Food, nutrition, health - helphelphelphelp, pleeeeease!

[cheese]

We have no nutrition subforum! This is unacceptable!

Alright, give your opinions on what to eat and how, now, for optimum health, disease-curing and disease-prevention. What's worked best for you? How do you work through the 'wealth' of information that is the health industry (and all the supposed quacks, and the counter-quacks, and the counter-counter-quacks who are secretly in league with the pros)? Do you trust common-knowledge statistics? Because apparently most research findings are false http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/?tool=pubmed although I'm too dumb to ever know for sure.

What health experiences have you had with whatever sort of diet you have? What have changes in diet done to you? Opinions on naturopathy, homeopathy, orthomolecular 'medicine', hygienists, colon-cleansing, water-fasting, the medical community, the medical community's and big pharmas' shared piggybank (is that even true), THE TRUTH ABOUT SOY, the truth about wheat, the truth about GRAINS, the China Study, Denise Minger's doubt-casting of Campbell's findings from the China Study, hormones in meat, hormones in plants, hormones in plastic bottles, cancer, tumours, threemers (aha. ha. ha. ha.), weiners, breasties, vulvectomies, ball-snipping, foot-chopping, chocolate-avoiding, gluten-intolerating, nut-begetting, food-combining shitfests?

ANY VEGANS, GODDAMMIT, and will you lie when I ask you if you're truly healthy and getting enough nutrition? I think your morals are wonderful and dandy and I like your attempts at consistency but that's not the main issue today: I just want to know if your body is wearing down or if it's revving up for the next 200 years of life you've got in store with all your veggie friends.

Overall, I'm probably most interested in how you sort through the information to find what you think is right though (I'm hoping the methods will be more convincing than "I just listen to my body, man" because my body tells me to eat a quarter pounder with large fries and add diet to my coke as penance) and hoping that the INTP pride in their ability to be rational and more importantly, as accurate as humanly possible/IDON'TCAREWHATYOUTHINKOFME!, pays off.

My own hunch is that a lot of these radical diets are informed by misinterpretation and misapplication of research. But why does disease happen, and why do disease rates differ by region (and diet)? Why are some diets healthier than others? How far can you take the dietary route?

 

[Cogwulf]

For a while I've had in my head an idea of going slightly vegetarian, partly for health reasons, mainly for economic/sustainability reasons. My idea is to eat at the very most one portion of meat a day, and to eat mainly chicken and fish.
But for as long as I'm still a student I'm just eating whatever I feel like eating, just because of convenience.

I believe in a balanced diet. No food is "bad" for you, but certain things should be ate in moderation.

As for chemicals in foods, I think trying to pinpoint individual chemicals is a waste of time, but many of the chemicals in our diet taken in combination probably have cumulative effects which are too long term for any research study to measure effectively.

 

[Trebuchet]

I've been fascinated by nutrition my entire life, so I like the thread topic. I have long been of the opinion that any diet is fine, as long as you are mindful of what you eat.

As for experts, I quite like Michael Pollan's "Food Rules." He goes into more detail, but has three rules. Eat food. (That means mostly real food, not artificial food-like substances.) Don't eat too much. Eat mostly plants.

Personally, I don't allow high fructose corn syrup, sucralose (Splenda), or aspartame (Nutrasweet) into the house. I am convinced artificial sweeteners are bad for you, and it wouldn't take long for you to research it yourself to see if you agree with me. I sweeten with sugar, honey, and fruit, and I reduce sugar intake by eating less sugar. But I definitely do eat refined sugar in things, and I love chocolate. It is just the artificial stuff, or overly large quantities, that I really object to.

I shop at Farmer's Market, and get a lot of fresh produce in season, much of it organic. That is much yummier and easier to eat than the stuff from the supermarket. I was amazed the first time I really tasted iceberg lettuce. I buy organic meats and eggs when I can, too. Not 100%, but by preference.

I slowly reduced portion sizes when cooking, so now my family eats 4-oz servings of meat or whatever, with big sides of fruits and veggies. I reduced the amount of refined flour and sugar, etc., but didn't cut it out, except for wheat flour because I can't eat that.

I am convinced by the evidence that vitamin C is good for you, so I take a lot of that, plus a multi, and GTF chromium for the metabolic benefits.

About vegans: I was lacto-ovo vegetarian for about 13 years because I didn't like the taste of meat. My tastes have changed since then but I still like my veggies. The vegans I have known are usually very knowledgable and do stay healthy, but I'm not sure everyone's body is suited to it. The worst part about being vegetarian is that everyone assumes you are going to be an insufferable jerk about other people's eating habits.

About sorting through all the information: I ignore anything titled "THE TRUTH ABOUT [WHATEVER]" which usually has a lot of ALL CAPS and BRIGHT COLORS and UNDERLINES!!!!. Maybe the conspiracies are real, but this presentation doesn't say "well-researched" to me. Frankly, the only way is to start, look at a little at a time, and expect to learn over the years. For example, I said don't like high fructose corn syrup. Do your own research on just that, or something else that interests you, until you have an opinion you can back up. Maybe you won't agree with me, in which case come back here and say so. That will lead to other topics, inevitably. And, yes, you have to listen to your body.

Edit: Oh, yeah, chemicals. The age of puberty is falling in the US. When I was a kid, most girls hit puberty between 11 and 13. These days, doctors are seeing girls hitting puberty at 8. My daughter is about to turn 7, so this is very much on my mind. It isn't clear exactly why, but too much soy milk and rbgh-treated milk cows are both likely contributors. And there are a lot of xenoestrogens in shampoos and BPA and anything ending in phenol. The list goes on. I try to keep them out. I can't see a downside to doing so, except that the approved products are harder to find and more expensive.

 

[Melllvar]

Nutrition is one of those things that's chocked full of quacks and rumors, and tons of people trying to make a quick buck by promoting a fad or developing their own thing because they're a famous athlete and they can get money by selling books to their fans. In general I don't think there's any way to really beat the system - you'll never find anything as good as a well-balanced diet of healthy food. Although it also kind of depends what you're going for - if you're trying to gain muscle/strength, you need lots of protein, whereas if you're trying to lose weight you're better off with vegetables and such, or if you have specific health issues, maybe something else. If you were really serious about it you'd probably find you have to tweak things to find what works for you, cause everyone's a little different about what they like and what kind of diet they can put up with long term.

Beyond that it's not really complicated, processed foods with lots of artificial ingredients/preservatives are bad, natural stuff is better in general. Vegetables and yogurt help your digestion, protein helps you gain muscle. If you're trying to lose weight stay away from sugars too (and not just desserts and stuff, even things like fruit juice have ridiculous amounts of sugar in them). There's also the matter of what you can stand to eat everyday for a long time. When I was really serious into martial arts I was trying to eat 1 gram of protein per lb of body weight per day (that's like 230 grams a day for me), and cut almost all the sugars and fats out of my diet. That really wasn't sustainable - not only was it not much fun but I felt low-energy a lot of the time.

Most of the food people eat is really pretty terrible (link, link), but the only time you ever notice is when you're exercising a lot. During the same phase of my life I would sometimes spend 8-10 hours a day exercising, sparring, practicing with various people, and just something like eating at Burger King for lunch would really cause a noticeable difference in my energy levels (hence the reason I got kind of obsessive about my diet - also wanting to win more).

