[SkinnyPupp]

This thread spawns from the Fish N Chips thread, where an ignorant person argued with me that saturated fat is bad for you, and we should be eating more vegetable oil. He went on to turn stupid on me when I tried to tell him wrong, and used the American Heart Association of all places (they basically only exist to sell their logo so cereals can put it on their boxes of sugar and say "hey look, we're HEALTHY)

I am NOT against ignorant people. We all have the ability to learn. And the definition of ignorant is that you just don't know any better. But when you are going to start turning on someone who is trying to teach you something, and spout of the same incorrect information, you go from being ignorant to being stupid.

So I gave up on that thread. Besides, it was too far deviated from the original intention of the thread (to discuss fish n chips)

Anyway, I came across this video on a friend's site (she is a trainer, future nutritionist, and future olympic athlete) and noticed that it pertained to our discussion perfectly. Basically, the point I was trying to get across that fat doesn't cause cholesterol problems (and besides, cholesterol doesn't cause heart problems wither) the real enemy is insulin. Anyone telling you otherwise is going on sham science from the 50's that the government latched onto.

The video is an excerpt from the great documentary "Fat Head".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

I just finished watching the entire movie, and it was GREAT! It basically tells us what I already knew, and what many ignorant people didn't know - that saturated fat is NOT bad for you - sugars and grains are. Cholesterol isn't the enemy, inflammation and insulin are.

You might remember the documentary "Supersize Me". In that one, the guy said he would only eat at McDonald's for a month, and would super size his meals only if asked. His argument is that McDonalds basically forces people to eat at their restaurants, tricking kids into wanting to go there, and preying on stupid, poor people to eat there every day. Obviously this is bullshit. And if you do the math, the diet he did was bullshit too (to gain the weight he claimed in the movie, he would have had to eat 5000 calories a day, which would be impossible in most combinations of the menu available at McDonald's. Especially if he only Super Sized his meal when asked - which happened 9 times over the month).

The star of Fat Head did his own version of the diet - he only ate at fast food restaurants for a month. However he did one thing different - he kept his calories at 2000 kcal per day, and carbs down to 100g a day. In addition, he went for a walk each night. He ended up eating everything you would expect - chicken mc nuggets, double quarter pounders, big macs, etc. Not just salads and crap. He was taking in like 100g of fat per day, 50g of which was saturated.

At the end of the month, the look on his doctor's face was priceless. He couldn't believe what he saw! The guy lost 12 lbs over the month!

Obviously that he is not trying to make the case that you should eat fast food to lose weight and be healthy. (his LDL went up, because of the vegetable oil these restaurants are now forced to use for their fried food thanks to the ignorance such as what I witnessed in the fish n chips forum).

Instead, his point is that saturated fat does NOT kill you. Saturated fat does not even "make you fat". The real problem is that we are eating too many grains such as wheat and corn, causing insulin spikes and other issues. That, and lack of activity are what make you fat. Not saturated fat.

Please try not to be stupid. Please pay attention to new research and studies. Please don't simply blindly follow what special interest groups like the AHA and ADA have to say, who are simply there to make money licensing their logos.

Give this movie a watch if you have the time. It should be on DVD (or torrents, if that's how you obtain your movies). You'll be a better person for at least looking more into 50 year old bullshit science. :thumbsup:

[mickz]

I believe it's the Heart & Stroke Foundation that allows food companies to buy their Health Check logo for their packaging.

You have to blame the media for this situation, fat is marketed like poison. People cringe when they hear it and stay away.

[!SG]

certain grains are bad, whole grains with hearty tough exteriors are good.

i learned this stuff going to diabetics class.

the issue is that a lot of what we eat nowadays is sooooo processed, that the amount of energy your body takes to break it down to usuable food (simple sugars) is so minimal that its no different than simple sugars themselves.

my understanding is not just how accessable the food we eat becomes workable energy, but also how hard the body has to work to break down that food into becoming workable energy.

cut out the sugar in ur diet, and just watch how food tastes so much more dynamic.


and you will need to rip my bare hands away from a juicy steak anyday!

[hal0g0dv2]

I believe it's the Heart & Stroke Foundation that allows food companies to buy their Health Check logo for their packaging.

You have to blame the media for this situation, fat is marketed like poison. People cringe when they hear it and stay away.

ya the companies spend stupid money to put that logo on

[SkinnyPupp]

certain grains are bad, whole grains with hearty tough exteriors are good.

i learned this stuff going to diabetics class.

the issue is that a lot of what we eat nowadays is sooooo processed, that the amount of energy your body takes to break it down to usuable food (simple sugars) is so minimal that its no different than simple sugars themselves.

my understanding is not just how accessable the food we eat becomes workable energy, but also how hard the body has to work to break down that food into becoming workable energy.

cut out the sugar in ur diet, and just watch how food tastes so much more dynamic.


and you will need to rip my bare hands away from a juicy steak anyday!
Yeah Glycemic Index is important with insulin. They talk about that in the movie. I believe sugar is 65 or so? Coke is about that, and so is bread, and most "healthy" cereals. These cereals that shoot your insulin just as much as drinking a can of Coke, or eating a cup of pure sugar, are considered A-OK by the "Heart & Stroke Foundation" or whatever.

That is such a sham, and irritates me to no end (in case you couldn't already tell ;))

[SkinnyPupp]

If you were wondering what makes many "vegetable oils" so disgusting, watch this (bonus footage from the DVD)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flLwKQGm43A

[Great68]

This thread spawns from the Fish N Chips thread, where an ignorant person argued with me that saturated fat is bad for you, and we should be eating more vegetable oil. He went on to turn stupid on me when I tried to tell him wrong, and used the American Heart Association of all places (they basically only exist to sell their logo so cereals can put it on their boxes of sugar and say "hey look, we're HEALTHY)



*sniff I love you too SkinnyPupp

[CorneringArtist]

Damn this is an eye-opener, thanks for posting this up! I should get the DVD for this.

[SkinnyPupp]

Be sure to read the author's blog, it is full of information and links to resources.

I have been reading about the whole saturated fat thing for a while now, but this movie/blog is the one place I can direct people to that will tell them all they need to know about the crap that we've been fed all our lives.

Even if you can't convince your mom to stop buying "vegetable" oil to cook with, at least see if you can get her to switch to a nut oil! Coconut would be best, but peanut is great. We started using lard to fry veggies with, and it makes everything taste light and crispy.

[SkinnyPupp]

Damn this is an eye-opener, thanks for posting this up! I should get the DVD for this.
It is worth the price of the DVD, just to see the expression on his doctor's face when he looks at his fat measurement with full knowledge of his 1 month diet plan.

[waddy41]

awesome post....many thanks

check out underground wellness on youtube.....sean's awesome...

[taylor192]

Please don't believe the Michael Moore propaganda in this video.

Do you know why he lost 12 lbs? A 150lb, 5'8" 30yo sedentary male requires 2000kcal daily. Anything other than sitting on the couch will require more than 2000kcal, and thus result in a net loss of calories and weight.

How many here can eat 2000kcal/day? I'll give you a hint of how hard it is:
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories

The more fat you eat, the less you can eat. Moreso, carbs fill you up, while high fat consumption leaves you hungry. How effective is a diet where you're always hungry and have to eat minuscule sized portions? Not very, most people aren't filming a video and have an invested reason to stick to the diet.

