Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by damdaman

  1. The only thing that can match the "zealotry" and "anti-science" bias of some raw-foodists is the zealotry and anti-science bias of some anti-raw-foodists.


    I disagree. People who argue against raw foodism usually quote facts long established by medical science. I have a hard time calling people who talk facts, zealots.


    And here is exactly where you go wrong. You are basically saying "if the science agrees with my opinion, it is a 'fact long established by medical science. if the science disagrees with my opinion, it is pseudo-science.'" You aren't even considering the very likely option that you may be wrong in this matter, and if "experts" that have "scientific credentials" that you approve of write a book that disagrees with your OPINION, they must have drank the kool-aid, so to speak.


    The reality is that the scientific method is great not because it establishes irrefutable fact, but precisely because it DOESN'T. It is the realm of religion, devotion, and zealotry to claim that something is irrefutable fact. Science by it's very nature evolves, changes with new information, and can admit when it's wrong, and it is usually wrong. My partner (who has a masters degree in environmental science) likes to say "Science never proves anything, it can only disprove something."


    There is a great article in the most recent Discover magazine about the "streetlight effect," where researchers tend to look for answers where the looking is good, rather than where the answer may be. I can't do the article justice, but there are a few notable quotes that illustrate my point. I do urge you to pick up the issue and turn to page 55. I think reading the article will do wonders to change your opinion on what constitutes "facts established by medical science."


    In the meantime, here are some notable quotes from the article:


    In 2005, Joan Ioannidis of the University of Ioannina in Greece examined the 45 most prominent studies published since 1990 in the top medical journals and found that about one-third of them were ultimately refuted. If one were to look at all medical studies, it would be more like two-thirds, he says. And for some kinds of leading-edge studies ... wrongness infects 90 percent or more.


    We should fully expect scientific theories to frequently butt heads and to wind up being disproved sometimes as researchers grope their way toward the truth. That is the scientific process: Generate ideas, test them, discard the flimsy, repeat.




    I have spent the past three years examining why expert pronouncements so often turn out to be exaggerated, misleading, or flat-out wrong. There are several good reasons why that happens, and one of them is that scientists are not as good at making trustworthy measurements as we give them credit for. It's not that they are mostly incompetents or cheats. Well, some of them are: In several confidential surveys spanning different fields, anywhere from 10 to 50 perfect of scientists have confessed to perpetrating or being aware of some sort of research misbehavior. And numerous studies have highlighted remarkably lax supervision of research assistants and technicians.




    Patient recruitment is an enormous problem in many medical studies, and researchers often end up paying for the participation of students, poor people, drug abusers, the homeless, illegal immigrants, and others who may not adequately represent the population in terms of health or lifestyle.




    Contrary to the proclamations of many scientists, unreliable medical study results do not disappear with large, randomized controlled trials, in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment or placebo group. Such trials are more reliable in some ways, but they do not necessary address the streetlight effect, and they are frequently refuted by other, similar trials.


    The article ends on a rather amusing self-deprecating note that illustrates my point:


    How are we supposed to cope with all this wrongness? Well, a good start would be to remain skeptical about the great majority of what you find in research journals and pretty much all of the fascinating, news-making findings you read about in the mainstream media, which tends to magnify the problems. (Except you can trust DISCOVER, naturally. And believe me, there is no way THIS article is wrong, either. After all, everything in it is backed by scientific studies.)


    Maybe we should just keep in mind what that Einstein fellow - you know, the one who messed up that electron experiment - had to say on the subject: "If we know what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"


    So again, I simply say that the research that agrees with your opinion is the research you call "established medical fact," and the research that disagrees with your opinion (or the experts), are written off. That is zealotry, not science. Science knows that it can be wrong, and most of the time, it is proved wrong when new information comes to light.


    Damdaman, since you are into raw foodism why don't you read Brenda Davis' book and post a review here for the rest of us?


