'Not Meant' to Eat?

Nutrition
101

dont eat plastic bags, brah

102

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Citations.
[/quote]

  • Blood sugar swings
    Do I really need to cite this? Anyone with a basic understanding of carbohydrate metabolism should understand the rise and fall of blood sugar, as well as the insulin response.

Immune suppression from insulin swings

Thyroid suppression and systemic endocrinological disruption

  • These were discussed by a panel of endocrinologists at last year’s NSCA national conference. Drs Duncan French, Daniel Judelson, William Kraemer, and Barry Spiering. All men are PhDs and 3 of the 4 are CSCSs to boot. The gist of it is that the response to a high amount of carbs is a pretty alarming event for your body. The immune, endocrine, and nervous systems are deeply related to each other.

Side note: there are now neuro-immuno-endocrinologists because you can’t deal in one area and have the other two not be involved. The link is that important and close.

So what one system does affects the other two. According to the 4 endocrinologists, the massive surge of insulin and resulting blood sugar rises and dips are so taxing on your body’s endocrine system that it negatively affects the others. They were probably more scientific about it, but that was a year ago. I regret not having any more information, but I’m sure that looking for some of these doctor’s works could pull up more info if you are interested.

103

Brick, I do believe that you’ve requested specific names of dietitians that are, in my terms, “idiotic.” Here they are and what they have done or a paraphrase of what they have said:

  • Carol Banister
    “Even athletes don’t need any more than 30g of protein per day. Protein turnover is very efficient, and any more than 30g of protein a day could seriously damage your bones.”

I believe there were a few recent articles here on TNation about this protein thing being a myth, and I have yet to find one scrap of evidence that supports the belief that protein intake higher than 30g will blow up your liver/kidneys/bones/intestines/whatever else is convenient.

  • Carla Nikkel
    This RD took on a client that came to me for training when I worked at a big box gym. The client had been out of college for about 6 months. He played football as a defensive lineman throughout college, and when he graduated, he stopped training but kept eating. Suffice to say, he was pretty overweight, but he was still quite strong and had a lot of LBM: He was around 300lbs total and 220lbs lean at 6’3".

The diet that this woman gave to the client was approximately as follows:
1800 kcals per day
60% carbs
25% fat
15% protein

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that someone that this meal plan is below insufficient for a 300lb man with a sports history that is resuming training. Of course, the client felt like absolute crap. My first directive for him was to fire the dietitian and let me design a meal plan, because he head was obviously so far up her ass that she had no credibility whatsoever.

The reason I harbor a special ire for the ADA and most dietitians is that both groups profess their word to be the absolute truth, and that any other method of diet is unsafe. The ADA pushed low-fat diets for several decades, and we now know that this caused untold damage to the collective health of American citizens everywhere. Despite the volumes of research to the contrary, the ADA refuses to give any credence to any thing that resembles a low-carb diet, or really anything that results in a person lowering their grain consumption.

Why? I have a very strong suspicion that the ADA is in some way funded by Big Agra. As I have cited, wheat is a very poor food option for humans, as is soy. If you need sources for soy, consult The Whole Soy Story by Kaylaa T. Daniel. The ADA is aware of this, and yet the organization continues to push diets that are continually lower in animal proteins and fats and higher in processed carbohydrates. The ADA knows that there is at least some credibility to this, but continues to argue against limited grain intake profusely. This is a blatant lie. The ADA knows its a lie, dietitians should know its a lie, but the general public suffers for it anyhow.

In reality, I feel that if America were to shift it’s collective diet away from this Western diet extremely heavy in vegetable oils and grains, and move back to actual foods like whole fruits, vegetables, and meats, our collective health would improve dramatically. Do you agree?

All that said, I do not hate EVERY dietitian. Out of the 20-30 I have met, I met one that was a figure athlete (and smokin’ hot, of course) and one that was a strength coach that was also actually strong and athletic. Both confessed that they eat very little grains, and they have their clients do the same. They were unique in that they were the first and only dietitians I had ever met that were capable of putting their educations to work and thinking for themselves. This seems to be a skill that most dietitians lack.

The attached picture is from an online article where one senior dietitian was awarding another for something. I hope that illustrates why I have such a strong dislike for the ADA and most dietitians.

104

[quote]Xab wrote:
Brick, I do believe that you’ve requested specific names of dietitians that are, in my terms, “idiotic.” Here they are and what they have done or a paraphrase of what they have said:

  • Carol Banister
    “Even athletes don’t need any more than 30g of protein per day. Protein turnover is very efficient, and any more than 30g of protein a day could seriously damage your bones.”

I believe there were a few recent articles here on TNation about this protein thing being a myth, and I have yet to find one scrap of evidence that supports the belief that protein intake higher than 30g will blow up your liver/kidneys/bones/intestines/whatever else is convenient.

