OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Non-Religious Topics => Topic started by: Marc1152 on December 15, 2009, 02:59:19 PM

Title: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 15, 2009, 02:59:19 PM
I would like to discuss nutrition and diet and learn how people here eat.

I have a particular interest in Low Carb and Traditional Diets. I have come to believe that  the standard "Healthy" Western Diet based on low fat, avoidance of meat and fear of high cholesterol levels has ruined our health and is the real cause of obesity, heart disease and other modern ailments like diabetes. I have taken to eating a diet as recommended by the Weston Price foundation and in such books as The Paleo Diet.

Dr. Price did his work in the early 20th century. He was a Dentist who traveled the world and studied how primitive peoples ate. He discovered that people eating a Traditional Diet were far healthier than "Modern People" in terms of being cancer free, diabetes free, with good strong physical constitutions and straight teeth. He learned that even after just one generation of eating a Western type diet that the children of these people lost those health advantages.
 
You can read more at   www.westonaprice.org

"The Paleo Diet" by Dr.Loren Cordain is based on the theory that people ate a certain type of "Human Diet" for 2.5 million years. This diet mainly consits of meat, eggs, fruit, nuts and vegetables. Agriculture then introduced a mere 10,000 years ago an unnatural diet of grains, beans and potatoes which are all fairly toxic until cooked.

Here is a really cute youtube that explains the Paleo Diet:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Heorhij on December 15, 2009, 03:18:00 PM
My wife and I are staunch Ukrainians as far as diet is concerned. She is a great cook, and we eat, essentially, what is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_cuisine

I never really studied, just how does this Ukrainian diet compare with other in terms of carbs, cholesterol, and calories. All I know is that I should not over-eat. In the past, I used to abuse alcohol (at one point my consumption of bourbon reached half gallon per 3 days), and I was not particularly concerned about how much I eat, actually eating a lot more than I should have (something that excessive alcohol intake, together with my wife's exceptional culinary talent, very strongly stimulated). As a result, my weight jumped to ~240 lbs. Later, however, I very strongly reduced the amount of alcohol that I drink, especially strong liquor, and, with my wife's blessing and cooperation, began to simply watch the amount of food I eat for dinner. That, without any adjustments in the diet, reduced my weight to the current ~205-210 lbs.

My cholesterol and LDL are borderline, so I, according to my doctor's advice, take courses of Lovastatin (one pill a day, the minimal dose, for 2-3 months, followed by two-three months without it).
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 15, 2009, 03:20:48 PM
The Paleo diet sounds similar to the ideas and themes explored by Sally Fallon in Nourishing Traditions (http://www.amazon.com/Nourishing-Traditions-Challenges-Politically-Dictocrats/dp/0967089735).  The wife and I started to eat a similar diet but got sidetracked once she started school and was rarely home to eat dinner with me.  I imagine once she graduates (ONE WEEK AWAY! :) :) ) we'll go back to trying it out again.  I know I felt a bit better and enjoyed cooking more.  One thing that we did learn to do and stick with is to create our own broths; one whole chicken will not only feed us for two or three times, but the broth we make from the carcass continues to feed us afterwards for a couple weeks when used in other recipes.  I've been exploring vegetable broths for fasting periods and think I've hit paydirt with a mushroom-based broth with just enough thyme in it to give it a great flavor.  I'm going to try my hand at a mushroom based shepherd's pie later this week and see how that goes.  I have high hopes for it and, if it's tasty, it will definitely become a staple for the Nativity Fast and possibly early Lenten fast if Pascha is early (and it's still cool outside at the beginning of the Fast).

One thing that I have a hard time eating is kefir, which Fallon recommends.  I'm not a fan of the tart taste, although I'm trying to break myself of that by eating La Creme yogurt, which has just a bit of cream in it to kill the tartness of the yogurt.  I figure if I can get used to the little bit of tartness that's in La Creme, I can work my way to the real thing eventually.

One can, of course, get carried away with changing one's diet and I think it's very important to keep that in mind.  I think radical diet changes should only happen when they're absolutely necessary (say, discovering one has Celiac's disease).  Much like prayer and fasting regimens, it's easy to burn out on too much of a good thing too soon.

I'm going to look more into this Paleo diet thing; it looks quite intriguing!  While I certainly think that we indulge in too many carbohydrates (and I say this as a carb hound, myself), one cannot stress how important carbs were to the development of the human brain and the creation of civilization. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 15, 2009, 03:36:19 PM
I was raised on a Mediterranean-esque diet, so it was always a lot of polenta, a lot of beans, a lot of pasta (egg-based, potato based, etc), olive oil with everything, a lot of vinegar, meat was often part of the meal but not typically the "star", vegetables were commonplace (especially onions, garlic, and dark green ones), wine every now and then, and excessive amounts of cheese, etc. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 16, 2009, 12:23:02 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 16, 2009, 12:27:05 PM
The Paleo diet sounds similar to the ideas and themes explored by Sally Fallon in Nourishing Traditions (http://www.amazon.com/Nourishing-Traditions-Challenges-Politically-Dictocrats/dp/0967089735).  The wife and I started to eat a similar diet but got sidetracked once she started school and was rarely home to eat dinner with me.  I imagine once she graduates (ONE WEEK AWAY! :) :) ) we'll go back to trying it out again.  I know I felt a bit better and enjoyed cooking more.  One thing that we did learn to do and stick with is to create our own broths; one whole chicken will not only feed us for two or three times, but the broth we make from the carcass continues to feed us afterwards for a couple weeks when used in other recipes.  I've been exploring vegetable broths for fasting periods and think I've hit paydirt with a mushroom-based broth with just enough thyme in it to give it a great flavor.  I'm going to try my hand at a mushroom based shepherd's pie later this week and see how that goes.  I have high hopes for it and, if it's tasty, it will definitely become a staple for the Nativity Fast and possibly early Lenten fast if Pascha is early (and it's still cool outside at the beginning of the Fast).

One thing that I have a hard time eating is kefir, which Fallon recommends.  I'm not a fan of the tart taste, although I'm trying to break myself of that by eating La Creme yogurt, which has just a bit of cream in it to kill the tartness of the yogurt.  I figure if I can get used to the little bit of tartness that's in La Creme, I can work my way to the real thing eventually.

One can, of course, get carried away with changing one's diet and I think it's very important to keep that in mind.  I think radical diet changes should only happen when they're absolutely necessary (say, discovering one has Celiac's disease).  Much like prayer and fasting regimens, it's easy to burn out on too much of a good thing too soon.

I'm going to look more into this Paleo diet thing; it looks quite intriguing!  While I certainly think that we indulge in too many carbohydrates (and I say this as a carb hound, myself), one cannot stress how important carbs were to the development of the human brain and the creation of civilization.  

Cool ! Sally Fallon is the President of the Weston Price Foundation. I have read her book "Eat Fat to Lose Fat"

The Weston Price idea of proper nutrition is very much different than the prevailing idea's in Western Medicine. They say not to fear saturated fat. In fact, it is the absence of saturated fat in the modern diet that is causing much of the disease and unbalance we find today. Rather, fake food that has been refined and denatured and has been raised or grown improperly is the real culprit.

They also question the current advice about keeping cholesterol low. They say that there has never been a single study linking what you eat to your cholesterol levels.. That's a shock.. And, they say that there is no evidence that high Cholesterol levels cause heart problems.

What they say is that big Pharma has invented a new disease that they say most everyone has that they can sell you pills for. It's a scam. In fact, the longest lived people in our society are older women with high cholesterol. We can also look at how Heart  Disease,Diabetes and Cancer rates have sored concurrent with this bad advice. Low Cholesterol may even be linked to getting cancer.

The Traditional Human Diet includes: Meat that is pasture fed , not confinement farmed meat fed crap. Vegetables, Fish, Fruit, fermented foods, eggs, nuts etc. What you can hunt and gather. If it does not occur in Nature, you probably should avoid it. So no refined foods ( including Dairy, Raw only).

When you eat as our ancestors did, your energy sores, your little physical complaints go away and you drop to your proper weight.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 16, 2009, 12:31:24 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 16, 2009, 12:32:15 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

Absolutely correct!  I've tried really hard to control my portion size once I decided that I needed to shed a few pounds and it's worked wonders.  I'm no longer hungry after dinner and therefore don't usually indulge in that 10pm sandwich I used to always eat.  Learning to eat slowly is also a factor in controlling how much you eat, a tactic I learned by going to real ritzy places (in-law's were paying; they're quite the foodies) that do the whole course thing with "tasting size" portions.  I was used to wolfing down my meal in less than 15 minutes.  I was forced to spend 15 minutes on a single small course and wait another five before the next course was brought out.  I liked the idea of it as I would leave the table full but would eat far less than at a run-of-the-mill steakhouse.  I used to be the person who prided himself on being able to eat that 32 oz steak, but now I'm happy with a 6 oz prime rib. :)

Just don't forget the potatoes ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 16, 2009, 12:33:14 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO


I've come across this myself in recent months.  If I eat protein in the morning, I tend to not be hungry for lunch until after one in the afternoon.  If I indulge in just an English muffin, I'm starving by eleven in the morning.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: EofK on December 16, 2009, 12:35:30 PM
That does sound like an interesting diet.  Really, I think any diet that cuts out overly processed foods and focuses more on lean protein, vegetables, fruits, and complex carbohydrates is going to be nutritionally better for you.  I'm of the school of thought that the fewer preservatives the better, so I try to buy foods with short ingredient labels and stay away from things with added sugar, extra salt, etc.  I also like buying foods in which I know the provenance.  During the warm months, we try to buy what we can from the local farmer's market and talk with the vendors there about their produce.  We also grow a few veggies in our back yard.  

Long ago I tried the Maker's Diet and if you get past the weird manipulation of scripture to justify buying the author's products, it's basically a reduced-carb diet.  Again, it cuts out most processed, refined, and pre-cooked foods and has you depend more on vegetables and lean proteins.  There are a few quirks due to the author's Jewish heritage, so no shellfish, no pork, etc.  Otherwise, it's a decent diet plan.  Personally, I still don't eat much pork but during fasting seasons it's hard to get by without shrimp.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 16, 2009, 12:37:12 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO


I've come across this myself in recent months.  If I eat protein in the morning, I tend to not be hungry for lunch until after one in the afternoon.  If I indulge in just an English muffin, I'm starving by eleven in the morning.

YES !!!!.. My big discovery too.. I try to eat the meat left over from dinner the night before with an egg and fruit. NO BREAD and I am full till 3:00
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 16, 2009, 12:53:03 PM
I, of course, discovered this just before the Nativity Fast.  While I love baked beans, I'm not English enough to want them for breakfast! ;)

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 16, 2009, 01:06:06 PM
Anyone have a good substitute for soda? I've been drinking more 2% milk, and a lot more water. And when I want something sweeter I've used O.J., but O.J. has a lot of sugar itself, which is part of what I'm trying to avoid. I don't really like most diet sodas that I've tasted, though I haven't sampled any of the new fangled ones that have come out in the last 5 years. I sometimes drink diet green tea, but I'm not wild about that either. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Heorhij on December 16, 2009, 01:14:36 PM
Anyone have a good substitute for soda? I've been drinking more 2% milk, and a lot more water. And when I want something sweeter I've used O.J., but O.J. has a lot of sugar itself, which is part of what I'm trying to avoid. I don't really like most diet sodas that I've tasted, though I haven't sampled any of the new fangled ones that have come out in the last 5 years. I sometimes drink diet green tea, but I'm not wild about that either. Any suggestions?

Dry red wine?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 16, 2009, 01:29:13 PM
How about a little lemon juice with some agave nectar (very low glycemic index and sweeter than sugar) in water?  Just a little bit of each, mind you, to give the water a little flavor.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 16, 2009, 01:33:40 PM
I eat what I want, but watch what I eat...which means, since I'm borderline Hypoglycemic (I fluctuate to normal as the seasons get colder due to less energy use) I have to stay off the Slurpees and bags of Skittles and Nerds I was accustomed to eating daily as a kid. I was raised drinking atleast 3 cans of soda per day! I KNOW!

Now, I'm a chef, cook at home, cook healthy foods with little or no cream, I use 1 tbs. sugar and Whole Milk in my 2.5 cups of coffee. I can't stand Stevia or Nutrasweet stuff. I use butter and eggs as a source of Protein/Fat to keep the blood sugar up, and eat smaller portions for dinner (one bowl of spaghetti instead of two). An 8 oz. portion of Red Meat 1-2 times per week, Poultry once a week, seafood three times a week, and atleast one vegetarian dinner. My breakfast is usually a bagel or 2 eggs (poached or scrambled) or rarely a bowl of cereal.

Lunch is lite, maybe a Sammy, or leftovers.

Being a chef, I make stocks and render fat (not bacon unless I'm making clam chowder or Coq Au Vin) on a weekly basis. I use chicken Schmultz and Duck Fat on occassion But mainly stick to good clean EVOO. And I drink about 30 oz. of juice and 30 oz. water.

I don't care for pasta that much, or potatoes but we eat them about once a week. I like rice if I'm eating a starch, but try to  just eat protein and veg for dinner more often, as starches obviously jack my blood sugar up, which, if eaten for dinner, make me feel weak, shaky and grumpy in the morning. If I feel the need to still eat after dinner, I have a bowl of icecream or popcorn.
We eat a ton of veggies in my house and I love fruit!
I love a glass of wine or a beer with dinner, so about 4 times a week.

 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 16, 2009, 03:01:05 PM
Dry red wine?

How about a little lemon juice with some agave nectar (very low glycemic index and sweeter than sugar) in water?  Just a little bit of each, mind you, to give the water a little flavor.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will have to try them out. :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 16, 2009, 03:06:26 PM
Dry red wine?

How about a little lemon juice with some agave nectar (very low glycemic index and sweeter than sugar) in water?  Just a little bit of each, mind you, to give the water a little flavor.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will have to try them out. :)
I drink white tea w/ mangosteen - low cafeene + high antioxidants
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: wynd on December 16, 2009, 03:34:21 PM
"The Paleo Diet" by Dr.Loren Cordain is based on the theory that people ate a certain type of "Human Diet" for 2.5 million years. This diet mainly consits of meat, eggs, fruit, nuts and vegetables. Agriculture then introduced a mere 10,000 years ago an unnatural diet of grains, beans and potatoes which are all fairly toxic until cooked.

No grains or beans? What do you eat during the fasts? Light bulbs?  :D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Fr. George on December 16, 2009, 03:46:25 PM
"The Paleo Diet" by Dr.Loren Cordain is based on the theory that people ate a certain type of "Human Diet" for 2.5 million years. This diet mainly consits of meat, eggs, fruit, nuts and vegetables. Agriculture then introduced a mere 10,000 years ago an unnatural diet of grains, beans and potatoes which are all fairly toxic until cooked.

And for 2.5 million years the average person didn't know that age 70 was attainable.  The methodology would have to be re-checked with modern advances taken into account.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 16, 2009, 04:17:26 PM
"The Paleo Diet" by Dr.Loren Cordain is based on the theory that people ate a certain type of "Human Diet" for 2.5 million years. This diet mainly consits of meat, eggs, fruit, nuts and vegetables. Agriculture then introduced a mere 10,000 years ago an unnatural diet of grains, beans and potatoes which are all fairly toxic until cooked.

And for 2.5 million years the average person didn't know that age 70 was attainable.  The methodology would have to be re-checked with modern advances taken into account.

Go take a look at the little youtube I posted at the top of this thread, it addresses that issue.


Minus medicine and being at risk of falling prey to large animals, no Fire Dept to call etc. :)  is what shortend lifespan. But all evidence seems to indicate that they were free of all the modern diseases and were generally healthier than we are today..

Have you ever wondered what people did before dentistry? Paleolithic people didn't have carries or bad teeth. They often had a perfect arch and straight teeth. But if you introduce a western diet to hunter gatherer peoples their kids have weaker constitutions and aliments like crooked teeth and miss formed arches.

Take a look at some of Dr. Price's book: "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" . Some of it is on-line

http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: EofK on December 16, 2009, 04:22:34 PM
Dry red wine?

How about a little lemon juice with some agave nectar (very low glycemic index and sweeter than sugar) in water?  Just a little bit of each, mind you, to give the water a little flavor.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will have to try them out. :)

We drink a lot of unsweetened iced tea with fresh lime juice.  Just enough flavor to keep it from being boring but without all the sugar.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 16, 2009, 04:31:32 PM
"The Paleo Diet" by Dr.Loren Cordain is based on the theory that people ate a certain type of "Human Diet" for 2.5 million years. This diet mainly consits of meat, eggs, fruit, nuts and vegetables. Agriculture then introduced a mere 10,000 years ago an unnatural diet of grains, beans and potatoes which are all fairly toxic until cooked.

No grains or beans? What do you eat during the fasts? Light bulbs?  :D

Depends how hungry you get.

I am struggling with that right now of course. I'd like to find another Orthodox person who eats this way and compare notes.

The simple answer is that you still don't eat food that is not good for you. I don't want to go back to loading up on Pasta every fast and ballooning up my weight.

I am sure Paleolithic people went through periods of not much meat.

Here is what you could eat: Lots of fruit and vegetables. Cooked carrots and brussel sprouts with Honey on top is a fine breakfast. Add an apple and some juice and you are pretty set. So fruits and vegetables are the main-stay. But we can also eat shrimp and crab and squid etc. as you all know. Also, we can eat fish during the Nativity Fast  on Sat. and Sunday so all those meals can be pretty high Protein. Snack on nuts. Salad, salad and then some more salad.

But you're right, it's a problem. You may have to cheat one way or the other. A big bowl of oatmeal is still an option if you break :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: John of the North on December 16, 2009, 04:46:30 PM
Greek Diet Can Lengthen Life
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/12/greek-diet-can-lengthen-life.html
by STEPHEN HULL
Mail Online

A Mediterranean diet rich in cheese, nuts and olive oil can protect against heart disease and cancer, new research shows.

A study of 22,000 Greeks showed that large amounts of the foods, combined with fresh fruit and vegetables, cut the chance of death from heart disease by 33 percent.

The risk of dying from cancer was 24 percent lower.

The diet, which varies from country to country, often includes monthly servings of meat and weekly meals of poultry, eggs and sweets.

Vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, olive oil, unrefined cereals, cheese and yogurt are eaten most days, as is fish.

Wine is enjoyed frequently, but in moderate amounts.

Although olive oil is widely credited with many of the diet's benefits, the research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, did not find any one specific food in the diet was responsible for the improvement in health.

Dr Frank Hu of Brigham and Women's Hospital, in Boston, said the study showed it was more a case of combining particular nutrients or foods which somehow interact to reduce the risks of cancer and heart disease.

Daily physical activity also played a critical role in cutting death rates, the study found.

People who exercised daily for at least an hour had a 28 percent lower risk of cancer or heart disease.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Fr. George on December 16, 2009, 04:55:06 PM
I wonder how much influence the increased exposure to sunlight plays.  I'm not approaching this from a S.A.D. angle, but rather a "sunlight stimulates the body to produce certain vitamins & hormones" angle.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 16, 2009, 05:11:43 PM
I wonder how much influence the increased exposure to sunlight plays.  I'm not approaching this from a S.A.D. angle, but rather a "sunlight stimulates the body to produce certain vitamins & hormones" angle.

Great point... The Weston Price folks address lack of exposure to sunlight in their materials. The big problem is vitamin D deficiency. Doctors seem to just now be testing for D and finding people are too low.

The solution is Cod Liver Oil. Not only is it rich in Vitemin D but also in Vitemin A. For some reason A and D are synergistic and work better together. They also recommend taking Cod Liver Oil with Butter Oil, again due to some sort of synergistic effect. Cod liver oil is of course a Fish Oil, so all the anti-inflamitory benefits of Fish Oil are in it too. Both can be had in pill form.


So the one supplementation to the Weston Price way of eating would be Cod Liver Oil with Butter Oil..Grandma would be proud that her old fashioned advice turned out to be good. Now.. Open Wide :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ealusaidghille on December 16, 2009, 06:46:27 PM
My husband and I are learning all about beans and lentils this Advent. I can hardly believe how satisfying a bean soup with vegetables and barley can be. We make a huge pot and freeze in small servings. Lentils have plenty of protein and are used around the world in more natural diets. We add them to everything we can think of. Brown rice is also a staple for us. We use natural sweeteners such as honey, maple syrup and Stevia.

One thing people, I think, need to get over is the desire for a variety of foods in their diet. Eating plain foods, over and over again is good for us. The occasional treat or change makes food all the more interesting.

We have recently watched Food Inc and King Corn. Heaven help us all! We are now committed to buying local pasture grown meats and making a huge garden this next year.

One thing I found interesting about the movies was that we, Americans, spend less percent of our income on food than any other nation of people. This was done so we could be better consumers of other "stuff". As Christians, do we need this other stuff? Really?

Ok, sorry for starting a rant.
Happy Advent!!!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: coptic orthodox boy on December 16, 2009, 08:15:04 PM
i love authentic sichuanese and korean food as well as a nice lamb kabob once in a while.
must try dishes
*authentic mapo tofu
*authentic braised lamb
*authentic kung pao chicken
*don't know what it is called in korean, but i always order this spicy tofu hot pot at the local korean restaurant...it is divine.  lot's of tofu, some shreaded beaf and pork, and an egg to top off the already delish spicy broth.  a must eat.
http://www.londonelicious.com/.a/6a00d8341cd4a653ef010535e62730970c-800wi
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 16, 2009, 10:00:38 PM
Asteriktos posted today that he is going to try to consume 150g/day of carbs....you guys should trade menus.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Tamara on December 16, 2009, 11:40:33 PM
Hi Marc,

I eat a low-carb, high protein diet too. I usually eat eggs or quinoa hot cereal along with green tea for breakfast. We use agave nectar, stevia or ripe fruit to sweeten foods and drinks. I eat almost no bread or rice. I eat sweets on special occasions. At night, we usually have some form of meat or fish, green salad made with olive oil, and lots of fresh vegetables and fruits. For snacks, we eat nuts, popcorn, fruits and vegetables. I only buy processed foods (crackers) if we are having a party. I have altered middle-eastern recipes to enhance the protein factor.

On warm days, I eat tabouli made with quinoa (a complete protein seed) instead of burgal wheat. I chop up fresh parsley, throw in whole leaves of mint and fresh cherry tomatoes, with Meyer lemon juice from my lemon tree and evo. Add a little sea salt and ground pepper and lunch is ready.

Quinoa also works as a replacement for burgal in well in a warm Syrian dish made with spinach, onion and tomato sauce.

I found Quinoa flakes and mix it together with oatmeal for breakfast.

I try and buy organic produce as often as possible. I buy our meat products from a butcher who buys grass-fed beef and free range chickens. I avoid buying olive oil, butter or meat in bulk because rancid fats are poisonous to our systems. I would say our family diet leans toward a middle-eastern/Mediterranean diet.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 17, 2009, 01:38:24 PM
Hi Marc,

I eat a low-carb, high protein diet too. I usually eat eggs or quinoa hot cereal along with green tea for breakfast. We use agave nectar, stevia or ripe fruit to sweeten foods and drinks. I eat almost no bread or rice. I eat sweets on special occasions. At night, we usually have some form of meat or fish, green salad made with olive oil, and lots of fresh vegetables and fruits. For snacks, we eat nuts, popcorn, fruits and vegetables. I only buy processed foods (crackers) if we are having a party. I have altered middle-eastern recipes to enhance the protein factor.

On warm days, I eat tabouli made with quinoa (a complete protein seed) instead of burgal wheat. I chop up fresh parsley, throw in whole leaves of mint and fresh cherry tomatoes, with Meyer lemon juice from my lemon tree and evo. Add a little sea salt and ground pepper and lunch is ready.

Quinoa also works as a replacement for burgal in well in a warm Syrian dish made with spinach, onion and tomato sauce.

I found Quinoa flakes and mix it together with oatmeal for breakfast.

I try and buy organic produce as often as possible. I buy our meat products from a butcher who buys grass-fed beef and free range chickens. I avoid buying olive oil, butter or meat in bulk because rancid fats are poisonous to our systems. I would say our family diet leans toward a middle-eastern/Mediterranean diet.

That sounds healthy too. The  rule of the Paleo diet is nothing post Agriculture :) which started about 10,000 years ago (planting crops and growing food rather than hunting and gathering exclusively). All grains, potatoes and beans are toxic ( they have "anti-nutirents") until they are well cooked. However, even after being cooked, some toxins remain which is why many people constantly feel like they need to detox.

One interesting food that I have found is "Quorm" which is a mushroom of sorts. It is made into stuff like tofu is but without all the bad chemistry of Soy. "Burgers", "Chicken Patties" etc. It's high Protein but still not  any sort of grain.

As to rancid fats, you are absolutely correct to my way of thinking. This brings up an area that I will post more on later and that is Dairy. The only health full Dairy is NOT Pasteurized or Homogenized. Pasteurised Milk goes rancid. It has had all the digestive enzymes and other beneficial stuff boiled out of it. Natural Milk  SOURS and can still be consumed.

My step daughter drinks store bought Pasteurised Milk. Some of it went rancid the other day. It smelled terrible !! It filled the house with stink... Poison !

www.realmilk.com
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 17, 2009, 03:17:12 PM
Hi Marc,

I eat a low-carb, high protein diet too. I usually eat eggs or quinoa hot cereal along with green tea for breakfast. We use agave nectar, stevia or ripe fruit to sweeten foods and drinks. I eat almost no bread or rice. I eat sweets on special occasions. At night, we usually have some form of meat or fish, green salad made with olive oil, and lots of fresh vegetables and fruits. For snacks, we eat nuts, popcorn, fruits and vegetables. I only buy processed foods (crackers) if we are having a party. I have altered middle-eastern recipes to enhance the protein factor.

On warm days, I eat tabouli made with quinoa (a complete protein seed) instead of burgal wheat. I chop up fresh parsley, throw in whole leaves of mint and fresh cherry tomatoes, with Meyer lemon juice from my lemon tree and evo. Add a little sea salt and ground pepper and lunch is ready.

Quinoa also works as a replacement for burgal in well in a warm Syrian dish made with spinach, onion and tomato sauce.

I found Quinoa flakes and mix it together with oatmeal for breakfast.

I try and buy organic produce as often as possible. I buy our meat products from a butcher who buys grass-fed beef and free range chickens. I avoid buying olive oil, butter or meat in bulk because rancid fats are poisonous to our systems. I would say our family diet leans toward a middle-eastern/Mediterranean diet.

That sounds healthy too. The  rule of the Paleo diet is nothing post Agriculture :) which started about 10,000 years ago (planting crops and growing food rather than hunting and gathering exclusively). All grains, potatoes and beans are toxic ( they have "anti-nutirents") until they are well cooked. However, even after being cooked, some toxins remain which is why many people constantly feel like they need to detox.

One interesting food that I have found is "Quorm" which is a mushroom of sorts. It is made into stuff like tofu is but without all the bad chemistry of Soy. "Burgers", "Chicken Patties" etc. It's high Protein but still not  any sort of grain.

As to rancid fats, you are absolutely correct to my way of thinking. This brings up an area that I will post more on later and that is Dairy. The only health full Dairy is NOT Pasteurized or Homogenized. Pasteurised Milk goes rancid. It has had all the digestive enzymes and other beneficial stuff boiled out of it. Natural Milk  SOURS and can still be consumed.

My step daughter drinks store bought Pasteurised Milk. Some of it went rancid the other day. It smelled terrible !! It filled the house with stink... Poison !

www.realmilk.com


I LOVE QUORN!  I discovered this about two years ago and we use it for "taycoes" (what we call fake tacos) all the time.  It actually has the consistency of ground beef and none of the disgusting taste soy crumblers always have.  The fake chicken tenders are good, too.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 17, 2009, 05:23:23 PM
Hi Marc,

I eat a low-carb, high protein diet too. I usually eat eggs or quinoa hot cereal along with green tea for breakfast. We use agave nectar, stevia or ripe fruit to sweeten foods and drinks. I eat almost no bread or rice. I eat sweets on special occasions. At night, we usually have some form of meat or fish, green salad made with olive oil, and lots of fresh vegetables and fruits. For snacks, we eat nuts, popcorn, fruits and vegetables. I only buy processed foods (crackers) if we are having a party. I have altered middle-eastern recipes to enhance the protein factor.

On warm days, I eat tabouli made with quinoa (a complete protein seed) instead of burgal wheat. I chop up fresh parsley, throw in whole leaves of mint and fresh cherry tomatoes, with Meyer lemon juice from my lemon tree and evo. Add a little sea salt and ground pepper and lunch is ready.

Quinoa also works as a replacement for burgal in well in a warm Syrian dish made with spinach, onion and tomato sauce.

I found Quinoa flakes and mix it together with oatmeal for breakfast.

I try and buy organic produce as often as possible. I buy our meat products from a butcher who buys grass-fed beef and free range chickens. I avoid buying olive oil, butter or meat in bulk because rancid fats are poisonous to our systems. I would say our family diet leans toward a middle-eastern/Mediterranean diet.

That sounds healthy too. The rule of the Paleo diet is nothing post Agriculture :) which started about 10,000 years ago (planting crops and growing food rather than hunting and gathering exclusively). All grains, potatoes and beans are toxic ( they have "anti-nutirents") until they are well cooked. However, even after being cooked, some toxins remain which is why many people constantly feel like they need to detox.

One interesting food that I have found is "Quorm" which is a mushroom of sorts. It is made into stuff like tofu is but without all the bad chemistry of Soy. "Burgers", "Chicken Patties" etc. It's high Protein but still not  any sort of grain.

As to rancid fats, you are absolutely correct to my way of thinking. This brings up an area that I will post more on later and that is Dairy. The only health full Dairy is NOT Pasteurized or Homogenized. Pasteurised Milk goes rancid. It has had all the digestive enzymes and other beneficial stuff boiled out of it. Natural Milk  SOURS and can still be consumed.

My step daughter drinks store bought Pasteurised Milk. Some of it went rancid the other day. It smelled terrible !! It filled the house with stink... Poison !

www.realmilk.com


I LOVE QUORN!  I discovered this about two years ago and we use it for "taycoes" (what we call fake tacos) all the time.  It actually has the consistency of ground beef and none of the disgusting taste soy crumblers always have.  The fake chicken tenders are good, too.

Yes..LOVE the fake chicken... Supposedly it is better known in England than the USA.

Also I forgot to mention Coconut and especially Coconut Oil. In Sally Fallon's book "Eat Fat to Lose Fat" she is big on using Coconut Oil. It is definitely a saturated fat but the argument is that saturated fats are necessary in the human diet and the recent banning of it has been the cause of many health problems for people.

Chief among the highly digestable Saturated Fats comes from Coconuts. It is a very good meat substitute during a Fast. Fallon says to make a tea out of about one tablespoon or more of Coconut Oil mixed into hot water. You throw it back about a half hour before a meal and you become satiated quickly ( and then lose weight). You can also cook with Coconut Oil if you like the taste.. You can also drink Coconut Milk ( creamy) and Coconut Juice/Water ( not creamy). This is a very good way for a person on a Plaeo type or High Protein Diet to eat during the Fast without resorting to bread and Pasta or Beans etc. A big glass of Coconut Milk with a meal ( add sweetener if you like) is pretty darn good and filling.

Also, I have been using Coconut Oil topically for a year or two now. It works better than you would expect on sore spots  like a sore knee or back or shoulder. It also cures dry skin.

On the TV show I mentioned before "Meet the Natives on the Travel Channel had one of the Hunter Gatherer guys that they have brought from a remote South Sea Island mention how much they use Coconut Oil. They rub it all over their body and he says it keeps the skin looking healthy.. My kids rolled their eyes.... cause they know me too well..
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 17, 2009, 05:49:06 PM
My wife and I started using coconut oil about two years ago for cooking purposes; it tastes more like butter than most things.

I'm going to have to try that coconut oil tea.  It certainly sounds delicious and I always end up eating far more than I should.  If it works for me, it may help me break that habit :)

I'm not a fan of coconut itself, and have therefore never tried coconut milk.  Maybe I'll give it another go.

Again, I'm fascinated that this thread hasn't degenerated into a stupid argument over nutrition. :)  Keep up the good work, folks! :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 17, 2009, 07:12:32 PM
My wife and I started using coconut oil about two years ago for cooking purposes; it tastes more like butter than most things.

I'm going to have to try that coconut oil tea.  It certainly sounds delicious and I always end up eating far more than I should.  If it works for me, it may help me break that habit :)

I'm not a fan of coconut itself, and have therefore never tried coconut milk.  Maybe I'll give it another go.

Again, I'm fascinated that this thread hasn't degenerated into a stupid argument over nutrition. :)  Keep up the good work, folks! :)
The book "Fat" by Jennifer McLagan (a chef and foodwriter) goes into agreement with this Sally Fallon. It's worth checking out. I would love to have it just for the references and beautiful photos.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 17, 2009, 11:07:23 PM
My wife and I started using coconut oil about two years ago for cooking purposes; it tastes more like butter than most things.

I'm going to have to try that coconut oil tea.  It certainly sounds delicious and I always end up eating far more than I should.  If it works for me, it may help me break that habit :)

I'm not a fan of coconut itself, and have therefore never tried coconut milk.  Maybe I'll give it another go.

Again, I'm fascinated that this thread hasn't degenerated into a stupid argument over nutrition. :)  Keep up the good work, folks! :)
The book "Fat" by Jennifer McLagan (a chef and foodwriter) goes into agreement with this Sally Fallon. It's worth checking out. I would love to have it just for the references and beautiful photos.

Here is a short you tube about Saturated Fat and the Cholesterol Myth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 17, 2009, 11:09:49 PM
My wife and I started using coconut oil about two years ago for cooking purposes; it tastes more like butter than most things.

I'm going to have to try that coconut oil tea.  It certainly sounds delicious and I always end up eating far more than I should.  If it works for me, it may help me break that habit :)

I'm not a fan of coconut itself, and have therefore never tried coconut milk.  Maybe I'll give it another go.

Again, I'm fascinated that this thread hasn't degenerated into a stupid argument over nutrition. :)  Keep up the good work, folks! :)
The book "Fat" by Jennifer McLagan (a chef and foodwriter) goes into agreement with this Sally Fallon. It's worth checking out. I would love to have it just for the references and beautiful photos.

Here is a short you tube about Saturated Fat and the Cholesterol Myth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
ahh, if I only had a working sound card... :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 18, 2009, 10:42:55 AM
Here is a short you tube about Saturated Fat and the Cholesterol Myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Well that was an interesting video. How do you think my doctor would react if I went in next week and said "Ya know, Doc, I was watching this video on the internet, and it said I didn't have to worry about my cholesterol"? He's the kinda guy that would probably konk me on the head :D Seriously, though, what would you suggest as far as more information about this, and how one would discuss such ideas with a doctor? I have high cholesterol, and was at one point on two meds for it (Simvastatin and Tricor). I'm not saying the one video changed my mind, but I admit that it would be good to follow up on it's claims.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 18, 2009, 11:07:07 AM
You probably have high "bad" cholesterol (of the low density kind).  Even the most hardcore fringe paleo-diet supporters accept and understand that there is such a thing.  The problem with cholesterol in the past is that we were always taught that ALL cholesterol is bad and should be avoided at all costs; the same goes for all types of fat. 

If you're unbalanced, so to speak, of course you can't just go and binge on one of these type of diets.  That's just a recipe for failure in adhering to the diet AND a health problem waiting to happen. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 18, 2009, 11:40:39 AM
I have a doctor appointment next Wednesday, I should actually ask for specifics about that kind of thing. I know that the doctor was concerned with my triglycerides after my last blood test (a few weeks ago), but he didn't say much beyond that (regarding cholesterol).
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 18, 2009, 01:21:38 PM
Here is a short you tube about Saturated Fat and the Cholesterol Myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Well that was an interesting video. How do you think my doctor would react if I went in next week and said "Ya know, Doc, I was watching this video on the internet, and it said I didn't have to worry about my cholesterol"? He's the kinda guy that would probably konk me on the head :D Seriously, though, what would you suggest as far as more information about this, and how one would discuss such ideas with a doctor? I have high cholesterol, and was at one point on two meds for it (Simvastatin and Tricor). I'm not saying the one video changed my mind, but I admit that it would be good to follow up on it's claims.

I am at work so right now some of the titles of books I can refer you too have flown out of my head.

You can go to www.westonaprice.com and read some articles for now. You would be surprised how many people, Doctors included, know that the Cholesterol scare is pretty bogus. A coworker got into a discussion with me about it and mentioned that her Cardiologist told her the same thing.

I realize this is all pretty anecdotal. We have all been scared pretty good on this issue, me included. But I can tell you the general claim of the skeptics; there has never been a study linking what you eat to high cholesterol. There is also no good evidence that high cholesterol causes heart problems. None.

Ask him or her to refer you to a study. If he does, you can send it along to the Weson Price Foundation. What you will find is that AT BEST the data is very very thin . In fact the longest living people in our society are Women who have high cholesterol. Cholesterol has many protective benefits and is a natural substance. It is rather inflammation, caused by a variety of factors in our diet that may be the real cause of so much Heart disease. The very stuff we have been told helps our hearts, like low fat food may be the real culprit.

So the question you can ask is: "Show me a study" And ask why he thinks Heat Disease rates have zoomed along with the change in our diets to low fat and the elimination of saturated fats.

Also, Statins ( the $rug that is used to lower blood cholesterol that comes under many brand names) has all kinds of side effects. Got some muscle weakness? Leg Pain? Notice some increased depression? Liver problems? They have sold a cure for a nonexistent illness and have used a group of drugs that harms us.... Go figure.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 18, 2009, 01:34:33 PM
You probably have high "bad" cholesterol (of the low density kind).  Even the most hardcore fringe paleo-diet supporters accept and understand that there is such a thing.  The problem with cholesterol in the past is that we were always taught that ALL cholesterol is bad and should be avoided at all costs; the same goes for all types of fat. 

If you're unbalanced, so to speak, of course you can't just go and binge on one of these type of diets.  That's just a recipe for failure in adhering to the diet AND a health problem waiting to happen. 

The author of the Plaeo Diet is not a Cholesterol skeptic. Quite the contrary, he is on the board of the American Heart Association and buys the party line about high cholesterol. You will find that the Plaeo Diet increases "Good" and lowers "Bad" cholesterol. Most other low carb high protein diets have found the same result. 

There is no evidence that eating food containing High Cholesteorl ( shrimp, red meat , etc.) increases your own blood cholesterol.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 18, 2009, 05:16:25 PM
Thanks, Marc1152 :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on December 18, 2009, 05:35:22 PM
You probably have high "bad" cholesterol (of the low density kind).  Even the most hardcore fringe paleo-diet supporters accept and understand that there is such a thing.  The problem with cholesterol in the past is that we were always taught that ALL cholesterol is bad and should be avoided at all costs; the same goes for all types of fat. 

If you're unbalanced, so to speak, of course you can't just go and binge on one of these type of diets.  That's just a recipe for failure in adhering to the diet AND a health problem waiting to happen. 

The author of the Plaeo Diet is not a Cholesterol skeptic. Quite the contrary, he is on the board of the American Heart Association and buys the party line about high cholesterol. You will find that the Plaeo Diet increases "Good" and lowers "Bad" cholesterol. Most other low carb high protein diets have found the same result. 

There is no evidence that eating food containing High Cholesteorl ( shrimp, red meat , etc.) increases your own blood cholesterol.

That's what I meant. :) 

I do find it interesting, though, that the author of the Paleo Diet is a party-liner, so to speak.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 19, 2009, 04:06:13 PM
You probably have high "bad" cholesterol (of the low density kind).  Even the most hardcore fringe paleo-diet supporters accept and understand that there is such a thing.  The problem with cholesterol in the past is that we were always taught that ALL cholesterol is bad and should be avoided at all costs; the same goes for all types of fat. 

If you're unbalanced, so to speak, of course you can't just go and binge on one of these type of diets.  That's just a recipe for failure in adhering to the diet AND a health problem waiting to happen. 

The author of the Plaeo Diet is not a Cholesterol skeptic. Quite the contrary, he is on the board of the American Heart Association and buys the party line about high cholesterol. You will find that the Plaeo Diet increases "Good" and lowers "Bad" cholesterol. Most other low carb high protein diets have found the same result. 

There is no evidence that eating food containing High Cholesterol ( shrimp, red meat , etc.) increases your own blood cholesterol.

That's what I meant. :) 

I do find it interesting, though, that the author of the Paleo Diet is a party-liner, so to speak.

There is a difference of opinion as to how much fat Paleolithic people ate which bares upon the cholesterol question.

You cant consume unlimited quantities of protein, you go into protein toxicity. That is why explorers who ate only rabbit for extended periods got very sick. Rabbit has no fat. They sometimes kill off prisoners in South America by feeding them only lean protein and no fat. They get sick and die. Therefore, you must eat protein with either fat or vegetables in order to metabolize it properly.

So what did hunter gatherers eat? Dr. Cordain ( author of the Plaeo Diet ) says that animals  back then were lean, so they balanced the Protein with vegetables. However, evidence from prehistoric camp sites indicate that fat was the first thing they ate and actually saved the muscle meat to make Jerky ( pemmican)  for the winter. They also preferred the organs as they have the most nutrition. If you observe other carnovors in the wild like lions, they eat the fat and organs and often leave the muscle meat for the dogs.

I think Dr. Cordain has a regular gig with the American Heart Association. I think he is trying to have this more natural type of diet accepted by the mainstream.   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 19, 2009, 04:21:54 PM
Here are some references if you want to read what the skeptics say about Cholesterol and Heart Disease.

Anything by Mary Enig MD is very good. She is the Doctor who exposed how bad "Transfats" are for you. Transfats are artificial fats refined from oils... They are a killer. She is trying to get people to go back to natural saturated fats. The cholesterol question and the fat issue are interlinked. The Soy and vegetable oil industry were big backers of Cholesterol miss information..

Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol by Mary Enig, MD

You can google on her name and read several articles.

She also wrote :Eat Fat to lose Fat with Sally Fallon


Another good book is; The Cholesterol Hoax by Sherry Reynolds MD

And here is a link to more info.

http://whale.to/a/cholesterol.html

and

www.westonaprice.org
 








Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: militantsparrow on December 19, 2009, 07:04:39 PM
The only thing I really watch is calories. I try to eat only the amount of calories appropriate for my age, sex, physical activity level, and etc. I do like the concept of the paleo diet, but I'm probably more a fan of the idea that you should eat what your cultural heritage has always eaten and just don't be gluttonous about it.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 19, 2009, 07:23:48 PM
The only thing I really watch is calories. I try to eat only the amount of calories appropriate for my age, sex, physical activity level, and etc. I do like the concept of the paleo diet, but I'm probably more a fan of the idea that you should eat what your cultural heritage has always eaten and just don't be gluttonous about it.
I thought you had left! Welcome back MS :)

If I did that, I be eating Baked Beans and Eggs, blood sausage, scotch eggs, lots of potatoes, lots of cabbage, and a banger with my brandy and orange juice in the morning! UUUR...yah, not for me.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 19, 2009, 10:41:11 PM
The only thing I really watch is calories. I try to eat only the amount of calories appropriate for my age, sex, physical activity level, and etc. I do like the concept of the paleo diet, but I'm probably more a fan of the idea that you should eat what your cultural heritage has always eaten and just don't be gluttonous about it.
I thought you had left! Welcome back MS :)

If I did that, I be eating Baked Beans and Eggs, blood sausage, scotch eggs, lots of potatoes, lots of cabbage, and a banger with my brandy and orange juice in the morning! UUUR...yah, not for me.

Just eat: Blood sausage, eggs ( I dont know what scotch eggs are)...cabbage, bangers and OJ and you will get healthy. Skip the potatoes and beans
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 19, 2009, 11:28:34 PM
( I dont know what scotch eggs are)

Take a shelled hard-boiled egg, coat it in sausage meat, pack some breadcrumbs on it, then deep fry it all.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 20, 2009, 12:15:29 AM
( I dont know what scotch eggs are)

Take a shelled hard-boiled egg, coat it in sausage meat, pack some breadcrumbs on it, then deep fry it all.
mmm.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 20, 2009, 12:16:36 AM
The only thing I really watch is calories. I try to eat only the amount of calories appropriate for my age, sex, physical activity level, and etc. I do like the concept of the paleo diet, but I'm probably more a fan of the idea that you should eat what your cultural heritage has always eaten and just don't be gluttonous about it.
I thought you had left! Welcome back MS :)

If I did that, I be eating Baked Beans and Eggs, blood sausage, scotch eggs, lots of potatoes, lots of cabbage, and a banger with my brandy and orange juice in the morning! UUUR...yah, not for me.

Just eat: Blood sausage, eggs ( I dont know what scotch eggs are)...cabbage, bangers and OJ and you will get healthy. Skip the potatoes and beans
what, no brandy!!?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 20, 2009, 11:32:11 AM
( I dont know what scotch eggs are)

Take a shelled hard-boiled egg, coat it in sausage meat, pack some breadcrumbs on it, then deep fry it all.

And the funny thing is, the only really bad part of that are the bread crumbs..  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 20, 2009, 12:23:11 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO


I've come across this myself in recent months.  If I eat protein in the morning, I tend to not be hungry for lunch until after one in the afternoon.  If I indulge in just an English muffin, I'm starving by eleven in the morning.

YES !!!!.. My big discovery too.. I try to eat the meat left over from dinner the night before with an egg and fruit. NO BREAD and I am full till 3:00

No bread?  IS OUTRAGE!  :)  Have you heard of Ezekiel 4:9 bread?  It's supposed to be much better (nutritionally speaking) than white bread.  I wonder, though, if this should be avoided too?

(http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/679.jpg)

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: militantsparrow on December 20, 2009, 12:39:20 PM
I thought you had left! Welcome back MS :)

Thank you. I didn't leave. I was just taking a break.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 20, 2009, 12:39:43 PM
I wonder how much influence the increased exposure to sunlight plays.  I'm not approaching this from a S.A.D. angle, but rather a "sunlight stimulates the body to produce certain vitamins & hormones" angle.

Don't know if they're linked, but as someone who has S.A.D., I can tell you sunlight helps bigtime.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Nacho on December 20, 2009, 04:15:19 PM
I would be careful with nutritional advice given from the Weston A. Price foundation. They have recently taken money and become more of a lobbying arm for the meat and dairy industry. If you look at Dr. Weston's original research (which I agree with), he found that out of all the indigenous tribes/peoples he observed around the globe, only one utilized milk. His initial assumptions were that most would utilize milk/dairy from pasture raised animals which obviously from his conclusions proved to be way off the mark. He was also shocked to find these people with amazing hygiene and dental health. Even today, some ethnic groups can't tolerate dairy at all because they lack the sufficient enzymes to break down lactose. Northern Europeans were also like this at one point, but over time our bodies adjusted and adapted to accept dairy (though it was raw and organic!) Dairy still remains to be one of the most common allergen/sensitivities for many people.         

With that said, dairy in my opinion has done much more harm than good; especially in its current poisonous PASTEURIZED form. The irony today is that while pasteurization of foods/beverages was supposed to insure a safe food supply for the masses, it may end up doing much more harm than good (I think we are seeing the proof of this today). It essentially denatures good enzymes and naturally occurring compounds in these foods. That's why with such things as milk or juices, they have to fortify it with vitamins. I think the biggest culprits leading to bad health today are all the refined grains, sugar, dairy products, and the long list of unnatural chemicals they put in processed foods.

I think a diet that contains mostly raw foods is one that would be most beneficial. A whole foods based diet which includes generous amounts of fruits, veggies, (especially dark leafy greens!); with healthy extra virgin oils, nuts, seeds, and organic meat (the more raw the better!) in moderation and balance. Use spices and lots of fresh herbs such as parsley, cilantro, basil, sage, rosemary, tarragon, mint, thyme etc... These are EXTREMELY healthy for you and chalked full of nutrition. Substitute cows milk for hemp or almond milk. Make a green smoothie everyday to get your day started which contains essential amino acids, nutrients, vitamins and enzymes. Substitute healthy teas in place of coffee or energy drinks. Use RAW organic unpasteurized locally grown honey or stevia instead of sugar if need be. Get's lots of fresh air and sunlight everyday. This will provide sufficient vitamin D which your body needs, which in turn bolsters your immunity and endocrine functions. Also, stay away from extreme diets such as Atkins or any that advocate removing whole natural food groups!

       
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 20, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO


I've come across this myself in recent months.  If I eat protein in the morning, I tend to not be hungry for lunch until after one in the afternoon.  If I indulge in just an English muffin, I'm starving by eleven in the morning.

YES !!!!.. My big discovery too.. I try to eat the meat left over from dinner the night before with an egg and fruit. NO BREAD and I am full till 3:00

No bread?  IS OUTRAGE!  :)  Have you heard of Ezekiel 4:9 bread?  It's supposed to be much better (nutritionally speaking) than white bread.  I wonder, though, if this should be avoided too?

(http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/679.jpg)



The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 20, 2009, 07:13:50 PM
I would be careful with nutritional advice given from the Weston A. Price foundation. They have recently taken money and become more of a lobbying arm for the meat and dairy industry. If you look at Dr. Weston's original research (which I agree with), he found that out of all the indigenous tribes/peoples he observed around the globe, only one utilized milk. His initial assumptions were that most would utilize milk/dairy from pasture raised animals which obviously from his conclusions proved to be way off the mark. He was also shocked to find these people with amazing hygiene and dental health. Even today, some ethnic groups can't tolerate dairy at all because they lack the sufficient enzymes to break down lactose. Northern Europeans were also like this at one point, but over time our bodies adjusted and adapted to accept dairy (though it was raw and organic!) Dairy still remains to be one of the most common allergen/sensitivities for many people.          

With that said, dairy in my opinion has done much more harm than good; especially in its current poisonous PASTEURIZED form. The irony today is that while pasteurization of foods/beverages was supposed to insure a safe food supply for the masses, it may end up doing much more harm than good (I think we are seeing the proof of this today). It essentially denatures good enzymes and naturally occurring compounds in these foods. That's why with such things as milk or juices, they have to fortify it with vitamins. I think the biggest culprits leading to bad health today are all the refined grains, sugar, dairy products, and the long list of unnatural chemicals they put in processed foods.

I think a diet that contains mostly raw foods is one that would be most beneficial. A whole foods based diet which includes generous amounts of fruits, veggies, (especially dark leafy greens!); with healthy extra virgin oils, nuts, seeds, and organic meat (the more raw the better!) in moderation and balance. Use spices and lots of fresh herbs such as parsley, cilantro, basil, sage, rosemary, tarragon, mint, thyme etc... These are EXTREMELY healthy for you and chalked full of nutrition. Substitute cows milk for hemp or almond milk. Make a green smoothie everyday to get your day started which contains essential amino acids, nutrients, vitamins and enzymes. Substitute healthy teas in place of coffee or energy drinks. Use RAW organic unpasteurized locally grown honey or stevia instead of sugar if need be. Get's lots of fresh air and sunlight everyday. This will provide sufficient vitamin D which your body needs, which in turn bolsters your immunity and endocrine functions. Also, stay away from extreme diets such as Atkins or any that advocate removing whole natural food groups!

        

Can you provide a source that the Weston Price Foundation takes money from the Dairy industry? It seems to me that they are the unrelenting enemy of the Dairy Industry since they are the biggest advocates in the World of Raw Dairy ( un pasteurized milk). You accusation doesn't add up.

 Weston Price people like me advocate Raw Milk ( that is all I drink) . I think you are confused who the players are and which side they are on.

www.realmilk.com for more information on Raw Milk and it's advocacy by the Weston Price Foundation.

The Dairy industry hates the idea of making Raw Milk easily available. Boiling milk ( pasteurization) allows for a  far greater shelf time and the ability to transport milk over long distances. It ruins the milk's nutritional value ( as does Homogenization) but there is very big bucks involved.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 21, 2009, 06:17:00 PM
Here is some more information for Nacho who said the Weston Price Foundation is a lobbying arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry :

I guess you will need to define the term "Industry". Big Agra Business is for confinement raising of meat. They feed the cattle un natural grains and other terrible stuff and never allow them to see the light of day. They pump them full of antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to slaughter. They also give them all kinds of hormones to fatten them quicker.

The Weston Price Foundation stands with small Farmers and advocates for them. The are for grass fed meat ( Pastured Chickens) who are not confined and are hormone free. They are the foe of Big Agrabusiness and certainly not their lobbying arm LOL.

Same with Dairy as I wrote before. Weston Price foundation is for grass fed natural un pasteurized Dairy... The Dairy industry would like them dead much less fund them.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 21, 2009, 09:39:50 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO


I've come across this myself in recent months.  If I eat protein in the morning, I tend to not be hungry for lunch until after one in the afternoon.  If I indulge in just an English muffin, I'm starving by eleven in the morning.

YES !!!!.. My big discovery too.. I try to eat the meat left over from dinner the night before with an egg and fruit. NO BREAD and I am full till 3:00

No bread?  IS OUTRAGE!  :)  Have you heard of Ezekiel 4:9 bread?  It's supposed to be much better (nutritionally speaking) than white bread.  I wonder, though, if this should be avoided too?

(http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/679.jpg)



The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Parts of that statement are untrue, and the rest is misleading. First of all, potatoes are not poisonous; only the leaves of the potato plant are (and highly so at that). A raw potato is not very appetizing, but it's not toxic either, unless it's green or the buds have begun to sprout.

http://www.botanical-online.com/alcaloidespatataangles.htm

As for the assertion that we should eat like our prehistoric ancestors, there are two major issues: How do you know what their genetic dispositions are? How much of what our ancestors ate (and we actually know very little about that even) was out of necessity? Certainly you recognize that the pre-civilised world was less than ideal. Furthermore, 10,000 years is for humans about 500 generations. The Theory of Evolution states that each generation is more suited to its parents' environment that the parent generation was. It's silly to believe that we are just the same as our species was 500 generations ago, let alone 100,000. And no, we are not genetically identical to our ancestors from 2.5 million years ago. In fact, we're not even the same species.

