Meatless The Better
Replies
-
ThinnerLiz wrote: »It didn’t work for me. I was Vegetarian and then Vegan for over ten years.
Going lower carb/Primal and focusing on proteins and healthy fats changed my body and my mind.
Carb fog, sluggishness, bloat, puffiness, mood swings, blood glucose fluctuations and episodes of reactive hypoglycemia are all gone.
It wasn’t an easy choice for me, ethically, because I really care about animals, but not feeling like *kitten* because of fibromyalgia, falling asleep every afternoon, and brain fog makes it easier to accept the idea that I need to eat meat in order to feel well. I do try to do this as humanely as I can.
Soy foods and beans just don’t cut it for me. Believe me, I tried. I did it “right”. It’s just too many grains/legumes/starches, and ultimately, processed “meat substitutes” for me to feel well.
I think for every person who says going low carbohydrate changed their body and mind, you can find people who will say going vegan/plant-based changed their body and their mind.
While this may be valuable information for a specific individual, I'm ultimately skeptical about the value of these anecdotal experiences to anyone else given that it's possible to find completely genuine and glowing testimonials for just about any type of diet, including poorly designed or dangerous ones
The bottom line is that there are large studies showing good results for plant-based/vegan diets (which isn't, of course, saying that studies show good results are *limited* to plant-based/vegan diets). There's no good evidence that a diet with legumes and starches is unhealthy (absent specific conditions or intolerances) -- in fact, some of the healthiest regions in the world regularly eat these foods, and not in small quantities.
This isn't to second-guess an individual's experience and obviously people need to pay attention to how they feel and perform when eating various foods, but I think we have to look at things like this in the context of the larger evidence and the larger evidence seems to support the claim that the average American probably could do with eating *more* legumes and nutrient-rich starches rather than less of them (assuming they're eating less of other things and not just adding more calories to their diets).10 -
I agree, Jane, that one person’s experience can vary greatly from another’s.
That’s why I suggest that people don’t become wedded to any dietary dogma, and instead, do some experimentation to see what works best for them.
There is a lot of information out there, good/bad/outright loony, and it’s hard to know what to believe.
There are things we do know for sure; namely, that people can survive on many different diets, and thrive on some pretty unusual ones. (The Innuit and Masai, for example.)
I learned what works for me, which may well help others, which is why I mention it.
(If you had talked to me in the 1990’s, I’d have been a staunch advocate for Vegetarianism/Veganism. I had no idea that that diet was making me sick and bloated.)
My personal approach is one of moderation and overall health; basically eating the way humans have been for millennia.
I guess I’m an “Ethical Omnivore”?
My diet consists of lots of nutrient-dense, fresh foods, little processed/monoculture crops/junk, and my carbs come from fresh veggies and a bit of fresh fruit.
Consequently, my insulin levels remain low/stable and my biomarkers for good health are excellent.
To me, this is an optimal diet for overall health and well-being, at least in my case.
It’s not extreme in any way.
Eschewing processed foods (milled grains) and starchy foods/sugars which cause rapid fluctuations in blood glucose just seems like good sense to me for overall health, weight loss, and avoiding conditions like Type II Diabetes, etc.
Others may have different results.
0 -
Look at my post. I said MOST disease come from genetics and ACQUIRED comes from weight issues and environment. Now if you want to debate that, go ahead.
Lol, never heard of onset diabetes? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879283/
Of course I have. We could go back and forth with conditions that do and don't involve weight as a major risk factor, but where's the fun in that? Again, some and most are two very different words are they not?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I agree, Jane, that one person’s experience can vary greatly from another’s.
That’s why I suggest that people don’t become wedded to any dietary dogma, and instead, do some experimentation to see what works best for them.
There is a lot of information out there, good/bad/outright loony, and it’s hard to know what to believe.
There are things we do know for sure; namely, that people can survive on many different diets, and thrive on some pretty unusual ones. (The Innuit and Masai, for example.)
I learned what works for me, which may well help others, which is why I mention it.
(If you had talked to me in the 1990’s, I’d have been a staunch advocate for Vegetarianism/Veganism. I had no idea that that diet was making me sick and bloated.)
My personal approach is one of moderation and overall health; basically eating the way humans have been for millennia.
I guess I’m an “Ethical Omnivore”?
My diet consists of lots of nutrient-dense, fresh foods, little processed/monoculture crops/junk, and my carbs come from fresh veggies and a bit of fresh fruit.
Consequently, my insulin levels remain low/stable and my biomarkers for good health are excellent.
To me, this is an optimal diet for overall health and well-being, at least in my case.
It’s not extreme in any way.
