Slashdot Mirror
Low-Protein Diet May Extend Lifespan
sciencehabit writes "A new theory about the foods that can extend life is taking shape, and it's sure to be a controversial one. Two studies out this week, one in mice (PDF) and another primarily in people (PDF), suggest that eating relatively little protein and lots of carbohydrates — the opposite of what's urged by many human diet plans, including the popular Atkins Diet — extends life and fortifies health."
Fixed that for you....
Don't gamble, drink, smoke or screw.
Will I live to be 120?
No, but it'll seem like it [BRADABADATISH]
Low Carb, High Fat...great...
...myself...I lived on just about everything most of my life, including crappy processed food like cheetos, chocolates, refined sugars and whatnot...and it made me obese for over 40 years, then I changed. I decided to drop ALL processed foods...and I lost like 40 Pounds over 4 months...to weight levels I've never seen before ever...
Low Fat, High Carb...okay...
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Whatever diet you're on...make sure your body is ready for it, I
Yeah. It does work, but you need to be disciplined. Low protein? Nah...make sure you get enough B12...and You'll be fine.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
If this gets around to my girlfriends I'll sue...
Ron, an elderly man in Florida, owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back.
It was properly shaped for swimming, so he fixed it up nice with picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some orange and
lime trees.
One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn't been there for a while, and look it over.
He grabbed a five-gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.
As he came closer, he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond.
He made the women aware of his presence, and they all went to the deep end.
One of the women shouted to him, "We're not coming out until you leave!"
Ron frowned, "I didn't come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked."
Holding the bucket up Ron said, "I'm here to feed the alligator."
"lots of carbohydrates" doesn't mean "lots of bread, grains and pasta" - fruits and vegetables are a source of carbohydrates.
Basically, this is just confirming what we have already known for many years, but some of us refuse to admit: the best diet is one that is high in fruits and vegetables, and meat should be eaten in small portions (if at all).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet
We never really tried the food pyramid. What was disastrous was going out and eating 80% carbs and 20% fat. We assumed we were eating healthily, when in reality diets like the above are suggesting more of a balance, rather than doing ridiculous things like cutting carbs.
You will also note that the article didn't mention weight loss, it mentioned health. We have this weird idea that being thin is the same as being healthy, which is on many levels, ridiculous.
So, sort of, maybe, but not.
Let's ignore the mouse study as that has little interest to human nutrition. From the second pdf: "our results show that among those
ages 50 and above, the level of protein intake is associated with
increased risk of diabetes mortality, but not associated with dif-
ferencesinall-cause, cancer,orCVDmortality."
Clearly people dying of diabetes are not on a low carb diet, so I dunno is this a desperate attempt from the corn farmers?
This. Atkin's diet is only a good way to lose weight in that you are malnourished.
Extensive studies have already been performed that should this is a formula for disaster... overweight, diabetes, malnourished... the list goes on. I am calling BS. This seems like another call from folks trying to deal with growing population and its associated problems without being honest. Not enough resources currently available to support everyone being meat eaters. This is biased propaganda.
In South Korea only old people do Low-Protein Diet.
Eat healthy. It's really not that complicated. Fruit, veg, meat, salad, carbs that aren't refined. The more processed it is, the worse it is for you
Eat well balanced and in moderation and you'll be fine. The most harmful things in your diet are sugar, (sucralose and fructose) salt and processed foods.
Protein is needed for the retention and development of muscle. Eliminating it while keeping your sugar intake high is a recipe for type 2 diabetes, heart disease and living a life of obesity.
I'm pretty sure the Atkin's diet was ruled out by anyone with any knowledge of actual human health. The man died a fat, bloated fuck and doomed many of his blind followers to live the same.
Um, I'm not an Atkins proponent (been vegetarian since the seventies) but part of that was marketing by Atkins detractors. He slipped on ice and suffered a severe blow to the head. In the hospital, he contracted another condition (which escapes me at the moment) which caused bloating. There is an urban legend that militant vegetarians (which always struck me as an oxymoron, but never mind...) snuck in and got photos of Atkins on his deathbed as rather disingenious "proof" that his diet killed him.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
EOM
love is just extroverted narcissism
Quote from original link,
"The second study, led by gerontology researcher Valter Longo and graduate student Morgan Levine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, focused on data from 6381 adults over 50 years old who were interviewed once about their diet as part of NHANES, a national survey of health and nutrition. Longo’s team used death records to conclude that those under 65 whose self-reported diets they classified as high-protein"
After years of personal training in my experience alot of people have no idea what foods have high protein, also using a "survey" of questionable nature (most people lie on surveys) to come to such a large conclusion without alot more supported data is bad science.
People like to say "Atkins" as an excuse to just eat bacon and protein bars.
Actually following the diet plan sensibly , is fairly healthy. Eating 20 grams of carbohydrates a day - to begin - and then ramping up slowly as you near and reach your ideal weight is fine -- as long as you don't use it as an excuse to eat slabs of bacon and cheese.
A grilled skinned chicken breast and a green vegetable is a great Atkins meal - and a good meal on almost any diet plan. Frying it and smothering it with bacon and cheese is what idiots do - the blame Atkins.
Note this little gem buried in the article:
"All were allowed to eat as much as they wanted."
I think that's a pretty big caveat.
Food Scientists: OK, you guys, we admit it, we really don't have a freaking clue. Sorry. Just go eat whatever seems sensible.
Blasphemy! My triple bacon cheeseburger without the bun is an extremely healthy diet food!!! Nothing is worse than icky carbs!!
seems like the mimimum should be to enforce some kind of exercise. it doesn't get much more sedentary than lab animals. thus, if the results are actual (??), the findings should be low prot high carbs preferable IF SEDENTARY. (though that seems somewhat counerintuitive as well).
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Done right, the weight loss on Atkins is two-fold. You do burn fat from ketosis, but the primary means of weight loss through Atkins is simply eating what you would have eaten before - just without all of the empty carbs.
Want a cheeseburger for lunch? Have it. Just leave off the bun and onions.
Wanted chicken wings at the bar? Have 'em. Get them "naked" with a hot sauce instead of a sweet one.
Going out for steak? Fine. Trade the baked potato for a side ceasar.
As long as you don't use "because Atkins!" as an excuse to put bacon and cheese on everything, you'll be fine.
for about a couple of million years the early humanoids through to modern humans until about 10,000 years ago ate nothing but a high protein diet mainly meat. To sustain a low protein diet you have to eat a high carb diet. So I do not see how that can make you live longer as you are getting obese with type 2 diabetes.
Exactly
It's silly science. A very small sample set and a snapshot of their diet via a one time questionnaire. It's on one day what the participants surveyed think their diet is which is probably a bit off from reality (quick what percentage of calories did you eat from protein last week?).
You have to wonder what the point is?
" 6381 adults over 50 years old who were interviewed once about their diet as part of NHANES, a national survey of health and nutrition"
Eat less of everything. Skip all the stupid fad diets and studies. Consume 1500 or fewer calories a day, exercise mildly. Live longer and more disease free. My science angel told me this.
Riiight. Because the 150-175 calories from the bun is the tipping point on having a burger not the 300+ calories from just the fat from the beef (assuming 1/2lb. Of 85/15 beef). As the saying goes, that's being pennywise and pound foolish.
And nobody knows anyways. Eggs are bad one decade and good the next. Carbs, Protein, HFCS, Red Dye #5, Gluten, etc., and on, and on....
You are, in all likelihood, going to survive at least 50 years, and less than 80. Fuck it. Eat what you want. Look like what you want. Smoke dope. Have fun.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
I call it the "Monsanto Diet"
love is just extroverted narcissism
In the late 80's and early 90's, fat was the energy source of the devil that needed to be avoided at all costs. Then in the early 2000's, carbs were the new nutrient to avoid. And now, another decade later, they're telling us to avoid protein. I'll stick to eating a variety of foods in moderate portions supplemented by exercise, thank you very much.
What good is it to live a long time if you can't eat what you like to eat?
The four basic food groups are good enough for me - caffeine, nicotine, bacon, and pussy. Without those, life has very little meaning.
To add what I posted above, this is like ordering a supersized double quarter pounder meal from McDonald's and being "healthy" by having a Diet Coke.
They are mere flip, a datum likely shoddily collected that is so far removed from any kind of conclusion. It might be worth a mention among specialized crowd that deal with the narrow subject, but outside of that rarefied circle, its being reported is worse than useless.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
....and actually study it.
I'm tired of useless shitbags with absolutely not science background (you) trying to tell me what the right way to do anything is.
More vegan propaganda.
Bass O Matic meals extend life span -- but who wants to live extra years if that's what it takes?!?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Go back to bed Soulskill
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines. And they do exist, and give pretty clear ideas. Such as that halving your meat intake is a good idea.
But I guess that's not exciting, news needs to either repackage (MyPlate) or go after highly fluctuating results from microstudies which is the latest research, but in the stage of formation (all these diet fads, X is bad for you, Y heals cancer, drink a glass of red wine a day [because a encyme in a petri dish did something], etc. ).
By the way, why does there need to be one right way of nutrition? Why can't we accept that multiple ways to obtain the basic building blocks are possible.
In the end, we can't be so off by so much: We have so many people living with such a big variety of foods, and they are doing pretty similarly well (i.e. get older than, and are healthy at, 65). The need to prove that everyones diet is completely wrong is ridiculous.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
High carbohydrate, low nutrient diet is going to boost cancer rates.
Cutting the fat never worked for me. When I restricted carbs, after about 5 months I was in better shape than I ever have been in since puberty. I lost 45 lbs. It works, whole grains beings good for you is the biggest load of BS. It's not about calories for the most part, but the type of calories.
The cows?
Have gnu, will travel.
As others, the study was done on mice, who are herbivores in the wild. They say what happens to them will also happen to us, but we have been eating meat a long while now.
I wonder if also applies to my cat? <scarcasm>I know cat's are predominately carnivores, but that shouldn't matter, right?</scarcasm>
now i can continue my steady diet of breakfast cereal with a smug sense of satisfaction!
Well, if your previous meal was a super-size double quarter pounder meal, and you now, instead, order a super-size double-quarter-pounder meal "Atkins style" -- bunless, no ketchup, no onions with side salad instead of fries and a diet soda or water, you've cut HUNDREDS of calories out of your previous meal.
-550 calories on the fry-to-salad substitution alone.
If you cut 600 calories per meal out of your normal routine, you'll lose weight -- or at least stop gaining it as fast.
Nobody thinks you should eat McDonald's every meal for good health -- Atkins or not.
Except that the bun doesn't significantly contribute to your feeling of having a good meal, compared to the burger. So let's assume that burger is exactly 300 calories, and the bun 150. Without the bun you'll feel about as full as with it, except you ate only 33% fewer calories. Reducing your calorie intake by 33% is going to make you lose weight.
It doesn't work for older people in the first place, and we're only talking IGF-1 cancer.
Look, want some useful science?
Vitamin supplements are mostly a waste of time, if you're not about to get pregnant or participate in that, and you're far better off eating a varied diet low in meat with more fruits and vegetables, and getting mild to moderate exercise.
There, free of charge.
Most of the rest is just noise.
