General nutrition recommendations - Page 56
Forum Index > Sports |
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On June 26 2013 00:12 decafchicken wrote: For my going to the gym is my spiritual experience. I'm sure SJPhoto does meditation if he's a proper buddhist and for me, going into the state of mind required for me to clean and jerk 160 kilos is something I cant find anywhere else and something I can't imagine living out with. When I have any sort of life problem I go to my church (the gym) and I sort my problems out with a barbell. I can't say i've ever left a religious church feeling better than when I went in but I can absolutely say i've never left a gym not feeling better than when i went in. The fact my gym also turns happens to make me stronger, better looking, and healthier is just icing on the cake. Really veered away from nutrition here. Still very curious to see the causal relationship (NOT CORRELATION) between not eating meat and longevity. If someone showed me a study that eating a diet of unprocessed meats, fruits, veggies; and that being a strength athlete over a 100kg you die significantly younger than a vegan who does not lift heavy weights, I would actually probably seriously review my current lifestyle. Go look at all of the powerlifters, worlds strongmen, and body builders that died at horrifically young ages in the past....look at Ronnie Colemans video and all of the prescription drugs he is on (including statin drugs) not to mention it has been shown (and should be common sense to most) that over exertion is bad for the heart (basically any heavy lifting) and over working your heart can lead to heart damage.....this is why most would agree that walking is the best exercise for your health as it gets your heart rate going yet it isn't intense enough to cause you to drop dead. As far as I know most people that made it to age 90 or are centurians were never heavy weight lifters and did very basic cardio vascular excercise but kept a stress free lifestyle and a healthly diet most of their life as that is what I got out of their interviews......lifting weights to impress girls or impress men to me is silly. Who the heck cares about how big your arms are or your chest is besides another man? I put health and spirituality over caring about others opinions or making my body parts bigger as life is too short to care about winning some long marathon or having 21" arms and an inflated ego. Trust me, I used to care about all of those things but once that I dropped it all and let it all go my life could not be better when I got away from the rate race, stopped caring about what people think about me, and got into spirituality and made peace with each moment, not war, and started to look at the more important long term things such as health and what I want to pass down to my children as healthy eating habits so that they do not have to go through the health problems that some of my family members have and nearly die from a triple bypass due to them neglecting diet all of their life. We need to educate our future children to eat healthy and promote healthy, moral diets that do not revolve around keeping animals cooped up in a farm only to be killed and eaten by (mostly) people that already eat too much. I guarantee you that if we got most of the worlds leaders on a fruit/vegetable based diet that there would be less wars and more peace. You are what you eat, if you're eating dead animals that had adrenaline pumping in them you are going to get that effect in you as well which could lead to all kinds of mental problems. Eating a plant based diet has also been proven to reverse most diseases (including cancer) and increase the quality of your life and can prevent diseases such as heart disease and cancers. I actually feel bad for those that are still hooked on meat and processed slave food. The moment that made me go vegan was when I was in a Shop Right and I saw a fat man that looked like he just got out of jail load a tray of sausage and other meats into his grocery bag and I saw tons of fat people loading up on meat....that was one of the moments where I "woke up" and smelled the coffee that the life style that I was following eating dead animals was garbage and eventually I went to a full vegetarian based diet and have never felt better health wise, mentally, and can say that I'm a kinder, more understanding, and loving person. So yes, I do believe that the vegetarian diet is superior to every other diet out there. Also, I saw that someone said that grains caused CVD.....if we're allowed to cherry pick there was a recent article that showed that people hundreds of thousands of years ago did in fact eat grains......not to mention grains such as oats have been shown by Heart Associations to lower bad cholesterol, raise good cholesterol, and lower your total cholesterol level and they are loaded with fiber (good for the heart). Who are *you* going to listen to? A TL poster or large associations that are dedicated to research such as the Heart Associations across the globe? Quick common sense question: Whats healthier? A bowl of oatmeal with honey & cinnamon or bacon and eggs with sausage? I wasn't sure if I should PM it or not. Guess not... So SJPhotoGrapher. First forget about what I said about spirituality. It's from a french saying and I don't think it applies to you anyway. Second, you should consider that this place isn't the best for your words. Most people here still live in the illusion and will do their best to justify it. The speech that appearance doesn't matter and that eating vegan will extend their life (let's say, winning 10 years out of 80) at the cost of what they are working hard to achieve (muscular body etc) isn't likely to be welcomed. As far as they are concerned, we are the crazy ones, dedicating our lives to spirituality when we could be working out and amassing chicks. I'm exagerating of course, but I think you get the idea. It's very nice of you to try, but I learned that most people don't want to even think about that, and all efforts spent going against that is wasted. I mean, the dude telling buddhism is a religion should hint you on the overall ignorance that surrounds the matter. We are a minority, and we can't force that to change. Not a day where I will be making new friends, I guess... I understand how it works....I feel bad for people that are attached to the way that their body shape looks or what other people care about them (stuck in the rat race)....life is too short to care about what our body looks like or to spread bad information. Most women want a man that has confidence, funny, fun to be around, enjoys life, and is a caring & devoted man.....not the size of your arms (I've even heard a lot of girls say that they are unattractive to men with big physiques or body builder type builds)........ I have a fiance that I've been with for 2 years and I love her to death and I've very fortunate to have her in my life......we will always stick together no manner what though and I could care less about her physical appearance and it's the same way with her (she actually is unattracted to men with muscular builds). I think that men that lift weights to impress others (especially women) have a long ways to go and I feel bad for them 100% honest here. I'm all about positivity, love, giving to others, and spreading positive and good information that will help everyone become a better person and will help the planet hence my views of being a vegan/vegetarian and going against the grain of trying to impress others with what kind of car you have, being in the rat race, and trying to have bigger arms than the next man to impress another man or women, or spreading false information that eating dead animals that were slaughtered unmorally is good for your health despite world health foundations saying otherwise and people basing their diets off of people that were lucky to live past age 16 (paleo diet). With that being said, I hope that everyone here is enjoying their summer and I wish you guys all the best. You will find nothing but peace and love from me. | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On June 30 2013 13:24 ShadeR wrote: aka I'm too stupid/lazy to read peer reviewed studies, I'd much rather take predigested information from authority as fact and regurgitate it like a zealot. The funny thing is that even if those articles were TRUE I'd STILL stick to a vegitarian based diet. Want to know why??? I'd prefer to live as long as a meat eater or even 10 years less than a meat eater due to having an inferior diet if I meant that my diet did not revolve around umoral slaughter farms and the killing of other animals when humans are the ONLY animal or being that has a choice in what they eat. We are NO BETTER than the animals that we eat. I believe that animals are equal to humans and I love animals and I am against animal cruelty and the consumption of humans by the millions when WE have an actual CHOICE in what we ate and thus can let millions of animals live NATURAL lives in nature and not farms where they are born to be killed. I would rather die 10 years earlier than a meat eater knowing that I did my job of not consuming meat that was killed unmorally/unnaturally and knowing that I had the choice of eating something that was picked from the ground vs be headed and was born to die in a farm where it was treated like shit. Yes that also means that I would even risk being a TOOTHPICK vegetarian vs someone that cares about having large muscles to impress others that eats meat and goes along with the standard rat race that is still asleep that believes that putting dead meat in their body is good for them and thinks that the national health foundations are all telling bad information to kill people like what most conspiracy theorists would say. | ||
AoN.DimSum
United States2983 Posts
People who build muscle will die quicker, but its ok to die quicker if you arent killing animals? what in the flying fuck are you rambling about (if this is komei, im gonna shoot myself) | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On June 30 2013 14:42 AoN.DimSum wrote: ....so you think people died of old age at 16? People who build muscle will die quicker, but its ok to die quicker if you arent killing animals? what in the flying fuck are you rambling about (if this is komei, im gonna shoot myself) Your post makes zero sense to me. I said that Eschow or w/e his username is keeps on posting articles talking about how meat & saturated fat + cholestrol is good for you and I said even if that is true (The National Heart Associations would disagree with his advice) I'd rather still eat vegitarian just because I believe that humans are no better than animals and I'd rather eat a diet that is less healthier if it meant that animals were not contained against their will and killed unmorally. Also, people in the Paelo age died from animals, illness, lack of food, freezed to death, or other natural causes. There were no "DR's" or medication if you got an infection back in those days.....life was dangerous back then which is why I said why would someone base a diet around a group of people (paleolithic) where you were considered lucky to make it past age 16 back then. That's like following a diet of a group of people that died at the age of 16 in car wrecks even though all they ate was fried Twinkies and other junk food. | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
A MUST read......made me crack up :D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/paleo-man-debunks-the-pal_b_3129110.html | ||
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
On June 30 2013 12:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: Okay so me and hundreds of thousands of people that think that supporting slaughter farms is a bad thing are nuts (especially people that have very high moral standards such as Buddhist Monks???)? Ask how much trauma people go through at slaughter farms (especially the ones that slaughter animals) compared to people that pick fruits & veggies. Slaughter farms are inhumane and eating meat is only contributing to these slaughter farms. hundreds of thousands of people also believe in god. doesn't mean it's real. buddhist monks having very high moral standards is subjective. do catholic priests have very high moral standards? what about humanitarian relief workers? why do buddhist monks get to be the gold standard? slaughter farms slaughter things other than animals? and i dunno, people who pick fruits and veggies have it pretty hard too. slaving away all day under the sweltering heat performing backbreaking work. eating veggies and fruit contributes to the difficulties of the people who pick the fruits and veggies. therefore, eating veggies and fruits is inhumane. On June 30 2013 15:16 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: This is why I think that the Paleo diet is retarded. A MUST read......made me crack up :D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/paleo-man-debunks-the-pal_b_3129110.html the article makes no sense at all. of course if you always had nothing to eat, then you would eat milkshakes and grains and legumes. that's because eating milkshakes, grains, and legumes is healthier than eating nothing. but if you could eat grass fed meat, fruits, and veggies, then it's strictly healthier to eat those things than milkshakes, grains, and legumes. besides, the name 'paleo' is just bs marketing anyways. smart people eat meat, fruits, and veggies because its healthy, not because cavemen ate it. yes, there are a lot of paleo idiots out there going on and on about how we should eat like cavemen because our bodies are more suited