Hey Fat Head, eat more Fat!

[SkinnyPupp]

The problem I see with that study (along with most studies that try to associate saturated fat with disease) is that they group together saturated fats with trans fats. Modern studies are starting to treat them separately, but for 50 years they have been considered one and the same. Obviously we know better know, so you have to keep that in mind when reading these articles. Make sure they specify trans fats when talking about how certain fats affect the body.

And for you to take 2 quotes from 2 studies, and come to the conclusion that "eating more saturated fats lead to insulin resistance/diabetes", I am not even going to respond to you any more. Sorry.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by Liquid_o2

Agreed. Not sure why anyone who disagrees with SkinnyPupp is a 'fool' or a person with 'half a brain'? Everyone has their own opinions, and you can't be closeminded to what other people think and believe.

In the end... when you take out all the science, history and math, anything absorbed in large quantities is not good for you. Moderation is key. A healthy diet of protein, fruits, vegetables, carbs and fats along with exercise is what is important.

The point I am trying to make, over and over, is that the various food guides out there do not suggest a "moderate" amount of grains. They say to eat 8 servings of grains per day, which is more grains than meat. And they suggest that meat "alternatives" are okay. And they suggest that processed oils are okay.

[SkinnyPupp]

Since you appear to be in a reading mood, please read this before anything else.

[SkinnyPupp]

Here's another

"In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression."

Make sure to read this review as well, whatever you do. Basically it talks about how the "guidelines" were given without proper knowledge of why, and how studies since then didn't properly look at different fatty acids, instead lumping everything into either "saturated" or "unsaturated" which is wrong. What is known, is that high carbohydrate diets lead to plenty of diseases. What is known is that trans fatty acids lead to plenty of diseases. What is not known (but drilled into our heads) is that saturated fat leasts to diseases. What I am pretty sure will be proven to be the case, is that it doesn't.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by kAzE-

Again, where are you getting this fact from? From what I learned about human evolution and diet from anthropology class, for most of our history we subsisted on gathered fruits, plants, roots and supplemented with scavenged meat and lucky kills.

"Animal food provided the dominant (65%) energy source, and plant foods constituted the remainder (35%)"

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56(suppl):S42–52.

To suggest that you needed to be "lucky" to catch an animal and eat it is beyond absurd. Even today, native people are 'living off the land' so to speak. Head to the river during spawning season, and you can literally pluck a 50 lbs salmon out of the water. Watch natives throw a net into the water, and pull out pounds of fish. Not even a few hundred years ago, Natives were hunting buffalo by the hundreds. They would steer them off a cliff, and basically take what they needed from the tons of meat they had captured. Hell even in China, they are still using trained birds to pluck fish from the water. And then consider how low the human population was over the last 2.5 million years - it would have been even easier to catch live animals back then.

If humans had to be "lucky" to eat meat, we would have died off a long time ago. If what you think is true (it isn't) then the basis of human evolution would be completely different from what actually happened. Do you really think we were scavengers? Really? I guess the hundreds of thousands of weapons we find all over the world from millions of years ago were just for show. I am actually shocked that you think that way, considering that you claim to have learned about human evolution and anthropology (presumably from a school).

[liu13]

ok, im a complete tool when it comes to these kind of discussions

can someone list 10-20 common foods that consist mostly of carbs? ill start making some adjustments, but i aint quitting smoking

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by liu13

ok, im a complete tool when it comes to these kind of discussions

can someone list 10-20 common foods that consist mostly of carbs? ill start making some adjustments, but i aint quitting smoking

Basically, look at the "Canada Food Guide" and the "Food Pyramid". The stuff they tell you to eat most of, eat less. Replace it with healthy meat, and if you still want carbs, take in low GI carbs.

By all means you should cut out:

-Just about anything with added sugar (candy, pop, donuts)
-Bread
-Rice
-Boxed cereal
-etc

I'm not saying "eat NONE of that stuff" (unless you are trying to drop weight). Just eat LESS of it, and REPLACE it with better carb sources.

And whatever you do, never ever buy something with high fructose corn syrup in it (it may be labeled as "glucose-fructose")

Replace that crap with good food, replace useless cardio with resistance training and sprints, and you will immediately improve on living like a human should. But I guess none of this really matters when you're stupid enough to smoke cigarettes...

[Meowjin]

Whatever happened to the common sense diet?

I've lost a signifigant amount of weight and after gaining some back after 2 years, I'm doing it again and I can't believe people don't understand the basics.

