26 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Thoughts?

[niner]

80:10:10 ratio of carb:protein:fat? Hmm. Is that what he's doing? I tend to doubt that. He doesn't sound like he's very smart, and he's asking us to take it all on faith.

[RJ23_1989]

Well, having been in the gym for 28 years now and having taken steroids for over 20 years, that guy looks like that because of the drugs he's taking, exercise routine and eating discipline.

I'm not knocking the Vegan lifestyle by any means, but being Vegan per se doesn't play much of a role with regards to the physique he built.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[TheFountain]

I'm not knocking the Vegan lifestyle by any means, but being Vegan per se doesn't play much of a role with regards to the physique he built.

From the sounds of it, no diet would?

[RJ23_1989]

From the sounds of it, no diet would?

Nice try.

I'm not going to respond to a ridiculous statement like that.

Go take your argument back to the bioscience thread Fountain. .

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[TheFountain]

From the sounds of it, no diet would?

Nice try.

I'm not going to respond to a ridiculous statement like that.

Go take your argument back to the bioscience thread Fountain. .

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

Well when people constantly repeat the steroids mantra then one would assume that two things create extreme muscularity.

1-Commitment?

2-Steroids?

[RJ23_1989]

Fair enough then..

There's a certain "level of muscularity" vs your bodyframe that can only be achieved by ramping up your body's rate of protein synthesis. Via hormones, prohormones, AAS, whatever.

Given this guy's vegan diet and bodyframe muscularity - he is taking something. The real crux of it is the 10% protein intake - It wouldn't support that "density" without ramping up.This has nothing to do with his hard work and determination, kudos to him for that. He should be more honest though.

You'll probably question how I can subjectively judge his physique like that, and that's a valid question. I base that aspect solely on my experience of being in the gym and around gym rats since 1985, and my own fairly in-depth knowledge of how PED work on a practical level and a metabolic level. Take or leave it for what its worth.

Edited by PatrickM500, 04 September 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[TheFountain]

^^ Bro, what about that dude who claims muscles can be built with just the amino acid precursors? I forget his name but he was a sprinter I think.

[misterE]

A high ratio of carbohydrate to fat promotes increased insulin-secretion. Insulin drives amino-acids into the muscles, inhibits muscle catabolism and also induces androgen synthesis. A high ratio of starch to sugar prevents conversion of carbohydrates into fat (thus increasing the overall insulin-response and carb-to-fat ratio). Finally a high ratio of protein to fat is optimal (that way the insulin; created from the carbohydrate, has more protein to store than fat), allowing the body to build more muscle than it does fat.



80% starch = Stimulates anabolic hormones like insulin, IGF-1 and androgens, which build muscle.

15% protein = Stored in the muscles by insulin, thus increasing muscle-growth (protein-synthesis).

5% fat = Stored in the adipose-tissue by insulin, thus increasing fat-gain.



In order to build muscle, you must spike your insulin; this drives protein and glucose into the muscles to promote growth, however the other side of the coin, is that insulin also drives fatty-acids into the adipose-tissue to promote fat-gain (as insurance for the winter famine). Thus if you know how to properly manipulate your insulin levels and your macronutrient ratios, then you can build-muscle with very little to no fat gain at all!



All of this is what I believe according to the research I have done.

[misterE]

Also a common misconception about vegans is that they are too thin and weakly. This may be so if you consume nothing but lettuce and carrots (like many vegans do), which deprives your body of calories and insulin, but if you are eating lots of fruits, beans, grains, bread and potatoes, then you will have plenty of calories to maintain your muscle-mass and plenty of insulin to keep your metabolism working correctly.

Some of the strongest, fiercest men, like the gladiators and all the ancient armies; carrying all that heavy armor and marching and fighting to the death… primarily ate starches (grains, beans, potatoes) to fuel their winning efforts… not something that could be accomplished on a diet based strictly on vegetables.

Edited by misterE, 13 September 2013 - 07:45 PM.

[Thorsten3]

Also a common misconception about vegans is that they are too thin and weakly. This may be so if you consume nothing but lettuce and carrots (like many vegans do), which deprives your body of calories and insulin, but if you are eating lots of fruits, beans, grains, bread and potatoes, then you will have plenty of calories to maintain your muscle-mass and plenty of insulin to keep your metabolism working correctly.

