187 replies to this topic

[Sillewater]

Exogenous or endogenous? A raw diet would lower exogenous right?

[Steve_86]

And for some reason glucose is still considered the 'preferred fuel' of the body by 'athletic types'.

this is a huge misconception. i have put PLENTY of my athletes on ketogenic diets, and have talked to many others who realize carbs/glucose are not necessary for athletic performance. i myself am on a paleolithic-style ketogenic diet and deadlift, squat, and perform HIIT.

How much do you squat, bench and deadlift?

Personally I tried consuming fat/protein meals after working out but my strength gains halted. I tend to make steady gains by eating a rolled oats, whey and lean meat meal after working out. In this meal I will usually eat 1 cup of oats (60g of carbs I think), apart from that I eat very little carbs except for vegetables. Does anyone think that 1 cup of rolled oats is unhealthy post workout?

If it matters: I follow a 5x5 program and bench 105kg, squat 140, dead 140 (140 is all the weights I have, I need to buy more plates).

[DukeNukem]

That seems paradoxical to the evolutionary argument for the paleo diet? How would having a metabolism that rate adjusts itself for caloric intake be conducive to survival?

Quite simply, fat plays an energy storage role and it serves to cushion organs against injuries. But, too much, and it becomes a burden for hunting and escaping. My guess is that the happy balance is around 10 percent body fat.

IF the body does discard these calories, where do they go? Certainly increased non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) can't account for thousands of calories above your basal metabolic needs.

The metabolism regulates a shortage and an abundance of calories -- within reason, as I said. If 1000 surplus cals are taken in on one day, it might take several days or longer to burn them off.

[Mind]

Another reason to limit glucose consumption?

Going back for a second dessert after your holiday meal might not be the best strategy for living a long, cancer-free life say researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. That's because they've shown exactly how restricted calorie diets -- specifically in the form of restricted glucose -- help human cells live longer.

To make this discovery, Tollefsbol and colleagues used normal human lung cells and precancerous human lung cells that were at the beginning stages of cancer formation. Both sets of cells were grown in the laboratory and received either normal or reduced levels of glucose (sugar). As the cells grew over a period of a few weeks, the researchers monitored their ability to divide, and kept track of how many cells survived over this period. They found that the normal cells lived longer, and many of the precancerous cells died, when given less glucose. Gene activity was also measured under these same conditions.

The reduced glucose caused normal cells to have a higher activity of the gene that dictates the level of telomerase, an enzyme that extends their lifespan and lower activity of a gene (p16) that slows their growth. Epigenetic effects (effects not due to gene mutations) were found to be a major cause in changing the activity of these genes as they reacted to decreased glucose levels.

[DukeNukem]

Mind, glucose = aging. I think more people buy this statement than carbs = aging. Yet, both statements are identical.

This is not to say that certain plant foods don't appear to have a net-positive benefit, but I think these are only the high-water-mass plant foods, like non-starchy colorful vegetables and berries.

It's very telling that humans can live full healthy lives without eating carbohydrates, yet we die quickly without eating fats and proteins. This is the clue phone ringing...yet so many people refuse to pick it up.

What's the Ideal Fasting Insulin Level?
http://wholehealthso...ulin-level.html

How insulin controls aging
http://donmatesz.blo...rols-aging.html

Edited by DukeNukem, 23 December 2009 - 07:40 PM.

[tunt01]

Some foods must be cooked to be consumed safely. For instance, many legumes are poisonous without treatment by cooking. Even eggs have compounds that make them dangerous if consumed raw and in large quantities. [source]

this isn't accurate. 'many legumes' are poisonous... this link doesn't support that statement. it makes a 1 off remark about kidney beans. it's a page about raw foodism. most legumes are not poisonous. it's an absurd statement.

[Skötkonung]

Some foods must be cooked to be consumed safely. For instance, many legumes are poisonous without treatment by cooking. Even eggs have compounds that make them dangerous if consumed raw and in large quantities. [source]

this isn't accurate. 'many legumes' are poisonous... this link doesn't support that statement. it makes a 1 off remark about kidney beans. it's a page about raw foodism. most legumes are not poisonous. it's an absurd statement.