    I'm not "into raw foodism," that is what is called a straw-man argument. I eat mostly cooked foods. But I find it a little tiring watching the bullying that sometimes goes on in vegan circles lately. It also drives me nuts the misunderstanding of the scientific method and the claims that "the scientific facts are this" when that is not how science works. You have an opinion, and you pick and choose which science to believe based on that opinion.


    I think a far better idea for advancing this topic beyond what it has devolved into over the past couple years would be for YOU to read the book with an open mind that there is no black-and-white answer here and see what the authors have to say for yourself.


    The only thing that can match the "zealotry" and "anti-science" bias of some raw-foodists is the zealotry and anti-science bias of some anti-raw-foodists.


    Raw foods can be great, and I certainly feel better when I include more salads, nuts, and seeds in my diet. There's no one answer here folks, if people do well on a raw diet, there's no need to hate on them. There are plenty of examples of healthy vegan athletes who are raw or mostly raw, Brendan Brazier comes to mind.


    If it doesn't work for you, don't do it, but the venom is unnecessary. Live and let live.

  3. It takes more than a week or two for your body to adjust to a new diet, and any time you drastically change your diet away from whatever it is that your body is accustomed to, you're going to feel bad in the short-term as your body tries to adapt.


    Stick it out, and make changes gradually. Instead of going "cold turkey" just cut down on the animal products little by little for a couple weeks until they're almost gone. Then cut them out entirely. Give it 3 months. You'll feel better.

  4. Why would it be dangerous? It's possibly the MOST natural and non-intrusive way to modify food. I've been doing it for years. Nothing beats fresh homegrown sprouts!


    on edit: I'm guessing you're referring to the reputation that sprouts have for carrying e. coli. This is really only a problem in commercial sprouts, not homegrown sprouts, and is just a sanitation issue no different from how spinach and other raw foods get contaminated from poor processing practices. Get some seeds, soak them overnight, then rinse them in a jar twice a day and keep them in the dark for 5 days, then let them turn green by putting them in the light before refrigerating them. That's all there is to it and as long as you wash your hands there will be no e. coli.

  5. Organic food bar... highest quality and takes zero preparation. I always keep a supply on hand for quick energy/nutrition. IMO the best one in terms of taste and nutrition is the Active Greens variety:




    Organic Almond Butter, Organic Dates, Organic Premium Blue Agave Nectar, Organic Brown Rice Protein, Organic BiodynamicTM (Demeter) Raisins, Organic Bio SproutsTM – Flax, Organic Bio SproutsTM – Quinoa, Organic Wheat Grass Juice Powder, Organic Barley Grass Juice Powder, Organic Sesame Seeds, Organic Spirulina, Organic Blueberry, Organic Raspberry, Organic Broccoli Sprouts, Organic Beet Juice, Organic Carrot Juice and Lots of Love!


    Nutrition Facts

    Serving size: one bar (68g)

    Amount/serving % DV*

    Total Fat 13g 20%

    Saturated fat 1.5g 7%

    Total Carbohydrate 34g 12%

    Total Dietary Fiber 7g 28%

    Trans Fatty Acids 0g

    Sugars 22g

    Cholesterol 0 mg 0%

    Protein 12g

    Sodium 5 mg 0%

    Calories 300

    Fat Calories 120


    Vitamin A 0% • Vitamin C 0% • Calcium 10% • Iron 15%

    * Percent Daily Values (DV) are based on a 2000 calorie diet



    90% Raw

    Alkaline Forming

    12g Organic Protein

    No Trans Fats

    No Refined Sugars

    Over 4000 mg. Phytonutrient Rich Superfoods

    Healthy Lunch Alternative



  6. A couple months ago I decided to rework my squat and essentially start over. I realized I wasn't going to parallel and my form generally sucked. So I dropped down to 95lbs and started doing 5x5 sets 2 times a week, increasing the weight whenever I could complete 5x5 going all the way down, till I'm in a full squat, "ass-to-grass." This is significantly lower than parallel, and the results have been positive in terms of strength gains I've made (up to 115lbs currently) and I like knowing that I'm hitting as much range of motion as I can (I train martial arts and leg strength in weird positions is crucial when you find yourself in certain sticky situations).


