[YoungDominican]

Alright , I'll try to keep posting insider information. Should I start a new thread for this?

[Acute Angle]

(09-14-2013 04:30 PM)YoungDominican Wrote:  

You guys should watch this video, really opened by eyes towards sugar

This is a fantastic video. I urge anyone who's remotely interested in their physical well-being to view it. It is long, so if you just want the take-home message just watch the last 15 minutes or so. The conclusions are backed up by solid science.

Lustig highly recommends the book Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin. I must've read it about 20 years ago but didn't implement the lessons. There's a torrent out there.

[KGV]

This just in...sugar is bad for you

[Duke Castile]

(09-14-2013 10:25 PM)YoungDominican Wrote:  

Alright , I'll try to keep posting insider information. Should I start a new thread for this?

Yes, if you have time write up a data sheet that goes as in depth as possible.

Places to go (bars, sights, points of interest).

Cost of cell phones/billing procedures

Types of women.

Amount of money generally spent to achieve best value...

Stuff you think is important that other guys might not consider.

[YoungDominican]

@ Acute Angel - Yeah you guys should really make an attempt to watch the video.

@ Fisto - Yeah, I'll write up a data sheet some time this week.

[JayJuanGee]

(09-14-2013 04:54 PM)Spider Wrote:  

I have not tried that...but I do feel that the vitamins you can get from fruits you can also get from other foods.

I also eat Paleo and try to follow Dave Asprey's 'Bulletproof' guidelines. I don't consume grains at all - there is nothing you can get from grains that you can't get from vegetables.

Fruits taste damn good though (perhaps I'll try sprinkling some diced strawberries on my rib-eye )

@Spider
I agree with your sentiment, and yes, we can survive without any carbohydrates - b/c there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate, though I agree that many of carbohydrates (including fruits) may taste good and we become addicted to sweet tasting items.

Frequently, people get the false sense that eating fruits and vegetables is good for their health.. and that false information is what is frequently said… but overstated in reality.. and we can eat small doses of both fruits and vegetables, and still get all of our essential nutrients from meat and fats (by the way, not from trans fats - which are the imitation fats including hydrogenated mixtures, which would include margarines and canola oil and a lot of the other fake and processed fats).

In essence we should really be able to eat only fats and proteins and to flourish with that… though I certainly am no purist in my own eating practices in this regard, and probably, these days, I eat a good 10-20% of my diet from carbohydrates.. though in the past I probably would have eaten 70% carbohydrates and I did not believe there was any problem with this until as aging the carbohydrates started to catch up with me..

I have come to realize that it is much better to eat fewer carbohydrates, and probably, I should have realized that i should have been doing that sooner (better late than never), but I was also brain washed by mainstream media and even the health industry pushing healthy grains and that baloney… Anyhow, once we begin to cut down on the carbohydrates in our diets, we have fewer cravings for sweets and junk foods in general and fewer unhealthy side-effects, such as inflammation and negative energy insulin and sugar spikes.

Robert Lustig (in the video) has become a pretty big expert in the low carb community, also.... which low carb community, these days, is beginning to trend more towards low carb and high fat, b/c if we DO NOT eat high fat, then we will run into troubles with TOO MANY proteins in our diet converting to glucose in our systems.. so we have found out that it is better to get our appetites satisfied with fats, rather than with proteins or carbohydrates.

BTW, we should probably strive to have 15-35% of our daily diet composed of good proteins… and not to over or under do it ... and I would call those meats and eggs and things like that.. I understand that vegetarians have a different view about the health (or even humanitarian) benefits of meats; however.... which I believe it would be much more difficult to get proper nutrition on a vegetarian diet.. though some vegetarians do have decent health profiles.

Below is a link to an interview of Robert Lustig with Jimmy Moore (in episode 640 of Moore’s podcast), and truly from that interview you should be able to get your appetite wetted pretty well with the great information of the low carb community (that low carb community also has a lot in common with paleo). If you were to look into Jimmy Moore's background, you will see that over the years, he has interviewed a lot of paleo and low carb experts, and has become a sort of expert on the topic of low carbs, as well.

http://ketopia.com/robert-lustig-intervi...lvlc-show/


@ YDominican: Regarding going to Dominica for the purpose of game: It really seems like such a small location with a small population, and probably such a small population would cause some of its own gaming difficulties - even if there is a certain exotic factor with some visitors to the island... after a short while it would be harder to play the field b/c everyone would know you - my two cents.

[Therapsid]

The bottom line is that there's no record of populations consuming paleo-diets with high longevity.

This fad is too new for anyone to know for sure whether it yields high life expectancy. We'll see.

As it is, the few traditional communities which practice paleo as a matter of course, like the Inuit, are not known for long lifespans.

I would bet that the current paleo paradigm will lead to long life, but will it be appreciably longer than mainstream low fat diets or vegetarianism? I doubt it.

[JayJuanGee]

(09-17-2013 12:10 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

The bottom line is that there's no record of populations consuming paleo-diets with high longevity.

This fad is too new for anyone to know for sure whether it yields high life expectancy. We'll see.

As it is, the few traditional communities which practice paleo as a matter of course, like the Inuit, are not known for long lifespans.

I would bet that the current paleo paradigm will lead to long life, but will it be appreciably longer than mainstream low fat diets or vegetarianism? I doubt it.

Good point. You are correct Therapsid.

I was thinking of the whole matter of diet in terms of avoidance of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and probably, I am going to have to look out for information and possibly studies pertaining to longevity... I know that I have heard experts talk about shortening telomeres and how that associates with aging, and that eating too much can cause shortening telomeres (which means shorter life); however, I am going to have to look out more for this regarding how it may relate with vegetarianism or low fat diets or high fat diets b/c at this time, I am not sure about the data on this.