Sorry I should have provided more links:
http://davesgarden.c...cles/view/2385/

Many varieties of beans cannot (or shouldn't) be eaten raw. Phytohemagglutinin is also present in Soy.

Edited by Skotkonung, 23 December 2009 - 08:18 PM.

[tunt01]

Mind, glucose = aging. I think more people buy this statement than carbs = aging. Yet, both statements are identical.

pretty sure if you had 0 glucose in your body, you would be aging pretty fast. like dead... soon.

i really don't get these multi-thread diatribes against 'carbs' and how people can flippantly advocate the virtues of eating 3500-4000 calorie omelettes laden with cheese and sausage (yes, sausage is now a life-extending food choice).

the body does adjust to higher levels of nutrition in a meal like this one. the body "adjusts" by recognizing you have a higher level of nutrition available, increases fecundity levels (reproduction) and accelerates your aging.

slamming all sources of glucose, while ignoring your methionine in-take seems to be a pathway that is really fraught with risk. aging is a multi-faceted issue, it seems absurd to me to assume that, 'it all comes down to carbs'.

[tunt01]

Sorry I should have provided more links:
http://davesgarden.c...cles/view/2385/

Many varieties of beans cannot (or shouldn't) be eaten raw.

what you are describing is a potential risk with raw foodism, not with legumes per se. your own link explains away the "risk" in eating kidney beans. this link says boiling them in 10 mins eliminates it.

there is nothing inherently poisonous in most legumes, cept maybe very isolated issues like aflatoxin in peanuts which naturally occur over time. the issue with red kidney beans is well known.

it's a minor footnote and not the basis of negating the nutritional value of legumes. and afaik, you really don't have to cook lentils, garbanzo beans.


edit - sorry, i just wanted to say that you are right in your initial argument that we should probably cook legumes. i implied from your message (in an anti-carb thread) that, 'legumes were poisonous' rather than, 'raw foodism is poisonous'

Edited by prophets, 23 December 2009 - 08:55 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Mind, glucose = aging. I think more people buy this statement than carbs = aging. Yet, both statements are identical.

pretty sure if you had 0 glucose in your body, you would be aging pretty fast. like dead... soon.

i really don't get these multi-thread diatribes against 'carbs' and how people can flippantly advocate the virtues of eating 3500-4000 calorie omelettes laden with cheese and sausage (yes, sausage is now a life-extending food choice).

the body does adjust to higher levels of nutrition in a meal like this one. the body "adjusts" by recognizing you have a higher level of nutrition available, increases fecundity levels (reproduction) and accelerates your aging.

slamming all sources of glucose, while ignoring your methionine in-take seems to be a pathway that is really fraught with risk. aging is a multi-faceted issue, it seems absurd to me to assume that, 'it all comes down to carbs'.

We are fully adapted to a non-glucose (aka non-carb) diet. And, in fact, glucose is a potentially harmful substance that is extremely well regulated within our body -- no more than a teaspoon's worth is ever allowed to circulate within the blood of a healthy human. So yes, we need glucose, but we do not need to EAT glucose.

Yes, aging is a multi-factorial issue. But, glucose reduction appears to be the easiest tactic, and the one with the most benefit. I personally employ many other tactics, too. The health epidemic in the States has little to do with the methionine issue. This is clearly a lesser priority for most people.

BTW, omelets cooked in butter or lard, and stuffed with colorful veggies, and organ meats (aka sausage) are quite nutritious. Far far far more nutritious, for example, that any pasta-based meal, sandwich-based meal, pizza, cereal, frozen health meal, or most other typical meals you can name.

[oehaut]

Quite simply, fat plays an energy storage role and it serves to cushion organs against injuries. But, too much, and it becomes a burden for hunting and escaping. My guess is that the happy balance is around 10 percent body fat.

It's a little ironic how you did not wanted to accept the conclusion of Lyle McDonald in the article I presentend because he was guessing; yet in every of your posts you're either guessing or giving your opinion.

I think it sucks to have to argue with you because I also believe people NEED to reduce their carbohydrate intake and that saturated fat is not harmfull by itself and that a paleo diet can be very very healthy in many regards.

It's still important to realise tho (as I did since I joined this forum) that a high-protein diet, that a meat-based diet certainly is, might not be the best thing in term of longevity.