    Anyway, about the knees... I don't feel any pain or discomfort when squatting this deep, but I do hear a little weird "clicky" noise in my right knee. Sometimes the day after my right knee feels a little off, not painful, just off. It's so subtle I'm half-sure it's just in my head and I hear that clicking and I'm assuming something's wrong with my right knee, or I subconsciously compensate weird when doing the squats and this makes the knee feel different than the left the next day.


    So my question is, is it not a good idea to squat so low in general? If it is ok to squat that low with healthy joints, should I start doing them a little higher, like right about before I hear that clicky noise? Or am I just crazy? Any thoughts?



  7. Ok so this is a diet related set of questions, so if in wrong place, moderator feel free to move it.




    a.What is morally wrong with eating eggs from the farm across the road who feed their chickens totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.


    If it is a FARM across the road, and not a FARM SANCTUARY, then the moral objection comes in that farms will kill chickens for food when they are no longer "productive." Also where do they get their chickens? Chick-breeding facilities will save female chicks to sell to egg producers, and "throw away" the males to suffocate to death in huge piles.


    I see little to no moral dilemma with rescuing chickens and providing them a home where they can live out their NATURAL lives in peace, and eating any eggs that are produced.


    I think though you also have to consider the moral implications of resorting to such measures though. The fact is that we don't need eggs to be healthy, so why would we want to muddy the waters and give those annoying people who are looking for a whole in our argument something to grasp on to? Just don't eat eggs.


    b.Also are there any arguments against the health benefits of eggs when eaten.


    They are high in cholesterol and fat. Plus it's just not necessary.




    a.What is morally wrong with eating milk or cheese from the farm across the road who feed their cows totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.


    The same reasons apply from above (they are killed when no longer "productive"), but even more so, because for cows to produce milk they must be forcibly impregnated. What happens to the calf? Used for veal if male, or raised to be another dairy cow if female. Either way the calf has to be traumatically separated from the mother so that the farmer can steal her milk, which she produced for the calf.


    3.Does anyone have any moral objection to the idea of eating meat from an animal that has just died of natural causes?


    In the same sense that it is unnecessary, and thus would give anti-vegan diehards a reason to continue arguing against going vegan. This leads to less people making the leap and more animals being killed. It's more effective as agents of change for us to just not do it, thus proving to the doubters that you can be strong and healthy on a vegan diet, thus leading to more people giving up animal products, thus leading to fewer animals being killed.


    You could also argue that since you'd be harming your own body by eating that dead animal, it is therefore immoral, but that's a little straight-edge.


    Ultimately these kind of hypotheticals do little to further the discussion of what we're going to do as a society about this problem, and are usually only used by those above-mentioned anti-vegan diehards to try and poke ridiculous holes in our argument. I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, just that that is usually the case.

  8. I agree, you don't necessarily need protein powders. Eat lots of whole, healthy foods and you'll be fine, just increase the amount of food you're eating.


    If you're going to start lifting weights, I would recommend doing only 3 exercises for 3 sets each. Start out using just the bar, and slowly add weight if you can do more than 8 reps for 3 sets. Squat, flat bench press, and pull-ups/chin-ups are all you'll need as a beginner to put on a lot of muscle. If you wanted you could include a shoulder press as well. Give yourself 1-3 minutes rest between each set. So the program would look like this:


    squat 3x8

    pull-ups 3x8

    bench press 3x8


    do this monday/wednesday/friday, eat lots of whole foods, and get lots of sleep and you'll be pleased with the results. Also shouldn't take more than about 30-40 minutes to do this workout.

  9. I thought he was done, personally, but apparently he's on the prelim for UFC 109.




    Danzig (18-7-1 MMA, 2-3 UFC) finds himself in a must-win situation following his recent string of losses to Clay Guida, Josh Neer and Jim Miller. The former King of the Cage champion defeated Tommy Speer for the "The Ultimate Fighter 6" crown and then submitted Mark Bocek before the recent losing skid.


