Jump to content

Is modern day nutrition valid?


Recommended Posts

I know this may seem way off base but, I've spent hours studying photo's of my body building development as a Fruitarian and on the S.A.D (cooked food) and I'm really starting to wonder if nutrition as we know it is valid? or would our bodies be forced to grow regardless of nutrition! What do you guys think?

 

Here's some photo's taken 6 months apart to compare!

 

Fruitarian

 

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/48/ava55810sb.th.jpg

 

Cooked

 

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3056/ava54984pq.th.jpg

 

If you notice the arm is still the same size in both photo's but the torso has changed size (less bulk)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i believe that nutrition is valid. it is scientific fact that food is made up of proteins, carbs, fat and fibre, as well water and what not. i dont think that you can ignore that, and a diet for sport has to have adequate protein/fat/carbs etc.

i agree that you are in great shape bigbwii, but i would have to argue that it is despite your fruitarianism, rather than because of it.

 

jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Carbohydrates:

 

Plenty in fruit.

 

On protein:

 

Average fruit is 5% to 15% protein as far as is calories. So if you get enough calories and eat varied fruits, you get enough protein.

 

On fat:

 

Unless you eat avocados, or some other high fat fruit, your fat might be low but then maybe the 'normal' fat recommendation is what is wrong and you are right about our 'normal' nutrition guidelines being wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 Nines, Yes!! the nutritional standards are based on people that eat cooked foods, so who is really to say what is right or wrong?

 

Jonathan, if I can still be in good shape inspite of being a Fruitarian what does that say for modern day nutrition!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 Nines, Yes!! the nutritional standards are based on people that eat cooked foods, so who is really to say what is right or wrong?

 

Jonathan, if I can still be in good shape inspite of being a Fruitarian what does that say for modern day nutrition!?

 

i would say that you are particularly lucky in your genetics, and that you would do far better on a raw vegan diet, consuming a wide range of nuts, seeds, veg, grains, sprouted legumes etc. i believe that a raw vegan diet, with b12 supplementation is the healthiest you can get, but for me im too lazy!

 

jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would you say that genetics plays a bigger role than modern day nutrition and that to optimise muscle growth a raw vegan diet would be best?

 

as for me I'm really not so sure that raw fuits and veggies are as supierior as we might think, in my opinion it's all about enzymes that's what does all the building, with out those everything else is useless! raw has enzymes and cooked doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have a good point about the enzymes, but I think you need more variety in you diet. In a natural setting people would be munching on fruits, leaves, roots, and bugs. Eating would be an on going thing that happened as we did other things and not a big event like a meal. The weight you lost in your stomach… was it fat? If so maybe you are not taking in enough calories, which is fine if you want to lose weight, but what is you body going to start braking down after all of you fat is gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wieght I lost in my stomach was undigested waste and water retention , who says we need more variety? I can go a whole season on OJ or watermelon, when is the last time you felt like picking a leaf from a tree and eating it or catching a bug and chomping down on it? and who says that the body needs to be constantly breaking itself down?

 

 

My question isn't about how vaible the raw diet is, I'm really not interested in which diet is best and I'm not putting fruitarianism up on a pedastal, my question is if modern day nutrition in terms of amounts of protiens, vitamins and minerals is valid interms of actual muscle growth? as opposed to letting the body self generate:wink:

 

I've noticed that on cooked food my muscle growth has been pretty poor and that I've basically just been gaining wieght by swelling up on water and fats!

 

getting away from modern nutrition I've actually watched my swelling go down and be left so much smaller with my natural muscle and shape! I guess you would call this being ripped.

 

I believe that anyone can gain size eating cooked food but actual muscle growth is another story and the big guys you see are actually just swollen! but I could be completely wrong ! this is just my theory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is very hard to say what we need in terms of nutrition. And I think in western cultures we are living off the belief that too much is better then too little. So who knows? But I am also more inclined to believe what people who study these things and could tell me why I need x amount of vitamin a, and the effects of the deficiencies such as blindness. In terms of how much protein and carbs are needed, I think that is more on a individual level. Size of the person, activity level, and hereditary factors all play a part, so for those things I think it is ok to listen to your body.