Some of the strongest, fiercest men, like the gladiators and all the ancient armies; carrying all that heavy armor and marching and fighting to the death… primarily ate starches (grains, beans, potatoes) to fuel their winning efforts… not something that could be accomplished on a diet based strictly on vegetables.

Have you ever posted your hormonal panel? I would just like to see how high your androgens are on this diet, that you pimp so relentlessly.

I tried living off potatoes, beans and rice for a while and all I noticed was gas (which I never get on meat and fruit - pretty much what I eat day to day), absolutely crippling lethargy, bloatedness (yuk), feeling unsatiated all of the time and a persistent lousy mood.

When I substitute carbs for fruits, I notice immediate improvements. Perhaps that's just me, though.

If I was a gladiator burning off these nutitionally inept foods, then it wouldn't be so bad. I wouldn't have time to get depressed at what I was eating, if someone was about to chop my head off.

Incidentally, do you have proof that this is all that they ate? Sounds like nonsense to me.

Warriors that have the capacity to kill other human beings would most likely have been enjoying cow, pig, chicken and fish. Would they have enjoyed the taste like me and you? (well, not you personally).. Sure, they would!! Who doesn't love the taste of pig. They wouldn't have been in gladiatorial battle ALL the time (where granted, they might not be cooking up steaks when on long treks). They wouldn't have cared about their health. They would have ate the crap we eat today, give or take a few different things.

Edited by Thorsten2, 13 September 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[misterE]

Have you ever posted your hormonal panel?

Not officially. July of 2012 my total-testosterone level was 551. That was when I was eating a starch-based diet plus doing intermittent-fasting on a daily basis. I stopped fasting throughout the rest of the year, eating more food whenever and trying to spike my insulin more often (while keeping fat intake low of course). By November of 2012 my total-testosterone level was boosted to 722!

A study comparing vegans to meat-eaters found that vegans had nearly 15% higher total-testosterone than their meat-munching counterparts [1].

Additionally men eating a high-protein diet (high-meat diet) have 23% lower total-testosterone than men eating high-carbohydrate diet (whole-grain diet) [2].

do you have proof that this is all that they ate? Sounds like nonsense to me.

What do you think all of human civilization ate before refrigerators? Grains, legumes and bread; the staff of life. The common person ate grains, bread, beans and vegetables as daily fair; they only ate meat maybe a couple times a year in celebration or on holidays. Only the royalty got to feast on meats on a daily basis, because they could afford to do so. Obviously this all changed after the industrial-revolution and fast forward to today and most Americans now feast like the royalty of the past.

Warriors that have the capacity to kill other human beings would most likely have been enjoying cow, pig, chicken and fish. Would they have enjoyed the taste like me and you?

No doubt. But do you really think the generals of the ancient armies had the ability to feed those thousands of soldiers’ meat on a daily basis? How would they keep it fresh and transport it overseas? It didn’t happen; recorded history proves that these ancient armies (like the Roman-soldiers) ate grains like barley, wheat, rye and oats. Meat was a delicacy reserved for the fat kings and queens.

Also after humans domesticated animals, these animals were not raised for consumption, but rather to harvest milk, eggs and wool, to be used as transportation and to perform labor, these animals served a purpose other than to supply meat. Occasionally, the people would slaughter these animals and eat them on festive occasions, but this happened very rarely.


[1] Br J Cancer. 2000 Jul;83(1):95-7. Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men. Allen NE, Appleby PN, Davey GK.

[2] Life Sci. 1987 May 4;40(18):1761-8. Diet-hormone interactions: protein/carbohydrate ratio alters reciprocally the plasma levels of testosterone and cortisol and their respective binding globulins in man. Anderson KE, Rosner W, Khan MS.

Edited by misterE, 13 September 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Also a common misconception about vegans is that they are too thin and weakly. This may be so if you consume nothing but lettuce and carrots (like many vegans do), which deprives your body of calories and insulin, but if you are eating lots of fruits, beans, grains, bread and potatoes, then you will have plenty of calories to maintain your muscle-mass and plenty of insulin to keep your metabolism working correctly.

