Jump to content

Maximum Nutrient Partitioning


Recommended Posts

I eat a portion of potatoes every day.I hear they are starchy. Is that bad?

 

 

People thrive on a diet on 95-100% potatoes (in New Guinea some people eat 95% sweet potatoes, many different varieties). Potatoes are extremely nutritious, and have a good ratio of macronutrients for body recomposition. People can, and have, thrived on potatoes alone (read this):

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall020400pupotatoesarepillars.htm

 

That beings said, potatoes are definitely not the best at overfeeding, as they topped the Satiety Index study, which measured how well different foods held off hunger. They are excellent for cutting though, since they satisfy hunger the longest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger that.Potatoes for the win!

 

I also eat 100 grams of mixed nuts every single day.Should I not?

 

I have not looked into nutrition scientifically like you guys have so am interested in your opinions.I base my diet on rudimentary knowledge gleamed from this & I guess some common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger that.Potatoes for the win!

 

I also eat 100 grams of mixed nuts every single day.Should I not?

 

I have not looked into nutrition scientifically like you guys have so am interested in your opinions.I base my diet on rudimentary knowledge gleamed from this & I guess some common sense.

 

For an in-depth answer to that, please read my latest blog post. The metabolic fact is that eating carbs instead of fat directly leads to more muscle gain and less fat gain, because of the way the body is designed (the blog explains everything in great detail, and cites science - if you read and understand it you will have a big picture understanding of metabolism and be able to reach your goals faster).

 

Health-wise, nuts are not a problem, especially if the diet is overall low-fat vegan (under ~20%). But if you want to be strict about maximizing muscle gain and fat minimization, fat should be limited to around 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool cheers.I am not too fussed about gaining fat as I am very very lean, whatever I eat.Maximising muscle is what I want so its all good for me at the moment.Cheers buddy.I will also read your stuff as you have clearly looked into it alot - which deserves respect in my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great point about fasting and healing too. Since I've been implemented fasting for fat loss (I don't eat until 3 p.m., & even exercise on an empty stomach since my current goal is fat loss). Fasting really lets the body maximize healing potential (and the results are especially powerful for non-vegans, because they have large build-ups of metabolic waste from animal foods).

 

If it is a viral infection, keeping yourself well-fed actually leads to the production of certain cytokines that aid your defenses. Fasting or eating small amounts has a similarly beneficial effect (mediated through different signals, though) if it's a bacterial infection.

 

As for the protein issue, it does drive me crazy because the scientific evidence is well established but unknown, even to supposed vegan nutrition "experts"...

How in the hell do people think herbivorous dinosaurs, some of the largest creatures ever to walk the earth, met their prodigious protein needs? They did it with plant foods, many of which would be considered "incomplete" by those who fail to do the research themselves and instead accept what the mainstream "educators" tell them. All plants contain ALL of the essential amino acids, period. That scientific fact is the most unknown thing in nutrition. The truth is no plant can exist without all the essential amino acids - so it is incredibly ridiculous to say they are incomplete proteins! What happened is that research on non-herbivorous rats was used to justify human needs (and to sell/promote animal foods). So then the amino acid profile of plants were studied, and the essential amino acid with the lowest amount was determined the "limiting" amino acid (lysine for corn, for example).

I have responded to a similar post of yours earlier, but I'll say it again here. The biochemistry of other animals (even other mammals) is very, very, very different than our own. Within mammals, for example, you can find such diverse metabolic and digestive adaptations as torpir, ruminant stomachs, and hibernation. You can't point to a herbivorous dinosaur or elephant as evidence of a principle you are trying to apply to humans. The term essential amino acid is in the context of human biology - it refers to the amino acids that we, as humans, cannot synthesize. Many other animals are capable of synthesizing these amino acids from glucose and therefore do not need to consume them. These herbivores usually possess a cellulase enzyme, so that they can convert all that leafy and woody matter into glucose, and then aminate that glucose and convert it into whatever amino acids they need. There are plenty of animals out there that do not have such a thing as an "essential amino acid", because they synthesize everything they need. Similarly, a plant doesn't need to use our "essential" amino acids in proteins. Some organisms out there use amino acids in their proteins that we don't, and vice-versa. There's quite a variety out there in the biosphere. I fear you may be misinterpreting the term essential here.