 

I also think that in America we try to blame diet for too much. Like saying calcium will save us from bone loss, when in fact one of the best ways to keep your bones strong is to do weight barring exercises.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthology/story?id=626304

http://www.nof.org/prevention/exercise.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wieght I lost in my stomach was undigested waste and water retention , who says we need more variety? I can go a whole season on OJ or watermelon, when is the last time you felt like picking a leaf from a tree and eating it or catching a bug and chomping down on it? and who says that the body needs to be constantly breaking itself down?

 

 

My question isn't about how vaible the raw diet is, I'm really not interested in which diet is best and I'm not putting fruitarianism up on a pedastal, my question is if modern day nutrition in terms of amounts of protiens, vitamins and minerals is valid interms of actual muscle growth? as opposed to letting the body self generate:wink:

 

I've noticed that on cooked food my muscle growth has been pretty poor and that I've basically just been gaining wieght by swelling up on water and fats!

 

getting away from modern nutrition I've actually watched my swelling go down and be left so much smaller with my natural muscle and shape! I guess you would call this being ripped.

 

I believe that anyone can gain size eating cooked food but actual muscle growth is another story and the big guys you see are actually just swollen! but I could be completely wrong ! this is just my theory!

 

I think you need to look at how much size and strength can you gain on your current diet. It appears you gained the size and strength when you weren't on a RAW diet, and now are looking back saying I haven't lost much.

 

This is similar to arguments I've heard about protein consumption levels. To gain, it is a good idea to eat a relatively high amount of protein, but to maintain you don't need that much. It is still possible to gain on a lower protein diet, but the gains may not come as quickly and/or your recovery periods may last longer.

 

Also, I think it is relevant to consider that proper diet for an individual just trying to go about normal daily activities vs. a diet that is for an athlete or someone trying to cause some physical changes with themselves will vary widely. So given that we are all people trying to change our bodies in some sort of drastic manner, our diets will more likely need to have more precision than an 'average' individual.

 

Also, how are you getting away from modern nutrition? What do you consider "modern nutrition"? Would you consider a vegan diet to be part of "modern nutrition" if not, then is it really relevant that one non-modern nutrition diet is better or worse than another non-modern nutrition diet when discussing the "correctness" of modern nutrition?

 

Just my two cents (less),

 

Sensless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sensless, I've been working out for a long time and I've gone fruitarian before and lost my size and strength at the drop of a hat, so this isn't the first time I'm making this comparison and I'm not saying that I have not lost much infact what I'm saying is that I haven't really gained anything at all in terms of muscle growth! I just looked like I did because I was swollen (water retention) and bloated, by modern nutrition I mean the amounts of protiens, vitamins and minerals we are supposed to have and cooked food, I've expereinced the opposite to what mainstream dictates, I've found that I can do so much more on so little, I have much more energy and enjoy my training more so it just makes me question and I was wondering if anyone else was questioning also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sensless, I've been working out for a long time and I've gone fruitarian before and lost my size and strength at the drop of a hat, so this isn't the first time I'm making this comparison and I'm not saying that I have not lost much infact what I'm saying is that I haven't really gained anything at all in terms of muscle growth! I just looked like I did because I was swollen (water retention) and bloated, by modern nutrition I mean the amounts of protiens, vitamins and minerals we are supposed to have and cooked food, I've expereinced the opposite to what mainstream dictates, I've found that I can do so much more on so little, I have much more energy and enjoy my training more so it just makes me question and I was wondering if anyone else was questioning also.

