ITT we discuss the optimal diet: A Whole Food Plant Based Diet
10-08-2018
, 10:40 PM
Quote:
That's correct.
One of the IGF-1 studies you cited there used postmenopausal women over 60 years of age, lol. I'm not really sure that's even reasonable to extrapolate to athletes/bodybuilders/those looking at it for performance benefit/etc... And doseage is always a concern on IGF-1 and GH studies, as they tend to keep everything much lower than the supraphysiological doses that someone would actually use, for obvious reasons.
I couldn't find the study using 22 year olds, but I suspect it would be pretty easy to cherry pick data if we wanted to, just like the above study using old ladies bench pressing.
One of the IGF-1 studies you cited there used postmenopausal women over 60 years of age, lol. I'm not really sure that's even reasonable to extrapolate to athletes/bodybuilders/those looking at it for performance benefit/etc... And doseage is always a concern on IGF-1 and GH studies, as they tend to keep everything much lower than the supraphysiological doses that someone would actually use, for obvious reasons.
I couldn't find the study using 22 year olds, but I suspect it would be pretty easy to cherry pick data if we wanted to, just like the above study using old ladies bench pressing.
Quote:
True or false: Lower IGF-1 levels in vegans likely interferes with muscle accumulation. Is this fact, or is this fiction?
Well, there’s a couple ways you attack that question. For example, what’s the skeletal muscle mass like in acromegaly? People afflicted with giantism—where they have an IGF overload in the body. If IGF bulks up muscle, you’d think they’d be musclebound; but no, they don’t have any more muscle, on average, than anyone else.
What if you inject people with IGF-1? They injected women for a year, and found no increase in lean body mass or grip, bench or leg press strength.
What about men? Basically, same thing. They had about a dozen 22-year-olds flex for 15 weeks under different hormonal milieus, and concluded that elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones, like IGF-1, with resistance exercise, enhances neither training-induced muscle bulk, nor strength.
“Thus it seems that outside of [genetically engineered mice or a cell culture dish or other animal models] that the search for the true role of the growth potential for IGF-1 in adult muscle hypertrophy is a vain one.” So, although it’s never been directly tested, probably fiction.
Well, there’s a couple ways you attack that question. For example, what’s the skeletal muscle mass like in acromegaly? People afflicted with giantism—where they have an IGF overload in the body. If IGF bulks up muscle, you’d think they’d be musclebound; but no, they don’t have any more muscle, on average, than anyone else.
What if you inject people with IGF-1? They injected women for a year, and found no increase in lean body mass or grip, bench or leg press strength.
What about men? Basically, same thing. They had about a dozen 22-year-olds flex for 15 weeks under different hormonal milieus, and concluded that elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones, like IGF-1, with resistance exercise, enhances neither training-induced muscle bulk, nor strength.
“Thus it seems that outside of [genetically engineered mice or a cell culture dish or other animal models] that the search for the true role of the growth potential for IGF-1 in adult muscle hypertrophy is a vain one.” So, although it’s never been directly tested, probably fiction.
That said, the most convincing bit to me is the part about people that are afflicted with giantism. These people "have an IGF overload in the body" and yet "they don’t have any more muscle, on average, than anyone else." That's pretty telling if you ask me. Couple that with the simple fact that if you google "vegan bodybuilders" you get endless results, tells me that we don't have to take this "low IGF-1" vegan problem seriously. We have all the evidence we need to reject it out of hand. People with diseases that give them 1GF-1 overload in the body not getting any muscle benefit + tons of vegan bodybuilders = I'm satisfied that we can completely discard this issue unless better evidence comes along in the future.
And keep in mind we should not need that much evidence to reject the "low IGF-1 hurts muscle accumulation" hypothesis anyways. Given the body of scientific evidence indicating that animal products are disease causing, and animal protein itself is disease causing, the burden of proof of any claim suggesting we need to increase our IGF-1 exposure should be extremely large.
Quote:
But again, much of the studies are pulling findings from 60, 70, 80 year old people, not younger athletes, etc...
I promise you, hormones and hgh are not a "scam". If you don't believe that, I highly suggest you give it a go for six months and see what happens. Probably about as bad for you as one of my occasional Taco Bell cheat meals. But you'll end up bigger, faster, and stronger. Taco Bell doesn't have the same results, lol.
*for the purpose of this discussion, I have used hgh
I promise you, hormones and hgh are not a "scam". If you don't believe that, I highly suggest you give it a go for six months and see what happens. Probably about as bad for you as one of my occasional Taco Bell cheat meals. But you'll end up bigger, faster, and stronger. Taco Bell doesn't have the same results, lol.
*for the purpose of this discussion, I have used hgh
Here's a little tidbit of what we know:
Quote:
Good bacteria—those that live in symbiosis with us—are nourished by fruit and veggies, grains, and beans, whereas dysbiosis—bad bacteria that may contribute to disease—are fed by meat, junk food and fast food, seafood, dairy, and eggs. Typical Western diets can “decimate” our good gut flora.
We live with trillions of symbionts—good bacteria that live in symbiosis with us. We help them; they help us. And, a month on a plant-based diet results in an increase of the good guys, and a decrease in the bad—the so-called pathobionts, the disease-causing bugs. “Given the disappearance of pathobionts from the intestine, one would expect to observe a reduction in intestinal inflammation…”
So, they measured stool concentrations of “lipocalin-2…, which is a sensitive biomarker of intestinal inflammation.” And, within a month of eating healthy, it had declined significantly, suggesting that “promotion of microbial homeostasis”—or balance—”by [a strict vegetarian diet] resulted in reduced intestinal inflammation.” And, this rebalancing may have played a role in the “improved metabolic and [immune system] parameters.”
On an “animal-based diet,” you get growth of disease-associated species, like “Bilophila wadsworthia [associated with inflammatory bowel disease and] A. putredinis [found in abscesses and appendicitis],” and a decrease in fiber-eating bacteria. Eat fiber, and the fiber-munching bacteria multiply, and we get more anti-inflammatory, anticancer short-chain fatty acids. Eat less fiber, and our fiber-eating bacteria starve away.
They are what we eat. Eat a lot of phytates, and your gut flora get really good at breaking down phytates. We assumed this was just because we were naturally selecting for those populations of bacteria that could do that. But, it turns out our diet can teach old bugs new tricks.
There’s one type of fiber in nori seaweed that our gut bacteria can’t normally break down, but the bacteria out in the ocean that eat seaweed have an enzyme to do so. When it was discovered that the enzyme was present in the guts of Japanese people, it presented a mystery. Sure, sushi is eaten raw; and so, some seaweed bacteria may have made it into their colons. But, how could some marine bacteria thrive in the human gut? They didn’t need to; they transferred the nori-eating enzyme to our own gut bacteria.
“Consequently, the consumption of food with associated environmental bacteria is the most likely mechanism that promoted [the enzyme] update into our [own] gut microbe[s]”—almost like a software update. We have the same hardware—the same gut bacteria—but, they just updated their software to chew on something new.
