Who Eats Processed And Still Gets Good Results

Hmmmm, so i can lose weight eating whatever I want - knew that! Moderation and within calorie goal is the key. BUT shouldn't there be some restictions when trying to lose body fat % and increase LBM??? heavy lifting.....big heavy ol' weights....should be fueling with good wholesome foods right? Maybe no alcohol? Low on the sugar and this includes fruite especially one high on the glycemic index.

They usually just stumble across opinion articles or blogs. I have seen people post links to studies that supposedly back up their claim that actually refute it or have nothing to do with what their point was.

So what did you find on your Google adventure?

Hmmmm, so i can lose weight eating whatever I want - knew that! Moderation and within calorie goal is the key. BUT shouldn't there be some restictions when trying to lose body fat % and increase LBM??? heavy lifting.....big heavy ol' weights....should be fueling with good wholesome foods right? Maybe no alcohol? Low on the sugar and this includes fruite especially one high on the glycemic index.

They usually just stumble across opinion articles or blogs. I have seen people post links to studies that supposedly back up their claim that actually refute it or have nothing to do with what their point was.

So what did you find on your Google adventure?

Hmmmm, so i can lose weight eating whatever I want - knew that! Moderation and within calorie goal is the key. BUT shouldn't there be some restictions when trying to lose body fat % and increase LBM??? heavy lifting.....big heavy ol' weights....should be fueling with good wholesome foods right? Maybe no alcohol? Low on the sugar and this includes fruite especially one high on the glycemic index.

A banana is an excellent food to help fuel a workout.

Excuse me, we're way off tangent here, stop answering the OP's quetions please.

I would find it extremely bizarre if palaeo dieters are telling people not to eat grilled meat because of the charred bits. You honestly can't get more paleo than meat cooked on an open fire.....

You're missing the point...

Better is very subjective.

Sausages and all their variants are by definition heavily processed. I'd take a loaded bratwurst over an organic grass fed steak any day. A pile of salami over a plain ol organic chicken breast.

Love a good corned beef brisket as compared to a regular brisket. I don't give a crap what the naysayers say, hot dogs are one of my favorite foods. I love honey ham on a sandwich.

Processed meats ARE the better alternative, contrary to the central point of your argument.

How exactly is processed meat a better alternative than natural meat? Not in terms of IIFYM theory, I mean in terms of food quality.

and the carcinogen levels in charred meat cooked on an open fire obviously wasn't detrimental enough to our middle palaeolithic ancestor populations to offset the gain in brain size that occurred as a result of cooking meat on an open fire instead of eating it raw, which increased the bioavailability of nutrients in meat. We evolved to eat charred meat cooked on fires, we owe our brain size to it. Barbequed meat probably tastes so good because we're descended from the human populations who liked the taste of fire cooked meat and thus got more nutrition and thus evolved bigger brains. So I'm going to eat my barbequed and grilled meat, especially the charred bits. :drinker:

Carcinogens prevent brains from getting big?

no.....

human brain size got bigger in the middle palaeolithic era (compared to lower palaeolithic humans) because humans started cooking food on open fires. This made the nutrients in meat more bioavailable, so our ancestors who ate cooked meat were better fed than those who didn't, the better fed ones, over lots and lots and lots of generations, could evolve bigger brains, because natural selection favoured bigger brains as long as humans were able to get enough nutrition to grow and feed a larger brain.

If there is a slight increase in carcinogens in meat cooked on an open fire, the increase wasn't enough to stop our ancestors surviving by cooking meat on open fires, or enough to make them go extinct rather than carry on eating fire cooked meat and evolving larger brains.

If the charred bits on fire-cooked meat was that detrimental to human populations, then the populations that ate cooked meat would have died out, while the ones that ate raw meat would have survived, and we'd all be living with a lower palaeolithic level of technology (i.e. pre- controlled use of fire), eating scavenged lion-kill and arguing about who can make the sharpest hand axe, rather than having stupid, typed arguments with strangers on the internet using computers and electricity about whether processed food is good for you or not.

and the carcinogen levels in charred meat cooked on an open fire obviously wasn't detrimental enough to our middle palaeolithic ancestor populations to offset the gain in brain size that occurred as a result of cooking meat on an open fire instead of eating it raw, which increased the bioavailability of nutrients in meat. We evolved to eat charred meat cooked on fires, we owe our brain size to it. Barbequed meat probably tastes so good because we're descended from the human populations who liked the taste of fire cooked meat and thus got more nutrition and thus evolved bigger brains. So I'm going to eat my barbequed and grilled meat, especially the charred bits. :drinker:

Carcinogens prevent brains from getting big?

no.....

human brain size got bigger in the middle palaeolithic era (compared to lower palaeolithic humans) because humans started cooking food on open fires. This made the nutrients in meat more bioavailable, so our ancestors who ate cooked meat were better fed than those who didn't, the better fed ones, over lots and lots and lots of generations, could evolve bigger brains, because natural selection favoured bigger brains as long as humans were able to get enough nutrition to grow and feed a larger brain.

If there is a slight increase in carcinogens in meat cooked on an open fire, the increase wasn't enough to stop our ancestors surviving by cooking meat on open fires, or enough to make them go extinct rather than carry on eating fire cooked meat and evolving larger brains.

If the charred bits on fire-cooked meat was that detrimental to human populations, then the populations that ate cooked meat would have died out, while the ones that ate raw meat would have survived, and we'd all be living with a lower palaeolithic level of technology (i.e. pre- controlled use of fire), eating scavenged lion-kill and arguing about who can make the sharpest hand axe, rather than having stupid, typed arguments with strangers on the internet using computers and electricity about whether processed food is good for you or not.

Good grief.

I'll stop being obtuse and say that carcinogens had nothing to do with brain size.

You might as well replace the word "carcinogen" with "telephone poles" in your response and it would have the same relevancy.

Better is very subjective.

Sausages and all their variants are by definition heavily processed. I'd take a loaded bratwurst over an organic grass fed steak any day. A pile of salami over a plain ol organic chicken breast.

Love a good corned beef brisket as compared to a regular brisket. I don't give a crap what the naysayers say, hot dogs are one of my favorite foods. I love honey ham on a sandwich.

Processed meats ARE the better alternative, contrary to the central point of your argument.

How exactly is processed meat a better alternative than natural meat? Not in terms of IIFYM theory, I mean in terms of food quality.

I ate a PROCESSED, HIGH SODIUM, HORMEL WITH ADDED SUGAR HONEY ham sandwich WITH PROCESSED SARA LEE BREAD everyday for three months and lost 20 lbs.

edited to add adjectives and make it scary