CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-28-2006, 11:01 PM   #51
Ron Murphy
Departed Ron Murphy is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 103
Nick, do you believe that saturated fat and cholesterol are one of the cause of CHD, Cordain strongly says there is a relation. He is completely at odds with the weston a price foundation on this very important issue and most of the people who post on this board.
Cordain Paleo diet makes the most sense to me.Like I have said before, He advocates high amounts of fruits and veggies and isn't concerned about the GI in fruits[except dried fruit] like the zone is. I believe you can be healthy eating small amounts of animal products, if the majority of your foods are fruits and veggies. I personally don't eat them and I feel it's the best way for me and especally for people with health problems.

nick do you consider cordain's paleo diet the highest standard for eating in your life. or do to pick and choose diets like others on this board do when it is convenient to do so.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2006, 11:27 PM   #52
Ron Murphy
Departed Ron Murphy is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 103
mark, doing what your doing is the best way to do it no doubt about it.

Could you eat the meat raw, can you eat it with pleasure without any condiments. like all the other animals in nature do.

If we true meat eaters, we would have no trouble killing the animal and eating it right there, Meat eating animal don't think twice about getting right in there and chewing down on anything they catch ,it's in there natural instincts. I don't believe we have these natural instincts.
I have a good friend,60 years old,hunting all his life, thats lives to hunt when he can. He is seriously into it.
I offered him some fresh apricots, The one he picked out had a tiny worm in it. He wanted to throw it away and get another. I said to him you can kill and eat a whole deer and you can't deal with a worm in a piece of fruit!
thanks for your imput
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 04:55 AM   #53
Scott Kustes
Member Scott Kustes is offline
 
Scott Kustes's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 1,258
It seems that you assume that apples have not evolved over time. Our HG ancestors didn't walk into the forest and choose from Royal Gala, Braeburn, Pink Lady, Red Delicious, and Granny Smith apples. They ate crabapples....modern science and human natural selection over the last few millenia since we began agriculture have produced our wonderful sweet fruits. That your friend didn't want to eat a worm doesn't really prove much.

You also assume that tastes have not changed through the course of time. Humans used to relish the organ meats. Most of us won't eat them these days, although I find them quite a bit more tasty than muscle meat. And quite a few of us here give our meat a slight blast of heat and the middle is not just rare, but raw.

You're also slightly off base...meat eating animals are taught what is food by their parents. Dogs regularly kill animals and are born knowing how to do it. But it's rare to see a house pet (still a meat eater in the genes) chow down on the squirrel, bird, or groundhog that s/he has caught...no one has ever taught the dog that it is ok to eat that. Does that mean that a diet of corn and carrots is better for a dog? Lions are taught to hunt by their parents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 04:57 AM   #54
Marc Moffett
Member Marc Moffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Laramie  WY
Posts: 141
Ah, ... now I see your take.

There is no scientific question that hominids have been eating meat for millions of years, and eating substantial amounts of meat for 100s of thousands of years. This is not to advocate any such naive hypothesis as the so-called "man the hunter" theory (nicely dismantled by Matt Cartmill in his book on (against) hunting "A View to a Death in the Morning"), which basically places hunting and meat consumption as the fundamental driving forces behind human evolution. Though many neurobiologists, e.g., Terrance Deacon and Willam Calvin, do believe that the availability of calorically dense meat was essential in the rapid expansion of the brain from H. habilis/H. erectus to H. sapiens. Be that as it may, all I want to emphasize is that there is no serious scientific controversy that humans have consumed large amounts of meat over stretches of time that are not insignificant in evolutionary terms. That observation is enough to motivate the claim that human beings will exhibit physiological adaptations to meat consumption. And that is enough to, in some sense, make us "true" meat eaters. We also arguably, though more speculatively, exhibit overt adaptations to hunting. For instance, our fine motor control has arguably been selected for because of its role in the production of increasingly more sophisticated stone tools.

It is also true that for a large portion of our evolutionary history we have had fire available. And cooking, it is worth noting, is an important bacteriocide as well as flavor enhancer. This has no doubt affected our appreciation of food (possibly evolutionarily, definitely culturally). After all, which sounds better to you a raw yam or a cooked one? A raw spear of asaparagus or a cooked one? For me, cooked in both cases. Does that mean I am not truly a vegetarian, because true vegetarians would eat the dang things raw?

We can and do, of course, eat raw meat. I eat my meat on the rare side. But like all of us, our tastes are in part determined by our culture. Your friend's aversion to eating worms is a cultural one, for example; my aversion to eating brains is also cultural. Heck, I know so many kids whose aversion to eating their greens is significant.

Human culinary behavior is a complex thing and I don't think that there is a straightforward line of reasoning from the fact that you and I aren't prepared to sit down at an elk carcass for dinner to the claim that we aren't "true" meat-eaters. What matters, from a dietary point of view, is that we have been meat-eaters for a long enough period of time to exhibit adaptations to meat consumption.

Best, Marc
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 03:09 PM   #55
Neal Winkler
Member Neal Winkler is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shiloh  Il
Posts: 613
Ron,

In the first study I cited choleserol was lowered by 32 points, that's hardly insignificant. Are you saying that the reason there was no mortaility benifit was because it wasn't below 150? It was pretty close, only 15 points away.

In the second study, fat was lowered, AND saturated fat was lowered. Surely, there should of been some benefit, even if it wasn't below a certain number, unless it is your claim that it MUST be below a certain number before there is any benefit at all.

The hypertension study you cited doesn't prove that high fat or saturated fat diets are bad for you. For one, it didn't even compare the low fat vegan diet with a high fat diet. Two, it used mutli intervantions with the fasting, which is a popular thing around here. Three, I never said that a vegetarian/vegan diet can't be helpful, because they are certainly better than an all high glycemic sugar and processed food diet that most people eat, however, that hardly means its the most optimal diet there is.

The other vegetarian study you cited didn't compare it to a high fat diet, so it doesn't even speak to me. So far as I can tell from the abstract, the only "cardiac disease marker" that it looked at was LDL cholesterol, which I don't even believe to be a "cardiac disease marker." I also find it funny that it states that the vegetarian diet was likely the one found in early human evolution - yeah very very easrly human evlution, like, more than 2.5 million years ago before our ancestors became omnivores which we have been for the last 2.5 million years.



  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 08:43 PM   #56
Ron Murphy
Departed Ron Murphy is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 103
neal, thanks for your comments,
in the studies you posted there was no mortaility benifit. do you know what the mortaility was .was it high or low to start with.
I have no problem with the studies you posted, these studies that you posted seemed much in step with what the AMA recommends for treating heart. as your studies proved they did nothing to improve CHD. DR fuhrmans has stated many times that the AMA recommendations are worthless.
this thread should end but I would like to know the answer to the mortility rates thankyou.
ps. could you also commemt about the picture with the bear in it. Is that you. what is the person doing. Is the bear alive or dead.I tried serching and could't find anything, thanks
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lower Cholesterol Jaime Steele Nutrition 6 08-11-2007 06:42 PM
Great snatch and great cln and jerk. Mike Burgener Exercises 6 05-19-2007 02:35 PM
Cholesterol question Kevin Timmons Nutrition 4 04-10-2007 08:07 AM
I have high LDL cholesterol! Neal Winkler Nutrition 15 02-18-2006 12:31 PM
Cholesterol tricks FRANCO BELCASSIO Nutrition 3 12-15-2003 03:14 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.