Stef, stop talking about exercise, start talking about diet

[The Invisible Gorilla]

In a recent video, Stef was speaking to a listener about pollution and brought up the issue of sedentary living and its negative effects. First, let me be clear, I am not disputing the negative effects of remaining sedentary for long periods, or the importance of exercise. But Stef, like many others, is vastly inflating the importance of exercise relative to other factors, namely diet. It's a common misconception (70% of people believe) that exercise and diet are both equally important to weight management and weight loss (International Food Information Council Foundation, 2011). This is simply untrue (Flatt, 2011). To quote Dr. Greger: 'What we put in our mouths is most important'.

 

 

Regarding cancer, literally 5000 hours in the gym can't compete with a plant-based diet. Barnard et al. (2003) compared a group of participants eating a plant-based diet who did moderate exercise (i.e. walking) to another group who did daily, strenuous, hour-long exercise and ate a standard American diet, with a control group. After 14 years, the exercise group were still overweight whereas the diet and exercise group were a healthy weight. More importantly, the participants in the diet and exercise group were roughly twice as effective at fighting cancer growth compared to the exercise group.

 

 

Another study by Jenkins et al. (2012) showed that consuming a cup a day of beans, chickpeas, or lentils for three months may reduce one's resting heart rate by as much as 250 hours on a treadmill.

 

 

I strongly urge FDR to shine a light on the importance of diet. I have already posted about nutrition, twice. My first post didn't get much traction but my more recent post seems to have been well-received.

 

References

 

Barnard RJ, Ngo TH, Leung PS, Aronson WJ, Golding LA. Prostate. A low-fat diet and/or strenuous exercise alters the IGF axis in vivo and reduces prostate tumor cell growth in vitro. 2003 Aug 1;56(3):201-6.

 

Flatt JP. Issues and misconceptions about obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Apr;19(4):676-86.

 

International Food Information Council Foundation. 2011. Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Safety, Nutrition & Health.

 

D J Jenkins, C W Kendall, L S Augustin, S Mitchell, S Sahye-Pudaruth, S Blanco Mejia, L Chiavaroli, A Mirrahimi, C Ireland, B Bashyam, E Vidgen, R J de Souza, J L Sievenpiper, J Coveney, L A Leiter, R G Josse. Effect of legumes as part of a low glycemic index diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Nov 26;172(21):1653-60.

 

[Pelafina]

If a plant-based diet is best, why do so many people that I know feel like crap on that diet and feel great on a paleo diet?  The science is supposed to match the empirical evidence, which it doesnt.

[Wuzzums]

A fat guy who exercises on a regular basis is way healthier than a thin guy who's on a constant diet. This is a medical fact. Cancer and exercise have no correlation as far as I am aware, however cardiovascular disease and exercise have a proven negative correlation. The #1 cause of death worldwide are cardiovascular diseases and the proven methods of combating it are diet + exercise which is superior to exercise which is superior to diet.

 

Sources: actual medical experience.

[Drew.]

Exercise is clearly beneficial and there is little contest over which exercise activities are best. Some strength based work and cardiovascular conditioning, along with supplemental work such as flexibility, mobility, balance, and coordination have very clear benefits.

 

Which diet to follow is a bit more of a tricky question. I think that a healthy diet is heavily based in the consumption of plants, but I also think that meat is important. Plants, in general, are poor providers for lipophilic nutrients. The myelin sheaths that help our neurons fire and interact with each other rapidly are primarily lipid based. It's a little bit more difficult to navigate all of the scientific data, as a great deal of it is contradictory, biased, or whatever else.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

If a plant-based diet is best, why do so many people that I know feel like crap on that diet and feel great on a paleo diet?  The science is supposed to match the empirical evidence, which it doesnt.

 

You're confusing anecdotes with empirical evidence. They're not the same thing. I have no idea why a community that ostensibly values empirical evidence is upvoting this comment.

 

Evidence suggests Paleo diets negate benefits of exercise

The problem with the Paleo diet argument

[The Invisible Gorilla]

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention this study by Fontana, Meyer, Klein, and Holloszy (2007). Even endurance athletes running an average of 48 miles a week for 21 years could not compete with sedentary vegans doing less than an hour of exercise a week, with regards to arterial health.

 

 

References

 

L. Fontana, T. E. Meyer, S. Klein, J. O. Holloszy. Long-term low-calorie low-protein vegan diet and endurance exercise are associated with low cardiometabolic risk. Rejuvenation Res. 2007 10(2):225 - 234.

[Tony Crowe]

In this book Body By Science the authors confirm that diet is more important than exercise. It's a great read that goes over a lot of misconceptions about health and fitness.

 

http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/?page_id=18

 

Dr. McGuff has some really nice videos on YouTube about health, fitness, and some criticisms of the medical establishment.

[AccuTron]

.... Plants, in general, are poor providers for lipophilic nutrients. The myelin sheaths that help our neurons fire and interact with each other rapidly are primarily lipid based. ...

Drew, could you elaborate on that first point?

 

 

 

If a plant-based diet is best, why do so many people that I know feel like crap on that diet and feel great on a paleo diet?  The science is supposed to match the empirical evidence, which it doesnt.

 

 

Could you tell us more about the data you are using, which people, how many, what else they are like, that sort of thing?  My question is how many people trying for plant based diet are missing or doing something else, maybe not even food, that is muddling the effects.  

 

Using this quick definition from the Google search page:  

"The Paleo Diet is an effort to eat like we used to back in the day…WAY back in the day. If a caveman couldn't eat it, neither can you. This means anything we could hunt or find – meats, fish, nuts, leafy greens, regional veggies, and seeds. Sorry, the pasta, cereal, and candy will have to go!"

 

The implication is whatever "we could hunt or find" was not a reliable daily source at least in some cases.  Mostly speaking meats here.  And long term disease might have been cut short by other life ending events or pathogens, which is surely discussed elsewhere.  Point being, this echoes what other plant eaters have been saying, that the meat/fish/egg is a once in awhile thing.

 

I am only now going the next step in reducing the animal products, and I like it, and...that turkey BBQ place I haven't been to in awhile is calling my name.  Is that source of calling nutritional, flavor, atmosphere with music, getting out of the house?  I don't know.

[AccuTron]

A fat guy who exercises on a regular basis is way healthier than a thin guy who's on a constant diet. This is a medical fact. Cancer and exercise have no correlation as far as I am aware, however cardiovascular disease and exercise have a proven negative correlation. The #1 cause of death worldwide are cardiovascular diseases and the proven methods of combating it are diet + exercise which is superior to exercise which is superior to diet.

 

Sources: actual medical experience.

Cautionary note:  a thin guy on a constant diet...what is a diet?  We all are on a constant diet, however it fluctuates.  A thin guy constantly searching for a dietary plan...that suggests to me an underlying problem that never reaches a satiation.  A fat guy w/exercise will look good in comparison, almost no matter what.  He's still a fat guy, and it ain't okay.

[Tony Crowe]

@AccuTron: That is a good question to ask. Conventional 'wisdom' about what makes a healthy diet would be to follow the food triangle, RDI, or RDA. To get to the bottom of what is a healthy diet can be a time-consuming affair and plenty of people will disagree with you even without having done any research.

[rosencrantz]

If it comes to losing weight, a proper diet is more important. If you eat one bar of Ritter Sport (100 gr, milk) you consume 530 kcal. It takes roughly 70 minutes on a bike on a gym to burn that many calories. However, that time is a bit misleading, since you also have a basal metabolism (around 80 kcal in my case) that burns calories no matter what you do. 

[algernon]

I think if you start to look at all of the facets of diet, nutrition and exercise from a historical, biological, practical, and farming standpoint you can reach a more logical conclusion than using biased studies. Animals are significantly better at converting plant based nutrients into a usable form for humans, than humans are at consuming the plants and receiving the nutrients. You can get significantly more nutrients per acre using animals on perennial plants than trying to grow those plants for human consumption, most of which are annuals.