to it. that's not what we're arguing here. Who the heck cares about how big your arms are or your chest is besides another man? I put health and spirituality over caring about others opinions or making my body parts bigger as life is too short to care about winning some long marathon or having 21" arms and an inflated ego. i doubt many people here care about other people's opinions about their bodies. most people here are working out to be healthy, to lose weight, or to reach certain goals of personal development and accomplishment. Trust me, I used to care about all of those things but once that I dropped it all and let it all go my life could not be better when I got away from the rate race, stopped caring about what people think about me, and got into spirituality and made peace with each moment, not war, and started to look at the more important long term things such as health and what I want to pass down to my children as healthy eating habits so that they do not have to go through the health problems that some of my family members have and nearly die from a triple bypass due to them neglecting diet all of their life. how do you know that we are people who work out just to get big muscles for the approval of others? how do you know we are not at peace with our lives? how do you know we are stuck in the rat race and have tons of health problems? you know nothing about us. stop assuming these things. We need to educate our future children to eat healthy and promote healthy, moral diets that do not revolve around keeping animals cooped up in a farm only to be killed and eaten by (mostly) people that already eat too much. yes but only if they are moral according to sjphotographer... I guarantee you that if we got most of the worlds leaders on a fruit/vegetable based diet that there would be less wars and more peace. wat You are what you eat, if you're eating dead animals that had adrenaline pumping in them you are going to get that effect in you as well which could lead to all kinds of mental problems. no it doesnt. i eat meat all the time and i dont have any mental problems. neither do a lot of people i know. nor am i violent or want to start wars. why do you always assume that eating meat causes these things? where did you find this piece of information? source please. Eating a plant based diet has also been proven to reverse most diseases (including cancer) and increase the quality of your life and can prevent diseases such as heart disease and cancers. no one's gonna believe you when you just say things like this. i can say the exact opposite of what you just said without providing a reference, and i would have just as much credibility as you (aka none). I actually feel bad for those that are still hooked on meat and processed slave food. please understand that we feel the same for you Also, I saw that someone said that grains caused CVD.....if we're allowed to cherry pick there was a recent article that showed that people hundreds of thousands of years ago did in fact eat grains again, please provide the source. i can say the exact opposite of what you said. Who are *you* going to listen to? A TL poster or large associations that are dedicated to research such as the Heart Associations across the globe? i listen to reason. if a TL poster says things that are intelligent, logical, and credible, and backs up his claims with credible sources, then i will take his views into consideration. if you really do listen to research associations, then why don't you listen to the research that has been published by said research associations? With that being said, I hope that everyone here is enjoying their summer and I wish you guys all the best. You will find nothing but peace and love from me. please. if you really did love us, you would stop saying it in every single post. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
You're wrong on all 3. But it's still nice to see you back just as Komei has been banned. | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
Comparing the state of mind picking fruits and vegitables (they get paid to do it and would be broke otherwise) to the state of mind that goes into seeing animals being butchered is laughable..... Do you think that people wake up in their sleep in a sweat because they picked an innocent fruit off of the ground??? You (speaking to ieatkids5) just want to believe in what you want to believe in. You want to believe that eating salughtered dead animals & bacon & cheese omelets is good for your health vs what the Heart Associations say and what your DR would tell you. Continue to put the dead animals, mucus, chemicals, adrenaline, and acid into your body if you want to disregard your health just like the other millions of Americans are that are on a high saturated fat & cholesterol meat eating/dairy diet. Believe what you want to believe in but don't expect much of a response out of me when your post shows that you're going to continue to believe in random posters and articles online vs what all of the Heart Associations are saying and you try to make it sound like picking a piece of fruit is worse than killing an animal. You can go back to eating your bacon and cheese omelets and thinking that saturated fat, cholesterol, eating meat, and supporting slaughterer farms is a good thing. It's a real shame that a lot of these paleo "gurus" have been dropping like flies though from heart attacks but I guess thats the price that you pay Karma wise when you think that eating a cheese omelet & bacon grease for breakfast is good for you and than try to go for a run with all of that mucus running through your blood stream. Good day . On June 30 2013 18:18 Cynry wrote: Buddhist monks never try to convince people. They never insult them or their idea. They won't need to repeat how much they love people because you can just feel it in their actions and words. You're wrong on all 3. But it's still nice to see you back just as Komei has been banned. I never insulted anyone's idea. Go ask any Buddhist Abbot of their opinion on eating meat and they will tell you that it's a bad idea and unmoral. Some would also try to convince people because it would be for the better of their own mind. They also might just tell you that they love you and everyone as I have heard monks say this plenty of times. I don't think that you know much about Buddhism. | ||
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
