Healthy Eating healthy help? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

aspi

2014-12-11, 05:25 AM

Trying to stretch the fish seems like it's the opposite of eating more fish :smallconfused:

You should try other kinds of fish and note that it doesn't have to be fresh - using frozen fish is perfectly fine and unless you live at the coast, it may actually be more fresh than "fresh" fish. Salmon and Tuna are both on the upper end of the price range from my experience (and on a side note, tuna is severely overfished and really endangered so I don't like the idea of eating it at all, even if it's tasty - which, sadly, it is). Depending on where you live, game might be a good alternative to fish. Game that is hunted in the wild (not bred on farms) is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which is probably what you're after in fish.

As for the sodium, I agree with TheThan: try to eat less processed food and use more fresh ingredients. There's just too much salt in pretty much everything you buy these days. With all due respect to the folks in your life, if your sodium is too high, it has to come from somewhere so in order to lower it, you pretty much have to remove something from your current diet. If I was in your place, I'd go through a list of all the processed food I eat regularly, find out which of them are high in salt and try to figure out which of them can best be replaced with something similar that's less salty.

Erloas

2014-12-11, 05:35 AM

Why do they not want you to remove anything? There is always going overboard but pretty much anyone that hasn't already done the research and asked the questions will have some things that are probably best removed.
Salt is really easy to get too much of because it is the cheapest way to make something taste more flavorful so any packaged meal and most restaurants will have a lot of salt. Pretty much unless you make absolutely everything yourself and fresh you'll get more than enough salt without ever adding any extra to what you eat.

For getting more fish it really depends where you live. Tuna is about the only universally available one that is not too expensive. And obviously your choices will be a lot different depending how far away from an ocean you live. Of course there is always fishing... I could easily have fish all the time if I tried. Some places that is more practical than others, not really an option in the heavy urban areas but in those places you should have more specialty places to find fish too.
And just starting off I would go with fish being a relatively rare but consistent "treat" and see how the rest of the changes are going before worrying about any one part of it too much.

Themrys

2014-12-11, 07:58 AM

So, went to the doctor's recently because my family and gal friday were concerned over my recent weight loss (I think I've lost close to twenty-thirty pounds in only a few months) and got a full blood work platter done (mother was worried it was my thyroid, since it's hereditary). Blood results come back and nothing is really wrong with me and I'm actually at my target weight for my height, but my cholesterol is a tad high and my sodium is almost at the max of its range. Since the folks in my life have suggested against removing things from my diet, I'm adding things that I read up on that should help lower both. As such, I'll be eating more multi-grain cheerios, bananas and oranges, but the reason I'm here is that I'm stuck on how to add fatty fish to my diet. I love Salmon and Tuna is pretty nice, but fresh fish isn't exactly the cheapest thing to buy.

Any suggestions everyone?

Maybe replace the cheerios with actual oatmeal? I think oatmeal is one of the foods that enable your body to turn cholesterol into things you need.

Fatty fish, you probably want to eat for the fatty acids? Try linseed oil if you can get it fresh, contains a lot of omega 3 fats, too.
Change meat and milk to grass-fed, this also increases the amount of "healthy" fats while lowering the amount of those you probably get too much of anyway. (For fish, it also matters what they are fed, so I would stay away from the cheaper variants that are not caught in the wild)

Tanuki Tales

2014-12-11, 05:21 PM

They're against removal because what I planned to remove, pork and eggs, really don't make up a major part of my diet and when I do eat them, it's not in large amounts and only once a week, for one meal. So I guess removing them would be a little extreme, kind of pointless and is more punishing me than actually making a positive change, which I agree. What I am cutting out totally is hot pockets, since those things are drowning in sodium and I'm getting sick of them anyways. Let me also clarify that I don't have an issue with my sodium levels, just that my blood work showed it was getting to the top of the acceptable range and I figured it wouldn't hurt to cut it back.

Getting fresh ingredients, or organic foods, is something I've done a lot more of in the past year or two, but it isn't exactly the easiest or cheapest thing to do when I can find it. I'm not aware of a farmer's market around me that's open at do-able times and the closest Wegman's is about 45 minutes to an hour away. Local fresh seafood is also something I'm...leery of; I'm from Baltimore and I don't terribly trust anything brought up locally, since the Feds still have yet to measure all the ecological damage that was done to the local environment by the industrial plants over the decades they were operational. It also doesn't help that the only thing you can really catch locally is White Perch (Rockfish has hard to meet size requirements) and I hate all those little bones. Tilapia would be an option (I love the stuff), but if it's not Gordon's, I'll catch a massive raft from the family because of that Chinese import scandal a year ago. I had been taking those Omega 3 pills religiously until a year ago, but I don't think they actually do anything. I could probably do canned tuna, but isn't that high in sodium? I'm also a huge fan of smoked salmon, but not really on the cheap side either (I could just eat a bag of the stuff, so good).

I also don't really personally add salt to anything, except my eggs, but I switched to sea salt awhile ago. Mind, I know most everything has it in it these days so that's not really here or there. If it was up to me, since Lamb and more exotic meats aren't easy to come by, I'd switch out beef and pork for mushrooms entirely. I started eating them about two years ago and I'm absolutely crazy about them....need to find a good, healthy recipe though. Kind of used way too much olive oil and soy sauce the last time I made grilled portabello caps and it was pointed out that it ruined them and made them bad for me...

Kodr

2014-12-11, 06:13 PM

Maybe replace the cheerios with actual oatmeal? I think oatmeal is one of the foods that enable your body to turn cholesterol into things you need.

Fatty fish, you probably want to eat for the fatty acids? Try linseed oil if you can get it fresh, contains a lot of omega 3 fats, too.
Change meat and milk to grass-fed, this also increases the amount of "healthy" fats while lowering the amount of those you probably get too much of anyway. (For fish, it also matters what they are fed, so I would stay away from the cheaper variants that are not caught in the wild)

Exactly. Sometimes it's not cost effective at all to include certain fresh fish in your diet every day. Supplements are a great start as long as you try your best to have some seafood on your plate.

Erloas

2014-12-11, 11:16 PM

Eggs, at least depending what you do with them, can be a very good option for a lot of meals. I know when I was doing Whole30 I ate them a lot and should start eating them more again.

As for pork, I've heard it is one of the hardest meats to get good quality of it. Considering that so much of the time it is from bacon and sausage it isn't a bad option to remove.

For fresh ingredients, while organic is nice, so much of what is actually labeled as organic isn't that much better, at least when you're comparing things like tomatoes and carrots and that sort of thing. A lot of the organic items in regular stores tend to not cost much more, but they also tend to be the "easy" types of items to make organic, which means they haven't actually done much compared to the ones without that government certification. (In fact a lot of small local farmers won't have organic certification because the certification process is too expensive for them to do it and they still probably have better produce)

I've heard of "urban food deserts" where in some big cities you can actually be a long ways away from fresh fruits and vegetables. But when I lived in Phoenix, and now in a small town (that is actually in a desert so very little local produce) it isn't hard to find good produce in the normal grocery stores. Maybe not really specialized things, but still plenty to work with.

As for beef, nutritionally speaking free range grass feed beef is almost like a completely different animal compared to the normal factory farm raised beef. It pretty much has all of the advantages of wild game in that case. And while it can be a lot more expensive, if you happen to have a family or at least someone else to go in with, and can get a deep freeze, you can get a half or quarter beef and it isn't that much more when purchased that way. You just have to have the ability to store that much meat and then use it enough to use it before it goes bad. The other advantage is that you also get a lot of good cuts of steak rather than all ground beef. I really considered doing it for a while but because of various little things I didn't get it done yet. Of course here in Wyoming it is probably a lot easier to find free range beef than in Baltimore, but I'm sure there are options there too. You probably have the option of dedicated butchers though, and they probably have good quality options as well, but yeah, it will be at a premium price.

Of course buying that much at once and the required deep freeze is quite an investment and not worth looking at until you've got everything figured out and are refining your diet even more.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-12, 07:03 PM

So, went to the doctor's recently because my family and gal friday were concerned over my recent weight loss (I think I've lost close to twenty-thirty pounds in only a few months) and got a full blood work platter done (mother was worried it was my thyroid, since it's hereditary). Blood results come back and nothing is really wrong with me and I'm actually at my target weight for my height, but my cholesterol is a tad high and my sodium is almost at the max of its range. Since the folks in my life have suggested against removing things from my diet, I'm adding things that I read up on that should help lower both. As such, I'll be eating more multi-grain cheerios, bananas and oranges, but the reason I'm here is that I'm stuck on how to add fatty fish to my diet. I love Salmon and Tuna is pretty nice, but fresh fish isn't exactly the cheapest thing to buy.

Any suggestions everyone?

First, replace your breakfast with a healthy one: bacon & eggs (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract).

Second, eat more above-ground vegetables: broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, lettuce, kale, collards, spinach, beet greens.

Third, avoid sugary drinks, even fruit juice.

Why do you want to eat just fatty fish? You can get all the fats and oils you need with a generous application of butter (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract).

Jeff the Green

2014-12-12, 07:22 PM

I'll second several of the things in the thread. Frozen fish can be better than fresh even if you live close to the coast like I do. For the most part there isn't a big difference in nutritional content of organic vs. non-organically grown foods; it's mostly an environmental concern. Avoid pre-prepared foods. Look into sardines, if you can handle them. Think about plant fat sources, particularly avocados and flax seed, though nuts are good too.

I would caution a few things: don't significantly change your diet without talking to your doctor. Don't worry too much about sodium intake unless you're actually having problems, since it's now generally accepted that the FDA's guidelines are way too stringent and a low-sodium diet can actually increase your risk of heart problems. Supplements should be avoided if possible; aside from it being very difficult to know that you're actually getting what's on the label, there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that EFAs/vitamins/minerals/etc. from supplements aren't all that great for you unless you have a specific deficiency.

Oh, and most importantly, be wary of any health advice you find on the internet

First, replace your breakfast with a healthy one: bacon & eggs (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract).

Second, eat more above-ground vegetables: broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, lettuce, kale, collards, spinach, beet greens.

Third, avoid sugary drinks, even fruit juice.

Why do you want to eat just fatty fish? You can get all the fats and oils you need with a generous application of butter (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract).

Two and three are reasonable pieces of advice. One and four do not follow from the study you link. It says that saturated fat isn't associated with increased risk of cardivascular events, not that you don't need the essential fatty acids that are uncommon in animal fat.

Finally, a bit of meta-advice. Invest some time (and if possible, money) into learning to cook, particularly styles of India, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. They've basically mastered the art of not using much animal protein or fat and using big flavors that mean you don't need a ton of salt.

Crow

2014-12-12, 07:39 PM

Ok, I've seen just about enough of this. I am going to make it easy on everyone. You don't need to obsess over making sure you have this compound, or this acid, or this or that, or him or her or it. Exercise regularly (everybody can do something) and follow a simple diet:

Buy Fresh Food Only

Green Light, Go:

Meats of all varieties (meat fish fowl seafood, get what's on sale that week), mix it up as much as possible, grass fed if possible.
Eggs, free range if possible.
Dairy if you can. Full-fat, avoid non or low-fat varieties.
Green leafy veggies in large amounts.
All other veggies in large amounts. (corn is not a veggie FYI, also feel free to enjoy a potato or yam as long as you don't overdo it) - With veggies, your goal should be to have as many different colors of vegetable as possible in your shopping cart.
Healthy fats from olives, olive oil, avocados, coconuts, coconut oil.

