187 replies to this topic

[kismet]

Contribution of the day:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Matt]

i've tried many variations... at the end, it just seems it's basically how many calories you eat. Kinda simple really.... count calories, change macronutrients. Try it :-)

[TheFountain]

Contribution of the day:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

data tells us what happens in controlled settings. Not any other setting. I don't get why people cannot understand this simple fact. Besides how are personal reports not data? If you have a 300 pound guy telling you to go raw, I would understand peoples trepidation. But these are people who ALL look amazingly youthful for their ages saying it. What's the problem? I am not going to listen to 50 year old greying, wrinkling paleo dieters over 50 year old raw foodists who look 30.

[cheesycow5]

Contribution of the day:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

data tells us what happens in controlled settings. Not any other setting. I don't get why people cannot understand this simple fact. Besides how are personal reports not data? If you have a 300 pound guy telling you to go raw, I would understand peoples trepidation. But these are people who ALL look amazingly youthful for their ages saying it. What's the problem? I am not going to listen to 50 year old greying, wrinkling paleo dieters over 50 year old raw foodists who look 30.

The problem is that if the data isn't controlled, then we have no way to analyze the data. We might see one raw foodist who looks young and one paleo dieter who looks old, but in the realm of science, that information has virtually no significance. I can show you some paleo dieters who look like they could tear metal pipes in half. One person's experience can not be generalized. We have to look at the studies or be very careful when we look at anecdotes.

[oehaut]

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.

You've got an amazing way of earing things that people never said. If you followed that thread from the beggining, I think I made myself quite clear that I don't believe that a low-carb diet has any magic, and that the only thing that matter by the end of the day is balancing you caloric intake with your energy expenditure. edit: i'd add that the rate of fat loss is dicted by your caloric deficit and I can easily believe that on a raw vegetarian diet your caloric deficit is probably gonna be bigger if you don't track how calorie you get. Hence why you think people are dropping fat faster on it. It has nothing to do with the diet per se tho. With the same deficit on a palo diet you'll loose as fast, as on any other diet.

The only things I was saying here is that your ''period'' is not justified since there are many way to drop body fat, going raw vegetarian isn't a prerequite at all.

If you gained fat on the paleo diet your simply were eating too much.

And i'm pretty sure someone going raw vegetarian is gonna loose some muscle mass unless he makes sure to get enough high-quality protein and enough calorie and that he can train with frequency and intensity on such a regimen. And I doubt much more that he can easily put muscle mass on (unless he supplements)

That's the advatange of the paleo diet for fast weight loss - it's very high in protein. I don't care that it's low-carb, it only drop calories from doing so. But since it's very high protein you maintain and even seems to be able to gain muscule mass on it.

NOTE: I don't mean that vegetarian/vegan can't build muscle, they certainly can. I think tho that they have to be much more careful about how they plan their diet and that, overall, a paleo diet makes it easy to get enough high-quality protein to support muscle growth.

Edited by oehaut, 27 December 2009 - 03:40 PM.

[mustardseed41]

Very true Oehaut. He won't listen. It's like talking to a wall.

[TheFountain]

Contribution of the day:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

data tells us what happens in controlled settings. Not any other setting. I don't get why people cannot understand this simple fact. Besides how are personal reports not data? If you have a 300 pound guy telling you to go raw, I would understand peoples trepidation. But these are people who ALL look amazingly youthful for their ages saying it. What's the problem? I am not going to listen to 50 year old greying, wrinkling paleo dieters over 50 year old raw foodists who look 30.

The problem is that if the data isn't controlled, then we have no way to analyze the data. We might see one raw foodist who looks young and one paleo dieter who looks old, but in the realm of science, that information has virtually no significance. I can show you some paleo dieters who look like they could tear metal pipes in half. One person's experience can not be generalized. We have to look at the studies or be very careful when we look at anecdotes.