 

Most people make the automatic and reasonable conclusion that something like a "whole grain" is significantly more healthy than it's non "whole" counterpart, having all of those nutrients and all. What is being left out is the fact that many grains contain anti-nutrients, phytic acid, which most people have never heard of nor is it talked about. Consuming these anti-nutrients is actually more damaging than consuming the non-whole counterpart, as phytic acid binds to important nutrients and cause deficiencies in the body. Historical preparation techniques such as fermentation and sprouting largely eliminates the phytic acid, which has been mostly lost on modern society. And they were consumed in moderation as they were labor intensive to farm, harvest and prepare.

 

To circle back around to farming, in order to grow large amounts of cereal grains to feed a large amount of people, you need a significant amount of inputs in a monocultural system, which is inconsistent with nature as nothing grows in a monoculture. You are looking at heavy machinery with a great expense and upkeep, with a significant amount of hydrocarbon input, hydrocarbons to fuel the machinery, and create the fertilizer, hydrocarbons to bring in the fertilizer, and harvest and ship the grains. Then because you have a monoculture system it is extremely susceptible to disease as you've removed all competition in the environment to keep the disease from spreading. See the Gros Michel banana as an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana- now we must use pesticides and insecticides to save the crop.

 

As a slight aside, many vegans make that choice because they don't want to eat anything with a "face", yet they are completely inconsiderate of all of the animals that are chopped up and churned into their grains during harvesting, I guess bunnies, mice and whatever other animals happen to be in the field don't count as having a face.

 

Comparing the arteries of vegans to those of people who expose their bodies to chronic inflammation and unnatural stress doesn't prove anything. There is nothing healthy with prolonged cardio, just because someone runs a marathon does not mean "healthy". I know you wouldn't consider a powerlifter who can squat 900lb and weighs 300lb "healthy", why are we looking at marathon runners?

 

Menaquinone (K2) is one of the most overlooked and under consumed nutrients I've studied, which is primarily found in animal sources fed a traditional diet. You can get large amounts of it from Natto, which in my opinion is disgusting, and is not consumed in western cultures. From my research a large majority of oral problems and bone loss problems is from a lack of K2 in the diet, and is not from a lack of calcium as the vitamin commercials would lead you to believe. K2 can also decalcify the arteries and remineralize teeth.

 

You aren't just what you eat, you are what you eat, ate. How many of these studies looked at the sources of the meat, fish and eggs, and what their diet consisted of? Traditional cattle farming is in feed lots (unnatural), feeding cattle feed with antibiotics (so they don't get sick and die from the disgusting conditions) which also increases "feed efficiency", fattening them on grain and corn, which would eventually kill them if they weren't slaughtered soon enough.

 

Here's something to think about, the PH of the stomach of cattle is much higher than that of humans due to their diet. There is bacteria everywhere, without bacteria we would all be dead, we have more bacteria in us than cells in our entire body. Cattle have salmonella, when you slaughter cattle it is possible to get some feces on the meat, it happens, if you under cook it or eat it raw you could be consuming some salmonella. Interestingly the salmonella in the intestinal tract of cattle die off in humans because our PH is lower, except when cattle are fed grains, their PH changes and the bacterial content inside them also change, aligning to that closer to a human. Now you have salmonella in cattle that can live in a human stomach, and make us sick.

 

A lot of these studies are like the in vitro studies of workout supplements, "It'll increase testosterone by 500%!!!!", except when studied in vivo, they are 100% ineffective and do nothing.

 

All of these things matter and it goes much deeper than, plant only, vegetarian, omnivore diet.

 

Generally those who go from a SAD diet (standard america diet) to a vegan/vegetarian diet feel SIGNIFICANTLY better, for a short period of time, months, maybe a year, until they gradually decline unto a weak, sick state.

 

Let's talk a minute about calories. Who cares? Calories is just a measure of energy, it has nothing to do with nutrition or health. It's all marketing.

 

Fat / Skinny is also very skewed and is a poor marker of overall health when it comes to someone that attempts to be healthy. A skinny couch potato who only eats one small frozen dinner a day is probably slightly "healthier" than a fat couch potato who eats 3 frozen dinners a day, but just looking at it from that perspective isn't very helpful. You could have someone slightly overweight who eats a healthy diet and does a considerable amount of physical activity compared to a skinny person who eats a very poor diet and is sedentary, in this scenario who is healthier? 

 

How are most of these nutritional "studies" done? These are recollection studies, "What did you eat for breakfast 5 days ago? How much salt do you think you ate on Monday?"...

 

 

[Drew.]

Drew, could you elaborate on that first point?

 

The implication is whatever "we could hunt or find" was not a reliable daily source at least in some cases.  Mostly speaking meats here.  And long term disease might have been cut short by other life ending events or pathogens, which is surely discussed elsewhere.  Point being, this echoes what other plant eaters have been saying, that the meat/fish/egg is a once in awhile thing.

 

Some nutrients are hard to obtain in plant matter. I guess I was mistaken in regards to statement that it is difficult to obtain hydrophobic nutrients--fat-soluble nutrients--in plant matter. The primary fat-soluble nutrients are A, K, E, and D, all of which can be obtained through plant sources with ease. But Vitamin B12 is exceptionally difficult to obtain, and requires the consumption of meat or bacteria commonly found in the gut involving a fermentation process to add B12 to plant matter ("Vitamin B12", 2016).

 

I think that the claim that animal products were a once in awhile kind of thing is speculative. I imagine that a particularly successful tribe could regularly have meat every single day.

 

But, I am not really interested in entering a debate or serious discussion on this. My initial post was an attempt to address the fact that discussing nutrition is far more complex than exercise.

 

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/

[Crallask]

I typically don't get into nutrition debates, but want to mention that until studies start controlling for genetic confounds, most nutrition science is going to be spotty at best even given the best intentions of the researcher.

It is INSANE how this is overlooked in most nutritional studies. 

 

From what I've seen, insulin is a key factor when it comes to regulating bodyfat (which is what most people I speak to are really concerned about when it comes to health discussions) 

 

I can't advise diets for a lot of people becaauuse I heard there was a genetic basis in which some people are missing a key gene that processes starch and other simple carbs into glucose and other consumable calories without spiking insulin levels for extended periods of time. Other people don't have this and bread, pasta, wheat, rice, bananas, etc, all make them start adding on pounds at a rapid pace.

 

This seems to be at least one reason why some people can eat as much as they want without gaining anything whereas others look at a sandwich and gain a pants size.

 

Of course it gets even more complex the more people you study, and human micro-biology, the indocrine system, out metabolism and how we handle waste production are all so complicated a topic that I'm not sure there's even enough medical knowledge and talent out there to crack these answers for at least another 15 years, let alone do it when governments are counter-funding a lot of actual progress. 

[luxfelix]

It is INSANE how this is overlooked in most nutritional studies. 

 

From what I've seen, insulin is a key factor when it comes to regulating bodyfat (which is what most people I speak to are really concerned about when it comes to health discussions) 

 

I can't advise diets for a lot of people becaauuse I heard there was a genetic basis in which some people are missing a key gene that processes starch and other simple carbs into glucose and other consumable calories without spiking insulin levels for extended periods of time. Other people don't have this and bread, pasta, wheat, rice, bananas, etc, all make them start adding on pounds at a rapid pace.

 

This seems to be at least one reason why some people can eat as much as they want without gaining anything whereas others look at a sandwich and gain a pants size.

 

Of course it gets even more complex the more people you study, and human micro-biology, the indocrine system, out metabolism and how we handle waste production are all so complicated a topic that I'm not sure there's even enough medical knowledge and talent out there to crack these answers for at least another 15 years, let alone do it when governments are counter-funding a lot of actual progress. 

 

Maybe there is some crossover between this topic and epigenetics?

[Guest Gee]

Maybe there is some crossover between this topic and epigenetics?

 

For sure, check out this maps of lactose intolerance.

 

 

It is INSANE how this is overlooked in most nutritional studies. 

 

From what I've seen, insulin is a key factor when it comes to regulating bodyfat (which is what most people I speak to are really concerned about when it comes to health discussions) 

 

I can't advise diets for a lot of people becaauuse I heard there was a genetic basis in which some people are missing a key gene that processes starch and other simple carbs into glucose and other consumable calories without spiking insulin levels for extended periods of time. Other people don't have this and bread, pasta, wheat, rice, bananas, etc, all make them start adding on pounds at a rapid pace.

 

This seems to be at least one reason why some people can eat as much as they want without gaining anything whereas others look at a sandwich and gain a pants size.

 

Of course it gets even more complex the more people you study, and human micro-biology, the indocrine system, out metabolism and how we handle waste production are all so complicated a topic that I'm not sure there's even enough medical knowledge and talent out there to crack these answers for at least another 15 years, let alone do it when governments are counter-funding a lot of actual progress. 

 

I have not thought about nutrition alot since I stopped playing sports-ball but I recall nutrition timing being very important. If I can remember right, insulin is a transport hormone, when carb stores are depleated post exersize insulin is going to let you replenish your carb stores and avoid your muscles canabalising themselves, in the absense of exersize, you'll bloon.

 

I do recall that you can condition you're insulin response with diet, I think there is alot of information about treating diabeties with diet (high fat, low carb) that studies this.

[Tony Crowe]

@algernon: Did you ever eat the Nattō? Have you experimented with the K2 on yourself?

[KeepOnGoing]

I think diet is much more important than exercises. Food is your fuel and it matters what you put into your body. I don't eat animal products for a year and a half now. I've done blood work and I don't have any deficiencies. I feel great, I've lost 11 kg without exercising and kept the weight. I eat a lot and until I'm satisfied. It might not work the same way for everyone of course. I also might have good genes. Btw. My grandmother turned 102 years old this year. Her husband died in his early 70's. One household two different diets: my grandma ate a lot of grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits and dairy (she lived on farm); my grandfather ate a lot of meat, animal fat and dairy (she cooked for him this way because she always said that a man have to eat this way to be strong). Could be coincidence could be genetics could be something else. I went all the way I guess until you feel good, you do some tests once in a while and there is nothing suspicious happening with you health you should be fine. Eating unhealthy food and exercising like crazy sounds kind of silly to me. Why not to eat good food and not exercise or exercise with pleasure? It's like exercising turns into a price you have to pay for your bad dietary choices. There are no fat animals in the wild. There are fat cats and dogs for sure. We can't feed ourselves in the right way, we can't feed our pets without harming them. If you will eat the right food for you you won't be fat.

[algernon]

@algernon: Did you ever eat the Nattō? Have you experimented with the K2 on yourself?

 

 

Yes I tried Natto at a Sushi Bar, personally I found it disgusting, as well as all of the other adults at the table. Interestingly my 1 year old (at the time) daughter loved it. I believe it's an acquired taste, super stringy cheesy like stuff on the outside of rotten/sour tasting soy beans.

 

Regarding K2, I researched it extensively after my wife was diagnosed with pre-periodontal disease. After looking into periodontal disease and one statistic says 50% of adults 30+ years old are in the "pre" stage, I knew something was wrong. After modifying our diets (mainly hers, I went along for the ride) to include less healthy "whole grains" and much higher amounts of grass fed butter, as well as supplementing with high doses of K2 her gum problems, as well as teeth sensitivity and the beginning signs of additional cavities ceased and reversed. This is the first time in her life she hasn't had any teeth sensitivity. Growing up I had a few cavities even though my mom was obsessed with "healthy" foods and instilling oral hygiene in her kids. Before starting the K2 regime and diet changes I had some sensitivity in a few teeth, and what I felt like might be a cavity in a molar, afterwards all sensitivity went away and what felt like the cavity has not presented itself - this was 4 years ago - neither of us has been back to a dentist since.

 

The problem with diet discussion is it's extremely susceptible to the newest fads, remember when fat was bad for you? Fat made you fat. And cholesterol, oh my god don't eat those egg yolks! Looking at dietary cholesterol completely ignores that 80% of the bodies cholesterol is made by the liver, and higher cholesterol levels have almost no bearing on dietary cholesterol intake and means there is a problem somewhere else. Interestingly a friend of mine has always had high cholesterol levels, he races bicycles and even at 8% BF and a 50 bpm resting heart rate he had high cholesterol, he was eating his healthy whole grains and lean turkey, no eggs, just the whites... I was insane for suggesting a high fat low sugar high cholesterol diet of egg yolks and grass fed beef. Once the Paleo diet fad caught on he decided to go that route, his blood test results are the best they've ever been in his adult life.

 

The vegan diet being the best diet always makes me scratch my head, you can take any animal and figure out what it's natural diet is, and if you deviate from that they become less healthy, is it suggested that the natural diet for humans excludes animals?

 

Would anyone suggest wolves would do well on a diet of lentils and kale?

Are chickens as healthy if you prevent them from eating bugs?

Do bovine eat other bovine? Not unless it's ground up in a slurry and fed to them - then you can get mad cow disease...

 

I thought this video was interesting for many reasons, but I specifically liked the part about the chocolate in the diet study, I remember reading the headlines about that a while back -

 

[bigbusa]

My job switched from me going into the office to working at home. I would wake up, walk 10ft to my desk,  and work 8 hours, then watch tv, sleep repeat. While eating under 1500 calories a day, and  I got fat . Clean calories. not junk food. 

 

Then I started working out, doing weights  and eating more .. and I have lost almost 20 lbs. 

 

Exercise is key. 

 

If you want to make a fast drag car, do you put a bigger engine in, or remove weight. Or both.  

[Songbirdo]

These attitudes justifying inaction have been bugging me: "Most research is wrong." "Nutritional science is spotty because it doesn't control for the individual's genes."

 

What you're saying is "It's too complicated for us to get the right answer for everyone's circumstance, therefore I won't make any changes to what I'm putting in my body." That's like asking an anarchist "Who'll build the roads? What will happen to this one niche industry?" It's just an annoying series of questions used to shut down the conversation and paralyze people from making better choices based on the current available evidence.

 

The hypocrisy in those justifications is when your doctor prescribes you something to cure an ailment and you take it without asking about the studies or whether took into account your specific genetics. He/she will also disclose possible side effects to be aware of in case they present. You are comfortable taking the drug knowing some study showed it is safe, the active ingredient does what it's supposed to (as required by the FDA) and those studies reported on the side effects. (They used large samples to help mitigate for individual circumstances like genetic predisposition.)

But when the W.H.O. says red meats are carcinogenic, you hesitate?

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans.
Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans.

 

Overweight? Obese? Type II Diabetic? Other cardiovascular-related issues (like E.D.)? Remove the animal products, the processed foods, the added sugar, salt and oil. See what happens. It's cancerous anyway, right?

[Anuojat]

I think the right fats mixed in with Low carbs is the answer and has been known in the Reasearch field for long time. Its just that its made needless complicated due to actually being RELATIVELY simple: Human diet has not evolved nor optimised for Grains nor high carb diets. Rather for animal meat, certain fats, berries, fruits nuts and Vegedables. And Before anyone points to the "well humans didnt eat X back in the day and its healthy now" Thats because the properties of some moderm foods are close enough to those we evolved to eat with.

 

 

 

 

More Great videos here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/lowcarbdownunder/videos?sort=p&flow=grid&view=0

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Forget nutrition. Biohacking is the way to figure out what to eat.

 

An Interview with David Asprey - Bulletproof Coffee Revisiting Fat and Health

 

[Songbirdo]

As of December of last year (2016).

 

http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets

 

 

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.

[NotDarkYet]

I quit sugar and most carbs.

 

Life changed: I looked amazing, I had energy, became more productive.

 

Anecdotal?  Yes?

 

Life changing? Yes!

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Who's the asshole downvoting all of us?

[themortalgod]

I quit sugar and most carbs.

 

Life changed: I looked amazing, I had energy, became more productive.

 

Anecdotal?  Yes?

 

Life changing? Yes!

I experienced the same when I was younger. Though it had the unfortunate side effect of always feeling hungry. Personally I find I am healthiest on a mostly plant based diet with no starchy carbs (remember plants ARE carbs but no one is ever going to argue that eating salad is bad. Its that extra glucose molecule in starchy carbs that is the enemy.) I reached the best BMI of my life when on that sort of diet but it meant a grumbling, hungry, stomach 24 hours per day. Which kinda sucks. So I think, personally, that striking a balance is key.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I experienced the same when I was younger. Though it had the unfortunate side effect of always feeling hungry. Personally I find I am healthiest on a mostly plant based diet with no starchy carbs (remember plants ARE carbs but no one is ever going to argue that eating salad is bad. Its that extra glucose molecule in starchy carbs that is the enemy.) I reached the best BMI of my life when on that sort of diet but it meant a grumbling, hungry, stomach 24 hours per day. Which kinda sucks. So I think, personally, that striking a balance is key.

 

??? We talking about the same diets? I've totally dropped my hunger cravings removing carbs and sugar.

[themortalgod]

??? We talking about the same diets? I've totally dropped my hunger cravings removing carbs and sugar.

 

Different bodies are different. `

[meetjoeblack]

In a recent video, Stef was speaking to a listener about pollution and brought up the issue of sedentary living and its negative effects. First, let me be clear, I am not disputing the negative effects of remaining sedentary for long periods, or the importance of exercise. But Stef, like many others, is vastly inflating the importance of exercise relative to other factors, namely diet. It's a common misconception (70% of people believe) that exercise and diet are both equally important to weight management and weight loss (International Food Information Council Foundation, 2011). This is simply untrue (Flatt, 2011). To quote Dr. Greger: 'What we put in our mouths is most important'.

 

 

 

Regarding cancer, literally 5000 hours in the gym can't compete with a plant-based diet. Barnard et al. (2003) compared a group of participants eating a plant-based diet who did moderate exercise (i.e. walking) to another group who did daily, strenuous, hour-long exercise and ate a standard American diet, with a control group. After 14 years, the exercise group were still overweight whereas the diet and exercise group were a healthy weight. More importantly, the participants in the diet and exercise group were roughly twice as effective at fighting cancer growth compared to the exercise group.

 

 

 

Another study by Jenkins et al. (2012) showed that consuming a cup a day of beans, chickpeas, or lentils for three months may reduce one's resting heart rate by as much as 250 hours on a treadmill.

 

 

 

I strongly urge FDR to shine a light on the importance of diet. I have already posted about nutrition, twice. My first post didn't get much traction but my more recent post seems to have been well-received.

 

References

 

Barnard RJ, Ngo TH, Leung PS, Aronson WJ, Golding LA. Prostate. A low-fat diet and/or strenuous exercise alters the IGF axis in vivo and reduces prostate tumor cell growth in vitro. 2003 Aug 1;56(3):201-6.

 

Flatt JP. Issues and misconceptions about obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Apr;19(4):676-86.

 

International Food Information Council Foundation. 2011. Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Safety, Nutrition & Health.

 

D J Jenkins, C W Kendall, L S Augustin, S Mitchell, S Sahye-Pudaruth, S Blanco Mejia, L Chiavaroli, A Mirrahimi, C Ireland, B Bashyam, E Vidgen, R J de Souza, J L Sievenpiper, J Coveney, L A Leiter, R G Josse. Effect of legumes as part of a low glycemic index diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Nov 26;172(21):1653-60.

 

Nice post. Agreed.

 

If you think of the pillars of health, wellness, and fitness, you have exercise, diet, sleep, and rest.

 

Its like a table. Without the legs, it falls down.

[Jakethehuman]

A fat guy who exercises on a regular basis is way healthier than a thin guy who's on a constant diet. This is a medical fact. Cancer and exercise have no correlation as far as I am aware, however cardiovascular disease and exercise have a proven negative correlation. The #1 cause of death worldwide are cardiovascular diseases and the proven methods of combating it are diet + exercise which is superior to exercise which is superior to diet.

 

Sources: actual medical experience.

 

If it is a medical fact can you point me to a medical organisation or study that supports your claims, which btw are so broad to be hardly better than saying "some people are healthier than others"

I think if you start to look at all of the facets of diet, nutrition and exercise from a historical, biological, practical, and farming standpoint you can reach a more logical conclusion than using biased studies. Animals are significantly better at converting plant based nutrients into a usable form for humans, than humans are at consuming the plants and receiving the nutrients. You can get significantly more nutrients per acre using animals on perennial plants than trying to grow those plants for human consumption, most of which are annuals.