Carbs are an essential source of energy, how motivated are you going to be to hit the gym if you're letharghic? Low car diets leave people feeling tired, and I doubt this is how a lazy fat person on a diet wants to feel while trying to find motivation to exercise.

Proper carbs (read complex carbs) are what you want to eat. Sugar has a GI of 68, while an apple has a GI of 38 or a potatoe has a GI of 85! Duh, we've been told to avoid potatoes as sources of carbs, yet avoiding all carbs is not good advice. Whole grains and fruits are low on the GI.

[willystyle]

Yeah Glycemic Index is important with insulin. They talk about that in the movie. I believe sugar is 65 or so? Coke is about that, and so is bread, and most "healthy" cereals. These cereals that shoot your insulin just as much as drinking a can of Coke, or eating a cup of pure sugar, are considered A-OK by the "Heart & Stroke Foundation" or whatever.

That is such a sham, and irritates me to no end (in case you couldn't already tell ;))
If I remember correctly from the Keto Diet that I was on, Simple sugar aka. Glucose is actually 100 on the Glycemic Index, but nonetheless, I totally agree with you.

I was on a HIGH FAT/LOW CARB diet (similar to Atkins, but not exactly like it, we were restricted to 50g carb or LESS/day, with all coming from Dietary Fibre) and I dropped alot of weight.

[SkinnyPupp]

Please don't believe the Michael Moore propaganda in this video.

Do you know why he lost 12 lbs? A 150lb, 5'8" 30yo sedentary male requires 2000kcal daily. Anything other than sitting on the couch will require more than 2000kcal, and thus result in a net loss of calories and weight.

How many here can eat 2000kcal/day? I'll give you a hint of how hard it is:


The more fat you eat, the less you can eat. Moreso, carbs fill you up, while high fat consumption leaves you hungry. How effective is a diet where you're always hungry and have to eat minuscule sized portions? Not very, most people aren't filming a video and have an invested reason to stick to the diet.

Carbs are an essential source of energy, how motivated are you going to be to hit the gym if you're letharghic? Low car diets leave people feeling tired, and I doubt this is how a lazy fat person on a diet wants to feel while trying to find motivation to exercise.

Proper carbs (read complex carbs) are what you want to eat. Sugar has a GI of 68, while an apple has a GI of 38 or a potatoe has a GI of 85! Duh, we've been told to avoid potatoes as sources of carbs, yet avoiding all carbs is not good advice. Whole grains and fruits are low on the GI.
OK you know what, I think I will respond to this. But not because I think there's hope for you, and that you will suddenly "get it". You clearly show that unlike Great68, who was just ignorant and thought he "knew it all", you have the comprehension skills of a 7 year old at best. You are not ignorant, you are stupid (and that's with louvred sunglasses notwithstanding).

But still, there are a lot of other people who are ignorant, and have the ability to learn. They may come across your brightly worded post, and think it makes sense. However, the problem is that you are not even arguing with me. You are not arguing any points I make, and you are not making a rebuttal of the video. You are just spewing confused statements that have nothing to do with the matter I am discussing in this thread.

Let me just make a few quick points, that will hopefully clear up any confusion.

I have nothing against carbs. You're right, we need sugar for quick energy, and we need carbs. I will eat plenty of carbs when I am not cutting weight. However, the issue is where the carbs come from. You said that what I am talking about is a "fad". Well if it's a "fad" then this "fad" has been going for about 2 million years or so, or the entire history of our species. No, the "fad" is not to avoid starches and sugar. The "fad" is what they started a few hundred years ago, and what the government drilled into our parents' heads: That a huge portion of our diet should consist of grains and starch, which is hardly different from eating pure sugar.

My argument is, that prior to the invention of easy-to-grow-and-eat grains like corn, wheat, and rice, we got our carbs from fruits and vegetables, and maybe a little bit of edible starches. And this has been going on for millions of years, so it's no fad.

So yes, we need carbs. Eat carbs every day! But don't get them from garbage sources like what the "Canadian Food Guide" tells you. You wanna know of some more "fads"? How about obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Oh look, those happened right when we started consuming huge amounts of sugar! Not fat, which as I mentioned, has been a large part of our diet for many thousands of years.

If you are dieting, and trying to lose fat, that's a whole other issue. But it doesn't relate to the matter at hand (except the fact that you inexplicably brought it up). However I will tell you that I have been eating next to no carbs for the last month (with the exception of after workouts, when you do want to have an insulin spike), and I have been kicking ass in the gym. Am I able to lift as much weight as I normally do? No, but that doesn't matter. I burn a shitload of calories, my BMR stays up, I gain muscle which burns more calories, and the fat just melts off. With no cardio. The way to lose fat is not to "just lower your caloric intake" or to "do more cardio" or to "cut fat out of your diet". But I digress...

So this isn't Atkins, this isn't a "fad diet". It is people who know what proper nutrition is supposed to be, and trying to share that information with other intelligent people who are willing to learn. Willing to go against the special interest groups, against the government, and listen to science and history instead. Maybe you will learn, maybe you won't. In any case, I hope other people do.

[SkinnyPupp]

If I remember correctly from the Keto Diet that I was on, Simple sugar aka. Glucose is actually 100 on the Glycemic Index, but nonetheless, I totally agree with you.

I was on a HIGH FAT/LOW CARB diet (similar to Atkins, but not exactly like it, we were restricted to 50g carb or LESS/day, with all coming from Dietary Fibre) and I dropped alot of weight.
Table sugar is sucrose, not glucose. It is around 68 or 70. You're correct, glucose is 100

[SkinnyPupp]

Here's another video to check out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozC5BYOgoNE

[hal0g0dv2]

good information thanks

[SkinnyPupp]

Here's another excellent video, which clearly explains the philosophy behind eating like a human:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

[kazuki]

Is there a possibility that over 10,000 yrs, humans have adapted to eating cultivated grains such as rice.

Lets use China as an example. Since you keep on insisting that insulin is the problem, how do Chinese people get away with eating rice all day everyday for the past couple thousand years in ancient China without a problem with diabetes/heart disease.

[SkinnyPupp]

Is there a possibility that over 10,000 yrs, humans have adapted to eating cultivated grains such as rice.

Lets use China as an example. Since you keep on insisting that insulin is the problem, how do Chinese people get away with eating rice all day everyday for the past couple thousand years in ancient China without a problem with diabetes/heart disease.

Just about every Chinese person you know probably has some form of insulin resistance or diabetes, or is related to someone who does. I can pretty much guarantee that.

The problem didn't start 50 years ago, or 2000 years ago. It started about 10,000 years ago. This isn't a "fad" and this isn't something "new". Blame the Egyptians for making it so easy to stuff yourself with grains :lol

PS: I believe this thread is important, so troll attempts will be dealt with strictly. If you want to argue/learn, by all means do so. But if you're going to just post stupid crap, don't bother unless you want points.

[kazuki]

I was talking about ancient china. Not chinese ppl right now who have adapted high calorie diets today. I find it hard to believe the Chinese from 2000 years ago would have a problem with diabetes. I could be wrong but I dont think I am.

[SkinnyPupp]

I was talking about ancient china. Not chinese ppl right now who have adapted high calorie diets today. I find it hard to believe the Chinese from 2000 years ago would have a problem with diabetes. I could be wrong but I dont think I am.
You are. Someone in another thread pointed out a study that showed South Asian people to be among the first to have problems with diabetes, and it was attributed directly to the fact that they relied so much on agriculture (rice).

