204 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

Vegetarianism is a crazy notion than can exit in modern times because of supplements and processed foods.

Vegetarians can enjoy a very healthy diet/life without supplements or processed food... a vegetarian choosing to supplement certain substances because they are lacking/sparse due to abstaining from meat is no different than you supplementing different fruit extracts because you abstain from high-sugar fruits.

take the good, cut out the bad. its the smart thing to do regardless of what your object of abstinence is...

Edited by ajnast4r, 15 December 2008 - 08:17 PM.

[DukeNukem]

24 years of age...My body fat is at approximately 10% with exercising 4-5 days a week and more of my weight is in muscle than it is in fat...I consume a lot of carbs, approximately 200-300 daily. But these are good carbs from whole grain/high fiber sources, which is why they are not tacking weight on me.

When I was 24, I couldn't gain weight despite working at a fast food restaurant and eating all I wanted of that crap, and then living on large pizzas the rest of the time! Youth overcomes all sorts of bad diets, as long as the person is somewhat active and has a decent metabolism. Wait until you hit 30. ;-)

Your last statement is simply not true with regard to why obesity has sprung forth in america. It is a combination of consuming a lot of processed foods and meat induced with hormones and high fat.

Processed food, yes. Meats, nope. There's just no proof of this. I've been paying close attention to this topic for 8+ years, and I've yet to see anything that shows eating meat leads to illness or fat gain. Note that no one just eats meat. For example, don't blame the burger patty, blame to bun. Subway sandwiches are a complete disaster because they're all bread (and the overly processed meat barely rises above pet food standards). The only way to lose weight eating Subway is to control calories.

Wholehealthsource opines that it may not matter all that much what proportion of protein, carb and fat we eat. Maybe the massive differences of opinion stem from the fact that it's possible to be healthy on a variety of diets??

As explained in that post, the Kitavans are active, and they only eat quality carbs, no grains. You can definitely get by on a higher carb diet if you're active and the carbs are quality, wholesome, and varied. But, while humans can live a full, healthy life without carbs, the same cannot be said for protein or fat.

[sthira]

Maybe low-carb diets lead to stupidity: http://www.scienceda...81211112014.htm

[Forever21]

[Processed food, yes. Meats, nope. There's just no proof of this. I've been paying close attention to this topic for 8+ years, and I've yet to see anything that shows eating meat leads to illness or fat gain. Note that no one just eats meat. For example, don't blame the burger patty, blame to bun. Subway sandwiches are a complete disaster because they're all bread (and the overly processed meat barely rises above pet food standards). The only way to lose weight eating Subway is to control calories.

Duke, a slight departure from this?


Meat = a shorter life

"While I wouldn't exactly say that meat = death, it's very true that meat = a shorter life. The vegetarian life style (avoiding dairy, too), when done properly (which can be hard to do, to get all the proteins), is unquestionably better able to promise a longer life versus a diet that includes meat. Why? Saturated fats mostly. Plus, cooked meat has denatured protein, and carcinogenic attributes in many cases."

http://www.imminst.o...&...ost&p=75308




Cancer & Heart Disease

"Paul, I recommend you read the 2004-released book, The China Study, which has detailed science behind it, and pretty much shows that meat protein is more health harmful than vegetable protein. (Not to mention, that the dairy protein, casein, representing 80% of dairy's protein, is a primary cause of cancer development.) Studies from all around the world are referenced, as well as the author's own extensive research for 25+ years.

I rarely eat red meat nowadays, and for animal meat I only eat free range, non-chemically enhanced turkey (mostly) or chicken breast meat. And I'm a non-pro body builder, who every year continues to improve. I never touch dairy, except pure whey protein (mostly Jay Robb's brand nowadays).