 

Its funny because this is actually the exact opposite of the truth, its sophistry. Some facts sir. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat 

 

What perennial plants are you talking about, grass? lol http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

Most people make the automatic and reasonable conclusion that something like a "whole grain" is significantly more healthy than it's non "whole" counterpart, having all of those nutrients and all. What is being left out is the fact that many grains contain anti-nutrients, phytic acid, which most people have never heard of nor is it talked about. Consuming these anti-nutrients is actually more damaging than consuming the non-whole counterpart, as phytic acid binds to important nutrients and cause deficiencies in the body. Historical preparation techniques such as fermentation and sprouting largely eliminates the phytic acid, which has been mostly lost on modern society. And they were consumed in moderation as they were labor intensive to farm, harvest and prepare.

 

So you saw an article calling phytic acid an anti-nutrient and are now in a position to inform the rest of us muggles how dangerous it is. Well first off it has been shown to help in suppressing colon cancer:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383315

 

Secondly you failed to mention that phytic acids' effect on mineral absorption is on a per meal basis! hence the need for a balanced diet. 

[Jakethehuman]

To circle back around to farming, in order to grow large amounts of cereal grains to feed a large amount of people, you need a significant amount of inputs in a monocultural system, which is inconsistent with nature as nothing grows in a monoculture. You are looking at heavy machinery with a great expense and upkeep, with a significant amount of hydrocarbon input, hydrocarbons to fuel the machinery, and create the fertilizer, hydrocarbons to bring in the fertilizer, and harvest and ship the grains. Then because you have a monoculture system it is extremely susceptible to disease as you've removed all competition in the environment to keep the disease from spreading. See the Gros Michel banana as an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana- now we must use pesticides and insecticides to save the crop.

 

As a slight aside, many vegans make that choice because they don't want to eat anything with a "face", yet they are completely inconsiderate of all of the animals that are chopped up and churned into their grains during harvesting, I guess bunnies, mice and whatever other animals happen to be in the field don't count as having a face.

 

 

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/10/909/230205/Water-Resources-Agricultural-and-Environmental

1000l for a kilo of cereal grain 43,000l for a kilo of beef.... you are saying stuff with certainty that is the complete opposite of reality, that's dangerous.

 

I'm struggling to understand what the point of the rest of this post is, we need modern farming practices to sustain such a large population?

 

We are talking about health not ethics so I don't see how field mice come into it.

[Crazyi]

I am no expert on this subject but I do have some fragmented knowledge and experience I want to share.

 

"BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet."  -  (source: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html)

 

While studies have shown benefits to certain aspects of health for certain diets, no one has a holistic answer. With a completely engineered diet and likely selected candidates they can prove a benefit. I would hope so....

 

Going on pure speculation I also think a lot of processing that goes on with food causes a lot of the problems with consuming it. It is not in its natural form or even close, such as "enriched" flour. I have a few diabetics at work that can eat the bread that is freshly made and baked, but tell me eating bread from a store will destroy their insulin levels.

 

I have been told by my doctor that "I must have immaculate dietary health" (had lots of blood work done). I have worked in the food industry for a little over 15 years, and have a regular diet of fresh meat and bread. I would argue that eating foods closer to the way they are in nature, fresh and/or unprocessed, is probably the best holistic dietary choice you can make. Mind the food groups and don't overeat one category. In general avoid unnatural sugars, and avoid fast food. This is my view and it has served me well. I am 31 and have nearly boundless energy. 

[Jakethehuman]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/

 

Cooked plants were just as important, if not more so than meat in early human evolution.

[Crazyi]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/

 

Cooked plants were just as important, if not more so than meat in early human evolution.

"Thus, the unprecedented increase in brain size that hominids embarked on around 1.8 million years ago had to be paid for with added calories either taken in or diverted from some other function in the body. Many anthropologists think the key breakthrough was adding meat to the diet.

 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/#MsuJ5VfpDL6AqlC7.99

Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv

Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter"

 

That is from the article you linked.... Yes cooking is extremely important for to pull nutrients from the food we eat (meat or veggie).