AustinJames Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 This thread has gone off the rails. Anyone read any Michael Pollan? I like his work. I echo his broad sentiment. 1
abcqwerty123 Posted July 22, 2014 Author Posted July 22, 2014 Off the top of my head, because animals do wonderful things in their bodies with the food they eat from the earth (like convert ALA into DHA - an essential fatty acid - omega 3), then we eat those animals for dense sources of essential nutrients, like FAT. The nutrient density of foods is important to consider. We can eat less and get more nutrients. For example, animals organs (offal) are some of the most dense sources nutrition. I remember looking at a comparison of the nutrient profiles of offal compared to veggies and it was off the charts. You'd have to eat a ton of veggies to get any where near the nutrient content of the offal, and that's just the nutrients that the plants actually had. Also, nutrient ratios are important. Like Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio, which is properly balanced in grass fed / pastured animals and in wild sea food, etc.. Vitamin D to Vitamin A ratio is also critical . Where do you get true vitamin A in plants? Or vitamin D for that matter? So, having said that, here's an article on "5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)" http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/ How is paleo type diet a "fad" when it is based on a couple million years of evolution? How long does a fad last before it's not considered a fad anymore? Paleo isn't a "diet". It's just the way we designed to eat by evolution and the science is starting to really come to light on this now that the truth movement is gaining steam. This is making me anxious so I'll just get back to work. Good day to you all! What's happening on the INSIDE of vegan bodybuilders? Bodybuilding is already unnatural and harmful to the body in many ways.... Not once did I say that it was easier to eat only foods from the earth rather then meat included. I only said that it is possible so why kill what we don't need, just to be a little bit lazier? So, your argument of you have to eat more vegies to get the same nutrients from it as you would from meat doesn't make eating meat necessary. As for where to get vitamin A: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/vitamina Vitamin D: From the sun, 5-30 minutes a day, 2 days a week (pretty sure most people get that and more), but in case you don't see sun ever, mushrooms exposed to ultraviolet lights have a TON of vitamin D http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2009issue2/2009_issue2_vitamin_d.php Anyways, you posted an article about 5 nutrients you can only get from meat and fish. 1 of them even in the article says isn't an essential nutrient and how the body handles it itself, and the other 4 were easily searched on how to gain those nutrients through other sources. So, again, my question has NOT been answered. You CAN live without eating meat and you CAN live with eating meat, just one requires you to slaughter living creatures and one does not. Well because people are afraid of saying I don't know, and our perpetual need to justify our actions and opinions.What is missing here is a discussion of what health means to the individual. When I was highly diet focused I was constantly troubled by the fact that I actually could not know what was going on inside my body. I only had external makers like skin, eyes and nails, complexion. And internal feeling like pain, discomfort, temperature, happiness, need to move about, mental acuity. So instead I used mental images of my condition and compared how I used to feel to how I felt afterwards. Unfortunately at the time I disregarded the social relations and my negative emotions. which skewed my perception a lot.Also Animals are not humans they are not human children, they are not benevolent. And we can not have any sustainable food plant growth of appreciable size without using animals. So we have to trap animals anyway, we have to breed them and we have to make sure they are healthy to fulfill the role so we have to kill some of them off. There is a HUGE difference from having a large piece of land that animals live on, are treated properly and basically can roam large distances and such while dying naturally then there is of the exact same thing and then being slaughtered when they reach a certain size/age. I have 2 dogs and they are locked away in a house on a small piece of land, BUT I feed them the best food I can find/afford, and I do regret that I can't feed them the best food possible but I and most people can't afford it, neither would they be eating it if they lived free, I take them out to play at parks, on random walks, around many people and so forth. They seem very happy all of the time and they sleep very well with the only health problem either have ever had was allergic reactions to something outside, which I have never been able to figure out what it was but it has only happened to each dog once in 4 years and they were both treated with correct creams as soon as I learned about it. On top of which, I will not slaughter them for food or every treat them any worse then they are treated now. So, do we need animals to raise crops, yah probably, haven't done too much research on that topic myself, but you can raise animals properly and even though you are basically enslaving the animal, you can still treat them great as if they were your child, and not end up killing them in the end. I just wanted to add that I absolutely love animals and I loathe the industrial food practices. I think its' evil what they do to animals! I abhor the whole Statist system, as do we all, which is the cause. When I see animals being released from a life of captivity, and I see their reaction to seeing "outside" for the first time in their lives, it literally makes me cry. I want nothing more than a free society that treats animials with kindness and respect, which will happen one day. The people in that free society will however eat some of those animals. It's just a fact of life. Release of chimpanzees, 30 years after undergoing experiments - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PAMgNEtSY 100 Retired Lab Chimps See Sky for First Time (government owned chimps) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUMXQjnm0Ho Happy Cows - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUZ1YLhIAg8 You cannot say you love a life that you kill, unless you do not understand what love is. Sorry, but that is a contradiction. And saying that people will always eat animals is a fact of life, is ignorance. People use to argue that owning a slave would always be a fact of life, and that is quickly being proven wrong. We are designed to eat and digest animals. Sorry. You can't wish away evolution. Also, I'm not contradicting myself. We can have an ethical, humane way of raising and consuming certain animals. I assume in a free / rational world it would be as minimal as possible to meet nutritional needs. And the animals would be treated with compassion. Again, you say something with NO proof. You cannot say we are designed to do something just because we have always done it. From what I have seen in this entire debate is that our bodies are more suited towards a plant system rather then a meat system but with meat being possible. And yes, you are contradicting yourself as I pointed out up above, but you cannot kill/slaughter with compassion. Just imagine: Cop - "What happened here!?" You - "I killed this baby with compassion." Cop - "What do you mean?" You - "I killed this baby, but I treated it with compassion so that makes it okay, right?"*Handcuffs click* I think you have an emotional block that is preventing you from seeing just how bad things are now (which I agree with) to how things should be, which would unfortunately include eating at least some animals, but would look nothing like it does in today's world. I wish we didn't need eat animals for proper nutrition too. But, our wishes don't matter. The meat isn't as important as the fat, and the organs. These nutrients are critical and were critical to developing our human brains. What was critical for developing our brains and bodies to what they are today is STILL critical. Nothing has changed fundamentally. You can wish all you want but you are the one choosing to do something you don't have to do. I wish I was a millionaire, but sitting in my room all day doing nothing won't make that happen. Please stop repeating what has already been proven wrong multiple times and please don't tell people that they have emotional blocks because they feel emotional about killing something that doesn't need to be killed. "You must have an emotional block because I slaughtered your baby boy for no reason and you just refuse to understand my reasonless reason." like Paul Joseph Goebbels the Nazi minister of propaganda said: "the essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it". saying that meat is necessary and healthy is just PROPAGANDA, it is a lie that is destroying peoples health, killing animals and destroying our environment ! Just like the propaganda that government is good and necessary..... Saying that eating meat is destroying peoples health and destroying the environment isn't even needed. All you have to do is prove we don't have to eat meat to live healthy and why killing unnecessarily is wrong. Adding in it is bad for their health is closing them up instantly because the propaganda is already too strong. Just like when trying to teach people how evil government is, you don't want to jump into conspiracies because they have been taught that conspiracy theorists are insane/crazy, so you just point out the millions of evil committed against them every single day by government so they can understand it through basic logic. Oh, and that is all folks. I wanted to get my last few words in, but I am not coming back to this article. Reading 2 people constantly say the same stuff no matter how many times it is proven false gets a bit boring. So yup, see you around the forums, just not here! =) 1 3
J. D. Stembal Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Yolo invoked Godwin on us. Qwerty is defiantly stating that healthy skepticism towards governmental dietary anti-meat and anti-fat dogma is just flat out wrong without even trying to prove that assertion, like using basic knowledge of human physiology as a frame of reference. Vegans and vegetarians always fall back to the aesthetic argument "Killing animals is just wrong!" (it's not supported by UPB) when they don't have any other arguments left. I don't see the thread improving at all from here, so let's change the topic. Is human cannibalism supported by UPB and NAP?
