Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-02-14, 08:48 PM   #76
lenA
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Coast of Wisconsin
Bikes: 2011 Surly LHT 2005 LeMond Zurich
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
For me, the big downside to the ketogenic diet is athletic performance. It really does take a hit. Normal physical activity is fine, as is overall strength. If anything, I was a bit more mentally alert through the day. Cycling performance was a joke, though. What was previously a tempo power level quickly became something north of threshold.
How long were you in a ketogenic state? Takes a while to kick in.
lenA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-14, 09:05 PM   #77
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I roast a lot of meats or cook them over lower heat... I prefer baked liver to fried liver and make stew with beef heart fairly regularly.

Roasted bacon is the bomb.

I often make souvlakis in the oven and suspend the skewers of meat over a roasting pan that has a few cups of water in it... this keeps the drippings off the hot oven and adds a little convective effect which browns things up nicely.

Clean up is negligible.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 08:37 AM   #78
lenA
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Coast of Wisconsin
Bikes: 2011 Surly LHT 2005 LeMond Zurich
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm probably the thread extremist

Fatty fresh meat, chicken thighs and legs with skin, some cured meat, fatty fish, dairy, eggs, nuts and non starchy and leafy veggies

Coconut oil and butter

No grain of any kind. No sugar of any kind, or sugar substitutes.

No veggies oils

No starchy root veggies

No fast food, no junk food, no convenience food

No alcohol

I'm retired so it's easy for me to just grab something when I'm hungry and follow my golden rule of eating to live, not living to eat.

No set meal schedules, no menu planning

I can go touring with just a bag of nuts, some cheese and sausage and be good for days.

Pretty much it.......
lenA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 10:32 AM   #79
bikebreak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by transporterjr View Post
Perhaps off topic, perhaps not...I was reading about "eskimos" and how they did not suffer from "white man diseases" like diabetes and heart problems, yet eating an incredibly high fat diet, and I believe, with no veggies/berries at all (At least for a huge part of the year). Only with the introduction of flour and sugar did some serious problems occur.

Note, I am going off memory, which gets more dangerous every year, but a quick check of the always 100% correct internet reveals..
"tís surprising to learn how well the Eskimo did on a high-protein, high-fat diet. Shaped by glacial temperatures, stark landscapes, and protracted winters, the traditional Eskimo diet had little in the way of plant food, no agricultural or dairy products, and was unusually low in carbohydrates. Mostly people subsisted on what they hunted and fished. Inland dwellers took advantage of caribou feeding on tundra mosses, lichens, and plants too tough for humans to stomach (though predigested vegetation in the animalsí paunches became dinner as well). Coastal people exploited the sea. The main nutritional challenge was avoiding starvation in late winter if primary meat sources became too scarce or lean."

I think fat has been given a bad name. Meanwhile, carbs (which I crave) make up the base of the food pyramid for years?

Sounds like you read something out of Weston A. Price. Check out: http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-u...l-degeneration
for a book review. The whole book is here:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib.../pricetoc.html

Bottom line is various "primitive" cultures enjoy better health than "modern" ones due to a more nutritious diet. These diets tend to be lower carb and higher fat than what our food pyramid recommends. However, there is not a single magic diet that cures all ills, rather various approaches to the problem of feeding people and keeping them healthy.
Our food pyramid is designed to feed people, not keep them healthy, and it shows.
bikebreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 10:39 AM   #80
bikebreak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenA View Post
I'm probably the thread extremist...

I can go touring with just a bag of nuts, some cheese and sausage and be good for days.

Pretty much it.......
Good for you.
I try to avoid grains, but I ate two muffins yesterday and my stomach still hurts!