I used to buy into the meat diet, too, having read The Metabolic Diet (I'm a protein type), and many similar diet books. BTW, the Okinawans are the longest lived people on earth, and eat very little meat, mostly fish. And as the China Study showed, worldwide, it's the heaviest meat eaters (and/or dairy eaters) who die of cancer and heart disease the most often. And red meat is the worst offender (perhaps because of the iron content) -- and iron is a serious cancer starter (I take IP-6 every day to eliminate excess iron from my body)."

http://www.imminst.o...&...ost&p=91847




Vegetarian

"I'm part-time-vegetarian, and only eat lean, free-range, organic turkey and chicken breast meat, with only a pound of red meat a year. I go most days not eating meat. I do not eat eggs or dairy, except for whey protein."

http://www.imminst.o...&...ost&p=67011

Edited by Forever21, 16 December 2008 - 07:10 AM.

[Forever21]

Wait until you hit 30.

What will happen? :(

[Not_Supplied]

As explained in that post, the Kitavans are active, and they only eat quality carbs, no grains. You can definitely get by on a higher carb diet if you're active and the carbs are quality, wholesome, and varied. But, while humans can live a full, healthy life without carbs, the same cannot be said for protein or fat.

No grains, but farmed starchy vegetables - yam, sweet potato, taro, tapioca, high fructose - banana, papaya, pineapple, mango, guava, water melon.

Apparently they are not as active as all that, about the same as a moderately active westener.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the need for protein and fat, but it's interesting that high GI carbohydrate and fructose don't seem to have a negative effect on them.

[TheFountain]

Wait until you hit 30.

What will happen? :(

He also ignored what I said about knowing people well into their 40s who have practiced strict vegetarian diets most of their lives and look much younger than they are, and not one of them are overweight. Something he claimed is a problem in middle age on high grain vegetarian diets. But that is what happens when your focus is dimmed by using evolutionary science as a template for diet. Don't get me wrong, evolutionary science has been invaluable in some anthropological studies, but I think it is next to useless to base ones modern day diet on it.

Edited by TheFountain, 16 December 2008 - 11:56 AM.

[Shepard]

Maybe low-carb diets lead to stupidity: http://www.scienceda...81211112014.htm

The Hyperlipid guy weighs in on the paper: http://high-fat-nutr...odgy-danci.html

I haven't read the main paper, although I had some reservations about the paper from the ScienceDaily article. His critique isn't exactly damning, though.

[edward]

Maybe low-carb diets lead to stupidity: http://www.scienceda...81211112014.htm

The Hyperlipid guy weighs in on the paper: http://high-fat-nutr...odgy-danci.html

I haven't read the main paper, although I had some reservations about the paper from the ScienceDaily article. His critique isn't exactly damning, though.

The sample size for that paper was 19 and they were tested on their performance after only 1 week of 0 carbs per day.

Thus concluding: "The data suggest that after a week of severe carbohydrate restriction, memory performance, particularly on difficult tasks, is impaired,"

Um, duh! As any low carb dieter will tell you the first week, two or even three can be hell but the body adapts.

The same phenomena is experience by diabetics when they first get their glucose under control (in normal ranges). They feel slow, lack energy and complain of not thinking clearly. This occurs because the brain is used to operating in a high glucose environment. Adapting takes time.

Furthermore the memory problems were alleviated by adding only 8 grams of carbs per day!

Note also: "Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters."

So after one week (a pitifully short time) the low carb dieters had memory problems but faster reaction time and less confusion. The ADA (balanced) dieters had better memory but were confused and slower to react.

Seems like the only conclusion one can draw is that after a week on ANY diet people have side effects and the type of diet may determine the type of side effects.

http://www.sciencedi...33692a2c85fdb49

edit: pretty italic and bolding added for easy reading, for those of us with diet induced cognitive impairments

Edited by edward, 16 December 2008 - 10:08 PM.

[Shepard]

Ah, I misread this part:

The first session was held before participants began their diets, the next two sessions occurred during the first week of the diet, which corresponded to the week when low-carb dieters eliminated carbohydrates. The final two sessions occurred in week two and week three of the diets, after carbohydrates had been reintroduced for those on the low-carb diet.

I thought they tested at one, two, and three weeks of the low-carb diet. That's pretty stupid.