But the thing is I have never seen a single raw foodist who did not have tremendous amounts of energy, amazing biomarkers (if they had them checked) and an extremely youthful appearance for their ages, especially if they started out before the age of 40. I don't understand how such observations can be insignificant. Oh contraire I think they are more significant than studies because studies way too often show contradictory results, which clearly indicates that control settings are altered and that paleo diets, for example, do not work for everyone. One bit of science we CAN trust and which seems unanimous is the data on AGEs. And as we all very well know, a raw food diet would be intrinsically low in AGEs because of the lack of exogenous development coupled with the majority of your food sources coming from natural plant sources (as well as the antiglycation properties of plant based flavanoids). How can you beat that? You can't.

Edited by TheFountain, 27 December 2009 - 04:09 PM.

[Luna]

Yesterday Matt showed me a picture of a man his age doing raw diet,. I think we were both amazed at how Matt looks so much better and younger while that man, who started younger than matt, looks older and blaaaaaaaa.>....!!!

Don't smoke, eat healthy, don't over eat, don't participate unhealthy lifestyles.. that's about it.

People all choose their sources and usually neglect the ones doing the same but giving the opposite impressions/results.

[TheFountain]

The person in question probably smokes, drinks and otherwise pisses his life away despite being 'raw foodist'.

[Luna]

The person in question probably smokes, drinks and otherwise pisses his life away despite being 'raw foodist'.

nope

[Luna]

The person in question probably smokes, drinks and otherwise pisses his life away despite being 'raw foodist'.

besides you can say that about any diet most people have some bad habits. you just choose the good looking ones who eat raw and say everyone are like that and choose the bad looking ones on carbs/fat/paleo/atkins/whatever and say everyone is like that

[TheFountain]

The person in question probably smokes, drinks and otherwise pisses his life away despite being 'raw foodist'.

nope

And you know this how?

[TheFountain]

The person in question probably smokes, drinks and otherwise pisses his life away despite being 'raw foodist'.

besides you can say that about any diet most people have some bad habits. you just choose the good looking ones who eat raw and say everyone are like that and choose the bad looking ones on carbs/fat/paleo/atkins/whatever and say everyone is like that

No, I just haven't seen any raw food dieters who look bad at all. Show me some if you want. But show me some who started under 40.

[Sam Freedom]

Doesn't anybody realize anything unusual about all of this?

[stephen_b]

I disagree on the omelette. Eggs are one of the highest methionine foods you can eat.

My two egg omelets are one whole egg and one yolk, so there are ways to lower the methionine content.

I have a suspicion that lots of methionine at once is worse than the same amount of methionine spread out. Perhaps there is some rate limiting mechanism in the methionine cycle.

[tunt01]

I disagree on the omelette. Eggs are one of the highest methionine foods you can eat.

My two egg omelets are one whole egg and one yolk, so there are ways to lower the methionine content.

I have a suspicion that lots of methionine at once is worse than the same amount of methionine spread out. Perhaps there is some rate limiting mechanism in the methionine cycle.

valid points. i think it has to do more with methionine recycling (ie. proper methylation/homocysteine as the rate limiting factor), but you may be right about in-take levels.

[Sam Freedom]

Is it possible that there have been significant changes that make what we did 10000s of years ago irrelevant to our modern dietary needs?

Thousands of years ago, we were the top of the visible food chain. We freely ran around hunting animals and we used their flesh and bones for many things.

Then humans domesticated animals and bred and raised the livestock. Through selective breeding, they produced "prized milkers" and "champion bulls."

Milk cows, for example, went from producing 3000 ltrs/yr in 1960 to 6000-15000 ltrs/yr in 2000.

Meat cows went from 600kg to 800kg in the same time span.

Obviously, some of this was done with the aid of dietary manipulation including hormones (such as "trenbolone acetate" (Finaject) which was even manipulated into a human-tolerable form by Bodybuilders.).

