looking for nutritarian friends

1678911

Replies

  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    "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.
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    "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.

    His idea of optimal health is being at the lowest risk for disease and having the maximum life expectancy. Bench press weight doesn't factor in :)
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    "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?

    So, he's defining optimal health as whatever he wants and then suggesting that his diet supports it?

    Sort of. He's suggesting a definition of optimal health and those that agree with the definition can use his research as the basis of their diet.
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    "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.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,290 Member
    "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.
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    "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.

    Do you also blame shamans, infant mortality and tribal warfare for the fact that they develop atherosclerosis equal to that of elderly Americans, which is luckily offset somewhat by the incredible amount of exercise they get each day?

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.abstract
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,290 Member
    And how many of them die from CVD? Table 2 from your ref:


    Causes of death Number
    Combat 15
    Infection 13
    CV renal 8
    Accidents 6
    Malignancy 3
    Intestinal obstruction 2
    Suicide 2
    Diabetic coma 1

    Total: 50
  • GreatSaltLuke
    GreatSaltLuke Posts: 20 Member
    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.
  • mactaffy84
    mactaffy84 Posts: 398 Member
    What exercise do you do, OP?

    Your diary is hidden.

    At the moment I'd say I'm a good bit healthier than average in most measureable ways despite a diet that has loads of foods not high in micronutrients.
    Often it seems that going for this kind of diet merely makes up a little for not exercising, which has a lot of benefits.

    Tomorrow I have got planned - chicken breast in sauce 'ready meal' thingy - whole pizza - whole "millionaire's cheesecake". Nom.

    Actually, Joel Fuhrman was an Olympic athlete and highly promotes exercise.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,389 Member
    Could it be, just perhaps, that he's realised if he just says "do exercise and don't stress overly about the food", he wouldn't really sell many books to the sort of people that are looking for something to have "have faith in", but that focusing on "food cures your illeness" he can make loads of money?
  • LoupGarouTFTs
    LoupGarouTFTs Posts: 916 Member
    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.

    And meat is the "bad guy" . . . why?
  • keleeh66
    keleeh66 Posts: 3
    Hi,
    I see this post is a bit old but I'm interested in the nutrataian diet idea. I just received the book " eat to live"
  • jessica182517
    jessica182517 Posts: 395 Member
    Im just gonna throw this out there for those of you confused on what a "nutritarian" is. I am not on this diet, I would love to but right now I am working my way up to it as best as i can...

    l324969181.jpg

    6weekbackground.jpg

    Sorry if the pics are too big i found them on google and do not know how to make them smaller...
  • LoupGarouTFTs
    LoupGarouTFTs Posts: 916 Member
    Sounds gassy.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,389 Member
    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.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,440 Member
    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.

    People do this All. The. Time.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,479 Member
    "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.

    how much muscle mass you should have depends on your genetics... larger framed people typically have more lean mass, but that doesn't mean a small framed person, who naturally has less lean mass, is any less healthy. What's healthy in terms of how much lean mass you should have is relative to you. For example, my lean mass is around 107lb, which is quite a bit higher than most women my height, because I have a large frame... that does not mean I'm any healthier than a smaller framed person who has only 90lb lean mass (average for my height) who also does heavy lifting... however if I were to crash-diet down to having only 90lb lean mass I would be damaging my health... I experienced negative health consequences when my lean mass went below 100.

    Having less lean mass than you're supposed to have for your frame size/genetics is bad for your health, in particular there's an increased risk of osteoporosis and other musculoskeletal problems (e.g. joint problems) due to the muscles being weak. This makes the most difference going into middle age and old age... a lot of the health problems in aging come from losing lean mass and bone density.... people who have more lean mass as young adults are protected from a lot of these problems (although for maximum protection you need to maintain some degree of strength training for life)... for examples, go look up people who've done strength training/body building in old age, and see how much their health has improved (there are quite a few who are known in strength and body building circles for having an impressive physique for their age). Being strong and active makes a huge difference to health, and I intend to be strong and active my whole life for this reason, and because it makes you look much better than being flabby and sedentary.

    There is a limit to how much lean mass anyone can gain without taking steroids, and there are various health benefits in increasing how much lean mass you have within your genetic potential. i.e. through natural bodybuilding and natural increases in strength from doing athletic activities. Lean mass gains in these circumstances decrease the risk of all kinds of health issues, as discussed above. IMO it's better to be closer to the top of your genetic potential due to being strong and regularly exercising, than it is being right at the bottom, due to muscular atrophy from being lazy and sedentary. But everyone has a ceiling whereby they can't gain more lean mass. You can't discuss the potential health problems of what's actually physically impossible.

    For anyone who takes steroids though, the health risks of steroids probably outweigh the benefits of the lean mass gained from it, and taking steroids will take people above the ceiling created by their own genetics, but it's not a natural way to do it, and the steroids cause health issues - I don't think it would be easy to isolate whether any of those issues come from having more lean mass than your genetics would allow without steroids, or from the steroids themselves. Additionally, if you look at statistics of the general health of bodybuilders etc, then the data is probably greatly skewed by the large number of them that take steroids, so doctors like this using them as an example for why having more lean mass doesn't improve health is not good science. The health of bodybuilders in general is not reliable data to use to compare people who have more lean mass than those who have less lean mass.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,479 Member
    "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.

    Our bodies haven't changed much since the palaeolithic era. Some people have evolved the ability to digest lactose since then. People have become, on average, a little smaller-framed (but this is just an average, and refers to skeletal size). But what would be optimal health has not changed. We still need exercise and the right balance of nutrients for optimal health. Our digestive system has not changed - even the ability to digest lactose as an adult didn't involve evolving any new enzymes, it involved an enzyme being produced throughout life instead of just in early childhood.

    It's still the case that reducing lean body mass by starvation or inadequate protein intake damages health.

    So basically, what was optimal health in the palaeolithic era is the same as what's optimal health now.... that's the basis on which the paleo diet was formed... and I don't have an issue with that basis; where the paleo diet went wrong is it was made up by people who had no idea what palaeolithic people actually ate. And they ignored the fact that people of certain ethnic origins actually can digest lactose (IMO the real take-home message from this should be the strong emphasis on exercise and portion control, because palaeolithic people got plenty of exercise and were not able to eat food in unlimited quantities).... but the fact remains that a healthy human body is strong, athletic, has the right amount of fat, has dense bones, strong muscles and is getting all the nutrients it needs.

    As I said in my previous post, looking at the health of bodybuilders is not a good way to determine whether people with a high lean body mass are at risk of health problems - because a lot of them take steroids and this utterly confounds the data. If you want to compare the health of people with higher lean mass and lower lean mass, compare elderly natural strength athletes (i.e. who didn't/don't take steroids) with elderly people who've been sedentary their whole lives. That's going to give you a much better picture....
  • leantool
    leantool Posts: 365 Member
    I am with Neander here,before you bash high lean body mass here ,i request you to google Manohar Aich,he won world body building champion ship group lll at 1952.he still trains youth and celebrated his hundredth birthday couple of years back.
    Longevity is multifactorial and genetics play an important role
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,469 Member
    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.


    In...

    ...for projecting beliefs about meat in a diet to the extent they would argue "infection" as a cause of death to be "diet-related".