 

To be honest, I don't know what the recommended amount of vitamins and minerals are per the FDA (in the US I guess that would be the "modern nutrition"). I think that any time a person makes a drastic change in their dietary habits, they should expect some drastic changes in the way they feel or look. It could be that your body has grown accustomed to the fruitarian diet, so that when you go back to cooked foods you have a transitionary period that could last several months. During this transitionary period is when the bloating and everything I'd guess is most likely to occur.

 

When I stopped eating meat, I went through several months of profuse sweating and weight loss. I could have viewed this as a bad sign, thinking that something was wrong, but instead I stuck it out and realized some of the benefits from the dietary change. Perhaps the bloating you experienced would subside after taking on the diet change for a long enough period of time. Also, if you have excessive bloating perhaps there was something specific in your new diet that caused this. I would assume that the fruitarian diet doesn't have much sodium in it, so that could be an easy explanation right there. Just a simple guess. It could also have to do with caloric intake, amount of fiber, etc.

 

I'm hesitant to simply disregard many decades of research because something works a bit differently for me than it might for someone else. I know that my body is quite different from VeganEssentials, but even with those differences we can still use the "modern nutrition" recommendations as a general guideline, or starting point, and then we adjust from there. I think that is what they are likely intended to be, instead of a hard and fast rule.

 

Regards,

 

Sensless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

 

Is all nutrition destined to be wrong? Possibly, because biologically, any diet that allows us to live to 25 years of age is successful. That is long enough to rear children and keep the species going. That is all biology requires to keep us going. So evolution is not going to wean us away if our diets make us die at say 40, 50, 60 etc. years of age.

 

What is optimal should be viewed differently. What diet would allow us to live, as most other mammals do, to 13 times our age of puberty (so about 150 to 175 years), in good active health? If most (I think almost all) mammals live to 13 times their age of puberty, why does man die at half his?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

 

Is all nutrition destined to be wrong? Possibly, because biologically, any diet that allows us to live to 25 years of age is successful. That is long enough to rear children and keep the species going. That is all biology requires to keep us going. So evolution is not going to wean us away if our diets make us die at say 40, 50, 60 etc. years of age.

 

What is optimal should be viewed differently. What diet would allow us to live, as most other mammals do, to 13 times our age of puberty (so about 150 to 175 years), in good active health? If most (I think almost all) mammals live to 13 times their age of puberty, why does man die at half his?

 

As a species our lifespan has been increasing, so perhaps we are moving closer to the 13X you are speaking of. I've never heard that ratio before, that is pretty interesting. I would like to look into that more closely to see how long it takes those mammals to reach puberty in comparison to how long they live, as well as the puberty age vs. death age. I'd assume that there may be some diminishing returns for the multiplier the longer it takes a species to reach puberty age. My sisters' hit puberty around 10-11, I hit puberty at 13-14, so I wonder if that gender difference in puberty age reached is a constant with other mammals. Of course, diet is only one thing to consider with quality and length of life, so other environmental factors need to be considered as well. Blast it all, now I will be distracted thinking about this at work today!

 

Regards,

 

Sensless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Senseless, here's an article that my explain the swollen thingy better than I did!

 

just remember I'm not debating diets here, I'm trying to highlight my own comparisons and theory between building muscle on raw and cooked foods, which it now seems I really have not done a good job of doing!

 

anyway hope the article makes sense buddy!

 

Now that I've gone raw, I'm so skinny

by Dr. Douglas N. Graham

 

Is raw really that different?

 

Americans generally have two features in common: they are overfat and

undermuscled. There are good reasons for both of these unhealthy

conditions. Going raw can help with both, but in both cases, going

raw is simply a start.

 

People are overfat because they consume more calories than they

burn. It is that simple, almost. They are also overweight because

they hold on to excess water. In the body, the solution to pollution

is dilution. One method of coping with those toxins that are more

than the body can eliminate is to dilute them in water and store

them. This excess water weight is easily lost, and is not the issue

of this article.

