some greens or organ meat they might have even had a good balance with vitamins.
But what can be gleaned from your example is that the chinese ate grains. Just grains. You will die if you eat just grains. Not quickly but die anyway. But you will also die if you just drink milk, or just eat cheese, or just eat meat. consuming one single foodstuff is bad for you no matter what it is. That is why we have this thing called a versatile diet in which you kinda try to eat a bit of everything. Including a little bit of grains.
And just to make this clear. In my earlier post I was not critcizing milk or dairy. I was trying to get to the bottom of why you think grains are bad.
And aaaa...
"Grains are inferior in nutrition compared to animal product"
in what sense? in protein? You betcha! in carbs? nope! in fiber? nope! in vitamins? maybe, or maybe not. Nutrition is complex. Humans require two main energy sources (protein, fat) and preferably also require one other (carbs). Also, humans require smaller amount of other nutrients (vitamins, fiber, etc) Some of these you can get easily from animal products and some of these you can get from plant products. (I seriously should not need to spell this stuff out)
So I looked to see where this quote comes from. This is from a book written by a popularist supposedly relying on long-suppressed secret documents discovered and decoded by . . . I don't have time to read this drivel. A few people who seem to know something about this period easily find many factual errors. I would be absolutely amazed if this account of the differing diets of the two armies is anything more than something the author made up. There's certainly no source given for it. Be that as it may, this particular quote has been seized upon by various primal diet self-promoters and spread widely around the internet, generally with no attribution.
IOW it's BS.