looking for nutritarian friends

168101112

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,148 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
    And thus, the OP's beliefs.

    So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?

    Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.

    EVER.

    Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.

    careful the paleolites will smite you!
  • Strokingdiction
    Strokingdiction Posts: 1,164 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
    And thus, the OP's beliefs.

    So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?

    Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.

    EVER.

    Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.

    careful the paleolites will smite you!


    smite-me_zps0e0664da.jpg
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
    And thus, the OP's beliefs.

    So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?

    Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.

    EVER.

    Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.
    Sure you can. And I can comment on it.
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,286 Member
    Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.

    Interesting. When I hold a belief that is in the extreme minority, it makes me reconsider my belief. That isn't to say that it means it is automatically wrong, but it's a solid clue that it may be.

    To cry "group think" is insulting in that it purports that those with whom you disagree have reached their differing conclusions not based on their own research but simply because everyone else believes it. While I can't speak for the others, I know that in my specific case, this is simply untrue.



    TL;DR - Mom! Everyone on the internet thinks I'm wrong about something! :stomps feet:
    Perhaps I wasn't speaking of you.

    Perhaps? You either were, or you weren't and you know which. You also know (if not Jof) whom you were referring to. Clarify, as you are the only one who can. For the sake of clarity.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,971 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
    And thus, the OP's beliefs.

    So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?

    Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.

    EVER.

    Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.
    Sure you can. And I can comment on it.

    Congrats, you have successfully derailed this thread into "You are not the boss of me."

    And -I- was called the snarky one.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,538 Member
    People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.

    I agree with this. I also think that a lot of people would be surprised about what their diet is actually composed of. It took me awhile to discover that liking, buying and serving my kids a varied diet didn't mean that i was getting the diet I needed

    Eta - MFP is a great solution for this.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,446 Member
    People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.

    ^^^^ true

    and also, people on many kinds of faddy diets massively overfocus on micronutrients at the expense of macronutrients, so you get conversations like this:

    die hard fad diet zealot: But I get so many micronutrients, I'm so healthy, blah blah blah

    realist: your diet doesn't give you the full range of essential amino acids though, and the total amount of protein is too low

    *die hard fad diet zealot then launches into a tirade about how humans don't need all the essential amino acids or all that much protein or tries to claim humans are herbivores or that protein is the cause of all human mortality... etc etc etc, and how their diet's going to make them healthier because of all the micronutrients*

    the same thing applies with low carb and low fat diets........ people claim these macronutrients are harmful and people are better off without them..... all three macronutrients are maligned by various different diets (though usually not all three at once by the same diet) and their importance in the human diet downplayed or even outright denied, and the comeback is always that the diet is rich in micronutrients and the person promoting the diet seems to think that more micronutrients can make up for a lack of macronutrients.......... fact is though that you'll become malnourished a lot more quickly on a diet that gives you inadequate macronutrients than you will on a diet with inadequate micronutrients.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,446 Member
    Me!!!!! Plant based here!!!!! Open diary!!!!!

    Only thing I won't give up is my Greek yogurt :) and hot cocoa and Stevia

    Other than those things plant based all the way I even make my own peanut butter no added sugars :)

    Do you seriously frequently eat <50g of protein daily??? And frequently <20g fat???

    Egads.

    In addition to worrying about the damage you have done in the past (per your motto on your profile page), you may also want to give some strong consideration about the present and future.


    I believe protein is overrated I have a number of reasons I believe this! The China study is one reason. If u want glowing skin and energy for days try a plant based diet. It is hard and scary to break away from the old ways of things though! So it may not be for you!

    Good luck on your journey

    ^^^ Quod erat demonstrandum (referring to my last post above)
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,446 Member
    I think it means eating at least 90% plant foods. And 10% animal products like meat, milk, eggs.

    That's a very different definition than the one that OP (or someone else?) offered on page one.

    Perhaps this is like "paleo" where there are drastically different definitions/interpretations of it.

    My interpretation is what it says in the link.

    What link? This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritarian where I see no reference to 10% re animal products.

    Either way, I still argue that there now appear to be *at least* two distinct definitions/interpretations of the word...as evidenced by posts in this very thread.

    Perhaps Dr. Fuhrman will jump in and clarify.

    unintentional pun?

    the guy is a nutter. he once went 46 days ingesting nothing but water in an attempt to cure a heel injury because he didn't want top undergo surgery on it.

    total biology fail *facepalm*

    but now I'm curious as to what actual beliefs he held at the time that made that seem like a logical way to treat a heel injury

    who knows? i can't imagine anyone with half a brain would go along withy 46 days of ingesting nothing but water as a way of curing a heel injury though. :laugh:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/your-disease-your-fault/

    thanks for the article link.... very interesting. I think that is what these diets are really peddling... i.e. the idea that they can control their own morbidity and mortality by just changing their diet....

    what's interesting is that the paleo diet follows a pretty similar mentality (not including those who do it for food allergy/intolerance avoidance... I'm talking about those who follow it because they think that it has these elusive and ill-definable health benefits to everyone)........because palaeolithic people had pretty much no control whatsoever over morbidity and mortality, certainly exponentially less than the control we have over it nowadays. They likely only had a tribe shaman or medicine woman or similar i.e. knowledge of a handful of herbal remedies for simple ailments and a lot of superstition, and being basically at the mercy of fate. And lower palaeolithic people probably didn't have anything more than a concerned relative to bring you food and water and hope that you lived (there is archaeological evidence that even lower palaeolithic people (Oldowan level of culture, i.e. Dmanisi, Georgia) looked after vulnerable members of the group, but their cranial capacity was not that much more than the average chimpanzee's).......... there are some ways that palaeolithic people were healthier than modern people, i.e. because they got regular exercise, fresh air and plenty of exposure to sunlight, but that's about as far as it goes... I guess that the whole of human evolution has included a struggle to try to control some aspects of mortality and morbidity, but I really think that modern medicine, which is science based and backed up by peer-reviewed research, while not being perfect (because we don't know everything) is the best thing we have for preventing people from dying young. And yes this includes a healthy lifestyle, which comes from the one promoted by medical science, i.e. be active, and eat a balanced diet.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,527 Member
    Never heard of it but interested in this thread :flowerforyou:
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,418 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    Because 90% of the time when a group wants to call themselves some new and weird term it's a cover for one of two things.

    1. Following some crackpot science that's been thoroughly debunked and probably unhealthy
    2. Trying to give a better name for their eating disorder.

    When people start spouting off about the glorious health benefits of avoiding fats and protein and "bad things" and base it on utter drivel like the China Study while they eat 30 bananas a day, it's one of those two things. They can spray perfume all over it with a fancy name but it still reeks of disordered thinking.
  • _Zardoz_
    _Zardoz_ Posts: 3,988 Member
    Squirrels? I'm afraid to me this just seems like another case of mystifying foods and diets and making it far more complicated than needs be.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,538 Member
    People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.

    ^^^^ true

    and also, people on many kinds of faddy diets massively overfocus on micronutrients at the expense of macronutrients, so you get conversations like this:

    die hard fad diet zealot: But I get so many micronutrients, I'm so healthy, blah blah blah

    realist: your diet doesn't give you the full range of essential amino acids though, and the total amount of protein is too low

    *die hard fad diet zealot then launches into a tirade about how humans don't need all the essential amino acids or all that much protein or tries to claim humans are herbivores or that protein is the cause of all human mortality... etc etc etc, and how their diet's going to make them healthier because of all the micronutrients*

    the same thing applies with low carb and low fat diets........ people claim these macronutrients are harmful and people are better off without them..... all three macronutrients are maligned by various different diets (though usually not all three at once by the same diet) and their importance in the human diet downplayed or even outright denied, and the comeback is always that the diet is rich in micronutrients and the person promoting the diet seems to think that more micronutrients can make up for a lack of macronutrients.......... fact is though that you'll become malnourished a lot more quickly on a diet that gives you inadequate macronutrients than you will on a diet with inadequate micronutrients.

    I'm currently a specitarian. I eat as many species as won't kill me.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,446 Member
    People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.