 

But the truth is if you meet baseline energy needs with corn (or any other single protein source), you will get plenty of all the essential amino acids because our needs are so low. But as I said, false-but-simple memes "plants are incomplete proteins" flow from one brain to the next much better than the true-but-nuanced memes: "plants contain all the essential amino acid, though the ratios differ, but if you meet energy needs on plant food, your body will easily meet protein needs."

Relying on corn as a protein source does lead to an amino acid deficiency (tryptophan, specifically), directly contributing to a niacin deficiency. This was the cause of the disease known as "Pellagra" that plagued impoverished people in the 1800s who could only afford corn to eat.

 

 

I will also add something that I responded to in another thread, since I know you will read it here:

 

"If you are on a very low fat diet, then you risk fatty acids deficiencies - both essential and non-essential."

 

Sorry but this is simply not supported via the evidence - where are all these people with fatty acid deficiency? Because you won't find them in the scientific literature, despite what they teach at universities. Essential fat requirement is tiny, and easily met by whole plant foods without added oil, please read this:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/aug/oils.htm

My response: "Veganmaster, I detect an "anti-academia" attitude in a lot of your posts. You sometimes refer to "most scientists" or "what they teach at universities" the way that some leftists talk about "the man" - as though you're referring to an intangible, evil force that permeates the world and poisons all it touches.

 

Please try to keep your perspective - I don't think you know firsthand what they teach at universities regarding metabolism and nutrition, because you never had a formal education in it. You also talk about what people will or will not find if they search "the scientific literature", as though you have an archival knowledge of it. The vast majority of journals out there are not open-access, so you couldn't be reading over 95% of the articles being published every month on these subjects without subscriptions or access via a university subscription, even if you had time to read them all (the volume of research being published every month is too much for any one person to keep up on - that's why researchers end up specializing in one particular area...it's the only way to stay current and relevant). You also quote and reference Dr. McDougall constantly - he runs a business, and has books, DVDs, etc to sell, so realize the inherent danger in relying on such sources of information. It's not unlike referencing Pfizer in a discussion of whether or not certain medications are beneficial.

 

You put a lot of work and thought into nutrition - and this is not a personal attack. It's not like I know everything on these subjects, either. But I hope you realize the way you write with authority about academia (both about the attitudes of most scientists and about what you have learned) despite having never been immersed in that environment or having had access to most of the tools and information that others, whom you clearly have strong opinions about, have."

 

I guess I just want to emphasize that, as much as you have read on these subjects, there is an issue of perspective - you seem to be missing some of the background information that would come from formal scientific training. Like an appreciation of the incredible diversity of other animals' biochemistry (one of my professors, a pioneer in the field of comparative metabolism, told us that he "wasted years testing stupid hypotheses because I made the mistake of assuming that their biochemistry was like ours").

 

The conviction with which you defend your conclusions is admirable. I'm just not sure that they are solid as you believe them to be, for reasons outlined throughout this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medman, you are wrong, I have taken high level nutrition courses at a major university before, so I am familiar with the college nutrition atmosphere. I was going for a second degree in nutrition (R.D.) but it eventually became apparent how strongly the the animal food/junk food industry influenced both the professors and the course material, so I quit and continued my education directly from the science instead.

 

I don't think you understand my main point about herbivorous mammals meeting protein needs via plants: evolutionary pressures guarantee that an extant herbivorous organism can meet nutritional needs with simple plant food. They would never have survived to pass on their genes if this were not so! And human are herbivores, as I cover in my first blog post.

 

You talk about the high Pellagra rates of the 1800s, but say nothing of the fact that their diets were high in VERY refined corn with some pork fat and molasses. I am talking about a WHOLE corn diet that meets energy needs. You see most deficiency diseases are some combination of starvation and/or overprocessing, which strips nutrients from the food. You have zero evidence to indicate that an all corn diet would mean a fastrack to disease - in fact, as I've posted there is instead evidence showing that single sources of plant protein meet nitrogen and nutritional needs as long as energy needs are met. Some people from Papa, New Guinea eat a diet of 95% sweet potatoes, and one study showed that very poor "3rd world" children grew normally on a diet where Nitrogen needs were met entirely with white flour! You underestimate the resilience of our biology when fed whole plant food to satisfaction.