How do you keep the cheese good for days of touring?
Do you ever do hard anaerobic efforts? How does that work with no carbs?
bikebreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 10:46 AM   #81
Spld cyclist 
Senior Member
 
Spld cyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Springfield, MA
Bikes: 2012 Motobecane Fantom CXX, 2012 Motobecane Fantom CX, 1997 Bianchi Nyala, 200? Burley Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikebreak View Post
Our food pyramid is designed to feed people, not keep them healthy, and it shows.
Very few people actually follow the food pyramid, typically either consuming a lot more saturated fat and/or simple carbs and fewer fruits and vegetables than the pyramid recommends. I think the food pyramid is a more healthy diet than most Americans follow, so it shouldn't take the blame for the current state of affairs in US health.
Spld cyclist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 11:17 AM   #82
bikebreak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spld cyclist View Post
Very few people actually follow the food pyramid, typically either consuming a lot more saturated fat and/or simple carbs and fewer fruits and vegetables than the pyramid recommends. I think the food pyramid is a more healthy diet than most Americans follow, so it shouldn't take the blame for the current state of affairs in US health.
The USDA pyramid states "6-11 servings bread, cereal, rice, pasta group" and the myplate just says "grains". Is that cereal Wheaties or frosted flakes? whole wheat pasta and brown rice or white? Raw or refined grains? It doesn't tell us.

Do people follow the food pyramid? Hard to say, but the USDA research shows that between the 1970s and 1990s Americans ate less fats and more carbs, less whole milk and more lowfat or skim, slightly more fruits and vegetables, less eggs.
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/29140/PDF
So someone was listening.
bikebreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 11:21 AM   #83
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikebreak View Post
The USDA pyramid states "6-11 servings bread, cereal, rice, pasta group" and the myplate just says "grains". Is that cereal Wheaties or frosted flakes? whole wheat pasta and brown rice or white? Raw or refined grains? It doesn't tell us.

Do people follow the food pyramid? Hard to say, but the USDA research shows that between the 1970s and 1990s Americans ate less fats and more carbs, less whole milk and more lowfat or skim, slightly more fruits and vegetables, less eggs.
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/29140/PDF
So someone was listening.
The less fats and more carbs, low fat dairy, and less eggs seems to be the problem here... the increase in beverage consumption during this period has also been rather shocking as it seems lots of people have been drinking their calories.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 12:45 PM   #84
Fat Boy
Wheelsuck
 
Fat Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenA View Post
How long were you in a ketogenic state? Takes a while to kick in.
I went for a full ketogenic diet for about a month, which was about 25-40 grams of carbs per day. After that, I went low-carb for another couple months at maybe 75-100 grams/day. Is that long enough to fully adapt? Probably not if you listen to people that are really strong proponents of a ketogenic diet. It was pretty interesting to see my power on the bike normalized to 150 bpm heart rate. There was a very strong connection between the lowest power while ketogenic, somewhat better power when increasing the carbs somewhat and then back to 'baseline' numbers when taking daily carbs up to more like 150-200 grams/day. This is still significantly fewer carbs than I was consuming before.
Fat Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 12:48 PM   #85
Spld cyclist 
Senior Member
 
Spld cyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Springfield, MA
Bikes: 2012 Motobecane Fantom CXX, 2012 Motobecane Fantom CX, 1997 Bianchi Nyala, 200? Burley Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikebreak View Post
The USDA pyramid states "6-11 servings bread, cereal, rice, pasta group" and the myplate just says "grains". Is that cereal Wheaties or frosted flakes? whole wheat pasta and brown rice or white? Raw or refined grains? It doesn't tell us.

Do people follow the food pyramid? Hard to say, but the USDA research shows that between the 1970s and 1990s Americans ate less fats and more carbs, less whole milk and more lowfat or skim, slightly more fruits and vegetables, less eggs.
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/29140/PDF
So someone was listening.
I don't think it's hard to say at all. Most people don't follow the food pyramid, nor have they over the last few decades. How many people do you know who do? I don't know many, but the few I do know aren't overweight and don't have the diet-related illnesses (e.g. diabetes and heart disease) that are rampant in the US.