However, you are correct that raw beans are toxic, especially phaseolus vulgaris, or the common red kidney bean. It contains a high level of hemagglutinin, a toxic substance, which can cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sometimes vomiting. What you failed to realize, though, is that this toxin is potentiated by cooking, not "cooked off," as you claim. Hence why chili gives so many people these symptoms. White kidney beans contain less than 10% of the hemagglutinin that red beans do, and thus are much safer to eat.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodborneillness/foodborneillnessfoodbornepathogensnaturaltoxins/badbugbook/ucm071092.htm

The raw grains assertion is new to me. Would you mind explaining what toxins are contained in particular raw grains?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Nacho on December 22, 2009, 03:51:43 AM
Here is some more information for Nacho who said the Weston Price Foundation is a lobbying arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry :

I guess you will need to define the term "Industry". Big Agra Business is for confinement raising of meat. They feed the cattle un natural grains and other terrible stuff and never allow them to see the light of day. They pump them full of antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to slaughter. They also give them all kinds of hormones to fatten them quicker.

The Weston Price Foundation stands with small Farmers and advocates for them. The are for grass fed meat ( Pastured Chickens) who are not confined and are hormone free. They are the foe of Big Agrabusiness and certainly not their lobbying arm LOL.

Same with Dairy as I wrote before. Weston Price foundation is for grass fed natural un pasteurized Dairy... The Dairy industry would like them dead much less fund them.

Yes, I should have clarified more. I'm well aware that they are opponents of "Factory Farming" and applaud them for these efforts. It's absolutely disgusting the power and control a few large corporations wield over our food supply. Our food supply is very unsafe as it is because corporations like Monsanto have bought off the politicians and FDA with money and bribes. The great fruits of capitalism in America!

I still though would like to know who is funding the Weston A Price foundation. I'm very suspicious why they are pushing dairy products such as milk when it conflicts with the findings and conclusions of Weston A Price himself. Red flags are also raised with their anti-soy rants; which by the way are the same tactics employed by corporations with large stakes in the dairy industry. They feel very threatened by soy and it's byproducts such as soy milk. Soy in its fermented form has many beneficial properties and many Asian cultures have this as a staple. These are some of the healthiest populations of people represented across the globe. It's somewhat disingenuous for this foundation to rant against soy (and for what reason?) when dairy and it's byproducts are far more questionable. (As an aside, I'm totally against GMO Soy) 

I would also like to point out that we are the only mammals whom consume milk past childhood. Is it really healthy for adults to consume milk? I think we have to look at the PURPOSE and FUNCTION of milk. It specifically has very nourishing properties for infants, but it's also very SEDATING as well. From an evolutionary perspective, this sedating effect of milk was one factor that kept offspring to stay close to their mother.

So with that said, I think this a good parallel to the 'numbing' affect that dairy products have on our population. It's made much worse when everything is pasteurized. It's like a good portion of the population are walking obese zombies... ;D I just think dairy is not the greatest choice nutritionally speaking. I used to consume a decent amount of dairy products, but lately have treated it more like a dessert. Once in awhile isn't that bad and makes a nice treat.     
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 12:46:53 PM
No arguing so far... off to a good start!  Well I don't want to be the guy who bursts the baloon, so I'll avoid disagreeing as well. As for me, I have a couple medical conditions that makes it necessary to watch what I eat, but frankly, I probably eat a typical American diet. I've just found that an important part of diet is size of portions--what we Americans consider a "normal" portion would be large or even extremely large to many people in the world. A portion of meat the size of a deck of cards? Not in my house! ;)

I find that the thing that DRIVES appetite are carbs. If you eat nutrient dense foods, like pasture fed meat and skip the bread and potatoes and ice cream, you become naturally satiated without over eating. We are designed to eat lots of protein and fats, not sugar or potatoes, etc.

Eating a Traditional diet will lead you to your natural appetite, not too much not too little.. IMHO


I've come across this myself in recent months.  If I eat protein in the morning, I tend to not be hungry for lunch until after one in the afternoon.  If I indulge in just an English muffin, I'm starving by eleven in the morning.

YES !!!!.. My big discovery too.. I try to eat the meat left over from dinner the night before with an egg and fruit. NO BREAD and I am full till 3:00

No bread?  IS OUTRAGE!  :)  Have you heard of Ezekiel 4:9 bread?  It's supposed to be much better (nutritionally speaking) than white bread.  I wonder, though, if this should be avoided too?

(http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/679.jpg)



The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Parts of that statement are untrue, and the rest is misleading. First of all, potatoes are not poisonous; only the leaves of the potato plant are (and highly so at that). A raw potato is not very appetizing, but it's not toxic either, unless it's green or the buds have begun to sprout.

http://www.botanical-online.com/alcaloidespatataangles.htm

As for the assertion that we should eat like our prehistoric ancestors, there are two major issues: How do you know what their genetic dispositions are? How much of what our ancestors ate (and we actually know very little about that even) was out of necessity? Certainly you recognize that the pre-civilised world was less than ideal. Furthermore, 10,000 years is for humans about 500 generations. The Theory of Evolution states that each generation is more suited to its parents' environment that the parent generation was. It's silly to believe that we are just the same as our species was 500 generations ago, let alone 100,000. And no, we are not genetically identical to our ancestors from 2.5 million years ago. In fact, we're not even the same species.

However, you are correct that raw beans are toxic, especially phaseolus vulgaris, or the common red kidney bean. It contains a high level of hemagglutinin, a toxic substance, which can cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sometimes vomiting. What you failed to realize, though, is that this toxin is potentiated by cooking, not "cooked off," as you claim. Hence why chili gives so many people these symptoms. White kidney beans contain less than 10% of the hemagglutinin that red beans do, and thus are much safer to eat.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodborneillness/foodborneillnessfoodbornepathogensnaturaltoxins/badbugbook/ucm071092.htm

The raw grains assertion is new to me. Would you mind explaining what toxins are contained in particular raw grains?

I am simply repeating the idea's found in the Book "The Paleo Diet". They have a web site that you can go to and ask your questions to them.

What I do know is that 10,000 years is not enough time for too much evolutionary adaptation. It seems to make perfect sense that if we ate a specific diet for 2.5 million years that we are better  suited to it than a diet of less then 10,000 ( and far far far less for highly refined foods).

I personally stand more with the Weston Price type of eating. There are several major differences between what the Weston Price folks recommend and the Paleo Diet. For example, the Plaeo Diet says no Dairy at all. The Weston Price Diet says unpasteurized Dairy is one of the best foods you can consume ( more on Dairy later). The Weston Price Diet includes lost of fats, the Paleo Diet says lean meat only and cut the fat. The Weston Price Diets is skeptical of the cholesterol-lipid theory , The Paleo Diet supports the standard Heart Association Dogma.

Here is the web page for the Plaeo Diet: www.theplaeodiet.com Let us know if you get some answers.

There are a few other Hunter Gatherer type Diet books. One is The Primal Diet. The author includes Raw Milk. I may get a copy under the tree is Santa read my list. I will let you know what it says.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 12:50:30 PM
The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Parts of that statement are untrue, and the rest is misleading. First of all, potatoes are not poisonous; only the leaves of the potato plant are (and highly so at that). A raw potato is not very appetizing, but it's not toxic either, unless it's green or the buds have begun to sprout.

http://www.botanical-online.com/alcaloidespatataangles.htm

As for the assertion that we should eat like our prehistoric ancestors, there are two major issues: How do you know what their genetic dispositions are? How much of what our ancestors ate (and we actually know very little about that even) was out of necessity? Certainly you recognize that the pre-civilised world was less than ideal. Furthermore, 10,000 years is for humans about 500 generations. The Theory of Evolution states that each generation is more suited to its parents' environment that the parent generation was. It's silly to believe that we are just the same as our species was 500 generations ago, let alone 100,000. And no, we are not genetically identical to our ancestors from 2.5 million years ago. In fact, we're not even the same species.

However, you are correct that raw beans are toxic, especially phaseolus vulgaris, or the common red kidney bean. It contains a high level of hemagglutinin, a toxic substance, which can cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sometimes vomiting. What you failed to realize, though, is that this toxin is potentiated by cooking, not "cooked off," as you claim. Hence why chili gives so many people these symptoms. White kidney beans contain less than 10% of the hemagglutinin that red beans do, and thus are much safer to eat.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodborneillness/foodborneillnessfoodbornepathogensnaturaltoxins/badbugbook/ucm071092.htm

The raw grains assertion is new to me. Would you mind explaining what toxins are contained in particular raw grains?
I am simply repeating the idea's found in the Book "The Paleo Diet". They have a web site that you can go to and ask you questions to them.

What I do know is that 10,000 years is not enough time for too much evolutionary adaptation. It seems to make perfect sense that if we ate a specific diet for 2.5 million years that we are better to suited to it than a diet of less then 10,000 ( and even less for highly refined foods).
But how do you know that we ate the same diet for 2.5 million years? I find that idea ludicrous, especially considering that the species homo sapiens has only existed for around 100,000 years. Homo habilis et al. are as different from us as lions (pantera leo) and tigers (pantera tigris) are from each other.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 12:58:17 PM
The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Parts of that statement are untrue, and the rest is misleading. First of all, potatoes are not poisonous; only the leaves of the potato plant are (and highly so at that). A raw potato is not very appetizing, but it's not toxic either, unless it's green or the buds have begun to sprout.

http://www.botanical-online.com/alcaloidespatataangles.htm

As for the assertion that we should eat like our prehistoric ancestors, there are two major issues: How do you know what their genetic dispositions are? How much of what our ancestors ate (and we actually know very little about that even) was out of necessity? Certainly you recognize that the pre-civilised world was less than ideal. Furthermore, 10,000 years is for humans about 500 generations. The Theory of Evolution states that each generation is more suited to its parents' environment that the parent generation was. It's silly to believe that we are just the same as our species was 500 generations ago, let alone 100,000. And no, we are not genetically identical to our ancestors from 2.5 million years ago. In fact, we're not even the same species.

However, you are correct that raw beans are toxic, especially phaseolus vulgaris, or the common red kidney bean. It contains a high level of hemagglutinin, a toxic substance, which can cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sometimes vomiting. What you failed to realize, though, is that this toxin is potentiated by cooking, not "cooked off," as you claim. Hence why chili gives so many people these symptoms. White kidney beans contain less than 10% of the hemagglutinin that red beans do, and thus are much safer to eat.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodborneillness/foodborneillnessfoodbornepathogensnaturaltoxins/badbugbook/ucm071092.htm

The raw grains assertion is new to me. Would you mind explaining what toxins are contained in particular raw grains?
I am simply repeating the idea's found in the Book "The Paleo Diet". They have a web site that you can go to and ask you questions to them.

What I do know is that 10,000 years is not enough time for too much evolutionary adaptation. It seems to make perfect sense that if we ate a specific diet for 2.5 million years that we are better to suited to it than a diet of less then 10,000 ( and even less for highly refined foods).
But how do you know that we ate the same diet for 2.5 million years? I find that idea ludicrous, especially considering that the species homo sapiens has only existed for around 100,000 years. Homo habilis et al. are as different from us as lions (pantera leo) and tigers (pantera tigris) are from each other.

Hunter gatherers only ate what they could hunt or gather. That is a pretty limited list. But yes, as I mentioned before, there is some swing in knowing exactly what they ate. For example, did they prefer fat or muscle? But we do know that they did not have agriculture so that puts a limit on the list of possibilities.

Go to their web page. There is a faq www.thepaleodiet.com

Do you think cave me ate refined foods? Coke a cola? How about bread? or muffins? Sugar?
So simple common sense can lead you to that kind of Diet if you simply ask: Can  I hunt or gather what I am about to eat? Does it occur in nature and if not how far removed is it? Seems simple enough to me.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 01:07:51 PM
The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Parts of that statement are untrue, and the rest is misleading. First of all, potatoes are not poisonous; only the leaves of the potato plant are (and highly so at that). A raw potato is not very appetizing, but it's not toxic either, unless it's green or the buds have begun to sprout.

http://www.botanical-online.com/alcaloidespatataangles.htm

As for the assertion that we should eat like our prehistoric ancestors, there are two major issues: How do you know what their genetic dispositions are? How much of what our ancestors ate (and we actually know very little about that even) was out of necessity? Certainly you recognize that the pre-civilised world was less than ideal. Furthermore, 10,000 years is for humans about 500 generations. The Theory of Evolution states that each generation is more suited to its parents' environment that the parent generation was. It's silly to believe that we are just the same as our species was 500 generations ago, let alone 100,000. And no, we are not genetically identical to our ancestors from 2.5 million years ago. In fact, we're not even the same species.

However, you are correct that raw beans are toxic, especially phaseolus vulgaris, or the common red kidney bean. It contains a high level of hemagglutinin, a toxic substance, which can cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sometimes vomiting. What you failed to realize, though, is that this toxin is potentiated by cooking, not "cooked off," as you claim. Hence why chili gives so many people these symptoms. White kidney beans contain less than 10% of the hemagglutinin that red beans do, and thus are much safer to eat.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodborneillness/foodborneillnessfoodbornepathogensnaturaltoxins/badbugbook/ucm071092.htm

The raw grains assertion is new to me. Would you mind explaining what toxins are contained in particular raw grains?
I am simply repeating the idea's found in the Book "The Paleo Diet". They have a web site that you can go to and ask you questions to them.

What I do know is that 10,000 years is not enough time for too much evolutionary adaptation. It seems to make perfect sense that if we ate a specific diet for 2.5 million years that we are better to suited to it than a diet of less then 10,000 ( and even less for highly refined foods).
But how do you know that we ate the same diet for 2.5 million years? I find that idea ludicrous, especially considering that the species homo sapiens has only existed for around 100,000 years. Homo habilis et al. are as different from us as lions (pantera leo) and tigers (pantera tigris) are from each other.

Hunter gatherers only ate what they could hunt or gather. That is a pretty limited list. But yes, as I mentioned before, there is some swing in knowing exactly what they ate. For example, did they prefer fat or muscle? But we do know that they did not have agriculture so that puts a limit on the list of possibilities.

Go to their web page. There is a faq www.thepaleodiet.com

Do you think cave me ate refined foods? Coke a cola? How about bread? or muffins? Sugar?
So simple common sense can lead you to that kind of Diet if you simply ask: Can  I hunt or gather what I am about to eat? Does it occur in nature and if not how far removed is it? Seems simple enough to me.
Too simple.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 03:26:35 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 03:45:09 PM
The idea is that humans ate the same diet for 2.5 million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating those foods. Agriculture began only 10,000 years ago, so there has not been enough time for us to adapt to these "new foods". Grains, beans and potatoes are toxic if eaten uncooked. Don't try it, you will get sick. You must cook off the toxins but even then some remain. So yes, your bread is not something that occurs in nature. It cant be hunted or picked from a tree, so you should try to stay clear of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Parts of that statement are untrue, and the rest is misleading. First of all, potatoes are not poisonous; only the leaves of the potato plant are (and highly so at that). A raw potato is not very appetizing, but it's not toxic either, unless it's green or the buds have begun to sprout.

http://www.botanical-online.com/alcaloidespatataangles.htm

As for the assertion that we should eat like our prehistoric ancestors, there are two major issues: How do you know what their genetic dispositions are? How much of what our ancestors ate (and we actually know very little about that even) was out of necessity? Certainly you recognize that the pre-civilised world was less than ideal. Furthermore, 10,000 years is for humans about 500 generations. The Theory of Evolution states that each generation is more suited to its parents' environment that the parent generation was. It's silly to believe that we are just the same as our species was 500 generations ago, let alone 100,000. And no, we are not genetically identical to our ancestors from 2.5 million years ago. In fact, we're not even the same species.

However, you are correct that raw beans are toxic, especially phaseolus vulgaris, or the common red kidney bean. It contains a high level of hemagglutinin, a toxic substance, which can cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, and sometimes vomiting. What you failed to realize, though, is that this toxin is potentiated by cooking, not "cooked off," as you claim. Hence why chili gives so many people these symptoms. White kidney beans contain less than 10% of the hemagglutinin that red beans do, and thus are much safer to eat.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodborneillness/foodborneillnessfoodbornepathogensnaturaltoxins/badbugbook/ucm071092.htm

The raw grains assertion is new to me. Would you mind explaining what toxins are contained in particular raw grains?
I am simply repeating the idea's found in the Book "The Paleo Diet". They have a web site that you can go to and ask you questions to them.

What I do know is that 10,000 years is not enough time for too much evolutionary adaptation. It seems to make perfect sense that if we ate a specific diet for 2.5 million years that we are better to suited to it than a diet of less then 10,000 ( and even less for highly refined foods).
But how do you know that we ate the same diet for 2.5 million years? I find that idea ludicrous, especially considering that the species homo sapiens has only existed for around 100,000 years. Homo habilis et al. are as different from us as lions (pantera leo) and tigers (pantera tigris) are from each other.

Hunter gatherers only ate what they could hunt or gather. That is a pretty limited list. But yes, as I mentioned before, there is some swing in knowing exactly what they ate. For example, did they prefer fat or muscle? But we do know that they did not have agriculture so that puts a limit on the list of possibilities.

Go to their web page. There is a FAQ www.thepaleodiet.com

Do you think cave me ate refined foods? Coke a cola? How about bread? or muffins? Sugar?
So simple common sense can lead you to that kind of Diet if you simply ask: Can  I hunt or gather what I am about to eat? Does it occur in nature and if not how far removed is it? Seems simple enough to me.
Too simple.

People seem to have good results when they eat this way. Weight normalizes, blood cholesterol goes down, various diseases improve or clear up. The proof is in the pudding ( don't actually eat pudding, it's bad for you:)

On the other hand, high carb, refined foods, sugary diets, loaded with vegetable oils and without saturated fats seems to have hurt our health
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 03:49:17 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.

There is an advantage to eating grains ( bread). You can squeeze far more calories out of the area in which you live, thus enabling a larger population. That is the benefit of the Agricultural revolution and it helped form civilization. The question for today is, what type of diet will keep me healthy and living longer without the curse of so many modern ailments like obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 03:52:09 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 04:08:32 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweetners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 05:22:14 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweetners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet 
Don't forget kim-chee too!
If I eat a cupcake, I make it myself usually with whole pastry flour and sweetened with cane or maple sugar, glazes and icings can be made in the same regard. I have yet to find someone who can provide me with hvy. cream (unpasturized) or I would use it. Pie and icecream, sure! In regards to food, I go by a simple rule...summed up - just use the best ingredients when you can, within budget or make something else. We should definitely consider our health and infact every step from the farm to the table and limit the amounts of step as much as possible. Are trans-fats bad? sure, don't go chugging down veggie oil, use duck fat to fry your potatoes if you must have some fried potatoes. I think everyone should eat conciously and hopefully, we as Orthodox Christians being mindful of our Fasts, should become aware of our glut, and strive to live a life which coincides with healthier, more sustainable living. In practice as a Chef, I see it as a good thing that the Private Owned Restaurant industry is at the forefront of this struggle against the mega-agri-chemical-congloms. I get to be a part of this first hand, in producing a product which is superior to what Mickey-Dee's can give. I only wish it wasn't too late. But I feel the response from the public is too little, too late to stop the Amazonian Cattle Lots and their ilk from spreading.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 05:52:01 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweetners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet 
So you're admitting that agriculture and processing of foods is not necessarily a bad thing?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 07:50:10 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweeteners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet  
Don't forget kim-chee too!
If I eat a cupcake, I make it myself usually with whole pastry flour and sweetened with cane or maple sugar, glazes and icings can be made in the same regard. I have yet to find someone who can provide me with hvy. cream (unpasteurized) or I would use it. Pie and icecream, sure! In regards to food, I go by a simple rule...summed up - just use the best ingredients when you can, within budget or make something else. We should definitely consider our health and infact every step from the farm to the table and limit the amounts of step as much as possible. Are trans-fats bad? sure, don't go chugging down veggie oil, use duck fat to fry your potatoes if you must have some fried potatoes. I think everyone should eat conciously and hopefully, we as Orthodox Christians being mindful of our Fasts, should become aware of our glut, and strive to live a life which coincides with healthier, more sustainable living. In practice as a Chef, I see it as a good thing that the Private Owned Restaurant industry is at the forefront of this struggle against the mega-agri-chemical-congloms. I get to be a part of this first hand, in producing a product which is superior to what Mickey-Dee's can give. I only wish it wasn't too late. But I feel the response from the public is too little, too late to stop the Amazonian Cattle Lots and their ilk from spreading.

As with all things there is always the choice between good , better and best.

For example, I am trying to incorporate more organ meats ( before and after our fast) into my diet. The best situation is to get the liver I like from a grass fed hormone free source. I just don't always have the time so I buy the regular old liver from the local supermarket. Not optimal but I am getting it into my diet. I have found that organ meats make all the difference in how much energy I have. I am going to buy a Beef heart from my Weston Price Farm Order source. I hope I can get it into the house without the family moving out.

If you let me know where you live, I may be able to help you find unpasteurized cream

Love Kim Chee.. But once again, its a family issue :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 08:07:58 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweeteners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet 
So you're admitting that agriculture and processing of foods is not necessarily a bad thing?

I am saying that it contributed to the great expansion of civilization. More calories from a relatively small area. The ability to stay put and not roam following herds obviously built society.

What I am saying is that only 10,000 years of agriculture is not enough time for human adaptation to those foods. They are not the most healthful for us. They provide calories and bulk but are not very nutrient dense and contain what the Paleo Diet folks call "Anti-Nutrients".

If you avoid highly refined foods and stick to something close to a Hunter Gatherer diet you will avoid many of the modern ailments. It is especially important to get clear on the role of fats in our diet and avoid like the plague vegetable oils,  and transfats (artificial fat made from vegetable oils) and reject the low fat diet advice that is currently in vogue. 

If you dont want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegitables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHMkdZ678Hs

This one is really funny:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InwsLaTvhzY

Disclaimer: the second video contains nudity and sexuality. Viewer discretion is advised.--YtterbiumAnalyst
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 08:22:58 PM
As with all things there is always the choice between good , better and best.

For example, I am trying to incorporate more organ meats ( before and after our fast) into my diet. The best situation is to get the liver I like from a grass fed hormone free source. I just don't always have the time so I buy the regular old liver from the local supermarket. Not optimal but I am getting it into my diet. I have found that organ meats make all the difference in how much energy I have. I am going to buy a Beef heart from my Weston Price Farm Order source. I hope I can get it into the house without the family moving out.

If you let me know where you live, I may be able to help you find unpasteurized cream

Love Kim Chee.. But once again, its a family issue :)
yes, I make it in 2 mason jars a year...it lasts a while since I'm the only one in the house to eat it.
Don't think I haven't tried to get a hold of some unpasturized cream. On a small scale, easy to come by, since I live in Western Oregon...but for restaurants it's a whole other can of worms...you can't sell it to the public. Well, you can (technically) sell it. But you have to have a sustainable market for it, or its not worth it. Suprisingly, even though the Northwest is on the move as a whole toward this direction,  the market is not "driving" yet. Consumers aren't voting with their wallet yet. Unfortunately, their was a major unpasturized juice company that got thier pants "sued-off" recently, from an outbreak of food borne bacteria. Things like this make people skeptical. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 08:23:23 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweeteners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet  
So you're admitting that agriculture and processing of foods is not necessarily a bad thing?

I am saying that it contributed to the great expansion of civilization. More calories from a relatively small area. The ability to stay put and not roam following herds obviously built society.

What I am saying is that only 10,000 years of agriculture is not enough time for human adaptation to those foods. They are not the most healthful for us. They provide calories and bulk but are not very nutrient dense and contain what the Paleo Diet folks call "Anti-Nutrients".
They've got you hook, line, and sinker--but I'm sorry, those were invented after 8,000 B.C.

Quote
If you avoid highly refined foods and stick to something close to a Hunter Gatherer diet you will avoid many of the modern ailments. It is especially important to get clear on the role of fats in our diet and avoid like the plague vegetable oils,  and transfats (artificial fat made from vegetable oils) and reject the low fat diet advice that is currently in vogue.  
I reject all diet advice, most of all advice from people trying to sell diet books like the one you keep pushing.

Quote
If you dont want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegitables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.
That's the first sensible thing you've said on this thread.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 22, 2009, 08:33:16 PM
I'm pretty sure, that if learning the basic essentials to breadmaking kept man alive for thousands of years, it would serve to say that bread is good. there are many cases where meat could not travel, due to obvious spoilage, yet bread, pemmican, and other dried sundries were the essentials when neither fresh meat or vegetables were not available.
It is optimal to get a fresh, local, sustainable, healthy diet...but let's not go overboard. Even health needs to be taken in moderation.
Exactly. A food is not evil merely because it's been processed. I for one think agriculture is a great idea, but the industrialization of agriculture is on the whole unhealthy and unsustainable. We try to eat fresh foods with as little processing as possible (even corn that has been shucked has, by definition, been processed). We buy from a farmers' market and freeze for winter, rather than buying frozen or canned fruits and vegetables. But we still buy breads and cheeses, yogurt and olives, saurkraut and pickles. All these foods have been processed, yet all of them are fairly healthy. Like you say, everything in moderation.

I'm pretty sure that the admonition against "Processed foods" does not included shucking corn. I think the rule to keep in mind is to ask how far removed from nature is it? Shucking corn..not very far , Cup Cakes, artificial sweeteners and Kool Whip..are.

The more reasonable question to ask is how much meat should I eat or any meat at all? Should it be more naturally raised or not? Should I drink Milk and if so can I get unrefined Milk and Cheese and what's the difference? Should I limit my food to Meat, Eggs vegetables, raw dairy, fruit nuts berries etc, or is pie and ice cream okay too?

Can I eat sugar or transfats? Are saturated fats really bad for me? What about cholesterol counts, should I care about mine?

Those are the real questions.

As to fermented foods like sauerkraut, you will find that these are often part of Traditional Diets. Fermented foods can be thought of as "super raw" in that the process increases the various beneficial enzymes in the food even over what is there in the raw state. Kefir ( fermented Milk) is popular among people following a more Traditional ( Weston Price type) diet  
So you're admitting that agriculture and processing of foods is not necessarily a bad thing?

I am saying that it contributed to the great expansion of civilization. More calories from a relatively small area. The ability to stay put and not roam following herds obviously built society.

What I am saying is that only 10,000 years of agriculture is not enough time for human adaptation to those foods. They are not the most healthful for us. They provide calories and bulk but are not very nutrient dense and contain what the Paleo Diet folks call "Anti-Nutrients".
They've got you hook, line, and sinker--but I'm sorry, those were invented after 8,000 B.C.

Quote
If you avoid highly refined foods and stick to something close to a Hunter Gatherer diet you will avoid many of the modern ailments. It is especially important to get clear on the role of fats in our diet and avoid like the plague vegetable oils,  and transfats (artificial fat made from vegetable oils) and reject the low fat diet advice that is currently in vogue.  
I reject all diet advice, most of all advice from people trying to sell diet books like the one you keep pushing.

Quote
If you dont want to go back 10,000 years, just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.
That's the first sensible thing you've said on this thread.

The Weston Price Foundation has very little to sell you. They survive hand to mouth, mostly on dues from chapter members and speaking fees. What I said at the end of my post that you agree with is totally consistent with what I said before that. Traditonal diets are best.

There is no hidden agenda here. These folks have suffered in their professional careers for bucking the Big Pharma, Big Agra Biz dogmas. You should listen to them. They are hero's.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 08:46:30 PM
yah - I checked out the Weston-Price website...it sounds alot like a corporation to me. They have shareholders et al. I don't like big corporations. Even the "good" kind, because they are formed with one idea in the beginning and end up with one thing in common, money and the bottom line.
If I support the eating of good healthy food, I won't go overboard, I will support my local farmers, ranchers and dairys. And I won't risk the health of my children on spoiled fruit juices and dairy products. If I want fresh, I either milk it myself or juice it and drink it right away, otherwise I'll buy it pasturized thanks. I'm not overly concerned with my health to the point of where I'm going to spend gobs of time and money trying to make it perfect. Fact is, I like a chaw of tobacco now and then, I like a good dark beer and strong whiskey too! But all in moderation. If I bought choice beef that wasn't grass fed because I didn't feel I could spend the extra bucks, oh well. We do what we can within our means.


I wish everyone had it as lucky as us where we have the choices we do, but honestly I think alot of us our spoiled by it.
I've dug in trash for food before, and I ate good then. I eat better now and I'm not sold on the Paleo-Diet. Besides you have to presuppose life on earth existing for more than 7000 yrs. which I don't. In my opinion, the jury is still out on that one.

Hey, speaking of organ meat, have you tried sweetbreads, or smoked beef tongue?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 08:58:40 PM
Marc - While I agree with some of the fundamentals, especially those of simplifying our lifestyles and diets to 60-100 yrs. ago, of what you speak, I'm more inclined to doing things without putting my personal stamp of approval on a popular book or corporate entity which I think upholds my beliefs. Let's face it, in both cases, looks are often decieving.

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.

Check out SlowFood if you need to get involved in a local chapter of something which upholds these ideals. They can connect you to the information you seek re: farms, restaurants, ranches, without the Big Money Politics Game.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 09:22:16 PM
Marc - While I agree with some of the fundamentals, especially those of simplifying our lifestyles and diets to 60-100 yrs. ago, of what you speak, I'm more inclined to doing things without putting my personal stamp of approval on a popular book or corporate entity which I think upholds my beliefs. Let's face it, in both cases, looks are often decieving.

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.
Exactly.

Quote
the Big Money Politics Game.
I love that game! The original Monopoly was great, but what do you do with all the cash you've extorted from your fellow players? Well, now you can invest it in the next big name in politics! Just choose wisely, or you could find your corporate image forever linked to the next Michael Dukakis.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 09:31:39 PM

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.
Exactly.

Quote
the Big Money Politics Game.
I love that game! The original Monopoly was great, but what do you do with all the cash you've extorted from your fellow players? Well, now you can invest it in the next big name in politics! Just choose wisely, or you could find your corporate image forever linked to the next Michael Dukakis.
or John DeLorean ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 10:02:03 PM

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.
Exactly.

Quote
the Big Money Politics Game.
I love that game! The original Monopoly was great, but what do you do with all the cash you've extorted from your fellow players? Well, now you can invest it in the next big name in politics! Just choose wisely, or you could find your corporate image forever linked to the next Michael Dukakis.
or John DeLorean ;)
I didn't realize he was in politics.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 22, 2009, 10:24:14 PM

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.
Exactly.

Quote
the Big Money Politics Game.
I love that game! The original Monopoly was great, but what do you do with all the cash you've extorted from your fellow players? Well, now you can invest it in the next big name in politics! Just choose wisely, or you could find your corporate image forever linked to the next Michael Dukakis.
or John DeLorean ;)
I didn't realize he was in politics.
Oh, I think we've all recently been observant that you can't have Politics in America without the Automotive Industry - Hence Bailout.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 22, 2009, 10:25:47 PM

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.
Exactly.

Quote
the Big Money Politics Game.
I love that game! The original Monopoly was great, but what do you do with all the cash you've extorted from your fellow players? Well, now you can invest it in the next big name in politics! Just choose wisely, or you could find your corporate image forever linked to the next Michael Dukakis.
or John DeLorean ;)
I didn't realize he was in politics.
Oh, I think we've all recently been observant that you can't have Politics in America without the Automotive Industry - Hence Bailout.
I don't think you quite understood my analogy.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 23, 2009, 01:44:26 AM

Moderation= Happy, simple, easy, not preachy.
Exactly.

Quote
the Big Money Politics Game.
I love that game! The original Monopoly was great, but what do you do with all the cash you've extorted from your fellow players? Well, now you can invest it in the next big name in politics! Just choose wisely, or you could find your corporate image forever linked to the next Michael Dukakis.
or John DeLorean ;)
I didn't realize he was in politics.
Oh, I think we've all recently been observant that you can't have Politics in America without the Automotive Industry - Hence Bailout.
I don't think you quite understood my analogy.
maybe not. sorry.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 23, 2009, 10:21:00 AM
yah - I checked out the Weston-Price website...it sounds alot like a corporation to me. They have shareholders et al. I don't like big corporations. Even the "good" kind, because they are formed with one idea in the beginning and end up with one thing in common, money and the bottom line.
If I support the eating of good healthy food, I won't go overboard, I will support my local farmers, ranchers and dairys. And I won't risk the health of my children on spoiled fruit juices and dairy products. If I want fresh, I either milk it myself or juice it and drink it right away, otherwise I'll buy it pasturized thanks. I'm not overly concerned with my health to the point of where I'm going to spend gobs of time and money trying to make it perfect. Fact is, I like a chaw of tobacco now and then, I like a good dark beer and strong whiskey too! But all in moderation. If I bought choice beef that wasn't grass fed because I didn't feel I could spend the extra bucks, oh well. We do what we can within our means.


I wish everyone had it as lucky as us where we have the choices we do, but honestly I think alot of us our spoiled by it.
I've dug in trash for food before, and I ate good then. I eat better now and I'm not sold on the Paleo-Diet. Besides you have to presuppose life on earth existing for more than 7000 yrs. which I don't. In my opinion, the jury is still out on that one.

Hey, speaking of organ meat, have you tried sweetbreads, or smoked beef tongue?

How very anarchistic of you :)

I don't think the proper way to discuss nutritional idea's is to take such cheap shots. The Weston Price Foundation is a humble little organization. To miss represent them like you have is really bizarre and unnecessary. My Church has a board of directors and an IRS incorporation. We collect dues. We own some property. I bet your Church does too.

If you have some disagreement with the idea's of the Weston Price Foundation, then we can without rancour have a discussion and learn from each other. There is no need to go into  attack mode.   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Myrrh23 on December 23, 2009, 01:30:29 PM
If you dont want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

The diet that your grandmother ate was probably all right for her because people of her time moved around much more than we do today, unless you want to go the gym rat route to stave off gaining weight. Many people today live a desk-jockey life, which doesn't seem to be in line with the high fat content that Grandmother's diet would entail.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 23, 2009, 02:19:34 PM
How very anarchistic of you :)

I don't think the proper way to discuss nutritional idea's is to take such cheap shots. The Weston Price Foundation is a humble little organization. To miss represent them like you have is really bizarre and unnecessary. My Church has a board of directors and an IRS incorporation. We collect dues. We own some property. I bet your Church does too.

If you have some disagreement with the idea's of the Weston Price Foundation, then we can without rancour have a discussion and learn from each other. There is no need to go into  attack mode.   
Marc1152 - Somehow, I think our wires got crossed! :-\
I wasn't taking cheapshots. It is the way I see the world. I trust the Church and do not think of it in the same way as corporations. The Church is required to fill out forms, hold a board meeting, and other functions to operate within the boundaries which the state has set. Without it, it can not function legally. You are correct, our church does own land and quite a bit (nearly 2 acres) with apartments, houses, a greenhouse garden, and a full communal kitchen to feed the homeless. But I don't think of this as a corporation per se, in negative terms. Infact, not all corporations are corrupt and I am not accusing Weston Price of such. I am however automatically distrusting of books and foundations which set themselves in a position which can interfere in the political arena (which in my mind is corrupt). And, maybe you find it "Anarchistic" of me to distrust said types of corporations...I dunno, maybe it's a streak that runs through my veins. I'm not offended by it. I do have some incendiary thoughts about the corrupt state of the world systems. There is sufficient enough evidence to support my claims (to find out those claims, pm me) too, I think.
But - as I said before,
"If I support the eating of good healthy food, I won't go overboard, I will support my local farmers, ranchers and dairys. And I won't risk the health of my children on spoiled fruit juices and dairy products. If I want fresh, I either milk it myself or juice it and drink it right away, otherwise I'll buy it pasturized thanks. I'm not overly concerned with my health to the point of where I'm going to spend gobs of time and money trying to make it perfect."
I think there is enough common ground to go on having a meaningful discussion. However you seem bent on a pulpit monologue as a spokesperson for Weston Price and if disagreeing with you makes me your antagonist, than that is a healthy debate.
Myrrh just raised an interesting point. What say you? 

   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 23, 2009, 02:50:26 PM
If you don't want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

The diet that your grandmother ate was probably all right for her because people of her time moved around much more than we do today, unless you want to go the gym rat route to stave off gaining weight. Many people today live a desk-jockey life, which doesn't seem to be in line with the high fat content that Grandmother's diet would entail.

There is a dilemma with understanding the role of fats. The problem is that when people ate saturated fats the incidence of Heart Disease was very low. Once saturated fats were demonized and there was a change to vegetable oils, and low fat eating, Heat Disease rates sored. Therefore, in order not to consider the change to low fat as the culprit, alternative explanations like being less active than previous generations are put forward.

There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place Heart Disease seems to effect both the active and inactive in our society. The list of athletes who drop dead from Heart Attacks is pretty long. Remember Jim Fix? As I recall, he was a long distance runner, very thin guy, who died of a massive coronary.  

But the most important evidence is the lack of good science linking ingestion of saturated fats with Heart Disease. There is even less evidence from what I have read that high colesterol causes Heart Disease. In fact, there is some indication that very low cholesterol counts may be linked to some forms of cancer.

Here are a couple links:


 http://www.hhcc.us/cholesterol.htm

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 23, 2009, 03:01:12 PM
How very anarchistic of you :)

I don't think the proper way to discuss nutritional idea's is to take such cheap shots. The Weston Price Foundation is a humble little organization. To miss represent them like you have is really bizarre and unnecessary. My Church has a board of directors and an IRS incorporation. We collect dues. We own some property. I bet your Church does too.

If you have some disagreement with the idea's of the Weston Price Foundation, then we can without rancour have a discussion and learn from each other. There is no need to go into  attack mode.  
Marc1152 - Somehow, I think our wires got crossed! :-\
I wasn't taking cheapshots. It is the way I see the world. I trust the Church and do not think of it in the same way as corporations. The Church is required to fill out forms, hold a board meeting, and other functions to operate within the boundaries which the state has set. Without it, it can not function legally. You are correct, our church does own land and quite a bit (nearly 2 acres) with apartments, houses, a greenhouse garden, and a full communal kitchen to feed the homeless. But I don't think of this as a corporation per se, in negative terms. Infact, not all corporations are corrupt and I am not accusing Weston Price of such. I am however automatically distrusting of books and foundations which set themselves in a position which can interfere in the political arena (which in my mind is corrupt). And, maybe you find it "Anarchistic" of me to distrust said types of corporations...I dunno, maybe it's a streak that runs through my veins. I'm not offended by it. I do have some incendiary thoughts about the corrupt state of the world systems. There is sufficient enough evidence to support my claims (to find out those claims, pm me) too, I think.
But - as I said before,
"If I support the eating of good healthy food, I won't go overboard, I will support my local farmers, ranchers and dairys. And I won't risk the health of my children on spoiled fruit juices and dairy products. If I want fresh, I either milk it myself or juice it and drink it right away, otherwise I'll buy it pasturized thanks. I'm not overly concerned with my health to the point of where I'm going to spend gobs of time and money trying to make it perfect."
I think there is enough common ground to go on having a meaningful discussion. However you seem bent on a pulpit monologue as a spokesperson for Weston Price and if disagreeing with you makes me your antagonist, than that is a healthy debate.
Myrrh just raised an interesting point. What say you?  

  

Calling the Weston Price Foundation "A Corporation" is meant to be pejorative. Implying that they are corrupt and then making up a story (out of whole cloth) that they "Are the Lobbying Arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry" is wrong, unfair and a cheap shot by any measure. I think you should not worry about discrediting people who have different opinions than you and simply stick to the subject at hand.

I already agreed with Myrrh. To repeat, there is always a choice between good, better and best. How you line that up is certainly up to you. If someone has a different list then you, it's not okay attack them. This was meant to be a rather benign thread. Hopefully you can restrain your impulse to question peoples motivation and just write about Nutrition and Diet.

Thanks
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Fr. George on December 23, 2009, 03:14:24 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 23, 2009, 03:48:49 PM


Calling the Weston Price Foundation "A Corporation" is meant to be pejorative. Implying that they are corrupt and then making up a story (out of whole cloth) that they "Are the Lobbying Arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry" is wrong, unfair and a cheap shot by any measure. I think you should not worry about discrediting people who have different opinions than you and simply stick to the subject at hand.

I already agreed with Myrrh. To repeat, there is always a choice between good, better and best. How you line that up is certainly up to you. If someone has a different list then you, it's not okay attack them. This was meant to be a rather benign thread. Hopefully you can restrain your impulse to question peoples motivation and just write about Nutrition and Diet.

Thanks
"Are the Lobbying Arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry" - this is not my quote. ???
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Myrrh23 on December 23, 2009, 03:59:36 PM
If you don't want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

The diet that your grandmother ate was probably all right for her because people of her time moved around much more than we do today, unless you want to go the gym rat route to stave off gaining weight. Many people today live a desk-jockey life, which doesn't seem to be in line with the high fat content that Grandmother's diet would entail.

There is a dilemma with understanding the role of fats. The problem is that when people ate saturated fats the incidence of Heart Disease was very low. Once saturated fats were demonized and there was a change to vegetable oils, and low fat eating, Heat Disease rates sored. Therefore, in order not to consider the change to low fat as the culprit, alternative explanations like being less active than previous generations are put forward.

There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place Heart Disease seems to effect both the active and inactive in our society. The list of athletes who drop dead from Heart Attacks is pretty long. Remember Jim Fix? As I recall, he was a long distance runner, very thin guy, who died of a massive coronary. 

But the most important evidence is the lack of good science linking ingestion of saturated fats with Heart Disease. There is even less evidence from what I have read that high colesterol causes Heart Disease. In fact, there is some indication that very low cholesterol counts may be linked to some forms of cancer.

Here are a couple links:


 http://www.hhcc.us/cholesterol.htm

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

I think, when it comes to saturated fats, there is a difference in them on the structure and length of the molecular chain. The saturated fat from animals is somehow different from the saturated fat of plant-based food sources. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of opinions and "research" and whatnot.

I do agree that humans are much better off mostly abstaining from processed foods. I say "mostly" 'cause there's no way in Hades you can keep me away from mac n cheese! ;) In taking a gander at the biology of the human digestive system and teeth, I wonder if humankind should just stick to an non-processed omnivore diet, save some trees from all these diet books, and move on. Omnivore: group hug between hippy vegetarians and happy meat-eaters! :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: EofK on December 23, 2009, 04:05:16 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

I'm there.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 23, 2009, 04:10:04 PM
If you don't want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

The diet that your grandmother ate was probably all right for her because people of her time moved around much more than we do today, unless you want to go the gym rat route to stave off gaining weight. Many people today live a desk-jockey life, which doesn't seem to be in line with the high fat content that Grandmother's diet would entail.

There is a dilemma with understanding the role of fats. The problem is that when people ate saturated fats the incidence of Heart Disease was very low. Once saturated fats were demonized and there was a change to vegetable oils, and low fat eating, Heat Disease rates sored. Therefore, in order not to consider the change to low fat as the culprit, alternative explanations like being less active than previous generations are put forward.

There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place Heart Disease seems to effect both the active and inactive in our society. The list of athletes who drop dead from Heart Attacks is pretty long. Remember Jim Fix? As I recall, he was a long distance runner, very thin guy, who died of a massive coronary. 

But the most important evidence is the lack of good science linking ingestion of saturated fats with Heart Disease. There is even less evidence from what I have read that high colesterol causes Heart Disease. In fact, there is some indication that very low cholesterol counts may be linked to some forms of cancer.

Here are a couple links:


 http://www.hhcc.us/cholesterol.htm

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

I think, when it comes to saturated fats, there is a difference in them on the structure and length of the molecular chain. The saturated fat from animals is somehow different from the saturated fat of plant-based food sources. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of opinions and "research" and whatnot.

I do agree that humans are much better off mostly abstaining from processed foods. I say "mostly" 'cause there's no way in Hades you can keep me away from mac n cheese! ;) In taking a gander at the biology of the human digestive system and teeth, I wonder if humankind should just stick to an non-processed omnivore diet, save some trees from all these diet books, and move on. Omnivore: group hug between hippy vegetarians and happy meat-eaters! :P
my omnivore eats hippies. ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 23, 2009, 04:11:10 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

I'm there.
Beer and chips diet for me can last about 2 hours...maybe per month. And I know the results first hand...not pretty. :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Fr. George on December 23, 2009, 04:55:03 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

I'm glad I didn't clarify whether I was referring to "crisps" or "fries" with my "chips" comment.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Myrrh23 on December 23, 2009, 10:10:29 PM
If you don't want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

The diet that your grandmother ate was probably all right for her because people of her time moved around much more than we do today, unless you want to go the gym rat route to stave off gaining weight. Many people today live a desk-jockey life, which doesn't seem to be in line with the high fat content that Grandmother's diet would entail.

There is a dilemma with understanding the role of fats. The problem is that when people ate saturated fats the incidence of Heart Disease was very low. Once saturated fats were demonized and there was a change to vegetable oils, and low fat eating, Heat Disease rates sored. Therefore, in order not to consider the change to low fat as the culprit, alternative explanations like being less active than previous generations are put forward.

There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place Heart Disease seems to effect both the active and inactive in our society. The list of athletes who drop dead from Heart Attacks is pretty long. Remember Jim Fix? As I recall, he was a long distance runner, very thin guy, who died of a massive coronary. 

But the most important evidence is the lack of good science linking ingestion of saturated fats with Heart Disease. There is even less evidence from what I have read that high colesterol causes Heart Disease. In fact, there is some indication that very low cholesterol counts may be linked to some forms of cancer.

Here are a couple links:


 http://www.hhcc.us/cholesterol.htm

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

I think, when it comes to saturated fats, there is a difference in them on the structure and length of the molecular chain. The saturated fat from animals is somehow different from the saturated fat of plant-based food sources. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of opinions and "research" and whatnot.

I do agree that humans are much better off mostly abstaining from processed foods. I say "mostly" 'cause there's no way in Hades you can keep me away from mac n cheese! ;) In taking a gander at the biology of the human digestive system and teeth, I wonder if humankind should just stick to an non-processed omnivore diet, save some trees from all these diet books, and move on. Omnivore: group hug between hippy vegetarians and happy meat-eaters! :P
my omnivore eats hippies. ;D

A lot of hippies are vegetarians, so at least you're getting your veggies! ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 23, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

Thick sliced and deep fried, with sea salt and vinegar thank you very much.  And a Paulaner's Hefe Weizen to wash it down with.  Not to sound too picky...  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 23, 2009, 10:34:19 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

Thick sliced and deep fried, with sea salt and vinegar thank you very much.  And a Paulaner's Hefe Weizen to wash it down with.  Not to sound too picky...  :)
I'll take a tall Choclate Stout with a huge bowl of Poutine (I like my chips covered in gravy!)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on December 23, 2009, 10:53:40 PM
I had a footlong Chicken Fajita sub today, with extra banana peppers... mmmmm! But we seem to be getting off track on this thread, lol :angel:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 23, 2009, 11:28:25 PM
I'll take a tall Choclate Stout with a huge bowl of Poutine (I like my chips covered in gravy!)

If you are in ever in and around Montreal in the summer, check out Chez Bernard in Sainte-Madeleine.  They have some of the best poutine around.  ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 24, 2009, 12:06:48 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

Thick sliced and deep fried, with sea salt and vinegar thank you very much.  And a Paulaner's Hefe Weizen to wash it down with.  Not to sound too picky...  :)
Vinegar's the only sauce for chips. Ketchup is way too sugary. And although I do like Paulaner's, I've discovered recently the Leinenkugel Sunset Wheat. It's fantastic.

www.leinie.com
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 24, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
I'll take a tall Choclate Stout with a huge bowl of Poutine (I like my chips covered in gravy!)

If you are in ever in and around Montreal in the summer, check out Chez Bernard in Sainte-Madeleine.  They have some of the best poutine around.  ;D
Sounds awesome! Wish I lived there...alas, I'm in Oregon. But the wife and I want to take a trip to Montreal one day. Have you been to a restaurant out there called Les Jardins d' Savages?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 24, 2009, 01:17:07 PM
If you don't want to go back 10,000 years,  just go back 60 and eat like grandmother. No highly refined foods, lots of meat full fat, raw whole milk and cheese, vegetables and fruit. Liver once per week.....etc.

The diet that your grandmother ate was probably all right for her because people of her time moved around much more than we do today, unless you want to go the gym rat route to stave off gaining weight. Many people today live a desk-jockey life, which doesn't seem to be in line with the high fat content that Grandmother's diet would entail.

There is a dilemma with understanding the role of fats. The problem is that when people ate saturated fats the incidence of Heart Disease was very low. Once saturated fats were demonized and there was a change to vegetable oils, and low fat eating, Heat Disease rates sored. Therefore, in order not to consider the change to low fat as the culprit, alternative explanations like being less active than previous generations are put forward.

There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place Heart Disease seems to effect both the active and inactive in our society. The list of athletes who drop dead from Heart Attacks is pretty long. Remember Jim Fix? As I recall, he was a long distance runner, very thin guy, who died of a massive coronary. 

But the most important evidence is the lack of good science linking ingestion of saturated fats with Heart Disease. There is even less evidence from what I have read that high cholesterol causes Heart Disease. In fact, there is some indication that very low cholesterol counts may be linked to some forms of cancer.

Here are a couple links:


 http://www.hhcc.us/cholesterol.htm

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

I think, when it comes to saturated fats, there is a difference in them on the structure and length of the molecular chain. The saturated fat from animals is somehow different from the saturated fat of plant-based food sources. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of opinions and "research" and whatnot.

I do agree that humans are much better off mostly abstaining from processed foods. I say "mostly" 'cause there's no way in Hades you can keep me away from mac n cheese! ;) In taking a gander at the biology of the human digestive system and teeth, I wonder if humankind should just stick to an non-processed omnivore diet, save some trees from all these diet books, and move on. Omnivore: group hug between hippy vegetarians and happy meat-eaters! :P

My understanding is that Coconut Oil (fat from the Coconut) is "Medium Chain" Fatty acid and is the most easily digested. I have found all kinds of benefits from using Coconut Oil. We even use it topically for aches and pains and dry skin etc. It works wonders.

As far as animal fats go there is certainly controversy. The standard dogma is that it is bad for you. But if you look at the research and the criticisms it seems to me that the evidence linking saturated fats to heart problems is very thin. The alternative theory is that the absence of these fats in or diets lately has caused problems. In any event the link between eating saturated fats and having high cholesterol is virtually nonexistent. That really shocks me.

I agree that the natural diet for Humans is Omnivore. Meat, lots of vegetables and fruit, etc. I would add raw milk and cheese but I agree.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 24, 2009, 01:19:04 PM


Calling the Weston Price Foundation "A Corporation" is meant to be pejorative. Implying that they are corrupt and then making up a story (out of whole cloth) that they "Are the Lobbying Arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry" is wrong, unfair and a cheap shot by any measure. I think you should not worry about discrediting people who have different opinions than you and simply stick to the subject at hand.

I already agreed with Myrrh. To repeat, there is always a choice between good, better and best. How you line that up is certainly up to you. If someone has a different list then you, it's not okay attack them. This was meant to be a rather benign thread. Hopefully you can restrain your impulse to question peoples motivation and just write about Nutrition and Diet.

Thanks
"Are the Lobbying Arm for the Meat and Dairy Industry" - this is not my quote. ???

Wow sorry.. I confused you and Nacho who said that.. I must have been drunk on Beer and Chips.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on December 24, 2009, 01:22:07 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

Thick sliced and deep fried, with sea salt and vinegar thank you very much.  And a Paulaner's Hefe Weizen to wash it down with.  Not to sound too picky...  :)
I'll take a tall Choclate Stout with a huge bowl of Poutine (I like my chips covered in gravy!)

Have you been to Baltimore ( "Charm City"). The standard way to eat French Fries ( Chips) is covered with gravy.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Fr. George on December 24, 2009, 01:45:30 PM
Wow sorry.. I confused you and Nacho who said that.. I must have been drunk on Beer and Chips.

LOL

Have you been to Baltimore ( "Charm City"). The standard way to eat French Fries ( Chips) is covered with gravy.

Hmmm - I suppose it would depend on the gravy whether or not I would enjoy that.  I do like Belgian-style (FF with spiced mayonnaise) chips better than the prospect of gravy, though.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 24, 2009, 02:45:50 PM
Well, now that this has been debated quite a bit, time to move on.

How about the beer & chips diet? ;)

Thick sliced and deep fried, with sea salt and vinegar thank you very much.  And a Paulaner's Hefe Weizen to wash it down with.  Not to sound too picky...  :)
I'll take a tall Choclate Stout with a huge bowl of Poutine (I like my chips covered in gravy!)

Have you been to Baltimore ( "Charm City"). The standard way to eat French Fries ( Chips) is covered with gravy.
No, but I'm familiar with the dish. Poutine is FF (short cut) with chicken gravy and melted cheese curds. To go a step further, add fried chichen livers. It was very foreign to me at first but Quebecois food is my new thing because I see so many similarities between it and Northwest cuisine (my style of cooking).
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 24, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Sounds awesome! Wish I lived there...alas, I'm in Oregon. But the wife and I want to take a trip to Montreal one day. Have you been to a restaurant out there called Les Jardins d' Savages?

In Saint-Roch-de-l'Achigan?  Yup!  A couple years ago.  It was a fascinating experience, to learn about the variety of products that grow in the wild that you could turn into a great meal.  The duck was amazing, and the place is a Mecca for mushroom lovers.  http://soupnancy.squarespace.com/recipes/ is the chef's blog where she hosts previous menus, information on ingredients, and even some recipes.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 24, 2009, 02:55:50 PM
Sounds awesome! Wish I lived there...alas, I'm in Oregon. But the wife and I want to take a trip to Montreal one day. Have you been to a restaurant out there called Les Jardins d' Savages?

