You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Fat is the Preferred Fuel for Human Metabolism
- Thread starter DT-waw
- Start date
Why would anyone want ketosis? There is ample scientific evidence that prolonged ketosis has severe side effects. Kidney failure for starters.Quote from atticus:
Google CKD or cyclical ketogenic diet(ing).
His carb-loading is too long, IMO.
Where is the evidence - apart from anecdotal stories on the internet - that a state of starvation is good for you (apart from fasting once a year which is something completely different)?
(Bankhead, C. 1998. Ketogenic diet can cause serious adverse effects, data suggests. Medical Tribune 39 (17): 23)
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-how-a-highprotein-diet-works.html
Yeast doesn't contain B12 naturally. "Nutritional yeast" is fortified with B12. Obviously your solution to your dietary B12 problem is to supplement B12 (thru fortified yeast) and ignore the DRI for B12.Quote from NoDoji:
To the person asking about B12 and O-3's. My B12 levels were excellent after 5 years, but I do eat nutritional yeast, which is a source. Your body stores enough B12 to do well for about 7 years. You only need a tiny amount of it. It comes from dirt. Our soils are so depleted that even if you left the dirt on your veggies, you wouldn't get much B12. Organic produce may fare better in that regard. I've no idea.
Have you ever plugged your meal choices for a day into a nutritional program to compare with vitamin mineral DRI's? You might be surprised at what you find.
Is it safe in the long run to ignore DRI's (RDA's) while trying to craft the optimum healthy diet?
LOL @ Albert Beckles being a veggie
The facts have never let veggies get in the way of a good fantasy to support their bias.
Exactly like all the other myths put forward by veggies to support their argument, regardless of fact or fantasy.
Say it often & loud enough, and sure enough many non freethinkers will believe it.
Let the power of the internet make the myth go viral.
Works most of the time I guess.
Stick this one in the filing cabinet marked "Vegan/Vegetarian Myths"
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.*
- Joseph Goebbels
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=13632 (2nd post down)
I too thought Albert was a vegetarian, never thought he was vegan though, I wanted to know for some academic work I want to do on veganism/vegetarianism and strength training but when I emailed Linda Beckles his wife she said he wasn't. He eats chicken and is not vegetarian. It's a rumour that just got blown up out of knowhere. Albert never, ever said he was vege, and Linda can't understand where it all came from.
-------------------------------------------------
I guarantee that all so-called current veggie bodybuilders ate (shovelled down) huge amounts of meat + carbs + fat (excess well beyond maintenance) in all their early muscle building years. Plus roids & in more recent years T, which they never ever mention.
Show me a vegan bodybuilder who packed on 40-50 lbs of muscle onto his frame, starting from scratch AS A VEGAN - even with roids - and i'll show you a liar.
The facts have never let veggies get in the way of a good fantasy to support their bias.
Exactly like all the other myths put forward by veggies to support their argument, regardless of fact or fantasy.
Say it often & loud enough, and sure enough many non freethinkers will believe it.
Let the power of the internet make the myth go viral.
Works most of the time I guess.
Stick this one in the filing cabinet marked "Vegan/Vegetarian Myths"
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.*
- Joseph Goebbels
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=13632 (2nd post down)
I too thought Albert was a vegetarian, never thought he was vegan though, I wanted to know for some academic work I want to do on veganism/vegetarianism and strength training but when I emailed Linda Beckles his wife she said he wasn't. He eats chicken and is not vegetarian. It's a rumour that just got blown up out of knowhere. Albert never, ever said he was vege, and Linda can't understand where it all came from.
-------------------------------------------------
I guarantee that all so-called current veggie bodybuilders ate (shovelled down) huge amounts of meat + carbs + fat (excess well beyond maintenance) in all their early muscle building years. Plus roids & in more recent years T, which they never ever mention.
Show me a vegan bodybuilder who packed on 40-50 lbs of muscle onto his frame, starting from scratch AS A VEGAN - even with roids - and i'll show you a liar.
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/09/21/a-vegan-wolverine-hugh-jackman-may-bulk-up-with-all-plant-diet/
Could the future Wolverine you see on the big screen actually be vegan-made? Thatâs the question posed after reading a new interview from VegNews with vegan nutritionist Brendan Brazier. The 35-year-old endurance athlete, author, and creator of an award-winning line of plant-based whole food nutritional products called Vega has been hired to work with Hugh Jackman as he bulks up for X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2, which will be released in 2011.
