Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Training & Nutrition (http://www.bikeforums.net/training-nutrition/)
-   -   Low Carb / Paleo Weirdos Check In Here (http://www.bikeforums.net/training-nutrition/930349-low-carb-paleo-weirdos-check-here.html)

Sixty Fiver 02-13-14 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 16492394)
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.

Look up how conventional Canola oil is made... it is one of Canada's best inventions and rivals insulin for it's popularity... and it did not even exist 50 years ago. My grandparents were farmers that raised wheat, oats, and barley and it was their children that were the first to try this new cash crop.

The cold pressed canola oil is an artisanal product.

As for the case of selective breeding vs outright genetic modification... there are big differences.

Monsanto makes Canola "Roundup Ready".

bbbean 02-13-14 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16492652)
As for the case of selective breeding vs outright genetic modification... there are big differences.

True. Modern gene splicing makes it possible to increase productivity and reduce the use of dangerous pesticides much faster than traditional breeding ever could. Further, extensive research has consistently failed to show any detrimental effects from eating GMO foods.


http://www.realclearscience.com/blog...mo-safety.html

1783 studies can't ALL be biased, can they?

Sixty Fiver 02-13-14 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbean (Post 16493411)
True. Modern gene splicing makes it possible to increase productivity and reduce the use of dangerous pesticides much faster than traditional breeding ever could. Further, extensive research has consistently failed to show any detrimental effects from eating GMO foods.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog...mo-safety.html

1783 studies can't ALL be biased, can they?

Sounds like you have stock in Monsanto.

bbbean 02-13-14 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16493456)
Sounds like you have stock in Monsanto.

Me and the authors of all 1783 peer reviewed articles and thr researchers who conducted thr critical review, and the editors who approved the article. Yup. We're ALL shareholders. You got us.

RonH 02-13-14 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16491793)

Thanks. This link had some very good points. :thumb:

wolfchild 02-13-14 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 16492024)
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.

Margarine is one of the worst foodstuffs ever invented. It's an industrial fat made in a lab. Margarine is not even a macronutrient, human body doesn't even recognize it as a nutrient. Eating margarine is no different then eating wheelbearing grease.
And yes, eggs are a perfect food, eggs don't need to be studied, they don't need to be modified by science, they are perfect the way they are. Eggs have been part of the human diet for thousands of years, margarine and canola has not...The problem with canola is that it's a GMO seed made by science and not made by nature. The fatty acid profile of canola is actually not that bad. It has 18% omega 6 and 9% omega 3's. The problem is that it goes through a lot of high heat processing, using chemicals to extract the oil from the seed. When it's all done all those beneficial omega 3's are destroyed and you left with oil which has no nutritional value.

elcruxio 02-14-14 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfchild (Post 16494026)
Margarine is one of the worst foodstuffs ever invented. It's an industrial fat made in a lab. Margarine is not even a macronutrient, human body doesn't even recognize it as a nutrient. Eating margarine is no different then eating wheelbearing grease.
And yes, eggs are a perfect food, eggs don't need to be studied, they don't need to be modified by science, they are perfect the way they are. Eggs have been part of the human diet for thousands of years, margarine and canola has not...The problem with canola is that it's a GMO seed made by science and not made by nature. The fatty acid profile of canola is actually not that bad. It has 18% omega 6 and 9% omega 3's. The problem is that it goes through a lot of high heat processing, using chemicals to extract the oil from the seed. When it's all done all those beneficial omega 3's are destroyed and you left with oil which has no nutritional value.

Where do you get this stuff?

Okay first. Margarine is essentially oil which has emulsifier added into it. If that makes is bearing grease then so be it

Second. Eggs don't need to be studied? Well that's ok then. Let's just stop science and do what the ancestors did because they lived such long and healthy lives... Oh wait, they didn't.

Third. Explain to me this. If canola oil has it's omega 3 destroyed how do you explain that when people are put on a high veggie diet where all the animal fats are replaced with canola oil, the test subjects show a signifigant rise in omega 3 levels in their bloodstream and better omega 3/6 ratios than with the older animal fattier diet.
Could it perhaps be, that the people who study this stuff take the actual end product, the actual oil and study that instead of the canola seed. And amazingly find omega 3 fatty acids in there! wow! how could that be! You said they were destroyed! Well the scientists must be wrong because the extraction needs a process

And about the whole GMO thing. It's not as such the genetic manipulation which makes a food unhealthy. At least in Europe food is massively tested and the GMO's used have not been shown to actually have detrimental effects, even though they are genetically modified, because the modification is not in the nutritional profile, or if it is it's not to create a toxin but to increase yield. Actually genetically modified stuff will most likely lead to more healthy food since pesticide use can potentially be reduced.
This whole keep it natural will eventually lead to refusing medical aid as that is the most unnatural thing ever.

But no, It can't be good because it contains genes!
Heck, I'm anxiously waiting to get genetically modified myself (yup, they can do that nowdays) to cure my diabetes. However that tech may not become mainstream in my lifetime but it always pays to be expectant.

GeorgeBMac 02-14-14 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbean (Post 16493411)
True. Modern gene splicing makes it possible to increase productivity and reduce the use of dangerous pesticides much faster than traditional breeding ever could. Further, extensive research has consistently failed to show any detrimental effects from eating GMO foods.


http://www.realclearscience.com/blog...mo-safety.html

1783 studies can't ALL be biased, can they?

You could add a zero to that number and it would not change my opinion of GMO's. Namely:

Yes, "they" MIGHT be safe -- TODAY.

But, what about tomorrow or the next day? We have no idea what Monsanto is doing to those seeds -- and there is virtually no regulation or oversight of them. Plus, I think it is clear that Monsanto regards their (financial) health and well being as being the driving factor in their decisions. So, like any other faction bent on following an ideology, the facts are manipulated to suit the agenda.

In the early 2000's we trusted that the banksters were doing right by us -- and let them fly with little or no regulation and oversight. Ten years later we are trusting that the GMO industry is doing right by us. And, for both of them we only have trust or suspicion. I choose suspicion.

bbbean 02-14-14 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac (Post 16495407)
You could add a zero to that number and it would not change my opinion of GMO's. Namely:

Yes, "they" MIGHT be safe -- TODAY.

In other words, regardless of the science, you don't like them. That's fine - I personally don't like lima beans or rye bread. But you shouldn't offer your preference as anything other than a preference.

When you opt to ignore the huge number of peer reviewed, replicated, critiqued, and accepted studies, though, your preference veers into the realm of religion, not unlike the beliefs of creationists. Again, I don't have a problem with your beliefs, but I don't base my food choices on someone elses religious/superstitious/political beliefs.

FWIW, I have no proof that carbon fiber and spandex won't mutate into carcinogens in the future, but I'm still going to ride today.

BB

GeorgeBMac 02-14-14 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbean (Post 16495759)
In other words, regardless of the science, you don't like them. That's fine - I personally don't like lima beans or rye bread. But you shouldn't offer your preference as anything other than a preference.

When you opt to ignore the huge number of peer reviewed, replicated, critiqued, and accepted studies, though, your preference veers into the realm of religion, not unlike the beliefs of creationists. Again, I don't have a problem with your beliefs, but I don't base my food choices on someone elses religious/superstitious/political beliefs.

FWIW, I have no proof that carbon fiber and spandex won't mutate into carcinogens in the future, but I'm still going to ride today.

BB

No, you cut off my post and then took the piece you sited out of context.

I said (again!):
[INDENT=5]
"But, what about tomorrow or the next day? We have no idea what Monsanto is doing to those seeds -- and there is virtually no regulation or oversight of them. Plus, I think it is clear that Monsanto regards their (financial) health and well being as being the driving factor in their decisions. So, like any other faction bent on following an ideology, the facts are manipulated to suit the agenda.