Now, go get enough sleep and stop doing binge diets and binge drunks and stuff that stresses you out. If you want to fast for a week or two every ten years (if you do this, take vitamins and fruit or vegetable juice), that also helps.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"High-Protein Diet May Get You To Heaven Faster"
See? Whatever you eat, it's win-win!
Koans and fables for the software engineer
I prefer sucrose. It tastes good.
Why leave off the onions?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
But I get the distinct impression that what diet is "good for you" is determined by what foodstuff the agricultural commodity markets feel is undervalued this year.
See, if you'd stopped at the first sentence you'd have been fine. Once you wandered off into processed food land you became either a nut case or wholly redundant. See, there's nothing wrong with sugars of just about any type (though lactose is not digestable properly by a portion of the population, but that's a side discussion), nor salt, nor processed foods.
Once you eat a well balanced diet of proper portion sizes, you never need worry about the rest of the stuff, as it takes care of itself. A diet of Coke, Twinkies, and bacon is not a balanced diet*, so there's really no need to go spouting off about it.
*this, fwiw, is proof that there is either no God at all, or that God hates us. Because in a universe with a benevolent God, those would form the core of a balanced diet.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I think what he's saying is that it's not the calories, it's where they're coming from.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Not exactly. What Adkins is doing is keeping you malnourished in carbohydrates, forcing your body to find them someplace. Your body cannot process the fat calories ingested effectively so they are eliminated, not being used. Seems that the easiest source of carbohydrates is your internal fat reserves to keep your blood sugar in the survivable range.
Problem is that you really are malnourished on Adkins; Lacking carbohydrates. That can lead to issues with kidneys and most other systems in the body. Plus, it is REALLY hard to eliminate carbohydrates enough to make this work. Most of us don't eat that way. And there is a reason, it's not healthy in the long term.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Done right, the weight loss on Atkins is two-fold. You do burn fat from ketosis, but the primary means of weight loss through Atkins is simply eating what you would have eaten before - just without all of the empty carbs
Not as I understand it.
Carbs:
1. Boost insulin which promotes fat formation.
2. Make us lazy.
3. Reduce satiety.
Such is the effect, it seems you can eat more calories via Atkins and still lose weight.
I remember the "carbo-loading" fad. Man, that was a bad idea.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Actually, moderation is always ok. Too many eggs, as in 2 or more in every meal, probably not good.
One or two every two or three days is fine. It's the grease you fry them in that has the most impact, so poach them or something.
But you are correct: sex with a committed partner, regular meals (not yo yo diets), and stuff that reduces stress are all good for you.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The best diet is probably a balanced diet of about 1200 calories a day. The safest way to avoid getting hit by a car is not to walk across streets or drive a car. The safest way to avoid dying via plane is to not fly, etc...
Who the fuck wants to live like that?
You're missing the point.
I made very clear that a good Atkins meal was a skinless chicken breast with a green vegetable side, not covered in bacon and cheese.
It probably didn't work because you were still getting too many calories from carbs. It's always about having the right percentage of calories from fat/carb/protein for your metabolic level.
The point that I was making is that it's silly to cut out 150 calories when the rest your meal is still like 1500 calories. It's basically a nonsense gesture so that people think they're being healthy by doing next to nothing at all.
Onions are high sugar.
Anything you can order "caramelized" (like, say, onions) is bad.
But it is the calories. Eating 20,000 calories from protein is still going to make you gain weight.
...except there's no reason to eat more calories.
Except that a large percentage people on Atkins ended up regaining all the weight and then some and having higher body fat percentage to boot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet
Unfortunately, if you stick to a Mediterranean Diet, you get stuck with a Mediterranean Economy . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Seriously, I don't see how the study could be right. My experience is that I lost 63 lbs. in 4 months by eating a low carb, high protein, high vegetable diet. The fastest and physically easy technique was to just ditch the sugar drinks, candy, fries stuff.
The reason for different kinds of calories is that carbs and sugars spike insulin levels.
http://saveie6.com/
You do realize that livestock, the main protein source for most people, are fed a large portion of the corn & soy crops, so a shift away from a protein based diet and toward to a more carbohydrate based diet would hurt Monsanto?
Onions are high sugar.
Anything you can order "caramelized" (like, say, onions) is bad.
So my caramel-coated caramels are safe.
Keith Olbermann, I think. Except triple the calorie restrictions.
You only say that because you're an indoctrinated meat eater. As a lifelong vegetarian, I'm not missing out on anything and there are lots of delicious veggie dishes.
Good research has shown that red meat is particularly harmful to the cardiovascular system due to it's interaction with gut microflora. But other kinds of protein seem to be healthy (nuts, chicken, etc.).
So what kinds of protein do they use to test their hypotheses?
If you come off a diet then it's not really the diet's fault, is it?
Not a problem when you have an ethanol fuel mandate to sop up any excess. Selling 5 cents worth of processed food in a box for 3 dollars is a big business- Monsanto doesn't do this but they are certainly an important link in the chain.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I don't know, I kind of prefer the Japanese diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
More important is exercise and vitamins.
The thing is that the body can and does create its own protein, fat, and sugar. If it has to convert it is less efficient. However, our problem is not a lack of protein or carbohydrates. Our problem is a sedentary population that doesn't move enough to stimulate their metabolisms.
What is more, there are a great many fat people that are also malnourished due to specific vitamin deficiencies. Much of that is due to not having enough fruit and vegetables in the diet.
The problem with including more fruits and veg is that they're expensive especially for urban dwellers that are both farther from food sources and unable to produce their own.
What is more the cost of these foods has gone up faster then inflation in recent years. This forces people to rely more and more on cheap staple carbohydrate food sources. These sources are FINE. I am not arguing against them at all. However, they are not sufficient without supplements or additional food sources.
If you wish to improve the health of people living in modern countries... improve exercise... outdoor activities of any kind... ideally during the day. And lower the cost and increase the availability of fruits and vegetables.
For example... farmers in California are getting their water cut off. These same farmers produce a disproportionate amount of the nation's fruits and vegetables. Thus, any problem they run into will increase the cost and reduce the availability of those goods. Consider building the poor guys a dam or aqueduct so they can sustain production despite the golden state's continuing chronic mismanagement. Further, encourage people to grow their own gardens. There are backyards throughout the suburbs that are entirely sufficient to grow small gardens that can supplement their diets. That takes further pressure off the farms to provide produce to urban centers.
The idea is to just make produce cheaper and more readily available.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
But eating 20,000 calories from carbohydrates is worse because carbohydrates are more easier digested and thus more of that 20,000 ends up as fat (which is fine if you plan on hibernating this winter).
Empty carbs.... you do know that Atkins died young?
Carbs are where the calories are at in the American diet - kill the soda, breads, cereals, cookies, doughnuts, and other sugars (carbs), and you remove most of the impulse calories from the table.
You can get fat on nuts, steak, cheese and bacon, just consume the same calories in them as you would have in soda and doughnuts.
I'm not missing out on anything
Well aside from all kinds of delicious things you can do with meats.
You can't legitimately claim a vegetarian diet can be as varied as an omnivorous one can be. Your vegetarian diet is a strict subset of mine. Full stop.
Sure beet carpaccio is delicious, but its not beef carpaccio. You'll try one, I'll try both. And yes, you are missing out.
Know how to find out if someone is a vegetarian? Just wait, they'll tell you.
Focusing on diet for human lifespan is like focusing on gasoline for car lifespan.
Studies have been done of places where people tend to live longer. Some common threads are: genetics, happiness, close community ties, everyday physical labor, low stress, diet and maybe a few other things.
Yeah sure, diet is in there; but if your Daddy died at 40, you're pissed off all the time, you don't know your neighbors and you spend 60 hours a day stressing in a cube-farm then the quinoa salad you ate probably won't help much. Go ahead though. It probably won't hurt; just don't expect miracles. Look at *all* the factors.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
As a meat eater, you miss out on most veggie dishes because you aren't looking for them. Again, I am missing nothing but the health problems.
Want to find out if someone is an idiot? Just wait and they'll open their mouth.
1) The story is about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet
2) The GGP inferred that they are a carnivore before I ever said anything
Try to be more attentive and think before you speak.
right and by that logic someone who includes faeces in their diet has a much more varied diet than you do
What health problems? My health is probably better than yours.
An omnivorous diet doesn't have to be an unhealthy one. Being opportunitistic scavengers by nature just means that we take the most advantage of what we have available.
Despite what someone might have told you, you aren't a bovine.
Although being pretentious about what you eat only solves one subset of the overall problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> (if at all)
Mediterranean != Vegetarian. I believe you're confused.
Stop thinking diet book and start thinking biology class. It is impossible to gain weight eating (nothing but) protein. Digestion and absorption do not work like that. You might deal with protein poisoning (look up "Rabbit Starvation"), but you won't get fat.
Your body needs protein, it needs fats and it needs ~SOME~ carbs.
In simple terms: In biology class we learned that the body releases insulin to do what? Reduce blood sugar... When you eat something with sugar in it (candy, soda, white rice, bread, pasta, etc) it raises your blood sugar level. Your body releases insulin to store that in your fat cells. You get fat.
If you eat 1,000 calories in a candy bar, you will get fatter.
If you eat 1,000 calories in white rice, you will get fatter.
If you eat 1,000 calories of salmon, prime rib, chicken, etc you will not gain weight. Your body has nothing to store in your fat cells.
Just eat a balanced mix of foods without (or with limited) simple carbs and you will never have to diet again.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
Being thin may not be healthy.
However, being so fat that you no longer have a human shape certainly is unhealthy. The carb-centric mentality is a problem for many people and has done them nothing but harm.
On the other hand, the previous model more or less advocated moderation and balance. It was not broken and didn't need fixed.
We need to avoid the bogus political propaganda from vegan busybodies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Speak or yourself. I eat according to the food pyramid, and at 40, with moderate exercise, I'm in incredible shape.
I don't respond to AC's.
The point that I was making is that it's silly to cut out 150 calories when the rest your meal is still like 1500 calories.
Uh... Most burgers aren't 1500 calories. Not even most combo meals are that bad. Drop the fries and bread and that's like 500 calories saved, about what most diets recommend for your deficit for weight loss.
I don't read AC A human right
Extending your health requires more then just adhering to a diet or vitamins or any one thing. Its also not a guarantee since all humans are subject to predisposed risk factors through genetics. At some point we will most likely extend life more predictably through this genetic filtering so as to prevent cancers, blood disorders and improve our immune system. I have heard so many diet solutions down through the years. That eventually don't do all they originally thought they would do. I prefer the basics of eating any food that is less processed and in moderation.
The brain interprets happiness/enjoyment as quite relative to previous life experiences. It's not a static relationship.
Whenever you try something new and find it's the "best thing ever" the brain recalibrates, and your previous "best thing ever" loses a little of it's enjoyment.
It's the same with enjoying food, the amount of enjoyment a vegetarian gets from their favorite vegetarian food is the same as a omnivore gets from their favorite meat-based food.
With the possible exception of someone who has just 'given up' meat, since they have the memory of enjoying things the can't have any more.
The "slipped on ice" story is what Atkins' widow wants to promulgate to hide the fact that he died of heart disease. It would be bad for her income stream.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Having actually read one of Dr. Atkin's diet plan books, the most severe carb restriction is only in the beginning. After that it has instructions to re-introduce carbs in a controlled fashion and find a level that works for you.