 

The Tarahumara Indians, for example, eat a simple traditional diet very high in corn liquor, corn and beans, yet they have performed some of the most legendary physical feats ever heard, from running their kickball games that last days and cover distances of hundreds of miles, to competing with mules for work carrying supplies up and down mountains (see my thread on Shoes for a link to a related article).

 

Now I'm not saying eating only corn is the healthiest diet, but I am saying if you are so interested in the scientific method perhaps you should not just accept what you are taught uncritically. Perhaps the views put forward are slightly influenced by the zillion dollar food industry? Politics applies to science too, and it tends to belittle a plant-only diet and overstate macronutrient and nutrient needs. For example, all plant foods contain ALL of the essential amino acids that humans require. That is scientific fact, but most institutions will say right in their textbooks that plants contain "incomplete" proteins.

 

I find your post a little arrogant and misguided, since you mainly defend the status quo without any evidence, yet you are happy to slander Dr. McDougall as an "untrustworthy" source. But Ad Hominem attacks will not change the scientific evidence that McDougall constantly references. He cites scientific studies for every point he makes, connecting the scientific dots into a coherent (and IMO accurate) viewpoint. That is the sign of a critical thinker who is interested in the weight of the evidence, but not the popularity of a viewpoint (he is a true iconoclast).

 

Your implication that he is a scam artist by trying to sell DVDs and books is both crude and ridiculous because if he wanted to be filthy rich he would have long ago joined the regular (unsuccessful) doctors who can treat a different patient every 5 minutes - pills and surgery are FAR more lucrative than promoting a plant based diet. Educating people about nutrition is NOT a get rich quick scheme, lol! I'm glad you think I don't respect authority, because deference to the status quo is the sign of an uncritical mind. Experts are often wrong, if you want the truth you have to sift through the data yourself (and McDougall is one of those who cites the data for all to see). The evidence is what matters, I disagree with McDougall on several things (for example, I think he exaggerates the dangers of supplements). By the way, his website includes a totally free program so you don't have to buy his evil books and DVDs. How greedy of McDougall to put the entire McDougall program up for FREE (50 pages)!

http://www.drmcdougall.com/free.html

 

And don't forget the treasure trove of scientific references he provides in his huge FREE newsletter archive:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/

 

In college you are getting a nutritional science education, but IMO if you just accept uncritically what you are taught you are not being educated, you are being indoctrinated! But that's the way it is: many people who graduate with a degree in nutrition have managed to do so without realizing that humans are biological herbivores and that eliminating animal foods in the diet is the key to reversing chronic disease (I think you are well aware of these things though)!

 

No hard feelings, it's all about learning. I've been studying these issues for over a dozen years, reading thousands of full scientific studies not just politicized college textbooks. That is why I am confident in my views, I have obsessively collected and examined the evidence and formed my opinion exclusively from it (that is just my nature). I try to keep my blog posts dense with big-picture information and scientific data/references, like my new post on starches versus simple sugars, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand my main point about herbivorous mammals meeting protein needs via plants: evolutionary pressures guarantee that an extant herbivorous organism can meet nutritional needs with simple plant food. They would never have survived to pass on their genes if this were not so! And human are herbivores, as I cover in my first blog post.

I believe it is you who missed my point; I was saying that all herbivores are not alike. A fruit bat will thrive on a 100% fruit diet, but a hippopotamus would not (and again, these are both mammals, just a fraction of the diversity out there). I was pointing out the error in using any of these other animals as evidence for a theory regarding human nutrition. Different herbivores have wildly different biochemistry. Goldfish piss out ethanol when they go anaerobic. We produce lactic acid. Just an example of how different other animals usually are.

 

I used corn and pellagra as an example because you mentioned using corn as a single source of protein, and the disease stems from just that. I don't know why you think it has anything to do with refinement; the disease is still endemic to rural areas of South America and Africa, and non-alkali-treated corn, whole or refined, is a very poor source of tryptophan and niacin.

