Empty calories

[Beastt]

Look at it this way. If I or anyone else wants to eat junk how does that affect your life? Just because someone eats a freaking doughnut, does not mean they dont give a damn. Worry about yourself, unless our eating habits affects your life.

The OP asked what was best out of the list. Then you act like your above eveyone because you dont eat a dougnut. Go kill yourself.

Hi Zaskar,

Remember me? I used to be a frequent flyer around here back around 2004. I remember a discussion involving red meat and I think you were the one stating that when you reduced your consumption, you found that your energy level rose. If I'm confusing you with someone else I'm sorry.

My point here is going to be that Ratiocinator actually raises some very valid points. The problem is that everyone has different levels of concern and different levels of commitment when it comes to avoiding the things they know aren't good for them. I know that donuts are filled with saturated fats, sugar and devoid of any fiber. That doesn't stop me from having an occasional donut. I have a brother who is less focused on what I consider to be a more moderate approach. For him, it he reads that it's bad and the information is well supported, it goes on a rather lengthy list of things he'll never eat again. He and I are both cyclists, though while he rides a recumbent, I prefer a more traditional bicycle.

I think the point Ratiocinator is trying to make is just to be aware of the detrimental effects of some of the foods we eat on a rather frequent basis. Knowing that a cheeseburger is loaded with saturated fat, cholesterol, white bread and a number of other detriments to health doesn't have to mean you'll never eat another cheeseburger. It just means educating yourself, (which you indicate you've already done), and then using the information you've assimilated to make informed choices. The only thing I'd caution you on is accepting "common knowledge" as good information -- often, they're not even related.

His points concerning meat, dairy, poultry and all the rest are well-founded. And most certainly everyone will die of something at some point. The idea from my perspective is to not lead a sickly life before it comes my time to die. When I note that 65%-77% of annual deaths in the United States are attributable to diseases and disorders directly tied to diet, I find that a compelling reason to heed that information and make adjustments to my diet that I feel I can live with. I usually find that the adjustments aren't nearly as difficult as I might have originally imagined them to be.

 

[Beastt]

I LOL'ed

It's fine to have a good laugh and I suppose if you want, you can completely dismiss the information as being somewhat hilarious. But when you look to a point-by-point comparison of human digestive physiology to the physiology of other animals, it's not at all difficult to objectively categorize humans. Using the 19 most telling points of digestive physiology, we come out squarely in the group of monogastric herbivores. And when we consume as monogastric omnivores, we suffer the same health problems as are presented by herbivorous animals in a number of studies where they are given an omnivorous diet -- they quickly begin to develop atherosclerosis, (a precursor to heart attack, stroke and erectile dysfunction). Note that animals which have a digestive physiology consistent with omnivorism and carnivorism do not display atherosclerosis even when provided with twice the level of saturated fat and cholesterol.

Remember that heart attacks, strokes, osteoporosis and diabetes are not natural. There are some countries where most of the diseases which plague us are all but unknown. And when studies have been conducted to determine the reason for this, genetics are ruled out. It has to do with diet over a prolonged period. Even as we age, if we avoid the foods that cause these things, our chance of experiencing them drops dramatically. The choice is yours but only if you're familiar with the information and choose to take it to heart.

 

[mydbrx2]

We are certainly not carnivores. We are not even omnivores. We are anatomically and physiologically herbivorous.



Meat and milk is toxic to humans and causes all manner of disease. Not many people realize this because disease is treated as a ‘normal’ thing that is unavoidable, and that ‘just happens’! Not many people think very much.

Unethical farmers often feed meat to cows and other natural herbivores. That does not make them carnivorous. Neither does meat in the human diet make us carnivorous.

Basic things such as the length of our entrails, the ph level of our stomach acid, the muscular structure of our jaws, the flatness and shovel-type shape of our teeth. All these things are what make us suited to plants, not meat. A child, when an animal and an apple are placed before it, will eat the apple, not the animal. This is instinctive behaviour.

