Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #589   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 07:43
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,090
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

This issue of salt interests me, and perhaps is one of the reasons I probably wouldn't do that great giving up vegetables. I do like a little salt - not much, but a bit. Veggies are full of potassium which possibly counteracts the salt I have. Sea salt I think is quite good for you in small quantities as it contains many other trace minerals.

The other thing is cooking meat and also quality of the eggs round here. I'm not yet into eating raw meat, but am getting rarer and rarer so to speak. However I've found it near impossible to buy good eggs unless I travel into the valley, and I don't have a car so that's out.

So you could say I have a less than perfect diet, and, therefore, maybe, that pure meat/animal products might not meet my nutritional needs.

However I'll be very interested/supportive to see how everyone else here gets on trying out the pure carnivore diet and what exactly they eat.
Reply With Quote
  #590   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 08:05
lynnp's Avatar
lynnp lynnp is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,072
 
Plan: My Version of M/E
Stats: 284/000/140 Female 65 inches
BF:54%/49.5%/25%
Progress: 197%
Location: Rhode Island
Default

Wow, Loops I just noticed that you are in Chile! Beautiful country you live in!! You could do lots of seafood if you are in an ocean area and can't find great meat or eggs.
Reply With Quote
  #591   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 08:08
Frederick's Avatar
Frederick Frederick is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,512
 
Plan: Atkins - Maintenance
Stats: 185/150/150 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsouth
Speaking of Stefansson, he says at the end of his essay about his long term meat eating experiences "Adventures in Diet" ;

[b]"So you could live on meat if you wanted to; but there is no driving reason why you should."


The above quote is why I appreciate this post so very much.

In my view, the very “point” is that if one desires, he or she can live without veggies or any other plant foods of any kind—not that one must, but it is a viable option. Before this thread, I can embarrassingly admit that I once believed and was completely convinced of all the collective rhetoric that veggies contained certain unique nutrients necessary to essential health. I’m not referring to “optimal health” or the theorized proposed efficacy of its phytochemical characteristics reducing free radicals, but rather that plant foods had certain nutrients not found in meat.

I had believed that veggies were essential, just as I once believed eating low fat was essential.

I’ve never actually entered what I had eaten into a nutritional tracking site like Fitday. However, the past several days, inspired by this thread, I decided to enter my all-meat diet to see if I am indeed getting all of my necessary nutrients. My eating consisted of fish, steaks, chicken, pork, and along with some stomach, tripe, kidney, and livers—especially calf liver, which I like very much. Of course, I had assorted cheeses as well. (along with my regular 2-4 eggs per day)

According to fitday, I was over 100% in all recommended USDA nutrients. Vitamin A was over 400%, which I can only attribute to the assorted livers. Vitamin C was over 250%, which I contribute to the calf liver. I was shocked to see that every nutrient that I once assumed that I needed to derive from veggies, I already have in huge abundance from the meats and organs that I had already been eating. Furthermore, we all agree that vitamins from animal products especially the fat soluble ones such as Vitamin A are more readily absorbed than from plant-foods.

I feel that the point of this thread is not to dissuade people from eating veggies, nor anything else for that matter. I find the underlying aspiration of this thread to merely show that the belief of eating veggies to be necessary for acquiring all one’s nutrients to be completely without merit. This fallacy and scatalogical bovine has existed long enough. People who don’t like veggies should not eat it. Just as those who do like it should continue eating it.

I’ve never been prone to impress on people what they should or should not eat. Even while low-carbing, I never suggest to people around me to abandon eating 500 carbs per day. What I would sincerely thank the Bear for is bringing to light a fallacy that I had so long held to be true, almost on faith—that veggies are essential.

I don’t mind people suggesting that I should eat veggies. However, their reason should be, “eat veggies, because we think it tastes good adding variety to your meals” and not, “eat veggies because you need the special nutrients.”

After all of this, I think anyone who doesn't like veggies has absolutely no reason to eat it. Those who like it, should by all means eat it in abundance.

With kindest regards,

Frederick

Last edited by Frederick : Sun, Mar-12-06 at 08:34. Reason: forgot to add in eggs again...
Reply With Quote
  #592   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 08:31
lynnp's Avatar
lynnp lynnp is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,072
 
Plan: My Version of M/E
Stats: 284/000/140 Female 65 inches
BF:54%/49.5%/25%
Progress: 197%
Location: Rhode Island
Default

Well put Frederick...it is all a matter or choice! I hope people remember that when attacking the posts of other peoples choices and preferences. (That would actually be true in our society as well). Intolerance of the opinions and choices of others (that aren't harmful to those not making the choices) are a pet peeve of mine. I just don't understand how someone can be so sure of their own life and choices and bash others for theirs. God complexes I guess. They seem to be an epidemic in Amercian culture and society. It is really too bad.