I don't read AC A human right
I never even counted calories when I watched carbs. I found I didn't have to. I just ate whenever I was hungry. Without the constant blood sugar fluctuations, I just wasn't hungry when I didn't need to be. I never got the 2pm sleepies either.
suggest that eating relatively little protein and lots of carbohydrates
which benefits the hell out of grain farmers and food processing companies and didn't we already try that in the 60-90's
The "slipped on ice" story is what Atkins' widow wants to promulgate to hide the fact that he died of heart disease. It would be bad for her income stream.
Citation needed.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Current wisdom has us do high input (eat lots of good foods) and high output (lots of exercise) which in turn gives us a high metabolism, and if done right - we can stay in good shape. I've always thought that it also has us burn through our mileage faster too. I think the key to longevity is low metabolism. Of course, I don't pay much attention to it, because the likelihood of dying from something else prevents me from worrying about running out of road.
Unless your body just shits it out.
"lots of carbohydrates" doesn't mean "lots of bread, grains and pasta" - fruits and vegetables are a source of carbohydrates.
Basically, this is just confirming what we have already known for many years, but some of us refuse to admit: the best diet is one that is high in fruits and vegetables, and meat should be eaten in small portions (if at all).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet
That's a load of crap. Humans are omnivores, and the "best" diet is one which includes a wide variety of fruits, grains, and meats. In almost every case where someone comes up with a problem with one of them, it usually has more to do with how it is actually prepared than the food item itself.
For example, it's better to not burn the shit out of your meat, as charred meats can produce some compounds which aren't all that great for you. It's also better to not cook the holy living fuck out of your vegetables, because it leeches out vitamins and breaks down fiber. It's better to eat grains which are less pre-processed, because the body doesn't absorb the calories as quickly and processing often removes roughage which helps the digestive tract. In addition to vitamins and minerals, which is why that sugary crap they call 'bread' in most grocery stores has to be "fortified".
The Atkins diet in particular is widely misunderstood. It's NOT about "eliminating carbs". You START by completely avoiding carbs, then you slowly re-introduce them back into your diet. As with most diets, the primary benefit is that it makes you PAY ATTENTION to what you're cramming down your gullet, it makes you think about what you're eating, and helps you to make better choices in terms of what you eat and how much you eat. The initial "avoid carbs" is aimed at countries/cultures which get a LOT of calories from carbs, so it causes some fast, short-term weight loss which helps motivate the fatbodies to continue putting effort into getting back into shape.
The BEST diet is the same as it's always been- moderate your intake, don't go overboard on any one specific food or food type, eat a variety of different kinds of foods, and get plenty of exercise. The problem most people have is they are looking for a "magic bullet" solution where they don't have to think, and can continue to cram massive amounts of food down their gullets.
1200 calories? nope. on average it's going to be 1600 Women, 1900 Men.
That's what is burned at rest. approx.
Obviously a Mtn. Climber would need more.
"Who the fuck wants to live like that?"
You are drawing a false dichotomy between eating reasonable and just shoving crap down you're throat.
You can eat a tasty and balanced and varied diet on 1900 calories a day.
So, would you rather have a tasty diet and live till 88, or eat the same tasty diet, just more of it, and die at 68?
People in America get portions far larger then they need. People get used to over eating, so when they get a properly portioned meal they feel hungry, even though rationally they have enough.
That feeling goes away with time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Please don't confuse your opinions with facts. It's clear the only science you know is 'bro'.
Your body doesn't make carbohydrates it makes glucose and glycogen, which fuel the brain and muscles. There is lots of literature about how this works. It's easy for the body to use dietary carbohydrates to supply all the energy needs of the body. It's also *very* easy to eat more than you need when you throw refined sugars into the mix. Your body can only store so much glycogen/glucose - in fact it is toxic in high concentrations. So thats where insulin kicks in an converts it to fat. Fat is an incredibly good energy storage mechanism. It's energy dense and you can carry loads of it around. Though I'm not sure that was the intention when it was 'invented'. Your body is of course wired up to be able to use these energy reserves when there is no dietary energy source. That never happens though really. Now if you take something that is designed to be hungry sometimes, and you make sure it is always fed, then of course stuff is going to start going wrong.
One of the reasons we are constantly fed, is because we are constantly hungry. Our "am I hungry" sensor was invented before calorie dense refined foods. One of the things that sets it off is low blood sugar, and one of the things that eating lots of sugar does is make your body release insulin. The quicker that sugar gets in your blood, the more insulin your body makes, and because it can't afford to risk letting your blood sugar get too high, it will keep pumping out insulin until it gets blood sugar under control. As your blood sugar lowers, it will reduce insulin secretion but there is a lag in this feedback loop. Depending on how fast and how high you went (and how may times you have done this before), will depend on how hard you crash. Then your blood sugar will end up low, then you'll be hungry again. You can eat 1000 calories of ice cream, and go right back fro 1000 more after as little as half an hour. So clearly something isn't right.
Not eating refined sugar doesn't leave you 'malnourished'. On the contrary, you end up eating far more nutritious sources of carbohydrate such as fruit and vegetables. You do know that one of the main premises of atkins is eating vegetables?
Another fact is that Low carb != Zero carb. Once again I refer you to the fact that you are supposed to eat vegetables. You can eat fruit as well, just don't eat too much (although if its a choice between that and ice cream...)
One of the greatest benefits is regulation of appetite. All that veg makes you feel fuller for longer. I absolutely dare you to push through the withdrawal symptoms you will get coming off sugar and see what 'sobriety' is like.
I'm going to need you to cite a source that says the human body *requires* carbohydrates to survive. It doesn't, it hasn't been proven, it cannot be proven because it is patently false.
You are also confusing low carb with high protein, and thusly drawing invalid conclusions about what might be causing kidney problems. Yes, eating high protein has been proven to have negative effects. Thats not the same as eating low carb though.
You don't *eliminate* carbs, you stop eating junk food. Most of you don't eat that way because you don't want to. When you try to stop eating high sugar your body experiences withdrawal symptoms. That deep and aching hunger you feel. It isn't actual hunger, it's craving. If you could get off it then you would find out what *actual* hunger feels like. It doesn't hurt, it doesn't make you feel like you could consume your entire bodyweight in oreos. It's more like a gentle tap on the shoulder from a polite english gent, who is informing you that its probably meal time "but if you don't want to eat sir, then thats no problem, I can come back in an hour or two"
If you actually knew what 'atkins' was you would know all of this. Your second hand opinions prove that you know nothing of it.
You misunderstand, his diet did kill him. He would not have hit the ice so hard if it wasn't for gravity's grasp on him :-P
> Pretentious? When? Where? You're the one posturing and resorting to ad hominem.
Your entire original response was nothing but smug pretensious drivel. You just take it on faith that your choices are superior despite the fact that "appeals to authority" in these matters SHIFT on a frequent basis.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"lots of carbohydrates" doesn't mean "lots of bread, grains and pasta"
The summary says "lots of carbohydrates", but TFA does not say that, nor does TFA say that carbohydrate consumption was significantly increased. Furthermore, at least the human study says that the detrimental effects were only associated with high consumption of animal protein, not vegetable protein. Also, consuming less (animal) protein was detrimental only for people aged 18-65. For 65+, increased protein consumption had a positive effect.
Overall, the summary is really bad.
Replace "Atkins" with any diet, and you're still correct.
Low protein can mean low vegetable proteins too.
Say what you like. I lost 150 lbs. on Atkins. My total cholesterol went down, my HDL went up, my LDL plunged. More importantly, I was a type 1.5 diabetic (LADA) with an A1c of 10.5, now I'm still a diabetic, but my A1c is 4.9 (likely better than you.) I have gobs of energy, and I love my life.
If my moderate protein, low carb, high fat diet causes me to die young, so be it. At least I'll have lived.
Why not strip out sugar entirely? Seriously, it's this kind of nonsense that makes diet fads so dangerously myopic. Balance your diet and learn proper portion sizes, don't cut out entire branches of foods because you want to reject your latent omnivorousness.
I maintain that the Atkins "diet" is only efficient for losing weight and not as a permanent solution and certainly not a healthy one. (the last part meaning you probably should not do it at all)
While the body is bad at regulating the storage of fat it also bad at regulating the consumption of simple carbs. Putting the two together is a disaster as we all know.
One of the main benefits of the Atkins diet for most people is that you simply cannot over eat. You become so sick of the food which is extremely filling and "heavy" that you almost have to force yourself to eat at times. I would argue that this is the main explanation for the "secret" to its "success". (and studies have shown it to be relatively successful)
I was extremely fit and gym going and lost 6 kgs and became "cut" on this diet over 8 weeks. Then kept the weight off on a less extremely diet (i.e. just put more veges in) for 3 years until I had a kid and got fat...they have that effect...
It appears that high fat, low carb diets can work well which is somewhat counter-intuitive hence why those ignorant on the subject feel it is safe to comment.
It is not.
Having said all that, your straw man of 20k calories is rather ridiculous on its own with no help required from your other false statements.
On a related note:
I have conducted similar home experiments with super high fibre/vitamin meal replacement drinks (More like a "Goop" than a drink which is what I call it) using things such as oats, linseed, lentils, almond, milk powder, vegetable oil and frozen berries. About 15 natural ingredients all up with no processed ones excepting the milk powder.
One glass of this at lunch (dinner was unchanged) and you not only sate your appetite it easily holds you till your next meal - and it does not taste half bad also. Lost 5 kgs over a month without much trouble.
Aside from the monotony of the Goop it appears to be a perfectly healthy and good way to lose weight without the hunger pangs or putting your body into "starvation mode" as many diets do.
You opened your mouth...
There is more than one kind of meat. The fat content varies according to the cut. Also digestion of a meal of mixed carbohydrates and beef is usually a lot friggin slower than just eating either of those alone. In my experience the digestive system is just not well optimized for mixing everything up in the same meal.
"The ones that every doctor will tell you about. The ones that this very story is about."
Only if you over eat.
"Highly doubtful.":
neither you should should be talking about your person health. It's not good data, and it's irrelevant and you don't know what each other health is like.
"It doesn't have to be, but often it is and it will never be as healthy as a vegetarian diet."
Vegetarian can becomes over weight, and they can have there own set of health problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
In short: A properly planned vegetarian is fine. But so is a properly balance omnivore diet.
"Despite what someone might have told you, not everyone finds animal flesh appealing."
fair enough, but we aren't discussing personal taste. And yes the person who posted that shouldn't have, it's a weak attempt at an ad hom. Pointless to the topic.
"Pretentious? When? Where?"
here:
"As a meat eater, you miss out on most veggie dishes because you aren't looking for them. "
You act like you know something you don't actually no anything about, that person person dietary habits.
Just so you know, I eat a lot of vegetarian dishes and meat dishes. You are trying to create some sort of false dichotomy between you and meat eaters, stop it. What he said is true: You have restricted yourself to a subset of choice; therefore less varied.
IN NO WAY should this betaken as my implying you shouldn't be vegetarian, or you are wrong for being one.
"You're the one posturing and resorting to ad hominem."
He isn't posturing. He is using ad hominem, and he is wrong for doing so, just like you. See you do have something in common.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Not really.