Anyway, my point is that it's really pretty basic: a) avoid processed nastiness, fast food, most of what they serve at restaurants, preservatives, etc. b) actually look at the nutritional labels when you're buying stuff, c) eat a normal well-balanced diet, and d) try to spread your meals out throughout the day. Or at least do as much of that as you feel like doing, no reason to take it overboard or anything, unless you just want to.

 

[Jah]

^^ yes, finally.
Let's have a "Physical" subforum.

Just a primer; I consider physical exercise/adaptation to be a crucial link in the whole consideration of nutrition. (this has to do with the glycogen storage and the metabolism, basically)

Health:
Exercise once a week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU

(skip to 12-14 mins in if you want to get to the point)


My current regime of exercise and nutrition:

I have never eaten as much fat per daily basis as I do right now.
I eat about 2-3 meals a day, (between 3-4 pm and 12 pm) and I always skip breakfast.
I work out less than 10 minutes every week, (which I have done the last 9 months)
and I probably eat fast-food once a week (usually two big-macs and a couple of extra cheeseburgers when I do).
Though usually I eat mostly vegetables, eggs, fish and dairy (the creamy and fat dairy, not the low-fat stuff.), plus the occasional red meat, and I usually cook for myself.
I've never been stronger and healthier (even when compared to the period when I did Yoga 6 days a week and ate almost purely vegetarian.)

(as an example, since january I've increased the weights on my leg-press by 35 kg (77 lbs) by working out once a week, for less than 10 minutes, of which the leg-press accounts for 2 minutes or less per week. (from 175 to 210 kg))


And a "quick" almost 2 hour long lecture about Food/nutrition:
http://www.the21convention.com/2011/04/05/mark-sisson-t21c-2010/
Well worth watching. (though I don't agree fully with his approach to exercise, as I think there are more optimal ways of creating the stimuli for physical adaptation)


(a side note towards the CAM (complimentary/alternative medicine) I don't trust them at all until they prove their claims under RCT (randomized controlled trials) or similarly reliable, clinical trials. Let's be scientific about it after all. btw. I think everyone should familiarize themselves with the book by Edzard Ernst (the worlds first professor in complimentary medicine) and Simon Singh called "Trick Or Treatment")

 

[cheese]

Thanks for the responses so far! (And especially the book recommendation Jah - that looks promising, thanks.)

I think nutrition probably DOES come down to some basic rules, but repeating them is sort of like telling a socially anxious person to 'just be yourself'. There are so many intermediate steps, including making sure the 'facts' you have about whatever healthy, whole food you're trying to eat are true, not tainted by any ethical or financial agenda, not merely anecdotal, not dangerous (and to do that you'd have to wade through a bunch of information, usually contradictory, as well - plus take into account the inaccuracies in research (see that link I posted). I've read as well that the nutrition content in commercial produce is likely to be much lower than we expect because companies aim to maximise output rather than nutrient-density (which tends to decline as output increases). In which case 'healthy food' may just lead to bad health as you get insufficient nutrients that are generally less bioavailable anyway (leading to the need for supplements, which afaik usually aren't absorbed as well).

It's quite possible that what I'm asking for is impossible (the diet that practically guarantees health) because we don't know enough. What I *do* know is that some people who have been (healthy) vegans for most of their lives, avoided chemicals in the house, been careful with weight and nutrition, with no genetic markers, etc, still develop cancer. Why is this? What are they doing wrong?

Jah, you can be extremely fit with high energy levels but still suffer heart disease I think. Your indiscriminate fat intake sounds like a bad idea (unlike the mediterranean fat intake - high but somehow healthy). Incidentally, what is the deal on fat? Saturated fat is demonised one day and lauded the next. I don't think anyone is likely to go campaigning for trans fat, but unsaturated fats are worrisome too, though they were touted as saviours a while back.

Then there's the problem with genetics. It's likely different racial groups evolved to thrive on some foods and do badly on others. If studies don't take this into account the findings will be a little off, right?

I should probably go to the local library, but I don't know if they'll have the kind of information I'm looking for.

 

[Taniwha]

Yes, we need a nutrition and health/wellness section. We need one so I can troll it.

 

[Cogwulf]

Also on the subject of chemicals: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/04/20/3184037.htm

 

[Jah]

Follow the basic premise: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
And, I would add: Not all the time. Give your body a break from the constant jittering of insulin, let your liver do it's job with keeping the blood-glucose levels stable. The whole myth of eating as often as possible means that you're more prone to accumulate fat in your liver, especially if you eat a lot of sugar (and especially then if it's mostly fructose)

Cancers occur due to mutations, and are very normal in the human body, that is they are found in almost 100% of people, (at least in those over 25 yrs) that are autopsied after car-accidents etc.
However, as far as I know, cancers feed off of carbohydrates (glucose) and use insulin to activate the glucose transporters, just like normal cells. Which of course then should mean it's possible to deal with by increasing your general insulin sensitivity (which requires that you enter catabolic states that empty your glycogen storage every now and again, or similarly entrain your body to increase it's hormonal sensitivity. Something you can do through either diet or intense exercise. Doug McGuff covers this in his speech I believe)

(edit: just making the article easier to discern from the text)

Hehe, yes. I know that.
But then again, this NY-times article covers the most of it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html -well worth the read.

Not thoroughly indiscriminate. I stay away from trans-fat/hydrogenised fat. (but when it comes to saturated/monounsaturated/polyunsaturated I have little bias. Just as long as I get the essential omega-3 and -6 in as healthy balance as possible (approx 1:1) ) most of this is covered at marksdailyapple.com

Regarding sugar: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html

Genetics factor in as far as I know with relation to dairy. Some people have slight allergic reactions to it. (lactose intolerance )

(btw. if you really want to understand metabolism find the book called Metabolism at a glance. )

 

[Cogwulf]

Hehe, yes. I know that.
But then again, this NY-times article covers the most of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html -well worth the read.
Not thoroughly indiscriminate. I stay away from trans-fat/hydrogenised fat. (but when it comes to saturated/monounsaturated/polyunsaturated I have little bias. Just as long as I get the essential omega-3 and -6 in as healthy balance as possible (approx 1:1) ) most of this is covered at marksdailyapple.com

A recent trend is to plan diets according to restricting calorie intake, rather than individual sources of calories, which is probably a much better method.

Regarding the fat/carbs debate, the debate seems to be focuses on whether one or
the other is worse. The problem is the manner in which each is consumed.
Carbohydrate based foods tend to be almost entirely calories, or calories and water.
Fat based foods are almost always associated with protein content.
This effectively means that whilst sugar may not be worse than fat calorie for calorie, it is easier to consume much more calories in the form of sugary foods before losing your appetite.

 

[Jah]

I agree.
Eating food we have naturally evolved eating; vegetables, meat, seasonal fruit and nuts. Seems to naturally produce a satiated feeling when appropriate levels of calories have been ingested.

Read the article, btw.

I have a slight problem with the calories in/calories out paradigm...
Shit burns.

Which means that it contains calories.
Are you supposed to count those as well ?

And how can a person like Tim Ferriss (known for his books; 4-hour workweek and 4 hour body) ingest upwards of 7000 Calories a day without getting fat ?

Also, how much energy is expended in building muscle-tissue.

The calculation here is potentially huge.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

ITT: We share diets?