Hardware can change too, though. The reason this is called “The way to a man’s heart is through his gut microbiota” is because they were talking about TMAO. Certain gut flora can take carnitine from the red meat we eat, or the choline concentrated in dairy, and seafood, and eggs, and convert it into a toxic compound, which may lead to an increase in our risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.
This explains why those eating more plant-based diets have lower blood concentrations of the stuff. But, they also produce less of the toxin—even if you feed them a steak. You don’t see the same conversion, “suggesting an adoptive response of the gut microbiota in omnivores.” They are what we feed them.
It’s like if you give people cyclamate, a synthetic artificial sweetener. Most of our bacteria don’t know what to do with it. But, you feed it to people for ten days, and select for the few bacteria that were hip to the new synthetic chemical. Eventually, three-quarters of the cyclamate you eat is metabolized by the bacteria into another new compound called cyclohexylamine. But, stop eating it, and those bacteria die back. Unfortunately, cyclohexylamine may be toxic, and so, was banned by the FDA in 1969. Whereas regular Kool-Aid, evidently, is “completely safe.”
But, if you just ate cyclamate once in a while, it wouldn’t turn into cyclohexylamine, because you wouldn’t have fed and fostered the gut flora specialized to do so. And, the same with TMAO. Those that just eat red meat, eggs, or seafood once in a while would presumably make very little of the toxin, because they hadn’t been cultivating the bacteria that produces it.
We live with trillions of symbionts—good bacteria that live in symbiosis with us. We help them; they help us. And, a month on a plant-based diet results in an increase of the good guys, and a decrease in the bad—the so-called pathobionts, the disease-causing bugs. “Given the disappearance of pathobionts from the intestine, one would expect to observe a reduction in intestinal inflammation…”
So, they measured stool concentrations of “lipocalin-2…, which is a sensitive biomarker of intestinal inflammation.” And, within a month of eating healthy, it had declined significantly, suggesting that “promotion of microbial homeostasis”—or balance—”by [a strict vegetarian diet] resulted in reduced intestinal inflammation.” And, this rebalancing may have played a role in the “improved metabolic and [immune system] parameters.”
On an “animal-based diet,” you get growth of disease-associated species, like “Bilophila wadsworthia [associated with inflammatory bowel disease and] A. putredinis [found in abscesses and appendicitis],” and a decrease in fiber-eating bacteria. Eat fiber, and the fiber-munching bacteria multiply, and we get more anti-inflammatory, anticancer short-chain fatty acids. Eat less fiber, and our fiber-eating bacteria starve away.
They are what we eat. Eat a lot of phytates, and your gut flora get really good at breaking down phytates. We assumed this was just because we were naturally selecting for those populations of bacteria that could do that. But, it turns out our diet can teach old bugs new tricks.
There’s one type of fiber in nori seaweed that our gut bacteria can’t normally break down, but the bacteria out in the ocean that eat seaweed have an enzyme to do so. When it was discovered that the enzyme was present in the guts of Japanese people, it presented a mystery. Sure, sushi is eaten raw; and so, some seaweed bacteria may have made it into their colons. But, how could some marine bacteria thrive in the human gut? They didn’t need to; they transferred the nori-eating enzyme to our own gut bacteria.
“Consequently, the consumption of food with associated environmental bacteria is the most likely mechanism that promoted [the enzyme] update into our [own] gut microbe[s]”—almost like a software update. We have the same hardware—the same gut bacteria—but, they just updated their software to chew on something new.
Hardware can change too, though. The reason this is called “The way to a man’s heart is through his gut microbiota” is because they were talking about TMAO. Certain gut flora can take carnitine from the red meat we eat, or the choline concentrated in dairy, and seafood, and eggs, and convert it into a toxic compound, which may lead to an increase in our risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.
This explains why those eating more plant-based diets have lower blood concentrations of the stuff. But, they also produce less of the toxin—even if you feed them a steak. You don’t see the same conversion, “suggesting an adoptive response of the gut microbiota in omnivores.” They are what we feed them.
It’s like if you give people cyclamate, a synthetic artificial sweetener. Most of our bacteria don’t know what to do with it. But, you feed it to people for ten days, and select for the few bacteria that were hip to the new synthetic chemical. Eventually, three-quarters of the cyclamate you eat is metabolized by the bacteria into another new compound called cyclohexylamine. But, stop eating it, and those bacteria die back. Unfortunately, cyclohexylamine may be toxic, and so, was banned by the FDA in 1969. Whereas regular Kool-Aid, evidently, is “completely safe.”
But, if you just ate cyclamate once in a while, it wouldn’t turn into cyclohexylamine, because you wouldn’t have fed and fostered the gut flora specialized to do so. And, the same with TMAO. Those that just eat red meat, eggs, or seafood once in a while would presumably make very little of the toxin, because they hadn’t been cultivating the bacteria that produces it.
And BTW the above info should really not be surprising. Remember that Harvard study telling us if we wanna maximize our life we need to switch out our animal protein consumption for plant protein. Remember the National Academy of Sciences telling us if we base our eating decisions on the science we should avoid all animal products? This is all connected. I mean if Harvard and the National Academy of Sciences are telling us to eat plants then it should be no surprise that this dynamic is true:
Quote:
The total surface area of our gut is about 3,000 square feet, counting all the little folds, larger than a tennis court. Yet, only a single layer of cells separates our inner core from the outer chaos. The primary fuel that keeps this critical cell layer alive is a short chain fatty acid called butyrate, which our good bacteria make from the fiber we eat. We feed the good bacteria in our gut, and they feed us right back. They take the prebiotics we eat, like fiber, and in return provide the vital fuel source that feeds the cells that line our colon, a prototypical example of the symbiosis between us and our gut flora.
What the science is basically saying is that humans are not really human:
Quote:
It took 13 years to sequence the DNA of the first bacteria ever. These days, the same feat might only take two hours. What we’ve learned is that we can each be thought of as a super-organism, a kind of “human-
microbe hybrid,” as one researcher called it. We have trillions of bacteria living inside us. One commentator went as far as to say, “We are all bacteria,” which is a provocative way of acknowledging there are more bacterial cells and genes in our own body than there are human cells and genes, and most of those bacteria live in our gut.
All animals and plants appear to establish symbiotic relationships with microorganisms and, in us, our gut flora can be considered like a “forgotten organ.” Studies indicate that the health-promoting effects of our good bacteria include boosting our immune system, improving digestion and absorption, making vitamins, inhibiting the growth of potential pathogens, and keeping us from feeling bloated. But, should bad bacteria take roost, they can release carcinogens, putrefy protein in our gut, produce toxins, mess up our bowel function, and cause infections.
microbe hybrid,” as one researcher called it. We have trillions of bacteria living inside us. One commentator went as far as to say, “We are all bacteria,” which is a provocative way of acknowledging there are more bacterial cells and genes in our own body than there are human cells and genes, and most of those bacteria live in our gut.
All animals and plants appear to establish symbiotic relationships with microorganisms and, in us, our gut flora can be considered like a “forgotten organ.” Studies indicate that the health-promoting effects of our good bacteria include boosting our immune system, improving digestion and absorption, making vitamins, inhibiting the growth of potential pathogens, and keeping us from feeling bloated. But, should bad bacteria take roost, they can release carcinogens, putrefy protein in our gut, produce toxins, mess up our bowel function, and cause infections.