In the early 2000's we trusted that the banksters were doing right by us -- and let them fly with little or no regulation and oversight. Ten years later we are trusting that the GMO industry is doing right by us. And, for both of them we only have trust or suspicion. I choose suspicion."

[/INDENT]
None of what I said has anything to do with science. Actually, I said that today's science is irrelevant if Monsanto chooses to change the rules tomorrow. Rather, it has to do with whether or not you trust Monsanto to work in what I consider to be our best interests. The fact is, not even Monsanto claims they produce healthy or healthier food. The best they can do is claim that their seeds produce CHEAP food that won't hurt you. So, that is the BEST that you can hope for. But, because they are mainly driven by the profit motive, I do not trust either them or their science - because American industry has learned how to manipulate science to support their case. MAYBE their food is safe today. Will it be tomorrow? That is up to Monsanto. Because they are constantly changing their seeds and their manipulation of them -- so studies done today have no relevance for the seeds they will produce in the future.

If you trust them, that is fine. Enjoy the cheap food...

elcruxio 02-14-14 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac (Post 16495917)
No, you cut off my post and then took the piece you sited out of context.

I said (again!):
[INDENT=5]
"But, what about tomorrow or the next day? We have no idea what Monsanto is doing to those seeds -- and there is virtually no regulation or oversight of them. Plus, I think it is clear that Monsanto regards their (financial) health and well being as being the driving factor in their decisions. So, like any other faction bent on following an ideology, the facts are manipulated to suit the agenda.

In the early 2000's we trusted that the banksters were doing right by us -- and let them fly with little or no regulation and oversight. Ten years later we are trusting that the GMO industry is doing right by us. And, for both of them we only have trust or suspicion. I choose suspicion."

[/INDENT]
None of what I said has anything to do with science. Actually, I said that today's science is irrelevant if Monsanto chooses to change the rules tomorrow. Rather, it has to do with whether or not you trust Monsanto to work in what I consider to be our best interests. The fact is, not even Monsanto claims they produce healthy or healthier food. The best they can do is claim that their seeds produce CHEAP food that won't hurt you. So, that is the BEST that you can hope for. But, because they are mainly driven by the profit motive, I do not trust either them or their science - because American industry has learned how to manipulate science to support their case. MAYBE their food is safe today. Will it be tomorrow? That is up to Monsanto. Because they are constantly changing their seeds and their manipulation of them -- so studies done today have no relevance for the seeds they will produce in the future.

If you trust them, that is fine. Enjoy the cheap food...

Making poisonous food might be a good strategy in China (where it's not intentional but happens anyways) but in the western countries with free press it's decidedly bad business. Monsato needs to keep on producing seeds and that is not going to happen if their food starts killing people or causing diseases. In fact the modern legislative work in the western countries works relatively quickly so if there was any hint of harmful food substances created by GMO methods at least the EU would slam anti GMO laws faster than Monsato could pull all their stuff out of the market. I do believe they have a science department for creating the GMO strains which is not filled with evil geniouses plotting the downfall of mankind. Researchers in all aspects of life tend to be for the most part introverted people who care more about the research and results than anything else.

Carbonfiberboy 02-14-14 01:13 PM

The only thing bad about the GMO thing is the RR crops, which have greatly increased pesticide application rates nationwide. The approval of 2,4,D resistant crops will be another disaster, as 2,4,D resistant weeds already exist. Pesticide application is the problem. GMO has not been the solution they expected it to be. Nothing wrong with the food itself, but the environmental effects are not good. I think the magnitude of increase is 207 million pounds in the US from the time the RR crops were introduced.

GeorgeBMac 02-16-14 10:30 AM

Yeh, it must be the wheat...

[h=1]10 Foods Made With The Subway Yoga Mat Chemical[/h]
http://www.buzzfeed.com/deenashanker...-plastics-food

wolfchild 02-16-14 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac (Post 16500310)
Yeh, it must be the wheat...