Guest Mags Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Here is a great video for determining fact from fiction when it comes to studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0#t=2494 It put into words several things I had already sniffed out but also a lot more good stuff I hadn't considered.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 I've posted tons of links. Post 1 peer reviewed article that claims humans require animal products, or 1 citation from an authoritative medical text book that supports what you claim. There is no such evidence, if there were, the meat industry would be all over it. What evidence do you have of the charge of fraud on the part of Taubes? I've seen none. Then you were not looking, again: [*] 1 The Journalist Gary Taubes 1: Controlling Histor[*]2 The Journalist Gary Taubes 2: A Parajournalism P[*]3 The Journalist Gary Taubes 3: Ancel Keys Was Ver[*]4 The Journalist Gary Taubes 4: Ancel Keys Was Ver[*]5 The Journalist Gary Taubes 5: John Yudkin Was Ve[*]6 The Journalist Gary Taubes 6: Lessons from the D[*]7 The Journalist Gary Taubes 7: Anomaly Hunter 1[*]8 The Journalist Gary Taubes 8: Anomaly Hunter 2[*]9 The Journalist Gary Taubes 9: Anomaly Hunter 3[*]10 The Journalist Gary Taubes 10: Anomaly Hunter 4[*]11 The Journalist Gary Taubes 11: Oil-Based Nutrit[*]12 The Journalist Gary Taubes 12: Oil-Based Nutrit[*]13 The Journalist Gary Taubes 13: The Taubes Filte[*]14 The Journalist Gary Taubes 14: Those Scientists[*]15 The Journalist Gary Taubes 15: Pesky Facts[*]16 The Journalist Gary Taubes 16: A Case Against F 2
J. D. Stembal Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 I can't even follow the arguments with all the quick clips and quotes taken out of context, set up to be straw manned by Plant Guru. All we need to know about Keys is that he cherry picked and falsified data in his Six Countries study. Tell me more about how we should give the lipid hypothesis any credibility with the state of today's health care crisis? We've been told for going on 40 years now that saturated fats and red meat are the detractors of health when native cultures, like the Innuit, thrived on animal products, which are high fat sources. http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/ (Hint: It's not a paradox.) Our health crisis is caused by over consumption of concentrated carbohydrates and the wrath they inflict on our bodies and immune systems. Incidentally, 1984 was the first year that high fructose corn syrup, an industrially derived substance that causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, was used in soft drinks. Thirty years later we have massive conglomerates like Pepsico, Coca Cola, and Dr. Pepper-Snapple dominating the beverage market and a corresponding explosion of waistlines. This sweetener is derived from the food commodity euphemistically termed corn. This is just one of the many examples of how we are poisoning ourselves to death with modern industrial agriculture. Corn-fed cows eat it and get sick while adding mass to their body, and then we eat it! If cows never had left the green pastures, we wouldn't be destroying our environment trying to grow all this corn to raise and eat sick cows. I could go on about the dangers of wheat and soy as well. 2
FreedomPhilosophy Posted August 3, 2014 Posted August 3, 2014 All we need to know about Keys is that he cherry picked and falsified data in his Six Countries study. Tell me more about how we should give the lipid hypothesis any credibility with the state of today's health care crisis? We've been told for going on 40 years now that saturated fats and red meat are the detractors of health when native cultures, like the Innuit, thrived on animal products, which are high fat sources. Keys did not cherry pick or falsify data, he ignored outliers because the data collection criteria for them were not consistent with the rest of the data in the set. You can only compare consistently gathered data. It's the Seven Countries Study btw and Keys lived to the age of 100. The lipid hypothesis is accepted by any reasonable person familiar with the science involved, that's why it appears in medical text books. We know the lipid hypothesis is correct because dietary and drug interventions empirically support it amongst a whole lot of other data.The Innuit thrived? No they got heart disease even centuries ago, parasites and osteoporosis too. 2
J. D. Stembal Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 You're defending Keys with the tall Chinese argument? Brilliantly achieved. I'm no longer going to watch more videos from Plant you are posting. He pretends to refute Price's comprehensive two decade study of aboriginal diets by using a couple contrary example of Eskimos? Yes, they probably did get heart disease, parasites, and osteoporosis, but at what rates compared to Western culture currently? It is really challenging to follow any of the What exactly should we be eating if we shouldn't eat any meat? I haven't seen many sensible suggestions here. How can you get the calories and nutrients your body needs without animal product? It pretty obvious that following government sponsored recommendations over the last generation has painted us into a corner with a very serious health care crisis. That's reason enough for me to look for another approach. That's why I avoid grains, legumes, dairy, processed junk, and sugars. That leaves fruits, nuts, vegetables (the non-starchy ones like potatoes), meat (no grain fed), eggs, and fish (wild, not farmed). Tell me what you are eating and why it is making you healthier. 2
StylesGrant Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 This is a pretty typical path for such a thread. But I like it. Anyways, this is sort of why I am even on FDR. Basically for me. Illness -> Nutrition -> Alternative Health -> Libertarian economic history of industrial agriculture -> permaculture/game management/forestry -> Pollution causes chronic illness -> How am I a libertarian???? ->The lack of volyunteerist and radical libertarian philosophy is why we have pollution -> How do we stop this? ->Study more philosophy -> Become a libertarian borg to combat the federation -> I'm not getting better should I eat meat or veggies -> Nothing industrial is biochemically efficient and nutrient dense compared to close feedback systems of ecology -> Why does no amount of attempts at different alternative diets work? -> Pollution -> How do I get pollution out of me -> You can't because of monopolies -> Study more radical philosophy -> Convince people the solution to world hunger and chronic degenerative disease is caused by monopolies and central planning -> Convince people to learn how to compete with better science that doesn't come from industrial professionalized institutions that grew out of the central planning, public schools, and monopolies So in a sense, even the best heirloom vegetables and grass fed whatever, might not be good enough. Your worst fear might be true. That. Sunlight is important. Love is important. Cannabis really does cure more disease than just about anything, but especially diseases of the mind. Entheogens work. Coffee enemas do work, dear God the universe has a sick sense of humor. Your brain's emotions will kill you if you don't learn how to sever reactions from external issues. Your adrenals are not working properly because you probably grew up in an abusive environment of constant instability, and your monkey brain is maxed out with the wiring out of order. You really are being poisoned to death by metals and halogens. If you get the stress down, control the mind, get the adrenals fixed, get the pollution out, lose weight, fast, and so forth, as mentioned above, you have a good chance of any food from the heirloom, or sustainably grown kind, and basically Michael Pollan's books' suggestions will set you on the right path. Turning the stress off ain't so easy, however. 1 1
Mr. Wrong Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 At least ethically speaking, I can't extend my same capacity for ethics to animals without also holding them to that same standard. So if I make the claim that killing animals is wrong, I should also prevent the lion or the wolf from doing so. If I don't I break the universality in that system of ethics, no? As I see it, if you do not have the capacity to recognize me as an individual just like yourself, no merely another animal but another thinking animal, then I get to eat you. Besides, it's not like cows are going to save the Earth should a meteor strike. It's the toll they pay....XD 1 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 Have you seen this HAVE you seen it? All of it? It's a call for forcible depopulation and the destruction of capitalism. She is a creep.
cobra2411 Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 First let me begin by saying that if you have a moral objection to eating meat then don't. I differentiate between killing and abuse and do not equate killing with abuse. For me to live something must die and as long as that something is not unnecessarily abused then I don't care what it is. And yes I'm aware of the production meat plants and their issues and I do my best not to support them. I could go on and on about production agriculture and the damages it does. That's a bit outside of this topic however so I don't want to focus there. Second point. Anything you can do to get the refined, processed crap food out of your diet will go a long way to improving your health. Do whatever is easier for you to get that crap out of your diet. If becoming a vegetarian makes sense and you can stick to it then do it. There is no such thing as a "perfect" diet, however there are some guidelines. 1.) Get rid of the processed crap food. 2.) Eat high fat / low carb or eat low fat / high carb. Do not eat high fat / high carb or you'll resemble a diseased planetoid. 3.) Get sugar out of your diet. The biggest problem with processed foods is they're high in surgar. In nature sugar always comes with fiber - look at sugarcane, it's a stick. You can't get more fiber than a stick... We refine it, get the fiber out of the way and upon digesting it, it spikes the bloods glucose levels and as a result insulin levels. It's that chronic abuse that leads to metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc. I encourage people to take a scientific approach to your diet. Get a full blood workup and then after 3-6 months do it again. That will conclusively show if you're on the right track. There are many pitfalls with the different diets out there and there's a lot of bad information. Now onto specific responses. Mango "but eating a low-fat vegan diet is the only one I've found where you can eat until you are satiated, and loose weight." I ate a high fat, meat only diet and lost weight with ease. I ate until I was full and stopped. I didn't exercise, count calories or even think about it past not eating more than 50g of carbs a day. In all I lost over 60lbs this way. Tyler Durden "It's better for the environment. The production of animal products is extremely inefficient compared to plant products and it creates more waste." Big agriculture is incredibly harmful for the environment. I agree that current production farms of all types are damages to the environment, but there's promise in the concept of predator herding of animals. I do have some issues with Allan and what he says, but there is something to what he's saying and I feel we would be better off if we strongly reviewed productions farming in general, both plants and animals and made changes to mimic nature better. More on how predators change the environment. abcqwerty123 "The only logical answer I can come up with is that every time people say that eating vegan isn't healthy because you need "X" nutrients that plants don't supply, I then see vitamins and other sources that claim to have those nutrients." I believe it's completely valid to say a diet isn't healthy because you need to add supplements. Absent those, particularly B12, you can die. abcqwerty123 "Lastly, as for you going vegetarian/vegan, here are my thoughts. I think killing anything is wrong and like I have heard Stefan say, if children were raised properly/kindly, then even though morality cannot apply to animals, they still wouldn't kill or harm them. So, in order to raise a child that way, you cannot be feeding them dead animals because there would be a contradiction and if you eat meat as the parent, then you are being a hypocrite in raising them that way..." Vegetarians kill plants. Big agriculture destroys habitats for many natural animals. I don't feel it's as simple as you're a hypocrite for eating meat while teaching not to kill. You teach your children to respect all life, but everything dies and living things need to die for other living things to continue. We need to get back to the concept of the circle of life. Western society seems to have adopted the idea that life begins, then ends and that's it. Upon death organisms break down nutrients and give back to the earth so life can be repeated. Cows eat grass and leave manure which feeds the next generation of grass. Birds eat fruit and move seeds to new locations. Humans pack their waste into plastic bags and leave them in landfills to do nothing. Now they're tapping landfills for methane gas extraction, so there is a circle of life there... Tyler Durden "And since it's not necessary for your health either, the only reason for eating meat that people have left is that they like the taste of meat." No supplements needed with a meat based diet. I don't think you can argue eating meat isn't necessary for health. EndTheUsurpation "You cannot cut out all meat and still have a healthy lifestyle." Well I haven't done enough research to say that conclusively, but definitely need to be careful with a non-meat diet that you don't create serious life threatening deficiencies. LovePrevails "Humans have a vegetarian digestive system. It's a long digestive system, that isn't very acidic." No, we are omnivores as EndTheUsurpation stated. Take a look at the Lowland Gorilla, a true vegetarian primate. His colon is 6 times that of a human and is designed to ferment the non-digestible parts of plants and turn them into saturated fat. We lack multi-part stomachs that aid in fermentation, etc. However, we do have the ability to ferment and digest plant based foods to some degree, so we're not carnivore and not herbivore - we're omnivores... It has been theorized that humans evolved due to eating meat, others have provided links. This makes sense that given our digestive system that we started out vegetarian and as we started eating meat we evolved into humans. Since meat is so nutritionally dense we didn't have to spend as much time finding / digesting food and were able to evolve. Despite our lack of claws and fierce teeth, we are able hunters. By the way, I love raw meat and eat it frequently... LovePrevails "Humans cannot outrun prey. They cannot catch them easily without tools. That is just a matter of fact. Animals that eat meat can catch prey, their bodies are designed to catch prey without tools." Research persistence hunting. One interesting thing about humans vs animals is that our cooling system isn't linked to our respiration. Quadrupeds cool themselves by breathing and they can only breath once per stride when running. Their respiration system is very efficient but it's a fatal flaw if they have to keep running. Early humans figured this out and could simply run an animal to death. No need for tools or claws. LovePrevails "You don't even admit that other primates are vegetarian and that is a matter of fact." See my comments about the lowland gorilla. Tyler Durden "I provided some links in my first post that show that people who don't eat meat have a lower risk at obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and on average have a longer lifespan " The Inuit. They ate a 100% meat based diet and heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes all were unheard of till they introduced a western diet. There is more here than meat bad, plants good. Typically vegetarians are more aware of what they eat vs the average non-vegetarian who stuffs his face with god only knows what kind of processed and refined foods. It's the processed and refined crap that kills you. This is where it's easy to go astray with a vegetarian diet - you replace meat with processed carbs rather than make your own from the produce isle. EndTheUsurpation "Check out Gary Taubes. He will blow your mind." Absolutely. Why we get fat and what to do about it should be required reading. It will change they way you look at food and diets. FreedomPhilosophy "The journalist Gary Taubes torn to shreds (1 of 16):" I only made it 9 minutes into that drivel but was unable to find any arguments that were put forth against Taubes. Ornish referred to the Atkins diet as a pork rind diet and Taubes called him on it. The retort in the video you listed is that he included pork rinds as a food source? That shreds Taubes credibility? Yolo "People who defend eating meat, eggs and dairy don't want to stop eating them and just try to ignore true information because the truth makes them feel uncomfortable." I scientifically approached the massive changes in my diet, from the standard american diet to a low carb, high fat diet. I did full blood tests 3 months apart and in addition to loosing over 30lbs I saw improvements in all categories tested including a marked reduction in total cholesterol and fasting blood glucose levels. I continued to loose over 60 lbs total and have kept it off. It's been 3 years now and I was unable to do that on any previous diet. Yolo "The China Study" I wouldn't use that book for toilet paper. His conclusions are seriously flawed. The rat study for example was used to show that eating meat causes cancer when in reality, it showed that eating massive amounts of a known carcinogen causes cancer. Wow... Big surprise there. The study gave rats a known carcinogen along with a protien isolate that is a known cancer fuel - casein. Whey is decidedly anti-cancer and in whole foods you would never get one without the other. So what happened? All of the high protein rats survived while some developed cancer whereas 1/3rd of the low protein rats died of other causes than cancer. Even if high protien diets caused cancer, you're more likely to survive than on a low protien diet. FreedomPhilosophy "Endotoxin Inflammation Thoery" Seriously? Sausage egg McMuffin's as the food used to show meat causes inflammation due to leaky gut syndrome? Really? First, the graph is clearly labeled HFHC as in High Fat, High Carb, which is a diet that should universally be avoided. Second, the muffin part of the McMuffin is made from wheat, which has been shown to be a cause in leaky gut syndrome. Show me a study that uses a ketogenic diet and provides an increase in inflammation. Some people are sensitive to red meats, however, red meat doesn't equal all meat. I can't speak for everyone, but I have the blood tests for myself that show a reduction in C reactive protein or inflammation when I switched to a ketogenic diet. I can say, based on my research that my results are not uncommon. Yolo "moderate amounts of animal products are detrimental to the human body because moderate amounts of cholesterol, animal fat, trans fatty acids, casein and animal proteins, are just as harmful as moderate amounts of white refined sugar, tobacco, and heroin. if you want to avoid lung cancer and emphysema, moderately smoking five cigarettes per day would not be too bright. if you want to avoid heart disease, most cancers, diabetes, osteoporosis, and other diseases, not even moderate amounts of meat, dairy and eggs can be on the menu!!" The lipid hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. Eating animal fats doesn't not make you fat, raise your cholesterol levels, cause cancer, heart disease, etc. That's all myth and has been debunked many times over. Yolo "http://www.drmcdougall.com/" I've outed this charlatan before. He lists the Atkins diet as a no-carb diet then links the Wiki page showing it's low carb. He mentions how the Inuit had high rates of heart disease that went down after limiting meat from their diet and listed a study showing the exact opposite. Fact check his work and you'll find nothing but flaws. Yolo "like I said before just because you loose weight on a paleo diet or any other fad diet and look pretty "fit" it doesn't mean it is healthy...." I have blood tests that show a marked improvement upon adopting a ketogenic diet. Since it's a limited study of one, I will certainly accept that the improvements were from the reduction of crap processed foods, but it clearly shows that eating meat is not unhealthy. Yolo "like Paul Joseph Goebbels the Nazi minister of propaganda said: "the essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it". saying that meat is necessary and healthy is just PROPAGANDA, it is a lie that is destroying peoples health, killing animals and destroying our environment !" Oh, I like that. Quote a Nazi and then what you say next is simply fact as long as you label the contrary PROPAGANDA in big scary letters! Let me try... like Paul Joseph Goebbels the Nazi minister of propaganda said: "the essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it". saying that meat is unnecessary and vegetarianism is healthy is just PROPAGANDA, it is a lie that is destroying peoples health and destroying our environment ! Why did I waste my time typing all this out and reading all the posts, I could have simply labeled it all PROPAGANDA. FreedomPhilosophy "The lipid hypothesis is accepted by any reasonable person familiar with the science involved, that's why it appears in medical text books. We know the lipid hypothesis is correct because dietary and drug interventions empirically support it amongst a whole lot of other data." The lipid theory is NOT supported. Take a look at the Framingham study and it shows absolutely no correlation between blood lipid levels and coronary heart disease. Everyone on the panel that makes the recommendations about what are "safe" cholesterol levels receive benefits from the pharmaceutical companies that produce cholesterol drugs. I'm sure they were totally unbiased though... 3
LovePrevails Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 "Yeah, heart attack attack is the leading form of death, but what if your cholesterol is normal? .... having a normal level of cholesterol in a country where it's normal to drop dead of a heart attack - not necessarily a good thing... In a huge study last year, most of the heart attack victims fell within the recommended targets for cholesterol, demonstrating that the current cholesterol guidelines are just not low enough ton cut heart attack risk... For the build up of plaque in arteries to cease , it appears we have to get our total cholesterol down to about 150. In other words, the cholesterol must be lowered to that of your average pure vegetarian." http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/ this video shows study after study which clearly demonstraits that all these chronic illnesses can not only be prevented by a plant-based diet, but treated by them as well.
Bortasz Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Okey i recently discovered that my blood type is A. And I research that this means that I should quit, or lover amount meat in my diet. My problem is that meat is tasty. And easy to cook.So do you have any recipes that are tasty and easy to prepare? And I mean: Buy chicken breast. Cut into slices. Fry in oil. Easy.
cobra2411 Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 "Yeah, heart attack attack is the leading form of death, but what if your cholesterol is normal? .... having a normal level of cholesterol in a country where it's normal to drop dead of a heart attack - not necessarily a good thing... In a huge study last year, most of the heart attack victims fell within the recommended targets for cholesterol, demonstrating that the current cholesterol guidelines are just not low enough ton cut heart attack risk... For the build up of plaque in arteries to cease , it appears we have to get our total cholesterol down to about 150. In other words, the cholesterol must be lowered to that of your average pure vegetarian." http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/ this video shows study after study which clearly demonstraits that all these chronic illnesses can not only be prevented by a plant-based diet, but treated by them as well. First, there is zero correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease. Zero, none, zip, nada. Second, high cholesterol is not a predictor of heart disease as people with high and low cholesterol develop heart disease. Third, cholesterol serves a normal and necessary biological function in the body. So... What causes heart disease, arterial plaques, etc? Inflammation. Your body releases cholesterol (LDL) to repair damaged arteries caused by inflammation. If you have chronic inflammation your body will deposit new cholesterol before the old cholesterol can do it's job and be recycled by the body. What causes inflammation in the arteries? Glucose and Insulin are both caustic to the body at higher levels. When you cut out fat you replace it with carbohydrates and if you eat highly insulinogenic carbohydrates guess what you're doing? Yup, causing inflammation. 2
regevdl Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Have you seen this Interesting. I think humans have only been around for 3million years, maybe a bit longer but never heard the 4million timeframe. anyway..lol hate to be 'that gal'. The only vegans I know personally are complete A-hole psychotics. I am glad to see people on here having reasonable discussions of their experience and encouragment/discouragement. Some distant in-laws became their own little 'vegan cult' from their teenage daughter. I don't know how she got into it but she threatened her family that if they did not conform that she would kill herself or run away etc. So rather than get her evaluated, they conformed. But it didn't stop there, she then made these threats to her VERY vunerable and old grandparents who are nearing their last days and they too conformed. Look, if people feel this is the right thing for them, by all means. If they want to share the great feeling, that is perfectly natural reaction when one feels like they found the golden ticket in life and I am all ears, but like the woman admitted in this video... If it becomes WHO you are..that's when it really does become a problem and less about the 'save the animals' or 'save the enviornment' and all those honorable things and more about controlling peers and losing sight of why you are doing it. When we are around these distant relatives (which thankfully is not often) we cannot even enjoy THEM anymore because it's only involved about talking about the vegan lifestyle and if even I eat something not vegan, they will leave the table or sneer or jeer. It's an absolute atrocity and I don't blame veganism wholly, obviously these people are unstable on a whole new level and this is their crutch but makes me wonder if those who need a crtuch naturally are drawn to veganism (like a which came first scenario). I think sorting out what kind of lifestyle you want. The few vegans I know are more into cardio than muscle-strength building. Obviously their cardio gives them a lot of endurance strength. I have heard it's a challenge to get enough calories a day, especially in the beginning stages, learning to cook, find nutrients, etc. I think it's great when people share how wonderful they feel and can maintain that for a long time and certainly don't judge others who aren't 'there' yet or won't ever get there, so to speak.