I just went back and looked at the 1992 food pyramid. Added sugar is at the tip of the pyramid, which is the "use sparingly" category. That being the case, it should have been crystal clear to anyone paying attention that Frosted Flakes and any other number of processed foods were to be eaten sparingly. It's obvious both from food sales figures and simple observation that huge numbers of Americans did not follow that advice. It's simply not true that the average American diet over the last few decades can be seen as a vast experiment about the impact of the food pyramid.

(Edit - further thought: most Americans also eat fewer fruits and vegetables than recommended by the food pyramid, which is another reason why the collective state of our health shouldn't be blamed on it).

The 1992 food pyramid recommended 6-11 servings of complex carbs, 3-5 vegetables, 2-4 fruit, 2-3 dairy (eggs not in that category), and 2-3 meat, poultry, fish dry beans, eggs, and nuts. Going by the minimums, that would be 6 servings of complex carbs vs. 9 servings of other foods. Some will say that's too much carb and not enough fat (there's plenty of protein in that diet), but that proportion is certainly compatible with good health. (We'll have to agree to disagree on that, because after considerable reading on nutrition from a number of perspectives, you're not going to be able to convince me otherwise).

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CCkQ9QEwAA

Unfortunately, the food pyramid did not differentiate between good fats and bad fats, nor did it emphasize whole grains. This has been rectified in more recent USDA guidance.

Last edited by Spld cyclist; 02-03-14 at 01:19 PM.
Spld cyclist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 02:14 PM   #86
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
My wife just checked the scale (it is no longer her enemy)... she has now lost 60 pounds and is getting pretty close to her goal weight.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-14, 06:40 PM   #87
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Posts: 4,030
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenA View Post
I'm probably the thread extremist
I can go touring with just a bag of nuts, some cheese and sausage and be good for days.
I could do the same thing if I wanted, but I just don't want to... My body is very well adapted to using fat for energy, I can ride for many hours without eating any carbs as long as I keep the intensity at around 55-70% of my max, as soon as I increase intensity and start sprinting or riding up and down the hills, then my body starts using glycogen, so I do need to eat a little bit of carbs. Another thing is that when I go very low carb I start losing weight like crazy. Right now I am trying to bulk up and build a little bit more strength and muscle , my 45 min strength/weight training session is a lot more intense then my 3 hour bike ride, I need carbs or else I wouldn't be able to put in max effort into my workouts...Human body has two fuel tanks one of them is fat and the other one is glycogen...For me fat fuels most of my bike riding and other daily activities.. and glycogen fuels my workouts such as sprinting, plyometrics and strength training.

Last edited by wolfchild; 02-03-14 at 06:49 PM.
wolfchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-14, 04:29 PM   #88
akohekohe
The Professor
 
akohekohe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: O'ahu
Bikes: Alex Moulton Double Pylon, Surly Big Dummy, Alex Moulton GT
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've been thinking of going to a low-carb diet. Any advice on the best was to get started? For example, is it better to ease into it by slowly reducing carbs and adding fat or to dive right in and try to target 20-30 grams of carbs a day from the start? Any thoughts on why some people are successful at making the transition and others aren't? Is there an "adjustment" period where you might decide it's not working for you but it would have if you just stuck it out a little longer? Any tips or tricks to increase the chances of success?
akohekohe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-14, 04:56 PM   #89
Fat Boy
Wheelsuck
 
Fat Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by akohekohe View Post
I've been thinking of going to a low-carb diet. Any advice on the best was to get started? For example, is it better to ease into it by slowly reducing carbs and adding fat or to dive right in and try to target 20-30 grams of carbs a day from the start? Any thoughts on why some people are successful at making the transition and others aren't? Is there an "adjustment" period where you might decide it's not working for you but it would have if you just stuck it out a little longer? Any tips or tricks to increase the chances of success?
First, if you're going ketogenic, I'd make some goals for yourself. You have to have a reason for doing what you're doing. Not all goals are consistent with a ketogenic diet. Weight loss is a good match. Adding muscle is a bad match. Be smart about it.

