'Not Meant' to Eat?

Nutrition
201

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I’m surprised no one commented on this post of mine:

It’s also rather juvenile and mean spirited to say more infantile shit like, “Chubby guys get no ass and if they do, it’s from fat, ugly chics.” First off, I know a ton of ordinary AND chubby dudes with women and they don’t give a rat’s ass about a muscle! And second, being ugly isn’t something someone controls and to say that ugly people don’t deserve sex or a relationship IS mean spirited! Anyway, I’ve also seen LOADS of ugly dudes with hot women - and NO, not all - actually hardly any - of these guys are loaded."[/quote]

Brick, anyone with half a brain knows this is merely a marketing ploy to sell V-diet packages. The fitness industry has always tried to sell us this fallacy…that you can’t lay quality women unless you can see your abs. Generally the guys who buy into this belief tend to have a lot more problems than a less than impressive waistline!

TBH I am a fan of a lot of the velocity life stuff CS blogs about… but as you pointed out some of the things he says are flat out wrong like the above mentioned points.[/quote]

I said it before and I’ll say it again: I do like much of what CS has written. I’m just put off by the rather juvenile and MEAN things he’s written, nor do I like him and his woman (in her blog) dismissing the work and credentials of nutrition researchers and dietetics professionals and academicians.

His woman (I don’t know her name) once wrote she has a degree in nutrition and that at the end of the day it means nothing. WELL, maybe nothing for her, but I wouldn’t be employed in dietetics and nutrition without the degree! Neither would all my colleagues!

Same goes for EVERY other field! Do I want someone like Modok sorting out my medicine or during a hospital visit, or some kook who happens to be savvy with the internet, the library, and Pub Med? Do I want PX working on my teeth, or some schmuck who thinks dental hygiene and surgery is as easy as using a pair of pliers and toothbrushes?

Where the notion that formal training and education are worthless came from is beyond me.

I myself am guilty of buying into the “You need ______ to get a woman, and if you’re deficient in ________, you CAN’T get and DON’T DESERVE a woman!” line of bullshit that the media drummed into my head for nearly my entire life.

Foolish thinking!

MOST women don’t give a rat’s ass about a big muscle, and that’s the truth! Sure they like 'em, but they’re far from a prerequisite. (Personal belief.)

Because now that I’m more mature and think of it, I blew quite a few chances with women because of this thinking. When I was laid off once, I met a great woman who liked me, and I made no romantic move forward because I thought to myself, “I can’t offer a woman anything; I’m unemployed.” Months later this woman confessed her feelings towards me and asked, “How come you didn’t do or say anything?” My answer: “I was unemployed; I felt like I wasn’t in the right position to move forward with a woman.” This woman didn’t give a shit and still thought highly of me at the time.

So much for having to be raking in the dough to find a woman… or any other bullshit notion of “You gotta have this, and you gotta have that!” in order to find a woman. I swear to god, there are still times where I have to REPROGRAM my own brain from all the bullshit I’ve been fed in that area of life.

202

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I guarantee you that every caveman that ever lived would have been all about him some fucking cocoa puffs.

Why are we aspiring to be so much like a dude that was too fucking stupid to figure out how to milk a cow anyway?[/quote]

This is also the line of thinking that I LIKE. Think of the word EVOLVE and what it means! Why should think in terms of devolution?

Caveman’s life consisted of little more than activities to stay alive and procreate. [/quote]

And Im sure cavemen also did another big no no…combine carbs and fat![/quote]

Probably did while eating nuts, seeds, and fruits at the same meal. [/quote]

Caveman most likely didn’t eat meals, more likely grazed on plant-based foods as he came across them and occasionally (probably not daily) gorged on raw meat (including brains and organ meat).

So technically, we’re not “meant to eat” meals.[/quote]

See, that just goes to show how uneducated I am about that shit too. So it’s best I don’t even say anything on it.

203

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Well, I was wrong. People are meant to eat anything that is edible. [/quote]

Actually thought about this more, and I’m back to my original stance: we’re not meant to eat gummy bears and twinkies.

Yes, people in extreme situations of survival (hypocaloric states caused by underconsumption or over activity) can get away with eating crap food without immediate negative effects. Honestly, I do wonder what the longterm effect on Debs health will be for her food choices, but thats just speculation on my part and only time will tell either way.

