Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Healthy Food Defines You
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Chickpea - read this lady's story
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:26 pm 
Offline
Manatee

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:41 pm
Posts: 469
I just got this in a newsletter this week and I thought it might help you with information on proper diet:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006sta ... 0kathy.htm

This lady is in her 40s and look how great she looks now. She went from a vegetarian high-fat diet to a strictly low fat vegan diet. Look at her pictures. Also look at her cholesterol change.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:56 pm 
Offline
Rabbit

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:35 pm
Posts: 50
Actually, she looks more like human women are supposed to look (i.e. with some FAT!) in the first "before" picture. The second "before" picture's quality is too crappy to decide. I have no doubt that her diet was very unhealthy, but seriously, being a stick isn't all that much better.

Fun fact: did you know that the BMI charts were created by MetroLife (an insurance company) without any proof that the "ideal weights" had anything to do with health?

_________________
My veganity is at steak!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:50 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:05 am
Posts: 2396
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden, Europe
lmmy wrote:
Actually, she looks more like human women are supposed to look (i.e. with some FAT!) in the first "before" picture. The second "before" picture's quality is too crappy to decide. I have no doubt that her diet was very unhealthy, but seriously, being a stick isn't all that much better.

She's not a stick in the after pictures, she's fit!
Also, there is no way to know what the "normal" size for human women is. What we do know is that obesity leads to serious consequenses. In the first picture I believe she is clinically obese.

_________________
Image
The surest road to happiness is low expectations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chickpea - read this lady's story
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:50 pm 
Offline
Rabbit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:25 pm
Posts: 34
Location: So FL
9nines wrote:
I just got this in a newsletter this week and I thought it might help you with information on proper diet:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006sta ... 0kathy.htm

This lady is in her 40s and look how great she looks now. She went from a vegetarian high-fat diet to a strictly low fat vegan diet. Look at her pictures. Also look at her cholesterol change.


9nines, that article was awesome!!! to say the least!! Thank you so much for sharing that with me!!! I tagged it as one of my FAVs and I will return to look to her as an inspiriation. Thank you, thank you, 9nines- it gave me hope and incentive to stay on track. xx Her cholesterol did change when she decided to stop all dairy. Well, I am glad I have made that choice too. And she looks beautiful too, not like a stick - she looks healthy. I have been to Europe and have traveled to the Islands - she actually looks globally "norm", not the average american "norm" of a woman in her 40's. So, I am for the fit and trim of a healty lifestyle as well. Thank again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:07 pm 
Offline
Manatee

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:41 pm
Posts: 469
Your welcome. After reading your posts here and then reading that newsletter I thought it would be of interest.

If you are interested (it is a pretty low fat vegan diet) you can learn at the message boards: http://www.vegsource.com/mcdougall/index.html

Here is a site with archives of his newsletters: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/archives.htm

Here is a subject index for those same newsletters: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougal ... eindex.htm

Some disagree with how low fat his diet is but he and Dr. Ornish have good tests behind their diets and I am slowing moving toward it and I feel much more full and feel full longer eating low fat lunches (much more volume of food for the same calories.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:34 pm 
Offline
Rabbit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:25 pm
Posts: 34
Location: So FL
9nines wrote:
Your welcome. After reading your posts here and then reading that newsletter I thought it would be of interest.

If you are interested (it is a pretty low fat vegan diet) you can learn at the message boards: http://www.vegsource.com/mcdougall/index.html

Here is a site with archives of his newsletters: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/archives.htm

Here is a subject index for those same newsletters: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougal ... eindex.htm

Some disagree with how low fat his diet is but he and Dr. Ornish have good tests behind their diets and I am slowing moving toward it and I feel much more full and feel full longer eating low fat lunches (much more volume of food for the same calories.)


Thanks, 9nines! I tagged these McDougall sites as well and will read more over time. I agree with you that eatting low fat is good but fullness matters too. I have always liked the "zone" but I am at a point right now that I can't really go backwards.... just ask to recieve and be open to change. Thank you so must again, 9nines for caring to post.