Amber Light, Limit:

Nuts. Mostly because it is really easy to mindlessly much away and accidentally find you've eaten about 3000 calories worth of macadamia nuts.
Seeds.
Fruits. Buy these in variety. Try to buy different varieties and colors every time you shop.

Red Light, Stop:

Wheat varieties, barley, rye, oats, corn of all varieties, rice of all varieties, legumes.
Grain like substances or pseudo-cereals like amaranth or quinoa.

There it is. Feel free to ignore. Good luck.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-12, 07:40 PM

Two and three are reasonable pieces of advice. One and four do not follow from the study you link. It says that saturated fat isn't associated with increased risk of cardivascular events, not that you don't need the essential fatty acids that are uncommon in animal fat.

"Some of the food sources of ω-3 and ω-6 fatty acids are fish and shellfish, flaxseed (linseed), hemp seed, soya oil, canola (rapeseed) oil, chia seeds, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, leafy vegetables, and walnuts." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid#Food_sources)

Oops, I put the EFAs in the wrong group.

Madcrafter

2014-12-13, 08:44 PM

Red Light, Stop:

Wheat varieties, barley, rye, oats, corn of all varieties, rice of all varieties, legumes.
Grain like substances or pseudo-cereals like amaranth or quinoa.What's wrong with grains/cereals?

Coidzor

2014-12-13, 09:11 PM

What's wrong with grains/cereals?

This seems to be a general condemnation of starches, aside from potatoes.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-13, 09:21 PM

What's wrong with grains/cereals?

This seems to be a general condemnation of starches, aside from potatoes.

Carbs make you fat. They interrupt your satiety cycle. Your satiety cycle is when your digestive tract tells your brain it has enough food and you can stop eating. Without it, you will continue to feel hungry. And if you continue to feel hungry, you will overeat.

Ifni

2014-12-13, 09:43 PM

Heh. Crow's instructions would rule out pretty much every meal I eat ever. Veggies + grain-based carbs + sometimes dairy for flavoring describes my (vegetarian) diet pretty well, except breakfast which is typically just fruit. I cook pretty much all my food, eat all I like, and my BMI has stayed at a steady 20 for the last ten-ish years (with a couple of dips into the mid-high teens, corresponding to periods where I got enthusiastic about a sport and my exercise level jumped).

And the OP has just had a major weight loss, so getting fat is probably not their biggest concern.

That said, shawnhcorey, I just went and googled for your statement about carbs and the satiety cycle, because I find carbs pretty filling - it looks like this is something that varies from person to person, there are people who don't find carbohydrates to be satiating, and (not surprisingly) this is correlated with obesity. So what you say is probably true for some people, but it's not for everyone.

People are different. What works for me won't work for everyone. What works for you won't work for everyone. People also have different baseline healthy weight levels.

@OP: Unfortunately I don't eat fish and can't offer much advice there. For omega-3 fatty acids, buying flaxseed and sprinkling it through dishes etc can help, it doesn't have much flavor and it's an easy thing to do.

valadil

2014-12-13, 10:08 PM

That said, shawnhcorey, I just went and googled for your statement about carbs and the satiety cycle, because I find carbs pretty filling - it looks like this is something that varies from person to person, there are people who don't find carbohydrates to be satiating, and (not surprisingly) this is correlated with obesity. So what you say is probably true for some people, but it's not for everyone.

It'll depend on the glycemic index of the carb. A sweet potato won't spike your glucose the same way a snickers will.

I'm in high meat/low carb land. My diet's pretty close to paleo, but that's not deliberate. My blood pressure and cholesterol both dropped from borderline dangerous to good on this diet and my weight went down by ~110 lbs. I'm very much biased in favor of meat and against carbs. If you want more info on this line of thinking (with citations!), read some Gary Taubes: http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259

Anyway, I'll try and make a non-biased suggestion. Read some books. Join a forum. Install an app. Proper nutrition requires mindshare. Read books and sites that make you think about nutrition. It'll help you keep eating well instead of leaving your diet as an after thought. I follow a number of heatlh and fitness subreddits. Even if I don't read every post, just seeing those when I browse reddit reminds me to stick to my goals.

Crow

2014-12-13, 11:30 PM

Erloas

2014-12-14, 12:49 AM

As for the diet, I posted it because it is effective and very simple. You also don't need to be perfect with it. If your girl offers you a piece of cake you can take it guilt free, so long as you don't make a habit of it.
The theory is simple, the practice is not. Getting rid of grains tends to be one of the hardest things to do. It also means you have to make almost everything you eat (which is good and recommended, but not easy).
I did it for a while too, when my friend had really good results with it. I didn't notice any real difference between my diet before and after I removed all of the gains, but that is, like everything else, pretty dependent on the specific person.

Razanir

2014-12-14, 12:58 AM

One good thing to try out is to start having one or two days a week where your main meal of the day is meatless, since we tend to use more salt when it comes to meat dishes and things that go with meat dishes, if I recall my Americana correctly.

Pasta definitely helps here. Or really Italian food in general. There are a lot of good meatless* options. Take it from me. I already go meatless* every Friday.

* Fish, reptiles, amphibians, and broths excluded.

Crow

2014-12-14, 01:01 AM

The theory is simple, the practice is not. Getting rid of grains tends to be one of the hardest things to do. It also means you have to make almost everything you eat (which is good and recommended, but not easy).
I did it for a while too, when my friend had really good results with it. I didn't notice any real difference between my diet before and after I removed all of the gains, but that is, like everything else, pretty dependent on the specific person.

It is not hard at all. You buy what is on the green/yellow list. Do not buy what is on the red list. If you make a habit of eating out at places where you cannot avoid grains, that is you making the diet difficult. I've been doing this diet for years without dfficulty. If I am eating at a place where grains cannot be avoided, so be it, I have some grains that day. If we're at a burger joint, I take mine without the bun. It's pretty simple and it works fine unless you usually have others preparing your food for you.

Ifni

2014-12-14, 01:16 AM

@Madcrafter: partly what others said, and partly because they are mildly inflammatory.

@Ifni: were I to follow your diet I would waste away. :) I sit at 26 bmi. Dropping to 20 or the high teens would obliterate my athletic ability. This is why I tend to value performance markers and raw measurements for individuals over calculations designed for groups.

As I said, different people have different healthy baseline weights. I don't know what I'd have to do to get to a BMI of 26, I don't think it would be very healthy. Just as for you, as you say, what you'd have to do to your body to get to a BMI of 20 would probably not be very healthy.

(My brother has an even lower healthy baseline than I do; he lifted weights and forced himself to overeat on fatty food to try to meet the minimum BMI requirement to get into the military in our home country (he easily passed all the physical requirements except the minimum BMI), and after a few weeks of very minimal weight gain, went, "You know, if they want me to trash my health to join, I don't think I want to join".)

I mentioned BMI only because of the assertion that "carbs make you fat" as a general truth, when it's not. If carbs bypass your sense of satiety (which appears to be true for some people, but not everyone) and so you can eat large amounts of them without feeling full, then yeah, they'll probably help you gain weight (whether or not you want to - not everyone wants to lose weight!)

And agreed BMI is a pretty silly measurement on an individual basis, at least if you're using it to try to gauge health or fitness. I only mentioned it because it was an easy way to summarize "I eat a lot of carbs and am not fat by any commonly accepted standard".

As a "try this and see how it works for you" way of eating, focusing on meat + fresh veggies is probably totally reasonable. But there are other, also perfectly reasonable and healthful ways of eating.

(Cutting grains out of my diet would be an absolute nightmare for me - the list of dishes I've made and eaten in the last couple of weeks goes: pasta with tomato cream sauce, pasta with tomato+olives+capers+seaweed sauce, scalloped potatoes, wild rice with mushrooms, spiced lentils + stewed kale + avocado + feta cheese all with injera (pancake-like bread), plus various green salads. Oh, and apple pie and persimmon pudding, because Thanksgiving wasn't that long ago. I think the only thing on that list, aside from the salads, that doesn't involve grains is the scalloped potatoes and it's not exactly carb-light. I am pretty happy with my health. This is of course totally anecdotal, but so are your good experiences with the meat-heavy-no-grains diet. I do believe it worked for you, I just think it's probably pretty variable from person to person.)

Crow

2014-12-14, 01:29 AM

Well yes. If you are trying to avoid meats, going without grains or legumes is ridiculously difficult and is likely to leave a person very malnourished.

I have heard that blood type plays a role in why some people can make it as vegans, while others need meat. I haven't had a chance to research and determine if it is BS though.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-14, 08:35 AM

I'm in high meat/low carb land. My diet's pretty close to paleo...

Sorry, that's not a paleo-diet. A paleo-diet would consist of many above-ground, leafy plants because they are the easiest to gather and available from mid-spring to early winter. High-carb food, such as grains, seeds, and nuts, would only be available from mid-summer to early-winter because it takes time for the plants to store up the carbs. Meat would be available almost anytime you would want to spend the energy.

Children need a higher calorie-to-fibre ratio (http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-do-human-children-stay-so-small-so-long) than adults. That is why they like sweet and sour food: it has a higher ratio than leafy vegetables. Adults are suppose to lose their sweet tooth and develop a taste for bitter items, such as many leafy vegetables are.

YMMV.

Razanir

2014-12-14, 09:23 AM

(Cutting grains out of my diet would be an absolute nightmare for me - the list of dishes I've made and eaten in the last couple of weeks goes: pasta with tomato cream sauce, pasta with tomato+olives+capers+seaweed sauce, scalloped potatoes, wild rice with mushrooms, spiced lentils + stewed kale + avocado + feta cheese all with injera (pancake-like bread), plus various green salads. Oh, and apple pie and persimmon pudding, because Thanksgiving wasn't that long ago. I think the only thing on that list, aside from the salads, that doesn't involve grains is the scalloped potatoes and it's not exactly carb-light. I am pretty happy with my health. This is of course totally anecdotal, but so are your good experiences with the meat-heavy-no-grains diet. I do believe it worked for you, I just think it's probably pretty variable from person to person.)

Totally agree. I already go meatless-ish once a week, and it'd be a nightmare without pasta to help.

aspi

2014-12-14, 12:27 PM

This is of course totally anecdotal, but so are your good experiences with the meat-heavy-no-grains diet. I do believe it worked for you, I just think it's probably pretty variable from person to person.
The insight that carbs aren't all that great for you is far more than an anecdotal observation that works for some people and there's a lot of recent research to support this statement. Humans simply didn't evolve for a carb-rich diet: Imagine a hunter and gatherer. What are his sources of carbs? Fruit, berries, grains and roots. Considering how small those tend to be in their wild, original form (before artificial selection for size and sweetnes began when we developed agriculture), they're not as rich in carbs as anything we have today. To get the equivalent amount of carbs we have in a serving of pasta, he would have had to gather for hours and eat several times the volume in foraged goods (thus adding other components to his diet). Since our society developed way too quickly for the natural evolution of our bodies to keep up, we're still wired for this kind of diet. While there are of course differences between different persons, this is essentially true for all of us. If you can handle a diet that is rich in carbs, good for you - but you shouldn't expect it to stay this way forever as your metabolism will likely change as you age and you shouldn't have any illusions that a diet with less carbs wouldn't be even better for you.

Furthermore, you can't simply reduce health to body mass or fat. Carbs are increasingly linked to cardiovascular disease (which is of course also increased with higher body fat where present). If you don't believe me, take the time to research the correlation between health and diet in Japan. There's a reason why they tend to have a longer lifespan than we do in most western countries. While it may appear weird to us (it sure does to me), there's a lot to be said about fish soup for breakfast over cereals :smallwink:

The western food pyramid that is based on cereal is one of the worst ideas we've ever had, but since all of us have grown up with it, it's hard to cut back on it. I definitely know that I don't want to go weeks without fresh bread. But for any good diet, it's always a question of a proper balance and being aware of the issue is important.

