149 replies to this topic

[Antonio2014]

Breakfast: churros (125 g) and a glass of milk (250 cc).

 

Lunch: scrambled eggs with tomatoes (2-3 eggs, tomatoes, onions, green peppers, olive oil, sugar and salt) with some bread, red wine with soda (250 cc), and cantaloupe for dessert.

 

Dinner (planned): fried flounders (3-4 fishes), some bread, and figs for dessert (4-5 figs). And maybe some milk before going to bed.

Edited by Antonio2014, 12 August 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[TheFountain]

 

You seem to have the impression that i eat a huge amount of protein, i would hardly classify 130g of protein as an excessive amount.

I tend to focus moreso on my micronutrient's (like nutrient interactions and lesser known trace minerals), useful suppliments and my general lifestyle then on my macro's in any case.

I'm also lucky enough to have access to organic pastured meat in an area that im pretty sure is low in dioxins, i also marinate my meat to reduce cooking carcinogens and i eat it medium rare/medium.

I do have one last question though, i was aware of the IGF-1 reduction from intermittent fasting but i was wondering if you knew whether it was only during the actual fasting period or continuous throughout the day.

Just in case i can use this to get slightly better effects by timing my workouts. :]

 

130 g is an excessive amount for anybody, even for a 300 lb beefcake. The high protein group in the study by Levine et al. (75% higher all-cause mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality compared to the low protein group), consumed an average of 24% protein of a 1600 kcal diet, which is less than 100 g of protein. Given that 10% is more than sufficient to maintain and gain muscle mass (the low protein group consumed an average of 8.5%), I would cosider anything above 15 % (the overall and medium protein group average) excessive.

 

The IGF-1 lowering effect of regular intermittent fasting indeed seems to sustain even through the ad libitum periods. Hence my remark that it doesn't make much sense to boost IGF-1 by consuming excessive amounts of protein and then engage in intermittent fasting to get it down again to a healthy (albeit less anabolic) level, where it could have been in the first place by consuming less animal protein.

 

1600 kcal diet? 

 

That confounds the results. It could be CR that is the culprit!

[timar]

1600 kcal diet? 

 

That confounds the results. It could be CR that is the culprit!

 

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Do you really suggest a team of proficient scientists would make a stupid omission like that, and even assumed they would, that it would pass peer review in a high impact journal like Cell? Come on... I'm getting tired of that impudent attitude so prevalent in low-carb and vegan circles: People with poor understanding of nutritional science - or scientific research at all - but an exorbitant personal and ideological bias towards nutrition almost instantanously come up with naive and misguided "explanations" why studies that contradict their cherished preconceptions have to be in error - often quite obviously without having even bothered to read them - and thereby dismiss years of diligent research by professional scientists.

 

1600 kcal is about the avarage for all three tertitiles. If there is underreporting of calories in the cohort data analyzed by Levine et. al. it is evenly  spread across the tertiles and does not confound the results. Bear in mind that it is an elderly, mixed gender collective. Caloric intake drops significantly with old age.

Edited by timar, 03 November 2015 - 08:51 PM.

[TheFountain]

 

1600 kcal diet? 

 

That confounds the results. It could be CR that is the culprit!

 

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Do you really suggest a team of proficient scientists would make a stupid omission like that, and even assumed they would, that it would pass peer review in a high impact journal like Cell? Come on... I'm getting tired of that impudent attitude so prevalent in low-carb and vegan circles: People with poor understanding of nutritional science - or scientific research at all - but an exorbitant personal and ideological bias towards nutrition almost instantanously come up with naive and misguided "explanations" why studies that contradict their cherished preconceptions have to be in error - often quite obviously without having even bothered to read them - and thereby dismiss years of diligent research by professional scientists.

 

1600 kcal is about the avarage for all three tertitiles. If there is underreporting of calories in the cohort data analyzed by Levine et. al. it is evenly  spread across the tertiles and does not confound the results. Bear in mind that it is an elderly, mixed gender collective. Caloric intake drops significantly with old age.

 

You don't think that the way protein effects us depends on how many calories we take in along with it and the total macronutrient intake?

