Anyone Here Vegan?

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by BruceWayne, Jul 30, 2015.

  1. rabbit.

    rabbit. Member

    This is the assertion that I strongly disagree with. I gave you some sources on why Ayurveda -- if used specifically as a treatment -- does not cure anything and is pseudoscience, as one example of alternative medicine not being able to treat diseases (which you ignored). I really want to know which chronic diseases can be treated by traditional chinese or alternative medicine that Western medicine can't cure? AND NOT AS PREVENTION because we can do the same prevention without TCM (dont smoke, work out etc). Cancer? No way. Diabetes? No way. Chronic pain? MAYBE, but as I made clear in my last post, relaxation or meditation is nothing Eastern, but cross-cultural; on the other hand, I see people getting addicted to painkillers yet not to chinese herbs, so what's more effective? What else? Mental illness / neurological issues / strokes? I seriously doubt this, I will trust a brain surgeon more than some yogi who stands on one leg for 7 years in order to reach enlightenment. I want to know this because it is a huge and extreme assumption you made, and I will look up if the research confirms this and if so, I will change my mind.

    My general stance is different from what you think though. I do care about prevention, that's why I am so against clean eating and proper diet in general because it only plays a tiny role in preventing diseases. I've mentioned what the causes of chronic diseases are (in that order): genetics, smoking, obesity, stress/isolation, being inactive and also drugs/alcohol that I am not sure where they'd fall. There is really not much debate possible about those factors, only about how important each is and I might certainly be wrong about that, but the risk of smoking, being overweight, stress and so on is very well-established, far beyond reasonable doubt.

    So what we need to do to prevent disease is quite obvious*, just not how to get people to do it (your point in the previous post about McDonalds). I have no idea how to do this. I tried some things to get my grandma to lose weight (which she wanted), but it completely failed, even easy steps like just writing down her food intake (one behavior shared by millions of people who have lost and maintained their weights in that one big US database).

    What is not obvious is how to treat those diseases. Chemotherapy is not very effective (though it's the best treatment available), we have no solutions for chronic mental/neurological illnesses despite lots of research, there are plenty of diseases that are less in the spotlight that we cant deal with properly (MS maybe) etc etc. But this is not my pay grade and I can only wait for western medicine to make progress here.

    * at least to the degree that disease is based on lifestyle and not genetic. There is certainly a lot of potential in DNA testing for disease and eliminating " cancer genes" and so on, but I think it's very speculative at this point.


    Oh, but the health of the Aryuvedan population (according to you: no heart disease) says a lot about the quality of the Aryuveda medicine theory? ;)

    I think you're unfair on doctors and researchers. Yes there are idiots and manipulators, but come on -- everyone knows that smoking is bad, even the least educated people have come across health warnings (unless they cant read their cigarette labels) on TV, in newspapers, in school. Yet still many people do it, but you cant fault doctors or medicine for that. As I said above, the preventative lifestyle is pretty well-established, except maybe in the real of nutrition (which as you know I believe has very little effect save for 1-2 stupid things like not eating any vegetables or eating only trans fats).

    As to natural movements, I maintain the belief that most is bullshit and they are only right by chance. I've read enough buddhist and hindu texts and they are mostly completely off about how the body and mind work, and occasionally right by accident (they couldnt have known because they didnt even know vitamins, so how else but luck could some monk have come to the recommendation to eat fruit?).
     
  2. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_condition

    Particularly: diabetes (you won't cure it with official recommendations - you can manage it with drugs, but managing isn't curing), fibromalgia, MS, the autoimmune diseases are a big one, IBS, etc. We don't know how to treat those ones. On the other hand, a healthy lifestyle can prevent most of them, and in some cases treat them (like the IBS I had, and the allergy that went with it - well, it's still there, but much weaker, and I've made better progress by fixing my diet than with conventional allergy therapy). All those can be cured by some healthy lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle is the point of view adopted by traditional medicine and a minority of functional medicine practitioners here. When I had IBS, my doctor prescribed me with some kind of anti-laxative. I went to a naturopath (who by the way had developed a light-based therapy with some doctors with a hospital approval - nothing hippy there), who helped me fix it by changing my diet, helped me go towards better sleep patterns, and an adapted exercise routine.