Your body turns calories into glucose in very different ways on different foods. With sugars it spikes insulin which changes your metabolism and stores as fast after the immediate spike as you have too high glucose and then it comes crashing down too low where you eat more. This is what happens in obese people at the beginning of diabetes.
The problem is your body forgets how to turn your fat cells into glucose after eating an American diet. Your thyroid and pancreas need to create hormones to do this. The atkins diet forces your body to start producing these hormones in the induction stage. Then grains are gradually put back in a very small amount.
If you are obese your body is inflamed really and likely is stuck with glucose spikes. In essence you become less hungry as your hormone balance changes. ... so yes it is not a simple as oh eat less carbs it doesn't matter where etc.
http://saveie6.com/
topographically, a pear is an incredible shape.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You only say that because you're an indoctrinated meat eater. As a lifelong vegetarian, I'm not missing out on anything and there are lots of delicious veggie dishes.
You're not a vegetarian, you're an omnivore who has chosen to avoid meats. You're missing out on a lot, and while I agree there are a lot of very tasty veggie dishes there are also a lot of very delicious meats. And if you're really a "life-long vegetarian" then you're admitting your parents indoctrinated you against meats and you haven't got over it yet.
Humans are omnivores, our digestive tracts are designed to process both meats and veggies. You can try to argue this all you want but all it will do is display your ignorance of biology in mammals. Eating only veggies makes no more sense than eating only meats.
> Riiight. Because the 150-175 calories from the bun is the tipping point on having a burger not the 300+ calories from just the fat from the beef (assuming 1/2lb. Of 85/15 beef).
You're assuming a 1/2 lb patty. That's your problem right there.
Cutting the bun from a more reasonable size burger would be more like a 33% reduction. That's hardly "penny" territory.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
we simply don't know.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
it's till 150 fewer calories. along with less salts. So it's not silly.
Lots of small cuts can add up. in your example, it's 10% less.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, on 1200 you'd be bedridden in no time. 1900/male is actually a bit low, too... to retain current body weight at the BMR one would have to rest all day and couldn't do anything. Just to sit in a chair and browse facebook you need quite more than that.
Someone had to do it.
Why are you going to eat 20,000 calories?
What is it about your habits that cause things to go horribly wrong?
For some people, it's eating carbs. For other people, it's eating cheap American bread in particular. If you know what your triggers are then you can avoid them.
The idea isn't to follow any particular brand of orthodoxy but to find something that works for you personally and is something you can stand.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Actually, your stool will firm up on a carb restricted diet. People who do that, and are sensitive to digestive issues, have to make sure they get enough fiber to keep everything moving.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
processing often removes roughage which helps the digestive tract.
Or hurts it, if you're one of the one in ten people with irritable bowel syndrome.
Someone had to do it.
Maybe they should have interviewed the people who died.
If you eat 1,000 calories in a candy bar, you will get fatter.
If you eat 1,000 calories in white rice, you will get fatter.
If you eat 1,000 calories of salmon, prime rib, chicken, etc you will not gain weight. Your body has nothing to store in your fat cells.
False, and ridiculous.
You need to specify total calories. If those are all your daily calories, you will lose weight even if you just sat around.
You post, and others like it, are why there is some much confusion. You using stupid simple and comparison that aren't valid in any meaningful way.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From the article:
“But it’s probably overly simplistic to say that everyone should go on a low-protein diet at this point.” Among the many caveats, for example, is that the mouse study used a single strain, though different strains can have different reactions to diets such as calorie restriction. Kaeberlein also thinks it’s unlikely that reduced protein alone explains the dramatic impact of calorie restriction on lifespan.
Mice strain can have a huge impact on the results.
http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/... http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/...
We have made permanent adjustments for the entire household. We ALL avoid certain practices and triggers. We do this because a member of the household has this Atkins dietary type. We do this so that shared meals don't become an act of active sabotage for this person.
The idea of a diet is a strange thing. You take up some good habits for awhle and then flush them. Ultimately you should be seeking permanent lifestyle changes.
Chasing any fad on a temporary basis is likely to yield temporary results.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Empty carbs.... you do know that Atkins died young?
Where does this meme I keep reading about how Atkins' diet killed him come from? He died at 72 from surgical compilcations after a head trauma sustained by slipping on icy pavement.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Yes, but they also have fiber which moderate any spike.
"Anything you can order "caramelized" (like, say, onions) is bad."
no it isn't. Please stop with the nonsense.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As a meat eater, you miss out on most veggie dishes because you aren't looking for them. Again, I am missing nothing but the health problems.
Meat-Eater: Carnivore
Plant-Eater: Herbivore
Eater of both: Omnivore.
As an omnivore I most likely get a better variety of veggies than you do, because I don't have to overload on certain types of veggies to make up for the lack of meat.
And you're not avoiding any health problems because meat doesn't cause health problems. You get health problems by improperly preparing your food, that goes for both meat and veggies, and by eating too much and not getting enough exercise.
Humans are, by nature, omnivores. To argue otherwise is simply a display of ignorance of biology.
If you come off a diet then it's not really the diet's fault, is it?
Depends on the physiological affects of the diet on your mental/CNS health, and consequent psychological conditions.
Blame is generally an unproductive endeavor when messing with anything that alters metabolism.
Someone had to do it.
Please stop comparing the media report of these things as the science. The media will find 1 study that they think sells and then hype it up as scientist say blarg.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Crust, tomato sauce and cheese. And mushrooms. And, believe it or not, sauerkraut. Local place had that on the menu, tried it as a joke, joke was on me. Delicious. My lady, who is much more of a meat eater than I am, has it as canadian bacon rounds with sauerkraut. But me, I like the meat free version better anyway.
Pizza -- for as long as this fad lasts, I can pretend it's the perfect food. Yay!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The great thing about diets is there are so many to pick from.
Just like standards.
The goal is to make you eat less, anyways. So since you need to feel miserable about the food to eat less, every individual needs a different "diet" to make them miserable about food, therefore coincidentally resulting in them having less an appetite and therefore lowering their food intake ------ that's the real secret to diet effectiveness, low food-esteem.
You like fatty foods such as fried food, nuts, potato chips, and ice cream? No problem! We have a fat-free meat and fruit diet designed just for you, so you can feel less excited about food in the name of improving your health!
You really like sandwiches, especially peanut butter and jelly with a glass of milk? No problem! We have a carb-free gluten-free , dairy-free diet plan that is sure to make you miserable in the name of improving your health!
Your favorite food is the hamburger, and you love yourself a good steak? No problem; we've got a high-carb vegan diet to make you miserable in the name of improving your health!
Your favorite foods are apple pie and steamed broccoli? No problem; we have a high-fat high-protein no-fruit diet designed to make you miserable in the name of improving your health!
Until one considers the animals being eaten. That's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
Then again, most vegetarians are blissfully unaware of the death toll in every field of vegetables at harvest time. Only look in the tracks of the harvesting machinery if you have a strong stomach. And seriously, to everyone: wash your veggies well with non-toxics before you cook them.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"The story is about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet"
Hummm... nope.
It is about a low-protein diet, not a vegetarian one.
Try to be more attentive and think before you speak.
These types of studies are everywhere you look. There is only one consensus among them:
One size does not fit all.
These types of studies are a waste of time and resources. They are looking for something that does not exist.
The way to achieve progress is creating methodologies for individuals to use to understand what suits them as an individual, and designing and distributing tools to give them access to additional data to help them do so. This will lead to much larger strides in fighting poor health.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
No. Those numbers are derived from averages. There are metabolisms that operate at both extremes as well. There's a predictable distribution of metabolic rates. Some folks are fine on 1200/day. Also, some people can eat a lot more calories than the average person and not gain any weight; body simply refuses to metabolize more than it needs and out it goes. All this before the variables of exercise, ambient temps, clothing, etc.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Twin doctors, one eats nothing but fats and the other eats nothing but carbs, for a month. They document it, they work out, they do tests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...
The result (spoiler alert), either is not great. Eating only fat cannibalizes your muscles, and makes you not get any enjoyment out of food. Whereas eating only carbs makes you feel hungrier all the time.
But their conclusion had a twist, the main problem is processed foods that have a 50/50 mix of fat and carbs. An excellent example is whipped cream. Your body would reject you drinking pure cream, and also pure sugar. But mix them together, and you cant stop eating it! Same with many of our favourite foods, ice cream, doughnuts. All have the 50/50 mix that vendors long ago realized was the most addictive mix. Your body basically never gets the signal to stop eating.
Anyone who is interested should check it out.
http://kickass.to/usearch/hori...
-
That's good, since it was made up by a guy using late 1800's assumptions, Wilbur Olin Atwater. We've moved on a bit; we actually understand a bit about body chemistry and metabolism now. Best thing to do with the original food pyramid is set it on fire and grill some steaks with it. There's a more recent version though that may be a little more trustworthy.
PS -- this is worth spending some time researching for your own benefit (and household, etc.) I just found a couple of representative links that didn't, as far as I could tell at a quick glance, actually promote craziness. Watch out for old info.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He did slip on ice, he did spent nine days in intensive care.
He was an obese 71 year old with cardiomyopathy. Somebody dying from complications from a head injury does not mean he didn't have heart issues, only that he did not die from it.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
"may" is the key word
Anecdotal evidence/I feel like bragging on the internet. I eat what I like, (high fat, high carb, all fast food, literally anything goes) and maintain ~80kg (181cm height) with minimal exercise (15 minutes cycling per week and 20 pressups+situps every morning). I'm 25, situation has been pretty stable since 17-18. More exercise and high-protein/low-carb and I can bulk muscle and lose body-fat pretty quickly. The point I'm trying to make is I think the variation in an indvidual's metabolism (and/or natural genetic body/shape/size) and amount of exercise play a much larger role in body-shapelifespan than carb/protein/fat proportions (assuming you're recieving all 3 in amounts between zero and insane).
nonsense that "One" way of eating is going to be appropriate for all.
Look up "Blood Type Food List" and follow the D'Adamo information. After 10 years of working with my family and others and watching the lists evolve and get more refined... There's no other way to choose food that makes sense.
You can easily pull up images of him as an old man prior to the accident. As subjective as name calling is he is as far from obese as can be.
No it wasn't. The person I responded to made a statement to the effect that you can't enjoy life and eat healthy, I merely explained why he felt that way. There was absolutely no snark or smugness felt or expressed by me.
Where do the overwhelming majority of people get their protein? That's right, meat. Try again.
> trying to explain
LOL. You were trying to provide a hypothesis, nothing more.
The point that I was making is that it's silly to cut out 150 calories when the rest your meal is still like 1500 calories.
From what I've read, most studies have found that people on low-carb diets tend to eat far fewer calories, even if they aren't aiming to do so.
If you give me a can full of cookies, I could probably eat them all in the course of a TV show.
If you give me a bowl full of bacon, I'm going to get tired after a few slices. People just don't go nuts for meat/fat the way they do for sugar/flour/etc.
When I switched to a low-carb diet I also found that eating didn't really provide the same sense of satisfaction. Initially that caused me to eat more in search of it, but I'd basically get tired of it and really not feel like eating, and I eventually learned not to eat for the sense of satisfaction in the first place. It felt like deconditioning. If you take somebody trained in a skinner box and then stop giving them rewards, pretty soon they no longer feel compelled to perform the trained behavior.
Ketosis and all that may have something to do with it, but I think that the low carb diet just makes it easier to eat a lot less.
Unfortunately there is a big selection bias with this, as the vegetarians that don't give a crap what you eat won't say anything. And of course, if someone never lets you know they are a vegetarian, you'll never hear of vegetarians that don't let you know. Then there are the types that think all vegetarians are preachy, because when they ask someone why they don't want to try some meat dish, they flip out and insist the vegetarian was getting preachy when all they said was, "No thank you," and, "I'm a vegetarian," in response to a direct question.
If you read the paper the reason is that mice eat to sate their appetite for protein, so on a high protein diet they eat much less and end up underweight and have a shorter lifespan. As we have invented the Big Mac, Fries and Coke, being under weight is not the main problem in Western nation. The causes for our lifestyle problems remain a lack of exercise combined with too much, and a poor balance of fats, and possibly too much fructose.
The interviews also suggest that a low carb diet is not healthier in the long-term, even if reduces body fat. Which is what most nutritionists have been saying for 30 years.
You should be the one who should start thinking before you open your trap. Protein != meat. If it were so, the article would have stated it more precisely.
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Bullshit. Look at the actual science. Endocrinologists can tell you how your body processes nutrients based on hormones. Hormones COMPLETELY control fat storage and use. Diet dramatically affects hormone secretion. As one put it: "Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage"
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Nowhere did i find on TFA about your "vast majority of people". Try again.
> militant vegetarians (which always struck me as an oxymoron, but never mind...)
You're aware that Hitler, Pol Pot, Charles Manson to name a few were/are vegetarians ?
Offopic I know, but you sound like u'r saying vegetarians are "better" than non-vegetarians.. Hitler and the others probably thought the same thing. My friends, all meat eaters are all wonderful people. Please stop spreading BS how eating meat makes you militant/violent more than if you eat weed.
I personally am allergic to vegetarians and they are the only bunch actually that I have desire to hurt. Not because they eat weed but because they behave like assholes. Every time somebody mentions vegetarianism they start saying things that in between the lines that mean how they more evolved and BS like that.. and the truth is, they just expressing their belief system.
It's like listening to those f-ing people that walk around and are trying to convert you to their religion. Keep your beliefs for yourself please.
Vile weed !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
In what world is 72 considered young? Cause it sure isn't this one, grinder.
So, would you rather have a tasty diet and live till 88, or eat the same tasty diet, just more of it, and die at 68?
Two lines before you just chided someone for making a false dichotomy between eating reasonable and shoving crap down their throat...
Not to put words in the previous poster's mouth, but you can make essentially the same argument without talking about shoving food down your mouth. Research is suggesting that restricting calorie intake to the point it affects your metabolism and ability to be active can still result in a longer lifespan. In that case, the choice is between eating "reasonable" and eating uncomfortably low amounts of food for a modest gain in life span at the cost of quality of life.
You can eat a tasty and balanced and varied diet on 1900 calories a day.
So, would you rather have a tasty diet and live till 88, or eat the same tasty diet, just more of it, and die at 68?
This is not the answer you would like, but I'll take 68 over 88 any day of the week
My experience in my family and relatives has been that while we are really good at extending life, it's all on the wrong end of the lifespan. I've seen too many relatives who once would have made it to maybe 70, and now spend their last 15 years as demented zombies, kept alive by the miracles of modern medicine. They have low cholesterol, low blood pressure, and are having their savings, retirement ans SS checks going ot the nursing home, while they luxuriate in their Depends, catheters, and whatever experimental meds they give to Alzheimer's patients to keep them alive in order to extract those last pennies. Seriously undignified and unnaturally drawn out. THere are fates worse than dying.
People in America get portions far larger then they need. People get used to over eating, so when they get a properly portioned meal they feel hungry, even though rationally they have enough.
While I don't disagree with you that Americans overeat, the concept of getting people to eat less in times of plenty is going to be difficult to achieve. And the slovenly Americans are not the only people with an overeating problem.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm just about full carnivore so whatever meat you guys are trying to avoid I'll take. The drop in demand should drop the prices as well. How old do you really want to live to? At some point it becomes hell.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Cite for a vegetarian diet being more healthy than one that also includes fish or a small amount of any other meat, if you please.
Looks like you're reading what you like into something that somebody else wrote. The short version is: you're an idiot.
If only you had some idea of what you were talking about, rather than bringing that shit up. Learn the topic, and you'll understand exactly what happened, rather than being an example of "It's better to keep silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and confirm it.".
But it is the calories. Eating 20,000 calories from protein is still going to make you gain weight.
I gained a pound reading your 20 KiloCalorie analogy.
The issue I always had with the starchy carbs was that after a short time, I'd be hungry again. A bowl of oatmeal at 0730, and my stomach was grumbling at 1000.
Carbs like lettuce, broccoli, and proteins left me feeling full for hours. Overall though, I did eat more calories, yet lost weight.
So in the end, while on a low starchy carb diet, I tended to eat less, because I wasn't hungry soon after the last meal. My downfall was the same every time. Going home for the Holidays. My family wa like teh original foodies, and it just wasn't easy to refuse food (Eastern European family, and refusing food is a breach of etiquette) So it wa always a matter of getting back on the wagon, and controlling the appetite again.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I eat dirt. Your diet is a subset of mine! Exclamation mark.
"What health problems? My health is probably better than yours."
Is "Internet Healthy Guy" a new variation on "Internet Tough Guy"?
"My blood pressure could kick your blood pressure's ass!"
Fair enough that Atkins wasn't killed by his diet, still, fact: he died young.
I was basically hitting back at "Empty carbs" - just about as meaningful and true as "Don't eat fat, it makes you fat..." Carbs are one of the three basic common forms of food energy - just because calories come from carbs doesn't make them "empty," but that's the anti-carb mantra.
I will go for the "processed foods are evil" thing, though. My wife struggles with weight gain, she started "Paleo" recently, which totally abandons processed foods, among other things... it also involves lots of grilled meat and bacon, which I approve of - she dropped 10 pounds in a couple of weeks and has kept them off while still consuming the same total calories as she did before the diet...
But arguing "humans are omnivores, therefore the healthiest diet includes a significant amount of meat" makes as much sense as saying you need to eat lots of grubs and other insects too. After all, we ate a lot of those back in the day). A vegetarian or vegan can get as much as they want of any essential amino acid from supplements if they like.
I'm living proof the Pop Tart diet works.
> Empty carbs.... you do know that Atkins died young?
Just to set the record straight, Atkins died at 72 years old of a massive trauma to the head after he slipped and fell on the ice. His heart problem was caused by an infection, not his diet. Oh wait, I guess all the Atkins haters want to ignore that inconvenient fact.
Fair enough that Atkins wasn't killed by his diet, still, fact: he died young.
Seventy-two isn't young. It's rather close to the life expectancy in the US, IIRC. And more to the point: it doesn't fucking matter if he died young, considering his death had zero relation to his diet.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
As a lifelong vegetarian, I'm not missing out on anything [...]
Bacon.
'nuff said.
Actually, on a more philosophical note, how can you--as someone who has never eaten meat--say that you're not missing out on anything? I could say, "I've never been to Europe, but I'm not missing out on anything" because I have no idea what interesting things might be in Europe because I've never been there.
The point is, none of the funding bodies wants to pay the extremely large sums required for *real* nutritional science, so researchers make do with lots of observational studies and a lot of data massaging that will get treated as SCIENCE by an uncritical and generally scientifically-illiterate press, and by not rocking the boat by coming out with articles that challenge the status quo, they're able to continue to receive funding.
You can't legitimately claim a vegetarian diet can be as varied as an omnivorous one can be. Your vegetarian diet is a strict subset of mine. Full stop.
You can't legitimately claim a noncoprophagic diet can be as varied as a coprophagic diet can be. Your diet is a strict subset of a coprophage's diet. Full stop.
Go ahead, smoke the dope! Just don't come crying to me when this happens!
Yes but what is actually tweaking hormones? Perhaps it's the stomach bacteria itself.
Now I might get no positive karma like this and treated like a homeopath, but I predict that the future of dieting will be gut bacteria transplants, and then you will "crave" foods that are good for you. The correct bacteria will tweak your hormones and you will not be addicted to alcohol, or sugar, or chocolate -- no more blaming people for being "weak", no more fatty jokes, no more diet plans for the stars.
The bacteria that live inside us have had millions of generations to tweak our compulsions -- and they release the endorphins to reward us for sugar, fat, salt and meat.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Not to mention, as an omnivore, you have the energy and muscle mass to outrun your prey and predators, quickly repair damage to your body, find and forage for a wider variety of food, and eat fresh food in the middle of the winter.
That's stupid. Everybody knows that animals are just clusters of cells. There is no ethical dilemma in eating them.
In light of what's presented here, perhaps Richard Stallman should stop eating stuff off his foot.
I had high triglycerides and was looking at diabetes sneaking up on me. My doctor warned me not to go on an atkins like diet because he said it would be like eating pure tryglycerides. So I waited a year. I finally went on it and lost a tonne of wait. My triglycerides and blood pressure fell like a rock. And, best of all, it's a diet you can maintain indefinitely without a lot of mental discipline over ruling your body.
It turns out that losing weight is part of the reason. But atkins-related research has shown that triglycerides are a by-product of production of other things your body produces from fats. If you don't eat the fat, the body synthesizes the pre-curorsors it needs on another channel that produces even more triglycerides. At least that is one of the theories. As with any diet science it isn't nailed down. But at least for now it explains the paradoxical but well established observation that atkins like diets can be very heart and diabetes freindly.
Anyhow I believe in it as a way to get heathy. It's a will power break through. Ive gone off of it because no matter what I've seen or been told, I still can't believe a sausage can be any good for me over the long term. So I delberately go off once I get my weight and health where I want it. I don't crave to go off, but I consciously make the decision that I'd rather eat more balanced than stay skinny. So When I go off my weight climbs after a while I start to crave larger portions at dinner and it snow balls. And then I plan to go back on when my weigh gets back to unhealthy levels.
For me it is so relaxing to know that when I need to I can control my weight using that approach.
Hummm... nope. It is about a low-protein diet, not a vegetarian one.
Try to be more attentive and think before you speak.
I presume you only read the summary?
The actual study found that animal protein promotes mortality, while plant protein does not.
The study is linked up there at the top of the page, in case you want to read it.
"opposite of what's urged by many human diet plans, including the popular Atkins Diet"
Even Atkins followers seem to forget that it's not protein but FAT that is important in their diet. He clearly advised that excess protein will cause glucose to be created in your body and counteract the purpose of the diet.
...omphaloskepsis often...
There's a huge misconception about what the Mediterranean diet is and why it allegedly works. When they say Mediterranean , they mean Crete. Lionised by Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study for their longevity, which Keys attributed solely to their ‘Mediterranean’ diet, the Cretans also observed religious fasting during many weeks of the year. Intermittent fasting can counteract lots of bad dietary choices.
That's exactly the point. You can't miss something you've never had.
Protein != meat. If it were so, the article would have stated it more precisely.
From the study:
When the percent calories from animal protein was controlled for, the association between total protein and all-cause or cancer mortality was eliminated or significantly reduced, respectively, suggesting animal proteins are responsible for a significant portion of these relationships. When we controlled for the effect of plant-based protein, there was no change in the association between protein intake and mortality, indicating that high levels of animal proteins promote mortality
How much more precisely do you want them to state it?
