Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Where do you get your protein?

Probably that is the nutritional question most often asked of anyone who follows a diet free of animal muscles, organs, and secretions. 
People following such diets often worry about protein also, and will eat lots of beans, nuts, and seeds, and take protein powders to ensure adequate amino acid intake.
The meat, dairy, egg, and protein powder industries, and the low-carb and paleo crowds, would have you believe that you can’t meet your essential amino acid needs on a vegan diet without taking special measures. 
Recently I have been using CRON-O-Meter (www.cronometer.com) to do nutrient analyses on my diet.  I like that it analyzes your essential amino acid intake. 
Here is what I ate on one day recently (9/24/12):
 
The Vegan Food Way...to Living With Heart and Improving Your Health: Where do you get your protein?

59 comments:

Jozef Varhaník said...

"It is extremely unlikely that anyone actually needs three times the minimal requirement for any amino acid."

Please go and tell this to every person engaged in some serious athletic activity (i.e. Olympic weightlifting, bodybuilding, sprinting, strongman, etc.), or really anyone interested in thriving, because someone ought to really tell these guys they've been wrong all those years by eating such a crappy, evolutionary compliant, ommnivore diet filled with such an excess of animal (gasp!) protein. They would surely thrive greatly under your diet recommedations and surely see some performance improvements, I'm pretty sure. Oh, wait... ...they would not. All the while cramming a 600g of carbs a day is surely perfectly normal. Mr. Don, you became so deranged recently... I don't know your reasons, but seriously, do you do it just to prove the world that you can sort of hang on in here and survive on this diet? Are you training for some soon to come food scarcity catastrophy? Or you just love them animals so much? Because if you do it for that last thing I named, I suggest you stop playing FDA by giving people highly biased/damaging advice. Yes you can survive on high-carb, low-crap diet. Here's a challenge though: Try to seriously thrive on it, longest-term, be 95% healthy because you can, as long as you can, then just drop dead because it was about time, at the ripe old age of XYZ.

pbo said...

Can you break this down into meals for us? Also that image is a bit small and hard to read, not sure if you can get a better screenshot for readability.

In any case, this appears to be mostly raw. Also 8 bananas! How are you spreading this out? Or are you constantly snacking?

How is your blood sugar levels eating this way? I still following a meat heavy diet, which resembles a paleo-esque framework. I know you have ditched that scene, but for me the biggest benefit is the duration between meals and not having to snack between meals. The protein and fat keep me sated pretty long, compared to when i do a more low fat high carb diet.

Will love to hear how your diet impacts your energy levels, and meal frequency.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919073845.htm

Feed Your Genes: How Our Genes Respond to the Foods We Eat

http://www.ntnu.edu/news/feed-your-genes

"If you could ask your genes to say what kinds of foods are best for your health, they would have a simple answer: one-third protein, one-third fat and one-third carbohydrates. That's what recent genetic research from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) shows is the best recipe to limit your risk of most lifestyle-related diseases.

NTNU researchers Ingerid Arbo and Hans-Richard Brattbakk have fed slightly overweight people different diets, and studied the effect of this on gene expression.

"We have found that a diet with 65% carbohydrates, which often is what the average Norwegian eats in some meals, causes a number of classes of genes to work overtime," ... "This affects not only the genes that cause inflammation in the body, which was what we originally wanted to study, but also genes associated with development of cardiovascular disease, some cancers, dementia, and type 2 diabetes -- all the major lifestyle-related diseases," she says.

"Both low-carb and high-carb diets are wrong," says Johansen. "But a low-carb diet is closer to the right diet. A healthy diet shouldn't be made up of more than one-third carbohydrates (up to 40 per cent of calories) in each meal, otherwise we stimulate our genes to initiate the activity that creates inflammation in the body." This is not the kind of inflammation that you would experience as pain or an illness, but instead it is as if you are battling a chronic light flu-like condition. Your skin is slightly redder, your body stores more water, you feel warmer, and you're not on top mentally. Scientists call this metabolic inflammation.

It was not only inflammatory genes that were putting in overtime, as it would turn out. Some clusters of genes that stood out as overactive are linked to the most common lifestyle diseases.

s."

Charles Grashow said...

"Genes that are involved in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease and some forms of cancer respond to diet, and are up-regulated, or activated, by a carbohydrate-rich diet," says Johansen.


"We're not saying that you can prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer's if you eat right, but it seems sensible to reduce the carbohydrates in our diets," she suggests.

The immune system operates as if it is the body's surveillance authority and police. When we consume too many carbohydrates and the body is triggered to react, the immune system mobilizes its strength, as if the body were being invaded by bacteria or viruses.

"Genes respond immediately to what they have to work with. It is likely that insulin controls this arms race," Johansen says. "But it's not as simple as the regulation of blood sugar, as many believe. The key lies in insulin's secondary role in a number of other mechanisms. A healthy diet is about eating specific kinds of foods so that that we minimize the body's need to secrete insulin. The secretion of insulin is a defense mechanism in response to too much glucose in the blood, and whether that glucose comes from sugar or from non-sweet carbohydrates such as starches (potatoes, white bread, rice, etc.), doesn't really matter."

Johansen has some encouraging words, however, for those of us who have been eating a high carbohydrate diet. "It took just six days to change the gene expression of each of the volunteers," she says, "so it's easy to get started. But if you want to reduce your likelihood of lifestyle disease, this new diet will have to be a permanent change."

The best is to cut down on potatoes, rice and pasta, and to allow ourselves some of the good stuff that has long been in the doghouse in the refrigerator.
"Instead of light products, we should eat real mayonnaise and sour cream," Johansen says, "and have real cream in your sauce, and eat oily fish.

Fountain-of-youth genes

Johansen's research also shows that some genes are not up-regulated, but rather the opposite -- they calm down rather than speed up.

"It was interesting to see the reduction in genetic activity, but we were really happy to see which genes were involved. One set of genes is linked to cardiovascular disease. They were down-regulated in response to a balanced diet, as opposed to a carbohydrate-rich diet," she says. Another gene that was significantly differently expressed by the diets that were tested was one that is commonly called "the youth gene" in the international research literature.

