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 12-14-2006, 04:11 PM   #1
Frank Menendez
Member Frank Menendez is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami  Florida
Posts: 810
I am trying to stay away from some of the higher fructose fruits out there, which are the ones that have the least? is there a chart someone can direct me to? thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 04:28 PM   #2
Chris Forbis
Member Chris Forbis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Joplin  Missouri
Posts: 922
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/nutritio...its_table.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 04:48 PM   #3
Frank Menendez
Member Frank Menendez is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami  Florida
Posts: 810
Excellent!! So if im looking to eat them throughout the day stay with low fructose fruits (like kiwi, apricots, cantaloupe)... if I want post work our recovery, stay with low fructose + highest glucose fruits (banana)?


(Message edited by frankm007 on December 14, 2006)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 05:45 PM   #4
Kevin McKay
Member Kevin McKay is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: albany   ca
Posts: 1,110
Well you should also factor in gi, but I guess some would argue that a post workout insulin spike is a good thing, the debate goes on.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 05:47 PM   #5
Kevin McKay
Member Kevin McKay is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: albany   ca
Posts: 1,110
Cherries look good have a low gi and some amazing anti inflammatory action. Same for blueberries.

(Message edited by kmckay on December 14, 2006)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2006, 12:26 PM   #6
Greg Battaglia
Member Greg Battaglia is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Springfield  PA
Posts: 468
If you're looking for carbs to fill muscle glycogen, toss fruit altogether. Go with starchy vegetables; squash, tubers, carrots, etc. As a part of any paleo diet fruit should be minimized. If you're eating lots of fruit you're not on a true paleo diet. Evolution, anthropology, and science all indicate that the human diet was basically loaded with meat, and any plant foods that were consumed (note: wild fruit is very fibrous and low in sugar) were not carb dense, with the exception of some roots and tubers (complex carbs, not simple sugar like in domestic fruits). Sugar wrecks havoc on your metabolism and overall health, this includes modern fruits. Not to sound like a broken record, but we must eliminate the mind set of "Man the forager" and start thinking more along the lines of "Man the hunter". Even H/G's in tropical areas have been shown to exhibit a diet closer to carnivory than herbivory. Sorry for the rant.:biggrin:
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 10:45 AM   #7
Charlie Jackson
Banned Charlie Jackson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Santa Carlos  New Mexico
Posts: 204
Not to sound like a broken record, but we must eliminate the mind set of "Man the forager" and start thinking more along the lines of "Man the hunter". Even H/G's in tropical areas have been shown to exhibit a diet closer to carnivory than herbivory

I'm not really sure what scientist you're getting this information from. Maybe a dentist or an economist? We have the teeth of a herbavore and examination of fosilized feces proves that early man had a diet that was very high in fiber (1.5g per pound of body weight) and very low in meat. Early man was really a gatherer/scavenger and hunting was not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Eating lots of meat is a modern phenomenon. The notion that early man was consuming pounds of meat every week can not be supported by scientific data.

One thing that almost everyone agrees on is that the diet of early man was a diet that was low in calories and very high in fiber. A diet that is high in meat fits neither of those criteria.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 12:50 PM   #8
Kevin McKay
Member Kevin McKay is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: albany   ca
Posts: 1,110
"We have the teeth of a herbivore" I distinctly remember reading somewhere that the thinness of enamel on human teeth was an indicator that we are less herbavore than previously thought.

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 03:06 PM   #9
Greg Battaglia
Member Greg Battaglia is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Springfield  PA
Posts: 468
Oh God, where do I begin? Alright, well, if you're referring to old, out-dated data, then yes, you would be right to claim that the majority of the calories eaten by H/G's came from plant foods or "gathering" so to speak. However, after more thorough analysis, it was found that earlier research on H/G diets clumped fish, other sea foods, and insects into the "gathered" category. As a result, it was estimated that the average intake for H/G's was about 35% animal matter and 65% plant matter. However, when seafood and insects were included into the animal products category (which is the appropriate categorization, not the opposite) it was discovered that the true data actually flipped the ratio, placing animal products at 65% and plant products at 35%. Even so, this interpretation may be innacurate, because it is an average of all recorded hunter-gatherer data. When a few plant dominant H/G outliers are removed from the data set, the ratio of animal/plant products in the diet increases even further! The majority of H/G's get more than half of their calories from animal foods.

As for our ancestors, no one can really know for sure since we can't go back in time. However, we can make a very confident educated guess based on anthropoligical findings and human digestive mechanisms. For instance, contrary to your rather outlandish claims, carbon isotope analysis has indicated that the protein quality and quantity is indistinguishable from trophic level carnivores (hint: this means lots of meat!). In addition, analysis of the human digestive tract has shown promising evidence (proof even?) that humans are biologically designed to follow a meat-based diet. For instance, animals can easily be identified by the structure and function of their digestive system. When comparing the digestive system of humans to that of both carnivores and herbivores, it becomes shockingly apparent that human digestion has MUCH more in common with carnivores than with herbivores. To view a chart making this comparison look here http://paleodiet.com/comparison.html

Not to even mention that sustaining high energy expidenture on mainly wild edible plant foods is virtually impossible. In addition, things like EPA/DHA that are found in concentrated quantities in animal fats, are not found at all in plant foods. On top of that, the conversion rate of EFA's in plant foods to EPA/DHA is incredibly inefficient, lending greater support for the meat-eater philosophy.

And finally, you're claim that humans have the teeth of an herbivore hold no baring when one has a proper understanding of human evolution. Humans, unlike most highly carnivorous animals, make a kill through highly strategic group-planned tactics (probably because we're so smart, relatively). They used tools and weapons to kill and butcher their food. Conversely, carnivores like cats, for instance, kill their prey by using physical force and by chomping into their prey upon the attack. What I'm getting at is that humans never NEEDED to evolve the sharp rigid incisors that are so common in other carnivorous animals, because the methods that they used to obtain their prey were complimented by tools and weapons that allowed them to kill and cut up their food without first biting into it.

Also, there is a flaw in your logic. Your theory is that humans ate a high fiber, low calorie diet. You then posit that it's not possible that humans could have eaten much meat due to the fact that such behavior simply would not adhere to your theory. In good science, theory is proven by evidence, not the other way around. You're using pseudo-science to support your views.

I could go on and on here, but I honestly don't have the time nor the desire to do so. Do you're research before you make a misguided claim like "...early man had a diet that was very high in fiber (1.5g per pound of body weight) and very low in meat." Oh, and not to dismiss your question: "I'm not really sure what scientist you're getting this information from. Maybe a dentist or an economist?" My answer is:

Only the leading scientists in anthropology and evolutionary medicine! Here's some sources from which I obtained most of the information to disprove your misunderstanding of evolution and science as a whole. All these sources can be credited to scientists. If you could supply me with some sound sources supporting your claim and backing it with science I'd be delighted to read them. Until then, do your research before making claims.

1. http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/#Basics

Important exerpt: Coprolites are fossilized fecal remains and, except for bones and feathers, do not contain any digestive remnants of animal flesh and organs[Hint: this is what Charlie is using as his evidence for a nearly vegetarian diet]. Consequently, coprolites almost universally can only reveal the plant food types in the diet and cannot quantitatively show the relative amounts of plant and animal food proportions. Stable isotope studies of the collagen in Stone Age humans (living in England 13,000 years ago) show that their diet (in terms of protein content and quality) was indistinguishable from top-level trophic carnivores such as foxes and wolves.

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=15294479&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_ docsum

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=14672286&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_ docsum

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=14672287

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=11965522&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_ docsum
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 03:53 PM   #10
Steve Liberati
Affiliate Steve Liberati is offline
 
Steve Liberati's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pennsauken  NJ
Posts: 1,649
Wow case closed. Nice job Greg

Charlie,
I hope some day we meet at a seminar or something. Love to see if you are as bad in person as you think you are on the board.

By the way, don't internet tough guys like you have their own website by now?
  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

BB 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
Canned Fruits Patrick Donnelly Nutrition 2 04-26-2007 10:28 PM
No fruits vs Fruits with sugar Eric Lester Nutrition 6 05-09-2006 11:00 AM
Fructose at bedtime? Frank Menendez Nutrition 10 01-18-2006 06:08 AM
Fructose Information Brian Hand Nutrition 9 06-22-2004 04:43 AM
Fructose? Juices? Patrick Johnston Nutrition 4 04-20-2004 01:25 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.