BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General diet questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Unread 04-18-2018, 07:58 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manofsteel View Post
I am going to go against the grain a bit here. I know people are going to dismiss me when I say this but really this is a forum for athletes and body builders. This is for people who want to get in good shape, many of them for aesthetic reasons. This isn't a forum dedicated to looking at what diets might help you not get cancer when you are 80.

It seems like the longest living people on Earth have lifestyles that include a lot of low level activity like walking and eat a mostly plant based diet with little meat. There are genetics that go into that too obviously, but if those people (okinawans are who I am thinking of) started eating McDonald's those good genetics would be out the window. You have to think about what your goals are for nutrition. If you are looking for longevity and disease prevention in later life a forum for athletes and bodybuilders might not be your best bet.
Duh?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Unread 04-18-2018, 12:55 PM
PhysiologyIsPhun PhysiologyIsPhun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 290
Default

In response to the whole egg thing, dietary cholesterol has little to no impact on your circulating cholesterol levels. Your liver produces the equivalent of about 20 eggs worth of cholesterol a day. With more consumption, the liver will produce less, maintaining homeostasis. Cholesterol problems are usually genetic. Bad HDL and LDL profiles are a result of diet. I don't even remember what the original question was at this point, but yeah eating cholesterol doesn't affect your cholesterol unless you really go crazy.

But yeah, none of us are on this forum to live to be 120. If we were, we probably wouldn't be ephedrine junkies.

Last edited by PhysiologyIsPhun : 04-18-2018 at 12:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Unread 04-18-2018, 02:04 PM
mhertz mhertz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 16
Default

I apologize for being all over the place with my questions, and had a hard time expressing my questions/thoughts. Thanks alot for the great insights everyone, much appreciated!

Indeed this isn't a forum for the most health-oriented, or how to put it, and personally I had no intention of going vegan, and my questions honestly where about that when ever anyone talks about diets/lossing-weight/"insulin-makes-you-fat-BS"/ketosis, or training/hypertrophy, then I always have a straight answer, mostly because of the wealth of knowledge on these subjects by Lyle himself, but whenever someone talks about which is the healthiest diet, or if veganism is most healthy, and health of dairy/eggs, then I don't really have a straight answer and hence, my questions. Lyle says it's fine in moderation I believe, but if the question was what's most "optimal for health", then I didn't knew honestly. Thanks again!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Unread 04-18-2018, 04:55 PM
InsertCleverNameHere InsertCleverNameHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 338
Default

The word "healthy" can have so many different meanings that it's probably not a good question. When you add the word "optimal" without explaining the context, that also makes the question harder to answer.

Sometimes figuring out the right question is the first step.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Unread 04-18-2018, 05:33 PM
mhertz mhertz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 16
Default

You're of course absolutely correct, and I apologize for that

Also, as several have stated by know that it's "fine with moderation", then my question of if X would be more healthy, is pretty stupid I see now. If eating something in moderation makes your e.g. blood-levels inline with healthy values, then nothing else to replace that with is more optimal. Well, unless getting the "values" e.g. ldl/hdl in an even better ratio.

I'm sorry, I'll have to figure out a little better my questions before I next time ask a question. Thanks again.

Last edited by mhertz : 04-18-2018 at 05:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Unread 04-19-2018, 03:55 AM
mhertz mhertz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
I don't know if vegans start with mental deficiencies or the B12 causes it or just makes the pre-existing problem worse.
God, I feel like such an idiot around here!

Could someone kindly explain what Lyle means here? Is he saying that the article's point about plant-protein is complete a falsum?

That article also quotes from some doc and agreed by two other docs:

"A vegetarian diet based on any single one or combination of these unprocessed starches (eg, rice, corn, potatoes, beans), with the addition of vegetables and fruits, supplies all the protein, amino acids, essential fats, minerals, and vitamins (with the exception of vitamin B12) necessary for excellent health. To wrongly suggest that people need to eat animal protein for nutrients will encourage them to add foods that are known to contribute to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and many forms of cancer, to name just a few common problems."

If this is true(?), then I don't understand the "hate" against vegans and there diet displayed around here - again, ANY diet need to make sure to not be malnourished. Isn't it true that B12 is artificially added often to meat? A good argument against veganism, i'd guess also is omega3 - as the plant-form is highly inefficient at the conversion I believe. Already mentioned iron and zinc, though unless it's just as bad at the conversion(and not just "less"), then not as important i'd guess(?).

Finally, do y'all agree/disagree(I guess the latter )with this quote:

"Though they are both considered complete proteins, Greger told HuffPost there are differences. For example, he said, “lentil protein doesn’t raise IGF-1 levels as much as beef protein, which is one reason beef is a probable human carcinogen and legume consumption is associated with lower cancer risk"

It's really hard for someone like me without the knowledge/studies-read to read all this conflicting information, and find out which of it to believe and/or dismiss

Last edited by mhertz : 04-19-2018 at 04:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Unread 04-19-2018, 08:23 AM
PhysiologyIsPhun PhysiologyIsPhun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhertz View Post
God, I feel like such an idiot around here!

Could someone kindly explain what Lyle means here? Is he saying that the article's point about plant-protein is complete a falsum?

That article also quotes from some doc and agreed by two other docs:

"A vegetarian diet based on any single one or combination of these unprocessed starches (eg, rice, corn, potatoes, beans), with the addition of vegetables and fruits, supplies all the protein, amino acids, essential fats, minerals, and vitamins (with the exception of vitamin B12) necessary for excellent health. To wrongly suggest that people need to eat animal protein for nutrients will encourage them to add foods that are known to contribute to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and many forms of cancer, to name just a few common problems."

If this is true(?), then I don't understand the "hate" against vegans and there diet displayed around here - again, ANY diet need to make sure to not be malnourished. Isn't it true that B12 is artificially added often to meat? A good argument against veganism, i'd guess also is omega3 - as the plant-form is highly inefficient at the conversion I believe. Already mentioned iron and zinc, though unless it's just as bad at the conversion(and not just "less"), then not as important i'd guess(?).

Finally, do y'all agree/disagree(I guess the latter )with this quote:

"Though they are both considered complete proteins, Greger told HuffPost there are differences. For example, he said, “lentil protein doesn’t raise IGF-1 levels as much as beef protein, which is one reason beef is a probable human carcinogen and legume consumption is associated with lower cancer risk"

It's really hard for someone like me without the knowledge/studies-read to read all this conflicting information, and find out which of it to believe and/or dismiss
Don't read the Huffington Post, that was your first mistake. Point blank: veganism is more about emotion than actual logic. Some people can't stand the fact that cute little chickens are being lead to the slaughter in droves so they make up a bunch of bs "science" to try to support their claim that it's healthy to get others on the bandwagon. I bet you watched "What the Health" didn't you? That's vegan propaganda.

All that said, this forum definitely has an extreme bias against veganism in general. I'm not saying the bias is unjustified (in my opinion), I'm saying you will not convince a single person here that veganism is even remotely healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Unread 04-19-2018, 09:13 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 640
Default

I'd encourage you to observe other male vegans. What I notice in the difference between the before and after is usually: some amount of gauntness and reduced LBM that looks terrible, though others may disagree. Worse, there's a sort of femininity that creeps into their faces. It's hard to explain. Voices usually increase in pitch, probably symptoms of reduced T or reduced androgen receptor density/activity or whatever.

If that's what healthy is, count me out.

Athletes who go down this route almost invariably end up showing reduced performance and/or get injured, something to keep in mind for those who play fantasy sports and such. I'm sure there are some beastly exceptions (possibly those who aren't as consistent in avoiding animal products as they'd have you believe, or even believe themselves.)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Unread 04-19-2018, 09:28 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhertz View Post
God, I feel like such an idiot around here!

Could someone kindly explain what Lyle means here? Is he saying that the article's point about plant-protein is complete a falsum?

That article also quotes from some doc and agreed by two other docs:

"A vegetarian diet based on any single one or combination of these unprocessed starches (eg, rice, corn, potatoes, beans), with the addition of vegetables and fruits, supplies all the protein, amino acids, essential fats, minerals, and vitamins (with the exception of vitamin B12) necessary for excellent health. To wrongly suggest that people need to eat animal protein for nutrients will encourage them to add foods that are known to contribute to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and many forms of cancer, to name just a few common problems."

If this is true(?), then I don't understand the "hate" against vegans and there diet displayed around here - again, ANY diet need to make sure to not be malnourished. Isn't it true that B12 is artificially added often to meat? A good argument against veganism, i'd guess also is omega3 - as the plant-form is highly inefficient at the conversion I believe. Already mentioned iron and zinc, though unless it's just as bad at the conversion(and not just "less"), then not as important i'd guess(?).

Finally, do y'all agree/disagree(I guess the latter )with this quote:

"Though they are both considered complete proteins, Greger told HuffPost there are differences. For example, he said, “lentil protein doesn’t raise IGF-1 levels as much as beef protein, which is one reason beef is a probable human carcinogen and legume consumption is associated with lower cancer risk"

It's really hard for someone like me without the knowledge/studies-read to read all this conflicting information, and find out which of it to believe and/or dismiss
There's a way to reduce meat consumption (whether it be for health or ethical reasons) without being so hardheaded about things. The strict vegan interpretation (no animal products whatsoever) is just so foolish.

Just as an illustration, take a vegan diet where some care has been given to try to get as much of the macro and micro nutrients and possible. Now eat sardines a few times a week on top of this.

It doesn't have to be sardines. Eat wild Alaskan salmon if you have the funds and inclination to. I'm using sardines in this example for the following reasons:

- They're very cheap.
- Requires no cooking on the consumer's part (assumption is that it's out of a can. Fresh sardines need to be cooked.)
- They're sustainably sourced.
- This covers a lot of the nutritional deficiencies of a vegan diet, including EPA/DHA, high quality animal protein, very high level of B12, and a variety of other vitamins/minerals.

Why would a vegan avoid this food again.. what is the reasoning behind this? I'm trying to think of what the ethical or logical considerations would be. It just seems odd to place the well-being of 2-3 inch long fishies over that of humans.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Unread 04-19-2018, 12:01 PM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
Default

Because fish have RIGHTS and fishing is basically the HOLOCAUST you carnist freak!!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.