shirgall Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 He's nuts. I've read Rippetoe, and he seems pretty methodical and empirical and definitely understands the difference between training (lifting to get stronger) and performance (lifting to impress girls). Why is he nuts?
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 I cannot answer your question definitively as I haven't looked into it, I just did a quick search and there was nothing obvious so I doubt it has even been studied. While there may be slight differences, similar to how women should consume more iron because of menstruation, that is not a big deal because that only equals eating a bit of extra spinach and beans. Everything the body needs can be found in different plants, the only exception being b12, which comes from bacteria in the dirt, and on the rotting flesh of dead animals. Vegan food is not as calorically dense as meat, eggs and dairy, so we have to eat a higher volume in general to meet our energy needs, in the process we get more then enough nutrients and protein from our food. Protein requirements for sedentary adults is about 0.8g per kg of body weight, up to an optimal 1.7g per kg found in a study on atheletes, any more than this just ended up being peed out basically. I couldn't find the study that said that but while looking now I came across this http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/1/161.short It says any more protein ingested that required leads to irreversible oxidation, which is very bad. In short again any racial differences will be minuscule due to the relatively short amount of time since we started evolving separately, fundamentally the body needs what it needs and while some things may be slightly more important to some races it is not something to worry about if you are eating a whole foods plant based diet, in my opinion! Thanks a lot! I will be looking for some dead, rotting animals tomorrow to get my b12! I know a nearby trailer park, so I'm going to ask the lovely folk there where to find some. No, really that's all very useful information and now I have a lot to get started with. Today I bought lots of veggies shopping. To be honest I think I've always felt better eating more veggies than meats, but no meat at all is an interesting idea I will have to consider more. I bought lots of nuts too, because why not right?
Jakethehuman Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 I've read Rippetoe, and he seems pretty methodical and empirical and definitely understands the difference between training (lifting to get stronger) and performance (lifting to impress girls). Why is he nuts? Nothing wrong with his numbers and training regime, as long as you use correct form on your exercises do as The Hodgetwins do; whatever the fuck you want to do. He obviously doesn't eat well though. Thanks a lot! I will be looking for some dead, rotting animals tomorrow to get my b12! I know a nearby trailer park, so I'm going to ask the lovely folk there where to find some. No, really that's all very useful information and now I have a lot to get started with. Today I bought lots of veggies shopping. To be honest I think I've always felt better eating more veggies than meats, but no meat at all is an interesting idea I will have to consider more. I bought lots of nuts too, because why not right? Haha sure man, go nuts
shirgall Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Nothing wrong with his numbers and training regime, as long as you use correct form on your exercises do as The Hodgetwins do; whatever the fuck you want to do. He obviously doesn't eat well though. The point of my postings about him was to highlight the problems with the question "Is he healthy?" It always comes back to "Compared to what?" He is undoubtedly strong. But he has a gut.
brucethecollie Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Some people inherit altered DNA sequences that cause them to become obese, despite what their parents try to do to help them. And we can't tell who carries these genes by looking at them. I think it's an important thing to keep in mind when dealing with frustration surrounding people who have obese children. Just for the sake of better handling one's own frustration, I mean.
Kevin Beal Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Some people inherit altered DNA sequences that cause them to become obese. I'm no expert, but I believe that genes predict where fat will sit on the body (butt, tummy, thighs, etc), but not that a person will become obese. Twin studies seem to contradict the hypothesis of a "fat gene". Correct me if you have evidence to the contrary. But even if we accept a fat gene, I think it's fair to analogize it to the kinds of genes which make a person more or less prone to becoming an alcoholic. Becoming an alcoholic isn't genetic destiny for these people, it just makes it easier to slip into. Obese people may gain fat easier, but like the alcoholic prone person, they just need to be more cautious. And it's pretty easy to tell when you gain weight or are becoming addicted to alcohol, especially if it runs in the family and the parents have their kids best interests in mind. People don't just slip into obesity, is basically what I'm saying. Even if it's more slippery for some, neglect is still a key factor. 1
brucethecollie Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 I'm no expert, but I believe that genes predict where fat will sit on the body (butt, tummy, thighs, etc), but not that a person will become obese. Twin studies seem to contradict the hypothesis of a "fat gene". Correct me if you have evidence to the contrary. But even if we accept a fat gene, I think it's fair to analogize it to the kinds of genes which make a person more or less prone to becoming an alcoholic. Becoming an alcoholic isn't genetic destiny for these people, it just makes it easier to slip into. Obese people may gain fat easier, but like the alcoholic prone person, they just need to be more cautious. And it's pretty easy to tell when you gain weight or are becoming addicted to alcohol, especially if it runs in the family and the parents have their kids best interests in mind. People don't just slip into obesity, is basically what I'm saying. Even if it's more slippery for some, neglect is still a key factor. Here is a study I read recently: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131417 Basically, the trouble in instances like these is that a child doesn't have normal hormone function and regulation of appetite from the very beginning. In the case of the study mentioned, the young obese person doesn't make an essential protein enzyme responsible for regulating the mechanisms (hormones, brain transmitters) which manage appetite, insulin secretion and reproductive hormones. It's awfully cruel from a parent's perspective to not feed a child who is hungry and in this case is abnormally hungry and the extra calories make them larger