80/10/10--I'm doing it!
Options
Replies
-
The World Health Organization's standard for adults is as follows:This 80/10/10 diet is a silly idea. You need way more than 10% of fat and protein. I'm pretty sure no one needs 80% carbs, you're asking for trouble with that much.
10-15% of energy intake from protein
15-30% of energy intake from fats (and no more than 10% of energy intake from saturated fats)
Carbohydrate to provide the remaining energy intake by difference, thus, 55-75% of energy intake
Remember, this is the standard, NOT the bare minimum. So a person could very well live healthily at slightly lower levels.
How silly does this sound to you now?
Remember that this is for people not eating at a deficit. The 'average' calories assumed I believe are 2,100 (would need to double check that though) which, for fats would be 35g minimum of fats for healthy body function. This does not mean it is optimal for hormonal balance. For example, fats are important for testosterone levels. Many people dieting, especially women, are well below this amount, so the 10% would be significantly under the recommended amount for basic health. Example, someone on 1,400 calories a day at 10% = 15.6g, which is below the amount needed for health let alone good hormonal balance. A similar issue can be applied to protein, but in this case, the WHO recommendations are not for active people as well as people who are not at a deficit and even they say that it should be increased for active people. Also, adequate =/= optimal.0 -
Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.
Your ignorance is staggering. Unfortunately for vegan ideologues, the lipid hypothesis has been long discredited, with the confounding factors of the China study in particular having been understood for decades now.
And I'm sure you know this, but dietary cholesterol only has clinically significant impact on serum cholesterol in the 5-8% of the human population that is susceptible to it. If you're one of those people, by all means, avoid eggs.
As for me, for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.0 -
Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.
Your ignorance is staggering. Unfortunately for vegan ideologues, the lipid hypothesis has been long discredited, with the confounding factors of the China study in particular having been understood for decades now.
And I'm sure you know this, but dietary cholesterol only has clinically significant impact on serum cholesterol in the 5-8% of the human population that is susceptible to it. If you're one of those people, by all means, avoid eggs.
As for me, for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.
I think the poster is also forgetting that cholesterol is actually necessary.0 -
I think the poster is also forgetting that cholesterol is actually necessary.
Yes, I could have piled on further, but arguing nutrition and biochemistry with vegans is akin to debating consequentialism of the many-worlds hypothesis with a cinder block.
And I have a 20oz ribeye and huge plate of vegetables to attack.0 -
Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.
Your ignorance is staggering. Unfortunately for vegan ideologues, the lipid hypothesis has been long discredited, with the confounding factors of the China study in particular having been understood for decades now.
And I'm sure you know this, but dietary cholesterol only has clinically significant impact on serum cholesterol in the 5-8% of the human population that is susceptible to it. If you're one of those people, by all means, avoid eggs.
As for me, for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.
There is now a lot of evidence that the land needs large herds of grazing animals in order to avoid desertification. Allan Savory is a "...Zimbabwean biologist, farmer, soldier, exile, environmentalist, and winner of the 2003 Banksia International Award and the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge. He is the originator of holistic management..." He has said that the greatest mistake of his career was urging the Rhodesian government to cull wild herds of animals as a means of preventing land degradation (desertification). The government then culled 40,000 elephants from the land. The desertification got worse. When they put grazing animals (i.e. livestock) on the land, it became lush and green again.
We ourselves, are now at very serious risk because of the growing desertification throughout the planet. Even our own prairies were once lush grassland where "..the deer and the antelope play[ed]...". They were also home to great herds of buffalo which were culled as a means of genocide against the native Plains Indians. The land degradation is there for everyone to see today. At the bottom of my post is a link to Savory's TED lecture on the subject.
WE need animals as an efficient delivery system of high quality protein for a protein-hungry world, and now it appears that the land itself needs grazing animals to prosper, as well. We simply do not have enough crop growing ability to feed everyone with the massive quantity of vegetable matter that they would need to avoid protein deficiency. Animals are concentrated protein on the hoof. They convert vegetable matter into protein that humans need to survive (humans don't last long on a diet of grass--but cattle thrive). We are naturally omnivores. As a species, we simply do not prosper on an all plant diet. In every place that the people have a strictly plant-based diet, you see the shrunken stature and swollen bellies of children deprived of protein. The suffering of animals is regrettable but, to me, it is preferable to the suffering of children.