How did I cherry pick the Paleo studies? Those are the only studies done so far. That's why I listed them. When there are more (and I haven't looked in the past 1-1.5 years so there may be more now) I will list all of them. And so far the diet has proven promising by medical standards in health population AND populations with documented cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. IMO it's better to look at how current hunter-gatherers eat rather than what the humans ate millions of years ago which would be: The average diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 64–68% of animal calories and 32–36% of plant calories,[75][100] with animal calories further divided between fished and hunted animals in varying proportions (most typically, with hunted animal food comprising 26–35% of the overall diet). As part of the Man the Hunter paradigm, this ratio was used as the basis of the earliest forms of the Paleolithic diet by Voegtlin, Eaton and others. To this day, many advocates of the Paleolithic diet consider high percentage of animal flesh to be one of the key features of the diet. However, great disparities do exist, even between different modern hunter-gatherer societies. The animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut.[101] The animal-derived percentage value is skewed upwards by polar hunter-gatherer societies, who have no choice but to eat animal food because of the inaccessibility of plant foods. Since those environments were only populated relatively recently (for example, Paleo-Indian ancestors of Nunamiut are thought to have arrived in Alaska no earlier than 30,000 years ago), such diets represent recent adaptations rather than conditions that shaped human evolution during much of the Paleolithic. More generally, hunting and fishing tend to provide a higher percentage of energy in forager societies living at higher latitudes. Excluding cold-climate and equestrian foragers results in a diet structure of 52% plant calories, 26% hunting calories, and 22% fishing calories.[100] This tells me multiple things. 1. They all eat some form of fish or meat. There are no vegetarians or vegan HGs because you can't survive without modern supplementation and food processing without meat or fish. 2. Morality is not a concern for such populations eating fish and/or meat. I assume if everyone lived on a farm and butchered the cows and chickens from the time they were young people wouldn't be as averse to killing animals for food. 3. You can pretty much live a good life expectancy on all animal calories, but you can't do it well on all plant calories. This seems like it would be an ideal for most people: >> Excluding cold-climate and equestrian foragers results in a diet structure of 52% plant calories, 26% hunting calories, and 22% fishing calories. Have fish a couple times a week, eat some meat the other times, and then eat a lot of rice and/or potatoes, fruits and vegetables, and maybe occasionally nuts. Note: Hunter gatherer societies live into their 70s for old age (aside from infant mortality and disease). They have virtually no diabetes, no cardiovascular disease, no neurodegenerative illnesses like parkinson's, alzheimers, MS, no auto-immune diseases like IBS, crohn's, etc. Mark's Daily apple covered the studies pretty well here on life expectancy: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/life-expectancy-hunter-gatherer/ | ||
Vitruvian
United States168 Posts
On July 01 2013 02:51 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: Theres no point in talking anything over with you guys as it's like talking to a wall. A wall that demands science, logic, and critical thinking. Essentially what you're saying here is, there's no point in talking to us because we don't immediately accept your unsupported claims as truth. Here's the bottom line: In addition to our claims, the omnivorous side of the debate has presented you with the SCIENCE - the studies that support our view. You have presented nothing but claims - no science, no support, nothing. Your rejection of our scientifically-supported claims, and refusal to engage in meaningful debate, is the reason you're getting nowhere with us. Instructions for engaging in a meaningful debate: 1a.) Provide scientific studies that support your claims or 1b.) Provide critique of the studies that support our claims - i.e. reasons why the science might be invalid glhf | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On July 01 2013 02:58 eshlow wrote: I'm honestly stunned by the ignorance here. How did I cherry pick the Paleo studies? Those are the only studies done so far. That's why I listed them. When there are more (and I haven't looked in the past 1-1.5 years so there may be more now) I will list all of them. And so far the diet has proven promising by medical standards in health population AND populations with documented cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. IMO it's better to look at how current hunter-gatherers eat rather than what the humans ate millions of years ago which would be: This tells me multiple things. 1. They all eat some form of fish or meat. There are no vegetarians or vegan HGs because you can't survive without modern supplementation and food processing without meat or fish. 2. Morality is not a concern for such populations eating fish and/or meat. I assume if everyone lived on a farm and butchered the cows and chickens from the time they were young people wouldn't be as averse to killing animals for food. 3. You can pretty much live a good life expectancy on all animal calories, but you can't do it well on all plant calories. This seems like it would be an ideal for most people: >> Excluding cold-climate and equestrian foragers results in a diet structure of 52% plant calories, 26% hunting calories, and 22% fishing calories. Have fish a couple times a week, eat some meat the other times, and then eat a lot of rice and/or potatoes, fruits and vegetables, and maybe occasionally nuts. Note: Hunter gatherer societies live into their 70-80s for old age (aside from infant mortality and disease). They have virtually no diabetes, no cardiovascular disease, no neurodegenerative illnesses like parkinson's, alzheimers, MS, no auto-immune diseases like IBS, crohn's, etc. Here you want cherry picked studies. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/major-health-differences-vegetarians-meateaters-2790.html "Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome,[39] dementias such as Alzheimer's disease and other disorders.[40] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[41] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer.[34] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh-day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles." That was just two picked from the front page of google. Living 70-80 years old is young.....I'm hoping to at least live to be in my early to late 90's. Even my grandfather who was a smoker of non filtered cigarettes for over 50 years and still drinks (even after having a triple bypass and following a paleo like diet) a long with eating hot dogs & mac n Cheese & just turned 71. Pretty much anyone can live to be 70-80. I'm shooting for 90 to 100 without having any terminal illnesses while still being able to do what I love to do. The Paleo diet is just a new fad like the Atkins that will be considered a joke by many (it already is viewed as a joke by many now) within 10 or so years and a new diet will come out that adheres to the American Standard Diet aka SAD. Also like I said lets talk about the morality issues here. You're cultivating bad karma and supporting a bad unmoral industry when you go out and buy meat or kill animals to eat when you can just as easily pay less than $2 for a "thing" of bananas at your local mart. The American Heart Association states that a diet high in fiber, low in saturated fats & cholesterol reduces your risk for heart disease. Who am I supposed to believe? A random TL poster or a large Association that pours money into research and knows and has shown, that diets based around meat vastly increase your risk for a large magnitude of diseases & cancers a long with heart disease. Like I said continue to eat your sausage, eggs, & bacon with salt but when your DR asks why you ate like that when you're 50-60 years old & had a heart attack don't be surprised if he shakes his head if you say that you ignored the advice of the American Heart Association and that of common sense. I agree that fish is going to be better than all other forms of meat due to it's healthy fats but a handful of walnuts has more omega 3 than a whole salmon while the salmon has cholesterol, mercury, and other harmful chemicals while the walnuts do not have any of that. Almonds are also cholesterol lowering yet have zero cholesterol and are excellent for you. All that meat is, is dead vegetables that has been densely packed into muscle fibers and drained from most nutritional value & fiber a long with enzymes if you really get down into the core of what it is. Eating vegetables & fruits uncooked you are eating the purist form of food that is at the bottom of the food chain and has not been depleted of it's minerals, vitamins, and enzymes or fiber. Common sense and research shows me that there is no benefit in eating meat due to it just being dead vegetables & fruits devoid of nearly all nutrition & fiber a long with enzymes. I see no nutritional benefit in meat. Your articles are all cherry picked. I click on the article and it links to some website with the slogan "modern primal living" or w/e. Cherry picked at it's finest. I can cherry pick articles showing that people on a high saturated fat & cholesterol/meat eating diet die of degenerative diseases much faster than non meat eaters but than you would come back with more cherry picked articles and it would start to look like a religious or political debate vs using your own mind and common sense so I'll save my time. | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On July 01 2013 03:12 Vitruvian wrote: A wall that demands science, logic, and critical thinking. Essentially what you're saying here is, there's no point in talking to us because we don't immediately accept your unsupported claims as truth. Here's the bottom line: In addition to our claims, the omnivorous side of the debate has presented you with the SCIENCE - the studies that support our view. You have presented nothing but claims - no science, no support, nothing. Your rejection of our scientifically-supported claims, and refusal to engage in meaningful debate, is the reason you're getting nowhere with us. Instructions for engaging in a meaningful debate: 1a.) Provide scientific studies that support your claims or 1b.) Provide critique of the studies that support our claims - i.e. reasons why the science might be invalid glhf You & others provided studies from biased websites such as "primal living" websites and I provided evidence in my posts not to mention The WORLD HEART ASSOCIATIONS all have shown that a diet high in saturated fat & cholesterol increases your risk of degenerative diseases greatly. Do I really need more evidence from that or should I go to vegan world and cherry pick like some of you guys??? I'm going to say it again. All that meat is densely packed dead vegetables & fruits that have been deprived of nearly all of it's nutritional value including vitamins, antioxidants, and enzymes. So in reality you guys are vegetarians as well just on a lower level than vegetarians that eat all their fruit & veggies while it's still alive & packed with nutrition. | ||
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
All that meat is densely packed dead vegetables & fruits that have been deprived of nearly all of it's nutritional value including vitamins, antioxidants, and enzymes. LOL? Show me science that proves this is true. Show me these INTERVENTIONAL STUDIES that the "world heart associations" use to prove their assertion that whatever it is you're claiming is unhealthy. Please provide some science or just go away. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/major-health-differences-vegetarians-meateaters-2790.html "Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome,[39] dementias such as Alzheimer's disease and other disorders.[40] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[41] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer.[34] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh-day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles." These are observational studies which do not prove anything. Correlation != causation. They don't go into any confounding factors such as the fact that people that watch what they eat generally tend to exercise and sleep more than people who don't. Show me an INTERVENTIONAL STUDY that proves your point(s). I have provided multiple interventional studies that show my side. | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On July 01 2013 03:48 eshlow wrote: SjPhotoGrapher, LOL? Show me science that proves this is true. Show me these studies that the "world heart associations" use to prove their assertion that whatever it is you're claiming is unhealthy. Please provide some science or just go away. http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/tc/american-heart-association-healthy-diet-guidelines-topic-overview http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/nutrition-advice-from-the-china-study/?_r=0 Common sense shows that all that meat is the vegetables, fruits, nuts, grass, that the animal ate densely packed into muscle. When you eat a cows thigh where do you think that it got the muscle from? Eating grass....... So you are a vegetarian eshlow just on a lower level than me and others and you support the killing of animals and slaughterer farms. On July 01 2013 03:48 eshlow wrote: SjPhotoGrapher, LOL? Show me science that proves this is true. Show me these INTERVENTIONAL STUDIES that the "world heart associations" use to prove their assertion that whatever it is you're claiming is unhealthy. Please provide some science or just go away. These are observational studies which do not prove anything. Correlation != causation. They don't go into any confounding factors such as the fact that people that watch what they eat generally tend to exercise and sleep more than people who don't. Show me an INTERVENTIONAL STUDY that proves your point(s). I have provided multiple interventional studies that show my side. Show me some evidence from non biased websites/articles (that's all that you have shown me so far) that goes into the nutritional benefits of eating dead densely packed vegetables/fruits/nuts/etc aka meat? I have never heard of eating meat decreasing your likelihood of cancer or thick & greasy saturated fat and cholesterol being pumped through your blood deceasing your risk of CVD. Real animals eat their meat raw while it's still alive and not cooked to the point where dangerous chemical reactions occur that turn your food into complete slimy garbage. When a lion eats it's victim the first thing that it eats it the tract where all of the veggies that, that animal ate to get all of that nutritional benefit followed by eating the rest of the meat (remember, densely packed veggies/fruits) and than is so tired from eating all of that meat that it needs to sleep/rest for over 12 hours. | ||
Vitruvian
United States168 Posts
| ||
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
Show me some evidence from non biased websites/articles (that's all that you have shown me so far) that goes into the nutritional benefits of eating dead densely packed vegetables/fruits/nuts/etc aka meat?' Already did that on the other page: Nature Pubmed cardilab Journal of biological chemistry http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/abs/ejcn20094a.html Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet Results: Compared with the baseline (usual) diet, we observed (a) significant reductions in BP associated with improved arterial distensibility (−3.1±2.9, P=0.01 and +0.19±0.23, P=0.05);(b) significant reduction in plasma insulin vs time AUC, during the OGTT (P=0.006); and (c) large significant reductions in total cholesterol, low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and triglycerides (−0.8±0.6 (P=0.007), −0.7±0.5 (P=0.003) and −0.3±0.3 (P=0.01) mmol/l respectively). In all these measured variables, either eight or all nine participants had identical directional responses when switched to paleolithic type diet, that is, near consistently improved status of circulatory, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism/physiology. Conclusions: Even short-term consumption of a paleolithic type diet improves BP and glucose tolerance, decreases insulin secretion, increases insulin sensitivity and improves lipid profiles without weight loss in healthy sedentary humans. Improves all blood markers including BP and lipid profiles. ------------------- http://www.cardiab.com/content/8/1/35 Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study Results: Study participants had on average a diabetes duration of 9 years, a mean HbA1c of 6,6% units by Mono-S standard and were usually treated with metformin alone (3 subjects) or metformin in combination with a sulfonylurea (3 subjects) or a thiazolidinedione (3 subjects). Mean average dose of metformin was 1031 mg per day. Compared to the diabetes diet, the Paleolithic diet resulted in lower mean values of HbA1c (-0.4% units, p = 0.01), triacylglycerol (-0.4 mmol/L, p = 0.003), diastolic blood pressure (-4 mmHg, p = 0.03), weight (-3 kg, p = 0.01), BMI (-1 kg/m2, p = 0.04) and waist circumference (-4 cm, p = 0.02), and higher mean values of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (+0.08 mmol/L, p = 0.03). The Paleolithic diet was mainly lower in cereals and dairy products, and higher in fruits, vegetables, meat and eggs, as compared with the Diabetes diet. Further, the Paleolithic diet was lower in total energy, energy density, carbohydrate, dietary glycemic load, saturated fatty acids and calcium, and higher in unsaturated fatty acids, dietary cholesterol and several vitamins. Dietary GI was slightly lower in the Paleolithic diet (GI = 50) than in the Diabetic diet (GI = 55). Conclusion: Over a 3-month study period, a Paleolithic diet improved glycemic control and several cardiovascular risk factors compared to a Diabetes diet in patients with type 2 diabetes. Yes, the Paleo diet is BETTER than the diabetes diet at improving blood markers in diabetics. LOL ------------------- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583796 A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, there was a 26% decrease of AUC Glucose(0-120) (p = 0.0001) in the Palaeolithic group and a 7% decrease (p = 0.08) in the Consensus group. The larger (p = 0.001) improvement in the Palaeolithic group was independent (p = 0.0008) of change in waist circumference (-5.6 cm in the Palaeolithic group, -2.9 cm in the Consensus group; p = 0.03). In the study population as a whole, there was no relationship between change in AUC Glucose(0-120) and changes in weight (r = -0.06, p = 0.9) or waist circumference (r = 0.01, p = 1.0). There was a tendency for a larger decrease of AUC Insulin(0-120) in the Palaeolithic group, but because of the strong association between change in AUC Insulin(0-120) and change in waist circumference (r = 0.64, p = 0.0003), this did not remain after multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A Palaeolithic diet may improve glucose tolerance independently of decreased waist circumference. Paleo outperforms the "heart healthy" Mediterrean diet. ---------------------- http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n5/abs/1602790a.html Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers Results: Mean weight decreased by 2.3 kg (P<0.001), body mass index by 0.8 (P<0.001), waist circumference by 0.5 cm (P=0.001), systolic blood pressure by 3 mm Hg (P=0.03) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 by 72% (P=0.020). Regarding nutrient intake, intake of energy decreased by 36%, and other effects were also observed, both favourable (fat composition, antioxidants, potassium-sodium rate) and unfavourable (calcium). Conclusion: This short-term intervention showed some favourable effects by the diet, but further studies, including control group, are needed. Good results + recommendation for more studies. I hope so. --------------------- http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf XLV. PROLONGED MEAT DIETS WITH A STUDY OF KIDNEY FUNCTION AND KETOSIS.* Two normal men volunteered to live solely on meat for one year, which gave us an unusual opportunity of studying the effects of this diet. The term “meat,” as used by us, included both the lean and the fat portions of animals. The subjects derived most of their calories from fat and the diet was quite different from what one, who uses the term “meat” as including chiefly lean muscle, would expect. Conclusion and Summary 1. Two men lived on an exclusive meat diet for 1 year and a third man for 10 days. The relative amounts of lean and fat, meat ingested were left to the instinctive choice of the individuals. 