You know what I mean; contrariness is contextual.

Anyway, if you're comfortable with the position that nutritional science from hundreds of years ago or even decades ago is equally valid and informative as current nutritional science, go for it.

I'm sure there is a medication for that.

so raising a baby we run into all sorts of info about how allergies are often the result of NOT introducing foods to your child early.

blows my mind.

No. But I'm pretty convinced I have a low-level wheat sensitivity based on symptoms.

I am also very sensitive to sugar and starch - I get reactive hypoglycemia (confirmed by a "glucose tolerance test"). This often leads to worsening blood sugar regulation over time. Indeed over the years my A1c was creeping up. And it was the latter that got me on a tear to study wtf is going on wrt nutrition.

Right now I'm addressing that and other minor issues ... heightened sensitivity to sugar and starch is often correlated with excessive blood iron, for example. (Other) food sensitivity testing is lower down the list, because my hs-CRP numbers (a marker for inflammation) is pretty low with my present low-gluten low-starch diet.

BTW for a while I did a lot of blood glucose testing, after meals, etc.

Starch is bad for me, so is beer. Fortunately gimlets and margaritas made with Stevia are nowhere as bad.

Several years ago when I would get a Jamba Juice for lunch, I would have serious sugar crashes in the afternoon. My blood sugar would tank down south of 70 or so (coworker with the diabeetus was helpful and had a meter handy).

Man that sucked. I'm still occasionally sensitive to junky meals but not nearly as bad as back then.

I do feel bloated and gross after carby meals. If there is a dinner option that includes carby starches, I'll usually either have a teeny portion or skip it. I'm trying to convince my wife to do the same because she frequently goes from fine to OMG HUNGRY TIME and seems to have issues regulating her blood sugar. She is still of the mind set that carbs are a significant portion of a meal. I usually don't prepare them and I usually make dinner. winner!

Only carbs I must have are potatoes and pasta/rice. Everything else I can do without. I try to limit pasta and rice though, and potatoes are pretty frequent, but in small portions. About to have some bolognese on some pasta. That'll be my only carbs of the day.

I am comfortable with that position, given that no actual hard science exists to refute it.

The current pop-sci trend towards the vilification of carbohydrates / grains / etc is essentially the result of an over-broad interpretation of clinical data concerning individuals with specific metabolic deficiencies which render them uniquely less able to process certain foods than a normal person.

This would really be no different than claiming nobody should drink milk based on the fact that in certain specific individuals (those who are deficient in the enzyme lactase), consumption of dairy products results in various digestive unpleasantnesses. Or that nobody should eat foods high in sucrose, because some people (those who have diabetes) cannot properly regulate their own blood sugar.

In other words, it doesn't matter how old the research is, if the only "facts" which contradict it are actually based on speculation, hysteria, slick marketing and misrepresentation of data for the purpose of selling self-help books and "lifestyle coaching."


Fun fact: diets high in animal protein are positively correlated with compensatory hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, key predictors of the development of Type 2 diabetes. (This is supported by actual science, not magazine articles.)

LOLOLOL

Okay.

there's no good reason for humans to drink milk after toddlerhood. for one, why should a mammal be inextricably tied to drinking the nursing milk of another mammal?

Who says? Are you implying that because it's not natural by other mammals that it is harmful or couldn't hold benefits? Not trying to say it's good, just asking why you say that. There are plenty of things that we do that aren't natural, or aren't like our ancestors did, but that doesn't mean that they lived better and healthier than we did.

Fun fact explained: the "actual science" behind your claim failed to distinguish between healthy sources of animal protein, and unhealthy sources of animal protein.

Conclusion: eat red meat and don't eat processed meats if you don't want diabetes. Yay!

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of i... [Circulation. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Ultimately, everyone is generalizing peoples specific dietary needs. We aren't assembly line manufactured machines. What works well for one person might kill another.

Ummm...it taste yummy.

Inextricably tied? That's like saying that I'm inextricably tied to good beer and cheap whiskey. I drink them because I enjoy them.

One of the advantages of being at the top of the food chain is that you can harvest the bodily secretions of pretty much any animal you want. Take honey, for instance. It's basically a thick pus that comes out of a bee's ass. It requires a lot of work to get, and the nutritional value isn't all that spectacular.

But it tastes good on biscuits.

Mmmm, ass pus.

Why cant people just make this so much simpler.

If you cannot tell how it's made don;t eat it.

If you cannot guess most of the core ingredients dont eat it.

Lift big,
Eat big,
Get big.

Easy.

Dann

Lift normal
eat big
stay about the same

You mean eat big lift normal get fat?

Dann

Not in my case anyway.

If I eat any less I lose weight. Which means going to the gym to get big will be pointless. It was extremely hard for me to get to where I am now (5'9", 160lbs), and Im by no means fat. I had to scarf down food to the point of nausea multiple times a day. My metabolism is annoying.

I was ~130 pounds for years.

Basically my point is what works for you isn't going to work for everyone, as has been stated.

Then you aren't eating big.