Themrys

2014-12-14, 01:24 PM

Sorry, that's not a paleo-diet. A paleo-diet would consist of many above-ground, leafy plants because they are the easiest to gather and available from mid-spring to early winter. High-carb food, such as grains, seeds, and nuts, would only be available from mid-summer to early-winter because it takes time for the plants to store up the carbs. Meat would be available almost anytime you would want to spend the energy.

Children need a higher calorie-to-fibre ratio (http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-do-human-children-stay-so-small-so-long) than adults. That is why they like sweet and sour food: it has a higher ratio than leafy vegetables. Adults are suppose to lose their sweet tooth and develop a taste for bitter items, such as many leafy vegetables are.

YMMV.

I am an adult and still love chocolate, but with much less sugar than when I was a child. I'm also underweight, though. I need calories, and I definitely eat more chocolate when I forgot to eat properly again.

As it is, I would not recommend a low-carb, no grain diet for everyone, as it is not cheap and limits your choices considerably, but I have proof that it works wonders for diabetes. (I know someone who has been avoiding insulin-injections for years on such a diet) Since Tanuki Tales' blood sugar seems to be okay, there is no need to go on a low-carb diet. (That if, if the blood sugar has been tested. Type I diabetes does lead to weightloss.)

Tanuki Tales

2014-12-14, 01:27 PM

A lot of conflicting information for my to digest (no pun intended) here, so let me jump the tracks for a second:

I've tried cutting soda out of my diet, but the longest I went without it was a month or two. Water is just so incredibly bland after awhile and I find myself ending up seriously craving the taste of soda after awhile (in the middle of a craving as I'm typing this). I'd buy Coke Life if they made it in a 2 liter (since it uses real cane sugar and stevia leaf extract in place of the normal artificial junk), but 4.99 for the six pack of glass bottles is just way too much. Is there a drink substitute that is both more healthy and cheaper?

Edit:

I'd need to check the results, but I believe my blood sugar is fine. When I got my blood work done about a year ago my liver results were a tad high (never did the follow up visit because it got away from me), but other than my cholesterol being high, I'm perfectly fine for my age, height and weight. Like I said, my sodium levels isn't even a concern to my doctor, but I'm getting nagged at by my lady to lower it.

Themrys

2014-12-14, 02:26 PM

Sorry, accidental post.

Erloas

2014-12-14, 03:12 PM

Furthermore, you can't simply reduce health to body mass or fat. Carbs are increasingly linked to cardiovascular disease (which is of course also increased with higher body fat where present). If you don't believe me, take the time to research the correlation between health and diet in Japan. There's a reason why they tend to have a longer lifespan than we do in most western countries. While it may appear weird to us (it sure does to me), there's a lot to be said about fish soup for breakfast over cereals :smallwink:
But at the same time the Japanesse diet is pretty high in rice. But there are also a huge number of cultural issues too. You can't just point to carbs and Japan and say that explains it, it is one small part of a very complex issue.

There is a lot too that has to do with your ancestry and that is mostly overlooked. The USA is pretty generally lumped together when in reality the genetics of the population is a mix of every part of the world. It is pretty clear that what your ancestors where eating is going to change a lot if they are native american, european, african, or asian.

Dairy is also a huge difference throughout the world and one a lot of people overlook. While most people sort of assume if they don't have a major obvious reaction to milk they are fine but in reality a lot of people have problems with it but never realize unless they completely cut it out for a while. I know someone that thought they were lactose intolerant until they removed gluten from their diet then it wasn't a problem any more, and I know people going the other way as well and once they removed dairy it made all of the difference.
I know I used to drink milk without any obvious problems but after a while I switched to rice (and later to almond) milk instead and after a few months of doing that when I tried to go back to milk I can't even drink a glass without it upsetting my stomach.

I also meet someone else that took a long time to realize she had an allergy to onions and garlic (and others in that family), she was just used to not feeling all that great. Once she figured that out and removed it she feels a lot better. She can't even eat food where a utensil/knife has been used on onions before touching her food without it bothering her.

Another friend, after doing whole30 actually, figured out she has a reaction to soy. It is really hard to remove soy from a diet too because it is added to all sorts of things you wouldn't realize.

The point is basically that there are so many different influences that you can't say there is a perfect fit for everyone. There are clearly some ideas that are more universal than others though. I'm just saying you can't blanketly say "remove carbs" and expect that to work for everyone. You may or may not see any difference removing them.

In most cases being conscious about what you eat is the most important part. And no one that goes gluten free (or vegan or dairy free) does it without being very conscious about what they are eating. And that could very well be the actual important part of what they have changed but they attribute it to being gluten free because they don't have anything else to compare to.

I've tried cutting soda out of my diet, but the longest I went without it was a month or two. Water is just so incredibly bland after awhile and I find myself ending up seriously craving the taste of soda after awhile (in the middle of a craving as I'm typing this). I'd buy Coke Life if they made it in a 2 liter (since it uses real cane sugar and stevia leaf extract in place of the normal artificial junk), but 4.99 for the eight pack of glass bottles is just way too much. Is there a drink substitute that is both more healthy and cheaper?
I cut soda out of my diet a long time ago.... probably around 10 years at this point. Once I did get it removed for a long time, I can't drink it now at all. I mostly went to teas, because it is the only thing available at most places that isn't soda. I usually just drink water now though because I've found I like it a lot more. Breaking the cravings for sugar (and that is usually what it is with soda) is really hard. It takes weeks, if not a full month or more. You also have to break it in other forms as well.
The other option could be a caffeine addition, which is actually pretty common too. Teas and coffee will help with that too because they both have caffeine.
The trick is mostly figuring out what part(s) you're craving and figuring out how to mitigate that.

There is a lot of research going on now about artificial sweeteners. A lot of it is points to the fact that few of them are good for you, and may not be any better for you than sugar. While it might not have the calories of sugar there is also some question as to whether calories (as we measure them) is as universal as we currently treat it. There is some indications that the mental and physiological reactions to artificial sweeteners is the same or even worse than just regular sweeteners. Because your body thinks it is getting it and then isn't so it reacts oddly.

As for the conflicting information, that really has been the case for as long as anyone has been looking at it. What has been found is that a lot of different things work for a lot of different people. The only important part is to do some research and try it, find what works for you and what doesn't and then continue to do that.
The best thing, but hardest, is if you can strip out as much as you possibly can from your diet so you minimize any potential conflicts between allergies and other reactions to the foods you're eating then slowly add back one or two things at a time and see how your body reacts. It takes a good month to do that resetting though and weeks afterwards to add isolated ingredients back in.

aspi

2014-12-14, 03:44 PM

But at the same time the Japanesse diet is pretty high in rice. But there are also a huge number of cultural issues too. You can't just point to carbs and Japan and say that explains it, it is one small part of a very complex issue.
I don't really see where I even made that claim? :smallconfused:

Personally, I don't believe a no-carb diet is all that healthy either so I would never suggest to cut it our completely. As usual, moderation is a very good approach. But the statement that diets that are high on carbs are healthy is simply a very dangerous assumption that is increasingly being proven wrong, which is what I tried to convey with my statement.

There is a lot too that has to do with your ancestry and that is mostly overlooked. The USA is pretty generally lumped together when in reality the genetics of the population is a mix of every part of the world. It is pretty clear that what your ancestors where eating is going to change a lot if they are native american, european, african, or asian.
I would be very suprised if there were any research indicating that there exist ethnic groups of people for whom a high carb diet is actually healthy, as I have yet to see any. I am happy to be proven wrong on this if someone can provide such a study, not just anecdotal evidence.

Right now, as far as I can see, there's a steadily growing mountain of evidence that too much carbs are bad for you, no matter where you come from. So unless I was very certain that this didn't apply to myself in particular, I'd try not to give myself cardio vascular disease or diabetes 20 years down to road by just ignoring the matter entirely.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-14, 04:43 PM

Themrys

2014-12-14, 04:50 PM

Not carbs so much as fructose. That stuff is deadly. Excessive fructose consumption can lead to cardiovascular diseases, adult type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and non-alcoholic liver disease. And it also makes you fat.

"Sugar: The Bitter Truth" Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (90 min)

So, avoid sugary drinks, even fruit juice.

Fruit juice is okay, high-fructose corn syrup is what causes the diabetes epidemy in the US. Although the habit of drinking coke all the time sure doesn't help, either, even if it is just sweetened with regular sugar.

Of course, for most people a low-carb diet would be most healthy (carbs of any kind increase blood sugar), but it takes a lot of dedication.

Spiryt

2014-12-14, 04:51 PM

Not as much 'too much carbs' perhaps, even if this too, as too much simple, high Glycemic Index, processed, refined, concentrated sugars.

Even modern fruit breeds, producing large, high sugar/juice fruits and their products, can indeed be possibly unhealthy, as noted above.

Even if they're still in roughly 'natural' form of fruit 'body' fluids.

Then there are all kinds of processed carbs from grains, syrups, pastas, flours, that are even worse.

All kinds of porridges, lentils, etc. certainly aren't very bad, even if mostly carbs. Starting with the fact that 'proper' sugars tend to be like ~few % of total carbohydrates in them.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-14, 04:57 PM

Fruit juice is okay...

Fruit juice is not OK. It can have as much sugar as soft drinks.

Tanuki Tales

2014-12-14, 05:01 PM

Themrys

2014-12-14, 05:03 PM

Fruit juice is not OK. It can have as much sugar as soft drinks.

Yeah, okay, but it is not as addictive as soft drinks. At least in my experience. Of course you should not drink it all day. But it does at least have vitamins to make up for the sugar content. I didn't say it is healty, but it is sort of okay.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-14, 05:14 PM

Yeah, okay, but it is not as addictive as soft drinks. At least in my experience. Of course you should not drink it all day. But it does at least have vitamins to make up for the sugar content. I didn't say it is healty, but it is sort of okay.

Fruit has vitamins. And it has fibre, something else your body needs. And you can't eat it all day unless you force yourself.

Erloas

2014-12-14, 05:15 PM

I don't really see where I even made that claim? :smallconfused:

Maybe not, but it sounded like you were saying blanketly that carbs are bad and should be avoided. Probably not what you meant though.

I would be very suprised if there were any research indicating that there exist ethnic groups of people for whom a high carb diet is actually healthy, as I have yet to see any. I am happy to be proven wrong on this if someone can provide such a study, not just anecdotal evidence.

Right now, as far as I can see, there's a steadily growing mountain of evidence that too much carbs are bad for you, no matter where you come from. So unless I was very certain that this didn't apply to myself in particular, I'd try not to give myself cardio vascular disease or diabetes 20 years down to road by just ignoring the matter entirely.
I wasn't trying to say that a high carb diet would be good. Every indication with every diet seems to be that moderation is the key, moderation in everything you eat. I think that in general the really high carb rate a lot of people eat is bad and it is too much. I think though that the best situation for most people is between where they are and the -all carbs are evil- camp that so many people seem to be going to right now.
It seems like while there are plenty of extreme diets going around and they do help some people loose a lot of weight they also tend to find they have other problems as well.

What you also tend to find is that the healthiest people around do it through exercise. You can see Olympic level athletes don't tend to do extreme diets to get where they are. You have a lot more flexibility in what you can eat and how it affects you when you exercise a lot. Of course if you're sitting around at a computer all the time what you should be eating is going to change a lot.

