|
Well I'm still not convinced that a diet that consists of any other meat besides fish is a good one. The reason being that I added fish to my diet is actually because of The China Study not some Paleo website or book.......
The proteins found in fish are digested similarity to the ones found in plant based foods so they do not harm you in the fashion that other animal based meats/proteins harm you and after reading through the whole of The China Study a diet low (5-10%) based around fish and the rest plant based foods including grains is the best to prevent degenerative disease.
I also found out recently that Spinach is a rich source of Omega 3 making it possibly the best food for you on the planet so I'm glad that I eat a lot of it & combined with fish which is very very low in cholesterol and high in Omega 3's I've reached the conclusion that, that's the best diet for me and a diet based around other types of meat such as pork, chicken, etc, is a unhealthy diet as even Rob Wolf the famous Paleo Author/Supporter admitted that 75% of Cardiac incident patients that go to a hospital each day have a high cholesterol value.
I personally believe that people try to debunk The China Study to try to support their diet but fail since The China Study is one if not the most comprehensive study done and the most recent one done regarding which diet is best for reducing your risk greatly of degenerative diseases.
I'm not going to get hung up on reading articles about regular people that are trying to say that The China Study is wrong when The China Study is already backed by a ton of people, makes the most logical sense, and goes a long with the AHA's statements that a diet high in fiber, low in saturated fats, and low in cholesterol is best to reduce the risk of Heart Disease and certain types of cancers.
I'm also not buying the "grains are bad for you" stuff as most centenarians ate grains for breakfast and it is recommended by the AHA not to mention Paleolithic people have been shown to eat grains as well as they were scavengers and would eat anything.
|
So the studies by scientists that we read are bullshit but the thoroughly debunked observational study you read is nothing but the truth? And I did not link you to a paleo website. It was written by a vegan of ten years.
It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and it’s for this reason I believe “The China Study” has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the book’s problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves.
Yes, fish and spinach are good for you. Yes high amounts of bad cholesterol blood levels are bad for you. Simply believing something that 'a ton of people back' is bad for you (the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc.). Also, it does not 'make the most logical sense'.
Nobody here is arguing that the paleo diet is good because its actually what our ancestors ate or w/e marketing bullshit surrounds it. We're using studies that show it's good for you despite some of the fallacies of its origins.
|
On July 03 2013 05:09 decafchicken wrote:So the studies by scientists that we read are bullshit but the thoroughly debunked observational study you read is nothing but the truth? And I did not link you to a paleo website. It was written by a vegan of ten years. Show nested quote +It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and it’s for this reason I believe “The China Study” has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the book’s problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves. Yes, fish and spinach are good for you. Yes high amounts of bad cholesterol blood levels are bad for you. Simply believing something that 'a ton of people back' is bad for you (the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc.). Also, it does not 'make the most logical sense'. Nobody here is arguing that the paleo diet is good because its actually what our ancestors ate or w/e marketing bullshit surrounds it. We're using studies that show it's good for you despite some of the fallacies of its origins.
The studies by scientists that you post are quite possibly psuedo science and I'm sure if I took the time out to research them, they are already debunked by vegetarians that don't even eat fish or debunked possibly by people that are not vegetarians.
If what they wrote in that article is so profound why don't they write a book on it and see how successful and backed by modern nutritionists/scientists that i becomes and the criticism that is gets.
The truth is that every study out there has been pseudo "debunked"....you just have to follow common sense that the AHA would not lie to you and that The China Study put more research and effort into any of these debunking arguments.
Basically, you believe in what you want to believe in, I'll believe what makes the most sense to me.
I read the other day about a diet written by a scientist that eating nothing but Twinkies can increase your health if you don't go over your caloric needs on them and there are scientists that will tell you that rat poison is good for you in small amounts.
The backed research in a book and common sense/logic a long with stuff supported by the AHA is the stuff that I will believe.....not stuff posted on the internet as most would laugh at me or others if they believed everything that was written on the internet and I'd have to agree.
If they are so hard off on believing that they debunked The China Study they should write a book on it and see if that gets debunked as well.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that talking about diet is like talking about religion or politics as everyone is trying to debunk everyone.
Vegetarians are debunking Paleo's & Paleos are debunking vegetarians and it goes on and on.
I'd put my faith into a large organization that exists outside of the internet such as The AHA and into research done by actual professionals such as the research done in The China Study vs any internet article or book that is not widely backed by modern science and organizations such as the AHA.
By the way you're going against the Paleo diet when you say that high cholesterol does not contribute to CVD when the others on here said otherwise and even Rob Wolf contradicted his own diet when he said that 75% of CVD hospital patients have high cholesterol.