every year. So then in some cases (they don't know how many, yet) obesity results very quickly and the person's fat cells not working properly are the major issue. The issue of hunger must be hard to deal with. Ever tried to get a kid to eat vegetables? (I've got two and one eats vegetables and the other will only eat one-kale) Anyway, perhaps those people with this kind of genetic mutation (which also predisposes them to mental deficits and type 2 diabetes, further complicating matters from the get-go) need lots of fiber laden but low calorie snacks all day but if they are already fat and young it's a tough road ahead. I agree with you that essentially, people don't slip into obesity. However, it sounds like they are finding that for some, it comes pretty close to that...but maybe I see it this way because I go around talking to people about health topics and find out just how little they know and that makes me think they haven't got any defenses when their child needs some health related help. Yet, another reason to get one's ducks in a row before having kids, though. If only talking about obesity in an honest and open way didn't cause people to call me a "fat shamer". 1
Jakethehuman Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 The point of my postings about him was to highlight the problems with the question "Is he healthy?" It always comes back to "Compared to what?" He is undoubtedly strong. But he has a gut. There are no problems with the question, that's why I replied "clearly unhealthy" it's the same as asking if someone with a fit body who smokes and drinks is healthy, it's a very simple question. Some people inherit altered DNA sequences that cause them to become obese, despite what their parents try to do to help them. And we can't tell who carries these genes by looking at them. I think it's an important thing to keep in mind when dealing with frustration surrounding people who have obese children. Just for the sake of better handling one's own frustration, I mean. Calories In vs. Calories Out
brucethecollie Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 There are no problems with the question, that's why I replied "clearly unhealthy" it's the same as asking if someone with a fit body who smokes and drinks is healthy, it's a very simple question. Calories In vs. Calories Out It's a lot more complicated than calories in vs calories out.
shirgall Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Calories In vs. Calories Out Unfortunately, NACALT (Not All Calories Are Like That) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UZNSC2 Meanwhile, this guy looks a little bulky (unhealthy?), and set a world record 1026 pound deadlift: 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Basically, the trouble in instances like these is that a child doesn't have normal hormone function and regulation of appetite from the very beginning. In the case of the study mentioned, the young obese person doesn't make an essential protein enzyme responsible for regulating the mechanisms (hormones, brain transmitters) which manage appetite, insulin secretion and reproductive hormones. It's awfully cruel from a parent's perspective to not feed a child who is hungry and in this case is abnormally hungry and the extra calories make them larger every year. So then in some cases (they don't know how many, yet) obesity results very quickly and the person's fat cells not working properly are the major issue. The issue of hunger must be hard to deal with. Ever tried to get a kid to eat vegetables? (I've got two and one eats vegetables and the other will only eat one-kale) Anyway, perhaps those people with this kind of genetic mutation (which also predisposes them to mental deficits and type 2 diabetes, further complicating matters from the get-go) need lots of fiber laden but low calorie snacks all day but if they are already fat and young it's a tough road ahead. I agree with you that essentially, people don't slip into obesity. However, it sounds like they are finding that for some, it comes pretty close to that...but maybe I see it this way because I go around talking to people about health topics and find out just how little they know and that makes me think they haven't got any defenses when their child needs some health related help. Yet, another reason to get one's ducks in a row before having kids, though. If only talking about obesity in an honest and open way didn't cause people to call me a "fat shamer". This is really interesting to know, thank you. I don't understand where the option to to over-feed children ever enters the equation. If the child is abnormally hungry, it is an obvious sign of an issue (to anyone paying attention) which requires either emotional or medical care. I would argue it is infinitely more cruel to neglect the child's needs and facilitate his/her own drive to over-eat. Is there any legitimate medical evidence that over-feeding a child could ever be considered the right thing to do? If not, then I think the case that not over-feeding a child is cruel gets shredded. And if there were evidence of some medical condition which required additional eating than is normal for the child, a doctor would have to diagnose it. Acting towards a child as if you were able to make a medical diagnoses is completely insane about something so serious. I still think Kevin's analogy about alcoholism applies. I think it is accurate in this case, too. At no point should your child ever want to escape his or her body, whether it is through alcoholism, or whether it is through obesity (assuming there is a connection between this urge to over-eat and trauma/neglect experienced by the child). If there is a condition which requires attention, whether medical or emotional, it is cruel to neglect it and enable it to become unmanageable over time. I hope that made some sense to you. 2
Jakethehuman Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 Unfortunately, NACALT (Not All Calories Are Like That) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UZNSC2 Meanwhile, this guy looks a little bulky (unhealthy?), and set a world record 1026 pound deadlift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39nvYNMyLwk You can't argue with Newton, if you consume one calorie and then burn one calorie you cannot gain weight. Your body composition can change for sure and you can change all your muscle to fat but you won't get obese if you eat a maintenance diet. I understand that different calories behave differently in the body but yeah can't gain of you don't eat more than you need. Mate this is very boring, pushing extremes to prove that it's impossible to say what is healthy? What is your argument exactly please make one, people who are obese and don't exercise die younger, do you disagree? Because these are the people I'm talking about, not the 1/100000 strongman. Doesn't matter who you are or how you train, meat eggs and dairy are bad for your long term health.