  • Carla Nikkel
    This RD took on a client that came to me for training when I worked at a big box gym. The client had been out of college for about 6 months. He played football as a defensive lineman throughout college, and when he graduated, he stopped training but kept eating. Suffice to say, he was pretty overweight, but he was still quite strong and had a lot of LBM: He was around 300lbs total and 220lbs lean at 6’3".

The diet that this woman gave to the client was approximately as follows:
1800 kcals per day
60% carbs
25% fat
15% protein

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that someone that this meal plan is below insufficient for a 300lb man with a sports history that is resuming training. Of course, the client felt like absolute crap. My first directive for him was to fire the dietitian and let me design a meal plan, because he head was obviously so far up her ass that she had no credibility whatsoever.

The reason I harbor a special ire for the ADA and most dietitians is that both groups profess their word to be the absolute truth, and that any other method of diet is unsafe. The ADA pushed low-fat diets for several decades, and we now know that this caused untold damage to the collective health of American citizens everywhere. Despite the volumes of research to the contrary, the ADA refuses to give any credence to any thing that resembles a low-carb diet, or really anything that results in a person lowering their grain consumption.

Why? I have a very strong suspicion that the ADA is in some way funded by Big Agra. As I have cited, wheat is a very poor food option for humans, as is soy. If you need sources for soy, consult The Whole Soy Story by Kaylaa T. Daniel. The ADA is aware of this, and yet the organization continues to push diets that are continually lower in animal proteins and fats and higher in processed carbohydrates. The ADA knows that there is at least some credibility to this, but continues to argue against limited grain intake profusely. This is a blatant lie. The ADA knows its a lie, dietitians should know its a lie, but the general public suffers for it anyhow.

In reality, I feel that if America were to shift it’s collective diet away from this Western diet extremely heavy in vegetable oils and grains, and move back to actual foods like whole fruits, vegetables, and meats, our collective health would improve dramatically. Do you agree?

All that said, I do not hate EVERY dietitian. Out of the 20-30 I have met, I met one that was a figure athlete (and smokin’ hot, of course) and one that was a strength coach that was also actually strong and athletic. Both confessed that they eat very little grains, and they have their clients do the same. They were unique in that they were the first and only dietitians I had ever met that were capable of putting their educations to work and thinking for themselves. This seems to be a skill that most dietitians lack.

The attached picture is from an online article where one senior dietitian was awarding another for something. I hope that illustrates why I have such a strong dislike for the ADA and most dietitians. [/quote]

Fair post.

105

^^^ There’s more fact based material here than the rest of the thread combined. Not saying that I agree or disagree with it, but it’s nice to see someone using references and citations instead of claiming that they are becoming educated or typing out things they read in a magazine or commercial.

I think there is always going to remain a divide in the answer to this question, and as I originally stated, people are going to have to find out on their own what works best for their body and their goals.

106

I understand the picture left an impression on you because of the shape those two are in, but MOST dietitians don’t look like that.

107

Lol…this entire thread is about what you were “meant” to eat. Not about 1 picture (the same picture that Shugart used) of some fat-ass dietician. As if that is somehow representative of the whole.

Again, if the fucking food keeps you alive, you were “meant” to eat it. End of ridiculous discussion.

Post all the pro-paleo propoganda you want, and also keep ignoring the fact that as part of a BALANCED diet, carbs aren’t bad for you. All the alarmist rhetoric about insulin response seems to ignore the fact that we’re talking about balance here. No shit if you eat a diet that’s 75 % carbs and shit foods you’ll have plenty of chronic health problems.

“Excess energy consumption and reduced energy combustion appear to be critical events that culminate in lipid storage in the liver.” - Really? No shit!

And what citations? A link to a one paragraph definition of fatty liver disease? Yea, way to prove your point.

Lol…it’s funny how people want to be “right” so badly, they ignore the actual subject of the discussion to go off on ridiculous tangents. Wow, shitty dieticians exist, and if you eat an unbalanced diet of nothing but white flour, you’ll have health problems.

Lol…

108

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Lol…this entire thread is about what you were “meant” to eat. Not about 1 picture (the same picture that Shugart used) of some fat-ass dietician. As if that is somehow representative of the whole.

Again, if the fucking food keeps you alive, you were “meant” to eat it. End of ridiculous discussion.

Post all the pro-paleo propoganda you want, and also keep ignoring the fact that as part of a BALANCED diet, carbs aren’t bad for you. All the alarmist rhetoric about insulin response seems to ignore the fact that we’re talking about balance here. No shit if you eat a diet that’s 75 % carbs and shit foods you’ll have plenty of chronic health problems.

“Excess energy consumption and reduced energy combustion appear to be critical events that culminate in lipid storage in the liver.” - Really? No shit!