But this thread was about if all calorie are created equal and the answer is YES. Unless you have insulin resistance, a low-carb diet will not promote any greater weight loss except the water.

If you have any scientific evidence that this is not the case please let us know. And no Gary Taubes did not made a good case in his books once you take some perspective and look at current research regarding this question.

It's a bit pissing off that you are ignoring all the studies I presented that clearly show that there is no difference in term of weight-loss when you play with fat or carb intake alone and keep guessing how you think that carbs impair fat loss.

That being said (that low-carb has no magic concerning the first law of thermogenesis) it is clear that lowering carbs has many many health benefits within a sedentary, over-nourished, sugar-binging population.

Edited by oehaut, 23 December 2009 - 09:28 PM.

[JLL]

But reducing glucose in rodents doesn't make them live longer. And the human populations that consume no or very little glucose don't live any longer either. Is that because of lack of modern medicine? Maybe, maybe not.

I think it's obvious at this point that carbohydrate restriction is the best way to lose weight, and if you're obese to begin with, then low-carb may indeed equal longevity benefits. But what about those of us who are already thin? Yes, I can see all the bad sides to carbs (i.e. sugar), but eating nothing but fat and protein doesn't appear to be a magic bullet (except perhaps against cancer) against aging either.

As Skotkonung pointed out, the protein=aging studies may not apply to humans, but still, I'm left wondering whether protein might not be pro-aging in a way too, since protein = growth. The one thing that seems to be neutral in terms of aging is fat -- but do feel free to point out any studies showing otherwise.

[rwac]

I think it's obvious at this point that carbohydrate restriction is the best way to lose weight, and if you're obese to begin with, then low-carb may indeed equal longevity benefits. But what about those of us who are already thin?

Well, one reason for being thin is malabsorption, and a paleo diet will help that.

Perhaps if someone is thin, healthy, and insulin-sensitive. I wonder how common that is...

[DukeNukem]

Crap, long reply lost due to forum software not keeping me logged in our something. Better luck next time I hope.

[rwac]

Crap, long reply lost due to forum software not keeping me logged in our something. Better luck next time I hope.

If you use firefox, this is a neat extension that automatically saves the text you fill out in a form, text boxes, etc.

Lazarus

Edited by rwac, 24 December 2009 - 12:34 AM.

[tunt01]

I personally employ many other tactics, too. The health epidemic in the States has little to do with the methionine issue. This is clearly a lesser priority for most people.

BTW, omelets cooked in butter or lard, and stuffed with colorful veggies, and organ meats (aka sausage) are quite nutritious. Far far far more nutritious, for example, that any pasta-based meal, sandwich-based meal, pizza, cereal, frozen health meal, or most other typical meals you can name.

I guess i view this forum as a place where people are looking to make optimizations of their ongoing diet/supplement routines, rather than a forum frequented by weight-watchers and those recovering from morbidly obese phenotypes. i just don't think that, "the health epidemic" pertains directly to the eating habits of most people on this forum. i would bet 60%+ of the people here are not 'carb-asses', even if they have carbs in their diet.

I disagree on the omelette. Eggs are one of the highest methionine foods you can eat. it's a bad move, in my book. I eat a 3 inch plateful of veggies, lentils, chickpeas w/ olive oil for lunch every day. I'd rather eat veggies + legumes than veggies + eggs. According to the USDA Website, Egg, whole cooked omelet have 3.03% methionine content of protein. Lentils sprouted have 1.12% as a percentage of protein.

I think methionine matters an enormous amount, but to each his own.

[sthira]

Well, one reason for being thin is malabsorption...

This is interesting. Care to elaborate?

[CobaltThoriumG]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century. Be an omnivore; eat in moderation; reduce or eliminate sweets to the point you're comfortable with; easy on the fructose, lactose, and PUFA; avoid overcooked foods; and, with little exception, don't eat anything your great grandparents wouldn't have recognized as food. I think you can keep it just that simple and live a long, healthy life, with some luck.

[rwac]

This is interesting. Care to elaborate?

Some people are underweight and don't put weight on no matter how much they eat.
This could be due to a number of reasons, like low stomach acid, celiac disease, food allergies, etc, etc
A lot of people with a "fast metabolism" or a "cast-iron stomach" actually suffer from malabsorption.