Jakethehuman Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 Kids with the gene that makes them feel hungry all the time are such a minute part of the population so as to be irrelevant. Let's be clear I'm talking about the people who make bad decisions, whether knowingly or not, that lead to obesity. This is not a mystical issue of how did the big people get big, they treat themselves like shit with their diet and lack of exercise so they get fat. 90% of fat people are in this category, if I can get away with making up stats out of nowhere There are strong correlations between obesity and abuse, a quick search for "obesity abuse scholarly articles" will show you it's seriously wrong. This evidence makes it even more disgusting that people try to find excuses for themselves and others, because not only does it cover up the imminent health threat due to obesity, it stops any line of questioning that will lead to true understanding of the problem.
shirgall Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 You can't argue with Newton, if you consume one calorie and then burn one calorie you cannot gain weight. Your body composition can change for sure and you can change all your muscle to fat but you won't get obese if you eat a maintenance diet. I understand that different calories behave differently in the body but yeah can't gain of you don't eat more than you need. Mate this is very boring, pushing extremes to prove that it's impossible to say what is healthy? What is your argument exactly please make one, people who are obese and don't exercise die younger, do you disagree? Because these are the people I'm talking about, not the 1/100000 strongman. Doesn't matter who you are or how you train, meat eggs and dairy are bad for your long term health. How many calories do you consume when you drink a gallon of water? What's your weight difference? (By the way, that's more like a one in a billion strongman, he set a world record.) Meat, eggs, and dairy are no bad for your long term health in and of themselves. Plenty of people over the centuries have eaten them and have been fine. My argument is that before you can claim some things are healthy and other things are not is to arrive at some sort of agreement on what "healthy" really means. 1 1
brucethecollie Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 This is really interesting to know, thank you. I don't understand where the option to to over-feed children ever enters the equation. If the child is abnormally hungry, it is an obvious sign of an issue (to anyone paying attention) which requires either emotional or medical care. I would argue it is infinitely more cruel to neglect the child's needs and facilitate his/her own drive to over-eat. Is there any legitimate medical evidence that over-feeding a child could ever be considered the right thing to do? If not, then I think the case that not over-feeding a child is cruel gets shredded. And if there were evidence of some medical condition which required additional eating than is normal for the child, a doctor would have to diagnose it. Acting towards a child as if you were able to make a medical diagnoses is completely insane about something so serious. I still think Kevin's analogy about alcoholism applies. I think it is accurate in this case, too. At no point should your child ever want to escape his or her body, whether it is through alcoholism, or whether it is through obesity (assuming there is a connection between this urge to over-eat and trauma/neglect experienced by the child). If there is a condition which requires attention, whether medical or emotional, it is cruel to neglect it and enable it to become unmanageable over time. I hope that made some sense to you. I agree, I was just appealing to the complexity of the issue. I'm not saying that overfeeding a child is the right thing to do, I'm saying that not dealing with the root cause of abnormal hunger is the solution since long term hunger is not a state any human can live through without misery and trauma. Doctors are generally completely incapable of dealing with these situations. They don't have the knowledge to diagnose issues related to nutrition because they don't learn much about nutrition in school. I would say that is another factor that, while it doesn't remove responsibility from a parent, it does add to the complicated nature of that sort of challenge. So to be clear, I agree it is cruel to neglect any health issue in a child and enable it. I'm one of very few parents that doesn't feed junk to their kids. I've also been to dozens of doctors in my life (bc of type 1 diabetes) and I know how much they often can't help when it comes to advice on nutrition and weight gain. 1
brucethecollie Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Kids with the gene that makes them feel hungry all the time are such a minute part of the population so as to be irrelevant. Let's be clear I'm talking about the people who make bad decisions, whether knowingly or not, that lead to obesity. This is not a mystical issue of how did the big people get big, they treat themselves like shit with their diet and lack of exercise so they get fat. 90% of fat people are in this category, if I can get away with making up stats out of nowhere There are strong correlations between obesity and abuse, a quick search for "obesity abuse scholarly articles" will show you it's seriously wrong. This evidence makes it even more disgusting that people try to find excuses for themselves and others, because not only does it cover up the imminent health threat due to obesity, it stops any line of questioning that will lead to true understanding of the problem. We don't know the stats. Maybe one day. In the meantime how does some information from a study mean someone is trying to find excuses? I think it may lead to more awareness about how certain foods are not only disrupting the lives of people but it's being passed down to their offspring in genetic mutations. So maybe someone doesn't want to take care of themselves for themselves, but maybe it would help them to know it could impact their future children. How does this stop any line of questioning in understanding the problem? The fact that genetic mutations are happening is something. What is causing them? What can we do to avoid that happening? I do not excuse people for their poor choices. I'm into being aware of all that may contributing to this epidemic.