Fruit juice is okay, high-fructose corn syrup is what causes the diabetes epidemy in the US. Although the habit of drinking coke all the time sure doesn't help, either, even if it is just sweetened with regular sugar.

Of course, for most people a low-carb diet would be most healthy (carbs of any kind increase blood sugar), but it takes a lot of dedication.

There really is a lot saying "sugar is sugar" and it doesn't really matter exactly where it comes from. It is just that high-fructose corn syrup is the most common addition of sugar. If you eat just as much sugar, just from another source, you're not going to see any improvement.

Low blood sugar can also be a problem, so saying increasing blood sugar is always bad is also a useless general simplification. It all comes down to the individual and what they need.

Crow

2014-12-14, 07:03 PM

Guys, nowhere in the diet that I posted did I tell anyone to avoid carbs. In fact, you shouldn't. The point is to get your carbs from sources that are not grains or grain-like substances. You'll note I said to get those vegetables in large (huge) quantities. This was serious.

Just to spitball, I did a breakdown of what I ate today: I have consumed about 2500 calories so far, with an expected total of about 3400-3600 by the end of the day. Of those, about 30% will come from carbs (protein 30%, Fats 40%).

Erloas

2014-12-14, 08:05 PM

I hate actual coffee (unless it's drowning in flavored sweetener) and tea just is nowhere near as satisfying as soda (if the place even has more than bland, plain tea). There's also the issue that both of those are hot drinks, which I'm rarely in the mood for (unless I'm cold and need warming up).
Most tea you get from a restaurant will be iced tea. About the only place I ever see hot tea is at Chinese restaurants.
And you can make pretty much any tea you want into iced tea. I drink chai and all sorts of other teas cold. Your normal grocery stores will have what seems like a lot of options, but when you get to specialized teas you'll see that what you normally see at the store is a pale comparison to what is actually out there.

But there is a pretty good chance you're never going to find anything that just makes you forget about soda. It is a habit you'll have to break yourself of first and then find other things you like as a secondary activity. There is also some transition you can go through if you want, like drinking your coffee or tea with sugar and cream, but you'll want to transition away from that after not too long.

Guys, nowhere in the diet that I posted did I tell anyone to avoid carbs. In fact, you shouldn't. The point is to get your carbs from sources that are not grains or grain-like substances. You'll note I said to get those vegetables in large (huge) quantities. This was serious.

Just to spitball, I did a breakdown of what I ate today: I have consumed about 2500 calories so far, with an expected total of about 3400-3600 by the end of the day. Of those, about 30% will come from carbs (protein 30%, Fats 40%).
One thing I think is worth pointing out, is that unless things have changed from the last threads of this nature, is that you work out a lot. You're total calorie intake is going to be a lot higher because of that. Take your exact same meals in the same amount and feed them to someone not doing that same amount of exercise and they're probably not going to see anywhere near the same results as you do from that same diet.

I know you know this Crow, just figured it needed to be stated more explicitly. What is also important but not really addressed is good fats. I know you listed several high fat items in your first list, and there was mention that for some people carbs don't make someone feel full. Well there is a lot saying that fat helps you feel full, and feel that way longer. Coconut oil, avocado, and olive oils are used a lot in good diets/recipes to make a meal more feeling and not nearly as bad for you as many other types of fats/oils.
Which also goes back to the fish, and the good fats there too.

And it hasn't been mentioned but it is worth pointing out that alcohol is another highly refined form of energy that is quickly and easily broken down by the body. Most drinks also have no nutritional information on them so it is easy to not notice. But drinks can add up very quickly.

Crow

2014-12-14, 08:23 PM

That is true. When I am not working out, I generally dial back on carbohydrates. Earn your carbs, and all that.

If you guys ever get a chance, I'd like to suggest to try baking cookies and cakes with coconut flour. It's good for you and doesn't make things taste like coconut as many assume. Also, there are lots of recipes out there for pie crusts made from varieties of crushed nuts.

I mention these because sometimes you don't need to avoid certain types of food altogether if you can switch up some of the ingredients. When I get home tonight I'll be enjoying some pinapple cheese cake that aside from the sugar, isn't far out of my diet.

Tanuki Tales

2014-12-14, 09:47 PM

And it hasn't been mentioned but it is worth pointing out that alcohol is another highly refined form of energy that is quickly and easily broken down by the body. Most drinks also have no nutritional information on them so it is easy to not notice. But drinks can add up very quickly.

Can you clarify what you're saying with this?

Erloas

2014-12-14, 10:17 PM

Can you clarify what you're saying with this?

That one of the problems with sugar, and other refined carbohydrates, is that they are easily very easily and quickly metabolized and turned into energy. Alcohol has the same properties.

I guess I'll expand a bit on some ideas that have already been stated. The carbs in unprocessed foods are refereed to as complex, meaning they are locked up with other molecules and they require more work for the body to get to. This is why celery is referred to as calorie negative, meaning it takes your body more work to digest it than what your body gets out of it. But there is a lot of variability in that, even between unprocessed foods. Which is one problem with potatoes, a lot of their carbs are much easier to get to than some other types. It is why they recommend whole wheat bread over white bread (though unfortunately a lot of what is sold as whole wheat is processed a lot more than it should be).
The idea is often referred to as glycemic index (GI), the relative amount of time between when you eat something and when the energy from it reaches your body for use. Sugars and other refined goods can be done in a matter of minutes, but more complex ones could take a long time. The longer it takes the more energy you get from the food over time rather than all at once, which is more useful to you. This tends to give you the "sugar high" and subsequent crash, when you eat simple carbs, your body goes from being flooded with energy right after eating to a while later you have no energy at all from that food.
Fiber does a lot to slow down digestion too, which is why real fruit is recommended over juice, it still has all of the fiber in tact and your body processes them both together so it lessens the blood sugar spike that you would get from the same amount of sugar from another source.

What you'll also find is that how similar foods are made can make a difference in it too. If you look up the GI of sourdough, Pumpernicke, and rye breads you'll find that it is considerably better than white bread and actually is in line with a lot of fruits and some vegetables as well.

shawnhcorey

2014-12-15, 09:03 AM

That one of the problems with sugar, and other refined carbohydrates, is that they are easily very easily and quickly metabolized and turned into energy. Alcohol has the same properties.

Your liver metabolizes alcohol the same way it does fructose, with the same deadly consequences. Excessive alcohol consumption can lead to cardiovascular diseases, adult type 2 diabetes, hypertension, alcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity. The only difference is that fructose can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, rather than alcoholic fatty liver disease.

If you want a quick energy food, eat starches. They are composed almost entirely of long chains of glucose molecules. The saliva in your mouth will start breaking the starches into glucose and your stomach can quick adsorb them.

Tanuki Tales

2014-12-15, 06:15 PM

shawnhcorey

2014-12-15, 06:36 PM

Not just soda and juice; any sugary drink: ice tea, energy drinks, fruit drinks.

Erloas

2014-12-15, 07:26 PM

Ah, I see what you're getting at; alcohol is "better" because even though you metabolize it like fructose, you're less likely to unknowingly drink it like water like you would soda or juice. So you were pointing out how bad soda and juice are, not any benefits alcohol have in your diet.

I was just mentioning it because it hadn't came up yet. A lot of people can drink a lot of calories they don't realize with alcohol. And that it isn't just the really thick beers (which are generally pretty high) but alcohol in general that can get you.

I just did a quick search and showed vodka, whiskey, and rum all have right around 100 calories per shot. (not surprising that they are all about the same since they are all right around 80 proof)
When you look at how effortlessly people can put down a few shots or mixed drinks on the weekend you can see how you can easily get 10-20% of your daily calorie intake without even realizing it.

But alcohol does kind of show the GI thing too. If you don't have anything else with a drink it gets to you a lot faster, but eating it with certain types of foods can slow down the effects by quite a lot. Sugar is doing the same thing to your body, it is just that the effects aren't as obvious. Just shows the importance of balancing out your intake of sugar with other foods as well.

Not just soda and juice; any sugary drink: ice tea, energy drinks, fruit drinks.
Not to be too nit-picky, but that would be sweet tea. Ice tea, at least in most cases, should be straight tea with nothing else in it. In which case it has no calories at all. Of course with so many "fountain" teas out there like brisk/etc. they all have sugar in them because they are really more of a tea flavored soda than actual tea. A brewed tea is what you want.

As an aside, a lot of places serve Lipton and I find it really pretty bitter and not very good. Considering that is what most people have, especially if you just get your tea from the grocery store, I can understand why a lot of people don't care for it. Some of the generic brands are pretty good though.

Jermz

2014-12-17, 11:41 AM

There's lots of information here to process, for sure. Some of it is spot-on, some of it is slightly iffy, in my opinion, but I'm not looking to argue. I'll just toss in that I'm personally a firm believer in the whole 'everything in moderation' mantra, compounded with getting enough exercise per day. My claims are based more on common sense and my body, though I'm sure that there is probably some scientific basis to them.

I believe that as long as you eat healthy for the most part (veg, fruits, whole grains, minimal meat/fish/chicken, eggs and dairy), you can also have the slice of pizza now and then, or that can of coke. I'll also reiterate something which I'm sure has been said - diets are wrong. People need to look at it as a lifestyle change, and be prepared for gradual results over a long period of time.

Another important thing which I'm not sure has been mentioned or not is portion size. People have big eyes and most of us tend to overeat when given the chance. As long as you're having average-sized portions and not mega-doses of food, you should be OK to eat whatever you want, in my opinion. Just as long as you're not overdoing it.

Personally, I have the luxury of working at home and having a swimming pool and lots of fields and nature nearby, meaning that it's easy for me to get my daily exercise (45 minutes swimming four times a week, plus walking the dog for around an hour every day), so it's easy for me to say these kinds of things, as I'm active.

Tanuki Tales - regarding drinks, how about water + lemon/lime? Or just plain carbonated soda water with lemon/lime, which is my go-to drink on a daily basis.

Anyway, this is all from my personal experience, and as someone said, everyone's body is different and everyone reacts differently to food. Hopefully you'll find a good medium for yourself.

Tanuki Tales

2014-12-17, 01:52 PM

Tanuki Tales - regarding drinks, how about water + lemon/lime? Or just plain carbonated soda water with lemon/lime, which is my go-to drink on a daily basis.

I've been adding slices of lemon to my water every day now (limes are too expensive), since I picked up a fresh lemon to make my salmon the other night. But it's only really a step above normal and carbonated water is..eh...not something I particularly enjoy.

Are those "make your own soda" blends any better for you than regular soda?

Erloas

2014-12-17, 03:04 PM

I believe that as long as you eat healthy for the most part (veg, fruits, whole grains, minimal meat/fish/chicken, eggs and dairy), you can also have the slice of pizza now and then, or that can of coke. I'll also reiterate something which I'm sure has been said - diets are wrong. People need to look at it as a lifestyle change, and be prepared for gradual results over a long period of time.
While I don't want to pedantic, but this is one of those cases where it is kind of needed. Yes, Diets tend to be bad, but no matter what you eat or don't eat, you always have a diet. Your diet can be nothing but cheeze wiz and beer or it can be really good. Diets are things like Atkins or South Beach, etc and a diet is simply what you eat.

I think almost everyone here is suggesting a change in diet, rather than a specific Diet.

Of course in some cases it is almost impossible to break yourself of bad eating habits and your body of cravings without going on a strict Diet for a while. If you're so used to drinking pop that you always have a bottle around you're probably not going to be able to scale back without forcing yourself off of it for a while first. And then you can later go back to it and keep it in moderation. That is about the only time a Diet is a good option.