It turns out how we treat our gut flora, I.E. what we feed it, has a huge impact on human health, because ultimately it's the bacteria that's really running the show.
Quote:
Based on studying what comes out of fraternal versus identical twins, those who eat different habitual diets, and stools from around the world, “[i]t has become evident that diet has a dominant role on the [bacteria in our colon] and that diet-driven changes in it occur within days to weeks,” the research found. Change your diet, change your gut flora.
“The hope of impacting health through diet may be one of the oldest concepts in medicine; however, only in recent years has our understanding of human physiology grown to the point where we can begin to understand how individual dietary components affect specific illnesses,” researchers explain, through our gut bacteria. Milk fat on that piece of pizza, for example, may feed the bacteria that produces the rotten egg gas hydrogen sulfide, and has experimentally been associated with colitis (inflammatory bowel disease). Fiber, on the other hand, feeds our good bacteria and decreases inflammation in the colon. Both choline, which is found in eggs, seafood, and poultry, and carnitine, which is found in red meat, can be turned into trimethylamine oxide and contribute to heart disease and perhaps fatty liver disease. Excess iron may also muck with our good bacteria and contribute to inflammation, as well.
“The hope of impacting health through diet may be one of the oldest concepts in medicine; however, only in recent years has our understanding of human physiology grown to the point where we can begin to understand how individual dietary components affect specific illnesses,” researchers explain, through our gut bacteria. Milk fat on that piece of pizza, for example, may feed the bacteria that produces the rotten egg gas hydrogen sulfide, and has experimentally been associated with colitis (inflammatory bowel disease). Fiber, on the other hand, feeds our good bacteria and decreases inflammation in the colon. Both choline, which is found in eggs, seafood, and poultry, and carnitine, which is found in red meat, can be turned into trimethylamine oxide and contribute to heart disease and perhaps fatty liver disease. Excess iron may also muck with our good bacteria and contribute to inflammation, as well.
While it's true that food corporations can hijack our frontal lobes to convince us things like eggs and chicken are healthy, you can't fool your gut microbiome. They know what's good for them, and if you abuse them by not giving them what they want there will be consequences.
Quote:
but if your goal is to actually help and try to educate people on here, an unbiased look at some of things would be appreciated (which you almost did with the gh/igf-1 look). I think some of the things you've posted could be helpful, and I'm even willing to give some things a try. Other things are just straight up shenanigans.
Meh, I don't really buy into the "snowflake" theory. Generally speaking, there is a diet for humans, just like there is a diet for cheetahs, gorillas, etc, that can maximize health. And besides that, if shooting for an optimal diet for humans is a bit too ambitious, I wouldn't have it any other way.
10-09-2018
, 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla4Sale View Post
We still don't agree, and never will, on the energy balance argument. Laws of Thermodynamics apply to everyone, so a surplus of WFPB is still going to result in weight/fat gain. I don't even know how that's disputable given the science.
We still don't agree, and never will, on the energy balance argument. Laws of Thermodynamics apply to everyone, so a surplus of WFPB is still going to result in weight/fat gain. I don't even know how that's disputable given the science.
Quote:
Me: That's not disputable, and yet those who go WFPB, taking out the animal fat and refined oils from their diet, typically end up losing weight without even trying. Yep, it's a brain teaser, but no scientific laws are violated.
The first thing we need to address is the fact that humans simply do not metabolize meat well. The evidence backing this claim up is very strong coming from "one of the largest nutritional studies ever". What they discovered was pretty shocking. Meat consumption causes humans to gain weight EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING for caloric intake.
Transcript:
Quote:
“Mainly because of its high energy density and fat content, meat consumption has been considered a determinant of weight gain.” Yeah, but we just looked at nuts, which are dense in calories and fat, and they didn’t appear to contribute to weight gain at all. So, let’s not presume. “Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study.” What is that? Hundreds of thousands of men and women, across ten countries, with weight gain measured over a five-year period.
What did they find? Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and non-smokers. Conclusion: “Our results suggest that a decrease in meat consumption may improve weight management.” And, this was after adjusting for initial weight, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, and total energy intake. Wait a second—what? That’s the kicker. The link between meat and weight gain remained even after controlling for calories.
One would assume that sure, meat is associated with weight gain, because it’s so packed with calories. And so, you’d just get more calories in your daily diet compared to those eating vegetarian, and so, more weight gain. But, no—it’s even more than that. This was after controlling for caloric intake—meaning if you have two people eating the same amount of calories, the person eating more meat may gain more weight. In fact, they even calculated how much more.
An intake of 250 grams of meat a day—like a steak—would lead to an annual weight gain 422 grams higher than the weight gain experienced with the same calorie diet with lower meat intake. After five years, the weight gain would be about five pounds more. Same calories; yet five pounds more, eating meat. And steak was nothing. “The strongest relation with annual weight change [weight gain] was observed for poultry.”
Let’s say you start out normal weight, and eat a hamburger every day. This is how much extra weight, beyond what’s already in the calories, you’d put on every year. What if, instead, you had the same amount of calories of processed meat? Say, a ham sandwich, with three deli slices of ham on it. You’d gain this much extra; whereas, just a half of a chicken breast puts you up here. Though the poultry effect was attenuated, evidently, if you removed people who were previously sick, or who lied about their diet.
“In conclusion, our results indicate that meat intake is positively associated with weight gain” and this “association persisted after adjustment for total energy intake and underlying dietary patterns. Our results are therefore in favor of the public health recommendation to decrease meat consumption for health improvement.”
What did they find? Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and non-smokers. Conclusion: “Our results suggest that a decrease in meat consumption may improve weight management.” And, this was after adjusting for initial weight, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, and total energy intake. Wait a second—what? That’s the kicker. The link between meat and weight gain remained even after controlling for calories.
One would assume that sure, meat is associated with weight gain, because it’s so packed with calories. And so, you’d just get more calories in your daily diet compared to those eating vegetarian, and so, more weight gain. But, no—it’s even more than that. This was after controlling for caloric intake—meaning if you have two people eating the same amount of calories, the person eating more meat may gain more weight. In fact, they even calculated how much more.
An intake of 250 grams of meat a day—like a steak—would lead to an annual weight gain 422 grams higher than the weight gain experienced with the same calorie diet with lower meat intake. After five years, the weight gain would be about five pounds more. Same calories; yet five pounds more, eating meat. And steak was nothing. “The strongest relation with annual weight change [weight gain] was observed for poultry.”
Let’s say you start out normal weight, and eat a hamburger every day. This is how much extra weight, beyond what’s already in the calories, you’d put on every year. What if, instead, you had the same amount of calories of processed meat? Say, a ham sandwich, with three deli slices of ham on it. You’d gain this much extra; whereas, just a half of a chicken breast puts you up here. Though the poultry effect was attenuated, evidently, if you removed people who were previously sick, or who lied about their diet.
“In conclusion, our results indicate that meat intake is positively associated with weight gain” and this “association persisted after adjustment for total energy intake and underlying dietary patterns. Our results are therefore in favor of the public health recommendation to decrease meat consumption for health improvement.”