Eschewing processed foods (milled grains) and starchy foods/sugars which cause rapid fluctuations in blood glucose just seems like good sense to me for overall health, weight loss, and avoiding conditions like Type II Diabetes, etc.
Others may have different results.
My point is that a diet rich in legumes and starches is how they've been eating for millennia in some parts of the world. Peas, lentils, chickpeas, flax, wheat, barley . . . these are foods that people have been eating since the Neolithic era. I'm not arguing this means we're obligated to eat them, I'm making the argument they can be the basis of a healthful dietary pattern. Rice and soy beans have been domesticated for almost as long, potatoes too.
They can also be included in diets that are optimal for overall health and well-being. I'm not convinced that we're obligated to avoid them for optimal health assuming we're meeting our overall nutritional needs and maintaining a healthy body weight.
I'd love to see some larger scale studies of vegans with unhealthy insulin levels or poor health biomarkers where weight is taken into consideration. I don't know your story at all, but anecdotally the former vegans I know who report resolving health problems through adding animal products to their diet were outside of a healthy BMI range as vegans (that is, they were either underweight and sometimes dealing with eating disorders or overweight). It's something I think is worth exploring (just as I think it's worth challenging inflated health claims for veganism made by people who were overweight as non-vegans and then lost weight on a vegan diet).
5 -
Disagree but let everyone decide for themselves. If a vegetarian eats a lot of cheese and pasta, they're not doing themselves any favors.1
-
Lol, never heard of onset diabetes? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879283/
Of course I have. We could go back and forth with conditions that do and don't involve weight as a major risk factor, but where's the fun in that? Again, some and most are two very different words are they not?
If the claim was that most diseases come from one of (1) genetics, (2) environmental factors, or (3) weight issues, what would be other major sources? Accidents (or other non-environmental physical risks)? Drug side effects (which might be "environmental" if interpreted broadly)? ("Environmental" could be a pretty broad thing.)
I'm not trying to be confrontational here; I'm truly confused. I think it's just that I interpreted niner's post differently, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something major in the disease landscape. Earlier, you mentioned "Type 1 diabetes, scoliosis, various forms of hearing loss", but IMU T1 is significanly genetic, scoliosis often some combination of genetic predisposition with environmental factors, and (I think) most hearing loss either genetic or environmental.
I'm wondering whether the disagreement is more about the scope of "most" in the claim, frankly.
I think we read it differently and yes, it's about the scope of "most" which is why I highlighted that in my initial reply.2 -
Look at my post. I said MOST disease come from genetics and ACQUIRED comes from weight issues and environment. Now if you want to debate that, go ahead.
Lol, never heard of onset diabetes? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879283/
Of course I have. We could go back and forth with conditions that do and don't involve weight as a major risk factor, but where's the fun in that? Again, some and most are two very different words are they not?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I read your post differently than you meant it to have been read. I'm sorry about the extended misunderstanding. The joys of online communication.1 -
Jane, I was never either obese nor underweight. My desire for weight loss was strictly one of vanity, not health. I was... I am, lucky. I was medically healthy, active—gym rat/cyclist/runner—but felt crappy; tired all the time, suffered with Fibromyalgia and the accompanying brain fog and fatigue. I do not have Celiac, nor am I lactose intolerant or anything like that.
I gained weight around my middle as I aged, and started gaining those fat pads on my upper hips. I was told “that’s getting older” and my fluctuating energy levels, aching joints, etc, were “all part of getting older” and menopause was the kicker.
I decided to find out for myself if this had to be my fate or not.
My best friend—same age—is a fitness buff and very focused on diet and wellness. She has been her whole life. She also believes in “CICO” with the idea that all calories are created equal.
(Biochemistry tells us this is not true. The body responds to different nutrients in different ways.)
We decided to lose weight and “regain our girlish figures” from 30 years ago if we could, while being diet buddies.
I went Primal, and she stuck to the Food Pyramid loaded with grains, starches, lots of fruit, less protein and minimal fat. (There had been several false starts, beginning in 2009 with WW, among other things. I lost, and gained it all back. Because all those carbs were like rocket fuel to my appetite.)
Here it is a few years later and I am rather effortlessly losing, and maintaining my weight, looking leaner and better than ever. My friend is still eating low calorie/carb dense and is doing spinning classes, Zumba, weight training, etc. to keep things in check.
I work out too, but it takes a lot less for me to stay lean and in shape. She feels it’s hopeless, yet looks at me like I have three heads when I suggest cutting BACK (not eliminating) the grains and starches to see what happens. And I am a case in point. It’s hard for her to consider that perhaps much of what she has learned up until now might be wrong. That’s not easy for anyone.