And just to be clear, I agree with you, I just want to make sure the terminology being used is correct. And yes, it sucks that the same word, and in the same context, has fairly different meanings. Which is why I've always seen it written with a capitol D to distinguish between the ideas.

I've been adding slices of lemon to my water every day now (limes are too expensive), since I picked up a fresh lemon to make my salmon the other night. But it's only really a step above normal and carbonated water is..eh...not something I particularly enjoy.

Are those "make your own soda" blends any better for you than regular soda?
I'm pretty sure the make your own soda machines are pretty much exactly like what you would get out of a fountain machine.

There are however a lot of flavor drops out now. I don't think most of them have any sugar in them, or sugar substitutes. Considering that they are just a few drops of flavoring it isn't like you could get anywhere near the 20-60g of sugar a lot of drinks have.

I can't, however, say if they have anything else in them that is bad. There are so many different types from so many different companies that there probably can't be any chemical that is universal to them.

Jermz

2014-12-18, 01:27 AM

While I don't want to pedantic, but this is one of those cases where it is kind of needed. Yes, Diets tend to be bad, but no matter what you eat or don't eat, you always have a diet. Your diet can be nothing but cheeze wiz and beer or it can be really good. Diets are things like Atkins or South Beach, etc and a diet is simply what you eat.

I think almost everyone here is suggesting a change in diet, rather than a specific Diet.

Of course in some cases it is almost impossible to break yourself of bad eating habits and your body of cravings without going on a strict Diet for a while. If you're so used to drinking pop that you always have a bottle around you're probably not going to be able to scale back without forcing yourself off of it for a while first. And then you can later go back to it and keep it in moderation. That is about the only time a Diet is a good option.

And just to be clear, I agree with you, I just want to make sure the terminology being used is correct. And yes, it sucks that the same word, and in the same context, has fairly different meanings. Which is why I've always seen it written with a capitol D to distinguish between the ideas.

Undoubtedly, Diets are wrong, while changing your diet is the correct thing to do. It's an interesting distinction and one that I've never thought of making, since based on context, I always believed the word to be self-explanatory. But you've got a point, and perhaps I'll pick it up for future use.

Tanuki Tales, I've got one of those 'make your own soda' machines. I use it mainly to make carbonated water, without any flavor sachets. The few times I've used the flavor sachets, the end result was fine. I think the best thing that can be said about them is that you can choose how much sugary chemical liquid you want to add to your drink, rather than have it come in a pre-packaged quantity.

Iruka

2014-12-18, 08:22 AM

Fruit juice is not OK. It can have as much sugar as soft drinks.

I've been adding slices of lemon to my water every day now (limes are too expensive), since I picked up a fresh lemon to make my salmon the other night. But it's only really a step above normal and carbonated water is..eh...not something I particularly enjoy.

Are those "make your own soda" blends any better for you than regular soda?

I usually drink pure carbonated water, but when I want more taste I add some fruit juice, about a quarter to a third.

Rater202

2014-12-18, 09:05 AM

One egg yolk a day provides your daily maximum cholesterol intake. Keep that in mind.

The faty fish thing I'm not sure about, but it's the omega 3 fatty acids that are good for you, so if you can stomach some horse pills they sell that as a dietary supplement.

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 09:32 AM

One egg yolk a day provides your daily maximum cholesterol intake. Keep that in mind.

The thing is that intake of large amount of cholesterol from eggs etc. does not, in any way, directly increase your actual levels of cholesterol.

http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth3.htm

If that was the case, people would ruin their CH levels eating pretty much anything.

Like eating a lot of fat doesn't really lead directly to being fat, for very blunt comparison.

Palanan

2014-12-24, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tanuki Tales
I love Salmon and Tuna is pretty nice, but fresh fish isn't exactly the cheapest thing to buy.

Let me offer a fish suggestion which hasn't come up yet, which is the humble yet tasty catfish. It's generally far more affordable than salmon, and I find it much easier to cook. It's also listed as one of the best options by Seafood Watch, in terms of both personal and environmental health.

Prices will vary, but I'm not too far down the coast from you, and in my area I can get quality catfish for $7.99 a pound. That may seem a little pricey (it's gone up a couple dollars in the past couple years) but after some patient persistence I've found a grocery store that provides excellent catfish on a reliable basis. (Just had some last night...love my Pilau Biryani.)

For other good seafood options, with an eye to environmental impact, take a look at the Mid-Atlantic Seafood Guide (http://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/consumer-guides) produced by Seafood Watch at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. There's a lot of good information and options in there.

.

SiuiS

2014-12-29, 09:09 PM

So I'm looking at food budgets and health goals and wondering if, malarkey aside, I should buy in to the hype just for ease of access to ideas and ingredients and recipes?

Specifically, that paleo diet. Evolutionary bull hockey aside, is there anything suggested by this diet concept that's a bad idea? I can't sort through it now, but it looks like my choices for easy access right now are "vegan", "diet/skinny", and "paleo". The first is... Okay, but not for me. The second will kill me, and almost has because someone really mixed up their signals. The third is all that's left, and with a wee'n running around option 4 of "do the research and put it all together manually" isn't happening until 2016 if I'm lucky.

Crow

2014-12-29, 09:33 PM

SiuiS

2014-12-29, 09:43 PM

That's fair. Anything is expensive right now, though. I've sort of hit borderline anorexia I think? I love food, I just never make time to eat. Not until the lack moves from familiar ache to 'body don't brain no mo'.

Going from three sandwiches and a lot of water a day, to actual, you know, health again? That's going to eat into the wallet fierce...

Jeff the Green

2014-12-30, 07:14 AM

Paleo shouldn't hurt you as long as you're careful about the amount and kind of fat you're getting. Just don't also do the raw food thing. Aside from being utterly ahistorical, it's a good way to keep nutrients locked away and antinutrients functioning.

Oh, and ignore the "no salt" thing. Also ahistorical, probably even worse for your health. (Unless you actually have high blood pressure that's likely aggravated by it and not controlled by medication, a low-sodium diet is likely to increase your risk of cardiovascular events.)

Also ignore the no alcohol/coffee, because hell no.

(Be warned, though, that the paleo diet is possibly the worst diet that doesn't include processed food for the environment, but that can't be a priority for everyone.)

shawnhcorey

2014-12-30, 08:34 AM

Forget the paleo diet; it's just advertisement hype. Do this instead:

1. Cut out all sugary drinks, even fruit juice.

2. Eat more above-ground leafy vegetables: broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, kale, lettuce, collards, spinach, etc.

3. Reduce the desserts.

Jermz

2014-12-30, 10:11 AM

SiuiS - is food really that expensive? I tend to find that time (which you pointed out), rather than budget, is what really prevents people from making significant shifts in their diet and lifestyle. I'd figure that a paleo diet would be more expensive, what with the focus on meat (where I live, meat tends to be pretty expensive).

I'll reiterate what I said earlier and recommend whole grains, vegetables, fruit and some meat/dairy/eggs. What shawnhcorey said is also important - cutting down sugary drinks and deserts. What exactly are your goals, SiuiS? You want to gain weight, or lose weight? From your comments, it would seem like you wish to put on a few pounds.

Crow

2014-12-30, 01:25 PM

Forget the paleo diet; it's just advertisement hype.

I've been (modified) paleo for 7 years. It is solid.

SiuiS

2014-12-30, 01:52 PM

Paleo shouldn't hurt you as long as you're careful about the amount and kind of fat you're getting. Just don't also do the raw food thing. Aside from being utterly ahistorical, it's a good way to keep nutrients locked away and antinutrients functioning.

That's where basic science comes in. Cooking is good because it's what makes half of the vegetables we eat healthy for us. :)

Also ignore the no alcohol/coffee, because hell no.

Alcohol slows down the anabolic processes that repair muscle and ligament tissue for three days or so, so I'm abstaining in general just until I get back to a decent (read: normal) level of fitness. Coffee is bad for me in particular because we've had a torrid affair for so long that she's like alcohol, bad for me when I get her, bad for me when I don't. But that's a different matter entirely XD

(Be warned, though, that the paleo diet is possibly the worst diet that doesn't include processed food for the environment, but that can't be a priority for everyone.)

Oh? That's interesting. Why do you say that?

Forget the paleo diet; it's just advertisement hype.

I am aware it's a broken clock. That's a nonissue.

Do this instead:

1. Cut out all sugary drinks, even fruit juice.

2. Eat more above-ground leafy vegetables: broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, kale, lettuce, collards, spinach, etc.

3. Reduce the desserts.

Mm. I already do 1 and 3 (there's nothing to cut out! Sometimes I get large gatorade's just for added calories >_>), and 2 is what I'm asking about. ;)

SiuiS - is food really that expensive? I tend to find that time (which you pointed out), rather than budget, is what really prevents people from making significant shifts in their diet and lifestyle. I'd figure that a paleo diet would be more expensive, what with the focus on meat (where I live, meat tends to be pretty expensive).

Well, like I said, it's relative. When my weekly food budget is $10 and a bunch of free and easy stuff, and I'm already budgeted to my limits, even doubling that would be hard to handle, especially for an amount of food that doesn't stretch any farther. So I want to know if the thingy mentioned was worth using as a rubric so I could start to make a budget so I could know what to cut and how elsewhere.

My fault really, as I've been using the same mental budget since I was single, and now I've got car payments and formula and diapers. Should've adapted on the way.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier and recommend whole grains, vegetables, fruit and some meat/dairy/eggs. What shawnhcorey said is also important - cutting down sugary drinks and deserts. What exactly are your goals, SiuiS? You want to gain weight, or lose weight? From your comments, it would seem like you wish to put on a few pounds.

Health. I can't lose weight, I don't want to body build, so just... Health. But something about searching for dietary information when you're in the states gets you nothing but BULK UP NOW, YEEEEAAAAAH and how to slim down in two simple steps, neither of which is useful.

I can study and modify a template, is why I asked. I can't build a template from scratch though. I can evaluate my caloric needs and macronutrient needs, I have old data on absorption rates as maximums, and I am still collecting notes about which forms of which macronutrient do what and yadda yadda. But I can solidify all that after I start putting fuel in the tank and work that fuel cost into my monthly budget.

Taking the paleo diet list will also prevent me from sticking to like, three ingredients out of lack of imagination and trying to save money. XD

Erloas

2014-12-30, 03:34 PM

I've also done a modified version of paleo for a while.
Well technically I did Whole30, which as far as I can tell has a lot in common with paleo. But in that case there ends up being a lot of "cheating" recipes, people just making the same foods they used to eat with slight modifications to fit the criteria of the diet and ignoring the goal of the diet (mostly to break you of bad eating habits and cravings for bad foods for you)

There is nothing bad about the diet, although I think a lot of people pull a lot Atkins thinking into it. The paleo diet shouldn't be mostly meats, but going in that direction tends to be easier to find recipes for and easier for some people to get behind.

As for the body building and loosing weight side of things, that is what most sites tend to focus on because that is what most people are looking for. If you actually read a lot of them they end up saying a lot of the same things (for either direction) and include many of the general recommendations here. Because healthy eating is good for maintaining a good weight and to give your body what it needs to be strong. You also don't have to worry about bulking up, it simply isn't possible to bulk up with just food, it takes a lot of specific weight training (and other forms of exercise). Even a lot of the weight loss ones are common sense things like cutting out sugars, processed foods, and that sort of thing.