Quote:
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association was not happy about these findings. As I detail in my 2-min. video Cattlemen’s Association Has Beef With EPIC Study, a meat industry representative argued that the pounds that the meat-eaters packed on may have been muscle mass, not fat. Maybe they were becoming beefier, not fatter.
Fine, the researcher responded, they’d rerun the numbers to not just measure obesity, but abdominal obesity–the worst kind. They took a small sample out of the study, a sample of 91,214 people (that’s how big the study was!) and found the exact same thing. Even when eating the same number of calories, the more meat we eat the more our belly grows. They could even calculate how much our waistline would be expected to expand based on our daily meat consumption. Now folks can plan ahead for the new pants they’ll need to buy!
Fine, the researcher responded, they’d rerun the numbers to not just measure obesity, but abdominal obesity–the worst kind. They took a small sample out of the study, a sample of 91,214 people (that’s how big the study was!) and found the exact same thing. Even when eating the same number of calories, the more meat we eat the more our belly grows. They could even calculate how much our waistline would be expected to expand based on our daily meat consumption. Now folks can plan ahead for the new pants they’ll need to buy!
Also, chicken may cause more weight gain than beef!
Transcript:
Quote:
We know vegetarians have considerably lower obesity rates compared to meat-eaters, but why? Is it because they’re not eating meat, or because they’re eating more plants? Or maybe they’re just eating fewer calories, or exercising more? This study controlled for all that.
In essence, they took men and women who ate the same number of calories a day, ate the same amount of vegetables, and fruit and grains, same amount of exercise—but, ate different amounts of meat. Men and women who ate less than a single serving of meat a day were, on average, not overweight, but the more meat they ate, the heavier they were, and by one and a half servings a day, they crossed the threshold of a BMI of 25 to become officially classified as overweight.
Which type of meat was the worst? If you remember back to that study of hundreds of thousands of men and women, poultry consumption appeared to be the worst, but maybe it was reverse causation, meaning obesity led to greater chicken consumption, and not the other way around. This new study controlled for that, adjusting for dietary habits, yet found the same thing. Chicken consumption was most associated with weight gain in both men and women. And it didn’t take much. Compared to those who didn’t eat any chicken at all, those eating about 20 or more grams of chicken a day had a significantly greater increase in their body mass index. That’s around one chicken nugget. Or a single chicken breast once every two weeks, compared to no chicken at all.
In essence, they took men and women who ate the same number of calories a day, ate the same amount of vegetables, and fruit and grains, same amount of exercise—but, ate different amounts of meat. Men and women who ate less than a single serving of meat a day were, on average, not overweight, but the more meat they ate, the heavier they were, and by one and a half servings a day, they crossed the threshold of a BMI of 25 to become officially classified as overweight.
Which type of meat was the worst? If you remember back to that study of hundreds of thousands of men and women, poultry consumption appeared to be the worst, but maybe it was reverse causation, meaning obesity led to greater chicken consumption, and not the other way around. This new study controlled for that, adjusting for dietary habits, yet found the same thing. Chicken consumption was most associated with weight gain in both men and women. And it didn’t take much. Compared to those who didn’t eat any chicken at all, those eating about 20 or more grams of chicken a day had a significantly greater increase in their body mass index. That’s around one chicken nugget. Or a single chicken breast once every two weeks, compared to no chicken at all.
Ok what about processed fats, i.e. oils. IMO, Dr. Fuhrman does a pretty good job breaking down the difference between eating healthy fats from nuts and seeds vs eating their oil derivatives. Here's a quote from him talking about this subject:
Quote:
"Compare oil to nuts, might be from the same food but have different biological effects. Whereas the oil might rush into your bloodstream very rapidly, the nut or seed might take four or five hours for those same fats to enter the bloodstream. Let me give you an example. If you consumed walnut oil lets say compared to you guys consuming walnuts. So you consume the walnut oil and those fat calories enter the bloodstream within 5 to 10 minutes and the bloodstream can't tolerate the rush of fat in the blood so it rapidly stores that as fat instantaneously. It's stored as fat and put into your fat cells within another five or ten minutes. That means within 15 minutes from your lips to your hips, boom, it's stored as fat, reving up fat storage hormones. Now when you have the walnuts, the sterols, stanols, fibers in those walnuts allowed you to absorb those calories over a three to four hour period. It gradually absorbed them little by little, a certain amount of calories per hour over many hours so your body doesn't rev up fat storages, it doesn't store it as fat, it burns it for energy. Also, those sterols, stanols, and fibers hold unto fat. And it holds onto fat in the digestive tract so it increases stool fat. The fat goes into the toilet bowl. So all the calories from the walnut are not biologically accessible to the body because some of those calories are lost when they pass right through you, whereas the calories from the walnut oil was 100% absorbable."
--Dr. Fuhrman
--Dr. Fuhrman
Here's another quote from him on this subject.
Quote:
"When you're eating almonds and sunflower seeds and pecans and pistachio nuts they're filling but they're fiber filled and the fibers in the nuts and seeds bind fat and the calories are not all biologically accessible because those sterols, stanols, and fibers suck the fat out into the toilet bowl. Oil is a 120 calories a tablespoon. That's fat. But because it's not associated with the fibers, sterols and stanols, all 120 calories come into the bloodstream within 5 to 10 minutes. If you were going to a buffet and I gave you a tablespoon of olive oil to eat in your mouth while you're waiting in line to get your food you wouldn't eat 120 calories less at the buffet. There's no fiber or nutrients in the oil so you eat the same amount of calories in the buffet. If I poured the oil over the food on the buffet you'd probably eat more of the calories than the 120 in the oil. Oil leads to overeating calories. Instead of giving you olive oil if I gave you some walnuts or pistachio nuts, 40 calories a tablespoon, then you would've eaten 40 calories less at the meal because that would've reduced your appestat. Not only that you would've sensed you took in 40 calories but all 40 calories didn't go to the body anyway because part of those fat calories would've been pushed out into the stool."
--Dr Fuhrman
--Dr Fuhrman
Ok great, but who the **** is Dr Fuhrman, what does the actual science say. Well it turns out the science is pretty consistent with Dr. Fuhrman assessment. One of the greatest video series on Nutritionfacts.org is the 7 part series on nuts and weight gain or more accurately, nuts and lack of weight gain. I strongly recommend you guys binge watch this when you're bored. It's extremely fascinating.
1) Nuts & Obesity: The Weight of Evidence
2) Solving the Mystery of the Missing Calories
3) Testing the Pistachio Principle
4) Testing the Dietary Compensation Theory
5) Testing the Fat-Burning Theory
) Fat Burning Via Arginine
7) Fat Burning via Flavonoids
Don't worry guys I'll sum it up for you!
First the setup:
Quote:
The bottom line is that so far, every single study in which they added nuts to people’s diets without trying to restrict calories failed to show the expected weight gain—whether it was just less than predicted, no weight gain at all, or they even lost weight.
So, what happened to the missing calories? Well, the mystery has been solved. On Monday, I presented the pistachio principle, and the fecal excretion theory. On Tuesday, they were put to the test. On Wednesday, I explored the dietary compensation theory, and, by Thursday, we had figured it out.