I've been wanting to develop a weekly routine that's just variable enough to keep things fresh.

 

[Cogwulf]

Read the article, btw.

I got a few pages into it before I realised there were 22 pages, and the second one is quite long too. They're currently sitting in my ever growing "to read" pile.

I have a slight problem with the calories in/calories out paradigm...
Shit burns.

Which means that it contains calories.
Are you supposed to count those as well ?

And how can a person like Tim Ferriss (known for his books; 4-hour workweek and 4 hour body) ingest upwards of 7000 Calories a day without getting fat ?

Also, how much energy is expended in building muscle-tissue.

The calculation here is potentially huge.

My mom tried a calorie counting diet for a while. There are two main problems with it, firstly the recommended calorie intake is a diet to maintain current weight, not to lose weight. And secondly, the recommended intake is based on the average person, average people don't exist outside the minds of statisticians.

 

[Jah]

ah, yes.

I don't remember it being that many.

I think the pages were longer when I read it,

Still, the jist of it: The guidelines of low-fat had no scientific support, and was even commented by the head scientist as being nothing more than a bet.
Up till the 1970's it was accepted that an overweight, pun intended, of starchy vegetables and grains were the common factor in obese people. (this was concluded by some already in the 1850's)

Now, there is support for some claims about fat, trans-fatty acids among others, but not against saturated fats per se.
The ratios are more important. Such as the omega-3 and -6 ratio. Which is heavily skewered towards way too much omega-6 in the average diet. (as I mentioned earlier, 30-40 : 1, where it should be more like 1:1 or 2:1 of omega-6 to -3)

 

[A22]

I eat in small portions. Just a little bit in breakfast, just a little bit at lunch and so on... A lot of small meals during the day. I've heard it's better that way. And by doing that you don't eat more than you should 'cause you're never starving.

Since I live in Brazil there are a lot of vegetables, fruits and cereals for a good price so that's what I eat the most. I also avoid eating processed products such as crackers and snacks.

Also, I don't eat much meat, as most people do here where I live. We are not supposed to eat too much meat and also, I have vegetarian tendencies lol

Yeah we should have a food subforum.

 

[Cavallier]

Jah has actually summed up most of what I think/do. Pollan is a good read.

I find that the most important aspect for me is portion control. I tested this out by starving myself for a while. I ate nothing but veggies, oranges and drank lots of water. I lost around 30 lbs in 2 months. I went from 155 to 125. I've always been on the muscular side and I was getting (in my mind at least) dangerously thin so I stopped the experiment. Then I went back to allowing myself to eat anything I wanted. I noticed that phenomenon known as "stomach shrinking". Basically I just didn't need to eat as much as I did formerly to feel full. I would eat a hamburger and some fries at about 11am for my first meal and then wouldn't be hungry again for the rest of the day save a small snack in the late evening. It was as if my body realized that it didn't really need all the calories I had been taking in previously.

However, when I ate nothing but junk food and fast food my skin was super oily and my hair got kind of rank. I bathed every day but I felt dirty. It was an odd feeling. So I worked more veggies and fruit into my diet. When I ate lots of dairy I got sick. It was like being lactose intolerant. To this day I can't have a lot of milk products without getting sick.

However, I don't recommend starving yourself like I did even as a test/experiment. It took me 6 months to get my muscle tone back. Not fun. It was humbling to not have the strength to do the things I used to. I felt weak and vulnerable.

Now I eat whatever I crave but I eat junk food and fast food slowly. I simply enjoy it more that way. I crave vegetables and fruit a lot. I drink water like a fish and only crave coffee (black with a little of sugar) as apposed to Coke or juice. Soda and juice make me sick to my stomach which is something I've dealt with ever since I was a kid.

Edit: I forgot about working out. I like to exert myself physically regularly because I sleep better and feel happier when I do. I do cardio maybe 3 to 4 times a week depending on how busy I am.

 

[Architect]

ANY VEGANS, GODDAMMIT, and will you lie when I ask you if you're truly healthy and getting enough nutrition? I think your morals are wonderful and dandy and I like your attempts at consistency but that's not the main issue today: I just want to know if your body is wearing down or if it's revving up for the next 200 years of life you've got in store with all your veggie friends.

I've been vegan for 8 years, veg for 15 before that, and meat previously. I'm the healthiest I've ever been. I ride a stationary bike an hour each day and additionally swim for an hour four times a week, I never could handle that schedule when I was a meat eater, recovery time goes way up on this diet. I recognized this because previously I was a runner, and during the vegan switch over suddenly my endurance shot up. Had to drop it while preparing for a marathon as my feet started to protest.

Anyhow all my numbers (blood pressure, cholesterol etc) which used to be way too high, only came down when I went on a no added fat vegan diet. The science backs this diet up, I don't know why people confuse things so much (scratch that, I do know).

Pollan is OK. He's popular because his message sells well, but he doesn't have a background in epidemiology or nutrition, and he doesn't know or say the whole story.

 

[Jah]

Architect: So, no real problem on vegan diets, except the need to watch macro-nutrients very closely, and of course the very potential need for supplements as you have a hard time getting the essential nutrients (EFA and EAA) ?


Oh, btw. I drink lots of coffee, usually around 5-8 cups a day/between 0,5 and 1 Litre.
(Which also for those of you who exercise is a way of speeding up recovery of glycogen storage. e.g. after marathons (which I don't advice) or vigorous exercise/high intensity resistance training)
And copious amounts of water.

 

[Panopticon]

This is a great topic! something that is on my mind quite often, I agree with alot of the responses thus far. I'd like to contribute to this thread more thoroughly after work For now I can list some documentary film recommendations that support this thread.

The Beautiful Truth- It is about the now widely known Gerson Therapy developed by German scientist/doctor Maxwell Gerson in the 1920s. It promotes the idea that raw organic fruits in vegatables in 14 juices a day along with one coffee enema a day promotes spontaneous regression of cancer growth, in addition to other diseases.
YouTube - The Beautiful Truth

Food Matters- Covers alot of things and provides a good guideline to begin a healthy more nutritious living. http://www.truththeory.org/food-matters/

And since I dont want to provide a link to every film I will just list the following.
Food INC
The Future of Food
The World According to Monsanto
Big Bucks, Big Pharma
Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World
Dying to Have Known
Ringworm Children
Run From the Cure

 

[Cogwulf]

The Beautiful Truth- It is about the now widely known Gerson Therapy developed by German scientist/doctor Maxwell Gerson in the 1920s. It promotes the idea that raw organic fruits in vegatables in 14 juices a day along with one coffee enema a day promotes spontaneous regression of cancer growth, in addition to other diseases.

This diet has apparently killed many people who could have lived.

 

[Jah]

coffee enema ? ...

It sounds like a directly dangerous regime.

Just vegetables and fruit juice. Not considering the neglect of essential nutrients, Amino-acids and Fatty-acids, the focus on plainly fructose-based diet with fiber is unhealthy.
It sounds like it'll do un-wonders with your kidneys, human Foie-Gras style, in addition to actually aid cancer-growth.


It's like John Harvey Kellogg's approach, only worse.

 

[Melllvar]

It promotes the idea that raw organic fruits in vegatables in 14 juices a day along with one coffee enema a day promotes spontaneous regression of cancer growth, in addition to other diseases.