Last edited by lynnp : Sun, Mar-12-06 at 09:09.
Reply With Quote
  #593   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 08:48
Paleoanth's Avatar
Paleoanth Paleoanth is offline
Slothy Superhero
Posts: 12,159
 
Plan: Vegetarian Atkins
Stats: 165/145/125 Female 60 inches
BF:29/25.2/24
Progress: 50%
Location: Tennessee/Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear
I never said we had 'carnivore' teeth- if you define that as the dentition of cats and dogs. I also did not say we had 'insectivore' teeth like bats etc. I noted that the primate lineage was insectivorous in deep antiquity and our dentition was derivative of that origin. Our mouth shape and jaw motion is specialised for speech, not chewing or grinding food. Our teeth changed with the development of both speech and the use of knives. Our teeth have absolutely no relationship, in either structure or durability to the teeth of herbivores and fully evolved omnivores like the rodenta.

Sorry, I am not trying to show you as less than you are, but the tooth shape and description I found on your references did nothing to detract from my stand on this, thus the comment on comprehension- I think you selectively choose to observe only the aspects of dentition which serve your viewpoint of us as omnivores.

Unfortunately the human mixed or omnivorous diet in 'recent' times- i.e., prior to today's dentistry- meant that virtually no-one had any teeth left in their head by the age of thirty. Many people, indeed most- died from abscessed teeth. Compare that to the animals whose diet is either herbivorous or omnivorous, who do not have access to dentistry- they live a full lifespan without serious problems from their dentition. Say what you like, you cannot change truth into falsehood nor fables into reality: If we eat no carbs, our teeth will outlast us- no matter how long we live.




You stated that we had classically carnivorous teeth, which I read to mean like cats, dogs and polar bears. Classic carnivores. The primate lineage started approximately 60-65 million years ago if you count proto-primates, and while dentition are evolutionarily conservative, they have changed since then. However, some primates, like lemurs, do have more insectivorous dentition than apes do (and I do consider us apes). Our mouth shape and jaw motion are the way they are for several reasons, not just speech. To look at it that way is more reductionistic than I am comfortable with. Facial reduction which in turn affected jaw shape and basocranial shape was more due to the inclusion of higher amounts of meat in our diet which in turn allowed for brain expansion, which allowed for the evolution and development of Wernke’s and Brocca’s areas which allowed for speech.



I did not select just studies that supported my arguments. To do that would be scientifically unethical. Which I try really hard not to be. I chose studies that either had diagrams and pictures to help illustrate my points, from researchers that I know to be tops in that particular area of study or those that came from peer reviewed journals. Again, I am perfectly comfortable to be proven wrong. As a scientist, I feel that I should test and question what I “know”. Science is self correcting, which is one of the coolest things about it.



We started on our ominiverous diet (and I am defining that as a mix of significant amounts of meat with vegetable material) around 2 or 2.5 million years ago. I am not sure what point you are making about life spans, but most animals with the kind of dentition you are referring to don’t have long lifespans anyway. Of course their teeth last throughout their life when it is only 10-20 years at best. I do agree that the inclusion of grain based carbs due to the invention of agriculture actually increased the amount of caries and tooth loss. Mostly due to the bacteria that then infiltrated our mouths that feed on that kind of stuff. Actually, when we became agriculturalists, there were a WHOLE bunch of health problems that went along with that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear
I am not attacking anyone, just asking a couple of reasonable questions based on observed behaviour, both of which have been on my mind for a while now:

Just WHAT is meant by 'Vegetarian Atkins?', other than, of course, an oxymoron?

Does 'Depraved Superhero' mean that you feel you must attempt to show all others as having 'ordinary, non-hero' status... if you can?

Or is this just your way of exhibiting an odd sense of humour on a basically egalitarian and meat-oriented dietary thread?




It means that I follow mostly an Atkins plan, but I substitute meat alternatives instead of meat. No biggie. I am not a vegetarian for moral, health or animal rights reasons. I have a whole different set of reasons. If you want to know them you can PM me. I actually don’t care if people eat meat, it just isn’t for me right now. That may change in the future.



The Superhero thing is a joke. As in I have a twisted sense of humor. I hang out a lot in the Single Low Carbers thread and it came from there as a part of a long running joke. Since I am short with flat feet and wear contacts or glasses, I am pretty sure I am not a superhero in real life. Too bad. I certainly did not put that under my name because of this thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear
I have collected many papers over a long period of time that support my contentions. However I live on a very large, only partially developed rural property, which is basically somewhat unorganised and still takes a disproportionate amount of my time to manage.

I have not handled those papers for over 15 years, and it is going to take a bit more time for me to ferret them out from wherever they have gotten to over the years. I am working on it- trust me, I want very much to put all this contention to bed.


[font=&quot]I would love to see them. I am always interested in learning something new. I don't like contention, either. [/font]
Reply With Quote
  #594   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 10:48
TBoneMitch TBoneMitch is offline
OOOOOOOOOH YEAH!
Posts: 692
 
Plan: High Fat/IF
Stats: 215/170/160 Male 5 feet 10 inches
BF:27%/12%/8%
Progress: 82%
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Default

Thank you PaleoAnth for you very civil and courteous responses.

