'Not Meant' to Eat?

Nutrition
121

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The general population though is spiraling out of control with this nutrition stuff. Maybe its because I live in the south, but it is the one thing that this society is doing that is seriously concerning in the long term. I’m not being overly dramatic when I say that this I am stunned almost every single day as I keep seeing greater and greater levels of almost complete disability due to people cramming junk food in their mouth. [/quote]

I think this is a great perspective. I think the question that is of more importance to me is “what is meant to be eaten in order to aid in as long a life as possible?” (not including freak accidents).

Of course you can eat junk, and your body can process it, but in the long run you are hurting your engine and decreasing its life span.

I am more interested in what leads to optimal health and longevity, not what your body could process if it had to, as most of people seem to be arguing about in here.

122

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

A professional degree increases the range on your bullshit meter so you spend less time giving EVERY ideology precious brain space.

123

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I am stunned almost every single day as I keep seeing greater and greater levels of almost complete disability due to people cramming junk food in their mouth. [/quote]

Something that makes me sick is when someone obese has to use an electric cart at a shopping center/grocery store. When you see them riding around on it, making there way to the junk food aisle, it’s hard to feel sad for them

124

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The general population though is spiraling out of control with this nutrition stuff. Maybe its because I live in the south, but it is the one thing that this society is doing that is seriously concerning in the long term. I’m not being overly dramatic when I say that this I am stunned almost every single day as I keep seeing greater and greater levels of almost complete disability due to people cramming junk food in their mouth. [/quote]

The gen pop just doesn’t care until they get sick. They WANT the cake with the double fudge and they will cry that it is their right even when in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

Laziness is a disease and it is spreading. Add in harder financial times, longer work hours and cheap fast food, and years later you end up with broke, overworked, obese people whose bodies are falling apart from no upkeep.

Life is too convenient now. Before, lifestyle itself guaranteed some form of exercise. Today, you could literally wake up and never leave air conditioning assuming you have a closed garage at home and at work.

Therefore, if they don’t make it a priority themselves, they won’t make it. That is a first for us as a species…overabundance coupled with overpopulation.

Planet Earth: Overflowing with obesity

Any takers for how this all ends?

125

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion on what qualifies as sensationalistic. And as for you being a follower of the primal lifestyle, I’m not trying to say that there is anything inherently wrong with that at all.

You also are reasonable and not trying to jam rhetoric down people’s throats.

126

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The problem comes when people try to LIVE on twinkies and other shit like that. [/quote]

Bingo - thank you Modok.

But yes, as I said earlier, people’s interpretations of Brick’s initial question have led this thread all over the map…lol…

127

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The problem comes when people try to LIVE on twinkies and other shit like that. [/quote]

Bingo - thank you Modok.

But yes, as I said earlier, people’s interpretations of Brick’s initial question have led this thread all over the map…lol…[/quote]

Yea Brick, look what you’ve created, be more specific next time. Sheeeeeeesh.

128

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

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…[/quote]

Sucrose and fructose aren’t glucose, the body handles them much differently.

Secondly, the body doesn’t make “perfectly good use of” gummy bears and twinkies. Perfectly good use does not include high cholesterol, diabetes, stroke, heart attack, obesity, etc etc.

Foods like that DO kill you.

129

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“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]

Yet, in the nations where people eat gummy bears and twinkies and sugar coated cereal and donuts, most people are fat and DIE EARLY.

Yep. We’re totally meant to eat chocolate and fried corn chips. The evidence is all around us.

130

Things that promote optimal health = meant to eat.

Things that do not = not meant to eat.

Defining “meant to eat” the way you guys are is part of the obesity epidemic in america today. “I know I’m already 320 pounds… but my body needs the, um, glucose in this cake. I’m meant to eat it.”

131

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“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]

Yet, in the nations where people eat gummy bears and twinkies and sugar coated cereal and donuts, most people are fat and DIE EARLY.

Yep. We’re totally meant to eat chocolate and fried corn chips. The evidence is all around us.

[/quote]

LOL.

I do believe many before in this thread have already pointed out the fault in thinking that since a whole lot is bad for you, that ALL OF IT DESTROYS THE BODY. We were ‘MEANT’ to develop the capacity to control our own food intake and manipulate it. We were ‘MEANT’ to advance far beyond simply some hunter/gatherer mentality during a period so volatile that living past the age of 35 would have been considered a great feat.

Oh, and genius, that chocolate…Raw cacao is one of the top antioxidant foods in the world.

132

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sucrose and fructose aren’t glucose, the body handles them much differently.

Secondly, the body doesn’t make “perfectly good use of” gummy bears and twinkies. Perfectly good use does not include high cholesterol, diabetes, stroke, heart attack, obesity, etc etc.

Foods like that DO kill you. [/quote]

You must be kidding me. Thanks for the lesson, I’m aware of the differences lol…

Sucrose is digested in the stomach into its component sugars, which are the monosaccharides glucose and fructose.

The point is, sucrose is an easily assimilated macronutrient that provides a quick source of energy. I’ve stated repeatedly that by definition, I’m talking about something your body will USE TO MAKE ENERGY AND STAY ALIVE. Are you really going to split hairs on the term “good use”? By good use, I mean it will break down to its basic monomers and continue down biochemical pathways to produce ATP.

But you’re continually completely missing my point. Forget it. You should eat however you feel personally comfortable doing so.

133

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“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]

Yet, in the nations where people eat gummy bears and twinkies and sugar coated cereal and donuts, most people are fat and DIE EARLY.