"We haven't actually stumbled on the fountain of youth here," Johansen laughs, "but we should take these results seriously. The important thing for us is, little by little, we are uncovering the mechanisms of disease progression for many of our major lifestyle-related disorder

Don said...

Jozef,

Sounds like you are really afraid of not meeting your protein needs. That's just what the protein industries want. I can assure you I am doing quite well on this regime.

You might want to study some sports nutrition science textbooks.

"Official dietary guidelines for athletes are unanimous in their recommendation of high carbohydrate (CHO) intakes in routine or training diets. ...CHO intake ranges of 5 to 7 g/kg/day for general training needs and 7 to 10 g/kg/day for the increased needs of endurance athletes are suggested."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11310548

"DAILY CARBOHYDRATE NEEDS

• Don’t try to calculate a diet according to “percentage of carbohydrates”—such as a diet with 60% of the calories from carbs (a typical recommendation for athletes). Rather, define your daily carbohydrate needs in terms of grams per pound (or kilogram) body weight. The guidelines developed by the International Olympic Committee are:

Low intensity exercise: 1.5 to 2.5 g Carb/lb (3-5 g Carb/kg)

Moderate exercise (~1 hour/day): 2.5 to 3 g Carb/lb (5-7 g Carb/kg

Endurance exercise (1-3 hours/day): 2.5 to 4.5 g Carb/lb (6-10 g Carb/kg)

Extreme exercise (>4-5 h/day): 3.5 to 5.5 g Carb/lb (8-12 g Carb/kg)"

http://community.active.com/blogs/NancyClarkRD/2011/03/16/carbs-by-the-grams

The higher the intensity and greater the volume of exercise, the greater your carbohydrate requirements. Avoid carbs if you want subpar performance or only low intensity exercise. Carb up if you want energy. That's what the science says. But if you prefer bro science, good luck.

Don said...

Charles,

"Genes that are involved in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease and some forms of cancer respond to diet, and are up-regulated, or activated, by a carbohydrate-rich diet," says Johansen."

LMAO. This lady seems unaware that all the diseases she lists as being "activated" by a carbohydrate-rich diet are much less frequent to non-existent in nations where the diet is/was high in whole food carbohydrates, such as Japan, Thailand, mid-20th century Crete, rural Africa, and on and on.

I could find no evidence that her research is peer-reviewed at this point.

the report says:

"Johansen and her colleagues conducted two studies. The first was to determine what type of research methods they would use to answer the questions they had. In the pilot study (28 days) five obese men ate real food, while in the second study, 32 slightly overweight men and women (mainly students) ate specially made powdered food.

Participants in the latter study were randomly assigned to go six days on a diet with 65 percent of calories from carbohydrates, with the rest of the calories from protein (15 percent) and fat (20 percent), then a week with no diet. Then came the six days on a diet with half the carbs and twice as much protein and fat as in the first diet. There were blood tests before and after each dieting period."

Do you think there is any difference between eating powdered carbohydrates and whole fruits and vegetables? I do. This 'research' using a powdered diet doesn't tell us anything about the effects of whole plant foods on health.

"We wanted to know exactly what the subjects were getting in terms of both macro- and micronutrients," says Johansen, -"A tomato doesn't contain a consistent amount of nutrients, or antioxidants, for example. To make sure we had a handle on the health effects, we had to have accurate accounting of nutrients. That's why we chose the powdered diets for the main study."


In other words, it has no applicability to the real world where people eat foods, not powdered crap. I call it poorly designed reductionist science, looking like grant mongering since she goes on about how more research is needed.

"We need more research on this," Johansen adds."

SHE needs more research on this, because that's how she makes her living. No more research, no more job.

Carb up so you can think more clearly and critically.

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

http://web2.drfuhrman.com/library/vegan_athlete.pdf

Fueling the Vegetarian (Vegan) Athlete


http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-4-8.pdf

"In summary, it is the position of the International Society of Sport Nutrition that exercising individuals ingest protein ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day. Individuals engaging in endurance exercise should ingest levels at the lower end of this range, individuals engaging in intermittent activities should ingest levels in the middle of this range, and those engaging in strength/power exercise should
ingest levels at the upper end of this range."


http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-7-7.pdf

"The ISSN has recently adopted a position stand on protein that highlights the following points:

1. Exercising individuals need approximately 1.4 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day.\
2. Concerns that protein intake within this range is unhealthy are unfounded in healthy, exercising
individuals.

3. An attempt should be made to obtain protein requirements from whole foods, but supplemental
protein is a safe and convenient method of ingesting high quality dietary protein.

4. The timing of protein intake in the time period encompassing the exercise session has several benefits including improved recovery and greater gains in fat free mass.

5. Protein residues such as branched chain amino acids have been shown to be beneficial for the exercising individual, including increasing the rates of protein synthesis, decreasing the rate of protein degradation, and possibly aiding in recovery from exercise.

6. Exercising individuals need more dietary protein than their sedentary counterparts."


http://intl.jacn.org/content/19/suppl_5/513S.full

Beyond the Zone: Protein Needs of Active Individuals

"A variety of factors interact to increase dietary protein needs of individuals who exercise regularly. Although future study will need to determine precise recommendations, current research indicates that as long as energy intake is adequate a daily protein intake of 1.2–1.4 g/d for individuals participating in regular endurance exercise and 1.6–1.8 g/kg for their counterparts involved in strength exercise (Fig. 13) should be sufficient."


Real science not bro science

Don said...

pbo,

I ate all 8 bananas at one meal, as a smoothie (about 800 kcal from the bananas).

I generally eat a two-stage breakfast: first, citrus or melon, then 20 minutes later, sweet fruit like bananas, grapes, mango, usually in a smoothie.

A few hours later, 8-10 medjool dates, which I can eat with little interruption of my activity.

About 1-2 hours after that, a large salad with rice or potatoes. Then fast from 4 or 5 pm until 8 or 9 in morning.

My energy levels are excellent and stable high.

Don said...

Charles,

Regarding your first reference to Fuhrman's article:

On page 4 Fuhrman cites this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1474076 as evidence that “1.41 gIkgj1Idj1 represents a minimum for muscle maintenance in strength athletes.” In fact, that study reported:

“There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group [low protein, medium protein, or high protein].”

