FitDay Discussion Boards

FitDay Discussion Boards (https://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums/)
-   Diets (https://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums/diets/)
-   -   Fad Diets (https://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums/diets/1118-fad-diets.html)

avelina 05-21-2010 04:52 PM

Fad Diets
 
I saw this link on a blog I read and thought it was funny, and interesting. Which of the diets of today will we see on a list like this in twenty years?
Fad Diet Types ? Fad Diets Explained at WomansDay.com

fletch8502 05-21-2010 06:25 PM

Those are ridiculous!!! Ahhhh!!! It would be interesting to see what diets of today end up on there...I can think of a few...

The worst diet I have ever been on (which I DON'T recommend!) was the 2-4-6-8 diet. It was extreme calorie cycling with 200 calories the first day (yes, DAY), then 400 the next, then 600, 800, and back around to 200. Yes, of course I lost weight, but it totally wasn't healthy! Those 200 cal days were painful. I remember on the 800 calorie days I was always baffled as to how I could possibly eat that many calories - LOL!

It's amazing what people will do to be thin, huh? I think I'll take healthy and fit over skinny and miserable any day!

bsaz 05-21-2010 07:38 PM

They were talking about this on NPR. Basically, during bad times, we all get a little anorexic, and try to control the one thing we can. Our food intake.

Lizzycritter 05-22-2010 12:09 AM

HCG will be on there in a few years :)

lighten 05-22-2010 01:57 AM

I think the biggest "fad" we are in right now is the high-protein fad. I spent 5 years eating 6 small meals a day consisting of protein. I consulted various trainers and they all gave me roughly the same diet - lots of protein. I happened to stumble upon a book called "The China Study" and I was dumbfounded by the harm so much protein was doing to by body. I then read "Eat to Live", and was convinced that I needed to change my diet. I discovered a great website Whole Food Mommies - Nutrition, Whole Food Plant Based Diet Blog and Recipes that had lots of great recipes to get me started. I also LOVE The Cancer Project / A Nutrition and Cancer Nonprofit Organization / Dietary Guidelines, Recipes, Resources, and Classes

tandoorichicken 05-22-2010 03:11 AM

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there, lighten. I strongly suggest you read the debate between T. Colin Campbell (author of "The China Study") and Loren Cordain on the efficacy and necessity of protein here (pdf). IMO Dr. Cordain has the more compelling argument (in favor of greater protein intake), mainly because he clearly cites over 150 different scientific studies in support of his statements. Dr. Campbell, on the other hand, offers up a few quite dated in-text references in his position piece, which is also written in what seems to me a condescending, almost sarcastic tone. Furthermore, Dr. Campbell makes blanket statements like "a variety of adverse health effects have been demonstrated and these effects are remarkably consistent among ... studies" without actually offering up any evidence at all.

So I feel the arguments stack in favor of getting more protein, especially if you are a regular exerciser. The dangers of protein intake are largely exaggerated in the healthy population. It's only problematic if kidney disease is already established. Personally, I wouldn't call high-protein a fad.

Lizzycritter 05-22-2010 03:52 AM

For me personally, high protein works. I don't subscribe to Atkin's or South Beach, it's just what I've found keeps my blood sugar stable. But humans are omnivores, and since we can handle pretty much any food in nature, it stands to reason we can eat very different diets as individuals but still stay healthy. I do think it's better to get your vitamins and minerals in your diet naturally vs taking a pill, and 15 minutes in the sun beats a vitamin D supplement. I don't see logically how mild sun exposure is worse for you than covering the largest organ of your body in chemically based sunblock on a daily basis to the point where vitamin D deficiency is becoming common. I don't believe holistic and organic really mean squat aside from being fashionable buzzwords of the moment. What are commercial drugs anyway, except refined plant compounds? Holistic remedies ARE drugs, unregulated untested drugs dispensed by a community built on hearsay and severely lacking in formal medical education. Some holistic remedies help, some can do a lot of harm, and most of them really do nothing at all. I don't see how letting diseases run rampant in a food animal herd or culling (aka killing) animals at the first sign of disease to control (notice I didn't say stop) the spread of disease is better than the judicious use of antibiotics as needed. Remember there are reasons why we started using chemical fertilizers and antibiotics in farming to begin with, and a lot of those reasons were pretty darn nasty. Not to mention, in this day and age where humans are overpopulating the Earth, demanding farming methods that produce a smaller yield is probably not the wisest course of action. There's got to be a reasonable middle ground between reducing pesticide/antibiotic/chemical use and keeping fresh food accessible and affordable. Anyway, sorry that turned into a rant :D I get pretty passionate about nutrition sometimes, and deep down I am pretty opinionated. Feel free to agree or disagree, the above is totally my opinion only.

RunbikeSki 05-22-2010 05:06 AM

What I find amusing is that there is a grain of truth in most of those fad diets. In many cases it is a matter of taking a good, or maybe not so good idea to an extreme. Like smoking. One of the things the medical science does not like to tell us is that smokers are, on average, thinner than nonsmokers. Not there aren't a helluva lot of other negative consequenses associated with smoking that make it an unacceptable diet program, but, in truth, smoking is a well known appetite suppressant.

The carbohydrate vs protein debate falls into the same category from a scientist perspective. Environmentally, a high animal meat diet isn't such a good idea, but if you are only eating 1500 calories a day of which 30% to 40% is protein that really isn't such a big deal. The problem arises when we are eating 3500 calories a day and 40% of it is protein and the rest processed carbohydrates - now we have more of an environmental problem.

Wheat, corn, potatoes and other grains have been historical staples of human culture because they are 100% digestable, especially following grinding and/or processing. However, in our culture where we have more calories available to us than we need, these foods are more of a problem, therefore subsituting less digestable foods decreases fat accumulation.

In my opinion, many of the diet guru's today are taking a fundamentally good idea to an lousy extreme. Protein is great and for many of us increasing it while reducing carbs really helps eliminate pounds. Taken to extreme you get kidney failure, mental sluggishness and muscle paralysis.

Anyway, you get the idea... Some is good, more.... not so good.

cjohnson728 05-22-2010 02:46 PM

Personally, I'm in the "everything in moderation" and "listen to your own body" camp. The same things absolutely will not work for everyone. Unfortunately, people assume they will, and that's why the diet industry is so huge...we all want to run out and buy a book that has The Answer. Truth is, there isn't just one answer.

It will take some trial and error, and it will also take developing a sense of listening to your own body...which many of us have fallen away from in the years we let ourselves get out of shape.

m3rma1d 05-22-2010 05:04 PM

Can't talk now, going to stock up on cotton balls! :D

blackrhino2 05-22-2010 05:14 PM

My roomie is a vegan and recently read The China Study book. I just read the appendices because that seems to be where lots of figures and tables are. Just from reading the appendices I knew I didn't want to read the book because of its blatant biases and repetitive nature. I agree with everything in moderation. Also, books aren't peer-reviewed which in this case makes me think I should take it with a grain of salt. Although I think a lot of whats written is a good guideline for food intake.

Just on a personal note, when I exercise a lot I feel like I need to eat protein. I don't know if there is any science to back that up though.

I do agree that lots of vegans are healthy--like my roomie. It just isn't for me at this moment--maybe later on? who knows. I'm in an environmental major so there are lots of vegans surrounding me :D

Lizzycritter 05-22-2010 05:19 PM


Originally Posted by m3rma1d (Post 11518)
Can't talk now, going to stock up on cotton balls! :D

ROFLMAO!!!!

I agree with the 3 posts above me, everything in moderation and listen to your own voice. Eating high protein doesn't necessarily mean you have to eat a ton of meat either, there's plenty of plant proteins out there. Veganism is a bit tricky because you have to be aware of your amino acids, not just your protein intake. The fittest person I know has been religiously on Atkins for 8 years at least, but it's too extreme for me. Veganism is also too extreme for my tastes, but there's plenty of fit and healthy vegans in the world. Both diets require more thought and effort to follow than I want to put in to the process. The long and short is, there's no one "right" diet. Know what you're putting in your mouth and get your butt off the couch are concepts we can all get behind though.

tandoorichicken 05-22-2010 07:25 PM


Originally Posted by blackrhino2 (Post 11519)
Just on a personal note, when I exercise a lot I feel like I need to eat protein. I don't know if there is any science to back that up though.

There is some good science out there to back that up. When you exercise you "use up" a lot of bodily protein - breaking down of muscle in response to stress, upregulation of enzymes to clear waste buildup out of your body, upregulation of certain hormones to help response to stress and recovery, etc... so your body tells you to find more to replenish the stores. I'll append some abstracts when I can find them, but for now just rest assured that it's a normal, evolutionary adaptation to stress.

I really do think cotton balls have to be the most ridiculous "diet" on that list. :confused:

CoeyCoey 07-01-2010 06:25 PM

This is an interesting thread. Protein versus carbs is a big debate. But here is what I have discovered. The high protein low carb people say carbs are bad. But if you really drill them, you will discover that they promote lots of fruits and vegetables with a lot of carbs. So, what they are really saying is processed carbs are bad. The high carb people say the exact same thing. So lets emphasize that point:

Processed carbs are bad, and they are bad because they have a lot of calories and very little nutrition. Does anyone disagree with this?

Now, the high protein crowd will run studies with people on high carb diets versus high protein diets. But if you read the studies and not just the abstracts, they use things like potato chips, white bread, pasta, and other processed carbs to skew the studies to show the benefits of high protein. Anyone trying to sell you a fad diet is going to show you studies that are skewed to their way of thinking. Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory.


Fad diets show studies that support their theory. Does anyone disagree with this?


Dr. Colin Campbell is a scientist in the strictest sense. He was actually hired to prove that protein deficiency was causing cancer in children. He performed a very scientific study with no pre-conceived bias and eventually his study became the most thorough study in nutrition ever conducted. His data taking has been peer reviewed and found to have exceptional accuracy. He has around 750 references in his study. He promotes a lifestyle based on health and performance and not one that focuses entirely on looks. How many athletes do you know who eat a high protein diet? The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75%+ carbs in their diets.

The higher the whole food carbs, the better the physical performance. Does anyone disagree with this?


Any diet can make you look good if you stick to it long enough. But the lifestyle that makes you feel good, promotes health, and is easily adopted for the rest of your life if the only one you should consider. The rest are all fads. Dr. Campbell doesn't promote any fads.

If you want to look good, then get liposuction and eat what you want. If you want to look good, feel good, and be healthy, adopt a healthy lifestyle.

tandoorichicken 07-01-2010 09:15 PM


Originally Posted by CoeyCoey (Post 14865)
This is an interesting thread. Protein versus carbs is a big debate. But here is what I have discovered. The high protein low carb people say carbs are bad. But if you really drill them, you will discover that they promote lots of fruits and vegetables with a lot of carbs. So, what they are really saying is processed carbs are bad. The high carb people say the exact same thing. So lets emphasize that point:

Processed carbs are bad, and they are bad because they have a lot of calories and very little nutrition. Does anyone disagree with this? .

Most low-carb advocates eat very little fruit. They advocate non-starchy vegetables which are high in fiber, and while they are proportionately high in carbs their total nutritional content calorie-wise is quite low. In the end, the LOW-carb requirement is satisfied. No one here is promoting a NO-carb diet.

Processed anything can be bad, whether it's carbs, fat, or synthetically reconstituted protein, even synthetic forms of vitamins. Natural whole foods are best.


Originally Posted by CoeyCoey (Post 14865)
Now, the high protein crowd will run studies with people on high carb diets versus high protein diets. But if you read the studies and not just the abstracts, they use things like potato chips, white bread, pasta, and other processed carbs to skew the studies to show the benefits of high protein. Anyone trying to sell you a fad diet is going to show you studies that are skewed to their way of thinking. Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory.

Fad diets show studies that support their theory. Does anyone disagree with this?

Loren Cordain's research mostly has to do with hunter-gatherer and paleolithic man populations. The research shows how human development centered around a low-carb, high-fat, moderate-protein diet. The only thing Cordain sells is his book outlining the tenets of the paleo diet. He doesn't sell any supplements or diet products like the Atkins people do. He doesn't stand to gain anything from the dietary choices of the people who read his book, other than some kind of vindication.

Cordain is a professor at Colorado State University. Most of his research is funded by university research grants and NSF grants. His work is based on sound analyses of anthropological and prehistorical data, empirical studies of nutritional sources, and careful reading of literature. His papers are published in numerous peer-reviewed journals and are respected for their scientific integrity as well as their insight. His dietary advice derives from what he has found in his studies, not the other way around.

I took a look through the published articles on Cordain's website just to see what industries were supporting his research. Out of 42 listed studies, just one was supported by a grant from the Gatorade Sports Science Institute. One was supported by the Purdue University Agricultural Center and the Pope and Young Conservation Club, a bow-hunting organization. One more was funded in part by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The rest of them came directly out of his university lab. There were three book chapters that might generate some meager royalties, but nothing even close to paint him as the corporation-supported quack you make him out to be.


Originally Posted by CoeyCoey (Post 14865)
How many athletes do you know who eat a high protein diet? The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75%+ carbs in their diets.

The higher the whole food carbs, the better the physical performance. Does anyone disagree with this?

Power-lifters, strongmen, sprinters, swimmers, track athletes, field athletes, football players, and gymnasts all eat high amounts of protein. Carbs are essential post-training to replenish glycogen (intramuscular fuel), but beyond that have no biological requirement. In excess they also cause bloat and lethargy, something that no athlete wants to deal with since it damages performance. As such, carb is limited to post-practice and simple carbs are emphasized over complex to speed recovery.

As a side note, have you ever seen how much muscle a marathon runner carries? Next to none. Marathoners have a lanky, metabolically efficient frame that burns next to no calories on its own so that energy can be preserved for long-distance running. I don't want to look like that. IMO it appears quite unhealthy.

CoeyCoey 07-01-2010 10:26 PM

Tandoor,

First off, please don't put words in my mouth. I never called anyone a quack. I pointed out a truth of which you are well aware. Please don't diminish the value of this discussion with accusing me of something in an attempt to discredit me. That is ad hominem and doesn't lend any credit to your argument.

People ate a high protein diet out of the need to survive periods of famine. The paleo diet is for gaining weight, not losing weight. People were not concerned with how they looked or their bellies. They were concerned about survival.

The whole premise or theory that the hunter-gatherer societies are the way we "should" eat is based on a desire to continue to eat high protein diets. If we wanted to look at what we should eat, we should examine our anatomy and taxonomy. If we base our future on the theory that whatever we did in the past is "correct", then some of us would still own slaves, or others might be stealing their spouses from neighboring cities and forcing marriage upon them, etc.

If we look at cultures with high protein diets in today's society, we see evidence of poor health and poor longevity.

If I wanted information on how to exercise properly, I would consult Dr. Cordain, a PhD in Physical Education. If I wanted to know something about nutrition, I would consult Doctor Campbell, a Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry.

Could you please list some accomplished athletes on a high protein diet? I have never heard of an Atkins athlete before, but possibly my research hasn't dug one up yet.

Protein is a huge myth, because you will never ever need more protein if your life then when you are an infant. In two years, you grew around 350%. The perfect food for an infant is mothers milk with is around 4.5% protein by calories. There are plenty of bodybuilders, power lifters, and world class athletes who consume well under 20% protein and none of it animal protein. Animal protein, of course, have many bad things in it compared to plant proteins. So, if you need protein, better to go with the plant protein.

tandoorichicken 07-02-2010 12:46 AM

Coey,

Sorry if I came across as attacking or trying to discredit you. But none of what I stated is an ad hominem attack, since I didn't criticize you outside of what you had stated before. Your assertion that "Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory" implies that you don't believe the diet he promotes has any merit because the research supporting it might be sponsored by large corporations, which it isn't anyways. Please don't diminish the value of this discussion by misconstruing a point-by-point debate or disagreement for a personal attack.

In paleolithic times there were no famines as there was no agriculture. People were hunter-gatherers and thus fed off whatever the land gave them. Since tribes followed the herds, game was readily available, while fruits and vegetables were seasonal, with different things available throughout the year. Since these people were always on the move, it is highly unlikely that they were ever obese or had "bellies," despite their high fat, high protein diets. Likewise it does not appear that the "bad" animal proteins killed off our ancestors.

If we look at cultures today that eat mostly animal proteins, say for instance the Inuit, which eat mainly whale oil, deer and elk muscle and organs, seal oil and organs, and supplemented with whatever little plant material grows at such extreme climates, they are a picture of health. A number of them live to be quite old. It is only when people of that culture migrate to the city and adopt a westernized diet that the health problems begin.

I am not advocating enslaving people or oppressing women. But we can look at whether or not the low-fat, plant-based advice handed out over the last thirty years has benefited the general populace. IMO, it hasn't. And saying that it's a compliance issue, that the reason it has failed is because people don't really follow it, is just blaming the victim. We can look to the past and see what has worked in terms of diet and nutrition for specific populations, then adopt those to improve our own health. There's nothing wrong in that.

Adolescents and adults need the extra protein for muscle synthesis, as well as protein synthesis for other organ systems (hemoglobin doesn't grow on trees). Toddlers don't have that problem since they're not packing on muscle. They burn off enough calories just running around and supporting all that new gray matter. Since adults are fully developed creatures, some muscle mass is needed to bolster resting metabolism.

Olympic strength coaches get their athletes 1.5g of protein per lb of lean body mass, minimum. For a 225lb lifter that's around 11% body fat that's 300g of protein per day, or about 1200 calories. At a caloric intake of 4800 calories a day, which is typical, this is around 25% protein, minimum. If they are trying to make weight at 4000 calories, this bumps it to 30%, minimum.

What exactly in animal protein is bad? Sure, I'll concede that corn-fed beef and vegetarian-fed chickens, as well as farmed fish are animals that exist only to feed American appetites and are not allowed to live in their natural states, and thus are stressed out and produce more inflammatory chemicals that end up in their flesh. But I doubt there is anything bad about grass-fed beef, free-range chicken and eggs, wild-caught fish, and hormone-free dairy. All of these protein sources are complete, meaning they provide all the necessary amino acids. Plants are naturally more specific in which amino acids they produce, so you have to eat a multitude of plants to keep from becoming deficient in any one amino acid. I'll keep the vitamins, fiber, and trace phytochemicals from my vegetables, but I'll turn to meat, dairy, or eggs for my protein.

CoeyCoey 07-02-2010 02:20 AM


Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 14893)

In paleolithic times there were no famines as there was no agriculture. People were hunter-gatherers and thus fed off whatever the land gave them. Since tribes followed the herds, game was readily available, while fruits and vegetables were seasonal, with different things available throughout the year. Since these people were always on the move, it is highly unlikely that they were ever obese or had "bellies," despite their high fat, high protein diets. Likewise it does not appear that the "bad" animal proteins killed off our ancestors.

Famine is a scarcity of food. Doesn't have anything to do with agriculture.

The beauty of the theory is that it is impossible to see the health of individuals on such a diet.



Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 14893)
If we look at cultures today that eat mostly animal proteins, say for instance the Inuit, which eat mainly whale oil, deer and elk muscle and organs, seal oil and organs, and supplemented with whatever little plant material grows at such extreme climates, they are a picture of health. A number of them live to be quite old. It is only when people of that culture migrate to the city and adopt a westernized diet that the health problems begin.

Inuits live on average 10 years younger than their surrounding populations. They also tend to be quite overweight. If that is the picture of health you seek, then it would appear you are eating the correct diet.


Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 14893)
I am not advocating enslaving people or oppressing women. But we can look at whether or not the low-fat, plant-based advice handed out over the last thirty years has benefited the general populace. IMO, it hasn't. And saying that it's a compliance issue, that the reason it has failed is because people don't really follow it, is just blaming the victim. We can look to the past and see what has worked in terms of diet and nutrition for specific populations, then adopt those to improve our own health. There's nothing wrong in that.

What plant-based advice handed out over the last thirty years? I have had the standard American diet pushed in my face since I was born. Our government, medical associations, and educational institutions still promote the standard American diet. It is a very small number of individuals promoting a plant-based diet, and their health is much better than the rest of the population. Only recently has the UN started promoting a plant-based diet.

To call someone who is overweight with health problems a victim is like saying a drunk driver who causes an accident a victim. If you cause your own problems, you are not a victim.

We can't afford to look into the past simply to make excuses on what we should eat. Our planet has around 6 billion acres of arable land. Someone eating a plant based diet needs only 1/2 of an acre. A person consuming a meat based diet needs over 3.5 acres. That means that a meat based diet is unsustainable with out current population and ends up being quite selfish. In addition, animal agriculture is the largest contributor to air, soil, and water pollution, water depletion, soil erosion, etc.

Even if a meat based diet was found to be the most healthy, is it worth starving 6 other people so you can eat your meat?



Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 14893)
Adolescents and adults need the extra protein for muscle synthesis, as well as protein synthesis for other organ systems (hemoglobin doesn't grow on trees). Toddlers don't have that problem since they're not packing on muscle. They burn off enough calories just running around and supporting all that new gray matter. Since adults are fully developed creatures, some muscle mass is needed to bolster resting metabolism.

And there is plenty of protein in plant products. There are power lifters, bodybuiders, marathon runners, iron men and women, Olympic gold metal winners, etc who all eat a plant-based diet. If you look at the number of people in the general population and relate it to the number of athletic records held by people on plant-based diets, they would show an amazing domination of the fields in which they compete.


Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 14893)
Olympic strength coaches get their athletes 1.5g of protein per lb of lean body mass, minimum. For a 225lb lifter that's around 11% body fat that's 300g of protein per day, or about 1200 calories. At a caloric intake of 4800 calories a day, which is typical, this is around 25% protein, minimum. If they are trying to make weight at 4000 calories, this bumps it to 30%, minimum.

25% protein is quite low by American Standards. I can get 25% protein very easily on a plant based diet.


Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 14893)
What exactly in animal protein is bad? Sure, I'll concede that corn-fed beef and vegetarian-fed chickens, as well as farmed fish are animals that exist only to feed American appetites and are not allowed to live in their natural states, and thus are stressed out and produce more inflammatory chemicals that end up in their flesh. But I doubt there is anything bad about grass-fed beef, free-range chicken and eggs, wild-caught fish, and hormone-free dairy. All of these protein sources are complete, meaning they provide all the necessary amino acids. Plants are naturally more specific in which amino acids they produce, so you have to eat a multitude of plants to keep from becoming deficient in any one amino acid. I'll keep the vitamins, fiber, and trace phytochemicals from my vegetables, but I'll turn to meat, dairy, or eggs for my protein.

I recommend you read the China Study. It clearly lists all of the problems that animal protein causes.

There is no such thing as hormone or anti-biotic free dairy, eggs, or meat. They may have no hormones or anti-biotics added, but the animals still produce their own hormones and anti-biotics that end up in the meat dairy, and eggs. And I thought you were promoting the Paleo-diet which strictly forbids dairy. That didn't come about until animal husbandry.

There are several plant-based foods that are complete proteins. And if they are not complete with essential amino acids, it often takes only two different plant-based foods to get them all. Protein deficiency is extremely rare and usually only seen when people are subject to malnutrition.

And if an athlete on a plant-based diet only needs 10% protein to excel, you should be able to get by on less than half that of "complete" animal proteins.

The issue here is that there are possibly hundreds of thousands of studies which show strong statistical evidence that consuming animal products is unhealthy. There are no studies with any statistical data to support that a plant-based diet is unhealthy.

rpmcduff 07-02-2010 05:58 AM

Tandoorichicken;
Thank you for your tactful and thoughtful rebuff of CoeyCoey. You took offense with the protrayal of Loren Cordain's research as coporate backed and skewed and CoeyCoey could only muster "I pointed out a truth of which you are well aware." Well I am sorry but the truth is CoeyCoey you skewed the facts to match your argument. For example: "The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75%+ carbs in their diets." Why is that? It may have something to do with their training which consists of running 50 miles or more a week. The caloric burn is tremendous. They, unlike most of us "normal people" that are here on Fitday, can eat anything they want because they are burning so much. They have to eat enormous (again compared to us "normal people" ) amounts of calories to meet their energy needs. As Tandoorichicken pointed out, who wants to look like a marathon runner? What is the average weight of a male marathoner? 140 or 150 pounds? I can admire their athletic ability but their physic is not what I want to emulate.

CoeyCoey;
Please try to moderate your eat only vegetables rants. You have been on the Fitday forums for 2 days and you are already attacking members who have provided thoughtful, information and suggestions, that have helped many others reach their fitness and weight loss goals. I personnally take exception with your implication that someone on a meat based diet is destroying the earth when compared to someone on a plant based diet. Your argument assumes that your could simply remove the cattle from the land and start growing vegetables. The fact is most cattle are raised on land that is not farmable. The western half of the united states is dry. Most crops don't do well there without irrigation (and irrigation is not available or practical everywhere). However, cattle can be raised on that same land. The fact is, if the land were suitable for raising crops that is what would be there. Crops have a much higher return than cattle. While I believe the cattle industry (and especially feed lots) have their own problems I don't think they can be construed as the cause of world hunger. I understand that you are committed to your opinions and ideals but please back your statements with facts and not just "Does anyone disagree with this?". (By the way grass fed beef is higher in Omega 3 than salmon, but then again you are against eating salmon also.)

These forums should be about providing information to those who are seeking knowledge so they can eat healthier, be more fit and improve their lives. Please keep that in mind when posting in the future. I am sure you have some good information, for me your presentation makes it a little (pardon the pun) hard to swallow.

tandoorichicken 07-02-2010 08:09 AM

Thanks for the vote of confidence rpmcduff. I'm trying my best to keep the discussion civil.

Coey,

The Inuit population studied by Viljalmhur Steffanson during the early part of the 20th century was a population in their prime. Members routinely reached their 70s and 80s. This was before a western diet was introduced and their diet consisted mainly of animal fat and organ meat, and kelp and ground nuts when they could be found. Very low carbs combined with high levels of saturated fat (which get transformed into strongly anti-inflammatory compounds within the body) meant strikingly low occurrences of heart disease and cancers. The overweight issues are an adaptation to the cold. More fat means more insulation, but as long as this is subcutaneous fat instead of visceral fat, it poses no health risk.

Fast forward to the 1980s, where modern native Alaskan Inuits have had their traditional diets replaced in part with coffee, sugar, white bread, margarine, and soft drinks. Now heart disease and cancer have been brought to levels similar to the rest of America, while the traditional killers of native Inuit continue to bring down the average life expectancy: high infant mortality, limited access to modern medicine, and high rates of suicide due to the social isolation that comes with being a native American in this country. Hardly dietary factors.

The plant-based diet I am referring to is the USDA food pyramid. Perhaps that isn't the plant-based diet you envision, but when the first two levels of the pyramid are grains, fruits, and vegetables, it's hard to think of what else to call it. During the period of time the food pyramid has been in use, American waists have expanded and overall health has deteriorated.

Show me the domination of athletes on plant-based diets. The best football players grow up on meat and potatoes. As do elite athletes in many other sports.

The China Study is a flawed attempt to turn a series of correlations into a cause-effect argument. It is based on epidemiological data that can't be used to definitively prove anything. If one were to look at the scientific paper from which the book was derived, many of the correlations themselves are statistically insignificant. At best, the study can be used to establish a broad framework from which to do further randomized and controlled studies, but in and of itself it says.... nothing.

Dr. Campbell's rants against the "dangers" of protein come from studies on rodents, in which he fed them irresponsible amounts of unnaturally isolated casein protein from milk. Aside from the fact that rodent metabolism and physiological responses are completely different from our own, there is no way we could eat a relatively proportionate amount of protein, nor could we eat that amount of isolated casein which supposedly causes tumors in rats. Casein is generally found alongside whey protein in milk, which, in fact, suppresses tumor formation.

I realize that milk is not entirely hormone free. I know that cows produce their own hormones and these are present in the milk. However, it's the artificial hormones that concern me. Recombinant hormones are not natural and can trigger severe immune reactions in those that are sensitive to them. In a similar vein, it's the structure of the gluten protein and starches in the primordial einkorn variety of wheat that causes it to have a nearly 30% less severe blood glucose spike and associated insulin response than unnaturally selected modern varieties of wheat.

Finally, I don't promote any commercial diet. Don't belittle my lifestyle by assuming I'm pushing something, then calling me out when I say something that conflicts with it. I personally eat 80% paleo/primal. I'll eat dairy/eggs and meat, but most of what I eat is green vegetables. I stay away from all grain products, and if I'm all worn out from a day of heavy lifting, I'll carb load with sweet potatoes or carrots. I advocate people finding what works for them, and I don't believe that anyone should have to adhere to complex rules and charts or feel like they're depriving themselves in the context of eating "healthy."

I highly recommend you read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Kieth; "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes; and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. For good measure, read "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky. :)

CoeyCoey 07-02-2010 03:50 PM

You are both very emotional about this which makes it difficult to have a logical discussion. I used to be just like both of you. I found every justification I could to continue eating an unhealthy diet and I never kept the weight off. I finally succeed when I put emotion aside and used logic to dictate my lifestyle.

Lets see who is in better physical shape at the end of the year? Both physical looks and health screenings? Are you guys up for the challenge?

Here is a list of athletes on a plant-based diet. Considering that people who consume a plant based diet consist of less than 1% of the population in the US, the number of champion athletes who consume a plant-based diet are proportionately very high.

Ridgely Abele
Winner of eight national championships in karate

Surya Bonaly
Olympic figure skating champion

Brendan Brazier
Professional Ironman triathlete

Peter Burwash
Davis Cup winner and professional tennis star

Andreas Cahling
Swedish champion bodybuilder, Olympic gold medallist in the ski jump

Chris Campbell
Olympic wrestling champion

Nicky Cole
First woman to walk to the North Pole

Ruth Heidrich
Six-time Ironwoman, USA track and field Master's champion

Keith Holmes
World-champion middleweight boxer

Desmond Howard
Professional football star, Heisman trophy winner

Peter Hussing
European super heavy-weight boxing champion

Scott Jurek
Ultramarathoner, Course Record Holder at Badwater and Western States
Wiki
Audio interview with Animal Voices: MP3

Debbie Lawrence
World record holder, women's 5K racewalk

Sixto Linares
World record holder, 24-hour triathlon

Cheryl Marek and Estelle Gray
World record holders, cross-country tandem cycling

Ingra Manecki
World champion discus thrower

Bill Manetti
Power-lifting champion

Ben Matthews
U.S. Master's marathon champion

Dan Millman
World champion gymnast

Martina Navratilova
Champion tennis player

Paavo Nurmi
Long-distance runner, winner of nine Olympic medals and 20 world records

Bill Pearl
Four-time Mr. Universe

Bill Pickering
World record-holding swimmer

Stan Price
World weightlifting record holder, bench press

Murray Rose
Swimmer, winner of many Olympic gold medals and world records

Dave Scott
Six-time winner of the Ironman triathlon

Art Still
Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs MVP defensive end, Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame

Jane Wetzel
U.S. National marathon champion

Charlene Wong Williams
Olympic champion figure skater

And please do your own research on the destruction of animal agriculture. Start with the UN report here. Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

yauncin 07-02-2010 04:15 PM

As a disclaimer, I've been following these boards a little while now and I have a lot of respect for tandoorichicken. He has done a lot of research on his own, more than I have it seems, and though I may not always agree with him I do listen, respectfully. Now with that said I don't disagree with everything CoreyCorey has said but when it conflicts with tandoorichicken I tend to agree with tandoorichicken. But that is based on the research I've done. Now I have not read the China Study but I wouldn't base my entire nutritional outlook on one study. I like to see the empirical evidence and draw my own conclusions. So it is good that both of you have sited particular sources.

=============================================

Fallacies:
We are only human and we cannot know everything nor do we, with a few exceptions, have total recall. Therefore when we make arguments or discuss issues we tend to fall back to fallacious arguments. Calling each other on these is legitimate since it helps keep the argument honest. But in order to cut through hype and misinformation, we must always be on the look out for fallacious arguments, especially since it is so prevalent in our media.

----

As stated by tandoorichicken he did not actually present an ad hominem fallacy. Actually, I don't think he presents a fallacy at all.


Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory.
Quack Definition - medterms.com
1) A practitioner who suggests the use of substances or devices for the prevention or treatment of disease that are known to be ineffective.

2) A person who pretends to be able to diagnose or heal people, but is unqualified and incompetent.

Quack definition - dictionary.reference.com
1) a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to Medical skill.
2) a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.

So your premise here is that Dr. Loren Cordain formulated a diet and then 'developed data' to support his diet. If it is true he just supplied data to support his diet then this would fall in the fraudulent category. So just because you don't expressly say quack doesn't mean you aren't calling him one. I don't think it helps that in a follow up you say:


If I wanted information on how to exercise properly, I would consult Dr. Cordain, a PhD in Physical Education. If I wanted to know something about nutrition, I would consult Doctor Campbell, a Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry.
Here you are saying because of his degree he is not qualified to present such information in the first place. Which again implies quackery.

Actually now that I think about it, your reply in essence could be taken as an ad hominem attack on tandoorichicken since you are erroneously attributing something to him expressly to help discredit his position. Wording is everything.

----

From CoreyCorey:

Now, the high protein crowd will run studies with people on high carb diets versus high protein diets. But if you read the studies and not just the abstracts, they use things like potato chips, white bread, pasta, and other processed carbs to skew the studies to show the benefits of high protein. Anyone trying to sell you a fad diet is going to show you studies that are skewed to their way of thinking. Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory.

...

Dr. Colin Campbell is a scientist in the strictest sense. He was actually hired to prove that protein deficiency was causing cancer in children. He performed a very scientific study with no pre-conceived bias and eventually his study became the most thorough study in nutrition ever conducted. His data taking has been peer reviewed and found to have exceptional accuracy. He has around 750 references in his study. He promotes a lifestyle based on health and performance and not one that focuses entirely on looks. How many athletes do you know who eat a high protein diet? The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75%+ carbs in their diets.
This could be construed as a fallacious argument. What makes Dr. Colin Campbell better than Dr. Loren Cordain. You are obviously trying to discredit Dr. Cordain here even so far as not using his honorific but what makes Dr. Campbell any better. He was hired by someone, you said, so that could already introduce bias. Was Dr. Cordain's research peer reviewed? That would be an important piece of information. You say, Dr. Campbell has 750 references in his study but were these cherry picked?

----

I could keep this up. And though I see the most fallacious arguments with CoreyCorey I see a few with tandoorichicken as well. The point of an argument is to sway your opponent or audience to your way of thinking. But I think we should try to do it ethically, meaning with the least amount of fallacies as possible. I think some are unavoidable like appeals to authority especially when you can't site specifics and we are all guilty of using anecdotal evidence. At any rate, I hope we can all agree that we are trying to present in our own opinions the best advice we can for our fellow fitdayers. So with that in mind, I think this thread has been very educational and because of it I will be expanding my library.

CoeyCoey 07-02-2010 04:31 PM

Yauncin,

You are twisting my words to create fallacies. Stating someone has not used sound scientific principles or is less qualified then another person is not the same as calling them a quack.

I thought I could have a logical discussion on this board. I guess I was wrong.

tandoorichicken 07-02-2010 07:41 PM


Originally Posted by CoeyCoey (Post 14941)
I thought I could have a logical discussion on this board. I guess I was wrong.

It would seem that your idea of a logical discussion is one in which you aren't presented with any counter-arguments for which you don't have readily available responses.

You disrespect the posters on this forum by abusing data, attacking yauncin for trying to keep the discussion MORE logical than both of us are doing, and avoiding addressing my valid points by claiming that we're getting "emotional." You appear more emotional due to your sarcastic tone. I'm just trying to understand what you already understand; we only grow as people when we try to understand each other. But your last response merely repeated your previous response, and failed to address my points about the traditional Inuit diet as studied by Steffanson or the suspect interpretations of Dr. Campbell's own data in his book, "The China Study."

But let me now address the list of athletes you provided. I tried to find a biography or reliable source that could back up your claims that these are really vegetarian athletes. I also broke your list down into strength sports, endurance sports, mixed sports, and not a sport.

Endurance sports:

As rpmcduff said, these athletes burn calories at a remarkable rate. Michael Phelps (more of a mixed sport athlete) maintains at over 10,000 calories a day. Even amateur marathoners routinely eat more than 3000 calories in a day (as evidenced by my dad when he ran the LA Marathon). The most convenient source of this many calories is grain products, which also have a satisfactory amount of protein. Rote calories are required to keep the body from eating itself; protein is an afterthought. That said, even Brendan Brazier's own website states that "Brendan Brazier is one of only a few professional athletes in the world whose diet is 100 percent plant-based."

According North Pole Women's history of arctic expeditions, there is no mention of a Nicky Cole ever having existed. She does appear on several vegetarian sites as part of lists similar to the one you provided.

Similarly, there doesn't seem to be any record of a Jane Wetzel American marathon champion.

Martina Navratilova recently started eating fish again because it was difficult to maintain her protein intake while on tour. Dave Scott, who won his Ironman titles as a vegan, is no longer a strict vegetarian.

Peter Burwash, Ruth Heidrich, Brendan Brazier, Debbie Lawrence, Scott Jurek, Sixto Linares, Estelle Gray, Cheryl Marek, all check out to be vegetarians. They appear to be doing well and have found what works for them, and I can respect that. Paavo Nurmi was a vegetarian from a young age and had an unsurpassed love for his sport.

Mixed sports:

For Ridgely Abele, who passed away last year after a battle with cancer, I was unable to find a biography that listed him as a vegetarian. Peter Hussing also appears on lists of vegetarian athletes, but these assertions are impossible to verify. Dan Millman's own website doesn't mention anything anywhere about his vegetarianism.

Bill Pickering is 210-lbs shop owner who set a record for crossing the English Channel in 1955. I can't verify that he is a vegetarian.

Art Still is vegetarian football player who lost tremendous weight when he switched to his new diet. That season he injured himself numerous times. The following pre-season he showed up to practice at 250lbs, which he achieved by stuffing himself with even more fruits, nuts, and yogurt, and covering his nutritional bases by taking up to 60 pills a day (source). That's no way to live.

Keith Homes, Desmond Howard, Murray Rose check out as vegetarians in this category.

Performing Arts

Like figure skating. Not a sport in my opinion, but let's have a looksie.

Surya Bonaly is an "ethical vegetarian" but this hardly attributes to her success as an "athlete." She was known to be highly technical but struggled with her artistry.

Charlene Wong Williams happens to be a vegetarian as well, but again, it's tough to say if this made her an elite figure skater.

Strength Sports

Strength athletes require copious amounts of protein because they're constantly breaking down the muscle in order to rebuild it bigger and stronger. For the record, I don't really consider bodybuilding a sport, again more of a performing art, but strength sports are the means by which bodybuilders achieve their ends, so I've included them here.

Andreas Cahling turned vegetarian after he had begun competing in bodybuilding. Bill Pearl became vegetarian after he had already won several national titles. Both men are lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and both men built their physiques on dairy, eggs, and meat, then maintained them with their lacto-ovo-vegetarianism. Find me someone who has built this level of physique on a purely vegetarian diet.

Stan Price is another athlete for whom I can find no historical evidence of ever having existed. The powerlifting record database (here) makes no mention of a Stan Price or Stanley Price anywhere.

Chris Campbell's wife converted him to vegetarianism well after his prolific wrestling career, around the time he became a coach (source).

Ingra Manecke is a vegetarian but I was unable to find out if this transition was pre- or post-career. As a German national it is unlikely she was raised in a vegetarian household.


From looking at this list I conclude that world record holders are not defined by their diets, but their passion for the sport and determination to win. You won't find vegetarians somehow stacked on top of the rankings. Their diets just happen to be part of their lifestyle. And they certainly don't comprise any more than 1% of top athletes.

Additionally, athletes are special people with special needs. I don't presume to assume that what they eat is what I need to eat, whatever it is that happens to make them successful.

Finally, to Coey's final point, it stands to reason that feeding cattle diets they have not evolved to eat causes them flatulence, much like processed grains and unnatural trans fats cause me flatulence. I consider myself an "ethical omnivore," eating grass-fed-and-finished open pasture beef, free-range chicken and eggs (not on a vegetarian diet), line-caught open water fish, whole dairy, and organic fruits and vegetables. I don't consider myself contributing to the type of pollution put out by CAFOs and fish farms.

In any case, I've blabbered on long enough. Respond if you have something that adds to the discussion.

CoeyCoey 07-02-2010 07:55 PM

Tandoor,

If you can reach your goals with your diet and be able to maintain them, then more power to you. I already surpassed my goals and have maintained them for years. Now I have new goals of greater fitness that I never thought possible.

tandoorichicken 07-02-2010 08:04 PM

Coey,

Thank you. You've clearly found a healthy lifestyle that works for you and you are using it to its fullest advantage. As I am doing with mine. Every day I am pushing the boundaries of what I thought was possible for myself to achieve.

Let's work from where we can find common ground :)

waynegretzky 07-03-2010 04:10 AM

Maybe this is oversimplifying things but the best diet is one in which you eat less calories than you expend during a day and then you lose weight. Doesn't matter if it is from carbs or protein or fats.
After the first month i went to a dietician and she turned me onto this fitday site to log food and check for daily nutritional requirements. I still didn't use fitday for a few months and just went on a wing and a prayer!! But after i started logging food i changed mine and my wifes diet accordingly to get the daily nutrition needed of everything listed.
However one achieves this is their own journey. And if your food log does show you are low on some things, then you should change your diet until it is good while maintaining a good calorie deficit to lose weight.

cjohnson728 07-03-2010 04:38 AM

Very well said, waynegretzky ;). I especially like the part about it being everyone's own individual journey. If you don't own it, you won't do it.

NessaSonic 07-03-2010 12:43 PM


Originally Posted by rpmcduff (Post 14910)
Tandoorichicken;
Thank you for your tactful and thoughtful rebuff of CoeyCoey. You took offense with the protrayal of Loren Cordain's research as coporate backed and skewed and CoeyCoey could only muster "I pointed out a truth of which you are well aware." Well I am sorry but the truth is CoeyCoey you skewed the facts to match your argument. For example: "The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75%+ carbs in their diets." Why is that? It may have something to do with their training which consists of running 50 miles or more a week. The caloric burn is tremendous. They, unlike most of us "normal people" that are here on Fitday, can eat anything they want because they are burning so much. They have to eat enormous (again compared to us "normal people" ) amounts of calories to meet their energy needs. As Tandoorichicken pointed out, who wants to look like a marathon runner? What is the average weight of a male marathoner? 140 or 150 pounds? I can admire their athletic ability but their physic is not what I want to emulate.

CoeyCoey;
Please try to moderate your eat only vegetables rants. You have been on the Fitday forums for 2 days and you are already attacking members who have provided thoughtful, information and suggestions, that have helped many others reach their fitness and weight loss goals. I personnally take exception with your implication that someone on a meat based diet is destroying the earth when compared to someone on a plant based diet. Your argument assumes that your could simply remove the cattle from the land and start growing vegetables. The fact is most cattle are raised on land that is not farmable. The western half of the united states is dry. Most crops don't do well there without irrigation (and irrigation is not available or practical everywhere). However, cattle can be raised on that same land. The fact is, if the land were suitable for raising crops that is what would be there. Crops have a much higher return than cattle. While I believe the cattle industry (and especially feed lots) have their own problems I don't think they can be construed as the cause of world hunger. I understand that you are committed to your opinions and ideals but please back your statements with facts and not just "Does anyone disagree with this?". (By the way grass fed beef is higher in Omega 3 than salmon, but then again you are against eating salmon also.)

These forums should be about providing information to those who are seeking knowledge so they can eat healthier, be more fit and improve their lives. Please keep that in mind when posting in the future. I am sure you have some good information, for me your presentation makes it a little (pardon the pun) hard to swallow.

I very much agree with this and Tandoori's thoughtful rebukes. The only thing I do not agree with is the rebuttal on land used to raise meat versus plant-based foods. You need to remember that, when you consider the land used to raise animals, you have to take into account their feed. All of the acres of produce being grown solely to go into the meat we eat later is significantly higher than simply growing the plants outright to eat. We are using a lot of healthy farmlands only to feed the animals we eat later. I want to point out, though, that I do still eat animal products (grass-fed when possible, and no hormone added milk).

You don't have to cut out all animal products to protect the environment, you have to just be more conscious of where it's coming from, how it's raised, and (just like your plant-based products) how far it needs to travel to get to the store. Cutting down some animal products (especially corn and grain-fed) is usually beneficial to the environment, but I don't think that has to mean a lower protein diet at all.

I know, in my experience, protein is very important in maintaining my muscle when losing weight. I strive for about 75 grams a day, and that seems to do it. I am trying to gain muscle, however, and I know I need to increase my protein.

I want to point out that there are also a lot of ethical issues with how we grow/ pay for/ treat our fruits and veggies around the world. Just look at the banana industry!!!

NessaSonic 07-03-2010 12:53 PM

I also want to say that I agree that different diets work for different people. It's not all about what diet is the best, it's about how the individual feels about their decisions and how it makes them feel about themselves physically and emotionally. Diets are as much mentality as they are physically transforming.

My sister-in-law is a raw-foodist and it works for her. She lost over 100 lbs and, although she is struggling a bit lately, has kept it off for a few years now. However, I don't want my body to look like hers (she doesn't look like she has much muscle mass, which also has to do with her lack of weight training/ challenging exercising rather than simply her diet alone), and I didn't feel healthy and well on a raw food diet when I attempted it for a month. I also didn't lose much weight because I wasn't tracking calories or nutrients.

Now I am concentrating on physical goals and not limiting my diet as much, but making sure I get as close to 100% nutrition as possible. This is the closest I've ever come to meeting my goals. I have lost more weight than I ever have before because I'm just living my life healthier in accordance to my own beliefs.

I definitely don't believe there's a one diet fits all.

tandoorichicken 07-03-2010 04:31 PM


Originally Posted by NessaSonic (Post 14993)
You need to remember that, when you consider the land used to raise animals, you have to take into account their feed. All of the acres of produce being grown solely to go into the meat we eat later is significantly higher than simply growing the plants outright to eat. We are using a lot of healthy farmlands only to feed the animals we eat later.

In "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Michael Pollan describes a farmer who rotates his cattle across a number of different fenced-off pastures (he uses movable fences to create new pasture areas on his land). Once the grass is chewed down to a particular depth he moves the cows to new pasture. He then brings his chickens to the old pasture, where the cow dung has given rise to the chickens' natural diet of worms and insects. Next, the nitrogen-rich chicken poop provides nutritious fertilizer to the grass roots, which grow vigorously until the cattle are rotated back to that area. I think this ought to be the future of cattle farming. CAFOing is cheap in this country because corn subsidies make for cheap feed, meaning greater profit margins for the meat industry. The pasture rotation method takes up more space per head of beef and probably would mean less meat for all of us (because the cattle would grow at their natural rate instead of being stuffed with fattening grains and shot up with steroids), but is far more sustainable, far more humane, and good for the land. Not to mention the meat is of high quality and nutritional value, since the animals aren't being fed cheap industrialized crap.

When I shop for meat I look for the terms "grass-fed" not just "grass-finished" for my beef. Grass-finished could mean that the cattle were fed corn all their lives and then just fattened on grass before slaughter. For chicken I prefer "free-range" to "cage-free." The reason is that cage-free chickens are still cooped up in cramped quarters, usually small roosting rooms, without being specifically kept in cages. They have access to a hatch that leads to a small pasture outside but none of them ever think to use the hatch, since life inside the roost is all they've ever known. Free-range chickens, on the other hand, are raised on open pasture and spend most of their lives outdoors. This is all described in the book.

CoeyCoey 07-03-2010 08:03 PM

For every one person you feed beef to, you could feed 20 starving people on the corn that was used to feed the cow.

NessaSonic 07-03-2010 09:53 PM


Originally Posted by tandoorichicken (Post 15006)

When I shop for meat I look for the terms "grass-fed" not just "grass-finished" for my beef. Grass-finished could mean that the cattle were fed corn all their lives and then just fattened on grass before slaughter. For chicken I prefer "free-range" to "cage-free." The reason is that cage-free chickens are still cooped up in cramped quarters, usually small roosting rooms, without being specifically kept in cages. They have access to a hatch that leads to a small pasture outside but none of them ever think to use the hatch, since life inside the roost is all they've ever known. Free-range chickens, on the other hand, are raised on open pasture and spend most of their lives outdoors. This is all described in the book.

I, too, look for "grass-fed" and "cage-free" meat and eggs. I also don't eat much beef. It's jut more ethically sound, and probably a whole lot healthier!

waynegretzky 07-04-2010 02:55 AM

As long as we all remember that the common goal for all of us is to get to a healthy weight! And then at that point is how to maintain that weight without falling into our old habits.
The way i eat right now to lose weight is the same way i plan to eat for the rest of my life.

CoeyCoey 07-04-2010 03:00 AM


Originally Posted by NessaSonic (Post 15017)
I, too, look for "grass-fed" and "cage-free" meat and eggs. I also don't eat much beef. It's jut more ethically sound, and probably a whole lot healthier!

Grass fed meat may be coming from grazing land that was once rain forest. And cage-free eggs are not any better for the chickens. They just make consumers feel better.

gee1996 07-04-2010 03:28 AM

Fad Diet Types ? Fad Diets Explained at WomansDay.com[/QUOTE]

i don't think Inuit diet is a "fad diet" at all if Inuits have been eating like that for eons.

gee1996 07-04-2010 03:34 AM

I agree with tandoorichicken re. China Study.

it is true that we eat a lot of vegitables. but one thing i believe Dr. Campbell (+ many researchers) neglected was the traditional cooking fat was LARD (except for the poor who could not afford it).

regards,

NessaSonic 07-04-2010 12:37 PM


Originally Posted by CoeyCoey (Post 15028)
Grass fed meat may be coming from grazing land that was once rain forest. And cage-free eggs are not any better for the chickens. They just make consumers feel better.

sorry- but local grass-fed meat here doesn't come from cut-down rain forest since I live in New England. As I said in my earlier post, I pay attention to how far my food travels. But yes, I think the main goal is to be healthy and happy with you're own decisions.

CoeyCoey 07-04-2010 02:20 PM

Grass fed beef produces 2 to 4 times more greenhouse gases then feedlots. This is because of the high cellulose diet. They also produce those greenhouse gases for a longer period of time because the weight gain is slower.

Grass fed beef uses more water than feedlots. Dryer food means the cows need more water.

Grass fed beef increases soil erosion.

Grass fed beef displaces threatened wildlife.

Grass fed beef is less sustainable that feedlots. You use more land, more water, produce more greenhouse gases, and threaten delicate ecosystems.

pbright120 07-04-2010 05:25 PM


Originally Posted by CoeyCoey (Post 15042)
Grass fed beef produces 2 to 4 times more greenhouse gases then feedlots. This is because of the high cellulose diet. They also produce those greenhouse gases for a longer period of time because the weight gain is slower.

Grass fed beef uses more water than feedlots. Dryer food means the cows need more water.

Grass fed beef increases soil erosion.

Grass fed beef displaces threatened wildlife.

Grass fed beef is less sustainable that feedlots. You use more land, more water, produce more greenhouse gases, and threaten delicate ecosystems.

For anyone curious about what Coey is saying, I highly recommend reading The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. Actually I recommend it to anyone that wants to get knowledgeable on agriculture and its true impact on the environment. Great read.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.