plant based diet?

Fruits and vegetables are fine is the grains and heavy starches that have an inherent problem.

"If you don't eat enough carbs your body is pulling protein from your organs and muscles which can lead to failure of your heart/kidneys/liver etc. Low Carb diets are complete failures even though they show short term results. Look at the Atkins diet."

This statement I dont agree with because I've been on a low carb diet for a while now and Im perfectly fine. I hardly eat any carbs sometimes there are days what I go without carbs and I dont have liver/kidneys/heart failure.
I suggest you read a biochemistry book. You will find there that our mythocandria the cell that creates ATP(energy) uses fat and/or glucose equally effective. Educate yourself;)
 
rambofireball said:
Fuel for the Fire:

Showing benefits of vegetarian and low meat diets over high meat diets. (cancer, diabetes etc.)
Invalid Link Removed

Lower blood pressure for veggie heads
Invalid Link Removed

vegan diets don't improve alkalinity
Invalid Link Removed

High consumption of red meat promotes diabetes -> "confirms a positive association"
Invalid Link Removed

Less meat = less chance of cancer, diabetes, coronary heart disease.
Invalid Link Removed

And to be fair, I typed 'vegetarian bad' and 'vegetarian unhealthy' into pubmed and got this...

Vegetarian diets adequate for children, unless: "too much reliance on convenience foods, lack of variety and lack of exercise." Which is true for any diet.
Invalid Link Removed

Vegetarian diet following fasting is beneficial for rheumatoid arthritis patients
Invalid Link Removed

Vegetarian women less likely to develop gestational diabetes mellitus
Invalid Link Removed

Atherosclerosis prevented by low-fat diet
Invalid Link Removed

Lacto-ovovegetarian diet used to treat type 2 diabetes, athersclerosis, metabolic syndrome.
Invalid Link Removed

And the ONE study mostly showing evidence against a vegetarian diet
Invalid Link Removed

Interesting? I prefer this method over spouting opinion/talking points. If you can't find research to back it up, then don't say it. (That's an invitation to you, to do research and present it)
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the research before you posted it? Here are some findings from some of your postings: Ill number them according to which ones im responding to:

(1)"There is limited evidence of an association between vegetarian diets and cancer prevention" Evidence linking red meat intake, particularly processed meat, and increased risk of CHD, cancer and type 2 diabetes is convincing and provides indirect support for consumption of a plant-based diet. I would never tell anyone to get most of their meat intake from processed sources (it has ALOT more sodium) And last but not least, While vegetarian diets have not shown any adverse effects on health, restrictive and monotonous vegetarian diets may result in nutrient deficiencies with deleterious effects on health.

(3) "It can be hypothesized that vegan diets do not affect acid-base homeostasis. With respect to bone health, the significance of this finding needs further investigation." It can be hypothesized? Thats not a finding, that means they couldnt find a correlation. Also, it needs further investigation

(4)this one made me laugh, over 11 years they developed diabetes? Did it not also occur to them that perhaps the carbohydrate in their diet lead to diabetes? Considering that is one of the main causes... Also, from the methods they listed, it seems (cant be sure though without full text) that they could ONLY eat red meat or white meat and nothing else? Or ate far more than on a daily basis than any real person would? Hard to ascertain without full text.

(5) " Although the dietary intake data used here were collected a decade ago" Still relevant for today? hmmm...Also, most of that research was based on assumption that even they said could be misinterpreted. And I quote "Our point estimates for these reductions have associated uncertainties, which we have estimated using Monte Carlo simulation, although the RR estimates may still be more uncertain than we have assumed"

(6) This one didn't agree with your point? "Vegan diets are more likely to be associated with malnutrition"

(7) Im noticing a pattern here... "More randomised long-term studies are needed to confirm this view by methodologically convincing data."

(8) The results of this study indicate that bad obstetrics history, obese patient on high calorie diet especially non vegetarian diet with less physical activity are highly prone to develop GDM. No Sh*t. High calorie diet? Susceptible to obesity? Lack of physical activity.. Of course you'll end up with diabetes. Well, not in all cases, but this certainly wont help. Doesnt prove vegan diets work.

(9) Couldnt link to the full study

(10) Same as above
(11) Same as above.
 
AdiPure7 said:
Yes I know that protein intake depends a lot on activity and age. I was just saying that a vegetarian can get all the amino acids. And vassille I'm not pushing vegetarianism I'm just saying there is a lot more benefits to a plant based diet than there is just mostly meat. As long as you eat enough fruits vegetables and fiber by all means meat can be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, were arguing pretty much the same thing? Well, I am. Always eat fruit and vegetables.
 
Your body is supposed to derive glucose from carbs. Carbs are not bad for you. When a sedentary lifestyle is put into the mix all of those carbs are stored as fat. Why would you want your body to pull fat and protein from cells, muscles, and organs just so you can lose water weight and become dehydrated?
 
AdiPure7 said:
Your body is supposed to derive glucose from carbs. Carbs are not bad for you. When a sedentary lifestyle is put into the mix all of those carbs are stored as fat. Why would you want your body to pull fat and protein from cells, muscles, and organs just so you can lose water weight and become dehydrated?[/QUOTE]

Link to study?
Click to expand...
 
AdiPure7 said:
Your body is supposed to derive glucose from carbs. Carbs are not bad for you. When a sedentary lifestyle is put into the mix all of those carbs are stored as fat. Why would you want your body to pull fat and protein from cells, muscles, and organs just so you can lose water weight and become dehydrated?
Click to expand...

How old are you?
 
All I am doing is describing ketosis. Ketones are acidic so your body flushes them out using water which leads to dehydration and increases urination. And I am a college student if that matters.
 
AdiPure7 said:
All I am doing is describing ketosis. Ketones are acidic so your body flushes them out using water which leads to dehydration and increases urination. And I am a college student if that matters.
Click to expand...

I'm not a proponent of ketosis, but here: When glycogen stores are not available in the cells, fat (triacylglycerol) is cleaved to provide 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process known as lipolysis. Most of the body is able to use fatty acids as an alternative source of energy in a process called beta-oxidation. One of the products of beta-oxidation is acetyl-CoA, which can be further used in the Krebs cycle. During prolonged fasting or starvation, acetyl-CoA in the liver is used to produce ketone bodies instead, leading to a state of ketosis.

A mild acidosis may result from prolonged fasting or when following a ketogenic diet or a very low calorie diet.

it is unlikely for a normal functioning person to reach life-threatening levels of ketosis

People who are unable to secrete basal insulin, such as type I diabetics and long-term type II diabetics, are liable to enter an unsafe level of ketosis, causing an eventual comatose state that requires emergency medical treatment.

The body also has a tremendous capacity to adapt, and adpting to using ketones and fatty acids will occur after a while.
 
Yes I know that from a biological perspective. All I am saying is carbs should be and are the main source of glucose for the human body. Even if you have some ketones in your blood your body needs to get rid of them because they are acidic which messes up your acid base balance. Like I said earlier and you disagreed. Adaptation is obvious but your body would rather just get energy from carbs because it has no side effects.
 
AdiPure7 said:
Yes I know that from a biological perspective. All I am saying is carbs should be and are the main source of glucose for the human body. Even if you have some ketones in your blood your body needs to get rid of them because they are acidic which messes up your acid base balance. Like I said earlier and you disagreed. Adaptation is obvious but your body would rather just get energy from carbs because it has no side effects.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying and trying to get across but there are studies that prove points from both sides, dependant on the stance you wish to take. Ive managed to keep my BF% around 10-11% through a low carb diet (around 100-150g of carbs per day) and this works fine for me. And when im cutting, I drop it down to around 50-70g and shred of BF like crazy. On a bulk I up carbs to around 150-200g but that is my max.

Many others on this forum have had success with both high carb and low carb diets and so it is a matter of personal preference imo. However I do draw the line when people say that low carb diets are dangerous, when high carb diets can also be dangerous. You just have to find a balance that works for you.
 
How about this side effect from carbs DIABETES! Which kind of puts another twist in your theory of no side effects from carbs and further more, you can only process carbs through insulin whereas fats can be processed very easily without anything. If the cells are insulin insensitive or insulin is not excreted enough you are ****ed. According to your theory without glucose you will die since you cant use fat for energy but you dont. Your body can use fat for energy extremely easy and efficient for life. Many type 1 diabetics do eat a low carb diet and they live a long life. If you bother to read, which you seem to have a hard time doing and reason I asked how old you were, you will find that major organs preffer ketones body and fatty acids for energy much better then glucose. Only reason we run on insulin/glucose because we as a population we like grains and sugars. Doesnt mean it's good for you...hence why so many ppl have type 2 diabetes and methabolic syndrome. Eating vegetables and some fruit is def much better if you wish to eat carbs but it's really not enough to live on that alone hence adding fat will supply the rest of the nutritional calories along with protein.
Please stop arguing about this and read for god's sake because you sound ridiculous.
BTW, you dont know squat from any biological perspective because your answers lack any understanding of the material either practical or theoretical. The statement in which you said that there are no side effect from eating carbs proves that.
 
It's pretty obvious your are writing from a subjective point of view. If you've ever read a biology book you would know that glucose is the main form of energy for humans which is preferred by the body by carbs. Eating too much of something is always going to turn out negative but I never said consuming high amounts of carbs doesn't provoke diabetes. There are so many different factors that play a role. Just because you have had limited success in your low carb diet doesn't make it right. There are no side effects from carbs if you eat healthy exercise and don't over eat.
 