As for salt, everything I've read says that if you eat pretty much anything processed even occasionally you'll never have to worry about having too little salt. You could safely not ever add it and never have a problem. Of course if you live in a very hot climate or exercise a lot and are taking in a lot of water you could end up with low salt levels, but that isn't a common problem. If you live somewhere with hard water, which I think is a good portion of the USA, you get a decent amount of salts from your water too (well sodium and other minerals that are considered salts, but not quite what people think of like table salt, which is there in small quantities too)

Crow

2014-12-30, 03:44 PM

People commonly assume that Paleo is supposed to be low-carb. That is not the case at all. You are supposed to get plenty of carbs, just not from the "easy" sources that most people get them from.

SiuiS

2014-12-30, 03:50 PM

I've also done a modified version of paleo for a while.
Well technically I did Whole30, which as far as I can tell has a lot in common with paleo. But in that case there ends up being a lot of "cheating" recipes, people just making the same foods they used to eat with slight modifications to fit the criteria of the diet and ignoring the goal of the diet (mostly to break you of bad eating habits and cravings for bad foods for you)

There is nothing bad about the diet, although I think a lot of people pull a lot Atkins thinking into it. The paleo diet shouldn't be mostly meats, but going in that direction tends to be easier to find recipes for and easier for some people to get behind.

Interesting. I did get that you need to focus a lot on. The plant scavenge side of things, actually, which is where my trouble begins – I have a burger-fed understanding of how to vegetable.

Can you elaborate on how the goals and the execution by most folks don't gel? That sounds useful to know.

I'm not worried about bulking up, I'm just worried about getting a complete diet (not too worried though, it I go full paranoia and freak out if I don't hit 100% of every needed nutrient every day...). Especially with all this "have more protein!!1!' Stuff, which is ridiculous. 0.8g per kilo of body mass is recommended and actual, professional level athletes may need as much as 0.96g for strength based athletics or 1.4 for endurance athletics, and I'm nowhere near that... Which means I could get my daily protein intake from a bar i nosh all day. But then how do I fill out the rest of my diet, Internet? And nine of your "I'm weak willed and already have a solid food intake, here's how to cheat" B.S., I don't need that! D:

As for salt, everything I've read says that if you eat pretty much anything processed even occasionally you'll never have to worry about having too little salt. You could safely not ever add it and never have a problem. Of course if you live in a very hot climate or exercise a lot and are taking in a lot of water you could end up with low salt levels, but that isn't a common problem. If you live somewhere with hard water, which I think is a good portion of the USA, you get a decent amount of salts from your water too (well sodium and other minerals that are considered salts, but not quite what people think of like table salt, which is there in small quantities too)[/QUOTE]

Jeff the Green

2014-12-30, 04:08 PM

Oh? That's interesting. Why do you say that?

Increased meat and nut consumption. Meat is horrible for the environment (poultry being a bit less horrible than pork, which is less horrible than beef), both in terms of strain on water resources and carbon dioxide emissions. For nuts, at least in America that typically mean almonds, walnuts, and pistachios, which mean unsustainable agriculture in Southern California. I mean, nuts are far and away better than meat for protein, but they're not good.

SiuiS

2014-12-30, 04:14 PM

Huh. I wasn't aware that nuts were unsustainable. I should look into that for the homestead.

You're right about meat, and once I get a hoof under me, I'll work on getting local meat from responsible raisers. I know that's expensive but cutting back the amount of meat I consume should help.

Aren't nuts deceptive in that regard? They're primarily fatty, with only like, a quarter of the but being protein and that protein not always being accessible through human digestion1. I mean, that makes nuts great for me, but for most people the lipid content is a hidden drawback.

1: unsubstantiated, from memory.

Erloas

2014-12-30, 04:18 PM

Interesting. I did get that you need to focus a lot on. The plant scavenge side of things, actually, which is where my trouble begins – I have a burger-fed understanding of how to vegetable.

Can you elaborate on how the goals and the execution by most folks don't gel? That sounds useful to know.

Well if you take turnips instead of potatoes, and then fry them up in EVOO (extra virgin olive oil) you basically have a paleo friendly french fry, which really isn't that much better for you than any other french fry.

Or if you make cookies and trade out the regular flour for almond/coconut flour, you're still eating a cookie, even if it might be slightly better for you.

The main problem with doing this is that you're trying to change how you eat as much as what you are specifically eating. If you trade one french fry for another you are basically eating the same thing and it is just that much easier to fall back into your old habits.

If you're going to go through all the trouble of cooking fake french fries up, you may as well make something else that is really good for you and takes about the same amount of work rather than something that is only kind of.

Of course some of those "cheating" foods are good for transitions, changing too much at once can be hard. So you make something you're used to and like with slightly different ingredients. You can make "mashed potatoes" out of several different types of roots, cauliflower actually works pretty well for it too. And if you're not adding anything bad to those "cheating" foods some make great foods for long term use too.

The best way to start might simply be to search for some vegetable you know is good for you but don't actually know what to do with it, find some recipes and give them a try. Don't worry if the recipe is tagged with Paleo or Atkins or Jenny Craig or any other diet, you should be able to look at the ingredients and get a pretty good idea of if it is good for you or not, and if it is give it a try.

I made a pretty good butternut squash stew a few weeks ago. It wasn't tagged as anything special and I thought it was really good. I've found stews in general are a good place to mix a lot of different vegetables into it.

Jeff the Green

2014-12-30, 04:32 PM

You're right about meat, and once I get a hoof under me, I'll work on getting local meat from responsible raisers.

While that may help, the bulk of the problem is inherent in eating consumers rather than producers (that is, eating ecological consumers, not economic consumers, which would probably be good for the environment). It necessarily takes more than one plant calorie to produce an animal calorie, which means you use more land, fertilizer (which is almost always produced in fossil fuel-intensive processes), water, fossil fuels to run farm equipment, etc.

The real issue that makes getting responsibly raised meat important is antibiotic resistance. It's already killing people.

SiuiS

2014-12-30, 04:42 PM

While that may help, the bulk of the problem is inherent in eating consumers rather than producers (that is, eating ecological consumers, not economic consumers, which would probably be good for the environment). It necessarily takes more than one plant calorie to produce an animal calorie, which means you use more land, fertilizer (which is almost always produced in fossil fuel-intensive processes), water, fossil fuels to run farm equipment, etc.

That's a level of abstraction and separation from the consumer that I feel confident in saying doesn't matter, not because it doesn't matter (it's an important issue surely), but because there is nothing that any consumer, or their family, or their neighborhood, or their city, can do about it. That's why I think the idea espoused in, eg, FRIENDS, is ridiculous. If one person doesn't eat steak, that's not one cow saved, that's one cow whose meat gets thrown away instead. Consumer level action cannot reach far enough up the chain to affect this stuff. The best a consumer can do is start their own chain from scratch, which I eventually hope to do. Ideally I will one day have a large patch of farmable land, some chickens, and likely some goats (cows seem intensive work-wise comparably). Eggs, occasional fowl, occasional milk and cheese, very very rare goat/cow meat.

Meanwhile, baby steps.

The real issue that makes getting responsibly raised meat important is antibiotic resistance. It's already killing people.

Ooh, that's news to me. Sounds forum restricted though, care to email me any relevant info you have? If not I'll just ask for a few useful search keywords to start with. :)

shawnhcorey

2014-12-30, 04:54 PM

Increased meat and nut consumption. Meat is horrible for the environment (poultry being a bit less horrible than pork, which is less horrible than beef), both in terms of strain on water resources and carbon dioxide emissions. For nuts, at least in America that typically mean almonds, walnuts, and pistachios, which mean unsustainable agriculture in Southern California. I mean, nuts are far and away better than meat for protein, but they're not good.

Animal products are the only natural source of B12. Current agriculture practices may make them horrible for the environment but if you don't eat them, take a B12 supplement.

Jeff the Green

2014-12-30, 04:58 PM

That's a level of abstraction and separation from the consumer that I feel confident in saying doesn't matter, not because it doesn't matter (it's an important issue surely), but because there is nothing that any consumer, or their family, or their neighborhood, or their city, can do about it. That's why I think the idea espoused in, eg, FRIENDS, is ridiculous. If one person doesn't eat steak, that's not one cow saved, that's one cow whose meat gets thrown away instead. Consumer level action cannot reach far enough up the chain to affect this stuff. The best a consumer can do is start their own chain from scratch, which I eventually hope to do. Ideally I will one day have a large patch of farmable land, some chickens, and likely some goats (cows seem intensive work-wise comparably). Eggs, occasional fowl, occasional milk and cheese, very very rare goat/cow meat.

I agree that collective action is needed, but you can't have collective action on it without people being vegetarian (and ideally not *******s about it) to normalize it. Similar to how gay rights required decades of gays and lesbians coming out to get any traction.

(Granted, I'm a little hypocritical on this point and so am not going to actually urge someone to go vegetarian if they don't want to, but the theory is correct even if I'm bad about putting it into practice.)

Ooh, that's news to me. Sounds forum restricted though, care to email me any relevant info you have? If not I'll just ask for a few useful search keywords to start with. :)

The policy of it, sure, but the science should be safe. Basically, antibiotics have three uses in agriculture. First, they treat acute infections to save the animal or at least keep it alive long enough to be slaughtered. Second, they serve as prophylaxis for the same acute infections. And finally they promote weight gain. We used to think that it was just a matter of reducing the number of small infections that the animal's immune system would fight off at some metabolic cost, but there's some pretty compelling research that it's actually because you're modifying the gut flora ecology ("microbiome" is the buzzword, but I hate it), which affects the animal's biochemistry in some as yet unelucidated way.

Anyway, the upshot is that almost every animal raised for food is given antibiotics in subtherapeutic doses. This inevitably causes resistant strains to multiply and become dominant, and because resistance to one antibiotic also translates into resistance to other antibiotics with similar mechanisms and because bacteria can swap resistance genes, it results in drug resistant bacteria infecting humans. (An equally large problem is improper prescribing practices for humans and our apparent inability to actually follow instructions and finish the damn prescription, but the two magnify the other's impact.)

Edit:

Animal products are the only natural source of B12. Current agriculture practices may make them horrible for the environment but if you don't eat them, take a B12 supplement.

Or one of the foods that's fortified with it nowadays, or one of the microbial sources like kombucha or some other fermented products.

And like I said, it's not just current practices that make meat unsustainable; it's the inherent inefficiency of converting sunlight into animal calories.

Icewraith

2014-12-30, 05:04 PM

If you're looking to reduce sodium, cutting down on processed foods and taking a hard look at any pre-bought sauces you may use as cooking aides is worth a look. Especially with asian cooking, there's often a ton of sodium in the sauce.

SiuiS

2014-12-30, 07:18 PM

I agree that collective action is needed, but you can't have collective action on it without people being vegetarian (and ideally not *******s about it) to normalize it. Similar to how gay rights required decades of gays and lesbians coming out to get any traction.

(Granted, I'm a little hypocritical on this point and so am not going to actually urge someone to go vegetarian if they don't want to, but the theory is correct even if I'm bad about putting it into practice.)

I don't see anything below the country level being worthwhile. you're still operating in the same linear economic system. And vegetarian doesn't help because that's contributing; we let food rot on the vine and subsidize it to prevent economic disaster, eating more veggies and raising less meat won't fix the underlying issues. No one method will; buying local from responsible vendors and eating less corpse are both good ideas together, not so much separate.

The policy of it, sure, but the science should be safe. Basically, antibiotics have three uses in agriculture. First, they treat acute infections to save the animal or at least keep it alive long enough to be slaughtered. Second, they serve as prophylaxis for the same acute infections. And finally they promote weight gain. We used to think that it was just a matter of reducing the number of small infections that the animal's immune system would fight off at some metabolic cost, but there's some pretty compelling research that it's actually because you're modifying the gut flora ecology ("microbiome" is the buzzword, but I hate it), which affects the animal's biochemistry in some as yet unelucidated way.

Anyway, the upshot is that almost every animal raised for food is given antibiotics in subtherapeutic doses. This inevitably causes resistant strains to multiply and become dominant, and because resistance to one antibiotic also translates into resistance to other antibiotics with similar mechanisms and because bacteria can swap resistance genes, it results in drug resistant bacteria infecting humans. (An equally large problem is improper prescribing practices for humans and our apparent inability to actually follow instructions and finish the damn prescription, but the two magnify the other's impact.)

Oh, I thought you meant eating medicated meat was good. I was confused XD

And like I said, it's not just current practices that make meat unsustainable; it's the inherent inefficiency of converting sunlight into animal calories.

I disagree. The scale of consumption is an issue, but consumption of animal as a thing is not.

Well, logically. Morally and ethically are different and I'm not worried about that conversation right now :)

Erloas

2014-12-30, 07:47 PM

Not that it seems to matter in this case, but I would be very cautious of going vegetarian as a means of saving money. I know 2 different people (well 3, but 2 were married so lumping them together) that went vegetarian to try to save money because meat was too expensive. Both had to give it up because it was causing them a lot of health issues.

On the other hand my dad went vegetarian for several years without any problems, but I think he ended up spending more for food rather than less (he was almost vegan actually, but still had fish, but the fish were mostly ones we caught). He also made relatively frequent trips to the closest big city to get a lot of foods that aren't readily available in the fairly small town we live in.

The ones with problems were both living in big cities so had access to a lot of stuff. The problem was that the products you have to buy to make vegetarianism work aren't the cheapest things around. Sure the bulk of the food you consume is on the cheaper side, but that is the same fruits and vegetables everyone should be eating. It is some of the other things that make the nutrition complete that is expensive, and that is true for meat as well as vegetarian options.

One other potential problem with vegetarianism is that a lot of it, at least stuff marketed towards vegetarians, is predominately soy based and soy has a lot of potential issues. I'm not sure on the results of all of the studies, but I know there is some questions as to how a protein in soy that is very similar to estrogen effects the body.

Jeff the Green

2014-12-30, 07:55 PM

I disagree. The scale of consumption is an issue, but consumption of animal as a thing is not.

Well, logically. Morally and ethically are different and I'm not worried about that conversation right now :)

Well, yes, but it's always a matter of scale. We accept that we eat some number of insect parts a day, but no one's going to eat Cheerios if the contents are 50% cockroach. But the point is that you can't make the level of meat eating most Americans are used to sustainable regardless of what farming practices you use.

SiuiS

2014-12-31, 10:29 PM

halfeye

2014-12-31, 11:01 PM

I ain't god.

I think I'm getting by.

Canned ratatouille is generally good, you can mix it in with anything. Check the salt content though, that seems to be rising.

Low sugar baked beans seem to be a good thing and they're relatively cheap.

Bread is fairly cheap, really cheap if you can afford the calories.

Water for tea/coffee is cheap if you don't pay to heat it. Caffeine is not cheap at any price (decaff tea rules, decaf coffee is a nice change from decaf tea).

Low price chilli, ratatouille and beans is a big main meal.

Macaronni cheese, ratatouille and beans is another main meal.

You need changes, boredom with food leads you into buying expensive trash.

SiuiS

2015-01-01, 12:02 AM

Crow

2015-01-01, 12:14 AM

Well, yes, but it's always a matter of scale. We accept that we eat some number of insect parts a day, but no one's going to eat Cheerios if the contents are 50% cockroach. But the point is that you can't make the level of meat eating most Americans are used to sustainable regardless of what farming practices you use.

You do realize that the agriculture and ranching industries are complimentary to one another, and have been for thousands of years, right?

Yes. I say it's that Americans consume a stupid amount of meat because our military made up good sounding heuristics, not that meat is unsustainable and should be hazed out entirely. That's all.

There are circumstances and activities where consuming large quantities of meat is absolutely neccessary, and can't be made up for on an alternative diet. Though I will grant you that the vast majority of Americans are not doing those activities and not in those circumstances (But some of us are!).

SiuiS

2015-01-01, 12:40 AM

What are those circumstances and are they common enough to be relevant health choices instead of specifics for rare outlier circumstances?

Crow

2015-01-01, 01:19 AM

What are those circumstances and are they common enough to be relevant health choices instead of specifics for rare outlier circumstances?

Any time when you are trying to build (or maintain) muscle and dynamic work capacity. The most common circumstance would be for athletes playing competitive sports, but if you do any sort of adventuring (mountain climbing for instance) it is also extremely useful for training and preparing for particularly difficult climbs. Another instance would be anyone trying to maintain muscle or capability above their seeming genetic baseline. Some people find that one very useful depending on their line of work, such as for law enforcement officers, or firefighters.

In the competitive sport category (whether amateur or professional), you are at a distinct training disadvantage if you abstain from meat compared to an athlete who doesn't. This depends on the sport though. A marathon runner or bicyclist needs it less than a guy who is playing rugby. In the adventure category, you can get by fine on an alternative diet because you are only really competing against (and disadvantaging) yourself.

Basically if you have a hobby or job that requires you be fast and strong (both here!), eating plenty of meat is a relevant and recommended health choice. If the only place you need to be fast and strong is Xbox Live, then you can stick to little 4oz servings. You should still eat some though, because meat is the most efficient way of getting the protein you need.

People always say you can get all the protein you need from beans and such, but take a look at 100g of kidney beans, cooked.

23g carbs, 9g protein, 0g fat

Compare to 100g of roasted sirloin trimmed to 0" of fat.

0g carbs, 26g protein, 11g fat

In addition to containing several amino acids and other agents that will help your body use the protein better, the sirloin has the added advantage that if you feel like you aren't getting enough protein, you can just get it, without having to worry about getting a bunch of excess carbs in the bargain. Now carbs aren't bad, but they are so easy to accumulate as it is. I really don't care to collect even more just to reach a protein quota. I don't worry about fat consumption whatsoever either. If you're getting enough fiber and eating every couple hours or so, you pretty much poop out whatever fats beyond what your body needs.

SiuiS

2015-01-01, 02:05 AM

Crow

2015-01-01, 02:40 AM

The difference in protein needs between a professional athlete exerting themselves constantly and Joe Schmoe is .16 g per kilogram of bodyweight. That's it. Anything more is either not absorbed, not utilized, or both. You're right about steak having a better percentage of, but consider peanut butter; high fat and soluble protein* and the fat content will provide calorie energy to allow you to utilize the protein for anabolic growth and tissue maintenance instead of diverting some of it for calorie energy.

* from memory. And when I started this response I hadn't had a drink yet. So be kind in response, s'il vous plaît? XD

First of all, that is only half the story. An athlete subsisting on Joe Schmoe levels of protein is going to waste away. The timing between meals, and timing of meals in relation to that exertion can greatly increase absorbtion, as well as what you eat with it having an effect, specifically post-exertion. Not to mention an athlete playing their sport and training for their sport are two entirely different things. Training is generally harder than the demands of the game.

Beyond that, rest is also a huge factor.

Even if it that number were universally accurate, which I am unsure it is, it would still be better to get that additional protein from meat.

Really though, I don't think it will be a factor for you. You have a fairly nebulous goal. I always ask my athletes for specific measurable goals. Lean out? Get faster? Get stronger? Be healthy? I answer What bodyfat%, How fast do you want to do your 40, 100, mile, 10k? How much do you want to squat, power clean? Be healthy how? Where do you want your blood pressure, resting heart rate?

So i am used to measurable performance goals, So please take that into account when reading my replies. If I sound snide or something that is mostly because I can only respond to general queries with general info.

Apologies in advance. ;)

Jeff the Green

2015-01-01, 10:12 AM

Yes. I say it's that Americans consume a stupid amount of meat because our military made up good sounding heuristics, not that meat is unsustainable and should be hazed out entirely. That's all.

Ah, we were talking past each other, then.

You do realize that the agriculture and ranching industries are complimentary to one another, and have been for thousands of years, right?

To a degree, yes. But the vast majority of nitrogen fertilizer comes from us extracting it from the atmosphere rather than manure, and the whole point is that animals consume a stupid amount of agricultural product compared to what you can get from just plants.

People always say you can get all the protein you need from beans and such, but take a look at 100g of kidney beans, cooked.

23g carbs, 9g protein, 0g fat

Compare to 100g of roasted sirloin trimmed to 0" of fat.

0g carbs, 26g protein, 11g fat

Changing bean type and fermenting them (e.g. tofu) vastly improves the protein:carb ratio to 5:1, which is far higher than you need. And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

Again, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, but with careful nutrition it is possible for pretty much everyone to go to a vegetarian diet. Which shouldn't be surprising given that people of all walks of life (peasant to soldier, not just ascetics) who follow religions originating in India have vegetarian lifestyles and gladiators (at least in Ephesus (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0110489)) ate almost no meat.

Spiryt

2015-01-01, 01:46 PM

And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

If someone already has pretty significant amount of muscle mass, with low amount of fat, is already doing heavy exercise and yet wants to body build further, then yeah, then supplement is likely needed.

On 'earlier state' probably not.

And one has to be careful with things soy due to their isoflavones content.

Crow

2015-01-01, 02:01 PM

Yes, you are correct about the manure. That is because we use virtually all of our manure already. The agricultural product consumed by lifestock is a moot point right now too. Not only do we produce plenty already, but we produce enough to feed places in the world that do not. There are about a dozen things we need to do in order to reduce our environmental impact before we start worrying about ranching. Nevermind that human agriculture hasn't exactly been good for the environment either.

Changing bean type and fermenting them (e.g. tofu) vastly improves the protein:carb ratio to 5:1, which is far higher than you need. And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

Because when you start supplementing with soy, here comes the estrogen. The only athletes using soy are the ones who can't consume whey for whatever reason.

It can work, but you run the risk of developing undesirable effects from the estrogen. Using concentrated soy protein is the worst way to use soy as an athlete. You also need to supplement with BCAAs and other compounds for you body to use that soy efficiently.

Again, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, but with careful nutrition it is possible for pretty much everyone to go to a vegetarian diet. Which shouldn't be surprising given that people of all walks of life (peasant to soldier, not just ascetics) who follow religions originating in India have vegetarian lifestyles and gladiators (at least in Ephesus (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0110489)) ate almost no meat.

Those were matters of availability in ancient times. I am not saying that present peoples from all walks of life can't live on a vegetarian diet, obviously they do. But if I'm on patrol and come up on a whacked out junkie, I want the guy who eats meat and potatoes for a partner before the the guy who lives a vegan lifestyle.

Jeff the Green

2015-01-01, 02:19 PM

And one has to be careful with things soy due to their isoflavones content.

Data's preliminary, but so far it looks like they have very little effect. Contrary to popular belief, estrogen doesn't actually affect muscle growth, it's only the fact that high estrogen tends to go with low testosterone.

Those were matters of availability in ancient times. I am not saying that present peoples from all walks of life can't live on a vegetarian diet, obviously they do. But if I'm on patrol and come up on a whacked out junkie, I want the guy who eats meat and potatoes for a partner before the the guy who lives a vegan lifestyle.

Why? I mean, both are police officers who presumably keep in shape. When it's trivial to get enough protein from plant sources, there wouldn't be a difference unless the meat-eating guy had a stun gun.