Here's a decent link. I believe it's more common than commonly believed.
http://www.wrongdiag.../malabsorption/

[cheesycow5]

DukeNukem: I'm a fan. Keep it pimpin.

[TheFountain]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

[oehaut]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Why? I was around 10% of fat and then I went on a paleo type diet (only meat and green veggies) and in 2 months I had gained 2 pounds and drop to around 7% body fat.

Considering I use no supplements, that would have been pretty hard to do in such a short amount of time on a raw vegetarian diet.

Edited by oehaut, 26 December 2009 - 04:55 PM.

[mustardseed41]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Don't forget the part about lowering your muscle mass percentage as well.

[TheFountain]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Why? I was around 10% of fat and then I went on a paleo type diet (only meat and green veggies) and in 2 months I had gained 2 pounds and drop to around 7% body fat.

Considering I use no supplements, that would have been pretty hard to do in such a short amount of time on a raw vegetarian diet.

uh bullshit

Either try the raw vegetarian diet or stop talking about its lack of ability to drop your body fat. Because otherwise you don't know what you are talking about. EVERYONE i know who has gone raw has dropped body fat extremely fast.

[TheFountain]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Don't forget the part about lowering your muscle mass percentage as well.

Again. Bullshit.

Everyone I know who has gone raw has GAINED muscle in a matter of 1-2 months.

[oehaut]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Why? I was around 10% of fat and then I went on a paleo type diet (only meat and green veggies) and in 2 months I had gained 2 pounds and drop to around 7% body fat.

Considering I use no supplements, that would have been pretty hard to do in such a short amount of time on a raw vegetarian diet.

uh bullshit

Either try the raw vegetarian diet or stop talking about its lack of ability to drop your body fat. Because otherwise you don't know what you are talking about. EVERYONE i know who has gone raw has dropped body fat extremely fast.

I never said it lacked the ability to drop body fat. I just questionned your ''period'' as if nothing else could work.

Charles Poliquin, one of the greatest trainer of our time, use a paleo type diet when he wants his athletes to drop body fat very quickly. He has trained over 2,000 pro athlete and he tried many different protocol with them. There's a reason why he use a paleo type diet, and it's because it works, otherwise he would not use it.

But I never said you cannot drop body fat on a raw vegetarian. I just don't think it is ''period''.

And I doubt someone would put lean mass on simply by going on a raw vegetarian diet. It takes training and sufficient protein % calorie to do so. So EVERYONE that you know his training and eating enough high-quality protein and calorie to promote muscle growth? Good to ear.

[CobaltThoriumG]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Um, if you're thin and want to lower your body fat (which would already be low, seeing as that's the definition of thin, at least as most people understand it) you have a body image issue. Just sayin'.

[mustardseed41]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Don't forget the part about lowering your muscle mass percentage as well.

Again. Bullshit.

Everyone I know who has gone raw has GAINED muscle in a matter of 1-2 months.

Wow interesting smart gut. So they just sat their on their butts and ate veggies and gained muscle.....hummmm

[TheFountain]

I think if you're already thin, the best advice has changed little in a century.

Wrong. If you are thin but wish to lower your body fat percentage go raw vegetarian. Period.

Um, if you're thin and want to lower your body fat (which would already be low, seeing as that's the definition of thin, at least as most people understand it) you have a body image issue. Just sayin'.

You can be thin and still have high body fat. I have seen very thin men with body fat up to 20%. The idea is to not lower weight further but to exchange weight ratios between fat and muscle. Or if you have muscle, to just lower body fat.

Edited by TheFountain, 27 December 2009 - 12:35 PM.

[TheFountain]

To those of you talking about the miraculous high fat low carb dietary schematic. When I was doing a low carb, high fat diet it raised my visceral fat by 4% give or take a point. And yes I was eating the healthy fats like extra virgin olive oil (spectrum organic) virgin coconut oil and all of my carbs were from vegetables and nothing else. grains were completely excluded from the diet for 3 months. It did not lower my body fat but raised it. Doing both moderate carbohydrate and moderate fat on the other hand, lowered it.

Edited by TheFountain, 27 December 2009 - 12:39 PM.