And what citations? A link to a one paragraph definition of fatty liver disease? Yea, way to prove your point.

Lol…it’s funny how people want to be “right” so badly, they ignore the actual subject of the discussion to go off on ridiculous tangents. Wow, shitty dieticians exist, and if you eat an unbalanced diet of nothing but white flour, you’ll have health problems.

Lol…[/quote]

So this is surely the end of the thread?

I see no way to improve on what was said here.

109

Listen, if someone wants to follow a paleo diet, that’s great. I see nothing wrong with that.

However, trying to create a situation in which we describe all starches as being esentially inedible is utter fucking nonsense of the highest order.

And that’s all I’m trying to point out here.

110

First of all, Mercola? Really?

So what you’re saying is that chronic overconsumption of carbohydrates is bad? Enlightening. Can you explain to me how you made the leap from chronic overconsumption=bad to reasonable consumption=bad? Can you explain the millions of people who eat grains and other UNKLEEN carbohydrates on a daily basis, but yet have no indicators of typical Western disease states? We know that chronically elevated insulin is also bad, but insulin is not released solely when carbs are consumed-as I already illustrated with my beef example. Chronic overfeeding and undermoving is the culprit, not a single macronutrient or subtype/source.

111

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
First of all, Mercola? Really?

So what you’re saying is that chronic overconsumption of carbohydrates is bad? Enlightening. Can you explain to me how you made the leap from chronic overconsumption=bad to reasonable consumption=bad? Can you explain the millions of people who eat grains and other UNKLEEN carbohydrates on a daily basis, but yet have no indicators of typical Western disease states? We know that chronically elevated insulin is also bad, but insulin is not released solely when carbs are consumed-as I already illustrated with my beef example. Chronic overfeeding and undermoving is the culprit, not a single macronutrient or subtype/source.[/quote]

Keep it coming, guys.

112

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Listen, if someone wants to follow a paleo diet, that’s great. I see nothing wrong with that.

However, trying to create a situation in which we describe all starches as being esentially inedible is utter fucking nonsense of the highest order.

And that’s all I’m trying to point out here. [/quote]

I think there is also a difference between what can be eaten, and what one should eat to maintain optimal health specific to ones body and goals.

I think it is definitely true though that different foods have different effects on every individual, and individual experimentation is the only way the one is going to find optimization.

I do agree that making sweeping statements about certain foods and their effects is simply foolish, as there are far to many factors that come into play and there are far to many different types of people that populate this planet.

EAT FOOD!

113

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Post all the pro-paleo propoganda you want, and also keep ignoring the fact that as part of a BALANCED diet, carbs aren’t bad for you. All the alarmist rhetoric about insulin response seems to ignore the fact that we’re talking about balance here. No shit if you eat a diet that’s 75 % carbs and shit foods you’ll have plenty of chronic health problems.
[/quote]

Part of my beef with dietitians, the ADA, the USDA, and other regulatory bodies regarding diet is that this is not too far off what is recommended. The USDA says that a person’s diet being 65% carbohydrates is within the limits of safe and acceptable ( http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/D-5-Carbohydrates.pdf ). I know that the ADA is not the USDA, but the organizations do work closely together, and I do not think it is a stretch to say that many RDs will go off the 2010 US Dietary Guidelines.

That said, I certainly believe you, Brick, and many other RDs know better. Still, for the crappy dietitians that do just enough work to get by, they’ll have evidence handed down by the USDA that says enormous grain consumption is just fine.

You can pay for the article if you wish to read it, or since you are still in school, your college will likely have access to LexisNexus or another similar service, and you can view it for free.

114

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Listen, if someone wants to follow a paleo diet, that’s great. I see nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]

I think you make a good point here. Diets in general should be looked at for what they are going to help you accomplish, not as an indication that anything outside of it unhealthy or wrong.

The Paleo Diet has helped improve my body composition and gut health, by guiding me towards certain foods. That does not mean that food not on the list is never meant to be eaten because it is poisonous or deadly, it means that it would not be ideal in helping be reach my specific goals.

115

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Listen, if someone wants to follow a paleo diet, that’s great. I see nothing wrong with that.

However, trying to create a situation in which we describe all starches as being esentially inedible is utter fucking nonsense of the highest order.

And that’s all I’m trying to point out here. [/quote]

I think there is also a difference between what can be eaten, and what one should eat to maintain optimal health specific to ones body and goals.

I think it is definitely true though that different foods have different effects on every individual, and individual experimentation is the only way the one is going to find optimization.

I do agree that making sweeping statements about certain foods and their effects is simply foolish, as there are far to many factors that come into play and there are far to many different types of people that populate this planet.

EAT FOOD![/quote]

I agree with this. There are some things that we are clearly able to process into usable energy that just don’t work well with our bodies otherwise.

For example, gluten has been indicated as causing certain issues with gut permeability, HOWEVER, that was at relatively large levels of long term comsumption. Fructose has been shown to be very harmful to the body when consumed at very high levels for an extended period of time.

Does any of this mean that we shouldn’t eat wheat products or fruits, EVER?

Of course not, the real world and the human body are not quite so black and white. Moderate fruit intake is definitely beneficial and unless one has an actual intolerance like Celiac disease, then there is no indication that moderate consumption of wheat products as a result of a balanced and varied diet is particularly harmful.

For the alarmists out there, consider this. Ethanol is definitely toxic to the human body. So toxic that when you consume alcohol, your body immediately stops metabolizing other substrates in order to get the ethanol out of your system as quickly as possible. However, there is a sizable body of research illustrating that moderate alcohol consumption is actually beneficial! Individuals who consume moderate amounts of alcohol tend to have lower body weights, lower body fats, and better overall health indicators. Alcohol consumption at moderate levels has not been shown to have the negative physique related consequences either, as all of the studies showing negative hormonal effects (primarily re: testosterone and cortisol) were done well outside of the range of moderate consumption.

People like to think in strict black and white terms and I think thats where discussions like this come from… If it is acceptable to eat 1 item of a particular food per week, then it must be acceptable to eat 30 per day also. Since some saturated fat is necessary for proper endocrine function, then eating 200g of saturated fat per day will jack up your test levels, bro! Since protein powder, grilled chicken, and sweet potatoes contain the nutrients necessary to building muscle, I’ll just eat those three foods!

116

The thing that irks me most about it is sensationalist shit like “The Paleo Diet” and other polarized doctrines get a huge response while basic edicts like balance and intelligent approaches towards your personal nutrition are largely ignored by people looking to belong to some kind of cult, or secret clubhouse. And all the while insisting that their way is the only way. It’s just fad bullshit - paleo diet, atkins…all of them. They all have worth and valid strategies for wholesome nutrition, but they lack things as well.

Like MOST things in life, a balanced approach is best. Is Atkins wrong about trying to control wild blood sugar fluctuations? No, of course not. Is the paleo diet wrong to insist nuts and seeds are good for you? No, of course not.

But trying to say that these chronic disease states are caused by one particular macronutrient is absurd, short-sighted and definitely lacking sound scientific method as far as definitive conclusions go…

117

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
The thing that irks me most about it is sensationalist shit like “The Paleo Diet” and other polarized doctrines get a huge response while basic edicts like balance and intelligent approaches towards your personal nutrition are largely ignored by people looking to belong to some kind of cult, or secret clubhouse.[/quote]

I hardly find the Paleo Diet to be sensationalist, but that is my personal opinion. I am more a follower of the primal lifestyle, which does focus on everything from diet to sleep to general hygiene.

I do agree that it is important not to become close minded to other approaches simply because you have chosen a different one. Knowledge and understanding is ever evolving, and pigeon holing yourself in one specific style and refusing all else is simply ignorant.

118

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

For the alarmists out there, consider this. Ethanol is definitely toxic to the human body. So toxic that when you consume alcohol, your body immediately stops metabolizing other substrates in order to get the ethanol out of your system as quickly as possible. However, there is a sizable body of research illustrating that moderate alcohol consumption is actually beneficial! Individuals who consume moderate amounts of alcohol tend to have lower body weights, lower body fats, and better overall health indicators. Alcohol consumption at moderate levels has not been shown to have the negative physique related consequences either, as all of the studies showing negative hormonal effects (primarily re: testosterone and cortisol) were done well outside of the range of moderate consumption.

[/quote]

How much is moderate? And is it body composition/individual dependent?

I mean is my 50 year old mother looking at a similar range as say a 22 year old kid who is very active in pick up games?

And you used the phrase “long term” for the grain example. How long is long term, and would an individual’s age factor into this? As in, would say a child that refuses to eat anything but white pasta for ten years, be looking just as dire as a 45 year old man that does the same?

(Sorry if these are dumbass questions.)

119

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Knowledge and understanding is ever evolving, and pigeon holing yourself in one specific style and refusing all else is simply ignorant.[/quote]

I would say not seeking out the opinions of those you disagree with can hurt you much more than it helps.

I actually go out of my way, at times, to read the opinions of those I disagree with, assuming the individual is reasonable.

120

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Knowledge and understanding is ever evolving, and pigeon holing yourself in one specific style and refusing all else is simply ignorant.[/quote]

I would say not seeking out the opinions of those you disagree with can hurt you much more than it helps.

I actually go out of my way, at times, to read the opinions of those I disagree with, assuming the individual is reasonable.[/quote]

I agree completely. It is essential to do so if you want to gain true understanding of someone or something.

You are never done learning.