    I agree that meditation isn't Western, but on the other hand, do you know cultures that developped it as much as Buddhists/Yogis? I don't. And why do you mention things like strokes? Like I said, Western techniques win hands down when it comes to acute illness. You're not making any point here.

    Also, lifestyle includes all spheres of being. TCM or Ayurveda won't encourage you to become fat, smoke, be inactive, and so on. They're not just about diet, they're holistic.

    There is no Ayurvedan population. It's not like Indians are living by Ayurvedic principles today.

    Yes, I am quite unfair on them. A lot of them are good at what they do. It's just that the methods they use, so far, don't lead to a holistic understanding of health. It focuses on treating symptoms, not causes. It focuses on selling drugs, because this is where there is money. It's not the researchers fault, what they do is useful - but it would be much useful to do the same work focusing on healthy living rather than fixing something broken, with side effects.

    Now two questions for you:
    1- How do you determinate what a healthy lifestyle is? Do you need peer-reviewed, RCT studies for each and every move you make? I did, and I seriously want to get away from this way of thinking. It's generating stress.
    2- In the holes left by science so far, how do you form an opinion? Of course it's not going to be an opinion to swear your life by, but if you have to make a choice without study to support it?
     
  3. fathomer

    fathomer New Member

    you say that science doesn't explain the origin of the world?
    wrong, what science are you looking at?

    or did you mean the universe?
    words mean things, be accurate.

    that's all you can come up with? "science doesnt explain the orgin of the world, and other stuff, I cant think of, anyone have any examples?"


    remember, the old cultures didnt understand weather and thought too much or too little rain was "cos the gods are angry".
     
  4. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    Well, yes and no. Why should lifestyle and treatment be so different? In the case of a broken leg or cancer obviously yes. But lifestyle (which is preventive) can help a lot with treatment - there's sort a continuity between the two.

    Then, obviously, some more specific things will be done when the disease is there. But a medicine shouldn't be judged solely on how it treats a disease. In my opinion, prevention should be more important.

    And I didn't say TCM have a monopoly over healthy lifestyle. Didn't I talk about functional health practitioners? Didn't I talk (not right here, I give you that) about Paleo lifestyle? ;)

    I just wasn't talking about today.

    I agree with the partient responsibility thing. But I'm still convinced medicine should turn from being symptom-focused to become more holistic. A lot of research should be done on "ideal" gut microbiome, for example. Or the effects of diets/lifestyle on health, rather than funding new drugs. If we didn't have drugs/surgery to "fix" almost everything, we would be forced to listen to the lifestyle advices of doctors. I'm sure a diabetic without his drug would be more careful about his diet. It would be a matter of survival.

    About the two questions:
    1- Yes, we agree on what matters for health (though I don't disregard everything you say - I disregard things that are controversial, like contradictory with other studies, and that don't fit the science I know + the framework)

    2- I asked this question because for me, when science isn't explaining anything about a topic, or when the evidence is conflicting, that's where I use Paleo philosophy, Ayurveda and other traditional medicines, etc. I don't use it as a know-all tool, but as an element to settle my mind in case of doubt. That's also a tool to worry less about my choices (because there's a coherence, and I like coherence), and to keep away from over-analysing my every chocies.

    I agree with your problem with vitamin D. Not sure what to think about it. When I have some privacy (I'm a privy person - except on my journal :D), I do Kettlebell topless in the garden to get some vitamin D, sunlight, etc. I don't know if I'll take a vitamin D supplement this winter. Probably 2-3.000 IU per day.

    About intuition: I think intuition is important. Animals, for example, eat appropriate foods to correct some mineral deficiencies (http://onpasture.com/2014/10/27/can-animals-figure-out-what-minerals-they-need/). They can be tricked, but they have a system to say "hey, you miss calcium - eat this, it's rich in calcium!". I assume we have similar "intuitions" (when we're not eating emotionally, and when our system isn't tricked by processed foods and artificial flavors).
     
  5. fathomer

    fathomer New Member

    what are the obvious things that science can't explain that are relevant to you? Am I supposed to know, give a shit about?
    nope.
    you really think those things are "obvious" or are you just using a platitude society has recently made popular to fill in your "thoughts"?

    ever been to california? they handle traffic differently than most places,, but you are confusing knowledge and action...people know how to be healthy/lean, but little do it.