Second, if that's the road you're going down, then embrace the fat. Don't try to put big limits on calories (at least to start). Just try to eat to satiety. Chances are, you'll quickly start to consume fewer calories naturally.

Third, if you're going ketogenic, then you have to keep protein relatively low. It's not a 'high protein' diet. I'd stay under 1.5 g/kg bodyweight for protein.

Fourth, don't stop your bike riding, but understand that you're going to lose a good chunk of power. You'll be fine to ride around at a conversational pace, but if you try picking up the pace, there's not going to be that 'next gear'.

Fifth, I think the first week you might feel a little low energy, but after that you'll be fine and possibly even more (or at least more consistent through the day) energy than on a 'regular' diet.

Let us know how it goes.
Fat Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-14, 09:14 PM   #90
bbbean 
Senior Member
 
bbbean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Missouri
Bikes: Giant Propel, Cannondale SuperX, Univega Alpina Ultima
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by akohekohe View Post
I've been thinking of going to a low-carb diet. Any advice on the best was to get started? For example, is it better to ease into it by slowly reducing carbs and adding fat or to dive right in and try to target 20-30 grams of carbs a day from the start?
I spent 3 months gradually cutting out the worst offenders (cokes, bread, pasta, rice) and saw moderate results, then I got serious about it and started using tracking software (carbsmaster, but any good food tracker would work). I did some research, set reasonable limits I could live with (long term change was my primary goal and criteria), and I managed to meet my goal (down to 165 from 325). For me, I was happy with 100 gr of carbs and 1700 calories a day. YMMV.

BB
__________________
www.beancotton.com
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton

bbbean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-14, 03:34 PM   #91
MEversbergII
Senior Member
 
MEversbergII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lexington Park, Maryland
Bikes: 2012 Schwinn Trailway, Early 70's All Pro, Trek 1200
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't suggest going Keto right off the bat. It would be like learning to swim in ice water.

Shoot for ~100g/day for a week or two, then move down to ~75, then if you want to go Keto, go down below 50.

M.
MEversbergII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-14, 03:52 PM   #92
RonH
Life is good
 
RonH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Not far from the Withlacoochee Trail. 🚴🏻
Bikes: My beloved 2001 Litespeed Tuscany and my 2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod
Posts: 16,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
I have a question. My wife and I have been on the low carb diet for 4 weeks today. We've been losing weight and I've have enough energy to ride. But I haven't lost a single pound in the last 7 days. She has only lost one pound in the last 7 days. Nothing different about our food choices during the last week.
Got any thoughts?
__________________


The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. - Psalm 103:8
RonH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-14, 04:33 PM   #93
Fat Boy
Wheelsuck
 
Fat Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How low is 'low carb'? If you're running in the 50 gram or less range, then you're about at minimum. If not, you can try to get there. For me, ~75-100 grams was the worst. Athletic performance sucked and I had little/no ketone production.

If you're already tight on carbs, then you just need to eat less. I know there are some ketogenic proponents who argue that you'll lose weight regardless of intake when low enough carb, but honestly, I just don't buy that. I think that going ketogenic allows you to eat fewer calories because you have a stronger sense of satiety and it ramps up resting metabolic rate, but in the end, if you're eating a jar of coconut oil a day, you're going to gain weight (and God help your toilet).
Fat Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-14, 07:56 PM   #94
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonH View Post
I have a question. My wife and I have been on the low carb diet for 4 weeks today. We've been losing weight and I've have enough energy to ride. But I haven't lost a single pound in the last 7 days. She has only lost one pound in the last 7 days. Nothing different about our food choices during the last week.
Got any thoughts?
Some folks have told us that dairy seems to stall weight loss (for them) and if your protein levels are too high your body will convert this to glycogen and you won't be able to engage fat burning mode.

Weight loss also seems to come in cycles... after holding steady for some weeks my wife got weighed at the doctor today and was 5 pounds lighter.

