You wanna arm wrestle me? You wanna sprint against me? You wanna bench against me? You wanna jog against me?
Here's my photo - 
I will bet one hundred dollars that my body fat % (benifiting FR) is lower than yours.
Posted on 07/05/2002 5:34:43 PM PDT by Pokey78
I only eat whole grain carb sources, my ratio is 55/25/20 of a carb/pro/fat index keyed to my body weight and activity level. I could consider altering the ratio for a specific training strategy. I am willing to change! My fats are from legumes and olive oils, am I wrong?
How about prisoners?
If you wanted to find out the best way to make people fat, who would you consult? One industry has spent millions and millions of dollars studying this question, and that's the cattle and hog industry. Why? Because for them, learning the quickest way to fatten an animal leads to the highest profits.
So how do they do it? Do they feed their livestock diets high in fat? Do they put out tubs of butter and ice cream to get their animals nice and plump? No! The cattle industry knows that the quickest way to fatten cows and hogs is to restrict their activity, not let them roam on the range (sort of like our couch potatoes), and feed them lots and lots of low fat, complex carbohydrates, in the form of grain.
HEY! Look it up, it is FACT!!!
You are all right in my book if you eat Ben and Jerrys, Arioch! lol
At the risk of over-seasoning the pot, I will add my wisdom.
Protein is wonderful, but it must be very fresh. If it isn't sitting in a pool of its own blood and doesn't scream when you stick in the fork, it's not even food.
Vegetables are a must when you're having company for dinner and want to make the plate look colorful. If you own tropical pet birds, they will appreciate the leftovers.
Carbohydrates must only be eaten when decently dressed with things like marzipan, sacher tort chocolate, creamed rum sauce and the like.
Fat is the lubricant in your diet that makes all the parts work smoothly together. There is a reason they say, "It's better with butter," just as there's a reason I don't want the butcher to slice the fat off my steak. If you add enough melted asiago cheese to finely minced vegetables, they actually become tolerable.
Exercise -- something's gonna get you, no matter what you do.
Not hardly. The cultures that are the healthiest have the LOWEST levels of refined carbs. It is only the Americans who are daft enough to derive over 50% of their diet from carbs! And the vast majority of that is from refined carbs.
--VeritatisSplendor (spouse of heartwood)
I don't even have to look at your profile to KNOW without a doubt that you are most likely under 25 years old. The do-not-eat-more-calories-than-you-can-burn idea is a lot more complicated that you realize. It's the "can burn" part that has such variables. And like this article alludes to, its the burning of those calories that under some conditions burn easily and fast and in other conditions just don't seem to be burning at all. When I was your age my metabolism was so fast that no matter how many calories I ate, I burned them off immediately. I weighed 102 pounds. I was moderately active, but did not exercise just for exercise sake. In those days (the 60's) girls were not encouraged to do sports and we didn't even know what Nike shoes were. By the time I was 35 years old I had to limit what I ate plus do high impact aerobics 4-5 times a week in order to stay under 110 pounds. By age 45 that became increasingly more and more difficult. Now at 55 years old, even though I play tennis 4 or more times a week, walk a mile or more every-other day and limit what I eat more than I ever needed to before.... I still seem to gain a little weight each year! At this point the old do-not-eat-more-calories-than-you-can-burn idea becomes almost a laughing matter. Bringing intake down to "what I can burn" would virtually be starvation. There are so many other variables involved at this point.
I know you mean well with your advice, but it is just not that simple a matter and to smuggly say so causes older generations so much confusion in trying to handle diet problems. It reminds me of the time after the birth of my first child when I had trouble the first day with breast feeding and the cocky young doctor left me in tears thinking it was all my fault and I was a total failure as a mother. He had told me that I would know instinctively how to do it, after all, all mothers do. But I didn't, and I hated myself!! It took a very kind, very mature senior nurse (actually I don't think she was an RN... but one of the fetch and carry, change the sheets workers), she came by and found me crying, she had feed a few babies herself and knew the routine and a few tips from her and I was off-and-running at it. It all seemed so logical to the highly trained doctor, but you see, he had not been there-done-that.