 

 

OOOOKAAAY! 

 

NEEDS REFERENCES!

[TheFountain]

What I ate yesterday was Some Dark chocolate in the morning,

 

A couple Salmon burgers with steamed broccoli and sweet yams in the afternoon. 

 

A giant plate of steamed vegetables and a side of nice bloody roast beef, and a BAKED potato in the early evening. 

 

PALEO ANIMAL! 

 

[ceridwen]

A couple of chicken skewers, some rice, a pint of beer. Some yogurt
The chicken skewers had curcumin all over them. Marinades in curcumin

[TheFountain]

Today, Giant plate of Steamed Vegetables with 4 pork sausage links. 

 

Same thing after my work out. 

 

Dark Chocolate,

 

Two grass fed cheeseburgers with no bun. 

 

Yum. 

[pleiotropic]

300g mozzarella. 

 

1 brown/yellow onion.

 

2 cloves of garlic.

 

3 rashers of bacon.

 

1 cup of lightly steamed broccoli

 

2 red tomato.

 

5 cups of non-smoked Eco-Teas Yerba Mate.

 

1 cup of blueberries.

 

10g dark chocolate.

 

 

[TheFountain]

Forgot to mention I ate some blackberries covered in coconut milk. And a Salmon Fillet. 

Edited by TheFountain, 25 November 2015 - 10:21 AM.

[timar]

Let me recap: on a single day you ate a salmon filet, four sausages and two cheeseburgers?

 

Sorry to say that such a diet would be more appropriate to post on "ShorteCity"...

[TheFountain]

Let me recap: on a single day you ate a salmon filet, four sausages and two cheeseburgers?

 

Sorry to say that such a diet would be more appropriate to post on "ShorteCity"...

Wrong.

 

Eight Sausages. 

 

And don't forget the steamed vegetables. 

Also, the Burgers were grass fed and had no buns.

[TheFountain]

Not shortecity. HardonCity. 

[timar]

OK, so I guess your are eating a true Paleo^TM diet - which includes to adjust your own life expectancy to that of the paleolithic age. Good luck with that.

[Maecenas]

OK, so I guess your are eating a true Paleo^TM diet - which includes to adjust your own life expectancy to that of the paleolithic age. Good luck with that.

In my opinion, the majority of those studies that show that meat and fat consumption is harmful are mostly flawed. They have to concentrate on including the amount of physical activity of the participants, the amount of processed foods in a diet and the amount of vegetables and fruit consumed. People who don't consume meat are very often healthnuts, who are very picky not only dietwise, but aim at adjusting their diet to a generally very healthy lifestyle, with a proper amount of exercise, sleep, vegetable consumption. Of course, if you are a couch potato who eats lots of meat and fat, with zero physical activity, with no greens on your plate, it will probably shorten your lifespan quite a bit. But the key factors aren't meat and fat consumed, but the level of activity and vegetables consumed. If meat eating has anyharm in itself - it's negligible , compared to what other life-shortening factors are able to do.

Edited by Maecenas, 25 November 2015 - 03:25 PM.

[TheFountain]

OK, so I guess your are eating a true Paleo^TM diet - which includes to adjust your own life expectancy to that of the paleolithic age. Good luck with that.

Have you forgotten about the elements and how they effected lifespan back then?

 

And besides, any diet that makes my dick THIS hard isn't fucking anything up. 

 

If my dick was limp then i'd be super concerned. 

 

And have you even HEARD of organic grass fed meat? 

 

geesh!

 

OK, so I guess your are eating a true Paleo^TM diet - which includes to adjust your own life expectancy to that of the paleolithic age. Good luck with that.

In my opinion, the majority of those studies that show that meat and fat consumption is harmful are mostly flawed. They have to concentrate on including the amount of physical activity of the participants, the amount of processed foods in a diet and the amount of vegetables and fruit consumed. People who don't consume meat are very often healthnuts, who are very picky not only dietwise, but aim at adjusting their diet to a generally very healthy lifestyle, with a proper amount of exercise, sleep, vegetable consumption. Of course, if you are a couch potato who eats lots of meat and fat, with zero physical activity, with no greens on your plate, it will probably shorten your lifespan quite a bit. But the key factors aren't meat and fat consumed, but the level of activity and vegetables consumed. If meat eating has anyharm in itself - it's negligible , compared to what other life-shortening factors are able to do.

 

 

Exactly, none of those studies was on people consuming ONLY meat and vegetables. And the healthy, un-processed kind. 

 

Stupid ass studies. 

[timar]

Oh, well, where to begin? First of all there are not "those studies that show that [...] fat consumption is harmful". The evidence is pretty clear that unsaturated fat is favorable to refined carbohydrates. It is only long-chain saturated fat that shows harmful effects when it comes to CVD and inflammation. Second, your dismissive attitude against scientific evidence that doesn't fit your fancy is a poster child of all that bloggist nutritional ideology disguised as "scientific", tainting the public discourse on nutritional science. In science, you have to accept all evidence that relies on the same common criteria of scientific conduct and methodology. You can't just dismiss the results of some studies because you don't like them, but implicitly accept the evidence from many other studies, based on the same methodology. That's worse than cherry picking, which may rely simply on ignorance; it is actively distorting the science.

 

We know much of what we know about diet and health from epidemiology - not only that red and processed meat is bad for you, but also that fruits and vegetables are good for you. Or that sugar and refined grains are bad for you. Or even that drinking tea or coffee is good for you. You obviously have no idea of how sophisticated contemporary nutritional epidemiology really is, and that it does meticulously cotrol for a whole host of potential confounding factors. All the points you mentioned are of course well controlled for in almost any of the studies showing harmful effects from the consumption of red and processed meat.

 

If meat eating has anyharm in itself - it's negligible , compared to what other life-shortening factors are able to do.

 

You could say that of anything - including smoking cigarettes. It's negligible, compared to jumping from the next roof. Well, yes! Even eating loads of processed meat (like eight sausages a day) which has clearly und unambigiously been shown to increase the risk of intestinal cancer (hence the recent WHO classification as a class one carcinogen) does only moderately raise your risk of said cancer, compared to the massive risk increase for lung cancer seen with smoking. So what? I will continue to enjoy a little bit of bacon occasionally, just as I occasionally enjoy to take puff from a spliff, as I have personally decided that on the level I use these substances they pose a negligible risk to my health. In contrast to Paleo and smoking advocates, however, I don't start to pervert science and irresponsibly claim that eating processed meat or smoking would constitute healthy habits while bragging about my personal consumption of sausages/cigarettes and how well I am doing on them. Why? Because I actually have the ability to tell reality from the fantasy world of whishful thinking and personal preferences.

Edited by timar, 25 November 2015 - 08:55 PM.

[TheFountain]

Oh, well, where to begin? First of all there are not "those studies that show that [...] fat consumption is harmful". The evidence is pretty clear that unsaturated fat is favorable to refined carbohydrates. It is only long-chain saturated fat that shows harmful effects when it comes to CVD and inflammation. Second, your dismissive attitude against scientific evidence that doesn't fit your fancy is a poster child of all that bloggist nutritional ideology disguised as "scientific", tainting the public discourse on nutritional science. In science, you have to accept all evidence that relies on the same common criteria of scientific conduct and methodology. You can't just dismiss the results of some studies because you don't like them, but implicitly accept the evidence from many other studies, based on the same methodology. That's worse than cherry picking, which may rely simply on ignorance; it is actively distorting the science.

 

We know much of what we know about diet and health from epidemiology - not only that red and processed meat is bad for you, but also that fruits and vegetables are good for you. Or that sugar and refined grains are bad for you. Or even that drinking tea or coffee is good for you. You obviously have no idea of how sophisticated contemporary nutritional epidemiology really is, and that it does meticulously cotrol for a whole host of potential confounding factors. All the points you mentioned are of course well controlled for in almost any of the studies showing harmful effects from the consumption of red and processed meat.

 

If meat eating has anyharm in itself - it's negligible , compared to what other life-shortening factors are able to do.

 

You could say that of anything - including smoking cigarettes. It's negligible, compared to jumping from the next roof. Well, yes! Even eating loads of processed meat (like eight sausages a day) which has clearly und unambigiously been shown to increase the risk of intestinal cancer (hence the recent WHO classification as a class one carcinogen) does only moderately raise your risk of said cancer, compared to the massive risk increase for lung cancer seen with smoking. So what? I will continue to enjoy a little bit of bacon occasionally, just as I occasionally enjoy to take puff from a spliff, as I have personally decided that on the level I use these substances they pose a negligible risk to my health. In contrast to Paleo and smoking advocates, however, I don't start to pervert science and irresponsibly claim that eating processed meat or smoking would constitute healthy habits while bragging about my personal consumption of sausages/cigarettes and how well I am doing on them. Why? Because I actually have the ability to tell reality from the fantasy world of whishful thinking and personal preferences.

Cigarettes? Really?

 

Is that a straw man next to you, or my imaginary friend tony? They have about the same disposition so I can't tell them apart.....

 

First of all, epidemiology, I.E correlation, is NOT and I repeat NOT causation. 

 

Secondly, to ignore the fallacy of studies that indict 'meat' in no uncertain terms as a killer without properly setting up the study participants to the most popular dietary fads out there is just pure fail, fail and more fail. 

 

What the study environment needs to do is take, say the raw food diet, the paleo (true paleo) and a few other diet types and REALLY control for food type in the studies (that is, make sure the paleo participants are ONLY consuming grass fed meats and vegetables) to secure an accurate outcome. 

 

Fuck everything else really. 

[timar]

Yes, they should REALLY do those studies with TRUE believers ONLY

 

Oh, btw. concerning the role of epidemiology: surely you can show me a randomized, controlled human trial showing the harms of smoking? Otherwise, the 10 to 50-fold increase in lung cancer epidemiology shows for cigarette smokers is a mere correlation (oh, and never mind all the animal and in vitro studies establishing the causal mechanisms for the carcinogenity of cigarette smoke as well as processed meat).

 

Sadly, this worn out "correlation is not causation" platitude is exactly what powerful interest groups always come up with when they see their profits jeopardized by scientific research. Big Tobacco got away with it for almost half a century. Big Beef still does, with the help of the ideological fervor of low-carb/Paleo advocates and some self-serving bestseller authors without any scientific credentials. Mind-bogglingly, even Big Oil does in the US (but not in Europe or most other parts of the world) with the denial of man-made global warming.

Edited by timar, 25 November 2015 - 10:14 PM.

[sthira]

And have you even HEARD of organic grass fed meat?

geesh!

Jah, geesh, I mean, what is "grass-fed beef" anyway? Does it even have a legal USDA definition? Any formal oversight? Has there ever been a prosecution of someone selling non-grass-fed beef as grass-fed beef?

Seems kinda scammy and trendy to me. Does a cow need to have eaten "grass" for some number of days for it to be called not corn fed?

Plus, cows r too cool to eat: http://www.vetstreet...know-about-cows

[timar]

Plus, cows r too cool to eat: http://www.vetstreet...know-about-cows

 

R u Hindu? ROFLMAO!1

[TheFountain]

"bla bla bla epidemiology bla bla bla meat is murder bla bla bla"

 

Get some fucking references and come back. 

[sthira]

"bla bla bla epidemiology bla bla bla meat is murder bla bla bla"

Get some fucking references and come back.

http://youtu.be/xacRTqk5QFM

[TheFountain]

 

"bla bla bla epidemiology bla bla bla meat is murder bla bla bla"

Get some fucking references and come back.

 

Hipster. 

The cure is better. 

[sthira]

Aww fuck yeah I ate The Cure today

So beautiful this

Edited by sthira, 26 November 2015 - 03:39 AM.

[timar]

"bla bla bla epidemiology bla bla bla meat is murder bla bla bla"

 

Why should I provide references to someone who is obviously too lazy and/or stupid to read them? You don't even manage to understand the points I have tried to make here, so it would be futile bothering you with the actual literature. It's funny though what you read into my postings when you don't actually read them. "Meat is murder?" Well, never mind that just two posts ago I said that I enjoy to have some bacon...