    His opponent, Buchholz (8-4 MMA, 1-3 UFC), also desperately needs a victory. The one-time EliteXC fighter debuted with the UFC in 2008 and was submitted by Matt Wiman. Although he rebounded for a submission win over Corey Hill, he's since suffered stoppage losses to Terry Etim and Jeremy Stephens to drop to 1-3 in the UFC.

  10. Soy is only a problem for your thyroid if you have an existing thyroid problem, in which case it MAY make it worse. It will not harm healthy thyroids. As for estrogen in soy, I don't believe a there's ever been a single study that showed that people who eat soy regularly have lower testosterone.


    Stick to reasonable amounts of tofu and you'll be fine.


    Like others said, this topic has been covered many times in the "Health/Nutrition Programs" part of this site... http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=6

  11. I think the most important items for him to find can be found in any small town. These would include fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh greens and fresh seeds and nuts. All are nutritionally packed, easily digested (so you can eat them constantly, rather than having to wait an hour to work out after eating), and readily available even in small towns. He may have to eat more often, but he can do it. If he's able to access fresh fruits and vegetables + trail mix at a local grocery store or farmer's market, that is a lot of power-packed nutrition to complement the (probably crappy) MREs.


    It is actually amazing how much energy you have left to burn working out when you eat these kinds of fresh foods, which are also easier to lose weight on, rather than consuming massive amounts of calories for fuel, which also require lots of energy to digest and assimilate and can stress your body out, leading to fat retention.


    A couple pieces of fruit in the morning gets your metabolism going, a salad + MRE for lunch perhaps, with trail mix snacked on throughout the afternoon before a dinner of vegetables + MRE doesn't sound half bad to me. You don't need expensive protein shakes or tofu to keep the activity level up if you eat plenty of fresh, whole food.

  12. Macs have nothing to do with anything. Nor does anyones computer. It's a server-side issue.

    And for the record, macs are a bit of a joke.



    Why are Macs a bit of a joke?


    Well, I mean, it's a product that preys on the ignorance of consumers for the most part. It's a ripoff in short. I always feel bad for people who buy them, most of them simply don't know better. Apple has some illegal business practices anyhow, that have been brought to court but alas they have enough money to drive anyone into bankruptcy before anything can be made of it...


    I could get specific if you'd like, but for now I'll give a quick example and hope it's enough. My friend bought a mac latop. Cost $2,200. I bought an Asus laptop, cost $1,200. Mine is better than his. The kicker? Asus makes the Mac Powerbook. Our laptops came out of the same factory. But because Apple slapped their logo on his, he payed twice as much for an inferior product.


    You gotta be kidding me. I've been programming computers since people were excited to get their hands on a 2400 baud modem. I used to build my own PCs cuz it was easier and cheaper than buying them. So I'm anything but an ignorant consumer, and I love my Mac.


    Ever since Mac went Unix-based they've been amazing, especially for programming. I'd never sit down and try and write PHP or C code on a Windows PC, but I can code all day long on unix-based OS X. And I don't need to worry about the endless hassles having a windows PC creates. The wasted frustrated hours trying to fix a driver incompatibility or figure out why a certain device just doesn't work anymore. My computer actually works and does what it should. That was quite a weird feeling after decades of using windows, and quite a relief.


    But nothing like a Mac-vs-PC argument to get pointless fast.

  13. Getting knocked out is a really confusing experience and that's actually a pretty tame reaction. I've seen fighters get up and go after people full force. You're so amp'd up before the fight and the adrenaline is rushing and your brain and body are in fight mode, and then you get knocked out, and you don't remember getting hit. All you know is every instinct is yelling at you that you're in a fight and you need to fight back, so you react based on those instincts, and because you have no recollection of being knocked out (you are, after all, unconscious), it's very normal to believe that the fight is still going.

  14. Search queries are expensive resource hogs on the database, so the software is set up to limit you from searching too frequently or it could crash the database and/or bring the site to a crawl. I'm guessing these features require expensive searches to be performed and so if you click it repeatedly the software stops the search to prevent people from intentionally (or unintentionally) crashing the database.