Thank you the Bear for your long and thorough experience.

Thanks everybody for this fabulous thread.
Reply With Quote
  #595   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 10:49
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,090
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

Hi lynnp -

yes we live by the sea - yes I eat quite a bit of seafood - although ironically buying fish is expensive compared to meat! Actually the meat here is all grass-fed, and you can choose to buy meat from Argentina or Brazil as well, which is all grass-fed too I think.

Shrimp are very expensive, as are clams etc but the cheapest are mussels - unfortunately they are quite carby, but I still eat them from time to time (huge amount of manganese and B12).

When we eat out it is nearly always at a fish restaurant. However, recently I prefer to eat fatty meats. Also I have developed a like for lightly smoked salmon - I'm not fond of cooked salmon for some reason.
Reply With Quote
  #596   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 11:03
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,090
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

But that's just it isn't it -

one has to eat liver and organs on a regular basis to get all needed nutrients, not just meat, eggs and cheese.

I don't think you can get everything from just meat as bear says, you need the organs etc. I think he says he eats organs right?

Also what about cooking destroying things like vitamin C? Frederick do you eat some of your liver etc raw?
Reply With Quote
  #597   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 11:18
TBoneMitch TBoneMitch is offline
OOOOOOOOOH YEAH!
Posts: 692
 
Plan: High Fat/IF
Stats: 215/170/160 Male 5 feet 10 inches
BF:27%/12%/8%
Progress: 82%
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Default

Loops: from what I've read about Steffanson, he repeatedly stated that a diet of only muscle meat and fat will give one all the required nutrients.
Reply With Quote
  #598   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 11:24
JandLsMom's Avatar
JandLsMom JandLsMom is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,719
 
Plan: atkins induction
Stats: 330/330/165 Female 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Illinois
Default

Bear (or anyone else who knows) can you tell me the best way to cook chicken livers? Any spices that should be added? Should i boil, bake or panfry them? i never ate them but noticed at the store they are quite cheap so i bought some (since people have been talkign on this thread about eating liver and organs and other parts of animals). I have NO IDEA how to cook the chicken livers though..lol. So i will patiently wait for someone to give me some ideas before i take them out to cook! thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #599   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 11:55
BawdyWench's Avatar
BawdyWench BawdyWench is online now
Posts: 7,324
 
Plan: IF & Keto
Stats: 205/193/170 Female 5'6
BF:Too much!
Progress: 34%
Location: Rural Maine
Default

How about doing a search in the recipe forums? I just did, and got a lot in return. Here's one recipe: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...t=chicken+liver

Just do a regular search on liver, and then check off the recipe forum only. Or don't limit it; you'll probably get more than you wanted!
Reply With Quote
  #600   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 13:01
Frederick's Avatar
Frederick Frederick is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,512
 
Plan: Atkins - Maintenance
Stats: 185/150/150 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOPS
Frederick do you eat some of your liver etc raw?


Hi Loops,

No, I don't have it raw. I prefer my calf liver medium rare on the rare side, just like my steaks.

The rest of the assorted liver, I usually have either in the form of pate, or a very medium rare foie gras.

Kidneys, tripe, stomach I have fully cooked. Tongues I'll have medium with some kind of sauce--basically, the way it's prepared in Chinese cuisine.

Best regards,

Frederick
Reply With Quote
  #601   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 13:14
lynnp's Avatar
lynnp lynnp is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,072
 
Plan: My Version of M/E
Stats: 284/000/140 Female 65 inches
BF:54%/49.5%/25%
Progress: 197%
Location: Rhode Island
Default

Loops, I had no idea that mussels were carby! I have been enjoying them because they are inexpensive. Maybe that is what caused my cravings...thanks for the info. I looked it up in fitday and a cup of cooked mussels is 6 carbs. Not horrible, but more than I want to eat.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #602   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 13:19
LadyArya's Avatar
LadyArya LadyArya is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 640
 
Plan: No one plan
Stats: 208.5/180.5/150 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 48%
Location: Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
According to fitday, I was over 100% in all recommended USDA nutrients. Vitamin A was over 400%, which I can only attribute to the assorted livers. Vitamin C was over 250%, which I contribute to the calf liver. I was shocked to see that every nutrient that I once assumed that I needed to derive from veggies, I already have in huge abundance from the meats and organs that I had already been eating. Furthermore, we all agree that vitamins from animal products especially the fat soluble ones such as Vitamin A are more readily absorbed than from plant-foods.


And just to add some anecdotal evidence to your case....

