ITT we discuss the optimal diet: A Whole Food Plant Based Diet
10-01-2018
, 03:44 AM
Quote:
I appreciate the recipes and I do love oatmeal but after putting those ingredients in my calorie counter it comes out at 1508 calories just for breakfast
Rather a lot more than my standard oatmeal breakfast with fruit and chia seeds, although it did have 48g of protein lol. Do you intermittent fast or something?
Rather a lot more than my standard oatmeal breakfast with fruit and chia seeds, although it did have 48g of protein lol. Do you intermittent fast or something?
It keeps me full for around 4-6 hours. I must admit, when I eat I never think about calories, carbs, protein, fat, etc. I just try my best to make sure the food I put in my mouth is health promoting and I just eat when I'm hungry and stop when I'm stuffed. As far as intermittent fasting, no I don't do it, but what little science I know about looks promising, if I had to guess I suspect a 16/8 fasting pattern would be close to optimal, but I don't know if I could ever have the discipline to execute it. I just love eating too much.
10-01-2018
, 04:20 AM
One of the beautiful things about a plant based diet is you actually end up eating more than you did on SAD, pound for pound, and you still end up losing weight without even trying. This phenomenon ends up not being surprising when you couple it with this fact: people who eat meat tend to be fatter than those who don't even when caloric intake is the same!
Meat & Weight Gain:
Quote:
"Meat is considered fattening due to its caloric density and fat content, but nuts are also packed with calories and fat. As I noted in a previous post, Nuts Don’t Cause Expected Weight Gain, so maybe we shouldn’t presume. As you can see in my 3-min. video Meat and Weight Gain in the PANACEA Study, one of the largest nutrition studies ever performed put the question of meat and weight gain to the test.
Not only was meat consumption significantly associated with weight gain in both men and women, the link remained even after controlling for calories. That means if you have two people eating the same amount of calories, the person eating the most meat would gain more weight. The researchers even calculated how much more and which meat was associated with the most weight gain above and beyond the caloric content.
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!"
Not only was meat consumption significantly associated with weight gain in both men and women, the link remained even after controlling for calories. That means if you have two people eating the same amount of calories, the person eating the most meat would gain more weight. The researchers even calculated how much more and which meat was associated with the most weight gain above and beyond the caloric content.
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!"
10-01-2018
, 05:29 AM
10-01-2018
, 09:40 AM
Quote:
N D Barnard, A R Scialli, G Turner-McGrievy, A J Lanou, J Glass. The effects of a low-fat, plant-based dietary intervention on body weight, metabolism, and insulin sensitivity. Am J Med. 2005 Sep;118(9):991-7.
Quote:
RESULTS: Mean 6 standard deviation intervention-group body weight decreased 5.8 6 3.2 kg,
compared with 3.8 6 2.8 kg in the control group (P 5 .012). In a regression model of predictors of
weight change, including diet group and changes in energy intake, thermic effect of food, resting
metabolic rate, and reported energy expenditure, significant effects were found for diet group (P , .05),
thermic effect of food (P , .05), and resting metabolic rate (P , .001). An index of insulin sensitivity
increased from 4.6 6 2.9 to 5.7 6 3.9 (P 5 .017) in the intervention group, but the difference between
groups was not significant (P 5 .17).
CONCLUSION: Adoption of a low-fat, vegan diet was associated with significant weight loss in
overweight postmenopausal women, despite the absence of prescribed limits on portion size or energy
intake.
compared with 3.8 6 2.8 kg in the control group (P 5 .012). In a regression model of predictors of
weight change, including diet group and changes in energy intake, thermic effect of food, resting
metabolic rate, and reported energy expenditure, significant effects were found for diet group (P , .05),
thermic effect of food (P , .05), and resting metabolic rate (P , .001). An index of insulin sensitivity
increased from 4.6 6 2.9 to 5.7 6 3.9 (P 5 .017) in the intervention group, but the difference between
groups was not significant (P 5 .17).
CONCLUSION: Adoption of a low-fat, vegan diet was associated with significant weight loss in
overweight postmenopausal women, despite the absence of prescribed limits on portion size or energy
intake.
Quote:
The study was funded by The Cancer Project, Washington, DC.
Seems legit.
10-01-2018
, 03:38 PM
10-01-2018
, 07:43 PM
10-01-2018
, 08:41 PM
Quote:
What if we really do not want to live to 100? What's wrong with living until 85 and eating meat? Why not 85 years of carnivore living and then cash out? What joy are those extra 15 years going to bring you vs 85 years of steak, bacon, and wings?
Yesterday was a family wild game dinner. Salmon, turkey, grouse, and goose. Stuff was fantastic. If it cost me a few minutes at the end of my life, it was worth it.
Yesterday was a family wild game dinner. Salmon, turkey, grouse, and goose. Stuff was fantastic. If it cost me a few minutes at the end of my life, it was worth it.
What you bring up does need to be addressed given how often I hear this type of argument. The biggest problem with your outlook is your conception of aging is--understandably--way off. On the SAD diet, yes people typically age horribly spending the last 10-20 years of one's life in and out of hospitals, getting nightmare surgeries with excruciatingly painful recoveries, on dialysis machines, etc, and even the lucky ones who can avoid the surgeries still end up on a plethora of medications with too many side effects to think about.
This is not how the typical end game plays out for those eating predominantly plant based:
The goal really is not just to live longer. It's about extending quality of life. So it's not about living in our 90s+. It's about skipping in our 90s+, and we have a big giant clue on how to do that:
Now the other misconception thats imbedded in your thought process is this idea that it takes a ton of sacrifice/discipline to eat WFPB. Here's the thing. It's just food we're talking about. We can get used to eating anything. I had an awesome time eating SAD. I loved my pizza, egg and cheese omelets, and an occasional juicy steak. Now I eat WFPB, and guess what, I still love eating. The difference of course is now it's not an unrequited love. Now the food I eat loves me back instead of slowly destroying me. That's a wonderful peace of mind man. Believe me when I tell you this, if this diet was hard I would never do it. I don't have that kind of will power. This diet is not hard and it's actually fun!! The key tho is the transition period is a *****. It's annoying having to learn how to shop all over again, and having to chop up veggies more often, and generally preparing more of your meals. But once you catch your rhythm and you see and feel the results, and you lose some unwanted weight to boot, you may never turn back.
10-01-2018
, 10:18 PM
That's actually the most uninteresting outlook of all becuz it is the most common outlook. Most people view aging the same way, like a slow motion nightmare where the last so many years of their lives are generally miserable. And of course the sick part is they are correct. In our society the last so many years DO suck, but they don't have to, or to be more conservative, we can do things that dramatically change our odds of experiencing the ravages of aging. There's even a term for this. It's called squaring the curve.
This video from the 54:45 mark to 58:30 talks about this concept.
We have the power to change our destiny just by what we put in our mouths:
Don't worry about calories. Just make sure every calorie counts. Make sure every calorie you eat comes with fiber and antioxidants attached to it. No empty/disease causing calories.
Source.
Eat healthy fiber rich food, I.E. eat plants, and the stretch receptors of your stomach will now start to work normally. You will feel satisfied and full way more often. And then you can just trust nature and eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full not worrying about how many calories you consume. As long as you go against your nature eating foods that your body doesn't metabolize well/stomach stretch receptors don't register well (meat, dairy, eggs, oils, white flour, pepsi, etc), you're gonna be in a constant battle for the rest of your life feeling compelled to count calories just to try to control the uncontrollable. There is a better and more sane way to try to get control over matters. And besides, I don't remember the stats but don't almost all diets based on calorie counting and portion control fail in the long run? Again, there has to be a better way.
This video from the 54:45 mark to 58:30 talks about this concept.
We have the power to change our destiny just by what we put in our mouths:
Don't worry about calories. Just make sure every calorie counts. Make sure every calorie you eat comes with fiber and antioxidants attached to it. No empty/disease causing calories.
Quote:
The largest study ever comparing obesity rates found regular meat eaters topped the charts with an average body mass index (BMI) of 28.8—close to being obese. Flexitarians, who ate meat more on a weekly basis rather than daily, did better at a BMI of 27.3, but were still overweight. With a BMI of 26.3, pesco-vegetarians (people avoiding all meat except fish) did better still. Even U.S. vegetarians were marginally overweight, coming in at 25.7. The only dietary group found to be of ideal weight were those eating strictly plant-based (the “vegans”), whose BMI averaged 23.6.
At issue isn’t only the number of calories, but where those calories come from. A dietary quality index was developed that simply reflects the percentage of calories people derive from nutrient-rich, unprocessed plant foods on a scale of 0 to 100. The higher the score, the more body fat may be lost over time and the lower the risk may be of abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The standard American diet was found to rate 11 out of 100. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, 32 percent of our calories comes from animal foods, 57 percent from processed plant foods, and only 11 percent from whole grains, beans, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.
With whole-food, plant-based eating, there may be no need for portion control or counting calories because most plant foods are naturally nutrient dense and low in calories. Moreover, calorie for calorie, those eating plant-based appear to get higher intakes of fiber, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium, and A, C, E, and B vitamins.
EPIC-PANACEA, the largest study ever to investigate eating meat and body weight, found meat consumption was associated with significant weight gain even after adjusting for calories, meaning if two people ate the same number of calories, the person eating more meat might, on average, gain significantly more weight.
At issue isn’t only the number of calories, but where those calories come from. A dietary quality index was developed that simply reflects the percentage of calories people derive from nutrient-rich, unprocessed plant foods on a scale of 0 to 100. The higher the score, the more body fat may be lost over time and the lower the risk may be of abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The standard American diet was found to rate 11 out of 100. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, 32 percent of our calories comes from animal foods, 57 percent from processed plant foods, and only 11 percent from whole grains, beans, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.
With whole-food, plant-based eating, there may be no need for portion control or counting calories because most plant foods are naturally nutrient dense and low in calories. Moreover, calorie for calorie, those eating plant-based appear to get higher intakes of fiber, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium, and A, C, E, and B vitamins.
EPIC-PANACEA, the largest study ever to investigate eating meat and body weight, found meat consumption was associated with significant weight gain even after adjusting for calories, meaning if two people ate the same number of calories, the person eating more meat might, on average, gain significantly more weight.
Eat healthy fiber rich food, I.E. eat plants, and the stretch receptors of your stomach will now start to work normally. You will feel satisfied and full way more often. And then you can just trust nature and eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full not worrying about how many calories you consume. As long as you go against your nature eating foods that your body doesn't metabolize well/stomach stretch receptors don't register well (meat, dairy, eggs, oils, white flour, pepsi, etc), you're gonna be in a constant battle for the rest of your life feeling compelled to count calories just to try to control the uncontrollable. There is a better and more sane way to try to get control over matters. And besides, I don't remember the stats but don't almost all diets based on calorie counting and portion control fail in the long run? Again, there has to be a better way.
10-01-2018
, 11:06 PM
10-02-2018
, 12:15 AM
Quote:
"The largest study in history of those eating plant-based diets recently compared the nutrient profiles of about 30,000 non-vegetarians to 20,000 vegetarians, and about 5,000 vegans, flexitarians, and no meat except fish-eaters, allowing us to finally put to rest the perennial question, “Do vegetarians get enough protein?” The average requirement is 42 grams of protein a day. Non-vegetarians get way more than they need, and so does everyone else. On average, vegetarians and vegans get 70% more protein than they need every day.
Surprising that there’s so much fuss about protein in this country when less than 3% of adults don’t make the cut—presumably folks on extreme calorie-restricted diets who just aren’t eating enough food, period. But 97% of Americans get enough protein."
Surprising that there’s so much fuss about protein in this country when less than 3% of adults don’t make the cut—presumably folks on extreme calorie-restricted diets who just aren’t eating enough food, period. But 97% of Americans get enough protein."
96% of people in this country don't eat enough greens. 96% don't get enough beans. 99% don't eat enough whole grains. Almost 5 million people on this planet die each year simply cuz they don't eat enough ****ing fruit!!! 97% of Americans don't get enough fiber, which has major health considerations when you ponder the fact that some evidence suggests we evolved to eat around 100 grams a day!
More on Fiber:
Quote:
There is a nutrient, though, for which 97% of Americans are deficient. Now, that’s a problem nutrient. That’s something we really have to work on. Less than 3% of Americans get even the recommended minimum adequate intake of fiber. So, the question isn’t “Where do you get your protein?” but “Where do you get your fiber?” We only get about 15 grams a day. The minimum daily requirement is 31.5, so we get less than half the minimum. If you break it down by age and gender, after studying the diets of 12,761 Americans, the percentage of men between ages 14 and 50 getting the minimum adequate intake? Zero.
“This deficit is stunning in that dietary fiber has been [protectively] associated…with the risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease…, obesity, and various cancers as well as…high cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood [sugars]. Therefore, it is not surprising that fiber is [now] listed as a nutrient of concern in the…Dietary Guidelines…” Protein is not.
“One problem is that most people have no idea what’s in their food; more than half of Americans think steak is a significant fiber source.”
By definition, fiber is only found in plants. There is no fiber in meat, dairy, or eggs, and little or no fiber in junk food. Therein lies the problem. Americans should be eating more beans, vegetables, fruits, whole grains—how are we doing on that? Well, 96% of Americans don’t eat the minimum recommended daily amount of beans, 96% don’t eat the measly minimum for greens. 99% don’t get enough whole grains. Look at these numbers. Nearly the entire U.S. population fails to eat enough whole plant foods. And, it’s not getting any better; a “lack of progress [that’s] disappointing.”
Even semi-vegetarians, though, make the minimum for fiber. And those eating completely plant-based diets triple the average American intake. Now, when closing the fiber gap, you’ll want to do it gradually, no more than about five extra grams of fiber a day each week, until you can work your way up.
But it’s worth it. “Plant-derived diets tend to contribute significantly less fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and [foodborne pathogens], while at the same time offering more fiber, folate, vitamin C, and phytochemicals…all essential factors for disease prevention, and optimal health and well-being.”
And, the more whole plant foods, the better. If you compare the nutritional quality of “vegan [vs.] vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diets, traditional healthy diet-indexing systems, like compliance with the dietary guidelines, consistently indicate the most plant-based diet as “the most healthy one.”
“This deficit is stunning in that dietary fiber has been [protectively] associated…with the risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease…, obesity, and various cancers as well as…high cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood [sugars]. Therefore, it is not surprising that fiber is [now] listed as a nutrient of concern in the…Dietary Guidelines…” Protein is not.
“One problem is that most people have no idea what’s in their food; more than half of Americans think steak is a significant fiber source.”
By definition, fiber is only found in plants. There is no fiber in meat, dairy, or eggs, and little or no fiber in junk food. Therein lies the problem. Americans should be eating more beans, vegetables, fruits, whole grains—how are we doing on that? Well, 96% of Americans don’t eat the minimum recommended daily amount of beans, 96% don’t eat the measly minimum for greens. 99% don’t get enough whole grains. Look at these numbers. Nearly the entire U.S. population fails to eat enough whole plant foods. And, it’s not getting any better; a “lack of progress [that’s] disappointing.”
Even semi-vegetarians, though, make the minimum for fiber. And those eating completely plant-based diets triple the average American intake. Now, when closing the fiber gap, you’ll want to do it gradually, no more than about five extra grams of fiber a day each week, until you can work your way up.
But it’s worth it. “Plant-derived diets tend to contribute significantly less fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and [foodborne pathogens], while at the same time offering more fiber, folate, vitamin C, and phytochemicals…all essential factors for disease prevention, and optimal health and well-being.”
And, the more whole plant foods, the better. If you compare the nutritional quality of “vegan [vs.] vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diets, traditional healthy diet-indexing systems, like compliance with the dietary guidelines, consistently indicate the most plant-based diet as “the most healthy one.”
Why is everyone so preoccupied with protein given all the real problems above!? I mean you basically have to starve yourself to get deficient in protein and yet that's all everyone can think about. And if this misapplied obsession wasn't bad enough, it actually ends up literally being a sick joke on everyone given that the kind of protein people are usually obsessed with causes inflammation and disease, and makes us fatter, causes cancer and diabetes, ages you faster, and kills you quicker.
Last edited by ILOVEPOKER929; 10-02-2018 at 12:21 AM.
10-02-2018
, 12:53 AM
10-02-2018
, 01:01 AM
Funny video, I'm glad you posted it
That said, I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here but isn't it funny how eating meat is so strongly linked with being macho and manly when it literally makes our dick limp, makes us more likely to be infertile and lowers our sperm count, gives us prostate cancer, maybe even penis cancer, alzheimers, colon cancer, lowers testosterone and hurts libido. And of course makes us fatter, gives us diabetes, and heart disease. None of that seems very manly to me.
BTW in the new documentary The Game Changers they actually measured the erections of college students after eating meat vs eating plants. They talk about it here:
That said, I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here but isn't it funny how eating meat is so strongly linked with being macho and manly when it literally makes our dick limp, makes us more likely to be infertile and lowers our sperm count, gives us prostate cancer, maybe even penis cancer, alzheimers, colon cancer, lowers testosterone and hurts libido. And of course makes us fatter, gives us diabetes, and heart disease. None of that seems very manly to me.
BTW in the new documentary The Game Changers they actually measured the erections of college students after eating meat vs eating plants. They talk about it here:
10-02-2018
, 02:05 AM