  15. Yes, this is a subject of concern for me as well. I have been training in Karate for a couple years and excelled in this speed and precision based art. I have recently started training in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, were technique is primary but power is a close second. My trainer (Brazilians - they each eat like 4 cows a year ) says that he has rolled with vegetarians and they are not as strong!!! What do I do!!??? I wanna prove it to him that vegetarians can be as strong!! I have a lot of strength and muscle now, but I want to step it up so I can throw around those bigger girls and show my trainer what us veggies got!! Need to increase explosive power.

    Im good on the training, any nutrition advice is appreciated. Thanks!!!


    In my opinion, there's not really any secret here... eat a lot of fresh vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, whole grains, and tofu/tempeh. Throw in a protein smoothie if you feel you want extra protein (frozen berries, rice milk, hemp protein powder, flax oil in a blender). Make sure you're eating enough of these to provide plenty of energy and protein and you'll be supporting your training.


    But building explosive power, for instance, is done with training not with nutrition (at least, again, as long as you're eating enough in the first place). Power lifting, kettlebells, medicine ball circuit training are all good at building explosive power and developing the fast-twitch muscles, rather than just the large muscles. I also would recommend doing regular yoga/pilates. You develop a very powerful kind of strength and balance from these practices that you don't get from traditional weights. The hardest guy to sweep I ever worked with wasn't the biggest, but was a pilates instructor.


    Train harder, and just make sure you're eating enough real food to refuel.

  16. Sounds like you're on the right track. I train martial arts 2 - 4 days a week, jogging a couple times a week, and weights 1 - 2 times a week. I like to make sure the day after the weights is my rest day. So my week usually looks something like this:


    sunday: ma

    monday: jogging/calisthenics

    tuesday: ma

    wednesday: ma/core workout

    thursday: jogging/calisthenics

    friday: heavy weights

    saturday: rest


    I've found that trying to work in more than one heavy session per week makes it difficult to keep training ma as much as I would like, and since I'm not trying to get huge (just trying to build general strength), once a week seems like plenty to me, and I've definitely been noticing results.


    My method is to focus on 6 compound lifts for 5x5, adding weight the next session when I can do the full 25 reps. I do squat, flat bench press, dead lift, pull ups/lat pull down, arnold press, and machine leg press. If I have time/energy after those, I'll do a little bit of curls, tricep extentions, upright rows, etc (more isolation stuff).


    But I encourage you to experiment and find what works for you. As for nutrition, just eat a lot of whole foods, drink tons of water, and get lots of sleep. Tea is better than coffee in the morning and I like to make myself eat a few pieces of fruit before the morning tea/coffee as if I don't I'll just skip breakfast. But there's no "trick" here other than eat your fruits and veggies, and eat a LOT of them.

  17. Here is the study that found that nuns who had been strict vegans their whole life and consumed roughly 37% of the "recommended" level of calcium had just as strong bones as omni women who ate large amounts of calcium. Not surprisingly, their protein intake was also lower, which may account for less calcium loss.




    Vegetarians have been delivered some "very good news" in an Australian study of a group of strict vegan Buddhist nuns.


    Bone density among the 105 nuns, who live in temples and monasteries across Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City, was found to be the same as non-vegetarian women matched in every physical respect.




    The study found the nun's calcium intake was very low, only about 370mg a day while the recommended level was 1,000 mg.


    Their protein intake was also very low at around 35g a day, compared with the non-vegetarian group, which was 65g.


    In fact, looking over both the article used to start this thread and the article I just linked to, it would appear that both are based on the same study. How is this possible when the USA Today article claims the study found that "vegans had less dense bones than omnivores." and the original AP article said "Bone density among [vegan women] was found to be the same as non-vegetarian women"...? Maybe the next sentence of the original article, "...matched in every physical respect." has something to do with it? Is the USA Today article not taking into account all the other factors relating to bone health, and making a broad claim based on bad methodology?


    The AP article goes on to quote the actual researchers involved, while this USA Today piece simply states their interpretation of the study without providing any backup. They go on to quote some random vegan dietician not involved in the study at all, while the researcher who was actually involved in the study was quoted in the AP article as saying...


    "We showed that although the vegans studied do indeed have lower protein and calcium intakes, their bone density is virtually identical to that of people who eat a wide variety of foods, including animal protein," Professor Nguyen says.


    ...so assuming that both of these articles are based on the same study (assumed based on the USA Today's and the AP's reference to Australian and Vietnamese researchers), one is vaguely anti-vegan and doesn't provide much information other than a particular interpretation of the results, and the other provides a lot of information about the study and actually quotes one of the authors of the study and claims that the study shows that the vegans had the same bone density as omnis.


    Just goes to show you how easily studies can be twisted to fit an agenda, and how easily people buy into a particular line of thought just because it appears in a mainstream publication and there are some random experts quoted in it.

  18. Here is the study that found that nuns who had been strict vegans their whole life and consumed roughly 37% of the "recommended" level of calcium had just as strong bones as omni women who ate large amounts of calcium. Not surprisingly, their protein intake was also lower, which may account for less calcium loss.




    Vegetarians have been delivered some "very good news" in an Australian study of a group of strict vegan Buddhist nuns.


    Bone density among the 105 nuns, who live in temples and monasteries across Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City, was found to be the same as non-vegetarian women matched in every physical respect.




    The study found the nun's calcium intake was very low, only about 370mg a day while the recommended level was 1,000 mg.


    Their protein intake was also very low at around 35g a day, compared with the non-vegetarian group, which was 65g.

  19. There's no causation between high intake of calcium and and lower incidence of bone fractures.


    I think this is an important thing to recognize here. It seems to me that the bone health of most people (vegan or not) has more to do with other factors, such as lack of exercise, intake of phosphates (soda pop), and an unbalanced diet that leads to unbalanced pH rather than raw amount of calcium intake. In fact, recently there was a study I read (I believe linked to on this site) that found that a group of vegan women studied, while consuming less calcium than their typical omni counterparts, still had equal or greater bone density. There are an estimated 75 million osteoporosis patients in the USA, Europe and Japan. How many of them are vegan? How many of them probably consume large amounts of calcium at the behest of their doctors, or drank milk their whole lives?


    I also think it's folly to assume that someone is more or less right simply because they have letters after their names or hold a degree. Being "educated" doesn't make you right, being right makes you right. Many "experts" in literally every field of science have been wrong. I think we should all think for ourselves and not arrogantly suggest that because someone is an "expert" or "has a degree" that they're automatically right. That goes for doctors and experts and dieticians and nutritionists that are anti-vegan, and those who are vegan. Even well-intentioned "experts" can be wrong.


    I've been vegan for 7 years. I do not supplement with calcium, magnesium or vitamin D. I eat broccoli, spinach and tofu nearly every day. My bones are strong, and I've been to the doctor to have this confirmed. In fact, when I did break a bone (I train martial arts, broken bones in my school are not uncommon), it healed faster than the orthopedic surgeon expected - he was constantly commenting on the unexpected progress.


    I'll trust my own experiences and common sense on this one.

  20. Sorry if I missed a discussion about this & feel free to point me to the relevant topic here but: why "aryan"?


    Why not?


    This is completely off topic, but as I love talking about myself, I'll answer anyway. This is the name I use on all Internet forums. It is designed so that people of a certain belief system will be able to recognize me as one of their own. If you don't already know what it means then it is not relevant to you.


    So you're either a) a racist or b) some idiot pretending to be a racist in order to make people on this site look bad. I'm guessing the latter, based on your ridiculously obvious attempt in the General Fitness forum to get "we vegans" to admit we think we're better than everyone else. It's kinda sad that you don't have a better way to spend your time, but that's your loss I suppose.


    Anyway, I've reported you to the site administrators and I trust they'll take appropriate action.

  • Create New...