I was eating veggies. Constantly. And I never came close to that many nutrients, except B12 for some reason. Vit A, B6, C, D, E and on... if I hit 50% it was a big deal. Usually was much less.
Reply With Quote
  #603   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 14:29
Jen B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Plan:
Stats: //
BF:
Progress:
Default

For quite a while now, I have felt that veggies and fruit taste fake, like they're really made out of cardboard or something. I don't eat fruit now, and the only veggies I eat are raw cultured organic veggies, and that is because I'm using them for a non-dairy probiotic to balance out a candida overgrowth. The reasons I believe produce today is somewhat worthless, or even dangerous, is due to soil depletion and genetic engineering. The articles below expand upon my assumptions. The genetic engineering article is about 4 years old, and I believe the GE campaign has grown exponentially since then.

http://www.natural-health-informati...eted-soils.html

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/ge_food.htm

Just two more reasons why plant food is not necessarily the life-giving panacea assumed by most.
Reply With Quote
  #604   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 14:50
lynnp's Avatar
lynnp lynnp is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,072
 
Plan: My Version of M/E
Stats: 284/000/140 Female 65 inches
BF:54%/49.5%/25%
Progress: 197%
Location: Rhode Island
Default

Thanks for the links Jennifer. Hope you are feeling better
Reply With Quote
  #605   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 16:14
ItsTheWooo's Avatar
ItsTheWooo ItsTheWooo is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,815
 
Plan: My Own
Stats: 280/118/117.5 Female 5ft 5.25 in
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
The above quote is why I appreciate this post so very much.

In my view, the very “point” is that if one desires, he or she can live without veggies or any other plant foods of any kind—not that one must, but it is a viable option. Before this thread, I can embarrassingly admit that I once believed and was completely convinced of all the collective rhetoric that veggies contained certain unique nutrients necessary to essential health. I’m not referring to “optimal health” or the theorized proposed efficacy of its phytochemical characteristics reducing free radicals, but rather that plant foods had certain nutrients not found in meat.

I had believed that veggies were essential, just as I once believed eating low fat was essential.

I’ve never actually entered what I had eaten into a nutritional tracking site like Fitday. However, the past several days, inspired by this thread, I decided to enter my all-meat diet to see if I am indeed getting all of my necessary nutrients. My eating consisted of fish, steaks, chicken, pork, and along with some stomach, tripe, kidney, and livers—especially calf liver, which I like very much. Of course, I had assorted cheeses as well. (along with my regular 2-4 eggs per day)

According to fitday, I was over 100% in all recommended USDA nutrients. Vitamin A was over 400%, which I can only attribute to the assorted livers. Vitamin C was over 250%, which I contribute to the calf liver. I was shocked to see that every nutrient that I once assumed that I needed to derive from veggies, I already have in huge abundance from the meats and organs that I had already been eating. Furthermore, we all agree that vitamins from animal products especially the fat soluble ones such as Vitamin A are more readily absorbed than from plant-foods.

I feel that the point of this thread is not to dissuade people from eating veggies, nor anything else for that matter. I find the underlying aspiration of this thread to merely show that the belief of eating veggies to be necessary for acquiring all one’s nutrients to be completely without merit. This fallacy and scatalogical bovine has existed long enough. People who don’t like veggies should not eat it. Just as those who do like it should continue eating it.

I’ve never been prone to impress on people what they should or should not eat. Even while low-carbing, I never suggest to people around me to abandon eating 500 carbs per day. What I would sincerely thank the Bear for is bringing to light a fallacy that I had so long held to be true, almost on faith—that veggies are essential.

I don’t mind people suggesting that I should eat veggies. However, their reason should be, “eat veggies, because we think it tastes good adding variety to your meals” and not, “eat veggies because you need the special nutrients.”

After all of this, I think anyone who doesn't like veggies has absolutely no reason to eat it. Those who like it, should by all means eat it in abundance.

With kindest regards,

Frederick


I admit I am personally biased in favor of pro-veggie omnivorism. I also have an objective reason to favor omnivorous diets.
Personally I enjoy vegetation greatly, and I tend to think it augments my health. I strongly object to theBear's insistence that a diet contains any vegetation compromises health. I believe veggies enrich both physical healthy, by providing nutrients at a low calorie cost, and emotional health, by increasing eating satisfaction.

I have objective rational reasons to favor veggie-eating.
There's the known, for one. Plants contain nutrients that are much more common in a much wider variety of sources than animal foods. Plant food supplementation is more likely to prevent serious deficiencies.
Furthermore, many plants are less concentrated in energy, and many nutrient factors are higher calorie per calorie compared to meat source alternatives; for example, vitamin A and vitamin C. If your metabolic needs are lower, it is much harder to fall deficient in these nutrient factors if you are eating some veggies. Older people, smaller women, people losing lots of excess weight, and many others tend to slower metabolisms. Those people might not use enough energy to consume enough of all nutrient factors on an all animal diet.
These people would be forced in a position of having to raise energy using just to avoid falling deficient in nutrition.
Raising energy using, assuming otherwise good health, means either exercising more or gaining weight. Both these choices come with some sacrifice. Exercise does not hurt health, but lots of people hate it and realistically will not sustain a program for long (like myself). Weight gain is passive and requiring of no commitment or dedication, however, it is physically unhealthy, and likely would mitigate any increase in health from consuming more nutrition.

