looking for nutritarian friends

16791112

Replies

  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,446 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:

    your body needs protein for growth and repair... and when you're eating at a deficit for fat loss, you also need lots of protein to prevent loss of lean tissue... you want to lose fat and only fat, not muscle, bone density etc. Exercise + plenty of protein helps with that. I'd raise protein to 30% although 25% is a start if you're finding it hard to adjust to the new diet... you don't have to make all the changes in one go, you can do everything step by step

    you need fat for many things in the body, including keeping your brain functioning well. Fat's been demonised in the past because it's high in calories and easy to overeat on, but it's necessary for good health

    carbs are for energy.

    All three of these nutrients give your body the energy it needs to function and go about your daily life, and also to give you energy to exercise... calories is a unit of energy, same as centimetres are a unit of length. So how many calories there are in a food is a measure of how much energy it gives your body. To burn fat, you need to be using more energy than you're taking in... but you also need to make sure you're eating enough to keep your body running well. Your MFP calorie number is calculated as how much you need to keep your body running, but still the right amount so that you're taking in less than you're burning off and losing fat. The three macronutrients, i.e. carbs, fat and protein, need to be in balance with each other to ensure you're body's getting enough protein and fat to stay healthy and maintain your muscle mass etc. And because you don't want to take in too much energy (because that would stop you from burning fat), you need to be eating the right amount of each, i.e. in balance with each other.

    Other nutrients, e.g. vitamins minerals and fibre, are needed too, and these come in most foods along with the calories. Eating plenty of fruit and veg along with making sure you're getting the right amount of the macronutrients should mean you're getting enough of the other nutrients.

    Hope that answers your question.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,538 Member
    Jonny + neander = pure gold and you don't even have to buy a book.
  • 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.

    I'm switching to the jonnymagon diet. Protein powder to come.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,167 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.

    I'm switching to the jonnymagon diet. Protein powder to come.

    Don't forget the pizza.

    And tacos.

    Pizza, tacos, and whey. Done.
  • 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.

    I'm switching to the jonnymagon diet. Protein powder to come.

    Don't forget the pizza.

    And tacos.

    Pizza, tacos, and whey. Done.

    Maybe we could get Casey to develop a cookie line?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,167 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.

    I'm switching to the jonnymagon diet. Protein powder to come.

    Don't forget the pizza.

    And tacos.

    Pizza, tacos, and whey. Done.

    Maybe we could get Casey to develop a cookie line?

    That girl is a sorceress. Seriously. I think we may be onto something here.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,538 Member
    "I'm not really selling the jonnymagon diet, but I'm a coach because of the discount on the cookies"
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,951 Member
    I'm a paleo vegan fooditarian.
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,951 Member
    Sometimes I'm an ingredientatarian.

    I eat food that has ingredients in it.
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,951 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread that sure are getting defensive and making many assumptions about nutritarians based on no more than a brief wikipedia definition. Assuming that nutritarians don't care about macros? Assuming that all Dr. Fuhrman wants to do is push supplements? Dismissing the well-researched power of fasting to fight certain diseases and assuming Dr Fuhrman is a crackpot for using that knowledge (successfully I might add)?

    If nutritarians don't care about macros, then why does Dr. Fuhrman insist that nutritarians eat plenty of beans for the protein and enough nuts to get sufficient fat? If all he wants is to push supplements than why does he recommend only those supplements that may be lacking when not consuming many animal products (Vitamin B, Vitamin D and EHA/DHA).

    The OP just wanted to find other people trying out this well-researched, well-documented way of eating to promote good health and people jump all over her with their criticism about something they have never tried, haven't researched and know next to nothing about.
  • 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
    Oh, I get that he made it more complicated and all of that. But the idea is the same. To me, it's just eating healthy as far as I can tell, mostly plant-based. I just don't get the need to label it and write a whole book.

    Man, I really need to cash in on my green M&M diet. I'm a writer, so it should be pretty easy to write the book and start raking in the cash.
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
    Oh, I get that he made it more complicated and all of that. But the idea is the same. To me, it's just eating healthy as far as I can tell, mostly plant-based. I just don't get the need to label it and write a whole book.

    Man, I really need to cash in on my green M&M diet. I'm a writer, so it should be pretty easy to write the book and start raking in the cash.

    Most of the book is about the research behind this way of eating along with recipes to make it easier. It's not just about eating healthy, it's about knowing what the healthiest foods are and what proportion of those foods will provide a balanced assortment of micro and macro nutrients. The plan takes discipline and may be too hardcore for many people to feel comfortable with but I don't believe I've ever seen a more healthy eating plan backed up with this much research before and I've read a multitude of books on nutrition.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,290 Member
    Health = Nutrients/Calories (or H= N/C for short).

    In for pseudomath.

    Yup.

    Lets say I get 100% of my required nutrients for the day, so N = 100. I eat 2,000 calories.