In the interview, Brazier talks about how Jackman became interested in working with Brazier after trying out his Vega products (something we speculated on back in April â09 when Hugh was caught with a product bag) and incorporating some of the ideas from his best-selling book Thrive.
âIn the past he had eaten a lot of chicken for his role, but he took a lot of Vega, too,â said Brazier. âIt turned out I was going to New York City so he said âwell why donât you just come over,â so I went over to his place and we had a great chat and he told me how he was trying out veganism for environmental and health reasons and to set a good example for his kids. Itâs not just for his own career anymore, which he wrote in the forward. He was listing the reasons why he was interested in Thrive, and he was concerned for the environment. Thatâs definitely something that he was aware of, and wanted to help instead of hurt.â
You can read the rest of the excellent interview with Brazier here â but itâs worth noting that heâs still not completely sure if Hugh will go 100% vegan while bulking up for Wolverine."
---I guess we will see
Could the future Wolverine you see on the big screen actually be vegan-made? Thatâs the question posed after reading a new interview from VegNews with vegan nutritionist Brendan Brazier. The 35-year-old endurance athlete, author, and creator of an award-winning line of plant-based whole food nutritional products called Vega has been hired to work with Hugh Jackman as he bulks up for X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2, which will be released in 2011.
In the interview, Brazier talks about how Jackman became interested in working with Brazier after trying out his Vega products (something we speculated on back in April â09 when Hugh was caught with a product bag) and incorporating some of the ideas from his best-selling book Thrive.
âIn the past he had eaten a lot of chicken for his role, but he took a lot of Vega, too,â said Brazier. âIt turned out I was going to New York City so he said âwell why donât you just come over,â so I went over to his place and we had a great chat and he told me how he was trying out veganism for environmental and health reasons and to set a good example for his kids. Itâs not just for his own career anymore, which he wrote in the forward. He was listing the reasons why he was interested in Thrive, and he was concerned for the environment. Thatâs definitely something that he was aware of, and wanted to help instead of hurt.â
You can read the rest of the excellent interview with Brazier here â but itâs worth noting that heâs still not completely sure if Hugh will go 100% vegan while bulking up for Wolverine."
---I guess we will see
Quote from olias:
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/09/21/a-vegan-wolverine-hugh-jackman-may-bulk-up-with-all-plant-diet/
Could the future Wolverine you see on the big screen actually be vegan-made? Thatâs the question posed after reading a new interview from VegNews with vegan nutritionist Brendan Brazier. The 35-year-old endurance athlete, author, and creator of an award-winning line of plant-based whole food nutritional products called Vega has been hired to work with Hugh Jackman as he bulks up for X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2, which will be released in 2011.
In the interview, Brazier talks about how Jackman became interested in working with Brazier after trying out his Vega products (something we speculated on back in April â09 when Hugh was caught with a product bag) and incorporating some of the ideas from his best-selling book Thrive.
âIn the past he had eaten a lot of chicken for his role, but he took a lot of Vega, too,â said Brazier. âIt turned out I was going to New York City so he said âwell why donât you just come over,â so I went over to his place and we had a great chat and he told me how he was trying out veganism for environmental and health reasons and to set a good example for his kids. Itâs not just for his own career anymore, which he wrote in the forward. He was listing the reasons why he was interested in Thrive, and he was concerned for the environment. Thatâs definitely something that he was aware of, and wanted to help instead of hurt.â
You can read the rest of the excellent interview with Brazier here â but itâs worth noting that heâs still not completely sure if Hugh will go 100% vegan while bulking up for Wolverine."
---I guess we will see
He's not heavily muscled on chickens so why should vegan burgers and carrots do it for him?
He should eat some beef, and lay off the the soy.
Hmmm:Quote from atticus:
To add, do not ingest any unfermented soy products. Soy is evil, save for natto, miso, etc.
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA326575
@ NoDoji
You're a well meaning person.
BUT you haven't applied any critical reasoning skills in relation to this China Study thing
Knowing that you (like others) who rely on China Study as the Gospel of Veggie-ism shoots any credibilty you may have had out of the window.
Hilarious how quick you are to pick imaginary holes in the meat eaters arguments - but take at face value this charlatan author with his mailed-in "Phd" received FREE from a cereal packet.
CONFIRMATION BIAS, much?
You take as gospel without question the proven nonsense aka China Study.
Pseudo science crap not even worthwhile as toilet paper.
It has more holes than swiss cheese.
We get it: The China Study is basically the Vegan Bible basically.
And sacrilegious. And supposedly is the sole crutch for validating veggies.