You're not a vegetarian, you're an omnivore who has chosen to avoid meats.
Umm... that actually seems like a pretty good definition of vegetarian.
Want to know if someone eats meat? Just wait they'll tell you.
You do know that the "food pyramid" was "shaped" by industry lobbyists don't you? It's why we had that wretched "grains" as the huge base a while ago. Now it's vertical striped so each group can get it's due. You can however throw out the dairy column as you can live your whole live after the first few months without dairy.
If we look at the Paleo diet (the one humans had for a long time), then fruits, nuts and occasional meat -- that's what we are designed for. Grains are "nice" but the Corn, Soy and Wheat we have today is so toxic with Gluten and other formations that it's hardly a "health food" though if you eat it moderately and exercise -- it should be OK for most (but not all) people. Veggies are also a good addition.
So it should be fruit, nuts, beans, veggies -- and maybe Meat. The rest is market driven nonsense.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I'm 46.
I've seen so many radical reversals as far as what's healthy to eat, what's not, that frankly NOTHING "the experts" say about diet today is credible.
I follow a pretty simple set of guidelines:
- don't over eat
- eat food as close to its natural form as you can: sugar, not 'sweetener'; eggs, not "egg product"
- fewer names is better. "Coke" instead of "Caffeine Free Diet Vanilla Coke with Lemon".
-Styopa
Fish is meat.
Right, right. For instance, you, as an animal, would probably be excellent with some good barbecue sauce. No need to be concerned about about your opinion of the matter, or your feelings consequent to your demise, or the impact on anything that might depend upon you.
And I have just the place on my wall to mount your severed head once the taxidermist is done with it. I've got this great hat I want to top you off with.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
First hand experience.
Low Fat, High Carb...okay...
Started here. Diabetes. Weight gain. Heart disease. So go high fat, low carb.
Low Carb, High Fat...great...
High cholesterol, gout, strain on liver and kidney, heart disease. Headaches. Tired at midday.
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Malnutrition. Heaches. Feel like a grandfather. Can't function.
Very few people are disciplined about eating for their whole lives. Stop blaming the patient and expecting human beings to last to age 100 disease free. Our bodies aren't built for it. Ironically these medical professionals are stressing people out and detracting from their quality of life so much it's probably shortening their lifespans.
Knew a girl who got right into excercise and lost about 60kg. She got fit. She stuck with it. She's now got terminal cancer.
By the way enjoy your weight loss. Stats show it's probably temporary. People who's bodies gain weight easily have trouble keeping it off long term. For most eventually illness or injury get them or they simply age and slow down. Why do you think weight gain or loss is extremely unsuccessful long term. Insurers have known that for a very long time - if you have gained or lost a lot of weight in the last few years they'll raise your premiums through the roof.
Thank you.
One of my favourite things is being told what the Atkins diet is by people who haven't read the book but might have observed someone eating pork rinds for lunch who is "doing atkins."
In his book Atkins urges readers to eat their vegetables with a emphasis on leafy greens. If you don't know that then either read his book for yourself or go back to watching the big bang theory and leave me alone.
As to Atkins' death, LMGTFY: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atkins+de...
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://www.snopes.com/medical/...
Wine, fruit & vegetable, leguminous (cheas pea, etc.) and meat once in a will
Well, it's fun that someone study it, maybe we will understand the french paradoxe
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
What kind of animal? You know, there is a significant difference between eating mammals vs eating fish. I highly doubt that it is at all possible for vegetarian diet to be healthier than one that includes fish.
Science 101
If your blood has too much sugar it will turn it into fat. Does it matter where I came from?
http://saveie6.com/
Not all species are created equal. I.e. human vs non-human (aka sub-human).
Why do I need to care about the feeling of non-humans - if such a thing is even proven to exists?
Yeah. Just like someone who's never gone to school absolutely must not be missing out on education.
Except that there is more or less *NO* difference in two groups of people eating 2500 kcal a day if one group eats 10% protein and the other eats 25% protein. The Endocrinologists migh know what happens at an isolated scale but *all* studies where you measure calorie in minus calorie out shows similar responses in body fat over time no matter what diet the subjects are on. So it's clear that while they might know how insulin stores fat in a person with high insulin there is also another mechanism for storing fat when insulin production is low.
My grandparents, all four of them 80+, live by themselves at their homes (that would be two homes to be exact) without any helpers (some relatives do live near by). One of them does have Alzheimer's, which the meds keep in check rather well. There are better and worse days. Only one of them drives a car though, which perhaps is undignified and unnaturally drawn out to some.
As a data point, none of them are obese. The one with the Alzheimer's really loves sugar though. (And slightly worryingly I seem to have inherited this trait)
So, equality is your basis for eat or don't eat? Excellent. Because not all humans are created equal, either, as is quite evident by your comment. So, barbecue sauce, or a nice sweet glaze for you. Can't decide. Are you muscular, or more on the well padded side?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not smoking, drinkin and not having beacon and eggs, can you call this life?
Sorry. he was not even remotely obese. Cite maybe?
On average, people gain weight over long stretches of time. This will be along the lines of a kilogram per year. In pure fat, that's about 7000 Kilocalories.
That comes down to an average exces of 19 Kal (19,178 if you want to be pedantic) daily. Our bodies are pretty good in figuring out how much food they want, but there are factors pushing is slightly over the edge, calorie-wise. So yes, if you cut out just 20 calories per day over a year, you're looking at a weight loss (or decrease of weight gain) of a kilogram yearly.
So yes, being penny wise actually pays of in diets. In fact, trying to be pound wise by cutting out entire dietary groups and radically changing the diet might be efficient but in practicality, it's insanely hard to do and keep going. Little changes are easiest to build into behaviour, so if people skip a bun on a hamburger once a week, I'd call that progress.
But this is all overly senseless optimization. I've been steadily losing weight over the last few months doing the following:
- Cycle to work
- Count my calories (It's easy with apps, and it gives insight)
- Try to eat slightly under or up to my daily caloric needs
- Eat less calorie-dense food. But when I do it, It's in my caloric budget and I'll have the full-on sugar-and-fat-500-calories-per-100-grammes-yes-please-version because I want to eat it. But it's not my standard go-to fare. It's a treat and as such has a place in a healthy diet.
Some one who have kidney trouble often eat foods like that...low protein, high calorie=much carbonhydrate
You're welcome to live a life without cheese, don't ask for any of my caprese though.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
They value security far more than liberty.
Now I might get no positive karma like this and treated like a homeopath, but I predict that the future of dieting will be gut bacteria transplants, and then you will "crave" foods that are good for you.
You (the global you) probably already do that. Problem is, you're too busy feeding addictions to even notice.
They're already doing poop transplants, with great success...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If we look at the Paleo diet (the one humans had for a long time), then fruits, nuts and occasional meat -- that's what we are designed for.
Stop saying that. We weren't designed at all.
Veggies are also a good addition.
Yeah, if you look at the diet humans had for a long time, it includes vegetables, because they're just lying around.
So it should be fruit, nuts, beans, veggies -- and maybe Meat. The rest is market driven nonsense.
Congratulations on your market driven nonsense. Eat your vegetables.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Except for all the statistical studies that show longer lifespans and better health.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Let those prisoners on life sentence try the low protein diet and see how long they can last :)
Out of my mind. Back in 5 mins.
I'd second this. Since becoming vegan my menu has expanded dramatically. Technically the set of veg foods is a subset of (meat + veg foods). That's simple math, but the set of all things veg-people eat is quite large larger than the typical non-veg people. For instance at this time on any week I usually eat many servings of at least15 different kinds of fruit, and so on with pulses and vegetables and roots and seaweeds and greens and things.
Pescatarian diets are generally grouped with the vegetarian diets when considering health.
Not exactly. Typically, meat means the flesh of a mammal or bird. Every shop/restaurant I've been in has quite clearly separated meat and fish (except for the obvious surf'n'turf meals). After all, you wouldn't say "meat is fish" would you?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Interesting thing, looking at Levine & al's data, is that they hype "interactions" between age and diet, which leads to low protein diet "extending lifespan" esp by cancer in their younger cohort, but increasing cancer mortality in their older cohort. Meanwhile, they ignore that low protein diet reduces diabetes mortality uniformly across age groups
I think a better interpretation of that study would be "high protein diets, which are known to facilitate cell growth, also facilitate tumor growth." Somehow, that doesn't sound quite as exciting.
Well, no. How exactly do proteins metabolize into triglycerids in the body?
You'd probably poop out 40-60% of that protein amount.
some time ago watched a debate between two scientists on youtube. one was claiming that hi fat, low carb is the way to go, other was claiming the exact opposite.
both of them has lots of research behind it to support the idea.
and now what?
no really, how do I decide which one was right? or was BOTH of them right? you know, no matter what you eat, all food have its negative effects?
btw right now I'm on sugar-free (more than year), gluten-free (month or two) diet. I have lost a lot of weight and will see if the glutenfree will have some effect on my eczema, allergies...
There was an interesting BBC Horizon documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h/) on food a couple of weeks ago that tried having a pair of twins go on high fat or high sugar diets for a month. The really interesting part was at the end of the show where they discovered that the very worst foods were ones with a 50/50 fat/sugar ratio. Apparently, fat and carbohydrates aren't found together in nature, so our bodies are tricked by that combination into finding it irresistible.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
That seems to be a bit of a non sequitor, but I reckon you came from your mom. Probably from the USA if I had to guess a region.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Nope. Onions are mainly carbohydrate (like most vegetables) and have a host of useful nutrients.
Onions can help to reduce inflammation; they're high in chromium (helps to regulate blood sugar); raw onions promote HDL cholesterol production and they contain a variety of organic sulphur compounds.
The only times you should be avoiding onions is if you're going on a hot date; it's a raw onion that has been sliced and kept around for a while or you're a dog (they cannot metabolise onions and it'll generally kill them).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I'm not a fan of Atkins, but you're bang on the money about temporary diets.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Know how to find out if someone can talk? Just wait, they'll tell you.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Not true. Protein is converted to glucose in the absence of dietary carbohydrate intake, so you would still gain some weight consuming large quantities of protein.
So, would you rather have a tasty diet and live till 88, or eat the same tasty diet, just more of it, and die at 68?
This is not the answer you would like, but I'll take 68 over 88 any day of the week
Calorie restriction does a good job of extending lifespan in worms, mice and rats maintained on high-growth feed, but studies in any larger animals (including humans) don't seem to bear that out. You definitely shouldn't expect to get 30% increase in lifespan from 40% calorie restriction. Most of the strictly calorie-dependent health improvement you'll see comes from cutting back from 2600 to 1900.
In fact, while high BMI is a risk factor for developing certain diseases, once you get sick, high BMI actually decreases mortality (see, eg: http://www.nature.com/ki/journ... ).
Not necessarily true
A diet with near zero fruits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet) works even better than Mediterranean diet.
The study also says nothing about bread,grains and pasta. Also note that Mice, one of the test subjects, don't fit well in the fruitarian diet.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Actually, the corn-fed meat that the average American is eating doesn't have much flavor on its own. It's all in the seasonings. Put those same seasonings on a veggie dish and it tastes the same.