2. The protein content varied from 100 to 140 gm., the fat from by guest on June 26, 2013 http://www.jbc.org/ Downloaded from W. S. McClellan and E. F. Du Bois 667 200 to 300 gm., the carbohydrate, derived entirely from the meat, from 7 to 12 gm., and the fuel value from 2000 to 3100 calories. 3. At the end of the year, the subjects were mentally alert, physically active, and showed no specific physical changes in any system of the body. 4. During the 1st week, all three men lost weight, due to a shift in the water content of the body while adjusting itself to the low carbohydrate diet. Thereafter, their weights remained practically constant. 5. In the prolonged test, the blood pressure of one man re- mained constant; the systolic pressure of the other decreased 20 mm. and the diastolic pressure remained uniform. 6. The control of the bowels was not disturbed while the sub- jects were on prescribed meat diet. In one instance, when the proportion of protein calories in the diet exceeded 40 per cent, a diarrhea developed. 7. Vitamin deficiencies did not appear. 8. The total acidity of the urine during the meat diet was in- creased to 2 or 3 times that of the acidity on mixed diets and ace- tonuria was present throughout the periods of exclusive meat. 9. Urine examinations, determinations of the nitrogenous constituents of the blood, and kidney function tests revealed no evidence of kidney damage. 10. While on the meat diet, the men metabolized foodstuffs with FA: G ratios between 1.9 and 3.0 and excreted from 0.4 to 7.2 gm. of acetone bodies per day. 11. In these trained subjects, the clinical observations and laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet. No adverse effects from eating only meat and animal fat for a year. ------------------------------- http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/tc/american-heart-association-healthy-diet-guidelines-topic-overview http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/nutrition-advice-from-the-china-study/?_r=0 So you have: 1. webmd which doesn't source it's information, and 2. The china study which is an OBSERVATIONAL STUDY which has correlations and not causations. Plus Colin Campbell misrepresenting the data but that analysis you can find on some other sites. Cool. I'm still waiting for an interventional study from a reputable source. On July 01 2013 04:08 Vitruvian wrote: Hey Eshlow, by virtue of supporting conclusions contrary to SjPhotographer's views, Nature and the NIH are automatically biased. Obviously. I can do this all day but I'm probably going to stop soon. It's useless to debate with someone who thinks: 1. animals are just dead plants, and 2. using lions eating meat to somehow get that it needs to sleep or something (which has what to do with meat/sat fats and cholesterol??). Honestly, he's just making himself look more foolish so I guess if you guys want to continue I'm sure that he can disprove himself without you having to do anything Hell, if animals are just dead plants... then plants are just sunshine, dirt, water, and carbon dioxide. We're all made of dirt, sunshine, water, and carbon! YAY | ||
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
Also studies done over a year are useless.......try 60 years. Guess what? There are no diets that have been forced for over 60 years besides the SAD which is the closest diet to the paleo diet and look at the evidence for heart disease in the USA only? Do you honestly believe that all of that heart disease and cancer does not come from eating more cholesterol than we already have and eating tons of saturated fats and dead cooked animals deprived of nearly all nutrition??? What I'm trying to say is that I don't need to waste my time looking up articles like you when it's all common sense and the evidence is all around you. Look at all of the fat paleo authors out there and the Americans dropping dead from heart attacks that are on a meat based diet. Not to mention, I also said that I would rather eat vegetables & fruits all of my life even if it meant that I died 10 years earlier due to the moral issues which trumps all of your cherry picked articles which most are short term articles done under a year or show average life expectancy's out of meat eaters and go against the recommendations of the Heart Associations. If you want to believe that eating dead cooked bacon & eggs is more healthy than fresh fruit & spinach that are both full of life, vitamins, anti oxidants, cholesterol free, lower your cholesterol value, and are full of enzymes than go against your common sense I could care less. Your body already produces enough cholesterol anyways what the hell is dead cooked meat going to give me that veggies, fruits, nuts, (any plant based foods), is not going to give me besides protein that has been shown to be hard on the kidneys and on your cholesterol levels anyways? Meat eaters are deprived of B12 as well a long with vitamin D3 both which are easily supplemented........ | ||
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
On July 01 2013 02:51 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: Theres no point in talking anything over with you guys as it's like talking to a wall. Comparing the state of mind picking fruits and vegitables (they get paid to do it and would be broke otherwise) to the state of mind that goes into seeing animals being butchered is laughable..... people get paid to work in slaughter houses too. also, people who work there do it because it's worth the money. they have a choice whether to work there or not. and they chose to do it, which means working there is better than any other choice they had (otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it). therefore, that job of working in the slaughter house has made that person better off. Do you think that people wake up in their sleep in a sweat because they picked an innocent fruit off of the ground??? i dunno, do they? i get pretty emotional when i think of it. i don't see how this is an argument. You (speaking to ieatkids5) just want to believe in what you want to believe in. You want to believe that eating salughtered dead animals & bacon & cheese omelets is good for your health vs what the Heart Associations say and what your DR would tell you. i believe that eating slaughtered dead animals that were eating their natural diets before their death is good for my health. same with eggs from chickens that were eating what they were supposed to. i do not think cheese is that great for my health and i'd avoid it if possible. if i wanted to believe in what i believe