LovePrevails Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 First, there is zero correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease. Zero, none, zip, nada. Second, high cholesterol is not a predictor of heart disease as people with high and low cholesterol develop heart disease. Third, cholesterol serves a normal and necessary biological function in the body. So... What causes heart disease, arterial plaques, etc? Inflammation. Your body releases cholesterol (LDL) to repair damaged arteries caused by inflammation. If you have chronic inflammation your body will deposit new cholesterol before the old cholesterol can do it's job and be recycled by the body. What causes inflammation in the arteries? Glucose and Insulin are both caustic to the body at higher levels. When you cut out fat you replace it with carbohydrates and if you eat highly insulinogenic carbohydrates guess what you're doing? Yup, causing inflammation. RE: Your first paragraph. That is just a statement it is not an argument, there is no evidence presented. You listen to FDR, you know how to do philosophy, that guy presents shitloads of evidence that there is. You have not debunked any of it, so I have no reason to take what you say on credit. Please prove your assertion, I have heard people make it before. Where's the data? The fact that cholesterol leads to heart disease is pretty much an undisputed fact amongst medical professionals. If you want to say that they're all wrong then I want some evidence. Re: your second paragraph, the video demonstrates that every time you eat an animal product it exacerbates inflammation in the body. I suggest you WATCH material that is presented before responding to it. The presentation clearly demonstrates, blow by blow, that 17 out of the 18 leading causes of death are exacerbated, and more frequent among, people who eat meat and animal products. It also shows that half of these conditions can be treated and reversed by a plant based diet. 1
cobra2411 Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 RE: Your first paragraph. That is just a statement it is not an argument, there is no evidence presented. You listen to FDR, you know how to do philosophy, that guy presents shitloads of evidence that there is. You have not debunked any of it, so I have no reason to take what you say on credit. Please prove your assertion, I have heard people make it before. Where's the data? The fact that cholesterol leads to heart disease is pretty much an undisputed fact amongst medical professionals. If you want to say that they're all wrong then I want some evidence. Re: your second paragraph, the video demonstrates that every time you eat an animal product it exacerbates inflammation in the body. I suggest you WATCH material that is presented before responding to it. The presentation clearly demonstrates, blow by blow, that 17 out of the 18 leading causes of death are exacerbated, and more frequent among, people who eat meat and animal products. It also shows that half of these conditions can be treated and reversed by a plant based diet. Sorry, I do not have my links handy, but here's one after a quick search. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9430080 "Reports from the Lipid Research Clinics Research Prevalence Study and the Framingham Heart Study have shown that dietary cholesterol is not related to either blood cholesterol or heart disease deaths." "The consistency of the clinical and the epidemiological data demonstrating that dietary cholesterol has little effect on plasma cholesterol in most individuals raises a number of questions regarding the justification of population wide restrictions on dietary cholesterol intake" It is not only known, but well known that there is no link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease, yet we're still told to limit our levels of dietary cholesterol. Three years ago when I went to a ketogenic diet my doctor was emphatic that I was going to send my cholesterol levels sky high. They actually went down. Here's one on low carb dieting which is decidedly high in saturated fats. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905670 "Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and creatinine did not change significantly" "showed the LCD to be associated with significant decreases in ... C-reactive protein, as well as an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol" No change in LDL, increase in HDL, or in other words an improved cholesterol ratio. Oh, and look, there's a significant decrease in C-reactive protein; a common marker for inflammation... Given that low carb diets rely heavily on animal products, that seems to contradict your statement that animal products exacerbate inflammation. I tried to view the video at the link but was greeted with a 404 error. I just searched youtube and found it, but I don't have time to watch an hour long video. I did watch the first couple minutes and already he's wrong. I've just shown that dietary cholesterol is NOT linked to heart disease. I listed two major studies, including the Framingham study which is a rather large and long running study on heart disease covering three generations. A meta analysys of other studies shows there is no link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease. I'm sure if I searched I could find studies to the contrary, but, and this is the important part, what else was done along with eating eggs. I've already stated that high fat, high carb diets are very bad for you. An egg along with hashbowns and toast for example would very bad for you. How many of the egg eaters are or were smokers? I know there is one study out there that interviewed seniors and then tried to "adjust" the data to make it all equal. Here's a good review from Mark's Daily Apple: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/are-eggs-really-as-bad-for-your-arteries-as-cigarettes/#axzz23ZLBH7Gw I'll respond more when I have more time and maybe I'll try and watch more of that video. It's kind of hard when he makes such a fantastic claim that is simply not supported by fact. Yes I know he listed a study, but what were the other variables and why don't other studies show the same correlation? The analysis of the low carb dieters should have shown a marked increase in cholesterol, but it didn't. That to me is one of the closest studies to look at saturated fat intake and cholesterol and the link isn't there. Neither are many of the other factors of heart disease. 1
FreedomPhilosophy Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 "The consistency of the clinical and the epidemiological data demonstrating that dietary cholesterol has little effect on plasma cholesterol in most individuals raises a number of questions regarding the justification of population wide restrictions on dietary cholesterol intake" This is very misleading. Physiological cholesterol levels can only be raised so high, there is a saturation point and in most individuals the excess of dietary fat leaves little ceiling room for dietary cholesterol to elevate total cholesterol much further. I remember this phenomena is explained in one of the many Plant Positive videos on youtube, along with a relevant chart and in the article linked below. Cholesterol feeding experiments upon animals consistently lead to elevated cholesterol, this is true even in species adapted to consume meat*. Eggs are an animal product with a very high cholesterol to fat ratio compared to other popular animal products and they are associated with elevated CVD risk. Dr Greger has a few programs on this topic. *Since 1913 it has been demonstrated in thousands of animal experiments that the feeding of cholesterol, including in the form of fresh egg yolk accelerates the development of atherosclerosis in virtually every vertebrate species that has been sufficiently challenged. This includes mammalian, avian and fish species- herbivores, omnivores and carnivores, and over one dozen different species of nonhuman primates. https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/may/travis.htm 3
Nathan H. Hoffner Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Okey i recently discovered that my blood type is A. And I research that this means that I should quit, or lover amount meat in my diet. My problem is that meat is tasty. And easy to cook. So do you have any recipes that are tasty and easy to prepare? And I mean: Buy chicken breast. Cut into slices. Fry in oil. Easy. My new favorite cook book... http://www.amazon.com/Well-Fed-Paleo-Recipes-People/dp/061557226X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408145489&sr=8-1&keywords=well+fed Plus there are many recipes online..... here are a few.... http://againstallgrain.com/paleo-recipes/ http://nomnompaleo.com/recipeindex http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-paleo-recipes/#axzz3AVTZZ39D This is very misleading. http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/tag/saturated-fat/ Q: I take classes in Anatomy and Physiology and the teacher keeps on saying that Saturated Fat that does not get broken down by the body stays in the body and “turns into body fat or plaques up the arteries”. I have been able to reasonably argue this point but others who are interested in low carb living have asked me where does it go? Do you have an answer I can use? ~ Karoline in NZ A: The term “saturated fat”, for starters, is far too generalized. Naturally saturated fats are comprised of a diverse family of fatty acids containing carbon bonds that are saturated with hydrogen bonds (sharing only one pair of electrons) that have extremely varied use and function in the body. They are quite stable by nature and are by far the safest form of fat to cook with due to their heat resistant/oxidation-resistant qualities. They are in and of themselves innocuous in effect and neither promote or suppress inflammatory processes. –Inflammation is more so regulated by prostaglandins produced from omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (polyunsaturates). Artificially saturated fats include trans-fats and do not behave in a manner that is compatible with our natural physiological functioning. Trans-fats impact the body is ways that are dramatically different and even opposite of the effects of naturally occurring saturated fats our bodies are quite well adapted to (I go into this much more in my book). In the naturally occurring saturated fats there are short, medium and long chain saturated fats that are absorbed and utilized by the body in potentially very different ways. Short chain saturates like butyric acid (found abundantly in butter and after which butter is named) are burned preferentially for energy and are also the preferred food for the cells of the colon. Although our “healthy bacteria” are supposed to synthesize this many people lack sufficient healthy flora to do the job. The evidence suggests that dietary sources of butyrate can also serve to strongly support colon health. Medium chain fats are also preferentially burned as energy and, like the short chain saturates cannot readily be stored as body fat. Coconut oil is made up if mostly these medium chain saturates and capric, caprylic and lauric acid all have potent anti-microbial activity in the body and can serve as a powerful support to immune function. They also are sometimes referred to as MCT’s, which are used medically and also by bodybuilders as a means to get very lean for competition. –Hardly a fattening fat. Coconut oil is made up of about 50% lauric acid which converts to monolaurin in the body. Monolaurin may be the single most powerful anti-viral agent known (effective against even lipid coated viruses such as HIV) and also has other anti-fungal and anti-microbial properties that can be helpful, also. Short and medium- chain fats also tend to bypass the gallbladder and are absorbed more directly into portal blood for quick energy. Long chain saturates such as 18-carbon stearic acid (the most saturated fat in the body) is THE preferred fuel for the human heart. Stearates are commonly synthesized from glucose in the diet and are the primary storage form of saturated fat everyone wishes they had less of. If you don’t like it, eat less carbohydrate (the Textbook of Medical Physiology states “All body fat is made from glucose.”). All body fat can be potentially burned for fuel, assuming one has a well-adapted fat burning metabolism, low insulin levels and expends enough energy to do so. As an interesting aside, coconut and palm oils, both highly saturated, have only 3910 kilocalories per pound compared to soybean (the #1 source of fat in the American diet), cottonseed, or corn oil, which have 4010 kilocalories per pound. In other words there are 100 fewer kilocalories per pound for saturated tropical oils than these common vegetable oils and they are far less likely to be stored by the body or generate inflammatory processes. All commercial soybean oil, by the way, is partially hydrogenated as part of its deodorization process to preserve its shelf life. Saturated fats, by virtue of their saturation are inherently resistant to oxidation and serve to protect delicate polyunsaturated fats from oxidation and help both to transport them and utilize them more effectively. They also serve to help the proper utilization of protein in the diet (which is one reason why both protein and saturated fat often appear together in food). They are also a critical component of cellular membranes and serve to provide integrity and regulate permeability. 80% of what clogs arteries isn’t saturated fat or cholesterol at all, but, rather, rancid unsaturated/polyunsaturated fats that then stick to the arterial lining (like shellac) and generate irritation and inflammation. Nearly all the so-called research condemning saturated fat was based on combined effects of both naturally saturated fats and trans-fats in studies—each of which have literally opposite effects on the body. Naturally saturated fat (a regular part of the human diet for a good 2.6 million years) has been unjustly vilified by inaccurate association. Early researchers assumed they were the same thing since both were saturated fats (one naturally, one artificially) so everything got lumped together. I go into this at considerable length in my book, Primal Body-Primal Mind. So you see, the answer isn’t necessarily simple but all this sure is incredibly important to understand and clarify. Old myths often die hard, but myths regarding the “unhealthy” nature of saturated fats DO need to die, once and for all. We all need dietary fat (including saturated fat) for the health of our brains, nervous systems, hearts (yes, hearts), muscles, cells, endocrine and neurotransmitter function and for primary energy. The only macronutrient (i.e., protein, fats and carbohydrates) for which there is literally a ZERO human dietary requirement is carbohydrates. We can manufacture literally every molecule of glucose we need form a combination of fat and protein in the diet. Saturated fats have been unjustly maligned, misrepresented and generalized for far, far too long. I hope this helps!" ~ Nora Gedgaudas The Cholesterol Myth: http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/the-cholesterol-myth/ 1
cobra2411 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 This is very misleading. Physiological cholesterol levels can only be raised so high, there is a saturation point and in most individuals the excess of dietary fat leaves little ceiling room for dietary cholesterol to elevate total cholesterol much further. I remember this phenomena is explained in one of the many Plant Positive videos on youtube, along with a relevant chart and in the article linked below. Cholesterol feeding experiments upon animals consistently lead to elevated cholesterol, this is true even in species adapted to consume meat*. Eggs are an animal product with a very high cholesterol to fat ratio compared to other popular animal products and they are associated with elevated CVD risk. Dr Greger has a few programs on this topic. *Since 1913 it has been demonstrated in thousands of animal experiments that the feeding of cholesterol, including in the form of fresh egg yolk accelerates the development of atherosclerosis in virtually every vertebrate species that has been sufficiently challenged. This includes mammalian, avian and fish species- herbivores, omnivores and carnivores, and over one dozen different species of nonhuman primates. https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/may/travis.htm So there's a saturation point where the amount of dietary cholesterol ceases to increase serum cholesterol? Hmm, it's almost as if the body can regulate cholesterol levels to where they need to be independently of the amount of dietary cholesterol. But I think I already said that there is zero correlation between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol. I'm not sure if you were rebutting my position or supporting it. As for the video's, you do understand that he's talking his book; that is he's pushing a vegetarian agenda where everything else is simply wrong. The studies he listed show no causation, do not identify other dietary reasons for elevated cholesterol and rely on those in the study remembering how many eggs they've eaten and being honest about their answers. What about other foods they've eaten? Did they remember correctly the number of eggs? Did they eat their eggs with something else that could have caused elevated cholesterol. As for other animals that have issues with cholesterol - I don't care. They're not humans. If there is any correlation it's very weak and nothing shown shows causation - because it can't. Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. Let me explain. First, the body needs cholesterol; if your cholesterol was zero you'd die. So what we're really talking about is elevated cholesterol levels and those are symptoms, not causes. We're also talking about arterial plaque, not clogged capillaries. So why is it that cholesterol clogs our largest blood vessels, but not our smallest? Maybe because what LDL cholesterol does is protect and repair arterial inflammation. Since the body is fully capable of manufacturing all the cholesterol it needs and because the dietary cholesterol does not significantly change the levels of serum cholesterol we have to assume that when you have high cholesterol; particularly LDL, it's there for a reason - to heal inflamed arteries. Yes, some people have a sensitivity to red meats which causes inflammation. Some... I'm not speaking in exceptions here, I'm speaking in terms of the general population and the general population does not have an inflammatory reaction to meat that results in increased plaques. Yes I know you posted some videos... What were the other foods they ate and could those other foods have been responsible for the inflammation? Now... Notice that the doctor in the second video mentions that people should use lipid lowering drugs? You don't think he's got a vested interest in saying so do you? How about the authors of the study "Egg yolk consumption and carotid plaque". They would have a financial reason to write about how cholesterol is bad for you would they? "Dr Spence and Dr Davignon have received honoraria and speaker’s fees from several pharmaceutical companies manufacturing lipid-lowering drugs, and Dr Davignon has received support from Pfizer Canada for an annual atherosclerosis symposium; his research has been funded in part by Pfizer Canada, AstraZeneca Canada Inc and Merck Frosst Canada Ltd." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989358/#__fn-groupid3507264title What's the likelihood they're going to get any more money if they publish a study that says cholesterol isn't a big deal? Excuse me for not trusting someone who has a vested interest in lying to me. As for Dr Potato Head, aka Dr McDougal, he's another one that talks his book and twists facts to distort reality and make his way seem right. Take a look at what he has to say about the Atkins diet: "This diet works by starving the human body of carbohydrates in order to induce a state of illness (ketosis), which can result in weight loss. People become too sick to eat too much." Ketosis is a state of illness? Seriously? Ketosis is the bodies response to a lack of dietary glucose. The liver uses fat for energy and creates glucose through gluconeogenesis. Ketones are byproducts of that process and various parts of the body which normally rely on glucose for fuel and have not adapted to using fat can use ketones in the interim. During this time, due to the lack of dietary glucose, insulin levels drop and glucagon levels rise. Insulin is a fat storage hormone, where as glucagon is a fat mobilization hormone. When glucagon levels rise the liver releases it's stores of glucose. The body only stores about 3 days worth of glucose, but it stores weeks, months even years of fat. Once the body is out of glucose it transitions to fat as an energy source and as I said the liver converts protein into glucose. The brain is one organ that can not function on anything other than glucose. Over time the body will adapt to using fat directly and ketone levels will drop significantly. How anyone can take a natural body function and label it an illness is beyond me. He then says people loose weight because they're too sick to eat; another falsehood. While there is an adaptation period of approximately two weeks, after that there is no sickness. When you eat carbohydrates your body releases insulin to control your blood sugar. Your body first replenishes it's stores, then through de novo lipogenesis your body converts glucose into fat. As I said, insulin is a fat storage hormone. This is why high fat, high carb diets are bad; your body stores all dietary fat and converts excess glucose into fat. Once your have extracted all you can from digestion you will become hungry again because your insulin levels are still high and your body isn't going to readily release fat for energy. When you're on low carb your insulin levels are always low and thus your body will release fat for energy more readily. You don't have the intense hunger because your body's always burning fat for energy - either from dietary sources or from storage. You never have elevated insulin levels to get in the way. Simply put this guy's a quack. 1
Bortasz Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 My new favorite cook book... http://www.amazon.com/Well-Fed-Paleo-Recipes-People/dp/061557226X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408145489&sr=8-1&keywords=well+fed Plus there are many recipes online..... here are a few.... http://againstallgrain.com/paleo-recipes/ http://nomnompaleo.com/recipeindex http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-paleo-recipes/#axzz3AVTZZ39D http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/tag/saturated-fat/ Thanks for recipes. But I have not very high opinion about Paleo diet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8 1
cobra2411 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 "The diet does seem primarily targeted at men" "[the advertisements] have virile, cavemen like images" Oh, how dare men have their own diet. Don't our bodies understand how sexist it is to respond to different nutritional intake than women? "One is that our agricultural diets today make us chronically ill" The wheat that is currently grown didn't exist even 50 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago. The strain grown today is grown due to it's hardiness, it's resistance to disease and it's resistance to insects. Wheat is a grain, grains are seeds, and most seeds are not edible in their raw form. Seeds are the embryo of a plant; it's the baby that must survive a very harsh environment and have enough nourishment to last until it can sprout leaves and make it's own food. It's only reasonable to assume that, like all life, it would find a way to protect itself and it's offspring to ensure survival of the species. Now, there has been debate about how grains are healthy for you and how whole grains are the healthiest, but I haven't seen any studies that compare refined grains, whole grains and no grains. Grains are so low in nutritional value that most cereal products in the United States are fortified with vitamins and minerals. Now seed do have some nutritional value including protein, but not all of that is easily digestible and some is even harmful to us that aren't sprouting young plants. The outer parts of seeds are coated with proteins called lectins which are part of a plants immune system. lectins can bind to the glycoproteins on the walls of our intestines and have in laboratory settings been shown to damage human intestines and in animal studies it leads to leaky gut syndrome. Earlier someone posted a study that showed how a sausage mcmuffin lead to Endotoxin Inflammation Theory and they blamed the meat. A mcmuffin is made from grains which contain lectins which can cause leaky gut leading to endotoxin inflammation. But it sounds so much cooler to the vegetarian crowd to blame meat... Lectins have also been shown to cause cancer in laboratory settings. Soaking foods containing lectins and boiling them for 15 minutes will inactivate most lectins and make them safe to eat from a lectin perspective. But there's more! Grains also have gluten; which is proven to cause Celiac disease in humans. Gluten is difficult to digest and is irritating to our immune system. Seeds also have enzyme inhibitors that make it harder to break down foods and they have phytic acid. Phytic acid binds to minerals and removes them from our bodies, although taking vitamin C can help increase mineral absorption to prevent deficiencies. Then there are the seed starches which are undigestable. However, there is bacteria that lives in the colon that can break down these starches and turn them into saturated fat basically. It's nice that we have a long digestive tract as many have pointed out, but what we really need is a larger colon ratio to be true herbivores. Lets take a look at the western lowland gorilla; a true vegetarian mammal. It has 6 times the colon area as a human and can extract more than half it's energy needs from it's colon due to the bacteria that live inside which break down the indigestible fibers and such and convert them into short chain fatty acids or saturated fat. So on the surface the gorilla eats a very low fat diet, but what the body sees is decidedly high fat thanks to the bacteria that lives in the colon. Since humans lack a ruminant's stomach and we lack the large gorilla colon, we must get our fat through our diet. There are no animals that survive on a truly low fat diet. They either get their fat through their diet or their body makes it through fermentation. "[the paleo diet] has no basis in archaeological reality" So? It's a hook. It's a way of saying that "lean cuisine" meals are bad for you; get into the kitchen and cook your food from scratch and the simpler the menu, the better. Sure, some of it has drifted into ketogenic based models; but that's a valid diet of some people from 10,000 years ago - yes, I'm looking at you Mr Inuit man... "We have stone tool evidence from at least 30,000 years ago" Yeah, and? From what I've read the agriculture movement began in earnest 10,000 years ago and that would be when grains became a significant source of food for humans, so right in line with the timeline that paleo targets. However, the same agriculture that was available then isn't available today. Also, this does not say that humans didn't eat grains before this time; only that it was not a significant part of our diet before about 10,000 years ago. These books are not written as definitive scientific studies of what paleolithic people ate. It's an educated guess and at it's core it's about getting processed and refined foods out of your diet. Overall she seems fixated on showing how the "paleo diet" is not a paleo diet; not whether the diet is good or bad for you. If they called it "the don't buy processed food diet book" how many copies do you think they'd sell? Does this woman not have the words "artistic license" in her vocabulary? I've said it before and I'll say it again - GET THE REFINED, PROCESSED CRAP OUT OF YOUR DIET. I don't care if you eat vegetarian, vegan, paleo, south beach, atkins, etc. Get the crap out of your diet and you'll be a huge step ahead. Now, I do have concerns that vegetarian and particularly vegan diets can be very unhealthy for you However, it's not hard with some study and attention to detail to deal with those issues. And lastly, whatever you do - Don't eat a high fat, high carb diet. Okey i recently discovered that my blood type is A. And I research that this means that I should quit, or lover amount meat in my diet. My problem is that meat is tasty. And easy to cook.So do you have any recipes that are tasty and easy to prepare? And I mean: Buy chicken breast. Cut into slices. Fry in oil. Easy. I assume you're referring to Dr D'Adamo's work? I looked into this a while ago and was intrigued and I know several people who have tried it with great success. However, I have serious questions about his work. For one, even he has drifted away from a blood type diet to a body type diet. Second, the people I know who did great on the diet cut out processed and refined crap foods at the same time. I submit their improvements weren't from a blood type diet, but rather than simply eating a healthier diet. As I've said before, some people have a sensitivity to red meat, but there is other non-red meat out there. If you love meat, eat meat as you're more likely to stick to a healthy diet eating things you like and that are easy to prepare. Cut all red meat from your diet for a few weeks and see how you feel. Then reintroduce them and compare. If you want to get real fancy then do blood tests 3 months apart. So it would require you to stay on that diet for the whole three months, but it would give you definitive proof that the diet is good or bad for you. I alternated between the standard american diet and low carb a few times with blood-work in between and my cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, c-reactive protein and many other factors improved on a low carb diet and got worse on the SAD diet. So I know consistently that a low carb diet is better for me. 2
Bortasz Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I assume you're referring to Dr D'Adamo's work? I looked into this a while ago and was intrigued and I know several people who have tried it with great success. However, I have serious questions about his work. For one, even he has drifted away from a blood type diet to a body type diet. Second, the people I know who did great on the diet cut out processed and refined crap foods at the same time. I submit their improvements weren't from a blood type diet, but rather than simply eating a healthier diet. As I've said before, some people have a sensitivity to red meat, but there is other non-red meat out there. If you love meat, eat meat as you're more likely to stick to a healthy diet eating things you like and that are easy to prepare. Cut all red meat from your diet for a few weeks and see how you feel. Then reintroduce them and compare. If you want to get real fancy then do blood tests 3 months apart. So it would require you to stay on that diet for the whole three months, but it would give you definitive proof that the diet is good or bad for you. I alternated between the standard american diet and low carb a few times with blood-work in between and my cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, c-reactive protein and many other factors improved on a low carb diet and got worse on the SAD diet. So I know consistently that a low carb diet is better for me. Hmmm I just really want to lose some fat. I weight 130 kg having 180 centimetres heights. I always was biggest one and now work where I do not move many.
cobra2411 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Hmmm I just really want to lose some fat. I weight 130 kg having 180 centimetres heights. I always was biggest one and now work where I do not move many. First, get any crap food out of your diet. Regular soda, chips, cookies, cakes, candy, etc. The simpler your food the better. Next on the list would be grains and starches - eliminate or greatly reduce breads, pasta, rice, potatoes, etc. Then decide if you're going to go low fat or low carb. If you're going low fat then you'll eat a mostly vegetarian diet. Lean meats are ok, but watch your fat intake. Fiber is your friend as it'll make you feel full faster and it seems to temper the release of glucose into your bloodstream so as not to spike your insulin levels. If you go low carb keep your carbs under 50g/day for weight loss. I personally find under 30g/day works really well for weight loss. The carbs I do eat are all vegetables with the very occasional piece of fruit. Once you've lost the weight you can increase your carb count by 10g/day per week till you start to gain weight. 10g/day less than that amount is your max carb amount. For me I find I maintain weight eating as much as 120g/day of carbs but I feel better if I keep it under 100. Here's a good forum that has a section for everyone from Atkins to Vegetarianism. http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/ 1
Bortasz Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 First, get any crap food out of your diet. Regular soda, chips, cookies, cakes, candy, etc. The simpler your food the better. Next on the list would be grains and starches - eliminate or greatly reduce breads, pasta, rice, potatoes, etc. Then decide if you're going to go low fat or low carb. If you're going low fat then you'll eat a mostly vegetarian diet. Lean meats are ok, but watch your fat intake. Fiber is your friend as it'll make you feel full faster and it seems to temper the release of glucose into your bloodstream so as not to spike your insulin levels. If you go low carb keep your carbs under 50g/day for weight loss. I personally find under 30g/day works really well for weight loss. The carbs I do eat are all vegetables with the very occasional piece of fruit. Once you've lost the weight you can increase your carb count by 10g/day per week till you start to gain weight. 10g/day less than that amount is your max carb amount. For me I find I maintain weight eating as much as 120g/day of carbs but I feel better if I keep it under 100. Here's a good forum that has a section for everyone from Atkins to Vegetarianism. http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/ I admit I like sweet. But I do not eat chips, and soda drinks. I usually eat Rice + Chicken, Potatoes + Leaver. Or frozen veggies fry on pan.Low carb means Low carbon diet?
cobra2411 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I admit I like sweet. But I do not eat chips, and soda drinks. I usually eat Rice + Chicken, Potatoes + Leaver. Or frozen veggies fry on pan.Low carb means Low carbon diet? Low carbohydrates. Try chicken and vegetables or liver and vegetables and pass on the rice and potatoes. And skip the sweets. Fried carrots and onions in butter with chicken is really good.
Bortasz Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Low carbohydrates. Try chicken and vegetables or liver and vegetables and pass on the rice and potatoes. And skip the sweets. Fried carrots and onions in butter with chicken is really good. I will try this.
Nathan H. Hoffner Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Thanks for recipes. But I have not very high opinion about Paleo diet. If you have a low opinion of the paleo diet then do more research until its no longer an opinion. Here's a good place to start... http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Body-Mind-Beyond-Health/dp/1594774137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408212392&sr=8-1&keywords=primal+mind+body "Combining your body’s Paleolithic needs with modern nutritional and medical research for complete mind-body wellness• Provides sustainable diet strategies to curb sugar cravings, promote fat burning and weight loss, reduce stress and anxiety, improve sleep and moods, increase energy and immunity, and enhance memory and brain function• Shows how our modern diet leads to weight gain and “diseases of civilization”--such as cancer, osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, and ADD• Explains how diet affects the brain, hormone balance, and the aging process and the crucial role of vitamin D in cancer and disease preventionExamining the healthy lives of our pre-agricultural Paleolithic ancestors and the marked decline in stature, bone density, and dental health and the increase in birth defects, malnutrition, and disease following the implementation of the agricultural lifestyle, Nora Gedgaudas shows how our modern grain- and carbohydrate-heavy low-fat diets are a far cry from the high-fat, moderate-protein hunter-gatherer diets we are genetically programmed for, leading not only to lifelong weight gain but also to cravings, mood disorders, cognitive problems, and “diseases of civilization”--such as cancer, osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance), heart disease, and mental illness.Applying modern discoveries to the basic hunter-gatherer diet, she culls from vast research in evolutionary physiology, biochemistry, metabolism, nutrition, and chronic and degenerative disease to unveil a holistic lifestyle for true mind-body health and longevity. Revealing the primal origins and physiological basis for a high-fat, moderate-protein, starch-free diet and the importance of adequate omega-3 intake--critical to our brain and nervous system but sorely lacking in most people’s diets--she explains the nutritional problems of grains, gluten, soy, dairy, and starchy vegetables; which natural fats promote health and which (such as canola oil) harm it; the crucial role of vitamin D in cancer and disease prevention; the importance of saturated fat and cholesterol; and how diet affects mental health, memory, cognitive function, hormonal balance, and cellular aging. With step-by-step guidelines, recipes, and meal recommendations, this book offers sustainable strategies for a primally based, yet modern approach to diet and exercise to reduce stress and anxiety, lose weight, improve sleep and mood, increase energy and immunity, enhance brain function, save money on groceries, and live longer and happier." 1
FreedomPhilosophy Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Simply put this guy's a quack. Dr McDougall is a qualified medical doctor who's treatments are based on medical science and empirically lead to patient recovery. You are the "quack". 2
cobra2411 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Dr McDougall is a qualified medical doctor who's treatments are based on medical science and empirically lead to patient recovery. You are the "quack". He is intentionally dishonest! He intentionally misrepresents fact in order to promote himself and discredit others. Sorry, he's still a quack in my book.
LovePrevails Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 the meat eaters just want to eat meat, there is no philosophy going on here. they make blatantly false claims and don't accept scientific data that clearly shows that vegetarians are less likely to suffer from 17 of the 18 primary causes of death, and that HALF OF THEM can even be treated byy a plant-based diet. What more do you need? 3
Bortasz Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 If you have a low opinion of the paleo diet then do more research until its no longer an opinion. Here's a good place to start... http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Body-Mind-Beyond-Health/dp/1594774137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408212392&sr=8-1&keywords=primal+mind+body "Combining your body’s Paleolithic needs with modern nutritional and medical research for complete mind-body wellness• Provides sustainable diet strategies to curb sugar cravings, promote fat burning and weight loss, reduce stress and anxiety, improve sleep and moods, increase energy and immunity, and enhance memory and brain function• Shows how our modern diet leads to weight gain and “diseases of civilization”--such as cancer, osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, and ADD• Explains how diet affects the brain, hormone balance, and the aging process and the crucial role of vitamin D in cancer and disease preventionExamining the healthy lives of our pre-agricultural Paleolithic ancestors and the marked decline in stature, bone density, and dental health and the increase in birth defects, malnutrition, and disease following the implementation of the agricultural lifestyle, Nora Gedgaudas shows how our modern grain- and carbohydrate-heavy low-fat diets are a far cry from the high-fat, moderate-protein hunter-gatherer diets we are genetically programmed for, leading not only to lifelong weight gain but also to cravings, mood disorders, cognitive problems, and “diseases of civilization”--such as cancer, osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance), heart disease, and mental illness.Applying modern discoveries to the basic hunter-gatherer diet, she culls from vast research in evolutionary physiology, biochemistry, metabolism, nutrition, and chronic and degenerative disease to unveil a holistic lifestyle for true mind-body health and longevity. Revealing the primal origins and physiological basis for a high-fat, moderate-protein, starch-free diet and the importance of adequate omega-3 intake--critical to our brain and nervous system but sorely lacking in most people’s diets--she explains the nutritional problems of grains, gluten, soy, dairy, and starchy vegetables; which natural fats promote health and which (such as canola oil) harm it; the crucial role of vitamin D in cancer and disease prevention; the importance of saturated fat and cholesterol; and how diet affects mental health, memory, cognitive function, hormonal balance, and cellular aging. With step-by-step guidelines, recipes, and meal recommendations, this book offers sustainable strategies for a primally based, yet modern approach to diet and exercise to reduce stress and anxiety, lose weight, improve sleep and mood, increase energy and immunity, enhance brain function, save money on groceries, and live longer and happier." I see we have here certain problem.I give you link to 20 minute video where you paleo diet is shred to pieces by logic and science. And you only answer is to give me advertisement to buy a book about pale diet? I hope that you see a problem. the meat eaters just want to eat meat, there is no philosophy going on here. they make blatantly false claims and don't accept scientific data that clearly shows that vegetarians are less likely to suffer from 17 of the 18 primary causes of death, and that HALF OF THEM can even be treated byy a plant-based diet. What more do you need? Yes I want eat meet. It tasty. And since I can find something like this:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036671/Vegan-couple-serve-life-sentences-starving-baby-death-extreme-diet.html In matter of second.... well I hope that you see my problem of leaving meet. 2
cobra2411 Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 the meat eaters just want to eat meat, there is no philosophy going on here. they make blatantly false claims and don't accept scientific data that clearly shows that vegetarians are less likely to suffer from 17 of the 18 primary causes of death, and that HALF OF THEM can even be treated byy a plant-based diet. What more do you need? Blatantly false claims? Since you called me out, I'm returning the favor, you know better - you simply made a statement with no facts to support it. How about you list some of the blatantly false claims so we can further discuss them. As for the data showing vegetarians being less likely to suffer the primary causes of death, all the studies shown are observational and by their nature can not show causation. Yet that's the stance offered by many of the video's and Guru's posted here that eating meat causes disease. When a casual person mistakes correlation for causation I can understand that, but not when a professional does it. There have been studies posted that show vegetarians are less likely to die than non-vegetarians - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895 for example, but non-vegetarians are all lumped together. I maintain it's not the meat that kills non-vegetarians but what is eaten with the meat that does and I listed a meta-analysis study of low carbohydrate diets that show marked improvements in cardiovascular health. I've shown how there is a huge conflict of interest with cholesterol data and that dietary cholesterol does not impact serum cholesterol and I offered proof for that. The studies that show otherwise are one; observational studies and two; the authors have a conflict of interest as they're on the payroll of companies who sell cholesterol medication. How many studies do you think will get funded after they come out and say cholesterol levels aren't a big deal and aren't a cause of heart disease - and I've covered that too, that bad cholesterol levels are really a symptom not a cause. If they were interested in the truth and finding a cause they're correctly identify cholesterol as a symptom and search for the cause. I've outed Dr McDougall as a quack because he's shown he's willing to intentionally distort facts to support his own agenda and listed the first paragraph of his hit piece on low carb diets where he lists ketosis as an illness and says people loose weight because they are simply too sick to eat. But I'm a quack too, so why listen to me. Ok, here's what Dr. Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D. has to say... "When you reduce your carbohydrate intake significantly – typically to less than 50 to 75 grams per day -you enter a metabolic state known as ketosis. Ketosis is a term used to describe the NORMAL process of using ketones for energy. Ketones aren’t bad. They’re actually a fat breakdown product. That is, whenever fat is burned, ketones are created. So they’re always present in the body. On a high carb diet, your body uses glucose, the simplest form of carbohydrates, as its primary fuel. But when glucose isn’t readily available to your body for energy your body begins burning fat at an accelerated rate, producing more ketones. These ketones are really just storage units, holding the excess energy that’s produced from the rapid breakdown of fat so that it can be used later as fuel. As ketone levels rise, your body’s reliance on glucose decreases. In the simplest terms, ketosis is just a shift from using carbohydrates (glucose) as the body’s main energy source, to using fat (ketones). It’s NOT a dangerous condition; it’s simply your body adjusting to your diet so that it’s using the most efficient form of fuel. Unfortunately many health professionals believe ketosis to be a dangerous metabolic condition. Why? Because over a hundred years ago, physicians discovered an overabundance of ketones in the urine of diabetics who were unable to control their disease. Naturally, the association of high levels of ketones with poorly controlled diabetes led to negative views of ketones. The high level of ketones in diabetics was given the name diabetic hyperketoacidosis (now known simply as diabetic ketoacidosis). Diabetic ketoacidosis, which represents extremely high levels of ketones, is a life-threatening state that can occur in type-1 diabetics who aren’t treating their condition appropriately. While diabetic ketoacidosis is serious, the mere presence of ketones is not. The point here is that sometimes a lot of something causes problems, but a little can be advantageous. Sort of like your heart beating 300 times a minute might be bad, but your heart beating 60 times a minute is ideal – and certainly better than not at all. Now consider: the ketone levels in people with diabetic ketoacidosis are 8 times higher than those following a low carb diet. Interestingly, ketones have many benefits. In fact, they may be the perfect fuel for dieters. Since ketones spare the use of carbohydrates for energy, they prevent the protein from your muscles from being broken down and converted to glucose. And that ensures that the calories you’re burning are far more likely to be fat, compared to typical diets where muscle loss almost always accompanies fat loss. Ketones also suppress your appetite. Research shows that increased levels of a compound called betahydroxybutyrate – the primary ketone in the blood -act as a satiety signal , meaning that it tells your brain that you’re full. Of course, the other knock on ketosis is that even if it burns fat faster, it deprives your brain of glucose, reducing your mental capacity. However, your brain only requires a small amount of glucose, which can be met through gluconeo-genesis, the process of converting protein to glucose. Although not high in protein, by it’s nature a low-carb diet provides ample incoming protein. So there’s plenty available for the small amount of glucose that your brain needs, without having to breakdown muscle. In addition, encouraging new research from National Institutes of Health scientist Richard Veech MD, PhD, has found that ketones may help both your brain and heart run 25 percent more efficiently." So ketosis is normal, it's the shift of your body from using carbs to using fat for energy and the primary ketone acts as a satiety signal telling the brain you're full. But I guess it's hard to sell a diet book about using carbohydrates when your competitors are having such good results. When your work can't stand on it's own then slander the competition. Then we have Collin Campbell who says that meat causes cancer. He even proves it with his rat study. The rats were given aflatoxin daily for six months. Aflatoxin, for those that don't know, is a known carcinogen. The rats were then separated into two groups and given 5% or 20% of a protein isolate; casein. Over two years all the rats in the 20% group survived, but many developed cancer or pre-cancer signs. The rats in the 5% group started dying after six months. So what does this study prove? That protein protects you from aflatoxin toxicity. Protein doesn't cause cancer, a constant dose of a known carcinogen cause cancer... Denise Minger has done a very good job of shredding Campbell's study that's frequently hailed as proof that a vegetarian diet is the only healthy diet. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ I have never said that plant based diets are unhealthy or that they don't improve health. I only cautioned that simply removing meat from your diet doesn't automatically make it a healthy diet. My stance has also always been that eating meat isn't the problem either. It's what you eat with the meat that causes the problem. Many people who adopt a vegetarian diet drastically alter their diet and remove the damaging food from their diet. Most people don't become vegetarian and adopt a diet of twinkies and ho-ho's. Show me the studies that prove meat and meat alone is the problem. I'll give you a hint; you'll have to look at ketogenic, low carb and paleo diet studies as they're the studies most likely to eliminate the sugary, starchy refined and processed foods that I believe are the problem. I've also maintained that most of those foods are only a problem when mixed with meat. The exception being the processed and refined foods. I've also been consistent with that - get the crap refined foods out of your diet and if you want to eat high carb, eat low fat. If you want to eat high fat then eat low carb. 2
cobra2411 Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/548019 "The effect of ketone bodies on the growth, in culture, of transformed lymphoblasts (Raji cells) was investigated. Cell growth was inhibited and this effect was reversible, non-toxic, and proportional to the concentration of D-beta-hydroxybutyrate up to 20mM. The total glucose utilisation and the total lactate production were reduced in proportion to the inhibition of cell proliferation. D-beta-hydroxybutyrate was not metabolised by the cells. Other glycolytic inhibitors and chemical analogues of D-beta-hydroxybutyrate either did not inhibit or proved to be too toxic for cell growth. D-beta-hydroxybutyrate also inhibited the growth of rabbit kidney (RK13), HeLa, mouse melanoma (B16), fibroblast and trypsin-dispersed human thyroid and beef testis cells. Moreover, in vivo dietary-induced ketosis reduced the number of B16 melanoma deposits in the lungs of C57BL/6 mice by two-thirds. The significance of these results in the clinical management of cancer cachexia is discussed." Looks like Dr McDougall's "illness" (ketosis) inhibits cancer growth... But meat is bad for you... http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0899-9007/PIIS0899900712001864.pdf Here's a study where 10 cancer patients were put on ketogenic diets and half of them remained stable and one went into remission. Those with the lowest insulin and highest ketone levels did the best. But meat is bad for you... Elevated blood sugar and insulin levels, high circulating IGF-1, are all risk factors for cancer. They also lead to arterial irritation which the body responds to with LDL cholesterol. Continued arterial irritation leads to plaque buildup as the body doesn't have time to heal and remove the existing LDL before new particles are applied. I'm only focusing on heart disease and cancer here because they account for almost 50% of all causes of death. Now, if only we knew what causes elevated blood sugar and insulin levels; maybe we could find a way to adjust peoples diets to reduce two of the leading causes of death. It's got to be meat. Meat lovers hate science, twist statistics for their own gain and simply lie because they don't want to accept the truth. The simple and inescapable fact here is that carbohydrates are to blame, not meat. Now, it's obviously not all carbohydrates, grains and starches in my opinion are the worst offenders and particularly those that are refined and processed as they digest more readily into glucose in the bloodstream. What happens when you spike your levels of glucose? Yup, the body responds with insulin. Over time your body becomes insulin resistant and you need more and more of it. You either create a state where your body reaches the limit of insulin your pancreas can produce or you damage your pancreas and it can't produce as much or any insulin. Type 2 diabetes. Of course we give people more insulin rather than change their diet because it's more profitable to sell them a lifetime supply of insulin to manage their disease. If we could finally accept that it's the highly insulinogenic foods that cause diabetes, heart disease, etc we could offer two avenues for people to take - 1: adopt a vegetarian diet and get the crap food out of your diet or 2: adopt a ketogenic diet and get the crap food out of your diet. Maybe if we did that we'd actually cure people. The anti-diabetes market was 35 billion dollars in 2012 and is estimated to go to over 50 billion by 2017. The lipid industry is over 10 billion. I'm guessing they probably wouldn't want people to be actually cured. They probably would offer nice research grants to anyone who could show things like how cholesterol is bad for you. I'm sure all doctors are ethical and no one would twist or otherwise cherry pick research for their own gain though... Now onto my story, four years ago I was hospitalized with stage 2 hypertension. I was poked, prodded, scanned and examined and in the end I was told that I was simply one of the 95% of people that had high blood pressure with no known reason and would have to simply live with it. I was given a handful of medications to take everyday and had to learn to deal with the side effects. Becoming suicidal was a fun one to deal with... I was repeatedly told there was nothing I could do except medicate myself. I could not stick to a vegetarian diet as it felt alien to me - probably how most vegetarians would feel if they were told to start eating copious amounts of meat. I was 313 lbs when I went into the hospital and after only a couple months of trying to eat low fat I was up to 327 lbs. I was told that it was a side effect of the medication and I would have to deal with it and I could expect to continue gaining weight if I didn't count calories and eat a low fat diet. I had developed gout as well; although the doctors didn't want to pin that one on side effects. I found Gary Taubes book and it literally changed my life as I started to understand nutrition. Sure, I could nit-pick and find flaws with his book, but I now had a better understanding of nutrition than my doctors. I decided to go on a ketogenic diet as I loved meat and having a side of sausage with my steak sounded like heaven. My doctor told me I was going to kill myself and emphatically told me not to do it. I had just had my annual blood-work done and I suggested I return in 3 months for more blood-work while I tried the diet. His exact words were "I don't think you can do irreparable harm in 3 months". That was his "blessing" if you call it that. Three months later I walked into his office weighing 277 lbs and all my blood-work was improved. I was on the verge of needing cholesterol medicine before and my doctor predicted that he would be writing a prescription for lipitor when I returned. Instead my cholesterol went down by 20 points, my triglycerides were normal and my HDL improved. I had suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver and while I can't remember if it was reversed in the three months, it is now. There was at least a marked improvement after three months. I went on to get off all medication and get my weight into the 250's where I stalled out. I'm 6'2" and large framed and muscular so I don't look 250. I posted a before and after picture above and I'm about 255 in the after picture. Probably 310-315 in the before. I'm guessing my "normal" almost 40yo weight would be around 220 give or take. I've eased up on my carb restrictions and have been eating grains and starches up till last week. After only a few days I'm back in ketosis and I have improved energy and my typical morning aches and pains have disappeared. The only reasons I added grains and starches back in is because 1: they're so common and 2: I'm addicted to them. It's a hard story for me to tell because it was such a low time in my life. It came a little after my father had passed and I was still dealing with my manipulative and controlling mother. However, given the direction of this thread I've decided to share so you know where I'm coming from. I'm literally betting my life on what I'm doing and so far I've had excellent results and have reversed a lot of damage that I've done. Hell, even my eyesight improved as I went from -4.25 to -3.75. I've seen the improvements first hand and have talked to many other people with similar stories. I've posted research studies that show the same thing. I'm living what I peach. I'm far from being a meat eater that doesn't want to see the truth that meat is killing me. BTW, in that first three months my typical breakfast was bacon and eggs with the eggs cooked in the bacon grease. And my cholesterol improved. So much for eating fat makes you fat and eating cholesterol raises cholesterol. And it wasn't just an egg a day... I still eat bacon and eggs cooked in the bacon grease, just not as much as I did initially. 2
Recommended Posts