Read more here:

http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/comparative.html

Your diet MAY or MAY NOT make you healther or give you more go. But your personality sux. Have a burger and shake, and you might be a little less stressed.

 

[jamesstout]

It's fine to have a good laugh and I suppose if you want, you can completely dismiss the information as being somewhat hilarious. But when you look to a point-by-point comparison of human digestive physiology to the physiology of other animals, it's not at all difficult to objectively categorize humans. Using the 19 most telling points of digestive physiology, we come out squarely in the group of monogastric herbivores. And when we consume as monogastric omnivores, we suffer the same health problems as are presented by herbivorous animals in a number of studies where they are given an omnivorous diet -- they quickly begin to develop atherosclerosis, (a precursor to heart attack, stroke and erectile dysfunction). Note that animals which have a digestive physiology consistent with omnivorism and carnivorism do not display atherosclerosis even when provided with twice the level of saturated fat and cholesterol.

Remember that heart attacks, strokes, osteoporosis and diabetes are not natural. There are some countries where most of the diseases which plague us are all but unknown. And when studies have been conducted to determine the reason for this, genetics are ruled out. It has to do with diet over a prolonged period. Even as we age, if we avoid the foods that cause these things, our chance of experiencing them drops dramatically. The choice is yours but only if you're familiar with the information and choose to take it to heart.

from what i understand (and have experienced) we need saturated fat in order to build testosterone

Im interested to know how you account for the higher level of diabetes and lactose intolerance in the African/asian community where a plant based diet is traditional

 

[Beastt]

from what i understand (and have experienced) we need saturated fat in order to build testosterone

Im interested to know how you account for the higher level of diabetes and lactose intolerance in the African/asian community where a plant based diet is traditional

I'm not familiar with the higher incidence of diabetes but I find that rather interesting. Do you have any more information on the topic? Without having more information on the subject the best I can offer is a pure shot in the dark but I know that in the case of the Hopi Indians, the extreme increase in the rates of diabetes coincided with the adoption of non-native diets which include rather extreme quantities of fat as compared to their more traditional desert diets. This offers a fairly strong suggestion that after centuries of subsisting on a very low fat diet, the sudden switch to the more familiar Western diet which is loaded with fat simply impacted them far more dramatically than it has cultures which transitioned more slowly and less drastically.

As far as testosterone production goes, I've never heard the assertion that saturated fat plays a significant role. I've also never heard that it doesn't. In short, I've never found any material which suggested a correlation one way or the other but obviously you have. What I can offer is that there is a significant portion of the population in many areas where the consumption of saturated fats are quite low and I know of nothing which suggests that testosterone levels are reduced in those areas. Athletic history also shows a rather significant number of Olympic and professional athletes who adhere to a diet significantly lower in saturated fats than the traditional Western diet and they seem to suffer no ill effects or reduced athletic performance. In fact, what few studies I've seen on the subject all suggest that abstaining from the consumption of a diet rich in animal fats and proteins offers one a slight advantage when it comes to tests of endurance and recovery.

As for the higher lactose intolerance, it's not just among African blacks and Asians. If you look at lactose intolerance on a global perspective, you find that western Caucasians are actually the anomaly because we're not so lactose intolerant while most of the world is. Figures vary slightly from source to source but the numbers here are pretty typical;

African Blacks - 95%
Indians - 90%
Asians - 90%
North American Blacks - 75%
Mexican Americans - 75%
Mediterraneans - 60%
North American Whites - 15%

http://lactoseintolerant.org/02_about.html

That said, even more NA Whites are lactose intolerant than the figures show because the level of intolerance ranges from those who can't drink milk at all without severe gastric discomfort to those who can consume a little once in a while without serious discomfort to those who don't even realize that some of their occasional discomfort and gassiness are due to mild lactose intolerance.