Yep. We’re totally meant to eat chocolate and fried corn chips. The evidence is all around us.

[/quote]

LOL.

I do believe many before in this thread have already pointed out the fault in thinking that since a whole lot is bad for you, that ALL OF IT DESTROYS THE BODY. We were ‘MEANT’ to develop the capacity to control our own food intake and manipulate it. We were ‘MEANT’ to advance far beyond simply some hunter/gatherer mentality during a period so volatile that living past the age of 35 would have been considered a great feat.

Oh, and genius, that chocolate…Raw cacao is one of the top antioxidant foods in the world.[/quote]

Raw cacao = snickers bar? :stuck_out_tongue:

So, do you eat gummy bears and twinkies on a daily basis? Of course, I mean any other “junk” foods, ice cream, cake, donuts, etc.

How much of your diet is made up of “junk” foods?

134

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sucrose and fructose aren’t glucose, the body handles them much differently.

Secondly, the body doesn’t make “perfectly good use of” gummy bears and twinkies. Perfectly good use does not include high cholesterol, diabetes, stroke, heart attack, obesity, etc etc.

Foods like that DO kill you. [/quote]

You must be kidding me. Thanks for the lesson, I’m aware of the differences lol…

Sucrose is digested in the stomach into its component sugars, which are the monosaccharides glucose and fructose.

The point is, sucrose is an easily assimilated macronutrient that provides a quick source of energy. I’ve stated repeatedly that by definition, I’m talking about something your body will USE TO MAKE ENERGY AND STAY ALIVE. Are you really going to split hairs on the term “good use”? By good use, I mean it will break down to its basic monomers and continue down biochemical pathways to produce ATP.

But you’re continually completely missing my point. Forget it. You should eat however you feel personally comfortable doing so. [/quote]

Your point is that we’re meant to eat anything edible because it keeps us alive. Yes?

135

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“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]

Yet, in the nations where people eat gummy bears and twinkies and sugar coated cereal and donuts, most people are fat and DIE EARLY.

Yep. We’re totally meant to eat chocolate and fried corn chips. The evidence is all around us.

[/quote]

LOL.

I do believe many before in this thread have already pointed out the fault in thinking that since a whole lot is bad for you, that ALL OF IT DESTROYS THE BODY. We were ‘MEANT’ to develop the capacity to control our own food intake and manipulate it. We were ‘MEANT’ to advance far beyond simply some hunter/gatherer mentality during a period so volatile that living past the age of 35 would have been considered a great feat.

Oh, and genius, that chocolate…Raw cacao is one of the top antioxidant foods in the world.[/quote]

Raw cacao = snickers bar? :stuck_out_tongue:

So, do you eat gummy bears and twinkies on a daily basis? Of course, I mean any other “junk” foods, ice cream, cake, donuts, etc.

How much of your diet is made up of “junk” foods?[/quote]

Debating with you further is just going to make me look bad for taking advantage of the mentally handicapped.

Bye.

Don’t forget your helmet.

136

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“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]

Yet, in the nations where people eat gummy bears and twinkies and sugar coated cereal and donuts, most people are fat and DIE EARLY.

Yep. We’re totally meant to eat chocolate and fried corn chips. The evidence is all around us.

[/quote]

LOL.

I do believe many before in this thread have already pointed out the fault in thinking that since a whole lot is bad for you, that ALL OF IT DESTROYS THE BODY. We were ‘MEANT’ to develop the capacity to control our own food intake and manipulate it. We were ‘MEANT’ to advance far beyond simply some hunter/gatherer mentality during a period so volatile that living past the age of 35 would have been considered a great feat.

Oh, and genius, that chocolate…Raw cacao is one of the top antioxidant foods in the world.[/quote]

Raw cacao = snickers bar? :stuck_out_tongue:

So, do you eat gummy bears and twinkies on a daily basis? Of course, I mean any other “junk” foods, ice cream, cake, donuts, etc.

How much of your diet is made up of “junk” foods?[/quote]

Debating with you further is just going to make me look bad for taking advantage of the mentally handicapped.

Bye.

Don’t forget your helmet.[/quote]

So you don’t make a habit of eating all those foods you’re “meant to eat”?

Strange…

137

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Your point is that we’re meant to eat anything edible because it keeps us alive. Yes?[/quote]

Yes - now, of course I’ll agree that none of those things, in large amounts and on any kind of regular basis helps anyone’s health in the long run, and are in fact extremely detrimental.

But we are “meant” to eat anything that our bodies will process to keep us alive for another day, hour or minute.

138

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Your point is that we’re meant to eat anything edible because it keeps us alive. Yes?[/quote]

Yes - now, of course I’ll agree that none of those things, in large amounts and on any kind of regular basis helps anyone’s health in the long run, and are in fact extremely detrimental.

But we are “meant” to eat anything that our bodies will process to keep us alive for another day, hour or minute. [/quote]

I get your point. I just see it differently. There is a difference between “can” and “should” or “meant to”.

Also, I dont think its “splitting hairs” to point out the effects of eating certain foods in a wider sense than just “the person goes on living for another day/hour minute”. Quality of health is important.

139

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Quality of health is important.[/quote]

No one, least of all me, said it wasn’t.

140

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Quality of health is important.[/quote]

No one, least of all me, said it wasn’t. [/quote]

Ok. Hence I think that we should define what we’re “Meant to eat” based on that which promotes the best quality of health. Not what keeps us alive at the moment at the detriment of our long term health.