Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
R.S.

Zero carb absurdity

http://zerocarbdaily.blogspot.com/2006/08/...-carb-myth.html

Seriously though, nevermind the science behind the fact that glucose is the bodies preferred energy source, the fact that carnivorous diets have no fiber, and the fact that human anatomy shows that we were meant to omnivores... carnivorous diets to me seem pretty funny with their myths. "Salad greens have no nutritional value" and "carbs from broccoli are the same as from a cookie" ? Okay Mr. Extremist-Fundamentalist, why don't you go fly a plane into a vegan's house while you're at it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://zerocarbdaily.blogspot.com/2006/08/...-carb-myth.html

Seriously though, nevermind the science behind the fact that glucose is the bodies preferred energy source, the fact that carnivorous diets have no fiber, and the fact that human anatomy shows that we were meant to omnivores... carnivorous diets to me seem pretty funny with their myths. "Salad greens have no nutritional value" and "carbs from broccoli are the same as from a cookie" ? Okay Mr. Extremist-Fundamentalist, why don't you go fly a plane into a vegan's house while you're at it?

Please summarize that article. Otherwise I'm leaning towards thinking this sounds like a MB post. Please don't go that route, your one of the few regular posters I actually like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I agree RS... the no-carb no-veg folks are insane... all one has to do is look at the history of man to be certain that we are meant to eat both animals and plants... However, your body can turn meat into glucose, just not as easily...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://zerocarbdaily.blogspot.com/2006/08/...-carb-myth.html

Seriously though, nevermind the science behind the fact that glucose is the bodies preferred energy source, the fact that carnivorous diets have no fiber, and the fact that human anatomy shows that we were meant to omnivores... carnivorous diets to me seem pretty funny with their myths. "Salad greens have no nutritional value" and "carbs from broccoli are the same as from a cookie" ? Okay Mr. Extremist-Fundamentalist, why don't you go fly a plane into a vegan's house while you're at it?

Please summarize that article. Otherwise I'm leaning towards thinking this sounds like a MB post. Please don't go that route, your one of the few regular posters I actually like.

C'mon now, I didn't just leave you guys with a link, I had a little commentary afterwards too. It basically goes into saying that Atkins was a wuss, low carb diets are a scam, and NO carb diets are the real way to go. Also talks about how "vegetables have no real nutrients", everything you need is available through meat alone, and humans are carnivores. I just put it here for some light hearted poking fun at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Salad greens have no nutritional value"

I heard somewhere that this is true (and by salad greens, I mean lettuce, especially the light coloure variety). I heard that they are basically just water with very little else. Don't know if its true or not, but I have heard it before. Of course other "salad greens" are very good - e.g. spinach / kale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm satisfied.

Stop insulting in every thread. You are worse than Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler.

I have not posted anything in this thread so quit using my name to fuel anger and hatred against me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are no good carbs. It's all glucose people. I don't care if it's a sugar cookie or a broccoli floret, it's all glucose and should be avoided."

How much glucose do you get from non-starch vegetables like spinach? erm none.

"Let's face it...it's very difficult to find someone who has been doing Atkins for more than 10 years."

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can attest to you, that this diet is not as insane as it looks like at first glance. I tried it myself for seven weeks. I strictly ate no carbs (not even fruits and vegetables) for a whole seven week and I was very much impressed by the results. My skin was even more clear than on my usual low carb diet (at least the first few weeks). I felt highly energized, I was very calm and had constantly a VERY clear mind. Unfortunately, I had some side effects after a few weeks. I made the mistake to eat too much salted foods, which is a bad idea on this diet, since you don't get very much potassium (from meat alone) which could balance out high sodium intake. Inuit don't eat any salt! I also ate too much eggs and cheese while on this diet. These foods are more acidfying than regular meat. In the absence of alkalizing foods, this can get you into trouble. In my opinion, zero-carb diets work pretty well, but you have to do it very similar how Inuits have done it. You have to rely basically on fatty fresh meats with no salt and not too much cheese and eggs. This will leave you with a very restricting and boring diet. It was just too socially isolating. That's why I eventually gave up.

Here's a forum for no-carbers:

http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm satisfied.

Stop insulting in every thread. You are worse than Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler.

I have not posted anything in this thread so quit using my name to fuel anger and hatred against me.

I don't insult every thread. I definately did not insult this one.

Rubbersheep didn't go all crazy like you just did comparing me to Hitler, c'mon now get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Salad greens have no nutritional value"

I heard somewhere that this is true (and by salad greens, I mean lettuce, especially the light coloure variety). I heard that they are basically just water with very little else. Don't know if its true or not, but I have heard it before. Of course other "salad greens" are very good - e.g. spinach / kale

Alright, what you heard is in part true if you refer to iceberg lettuce, which is basically just fiber and water. Romaine lettuce (red and green), spinach, raddiocho, kale, mustard greens, collard greens, and all the other leafy greens that get put into salads are however the most nutrient packed foods on Earth calculating nutrition as equaling out to calories:nutrients. You only eat 10-30 calories in the greens when you eat a salad yet you get a days worth beta-carotene according to the RDA, plenty of vitamin C, and other things.

I can attest to you, that this diet is not as insane as it looks like at first glance. I tried it myself for seven weeks. I strictly ate no carbs (not even fruits and vegetables) for a whole seven week and I was very much impressed by the results. My skin was even more clear than on my usual low carb diet (at least the first few weeks). I felt highly energized, I was very calm and had constantly a VERY clear mind. Unfortunately, I had some side effects after a few weeks. I made the mistake to eat too much salted foods, which is a bad idea on this diet, since you don't get very much potassium (from meat alone) which could balance out high sodium intake. Inuit don't eat any salt! I also ate too much eggs and cheese while on this diet. These foods are more acidfying than regular meat. In the absence of alkalizing foods, this can get you into trouble. In my opinion, zero-carb diets work pretty well, but you have to do it very similar how Inuits have done it. You have to rely basically on fatty fresh meats with no salt and not too much cheese and eggs. This will leave you with a very restricting and boring diet. It was just too socially isolating. That's why I eventually gave up.

Here's a forum for no-carbers:

http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php

Gross question but how often we're you making a trip to go "number two" on this diet? Seems like without fiber to move things along, it'd be once a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Salad greens have no nutritional value"

I heard somewhere that this is true (and by salad greens, I mean lettuce, especially the light coloure variety). I heard that they are basically just water with very little else. Don't know if its true or not, but I have heard it before. Of course other "salad greens" are very good - e.g. spinach / kale

No greens are among the most nutritional dense foods on earth and lettuce is too

In face in almost thousand epidemiological and clinical studies even small difference in consumption are correlated with increased longevity and decreased diseases and cancer incidence

Go to the USDA Database and do some math of the nutritional density (not just grams of a given amount) of lettuces and you'll see that almost nothing has so much nutrients except darker leafy green vegetables

The reason why I believe the no-carb craze is insane is not because of the diet itself but for its exaggerated and unfounded claims. No-carbers love to quote the same few outdates studies or studies whose authors don't agree with the fanatics in the first place (for example Dr. Reaven)

But next to these misinterpreted evidences there are thousands and thousands of epidemiological and clinical studies showing no health problems from carbs per se, showing no decreased nutrition and worse blood profile from high fiber diets or high plant consumption, showing no adverse affect of moderate consumption of fruits and beans. In fact really thousands one by one or studies prove that greens, beans, nuts and fruits have anti-cancer effect and the amount consumed is strictly correlated with improved health and longevity

As it has been said it is pointless to compare a group of people who smoke 45 cigarettes a day with a group that smoke 60 cigarettes a day may not reveal much more damage from the last 15 cigarettes

So they actually compare non-smokers to small variable changes so that they can observe how much the increase of cigarettes affect health. All the serious studies that did that with nutrition observed that as the amount of greens, fruits, vegetables and green increased so did longevity, resistance and disease incidence decreased and even small amount less of fruits, veggies, greens and beans increased diseases incidence and lowered longevity

This is not to say that you can obtain this result only with an high plant food diet but surely only a brainless fanatics would claim that foods that show such strict correlation with disease incidence and longevity could be bad, poisonous, letal, unhealthy even in small amount

No one will ever find a study that show that consuming 5 fresh fruits a diet negatively impact blood sugars, that eating beans causes minerals deficiencies, stomach diseases or disrupt sugar equilibrium, that eating greens is unhealthy and doesn't have protective effects against cancer, that vegetables poison someone or that eating non-refined plant-carbohydrates in the form of fruits and vegetables and legumes have adverse effect on glycemia and insulin resistance. This is just sci-fi and non serious studies amond the thousands are there has ever proved this while all of them have always proved the opposite

Everything scientific known about nutrition doesn't allow absolutes and exaggerated claims

In fact the vegan-gurus must resort to Eheret or early Prikin studies while no-carb fanatics must resort to Stefansson anecdotal pseudoscience, Raeven studies that don't prove the nonsense they claim, little known anecdotal stories about population and illogical implications of known facts (if 600 grams of carbs are bad then 60 must be bad too and clearly 10 grams of carbs are unhealthy as well)

There's very little integrity with both the vegan gurus and the no-carb or all meat gurus as they resort to huge claims they can't prove like "just eating 5 grams of meat is enough to cause you cancer" "just eating 10 grams of carbs is enough to cause pathologies and destroy your sugar metabolism"

Integrity means that you claims what the foundations of your claim can prove and no study on earth or physiology textbook will ever prove something like that

At least there's lately more integrity in vegan movements because new authors in the movement are admitting that there are NO PROOFS that adding meat, fish or eggs to an otherwise vegan healthy diet will compromise the healthfullness of the diet and that THEREFORE the only motivation can be ethical (veganoutreach.com)

Instead the zealot non-carb or all meat fanatics are not developing this scientific integrity and are not at least abandoning their absurd and unscientific claims in favour of ethical motivations.

That's reasonable since an all meat diet is clearly (and I dare you to consult world hunger experts that are planning projects in the poor area of Africa or read the old projects like the ones in Guinea Bissau) an ecological and enviromental disaster; and even paleo-gurus like the Matesz agree about that (and I'm not denying that intensive grains agriculture isn't, because it is an ecological disaster too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that when talking about nutritional density, people forget that a nutrient is not just vitamins, minerals and fiber. it's also protein, carbs, fats, and water. I'm not arguing against anyones point here but just saying that is what I see when people argue nutritional density.

Also I think that liver is the highest. Maybe not in a base serving of 100kcal because veggies are mostly fiber and water, but in a normal food serving it blows everything else away.

Wow, I really should read the thread. Ya, as an athlete, very low carb diets are insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that when talking about nutritional density, people forget that a nutrient is not just vitamins, minerals and fiber. it's also protein, carbs, fats, and water. I'm not arguing against anyones point here but just saying that is what I see when people argue nutritional density.

Also I think that liver is the highest. Maybe not in a base serving of 100kcal because veggies are mostly fiber and water, but in a normal food serving it blows everything else away.

Wow, I really should read the thread. Ya, as an athlete, very low carb diets are insane.

You've merged the categories of micro and macro nutrients, whereas I'm referring solely to micro. Macronutrients are important too, but a lot of foods high in macronutrients (grains for carbs, muscle meats for protein) are also lacking in micronutrients when compared to foods high in micro's but deficient in macros (leafy greens, vegetables, fruits). This is one reason that raw veganism is not sustainable long term even though it sounds great on paper - the diet is absolutely loaded with micronutrients but doesn't have a whole lot in macro's besides simple sugars, a few starches, fat from extracted oils... etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that when talking about nutritional density, people forget that a nutrient is not just vitamins, minerals and fiber. it's also protein, carbs, fats, and water. I'm not arguing against anyones point here but just saying that is what I see when people argue nutritional density.

The macronutrients you mentions are kind of useless as a parameter

Everyone seems to be so obsessed about macronutients and their ratio and yet there's 0 evidence that macronutrients matter that much, in fact healthy diets from population who known to be diseases free or have a low incidence of disease vary a lot from lot of beant to lot of nuts, from lot of fish to lot of fats and so on

It sounds like a paradox only as long as you care for the pointeless macronutrients craze or their ratio

It is well known that as long as a diet is normocaloric macronutrients are not an issue and every one get them

In fact for example the fanatics tell us that it's important to increase protein intake because western people are all deficient in proteins. Nonsense, because the only known way to know whether protein intake is ideal or not is to be on a positive nitrogen balance and almost everyone who consume a normocaloric diet be it junk foods or macrobiotic are in a positive nitrogen balance: hence they consume the ideal amount of protein period.

(the studies that showed athletes may need more protein indeed observed that those athletes were in a negative nitrogen balance)

Nutritional density is the only variable that really makes sense and explain the nutritional paradoxes

The real nutrition that makes a difference in your health, longevity and incidence of chronical and metabolic diseases is the nutriotion density of foods not macronutrients

As long as your diet has a huge nutritional density then what macronutrient ratio is just a matter of preferences and tastes

But also macronutrients ratio tend to remain stable

Except the extremes that are 0-8% carbs and 8% fat it is well known that protein ratio is almost the same in all diets that's because is insane to get most of your energy from protein, they're uneffective and metabolically toxic as substrate. Even the most fanatical no-carb zealots agree that if you eliminate the carbs your alternative is fat and not protein. So with an average 15 to 25% of protein and eschewing the unecessary pseudoscifi spectrum excesses you have either moderate carbs and higher fat or moderate fat and higher carbs and each person reacts differently to different levels and some people DO a lot better with more carbs while some people DO a lot better with more fat. There's not much working around with macronutrients in other words but micronutrients is another story, there are so many nutrients you could lack or have insufficient amount of, and so many unknown nutrients, so many phyto health-promoting nutrients and so many nutrients having synergic functions. There you can work and plan a as perfect as it gets diet, not playing around with useless macros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@danny

You're not in the position to critizise this diet, because you didn't try it! The thousands of studies you always mention don't impress me. I have tried this diet myself and unlike you I know from personal experience what I'm talking about.

Let the testimonies speak for themself:

http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/ftopic461.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, what you heard is in part true if you refer to iceberg lettuce, which is basically just fiber and water. Romaine lettuce (red and green), spinach, raddiocho, kale, mustard greens, collard greens, and all the other leafy greens that get put into salads are however the most nutrient packed foods on Earth calculating nutrition as equaling out to calories

I think already said in my post that I was talking about light coloured lettuce and not including other salad greens - so I don't actually disagree with anything you have said. a;though I don't think that romaine lettuce has particularly high levels of fibre.

"Salad greens have no nutritional value"

I heard somewhere that this is true (and by salad greens, I mean lettuce, especially the light coloure variety). I heard that they are basically just water with very little else. Don't know if its true or not, but I have heard it before. Of course other "salad greens" are very good - e.g. spinach / kale

No greens are among the most nutritional dense foods on earth and lettuce is too

In face in almost thousand epidemiological and clinical studies even small difference in consumption are correlated with increased longevity and decreased diseases and cancer incidence

Go to the USDA Database and do some math of the nutritional density (not just grams of a given amount) of lettuces and you'll see that almost nothing has so much nutrients except darker leafy green vegetables

The reason why I believe the no-carb craze is insane is not because of the diet itself but for its exaggerated and unfounded claims. No-carbers love to quote the same few outdates studies or studies whose authors don't agree with the fanatics in the first place (for example Dr. Reaven)

But next to these misinterpreted evidences there are thousands and thousands of epidemiological and clinical studies showing no health problems from carbs per se, showing no decreased nutrition and worse blood profile from high fiber diets or high plant consumption, showing no adverse affect of moderate consumption of fruits and beans. In fact really thousands one by one or studies prove that greens, beans, nuts and fruits have anti-cancer effect and the amount consumed is strictly correlated with improved health and longevity

As it has been said it is pointless to compare a group of people who smoke 45 cigarettes a day with a group that smoke 60 cigarettes a day may not reveal much more damage from the last 15 cigarettes

So they actually compare non-smokers to small variable changes so that they can observe how much the increase of cigarettes affect health. All the serious studies that did that with nutrition observed that as the amount of greens, fruits, vegetables and green increased so did longevity, resistance and disease incidence decreased and even small amount less of fruits, veggies, greens and beans increased diseases incidence and lowered longevity

This is not to say that you can obtain this result only with an high plant food diet but surely only a brainless fanatics would claim that foods that show such strict correlation with disease incidence and longevity could be bad, poisonous, letal, unhealthy even in small amount

No one will ever find a study that show that consuming 5 fresh fruits a diet negatively impact blood sugars, that eating beans causes minerals deficiencies, stomach diseases or disrupt sugar equilibrium, that eating greens is unhealthy and doesn't have protective effects against cancer, that vegetables poison someone or that eating non-refined plant-carbohydrates in the form of fruits and vegetables and legumes have adverse effect on glycemia and insulin resistance. This is just sci-fi and non serious studies amond the thousands are there has ever proved this while all of them have always proved the opposite

Everything scientific known about nutrition doesn't allow absolutes and exaggerated claims

In fact the vegan-gurus must resort to Eheret or early Prikin studies while no-carb fanatics must resort to Stefansson anecdotal pseudoscience, Raeven studies that don't prove the nonsense they claim, little known anecdotal stories about population and illogical implications of known facts (if 600 grams of carbs are bad then 60 must be bad too and clearly 10 grams of carbs are unhealthy as well)

There's very little integrity with both the vegan gurus and the no-carb or all meat gurus as they resort to huge claims they can't prove like "just eating 5 grams of meat is enough to cause you cancer" "just eating 10 grams of carbs is enough to cause pathologies and destroy your sugar metabolism"

Integrity means that you claims what the foundations of your claim can prove and no study on earth or physiology textbook will ever prove something like that

At least there's lately more integrity in vegan movements because new authors in the movement are admitting that there are NO PROOFS that adding meat, fish or eggs to an otherwise vegan healthy diet will compromise the healthfullness of the diet and that THEREFORE the only motivation can be ethical (veganoutreach.com)

Instead the zealot non-carb or all meat fanatics are not developing this scientific integrity and are not at least abandoning their absurd and unscientific claims in favour of ethical motivations.

That's reasonable since an all meat diet is clearly (and I dare you to consult world hunger experts that are planning projects in the poor area of Africa or read the old projects like the ones in Guinea Bissau) an ecological and enviromental disaster; and even paleo-gurus like the Matesz agree about that (and I'm not denying that intensive grains agriculture isn't, because it is an ecological disaster too)

Danny - no offence but I cant be bothered to read yet another essay. See my post above to RS regarding salad greens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny - no offence but I cant be bothered to read yet another essay. See my post above to RS regarding salad greens.

That's wrong anyway, check USDA Database

@danny

You're not in the position to critizise this diet, because you didn't try it! The thousands of studies you always mention don't impress me. I have tried this diet myself and unlike you I know from personal experience what I'm talking about.

Let the testimonies speak for themself:

http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/ftopic461.php

I'm sorry but anecdotal evidence is not science, so if the no-carb fanatics want to motivate their diets with anecdotal evidences they must abandon any claim of scientific reliability

But I'm not criticizing the diet per se, I'm not saying it doesn't work or it is unhealthy; I'm critizing the unscientific claims related to this diet. If you say that eating nothing but beef and after four years you blood works are perfect and all diseases you had disappeared and you have no digestion toubles and low oxidization levels and high bone density levels that's good to me, if you say that because this diet was such a success for you and to other it means that carbohydrates and fruits are pathological, beans cause diabetes and that green and vegetables have no valuable nutrition and expect to prove that with science then I say NO WAY; that's sci-fiction

I hope my position is clearer now; I'm not criticizing your diet ... if it works for you, the better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c20dw.html

Check out the nutritional values based on an average serving. Now the nutrition data still rates it as a nutritious food, but it appears that such a rating is based upon getting 1000 calories of it - that's a heck of alot of lettuce and most people wont eat nearly that much in a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c20dw.html

Check out the nutritional values based on an average serving. Now the nutrition data still rates it as a nutritious food, but it appears that such a rating is based upon getting 1000 calories of it - that's a heck of alot of lettuce and most people wont eat nearly that much in a day.

Yes. That's exactly the point. One would have to eat several kilos of greens to get enough important b-vitamins. But after all, we are not cows! We can not eat that much greens. Besides that, nutritional food data are very missleading, since they don't take into account, how much of these vitamins are actually absorbed. Greens come with a lot of fiber and antinutrients, which are known to impair nutrient absorption. We have no digestive enzyme for cellulose. So, unless your veggies are cooked very few of the cells are broken down. Nutritional food data also don't take into account which form of the vitamin is present. Since animals are closer relatives to humans than plants, nutrients in animal foods are mostly present in their ready-made forms, which means that a higher amount of the nutrients can be instantly used.

Vitamin B6 can illustrate this problem very well:

Vitamin B6 and pyridoxine glycosides

Fact of the day: don't bother trying to get your B6 from plant foods, it's probably almost worthless.

Ever since I started eating more bread and taking yeast extract again, I've developed a sore feeling on the roof of my mouth. I used to get this all the time before I went on Atkins. I'm fairly certain this symptom is caused by a B6 deficiency. But why?

beta-Glucosides of pyridoxine (a) are prevalent in plant-derived foods, (b) contribute to human nutrition as partially available sources of vitamin B6, © undergo partial hydrolysis by a novel mammalian cytosolic β-glucosidase, and (d) exert a weak antagonistic effect on the utilization of free pyridoxine. Nutritional Properties and Significance of Vitamin Glycosides

Science seems to be in agreement over this one. There I was wondering how to get more nuts, bananas and potatoes into my diet without compromising my other nutritional needs, and it turns out I shouldn't bother.

B6 is a very hard to get hold of vitamin. It's found in red and white meats, but is partially destroyed by freezing and cooking, and isn't found in high enough quantities to meet the RDA solely from meats. It's also found in some very strange plant foods, like bananas, pistachio nuts, some grains, and potatoes. However, current research has found that large proportions of the B6 found in plant sources is glycosylated. What this means is it is very hard if not impossible for the body to absorb, and that which is absorbed, actually antagonises real B6, making a B6 deficiency worse. The breads (grains and soy) and yeast extracts I have been eating contain pyridoxine glycosides, and have actively been giving me a B6 deficiency.

B6 is found in three forms in nature: as pyridoxine, pyridoxal, and pyridoxamine. Pyridoxine is found in plant foods, and pyridoxal and pyridoxamine are found in animal foods. The active form of B6 is pyridoxal-5-phosphate, also known as PLP or P5P. The B6 that you eat is converted into this active pyridoxal form, the form that is found in meat.

This calls all of the information in the USDA database regarding B6 in foodstuffs into question. Querying foods high in B6 brings back a long list of plant foods followed by meats: in fact, the plant foods need to be reanalysed for their glycoside content, and this needs to be subtracted from the true figure. We also need a separate figure for the active PLP as opposed to the inactive forms that not everyone can use. The USDA database also fails to bring up differences between frozen, cooked, and uncooked meats.

B6 requirements are actually liked to protein requirements. If you eat a lot of protein, you will need more B6, if you eat less protein, you will need less B6. According to the Linus Pauling Institute, "Metabolic studies suggest that young women require 0.02 mg of vitamin B6 per gram of protein consumed daily." If I eat 50 grams of protein, I will therefore need 1mg of B6 per day, half the RDA, which is based on 100 grams of protein. A lot of RDAs for vitamins are calculated with this questionable method, and therefore are huge generalisations on the populace.

Another myth about B6 is that white meat is a better source than red meat. Actually, by weight the lean portion of red meat contains almost as much B6 as the lean portion of white meat, except the white meat contains more protein too. By eating red meat, you are actually sparing your B6 supplies, because you are providing your body with proportionately more B6 per weight of protein than by eating white meat.

It looks like steak tartar may be on the menu soon.

http://wisewitch.blogspot.com/2006/05/vita...glycosides.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No greens are among the most nutritional dense foods on earth and lettuce is too

Almost all veggies and fruits pale in comparison to nutrient dense animal foods such as liver. Especially when you take into account, that nutrients in vegetables often are not in the ready-made forms and that they are not equally well absorbed.

Check this out:

Today's dietary gurus tell us that we must eat vegetables and fruit to obtain vitamins and minerals. Per Magnuson, an astute member from Sweden, points out that fruits and vegetables cannot compare in nutrient levels with animal foods, especially nutrient-dense animal foods like liver. Here's what we came up with as a way of assessing the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables versus meat and liver. Note that every nutrient in red meat except for vitamin C surpasses those in apples and carrots, and every nutrients - including vitamin C - in beef liver occurs in exceedingly higher levels in beef liver compared to apple and carrots.

APPLE (100 g) CARROTS (100 g) RED MEAT (100 g) BEEF LIVER (100 g)

Calcium 3.0 mg 3.3 mg 11.0 mg 11.0 mg

Phosphorus 6.0 mg 31.0 mg 140.0 mg 476.0 mg

Magnesium 4.8 mg 6.2 mg 15.0 mg 18.0 mg

Potassium 139.0 mg 222.0 mg 370.0 mg 380.0 mg

Iron .1 mg .6 mg 3.3 mg 8.8 mg

Zinc .05 mg .3 mg 4.4 mg 4.0 mg

Copper .04 mg .08 mg .18 mg 12.0 mg

Vitamin A None None 40 IU 53,400 IU

Vitamin D None None Trace 19 IU

Vitamin E .37 mg .11 mg 1.7 mg .63 mg

Vitamin C 7.0 mg 6.0 mg None 27.0 mg

Thiamin .03 mg .05 mg .05 mg .26 mg

Riboflavin .02 mg .05 mg .20 mg 4.19 mg

Niacin .10 mg .60 mg 4.0 mg 16.5 mg

Pantothenic Acid .11 mg .19 mg .42 mg 8.8 mg

Vitamin B6 .03 mg .10 mg .07 mg .73 mg

Folic Acid 8.0 mcg 24.0 mcg 4.0 mcg 145.0 mcg

Biotin None .42 mcg 2.08 mcg 96.0 mcg

Vitamin B12 None None 1.84 mcg 111.3 mcg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^ What antinutrients are in greens besides oxalic acid?

Blending would break down the cellulose walls to a point, makign the greens more digsetible. This is exactly what Natural Hygiene and the Eat2Live diet employs. I just had a blended salad a minute ago and I'm finding ways to make them more palatable every day. Either way, I won't back down that it's still one of the healthiest things to eat a salad. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c20dv.html shows romaine lettuce in one calorie serving portions. So if you eat a decent salad you're eating probably 10-30 calories of that lettuce. With that you're getting 70 to 210 percent of your vitamin A needs met through beta-carotene (which will be converted to vit. A with a generous amount of olive oil being present in the salad), 20 to 60 percent of your vit. C needs, phytochemicals, antioxidants, minerals, B-vitamins, etc, as well as CHLOROPHYLL! Paba, show me a study that shows that chlorophyll has no nutritional value and I'll show you 5 that show how great it is :) You argue that some vitamins are better used in their animal origins yet you neglect to say that things like beta carotene have indepedent uses like scavenging free radicals and aren't "just" pre-vitamins.

My final statement: animal foods hold value in the human diet, but to take them to an extreme would be to follow the same fundamantally flawed logic of carnivorism's polar opposite, veganism. The point is there's nutritional value in almost all whole food groups but there's also too much of a good thing possible, and balanced diet is the key to this problem.

P.S. : What's your stance on all the flavonoids, polyphenols, phytochemicals etc. that science is just now getting a grasp on? Food is not just vitamins and minerals as far as micronutrients go, that's quite an old school approach of viewign them! Where's all the rutin and quercetein and ECGC and ellegiac acid in meats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why I believe the no-carb craze is insane is not because of the diet itself but for its exaggerated and unfounded claims. No-carbers love to quote the same few outdates studies or studies whose authors don't agree with the fanatics in the first place (for example Dr. Reaven)

But next to these misinterpreted evidences there are thousands and thousands of epidemiological and clinical studies showing no health problems from carbs per se, showing no decreased nutrition and worse blood profile from high fiber diets or high plant consumption, showing no adverse affect of moderate consumption of fruits and beans. In fact really thousands one by one or studies prove that greens, beans, nuts and fruits have anti-cancer effect and the amount consumed is strictly correlated with improved health and longevity

There's one simple problem with all your studies. They draw wrong conclucions from limited comparisons. They all usually compare a diet high in vegetables and fruits with the the standard american diet high in sugars and grains. In this comparison, vegetables and fruits indeed seem to be healthy. But it's not safe to conclude, that vegetables and fruits are very healthy for themselfs, since a health advantage of a higher veggie and fruits consumption could easily be explained by the fact that they have replaced foods that are even more unhealthy, such as grains and sugars.

It has hardly been investigated what would happen if one replaces grains and sugars for animal food or veggies and fruits for even more animal foods. Numerous people have reported better health when they skip veggies and fruits and consume more animal foods. I admit, this is just anectotal evidence, but I take this reports seriously, since I experienced the same effects in my own dietary experiment. I agree, that there's no proof that this diet is the healthiest, but there's also no disproof!!

Blending would break down the cellulose walls to a point, makign the greens more digsetible.

This not a very natural way of eating. Stone age people did not have blenders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c20dw.html

Check out the nutritional values based on an average serving. Now the nutrition data still rates it as a nutritious food, but it appears that such a rating is based upon getting 1000 calories of it - that's a heck of alot of lettuce and most people wont eat nearly that much in a day.

That's why we used nutrients density as a criteria

As Rubber Sheep said if you consume a food which provides many nutrients and at the same time very few calories, you have the chance to pack on essential nutrients because even after you have consumed more nutrients than the average american diet you still have many calories left to increase even more your intake

This is the nutritional density and what I said is that lettuces has an high nutrient density

For example iceberg lettuce is the less nutritious of all lettuces

Here are compared iceberg density and spinach density for few nutrients

Calcium 127 - 430 (iceberg - spinach)

Iron 3 - 9 (iceberg - spinach)

Magnesium 50 - 380 (iceberg - spinach)

Phosphorous 142 - 249 (iceberg - spinach)

Potassium 1200 - 2600 (iceberg - spinach)

Vitamin C 20 - 132 (iceberg - spinach)

Folate 300 - 800 (iceberg - spinach)

So Spinach are more 2 to 3% more nutritious than iceberg

This doesn't absolutely make icerberg and other lettuces just water with very little else

Since no one has ever proposed to make a diet where you just eat greens, greens remain an extraordinary food because they can increase your nutrients intake without increasing your caloric intake giving your the chance to eat many other things and increase even more your intake of nutrients

The amount of absorption from vegetables (both cooked and raw) is well known and it varies from 40% to 80%. Of course no nutrient from whatever food is absorbed at 100%. So iron from meat, protein from chicken, zinc from oysters, calcium from milk none of them is known to be absorbed at a 100% efficiency

In fact, in spite of lack of fibers and cellulase it is for certain foods very low

The good news is that nutrients RDA is based on the lowest predictable absorption

For example iron from meat is absorbed at a rate of 40% to 60% while iron from plant is absorbed at a rate from 20% to 45%

We need no more than 1.5 mg of iron daily because that's how much we lose from sweat, intestine, urine and so on. But the RDA is 11mg because it is set predicting the lowest absorption possible 10%

Cellulose is more of a problem for vegetables protein than many other nutrients that are better absorbed from raw and cooked plants. Of course since no one is saying that you must get everything from greens and get your calories from greens, green being so nutrients dense and low calories are a chance to add lot of nutrition in just 50 calories ... no other food could provide this chance and in face no other food is known in more than 2000 studies to be positively and strinctly correlated with improved blood and lipid profile, with very low incidence of cancer and tumors, with increased longevity and improved health and hematic profiles

APPLE (100 g) CARROTS (100 g) RED MEAT (100 g) BEEF LIVER (100 g)

Oh come on, what kind of nonsense is this

If a food provide 1g of iron for 100 cal and the other provide 3 grams of iron for 2000 calories how could anyone said that the second food is more rich in iron? You would have to consume 8000 calories to get enough iron.

Weight in grams can't be used to calculate how much nutrient a food is

Weight is not a usefull criteria because it doesn't tell you anything about nutritional needs

That's why every serious nutritrional researcher or writer use nutrients by calories to claim whether a food is more nutritious than another (i.e. it contains more nutrients in its solid matter but water adds volume to it so the nutrients when measured according to its weight seem to be less)

In fact it's unquestionable logic that the more caloric dense a food a diet contains the less nutrients it will provide at the end of the day

You should let Per know that this chart has absolutely no value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no other food could provide this chance and in face no other food is known in more than 2000 studies to be positively and strinctly correlated with improved blood and lipid profile,

Wrong! Higher consumption of animal fat and protein and lowering carbohydrates has consistently shown in several trials to improve blood and lipid profiles. You don't need to eat more greens to improve blood and lipid profiles!! Check out this review:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/31

with very low incidence of cancer and tumors...

Epidemiological studies are very inconsistent regarding this. In fact, the biggest and most well designed newer studies don't show a cancer protecting effects from veggies and fruits. If the anti-cancer-effect of all your beloved phytonutrients is so strong, how is it possible that such a large cohort-study with 100'000 (!) people does not find any cancer-protecting effects?? Don't forget, that people who eat more vegetables also tend to live healthier (eat less processed food, smoke less, are more physically active). That's why it's even more alarming, when they don't find lower cancer rates in people with high vegetable consumption!

Fruit's anti-cancer effect 'overstated'

03/11/2004 - Increased fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease but not cancer, according to a new study that suggests the cancer-protective effect may have been ‘overstated’.

The study raises questions about government public health campaigns that recommend five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily to reduce both risk of heart disease and cancer. It also underlines the grey area between public health messages and the evidence required to support a claim for the health benefits of fruit and vegetables.

Cancer and coronary heart disease account for 60 per cent of all early deaths, according to the UK's department of health, which declares on its website that increasing fruit and vegetable consumption is the second most important cancer prevention strategy, after reducing smoking.

But researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston say the overall associations between fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease and cancer have rarely been evaluated in large cohort studies.

In a new analysis of data from more than 100,000 participants in two large cohort studies, the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study, they found an inverse association between total fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease but no relationship with cancer incidence.

"Consumption of five or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day has been recommended in the National 5 A Day for Better Health Program for cancer prevention, but the protective effect of fruit and vegetable intake may have been overstated," the researchers write in the 3 November issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (vol 96, no 21, 1577-1584).

In an analysis of different groups of fruits and vegetables, consumption of green leafy vegetables showed the strongest inverse association with both cardiovascular disease and major chronic disease (cancer and cardiovascular disease combined).

While the findings for cardiovascular disease “still support the recommendations of the American Heart Association of consuming at least five servings of fruits and vegetables per day", the evidence for a cancer-protective effect appears limited.

In an editorial, Arthur Schatzkin and Victor Kipnis of the National Cancer Institute discuss the possibility that substantial errors in measuring diet as well as other confounding factors in the study may have distorted true associations between fruit and vegetable intake and cancer.

"The evidence is simply inadequate at this time to determine whether fruit and vegetable intake confers modest protection against cancer. Researchers should recognize this uncertainty in nutrition and cancer epidemiology and do what it takes to move ahead, especially when it comes to improving exposure assessment in observational studies," they write.

The UK's department of health is also set to come under pressure from industry, confused by the discrepancy between public health advice and laws on health claims.

Last week the country's second biggest supermarket Asda was fined £5,000 for claiming that the antioxidant properties of mangoes could help to fight cancer. Asda said it is planning to write to the UK health minister John Reid for help in clarifying the law.

A spokesman from the department of health said the government's advice comes from recommendations by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy and Nutrition, which concluded in 1998 that a review of evidence showed that higher vegetable consumption would reduce the risk of colorectal cancer and gastric cancer. There was also weakly consistent evidence that higher fruit and vegetable consumption would reduce the risk of breast cancer.

"The World Health Organisation has also recommended the consumption of 400g (five portions) of fruit and vegetables a day within a balanced diet to help reduce the risk of chronic diseases," said the spokesperson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×