Nonetheless, I believe that there is some consensus amongst a variety of food experts (whether vegetarian or not) about cutting out sugars, processed foods and processed fats (such as trans fats) b/c those items cause inflammation and other issues.

[Moma]

(09-14-2013 09:27 PM)YoungDominican Wrote:  

@Moma - Haha, what do you mean black lizards and what were the Dominicans you met like?

They were cool, hard for me to distinguish blacks from the English speaking West Indian islands from Jamaicans and Trinis..the other smaller islands seem to just blend in.

The dudes were cool, lizards were as sexy as any other set of West Indian black lizards...

[ImmoralPsychology]

The effects of diet are far too complex to come up with any real conclusions. My grandmother ate lots of fat and lots of sugar all her life. She died past 100 years old. My other grandmother lived off boiled chicken breasts and loads of vegetables. She died at 94. I'm not saying that lots of carbs is better. I'm saying that they both lived long lives even though their diets were radically different. One was "big boned" the other was fat. Neither exercised worth a damn beyond a little walking, not much.

Scientists look at epidemiological evidence and the media runs with it and imply correlation is in fact causation. The general public is dumb enough to accept things without questioning any of it and then cling to their beliefs like religion rather than question if they've been fed good information. They ignore the information that doesn't fit their model and proselytize what does.

As to the paleo diet, we don't even really know what humans really ate back then. Scientists are now saying that meat wasn't really all that plentiful and that most of their calories came from berries, nuts, fruit and veggies. Lots of fish, maybe. But they very likely didn't go out to the backyard and catch themselves a bison every day. Inuit live of a lot of meat and fat but they die younger.

If you look at the world, you'll see that the leading determinants of life expectancy are: war (of lack of), sanitation and medicine. Everything else, when you account for those, leads to minute differences. I would guess that stress has a much larger effect than whether or not you're eating carbs.

Carbs? The Japanese, the longest living group of humans on earth today, eat lots of rice. They're followed by Switzerland, San Marino, Italy and Singapore. If this isn't enough proof for paleo followers to see that carbs do not kill you, I don't know what will. You've been sold a bill of goods.

a) we don't even really know what paleo man ate
b) even if we did, and even if they didn't eat grains, this doesn't mean that grains are bad for you (they didn't take antibiotics either - and they died of simply infections)
c) the longest-living countries on earth eat plenty of carbs
d) paleo man (I'm guessing) got 10 times more exercise than anyone today. all those miles of walking to catch a big animal? they were nomad? etc.
e) too many etc... to even bother

You can believe what you want and if it makes you happier, then you should go ahead and live that way. But don't mistake it with science or reason. People thought the earth was flat, not because their science was wrong (you look at the horizon, it's flat) but because they didn't have enough knowledge about the world. The science experiments that conclude one thing about how sugar results in something negative may, in and of itself be true, but when taken in the grand scheme of things and the fact that we know so very, very little about all the intricacies of the human body and how everything interacts with everything else, we are still in the infancy of things. Some things we know, most we do not.

[el mechanico]

Maybe this thread should continue how I thought it was going to be..
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/...lives?lite

Here's the bitter truth
http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/e5/1a...Report.pdf

[JayJuanGee]

(09-17-2013 09:44 AM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

The effects of diet are far too complex to come up with any real conclusions.

@IPsych: You make your points very well, and I applaud you and thank you for that.

However, it appears that overall you are making some conclusions that are some of the mantra about "a little in moderation" or that carbs are not necessarily bad, or that since we do not really know, we should throw or hands up and do what we like.

I would wager that neither of your grandmas, in their youths, had diets like the kids in school today, who are eating the equivalent of 200 lbs of sugar a year rather than 20 lbs of sugar a year (which largely was the case about 100 years ago). Our sugar equivalent foods have gone way way up in the past 100 years, which has caused epidemics in obesity and diabetes and heart disease.

There is no way that I would be suggesting that we have to cut out these fun foods in their entirety - b/c to each his own, but overall as a society, we probably need to make some reductions in the sugars and processed foods in order to regain some of our health as a society.

You seem to be poo pooing science and that it is all over the place, and there may be some truth to that. However, ultimately, there is some science that is more convincing than other science, and there is quite a bit of misleading claims that purport to be science but really are not scientific.

In the last couple of years, since I have been reading about these kinds of nutrition matters, I've seen a whole lot of examples of studies in which the data is manipulated by people in industries trying to convince joe public about a certain results or trying to confuse the science in order to sell more products.

Two of Gary Taubes' books describe the science and the misinformation about science in very convincing ways. He really shows how frequently we can be mislead by claims of science that are not real science.

Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007):
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-...1400033462

Why we get fat and what to do about it (2010)
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-Abo...0307474259

I've read both of these books, and the first one, GCBC, is much more scientifically oriented and a bit harder to read than the second, and the second one, WWGF, is more written in layman's prose.

Regarding paleo: Sometimes that term can be thrown about to mean a variety of things - even to confuse matters.

Certainly, you are correct that we may not be exactly sure about what we have eaten, historically, yet it should be fairly convincing to most that we were not eating twinkies or chex or pop tarts or cocacola or redbull and/or many of the other items that are processed that hold themselves out as food-like products. in other words some of these processed foods, really are not foods that we would have traditionally eaten, and our bodies may have difficulties tolerating the various random ingredients, especially in high doses.

I would NOT suggest that we should completely abstain from these food-like products - b/c our bodies certainly can process a lot of crap and make some nutrition out of it - especially the younger and stronger we are; however, as we get older, our bodies become more sensitive and even begin to have difficulties recuperating from the abuse of some of the inflammatory attributes of some modern foods... and the ability of our bodies to tolerate abuse and not to keel over from processed foods does not mean that we should fly blindly and to continue to eat non-foods that are masquerading as foods.

I agree that Paleo also can be a marketing ploy; however, there is a lot of good information out there within the paleo sphere related to themes about eating whole and natural foods.

You can look at Weston Price Foundation.
http://www.westonaprice.org/

Weston Price Foundation is into promoting the ideas of whole foods and eating what your grandparents would have eaten. I don't really agree with them about any benefits in eating grains; however, they link to a lot of good resources and have a lot of good information pertaining to a large number of foods and natural remedies.

[Duke Castile]

Ipsyche - Taking two individuals and then extrapolating their personal practices (and I doubt you are as familiar with your grandmothers specific eating habits their whole lives as you claim) is not very scientific. I know a guy that doesn't get hangovers. Drinks all the time. Do I draw far reaching conclusions based on that?

You also keep referring to longevity. Obviously that's a factor in how effective a diet is.

But you fail to observe the quality of life during that lifespan.

Paleo for example, has people shedding excess fat, their bloodwork improves, and they FEEL better. Many people have reported having to get off medication because the diet was working TOO well for them to continue.

To say the effects of diet are "too complex to come up with any real conclusions" is.....silly to put it nicely.

[YoungDominican]

@ YDominican: Regarding going to Dominica for the purpose of game: It really seems like such a small location with a small population, and probably such a small population would cause some of its own gaming difficulties - even if there is a certain exotic factor with some visitors to the island... after a short while it would be harder to play the field b/c everyone would know you - my two cents.

I wouldn't say come to Dominica solely for the purpose of game, I'm pretty sure it's not the best location for that. On the small location, small population thing. That shouldn't really affect your game, especially if you are here on vacation. Either way coming or not is entirely up to the person. Other than that you make some good points.

@Moma Lizard haha, I'm going to start using that word

[Aliblahba]

(09-17-2013 02:43 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Paleo for example, has people shedding excess fat, their bloodwork improves, and they FEEL better. Many people have reported having to get off medication because the diet was working TOO well for them to continue.

I'm beginning to think the Paleo diet is suited for lethargic, sedentary people. Certainly not what Spartans, Greek athletes, or gladiators ate. Paleo is just a cool name to sell. In reality they should call it "fat fuck office beta lazy bitch tits man diet". Or the Wall-E for short.

And no, ancient warriors didn't eat sugar, lest it came from honey or wine, which was consumed in moderation.

In conclusion gentlemen, the end of my well written thesis states these two new found laws in which I now decree into the law of man:

1. Fuck sugar
2. Fuck paleo

[eradicator]

(09-17-2013 08:38 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

In conclusion gentlemen, the end of my well written thesis states these two new found laws in which I now decree into the law of man:

1. Fuck sugar
2. Fuck paleo

Watch the video. The problem is high fructose corn syrup that is in sodas and other fruit drinks.

If you think "oh I had better stop eating apples, oranges, bananas and mangoes because they have sugar and are bad and will make me fat!" then you don't get it- those kinds of sugars, the ones in fruits, are fine.

The sugars from sugar drinks like soda pop are what makes you fat. Just drink water.

I work out a lot and used to drink gatorade or powerade. Those have electrolytes, but also sugars so I quit drinking them and sometimes drink this instead:

http://www.amazon.com/Ultima-Replenisher...yte+powder

It is like gatorade but without the sugar. Heck, I probably should make a thread in the lifestyle section that talks about this.

[Aliblahba]

^^^ Slow down there little feller. All kinds of threads come up about infused water and agua de coco. You're preaching to the choir here. I stay away from gatorade unless desperate, and eat fruit, but limited. Even then I eat them like a man with my teeth, not from a blender.

[eradicator]

edit repost

[ImmoralPsychology]

(09-17-2013 02:43 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Ipsyche - Taking two individuals and then extrapolating their personal practices (and I doubt you are as familiar with your grandmothers specific eating habits their whole lives as you claim) is not very scientific. I know a guy that doesn't get hangovers. Drinks all the time. Do I draw far reaching conclusions based on that?

You also keep referring to longevity. Obviously that's a factor in how effective a diet is.

But you fail to observe the quality of life during that lifespan.

Paleo for example, has people shedding excess fat, their bloodwork improves, and they FEEL better. Many people have reported having to get off medication because the diet was working TOO well for them to continue.

To say the effects of diet are "too complex to come up with any real conclusions" is.....silly to put it nicely.

This is why I always hate myself for trying to have a discussion on the net. Invariably, people go out of their way to twist your words or present straw man arguments.

I didn't say that my two grandmothers were representative of the entire population. They are simply two examples. Yes, it's possible that the one who ate lots of fat and sugar all her life was the exception but I doubt it. Not when you look at the data for other things too. Did she eat only sugar? No, of course not. She ate plenty of fruit and veggies, too.

My response was directed at the idea that sugar needs to be avoided (and paleo proponents). It certainly does not. And to say that fructose, the naturally occurring sugar in fruit, is bad for you is beyond stupid.

The paleo movement is a gimmick that is used to sell books. Paleo dieters aren't shedding fat because they avoid carbs. They shed fat because their calorie intake is reduced. Like I said, if you choose to ignore the data that doesn't line up with your beliefs, then you'll always be right.

a) Paleo dieters lose weight primarily because of lowered calories (if you don't believe me, count your calories. Also, you can explain to me why some paleo eaters don't lose weight. It's because they still eat too much, thinking that it's carbs, not calories that made them fat.)
b) when you avoid carbs, you are forced to decrease all the low-nutrition foods that made up a big part of your daily intake such as potato chips, french fries, etc. This also forces you to increase your intake of veggies and fruit. Could it be that this has an effect and not the lowering of carbs, per se?
c) studies have shown that being thin, in and of itself, is healthy
d) personally, I have dieted to cut fat and did it through calorie cutting but my carbs, even the 'bad' ones, were maintained. I felt better and less lethargic because I wasn't overeating and overloading my system with unnecessary calories. No, I am not using this to extrapolate to the entire population. Just an anecdote.
e) explain the guy who went on the twinkie diet, lost 27lbs on a 90% carb diet and HIS health markers went up

The effects of diet ARE too complex to come up with a lot of really meaningful conclusions (for now). There's a boatload of inconsistencies and contradictory data.

I'll bet ya any money that a paleo eater is no healthier than a person who eats a balanced diet including a lot of nutritious food (even if they top it off with nutritionless food).

From everything I've read, this is what I believe:

a) your genes determine your lifespan (all other things being equal)
b) war, sanitation and medicine are the biggest external factors
c) stress is up there too. and avoid smoking - there's enough data on that
d) eat lots of nutritious food so you get all your protein requirements, vitamins, minerals and fiber and you can eat pretty much whatever you want for the rest (chips, chocolate, sugar, whatever)
e) don't overeat. if you're fat, cut calories while maintaining enough nutrition. lower your fat. lower your sugar. lower carbs. doesn't matter.
f) exercise. our bodies are meant to move. you don't need to be Thor. just move around and use those muscles every day

Not sure if I have every single detail or made all the appropriate disclaimers and notices to satisfy you but that's pretty much the gist of it.

Anyway, I don't want to continue this much. It doesn't matter to me what people I don't know do. I'm just putting it out there and if it encourages some people to stop swallowing the lies they've been fed wholesale and to be critical and take a look at the other side for a moment, then I've done my job.

Presenting facts and pointing out how the books and proponents are lying to you is akin to asking a Christian to think logically about his religion. It's futile. All you can do is put it out there and hope some of them think about it for a bit. 99% will stick to their dogmatic beliefs and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. It's just how people are.

[JayJuanGee]

(09-17-2013 08:38 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

I'm beginning to think the Paleo diet is suited for lethargic, sedentary people. Certainly not what Spartans, Greek athletes, or gladiators ate. Paleo is just a cool name to sell. In reality they should call it "fat fuck office beta lazy bitch tits man diet". Or the Wall-E for short.

Ali: I am not sure whether you are joking or not about "Spartans, Greek athletes, or gladiators"... probably, these guys were NOT very educated about what they were eating.. and probably would eat whatever was in front of them... but they probably did NOT have too many processed foods or drinks at their disposal... So wouldn’t that be paleo, or pseudo paleo?

And, yes, it seems that there are some myths out there concerning any need to carb load prior to a marathon or some other endurance activity. The reality is that a guy can have a low carb diet, and still be in good shape and perform quite well without preloading his ingestion with butt loads of carbs before an athletic endurance activity.

In this regard, if we are always ingesting carbs, then our bodies may forget how to efficiently burn fat (rather than glucose) - however, when a person is used to not eating too many carbs, then that person's body will burn ketones from the fat and become keto-adapted. See link:

http://www.ketotic.org/2012/05/keto-adap...ow-to.html

(09-17-2013 09:46 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

Watch the video. The problem is high fructose corn syrup that is in sodas and other fruit drinks.
...............those kinds of sugars, the ones in fruits, are fine.

There are various forms of sugars and sugar-like products (carbs), and they digest and our processed in our systems in different ways. It is incorrect to think that the problem is ONLY sugar or ONLY high fructose corn syrup. Then to get caught up on glycemic index - b/c there is also glycemic load.. that is all of the foods combined in your system and what kinds of effects they have on your blood sugar and insulin release... and inflammation. And, some of the sugar substitutes will also cause sugar cravings and side-effects such as inflammation.

I believe glycemic index and glycemic load is a bit of a distraction, though it could still get people thinking in the right direction to cut some of the negative effects of sugar-like products.

(09-17-2013 09:46 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

http://www.amazon.com/Ultima-Replenisher...yte+powder

It is like gatorade but without the sugar.

Master: I am a little unclear how you could suggest that the drink you are linking to be good for a guy, just b/c it does not have sugar in it, when it has a lot of things that may be natural, but are likely separated from their natural source(s).

What is the natural source of this drink substance (powder)? Do you know what are the about 30 ingredients? Now, if you were saying that we should drink coconut water or something like that, then I would be all with you.

Ingredients from your Link: >>>>>>>>>>Ingredients: Calcium ascorbate, thiamin HCI, riboflavin-5-phosphate and riboflavin, niacinamide, pyridoxine HCI, folic acid, cyanocobalamin, biotin, D-calcium pantothenate, dicalcium phosphate, potassium phosphate, magnesium oxide, magnesium aspartate, zinc citrate, selenium L-methionine complex, copper oxide, manganese sulfate, chromium dinicotinate glycinate, sodium molybdate, sodium chloride, potassium aspartate, potassium phosphate, choline bitartrate, inositol, vanadyl sulfate, pine bark 4:1 extract, grape seed extract, bilberry fruit extract, grape skin extract, stevia leaf extract, Non-GMO maltodextrin, citric acid, malic acid, natural flavors, beet color, silica and Lo Han Guo fruit extract<<<<<<<<<<<<

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

This is why I always hate myself for trying to have a discussion on the net. Invariably, people go out of their way to twist your words or present straw man arguments.

I’ll agree with you IPsych that when there are indepth and potentially controversial topics, it can be easy to have others read your points out of context and not always easy to explain things in writing(s).. and many times it may be easier to be gentlemanly if the presentation were in person…. So, yes, sometimes we have our opinions that may not be easy shared with written renditions.

Personally, I did not mind your grandma(s) examples and some of your other examples of the induits, but unwittingly, some of those may also have been strawmen that you were putting up because you did not really back them up with details and in that regard not really convincingly proving some of the points that you seem to be trying to make about carbs being fine and dandy… and pointing to other causes for health problem and/or physical fitness issues.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

My response was directed at the idea that sugar needs to be avoided (and paleo proponents). It certainly does not. And to say that fructose, the naturally occurring sugar in fruit, is bad for you is beyond stupid.

There can be variations in the carb community concerning how much sugar and sugar like substitutes are o.k. to maintain in ones diet.. And the point that I was making was that these days Americans eat about 200 lbs of sugar-like substances a year rather than about 20 lbs, and I was saying that 200lbs is way too much. Yes, there are people that say to modify your fruit intake, and I would not call them beyond stupid for making those kinds of assertions – because merely because something occurs naturally does not mean that we should eat as much of that natural substance as we want…. I believe cocaine, strychnine and tobacco are all natural, but I think we should ingest them in moderation, if at all.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

The paleo movement is a gimmick that is used to sell books.

It seems to me that you wanna take down paleo with one fell swoop and generalize all of us quasi paleo supporters into some fictitious framing of your own creation about what is paleo? Surely there are people who play off the name paleo and they wanna make profit from any movement. That’s the American way to figure out how to capitalize on certain movements – yet that does not take away from some of the paleo ideas or even low carb ideas or even the Atkins ideas.

If I assert that guys should just eat the whole foods of that their grandmas had eaten and to stay away from various processed foods with unknown ingredients, that would bring us a long way and is there money in that? Some, but not as much money as there is in the filling up of artificial fake ingredients into processed foods and fast foods and drugs etc.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

Paleo dieters aren't shedding fat because they avoid carbs. They shed fat because their calorie intake is reduced. Like I said, if you choose to ignore the data that doesn't line up with your beliefs, then you'll always be right.

I don’t recall anyone saying that the only goal in eating good food with fewer sugars was to achieve weight reduction – but certainly some of that weight reduction is toted with any diet or way of life that causes shedding of pounds. I certainly believe that if a guy increases his fat intake and reduces sugar-like foods (carbs), then his calories should also naturally reduce (whether he tries or not) because he will be more nutritionally satisfied by eating fat and will not be having as many cravings for food.

Each of the books that I pointed out earlier by Gary Taubes does a good job, as well, in talking about two myths of calorie restriction and exercise in terms of the purported weight loss benefits. You should read those books (or at least one of them) or cliff notes of them – though you’ve already suggested that you are disinclined to read books that I am pointing you to because you don’t believe in their premises because they may relate to paleo? I’m not sure what you mean by not wanting to know about ideas that are presented to you.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

b) when you avoid carbs, you are forced to decrease all the low-nutrition foods that made up a big part of your daily intake such as potato chips, french fries, etc. This also forces you to increase your intake of veggies and fruit. Could it be that this has an effect and not the lowering of carbs, per se?

As I keep saying there can be variations in people how they approach this.. if you reduce carbs, that does not necessarily mean that you are increasing intake of veggies and fruit (frequently, those are mostly carbs), it may mean that you increase either your protein or fat or both. BTW, there are three macronutrients, protein, fat and carbs… sometimes people cut many carbs but avoid increasing their fat intake. which may get them in trouble to eat too many proteins…. which has the problem of converting into glucose and NOT reducing cravings for sugar or sugar-like substances (carbs).

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

c) studies have shown that being thin, in and of itself, is healthy

I think that you are correct here… that no matter how a guy becomes skinny, there becomes a health benefit to becoming skinny, but that does not really prove anything does it? One thing is becoming skinny and another is maintaining it. One thing is short-term benefits in becoming skinny, and another thing is maintaining it. There are some very unhealthy skinny people, and probably diet would play a large part of whether those skinny people are unhealthy or not.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

e) explain the guy who went on the twinkie diet, lost 27lbs on a 90% carb diet and HIS health markers went up

Is this twinkie phase a lifestyle or a diet? How long do you think a person could live on eating only twinkies? A month or possibly longer? Eating twinkies is not a lifestyle, and you cannot live off of those non-nutritious products, even though his case shows that in the short-term a guy can lose weight and improve his health markers. So what? That does not prove that twinkies are nutritious. They do not contain any of the essential fats and/or proteins, so a guy would die soon after embarking upon this new lifestyle (and some people would be able to last longer than others but all would die within a few months).

IPsyche, if you start eating only twinkies, we will expect to not receive anymore posts from you on RVF or this thread after about a month or so. And, I would not wish that fate upon you, even though we have some differences in our opinions, here. ☺ ☺

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

The effects of diet ARE too complex to come up with a lot of really meaningful conclusions (for now). There's a boatload of inconsistencies and contradictory data.

If you do not know, then why are you muddying the waters with all this mumbo jumbo information that you are putting out for us. I’ll let you know that some science is more convincing than other science, and you should probably know that, right? Also, some of the points you are asserting, in your post, is just mainstream dogma that is used to confuse readers about things that we know or don't know.. For example, we should know that we should be cutting down on carbs and processed foods, but you are saying that it is o.k. to eat this junk… and not to over do the eating of junk, but it is o.k.
I am not saying to cut these out completely because each of us chose how to live in the modern world and these items are all over the place… Yes, sometimes, I have a piece of cake or an ice cream or a soda or some chips.. though, these days for me, it is rare that I would have all of those items within a few days.. but whatever that is my preference.. and some people can tolerate much more abuse than others in what they ingest. I could tolerate a lot more in my youth than I am willing to tolerate now. However, I suppose I could pig-out on junk for several months before I would kill myself. I would have lasted longer when I was in my early 20s. On the other hand, some people have less tolerance for dietary abuse, and some of that lessening of tolerance may have been caused because they had abused their bodies for many years when they were younger. When I was in my 20s and 30s, I think that I subscribed to similar beliefs as you are espousing – anything in moderation and I am invincible and a little exercise and will power can overcome anything. I did NOT think too much about how living like that will damage a person’s tolerance to be able to keep abusing oneself.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

I'll bet ya any money that a paleo eater is no healthier than a person who eats a balanced diet including a lot of nutritious food (even if they top it off with nutritionless food).

How much are we betting? You gonna do a scientific study or use anecdotal evidence? Is this gonna be observational or laboratory? How many days or years do you want the study to last? Are you gonna account for genetics? Are we gonna cherry-pick the studies that already exist to show our points – because some of these kinds of studies have been done – though when they are funded by food industries and pharmacies and such we gotta be careful. How you gonna define paleo? How you gonna define carb levels? Fat levels? Protein levels? What kind of food the subjects gonna eat? Is the paleo guy gonna be eating grains and processed foods with his paleo diet? Sounds like you are betting without really thinking through, exactly what you are considering to be a good comparison and how to do the study? Will these people be in your age group? Will it matter how they ate prior to the study?

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

From everything I've read, this is what I believe:

IPsyche: I’m not trying to argue with you because, certainly, you do make some decent points in your lengthy write-up, but really it seems that you are fairly driven by some misinformation from mainstream dogma.. and suggesting that there is no science on the point, so therefore you are gonna just assert your views as being true. And in sum, you probably need to read some more to be more informed on some of the points that you are attempting to make. Certainly, none of us are experts, or at least I do not claim to be an expert, but I would not be afraid to challenge a scientist who claims to be an expert and relying on bad science.

We each bring our own background and critical thinking skills, and I have been focusing personal research on these health and/or fitness topics for only about 2.5 years or so… before that I just had mainstream knowledge and ideas that I ran across incidentally and less systematically.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

a) your genes determine your lifespan (all other things being equal)
b) war, sanitation and medicine are the biggest external factors
c) stress is up there too. and avoid smoking - there's enough data on that

Largely, these are valid points – even though I don’t believe in absolutes, but there is a lot of truth to the above points.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

d) eat lots of nutritious food so you get all your protein requirements, vitamins, minerals and fiber and you can eat pretty much whatever you want for the rest (chips, chocolate, sugar, whatever)

e) don't overeat. if you're fat, cut calories while maintaining enough nutrition. lower your fat. lower your sugar. lower carbs. doesn't matter.

IPsyche: You are really vague and wishy-washy, in these points. Makes me think that you are in your 20s, and feeling immortal.. (nothing against 20 year olds). Let me know when you are in your 50s or 60s and if you continue to believ the same kinds of things? I’m sure it is possible, because there are a lot of misinformed people in the 50s and 60s, as well. In essence, you are suggesting that we can eat anything in moderation.. and you assert that you are eating nutritious without saying what is nutritious? Grains? Cereals? Milk? Meat? Eggs? Processed foods that say healthy on the label? Diet coke? Vitamin water? Organic or not, GMOs or not? Soy? Wheat? corn? Sugar?

I will say that if you eat everything that is nutritious and good for you first, then maybe you will not crave the other stuff? But if you eat the “chips, chocolate, sugar, whatever” this will likely cause you cravings for more junk. Actually, I’m o.k. with chocolate… but usually, it is the amount of sugar that is in the chocolate that has the potential to kill you or at least the potential to cause you damage.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

f) exercise. our bodies are meant to move. you don't need to be Thor. just move around and use those muscles every day

Probably, I generally agree that exercise in moderation is good for people and resistance training is even better – but it sounds as if you are not really being specific and may merely be following the dogma about exercise being good for weight reduction. I agree that exercise is overall good for people for a variety of reasons, but for weight reduction, exercise is overrated. See Taubes’ discussion of this in either of his two books that I already mentioned.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

Not sure if I have every single detail or made all the appropriate disclaimers and notices to satisfy you but that's pretty much the gist of it.

I appreciate your effort to explain from where you are coming and your views, but it seems to me that you are trying to do too much with what you are saying, and generally, what you are saying seems to just play into mainstream dogma. Probably, you do not need to cover every detail or make disclaimers and notices to have a conversation about these kinds of things. We have our different opinions, of course, and some of them make more sense than others.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

Anyway, I don't want to continue this much. It doesn't matter to me what people I don't know do. I'm just putting it out there and if it encourages some people to stop swallowing the lies they've been fed wholesale and to be critical and take a look at the other side for a moment, then I've done my job.

You surely made a lot of claims in your post for “not wanting to continue too much.” What other side of the story are you giving? The other side of paleo? Again, it seems to me that you are spouting a lot of mainstream dogma… and misconstrued some things about paleo and even misconstrued some points that were being made in this thread about cutting down sugar-like substances. Maybe some people will completely cut out sugar from their diets, and you seem to think that sugar is o.k. and maybe even that sugar is good for you? I guess in the end, the other side, from your view, is that sugar is good for you and that there are other factors that contribute to health and physical fitness problems, something like that? I know you said more than that in your writing, but not sure how much of what you said is sinking in, for me at least. Possibly what you said may resonate more with others? Especially, if it is based on mainstream sound bites because some people believe that stuff, even on this forum.

(09-17-2013 10:53 PM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  

Presenting facts and pointing out how the books and proponents are lying to you is akin to asking a Christian to think logically about his religion. It's futile. All you can do is put it out there and hope some of them think about it for a bit. 99% will stick to their dogmatic beliefs and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. It's just how people are.

You may be correct that some people are dogmatic in their views about these kinds of health and fitness matters; however, even though I maintain some strong opinions about what is good and not good, I am open to hearing about evidence that may challenge my views or cause me to rethink my views because ultimately, I would like to do the right thing for my health as well.

I don't know how others feel. IPsyche: - If you have a particular book or study that you would like me to look at that is related to sugar, health or fitness to support your points, then, I would be happy to look at it and reflect upon the information contained therein. It appears that I pointed you to some specific scientific sources that you cannot even fathom, and you are saying that it would be useless for you or others to look at the sources that I pointed out because my sources are just dogmatic.. At the moment, that assertion of yours makes little sense to me, but if you have some source that you can point to, then let me know.

[RexImperator]

(09-17-2013 08:38 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

I'm beginning to think the Paleo diet is suited for lethargic, sedentary people.

I think there's something to this, actually, at least as far as the very low carb (anti starch) variants of paleo go, even though I'm very much in favor of the general philosophy behind it. If it makes people more scared of sugar and less scared of (natural) fats that's a good thing.

Since I started lifting weights I can't imagine not having rice or potatoes for the added energy boost. If you're very active I think "meat and potatoes and vegetables" type foods are more the way to go, but obviously if you're not active enough, fatty cuts of meat (basically anything flavorful) plus starch will make you fat in a hurry.

There's a scale, where the more active you are the less fussy you have to be. The more sedentary you are the more careful of your diet/insulin effects you have to be...on the other end of the scale you have the Michael Phelps situation, i.e. "I can eat 20 cheeseburgers with two gallons of ice cream a day and still lose weight", etc. The more active someone is, the more likely they will tell you, "nothing matters but calories in/out."

That being said I don't think "clean" BB nutrition (i.e. boring chicken breast, broccoli, rice) is optimal either unless you need to make your living from having obscenely low body fat. Surely in the west we're not eating enough organ meats and slow-cooked "tough" cuts of meat compared to our ancestors, and this is contributing to a host of health problems like arthritis, the need for joint replacements, eyeglasses, braces on teeth, etc.

In traditional societies nutritional knowledge was usually passed down from mother to daughter when they were taught how to cook. Weston Price and Paleo diets are just rediscovering what was lost through industrialization and feminism.

[JayJuanGee]

(09-18-2013 10:31 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

...........if you're not active enough, fatty cuts of meat (basically anything flavorful) plus starch will make you fat in a hurry............

Hey Rex. I think everything that you said in your post is reasonable, except for I am not sure about the source for the above statement - regarding combining starches and fats, which seems to suggest that fats are somehow contributing to making people fat. How would the fat play any role in the scenario you outline? Would it not be the starch and not the fat that could potentially cause someone to gain weight?

I am not trying to rag on you for your above statement, but I really do NOT know about any supposed scientific basis for such a statement. Certainly, i have heard this statement in the mainstream, and I have also heard this statement with paleo-type adherents - and I do not understand the source for such assertions and/or how the fat portion would supposedly contribute to a guy becoming fatter. I do agree that starches can make a guy fat though, and I do agree that some starches in moderation may not be a bad thing.

In the last year or so, there has been a considerable amount of debate in the low-carb paleo community concerning whether having starches and vegetables in the diet are of any benefit to health profiles or only a means upon which a guy may be able to eat butter.

[RexImperator]

It's true that was more anecdotal/common sense on my part than something from a study. I think it's basically because its so dense in calories (the fat that is). Not anything intrinsic to the fat other than we have a preference for it and it makes stuff taste really good. So it becomes very easy to eat an excess of calories. Then if you add a lot of starch on top you could add in insulin effects, further encouraging the energy storage mechanism.

I figure that "meat and potatoes" is the stuff that fed lumberjacks, farmers, laborers, etc. and kept them strong and fueled up for a hard day. But if you're not working like a lumberjack (or lifting heavy weights or something similarly intense), it's kind if obvious what will happen, I think.

[Aliblahba]

(09-18-2013 07:42 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:38 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

I'm beginning to think the Paleo diet is suited for lethargic, sedentary people. Certainly not what Spartans, Greek athletes, or gladiators ate. Paleo is just a cool name to sell. In reality they should call it "fat fuck office beta lazy bitch tits man diet". Or the Wall-E for short.

Ali: I am not sure whether you are joking or not about "Spartans, Greek athletes, or gladiators"... probably, these guys were NOT very educated about what they were eating.. and probably would eat whatever was in front of them... but they probably did NOT have too many processed foods or drinks at their disposal... So wouldn’t that be paleo, or pseudo paleo?

Gladiators lived off barley and "calcium shakes" due to their profession.

The others ate region specific. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Gre...lete_diets

They were more educated than most would think.

Spartans generally ate what the rest of the region did, which today is still keeping Greeks healthy. Americans still can't figure out why, but our Med neighbors get off their ass and walk a lot.