No offense, but this is the kind of thing I was referring to when I said, "Nutrition is one of those things that's chocked full of quacks and rumors".

I think it's safe to say that you can eat and live healthy without ever having to worry about enemas.

 

[Cogwulf]

coffee enema ? ...

It sounds like a directly dangerous regime.

Just vegetables and fruit juice. Not considering the neglect of essential nutrients, Amino-acids and Fatty-acids, the focus on plainly fructose-based diet with fiber is unhealthy.
It sounds like it'll do un-wonders with your kidneys, human Foie-Gras style, in addition to actually aid cancer-growth.


It's like John Harvey Kellogg's approach, only worse.

Proponents of the diet also claim that you must not take any medication. i.e. chemotherapy.
It has killed people directly by nutrition related problems and it has killed indirectly due to people refusing proper treatments.
There is 0 evidence, even the base claims of how it is meant to work are flawed.

 

[Agent Intellect]

It's been shown that calorie restriction causes biochemical changes in the body that makes it healthier (1). One such mechanism is the activation of the SIRT1 gene (1) (2). The effects of calorie restriction can be induced by supplementation of resveratrol (1) (2) (3). If someone plans to supplement with resveratrol, make sure to watch out for the dosage, because a lot of them will say that it has "400 mg" but they won't tell you that only half of that is the bio-available trans-resveratrol.

A lot of food companies like to advertise that their food has antioxidants, which is fine, but the body has it's own endogenous antioxidant: glutathione. This is composed of an l-cysteine, an l-glutamic acid, and a glyceine molecules - three amino acids. The l-cysteine is generally the rate limiting factor since it's the rarest of the three amino acids, so supplementation with n-acetyl-l-cysteine (acetylated molecules are more easily absorbed in the intestine) can have more antioxidant benefits then a lot of the fad supplements (acai berries, blueberries, green tea etc).

I also replace sugar in my coffee with inulin fiber, which both adds a slight sweet taste and acts as a soluble fiber and prebiotic (1). Inulin has been shown to reduce cholesterol and possibly even blood sugar. For my own testimony, after having used inulin in my coffee for several months, when I got my cholesterol tested a while back (last summer) I was told that my cholesterol was "almost abnormally low" which is telling since I eat a lot of meat and frozen pizza and other shitty foods.

Also, for anyone who supplements with magnesium and calcium (or plans to) I suggest reading this.

 

[Jah]

The same positive effects you gain from calorie restricted diet are found in subjects who follow Intermittent fasting (basically; avoid eating outside a designated time frame during the day. e.g. 16 hours fast, 8 hours feeding window)
But without the loss of lean tissue and weakening you get from pure CR regimes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184721
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12558961



Hmm, actually inulin is quite good as a sweetener, but I'm skeptical to the fact that it's like starch with fructose instead of glucose, but considering the sweetness it's not exactly something you'd use in excess.

 

[cheese]

Thanks for all the links guys (and especially the careful referencing AI - appreciate it as always). This is just what I was looking for. It's all very interesting and helping tie some things together. And useful for us to learn from each other too.

 

[Awaken]

1. Colon cleansing/water fasts.

I have done the Master Cleanse twice in my life. My opinion of it is that it is great for me. From it I have learned how much more energy my body has if I maintain a relatively constant level of intake, instead of 3 meals throughout the day. Before doing it, I would never have assumed that drinking only lemonade would give me more energy, but it does. Additionally, I find that after I do it I not only can smell and test taste better, but I can more accurately discriminate "healthy" from "nonhealthy" based on my bodies reactions.

However, I would not recommend it as a frequent practice for anyone else as not being knowledgable about the possible effects of prolonged practice of such a diet could effect ones health. I personally believe myself to be knowledgeable enough to do it for as many days as I deem necessary without blindly following a set amount of days and possibly toughing through ill effects.

2. The medical community and big pharm

I will try to keep this as brief as possible as if I go on a rant I will most likely become upset as I find this generality insulting. Most doctors I know have the same outlook on pharmaceutical companies/reps as any layman. However, pharmaceutical companies serve an important role for a student and a physician.

As a student you get much needed free food. I think people make a huge deal for nothing about the influence these reps have on future prescribing practices. Seriously, its just free food.

As a physician you gain access to free samples. Imagine you are a community doctor who sees a lot of indigent patients. It is your job to care for these patients, yet the best treatment at your disposal is not affordable. In order to provide these medications for patients who would otherwise be noncompliant, you have to let a pharm rep come into your office, feed all of your staff, and spout statistics about their drug. Oh the humanity.


This being said, i do not deny that the medical system is broken, however, I think that patients play just as big of a role in the problem as pharm companies and physicians.

3. Wheat, gluten, soy etc

These are not universally "healthy" for everyone. Many people have allergies to such foods, possibly causing malabsorption of other things. I know you said not to say it, but seriously you have to listen to your body.

 

[Jah]

speaking of meal frequency.
Serge Nubret, a french bodybuilder who recently died at 72 years old, ate only one meal per day. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Serge_Nubret
(Not holding the bodybuilding approach to health as a prime example,(too much drugs of any kind involved, shortens life-span.) but with his approach to meal-frequency in mind I find it impossible to argue that one must eat frequent in order to gain and keep muscle.)


And regarding fast.
water-fast or whatever you call it.

Going past 60-72 hours without energy-intake (food) will negatively affect your muscle-tissue and start breaking your body down, resulting in a weakened state where you are more susceptible to damaging yourself. (muscle tissue is among the most important aspects of injury-prevention.)

 

[digital angel]

Generally speaking, I eat until I'm comfortable. I enjoy eating fruit and vegetables. I try to avoid red meat. I walk when possible for exercise and to lower my driving expenses. I also do my best to drink a lot of liquids.

 

[Architect]

Architect: So, no real problem on vegan diets, except the need to watch macro-nutrients very closely, and of course the very potential need for supplements as you have a hard time getting the essential nutrients (EFA and EAA) ?

No this is mythology, you don't need to watch anything. Go look up the nutritional content of meat (less than 10 types of meat that people generally eat) compared to any plant (more like 50 or 100 varieties that people eat). Plants are chemical and biological factories, from macro nutrients to micro nutrients to phyto nutrients.

Here, pick something at random

http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php

See how long the meat list is compared to any plant.

The only thing I do is take an occasional B12. Back in the old days it wouldn't be an issue, but the modern food supply is so clean that its prudent to supplement this vitamin only.

I'm 45 and I have the body of a 25 year old, there's a reason that elite athletes are going to vegan.

Finally, I'll note that that a whole foods vegan diet is a calorie restricted diet, without the pain of feeling hungry (because of bulky whole plant foods that absorb a lot of water and have few calories)

 

[Jah]

Architect; point well taken.

Though I find it difficult to get a decent amount of protein from just eating plants (Problem solved eating eggs.)
I was referring to the Essential Amino Acids and Fatty Acids, which are not in bountiful supply on a purely vegan diet.


I'm not saying it's impossible, nor insurmountably difficult, only that you need to pay extra attention to it.
(The most wholesome source of essential nutrients is eggs, which cover 100% of macro nutrients.)

btw. that looks like a very good site.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Don't have much to add, maybe in the future, but: thread subscribed.