Some places added sawdust and other inedible fillers to give the cows a sense of fullness while using the hormones to maximize assimilation of the proteins they did receive.

But, along with this selectively bred and hormone manipulated increase in production and size, came difficulties:

These increasingly productive animals also have disadvantages.
Their health is more fragile:

• They need more preventive health care, such as vaccines and anti-parasite
treatments, etc.

• Much more care needs to be taken with their living conditions. For example,
visitors aren’t allowed into a place where pigs are being reared as they could
pass on microbes to them.

• They need more food : if they are to produce more, they have to eat more.
Nowadays, animals who reach such high performance levels are no longer
fed on grass alone. Breeders use food supplements, in particular what are
known as industrial by-products*, such as brewing slops, cattle-cake from
oil factories and pulp from sugar refineries

When Did Humans Begin Rearing Animals

In an earlier post, I asked if anyone noticed anything unusual.

In esoteric parlance, the answer would be that "third force has changed"....

In ordinary English, that means that we are no longer the top of the food chain.

We are no longer the breeder, but the bred.

Let's look, once again, at the statements about the "champion" livestock bred to be larger, work harder and produce more:

These increasingly productive animals also have disadvantages.
Their health is more fragile:

• They need more preventive health care, such as vaccines and anti-parasite
treatments, etc.

• Much more care needs to be taken with their living conditions. For example,
visitors aren’t allowed into a place where pigs are being reared as they could
pass on microbes to them.

• They need more food : if they are to produce more, they have to eat more.
Nowadays, animals who reach such high performance levels are no longer
fed on grass alone. Breeders use food supplements, in particular what are
known as industrial by-products*, such as brewing slops, cattle-cake from
oil factories and pulp from sugar refineries

Does that sound a little too familiar?

At the top of the food chain, now, are *corporate entities* that "assimilate" humans into their bodies.

BigPharma loads both us, and the food we eat, with all kinds of hormones which make us fatter and more sedentary;
BigFastFood industry loads us up on foods, chemicals and additives that make us fatter, more sedentary and more stressed;
BigBanking "milks" the VALUE from the dollars our time and effort produce; and,
BigJunkFood Industry has endocrinologists *on-staff* whose job it is to increase our dependence on their foods.

Now, Dr. Kessler's gunning for what he believes to be another culprit. You might call it an "axis of evil ingredients": fat, sugar and salt, which Dr. Kessler says stimulates you to eat more.
Link

Junk food is killing us slowly with diabetes, heart disease and cancer. But we can't stop because we're hooked, and the food industry is the pusher....

...$1.7 billion in annual sales in the U.S, is big business. Behind the enigma of Doritos’ dominance, and the lure of junk food to even the most refined palettes in the world, are the wonders of food science. That science, in the service of industrial capitalism, has hooked on us a food system that is destroying our health with obesity-related diseases. And that food system is based on a system of factory farming at one end, which churns out cheap, taxpayer-subsidized commodities like corn, vegetable oil and sweeteners, and the giant food processors at the other, like Frito-Lay, that take these commodities and concoct them into endless forms of addictive junk foods.
How We Became a Society of Junk Food Addicts

When we get sick, BigPharma then props us up again so that the others may continue to load us up and "milk" us.

No wonder we've been the most powerful nation on the planet. Our breeders and feeders have developed a most efficient way to keep us spinning the hamster wheel long into our golden years.... faster and faster, for less and less.

And we never even knew it happened.

Munch, munch, munch...

Based on the information above, does anyone think the argument of something like, "What is the best way to eat" is, perhaps, not the best argument for our common situation... but rather...

What Is The Best Way to Escape?

Otherwise, I can't see why some aspect of this shouldn't be renamed, "Livestock Talk"

What do you think? Is this too big of a conceptual leap, or diversion away from, the more commonly accepted arguments?

Edited by Sam Freedom, 30 December 2009 - 07:25 AM.

[stephen_b]

Interesting series of videos that addresses among other things whether all macronutrient types are equivalent per calorie.

StephenB

[RickSantos]

The person in question probably smokes, drinks and otherwise pisses his life away despite being 'raw foodist'.

nope

What animals other than human beings count calories , I ask you?


The case against the classic caloric model of obesity is STRONG.


Gary Taubes is correct in attacking the energy balance hypothesis. It is a hypothesis born of logic alone and completely ignores the evidence. We now have a worldwide epidemic of obese 6 month olds . We have obesity and malnutrition strongly linked . The energy balance hypothesis completely ignores these facts. It is a hypothesis born of logic alone and completely ignores the data.


Please watch this video by nationally recognized UFSC pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig on obesity




Stephan Whole Health Source "The Bodyfat Setpoint

Matt Metzgar "Obesity as an Immune Disorder"


Spark of reason's blog http://sparkofreason...ries-count.html

He has a Ph.D. in physics by the way so he understand "thermodynamics" far better than Lyle McDonlad or Anthony Colpo.




Obesity is a condition of fat cell dysregulation. The solution is to jolt the fat cells out of lipophylia.

Gary Taubes only fault is he has not yet satiisfied an alternative hypothesis for obesity ( the insulin theory is not complete because the photos he shows where the victims of lipodystrophy had opbese lower bodies and rail thin upper bodies and vice versa contradict him - blood insulin levelks are the same everywhere, so insulin can't explain this.

Lyle McDonald and Anthony Colpo have not even begun to rebut Taubes. They only restate the hypothesis (espeically Lyle McDonald) as if that takes care if it. It doesn't. Not by a loooooong shot.

Science is moving forward very slowly in this area, because they get funding from industry. The industry LOVES the energy balance hypothesis because it blames the individual, not their products for their obesity.

We have not learned nearly enough about obesity.

Edited by RickSantos, 27 January 2010 - 05:06 PM.

[James Cain]

I'm a bit late in hopping in this discussion, but I'll offer my thoughts on energy balance. I will say that I mostly agree with Skot and Duke.

A calorie is a calorie, period. This is truth. The social context of the statement means something different though, and this is where people get it wrong. It's what our body does with the energy content of food that matters. Short-term overfeeding of any diet will result in weight gain, and long-term underfeeding of any diet will result in weight loss. Skot is very right in saying that our body is designed to hold on to excess calories for periods of underfeeding, but this is mediated by hormones that sense and signal satiety, fat and carb stores, and general energy balance. These hormones take anywhere from minutes to weeks to be fully responsive to dietary changes.

This is why if you do CR your metabolism will slow and become more efficient, storing more energy as heat and reducing mitochondrial uncoupling and spontaneous physical activity, among other things. For most people CR also results in increased hunger over time, again due to hormonal response to energy homeostasis and dietary nutrients (or lack thereof). The opposite is also true in that if you overeat your body will increase heat production over energy storage and you will become more spontaneously physically active, and your hunger will be greatly blunted. So while a calorie is a calorie, and and iso-caloric diet will maintain body mass t almost regardless of macronutrient makeup, it's alterations in the factors I've mentioned (and others that are known and unknown) that make the difference with regards to weight loss.

Excess carbs, especially sugar, altered lipid profiles of dietary intake, fiber, artificial sweeteners, etc. will all change our response to excess or restricted food intake. There are many reasons for this that I will not post on in detail right now (too long) but the evidence is established and these things can have an impact on why certain diets may be healthier or not, or result in differences in perceived energy levels, mood, and body composition for an iso-caloric diet of varying nutrient compositions.

It just so happens that a "paleo" diet, or at least one that is lower in carbs (not necessarily very low-carb, but much lower than the SAD), fructose, processed oils, nutrient combos (fat, sugar, salt), etc. works in a way that modifies our body's response to calories in a way that very well maintains a healthy metabolism and body weight/composition. This is NOT to say that CR or other means of going above and beyond "normal healthy" have other benefits or outcomes, but for the average person ( and I'd say even most athletic individuals), focusing on these food choices have a greater effect on outcome than does focusing on food quantity.