That study was a short term (13 day) and evaluated nitrogen balance and whole body protein synthesis WBPS. The abstract does not state that the low protein diet resulted in negative nitrogen balance, so I will guess that it did not (because they would have been keen to report it if it did, as it would strengthen their conclusion). So why did they conclude in favor of the HP diet?

“For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)].”

In fact, all this study showed was that strength athletes eating a HP diet showed increased WBPS. Unfortunately for them, this doesn’t show that the athletes required a HP diet. It only shows that when you eat above normal amounts of protein, it stimulates protein synthesis. Since they admitted that the low protein diet did not result in loss of lean mass, and the high protein diet did not result in gain of lean mass, they really failed to show any hard end point detriment to low protein intake, or benefit to high protein intake.

Don said...

Charles,

The second document to which you refer states:

“Recommendations for strength/power exercise typically range from 1.6 to 2.0 g/
kg/day [3,11-13,16], although some research suggests that protein requirements may actually decrease during training due to biological adaptations that improve net protein retention [17].”

Here they are admitting that some research has shown that the body adapts to training by decreasing protein requirements. Their references for the first half of the sentence include #3 which is another “position statement”, #11 which is the one Fuhrman cited and I already commented upon.

#12 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1400008?dopt=Abstract states “However, strength (voluntary and electrically evoked) and muscle mass [density, creatinine excretion, muscle area (computer axial tomography scan), and biceps N content] gains were not different between diet treatments.” Thus, this does not support their implied view that high protein diets are necessary for maximizing performance.

#13 is not an experimental study by Lemons interpretation of research.

#16 is a book on Sports Supplements. I wouldn’t be surprised if it advocates protein supplementation, but its not a good resource for supporting the claim in question here.

That paper cites this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15212749?dopt=Abstract as evidence that 0.8 g/kg intake of protein is “likely not sufficient to offset the oxidation of protein/amino acids during exercise (approximately 1–5% of the total energy cost of exercise)
nor is it sufficient to provide substrate for lean tissue accretion or for the repair of exercise induced muscle damage.”

The abstract of the paper they cite states:

A low energy and/or carbohydrate intake will increase amino acid oxidation and total protein requirements. With adequate energy and carbohydrate intake, low to moderate intensity endurance activity has little impact on dietary protein requirements and 1.0 gPRO/kg/d is sufficient. The only situation where dietary protein requirements exceed those for relatively sedentary individuals is in top sport athletes where the maximal requirement is approximately 1.6 gPRO/kg/d. Although most endurance athletes get enough protein to support any increased requirements, those with low energy or carbohydrate intakes may require nutritional advice to optimize dietary protein intake.”

First, this is not a controlled study demonstrating that any athletes actually need 1.6 gPRO/kg/d of protein. Second, it admits that the increased need for protein primarily occurs when athletes don’t consume adequate carbohydrate to prevent amino acid oxidation. The solution for this is to increase carbohydrate intake, to prevent the unnecessary use of protein.

The other item they cite to support the claim that athletes need higher protein intake is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11128862?dopt=Abstract which is another position statement, still not a study establishing unequivocally an increased need for protein (beyond RDA levels) in athletes.

Simon Carter said...

Hi Don, I enjoy your spirited defence of your choice to adopt a vegan diet. I personally do not agree with you but I respect your right to do this. I hope you can keep up this blog.

Don said...

Finally, the last item you cite as good science supporting the belief that athletes have elevated protein requirements is http://intl.jacn.org/content/19/suppl_5/513S.full . It is by Lemon, who is a tireless advocate of high protein diets. If you read the footnotes of this paper, you will see this:

“Presented, in part, at a meeting sponsored by the American Egg Board and Egg Nutrition Center held at Amelia Island, FL on February 25–27, 2000.”

I don’t think that a speech presented by one researcher to the Egg Board meeting constitutes unbiased nutrition research. He told them what they want to hear, i.e. they need to sell protein, so he gave them an idea for a marketing niche.

The National Academies of Science Food and Nutrition Board reviewed the available data on protein requirements for athletes. Here is what they found:

1. For endurance athletes, there is no compelling evidence for increased protein requirement, not even from studies by Lemon and others cited in the references I already commented on. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=660
2. For resistance training, none of the available studies that reported greater nitrogen retention with high protein diets, including those by Lemon and coworkers, i.e. the ones to which you referred, found a corresponding increase in muscle mass that would be expected. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=661

So the NAS Food and Nutrition Board concluded:

Summary. In view of the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, no additional dietary protein is suggested for healthy adults undertaking resistance or endurance exercise.”

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=661

In short, so far as I can tell, the papers you cited are peddling dressed-up bro science. Yes, the bros have made their way into the nutrition journals.

nothing91 said...

"I don't know your reasons, but seriously, do you do it just to prove the world that you can sort of hang on in here and survive on this diet?"

He has a need for extremes. Maybe life is boring without them.

But hey, it sure keeps the blog hits coming. I for one can't stay away. :-)

SoccerGuro said...

Seriously Don, how is your blood sugar on this kind of diet? Post-prandial and fasting? I really want to try a high carb diet, but the little times I have tried one my blood sugar went crazy! Did it take you time to adapt?

Jack LaBear said...

Echos of smoking eggs:

Dietary protein intake and risk of stroke in women:

"Intake of total and animal protein, but not vegetable protein, was statistically significantly inversely associated with risk of total stroke and cerebral infarction after adjustment for other risk factors for stroke. The multivariable RRs of total stroke for the highest versus lowest quintile of intake were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.91; P for trend = 0.006) for total protein and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.88; P for trend = 0.01) for animal protein."

http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(12)00455-8/abstract
"

Don said...

Jack,

Can't comment much on that study since I don't have access to the full text. It immediately occurs to me that a population of women with hypertension the intake of vegetable protein is probably occurring in too small a range to show any effect. Most people in the US get more than 65% of their total protein from animal sources. But since I don't have the full data, I can't give an analysis of it.