My family came off a farm. They lived on:

Cornbread
Mustard/collard/turnip greens
Beans
Cabbage
Eggs
Taters
Biscuits

Meat was consumed but not always daily, as eggs were cheaper. Above was the staples along with seasonal veggies, which were canned in masse and stored in the cellar for winter. Read Cold Mountain, or study Appalachian diet. Sugar and coffee was a luxury. No alcohol. Period.

I'd say they were on a 70/30 split of veggies/meat. But they worked on the farm all day, were thin, healthy, all died at least above 70. The women usually live past 80, and none I can remember hearing about died from cancer or heart attacks.

I know this still as my grandmother still eats those same things, but retired as a nurse, and is educated (and still does) on nutrition. She 85 and never had a major health issue. Diet isn't as hard as most make it out, but people are lazy as fuck and are looking for the easy way out. Unless you exercise, no type of food in any combination is going to keep you healthy. Thin maybe.

As you guys can also see above and from my food pics around here, I eat the same shit most of the time. I've been on the couch injured for months and eat A LOT! I've gained around 8 pounds, but factor in alcohol, hamburgers, baked spaghetti, rarity of ice cream, ect. If all the the modern food was cut out I'd have gained much less. Still, people I know that eat shit all the time would look 10x worse than me. And all those proper mountain I devour daily has aided in healing.

Doctors at two hospitals said my injury was the worst of that type they'd ever seen, but two days ago I got off the crutches. Super fast healing time, and I contribute most of that to diet. I carefully stacked my foods with percentages of V&M's.

Now back to paleo. Gay. When active, I'd die off that diet. Literally. And fuck all if I'm going to stop eating pinto beans w/ fatback. Or milk, cheese, and the rest of the list of foods that make men.

[JayJuanGee]

Rex:
Initially, I was NOT going to respond to your post 48; however, I could not resist. I really did like the contents of your post 46, except for the one line that i pointed out about your comment on combining fats and starches.

Your post 48, on the other hand, makes little to no sense to me, and your framing seemed to devolve into what appears to be a product of mainstream dogma.. and foggy thinking about fats.

I do not want to beat a dead horse; however, in essence, there is no proof that there is any problem with dietary fats making people fat... and really you admitted to not knowing about any proof of such.. and my question for anyone on RVF is if they can point to any proof that dietary fats make people fat.... Here, I am talking about good fats (such as meats, eggs, fish, coconut oil, avocado oil, olive oil), and NOT the various man-made fats that we know are bad for us (such as trans fats and partially hydrogenated oils, and margarines.. and a few others that are probably more confusing to people about the extent to which they are bad such as canola oil or other processed vegetable oils).

A good overall book about fats is Mary Enig’s 2000 book about knowing your fats:
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats-Und...0967812607
Enig’s book is fairly scientific, and probably, there are some other books out there that have more of a layman’s perspective and saying similar things. Enig’s book, nonetheless, can really educate people on different fats…. And modern day problems with processing of fats by heating them and doing other things to them to remove their nutrient value.

Rex: I suspect that you were unwittingly carrying over some mainstream dogma into your thoughts on the topic of dietary fats that has little to no basis in reality. Sure your implication that fats have more calories per gram than carbohydrates is correct; however, having more calories per gram does NOT really mean too much if people who are eating fats and become filled up and satiated by them without eating as many grams as they would if they were eating carbohydrates.

The reality and the biology is that the carbs and starches are causing the body to become fat and not only because of the biology but also because carbs do NOT fill us up and carbs cause us to crave more carbs… ..

The science and biology does NOT establish that dietary fat causes the body to become fat..

My understanding is that extra glucose from carbs turns into fat in the body, and extra fat is not metabolized by the body in the same way as carbs are… and dietary fat does not get stored as fat in the body. Nonetheless, Rex, in your post 48 you had this irresistible impulse to juxtapose dietary fat into your criticism of what is causing people to become fat to suggest that somehow the unsatiable desire to eat dietary fat leads to body fat when the biology is that carbs and starches convert to fat...

Anyhow, I am still open to reviewing any research and studies in regard to how dietary fat may somehow make people fat in some regard.... In essence, even though fat may taste good when accompanied by sugar, you can only eat so much fat on its own or in its various states before you get sick of eating it.. and the only way you get dietary fat to become more palatable is by adding carbs to it.. But, even if you add carbs to fat and eat the fat with carbs, that still does NOT make dietary fat the culprit of why people get fat….

I challenge anybody on this forum to test this by eating large amounts of fat for several weeks and, get some decent kind of fat that you enjoy, and eat as much of it as you want.. bacon and eggs would be good. Don’t eat bread and/or other carbs, just eat the bacon and eggs.. mostly the bacon.. and see how much of it you can eat. Actually, if you are having a little bit of trouble with eating just meat and fat, wrap it up into some lettuce …. Anyhow, then after you ate, see how long it takes for you to get hungry… .. you should stay full longer than you would by eating carbohydrates.

Or another example would be eating as much as you want of steak with the fat – or the fatty cuts of meat. .. You cannot eat that much fatty meat without getting filled up. The key is not to add too many carbs and to make sure that you are eating a lot of fat.. NOT lean protein.

@ Ali: I think that we are on a similar page, and probably each of us come to our own variation of what foods we find acceptable. The ancient athletic diets that you pointed out on Wikipedia seem to be heavily weighted towards meats, and yes animal meats were likely better back in the good ole days than they are these days because these days animals eat too many grains (which screw up their fats).

I do understand that some paleos have problems with milk, and that is not me. I’m o.k with milk and cheese – and I am of the view that raw milk products would be better than the modern milk. I am opposed to homogenization and pasteurization of dairy products but frequently, it is difficult to find raw dairy products. The westinprice website links that I provided earlier have a lot of good raw milk information and links.