[SkinnyPupp]

OK I decided to prune out all the crap, let's start this thing over again. All posts from taylor will be deleted (so please just stop), and all troll posts will lead to points.

Anyone else who can think with a functioning brain, please feel free to ask questions, bring up any points, and generally discuss healthy eating here.

[!SG]

diabetes has been on the rise amongst asians, specifically china asians.

those that seem to fight against diabetes are those that are physically hard working, thus farmers in china.

however, the general modern chinese now have diabetes on the rise. actually a lot of chinese ppl have cut back on their rice consumption.

Is there a possibility that over 10,000 yrs, humans have adapted to eating cultivated grains such as rice.

Lets use China as an example. Since you keep on insisting that insulin is the problem, how do Chinese people get away with eating rice all day everyday for the past couple thousand years in ancient China without a problem with diabetes/heart disease.

[!SG]

like i stated, the issue is that todays food, is all highly processed. fruits have been engineered to have better taste, bigger crop, bigger yields, higher starch content made for certain applications.

compare say an apple today, to an apple 10,000 years ago. betcha the apple 10,000 years ago looks something similar to our organics nowadays. not the best looking, probably smaller...

an average male needs about 1800 calories to survive a regular day which is full of regular activities. a femail needs about 1400. if you do dick all, then you can probably get away with less than 1000 calories a day, assuming all u do is fart, move as little as possible, and remain brain dormant.

the argument is carbs. doesnt matter if they say its complex carbs, or whatever, unless the food u bought actually grew on a tree untouched by human technology, hands and further enhancements, it is and will be up there with straight out eating regular sugar by the spoon full.

the growing movement is eating natural unprocessed foods. doesnt always taste the best, but arguably better for your body.

steak still rocks!

[Gt-R R34]

Interesting read.

Does any doctor want to chime in? I'm just so curious on the labwork on this type of information.

[SkinnyPupp]

As much as I hate labels like "paleo diet" and "low carb diet" and especially "Atkin's diet" those people are the ones helping spread the information.

As far as published studies go, start here (http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/).

[SkinnyPupp]

Some more published research, which "may suggest" that a high starch/low fibre diet introduced many diseases into our species, such as:

-Obesity: 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18257754), 2 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Flite.200800009), 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16972857)
-Heart Disease: 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16784936), 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16540158)
-High Blood Pressure: 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18330898)
-Diabetes (type 2): 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565412), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16319806)
-Osteoperosis: 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12450898), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16772638)
-Colon Cancer (that's right, it's not "red meat" after all): 1 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=iWFJ_2r4_wkC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#PPA48,M1), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12714543), 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855539)
-Acne: 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855539), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16092796), 3 (http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cordain%20US%20Dermatology%20Reviews.pdf), 4 (http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/579326_print)
-Depression: 1 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Depression:+does+nutrition+have+an+adjunctive+trea tment+role%3F-a0156366457)
-And of course, vitamin and mineral deficiencies (you'd assume this would go without saying): 1 (http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087997), 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18296293), 4 (http://www.danmedbul.dk/DMB_2007/0107/0107-artikler/DMB3885.htm)

There, some reading material for ya ;)

[kAzE-]

diabetes has been on the rise amongst asians, specifically china asians.

those that seem to fight against diabetes are those that are physically hard working, thus farmers in china.

however, the general modern chinese now have diabetes on the rise. actually a lot of chinese ppl have cut back on their rice consumption.

Why now? Why not 100 or 200 years ago when Modern Chinese were eating rice? If you think about it, if rice increased our risk of diabetes our ethnicity wouldn't be as populous as it is today. Is there any possibility that the introduction of western foods and western processing techniques have a larger influence to the risk of diabetes?

edit: Western processing probably helped switch the Chinese diet that consisted mainly of whole rice to processed white rice.

[kAzE-]

Just about every Chinese person you know probably has some form of insulin resistance or diabetes, or is related to someone who does. I can pretty much guarantee that.


I'm curious where you got this fact from. It's a very very broad statement.

[!SG]

its because of all the other foods.

ok, being asian, you can laugh and say all we do is eat rice. but there are several other foods that we eat as well.

in the past 10-20 years, china has gotten a huge dump of western influence. fast food, junk food, processed foods are readily available in china now. if we sustanned the exact same eating habits as before, with the exact same food as before, then there would be no issue. now with all this abundant self indulging new processed food available, it throws off that balance of what we eat.

if these new processed foods are on the same line as say no different calorie wise, or even no different than compared to sugar in the way our bodies absorb and treat these new processed foods, then its like no different than eating a bigger bag of sugar.

thats what this whole arguement is going around. that todays modern food is so processed, that the body cannot tell the difference between it and plain old sugar. this coupled with todays lack of activity in todays society is creating all the health problems.

so whats the solution? there isnt 1 dead set one, but one possible is changing the basic rice in a chinese diet. change it from regular long grain white rice to something different. the problem is drastic changes are harsh. in my household, we mix the regular rice, with brown rice and red rice. its suppose to be healthier. i notice i eat way less rice now.

Why now? Why not 100 or 200 years ago when Modern Chinese were eating rice? If you think about it, if rice increased our risk of diabetes our ethnicity wouldn't be as populous as it is today. Is there any possibility that the introduction of western foods and western processing techniques have a larger influence to the risk of diabetes?

[!SG]

just ask around, you'll be surprised.

i myself, and my family are diabetic.

i got it over 10 years ago, my dad got it, even though he is relatively healthy, active, for his age, according to his doctor. my grandma on my mom's side had it. i was 2nd in line in the household to get it, (if anyone on one side of the family has it, you have 25% chance of getting it, thus for me, i had 50/50 chance) my sis was diognosed 3rd, and finally my mom.

it takes us a year to go thru a small 1kg bag of sugar. you cant completely eliminate it from ur life, some things, during cooking, u still need the sugar, however, you learn fast how to avoid sugar, and either just not use any, or stay away from it, or even use less.

after taking diabetes classes, if anything, you become more aware of what u eat. i cant say im exactly the healthiest, but i do keep my blood sugars in relative check. diet pop is my friend, i love crystal light, sugar free jello pudding and jello are gods gifts! i have a bad habit of skipping meals and not knowing when im having a sugar low. but apparently, i can be a total ass when that happens.


I'm curious where you got this fact from. It's a very very broad statement.

[taylor192]

if these new processed foods are on the same line as say no different calorie wise, or even no different than compared to sugar in the way our bodies absorb and treat these new processed foods, then its like no different than eating a bigger bag of sugar.

thats what this whole arguement is going around. that todays modern food is so processed, that the body cannot tell the difference between it and plain old sugar.

Now I fully expect SkippyPupp to delete this, yet maybe he'll read it first:

What you're referring to refined vs complex carbs. Humans used to consume complex carbs (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, ...) yet has moved to refined carbs (white bread/pasta, baked goods, ...). When carbs are refined they are stripped of nutritional value, most importantly fiber.

Consider orange or apple juice. If you get naturally squeezed juice its high in complex carbs, yet if you drink the processed supermarket juice its high in simple carbs for 2 reasons. Sugar is usually added to sweeten, yet the heat used for processing converts complex carbs to simple/refined carbs and removes the nutritional benefit. Even some whole grain products that appear "healthy" are mass-produced will be stripped of the complex carbs during processing.