    H = 100/2,000 = 0.05

    Now, assume I eat twice as many nutrients the next day (but the same total calories):

    H = 200/2,000 = 0.1

    Am I actually healthier on day 2? This "equation" says I am, but if I ate all the nutrients my body needed on day 1, how can that be? How do those extra nutrients - that my body doesn't need, remember - aid my health?


    So yeah... eat healthy, wholesome foods. Get your nutrients. But this is definitely pseudomath.

    Also: note the [citation needed]'s in the wiki link. Indeed.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,426 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
    Oh, I get that he made it more complicated and all of that. But the idea is the same. To me, it's just eating healthy as far as I can tell, mostly plant-based. I just don't get the need to label it and write a whole book.

    Man, I really need to cash in on my green M&M diet. I'm a writer, so it should be pretty easy to write the book and start raking in the cash.

    Most of the book is about the research behind this way of eating along with recipes to make it easier. It's not just about eating healthy, it's about knowing what the healthiest foods are and what proportion of those foods will provide a balanced assortment of micro and macro nutrients. The plan takes discipline and may be too hardcore for many people to feel comfortable with but I don't believe I've ever seen a more healthy eating plan backed up with this much research before and I've read a multitude of books on nutrition.

    What are his recommendations for protein and fat (in either percentages or grams)? What is his support for his 90% plant position?
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
    Oh, I get that he made it more complicated and all of that. But the idea is the same. To me, it's just eating healthy as far as I can tell, mostly plant-based. I just don't get the need to label it and write a whole book.

    Man, I really need to cash in on my green M&M diet. I'm a writer, so it should be pretty easy to write the book and start raking in the cash.

    Most of the book is about the research behind this way of eating along with recipes to make it easier. It's not just about eating healthy, it's about knowing what the healthiest foods are and what proportion of those foods will provide a balanced assortment of micro and macro nutrients. The plan takes discipline and may be too hardcore for many people to feel comfortable with but I don't believe I've ever seen a more healthy eating plan backed up with this much research before and I've read a multitude of books on nutrition.

    What are his recommendations for protein and fat (in either percentages or grams)? What is his support for his 90% plant position?

    Well without having the book in front of me right now I remember he did not believe in calculating macros as a percentage of food intake and stated that a certain magical ratio of c/p/f that provided excellent health was a fantasy. I believe he recommended getting 80 g of protein (50 bare minimum) and said that the numerous vegetables eaten per day mixed with at least 1 cup of beans would cover that. I don't remember a specific fat gram recommendation but he recommended at least 1.5 oz of nuts per day along with everything else would cover any fat needs.

    The research on plant foods as the healthiest food available to us is extensive as is the research on how processed foods and diets high in animal products promote obesity and disease. He recommends absolutely no processed food and a maximum of 10% of your calories should come from animal products (ideally 0%) due to their correlation with various diseases/cancers.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,426 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
    Oh, I get that he made it more complicated and all of that. But the idea is the same. To me, it's just eating healthy as far as I can tell, mostly plant-based. I just don't get the need to label it and write a whole book.

    Man, I really need to cash in on my green M&M diet. I'm a writer, so it should be pretty easy to write the book and start raking in the cash.

    Most of the book is about the research behind this way of eating along with recipes to make it easier. It's not just about eating healthy, it's about knowing what the healthiest foods are and what proportion of those foods will provide a balanced assortment of micro and macro nutrients. The plan takes discipline and may be too hardcore for many people to feel comfortable with but I don't believe I've ever seen a more healthy eating plan backed up with this much research before and I've read a multitude of books on nutrition.

    What are his recommendations for protein and fat (in either percentages or grams)? What is his support for his 90% plant position?

    Well without having the book in front of me right now I remember he did not believe in calculating macros as a percentage of food intake and stated that a certain magical ratio of c/p/f that provided excellent health was a fantasy. I believe he recommended getting 80 g of protein (50 bare minimum) and said that the numerous vegetables eaten per day mixed with at least 1 cup of beans would cover that. I don't remember a specific fat gram recommendation but he recommended at least 1.5 oz of nuts per day along with everything else would cover any fat needs.

    The research on plant foods as the healthiest food available to us is extensive as is the research on how processed foods and diets high in animal products promote obesity and disease. He recommends absolutely no processed food and a maximum of 10% of your calories should come from animal products (ideally 0%) due to their correlation with various diseases/cancers.

    I'm surprised he would consider those relatively small amounts of protein sufficient for optimal health especially given what the research says about protein...especially given what would be a definite lack of certain AAs from the primarily-plant based sources of protein.

    As for the research, are you certain that those studies demonstrated that plant-based diets *caused* superior health or that there was simply a correlation? Same question for diets "high" in animal products *causing* obesity and disease? Causation or correlation? Because there's a difference. I see you used the word "correlation" in your response, but it seems like he's making a causation argument based on it.