    Showing you knowing how to do something and then doing that things are independent of each other

    what about genes, NTS, enymes is relevant to you that would affect your life? Here's one, stop the inner monolouge in your head. you'll free up a lot of energy and be better at whatever you do.

    owls; how much do you know about owls? are they also relevant to your life? I can't tell.

    as for traffic, go read,. "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do"...or just avoid traffic?
     
  6. rabbit.

    rabbit. Member

    Yes, treatment and prevention are very different. I'll give you only one example: positive thinking has been shown to not have any effect on cancer survival rates, the same is true for meditation (it has its place in pain management, but it wont cure chronic diseases), whereas both are preventative measures (e.g. reducing stress-related chronic diseases). Same for diet, it can prevent some things (maybe), but it won't cure cancer -- this is esoteric snake oil bullshit (eat vegan/paleo/aryuvedan/sunlight and get rid of cancer). Obviously if Aryuvedan lifestyle as a patient means not smoking or injecting heroin or taking your meds regularly, yes then it is a valid treatment, but that is a given to me.

    effect of diets/lifestyle on health: it's pretty well established, dont smoke, work out, dont be chronically stressed. diet has very little effect in prospective long-term studies (most things are insignificant or inconclusive and there are too many confounds that can't really all be accounted for.)

    gut health: if it's not broken, don't fix it (except maybe add more fiber because it's too low on average, but if I remember correctly, there is conflicting evidence too whether it can really reduce colon cancer). The spectrum of what is healthy is very wide, e.g. stool frequency can be from 2x a day to 2x a week and still be considered normal. Most people eat some milk product (good for the gut, unless you're lactose intolerant or vegan). As I've told you before, keep in mind that you were not healthy in this regard, so your experience, while great in its outcome, doesn't apply to a healthy population, e.g. my friend eats like shit, doesnt care about fiber or anything but he told me he never has diarrhea or any problems going to the bathroom. There is no need to preventatively detox or some crap, this is pseudo-science.

    2) Well you know I don't like Paleo, it doesn't really matter what framework you use in cases of doubt, you could just as well use the Bible or Scientology or whatever. All these systems are just there to rationalize your choices and preferences, e.g. what does paleo man have to say about which computer I should buy? Impossible to say, probably Apple.

    The problem with Paleo and evolutionary psychology (well one of a million problems ;)) is that our life is not the same as a caveman's. It is similar in many respects, but different in others. Ee.g. if you were to actually eat like a caveman, you'd clean out every supermarket and have 10,000 kcal days because you'd be afraid there won't be any food the next few days. It's hard to say which is the same and which isn't. See our discussion on how online dating is changing the mating process, think about how DNA tests and condoms have vastly improved the man's position (the biggest evolutionary concern for a man used to be wasting resources unknowingly raising another man's child, which in part explains why it was necessary to impregnante as many females as possible and not focus all your effort on one woman, same thing with now very low infant mortility etc). All these things paleo man didn't know about and couldn't factor in his decision making process. So I guess it comes down to whether you want to be right or have peace of mind. The latter is probably the best, but if you have a certain psychology/desire for truth, it's almost impossible to go down that route and disregard logic and evidence.
     
  7. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    I understand treatment and prevention are different – but I actually see a continuum between the two. They are different, but not opposed. To keep your cancer example, Ayurveda has been promoting cold showers for a long time, they call it Ishnaan. Now, it’s proven to be an effective cancer buster. By that I don’t mean you’ll cure any cancer by taking cold showers – but it’s a great immune system booster, including cancer-fighting white blood cells. How is that not a treatment? It’s not a sufficient treatment, but I don’t see how it doesn’t deserve to be part of a treatment plan. Same applies for intermittent fasting, specific phytonutrients (like in curcuma and broccoli), and most likely other forms of natural therapy I don’t have in mind. So in my opinion, those behaviour stand closer to the prevention side, but they aren’t excluded from being used as part of a cure.

    Gut health: often, it’s broken yet we don’t know it. A broken gut can lead to depression, anxiety, eczema (I had some on my elbows, it’s gone now), dandruff (greatly reduced), and many other symptoms that don’t seem to be related to digestive health. The only way to really know if your gut is broken, is to do a comprehensive diagnosis. Most people just won’t do it. But I agree with you that someone healthy won’t need to detox. Maybe fast every once in a while (autophagy), but that’s about it.