Campbell's book has nothing to the REAL China study, on which it purports to be based on. it is simply his INTERPRETAION
And more often than not flat out LIES - to confirm his bias.
No real scientific analyiss - only tons of data & supposed correlations - which don't prove causatioon or anything at all!
But in the end it is still only an observational study.
Campbell says it himself "Since these observational studies are meaningless in terms of causality, it doesnât really matter how one slices and dices the data because meaningless correlations by any other names are still just as meaningless. "
He feeds mice caesein, widely known as the most cancer inducing food on record!
Then he feeds it aflatoxin which is converted in the liver to a much more toxic compound and is often used in laboratory experiments with animals to induce cancer and other problems.
This is well known.
That aflatoxin promotes the cancer. It is beyond obfuscation, it is flat out lying, to say that, based on Research using casien as a representative animal protein proves nothing; it is comparable to using mature opium poppies as a representative of green leafy vegetable.
It's like feeding posin mushrroms & making a conclusion based on that!
Since you didn't or haven't bothered apply any critical objective thinking to it, others have already debunked that piece of crap pseudo science better than I could
Forget Campbell, heâs at best wrong, at worst a fraud. Heâs been completely refuted by smart bloggers like:
- Chris Masterjohn
- Denise Minger and others
Even the Cordain/Campbell debate should have clued you in as Campbells points are really vague and ânew-agyâ while Cordain brings a lot of research references and reasoning in the conversation.
Here some links of Campbell debunkers
Denise Minger showing that the raw data of the chinese study doesnât show what Campbell claims it shows.
http://rawfoodsos.com/category/china-study/
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/#comments
Ned Kock who has collaborated with Denise on the stats
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/search/label/China Study
Chris Masterjohn demonstrating brillantly that Campbell lies even about the results of his own studies (they donât show what he claims they show)
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2...-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/
Dr.Eades himself had a take on it
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
As most readers of this blog can tell you, the China Study â although it confirms the dietary bias of vegetarians â is worthless as a piece of the scientific puzzle. It is suitable only for vegetarians who want their worldview confirmed, not as valid science. If you dare to read another take on the China Study than that of all your veggie friends, click on this. Come back when youâve disproved it.
It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.
Here's one to chew on:
Wheat intake was strongly associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), the quintessential modern cardiovascular disease.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/
You're a well meaning person.
BUT you haven't applied any critical reasoning skills in relation to this China Study thing
Knowing that you (like others) who rely on China Study as the Gospel of Veggie-ism shoots any credibilty you may have had out of the window.
Hilarious how quick you are to pick imaginary holes in the meat eaters arguments - but take at face value this charlatan author with his mailed-in "Phd" received FREE from a cereal packet.
CONFIRMATION BIAS, much?
You take as gospel without question the proven nonsense aka China Study.
Pseudo science crap not even worthwhile as toilet paper.
It has more holes than swiss cheese.
We get it: The China Study is basically the Vegan Bible basically.
And sacrilegious. And supposedly is the sole crutch for validating veggies.
Campbell's book has nothing to the REAL China study, on which it purports to be based on. it is simply his INTERPRETAION
And more often than not flat out LIES - to confirm his bias.
No real scientific analyiss - only tons of data & supposed correlations - which don't prove causatioon or anything at all!
But in the end it is still only an observational study.
Campbell says it himself "Since these observational studies are meaningless in terms of causality, it doesnât really matter how one slices and dices the data because meaningless correlations by any other names are still just as meaningless. "
He feeds mice caesein, widely known as the most cancer inducing food on record!
Then he feeds it aflatoxin which is converted in the liver to a much more toxic compound and is often used in laboratory experiments with animals to induce cancer and other problems.
This is well known.
That aflatoxin promotes the cancer. It is beyond obfuscation, it is flat out lying, to say that, based on Research using casien as a representative animal protein proves nothing; it is comparable to using mature opium poppies as a representative of green leafy vegetable.
It's like feeding posin mushrroms & making a conclusion based on that!
Since you didn't or haven't bothered apply any critical objective thinking to it, others have already debunked that piece of crap pseudo science better than I could
Forget Campbell, heâs at best wrong, at worst a fraud. Heâs been completely refuted by smart bloggers like:
- Chris Masterjohn
- Denise Minger and others
Even the Cordain/Campbell debate should have clued you in as Campbells points are really vague and ânew-agyâ while Cordain brings a lot of research references and reasoning in the conversation.
Here some links of Campbell debunkers
Denise Minger showing that the raw data of the chinese study doesnât show what Campbell claims it shows.
http://rawfoodsos.com/category/china-study/
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/#comments
Ned Kock who has collaborated with Denise on the stats
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/search/label/China Study
Chris Masterjohn demonstrating brillantly that Campbell lies even about the results of his own studies (they donât show what he claims they show)
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2...-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/
Dr.Eades himself had a take on it
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
As most readers of this blog can tell you, the China Study â although it confirms the dietary bias of vegetarians â is worthless as a piece of the scientific puzzle. It is suitable only for vegetarians who want their worldview confirmed, not as valid science. If you dare to read another take on the China Study than that of all your veggie friends, click on this. Come back when youâve disproved it.
It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.
Here's one to chew on:
Wheat intake was strongly associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), the quintessential modern cardiovascular disease.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/
Quote from NoDoji:
RB, have you read either The China Study, or Reverse and Prevent Heart Disease? If not, please do.
[/B]
Many know about Calorie Restriction (CR), take it at face value, & don't analyse it
Ever wonder, which of the 3 food groups were actually restricted in order to "restrict calories"?
The dirty secret is that in virtually 100% of these types of CR studies, the type of calorie restircted is CARBOHYDRATE.
Calorie Restriction == CARB restriction
THAT'S THE DIRTY SECRET that these CR studies never reveal !!!
Restrict CARBOHYDRATES = LIVE LONGER
---------------------------------
Limiting calorie intake completely protects against Alzheimer's in this strain of mouse
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Alzheimer's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15650008&dopt=Abstract
[What type of calorie restriction was used? ** CARBOHYDRATE RESTRICTION **]
You have to read the abstract, the introduction, the materials and methods until finally you get to the results section. Then you find the best kept secret so far. It's on line three of the results.
Carbohydrate restriction.
OK, yes these animals were calorie restricted, but the ONLY calories removed were carbohydrate.
The discussion actually uses the C word quite a lot. That is, it mentions carbohydrate restriction rather than calorie restriction. But the final paragraph, the sum it all up paragraph, the "this is what we found" paragraph, drops right back to calorie restriction.
--------------------------------
Ever wonder, which of the 3 food groups were actually restricted in order to "restrict calories"?
The dirty secret is that in virtually 100% of these types of CR studies, the type of calorie restircted is CARBOHYDRATE.
Calorie Restriction == CARB restriction
THAT'S THE DIRTY SECRET that these CR studies never reveal !!!
Restrict CARBOHYDRATES = LIVE LONGER
---------------------------------
Limiting calorie intake completely protects against Alzheimer's in this strain of mouse
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Alzheimer's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15650008&dopt=Abstract
[What type of calorie restriction was used? ** CARBOHYDRATE RESTRICTION **]
You have to read the abstract, the introduction, the materials and methods until finally you get to the results section. Then you find the best kept secret so far. It's on line three of the results.
Carbohydrate restriction.
OK, yes these animals were calorie restricted, but the ONLY calories removed were carbohydrate.
The discussion actually uses the C word quite a lot. That is, it mentions carbohydrate restriction rather than calorie restriction. But the final paragraph, the sum it all up paragraph, the "this is what we found" paragraph, drops right back to calorie restriction.
--------------------------------
Quote from NoDoji:
Caloric restriction (CR) regimes that have been used in many species to alter aging and increase some forms of stress resistance. CR typically reduces calories 30â40% compared to ad libitum fed animals and has numerous positive effects on animal health [24].
[/B]
A couple of years ago my cholesterol went over 300. I went to see a nutritionist with 40 years of experience who taught me many things. First and foremost is this: -- Processed foods (things that come in cans, boxes, jars and bags and have long lists of ingredients) are the biggest danger to our health (hormonal balance). She said that studies that look at "vegetarian societies" that have good health aren't really measuring the effects of vegetarianism, but rather they're measuring the positive effects of not eating processed foods.
Long story short: I completely cut out sugar and grains (bread, pasta, cereals, etc.), dairy, fried foods, etc. In other words, I stopped eating processed foods. I now eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and lean meats (I still eat a fair amount of lean meat). My cholesterol fell from 320 to 160 in about 18 months.
Long story short: I completely cut out sugar and grains (bread, pasta, cereals, etc.), dairy, fried foods, etc. In other words, I stopped eating processed foods. I now eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and lean meats (I still eat a fair amount of lean meat). My cholesterol fell from 320 to 160 in about 18 months.