In Saint-Roch-de-l'Achigan?  Yup!  A couple years ago.  It was a fascinating experience, to learn about the variety of products that grow in the wild that you could turn into a great meal.  The duck was amazing, and the place is a Mecca for mushroom lovers.  http://soupnancy.squarespace.com/recipes/ is the chef's blog where she hosts previous menus, information on ingredients, and even some recipes.  :)
I know. She's a mentor and pen pal of mine. We specialize in the same cuisine approach. I teach wild food cooking at a cooking school here in Oregon (mushroom Capitol of the /US) .
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 24, 2009, 03:04:42 PM
Nice, I have always that style of cooking.  My main experience with it is "survival cooking" though, from back when I was in military cadets.  In other words, dry, stringy, slightly burnt squirrel that was skewered and cooked over a flame. :laugh:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: simplygermain on December 24, 2009, 03:24:12 PM
Nice, I have always that style of cooking.  My main experience with it is "survival cooking" though, from back when I was in military cadets.  In other words, dry, stringy, slightly burnt squirrel that was skewered and cooked over a flame. :laugh:
That's actually very similar to how I got into Wild Foods! I was raised by my "survivalist "let's get ready for the Apocolypse" Father as a teenager. When I became a chef, and found you could actually make wild foods taste good, I went for it head first! How about braised squirrel with wild fennel, ramp, morels and fern fronds? Much better I think. :D ;)

I'm hosting an upcoming Truffle booth at the Local Oregon Truffle Festival soon. It's too bad you are in CA. I love to spoil my friends with good food.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 02, 2010, 02:30:42 PM
In todays Washington Post (Sat.1/2/10), there is a great feature article about the Hunter - Gatherer Diet ("Paleo-Diet")


This link should work but if not go to the Washington Post web page and search on either Paleo Diet or Hunter Gatherer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?st=paleo%20diet&

 
 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on January 02, 2010, 10:20:30 PM
^ The article requires registration. The Post say it's free, but I don't really feel like registering just to see what someone thinks about the newest fad diet that's based on questionable history and even worse science.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 02, 2010, 10:28:13 PM
^ The article requires registration. The Post say it's free, but I don't really feel like registering just to see what someone thinks about the newest fad diet that's based on questionable history and even worse science.

People who start eating healthier often notice that their anger issues subside. You should look into it.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on January 03, 2010, 06:26:41 PM
^ The article requires registration. The Post say it's free, but I don't really feel like registering just to see what someone thinks about the newest fad diet that's based on questionable history and even worse science.

People who start eating healthier often notice that their anger issues subside. You should look into it.
Anger. :laugh: Sure, that's what this is about.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 03, 2010, 06:56:24 PM
^ The article requires registration. The Post say it's free, but I don't really feel like registering just to see what someone thinks about the newest fad diet that's based on questionable history and even worse science.

People who start eating healthier often notice that their anger issues subside. You should look into it.
Anger. :laugh: Sure, that's what this is about.

"This" is about nutrition and diet. "Your" hostile and aggresive reactions are werid and uncalled for..
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on January 03, 2010, 07:15:28 PM
^ The article requires registration. The Post say it's free, but I don't really feel like registering just to see what someone thinks about the newest fad diet that's based on questionable history and even worse science.

People who start eating healthier often notice that their anger issues subside. You should look into it.
Anger. :laugh: Sure, that's what this is about.

"This" is about nutrition and diet. "Your" hostile and aggresive reactions are werid and uncalled for..
I post on subjects I care about. I care about nutrition and diet. You are arguing that al of us ought to eat according to this unproven fad diet, and then you dodge all questions about it, preferring instead to parrot the advert for this diet book. I'm sorry you feel I'm being hostile, but you chose to become the salesperson for this guy's book.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 03, 2010, 07:37:18 PM
^ The article requires registration. The Post say it's free, but I don't really feel like registering just to see what someone thinks about the newest fad diet that's based on questionable history and even worse science.

People who start eating healthier often notice that their anger issues subside. You should look into it.
Anger. :laugh: Sure, that's what this is about.

"This" is about nutrition and diet. "Your" hostile and aggressive reactions are weird and uncalled for..
I post on subjects I care about. I care about nutrition and diet. You are arguing that al of us ought to eat according to this unproven fad diet, and then you dodge all questions about it, preferring instead to parrot the advert for this diet book. I'm sorry you feel I'm being hostile, but you chose to become the salesperson for this guy's book.

Hello..?  You have not been reading carefully. I have stated over and over that I follow the Weston Price type diet. I have posted their link about two dozen times. There are several serious differences between the Weston Price type of Traditional Diet and the Paleo Diet. For example, I use raw Milk and dairy, a big no no on the Paleo diet. Weston Price also emphasizes eating animal fat, the Paleo Diet is much more politically correct. One of the most scathing reviews of the Paleo Diet is by Sally Fallon, President of the Weston Price Foundation.

I also linked you to a feature article in the Washington Post, not an ad. The fact that you couldn't bare to read an article from a major paper is just a bit over the top IMHO.

Read ----Comprehend ---Comment --- Suggest alternatives. That's the ticket !
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on January 05, 2010, 09:43:49 PM
politically correct
What do you mean by this term?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 06, 2010, 01:11:25 PM
politically correct
What do you mean by this term?

Dr. Cordain ( author of the Paleo Diet) sticks to the Establishment view of fats.


For example it is hard to believe that Paleo Man didn't eat the chicken ( bird) skin or passed up the fat on the animals he ate.

Go to : http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Paleo-Diet-by-Loren-Cordain.html

Sally Fallon , President of the Weston Price Foundation wrote a scathing review. I personally think the Plaeo Diet has some very good points. This is a bit of an inside baseball fight between two camps that both recommend meat based "Traditional " Diets
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on January 08, 2010, 01:59:56 PM
politically correct
What do you mean by this term?
the Establishment view
Okay, what do you mean by this term? And while you're at it, you might as well define that first one too.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 08, 2010, 02:44:43 PM
politically correct
What do you mean by this term?
the Establishment view
Okay, what do you mean by this term? And while you're at it, you might as well define that first one too.

I am really not sure what you want.


I'll give it a shot.

Important factions within the Food Industry have villifed Saturated Fat and framed them as the villain for Chronic Heart Disease (CHD). This is based on what is called the Lipid Theory of Heart Disease. The replacement for Traditional Fats in our Diets ( Animal Fat, Whole Milk , Butter, etc.) has been vegetable oils, soy products and transfats ( artificial fat). The results have been just the opposite of the claims and there has been a massive increase in CHD.

The Vegetable Oil and Soy industry as well as the Pharmaceutical Industry have big big money at stake convincing you that low fat diets and low Cholesterol levels prevent CHD and that their products are "Healthy Alternatives" . The evidence that their claims are true it nonexistent..It's a scam on a massive and shocking scale. Money talks.

Dr. Cordain is on the Board of the Amercan Heat Association ( see 'Establishment"). If he doesn't tow the line on fats and CHD  he would be consigned to the outer reaches and his core message ( eat a more natural diet like Hunter Gatherers) would not be heard by what I assume is the audience he wants to reach.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on January 08, 2010, 09:11:37 PM
I see. Well, I don't choose my diet based on what screws the Man. Have fun with your hippie food.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 08, 2010, 09:23:15 PM
I see. Well, I don't choose my diet based on what screws the Man. Have fun with your hippie food.

I don't think Red Meat, Butter and Whole Raw Milk has ever been considered "Hippie Food". I think that's something more like tofu and granola.   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Quinault on January 09, 2010, 01:56:36 AM
Nice, I have always that style of cooking.  My main experience with it is "survival cooking" though, from back when I was in military cadets.  In other words, dry, stringy, slightly burnt squirrel that was skewered and cooked over a flame. :laugh:
That's actually very similar to how I got into Wild Foods! I was raised by my "survivalist "let's get ready for the Apocolypse" Father as a teenager. When I became a chef, and found you could actually make wild foods taste good, I went for it head first! How about braised squirrel with wild fennel, ramp, morels and fern fronds? Much better I think. :D ;)

I'm hosting an upcoming Truffle booth at the Local Oregon Truffle Festival soon. It's too bad you are in CA. I love to spoil my friends with good food.

My family used to make money by gathering truffles on family hikes and selling them. Growing up in the great green NW has it's perks :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on January 24, 2010, 10:52:22 PM
I had been controlling my diabetes fairly well up until the summer of last year. My a1c was between 6 or 7 at the time, which my doctor was fairly happy with. Unfortunately, about 6 months ago I started down a road where I wasn't taking care of myself (diet wise), with the main culprit being a major increase in the amount of soda I drank. Some people eat more food when they get depressed... well, I drink soda. Anyway, so my a1c went up to over 11 by December, which is apparently somewhere between "horribly negligent" and "you must have a death wish". However, I switched to diet soda around Christmas time, and have been pretty good at avoiding regular soda since then. And I've lost about 13 pounds since I made the switch.

I'm wondering what else I can do about my diet, though. Here's the thing, I am not likely to make major changes. I've tried countless times in the past to incorporate different foods into my diet, like salads, more nuts or beans, etc. That's just not me, and I can never stay on top of it. I do eat a fair amount of fruits for lunch or as a snack. And I enjoy cooking food for dinner at night. But I have a difficult time making other meals throughout the day, and generally eat something out of a box or a TV dinner. Yes, it's not the best choice, but I can pick things I actually enjoy eating, and such food is fairly quick/easy to make. So... I know it's probably not likely, but does anyone have any suggestions for stuff I could substitute for the Boxed/TV dinner stuff, without having me completely change things?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on January 30, 2010, 11:34:54 PM
I had been controlling my diabetes fairly well up until the summer of last year. My a1c was between 6 or 7 at the time, which my doctor was fairly happy with. Unfortunately, about 6 months ago I started down a road where I wasn't taking care of myself (diet wise), with the main culprit being a major increase in the amount of soda I drank. Some people eat more food when they get depressed... well, I drink soda. Anyway, so my a1c went up to over 11 by December, which is apparently somewhere between "horribly negligent" and "you must have a death wish". However, I switched to diet soda around Christmas time, and have been pretty good at avoiding regular soda since then. And I've lost about 13 pounds since I made the switch.

I'm wondering what else I can do about my diet, though. Here's the thing, I am not likely to make major changes. I've tried countless times in the past to incorporate different foods into my diet, like salads, more nuts or beans, etc. That's just not me, and I can never stay on top of it. I do eat a fair amount of fruits for lunch or as a snack. And I enjoy cooking food for dinner at night. But I have a difficult time making other meals throughout the day, and generally eat something out of a box or a TV dinner. Yes, it's not the best choice, but I can pick things I actually enjoy eating, and such food is fairly quick/easy to make. So... I know it's probably not likely, but does anyone have any suggestions for stuff I could substitute for the Boxed/TV dinner stuff, without having me completely change things?

 I think it would be good for you to eat high Protein and Fat and avoid all bread, potatoes etc and get your carbs just from plant food.. Take a look at  www.thepaleodiet.com and  www.westonaprice.org

In the early 1930's the mayo clinic used to treat diabetes with Raw Milk. They would only let you consume raw milk for about a month and the diabetes would improve dramatically.. Go figure
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rafa999 on January 31, 2010, 12:03:31 AM
I'm not recommending this for diabetes (which is a completely different story) but It is a strong tradition within the Church of the East (all Churches in fact) that the excessive consumption of meat is a bad thing.I read that the consumption of flesh meat inadvertently aids certain undesirable things such as for example the sin of lust. Let me explain this in a non-superstitious way: I read medical reports that your body is unable to digest meat fully when consumed in large quantities, the semi-undigested remains pile up within the intestines causing bacteria to breed, constipation, and other health problems. Your body mixes certain signals from your colon as indicative of "other" things. I can back up my "nutritional theory" with scripture:

Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh

Proverbs 23:20

you can't eat flesh meat (only fish and no crayfish) in the COE from Bishop onwards from what I understand. I think this is a good practice.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 06, 2010, 03:58:45 PM

 I think it would be good for you to eat high Protein and Fat and avoid all bread, potatoes etc and get your carbs just from plant food.. Take a look at  www.thepaleodiet.com and  www.westonaprice.org

In the early 1930's the mayo clinic used to treat diabetes with Raw Milk. They would only let you consume raw milk for about a month and the diabetes would improve dramatically.. Go figure

Thank you for the leads, I am going to look into this. I am also going to discuss this with a diabetes educator that is teaching a class I'm taking in February, just to sort of get a range of opinions.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 06, 2010, 04:02:29 PM
Apparently a Dutch study found that eating food containing gelatin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelatin) or alpha-lactalbumin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-lactalbumin) at breakfast decreased the calories that a person would consume at lunch by 20%.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 06, 2010, 04:36:26 PM
Unless you personally own a cow and milk it yourself, raw milk is a potential dangerous.  I have watched many teat cups fall onto the floor and into cow manure. The vacuum tubes continue to pulsate and suction up the manure into the milk supply until someone notices. Even if the teat cup doesn’t hit the floor, cows are notoriously covered with mud and manure so if the cow isn’t cleaned before milking, infectious material can enter the raw milk.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 06, 2010, 06:32:34 PM
Unless you personally own a cow and milk it yourself, raw milk is a potential dangerous.  I have watched many teat cups fall onto the floor and into cow manure. The vacuum tubes continue to pulsate and suction up the manure into the milk supply until someone notices. Even if the teat cup doesn’t hit the floor, cows are notoriously covered with mud and manure so if the cow isn’t cleaned before milking, infectious material can enter the raw milk.



Milk from ordinary dairies where they confine their cows should never be consumed Raw or not..

Raw milk must come from a grass fed cow (not confined) and either from a "Certified Dairy" or a source that you know keeps high standards.

The Dairy Industry has misled the public about the safety of Raw Milk. They need the longer shelf-life of boiled Milk to reap high profits. The fact is, Raw Milk has a lower rate of causing illness than Deli Meats.

The best book about Raw Milk for those who want to learn more is the "Untold Story of Milk". It will change your mind. I drink nothing but Raw Milk and I am scared of the damage  that can be done by processed Milk ( Pasturized and Homogenized). The very thing people consume to help Heart Health, Low Fat Milk, may in fact be dangerous to your Heart.

http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/USOMilk/

http://www.realmilk.com

http://www.altadenadairy.com/
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 06, 2010, 07:08:26 PM
^There is no such thing as an immaculately clean dairy. All cows are filthy. (My grandfather lived on and owned a dairy farm.)  Please realize that individuals that work at dairies may not always have your health motivating their every action.

Some farm families drinking raw milk or those that consume raw eggs can develop an immunity to bacteria like Salmonella after years of exposure.  For those who do not have an immunity, an exposure to these raw products can be deadly.  I'll pray that you are one of the few that is immune to such pathogens.

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_BACTHAZARDS.HTML
http://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/consumer/fact_sheets/FACTrawmilk1.pdf
http://www.uwex.edu/milkquality/PDF/zoo.pdf
http://foodsafety.k-state.edu/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=14&sc=98&id=872
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 06, 2010, 07:23:33 PM
^There is no such thing as an immaculately clean dairy. All cows are filthy. (My grandfather lived on and owned a dairy farm.)  Please realize that individuals that work at dairies may not always have your health motivating their every action.

Some farm families drinking raw milk or those that consume raw eggs can develop an immunity to bacteria like Salmonella after years of exposure.  For those who do not have an immunity, an exposure to these raw products can be deadly.  I'll pray that you are one of the few that is immune to such pathogens.

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_BACTHAZARDS.HTML
http://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/consumer/fact_sheets/FACTrawmilk1.pdf
http://www.uwex.edu/milkquality/PDF/zoo.pdf
http://foodsafety.k-state.edu/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=14&sc=98&id=872


I forgot to mention one of the best sources of information about Raw Milk:

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_health_benefits.html

As I said before, Raw Milk has a lower incidence of causing illness than many foods you already eat.


From Raw-Milk-facts.com:

Q: Won't raw milk make me sick?


A: Not if it is properly collected from cows fed organic grass (and a minimum of grain). Heavy grain diets change the composition of the milk and hinder its ability to protect itself. Grass-fed milk has natural antibiotic properties that help protect it (and those lucky enough to drink it) from pathogenic bacteria. If you've been using pasteurized dairy products, you might want to eat small amounts of yogurt or kefir for a week or so, to give your digestive tract a pro-biotic boost, before switching to raw milk.




There's little mention in the mainstream media these days, of traditional foods having healing properties. Sure, there's a ton of hype touting unfermented soy products, vegetable oils and supplements as modern saviors, but in reality, these items have risk-to-benefit ratios like many drugs do (1).

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century (2)(3). That's right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of "stem cell" of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases (4). From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this "white blood" nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that (5)(6). What's in it that makes it so great? Let's look at the ingredients to see what makes it such a powerful food (7).
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 07, 2010, 02:17:31 AM
^There is no such thing as an immaculately clean dairy. All cows are filthy. (My grandfather lived on and owned a dairy farm.)  Please realize that individuals that work at dairies may not always have your health motivating their every action.

Some farm families drinking raw milk or those that consume raw eggs can develop an immunity to bacteria like Salmonella after years of exposure.  For those who do not have an immunity, an exposure to these raw products can be deadly.  I'll pray that you are one of the few that is immune to such pathogens.

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_BACTHAZARDS.HTML
http://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/consumer/fact_sheets/FACTrawmilk1.pdf
http://www.uwex.edu/milkquality/PDF/zoo.pdf
http://foodsafety.k-state.edu/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=14&sc=98&id=872


I forgot to mention one of the best sources of information about Raw Milk:

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_health_benefits.html

As I said before, Raw Milk has a lower incidence of causing illness than many foods you already eat.


From Raw-Milk-facts.com:

Q: Won't raw milk make me sick?


A: Not if it is properly collected from cows fed organic grass (and a minimum of grain). Heavy grain diets change the composition of the milk and hinder its ability to protect itself. Grass-fed milk has natural antibiotic properties that help protect it (and those lucky enough to drink it) from pathogenic bacteria. If you've been using pasteurized dairy products, you might want to eat small amounts of yogurt or kefir for a week or so, to give your digestive tract a pro-biotic boost, before switching to raw milk.




There's little mention in the mainstream media these days, of traditional foods having healing properties. Sure, there's a ton of hype touting unfermented soy products, vegetable oils and supplements as modern saviors, but in reality, these items have risk-to-benefit ratios like many drugs do (1).

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century (2)(3). That's right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of "stem cell" of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases (4). From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this "white blood" nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that (5)(6). What's in it that makes it so great? Let's look at the ingredients to see what makes it such a powerful food (7).

No, nothing will change my mind about consuming raw milk. I really wanted to end this discussion, but I can’t. There are people undergoing chemo on this site.  Numerous people end up hospitalized or in complete renal failure every year from drinking unpasteurized milk.  Yes, there are lots of other dangerous foods (ex:  processed meat) that one can purchase, but why purchase any of them?

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ucm122062.htm

http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/12/articles/legal-cases/raw-milk-e-coli-and-campylobacter-illnesses-a-big-cold-glass-of-reality/

http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/119/itemId/4368/Families-sue-Whole-Foods-over-tainted-raw-milk.aspx

All mammals have bacteria in their gut.  Regardless of what they are eating or how clean their environment is, their gut is a reservoir of bacteria.  Even if they have been on numerous broad spectrum antibiotics for 10 days, they will have some bacteria still living in their stomach and intestines.  Therefore, all cows', including grass fed cows, manure harbors bacteria and some of it is known to be dangerous to humans.  

Grass fed cows stomp through manure infested mud every time it rains and manure splashes on their utters. Look out into the pastures and you can see the muddy cow trails that lead to the milking barn. Grass fed cows wallow in manure infested mud to coat their skin when the flies are biting and this gets manure on their utters.  Grass fed cows wade in manure saturated ponds soaking their utters in the contaminated water.
 
The sanitizing apparatus for teat dipping before milking is just that.  It is only sanitizing and not sterilizing.  Sanitizing only reduces the level of some microorganisms; it does not eliminate all bacteria.  Teat dipping only sanitizes, not sterilizes, the cow’s teats when the cow is cooperative and stands completely still.  When the flies are biting (all spring,summer and fall), cows do not stand still.

Raw milk may be more “nutritious” than pasteurized milk, but it can be deadly to consume.  Below is a chart showing that the pathogens that live in cow manure actually grow in refrigerated conditions.  The only way to stop the growth and kill Listeria, Campylobacter, Enterocolitica, and E.coli in food is to heat or irradiate the product.

http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/poison.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 07, 2010, 02:46:30 PM
^There is no such thing as an immaculately clean dairy. All cows are filthy. (My grandfather lived on and owned a dairy farm.)  Please realize that individuals that work at dairies may not always have your health motivating their every action.

Some farm families drinking raw milk or those that consume raw eggs can develop an immunity to bacteria like Salmonella after years of exposure.  For those who do not have an immunity, an exposure to these raw products can be deadly.  I'll pray that you are one of the few that is immune to such pathogens.

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_BACTHAZARDS.HTML
http://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/consumer/fact_sheets/FACTrawmilk1.pdf
http://www.uwex.edu/milkquality/PDF/zoo.pdf
http://foodsafety.k-state.edu/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=14&sc=98&id=872


I forgot to mention one of the best sources of information about Raw Milk:

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_health_benefits.html

As I said before, Raw Milk has a lower incidence of causing illness than many foods you already eat.

 before Gig Pharma took ove the medical estgqblishment prestigious Medical Institutions like the Mayo Clinic would regularly treat people Raw-Milk-facts.com:

Q: Won't raw milk make me sick?


A: Not if it is properly collected from cows fed organic grass (and a minimum of grain). Heavy grain diets change the composition of the milk and hinder its ability to protect itself. Grass milk has natural antibiotic properties that help protect it (and those lucky enough to drink it) from pathogenic bacteria. If you've been using pasteurized dairy products, you might want to eat small amounts of yogurt or Keefer for a week or so, to give your digestive tract a robotic boost, before switching to raw milk.




There's little mention in the mainstream media these days, of traditional foods having healing properties. Sure, there's a ton of hype touting unfermented soy products, vegetable oils and supplements as modern saviors, but in reality, these items have risk-to-benefit ratios like many drugs do (1).

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century (2)(3). That's right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of "stem cell" of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases (4). From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this "white blood" nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that (5)(6). What's in it that makes it so great? Let's look at the ingredients to see what makes it such a powerful food (7).

No, nothing will change my mind about consuming raw milk. I really wanted to end this discussion, but I can't. There are people undergoing chemo on this site.  Numerous people end up hospitalized or in complete renal failure every year from drinking unpasteurized milk.  Yes, there are lots of other dangerous foods (ex: processed meat) that one can purchase, but why purchase any of them?

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ucm122062.htm

http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/12/articles/legal-cases/raw-milk-e-coli-and-campylobacter-illnesses-a-big-cold-glass-of-reality/

http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/119/itemId/4368/Families-sue-Whole-Foods-over-tainted-raw-milk.aspx

All mammals have bacteria in their gut.  Regardless of what they are eating or how clean their environment is, their gut is a reservoir of bacteria.  Even if they have been on numerous broad spectrum antibiotics for 10 days, they will have some bacteria still living in their stomach and intestines.  Therefore, all cows', including grass fed cows, manure harbors bacteria and some of it is known to be dangerous to humans.  

Grass fed cows stomp through manure infested mud every time it rains and manure splashes on their utters. Look out into the pastures and you can see the muddy cow trails that lead to the milking barn. Grass fed cows wallow in manure infested mud to coat their skin when the flies are biting and this gets manure on their utters.  Grass fed cows wade in manure saturated ponds soaking their utters in the contaminated water.
 
The sanitizing apparatus for teat dipping before milking is just that.  It is only sanitizing and not sterilizing.  Sanitizing only reduces the level of some microorganisms; it does not eliminate all bacteria.  Teat dipping only sanitizes, not sterilizes, the cow’s teats when the cow is cooperative and stands completely still.  When the flies are biting (all spring,summer and fall), cows do not stand still.

Raw milk may be more “nutritious” than pasteurized milk, but it can be deadly to consume.  Below is a chart showing that the pathogens that live in cow manure actually grow in refrigerated conditions. The only way to stop the growth and kill Listeria, Campylobacter, Enterocolitica, and E.coli in food is to heat or irradiate the product.

http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/poison.html


I am sorry that this topic upsets you. We have been propagandized and miss led about many of our foods. The Food Industry has practically devitalized our food supply with their drive to make food more and more profitable for them, nutrition be damned.

The demonization of Raw Milk ("Real Milk") is shameful and has deprived us of one of natures wonders. When the Dairy Industry made the decision to drive Real Milk from the market place and replace it with processed Milk with a longer shelf-life that could  be shipped long distences, one of their main opponents were Physicians ( who knew of it's great benefits).

Before Big Pharma took over the Medical Establishment, prestigious Medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic would regularly treat people by putting them on Raw Milk Fasts.
The good Doctors at the Mayo Clinic apparently did not have the fear about Raw Milk contamination that you do.

If Raw Milk were really dangerous, people would be getting sick from it. The Truth is that Raw Milk has a very very low incidence of causing illness. Spinach has made people sick, not Real Milk.

What you should fear is Pasturized and Homogenized Milk. The Dairies that know their milk will be boiled confine their Cows their entire life. They live in filthy conditions. Confinement Dairys must add an extra step to remove feces since so much is around a confined Cow. Factory cows live less than two years and must constantly be given antibiotics to keep them alive. They are especially prone to hoof and leg infections since they are in pens and prevented from moving around. Simply on the basis of avoiding cruelty to animals you should avoid processed Milk from factories.

On the other hand, Cows allowed to pasture and are fed their natural diet of grass and hay live about 14 years. Their waste is not full of the same toxic bacteria as confined grain fed Cows. In India, Cow dung is used as an antiseptic agent. Grass feeding reduces E-coli to nearly zero. Cows raised for meat have E-coli contamination reduced by 80% when they are allowed out of confinement for just 20% of their time. Cows pastured on grass 100% of the time have no E-coli either in their milk or meat.

The Dairy Industry is rich and powerful. They own Professors and Government officials. There is a revolving door between the Dairy industry and the Government positions that regulate them. Agriculture and Dairy Professors are almost always being paid with grants from the Food Industry.

People are suffering from diseases caused by refined foods and the absence of Wholesome Real Food, such as Raw Milk. Obesity, Diabetes and Cancer abound in the population but were unheard of before we were told that Real Food was bad and convenient Processed food was good.

Millions upon Millions of people consume Real Unprocessed Milk. It is one of the best foods you can consume. It is perfectly safe if purchased from a farm that Grass feeds their Cows, unconfined and clean. Pasteurized Milk comes from sick cows, fed  unnatural diets and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones.

I strongly suggest reading "The Untold Story of Milk" before trying to dissuade people from useing it. You should also watch the moive "Food Inc".

http://www.realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html

http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/index.html

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 07, 2010, 04:37:48 PM
More about Cow dung:


The biggest energy contribution from cows and bulls is their dung. India's cattle produce 800 million tons of manure every year. The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms of excrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow's dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it or not, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean.

Most of the dung is used for fertilizer at no cost to the farmer or to the world's fossil fuel reserves. The remainder is used for fuel. It is odorless and burns without scorching, giving a slow, even heat. A housewife can count on leaving her pots unattended all day or return any time to a preheated griddle for short-order cooking. To replace dung with coal would cost India $1.5 billion per year.

Dung is also used for both heating and cooling. Packed on the outside walls of a house, in winter it keeps in the heat, and in summer produces a cooling effect. Also, unlike the stool of humans, it keeps flies away , and when burned, its smoke acts as a repellent for mosquitoes.



http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rosehip on February 07, 2010, 05:14:57 PM
 Regarding raw milk, I think some can tolerate it and others can't. Just like some can tolerate milk products in general, while others are lactose intolerant. I lived on a farm once and was fed the raw milk and was able to tolerate it quite well. However, a friend of mine, who was raised on pasturized milk and married a dairy farmer fell gravely ill when she started consuming raw milk. I think it was so serious that she even ended up in the hospital.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 07, 2010, 10:07:57 PM
Regarding raw milk, I think some can tolerate it and others can't. Just like some can tolerate milk products in general, while others are lactose intolerant. I lived on a farm once and was fed the raw milk and was able to tolerate it quite well. However, a friend of mine, who was raised on pasteurized milk and married a dairy farmer fell gravely ill when she started consuming raw milk. I think it was so serious that she even ended up in the hospital.

There seem to be two issues here. People who are normally lactose intolerent very often are able to consume Raw Milk because the digestive enzymes are left intact. When milk drinking cultures come into contact with non-milk drinking cultures the next generation is able to consume milk after intermarriage. The gene for Milk toleration is dominant.. So if you have had trouble with Pasteurized Dairy, try Unprocessed Dairy there may be a better result.


If your friend was drinking Milk from grain fed confined Cows, it's no surprise if she got sick. Raw Milk needs to come either from "Certified Dairies" ( held to a higher standard of cleanliness and meant for Raw Milk sales) or  Milk from grass fed Pastured Cows. If you try drinking milk from regular confinement Dairies, you have lost all the natural protections that are built into Real Milk.   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 08, 2010, 02:29:42 PM
^ You act like there are only two options, raw milk or confinement dairies. We drink pasteurized milk from a local free-range dairy (or we did until it was destroyed in a windstorm last summer, and will again once they finish rebuilding in the next couple of months).
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on February 08, 2010, 02:43:37 PM
More about Cow dung:


The biggest energy contribution from cows and bulls is their dung. India's cattle produce 800 million tons of manure every year. The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms of excrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow's dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it or not, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean.

Most of the dung is used for fertilizer at no cost to the farmer or to the world's fossil fuel reserves. The remainder is used for fuel. It is odorless and burns without scorching, giving a slow, even heat. A housewife can count on leaving her pots unattended all day or return any time to a preheated griddle for short-order cooking. To replace dung with coal would cost India $1.5 billion per year.

Dung is also used for both heating and cooling. Packed on the outside walls of a house, in winter it keeps in the heat, and in summer produces a cooling effect. Also, unlike the stool of humans, it keeps flies away , and when burned, its smoke acts as a repellent for mosquitoes.



http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.html


I'm sure your neighbors are thrilled with your new-found technologies.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 08, 2010, 02:43:45 PM
I'm taking a Nutrition class this semester, and they seem to teach pretty much the standard/orthodox/governmental view on things like milk, cholesterol, food pyramid, etc. I get the feeling that if some of the posters in this thread were taking it, their head would explode with frustration.  ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 08, 2010, 02:53:51 PM
I am sorry that this topic upsets you. We have been propagandized and miss led about many of our foods. The Food Industry has practically devitalized our food supply with their drive to make food more and more profitable for them, nutrition be damned.

The demonization of Raw Milk ("Real Milk") is shameful and has deprived us of one of natures wonders. When the Dairy Industry made the decision to drive Real Milk from the market place and replace it with processed Milk with a longer shelf-life that could  be shipped long distences, one of their main opponents were Physicians ( who knew of it's great benefits).

Before Big Pharma took over the Medical Establishment, prestigious Medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic would regularly treat people by putting them on Raw Milk Fasts.
The good Doctors at the Mayo Clinic apparently did not have the fear about Raw Milk contamination that you do.

If Raw Milk were really dangerous, people would be getting sick from it. The Truth is that Raw Milk has a very very low incidence of causing illness. Spinach has made people sick, not Real Milk.

What you should fear is Pasturized and Homogenized Milk. The Dairies that know their milk will be boiled confine their Cows their entire life. They live in filthy conditions. Confinement Dairys must add an extra step to remove feces since so much is around a confined Cow. Factory cows live less than two years and must constantly be given antibiotics to keep them alive. They are especially prone to hoof and leg infections since they are in pens and prevented from moving around. Simply on the basis of avoiding cruelty to animals you should avoid processed Milk from factories.

On the other hand, Cows allowed to pasture and are fed their natural diet of grass and hay live about 14 years. Their waste is not full of the same toxic bacteria as confined grain fed Cows. In India, Cow dung is used as an antiseptic agent. Grass feeding reduces E-coli to nearly zero. Cows raised for meat have E-coli contamination reduced by 80% when they are allowed out of confinement for just 20% of their time. Cows pastured on grass 100% of the time have no E-coli either in their milk or meat.

The Dairy Industry is rich and powerful. They own Professors and Government officials. There is a revolving door between the Dairy industry and the Government positions that regulate them. Agriculture and Dairy Professors are almost always being paid with grants from the Food Industry.

People are suffering from diseases caused by refined foods and the absence of Wholesome Real Food, such as Raw Milk. Obesity, Diabetes and Cancer abound in the population but were unheard of before we were told that Real Food was bad and convenient Processed food was good.

Millions upon Millions of people consume Real Unprocessed Milk. It is one of the best foods you can consume. It is perfectly safe if purchased from a farm that Grass feeds their Cows, unconfined and clean. Pasteurized Milk comes from sick cows, fed  unnatural diets and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones.

I strongly suggest reading "The Untold Story of Milk" before trying to dissuade people from useing it. You should also watch the moive "Food Inc".

http://www.realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html

http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/index.html

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf
Ok, Marc.  I read your articles.  Now read a few of the recent peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles on the health risks associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk products:
  
1. LeJeune JT and Rajala-Schultz.  Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat.  Clinical
Infectious Diseases.  2009;48:93-100.
2. Bradley J, Pickering L, Jareb J.  Advise families against giving children unpasteurized milk.  AAP
News.  American Academy of Pediatrics.  29(12).
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Campylobacter jejuni infection associated with
unpasteurized milk and cheese – Kansas, 2007.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2009 Jan
2; 57(51):1377-9.
4. Ramos, et al.  Non-imported brucellosis outbreak from unpasteurized raw milk in Moroccan
immigrants in Spain. Epidemiology and Infection.  2008 Nov; 136(11): 1552-5.
5. Scavia, et al.  Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli associated with a foodborne outbreak of
gastroenteritis.  Journal of Medical Microbiology.  2008 Sep; 57(9): 1141-6.
6. Clauss HB and Lorber B.  Central nervous system infection with Listeria monocytogenes.  Current
Infectious Disease Reports.  2008 Jul; 10(4): 300-6.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections in children
associated with raw milk and raw colostrum from cows--California, 2006.  Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report.  2008 Jun 13; 57(23):625-8.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica
serotype Newport infections associated with consumption of unpasteurized Mexican-style aged
cheese--Illinois, March 2006-April 2007.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2008 Apr
25;57(16):432-5.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Salmonella typhimurium infection associated with raw
milk and cheese consumption--Pennsylvania, 2007.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2007
Nov 9;56(44):1161-4.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with
drinking raw milk--Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005.  Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report.  2007 Mar 2;56   8 :165-7.   
11. Schlesser J, et al.  Survival of a five-strain cocktail of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during the 60-day
aging period of cheddar cheese made from unpasteurized milk.  Journal of Food Protection.  2006
May;69(5):990-8.
12. Schildt, et al.  Long-lasting Campylobacter jejuni contamination of milk associated with
gastrointestinal illness in a farming family.  Epidemiology and Infection.  2006 Apr;134(2):401-5.
13. Oliver, et al.  Foodborne pathogens in milk and the dairy farm environment: food safety and public
health implications.  Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.  2005 Summer;2(2):115-29.
14. Honish, et al.  An outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 hemorrhagic colitis associated with unpasteurized
gouda cheese.  2005 May-Jun;96(3):182-4.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Multistate outbreak of Salmonella serotype
typhimurium infections associated with drinking unpasteurized milk--Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
Tennessee, 2002-2003.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2003 Jul 4;52(26):613-5.
16. Allerberger, et al.  Hemolytic-uremic syndrome associated with enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli
O26:H infection and consumption of unpasteurized cow's milk.  International Journal of Infectious
Diseases.  2003 Mar;7(1):42-5.
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infections associated
with drinking unpasteurized milk procured through a cow-leasing program--Wisconsin, 2001.  2002
Jun 28;51(25):548-9.
18. DeValk, et al.  A community--wide outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium infection
associated with eating a raw milk soft cheese in France.  Epidemiology and Infections.  2000
Feb;124(1):1-7.
-------------------
Suggesting that the Mayo Clinic supports the consumption of unpasteurized milk is incorrect and potentially dangerous.  Here is the Mayo Clinic's opinion of consuming unpasteurized milk.
www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-poisoning/ds00981/dsection=causes
www.mayoclinic.com/health/listeria-infection/.../dsection=prevention
www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy-nutrition/pr00109

Ytterbium has an excellent suggestion; drink pasteurized milk from grass fed cows.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 08, 2010, 05:23:37 PM
^ You act like there are only two options, raw milk or confinement dairies. We drink pasteurized milk from a local free-range dairy (or we did until it was destroyed in a windstorm last summer, and will again once they finish rebuilding in the next couple of months).

Well of course there is always the choice between good better and best. Pasteurized Milk from Grass Fed Cows free of hormones and antibiotics is an improvement over milk from grain fed confined Cows. You can really taste the difference too.

The reality is that you have to work a bit to find Raw Milk, depending on where you live. The lucky people of California only need to walk into a store, it's perfectly legal there. Here in Maryland, I belong to a buying club and "Cow share" program. We are close to PA and are able to work a deal with Amish Farmers who bring down to us Grass Fed Meat, Organic Vegetables Raw Cow and Goat Milk, Cheese, Lard..etc.

With that said, Pasteurization means they boil the Milk. Even if you are careful to buy Milk that is Grass Fed etc. boiling distubes the delicate balance of the milk. It wipes out the digestive enzymes  and pretty much neuters the Milk. You are not poisoning yourself with Hormones and Milk from downer Cows but you are not getting the benefits of Milk in it's natural state, unboiled.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 08, 2010, 05:58:20 PM
I am sorry that this topic upsets you. We have been propagandized and miss led about many of our foods. The Food Industry has practically devitalized our food supply with their drive to make food more and more profitable for them, nutrition be damned.

The demonization of Raw Milk ("Real Milk") is shameful and has deprived us of one of natures wonders. When the Dairy Industry made the decision to drive Real Milk from the market place and replace it with processed Milk with a longer shelf-life that could  be shipped long distences, one of their main opponents were Physicians ( who knew of it's great benefits).

Before Big Pharma took over the Medical Establishment, prestigious Medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic would regularly treat people by putting them on Raw Milk Fasts.
The good Doctors at the Mayo Clinic apparently did not have the fear about Raw Milk contamination that you do.

If Raw Milk were really dangerous, people would be getting sick from it. The Truth is that Raw Milk has a very very low incidence of causing illness. Spinach has made people sick, not Real Milk.

What you should fear is Pasteurized and Homogenized Milk. The Dairies that know their milk will be boiled confine their Cows their entire life. They live in filthy conditions. Confinement Dairy's must add an extra step to remove feces since so much is around a confined Cow. Factory cows live less than two years and must constantly be given antibiotics to keep them alive. They are especially prone to hoof and leg infections since they are in pens and prevented from moving around. Simply on the basis of avoiding cruelty to animals you should avoid processed Milk from factories.

On the other hand, Cows allowed to pasture and are fed their natural diet of grass and hay live about 14 years. Their waste is not full of the same toxic bacteria as confined grain fed Cows. In India, Cow dung is used as an antiseptic agent. Grass feeding reduces E-coli to nearly zero. Cows raised for meat have E-coli contamination reduced by 80% when they are allowed out of confinement for just 20% of their time. Cows pastured on grass 100% of the time have no E-coli either in their milk or meat.

The Dairy Industry is rich and powerful. They own Professors and Government officials. There is a revolving door between the Dairy industry and the Government positions that regulate them. Agriculture and Dairy Professors are almost always being paid with grants from the Food Industry.

People are suffering from diseases caused by refined foods and the absence of Wholesome Real Food, such as Raw Milk. Obesity, Diabetes and Cancer abound in the population but were unheard of before we were told that Real Food was bad and convenient Processed food was good.

Millions upon Millions of people consume Real Unprocessed Milk. It is one of the best foods you can consume. It is perfectly safe if purchased from a farm that Grass feeds their Cows, unconfined and clean. Pasteurized Milk comes from sick cows, fed  unnatural diets and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones.

I strongly suggest reading "The Untold Story of Milk" before trying to dissuade people from useing it. You should also watch the moive "Food Inc".

http://www.realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html

http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/index.html

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf
Ok, Marc.  I read your articles.  Now read a few of the recent peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles on the health risks associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk products:
  
1. LeJeune JT and Rajala-Schultz.  Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat.  Clinical
Infectious Diseases.  2009;48:93-100.
2. Bradley J, Pickering L, Jareb J.  Advise families against giving children unpasteurized milk.  AAP
News.  American Academy of Pediatrics.  29(12).
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Campylobacter jejuni infection associated with
unpasteurized milk and cheese – Kansas, 2007.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2009 Jan
2; 57(51):1377-9.
4. Ramos, et al.  Non-imported brucellosis outbreak from unpasteurized raw milk in Moroccan
immigrants in Spain. Epidemiology and Infection.  2008 Nov; 136(11): 1552-5.
5. Scavia, et al.  Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli associated with a foodborne outbreak of
gastroenteritis.  Journal of Medical Microbiology.  2008 Sep; 57(9): 1141-6.
6. Clauss HB and Lorber B.  Central nervous system infection with Listeria monocytogenes.  Current
Infectious Disease Reports.  2008 Jul; 10(4): 300-6.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections in children
associated with raw milk and raw colostrum from cows--California, 2006.  Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report.  2008 Jun 13; 57(23):625-8.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica
serotype Newport infections associated with consumption of unpasteurized Mexican-style aged
cheese--Illinois, March 2006-April 2007.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2008 Apr
25;57(16):432-5.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Salmonella typhimurium infection associated with raw
milk and cheese consumption--Pennsylvania, 2007.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2007
Nov 9;56(44):1161-4.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with
drinking raw milk--Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005.  Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report.  2007 Mar 2;56   8 :165-7.  
11. Schlesser J, et al.  Survival of a five-strain cocktail of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during the 60-day
aging period of cheddar cheese made from unpasteurized milk.  Journal of Food Protection.  2006
May;69(5):990-8.
12. Schildt, et al.  Long-lasting Campylobacter jejuni contamination of milk associated with
gastrointestinal illness in a farming family.  Epidemiology and Infection.  2006 Apr;134(2):401-5.
13. Oliver, et al.  Foodborne pathogens in milk and the dairy farm environment: food safety and public
health implications.  Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.  2005 Summer;2(2):115-29.
14. Honish, et al.  An outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 hemorrhagic colitis associated with unpasteurized
gouda cheese.  2005 May-Jun;96(3):182-4.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Multistate outbreak of Salmonella serotype
typhimurium infections associated with drinking unpasteurized milk--Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
Tennessee, 2002-2003.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  2003 Jul 4;52(26):613-5.
16. Allerberger, et al.  Hemolytic-uremic syndrome associated with enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli
O26:H infection and consumption of unpasteurized cow's milk.  International Journal of Infectious
Diseases.  2003 Mar;7(1):42-5.
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infections associated
with drinking unpasteurized milk procured through a cow-leasing program--Wisconsin, 2001.  2002
Jun 28;51(25):548-9.
18. DeValk, et al.  A community--wide outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium infection
associated with eating a raw milk soft cheese in France.  Epidemiology and Infections.  2000
Feb;124(1):1-7.
-------------------
Suggesting that the Mayo Clinic supports the consumption of unpasteurized milk is incorrect and potentially dangerous.  Here is the Mayo Clinic's opinion of consuming unpasteurized milk.
www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-poisoning/ds00981/dsection=causes
www.mayoclinic.com/health/listeria-infection/.../dsection=prevention
www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy-nutrition/pr00109

Ytterbium has an excellent suggestion; drink pasteurized milk from grass fed cows.

You are being a SOP for greedy dark forces that only care about profits and not your helath. They have reduced animals to "Production Units" and want to make you into a "Consuming Unit".

The Dairy and Food Industry is a near Monopoly. They want to totally control the food supply and give us no choices. They have billions of dollars to spend on studies that show what they need them to show. As I have already posted, they don't stand up to scrutiny.

The fact is, Raw Milk has a far lower incidence of causing illness than many foods we already buy at the store. It's lower than Deli-Meat and certainly lower than spinach which recently poisoned many people is a recent outbreak of E-Coli. Wher are th 20 articles about Deli Meat? Why is it still on the shelves?

So then you have to ask yourself why has Raw Milk been singled out as uniquely dangerous when it clearly is not... One more time: THE INCIDENCEOF RAW MILK CAUSING ILLNESS IS LOWER THAN MANY FOODS YOU ALREADT EAT

The answer is simple, the Food Industry is greedy They want the long shelf life of boiled Milk (six months) so they can ship it long distances. This is  big money to them.

So please try to calm down. What you are doing is like trying to scare people from eating spinach. You have gone over to the Dark
Side..Try to snap out of it. :)

http://www.westonaprice.org/Milk-It-Does-a-Body-Good.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 08, 2010, 07:17:24 PM
1. LeJeune JT and Rajala-Schultz.  Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat.  Clinical Infectious Diseases.  2009;48:93-100.

So I picked out your first citation above and played Google Detective. I followed the Circular Vite for Professor Rajala-Schultz ( Dr. LeJune is her collaborator ). I saw where they work at The College of Veterinary Medicine in Ohio.

I then clicked on a list of her studies. Several are funded by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association.

Remember how I warned earlier about Anti-Raw Milk studies by  Professors beholden to the Dairy Industry ? Here is a statement by this Dairy Industry Association right on their web page.

 Raw Milk
ODPA believes that the sales of raw milk should be banned at all levels. It is currently banned at the interstate commerce, but still permitted under the intra state level. It is simply a matter of food safety.

So this professor is in the pocket of the Ohio Dairy Producers Association that funds many of her studies. The Ohio Dairy Industry has a huge economic interest in Pasteurized Milk.. The Ohio Dairy Producers Association has a pre-determined stand on Raw Milk ( see above).. They fund Dr.  Rajala-Schultz . Dr. Rajala-Schultz churns out warnings about the dangers of Raw Milk...............Go figure

http://www.ohiodairyproducers.org/update.html




 http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/PaiviRajala-Schultz.htm
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 08, 2010, 08:03:48 PM
1. LeJeune JT and Rajala-Schultz.  Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat.  Clinical Infectious Diseases.  2009;48:93-100.

So I picked out your first citation above and played Google Detective. I followed the Circular Vite for Professor Rajala-Schultz ( Dr. LeJune is her collaborator ). I saw where they work at The College of Veterinary Medicine in Ohio.

I then clicked on a list of her studies. Several are funded by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association.

Remember how I warned earlier about Anti-Raw Milk studies by  Professors beholden to the Dairy Industry ? Here is a statement by this Dairy Industry Association right on their web page.

 Raw Milk
ODPA believes that the sales of raw milk should be banned at all levels. It is currently banned at the interstate commerce, but still permitted under the intra state level. It is simply a matter of food safety.

So this professor is in the pocket of the Ohio Dairy Producers Association that funds many of her studies. The Ohio Dairy Industry has a huge economic interest in Pasteurized Milk.. The Ohio Dairy Producers Association has a pre-determined stand on Raw Milk ( see above).. They fund Dr.  Rajala-Schultz . Dr. Rajala-Schultz churns out warnings about the dangers of Raw Milk...............Go figure

http://www.ohiodairyproducers.org/update.html




 http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/PaiviRajala-Schultz.htm
IMO, you should copy all the peer reviewed, scientific journal articles I posted and keep them on the back of your toilet tank.  When you are having severe diarrhea from bacteria-infected unpasteurized milk, you can study them. ;) 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 08, 2010, 08:36:42 PM
1. LeJeune JT and Rajala-Schultz.  Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat.  Clinical Infectious Diseases.  2009;48:93-100.

So I picked out your first citation above and played Google Detective. I followed the Circular Vite for Professor Rajala-Schultz ( Dr. LeJune is her collaborator ). I saw where they work at The College of Veterinary Medicine in Ohio.

I then clicked on a list of her studies. Several are funded by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association.

Remember how I warned earlier about Anti-Raw Milk studies by  Professors beholden to the Dairy Industry ? Here is a statement by this Dairy Industry Association right on their web page.

 Raw Milk
ODPA believes that the sales of raw milk should be banned at all levels. It is currently banned at the interstate commerce, but still permitted under the intra state level. It is simply a matter of food safety.

So this professor is in the pocket of the Ohio Dairy Producers Association that funds many of her studies. The Ohio Dairy Industry has a huge economic interest in Pasteurized Milk.. The Ohio Dairy Producers Association has a pre-determined stand on Raw Milk ( see above).. They fund Dr.  Rajala-Schultz . Dr. Rajala-Schultz churns out warnings about the dangers of Raw Milk...............Go figure

http://www.ohiodairyproducers.org/update.html




 http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/PaiviRajala-Schultz.htm
IMO, you should copy all the peer reviewed, scientific journal articles I posted and keep them on the back of your toilet tank.  When you are having severe diarrhea from bacteria-infected unpasteurized milk, you can study them. ;) 

Silly ms.hoorah, don't you know that your medical licence is invalid because you obtained it from a university that buys pasteurised milk for its cafeteria? ;D ::)

You know, what really gets me about these hippies is that they are never content to make health decisions for themselves. It'd be one thing if they were only destroying their own bodies with questionable practices based on a little out-of-context science and a lot of fearmongering and conspiracy theory. But no, they can't stop there. They won't rest until all of us practice and preach the same crap they do. Or, in this case, the same diarrhoea they do.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 08, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Not to interrupt the friendly conversation  :P  but here's an ultra-important topic.  It seems like every time I buy pears, at least one of them gets terribly damaged by the time I get home. Tomatoes are fine. So are peaches, plums, and all sorts of other fruits which I might expect to get similarly damaged. But with pears, it's like I am cursed. Now, I'm sure that one person will chime in saying that I shouldn't eat them because of pesticides, and another person will say that there is a conspiracy by big fruit to produce pears prone to damage so that people will buy more pears, while others will argue endlessly over which variety of pear is the best tasting or most nutritious. But honestly, I just want to know if it's just me with this problem or what? Am I just a heavy handed oaf or something?  ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Tallitot on February 08, 2010, 10:20:18 PM
I use soy or rice milk, less fat and no cholesterol, two big reasons for me.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 08, 2010, 10:29:01 PM
I was going to admit to drinking soy juice milk, but I didn't want to gross people out. I know the feelings of some people about it in these parts*. ;) Honestly though, I get the "Very Vanilla" soy milk, and it tastes perfectly fine. *shrugs* And besides that, I still end up drinking a gallon to a gallon and a half of standard 2% milk each week anyway. But what does rice milk taste like?

*It's also sort of funny seeing some of the conversations about soy protein on body building forums. "OMG guyz!!1! Soy protein will turn u into womenz!"
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Tallitot on February 08, 2010, 10:31:15 PM
Rice.

Actually, soy milk is a good alternative for Orthodox Christians during fasts, as well as for Jews tryting to observe kashrut.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 08, 2010, 10:32:41 PM
So it's not just a clever name? Somehow I don't think I'll be trying it any time soon...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Tallitot on February 08, 2010, 10:33:15 PM
So it's not just a clever name?

no.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 08, 2010, 10:57:18 PM
1. LeJeune JT and Rajala-Schultz.  Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat.  Clinical Infectious Diseases.  2009;48:93-100.

So I picked out your first citation above and played Google Detective. I followed the Circular Vite for Professor Rajala-Schultz ( Dr. LeJune is her collaborator ). I saw where they work at The College of Veterinary Medicine in Ohio.

I then clicked on a list of her studies. Several are funded by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association.

Remember how I warned earlier about Anti-Raw Milk studies by  Professors beholden to the Dairy Industry ? Here is a statement by this Dairy Industry Association right on their web page.

 Raw Milk
ODPA believes that the sales of raw milk should be banned at all levels. It is currently banned at the interstate commerce, but still permitted under the intra state level. It is simply a matter of food safety.

So this professor is in the pocket of the Ohio Dairy Producers Association that funds many of her studies. The Ohio Dairy Industry has a huge economic interest in Pasteurized Milk.. The Ohio Dairy Producers Association has a predetermined stand on Raw Milk ( see above).. They fund Dr.  Rajala-Schultz . Dr. Rajala-Schultz churns out warnings about the dangers of Raw Milk...............Go figure

http://www.ohiodairyproducers.org/update.html




 http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/PaiviRajala-Schultz.htm
IMO, you should copy all the peer reviewed, scientific journal articles I posted and keep them on the back of your toilet tank.  When you are having severe diarrhea from bacteria-infected unpasteurized milk, you can study them. ;) 


LOL..That's funny..Anyway, God bless you for being impressed by all that. It's really cute.

IMHO, the Food industry is shockingly corrupt. Studies are funded by people like the Dairy Association that have a vested interest in a certain outcome. Youre okay with that?

As for peer review, that is a nonpolitical process. Was the math done right? Was the study done under proper protocols? It does not deal with the issue I am concerned with.

You can get sick from unpasteurized Milk.. You can get sick from Pasteurized Milk.. You can get sick from spinach and salami. You can do a study showing how any of those foods can become contaminated. It will pass peer review. You can get sick just exactly in the way the study shows.

The question is, does Raw Milk pose a UNIQUE DANGER as opposed to the other foods we all eat every day. The answer is that it does not. The reason we hear about the dangers of Raw Milk even though less people get sick from it than many other common foods has to do with the profits of the Dairy Industry and no other reason..  

The Dairy Industry makes big profits from the long shelf life of Boiled Milk and they are able to feed their  Cows swill and keep them in pens all their lives. It doesn't matter how filthy the conditions are or how many Hormones or Antibiotics they pump into them because the Milk will eventually get boiled. The low quality of the Milk and the fact that it has been stripped of it's nutrition is of no concern. They have convinced you to eat crap and smile while you are consuming  it.  

The Food Industry is corrupt, they regulate themselves. Government officials come from the giant Food Monopolies and then go back again . They buy studies with their own money and get the results the need to continue their scare tactics.

I think it's hilarious that I could pick out a citation randomly and find out that the resarcher does studies for the Dairy Industry.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rafa999 on February 08, 2010, 11:15:17 PM
The fish industry was telling the FDA how much fish we should eat so as to not get mercury contamination according to CNN once I saw.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 10, 2010, 11:21:46 AM
Not to interrupt the friendly conversation  :P  but here's an ultra-important topic.  It seems like every time I buy pears, at least one of them gets terribly damaged by the time I get home. Tomatoes are fine. So are peaches, plums, and all sorts of other fruits which I might expect to get similarly damaged. But with pears, it's like I am cursed. Now, I'm sure that one person will chime in saying that I shouldn't eat them because of pesticides, and another person will say that there is a conspiracy by big fruit to produce pears prone to damage so that people will buy more pears, while others will argue endlessly over which variety of pear is the best tasting or most nutritious. But honestly, I just want to know if it's just me with this problem or what? Am I just a heavy handed oaf or something?  ;D
I've noticed people would rather argue about their conspiracy theories than answer a simple question, so I'll give it a shot.