Jakethehuman Posted March 7, 2016 Author Posted March 7, 2016 How many calories do you consume when you drink a gallon of water? What's your weight difference? (By the way, that's more like a one in a billion strongman, he set a world record.) Meat, eggs, and dairy are no bad for your long term health in and of themselves. Plenty of people over the centuries have eaten them and have been fine. My argument is that before you can claim some things are healthy and other things are not is to arrive at some sort of agreement on what "healthy" really means. Whatever a gallon of water = in kilos, until you pee or sweat it out. What is your point? You brought up Rippetoe before so I was referring to your line of reasoning in general. That's like saying lots of people have played Russian roulette and not died to it must be safe. Socrates was vegetarian and understood over consumption was wrong and the sign of a sick society. Vegan blood is 10x less hospitable to cancer cells, saturated fat is bad for you arteries, one egg has your daily cholesterol needs, not to mention we produce all the cholesterol we need naturally anyway. Some people smoke their whole lives and don't get cancer, so smoking is healthy? Meat and dairy increase the risks to those already predisposed, and besides that there is no good reason to eat it besides "I like it" if you think our current system of slaughtering and consuming meat is good for anything or anyone you are way off the mark. I have never once mentioned "perfect health" or ideal health, I'm here discussing people that make obvious bad lifestyle decisions that lead to ill health. A point that everyone else seems to understand. Now that I've responded rationally I can say what I really wanted to from the start, you are a pedantic, semantic sophistical fool
shirgall Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Whatever a gallon of water = in kilos, until you pee or sweat it out. What is your point? You brought up Rippetoe before so I was referring to your line of reasoning in general. That's like saying lots of people have played Russian roulette and not died to it must be safe. Socrates was vegetarian and understood over consumption was wrong and the sign of a sick society. Vegan blood is 10x less hospitable to cancer cells, saturated fat is bad for you arteries, one egg has your daily cholesterol needs, not to mention we produce all the cholesterol we need naturally anyway. Some people smoke their whole lives and don't get cancer, so smoking is healthy? Meat and dairy increase the risks to those already predisposed, and besides that there is no good reason to eat it besides "I like it" if you think our current system of slaughtering and consuming meat is good for anything or anyone you are way off the mark. I have never once mentioned "perfect health" or ideal health, I'm here discussing people that make obvious bad lifestyle decisions that lead to ill health. A point that everyone else seems to understand. Now that I've responded rationally I can say what I really wanted to from the start, you are a pedantic, semantic sophistical fool My point is that water weight has nothing to do with calories. Early weight loss on many diets involves getting rid of water weight. Weight has many components and the calories story is hardly sufficient. I was not claiming perfection or ideals, only asking for a agreed-to shared definition of "healthy". Name-calling and citing unrelated points are not arguments or definitions. Are you saying that all people that have eaten meat, eggs, or dairy necessarily unhealthy? Is that part of your definition?
Jakethehuman Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 The statistics are irrelevant, if the people who are genetically predisposed lead a healthy lifestyle they wouldn't get fat, how many people honestly are doing everything they can to eat well, and still getting obese, it doesn't happen and it is just a way of muddying the waters by saying it's not all their fault it's in their genes etc. I watched a doco about these kids and the parents were so sad that they couldn't do anything to help the hungry kid, and then feeding him fucking pasta covered in cheese and mince and sauce...
Jakethehuman Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 My point is that water weight has nothing to do with calories. Early weight loss on many diets involves getting rid of water weight. Weight has many components and the calories story is hardly sufficient. I was not claiming perfection or ideals, only asking for a agreed-to shared definition of "healthy". Name-calling and citing unrelated points are not arguments or definitions. Are you saying that all people that have eaten meat, eggs, or dairy necessarily unhealthy? Is that part of your definition? Let's assume if someone says "gain weight" they mean "gain a significant amount of fat" (semantics from you again), who's talking about a diet, this is lifestyle, day in day out, who cares what some diet does, that has nothing to do with the discussion which is about long term healthy lifestyle choices. You were not asking for a definition of healthy at first, you were Presenting a false dichotomy (fat and fit too!?) and then demanding we take your nonsense as a serious question. There are grey areas but there is also science, it is recommended we eat over 25g fibre a day, Americans on average eat 12g, what does this have to do with a powerlifter? I've said this twice now, I'm talking about the majority of people who don't exercise enough and don't eat enough fruit and veg, I did not start a post to argue about my own personal beliefs about which are the best foods to eat and what is the best type of training to do, if you want to talk about that start another post. This is unbelievable, yes I consider an increased risk of dying to be unhealthy. The problem that most people face in understanding this is that these foods have all the things that humans need + a whole lot of calories, which was the reason humans were able to evolve. But evolution cares not what happens after the organism reproduces so meat dairy eggs have lots of things in them that lead to chronic disease in later life because cave men had a life expectancy in the 20s! You can live strong and healthy, right up till you turn 40 and have a heart attack. I would argue that this is not true health because anything that causes you to die before your time cannot be called healthy, no matter how good it is for your body at the time.
shirgall Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 And, again, the reason I brought up Rippetoe in particular is his position that training for real strength prevents a lot of avoidable injury in the later years of life, and is therefore an important part of a healthy lifestyle. rippetoe is not a powerlifter. He focuses on training, not performance. Powerlifting is performance. I was trying to get to the definition of "healthy". I have not seen a proper definition of the goal in this thread. It's kinda important, isn't it? Is your definition of healthy, then "someone who does not knowingly contribute to the increased personal risk of dying, and who does not suffer from disease"? Am I paraphrasing properly? I don't deserve any vitriol for anything you imagine I said. I merely asked if I was offering an example of healthy. 3 1
Jakethehuman Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 And, again, the reason I brought up Rippetoe in particular is his position that training for real strength prevents a lot of avoidable injury in the later years of life, and is therefore an important part of a healthy lifestyle. rippetoe is not a powerlifter. He focuses on training, not performance. Powerlifting is performance. I was trying to get to the definition of "healthy". I have not seen a proper definition of the goal in this thread. It's kinda important, isn't it? Is your definition of healthy, then "someone who does not knowingly contribute to the increased personal risk of dying, and who does not suffer from disease"? Am I paraphrasing properly? I don't deserve any vitriol for anything you imagine I said. I merely asked if I was offering an example of healthy. I haven't imagined anything, anyone who brings up water weight when talking about health is being pedantic. Why couldn't you ask for a definition of healthy right from the start, it seemed like you were trying to make the argument that it is impossible to define "health" because there are grey areas, not helping to move towards a universal definition which I agree is appropriate and necessary. It is really quite clear to me that someone who exercises but eats poorly is unhealthy, why was it an issue for you? Health has nothing to do with knowing, you either are or you aren't, yes there is a sliding scale, "perfect health", the opposite of which would be death, is not attainable with our current technology but we can work towards it. Here is my definition: "The accumulation of daily lifestyle choices that lead to the most optimal functioning of the human body" What do you think? I would also say that someone who eats a donut every now and again, is still healthy even though their choice that day was unhealthy, because it requires constant effort to make the right decisions to become healthy (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drugs) it is impossible to say one single choice defines that persons level of health, but they wouldn't be as healthy as someone who never eats donuts.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 The only distinction I can make that helps me towards defining health, is to make a distinction between health and neglect. Health is the required maintenance of something so it runs at an optimal standard. I imagine health as a curve which starts off performing at its highest possible standard, and then diminishing slowly over time until it ceases to function. Neglect of the maintenance of this process so you ever under-perform or malfunction would constitute neglect of health. Therefore to prove neglect of health, one would need to be able to prove a process in the body is being harmed by some action being take of on the part of the person. I think people neglect their emotions, and this leads to diminished mental health. I think people also neglect their nutrition. I am not the one to say it is a moral obligation to become a vegan, because I am not one. But if I think if it will let me live longer and at the highest performance physically and mentally, then that is a change I will be willing to make. I am hesitant to make the moral case about what this means for parents, since I think that requires a whole lot more effort than I willing to think about right now. That said, I think the preference of the child if given a choice would be for a healthy parent physically and mentally. I'm not sure nutrition is a philosophical topic in term of ethics, since it does not involve the use of force. However, parents who neglect their children's health are equivalent to shooting them with toxins while they are sleeping.
brucethecollie Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Things get tricky when I think about how some people put a lot of effort in and don't achieve good health and others don't put in much effort and do have good health.
Kevin Beal Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Things get tricky when I think about how some people put a lot of effort in and don't achieve good health and others don't put in much effort and do have good health. I don't think that effort is the issue, so much as diet. A buddy of mine has a tendency to neglect feeding himself since he is in his own head too much, and as a result he is very skinny. It takes no effort for him to be skinny. In fact, he has the opposite problem, if anything. It might take effort to not eat when your body is telling you that's what it wants, but clearly the effort you put into resisting is not primarily what makes you fat or skinny, except insofar as it translates into a change in diet. Surely some people have to try harder than others, but I have vices that I have to try hard to resist indulging in. My body tells me it wants drugs and alcohol (from my past). I don't come up with the equivalent of "fat acceptance" or take responsibility away from myself. I have to try harder than other people, but I don't do that stuff because I don't think it would help me to mentally downgrade my level of responsibility to some other category. Similarly, I don't think it helps fat people to reduce their level of responsibility either (except in the very rare and strange exceptions like the one you pointed out in your second post). 2
shirgall Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Things get tricky when I think about how some people put a lot of effort in and don't achieve good health and others don't put in much effort and do have good health. Part of the problem is that the effects of health decisions are cumulative and self-reinforcing, and habits are incredibly hard to change if they are long-standing. 2
AccuTron Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I've read Rippetoe, and he seems pretty methodical and empirical and definitely understands the difference between training (lifting to get stronger) and performance (lifting to impress girls). Why is he nuts? I wouldn't want to be his connective/other tissues, esp. spine and whatever it is that hasn't herniated yet. Or those poor knees getting Gawdknowswhat localized stresses on non-muscle tissue. Muscle is just one tissue type. I'm getting the image of putting a WW2 aircraft engine inside a WW1 airframe. How long till something shreds? 500 pounds might not be power lifting in a competition, but it sure sounds like it is to mortal me. I get and believe the part about training makes tissues tougher against injury, but in this case, tougher against what? -- carrying a refrigerator on his back? As a separate item, everyone has their hobbies, yup, but why would a person want to even be that big, what's the point? If he's not impressing the chicks (insert actual female opinions here) then for what, or whom is he impressing? If it's about fitness, getting back to connective tissues, then I think he's gone past his best level of fitness. ... because cave men had a life expectancy in the 20s! You can live strong and healthy, right up till you turn 40 and have a heart attack. I would argue that this is not true health because anything that causes you to die before your time cannot be called healthy, no matter how good it is for your body at the time. Careful of that life expectancy thing. It usually averages in a large amount of infant/child mortality. Not to mention I suspect that the data here are a bit slim (pun included). Paleolithics probably didn't have a bunch of hens around supplying bunches of eggs, nor those cattle fences which came much later, so I don't know how they could be accused of overeating eggs, meat, or dairy. They were probably lucky, and determined, to get any of it. My fifty cents' worth: About a year and half ago, I couldn't fit into any pants...whoa, gotta do something!! I adjusted my diet...primarily, looking back, it was the elimination of cheese and bread almost entirely. I started a gradual fat loss of twenty pounds, and my weight is now stable. For chance reasons, I did very little exercise during the first several weeks, and conclude that exercise for weight loss is a mistake, unless it's long, oft-repeated, sustained effort such as bike riding some distance, or working hard, as for example a lumberjack. Most people won't have that option. I think that people will mislead themselves if thinking that exercise bike for a half hour is going to lose them weight, whatever else good it does. Over the many months, I experimented with more or less of this or that. I found that my appetite began giving me clear opinions, which I'd overwhelmed earlier with too much unthinking eating. I went this way and that, and have now reached a very good dietary state, with far more fruit, fresh veggies, and seeds/nuts than before. I rarely open cans any more except veggies like water chestnuts. And no more food from boxes! -- That advice is true; I always feel yucky if I do. I also find that my appetite, now much healthier, is self limiting...not counting staying up too late and that movie I have to finish wants munchies. Such events just confirm what else I learned, that bad foods make us sick. One can have munchies, yet a banana will absolutely silence the space in the gut asking for more of anything. I also keep hard boiled eggs on hand. Great easy food, one egg is one meal, at least for part of the day. I usually don't want more than one egg per day. Something in my appetite is satisfied and telling me that more is too much of something -- I don't know or care what, I just know not to eat another egg. (There may be 2-3 eggs on an infrequent restaurant big veggie dish; I just let that fuel me longer, and it feels great.) I adore frequent visits to a local BBQ place. The meat is lean and very nicely done; usually I'm getting smoked turkey, beef or pork is once/twice a week. I feel well fed, and no desire for anything more.
Jakethehuman Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 Hahahahaha ohh man great story about your gut, I'm glad you're eating more fruit and veg! Why don't you care that one egg has your daily recommended cholesterol intake? Part of my point with this discussion is that the information is readily accessible and so there is no excuse for not knowing it, just not that interested in it? To me it's like saying an astronaut doing a space walk just isn't that interested in the integrity of his gear. Not only is meat bad for you but there are carcinogens being directly injected into anything smoked or charred, also red and processed meats have been directly linked to cancer did you miss that somehow? This is supposed to be a thread about health, not about how a certain food makes you feel
algernon Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Hahahahaha ohh man great story about your gut, I'm glad you're eating more fruit and veg! Why don't you care that one egg has your daily recommended cholesterol intake? Part of my point with this discussion is that the information is readily accessible and so there is no excuse for not knowing it, just not that interested in it? To me it's like saying an astronaut doing a space walk just isn't that interested in the integrity of his gear. Not only is meat bad for you but there are carcinogens being directly injected into anything smoked or charred, also red and processed meats have been directly linked to cancer did you miss that somehow? This is supposed to be a thread about health, not about how a certain food makes you feel Hey Jake, I'm sorry to have to say this but you're on a bandwagon that people have been abandoning for years now, you should probably research this some more. I also saw you mention something previously about saturated fat, this meat/cholesterol/sat fat scar mongering has been pretty well established to have been BS some time ago. Melomama - http://tinyurl.com/h4hbeom Full URL - http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--or-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders&utm_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead10_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-57675373&ct=t%28Red_mead10_27_2015%29&goal=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-57675373&mc_cid=34d0d95b1b&mc_eid=69e8f91e2e The statement "Red meat causes cancer" is more fear mongering and BS. Just like everything in life, it's dose dependent and there are negative and positive benefits from consuming the food. Fructose is unhealthy as well, eating fruit in moderation is good for you. One could very easily find the unhealthy portion of almost any food and say "Don't eat that, it has XYZ and is unhealthy!"
AccuTron Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Hahahahaha ohh man great story about your gut, I'm glad you're eating more fruit and veg! Why don't you care that one egg has your daily recommended cholesterol intake? Part of my point with this discussion is that the information is readily accessible and so there is no excuse for not knowing it, just not that interested in it? To me it's like saying an astronaut doing a space walk just isn't that interested in the integrity of his gear. Not only is meat bad for you but there are carcinogens being directly injected into anything smoked or charred, also red and processed meats have been directly linked to cancer did you miss that somehow? This is supposed to be a thread about health, not about how a certain food makes you feel (And beans too, good ol' beans, I left that out.) How we feel has a lot to do with our health -- it's the result of the food itself. If a food makes me feel like crap, it's doing yucky things inside me, which I take as unhealthy. If it makes me feel light and fed and clear inside, it's obvious to me that it's healthy. As the line up of these good/bad foods is more or less exactly what you'd expect from junk vs. natural, it all makes sense. I'm with mellomama here. One or two eggs doesn't bother me. I seriously doubt much of that cholesterol hype to begin with. Eggs are a very healthy food. I'm not slugging down fries and shakes the rest of the time. All things in moderation, except nasty stuff, which should be zero or close to it. Yes, I have read about seared and smoked foods having carcinogens. I also think it's dose related, and I emphasize that there are better quality meats, and poor quality meats, and I avoid the latter. When I don't, I get reminded why I usually do. I feel gross inside. I am also suspicious of some of those carcinogenic claims, not all. There's way too much clunky "science" put out there. I wonder for example, how they would separate the factors of seared meat from other ingestions and exposures. They can claim to have corrected for it, but at a practical level, how can you get that many people to study who are ONLY eating seared meat now and then, but goodie two shoes the rest of the time? And what is being seared, does it include sausages and mainstream hot dogs? How I feel is what my body is telling me about all my internal conditions; it's what natural animals rely upon.
Frederik Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Because there is no link between dietary cholesterol and any negative health effects. In fact, the body is unable to make vitamin D (from the sun) without cholesterol. This information's been around for years, dude; where have you been? Do you have a source for your meat/cancer link? Humans produce their own cholesterol. It is a scientific fact that any dietary intake of cholesterol impairs health. Some people may claim the evidence is not sufficient and say that dietary cholesterol intake does not inhibit health, but to actually disprove the proposition you would have to prove that dietary cholesterol is healthy. Optimal Cholesterol Level on http://nutritionfacts.org Why Do People Not Want To Change Their Lifestyles ? It's worth it! 2
shirgall Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 I wouldn't want to be his connective/other tissues, esp. spine and whatever it is that hasn't herniated yet. Or those poor knees getting Gawdknowswhat localized stresses on non-muscle tissue. Muscle is just one tissue type. I'm getting the image of putting a WW2 aircraft engine inside a WW1 airframe. How long till something shreds? 500 pounds might not be power lifting in a competition, but it sure sounds like it is to mortal me. I get and believe the part about training makes tissues tougher against injury, but in this case, tougher against what? -- carrying a refrigerator on his back? As a separate item, everyone has their hobbies, yup, but why would a person want to even be that big, what's the point? If he's not impressing the chicks (insert actual female opinions here) then for what, or whom is he impressing? If it's about fitness, getting back to connective tissues, then I think he's gone past his best level of fitness. Rippetoe is a strength coach, but he doesn't do a lot to be big. Instead he works to be strong. In Starting Strength he asserts, "Physical Strength is the most important thing in life." Chapter 1. First sentence. He goes on to write, "Our strength, more than any other thing we possess, still determines the quality and the quantity of our time here in these bodies." Personally I would put "health" in that sentence rather than "strength" and, to me, health is a combination of acclimation--if not optimization--to our surroundings (both mental and physical). I'm curious about his perspective, as well as the perspective of many other pundits on health. That's why I brought him forward as a counterpoint and as a way to help focus on the definition of "healthy". He thinks strength is a key component of health, and he is clearly strong, is he healthy? After all, we don't go to a fat guy for weight loss advice. Do we go to Rippetoe as a health coach?