 

[SkyWalker]

THE PROTEIN & AMINO ACID BALANCE PROBLEM

Protein is digested and goes into your blood as amino acids.
Amino acids are the building blocks of every cell of your body.
There are 23 different amino acids humans need, but only 8 are essential.
if you dont get those essential 8, you die.
That means 23-8=15 non-essential ones can be made from those essential 8.
It is however highly inefficient to make those missing 15 out of the 8.

Superior protein contains all 23 in just the right balance of each. (of some amino acids you need more than others). animal protein is closest to superior (meat/fish/eggs/dairy)

barely/just-essential protein like vegetarian protein substitute products (e.g. soy) contain all 8, but they are inferior: you probably have to eat 3x as much (in weight) of soy than of any meat/fish, just to be able to get all 23 amino acids in a high enough dose for each (you have to convert the 8 into all 23)
when you eat 3x as much (to convert 8 into all 23), you'll still end up having an overdosis of some amino acids, while you are underdosed in others. this is not ideal. it is extra stress on your body. the ones (or parts of them) that are overdosed need to be urinated out, it is hard on the kidneys also, still do-able, but you'll need lots of extra water to flush the kidneys if you want the kidneys to stay well

you could stay alive as a vegetarian. but you wont be feeding your body the ideal balance of amino acids.

i think it is pretty obvious that vegetarians tend to have smaller muscles also. (even though for example vegetarian bodybuilders exist, i think they would still be even bigger if they were not vegetarian)


so its about this:
- do you want all the benefits for yourself? > eat meat/fish. most nutrient rich, protein-wise, much easier to digest.
- do you want to give up some benefits for yourself and donate them to the poor animals instead > then eat vegetarian and save an animals life.

so who do you choose, the animal or you?

but that is more of a moral story than a story about whats best for the body in a pure health-wise study.

health-wise vegetarians dont make sense. only moral-wise could it make sense.

moral-wise a vegetarian might be able to convince me, but health-wise i dont believe them.

vegetarians are a bunch of liars when its about health-wise: vegetarians only do comparisons between meat-only and vegetables-only. this is ridiculous. both are bad: meat-only is bad and vegetables-only is bad. The mix is the only way to go. But vegetarians never compare themselves to the mix.

eat animals for the best protein. eat plants for exta vitamins, fiber and essential fatty acids.

We humans are not plant eaters, we are not meat eaters, we are MIXED eaters, so just keep it like that

 

[Architect]

Though I find it difficult to get a decent amount of protein from just eating plants (Problem solved eating eggs.)
I was referring to the Essential Amino Acids and Fatty Acids, which are not in bountiful supply on a purely vegan diet.

You need very little protean. The idea that protean is important to nutrition is a leftover from the 1800's. What does protean do for you - give you energy/fuel for your cells? No, the body converts protean only reluctantly to glucose (energy) through a toxic chain reaction called Ketosis. This is what the Atkins Diet nutters are depending on, if you eat zero carbohydrates your body is forced to burn protean, which it wisely doesn't want to do. Truth is you need around 10% of your calories from protean, which is approximately the amount you get from plants.

The largest land animals the earth has ever seen were plant eaters. Cows produce enormous amounts of fat and muscle from plants. Elite athletes are frequently vegan, as it allows them to continually carbo-load. Why are people so obsessed with protean?

 

[Jah]

Both Fat and Protein are metabolised as ketone bodies. That's true.
Though studies show that people become more focused when their brain is burning ketones rather than glucose. (that also goes for cardiovascular health.) I'll try to find the studies.

in the meantime; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114220938.htm



Protein, amino acids; are what you build your tissue out of, in a combination with fat.
Muscle tissue is almost purely protein. Which is why people tend to want to eat lots of it.
Cows have 4 stomachs that all contribute to a very slow digestive system.

Sperm whales, which are the second biggest whales have a diet that consists mainly of squids. (The Gigantic ones.) <- relevant in the way that whales are evolved from land-dwellers.

Or look to our fellow apes.
Chimpanzees hunt smaller apes.
(And eats them with a side-order of leaves. or Salad)


Now, the argument of "other animals" is flawed in a few ways.
First, the digestive adaptation, which is clearly different. (the cows have 4 stomachs. The more vegetarian apes like Gorillas have longer large intestines which allow them to ingest fiber at a far higher efficiency http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964658/ thus allowing them to survive and thrive on far less energy-dense foods than we require.)

Second, and this one may be tricky to spot, We're not the Largest Land Animals. We're middle sized. About the same weight as wolves, hyenas, cougars, etc.. Should we then follow that argument ?

Third; who gives a fuck about the elite athletes, and what they can manage.
There is a huge genetic portion to their abilities.
Not to mention that most, if not all, of these take the level of fitness so far to the extreme that it's damaging to their health. (Yes, they can, but no, you shouldn't.)
Just because they can get away with something doesn't mean it's a good idea.



How is it even possible to argue that you do not need the fundamental building blocks of your biology ?
Your body doesn't want to burn protein as fuel because it wants to use it to repair and build muscle.
And it wants muscle because that's what's supporting the skeleton and preventing injury, as well as what allows the great genetic robot to carry on living.


No muscle = death.

and here's the list:

no protein = death
no fat = death.
no water = death.
no carbs = ketosis... in which you survive quite well. given that you have all of the above.


Now, I'm not saying that you don't need carbohydrates, I'm just making the argument that they are not Essential to life. They're very useful, (in moderation.) but you, and I'm assuming you're a normal human being, cannot survive on just carbohydrates.

 

[cheese]

Anyone have any useful information on gluten and grains in general?

I've been reading there's an increasing number of people with gluten sensitivity, which purportedly leads to all kinds of autoimmune diseases. There's a lot of anti-grain sentiment in nutritional circles, with people saying we didn't evolve to digest grains (it was introduced into our diet relatively recently) or that ancient strains of wheat lacked the peptide strand that causes problems. They advocate a grain-free, gluten-free diet. It's extremely difficult to carry out since gluten is everywhere.

Conventional circles dismiss all this as a fad and rehash the same eat-healthy-and-you'll-be-fine advice, but healthy eating is a dicey issue and I'm just as wary of their complacent reliance on 'common knowledge' as I am of fads. So anyone got any real research?

Also Architect, is ketosis definitely toxic? Low-carb fans say otherwise. Ketogenic diets are also medically prescribed as treatment for epileptics and I think in some cases diabetics.

And studies suggest very low-carb diets may be healthier than others, although research is conflicting.

 

[Jah]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20204773
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2


Regarding the ketosis as a toxic state. KetoAcidosis is a toxic state, and normally associated with diabetes. Where your pH levels drop due to uninhibited ketosis. This is due to lack of insulin (type 1 diabetes) and is potentially fatal.
(pH below 7,35)
Normal Ketosis however is not toxic nor very dangerous, though it takes some time to adapt to it. (see study above)

 

[Architect]

Well, Atkins people get horrible bad breath, major carbohydrate cravings and the body resists the whole process. The people I know who followed it were able to lose a few pounds - maximum 10 in one case. I lost 25 excess lbs effortlessly by eating nothing but plants, no oils or any refined foods (all the plants were unrefined, I even make my own whole grain bread from wheat I ground myself because commercial whole wheat isn't quite)

Atkins died a fat and sick old man who slipped on the ice. His diet is perfect Newspeak; 'Meat and dairy isn't bad for you, in fact its good for you, so good that you should OD on it'. Of course people are going to love that.