(Meat fed a natural-to-them diet does have distinct flavors, though.)
You're not a vegetarian, you're an omnivore who has chosen to avoid meats.
Uh, you just defined what a vegetarian is. He isn't claiming to be a herbivore.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I've already posted about the BBC documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h%5C) but it was quite interesting to see the effects on twins of low carb vs low fat diets.
Surprisingly, the twin on the low-carb diet demonstrated problems with both mental and physical performance. The mental performance was essentially day-trading stocks (Which neither twin had experience of) and the physical performance involved cycling. Although your body can burn fat to produce energy, it doesn't do it quickly enough for hard exercise, so you end up burning muscle mass instead which is typically the opposite effect that you want from exercise.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Not exactly. Typically, meat means the flesh of a mammal or bird. Every shop/restaurant I've been in has quite clearly separated meat and fish (except for the obvious surf'n'turf meals). After all, you wouldn't say "meat is fish" would you?
Fish is most definitely meat. Meat means the flesh of an animal. Some vegetarians are okay with eating fish though, and they are called pescetarians. Just because restaurants often put them in a different section doesn't mean it isn't meat. Many menus do the same thing to their steak section as well.
And what is that crap about you not saying "meat is fish"? I wouldn't say "meat is steak" or "meat is pork" either. This is just because fish, steak, pork, etc. are all subsets of meat. I wouldn't say "cars are hondas" either.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Sorry, the link should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h/
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
He only slipped as he was trying to avoid some sugar that someone had dropped.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
That must be true!
Of course this is Agenda 21 food control propaganda with a little police state and PETA peppered in.
They want o feed use soylent green and pig feed while they enjoy steaks and sushi.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
I'd like to argue this point further, but you're just wrong. Fish is a different category to meat. You are confusing meat (flesh of a mammal or bird) and fish (flesh of a fish) or seafood (flesh of a fish or shellfish). The word you are looking for is "flesh". Fish is flesh and meat is flesh, but fish is not meat and meat is not fish.
I'd draw you a Venn diagram, but I can't draw.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I challenge u to try and get any type of strength or performance gains on a low protein diet... No thanks... #proudMuscleNerd
You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Wait, the WW2 self-rationing propaganda? You actually believe that was backed by science? It's been tweaked a bit since many of the old claims have been severely disproven, but the core dogmas have not been corrected.
Fully understood that. But it still works because it depends on you being malnourished on Carbs. It's NOT balanced.
People that want to loose wight, need to concentrate on having a balanced diet while lowering their calorie intake and/or increasing their calorie needs (i.e. exercise). To cut calories you can eat less, or change the mix of what you eat by removing high calorie foods and replacing them with lower calorie options, your choice. Increasing your calorie needs is easy too, EXERCISE and strength training both work great and I would recommend both if you are capable. Exercise has other benefits, it improves health and sleep.
Adkins simply defies logic, yes it works, but for reasons that are not directly obvious. You should shy away from any diet that defies logic. Usually they either don't work or are dangerous (and in may cases are both.) Exercise and reduce calories if you need to loose weight.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This will probably get lost in the noise, but, the monks on Mount Athos follow a vegetarian diet that contains no animal protein, apart from the occasional fish. There is plenty of plant protein, and the carbs they eat are typically found in fruits and vegetables. They don't eat a lot of bread, rice and pasta. They tend to live long, healthy lives. There is more to it than just the diet, however. Their lives are ordered, unhurried, with little stress, and plenty of mild exercise.
Proverbs 21:19
The low fat/protein/carb diets all have one thing in common, low calories. If you are sedentary you're going to be a fat fuck no matter how many fucking calories you eat. The whole "basal metabolic rate" myth is spread by dietitians that don't know their fucking asses from a hole in the ground. It is simple, calories in vs calories out. If you are a fat fuck then don't eat any calories. If you die from starvation then you really had weak genes to begin with. Humans have historically ate little calories while maintaining muscle mass and energy levels. Today fat fucks don't do anything but consume more fucking calories every fucking day while others starve to death. So if you fat fucks all fucking die from fucking starvation then you fat fucks deserve it and good fucking bye.
Unfortunately for your argument, fat is not metabolized into fat like carbs are. Excess fat will be excreted in your feces, whereas excess carbs pretty much all get metabolized into sugar which your body then converts to glycogen and fat. So you are actually better off not eating the bun.
The fact that it would be bad for her income stream is fairly obvious. Knowing that it follows that she would try to protect that income by promoting stories friendlier to it.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I'd like to argue this point further, but you're just wrong. Fish is a different category to meat.
There are sub-definitions of "meat" that do no include fish, just as there are sub-definitions of meat that include fruit. The word "meat" can even be used to describe non-food items.
But the standard Merriam-Webster definition of Meat is "the flesh of an animal used as food".
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Okay, can you point me to some products that are described as meat and yet contain primarily fish? If you bought "meatballs" and found that they were made out of tuna, I imagine that you would be both surprised and shocked.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
A strictly vegetarian diet can be very healthy as long as you get the occasional insect larvae in with your grains. I read of a vegetarian society that was very healthy for a long time. When they changed the way they stored their grain with much more effective cleanliness with their food supply they started having a large outbreak of illness through the population. It was traced down to the insect larvae they were eating. Certain vitamins are very hard to get from a very strict vegetarian diet.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Genetics give three different types of insulin response to carbohydrate intake: low, medium, high. They are roughly (warning: 30+ year old data) 25, 50, and 25%. Diabetics (again, 30+ year old data, and incomplete/initial when it was taken) (insulin resistance, not pancreatic failure) correspond only to the high insulin response.
Any attempt to document the response of food/diet to population results that fails to account for which type of insulin response you are testing on is a fail. Basic, simple, first step of peer review fail.
When I see articles like this (and I read the article), I can only think that a non-peer reviewed preliminary study is getting as much press coverage as should go to well-established, peer-reviewed, properly control-tested studies.
Essentially:
1. Different levels of insulin response will have different effects on body behavior, as well as survivability in times of famine.
2. Low insulin response basically makes it impossible for your body to have the same behavior as high insulin response
3. Diets that are healthy for high insulin response is probably good for everyone, but low insulin response can safely eat things that high insulin response cannot.
4. High insulin response means a bigger store of fat, and survival through times of food scarcity.
None of that was addressed by this, or even most of the food studies that get lots of media attention. It's almost as if the people covering the news have no knowledge of what they are covering.
Oh, wait, what did I just say?
Seriously, people. Just skip the processed food, eat mostly plants, and get a little exercise. Forget all the stupid diet crap and just be sensible about what you eat and how much of it.
"lots of carbohydrates" doesn't mean "lots of bread, grains and pasta" - fruits and vegetables are a source of carbohydrates.
But what about donuts? Mmmmmmmmm... donuts.
Cutting the fat never worked for me. When I restricted carbs, after about 5 months I was in better shape than I ever have been in since puberty. I lost 45 lbs. It works, whole grains beings good for you is the biggest load of BS. It's not about calories for the most part, but the type of calories.
It probably is about the calories, just not in the way you think. Carbs have a low thermic effect (i.e. you burn less cals to process them) than either fat or protein, so gram for gram protein leaves your body less cals to use. The other problem with carbs is that they don't offer very good satiety, even whole grains will leave you hungrier, faster than protein or fat (one note: fiber does offer satiety, which is why most diets let you eat fibrous veggies for "free"). Fat doesn't have the best satiety, protein does, but fat does offer high long term satiety.
You likely lost weight because you were actually restricting cals, but you were able to do so because you were eating things that made you able to resist overeating.
So your statement, "It's not about calories for the most part, but the type of calories." is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Consider altering it to something along the lines of, "Avoiding carbs kept me from accidentally overeating, because I was more full with protein and fat". Unless you are a genetic freak, this is almost certainly what happened.
It probably didn't work because you were still getting too many calories from carbs. It's always about having the right percentage of calories from fat/carb/protein for your metabolic level.
The point that I was making is that it's silly to cut out 150 calories when the rest your meal is still like 1500 calories. It's basically a nonsense gesture so that people think they're being healthy by doing next to nothing at all.
That is a dumb statement, most rotisserie chickens are only 1600 cals if you manage to eat the entire thing (I'm not even kidding). The only way to get even a half pound burger up to those levels of cals is to pack on insane amounts of fatty/sugary condiments. The ridiculous Carl's Junior burgers you hear about do precisely this. Even if you got your half pound patty DOUBLED (that is 1 pound total), 90% lean ground beef would only ring up to just over 600 cals.
Meat just doesn't have that many cals in it. Go ahead, eat 60% of your cals today in protein, see how full you get, unless you lift weights and are used to doing this you probably cannot manage it. Even if you pick only lean meats you'll be stuffed. Pick some fatty meats and I bet you can't get over 100g of protein.
Thanks for the link. Interestingly enough that is a combination quite popular in desserts. Cheesecake, oreos, etc. Lots of fat combined with sugar.
I wonder how much of it is caused by blood sugar vs the taste of sugar (ie whether fat combined with non-caloric sweeteners has the same effect).
Actually, the corn-fed meat that the average American is eating doesn't have much flavor on its own.
So what? Most store bought vegetables don't have much flavor either.
Meat or vegetables you have to go looking for flavor. But its out there, for anyone who cares to look.
Semantics. All you've done is argue that you can't subjectively miss out on something if you haven't tried it.
You've still objectively missed out.
As a meat eater, you miss out on most veggie dishes because you aren't looking for them
That's an assumption, and its wrong. I absolutely do try new things all the time. Lately I've been eating a lot of authentic Thai and Indian dishes, many of which are vegetarian. Some time ago I tried crickets in an indian fusion restaurant... not sure if that's vegetarian friendly or not. My neighbor just brought over some Moose he brought back from a hunting trip - I expect you wouldn't eat it. I had sushi on the weekend - again no idea whether your particular brand of vegetarian will have eaten some of the dishes or not. I like a lot of mexican bean based dishes too - I'm sure you've probably tried some. But I prefer chicken thighs to breasts for the flavor but I guess you wouldn't know much about that.
Don't presume to even imagine your diet is more varied than mine.
Again, I am missing nothing but the health problems.
Being "vegetarian" doesn't automatically make you healthier. Bad diets are bad, and there is nothing unhealthy about having some meat in our diets.
Okay, can you point me to some products that are described as meat and yet contain primarily fish? If you bought "meatballs" and found that they were made out of tuna, I imagine that you would be both surprised and shocked.
How about Crab Meat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Truth is there are many places where Meat is used to just mean cow. The American Heart Administration has guidelines for Meat, Poultry, and Fish, so in this case they don't even consider chicken to be meat. But this is mostly a byproduct of Jewish traditions regarding what animals are considered clean. Since we have gained a better understanding of species differentiation, Rabbis have decided to consider chicken to be meat (even though it isn't a mammal), but fish is not. These strange religious rules are responsible for many people making a distinction between different types of animal flesh.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
In that documentary, they went out into a street with a big selection of different donuts (plain, frosted, chocolate, custard-filled) and invited people to take one. The plain one was by far the most popular and they figured out that it's because it hits the magic 50/50 ratio. If you add sugar or fat, you make it less delicious which is counter-intuitive. I don't know if there would be any difference if you changed sugar for sweeteners.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Nice try, but crab meat has to be distinguished from meat, so I'm not going to allow that one.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I plan to watch it, but did they control for the fact that plain is, well, plain?