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html0 -
OP, my sincerest apologies. You stated you were new to the MFP forums. Here's what you need to know. You will bump into a Lot of people who feel very, Very strongly that they are Right, and their way is the Only way! Take it in stride. They mean well. I've never tried your approach. I don't think I could do it, but then, it doesn't have to work for me. It has to work for you. Welcome to the forums, and good luck.0
-
bump?0
-
OP, my sincerest apologies. You stated you were new to the MFP forums. Here's what you need to know. You will bump into a Lot of people who feel very, Very strongly that they are Right, and their way is the Only way! Take it in stride. They mean well. I've never tried your approach. I don't think I could do it, but then, it doesn't have to work for me. It has to work for you. Welcome to the forums, and good luck.
The thread was started over a year ago - have been resurrected for some reason, but I doubt the OP will see it.0 -
OP, my sincerest apologies. You stated you were new to the MFP forums. Here's what you need to know. You will bump into a Lot of people who feel very, Very strongly that they are Right, and their way is the Only way! Take it in stride. They mean well. I've never tried your approach. I don't think I could do it, but then, it doesn't have to work for me. It has to work for you. Welcome to the forums, and good luck.
The thread was started over a year ago - have been resurrected for some reason, but I doubt the OP will see it.
Maybe it hasn't drawn much interest because the medical community has pretty much conformed to the idea that, while vegetarian diets (diets that are heavily plant-based but include eggs, dairy and sometimes fish) can be quite healthy, in general, a strictly plant-based diet will be deficient in a lot of important nutrients--unless supplemented. And not everyone who starts a vegan diet on an idealistic urge, understands how to keep the diet healthy for themselves.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwBk2_RFuMo
Be sure to leave your comments on the video page so those people will know exactly (based on your theory) that their diet is silly, wrong, unhealthy and they are destined for a life of degeneration.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwBk2_RFuMo
Be sure to leave your comments on the video page so those people will know exactly (based on your theory) that their diet is silly, wrong, unhealthy and they are destined for a life of degeneration.
Of whose "theory" are you speaking?0 -
Plant resources could not sustain the world's population if everyone were vegan. I've seen very convincing evidence of this. That's completely hypothetical, though, we don't live in that world and I don't think we ever will, and that's a good thing.
Factory farming and agri-buisness is a much larger and more urgent issue, and also our blatant disrespect for life and use of animals as commodities as a cultural thread. We need to fix those things before we could ever dream of creating a world where we can create living ecosystems (including meat consumption) that will sustain our population without causing further ecological damage.
And I don't think the way we do small farming now is going to cut it. I ate local small-farm "sustainably" raised meat for a long time, and it did nothing. It didn't do anything to help the animals, they're still bred and die the same way, and it certainly didn't do anything for combating our societal use of sentient creatures as mere commodities, and it's much too expensive to have any far reaching ecological impact.
Veganism is the best answer I have right now, and honestly it's not a very good one. Veganism sucks. The movement is full of entitled whiny middle-class kids who think their way is the only way. Nobody wants to talk about the real issues. Even non-vegans who are knowledgeable about the issues wont talk about them with me, they figure I'm vegan and so I'm going to be just like every other holier-than-thou cholesterol-will-kill-you idiot.I think the poster is also forgetting that cholesterol is actually necessary.
Yes, I could have piled on further, but arguing nutrition and biochemistry with vegans is akin to debating consequentialism of the many-worlds hypothesis with a cinder block.
And I have a 20oz ribeye and huge plate of vegetables to attack.
See?0 -
Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.0
-
Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.
Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study?
They've never made those conclusions.0 -
Plant resources could not sustain the world's population if everyone were vegan. I've seen very convincing evidence of this. That's completely hypothetical, though, we don't live in that world and I don't think we ever will, and that's a good thing.
Factory farming and agri-buisness is a much larger and more urgent issue, and also our blatant disrespect for life and use of animals as commodities as a cultural thread. We need to fix those things before we could ever dream of creating a world where we can create living ecosystems (including meat consumption) that will sustain our population without causing further ecological damage.
And I don't think the way we do small farming now is going to cut it. I ate local small-farm "sustainably" raised meat for a long time, and it did nothing. It didn't do anything to help the animals, they're still bred and die the same way, and it certainly didn't do anything for combating our societal use of sentient creatures as mere commodities, and it's much too expensive to have any far reaching ecological impact.