Why did i single out fiber so important? Cause it helps control glucose absorption, much like it helps digestion. Complex carbs may be high on the GI, yet they contain fiber that helps reduce glucose absorption while providing nutrients.

Here's an article to read about managing GI:
http://www.acu-cell.com/gi.html

This is why in the movie FatHead the carb count is purposely kept low, cause most fast food carbs are simple or refined carbs and bad for you.

[kAzE-]

just ask around, you'll be surprised.

i myself, and my family are diabetic.

i got it over 10 years ago, my dad got it, even though he is relatively healthy, active, for his age, according to his doctor. my grandma on my mom's side had it. i was 2nd in line in the household to get it, (if anyone on one side of the family has it, you have 25% chance of getting it, thus for me, i had 50/50 chance) my sis was diognosed 3rd, and finally my mom.

it takes us a year to go thru a small 1kg bag of sugar. you cant completely eliminate it from ur life, some things, during cooking, u still need the sugar, however, you learn fast how to avoid sugar, and either just not use any, or stay away from it, or even use less.

after taking diabetes classes, if anything, you become more aware of what u eat. i cant say im exactly the healthiest, but i do keep my blood sugars in relative check. diet pop is my friend, i love crystal light, sugar free jello pudding and jello are gods gifts! i have a bad habit of skipping meals and not knowing when im having a sugar low. but apparently, i can be a total ass when that happens.

I agree with everything you said but just had an issue with singling out rice. I believe the issue with diabetes is not that Chinese people eat rice, it's because we had developing bad eating habits and consuming all the processed foods that you had previously mentioned.

In my experience, I know very few chinese individuals with diabetes. I was taken a back when a there is a statement suggesting that diabetes is epidemic among the Chinese population.

What I noticed from all the posts is that everyone is in agreement that simple carbs are bad and complex carbs are good. Everyone is just repeating this message in a different way.

In my opinion, diets that recommend low carbs are easy for the lay person to understand because they do not need to analyze whether the food they are eating had been processed to hell; all they need to do is avoid most carbs. When you are trying to influence a mass amount of people, simple messages are generally the most effective.

[!SG]

there really is a rise. my parents have always sought after the chinese herbal solution as cures. on their last trip to china, they found out a huge array of new chinese herbal drugs suppositely helping cure diabetes or at least control it. Probably not as great at those "ling ji" mushroom cure alls out there, but there's quite a bit. diabetes in chinese is literally "sugar piss" and if u ask around, there are a lot more cases now more than ever.



I agree with everything you said but just had an issue with singling out rice. I believe the issue with diabetes is not that Chinese people eat rice, it's because we had developing bad eating habits and consuming all the processed foods that you had previously mentioned.

In my experience, I know very few chinese individuals with diabetes. I was taken a back when a there is a statement suggesting that diabetes is epidemic among the Chinese population.

What I noticed from all the posts is that everyone is in agreement that simple carbs are bad and complex carbs are good. Everyone is just repeating this message in a different way.

In my opinion, diets that recommend low carbs are easy for the lay person to understand because they do not need to analyze whether the food they are eating had been processed to hell; all they need to do is avoid most carbs. When you are trying to influence a mass amount of people, simple messages are generally the most effective.

[!SG]

the arguement against is even products claiming to have complex carbs are well just that, processed. so unless ur knawing at the real source, id treat it no different than its "non advertised as healthy" counter part.

and you can forget about arguing, skinnypupp got more kudo points thus will only be removed as a moderator by my hands. that day will only happen when he pisses me off. :)

Now I fully expect SkippyPupp to delete this, yet maybe he'll read it first:

What you're referring to refined vs complex carbs. Humans used to consume complex carbs (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, ...) yet has moved to refined carbs (white bread/pasta, baked goods, ...). When carbs are refined they are stripped of nutritional value, most importantly fiber.

Consider orange or apple juice. If you get naturally squeezed juice its high in complex carbs, yet if you drink the processed supermarket juice its high in simple carbs for 2 reasons. Sugar is usually added to sweeten, yet the heat used for processing converts complex carbs to simple/refined carbs and removes the nutritional benefit. Even some whole grain products that appear "healthy" are mass-produced will be stripped of the complex carbs during processing.

Why did i single out fiber so important? Cause it helps control glucose absorption, much like it helps digestion. Complex carbs may be high on the GI, yet they contain fiber that helps reduce glucose absorption while providing nutrients.

Here's an article to read about managing GI:
http://www.acu-cell.com/gi.html

This is why in the movie FatHead the carb count is purposely kept low, cause most fast food carbs are simple or refined carbs and bad for you.

[taylor192]

the arguement against is even products claiming to have complex carbs are well just that, processed. so unless ur knawing at the real source, id treat it no different than its "non advertised as healthy" counter part.

and you can forget about arguing, skinnypupp got more kudo points thus will only be removed as a moderator by my hands. that day will only happen when he pisses me off. :)
LOL good that you have a sense of humour about it :thumbsup:

My big problem with this thread and that video is addressed by kAzE-:

In my opinion, diets that recommend low carbs are easy for the lay person to understand because they do not need to analyze whether the food they are eating had been processed to hell; all they need to do is avoid most carbs. When you are trying to influence a mass amount of people, simple messages are generally the most effective.

People are sheep and easily influenced, thus advertising diets that lose weight yet eat fast food and minimize carbs is very misleading. Someone watching SuperSizeMe could assume never eat fast food, its terrible for you. Meanwhile someone watching FatHead assumes fast food is good for you if eaten selectively and in small potions. Neither are very good messages on their own and the audience is focused on the sensationalized diets and forget the rest of the film.

Simple messages can be harmful, sensationalized messages are worse, education is best.

Read this review of FatHead, its inline with SkippyPupp's attitude:
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/fathead.php

Few people are going to listen to someone talking down their nose. Trust me, I know :D

[SkinnyPupp]

I need to make a few quick points:

1) All due respect to SG, but Diabetes is not a new problem to Chinese/Asian people. Quite the opposite in fact. Ever since rice was a significant part of their diet, diabetes has been a problem. It may be getting worse now, because there is even more garbage available now than ever. But the bottom line is, 99.95% of our history did not involve eating starch - refined or otherwise. 0.05% does. If you want to see a group that has only recently begun to have problems with diabetes, look at the Inuit. It wasn't that many years ago that their people would never touch a grain.

2) Still have no respect for taylor, since he still doesn't get it. The "fast food experiment" of "Fat Head" is not even the main part of the movie. It's just a whacky gimmick to get people to watch it, since it refutes all the claims made by the highly popular award-winning "Super Size Me". The first half of the movie is fun for shits and giggles, but the real bulk of the movie takes place after the silly fast food experiment. Because it's a movie, it has to be entertaining, and has to be sensationalized. If you have a brain that works, you can look past the sensationalized messages, and actually get the point. For some reason, you lack this ability. Maybe not having ever watched the movie, but continuing to try to discredit it has something to do with it. It also makes you look like a fool, because you are bringing up arguments against points that don't even exist.

So if you have a functioning brain, you will learn more from the mother than "you can lose weight eating fast food".

Let me break it down again, to make the points from the movie, again.