Purdue News Purdue University
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Eat meat. That's the dietary advice given by a team of scientists who examined the dietary role of fat in a study that combined nutritional analysis with anthropologic research about the diets of ancient hunter-gatherer societies. But there's a catch: To be as healthy as a cave man you have to eat certain kinds of fish, wild game such as venison, or grass-fed meat such as beef.
The research was conducted by Bruce Watkins, professor and university faculty scholar at Purdue University and director of the Center for Enhancing Foods to Protect Health, and anthropologist Loren Cordain, professor of health and exercise science at Colorado State University and author of "The Paleo Diet" (John Wiley & Sons, 2002). Watkins and Cordain conducted detailed chemical analysis of the meats people ate 10,000 years ago and compared those results to the most common meat people eat today.
They found that wild game, such as venison or elk meat, as well as grass-fed beef, contain a mixture of fats that are actually healthy for you, and, the researchers say, lower cholesterol and reduce other chronic disease risk. Recent studies have indicated that a healthy diet should contain a balance of essential fats. The two types of most concern are omega-6 and omega-3, and both are essential for proper nutrition. Omega-3 fat, which is often found in high levels in certain fish, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, but too much omega-3 can increase the risk of stroke. Omega-6 fat also is an essential fat, but too much omega-6 in the diet can contribute to inflammatory responses associated with of chronic disease.
According to Watkins, the analysis done at Purdue found that wild elk, deer and antelope from the Rocky Mountains region have greater amounts of omega-3 fatty acids and a lower – and therefore healthier – ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in muscle meats, compared to grain-fed beef. "Both grass-fed steers and the wild ruminants have a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids slightly above two in meat. In other words, two parts omega-6 to one part omega-3," Watkins says. "That ratio is much lower than the ratios of 5-to-1 to 13-to-1 reported in previous studies for grain-fed steers."
Watkins says the low fat ratio of wild ruminants and grass-fed beef is good news for people who need to reduce their cholesterol.
"The fatty acid ratio in wild ruminants is consistent with the recent American Heart Association recommendation to increase the consumption of omega-3 fatty acids found in certain fish in order to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease," he says.
The results of the study were published in the January issue of European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Purdue University Office of Research Programs and the Pope & Young Club, a national conservation organization. Analyzing the foods that people ate 10,000 years ago is not a flight of scientific esoterica. The researchers say this finding has important implications for what we eat today. Although 10,000 years ago predates all modern civilizations, it is a small blip in the evolutionary timeline of humans. Some nutritionists believe that by studying what people ate in the Paleolithic Era, also known as the Old Stone Age, they can determine the proper mix of foods for modern man.
Cordain says anthropological nutritionists such as himself have studied the few isolated hunter-gatherer societies – such as the Nanamiut of Alaska, the Aborigines of Australia and the !Kung of Africa – that remained into the 20th century and found that modern maladies, such as heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes, are rare in these populations.
"Over the past several decades, numerous studies have found that indigenous populations have low serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels," Cordain says. This is despite the fact that their diets aren't going to reap praise from many modern nutritionists. "Previous studies by myself and colleagues had found that nearly all – 97 percent – of the world's hunter-gatherer societies would have exceeded recommended guidelines for fat," Cordain says.
Watkins says although this may be surprising to many people, it fits exactly with what research is showing about the importance of specific types of fat in the diet. "Current research is showing that, with the decline of fat in the diet, the amount of fat isn't as important as the relative amounts, or ratio, of specific fats in your diet. It's a qualitative issue, not a quantitative issue," he says. "By eating more of the good fat you can lower your cholesterol and reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease." This balance of fats has changed dramatically in the past century, he adds.
"Generally, our modern diets, especially in the past 100 years, have changed to where we're consuming excess amounts of omega-6 fat. Omega-6 is found in high levels in many of the oil seed crops that we consume," Watkins says. "It's also found in the meat of the livestock that eat these grains, as this study shows."
Watkins adds that this research suggests new ways for potential diversification in agricultural production. "Our study points out that there are opportunities for ranchers and producers to develop niche markets for grass-fed beef that fit consumer interest in beef products that deliver special nutrients," Watkins says. "There may also be branding opportunities for products like the Laura's Lean Beef Products."