Dietary protein can affect blood pressure by multiple pathways:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949991/

Obviously, the people in this study all had hypertension, so their high protein intake did not produce low blood pressure. Thus, the people in this study with high protein intake might have less severe hypertension than those with lower protein intake. They are like patients on diuretic drugs. The fact that something (e.g. animal protein) might reduce the risk of stroke in a population of sick (hypertension) patients doesn't tell us that that item is good or essential for us. Diuretic drugs might reduce the risk of stroke in hypertensive patients, but that doesn't make those drugs good or essential to health. Statin drugs might reduce coronary events in people who have high cholesterol and atherosclerosis, but I wouldn't conclude therefore that everyone should eat statin drugs daily.



I wonder if you are trying to imply that a low protein low sodium whole foods plant based diet causes hypertension and strokes? I have not seen any evidence of that in the scientific literature, nor have I gotten high blood pressure by cutting my protein intake.

The DASH diet has been proven to lower blood pressure and risk of stroke. http://dashdiet.org/

The DASH outline specifies for a 2000 kcal diet, 7-8 servings of grains, 4-5 each of fruits and vegetables, 2-3 of low fat or non-fat dairy foods, 2 or less of lean meat, fish, or poultry, and 4-5 servings of legumes, nuts, or seeds per week.

Total daily plant food servings are 15-18, total animal food servings are 2-5. That's 3-9 times more servings of plant foods than animal foods, i.e. a plant-dominated diet. I don't think its the best diet, but it certainly isn't focused on eating animal protein.

Charles Grashow said...

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/2/161.full.pdf

Carbohydrate Intake, Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, and Dietary Fiber in Relation to Risk of Stroke in Women

"In this prospective study, high carbohydrate intake was positively associated with risk of hemorrhagic stroke, independent of other dietary factors and cardiovascular risk factors. This positive association appeared to be stronger among women with a higher BMI."

"Our findings are consistent with results of ecologic studies; stroke has been a principal cause of death in eastern Asian countries, which have traditionally had a high carbohydrate and a low fat intake. In a study of Chinese Americans,
participants consumed a high-carbohydrate and low-fat diet, and they had lower high density lipoprotein and total
cholesterol concentrations compared with elderly Whites. These characteristics were similar to those of urban populations in mainland China, where hemorrhagic stroke is the major cause of cardiovascular disease."

In Japan, the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke declined in parallel with a decrease in carbohydrate intake and increased fat and protein intake. In addition, in the Honolulu Heart Program carbohydrate intake (percentage of energy intake) in Japanese men in Japan was higher than in Japanese migrants to the United States, while fat and protein intakes were lower. The prevalence of stroke in Japanese men in Japan was higher than that of Japanese migrants to the United States, suggesting that higher carbohydrate intake may be related to risk of stroke."

"Diets relatively high in carbohydrate may decrease total, low density lipoprotein, and high density lipoprotein concentrations, and these changes may contribute to higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke by weakening of arterial wall and subsequent rupturing of intracerebral arteries. Serum total cholesterol concentrations have been inversely related to risk
of intracerebral hemorrhage. Furthermore, our findings
suggest that some of the apparent harmful effects of high carbohydrate intake may be due to benefits of protein intake because the associations were strongest when all types of fat were included in multivariate models."

Jack LaBear said...

Risk of osteporotic fracture is 2.86 time higher when animal protein intake is less than 15% of calories.

Protein intake and fracture risk in elderly people: a case-control study.

"RESULTS:
The control-group showed a higher API (p = 0.046) even when CaI was <800 mg/day (p = 0.041). ORs for AVR were 0.68 (0.38-1.19) and 0.38 (0.15-0.98), respectively with a p for trend = 0.046. A PI<15% of the total energy intake showed an OR of 2.86 (1.10-7.43).

CONCLUSIONS:
Patients with fracture history have lower API suggesting that high API reduce the occurrence of OP in elderly even if CaI is <800 mg/day. A PI<15% of total calories were associated with an increased risk of OP in elderly."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22182947

Charles Grashow said...

Don and Tracy are going the 30 bananas a day route - they have swallowed the banana kool-aid

Look at their video

http://thefoodway.blogspot.com/2012/09/raw-energy-by-don-tracy-our-first-video.html

Peter said...

Charles,

you have to be the master in picking up the top of the cream of fringe studies. Not saying that you are unable to find couple decent studies every now and then. However, you usually fail to put them into a correct context.

Hmmmm....let me guess what was the definition of carbohydrate in your latest piece....refined tortillas and breakfest cereals which are heavily used in the US.

Brian J. MacLean said...

Charles,

The study you cited for your low-carb argument, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/2/161.full.pdf, states "In summary, our results provide evidence that high intake
of refined carbohydrate may increase risk of hemorrhagic
stroke in women and that the deleterious effect is stronger
among those who are overweight or obese. In addition, our
data support a benefit of cereal fiber in preventing hemorrhagic
stroke. These findings suggest that replacing sugar
and refined starches with whole-grain, high-fiber forms of
carbohydrate may reduce hemorrhagic stroke, particularly
among women who are overweight or obese." It appears that you are unfamiliar with the physiological effects differences between refined and unrefined carbs, as well as suffering from an interesting case of selective blindness in your reading of research articles.

Jack LaBear said...

Don,

That banana kool-aid obviously wasn't supplied by Owsley!

Jack LaBear said...

Peter and Brian,

Are you telling us that the 200g-300g of dissolved sugar and starch in a multi banana and fruit blender refined smoothie is somehow less rapidly bio-available than the carbs in "refined tortillas" with the absorption slowing effect of the fat that they are typically served with?

Brian J. MacLean said...

Jack LaBear,

Bananas have a GI of 55, which is generally considered close to the low range. Corn tortillas have a GI of 72, which is generally considered to be high GI. So yes, from a GI perspective, that is what I am telling you.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

We are still waiting for you to give us your academic credentials - your Curriculum vitae.

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm


http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/12/2281.full.pdf+html


http://www.lowglycemicload.com/index.cfm?ID=90

Red Meat
Serving: 8 oz
Avg Glycemic Load: 0

Jack LaBear said...