I do this to maintain my weight and energy levels so stay around 75 grams of carbs a day, 75 grams of protein, and 130 grams of fat per day.

There are also days I just eat less as I don't really have food cravings and although I am pretty trim have enough body fat to power me well into the day.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-14, 09:00 PM   #95
bbbean 
Senior Member
 
bbbean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Missouri
Bikes: Giant Propel, Cannondale SuperX, Univega Alpina Ultima
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonH View Post
I have a question. My wife and I have been on the low carb diet for 4 weeks today. We've been losing weight and I've have enough energy to ride. But I haven't lost a single pound in the last 7 days. She has only lost one pound in the last 7 days. Nothing different about our food choices during the last week.
Got any thoughts?
Weight loss is rarely linear, and there are a host of variables that can influence daily or weekly loss/gain rates. An infection, a larger than usual workout, stress, and sleep deprivation are just a few of the things that can slow weight loss temporarily. Plateaus and daily fluctuations are the rule, not the exception. You'll see the best results in the long term, not the short term.

BB
__________________
www.beancotton.com
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton

bbbean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-14, 10:52 PM   #96
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonH View Post
I have a question. My wife and I have been on the low carb diet for 4 weeks today. We've been losing weight and I've have enough energy to ride. But I haven't lost a single pound in the last 7 days. She has only lost one pound in the last 7 days. Nothing different about our food choices during the last week.
Got any thoughts?
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/s...ow-carb-pt-ii/
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-14, 12:24 AM   #97
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
More good reading... besides eating more food the issue is that we are eating more processed foods, vegetable oils, and copious amounts of sugar.

http://authoritynutrition.com/11-gra...h-modern-diet/

Of course, a bunch of us weirdos have concluded that this modern and so called healthful diet is really bad for our health.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-14, 03:20 AM   #98
elcruxio
Senior Member
 
elcruxio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Turku, Finland, Europe
Bikes: 2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
Posts: 1,390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
More good reading... besides eating more food the issue is that we are eating more processed foods, vegetable oils, and copious amounts of sugar.

http://authoritynutrition.com/11-gra...h-modern-diet/

Of course, a bunch of us weirdos have concluded that this modern and so called healthful diet is really bad for our health.
The whole idea that the website lumps all vegetable oils in one group and proposes that margarines contain hydrogenated vegetable oils remove all credibility.
I mean yeah, some vegetable oils are bad. Some are not and some are actually beneficial. Canola oil and extra virgin olive oil are very beneficial. So buy canola oil. Problem solved. Why would you use anything else?
And margarine used to be made from hydrogenated oils back in the 50 years ago. That is not the case today. Using the whole hydrogenated oil thing is so tired in this day and age.
Eggs do not cause heart disease due to cholesterol but there are indications of Choline and TMAO correlation. Saying eggs are the most nutritious food in the world and have no detrimental health effects is false just because the evidence on the situation is not clear yet. Further research needs to be done. Before that, declaring anything is purely beneficial or purely detrimental is just full on BS.

The website seems extremely biased (as most paleo websites do). The only reliable info I find trustworthy these days are the major studies conducted and the outlines given by scandinavian governments (very little corruption especially in the science field). Most of the conclusions of both of these sources are careful and conservative, mostly for a reason. It seems there are as of yet, no extreme miracle diets according to mainstream nutritional science. Then again maybe it's all a conspiracy by the big pharma to keep us sick to sell more drugs...........

I personally believe that hardlining some extreme angle on nutrition is always, always wrong. Current knowledge promotes a moderate view on all nutrition as it is the single thing that has been shown to reduce all kinds of disease. Less meat (carcinogen), more veggies (anti carcinogen and antioxidant), more oils (good oils beneficial for heart) more margarine (no hydrogenated oils, good stuff consists of good oils which are beneficial for heart) less processed foods (duh!) less butter, cream and animal fats (controversial but until an actual consensus is reached excessive animal fat consumption remains an extreme view)
Carbs are nowdays a big topic but what has been shown to work for most is moderate consumption.
elcruxio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-14, 04:14 AM   #99
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Thread Starter
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
The whole idea that the website lumps all vegetable oils in one group and proposes that margarines contain hydrogenated vegetable oils remove all credibility.
I mean yeah, some vegetable oils are bad. Some are not and some are actually beneficial. Canola oil and extra virgin olive oil are very beneficial. So buy canola oil. Problem solved. Why would you use anything else?
And margarine used to be made from hydrogenated oils back in the 50 years ago. That is not the case today. Using the whole hydrogenated oil thing is so tired in this day and age.
Eggs do not cause heart disease due to cholesterol but there are indications of Choline and TMAO correlation. Saying eggs are the most nutritious food in the world and have no detrimental health effects is false just because the evidence on the situation is not clear yet. Further research needs to be done. Before that, declaring anything is purely beneficial or purely detrimental is just full on BS.

The website seems extremely biased (as most paleo websites do). The only reliable info I find trustworthy these days are the major studies conducted and the outlines given by scandinavian governments (very little corruption especially in the science field). Most of the conclusions of both of these sources are careful and conservative, mostly for a reason. It seems there are as of yet, no extreme miracle diets according to mainstream nutritional science. Then again maybe it's all a conspiracy by the big pharma to keep us sick to sell more drugs...........

I personally believe that hardlining some extreme angle on nutrition is always, always wrong. Current knowledge promotes a moderate view on all nutrition as it is the single thing that has been shown to reduce all kinds of disease. Less meat (carcinogen), more veggies (anti carcinogen and antioxidant), more oils (good oils beneficial for heart) more margarine (no hydrogenated oils, good stuff consists of good oils which are beneficial for heart) less processed foods (duh!) less butter, cream and animal fats (controversial but until an actual consensus is reached excessive animal fat consumption remains an extreme view)
Carbs are nowdays a big topic but what has been shown to work for most is moderate consumption.
The graphs show a lot of patterns and trends and the author states that even though correlation does not always equal causation this is stuff to think about and more and more, the word on sugar is that it does not take a lot of it to mess you up and it is especially bad when you drink it.

There is no disagreement here that olive oil is beneficial, canola oil a highly processed oil made from genetically modified canola / **** seed and would not put this on the good list.

I'll keep eating butter, full fat dairy, and eggs and continue to skip the margarine (as I have my entire life).

I am actually fairly moderate and am not caught up in this keto-obsessive behaviour... we eat simply and most of that is raw and un-processed, we roast most of our meat dishes and eat a lot of vegetables with our primary fats coming from olive oil, coconut oil, nuts, and of course... bacon (which we eat sparingly).

Processed foods, processed oils, and anything with added sugar does not make it to our table... the only sweetener we have here is unpasteurized honey because it has so many known benefits.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-14, 09:06 AM   #100
elcruxio
Senior Member
 
elcruxio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Turku, Finland, Europe
Bikes: 2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
Posts: 1,390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post

There is no disagreement here that olive oil is beneficial, canola oil a highly processed oil made from genetically modified canola / **** seed and would not put this on the good list.
Canola oil can be processed or cold pressed. I can't find information regarding how the processing is bad since it leaves a healthy fat profile and no detrimental substances in the oil.
Secondly, if by genetically modified you mean traditional plant breeding then yes, it is genetically modified. That however leaves you in a situation where every plant ever cultivated by man is left inedible for you. And most animals as well. The canola we get isn't "spliced". Also canola oil has a better omega 3/6 profile than olive oil so that's going for it as well.

On the whole topic of sugar. I don't think anyone here believes sugar is a good thing. However it's very difficult to eat great amounts of sugar in a healthy balanced diet unless it consists mainly of fruit (but that isn't balanced again).
Carbs on the other hand are not detrimental in any way when consumed in moderation. I get the feeling people try to actually talk about carbs when they talk about sugar and there is a difference.
elcruxio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 PM.