By the way, I’m on T-Nation having an argument with Professor X where he is defending junk food. Weird.

Anyway, yeah, we’re not meant to eat junk like that. Just because we can “get away” with it, to varying degrees, doesn’t mean its something we should be doing at all.

[/quote]

Bah, I eat pretty healthy. Those things I outlined are the only things like that in my diet. Currently I eat salmon (fresh, wild salmon) about 6 times a week. Grass fed beef for a bunch of meals. Aside from the whole grain toast and pancakes in the Denny’s meal I only eat flax bread. I have 4 or so organic free range eggs every morning, a load of fresh berries and heaping servings of spinach, Brussels sprouts and broccoli with most meals. I eat a bunch of almond butter and almonds and organic Greek yogurt. The chocolate I eat is of high quality. The sweet and sour pork and the pancakes and syrup are a small dent in my diet.

I run 5.5 miles every morning. I sometimes do a xfit workout in the morning. I walk a couple of kms to work every day. I usually go for a walk after lunch. I workout almost every night. I have nothing to worry about with my blood sugar. And besides that, what is the concern around ice cream, S&S pork and Denny’s? Salt? Saturated fat? Scrambled eggs? These are all very natural things. Eating food is not going to kill me. Look at the macros of those things. It’s not a mystical stew of chemicals and poisons. It’s actual ingredients like milk, eggs, sugar…

The whole ‘meant’ to eat thing is ridiculous. Meant by who? Are you a creationist? You could argue we weren’t ‘meant’ to live past 35 when the prime procreation years have past. (this has probably already been stated a million times in this thread already)

You sound quite religious about it. You don’t have any facts, but you have ‘speculation.’ But a speculation requires some evidence…What you have is a feeling and that is pretty meaningless.

204

Also, I lost a lot of body fat when I first started getting shape by going on a strict low carb paleo-ish diet. It worked great. No breads, sugars, pastas or potatoes. As my conditioning changed my diet had to change. I couldn’t continue on that diet and maintain the level of activity I was doing and maintain any muscle mass.

The dietary requirements of a conditioned athletic person is not the same as the dietary requirements of an overweight/obese inactive person.

The OPTIMAL diet is different for every individual and it changes as goals, conditioning, muscle mass environment, age and other variables change.

205

[quote]debraD wrote:

Currently I eat salmon (fresh, wild salmon) about 6 times a week. Grass fed beef for a bunch of meals. Aside from the whole grain toast and pancakes in the Denny’s meal I only eat flax bread. I have 4 or so organic free range eggs every morning, a load of fresh berries and heaping servings of spinach, Brussels sprouts and broccoli with most meals. I eat a bunch of almond butter and almonds and organic Greek yogurt. The chocolate I eat is of high quality. The sweet and sour pork and the pancakes and syrup are a small dent in my diet.

[/quote]

Going off on a complete tangent briefly, I want to eat all of these things now ^^

206

[quote]debraD wrote:

The OPTIMAL diet is different for every individual and it changes as goals, conditioning, muscle mass environment, age and other variables change.[/quote]

I agree with this entirely. Problem is no matter how many people there are with enough common sense to see this is true (incl. MODOK, BrickNyce, Stronghold etc.), there will always be hardliners that don’t think there is any room for the ‘evil’ grains we have supposedly not evolved to eat. Anyone who makes a statement along these lines betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of human evolutionary theory.

An analogy. I live in Cornwall, UK. There are a horrendous amount of seagulls here. some of these seagulls are not only absolutely stacked, but fully aware of how stacked they are. In a place called Padstow, they regularly mug tourists for their bags of chips (fries) and pies.

My point is this: When was the first time in evolutionary history that a seagull saw a chip? Or a pie? Do not even think about telling me that they “didnt evolve to eat pies”. Seagulls are another example (like humans) of generalists. They can attribute their success to being able to eat just about anything, and as a result are everywhere (even a hundred miles inland in the winter where they subsist on invertebrates on agricultural land).

Seagulls are to pies as we are to cake. It sure as hell wasn’t around “back in the day”, but we can sure as hell eat it. You can even drop bodyfat eating devil foods like grains. If you couldnt, then things like the Anabolic Diet and Ultimate Diet wouldnt work. The results you can get from eating these things depend on timing, quantity, context, and all the things debra has mentioned above.