Brian,

Harvard Medical school says that wheat tortilla has a GI of 30, while a ripe banana has a GI of 62.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/1/5.full

The low GI of the tortilla is due to its fat (lard) content. Fat combined with a starch reduces its GI.
Corn tortillas also have a lower GI than bananas.

736 Tortilla (Zea mays and Olneya tesota) GI=38

Pizza, Super Supreme, thin and crispy (13.2% fat) (Pizza Hut, Australia)GI=30

 Pizza, Vegetarian Supreme, thin and crispy (7.8% fat) (Pizza Hut, Australia)GI=49

White boiled rice, grilled beefburger, cheese, and butter (France)GI=22

  Quik, strawberry (Nestlé, Australia), dissolved in water GI=64

 Quik, strawberry (Nestlé, Australia), dissolved in 1.5%-fat milk GI=34

Something rather telling is Don saying that he eats dates a couple of hours after his high glycemic load smoothie. This is probably a result of reactive hypoglycemia or an attempt to prevent it.

Besides greatly reducing the GI of accompanying carb foods,the advantage of making your metabolism fat burning is that you effortlessly switch from running on fat in your stomach to running on stored fat. That way you are not needing that carb fix every few hours.

Full text:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/1/5.full

Jack LaBear said...

Interventional, clinical, and epidemiological studies show that animal protein prevents osteoporotic fractures.

Dietary Protein: An Essential Nutrient For Bone Health

"In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures."

"In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay."

"Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures."

Full text:
http://www.jacn.org/content/24/suppl_6/526S.long

Jack LaBear said...

Anabolic signaling deficits underlie amino acid resistance of
wasting, aging muscle

"We previously showed that the EAA themselves powerfully stimulate human MPS in a dose dependent,
saturable manner (12, 13)... It would make sense, therefore, for
elderly people to eat protein to “effectively” (i.e., sufficiently) raise their plasma EAA
concentration to trigger the maximal response after a single meal. Such a maximal anabolic
response could be achieved with 10 g of EAA equivalent to 4 oz of meat, fish, eggs, or milk.
Given the likely 20–30% decrement in the gut absorption of dietary protein in the elderly (49), a

*peak muscle anabolic response in muscle could probably be obtained by eating 6 oz of meat,
fish, eggs, or milk at a single sitting."*

Full text:
http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2005/03/04/fj.04-2640fje.long

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

Jack LaBear said

"Something rather telling is Don saying that he eats dates a couple of hours after his high glycemic load smoothie. This is probably a result of reactive hypoglycemia or an attempt to prevent it."

What say you Don - why the need to eat dates a couple of hours after a 800-900 calorie fruit smoothie??

Charles Grashow said...

Don said

DAILY CARBOHYDRATE NEEDS

• Don’t try to calculate a diet according to “percentage of carbohydrates”—such as a diet with 60% of the calories from carbs (a typical recommendation for athletes). Rather, define your daily carbohydrate needs in terms of grams per pound (or kilogram) body weight. The guidelines developed by the International Olympic Committee are:

Low intensity exercise: 1.5 to 2.5 g Carb/lb (3-5 g Carb/kg)

Moderate exercise (~1 hour/day): 2.5 to 3 g Carb/lb (5-7 g Carb/kg

Endurance exercise (1-3 hours/day): 2.5 to 4.5 g Carb/lb (6-10 g Carb/kg)

Extreme exercise (>4-5 h/day): 3.5 to 5.5 g Carb/lb (8-12 g Carb/kg)"

http://community.active.com/blogs/NancyClarkRD/2011/03/16/carbs-by-the-grams

Don weighs 68 kgs and he had 620 grams of carbs

"the whole menu has only 44.2 grams of protein (and 620 grams of carbohydrate, mostly from fruits and brown rice)."

That comes to 9.12 grams per kilo

SO - the study Don quoted said

"Extreme exercise (>4-5 h/day): 3.5 to 5.5 g Carb/lb (8-12 g Carb/kg)"

So Don - you're exercising 4-5 hours/day!!!!

We are very impressed.

Brian J. MacLean said...

To Jack LaBear,

According to Harvard Medical School calculations, a ripe banana has a GI or 62 while a corn tortilla has a GI of 52. Often considered a more relevant measure, the GL (glycemic load) shows a different picture. Per 100 grams, a ripe banana has a GL of 13 and a corn tortilla a GL of 24. (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm).

I don't know if Don actually requires the extra carbs in the form of dates to feel energetic. I typically don't eat breakfast and have a handful of berries and perhaps a banana and occasionally a couple of TBS of nuts/seeds for lunch and I am energetic and not hungry till about 7 PM.

Why is the vast majority of my diet plant-based now? I have spent most of my life eating what would be considered WPF, but minus the grains and legumes. My lipid profile has been poor over the years with this generous intake of animal foods, and a recent CMIT assessment indicated that I have atheriosclerotic plaque levels several years beyond my chronological age. Over the past several months with a radical reduction of animal foods, my lipid profile has improved considerably. This is anecdotal of course, but is consistent with the bulk of nutritional research on lipids.

Brian J. MacLean said...

To Jack LaBear,

Epidemiological studies show that those countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are also the ones with the highest animal protein intake.

IGF-1 is necessary for growth in the early years, but in adults, higher levels are correlated with the development of various cancers, including prostate and breast cancer.

Charles Grashow said...

@Brian J. MacLean

can you post your lipid profile before and after the changes in your diet?

Brian J. MacLean said...

Charles,

Before: TC=235; LDL=158;HDL=64;TG=62
After: TC=203; LDL=126;HDL=68;TG=43

I think I know where this is going - Charles is about to tell me that my before measures are not unhealthy and that in fact, low LDL is associated with higher all cause mortality, and that it is the HDL which is of greater relevance for CHD prevention. However, both assertions have shown to be highly questionable, if not downright specious by research findings.

Charles Grashow said...

Brian J. MacLean said...
Charles,

Before: TC=235; LDL=158;HDL=64;TG=62
After: TC=203; LDL=126;HDL=68;TG=43

I think I know where this is going - Charles is about to tell me that my before measures are not unhealthy and that in fact, low LDL is associated with higher all cause mortality, and that it is the HDL which is of greater relevance for CHD prevention. However, both assertions have shown to be highly questionable, if not downright specious by research findings.