1) Saturated fat is not evil. It's not bad for you. It does not kill you. It does not cause disease. It does not "make you fat" (and by that I mean "any more than any food in the same amount will).

2) Humans are not meant to eat so much carbs. For 2 million years, our diet consisted of very little carbs. Ranging from 10% to about 15%. Today, it consists of 70% carbs. This is because of garbage food like pop, snacks, and so much grains in a "recommended" diet.

And that's about it. Those two points, you are arguing against. If you have anything against my point, then you are saying that it is good to have a diet that is 70% junk.

And finally think about this. What happens when you eliminate all carbs from your diet? You might be a bit tired at first, but that's about it. Your body can cope and it will get its glycogen eventually. What happens when you eliminate all protein? You die. What happens when you eliminate all fat? You die.

That is not to say it's a great idea to never eat any carbs (it's not). We're not carnivores, we're omnivores. We need to eat vegetables and fruits for nutrients, and some grains for quick energy.

I can't believe I am basically repeating myself in different words. :facepalm:

[taylor192]

If you have a brain that works, you can look past the sensationalized messages, and actually get the point. For some reason, you lack this ability. Maybe not having ever watched the movie, but continuing to try to discredit it has something to do with it. It also makes you look like a fool, because you are bringing up arguments against points that don't even exist.

I watched the movie last night.

The reason anyone would watch the movie is cause it tries (poorly) to discredit SuperSizeMe. Why is Naughton trying to discredit Spurlock? Don't know, personal vendetta? or that Naughton has a problem with the message of SuperSizeMe? Why anyone would have a problem with someone criticizing eating nothing but fast food is beyond me, yet Naughton seems like a terrible comedian, more intent on making his point than being entertaining about it.

That is the problem, not only with the movie, yet also with your responses. People stop listening when you call them ignorant and stupid. Good way to get your point across! :thumbsup: Why even bother speaking if no-one is going to listen?

BTW there's lots of great documentaries that aren't sensationalized. FatHead could have been one, since the second have of the film is very well done, yet the message lost after watching the annoying first half.

If you have a brain that works, you can look past the sensationalized messages, and actually get the point. For some reason, you lack this ability.


This is why you're talking to a wall. No-one is going to listen to you or give you any credit when you talk to them like this. :banghead: My funny sunglass thread had more responses before I revived this thread. :thumbsup:

Now if you want to talk seriously about GI and the lack of proven research into it, then drop the ignorant insulting comments and act like a human. Otherwise I've had enough and will gladly leave your threads to die from lack of responses from now on.

[taylor192]

1) Saturated fat is not evil. It's not bad for you. It does not kill you. It does not cause disease. It does not "make you fat" (and by that I mean "any more than any food in the same amount will).
* Protein contains 4 calories per gram
* Carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram
* Fat contains 9 calories per gram


2) Humans are not meant to eat so much carbs. For 2 million years, our diet consisted of very little carbs. Ranging from 10% to about 15%. Today, it consists of 70% carbs. This is because of garbage food like pop, snacks, and so much grains in a "recommended" diet.
Please post the links to history to prove this.

For 2 million years we lived in caves and chased animals with spears. The agricultural revolution was 10K years ago, you know, we we decided to stop living in caves and started forming the basis of modern day society? We've made it 10K years, yet really the problem is the last 100 years when mass-produced processed foods have become popular.

A diet high in complex carbs is not bad for you - thus we're back to what started this: you criticizing Michael Phelp's diet. Yes its insanely high in both fat and carbs, yet he needa calories so there's more calories in fat, yet he needs energy and there's more energy in carbs. Since he's using it all, there's no problems. I guess that's why I can enjoy my high-carb diet :p


And finally think about this. What happens when you eliminate all carbs from your diet? You might be a bit tired at first, but that's about it. Your body can cope and it will get its glycogen eventually.
Your brain needs glycogen to operate, so when you starve your body of it your liver kicks in and makes some, then redirects it all to the brain to ensure adequate levels, and starves your body of it continuing the lethargic feeling.

This is why the body needs some carbs, more than the 5% in the fathead diet.

[waddy41]

http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3484237/

This shit is why we get so confused.

"Saturated fat

This can raise the bad LDL cholesterol. Foods high in saturated fat include fatty meats, full-fat dairy products, butter, hard margarines, lard, coconut oil, ghee (clarified butter), vegetable ghee, and palm oil."

Saturated fat from those natural sources are good. There is a difference between BLOOD cholesterol and DIETARY cholesterol.

[waddy41]

"Monounsaturated fats

These have been shown to improve blood cholesterol levels. They're found in olive oil, canola oil, peanut oil, non-hydrogenated margarine, avocados and some nuts such as almonds, pistachios, cashews, pecans and hazelnuts."

CANOLA OIL IS GOOD FOR YOU?!?

[hal0g0dv2]

milk also has saturated fat

[misteranswer]

I believe no one is really arguing that saturated fat is bad for you, but only that too much saturated fat is bad for you. All those health organizations which advocate a reduction in saturated fat are saying so because they believe the North American diet contains a lot more than what is needed or optimal.

If insulin spikes are the main argument against grains, then I would say eliminating grains is not entirely necessary. One could avoid spikes by eating more often but in smaller portions. In fact, I think at least 4 meals a day (afternoon snack) is advocated in most health guides.

[FeistyBearH22a]

Please refrain from posting derogatory insults. Lets keep the thread clean. It's a free world we can have people with varying opinions.

[kAzE-]

I need to make a few quick points:

2) Humans are not meant to eat so much carbs. For 2 million years, our diet consisted of very little carbs. Ranging from 10% to about 15%. Today, it consists of 70% carbs. This is because of garbage food like pop, snacks, and so much grains in a "recommended" diet.


Again, where are you getting this fact from? From what I learned about human evolution and diet from anthropology class, for most of our history we subsisted on gathered fruits, plants, roots and supplemented with scavenged meat and lucky kills.

[kazuki]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/mvnfwche17mchgdc/fulltext.pdf

I thought this was a pretty good article that looked at different fats and carbohydrates.

The article does suggest that saturated fats can lead to insulin resistance. High glycemic load foods can increase risk of type 2 diabetes. In the end, it is hard to come to a solid conclusion since there are multiple factors that are very hard to control in studies. Overall, I think its a pretty good review on the research done and organized it in a pretty clear layout. But it is from 2001 and there may be better articles out there that are more recent.

[kazuki]

Ok back to the rice diet with ancient China. I believe they didn't have a problem with diabetes because even when they ate a lot of rice, there are not taking in excess calories. I've said this in the other thread about red meats that caloric intake play a bigger role than eating sugar when it comes to getting diabetes. After looking around a bit I found this article.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/55/12/3566.abstract

"In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects."

[kazuki]

Some more published research, which "may suggest" that a high starch/low fibre diet introduced many diseases into our species, such as:

-Diabetes (type 2): 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565412), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16319806)

There, some reading material for ya ;)

I only looked at the diabetes articles and found things that are contradictory to the ideas you have been trying to push about saturated fats and the old hunter gatherer diet.

From article 1. "Reduced intake of total fat, particularly saturated fat, may reduce risk for diabetes." Again, it says saturated fat is NOT good for you.