Lactose intolerance is actually quite natural. Before we're weaned, our bodies produce a significant quantity of lactase, (the enzyme necessary to digest lactose). About the time we go through weaning, the amount of lactase produced in our digestive system drops. In many, production effectively stops. Others continue to produce a small amount and some produce enough to continue digesting milk sugars throughout their lives. The interesting thing here arises when you take a look at other mammals and other primates. Almost none of them continue to digest milk well after they're weaned. When we look to how milk affects human health, we find that contrary to ads presented by the Dairy Council, most of the effects on health are decidedly detrimental.

So while it seems you're viewing lactose intolerance as a disorder, the evidence suggests fairly strongly, that it is actually adult lactose tolerance which constitutes the disorder. It should be noted that a percentage of people go their entire adult lives with no real idea that they're suffering a digestive problem and yet the inside of the small intestine bleeds constantly, though in minute quantities, for the duration of their adult life due to the irritation which persists from passing undigested lactase through the digestive system.

 

[jamesstout]

I'm not familiar with the higher incidence of diabetes but I find that rather interesting. Do you have any more information on the topic? Without having more information on the subject the best I can offer is a pure shot in the dark but I know that in the case of the Hopi Indians, the extreme increase in the rates of diabetes coincided with the adoption of non-native diets which include rather extreme quantities of fat as compared to their more traditional desert diets. This offers a fairly strong suggestion that after centuries of subsisting on a very low fat diet, the sudden switch to the more familiar Western diet which is loaded with fat simply impacted them far more dramatically than it has cultures which transitioned more slowly and less drastically.

Compared to the general population, African Americans are disproportionately affected by diabetes:

• 3.2 million or 13.3% of all African Americans aged 20 years or older have diabetes.
• African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as non Hispanic whites.
• Twenty-five percent of African Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 have diabetes.
• One in four African American women over 55 years of age has diabetes.

http://www.diabetes.org/communityprograms-and-localevents/africanamericans.jsp

As far as testosterone production goes, I've never heard the assertion that saturated fat plays a significant role. I've also never heard that it doesn't. In short, I've never found any material which suggested a correlation one way or the other but obviously you have. What I can offer is that there is a significant portion of the population in many areas where the consumption of saturated fats are quite low and I know of nothing which suggests that testosterone levels are reduced in those areas. Athletic history also shows a rather significant number of Olympic and professional athletes who adhere to a diet significantly lower in saturated fats than the traditional Western diet and they seem to suffer no ill effects or reduced athletic performance. In fact, what few studies I've seen on the subject all suggest that abstaining from the consumption of a diet rich in animal fats and proteins offers one a slight advantage when it comes to tests of endurance and recovery.

im not saying you need a lot but saturated fat is a precursor to testosterone. From personal experience a very low fat and virtually no sat fat diet combined eith lots of miles killed my test production to less than a little girl.

As for the higher lactose intolerance, it's not just among African blacks and Asians. If you look at lactose intolerance on a global perspective, you find that western Caucasians are actually the anomaly because we're not so lactose intolerant while most of the world is. Figures vary slightly from source to source but the numbers here are pretty typical;

African Blacks - 95%
Indians - 90%
Asians - 90%
North American Blacks - 75%
Mexican Americans - 75%
Mediterraneans - 60%
North American Whites - 15%

http://lactoseintolerant.org/02_about.html

That said, even more NA Whites are lactose intolerant than the figures show because the level of intolerance ranges from those who can't drink milk at all without severe gastric discomfort to those who can consume a little once in a while without serious discomfort to those who don't even realize that some of their occasional discomfort and gassiness are due to mild lactose intolerance.

Lactose intolerance is actually quite natural. Before we're weaned, our bodies produce a significant quantity of lactase, (the enzyme necessary to digest lactose). About the time we go through weaning, the amount of lactase produced in our digestive system drops. In many, production effectively stops. Others continue to produce a small amount and some produce enough to continue digesting milk sugars throughout their lives. The interesting thing here arises when you take a look at other mammals and other primates. Almost none of them continue to digest milk well after they're weaned. When we look to how milk affects human health, we find that contrary to ads presented by the Dairy Council, most of the effects on health are decidedly detrimental.