I would suspect it has to do with the pears being more ripe than those other fruits. It really depends on how far they're shipped. Yes, there are refrigerated trucks and such, but most fruit, by the time it's processed and shipped, is already about a week old if it comes from California or South America (obviously less time for Californian fruit if you live in California). Ripe fruit is more likely to bruise.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 10, 2010, 02:58:10 PM
Not to interrupt the friendly conversation  :P  but here's an ultra-important topic.  It seems like every time I buy pears, at least one of them gets terribly damaged by the time I get home. Tomatoes are fine. So are peaches, plums, and all sorts of other fruits which I might expect to get similarly damaged. But with pears, it's like I am cursed. Now, I'm sure that one person will chime in saying that I shouldn't eat them because of pesticides, and another person will say that there is a conspiracy by big fruit to produce pears prone to damage so that people will buy more pears, while others will argue endlessly over which variety of pear is the best tasting or most nutritious. But honestly, I just want to know if it's just me with this problem or what? Am I just a heavy handed oaf or something?  ;D
I've noticed people would rather argue about their conspiracy theories

 

Take a deep breath:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmF_erEv1o&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cb6HwzCkEs&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eBJQ-bajns&feature=fvw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5bAfPsUAb8&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2vARSdg7bw&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr5HQrgg9mM


Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 10, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
I've seen both Food, Inc. and King Corn, and enjoyed them both. I realise that there are problems in the food industry, and we try to buy local foods whenever possible. I just don't buy into your conspiracy theory. People demand of corporations cheap food. The corporations persuade people that they want cheap food. It's a two-way street. Yes, ultimately the profit of a few companies has caused a lot of harm to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean the system we have right now was thought up in a smoke-filled room. It's just the system that brings the most profit to a few people--which is of course the end result of capitalism.

I'm not your enemy. You seem to think I munch Doritos and slurp gallons of Coke. Actually, we cook everything from scratch--and that scratch being locally grown fruits and vegetables, which we freeze for the winter; locally made breads and cheeses during the summer (unfortunately unavailable to us in the winter); and hormone-free local meats, again which we freeze for winter. The few things we buy from a supermarket tend to be items like seafood and citrus fruits that cannot be grown in our climate, and breads and cheeses in winter. There are many more people who eat terribly who would be better suited for your message.
 
If what you're preaching works for you, good. I don't mind that you've chosen it for yourself. What irks me is that you won't rest until everyone agrees with you. And as not everyone is going to agree with you, you won't let this issue rest. You've said more than enough about it, and we're wanting to discuss some other nutritional issues, such as the pear issue above. It's hard to discuss these when you drown us out.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 10, 2010, 05:30:32 PM
Internationally-renowned food safety expert, Tommy Flanagan says, “Human beings morph into reptilian humanoids called Anunnaki with the consumption of raw milk.  Older reptilian humanoids from the planet Drako arrive daily  to abduct raw milk drinking humans and-and-and that’s why you don’t see any of these morphing humans.  Yeah....that’s the ticket!”

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/tommy-in-jail/281003/
--------------------
To stay on topic, I have no idea why pears are so easily bruised.  All colors of pears seem to bruise easily at my house.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 10, 2010, 11:32:51 PM
 and then make ad hominem remarks..
I've seen both Food, Inc. and King Corn, and enjoyed them both. I realise that there are problems in the food industry, and we try to buy local foods whenever possible. I just don't buy into your conspiracy theory. People demand of corporations cheap food. The corporations persuade people that they want cheap food. It's a two-way street. Yes, ultimately the profit of a few companies has caused a lot of harm to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean the system we have right now was thought up in a smoke-filled room. It's just the system that brings the most profit to a few people--which is of course the end result of capitalism.

I'm not your enemy. You seem to think I munch Doritos and slurp gallons of Coke. Actually, we cook everything from scratch--and that scratch being locally grown fruits and vegetables, which we freeze for the winter; locally made breads and cheeses during the summer (unfortunately unavailable to us in the winter); and hormone-free local meats, again which we freeze for winter. The few things we buy from a supermarket tend to be items like seafood and citrus fruits that cannot be grown in our climate, and breads and cheeses in winter. There are many more people who eat terribly who would be better suited for your message.
 
If what you're preaching works for you, good. I don't mind that you've chosen it for yourself. What irks me is that you won't rest until everyone agrees with you. And as not everyone is going to agree with you, you won't let this issue rest. You've said more than enough about it, and we're wanting to discuss some other nutritional issues, such as the pear issue above. It's hard to discuss these when you drown us out.

I was not aware of any conspiracy theories. Please explain. I haven't even vaguely hinted that the system is cooked up in back rooms. I have said the Food System is corrupt and is dominated by a handful of Companies. That's a fact. Please read for content.

Where do you get off saying I "won't rest" until everone agrees with me? These are boards where you write stuff.. No one can get drowned out. If someone says Raw Milk is dangerous, I will reply and share information. No drowning out is involved or even possible... Maybe you should work on your debate and writing skills if you think your own points aren't convincing. But they certainly do get posted, so you have the same shot everyone else has.

I think you have some sort of weird personal problem with me that has carried over from other threads. You have done this before. You fish around for all  kinds things to accuse me of and then make ad hominem remarks..
 
Please back off.. Thank you.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on February 11, 2010, 01:06:10 AM
See I have the opposite problem with pears. Every time I buy them they are dry, hard, and tasteless. It's come to the point where I simply won't buy them anymore.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 11, 2010, 02:51:25 PM
I also would like  to mention something about Homogenization of Milk and also Skim Milk.

Milk fat (cream) occurs naturally in large globules. That is why when left to itself, the cream will separate from the liquid and rise to the top of the bottle.  Back when most milk was not homogenized ( I am old enough to remember that) the amount of cream at the top of the bottle was one way consumers could judge the quality of the milk between Dairies ( brands). You could look at the bottle and see that one brand had far more cream in the milk than another.

The other issue is a health concern . The fat is broken down by applying extreme steam pressure and forced through tiny holes. This produces smaller globs of fat that will stay suspended. When the fat is broken down like this it is absorbed differently when you digest it and may cause you some long term problems ( like Heart Disease).

I found a good explanation on-line:

Homogenization:
Homogenization is another process which denatures the natural fat in milk. This is done purely for aesthetic reasons. The industry felt no one really likes to have milk which "separates". Fresh raw milk separates. The fat rises to the top. Homogenization forces the milk, by extreme pressure, through tiny holes which breaks up the normally large fat molecules into tiny ones, which in this denatured state, stay suspended in the milk. Unfortunately, this unnatural fat is easily absorbed into the blood stream, carrying with it the xanthine oxidase. In un-homogenized milk the xanthine oxidase and large fat molecules are normally passed through the digestive track, unabsorbed.

http://www.selfgrowthurway.com/2008/07/why-we-should-avoid-homogenized-milk.html

Of course the other factor is that many people believe that they should be eating Low Fat Diets ( another  topic for another time:). The Dairy Industry loves this idea because the sale of Skim Milk is far more profitable for them then selling Whole Milk. When they skim off the cream, they can use it to make other products, thus multiplying their profit potential. However, skim milk has several hidden dangers past the question of wether or not Low Fat Diets are wise to follow.  

The traditional name for Skim Milk is "Blue Jack". The reason for the name is that milk that is skimmed of it's cream turns Blue, not White. No one would likely buy Blue Milk so the Industry adds condensed powered milk to artificially turn the color back to a naturally looking White. Powered Milk may have all kinds of adverse health consequences most noteable, irritation of artery walls causing inflammation.

Skim Milk may also cause weight gain and loss of calcium. In the absence of sufficient Fat the milk is absorbed abnormally. It's ironic that people who want to be healthier have been convinced that Skim Milk will help them when in fact it is particularly bad for the very health issues, weight gain and heart disease, that these people are most concerned with. The Dairy Industry has been successful in keeping the addition of  powdered milk off the label of Skim Milk.

  
http://www.westonaprice.org/FAQ-Dairy.html

 http://www.westonaprice.org/Correction-to-Whole-Milk-Information-Alert.html
    
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 11, 2010, 04:41:12 PM
I also would like  to mention something about Homogenization of Milk and also Skim Milk.

Milk fat (cream) occurs naturally in large globules. That is why when left to itself, the cream will separate from the liquid and rise to the top of the bottle.  Back when most milk was not homogenized ( I am old enough to remember that) the amount of cream at the top of the bottle was one way consumers could judge the quality of the milk between Dairies ( brands). You could look at the bottle and see that one brand had far more cream in the milk than another.

The other issue is a health concern . The fat is broken down by applying extreme steam pressure and forced through tiny holes. This produces smaller globs of fat that will stay suspended. When the fat is broken down like this it is absorbed differently when you digest it and may cause you some long term problems ( like Heart Disease).

I found a good explanation on-line:

Homogenization:
Homogenization is another process which denatures the natural fat in milk. This is done purely for aesthetic reasons. The industry felt no one really likes to have milk which "separates". Fresh raw milk separates. The fat rises to the top. Homogenization forces the milk, by extreme pressure, through tiny holes which breaks up the normally large fat molecules into tiny ones, which in this denatured state, stay suspended in the milk. Unfortunately, this unnatural fat is easily absorbed into the blood stream, carrying with it the xanthine oxidase. In un-homogenized milk the xanthine oxidase and large fat molecules are normally passed through the digestive track, unabsorbed.
Uhhhhh....your last statement doesn't help your thesis.  This statement shows that raw milk is dangerous.

Xanthine oxidase is a very necessary enzyme in the human body.  In fact there is a disease called Xanthine Oxidase Deficiency.  Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a cause of nephropathy-kidney damage. I am too lazy right now to spend 10 minutes to go into my Parallels Desktop to get to the univ.'s health science center library to pull up 700 articles on this and you wouldn’t change your mind anyways. Please do some scientific research using sources outside of raw milk vendors.   

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 11, 2010, 05:10:57 PM
I also would like  to mention something about Homogenization of Milk and also Skim Milk.

Milk fat (cream) occurs naturally in large globules. That is why when left to itself, the cream will separate from the liquid and rise to the top of the bottle.  Back when most milk was not homogenized ( I am old enough to remember that) the amount of cream at the top of the bottle was one way consumers could judge the quality of the milk between Dairies ( brands). You could look at the bottle and see that one brand had far more cream in the milk than another.

The other issue is a health concern . The fat is broken down by applying extreme steam pressure and forced through tiny holes. This produces smaller globs of fat that will stay suspended. When the fat is broken down like this it is absorbed differently when you digest it and may cause you some long term problems ( like Heart Disease).

I found a good explanation on-line:

Homogenization:
Homogenization is another process which denatures the natural fat in milk. This is done purely for aesthetic reasons. The industry felt no one really likes to have milk which "separates". Fresh raw milk separates. The fat rises to the top. Homogenization forces the milk, by extreme pressure, through tiny holes which breaks up the normally large fat molecules into tiny ones, which in this denatured state, stay suspended in the milk. Unfortunately, this unnatural fat is easily absorbed into the blood stream, carrying with it the anthine oxidase. In un-homogenized milk the xanthine oxidase and large fat molecules are normally passed through the digestive track, unabsorbed.
Uhhhhh....your last statement doesn't help your thesis.  This statement shows that raw milk is dangerous.

Xanthine oxidase is a very necessary enzyme in the human body.  In fact there is a disease called Xanthine Oxidase Deficiency.  Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a cause of nephropathy-kidney damage. I am too lazy right now to spend 10 minutes to go into my Parallels Desktop to get to the univ.'s health science center library to pull up 700 articles on this and you wouldn’t change your mind anyways. Please do some scientific research using sf raw milk vendorsy.   





Golly, you're really fishing with a long pole.

Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a GENETIC DISORDER. Pasteurization is relatively new. Were there ever outbreaks of xanthine oxidase deficiency LOL? Millions upon millions of people around the World drink Unprocessed Milk. Are there outbreaks somewhere you can point to? Is this a problem  in India? Of course not.

Natural Milk is a nearly perfect food. You can live exclusively on it if need be and there are people who do exactly that for a variety of reasons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthinuria

Xanthinuria, also known as xanthine oxidase deficiency, is a rare genetic disorder causing the accumulation of xanthine. It is caused by a deficiency of the enzyme xanthine oxidase.

It was first formally characterized in 1954.[1]

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 11, 2010, 05:15:59 PM
Huh, so I'm not alone with the bruising pears, but some people have the opposite experience.  ???  I used to be an assistant manager at a small farm market , so I'm not completely unfamiliar with handling fruit, but really I would think that most people would already know intuitively about that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 11, 2010, 05:58:03 PM
I also would like  to mention something about Homogenization of Milk and also Skim Milk.

Milk fat (cream) occurs naturally in large globules. That is why when left to itself, the cream will separate from the liquid and rise to the top of the bottle.  Back when most milk was not homogenized ( I am old enough to remember that) the amount of cream at the top of the bottle was one way consumers could judge the quality of the milk between Dairies ( brands). You could look at the bottle and see that one brand had far more cream in the milk than another.

The other issue is a health concern . The fat is broken down by applying extreme steam pressure and forced through tiny holes. This produces smaller globs of fat that will stay suspended. When the fat is broken down like this it is absorbed differently when you digest it and may cause you some long term problems ( like Heart Disease).

I found a good explanation on-line:

Homogenization:
Homogenization is another process which denatures the natural fat in milk. This is done purely for aesthetic reasons. The industry felt no one really likes to have milk which "separates". Fresh raw milk separates. The fat rises to the top. Homogenization forces the milk, by extreme pressure, through tiny holes which breaks up the normally large fat molecules into tiny ones, which in this denatured state, stay suspended in the milk. Unfortunately, this unnatural fat is easily absorbed into the blood stream, carrying with it the anthine oxidase. In un-homogenized milk the xanthine oxidase and large fat molecules are normally passed through the digestive track, unabsorbed.
Uhhhhh....your last statement doesn't help your thesis.  This statement shows that raw milk is dangerous.

Xanthine oxidase is a very necessary enzyme in the human body.  In fact there is a disease called Xanthine Oxidase Deficiency.  Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a cause of nephropathy-kidney damage. I am too lazy right now to spend 10 minutes to go into my Parallels Desktop to get to the univ.'s health science center library to pull up 700 articles on this and you wouldn’t change your mind anyways. Please do some scientific research using sf raw milk vendorsy.  





Golly, you're really fishing with a long pole.

Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a GENETIC DISORDER. Pasteurization is relatively new. Were there ever outbreaks of xanthine oxidase deficiency LOL? Millions upon millions of people around the World drink Unprocessed Milk. Are there outbreaks somewhere you can point to? Is this a problem  in India? Of course not.

Natural Milk is a nearly perfect food. You can live exclusively on it if need be and there are people who do exactly that for a variety of reasons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthinuria

Xanthinuria, also known as xanthine oxidase deficiency, is a rare genetic disorder causing the accumulation of xanthine. It is caused by a deficiency of the enzyme xanthine oxidase.

It was first formally characterized in 1954.[1]


Your post was touting the benefits of less xanthine oxidase when this is a necessary enzyme.  The only scientifically accepted benefit of decreased blood levels of xanthine oxidase are for persons suffering from gout.   (There is a much safer method to assist people with gout rather than encouraging them to drink pathogen-infected raw milk.  It is called Allopurinol.)

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 11, 2010, 06:03:27 PM
I also would like  to mention something about Homogenization of Milk and also Skim Milk.

Skim Milk may also cause weight gain and loss of calcium. In the absence of sufficient Fat the milk is absorbed abnormally. It's ironic that people who want to be healthier have been convinced that Skim Milk will help them when in fact it is particularly bad for the very health issues, weight gain and heart disease, that these people are most concerned with. The Dairy Industry has been successful in keeping the addition of  powdered milk off the label of Skim Milk.

  
http://www.westonaprice.org/FAQ-Dairy.html

 http://www.westonaprice.org/Correction-to-Whole-Milk-Information-Alert.html
    
Incorrect.  The calcium is not contained in the fat portion of milk, so removing the fat will not affect the calcium content. In fact, when you replace the fat portion that has been removed with an equal part of skimmed milk, you are actually increasing the calcium content. Therefore, one cup of skim or non-fat milk will have more calcium than one cup of whole milk because almost the entire cup of skim milk is made up of the calcium-containing portion.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002412.htm



Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:30 PM
Has anyone heard of the miracle ph diet? The thesis is that many illnesses are caused by too much bad acid and a low ph level in the body? The cure is to eat a lot of vegetables and drink water with a high ph content?
http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Balance-Reclaim-Health/dp/0446536199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265926182&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Weight-Loss-Chemistry/dp/0446694703/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 12, 2010, 12:15:04 AM
I also would like  to mention something about Homogenization of Milk and also Skim Milk.

Milk fat (cream) occurs naturally in large globules. That is why when left to itself, the cream will separate from the liquid and rise to the top of the bottle.  Back when most milk was not homogenized ( I am old enough to remember that) the amount of cream at the top of the bottle was one way consumers could judge the quality of the milk between Dairies ( brands). You could look at the bottle and see that one brand had far more cream in the milk than another.

The other issue is a health concern . The fat is broken down by applying extreme steam pressure and forced through tiny holes. This produces smaller globs of fat that will stay suspended. When the fat is broken down like this it is absorbed differently when you digest it and may cause you some long term problems ( like Heart Disease).

I found a good explanation on-line:

Homogenization:
Homogenization is another process which denatures the natural fat in milk. This is done purely for aesthetic reasons. The industry felt no one really likes to have milk which "separates". Fresh raw milk separates. The fat rises to the top. Homogenization forces the milk, by extreme pressure, through tiny holes which breaks up the normally large fat molecules into tiny ones, which in this denatured state, stay suspended in the milk. Unfortunately, this unnatural fat is easily absorbed into the blood stream, carrying with it the anthine oxidase. In un-homogenized milk the xanthine oxidase and large fat molecules are normally passed through the digestive track, unabsorbed.
Uhhhhh....your last statement doesn't help your thesis.  This statement shows that raw milk is dangerous.

Xanthine oxidase is a very necessary enzyme in the human body.  In fact there is a disease called Xanthine Oxidase Deficiency.  Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a cause of nephropathy-kidney damage. I am too lazy right now to spend 10 minutes to go into my Parallels Desktop to get to the univ.'s health science center library to pull up 700 articles on this and you wouldn’t change your mind anyways. Please do some scientific research using sf raw milk vendorsy.  





Golly, you're really fishing with a long pole.

Xanthine oxidase deficiency is a GENETIC DISORDER. Pasteurization is relatively new. Were there ever outbreaks of xanthine oxidase deficiency LOL? Millions upon millions of people around the World drink Unprocessed Milk. Are there outbreaks somewhere you can point to? Is this a problem  in India? Of course not.

Natural Milk is a nearly perfect food. You can live exclusively on it if need be and there are people who do exactly that for a variety of reasons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthinuria

Xanthinuria, also known as xanthine oxidase deficiency, is a rare genetic disorder causing the accumulation of xanthine. It is caused by a deficiency of the enzyme xanthine oxidase.

It was first formally characterized in 1954.[1]


Your post was touting the benefits of less xanthine oxidase when this is a necessary enzyme.  The only scientifically accepted benefit of decreased blood levels of xanthine oxidase are for persons suffering from gout.   (There is a much safer method to assist people with gout rather than encouraging them to drink pathogen-infected raw milk.  It is called Allopurinol.)



Well, no one wants you to drink something that is "pathogen infected". Fresh Raw Milk has  mechanisms that actally kill pathogens, unlike the neutered Boiled Milk.

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/PathogensinRawMilk.pdf


"That fresh raw milk has the properties to kill pathogens is

no urban legend; it is proven science"



Ted Beals, MS, MD, is retired from the University

of Michigan Medical School and Veterans Administration

Health Administration. A pathologist

with personal interest in dairy testing and safety

of milk, he has been presenting testimony on

dairy safety in North America for the last several

years. He and his wife Peggy Beals are members

of the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk

Workgroup


 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 12, 2010, 10:33:06 AM
Has anyone heard of the miracle ph diet? The thesis is that many illnesses are caused by too much bad acid and a low ph level in the body? The cure is to eat a lot of vegetables and drink water with a high ph content?
http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Balance-Reclaim-Health/dp/0446536199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265926182&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Weight-Loss-Chemistry/dp/0446694703/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Yeah, it's been around for 40 years. It won't so any more good now than it did in the '70s.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 12, 2010, 12:52:57 PM
Has anyone heard of the miracle ph diet? The thesis is that many illnesses are caused by too much bad acid and a low ph level in the body? The cure is to eat a lot of vegetables and drink water with a high ph content?
http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Balance-Reclaim-Health/dp/0446536199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265926182&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Weight-Loss-Chemistry/dp/0446694703/ref=pd_sim_b_2
The basic premise of this diet is that high ph foods kill bacteria or viruses, but you cannot significantly alter the ph of the human body by consuming acidic foods.  Research acid/base balance in humans. 
http://www.acid-base.com/
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec12/ch159/ch159a.html

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 12, 2010, 01:21:20 PM
Well, no one wants you to drink something that is "pathogen infected".
Yes...there is someone on this forum hawking raw milk....and it is you.

Fresh Raw Milk has  mechanisms that actally kill pathogens, unlike the neutered Boiled Milk.

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/PathogensinRawMilk.pdf


"That fresh raw milk has the properties to kill pathogens is

no urban legend; it is proven science"
I just posted 17 or 18 scientific studies showing that people became severely ill from drinking raw milk.
Ted Beals, MS, MD, is retired from the University

of Michigan Medical School and Veterans Administration

Health Administration. A pathologist

with personal interest in dairy testing and safety

of milk, he has been presenting testimony on

dairy safety in North America for the last several

years. He and his wife Peggy Beals are members

of the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk

Workgroup

Although you and Dr. Beals may be Salmonella Sams (those immune to Salmonella and other pathogens found in raw milk and are now carriers capable of spreading it to others), that doesn’t mean that promoting raw milk is a responsible thing to do.  There are members on this forum receiving chemotherapy. There are members are this forum that are diabetic.   There are members on this forum that have recently undergone surgery.  There are elderly members on this forum.  There are members who have small children on this forum.  All of these members or their children could be sickened or killed by drinking unpasteurized milk.  Do your research outside of those charging you enormous fees for a gallon of raw milk. What are you paying for a gallon a pathogen-rich raw milk?  $15-$30/gallon   (Hmmm...no wonder the raw milk vendors are vigorously advertising.)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 12, 2010, 01:35:46 PM
Well, no one wants you to drink something that is "pathogen infected".
Yes...there is someone on this forum hawking raw milk....and it is you.

Fresh Raw Milk has  mechanisms that actally kill pathogens, unlike the neutered Boiled Milk.

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/PathogensinRawMilk.pdf


"That fresh raw milk has the properties to kill pathogens is

no urban legend; it is proven science"
I just posted 17 or 18 scientific studies showing that people became severely ill from drinking raw milk.
Ted Beals, MS, MD, is retired from the University

of Michigan Medical School and Veterans Administration

Health Administration. A pathologist

with personal interest in dairy testing and safety

of milk, he has been presenting testimony on

dairy safety in North America for the last several

years. He and his wife Peggy Beals are members

of the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk

Workgroup

Although you and Dr. Beals may be Salmonella Sams (those immune to Salmonella and other pathogens found in raw milk and are now carriers capable of spreading it to others), that doesn’t mean that promoting raw milk is a responsible thing to do.  There are members on this forum receiving chemotherapy. There are members are this forum that are diabetic.   There are members on this forum that have recently undergone surgery.  There are elderly members on this forum.  There are members who have small children on this forum.  All of these members or their children could be sickened or killed by drinking unpasteurized milk.  Do your research outside of those charging you enormous fees for a gallon of raw milk. What are you paying for a gallon a pathogen-rich raw milk?  $15-$30/gallon   (Hmmm...no wonder the raw milk vendors are vigorously advertising.)


I know you are smart so I am wondering why you are having trouble wrapping your brain around this.

Here is my contention again: You can get sick from eating Raw Milk. The point is, serving for serving, the incidence of people getting sick from Raw Milk is the same or lower than most other foods that you are willing to consume regularly.

Therefore, the question becomes why is it banned and why does the Dairy Industry want it banned. Once again, Raw Milk is not uniquely dangerous but it is uniquely singled out  and made illegal or restricted in many places in the USA.

I believe the reason is purely economic. Raw Milk as an alternative threatens the Dairy Industry because of they way they want to raise their cows ( in confinement and filthy conditions etc etc.).

Why not boil Wine?. Pasteurization was invented to cleanse Wine  due to all the animal feces and other contaminants  that get into it. It ruined the Wine, so it was never done. Are you scared to drink Wine?

More later. I have to go dig out from the snow
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 12, 2010, 01:51:33 PM
Well, no one wants you to drink something that is "pathogen infected".
Yes...there is someone on this forum hawking raw milk....and it is you.
Yes, exactly. Marc, you're going beyond debate. You're selling something. When you try to sell something to people who aren't looking to buy anything, you're going to encounter the Telemarketer Effect. We're going to tune you out, make up a flimsy excuse, and tell you not to talk to us about it anymore. Why does this surprise you?

Quote from: ms.hoorah
Although you and Dr. Beals may be Salmonella Sams (those immune to Salmonella and other pathogens found in raw milk and are now carriers capable of spreading it to others), that doesn’t mean that promoting raw milk is a responsible thing to do.  There are members on this forum receiving chemotherapy. There are members are this forum that are diabetic.   There are members on this forum that have recently undergone surgery.  There are elderly members on this forum.  There are members who have small children on this forum.  All of these members or their children could be sickened or killed by drinking unpasteurized milk.
Yes. Giving advice like this over the Internet, not knowing people's medical history, is an extremely dangerous practice. Marc, you have provided us with more than enough information to make an informed decision. You're not going to sell some of us; it's just a fact of telemarketing. When I sold phone service, I'd sell about 2% of the people I called. Same rule applies here. It's just not worth trying to sell the other 98%. We just aren't interested in what you're selling.

Quote from: ms.hoorah
Do your research outside of those charging you enormous fees for a gallon of raw milk. What are you paying for a gallon a pathogen-rich raw milk?  $15-$30/gallon   (Hmmm...no wonder the raw milk vendors are vigorously advertising.)
Wow. Follow the money trail....

For my family, I choose to buy local pasteurized milk from grass-fed, free-range cows. I know they're free-range cows because I've seen where they live. I drive past the farm, and I see the cows in the fields eating grass. I pay about $4.50 a gallon for this milk. Yes, I could get it for about $3.50 if I bought the factory farmed milk, but I find it worth the extra dollar a gallon for the benefits: to my health and the health of my family; to the local economy; and to ethical agricultural practices. I don't need to pay ten dollars more to get these benefits. I have it all for $4.50, and I can feed that milk to my toddler.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on February 12, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Has anyone heard of the miracle ph diet? The thesis is that many illnesses are caused by too much bad acid and a low ph level in the body? The cure is to eat a lot of vegetables and drink water with a high ph content?
http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Balance-Reclaim-Health/dp/0446536199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265926182&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/pH-Miracle-Weight-Loss-Chemistry/dp/0446694703/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Yeah, it's been around for 40 years. It won't so any more good now than it did in the '70s.
The recommended diet appears to be a bit extreme in parts, but it has some good points, like eating a lot of vegetables.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rosehip on February 12, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
I use soy or rice milk, less fat and no cholesterol, two big reasons for me.

There are other options too, such as rice or almond milk; which might actually be healthier if one needed to be careful with soy.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 12, 2010, 05:57:59 PM
I use soy or rice milk, less fat and no cholesterol, two big reasons for me.

There are other options too, such as rice or almond milk; which might actually be healthier if one needed to be careful with soy.
Do you have to shop at a health food store to buy almond milk? I have never seen it for sale. Is it in the refrigerated section or is it in a can? Does it taste sour or does it taste like real milk? 

I have an awesome dessert recipe that uses coconut milk poured over the top of the cake.  Coconut milk is soooo tasty, but it has about 500 calories/cup. :o
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rosehip on February 12, 2010, 06:07:51 PM
Quote
Do you  have to shop at a health food store to buy almond milk? I have never seen it for sale. Is it in the refrigerated section or is it in a can? Does it taste sour or does it taste like real milk?


I can't remember if I've ever seen it at the grocery store, but it is usually available at most health food stores, in the approx 1 quart (?) boxes. It's very delicious; an Orthodox friend gave me this tip a few years ago.  I wonder if you shouldn't avoid it if you have allergies to nuts though?

I love coconut milk too. This same friend gave me a lenten banana pancake recipe-mash up a banana and add coconut milk and some flour-something like that anyhow.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 13, 2010, 12:46:23 AM
I use soy or rice milk, less fat and no cholesterol, two big reasons for me.

There are other options too, such as rice or almond milk; which might actually be healthier if one needed to be careful with soy.

Soy is very estrogenic ( so if your boobs get tender...) as well as having several other problems.

http://www.westonaprice.org/Soy-Alert/

By several theories drinking coconut milk would be better than Soy Milk. It's fat content will satiet you far better if you are looking for something to replace Dairy during the Fast.

There is also Coconut Milk based Ice Cream, several brands.. it's awesome.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 13, 2010, 01:10:16 AM
Well, no one wants you to drink something that is "pathogen infected".
Yes...there is someone on this forum hawking raw milk....and it is you.

Fresh Raw Milk has  mechanisms that actally kill pathogens, unlike the neutered Boiled Milk.

http://www.realmilk.com/documents/PathogensinRawMilk.pdf


"That fresh raw milk has the properties to kill pathogens is

no urban legend; it is proven science"
I just posted 17 or 18 scientific studies showing that people became severely ill from drinking raw milk.
Ted Beals, MS, MD, is retired from the University

of Michigan Medical School and Veterans Administration

Health Administration. A pathologist

with personal interest in dairy testing and safety

of milk, he has been presenting testimony on

dairy safety in North America for the last several

years. He and his wife Peggy Beals are members

of the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk

Workgroup

Although you and Dr. Beals may be Salmonella Sams (those immune to Salmonella and other pathogens found in raw milk and are now carriers capable of spreading it to others), that doesn’t mean that promoting raw milk is a responsible thing to do.  There are members on this forum receiving chemotherapy. There are members are this forum that are diabetic.   There are members on this forum that have recently undergone surgery.  There are elderly members on this forum.  There are members who have small children on this forum.  All of these members or their children could be sickened or killed by drinking unpasteurized milk.  Do your research outside of those charging you enormous fees for a gallon of raw milk. What are you paying for a gallon a pathogen-rich raw milk?  $15-$30/gallon   (Hmmm...no wonder the raw milk vendors are vigorously advertising.)


  (Hmmm...no wonder the raw milk vendors are vigorously advertising.)

Wow ! Are you ever barking up the wrong tree! I buy my Milk from the Amish, the Zook family to be exact, along with the rest of my buying club. Maybe the Zooks are gouging us so they can buy new straw hats :)

As for the rest of your little diatribe, it is patently false, misleading and scare mongering. Foisting devitalized food upon "Little Children" is the real crime. Childhood obesity and diabetes and the early onset of Heart Disease can all be traced back to a Diet centered upon cheap refined food.

If those little children had plenty of fresh unprocessed Milk they would grow up more robust  and healthy. Maybe in your next post you can put pictures of little puppies  being poisoned. If simple logic and facts wont work, try vapid emotional appeals I guess.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 13, 2010, 03:10:54 AM
Maybe in your next post you can put pictures of little puppies  being poisoned. If simple logic and facts wont work, try vapid emotional appeals I guess.
(http://www.st-clair-pet-care.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/puppy-dying-with-parvovirus.jpg)(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg158/MDA2008/713px-EscherichiaColi_NIAID.jpg)
Great suggestion.  Do not feed puppies raw milk. If your puppy has unfortunately consumed raw milk, induce vomiting immediately.  

Here is an article describing food poisoning in dogs.  Notice that it says animal manure (which is found in raw milk) and unpasteurized milk can cause food poisoning in dogs.  Please reread my posts r/t teat cups falling into manure, cows rolling and wading in manure water, and the list of the 17 articles discussing individual cases of diseases and epidemics caused by unpasteurized milk.

“Food poisoning is common, as dogs are notorious scavengers and come into contact with carrion, decomposing foods, animal manure and other noxious substances (some of which are listed in DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: Common Causes of Diarrhea). Signs of poisoning begin with vomiting and pain in the abdomen; they are followed in severe cases by diarrhea (often bloody) in two to six hours. If the problem is complicated by bacterial infection, shock may develop.”
http://www.doctordog.com/dogbook/dogpoison.html

http://courses.washington.edu/envh311/Readings/Food_Diseases.pdf
---------------------------------------------

“How are the bacteria (Campylobacteriosis) spread?
The bacteria are spread by eating or drinking food or water that is contaminated by the feces of the infected or from contact with an infected pet.  Improperly cooked poultry, untreated water, and unpasteurized milk are the main sources of infection.”

"Most farm animals and meat sources can carry the organism."
http://health.utah.gov/epi/fact_sheets/campy.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 13, 2010, 05:09:56 PM
Maybe in your next post you can put pictures of little puppies  being poisoned. If simple logic and facts wont work, try vapid emotional appeals I guess.
(http://www.st-clair-pet-care.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/puppy-dying-with-parvovirus.jpg)(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg158/MDA2008/713px-EscherichiaColi_NIAID.jpg)
Great suggestion.  Do not feed puppies raw milk. If your puppy has unfortunately consumed raw milk, induce vomiting immediately.  

Here is an article describing food poisoning in dogs.  Notice that it says animal manure (which is found in raw milk) and unpasteurized milk can cause food poisoning in dogs.  Please reread my posts r/t teat cups falling into manure, cows rolling and wading in manure water, and the list of the 17 articles discussing individual cases of diseases and epidemics caused by unpasteurized milk.

“Food poisoning is common, as dogs are notorious scavengers and come into contact with carrion, decomposing foods, animal manure and other noxious substances (some of which are listed in DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: Common Causes of Diarrhea). Signs of poisoning begin with vomiting and pain in the abdomen; they are followed in severe cases by diarrhea (often bloody) in two to six hours. If the problem is complicated by bacterial infection, shock may develop.”
http://www.doctordog.com/dogbook/dogpoison.html

http://courses.washington.edu/envh311/Readings/Food_Diseases.pdf
---------------------------------------------

“How are the bacteria (Campylobacteriosis) spread?
The bacteria are spread by eating or drinking food or water that is contaminated by the feces of the infected or from contact with an infected pet.  Improperly cooked poultry, untreated water, and unpasteurized milk are the main sources of infection.”

"Most farm animals and meat sources can carry the organism."
http://health.utah.gov/epi/fact_sheets/campy.html


Awww. Poor puppy, to be abused in death to further a charade.. Makes me weepy.

You clearly have not been reading along.

Let's review:

The Milk you are trying to convince people is safer than Unprocessed Milk is from Cows raised in Factory Farms and fed an unnatural diet of grain and sometimes meat ( ground up downer Cows) is very very dangerous. That is why it must be boiled. The manure is full of bacteria. The Cows are never let out of very small pens, they cant even turn around. They live knee deep in manure their entire life.

These Cows are constantly ill from infection mostly in their legs and more important they get mastitis ( infection of the teat). As they get sicker and sicker, they are pumped full of Antibiotics to keep them going a bit longer. As the Cows get increasingly resistant to Antibiotics, their mastitis lasts longer and is more severe.

We have gotten to the point that Factory Cows produce so much puss from their infected  teats that it discolors the Milk. Many Factory Farms now must ad an extra step in processing to try and remove all the infected Puss from the Milk... Yummy !

When the Antibiotics can't do the trick anymore and the Cow collapses for good. It is dragged out and put in the Chipper, ground up and then added back into the feed of the remaining Cows. These poor creatures don't live past two years at best. Normally, Pastured Cows will live fourteen or fifteen years.
 

This is the Milk Ms. Horrah thinks is fine to drink..

On the other hand, Cows that are allowed to eat a natural Diet of grass and hay  in a Pasture are not living knee deep in their own waste. More important is that manure from grass fed Cows is antiseptic. Not only is it free from harmful bacteria but it actually can kill harmful bacteria if you apply it to something for that purpose. In India, it is used for cooking and as bricks for houses. Once again Manure from Grass fed Cows is antiseptic , which means it is perfectly safe if some gets into contact with the Milk.

Grass fed Cows do not get the infections Factory Cows get at anything remotely the same rate. There is no problem with Puss in the Milk. The Milk that they produce is a wonder of nature. It is one of the most healthful foods you can eat, bar none. When left unprocessed, it is remarkably resistant to contamination. That is why the rate of illness caused by Raw Milk is so low. Milk from grass fed Cows is E-coli free. Even Cows that are confined and fed crap become 80% e-coli free  when they are allowed to Pasture for just 20% of the time, that is how cleansing and powerful a natural Diet is to Cows.

If Raw Milk were really dangerous, then people would be getting sick from it. Deli-meat causes more illness than Raw Milk. If you are not afraid to feed you child a baloney sandwich, then you should not be afraid to feed him Raw Milk.

The Amish would not Pasteurize their Milk if you put a gun to their heads, yet, they are one of the most robust  and healthy communities in the World. Where are the vast outbreaks if Ms. Horrahs fears are correct? So bottom line, Raw Milk does not in fact cause illness at a rate above any other food you regularly eat. So why all the hysteria?

As for our poor puppy, he is in far more danger from Pasteurized Milk than he is from Natural milk. Boiled Milk has had all of it's natural composition altered. When it goes bad, left out too long for example, it goes rancid. Real Milk does not do that, it simply goes sour. If Fido drinks Rancid Pasteurized Milk, its off to the Vet you go. If he gets into soured Natural Milk, he will have a nice healthy meal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qWFhDvURLg
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 16, 2010, 02:11:42 PM
Ran across this posted on another site...

Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income (http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 16, 2010, 02:17:14 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 16, 2010, 04:58:18 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?

Are you aware that Milk is not a fasting food..? It sounds like you just want to be snarky. If so, please just go kick you dog or something and stop dumping on me if your bored.

Why must you continue to make this personal ?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on February 16, 2010, 05:12:34 PM
When the wife and I were drinking raw milk (now moot thanks to my wife's recently discovered lactose intolerance), our dog would enjoy some raw milk every now and then and suffered no ill effects.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ozgeorge on February 16, 2010, 05:19:17 PM
On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Try not eating or drinking anything sweet (even artificial sweeteners). I found out by accident that avoiding anything that tastes sweet helps with satiation. I often experiment with my diet (I'm weird that way) and a few years ago I decided not to eat or drink anything sweet just to see what it was like. I found that I had dramatically reduced my caloric intake simply because I didn't feel as hungry. When I asked a nutritionist about this, she explained that there is a kind of "Pavlov's Dog" reaction to the taste of sweet which causes an increase in insulin simply because our bodies associate sweet taste with simple sugars, and so the pancreas releases more insulin which makes us feel hungry.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on February 16, 2010, 07:49:31 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?

I'm not trying to be cont.entious, but isn't it a part of the discipline that we not feel satiated?  Most every work I've read on fasting in an Orthodox context recommends eating to a point far before satiety, basically just enough so we don't cause physical infirmity due to reduced caloric intake.  Perhaps its the Roman Catholic in me who grew up with forms of bodily mortification (such as fasting in the literal sense) that almost looks forward to feeling hungry during Lent so I can better understand what it's like for people who are poor and simply cannot eat one meal a day, let alone three.  I know I can certainly feel for the person who asks me for a dollar outside the McDonald's across the street from my office so he can go get something to eat. 

Again, I'm not trying to be snarky, but being hungry goes hand-in-hand with fasting in my experience and how I've been taught to fast.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on February 16, 2010, 11:06:30 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
What works for me, may not work for you so I am not recommending anything, but just giving my humble observation that drinking a lot of water which has been enhanced by a small amount of baking soda (1/4 t or less per cup) helps with the hunger problem in my personal case. And this supposedly helps with the ph factor, which is controversial and I don't know if what I read about the beneficial effect of this  is  a scam or not.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 16, 2010, 11:21:14 PM
Quote
I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation

I've heard that certain foods make you feel fuller for longer than others. Perhaps beginning a meal with certain foods, or snacking on them, or having them in a seperate meal, could help. Some that I remember that would be ok for the fast are potatoes and beans. Perhaps other posters know of more...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: wynd on February 17, 2010, 02:55:18 AM
I've heard that certain foods make you feel fuller for longer than others. Perhaps beginning a meal with certain foods, or snacking on them, or having them in a seperate meal, could help. Some that I remember that would be ok for the fast are potatoes and beans. Perhaps other posters know of more...

Usually fatty foods are the ones that keep you sated longer. Keeping the Fast rules out any animal fat or olive oil, so I try to eat lots of avocados and nuts. I'd love other ideas though.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 17, 2010, 12:49:34 PM
When the wife and I were drinking raw milk (now moot thanks to my wife's recently discovered lactose intolerance), our dog would enjoy some raw milk every now and then and suffered no ill effects.

There are several States in the U.S. where Unprocessed Milk is approved only for pet food.  You can go to places like Whole Foods Grocery and buy it there. However, people simply buy it for themselves, it just has a stamp on the carton that says for animal consumption only...

In California, there are no restrictions and you can just buy it like any other food. The advantage in California is that there is enough demand to support a Certified Dairy in the State ( "Alta Dena Dairy").

When pasteurization first started it was only meant as a temporary solution to the horrible conditions in Urban Dairies. Whisky makers discovered that they could feed the left over swill from wiskey making to Cows, so they began Dairies right in the Distilleries. The conditions were unsanitary to say the least
 ( read: "The Untold Story of Milk"). So two solutions arose side by side. One was the Certified Dairy Movement and the other promoted Pasteurization .

Certified Dairies are "certified" as clean. They are inspected daily and the Milk is tested continueally. If Milk comes from a Clean Dairy, it does not have to be boiled. Unfortunately, the Dairy Industry changed over the years and decided that they wanted to keep the cheapest possible conditions in the Dairy's and then just boiled the Milk. Certified Dairy's are of course more expensive to operate and so now there are only two left.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on February 17, 2010, 01:07:14 PM
On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Try not eating or drinking anything sweet (even artificial sweeteners). I found out by accident that avoiding anything that tastes sweet helps with satiation. I often experiment with my diet (I'm weird that way) and a few years ago I decided not to eat or drink anything sweet just to see what it was like. I found that I had dramatically reduced my caloric intake simply because I didn't feel as hungry. When I asked a nutritionist about this, she explained that there is a kind of "Pavlov's Dog" reaction to the taste of sweet which causes an increase in insulin simply because our bodies associate sweet taste with simple sugars, and so the pancreas releases more insulin which makes us feel hungry.

Thanks for this post! I'm stealing your idea, lol. I have a descriptive essay due later today, which is supposed to involve the usage of the five senses, and preferrably be related to my major. This will do nicely.  :angel:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 17, 2010, 01:32:20 PM
On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Try not eating or drinking anything sweet (even artificial sweeteners). I found out by accident that avoiding anything that tastes sweet helps with satiation. I often experiment with my diet (I'm weird that way) and a few years ago I decided not to eat or drink anything sweet just to see what it was like. I found that I had dramatically reduced my caloric intake simply because I didn't feel as hungry. When I asked a nutritionist about this, she explained that there is a kind of "Pavlov's Dog" reaction to the taste of sweet which causes an increase in insulin simply because our bodies associate sweet taste with simple sugars, and so the pancreas releases more insulin which makes us feel hungry.

Thanks for this post! I'm stealing your idea, lol. I have a descriptive essay due later today, which is supposed to involve the usage of the five senses, and preferrably be related to my major. This will do nicely.  :angel:
Very interesting. Thank you; I'll keep that advice in mind.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on February 17, 2010, 01:35:37 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Are you aware that Milk is not a fasting food..?
Oh, it isn't? Well, then we should stop talking about it until after Pascha.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 17, 2010, 03:21:01 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Are you aware that Milk is not a fasting food..?
Oh, it isn't? Well, then we should stop talking about it until after Pascha.

I think I am able to post whatever I like within the board rules. Please feel free to skip any of my posts if they are upsetting you..

Thanks
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on February 17, 2010, 04:30:32 PM
Quote
I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation

I've heard that certain foods make you feel fuller for longer than others. Perhaps beginning a meal with certain foods, or snacking on them, or having them in a seperate meal, could help. Some that I remember that would be ok for the fast are potatoes and beans. Perhaps other posters know of more...
Popcorn, fiber cereals, oatmeal, nut and granola bars, melons
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on February 17, 2010, 04:54:42 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Are you aware that Milk is not a fasting food..?
Oh, it isn't? Well, then we should stop talking about it until after Pascha.

I think I am able to post whatever I like within the board rules. Please feel free to skip any of my posts if they are upsetting you..

Thanks
And please feel free to follow your own advice.

Thanks
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on March 07, 2010, 12:57:02 AM
Any favorite healthy desserts? Mine are rather simple, often just a piece of fruit. Sometimes I get some frozen raspberries and put half the bag out to thaw a few hours before I eat. Another thing that I'll eat is sugar-free Jello. The Jello was really helpful when the diabetes educator asked me to be on a certain diet and I only had a few carbs to work with for snacks (though I didn't stick with the diet in the end). A perhaps less healthy dessert for me would be a couple chocolate/vanilla pudding cups. And then there are cheat foods... but I asked about healthy desserts  :angel:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on March 07, 2010, 01:56:43 AM
^http://www.recipe-recipes.net/toppings/sugar-free-chocolate-syrup.htm
Sugar-free chocolate syrup to put on your fruit....yum.  My daughter likes to eat all of her fruit frozen.  She says it is like eating
hard ice cream.  Frozen blueberries are the best.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on March 09, 2010, 06:13:06 PM
Ran across this posted on another site...

Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income (http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm)

Thoughts?

Anyone? I thought it was rather interesting, but wanted to get some other opinions before I was too confident in any conclusion(s), because I'm sure there are factors I'm not considering.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on March 09, 2010, 06:17:31 PM
On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?
Try not eating or drinking anything sweet (even artificial sweeteners). I found out by accident that avoiding anything that tastes sweet helps with satiation. I often experiment with my diet (I'm weird that way) and a few years ago I decided not to eat or drink anything sweet just to see what it was like. I found that I had dramatically reduced my caloric intake simply because I didn't feel as hungry. When I asked a nutritionist about this, she explained that there is a kind of "Pavlov's Dog" reaction to the taste of sweet which causes an increase in insulin simply because our bodies associate sweet taste with simple sugars, and so the pancreas releases more insulin which makes us feel hungry.

I did end up stealing your idea and did an essay for school on it, lol. But I did it on how pretty much any food, or smelling or seeing it for that matter, can have an effect on us. Interestingly, my nutrition teacher brought the same thing about the pancreas/insulin up on Monday. She also said that it was one reason that drinking sugary-tasting diet soda might not be as good for you as people assume, because it can have indirect consequences that we might not have considered.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Robert on March 09, 2010, 06:44:26 PM
Any favorite healthy desserts? Mine are rather simple, often just a piece of fruit. Sometimes I get some frozen raspberries and put half the bag out to thaw a few hours before I eat. Another thing that I'll eat is sugar-free Jello. The Jello was really helpful when the diabetes educator asked me to be on a certain diet and I only had a few carbs to work with for snacks (though I didn't stick with the diet in the end). A perhaps less healthy dessert for me would be a couple chocolate/vanilla pudding cups. And then there are cheat foods... but I asked about healthy desserts  :angel:

I generally enjoy eating Oatmeal with some mixed berries added to it.  It fills you up fast, and has adequate amounts of protein and carbohydrate.

And before I get flamed from the health nuts, fructose isn't bad for you; only when consumed to excess and eaten with a typically high-fat American diet.

Regards.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ms.hoorah on March 09, 2010, 06:47:49 PM
Ran across this posted on another site...

Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income (http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm)

Thoughts?

Anyone? I thought it was rather interesting, but wanted to get some other opinions before I was too confident in any conclusion(s), because I'm sure there are factors I'm not considering.

My thoughts..... The cost of food has risen slower than the cost of inflation. AND Increased labor force participation has increased food expenditures out of the home because people are too tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiired (yawn) to prepare meals at home.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on March 09, 2010, 07:49:45 PM
And before I get flamed from the health nuts, fructose isn't bad for you; only when consumed to excess and eaten with a typically high-fat American diet.
According to the following article, high fructose corn syrup has been shown to increase osteoporosis, tooth decay, anemia, osteoarthritis and more.
http://www.naturalnews.com/024466.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Robert on March 10, 2010, 12:14:26 AM
And before I get flamed from the health nuts, fructose isn't bad for you; only when consumed to excess and eaten with a typically high-fat American diet.
According to the following article, high fructose corn syrup has been shown to increase osteoporosis, tooth decay, anemia, osteoarthritis and more.
http://www.naturalnews.com/024466.html

Basic organic chemistry, friend.  High Fructose corn syrup is markedly different than natural fructose.

Think about it this way: is eating a raspberry the same as drinking a pop?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on March 10, 2010, 03:31:27 AM
Think about it this way: is eating a raspberry the same as drinking a pop?
Of course it is not the same. I was only referring to an article which outlined problems with high fructose corn syrup.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 10, 2010, 03:31:39 PM
Think about it this way: is eating a raspberry the same as drinking a pop?
Of course it is not the same. I was only referring to an article which outlined problems with high fructose corn syrup.

One thing that is driving our hunger in an unusual way is that High Fructose Corn Syrup is in so many things we eat these days. Our diet is much sweeter than it was only a few short years ago. And compared to the food Orthodox ate many years ago before the advent of highly refined foods, tansfats and the demonetization of saturated fat, our food is much different. Even the nutritional value of things like tomatoes, which today are factory processed and gassed to look red before it is really ripe is not the same.


So it's important to eat as much "Whole Foods" as we can. The more white bread type things and foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup that we eat, the hungrier we will be and in a way that is not usual for Orthodox Fasting in the past I would think.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Lauren_Elisse on March 21, 2010, 01:11:57 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?

Are you aware that Milk is not a fasting food..? It sounds like you just want to be snarky. If so, please just go kick you dog or something and stop dumping on me if your bored.

Why must you continue to make this personal ?



I SHALL KICK BOTH OF YOUR BUTTS!
:D


-------



I recommend (as a future nutritionist!) that you stop drinking soda or other sugary drinks, after Pascha use REAL butter and NOT MARGARINE, after all margarine is only one molecule away from being plastic, and our bodies don't know how to digest it.
I seriously lost majority of my weight when I stopped drinking soda, and after I got out of my depression I stopped eating 8 bowls of ramen a day. That made all the difference hahaha
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 21, 2010, 05:00:39 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

On to more important issues. I often have trouble during the fasts of feeling like I've had enough to eat, which causes more snacking. Are there certain foods that help with satiation (and I swear, Marc, if you mention raw milk again, I will cyber-slap you), so that we're better able to eat less during the fast?

Are you aware that Milk is not a fasting food..? It sounds like you just want to be snarky. If so, please just go kick you dog or something and stop dumping on me if your bored.

Why must you continue to make this personal ?



I SHALL KICK BOTH OF YOUR BUTTS!
:D


-------



I recommend (as a future nutritionist!) that you stop drinking soda or other sugary drinks, after Pascha use REAL butter and NOT MARGARINE, after all margarine is only one molecule away from being plastic, and our bodies don't know how to digest it.
I seriously lost majority of my weight when I stopped drinking soda, and after I got out of my depression I stopped eating 8 bowls of ramen a day. That made all the difference hahaha

Sounds smart to me.

As for Butter, I have been known to ask at restaurants if they are serving real butter or not. Usually it's a greasy margarine spread that is unspeakably bad for you. I have even brought a little container of real butter with me.

During the fast I have used a bit of margarine, but it scares me no end.

Butter is health food... Go figure !
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: xuxana on March 21, 2010, 07:48:47 PM
a lady @ my parish has been vegan for 22 years said that if you follow a strict lenten diet all year long, you will lose over 40 pounds after 12 months. she swears by it.  i cant imagine not eating eggs and daily for a year tho. but that lady looks amazing and she's in her late 50's and is a size 4 dress at 5'8.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on March 21, 2010, 08:10:59 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

"We're"?  You don't speak for me, muchacho.  Marc, I've actually learned quite a bit about raw milk from your posts.  I won't say that I believe all of it, but I don't believe half the stuff I read here.  Soooo, please feel free to continue to post at your leisure.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 21, 2010, 11:55:45 PM
^^ Again, Marc, we're not interested in what you're selling. Please don't call us again.

"We're"?  You don't speak for me, muchacho.  Marc, I've actually learned quite a bit about raw milk from your posts.  I won't say that I believe all of it, but I don't believe half the stuff I read here.  Soooo, please feel free to continue to post at your leisure.  :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJMqUKblVgA&NR=1&feature=fvwp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hnwvWhbJw&feature=related

Thanks

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2010, 01:38:09 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on March 22, 2010, 03:20:40 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Cut out all caffeine and drink warm milk before retiring?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2010, 03:35:57 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Cut out all caffeine and drink warm milk before retiring?
I actually  am one of those people that caffine has the opposite effect on. But the warm milk sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on March 22, 2010, 06:49:58 PM
The only thing I could think of was the tryptophan in turkey making you drowsy thing, but I think that's a myth. I'll try to think of something other than what's already been said, though, because I'm sure those type of tips/ideas could come in handy for many people.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Lauren_Elisse on March 22, 2010, 07:32:59 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Cut out all caffeine and drink warm milk before retiring?
I actually  am one of those people that caffine has the opposite effect on. But the warm milk sounds like a plan.
No caffiene past noon :D
And try to avoid light in your room, because it makes your body think that it is still day time.
I noticed that I started sleeping better when I began drinking more water.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 22, 2010, 09:29:08 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Cut out all caffeine and drink warm milk before retiring?
I actually  am one of those people that caffine has the opposite effect on. But the warm milk sounds like a plan.
No caffiene past noon :D
And try to avoid light in your room, because it makes your body think that it is still day time.
I noticed that I started sleeping better when I began drinking more water.



I was going to say the same thing about light in your room. Keep it as dark as possible. Even a night light can hurt your sleep if you are having trouble.

I would also take fish oil every day. It is anti-inflamitory and will take care of anything flaring up in you system that you may not even be aware of. It will also increase your serotonin levels ( feel good chemical).

l  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on March 22, 2010, 10:51:14 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Cut out all caffeine and drink warm milk before retiring?
I actually  am one of those people that caffine has the opposite effect on. But the warm milk sounds like a plan.
No caffiene past noon :D
And try to avoid light in your room, because it makes your body think that it is still day time.
I noticed that I started sleeping better when I began drinking more water.



I was going to say the same thing about light in your room. Keep it as dark as possible. Even a night light can hurt your sleep if you are having trouble.