[h=1]10 Foods Made With The Subway Yoga Mat Chemical[/h]
http://www.buzzfeed.com/deenashanker...-plastics-food

I am not surprised at all, I suspected for a long time that fast food is slowly killing people and making them sick, I can only imagine some of the other ingredients used in fast foods. Most bread and buns in a grocery store are no better. They are all made with the same chemicals. "Wonder bread" is not even real bread, do people really believe it's healthy ??

Sixty Fiver 02-16-14 12:44 PM

For Valentine's day I wrapped beef heart in bacon and slow roasted it. The bacon added some needed fat to the heart and then got turned into bacon bits that I mixed with the roasted and steamed kale.

http://www.ravingbikefiend.com/randomstuff/vdheart3.JPG

Sixty Fiver 02-16-14 12:49 PM

Last night my daughter passed on having fast food so we could come home and have some Souvlakis that had been marinating in the fridge... although she does not eat as low carb as we do she is very conscious of what is in her food and generally avoids manufactured food and opts for natural choices.

There is not a lot of fast food that interests her.

She is 14 but has always been like this... she and her friend had a sleepover and they went a little overboard on the junk food and she says she felt like crap and really noticed cravings she normally does not have.

Her friend said she felt sorry for people with diabetes so I asked her... how do you think people get it ?

:D

GeorgeBMac 02-16-14 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfchild (Post 16500523)
I am not surprised at all, I suspected for a long time that fast food is slowly killing people and making them sick, I can only imagine some of the other ingredients used in fast foods. Most bread and buns in a grocery store are no better. They are all made with the same chemicals. "Wonder bread" is not even real bread, do people really believe it's healthy ??

Wonder Bread? SURE it's healthy. Here's the proof!
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=ut...ercial+youtube

wolfchild 02-16-14 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16500555)
Her friend said she felt sorry for people with diabetes so I asked her... how do you think people get it ?

They get it from eating too many McD's "Happy meals" when they were children.

Sixty Fiver 02-16-14 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfchild (Post 16500614)
They get it from eating too many McD's "Happy meals" when they were children.

She was holding a super mega slurpee when she said this...

GeorgeBMac 02-16-14 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16500555)
Last night my daughter passed on having fast food so we could come home and have some Souvlakis that had been marinating in the fridge... although she does not eat as low carb as we do she is very conscious of what is in her food and generally avoids manufactured food and opts for natural choices.

There is not a lot of fast food that interests her.

She is 14 but has always been like this... she and her friend had a sleepover and they went a little overboard on the junk food and she says she felt like crap and really noticed cravings she normally does not have.

Her friend said she felt sorry for people with diabetes so I asked her... how do you think people get it ?

:D

Some 'experts' claim it is from eating too much sugar -- and they have the science to prove it.
Some 'experts' claim it is from eating too much fat -- and they have the science to prove it.
Some 'experts' claim it is from being fat, from eating too much sugar AND fat --and they have the science to prove it...

Me? I think they all have a little piece of the whole truth...
... Maybe, after we're all blind and being wheeled into dialysis because our feet have been amputated, they will finally figure it out...

Meanwhile, we spend billions researching and promoting new drugs to treat it.

lenA 02-18-14 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16500543)
For Valentine's day I wrapped beef heart in bacon and slow roasted it. The bacon added some needed fat to the heart and then got turned into bacon bits that I mixed with the roasted and steamed kale.

http://www.ravingbikefiend.com/randomstuff/vdheart3.JPG

Typical of a main meal for me also. After many years of from scratch, time consuming food preparation, it's a pleasure to just put together some meat and non starchy veggies.....the real 'Fast Food'

lenA 02-18-14 08:22 AM

How can I live on 50 grams of carbs? If you serve this salad with a nice oil and vinegar dressing, it's only 14 grams

1 cup romaine 1 carb

1 cup spinach 1 carb
1/4 c shredded cabbage 2 carbs
1 stick celery, or about 1/4 cup sliced 1.5 carbs
1/4 cup chopped bell pepper, 2.5 carbs
1 small chopped tomato, or about 1/4 cup 4 carbs
1/2 small cucumber, or about 1/4 cup chopped, 2 carbs