So while it seems you're viewing lactose intolerance as a disorder, the evidence suggests fairly strongly, that it is actually adult lactose tolerance which constitutes the disorder. It should be noted that a percentage of people go their entire adult lives with no real idea that they're suffering a digestive problem and yet the inside of the small intestine bleeds constantly, though in minute quantities, for the duration of their adult life due to the irritation which persists from passing undigested lactase through the digestive system.
I have heard that before, i had a mate have a huge operation on his gut and they said to avoid lactose afterwards because it is very hard to digest and those lactase enzymes may never regenerate.

hope those replies are of use

 

[Beastt]

Compared to the general population, African Americans are disproportionately affected by diabetes:

* 3.2 million or 13.3% of all African Americans aged 20 years or older have diabetes.
* African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as non Hispanic whites.
* Twenty-five percent of African Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 have diabetes.
* One in four African American women over 55 years of age has diabetes.

That's certainly interesting information and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll have to try to set the time aside to pursue further study. Having said that I will also suggest that it's not really anything unusual. It has long been known that certain genetic branches offer greater resistance to some problems and less resistance to others. I strongly suspect that this is likely due to a fairly drastic change to a diet containing higher levels of fat over a relatively short period (a few dozen generations perhaps), but since I have no data to support that, I offer it only as conjecture which links back to the evidence found in the Hopi Indians.

Aside from that there are always genetic factors to be considered in such diseases. One point of caution; many seem to believe that diabetes is caused by increased sugar intake. Research points the finger not at sugar, but at fat consumption. If you take a human out of our controlled environments and place us in a more natural and wild setting, without tools were pretty poor hunters. It makes more sense in most cases, for us to pursue less risky methods for gathering food. And in such a situation our ingestion of fats would be dramatically lower than even a relatively low-fat diet within our culturally defined diet parameters.

im not saying you need a lot but saturated fat is a precursor to testosterone. From personal experience a very low fat and virtually no sat fat diet combined eith lots of miles killed my test production to less than a little girl.

I took a few moments to do a little looking and what I found was, not surprisingly, somewhat short of conclusive. But there does seem to be a foundation of research which connects testosterone levels to fat intake. It should be noted that while saturated fat is implicated in some studies, others suggest fats in general rather than just saturated fats. The vast majority of what I've reviewed so far is from the following site;
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1485979

You may well want to take a look and see if it leads you to further information which may be of interest to you. A few of the comments I found to be notable were;

Previous work by Keys et al(6) found a correlation between higher levels of Testosterone and increased intake of polyunsaturated fat, so that's something that should be considered.

"there's an acute treatment study that actually showed a 30% decrease in total and free Testosterone following a high fat meal."

As a side, the researchers also found a negative correlation between protein intake and Testosterone levels (i.e. consuming too much protein leads to decreased T).

After reviewing the literature and studies presented in this article, one can't say that increased consumption of saturated fat definitively increases Testosterone levels, but it may, especially in strength training individuals. It's evident, though, that a higher total intake of dietary fat (30-35% of calories) does increase Testosterone levels compared to a low fat diet.​

Of course it's nearly impossible to do any research on saturated fats without continually seeing the link between saturated fat and increased levels of LDL (bad cholesterol). With heart attack being, by far, the number one killer in developed Western nations, the link between saturated fats, cholesterol and heart disease, and the statistics which show vegetarians to suffer only 25% of the heart attack rate and vegans displaying only 7% of the heart attack rate exhibited through standard diets, I think I'd opt for coconut oil, coconut milk, palm kernel oil, cocoa butter and palm oil for sources of saturated fats were I convinced that they were necessary to promote testosterone production. One other possibility not likely to meet with great favor among the athletically inclined is that what we accept as "normal" testosterone levels might actually be artificially elevated compared to what would be suggested based on human digestive physiology. However, given the information on other fats and the indication that they may also promote testosterone production, I think that unlikely. Too many vegan and vegetarian athletes have sailed to the top ranks of their respective sports to lend to any conclusion that such diets are anything but beneficial, particularly to those pursuing activities reliant upon superior endurance.