 

Really, you behave like an obnoxious brat. I have no intent of lowering myself to such a "bla bla bla" level of debate. Welcome to my ignore list!

[timar]

To bring the topic back on topic, let me share with you what I'm going to have for dinner for today (lunch was pretty much skipped, some leftovers from yesterday). It is one of my favourite, dishes. Healthy, delicious and simple to prepare:

 

I sauté two or three medium-large chopped onions in olive oil in a large pan, add a heaped tablespoon of my homemade harrissa (chillies, caraway, cumin, coriander and black pepper, all roasted and grind up to a paste with olive oil - keeps forever in the fridge, but not for me...) and a liberal amount of finely chopped garlic (as much as you dare to use). Then I add a whole head of broccoli, a red bell pepper and two or three large carrots, all cut into dices, and one large 800 g/30 oz can of chopped tomatoes in juice, a half a cup of pitted green olives with some of the brine, a teaspoon of thyme and salt to taste. After stirring all up, I put a can of tuna in olive oil into the middle of the pan (after stirring in most of the oil) and a tablespoon of capers on top of it. Then I cut two large tomatoes into thin slices and arrange them into a circle around the tuna-center. I put on the lid and let it cook on low heat for ~30 minutes.

 

Goes very well with brown rice and a glass of Merlot. Oh, and it's not complete when not served topped with lots of freshly chopped parsley (and maybe some chili strips as a final touch). That's what I'm going to have with it tonight. I'm off for the kitchen now before I start salivating on my keyboard 

Edited by timar, 26 November 2015 - 05:29 PM.

[TheFountain]

 

"bla bla bla epidemiology bla bla bla meat is murder bla bla bla"

 

Why should I provide references to someone who is obviously too lazy and/or stupid to read them? You don't even manage to understand the points I have tried to make here, so it would be futile bothering you with the actual literature. It's funny though what you read into my postings when you don't actually read them. "Meat is murder?" Well, never mind that just two posts ago I said that I enjoy to have some bacon...

 

Really, you behave like an obnoxious brat. I have no intent of lowering myself to such a "bla bla bla" level of debate. Welcome to my ignore list!

 

The references you provided were flawed dumb ass. We explained why but all you did is deny any counter argument to these statements in favor of your bla bla bla bullshit.

Eating pasta=Good way to get empty calories with your gluten. 

Edited by TheFountain, 26 November 2015 - 10:24 PM.

[TheFountain]

Today, some dark chocolate, Greek Yogurt and berries for breakfast. 

 

Couple of Banana's.

 

Pork skins with Sour cream for a snack.

 

Plate of steamed vegetables, baked potato and two Bun-LESS cheeseburgers for dinner. 

 

Yea, my pants are kinda tight right now. 

And when I say "tight" I don't mean from gettin fat......

 

I mean from gettin thick, if ya dig my meaning!

[1jol1uvcaaq]

Breakfast: Doritos(salsa verde flavor), 4 eggs, coffee(with coconut oil)

Snack:apple

Lunch: grass fed steak with coconut oil, boiled cauliflower(most of a large head)

Dinner(vegetarian):3 quesadillas with broccoli

 

edit: I do not recommend anybody try to duplicate what I ate today. This was an experiment. I recommend people to stay away from grains due to their toxic nature. A balanced diet of organic meat, poultry, dairy, and vegetables have been shown through innumerable studies to increase lifespan and multiply health.

 

If you want to learn about health, I recommend focusing on the ketogenic diet and ignoring everything else. Our bodies are NOT adapted to digest grains. I agree there are studies showing grain consumption has benefits, but that's only because the grains are replacing the McDonald's fries. I'm not after a minuscule benefit from grains; I'm after a transformation of health with the ketogenic diet.

Edited by 1jol1uvcaaq, 07 December 2015 - 03:48 AM.

[timar]

If you want to learn about health, I recommend focusing on the ketogenic diet and ignoring everything else.

 

Focusing on the true gospel and "ignoring everything else" sounds like really good advice...

 

That you for such a revealing comment