Ideas about Diet and Exercise

Need2Exerc1se

I guess A, but when you try to put people into one of two things, very few will fit exactly in either and I'm no exception.

This is true for me as well. There is a lot in A that doesn't apply to me, but B sounds down right nutty.

geneticsteacher

Neither, I also favor an option C. We try to eat healthy, local foods, but do not ban any foods we like from our diet. Moderation in all things.

May I ask why you consider wheat to be inflammatory to non-celiacs? i still don't understand why it is banned in paleo/primal diets, as there is evidence that primitive man not only ate grains, but ground and cooked them.

BringbackGrok

That's a long answer. I'll try to keep it brief.

Yes primitive man pre-agriculture found the occasional grain and munched. Of course. But it was a tiny amount of their diet, and it was naturally occurring grain.

Modern wheat has been hybridized extensively by man to maximize the heavily desired "yield per acre". Those old hybridization methods are even worse than new genetic modification... at least the latter can be more targeted in its effects.....

If you want a monkey to do exactly what you want, eg. bake you a cake, you'll try to mutate it again, and again, and again, and again and again until finally, it does what you want. But it also will likely have 3 eyes, 4 ears, no left arm, a tortoise shell.... you get it.

When they achieved the desired yield per acre with modern wheat, they were happy. And fed it to us. And didn't give regard to everything else that changed in the wheat. Sure, it didn't kill you right away, so it must be safe right? Turns out, all those side mutations aren't so friendly to us over the course of our lives. I'm not surprised. And we replaced all the healthy fats in our diet with this substance which is absolutely foreign to our bodies.

The book Wheat Belly is a great read on this. Assuming only celiacs have the effects are assuming that the only effect of wheat is celiac disease. Not even close. Which makes sense. Introduce a foreign ingested substance into a population at high quantity.... that's always a terrible idea.

Even back in the day when we first adopted agriculture, human health took a hit - in short, we became smaller and sicker, including dentition. But at least the wheat was recognizable to our bodies, so it was just a matter of dietary replacement of the foods we used to eat rather than the introduction of a virtual poison.

SideSteel

1. Calories in calories out doesn't work for everybody, for weight loss. Particularly those with slow metabolisms.

I'm in a hurry so let me first say that I don't intend this to come across rudely:


This is either an error in word selection or patently false. Calories in/out works for everybody. TRACKING INTAKE does not work for everybody but these statements are entirely different. If you meant the latter I wholeheartedly agree. If you meant the former I would challenge you to provide evidence.

If you can get someone in a chronic energy deficit they will lose weight. Period. It does not matter how slow their metabolism is. If you take away enough food, weight loss occurs at some point. Because it HAS to.

However, tracking calories is not necessarily the best method for everyone.

Getting someone to actually adhere to a long term energy intake that meets their needs, and an appropriate nutrient intake, are fundamentally important and tracking calories is not necessarily the best method for all people in all contexts.

But calories absolutely matter, tracked or not.

Need2Exerc1se

Calories in/Calories out is virtually irrelevant. Eat real food (real food = plants as they come out of the ground or animals/fish that eat plants in their natural state). Eat plenty of healthy fats and do not worry about saturated fat intake. Minimize foods that are high glycemic. Minimize daily glycemic load. Try to maximize omega 3:6 ratio in a general sense. Eat above-ground vegetables liberally. Moderate consumption of fruits, tubers and legumes. Berries are best fruit choice. ELIMINATE wheat. Other grains such as rice may be eaten but very infrequently. Avoid corn, soy. 100% grass fed red meat is one of the healthiest food items and should be eaten regularly. Cook with coconut oil, butter ghee. Egg yolks are one of the most densely nutritional foods and pastured eggs are a great food source. Do lots of low level exercise such as walking. Avoid sitting. Avoid cardio. Do a few heavy lifting workout routines per week (2 sessions no longer than 30 minutes) doing full body functional movements without muscle isolation. Eat until you are full and eat whenever you are hungry. Sprint every now and then. Have fun playing lots of sports. Maximize sunlight exposure without burning.

I'm new to this site and it seems like I've dropped in on a long-going conversation. But, being that I'm new to it, I'd like to ask some questions about B

Where would one find 100% grass fed meat? I mean, we live on a farm and most of our meat is hunted (none of which would be 100% grass fed) or home-raised chickens, again they eat grass, but also bugs, food scraps and pretty much anything else they can get their beaks on. And I suppose no pork? Because where in the world would one find a hog that wasn't fed table scraps?

How do you play sports or sprint and avoid cardio?

I saw the post about wheat, but why is rice okay but other grains like buckwheat, quinoa, oats, millet, etc. not okay?

What's wrong with root vegetables? Turnips, radishes, carrots, parsnips, potatoes, sweet pototoes, beets, etc. Goodness, those are some really nutrient dense and tasty foods.