I'm claiming studying and sleep deprivation cognitive impairment.

Still, this part is weird: Furthermore the memory problems were alleviated by adding only 8 grams of carbs per day!

I wouldn't think such a small amount of carbs would change anything physiologically, which would make me think it's more psychological in nature. But, I still haven't looked at the paper (and probably won't since it seems so poorly designed).

Edited by shepard, 16 December 2008 - 10:15 PM.

[edward]

I misread it also. Apparently they were tested after week 2 and week 3 "when carbohydrates had been reintroduced", at 8 grams a day for week two and 16 grams for week three. This is where they found that 8 grams was enough to ameliorate the negative effects. (yes they are calling 8 grams the reintroduction of carbs, lol)

Probably it was a combination of adding in the 8 grams and the fact that the subjects were adapted. Regardless if you are carb adapted and eating at least 8 grams a day you shouldn't have any problems. Even when I followed a keto diet for over a month straight I couldn't get my total carbs down that low, its just too boring to only eat meat.

So there are no conclusions relevant for anyone as even the lowest conventional diets have more than 8 grams of carbs a day.

Edited by edward, 16 December 2008 - 10:50 PM.

[frederickson]

Wait until you hit 30.

What will happen? :(

He also ignored what I said about knowing people well into their 40s who have practiced strict vegetarian diets most of their lives and look much younger than they are, and not one of them are overweight. Something he claimed is a problem in middle age on high grain vegetarian diets. But that is what happens when your focus is dimmed by using evolutionary science as a template for diet. Don't get me wrong, evolutionary science has been invaluable in some anthropological studies, but I think it is next to useless to base ones modern day diet on it.

no offense, but i would surmise the reason he ignored you is that your statement is meaningless. so you have known vegetarians who look young into their 40's... so what? i have known people that drink to excess, eat crappy diets, etc. that nonetheless look pretty good into their 40's. i have also known vegetarians in their 40's that look considerably older than their age. who you have known personally does not contribute much to your argument. if you want to play the anecdotal game, i would argue most high carb/low fat/vegetarian folks i have trained in the gym or known personally tend to look relatively sickly (very low muscle tone/stored abdominal fat) as they get into their 40's and beyond. so arguing upon this kind of evidence comes down to who knows more people, you or i? which is why it is useless.

further, how young one looks is primarily a function of avoiding excessive sun exposure and smoking. i would think genetics would be the next big factor. i think diet can also play a big factor (i am certainly banking on it through my very strict paleo/nutrient dense diet), but alone is not sufficient.

if you look at the science, maintaining low blood sugar, minimizing insulin spikes, and providing a steady intake of a wide variety of antioxidant/anti-inflammatory nutrients seems to be the best dietary strategy for maintaining a lean, muscular body and reducing chronic inflammation. in doing so, this would tend to favor a "young look".

Edited by frederickson, 16 December 2008 - 11:42 PM.

[Shepard]

I misread it also. Apparently they were tested after week 2 and week 3 "when carbohydrates had been reintroduced", at 8 grams a day for week two and 16 grams for week three. This is where they found that 8 grams was enough to ameliorate the negative effects. (yes they are calling 8 grams the reintroduction of carbs, lol)

Man, my reading comprehension and retention has been shot to hell. At least this makes sense as to why they would think 8 grams makes a difference one way or the other.

[sthira]

Man, my reading comprehension and retention has been shot to hell. At least this makes sense as to why they would think 8 grams makes a difference one way or the other.

At least you're intellectually honest, which is more than I can say. What's my method? To take a position (in my case, vegan=good, meat=bad) and then to only look for information to support my position. If it goes against what I believe (vegan=good), screw it. Furthermore, I look for information to discredit what I oppose (meat=good) even if that information is a figment of my imagination. I ignore what doesn't support what I support, and ignore what does support what I do not.

Hell, I didn't even take the time or effort to look up the study myself, read it, think openly and critically about it, and then reach my own independent conclusion. Instead, I lazily relied on a news reporter to do my thinking for me. So, your reading comprehension and retention problems seem mild by comparision. Thanks for keeping me more flexible and honest.

