ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:14 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:26 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7489
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
anandsr21 wrote:
I am trying to increase fruits and raw vegetables in my diet, to reduce oxidative stress, and giving rest to my adrenals, but I don't feel like eating them much, so I don't know if that is really healthy.
Huh?

What does "giving rest to my adrenals" mean? This sounds silly to me. Should I give rest to my other endocrine organs as well? Maybe I should stop producing thyroxin for a few days every once in a while. Or maybe back off on insulin. Those parathyroids are hard-working little guys--they deserve some time off too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:37 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
As Callipygian pointed out some of my issues, I'll talk about this one:

Quote:
In my opinion, you are making the claim here, that somehow the energy that you consume as carbs, disappears. My contention is that it does not disappear it gets stored. Do you mind telling us where that energy goes, if it does not get stored. It cannot simply disappear.


Energy doesn't disappear, I never said it does. I said that it doesn't get stored as fat.

Carbohydrates, when consumed, increase carbohydrate oxidation. This hinders fat oxidation, causing dietary fat that is consumed to be stored instead of used for energy.

This is the reason the 'broscience' of not mixing carbs and fats in a single meal came around. What they didn't realize is that even if the carbs/fats are at together and the fat is stored - the fat is released later for energy once the carbs are gone anyways - so it really has no effect.

Your body doesn't want to convert amino acids to glucose and it doesn't want to convert glucose to fat. The only time amino acids are turned to glucose is when you're on a low-carb diet - however, it will use dietary amino acids a long time before it uses muscle and organ proteins.

The only time glucose is converted to fat is when you're hypocaloric, otherwise it simply hinders fat oxidation (Which is why some people prefer low-carb), however, at the end of the day the only thing that matters for *weight loss* is a caloric deficit.

Obviously, your macro breakdowns are going to affect the *quality* of weight loss - but rarely do carbs actually go through DNL, especially in physically active normal adults.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Quote:
Gluconeogenesis is very thermogenic. It is possibly the reason why Carnivores don't have much brains, even though they have simpler guts. Read the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis and Klieber's law.


What? We practically ARE carnivores. Look at a comparison of digestive systems. The denatured protein of cooked meat in early hominids actually had a lot to do with us developing better brains.


Quote:
I have tried to find the papers involved, but my opinions have been formed over the years, and have not been able to find much of the papers involved. I do go more logically than by studies. If it makes sense to me, as in it does not contradict anything that I know then I am more likely to accept it. I am not rigorous about it. But I think I have them essentially right.


That is the problem right there. Confirmation bias is a good way to be wrong about a great many things. Not that you are wrong about everything. Some of your opinions are correct. However you say a lot of other things that kill your credibility.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
NightFaLL wrote:
As Callipygian pointed out some of my issues, I'll talk about this one:

Quote:
In my opinion, you are making the claim here, that somehow the energy that you consume as carbs, disappears. My contention is that it does not disappear it gets stored. Do you mind telling us where that energy goes, if it does not get stored. It cannot simply disappear.


Energy doesn't disappear, I never said it does. I said that it doesn't get stored as fat.

Carbohydrates, when consumed, increase carbohydrate oxidation. This hinders fat oxidation, causing dietary fat that is consumed to be stored instead of used for energy.

This is the reason the 'broscience' of not mixing carbs and fats in a single meal came around. What they didn't realize is that even if the carbs/fats are at together and the fat is stored - the fat is released later for energy once the carbs are gone anyways - so it really has no effect.

Your body doesn't want to convert amino acids to glucose and it doesn't want to convert glucose to fat. The only time amino acids are turned to glucose is when you're on a low-carb diet - however, it will use dietary amino acids a long time before it uses muscle and organ proteins.

The only time glucose is converted to fat is when you're hypocaloric, otherwise it simply hinders fat oxidation (Which is why some people prefer low-carb), however, at the end of the day the only thing that matters for *weight loss* is a caloric deficit.

Obviously, your macro breakdowns are going to affect the *quality* of weight loss - but rarely do carbs actually go through DNL, especially in physically active normal adults.


That's not quite right either. You seem to go for a mix of science and conventional wisdom, where as Anandsr seems to go for a mix of science and some things that sound like he just made it up.

Glucose gets stored as fat any time you don't use it. The glucose gets turned into glycogen during carbohydrate metabolism. All excess glycogen goes to the liver where it is converted to fatty acids. Three fatty acids are bonded with glycerol to form a triglyceride. The triglycerides are stored in adipose tissue. The hormone that facilitates this is insulin, which is released in responses to glucose.


In a different post you stated only calories matter. However as digestion relies on hormones, that is not right. Hormones are required for the complex chemical reactions that occur during digestion. You can eat wood, which has an incredible number of calories, but as you can't digest wood, it's not going to do anything. Likewise an untreated type 1 diabetic can starve to death no matter how much food he eats. That just shows how important that hormone is in digestion. So ignoring it and other such factors in order to turn a series of complex chemical equations into an addition problem is just plain silly.

In fact, it is so complicated that there are things we don't even know yet. We figured out addition a long time ago. So how could there be stuff we don't know? Why do endocrinologists exist?

Now don't get me wrong, calories can matter in certain circumstances, but it's not the primary factor, let alone the only.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:44 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
Ironman wrote:
Quote:
Gluconeogenesis is very thermogenic. It is possibly the reason why Carnivores don't have much brains, even though they have simpler guts. Read the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis and Klieber's law.


What? We practically ARE carnivores. Look at a comparison of digestive systems. The denatured protein of cooked meat in early hominids actually had a lot to do with us developing better brains.


We are practically carnivores, but not obligate carnivores. We do not convert enough amino-acids to protein to survive just on muscle meat. There are strict limits to how much proteins we can digest safely.

To quote Cordain, using the known maximal rates of urea synthesis [65 mg N/h - kg (body weight )], “The mean maximal protein intake for the average weight U.S. male (189.4 lbs ) is then 270 g/day (range 233-322 g/day), and for an average weight female (162.8 lbs ), 246 g/day (range 208-288 g/day).”

[From Cordain L, The Evolutionary Basis for the Therapeutic Effects of High Protein Diets. Published in The Performance Menu as part of The Protein Debate between Cordain and T. Colin Campbell. I think you can still find this online.]

Also that is just producing glucose. If you are avoiding carbs, then you also want to avoid glucose, so high protein is not the way to go.

Secondly. We have 2-15 copies of AMY1 genes, while chimps have only 1-2. Why? It indicates that we are designed to consume starch.

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/p ... art-1.html

Quote:
Quote:
I have tried to find the papers involved, but my opinions have been formed over the years, and have not been able to find much of the papers involved. I do go more logically than by studies. If it makes sense to me, as in it does not contradict anything that I know then I am more likely to accept it. I am not rigorous about it. But I think I have them essentially right.


That is the problem right there. Confirmation bias is a good way to be wrong about a great many things. Not that you are wrong about everything. Some of your opinions are correct. However you say a lot of other things that kill your credibility.


English is not my first language, and I make mistakes.
I meant here is that I have seen these papers before but have not been able to find them now. There is much research done by Loren Cordain on these topics. But difficult to find them.

I understand about confirmation bias. I do know that I say many things that are more of a hunch, rather than confirmed things. The problem is that the research is going in the wrong direction. They have got it fixed that fat is bad and the whole research is being done to prove it. Also biological systems are much more complex and it is easier to confirm your biases.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:03 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
Jungledoc wrote:
anandsr21 wrote:
I am trying to increase fruits and raw vegetables in my diet, to reduce oxidative stress, and giving rest to my adrenals, but I don't feel like eating them much, so I don't know if that is really healthy.
Huh?

What does "giving rest to my adrenals" mean? This sounds silly to me. Should I give rest to my other endocrine organs as well? Maybe I should stop producing thyroxin for a few days every once in a while. Or maybe back off on insulin. Those parathyroids are hard-working little guys--they deserve some time off too.


So what would you do, put more pressure on it, by working out a lot and going very low carb.

There is a simple test to find out if thyroid/Adrenals are working well.
Its called Dr. Rind's Metabolic temperature graph. But it does not quantify it, and to doctors it does not mean anything.

You take temperature every day, 3 times a day, at 3, 6, 9 hours since waking. Be careful to keep the thermometer for 10 minutes as we want accuracy.

Then plot this on a graph. The ups and downs will indicate to you how your adrenal is behaving and the average will determine the health of thyroid. Variation of more than 0.3F is indicative of Adrenal issue. Mine varies 1.0F. The average below 98.4F is indicative of Thyroid issue. Mine is 98.6. If you see both issues then there is a chance of pituitary problems, as it drives both of them, but then there might be many more issues than just these two.

This is used when providing supplementation for these problems. Please read StopTheThyroidMadness.com website.
All the low adrenal symptoms that are listed on the site match with my symptoms. They are pretty similar to Thyroid, with small differences. Because Cortisol is required for cells to utilizing T3.

I am not only deficient in Cortisol, but also Aldosterone.
Whenever my temperature is low (which happens when I take a break after a stressful day), my blood pressure goes low. If I exercise and take a break the next day, my temperature and blood pressure goes low.
If I do a fast, same thing happens. If I go very low carb (which is almost like a fast), the same thing happens.

I do know that medical science does not recognize this condition. I suspect that is because there is no patentable drug on the market. There is no money to be made on this condition.

Unfortunately, I am not able to get a good doctor in India. The other problem is that the Saliva test is not available to pinpoint the low cortisol level, as a single test does nothing, and it varies over the day. You have to get 4 tests at different times, after waking up, mid-day, evening and before sleeping (around midnight).

So even though I know about the problem I can't do anything about it. It is risky to self medicate. It is also difficult to get the medicines without prescription. And supplementing cortisol is problematic if you are not careful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:14 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6323
Location: Halifax, NS
As long as you indicate where you are making an assumption or stating an opinion, that's valid and useful.

You're numbers on protein uptake sound reasonable and Cordain is certainly one of the experts in this area. Campbell is clearly out of his league. It's common to recommend protein consumption of 1 g/lb of BW as a good baseline for active weight trainers. This is well withing the limits that Cordain gives and it's clear that this level is beneficial and safe. The issue I have is that many top level body builder nutritionists advocate much higher levels for specific goals and it appears that Nightfall is following that type of protocol. (I had a debate about this with someone here and lost.) So my questiopn to you is, what is the actual danger of ingesting, say. 400g of protein for a few weeks? Assuming you get enough fat and fibre, what are the risks? BTW, I'm assuming that 70,15,15 is an unreasonable estimate as I don't think that it's achievable, but 50% protein is achievable and would take about 400g of protein.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:18 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Ironman wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:
As Callipygian pointed out some of my issues, I'll talk about this one:

Quote:
In my opinion, you are making the claim here, that somehow the energy that you consume as carbs, disappears. My contention is that it does not disappear it gets stored. Do you mind telling us where that energy goes, if it does not get stored. It cannot simply disappear.


Energy doesn't disappear, I never said it does. I said that it doesn't get stored as fat.

Carbohydrates, when consumed, increase carbohydrate oxidation. This hinders fat oxidation, causing dietary fat that is consumed to be stored instead of used for energy.

This is the reason the 'broscience' of not mixing carbs and fats in a single meal came around. What they didn't realize is that even if the carbs/fats are at together and the fat is stored - the fat is released later for energy once the carbs are gone anyways - so it really has no effect.

Your body doesn't want to convert amino acids to glucose and it doesn't want to convert glucose to fat. The only time amino acids are turned to glucose is when you're on a low-carb diet - however, it will use dietary amino acids a long time before it uses muscle and organ proteins.

The only time glucose is converted to fat is when you're hypocaloric, otherwise it simply hinders fat oxidation (Which is why some people prefer low-carb), however, at the end of the day the only thing that matters for *weight loss* is a caloric deficit.

Obviously, your macro breakdowns are going to affect the *quality* of weight loss - but rarely do carbs actually go through DNL, especially in physically active normal adults.


That's not quite right either. You seem to go for a mix of science and conventional wisdom, where as Anandsr seems to go for a mix of science and some things that sound like he just made it up.

Glucose gets stored as fat any time you don't use it. The glucose gets turned into glycogen during carbohydrate metabolism. All excess glycogen goes to the liver where it is converted to fatty acids. Three fatty acids are bonded with glycerol to form a triglyceride. The triglycerides are stored in adipose tissue. The hormone that facilitates this is insulin, which is released in responses to glucose.


In a different post you stated only calories matter. However as digestion relies on hormones, that is not right. Hormones are required for the complex chemical reactions that occur during digestion. You can eat wood, which has an incredible number of calories, but as you can't digest wood, it's not going to do anything. Likewise an untreated type 1 diabetic can starve to death no matter how much food he eats. That just shows how important that hormone is in digestion. So ignoring it and other such factors in order to turn a series of complex chemical equations into an addition problem is just plain silly.

In fact, it is so complicated that there are things we don't even know yet. We figured out addition a long time ago. So how could there be stuff we don't know? Why do endocrinologists exist?

Now don't get me wrong, calories can matter in certain circumstances, but it's not the primary factor, let alone the only.


Well, most of the information I've gotten was through a study I read + the articles about DNL on lyle mcdonald's site, so it's entirely possible the information I've got is off as I typically try to fact check from multiple sources.

Just, from what I've read, it typically DNL is not a significant source of fat synthesis in humans, more that it contributes through the blocking of fat oxidation.

As for the calories thing, I'm referring to the way we reference kcal when referring to humans. Tons of scientific evidence has shown that when it comes to losing weight - a caloric deficit is required (not counting glycogen/water loss).

Most low-carb or low-fat diets simply mask the caloric deficit by removing entire food groups and then saying 'eat as much as you want!' because they know the chances of you being able to eat at maintenance or higher while removing an entire food type is pretty low.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:19 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
callipygian50 wrote:
anandsr21 wrote:
I am 5'9", with 170pounds, nearly 25%body fat.

Are you a man or woman? Are you satisfied with that weight body fat percentage? I think that body fat is rather high for a man not quite so high for a woman. I'm a 50 year old woman and I'd like to get my body fat down to 24%, which, from what I understand, would be near the high side of the healthy range for women (and would be considered quite chubby for a guy.)

I am male. No, I am not happy with this state. But I cannot fix it, till I fix my adrenal problem. I cannot go very low carb, I get low blood pressure, fainting etc. I cannot do too much exercise (not that I have the time), same things happen. I had gone down to 160, then eased back up, because of the symptoms.

Quote:
anandsr21 wrote:
I do eat a lot of rice and legumes. It is just wheat, refined oils and sugary drinks that I avoid generally.

Paleo is a diet that I haven't read much about. Are rice and beans 'paleo'? Strikes me odd that a diet based on rice and beans would call itself paleo! I just don't imagine our paleolythic ancestors spending a lot of time in the rice paddies, or growing beans.


No I am not strict paleo. I live with my vegetarian wife. She is a cultural vegetarian, which is a different type than you are used to. She is attached to her foods. She is trying to fix some of the things as much as she can, but it will take a lot of time. Meanwhile I do eat what I cook, so I do take in a lot of rice, some lentils. Most of the time we prepare it in a traditional way, soaking fermentation and all. Its not ideal, but its not very bad either.

Quote:
Quote:
I am trying to increase fruits and raw vegetables in my diet, to reduce oxidative stress, and giving rest to my adrenals, but I don't feel like eating them much, so I don't know if that is really healthy.


The lady at our local health food store was trying to push some sort of coffee substitute and kept saying "adrenals". It sounded like some sort of incantation. Why do you think something is wrong with your adrenals? Do you think that's what's causing you to carry 25% body fat?

On the web page you link: Yes. Some people are gluten intolerant. My grandfather, a physician, diagnosed my sisters celiac as a baby. Back then you needed to do a biopsy of some sort. Now there is a blood test.

Celiac is a type of auto-immune disorder (i.e. allergy). If you have celiac, eating gluten is a problem. Otherwise, it's not. My sister becomes very ill if she eats gluten; I don't get ill.

Are you suggesting the fact that some people are allergic to gluten means other people shouldn't eat it? That's nonsense. Some people are allergic to peanuts: I'm not. I eat them. Some people are allergic to cats: I'm not. I live with 2. Some people are allergic to pollen: I'm not. The fact that some people are allergic to something doesn't make it poison.


I am not saying anything like that. I am just saying that there is quite a bit of science that shows that wheat is bad. I don't think Gluten is the real bad agent. It seems to me the worst offender is WGA, which most people don't know about. It damages the gut lining. A damaged gut lining is what allows gluten, casein, peanut proteins, etc to enter our blood system. Without a damaged gut lining it would not be a problem.

It also seems the recent strains of wheat are a bigger offender compared to older strains like Einkorn and emmer wheat. They don't have as much of an effect on celiacs.

If you were in a habit of cutting yourself, would you feel the pain. It is like when you are in a very smelly room, you don't smell it, but if you go out of the room and re-enter you will smell it for a small time.

Take the one month test. Get rid of all wheat for a month, and try to reintroduce, you will know the effects. If you don't get them, then you are practically immune to the problems. Some people maybe immune but they should be rare, from the looks of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:25 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
stuward wrote:
As long as you indicate where you are making an assumption or stating an opinion, that's valid and useful.

You're numbers on protein uptake sound reasonable and Cordain is certainly one of the experts in this area. Campbell is clearly out of his league. It's common to recommend protein consumption of 1 g/lb of BW as a good baseline for active weight trainers. This is well withing the limits that Cordain gives and it's clear that this level is beneficial and safe. The issue I have is that many top level body builder nutritionists advocate much higher levels for specific goals and it appears that Nightfall is following that type of protocol. (I had a debate about this with someone here and lost.) So my questiopn to you is, what is the actual danger of ingesting, say. 400g of protein for a few weeks? Assuming you get enough fat and fibre, what are the risks? BTW, I'm assuming that 70,15,15 is an unreasonable estimate as I don't think that it's achievable, but 50% protein is achievable and would take about 400g of protein.


Keep in mind, I'm doing 70/15/15 while dieting. I'm eating roughly 1500 calories on m/t/w then starting a carb load thur night/all day friday, then eating a mixed diet sat/sun at about 20% below maintenance (2500ish calories).

I probably couln't do 70/15/15 while bulking and it would be fairly worthless to do so, anyways.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4125/dailydiet.jpg

There's what my diet yesterday, looked like.

Protein pancakes are:

5 egg whites
2 scoops whey/casein 50/50 protein from trueprotein
1c splenda
3tbl spoons cocoa

Bam, deliciousness and a ton of pure protein. :O

Also, don't forget 10g of fish oil, which I don't bother to add in to my log cause it's a given for me.

I also used to eat roughly 3lbs of chicken breasts a day on this diet the first go-round before I figured out how to make protein pancakes ^_^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:27 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6323
Location: Halifax, NS
OK, for one day at a time 70,15,15 is sort of like a protein fast. I'll buy that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:49 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
NightFaLL wrote:
As for the calories thing, I'm referring to the way we reference kcal when referring to humans. Tons of scientific evidence has shown that when it comes to losing weight - a caloric deficit is required (not counting glycogen/water loss).


That is my beef with the epidemiological studies posing as research. Its very easy to fudge in epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies are not meant to provide proof for a phenomenon. They should only be used for creating hypothesis. Almost all of the tons of scientific evidence is epidemiological in nature, where they talk to the people.

Then you need double blinded, observational studies, where only one factor is changed. This is very expensive. And whenever (rarely) it has been done properly, they have come out with negative results. These are usually published with a misleading abstract, or pushed under the rug. The real problem is that the Government has aligned itself behind low fat paradigm. This means that most of the grants go to low fat research. Also Agricultural establishment prefers low fat research. This allows Crisco and other refined oil sellers to sell. Even dairy producers are happy, because they get to sell low fat milk and then sell the fat separately. If everybody drank full fat milk there would be little butter, for them to sell.