I get the soy thing, but why no corn. Living on a farm, I simply can't imagine summer without some fresh picked corn.

BringbackGrok

Need2Exerc1 (sorry if I spelled name wrong), but what you said "B sounds downright nutty". That's perfect! You articulated it perfectly.

That's exactly why I posted here!!!!

B is pretty much as close to a description of what the human body was meant to do/eat. It's what we thrived on for 200 thousand years. Yes thrived on. Sure we were killed by tigers, bacterial infection that we had no treatment for, but not heart attacks. Not lupus. Not scleroderma. Didn't suffer with MS, celiac, GI issues, debilitating arthritis..... While we were alive, chronic disease didn't hobble us. Not only that, but the evidence for this is starting to hit mainstream (recent Time magazine and another magazine that I forget) and bookshelves so ignoring it will be impossible within the next decade.

Evidence for adopting a lifestyle that limits chronic disease in a time without the dangers of predators or lack of treatment for infection? Potentially achieve longevity of the modern area with health status of a primal being? Health professionals are supposed to get wind of growing evidence long before it hits the media.

And yet to 99% of health professionals that I meet B sounds "downright nutty" to them. "downright nutty". "something that a crazy person would do" ...... "something I will advise my patients NOT to do"

That is exactly why I posted.

TeaBea

Only this part.

"Eat less. Exercise more. Keep track of your calories. Weigh your food."

Yep - this one!

Need2Exerc1se

Need2Exerc1 (sorry if I spelled name wrong), but what you said "B sounds downright nutty". That's perfect! You articulated it perfectly.

That's exactly why I posted here!!!!

B is pretty much as close to a description of what the human body was meant to do/eat. It's what we thrived on for 200 thousand years. Yes thrived on. Sure we were killed by tigers, bacterial infection that we had no treatment for, but not heart attacks. Not lupus. Not scleroderma. Didn't suffer with MS, celiac, GI issues, debilitating arthritis..... While we were alive, chronic disease didn't hobble us. Not only that, but the evidence for this is starting to hit mainstream (recent Time magazine and another magazine that I forget) and bookshelves so ignoring it will be impossible within the next decade.

Evidence for adopting a lifestyle that limits chronic disease in a time without the dangers of predators or lack of treatment for infection? Potentially achieve longevity of the modern area with health status of a primal being? Health professionals are supposed to get wind of growing evidence long before it hits the media.

And yet to 99% of health professionals that I meet B sounds "downright nutty" to them. "downright nutty". "something that a crazy person would do" ...... "something I will advise my patients NOT to do"

That is exactly why I posted.

I'm sorry, I guess I'm a little dense, but I really do not understand. Man has been eating most of the stuff you mention for thousands of years and thriving. We are still thriving, aren't we?

I could see if you were railing against processed foods or pre-made meals or fast foods or any of the man-made food additives. But to suggest that things like farm raised chicken and hogs, home grown beans and corn and root vegetables should be limited for health reasons. It still sounds nutty to me. No offense. To each his own, but these are my very way of life. I can't wrap my head around these incredibly natural sources of nutrition being bad. Or with running or jumping or hiking or other cardio exercises somehow being unhealthy.

BringbackGrok

Actually since you live on a farm and have access to all that you said, you're doing a hell of a lot of B.

Pasture raised animals and wild game sound good to me! That's awesome that you have access to all of that!

Corn is pretty much ruled by agribusiness, same as soy and wheat.

New science seems to say the nonregimented nature of sports and the fact that you have an inconsistent mix of slow twitch and fast twitch activation, (cardio and bursts) mixed with psychological pleasure and mental engagement, makes it one of the best activities around. It all kind of seems like a natural way to engage the world actively, which seems like a good thing!

BringbackGrok

Regarding the root veggies and legumes etc, you are abdolutely right, and I agree that naw those aren't so bad at all. Pure paleo people say it's a no no, but I agree with, they do have dense nutrition and they are natural.

Just from a weight loss perspective, they are somewhat higher glycemic, but as long as it doesn't dominate the diet and eaten in moderation. In general, I'm a fan of most things that come out of the earth.

I was just painting a paleo picture with B to see what people identified with more.

BringbackGrok

SideSteel, we'll agree to disagree on it. I was referring to permanent weight loss and overall health as per previous posts.

kgeyser

Need2Exerc1 (sorry if I spelled name wrong), but what you said "B sounds downright nutty". That's perfect! You articulated it perfectly.

That's exactly why I posted here!!!!

B is pretty much as close to a description of what the human body was meant to do/eat. It's what we thrived on for 200 thousand years. Yes thrived on. Sure we were killed by tigers, bacterial infection that we had no treatment for, but not heart attacks. Not lupus. Not scleroderma. Didn't suffer with MS, celiac, GI issues, debilitating arthritis..... While we were alive, chronic disease didn't hobble us. Not only that, but the evidence for this is starting to hit mainstream (recent Time magazine and another magazine that I forget) and bookshelves so ignoring it will be impossible within the next decade.