 

Overfat people usually tell me that they "don't eat that much,

really." They are probably telling the truth, when it comes to the

actual volume of food they consume. The SAD has three main features

that make it easily recognizable: low water, low fiber, and high

fat. Each of these three features reduce the total volume of food

while increasing the number of calories per bite. It therefore takes

very little food volume to provide more than enough calories for the

day, hence people gain, on average, a few pounds every year.

 

The SAD, vegetarian, vegan and most raw diets tend to have these same

three features in common: low water, low fiber and high fat. As raw

fooders we find a meal of fruit unsatisfactory because we are hungry

soon after consuming it. This is no fault of the fruit. Any meal

where insufficient calories are consumed will leave the eater hungry

soon thereafter. We have shrunk our stomachs to the point of

deformity through the continual consumption of concentrated

foodstuffs. By removing the fiber (juicing), by removing the water

(cooking or dehydrating), and by increasing the fat levels above 10%

of total calories consumed (cooked or raw, plant or animal, fat is

fat), we mimic the SAD with many of our raw food dishes. This is

surely an unhealthy practice. Both water and fiber are essential

nutrients. Therefore removing them from our food must be to our

detriment. All health experts worldwide agree that we must make

dramatic decreases in our fat consumption if we ever hope to achieve

health.

 

The solution to the shrunken stomach problem is to eat more volume of

fruit, but this takes practice and determination. It requires,

essentially, that you go on a flexibility training program for your

stomach, allowing it to enlarge to the point of being able to

comfortably accommodate the food volume required for a proper meal of

fruit. Most folks find that within a few months they can easily

double and often triple the total amount of fruit they can consume at

a meal, without consuming anywhere near as many calories as they used

to consume from more calorically concentrated sources.

 

We go on the raw food diet and lose weight like champions. This is a

mixed blessing. Most of us have weight to lose and are pleased at

the initial weight loss. However, if we are losing weight

consistently and dramatically we must be drastically under consuming

calories. At some point we must learn to eat enough volume of raw

foods to satisfy our caloric demands, else we fail as raw fooders.

Unfortunately, this form of failure on raw foods happens all too

frequently. Usually, we blame the addictiveness of cooked food or

our own weaknesses rather than acknowledging that we were eating a

nutritionally unbalanced and unsustainable raw food diet. Along the

way, various unhealthy habits can develop such as overeating of fatty

foods, occasional bingeing on cooked foods, relying on refined and

concentrated food sources, and the sedentary lifestyle that often

accompanies the malnourished state.

 

We are crippling ourselves

 

Labor saving devices have become the standard in America. Shopping

carts, rolling luggage, moving stairways, vacuum cleaners, automatic

doors, household conveniences such as automatic hot water; we use

these things without giving them a second thought. Even our labor

saving devices often have labor saving devices. (Ex. - Power

windows, steering and brakes for our cars, remote controls for

television, sit down lawn mowers, battery powered toothbrushes and

screwdrivers). Using them has had disastrous effects upon our

fitness. Never before in history have we, as a people, been so

unfit, overfat, or unhealthy. In both test case and real life

scenarios we have found that a significant percentage of our

population is too unfit to make it down a few dozen flights of

stairs, even if it means saving their own life.

 

The inertia of the sedentary lifestyle must be overcome if we hope to

achieve better health through raw living than that which we brought

to it. Losing excess fat certainly is a step in the right

direction. Eating foods that require less fuel for the digestive

process frees up more fuel to use for activity. Still, I am asked

all the time, "what do I eat to gain weight?"

 

After discerning that the requested weight gain is not to be in the

form of fat or water, the question is refined to, "what do I eat to

gain muscle?" The answer is, "There is no food that will cause one

to gain muscle. This can only be achieved by performing the

appropriate strength demanding activities". Unless demands are

placed upon the muscles, the brain will perceive no reason to direct

growth of the muscles and the muscles will likewise acquire no

reason to hypertrophy.