[oehaut]

I'm a bit late in hopping in this discussion, but I'll offer my thoughts on energy balance. I will say that I mostly agree with Skot and Duke.

A calorie is a calorie, period. This is truth. The social context of the statement means something different though, and this is where people get it wrong. It's what our body does with the energy content of food that matters. Short-term overfeeding of any diet will result in weight gain, and long-term underfeeding of any diet will result in weight loss. Skot is very right in saying that our body is designed to hold on to excess calories for periods of underfeeding, but this is mediated by hormones that sense and signal satiety, fat and carb stores, and general energy balance. These hormones take anywhere from minutes to weeks to be fully responsive to dietary changes.

This is why if you do CR your metabolism will slow and become more efficient, storing more energy as heat and reducing mitochondrial uncoupling and spontaneous physical activity, among other things. For most people CR also results in increased hunger over time, again due to hormonal response to energy homeostasis and dietary nutrients (or lack thereof). The opposite is also true in that if you overeat your body will increase heat production over energy storage and you will become more spontaneously physically active, and your hunger will be greatly blunted. So while a calorie is a calorie, and and iso-caloric diet will maintain body mass t almost regardless of macronutrient makeup, it's alterations in the factors I've mentioned (and others that are known and unknown) that make the difference with regards to weight loss.

Excess carbs, especially sugar, altered lipid profiles of dietary intake, fiber, artificial sweeteners, etc. will all change our response to excess or restricted food intake. There are many reasons for this that I will not post on in detail right now (too long) but the evidence is established and these things can have an impact on why certain diets may be healthier or not, or result in differences in perceived energy levels, mood, and body composition for an iso-caloric diet of varying nutrient compositions.

It just so happens that a "paleo" diet, or at least one that is lower in carbs (not necessarily very low-carb, but much lower than the SAD), fructose, processed oils, nutrient combos (fat, sugar, salt), etc. works in a way that modifies our body's response to calories in a way that very well maintains a healthy metabolism and body weight/composition. This is NOT to say that CR or other means of going above and beyond "normal healthy" have other benefits or outcomes, but for the average person ( and I'd say even most athletic individuals), focusing on these food choices have a greater effect on outcome than does focusing on food quantity.

I perfectly agree with what you said.

A calorie is really a calorie. People just messed it up with the metabolic faith of different calorie source.

But the "a calorie is not a calorie" believer are never gonna admit it because their feeling of superiority for debunking everybody that studied nutrition and biochemistry would be unfounded. Too bad ego take so much place in scientific discussion.

[James Cain]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit. My hypothesis is that the former group takes in less overall calories and less "crap" food, but if you compare people in either group with similar low body weights then that person from either group will look just as good. I would say that a low-protein diet has benefits, but only in the context of higher caloric intake. If you are CR enough on any diet so that you maintain a low body weight and body fat then the benefits of low protein intake tend to drop off (I'm talking 10% vs. 20-25%, vegan vs. paleo).

[stephen_b]

A calorie is a calorie, period. This is truth.

....


It just so happens that a "paleo" diet, or at least one that is lower in carbs (not necessarily very low-carb, but much lower than the SAD), fructose, processed oils, nutrient combos (fat, sugar, salt), etc. works in a way that modifies our body's response to calories in a way that very well maintains a healthy metabolism and body weight/composition.

Aren't these two statements contradictory though? At the end of the day, it's the body's response that matters.

[TheFountain]

For most people CR also results in increased hunger over time, again due to hormonal response to energy homeostasis and dietary nutrients (or lack thereof).

