31–40 of 46 posts
I really wish the count calories, calories in = calories out, calorie is just a calorie mantra would just go away and die. The idea that your body has no clue as to what type (fat, protein, carb) of you're eating is stupid. I have advised nearly everyone in my family as well as lots of friends and colleagues to weight loss success with the following simple rules: 1. Get rid of grains, legumes and sugars 2. Eat health…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this has got to do more with health rather than weight loss i guess. legumes have 3 things that suck - lectins, protease inhibitors and phytates lectins - known to cause inflammation and have been show to cause gut permeability which is followed by auto-immune type diseases. protease inhibitors intefere with the breakdown of proteins into amino acids phytates have been shown to inhibit mineral absorption
I call bull shit. This sounds like some Paleo-diet nonsense rather than the result of rigorous scientific study.
:)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is nothing wrong with unprocessed grains/legumes if eaten in moderation It probably depends on one's definition of "nothing wrong". The fact that grains, whole or not, are packed with antinutrients like gluten, phytic acid or lectins is well-known. Here's the best summary on the subject that I've found so far: http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=852 Edit: lectins
Here's the best summary on the subject that I've found so far: http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=852 That summary is pretty horrible. Maybe you were testifying to the state of the literature, but it read like two children arguing. Both kind of referring to literature, but little really putting together coherent arguments. Based on this, I think I'll eat what tastes good. :-)
Based on this, I think I'll eat what tastes good. :-)
Based on this:
You claim whole grains have sufficient minerals to negate their toxic effects. Pity that the high phytate content of whole grains binds to minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, and zinc in the gastrointestinal tract, significantly reducing their absorption by the body[6-8]. While they increase the dietary content of zinc, iron, magnesium and calcium when compared to refined grains, they also promptly increase the excretion of these minerals from the body. The end result is that overall mineral status improves only marginally, remains unchanged, or even worsens[7-12]. If you want to increase your mineral intake, whole grains are a pretty poor way to do it. Far better choices would be fresh non-cereal, non-leguminous plant foods, mineral-rich waters (look for a high magnesium:calcium ratio), ionic mineral solutions such as those sourced from Utah’s Great Salt Lake, and highly bioavailable mineral supplements such as those complexed to citrate, picolinate, etc.
I will not. :-)
I really wish the count calories, calories in = calories out, calorie is just a calorie mantra would just go away and die. The idea that your body has no clue as to what type (fat, protein, carb) of you're eating is stupid. I have advised nearly everyone in my family as well as lots of friends and colleagues to weight loss success with the following simple rules: 1. Get rid of grains, legumes and sugars 2. Eat health…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get rid of grains from where are you going to get the B vitamins? The grains have the advantage of having a lot of B vitamins while being ubiquitous. P.S. I eat pork muscle, chicken breast, tuna, sardines, mackerel and eggs and while they are rich in vitamin B12 and some of the others, they don't seem to provide the full spectrum of B vitamins. On the other hand with grains you can't go wrong, you can be sure…
Wikipedia suggests that B vitamins are particularly concentrated in meat such as turkey and tuna, in liver and meat products.
- 0.022 mg of Thiamin; RDA is 1.4 mg
- 0.052 mg of Riboflavin; RDA is 1.2 mg
- 9.296 mg of Niacin; RDA is 16 mg
- 0.150 mg of Pantothenic acid; RDA is 5 mg
- 0.245 mg of Vitamin B-6; RDA is 1.3 mg
- 2.09 mcg of Vitamin B-12; RDA is 2.4
So while tune does have enough of some B vitamins, it does not have enough of the others.
1. Regularly add vinegar(any kind) to most meals, or drink it diluted in water. This dramatically lowers effective GI of carbs so overconsumption is more difficult. It also has some (complex, but mostly positive) effects on body acidity and digestion. Vinegar has been documented for its properties since ancient Greek times, so it's one of the most proven aids around.
2. The _context_ in which things are consumed matters more than the _amount_. For this I mostly stick to a single rule: Meals should be either "carb meals" or "saturated fat" meals. Preferably neither, but never both.
Saturated fat acts to raise effective GI and this is the main source of the "badness" in meals like pizza, "super" burritos, burger+fries, macaroni+cheese, etc. But sausage and sauerkraut, or cheese in a green salad are relatively low-impact combinations, despite having a nominally high level of sat-fat. Similarly, even drinking a can of Coke(massive sugar-carb dose, the worst kind) can be OK once in a while, but if you have Coke with lard-soaked fries or full-fat ice cream you're signing up for the sick train.