 

I am not defending the status quo - I am defending scientific literacy. Misinterpretation of data, particularly considering results more conclusive and applicable than they really are, is one of the biggest problems we face in the world of science. But this polarized, "me vs. the status quo" attitude is what I was talking about. Do you think I'd be a vegan med student if I couldn't think critically? I've won three research scholarships and my thesis was the only one at the undergraduate level in my program to be a wholly original idea, not a PhD's hand-me-down side project. What I meant about you being outside the academic environment is that you don't have access to most of the journals out there, as they are subscription-only (not open-access). And to say I'm not providing you with evidence? I'm not citing anything right now because I'm discussing what any life science student would consider common knowledge - i.e. the difference in biochemistry between different animals, the nature of subscription-only journals, the epidemiology of Pellagra. More common knowledge - expression of insulin and IGF receptors as well as glucagon and IGF antagonists (plus a WHOLE lot more factors) all play a role in the insulin response, so basing dietary arguments on the manipulation of insulin levels is taking a one-dimensional approach to a hugely multi-dimensional big picture.

 

What I said about McDougall is not an ad hominem attack. I'm not trying to discount what he is saying or slander him. I just pointed out that the sensible thing to do is to temper one's zeal when one is getting a lot of information from a source that is offering a related product for sale. I'm not saying that he's wrong. And when did I ever call him a scam artist? I didn't say that he is just trying to make money off it. But anybody who offers free information with one hand and a product for sale in the other should not be considered impartial. That's just common sense.

 

Again, you talk about things like "the weight of the evidence". I have tried to point out to you that about 95% of "the evidence" (i.e. scientific literature on metabolism and nutrition) is in sources that you don't even have access to. There could be 30 papers printed in rebuttal to each of the papers you've read, and you might not even know it. Neither you nor I have the authority to confidently state what the collection of the world's metabolism and nutrition studies have concluded, since neither of us has an archival knowledge of what is out there. I could put together a collection of studies that all agree that global warming is not occurring. If I considered these "the weight of the evidence", I could really defend that stance with zeal. But if I cast a wider net and read every geological publication of the last 30 years, I would find far more studies that offer robust evidence that it is occurring. The point - you really have to have read all the relevant studies to draw strong conclusions. You are simply not in a position to do so, since so much of it is inaccessible to you. I would hope that such a critical thinker would realize the constraints he is working within. A constraint of "only open access and/or older studies" is quite a crippling one if you're making statements about what the scientific literature as a whole is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also quote and reference Dr. McDougall constantly - he runs a business, and has books, DVDs, etc to sell, so realize the inherent danger in relying on such sources of information.

 

You don't consider this an ad hominem attack? Please tell us why the 10,000 scientific studies McDougall cites on his website and in his books are WRONG, simply because he sells books and DVDs. You haven't even examined 1/1000 of the nutrition studies I have, yet you are so full of yourself because you're attending college, and they would NEVER teach you anything contrary to reality, right? Give me a break.

 

Judge the man by the evidence he presents, or else it IS AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

 

You seem more interested in the mainstream, ivory tower "scientific theory" than in objective reality. That's fine, but there is no point in arguing with you when you are more interested in the politics of the method and not on the big picture truth.

 

You seem to think reality would change and humans would become biological carnivores if there were 1000 junk scientific studies claiming so. Many scientific studies, especially correlational studies, are designed to get the result the funders want. But I'm interested in the truth, and you don't get there by counting the number of studies that are sympathetic to your viewpoint. That is not real science IMO. You get there by combining quality big picture data points into a coherent picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How in the hell do people think herbivorous dinosaurs, some of the largest creatures ever to walk the earth, met their prodigious protein needs? They did it with plant foods, many of which would be considered "incomplete" by those who fail to do the research themselves and instead accept what the mainstream "educators" tell them. All plants contain ALL of the essential amino acids, period. That scientific fact is the most unknown thing in nutrition. The truth is no plant can exist without all the essential amino acids - so it is incredibly ridiculous to say they are incomplete proteins!

I find that quite interesting and doing more research on that could be useful. It is obvious that plants cannot get all the amino acids just from sunrays, water and the minerals in soil. We know that humans need 21 (or 22, 24, I don't remember) amino acids to survive and build cells, only 8 of them cannot be synthetized by human body. Therefore we find all those amino acids in the human body and we are a "complete protein" for human nutrition. But is it the samething with all living beings on Earth, do they need all those amino acids too, or others (if there's others)? what about plants? or what about microrganisms, I doubt the body of a bacteria contains all amino acids. But let's get back to plants, if they do need all amino acids (all synthesized) then yes we can logically say they contain all amino acids and therefore they are complete proteins for our nutrition needs. I say yes, all plants are all complete proteins, but some of them are more complete or incomplete than others. If like Medman said, corn lacks tryptophan, there's some of it but in small amounts, therefore we just need to eat more corn, until the tryptophan requirements are met. For giant herbivorous dinosaurs, I guess they did need all the amino acids too, and even if the green leaves they were eating were low in a certain amino acids, the dinosaurs instinctly chose a plant which is a "complete protein" for dinosaurs need, meaning the amino acids that are too low in the plant are just non-essential aminos for dinosaurs and can be synthesized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't consider this an ad hominem attack?