    2) That’s bad faith to place Paleo and Bible on health... Talking about how it should influence your computer choice just shows how out of the topic you are here. I understand you don’t give much credit to Paleo, but you gotta admit it has more science with it than the Bible.

    Indeed our life isn’t that of a caveman anymore. And I think most Paleo proponent know it and admit it. The idea is that our bodies evolved a certain way, and to the extant that we can, we should adapt our lifestyle to it. The key is “to the extant that we can”. For example, we evolved with diets much higher in magnesium (due to the soils being richer + eating no grains), so it’s a very Paleo move to actually take a magnesium supplement. Our society has changed a lot, but our genes haven’t. Our microbiome has changed, yet the structure of our gut hasn’t. Our body has adapted to a certain environment (Paleo), now our environment has changed (modern society). What we can do is see how we can adapt our lifestyle so it meets our needs as much as possible, knowing perfection can’t be attained. This is how I use the Paleo framework. Not to live like a caveman, but to coherently understand my bodily needs, and address them.

    Yes, most likely. I guess that’s a work we have to do. But I’m still happy I’ve done all this research into health – it’s a good foundation to interpret what I’ll see in the future.

    I stumbled upon this yesterday: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316#top , might interest you. Work on your peace of mind, it's for your health ;)
     
  8. rabbit.

    rabbit. Member

    Well, two things :D:
    1) you assume that those treatments even work in healthy people, which is dubious.
    cold showers: I do winter swimming in the sea and I've read some of the studies on cold showers, but most of is pop science/art of manliness bullshit. It improves thermogenesis and that's about it (certainly a good benefit, but when you see lists like 15 benefits of cold showers, 10+ of them are not true or insignificant, e.g. the testosterone boost). There is more evidence for actual swimming outside in cold temperatures, but it doesn't apply to showering at home (mostly due to the salt, which is good for skin diseases, asthma, joint problems etc -- which is why I started it, it helps keep my acne in check).

    same with intermittent fasting: I do this too, for convenience sake, but the research is not clear as its proponents make it out to be. Look up the thesis Martin Berkhan's friend wrote for his medical degree, he compiled all the IF research there is (and tried to spin it bc he is into IF obviously), yet the picture is very clear that we have no idea if it actually has any benefits besides less time needed for cooking etc. It's all based on animal studies, the human research is conflicting or inconclusive or low quality (e.g. see this takedown of what Martin said in regards to Ramadan, cherry-picking as usual: http://anthonycolpo.com/intermittent-fasting-and-the-crazed-rantings-of-martin-berkhan/ ). Martin's friend's conclusion in his paper:

    2) you assume that what works in healthy people works in sick people too and this is highly dubious as well. Everything changes in your body when you are sick. As a simple example, going to the sauna when you're fit is good, but going when you have the flu, is bad and will only stress your body more because it is already in a state of stress where it needs to fight off a virus.



    This is a huge assumption made by Paleo and it's certainly not true and puts the whole Paleo ideology on shaky ground.

    example 1: the prototype European came to Europe 8,000 years ago and he was lactose-tolerant. As a result, something like 90% (whatever) of Europeans today can digest milk without problems, unlike most people in the rest of the world. But if you magically were to know exactly what Paleo man ate before 8,000 years (another dubious claim, we really have no idea what people ate 50,000 years ago), you'd have to infer that milk is bad because he couldnt digest it (which some Paleo gurus actually do, they cant even agree on their basic definitions!). But the genes HAVE changed since then, so the recommendation has to change too!

    Same thing for grains btw -- even if grains werent in the ancestral diet (dubious too), we have certainly adapted to it -- the rate of celiac disease is something like 0.5%. Even if you then take into account some fake diseases like "gluten sensititity", you'll still only get about 5% of people with problems. Make it 20% for argument's sake and it still shows one thing: we have adapted to it, otherwise there would be 90%+ of people with problems in regards to grains.

    example 2: do you find it likely that African Americans who come from West Africa have the exact same genes as the West Africans today? I don't. The fittest/healthiest 10% of West Africans were taken to be slaves, started the journey across the Atlantic where an estimated 10-20% died, meaning that there was a second selection process (e.g. people with sub-par immune systems simply died) and then the hard labor and bad conditions on farms in Jamaica and so on were another selection process, which have shaped the gene pool tremendously.