Look at the elite athletes, non refined plant foods is a big, big deal. Not a one follows Atkins as far as I know.

 

[Jah]

I agree.
Atkins is not a good diet. (I don't adhere to it, though there is some lessons to be learned from it) And most people cannot live on it for long.


Unprocessed food gets you a long way.
Grains, I don't eat.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/


Vegetables, some meat, eggs and dairy are the fundamentals of my diet, with some nuts and some fruit.


The problem with Atkins is as you say, it's a fad diet.

And personally, my problem with it is that it's not a stable strategy.
You can't eat just red meat, dairy and animal fat in a modern day society. Not because of the problem of breath (which it is) nor the health issues (which are bound to come, especially if you don't eat grass-fed beef, since corn-fed doesn't have the same fatty-acid ratios (I'm thinking omega 3 and 6 here. which are better with grass-fed/organic))

The major problem with it is that it is a hugely selfish way to live.
(in other words fine for Objectivists and followers of Ayn Rand, but not for a person who considers the wellbeing of others on this planet)
not to mention the climate-gasses that raising beef produces. (the levels of methane alone are insane)


But we're getting hung up on Atkins here.
He's not an important part of the issue.

When it comes to diet, I argue, your body is lagging behind due to it's slow adaptation (evolution). Which means that your body is provided foods that are way out of line compared to what it evolved to eat. (which is hunter-gatherer diet; Vegetables, fish, meat and eggs, seasonal nuts and fruits and various plants that smell/look good and taste good. (look, smell then taste everything))


It has been summed up as simply as; What you can find using only your body and a sharp stick. (note that grains will be difficult to get this way, as they are long-term investments. (and would not occur in great amounts naturally))

 

[Cogwulf]

You need very little protean. The idea that protean is important to nutrition is a leftover from the 1800's. What does protean do for you - give you energy/fuel for your cells? No, the body converts protean only reluctantly to glucose (energy) through a toxic chain reaction called Ketosis. This is what the Atkins Diet nutters are depending on, if you eat zero carbohydrates your body is forced to burn protean, which it wisely doesn't want to do. Truth is you need around 10% of your calories from protean, which is approximately the amount you get from plants.

The largest land animals the earth has ever seen were plant eaters. Cows produce enormous amounts of fat and muscle from plants. Elite athletes are frequently vegan, as it allows them to continually carbo-load. Why are people so obsessed with protean?

We need protein to live, not for it's calorific value. Our bodies are constantly breaking down old cells and need protein to replace them. If you have higher muscle mass you need more protein in your diet just to maintain it. And whenever you exercise vigorously a lot of muscle gets broken down at once and you need a big protein hit to replace it. Even if vegetable protein is as good, it still takes longer for your body to digest and process it than protein from meat.


Body builders may still gain a lot of muscle mass on vegan diets, but none of them do it without supplementing their diets with copious amounts of engineered whey protein or similar products.

And as for athletes in general, many have different diets for training and competing. Whilst training they have very high protein diets, but switch to a vegan or almost vegan diet before a race.

And the atkins diet gets it's calories mostly from fat not protein.

Both Fat and Protein are metabolised as ketone bodies. That's true.
Though studies show that people become more focused when their brain is burning ketones rather than glucose. (that also goes for cardiovascular health.) I'll try to find the studies.

probably an evolved adaptation to food shortages. When an animal doesn't have easy access to calories, the body improves your concentration to make it easier to get food.

Cows have 4 stomachs that all contribute to a very slow digestive system.

And cows don't move around much either.
In the animal kingdom there is a general correlation between diet and activity level. Most plant eaters are very docile, they spend most of their day eating.
some can run quite fast, horses for example, but in nature they only run when there is danger.
Meat eaters on the other hand, tend to be more active. They often eat once a day but spend most of the day looking for food.

 

[SkyWalker]

atkins is unhealthy because it is high fat. and usually saturated fat as well.

the best is:
high protein (only/mostly lean meat/fish)
low carbs (only/mostly slow/complex)
low fat (only/mostly essential fatty acids from fatty fish, nuts or cold pressed oil)

we can go into all the why's of it, but it just works. Put any fat person on this diet for a year or so and they will slowly become lean & attractive.

for me: what makes you most attractive is the best. why would you want to be less attractive? nature knows best

the best diet is just lean meat/fish & vegetables (like some guy here said monkeys+plant-salad).
(some fruit might be added to that, but not too much since an overkill of fruit will bring too much carbs and will make you fat)


somebody here said that top-athletes need to be carb-loaded all the time, thats a mistake. if you carb-load all the time (like every average citizen btw) you will be fat, not an athlete. athletes carb-load only before an important contest for temporary gain (e.g. more glycogen fuel reserves in their muscles for the contest, making them temporarily stronger & bigger and able to hold-out longer), that is the only reason they do it. it does not build their body or gives any long term advance. only a person without any knowledge about nutrition can think that carb-loading builds a body long term. thats really idiots advice.

btw you can only effectively carb-load if you keep carbs low most of the other time (otherwise you cant overcompensate on carbs, you'll be desensitized to carbs and your insuline respons will dull away).

and oh yeah, all monkeys eat lots of protein, even the so-called vegan ones, they eat lots of insects (mostly ants), thats their "animal" protein, so they are not vegans at all. so yes the natural monkey diet is meat (or millions of small insect meat) plus plant-salad.

 

[Jah]

Hmm... There's a small problem with the argument from aesthetics. (at least if you consider the fact that in some societies being grossly overweight is considered beautiful)

And I have moral qualms with eating only meat/fish. As this leads to industrial conditions for the meat, with poor quality of life and it affects the product, nobody wins on that. Also overfishing.
(This is due to overpopulation, mostly, but throwing about the argument won't justify selfish behavior. So any nutritional strategy needs to be applicable at large scale in order for me to fully support it. (which necessarily indicates that there needs to be a fairly large component of vegetables and accessible foods. (I'm all for in-vitro meat when it becomes an alternative)))

Fats, such as olive oil, have been proven to improve the profile of cholesterol (raising HDL-values and lowering LDL) which is the root of the problem we now see of anti-fat policies. It's not helping to deny the most energy-dense foods on a wild card.

Again this Times article explains:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/m...been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[Agent Intellect]

You need very little protean. The idea that protean is important to nutrition is a leftover from the 1800's. What does protean do for you - give you energy/fuel for your cells?

Besides being the work horse of all metabolic, signaling, cell structure and other cellular activity (you won't be breaking down any molecules without enzymes, either) amino acids play numerous other roles.

L-leucine regulates myfibrillar proteolysis and down-regulates ubiquitination and proteasome activities, which decreases muscle degredation.

L-cysteine, L-glutamic acid, and glycine are all used to make glutathione, the most important endogenous antioxidant in the liver (among other parts of the body).

L-phenylalanine is a precursor to L-tyrosine which is a precursor to both dopamine and norepinephrine, as well as triiodothyronine and thyroxine.

L-tryptophan is a precursor for both serotonin and melatonin - two necessary neuromodulators.

Glutamic acid is a precursor for both glutamate and Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA).


This, along with more ubiquitous functions such as methyl donation, coenzyme activity, coordinating as ligands, acting as receptor agonists/antagonists (eg feedback loops), maintaining osmotic and oncotic pressure as well as membrane potential, producing antibodies, healing injuries etc.

