Benefit of a Meat Only Diet

Training Bodybuilding
41

I can see a reality TV show coming on. A bit like Supersize me, but with nothing but chicken thighs and water. I would love to see the before and after pics.

True about not being able to reproduce the true effects of that particular diet unless you own your own farm or something.

Makes me laugh when it says on packets of Chicken snack bites: Made with 100% Chicken breast!! You then turn over the packet and read the ingredients… Chicken 78%, modified starch, salt, emulsifier, fatty acid regulator, potato starch…

42

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
The article is very dangerously wrong for many points that others have pointed out already.

Chicken skin in today’s badly reared chicken is a concentrate of crap.

Animals were NEVER as fatty in the old days as they are today.

The primary diet of man for a long time was shellfish e.g clams etc… and the main source of developed intelligence - as well as the marrow / brains of animals.

I guarantee you ancient man ate anything they could that tasted good - and some things that didn’t.

If you neglect alkaline foods you end up in a terrible state.

[/quote]

Yeah, he really needs to address the quality of the meat. It should be bio dynamic.

Natural selection works, and we’ve made it this far eating whats in nature. If we ran out of meat, we would no doubt adapt or become extinct. That takes 100 000’s of years to make a difference though.

Of course if you’re religious and the world is 10,000 years old then this this becomes invalid.

43

[quote]dancar wrote:
FutureDoc wrote:
I wonder how the fat profile of dinosaur compares to that of beef. Of course all there meat was free range…nice.

And yes, I know that dinosaurs and did not exist in the same era.

Thank god! For a moment I thought you were one of these guys… Were Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? | Answers in Genesis
[/quote]

I love the conclusion that the bible is relaible in all areas as the ark could hold dinosaurs.

No problems rounding up a T-Rex or 2, no worries feeding them and providing them with appropriate eco systems. No problem putting them all back in their eco systems. Easy. Only mindless followers could possibly take this rubbish seriously.

44

someone point him at Berardi’s acid balance article…

45

[quote]
I love the conclusion that the bible is relaible in all areas as the ark could hold dinosaurs.

No problems rounding up a T-Rex or 2, no worries feeding them and providing them with appropriate eco systems. No problem putting them all back in their eco systems. Easy. Only mindless followers could possibly take this rubbish seriously. [/quote]

Ahh, but haven’t you heard? The dinosuars were all vegitarians!

(yeah, right)

46

[quote]GribGrob wrote:
Benreturns wrote:

Did you learn to read in high school when you wern’t learning about the ATP cycle and water poisoning?

LOL. Agreed.
Skrussian, YOU are the dipshit.[/quote]

Why don’t you discount what I said then instead of calling me a dipshit which is usually a clear sign that you can’t prove me wrong so you just try to insult me. You read some article, took it to be truth, and told it as such at a place where pretty much nothing is accepted at face value.

Somebody (me), and other also, called you out on your bullshit and now you don’t want to admit the guy with hair loss problems doesn’t have a PhD in physiology and anatomy.

47

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
…

Natural selection works, and we’ve made it this far eating whats in nature. If we ran out of meat, we would no doubt adapt or become extinct. That takes 100 000’s of years to make a difference though.
…
[/quote]

This is not true. It didn’t take long for certain populations to adapt to dairy.

The specific gene that determines whether one is lactose tolerant or intolerant has been found and tracked. It seems that this gene became prevalent very quickly in certain areas.

We are not cavemen. We have adapted in many different ways and we are not all the same. What may work well for one group may not work well for another.

48

[quote]Skrussian wrote:
GribGrob wrote:
Benreturns wrote:

Did you learn to read in high school when you wern’t learning about the ATP cycle and water poisoning?

LOL. Agreed.
Skrussian, YOU are the dipshit.

Why don’t you discount what I said then instead of calling me a dipshit which is usually a clear sign that you can’t prove me wrong so you just try to insult me. You read some article, took it to be truth, and told it as such at a place where pretty much nothing is accepted at face value.

Somebody (me), and other also, called you out on your bullshit and now you don’t want to admit the guy with hair loss problems doesn’t have a PhD in physiology and anatomy.[/quote]

Ok Ok i admit it. I honestly dont know if that guy has a PhD in Physiology and/or anatomy. Im very much doubting you do either. Or even a good SAT score… because you still havent actually read my post have you?