There are tons of other contextual rules you can stack on for caffeine, gluten, the best types of fats, the best preparation methods, etc. but the sat-fat/carb one is the biggest bang-for-buck one I've found, and combining that with vinegar to mitigate the worst-case situations I can remain pretty flexible about what I'm eating.
Two easy rules I've settled on for diet, mostly revolving around GI: 1. Regularly add vinegar(any kind) to most meals, or drink it diluted in water. This dramatically lowers effective GI of carbs so overconsumption is more difficult. It also has some (complex, but mostly positive) effects on body acidity and digestion. Vinegar has been documented for its properties since ancient Greek times, so it's one of the most p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the best summary on the subject that I've found so far: http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=852 That summary is pretty horrible. Maybe you were testifying to the state of the literature, but it read like two children arguing. Both kind of referring to literature, but little really putting together coherent arguments. Based on this, I think I'll eat what tastes good. :-)
Well, I would say that it's understandable for a layperson, logically sound and has heaps of links to peer reviewed literature. This alone brings it to the top 1% of everything written on the subject. Based on this, I think I'll eat what tastes good. :-) Based on this: You claim whole grains have sufficient minerals to negate their toxic effects. Pity that the high phytate content of whole grains binds to minerals su…
Take this quote from one of the papers noted by the author:
The studies summarized in this review show that the recommendation for increasing dietary fiber in Western communities would not be expected to have any adverse effect on mineral absorption if we increase not only the intake of fiber, but also the dietary intake of other food components such as protein (both vegetable and animal protein) and ascorbic, citric, and oxalic acids (in fruits and vegetables). The adequate intake of minerals, fat, and simple sugars are maintained with this type of diet. The recommendations should be best interpreted in such a way as to prevent the consumption of excessive amounts of phytate, particularly for those whose mineral needs are great. Further studies are still needed in this field in order to understand the conflicting results published in the literature regarding the effects of fiber on the utilization of minerals; however, the studies reviewed in this article may give us an idea of the complexity of mineral availability in fiber-rich, phytate-rich diets.
From a cursory skimming of the references that even your author gives, it seems like only diets exceptionally high with phytate are problematic -- in areas such as Iran. I don't think the typical US diet (even at a 1 std dev) is likely to approach a problem. And as noted here, with reasonable diet modification, the problem can be almost completely mitigated.
I'm not a nutritionist, and don't think about this daily, but the evidence just isn't compelling. And often completely contradictory. Given that, if whole grains in moderation lead to a better quality of life, that's my choice.
Of course if we see that most NBA athletes and centurians avoid whole grains, I would strongly reconsider.
With that said, I actually don't eat many whole grains, and eat more fice. But purely for non-health related reasons.
I really wish the count calories, calories in = calories out, calorie is just a calorie mantra would just go away and die. The idea that your body has no clue as to what type (fat, protein, carb) of you're eating is stupid. I have advised nearly everyone in my family as well as lots of friends and colleagues to weight loss success with the following simple rules: 1. Get rid of grains, legumes and sugars 2. Eat health…
I don't think it needs to necessarily "go away and die," the method works. I lost 40 pounds last year counting calories to the tee. I'm talking about 6 months of not cheating a single calorie (I wouldn't even have a bite of someone's ice cream, etc). I will say that following that mantra is unnecessary for weight loss unless you're very serious about it. Following my diet plan I lowered my body fat percentage to Ever…
For me the rule seems to be something like: no carbs - weight goes down at a rate of ~0.4kg/day (with a lower limit at ~82kg), regardless of calorie count, and yes, I varied the amount of taste-free-fat from nothing to ~2000kcal/day. With wheat: wait gain with sickness-upper limit of ~100kg (when I get there, I feel physically sick to the point of not eating) -- REGARDLESS OF CALORIC INTAKE (~800 average daily for over a few months, while constantly gaining weight). Some carbs but no wheat - mostly stable weight, I'm still working on figuring out the good carbs from the bad carbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, humans can thrive with eating a huge variety of foods. The atkins-type diets, as far as I've seen, are followed by panda-bear-shaped folks who maintain that panda-bear-shape no matter what. If we really understood (as a society) what truly makes for a good diet, people would be getting slimmer and not fatter. IMHO, the most sensible diet advice comes from Michael Pollan: "Eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plan…
Society doesn't understand thanks to the government pushing the food pyramid/plate down their throats and the low-fat diet crud. Check out a cross-fit gym anywhere and see if you can find the pand-bear-shaped folks.