 

...Judge the man by the evidence he presents, or else it IS AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

 

No, it's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack uses a personal attack to try to discredit a person's message. I didn't say anything bad about McDougall. I stated the general principle that it's dangerous to rely on sources of information that come hand in hand with products and ideologies for sale. Saying "McDougall is just out there to make sales" would be an ad hominem attack. I didn't say that, and I don't believe that. I just believe that it would be wise to diversify a bit.

 

You haven't even examined 1/1000 of the nutrition studies I have, yet you are so full of yourself because you're attending college, and they would NEVER teach you anything contrary to reality, right? Give me a break.

Now THAT is an ad hominem attack, haha. And I will reiterate a few points. About you "examining" these studies - I have pointed out several times that most journals are not open-access. Are you just reading the abstracts? You actually refer to "junk studies" but clearly aren't looking at the studies you cite all that objectively if you can't even read beyond the abstracts in many of them. And I pointed out in another thread that the last 5 studies that you cited had sample sizes ranging between 6 and 13 people, and most aren't open-access...I'm sorry, but the reason I brought up "having a formal education" is because one of the first things you would have learned in science (not a nutrition class) is when to recognize the limits of a study and what conclusions you can legitimately draw. You make bold statements about "exactly how metabolism works" and "optimal health" when you are reading (possibly mostly abstracts of) studies that sometimes have such small sample sizes. I never had a class called "principles of human nutrition" or anything, so I don't know why you keep pretending that I'm relying on knowledge that was handed to me and that I "mindlessly swallowed". A formal science background arms you with general tools - such as those required to interpret studies and determine what conclusions, if any, may be drawn appropriately from the evidence. You need formal training to draw appropriate conclusions from an X-ray or MRI image, and the same applies to scientific studies - the way you cite a study and then state your conclusions as facts is not unlike calling every black spot on an X-ray a tumour. You are really jumping the gun.

 

"You get there by combining quality big picture data points into a coherent picture"

Yes, when the data is strong enough to do so. You talk a lot about thinking critically, yet you present studies with single-digit sample sizes in your blog as "evidence". Those studies are interesting. However, they make for such weak evidence that you would be laughed out of any legitimate scientific debate or presentation if you were to make such bold statements based on those studies in front of a formally educated audience. You keep trying to tell me that I would accept anything that large numbers junk studies would show. That's really not true. You know why? Because I am armed with the tools to examine a study and judge whether or not it is 'junk'. And as much as you think you are as well, you are showing your naivité in believing that you are actually making sound, critical determinations of these studies' merit when you treat them as proof (especially, as I mentioned, since you aren't even able to access 95% of the literature out there). Examining 5% of the total available evidence and making bold conclusions without formal scientific training does not make for a comprehensive review of the literature, yet you keep talking about how you have examined "the literature" as though your knowledge is comprehensive.

 

The point I made about being able to compile a list of studies to support a given viewpoint (like global warming not happening) was to try to make it clear to you that, without taking a look at everything out there, one might draw inappropriate conclusions or be misled by others doing the same. Because you do not have access to the majority of research out there, you simply cannot treat your conclusions as leading-edge, let alone as fact. By doing so, you are really showing your lack of training.

 

But go ahead, tell me that I am a sheep for following such 'mindless' principles as objectivity, understanding the limitations of a given study, examining all available literature, and reading a study cover to cover before judging whether it is strong evidence of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that quite interesting and doing more research on that could be useful. It is obvious that plants cannot get all the amino acids just from sunrays, water and the minerals in soil. We know that humans need 21 (or 22, 24, I don't remember) amino acids to survive and build cells, only 8 of them cannot be synthetized by human body. Therefore we find all those amino acids in the human body and we are a "complete protein" for human nutrition. But is it the samething with all living beings on Earth, do they need all those amino acids too, or others (if there's others)? what about plants? or what about microrganisms, I doubt the body of a bacteria contains all amino acids. But let's get back to plants, if they do need all amino acids (all synthesized) then yes we can logically say they contain all amino acids and therefore they are complete proteins for our nutrition needs...