Do you know people who eat a lot, but don't gain any fat? How do you explain those guys. Don't say that they are an aberration. Calorie in calorie out is bunk. You need only a single guy not conforming to the theory to fail it. That is the strict criteria for theory. Otherwise it is just an hypothesis. Calorie in calorie out is just an hypothesis that works some of the time, particularly when you are trying to go against your body's predisposition. But then you have to be careful, because your body will adjust.
This is the theory behind cyclical eating patterns. You eat less calories less carbs, and then for some other time eat more calories more carbs. That way, you create a deficit. Its not a situation that stays for long unless your body accepts the reduced fat level.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:57 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:14 pm
Posts: 68
anandsr21 wrote:
... I had gone down to 160, then eased back up, because of the symptoms.

What are the symptoms? (I think Jungledoc already asked this.)

anandsr21 wrote:
No I am not strict paleo. I live with my vegetarian wife. She is a cultural vegetarian, which is a different type than you are used to.

I know lots of cultural vegetarians. Yes, people are attached to their foods. I am. It's one of the things that makes changing diets difficult.

anandsr21 wrote:
I am trying to increase fruits and raw vegetables in my diet, to reduce oxidative stress, and giving rest to my adrenals, but I don't feel like eating them much, so I don't know if that is really healthy.

I'm surprised to learn a cultural vegetarian wouldn't eat many fruits or veggies. But then the world is full of surprises. I don't think eating veggies raw is all that important, but nearly every diet published suggests more veggies. Eating too few is almost certainly unhealthy. ( I'm not buying your theory about your adrenals, btw.)


Quote:
I am not saying anything like that. I am just saying that there is quite a bit of science that shows that wheat is bad. I don't think Gluten is the real bad agent. It seems to me the worst offender is WGA, which most people don't know about. It damages the gut lining. A damaged gut lining is what allows gluten, casein, peanut proteins, etc to enter our blood system. Without a damaged gut lining it would not be a problem.

A lot? Is there any science in favor of this idea? I think this sounds like make up bunk used to sell more expensive grains.

Quote:
It also seems the recent strains of wheat are a bigger offender compared to older strains like Einkorn and emmer wheat. They don't have as much of an effect on celiacs.

First-- so what if something does or does not have an effect on celiacs? If you don't have celiac, this doesn't matter.

Quote:
If you were in a habit of cutting yourself, would you feel the pain. It is like when you are in a very smelly room, you don't smell it, but if you go out of the room and re-enter you will smell it for a small time.

Interesting analogy... but do you actually know anyone with celiac? They don't stop noticing the symptoms.


Quote:
Take the one month test. Get rid of all wheat for a month, and try to reintroduce, you will know the effects. If you don't get them, then you are practically immune to the problems. Some people maybe immune but they should be rare, from the looks of it.


Form me, this would be a heck of a lot of trouble and expense to just to indulge your odd theory. If you want to do this yourself, I have no problem with that. If you want to fund a large double blind experiment, go ahead. If you have any links to real literature, let me know. Meanwhile, I'm just going to believe your theories are similar to all the other weird made up diet theories I read in diet books.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:29 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
stuward wrote:
OK, for one day at a time 70,15,15 is sort of like a protein fast. I'll buy that.


Yeah, that's the idea. I'm not doing it long-term. The most days in a row that this is even recommended for someone at my bodyfat is 10-12 days - and that's with a ton of vitamin/mineral supplements to meet dietary needs.

That's the RFL/PSMF diet. This is just extreme carb cycling, I guess?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:45 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
anandsr21 wrote:
Do you know people who eat a lot, but don't gain any fat? How do you explain those guys.


Faster metabolism, more active both in a sedentary setting (foot tapping, etc.), more NEAT in general.

They simply burn more calories, or equal calories, than they eat.


Also, most 'hardgainers' don't eat nearly as much as they think. I'd love to see someone eat what I *want* to eat on a regular basis and not gain weight, it'd be physically impossible - I guarantee you that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group