The China Study if you read it, also does not advocate a 100% vegetarian diet they say that small portions of fish are actually healthy and once in a while snacking on something other than a primarily based vegetarian diet is okay.....
|
On July 03 2013 05:24 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:09 decafchicken wrote:So the studies by scientists that we read are bullshit but the thoroughly debunked observational study you read is nothing but the truth? And I did not link you to a paleo website. It was written by a vegan of ten years. It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and it’s for this reason I believe “The China Study” has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the book’s problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves. Yes, fish and spinach are good for you. Yes high amounts of bad cholesterol blood levels are bad for you. Simply believing something that 'a ton of people back' is bad for you (the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc.). Also, it does not 'make the most logical sense'. Nobody here is arguing that the paleo diet is good because its actually what our ancestors ate or w/e marketing bullshit surrounds it. We're using studies that show it's good for you despite some of the fallacies of its origins. The studies by scientists that you post are quite possibly psuedo science and I'm sure if I took the time out to research them, they are already debunked by vegetarians that don't even eat fish or debunked possibly by people that are not vegetarians. If what they wrote in that article is so profound why don't they write a book on it and see how successful and backed by modern nutritionists/scientists that i becomes and the criticism that is gets. The truth is that every study out there has been pseudo "debunked"....you just have to follow common sense that the AHA would not lie to you and that The China Study put more research and effort into any of these debunking arguments. Basically, you believe in what you want to believe in, I'll believe what makes the most sense to me. I read the other day about a diet written by a scientist that eating nothing but Twinkies can increase your health if you don't go over your caloric needs on them and there are scientists that will tell you that rat poison is good for you in small amounts. The backed research in a book and common sense/logic a long with stuff supported by the AHA is the stuff that I will believe.....not stuff posted on the internet as most would laugh at me or others if they believed everything that was written on the internet and I'd have to agree. If they are so hard off on believing that they debunked The China Study they should write a book on it and see if that gets debunked as well. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that talking about diet is like talking about religion or politics as everyone is trying to debunk everyone. Vegetarians are debunking Paleo's & Paleos are debunking vegetarians and it goes on and on. I'd put my faith into a large organization that exists outside of the internet such as The AHA and into research done by actual professionals such as the research done in The China Study vs any internet article or book that is not widely backed by modern science and organizations such as the AHA. By the way you're going against the Paleo diet when you say that high cholesterol does not contribute to CVD when the others on here said otherwise and even Rob Wolf contradicted his own diet when he said that 75% of CVD hospital patients have high cholesterol. The China Study if you read it, also does not advocate a 100% vegetarian diet they say that small portions of fish are actually healthy and once in a while snacking on something other than a primarily based vegetarian diet is okay.....
High HDL cholesterol does NOT contribute to CVD, as claimed by your beloved AHA: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp
However, high LDL and triglycerides do contribute to CVD
If you bothered to even give the link on the china study half a glance you would see that Dr. Campbell of the china study and the author have replied back and forth on each others critiques so you can at least examine both sides of the argument.
|
On July 03 2013 05:59 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:24 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 03 2013 05:09 decafchicken wrote:So the studies by scientists that we read are bullshit but the thoroughly debunked observational study you read is nothing but the truth? And I did not link you to a paleo website. It was written by a vegan of ten years. It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and it’s for this reason I believe “The China Study” has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the book’s problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves. Yes, fish and spinach are good for you. Yes high amounts of bad cholesterol blood levels are bad for you. Simply believing something that 'a ton of people back' is bad for you (the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc.). Also, it does not 'make the most logical sense'. Nobody here is arguing that the paleo diet is good because its actually what our ancestors ate or w/e marketing bullshit surrounds it. We're using studies that show it's good for you despite some of the fallacies of its origins. The studies by scientists that you post are quite possibly psuedo science and I'm sure if I took the time out to research them, they are already debunked by vegetarians that don't even eat fish or debunked possibly by people that are not vegetarians. If what they wrote in that article is so profound why don't they write a book on it and see how successful and backed by modern nutritionists/scientists that i becomes and the criticism that is gets. The truth is that every study out there has been pseudo "debunked"....you just have to follow common sense that the AHA would not lie to you and that The China Study put more research and effort into any of these debunking arguments. Basically, you believe in what you want to believe in, I'll believe what makes the most sense to me. I read the other day about a diet written by a scientist that eating nothing but Twinkies can increase your health if you don't go over your caloric needs on them and there are scientists that will tell you that rat poison is good for you in small amounts. The backed research in a book and common sense/logic a long with stuff supported by the AHA is the stuff that I will believe.....not stuff posted on the internet as most would laugh at me or others if they believed everything that was written on the internet and I'd have to agree. If they are so hard off on believing that they debunked The China Study they should write a book on it and see if that gets debunked as well. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that talking about diet is like talking about religion or politics as everyone is trying to debunk everyone. Vegetarians are debunking Paleo's & Paleos are debunking vegetarians and it goes on and on. I'd put my faith into a large organization that exists outside of the internet such as The AHA and into research done by actual professionals such as the research done in The China Study vs any internet article or book that is not widely backed by modern science and organizations such as the AHA. By the way you're going against the Paleo diet when you say that high cholesterol does not contribute to CVD when the others on here said otherwise and even Rob Wolf contradicted his own diet when he said that 75% of CVD hospital patients have high cholesterol. The China Study if you read it, also does not advocate a 100% vegetarian diet they say that small portions of fish are actually healthy and once in a while snacking on something other than a primarily based vegetarian diet is okay..... High HDL cholesterol does NOT contribute to CVD, as claimed by your beloved AHA: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp However, high LDL and triglycerides do contribute to CVD If you bothered to even give the link on the china study half a glance you would see that Dr. Campbell of the china study and the author have replied back and forth on each others critiques so you can at least examine both sides of the argument.
So than it was probably already reverse debunked......I never talked about HDL or LDL I'm talking about total cholesterol being high contributing to heart disease.
Maintaining high HDL is easy as long as you get enough Omega 3's by eating grean leafy vegetables & fish.
High total cholesterol contributes the largest to CVD a long with other dietary factors such as the free radicals produced by meats other than fish (other meats also contribute to higher total cholesterol values and saturated fat).
Whens the last time that your DR told a relative of yours that he had heart disease not because his total cholesterol was too high?
|
A lot of research and public policy is guided / paid for by big agribusiness I imagine. This causes me to be critical of information "widely considered as fact". Not to sound conspiracist but just take that as motivation for being skeptical and critical of what you are told. This includes everything you're being told in this thread but just as much as the Food Pyramid etc.
|
^ Yes, i'm sure lobbying does play part in government nutrition guidelines. And grain companies have a TON of money. GM alone has 15 billion in revenue a year.
No shit if your bad cholesterol is high than your overall cholesterol is probably high. However, doctors differentiate between the two (those people you claim to trust):
physicians and cholesterol technicians use the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol in place of the total blood cholesterol
Btw the AHA recommends saturated fats as part of a healthy diet:
People with high triglycerides should substitute monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats —such as those found in canola oil, olive oil or liquid margarine —for saturated fats
And you know there's a large difference between dietary and blood cholesterol, right?
So than it was probably already reverse debunked
Just blatant ignorance and blind refusal to acknowledge that there is anything resembling an argument around the china study.
|
On July 03 2013 06:22 decafchicken wrote:^ Yes, i'm sure lobbying does play part in government nutrition guidelines. And grain companies have a TON of money. GM alone has 15 billion in revenue a year. No shit if your bad cholesterol is high than your overall cholesterol is probably high. However, doctors differentiate between the two (those people you claim to trust): Show nested quote +physicians and cholesterol technicians use the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol in place of the total blood cholesterol Btw the AHA recommends saturated fats as part of a healthy diet: Show nested quote +People with high triglycerides should substitute monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats —such as those found in canola oil, olive oil or liquid margarine —for saturated fats And you know there's a large difference between dietary and blood cholesterol, right? Just blatant ignorance and blind refusal to acknowledge that there is anything resembling an argument around the china study.
Yea, because eating a bowl of whole oats is more unhealthy than bacon grease.
Lot's of conspiracy theorists in this thread.
Why the hell would the government give out bad advice on purpose even though heart disease is the #1 killer?
Saturated fats are needed but in excess they are bad.
The paleo diet recommends a ton of saturated fats (more than the AHA recommends). You really only need a little bit of saturated far for health and optimally it would come from plant based food.
Canola oil, olive oil or liquid margarine are all garbage filled (besides cold pressed olive oil but you can still do better such as flax seed or fish oil or eating the actual foods.)
Ever feel how your pulse increase after a large meal filled with sausage, eggs, and bacon + grease?
That's from the saturated fats & cholesterol being dumped into your blood stream.
Try checking your pulse about 15 minutes after eating a large grease filled meal and compare it to your pulse before that.
You are what you eat.
|
Lol the NSA has just been busted for literally spying on the entire world and you think the government is above letting it's people get fat (more money for food companies and health companies)? I'm not saying it's a giant conspiracy or anything, but money talks in this government.
I've never had this pulse problem you describe and i have bacon/eggs for breakfast every morning.
Ignored everything else i wrote.
|
Try checking your pulse about 15 minutes after eating a large grease filled meal and compare it to your pulse before that.
Wait. Seriously?
|
On July 03 2013 05:59 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:24 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 03 2013 05:09 decafchicken wrote:So the studies by scientists that we read are bullshit but the thoroughly debunked observational study you read is nothing but the truth? And I did not link you to a paleo website. It was written by a vegan of ten years. It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and it’s for this reason I believe “The China Study” has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the book’s problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves. Yes, fish and spinach are good for you. Yes high amounts of bad cholesterol blood levels are bad for you. Simply believing something that 'a ton of people back' is bad for you (the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc.). Also, it does not 'make the most logical sense'. Nobody here is arguing that the paleo diet is good because its actually what our ancestors ate or w/e marketing bullshit surrounds it. We're using studies that show it's good for you despite some of the fallacies of its origins. The studies by scientists that you post are quite possibly psuedo science and I'm sure if I took the time out to research them, they are already debunked by vegetarians that don't even eat fish or debunked possibly by people that are not vegetarians. If what they wrote in that article is so profound why don't they write a book on it and see how successful and backed by modern nutritionists/scientists that i becomes and the criticism that is gets. The truth is that every study out there has been pseudo "debunked"....you just have to follow common sense that the AHA would not lie to you and that The China Study put more research and effort into any of these debunking arguments. Basically, you believe in what you want to believe in, I'll believe what makes the most sense to me. I read the other day about a diet written by a scientist that eating nothing but Twinkies can increase your health if you don't go over your caloric needs on them and there are scientists that will tell you that rat poison is good for you in small amounts. The backed research in a book and common sense/logic a long with stuff supported by the AHA is the stuff that I will believe.....not stuff posted on the internet as most would laugh at me or others if they believed everything that was written on the internet and I'd have to agree. If they are so hard off on believing that they debunked The China Study they should write a book on it and see if that gets debunked as well. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that talking about diet is like talking about religion or politics as everyone is trying to debunk everyone. Vegetarians are debunking Paleo's & Paleos are debunking vegetarians and it goes on and on. I'd put my faith into a large organization that exists outside of the internet such as The AHA and into research done by actual professionals such as the research done in The China Study vs any internet article or book that is not widely backed by modern science and organizations such as the AHA. By the way you're going against the Paleo diet when you say that high cholesterol does not contribute to CVD when the others on here said otherwise and even Rob Wolf contradicted his own diet when he said that 75% of CVD hospital patients have high cholesterol. The China Study if you read it, also does not advocate a 100% vegetarian diet they say that small portions of fish are actually healthy and once in a while snacking on something other than a primarily based vegetarian diet is okay..... High HDL cholesterol does NOT contribute to CVD, as claimed by your beloved AHA: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp However, high LDL and triglycerides do contribute to CVD If you bothered to even give the link on the china study half a glance you would see that Dr. Campbell of the china study and the author have replied back and forth on each others critiques so you can at least examine both sides of the argument.
By the way I read the article in the link that you posted and I was right.....it was reverse debunked by one of the authors of The China Study.......
|
On July 03 2013 07:22 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +Try checking your pulse about 15 minutes after eating a large grease filled meal and compare it to your pulse before that. Wait. Seriously?
High saturated fat + cholesterol in the blood makes the heart work harder a long with high sodium.
|
It's all clear now. Thanks for explaining the giant erections i get after a steak.
|
On July 03 2013 09:01 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:59 decafchicken wrote:On July 03 2013 05:24 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 03 2013 05:09 decafchicken wrote:So the studies by scientists that we read are bullshit but the thoroughly debunked observational study you read is nothing but the truth? And I did not link you to a paleo website. It was written by a vegan of ten years. It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and it’s for this reason I believe “The China Study” has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the book’s problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves. Yes, fish and spinach are good for you. Yes high amounts of bad cholesterol blood levels are bad for you. Simply believing something that 'a ton of people back' is bad for you (the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc.). Also, it does not 'make the most logical sense'. Nobody here is arguing that the paleo diet is good because its actually what our ancestors ate or w/e marketing bullshit surrounds it. We're using studies that show it's good for you despite some of the fallacies of its origins. The studies by scientists that you post are quite possibly psuedo science and I'm sure if I took the time out to research them, they are already debunked by vegetarians that don't even eat fish or debunked possibly by people that are not vegetarians. If what they wrote in that article is so profound why don't they write a book on it and see how successful and backed by modern nutritionists/scientists that i becomes and the criticism that is gets. The truth is that every study out there has been pseudo "debunked"....you just have to follow common sense that the AHA would not lie to you and that The China Study put more research and effort into any of these debunking arguments. Basically, you believe in what you want to believe in, I'll believe what makes the most sense to me. I read the other day about a diet written by a scientist that eating nothing but Twinkies can increase your health if you don't go over your caloric needs on them and there are scientists that will tell you that rat poison is good for you in small amounts. The backed research in a book and common sense/logic a long with stuff supported by the AHA is the stuff that I will believe.....not stuff posted on the internet as most would laugh at me or others if they believed everything that was written on the internet and I'd have to agree. If they are so hard off on believing that they debunked The China Study they should write a book on it and see if that gets debunked as well. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that talking about diet is like talking about religion or politics as everyone is trying to debunk everyone. Vegetarians are debunking Paleo's & Paleos are debunking vegetarians and it goes on and on. I'd put my faith into a large organization that exists outside of the internet such as The AHA and into research done by actual professionals such as the research done in The China Study vs any internet article or book that is not widely backed by modern science and organizations such as the AHA. By the way you're going against the Paleo diet when you say that high cholesterol does not contribute to CVD when the others on here said otherwise and even Rob Wolf contradicted his own diet when he said that 75% of CVD hospital patients have high cholesterol. The China Study if you read it, also does not advocate a 100% vegetarian diet they say that small portions of fish are actually healthy and once in a while snacking on something other than a primarily based vegetarian diet is okay..... High HDL cholesterol does NOT contribute to CVD, as claimed by your beloved AHA: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp However, high LDL and triglycerides do contribute to CVD If you bothered to even give the link on the china study half a glance you would see that Dr. Campbell of the china study and the author have replied back and forth on each others critiques so you can at least examine both sides of the argument. By the way I read the article in the link that you posted and I was right.....it was reverse debunked by one of the authors of The China Study.......
And the author responded to the 'reverse debunk' as well.
|
On July 03 2013 10:17 ShadeR wrote:
It's all clear now. Thanks for explaining the giant erections i get after a steak.
ROFL literally busted out laughing
|
On July 03 2013 09:02 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 07:22 mordek wrote:Try checking your pulse about 15 minutes after eating a large grease filled meal and compare it to your pulse before that. Wait. Seriously? High saturated fat + cholesterol in the blood makes the heart work harder a long with high sodium.
Ok, ultimate experiment coming up in the future since I have some beef with what you're saying. I will be going to Fogo de Chao's July 20th. I will take my pulse before and after going ham on the food there and see if there's any meat to your assertion. I will not chicken out in the face of this challenge for great science.
|
hnnnnnggghhhh fucking LOVE brazilian steak houses.
|
On July 03 2013 23:20 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 09:02 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 03 2013 07:22 mordek wrote:Try checking your pulse about 15 minutes after eating a large grease filled meal and compare it to your pulse before that. Wait. Seriously? High saturated fat + cholesterol in the blood makes the heart work harder a long with high sodium. Ok, ultimate experiment coming up in the future since I have some beef with what you're saying. I will be going to Fogo de Chao's July 20th. I will take my pulse before and after going ham on the food there and see if there's any meat to your assertion. I will not chicken out in the face of this challenge for great science.
Dude, you should warn people before making such posts. Vegans might not digest it too well...
|
Not sure if this belongs in questionthread on here, its a nutrition\dietquestion though so i'll ask here. For whatever reason I set myself a goal to reach a specific weight before I go up again and gain muscle (75kg being that goal.) I am at 78~75.5 now, and have been around here for like 2 or so weeks. (Had a weigh in 2 weeks ago at 75.6kg, and today at 78.0, 180cm tall btw) my BMR is 1800~ and i eat like 1500~kcals a day, but then again I obviously work out a reasonable amount etc so I should be quite a bit under the maintenance calorie intake.
My question is, I've read a few places/heard from a few people, but only a bit more dubious sources, that you will plateau when losing weight, and that its good to have a 'cheat day' where i eat more than i am supposed to, for the metabolism to start up again or something\will help with losing weight. this sounds oddly close to the whole starvation mode 'myth'(?) mumbojumbo. So am not sure if i should just stick to my guns and keep eating at a deficit, or if I should incorporate a cheat day for the sake of losing weight faster.
((Disclaimer: I Realize I could just start eating lots now to gain muscle, but when I started losing weight i set myself the goal of 75kg before I go up agian, and want to stick to this goal.))
|
Errr where did you get 1800 cal BMR? That seems really low...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