This statement is patently false, because it is probably based on a false notion of what exactly calorie restriction is. To sum up calorie restriction it is firstly alot more than just denying oneself normal calories from common foods. It is replacing such calories with nutrients from healthy sources (green vegetables, such as kale, broccoli, spinach) and macronutrients that stick and help in the absorption of such nutrients (such as healthy fats from olive oil, nuts, seeds, etc). There are days when I sort of experiment with myself and only consume around 1700 calories. Do I feel lacking in energy? If I do it incorrectly, yes. If I do it correctly? I actually have an energy surplus. Try this, choose a day wherein you consume 85% raw vegetables. The other 15% is obviously macronutrients from nuts, seeds, legumes, healthy oils etc. See how you feel. But make sure you eat the most nutrient and vitamin dense vegetables and superfoods like kale, spinach, peppers, spirulina etc. I guarantee if you do it correctly you will have an energy surplus, not an energy deficit.

Edited by TheFountain, 27 January 2010 - 08:03 PM.

[TheFountain]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit. My hypothesis is that the former group takes in less overall calories and less "crap" food

This argument is inconclusive and based on ones own opinion and personality bias. I hear this perspective all the time 'calorie restriction works because of other life-style variables' ad nauseum! It is the most condescending argument put forth by 1-men and 2-muscle men and 3-men who have a romantic connection with the paleo diet! Stop using this unfounded argument! Especially when studies show more benefits for longevity on CR than the diet you so arrogantly espouse! Besides your diet is pro-growth and there are several indications abroad that pro-growth=pro-aging (such as IGF-1 levels being higher in those who consume meat and dairy). So stop deconstructing the studies that show CR works and start deconstructing your own subconscious reasoning for doing so. Oh, but we already know why you guys do it. CR and vegetarianism are feminine, they lead to feminine appearance, etc etc etc This is the real reasoning behind most of your positions. Get your egos in check!

Edited by TheFountain, 27 January 2010 - 08:01 PM.

[rwac]

CR and vegetarianism are feminine, they lead to feminine appearance, etc etc etc This is the real reasoning behind most of your positions. Get your egos in check!

I believe that people who do CR have a Puritan mentality, that they believe that it's necessary to suffer now for some potential later benefit (live longer).

[TheFountain]

CR and vegetarianism are feminine, they lead to feminine appearance, etc etc etc This is the real reasoning behind most of your positions. Get your egos in check!

I believe that people who do CR have a Puritan mentality, that they believe that it's necessary to suffer now for some potential later benefit (live longer).

What suffering? You presume it suffering because you are unaware of how those who do it properly succeed on it.

[DukeNukem]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit.

The plant-food-only tent is collapsing:

Why the shift away from veganism in the raw world?

[TheFountain]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit.

The plant-food-only tent is collapsing:

Why the shift away from veganism in the raw world?

You talk about raw food veganism as if it was ever a widely accepted thing. It was always a fringe dietary phenomenon and never an ultra-popular thing. And as for your arrogant assertion about it's health benefits being nill, I think you are just covering up your own philosophical notions here (I.E veganism makes you feminine etc). Note I am referring to RAW veganism. But don't take it from me, take it from Dr. Brian Clement, a 60 something year old raw foodist who looks 10 years younger than you do!

Edited by TheFountain, 28 January 2010 - 06:29 AM.

[Skötkonung]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit.

The plant-food-only tent is collapsing:

Why the shift away from veganism in the raw world?

You talk about raw food veganism as if it was ever a widely accepted thing. It was always a fringe dietary phenomenon and never an ultra-popular thing. And as for your arrogant assertion about it's health benefits being nill, I think you are just covering up your own philosophical notions here (I.E veganism makes you feminine etc). Note I am referring to RAW veganism. But don't take it from me, take it from Dr. Brian Clement, a 60 something year old raw foodist who looks 10 years younger than you do!

I don't know, up close he doesn't look spectacular:
http://www.imref.org...ntBrian9x11.jpg

Could be UV damage, though? I doubt any diet will undo cumulative exposure to the sun.

By the way, I watched all three parts of those videos. Thanks for the recommendation.