"The importance of a balanced ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 intake, as in the ancient Paleolithic diet, was recently tested in the Lyon Heart Study [114]. This study was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded secondary prevention trial, which compared the effects of a modified Cretan diet, enriched with alpha-linolenic acid (ALA; ratio of omega-6/3, 4:1), low in saturated fat, very low in trans fat and high in vitamin C and E, to that of a Step I American Heart Association Diet in the secondary prevention of coronary events and death."

I assume the "paleolithic diet" is the old hunter gatherer diet. This shows that the old hunter gatherers did not eat a lot of red meat and was LOW in saturated fat.

In article 2. "As man has moved over the centuries from a hunter-gatherer diet to greater intakes of saturated and trans-fatty acids, insulin resistance has appeared with its related pathology."

So eating more saturated fats lead to insulin resistance/diabetes.

[Liquid_o2]

Please refrain from posting derogatory insults. Lets keep the thread clean. It's a free world we can have people with varying opinions.

Agreed. Not sure why anyone who disagrees with SkinnyPupp is a 'fool' or a person with 'half a brain'? Everyone has their own opinions, and you can't be closeminded to what other people think and believe.

In the end... when you take out all the science, history and math, anything absorbed in large quantities is not good for you. Moderation is key. A healthy diet of protein, fruits, vegetables, carbs and fats along with exercise is what is important.

[SkinnyPupp]

The problem I see with that study (along with most studies that try to associate saturated fat with disease) is that they group together saturated fats with trans fats. Modern studies are starting to treat them separately, but for 50 years they have been considered one and the same. Obviously we know better know, so you have to keep that in mind when reading these articles. Make sure they specify trans fats when talking about how certain fats affect the body.

And for you to take 2 quotes from 2 studies, and come to the conclusion that "eating more saturated fats lead to insulin resistance/diabetes", I am not even going to respond to you any more. Sorry.

[SkinnyPupp]

Agreed. Not sure why anyone who disagrees with SkinnyPupp is a 'fool' or a person with 'half a brain'? Everyone has their own opinions, and you can't be closeminded to what other people think and believe.

In the end... when you take out all the science, history and math, anything absorbed in large quantities is not good for you. Moderation is key. A healthy diet of protein, fruits, vegetables, carbs and fats along with exercise is what is important.
The point I am trying to make, over and over, is that the various food guides out there do not suggest a "moderate" amount of grains. They say to eat 8 servings of grains per day, which is more grains than meat. And they suggest that meat "alternatives" are okay. And they suggest that processed oils are okay.

[SkinnyPupp]

Since you appear to be in a reading mood, please read this (http://www.gunnarlindgren.com/nutritionx.pdf) before anything else.

[SkinnyPupp]

Here's another (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1270002)

"In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression."

Make sure to read this review (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550) as well, whatever you do. Basically it talks about how the "guidelines" were given without proper knowledge of why, and how studies since then didn't properly look at different fatty acids, instead lumping everything into either "saturated" or "unsaturated" which is wrong. What is known, is that high carbohydrate diets lead to plenty of diseases. What is known is that trans fatty acids lead to plenty of diseases. What is not known (but drilled into our heads) is that saturated fat leasts to diseases. What I am pretty sure will be proven to be the case, is that it doesn't.

[SkinnyPupp]

Again, where are you getting this fact from? From what I learned about human evolution and diet from anthropology class, for most of our history we subsisted on gathered fruits, plants, roots and supplemented with scavenged meat and lucky kills.
"Animal food provided the dominant (65%) energy source, and plant foods constituted the remainder (35%)"

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56(suppl):S42–52.

To suggest that you needed to be "lucky" to catch an animal and eat it is beyond absurd. Even today, native people are 'living off the land' so to speak. Head to the river during spawning season, and you can literally pluck a 50 lbs salmon out of the water. Watch natives throw a net into the water, and pull out pounds of fish. Not even a few hundred years ago, Natives were hunting buffalo by the hundreds. They would steer them off a cliff, and basically take what they needed from the tons of meat they had captured. Hell even in China, they are still using trained birds to pluck fish from the water. And then consider how low the human population was over the last 2.5 million years - it would have been even easier to catch live animals back then.

If humans had to be "lucky" to eat meat, we would have died off a long time ago. If what you think is true (it isn't) then the basis of human evolution would be completely different from what actually happened. Do you really think we were scavengers? Really? I guess the hundreds of thousands of weapons we find all over the world from millions of years ago were just for show. I am actually shocked that you think that way, considering that you claim to have learned about human evolution and anthropology (presumably from a school).

[liu13]

ok, im a complete tool when it comes to these kind of discussions

can someone list 10-20 common foods that consist mostly of carbs? ill start making some adjustments, but i aint quitting smoking

[SkinnyPupp]

ok, im a complete tool when it comes to these kind of discussions

can someone list 10-20 common foods that consist mostly of carbs? ill start making some adjustments, but i aint quitting smoking
Basically, look at the "Canada Food Guide" and the "Food Pyramid". The stuff they tell you to eat most of, eat less. Replace it with healthy meat, and if you still want carbs, take in low GI carbs.

By all means you should cut out:

-Just about anything with added sugar (candy, pop, donuts)
-Bread
-Rice
-Boxed cereal
-etc

I'm not saying "eat NONE of that stuff" (unless you are trying to drop weight). Just eat LESS of it, and REPLACE it with better carb sources.

And whatever you do, never ever buy something with high fructose corn syrup in it (it may be labeled as "glucose-fructose")

Replace that crap with good food, replace useless cardio with resistance training and sprints, and you will immediately improve on living like a human should. But I guess none of this really matters when you're stupid enough to smoke cigarettes...

[Meowjin]

Whatever happened to the common sense diet?

I've lost a signifigant amount of weight and after gaining some back after 2 years, I'm doing it again and I can't believe people don't understand the basics.

1) eat meats (chicken breasts and lamb chops is what I like)
2) eat less processed foods (eat complex carbs instead like whole grain bread, oatmeal)
3) Drink/eat no sugar! Unless after a workout. Hell even on my cardio days I have a cup of chocolate milk. And I'm dropping weight like crazy again.

Also +1 for the mediterenean diet. When I'm older and don't care about my looks I'll live to 200 eating feta lamb and olive oil :D

Essentially right now, all I'm eating is lamb chops, chicken breasts, oatmeal, and a pita wrap with some meat and tzatiki with greek yoghurt.

[kazuki]

The problem I see with that study (along with most studies that try to associate saturated fat with disease) is that they group together saturated fats with trans fats. Modern studies are starting to treat them separately, but for 50 years they have been considered one and the same. Obviously we know better know, so you have to keep that in mind when reading these articles. Make sure they specify trans fats when talking about how certain fats affect the body.

And for you to take 2 quotes from 2 studies, and come to the conclusion that "eating more saturated fats lead to insulin resistance/diabetes", I am not even going to respond to you any more. Sorry.

First of all, the 2 separate sentences after the 2 quotes were supposed to be a explaination of the quote taken from the 2 separate articles. Keep in mind these 2 studies were the ones YOU posted to convince us the health benefits of saturated fats etc. Both articles are recent and suggests that eating saturated fats is bad for your health. I'm not sure where you get the idea that trans fat and saturated fats were considered the same by researchers. But that is not a problem because the first article is from 2007 and the second article is from 2005. I see nothing wrong with what I said thus far.

[SkinnyPupp]

Whatever happened to the common sense diet?