This is simply not true and there are several recent studies that refute this. There is a very different metabolic pathway between fats, protein and carbs. That is why one can eat 2200 calories a day on a low carb diet and lose but can't lose on a 1400 calorie low fat diet. The most recent study on this question was done at the University of Pennsylvania and can be found at Medscape: [I do have others!]
Conference Report - North American Association for the Study of Obesity from Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology
Low-Carbohydrate, High-Protein Diets Physicians are often asked about the safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets. Unfortunately, very few controlled studies have evaluated these popular regimens. These diets, which are often high in fat, raise concerns about their effects on lipid levels. One such diet, the Atkins Diet, restricts carbohydrates and encourages unlimited consumption of protein and fat. Preliminary results were presented from a 3-center (University of Pennsylvania, University of Colorado, Washington University) randomized controlled trial comparing the Atkins Diet with a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate plan that restricted daily caloric intake to 1200-1500 kcal for women and 1500-1800 kcal for men.[10] The study included 63 obese (BMI 33.8 ± 3.4 kg/m2) males and females who were randomized to 1 of the 2 diets.
Subjects received an initial session with a dietitian to explain the assigned diet program. At 12 weeks, the researchers found that the Atkins group had a lower rate of attrition (12%) compared with that of the conventional program (30%).
In addition, subjects in the Atkins group lost significantly more weight (8.5 ± 3.7%) compared with the conventional group (3.7 ± 4.0%). In terms of serum lipids, the Atkins group demonstrated slight increases in total cholesterol (TC; 2.2 ± 16.6%) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (6.6 ± 20.7%), whereas the conventional group showed significant decreases in these measures (TC -8.2 ± 11.5%; LDL -11.1 ± 19.4%).
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol significantly increased in the Atkins group (11.5 ± 20.6%) but did not change in the conventional group, whereas triglycerides showed a significant decrease for the Atkins group (-21.7 ± 27.9%) and no change in the conventional group. At 26 weeks, these changes persisted in both groups even though the sample size was smaller. The researchers concluded that the Atkins Diet produced favorable effects on weight, HDL, triglycerides, and retention compared with a conventional low-fat, low-calorie program, whereas the conventional plan was associated with more favorable effects on TC and LDL cholesterol.
A similar randomized-controlled trial from Duke University was also presented at the conference.[11] The researchers in this study also compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet with a low-fat, low-calorie (LF) program. This study included 120 obese (mean BMI 34 kg/m2) males and females, who all received group treatment for their respective diet programs. At 6 months, both groups had similar rates of attrition, but the LC group lost considerably more weight (13.3 ± 4.6%) compared with the LF group (8.6 ± 5.9%). In addition, the LC group lost significantly more fat mass than the LF group (-9.7 kg for the LC group and -6.4 kg for the LF group). Both groups showed decreases in triglycerides, with the LF group also showing a significant decrease in total cholesterol (-13.5 mg/dL). The LC group showed significant increases in HDL and a significant decrease in Chol/HDL ratio. This pattern of results was similar to those of the 3-center study described above. Longer-term studies are needed to more fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of these popular diet approaches.
The 2002 NAASO meeting will occur in San Diego, California, from February 23 as part of the First Annual Nutrition Week Conference.
Arguing my basic premise saying that I like processed crap is an argument made of CRAP!
I call processed flour and processed sugar the "White Death". Seeing is that is how I feel about the substances, it is illogical to think I endorse these... "Substances." I have ALWAYS been against processed crap, natural vegetables and fruits and grains are neccesary. Not just neccesary but GOOD!
As I have said, I must go. This time I am serious, I wish you all well, but READ MY POSTS DAMN IT!!!
Thanks for talking with me, and I m OUT OF HERE!
No, because that's a myth that you can't hope to back up. It's nonsense. Where's your body fat %, Pardek?
You wanna arm wrestle me? You wanna sprint against me? You wanna bench against me? You wanna jog against me?
Here's my photo -
I will bet one hundred dollars that my body fat % (benifiting FR) is lower than yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.