brucethecollie Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/research-continues-to-prove-why-eggs-arent-bad-for-you-after-all-248331/ Hahahahaha ohh man great story about your gut, I'm glad you're eating more fruit and veg!Why don't you care that one egg has your daily recommended cholesterol intake? Part of my point with this discussion is that the information is readily accessible and so there is no excuse for not knowing it, just not that interested in it? To me it's like saying an astronaut doing a space walk just isn't that interested in the integrity of his gear.Not only is meat bad for you but there are carcinogens being directly injected into anything smoked or charred, also red and processed meats have been directly linked to cancer did you miss that somehow?This is supposed to be a thread about health, not about how a certain food makes you feel It's not so much meat that is bad for us but meat raised and treated in a certain way and had in too great a quantity for a specific individual. So studies show that the properties of grassfed meat not injected with hormones and not raised it it's own feces vary wildly from your average store bought meat. Also, many studies are diametrically opposed because some people in a certain area will tolerate a healthy source of red meat twice a week and others won't. And it's true, if meat is blackened or charred or processed, particu
Jakethehuman Posted March 12, 2016 Author Posted March 12, 2016 I love the "OMG didn't you know your opinions are soo yesterday" argument from algernon, what is your weight/height and your body fat percentage? Saying that everything is harmful if you have too much is one of the biggest pieces of sophist junk floating around, too much water will not give you cancer it will cause other immediately observable problems, not sure what the point is with apples maybe people mean if you eat too many your stomach will explode (same thing with meat) or perhaps they mean if you eat nothing but apples eventually it will cause some deficiency or something (same thing with meat) (both are arguments from extremes, whereas for millions of people eating a serving of red meat a day is in no way extreme). Do you understand the argument here? To sum up: If there was a study saying that one cigarette a day had no observable negative health effects, but 10 do, would you say "oh well if I just have one I'll be fine!" If you did you'd be insane and clearly your emotions are clouding your judgment because generally if something isn't good to do habitually(smoking, drinking, gambling, calling in sick, lying, bad diet choices etc) it's not good to do even once. If there is something in meat that, when consumed in high quantities, leads to TUMORS IN YOUR ASS, it is not crazy to decide not to mess with that shit at all. Not to mention the facts that saturated fat is bad for your heart (link below) and the caloric density of meat, eggs and dairy, (which is why they have been depended on by our species to become what it is,), is so high, it is very easy for people to over eat and therefore become obese. Do grass fed animals, while surely healthier for humans and the planet, still have saturated fat and a high caloric density? How many people posting here honestly; avoid processed meat, only eat grass fed animals, only partake once or twice a week and avoid smoked products? How many of you think you are healthier than I am on a plant based diet with healthy blood work, done twice a year, 179cm/75kg 9% body fat, and blood pressure at 120/60, never spend more than 5 minutes on the toilet, one thing I will say is you probably smell better seeing as you don't have a perpetual cloud of fart floating around you . People say that vegans are the emotional and crazy ones, ever try telling a meat eater that their lifestyle is bad for them or the environment . "Militant Vegan Propaganda"? Mellomama, no weapons were used in the posting of these comments, I can assure you. Meat is bad for you if you have too much, you should question your motives when you choose to try and convince yourselves that just a bit of a certain kind of meat is still good for you, despite the fact that you do not NEED it to be healthy, and the planet would be a much better place if we didn't eat it, or at least cut consumption by 98%, (watch cowspiracy) Cooked meat Carcinogenic: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7447916 Red meat cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22371807 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020456 Serum Cholesterol and Saturated fat CAD: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19711403775.html;jsessionid=7F67FAF36E0FC06BF146AE135102B4AA Dietary Cholesterol effects: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/290/5497/1771 1
Jakethehuman Posted March 14, 2016 Author Posted March 14, 2016 Just like everything in life, it's dose dependent and there are negative and positive benefits from consuming the food. Fructose is unhealthy as well, eating fruit in moderation is good for you. One could very easily find the unhealthy portion of almost any food and say "Don't eat that, it has XYZ and is unhealthy!"
Recommended Posts