Actually you don't have any idea about what I will or will not say but your assumptions betray your thought process.

You are looking for validation that what you are doing is correct.

The vegans here will tell you that your LDL is still too high and that unless you can get it below 70 via diet you should consider a statin drug

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ultralite.com.au/UserFiles/File/Lipids%202010.pdf

Limited Effect of Dietary Saturated Fat on Plasma Saturated Fat in the Context of a Low Carbohydrate Diet


http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Alexander_Red_meat_colorectal_cancer.pdf

Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary of prospective epidemiologic studies

Jack LaBear said...

Where do you get your fat?

Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Aug;119(8):1191-9.
Dietary fat and risk for advanced age-related macular degeneration.

RESULTS:
Higher vegetable fat consumption was associated with an elevated risk for AMD. After adjusting for age, sex, education, cigarette smoking, and other risk factors, the odds ratio (OR) was 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-3.74) for persons in the highest vs those in the lowest quintiles of intake (P for trend,.007). The risk for AMD was also significantly elevated for the highest vs lowest quintiles of intake of monounsaturated (OR, 1.71) and polyunsaturated (OR, 1.86) fats (Ps for trend,.03 and.03, respectively). Higher consumption of linoleic acid was also associated with a higher risk for AMD (P for trend,.02).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11483088

Jack LaBear said...

Brian J. MacLean said...

"To Jack LaBear,

According to Harvard Medical School calculations, a ripe banana has a GI or 62 while a corn tortilla has a GI of 52. Often considered a more relevant measure, the GL (glycemic load) shows a different picture. Per 100 grams, a ripe banana has a GL of 13 and a corn tortilla a GL of 24. (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm)."

Brian,

Do even know what the definition of GI and glycemic load (GL)are?

GL=available carbs X GI/100

The USDA nutrient database (http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2260) says 100g of corn tortilla contains 45g carbs and 100g banana is 23g carbs.

Since the 100g tortilla has twice as much carbs as the 100g banana the tortillas have a higher GL.

Bananas have more water in them. An accurate comparison would be between amounts tortilla and bananas containing the same amount of carbs. In that case,according to your numbers for GI and using 45g carbs, the GL of the tortillas = 23 and the GL of the bananas = 28

Jack LaBear said...

Brian J. MacLean said...

"To Jack LaBear,

Epidemiological studies show that those countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are also the ones with the highest animal protein intake."

Epidemiological correlations (unable to prove causation anyway) between countries are so full of confounders that they are of little value.

There is evidence from interventional, clinical, and intra-country epidemiological studies showing that increasing protein for most people reduces fracture rates.

Brian:
"IGF-1 is necessary for growth in the early years, but in adults, higher levels are correlated with the development of various cancers, including prostate and breast cancer."

Me:

While both hip fractures and cancer are highly undesirable, what usually interests me most is all cause mortality.
Here is a full text study of mortality vs IGF-1 in elderly people who are more likely to get cancer:

IGF1 as predictor of all cause mortality and cardiovascular disease in an elderly population

http://www.eje.org/content/160/1/25.full

Notice from table 1 that those who survived had higher average levels of IGF-1 than those who died.
Notice also that the middle tertiles of IGF-1 had the best survival, while death rates were higher in both the lowest as well as highest tertiles.

" In the multivariable analyses of development of CHF and first major CV event, adjustments were made for potential confounding parameters: age, sex, history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), atrial fibrillation, smoking status, total cholesterol and log NT-proBNP. In the analysis of all cause mortality additional adjustment were made for history of ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, TIA or CHF."

As with vitamin A, the optimum level is neither too high or too low.

Charles Grashow said...

http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/early/2012/05/30/CJN.11741111.abstract

Comparative Effects of Low-Carbohydrate High-Protein Versus Low-Fat Diets on the Kidney

"Results

Compared with the low-fat diet, low-carbohydrate high-protein consumption was associated with minor reductions in serum creatinine (relative difference, −4.2%) and cystatin C (−8.4%) at 3 months and relative increases in creatinine clearance at 3 (15.8 ml/min) and 12 (20.8 ml/min) months; serum urea at 3 (14.4%), 12 (9.0%), and 24 (8.2%) months; and 24-hour urinary volume at 12 (438 ml) and 24 (268 ml) months. Urinary calcium excretion increased at 3 (36.1%) and 12 (35.7%) months without changes in bone density or clinical presentations of new kidney stones.

Conclusions

In healthy obese individuals, a low-carbohydrate high-protein weight-loss diet over 2 years was not associated with noticeably harmful effects on GFR, albuminuria, or fluid and electrolyte balance compared with a low-fat diet. Further follow-up is needed to determine even longer-term effects on kidney function."

Brian J. MacLean said...

I said:
"I think I know where this is going - Charles is about to tell me that my before measures are not unhealthy and that in fact, low LDL is associated with higher all cause mortality, and that it is the HDL which is of greater relevance for CHD prevention. However, both assertions have shown to be highly questionable, if not downright specious by research findings."

Charles said:
"Actually you don't have any idea about what I will or will not say but your assumptions betray your thought process.

You are looking for validation that what you are doing is correct.

The vegans here will tell you that your LDL is still too high and that unless you can get it below 70 via diet you should consider a statin drug"

And why do you think the vegans would tell me that my LDL is still too high? Because, by implication, you believe that the LDL measure I stated is not problematic. As I said, I knew where you were going with this.

As far as seeking validation for my behavior, this is true, and commonly known as investigation to discover the truth of the matter. My investigation into the field of nutritional science and my own biomarker results have led me to believe that animal source fats and proteins are suboptimal, if not pathogenic.

Brian J. MacLean said...

Jack LaBear said re GI and GL: "An accurate comparison would be between amounts tortilla and bananas containing the same amount of carbs."

Perhaps Don should be instructed to eat dried bananas and/or soggy tortillas to create a level playing field. My guess is that in his case it wouldn't make much difference, in the short run at least, since he has not been metabolically broken by a diet of excessive refined carbs, nor by his Paleo experiment.