On the other hand, if someone with a more sedentary lifestyle and slower metabolism eats more of the less calorically dense plants for nutrients, they can preserve nutrition status without having to exercise or gain weight.


The second factor is that omnivorism and varied eating errs on the side of sense and caution... you know, "balance".
Fitday does not tell the whole story. If it did, I can assure you my diet would consist of nothing but vitamins, oils, and protein powders supplemented to LC "fun foods" . I would eat WAY more protein bars than I do.
But I don't because that's not balanced, and it is "risky" to assume fitday tellst he whole story. We simply don't KNOW everything about how food affects our body, so, it is not possible to say with certainty that dietary extremism is sound. It is possible that plants contain unique, beneficial nutrients not available in meat. It is also possible that meat contains deleterious factors which are less or not present in plants. We simply do not yet know everything "good or bad" about food; therefore, eating a diet with as much variety as possible is the best way to avoid over or underconcentration of food factors, both good AND bad.

HOWEVER...

I must agree with you, Frederick, that this thread has lead me to conclude that veggies are not essential. I still think they are the better course for most people (because of the aforementioned reasons). However, I am now much more accepting of the choice not to eat them, provided one is extremely mindful of their nutrition.
It is probably no worse to not eat veggies than it is to be vegetarian and not eat meat (although I still maintain veganism is unhealthy, since I am of the position the human diet is only to be supplemented with plants).

Last edited by ItsTheWooo : Sun, Mar-12-06 at 16:21.
Reply With Quote
  #606   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 16:44
ChicknLady's Avatar
ChicknLady ChicknLady is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,046
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 153/150/140 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 23%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Quote:
The second factor is that omnivorism and varied eating errs on the side of sense and caution... you know, "balance".

OMG, this sounds like my DH's favorite saying when he gets disgusted with my low-carbing: you should eat "a little bit of everything, but not too much of one thing". He says it's an old Chinese proverb, as if that validates the statement somehow. Frederick? Ever hear this one before?
Reply With Quote
  #607   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:00
Frederick's Avatar
Frederick Frederick is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,512
 
Plan: Atkins - Maintenance
Stats: 185/150/150 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo
Furthermore, many plants are less concentrated in energy, and many nutrient factors are higher calorie per calorie compared to meat source alternatives; for example, vitamin A and vitamin C. If your metabolic needs are lower, it is much harder to fall deficient in these nutrient factors if you are eating some veggies. Older people, smaller women, people losing lots of excess weight, and many others tend to slower metabolisms. Those people might not use enough energy to consume enough of all nutrient factors on an all animal diet.


Of course, I do agree with your assessment here. There can be no question that, in terms of calories vs. nutrient density, plant foods win this battle hands down. One of the appeals of veggies is that it is by far the densest nutrient to calorie food. I’ll be the first to admit that my “meat” based diet can never be construed as a low-calorie one by any stretch of the imagination; and, can appreciate where my higher calorie intake would pose significant challenges to weight equilibrium for one with a slower metabolism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo
Exercise does not hurt health, but lots of people hate it and realistically will not sustain a program for long (like myself). Weight gain is passive and requiring of no commitment or dedication, however, it is physically unhealthy, and likely would mitigate any increase in health from consuming more nutrition.


Again, I readily agree that vigorous exercise may not be for everyone, especially for those who are severely overweight where intense cardio may pose more of harm than benefit. However, for most people, I believe exercise to be extremely beneficial. Be that as it may, of course, I can both appreciate and empathize with the individual’s decision to maintain weight equilibrium by curtailing excess calories rather than increase energy output. After all, as a palate preference, I’m consciously making a decision to forgo any beneficial effects that may exist in plant foods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo
It is also possible that meat contains deleterious factors which are less or not present in plants. We simply do not yet know everything "good or bad" about food; therefore, eating a diet with as much variety as possible is the best way to avoid over or underconcentration of food factors, both good AND bad.


From all that I’ve read, it would not surprise me in the least that eschewing veggies may turn out to be less than “optimal” when all things are finally considered. We can infer from much of the research that veggies may very well contain certain nutrients, phytochemicals, flavonols, antioxidants, or a combination thereof that is extremely beneficial to overall health. If only as a hedge, there is considerable logic to your rationale that “if we don’t know, than it makes sense to cover our basis” by eating plant foods. On the other hand given that we can adequately and in abundance acquire all known necessary nutrients, the price (the bitter taste of veggies) isn’t commensurate with the promised benefits that may or may not exist.

Above and beyond all else, I believe in science and the scientific method. Should a day arise when science shows that eating veggies are beneficial (the veracity of it’s proposed benefits proven), I will “suck it up” plaster my veggies with cheese drowning them up a gallon of butter and eat them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo
I must agree with you, Frederick, that this thread has lead me to conclude that veggies are not essential.