 

"I went raw but I got so skinny that I went back to eating cooked", I

hear again and again. I can only reply that most people are skinny,

they just hide that fact under a substantial layer of fat. We have

become used to seeing fat people, they are the norm. So used to it,

in fact, that people who are not fat look abnormal to us. They look

too skinny. Though for my height I am absolutely a normal weight

(5'10", 150 pounds) I have been told that I am "thin, skinny, too

trim" and once even, "emaciated". (This last by a man 5'10", 300

pounds).

 

We know the shape that we think humans should be, what appears to us

as "normal". The undiscerning eye usually does not differentiate

between a person with a low degree of musculature whose body fat

levels are double or triple normal from one with adequate muscular

development whose body fat level is healthy. They look basically

similar, especially when they are inactive and even more so in street

clothing. The telltale indicators of low fat with muscular

development; well defined vascularity and the shredded or ripped look

to the musculature, are simply not noticed or even visible until

bodies go into action.

 

Muscular development takes time. It is rare for a body builder to

gain more than one pound of muscle in a month. By the same token,

barring a total cessation of physical activity, muscular loss of size

also is a slow process. Of the three caloronutrients: carbohydrate,

fat and protein, the body will always use carbohydrate and fat before

consuming protein for fuel. Hence, when we switch our diet to raw,

the likelihood that the body will consume its own muscle tissue for

fuel is practically zero. At least, that is, until starvation is

initiated, which is not until all available carbohydrate and fat

sources have been utilized. When people say to me that they got so

skinny on the raw food diet, I can only smile and say, "You have

probably always been skinny, you just couldn't tell because you were

fat, too. Congratulations on losing the fat, for it was only then

that you noticed how undermuscled you are."

 

If you do what everyone else does, you will get what everyone else

gets. For uncommonly healthy results, one must be willing to live an

uncommonly healthy life. Anyone who puts in the effort involved in

building muscle will see the muscular development and will reap the

concomitant rewards. This can be done in various ways and will be a

focus of a future article: Four methods of increasing strength

related performance.

 

In health abundance naturally,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there's too much worth replying to here. Just a few things:

1. I think science certainly has not figured out all the answers yet. They really don't know the exact amount of nutrients, protein etc a person needs and I'm not too sure they're even very close. And of course they disagree with each other too. Just as a person will absorb more nonheme iron when also eating vitamin C, there may be things that add/hamper absorption of protein, etc, etc. Anyway, the best science doesn't really recommend much protein. They usually just add a safety factor of two to be safe and so the average 150 man supposedly needs 65 or so grams of protein and thats with the safety factor so it's really not even 40 grams. And then there's conflicting info on whether or not people training actually need more. And I think the science hasn't scratched the surface yet, as it's apparent that 10 times that protein amount does still result in some (small) additional strength gains. Yet science has not found any quantifiable test to understand this.

 

2. I don't think the age a species reproduces has any set correlation to how long they should live. Such things are just mutations/natural selection. Rats, mice, rabbits can reproduce real quick because rabbits, rats, mice that didn't weren't able to propagate themselves. Humans who reproduce slower were still able to reproduce as their intelligence has been far more important to their survival than just reproducing like crazy.

 

3. I think maybe there's a lot more to getting anti-oxidants in a diet for increasing strength..... Recuperating for the next workout, etc.

 

I'm very interested in getting more fruits in my diet. But all that sugar really can be potentially bad. Diabetes from OJ. Problems with teeth and gums..... I'm looking more at berries primarily for increasing anti-oxidants in my diet.

 

Also we have stores of nutrients that can last for quite a while. I wonder if not eating anything green on a fruitarian diet is really healthy? Maybe all those fruits greatly reduce the daily requirements of other nutrients? I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Senseless, here's an article that my explain the swollen thingy better than I did!