Charles Grashow said...

@Brian

you said - "why do you think the vegans would tell me that my LDL is still too high."

Have you read all of the posts? The vegans are proud of this study

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1135650

Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70 mg/dl Lower is better and physiologically normal

"Much work remains to be done in the development of treatment strategies to achieve the LDL goal of 50 to 70 mg/dl in most CHD patients.

And this one

http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(06)00576-5/fulltext

"This editorial outlines the data supporting aggressive lipid goals and options for treating low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol to a range of approximately 30 to 70 mg/dl. The physiologically normal cholesterol range is approximately 30 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and virtually all wild mammals. Randomized statin trials in patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease have demonstrated that cardiovascular events are reduced and cardiovascular survival optimized when LDL cholesterol is reduced to <70 mg/dl."

Don said...

Charles and Jack,

You guys do realize that every human needs a certain intake of fuel for energy every day, correct?

In my case, it is about 2400 kcal. So, a breakfast of 800-900 kcal is only about one-third of my daily energy requirements. Therefore, I need to eat food periodically throughout the day to get adequate energy, particularly on days I am more physically active before breakfast. It has nothing to do with 'reactive hypoglycemia.' Simply, I can only eat so much at one meal.

If I ate only 800 kcal from meat and fat, the same thing would happen. I would be hungry in a few hours, especially if it was one of my more physically active days. My old paleo breakfasts were around 1200 kcal each. Its a lot easier to get 1200 kcal into a meal when you are eating meat and fat, vs bananas.

300 g meat plus 70 g of olive oil gives 1200 kcal.

1200 g bananas gives 1200 kcal. That takes up a lot more stomach room than 370 g of meat and fat.

I could easily eat 300 g meat with 70 g olive oil in one sitting. I find it difficult to eat 1200 g of bananas in one sitting. Hence, I have to spread my meals out when I eat low caloric density foods.

Many studies actually show an inverse relationship between regular meal frequency and insulin resistance, obesity, and serum cholesterol.

"Increased feeding frequency leads to a reduction in the total secretion of insulin, an improvement in insulin resistance and a better blood glucose control, as well as an improvement in the blood lipid profile. The experts agreed that, as long as we do not consume more energy than we use up and we only eat when we are hungry, it may be useful to split our total energy intake into as many meals as our social pattern allows. However, the pattern of eating cannot be completely dissociated from the composition of foods consumed. Therefore within this energy intake, we must take care to consume not only a good balance of macronutrients with high carbohydrate and low fat levels, but also ensure that we get an adequate intake of essential micronutrients."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828

Just one example of many.

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

Please respond to this previous post

DAILY CARBOHYDRATE NEEDS

• Don’t try to calculate a diet according to “percentage of carbohydrates”—such as a diet with 60% of the calories from carbs (a typical recommendation for athletes). Rather, define your daily carbohydrate needs in terms of grams per pound (or kilogram) body weight. The guidelines developed by the International Olympic Committee are:

Low intensity exercise: 1.5 to 2.5 g Carb/lb (3-5 g Carb/kg)

Moderate exercise (~1 hour/day): 2.5 to 3 g Carb/lb (5-7 g Carb/kg

Endurance exercise (1-3 hours/day): 2.5 to 4.5 g Carb/lb (6-10 g Carb/kg)

Extreme exercise (>4-5 h/day): 3.5 to 5.5 g Carb/lb (8-12 g Carb/kg)"

http://community.active.com/blogs/NancyClarkRD/2011/03/16/carbs-by-the-grams

Don weighs 68 kgs and he had 620 grams of carbs

"the whole menu has only 44.2 grams of protein (and 620 grams of carbohydrate, mostly from fruits and brown rice)."

That comes to 9.12 grams per kilo

SO - the study Don quoted said

"Extreme exercise (>4-5 h/day): 3.5 to 5.5 g Carb/lb (8-12 g Carb/kg)"

So Don - you're exercising 4-5 hours/day!!!!

We are very impressed.

Jack LaBear said...

Charles,

If I ate that much raw fruits and vegetables, I would get diarrhoea.
I came across some data once that the absorption of nutrients with that kind of diet is reduced.

An especially amusing picture is Harley Johnstone eating forty pounds of fruit in one day when he is cycling. Consider that what goes in must come out. Can you imagine forty pounds of excretion per day? What does he do while cycling? Perhaps he has a hose in his ass hanging out the back. It would certainly discourage competitors from riding close behind him!

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.drbass.com/aboutfruit.html

Fruit - Friend or Foe?

MY EXPERIENCES WITH FRUIT

@Don

I notice that you did not address this question.

Something rather telling is Don saying that he eats dates a couple of hours after his high glycemic load smoothie. This is probably a result of reactive hypoglycemia or an attempt to prevent it."

What say you Don - why the need to eat dates a couple of hours after a 800-900 calorie fruit smoothie??

Don said...

Charles,

At 2:35 I responded to your post asking why I eat dates a few hours after a smoothie. So really, you didn't notice that I already responded.

As for the other comment where you think that you deduced that I am exercising 4-5 hours daily: the IOC recommends that anyone exercising 4-5 hours daily eat 8-12 g CHO/Kg bw.

Who said that ONLY people exercising 4-5 hours daily should eat that level of carbohydrate?

Charles Grashow said...

@Jack LaBear

Don had several posts on the poor absorption of nutrients on a raw food diet but they have been deleted

BUT I DID FIND SOME THAT I POSTED PREVIOUSLY

"http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-raw-truth-about-raw-vegan-diets.html

If you think man is by nature adapted to a raw vegan diet, how the hell do you explain his exodus from tropical paradise into ecosystems where meat was the only reliable food for at least half of the year?

How can an animal adapted to a diet consisting exclusively of tropical fruits and vegetables spread out from Africa all over the entire planet, even into ecosystems (e.g. the arctic) where meat is the only food available almost all year round?

A commenter on my last post in this series said eating 10 bananas every day is no problem. Since then I tried five in a day. It gave me the runs. Enjoy your bananas, but living on them is not, let's say, a-peel-ing to me.