    ^^^^ true

    and also, people on many kinds of faddy diets massively overfocus on micronutrients at the expense of macronutrients, so you get conversations like this:

    die hard fad diet zealot: But I get so many micronutrients, I'm so healthy, blah blah blah

    realist: your diet doesn't give you the full range of essential amino acids though, and the total amount of protein is too low

    *die hard fad diet zealot then launches into a tirade about how humans don't need all the essential amino acids or all that much protein or tries to claim humans are herbivores or that protein is the cause of all human mortality... etc etc etc, and how their diet's going to make them healthier because of all the micronutrients*

    the same thing applies with low carb and low fat diets........ people claim these macronutrients are harmful and people are better off without them..... all three macronutrients are maligned by various different diets (though usually not all three at once by the same diet) and their importance in the human diet downplayed or even outright denied, and the comeback is always that the diet is rich in micronutrients and the person promoting the diet seems to think that more micronutrients can make up for a lack of macronutrients.......... fact is though that you'll become malnourished a lot more quickly on a diet that gives you inadequate macronutrients than you will on a diet with inadequate micronutrients.

    I'm currently a specitarian. I eat as many species as won't kill me.

    or maybe organismitarian - I eat living things

    ^^^^ that could be prone to some dodgy misspellings though :laugh:
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,148 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    Because 90% of the time when a group wants to call themselves some new and weird term it's a cover for one of two things.

    1. Following some crackpot science that's been thoroughly debunked and probably unhealthy
    2. Trying to give a better name for their eating disorder.

    When people start spouting off about the glorious health benefits of avoiding fats and protein and "bad things" and base it on utter drivel like the China Study while they eat 30 bananas a day, it's one of those two things. They can spray perfume all over it with a fancy name but it still reeks of disordered thinking.

    lipstick on a pig…???
  • George_Baileys_Ghost
    George_Baileys_Ghost Posts: 1,524 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.


    Yes, that is my point. :)
    No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
    Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.

    Because 90% of the time when a group wants to call themselves some new and weird term it's a cover for one of two things.

    1. Following some crackpot science that's been thoroughly debunked and probably unhealthy
    2. Trying to give a better name for their eating disorder.

    When people start spouting off about the glorious health benefits of avoiding fats and protein and "bad things" and base it on utter drivel like the China Study while they eat 30 bananas a day, it's one of those two things. They can spray perfume all over it with a fancy name but it still reeks of disordered thinking.

    lipstick on a pig…???

    I was going to say, "turd painted gold".....tomato/potato.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,416 Member
    I think it means eating at least 90% plant foods. And 10% animal products like meat, milk, eggs.

    That's a very different definition than the one that OP (or someone else?) offered on page one.

    Perhaps this is like "paleo" where there are drastically different definitions/interpretations of it.
    That actually sounds a lot like being a vegetarian ...
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,416 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.

    malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.

    i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.

    My entire issue with this nutritarian garbage is not that there's anything wrong with it, but that it is an actual word, diet and book that people BUY.

    Someone is actually MAKING MONEY and people are actually giving this person their money and acting like they're doing something super special when all it is is eating a healthy, balanced diet. That's it.

    As I said earlier in the thread, I do this. I don't do it with ingesting large amounts of micronutrients in mind. I do it because I know that fruits and vegetables are healthy and low-calorie and as a vegetarian (for moral reasons, not nutritional), they make up a large part of my diet.

    I mean, "nutritarian" is just another word for following the Food Pyramid as far as I can tell. Why is this a thing? Why is there a book? Why is there a label?

    It's all ridiculous.

    And I'm not saying I don't have days where my diet consists entirely of pizza and cheesecake ... But I try to do that sparingly because, well, I don't want to be fat and those things have a lot of calories. :-)
  • lots2lose51
    lots2lose51 Posts: 29 Member
    Hi all
    The nutrition side is whats confusing me, i need to understand it the easy way lol im even unsure what my daily chart should balance like 50 crbs 25 fat 25 protein ? am i anywhere near right with this plz someone :embarassed: :blushing:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,167 Member
    Hi all
    The nutrition side is whats confusing me, i need to understand it the easy way lol im even unsure what my daily chart should balance like 50 crbs 25 fat 25 protein ? am i anywhere near right with this plz someone :embarassed: :blushing:

    Depends on your goals and training. Most here, myself included, will recommend a relatively high-protein diet (on the order of 100-200 grams per day depending on your body). High protein diets have been firmly established to be muscle-sparing; that is, while losing weight, you will lose less lean mass eating high protein than eating low protein. The "magic number" of protein intake for people losing weight and training appears to be at or slightly above 1 gram of protein per pound of lean mass daily.

    As for fats, the "magic number" for fat intake is about 0.3 grams per pound of body weight a day, and this should be treated as a minimum.