I've lost a signifigant amount of weight and after gaining some back after 2 years, I'm doing it again and I can't believe people don't understand the basics.

1) eat meats (chicken breasts and lamb chops is what I like)
2) eat less processed foods (eat complex carbs instead like whole grain bread, oatmeal)
3) Drink/eat no sugar! Unless after a workout. Hell even on my cardio days I have a cup of chocolate milk. And I'm dropping weight like crazy again.

Also +1 for the mediterenean diet. When I'm older and don't care about my looks I'll live to 200 eating feta lamb and olive oil :D

Essentially right now, all I'm eating is lamb chops, chicken breasts, oatmeal, and a pita wrap with some meat and tzatiki with greek yoghurt.
Basically in that diet, you are moderating sugar intake, decreasing carb intake, increasing protein intake, and pretty much disregarding fat intake (because with all the other adjustments, this takes care of itself). Sounds like a good plan to me, and I'm not surprised that you lost a lot of weight with it.

[SkinnyPupp]

I see nothing wrong with what I said thus far.
Then I can't help you, sorry.

[kazuki]

It is very difficult to have an intelligent debate when you disagree with me without a good reason and seemingly try to avoid my points (which all have supporting references) by just saying

"I am not even going to respond to you any more. Sorry".

[SkinnyPupp]

If you "see nothing wrong" with thinking that humans are vegetarian first and scavengers second, after taking anthropology, then I really can't be bothered with trying to convince you to think otherwise.

You think I am trying to "avoid" your points? My point is, you have no points. At least not in the way you think. That's why I told you to read more.

Please read some of the material and references I posted up recently (especially the pdf). You will (should) get a clear understanding of why the research on diet is bad when it comes to vilifying saturated fats. Only then will I be able to get through to you with anything else.

[liu13]

lol, you guys would be appalled by my diet and lifestyle

[SkinnyPupp]

lol, you guys would be appalled by my diet and lifestyle
Not really, you already admitted that you smoke cigarettes ;)

Plus I live in Hong Kong, where the waitresses are literally shocked when we order vegetables (yesterday she had to ask the manager if they serve vegetables by themselves!).

[SkinnyPupp]

Couple more quick quotes for you (found while reading about coconut oil)

"the focus of dietary recommendations is usually a reduction of saturated fat intake, no relation between saturated fat intake and risk of CHD was observed in the most informative prospective study to date." Harvard's Walter Willett, M.D. - American Journal of Public Health

"...in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol... the opposite of what the equations provided by Hegsted at al (1965) and Keys et al (1957) would predict..."

"...In Framingham, for example, we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least, and were the most physically active." William P. Castelli - Archives of Internal Medicine

Will eating more saturated fat make you physically active and lean? No, that's where cause and effect comes into play. For an amusing and interesting blog post about cause and effect (in other words, activity is not what makes you lean) read this blog post (http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=397).

And speaking of coconut oil, it's great stuff. Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMJUdAyaVBY

The guy is a bit crazy, but his points are valid ;)

[kAzE-]

"Animal food provided the dominant (65%) energy source, and plant foods constituted the remainder (35%)"

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56(suppl):S42–52.

To suggest that you needed to be "lucky" to catch an animal and eat it is beyond absurd. Even today, native people are 'living off the land' so to speak. Head to the river during spawning season, and you can literally pluck a 50 lbs salmon out of the water. Watch natives throw a net into the water, and pull out pounds of fish. Not even a few hundred years ago, Natives were hunting buffalo by the hundreds. They would steer them off a cliff, and basically take what they needed from the tons of meat they had captured. Hell even in China, they are still using trained birds to pluck fish from the water. And then consider how low the human population was over the last 2.5 million years - it would have been even easier to catch live animals back then.

If humans had to be "lucky" to eat meat, we would have died off a long time ago. If what you think is true (it isn't) then the basis of human evolution would be completely different from what actually happened. Do you really think we were scavengers? Really? I guess the hundreds of thousands of weapons we find all over the world from millions of years ago were just for show. I am actually shocked that you think that way, considering that you claim to have learned about human evolution and anthropology (presumably from a school).

You are confusing time periods. Your study is based on modern hunter gatherers with access to more recent technology. These periods where humans are getting consistent kills are probably around the same period where they were doing argriculture. We are talking about evolution in the hundreds of thousands of years. Most of this period, ancient humans were running around with stick, rocks, flints. Yes, there's a lot of flint weaponary found all over the world but it was still very difficult to kill any big game animals. If they were lucky with a throw, the animal might go on for a few or miles before bleeding to death. By that time another predator would have picked up the scent and pounced on the kill. If I gave you a flint spear, gave you some training, do you think you'll be able to take down a moose? Realize that flint weapons break and break fairly easily. Realize that ancient humans used stone weapons for a majority of our evolution.

You are also very picky with your geographical locations. Do you seriously think that most of the human population lives on the west coast of Canada? Or the buffalo runs in various parts of the world? Do you know that the Americas probably only got populated after the last ice age?

Again, make sure you are consistent with your arguements. You are talking about human evolution in the hundred of thousands or millions of years. Realize argriculture probably started 10,000 years ago. Any argument about prehistory diets and cave man diets should go back before the start of agriculture.

Do you seriously think that we need to eat a diet that consistent primarly of meat to evolve and survive? Do you serious think that if you have mostly foraged foods and supplemented with some meat our species would die off? Do you know that the human population grew at a snails pace for a reason and that reason is because we weren't able to have easy access to food? You have some knowledge about modern diets but you obviously have no idea about human evolution.

Regarding the video, you already know something is wrong when someone goes "Wow, I use this thing for everything!" It's like the old remedies of the past where they though they had one item that they thought was the pancea for everything. I'm sure coconut oil has some benefit somewhere but it's not as extensive as this guy thinks and his health and wellness is probably a result of a variety of factors.

[kAzE-]

Early Hominid Diet

Flaked Stones and Old Bones: Biological and Cultural Evolution at the Dawn of Technology.Preview By: Plummer, Thomas. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2004, Vol. 47, p118-164, 47p

Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility.Preview By: Ungar, Peter S.; Grine, Frederick E.; Teaford, Mark F.. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2006, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p209-228

Dental microwear and diets of African early Homo.Preview By: Ungar, Peter S.; Grine, Frederick E.; Teaford, Mark F.; El Zaatari, Sireen. Journal of Human Evolution, Jan2006, Vol. 50 Issue 1, p78-95

[SkinnyPupp]

:facepalm: OK there you go again, taking facts that I state, and trying to twist them all up in an attempt to make yourself correct, and getting really confused in the process. Taking things like my modern examples of humans being able to catch food (to give easy to understand, quantifiable evidence that humans are hunter/gatherers, not gatherer/scavengers), and turning into a useless argument about time periods and geographical locations... Do you see my point? Your posts are irrelevant and a complete waste of everyone's time. That is why I wanted to give up a few posts ago. There is no hope in getting through to you. Maybe it's because I'm not smart enough, I don't know.

And by the way, your studies are referring to early hominids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominina), not paleolithic people. In other words, they were barely even humans by that point (over 3 million years ago). I am talking about "the stone age" where we had the means and tools to catch prey (and cut meat, which is what the very first tools were used for). That is who we are genetically identical to, not the ones you are referring to.