We don’t need that stuff. We really don’t. I eat bread and pasta on occasion because I like it. I certainly don’t need it. I can eat loads of broccoli and cabbage and asparagus instead. I get plenty of carbs, but usually between 70-130g (total) per day. And I feel fantastic.
Again, I suggest each person find out for themselves. This is hardly a new or radical idea. Let the proof be in the Rice Pudding!
Or the Tapioca, which is my favorite!0 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »We don’t need that stuff. We really don’t. I eat bread and pasta on occasion because I like it. I certainly don’t need it. I can eat loads of broccoli and cabbage and asparagus instead. I get plenty of carbs, but usually between 70-130g (total) per day. And I feel fantastic.
As I understand Jane, she is saying that humans can be healthy on many different diets. So sure, you don't need to eat more carbs, but it's also possible to be extremely healthy eating a higher carb diet (or avoiding meat and other animal products).
There is someone who will say they feel so much better eating almost any diet (keto, lower carb, WFPB, vegan, pescatarian, paleo, IFing, whatever). Usually the changes are broader than the ones they focus on.
For example, many who go keto insist they eat more veg than they did before. I find that counterintuitive, since of course vegetables have carbs and it seems easier to eat more veg without going keto and restricting carbs to under 25 net or whatnot (I tried keto and kept net carbs around 30 and found myself having to cut back on veg, personally). But in many cases they may also be making better nutritional choices over all, since they are focusing on their diet, might be losing a little weight (it's common for even small losses to cause people to feel better), eating more protein, exercising somewhat more, all sorts of things. For me, I feel better when I eat mindfully, and following a new diet usually gets me doing that.
I tend to agree with Jane that humans can be super healthy on a huge range of diets. (And I would disagree with the OP for similar reasons.)7 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »I had lots of encounters feeding the vegan girls my two sons brought around over 20 years of dating with me making vegan lunches, dinners and snacks for a dozen or more of them. An unheahier looking group you could not assemble from the privileged class these kids came from. I could usually tell a meat eater from her good color, nice skin and hair and reasonable body shape. Where the vegans were a pathetic looking bunch, underweight or overweight, dull hair and skin, etc. And, this was in one of the richest zipcodes in the US. Kids that were in private school at $30,000 per year per kid. I can't imagine what the kids on a tight food budget do with a vegan diet.
I'm an omnivore but I eat more vegetables than some vegetarians. I'm guessing those vegan girls weren't focusing on healthy vegan foods. As said previously, Oreos are vegan after all.
Re being vegan on a budget - bulk rice and beans are very cheap. In countries other than the US, poor people are often mostly plant based because it is cheaper.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Other than getting flamed for saying my experiences, I am happy to have a lot of successful vegans weigh in, as it were. I do think that persons who assume that an adult would comment to a woman on their body shape reasonableness is pretty perverted. Where on earth would that happen? I can't imagine who would even suggest such a thing.
You assessed these women's bodies, formed conclusions, and shared those conclusions with us. It's not really that odd to conclude that you might have said something to them or let them know through your gaze and facial expressions (or other actions) that you were evaluating them and found them wanting.
I mean, I would hope we lived in a world where men weren't checking out their sons' dates and sharing their assessments online, but we clearly don't live in that world. Why is a direct comment to them the only thing you think is a bridge too far in this situation?
I think Christian Serratos, who plays Rosita on The Walking Dead, has been looking unhealthy - pale and no muscle tone in her arms - but I don't get pushback for saying that because I'm female*. And I doubt @wilson10102018 would be getting pushback if he was his sons' mother instead of father.
*I might get pushback here on MFP, but I'm not counting that
2 -
No, I think if a sons mothers were to say the sons partners had unreasonable body shapes, there would be pushback too.
It might not have the same older man checking out young women's bodies vibe to it but I think it would elicit same general responses.10 -
paperpudding wrote: »No, I think if a sons mothers were to say the sons partners had unreasonable body shapes, there would be pushback too.
It might not have the same older man checking out young women's bodies vibe to it but I think it would elicit same general responses.
Agreed, I've definitely seen this happen, at least in online spaces (including those primarily made up of women).1 -
Lemurcat, that’s my point as well. That different people can thrive on very different diets.
It’s worth trying different approaches to find out what works best for each one of us.
I know we do not “need” grains, nor meat, to be survive. Or even to be healthy, or feel well, individually speaking. But some of us do better with more of one and less of the other.
And “surviving” and “thriving” are two different things. I survived as a Vegetarian/Vegan, but I was definitely not functioning at my optimal level.
I know people who are Vegans, who feel so much better after ditching animal products. And I’m happy for them. I wish I could! I tried; it just didn’t work for me.
There is no “one size fits all” approach. It takes trial and error to figure that out individually. Reading stuff on the internet is just the start. We each have to learn it, hands on.
And so we forge ahead.3 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »
Links please!
Some of it must be on the web by now, so you could use keywords of interest to you in order to track down more current information on the subject if interested.
I recall at least some of the material I read long ago referred to immigrants from Asian countries, in particular Japan, and also studies in modern Japan to see differences in health issues between traditional eaters and ones who have adopted Western (especially American) habits. One source might have looked at similar differences in Hawaii. There are undoubtedly many others for other ethnic groups and in other countries, since doctors everywhere certainly see differences when people's diets change and are worried when the changes lead to new levels of disease. Sometimes they report their observations in journals as case studies, often they don't. I keep reminding colleagues (I am a translator and live on the web today) that just because something isn't on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Doctors do talk with each other in unrecorded conversations, for example, to share observations about their patients in general. It can take decades before "common knowledge" shows up in general handbooks.
But relevant observations can show up in more general articles, which often do quote doctors and researchers who have been contacted directly. Formal studies are not needed to see certain patterns and are unlikely to be funded, since clinical trials (with all their serious limitations) are very expensive and if there is no profit in it for someone, why bother? So don't discount "anecdotal evidence" wherever you find it. Clinical trials are organized collections of anecdotes. They try to quantify things, but humans are very difficult to properly quantify and as a scientist myself, I cringe at the naive misuse of statistics in the biomedical material that I translate.
Also an international multicenter trial is typically not that extensive. It is very rare to have long-term studies with huge numbers of individuals who are consistently monitored every year for decades. One famous one used doctors and nurses as the subjects in a massive study so they could at least grab them for the simple measurements....
But in more typical clinical trials, many of the centers are individual doctor's offices who have recruited one or two people for the study. Even if a hospital is involved, you still see that relatively few people are recruited by the individual doctors who are the Principal Investigators. There are real difficulties trying to get even the measurements made under identical conditions, and trying to adjust for the actual living and eating conditions for the subjects is essentially impossible. Clinical trials can tell you about extremes regarding safety and efficacy, but everything in the middle is murkier. We just do not know all the factors involved, and we do not know how to control the variables under normal conditions.
Anyway, my links are to my head full of decades of reading about nutrition professionally and recreationally. I am a chemist and a physicist and have been a scientific translator (dealing often with clinical trial materials and medical journals) since the big advance was a Selectric typewriter with Greek symbol ball. I started work on a manual typewriter older than me.
In the olden days, we dealt mainly in paper sources and I had to routinely schedule trips to libraries to do my job instead of typing a few words into a web browser in any language. That's why I don't know how much of the older material has been converted to searchable electronic form and posted on the web. My physics and chemistry journals have been diligently doing that, so now even articles from the late 19th Century are online for those although only abstracts are available without payment. But I'm sure I read about the immigrant studies in more general sources, although any original research may be online by now if the biomedical people have been as diligent as the physicists and chemists. There must be many more recent reports now that would be online, however.
1 -
Thought I'd add my two cents. All the fast food places are pushing these 'beyond meat' burgers and such. Looking at the ingredients, there is some thing called soy isolates. Not a good thing. There are more additives and fat in one of these burgers than a regular burger.
Also, while checking out this very subject, the proteins you get from plants, while good, not all of them are processed in the body as meat and dairy proteins, so not necessarily as good.
So, in conclusion, (my conclusion), it is better to eat a varied diet, everything in moderation. And don't forget, unless you can guarantee that your fruit and veggies are grown organically, you're getting plenty of chemicals and crap in your veggies and fruits as well.
1 -
I’m interested generally but also specifically in your take, so if you have found compelling articles I’d like to be sure I am reading those.2
-
judyvalentine512 wrote: »Thought I'd add my two cents. All the fast food places are pushing these 'beyond meat' burgers and such. Looking at the ingredients, there is some thing called soy isolates. Not a good thing. There are more additives and fat in one of these burgers than a regular burger.
Also, while checking out this very subject, the proteins you get from plants, while good, not all of them are processed in the body as meat and dairy proteins, so not necessarily as good.
So, in conclusion, (my conclusion), it is better to eat a varied diet, everything in moderation. And don't forget, unless you can guarantee that your fruit and veggies are grown organically, you're getting plenty of chemicals and crap in your veggies and fruits as well.
Well, perhaps there are more additives and fat in veggie burgers - I don't know, I've never looked into it.
But you are assuming that is a problem.
If people were wanting to avoid meat, they are doing so by having a veggie burger.
Nothing to suggest fats or additives are an issue for veggie burger choosers.
And, no,non-organic fruit and veg do not contain ' plenty of chemicals and crap'
That just sounds like hyperbolic scare mongering to me.