Woo, this is what I’ve gotten most from this thread. It just seems that over the years, the phrase “eating your veggies” has become such a fixture in our society that no one ever questions the merits of the statement. I see it brandied about far too often. You’d think eating veggies were some kind of miracle cure for any kind of ailment that might exist. I’m just thankful to have been a small part of a thread that makes an effort to examine that unchallenged notion a little more closely.

Of course, to breath a sign of relief that, at least for the moment, I can eschew veggies without suffering nutrient deficiency.
Reply With Quote
  #608   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:03
Frederick's Avatar
Frederick Frederick is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,512
 
Plan: Atkins - Maintenance
Stats: 185/150/150 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicknLady
OMG, this sounds like my DH's favorite saying when he gets disgusted with my low-carbing: you should eat "a little bit of everything, but not too much of one thing". He says it's an old Chinese proverb, as if that validates the statement somehow. Frederick? Ever hear this one before?


LOL...yes, I heard it growing up.

However, the Chinese are nothing if not supremely pragmatic. There is another saying that goes something like this, "nothing succeeds like excess," which is the proverb of choice pertaining to all things beneficial, such as money, property, and good luck.
Reply With Quote
  #609   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:11
sailsouth sailsouth is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 78
 
Plan: General Controlled Carb
Stats: 225/180/180 Male 185 centimetres
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
According to fitday, I was over 100% in all recommended USDA nutrients.


Just checking, but is this the same USDA that prescribes almost identical macronutrient ratios for fattening livestock as it does for weight loss and maintenance in humans?
Reply With Quote
  #610   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:14
Frederick's Avatar
Frederick Frederick is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,512
 
Plan: Atkins - Maintenance
Stats: 185/150/150 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsouth
Just checking, but is this the same USDA that prescribes almost identical macronutrient ratios for fattening livestock as it does for weight loss and maintenance in humans?


Hahahaha...ah, yes, that USDA.

For a lack of anything better, think of it as a barometer that appeals to the lowest common denominator?
Reply With Quote
  #611   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:19
theBear theBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 311
 
Plan: zero-carb
Stats: 140/140/140 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

I remembered the glowing reference to tongue on Sat while I was shopping, and bought a nice veal tongue. It was A$ 4.20/kg- equivalent to US $ 1.43/lb. In the same meat cooler sirloin steak was A$ 21.00/kg. I just don't see tongue as either expensive or difficult to find, at least here in Oz. Tongue is about the only meat I can take well-cooked, but of course it is only eaten as an occasional treat. Tongue is not quite edible rare- it is so tough it could be used to make shoe soles- the only other cut that tough is beef cheeks- even ground up for burger that cut is TOUGH and very chewy.

Locally here the standard liver is ox, rather than calf . You must search for tender calve's liver. Chickens sold here do not come with giblets, they are sold separately. I have some difficulty finding lamb's brains, and no luck finding calf or ox brains. The organs are called 'variety meats' in the US but 'offal' down here, a term which does not enhance sales.

I am tired of the endless tooth-wrangle. Arguing over evolution and the exact style of our teeth is not productive in the face of empirical, real life experience: All my friends who eat a mixed diet have lost teeth by means other than trauma. Many of those now 60 and older have to wear complete sets of dentures. Everyone who has kept (most of) their teeth brushes immediately after each meal (animals don't brush, yet keep their teeth).

Vegetation contains abrasives, acids, sugars and starches, all of which damage our teeth, especially the fruits- with citrus being the worst. Orange juice and chewable Vit C rapidly dissolve teeth, as does most common soft drinks, even the diet type- due to citric and/or phosphoric acid. Any fruit or vegetable like rhubarb which is tart contains an organic acid. If you are on a n all meat diet and don't eat vegetation or drink lactose/galactose containing dairy, brushing is completely optional- it is only advisable to do so once a day to remove meat particles from between the teeth, as common mouth bacteria quickly attack it and make your breath smell pretty foul- even though these bacteria do not cause any damage to the teeth like those who feed on sugar and starch do. Brushing with a firm or hard toothbrush has the added benefit of stimulating the gums (feels as good as scratching an itch) and removing dead cells from its surface, thereby helping prevent the all too common gum disease people have. I am unsure if gum problems are diet- related, I have never had any problem with my gums, nor any bone loss in my jawbone or skull.

As a note here: Muscle cells need calcium to function, therefore heavy red-meat consumption supplies calcium in abundance and in the most assimulatable form possible. The way archeologists can easily separate stone-age-diet Eskimo/Inuit skulls from modern Inuit (western-diet) skulls is by the former's extremely dense bone structure (coupled with evidence of no caries).

Animals whose diet is tooth-damaging have the ability to replace teeth or have teeth which grow out continuously. Our teeth do neither, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the modern diet we eat is NOT the correct one, as I have indicated in the title of this thread.