[kAzE-]

:facepalm: OK there you go again, taking facts that I state, and trying to twist them all up in an attempt to make yourself correct, and getting really confused in the process. Taking things like my modern examples of humans being able to catch food (to give easy to understand, quantifiable evidence that humans are hunter/gatherers, not gatherer/scavengers), and turning into a useless argument about time periods and geographical locations... Do you see my point? Your posts are irrelevant and a complete waste of everyone's time. That is why I wanted to give up a few posts ago. There is no hope in getting through to you. Maybe it's because I'm not smart enough, I don't know.

And by the way, your studies are referring to early hominids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominina), not paleolithic people. In other words, they were barely even humans by that point (over 3 million years ago). I am talking about "the stone age" where we had the means and tools to catch prey (and cut meat, which is what the very first tools were used for). That is who we are genetically identical to, not the ones you are referring to.

It's not that you aren't smart enough, it's because you aren't just too stubborn to realize a lot of your "ideas" are not correct. If physical anthropologists can't agree about the right composition of protein, fats, carbohydrates of diets of early humans, why the hell do you think you are right with your "ideas."

Additionally, you are an idiot if you think today's modern hunter gatherers are the same as early human hunter gatherers. Do you have any idea of technological advantages that today's hunter gathers have over the hunter gatherer's of the past? Do you think that today's hunter gatherers are using the same tools as the hunter gatherer's of 700,000 years ago? Do you also know that different time periods had different technology? Do you know that different geographical locations meant different diets. Hunter gatherers on the coast would have a different diet than hunter gatherers inland. Early humans in any area would have been versatile enough to utilize as many food resources as they possibly could. That would mean scavaging, hunting, and gathering. The point of contention between the two of us is the ease of hunting:

You think it's easy to catch prey with early human technology.
I think it's fucking hard to kill something with flint tools.

You should just give up your argument about cave man diets and just stick to what most people already agree on:

1. Do not eat processed foods
2. Meat is okay for you

[hal0g0dv2]

coconut milk just as good right ?

[SkinnyPupp]

coconut milk just as good right ?
Coconut milk contains plenty of oil. Beware of "coconut milk" drinks that add a ton of sugar, and are diluted with water. Or the canned stuff that mixes concentrated coconut milk solids with water. Buy pure coconut milk if you want to cook with it (the best brand is Chaokoh)

Damn you should see the green curry I make from scratch with fresh herbs and a mortar & pestle.. Fucking awesome, can't wait to make it again :)

[goo3]

What's the difference between grass-fed and grain-fed cows? How is grass-fed better? I heard that grain-fed ones are.. fattier and tastier LOL.

I also want to chime in that I dont' feel the historic argument is the best one to use..

Heart disease and diabetes: Are these not (I don't know how else to call them) level 2+ diseases? Humans didn't live long enough in the early days to run into these problems . Other health issues would have got to them first. For example, you can't say: if we followed the lifestyles/diets of our ancestors but maintained our current levels of sanitation and health care etc.., cancer would be non-existent.

I want point out a flaw about using historic diets to support the argument, but i'm too lazy right now..

[hal0g0dv2]

how about this stuff skinny pup

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3992/8012.jpg

Coconut Milk


Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 1/3 cup (80ml)
Servings Per Container 5

Amount Per Serving

Calories: 120

Calories from Fat: 100



%Daily Value*

Total Fat: 11 g


17 %


Saturated Fat 10 g


49 %


Trans Fat 0 g


0 %

Cholesterol 0 mg


0 %

Sodium 25 mg


1 %

Total Carbohydrates 2 g


1 %


Dietary Fiber 0 g


0 %


Sugars 2 g


Protein 1 g


Vitamin A


0 %

Vitamin C


0 %

Calcium


0 %

Iron


4 %

*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.

Ingredients: Coconut, water, guar gum (a stabilizer).

Allergens: Contains coconut.
TRANS FAT FREE | MSG FREE
GLUTEN FREE | PRESERVATIVE FREE
Shake Well Before Using. Any Solids Will Liquefy During Cooking. Store Any Unused Portions In Airtight Plastic Container In Refrigerator Up To 10 Days; In Freezer Up To 3 Months.

[SkinnyPupp]

I guess that's okay.. Seems kind of watered down. Chaokoh's ingredient is: Coconut. The nutrition facts look pretty similar, but Chaokoh has more fat per serving (which means it's not as watered down)

Try to get that if you can. In Hong Kong at least, it's no more expensive than any other brand. I buy it by the 1L container for about $1.50 CAD.

[SkinnyPupp]

What's the difference between grass-fed and grain-fed cows? How is grass-fed better? I heard that grain-fed ones are.. fattier and tastier LOL.
Much like humans weren't meant to ever eat grains, neither were cows and other grazing animals. There is plenty of information out there, that grain fed cows are less nutritious (grass fed will be richer in Omega 3 fatty acids, have more vitamins, and more 'good' cholesterol). Not to mention the ethical issues of how grain fed animals are treated. I don't know about you, but I will never, ever become a vegetarian. But I do see a point from some vegetarians, that some animals are treated poorly to be raised as livestock for us to eat. Grain fed cows, who spend their lives sitting in cages being stuffed with unhealthy grains and starches to fatten up, are a sad case indeed. I have nothing against killing an animal to eat it, but I at least don't want it to be tortured for its entire life until then.

Here's some quick info on the subject (http://www.nwhealth.edu/healthyU/eatWell/grassfed.html). Do some googling, there is tons of information out there. Buy grass fed if you can!

[Meowjin]

london drugs carry's real coconut milk that has no sugar added. Straight from nam i believe.

[Meowjin]

freerange eggs > eggs i get at the market.

I get my eggs from a monastery i visit in the states once a month and they are absolutely THE BEST EGGS i have ever had.

[!SG]

have u tried chinatown? on georgia street between kerr and main street. there is a store there that sells eggs exclusively, its like a couple stores down from the corner. my mom swears they are farm fresh free range (and yes, we double checked they arent fake, since u know all that fake shit and being from a chinese shop)

they do taste more "eggy" to me...

freerange eggs > eggs i get at the market.

I get my eggs from a monastery i visit in the states once a month and they are absolutely THE BEST EGGS i have ever had.

[waddy41]

SkinnyPupp: What kind of meat do you eat? Organic grass fed beef or the regular beef?

Goo3: search "toxic steaks" bt underground wellness on youtube and you will find the answer.

[SkinnyPupp]

SkinnyPupp: What kind of meat do you eat? Organic grass fed beef or the regular beef?

Goo3: search "toxic steaks" bt underground wellness on youtube and you will find the answer.
The beef I buy is locally grown in Hong Kong. Unfortunately I don't really know what they feed them.. But I don't really have a choice, so I live with it. I do eat a shit ton of veggies, fruits, and fish, so I try to make up for the shitty quality of the food here.

[dark0821]

wow...why did it get some technical all of a sudden..

[guten]

Whole grains are much better than the other crap they gave to kids such as captain crunch, with all the fiber kids will be pooping away.. its a better choice.

[Sifu]

I think that before we jump directly to any conclusions regarding "what humans used to eat way back when", we should look at the common fallacy that states that what we used to do in the past is how we should do things now.

http://anthroslug.blogspot.com/2009/11/caveman-fallacy.html

That's not to say that we can't go back and see what was eaten back then, and then test to see whether it works now. It's just that we can't use that argument as fact/proof that it is the be-all, end-all of nutritional guides.