My conclusions: yes, better to eat a varied diet. But if you do not want to include meat or dairy or grains or whatever specific food, then quite possible to have a varied balanced diet without them.
Or with them if you want to do that.
8 -
I find it hard to imagine life without meat. But I have been looking at giving it a go, only for environmental reasons though.0
-
Someone touching on the thought, "meatless the better", the better for whom or what. Some of our animal production methods are not good for the environment alternatively not having a joined up vegetative agrecultural system also puts pressure on the environment. Transporting food miles and miles by road, sea and air is not beneficial to the environment. Not eating meat as our ancestors had to, each and every cell having its place in the diet from muscle meat to ofel, is wasteful, if one reads deeply the male got the lions share because they hunted. May be a little of everything, prefereably produced locally could work for the majority and possible future generations so we do not take all mamalian life as well as other forms of life with us.
As for someones statement, being over weight causing arthrits and other health issues. When human growth hormone declines, (when while at "normal levels" it facilitates the growth and repair of bone and other tissues), before the onset of osteoarthritis, which is shown to be an issue of lack of growth and repair, when osteoarthritis can preexist the diagnosis of endocrine issues by a period of 10 to 15 years, where human growth hormone is also an endocrine hormone, to me that is full circle. I accept there can often be familial traits towards health issues be they "famillial dietary habbits" or from genetic issues leaving people exposed. When western medicine refuses to move on from the thyroid numbers game, set up from discarded blood samples taken over a set period of time in one hospital without knowing the endocrine status of the donations, leaves the results rather floured, STTM. Short cuts are taken when testing, the between this and that will work for some but not the outliers in the population who need a "right for them" level.
Over the years the quality of our foods has declined because of intensive farming and soil element depletions. Along side soil depleation we have microbiome depleation of soil and personal, again western medicine considers there to be no difference between being hypothyroid for dietary reasons and the autoimune form, Hashimotos with its extending range of symptoms some less commone ones among them. Hahsimotos is diagnosed by the presence of antibodys, where if one works on improving the structure of the entire digestive tract enabeling the organ to regain its semiimpermiable status so it no longer lets oversized particles of foods passing through to become confused with "our own cells" in molicule mimicry causing the immune system to irradicate all those cells as if they were exactly the same. It certainly is not the, once you have the antibodies at a high level that they must remain at that high level, they can be dramatically reduced by changing the diet. Frightenly the number of autoimmune disorders are increasing.
We need to look to our health and the health of our planet. Not being so self centred, needing more stuff, faster transport and the rest.1 -
We live longer, are healthier, happier, and have more leisure time than any generation before. Our food is cleaner, more nutritious and safer. Farming is more productive thereby sustaining more people than ever thought possible. Only a few holdouts in the world are dumping significant waste and garbage in open waters most all of which can be found within 30 miles of the Yangtze River in China.
For my part, I am pretty optimistic about the present and the future.2 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »Jane, I was never either obese nor underweight. My desire for weight loss was strictly one of vanity, not health. I was... I am, lucky. I was medically healthy, active—gym rat/cyclist/runner—but felt crappy; tired all the time, suffered with Fibromyalgia and the accompanying brain fog and fatigue. I do not have Celiac, nor am I lactose intolerant or anything like that.
I gained weight around my middle as I aged, and started gaining those fat pads on my upper hips. I was told “that’s getting older” and my fluctuating energy levels, aching joints, etc, were “all part of getting older” and menopause was the kicker.
I decided to find out for myself if this had to be my fate or not.
My best friend—same age—is a fitness buff and very focused on diet and wellness. She has been her whole life. She also believes in “CICO” with the idea that all calories are created equal.
(Biochemistry tells us this is not true. The body responds to different nutrients in different ways.)
We decided to lose weight and “regain our girlish figures” from 30 years ago if we could, while being diet buddies.
I went Primal, and she stuck to the Food Pyramid loaded with grains, starches, lots of fruit, less protein and minimal fat. (There had been several false starts, beginning in 2009 with WW, among other things. I lost, and gained it all back. Because all those carbs were like rocket fuel to my appetite.)
Here it is a few years later and I am rather effortlessly losing, and maintaining my weight, looking leaner and better than ever. My friend is still eating low calorie/carb dense and is doing spinning classes, Zumba, weight training, etc. to keep things in check.
I work out too, but it takes a lot less for me to stay lean and in shape. She feels it’s hopeless, yet looks at me like I have three heads when I suggest cutting BACK (not eliminating) the grains and starches to see what happens. And I am a case in point. It’s hard for her to consider that perhaps much of what she has learned up until now might be wrong. That’s not easy for anyone.
We don’t need that stuff. We really don’t. I eat bread and pasta on occasion because I like it. I certainly don’t need it. I can eat loads of broccoli and cabbage and asparagus instead. I get plenty of carbs, but usually between 70-130g (total) per day. And I feel fantastic.
Again, I suggest each person find out for themselves. This is hardly a new or radical idea. Let the proof be in the Rice Pudding!
Or the Tapioca, which is my favorite!
CICO doesn't mean that one is disregarding nutrients. Either you misunderstood what your friend was communicating to you or your friend doesn't understand CICO herself.
Cutting back grains and starches is only going to result in weight loss if it reduces the number of overall calories one is eating. There are plenty of people who are active, slender, and thriving while including starches in their diet (I'd include myself in that category -- I ran three marathons last year including things like beans, potatoes, pasta, rice, and oats in my diet).
Do we *need* starches? No. But we don't need to eliminate them either.15 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »We don’t need that stuff. We really don’t. I eat bread and pasta on occasion because I like it. I certainly don’t need it. I can eat loads of broccoli and cabbage and asparagus instead. I get plenty of carbs, but usually between 70-130g (total) per day. And I feel fantastic.
As I understand Jane, she is saying that humans can be healthy on many different diets. So sure, you don't need to eat more carbs, but it's also possible to be extremely healthy eating a higher carb diet (or avoiding meat and other animal products).
There is someone who will say they feel so much better eating almost any diet (keto, lower carb, WFPB, vegan, pescatarian, paleo, IFing, whatever). Usually the changes are broader than the ones they focus on.
For example, many who go keto insist they eat more veg than they did before. I find that counterintuitive, since of course vegetables have carbs and it seems easier to eat more veg without going keto and restricting carbs to under 25 net or whatnot (I tried keto and kept net carbs around 30 and found myself having to cut back on veg, personally). But in many cases they may also be making better nutritional choices over all, since they are focusing on their diet, might be losing a little weight (it's common for even small losses to cause people to feel better), eating more protein, exercising somewhat more, all sorts of things. For me, I feel better when I eat mindfully, and following a new diet usually gets me doing that.
I tend to agree with Jane that humans can be super healthy on a huge range of diets. (And I would disagree with the OP for similar reasons.)
Well said, this is exactly what I was saying. We can be healthy on many different diets, including diets that includes legumes and starches.
If someone is eating enough starch to crowd out other nutrients that they need, it's logical that they'd feel better with a dietary change that allowed them to meet their nutritional needs. But it's also possible for someone who isn't meeting their nutritional needs to feel better when they start including more legumes and starches in their diet because they're now meeting needs they were not meeting before.
And there are hundreds of testimonials for different types of diets that suggest the truth of this. For every person who is swearing that the primal diet "changed their life," you can probably find someone who is raving about how going plant-based did it for them (or Whole 30 or keto or whatever). The common thread is finding a diet that meets someone's nutritional needs. This can also be done without adopting any specific dietary style at all. This is how flexible humans are when it comes to diet -- there are many configurations of eating that can meet our needs. The important thing is getting the needs met.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Other than getting flamed for saying my experiences, I am happy to have a lot of successful vegans weigh in, as it were. I do think that persons who assume that an adult would comment to a woman on their body shape reasonableness is pretty perverted. Where on earth would that happen? I can't imagine who would even suggest such a thing.
You assessed these women's bodies, formed conclusions, and shared those conclusions with us. It's not really that odd to conclude that you might have said something to them or let them know through your gaze and facial expressions (or other actions) that you were evaluating them and found them wanting.
I mean, I would hope we lived in a world where men weren't checking out their sons' dates and sharing their assessments online, but we clearly don't live in that world. Why is a direct comment to them the only thing you think is a bridge too far in this situation?
I think Christian Serratos, who plays Rosita on The Walking Dead, has been looking unhealthy - pale and no muscle tone in her arms - but I don't get pushback for saying that because I'm female*. And I doubt @wilson10102018 would be getting pushback if he was his sons' mother instead of father.
*I might get pushback here on MFP, but I'm not counting that
I am wondering why you're feeling the need to bring up this specific person and critique her body, honestly.
And I'd also find it odd if a woman was analyzing and critiquing the bodies of the women her sons were bringing home and sharing the analysis online.
That's just me. In other families, it may be normal to treat a child's guests that way.9 -
judyvalentine512 wrote: »Thought I'd add my two cents. All the fast food places are pushing these 'beyond meat' burgers and such. Looking at the ingredients, there is some thing called soy isolates. Not a good thing. There are more additives and fat in one of these burgers than a regular burger.
Also, while checking out this very subject, the proteins you get from plants, while good, not all of them are processed in the body as meat and dairy proteins, so not necessarily as good.
So, in conclusion, (my conclusion), it is better to eat a varied diet, everything in moderation. And don't forget, unless you can guarantee that your fruit and veggies are grown organically, you're getting plenty of chemicals and crap in your veggies and fruits as well.
Beyond Burger doesn't have soy. Before trying to scare people, you might want to research the subject.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Other than getting flamed for saying my experiences, I am happy to have a lot of successful vegans weigh in, as it were. I do think that persons who assume that an adult would comment to a woman on their body shape reasonableness is pretty perverted. Where on earth would that happen? I can't imagine who would even suggest such a thing.
You assessed these women's bodies, formed conclusions, and shared those conclusions with us. It's not really that odd to conclude that you might have said something to them or let them know through your gaze and facial expressions (or other actions) that you were evaluating them and found them wanting.
I mean, I would hope we lived in a world where men weren't checking out their sons' dates and sharing their assessments online, but we clearly don't live in that world. Why is a direct comment to them the only thing you think is a bridge too far in this situation?
I think Christian Serratos, who plays Rosita on The Walking Dead, has been looking unhealthy - pale and no muscle tone in her arms - but I don't get pushback for saying that because I'm female*. And I doubt @wilson10102018 would be getting pushback if he was his sons' mother instead of father.
*I might get pushback here on MFP, but I'm not counting that
I am wondering why you're feeling the need to bring up this specific person and critique her body, honestly.
And I'd also find it odd if a woman was analyzing and critiquing the bodies of the women her sons were bringing home and sharing the analysis online.
That's just me. In other families, it may be normal to treat a child's guests that way.
I brought it up to illustrate my belief that some posters are ascribing motivations to Wilson simply because he is male. When I, a female, did something similar (observing a person looked unhealthy) no one IRL got all MeToo on me.
You're also mischaracterizing what happened with Wilson - he didn't run online to critic his child's guests in real time - years later he used them as an example of his experience of what he perceived as unhealthy vegans.
Sure, there is indeed a toxic issue in our culture with relentless critique of female bodies. But I don't believe that is what is happening here.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Other than getting flamed for saying my experiences, I am happy to have a lot of successful vegans weigh in, as it were. I do think that persons who assume that an adult would comment to a woman on their body shape reasonableness is pretty perverted. Where on earth would that happen? I can't imagine who would even suggest such a thing.
You assessed these women's bodies, formed conclusions, and shared those conclusions with us. It's not really that odd to conclude that you might have said something to them or let them know through your gaze and facial expressions (or other actions) that you were evaluating them and found them wanting.
I mean, I would hope we lived in a world where men weren't checking out their sons' dates and sharing their assessments online, but we clearly don't live in that world. Why is a direct comment to them the only thing you think is a bridge too far in this situation?
I think Christian Serratos, who plays Rosita on The Walking Dead, has been looking unhealthy - pale and no muscle tone in her arms - but I don't get pushback for saying that because I'm female*. And I doubt @wilson10102018 would be getting pushback if he was his sons' mother instead of father.
*I might get pushback here on MFP, but I'm not counting that
I am wondering why you're feeling the need to bring up this specific person and critique her body, honestly.
And I'd also find it odd if a woman was analyzing and critiquing the bodies of the women her sons were bringing home and sharing the analysis online.
That's just me. In other families, it may be normal to treat a child's guests that way.
I brought it up to illustrate my belief that some posters are ascribing motivations to Wilson simply because he is male. When I, a female, did something similar (observing a person looked unhealthy) no one IRL got all MeToo on me.
You're also mischaracterizing what happened with Wilson - he didn't run online to critic his child's guests in real time - years later he used them as an example of his experience of what he perceived as unhealthy vegans.
Sure, there is indeed a toxic issue in our culture with relentless critique of female bodies. But I don't believe that is what is happening here.
I don't think anybody is being "MeToo" here.
I understand this isn't real time. To me, that's not making it better. Not only is he evaluating these women for a "reasonable" body shape, he's holding on to these evaluations for years. I don't know what his motivations are for analyzing his sons' female guests that way, but I'd find it odd from a mother or a father.
Others may find it okay and it's fine for them to state that. I understand what you're expressing. Others find it less okay and maybe even part of culture that should be challenged. I think it's okay to state that too. At the end of the day, people who want to make comments about the "reasonableness" of a young woman's body are still free to do so. I don't see that part of our culture changing anytime soon. It's really the social norm rather than the exception.
9 -
judyvalentine512 wrote: »Thought I'd add my two cents. All the fast food places are pushing these 'beyond meat' burgers and such. Looking at the ingredients, there is some thing called soy isolates. Not a good thing. There are more additives and fat in one of these burgers than a regular burger.