Now, Let's give the tooth thing a rest, shall we?

I do not like well-cooked liver from any animal. Calves liver or ox liver should have no reticulated mottling on the surface like pork liver does and should have a sweet, mild smell. It tastes best raw. If there is mottling or a metallic smell it will taste bad no matter how cooked. Lamb liver is not good, extremely dry, and has a poor flavour. I never eat pork liver. Chicken livers are very good when barely cooked through, and are still very soft and succulent, not hard and dry. Poach (in water) or saute in butter at a low temperature, about the same as simmering water- I call this 'poached in butter', it is also a good technique for eggs and fish. I am basically very fond of raw meats, the cooking I do is only for adding a touch of different flavour and dealing with surface bacteria if any. I love fresh-cut raw meat and fish. I don't eat raw chicken, but I like it only just barely cooked, and still very soft.

Ah, mussels. very tasty, but.... Main problem with fresh mussels is they quickly go bad- and if eaten in that condition they can make you VERY sick. Marinated mussels like the NZ greenlip are always pickled in a high sugar-content brine.

Candida albicans (monilia/thrush) requires carbs to grow- an 'overgrowth' of this common yeast commensal indicates the presence of starch and or sugar in the diet.

So far as the subject of the necessity or utility of vegetation in diet, I once more call your attention that what you eat is what you were brought up to eat, it has no connection with good nutrition, and it seems to you to be 'instinctive'. Diet is extremely tightly bound into your consciousness at a very primitive level and most people will find it so difficult to abandon or change it, no matter how strongly they accept the intelligence about diet, that they will only be able to partially alter their eating habits and if they can manage the carnivore lifestyle at all, will generally insist on retaining some veggie content. All the arguments I have read on this forum seem to my way of thinking, hopelessly naive, but illustrate perfectly the truth of the above analysis.

So, just accept that your culture is going to rule your life, make whatever adjustments you can handle and try to approach my example if you can, but do not despair so long as you are able to acquire and maintain a normal body form and are comfortable with it. I am still trying to work out how I managed to make this total transition. If I could do that, it may be possible to show others how it is done, but so far it seems to me as though the way I eat is just totally simple, natural and normal. That this is not so for everyone else has become manifest to me over time.

The Chinese eat anything and everything that will not kill you quickly. If it moves or grows, they will eat it- pets included. Only the French even come close- i.e.- both like to eat tiny songbirds.
Reply With Quote
  #612   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:23
quax's Avatar
quax quax is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 95
 
Plan: relaxed Paleo
Stats: 194/154/154 Male 177 cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Germany
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen B


As a soil scientist by profession I’m, quite frankly, shocked by the statements made in this article. I don’t know who has written this but this person has definitely no idea about agroecosystems at all. This myth about mineral soil depletion and reduced mineral/vitamin contents in crops has been around for years though there’s no scientific evidence at all for such a relationship. Reduced mineral/vitamin contents is mainly the result of modern varieties which were mainly selected for high yields and less for mineral/vitamin content, e.g. the mineral uptake capacity of their root systems was improved to a lesser degree than the growth of the plants’ harvestable parts. This is the simple explanation.

Soil depletion has become a serious issue with soil organic matter, mainly as a result of intensive tillage practices. This situation has become better in recent years since many farmers adopted a technique called minimal- or no-tillage. In these systems tillage is kept to a minimum allowing organic matter to build up again. Regarding mineral/vitamin contents in crops, there’s no issue with soil organic matter since the latter has almost no influence the former.

Soil depletion drives farmers to grow GM crops because yields are declining? Where does the author have this information from? The main reason for growing GM crops is simply more profit through improved herbicide efficacy leading to less competition by weeds. Furthermore they have to spray less. This combined leads to higher yield + less costs for spraying = more profit.
Reply With Quote
  #613   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 17:58
theBear theBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 311
 
Plan: zero-carb
Stats: 140/140/140 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

Who cares on this thread about soil depletion? I have not seen anything like that criticised, on the thread. Links are not messages. Here is the point:

We are here about diet, particularly a meat-oriented one, which is not dependent on the condition of agricultural soils. Giving any reason for avoiding veggies is quite valid, even if SOME soils used to grow the highly modified plants-as-foodstuffs consumed by moderns are not as bad as most of us think, if we think about it at all, that is.


Now- there are no 'deleterious factors' in any meat, so long as the animal from which is comes is healthy. There are, of course some salt water FISH which are dangerous to eat, either due to defensive toxins or algal blooms. Some fresh water fish in some places may have parasites, but they are not 'healthy'

Bottom like again, is myself, and my experience of better than normal health while eating no vegetation at all for 47 years. I exclude small amounts of garlic and chillies used for spice.

It is not necessary to defend the eating routines and foods that you were trained as a child to eat. No science is needed, no 'reasons' are pertinent. It is what you want to eat and it matters not whether it is either good for you or not, nor even if it is very bad for you, you will eat it. If you look long enough and hard enough you will find somewhere some 'information' to support your contention. But you need to realise, I am not going to fall for fairy tales and dietary myths.

I have a lifetime of watching the same people over nearly a half century on normal mixed diets, both the common ones and all the faddish 'healthy foods' ones, and I have not seen them as being good, nor in any way equaling the effects I have had in my body during such a period. So, say what you like, you have not proven the 'correctness' of your particular dietary viewpoint by applying it over a lengthy period in life, and thus whatever format your ideal mixed diet is, (or the 'balanced' one), as you claim will yield good health and longevity, has not been established by practice and is merely a dream in your head.

Last edited by theBear : Sun, Mar-12-06 at 18:13. Reason: error(s)
Reply With Quote
  #614   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 18:17
quax's Avatar
quax quax is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 95
 
Plan: relaxed Paleo
Stats: 194/154/154 Male 177 cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Germany
Default

It doesn't surprise me that you have no problem with leaving false information uncommented.
Reply With Quote
  #615   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 18:26
LadyArya's Avatar
LadyArya LadyArya is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 640
 
Plan: No one plan
Stats: 208.5/180.5/150 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 48%
Location: Florida
Default

Bear,

I hope you don't mind one more question, but since I first started reading this thread, one thing has interested me that I don't believe I've seen discussed so far.

You have mentioned that you and your wife met 21 years ago and in that time she has ceased being a vegetarian, but she still eats certain things you have no interest in.

I'm assuming (and this may be a bold assumption on my part) that she is probably around your age, give or take a few years.

Over the past 21 years, while you have followed your diet and she has followed hers, what have your differences in health been? I think it would stand to reason that if your diet is as good as you claim (and I don't dispute that it is. As it stands, I'm trying it out for myself.) her's, by comparison, would probably be less so in which case she would probably show some health problems that you didn't have to deal with... which would, in turn, give more evidence to support your case and ease some minds about this.

I say this not to offend, nor do I hope your wife has suffered any illnesses, but it seems to me that your marriage, in and of itself, would be a prime example of a 21 year study in the nutrition of carbs vs. no carbs.


I did see you speak of your wife before, but not on this exact topic. So if you brought this up and I missed it, someone please point it out to me. This was a long thread to digest in one sitting - low carb or not
Reply With Quote
  #616   ^
Old Sun, Mar-12-06, 22:54
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

All I have to say, from trying this "only animal food" diet ("antivegan" diet, as I like to call it) lately, as well as in the past (during "induction" times - where I wanted to kick start body fat loss or try and get away from "sugar addiction"), is it is the only time that I have ever felt "normal". Meaning, not having a bunch of unexplained hunger pangs nagging me, not having roller coaster mood swings, not having roller coaster energy issues, not having ANY digestive issues, not having inflammation, (and the list goes on). I just feel "normal" and great while eating this way.

THE ABSOLUTE ONLY reasons I have (in the past) not continued this WOE was simply because of fear of not getting nutrients, and just stupid learned behavior. But, I can say one thing, it is a LOT easier to give up ALL the foods of civilization (HG/agriculture) and eat what humans ate for a LONG time, than it was to quit smoking. Now THAT was a total b*#%h! This, in comparison, is going to be MUCH easier. Especially now that I have looked at this thing in light of so much logical information, and, frankly, just plain common sense.

Thanks, Bear. I do appreciate you coming onto this forum and starting this thread. About diet, you are correct in what you say. I have had a "sneaking suspicion" for some time that this was truly the way to eat for a human. Thanks for your patients in clearing up so much in my mind. I feel that eating vegetation is NOT good for people. I feel it is a BIG myth in society. But, most people think that the way to good health is low-fat, and eating eleven servings of grains every day. So, it doesn't surprise me that people can be equally brainwashed to believe we need any vegetation in our diets. It's just more of the same myths.

My body knows the myths, and is thanking me as we speak for "getting a clue"! And, if anyone still thinks that we ate a bunch of vegetation during our recent evolution (before HG/Ag), think about the type of vegetation that existed during that time. Only if we were TRULY starving would we have resorted to eating that. And, if we continued eating that for very long, we would have easily died. This is just a FACT that cannot be disputed by anyone. I'm sorry, but when you go into a produce section at the market, you are not looking at real human food... you can walk down the snack food isle and see more of the same... non-human food. Talk about engineered food! This stuff NEVER existed until very recently. BUT! Go to the butcher counter... ah! There is where you will find TRUE human food! I'm totally convinced of this.

If I ever eat anything other than TRUE human food, it will ONLY be because I am simply falling back to learned (bad) habits. PERIOD. And, yes... this is JMHO... so don't ask me for any links or anything... cuz YOU might need 'em... but I DON'T! My body knows best.

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Sun, Mar-12-06 at 23:50.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.