[wydell]

Really, we should change the name of this topic to Diet Wars. No one is going to be able to conclusively prove their point because there are not enough studies out there. I would guess the Okinawan diet has the best evidence so far, but it's not conclusive because I don't know that there are Paleo studies per se.

I am in an experimental phase to see what works best for me. Here is what I am currently trying

Three huge salads of mixed greens (kale, chard, frisee, radiccio, raw cabbage etc.) , beef or chicken twice per day, a couple of whey drinks, 3 teaspoons of fish oil, 4 tablespoons of coconut oil, 6 tablespoons of olive oil, one small serving of oatmeal, plenty of walnuts, and one or two apples. I will try this for a month. Twice a week I will have exception meals (e.g. pizza, english muffin)

If I start losing weight, I might add back in more carbs.

[Not_Supplied]

Would anyone be so kind as to point me towards any evidence that supports Hyperlipid's 'vegetables are bad' stance? Is this just fringe nuttiness?

[ajnast4r]

Would anyone be so kind as to point me towards any evidence that supports Hyperlipid's 'vegetables are bad' stance? Is this just fringe nuttiness?

[DukeNukem]

Really, we should change the name of this topic to Diet Wars.

The best thing people should do is simply pursue whichever diet they believe works best, and monitor their bodyfat, lipid and inflammation markers. The more I've gone toward a high-fat, low-carb diet, the better my readings, and the easier it is to maintain ~10% bodyfat (not so easy to do above 30-yrs-old, let me tell ya!). I'm pretty sure my next blood test will show HDL above 100, and triglycerides below 50. I think this is simply impossible on a Zone-type diet, or eating whole grains regularly. I'll get my next blood work done in Jan and report the results.

A month ago I had my coronary calcium imaged and had blood flow tests (in extremities), and they could not detect any plaque, and my blood flow is outstanding. Practically all trained nutritional experts and doctors would tell me my diet is patently unhealthy and leads to CVD, yet quite the opposite appears to be the case.

[TheFountain]

Wait until you hit 30.

What will happen? :(

He also ignored what I said about knowing people well into their 40s who have practiced strict vegetarian diets most of their lives and look much younger than they are, and not one of them are overweight. Something he claimed is a problem in middle age on high grain vegetarian diets. But that is what happens when your focus is dimmed by using evolutionary science as a template for diet. Don't get me wrong, evolutionary science has been invaluable in some anthropological studies, but I think it is next to useless to base ones modern day diet on it.

no offense, but i would surmise the reason he ignored you is that your statement is meaningless. so you have known vegetarians who look young into their 40's... so what? i have known people that drink to excess, eat crappy diets, etc. that nonetheless look pretty good into their 40's. i have also known vegetarians in their 40's that look considerably older than their age. who you have known personally does not contribute much to your argument. if you want to play the anecdotal game, i would argue most high carb/low fat/vegetarian folks i have trained in the gym or known personally tend to look relatively sickly (very low muscle tone/stored abdominal fat) as they get into their 40's and beyond. so arguing upon this kind of evidence comes down to who knows more people, you or i? which is why it is useless.

further, how young one looks is primarily a function of avoiding excessive sun exposure and smoking. i would think genetics would be the next big factor. i think diet can also play a big factor (i am certainly banking on it through my very strict paleo/nutrient dense diet), but alone is not sufficient.

if you look at the science, maintaining low blood sugar, minimizing insulin spikes, and providing a steady intake of a wide variety of antioxidant/anti-inflammatory nutrients seems to be the best dietary strategy for maintaining a lean, muscular body and reducing chronic inflammation. in doing so, this would tend to favor a "young look".

I have, on the other hand, known people 5 years younger than me who look 5 years older. What does their diet consist of? Well, an abundance of factory farmed red meat, processed foods, very little grains, very high saturated fat (from the meat they consume) and a lot of bad carbs from bleached flour and other various sources (note the difference once more between good and bad carbs, good and bad fats, good and bad grains etc). Undermining the role diet plays in a cross section of the human population in age related phenomenon is a seriously misplaced outlook. Then presuming to be the torch bearer of the one diet that does work is quite arrogant. To then conclude that mere sun exposure is the culprit of the aged appearance is even more unfortunate a disposition to hold.

While I agree that sun exposure serves to turn ones exterior being into a raisin in time, I do think chromosomal damage due to cellular capping (lack of protection over cellular division) is a much bigger issue. The reason sun exposure even acts against people in time is lack of chromosomal protection and cellular death. If we had infinite division into new stable cells we would have infinite youth, regardless of how much sun we are exposed to. I wouldn't doubt if the consumption of bad fats and bad carbs alone contributed much to cellular aging. Most of the studies any of us point to have been more surface bound than micro-specific, so we can only base what we say on our current knowledge and, of course, the silly anectodal macro-observable phenomenon, even if this is only a temporary indicator.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 December 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[Shepard]

Would anyone be so kind as to point me towards any evidence that supports Hyperlipid's 'vegetables are bad' stance? Is this just fringe nuttiness?

If you look over to the right at the blog, you'll see all his posts on that subject tagged as "Fruits and Vegetables ...".

[DukeNukem]

I have, on the other hand, known people 5 years younger than me who look 5 years older. What does their diet consist of? Well, an abundance of factory farmed red meat, processed foods, very little grains, very high saturated fat (from the meat they consume) and a lot of bad carbs from bleached flour and other various sources

You describe these peoples diets as consisting of "processed foods" and "a lot of bad carbs," but paradoxically you say they eat "very low grains." I'm sure you must realize that processed foods are packed full of grains and grain-derived ingredients, like HFCS? And you must realize that bleached flour is from grain? And you must realize that people who eat a typical western diet like this tend to get a large portion of their calories from grains? Grains are basically worthless food group, one many researchers strongly believe is a net negative to health due to gluten content, and rapid blood sugar, insulin rises.



People eat grains (basically chained glucose molecules) because they're dirt cheap, and they often taste good when propped up with other foods and/or chemicals -- like a burger with its yummy condiments. I eat burgers without the bun, and guess what -- just as good! Meanwhile, I haven't dumped 15-20 additional grams of sugar into my blood stream (a normal person has about 6-8 grams of sugar in their blood as a normal level).

Note that eating high-water-content vegetables does not have nearly the blood sugar impact as grains or starchy veggies. Eat them all you want.

[TheFountain]

I have, on the other hand, known people 5 years younger than me who look 5 years older. What does their diet consist of? Well, an abundance of factory farmed red meat, processed foods, very little grains, very high saturated fat (from the meat they consume) and a lot of bad carbs from bleached flour and other various sources

You describe these peoples diets as consisting of "processed foods" and "a lot of bad carbs," but paradoxically you say they eat "very low grains." I'm sure you must realize that processed foods are packed full of grains and grain-derived ingredients, like HFCS? And you must realize that bleached flour is from grain? And you must realize that people who eat a typical western diet like this tend to get a large portion of their calories from grains? Grains are basically worthless food group, one many researchers strongly believe is a net negative to health due to gluten content, and rapid blood sugar, insulin rises.



People eat grains (basically chained glucose molecules) because they're dirt cheap, and they often taste good when propped up with other foods and/or chemicals -- like a burger with its yummy condiments. I eat burgers without the bun, and guess what -- just as good! Meanwhile, I haven't dumped 15-20 additional grams of sugar into my blood stream (a normal person has about 6-8 grams of sugar in their blood as a normal level).

Note that eating high-water-content vegetables does not have nearly the blood sugar impact as grains or starchy veggies. Eat them all you want.

I have pointed out that I make a distinction between good carbs and bad carbs, good fats and bad fats, WHOLE grains and bad grains. High fructose corn syrup comes from a natural source also. As does belladonna extract, both of which are deadly. I am sure you can extract many things from meats that would be equally harmful if processed beyond recognition. Eating WHOLE GRAINS has been shown to help steady out blood sugar levels because of the high soluble fiber content. Again I am differentiating between whole and processed grains here. Not grains that are taken and turned into chemical puddles of bad carbohydrates and then used as food additives. You can no more call these whole grains than you can call HFCS corn on the cob.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 December 2008 - 07:50 PM.

[frederickson]

Wait until you hit 30.

What will happen? :(

He also ignored what I said about knowing people well into their 40s who have practiced strict vegetarian diets most of their lives and look much younger than they are, and not one of them are overweight. Something he claimed is a problem in middle age on high grain vegetarian diets. But that is what happens when your focus is dimmed by using evolutionary science as a template for diet. Don't get me wrong, evolutionary science has been invaluable in some anthropological studies, but I think it is next to useless to base ones modern day diet on it.

no offense, but i would surmise the reason he ignored you is that your statement is meaningless. so you have known vegetarians who look young into their 40's... so what? i have known people that drink to excess, eat crappy diets, etc. that nonetheless look pretty good into their 40's. i have also known vegetarians in their 40's that look considerably older than their age. who you have known personally does not contribute much to your argument. if you want to play the anecdotal game, i would argue most high carb/low fat/vegetarian folks i have trained in the gym or known personally tend to look relatively sickly (very low muscle tone/stored abdominal fat) as they get into their 40's and beyond. so arguing upon this kind of evidence comes down to who knows more people, you or i? which is why it is useless.

further, how young one looks is primarily a function of avoiding excessive sun exposure and smoking. i would think genetics would be the next big factor. i think diet can also play a big factor (i am certainly banking on it through my very strict paleo/nutrient dense diet), but alone is not sufficient.

if you look at the science, maintaining low blood sugar, minimizing insulin spikes, and providing a steady intake of a wide variety of antioxidant/anti-inflammatory nutrients seems to be the best dietary strategy for maintaining a lean, muscular body and reducing chronic inflammation. in doing so, this would tend to favor a "young look".

I have, on the other hand, known people 5 years younger than me who look 5 years older. What does their diet consist of? Well, an abundance of factory farmed red meat, processed foods, very little grains, very high saturated fat (from the meat they consume) and a lot of bad carbs from bleached flour and other various sources (note the difference once more between good and bad carbs, good and bad fats, good and bad grains etc). Undermining the role diet plays in a cross section of the human population in age related phenomenon is a seriously misplaced outlook. Then presuming to be the torch bearer of the one diet that does work is quite arrogant. To then conclude that mere sun exposure is the culprit of the aged appearance is even more unfortunate a disposition to hold.

While I agree that sun exposure serves to turn ones exterior being into a raisin in time, I do think chromosomal damage due to cellular capping (lack of protection over cellular division) is a much bigger issue. The reason sun exposure even acts against people in time is lack of chromosomal protection and cellular death. If we had infinite division into new stable cells we would have infinite youth, regardless of how much sun we are exposed to. I wouldn't doubt if the consumption of bad fats and bad carbs alone contributed much to cellular aging. Most of the studies any of us point to have been more surface bound than micro-specific, so we can only base what we say on our current knowledge and, of course, the silly anectodal macro-observable phenomenon, even if this is only a temporary indicator.

my post was somewhat hastily constructed, and i apologize for the lack of clarity in one regard... i think diet is HUGELY important to how young one looks. and more importantly, of course, how young one is on the inside. if i were not a believer in diet and the aging process, i would not be writing a dissertation on that very subject and dedicating my career to nutrition and aging.

my point - which i did not effectively communicate - is that you cannot attribute the youthfulness of some people you know to the fact that they are vegetarians. as important as diet is to outward appearance of aging, sun is more important. smoking is more important. though it becomes a bit of a gray area, genetics and facial tendencies (producing the "worry marks") may be as important as diet.

my main point is that anecdotal evidence does not hold much weight, given the fact that many of us have seen the opposite among high carb/low fat types. my secondary point was that though i think a nutrient-dense diet is necessary for truly looking youthful, it alone is not sufficient. so it is possible that the vegetarians you know also never smoked much, engaged in prudent sun exposure, had good genes, etc.

Edited by frederickson, 17 December 2008 - 09:50 PM.

[sthira]

Grains are basically worthless food group, one many researchers strongly believe is a net negative to health due to gluten content, and rapid blood sugar, insulin rises.



People eat grains (basically chained glucose molecules) because they're dirt cheap, and they often taste good when propped up with other foods and/or chemicals -- like a burger with its yummy condiments.

I generally agree that grains aren't optimal, although I think you overstate your case. Clearly, we've not evolved to be granivores, we're not birds, we don't have crops in our throats, our mouths don't instinctively water when we look at weed seeds. But it's an over-simplification to say grains are worthless, they most certainly do have nutritional value for us.

Not to pick on you personally, I'm simply wondering about your ideas. I'm curious about your evolution in thought regarding meat. You once seemed adamantly opposed to meat consumption, and now you seem adamantly in favor of its consumption today. What nutritional information did you learn to make you change your behavior? Your prior quote is this:

"While I wouldn't exactly say that meat = death, it's very true that meat = a shorter life. The vegetarian life style (avoiding dairy, too), when done properly (which can be hard to do, to get all the proteins), is unquestionably better able to promise a longer life versus a diet that includes meat. Why? Saturated fats mostly. Plus, cooked meat has denatured protein, and carcinogenic attributes in many cases."

[DukeNukem]

Grains are basically worthless food group, one many researchers strongly believe is a net negative to health due to gluten content, and rapid blood sugar, insulin rises.



People eat grains (basically chained glucose molecules) because they're dirt cheap, and they often taste good when propped up with other foods and/or chemicals -- like a burger with its yummy condiments.

I generally agree that grains aren't optimal, although I think you overstate your case. Clearly, we've not evolved to be granivores, we're not birds, we don't have crops in our throats, our mouths don't instinctively water when we look at weed seeds. But it's an over-simplification to say grains are worthless, they most certainly do have nutritional value for us.

Not to pick on you personally, I'm simply wondering about your ideas. I'm curious about your evolution in thought regarding meat. You once seemed adamantly opposed to meat consumption, and now you seem adamantly in favor of its consumption today. What nutritional information did you learn to make you change your behavior? Your prior quote is this:

"While I wouldn't exactly say that meat = death, it's very true that meat = a shorter life. The vegetarian life style (avoiding dairy, too), when done properly (which can be hard to do, to get all the proteins), is unquestionably better able to promise a longer life versus a diet that includes meat. Why? Saturated fats mostly. Plus, cooked meat has denatured protein, and carcinogenic attributes in many cases."

My statements before have been overturned (IMO) by convincing studies that occurred after, or occurred before but I found after. Meats, especially cooked meats, still pose a problem. But, I'm more convinced that these problems are less impactful, as long as the meat isn't burnt. I still advocate avoiding cow dairy and recommend goat dairy due to it's much lower casein content. The saturated fat issue is my biggest turnaround. The more I learned, the more I realized that saturated fat wasn't the evil fat we'd all be led to believe. In fact, quite the contrary.

I also still advocate high vegetable intake, but the vegetables I recommend are mostly water by weight, typically at least 90% water, and ofter 95% water (most greens).

Here's the thing, we all taking a winding path to the truth. The key is to never think you have the truth figured out, and to keep an open mind to changes in your beliefs, if something more convincing comes your way. There was definitely a time when I thought whole grains where the answer. But, years later, I come to believe grains have practically no healthful role in our diet. Yes, they have some nutrients (very low versus most other foods), but they are a net-negative overall. Whole grains still spike sugar and insulin levels like processed grains. And they have gluten. No thanks. Neither of these should be consumed by people concerned with healthy longevity.

[FunkOdyssey]

Here's the thing, we all taking a winding path to the truth. The key is to never think you have the truth figured out, and to keep an open mind to changes in your beliefs, if something more convincing comes your way.