Veganism is the best answer I have right now, and honestly it's not a very good one. Veganism sucks. The movement is full of entitled whiny white kids who think their way is the only way. Nobody wants to talk about the real issues. Even non-vegans who are knowledgeable about the issues wont talk about them with me, they figure I'm vegan and so I'm going to be just like every other holier-than-thou cholesterol-will-kill-you idiot.I think the poster is also forgetting that cholesterol is actually necessary.
Yes, I could have piled on further, but arguing nutrition and biochemistry with vegans is akin to debating consequentialism of the many-worlds hypothesis with a cinder block.
And I have a 20oz ribeye and huge plate of vegetables to attack.
See?
I agree with the many intelligent points you have made. I think it likely that the Indians and Chinese have come to grips with a large part of the problem of a large and burgeoning population and a scarcity of food resources.
The various Indian cuisines (and there are many kinds depending on the area of India) are basically plant-based with added protein from animal, and occasionally insect, sources (red ant chutney anyone? No kidding, it is highly prized in the tribal state of Chhatisgarh.) Hindus have been criticized for allowing cows to wander around when there are frequently hungry children in India (although the situation has improved in many of the rapidly industrializing areas of India). But one researcher points out that, if it weren't for the cows, those same children would not be fed a consistent diet that includes dairy (and be much worse off after all the cows were slaughtered and eaten).
The Chinese have food practices that are similar to the Indians. In general, they eat a lot of plant-based food but raise the protein levels with animal proteins--pork, fish, chicken, etc. Dairy products have not been part of the "Eight Culinary Traditions of China." After the period of the Tang dynasty, it was regarded as the food of "barbarians". But today, they have a growing taste for dairy and a growing dairy industry.
During the famines of the 1950s, nutritional deficiencies were common because they subsisted mainly on white rice and a few vegetables (scavenging whatever they could in the way of animal protein). They have had a striking increase in the amount of calories available to the average Chinese person--going from less than 1,700 calories in 1960 to over 2,700 calories today.0 -
Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.
Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study?
They've never made those conclusions.
In fact, they came to the conclusion that dietary cholesterol DID NOT contribute to high serum cholesterol:
"In the early 1950's the Framingham study included dietary analyses. Almost one thousand individuals were questioned in detail about their eating habits. No connection was found between the composition of the food and the cholesterol level of the blood. Wrote Drs. William Kannel and Tavia Gordon, authors of the report: 'These findings suggest a cautionary note with respect to hypotheses relating diet to serum cholesterol levels. There is a considerable range of serum cholesterol levels within the Framingham Study Group. Something explains this inter-individual variation, but it is not diet.' For unknown reasons, their results were never published. The manuscript is still lying in a basement in Washington."
----From "The Cholesterol Myths"0 -
Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.
Your ignorance is staggering. Unfortunately for vegan ideologues, the lipid hypothesis has been long discredited, with the confounding factors of the China study in particular having been understood for decades now.
And I'm sure you know this, but dietary cholesterol only has clinically significant impact on serum cholesterol in the 5-8% of the human population that is susceptible to it. If you're one of those people, by all means, avoid eggs.
As for me, for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.
I couldn't have said this better myself! I think I'll go eat some steak and eggs now!0 -
Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.
Yes--in fact, the liver of a healthy individual manufactures approximately four times the amount of cholesterol consumed in the average diet.0 -
That use to be my diet....but once I hit 300 pounds I thought I'd try something different! LMBO!0
-
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but first, we all know the W.H.O. recommendations are low compared to every country in the world, and second their recommendations are MINIMUMS, not 'the standard'.The World Health Organization's standard for adults is as follows:
10-15% of energy intake from protein
15-30% of energy intake from fats (and no more than 10% of energy intake from saturated fats)
Carbohydrate to provide the remaining energy intake by difference, thus, 55-75% of energy intake
Remember, this is the standard, NOT the bare minimum. So a person could very well live healthily at slightly lower levels.
How silly does this sound to you now?
The WHO guidelines differ from most developed countries because their interest is in feeding not just those in lands with abundance of food, but the poor and needy in lands where food is scarce.
Make no mistake, their guidelines ARE minimums for proper health. For example, with protein they state the minimum "safe level" (their term) as "... 0.83 g/kg per day protein would be expected to meet the requirements of most (97.5%) of the healthy adult population." That's the SAFE level, which is, according to their meta-analyses, the MINIMUM requirement.
And 97.5% of the worlds population are NOT actively strength training, therefore those bare-minimums will NOT meet their needs.
To use the WHO's guidelines for keeping a starving population at minimum nutrient levels as a ideology for a diet is downright dangerous to those who have what most of us have available.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions