Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Bioavailable Proteins - Post a day
|
I'm 52 years old and in the best physical condition of my life. I go out of my way to consume more protein than carbs/fat. That works for me but there's enough highly fit people out there that follow other diets to prove that food intake is not a one-size-fits-all deal. People.are just wired differently so fuel needs differ according to the individual. ETA: Age is another consideration. As you get older, you're training habits and metabolism changes so it's likely that your diet will have to change as well. |
Eric Marx wrote: How did you settle on that percentage of carbohydrates for a “healthy human diet”” Everything I‘ve read suggests both low and high carbohydrate diets aren’t healthy, though it‘s confounded a bit by the types of carbohydrates. |
Nick Niebuhr wrote: Animal protein is great for building muscle, but the lack of fiber and abundance of saturated fat that usually accompany it aren’t so great for long term health. While you may know young, active people thriving on red meat, your timeline is too short to see the deleterious effects of chronic consumption. We can all appreciate the kid bouldering hard isn’t doing so because of sour patch kids, but it’s less obvious red meat isn’t a health food. Give it a couple decades, as it takes time for vascular disease and cancer to develop. Better yet, look at the preponderance on non-industry sponsored scientific literature on red meat consumption and health/disease. As to your question, after choosing to eliminate red meat from our diets over a decade ago, both my wife and I have felt ill when mistakenly eating it. |
|
For anybody following this thread for entertainment value, here's something that I found hilarious. Warning: it's a bit pollitically incorrect, and depending your interpretation, it could lend support to either side of the argument, but I hope you can appreciate the humor. If I offend anyone, please let me know, and I'll edit this post. I was searchiong for research about the connection between meat intake and cancer, and I found this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10577092/ (By the way, there are many more articles that explore meat intake and cancer, this is just one example). The authors found strong links between red meat intake and cancer, and they present various hypothesis about why this might be the case. As always, when evaluating research, I looked over the authors to see if they seemed reputable, or if they had any conflicts of interest or corporate affiliations. While doing so, I couldn't help but notice that the great majority seemed to have names from the Indian sub-continent. They all seem to work for large universities in the United States, but I had to ask myself, "Is this a hidden cabbal of Hindu scientists trying to push a vegetarian conspiracy for religious reasons?" I hope people can see the humor in that, especially as I am basically a vegetarian myself, though not for religious, ethnic, or political reasons. In all seriousness, there's a hidden point here, that I'll come back to at the end of this long post. --- I'd like to say to the OP that this thread has helped me. It's made me think about my protein intake once again, which is especially important for older athletes, and some of the tips gave me ideas to increase my plant based protein intake. For example, I love the idea of buying bags of baby carrots, and using them as hummus "delivery devices." Bags of baby carrots are easily available at my local grovery store. Sometimes it's these simple, practical, obvious things that once can easily incorporate into one's life that are most helpful. So thanks again. This is a usefull thread, despite the many strange turns it's taken. --- Eric, I'm glad that I didn't completely missrepresent your views. However, when you started talking about evolution, it was hard to follow your points. Can you clarify your points? Your wrote: I do know that an unknowable creator or God, began the universe at some point by creating time, space, and matter. The mechanism by which it expands seems to be the big bang. I'm sure you know evolution is a fact and a theory. I'm sold on the fact of evolution, that species evolve intra-species, but not the theory of evolution or extra-species evolution. The idea that at some point bananas and humans shared a common ancestor and genetic changes lead us away from our banana ancestors. I'm confused by your distinction between "intra" and "extra" species evolution. My guess is that you do believe each species followed its own progressive evolution over time, but you do not beleive that species evolved from each other, i.e. that a human and a bannana are related. Or perhaps you beleive that groups of similar species (humans and chimpanzees, or bannanas and plantains) evolved from common ancestors, but that groups of different species (the "human and chimpanzee group" and the "bannana and plantain" group) were created independently. Is that an accurate representation of your views? If so, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that it is a highly selective, extremely limited, grossly impoverished interpretation of basic evolutionary science. As long as you recognize this, fair enough, you're entitled to your beleifs. However, for anybody who is less well versed in evolution, I can tell you that multiple lines of abundant, accesible, and incontrovertible evidence link all life forms to each other, and to LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, or the ancestral life form from which all life on this planet evolved. There may have been other forms of life, distinct from LUCA, which existed before or at the same time as LUCA, but if so they did not survive. All life forms are related to eachother and to LUCA. That is an established fact. In short, yes, humans and bannans are deeply, intrinsically, fundamentaly related. --- Back to meat. Eric, you wrote the following: Our human ancestors are believed to have begun consuming meat between 2.5-3 million years ago, I'm surprised you don't know that. Of course. Your statement is correct. However, there is an enormous difference between stating that our early human ancestors begain incorporating meat into the diet 2.5-3 million years ago (which is supported by evidence) and stating that humans evolved to eat mostly meat for millions of years (which is not supported by evidence). The most recent research, as I understand it, shows that a large proportion of the early human diet and diets of all indigenous people (except those who lived where no plant sources were available) has always included large amounts of vetegable, fruits, root crops, nuts, seeds, grains, and so on. As I explained before, this is supported by our anatomy and physiology. Our teath, the enzymes in our mouth and stomach, the length of our digestive track, the presence of gut bacteria that require large amounts of plant material, and so on, all point to the fact that humans are omnivores who would do best to follow a plant-based diet supplemented by occasional animal products. I think that the human body might show some adaptations for eating a larger proportion of meat compared to chimpanzees and other great apes, such as the smaller overall size of our digestive track, but I'm not sure I completely agree with the expensive tissue hypothesis that you've probably encountered. For example, I find it equally convincing that the relative reduction in the size of our digestive system compared to other great apes might be related to our upright stance, or other factors. Last, concerning brain size, the idea that our large brains were created by increased protein intake from meat is one theory among many, and not at all an established fact as you claim. There are at last a half-dozen explanations for why our brains grew so large, all of them equally or more likely than the "meat eating" hypothesis. Once again, you present your selective interpretation as the truth. --- Back to the "hidden point" in the idea that there is a conspiracy of Hindu vegetarians promulgating a plant-based diet. In any of these contentious debates I think it's important to ask what factors are driving the discussion. Why has the meat-based diet gained so much traction in recent decades? Is is just another diet fad? Or are there more sinister forces at play? I think it would be naive to beleive that the agriculture and meat industry is not pouring millions of dollars into pro meat lobbying, campaigns, influencers, and so on. It's an enormous industry, it has huge amounts of money, and we should expect it to behave just like the oil industry, the automobile industry, the tobacco industry, and so on. I think a most of the pro-meat hype comes from this source. There is no equivalent plant-based lobby, certainly not with the financial and political resources of the meat industry. I also think that the pro-meat trend has bcome political. It's become a sign of hyper masculinized virility. Unfortunately, men seem particularly succeptible to this hype, both young and old. Perhaps this speaks to the fundamental insecurity of many men in a rapidly changing world. |
Kyle Edmondson wrote: When is the Best Posts of 2024 thread showing up? |
Permabeta wrote: Interesting that you feel ill when you eat meat, that's the first I've heard that (other than people who develop the allergy to meat caused by a tick bite). A good number of the people I know who have started eating more meat are indeed young-ish, but some are also older (55+) and one in particular is a friend of a friend who has been eating a meat-heavy diet for 20+ years and is now thriving at 68 years old. Just one example, but my point is it's not just young people. I also know there are people thriving on a plant based diet. Rich Roll comes to mind, in his 50s and doing Iron Mans. I'd be curious if he were to eat meat again if that would help or hurt him performance-wise and his general well-being. Quick point on saturated fat. I did a quick search online and found that overwhelmingly, science is now seeing that saturated fat is NOT linked to heart disease or long term health problems. Admittedly I didn't dig too deep, but glanced at a few different articles/compilations of meta analyses. My guess is that the idea that saturated fat is bad for you is remnants from the sugar/fat debacle of the 60s. At the end of the day, I guess what all this shows is that everybody is different. You feel ill when you eat red meat, I feel on top of the world. |
|
Gentle reminder that the title of this thread is not “Argue about your diets (novels only)”. |
Bruno Schull wrote: I would argue there IS an equivalent plant based lobby. Fake meat brands have certainly dumped money into the industry, and isn't Bill Gates a huge advocate/lobbyist for it all? And somebody has to be funding 'documentaries' like What The Health, The Twin Experiment, etc. |
|
Bruno, that was brilliant. I have always wondered on this type of diet why it tends to gravitate towards beef? If you were truly dedicated, wouldn’t it be primarily fish and venison? Or bugs and grubs as others have mentioned? Depends on how far back you want to look. Eating of domesticated cattle, whether munching on grass or not, can’t be older than a few thousand years. If we’re meat eaters by nature, then it’s certainly not beef Is beef the superfood because it’s so much easier to fill your freezer with than venison. Free range cattle seem to walk a few hundred steps a day, mostly stand around and have shit running down their leg. Where as a deer or elk lives the life of an athlete. How do you call that the same thing? If you’re really serious about your red meat diet, seems like you’ve got to give up your fall climbing plans, and get a big ol chest freezer in your house. Otherwise, you’re just a consumer. This statement was sponsored by the Metamucil lobby. |
|
Unfortunately, one can only bear to repeat themselves so many times as clearly as possible and not receive any meaningful pushback. I'll make a long form youtube video about animal-based dieting and rock climbing performance, establishing my own 23 year passion for diet(I gave up fast food when I was 10 based on internet research I was doing), my diet history, my learning, and an aggregation of all of that knowledge, into a reasonable, rational, and hopefully informative video. People can't comprehend a 5,000 word forum post, let alone 100s(if not thousands) of cited studies I've read and aggregated through my rational brain. Couple quick things: % Daily values, as listed on all food products, are the LOWEST value of a particular nutrient an average person should get in their daily, unathletic diet. Meaning hitting 100% DV is a minimum number, not a maximum number. Are you offended by a label when it says you're only getting 12% of your DV of calcium and 6% of thiamin from whatever food product? Who are they to say how much YOU need? You're a special human with different baseline nutritional requirements than the rest of us, and you have to go on your OWN journey to figure it out. I can't roll my eyes hard enough. Permabeta:Base nutrition is calories in/calories out. I eat a low-carb diet because I eat a high-fat diet. If on average you burn 2,000 calories a day, you won't get fat no matter where you're sourcing those calories from. So the question is "how do I fit as much usable nutrition as possible into a healthy amount of calories?" Sugar would be "empty calories" as we say lol. Nutrient dense foods(steak/fish/eggs) are high fat, so you cut the low-nutrient or low digestibility foods(carbs,most vegetables) and eat 2,000ish calories(or your level of training) of nutrient-dense foods. Spope: I'm not hungry when I say I've eaten barely anything at all. Quite the opposite. I'm saying I've eaten nutrient-dense food, without unnecessary load on my system, which was the OP's original question. How to add more nutrition without feeling like you're eating all day. Grug: Thank you, if only you find it informative, I've done a good job lol. Mr. Rogers: I'll say a third time, I'd change my mind in an instant. You don't come to learn anything by being resistant to learning. Unfortunately, nobody here is making any sort of reasonable, rationed arguments about the nutritional points I've repeated over and over again. I never thought I'd say this, but except for my sworn-enemy and nemesis, Bruno Schull. Rogers reference % Daily values and base caloric needs if you think nutrition is personal. Andy Shoemaker: I said earlier creatine is endogenous, you've provided another (weak)study supporting what I'm saying. What I also said is "not enough" which is true. The questions you need to ask yourself to form a healthy diet are, "Is 1 gram of endogenous creatine enough for my level of physical activity? Why is creatine important, what purpose does it serve in the body? Do I know any better about my creatine intake since I've likely never gotten 3/4g? If I needed more creatine, where would I get it from? Creatine from a lab? Why is this essential nutrient abundant in steak anyway, and why does the human body run on it in the first place?" "If it's from a lab, why not just source it from steak?" Considering there's about 100,000 published studies on creatine, you have your work cut out for you. David Jefferson: Just trolling you, I'm sure you're a good climber. Like the sour patch kid kid, you should look into the nutrient deficiencies I've mentioned, if for nothing other than entertainment value. Jonathan Walker: Every food label is telling you you're unhealthy if you don't hit your % Daily Values. I don't care at all what sort of diet anybody eats, I'm just here to share information. Kyle Edmondson: I'll post photos of my own plant-based self at 27 vs. my own animal-based self at 33 in the youtube video and you tell me if you can spot the differences. You ever see a heroin addict or a meth head? Do they have a certain look to them? Sullen, pimply, sallow, strung out. Maybe you know one person who you couldn't tell. What about a 285-pound balloon-y roid head? We're talking about averages. Plant-based or vegan eaters have certain look to them. I can make an educated guess at that. Bruno: We can save the evolution talk for email. I'm not sure what camp you lie in, but Mr. Rogers and many people in this thread seem to think that we can't even decide what a healthy human diet is because we're all so genetically different. Apparently, we're also genetically almost identical to bananas(what is funny, is that we are lol). You guys have some deciding to do as to what line of discussion you want to take for consistency. Digestion is a great point, we have an incredibly small digestive tract, and another reason why bioavailable and nutrient-dense foods are so important. You have a very limited time to suck as much usable nutrition from food before it reaches the end of those 30-odd feet. 30-odd feet of intestines? How dare you, I'm a different type of person and it's on me to figure out what intestinal length works FOR ME. I don't think the brain got larger because of protein consumption, I think it got larger because of heme iron, Omega 3 fat, and cholesterol consumption, since that's mostly what it's made of. Maybe the muscle growth allowed us to catch and kill larger prey. We'll never be able to establish hard facts about this stuff from 2.7 MYA, so let's aggregate data and use our human rational brains to THINK about it. If the brain is primarily composed of Omega 3 fats, and the muscles primarily composed of proteins, and we wanted to increase the size of those things over millions of years of evolution, what might we incorporate into the diet? Could it be...hmm...Omega 3 fats and bioavailable amino acids? Where do those come from? I agree with your take on the politics of dieting, which is why I find the climate "scientists" particularly reprehensible in their disdain for humanity as they recommend horrific diets. I'm done for real and unfollowing, like, comment, subscribe and tell your friends about my youtube channel. (Trolling, I will never say this in a video or in any serious manner ever.) Edit:@flatulation, missed your post. All ruminant animals share similar characteristics in terms of nutrient content. I would love to eat venison year round. Or giraffe. For hilarity. |
|
It's not meat, it’s the carbs. Dave here eats just the patties without the bread or anything else. This experiment contrasts well with the “supersize me” one to make that point. |
Kyle Edmondson wrote: Lone Ranger is impotent? I saw it too, in his picture. Excellent post. |
Eric Marx wrote: ICYMI |
|
I don't have a strong opinion, but I do know that people who preach a specific diet and make that a key part of their personality are some of the most annoying folks out there. |
Aaron Kolb wrote: But have you tried going vegan? |
Todd Berlier wrote: "The recommended daily allowance for protein intake is 0.83 g/kg per day and is calculated to meet the requirements of 97%–98% of the population (two SD above the estimated average requirement).1" |
Eric Marx wrote: Eric, that is awesome. I am more than happy to diagnose and treat your sexual dysfunction. Those pictures should provide me more than enough info. |
|
Lmfao, amazing, I'm dying. Not only am I working off Long Ranger's photo, but also his minimal description of his nutrient-deficit diet. I'll provide additional photos for your particular type of analysis but you'll have to subscribe to my OnlyFans. @headpointhand-something-or-other |
|
I saw a YouTube video of a guy that only eats bread, pea and soy protein powder and a multi vitamin. He climbs 5.13 trad and boulders V12! I also read Gordon Peterson will be adopting the diet when he returns from his drug induced coma in Russia to cure his fentanyl addiction. |
Todd Berlier wrote: Statistically, this is very possible and although 5.13 trad is rare, likely not unique. |