Seriously. If you know anyone with a theory about health, life extension, nutrition, etc that they developed several years ago and have refused to modify in the meantime, be intensely suspicious of its accuracy. We are constantly refining, and sometimes changing 180 degrees, our positions in all of these areas as new and better information becomes available. This isn't politics where you get points for consistency.

[ajnast4r]

we all taking a winding path to the truth. The key is to never think you have the truth figured out, and to keep an open mind to changes in your beliefs, if something more convincing comes your way.

amen

Whole grains still spike sugar and insulin levels like processed grains. And they have gluten

i'm not sure why you keep saying these 2 things? to the best of my knowledge, the glycemic load/index of whole grains is significantly less than refined grains... netting a lower total BS peak, a much longer, flatter curve and less insulin secretion overall.

and not all grains contain gluten... quinoa, rices, buckwheat, oats (if certified) are all gluten free.

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 December 2008 - 11:30 PM.

[FunkOdyssey]

quinoa, rices, buckwheat, oats

Those four are the only grains I ever eat. I didn't think anyone knew about buckwheat outside of the Russian community, but its good stuff.

[ajnast4r]

quinoa, rices, buckwheat, oats

Those four are the only grains I ever eat. I didn't think anyone knew about buckwheat outside of the Russian community, but its good stuff.

same here...the majority of them being quinoa and wild rices. they are the only grains i can eat with the celiac thing. oats set me off sometimes, even the gluten free ones, so i can only have them occasionally.

yea buckwheat is a hidden gem... really tasty and a good nutrient profile. pretty popular among celiacs... it tastes closest to wheat imo and makes good pancakes/waffles.

[Forever21]

Grains are basically worthless food group, one many researchers strongly believe is a net negative to health due to gluten content, and rapid blood sugar, insulin rises.



People eat grains (basically chained glucose molecules) because they're dirt cheap, and they often taste good when propped up with other foods and/or chemicals -- like a burger with its yummy condiments.

I generally agree that grains aren't optimal, although I think you overstate your case. Clearly, we've not evolved to be granivores, we're not birds, we don't have crops in our throats, our mouths don't instinctively water when we look at weed seeds. But it's an over-simplification to say grains are worthless, they most certainly do have nutritional value for us.

Not to pick on you personally, I'm simply wondering about your ideas. I'm curious about your evolution in thought regarding meat. You once seemed adamantly opposed to meat consumption, and now you seem adamantly in favor of its consumption today. What nutritional information did you learn to make you change your behavior? Your prior quote is this:

"While I wouldn't exactly say that meat = death, it's very true that meat = a shorter life. The vegetarian life style (avoiding dairy, too), when done properly (which can be hard to do, to get all the proteins), is unquestionably better able to promise a longer life versus a diet that includes meat. Why? Saturated fats mostly. Plus, cooked meat has denatured protein, and carcinogenic attributes in many cases."

My statements before have been overturned (IMO) by convincing studies that occurred after, or occurred before but I found after. Meats, especially cooked meats, still pose a problem. But, I'm more convinced that these problems are less impactful, as long as the meat isn't burnt. I still advocate avoiding cow dairy and recommend goat dairy due to it's much lower casein content. The saturated fat issue is my biggest turnaround. The more I learned, the more I realized that saturated fat wasn't the evil fat we'd all be led to believe. In fact, quite the contrary.

I also still advocate high vegetable intake, but the vegetables I recommend are mostly water by weight, typically at least 90% water, and ofter 95% water (most greens).

Here's the thing, we all taking a winding path to the truth. The key is to never think you have the truth figured out, and to keep an open mind to changes in your beliefs, if something more convincing comes your way. There was definitely a time when I thought whole grains where the answer. But, years later, I come to believe grains have practically no healthful role in our diet. Yes, they have some nutrients (very low versus most other foods), but they are a net-negative overall. Whole grains still spike sugar and insulin levels like processed grains. And they have gluten. No thanks. Neither of these should be consumed by people concerned with healthy longevity.

Do you still eat oats?