Dann

You aren;t a special snowflake, almost nobody on the planet is.

If you eat more you will get bigger.

GOMAD diet :)

Dann

Wasn't saying I was special, but I don't put on pounds easily, fat or muscle.

Yes you do.

Eat more.

Dann

Oh okay, I guess you know better than me... trust me, I do. No one I know can come close to matching my insatiable need for food. In high school my average lunch was 3 of 4 slices of pizza (good pizza, I went to an awesome high school with a food court), cheese fries, two chocolate milks, and usually an ice cream candy bar or some other type of snack cake. That was after eating a big breakfast, and then eating huge amounts of food for dinner. I am still the reigning king of sloppy joes in my family. I easily finished off a pack of 8 burger buns one night by myself. How I'm not 400lb with diabetes is beyond me. It did temporarily catch up to me at one point when I got super lazy, but even then I only put on 20 pounds over my normal, and lost it easily enough and lost 40 more pounds in 9 months to my lowest weight since high school, which was about 140. My average is 165-175 at 6'

I see you know more about him than he does as well. Not everyone works like you think they should.

:rofl:

Damn. Wish I knew about the gallon of milk thing before I nauseated myself with so much solid food for 4 months straight. Now I'm just trying to maintain the same % of body fat while gaining muscle. Until I feel like cutting anyway.

Keeping up with my ridiculous appetite has become as expensive as maintaining a turbo Miata lol

Yes they do Jesse.

People who are built like rakes who claim to not be able to get bigger are identical to people who are built like whales but claim to not be able to lose weight.

You may have a faster metabolism, you may have both a fast metabolism AND burn a lot of energy day to day, but the answer remains the same.

Eat more. Everyone works the same way.

Eat more. How is this even remotely complicated?

This kind of BS is all over fitness forums. People who come on and they are like "well I dont eat much but I'm still fat". They get get told to count calories accurately, and they go "I do, I do. Today I ate this and this and this."

'Did you eat any other snacks?'

"Just a salad and ham sandwich and some orange juice"

Fucking 1500 extra calories later which 'I didn't think counted because that's healthy' And they still act like they have no idea why they aren't losing weight.

Track your calories day to day without changing anything, then eat more than that.

Dann

The most efficient way to get bulked and cut is to do exactly that, bulk, and then cut.

Forget keeping the exact same BF% while bulking, and anyone who is so self conscious they want to bulk AND cut at the same time is dreaming.

Again this is all over fitness forums. It doesnt work and stop trying to do it.

Eat big, lift big, get big, then cut the extra 3-5% BF you gained while putting one 15lb of muscle.

Dann

If you are going to neg prop me for telling you if you eat more you will get bigger at least refute it.

Dann

A caloric surplus obviously means you will put on weight. But I'd rather build muscle slowly than get fat. I refuse to be fat, ever. I bulked to fill out my puny frame, and I am happy with my gains so far. I'm not cutting, but I'm not stuffing my face like I was before. I don't see the need to get any fatter. I was probably putting down 6000 to 7000 calories a day at that point.

and lol I didn't neg prop you.

and for the record there have been plenty of guys who get decently big without putting on a lot of BF

I know, Jesse did.

What I am saying is that if you want results the answers ARE there. Almost everyone knows what they are, and those that refute them are almost ALWAYS ones who claim that they are special snowflakes.

If you are happy with your size then do what you are doing, but those who are built like pic related are often on about how they refuse to simply get bigger, they must drop fat and gain muscle and of course this is so hard that most inevitably fail.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1380959401

Dann

You are one hairy motherfucker.

And I have that exact same lamp from Ikea.

http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10139879/

Well of course, but there comes a point when you just can't or shouldn't eat any more. Back in the day I was easily averaging 5000-6000 calories a day, if not a bit more. To pile ever more intake on top of that couldn't have been good. Of course everyone can gain weight by eating more, but there are more underlying health risks with the types of food, and the amount that you are eating. I could have put another 1000-1500 calories on top of that, but I would be walking around feeling bloated as fuck all of the time.

And who is neg proping you? Not I.

Do you bring any fucking facts to the table here Dann? No I didn't. I don't like false accusations.

I didn't say eat less. I said eat fewer meals. Is it possible for you to squeeze the same amount of food into 4 instead of 5 meals?

P.S. Before answering you I forgot to ask "what problem are you trying to solve?"
P.P.S. going at least 5 hours between meals (zero snacks) allows insulin to go down to baseline and improves insulin and/or leptin resistance. I don't know if someone like you has any of either.
P.P.P.S. Some skinny people do have leptin (but not insulin) resistance, but I don't know too many details.

Let's also not forget that current body composition, eating patterns, and even gut flora play a massive role in how efficiently your body processes those calories. There is some truth to fat people feeling like they eat the same amount as some skinny guy but they stay fat and the skinny guy stays skinny.

Well, look at that. The federal nutrition research over the last 40 years may be bunk.

40 years of federal nutrition research fatally flawed

brb going to call the pushers of HFCS

To summarize the article:

"When surveyed, a lot of people misreport their caloric intake."


Fortunately, this doesn't render all nutritional research conducted over the past 40 years invalid, only that part of it which was based principally on self-reporting surveys rather than clinical research.

And let's be honest, we all intuitively knew that was the case anyway. When surveyed, people mis-report damned near everything- their discretionary income, the number of past sexual partners they've had, the amount of time they spend watching television, their childrens' class ranking, their influence over purchasing decisions at work, their favorite character in My Little Pony, etc.

I think I ate half a wheel of bri yesterday, lolol.

Sure, in general...which is why survey data like that shouldn't be used to form nutritional guidelines without some way of correcting or adjusting for self-reporting bias. If you specifically knew that NHANES data was invalid, then you probably should have spoken up.

And this invalid data does affect the national health culture and inform the official nutritional guidelines.

Someone should break the news to Ian Spreadbury that his research isn't science because science has already told us to just eat moderate amounts of everything and everything will be fine.

Comparison with ancestral diets suggests dense acellular carbohydrates promote an inflammatory microbiota, and may be the primary dietary cause of leptin resistance and obesity

Another link... problems with wheat:
Episode #176 - Full Transcript | Ben Greenfield Fitness

What I fail to understand is how faults in the validity of data used to produce statistics affects the underlying validity of recommendations such as (to quote the excerpt): "eat less and exercise more."

Towards the goal of weight loss, improved BMI, etc., that advice remains valid and stands on its own regardless of any offsets or biases in self-reporting data.


Consider the following: Let's say that I survey a thousand people with the questions "Do you smoke, and if so, how much do you smoke per day?"

And let's say that, on average, people under-report their smoking by 50%. So I publish a report saying that "15% of Americans smoke on a daily basis, and on average, consume 10 cigarettes per day." This data turns out to be wrong, because in reality, 30% of Americans smoke on a daily basis, and on average, consume 20 cigarettes per day.

This does not change the validity of my advice that, if you want to decrease your risk of cancer and heart disease, you should stop smoking.

There's a million ways achieve weight loss, improved BMI, etc.

Use cocaine
Smoke cigarettes
Host a parasite
Throw up after meals
Eat only McDonald's as long as you maintain a caloric deficit


The issue is not that we can't figure out how to lose weight; the issue is that those various methods all fall onto a continuum in terms of health, efficiency, sustainability (speaking in terms of personal goals, not global ecology), and so on.

No one is disputing that maintaining enough of a caloric deficit will lose weight; the question is whether that advice leads to the most successful outcomes in terms of those other goals (health, efficiency, etc.).

When you consider the nutritional paradigm in terms of a fuller set of goals, then it becomes quite important what kind of data you are using to support your theory. And if invalid data is lending greater support to one particular method of weight loss, then the whole paradigm needs to be reexamined in light of valid data.

"eat less exercise more"

One's appetite (or lack thereof) will prevent over-eating if the bodyfat regulation mechanism is working properly. What breaks it is decades of excessive starch consumption causing repeated blood sugar spikes which causes *insulin resistance*.

Lab mice can be made to starve to death even with a lot of bodyfat. Their bodies preferentially consume lean body mass and leave their bodyfat alone.

Lab mice can also be fed the same # of calories but different food, and have the same toys available, but one group will become sedentary and fat while the other active and lean. Nobody is telling the mice to exercise.

The causality is backwards. It's not that eating less and exercising more makes you thin. It's that the factors that cause obesity, cause you to eat more and exercise less.

So, just to verify that I understand you correctly; You're saying that, all else being equal, if I reduce my caloric intake by eating less, and increase my caloric expenditure by exercising more, and make no other changes to my diet or lifestyle, that I will NOT lose weight. Correct?

Not what I'm saying. Being able to easily reduce your caloric intake is a strong function of your bodyfat setpoint. If you starve yourself you will lose weight. But if you have excess fat and you lower your bodyfat setpoint, your appetite will reduce and you will effortlessly lose fat - i.e. you won't be hungry and miserable as you lose weight.

The Swedes get it.

Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition | Health Impact News

...only took em 40 years...

I lol'd IRL.

I just ate a huge bag of flaming hot cheetos. Am I doing it right?

Are you guys Quinoa racists as well?

That's become one our lunch staples:

Quinoa
Grilled chicken
Kalamata olives
cherry tomatoes
parsley
all tossed in lemon/garlic/olive oil

This article basically sums up my opinions and thoughts about content-specific dieting:

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

Wait, you're saying that if you consume fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight?

Blasphemy.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1385947443

Yay, starving yourself with shitty foods makes you lose weight, and losing weight will improve certain "health" markers because being skinny is generally healthier than being fat.

Who cares?

In case you missed my explanation. The system of hormones Leptin, Insulin, and Ghrelin *make* you eat less (or more) and make you expend more (or less) calories. Yes you can override it, (e.g. by starving yourself, or by force-feeding yourself), but you will lose lean mass and/or be less healthy.