I would also take fish oil every day. It is anti-inflamitory and will take care of anything flaring up in you system that you may not even be aware of. It will also increase your serotonin levels ( feel good chemical).

l  

 I've heard nothing but good about fish oil ('cept it doesn't taste too good.  :P)... You might also take the TV out of your room, if you have one there.  I also use a sleep mask.  Looks funny, but it sure helps keep ALL light out.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 22, 2010, 11:25:44 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good way to alter one's diet in order to facilitate better sleep?
Cut out all caffeine and drink warm milk before retiring?
I actually  am one of those people that caffine has the opposite effect on. But the warm milk sounds like a plan.
No caffiene past noon :D
And try to avoid light in your room, because it makes your body think that it is still day time.
I noticed that I started sleeping better when I began drinking more water.



I was going to say the same thing about light in your room. Keep it as dark as possible. Even a night light can hurt your sleep if you are having trouble.

I would also take fish oil every day. It is anti-inflamitory and will take care of anything flaring up in you system that you may not even be aware of. It will also increase your serotonin levels ( feel good chemical).

l  

 I've heard nothing but good about fish oil ('cept it doesn't taste too good.  :P)... You might also take the TV out of your room, if you have one there.  I also use a sleep mask.  Looks funny, but it sure helps keep ALL light out.

oh and one more thing... Move all electronics away from where you lay your head. Alarm clocks, radio, cell phone etc.

 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on March 22, 2010, 11:39:35 PM
I've found that a whole-grain muffin and a cup of tea have helped me recently.  Unfortunately, my body appears to build up a temporary immunity to sleep remedies.  One will work for a week or two, and then I have to switch it up.  :P

oh and one more thing... Move all electronics away from where you lay your head. Alarm clocks, radio, cell phone etc.

Not a techie, eh?  I find the "silent hum" of electronics to be incredibly soothing.  The smell of running electronics too.   :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 12, 2010, 09:51:42 PM
Brothers and sisters, please pray for me. Over the last six months I have pretty much quit smoking cigarettes except on rare social occasions. As a result of this, however, I have gained a considerable amount of weight very slowly, and I am only now realizing that I have really let myself get out of hand. I am totally addicted to soda pop and fatty foods, as well as deserts, and if I do not change very soon, my weight will be beyond the point of being manageable.

Please pray for me, that God would grant me the discipline to begin to live healthily, and that I would truly begin to enjoy fruits and vegetables. I have damaged my ability to enjoy the taste of such foods by being so unhealthy all of these years. I really need a miracle of sorts. This is for my family, so that I can be around for many years to support them and to be there for my child.

Also, please petition St. Euphrosynos the Cook for his powerful prayers in this matter.

(http://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Large/Icons/1EU25.jpg)

St. Euphrosynos, save me by your prayers!

Getting proper nutrition may not involve giving up what you think you have to.

Please step back and take some time to read this book:

 A Life Unburdened: Getting Over Weight and Getting ON With My Life
~ Richard Morris (Author)

You can get it on Amazon.com

Also take a look at www.thepaleodiet.com 
 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 12, 2010, 10:01:48 PM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JLatimer on April 12, 2010, 10:29:20 PM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?

Has anyone here read Michael Pollan's Food Rules yet? I read Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food last year. I am looking forward to Food Rules, which supposedly has 64 little rules to help you stay away from "edible food-like substances" etc. Generally, I like Pollan's philosophy of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Is the paleodiet the same thing as the cave-man diet thing I saw on the Daily Show?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 12, 2010, 10:55:28 PM
Do you have a "game-plan" for how to get healthy?

No game plan, and I really need one.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 13, 2010, 11:09:03 AM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?

Has anyone here read Michael Pollan's Food Rules yet? I read Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food last year. I am looking forward to Food Rules, which supposedly has 64 little rules to help you stay away from "edible food-like substances" etc. Generally, I like Pollan's philosophy of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Is the paleodiet the same thing as the cave-man diet thing I saw on the Daily Show?

Yes, all of these including "An Unburdened Life" are interrelated. They are part of a trend to return to what some people think is a Traditional or Natural Human Diet. It goes against the Low-Fat or vegetarian way of eating.

Very basically, the idea is that diets free of processed food and sugar and high in protein ( Meat and  fish) is what we are genetically programmed for. Wheat, Soy..Pasta breads etc etc, ..are not well suited for humans, though they have had many advantages in terms of feeding hungry populations. We should eat more like Hunter Gatherers or at least like Traditional Peoples ( non-western diets)

So, about 70% meat ( YEA !!) and your carbs come from vegetables and fruit and nuts 30%. It's important to eat GRASS FED meat as much as possible as the nutritional value is far different than grain fed animals from a  factory.

There are a few side issues like the amount of fat vs lean and the role of Dairy. If you would like to get into those, post on our Nutrition and Diet thread.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JLatimer on April 14, 2010, 08:53:52 PM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?

Has anyone here read Michael Pollan's Food Rules yet? I read Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food last year. I am looking forward to Food Rules, which supposedly has 64 little rules to help you stay away from "edible food-like substances" etc. Generally, I like Pollan's philosophy of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Is the paleodiet the same thing as the cave-man diet thing I saw on the Daily Show?

Yes, all of these including "An Unburdened Life" are interrelated. They are part of a trend to return to what some people think is a Traditional or Natural Human Diet. It goes against the Low-Fat or vegetarian way of eating.

Very basically, the idea is that diets free of processed food and sugar and high in protein ( Meat and  fish) is what we are genetically programmed for. Wheat, Soy..Pasta breads etc etc, ..are not well suited for humans, though they have had many advantages in terms of feeding hungry populations. We should eat more like Hunter Gatherers or at least like Traditional Peoples ( non-western diets)

So, about 70% meat ( YEA !!) and your carbs come from vegetables and fruit and nuts 30%. It's important to eat GRASS FED meat as much as possible as the nutritional value is far different than grain fed animals from a  factory.

There are a few side issues like the amount of fat vs lean and the role of Dairy. If you would like to get into those, post on our Nutrition and Diet thread.

Eating a 70% meat diet seems horribly irresponsible on a financial level; in terms of ecological impact; and, based on the little I know of the patristic teaching on this subject, on a spiritual level.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rosehip on April 14, 2010, 09:07:37 PM
Alveus, I have been thinking of you. I wish I had some good advice to offer you, but I don't think I do. I am a person of great determination and discipline if it is for some sad reason urgently required, so all I can say is "discipline yourself!". I have entirely weaned myself off of all animal products and sugars (for health reasons). It's not my choice; I love meat and sugars...but I must avoid them, so I do. For sweetener in tea, I use only stevia. It's a natural product from the healthfood store, and I only put in a tiny, tiny amount into my tea, so as to save money. Discipline yourself not to drink those horrid, sugary drinks. Only drink water and allow yourself a sweet drink for a treat maybe once a week, etc. Don't let yourself eat too many desserts-mostly just fresh fruits. I wish you success and good health!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 15, 2010, 12:22:49 PM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?

Has anyone here read Michael Pollan's Food Rules yet? I read Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food last year. I am looking forward to Food Rules, which supposedly has 64 little rules to help you stay away from "edible food-like substances" etc. Generally, I like Pollan's philosophy of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Is the paleodiet the same thing as the cave-man diet thing I saw on the Daily Show?

Yes, all of these including "An Unburdened Life" are interrelated. They are part of a trend to return to what some people think is a Traditional or Natural Human Diet. It goes against the Low-Fat or vegetarian way of eating.

Very basically, the idea is that diets free of processed food and sugar and high in protein ( Meat and  fish) is what we are genetically programmed for. Wheat, Soy..Pasta breads etc etc, ..are not well suited for humans, though they have had many advantages in terms of feeding hungry populations. We should eat more like Hunter Gatherers or at least like Traditional Peoples ( non-western diets)

So, about 70% meat ( YEA !!) and your carbs come from vegetables and fruit and nuts 30%. It's important to eat GRASS FED meat as much as possible as the nutritional value is far different than grain fed animals from a factory.

There are a few side issues like the amount of fat vs lean and the role of Dairy. If you would like to get into those, post on our Nutrition and Diet thread.

Eating a 70% meat diet seems horribly irresponsible on a financial level; in terms of ecological impact; and, based on the little I know of the patristic teaching on this subject, on a spiritual level.

Yes, at first glance that was what I assumed too. However, there is more to this than you may think.

For example, eating an unnatural diet ( Lots of grains, low fat, high carb, low quality grain fed meat, full of sweetners like corn syrup, etc.) may be causing all of the the so called Modern Ailments. Obesity, Cancer, Diabetes, Dental problems.. on and on. A sick population sucks up tremendous resources. Right? What if our meat came from animals allowed to pasture, not from factories? The land would be naturally fertilized.

How much does corn destroy the ecosystem? How much fertilizer is needed? How many birds and insects and rodents are killed off?

Here is part of an article by Sally Fallon. Click on link to read the whole thing.

 
"It takes 15 pounds of feed to get one pound of meat. But if the grain were given directly to people, there’d be enough food to feed the entire planet. In addition, using land for animal agriculture is inefficient in terms of maximizing food production. According to the journal Soil and Water, one acre of land could produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 30,000 pounds of carrots or just 250 pounds of beef."

No land anywhere in the world will produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 30,000 pounds of carrots per acre year after year after year unless bolstered with fertilizer. Such land rotated with animal grazing will be fertilized naturally; without the manure and urine of animals, synthetics must be applied—synthetics that require large amounts of energy to produce and leave problematic pollutants, such as fluoride compounds, as a by-product. And much of the world’s land—mountainous, hillside, arid and marginal areas—is incapable of producing harvestable crops even with a large fertilizer input. But this land will support animal life very well. Eliminating the animals on this land in order to produce vegetable crops will indeed create famine for the people who live there.
 
http://www.westonaprice.org/Twenty-Two-Reasons-Not-to-Go-Vegetarian.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JLatimer on April 15, 2010, 03:31:43 PM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?

Has anyone here read Michael Pollan's Food Rules yet? I read Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food last year. I am looking forward to Food Rules, which supposedly has 64 little rules to help you stay away from "edible food-like substances" etc. Generally, I like Pollan's philosophy of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Is the paleodiet the same thing as the cave-man diet thing I saw on the Daily Show?

Yes, all of these including "An Unburdened Life" are interrelated. They are part of a trend to return to what some people think is a Traditional or Natural Human Diet. It goes against the Low-Fat or vegetarian way of eating.

Very basically, the idea is that diets free of processed food and sugar and high in protein ( Meat and  fish) is what we are genetically programmed for. Wheat, Soy..Pasta breads etc etc, ..are not well suited for humans, though they have had many advantages in terms of feeding hungry populations. We should eat more like Hunter Gatherers or at least like Traditional Peoples ( non-western diets)

So, about 70% meat ( YEA !!) and your carbs come from vegetables and fruit and nuts 30%. It's important to eat GRASS FED meat as much as possible as the nutritional value is far different than grain fed animals from a factory.

There are a few side issues like the amount of fat vs lean and the role of Dairy. If you would like to get into those, post on our Nutrition and Diet thread.

Eating a 70% meat diet seems horribly irresponsible on a financial level; in terms of ecological impact; and, based on the little I know of the patristic teaching on this subject, on a spiritual level.

Yes, at first glance that was what I assumed too. However, there is more to this than you may think.

For example, eating an unnatural diet ( Lots of grains, low fat, high carb, low quality grain fed meat, full of sweetners like corn syrup, etc.) may be causing all of the the so called Modern Ailments. Obesity, Cancer, Diabetes, Dental problems.. on and on. A sick population sucks up tremendous resources. Right? What if our meat came from animals allowed to pasture, not from factories? The land would be naturally fertilized.

How much does corn destroy the ecosystem? How much fertilizer is needed? How many birds and insects and rodents are killed off?

Here is part of an article by Sally Fallon. Click on link to read the whole thing.

 
"It takes 15 pounds of feed to get one pound of meat. But if the grain were given directly to people, there’d be enough food to feed the entire planet. In addition, using land for animal agriculture is inefficient in terms of maximizing food production. According to the journal Soil and Water, one acre of land could produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 30,000 pounds of carrots or just 250 pounds of beef."

No land anywhere in the world will produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 30,000 pounds of carrots per acre year after year after year unless bolstered with fertilizer. Such land rotated with animal grazing will be fertilized naturally; without the manure and urine of animals, synthetics must be applied—synthetics that require large amounts of energy to produce and leave problematic pollutants, such as fluoride compounds, as a by-product. And much of the world’s land—mountainous, hillside, arid and marginal areas—is incapable of producing harvestable crops even with a large fertilizer input. But this land will support animal life very well. Eliminating the animals on this land in order to produce vegetable crops will indeed create famine for the people who live there.
 
http://www.westonaprice.org/Twenty-Two-Reasons-Not-to-Go-Vegetarian.html


All well and good, but I still find the jump to 70% problematic. With techniques such as management intensive grazing, animal husbandry can definitely be part of a healthy ecosystem, even repairing damage caused by destructive modern agriculture, etc. I wasn't saying rotating land with animal grazing was bad, but you're still rotating animals with vegetables: you're going to have to eat a lot of vegetables. You can't feed everyone in this world 70% meat.

I'm not arguing for "eating an unnatural diet ( Lots of grains, low fat, high carb, low quality grain fed meat, full of sweetners like corn syrup, etc.)." But the "traditional" diets of the world are actually rather diverse. Some have a lot of meat. Some, almost none.

Quote
What if our meat came from animals allowed to pasture, not from factories?

Is there enough acreage in America to naturally graze enough animals to provide 300 million Americans (or however many of us there are now) with a 70% meat diet?

Also, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat. Monks don't eat meat. And we won't eat meat in the age to come. The Church Fathers routinely mention that excess meat inflames the passions and is therefore spiritually detrimental.

I am NOT a vegetarian, by the way.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 15, 2010, 10:59:13 PM
Well, does this book provide any sort of dietary guidelines?

Has anyone here read Michael Pollan's Food Rules yet? I read Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food last year. I am looking forward to Food Rules, which supposedly has 64 little rules to help you stay away from "edible food-like substances" etc. Generally, I like Pollan's philosophy of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Is the paleodiet the same thing as the cave-man diet thing I saw on the Daily Show?

Yes, all of these including "An Unburdened Life" are interrelated. They are part of a trend to return to what some people think is a Traditional or Natural Human Diet. It goes against the Low-Fat or vegetarian way of eating.

Very basically, the idea is that diets free of processed food and sugar and high in protein ( Meat and  fish) is what we are genetically programmed for. Wheat, Soy..Pasta breads etc etc, ..are not well suited for humans, though they have had many advantages in terms of feeding hungry populations. We should eat more like Hunter Gatherers or at least like Traditional Peoples ( non-western diets)

So, about 70% meat ( YEA !!) and your carbs come from vegetables and fruit and nuts 30%. It's important to eat GRASS FED meat as much as possible as the nutritional value is far different than grain fed animals from a factory.

There are a few side issues like the amount of fat vs lean and the role of Dairy. If you would like to get into those, post on our Nutrition and Diet thread.

Eating a 70% meat diet seems horribly irresponsible on a financial level; in terms of ecological impact; and, based on the little I know of the patristic teaching on this subject, on a spiritual level.

Yes, at first glance that was what I assumed too. However, there is more to this than you may think.

For example, eating an unnatural diet ( Lots of grains, low fat, high carb, low quality grain fed meat, full of sweetners like corn syrup, etc.) may be causing all of the the so called Modern Ailments. Obesity, Cancer, Diabetes, Dental problems.. on and on. A sick population sucks up tremendous resources. Right? What if our meat came from animals allowed to pasture, not from factories? The land would be naturally fertilized.

How much does corn destroy the ecosystem? How much fertilizer is needed? How many birds and insects and rodents are killed off?

Here is part of an article by Sally Fallon. Click on link to read the whole thing.

 
"It takes 15 pounds of feed to get one pound of meat. But if the grain were given directly to people, there’d be enough food to feed the entire planet. In addition, using land for animal agriculture is inefficient in terms of maximizing food production. According to the journal Soil and Water, one acre of land could produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 30,000 pounds of carrots or just 250 pounds of beef."

No land anywhere in the world will produce 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 30,000 pounds of carrots per acre year after year after year unless bolstered with fertilizer. Such land rotated with animal grazing will be fertilized naturally; without the manure and urine of animals, synthetics must be applied—synthetics that require large amounts of energy to produce and leave problematic pollutants, such as fluoride compounds, as a by-product. And much of the world’s land—mountainous, hillside, arid and marginal areas—is incapable of producing harvestable crops even with a large fertilizer input. But this land will support animal life very well. Eliminating the animals on this land in order to produce vegetable crops will indeed create famine for the people who live there.
 
http://www.westonaprice.org/Twenty-Two-Reasons-Not-to-Go-Vegetarian.html


All well and good, but I still find the jump to 70% problematic. With techniques such as management intensive grazing, animal husbandry can definitely be part of a healthy ecosystem, even repairing damage caused by destructive modern agriculture, etc. I wasn't saying rotating land with animal grazing was bad, but you're still rotating animals with vegetables: you're going to have to eat a lot of vegetables. You can't feed everyone in this world 70% meat.

I'm not arguing for "eating an unnatural diet ( Lots of grains, low fat, high carb, low quality grain fed meat, full of sweetners like corn syrup, etc.)." But the "traditional" diets of the world are actually rather diverse. Some have a lot of meat. Some, almost none.

Quote
What if our meat came from animals allowed to pasture, not from factories?

Is there enough acreage in America to naturally graze enough animals to provide 300 million Americans (or however many of us there are now) with a 70% meat diet?

Also, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat. Monks don't eat meat. And we won't eat meat in the age to come. The Church Fathers routinely mention that excess meat inflames the passions and is therefore spiritually detrimental.

I am NOT a vegetarian, by the way.

It depends on how you define Traditional Diet. If you mean a hunter gatherer type diet before the advent of agriculture, then it was made up of meat and fish, vegetables, nuts and such the like. If what you mean by Traditional are foods from modern ethnic groups, then yes they are very diverse.

The theory is that humans ate pretty much the same things for a couple of million years so we are genetically predisposed to eating that way. Agricultural products are only about 5,000 years old and we have not adapted so well to them. Yes, population has boomed but our health has declined markedly.

If it is true ( and I really don't know if it is or isn't) that the natural human diet won't allow for such a large population then of course that is something to ponder. However, if you were convinced that you would be far healthier, live longer and have a better quality of life, you still may want to eat that way.

A meat based diet satiates you faster and keeps insulin under control. Therefore, you eat less. In a way you restore you natural appetite , no longer buffeted by ups and downs , cravings and hunger you cant control. People tend to eat less. If affluent people ate 500  calories less each day, then there would be much more food to go around. And if they could avoid cancer and diabetes and such the like, the world would benefit.  

 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Rosehip on April 15, 2010, 11:07:27 PM
Haven't been following this thread extremely closely, but I would caution against too much meat. Some people genetically can't take too much. I always loved meat and ate a great deal of it-only to develope colon cancer much to my terrible sorrow. Sadly, and too late, I know it contributed to the disease.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 15, 2010, 11:31:04 PM
Haven't been following this thread extremely closely, but I would caution against too much meat. Some people genetically can't take too much. I always loved meat and ate a great deal of it-only to develope colon cancer much to my terrible sorrow. Sadly, and too late, I know it contributed to the disease.

It may be that eating lots of factory raised meat has all kinds of untoward effects. It is practically a different food than grass fed, hormone and antibiotic free meat. Grass fed animals are elcoli free and the nutritional value and fats are more like game meat, like what hunter gatherers ate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JLatimer on April 16, 2010, 12:58:39 AM
Haven't been following this thread extremely closely, but I would caution against too much meat. Some people genetically can't take too much. I always loved meat and ate a great deal of it-only to develope colon cancer much to my terrible sorrow. Sadly, and too late, I know it contributed to the disease.

It may be that eating lots of factory raised meat has all kinds of untoward effects. It is practically a different food than grass fed, hormone and antibiotic free meat. Grass fed animals are elcoli free and the nutritional value and fats are more like game meat, like what hunter gatherers ate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I

Perhaps we should start a new thread?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 16, 2010, 03:19:26 PM
Haven't been following this thread extremely closely, but I would caution against too much meat. Some people genetically can't take too much. I always loved meat and ate a great deal of it-only to develope colon cancer much to my terrible sorrow. Sadly, and too late, I know it contributed to the disease.

It may be that eating lots of factory raised meat has all kinds of untoward effects. It is practically a different food than grass fed, hormone and antibiotic free meat. Grass fed animals are elcoli free and the nutritional value and fats are more like game meat, like what hunter gatherers ate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I

Perhaps we should start a new thread?

Or post in the existing Diet and Nutrition thread. i would also like to continue the discussion in a different thread.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JLatimer on April 16, 2010, 03:26:02 PM
Haven't been following this thread extremely closely, but I would caution against too much meat. Some people genetically can't take too much. I always loved meat and ate a great deal of it-only to develope colon cancer much to my terrible sorrow. Sadly, and too late, I know it contributed to the disease.

It may be that eating lots of factory raised meat has all kinds of untoward effects. It is practically a different food than grass fed, hormone and antibiotic free meat. Grass fed animals are elcoli free and the nutritional value and fats are more like game meat, like what hunter gatherers ate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I

Perhaps we should start a new thread?

Or post in the existing Diet and Nutrition thread. i would also like to continue the discussion in a different thread.

Okay.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on April 19, 2010, 06:08:52 AM
I was using a flax seed supplement... until I found out that it can interfere with diabetes medication. Have to be careful with that stuff 8)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 19, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
I was using a flax seed supplement... until I found out that it can interfere with diabetes medication. Have to be careful with that stuff 8)

I also had trouble with flax seed. I think fish oil is still the best way to supplement Omega 3 fats in the diet.

Many people use it for heart health to reduce inflammation. I recently learned that aspirin and fish oil in combination may thin the blood too much for many people and you should use just one or the other for that purpose.

There is also codliver oil in combination with butter oil. It will not only give you Omega 3's but will also give you plenty of vitamin D and A. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on April 19, 2010, 05:03:36 PM
I've found that a whole-grain muffin and a cup of tea have helped me recently.  Unfortunately, my body appears to build up a temporary immunity to sleep remedies.  One will work for a week or two, and then I have to switch it up.  :P

oh and one more thing... Move all electronics away from where you lay your head. Alarm clocks, radio, cell phone etc.

Not a techie, eh?  I find the "silent hum" of electronics to be incredibly soothing.  The smell of running electronics too.   :P
There is a Brookstone sleep sound machine, which I like and recommend:
http://www.brookstone.com/sl/product/24879-tranquil-moments-sleep-sound-therapy-system.html
http://www.amazon.com/Sleep-Sound-Machine-Brookstone-Clinically/dp/B001BEXEAC

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 21, 2010, 04:17:32 PM
I have stopped taking cholesterol lowering meds ( Satins) because I am convinced that high cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease ( inflammation is, for the most part).

I think the side effects of Statins are far worse than the benefits. The main benefit being that they have an anti-inflammitory effect as well as lowering cholesterol. But you can reduce inflammation with far safer methods than with statins ( fish oil, aspirin etc.).

I realize that is not a widespread opinion. HOWEVER, I just got out of a seminar with a large insurance company. They mentioned that they will no longer use high cholesterol as a way to exclude applicants from the best rate classes. They said that they looked at years and years of their claims and determined that there was absolutely no correlation between high (or low) cholesterol and mortality.

I felt a little vindicated. :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 01, 2010, 11:59:04 AM
This is why statins are prescribed. Medical Societies have be hijacked by Big Pharma.

From New York Times:


Editorial
Cleaning Up Medical Advice

 
Published: April 30, 2010

Professional medical societies play an enormously influential role in determining how medicine is practiced, but their activities and financing are a mystery. Outsiders can’t tell how independent the societies are from the companies that supply much of their financing.

So it was welcome news that the umbrella organization for specialty groups has adopted a new code of conduct that seeks to limit industry’s ability to influence professional judgments. But it was disappointing that it does not make a clean break from industry money.

The new code was adopted by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, representing more than 30 specialty groups, on April 17. More than a dozen members, including the American College of Cardiology and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have adopted it, but a majority have yet to respond.

The code’s main weakness is the lack of any effort to wean the societies from their dependence on money from the makers of drugs, biological medicines and medical devices. There have been complaints in recent years that some societies conduct educational programs that feel more like marketing sessions for products or issue practice guidelines that push their members to use treatments favored by their industrial benefactors.

Last year, a group of experts proposed that such societies should quickly restrict industry support to no more than 25 percent of their operating budgets and work toward a virtually complete ban on industry money. The new code does not make even a nod to a ban.

Instead, it tries to prevent the industry support from biasing a society’s professional activities and judgments. The code seems strong in decreeing that the top leaders of medical societies and the top editors of their journals have no direct financial relationships with companies during their time in office.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat3.html?ref=todayspaper
 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 06, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
No more Bottled Water. New film called "Tapped". Here are a couple of trailers for it. Scary.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72MCumz5lq4&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcnNXnllCmE&NR=1

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PrincessMommy on May 06, 2010, 01:15:35 PM
No more Bottled Water. New film called "Tapped". Here are a couple of trailers for it. Scary.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72MCumz5lq4&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcnNXnllCmE&NR=1



Hey!  I just hit the send button on the email you sent me about this.  I won't bore everyone else with the details.

You may remember that D and I have been doing Atkins off and on for nearly 8 years.  Okay, its been mostly off lately, but I really do feel better when I'm on it.  Drs. tried to put me on Statins several years ago - I balked and, lo and behold,  became an Orthodox, started fasting and my cholesterol came down closer to normal levels.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Lauren_Elisse on May 06, 2010, 06:28:16 PM
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 24, 2010, 03:12:39 PM
I started a cooking class for this semester, and one of the first things we did was chop/dice things. The teacher told us if we diced the onion correctly, that we shouldn't cry. I cried. A lot.  :D  Why do I bring this up? I don't know. I just find it funny that I have more food preparation oriented classes than actual nutrition classes as a nutrition major. Seems a little upside down to me. But they're the ones that get to decide who gets the pretty diploma, so I just do what I'm told.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on May 24, 2010, 11:18:57 PM
I started a cooking class for this semester, and one of the first things we did was chop/dice things. The teacher told us if we diced the onion correctly, that we shouldn't cry. I cried.
Did anyone in the class not cry?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 24, 2010, 11:22:31 PM
I'm not sure, we all had seperate kitchens, so I couldn't really see what most of the other people were doing. I did have a lab partner, but while she was chopping I was doing a seperate task on the other side of the room, so I didn't see if she cried.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on May 24, 2010, 11:33:39 PM
I'm not sure, we all had seperate kitchens, so I couldn't really see what most of the other people were doing. I did have a lab partner, but while she was chopping I was doing a seperate task on the other side of the room, so I didn't see if she cried.
I don't know. I think that regardless of how you chop an onion, it is inevitable that there will be some eye irritation for a while.
BTW, aren't onions and garlic in the same family? Garlic supposedly has enormous health benefits, such as treating colds and throat irritations, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer prevention, and others. I am not sure how much of this will pass over to onions. Are red onions better for you than white onions?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 24, 2010, 11:40:46 PM
Lol, well I'll ask the teacher tomorrow how often she cries. :)  I'll also ask her about onions/garlic, but regarding the question about being in the same family, according to Wiki...

"The true number of Allium species is unknown, and estimates vary widely. Members of the genus include many economically important crops and garden vegetables such as onions (A. cepa), shallots (A. oschaninii), leeks (A. ampeloprasum), scallions (A. ascalonicum) and herbs such as garlic (A. sativum) and chives (A. schoenoprasum)."
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 29, 2010, 01:36:13 AM
I have stopped taking cholesterol lowering meds ( Satins) because I am convinced that high cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease ( inflammation is, for the most part).
I think you may be on to something here.  It seems to me that the root cause of the atherosclerosis that causes coronary artery disease is injury to the artery, most often from the mechanical stress of the heart's constant pumping, and the inflammation that results from this injury.  What if we were to encourage the body to fix the damaged artery in a way that didn't require inflammation or the development of atherosclerotic plaques?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Nacho on May 29, 2010, 02:25:24 PM
Does anyone know if the Church fathers made an appeal towards a mostly vegetarian diet? That seems like it would be an interesting topic to discuss. I have heard that most monastics eat a diet that would be close to a vegan/vegetarian life style. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on September 24, 2010, 03:04:25 AM
So I finally got around to reading 3 of the books by Michael Pollan over the summer... and I've now decided to not major in nutrition. Not that Pollan was the sole source of souring, but he started me down the path...  8)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on September 24, 2010, 03:24:07 AM
Does anyone know if the Church fathers made an appeal towards a mostly vegetarian diet? That seems like it would be an interesting topic to discuss. I have heard that most monastics eat a diet that would be close to a vegan/vegetarian life style. Any thoughts?
I am interested in a mostly vegetarian diet, but I heard that there might be a problem with getting enough vitamin B.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: deusveritasest on September 24, 2010, 04:04:20 AM
Does anyone know if the Church fathers made an appeal towards a mostly vegetarian diet? That seems like it would be an interesting topic to discuss. I have heard that most monastics eat a diet that would be close to a vegan/vegetarian life style. Any thoughts?
I am interested in a mostly vegetarian diet, but I heard that there might be a problem with getting enough vitamin B.

It's not true. B12 is only a problem for vegans.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: deusveritasest on September 24, 2010, 04:07:22 AM
BTW, I've been an ovo-lacto vegetarian for 10 years.

(However I will eat meat when I'm with someone else if I think they are going to put it to waste.)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 24, 2010, 04:35:21 AM
Does anyone know if the Church fathers made an appeal towards a mostly vegetarian diet? That seems like it would be an interesting topic to discuss. I have heard that most monastics eat a diet that would be close to a vegan/vegetarian life style. Any thoughts?
I am interested in a mostly vegetarian diet, but I heard that there might be a problem with getting enough vitamin B.
Dietary supplements to fill the gaps?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: deusveritasest on September 24, 2010, 05:54:13 AM
Does anyone know if the Church fathers made an appeal towards a mostly vegetarian diet? That seems like it would be an interesting topic to discuss. I have heard that most monastics eat a diet that would be close to a vegan/vegetarian life style. Any thoughts?
I am interested in a mostly vegetarian diet, but I heard that there might be a problem with getting enough vitamin B.
Dietary supplements to fill the gaps?

Dairy provides B12.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 24, 2010, 12:03:42 PM
There is resistance to a Vegan diet based on what is believed to be the Natural Human Diet. If you look at how our species has eaten over the last two million years or so, in most places and at most times our diet was meat based. The theory goes that our genetic makeup favors the diets that Humans have been eating over this vast expanse of time.

Basically, the anthropological evidence is that 60% to 70% of our diet was animal based until about 10,000 years ago; Meat, Fish Fowl, Eggs, etc. the other 30% to 40%   fruits and vegetables. Plus the types of vegetables our ancestors could find were far more fibrous than most of what we can get now. All grains should be excluded except if they have been carefully fermented. Grains are too new of an addition to the Human Diet and we have not fully adapted to eating them. Same of course goes for sugar and highly refined foods

So the proper and most healthful diet is made up primarily of meat and animal products. However, there is an important factor to remember. Meat that is grain-fed is un-natural. Grass-fed meat and natural feeds for other animals keeps the right nutritional and fat balance in the finished product. It then mimics the wild animals hunted by our ancestors.

here are two good links: www.thepaleodiet.com and www.westonaprice.org  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on October 29, 2010, 05:07:24 AM
FDA rejects highly-anticipated diet drug Qnexa (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_706667.html)

Federal health regulators have decided not to approve an experimental diet pill called Qnexa, which had been touted by many experts as the most promising weight-loss drug in more than a decade.

The drug's maker, Vivus Inc., said in a statement today that the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the drug in its present form. The agency asked for more study results and additional information on its possible health risks, including major cardiovascular events and risks for women of childbearing potential...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 08, 2011, 10:23:09 PM
I recently had an argument with an atheist over my Christian beliefs and he said something on the lines like this, let’s say the consensus is that our species, homo-sapiens has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years. in order to be christian you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about twenty five, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, war, bitterness, suffering, misery. All of that for about 98,000 years, heaven watches it with complete indifference, and then 2000 years ago thinks that’s enough of that, it’s time to intervene. The best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the middle east. Don’t let’s appear to the chinese where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization, let’s go to the desert and have another revelation. He said this was nonsense.

Not sure how to deal with this.

I will just take one part of this. You have painted an inaccurate picture of primitive man.

All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

American Indians generally slept late each morning. The time it took to do chores and hunt food averaged about three hours per day. Doesn't sound too horrible to me.

And people did not die on average when they were 25. Life expectancy was not much less than today. Child birth and the first five years of life was a problem. If you lived past five you would live a long healthy life. Trauma could get you early due to no good medical care.

God was indeed very gracious to our forefathers. Don't think otherwise.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stavros_388 on February 08, 2011, 10:52:44 PM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Aindriú on February 08, 2011, 10:55:57 PM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.

I don't think he was making an absolute statement. Merely saying cancer wasn't the epidemic that it manifests itself as today in the industrialized world.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 08, 2011, 10:59:43 PM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.

These diseases were rare but started to show up when people switched to a more grain based diet. Hunter gatherer populations probably had no cancer or heart disease at all.  They are a wildfire today. Not many folks die of typhus anymore. Mostly they die from heart attacks, strokes, cancer and diabetes.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stavros_388 on February 09, 2011, 12:09:40 AM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.

These diseases were rare but started to show up when people switched to a more grain based diet. Hunter gatherer populations probably had no cancer or heart disease at all.  They are a wildfire today. Not many folks die of typhus anymore. Mostly they die from heart attacks, strokes, cancer and diabetes.

You're probably right.

But things weren't always rosy for primitive man. Haven't you seen Quest For Fire?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 09, 2011, 12:18:10 PM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.

These diseases were rare but started to show up when people switched to a more grain based diet. Hunter gatherer populations probably had no cancer or heart disease at all.  They are a wildfire today. Not many folks die of typhus anymore. Mostly they die from heart attacks, strokes, cancer and diabetes.

You're probably right.

But things weren't always rosy for primitive man. Haven't you seen Quest For Fire?  :laugh:

Back to the point, we live in a fallen world. There have been different struggles at different times. But to paint the thousands of years that Humans lived a pastoral hunter gatherer life as hellish and absent of God's grace is just wrong. People were healthier in most ways than we are today but had other dangers to worry about that we don't have to the same extent now. I just wanted to say that the premise of the thread is off base.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 09, 2011, 04:47:29 PM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.

These diseases were rare but started to show up when people switched to a more grain based diet. Hunter gatherer populations probably had no cancer or heart disease at all.  They are a wildfire today. Not many folks die of typhus anymore. Mostly they die from heart attacks, strokes, cancer and diabetes.

You're probably right.

But things weren't always rosy for primitive man. Haven't you seen Quest For Fire?  :laugh:

Back to the point, we live in a fallen world. There have been different struggles at different times. But to paint the thousands of years that Humans lived a pastoral hunter gatherer life as hellish and absent of God's grace is just wrong. People were healthier in most ways than we are today but had other dangers to worry about that we don't have to the same extent now. I just wanted to say that the premise of the thread is off base.

Indulge me one more point...

The Movie Quest for Fire is a good example of the attitude of superiority we take over our primitive ancestors. We picture them always living right on the brink of survival. No doubt that was the case often enough but I think it is a false depiction of the entirety of primitive human experience.
That attitude was part or our rationalization for wiping out Native American Culture and bringing them into the Industrialzed World. It turns out, their living conditions had much to be envied.

I saw a TV show about a year ago called "Meet the Natives".. They took six or seven men from a very isloated Polynisian Island and brought them to varius cities in the USA. They were not completely isolated and had some knowledge of the rest of the World via a US Navy spotter who was put on their island during WW Two. They developed a cargo cult after his visit.

It seemed to me that their lives on the Island were close to Paradise. They had comfortable conditions and abundence. They were facinated by our life-style when they visited but they commented specifically on how unhealthy our food was. They were taken to a cattle feed lot and when they saw how de-natured the grain feed was they scolded their host and told him that what they were feeding the anaimals was bad for them and would eventually kill us if we ate it.

They had all kinds of wisdom both practical and spiritual....... You could do worse.

Here is one clip. there is a bit of National Geographic type nudity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsGTKcw3-kg     
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stavros_388 on February 09, 2011, 06:11:04 PM
Quote
All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

The first recorded cases of both cancer and diabetes come from roughly 1500 BC in Egypt. These diseases have been around for a long time, although there's no question that our modern processed diet and environment in some ways contribute to the high rates of such diseases.

These diseases were rare but started to show up when people switched to a more grain based diet. Hunter gatherer populations probably had no cancer or heart disease at all.  They are a wildfire today. Not many folks die of typhus anymore. Mostly they die from heart attacks, strokes, cancer and diabetes.

You're probably right.

But things weren't always rosy for primitive man. Haven't you seen Quest For Fire?  :laugh:

Back to the point, we live in a fallen world. There have been different struggles at different times. But to paint the thousands of years that Humans lived a pastoral hunter gatherer life as hellish and absent of God's grace is just wrong. People were healthier in most ways than we are today but had other dangers to worry about that we don't have to the same extent now. I just wanted to say that the premise of the thread is off base.

Indulge me one more point...

The Movie Quest for Fire is a good example of the attitude of superiority we take over our primitive ancestors. We picture them always living right on the brink of survival. No doubt that was the case often enough but I think it is a false depiction of the entirety of primitive human experience.
That attitude was part or our rationalization for wiping out Native American Culture and bringing them into the Industrialzed World. It turns out, their living conditions had much to be envied.

I saw a TV show about a year ago called "Meet the Natives".. They took six or seven men from a very isloated Polynisian Island and brought them to varius cities in the USA. They were not completely isolated and had some knowledge of the rest of the World via a US Navy spotter who was put on their island during WW Two. They developed a cargo cult after his visit.

It seemed to me that their lives on the Island were close to Paradise. They had comfortable conditions and abundence. They were facinated by our life-style when they visited but they commented specifically on how unhealthy our food was. They were taken to a cattle feed lot and when they saw how de-natured the grain feed was they scolded their host and told him that what they were feeding the anaimals was bad for them and would eventually kill us if we ate it.

They had all kinds of wisdom both practical and spiritual....... You could do worse.

Here is one clip. there is a bit of National Geographic type nudity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsGTKcw3-kg    

I absolutely agree with you, actually. We have come a long way from living in harmony with our environment... with Life. I just wanted to point out that cancer and diabetes are not new diseases. Perhaps you're right in saying that they didn't exist (or hardly existed) before agriculture...? Never really thought about it before. Regarding Quest For Fire, I was being a bit facetious by mentioning it :). The movie does, probably for entertainment's sake, make it look like life was just one wild and desperate struggle for survival with little solace... at least from what I remember. Of course, your youtube video offers us a much more positive and realistic look into "savage" existence  ;).

Thanks for the video link. Looks interesting!

 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: theo philosopher on February 10, 2011, 01:03:33 PM

Quote
Plus, we have accelerated our demise in the last 20 years or so with factory raised anamals, refined foods and lots of sugar.

That, and the fact that factory farming has become disgustingly inhumane, is why I don't eat meat anymore.

Ditto for me as well. Well, it started out for health issues, and still is in part, but now that I'm off meat, and even though I do have access to a  REAL FARM, free range etc, I wouldn't go back to eating meat even if I could.  Though I do eat wild caught fish. (no farmed fish...yuck)



Are you completely vegan or just vegetarian?

For health reasons I had moved to a completely organic diet, which meant I only had meat 1-2 times a week (because I'm poor). Due to having to move and other reasons, however, I've moved away from that that diet. The difference is easily noticeable. Before, I lost about 40lbs (which was needed) and got down to the "ideal weight" for my size, eradicated a ton of health problems, and felt better. Now I've put on about 10lbs, I'm tired all the time, have trouble sleeping, etc.

Can't wait for August to role around when I'll finally be in a more permanent spot and can get back to the organic diet.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 10, 2011, 03:36:52 PM

Quote
Plus, we have accelerated our demise in the last 20 years or so with factory raised anamals, refined foods and lots of sugar.

That, and the fact that factory farming has become disgustingly inhumane, is why I don't eat meat anymore.

Ditto for me as well. Well, it started out for health issues, and still is in part, but now that I'm off meat, and even though I do have access to a  REAL FARM, free range etc, I wouldn't go back to eating meat even if I could.  Though I do eat wild caught fish. (no farmed fish...yuck)



Are you completely vegan or just vegetarian?

For health reasons I had moved to a completely organic diet, which meant I only had meat 1-2 times a week (because I'm poor). Due to having to move and other reasons, however, I've moved away from that that diet. The difference is easily noticeable. Before, I lost about 40lbs (which was needed) and got down to the "ideal weight" for my size, eradicated a ton of health problems, and felt better. Now I've put on about 10lbs, I'm tired all the time, have trouble sleeping, etc.

Can't wait for August to role around when I'll finally be in a more permanent spot and can get back to the organic diet.

Can the Moderator move this discussion to the Diet and Nutrition Thread? The discussion is getting interesting.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 11, 2011, 11:43:48 AM
Are you completely vegan or just vegetarian?

It depends on the day you ask that question...lol!  No I'm not 100% vegan. I do eat fish every week, and am not giving up my raw honey! ;D Other than those two exceptions though, I would be a vegan most of the year. I almost never use any dairy, because I'm lactose intolerant and I have vile reactions to eggs. I drink nothing but water, and the only time I use any milk is if it is baked into something like egg free cornbread or biscuits etc. These are exceptions to the rule though, of which I can break a little more often as of late. (I mean I really like mashed potatoes, and miss them...lol!) So that would be exception to the no dairy thing, so mostly I'm vegan, look for vegan recipes, and even buy vegan dark chocolate. Yes it does exist, but hard to find. :)



Quote
For health reasons I had moved to a completely organic diet, which meant I only had meat 1-2 times a week (because I'm poor).

Yeah, switching to mostly organic really saved my life. (literally) I never went 100% organic, but am pretty close, especially on my staple foods like wild rice, brown rice, nuts, raisins, and fruits and veggies. Most of what I eat isn't that much more expensive organic than the "poisoned" stuff at the local chain store. Sometimes it's actually cheaper in fact.

Where I live it's easy to get fresh organic wild caught fish; lake trout, white fish, walleye etc are all pretty cheap, I suppose most other locations these fish would be pricey. Alaskan pollack is reasonable as well, at the whole foods co-op and I get wild caught Alaskan Salmon for $10.59 per pound from a local fishermen who fishes here in the Winter, but fishes Alaska during the Salmon run. The China raised farm stuff is $12.00 per pound at the local big box grocery store, so the real stuff again, is cheaper. I eat about 1 large fillet a month. The local farm, where my parents buy their meat (beef and pork) is fairly reasonably priced too, but buying organic meat at the organic food store is really expensive. I have found though if one is really careful and shops around really well, it's really not that much more to go organic for the stuff one eats every day (for me that's apples, bananas, oatmeal by bulk, which is cheaper than the name brand at walmart per pound). Of course if I ate lots of hamburger, pork, turkey, and other foods that most people eat I'd never be able to afford it. However when one is eating oatmeal every morning with some fruit and toast, it ain't that expensive. I mean the local organic bakery sells a loaf of whole wheat bread for $2.59 a loaf....Sarah Lee is more expensive than that, unless you go to a discount bread store (which I do as well..lol!)


Quote
Due to having to move and other reasons, however, I've moved away from that that diet. The difference is easily noticeable. Before, I lost about 40lbs (which was needed) and got down to the "ideal weight" for my size, eradicated a ton of health problems, and felt better. Now I've put on about 10lbs, I'm tired all the time, have trouble sleeping, etc.

I lost a lot of weight too, and am still not where I want to be, but I think it's because I take in so many carbs. I'm trying to expand my diet, but because so many things do not agree with my system it's really hard sometimes.

I'm sort of on what I call a "hunter gatherer" diet, with more gathering type foods than hunting. :D But so many healthy things are out for me that it's a pain sometimes. (no citrus, tomato products, too much acid etc.) Lots of leafy greens are out because I am a blood clotting disorder and vitamin K causes blood clots, but I'm trying to find leafy greens that I like (hard to do) and that aren't sky high in vitamin K. Again, very hard to do.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Papist on February 11, 2011, 01:47:36 PM
I have seen some people increase their body mass (building muscle) while decreasing their percentage of body fat. I was told that this is impossible? Can some one share with me how diet plays a role in this? I realize that this may just be a matter of putting on more muscle than the amount of fat that is being added, but is there any real possibility, with the right diet (along with working out) to put on muscle without adding fat, or very little fat?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 11, 2011, 02:04:20 PM
I have seen some people increase their body mass (building muscle) while decreasing their percentage of body fat. I was told that this is impossible? Can some one share with me how diet plays a role in this? I realize that this may just be a matter of putting on more muscle than the amount of fat that is being added, but is there any real possibility, with the right diet (along with working out) to put on muscle without adding fat, or very little fat?

If you really want to get into this discussion, then we will have to speak from experience and specifics.

You can do both, but really only if you are truly someone who is truly "undertrained". If you have been at any physical activity for a serious amount of time and diligence, you can't do both at least not in any significant sense. And if you were such a person, you probably wouldn't be asking for advice here, so I assume you are non-athlete.

Depending on your goals in terms of weight increase or loss and the speed in which you wish to do so and what physical activity you are training for will determine the specifics of what to do.

In you are truly undertrained, you can easily add some muscle (most of your "gains" in terms of strength, speed, endurance or what have you will be primarily due to neurological adaptation) and drop some fat.

FWIW. The paleo stuff is just the new fad based on non-science or cherry picking.

If you would like to be specific about what you currently do, what your specific goals are, then a more specific discussion can be had.

So put up your numbers and what you would like to change.

Unless you are getting paid to train, then really none of the stuff has changed from the texts written a hundred years ago.

The common person often tries to train like a real athlete and has not the genetics, time, coaching, nor monetary or pathological motivation and get burned out or injured.





Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on February 12, 2011, 10:55:47 PM
My diet is a wreck. I tried going vegan before, but it only lasted 2 days. I just can't swallow salad leafs, the texture makes me gag.

I'm a pretty skinny guy, but my metabolism is slowing down since I don't excercise. I'll eat alot of junk food and fast food all the time.

I'd like to start eating healthier right away, but vegetables I always have a problem with. Anything green basically.

Any suggestions on what my daily meals should be? I don't mind eating the same thing every day, and in fact would like to.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on February 12, 2011, 10:58:13 PM
Do you like legumes?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on February 12, 2011, 10:58:53 PM
I would say yes.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: David 2007 on February 13, 2011, 05:58:29 AM
This may or may not be related.

At my High School in Cairns North Queensland we had borders from Papua New Guinea.

These blokes had bodies to die for. Fully ripped and developed physiques. Where us Westerners were all overfed or underfed.

I imagine this came from their traditional tribal diet they had eaten for years. These guys had adopted a western style diet until late in their teens.

As a side, these guys had the most placid personalities too.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 13, 2011, 10:28:04 PM
My diet is a wreck. I tried going vegan before, but it only lasted 2 days. I just can't swallow salad leafs, the texture makes me gag.

I'm a pretty skinny guy, but my metabolism is slowing down since I don't excercise. I'll eat alot of junk food and fast food all the time.

I'd like to start eating healthier right away, but vegetables I always have a problem with. Anything green basically.

Any suggestions on what my daily meals should be? I don't mind eating the same thing every day, and in fact would like to.

There is a lot going on these days to determine what is the natural human diet. Paleolithic humans ate the same basic diet for a million years ( give or take:). Neolithic Man ( Post Agriculture) has eaten a diet with all kinds of new foods for only 10,000 years.

Even though it goes against the common wisdom of today, the natural human diet is built upon meat eating ( including fish). It is 60% to 70%
 meat with the rest made up of vegetables ( mostly leafy greens) some fruit and some nuts. No sugar and no refined junk foods.

Such a diet along with moderate exercise should build up muscle and also keep you lean and healthy.

Vegetarian diets can leave you deficient in several important nutrients. Using Tofu can be particularity unhealthful...it turns out.

Here is one way to envsion this. If you have a dog, imagine never feeding him meat. How healthy would he be? Not very I don't think. 
Dogs and humans evolved together in a very close relationship exactly because we eat the same diet. We were scavenging for the same things so man and dog figured out how to hunt together and share the meat.     
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on February 13, 2011, 10:34:49 PM
My diet is a wreck. I tried going vegan before, but it only lasted 2 days. I just can't swallow salad leafs, the texture makes me gag.

I'm a pretty skinny guy, but my metabolism is slowing down since I don't excercise. I'll eat alot of junk food and fast food all the time.

I'd like to start eating healthier right away, but vegetables I always have a problem with. Anything green basically.

Any suggestions on what my daily meals should be? I don't mind eating the same thing every day, and in fact would like to.

There is a lot going on these days to determine what is the natural human diet. Paleolithic humans ate the same basic diet for a million years ( give or take:). Neolithic Man ( Post Agriculture) has eaten a diet with all kinds of new foods for only 10,000 years.

Even though it goes against the common wisdom of today, the natural human diet is built upon meat eating ( including fish). It is 60% to 70%
 meat with the rest made up of vegetables ( mostly leafy greens) some fruit and some nuts. No sugar and no refined junk foods.

Such a diet along with moderate exercise should build up muscle and also keep you lean and healthy.

Vegetarian diets can leave you deficient in several important nutrients. Using Tofu can be particularity unhealthful...it turns out.

Here is one way to envsion this. If you have a dog, imagine never feeding him meat. How healthy would he be? Not very I don't think. 
Dogs and humans evolved together in a very close relationship exactly because we eat the same diet. We were scavenging for the same things so man and dog figured out how to hunt together and share the meat.     

That sounds really good Marc, where can I find places to get me on a daily regimen of what I should eat on a daily basis?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 13, 2011, 10:39:44 PM
Here is what I found about the diet in Papua New Guinea. It seems very close to the Paleo diet. Fish and shell fish are a central part of the diet. They eat Sugar Cane, but I would point out that Sugar Cane is NOT refined Sugar. It is wrapped up in what is basically a tree branch. Whenever Mother Nature gives us Sugar it is within something very fibrous and not the straight sucrose or fructose.
-------------------
Food in Daily Life. Staples include starchy vegetables (wild sago, breadfruit, yams, taro, sweet potatoes, and rice) complemented by wild greens, several varieties of bananas, and coconuts, mango, and other fruits. Domestication of animals and hunting provide fowl, pork, and meat from birds, marsupials, turtles, and cassowaries. In riverine and coastal areas, fish and shellfish may form a significant part of the diet. Villagers cook two meals a day, boiling or roasting the food. Earth ovens are dug on ceremonial grounds for special occasions. Leftovers, sugarcane, and coconut milk are consumed while people work in their gardens. Tea is drunk at all times. Urban restaurants provide international cuisine to those who can afford it. Kai bars (fast-food stands) are popular. Food taboos vary and are often temporary, as with restrictions on pregnant women and initiates. Others are totemic, involving plants or animals that are symbolic of kin groups. Still others are relational; for example, a son-in-law may not consume food in the presence of his mother-in-law

Read more: Culture of Papua New Guinea - traditional, history, people, clothing, traditions, women, beliefs, food, customs http://www.everyculture.com/No-Sa/Papua-New-Guinea.html#ixzz1Dtf6o8oQ
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 13, 2011, 10:41:23 PM
My diet is a wreck. I tried going vegan before, but it only lasted 2 days. I just can't swallow salad leafs, the texture makes me gag.

I'm a pretty skinny guy, but my metabolism is slowing down since I don't excercise. I'll eat alot of junk food and fast food all the time.

I'd like to start eating healthier right away, but vegetables I always have a problem with. Anything green basically.

Any suggestions on what my daily meals should be? I don't mind eating the same thing every day, and in fact would like to.

There is a lot going on these days to determine what is the natural human diet. Paleolithic humans ate the same basic diet for a million years ( give or take:). Neolithic Man ( Post Agriculture) has eaten a diet with all kinds of new foods for only 10,000 years.

Even though it goes against the common wisdom of today, the natural human diet is built upon meat eating ( including fish). It is 60% to 70%
 meat with the rest made up of vegetables ( mostly leafy greens) some fruit and some nuts. No sugar and no refined junk foods.

Such a diet along with moderate exercise should build up muscle and also keep you lean and healthy.

Vegetarian diets can leave you deficient in several important nutrients. Using Tofu can be particularity unhealthful...it turns out.

Here is one way to envsion this. If you have a dog, imagine never feeding him meat. How healthy would he be? Not very I don't think.  
Dogs and humans evolved together in a very close relationship exactly because we eat the same diet. We were scavenging for the same things so man and dog figured out how to hunt together and share the meat.    

That sounds really good Marc, where can I find places to get me on a daily regimen of what I should eat on a daily basis?

Here are two links to eating Traditional Diets:

www.thepaleodiet.com  (Buy the book)

www.westonaprice.org
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on February 13, 2011, 11:33:13 PM
Thank you Marc for that. Have you found any problems with the Paleo diet?

How about this book? http://www.amazon.com/NeanderThin-Caveman-Achieve-Strong-Healthy/dp/0312975910/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297654224&sr=1-1
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 14, 2011, 12:05:34 AM
Thank you Marc for that. Have you found any problems with the Paleo diet?

How about this book? http://www.amazon.com/NeanderThin-Caveman-Achieve-Strong-Healthy/dp/0312975910/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297654224&sr=1-1

I have the book Neander Thin. It's a gem of a book, but it is more the musings of the author who is a bit of an eccentric. Dr. Cordain who wrote The Paleo Diet is a serious researcher. But do get Neander Thin. It's a great read.

There are some problems with the Paleo Diet that are rather inside baseball. He is very politically correct and panders a bit to the establishment.
The Weston Price Foundation is not so locked into exactly what Paleolithic People ate but rather what Traditional Diets are made up of based on the research of Dr. Weston Price. He was a Dentist and pioneering nutritionist in the 1930's. That includes fermented grains sometimes and Raw Milk... but all in all the differences are slight. They also squabble about the role of animal fat in the diet and how much fat Paleolithic people ate.
 ( probably a lot).

There is a really good article on the Weston Price site about what American Indian's typically ate ( lots of fat and grease)

I find the Neander Thin advice the best:  Eat only what you can kill with a sharp stick and rock or gather.

The question of Raw Dairy and fermentation should not stop anyone from trying a more natural human diet..
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on February 14, 2011, 12:40:58 AM
Lots of fat and grease? Interesting, what is this some sort of Atkin's Diet LOL?