I have heard that before, i had a mate have a huge operation on his gut and they said to avoid lactose afterwards because it is very hard to digest and those lactase enzymes may never regenerate.

From my perspective when everything is measured out and weighed in, we're probably far better off recognizing our tendency to continue to consume milk as somewhat of an anomaly and likely one which doesn't lend us any health benefits while presenting a number of concerns regarding detriments to overall health.

 

[Beastt]

Hmmmm animals have been eating animals for years. We're carnivores.

Unless this was a mistake and you meant to say "omnivores", do you have any research which would support the conclusion you've presented here? As has already been shown in the thread, when we look to human digestive physiology, we fall more firmly in the category of monogastric herbivore.

 

[Beastt]

Wow. Looney tunes. Cranks on the Internet are always good for a laugh.

It might be fair to take a look at history and the number of "cranks" who turned out to be correct while the arrogance of mass majority opinion turned out to be founded in misconceptions fueled by the confidence inspired by being of the majority opinion. While I recognize the tendency to reject things which sound far-fetched compared to "common knowledge", I've run into enough situations where the minority were the ones who had actually done the work/research that I'm less quick these days to simply shrug off information because it falls contrary to popular opinion.

We should probably remember that there was a time when suggesting the Earth to be spherical would have lead to massive ridicule and potentially, charges of heresy, just as did the assertion of a heliocentric solar system and the speculation of planets around other stars. Perhaps not everyone here is old enough to remember a time, not so long ago, when the suggestion that red meat was other than a strength-building healthy base for every meal would have been shrugged off as lunacy. How many here don't remember the now defunct "four food groups"? Before that, I can recall a time when the controversy over cigarette smoking still raged with many appealing to centuries of smoking with "no ill effects". Sometimes the key to finding the "ill effects" are to remain open to potential causes of common illnesses, even in things which have long been thought to be perfectly healthy, (asbestos, red meat, smoking, etc.). The ill effects of smoking had been suffered and documented for decades. But until the link was conclusively demonstrated it remained as elusive to some as the link now drawn between heart disease and meat consumption. And just as with smoking, there are many who refuse to accept what they wish wasn't true.

I'm often reminded of the wisdom behind the word of Samuel Clemons;

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." -- Mark Twain​

There is a sizable base of research and physiological evidence which suggests that much of the information presented by Ratiocinator is, while quite contrary to popular opinion and "common knowledge"; highly supportable on an evidentiary and statistical basis. In running him off, we may have lost a source of information we may do well to research further.

 

[jamesstout]

Certainly there is a point and we need to discuss

http://www.healthopts.com

spam isn't healthy

As you suggested i do indeed use coconut milk as my m ajor saturated fat and i dont use very much (as an asie it contians MCTs "the 9 calorie carbohydrate" genreally i eat unsaturated fats and lean meats and the incidental sat fats take care of it. My diet previously was very low fat with no specific "fats" only incidental ones and less than 10% of overall clas from fat. from experience this leads to test levels which are way too low for performance if the diet is followed for a long time.

EDIT: the diet was also hypocaloric not by intention but because you need much higher volumes of carbs and proteins at 4kcal a g than fats at 9kcal a gram to meet the needs of high volume training

 

[Mt Cyclist]

Forget calories, think MSG, aspartame, pus, hormones, toxins, etc.



Compared with the filth served by Mc Donalds, the above can be considered health foods!