in, then i would believe that i could drink milkshakes, whiskey, and beer all day and be healthy. i'd also eat five guys cheeseburgers, french fries, chili dogs, pringles, and cheeseitz all day. that's what i want. unfortunately, i know that unprocessed food in general is healthier than processed food. i know what the heart associations say. i have read their recommendations and their reasoning behind it. i have also read the opinions and reasoning of other groups and researchers who recommend different things from what the heart associations say, and who back up their reasoning with good evidence as to why their view is better, and why some of the heart associations' recommendations do not make sense. Continue to put the dead animals, mucus, chemicals, adrenaline, and acid into your body if you want to disregard your health just like the other millions of Americans are that are on a high saturated fat & cholesterol meat eating/dairy diet. chemicals? er, have you ever taken biology? also, my diet is totally different from the average american's. there's no comparison. and dairy products are not part of my regular diet. Believe what you want to believe in but don't expect much of a response out of me when your post shows that you're going to continue to believe in random posters and articles online vs what all of the Heart Associations are saying and you try to make it sound like picking a piece of fruit is worse than killing an animal. see response above about what i believe in. also, i've never said that picking fruit is worse than killing animals. and in terms of health, you need both for a balanced, healthy diet. You can go back to eating your bacon and cheese omelets and thinking that saturated fat, cholesterol, eating meat, and supporting slaughterer farms is a good thing. again, i don't think cheese is healthy for me. bacon is great and so are eggs. if you think saturated fat and cholesterol are inherently bad for you, then you need to review your biochemistry. supporting slaughter houses is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. it's how the economy works. besides, this is the nutrition forum. if you want to discuss morality, this isn't the place for it. here, we discuss whether food is healthy or not. It's a real shame that a lot of these paleo "gurus" have been dropping like flies though from heart attacks but I guess thats the price that you pay Karma wise when you think that eating a cheese omelet & bacon grease for breakfast is good for you and than try to go for a run with all of that mucus running through your blood stream. i've never heard anything about people on paleo diets dying from heart attacks. do you have a source? secondly, if you're on the paleo diet, you're not supposed to eat cheese. thirdly, the diet that many of us on this forum believe is healthy isn't even true paleo. about the mucus in bloodstream (wat?) after eating saturated fats and cholesterol - again, please review your biochemistry. i think you're confusing a lot of different diets. you seem to think that i eat like the average american. please let me explain: average american - processed food, lots of refined carbs and sugas, meats and dairy and carbs (all processed) paleo - no processed foods, no grains, no refined carbs and sugars, vegetables, fruits, nuts, meats, eggs me - same as paleo except i do eat certain types of grains. It is a useless debate, you keep on posting biased information and you know that meat is just dead fruits & veggies. wat? please review your biochem in this area as well. Also studies done over a year are useless.......try 60 years. Guess what? There are no diets that have been forced for over 60 years besides the SAD which is the closest diet to the paleo diet and look at the evidence for heart disease in the USA only? the studies are taken for what they are. of course a 60 year trial would be better. on the other hand, you haven't provided ANY. also, please see above for how the standard american diet is different from the paleo diet. Do you honestly believe that all of that heart disease and cancer does not come from eating more cholesterol than we already have and eating tons of saturated fats and dead cooked animals deprived of nearly all nutrition??? i don't think you understand how cholesterol works. please review the material that eshlow has kindly written up, or refer to a textbook. What I'm trying to say is that I don't need to waste my time looking up articles like you when it's all common sense and the evidence is all around you. common sense is not good enough. evidence is what we need, and eshlow has given it. you haven't. if it's all around us, then please show it to me. Look at all of the fat paleo authors out there and the Americans dropping dead from heart attacks that are on a meat based diet. for the 8th time, the paleo diet and the SAD are completely different. also, please show me some stats on heart attacks in people on the paleo diet. Not to mention, I also said that I would rather eat vegetables & fruits all of my life even if it meant that I died 10 years earlier due to the moral issues which trumps all of your cherry picked articles which most are short term articles done under a year or show average life expectancy's out of meat eaters and go against the recommendations of the Heart Associations. we're discussing what's healthier, not what's more "ethical." this is going into an area that's not intended for this forum. also, i've done more good for the world than you have. If you want to believe that eating dead cooked bacon & eggs is more healthy than fresh fruit & spinach that are both full of life, vitamins, anti oxidants, cholesterol free, lower your cholesterol value, and are full of enzymes than go against your common sense I could care less. yes, i'll believe that because there's evidence that supports it. btw no one is saying that bacon and eggs are healthier than fruit and spinach. we're actually saying that eating both are healthy. you should probably understand the diet before attempting to form an opinion on it. also, again on cholesterol. you clearly don't know how cholesterol works. please read up on it before making comments. Your body already produces enough cholesterol anyways what the hell is dead cooked meat going to give me that veggies, fruits, nuts, (any plant based foods), is not going to give me besides protein that has been shown to be hard on the kidneys and on your cholesterol levels anyways? i don't think you read the studies eshlow provided... Meat eaters are deprived of B12 as well a long with vitamin D3 both which are easily supplemented........ no one said we only ate meat. | ||
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
There's no point responding. 1. He can't provide any studies. 2. Every other answer is a straw man, red herring, or crazy speculation | ||
| ||