Thoughts…

207

And so it continues in circles…lol…

208

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I guarantee you that every caveman that ever lived would have been all about him some fucking cocoa puffs.

Why are we aspiring to be so much like a dude that was too fucking stupid to figure out how to milk a cow anyway?[/quote]

This is also the line of thinking that I LIKE. Think of the word EVOLVE and what it means! Why should think in terms of devolution?

Caveman’s life consisted of little more than activities to stay alive and procreate. [/quote]

And Im sure cavemen also did another big no no…combine carbs and fat![/quote]

Probably did while eating nuts, seeds, and fruits at the same meal. [/quote]

This is a piss-poor contribution to an awesome thread; i know i quoted several posts back too but wanted to add in respect of the above:

The fruits and veggies we eat today, and probably nuts and seeds to a lesser extent are going to be v. diff to the ones our ancestors ate; i dont mean species but size/constitution.

Our modern tat is selectively bred/grown and usually modified; root veggies of old would have been just that, roots with little slinky veggies attached, much lower in starch than the huge fruits and vegs we grow today; we’ve grown strains for their size and energy content.

I sometimes buy organic fruit/veg and theyre always much smaller than non-organic equiv (and expensive) thus would have more skin/less starch (ratio).

Hope this makes sense, best example I can give is tatties, raw organic/wild they’re shitty little roots with minimal energy content, we’ve grown them into massive round starch-providing monsters. I’d imagine this applied to fruit to a greater extent as well (wild oranges in Morocco we helped ourselves to on holiday were a)ripe and b)fucking little but nice).

So in context to the OP: we’re not MEANT to eat fuck-off big selectively bred, GM modified, chemical enhanced shit (for one) which i think translates to: We’re not evolved, thus MEANT, to eat certain things. I’m pretty flippin’ sure i’m not MEANT to eat white-bread.

As always, apologies for wall of text :smiley:

H

209

[quote]BrentGoose wrote:

…a horrendous amount of seagulls here…

…Seagulls are to pies as we are to cake…[/quote]

You think you yanks and cannucks have got it bad with your guns and your bears, look at what us poor british have to fight day in day out: “Seagulls are to pies as we are to cake” QFT!

H

210

[quote]huscarl wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I guarantee you that every caveman that ever lived would have been all about him some fucking cocoa puffs.

Why are we aspiring to be so much like a dude that was too fucking stupid to figure out how to milk a cow anyway?[/quote]

This is also the line of thinking that I LIKE. Think of the word EVOLVE and what it means! Why should think in terms of devolution?

Caveman’s life consisted of little more than activities to stay alive and procreate. [/quote]

And Im sure cavemen also did another big no no…combine carbs and fat![/quote]

Probably did while eating nuts, seeds, and fruits at the same meal. [/quote]

This is a piss-poor contribution to an awesome thread; i know i quoted several posts back too but wanted to add in respect of the above:

The fruits and veggies we eat today, and probably nuts and seeds to a lesser extent are going to be v. diff to the ones our ancestors ate; i dont mean species but size/constitution.

Our modern tat is selectively bred/grown and usually modified; root veggies of old would have been just that, roots with little slinky veggies attached, much lower in starch than the huge fruits and vegs we grow today; we’ve grown strains for their size and energy content.

I sometimes buy organic fruit/veg and theyre always much smaller than non-organic equiv (and expensive) thus would have more skin/less starch (ratio).

Hope this makes sense, best example I can give is tatties, raw organic/wild they’re shitty little roots with minimal energy content, we’ve grown them into massive round starch-providing monsters. I’d imagine this applied to fruit to a greater extent as well (wild oranges in Morocco we helped ourselves to on holiday were a)ripe and b)fucking little but nice).

So in context to the OP: we’re not MEANT to eat fuck-off big selectively bred, GM modified, chemical enhanced shit (for one) which i think translates to: We’re not evolved, thus MEANT, to eat certain things. I’m pretty flippin’ sure i’m not MEANT to eat white-bread.

As always, apologies for wall of text :smiley:

H
[/quote]

I admitted above that my contribution was piss poor, considering I don’t know shit about caveman.

211

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Well, I was wrong. People are meant to eat anything that is edible. [/quote]

Actually thought about this more, and I’m back to my original stance: we’re not meant to eat gummy bears and twinkies.

Yes, people in extreme situations of survival (hypocaloric states caused by underconsumption or over activity) can get away with eating crap food without immediate negative effects. Honestly, I do wonder what the longterm effect on Debs health will be for her food choices, but thats just speculation on my part and only time will tell either way.

By the way, I’m on T-Nation having an argument with Professor X where he is defending junk food. Weird.

Anyway, yeah, we’re not meant to eat junk like that. Just because we can “get away” with it, to varying degrees, doesn’t mean its something we should be doing at all.

[/quote]

Bah, I eat pretty healthy. Those things I outlined are the only things like that in my diet. Currently I eat salmon (fresh, wild salmon) about 6 times a week. Grass fed beef for a bunch of meals. Aside from the whole grain toast and pancakes in the Denny’s meal I only eat flax bread. I have 4 or so organic free range eggs every morning, a load of fresh berries and heaping servings of spinach, Brussels sprouts and broccoli with most meals. I eat a bunch of almond butter and almonds and organic Greek yogurt. The chocolate I eat is of high quality. The sweet and sour pork and the pancakes and syrup are a small dent in my diet.

I run 5.5 miles every morning. I sometimes do a xfit workout in the morning. I walk a couple of kms to work every day. I usually go for a walk after lunch. I workout almost every night. I have nothing to worry about with my blood sugar. And besides that, what is the concern around ice cream, S&S pork and Denny’s? Salt? Saturated fat? Scrambled eggs? These are all very natural things. Eating food is not going to kill me. Look at the macros of those things. It’s not a mystical stew of chemicals and poisons. It’s actual ingredients like milk, eggs, sugar…

The whole ‘meant’ to eat thing is ridiculous. Meant by who? Are you a creationist? You could argue we weren’t ‘meant’ to live past 35 when the prime procreation years have past. (this has probably already been stated a million times in this thread already)

You sound quite religious about it. You don’t have any facts, but you have ‘speculation.’ But a speculation requires some evidence…What you have is a feeling and that is pretty meaningless.

[/quote]

Sounds like you’re taking it pretty personally that I’m calling your precious junk food junk. …and that I said I was concerned about your health. Hm.

What you’re pointing out is that, with a very high level of activity, a person can eat more shitty food with less immediate impact. Still doesn’t make the shitty food not shitty.

Also, I’m not going to explain why ice cream, gummy bears, and twinkies aren’t good for you.

212

I’m done with this thread, since after 9 pages we’re right back to where we started.

But once again - saying we’re not “meant” to eat things that our bodies have the enzymes to break down into useable energy (ATP) is simply false.

Now, I’ll agree with you 100 % that twinkies and gummy bears are not good for you, but the only things we weren’t meant to eat are things that will immediately arrest our biochemical processes and harm us.

Now, there’s a huge difference in what you can use for energy, and what is good for optimum health and body composition, but saying we weren’t meant to eat it is misguided.

Do me a favor - take a year of bio-chem, a year of organic chem, and a year of anatomy & physiology. I believe that would convince anyone of what I’m saying… ; )

213

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
I’m done with this thread, since after 9 pages we’re right back to where we started.

But once again - saying we’re not “meant” to eat things that our bodies have the enzymes to break down into useable energy (ATP) is simply false.

Now, I’ll agree with you 100 % that twinkies and gummy bears are not good for you, but the only things we weren’t meant to eat are things that will immediately arrest our biochemical processes and harm us.

Now, there’s a huge difference in what you can use for energy, and what is good for optimum health and body composition, but saying we weren’t meant to eat it is misguided.

Do me a favor - take a year of bio-chem, a year of organic chem, and a year of anatomy & physiology. I believe that would convince anyone of what I’m saying… ; ) [/quote]

You keep using the word “meant” insinuating that by their existence as food we thereby can and should eat them. Anything that creates ATP, and here’s the big argument I have, CAN be eaten. Just because something CAN be eaten, does not mean our body’s are genetically able to USE everything and we as a species are MEANT to eat it.

Just because I CAN eat 50+ wings and a 12 pack of beer in one sitting doesn’t mean I’m MEANT to. Purpose is not defined by the ability of whether or not it can be done.

214

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
You keep using the word “meant” insinuating that by their existence as food we thereby can and should eat them. Anything that creates ATP, and here’s the big argument I have, CAN be eaten. Just because something CAN be eaten, does not mean are body’s are genetically able to USE everything and we as a species are MEANT to eat it.