Evidence for adopting a lifestyle that limits chronic disease in a time without the dangers of predators or lack of treatment for infection? Potentially achieve longevity of the modern area with health status of a primal being? Health professionals are supposed to get wind of growing evidence long before it hits the media.

And yet to 99% of health professionals that I meet B sounds "downright nutty" to them. "downright nutty". "something that a crazy person would do" ...... "something I will advise my patients NOT to do"

That is exactly why I posted.

Otzi disagrees with you.

Since Ötzi's discovery in an alpine glacier more than two decades ago, scientists have subjected his mummy to a full-body health check. The findings don't make pretty reading. The 40-something's list of complaints include worn joints, hardened arteries, gallstones, and a nasty growth on his little toe (perhaps caused by frostbite).

Full list of Otzi's health issues and other fun facts about the Iceman who lived 5200 years ago can be found at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131016-otzi-ice-man-mummy-five-facts/

BringbackGrok

Yeah, I've read about Otzi. Poor guy. He was neolithic (post agriculture) though wasn't he ? Your post says 5200 years ago.

I don't remember reading that he was paleolithic, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Need2Exerc1se

Actually since you live on a farm and have access to all that you said, you're doing a hell of a lot of B.

Pasture raised animals and wild game sound good to me! That's awesome that you have access to all of that!

Corn is pretty much ruled by agribusiness, same as soy and wheat.

New science seems to say the nonregimented nature of sports and the fact that you have an inconsistent mix of slow twitch and fast twitch activation, (cardio and bursts) mixed with psychological pleasure and mental engagement, makes it one of the best activities around. It all kind of seems like a natural way to engage the world actively, which seems like a good thing!

Okay, I guess I am totally dense on this subject. So you are describing the paleo diet? I've heard of that but mostly from Pinterest recipes.

I don't feel like I have much in common at all with B. Nobody in our neck of the woods that I know eats or lives that way. It does not describe farm life as I know it at all.

beastmode_kitty

Neither. I workout 6 days a week, track what I eat, and drink plenty of water.

BringbackGrok

THat's ok. no I wasn't describing farm life as paleo, but your descriptions of what foods you have access to on the farm.

lemurcat12

C - None of the above

ETA: Not that I don't agree with parts of both options - but taken as a whole neither option is particularly attractive.

Luckily life isn't governed by false dichotomies.

This.

There are portions of both that I do and portions of both that I think are bad advice or false.

lemurcat12

1. Calories in calories out doesn't work for everybody, for weight loss. Particularly those with slow metabolisms. Being overweight before the 20th century was a rarity and nobody ever counted calories despite eating calorie dense foods....

You are confusing a few things.

First, people with slow metabolisms don't disprove CICO, they simply need lower calories (no one claims there is some specific calorie requirement that everyone has for maintenance). Now, they also might have a fixable issue, in which case they also need modern medicine.

Second, no one claims that CICO means that you have to count. There are lots of ways that people avoid overeating or lose without counting. But that's not evidence against CICO itself. (This is also why one can be in the CICO camp, like me, and still agree with lots of stuff in B.)

Once the food supply pollutants are removed from the diet calories really don't even factor in.

This is super goofy, IMO. I managed to gain plenty of weight eating foods that are "clean" as those who like the concept would usually define it. Mostly from farms, locally raised, homemade, etc. And sure I've gained eating other stuff too, but the idea that I can eat 2500 calories and not gain so long as it's the right food is, I know darn well, not true.

Not even getting into the inflammation stuff, except that nightshades seem to agree with me just fine, and so does wheat and dairy and legumes, for that matter.

And my farmer grandparents and greatgrandparents, etc., ate these things as well and did not struggle with obesity. To claim that we are healthier going back before agriculture and thus should eat that way now, because mostly of current problems of overabundance seems a pretty sketchy claim.

BringbackGrok

Ok, thanks everyone, thanks for the discussion and for replying. I'm signing off! Best wishes and nice to talk to so many people being so proactive!!!!!!

Need2Exerc1se

I managed to gain plenty of weight eating foods that are "clean" as those who like the concept would usually define it. Mostly from farms, locally raised, homemade, etc. And sure I've gained eating other stuff too, but the idea that I can eat 2500 calories and not gain so long as it's the right food is, I know darn well, not true.

Not even getting into the inflammation stuff, except that nightshades seem to agree with me just fine, and so does wheat and dairy and legumes, for that matter.

Yeah, I gained my weight eating mostly home grown organic vegetables and meat. That stuff has calories too.

But what is this about nightshades? Isn't tomato a nightshade? And peppers? I eat those literally every day. Fresh when they are in season, canned or frozen when not. If those are bad I'm doomed. Maybe this is why I'm fat?!