Part of the trick seemed to be that nuts boosted fat burning within the body, but how? Well, it could be the arginine, or—spoiler alert—the flavonoid phytonutrients, as we’ll see in Monday’s video-of-the-day.
So, what happened to the missing calories? Well, the mystery has been solved. On Monday, I presented the pistachio principle, and the fecal excretion theory. On Tuesday, they were put to the test. On Wednesday, I explored the dietary compensation theory, and, by Thursday, we had figured it out.
Part of the trick seemed to be that nuts boosted fat burning within the body, but how? Well, it could be the arginine, or—spoiler alert—the flavonoid phytonutrients, as we’ll see in Monday’s video-of-the-day.
And here's the punchline:
Quote:
Yes, when we eat nuts, we lose some fat in our feces, and have our appetite suppressed. But, studies suggest that this just accounts for about 70% of the disappeared calories in nuts. Unless all the calories are accounted for, then we still should gain weight after nut consumption, especially in the long term. But that’s not what the studies show. So, what happens to that last 30%?
Nuts appear to boost our metabolism—meaning that when we eat nuts, we burn more of our own fat to compensate. And, indeed, in this study, those on the control diet were burning about 20 grams of fat overnight within their bodies, on average. Not bad; that’s like burning off five pats of butter. But the walnut group—eating the same number of calories; the same amount of fat; same everything—burned more like 31 grams of fat a day—seven or eight pats of butter worth. Not too shabby, or, should I say, flabby.[/COLOR]
So the hard-to-crack nut of a mystery appears to have been solved. Of all the calories you eat in nuts, about 70% of them apparently disappear through dietary compensation mechanisms; 10% are flushed away; and 20% may be lost due to increased fat burn, leaving us with no calories to pack on any pounds—just a whopping load of nutrition, and our risk of dying from heart disease cut in half.
Nuts appear to boost our metabolism—meaning that when we eat nuts, we burn more of our own fat to compensate. And, indeed, in this study, those on the control diet were burning about 20 grams of fat overnight within their bodies, on average. Not bad; that’s like burning off five pats of butter. But the walnut group—eating the same number of calories; the same amount of fat; same everything—burned more like 31 grams of fat a day—seven or eight pats of butter worth. Not too shabby, or, should I say, flabby.[/COLOR]
So the hard-to-crack nut of a mystery appears to have been solved. Of all the calories you eat in nuts, about 70% of them apparently disappear through dietary compensation mechanisms; 10% are flushed away; and 20% may be lost due to increased fat burn, leaving us with no calories to pack on any pounds—just a whopping load of nutrition, and our risk of dying from heart disease cut in half.
So lots of cool things happen when we eat healthy fats vs when we eat processed fats or animal fats. And this gives us a good clue as to why those who go WFPB typically lose weight without even trying.
Also, this is from one of the videos above in the nut series and it's worth highlighting because it does a good job showing the satiety difference between healthy fats and processed fats that can help clue us in further on why getting oils out of our diet may lead to effortless weight loss:
Transcript:
Quote:
Maybe the reason why 90% of the relevant studies show no weight gain from nut consumption is that nuts are so satisfying, so satiating, so appetite-suppressing, that throughout the rest of the day, totally unconsciously, we just eat less.
So, if researchers add a handful of nuts to our daily diet, totaling 200 calories, and they were just so filling that it displaced 200 calories of something else we would have normally eaten, then that could explain how, you know, one can remain in energy balance—even though they just added a calorically dense food, like nuts, to one’s daily diet. And hey, if you felt so satisfied you unintentionally ended up eating 250 calories less each day, then that could explain why, in a few of the nut studies, people actually lost weight.
Recently, they tested walnuts. “It has been proposed, mainly on the basis of observational studies, that nuts may provide superior satiation, may lead to reduced calorie consumption,…but evidence from randomized, interventional studies is lacking.” Until now.
They double-blinded the study by disguising the walnuts in a smoothie. “The walnut-containing liquid meal contained…walnuts,…frozen mango,…frozen strawberries,…banana,…frozen berries, and…pineapple juice.” Sounds good. Whereas the placebo liquid meal contained oil, mango, strawberries, banana, berries, and juice, and “40 drops of walnut flavoring.” In fact, they made it so you literally couldn’t tell the difference, in blind taste tests. And, they were made with the exact same number of calories. So, if there was nothing special about nuts, then you should feel just as satiated either way.
But, no. After a few days on the placebo, the walnut-flavored smoothie people just felt something was missing. Everyone drank their smoothies at breakfast, and then, right before lunch, the folks that didn’t get the real nuts felt significantly less full, less satiated—even after the no-chewing and full-fat absorption.
So, you can see how if you had nuts for breakfast, you may very well unintentionally eat a smaller lunch than you otherwise would—and so, in this way, nuts could actually decrease daily caloric consumption.
So, if researchers add a handful of nuts to our daily diet, totaling 200 calories, and they were just so filling that it displaced 200 calories of something else we would have normally eaten, then that could explain how, you know, one can remain in energy balance—even though they just added a calorically dense food, like nuts, to one’s daily diet. And hey, if you felt so satisfied you unintentionally ended up eating 250 calories less each day, then that could explain why, in a few of the nut studies, people actually lost weight.
Recently, they tested walnuts. “It has been proposed, mainly on the basis of observational studies, that nuts may provide superior satiation, may lead to reduced calorie consumption,…but evidence from randomized, interventional studies is lacking.” Until now.
They double-blinded the study by disguising the walnuts in a smoothie. “The walnut-containing liquid meal contained…walnuts,…frozen mango,…frozen strawberries,…banana,…frozen berries, and…pineapple juice.” Sounds good. Whereas the placebo liquid meal contained oil, mango, strawberries, banana, berries, and juice, and “40 drops of walnut flavoring.” In fact, they made it so you literally couldn’t tell the difference, in blind taste tests. And, they were made with the exact same number of calories. So, if there was nothing special about nuts, then you should feel just as satiated either way.
But, no. After a few days on the placebo, the walnut-flavored smoothie people just felt something was missing. Everyone drank their smoothies at breakfast, and then, right before lunch, the folks that didn’t get the real nuts felt significantly less full, less satiated—even after the no-chewing and full-fat absorption.
So, you can see how if you had nuts for breakfast, you may very well unintentionally eat a smaller lunch than you otherwise would—and so, in this way, nuts could actually decrease daily caloric consumption.
The same pattern of only vegans having healthy BMIs with other BMIs getting progressively worse as more animal products are added to the diet appears in the famous Seventh Day Adventist Studies:
This is not because vegans count calories or portion control. Vegans are not more special or disciplined than anybody else. It is primarily because of what they are eating, or more specially what they are NOT eating: Food that humans do not metabolize well. Animal products.
PS: there's actually more on the subject of WFPB and effortless weight loss, but I'm tired so I'll stop here for now.
Last edited by ILOVEPOKER929; 10-09-2018 at 04:17 AM.
10-09-2018
, 09:13 AM
10-09-2018
, 08:14 PM
10-09-2018
, 09:05 PM
Quote:
The reason plant protein is "healthier" is that it is an incomplete protein. It's the consumption of complete proteins that leads to slightly higher cancer rates (mainly colorectal). So what happens when the plant protein is complete (tofu), yep the cancer rates increase. Lol.
The very fact that two the of the longest living populations we have ever studied eat significant amounts of soy also suggests that soy is very health promoting.
The Seventh Day Adventist population:
Quote:
Adventist Health Study 1 (AHS-1)
An additional study (1974–1988) involved approximately 34,000 Californian Adventists over 25 years of age. Unlike the mortality study, the purpose was to find out which components of the Adventist lifestyle give protection against disease.
The data from the study have been studied for more than a decade and the findings are numerous – linking diet to cancer[5] and coronary heart disease.[6][7]
Specifically: [4]
On average Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians.
Five simple health behaviors promoted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church for more than 100 years (not smoking, eating a plant based diet, eating nuts several times per week, regular exercise and maintaining normal body weight) increase life span up to 10 years.
Reducing consumption of red and white meat was associated with a decrease of colon cancer.
Eating legumes was protective for colon cancer.
Eating nuts several times a week reduces the risk of heart attack by up to 50%.
Eating whole meal bread instead of white bread reduced non-fatal heart attack risk by 45%.
Drinking 5 or more glasses of water a day may reduce heart disease by 50%.
Men who had a high consumption of tomatoes reduced their risk of prostate cancer by 40%.
Drinking soy milk more than once daily may reduce prostate cancer by 70%.
An additional study (1974–1988) involved approximately 34,000 Californian Adventists over 25 years of age. Unlike the mortality study, the purpose was to find out which components of the Adventist lifestyle give protection against disease.
The data from the study have been studied for more than a decade and the findings are numerous – linking diet to cancer[5] and coronary heart disease.[6][7]
Specifically: [4]
On average Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians.
Five simple health behaviors promoted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church for more than 100 years (not smoking, eating a plant based diet, eating nuts several times per week, regular exercise and maintaining normal body weight) increase life span up to 10 years.
Reducing consumption of red and white meat was associated with a decrease of colon cancer.
Eating legumes was protective for colon cancer.
Eating nuts several times a week reduces the risk of heart attack by up to 50%.
Eating whole meal bread instead of white bread reduced non-fatal heart attack risk by 45%.
Drinking 5 or more glasses of water a day may reduce heart disease by 50%.
Men who had a high consumption of tomatoes reduced their risk of prostate cancer by 40%.
Drinking soy milk more than once daily may reduce prostate cancer by 70%.
And the Okinawan population:
Quote:
Fortunately the differences are not great. If I recall correctly, it's around 15%. So I instead of having a colorectal cancer rate of something like 21 per 1000 in USA, you might be at at 23 per 1000. There is also one huge study where vegetarians had higher colorectal cancer rates than meat eaters. Lol!!!
Quote:
Although opinions diverge as to whether cholesterol, animal fat, or animal protein is most responsible for the increased colon cancer risk, given that all three have been proven to have carcinogenic properties, it may not really matter which component is worse, as a diet laden in one is usually laden in the others.
Quote:
At this time there really isn't anything concrete (but processed pork looks scary). It's too hard to control all the variables. Big meat eaters tend to be a bigger mess in general than vegans (everything from smoking, overeating, lack of exercise, etc etc). They try to control the variables but it's just way too hard.
Exercise is critical for human health, no one would deny that. However it is completely bs to claim that exercise trumps diet. People are excercising more now than ever and yet we are still getting fatter. Something is wrong here. And we know what it is. It's the ****ing food. Or as one doctor put it, "you can't out-exercise a bad diet". Large studies suggest that diet plays a bigger role but we have other evidence too.
And yes exercise does cool things like fight cancer, boost memory, and extend life. And as far as my personal take on exercising, let's just say I'm working on it. I know I gotta get better. Now moving on. Let's look at some more evidence comparing exercise and diet.
Transcript:
Quote:
This dramatic strengthening of cancer defenses was after 14 days of a plant-based diet and exercise; they were out walking 30 to 60 minutes a day. Although Pritikin started out reversing chronic disease through diet alone, later—to his credit—he added an exercise component as well. That’s great for his patients, but scientifically it makes it hard to tease out which is doing what. Maybe the only reason their blood started becoming so effective at suppressing cancer growth was because of the exercise; maybe the diet component had nothing to do with it. So, they put it to the test.
They set up an experiment with three groups. The first group did nothing—the control group; the second did diet and exercise; and the third group was just exercise. The diet and exercise group had been put on a plant-based diet for 14 years, along with moderate exercise—just like walking every day. The second group was just exercise, but they were hardcore. Not just exercise, but 14 years of daily, strenuous, hour-long exercise, like calisthenics. But, they ate the Standard American Diet. In fact, they were actually overweight. They’d been killing themselves in the gym every day for 14 years, and still, their BMI averaged 26.5; whereas those on a plant-strong diet were at ideal body weight.
But let’s see who’s better at fighting cancer. The researchers wanted to know, if you exercise hard enough, long enough, can you rival some strolling vegans? They took petri dishes brimming full of human cancer cells, and dripped blood from each of the three groups on different dishes to see whose blood was better at suppressing cancer growth. What do you think they found?
Whose blood was better at killing cancer cells? This is a graph measuring cancer cell apoptosis, or programmed cell death; cancer cells programmed to commit suicide. It’s one way our body gets rid of cancer cells. Basically, our immune system taps them on the shoulder, and says, “Look, you know there’s only one way this is going to end, don’t you? Why don’t you take the honorable way out? It will be quicker, easier. If they start the chemo and everything—it’s going to get messy. Take the easy way out, and just kill yourself,” which our immune system is sometimes capable of convincing cancer cells to do.
Here’s the blood of the control group. Not very persuasive. Cancer’s like, “Take your programmed cell death and shove it.”
And as we saw before, here’s the effect of the blood of those in the Pritikin group. After 14 years on a plant-based diet, you can bet their bloodstream was clearing cancer cells left and right.
What about the hardcore exercise group in the middle? Did they clear cancer just as good as the Pritkin group? If that’s the case, then it wasn’t diet at all, right? The exercise was the critical component. Were they somewhere in the middle, showing that exercise helped, but not as good as the plant-based diet group? Or, were they down there with the control group? Maybe exercise helped with other things, but just not at killing cancer?
What they found was this: exercise helped, no question. But, literally 5,000 hours in the gym was no match for a plant-based diet. Here’s an actual photomicrograph of the cells in the control petri dish, stained so that they release light when they die.
As you can see, in the control group, there were a few cancer cells dying. Even if you are a couch potato, eating fried potatoes, your body’s not totally defenseless.
But here’s the hardcore, strenuous exercise group. Cancer cells dying left and right.
But nothing appears to kick cancer butt more than a plant-based diet.
They set up an experiment with three groups. The first group did nothing—the control group; the second did diet and exercise; and the third group was just exercise. The diet and exercise group had been put on a plant-based diet for 14 years, along with moderate exercise—just like walking every day. The second group was just exercise, but they were hardcore. Not just exercise, but 14 years of daily, strenuous, hour-long exercise, like calisthenics. But, they ate the Standard American Diet. In fact, they were actually overweight. They’d been killing themselves in the gym every day for 14 years, and still, their BMI averaged 26.5; whereas those on a plant-strong diet were at ideal body weight.
But let’s see who’s better at fighting cancer. The researchers wanted to know, if you exercise hard enough, long enough, can you rival some strolling vegans? They took petri dishes brimming full of human cancer cells, and dripped blood from each of the three groups on different dishes to see whose blood was better at suppressing cancer growth. What do you think they found?
Whose blood was better at killing cancer cells? This is a graph measuring cancer cell apoptosis, or programmed cell death; cancer cells programmed to commit suicide. It’s one way our body gets rid of cancer cells. Basically, our immune system taps them on the shoulder, and says, “Look, you know there’s only one way this is going to end, don’t you? Why don’t you take the honorable way out? It will be quicker, easier. If they start the chemo and everything—it’s going to get messy. Take the easy way out, and just kill yourself,” which our immune system is sometimes capable of convincing cancer cells to do.
Here’s the blood of the control group. Not very persuasive. Cancer’s like, “Take your programmed cell death and shove it.”
And as we saw before, here’s the effect of the blood of those in the Pritikin group. After 14 years on a plant-based diet, you can bet their bloodstream was clearing cancer cells left and right.
What about the hardcore exercise group in the middle? Did they clear cancer just as good as the Pritkin group? If that’s the case, then it wasn’t diet at all, right? The exercise was the critical component. Were they somewhere in the middle, showing that exercise helped, but not as good as the plant-based diet group? Or, were they down there with the control group? Maybe exercise helped with other things, but just not at killing cancer?
What they found was this: exercise helped, no question. But, literally 5,000 hours in the gym was no match for a plant-based diet. Here’s an actual photomicrograph of the cells in the control petri dish, stained so that they release light when they die.
As you can see, in the control group, there were a few cancer cells dying. Even if you are a couch potato, eating fried potatoes, your body’s not totally defenseless.
But here’s the hardcore, strenuous exercise group. Cancer cells dying left and right.
But nothing appears to kick cancer butt more than a plant-based diet.
Let's look at this from another angle:
Transcript:
Quote:
Much of the low carb and paleo reasoning revolves around insulin. To quote one random blogger, “Carbohydrates increase insulin, the root of all evil when it comes to dieting and health.” So because carbs increase insulin, we should stick mostly to meat, which is fat and protein—no carbs, so no increase in insulin, right? Wrong. We’ve known for half a century that if you give someone just a steak, no carbs, no sugar, no starch–their insulin goes up. Carbs make your insulin go up, but so does protein.
In 1997 an insulin index of foods was published, ranking 38 foods on which stimulates higher insulin levels. What do you think causes a larger insulin spike: a large apple and all its sugar, a cup of oatmeal packed with carbs, a cup and a half of white flour pasta, a big bunless burger—no carbs at all–or half of a salmon fillet? The answer is the meat.
They looked only at beef and fish, but subsequent data showed that there’s no significant difference between the insulin spike from beef, versus chicken or pork—they’re all just as high. Thus, protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secretion. In fact, meat protein causes as much insulin release as pure sugar.
So, based on their own framework, if they really believed insulin is the root of all evil, then low carbers and paleo folks would be eating big bowls of white spaghetti day in and day out before they’d ever touch meat.
Yes, having hyperinsulinemia–too high levels of insulin in the blood–like type 2 diabetics have, is not a good thing, and may increase cancer by like 10%. But if low carb and paleo people stuck to their own theory, if it’s all about insulin, they would be out telling everyone to go vegetarian, as vegetarians have significantly lower insulin levels, even at the same weight. It’s true for ovolactovegetarians. It’s true for lactovegetarians and vegans. Meateaters have up to 50% higher insulin levels.
Put someone on a strictly plant-based diet–man, woman, young, old, skinny or fat–and you can significantly bring their insulin levels down within just three weeks on a healthy vegan diet. And then just by adding egg whites back to the diet, you can boost insulin production 60% within four days.
What if you take people and add carbohydrates, double their carbohydrate intake? You can bring their insulin levels down. Why? Because they weren’t feeding people jellybeans and sugar cookies; they were feeding people whole plant foods, lots of whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables.
What if you put someone on a very low-carb diet, like an Atkins diet? Low carb advocates assumed that it would lower insulin levels. Dr. Westman is the new Dr. Atkins, after the old Dr. Atkins died overweight with, according to the Medical Examiner, a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension. But Dr. Westman was wrong. No significant drop in insulin levels on very low carb diets. What they got is a significant rise in their LDL cholesterol levels, the #1 risk factor for our #1 killer, heart disease.
Atkins is an easy target, though. No matter how many new, new, extra new Atkins diets that come out, it’s still old news. What about paleo? The paleo movement gets a lot of things right. They tell people to ditch dairy and doughnuts, eat lots of fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and cut out a lot of processed junk. But this new study’s pretty scary. Took a bunch of young healthy folks, put them on a Paleolithic diet along with a Crossfit-based, high-intensity circuit training exercise program. Now if you lose enough weight exercising you can temporarily drop your cholesterol levels no matter what you eat. You can see that with stomach stapling surgery, tuberculosis, chemo, a cocaine habit—just losing weight by any means can lower cholesterol, which makes these results all the more troubling. Ten weeks of hard-core workouts and weight loss, and LDL cholesterol still went up. And it was even worse for those who started out the healthiest. Those starting out with excellent LDLs, under 70, had a 20% elevation in LDL, and their HDL dropped. Exercise is supposed to boost your good cholesterol, not lower it. The Paleo diet’s deleterious impact on blood fats was not only significant, but substantial enough to counteract the improvements commonly seen with improved fitness and body composition. Exercise is supposed to make things better. Put people instead on a plant-based diet and a modest exercise program—mostly just walking-based, and within three weeks they can drop their bad cholesterol 20%, and their insulin levels 30%, despite the 75-80% carbohydrate diet, whereas the paleo diets appeared to negate the positive effects of exercise.
In 1997 an insulin index of foods was published, ranking 38 foods on which stimulates higher insulin levels. What do you think causes a larger insulin spike: a large apple and all its sugar, a cup of oatmeal packed with carbs, a cup and a half of white flour pasta, a big bunless burger—no carbs at all–or half of a salmon fillet? The answer is the meat.
They looked only at beef and fish, but subsequent data showed that there’s no significant difference between the insulin spike from beef, versus chicken or pork—they’re all just as high. Thus, protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secretion. In fact, meat protein causes as much insulin release as pure sugar.
So, based on their own framework, if they really believed insulin is the root of all evil, then low carbers and paleo folks would be eating big bowls of white spaghetti day in and day out before they’d ever touch meat.
Yes, having hyperinsulinemia–too high levels of insulin in the blood–like type 2 diabetics have, is not a good thing, and may increase cancer by like 10%. But if low carb and paleo people stuck to their own theory, if it’s all about insulin, they would be out telling everyone to go vegetarian, as vegetarians have significantly lower insulin levels, even at the same weight. It’s true for ovolactovegetarians. It’s true for lactovegetarians and vegans. Meateaters have up to 50% higher insulin levels.