    All these arguments are from a book called the 10,000 year hypothesis, another one is the plague that possibly changed the gene pool in a big ways (again, put simplistically, the "weak" people were cut out off the gene pool).


    Certainly. In my case, I need to apply more of what I know.

    As to your link, I will read it more closely. I've seen similar things before, even some weird stuff that wounds heal more quickly when you are around people, and there is some research that says isolation and lack of social relationships is as strong a risk factor in health as is smoking. :(
     
  9. fathomer

    fathomer New Member

    socialization is healthy, unless you really don't give a *hit about other people
    I know someone who was very fat, got boob cancer, lumpectomy/chemo/radiation, put her in remission, then she dropped to 18%-20% bf via tons of fat loss, dieting, proper nutrtion(heavy fruit, veg, some omega-3s, nuts, lean protein....
    she is late 60s and healthier than my 30 sister who is 250lbs and blames everything but herself for her obesity
    the women in her late 60s does not socialize, rarely worksout with weights
    I explain how both weight training and socialization help to increase BDNF, Brain-derived neurotrophic factor, also known as BDNF, is a protein that, in humans, is encoded by the BDNF gene. BDNF is a member of the neurotrophin family of growth factors, which are related to the canonical Nerve Growth Factor. Neurotrophic factors are found in the brain and the periphery.
    chemo treatments can lower BDNF as can obesity and dementia

    high bdnf might prevent/retard dementia and help cognitive function
    socialization/weight training help to increase BDNF


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-derived_neurotrophic_factor#Eczema

    as for wound healing

    people underestimate how much vit C you need
    Vitamin C is a cofactor in at least eight enzymatic reactions, including several collagen synthesis reactions that, when dysfunctional, cause the most severe symptoms of scurvy. In animals, these reactions are especially important in wound-healing and in preventing bleeding from capillaries.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C

    particularly the collagen synthesis
    First, a three-dimensional stranded structure is assembled, with the amino acids glycine and proline as its principal components. This is not yet collagen but its precursor, procollagen. Procollagen is then modified by the addition of hydroxyl groups to the amino acids proline and lysine.


    This step is important for later glycosylation and the formation of the triple helix structure of collagen. The hydroxylase enzymes that perform these reactions require Vitamin C as a cofactor, and a deficiency in this vitamin results in impaired collagen synthesis and the resulting disease scurvy[14] These hydroxylation reactions are catalyzed by two different enzymes: prolyl-4-hydroxylase[15] and lysyl-hydroxylase.

    Vitamin C also serves with them in inducing these reactions. in this service, one molecule of vitamin C is destroyed for each H replaced by OH. [16] The synthesis of collagen occurs inside and outside of the cell. The formation of collagen which results in fibrillary collagen (most common form) is discussed here. Meshwork collagen, which is often involved in the formation of filtration systems, is the other form of collagen. All types of collagens are triple helices, and the differences lie in the make-up of the alpha peptides created in step 2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collagen

    recall the body is constantly getting worn down and replacing/remolding itself.
    bones do it, which is why weight training helps bone density
    arteries do it, because high pressure blood flowing constantly wears out your pipes

    the body uses Collagen to remake arteries, but when no collagen can be made, usually caused by lack of vit C, LPA is used, LPA causes CAD and is a great marker to see how likely you are to have CAD
    a fruit.veggie diet has more vit C than the standard american diet and why CAd drops, you have more vitamin C
    Vit C makes collagen, which is a huge factor in wound healing....or is it "mental powers"?
    LOL
     
  10. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    1) There are some studies showing that cold showers (or at least cold exposure – but it makes sense cold showers would do the same to another degree) increase the blood count of white blood cells. This isn’t art of manliness bullshit.

    I’m trusting IF works, because it makes sense evolutionary (Paleo again), lots of cultures have it (Yogis fast one day a week; Christians have a careme; etc: all cultures wouldn’t do something, without concerting each other, if it was bad for them). Then the study isn’t perfect, but it seems quite consistent to me. Some studies that find negative effects of IF are of very poor design, too. So here again, I chose what’s “true” based on a larger framework, which itself makes sense to me. I might be wrong, but odds are with me.

    2) That’s a good point. The body does work differently when unhealthy. And depending on the disease (flu or cancer), the lifestyle has to be adapted. One size doesn’t fits all.

