Name these athletes. I guarantee you that for every athlete you produce eats only KLEEN FOODZ, I can produce 10 elite athletes who eat all manner of grains and refined foods. Furthermore, can you explain to me what differentiates the starches found in potatoes/yams/etc from those in say…whole wheat bread?
Your post asserted that bread should not be eaten in any instance because there are other foods with a higher nutrient load. You offered broccoli as an example of this, which leads me to believe that you are ignorant of the importance of macroNUTRIENTS in addition to microNUTRIENTS.
As far as the topic not specifically mentioning bodybuilders or athletes, it doesn’t need to. If you go to a bicycle forum and make a post about racing, the assumption is that you are talking about bicycle racing.
One of the Leakeys believed (and possibly others, too - I just recall reading it at some point in MAYBE a Jared Diamond article and am too lazy to look it up) that paleolithic man ate sprouted beans/legumes/grains. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
I kind of get what you’re saying about low-calorie diets. If my limit is 1500 kcals/day, I’m going to want to cram the most nutrient-dense food into my diet…but things like beans and grains are NOT nutrient deficient in comparison to yams if you’re worried about micronutrient values. And as Stronghold pointed out, fibrous vegetables are very low in calories, so you can eat a lot of them in even very low-cal diets and cover all of your bases.
Also, how do you feel about the utilization of high-GI carbs in a nutrient timing strategy (for athletes, obviously)?
Your post asserted that bread should not be eaten in any instance [/quote]
That is where your wrong about what I stated, that or I either conveyed it poorly. I said it doesn’t make too much sense which I intended to mean preferably not/limited quantities to clarify. For some people it just doesn’t work (i.e. for myself grains just do not cut it for me i feel like crap). My point being that you will almost always feel better when not consuming grains and diary, how much better? depends on the person, is this practically feasible ( especially when having to consume onwards of 3000 calories a day)? probably not
On low calorie diets: Of course with a low caloric intake, there should be an attempt to use the most nutrient dense foods. That’s why in clinical dietetics, we RARELY go below 1200 calories, because if you go any lower you run the risk of developing nutrient deficiencies because there simply isn’t enough food volume to work with.
Regardless of carb source it’s fair to say most people in the North American general population cannot stay lean on 300g of carbs a day. Not to mention the protein recommendations, basically suggesting a couple protein shakes daily would be deadly.
Regardless of carb source it’s fair to say most people in the North American general population cannot stay lean on 300g of carbs a day. Not to mention the protein recommendations, basically suggesting a couple protein shakes daily would be deadly.
I don’t think anything created was “not meant to be eaten” We have used trial and error for thousands, maybe millions of years. Since we’re all essential mutts, it’s very hard to prescribe a specific diet for anyone. So, today not meant to be eaten is what you’re allergic to and whatever could kill you. Now, this isn’t the same as eating for optimum health. Do an elimination diet and find what makes you feel best.
Regardless of carb source it’s fair to say most people in the North American general population cannot stay lean on 300g of carbs a day. Not to mention the protein recommendations, basically suggesting a couple protein shakes daily would be deadly.
The “not meant” to be eaten phrase probably originates from Cordain and the strict “Paleo” guys. Cordain’s version of paleo is sophomoric it best though. He also says saturated fat is not “meant” to be eaten when it is the most calorically dense, desired food by paleolithics and all other wild animals. Trust me- my great uncle was a homo habilis.
There are two issues I have an agreement with the paleo people with science, but do not believe in their solution to those problems- dairy is not the best thing for the majority of people due to lactase and high incidences of allergies. However, the measuring stick is “can you tolerate it?” If you have no allergies and you feel good after eating it, put it on your fucking menu. Secondly is the phytates in many grains may inhibit absorption of some vitamins. The solution- eat more vitamins in the form of foods or supplements to out-pace the phytates inhibition. I seriously doubt many of us on this board have any issue with phytates causing us to be deficient, simply because we eat more than adequate amounts of nutrients. Once again, if you are not allergic to gluten…why not put it on the menu? It doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]
NOO, keep that real science and rational thought out of here!
GRAINZ have ANTI-NUTRIENTS bro! Its like ANTI-MATTER for your intestines! Ever seen Angels and Demons man? It’s like THAT!
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Gummy Bears and Twinkies are edible.
On low calorie diets: Of course with a low caloric intake, there should be an attempt to use the most nutrient dense foods. That’s why in clinical dietetics, we RARELY go below 1200 calories, because if you go any lower you run the risk of developing nutrient deficiencies because there simply isn’t enough food volume to work with. [/quote]
“Edible” and “our bodies are designed to process them” are different things.
Doesn’t the fact that, if you eat a lot of gummy bears and twinkies, you’re unhealthy and die young indicate that we’re “not supposed” to be eating those things?
Its like wearing socks on your hands. Yes, they’ll keep your hands warm, and your hands can fit into them. But socks are not meant to be worn on the hands.
Yeah, you can eat gummy bears and twinkies, and you wont die, and your body can use the stuff to stay alive. This doesn’t mean we’re “meant to” eat junk like that.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
So, today not meant to be eaten is what you’re allergic to and whatever could kill you. [/quote]
Thank you. This is what I said on page one.
[i]"Anything that will allow your body to produce ATP will keep you alive - I don’t care what the fuck it is, as long as it has nutrients, and isn’t poisonous…
So in that case, I think ANYTHING is meant to be eaten if you don’t want to fucking die, in case you were starving to death and thought maybe you shouldn’t eat that loaf of plain white bread."[/i] EDIT: Or Twinkies and gummy bears. ; )
Talking in physique terms? That’s a different story…
Yeah, you can eat gummy bears and twinkies, and you wont die, and your body can use the stuff to stay alive. This doesn’t mean we’re “meant to” eat junk like that.[/quote]
You were meant to produce glucose, and subsequently ATP. Since those qualify to do just that, you were meant to eat them, in the strictest sense (if you were starving to death, they would certainly keep you alive a bit longer).
For optimal health and body comp? Obviously not, but you can’t say we weren’t “meant” to eat something that our bodies will make perfectly good use of to keep us going…
Regardless of carb source it’s fair to say most people in the North American general population cannot stay lean on 300g of carbs a day. Not to mention the protein recommendations, basically suggesting a couple protein shakes daily would be deadly.
[/quote]
I think those were developed by moose.[/quote]
Come on Brick’s nose isn’t thaaaaaat big.[/quote]
I’m a Jewboy but thankfully didn’t get hit with the Jew nose.
Regardless of carb source it’s fair to say most people in the North American general population cannot stay lean on 300g of carbs a day. Not to mention the protein recommendations, basically suggesting a couple protein shakes daily would be deadly.
[/quote]
There might have been a few RDs amongst those nutrition professionals. I don’t know. I’m sure some were.
“Edible” and “our bodies are designed to process them” are different things.
Doesn’t the fact that, if you eat a lot of gummy bears and twinkies, you’re unhealthy and die young indicate that we’re “not supposed” to be eating those things?
[/quote]
This statement is flat out ridiculous. If it is fucking edible, then our bodies are designed to process them. That is what edible means.
Would all of those with a degree in something related to biology on this level or who is about to get one raise their hands so the rest can know to stop typing so much?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Would all of those with a degree in something related to biology on this level or who is about to get one raise their hands so the rest can know to stop typing so much?
“Edible” and “our bodies are designed to process them” are different things.
Doesn’t the fact that, if you eat a lot of gummy bears and twinkies, you’re unhealthy and die young indicate that we’re “not supposed” to be eating those things?
[/quote]
This statement is flat out ridiculous. If it is fucking edible, then our bodies are designed to process them. That is what edible means.
Would all of those with a degree in something related to biology on this level or who is about to get one raise their hands so the rest can know to stop typing so much?
There is only so much bullshit I can take.[/quote]
“Edible” and “our bodies are designed to process them” are different things.
Doesn’t the fact that, if you eat a lot of gummy bears and twinkies, you’re unhealthy and die young indicate that we’re “not supposed” to be eating those things?
[/quote]
This statement is flat out ridiculous. If it is fucking edible, then our bodies are designed to process them. That is what edible means.
Would all of those with a degree in something related to biology on this level or who is about to get one raise their hands so the rest can know to stop typing so much?
There is only so much bullshit I can take.[/quote]
This is why in my first post I said that in almost every case, the fitness and nutrition gurus who talk about the relation of nutrition and evolution DON’T have a degree in life science, biological anthropology, or history.