1) eat meats (chicken breasts and lamb chops is what I like)
2) eat less processed foods (eat complex carbs instead like whole grain bread, oatmeal)
3) Drink/eat no sugar! Unless after a workout. Hell even on my cardio days I have a cup of chocolate milk. And I'm dropping weight like crazy again.

Also +1 for the mediterenean diet. When I'm older and don't care about my looks I'll live to 200 eating feta lamb and olive oil

Essentially right now, all I'm eating is lamb chops, chicken breasts, oatmeal, and a pita wrap with some meat and tzatiki with greek yoghurt.

[kazuki]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

The problem I see with that study (along with most studies that try to associate saturated fat with disease) is that they group together saturated fats with trans fats. Modern studies are starting to treat them separately, but for 50 years they have been considered one and the same. Obviously we know better know, so you have to keep that in mind when reading these articles. Make sure they specify trans fats when talking about how certain fats affect the body.

And for you to take 2 quotes from 2 studies, and come to the conclusion that "eating more saturated fats lead to insulin resistance/diabetes", I am not even going to respond to you any more. Sorry.

First of all, the 2 separate sentences after the 2 quotes were supposed to be a explaination of the quote taken from the 2 separate articles. Keep in mind these 2 studies were the ones YOU posted to convince us the health benefits of saturated fats etc. Both articles are recent and suggests that eating saturated fats is bad for your health. I'm not sure where you get the idea that trans fat and saturated fats were considered the same by researchers. But that is not a problem because the first article is from 2007 and the second article is from 2005. I see nothing wrong with what I said thus far.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

Whatever happened to the common sense diet?

I've lost a signifigant amount of weight and after gaining some back after 2 years, I'm doing it again and I can't believe people don't understand the basics.

1) eat meats (chicken breasts and lamb chops is what I like)
2) eat less processed foods (eat complex carbs instead like whole grain bread, oatmeal)
3) Drink/eat no sugar! Unless after a workout. Hell even on my cardio days I have a cup of chocolate milk. And I'm dropping weight like crazy again.

Also +1 for the mediterenean diet. When I'm older and don't care about my looks I'll live to 200 eating feta lamb and olive oil

Essentially right now, all I'm eating is lamb chops, chicken breasts, oatmeal, and a pita wrap with some meat and tzatiki with greek yoghurt.

Basically in that diet, you are moderating sugar intake, decreasing carb intake, increasing protein intake, and pretty much disregarding fat intake (because with all the other adjustments, this takes care of itself). Sounds like a good plan to me, and I'm not surprised that you lost a lot of weight with it.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by kazuki

I see nothing wrong with what I said thus far.

Then I can't help you, sorry.

[kazuki]

It is very difficult to have an intelligent debate when you disagree with me without a good reason and seemingly try to avoid my points (which all have supporting references) by just saying

"I am not even going to respond to you any more. Sorry".

[SkinnyPupp]

If you "see nothing wrong" with thinking that humans are vegetarian first and scavengers second, after taking anthropology, then I really can't be bothered with trying to convince you to think otherwise.

You think I am trying to "avoid" your points? My point is, you have no points. At least not in the way you think. That's why I told you to read more.

Please read some of the material and references I posted up recently (especially the pdf). You will (should) get a clear understanding of why the research on diet is bad when it comes to vilifying saturated fats. Only then will I be able to get through to you with anything else.

[liu13]

lol, you guys would be appalled by my diet and lifestyle

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by liu13

lol, you guys would be appalled by my diet and lifestyle

Not really, you already admitted that you smoke cigarettes

Plus I live in Hong Kong, where the waitresses are literally shocked when we order vegetables (yesterday she had to ask the manager if they serve vegetables by themselves!).

[SkinnyPupp]

Couple more quick quotes for you (found while reading about coconut oil)

"the focus of dietary recommendations is usually a reduction of saturated fat intake, no relation between saturated fat intake and risk of CHD was observed in the most informative prospective study to date." Harvard's Walter Willett, M.D. - American Journal of Public Health

"...in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol... the opposite of what the equations provided by Hegsted at al (1965) and Keys et al (1957) would predict..."

"...In Framingham, for example, we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least, and were the most physically active." William P. Castelli - Archives of Internal Medicine

Will eating more saturated fat make you physically active and lean? No, that's where cause and effect comes into play. For an amusing and interesting blog post about cause and effect (in other words, activity is not what makes you lean) read this blog post.

And speaking of coconut oil, it's great stuff. Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMJUdAyaVBY

The guy is a bit crazy, but his points are valid

[kAzE-]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

"Animal food provided the dominant (65%) energy source, and plant foods constituted the remainder (35%)"

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56(suppl):S42–52.

To suggest that you needed to be "lucky" to catch an animal and eat it is beyond absurd. Even today, native people are 'living off the land' so to speak. Head to the river during spawning season, and you can literally pluck a 50 lbs salmon out of the water. Watch natives throw a net into the water, and pull out pounds of fish. Not even a few hundred years ago, Natives were hunting buffalo by the hundreds. They would steer them off a cliff, and basically take what they needed from the tons of meat they had captured. Hell even in China, they are still using trained birds to pluck fish from the water. And then consider how low the human population was over the last 2.5 million years - it would have been even easier to catch live animals back then.

If humans had to be "lucky" to eat meat, we would have died off a long time ago. If what you think is true (it isn't) then the basis of human evolution would be completely different from what actually happened. Do you really think we were scavengers? Really? I guess the hundreds of thousands of weapons we find all over the world from millions of years ago were just for show. I am actually shocked that you think that way, considering that you claim to have learned about human evolution and anthropology (presumably from a school).

You are confusing time periods. Your study is based on modern hunter gatherers with access to more recent technology. These periods where humans are getting consistent kills are probably around the same period where they were doing argriculture. We are talking about evolution in the hundreds of thousands of years. Most of this period, ancient humans were running around with stick, rocks, flints. Yes, there's a lot of flint weaponary found all over the world but it was still very difficult to kill any big game animals. If they were lucky with a throw, the animal might go on for a few or miles before bleeding to death. By that time another predator would have picked up the scent and pounced on the kill. If I gave you a flint spear, gave you some training, do you think you'll be able to take down a moose? Realize that flint weapons break and break fairly easily. Realize that ancient humans used stone weapons for a majority of our evolution.

You are also very picky with your geographical locations. Do you seriously think that most of the human population lives on the west coast of Canada? Or the buffalo runs in various parts of the world? Do you know that the Americas probably only got populated after the last ice age?

Again, make sure you are consistent with your arguements. You are talking about human evolution in the hundred of thousands or millions of years. Realize argriculture probably started 10,000 years ago. Any argument about prehistory diets and cave man diets should go back before the start of agriculture.

Do you seriously think that we need to eat a diet that consistent primarly of meat to evolve and survive? Do you serious think that if you have mostly foraged foods and supplemented with some meat our species would die off? Do you know that the human population grew at a snails pace for a reason and that reason is because we weren't able to have easy access to food? You have some knowledge about modern diets but you obviously have no idea about human evolution.

Regarding the video, you already know something is wrong when someone goes "Wow, I use this thing for everything!" It's like the old remedies of the past where they though they had one item that they thought was the pancea for everything. I'm sure coconut oil has some benefit somewhere but it's not as extensive as this guy thinks and his health and wellness is probably a result of a variety of factors.

[kAzE-]

Early Hominid Diet

Flaked Stones and Old Bones: Biological and Cultural Evolution at the Dawn of Technology.Preview By: Plummer, Thomas. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2004, Vol. 47, p118-164, 47p

Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility.Preview By: Ungar, Peter S.; Grine, Frederick E.; Teaford, Mark F.. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2006, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p209-228

Dental microwear and diets of African early Homo.Preview By: Ungar, Peter S.; Grine, Frederick E.; Teaford, Mark F.; El Zaatari, Sireen. Journal of Human Evolution, Jan2006, Vol. 50 Issue 1, p78-95

[SkinnyPupp]

OK there you go again, taking facts that I state, and trying to twist them all up in an attempt to make yourself correct, and getting really confused in the process. Taking things like my modern examples of humans being able to catch food (to give easy to understand, quantifiable evidence that humans are hunter/gatherers, not gatherer/scavengers), and turning into a useless argument about time periods and geographical locations... Do you see my point? Your posts are irrelevant and a complete waste of everyone's time. That is why I wanted to give up a few posts ago. There is no hope in getting through to you. Maybe it's because I'm not smart enough, I don't know.

And by the way, your studies are referring to early hominids, not paleolithic people. In other words, they were barely even humans by that point (over 3 million years ago). I am talking about "the stone age" where we had the means and tools to catch prey (and cut meat, which is what the very first tools were used for). That is who we are genetically identical to, not the ones you are referring to.

[kAzE-]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

OK there you go again, taking facts that I state, and trying to twist them all up in an attempt to make yourself correct, and getting really confused in the process. Taking things like my modern examples of humans being able to catch food (to give easy to understand, quantifiable evidence that humans are hunter/gatherers, not gatherer/scavengers), and turning into a useless argument about time periods and geographical locations... Do you see my point? Your posts are irrelevant and a complete waste of everyone's time. That is why I wanted to give up a few posts ago. There is no hope in getting through to you. Maybe it's because I'm not smart enough, I don't know.

And by the way, your studies are referring to early hominids, not paleolithic people. In other words, they were barely even humans by that point (over 3 million years ago). I am talking about "the stone age" where we had the means and tools to catch prey (and cut meat, which is what the very first tools were used for). That is who we are genetically identical to, not the ones you are referring to.

It's not that you aren't smart enough, it's because you aren't just too stubborn to realize a lot of your "ideas" are not correct. If physical anthropologists can't agree about the right composition of protein, fats, carbohydrates of diets of early humans, why the hell do you think you are right with your "ideas."

Additionally, you are an idiot if you think today's modern hunter gatherers are the same as early human hunter gatherers. Do you have any idea of technological advantages that today's hunter gathers have over the hunter gatherer's of the past? Do you think that today's hunter gatherers are using the same tools as the hunter gatherer's of 700,000 years ago? Do you also know that different time periods had different technology? Do you know that different geographical locations meant different diets. Hunter gatherers on the coast would have a different diet than hunter gatherers inland. Early humans in any area would have been versatile enough to utilize as many food resources as they possibly could. That would mean scavaging, hunting, and gathering. The point of contention between the two of us is the ease of hunting:

You think it's easy to catch prey with early human technology.
I think it's fucking hard to kill something with flint tools.

You should just give up your argument about cave man diets and just stick to what most people already agree on:

1. Do not eat processed foods
2. Meat is okay for you

[hal0g0dv2]

coconut milk just as good right ?

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by halogodv2

coconut milk just as good right ?

Coconut milk contains plenty of oil. Beware of "coconut milk" drinks that add a ton of sugar, and are diluted with water. Or the canned stuff that mixes concentrated coconut milk solids with water. Buy pure coconut milk if you want to cook with it (the best brand is Chaokoh)

Damn you should see the green curry I make from scratch with fresh herbs and a mortar & pestle.. Fucking awesome, can't wait to make it again

[goo3]

What's the difference between grass-fed and grain-fed cows? How is grass-fed better? I heard that grain-fed ones are.. fattier and tastier LOL.

I also want to chime in that I dont' feel the historic argument is the best one to use..

Heart disease and diabetes: Are these not (I don't know how else to call them) level 2+ diseases? Humans didn't live long enough in the early days to run into these problems . Other health issues would have got to them first. For example, you can't say: if we followed the lifestyles/diets of our ancestors but maintained our current levels of sanitation and health care etc.., cancer would be non-existent.

I want point out a flaw about using historic diets to support the argument, but i'm too lazy right now..

[hal0g0dv2]

how about this stuff skinny pup



Coconut Milk


Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 1/3 cup (80ml)
Servings Per Container 5

Amount Per Serving

Calories: 120

Calories from Fat: 100



%Daily Value*

Total Fat: 11 g


17 %


Saturated Fat 10 g


49 %


Trans Fat 0 g


0 %

Cholesterol 0 mg


0 %

Sodium 25 mg


1 %

Total Carbohydrates 2 g


1 %


Dietary Fiber 0 g


0 %


Sugars 2 g


Protein 1 g


Vitamin A


0 %

Vitamin C


0 %

Calcium


0 %

Iron


4 %

*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.

Ingredients: Coconut, water, guar gum (a stabilizer).

Allergens: Contains coconut.
TRANS FAT FREE | MSG FREE
GLUTEN FREE | PRESERVATIVE FREE
Shake Well Before Using. Any Solids Will Liquefy During Cooking. Store Any Unused Portions In Airtight Plastic Container In Refrigerator Up To 10 Days; In Freezer Up To 3 Months.

[SkinnyPupp]

I guess that's okay.. Seems kind of watered down. Chaokoh's ingredient is: Coconut. The nutrition facts look pretty similar, but Chaokoh has more fat per serving (which means it's not as watered down)

Try to get that if you can. In Hong Kong at least, it's no more expensive than any other brand. I buy it by the 1L container for about $1.50 CAD.