The largest land animals the earth has ever seen were plant eaters. Cows produce enormous amounts of fat and muscle from plants. Elite athletes are frequently vegan, as it allows them to continually carbo-load. Why are people so obsessed with protean?

To be knit-picky, the largest animals are secondary consumers (baleen whales).

But, why herbivores are generally more large has more to do with ecology and evolution than biochemistry. Herbivores are primary consumers, which means for every 1000 calories of energy from the sun that reaches a habitable area on earth, they are able to use 1 calorie of it, where a secondary/tertiary predator would only get about 0.1 to 0.01 calories from it. Predators are usually more intelligent than herbivores, and a larger brain requires more calories (the human brain uses about 20% of our resting metabolic rate), all the while getting less bang for it's buck from an ecological point of view.

Also, the ratio of large herbivores to small herbivores is quite small. Large herbivores, while the most popular in our minds, are really only found in K-selection environments.

In addition, evolving to be large (and therefore spending 18 hours a day grazing) has incredibly strong evolutionary benefits - how often do hippos, rhinos, and elephants have to worry about being attacked by a pride of lions?

 

[A22]

the best is:
high protein (only/mostly lean meat/fish)
low carbs (only/mostly slow/complex)
low fat (only/mostly essential fatty acids from fatty fish, nuts or cold pressed oil)

Are you talking about the whole alimentation? I've been said that one should only eat a slice of meat of the size of one's hand palm per day. Also, both the new and the old food pyramid show milk and meat close to the top or "not much per day".

 

[Jah]

I think it's safe to say that the official pyramid is misleading at best.

 

[Jah]

Yeah,
The pyramids.

I'm guessing there's few of us that pay much attention to those.
(They over-emphasize carbohydrates, and are terrified of fat. (Which is a completely foolish thing to be.))

But the idea of a slice of meat the size of your hand, well.. It depends on the meat.
If you're talking red meat, sure.
If you're talking about fish, no. In that case you could eat until you're satiated (given that you do not drink/eat a lot of sugar (especially fructose, so avoid sodas with meals) around the meal, as that will inhibit your satiety-hormones (leptins))

Actually, avoiding fructose (or moderating the consumption to fruit and natural sources) should allow your body to regulate itself fairly well, which means that you'll be free to eat until you're satiated at any meal. This is also valid under a higher-fat diet.
(There are also some details regarding grains; gluten and lectins, primarily.)

 

[SkyWalker]

Yeah,
The pyramids.

I'm guessing there's few of us that pay much attention to those.
(They over-emphasize carbohydrates, and are terrified of fat. (Which is a completely foolish thing to be.))

But the idea of a slice of meat the size of your hand, well.. It depends on the meat.
If you're talking red meat, sure.
If you're talking about fish, no. In that case you could eat until you're satiated (given that you do not drink/eat a lot of sugar (especially fructose, so avoid sodas with meals) around the meal, as that will inhibit your satiety-hormones (leptins))

Actually, avoiding fructose (or moderating the consumption to fruit and natural sources) should allow your body to regulate itself fairly well, which means that you'll be free to eat until you're satiated at any meal. This is also valid under a higher-fat diet.
(There are also some details regarding grains; gluten and lectins, primarily.)

the above is bullshit, i dont get you

yes the old and new pyramids/triangles are shit, they are too high in carbs and they pretend as if you need saturated fat.

you should eat low carbs, but the carbs that you do eat should be slow/complex/low-GI.
You mention fructose as bad, but fructose has one of the lowest GI's, so is actually the best carb. It is glucose/dextrose which is the worst/fastest carb, even faster than sugar.

For those who dont know:
All carbohydrates go into the bloodstream as glucose. Some carbs release their glucose into the blood all at once (simple-to-digest/fast/high-GI carbs). Some carbs release their glucose into the blood slowly/time-released (complex-to-digest/slow/low-GI carbs)
When you get temporary high peaks of glucose in your blood due to fast carbs (even if you dont eat much of them), you get an insuline response and turns on "fat storing mode" if your glucose reserves (glycogen in your muscles&liver) are already full (and unless you have been starving yourself, these are usually full).
Even when you eat healthy all day, you can still gain fat in those few seconds of your major glucose peak.
If you eat mostly slow carbs, you can actually eat a lot more carbs without getting fat, since the glucose level in your blood will never peak over the max treshold value, the peak will be flatter and its release will be more divided over time because of the carb's slow release.
Thats why whole-grain/brown carbs are better than white carbs (as in white bread/rice/pasta), not because of the vitamins as you have been told by mommy, but because of the time-released version of the carbs.

(There is an exception though when you can actually benefit from a glucose&insulin peak right AFTER exercise, but this is advanced stuff, and I don't want to complicate matters here too much.)

On fish: eating until you are full?? there is no big difference between the protein from lean fish or from lean meat.

There was some research done that says most people can only digest 30 grams of protein per meal, so if you want more, you have to eat more meals.

I personally eat 6 meals of at least 30 grams animal protein each. (sorry for the animals, but its good for me, and they wont go extinct. actually because we will breed them for food they will never go extinct, so it is an advantage for their genes to be our food).

That 30g of animal protein is the base of every one of my meals. I only count it as a meal if it contains protein.
To each protein meal I add this as a conceptual "supplement" to my protein:
- Either vegetables + a small little ball of brown rice. Or 1 piece of average size fruit (then I skip the rice, because I dont want double carbs). This contains my carbs & vitamins & fiber.
- One spoon of cold pressed flax seed oil, or a few nuts, or nothing if the protein source was a fatty fish (then i already had my essential fats). This contains my essential fatty acids plus my fat soluble vitamins.

So every meal I eat contains everything, nothing is missing. With 2 of my 6 meals I add a multi-vitamin/mineral pill as an insurance policy if my food was bad and missing vitamins. So I dont rely on the pill, its just in case my food lacked its value. My food should actually contain everything, but nowadays you never know.

I never eat saturated fat or processed fats. I never eat or drink sugar. (unless i am at a special social occasion, then i'll eat it out of "socialness")

Between meals I drink at least 500cc of water to flush the kidneys. You should drink it in between and not with the meal if you want maximum digestion.
I have a water filter installed in my house to get all fluoride, mercury and other bad minerals out, so I can drink directly from the tap. If I'm out I'll drink normal mineral water from the store, but dont really trust it, its full of fluoride and sometimes mercury.

I eat everything organic, even my tooth paste is, I dont brush my teeth with fluoride! Its even more toxic than the insect repellents on your vegetables!
If somebody eats organic food but brushes its own teeth with fluoride than (s)he's wasting his/her time on all that organic stuff. Trying to live all healthy during the day, but sucking in their fluoride left-overs at night from that nice minty tooth paste taste.

Sounds like a lot maybe, but done this for many years, for me this is auto pilot, I dont even think about it.

Hope that was helpful!


BTW this diet works and will get you in top shape mentally and physically, even if you never exercise (but you should do that as well).

 

[A22]

Intersting facts about "slow and fast" carbs. Do you work with nutrition or something related to it, SkyWalker? Just curiosity.