Put someone on a strictly plant-based diet–man, woman, young, old, skinny or fat–and you can significantly bring their insulin levels down within just three weeks on a healthy vegan diet. And then just by adding egg whites back to the diet, you can boost insulin production 60% within four days.
What if you take people and add carbohydrates, double their carbohydrate intake? You can bring their insulin levels down. Why? Because they weren’t feeding people jellybeans and sugar cookies; they were feeding people whole plant foods, lots of whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables.
What if you put someone on a very low-carb diet, like an Atkins diet? Low carb advocates assumed that it would lower insulin levels. Dr. Westman is the new Dr. Atkins, after the old Dr. Atkins died overweight with, according to the Medical Examiner, a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension. But Dr. Westman was wrong. No significant drop in insulin levels on very low carb diets. What they got is a significant rise in their LDL cholesterol levels, the #1 risk factor for our #1 killer, heart disease.
Atkins is an easy target, though. No matter how many new, new, extra new Atkins diets that come out, it’s still old news. What about paleo? The paleo movement gets a lot of things right. They tell people to ditch dairy and doughnuts, eat lots of fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and cut out a lot of processed junk. But this new study’s pretty scary. Took a bunch of young healthy folks, put them on a Paleolithic diet along with a Crossfit-based, high-intensity circuit training exercise program. Now if you lose enough weight exercising you can temporarily drop your cholesterol levels no matter what you eat. You can see that with stomach stapling surgery, tuberculosis, chemo, a cocaine habit—just losing weight by any means can lower cholesterol, which makes these results all the more troubling. Ten weeks of hard-core workouts and weight loss, and LDL cholesterol still went up. And it was even worse for those who started out the healthiest. Those starting out with excellent LDLs, under 70, had a 20% elevation in LDL, and their HDL dropped. Exercise is supposed to boost your good cholesterol, not lower it. The Paleo diet’s deleterious impact on blood fats was not only significant, but substantial enough to counteract the improvements commonly seen with improved fitness and body composition. Exercise is supposed to make things better. Put people instead on a plant-based diet and a modest exercise program—mostly just walking-based, and within three weeks they can drop their bad cholesterol 20%, and their insulin levels 30%, despite the 75-80% carbohydrate diet, whereas the paleo diets appeared to negate the positive effects of exercise.
Here's another study that should be a big eye opener to those who care about their heart health. Couch potato vegans--and vegans don't even eat that healthy--showed cleaner arteries than those eating SAD who run almost 2 marathons per week!! (BMI was controlled)
Transcript:
Quote:
We know from the work of Doctors Ornish and Esselstyn that switching to a plant-based diet can reverse heart disease, open up arteries—in some cases, without drugs, without surgery. But, because our first symptom of heart disease may be our last—sudden cardiac death—it’s best not to wait until atherosclerosis progresses that far.
To predict the risk of dying from a heart attack, sure, we can measure risk factors, such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure. But, wouldn’t it be nice to actually see what’s going on inside our arteries, before it’s too late? Well, our imaging technologies are so good now that we can. But, the required dose of radiation delivered to the chest is so high that a young woman getting just a single scan, for example, may increase her lifetime risk of breast cancer and lung cancer by between around 1 and 4%.
Our carotid arteries, though, which connect our heart to our brain, come close enough to the surface in our necks that we can visualize the arterial wall using harmless sound waves with ultrasound. Okay, so, how do the arteries of those eating plant-based diets compare to those eating the Standard American Diet? Researchers found some vegans, and found out.
Here’s the Standard American Diet group. This is the thickness of the inner wall of their carotid arteries, where the atherosclerotic plaque builds up—considered a predictor of “all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.” That same inner layer was significantly slimmer in vegans—but, so were the vegans themselves! Those eating the Standard American Diet were, on average, overweight, with a BMI over 26, while the vegans were a trim 21—that’s 36 pounds lighter, on average.
So, maybe the only reason those eating meat, eggs, and dairy had thickened arterial walls was because they were themselves overweight; maybe, the diet per se had nothing to do with it directly. To solve the riddle, one would have to find a group still eating the Standard American Diet, but as slim as a vegan.
To find a group that fit and trim in our society, they had to use long-distance endurance athletes—who ate the same crappy American diet, but ran an average of 48 miles per week for 21 years. You run almost two marathons a week for twenty years, you can be as slim as a vegan—no matter what you eat. So, where do they fall on the graph? Both the vegans and the conventional diet group were sedentary—less than an hour of exercise a week.
The endurance runners were here. So, it appears if you run an average of about a thousand miles a year, you can rival some couch potato vegans. Doesn’t mean you can’t do both, though, but it may be easier to just eat plants.
To predict the risk of dying from a heart attack, sure, we can measure risk factors, such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure. But, wouldn’t it be nice to actually see what’s going on inside our arteries, before it’s too late? Well, our imaging technologies are so good now that we can. But, the required dose of radiation delivered to the chest is so high that a young woman getting just a single scan, for example, may increase her lifetime risk of breast cancer and lung cancer by between around 1 and 4%.
Our carotid arteries, though, which connect our heart to our brain, come close enough to the surface in our necks that we can visualize the arterial wall using harmless sound waves with ultrasound. Okay, so, how do the arteries of those eating plant-based diets compare to those eating the Standard American Diet? Researchers found some vegans, and found out.
Here’s the Standard American Diet group. This is the thickness of the inner wall of their carotid arteries, where the atherosclerotic plaque builds up—considered a predictor of “all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.” That same inner layer was significantly slimmer in vegans—but, so were the vegans themselves! Those eating the Standard American Diet were, on average, overweight, with a BMI over 26, while the vegans were a trim 21—that’s 36 pounds lighter, on average.
So, maybe the only reason those eating meat, eggs, and dairy had thickened arterial walls was because they were themselves overweight; maybe, the diet per se had nothing to do with it directly. To solve the riddle, one would have to find a group still eating the Standard American Diet, but as slim as a vegan.
To find a group that fit and trim in our society, they had to use long-distance endurance athletes—who ate the same crappy American diet, but ran an average of 48 miles per week for 21 years. You run almost two marathons a week for twenty years, you can be as slim as a vegan—no matter what you eat. So, where do they fall on the graph? Both the vegans and the conventional diet group were sedentary—less than an hour of exercise a week.
The endurance runners were here. So, it appears if you run an average of about a thousand miles a year, you can rival some couch potato vegans. Doesn’t mean you can’t do both, though, but it may be easier to just eat plants.
The power of plants people!
10-09-2018
, 09:15 PM
10-09-2018
, 10:13 PM
Last edited by Gorilla4Sale; 10-09-2018 at 10:17 PM.
Reason: Again, anyone can make the data say what they want it to... Like the website you promote over and over
10-10-2018
, 12:18 AM
10-10-2018
, 03:31 AM
10-10-2018
, 07:20 AM
10-10-2018
, 01:11 PM
10-10-2018
, 02:14 PM