I'll take a look at it and give the diet a shot.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: David 2007 on February 14, 2011, 04:50:59 AM
I'm on the Atkins diet actually.

I've been through them all. Veganism was the worst for me. I have blood sugar issues.

I do miss those Veggies burger subs from Subway though!  ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on February 14, 2011, 06:07:17 AM
My diet is a wreck. I tried going vegan before, but it only lasted 2 days. I just can't swallow salad leafs, the texture makes me gag.

I'm a pretty skinny guy, but my metabolism is slowing down since I don't excercise. I'll eat alot of junk food and fast food all the time.

I'd like to start eating healthier right away, but vegetables I always have a problem with. Anything green basically.

Any suggestions on what my daily meals should be? I don't mind eating the same thing every day, and in fact would like to.

 Here's a solution that has worked very well for me.  Since I don't particularly care for leafy greens either, what I do is put several handfuls of spinach or broccoli in blender with blueberries, cherries and strawberries or mangoes.  If you want it a bit sweeter, add in a little honey.  I sometimes also add either walnuts or almonds.  I know it doesn't sound appetizing, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 14, 2011, 11:16:46 AM
Thank you Marc for that. Have you found any problems with the Paleo diet?

How about this book? http://www.amazon.com/NeanderThin-Caveman-Achieve-Strong-Healthy/dp/0312975910/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297654224&sr=1-1

I have the book Neander Thin. It's a gem of a book, but it is more the musings of the author who is a bit of an eccentric. Dr. Cordain who wrote The Paleo Diet is a serious researcher. But do get Neander Thin. It's a great read.

There are some problems with the Paleo Diet that are rather inside baseball. He is very politically correct and panders a bit to the establishment.
The Weston Price Foundation is not so locked into exactly what Paleolithic People ate but rather what Traditional Diets are made up of based on the research of Dr. Weston Price. He was a Dentist and pioneering nutritionist in the 1930's. That includes fermented grains sometimes and Raw Milk... but all in all the differences are slight. They also squabble about the role of animal fat in the diet and how much fat Paleolithic people ate.
 ( probably a lot).

There is a really good article on the Weston Price site about what American Indian's typically ate ( lots of fat and grease)

I find the Neander Thin advice the best:  Eat only what you can kill with a sharp stick and rock or gather.

The question of Raw Dairy and fermentation should not stop anyone from trying a more natural human diet..

wacky.

pseudo-religious time filler for primarily white, American, middle to upper-middle class folks with not enough things to worry about.

Good luck with "doing paleo" during Lent.

The paleolithic was not monolithic. The are a litany of reasons why this "diet" is based on utter nonsense. I would direct you to a place where it has been thoroughly discussed and torn apart, but the tone of the place would offend the sensibilities of nearly everyone around.

That is not to say it doesn't "work". Then again, you can lose weight, just eating twinkles. And some folks "flourish" by every bio-metric we can measure by eating utter "junk" food.

Some people simply find satiety for a myriad a reasons with fewer calories by eating a diet very high in fat. And it is not a bad way to eat. But the reasons for their assertions are just silly. As is the idea that eating otherwise is "dangerous".

Just the premise of the "diet" about humanity not having time to "genetically" adapt such poisons as grains is flawed from the beginning by its utter misunderstanding of the how gene expression is influenced by environmental conditions.

This stuff is "old" news but the new fad.

The only hunting and gathering which holds up the "paleo premise" is cherry picking of data.

And even where they are correct about the data the cherry pick and "paleo" people they selectively trot out, they ignore the environmental conditions which shaped their health as well. We don't live in those time. Pick your "tribe" eat and live like them.
Start by quitting your job.

Good luck affording your grass fed beef after that.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Papist on February 14, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
I'm on the Atkins diet actually.

I've been through them all. Veganism was the worst for me. I have blood sugar issues.

I do miss those Veggies burger subs from Subway though!  ;D
Do people get enough fiber through the Atkins diet?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 14, 2011, 06:15:49 PM
I'm on the Atkins diet actually.

I've been through them all. Veganism was the worst for me. I have blood sugar issues.

I do miss those Veggies burger subs from Subway though!  ;D
Do people get enough fiber through the Atkins diet?

With enough fat, you do not need fiber to have regular bowel movements. The fail in most atkins folks is that they emphasize protein over the fat. Fat ~70-80% kcal and 50g > carbs < 100g carbs, the rest is protein. You can as low as you want in the carb category, just depends on how well you enjoy real ketosis.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 15, 2011, 10:10:05 AM
I'm on the Atkins diet actually.

I've been through them all. Veganism was the worst for me. I have blood sugar issues.

I do miss those Veggies burger subs from Subway though!  ;D

It's not the Veggie Burgers that's the problem, it's the bun. You can get anything they sell at subway as a salad. They will put the Veggie Burger on top. Or you can take home the Sub and toss the Bread and wrap it with Lettuce.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 15, 2011, 01:05:20 PM
I'm on the Atkins diet actually.

I've been through them all. Veganism was the worst for me. I have blood sugar issues.

I do miss those Veggies burger subs from Subway though!  ;D

It's not the Veggie Burgers that's the problem, it's the bun. You can get anything they sell at subway as a salad. They will put the Veggie Burger on top. Or you can take home the Sub and toss the Bread and wrap it with Lettuce.

Just like the perfected paleo man did.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 15, 2011, 01:31:46 PM
I'm on the Atkins diet actually.

I've been through them all. Veganism was the worst for me. I have blood sugar issues.

I do miss those Veggies burger subs from Subway though!  ;D

Are you diabetic? What do you mean by "blood sugar issues"? Do you have a diagnosis?

I can tell you that many a late stage diabetic and a fellow I know well "cured" himself of diet of 80% fat and <35grams of carbs for a year and now allows himself up to 100 grams per day. All his symptoms are gone.

When people usually talk about "blood sugar issues" they don't have a diagnosis and just eat garbage day after day.

RE: "Veganism".

There is veganism and there is veganism. You can eat like garbage by excluding just animal products from your diet. Vegans go wrong usually by not eating enough fat and an incredible amount refined carbs.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on February 15, 2011, 01:48:03 PM
So what is your diet orthonorm?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 15, 2011, 01:56:54 PM
So what is your diet orthonorm?

I eat food. I don't have a lot "issues" with food. I know from experience that you can pretty much live off anything. You gain and lose weight by eating more or less.

Everyone should know by the time they are 25 what foods cause them to feel less than well and which foods they use for comfort. And which immediate family history health problems they have which diet *might* have a slight influence on.

It is really is no big deal.

Due to various sports activities in which bodyweight was an issue, I've pretty much done all there is to do lose and gain weight. And know plenty of people who have done the same.

The folks my heart goes out to are the people who parents were negligent enough to allow them to remain obese through puberty. They pretty much are going to be stuck at being overweight but still possibly in shape for their entire lives.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 15, 2011, 10:53:53 PM
So the next question is how to keep the Fast if you are a low carb, Atkins, Cave Man Diet sort of person?

And, I want to avoid Soy as I am convinced it is not good for you, especially men since it is very estrogenic.

 [  If you have been watching "The Batchelor" and "Say Yes to the Dress" a lot and have lost interest in Football, you may need to cut back on the Soy :)  ]

I want to take another swing at putting a lot of Coconut products into my Fasting since it is so rich in mid-chain saturated fat. Seems like you can sustatin yourself if you get enough of it as a substitute for animal fat. I dont want to fall back on loads of Pasta which is what I have done in the past or lots of Bread. I am thinking lots of Steel Cut Oatmeal, Coconut Milk and coconut,  Fruits and lots of green vegitables with the occasional veggie burger. Then some Crab Cakes,Shrimp and Calimari but I dont want to over do it. I think I can Shrimp-Out during the Fast and flirt with developing a shell fish allergy..

Suggestions?

thanx 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 16, 2011, 12:00:56 AM
So the next question is how to keep the Fast if you are a low carb, Atkins, Cave Man Diet sort of person?

And, I want to avoid Soy as I am convinced it is not good for you, especially men since it is very estrogenic.

 [  If you have been watching "The Batchelor" and "Say Yes to the Dress" a lot and have lost interest in Football, you may need to cut back on the Soy :)  ]

I want to take another swing at putting a lot of Coconut products into my Fasting since it is so rich in mid-chain saturated fat. Seems like you can sustatin yourself if you get enough of it as a substitute for animal fat. I dont want to fall back on loads of Pasta which is what I have done in the past or lots of Bread. I am thinking lots of Steel Cut Oatmeal, Coconut Milk and coconut,  Fruits and lots of green vegitables with the occasional veggie burger. Then some Crab Cakes,Shrimp and Calimari but I dont want to over do it. I think I can Shrimp-Out during the Fast and flirt with developing a shell fish allergy..

Suggestions?

thanx  

Sounds absolutely not Lenten. Enjoy your culinary-cult.

You could just realize that billions of people of done just fine eating unlike the speculative paleo man.

If olive oil is off the table then certainly coconut oil is too. Who are you trying to kid?

From an olive it is one thing, but from a coconut another?

Why not butter?

Or you could keep going keep "paleo" and spend all that time and worry and money. Sounds charitable.

You do realize that if everyone ate "paleo" there would not be nearly enough food to maintain the calories we have available now globally.

"My bread is a material problem. My brother's bread is a spiritual one."



Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 16, 2011, 12:04:21 AM
And lulz at estrogenic.

Marc, I really should PM you a place where you could keep your test high without being afraid of a soybean.

Wringing your hands over a soybean is probably more indicative of a hormonal imbalance than watching some ridiculous TV show.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 16, 2011, 12:58:51 PM
So what is your diet orthonorm?

I eat food. I don't have a lot "issues" with food. I know from experience that you can pretty much live off anything. You gain and lose weight by eating more or less.


No offense, but it sounds like you've been blessed with the ability to eat just about anything, and maintain a healthy physical lifestyle, weight etc. You do realize that not everyone is blessed as such, right? You sound a lot like my dad who to this day can sit down, eat chocolate cake every morning for breakfast, never gain weight, never have ANY health issues and then says to me "just exercise more, you'll lose weight it's easy!" Uhhh, sorry it ain't that easy. :) I love the man, he is my father, but he just doesn't "get" that everybody's body is different. You seem to be poo pooing "fad diets" but have you considered that some of these actually WORK for some people?

I have my problems with the strict paleo diet because as you said, there never was a monolithic version of that . . . . some of our ancestors ate LOTS of meat, however the ones who ate the most, the Neanderthals went extinct. Others may not have eaten so much meat after all. The image of the Native American eating tons of game is not always true; some ate very little game other than fish actually. So you're right to suggest there is no one cure all diet for everyone. My body simply does not tolerate meat, so I MUST get protein from somewhere else and it's tough. Not everyone can do as you and just eat anything they want and never have any issues at all.





Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 16, 2011, 01:03:07 PM
Whoops I missed this comment:


Everyone should know by the time they are 25 what foods cause them to feel less than well and which foods they use for comfort. And which immediate family history health problems they have which diet *might* have a slight influence on.

Total B.S. My health problems, didn't start kicking in until after 25, so from my personal experience you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I mean I hate to be so blunt, but what you're saying just is not true, at least in my case.


Quote
It is really is no big deal.

For YOU it's no big deal that is.


Quote
The folks my heart goes out to are the people who parents were negligent enough to allow them to remain obese through puberty. They pretty much are going to be stuck at being overweight but still possibly in shape for their entire lives.

I'm glad you're not MY doctor, I'd be depressed every time I left your office.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 16, 2011, 01:15:57 PM
My diet is a wreck. I tried going vegan before, but it only lasted 2 days. I just can't swallow salad leafs, the texture makes me gag.

Same with me. But I'm trying to acclimate to some new stuff. 

Quote
I'm a pretty skinny guy, but my metabolism is slowing down since I don't excercise. I'll eat alot of junk food and fast food all the time.

That's probably the reason your slowing down, all that fast food. If you cut that out of your diet, you'll see leaps and bounds improvement. You don't have to go Vegan to be healthy, and if you're already skinny who knows, it might not be that great an idea to go Vegan. But I'm not expert, I only know what generally works for me.


Quote
I'd like to start eating healthier right away, but vegetables I always have a problem with. Anything green basically.

Try more fruits, nuts and grains. If you're not a vegetable person, this might be a good way of eating healthier. I'm not that crazy about most veggies, but I do like peas, carrots, green beans, corn, and am trying to acclimate myself to a few others, but I'm not really a veggie person. 

Quote
Any suggestions on what my daily meals should be? I don't mind eating the same thing every day, and in fact would like to.

As they say breakfast is the most important meal of the day, what do you do for breakfast? I do oatmeal, every single day for the last 3 1/2 years. I top it with berries,(bluberries, blackberries, strawberries, rasberries, etc) and will have 2 pieces of whole grain toast with it, and a tsp of raw honey. (you could also do raisins in your oatmeal too which I do about once a week) Of course this is not a low carb diet, however it's not bad carbs either. And if you're naturally thin, it shouldn't be a problem for you. Sometimes I'll have a vegan muffin with it, about once a week as a treat. I'm allergic to eggs, can't do meat or dairy, or citrus so this is pretty much my only option, but I never get tired of because I can always change it up with different types of fruit and different types of bread.

Anyways that's what I do, but it might not work for you. I'm not a doctor so can only say what seems to work for me. (even though I'm always learning and STILL trying to get in better shape and lose about 20 more pounds which seems just impossible for me for some reason)

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 16, 2011, 01:48:45 PM
Whoops I missed this comment:


Everyone should know by the time they are 25 what foods cause them to feel less than well and which foods they use for comfort. And which immediate family history health problems they have which diet *might* have a slight influence on.

Total B.S. My health problems, didn't start kicking in until after 25, so from my personal experience you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I mean I hate to be so blunt, but what you're saying just is not true, at least in my case.


Quote
It is really is no big deal.

For YOU it's no big deal that is.


Quote
The folks my heart goes out to are the people who parents were negligent enough to allow them to remain obese through puberty. They pretty much are going to be stuck at being overweight but still possibly in shape for their entire lives.

I'm glad you're not MY doctor, I'd be depressed every time I left your office.



So put up your numbers and accomplishments.

Most folks who have gone through puberty obese are never going to be lean. The hormonal changes during that period allow the wild generation of new cellular formation. If you are eating way to much then those cells are primarily going to be fat cells.

Once those cells are there, there ain't no way of getting rid of them. There is only a certain point to which you can shrink your fat cells when losing before you will lead a life in constant "starvation". It is an untenable way to live. You can however be in better shape and slight less heavy than you were at the end up puberty.

If did know you had problems before 25, you simply were not paying attention.

Again post numbers and accomplishments since you know so much. And I am not using myself as rule, I know many other and billions of people on the planet that proves for 99% of us, it comes down to calories.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 16, 2011, 01:51:12 PM
And FWIW, doctors are trained to treat illness not nutrition.

Culture trumps docs. Look at every culture prior to the ease of caloric consumption allowed by modern agriculture, obesity was not ever a problem for so much of the population as it is now. This didn't happen because of the dawn of the "neolithic" but because calories are just too cheap.

Even 70 years ago being poor meant being thin and undernourished even in America. Now being poor correlates high with obesity. Cheap calories.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 17, 2011, 11:36:33 AM


So put up your numbers and accomplishments.

Excuse me, but who are you to demand such a thing? People have come here to post and get advice, help, ideas, and a bit of encouragement on how to better their health and you come here poo pooing every other thing you disagree with, spouting off how "easy" it all really is . . . . it's reminds me of someone who has never been addicted to nicotine telling smokers how "easy" it is to quit smoking. You have a strong will, perhaps a fantastic metabolism, have been doing it all your life and so like a fish in water it IS easy and simple for you. It may not be for everyone else however.




Quote
Most folks who have gone through puberty obese are never going to be lean.

So should I just give up now? Maybe you're right, I should just give it up. I don't know. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part and I should just be a realist. However I think you could use a lesson in bedside manners as it were.

Quote
Once those cells are there, there ain't no way of getting rid of them. There is only a certain point to which you can shrink your fat cells when losing before you will lead a life in constant "starvation". It is an untenable way to live. You can however be in better shape and slight less heavy than you were at the end up puberty.

You make a few very good points, especially in the second paragraph, much for me to think about and consider.



Quote
If did know you had problems before 25, you simply were not paying attention.

I developed severe food intolerances AFTER the age of 25. Sorry, this is simply a fact. I dunno what to tell you. I used to be able to consume dairy, now I cannot. Were there signs before then? Perhaps in some very obscure cases, but there would have been no way of determining that these things even were related to foods at all, let alone which foods. It's not like I ate such a such and immediately had adverse effects.  There were  definitely not any signs with my egg intolerance which just popped up out of nowhere, and even when it did, it was not instantaneous. It took a long process of trial and error and elimination to determine WHICH food it was that was causing me to break out in hives, spend the day on the throne, and cause my airways to constrict. (no it is technically NOT an allergy either, I've been tested for allergies, all come back showing no allergies) But once eggs were eliminated from my diet, the life threatening symptoms went away.  I can tell you that even with 2 doctors, this was NOT as easy as you make it sound, it took months to figure out which food was doing this. Granted I have other issues, and a chronic illness going on, so it's not ALL dietary in my case, it just felt like you were grouping everyone together.


Quote
And I am not using myself as rule, I know many other and billions of people on the planet that proves for 99% of us, it comes down to calories.

Ah, but you had originally said this was the case for EVERYONE. And yes, calories are what it comes down to as far as weight, but not as far as health as you've pointed out.

As far as weight/diet, which is something I also have struggled with (not to mention actual weird things like the egg issue) I just think you make it all sound too easy. You want me to post "accomplishments" but I see no point in that because I still feel as though I've not acomplished much at all, even though I intellectually know I have.

Anyways I'm not here to argue, I just felt like you were making it all seem far easier than it really is. If I've misread your intention I do apologize, I've been acting like a 1st class jerk this week in general, and didn't mean for it to cross over onto the forum.





Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 17, 2011, 12:09:14 PM


So put up your numbers and accomplishments.

Excuse me, but who are you to demand such a thing? People have come here to post and get advice, help, ideas, and a bit of encouragement on how to better their health and you come here poo pooing every other thing you disagree with, spouting off how "easy" it all really is . . . . it's reminds me of someone who has never been addicted to nicotine telling smokers how "easy" it is to quit smoking. You have a strong will, perhaps a fantastic metabolism, have been doing it all your life and so like a fish in water it IS easy and simple for you. It may not be for everyone else however.




Quote
Most folks who have gone through puberty obese are never going to be lean.

So should I just give up now? Maybe you're right, I should just give it up. I don't know. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part and I should just be a realist. However I think you could use a lesson in bedside manners as it were.

Quote
Once those cells are there, there ain't no way of getting rid of them. There is only a certain point to which you can shrink your fat cells when losing before you will lead a life in constant "starvation". It is an untenable way to live. You can however be in better shape and slight less heavy than you were at the end up puberty.

You make a few very good points, especially in the second paragraph, much for me to think about and consider.



Quote
If did know you had problems before 25, you simply were not paying attention.

I developed severe food intolerances AFTER the age of 25. Sorry, this is simply a fact. I dunno what to tell you. I used to be able to consume dairy, now I cannot. Were there signs before then? Perhaps in some very obscure cases, but there would have been no way of determining that these things even were related to foods at all, let alone which foods. It's not like I ate such a such and immediately had adverse effects.  There were  definitely not any signs with my egg intolerance which just popped up out of nowhere, and even when it did, it was not instantaneous. It took a long process of trial and error and elimination to determine WHICH food it was that was causing me to break out in hives, spend the day on the throne, and cause my airways to constrict. (no it is technically NOT an allergy either, I've been tested for allergies, all come back showing no allergies) But once eggs were eliminated from my diet, the life threatening symptoms went away.  I can tell you that even with 2 doctors, this was NOT as easy as you make it sound, it took months to figure out which food was doing this. Granted I have other issues, and a chronic illness going on, so it's not ALL dietary in my case, it just felt like you were grouping everyone together.


Quote
And I am not using myself as rule, I know many other and billions of people on the planet that proves for 99% of us, it comes down to calories.

Ah, but you had originally said this was the case for EVERYONE. And yes, calories are what it comes down to as far as weight, but not as far as health as you've pointed out.

As far as weight/diet, which is something I also have struggled with (not to mention actual weird things like the egg issue) I just think you make it all sound too easy. You want me to post "accomplishments" but I see no point in that because I still feel as though I've not acomplished much at all, even though I intellectually know I have.

Anyways I'm not here to argue, I just felt like you were making it all seem far easier than it really is. If I've misread your intention I do apologize, I've been acting like a 1st class jerk this week in general, and didn't mean for it to cross over onto the forum.







Simple, not easy.  Being uncomfortable and gross motor movement control. The reason I ask how well people have done and their accomplishments is because if they have not had much success, then why listen?

And yeah the food problems I was talking about are late onset allergies ::) That is what is causing people to be obese. It ain't genetics either. Unless every genetically predisposed to be obese immigrant from Europe happen to come here and become obese while leaving their genetically similar families and friends to lead reasonably sane lives regarding food.

I doubt it.

Willpower is just doing something over and over.

You name the vice and I have probably done it. The solution to stopping every time was *not* doing it over and over again and being willing to be uncomfortable at times.

I have not only been successful but others I have worked with and a lot of other people I know and folks they help. It is too bad too many "talk" about nutrition and losing weight and don't much in a structured way about it. Helped three folks I know lose over 200 lbs. in total last year.

No magic bullets or food, just the willingness to eat less of whatever they were eating before.

Truly best of luck.

And if you were truly obese throughout and toward the end of puberty (or after incredible weight gain during pregnancy or medically produced extreme hormonal changes) you might truly have to alter what you think is possible to achieve. If you have a doctor who has been saying otherwise, you should sue them.


 



Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on February 17, 2011, 12:13:12 PM
And I don't come here poo-poo anything. Truth is helpful. Too much nonsense goes on in this country year after year about losing weight and no one usually gets anywhere.

The truth is simple for nearly everyone. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, doesn't care, or is trying to make a buck off you.

Just go look at all those diets books on Amazon.

And now men are developing eating disorders as well as women, per the "paleo" posts or radical veganism and raw foodism and other dietary extremeties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 17, 2011, 12:15:20 PM
The idea of calories in calories out to lose weight hardly ever works. People simply can't stay hungry all the time. You then set yourself up to yo yo. You lose weight, break the restriction of calories and gain back wieght far faster. Your fat cells wise up to your tricks and make it harder to lose the weight the next time.

You body will also go into starvation mode when you restrict calories too much. It believes you are headed into a famine and will slow down your metabolism so you burn calories far slower.

The better way is to eat nutritionally dense foods and don't avoid fat. You become satiated with far fewer calories, get the nutrition your body needs to run itself, build muscle and drop to a normal weight.    

Try eating a hamburger and an egg for breakfast ( no bread). You wont be hungry again until 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 17, 2011, 12:16:14 PM
And I don't come here poo-poo anything. Truth is helpful. Too much nonsense goes on in this country year after year about losing weight and no one usually gets anywhere.

The truth is simple for nearly everyone. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, doesn't care, or is trying to make a buck off you.

Just go look at all those diets books on Amazon.

And now men are developing eating disorders as well as women, per the "paleo" posts or radical veganism and raw foodism and other dietary extremeties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa

You don't know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 17, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote
Simple, not easy.  Being uncomfortable and gross motor movement control. The reason I ask how well people have done and their accomplishments is because if they have not had much success, then why listen?

Since you keep pushing, I've lost over 100 pounds. Half of that was lost because I was so sick and in so much pain that I would go days without eating just so I would be in pain. I've kept it off for 3 1/2 years, but wish I could lose 20-30 pounds more. However from what you tell me there probably isn't much hope for that. The best I can do is "get in better shape", but with some of my other health issues that can be tough sometimes.





Quote
And if you were truly obese throughout and toward the end of puberty (or after incredible weight gain during pregnancy or medically produced extreme hormonal changes) you might truly have to alter what you think is possible to achieve. If you have a doctor who has been saying otherwise, you should sue them.

Well I was obese through puberty, and I feel my doctors are all . . . . wait this is a Christian forum so maybe I better not say...lol!

BTW are you a nutritionist? Sorry if that's a stupid question, just curious....


 




Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: NorthernPines on February 17, 2011, 12:26:59 PM
Simple, not easy.  Being uncomfortable and gross motor movement control. The reason I ask how well people have done and their accomplishments is because if they have not had much success, then why listen?

Since you keep pushing, I've lost over 100 pounds. Half of that was lost because I was so sick and in so much pain that I would go days without eating just so I would not be in pain. The other 50 was less calories than burned, but because that was my "recovery" phase it was rather easy as well. I've kept it off for 3 1/2 years, but wish I could lose 20-30 pounds more. However from what you tell me there probably isn't much hope for that. The best I can do is "get in better shape", but with some of my other health issues that can be tough sometimes.





Quote
And if you were truly obese throughout and toward the end of puberty (or after incredible weight gain during pregnancy or medically produced extreme hormonal changes) you might truly have to alter what you think is possible to achieve. If you have a doctor who has been saying otherwise, you should sue them.

Well I was obese through puberty, and I feel my doctors are all . . . . wait this is a Christian forum so maybe I better not say...lol!

BTW are you a nutritionist? Sorry if that's a stupid question, just curious....


 




Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on February 17, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
I think there are at least two main issues that people obviously feel strongly about.

One is weight loss and the other is maintaining good health and avoiding Cancer, Heart Disease and Diabetes etc.

I am more concerned with the later. I am not very much over weight. I could drop 15 lbs and that's it. i would look fine with just 10 coming off. The fast usually does the trick and i lose around 10 lbs.

My main concern is health and avoiding heart disease, feeling good in my later years and I am angry at the all the miss information we have been given by Agra-Business and the Govt.

I feel we have been miss led about what is best to eat based on what is profitable for Agra-Biz and to control food prices, not what is actually best for us. That is why Heart Disease and Cancer and Diabetes is burning through our population like a Wildfire..I don't like being lied to and I prefer not to die early.

I would highly recommend the movie "Food Inc."   

Here is the trailer and other clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhOo1oRqH70
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 02, 2011, 08:55:15 PM

Well I was obese through puberty, and I feel my doctors are all . . . . wait this is a Christian forum so maybe I better not say...lol!

BTW are you a nutritionist? Sorry if that's a stupid question, just curious....

I meant to get back to this. The fasting thread where people are fretting over being "paleo" reminded me.

Please look up the requirements to be a nutritionist at most schools. Then never see one for any help with your diet.

I could give you tons of reasons why this paleo stuff utter nonsense for the most part. Certainly the theory, the idea it helps everyone lose weight and is better for you, etc. But since it is a religion, it won't matter.

BTW Marc, I was hitting ketosis and eating what you would consider "paleo" before you ever heard the names Devany, Cordain, Weston Price, and Taubes and the rest of the wackos or nutritionist Scholastics. This is nothing new, these knowledges and their realistic application have been around for centuries.

I am not a nutritionist. I've been a highly competitive athlete in many sports where dietary discipline was of the utmost importance and have ran in circles with others in the same spot.

Also because of that, I've read and know many real folks who help people lose weight successfully and sanely with a high level of success.

As I have maybe mentioned, just last year among three of the people who asked my help they have lost in total over 200 pounds.

The "hormonal argument" has legitimacy and is one of the reasons why you pretty much are never going to look much thinner than you were as you exited puberty. If a woman and put on excessive weight, you also will not "bounce back". Also if treated for a long time on high dose hormonal therapy can also create changes in your body composition which may be irreversible.

You've lost a lot of weight. Those last "pounds" are going to be difficult and nearly impossible to keep off because of the excess fat CELLS you created during puberty. Someone like me can blow up 75 pounds and unless under some incredible hormonal change, I will EDIT: not create any significant amount of new fat cells. Losing that weight will just require discipline on my part.

Sometimes a diet high in fat (not high in protein) is a life saver for type II diabetes folks, folks with epilepsy, people trying to offset the hormonal problems of SERIOUS hormonal therapy, and some folks just find it easier to find satiety on fewer calories. It can also help alter the slight hormonal effect the proverbial "beer belly" has on the body, but that is venturing into calories on a head of rice cake land.

I feel for the kids whose parents allowed them to overeat during puberty and are saddled the rest of theirs lives looking unlike the magazines say you should.

The good news is that your fat is probably relatively evenly distributed (I've never seen you) and has almost no correlation with high rates of morbidity. In fact, God forbid you suffer from a wasting disease or have to get chemo, you are in better shape to survive than I am.

People like my father who were athletes and in shape in their 20's then put on the enormous guy are the ones who have the unhealthy correlation.

Take your "true waist" to hip ratio. As a guy if you are around EDIT DUE TIREDNESS .9 (or even 1.0), you are great.

Until nutrition science gets to the point where they are able to tailor your diet to your genes (there is a little bit of this going on already), people will thrive on high fat, low fat, junk food, vegan, etc.

We are robust creatures which have needed to survice and thrive in many conditions.

People who fret over food and whether the grass their hamburger ate was organic are probably are going to have worse health due to stress than if they just ate Chicken McNuggets.

One last word: stress. If food is always a comfort, then one should probably get some help with the anxiety in their lives.

Best of Luck Northern. I truly do feel for people who get judged by their "weight" in a culture that becomes more and more obsessed with food and health and yet seems to grow more and more unhealthy and obese.

Again congratulations on your weight loss! That much weight to lose is no mean feat!




 

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on March 02, 2011, 09:33:24 PM
orthonorm what does your daily diet consist of?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on March 02, 2011, 09:51:25 PM
Just an interesting tidbit about the terms being used... here in Pennsylvania (I don't know how it is elsewhere) the term nutritionist is not regulated. My 5 year old daughter could call herself a nutritionist. Dietitian (certified and/or licensed), dietetic technician, dietary manager, etc. are all regulated, but not the most common term and the one that the public knows best: nutritionist. According to my nutrition teacher (ha) it had to do with certain groups lobbying for it to stay that way when the government was writing the regulations.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 03, 2011, 12:09:13 AM

Well I was obese through puberty, and I feel my doctors are all . . . . wait this is a Christian forum so maybe I better not say...lol!

BTW are you a nutritionist? Sorry if that's a stupid question, just curious....

I meant to get back to this. The fasting thread where people are fretting over being "paleo" reminded me.

Please look up the requirements to be a nutritionist at most schools. Then never see one for any help with your diet.

I could give you tons of reasons why this paleo stuff utter nonsense for the most part. Certainly the theory, the idea it helps everyone lose weight and is better for you, etc. But since it is a religion, it won't matter.

BTW Marc, I was hitting ketosis and eating what you would consider "paleo" before you ever heard the names Devany, Cordain, Weston Price, and Taubes and the rest of the wackos or nutritionist Scholastics. This is nothing new, these knowledges and their realistic application have been around for centuries.

I am not a nutritionist. I've been a highly competitive athlete in many sports where dietary discipline was of the utmost importance and have ran in circles with others in the same spot.

Also because of that, I've read and know many real folks who help people lose weight successfully and sanely with a high level of success.

As I have maybe mentioned, just last year among three of the people who asked my help they have lost in total over 200 pounds.

The "hormonal argument" has legitimacy and is one of the reasons why you pretty much are never going to look much thinner than you were as you exited puberty. If a woman and put on excessive weight, you also will not "bounce back". Also if treated for a long time on high dose hormonal therapy can also create changes in your body composition which may be irreversible.

You've lost a lot of weight. Those last "pounds" are going to be difficult and nearly impossible to keep off because of the excess fat CELLS you created during puberty. Someone like me can blow up 75 pounds and unless under some incredible hormonal change, I will EDIT: not create any significant amount of new fat cells. Losing that weight will just require discipline on my part.

Sometimes a diet high in fat (not high in protein) is a life saver for type II diabetes folks, folks with epilepsy, people trying to offset the hormonal problems of SERIOUS hormonal therapy, and some folks just find it easier to find satiety on fewer calories. It can also help alter the slight hormonal effect the proverbial "beer belly" has on the body, but that is venturing into calories on a head of rice cake land.

I feel for the kids whose parents allowed them to overeat during puberty and are saddled the rest of theirs lives looking unlike the magazines say you should.

The good news is that your fat is probably relatively evenly distributed (I've never seen you) and has almost no correlation with high rates of morbidity. In fact, God forbid you suffer from a wasting disease or have to get chemo, you are in better shape to survive than I am.

People like my father who were athletes and in shape in their 20's then put on the enormous guy are the ones who have the unhealthy correlation.

Take your "true waist" to hip ratio. As a guy if you are around EDIT DUE TIREDNESS .9 (or even 1.0), you are great.

Until nutrition science gets to the point where they are able to tailor your diet to your genes (there is a little bit of this going on already), people will thrive on high fat, low fat, junk food, vegan, etc.

We are robust creatures which have needed to survice and thrive in many conditions.

People who fret over food and whether the grass their hamburger ate was organic are probably are going to have worse health due to stress than if they just ate Chicken McNuggets.

One last word: stress. If food is always a comfort, then one should probably get some help with the anxiety in their lives.

Best of Luck Northern. I truly do feel for people who get judged by their "weight" in a culture that becomes more and more obsessed with food and health and yet seems to grow more and more unhealthy and obese.

Again congratulations on your weight loss! That much weight to lose is no mean feat!




 



The only person who seems stressed out over this topic is you my friend. I wonder why this makes you so angry..

And no one is "fretting" about anything, certainly not over minutia like if grass is organic. When people learn how our beef is raised, how inhumane it is and how unhealthy the finished product is for them and their family, they often discover that grass fed beef is far better. That is hardly "fretting" over "Organic grass"

 It is not just a matter of weight gain or loss . People want to stay healthy and avoid cancer, heart disease and diabetes. They also dont want to lose their youthful engery and keep the lead in their pencil...so to speak.

If you don't care , then don't. Many people find the topic of nutrition and health interesting and helpful. Go figure.

If you would like to learn something about Grass Fed Beef, this blog seems to be a good one:

http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 02:17:52 AM
Not angry just one more way people obsessing over food without cause. Not too mention it would fly completely in the face of the Gospel. It is an untenable diet for the entire planet and extremely resource intensive.

As mentioned above:

My bread is a material problem, my brother's a spiritual one.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 02:20:09 AM
orthonorm what does your daily diet consist of?

Already answered this:

Food.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 02:27:09 AM
And no one is "fretting" about anything, certainly not over minutia like if grass is organic.

You all don't get hyperbole, but . . .

Denial ain't just a river that God parted so that the Hebrewa could walk through it and then drown the entire Egyptian army in . . .

I say with all the love in my heart. Maybe you don't worry, but your posts sure suggest so. Re-read them.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 03, 2011, 11:25:51 AM
Not angry just one more way people obsessing over food without cause. Not too mention it would fly completely in the face of the Gospel. It is an untenable diet for the entire planet and extremely resource intensive.

As mentioned above:

My bread is a material problem, my brother's a spiritual one.

None of that is true. No one is obsessing except you. Nothing in the gospel directs you to eat junk and get sick. The Lord ate meat. Hitler was a vegetarian btw.

We have addressed the matter of resources before. If people were far less sick, if we were able to get rid of diabetes, most cancer and most heart disease, we would have tremendous savings. If people ate a natural human diet made up of nutrient dense foods, they would eat far less calories and therefore there would be a great savings or at least a break even on land, animal feed, water  etc.

A healthier population would be more productive, work hader and longer and be more prosperous and thereby able to share more in the tax burden

Just wait till the  73 million baby boomers get elderly. Most will be very sick with chronic diseases thanks to the profit motivated diet that has been foisted on us. Where will they all live when they need to be taken care of? Where are the resources?  

Here is a friendly observation. i think you may associate diet and weight loss with a lot of stress based on your personal experience. it is causing you to project your stress onto a valid and healthy (mentally and physically) interest by many of us in Nutrition and Health,  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 03, 2011, 11:40:58 AM
And no one is "fretting" about anything, certainly not over minutia like if grass is organic.

You all don't get hyperbole, but . . .

Denial ain't just a river that God parted so that the Hebrewa could walk through it and then drown the entire Egyptian army in . . .

I say with all the love in my heart. Maybe you don't worry, but your posts sure suggest so. Re-read them.

You're projecting.. I take great pleasure in reading about Nutrition. I enjoy eating "Paleo" very much. I love that kind of food and I have seen marked improvement in my health and especially in my energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEYcoPH7VNU&feature=related

It is on a par with other interests like reading and learning about the Civil War or current events. There is pleasure involved, not worry or stress.

I am p.o.ed about how we have been lied to and manipulated by Agribusiness. But that is a political issue like being unhappy about an unjust war or our national debt.

Maybe you could move on and simply ask questions or propose alternatives in a friendly way.  thanks   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 01:58:55 PM
And no one is "fretting" about anything, certainly not over minutia like if grass is organic.

You all don't get hyperbole, but . . .

Denial ain't just a river that God parted so that the Hebrewa could walk through it and then drown the entire Egyptian army in . . .

I say with all the love in my heart. Maybe you don't worry, but your posts sure suggest so. Re-read them.

You're projecting.. I take great pleasure in reading about Nutrition. I enjoy eating "Paleo" very much. I love that kind of food and I have seen marked improvement in my health and especially in my energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEYcoPH7VNU&feature=related

It is on a par with other interests like reading and learning about the Civil War or current events. There is pleasure involved, not worry or stress.

I am p.o.ed about how we have been lied to and manipulated by Agribusiness. But that is a political issue like being unhappy about an unjust war or our national debt.

Maybe you could move on and simply ask questions or propose alternatives in a friendly way.  thanks   

There are no questions I need answers to about "paleo". As noted above, this stuff is old news for folks who actually have to be keen about their diet for performance. After a decade or two you see these fad come and go. If you do any reading, you see this has been going on for forever. The facts against the legend behind paleo are myriad.

As for alternatives. Moderation. Big deal.

If I had to choose one person for someone who would like to really nerd out on all this, here is your guy:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/

He PWNs all the nonsense. Thankfully, unless you are a competitive athlete, you can basically follow granny's advice.

One half of my family is basically genetically programmed to die before 50 of heart disease, the other not to so much. My grandmother not on the time bomb side is thin, active, and healthy at 80. She eats those terrible grains and all the non-paleo foods. Thing is she eats small portions, three times a day. Big deal.

It is amount of calories in the end that matter. Longevity is more closely associated with fewer calories, then greater amount of physical activity.

Again Lyle does not suffer fools lightly and will give you well documented and substantiated sources info, something none of the paleo gurus have yet to do.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 03, 2011, 03:48:35 PM
And no one is "fretting" about anything, certainly not over minutia like if grass is organic.

You all don't get hyperbole, but . . .

Denial ain't just a river that God parted so that the Hebrewa could walk through it and then drown the entire Egyptian army in . . .

I say with all the love in my heart. Maybe you don't worry, but your posts sure suggest so. Re-read them.

You're projecting.. I take great pleasure in reading about Nutrition. I enjoy eating "Paleo" very much. I love that kind of food and I have seen marked improvement in my health and especially in my energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEYcoPH7VNU&feature=related

It is on a par with other interests like reading and learning about the Civil War or current events. There is pleasure involved, not worry or stress.

I am p.o.ed about how we have been lied to and manipulated by Agribusiness. But that is a political issue like being unhappy about an unjust war or our national debt.

Maybe you could move on and simply ask questions or propose alternatives in a friendly way.  thanks  

There are no questions I need answers to about "paleo". As noted above, this stuff is old news for folks who actually have to be keen about their diet for performance. After a decade or two you see these fad come and go. If you do any reading, you see this has been going on for forever. The facts against the legend behind paleo are myriad.

As for alternatives. Moderation. Big deal.

If I had to choose one person for someone who would like to really nerd out on all this, here is your guy:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/

He PWNs all the nonsense. Thankfully, unless you are a competitive athlete, you can basically follow granny's advice.

One half of my family is basically genetically programmed to die before 50 of heart disease, the other not to so much. My grandmother not on the time bomb side is thin, active, and healthy at 80. She eats those terrible grains and all the non-paleo foods. Thing is she eats small portions, three times a day. Big deal.

It is amount of calories in the end that matter. Longevity is more closely associated with fewer calories, then greater amount of physical activity.

Again Lyle does not suffer fools lightly and will give you well documented and substantiated sources info, something none of the paleo gurus have yet to do.


No one has said this is brand new. Just the opposite. The idea is at least to go back to what your grandparents ate. Far less sugar and lots of saturated fat.

Once again, the only issue is not weight loss. Moderation is a good thing. But if you include stuff that is anathema to your natural make up, you will hurt yourself.

Dogs and people have a similar digestion system. Go feed your dog junk food and a grain based diet "in moderation" as see how long he lives.

What are your questions about the Paleo Diet?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 04:34:30 PM
And no one is "fretting" about anything, certainly not over minutia like if grass is organic.

You all don't get hyperbole, but . . .

Denial ain't just a river that God parted so that the Hebrewa could walk through it and then drown the entire Egyptian army in . . .

I say with all the love in my heart. Maybe you don't worry, but your posts sure suggest so. Re-read them.

You're projecting.. I take great pleasure in reading about Nutrition. I enjoy eating "Paleo" very much. I love that kind of food and I have seen marked improvement in my health and especially in my energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEYcoPH7VNU&feature=related

It is on a par with other interests like reading and learning about the Civil War or current events. There is pleasure involved, not worry or stress.

I am p.o.ed about how we have been lied to and manipulated by Agribusiness. But that is a political issue like being unhappy about an unjust war or our national debt.

Maybe you could move on and simply ask questions or propose alternatives in a friendly way.  thanks  

There are no questions I need answers to about "paleo". As noted above, this stuff is old news for folks who actually have to be keen about their diet for performance. After a decade or two you see these fad come and go. If you do any reading, you see this has been going on for forever. The facts against the legend behind paleo are myriad.

As for alternatives. Moderation. Big deal.

If I had to choose one person for someone who would like to really nerd out on all this, here is your guy:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/

He PWNs all the nonsense. Thankfully, unless you are a competitive athlete, you can basically follow granny's advice.

One half of my family is basically genetically programmed to die before 50 of heart disease, the other not to so much. My grandmother not on the time bomb side is thin, active, and healthy at 80. She eats those terrible grains and all the non-paleo foods. Thing is she eats small portions, three times a day. Big deal.

It is amount of calories in the end that matter. Longevity is more closely associated with fewer calories, then greater amount of physical activity.

Again Lyle does not suffer fools lightly and will give you well documented and substantiated sources info, something none of the paleo gurus have yet to do.


No one has said this is brand new. Just the opposite. The idea is at least to go back to what your grandparents ate. Far less sugar and lots of saturated fat.

Once again, the only issue is not weight loss. Moderation is a good thing. But if you include stuff that is anathema to your natural make up, you will hurt yourself.

Dogs and people have a similar digestion system. Go feed your dog junk food and a grain based diet "in moderation" as see how long he lives.

What are your questions about the Paleo Diet?

I said I have no questions. Because "paleo" isn't an answer to anything. It just a buzz word fad. Grains are not an anathema to your "natural" make up.

Lulz at your dog comp.

The paleolithic was not monolithic.

I am not going to convince you, because you approach this like religion. Like I said there are rationals within the Paleo BS, like there are rationals within backwater Baptists, but for the most part it is nonsense.

Just pointing out the nonsense so that others don't buy into it as a panacea.

I need to make no defense, as I said paleo has been laughed at from the get go by those who been around. The link above, you will find Lyle takes a reasonable and rational approach to weight development, including peer reviewed studies involving paleo / early neolithic patterns of eating (which vary wildly).

But if it works for you, good on you. But pretty much any diet with the appropriate amount of calories would.

You really should check out Lyle's stuff especially the forum. You have to remember cuisine is function of environment and what might be fine for small tight knit communities which starve at times, engage in difficult work, have low chronic stress punctuated by extreme high bouts of stress, might not fit into a world of alienated, sedentary, chronically stressed people.

Paleo sure ain't Lenten nor Civil War kosher, but wth . . .

Enjoy!



Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 03, 2011, 05:51:00 PM
I said I have no questions. Because "paleo" isn't an answer to anything. It just a buzz word fad. Grains are not an anathema to your "natural" make up.

The paleolithic was not monolithic.

Every person who lived in the Paleolithic Era hunted and gathered for their food without exception. The era after agriculture began is called the Neolithic Era.

Therefore, Paleolithic people were confined to what they could kill or gather up. If they ate any grain at all it would have to be gathered, since there was no cultivation. The amount of energy required to gather small wild grains would exclude it as a regular food source. Too much energy out-go for too little energy consumption.

Anthropologists also know with high certainty that Paleolithic man ate lots of meat from examination of bones. If you don't eat meat, your bones are thin and pock marked. If you ate meat, your bones are thick and strong and have no cavities or holes.

The Neolithic Era is very very recent. In terms of evolutionary time it has not been long enough to alter our basic genetic disposition for the foods of the Paleo Era. The Paleo Era lasted about 2.6 million years. The Neolithic has only been for 10,000. We have not yet adapted well to these new agricultural foods, so the theory goes.


I am not going to convince you, because you approach this like religion. Like I said there are rationals within the Paleo BS, like there are rationals within backwater Baptists, but for the most part it is nonsense.

Oh okay... If you say so.

Just pointing out the nonsense so that others don't buy into it as a panacea.


Adding one or two facts would help also. So far all you have done is make snide remarks


But if it works for you, good on you. But pretty much any diet with the appropriate amount of calories would.


Once again, you seem to be hyper focused on weight loss and not Health. If you feed someone 1000 calories of sugar and 1000 calories worth of meat, vegetables and fruit, do you really think you would have the same health outcome? It matters what you eat, not just the amount of calories. Some foods don't digest well and some cause internal  inflammation that lead to heart disease and other nasty aliments...  Some foods are carcinogenic and some mess with your hormones like Soy.

You really should check out Lyle's stuff especially the forum. You have to remember cuisine is function of environment and what might be fine for small tight knit communities which starve at times, engage in difficult work, have low chronic stress punctuated by extreme high bouts of stress, might not fit into a world of alienated, sedentary, chronically stressed people.

I shall, but you should know that this type of criticism has been debunked. The picture of starving hunter gatherers always on the run turns out not to be very accurate. For example, American Indians needed only about 3 hours per day to get food and do chores. They liked to sleep late abd warfare was a rather civil affair ( Coup counting etc.)..Not always and not everywhere of course. Certainly Primitive people had many hardships to over come. But by in large, your image has more to do with Hollywood movies than accurate history.

Paleo sure ain't Lenten nor Civil War kosher, but wth . . .


Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?



Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 06:10:29 PM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 03, 2011, 06:16:46 PM
I said I have no questions. Because "paleo" isn't an answer to anything. It just a buzz word fad. Grains are not an anathema to your "natural" make up.

The paleolithic was not monolithic.

Every person who lived in the Paleolithic Era hunted and gathered for their food without exception. The era after agriculture began is called the Neolithic Era.

Therefore, Paleolithic people were confined to what they could kill or gather up. If they ate any grain at all it would have to be gathered, since there was no cultivation. The amount of energy required to gather small wild grains would exclude it as a regular food source. Too much energy out-go for too little energy consumption.

Anthropologists also know with high certainty that Paleolithic man ate lots of meat from examination of bones. If you don't eat meat, your bones are thin and pock marked. If you ate meat, your bones are thick and strong and have no cavities or holes.

The Neolithic Era is very very recent. In terms of evolutionary time it has not been long enough to alter our basic genetic disposition for the foods of the Paleo Era. The Paleo Era lasted about 2.6 million years. The Neolithic has only been for 10,000. We have not yet adapted well to these new agricultural foods, so the theory goes.


I am not going to convince you, because you approach this like religion. Like I said there are rationals within the Paleo BS, like there are rationals within backwater Baptists, but for the most part it is nonsense.

Oh okay... If you say so.

Just pointing out the nonsense so that others don't buy into it as a panacea.


Adding one or two facts would help also. So far all you have done is make snide remarks


But if it works for you, good on you. But pretty much any diet with the appropriate amount of calories would.


Once again, you seem to be hyper focused on weight loss and not Health. If you feed someone 1000 calories of sugar and 1000 calories worth of meat, vegetables and fruit, do you really think you would have the same health outcome? It matters what you eat, not just the amount of calories. Some foods don't digest well and some cause internal  inflammation that lead to heart disease and other nasty aliments...  Some foods are carcinogenic and some mess with your hormones like Soy.

You really should check out Lyle's stuff especially the forum. You have to remember cuisine is function of environment and what might be fine for small tight knit communities which starve at times, engage in difficult work, have low chronic stress punctuated by extreme high bouts of stress, might not fit into a world of alienated, sedentary, chronically stressed people.

I shall, but you should know that this type of criticism has been debunked. The picture of starving hunter gatherers always on the run turns out not to be very accurate. For example, American Indians needed only about 3 hours per day to get food and do chores. They liked to sleep late abd warfare was a rather civil affair ( Coup counting etc.)..Not always and not everywhere of course. Certainly Primitive people had many hardships to over come. But by in large, your image has more to do with Hollywood movies than accurate history.

Paleo sure ain't Lenten nor Civil War kosher, but wth . . .


Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

As I said, cherry-picking and legends. If it works for you good. I don't have to offer any "facts". It's nonsense to anyone who looks beneath the sale-pitch.

Not that it is without merit. Again check out Lyle.

But I am talking health as well. What "health" is, is another subject.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on March 04, 2011, 04:37:30 PM
Mmm snow crab dipped in butter.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 04, 2011, 04:38:36 PM
Mmm snow crab dipped in butter.

See other thread. You keep the crab and I'll eat the butter. Fresh butter I can eat by the spoonful.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Cognomen on March 04, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Any advice on Lenten fasting combined with a somewhat ill timed (roughly corresponding), somewhat rigorous physical training regimen would be appreciated. 

Obviously, my primary concern is with protein/amino acids.  I know the "protein rich" veggies and such are helpful, but they're nowhere near as complete as animal based proteins.  My guess is lots of the spineless ones.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on March 04, 2011, 05:49:01 PM
Mmm snow crab dipped in butter.

See other thread. You keep the crab and I'll eat the butter. Fresh butter I can eat by the spoonful.

Which thread?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 05, 2011, 12:17:31 AM
Mmm snow crab dipped in butter.

See other thread. You keep the crab and I'll eat the butter. Fresh butter I can eat by the spoonful.

Which thread?

I just had mentioned I am allergic to shellfish.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on March 05, 2011, 12:22:39 AM
That's alright, most seafood is overrated anyway.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 05, 2011, 12:40:46 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 05, 2011, 12:43:45 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.

For the weaker brethren.

For myself, but a crumb of bread a day, a sip of water, and a grain of salt.



for someone with coco as an avatar your ironemeter is way off.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 05, 2011, 12:50:36 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.

For the weaker brethren.

For myself, but a crumb of bread a day, a sip of water, and a grain of salt.



for someone with coco as an avatar your ironemeter is way off.


Maybe you can run a contest to see who can fast with the least food?   The winner gets to join the Pharisee's
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on March 05, 2011, 12:53:07 AM
ortho, was that a subtle reference to St Anthony? I got the joke, but just curious.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Melodist on March 05, 2011, 12:56:18 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.

For the weaker brethren.

For myself, but a crumb of bread a day, a sip of water, and a grain of salt.



for someone with coco as an avatar your ironemeter is way off.


Maybe you can run a contest to see who can fast with the least food?   The winner gets to join the Pharisee's

Scoring doesn't go by what you eat, but by what you can catch everyone else eating and not get caught eating.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 05, 2011, 12:57:27 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.

For the weaker brethren.

For myself, but a crumb of bread a day, a sip of water, and a grain of salt.



for someone with coco as an avatar your ironemeter is way off.


Maybe you can run a contest to see who can fast with the least food?   The winner gets to join the Pharisee's

Really, I am not sure how I will not whither away to about 135 without about 3500 calories a day.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 05, 2011, 12:59:01 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.

For the weaker brethren.

For myself, but a crumb of bread a day, a sip of water, and a grain of salt.



for someone with coco as an avatar your ironemeter is way off.


Maybe you can run a contest to see who can fast with the least food?   The winner gets to join the Pharisee's

Scoring doesn't go by what you eat, but by what you can catch everyone else eating and not get caught eating.

I've already purchased a girdle to make clear my spiritual superiority. I am think about having a few of those pesky lower ribs removed. Maybe I'll get a wife or two in exchange.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Melodist on March 05, 2011, 01:00:59 AM
Really?? Why is that? Just cut out the meat for 60 days... there is nothing more Lenten about sugar and pasta and soda.Lots of vegetables, fruits and nuts is perfectly Lenten.............Right?

Sorry nothing but a half loaf of bread here, a pinch of salt, and 12 oz. of water for the entire season.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Never the less, you said eating vegetables, fruits and nuts, etc. were not Lenten. Of course they are.

For the weaker brethren.

For myself, but a crumb of bread a day, a sip of water, and a grain of salt.



for someone with coco as an avatar your ironemeter is way off.


Maybe you can run a contest to see who can fast with the least food?   The winner gets to join the Pharisee's

Scoring doesn't go by what you eat, but by what you can catch everyone else eating and not get caught eating.

I've already purchased a girdle to make clear my spiritual superiority. I am think about having a few of those pesky lower ribs removed. Maybe I'll get a wife or two in exchange.

Good point. You have to at least "look" like you're starving yourself.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on March 05, 2011, 10:04:55 AM
Perhaps we should call a time out for Forgiveness Sunday  :)

Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

   But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

   18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on March 05, 2011, 10:07:33 AM
Perhaps we should call a time out for Forgiveness Sunday  :)

Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

   But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

   18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

I have to wash as well?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on August 03, 2011, 03:16:48 PM
Colon cleansing health benefits debunked (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20750-colon-cleansing-health-benefits-debunked.html)

Colon cleansing can supposedly help you lose weight, eliminate toxins and enhance well-being. But a review of scientific research shows that claims of health benefits from such procedures may be a steaming pile of nonsense.

Ranit Mishori at Georgetown University in Washington DC and colleagues reviewed 20 studies on colon cleansing published in medical literature over the past decade. The reports showed little evidence of benefit but plenty of negative side effects, including vomiting, electrolyte imbalance and kidney failure...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on August 03, 2011, 04:26:54 PM
Colon cleansing health benefits debunked (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20750-colon-cleansing-health-benefits-debunked.html)

Colon cleansing can supposedly help you lose weight, eliminate toxins and enhance well-being. But a review of scientific research shows that claims of health benefits from such procedures may be a steaming pile of nonsense.