 

[Jah]

Holy fuck, this is a lot to answer:
First, take a look at this dissection http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html In particular "Myth 5"
That should answer your claim about 30 grams of protein. (Short story; you're wrong; the study was flawed and analyzed only uptake of Liquid Protein, which goes quickly through your body)

yes the old and new pyramids/triangles are shit, they are too high in carbs and they pretend as if you need saturated fat.

You don't Need saturated fat, but it's one of the most energy-dense foods we have and therefore it's a good way of getting satiated without a massive insulin response which would block the leptin (the signal that you're full).

you should eat low carbs, but the carbs that you do eat should be slow/complex/low-GI.
You mention fructose as bad, but fructose has one of the lowest GI's, so is actually the best carb. It is glucose/dextrose which is the worst/fastest carb, even faster than sugar.

And where does fructose hit ?
What is fructose metabolized into ?
It hits your liver, and is metabolized there into; FAT.
Which means that unless you're a very healthy person, and unless you limit the daily intake of fructose to somewhere below 50-60 grams you'll have an increased risk of heart-attack due to the high levels of triglycerides in your blood stream, which are directly caused by fructose-intake.

GI is not the be-all end all of this discussion, but yes it can be helpful in deciding what is going to spike your insulin too fast, and thus how to compose a meal. But, fuck. Insulin doesn't even have the ability to regulate fructose, which means that unless it is immediately metabolized and spent as energy, it is directly turned into Fat. (Heard of foie Gras ? that's basically what happens with geese, during fruit-seasons. The liver gets marmorated with enormous amounts of fat.)

YouTube - Sugar: The Bitter Truth

For those who dont know:
All carbohydrates go into the bloodstream as glucose. Some carbs release their glucose into the blood all at once (simple-to-digest/fast/high-GI carbs). Some carbs release their glucose into the blood slowly/time-released (complex-to-digest/slow/low-GI carbs)
When you get temporary high peaks of glucose in your blood due to fast carbs (even if you dont eat much of them), you get an insuline response and turns on "fat storing mode" if your glucose reserves (glycogen in your muscles&liver) are already full (and unless you have been starving yourself, these are usually full).
Even when you eat healthy all day, you can still gain fat in those few seconds of your major glucose peak.
If you eat mostly slow carbs, you can actually eat a lot more carbs without getting fat, since the glucose level in your blood will never peak over the max treshold value, the peak will be flatter and its release will be more divided over time because of the carb's slow release.
Thats why whole-grain/brown carbs are better than white carbs (as in white bread/rice/pasta), not because of the vitamins as you have been told by mommy, but because of the time-released version of the carbs.

This is mostly correct.
Insulin does a few things, and the major thing is that it attaches to insulin receptors on your cells and activates Glut4 (glucose transporter 4) which then allows the cell to take in extra amount of glucose.
Though if the cell gets too much glucose, it is actually toxic for it, so the cell will respond by lowering it's amount of insulin receptors, which brings you to a state of insulin tolerance (decreased sensitivity for insulin) and on the far end of that state you have diabetes type 2. Where your blood is full of insulin, but your cells aren't taking any, since they are already chocked full of glucose and have full glycogen stores.

High GI means lots of glucose is released into the blood. Meaning a sudden raise in insulin, meaning that your cells are bombarded with glucose and will try to adapt by lowering your sensitivity to glucose.
When your blood is still full of glucose due to the cells lack of response, your pancreas will increase the amount of insulin, and the only cells that are not lowering insulin sensitivity is the adipose cells. (Fat-storage)

On fish: eating until you are full?? there is no big difference between the protein from lean fish or from lean meat.

There was some research done that says most people can only digest 30 grams of protein per meal, so if you want more, you have to eat more meals.

I personally eat 6 meals of at least 30 grams animal protein each. (sorry for the animals, but its good for me, and they wont go extinct. actually because we will breed them for food they will never go extinct, so it is an advantage for their genes to be our food).

Bullshit. Already addressed.
When it comes to eating until you're full; This is applicable in concert with low-GI carbs, or simply no carbs. (replace the calories from carbs with fat, butter or some good olive oil (which is good for increasing your cholesterol (the HDL-kind))

The point I have with fish is that it's generally a better source of bio-available nutrients, and is almost guaranteed to have a good profile of omega-acids, since it is not corn-fed. (which is the major argument against meat-industry, next to the moral/ethical argument.)

Saturated fat is not going to kill you, and there is no scientific reason to avoid it.
Hydrogenized or trans-fat, however, will damage your body.

Between meals I drink at least 500cc of water to flush the kidneys. You should drink it in between and not with the meal if you want maximum digestion.
I have a water filter installed in my house to get all fluoride, mercury and other bad minerals out, so I can drink directly from the tap. If I'm out I'll drink normal mineral water from the store, but dont really trust it, its full of fluoride and sometimes mercury.

Water filter ?
seems way over the top in my opinion.
Penn and Teller's: Bullshit has an episode which explains the fad with Water pretty good.
You'll probably find it on youtube or something.

I eat everything organic, even my tooth paste is, I dont brush my teeth with fluoride! Its even more toxic than the insect repellents on your vegetables!
If somebody eats organic food but brushes its own teeth with fluoride than (s)he's wasting his/her time on all that organic stuff. Trying to live all healthy during the day, but sucking in their fluoride left-overs at night from that nice minty tooth paste taste.

You're really afraid of fluoride I see.

BTW this diet works and will get you in top shape mentally and physically, even if you never exercise (but you should do that as well).

Many diets work. That doesn't make them optimal, practical, nor economically supportable.
It seems way over-complicated in my view, and expensive.

 

[cheese]

I think I've found a pretty good site!

www.beyondveg.com

It tries hard to be objective and honest. It's not for or against veggers, or omnivores, or paleos, etc. It simply presents all the information it's found. I think there's quite a bit of good research (though I haven't gone over all of it) that's presented in a readable but not overly-simplified way.

It covers basic nutrition, insulin resistance, paleo (natural whole foods, low-carb/high fat+protein) diets, fruitarian/vegetarian/vegan diets, raw food diets, honest reports from veg*ns/ex-veg*ns, evolutionary-based dietary theories, and quite a bit of science behind (for/against) the claims you commonly hear.

*edit
Their writers include current vegetarians, ex vegetarians, modified vegetarians, ex raw foodists/modified raw foodists, paleo followers - including someone who has co-authored many leading research papers on the paleolithic diet - ex fruitarians, etc etc. Seems fairly well represented.


And I like their attitude.

Spoiler

Please note that we specifically want articles that go beyond the typical "party line." Scientific research is preferred, but fair-minded anecdotal evidence is acceptable in areas where no relevant research is available.

The material presented on this site comes from individuals with years of hard-won experience either practicing alternative diets or observing those who do. As you'll find, no two writers will necessarily agree on all topics. A unifying theme, however, is the intent to squarely acknowledge and discuss the sometimes serious problems that can occur on alternative diets but often go unreported, and to go beyond the simplistic dogmas readily available elsewhere--in fact almost everywhere--to "explain them away."

We hope the range of views presented here will encourage--perhaps even force--you to think for yourself and go beyond the need for reliance on any single authority in evaluating the worth and workability of a diet. Especially if you have experienced problems yourself, you will know how crucial it is to remove the proverbial rose-colored glasses and face the issues discussed here openly, rationally, and realistically.

They seem like they're trying really hard to be honest and present a balanced perspective.