Also, while checking out this very subject, the proteins you get from plants, while good, not all of them are processed in the body as meat and dairy proteins, so not necessarily as good.
So, in conclusion, (my conclusion), it is better to eat a varied diet, everything in moderation. And don't forget, unless you can guarantee that your fruit and veggies are grown organically, you're getting plenty of chemicals and crap in your veggies and fruits as well.
If you are going to scare about additives, it's a weird thing to do when you are trying to make a point in favor of commercially produced meat. Sure, the only ingredient you see will be beef, but what do you think goes into making that beef? The cow doesn't grow on a cow tree. It's fed a steady diet of antibiotics (more antibiotics are used in livestock than in humans) as well as the "dreaded" soy (soybeans are a huge part of cow feed), among other things. Not that all these things are necessarily bad (although there is considerable evidence that the antibiotic use in livestock is contributing to a rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria. This isn't woo. The CDC and WHO say so: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/22/health/drug-resistant-salmonella-cdc-warning/index.html. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/07-11-2017-stop-using-antibiotics-in-healthy-animals-to-prevent-the-spread-of-antibiotic-resistance). But it's a weird flex to talk about meat being pure and natural when we look at what actually goes into producing it.11 -
MostlyWater wrote: »Disagree but let everyone decide for themselves. If a vegetarian eats a lot of cheese and pasta, they're not doing themselves any favors.
This is exactly what my husband has been eating all his life + fish and sweets (he's 65) and he's in excellent physical condition, much better than most of his peers. Also, it's not just me saying this. His brother is a cardiologist. We live in Italy--carb heaven.8 -
judyvalentine512 wrote: »Thought I'd add my two cents. All the fast food places are pushing these 'beyond meat' burgers and such. Looking at the ingredients, there is some thing called soy isolates. Not a good thing. There are more additives and fat in one of these burgers than a regular burger.
Also, while checking out this very subject, the proteins you get from plants, while good, not all of them are processed in the body as meat and dairy proteins, so not necessarily as good.
So, in conclusion, (my conclusion), it is better to eat a varied diet, everything in moderation. And don't forget, unless you can guarantee that your fruit and veggies are grown organically, you're getting plenty of chemicals and crap in your veggies and fruits as well.
If you are going to scare about additives, it's a weird thing to do when you are trying to make a point in favor of commercially produced meat. Sure, the only ingredient you see will be beef, but what do you think goes into making that beef? The cow doesn't grow on a cow tree. It's fed a steady diet of antibiotics (more antibiotics are used in livestock than in humans) as well as the "dreaded" soy (soybeans are a huge part of cow feed), among other things. Not that all these things are necessarily bad (although there is considerable evidence that the antibiotic use in livestock is contributing to a rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria. This isn't woo. The CDC and WHO say so: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/22/health/drug-resistant-salmonella-cdc-warning/index.html. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/07-11-2017-stop-using-antibiotics-in-healthy-animals-to-prevent-the-spread-of-antibiotic-resistance). But it's a weird flex to talk about meat being pure and natural when we look at what actually goes into producing it.
I'm not the one you quoted, but thought I'd chime in.
I'm an omnivore, and I don't buy meat that was conventionally raised, partially due to the antibiotics issue but more for my concerns about animal welfare, which were greatly influenced by Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, this article, which tracks the life of a typical steer : https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/magazine/power-steer.html and this article, which talks about how pigs are raised: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/an-animals-place/
My understanding is that corn is a bigger part of conventionally raised cattle than soy - Michael Pollan discusses extensively how cows digest grass much better than corn and the problems that arise from using corn to fatten them up faster.
Meat from animals that were never given any antibiotics ever is easily found in regular supermarkets in the three states where I've lived in the US. (It does generally cost more, so I look for sales and stock up.)
Whole Foods goes farther than supermarket brands - their meat has different "steps" representing different levels of animal welfare certification:
https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/animal-welfare/5-step-animal-welfare-rating
Improving the lives of farm animals, step-by-step.
At Whole Foods Market, Global Animal Partnership's Animal Welfare Certified means 100+ standards for beef, pork, chicken, lamb and turkey (except kosher turkey) in our meat department. This 5-step system not only gives you the knowledge to make informed food choices, it encourages and rewards farmers and ranchers to improve their welfare practices. So whether you’re looking for a great steak or you want to know where your roasting chicken comes from, this third-party certification system works for you. All of the beef, pork, chicken, lamb, and turkey (except kosher turkey) in our fresh meat case is certified. You’ll find a different selection in each store, but if it doesn’t meet base certification, you won’t see it because we won’t sell it. Remember: To reach even Base Certification, farms and ranches must meet more than 100 requirements!3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions