Thursday, March 31, 2011

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).





On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:08 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
 

ME: Price had a bias toward seafood.  But, he also was a proponent of butter and dairy. He found that a very specific type of butter had health benefits that were almost miraculous.

But times have changed and the sea is not as pure as it was back then.

The land is not as pure either. Grass gets polluted by leaded gas fumes
and mercury in the rain (from coal plants), and some of the places
cows graze were used in the past for all kinds of things. And they have
a habit of swallowing things like whole nails, bullet casings, and barbed
wire. 

 
--------------------------------------------------

> Fish and ruminant animals are VERY different when it comes to nutrition.
> Fish protein, for example, has been shown to lower blood pressure. Fish fat
> is the kind that builds good brain tissue. Vit D is found in fish liver (and
> is probably the reason people could live so far north where there wasn't
> much sun) ... which is why Price recommended cod liver oil as a supplement.

ME: You can get the same effects from eating pastured animals and eating their glands.


OK, let's back up a little here. My original statement was that many people in the US
especially, define a "meat" as basically muscle meat from ruminants, and define
a high-protein diet or paleo diet mainly in terms of that "meat". I said that
"meat" in that definition, does not have all the nutrients a person needs (and
there is some evidence it's not the best protein structure too). I said that a person
eating "vegetarian" in a sense that includes dairy, eggs, or fish can get a
perfectly good diet.

So what you are saying is basically the same thing: you CAN get all the
nutrients ... if you redefine "meat" to also include dairy, eggs, and organ
meats. I totally agree: it is possible to get a decent diet on inland foods
if you work at it. (although as a side note: the "healthy Swiss" who ate
all that healthy butter, also had iodized salt. Before 1919, up to 1/6 of
the Swiss recruits were turned down for service because of goiter. That
was solved by sending iodized salt up to the Swiss valleys, which was
before Price's study).

It's nice to have choices though. You can choose to eat some adrenal
glands and eyeballs .... I'll have mine as a plate of fried shrimp and 
steamed clams.

 
 
  

ME: You are wrong. Cultures that consume high amounts of refined carbs have problems with weight, degenerative diseases and reporduction.

Right. Except, say, most of Asia. Chinese and Japanese are skinnier (and live longer) than folks in the US, even when they eat the same amount of calories and get the same amount of exercise. And they do eat mainly white rice.


 
----------------------------------------------------
>
> I mean, it's been shown that human beings can survive without them, sure,
> mainly because people eating very low carb (like the Inuit) learn to create
> sugars from proteins (which is also what carnivores do).

ME: The human body does not need to create sugar from fat/proteins. Our bodies can use fat/protein as it is.

The brain wants glucose. Animals that eat only lean proteins ... like bobcats, say ... routinely
synthesize glucose from protein, they don't go into ketosis. Inuit do the same
thing. The body CAN do ketosis, but it doesn't, long term.

 
-----------------------------------------------------
But we can also
> create fats out of starches. Personally I think the whole "fat/carb/protein"
> ratio is overhyped, because human beings are good at swapping between fats
> and carbs, and we have only limited capacity to eat protein.

ME: None of what  you have written is true-it is simply your opinion.
Most unbiased research supports the high-carb vegan/vegetarian eating is not optimum for people. It is not an eating plan that generates healthy old people.


Except, say, for the research on old people in Japan and Okinawa. 


STicky VegeTableS
We ate a lunch at the Home Town of Long Life 
market and cafe where foods typical of the area are 
prepared. The traditional diet in Yuzurihara is varied. 
We ate nine different small-portioned dishes at our 
lunch which included fish from a local stream, boiled 
potatoes with miso paste (a dish called tamaji), dark 
purple sweet potato, millet rice, specially prepared 
daikon radish, buckwheat noodles, red onions, a 
Japanese-style bun stuffed with azuki bean paste, and 
a newly introduced sticky vegetable which originated 
from Egypt and is now grown in Yuzurihara called 
moloheiya which is known to be rich in iron and
calcium. Meat was absent (there is no meat market in 
Yuzurihara).



RESULTS: On average, Chinese in China consumed more calories (males 2904 kcal in China, versus 2201 kcal in North America; females 2317 Kcal in China, versus 1795 Kcal in North America and more carbohydrate, but less fat (males 72.2 g in China versus 84.5 g in North America, females 56.6 g in China versus 70.8 g in North America), protein, vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin C than did Chinese in North America. Per cent calories from fat was 35% for Chinese in North America and 22% for Chinese in China. In contrast, the per cent of calories from carbohydrates was 62-68% in China and 48% in North America. Chinese in China reported spending more time in vigorous activity, sleeping and walking but less hours in sitting than Chinese in North America. Chinese in China weighted less and were leaner than North American Chinese.

(In another study, they paired men that got similar exercise, and the Chinese businessmen STILL ate more and were thinner than their American counterparts).


Where is the research on low-carb mostly-muscle-meat centenarians? 
I've been looking for an example but have yet to find one.
So far you haven't provided any references to actual studies.

None of the documented cultures with healthy
old folks are low carb, that I've been able to find. Maybe you
can do better.

 
  


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

[fast5] Invitation



Hi, I've been member here for almost a year, and although this is an intelligent group, it hasn't met my needs for the most part because the emphasis seems to be more on the types of foods eaten, food practices of ancient and modern cultures, pro-carb vs. low-carb, supplements, etc.

While interesting, I personally would prefer more discussion on basic Fast-5 and weight loss. So I'd like to invite those of you who would be interested in discussing Fat-5 in support of weight-loss to also come over and give  our Fast-5 group at SparkPeople a try:

http://teams.sparkpeople.com/fast5

I'm still going to come here regularly because there are some really interesting and helpful posts, I just wanted to offer another option, and also hoping to interact with others whose main goal is weight loss.

 



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

[fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).

--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, Heather Twist <HeatherTwist@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:50 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@...> wrote:
>
> > The best source is Weston Price.
> > Even though religions have decided (an opinion) that fish isn't meat-fish
> > is in fact meat the meat from a swimming animal. That is just a fact.
> >
>
> I think Price kept a nice open mind, and he was an experimenter. I think
> experimenting is a powerful force!
>
> He was very much in favor of fish, and seaweed.

ME: Price had a bias toward seafood. But, he also was a proponent of butter and dairy. He found that a very specific type of butter had health benefits that were almost miraculous.

But times have changed and the sea is not as pure as it was back then.
--------------------------------------------------

> Fish and ruminant animals are VERY different when it comes to nutrition.
> Fish protein, for example, has been shown to lower blood pressure. Fish fat
> is the kind that builds good brain tissue. Vit D is found in fish liver (and
> is probably the reason people could live so far north where there wasn't
> much sun) ... which is why Price recommended cod liver oil as a supplement.

ME: You can get the same effects from eating pastured animals and eating their glands.
---------------------------------------------------
>
> Price did study populations before they adopted Western food. The ones he
> mentioned ate a fair bit of seafood (the Scots especially). Most of the
> people he wrote about also had a staple starch ... the Scots had oatmeal,
> the Swiss had rye.

ME: The Scots were not a people that Price found to be healthy. He found the Swiss, The Masai-type tribes, the Inuit-type tribes to be the healthiest.

The staple starch was rarely wheat or corn or rice. It was the psudeograins of teff, millet or rye. And they were consumed in very, very small amounts. Re-read the book.
----------------------------------------------------


I do realize "carbs" have been demonized of late, and I
> do think many Americans have a hard time processing them for some reason,
> but I can't actually see that pattern in history. It's simply not true that
> the populations who eat the most starches ... even simple high-glycemic
> starches like white rice ... are the least healthy.

ME: You are wrong. Cultures that consume high amounts of refined carbs have problems with weight, degenerative diseases and reporduction.
----------------------------------------------------
>
> I mean, it's been shown that human beings can survive without them, sure,
> mainly because people eating very low carb (like the Inuit) learn to create
> sugars from proteins (which is also what carnivores do).

ME: The human body does not need to create sugar from fat/proteins. Our bodies can use fat/protein as it is.
-----------------------------------------------------
But we can also
> create fats out of starches. Personally I think the whole "fat/carb/protein"
> ratio is overhyped, because human beings are good at swapping between fats
> and carbs, and we have only limited capacity to eat protein.

ME: None of what you have written is true-it is simply your opinion.
Most unbiased research supports the high-carb vegan/vegetarian eating is not optimum for people. It is not an eating plan that generates healthy old people.

AMA in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------


>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).





On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:50 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
The best source is Weston Price.
Even though religions have decided (an opinion) that fish isn't meat-fish is in fact meat the meat from a swimming animal. That is just a fact.

I think Price kept a nice open mind, and he was an experimenter. I think experimenting is a powerful force!

He was very much in favor of fish, and seaweed. He talked a lot about how the nutrients of the land are swept into the ocean, so eating ocean foods was a good way to get nutrients. He also talked about how seaweed was trekked up to the high mountains, so the folks there could avoid goiter.

Fish and ruminant animals are VERY different when it comes to nutrition. Fish protein, for example, has been shown to lower blood pressure. Fish fat is the kind that builds good brain tissue. Vit D is found in fish liver (and is probably the reason people could live so far north where there wasn't much sun) ... which is why Price recommended cod liver oil as a supplement.

Price did study populations before they adopted Western food. The ones he mentioned ate a fair bit of seafood (the Scots especially). Most of the people he wrote about also had a staple starch ... the Scots had oatmeal, the Swiss had rye. I do realize "carbs" have been demonized of late, and I do think many Americans have a hard time processing them for some reason, but I can't actually see that pattern in history. It's simply not true that the populations who eat the most starches ... even simple high-glycemic starches like white rice ... are the least healthy.

I mean, it's been shown that human beings can survive without them, sure, mainly because people eating very low carb (like the Inuit) learn to create sugars from proteins (which is also what carnivores do). But we can also create fats out of starches. Personally I think the whole "fat/carb/protein" ratio is overhyped, because human beings are good at swapping between fats and carbs, and we have only limited capacity to eat protein. It's probably more important to concentrate on WHICH fats or carbs or proteins are eaten. And for that I think your appestat might be the best source of information ... your body knows what it needs, at some level. And what it needs might change during different times of your life, or even day to day.

Since I've been doing Fast-5, I've paid more attention to what I actually WANT to eat, since I only get one crack at a meal, really. And a lot of foods I used to eat don't make the grade. And I've gotten picky even about the source of the food. Home-grown collards have become one of my favorite greens, but the storebought ones don't taste good any more. And none of the family will eat storebought eggs. Or most candy or chocolate. 

In those healthy societies, you see a lot more pickiness about what to eat too. At the Asian stores, the vegies are generally superb, and you have these ladies who are just ferocious shoppers, being VERY picky about vegies and everything else. My Grandma was like that too, coming from the old country. They don't just shove everything into their mouth because it was on TV.
 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

Re: [fast5] Questions on when to workout and food limitation from allergies



On point 1:

I regularly workout fairly strenuously for about an hour in the mornings employing Heavyhands moves (not dissimilar to KBs).  This usually involves a 4-5 mile run or walk, depending on the handweights used in the upper-body work (3-10 pounds).  It's an aerobic/anaerobic mix (heartrate typically varies between 80-95%).  I don't usually start my eating window until 5 or 6 pm, sometimes later.  I've don't have any energy problems during or after these sessions, and I've been doing this exercise/IF combination for years.  I've also hiked, biked and skied on a similar regime.

On a cautionary note, however, I wouldn't recommend going into this combination cold turkey, as the body needs to make some adaptations that can take a while, both physiologically and psychologically, as Dr Herring states in his book, and my own experience confirms.  Particularly, the body's energy store and release mechanisms need time to adapt to the demands.  Speaking personally, I originally moved my eating window slowly and steadily backwards as experience dictated (it's not a race, after all) and this worked very well for me - I never experienced distress or weakness following this approach.  Also, I personally find that I need a certain proportion of carbs when I'm doing this much endurance work on a daily basis, if performance isn't to suffer.  Everyone is different, though.

Hope this helps.

David

On 31 March 2011 01:35, mariabl <piggieria@gmail.com> wrote:
 

I wrote this up on the forum on fast5 website but I figured more people may use this email list. Any feedback would be helpful.

Ok, I'm contemplating starting Fast 5 but I have some questions before I start to know whether or not it is going to be right for me.

First I don't have any trouble fasting for long periods of time. I have done it in the past, so that isn't what worries. Although I found that when I eat high carbs and try to fast I tend to want to binge, but I know this and aware of this, so not a concern. A little bit of a concern is that I do have a problem with binge eating, but I found my binges tend to revolve around high carb stuff. When I eat paleo (which is the healthiest option for me) I don't have the urge to binge, nor do I have cravings, so definitely related to my insulin levels.

Ok on to my questions:

1) I prefer to workout in the mornings. It actually is when I have my biggest surge of energy, I'm apparently a morning person just one that likes to stay up late and sleep in :) But I do pretty high intensity stuff, working out with kettlebells, which essentially combines cardio and weight training. I normally do my workout in the morning, then eat afterwards. However, since this would make me be at work during the 5 hours that isn't going to work. I also would rather eat in the evening since going out to dinner or just eating/preparing dinner with my boyfriend is something I often do. Breakfast and lunch if eaten are done alone anyway. I didn't find anything in regards to strenuous activity in the book or the FAQ's site. How is this suppose to be handled? I would imagine this would deplete my blood sugar levels to much. Although for the most part I think kettlebells are mainly anaerobic anyway. Thoughts?

2) I have a sensitive stomach and food allergies, which is one of the reasons I'm considering this lifestyle anyway. But it also limits what foods I'm able to eat. If I eat to much animal fat/oil at once I feel sick to my stomach. The problem is I'm allergic to tree nuts and peanuts. Most of the oil I consume has to be in actual liquid oil form, which means it has to be on or in something. So the problem is I'm not sure how much oil/fat I would be able to get in since if I eat over a 1/2 tablespoon at a time I feel sick, and I cant eat nuts and really have to limit sunflower and pumpkin seeks due to cross contamination. So any ideas of how I can get the proper amount of oils? The other thing is too is that my body is at its best when I am not eating grains too. Grains tend to inflame my sinuses when I eat grains I have a constant headache with pressure. Legumes are out because I've tested positive to soy, peanuts, and peas. And diary I tend to get a lot of mucus. This is why the paleo diet works best for me. The concern is whether or not I will be getting enough calories. Don't get me wrong it is easy to get the caloric needs with starch/carbs in the diet, but when you are eating fruits, veggies, meat and oil, it can be a little more bulky and more difficult. There is only so much meat, veggies, and fruit a person can eat :) I should also mention I do not eat pork for religious reasons, so bacon to get extra fat/protein with less bulk is not an option. So I'm just looking for thoughts on this to.

Thanks in advanced.

Maria




__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

[fast5] Re: No loss; extending my fasting window

I am 5'0" I can tell you if I eat less then 1250 calories a day when I workout, I do not loose weight. If I eat anything over 1400 calories consistently I loose but very very very slowly. Like I was eating 1500 calories daily as directed my doctor and working out an hour a day, and it took me 6 months to loose 2 lbs. When I'm not working out I keep my caloric intake around 1200, if I workout I keep it between 1250 and 1400 calories a day.

My guess is you are not eating nearly enough for the activity you are doing.

Maria

--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, "aeryelle" <aeryelle@...> wrote:
> I've been keeping track, just to gauge my consumption, and I'm hitting between around 900-1000 calories a day; sometimes I can make it to 1200, if I have some extra nuts. This equates to not much of a deficit compared to my pre-Fast-5 intake (more like at or barely below).
> (I'm 5'3" and weigh around 135-136 lbs. I want to lose about 16 lbs of fat.)
>
> Thoughts?
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

[fast5] Questions on when to workout and food limitation from allergies

I wrote this up on the forum on fast5 website but I figured more people may use this email list. Any feedback would be helpful.

Ok, I'm contemplating starting Fast 5 but I have some questions before I start to know whether or not it is going to be right for me.

First I don't have any trouble fasting for long periods of time. I have done it in the past, so that isn't what worries. Although I found that when I eat high carbs and try to fast I tend to want to binge, but I know this and aware of this, so not a concern. A little bit of a concern is that I do have a problem with binge eating, but I found my binges tend to revolve around high carb stuff. When I eat paleo (which is the healthiest option for me) I don't have the urge to binge, nor do I have cravings, so definitely related to my insulin levels.

Ok on to my questions:

1) I prefer to workout in the mornings. It actually is when I have my biggest surge of energy, I'm apparently a morning person just one that likes to stay up late and sleep in :) But I do pretty high intensity stuff, working out with kettlebells, which essentially combines cardio and weight training. I normally do my workout in the morning, then eat afterwards. However, since this would make me be at work during the 5 hours that isn't going to work. I also would rather eat in the evening since going out to dinner or just eating/preparing dinner with my boyfriend is something I often do. Breakfast and lunch if eaten are done alone anyway. I didn't find anything in regards to strenuous activity in the book or the FAQ's site. How is this suppose to be handled? I would imagine this would deplete my blood sugar levels to much. Although for the most part I think kettlebells are mainly anaerobic anyway. Thoughts?

2) I have a sensitive stomach and food allergies, which is one of the reasons I'm considering this lifestyle anyway. But it also limits what foods I'm able to eat. If I eat to much animal fat/oil at once I feel sick to my stomach. The problem is I'm allergic to tree nuts and peanuts. Most of the oil I consume has to be in actual liquid oil form, which means it has to be on or in something. So the problem is I'm not sure how much oil/fat I would be able to get in since if I eat over a 1/2 tablespoon at a time I feel sick, and I cant eat nuts and really have to limit sunflower and pumpkin seeks due to cross contamination. So any ideas of how I can get the proper amount of oils? The other thing is too is that my body is at its best when I am not eating grains too. Grains tend to inflame my sinuses when I eat grains I have a constant headache with pressure. Legumes are out because I've tested positive to soy, peanuts, and peas. And diary I tend to get a lot of mucus. This is why the paleo diet works best for me. The concern is whether or not I will be getting enough calories. Don't get me wrong it is easy to get the caloric needs with starch/carbs in the diet, but when you are eating fruits, veggies, meat and oil, it can be a little more bulky and more difficult. There is only so much meat, veggies, and fruit a person can eat :) I should also mention I do not eat pork for religious reasons, so bacon to get extra fat/protein with less bulk is not an option. So I'm just looking for thoughts on this to.

Thanks in advanced.

Maria

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

[fast5] What I'm eating.



Regardless of what people used to eat and the controversies at hand, I find that if 50% of my diet is vegetable matter (raw and cooked), then I feel really good! I fill up the rest with primarily whole foods, fruit, meats, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, a little dark chocolate, sometimes a glass of wine or beer, and sometimes a random cheeto for a crouton on my salad. I don't eat dairy often because I'm allergic to casein.


There are many philosophies of diet. In my opinion, the key is to (yes) learn from the past, learn from the doctors, follow your religious and morality guides, but make sure and guinea pig yourself to find the eating pattern that makes you feel the most vibrantly alive you can be. Try things out, but if they are not working, then try something different. I grew up eating wild meat/fish, yet was a raw foodist for two years in experimentation. I know what my body likes now, so I eat what I am at my healthiest with. 

You can feel it. Its more than just what a doctor could report. Its a sense of "rightness" in your very bones, a feeling of having the energy to do everything that comes your way while feeling your mind, body and spirit are being nourished completely. You'll know it when you have that balance. Yes, its not just the body we are feeding. That's where the various ethical issues come in, when we work to feed the mind and spirit as well. Its a tripod that you personally must find balance with. As the old saying goes "Know Thyself".


The moment we start stressing out about everything so much that the stress creates more physical issues than the food we are eating would is the moment we should take a deep breath and laugh ourselves silly. 

Regina


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

[fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).

The MAsai drink a mixture of milk and blood. And they eat game.
AMA in IL
> >
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

[fast5] Re: No loss; extending my fasting window

Eat more protein and fat.

No sugary carbs-almond milk is full of sugar and starches. If you are excercising a lot, stop.

You may need to eat more calories, you may need to use a calorie calulator to figure out how many calories you need a day.

Maybe you need 2500 and by keeping your calories so low you are starving your body and it won't let go of the excess fat. You must find out how many calories you need each day.

ama in il

--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, "aeryelle" <aeryelle@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm basically 4 weeks in (tomorrow will be day 28), and I'm NOT noticing my jeans getting any looser :-(
> I'm going to extend my fasting window today until after 8pm, when I get out of yoga. I still plan on closing it by 10pm. Perhaps that will give me a kick in the right direction?
>
> I've been sticking strictly to a 5 hour eating window (it's usually less, unless I have tea with a bit of unsweetened almond milk). I only consume water and a cup or two of black decaf coffee during my fasting hours. I've been watching carbs, as I always do.
> That being said, I don't intend on stopping Fast-5/IF. I feel great. I have tons of energy (I actually feel better exercising fasted!); I'm sleeping better; my skin is clearer; and I'm SO in touch with my natural hunger. It's amazing!
>
> I've now noticed a marked decrease in appetite/hunger, and I easily make it through the fasting window. I've been feeling some mild hunger pangs upon waking, but they soon subside. I'm rarely even hungry now when my window opens at 5pm.
>
> I'm just not noticing any fat-loss, and that was the primary reason, I embarked on this way of eating (or not eating). Perhaps, I'm being impatient, but shouldn't I have noticed something - even small - by now??
> Does anyone have any experience/insight into possible undereating/overtraining? I've read all over the place that undereating can cause your body to not want to let go of fat stores. Is this true?
> My calories were pretty darn low, by most standards, before I started Fast-5. I've been keeping track, just to gauge my consumption, and I'm hitting between around 900-1000 calories a day; sometimes I can make it to 1200, if I have some extra nuts. This equates to not much of a deficit compared to my pre-Fast-5 intake (more like at or barely below).
> (I'm 5'3" and weigh around 135-136 lbs. I want to lose about 16 lbs of fat.)
>
> Thoughts?
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

[fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).

The best source is Weston Price.
Even though religions have decided (an opinion) that fish isn't meat-fish is in fact meat the meat from a swimming animal. That is just a fact.

There are very few people that have studied native populations at a time when western civilization hadn't polluted them-the best source is Weston Price.

Vegatarian means a person who eat vegtable matter only and this can include bee products.
Vegan means someone who does not use any products from any creatures including insects.

IF you add eggs or milk you are a hypenated vegatarian because you have just added animal products to your food and that changes everything.

The Mongol diet was based on Millet not rice. Their land is too dry for rice, millet grows better.

Millet has a very different nutrient make-up from rice. Amaranth (a herb seed), Teff, Quiona ( a pseudograin) have qualities that make them not as startchy as the usual grains and their effect on our bodies is very different.

Before the Industrial Revolution most people ate what they had growing near them. Corporations created refined products that were bad for us.

Anywhere that Western man went he commented on how healthy people were who didn't eat like them.

AMA in IL

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).





On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:32 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:


--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, Heather Twist <HeatherTwist@...> wrote:
>
> On the other side of the coin, there isn't any culture that has lived on a
> nothing-but-meat diet either, which is the other extreme.

Hi,

This is not true. There are cultures both extinct and still just barely holding on where the main portion of their diet is meat + fat. Inuit, Masai, Mongol, American Plains Indians and traditional tribal African cultures.

Meat alone will kill you---- real quick.

Except those people do NOT eat just "meat". The Maasai drink mainly milk. The Plains Indians had a quite varied diet that did include buffalo, but also included a kind of prarie potato, greens, grasshoppers, plus whatever they raided from other tribes. Also, they had a low birthrate and relied on raiding to get new tribe members. It's likely their lifestyle changed drastically after they got horses from white people, so no one knows how they lived previously. The Mongols carried bags of rice with them, and drank a lot of milk. Tribal African cultures defined themselves by their "staple" which was some starch ... yams, millet, etc. Also lots of grubs.

I agree, meat alone will kill you. Humans need like 20-30% protein, and the rest varies between starch and fat. I think for a healthy metabolism, the percentage of starch vs. fat isn't that important (you body can turn starch into fat quite nicely!) and it varies greatly throughout the world. My point is: the 20-30% protein is almost never purely "muscle meat" in traditional cultures. The whole "muscle meat" thing is a luxury of our current culture.


 

If you look at all
> the global cultures, the majority eat some kind of "staple" starch (yams may > have been the first staple food for hominids),

ME: This is not true. Depending on where you look on the globe the staple starch could be  a seed, a herb or a grain such as millet, quiona, amaranth, rye or a tuber such as yam/yuca or even seaweed. It varies greatly by region.

Isn't that what I said? 
 

And you have to look at global cultures at a particular point in time usually 1)before the discovery of the new world which signifies the introduction of previously unknown foods and 2)before the industrial revolution which indicates the introduction of the high-refined carb diet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
with a lot of vegetable/fruit
> matter, and a fair amount of eggs, dairy, seafood, poultry, nuts. (Plus
> reptiles and insects in more Paleo cultures).

A doubt that there were lots of veggies and fruit around for most culutes. my guess is that veggies and fruit were eaten as they were found, and eventually they were fermented into alcohol or some sort of veggie-fruit paste that could be kept for a long time. Or they were sun-dried or mixed in with a meat/fat mixture for long term storage such as pemmican.

??? Have you studied any cuisines of earlier cultures? I was with a guy doing his doctorate on coastal Indians, on a tour, and we gathered about the same foods they did. They had *hundreds* of plants they ate, and a wide variety of animal foods too (mostly from the coast: sea snails, fish, clams, crabs, seals that washed up, etc). But there were LOTS of fruits and vegies, for sure, for most of the year. And this isn't even the tropics. One researcher in Arizona tried to eat the foods the Indians there ate, and was surprised that even in the desert, he could gather vegies year-round.


-------------------------------------------------------------
And meat on feast days or
> after a big hunt. Plus, per Fast-5, the tendency is to eat one or two meals
> a day, since the meals are a lot more work to prepare.

ME: Again it depends on the culture and "when" you look at it. If they are a "stick and dog culutre" you are right.

but if they have domesticated animals in any way-birds, reptiles,bees dogs, pigs, camels, horses, goats, deer there was a constant supply of both meat, fat and milk-products-most of it freeze-dried, fermented or made into pemmican-type product.

Most early pastoralists don't eat the animals very often. The Maasai, for instance, regard the cows as almost part of the family. They drink the milk, and bleed them sometimes, but they don't ordinarily kill them. Muscle meat isn't nearly as nutritious as either milk or eggs are, and most of those kinds of animals don't have much fat (water birds and camels do, and pigs, hippos, and crocs). According to the bones they've uncovered from early cultures, the usual pattern was to eat very young male animals, and keep the females. That doesn't give enough "meat" for it to be a daily staple, unless you are also rich. For example, the pattern in Europe was to butcher one pig per year, and that fed the entire family for the year. Which means the ham was for flavor and fat, not the basis of the diet.

And I'm sure they ate plenty of deer etc. It's just that this was just one item on the menu, and probably not the main one. 


>
>
> The "European diet" (which the American diet is based on) has not been
> working for some time though.
ME: It depends on which European diet! French are fine. The island Italians are doing fine.

The French and Italians eat lots of fish, eggs, and cheese. That's my point. The
Spanish too. When I was in Spain, it was next to impossible to get much in 
the way of "steak" ... you got like one teeny slice of beef that was pretty
bad. But you could easily get a superb fish, and a big egg omelette was generally
the meal's appetizer. And dessert was usually fruit. Lots of greens too.

Compare that to a typical American meal: steak and potatoes. Hamburger
on a bun. Hamburger casserole. Roast beef and potatoes. Many meals
(probably most) are starch plus muscle meat, with a tiny bit of vegies maybe
thrown in for decoration.

 
It is Europeans that have embraced a high-refined card diet (British) that are getting fat and sick but at a rate less than Americans.

Um. The French are very much into their bread, and the Spanish do rice, the Italians do pasta. The Asians all do rice. All of those are high-glycemic carbs. That doesn't seem to be a factor for them.

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


ME: But that is NOT a vegetarian diet if you eat fish, milk and eggs. That is the point! Fish is FLESH. Eggs are unborn Birds (Flesh). Milk has to come from a mammal that is lactating-you have to have a animal to get the milk. 

Vegetarian diet means no animal by-products except for honey. PERIOD.

If  you add in eggs you are an Ovo-Vegetarion, if you add in milk you are LActo-Vegitarian. Adding either one of these into your diet means you are in fact NOT a vegetarian.

The importance of adding eggs or milk into a veggie diet changes it and makes it better for people which is why you designate lacto or ovo


That's where the semantics get so problematic. A VEGAN diet means, "no animal products". A lot of people use "vegetarian" to mean "vegan" these days, but in the past, that was not necessarily the meaning. The word "meat" meant mainly "muscle meat from 4-legged animals", so "fish" didn't count as "meat". Milk didn't count as meat either, or eggs. 

Most human diets throughout history were, as I said, low in "meat" as defined as "muscle meat from 4-legged ruminants". My point is that many of the people who are "high protein" today eat mainly "meat" (plus fat) ... which I think is less than ideal. People who eat more fish/eggs/vegies/fruits not only have a more tasty diet (IMO) but get a wider variety of nutrients.

 
ME: Umm. The diet that is popular is based upon low-carbs. It includes fat, protein and low carb veggies and fruits-the traditional diet of man. This diet has worked for centuries. Sailors ate a high carb diet washed down with port or rum. Pioneers usually died unlesss the indigenous people showed them how to eat.

It hasn't worked, is the thing. That meat-based diet happened about the time people started getting thin faces and losing their teeth a lot. I expect the wheat had a lot to do with that (wheat messes up digestion for a good chunk of the population), but preserved pork and beef just aren't as nutritions as eggs and fish. A person certainly *could* eat low carb by eating more eggs and fish, and lots of greens, but that's not the diet that most people tend to follow. 

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


There are loads of people who have used it short term and
> it seems to work short term for them ... as does veganism for the people who
> use it short term. No one really knows what would happen long term, because
> the experiment hasn't been done. But both extremes are low in different
> nutrients, so I don't think either one would be good for a developing fetus.

ME: Well, since man survived the meat based diet to populate the planet this shows that it works.

You have this assumption that people have in fact survived mostly on meat.
Statistically, this just isn't the case. Populations that live inland and eat only
land animals tend get cretinism and goiter: it's epidemic globally. 

 
ME: No. The problem is that we don't eat the organs and glands. When you kill an animal you never eat muscle meat first-you eat the glands. You have to eat eyes, brain, heart, blood and the other stuff-that is where the vitamins are.

Well, you are obviously convinced. I'm going to keep studying what people actually did eat, rather than continue to theorize about it. There are books and articles now that go into more detail about what tribal cultures actually consumed, and how much, rather than relying on what they talk about. And people who have actually lived with the tribes and eaten what they eat. 

 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).



Cookbooks and YouTube! What I do is "adopt" some cuisine ... right now it's a mix

of Japanese and Korean ... and start making dishes from that cuisine.


On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Sarah <essbee0101@gmail.com> wrote:

My thoughts exactly.  As I move foward I think a diet exactly as you describe will be something I transition into.  Do you have any resources you might recommend?  Thanks.  



 
 
 


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

[fast5] Hunger Makes You Happy!!



Here's a link to a 2008 article that confirms why I've been feeling like crude this week.  



I'm looking forward to a good day of fasting.  Hope you all have a good one!!

Paula


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

[fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).

--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, Heather Twist <HeatherTwist@...> wrote:
>
> On the other side of the coin, there isn't any culture that has lived on a
> nothing-but-meat diet either, which is the other extreme.

Hi,

This is not true. There are cultures both extinct and still just barely holding on where the main portion of their diet is meat + fat. Inuit, Masai, Mongol, American Plains Indians and traditional tribal African cultures.

Meat alone will kill you---- real quick.
-----------------------------------------------------------

If you look at all
> the global cultures, the majority eat some kind of "staple" starch (yams may > have been the first staple food for hominids),

ME: This is not true. Depending on where you look on the globe the staple starch could be a seed, a herb or a grain such as millet, quiona, amaranth, rye or a tuber such as yam/yuca or even seaweed. It varies greatly by region.

And you have to look at global cultures at a particular point in time usually 1)before the discovery of the new world which signifies the introduction of previously unknown foods and 2)before the industrial revolution which indicates the introduction of the high-refined carb diet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
with a lot of vegetable/fruit
> matter, and a fair amount of eggs, dairy, seafood, poultry, nuts. (Plus
> reptiles and insects in more Paleo cultures).

A doubt that there were lots of veggies and fruit around for most culutes. my guess is that veggies and fruit were eaten as they were found, and eventually they were fermented into alcohol or some sort of veggie-fruit paste that could be kept for a long time. Or they were sun-dried or mixed in with a meat/fat mixture for long term storage such as pemmican.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And meat on feast days or
> after a big hunt. Plus, per Fast-5, the tendency is to eat one or two meals
> a day, since the meals are a lot more work to prepare.

ME: Again it depends on the culture and "when" you look at it. If they are a "stick and dog culutre" you are right.

but if they have domesticated animals in any way-birds, reptiles,bees dogs, pigs, camels, horses, goats, deer there was a constant supply of both meat, fat and milk-products-most of it freeze-dried, fermented or made into pemmican-type product.
====================================
>
>
> The "European diet" (which the American diet is based on) has not been
> working for some time though.
ME: It depends on which European diet! French are fine. The island Italians are doing fine.

It is Europeans that have embraced a high-refined card diet (British) that are getting fat and sick but at a rate less than Americans.
=======================================================


, and I think people are experimenting, trying
> to figure out why, ever since the explorers first noticed how healthy the
> "natives" were. But the issue isn't "meat" vs. "not meat". Europeans
> typically ate more muscle meat than "natives" did, and that is, I think,
> still true. None of the native groups were "vegan", but their sources of
> protein were (and are) more the ones I mention above. Which used to be the
> definition of a "vegetarian" diet (or a "fasting" diet on church "no meat"
> days). So a "vegetarian" diet in the sense of basing the protein content on
> fish, eggs, milk, nuts, poultry ... HAS been tried, and it works fine.

ME: But that is NOT a vegetarian diet if you eat fish, milk and eggs. That is the point! Fish is FLESH. Eggs are unborn Birds (Flesh). Milk has to come from a mammal that is lactating-you have to have a animal to get the milk.

Vegetarian diet means no animal by-products except for honey. PERIOD.

If you add in eggs you are an Ovo-Vegetarion, if you add in milk you are LActo-Vegitarian. Adding either one of these into your diet means you are in fact NOT a vegetarian.

The importance of adding eggs or milk into a veggie diet changes it and makes it better for people which is why you designate lacto or ovo
===================================================.
>
> The current diet people are calling "high protein" isn't a diet that has
> been used in any culture over several generations, at least not
> successfully. There are people who rely on mainly ruminant meat for their
> protein ... like the sailors and pioneers ... but they had fairly serious
> health problems.
ME: Umm. The diet that is popular is based upon low-carbs. It includes fat, protein and low carb veggies and fruits-the traditional diet of man. This diet has worked for centuries. Sailors ate a high carb diet washed down with port or rum. Pioneers usually died unlesss the indigenous people showed them how to eat.
============================================================


There are loads of people who have used it short term and
> it seems to work short term for them ... as does veganism for the people who
> use it short term. No one really knows what would happen long term, because
> the experiment hasn't been done. But both extremes are low in different
> nutrients, so I don't think either one would be good for a developing fetus.

ME: Well, since man survived the meat based diet to populate the planet this shows that it works.
==================================================================
>
> Personally, I think the issues with the European diet are likely:
>
> 1) The reliance on wheat as the "staple". Esp. when it's finely ground
> (feeds yeast) and enriched with too much iron, and full of bromine (which
> blocks iodine).
>
> 2) The reliance on beef, pork, sheep, and goat as the main meats. In America
> we have further narrowed "meat" down to mean mainly beef and pork muscle
> meat. Neither is an ideal source of protein.

ME: No. The problem is that we don't eat the organs and glands. When you kill an animal you never eat muscle meat first-you eat the glands. You have to eat eyes, brain, heart, blood and the other stuff-that is where the vitamins are.
==============================================================
>
> That is a diet that is low in Omega 3 fatty acids, low in iodine, low in
> glucosamine, too high in iron, and pro-inflammatory (all the protein comes
> with neu5gc, and wheat promotes gut inflammation for many people). Anyway,
> it's a diet that has NOT worked well in Europe or the US. There are hundreds
> of other diet possibilities that would work fine, with or without "meat" per
> se.
>
>
> *** At this point someone always brings up the Inuit and the Maasai. I might
> point out that neither group relies mainly on "meat" in the American sense.
> The Inuit eat mainly seafood, including sea mammals, which are just not the
> same thing as land animals. The Maasai are pastoralists who drink mainly
> milk, with some blood, and rarely kill or eat their cows.
>
>

ME: Sea animals are meat. PAstured animals have similar composition to sea animals. And Masai eat a mixture of meat and milk and they do cooked it in different ways and add different food items to the blood. And they do eat their animals, and they do hunt game.

AMA in IL
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fast5/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fast5-digest@yahoogroups.com
fast5-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fast5-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[get this widget]

Monday, March 28, 2011

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).



My thoughts exactly.  As I move foward I think a diet exactly as you describe will be something I transition into.  Do you have any resources you might recommend?  Thanks.  

On Mar 28, 2011 12:35 PM, "Heather Twist" <HeatherTwist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other side of the coin, there isn't any culture that has lived on a
> nothing-but-meat diet either, which is the other extreme. If you look at all
> the global cultures, the majority eat some kind of "staple" starch (yams may
> have been the first staple food for hominids), with a lot of vegetable/fruit
> matter, and a fair amount of eggs, dairy, seafood, poultry, nuts. (Plus
> reptiles and insects in more Paleo cultures). And meat on feast days or
> after a big hunt. Plus, per Fast-5, the tendency is to eat one or two meals
> a day, since the meals are a lot more work to prepare.
>
> That is a diet that is high in soluble fiber, iodine, Omega 3 fatty acids,
> and has a balanced amount of fats, carbs, protein. Most of those kinds of
> cuisines are really yummy too, and it's not a hard diet to stick to. It's a
> diet that has been successful for eons, and like you say, the real test is
> does a diet work for many generations.
>
> The "European diet" (which the American diet is based on) has not been
> working for some time though, and I think people are experimenting, trying
> to figure out why, ever since the explorers first noticed how healthy the
> "natives" were. But the issue isn't "meat" vs. "not meat". Europeans
> typically ate more muscle meat than "natives" did, and that is, I think,
> still true. None of the native groups were "vegan", but their sources of
> protein were (and are) more the ones I mention above. Which used to be the
> definition of a "vegetarian" diet (or a "fasting" diet on church "no meat"
> days). So a "vegetarian" diet in the sense of basing the protein content on
> fish, eggs, milk, nuts, poultry ... HAS been tried, and it works fine.
>
> The current diet people are calling "high protein" isn't a diet that has
> been used in any culture over several generations, at least not
> successfully. There are people who rely on mainly ruminant meat for their
> protein ... like the sailors and pioneers ... but they had fairly serious
> health problems. There are loads of people who have used it short term and
> it seems to work short term for them ... as does veganism for the people who
> use it short term. No one really knows what would happen long term, because
> the experiment hasn't been done. But both extremes are low in different
> nutrients, so I don't think either one would be good for a developing fetus.
>
> Personally, I think the issues with the European diet are likely:
>
> 1) The reliance on wheat as the "staple". Esp. when it's finely ground
> (feeds yeast) and enriched with too much iron, and full of bromine (which
> blocks iodine).
>
> 2) The reliance on beef, pork, sheep, and goat as the main meats. In America
> we have further narrowed "meat" down to mean mainly beef and pork muscle
> meat. Neither is an ideal source of protein.
>
> That is a diet that is low in Omega 3 fatty acids, low in iodine, low in
> glucosamine, too high in iron, and pro-inflammatory (all the protein comes
> with neu5gc, and wheat promotes gut inflammation for many people). Anyway,
> it's a diet that has NOT worked well in Europe or the US. There are hundreds
> of other diet possibilities that would work fine, with or without "meat" per
> se.
>
>
> *** At this point someone always brings up the Inuit and the Maasai. I might
> point out that neither group relies mainly on "meat" in the American sense.
> The Inuit eat mainly seafood, including sea mammals, which are just not the
> same thing as land animals. The Maasai are pastoralists who drink mainly
> milk, with some blood, and rarely kill or eat their cows.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> You really can't tell if someone is "healthy" unless you draw blood and run
>> several series of tests to determine the composition of the blood and the
>> levels of important elements/hormones in the body.
>>
>> In America, someone who appears to be "healthy" is usually a visually based
>> observation which is based upon physical thinness. Not an accurate reading
>> at all.
>> And yes, there are "healthy" vegans. And there are "healthy" people who
>> live on a diet of Jack Daniels and Twinkies. That still does not mean that
>> the rest of us can thrive under those conditions.
>>
>> There isn't any ancedotal or scientific evidence that vegan/vegetarianism
>> is the optimal diet for humans. Zero.
>>
>> Even if you take a look at the list of Earths super-centurians, the oldest
>> living people who are healthy-they all eat animal products (meat, milk,
>> eggs, honey) and drink. Not one vegan or vegetarian in the bunch.
>>
>> Vegan/Vegetarianism is a political philosophy based on emotion ( I am more
>> humane, I am more ethical, I am more moral) not evidence.
>>
>> Think about it.
>>
>>
>> AMA
>>


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).



Unfortunately, blood work is only an indicator of if your body is functioning well enough to maintain homeostasis.  It does not indicate health.  For example, a good calcium level only proves your body is getting the enough calcium from somewhere, which could be your food or could be your bones.  I know many people who follow a low fat raw vegan diet (read: 3000 calories of fruit a day) have used their blood work to show they are healthy.  The reality is the consequences come later in life after their bodies can no longer steal from their reserves to provide what they need.  I would venture to guess the same would be true from people on ZC diets but aside from The Bear I have seen no long lasting practitioners and the health status of The Bear is the subject of many rumors (I personally like believe he is healthy and still around).     


Most of the time my head just spins around and around with it all.  That is why I love fast-5.  I feel like IF can really help compensate for some of the mistakes I may or may not be making depending on what diet I am following this week.    


On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:37 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
 

Hi,
You really can't tell if someone is "healthy" unless you draw blood and run several series of tests to determine the composition of the blood and the levels of important elements/hormones in the body.

In America, someone who appears to be "healthy" is usually a visually based observation which is based upon physical thinness. Not an accurate reading at all.
And yes, there are "healthy" vegans. And there are "healthy" people who live on a diet of Jack Daniels and Twinkies. That still does not mean that the rest of us can thrive under those conditions.

There isn't any ancedotal or scientific evidence that vegan/vegetarianism is the optimal diet for humans. Zero.

Even if you take a look at the list of Earths super-centurians, the oldest living people who are healthy-they all eat animal products (meat, milk, eggs, honey) and drink. Not one vegan or vegetarian in the bunch.

Vegan/Vegetarianism is a political philosophy based on emotion ( I am more humane, I am more ethical, I am more moral) not evidence.

Think about it.

AMA

--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, "flippetskater" <flippetskater@...> wrote:
>
> "I agree that there's much more to it than calories in/calories out. In fact, lately I've been putting it to the test by eating nothing but foods with zero carbs, I mean THOUSANDS of calories worth every day for nearly three months! My weight has stayed right at 170 on a diet of pork rinds, beef, chicken, sausage, bacon, and eggs. This diet agrees with me and it keeps my blood sugar and insulin levels right where they belong. People ask what I do to stay thin and I tell them to just cut out the starchy carbs."
>
>
> Here's what's so curious to me. What you're doing is obviously working, and I wouldn't dream of telling you otherwise.
>
> But why is it that some people can do exactly the opposite, and still stay thin *and* healthy?
>
> I grew up in a community of mostly vegetarians. These folks avoided meat and meat products, some also avoided dairy and eggs. They did not avoid carbs or grains, although it was more likely to be whole grains rather than not - yet many weren't overly strict about that. Legumes, soy, featured prominently for many, for protein.
>
> Many of these people were, and are, some of the healthiest people I know. And they weren't 'dieting' in the 'consciously restricting calories' sense.
>
> This is why, when someone rants saying that all of that stuff is bad for you, and only meats and fats are good for you - I call horse puckey, because I've seen exactly the opposite, over many generations.
>
>
> I would love to know what it is, exactly, that causes one person to gain weight, and one to lose weight, on what appears to be exactly the same diet. If one can state the science that causes insulin to do X, and glycogen to do Y, and alcohol to do Z - why is this all so bloody hard to figure out?
>
>
>
> --- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, "RickS" <rstewart@> wrote:
> >
> > Aeryelle-
> >
> > I agree that there's much more to it than calories in/calories out. In fact, lately I've been putting it to the test by eating nothing but foods with zero carbs, I mean THOUSANDS of calories worth every day for nearly three months! My weight has stayed right at 170 on a diet of pork rinds, beef, chicken, sausage, bacon, and eggs. This diet agrees with me and it keeps my blood sugar and insulin levels right where they belong. People ask what I do to stay thin and I tell them to just cut out the starchy carbs. But they insist that it's got to be exercise that does it as I commute by bike 30 miles a day. It's really not. I rode the subway for two weeks this winter during the snow we had and I actually LOST a couple of pounds on the same diet.
> >
> > Case in point, alcohol has 7 calories per gram. Alcohol is not metabolized by the standard insulin response mechanism. It's processed by the liver directly and turned into acetate which is burned by the body as fuel. All standard metabolism of fats and carbs comes to a halt in the presence of alcohol until the alcohol has been processed and burned or stored. Once the alcohol has been converted and burned or stored, your body goes back to burning carbs or fat. Now when you drink, your body fills muscle glycogen supplies and liver glucose reserves with the stuff it's converted the alcohol into. Once fat/carb metabolism starts back up, your liver and muscles could be topped up from the alcohol and guess where all of the triglycerides/sugars remaining in your blood stream go? Right, storage on your butt.
> >
> > I'm rambling...
> >
> > My point is that the body is so complex, it's just not realistic to imagine that it's as simple as calories in/calories out. There's a huge endocrine response to different foods that determines what your body does with the calories. How you react to stress plays a big part in how you process food as well. I just finished Gary Taubes' "Why we Get Fat". It explains all of this in detail.
> >
> > Anyway, welcome to the group!
> >
> > -Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, "aeryelle" <aeryelle@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I know via experience that it simply can't be as cut and dry as "calories in vs. calories out", but you know so many insist that's it's as simple as that (oh, and you should eat 6x per day).
> > > It's so frustrating to hear or read: "just need to burn more than you consume", and if you're not losing weight you must be cheating or not exercising as much as you claim. I've literally had people tell me, "If I ate the way you do & exercised, I'd be a stick." Hmph!
> > >
> > > Thanks again for the responses. I'm really enjoying the daily fasting!
> > >
> >
>




__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]

Re: [fast5] Re: Hello! New Here - Question..(The Beans Trick).



On the other side of the coin, there isn't any culture that has lived on a nothing-but-meat diet either, which is the other extreme. If you look at all the global cultures, the majority eat some kind of "staple" starch (yams may have been the first staple food for hominids), with a lot of vegetable/fruit matter, and a fair amount of eggs, dairy, seafood, poultry, nuts. (Plus reptiles and insects in more Paleo cultures). And meat on feast days or after a big hunt. Plus, per Fast-5, the tendency is to eat one or two meals a day, since the meals are a lot more work to prepare.


That is a diet that is high in soluble fiber, iodine, Omega 3 fatty acids, and has a balanced amount of fats, carbs, protein. Most of those kinds of cuisines are really yummy too, and it's not a hard diet to stick to. It's a diet that has been successful for eons, and like you say, the real test is does a diet work for many generations.

The "European diet" (which the American diet is based on) has not been working for some time though, and I think people are experimenting, trying to figure out why, ever since the explorers first noticed how healthy the "natives" were. But the issue isn't "meat" vs. "not meat". Europeans typically ate more muscle meat than "natives" did, and that is, I think, still true. None of the native groups were "vegan", but their sources of protein were (and are) more the ones I mention above. Which used to be the definition of a "vegetarian" diet (or a "fasting" diet on church "no meat" days). So a "vegetarian" diet in the sense of basing the protein content on fish, eggs, milk, nuts, poultry ... HAS been tried, and it works fine.

The current diet people are calling "high protein" isn't a diet that has been used in any culture over several generations, at least not successfully. There are people who rely on mainly ruminant meat for their protein ... like the sailors and pioneers ... but they had fairly serious health problems. There are loads of people who have used it short term and it seems to work short term for them ... as does veganism for the people who use it short term. No one really knows what would happen long term, because the experiment hasn't been done. But both extremes are low in different nutrients, so I don't think either one would be good for a developing fetus.

Personally, I think the issues with the European diet are likely:

1) The reliance on wheat as the "staple". Esp. when it's finely ground (feeds yeast) and enriched with too much iron, and full of bromine (which blocks iodine).

2) The reliance on beef, pork, sheep, and goat as the main meats. In America we have further narrowed "meat" down to mean mainly beef and pork muscle meat. Neither is an ideal source of protein.

That is a diet that is low in Omega 3 fatty acids, low in iodine, low in glucosamine, too high in iron, and pro-inflammatory (all the protein comes with neu5gc, and wheat promotes gut inflammation for many people). Anyway, it's a diet that has NOT worked well in Europe or the US. There are hundreds of other diet possibilities that would work fine, with or without "meat" per se.


*** At this point someone always brings up the Inuit and the Maasai. I might point out that neither group relies mainly on "meat" in the American sense. The Inuit eat mainly seafood, including sea mammals, which are just not the same thing as land animals. The Maasai are pastoralists who drink mainly milk, with some blood, and rarely kill or eat their cows. 




On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, free2bmekeywest <dogdoright@aol.com> wrote:
Hi,
You really can't tell if someone is "healthy" unless you draw blood and run several series of tests to determine the composition of the blood and the levels of important elements/hormones in the body.

In America, someone who appears to be "healthy" is usually a visually based observation which is based upon physical thinness. Not an accurate reading at all.
And yes, there are "healthy" vegans. And there are "healthy" people who live on a diet of Jack Daniels and Twinkies. That still does not mean that the rest of us can thrive under those conditions.

There isn't any ancedotal or scientific evidence that vegan/vegetarianism is the optimal diet for humans. Zero.

Even if you take a look at the list of Earths super-centurians, the oldest living people who are healthy-they all eat animal products (meat, milk, eggs, honey) and drink. Not one vegan or vegetarian in the bunch.

Vegan/Vegetarianism is a political philosophy based on emotion ( I am more humane, I am more ethical, I am more moral) not evidence.

Think about it.


AMA
 
 
 


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


[get this widget]