If you can prove from whatever i wrote that i took that article to be the truth and am trying to convert you all - rather than JUST POSTING UP FOR DISCUSSION THE CONTENTS OF AN ARTICLE I FOUND TO BE INTERESTING then i will bow down to your detective skills.

I cant prove you wrong. Im not interested in that - thats the whole idea of this discussion thing we’re having.

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
…

Natural selection works, and we’ve made it this far eating whats in nature. If we ran out of meat, we would no doubt adapt or become extinct. That takes 100 000’s of years to make a difference though.
…

This is not true. It didn’t take long for certain populations to adapt to dairy.

The specific gene that determines whether one is lactose tolerant or intolerant has been found and tracked. It seems that this gene became prevalent very quickly in certain areas.

We are not cavemen. We have adapted in many different ways and we are not all the same. What may work well for one group may not work well for another. [/quote]

Not all the same, but 99.99% the same as the human equivalents 30 000 years ago.

With that in mind, sure, some can tolerate milk and grains, but most can’t. We’re still very much cave men, but we have the internet.

50

[quote]dancar wrote:

I love the conclusion that the bible is relaible in all areas as the ark could hold dinosaurs.

No problems rounding up a T-Rex or 2, no worries feeding them and providing them with appropriate eco systems. No problem putting them all back in their eco systems. Easy. Only mindless followers could possibly take this rubbish seriously.

Ahh, but haven’t you heard? The dinosuars were all vegitarians!

(yeah, right)

[/quote]

Yeah, the T-Rex had all those teeth for chewing leaves.

Its actually a little scary that that is so well accepted in the world.

Why didn’t God get it right and not make a sinner? All bad things could have been avoided. It only took him 1 day to make Adam and Eve, couldnt the lazy dude just start again and make a non sinner?

51

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
…

Natural selection works, and we’ve made it this far eating whats in nature. If we ran out of meat, we would no doubt adapt or become extinct. That takes 100 000’s of years to make a difference though.
…

This is not true. It didn’t take long for certain populations to adapt to dairy.

The specific gene that determines whether one is lactose tolerant or intolerant has been found and tracked. It seems that this gene became prevalent very quickly in certain areas.

We are not cavemen. We have adapted in many different ways and we are not all the same. What may work well for one group may not work well for another.

Not all the same, but 99.99% the same as the human equivalents 30 000 years ago.

With that in mind, sure, some can tolerate milk and grains, but most can’t. We’re still very much cave men, but we have the internet.[/quote]

Since we are about 99.8% the same as a monkey and 40% the same as a fungus our similarities to our ancestors does not mean we are identical.

We have adapted to eating many, many more foods than early man.

I would say we are not yet adapted to twinkies though.

52

meat only = raw ass
nuff said, veggies and fruit are good

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
…

Natural selection works, and we’ve made it this far eating whats in nature. If we ran out of meat, we would no doubt adapt or become extinct. That takes 100 000’s of years to make a difference though.
…

This is not true. It didn’t take long for certain populations to adapt to dairy.

The specific gene that determines whether one is lactose tolerant or intolerant has been found and tracked. It seems that this gene became prevalent very quickly in certain areas.

We are not cavemen. We have adapted in many different ways and we are not all the same. What may work well for one group may not work well for another.

Not all the same, but 99.99% the same as the human equivalents 30 000 years ago.

With that in mind, sure, some can tolerate milk and grains, but most can’t. We’re still very much cave men, but we have the internet.

Since we are about 99.8% the same as a monkey and 40% the same as a fungus our similarities to our ancestors does not mean we are identical.

We have adapted to eating many, many more foods than early man.

I would say we are not yet adapted to twinkies though.[/quote]

I agree. Pretty much any food found in its natural state + a little cooking is ok in my book.

54

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
The article is very dangerously wrong for many points that others have pointed out already.

Chicken skin in today’s badly reared chicken is a concentrate of crap.

Animals were NEVER as fatty in the old days as they are today.

The primary diet of man for a long time was shellfish e.g clams etc… and the main source of developed intelligence - as well as the marrow / brains of animals.

I guarantee you ancient man ate anything they could that tasted good - and some things that didn’t.

If you neglect alkaline foods you end up in a terrible state.

[/quote]

I think many of these “truths” are questionable. First, there is scant evidence of consumption of seafood until the very late paleolithic. Secondly, the Masai don’t eat any “alkaline” foods at all (no fruits, no veggies), and they’re generally in perfect health.

They’re the tallest population on Earth, which is partly genetic of course, but which also doesn’t indicate nutritional deficiencies. Same goes for the Inuits/Eskimos when eating according to their traditional diet. Vitamin B6, found in meat, can prevent acidosis anyway. I think acidosis is mainly a problem with grain-based diets.

I wonder what kind of “crap” chicken skin is full of? Saturated fat? lol.

The large ruminant mammals like mammoths that provided the majority of the food for paleolithic man in Europe, Asia and North America are thought to have been quite fatty. Also, indigenous people all over the world generally value animal fat (and often animal organs) over all other food. The natives of North America would shun lean meat like rabbits if fattier meats were available.

BTW, I’m writing this while eating salmon, potatoes and green beans. But juicy, fatty chicken thighs (with the skin on of course) is a staple of my diet. It’s man-food.

I think Dr. Michael Eades’ blog is interesting and entertaining, he’s an advocate of a meat-based diet:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

55

Take a look at the ratio of nutritionists advocating omnivorism to those advocating carnivorism. Question answered.

56

[quote]Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Take a look at the ratio of nutritionists advocating omnivorism to those advocating carnivorism. Question answered.[/quote]

Nah. Conformism, groupthink, and political correctness are not exactly unknown in the scientific world. This goes especially for the field of human nutritional research, which has a history of being something of a pseudoscience.

That said, I see no reason to avoid plant foods.

57

I don’t think an attack on the OP is justified he seems to be just presenting an interesting article and was curious.

However people like me are pretty sick of explaining how utterly wrong and crap these articles are, and are sick of doing it for the past several decades, as every few years another dumb twit “scientist” from idiot university writes up a new idea based on utter ignorance of what should be common knowledge, especially to anyone who has studied.

There are people today who mainly eat meat - eskimos.

Apart from the tonnes of evidence that our ancestors did NOT eat mostly meat, everyone is forgetting the absolute most important fact:

Our ancestors who could not thrive on the diet at the time, DIED.

So whatever stupid theory you come up with about what diet we used to eat, you can’t assume it is the best because people used to thrive on it - they didn’t. They died if they were weak. They died if the diet wasn’t good for them.

If you impose the same diet on society today probably 40% of people will just get sick and die.

This has happened in the past.

Around 2000 years ago many celtic germanic tribes forced an all meat diet on their entire population - it was unmanly to farm. Everyone ate meat. No doubt a lot of people didn’t cope well and died out.

What was left were some really strong ferocious people that the romans could not conquer. What is with us now are a lot of germanic descendants who generally do better eating meat. This is a recent (a mere few thousand years ago) adaption / evolution through natural selection that is specific to a region.

Similarly, most northerners do well with milk/dairy. Most people from other parts of the world do not - note that most of those parts of the world, dairy can’t easily be used because the stuff goes off in the hot weather, so it never got popular. But up north it was popular, and if you couldn’t stomach it, you prob. died out ages ago.

The rule is: you alone can determine what diet works best for you. You need to experiment and try new things and find what your body likes. Everyone is different. Don’t look for a magic diet that works for everyone.

Don’t push your personal magic diet on anyone, because most likely it won’t work for them. And if you have kids, listen to what they like and teach them to determine what makes them feel stronger and healthier, and give them variety to determine what works for them.

58

[quote]max manus wrote:
Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Take a look at the ratio of nutritionists advocating omnivorism to those advocating carnivorism. Question answered.

Nah. Conformism, groupthink, and political correctness are not exactly unknown in the scientific world. This goes especially for the field of human nutritional research, which has a history of being something of a pseudoscience.[/quote]

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with conformism and everything to do with what basically every “pseudo-scientist” thinks is a good idea (eating omnivorously.)

Wowee, it’s awfully conformist to try to gain muscles through deadlifting, squatting and bench pressing. I know! I’ll do it through gardening and skipping rope! Then I’ll finally be that glimmering snowflake I always knew I was!

59

Show us pictures.Before and After.If no before give us after pictures or present pictures.

60

[quote]max manus wrote:

I wonder what kind of “crap” chicken skin is full of? Saturated fat? lol.
[/quote]

no there is nothing wrong with the chicken skin if the chicken is well bred and not pumped full of crap.

but if it is a crap chicken from a crap farm - and it almost certainly is - then a lot of the bad stuff concentrates in its skin.