 

"I went raw but I got so skinny that I went back to eating cooked", I

hear again and again. I can only reply that most people are skinny,

they just hide that fact under a substantial layer of fat. We have

become used to seeing fat people, they are the norm. So used to it,

in fact, that people who are not fat look abnormal to us. They look

too skinny. Though for my height I am absolutely a normal weight

(5'10", 150 pounds) I have been told that I am "thin, skinny, too

trim" and once even, "emaciated". (This last by a man 5'10", 300

pounds).

 

We know the shape that we think humans should be, what appears to us

as "normal". The undiscerning eye usually does not differentiate

between a person with a low degree of musculature whose body fat

levels are double or triple normal from one with adequate muscular

development whose body fat level is healthy. They look basically

similar, especially when they are inactive and even more so in street

clothing. The telltale indicators of low fat with muscular

development; well defined vascularity and the shredded or ripped look

to the musculature, are simply not noticed or even visible until

bodies go into action.

 

very true. You can relate that to the saying right below

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm very interested in getting more fruits in my diet. But all that sugar really can be potentially bad. Diabetes from OJ.

 

I see this expressed often but is it true, or just popular opinion?

 

 

I find no link to sugar causing diabetes, at least I have never seen any medical research stating that. If you have some please share, as I really want to know.

 

The relationship is likely more a 'I see smoke when there is fire so smoke causes fire' association.

 

With type II diabetes, your body does not utilize insulin well. Insulin is needed to pass sugar into cells to metabolizes energy or store as fat. But all food (protein, fat and carbohydrates) turns into sugar for the body to utilize. So fructose and other sugars are not just sugar but all food we eat becomes sugar.

 

The danger with high sugar foods like fruit with fructose, as far as diabetic problems is that those carbohydrates become glucose, in the blood, very quickly. So if you eat 50 grams of high fructose carbohydrates, it will turn into glucose very rapidly and enter the blood at once, therefore causing a hard job for a diabetic person to process. This is opposed to if you ate 50 grams of more complex carbohydrates that took longer to digest and therefore supplied the same amount of glucose but at a more steady rate, therefore easier for a diabetic person to manage.

 

But from that scenario of simplex sugars being harder to manage, I think it is a poplar jump to then make a connection that simple sugar foods cause diabetes. There are many medical studies suggesting that high fat, calorie dense diets cause type II diabetes. These studies range from the numerous studies that show rural third world country people, that traditionally eat high starch diets (another taboo opined to cause diabetes), with little animal foods, have little to no cases of diabetes and they then migrate to urban areas and adopt calorie dense, animal food based diets and shortly develop diabetes in the same percentage as most Western people, to some studies showing that high starch carbohydrate diets lessen the disease in already diabetic people (a recent study at the Kansas or Kentucky - it had a K - medical school had 75% of the studied pool of diabetics completely stop taking medication and the other 25% severely reduce medication, from adopting a high starch, low fat diet.)

 

Some doctors believe many cases of type II diabetes are do to natural processes, in our bodies, designed to stop the body from growing too much. Hypothesis or maybe it is a theory now: the body naturally hits a point where it knows it is receiving too many calories to store as fat and basically retards the process, becoming more insulin resistant (in other words, diabetic) and spills the extra sugar out in urine versus absorbing it. If it were not for diabetes, many people might be the size of small cars (many of the super obese people - like 800+ pounds are likely very resistant to diabetes and that is why they were able to become so huge, while diabetics, eating the same calories, just pass the extra calories as sugar in their urine.)

 

Also, this scenario (body turns diabetic to stop growing) is also where the exercise angle, a popular method of diabetic prevention and maintenance, probably comes into play. Exercising tends to make the body more hungry for fuel, so therefore a tendency to become less resistant (non-diabetic) to insulin, with the cells wanting the insulin to transport the sugar to them.

 

Here is a good read on diabetes, with many footnotes to medical studies:

 

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/040200pudiabetes.htm (if problem with that link see story on: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/040200.htm )

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...