looking for nutritarian friends

"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."

An interesting statement. Thoughts?

I want to know what the parameters of "optimal health" consist of.

"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."

An interesting statement. Thoughts?

Tell that to the neanderthals who survived for 300,000+ years including surviving ice age winters..... they had a high lean body mass, in fact they evolved that way because those with less lean body mass died in those harsh ice age winters (less lean mass + more slender frame = losing heat more easily) or were not strong enough to hunt large animals with middle palaeolithic thrusting spears. They evolved high lean body mass because this is what enabled them to survive. and a species doesn't survive for 300,000 years by having sub-optimal health.

Meanwhile in Africa Homo sapiens evolved to be more slender because of the hotter climate (losing heat more easily is an advantage in this environment) and they also developed the use of long range weapons, requiring less strength to use - their methods of hunting required being able to run fast and throw a spear accurately. This led to people evolving smaller frames (and a shoulder joint better adapted for spear throwing.)

so the statement is silly. How much lean mass you have is mainly determined by genetics, although you can increase it (within your genetic limits) by doing the right kind of exercise and eating more protein. And you can decrease it by starving yourself or eating too little protein, but this won't be healthy whether you're built more like a neanderthal or a Homo sapiens. Increasing lean body mass using natural methods (i.e. without taking steroids) leads to better musculoskeletal health, as the risk of joint problems, osteoporosis and loss of lean mass going into old age is reduced.

Optimal health = having the right amount of lean body mass for your genetics and maintaining it, especially through middle age and into old age. Starving off lean body mass = very sub-optimal health. So he's totally and utterly wrong.

Having a high lean body mass doesn't stop you from having good cardiovascular health either. In fact the major compound lifts, e.g. squats, deadlifts, activate the cardiovascular system in the same way that sprinting does, and as such will have a similar benefit to cardiovascular fitness as doing sprints.

"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."

An interesting statement. Thoughts?

I have always wondered about this, and I suppose someday I'll wonder enough to look for research on it, though I haven't yet. Added weight is added work for the heart. In fact, even the faster metabolism that comes from having a lot of muscle is added work for the heart. Does the added work help or hinder? I don't know, but I think it's an interesting question.

Does Dr. Huhrman site studies that he used to form his opinion? If so, I'd be interested in them if you can post any links.

Actually, I don't think the specific effects of muscle mass on health (such as comparing the health of a person with 10% body fat and 5 lbs of muscle to one with 10% body fat and 30 lbs of muscle) is very well researched. However, guys with a lot of muscle mass almost always eat a lot of extra protein in the form of animal foods, which are well documented as being more disease-promoting than plant foods. The population with the worst life expectancy in the world is the Maasai in Kenya. Their diet is very high in meat and they have a life expectancy of 42 (men) or 45 (women) which is atrocious. Even in North America, the Inuit Greenlanders, who's climate forces them to eat a lot more animal food than plant food, have a life expectancy 10 years lower than Canadians. So it's not so much the mass itself as the method of getting that mass.

And their life expectencies are 100% dictated by their high meat diets, right? Not the fact that the Maasai are semi-nomadic, rely on shamans for healing, have very high infant mortality, have inter-tribe warfare etc etc... Or that the Inuit are living in the Arctic, have little access to the hospitals and medicines of their Canadian neighbours, have frequently turned to alcohol as their traditional lifestyle is eroded etc etc... Nope. It's just the meat.

If that is the kind of logic we can expect from Dr Fuhrman, then no thanks.

Sounds upside down to me .

like focusing on the colour of the trim in a car you're looking at when you haven't checked to see if it even runs, nor checked the other side of the car to see if there's any big dents there.

"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."

An interesting statement. Thoughts?

Tell that to the neanderthals who survived for 300,000+ years including surviving ice age winters..... they had a high lean body mass, in fact they evolved that way because those with less lean body mass died in those harsh ice age winters (less lean mass + more slender frame = losing heat more easily) or were not strong enough to hunt large animals with middle palaeolithic thrusting spears. They evolved high lean body mass because this is what enabled them to survive. and a species doesn't survive for 300,000 years by having sub-optimal health.

Meanwhile in Africa Homo sapiens evolved to be more slender because of the hotter climate (losing heat more easily is an advantage in this environment) and they also developed the use of long range weapons, requiring less strength to use - their methods of hunting required being able to run fast and throw a spear accurately. This led to people evolving smaller frames (and a shoulder joint better adapted for spear throwing.)

so the statement is silly. How much lean mass you have is mainly determined by genetics, although you can increase it (within your genetic limits) by doing the right kind of exercise and eating more protein. And you can decrease it by starving yourself or eating too little protein, but this won't be healthy whether you're built more like a neanderthal or a Homo sapiens. Increasing lean body mass using natural methods (i.e. without taking steroids) leads to better musculoskeletal health, as the risk of joint problems, osteoporosis and loss of lean mass going into old age is reduced.

Optimal health = having the right amount of lean body mass for your genetics and maintaining it, especially through middle age and into old age. Starving off lean body mass = very sub-optimal health. So he's totally and utterly wrong.

Having a high lean body mass doesn't stop you from having good cardiovascular health either. In fact the major compound lifts, e.g. squats, deadlifts, activate the cardiovascular system in the same way that sprinting does, and as such will have a similar benefit to cardiovascular fitness as doing sprints.

Optimal health is not the same in a world where unlimited quanities of food of any type are available as it is in prehistoric times when you could go days without eating. They needed to adapt to their circumstances.

I don't disagree that lean body mass can be a good thing. Fuhrman's problem is with the practice of consuming large amounts of meat and other animal products to achieve large amounts of muscle.

I'd argue that more than half of those deaths (infection, CV renal, malignancy, intestinal obstruction, diabetic coma) could be diet-related. And I think there would be so many more heart attacks if they weren't compensating for the atherosclerosis with constant physical activity. I think America's sedentary lifestyle combined with that much meat would be a heart attack waiting to happen.