Some of the strongest, fiercest men, like the gladiators and all the ancient armies; carrying all that heavy armor and marching and fighting to the death… primarily ate starches (grains, beans, potatoes) to fuel their winning efforts… not something that could be accomplished on a diet based strictly on vegetables.

Rubbish. You're just making stuff up again to pitch your made up starch diet.

First, potatoes came from Peru and weren't brought back to Spain until sometime after 1570 and to the British Isles until after 1600...and even then, it took many many years for potatoes to get established in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia....y_of_the_potato

Beans also weren't native to Europe and weren't commonly cultivated in large quantities and when available, were a side dish like today.
http://archaeology.a...ean-History.htm

Scholarly research indicates that beans were domesticated in two places: the Andes mountains of Peru, and the Lerma-Santiago basin of Mexico.

Although the Greeks and Romans did grow some grains, they were consumed as bread as a side to meat, much like today.
http://ancienthistor...SoldierDiet.htm

Much of Davies' work in "The Roman Military Diet" is interpretation, but some of it is scientific analysis of bones excavated from Roman British and German military sites dating from Augustus to the third century. From the analysis, we know the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, boar, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken beef bones suggest the extraction of marrow for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the meat as well as for making cheese from the milk of domesticated animals. Fish and poultry were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.

Just like all civilizations before modern agriculture, they were opportunists and ate what ever was available. They certainly ate meat every chance they got.

The American Plains Indians (Lakota/Sioux, defeater of Custer and the 7th Calvary), one of the fiercest warrior societies known, followed the buffalo herds and subsisted almost exclusively on buffalo and diabetes was virtually unheard of among Native Americans until the buffalo were all but exterminated and they were forced onto reservations and regulated to US government commodity rations which consisted mainly of starchy carbs and bread. And since, Native Americans have some of the highest rates of diabetes in the world....because out of necessity, they have strayed from their traditional meat based diet and adopted the carb based diet.
http://en.wikipedia..../Plains_Indians

The nomadic tribes survived on hunting, and the American Buffalo was their main source of food.

Today.....
http://www.diabetes....rican-programs/

At nearly 16.1 percent, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups.

Edit...and I want to reinforce the point that the only way the US government was able to subdue the Native American Plains Indians was through the mass slaughter and extermination of their food source...the buffalo.

Edited by Hebbeh, 14 September 2013 - 02:54 AM.

[unregistered_user]

He is breathtakingly inarticulate.

[James Cain]

Although the Greeks and Romans did grow some grains, they were consumed as bread as a side to meat, much like today.
http://ancienthistor...SoldierDiet.htm

Much of Davies' work in "The Roman Military Diet" is interpretation, but some of it is scientific analysis of bones excavated from Roman British and German military sites dating from Augustus to the third century. From the analysis, we know the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, boar, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken beef bones suggest the extraction of marrow for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the meat as well as for making cheese from the milk of domesticated animals. Fish and poultry were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.

I'm not going to comment on the larger discussion, but I will point out that this paragraph is cherry picked from that webpage. The very next paragraph counters your argument:

Roman Soldiers Ate (and Perhaps Drank) Mostly Grain

R.W. Davies is not saying the Roman soldiers were primarily meat eaters. Their diet was mostly grain: wheat, barley, and oats, mainly, but also spelt and rye. Just as Roman solders were supposed to dislike meat, so too they were supposed to detest beer -- considering it far inferior to their native Roman wine. Davies brings this assumption into question when he says a discharged Germanic soldier set himself up to supply the Roman military with beer near the end of the first century.

[Hebbeh]

Although the Greeks and Romans did grow some grains, they were consumed as bread as a side to meat, much like today.
http://ancienthistor...SoldierDiet.htm

Much of Davies' work in "The Roman Military Diet" is interpretation, but some of it is scientific analysis of bones excavated from Roman British and German military sites dating from Augustus to the third century. From the analysis, we know the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, boar, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken beef bones suggest the extraction of marrow for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the meat as well as for making cheese from the milk of domesticated animals. Fish and poultry were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.

I'm not going to comment on the larger discussion, but I will point out that this paragraph is cherry picked from that webpage. The very next paragraph counters your argument:

Roman Soldiers Ate (and Perhaps Drank) Mostly Grain

R.W. Davies is not saying the Roman soldiers were primarily meat eaters. Their diet was mostly grain: wheat, barley, and oats, mainly, but also spelt and rye. Just as Roman solders were supposed to dislike meat, so too they were supposed to detest beer -- considering it far inferior to their native Roman wine. Davies brings this assumption into question when he says a discharged Germanic soldier set himself up to supply the Roman military with beer near the end of the first century.

I'm not sure of your point since you cherry picked out of my post and ignored the following included statement which you choose to overlook:

Just like all civilizations before modern agriculture, they were opportunists and ate what ever was available. They certainly ate meat every chance they got.

and

Although the Greeks and Romans did grow some grains, they were consumed as bread as a side to meat, much like today.

Which agreed that they did eat some grains but my point was that they ate as much meat as they could get their hands on contrary to misterE's claim that they never ate meat. Quite a difference and I stand by my post which speaks for itself in regards to meat consumption at every opportunity.

And your proof that my point is invalid?

Edit: Actually it seems their diet was the forerunner to the modern SAD diet....meat and carbs...burgers and buns.

Edited by Hebbeh, 22 October 2013 - 03:10 AM.

[misterE]

Sure they would have eaten meat if they had access to it. However the common person didn't have access to these rich foods except for holidays, weddings and such. Do you really think the popular majority of the Roman Empire had access to meat on a daily basis? How would they transport it to everyone daily while still keeping it fresh? Without the large quantities of grain that humans harvested, the Roman Empire would not have ever come into existence. That is why grains are considered "the pillars of civilization" or the "engines of humanity".



It really wasn’t until the industrial-revolution that humans had access to lots of meats. With the industrial-revolution came feedlots, slaughter-houses, better preserving and quicker transportation. During this time (from the 1800’s to the present) meat slowly began displacing grain consumption, and with this came huge changes.



During the 20^th century recorded history tells us exactly how the American diet has changed from 1909 to present [1]. From 1909 to 2007, Americans ate: 62% more total-meat and 35% less grains (including refined grains and flours), and look what has happened to our beloved country. We went from being one of the strongest to one of the fattest.



Now in Japan, where they use to eat primarily grain-diets (rice) and traditionally ate at 10% fat-calories, since WWII to present, Japan has increased their consumption of meat by 10 fold. They’ve increased their consumption of milk-fat by 20 fold and egg consumption by 7 fold. They now eat a diet closer to 20-25% fat and have had a dramatic increase in disease-rates [2].











[1] The American Diet: Past & Present.



[2] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

[Hebbeh]

Sure they would have eaten meat if they had access to it. However the common person didn't have access to these rich foods except for holidays, weddings and such. Do you really think the popular majority of the Roman Empire had access to meat on a daily basis? How would they transport it to everyone daily while still keeping it fresh?

History tells us they had plenty of access to meat. How would they have transported it you ask? On the hoof of course. They killed and ate both domesticated and wild animals at will as, once again, demonstrated by the quote to illustrate that fact (and fact it is):

Much of Davies' work in "The Roman Military Diet" is interpretation, but some of it is scientific analysis of bones excavated from Roman British and German military sites dating from Augustus to the third century. From the analysis, we know the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, boar, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken beef bones suggest the extraction of marrow for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the meat as well as for making cheese from the milk of domesticated animals. Fish and poultry were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.

And it was the common person, as you like to refer, that raised the domesticated animals and, as such, would of had ample access to meat and animal products. It was that "common person" that did the work and supplied everything. Referred to as farmers and entrepreneurs along with their necessary employees today. Everybody played a part. It wasn't until much later when the class system arose with the haves and have nots.

It's ridiculous to believe in spite of the evidence that they raised domesticated animals and hunted freely to only eat meat once or twice a year. Your dogmatic insistence to rewrite history in a feeble attempt to justify your vegan diet and deny that humans throughout history didn't eat meat is an insult to the intelligence of this community to believe that we can be swayed by your manipulative agenda.

[James Cain]

Although the Greeks and Romans did grow some grains, they were consumed as bread as a side to meat, much like today.
http://ancienthistor...SoldierDiet.htm

Much of Davies' work in "The Roman Military Diet" is interpretation, but some of it is scientific analysis of bones excavated from Roman British and German military sites dating from Augustus to the third century. From the analysis, we know the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, boar, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken beef bones suggest the extraction of marrow for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the meat as well as for making cheese from the milk of domesticated animals. Fish and poultry were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.

I'm not going to comment on the larger discussion, but I will point out that this paragraph is cherry picked from that webpage. The very next paragraph counters your argument:

Roman Soldiers Ate (and Perhaps Drank) Mostly Grain

R.W. Davies is not saying the Roman soldiers were primarily meat eaters. Their diet was mostly grain: wheat, barley, and oats, mainly, but also spelt and rye. Just as Roman solders were supposed to dislike meat, so too they were supposed to detest beer -- considering it far inferior to their native Roman wine. Davies brings this assumption into question when he says a discharged Germanic soldier set himself up to supply the Roman military with beer near the end of the first century.

I'm not sure of your point since you cherry picked out of my post and ignored the following included statement which you choose to overlook:

Just like all civilizations before modern agriculture, they were opportunists and ate what ever was available. They certainly ate meat every chance they got.

and

Although the Greeks and Romans did grow some grains, they were consumed as bread as a side to meat, much like today.

Which agreed that they did eat some grains but my point was that they ate as much meat as they could get their hands on contrary to misterE's claim that they never ate meat. Quite a difference and I stand by my post which speaks for itself in regards to meat consumption at every opportunity.

And your proof that my point is invalid?

Edit: Actually it seems their diet was the forerunner to the modern SAD diet....meat and carbs...burgers and buns.

I'm not trying to invalidate your point, and I agree with it. I was just reading through your references and saw that this one was a bit misrepresented, and it sort of bothered me because I've too often seen the Roman soldier and gladiator populations used to wrongly support both sides of the argument. The additional information you added to your last post (quoted above) nails it--they were opportunists, much as with every civilization before our modern one of food abundance, and they ate whatever they could get. It just so happened at that time that grains were relatively cheap, abundant, and storable, so they heavily supplemented their diet with them in addition to whatever meat they could afford, if it were even available.

You said it perfectly, "Actually it seems their diet was the forerunner to the modern SAD diet....meat and carbs...burgers and buns. "

Edited by James Cain, 22 October 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[rosen]

First of all, I agree with the idea of eating a carb rich diet. I have tried different macronutrient ratios myself and noticed more benefit from eating a pretty balanced c/f/p ratio than cutting down on something.

Also a common misconception about vegans is that they are too thin and weakly. This may be so if you consume nothing but lettuce and carrots (like many vegans do), which deprives your body of calories and insulin, but if you are eating lots of fruits, beans, grains, bread and potatoes, then you will have plenty of calories to maintain your muscle-mass and plenty of insulin to keep your metabolism working correctly.

Some of the strongest, fiercest men, like the gladiators and all the ancient armies; carrying all that heavy armor and marching and fighting to the death… primarily ate starches (grains, beans, potatoes) to fuel their winning efforts… not something that could be accomplished on a diet based strictly on vegetables.

I see no point in bringing up ancient armies. With little to no exceptions the strongest and fiercest men have existed within the last 100 years. Men of the past were not like some of the paintings, statues or portraits we see. They are almost always exaggerated and idealized. Sure, the ancient average is probably better than the american average body today. Because they had to fight, hunt for food, do more physical labor and did not have $1 cheeseburgers. The average age was extremely low, even though it had many different reasons I would not follow their diet and routines, even if they would have been huge.

Have you ever posted your hormonal panel?

Not officially. July of 2012 my total-testosterone level was 551. That was when I was eating a starch-based diet plus doing intermittent-fasting on a daily basis. I stopped fasting throughout the rest of the year, eating more food whenever and trying to spike my insulin more often (while keeping fat intake low of course). By November of 2012 my total-testosterone level was boosted to 722!

A study comparing vegans to meat-eaters found that vegans had nearly 15% higher total-testosterone than their meat-munching counterparts [1].

Additionally men eating a high-protein diet (high-meat diet) have 23% lower total-testosterone than men eating high-carbohydrate diet (whole-grain diet) [2].

do you have proof that this is all that they ate? Sounds like nonsense to me.

What do you think all of human civilization ate before refrigerators? Grains, legumes and bread; the staff of life. The common person ate grains, bread, beans and vegetables as daily fair; they only ate meat maybe a couple times a year in celebration or on holidays. Only the royalty got to feast on meats on a daily basis, because they could afford to do so. Obviously this all changed after the industrial-revolution and fast forward to today and most Americans now feast like the royalty of the past.

Warriors that have the capacity to kill other human beings would most likely have been enjoying cow, pig, chicken and fish. Would they have enjoyed the taste like me and you?

No doubt. But do you really think the generals of the ancient armies had the ability to feed those thousands of soldiers’ meat on a daily basis? How would they keep it fresh and transport it overseas? It didn’t happen; recorded history proves that these ancient armies (like the Roman-soldiers) ate grains like barley, wheat, rye and oats. Meat was a delicacy reserved for the fat kings and queens.

Also after humans domesticated animals, these animals were not raised for consumption, but rather to harvest milk, eggs and wool, to be used as transportation and to perform labor, these animals served a purpose other than to supply meat. Occasionally, the people would slaughter these animals and eat them on festive occasions, but this happened very rarely.


[1] Br J Cancer. 2000 Jul;83(1):95-7. Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men. Allen NE, Appleby PN, Davey GK.

[2] Life Sci. 1987 May 4;40(18):1761-8. Diet-hormone interactions: protein/carbohydrate ratio alters reciprocally the plasma levels of testosterone and cortisol and their respective binding globulins in man. Anderson KE, Rosner W, Khan MS.

15% is not a huge difference, besides, vegans are a smaller group who obviously are more aware of their diets since they choose what to eat rather than 'meat-eaters' which include pretty much everyone and all type of diets. I think the small difference of testosterone simply has to do with the fact that vegans over-all live a healthier lifestyle on average.

23%... ok this is getting more interesting, however... they tested 7 men for 10 days in the study. 23% can be a normal fluctuation of the testosterone level so even though there may be some truth to the study, unfortunately the result in the study can be dismissed as coincidental.

Sure they would have eaten meat if they had access to it. However the common person didn't have access to these rich foods except for holidays, weddings and such. Do you really think the popular majority of the Roman Empire had access to meat on a daily basis? How would they transport it to everyone daily while still keeping it fresh? Without the large quantities of grain that humans harvested, the Roman Empire would not have ever come into existence. That is why grains are considered "the pillars of civilization" or the "engines of humanity".

It really wasn’t until the industrial-revolution that humans had access to lots of meats. With the industrial-revolution came feedlots, slaughter-houses, better preserving and quicker transportation. During this time (from the 1800’s to the present) meat slowly began displacing grain consumption, and with this came huge changes.

During the 20^th century recorded history tells us exactly how the American diet has changed from 1909 to present [1]. From 1909 to 2007, Americans ate: 62% more total-meat and 35% less grains (including refined grains and flours), and look what has happened to our beloved country. We went from being one of the strongest to one of the fattest.

Now in Japan, where they use to eat primarily grain-diets (rice) and traditionally ate at 10% fat-calories, since WWII to present, Japan has increased their consumption of meat by 10 fold. They’ve increased their consumption of milk-fat by 20 fold and egg consumption by 7 fold. They now eat a diet closer to 20-25% fat and have had a dramatic increase in disease-rates [2].

[1] The American Diet: Past & Present.

[2] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

I think it's wrong to blame american obesity on meat. It is definintely not the case and does not deserve to be mentioned in that context. What should be blamed is the fast food industry, soda&alcoholic beverages, snacks, and lack of health education.

Edited by rosen, 22 October 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[RJ23_1989]

I like the idea and ethics of veganism a lot. That said, the problem I have is that of promoting it as being the end-all of solutions to a healthy lifestyle and bashing meat based consumption for reasons other than ethical ones. You can't blame American obesity on the consumption of meat - that is a ridiculous assumption. The culprit is the incredible calorie density available to US population at record low prices thanks to high fructose corn syrup and other sugars. Statistically it costs just $1.76 for 1,000 calories. Its not meat. Its calories.

Regarding the study referenced above, its a little bit more complicated than that. You can't just cherry pick your words to support your argument.

Allen NE, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ. Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men. Br J Cancer 2000;83(1):95-7. British Journal of Cancer - Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men

Mean serum insulin-like growth factor-I was 9% lower in 233 vegan men than in 226 meat-eaters and 237 vegetarians (P = 0.002). Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters, but this was offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin, and there were no differences between diet groups in free testosterone, androstanediol glucuronide or luteinizing hormone.

Further...

Key TJ, Roe L, Thorogood M, Moore JW, Clark GM, Wang DY. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, calculated free testosterone, and oestradiol in male vegans and omnivores. Br J Nutr 1990;64(1):111-9. Cambridge Journals Online - British Journal of Nutrition - Abstract - Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, calculated free testosterone, and oestradiol in male vegans and omnivores

Total testosterone (T), total oestradiol (E2) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentrations were measured in plasma samples from fifty-one male vegans and fifty-seven omnivores of similar age. Free T concentration was estimated by calculation. In comparison with the omnivores, the vegans had 7% higher total T (P = 0.250), 23% higher SHBG (P = 0.001), 3% lower free T (P = 0.580), and 11% higher E2 (P = 0.194). In a subset of eighteen vegans and twenty-two omnivores for whom 4 d diet records were available, there were statistically significant correlations between T and polyunsaturated fatty acids (r 0.37), SHBG and fat (r 0.43 for total fat, 0.46 for saturated fatty acids and 0.33 for polyunsaturated fatty acids), and SHBG and alcohol (r-0.39). It is concluded that a vegan diet causes a substantial increase in SHBG but has little effect on total or free T or on E2.


Within the full scope of those two studies, the 'superiority' of a vegan diet (with regards to T) just isn't there. The major issue confounding T in the meat eaters is the high saturated fats, not the meat itself. A healthy diet rich in good nutrients and low in saturated fats will serve just as well as any other diet - be it vegetarian or omnivore.

[lourdaud]

Lol, didn't the gladiators eat to get fat, as to avoid getting more serious wounds? Think I read that somewhere.

[misterE]

History tells us they had plenty of access to meat. How would they have transported it you ask? On the hoof of course.

Plenty of access to meat… how does it not go bad? How do you feed a population of thousands or millions of people daily without refrigeration? You imply that meat was transpotrated daily to everyone via horses… and I say that is preposterous bubbeh! What history tells us is that only the royalty; the wealthy elite got to feast on meats daily. Look at old painting of aristocrats from the past and what you see is that they are obese with a hunk of meat sitting at the table. The peasant ate bread and other starches.



Do you recall the story in the bible; Daniel chapter 1? Daniel and his men were feasting from the kings table, eating as much meat as they desired and they got sick. So Danieal put his men on a diet of vegetables and water and they got better and regained their lost appearance within two weeks.

It's ridiculous to believe in spite of the evidence that they raised domesticated animals and hunted freely to only eat meat once or twice a year.

The animals were raises for other reason other than meat. They were raised for milk, wool, transportation, labor, etc. What good would it do to slaughter a cow and eat it, if that cow provides you with goods that benefit you and provide you income? Only on festive occasions would peasant get to feast.

[misterE]

at that time that grains were relatively cheap, abundant, and storable, so they heavily supplemented their diet with them in addition to whatever meat they could afford, if it were even available.

I think this is accurate. Ancient humans would have probably preferred cheese-burgers and steaks compared to a bowl of barley or oats, but this type of food wasn’t accessible back then, only royalty could afford to each such delicacies. Nowadays, every American can eat like royalty food only a few dollars!

[misterE]

I see no point in bringing up ancient armies.

I was trying to make the point that grains are such a complete good and a great fuel source that it gave endurance to the ancient-armies of the past who fought up close and personal to the death. Modern soldiers shoot from a distance. Even in the Vietnam War; Americans, despite all of our technology, lost to an enemy that was eating a diet based on grains (rice).

15% is not a huge difference

unfortunately the result in the study can be dismissed as coincidental.

15 percent is actually a huge difference. Even small fluctuations of hormones can make a dramatic impact. To dismiss a study because testosterone naturally fluctuates is ridiculous. Diet has a direct affect on insulin and obesity and both of those are the main factors driving testosterone trends. High-carbohydrate diets are more insulinogenic, and insulin stimulates androgen production. High-carbohydrate-diets are also less likely to make you gain body-fat [1]. Body-fat lowers androgen levels.

I think it's wrong to blame american obesity on meat.

Not solely on meat, although meat does certainly contribute. The primary contributor is the massive increase in oils, cheese and ice-cream.









[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29. Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage. Horton TJ, Drougas H, Brachey A, Reed GW, Peters JC, Hill JO.

[misterE]

You can't blame American obesity on the consumption of meat - that is a ridiculous assumption. The culprit is the incredible calorie density available to US population at record low prices thanks to high fructose corn syrup and other sugars. Statistically it costs just $1.76 for 1,000 calories. Its not meat. Its calories.

You are right, it isn’t meat per say, rather the high calorie-dense foods. Fat is calorie-dense, over twice as calorie-dense as HFCS or table-sugar! Oil, cheese, meat, eggs, ice-cream, butter, are all high-fat foods (30 to 100%) these foods are incredible high in fat and calories and don’t trigger satiety mechanisms like complex-carbohydrates.

The major issue confounding T in the meat eaters is the high saturated fats, not the meat itself. A healthy diet rich in good nutrients and low in saturated fats will serve just as well as any other diet - be it vegetarian or omnivore.

The main reason why vegans and vegetarians have higher androgens (and are overall healthier) is because they are more insulin-sensitive. I completely agree that the main benefit of vegan and vegetarian diets is that they exclude a lot of bad-fats. As a result, their fat-cells stay small and their body is able to synthesize androgens better than insulin-resistant folks with large fat-cells eating greasy cheese-burgers.

Lol, didn't the gladiators eat to get fat, as to avoid getting more serious wounds? Think I read that somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOWSc8VvOl4

[Hebbeh]

History tells us they had plenty of access to meat. How would they have transported it you ask? On the hoof of course.

Plenty of access to meat… how does it not go bad? How do you feed a population of thousands or millions of people daily without refrigeration? You imply that meat was transpotrated daily to everyone via horses… and I say that is preposterous bubbeh!

It's ridiculous to believe in spite of the evidence that they raised domesticated animals and hunted freely to only eat meat once or twice a year.

The animals were raises for other reason other than meat. They were raised for milk, wool, transportation, labor, etc. What good would it do to slaughter a cow and eat it, if that cow provides you with goods that benefit you and provide you income? Only on festive occasions would peasant get to feast.

What is preposterous is your inability to comprehend. I never indicated that they transported butchered meat on horses (although I'm sure that did happen). But they certainly herded LIVE animals and easily transported those LIVE animals (on the hoof) where ever they chose to go. This happens in nomadic 3rd world populations to this day. And sure they used livestock for dairy, clothing, shelter, and tools (bones and horns) in addition to meat. They would of never let any part of the animal go to waste including the meat. And as such, they would of culled old, injured, and sick animals for meat before they died. And, since the male animals are not useful for dairy , they would of certainly culled the excess males for meat. And if you realized anything about animal husbandry, You would realize that the whole purpose is to breed, thus producing additional animals and certainly at some point always having more than needed for diary or wool...and thus additional animals constantly available for meat. You can research and realize that nomadic populations exist just like this to this day (not to mention that is how the whole ranching industry has operated throughout history). And this doesn't even start to discuss the meat available from hunting which obviously was practiced on a regular basis.

And as far as storage, they certainly regularly ate fresh meat (which would keep for a number of days) and there were many many methods for preserving meat not limited to sun drying (jerky), smoking, and salted (thus why salt was so valuable).

Indigenous and nomadic 3rd world populations exist to this day without the convenience of electricity or refrigeration and exist in much the same way as throughout history and regularly eat meat by much the same methods and under much the same conditions. Your ignorant arguments are what are incredibly preposterous. Of course, we all realize that you will twist anything you can (including the facts) to continue to push your vegan agenda.

Edit: And I can't help but chuckle at your preposterous claim that they would transport the massive amounts of grain without supplementing it with meat easily harvested along the way by hunting and by butchering live animals that would of been herded and thus not needing to be carried unlike the thousands of pounds of grains....hmmm pack 100 pounds of barley per man or instead hunt some wild game along the way in addition to herding a few goats with....which would be easier?

Edited by Hebbeh, 24 October 2013 - 01:25 AM.