Just because I CAN eat 50+ wings and a 12 pack of beer in one sitting doesn’t mean I’m MEANT to. Purpose is not defined by the ability of whether or not it can be done.[/quote]

In the simplest, strictest bio-chemical terms, you certainly are meant to eat anything that will keep you alive. It’s simple survival of the species. And yes - if your body is able to use the nutrients from whatever food (wings & beer) you’re eating, then obviously you were meant to eat it.

People just don’t seem to get that simple fact. The arguments from the other side continue to point out that certain foods may not be optimal for body composition and long term health - agreed, repeatedly. But please do not try and tell me that on a bio-chemical level, we weren’t “meant” to eat chicken wings. I mean, it’s protein, which will be digested, denatured and used for metabolic processes…

215

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And so it continues in circles…lol… [/quote]

This is the song that never ends…it go’s on and on my friends.

216

This thread is turning into an argument over semantics… Can’t vs. Not Meant

Maybe we should call Webster’s dictionary and ask who’s correct?

217

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
You keep using the word “meant” insinuating that by their existence as food we thereby can and should eat them. Anything that creates ATP, and here’s the big argument I have, CAN be eaten. Just because something CAN be eaten, does not mean are body’s are genetically able to USE everything and we as a species are MEANT to eat it.

Just because I CAN eat 50+ wings and a 12 pack of beer in one sitting doesn’t mean I’m MEANT to. Purpose is not defined by the ability of whether or not it can be done.[/quote]

In the simplest, strictest bio-chemical terms, you certainly are meant to eat anything that will keep you alive. It’s simple survival of the species. And yes - if your body is able to use the nutrients from whatever food (wings & beer) you’re eating, then obviously you were meant to eat it.

People just don’t seem to get that simple fact. The arguments from the other side continue to point out that certain foods may not be optimal for body composition and long term health - agreed, repeatedly. But please do not try and tell me that on a bio-chemical level, we weren’t “meant” to eat chicken wings. I mean, it’s protein, which will be digested, denatured and used for metabolic processes… [/quote]

You ignore basic concept of choice and the issue that never in your life (excluding crazy circumstances where you’re stranded on an island) that you won’t have a choice to some extent about the food you put in your body. Again just because you CAN do something does not mean you are MEANT to do it. I CAN go on a mass shooting spree with a shotgun, but that doesn’t mean I’m MEANT to or should. The issue I have is arguments like yours allow for a possibility of people to twist what you’ve said on a biochemical level and use it as an excuse to eat whatever they want and become fat asses. Yes I’m mixing a bit of philosophy with science in my argument and I will agree that the mass shooting spree example isn’t a great example but on a scientific level I have the physical ability to do the action, the bio-chemical ability to complete the action (even if I do eat wings and beer for my energy) and therefore CAN do it. Still can’t agree with the fact that I’m MEANT to.

Pretty sure alcohol is not “meant” to be drank considering it is a metabolic poison (I may be wrong about this).

218

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This thread is turning into an argument over semantics… Can’t vs. Not Meant

Maybe we should call Webster’s dictionary and ask who’s correct?[/quote]

I CAN call Webster’s dictionary, but I’m not MEANT to…you are. Get on it.

219

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
The issue I have is arguments like yours allow for a possibility of people to twist what you’ve said on a biochemical level and use it as an excuse to eat whatever they want and become fat asses.

Pretty sure alcohol is not “meant” to be drank considering it is a metabolic poison (I may be wrong about this).[/quote]

I don’t care if some fatass takes what I’m saying and twists it into “I can eat gummy bears all day” - In scientific terms, which is all I’m concerned about, anything your body will process and use is “meant” to be eaten. End of story.

Now, you can extrapolate a bunch of approaches from the original question, but in the end, you were meant to eat anything that will keep you alive that isn’t immediately harmful. And yes, you’re wrong about alcohol - alcohol has been used medicinally throughout recorded history.

Honestly, 3/4 of the people in this thread simply do not have the educational background to stay on topic and discuss this intelligently. People just keep going off on tangents…

220

Truly what it comes down to as is the issue with most things: Scientific approach versus sociological approach. You stand by the line of thought that if it is scientifically capable, it is meant to be done, I stand by the sociological approach that not all things that can be done are meant to be done. That being said, I can appreciate both lines of thought.