----------------------------------------

As you get older it is harder to have heroes, but it is sort of necessary.
- Ernest Hemingway


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:35 pm 
Offline
Rabbit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:25 pm
Posts: 34
Location: So FL
offense74 wrote:
lmmy wrote:
Actually, she looks more like human women are supposed to look (i.e. with some FAT!) in the first "before" picture. The second "before" picture's quality is too crappy to decide. I have no doubt that her diet was very unhealthy, but seriously, being a stick isn't all that much better.

She's not a stick in the after pictures, she's fit!
Also, there is no way to know what the "normal" size for human women is. What we do know is that obesity leads to serious consequenses. In the first picture I believe she is clinically obese.


Thanks offense76!! I needed the support!! Peace.

------------------------------------------------

As you get older it is harder to have heroes, but it is sort of necessary.
- Ernest Hemingway


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:16 pm 
Offline
Rabbit

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:35 pm
Posts: 50
"Fit" does not mean "thin". To think that it does is a mistake. What about football players? What about the Clydsedale class of bikers?

Human women are biologically designed to carry at least 35 pounds of fat on their bodies (which holds the amount of calories needed for a pregnancy); they function best with this amount of fat on their bodies.

_________________
My veganity is at steak!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:08 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:05 am
Posts: 2396
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden, Europe
lmmy wrote:
Human women are biologically designed to carry at least 35 pounds of fat on their bodies (which holds the amount of calories needed for a pregnancy); they function best with this amount of fat on their bodies.

I'm going to ask you to prove it. It might be hard since I know quite the few skinny mothers.
The more fat you have on your body, whether you're a man or a woman, the higher the risk the risk of heart disease, certain cancers and stroke you are. It seems strange that nature designed half of our species to constantly be at risk for these deseases because they "need to".

_________________
Image
The surest road to happiness is low expectations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:07 pm 
Offline
Rabbit

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:35 pm
Posts: 50
It was in a book actually, I believe it might have been The Obesity Myth (good read, by the way, though he doesn't delve as far into the "you can prove anything if you want to" thing with some studies). The fact that you have met skinny mothers doesn't matter -- they had enough food to eat. When I say "biologically designed", I mean that, in past times when there was famine, it was necessary; thus human females are biologically designed to have this amount of fat. The book I read it in said that 35 lbs of fat carries the "roughly 90,000 calories needed to support a pregnancy" (actual quote), and then there is still some left over for breastfeeding.

I'm going to have to ask you for links to the studies that say this -- NOT articles or summaries. One thing that was revealed to me in the Obesity myth was that some scientists will have a completely different conclusion than what is actually demonstrated in the study. In fact, to make it actually valid, make it a study that contrasts vegans/vegetarians and carnists -- as it is, we don't know if the studies show that OBESITY causes cancer or if MORE ANIMAL-BASED FOOD causes cancer. And those who are obese tend to eat significantly more (and if not, then often worse, which comes out to the same thing) than their thinner counterparts. I say this as an obese person who is trying to lose weight (for purely vanity-based reasons, as I have not seen any valid research like what I mentioned above that says that fat causes ANYTHING bad, only that DIET causes bad things).

_________________
My veganity is at steak!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:33 pm 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:57 pm
Posts: 1242
Location: Portland, OR
I always figured there was more wear and tear on the joints if one was heavier. And the heart would half to work more because you have to move more weight for day to day tasks...

Maybe I was wrong :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:46 pm 
Offline
Manatee

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:41 pm
Posts: 469
Lmmy,

Three quick things on the 35 pounds of fat for women:

1) I think 35 pounds is less fat than you are picturing.

The newsletter lady weighed 170 pounds in those “before” pictures. If she only had 35 pounds of fat that means here body fat percentage was 20%. That “before” lady did not have a body fat percentage of 20%, which is borderline in the athletic range for a lady. Her body fat percentage was probably near 30%, probably more, meaning she was carrying 50 pounds or more of fat in the “before” pictures.