    About lactose: yes, and I eat dairy. We do have some gene evolution, but it’s minor.

    About gluten: the very texture of gluten makes it bad for our gut, celiac sensitive or not. Besides, I doubt 10Kyears ago, everyone was celiac sensitive – wheat just happens to bring us nothing good (few minerals/vitamins) and have a lot of downsides (gluten, high carbs, lectins, etc).

    When I say our genes haven’t evolved, I’m talking about our circadian rhythm and how different light waves impact it, the length of our digestive system, our teeth, what kind of energy the brain needs (glucose, ketones, lactic acid), that sort of things. Our “structure”, that is common to all (or most) humans. Not very specific genes like the ability to handle lactose.

    Yeah, BDNF is very important, especially for us while rebooting. It’s also related to happiness (I don’t know if the link is causal though). Intermittent fasting and/or calorie restriction increases it too.
     
  11. rabbit.

    rabbit. Member

    Yes, that's what I meant by thermogenesis, your body gets cold and by forcing it to produce heat, a few beneficial things occur and those make you better at responding to cold stimuli and viruses. There is a doctor in my swimming group and he did some informal studies with patients and cold swimming in the sea and they have 30% fewer instances of the flu, and I have seen the same in myself, I never get sick even though there is certainly some genetics to this (was never sick as a child much). Again though, some of those studies were specifically done in cold water and not in a bathtub and I dont find it convincing that it's easily transferrable. But I specifically mentioned things like testosterone boost and other alledged benefits that sites like AoM take out of their asses basically.

    So all I am saying is that cold showers are over-hyped and nothing magic, which is the same for Intermittent Fasting (the assumption that it's paleo is not a reason for me and ancient cultures have done all sorts of shit that we now know better, again just because it's old doesn't mean it's good), it's certainly no worse than eating 5-6x a day and has pragmatic benefits and perhaps the improved nutritional partitioning has some small effect, but at the end of the day the results are very similar. I do both cold water and IF, but I dont expect magic things from them, but rather easily noticeable and reproducable effects (e.g. better skin and fewer colds and more time freed up not preparing meals/eating and easier binges that still put me within my calorie limit).

    Now you're off the rails. Lectins? Come on, you'd have to eat 20 kg or something of RAW wheat for it to make a difference. That's why most of the time, wheat, potatoes and beans are cooked, which kills lectins to the degree that they cant even theoretically harm you. This is absurd. I'm surprised as well that you dont consider the fiber in whole wheat, one of the few things good about the whole foods movement. As most people are fiber deficient, they can actually improve their gut health (your favorite topic ;)) tremendously by eating more whole grains.

    I agree that most about our bodies hasn't changed, but again, when do you know what aspect of the Paleo lifestyle is applicable today? It comes down to preferences and basically trying to rationalize what you want to do, which you could do just as well without paleo, you could just do it you know? That's why I mentioned computers -- cavemen didn't have computers, they also didnt have medicine (which is why they had to use use herbs and stuff, an inferior option and many killed themselves experimenting), they didnt have birth control (I dont know how effective/pleasurable putting a dead cow's colon wall on your dick is, but I'd rather use a condom). So why do we use all those things? Because we want to. or not I guess (teen pregnancy). Computers are fun, but they're not paleo, yet paleo people still use them, you know? Because they want to, not because of some scientific framework.
     
  12. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    Then we probably agree. I give them more credit than you do, without expecting magic either. But added one onto another, little benefits do add up.

    About lectins and fibers: some, like WGA (the one that binds to intestinal cells), are more heat-resistant than others. I don't know in details, but look at grains: little vitamin/minerals, little but unhealthy fat, some fiber/protein, some unhealthy nutrients, and lots of carbs. On the other hand, per calorie, vegetables have much more vitamins, minerals, and fibres with much less risky nutrients. Some yes, grains will provide you some fiber - but they're not a good choice. Have your fiber from onions, leeks, berries, apples, dandelion, etc. Besides, you'll also potentially eating other beneficial phytonutrients. I'm sure one onion a day would benefit people much more than half a baguette made with whole-wheat (especially modern whole wheat, which has its own issues). There's nothing in grains that cannot be better obtained with other foods.

    Yes, very little of the Paleo lifestyle is applicable today, but you're stretching a lot as to say that it just comes down to preferences. It comes down to preferences if you adopt a lifestyle, then look for science/framework to validate it. On the other hand, if you look for the best science/framework and then adapt (part of) your lifestyle to it, you aren't just rationalising your preference, you are consciously making some choices to improve your health.

    So what aspects of Paleo are applicable today? Not eating grain (or not much, because sometimes it's a good thing to fit socially, and the point isn't to hit the orthorexia line), intense, full-body and functional exercise, cold showers (which more or less mimic natural conditions), avoid blue lights at night, intermittent fasting (not necessarily purposefully), eating probiotics (or better yet, organic, local food that isn't over-washed), the list could go on. You can do all those things while having your computer, your condoms, and otherwise enjoy your life "because you want to, not because of some scientific framework."
     
  13. fathomer

    fathomer New Member

    cold showers also make people hungry(via leptin) http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-1.html/

    but are better for the skin than warm showers

    you keep saying, "paleo", it makes me think you are only eating dinosaur meat? I dunno what it is?

    nothhing to "trust" about IF,,,??
    what's negative about IF? You said "studies found negatives! so what are they?
     
  14. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    I've seen poorly designed studies showing IF had negative effects. Like one study where IF was supposed to make people hungrier. The design was this: some people eat three meals a day, some people eat one meal a day, for dinner (with no adaptation period). Before dinner, all people have to say how hungry they are. Obviously, the people doing IF reported being hungrier than the other people - and the scientists concluded that IF makes people hungry all the time. Now, some studies may show negative effects of IF with better studies, but I'm just not convinced they're sound.

    Cold showers make people hungry? I don't know about that. Cold baths / swimming in cold water, yes, but cold showers? I haven't experienced it.

    Paleo? It's some animal food at each meal, with some fruits / veggies / tubers, with some nuts and seeds too. But I'm not big on tubers, and I actually eat non-Paleo foods (legumes, grains occasionally; dairy daily). That's subject to a lot of debate, but this is the main idea. Most of the calories I eat come from plant sources.
     
  15. rabbit.

    rabbit. Member

    Honestly, when it gets to specific terms and details, what you say is often wrong when you look more closely.

    1) I actually compared onions and whole wheat right now, I'll use wikipedia's data (yes, you can doubt it, whatever) and they are EXACTLY the same in most cases, in some minerals onions are better, in some other areas (vitamin B3, E, K, iron, manganese) whole wheat is better.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion#Nutrients_and_phytochemicals
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#Nutrition

    Everything you said in that paragraph falls apart. And dont come up with some other vegetable now to change your argument.

    You also seem to forget that there are two types of fiber, one you get mostly in vegetables and one you get mostly in grains, that's where the advantage of grains lies. Similarly, you make the either/or logical error -- people dont have to eat either onions or whole wheat bread, they can eat both you know?

    2) WGA, same thing again, look at the details (not from paleo sites, please!!! just some general site that doesnt have any stake in any one viewpoint, it's not that difficult) and it all falls apart. I will try, but it's just not true (grr, I need to watch my stress levels ;)):

    a) animal studies, yes in INSANE AMOUNTS it is toxic (what I said):

    Pusztai A, Ewen SWB, Grant G, Brown DS, Stewart JC, Peumans WJ, van Damme EJM, Bardocz S. Antinutritive effects of wheat-germ agglutinin and other N-acetylglucosamine-specific lectins. Brit J Nutr 70: 313-321, 1993
    Pusztai, A. Dietary lectins are metabolic signals for the gut and modulate immune and hormone functions. Eur J Clin Nutr 47: 691-699, 1993

    = they found negative effects when they administered 500 mg / kg bodyweight of WGA -- which equals about 5000 (five thousand!) kilograms of potatoes or whole wheat (WGA <10 mg per kg) for a 100 kg person. Or 100 kg of wheat germs. I think it's fair to say no one eats that much in a day...

    But even then, it gets even funnier because:

    b) human studies dont even show any effect!

    Brady PG, Vannier AM, Banwell JG. Identification of dietary lectin, wheat germ agglutinin, in human intestinal contents. Gastroenterology 75: 353-360, 1978

    yes, old, whatever, it still holds true: 200 mg of WGA per body weight was administered one time and absolutely no effect was seen.

    They also state several reasons for why rats are different in this regard from humans, but I wont bother.