Seriously, NEVER buy or eat ANYTHING from Mc Donalds. That company is seriously unethical. They care about making money, and I dare say ruining the health of as many people, and other creatures, as possible, above anything else.



That company WILL serve you rat poison to boost their profits, and THEY DO.



http://www.mcspotlight.org/



Stay well away from milk. That stuff is seriously toxic to humans. Forget the generations of milk marketing board propaganda. It is all lies. Milk is a poor source of calcium, not because of the cholesterol, carcinogenic compounds, saturated fats, dangerous microbes, urine, pus, fecal matter, antibiotics, growth hormones that the calcium comes mixed in but due to other factors that actively BLOCK calcium absorption. Ever wonder why older people often develop osteoporosis and other bone disorders, after a lifetime spent consuming milk?



If you like milkshakes then buy, or make, plant milks. Oat milk, almond milk, hemp milk, etc., these are all superior in terms of nutrition. If you do not like their natural taste, they can be flavoured to have an identical taste to shakes made from the diseased body fluids of animals, which many people wrongly consider healthy.

www.notmilk.com

do you ride, or just post here to push your food agenda?

 

[Tim Lamkin]

It might be fair to take a look at history and the number of "cranks" who turned out to be correct while the arrogance of mass majority opinion turned out to be founded in misconceptions fueled by the confidence inspired by being of the majority opinion. While I recognize the tendency to reject things which sound far-fetched compared to "common knowledge", I've run into enough situations where the minority were the ones who had actually done the work/research that I'm less quick these days to simply shrug off information because it falls contrary to popular opinion.

We should probably remember that there was a time when suggesting the Earth to be spherical would have lead to massive ridicule and potentially, charges of heresy, just as did the assertion of a heliocentric solar system and the speculation of planets around other stars. Perhaps not everyone here is old enough to remember a time, not so long ago, when the suggestion that red meat was other than a strength-building healthy base for every meal would have been shrugged off as lunacy. How many here don't remember the now defunct "four food groups"? Before that, I can recall a time when the controversy over cigarette smoking still raged with many appealing to centuries of smoking with "no ill effects". Sometimes the key to finding the "ill effects" are to remain open to potential causes of common illnesses, even in things which have long been thought to be perfectly healthy, (asbestos, red meat, smoking, etc.). The ill effects of smoking had been suffered and documented for decades. But until the link was conclusively demonstrated it remained as elusive to some as the link now drawn between heart disease and meat consumption. And just as with smoking, there are many who refuse to accept what they wish wasn't true.

I'm often reminded of the wisdom behind the word of Samuel Clemons;

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." -- Mark Twain​

There is a sizable base of research and physiological evidence which suggests that much of the information presented by Ratiocinator is, while quite contrary to popular opinion and "common knowledge"; highly supportable on an evidentiary and statistical basis. In running him off, we may have lost a source of information we may do well to research further.

You have been here long enough to know there are a number of members that will say anything they want never needing to back it up nor even represent the truth....the Moderators allow it to happen ...and let the few ruin great discussions, only to threaten or run off anyone who challenges those "special" few.....be careful what you say, if you are not part of the inner circle you will be warned. Case in point….. go over to
Grand Tours - Giro - Tour de France - Vuelta a España and read away, unbelievable what is allowed to go on .....by a select few.

The honest members here..... get tired of those, that spew constant random BS….and we are called cranks…funny how that works.

 

[moto1]

Wow , that was some eye opening ****. You just killed my love of steak, chicken and eggs. Definitely something to think about.

 

[emalcon]

Originally Posted by Beastt .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jono L Hmmmm animals have been eating animals for years. We're carnivores.
Unless this was a mistake and you meant to say "omnivores", do you have any research which would support the conclusion you've presented here? As has already been shown in the thread, when we look to human digestive physiology, we fall more firmly in the category of monogastric herbivore.

O Rly. http://paleohacks.com/questions/56542/humans-werent-designed-to-eat-meat#axzz1yv0uZjl5

Do your research.