'Not Meant' to Eat?

Nutrition
221

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

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).[/quote]

I really think this is a dead end if we go down this road. As pointed out above, these are purely issues of semantics.

SkyNett is coming at this from a purely biochemical viewpoint, and I think that’s the right thing to do. We were not ‘meant’ to eat brick dust. We can’t derive chemical energy from it. Pizza? Cake? We certainly can from that.

I have an issue with anyone saying we ‘weren’t mean to eat’ a certain type of food. Its still called food after all. what we weren’t meant to do was eat huge quantities of cake until we develop metabolic disorders. That’s an issue of human restraint, not suitability of food to digestion. Its almost like people who say we weren’t meant to eat something want to blame obesity on the existence of that type of foodstuff. “I’m fat because I eat cake and grains and we were’nt meant to eat them”. No, they are a perfectly acceptable food, you are just greedy.

Obviously this has all been said 100 times already in this forum.

222

[quote]BrentGoose wrote:
I really think this is a dead end if we go down this road. As pointed out above, these are purely issues of semantics.

SkyNett is coming at this from a purely biochemical viewpoint, and I think that’s the right thing to do. We were not ‘meant’ to eat brick dust. We can’t derive chemical energy from it. Pizza? Cake? We certainly can from that.

I have an issue with anyone saying we ‘weren’t mean to eat’ a certain type of food. Its still called food after all. what we weren’t meant to do was eat huge quantities of cake until we develop metabolic disorders. That’s an issue of human restraint, not suitability of food to digestion. Its almost like people who say we weren’t meant to eat something want to blame obesity on the existence of that type of foodstuff. “I’m fat because I eat cake and grains and we were’nt meant to eat them”. No, they are a perfectly acceptable food, you are just greedy.

Obviously this has all been said 100 times already in this forum.

[/quote]

Fair enough. I just like to keep an open mind to the wording of things. When I hear someone say we’re not “meant” to eat something (and if I say it myself) I’m trying to imply a negative connotation to a particular food because for the average client or fat ass here in America if you imply a positive or neutral connotation to twinkies they extrapolate outwards and will eat them (most likely in excess).

223

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Aha, Bryck, my apologies i didnt mean YOUR contribution, i meant mine (following on).

Rgds

H

224

[quote]Scott M wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

Man, bodybuilders got fucking ripped in the 80s on high carb/low fat, dudes do it running completely on Ketones…I mean, the bottom line is that many different approaches work. It’s being a slave to some particular dogma that irks the shit out of me. [/quote]

This thread doesn’t really have a chance of ever reaching “those people” so I’ll comment on this instead haha

Troy Alves who was 2nd(and could easily have won) the Tampa Pro this weekend diets under Chris Aceto who is notorious for moderate protein, high carb and trace EFAs. Seems to work just fine for his guys… one of Palumbo’s guys Ben White won the show and everyone knows he favors Keto diets.

Both of those guys could likely switch nutritionists for a year and come back in equal condition, the bottom line is they picked a plan and executed it whether or not it was primal or they were “meant” to eat/not eat certain foods. [/quote]

Exactly!

In the later years of his career, Dorian ate a diet consisting of 55 percent carbs. That’s 825 grams of carbs! Do you know how difficult and unenjoyable it would be to get all that from fruits and veggies - not to mention VERY uncomfortable!

I read the argument that someone like him could have been just as good by lowering carbs and eating more fat. Well, the guy said he needed a diet high in carbs to build muscle. I think he knew himself best.

MANY successful bodybuilders succeeded with high carb, low fat diets.

225

[quote]BrentGoose wrote:
We were not ‘meant’ to eat brick dust. We can’t derive chemical energy from it. Pizza? Cake? We certainly can from that.

What we weren’t meant to do was eat huge quantities of cake until we develop metabolic disorders. That’s an issue of human restraint, not suitability of food to digestion.

[/quote]

That’s it in a nutshell. Perfect.

226

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

MANY successful bodybuilders succeeded with high carb, low fat diets.

[/quote]

Steroids are a wild card in that though, are they not? Your average caveperson descendant isn’t going to have that massive artificial boost; and test is used in several weight-loss supps so i’m assuming that that’s a factor when it comes to BB success w/carbs.

H

227

[quote]huscarl wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

MANY successful bodybuilders succeeded with high carb, low fat diets.

[/quote]

Steroids are a wild card in that though, are they not? Your average caveperson descendant isn’t going to have that massive artificial boost; and test is used in several weight-loss supps so i’m assuming that that’s a factor when it comes to BB success w/carbs.

H[/quote]

I disagree. What does steroid use have to do with success with high carbs considering natural competitors use high carb diets too. MOST bodybuilders have a diet consisting 50+% carbs.

228

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
MOST bodybuilders have a diet consisting 50+% carbs. [/quote]

Can’t test that; i thought the golden-oldie macro was 40:40:20 anyway?! 50% bit high. I’ve seen it remarked before that increased muscle mass does increase carb tolerance, so there’s a double benefit to the steroids in that respect.

If by MOST bodybuilder you mean anyone who picks up a weight and is TRYING to BB then yea, the majority of the entire world population is on a 50%+ carb diet; its only the BB/PL/figure competitors that try and carb limit aint it?

I stand by my thoughts on that; when BBs are bulking theyre carbing it up, but when theyre cutting the only thing they have to cut in their diet is carbs anyway (cussa high carb diet is mostly low fat, i think we can agree that’s fair statement) so they have to do lower than 50% carbs for atleast 1/4 of the season, then back to their 40:40:20 or w/e magic number theyve decided upon.

H

229

[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]

Yeah, we’re just defining the term differently.

I just like mine better.

232

BUSHIDO: Correct. I have a relative that ballooned up from Zyprexa (anti-psychotic) once.

You’re also correct in advising people to follow what THEIR body is telling them.

233

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
That’s how I see it. Any foodstuff that causes an individuals’ gut to inflam, is not meant to be eaten by that person. YOUR BODY is saying ‘this food irritates me’.

Sure, you can choose to ignore your body, but trust me when I say that the physique and performance improvements from listening to your body are dramatic and fast acting.

BBB[/quote]

As usual, a sound and reasoned opinion. : )

And yes, this has been quite the circular argument, but it was fun.

234

I just read a recent blog from Shugart, saying to eliminate grains, and even limit fruit. I also know he’s not an advocate of dairy either. So basically he’s espousing a diet of almost nothing more than meat and veges. How boring it would be, let alone on missing out on some serious nutrition.

I also love how he brought up “we didn’t evolve to eat grains” argument.

I didn’t really mean to bring up this thread again, or even bash Shugart, but damn it erks me when people bash a particular food group or macronutrient.

235

Paleo man wasn’t meant to go to school

236

[quote]uwedave wrote:
Paleo man wasn’t meant to go to school[/quote]

I like some of the Paleo crowd, but wonder why they use computers, hop on planes, use stereos, watch TV, smoke cigars, use cellphones, and whatever else we came up with to make life better.

237

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
That’s how I see it. Any foodstuff that causes an individuals’ gut to inflam, is not meant to be eaten by that person. YOUR BODY is saying ‘this food irritates me’.

Sure, you can choose to ignore your body, but trust me when I say that the physique and performance improvements from listening to your body are dramatic and fast acting.

BBB[/quote]

As usual, a sound and reasoned opinion. : )

And yes, this has been quite the circular argument, but it was fun. [/quote]

I thought the consensus was that we’re “meant” to eat anything our bodies can turn into ATP regardless of any other acute or chronic effects? So confused.

238

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]uwedave wrote:
Paleo man wasn’t meant to go to school[/quote]

I like some of the Paleo crowd, but wonder why they use computers, hop on planes, use stereos, watch TV, smoke cigars, use cellphones, and whatever else we came up with to make life better. [/quote]

I guess we were meant to do any of those things?

239

Please don’t let the zombie thread of doom come back to life!

If this thread taught us anything, it’s that there are several different opinions on the definition of ‘meant to eat’, and that no-one is budging on their definition.

Find out what works for you (experiment!) and then stick with that. End of story.

240

[quote]BrentGoose wrote:

Find out what works for you (experiment!) and then stick with that. End of story.[/quote]

But then people wouldn’t get to make fun of T-Nation, its boards, membership & authors on other boards and facebook.

What fun would that be?