Crow

2015-01-01, 02:45 PM

Data's preliminary, but so far it looks like they have very little effect. Contrary to popular belief, estrogen doesn't actually affect muscle growth, it's only the fact that high estrogen tends to go with low testosterone.

As I said, it can work if you're willing to add even more supplements; but high estrogen causes undesirable effects in males.

Why? I mean, both are police officers who presumably keep in shape. When it's trivial to get enough protein from plant sources, there wouldn't be a difference unless the meat-eating guy had a stun gun.

Because speed, strength, and power aren't binary values and you can't just tase or OC every guy who resists. If a vegan diet was effective in increasing measurable performance indicators, such diets would be widespread and popular among people looking for performance. It's been tried and people have tried to make it work for half a century. In the end, meat does it better.

Something that I forgot to mention earlier is that I do support the rollback of the ranching industry, but as it relates to factory farming. I find the conditions that these factory farmers keep their livestock in deplorable. I try to get all my meat from local ranchers who allow their animals and birds to live free range. This makes it a bit more expensive, and I think that would actually be a good way to break this country of its addiction to uneccessary meat consumption, while also ending a horrendous industry practice.

*Yes, I am one of those crazies who cares more about animals than "people".

Spiryt

2015-01-01, 02:49 PM

As I said, it can work if you're willing to add even more supplements; but high estrogen causes undesirable effects in males.
.

No way it's really indifferent to women either.

Data's preliminary, but so far it looks like they have very little effect. Contrary to popular belief, estrogen doesn't actually affect muscle growth, it's only the fact that high estrogen tends to go with low testosterone.

Even if it doesn't directly, muscle growth is the last thing to worry about here.

Staying in 'body growth' extra estrogen will likely cause fat to deposit in... places.

Not to mention other adverse effects of unbalanced hormonal levels...

There are many things around today that can be harmful to hormonal health already, no point in risking further, even if it's theoretically small risk.

SiuiS

2015-01-01, 05:11 PM

First of all, that is only half the story. An athlete subsisting on Joe Schmoe levels of protein is going to waste away. The timing between meals, and timing of meals in relation to that exertion can greatly increase absorbtion, as well as what you eat with it having an effect, specifically post-exertion. Not to mention an athlete playing their sport and training for their sport are two entirely different things. Training is generally harder than the demands of the game.

Beyond that, rest is also a huge factor.

Right, I actually had a thing about absorption, use, excretion, and I take rates synchronized for results across a timespan in there before I got sort of drunkenly obsessed with finding the exact value a 20g protein bar could support before giving up and working backward from a bodyweight considered average on the street.

Certainly rest, intensity, duration, specific works, specific goals all have different permutations. I'm looking into that now actually, since the recommended 48 hour rest period is good but specific to strength gains and I need other stuff as well (ie drills and practice).

Even if it that number were universally accurate, which I am unsure it is, it would still be better to get that additional protein from meat.

"The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for both men and women is 0.80 g of good quality protein/kg body weight/d and is based on careful analyses of available nitrogen balance studies.".[10] "In view of the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, no additional dietary protein is suggested for healthy adults undertaking resistance or endurance exercise."[11]

No consensus has been reached in determining whether or not an individual in exercise training can benefit from protein and amino acid supplements.[12]

10 Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients), 2005, 589 [2]
11 Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients), 2005, 661 [3]
12Nutrition Working Group of the International Olympic Committee (2003). IOC Consensus Conference on Nutrition for Sport.

If you've got more extensive stuff I'm all ears. I'm fairly confident about the .8g per kilo because it's been suggested for a long time and routinely examined. I've been following along half-heartedly for over a decade, not just saying "Wikipedia says". Specific trumps general, though, and I've only got general :)

Really though, I don't think it will be a factor for you. You have a fairly nebulous goal.

Indeed. For now, my goal is to get back to normal health from
My current lack. In the next two years my goal is, basically, "pass basic training et al (U.S.) as that guy that keeps speaking up and getting hammered down", which is more mental than physical for sure, but is still physical.

Ah, we were talking past each other, then.

Okay. :)

To a degree, yes. But the vast majority of nitrogen fertilizer comes from us extracting it from the atmosphere rather than manure, and the whole point is that animals consume a stupid amount of agricultural product compared to what you can get from just plants.

Wait. The United States central area produces enough food in corn and similar crops to feed a population of 21,000,000,000 – end world hunger three times over. They don't because of economics and politics, but basically, worrying about how we get the animals fed is backwards. It's better to use that food and economize it than to pay farmers to let their crops rot on the vine.

Changing bean type and fermenting them (e.g. tofu) vastly improves the protein:carb ratio to 5:1, which is far higher than you need. And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

Interesting.

Why? I mean, both are police officers who presumably keep in shape. When it's trivial to get enough protein from plant sources, there wouldn't be a difference unless the meat-eating guy had a stun gun.

Agreed. Both anecdotal and minor experiential data suggests a better diet will (up to a point) make you better able to utilize the mechanism you have, your body. Meat and potatoes is good and hearty, but it weighs you down and can leave you loagy, the physique that comes with it weighs you down, and it's harder to get a good police officer physique out of it compared to same exercise and "better" diet (caveat for power lifters and such, who develop fat as part of their body padding or whatnot).

I dunno. Without a citation this seems like opinion bantering. Probably best to wrap up without a study to show, on either side.

Because speed, strength, and power aren't binary values and you can't just tase or OC every guy who resists. If a vegan diet was effective in increasing measurable performance indicators, such diets would be widespread and popular among people looking for performance. It's been tried and people have tried to make it work for half a century. In the end, meat does it better.

The science is contradictory, in part because of dubious ethics and in part because it's cherry picked by people making claims to back a product.

I think the misunderstanding between me and you (green Jeff excluded) is that it's not binary. It's not neat or no meat. It's a broad and variegated buffet of choice.

Jeff is indeed saying no meat / meat dichotomy do I don't speak for him :P

*Yes, I am one of those crazies who cares more about animals than "people".

Respect.

There are many things around today that can be harmful to hormonal health already, no point in risking further, even if it's theoretically small risk.

Last time someone brought up papers it was to show that the amounts were negligible compared to what your body produces and regulates anyway. Why should we be concerned?

Spiryt

2015-01-01, 05:38 PM

Last time someone brought up papers it was to show that the amounts were negligible compared to what your body produces and regulates anyway. Why should we be concerned?

Different countries and entities are citing different papers, and battling over it quite furiously, and result is that there are different laws as far as this goes at different places.

No one is really sure.

'Negligible amounts' can very well be not that important, because with mechanism as subtle as endocrine system, it's quite possible that even small deviations from the 'norm' can make the difference.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/scientists_warn_of_low_dose_risk_of_endocrine_bloc king_chemical_exposure/2507/

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/er.2011-1050

In any case, without more solid data, it's understandable to don't bother with meat hormones etc.

But soy products are actually one that have clearly and obviously non - negligible amounts of hormones in them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321163

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science/Study-links-low-sperm-with
-high-soy-consumption (http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science/Study-links-low-sperm-with-high-soy-consumption)

Soy consumption influence on lactation, breast cancer, sperm productions is very visible.

Of course, someone may don't care either, I'm just saying - especially in case of some protein shake/gainer/supplement/Dat dere Cell-tech it's probably better to just take non soy one.

Crow

2015-01-01, 05:57 PM

The only place I am finding the .8 figure is the center for disease control, and that is an RDA for "healthy adults". Whether you agree with that figure is likely to be dependent upon what you think of their other RDAs and their economically and lobby-funded "food pyramid". The Journal of Sports Sciences, and the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition recommend 1.8 to 2 per kilo for athletes, but do suggest going over 2.0 per kilo provides no additional benefit. Even the CDC fanboys over at LiveStrong say that athletes should consume 1.1 to 1.8 per kilo.

With the conflicting information and studies that are out there, I have to fall back on my own (and those I learned from) experience in training athletes. Now I am not a doctor; just a dude that owns a gym that other people run for me. I work a "normal" job, but coach strength for high school and collegiate athletes in the summers. So I'm not an expert by any means, but everything that I have seen in front of me over the last 12 years has pointed to the CDC RDA being too low for training.

Jeff the Green

2015-01-01, 07:14 PM

Wait. The United States central area produces enough food in corn and similar crops to feed a population of 21,000,000,000 – end world hunger three times over. They don't because of economics and politics, but basically, worrying about how we get the animals fed is backwards. It's better to use that food and economize it than to pay farmers to let their crops rot on the vine.

Since the 1970s the problem hasn't been that there isn't enough land to grow food. The problem is that it takes an enormous amount of fossil fuel to cultivate that land. It takes more land to grow food for cows than food for people, so a pound of beef releases 14 times (http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html) the amount of carbon as a pound of tofu. (The same thing is true to a lesser degree for other sources of animal protein. Insects are by far the most efficient.) Same thing with water; even where I live, a freaking temperate rainforest, there are areas where we're pumping more water out of the aquifers than is going in (though agriculture isn't the primary determinant, it's a major factor). Beef takes something like five times as much water as soy beans, six times if you go by grams of protein rather than weight.

SiuiS

2015-01-01, 07:41 PM

Different countries and entities are citing different papers, and battling over it quite furiously, and result is that there are different laws as far as this goes at different places.

No one is really sure.

Okay. The citation in question was from Anders, about the levels of hormone available from distilled pregnant mare's urine, and related tangents. So it's likely not a US centric documentation, but that's all I've got.

Soy consumption influence on lactation, breast cancer, sperm productions is very visible.

That claim seems sufficient. :smallsmile:
I'm curious though. This has come up before, with soy being an embattled topic. It seems that you can't have it both ways, but that both are accurate; soy has enough estrogen to begin mild feminization of a cissexual male but also soy does not have enough estrogen to begin feminization of a transsexual female? I am dubious that the branch of research that would be most interested in an answer doesn't have one while this other branch of research does.

The only place I am finding the .8 figure is the center for disease control, and that is an RDA for "healthy adults". Whether you agree with that figure is likely to be dependent upon what you think of their other RDAs and their economically and lobby-funded "food pyramid". The Journal of Sports Sciences, and the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition recommend 1.8 to 2 per kilo for athletes, but do suggest going over 2.0 per kilo provides no additional benefit. Even the CDC fanboys over at LiveStrong say that athletes should consume 1.1 to 1.8 per kilo.

Two factors at work there, from my understanding. The first is lack of specificity; I didn't quote it but the suggestion for athletes varies on type, with .96g/kg for strength based and 1.4~1.6 for endurance based, as a generalization. This shows that type of athleticism matters, and as you've said training versus acting is different, too.

The second factor is just hype. It's so ingrained that protein is what you need, protein is good, more protein, more! That it's easier to rationalize, round up, to "be safe, just in case" that people have a culture of suggesting protein as an athletic panacea. There's no opacity, no questioning. Is that 1.1g/kg because of depletion, absorption or use? How can you be sure 1.1 is good if there's no guideline to account for maximum absorption per unit of time?

Not that I'm being argumentative for it's own sake. I've been given fish for too long, I want to learn how to fish now! So I'm taking apart all the information I'm given. If only the RDA says that then I'll look closer at the studies done that produced those numbers if I can find them again. Who knows? Maybe the 1.1 balances out to .8 after absorption stuffs?

It looks like I'm going to have to build up my knowledge of this from scratch if there's no clear scientific results. Does anyone know where I can find digestion and absorption rates of different proteins? I lost all my old resources and I cobbled those together by luck >_<