Jiigzz said:
Agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying and trying to get across but there are studies that prove points from both sides, dependant on the stance you wish to take. Ive managed to keep my BF% around 10-11% through a low carb diet (around 100-150g of carbs per day) and this works fine for me. And when im cutting, I drop it down to around 50-70g and shred of BF like crazy. On a bulk I up carbs to around 150-200g but that is my max.

Many others on this forum have had success with both high carb and low carb diets and so it is a matter of personal preference imo. However I do draw the line when people say that low carb diets are dangerous, when high carb diets can also be dangerous. You just have to find a balance that works for you.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you can admit both sides of the argument. I just hate how there are so many rumors and lies within the nutritional world today. I'm happy I'm getting my information from textbooks and not the internet because every other site conflicts with each others research and information.
 
AdiPure7 said:
I'm glad that you can admit both sides of the argument. I just hate how there are so many rumors and lies within the nutritional world today. I'm happy I'm getting my information from textbooks and not the internet because every other site conflicts with each others research and information.
Click to expand...
Text books are good, but just remember the context and for whom they are written for. A bodybuilder has different needs/wants and goals to an olympic track runner who requires a high volume of carbs in his/her diet to sustain performance etc. etc. (i have five nutrition text books for the record) and have read them all almost cover to cover and, while some of the information is the same, it also differs (especially in regards to macronutirent timing, loading and other protocols).

Also, general health textbooks place emphasis on health rather than performance and so much of their information that is directed at specific audiences has no real bearing on an 'athlete'. imo nothing beats a combination of text books and peer reviewed journals, so long as you dont just read the abstracts, but criticise the way they organsied/carried out/ selected subjects etc. to gauge just how reliable that information is. Something that will serve you well in your study at college, because not everything you see or every study you hear of was carried out without bias.
 
AdiPure7 said:
I'm glad that you can admit both sides of the argument. I just hate how there are so many rumors and lies within the nutritional world today. I'm happy I'm getting my information from textbooks and not the internet because every other site conflicts with each others research and information.
Click to expand...

The bitter truth is that we all have been told for 50 years that a low fat/high carb diet rich in whole grains and what not is heart healthy and safe for us. It is not the case, there are millions of americans with diabetes. That's a fact that cannot be denied.
I can tell you from experience that when you go to a doctor and blood glucose fasted is 100 or higher you understand very quickly what it means in theory to eat carbs and how real experience will change your mind very quickly.
Unfortunately, humans are not designed to burn 400-600g of carbs a day, everyday, for the rest of our life.
If you talk to ppl you will quickly realize that many, as they hit their 30's and 40's they are fat, slughish, and have the onset on type 2 diabetes. It's all over the news it's not a myth, it's a reality.
I know you are confused by all this but books have been and will be written that are wrong. My body runs as the main energy source on fat that means fatty acids and ketones. I do eat carbs but I burn glucose on a limited base as it is almost imposible for me to eat 3000calories in carbohydrates a day to sustain my activity level. Im perfectly healthy without any issues. If I were to listen to the mainstream I would be on some kind glucose meds and im not fat or laizy. Our bodies just cannot deal with eating carbs as main form of energy such as whole grains and sugars..it's that simple.
I agree with Jigzz in that 100-150g of carbs a day is ok to eat. But that's only about 500calories. Where are you going to get the rest from?
Let me know when you read your books
 
vassille said:
The bitter truth is that we all have been told for 50 years that a low fat/high carb diet rich in whole grains and what not is heart healthy and safe for us. It is not the case, there are millions of americans with diabetes. That's a fact that cannot be denied.
I can tell you from experience that when you go to a doctor and blood glucose fasted is 100 or higher you understand very quickly what it means in theory to eat carbs and how real experience will change your mind very quickly.
Unfortunately, humans are not designed to burn 400-600g of carbs a day, everyday, for the rest of our life.
If you talk to ppl you will quickly realize that many, as they hit their 30's and 40's they are fat, slughish, and have the onset on type 2 diabetes. It's all over the news it's not a myth, it's a reality.
I know you are confused by all this but books have been and will be written that are wrong. My body runs as the main energy source on fat that means fatty acids and ketones. I do eat carbs but I burn glucose on a limited base as it is almost imposible for me to eat 3000calories in carbohydrates a day to sustain my activity level. Im perfectly healthy without any issues. If I were to listen to the mainstream I would be on some kind glucose meds and im not fat or laizy. Our bodies just cannot deal with eating carbs as main form of energy such as whole grains and sugars..it's that simple.
I agree with Jigzz in that 100-150g of carbs a day is ok to eat. But that's only about 500calories. Where are you going to get the rest from?
Let me know when you read your books
Click to expand...

Mostly i run less than this. And shred mainatin bf% alot easier now. Thats mainly because of what you told me before haha
 
Jiigzz said:
Mostly i run less than this. And shred mainatin bf% alot easier now. Thats mainly because of what you told me before haha
Click to expand...

haha good for you ;)
I think I remember there was another discussion about this on another thread if I remember correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top