Ranit Mishori at Georgetown University in Washington DC and colleagues reviewed 20 studies on colon cleansing published in medical literature over the past decade. The reports showed little evidence of benefit but plenty of negative side effects, including vomiting, electrolyte imbalance and kidney failure...

I cudda told you is was a load of      years ago.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Xenia1918 on August 03, 2011, 04:45:18 PM
I was a meat eater, many years ago. Not red meat as much (though I did eat it)...mostly fried chicken, chicken parm, fish and chips, things like that. And my weight ballooned up to over 300 lbs.

Once I made the decision (not for health reasons, necessarily, but for other reasons) to become a vegetarian, and began exercising too, I dropped 130 lbs. This was over 10 years ago, and mostly all of it has stayed away except for about 15 lbs, which didn't go on until I hit menopause (I continue to work out 5 days per week, and use my bike for transportation too.) I don't miss meat at all; in fact I never cared for it. I ate it mostly because meat dishes were easier to get, esp. when traveling, and vegetarian, esp. vegan food was very hard to find years ago.

Unfortunately I've developed a knee injury due to overuse (too much exercise), but I feel the best I have in many years, not only since losing the weight, but because I "eat clean" now (my term for it). I suffer from IBS-D, which is a GI ailment made much worse by high fat foods, including red meat. I have not had even one attack since becoming vegan, a fact I find very interesting (before, when I was a meat eater and a fried food eater, it was not uncommon to get an attack every other day which drained me emotionally and physically). It took me a while to figure out that FAT was what was triggering it. I avoid eating too much fat, and the IBS-D attacks stay away. The meds I used to take for it all expired. :)

Anyway, that's my experience with food (needless to say, being vegan makes it very easy to fast in Orthodoxy!)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on August 03, 2011, 05:09:49 PM
Colon cleansing health benefits debunked (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20750-colon-cleansing-health-benefits-debunked.html)

Colon cleansing can supposedly help you lose weight, eliminate toxins and enhance well-being. But a review of scientific research shows that claims of health benefits from such procedures may be a steaming pile of nonsense.

Ranit Mishori at Georgetown University in Washington DC and colleagues reviewed 20 studies on colon cleansing published in medical literature over the past decade. The reports showed little evidence of benefit but plenty of negative side effects, including vomiting, electrolyte imbalance and kidney failure...

Well....Sometimes it's just nice to get a fresh start.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on August 03, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
Colon cleansing health benefits debunked (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20750-colon-cleansing-health-benefits-debunked.html)

Colon cleansing can supposedly help you lose weight, eliminate toxins and enhance well-being. But a review of scientific research shows that claims of health benefits from such procedures may be a steaming pile of nonsense.

Ranit Mishori at Georgetown University in Washington DC and colleagues reviewed 20 studies on colon cleansing published in medical literature over the past decade. The reports showed little evidence of benefit but plenty of negative side effects, including vomiting, electrolyte imbalance and kidney failure...
Really? I find it surprising that there is the possibility of kidney failure if you cleanse your colon? Doctors advise enemas before certain surgery, so I guess they would delay the surgery if your kidney failed after a colon cleansing.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on August 03, 2011, 08:32:31 PM
Once I made the decision (not for health reasons, necessarily, but for other reasons) to become a vegetarian, and began exercising too, I dropped 130 lbs. This was over 10 years ago, and mostly all of it has stayed away except for about 15 lbs, which didn't go on until I hit menopause (I continue to work out 5 days per week, and use my bike for transportation too.)

Good on you :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: celticfan1888 on August 03, 2011, 11:28:50 PM
I eat: Steak, salad, more steak, more salad, even more steak, fruit, still more steak, cheese, fish, crawfish, and yet more steak.

I have to eat all that protein to keep my muscles fed for the sports.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 18, 2011, 09:10:39 PM
Read this;

http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins-and-minerals/sulfur-deficiency
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 18, 2011, 10:03:14 PM
Sulfur deficiency may be linked to depression.  It's also well known that more sunlight helps with depression too because it increases vitamin D which has links to other deficiencies and helps prevent depression.

People who live in parts of the World where there is high sulfur content in the soil have much lower rates of both depression and obesity and have longer lifespans.

In addition many things we use contain high levels of Aluminum which gets into the brain and accelerates depression and memory loss. Aluminum can be found in high doses in Antiperspirants ( not Anti-deodorants which are different). They are also found in high levels in many vaccinations including your annual flu shot.

Here is a you tube by the same researcher who wrote the article above, Dr Stephanie Seneff. It's a bit long and gets too wonky in parts but if you have some patience she unwonks after awhile and the info. is very interesting.  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/17/stephanie-seneff-on-sulfur.aspx?e_cid=20110917_DNL_art_1

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on September 18, 2011, 10:06:27 PM
I need to get my nutrition back on track... I've been stuck at about 204 lbs. for a couple months now...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 18, 2011, 10:08:36 PM
I need to get my nutrition back on track... I've been stuck at about 204 lbs. for a couple months now...

Are there certain foods that you crave that keep the weight on?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 18, 2011, 10:11:41 PM
Sulfur deficiency may be linked to depression.  It's also well known that more sunlight helps with depression too because it increases vitamin D which has links to other deficiencies and helps prevent depression.

People who live in parts of the World where there is high sulfur content in the soil have much lower rates of both depression and obesity and have longer lifespans.

In addition many things we use contain high levels of Aluminum which gets into the brain and accelerates depression and memory loss. Aluminum can be found in high doses in Antiperspirants ( not Anti-deodorants which are different). They are also found in high levels in many vaccinations including your annual flu shot.

Here is a you tube by the same researcher who wrote the article above, Dr Stephanie Seneff. It's a bit long and gets too wonky in parts but if you have some patience she unwonks after awhile and the info. is very interesting.  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/17/stephanie-seneff-on-sulfur.aspx?e_cid=20110917_DNL_art_1


Somehow, the thought of wearing an anti-deodorant scares me. I don't want to wear anything that actually works to make me stink. :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on September 18, 2011, 10:20:56 PM
I need to get my nutrition back on track... I've been stuck at about 204 lbs. for a couple months now...

Are there certain foods that you crave that keep the weight on?

Not sure, I think my food choices currently have more to do with budget than craving specific foods. I switched to diet soda, partly because of my diabetes and just wanting less carbs/sugar, but I've heard that just because it's diet that doesn't mean it's good for weight loss. That's about the only product that I'm hooked on. I've tried alternatives to soda but can't stick with any. Otherwise, I do eat quite a bit of processed and crap foods, somewhat because of convenience and somewhat because of budget issues. I don't eat 18¢ Ramen noodles and 88¢ Banquet TV dinners constantly, but let's just say that they're not uncommon either. I've read lots of books on this and that idea about food/nutrition, and even taken nutrition and cooking classes... now if only I could put some of the stuff into practice  ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 18, 2011, 10:41:58 PM
Sulfur deficiency may be linked to depression.  It's also well known that more sunlight helps with depression too because it increases vitamin D which has links to other deficiencies and helps prevent depression.

People who live in parts of the World where there is high sulfur content in the soil have much lower rates of both depression and obesity and have longer lifespans.

In addition many things we use contain high levels of Aluminum which gets into the brain and accelerates depression and memory loss. Aluminum can be found in high doses in Antiperspirants ( not Anti-deodorants which are different). They are also found in high levels in many vaccinations including your annual flu shot.

Here is a you tube by the same researcher who wrote the article above, Dr Stephanie Seneff. It's a bit long and gets too wonky in parts but if you have some patience she unwonks after awhile and the info. is very interesting.  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/17/stephanie-seneff-on-sulfur.aspx?e_cid=20110917_DNL_art_1


Somehow, the thought of wearing an anti-deodorant scares me. I don't want to wear anything that actually works to make me stink. :P

I cant catch a break :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: IsmiLiora on September 18, 2011, 10:44:32 PM
I need to get my nutrition back on track... I've been stuck at about 204 lbs. for a couple months now...

Are there certain foods that you crave that keep the weight on?

Not sure, I think my food choices currently have more to do with budget than craving specific foods. I switched to diet soda, partly because of my diabetes and just wanting less carbs/sugar, but I've heard that just because it's diet that doesn't mean it's good for weight loss. That's about the only product that I'm hooked on. I've tried alternatives to soda but can't stick with any. Otherwise, I do eat quite a bit of processed and crap foods, somewhat because of convenience and somewhat because of budget issues. I don't eat 18¢ Ramen noodles and 88¢ Banquet TV dinners constantly, but let's just say that they're not uncommon either. I've read lots of books on this and that idea about food/nutrition, and even taken nutrition and cooking classes... now if only I could put some of the stuff into practice  ;D
You're studying at a local college, right? Do you have access to their dining hall or some sort of meal plan? I used to have the junky food in my room and I would get a take out box with salad, vegetables, and fruit to supplement that.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on September 18, 2011, 10:52:14 PM
Mmm... fruit  ;D  That's like a once-a-week luxury for me, when I can get the strawberries or... ZOMG! ...raspberries!  But no, I commute, and it's just a community college anyway, haven't transferred... yet...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: IsmiLiora on September 18, 2011, 10:56:28 PM
Bummer. My next suggestion is to check out a farmer's market near you -- they might have some cheap produce. But I even got some strawberries at our local grocery store for $2 this week.

I've been there, though. Lotsa ramen and some canned/frozen vegetables so I could spread out finishing them and not have to worry about them going bad so quickly. I just tried to compensate with exercise and water (although I am a soda addict too).
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 18, 2011, 11:03:45 PM
I need to get my nutrition back on track... I've been stuck at about 204 lbs. for a couple months now...

Are there certain foods that you crave that keep the weight on?

Not sure, I think my food choices currently have more to do with budget than craving specific foods. I switched to diet soda, partly because of my diabetes and just wanting less carbs/sugar, but I've heard that just because it's diet that doesn't mean it's good for weight loss. That's about the only product that I'm hooked on. I've tried alternatives to soda but can't stick with any. Otherwise, I do eat quite a bit of processed and crap foods, somewhat because of convenience and somewhat because of budget issues. I don't eat 18¢ Ramen noodles and 88¢ Banquet TV dinners constantly, but let's just say that they're not uncommon either. I've read lots of books on this and that idea about food/nutrition, and even taken nutrition and cooking classes... now if only I could put some of the stuff into practice  ;D

Got it.

Junk food is loaded with sugar. What has happened is that Fat has been wrongly vilified as leading to heart disease ( turns out not to be true). Fat is what adds flavor to food and also satiates your hunger. It's very profitable for the Food Industry to remove fat and add sugar to replace the lost taste. The added sugar spikes your insulin so you lose control of your appetite. Insulin is a hormone that is as strong as heroin in terms of the boost it gives you and the cravings it produces.

So the idea is to go back to a high fat and high protein diet. It will get your insulin under better control and restore your natural appetite. People with diabetes do well with this type of eating ( of course consult your Doctor).  You are never hungry and you don't have to forcefully reduce calories. You will naturally eat less after a while if you get proper nutrition from animal products ( Meat, Fish, Eggs, butter etc.). Get your carbs from vegetables, nuts and occasionally fruit once your weight is stable.

Here is the formula: About 70% of your daily calories from Animal sources, Meat, Fish Eggs etc. 30% from vegetables fruit and nuts. Vegetables are best undercooked or even raw. Green leafy vegetables are very good. Coconut products and coconut oil has a certain type of fat ( Mid-chain) that is very good for you. Olive oil after that. Use Real Butter and Whole Milk (dont over do Milk if you need to lose weight).

Meat is best if you take the trouble to buy naturally pastured meat and eggs, not from factory farms. They are tremendously more nutritious. Look for "Grass Fed" labels on beef and "Cage Free" eggs. Eat eggs every day.

Just dont eat this way and still eat breads and pasta and high carb junk foods or sugar. Youre just going to trigger certain mechanism in your system which will opt to turn the sugar into stored fat before it gets to the good food. You will crowd out the good stuff with the bad stuff.

Good luck  

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on September 19, 2011, 12:03:55 AM
How about take a multivitamin a day and dont worry about your food intake?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 19, 2011, 01:51:29 AM
I need to get my nutrition back on track... I've been stuck at about 204 lbs. for a couple months now...

I'm 230. Of course I'm only 7-8% body fat...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 19, 2011, 09:03:05 AM
How about take a multivitamin a day and dont worry about your food intake?

Some supplements are helpful. For example Fish Oil or Cod Liver Oil helps add Omega 3 fats and Cod Liver replaces some A and D. But there is no magic pill that can make a poor diet into a good one. You can add some fat with the above pills but the quantity you would need is much larger than you probably are wiling to swallow in a single day. But more important if you continue to eat a diet with lots of highly refined sugared up food your main problem isnt going to be a vitamin deficiency.

The main problem is that your over-all metabolism is going to love the sugar hit. Your body recognizes sugar and sugared up high carb  food as a quick boost in case of an emergency. It will therefore burn it first and unless you are exercising like a maniac there will be lots of left over energy which it will immediately store as fat.

A more natural diet rich in fats and protein will burn at a steady rate, wont wreck you metabolism or confuse your liver. You will therefore avoid or heal up diabetes, get trimmer and have better more long lasting energy... A multi vitamin cant replace all that though sometimes it's not a bad idea to take one
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on September 19, 2011, 11:48:43 AM
Another word or two how to properly get nutrients from your food and how to lower your food bill.

 There are all kinds of trace nutrients like selenium and Cholesterol Sulfate and several other things that activate absorption of still other nutrients. For example, it may be very hard to absorb enough Vitamin D from pills without enough Cholesterol Sulfate in your diet. Getting D from the sun is best by far but it's hard to get outside enough to do much good.

Many of these essential nutrients are only found in Meat, Eggs and Seafood. That is why going vegetarian is not a good idea. These nutrients are the very things most helpful is warding off cancer and heart disease.

Foods that are naturally raised, like grass fed beef and natural eggs will contain these nutrients in abundance.

The consumption of organ meats like liver and beef heart, kidneys are most helpful. These foods are very high in the nutrients the body needs to function properly. Eating liver once per week like folks did in the 1950's should still be done.

Also, these cuts of meat are cheap cheap cheap. A large hunk-o-liver is about $1.00. A beef heart big enough to last for several meals is like $2.00. It's practically free food.

Also, tougher cuts are often more nutritious such as pork shoulder. The muscle is used more so there was more blood flow to it, hence better for us to eat. And less expensive by far.  

Also, I belong to a buying club. Several people at my Church belong too. If you cut out the middle man which is the chain grocery stores like Safeway etc. high quality grass fed meats become very affordable. Same with garden vegetables and milk. We order every ten days and pick the stuff up from a member's house. We get all our Eggs, Milk, Butter and much of our Red Meat this way and the reduced cost of buying direct from the farmer ( Amish Farmers in this case) offsets their higher costs of not cutting corners by using hormones or grains as a cheap feed. What appears on my table is what is on the small farmer's table too.

So with a little effort adjusting buying habits you can eat better food for less money and God willing avoid the Doctor bills too.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on October 17, 2011, 03:47:10 PM
Experts: Healthy people may not need vitamins after all (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/health/s_762211.html)

Certain people might not benefit from taking daily vitamin supplements and could be doing more harm to themselves than good, two studies released this month suggest.
 
"For some people in the population, vitamins might really be a necessity," said David Schardt, a nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. "But for many others, they get what they need from their diet, and adding supplements may be too much."
 
Last week, researchers said a study of nearly 40,000 older women found a slightly higher risk of death among those taking dietary supplements, including multivitamins, folic acid, iron and copper. The Iowa Women's Health Study was an observational look and not a rigorous test...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on April 07, 2012, 08:11:25 PM
See what I did there?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 07, 2012, 09:00:40 PM
See what I did there?



If you do follow a natural diet the only two things you may need to supplement is vitamin D and Omega 3 fat.

It is very difficult for modern people to get enough sun to metabolize enough D ( which is really a hormone). So unless you are a Life Guard or have an outdoor job in a hot climate, you need to take a D3 pill, at least 2000 mg.

Most of our meat is factory raised so it is deficient in Omega 3, therefore you need to supplement. If you eat all grass fed meat and lots of seafood you may not need to.  

Adding other vitamins such as B's and C and E may actually disrupt the natural balance of our system and cause problems
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2012, 10:55:46 PM
See what I did there?



If you do follow a natural diet the only two things you may need to supplement is vitamin D and Omega 3 fat.

It is very difficult for modern people to get enough sun to metabolize enough D ( which is really a hormone). So unless you are a Life Guard or have an outdoor job in a hot climate, you need to take a D3 pill, at least 2000 mg.

Most of our meat is factory raised so it is deficient in Omega 3, therefore you need to supplement. If you eat all grass fed meat and lots of seafood you may not need to.  

Adding other vitamins such as B's and C and E may actually disrupt the natural balance of our system and cause problems
How so?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on April 08, 2012, 12:04:11 AM
Actually my last post was edited. I had put a link to a video refuting the sensationalistic nonsense about sugar being dangerous/toxic. I thought better of it though, not because of the points made, but more because of who was making the points.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 08, 2012, 05:34:30 PM
Actually my last post was edited. I had put a link to a video refuting the sensationalistic nonsense about sugar being dangerous/toxic. I thought better of it though, not because of the points made, but more because of who was making the points.

I would find that interesting. Could you send it to me via PM?

60 minutes ran a piece last week about how bad sugar is for you. I didnt see it but my mother who is the biggest sugar junkie in the world did and decided to cut back.

Here is a good youtube on sugar by a well respected researcher. I found it to be pretty persuasive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&ob=av3e
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: IreneOlinyk on April 08, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Actually my last post was edited. I had put a link to a video refuting the sensationalistic nonsense about sugar being dangerous/toxic. I thought better of it though, not because of the points made, but more because of who was making the points.

I would find that interesting. Could you send it to me via PM?

60 minutes ran a piece last week about how bad sugar is for you. I didnt see it but my mother who is the biggest sugar junkie in the world did and decided to cut back.

Here is a good youtube on sugar by a well respected researcher. I found it to be pretty persuasive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&ob=av3e
My local newspaper did an article about this past week too.  I was interested to read about hidden sources of sugar in prepared food and sauces even bought spagetti sauce in a jar or can.  PLus way too much sodium and added msg.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: IreneOlinyk on April 08, 2012, 06:25:27 PM
Mmm... fruit  ;D  That's like a once-a-week luxury for me, when I can get the strawberries or... ZOMG! ...raspberries!  But no, I commute, and it's just a community college anyway, haven't transferred... yet...
What about simple fruits like oranges and bananas?  Not the expensive strawberries and raspberries out of season.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: biro on April 08, 2012, 06:44:01 PM
I've started to like dried fruit. I get bags of them.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 08, 2012, 09:35:09 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2012, 09:46:01 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 08, 2012, 10:00:41 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on April 08, 2012, 10:09:06 PM
Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

I agree. Though it's also all chemical. So when people make the distinction, they're wrong on both counts.


Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

This was one of the main things I meant to include with my "sensationalistic nonsense" remark above.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2012, 10:25:38 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

What is the wild? Where is it?

This is an untenable position to hold. You don't encounter tables in the wild. People in the wild. Whatever. I can make the wild whatever Eden you think we fell from.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 08, 2012, 10:38:30 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

What is the wild? Where is it?

This is an untenable position to hold. You don't encounter tables in the wild. People in the wild. Whatever. I can make the wild whatever Eden you think we fell from.

Tables, and sugar are manufactured. Refined sugar was never part of the human diet until we learned to manufacture it very recently. It is discordent with our genetic makeup and we are finding through scientific investigation that it is toxic and a central cause of several deadly diseases.

You can go into a field and find sugar cane. You can not go into a field and find a big pile of white sugar. It does not occur in nature.

Why is this so difficult for you?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2012, 10:44:00 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

What is the wild? Where is it?

This is an untenable position to hold. You don't encounter tables in the wild. People in the wild. Whatever. I can make the wild whatever Eden you think we fell from.

Tables, and sugar are manufactured. Refined sugar was never part of the human diet until we learned to manufacture it very recently. It is discordent with our genetic makeup and we are finding through scientific investigation that it is toxic and a central cause of several deadly diseases.

You can go into a field and find sugar cane. You can not go into a field and find a big pile of white sugar. It does not occur in nature.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Because you are incoherent.

You can't go into a field and find cane sugar. Gonna hop on that plane, boat? Use a map? How are you going to do it?

You are hyper-vigilant about food. Awesome.

You have the means to afford it. Awesome.

But don't call it natural. Don't call those who ain't got the hang-ups or the means to assuage them "unnatural".

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Iconodule on April 08, 2012, 10:52:38 PM
Radically altering your diet and excluding many common food elements on the basis of theories about how man ate thousands of years ago= natural
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on April 09, 2012, 12:15:08 AM
Marc's paleo diet sounds so good in reality and would be really beneficial for me when I workout.

But then orthonorm ruins it. :D :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2012, 09:44:26 AM
Marc's paleo diet sounds so good in reality and would be really beneficial for me when I workout.

But then orthonorm ruins it. :D :P
Why do you let him have so much impact? ??? ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2012, 09:46:18 AM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

What is the wild? Where is it?

This is an untenable position to hold. You don't encounter tables in the wild. People in the wild. Whatever. I can make the wild whatever Eden you think we fell from.

Tables, and sugar are manufactured. Refined sugar was never part of the human diet until we learned to manufacture it very recently. It is discordent with our genetic makeup and we are finding through scientific investigation that it is toxic and a central cause of several deadly diseases.

You can go into a field and find sugar cane. You can not go into a field and find a big pile of white sugar. It does not occur in nature.

Why is this so difficult for you?
Why is it so difficult for you to resist the urge to argue with orthonorm? ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 09, 2012, 04:28:36 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

What is the wild? Where is it?

This is an untenable position to hold. You don't encounter tables in the wild. People in the wild. Whatever. I can make the wild whatever Eden you think we fell from.

Tables, and sugar are manufactured. Refined sugar was never part of the human diet until we learned to manufacture it very recently. It is discordent with our genetic makeup and we are finding through scientific investigation that it is toxic and a central cause of several deadly diseases.

You can go into a field and find sugar cane. You can not go into a field and find a big pile of white sugar. It does not occur in nature.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Because you are incoherent.

You can't go into a field and find cane sugar. Gonna hop on that plane, boat? Use a map? How are you going to do it?

You are hyper-vigilant about food. Awesome.

You have the means to afford it. Awesome.

But don't call it natural. Don't call those who ain't got the hang-ups or the means to assuage them "unnatural".



 I said you cant go out into a field and find white table sugar. It is a manufactured product and does not exist in that form in nature.

I think people are interested because 60 minutes just did a story on the toxicity of sugar.
 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on April 09, 2012, 05:11:31 PM
I said you cant go out into a field and find white table sugar. It is a manufactured product and does not exist in that form in nature.

I think people are interested because 60 minutes just did a story on the toxicity of sugar.
 

So what?

What is "natural" is what you can find in a field?

I assure you I can find a field that contains "white table sugar". They are called malls.

And anything you alter with your hands and via metaphor your body is manufactured.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 09, 2012, 07:56:36 PM
I said you cant go out into a field and find white table sugar. It is a manufactured product and does not exist in that form in nature.

I think people are interested because 60 minutes just did a story on the toxicity of sugar.
 

So what?

What is "natural" is what you can find in a field?

I assure you I can find a field that contains "white table sugar". They are called malls.

And anything you alter with your hands and via metaphor your body is manufactured.



That's  very pithy. Meanwhile, the evidence is mounting that sugar is pretty toxic.

In nature when you encounter Fructose ( Sugar) there is lots of fiber wrapped around it, like an apple or a sugar cane. When you remove the sugar and separate it out you are eating very high levels minus the fiber. That will send your system into a tizzy :) Plus, it's addicting.

What's worse is that they can now remove the Fructose from Corn Starch very very cheaply. Now they are able to sweeten up all kinds of things.
As Dr. Lustig said in that report, they vilified fat incorrectly, but when you take out fat you also take out taste. They replaced it with sugar and now very cheaply made high fructose corn syrup which is equally as toxic as sugar.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: biro on April 09, 2012, 07:57:38 PM
Um, but it tastes good...   :-[
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 09, 2012, 08:02:24 PM
Um, but it tastes good...   :-[

Did you watch the 60 minutes story? I learned something very interesting. Apparently we have evolved to recognize foods that are poisonous by their bad taste and safe to eat food by sweetness. Therefore, we will gorge on sweet tasting foods given the opportunity. We are genetically predisposed to do that. The problem is that modern people have learned to process sugar in great quantities and put it in everything.  :P
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: biro on April 09, 2012, 08:03:36 PM
Because it's yummy!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Iconodule on April 09, 2012, 08:05:31 PM
I said you cant go out into a field and find white table sugar. It is a manufactured product and does not exist in that form in nature.

I think people are interested because 60 minutes just did a story on the toxicity of sugar.
 

So what?

What is "natural" is what you can find in a field?

I assure you I can find a field that contains "white table sugar". They are called malls.

And anything you alter with your hands and via metaphor your body is manufactured.



That's  very pithy. Meanwhile, the evidence is mounting that sugar is pretty toxic.

If I took a walk through your proverbial field I would probably find some things that are pretty toxic, without any refining or manufacturing needed. You can make the case for sugar's toxicity without the specious "it's unnatural" argument.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: biro on April 09, 2012, 08:06:34 PM
Well, we're all going to die from something, so...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Papist on April 09, 2012, 08:07:15 PM
Um, but it tastes good...   :-[

Did you watch the 60 minutes story? I learned something very interesting. Apparently we have evolved to recognize foods that are poisonous by their bad taste and safe to eat food by sweetness. Therefore, we will gorge on sweet tasting foods given the opportunity. We are genetically predisposed to do that. The problem is that modern people have learned to process sugar in great quantities and put it in everything.  :P

(http://www.dubbekarl.dk/blog/wp-content/images/7-eleven-forbidden-donut.jpg)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: akimori makoto on April 09, 2012, 08:17:46 PM
There is a trend to use old fashion "Natural Sugar" ( table sugar, sucrose) in Soda as if it is better than High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Table Sugar is not "Natural", it does not occur in nature in that form. When nature produces Sugar there is always lots of fiber wrapped around it. Cane Sugar, which table sugar is extracted from is like a tree branch. It would take lots of chewing to get at the sweetness. Same with a Apple or Orange or other fruit. There is no such thing in Nature as a big pile of white sugar.


Everything is natural. Just stop it. On this point. Either everything is natural or nothing is.

You can not encounter table sugar in the wild. It doesn't exist in that form.

Here is the 60 Minutes story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cREfDcEvY4

What is the wild? Where is it?

This is an untenable position to hold. You don't encounter tables in the wild. People in the wild. Whatever. I can make the wild whatever Eden you think we fell from.

Tables, and sugar are manufactured. Refined sugar was never part of the human diet until we learned to manufacture it very recently. It is discordent with our genetic makeup and we are finding through scientific investigation that it is toxic and a central cause of several deadly diseases.

You can go into a field and find sugar cane. You can not go into a field and find a big pile of white sugar. It does not occur in nature.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Because you are incoherent.

You can't go into a field and find cane sugar. Gonna hop on that plane, boat? Use a map? How are you going to do it?

You are hyper-vigilant about food. Awesome.

You have the means to afford it. Awesome.

But don't call it natural. Don't call those who ain't got the hang-ups or the means to assuage them "unnatural".



Glory to God for this contribution. This needs to be said (and heard) in so many other places.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on April 09, 2012, 08:21:08 PM
They replaced it with sugar and now very cheaply made high fructose corn syrup which is equally as toxic as sugar.
I thought that high fructose corn syrup was more toxic than beet sugar.
In any event, the fact that something is said to be all natural does not guarantee that it is healthful. For example, aren't xylitol and stevia said to be all natural sugar substitutes?
However, there is a claim that xylitol can cause liver failure and death in dogs. And a claim  that stevia may be either a carcinogen or that it might have a contraceptive effect.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Cognomen on April 09, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Apparently we have evolved to recognize foods that are poisonous by their bad taste and safe to eat food by sweetness. Therefore, we will gorge on sweet tasting foods given the opportunity. We are genetically predisposed to do that. The problem is that modern people have learned to process sugar in great quantities and put it in everything.  :P

Maybe gorging, not sugar is the problem?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: biro on April 09, 2012, 08:26:12 PM
Those pink frosted donuts from 7-11 were good.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ZealousZeal on April 09, 2012, 09:07:24 PM
I said you cant go out into a field and find white table sugar. It is a manufactured product and does not exist in that form in nature.

I think people are interested because 60 minutes just did a story on the toxicity of sugar.
 

So what?

What is "natural" is what you can find in a field?

I assure you I can find a field that contains "white table sugar". They are called malls.

And anything you alter with your hands and via metaphor your body is manufactured.



That's  very pithy. Meanwhile, the evidence is mounting that sugar is pretty toxic.

In nature when you encounter Fructose ( Sugar) there is lots of fiber wrapped around it, like an apple or a sugar cane. When you remove the sugar and separate it out you are eating very high levels minus the fiber. That will send your system into a tizzy :) Plus, it's addicting.

What's worse is that they can now remove the Fructose from Corn Starch very very cheaply. Now they are able to sweeten up all kinds of things.
As Dr. Lustig said in that report, they vilified fat incorrectly, but when you take out fat you also take out taste. They replaced it with sugar and now very cheaply made high fructose corn syrup which is equally as toxic as sugar.

You keep saying sugar is toxic, and it's kind of silly.

You NEED sugar. Your body turns sugar (which start as carbs, usually) into its fuel, the form of usable energy: adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Every cell of your body needs and uses ATP: for mitosis, DNA and RNA synthesis, active transport... all kinds of stuff. You take a jog? Your skeletal muscles need ATP. ATP is even used as a neurotransmitter. I could go on.

Table sugar, by the way, is sucrose- a disaccharide. In digestion, your body takes the enzyme sucrase to break sucrose down into a fructose and a glucose. So, yeah, I doubt I'll ever see a Domino tree with little yellow bags of white granulated sugar hanging off of its boughs, but let's not act like eating sucrose is like ingesting arsenic.

If your carb/sugar intake exceeds your body's energy needs, it'll get stored as triglyceride... a.k.a. fat. So it seems to me that as with most things, the key here is moderation.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 09, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
I said you cant go out into a field and find white table sugar. It is a manufactured product and does not exist in that form in nature.

I think people are interested because 60 minutes just did a story on the toxicity of sugar.
 

So what?

What is "natural" is what you can find in a field?

I assure you I can find a field that contains "white table sugar". They are called malls.

And anything you alter with your hands and via metaphor your body is manufactured.



That's  very pithy. Meanwhile, the evidence is mounting that sugar is pretty toxic.

If I took a walk through your proverbial field I would probably find some things that are pretty toxic, without any refining or manufacturing needed. You can make the case for sugar's toxicity without the specious "it's unnatural" argument.

I am only reacting to the latest advertising fraud that poses white sugar as being natural. I think the soda Sierra Mist tries to palm off sugar as more natural and better for you than HFCS. It's nothing of the kind.

The evolutionary template to determine what is the natural human diet keeps getting verified by things like these latest sugar studies as shown on 60 minutes... Funny, huh?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on April 09, 2012, 11:33:59 PM
I am only reacting to the latest advertising fraud that poses white sugar as being natural. I think the soda Sierra Mist tries to palm off sugar as more natural and better for you than HFCS. It's nothing of the kind.
I don't say that sugar is good for you, but studies have shown that HFCS is worse than cane sugar. For example:
"A Princeton University study showed rats gained significant more weight when consuming HFCS in comparison to table sugar, even when the caloric intake was the same. .... The rats who consumed HFCS gained 48% more weight than their sucrose peers and had significant deposits of abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides. In humans, these are characteristics of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer."
See: High fructose corn syrup and cane sugar - Your body knows the difference
http://www.naturalnews.com/032281_HFCS_sugar.html
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on April 10, 2012, 12:20:39 AM
biro's approach is the best. If it tastes good, eat it.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Νεκτάριος on April 10, 2012, 05:06:12 AM
The piece of information I found most interesting in the segment was about addiction and diminishing returns of pleasure from sugar consumption.  Since I've cut out nearly all added sugar to my diet, desserts have begun to taste so much better!  I have desserts pretty much only on holidays now.  On ordinary days an apple of banana tastes amazingly sweet if that is all the sugar you consume.  For me the moral of the story is to eat good, rich foods - just in moderation.   It will both be healthier and more enjoyable. 

As for the naturalness of sugar - try making wine.  It is easy to get over the top dessert wine.  In fact it is easier to make than dry wine. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Adela on April 10, 2012, 07:35:24 AM
biro's approach is the best. If it tastes good, eat it.

 :)  Yeah!  But then there's Jack LaLanne who said "If it tastes good, spit it out..."

Michelle Obama recently caught some flack for saying we needed to retrain our taste buds and get to like Arugula.  I think she is right on this.  Once I got back to more "natural" food, the processed stuff tastes so fake and terrible. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 10, 2012, 09:57:06 AM
I am only reacting to the latest advertising fraud that poses white sugar as being natural. I think the soda Sierra Mist tries to palm off sugar as more natural and better for you than HFCS. It's nothing of the kind.
I don't say that sugar is good for you, but studies have shown that HFCS is worse than cane sugar. For example:
"A Princeton University study showed rats gained significant more weight when consuming HFCS in comparison to table sugar, even when the caloric intake was the same. .... The rats who consumed HFCS gained 48% more weight than their sucrose peers and had significant deposits of abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides. In humans, these are characteristics of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer."
See: High fructose corn syrup and cane sugar - Your body knows the difference
http://www.naturalnews.com/032281_HFCS_sugar.html


That could well be true. The sinister part of HFCS is that it is so cheap to make that they have added it to everything. Both should be avoided, except on your birthday.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on April 19, 2012, 09:30:25 AM
Unless you are following diets for well-defined reasons (diabetes, high risk of heart disease etc), I don't see much evidence for value in fad diet phenomenology. But it's a little like being a fan of Jethro Tull. Hey, more power to you if you get into that stuff, just don't make me do it. There's a book called Just Tell Me What to Eat by Tim Harlan that provides sane information about how to eat well, and it's pretty good.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on April 19, 2012, 06:15:59 PM
Oh and the paleo diet works great with side 2 of Thick As A Brick
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on April 30, 2012, 07:07:18 PM
Sorry for the triple post but something caught my attention recently.

Can we talk about food addiction for the moment? Does it really take only 30 days to kill off an addiction, say soda for example?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on April 30, 2012, 07:32:15 PM
Fwiw, I've been a heavy soda drinker off and on through most of my life, until a few years ago when, facing uncontrolled diabetes, I was finally able to at least switch to diet. Don't know if I was addicted per se, but I did drink between a 12 pack and a case of the stuff a day (usually Mt. Dew, at least through my mid-20s). The main issue with stopping was the caffeine. After about 24 hours without some caffeine I'd get nauseous, and develop a headache that couldn't really be treated except by waiting it out. Usually I felt better after 2-3 days. After that I didn't feel any major cravings for it, not strong ones anyway. (one problem was that many of the alternatives were not really that much better, which is one reason I ended up going back a number of times).

Oh, and Aqualung by Jethro Tull is one of the best albums ever made.   :police:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on April 30, 2012, 07:38:11 PM
Dude.

12 pack and a case...per day? Well maybe then I don't have a soda problem. :laugh:
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on April 30, 2012, 10:25:59 PM
Unless you are following diets for well-defined reasons (diabetes, high risk of heart disease etc), I don't see much evidence for value in fad diet phenomenology. But it's a little like being a fan of Jethro Tull. Hey, more power to you if you get into that stuff, just don't make me do it. There's a book called Just Tell Me What to Eat by Tim Harlan that provides sane information about how to eat well, and it's pretty good.

So are you saying your health is not effected by what you eat? Caution to the wind unless you are already sick, from what you have been eating.
Sounds like a loop to me :)

How would you deal with information like this about Obesity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h0zD1gj0pXk#!

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 01, 2012, 12:34:05 AM
So are you saying your health is not effected by what you eat?
Nope, I didn't say that at all. What I did want to convey is that there is a normative logical diet that is healthy (and that would take a book to discuss, which is why I referenced Just Tell Me What to Eat, an A+ foodie book IMHO), but that I see little value in diets tailored to specific risk factors (cholesterol or hypertension) for the large majority who don't have problems with these issues. But of course, if you have blood pressure issues, then it's AlsoSalt for you.

I also would give a big shout out to exercise. And I would also give a personal dietary indiscretion based largely on the fact that I'm a nocturnovore.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 01, 2012, 01:36:39 PM
So are you saying your health is not effected by what you eat?
Nope, I didn't say that at all. What I did want to convey is that there is a normative logical diet that is healthy (and that would take a book to discuss, which is why I referenced Just Tell Me What to Eat, an A+ foodie book IMHO), but that I see little value in diets tailored to specific risk factors (cholesterol or hypertension) for the large majority who don't have problems with these issues. But of course, if you have blood pressure issues, then it's AlsoSalt for you.

I also would give a big shout out to exercise. And I would also give a personal dietary indiscretion based largely on the fact that I'm a nocturnovore.


I see now. Watching what you eat gets more important as we age. The rub is deciding what is healthy to eat and what is not.

But if you are diabetic as you mentioned, don't you need to exclude some things specifically? You really cant eat lots of carbs. Breads and Pasta and of course sugary things are out. It turns out that may be good advice for everyone not just diabetics.

nocturnovore.

Personally, I'm heterosexual but I accept you as you are as a child of God.  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: thetraditionalfrog on May 10, 2012, 12:38:22 PM
My diet is, (or was till I ended up moving in with relatives about a year ago), along these lines:

Breakfast: Ham slices and a hard boiled egg or scrambled egg with ham pieces, or hard boiled egg and croissant. Usually served with tea or juice.

Lunch: Half a bagel or mini bagel toasted with a smear of butter (not that margarine rubbish) or Greek youghurt.

Dinner: Grilled hamburger, chicken stir fry, spaghetti, ham & bean or vegetable soup. Sides varied, but usually a vegetable (steamed or lightly heated).

During fasts I usually had a bagel with jam, or fruit for breakfast, skip lunch, and have vegetarian soup for dinner. Some days during the fast I would just omit lunch and breakfast completely. Tried to avoid snacks, but if needed a small handful of nuts, or a piece of fruit.

All in all, I tried to keep under 100 carbs a day, and keep a watch on fat and sugar content. Doing this and upping my exercise I lost a good amount of weight. Sadly, since moving in with relatives, I have much less control over my diet and thus have gained significant weight again. For fasting, I have switched to the AWRV (Western Orthodox) fasting rules as it is easier for my relatives who are Catholic to accommodate. I am hopefully going to be getting a new place to live in the next few months, then it's back to my diet.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 10, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy.

(I am 36 and every time I go over there, I am called "sage elder")
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 10, 2012, 02:01:16 PM
Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy.

(I am 36 and every time I go over there, I am called "sage elder")


What is their rate of Fish consumption?

How much suger is in their diets?

Isnt most of the carbs from Rice?

What is their culural level  of community / group identification?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on May 10, 2012, 04:29:20 PM
Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy. ...
Perhaps you are joking? Because Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 10, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy. ...
Perhaps you are joking? Because Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Irony, my fellow board member!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 10, 2012, 08:34:11 PM
I have known many Japanese. I was in a Japanese organization and had them as house guests literally dozens of times.

The thing that most stood out about what they ate was the absence of sugar. If you fed them American chocolate for example it was waaaay too sweet for them. If they brought chocolate it was not sweet at all. It was rather good after you got used to it.

Rather they go down the salty road. They snack on little dried fish thingies and seaweed wrapped around a lite cracker.

Their fish consumption which equates to omega 3 comsumption is extremely high.

And if you have to pick a grain to eat, rice is probably the least noxious.

They also have a culture that strongly ( insanely) emphasize group identification. This cultural trait greatly adds to life expectancy. People who are isolated and have few community or group connections have life expediencies similar to heavy smokers.  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 14, 2012, 10:06:10 PM
Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 15, 2012, 10:40:59 AM
Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec

(http://i.qkme.me/3papct.jpg)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: vamrat on May 15, 2012, 11:17:28 AM
Diet and exercise, yo.  If you are active and burn more calories that you take in you'll be healthier than if you eat a perfect diet, but take in too much and don't use any of it.

I have been cutting down soda and alcohol consumption.  These are some of the easier calories to cut out if you were using them for hydration.  Water is much healthier and does a better job.  If you are drinking soda for the caffeine, then black coffee will have the same effect.  It doesn't taste as good and some people don't like hot drinks, but it's an acquired taste.  Alcohol is the hard one, if you need the alcohol in it.  I know plenty of people who just can't go on without a bit in their system.  Luckily, this hasn't been a problem for me in years.  (Even then, I wasn't an alcoholic so much as a binge drinker.  I'd go days without any, but when I did feel the need I drank to oblivion.)

Otherwise, my friend is on a diet and it's pretty strict as to what sorts of foods he can eat.  He has to take a battery of supplements to make this healthy.  I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 15, 2012, 12:30:18 PM
Diet and exercise, yo.  If you are active and burn more calories that you take in you'll be healthier than if you eat a perfect diet, but take in too much and don't use any of it.

I have been cutting down soda and alcohol consumption.  These are some of the easier calories to cut out if you were using them for hydration.  Water is much healthier and does a better job.  If you are drinking soda for the caffeine, then black coffee will have the same effect.  It doesn't taste as good and some people don't like hot drinks, but it's an acquired taste.  Alcohol is the hard one, if you need the alcohol in it.  I know plenty of people who just can't go on without a bit in their system.  Luckily, this hasn't been a problem for me in years.  (Even then, I wasn't an alcoholic so much as a binge drinker.  I'd go days without any, but when I did feel the need I drank to oblivion.)

Otherwise, my friend is on a diet and it's pretty strict as to what sorts of foods he can eat.  He has to take a battery of supplements to make this healthy.  I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

You should watch the video I just posted if you have not already. That is exactly the theory he takes apart.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 15, 2012, 01:06:15 PM
I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

But are you actually taking it off, or just loosening it?  ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: vamrat on May 15, 2012, 01:22:04 PM
I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

But are you actually taking it off, or just loosening it?  ;D

Well, see...you have to loosen it before it will come off properly...

Stupid English spelling conventions...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: vamrat on May 15, 2012, 01:22:35 PM
Diet and exercise, yo.  If you are active and burn more calories that you take in you'll be healthier than if you eat a perfect diet, but take in too much and don't use any of it.

I have been cutting down soda and alcohol consumption.  These are some of the easier calories to cut out if you were using them for hydration.  Water is much healthier and does a better job.  If you are drinking soda for the caffeine, then black coffee will have the same effect.  It doesn't taste as good and some people don't like hot drinks, but it's an acquired taste.  Alcohol is the hard one, if you need the alcohol in it.  I know plenty of people who just can't go on without a bit in their system.  Luckily, this hasn't been a problem for me in years.  (Even then, I wasn't an alcoholic so much as a binge drinker.  I'd go days without any, but when I did feel the need I drank to oblivion.)

Otherwise, my friend is on a diet and it's pretty strict as to what sorts of foods he can eat.  He has to take a battery of supplements to make this healthy.  I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

You should watch the video I just posted if you have not already. That is exactly the theory he takes apart.

Not yet.  I will try this evening, and would be interested to see how he does it.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Νεκτάριος on May 16, 2012, 04:04:42 AM
Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec

Or you could get the same information in about five minutes here (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm). 

To me it seems like the fundamental problem remains in this fad diet - you can still overindulge, you just have to find the right thing to overindulge on. 

Sure, a high-fat diet that completely avoids carbs might be better than a diet that is filled with sugar, soda and the like.  On the other hand there seems to be little comparison with a diet that avoids overindulgence in anything but is rich in brown rice, rye (rather than white wheat flour) and vegetables.  The other inconvenient information glossed over is that in order to eat healthfully one must make their own food.  That's the only way to not load sugar into your food, goofy amounts of salt etc. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JamesR on May 16, 2012, 04:34:14 AM
Not sure about what it is like for you fellows in eastern Europe, but in America I think that our biggest epidemic in terms of diet and nutrition is the fastfood industry. Go to any small to mid-sized town in the United States and I can guarantee that there will be at least one McDonalds, Burger King or Taco Bell fastfood restaurant; in fact, on many occasions there are multiple fastfood chains in a single town. It only grows worse the larger the city gets. Now visit a major city in the United States like LA, San Francisco or New York City and you will literally see a McDonalds on every two blocks bursting with hungry customers. Fastfood in moderation probably will not hurt anyone, and at many times can be a great treat,  but I think the issue is that Americans, including myself at times, eat it excessively to save time and make our day easier. If there is one thing that distinguishes Americans from the rest of the world it is the fact that we are always looking for some technological innovation or 'trick' to save us personal effort and get something done in the easiest way possible--and fastfood is no exception to this. We eat it almost everyday because we would rather risk our health and waste away our money on something conveniently prepared for us with our busy schedule rather than exert more effort and take the extra time to prepare something healthier and home-cooked for ourselves.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Νεκτάριος on May 16, 2012, 04:49:50 AM
McDonald's is midrange here so it is a bit too expensive for everyday food.   It is handy when I'm on the road since there is always one by train stations.  They all have free and fast wifi.   A few Big Macs per year isn't going to kill a person.  I don't understand the point unless I'm traveling since I could make a gourmet hamburger for less than the price of a Big Mac. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 16, 2012, 09:25:09 AM
I don't think the main topic of his lecture is about the value of a low carb diet. That came at the end and is indeed the conclusion he reaches. But I think he was trying to address the idea of fat being primarily caused by "Over indulgence" based on a theory many now consider to be false. That is 1. a calorie is a calorie is a calorie  and 2.False applicationof the 1st law of thermodynamics, you must expend more energy (calories) than you take in or else it is stored (as fat).  

Let me try to give his ideas about number 2 first.

Mr. Taubes has a degree in Physics from Harvard and before he turned to the science of nutrition he wrote about bad science in Physics. His most famous paper was about "Cold Fusion"

Someone said to him that if he is bothered by bad science in Physics, he ought to take a look at Public Health/Nutrition where bad science abounds. He did and now he is a leading journalist writing about Nutrition and Public health ( obesity epidemic etc.). His books include "Why we get fat" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

In a funny aside he recalls an encounter with Jillian Michaels one of the trainers from "Biggest Loser" when they were both guests on Larry King. Apparently she lectured him on the first law of thermodynamics ( energy in should balance by energy out or else it gets stored..etc.) not realizing that he is a trained Physicist.

It's better to watch the youtube I provided but here is a summary of how I understood his point:

There are laws of physics that are always True. But applying them to nutrition, while still being "True" tells us absolutely nothing about why people get fat. It tells us nothing about the source or cause of the problem.

He then gives an example using the audience he is addressing.

We can say that this room is crowed. We can then say it is crowded because more people came into the room then left the room. That is an absolutely True statement. However, it tells us nothing at all about why people came into the room.

Maybe there was a fire in another room so people came into this one. Maybe there was a bad smell so people came in here or maybe there was a compelling lecture being given. Why people came into the room is really what we need to know, not the physics.

He then talks about the false idea that all calories are the same. He cites multiple examples of people who live in scarcity becoming obese. Impoverished women who become obese while their children are emaciated for example.

Some of that is genetic predisposition and some is how and where fat is deposited on the body. But his conclusion ( after citing multiple examples) is that insulin drives fat storage and absence of insulin allows it's release. High Carb diets where long thought to be fattening. He speaks about the work of German Scientists before the War who had far different theories about how the body uses calories in relation to exercise and how it is stored. Their work was lost due to the War. The USA loved the German Physicists who could make A-bombs for us but the rest of the German scientific community lost standing.

The bottom line is that high carb intake including sugar is what drives fat, not lack of will power to balance your activity level with your caloric intake ( eat less, exercise more) as the best strategy to lose weight.  Adkins was right.

  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 16, 2012, 10:54:13 AM
There are laws of physics that are always True. But applying them to nutrition, while still being "True" tells us absolutely nothing about why people get fat. It tells us nothing about the source or cause of the problem.

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".

Quote
We can say that this room is crowed. We can then say it is crowded because more people came into the room then left the room. That is an absolutely True statement. However, it tells us nothing at all about why people came into the room.

Maybe there was a fire in another room so people came into this one. Maybe there was a bad smell so people came in here or maybe there was a compelling lecture being given. Why people came into the room is really what we need to know, not the physics.

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.

Quote
The bottom line is that high carb intake including sugar is what drives fat, not lack of will power to balance your activity level with your caloric intake ( eat less, exercise more) as the best strategy to lose weight.  Adkins was right.

People in concentration camps ate nothing but pure carbohydrate gruel. That must be why they were so fat when liberated. (very clever, those Nazis, making prisoners too fat to make effective escape attempts)

Here is a paltry physics question for you: I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 16, 2012, 11:28:08 AM
There are laws of physics that are always True. But applying them to nutrition, while still being "True" tells us absolutely nothing about why people get fat. It tells us nothing about the source or cause of the problem.

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".

Quote
We can say that this room is crowed. We can then say it is crowded because more people came into the room then left the room. That is an absolutely True statement. However, it tells us nothing at all about why people came into the room.

Maybe there was a fire in another room so people came into this one. Maybe there was a bad smell so people came in here or maybe there was a compelling lecture being given. Why people came into the room is really what we need to know, not the physics.

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.

Quote
The bottom line is that high carb intake including sugar is what drives fat, not lack of will power to balance your activity level with your caloric intake ( eat less, exercise more) as the best strategy to lose weight.  Adkins was right.

People in concentration camps ate nothing but pure carbohydrate gruel. That must be why they were so fat when liberated. (very clever, those Nazis, making prisoners too fat to make effective escape attempts)

Here is a paltry physics question for you: I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?


They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

People in concentration camps ate nothing but pure carbohydrate gruel. That must be why they were so fat when liberated. (very clever, those Nazis, making prisoners too fat to make effective escape attempts)


Starvation or near starvation will cause you to lose weight. The point is that it is not an effective strategy in daily life.
Carbs are not poison. They are quickly converted to sugar and used for quick energy. They are an emergency food. A diet high in carbs in normal circumstances will make you fat. In a starvation setting, like in a concentration camp, a bit more fat on your body is a good thing I would think
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 16, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

I agree to nothing of the kind. And, until you can solve the platry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics. I will repeat it now:

I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?

Quote
Starvation or near starvation will cause you to lose weight. The point is that it is not an effective strategy in daily life.
Carbs are not poison. They are quickly converted to sugar and used for quick energy. They are an emergency food. A diet high in carbs in normal circumstances will make you fat. In a starvation setting, like in a concentration camp, a bit more fat on your body is a good thing I would think

Why does starvation cause weight loss if "energy in, energy out" is wrong?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 16, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

I agree to nothing of the kind.
Actually, you did agree with Marc.

And, until you can solve the platry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.
There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 16, 2012, 01:21:49 PM
ctually, you did agree with Marc.

Actually, I didn't. It is impolite to take part in a discussion if you can't keep up.

Quote
And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.
There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one. I could be wrong, but I can't recall an instance in the Bible, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, or yiayia theology where anyone was ever praised for stating an opinion on matters where he lacked even the most basic knowledge. In this case, Marc is talking about the laws of thermodynamics. That's fine, but first he has to establish that he is qualified to do so. To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.

Like I said, I think this is pretty simply and obvious, but let me know if you still don't get it.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 16, 2012, 08:56:41 PM
They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

I agree to nothing of the kind. And, until you can solve the platry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics. I will repeat it now:

I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?

Quote
Starvation or near starvation will cause you to lose weight. The point is that it is not an effective strategy in daily life.
Carbs are not poison. They are quickly converted to sugar and used for quick energy. They are an emergency food. A diet high in carbs in normal circumstances will make you fat. In a starvation setting, like in a concentration camp, a bit more fat on your body is a good thing I would think

Why does starvation cause weight loss if "energy in, energy out" is wrong?


And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..


Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 16, 2012, 09:18:40 PM
And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

I'm on a mission from God.

Quote
FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..

Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.


Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Aindriú on May 16, 2012, 10:50:16 PM
Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Chill out, Sauron.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 16, 2012, 11:10:55 PM
If I hadn't switched majors I'd be working as a dietetic technician by now. Then I'd probably have to hear these arguments every day*. For once I made a good choice.  8)



*I still hear arguments every day on youtube, but those are usually pretty funny, something like:
Person 1: You don't listen to what the scientific literature says! You're following broscience!
Person 2: You're fat! I have years of experience! I don't need science!
Person 1: I'm bulking! Stop reading Flex magazine and look at the journal articles!
Person 2: 35% bodyfat ain't bulking broseph! Besides, both the studies you mention were done on rats. Fail!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 16, 2012, 11:11:13 PM
Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Chill out, Sauron.

Chilling out has nothing to do with the fact that one should not speak upon subjects where one lacks familiarity with even the fundamentals.

To use an analogy that might help, imagine being told by someone that orthodox theology is all wrong. The person saying this, however, is unfamiliar with terms such as "incarnation" and "apostolic succession".
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 16, 2012, 11:12:32 PM
If I hadn't switched majors I'd be working as a dietetic technician by now. Then I'd probably have to hear these arguments every day*. For once I made a good choice.  8)



*I still hear arguments every day on youtube, but those are usually pretty funny, something like:
Person 1: You don't listen to what the scientific literature says! You're following broscience!
Person 2: You're fat! I have years of experience! I don't need science!
Person 1: I'm bulking! Stop reading Flex magazine and look at the journal articles!
Person 2: 35% bodyfat ain't bulking broseph! Besides, both the studies you mention were done on rats. Fail!

I barely have time to post on the interest because I am too busy with eight meals a day or my muscles will fall off. That 3:30 am feeding is key, brah.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: akimori makoto on May 16, 2012, 11:15:01 PM
If I hadn't switched majors I'd be working as a dietetic technician by now. Then I'd probably have to hear these arguments every day*. For once I made a good choice.  8)



*I still hear arguments every day on youtube, but those are usually pretty funny, something like:
Person 1: You don't listen to what the scientific literature says! You're following broscience!
Person 2: You're fat! I have years of experience! I don't need science!
Person 1: I'm bulking! Stop reading Flex magazine and look at the journal articles!
Person 2: 35% bodyfat ain't bulking broseph! Besides, both the studies you mention were done on rats. Fail!

That was awesome.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on May 16, 2012, 11:19:42 PM
Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec
BTW, doesn't Gary Taubes say that grain fed meat is not a problem and that we don't have to go to grass fed meat? I thought that eating  grain-fed  meat could  give you heart disease and cancer.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 17, 2012, 12:23:48 AM
ctually, you did agree with Marc.

Actually, I didn't. It is impolite to take part in a discussion if you can't keep up.
Actually, I am keeping up. ;D

And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.
There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.
But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.
No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

I could be wrong, but I can't recall an instance in the Bible, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, or yiayia theology where anyone was ever praised for stating an opinion on matters where he lacked even the most basic knowledge. In this case, Marc is talking about the laws of thermodynamics. That's fine, but first he has to establish that he is qualified to do so.
No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.
You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Like I said, I think this is pretty simply and obvious, but let me know if you still don't get it.
Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 17, 2012, 12:25:13 AM
And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

I'm on a mission from God.
Yup. We can tell you think so. ::)

Quote
FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..

Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.


Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.
I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about on the subject of diet and nutrition. So why are you still here?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 17, 2012, 09:28:39 AM
And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.
There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.
But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

It is not "bullying" to demand that someone establish qualifications before speaking on a subject. If you cannot wrap your brain around this rather simple concept, I do not know what can be done for you.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.
No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

Yes, he does. No one has any right to an uninformed opinion. However, I do appreciate your admission that when it comes to discussing thermodynamics, your internet client is an unarmed man.

No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

Yes, he does, and the thermodynamics talk is rather essential to his argument.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.
You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Actually, I am the only one making a big deal of the fact that when it comes to thermodynamics and energy balance, Marc is an "unarmed man". I am glad you admit that. Case closed!

Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.

And I am giving a very good reason why Marc's opinion on this subject should not be taken seriously.

You admit that your client is an intellectually unarmed man in this topic. Care to explain why such a man's opinion matters?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 17, 2012, 09:29:16 AM
I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about on the subject of diet and nutrition. So why are you still here?

You have shown nothing of the kind. Keep megadosing that vitamin C!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 17, 2012, 09:55:41 AM
And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.
There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.
But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

It is not "bullying" to demand that someone establish qualifications before speaking on a subject. If you cannot wrap your brain around this rather simple concept, I do not know what can be done for you.
Please don't forgive me for refusing to embrace your definitions of words.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.
No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

Yes, he does. No one has any right to an uninformed opinion.
Actually, yes he does have the right to an uninformed opinion. If he's wrong, then correct him; your audience can actually stand to benefit from receiving the correct information on the subject. If you spend all your time, though, trying to shut down your opponent because you think him ignorant and unqualified to speak, then who benefits? You're not sharing any facts that can improve our understanding.

However, I do appreciate your admission that when it comes to discussing thermodynamics, your internet client is an unarmed man.
I said no such thing specifically about Marc.

No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

Yes, he does, and the thermodynamics talk is rather essential to his argument.
Actually not. If you want to read his arguments in a way that disagrees with my reading, that's fine. You have the right to do that, but you also have the right to be wrong.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.
You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Actually, I am the only one making a big deal of the fact that when it comes to thermodynamics and energy balance, Marc is an "unarmed man". I am glad you admit that. Case closed!
But you have no case, so how can you close it?

Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.

And I am giving a very good reason why Marc's opinion on this subject should not be taken seriously.
Okay. That's a legitimate pursuit if you wish to do that (not to pass any judgment yea or nay on Marc's opinion, since I really don't care). Just don't tell him to shut up, because I will defend his right to say anything he wants, as long as he stays within the rules of this forum.

You admit that your client is an intellectually unarmed man in this topic. Care to explain why such a man's opinion matters?
Well, for one thing, I never called Marc an unarmed man, and if you think I said that, then you have misunderstood my "unarmed man" comment and failed to recognize that I offered it only as general advice. So let me expand my comment. If you see a man you think is intellectually unarmed, you don't have to engage him in an argument. You can just walk away and allow him the freedom to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 17, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
It is not "bullying" to demand that someone establish qualifications before speaking on a subject. If you cannot wrap your brain around this rather simple concept, I do not know what can be done for you.
Please don't forgive me for refusing to embrace your definitions of words.

I am merely a native speaker of English.

Actually, yes he does have the right to an uninformed opinion. If he's wrong, then correct him; your audience can actually stand to benefit from receiving the correct information on the subject. If you spend all your time, though, trying to shut down your opponent because you think him ignorant and unqualified to speak, then who benefits? You're not sharing any facts that can improve our understanding.

Actually, no one has that right. Beyond that, it is the height of arrogance to speak upon matters where one has no knowledge.

However, I do appreciate your admission that when it comes to discussing thermodynamics, your internet client is an unarmed man.
I said no such thing specifically about Marc.

But you did. Oops!

Actually not. If you want to read his arguments in a way that disagrees with my reading, that's fine. You have the right to do that, but you also have the right to be wrong.

I simply read his arguments as a native speaker of English.

But you have no case, so how can you close it?

Oh burn!

And I am giving a very good reason why Marc's opinion on this subject should not be taken seriously.
Okay. That's a legitimate pursuit if you wish to do that (not to pass any judgment yea or nay on Marc's opinion, since I really don't care). Just don't tell him to shut up, because I will defend his right to say anything he wants, as long as he stays within the rules of this forum.

Who cares what you will defend?

Well, for one thing, I never called Marc an unarmed man, and if you think I said that, then you have misunderstood my "unarmed man" comment and failed to recognize that I offered it only as general advice. So let me expand my comment. If you see a man you think is intellectually unarmed, you don't have to engage him in an argument. You can just walk away and allow him the freedom to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say.

If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.

And, my response to your expanded comment remains the same. The reason is that it is very dangerous to allow untruth to be spoken.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 17, 2012, 11:11:24 AM
And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

I'm on a mission from God.

Quote
FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..

Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.


Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.





I am not claiming any special knowledge, far from it. I posted a lecture from a Journalist who has a degree in Physics from Harvard. You must have read through that part.

I would think you would like Gary Taubes. His special interest is exposing "Bad Science". You may enjoy reading his books or listening to him on a Youtube. That would be better time spent than trying to pick fights over nothing. IMHO
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 17, 2012, 11:23:25 AM
And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.
There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.
But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

It is not "bullying" to demand that someone establish qualifications before speaking on a subject. If you cannot wrap your brain around this rather simple concept, I do not know what can be done for you.
Please don't forgive me for refusing to embrace your definitions of words.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.
No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

Yes, he does. No one has any right to an uninformed opinion.
Actually, yes he does have the right to an uninformed opinion. If he's wrong, then correct him; your audience can actually stand to benefit from receiving the correct information on the subject. If you spend all your time, though, trying to shut down your opponent because you think him ignorant and unqualified to speak, then who benefits? You're not sharing any facts that can improve our understanding.

However, I do appreciate your admission that when it comes to discussing thermodynamics, your internet client is an unarmed man.
I said no such thing specifically about Marc.

No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

Yes, he does, and the thermodynamics talk is rather essential to his argument.
Actually not. If you want to read his arguments in a way that disagrees with my reading, that's fine. You have the right to do that, but you also have the right to be wrong.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.
You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Actually, I am the only one making a big deal of the fact that when it comes to thermodynamics and energy balance, Marc is an "unarmed man". I am glad you admit that. Case closed!
But you have no case, so how can you close it?

Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.

And I am giving a very good reason why Marc's opinion on this subject should not be taken seriously.
Okay. That's a legitimate pursuit if you wish to do that (not to pass any judgment yea or nay on Marc's opinion, since I really don't care). Just don't tell him to shut up, because I will defend his right to say anything he wants, as long as he stays within the rules of this forum.

You admit that your client is an intellectually unarmed man in this topic. Care to explain why such a man's opinion matters?
Well, for one thing, I never called Marc an unarmed man, and if you think I said that, then you have misunderstood my "unarmed man" comment and failed to recognize that I offered it only as general advice. So let me expand my comment. If you see a man you think is intellectually unarmed, you don't have to engage him in an argument. You can just walk away and allow him the freedom to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say.


Actually, yes he does have the right to an uninformed opinion

Ummm..Point of personal privilege..

I was not expressing my own opinion. I was trying to summarize what Gary Taubes said in his lecture. Mr. Taubes is a well credentialed Physicist.
That lecture is over an hour long so I thought I would give a summery for those who didnt have a hour and ten minutes to invest.. No good deed goes unpunished apparently.

So the only thing I could have been guilty of is not repeating his points correctly. Just for the record  :)

Does Sauron have a degree in Physics like Gary Taubes does? Or any field of Science? My understanding is that he has a Law Degree.

My wife had a J.D. We would talk about the future of our kids and I would sometimes mention Law School. She said that Law School can ruin your personality. They make you over into someone overly aggressive, nit picky and always ready to throw down a glove. She didnt want that for her kids. Sounds insightful in this case.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 17, 2012, 12:16:32 PM
Actually, yes he does have the right to an uninformed opinion

Ummm..Point of personal privilege..

I was not expressing my own opinion. I was trying to summarize what Gary Taubes said in his lecture. Mr. Taubes is a well credentialed Physicist.
That lecture is over an hour long so I thought I would give a summery for those who didnt have a hour and ten minutes to invest.. No good deed goes unpunished apparently.

So the only thing I could have been guilty of is not repeating his points correctly. Just for the record  :)
For the record, I didn't mean to imply that you were voicing an uninformed opinion. ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 17, 2012, 12:26:28 PM
I was not expressing my own opinion. I was trying to summarize what Gary Taubes said in his lecture. Mr. Taubes is a well credentialed Physicist.
That lecture is over an hour long so I thought I would give a summery for those who didnt have a hour and ten minutes to invest.. No good deed goes unpunished apparently.

So the only thing I could have been guilty of is not repeating his points correctly. Just for the record  :)

Does Sauron have a degree in Physics like Gary Taubes does? Or any field of Science? My understanding is that he has a Law Degree.

Yes, I do have a law degree. I unfortunately did not double-major in physics as an undergraduate, although I did enter college having already passed college physics. His folksy analogy about people in an auditorium was simply wrong.

The point is you lack the foundation to critically evaluate his writings and therefore will believe whatever "sounds good" to you.

Quote
My wife had a J.D. We would talk about the future of our kids and I would sometimes mention Law School. She said that Law School can ruin your personality.

Maybe that's why she chose you?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 17, 2012, 12:37:18 PM
And, my response to your expanded comment remains the same. The reason is that it is very dangerous to allow untruth to be spoken.
If Marc (or anyone) is speaking untruth, there are three things you can do:

1. Challenge him to prove himself right.
2. Prove him wrong.
3. Ask questions to elicit more information.
   
If you're unwilling to do any of the above, then I advise you to just turn around, walk away, and leave him alone.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 17, 2012, 12:56:31 PM
And, my response to your expanded comment remains the same. The reason is that it is very dangerous to allow untruth to be spoken.
If Marc (or anyone) is speaking untruth, there are three things you can do:

1. Challenge him to prove himself right.
2. Prove him wrong.
3. Ask questions to elicit more information.
   
If you're unwilling to do any of the above, then I advise you to just turn around, walk away, and leave him alone.


That is what I have been doing but you have been too busy playing e-Perry Mason to notice.

Allow me to summarize briefly, using your three steps above:

1. Marc, explain why dU=δQ+δW doesn't apply. Show your work.
2. Marc, dU=δQ+δW proves you wrong.
3. Marc, can you understand dU=δQ+δW?

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 17, 2012, 04:19:13 PM
I was not expressing my own opinion. I was trying to summarize what Gary Taubes said in his lecture. Mr. Taubes is a well credentialed Physicist.
That lecture is over an hour long so I thought I would give a summery for those who didnt have a hour and ten minutes to invest.. No good deed goes unpunished apparently.

So the only thing I could have been guilty of is not repeating his points correctly. Just for the record  :)

Does Sauron have a degree in Physics like Gary Taubes does? Or any field of Science? My understanding is that he has a Law Degree.

Yes, I do have a law degree. I unfortunately did not double-major in physics as an undergraduate, although I did enter college having already passed college physics. His folksy analogy about people in an auditorium was simply wrong.

The point is you lack the foundation to critically evaluate his writings and therefore will believe whatever "sounds good" to you.

Quote
My wife had a J.D. We would talk about the future of our kids and I would sometimes mention Law School. She said that Law School can ruin your personality.

Maybe that's why she chose you?


So you have High School physics with an AP course and he has a degree in Physics from Harvard.. Got it.. As long as we are all clear.

Plus, you just take pot shots. You ddint seem to read/view the material and what you did read, as I pointed out , you agreed with but you are so hot to fight you didn't even notice...  

I dont think you are critically analyzing anything. I think you get off on fighting.  

  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 17, 2012, 04:29:05 PM
And, my response to your expanded comment remains the same. The reason is that it is very dangerous to allow untruth to be spoken.
If Marc (or anyone) is speaking untruth, there are three things you can do:

1. Challenge him to prove himself right.
2. Prove him wrong.
3. Ask questions to elicit more information.
   
If you're unwilling to do any of the above, then I advise you to just turn around, walk away, and leave him alone.


That is what I have been doing but you have been too busy playing e-Perry Mason to notice.

Allow me to summarize briefly, using your three steps above:

1. Marc, explain why dU=δQ+δW doesn't apply. Show your work.
2. Marc, dU=δQ+δW proves you wrong.
3. Marc, can you understand dU=δQ+δW?



1. Marc, explain why dU=δQ+δW doesn't apply. Show your work.

Buzzt..That is not what was said.. Did you take reading comprehension in High School?

3rd time:

The first Law of Thermodynamics is always True. But when used to justify  a specific Dietary Practice ( eat less, exercise more) it turns out to be a very weak strategy.  He cites multiple example of why this strategy fails people. Maybe you should actually watch the youtube before commenting so aggressively that it's false.

As both you and Taubes  mentioned ( you didnt notice your agreement with him) there is no information about WHY fat is retained or released...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 17, 2012, 04:37:28 PM
And, my response to your expanded comment remains the same. The reason is that it is very dangerous to allow untruth to be spoken.
If Marc (or anyone) is speaking untruth, there are three things you can do:

1. Challenge him to prove himself right.
2. Prove him wrong.
3. Ask questions to elicit more information.
   
If you're unwilling to do any of the above, then I advise you to just turn around, walk away, and leave him alone.


That is what I have been doing but you have been too busy playing e-Perry Mason to notice.
If you're walking away, why aren't you gone yet?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Schultz on May 17, 2012, 04:44:47 PM
If this were a party, the rest of the partygoers would be in the corners of the room, speaking quietly amongst themselves while staring, pointing, and wondering who the hell invited you people.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 17, 2012, 05:23:12 PM
The first Law of Thermodynamics is always True. But when used to justify  a specific Dietary Practice ( eat less, exercise more) it turns out to be a very weak strategy.  He cites multiple example of why this strategy fails people. Maybe you should actually watch the youtube before commenting so aggressively that it's false.

Really? He cites how the human body alone, of all systems in the universe, can create energy? He should publish his findings immediately so he can win the Nobel Prize in physics and go down in history as one of the greatest scientists of all time.



Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 17, 2012, 10:50:22 PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American science writer.

He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993), and Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), titled The Diet Delusion (2008) in the UK and Australia. His book Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It was released in December 2010. In December 2010 Taubes launched his own blog at GaryTaubes.com to promote the book's release and to respond to critics.

Born in Rochester, New York, Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard University and aerospace engineering at Stanford University (MS, 1978). After receiving a master's degree in journalism at Columbia University in 1981, Taubes joined Discover magazine as a staff reporter in 1982. Since then he has written numerous articles for Discover, Science and other magazines. Originally focusing on physics issues, his interests have more recently turned to medicine and nutrition.

Taubes's books have all dealt with scientific controversies. Nobel Dreams takes a critical look at the politics and experimental techniques behind the Nobel Prize-winning work of physicist Carlo Rubbia. Bad Science is a chronicle of the short-lived media frenzy surrounding the Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion experiments of 1989.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 18, 2012, 10:21:32 AM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American science writer.

He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993), and Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), titled The Diet Delusion (2008) in the UK and Australia. His book Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It was released in December 2010. In December 2010 Taubes launched his own blog at GaryTaubes.com to promote the book's release and to respond to critics.

Born in Rochester, New York, Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard University and aerospace engineering at Stanford University (MS, 1978). After receiving a master's degree in journalism at Columbia University in 1981, Taubes joined Discover magazine as a staff reporter in 1982. Since then he has written numerous articles for Discover, Science and other magazines. Originally focusing on physics issues, his interests have more recently turned to medicine and nutrition.

Taubes's books have all dealt with scientific controversies. Nobel Dreams takes a critical look at the politics and experimental techniques behind the Nobel Prize-winning work of physicist Carlo Rubbia. Bad Science is a chronicle of the short-lived media frenzy surrounding the Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion experiments of 1989.

I am not sure what the purpose of your post is.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 18, 2012, 10:44:18 AM
I got his book last night "Why we get fat and what to do about it"

Btw..Kindle is great. Push a button or two and FLASH you have the book you want instantly. And cheap too. This book cost me just $7.99 and I see his longer edition ( 500 pages) was under $11.00

I think Sauron would like this guy if only for the fact that he published two books on the same subject. "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is the 500 page tome written for those who can navigate around specialized Scientific Jargon and long proofs.

But for the rest of us fools he recognized that we would shy away from an investment of our time that the first book requires. He was urged by Doctors and researchers to produce a layman's version that they could give to their patients and non-scientist friends etc. hence the book "Why we get fat"  

His case boils down to this: For the last fifty years or so obesity has been explained by an imbalance of energy. Too many calories in and not enough going out. "Calories in Calories out". This has led to a weak dietary strategy which says you must try to balance your calories between what you take in and what you expend. If you want to lose weight you restrict calories going in and/or increase calories going out via exercise..... The base assumption is that all Calories are the same. "A Calorie is a Calorie is a Calorie"  

Concurrently, obesity is now at  epidemic proportions and with the global spread of the standard American Diet a pandemic. With Obesity comes diabetes, heart disease, cancer and dementia.

Taubes believes that the better analysis of Obesity and diet came from European Scientists prior to World War Two. As you can imagine their work was lost due to the War and German Scientists ( with the exception of Physicists) were discredited.

Rather than describing obesity as an energy imbalance they made a painfully simple observation. "Obesity is when there is the presence of too much fat in the body".........Well Duh ?

Now we can ask, what causes the body to retain too much fat? Finally the WHY question can be asked. The answer seems to not to be an energy imbalance so much as a hormonal imbalance. Insulin is the main culprit.

It was commonly understood up through the 1960's that high carb foods make you fat. Bread , Pasta, Sweets and Beer for example.  But the medical establishment changed their recommendations for diet to "Low Fat, High Carb" ( whole grains these days).   Obesity became an epidemic.

 In short; Carbs drive insulin. Insulin drives fat. Control your consumption of Carbohydrates and your insulin level will return to normal. You will feel better and excess weight will drop off.

If you wish to slog through all the Science and all the evidence get "Good Calories Bad Calories". If you prefer the short version, get "Why we get fat" He also has numerous lectures posted on You Tube and several shorter articles like "What if it's all been a big fat lie".
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 18, 2012, 10:57:30 AM
Monks are all really fat because of their high carbohydrate, vegetarian diet based around non-paleo foods. True story.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 18, 2012, 11:06:10 AM
Monks are all really fat because of their high carbohydrate, vegetarian diet based around non-paleo foods. True story.

Have you seen a picture of or ever been with +Met Jonah or +Met Hilarion ?. ( with apologies, I love both of them)

Go watch the 60 minutes story on Mt. Athos. It appears to me that the younger monks are thin and the older ones have become too heavy.

Nice try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWzyvBzBpPA&feature=related

Good lecture too.

+Met Hilarion has undergone multiple knee surgeries due to his overweight:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxNews/message/16105
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 18, 2012, 12:11:42 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

They also dont eat any sugar or highly refined foods at all. No cup cakes, candy or sweet hamburger rolls. They do eat Peas, Beans and Lentils, lots of Vegetables and as their main source of Protein they eat fish. They also eat bread and drink wine.

Nearly all vegetables are grown in local gardens. All fish are freshly caught. None of the bread is sweetened up with high fructose corn syrup. No margarine.

The very fresh fish they eat ensures that have high levels of Omega 3 fat. Their carbs come mostly from vegetables that are locally grown so they have not wasted away their nutrients on shelves and in trucks.

Not a particularly bad diet. Too may Carbs from the bread and starches but this is offset by near starvation calorie restriction that few of us could ever hope to emulate..It is a WEAK strategy for the public. And still many Monks appear to get chubby as they age.

Now let's look at Monks in the World, our Bishops, who simply eat a high carb sugary diet as it is given to them. Many of them are obese and have health problems. And it's not due to sloth. Bishops and Mets live a very active and busy life as we all know. it's the crappy high carb diet that is hurting them. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 18, 2012, 12:28:59 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

If you must know, I water-fast two days each week. Today is one of them. I have also done extended PSMFs with similar caloric intake.

Try again?

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 18, 2012, 12:45:12 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

If you must know, I water-fast two days each week. Today is one of them. I have also done extended PSMFs with similar caloric intake.

Try again?



No argument from me. Near starvation caloric restriction will have an effect on weight. It has also been shown that sever caloric intake restriction may extend life expediency.  So what's your point? Is sever calorie restriction the solution to the Obesity epidemic? Are you really suggesting that the general public be told to go on a two day water only fast each week... Are you?

Better solution: Eat more fat, less carbs.

Questions?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 18, 2012, 01:05:15 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

If you must know, I water-fast two days each week. Today is one of them. I have also done extended PSMFs with similar caloric intake.

Try again?



No argument from me. Near starvation caloric restriction will have an effect on weight. It has also been shown that sever caloric intake restriction may extend life expediency.  So what's your point? Is sever calorie restriction the solution to the Obesity epidemic? Are you really suggesting that the general public be told to go on a two day water only fast each week... Are you?

Better solution: Eat more fat, less carbs.

Questions?

My point was to respond to your wisecrack of "Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you."

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 18, 2012, 02:05:56 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

If you must know, I water-fast two days each week. Today is one of them. I have also done extended PSMFs with similar caloric intake.

Try again?



No argument from me. Near starvation caloric restriction will have an effect on weight. It has also been shown that sever caloric intake restriction may extend life expediency.  So what's your point? Is sever calorie restriction the solution to the Obesity epidemic? Are you really suggesting that the general public be told to go on a two day water only fast each week... Are you?

Better solution: Eat more fat, less carbs.

Questions?

My point was to respond to your wisecrack of "Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you."



Sauron, Marc believes in magic. Let it go.

Every fast, I must in virtue of food choice and amount of food consumed reduce my caloric intake. For the longer fasts, I lose about 18-20 pounds.

I've spent a lot of my life having to gain or lose weight for sport and have helped others gain or lose weight.

Eating more or fewer calories, whether much more or fewer or slightly more or fewer always works.

ALWAYS*.

I don't need any scientific studies to prove this to anyone. Neither does anyone with that sorta background.

Macronutrient ratios will impact performance in certain activities and perhaps body comp or "health" or MIGHT allow people with pathological eating patterns more easily eat fewer calories. But again, most Americans get lost in this minutiae and forget their primary goal: weigh less. Which means eat less. You can forget the exercise.

*Folks with certain hormonal problems will probably have to have medical assistance in adjusting their weight under certain circumstances.

 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 18, 2012, 07:17:36 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

If you must know, I water-fast two days each week. Today is one of them. I have also done extended PSMFs with similar caloric intake.

Try again?



No argument from me. Near starvation caloric restriction will have an effect on weight. It has also been shown that sever caloric intake restriction may extend life expediency.  So what's your point? Is sever calorie restriction the solution to the Obesity epidemic? Are you really suggesting that the general public be told to go on a two day water only fast each week... Are you?

Better solution: Eat more fat, less carbs.

Questions?

My point was to respond to your wisecrack of "Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you."



Clearly, it makes you very cranky
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 18, 2012, 07:23:28 PM
Macronutrient ratios will impact performance in certain activities and perhaps body comp or "health" or MIGHT allow people with pathological eating patterns more easily eat fewer calories. But again, most Americans get lost in this minutiae and forget their primary goal: weigh less. Which means eat less. You can forget the exercise.

I agree with the smaller portions, but what stuck out to me is you say forget excercise. Are you saying that metabolism, or if you even believe that, would just take over in weight reduction by the loss in calories?

I hope you are not diminishing the value of excercising here, which is very good for you. Not only is it good for you but it's so easy to do.

But let's say you are on a 3000 calorie diet and transition to a 1200 calorie diet overnight. The body wouldn't lose so much of the weight because it would think its starving no?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 18, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
I think what monks eat is interesting.

Let's take the monks on Athos for example. By in large they eat one time per day. As they get older or have manual labor duties they may eat a second meal. In other words, they severely restrict calories and under a highly controlled setting ( no snacking).

No one said sever calorie restriction wont cause weight loss, it is just a very weak, nearly impossible strategy for the general public. Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you.

If you must know, I water-fast two days each week. Today is one of them. I have also done extended PSMFs with similar caloric intake.

Try again?



No argument from me. Near starvation caloric restriction will have an effect on weight. It has also been shown that sever caloric intake restriction may extend life expediency.  So what's your point? Is sever calorie restriction the solution to the Obesity epidemic? Are you really suggesting that the general public be told to go on a two day water only fast each week... Are you?

Better solution: Eat more fat, less carbs.

Questions?

My point was to respond to your wisecrack of "Go ahead and try eating 600 calories once per day and let me know how it goes for you."



Sauron, Marc believes in magic. Let it go.

Every fast, I must in virtue of food choice and amount of food consumed reduce my caloric intake. For the longer fasts, I lose about 18-20 pounds.

I've spent a lot of my life having to gain or lose weight for sport and have helped others gain or lose weight.

Eating more or fewer calories, whether much more or fewer or slightly more or fewer always works.

ALWAYS*.

I don't need any scientific studies to prove this to anyone. Neither does anyone with that sorta background.

Macronutrient ratios will impact performance in certain activities and perhaps body comp or "health" or MIGHT allow people with pathological eating patterns more easily eat fewer calories. But again, most Americans get lost in this minutiae and forget their primary goal: weigh less. Which means eat less. You can forget the exercise.

*Folks with certain hormonal problems will probably have to have medical assistance in adjusting their weight under certain circumstances.

 

or the longer fasts, I lose about 18-20 pounds.


and then you gain it back, right? Or are you saying you lose 18-20 lbs every long fast and now you weigh 45 lbs? :)

Once again, there may be smarter easier strategies that will have permanent solutions for people not willing to consume just water two days per week. Call me crazy.

I think people are looking at the epidemic of Obesity and trying to figure out what has gone wrong the past few decades..
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 18, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
Macronutrient ratios will impact performance in certain activities and perhaps body comp or "health" or MIGHT allow people with pathological eating patterns more easily eat fewer calories. But again, most Americans get lost in this minutiae and forget their primary goal: weigh less. Which means eat less. You can forget the exercise.

I agree with the smaller portions, but what stuck out to me is you say forget excercise. Are you saying that metabolism, or if you even believe that, would just take over in weight reduction by the loss in calories?

I hope you are not diminishing the value of excercising here, which is very good for you. Not only is it good for you but it's so easy to do.

But let's say you are on a 3000 calorie diet and transition to a 1200 calorie diet overnight. The body wouldn't lose so much of the weight because it would think its starving no?

I will let orthonorm speak for himself, but while exercise has benefits in and of itself, when it comes to fat loss, food intake is a much bigger factor than exercise.

And the starvation mode myth is a myth.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 18, 2012, 08:44:14 PM
I think a term to use, instead of weight loss, needs to be fat loss. Because when you excercise you are not exaclty burning weight, rather you are burning fat.

That said, I am not denying that changing one's diet will make dramatic changes to ones health, it does, but to think that excercise doesn't contribute to fat loss is garbage.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 18, 2012, 08:47:23 PM
I think a term to use, instead of weight loss, needs to be fat loss.

QFT.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ZealousZeal on May 18, 2012, 09:17:05 PM
Macronutrient ratios will impact performance in certain activities and perhaps body comp or "health" or MIGHT allow people with pathological eating patterns more easily eat fewer calories. But again, most Americans get lost in this minutiae and forget their primary goal: weigh less. Which means eat less. You can forget the exercise.

I agree with the smaller portions, but what stuck out to me is you say forget excercise. Are you saying that metabolism, or if you even believe that, would just take over in weight reduction by the loss in calories?

I hope you are not diminishing the value of excercising here, which is very good for you. Not only is it good for you but it's so easy to do.

But let's say you are on a 3000 calorie diet and transition to a 1200 calorie diet overnight. The body wouldn't lose so much of the weight because it would think its starving no?

I will let orthonorm speak for himself, but while exercise has benefits in and of itself, when it comes to fat loss, food intake is a much bigger factor than exercise.

And the starvation mode myth is a myth.



Totally. And yet, you hear it thrown around all the time. It mystefies me.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Sauron on May 18, 2012, 09:19:08 PM
I think a term to use, instead of weight loss, needs to be fat loss. Because when you excercise you are not exaclty burning weight, rather you are burning fat.

That said, I am not denying that changing one's diet will make dramatic changes to ones health, it does, but to think that excercise doesn't contribute to fat loss is garbage.

No one is saying that exercise does not contribute. However, its effect is minor. The reason is that exercise simply does not expend that much energy. I can cut 500 calories from a day's worth of food a lot easier than you can exercise off 500 calories. Plus, after your big workout, I bet you'll be pretty hungry.

Ever go to the gym? Ever notice that the same people are on the treadmills, stationary bikes, and elliptical machines? Ever notice that a lot of them aren't getting any smaller? Ever wonder why that is?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 18, 2012, 11:49:23 PM
I think a term to use, instead of weight loss, needs to be fat loss. Because when you excercise you are not exaclty burning weight, rather you are burning fat.

That said, I am not denying that changing one's diet will make dramatic changes to ones health, it does, but to think that excercise doesn't contribute to fat loss is garbage.

No one is saying that exercise does not contribute. However, its effect is minor. The reason is that exercise simply does not expend that much energy. I can cut 500 calories from a day's worth of food a lot easier than you can exercise off 500 calories. Plus, after your big workout, I bet you'll be pretty hungry.

Ever go to the gym? Ever notice that the same people are on the treadmills, stationary bikes, and elliptical machines? Ever notice that a lot of them aren't getting any smaller? Ever wonder why that is?
Because strenuous cardiovascular exercise is not as efficient at burning off fat as high-intensity resistance (weight) training?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 19, 2012, 12:28:54 AM
I think a term to use, instead of weight loss, needs to be fat loss. Because when you excercise you are not exaclty burning weight, rather you are burning fat.

That said, I am not denying that changing one's diet will make dramatic changes to ones health, it does, but to think that excercise doesn't contribute to fat loss is garbage.

No one is saying that exercise does not contribute. However, its effect is minor. The reason is that exercise simply does not expend that much energy. I can cut 500 calories from a day's worth of food a lot easier than you can exercise off 500 calories. Plus, after your big workout, I bet you'll be pretty hungry.

Ever go to the gym? Ever notice that the same people are on the treadmills, stationary bikes, and elliptical machines? Ever notice that a lot of them aren't getting any smaller? Ever wonder why that is?

It's called High Intensity Training. Yes hours on a treadmill is futile, you gotta work harder for a longer time and short breaks in between.

I'll get back the rest of your post tomorrow.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 19, 2012, 11:16:53 AM
Doesn't hard exercise increase you caloric burn rate for many hours after you stop exercising?

it's also true that it is much easier to figure out how many calories you take in than it is to figure out exactly how many you have used while exercising.

The fact remains that people exercise until the cows come home but remain heavy and or get heart disease.. The problem may really be their high carb diet..Just sayin  :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 19, 2012, 12:11:30 PM
So we can observe that hard exercise doesnt do all that much in terms of weight loss. We have a nice young woman about 25 years old in our Parish who has started to put on weight. She has been going to the gym for about six months but the scale has not moved at all. She is very frustrated. And the fat stays in the same places on her ( belly and thighs).

I have a friend who was a really tough and disciplined guy, a Vietnam Vet. He has a large protuberance ( big belly). he told me he was doing 1000 sit ups and push ups every day to try to get rid of it. No progress. He joked that he must have the strongest fat in the World now from all the sit ups.

So if exercise doesn't work well and the theory we live by is "calories in calories out", then to short ourselves enough calories to lose weight and keep it off we  have to super short ourselves on what we eat.

Is that really possible for the general public? Aren't people who are already obese telling us that they cant reduce what they eat?  

Plus, we don't even really know to what extreme extent you must short your intake to stay thin? For example, Obesity is far more prevalent the lower on the socioeconomic scale you go. Scarcity of calories still does not determine whether or not you will become Obese.

MONKS BECOME OBESE... They live in strictly controlled settings and still many of them, as they age, get fat.

Why do monks get fat ?  ( Sounds like a good book title)

Because the key is what you eat, not how much you eat or how much you exercise, to a reasonable extent. If you eat a fattening diet, you may get fat even if you short your self on calories and exercise strenuously.  

Weight loss from a calories in calories out based program is often short lived putting you on a roller coaster of loss and gain, which has bad health implications in and of itself.

What you eat is the most important factor. Understanding what is fattening and what really isnt is the key. The establishment  advice ( Food Pyramid. now called the Food Plate) advice is wrong. Low fat diets are harmful. Fat in your diet does not make you fat. Carbs make you fat. Reduce your carbs and dont worry too much about balancing your calories and you will get your insulin under control and thereby how much fat your body holds.

"It's all been a big fat lie"   by Gary Taubes

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 19, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
I have a friend who was a really tough and disciplined guy, a Vietnam Vet. He has a large protuberance ( big belly). he told me he was doing 1000 sit ups and push ups every day to try to get rid of it. No progress. He joked that he must have the strongest fat in the World now from all the sit ups.
The problem I see right here is that targeted exercise never burns off fat only in the area targeted.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: stanley123 on May 19, 2012, 02:56:15 PM
What you eat is the most important factor.
According to recent research, what is most important is the times at which you eat, not what you eat.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/17/when-you-eat-may-trump-what-you-eat-for-weight-loss/
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 19, 2012, 02:59:43 PM
I have a friend who was a really tough and disciplined guy, a Vietnam Vet. He has a large protuberance ( big belly). he told me he was doing 1000 sit ups and push ups every day to try to get rid of it. No progress. He joked that he must have the strongest fat in the World now from all the sit ups.
The problem I see right here is that targeted exercise never burns off fat only in the area targeted.

I understand that too. The scale didn't move at all though. She is upset because of her belly. That's the motivation. People keep asking her if she is pregnant so she joined a Gym.. No weight loss so far after 6 months.. So the question is if it's a good strategy.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 19, 2012, 10:30:57 PM
I have a friend who was a really tough and disciplined guy, a Vietnam Vet. He has a large protuberance ( big belly). he told me he was doing 1000 sit ups and push ups every day to try to get rid of it. No progress. He joked that he must have the strongest fat in the World now from all the sit ups.
The problem I see right here is that targeted exercise never burns off fat only in the area targeted.

I understand that too. The scale didn't move at all though. She is upset because of her belly. That's the motivation. People keep asking her if she is pregnant so she joined a Gym.. No weight loss so far after 6 months.. So the question is if it's a good strategy.

I can see a lot of benefit in regular exercise, both cardiovascular and resistance training, even outside of any weight loss she may or may not experience. I'm therefore never going to knock a gym membership. I just wouldn't want her to be disappointed if exercise alone doesn't result in any significant weight loss.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Νεκτάριος on May 20, 2012, 04:17:07 PM
This sums up my views on food and nutrition, and I'd have to say Pollan has influenced my eating habits more than any other food writer.  Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/unhappy-meals/)

Sauron's posting about intermittent fasting has piqued my curiosity.  I found this link (http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting) about it.  Has anyone else done anything like this?  As far as I understand it, this is what the a regular Wed / Fri fast actually ought to look like if one is concerned about such matters. 
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 20, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
I have a friend who was a really tough and disciplined guy, a Vietnam Vet. He has a large protuberance ( big belly). he told me he was doing 1000 sit ups and push ups every day to try to get rid of it. No progress. He joked that he must have the strongest fat in the World now from all the sit ups.
The problem I see right here is that targeted exercise never burns off fat only in the area targeted.

I understand that too. The scale didn't move at all though. She is upset because of her belly. That's the motivation. People keep asking her if she is pregnant so she joined a Gym.. No weight loss so far after 6 months.. So the question is if it's a good strategy.

I can see a lot of benefit in regular exercise, both cardiovascular and resistance training, even outside of any weight loss she may or may not experience. I'm therefore never going to knock a gym membership. I just wouldn't want her to be disappointed if exercise alone doesn't result in any significant weight loss.

I think that's right. Increased strength, flexability and endurance are all good things. it may also reduce stress etc.

I was in something called "The Sergeant's Program" . We met at a park at the crack of doom early and did an hour of running, push ups, jumping jacks etc, the usual PT stuff. The instructor was a former Navy guy. The fun part was that they would yell  manly stuff at you like "YOU CALL THAT A PUSH UP ???..( expletives deleted) . I would also come home with a replenished store of dirty jokes.

They weighed you when you joined. One day he pulled out a scale and decided to weigh the class and compare the results with when you joined.. No one had lost any weight and several guys had gained weight. He flipped out and asked what the hell were we all eating.

When the calories in calories out paradigm doesnt work too well the assumption is that you must be a glutton.  

Btw..The young woman in question is both beautiful and brainy. She is working on her PhD. I am convinced that both her brains and great beauty are directly inherited from her mother........who is a member of this forum..... And may have read this thread... sooo..ummmm
Amen
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 20, 2012, 05:46:18 PM
This sums up my views on food and nutrition, and I'd have to say Pollan has influenced my eating habits more than any other food writer.  Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/unhappy-meals/)

Sauron's posting about intermittent fasting has piqued my curiosity.  I found this link (http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting) about it.  Has anyone else done anything like this?  As far as I understand it, this is what the a regular Wed / Fri fast actually ought to look like if one is concerned about such matters.  

If you read his stuff carefully you will see a big overlap of agreement between him and Taubes and the others.

For example, he says, "Don't eat anything you see advertised". That's a great rule of thumb

He blames carbs for the increase of obesity

He understands that saturated fat does not make you fat nor does it promote hear disease.

He is grossed out by the Beef industry, as we all should be and the lack of quality  in factory raised beef.

Therefore, he recommends a plant based diet, plants as your main dish, locally grown if possible.

However, he has said good things about places like Polyface Farms that produce grass fed beef, chicken and eggs. Factory raised beef is inefficient and environmentally bad which is a big part of his objection. Grass based farms that raise beef are environmentally sound.

He understands that grass fed beef is good for you but doesn't seem to think it is available to a large enough extent, hence the advice to eat plants mainly, avoid sugar and refined carbs and all highly processed food. He wants you to avoid factory raised meat.

Slight differences.. all these people seem to be reaching similar conclusions.  
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2012, 08:10:34 PM
I have a friend who was a really tough and disciplined guy, a Vietnam Vet. He has a large protuberance ( big belly). he told me he was doing 1000 sit ups and push ups every day to try to get rid of it. No progress. He joked that he must have the strongest fat in the World now from all the sit ups.
The problem I see right here is that targeted exercise never burns off fat only in the area targeted.

I understand that too. The scale didn't move at all though. She is upset because of her belly. That's the motivation. People keep asking her if she is pregnant so she joined a Gym.. No weight loss so far after 6 months.. So the question is if it's a good strategy.

I can see a lot of benefit in regular exercise, both cardiovascular and resistance training, even outside of any weight loss she may or may not experience. I'm therefore never going to knock a gym membership. I just wouldn't want her to be disappointed if exercise alone doesn't result in any significant weight loss.

I think that's right. Increased strength, flexability and endurance are all good things. it may also reduce stress etc.

I was in something called "The Sergeant's Program" . We met at a park at the crack of doom early and did an hour of running, push ups, jumping jacks etc, the usual PT stuff. The instructor was a former Navy guy. The fun part was that they would yell  manly stuff at you like "YOU CALL THAT A PUSH UP ???..( expletives deleted) . I would also come home with a replenished store of dirty jokes.

They weighed you when you joined. One day he pulled out a scale and decided to weigh the class and compare the results with when you joined.. No one had lost any weight and several guys had gained weight. He flipped out and asked what the hell were we all eating.

When the calories in calories out paradigm doesnt work too well the assumption is that you must be a glutton.
Yeah, I gained something like 15 pounds during my three months in Marine Corps boot camp. Marine Corps PT is probably the most strenuous of any of the branches of the armed forces outside of special forces like the Navy Seals, but they made sure we ate well, if we didn't mind shoveling a large meal down our gullets in 10 minutes or less. I managed to shave about 3 minutes off my 3-mile run time, so the PT worked. :)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 08:50:18 PM
I need smoeone to clarify something for me. So Marc believes in magic when it comes to nutrition and diet?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 20, 2012, 08:57:40 PM
He blames carbs for the increase of obesity

It's been a couple years since I read his stuff, but if memory serves, doesn't he say that pretty much any "traditional" diet is fairly healthy? His message is not so simple as the subtitle of his one book would imply.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2012, 09:00:29 PM
I need smoeone to clarify something for me. So Marc believes in magic when it comes to nutrition and diet?
No.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Marc1152 on May 20, 2012, 09:24:11 PM
Here is a pretty good interview of Gary Taubes where he summarizes these idea's.

One caution, you may want to put a shotgun into the mouth of the interviewer and give her both barrels.. Fair warning
But Taubes is good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFlUpJhKZdU&feature=fvst
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 20, 2012, 09:28:36 PM
Nectarine,

What would you like to know about IFing? Been doing it in some fashion off and on before the interwebz.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 10:07:48 PM
Anyway let's get back to this. Eating less does create weight loss, yes but you don't want to end up skinnyfat by eating less. You got to lift weight to promote fat loss.

Anybody who promotes a starvation diet is dumb and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 20, 2012, 10:09:50 PM
Anyway let's get back to this. Eating less does create weight loss, yes but you don't want to end up skinnyfat by eating less. You got to lift weight to promote fat loss.

Anybody who promotes a starvation diet is dumb and shouldn't be taken seriously.

All that muscle is going to turn into fat anyway.



(sorry, couldn't resist  ;D )
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 10:15:17 PM
Not if you do heavy weightlifting combined with protein and a calorie deficit. You will retain the most muscle mass while losing the fat.

Unless you made a joke that went over my head.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 20, 2012, 10:18:07 PM
It was a joke. Sometimes when people don't want to exercise they'll say "All that muscle will turn to fat once I stop exercising, so why bother?"
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 20, 2012, 10:19:23 PM
Anyway let's get back to this. Eating less does create weight loss, yes but you don't want to end up skinnyfat by eating less. You got to lift weight to promote fat loss.

Anybody who promotes a starvation diet is dumb and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Nonsense.

Who is suggesting "starvation" other than to point out that indeed your body does respond to caloric deficit?

You can lose weight and maintain lean body mass via moderate activity.

This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.

Eat less. Walk a little. Pick stuff up when you need to.

NBD.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ZealousZeal on May 20, 2012, 10:20:27 PM
It was a joke. Sometimes when people don't want to exercise they'll say "All that muscle will turn to fat once I stop exercising, so why bother?"

It's insane how quickly skeletal muscle will morph into adipose tissue if left alone.  ;)
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 20, 2012, 10:24:40 PM
It was a joke. Sometimes when people don't want to exercise they'll say "All that muscle will turn to fat once I stop exercising, so why bother?"

It's insane how quickly skeletal muscle will morph into adipose tissue if left alone.  ;)

I carry all my fat where it looks the best:

inside my arteries.

It is very slimming.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ZealousZeal on May 20, 2012, 10:26:15 PM
It was a joke. Sometimes when people don't want to exercise they'll say "All that muscle will turn to fat once I stop exercising, so why bother?"

It's insane how quickly skeletal muscle will morph into adipose tissue if left alone.  ;)

I carry all my fat where it looks the best:

inside my arteries.

It is very slimming.

And lubricating for your circulation! You're doing it right.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 10:38:58 PM
Who is suggesting "starvation" other than to point out that indeed your body does respond to caloric deficit?
I didn't suggest anyone said that, just throwing that out there.

Quote
You can lose weight and maintain lean body mass via moderate activity.
If your idea of moderate activity is "walk a little and pick up stuff when you need to", then I don't know what to tell you except you're wrong.


Quote
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
Am I getting into the minutiae of this? No I'm not.

Anyway the moral of the story here is people eat to much, and need to cut back so there is a reduction in calories. Lifting weights is great at fat loss.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2012, 10:48:16 PM
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
This is a good example of why I don't follow my housemate's advice on strength training. His methods are more appropriate for serious athletes, while I'm merely looking for exercises to strengthen my muscles for the work for which I will use them in my everyday life. I need to set goals that I can reach.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 10:52:36 PM
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
This is a good example of why I don't follow my housemate's advice on strength training. His methods are more appropriate for serious athletes, while I'm merely looking for exercises to strengthen my muscles for the work for which I will use them in my everyday life. I need to set goals that I can reach.

So strength training?

http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ

I'm a big fan of deadlifts.TBH
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2012, 10:55:34 PM
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
This is a good example of why I don't follow my housemate's advice on strength training. His methods are more appropriate for serious athletes, while I'm merely looking for exercises to strengthen my muscles for the work for which I will use them in my everyday life. I need to set goals that I can reach.

So strength training?
For one, I don't use free weights.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 20, 2012, 11:01:15 PM
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
This is a good example of why I don't follow my housemate's advice on strength training. His methods are more appropriate for serious athletes, while I'm merely looking for exercises to strengthen my muscles for the work for which I will use them in my everyday life. I need to set goals that I can reach.

So strength training?
For one, I don't use free weights.

That's just crazy talk.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2012, 11:02:12 PM
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
This is a good example of why I don't follow my housemate's advice on strength training. His methods are more appropriate for serious athletes, while I'm merely looking for exercises to strengthen my muscles for the work for which I will use them in my everyday life. I need to set goals that I can reach.

So strength training?
For one, I don't use free weights.

That's just crazy talk.
Why?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 20, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
This thread is a testament to the neurotic reasons why people don't lose weight: they get caught up in minutiae appropriate to serious athletes, become overwhelmed and give up.
This is a good example of why I don't follow my housemate's advice on strength training. His methods are more appropriate for serious athletes, while I'm merely looking for exercises to strengthen my muscles for the work for which I will use them in my everyday life. I need to set goals that I can reach.

So strength training?
For one, I don't use free weights.

That's just crazy talk.
Why?

Just another joke. I'm bored tonight. Many weight lifters (or people who populate such forums, or write such books) argue that free weights are superior, and machines are inferior. So from their perspective, saying that you don't use any free weights would be, literally, crazy talk.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ZealousZeal on May 20, 2012, 11:09:01 PM
Weight lifting is not the answer for losing fat. Every time I've wanted to lose a few pounds, I've eaten less*. I'm not saying weight lifting is bad, but I don't do it because I'd rather not look like this. (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljz3njXFZB1qfmvnso1_400.jpg)

*Which is not to say that I embarked on an exciting new diet of anorexia nervosa. But, if my body burns 1400 calories a day, and then I run a few miles and burn 200 calories, then turn around and eat 1600 calories (or worse, 1600+), I'm not going to see net loss.

All this exercise discussion is very well and good, but at the end of the day you can't change the relationship between calories in vs. calories out.

Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Asteriktos on May 20, 2012, 11:13:02 PM
I'm not saying weight lifting is bad, but I don't do it because I'd rather not look like this. (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljz3njXFZB1qfmvnso1_400.jpg)

 :D  Last year I was watching the Mr. Olympia webcast and took a few screen shots of the female bodybuilders, and posted it in the unofficial oc.net chat. I'm pretty sure some of them still haven't forgiven me...
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 20, 2012, 11:15:51 PM
I'm not saying weight lifting is bad, but I don't do it because I'd rather not look like this. (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljz3njXFZB1qfmvnso1_400.jpg)

 :D  Last year I was watching the Mr. Olympia webcast and took a few screen shots of the female bodybuilders, and posted it in the unofficial oc.net chat. I'm pretty sure some of them still haven't forgiven me...

I've suffered the loss of use of certain parts of my anatomy ever since.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 11:22:37 PM
Weight lifting is not the answer for losing fat. Every time I've wanted to lose a few pounds, I've eaten less*. I'm not saying weight lifting is bad, but I don't do it because I'd rather not look like this. (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljz3njXFZB1qfmvnso1_400.jpg)

*Which is not to say that I embarked on an exciting new diet of anorexia nervosa. But, if my body burns 1400 calories a day, and then I run a few miles and burn 200 calories, then turn around and eat 1600 calories (or worse, 1600+), I'm not going to see net loss.

All this exercise discussion is very well and good, but at the end of the day you can't change the relationship between calories in vs. calories out.



No amount of excercising will cover up a poor diet.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: ZealousZeal on May 20, 2012, 11:23:58 PM
Weight lifting is not the answer for losing fat. Every time I've wanted to lose a few pounds, I've eaten less*. I'm not saying weight lifting is bad, but I don't do it because I'd rather not look like this. (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljz3njXFZB1qfmvnso1_400.jpg)

*Which is not to say that I embarked on an exciting new diet of anorexia nervosa. But, if my body burns 1400 calories a day, and then I run a few miles and burn 200 calories, then turn around and eat 1600 calories (or worse, 1600+), I'm not going to see net loss.

All this exercise discussion is very well and good, but at the end of the day you can't change the relationship between calories in vs. calories out.



No amount of excercising will cover up a poor diet.

Precisely. I believe it was orthonorm who said somewhere upthread that you can't outrun a cheeseburger.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JamesRottnek on May 20, 2012, 11:38:11 PM
Weight lifting is not the answer for losing fat. Every time I've wanted to lose a few pounds, I've eaten less*. I'm not saying weight lifting is bad, but I don't do it because I'd rather not look like this. (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljz3njXFZB1qfmvnso1_400.jpg)

*Which is not to say that I embarked on an exciting new diet of anorexia nervosa. But, if my body burns 1400 calories a day, and then I run a few miles and burn 200 calories, then turn around and eat 1600 calories (or worse, 1600+), I'm not going to see net loss.

All this exercise discussion is very well and good, but at the end of the day you can't change the relationship between calories in vs. calories out.



No amount of excercising will cover up a poor diet.

Precisely. I believe it was orthonorm who said somewhere upthread that you can't outrun a cheeseburger.

He must run really slow; no cheeseburger has ever caught me; it's always me that catches them.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 11:41:36 PM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JamesRottnek on May 20, 2012, 11:42:18 PM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 20, 2012, 11:48:43 PM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
What? Horrible. Just horrible.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JamesRottnek on May 21, 2012, 12:56:57 AM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
What? Horrible. Just horrible.

Get behind me Satan!
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 21, 2012, 01:01:15 AM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
What? Horrible. Just horrible.

Get behind me Satan!
You must have amazing Sonicburgers in AZ then, because in CO pretty much yesterday's garbage.

But don't you have In-N-Out anyway?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: orthonorm on May 21, 2012, 01:18:43 AM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
What? Horrible. Just horrible.

Get behind me Satan!
You must have amazing Sonicburgers in AZ then, because in CO pretty much yesterday's garbage.

But don't you have In-N-Out anyway?

If you are ever out my way, we will eat some of the most delicious burgers ever.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 21, 2012, 01:21:34 AM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
What? Horrible. Just horrible.

Get behind me Satan!
You must have amazing Sonicburgers in AZ then, because in CO pretty much yesterday's garbage.

But don't you have In-N-Out anyway?

If you are ever out my way, we will eat some of the most delicious burgers ever.

Is that Black Castle?

 ;D
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JamesRottnek on May 21, 2012, 01:43:42 AM
Stop the burger talk, please. I have kneejerk reaction to go get some.

At least get Sonic; Sonicburgers are awesome.
What? Horrible. Just horrible.

Get behind me Satan!
You must have amazing Sonicburgers in AZ then, because in CO pretty much yesterday's garbage.

But don't you have In-N-Out anyway?

Quite true; In-N-Out is way, way better.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Νεκτάριος on May 21, 2012, 02:24:38 AM
Nectarine,

What would you like to know about IFing? Been doing it in some fashion off and on before the interwebz.

Does it actually produces some results?  Any noticeable improvements?  I'm not really interested in anything extreme, but maybe a 24 hour fast one day a month or maybe once a week.   
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Shiny on May 21, 2012, 02:34:05 AM
So can you do IFing twice a week at most?
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: JamesRottnek on May 21, 2012, 03:30:15 AM
Nectarine,

What would you like to know about IFing? Been doing it in some fashion off and on before the interwebz.

Does it actually produces some results?  Any noticeable improvements?  I'm not really interested in anything extreme, but maybe a 24 hour fast one day a month or maybe once a week.   

The way that I understand it, I believe you would select some period of time every day in which to consume food and drink, and would consume nothing outside of those hours.
Title: Re: Nutrition and Diet
Post by: Νεκτάριος on May 21, 2012, 03:54:00 AM
This sums up my views on food and nutrition, and I'd have to say Pollan has influenced my eating habits more than any other food writer.  Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/unhappy-meals/)

Sauron's posting about intermittent fasting has piqued my curiosity.  I found this link (http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting) about it.  Has anyone else done anything like this?  As far as I understand it, this is what the a regular Wed / Fri fast actually ought to look like if one is concerned about such matters.  

If you read his stuff carefully you will see a big overlap of agreement between him and Taubes and the others.

For example, he says, "Don't eat anything you see advertised". That's a great rule of thumb

He blames carbs for the increase of obesity

He understands that saturated fat does not make you fat nor does it promote hear disease.

He is grossed out by the Beef industry, as we all should be and the lack of quality  in factory raised beef.

Therefore, he recommends a plant based diet, plants as your main dish, locally grown if possible.

However, he has said good things about places like Polyface Farms that produce grass fed beef, chicken and eggs. Factory raised beef is inefficient and environmentally bad which is a big part of his objection. Grass based farms that raise beef are environmentally sound.

He understands that grass fed beef is good for you but doesn't seem to think it is available to a large enough extent, hence the advice to eat plants mainly, avoid sugar and refined carbs and all highly processed food. He wants you to avoid factory raised meat.

Slight differences.. all these people seem to be reaching similar conclusions.  

There are a lot of important nuances that are you glossing over. &