 

I'm Your Man, you've got the right idea. However, in response to your first statement - plants do actually make all their amino acids from sun, water and air. They take the glucose they make from photosynthesis and aminate it (add a nitrogen onto it) using nitrogen they acquire from the air, the soil (in the form of nitrates), or from bacteria in rhizomes on the roots (legumes have 'nitrogen-fixing' bacteria in these rhizomes that convert nitrogen from the air into nitrates that the roots can absorb). The plants then use various other enzymes to add the extra functional groups that make a given amino acid. However, the proportions of different amino acids ("the amino acid profile") in a given plant's proteins varies, which is why some are "less complete" for our needs. You are right about bacteria, as well as other organisms. Some use "bizarre" amino acids that aren't even found in our bodies, and we use some that aren't found in theirs. Many animals have the necessary enzymes to synthesize all the amino acids they need from glucose or from other amino acids that they might be consuming in abundance. These animals, unlike us, therefore have no "essential amino acids" since they are able to synthesize all of the ones they need. We are only able to synthesize the majority of our amino acids, not all of them; we make up for the lack of certain enzymes to produce the "essential" ones by getting them from our diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. For giant herbivorous dinosaurs, I guess they did need all the amino acids too, and even if the green leaves they were eating were low in a certain amino acids, the dinosaurs instinctly chose a plant which is a "complete protein" for dinosaurs need,

 

We, myself included, presume herbivorous dinosaurs needed "z" amount of amino acids etc but in truth I dont think we really know what they needed at all.

 

I am also not convinced that we know what nutrients plants in those days had in them, or even the full extent of what types of plants existed then at all.

 

I am of course aware of the many many fields of science that have discovered amazing things about these subjects but we should also be aware of how limited in truth our knowledge truly is.

 

Some use "bizarre" amino acids that aren't even found in our bodies, and we use some that aren't found in theirs.

 

I like this point.I thouroughly believe that on this planet & further beyond, that there is life which exists in such unusual ways compared to our little animal kingdom bubble that it will truly blow our minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this point.I thouroughly believe that on this planet & further beyond, that there is life which exists in such unusual ways compared to our little animal kingdom bubble that it will truly blow our minds.

A bit off-topic, but at least as a layperson, I'm confused why there's such an exclusive search for things like water on other planets... Just because earth's life is water based doesn't mean a different system of life couldn't have come about without water...

 

I would imagine non-water based life would also have different amino acid requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We, myself included, presume herbivorous dinosaurs needed "z" amount of amino acids etc but in truth I dont think we really know what they needed at all.

Yeah, but you also have to add that they were eating raw which means that they needed 50% less of what we don't know they needed.

Did that clear things up for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We, myself included, presume herbivorous dinosaurs needed "z" amount of amino acids etc but in truth I dont think we really know what they needed at all.

Yeah, but you also have to add that they were eating raw which means that they needed 50% less of what we don't know they needed.

Did that clear things up for you?

Exactly, those dinosaurs were eating raw natural top quality food, not some polluted transgenic cooked spinach with some agent orange sprayed on it. But it wasn't neither some supernatural greens. DNA of plants stayed about the same now than 50 million years ago. But if dinosaurs would live today they would starve to death and extinguish because most of forests are gone.
I like this point.I thouroughly believe that on this planet & further beyond, that there is life which exists in such unusual ways compared to our little animal kingdom bubble that it will truly blow our minds.
We haven't explored 5% of the seas yet and what we discovered is already amazing: bacterias and small creatures living at the very bottom of the sea with no light source at all, adapted to survive out of the rare molecules of oxygen and some gas geyzers. If on our planet life subsist in such extreme environment and even in artic ice, then I have no doubt there's life on other planets, and probably non-carbon based life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, those dinosaurs were eating raw natural top quality food, not some polluted transgenic cooked spinach with some agent orange sprayed on it. But it wasn't neither some supernatural greens.