Still leaves 36 for the day

one cup broccoli 4 net carbs
4 oz asparagus 2
10 sugar snaps 2.5

Well, you get the picture.......stay away from root crops, and other starchy veggies, and you can have your bunny food and eat it too, and get fiber, and micros


elcruxio 02-18-14 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac (Post 16500969)
Some 'experts' claim it is from eating too much sugar -- and they have the science to prove it.
Some 'experts' claim it is from eating too much fat -- and they have the science to prove it.
Some 'experts' claim it is from being fat, from eating too much sugar AND fat --and they have the science to prove it...

Me? I think they all have a little piece of the whole truth...
... Maybe, after we're all blind and being wheeled into dialysis because our feet have been amputated, they will finally figure it out...

Meanwhile, we spend billions researching and promoting new drugs to treat it.

Many people have the chance to cure their type 2 or at least improve their blood glucose levels and eliminate most of the side effects of type 2

However many people don't have the motivation to cure themselves. They feel using insulin and other drugs is more convenient than excercising, losing weight, eating less carbs/fat/salt/etc and a lot more veggies/plant matter.
I despise these people. They have the chance I do not have and disregard it completely.

Not all do though. Diabetes is a line where type 1 is the one extreme and self caused type 2 is the other. Many type 2's fall somewhere on the line and the chance for cure or improvement is measured by that placement. Type 2 can sometimes be practically a type 1 with a different type of prognosis.

JCNeumann 02-18-14 05:22 PM

Very interesting discussion on carbs. I've tried very hard to cut simple carbs (bread, sugar, etc) and replace them with more complex carbs (berries, sprouted grains) after a bad gout attack.

I don't think it has made much of a different weight-wise, but anecdotally I have less "ups and down" during the day. Plus, having some before and after a workout seems to make me bonk less.

Out of curiosity, where do you (i.e. those who know a hell of a lot more than I do...) fall on the weight vs. fitness issue. I understand how critical weight loss is in obesity, or specific medical issues, but what about the "I'd really like to lose xx pounds"?

Is it even reasonable to think of this in the same context?

At 6'2 and 245 I'd like to fit into clothes a little better, maybe at 230 or so, but would rather be faster on the bike and on the ice. Am I taking the wrong approach?

GeorgeBMac 02-18-14 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 16506023)
Many people have the chance to cure their type 2 or at least improve their blood glucose levels and eliminate most of the side effects of type 2

However many people don't have the motivation to cure themselves. They feel using insulin and other drugs is more convenient than excercising, losing weight, eating less carbs/fat/salt/etc and a lot more veggies/plant matter.
I despise these people. They have the chance I do not have and disregard it completely.

Not all do though. Diabetes is a line where type 1 is the one extreme and self caused type 2 is the other. Many type 2's fall somewhere on the line and the chance for cure or improvement is measured by that placement. Type 2 can sometimes be practically a type 1 with a different type of prognosis.

I can understand your sentiment -- and I know people like you describe. One in particular is so driven by work, he barely thinks about his diabetes and instead just works 70+ hours weeks fueled by coffee and very unhealthy food.

But there are others who really have no idea what a healthy life style is or how to go about doing it. Sure, they have heard "eat right and exercise" But to them that is just another slogan.

Then to top it off: their physician, like an old west gun fighter, prescribes first and asks question later: IF he even mentions a healthy life style it will be to complement his medications rather than replace them. I don't blame them. They put patient safety and well being first -- and they are trained and conditioned to believe two things: Most people will not make meaningful lifestyle changes and, if they do, they won't stick with them. And, second, medication is the most effective treatment.

But, thirdly, and maybe more importantly: our health care system is simply not geared towards prevention and self care. If a person wants to do those things, with rare exceptions, they are on their own with little or no support from the health care system (the best they get are semi-annual lectures from the physician). That scenario is changing -- but the wheels turn slowly...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 AM.