    Or in other words...
    My veg*n friend who maintains a healthy body weight through calorie control and exercises regularly believes that it is his veg*n diet that has resulted in his relatively superior health compared to his omnivore neighbor who smokes two packs a day, is entirely sedentary, and hasn't tasted a vegetable in years.

    That someone has chosen to be a veg*n/nearly veg*n demonstrates an awareness of and concern for their health *even if it is based on faulty logic* that would lead them to better health overall through other decisions that have nothing to do with their diet, confounding factors that would be very difficult/impossible to eliminate from these purported supporting studies.
  • MelsAuntie
    MelsAuntie Posts: 2,834 Member
    I guess I'm a nutritarian, since I only eat nutrients. No wood, stones, or metals.
    But if it means avoiding chocolate and red meat, the hell with it.
  • PJPrimrose
    PJPrimrose Posts: 932 Member
    "I guess I'm a nutritarian, since I only eat nutrients. No wood, stones, or metals.
    But if it means avoiding chocolate and red meat, the hell with it."

    I lost interest when they stopped posting cat GIFs. At least you have a real standing.
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 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. :-)

    It's not following the food pyramid. He created a whole new pyramid with 90% plant food. And 10% animal products.
    Oh, I get that he made it more complicated and all of that. But the idea is the same. To me, it's just eating healthy as far as I can tell, mostly plant-based. I just don't get the need to label it and write a whole book.

    Man, I really need to cash in on my green M&M diet. I'm a writer, so it should be pretty easy to write the book and start raking in the cash.

    Most of the book is about the research behind this way of eating along with recipes to make it easier. It's not just about eating healthy, it's about knowing what the healthiest foods are and what proportion of those foods will provide a balanced assortment of micro and macro nutrients. The plan takes discipline and may be too hardcore for many people to feel comfortable with but I don't believe I've ever seen a more healthy eating plan backed up with this much research before and I've read a multitude of books on nutrition.

    What are his recommendations for protein and fat (in either percentages or grams)? What is his support for his 90% plant position?

    Well without having the book in front of me right now I remember he did not believe in calculating macros as a percentage of food intake and stated that a certain magical ratio of c/p/f that provided excellent health was a fantasy. I believe he recommended getting 80 g of protein (50 bare minimum) and said that the numerous vegetables eaten per day mixed with at least 1 cup of beans would cover that. I don't remember a specific fat gram recommendation but he recommended at least 1.5 oz of nuts per day along with everything else would cover any fat needs.

    The research on plant foods as the healthiest food available to us is extensive as is the research on how processed foods and diets high in animal products promote obesity and disease. He recommends absolutely no processed food and a maximum of 10% of your calories should come from animal products (ideally 0%) due to their correlation with various diseases/cancers.

    I'm surprised he would consider those relatively small amounts of protein sufficient for optimal health especially given what the research says about protein...especially given what would be a definite lack of certain AAs from the primarily-plant based sources of protein.

    As for the research, are you certain that those studies demonstrated that plant-based diets *caused* superior health or that there was simply a correlation? Same question for diets "high" in animal products *causing* obesity and disease? Causation or correlation? Because there's a difference. I see you used the word "correlation" in your response, but it seems like he's making a causation argument based on it.

    Or in other words...
    My veg*n friend who maintains a healthy body weight through calorie control and exercises regularly believes that it is his veg*n diet that has resulted in his relatively superior health compared to his omnivore neighbor who smokes two packs a day, is entirely sedentary, and hasn't tasted a vegetable in years.

    That someone has chosen to be a veg*n/nearly veg*n demonstrates an awareness of and concern for their health *even if it is based on faulty logic* that would lead them to better health overall through other decisions that have nothing to do with their diet, confounding factors that would be very difficult/impossible to eliminate from these purported supporting studies.

    Well I don't know of any research that says you need more protein than that for optimal health. There's plenty of research that more protein helps for certain endeavors like large amounts of muscle mass and strength but Dr. Fuhrman points out that these types of individuals such as bodybuilders and football players don't have optimal health. Optimal health is being slender and lean with a moderate amount of muscle mass and it's not good for your body to carry around excessive amounts of mass, whether it is fat or muscle. He does mention that an athlete may need something like 3 times the amount of calories to compensate for the huge increase in exercise, which would probably reach the type of protein amounts you have in mind though.

    I see what you're saying with the causation/correlation thing but he does a lot of research of entire populations of people that just eat what is available to them in their region. There are regions in Asia and South America where their people eat pretty much 100% plant food and their rate of heart attacks in a lifetime was something like 2/1000 and the average life expectancy is in the 90s while Americans have hundreds of heart attacks per 1000. Then there's the research on populations around the world that base their diets on animal foods and their heart attack/disease rates are way closer to American's than those plant food cultures. This is just some of the research I can remember off the top of my head.