 

I heard that plants in those days were apparently racked with vast quantities of minerals that do not exist in such quantities these days, but I cant remember where I picked this up from, so it may or may not be true.As an example Orichalc existed up until very recent times, & was thought to exist in huge quantities.Due to mining by cultures pre 4000BC it is now not thought to exist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orichalcum

 

Admittedly my example is very vague compared to what we are discussing (as it is a metal, not plant!) but it was the first thing that sprang to my mind, as an example of how certain things may have disappeared completely, without us really knowing about them.

 

We haven't explored 5% of the seas yet and what we discovered is already amazing: bacterias and small creatures living at the very bottom of the sea with no light source at all, adapted to survive out of the rare molecules of oxygen and some gas geyzers. If on our planet life subsist in such extreme environment and even in artic ice, then I have no doubt there's life on other planets, and probably non-carbon based life.

 

Very true.I watched a program on theoretical life in space a while back.One of the theories was that some life may have evolved to live around stars, which for me throws up the possibility that life could exist outside the atmosphere of planets etc so that it freely roams through space.How cool does that sound!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all this discussion about corn, I think something's a little awry. Looking up raw white sweet corn and raw yellow sweet corn reveals a pretty good amino acid profile, only a little weak in Lysine and solid in Tryptophan. Am I missing something? (Perhaps a type of corn that is not represented at nutritiondata.com?)

 

White sweet corn, raw:

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2972/2

 

Yellow sweet corn, raw:

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2415/2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endy,

 

Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency. Corn contains niacin, but in a form that can't be absorbed by the body unless it first undergoes alkaline processing (traditional tortilla preparation involved lime, which is alkaline and is why pellagra was less common in Mexico). Corn does contain tryptophan, but not nearly enough to produce niacin from. It takes a huge abundance of tryptophan to be able to produce any significant amount of niacin, and while the amino acid profile of corn is not the worst, it is not a rich source of protein. The info for white corn you posted shows it as having about a 3% protein content by mass. Of that 3%, a small amount is tryptophan itself, and your body has many uses for it other than niacin synthesis (certain neurotransmitters are made from it, for example). For a niacin deficient person, corn is therefore an inadequate source of tryptophan. So pellagra is really a multidimensional disease, with niacin deficiency as the primary cause and tryptophan deficiency as a secondary cause...kind of like a game of nutritional dominoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this idea about genetic modifications... if they can modify the DNA so some organism can resist to about any toxic chemicals, like I know for instance they take some DNA of turtles and they mix it with DNA of celery and it change something. I wonder if they will -if it's possible they surely will- modify some plants in a way that it becomes 100% biological value proteins, kind of like what they do in a more simple way with the protein powder blends Buckwheat+Soy... to make a broccoli that would be more complete proteins than milk, meat, etc, so then the omnis have no excuses. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kind of like a game of nutritional dominoes.

 

Now thats a fun game!

 

Im your man wrote:

 

I wonder if they will -if it's possible they surely will- modify some plants in a way that it becomes 100% biological value proteins

 

Dude, its only a matter of time before they do these things, I think.Soon they will be growing these things as the basis for peoples diets, maybe even in pill forms.The applications would also be useful for astronauts & I suspect they will get them before they become mainstream.Solid foods as we know them will be phased out slightly & I think will mainly be eaten just for pleasure, with the pills taking care of actual bodily needs.

 

Im going to turn of my science-fiction cap now!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Vicious debate going on right now...

 

Should probably be moved to the "Health and Nutrition Programs" forum though.

 

Anyway, I'd like to add to the thread. I've spoken with Veganmaster through private mesages about his methods. I've also tried them out. They work. I am only 17 and I've never taken any kind of nutrition class, although I've spent way too many hours to count researching nutrition and taking my own stance on many different topics. It's one of my passions <3

 

On the other hand, I've also tried the "fat doesn't make you fat" approach. For bulking, I gained fat. It didn't work, and I'll be limiting my fat next time I'm bulking. I don't think my fat intake was extremely high. Did I get bigger and stronger? Yes, but I also gained a good amount of fat, which has made cutting season hell for me.

 

When I first started cutting, I was eating about 10% fat. I lost fat quickly, and kept muscle. I then came to a halt. Then I started using veganmaster's advice (even less than 10% fat). I lost fat quickly, and again, kept muscle. Then it started to slow down and sort of halt (although this is most likely because I have been on vacation and it's hard to limit my fat and work out). It seems that both methods can work, although I believe veganmaster's approach not only makes more sense, but if you look back into our evolution, it's something we should probably be doing.