As she was, most of the women in our society that are heavy are carrying much more than 35 pounds of fat. I think you are picturing a lot more extra body mass than 35 pounds of fat really is.


2) I think society’s view of heavy and fat is opposite of what you imply, in your posts. You imply society has too strict a view of what is fat. Instead, I think it has a very loose view of what is fat and it expands as time goes by. In other words, as more and more people become larger, our society shifts its view of “normal” to a bigger and fatter bodies. For a good view of my opinion, go watch some older movies/television shows or read articles from older news papers stories that have pictures and you will find what was "fat" 20 to 30+ years ago is "normal" now.

For example, I was watching a documentary on Elvis Presley, last week. At the time when he died, he was thought of as very heavy person. Looking at how he looked then, now, he looks normal.


3) I question whether what might be good for pregnancy is what is really good for the individual.

Considering the human species only needs adults to live to 25 to 30 years of age for the species to be successful (for example, have kids at 15 and have 10 to 15 years to raise them to have kids of their own), I do not think a cautionary need of pregnancy (by cautionary I mean need only if no food around) should constitute what is healthful for an individual.

What I mean by the above opinion is that as a species, all humans need is for adults to be able to give safe births at 15 years of age and live another 10 to 15 years. In that situation that means the pregnant lady would be 15 years of age, in which case, carrying extra pounds of fat is not as big of a health risk as a lady of 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70+ years of age carrying that same fat. In perspective, I imagine the human body, in a plural sense, could take almost any bad health condition abuse and live to 30 years of age. So I would not imply that cautionary need of a juvenile mother to be healthful for adult ladies. Also, it might be a situation more healthful for the pregnancy (mother and fetus) and not necessary for the mother, as an individual, at any age.


Last edited by 9nines on Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:46 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:08 pm 
Offline
Manatee

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:41 pm
Posts: 469
Fat not bad?

While doctors will argue what causes one to be more fat or what the proper diet is, I do not think there is any disagreement that being fat is a or the leading variable in the cause of type II diabetes.

As I posted on another thread, one doctor’s explanation of how fat causes type 2 diabetes is that as the body stores more fat (and it is not just the big people, there are many skinny fat people with low muscle mass and high body fat percentage, in which this happens) and more calories are consumed, the cells become more resistant to insulin (the hormone that pushes food into cells) as an adaptive response to being over-fed. Many studies (I posted some in the same thread) show that as type 2 diabetics lose weight their cells then become less insulin resistant (functionally more normally) and most diabetics, who lose enough fat, are no longer diabetic or severally cut down on needing medicine, the situation depending on how much weight is lost.

So in that one disease case, to argue that nothing is wrong with the amount of fat that a growing segment of our population is gaining is to argue nothing is wrong with diabetes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:46 pm 
I think good fats are good for some people(really most) but alot of people can be very healthy with virtually none...I haven't tried it for an extended period of time but when I went full raw for a couple weeks I went completely fat free for a week and thats when I felt best...it was saddening but I did feel great


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:16 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:05 am
Posts: 2396
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden, Europe
If you're eating habits follows what science says is healthy you will end up somewhere in the line of what Joel Fuhrman, Dean Ornish or McDougall suggests. Staying fat on those diets is nearly impossible.

A person comes to this forum asking for advise to eat healthier. Alot of people in here knows alot about what scince tell us about these issues i.e. eat more fruits and veggies. What you say is to keep eating the way she does because she needs to incase she gets pregnant. I don't see the point in doing that?!
No other primates eating their natural diet needs to get obese to be able to bare children.

If this is about feminism we can talk about that, but science is pretty clear on what to eat and what not to eat and staying fat while doing that is, as I said, almost impossible.

_________________
Image
The surest road to happiness is low expectations.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS } Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group