If I offered people a choice of a plain slice of pizza, a slice of pizza with anchovies, a slice with motor oil, and a slice doused in pure capsaicin, most would probably pick the plain pizza, and it would simply mean that it is the type of pizza that isn't going to turn off anybody's tastes.
I certainly don't find plain donuts to be the best-tasting. However, what I consider best-tasting and what somebody else considers best-tasting are likely to be different. In the aggregate, they probably sell a lot of plain donuts as a result.
You can't legitimately claim a noncoprophagic diet can be as varied as a coprophagic diet can be.
Lol, well done. I had to look up coprophage.
Your diet is a strict subset of a coprophage's diet. Full stop.
Not true.
A dung beetle's diet is exclusively coprophagic and is therefore a distinct set from my diet. It eats nothing that I eat, and I don't eat shit.
You can also have organisms that eat only vegetables and the feces of a particular animal. In which case my diet and its diet may contain some overlap, but neither is a subset of the other.
Perhaps related: there recently was a study on one symptom of aging in dogs, namely "old dog head" where they get this sunken-in-head look due to losing muscle over the skull (above the eyes).
Turns out this has nothing to do with being an old dog, and everything to do with protein deficiency -- and that old dogs need more protein than before. Feed 'em enough protein, and they'll keep their youthful muscling, and don't get "old dog skull" at all.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If you're on a carb restricted diet, you should be getting your carbs from green vegetables, not bits of sugar to supplement your steak. Anyone carb restricted and doing it right should have plenty of fiber from leafy vegetables.
Nope - they just went out with a box full of donuts and they replenished the donuts that were taken (presumably to prevent "it's the last one - must be delicious" skewing the results).
The tests on the twins also weren't the best designed tests, but with such a small sample size, you're not going to get rigorous results. However, It was surprising just how big an effect their diets had on them.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Full article indicates the human study was based on a one-time interview with participants. Even then (FTFA): "as the NHANES cohort aged, protein became more important. In the over-65 crowd, those who ate lots of protein survived longer, on average, than those who ate less."
So, sort of, maybe, but not.
My wife's 17 year old cat was frail and dying, we switched to a high-protein kibble, and now she's not only put on weight, but she's as spry as I've ever seen her.
That one anecdote is more scientific than a one-time verbal study.
You have to wonder what the point is?
Who benefits from people eating less protein and more carbs?
Snack-food marketers seem like a reasonable answer. The meme is implanted at the cost of a survey. Most people won't dig beyond the headline.
And nobody knows anyways. Eggs are bad one decade and good the next. Carbs, Protein, HFCS, Red Dye #5, Gluten, etc., and on, and on....
You are, in all likelihood, going to survive at least 50 years, and less than 80. Fuck it. Eat what you want. Look like what you want. Smoke dope. Have fun.
Ask yourself some serious questions:
1) How can old foods cause new diseases?
2) Why did diabetes, obesity, etc. skyrocket after low-card diets started being recommended?
So when in doubt, go with the old time-proven choices. They're the least likely to be influenced by marketers and sloppy science.
Exactly, they aren't. You think that person is, but they don't and all that matters is what they think, not what you think. Stop trying to be controlling and manipulative.
Empty carbs.... you do know that Atkins died young?
Carbs are where the calories are at in the American diet - kill the soda, breads, cereals, cookies, doughnuts, and other sugars (carbs), and you remove most of the impulse calories from the table.
You can get fat on nuts, steak, cheese and bacon, just consume the same calories in them as you would have in soda and doughnuts.
He died young from blunt trauma to the head, I'm pretty sure his diet had nothing to do with it.
My dog is an omnivore who engages in corprophagia. I assure you that your diet is a strict subset of his. He's not picky.
My dog is an omnivore who engages in corprophagia. I assure you that your diet is a strict subset of his. He's not picky.
Dogs aren't usually much on vegetables, and a number of human foods are pretty toxic to dogs. So our diets overlap, but neither is a strict subset of the other.
I lost 40 pounds on a bagel and hot dog diet. S'truth.
Didn't need a diet book or a weigh-in.
It would be interesting if they could have done taste tests that were a bit more controlled, like having 10 varieties of plain donuts that varied only in fat:sugar ratio, or testing many types of food.
There is a reason the word "vanilla" has become synonymous with "plain." It doesn't have anything to do with its fat:sugar ratio in comparison with any other flavor of ice cream. It is popular for the same reason that people flipping houses paint the walls white.
> So, equality is your basis for eat or don't eat?
You get my respect for being imaginative. My post was a mere response to yours saying "you need to care what these animals feel".
Your continued support of the belief that humans must be included into this discussion also never ceases to amaze. My argument (and the original cluster-of-cells post that you replied to) remain valid if you consider common sense and exclude humans from being edible.
Yes, human is a special case and it does not need an explanation.
You've got it backwards. They might not think they're missing out but they really are.
Unfortunately, the world is not as subjective as you imagine.
Agreed, but 'missing out' is not the correct way to describe it.
Most people don't feel like they're 'missing out' on eating cat meat, even when there's probably a recipe for it that would taste nice if they had it.
Agreed, but 'missing out' is not the correct way to describe it.
I don't know. I think 'missing out' is right. Its a relative norm.
Most people DON'T eat cat, so describing not eating cat as 'missing out' is probably not really 'correct' even if strictly speaking is accurate.
Most people DO eat meat, so describing not eating meat as missing out seems fair to me.
If most people do something and enjoy it and you don't, then you are 'missing out'; especially if you haven't tried it and therefore can't know you don't enjoy it, given most people do enjoy it, on the balance of probabilities, so would you, if you tried it.
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Bullshit. Look at the actual science. Endocrinologists can tell you how your body processes nutrients based on hormones. Hormones COMPLETELY control fat storage and use. Diet dramatically affects hormone secretion. As one put it: "Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage"
"Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage" is a fact. How that fact fits in an overall diet and exercise plan, and how effective that plan is over the course of lifetime, is a lot more complicated.
"Grouped together" does not mean the same.
I question the self-proclaimed superiority of vegetarians in terms of health benefits. If eating fish on top of veggies is healthier than eating only veggies, it would totally debunk the Vegetarian's claim.
I wouldn't say most people eat meat. Current stats vary a bit due to how you define vegetarian but its somewhere between 20 and 50% of the entire world eat a vegetarian diet.
It might be a cultural difference in the meaning of the words, but here "missing out" implies a desire or intention to do something that never occurred.
i.e. missing out on something is considered an unhappy event to the person missing out which isn't relevant here since vegetarians don't want to eat meat.
No, they would just move into other areas (RoundUp-Ready tomatoes anyone?). Not to mention that there are lots of other companies involved in that realm of agribusiness than Monsanto.
well the first thing is that why are you even eating a 1/2 lb burger if you're trying to lose weight? If you at something sensible like a 1/4lb burger, then ditching the bun is almost 1/2 the calories. The 2nd thing is that even if you do opt for that size, the calories from fat are only a little over 200. The entire thing is almost 400. http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-beef-ground-85-percent-lean-i23568
That depends on what you mean by "high sugar". Yes, about 1/2 of their carbs are due to sugars, but there isn't much there to begin with.. a 44 gram slice (~1/4" of an ave onion) doesn't even have 2g of sugar and only has 16 total calories. The current WHO guidelines is between 25-50g of sugar a day (lower the better), so you could easily have that onion slice, have 23g left over to work with and have a burger with a nice crunch.
This guy seems to be in good health: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Gorske
But he's not eating very much at all per day.
which isn't relevant here since vegetarians don't want to eat meat.
combines with
somewhere between 20 and 50% of the entire world eat a vegetarian diet.
to make a disingenuous statement. Most of the world that doesn't eat meat does so because they can't afford it, and thus they absolutely are 'missing out'.
Its only a tiny fraction that choose not to eat meat, and are well off enough to eat the highly varied and exotic imported vegetarian diet that allows them to remain healthy.
Actually, the 'grilled skinned chicken breast' thing is mostly protein, and is the diet the original article is whining about, isn't it? Eating the fat is good. You need the fat more than you need the protein. They are saying you should get your protein from beans and nuts instead of animals. So, eat the chicken skin, and cover it with nuts and beans. Throw away the breast.
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
He's been talking about it for years...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
"Study after study has shown that as protein consumption goes up, so does the incidence of chronic diseases. Similar studies show that the incidence of chronic diseases also goes up when carbohydrate and fat consumption go up. This is because if the consumption of any of the macronutrients exceeds our basic requirements, the excess hurts us. Americans already get too much protein (and fat and carbohydrates), and this is reflected in soaring increases in the diseases of excess--heart disease, high-blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, and numerous others.
Micronutrient deficiencies
Most Americans eat diets that are deficient in micronutrients, not in macronutrients. Rather than worrying about macronutrient percentages in your diet, focus your attention on meeting all of your micronutrient needs. For example, fat intake on a healthful diet could vary from 10 to 25 percent depending on the percentage of higher-fat fare such as avocados and raw nuts and seeds as a percent of total calories. Eating more of these higher calorie, fattier foods may be necessary in an active thin athlete or a growing child. Any concern you might have about not eating excess fat should be focused on the fact that fatty foods are more calorically-dense foods, and generally lower in micronutrients than vegetables and other less calorically-dense foods.
The focus of my book, Eat To Live, is on micronutrients. Simply put, the goal of a healthful diet is to get the highest amounts of micronutrients--both in quantity and diversity--from the fewest calories. Micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, fibers, bioflavonoids, antioxidants and other phytochemicals, are the key to superior health and ideal weight.
When you eat to maximize micronutrients in relation to calories, your body function will normalize, chronic illnesses like high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol will resolve, and you should be able to maintain your youthful vigor into old age.
Heart disease and cancer--the major killers in modern societies--would fade away and become exceedingly rare occurrences if the population adopted an Eat To Live lifestyle. The current epidemic of obesity also would fade away because when your diet is high enough in micronutrients, excess weight drops off at a relatively fast rate. When your diet is high in micronutrients, it's as if you had your stomach stapled; you simply don't crave to overeat anymore. It is actually very difficult to overeat when you eat your fill of high micronutrient food."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Nonsense. Restricted (as in pretty strongly, if not severely) diets are shown to be the best for longevity. This means you don't do much but maybe some very mild walking, limited exercise, and you eat a pretty low number of calories.
It varies. One grandmother is 96, and only in the last couple of years has she had what I'd call any serious reduction in quality of life. Before that she lived on her own capably and happily. At 88 she was still doing great.
On the other side, my grandparents are 88 and 92. They played tennis well into their 70's, and at least as of 5 years ago neither of them took any prescription medication, not sure about now.
They may yet have some undignified years ahead of them, but all of that is happening *after* age 88. Setting the bar at 68 is seriously low.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
If the alternative is dying while eating a triple double decker hamburger by being hit by a truck full of 747 parts, I do!
diet advice. Cue George Harrison tracks...
If you read the rest of my post you'd see the answer to the "so what". You're just backing up my point - put the right seasonings on and something healthy can taste just the same as whatever unhealthy food you love. Unless your favorite food is a bucket of salt.