 

Now I'm not sure about fasting for people trying to maintain their physique, but I'm doing it because I'm cutting. In regards to everything else, to me it makes sense that a very low fat diet is what's best for us. Why? Well every August I go to this amazing beach/forest (Lake Huron in Michigan, USA). If I step into that forest, it will be very hard for me to find something to eat that's fattening. I can find blueberries, and outside of August there are raspberries and strawberries. There are pine trees, but they do not produce pine nuts.

 

Most areas of the world, as far as I know, don't have abundant amounts of natural fattening foods. Much of the fat that people eat today comes from oils, nuts/seeds, and fruits/veggies like avocados and coconuts. Avocados/coconuts are rare cases in my opinion and could bump a diet up to 10% fat, but not everybody in the world has vegetation with those characteristics. Nuts/seeds are a different issue though. Where can you find a huge amount of nuts/seeds anywhere in the world? Sure, we can find them, but probably not enough to make more than 10% fat or less in our diet. I believe that humans evolved eating mostly carbs. Plants have protein, so that's not an issue.

 

Now I'm not stating any of this as irrefutable fact, and I'm not pretending to be an expert. I'm just [trying] to think logically about this topic and I'm throwing my ideas out there.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Gerard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some wonderful points being made. I would like to share some information with you all to brainstorm together and I hope it may also shed some light on the gray areas. (The challenge I face, is to not mess it up myself by rushing into it without making my ideas clearly defined.)

 

I will post this up soon with a link to a new thread.

Cheers!

Stevie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My response: "Veganmaster, I detect an "anti-academia" attitude in a lot of your posts. You sometimes refer to "most scientists" or "what they teach at universities" the way that some leftists talk about "the man" - as though you're referring to an intangible, evil force that permeates the world and poisons all it touches.

 

You put a lot of work and thought into nutrition - and this is not a personal attack. It's not like I know everything on these subjects, either. But I hope you realize the way you write with authority about academia (both about the attitudes of most scientists and about what you have learned) despite having never been immersed in that environment or having had access to most of the tools and information that others, whom you clearly have strong opinions about, have."

 

I guess I just want to emphasize that, as much as you have read on these subjects, there is an issue of perspective - you seem to be missing some of the background information that would come from formal scientific training. Like an appreciation of the incredible diversity of other animals' biochemistry (one of my professors, a pioneer in the field of comparative metabolism, told us that he "wasted years testing stupid hypotheses because I made the mistake of assuming that their biochemistry was like ours").

 

Medman, you seem to be the most vocal critic of veganmaster's, so I have a question. Do you think that the logic veganmaster uses to promote a high-carb, low-fat diet is flawed, or just that the supporting evidence is scant? I certainly agree that the sample sizes are far too low, but the underlying theory seems solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for Medman, but the gist of the issues that a lot of people had with the theories of Veganmaster were that he seemed to insinuate that higher fat/lower carb diets did not work well for people, when quite a few of us had their greatest success with fat loss on lower carb diets. Any time someone takes an approach where they say that their way is "best" they're bound to catch a lot of flak for it, particularly when there are a lot of others who have said that different approaches work better for them.

 

I'm intrigued about Veganmaster's ideas, however, I have NEVER been able to lose fat and maintain strength on a low fat/high carb diet. I'm talking, I've tried such approaches many times over the past 13 years or so that I've been lifting, and they simply have not proven to work for me. Do I think that they're a bad way to go? No, if you have the body type that it works well for. However, for someone like me, keeping it simple and upping fat and protein while cutting carbs to 200g/day or less is what my body responds best to, and I have to shake my head when a blanket statement is made that somehow what I've proven to work is crap while what has been a failure is my key to success.

 

So, I don't think that it's necessarily that people don't necessarily believe that Veganmaster's ideas won't work, but rather that there's a lot of hype behind them that doesn't jib with the way many of us have found to be the optimal way to eat for fat loss for our own body types. Like I said, any time someone says it's their way to get results and anything else is less optimal across the board, it has to be taken VERY lightly because there have been thousands who have made such claims, none of which have ever proven to have the best diet for every body type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...