    This is the problem in general with a lot of animal studies: they observe some effect but they use extreme dosages that no human would or even could ever consume. Seriously, 5000 kilograms of whole wheat (maybe I miscalculated a 0 and it's only 500 kg, but still).

    Already too long, so I wont write more. I sometimes feel this is like some test for me to keep my stress levels low or something :-X
     
  16. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Whole-Grains-and-Fiber_UCM_303249_Article.jsp
    "Wheat, rye, rice, and most other grains are primarily composed of insoluble fiber."

    So basically, most fiber in whole wheat is useless (or at least, not so important). Onions fiber, on the other hand, have mostly inulin, if I'm right. Or at least, soluble fiber - fermentable fibre. Onions don't have phytic acid, they have much more polyphenols and sulphur-based compounds that are very beneficial to our health. I don't see how wheat can rival with all of this... It's not just about total fiber, it's about what fibers + the whole package (and, more extensively, the context, as seen in my next paragraph).

    My "either/or" isn't a logical error, because assuming you eat real food, and don't want to add weight, you have to limit your food intake. So in the case of a diet that isn't too high in carbs, with some amounts of fruits/tubers, you can't really have onions + wheat.

    2b) Right now I'm too lazy to make research, but I see gut healthy as something long-term, not to be studied with some kind of one-time observation.
     
  17. BruceWayne

    BruceWayne Building the life I want, day by day...

    Wow you guys must love to debate lol.
     
  18. fathomer

    fathomer New Member

    what are blue zones?
    what are the cons to taking vitamin C?
    I can't click on links, so how about you just tell me?
    thanks
     
  19. leannfit

    leannfit New Member

    what the heck is a "tuber"?

    I like you say, "I don't know about that".
    you are in your early 20s? your frontal lobe isnt even fully developed, of course you don't know anything! DUH
    I do like your confidence in your talking on the anonymous internet forum as if you do know "something"
    yet you provide no links to pubmed.studies or provide proof at all for the "stuff" that you babble on and on about

    cold showers can decrease leptin, which can make you hungier

    but that's also a complex issue.
    are you hungry? or are you thirsty or something else?
    Often before you eat you've heard, "drink some water!"
    I've also thought I was told this to "fill up" on water. That is right/wrong.
    Being dehydrated, doesn't mean you get thirsty, but being dehydrated can mean you feel:
    hungry
    moody
    doing things is harder(than compared to when you had lots of water
    --this link shows that a man walking on a treadmill when he was full of water VS dehydrate, his perceived effort doubled as did his heart rate



    also

    the vit C issue
    do you need omega-3s?
    people live daily without them....
    I suggest you read a little about vit C before you make "profound" statements about linus pauling being wrong.
    Cause that's what you are saying, right? you are internet dude who is all of 24ish knows more than Linus Pauling, winner of 2 noble prizes
    Yeah, I don't need to say more.

    since you don't seem to be big reader, listen to dr levy talk about vit C
    starts about 430




    and then explain to you why everything you've been taught about calcium is wrong
    and he gives references to studies, unlike you and your "wisdom"
    ]
     
  20. Deleted User

    Deleted User Guest

    Blue zones are areas where people live (much) longer than average. The Okinawa island is an example.

    Cons of taking vitamin C? Well for example it decreases the benefits of exercise (as seen on a like on gettingstronger.org). Generally, because it is an antioxidant, it decreases the internal anti-oxidant capacity. Basically, you give your body anti oxidants, so your ability to produce your own decreases (because you don't need to do it anymore; but on the other hand, you become dependant on vitamin C). Then I don't know the details, but a meta-review showing little benefit and even slight negative effects from anti oxidant supplementation is enough to convince me from what just makes sense: we don't need pills unless we have a specific condition.

    Then I just don't trust the megadosing thing, especially since in nature, vitamin C comes with other nutrients (rutine, polyphenols, etc), so it seems un-natural to me to take vitamin C supplements.

    @leannfit: thanks for your concern about my frontal lobes. Maybe try writing in a way that's a little bit gentler? I don't post links for everything but you can ask instead of just downplaying everything that's said. When I say something without data to back it, I usually things like "I think" or "I would guess", etc.

    But maybe you can ask Google what kind of food tubers are. It doesn't take a genius to do it - even me and my poor 20 years can do it.
     

Share This Page