Whenever someone tells me we don't have teeth designed for eating meat, I simply ask, "Have you ever sliced open your tongue or cheek with your own teeth?" If so, you have proven to yourself that human teeth can easily slice raw meat.

We don't need canines to eat meat, we only need shearing teeth. All of human teeth have a more carnivore form than other primates, and this change in human teeth first appears about 2.5 million years ago.

A recent study of the evolution of horses determined that evolutionary changes in tooth form such as this would require about one million years of dietary evolution. This means that in order for early humans to have sharper teeth by 2.5 million years ago, their ancestors must have been eating meat for at least one million years prior. No surprise then, that our earliest evidence for meat-eating, stone-tool wielding hominins dates to about 3.5 million years ago.

Meat--its been what's for dinner for at least 3.5 million years, and we have the teeth to prove it.

Don also said

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-raw-truth-about-raw-vegan-diets.html

Don said...
Grok,

No. We are biologically virtually identical to humans of 50K years ago. We may NOT be so similar to people of 1 million years ago, i.e. Homo erectus.

We are NOW Homo sapiens sapiens, a distinct species. The question is, "what is Homo sapiens sapiens adapted to?", NOT "what are the predecessors of Homo sapiens sapiens adapted to?".

The people of 50K years ago actually left us plenty of cave paintings showing us that they were hunters of large animals, not banana foragers.

We have plenty of evidence that we are not adapted to eating 'healthy whole grains,' written in our physiology.

If we are adapted to a low fat, banana based diet, I wonder why we even have a gall bladder?

Or how about the difference between human and Australopithecene teeth?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

You think we need these sharp, shearing teeth to eat bananas or whole grains?

No, they weren't 'ripe' by your definition. So, are you saying that in order to have a healthy vegan banana based diet, I have to eat only bananas at a specific level of ripeness? That we are adapted to a banana-based diet, but only if the bananas are at a specific level of ripeness? So that here we have an animals that is adapted to eating a diet consisting of 'ripe' bananas, but not somewhat ripe bananas?

I wonder how an animals could become so specialized in banana eating, but not tolerate bananas at all stages of ripeness?"

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

You said - "As for the other comment where you think that you deduced that I am exercising 4-5 hours daily: the IOC recommends that anyone exercising 4-5 hours daily eat 8-12 g CHO/Kg bw.

Who said that ONLY people exercising 4-5 hours daily should eat that level of carbohydrate?"

YOU DID - "Don’t try to calculate a diet according to “percentage of carbohydrates”—such as a diet with 60% of the calories from carbs (a typical recommendation for athletes). Rather, define your daily carbohydrate needs in terms of grams per pound (or kilogram) body weight. The guidelines developed by the International Olympic Committee are:

Extreme exercise (>4-5 h/day): 3.5 to 5.5 g Carb/lb (8-12 g Carb/kg)"

Show me where you need this level of carbs if you are NOT exercising that much?

Don said...

Charles,

I most certainly did not say that ONLY people exercising 4-5 hours per day should eat the level of carbohydrate in question. I quoted the IOC recommendations for minimum CHO intake to support various levels of exercise. Nowhere does it say that ONLY the people at the upper levels should eat the upper levels of carbohydrate.

Regardless of what you believe about my exercise habits, what makes you believe that I must justify my level of carbohydrate intake to you?

If presently I don't want to get more than 10 percent of my energy from fat, and I don't want to eat more than 40-50 g of protein, where would you suggest that I get my fuel?

Did you ask Mark Sisson to show you where he NEEDS the amount of protein or fat that he eats?




Charles Grashow said...

@Don

my my getting so defensive

A deleted post of yours

"http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-raw-truth-about-raw-vegan-diets.html

If you think man is by nature adapted to a raw vegan diet, how the hell do you explain his exodus from tropical paradise into ecosystems where meat was the only reliable food for at least half of the year?

How can an animal adapted to a diet consisting exclusively of tropical fruits and vegetables spread out from Africa all over the entire planet, even into ecosystems (e.g. the arctic) where meat is the only food available almost all year round?

A commenter on my last post in this series said eating 10 bananas every day is no problem. Since then I tried five in a day. It gave me the runs. Enjoy your bananas, but living on them is not, let's say, a-peel-ing to me.


Another post you deleted

Don said...
Grok,

No. We are biologically virtually identical to humans of 50K years ago. We may NOT be so similar to people of 1 million years ago, i.e. Homo erectus.

We are NOW Homo sapiens sapiens, a distinct species. The question is, "what is Homo sapiens sapiens adapted to?", NOT "what are the predecessors of Homo sapiens sapiens adapted to?".

The people of 50K years ago actually left us plenty of cave paintings showing us that they were hunters of large animals, not banana foragers.

We have plenty of evidence that we are not adapted to eating 'healthy whole grains,' written in our physiology.

If we are adapted to a low fat, banana based diet, I wonder why we even have a gall bladder?

Or how about the difference between human and Australopithecene teeth?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

You think we need these sharp, shearing teeth to eat bananas or whole grains?

No, they weren't 'ripe' by your definition. So, are you saying that in order to have a healthy vegan banana based diet, I have to eat only bananas at a specific level of ripeness? That we are adapted to a banana-based diet, but only if the bananas are at a specific level of ripeness? So that here we have an animals that is adapted to eating a diet consisting of 'ripe' bananas, but not somewhat ripe bananas?

I wonder how an animals could become so specialized in banana eating, but not tolerate bananas at all stages of ripeness?"

"what makes you believe that I must justify my level of carbohydrate intake to you?"

you post it - I question it - prove that it's justified on a scientific basis

Jozef Varhaník said...

You know what? I can't either. :-D Maybe I like extremes too.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

Charles Grashow said...

@Healthy-Longevity

An Independent Critique of Low-carb Diets: The Diet Wars Continue

I am Travis (full identity withheld*) and my background is a concerned person who is passionate about the scientific literature. I have been in search for truth about diet, health, and longevity for the past five years. As with most people, I once believed that progressive physical dysfunction and illness were processes of natural aging, and that my genes would decide my fate. However, I have uncovered convincing evidence to the contrary: many long-lived populations remain fully functional and active until very late in life. Their diets are all similar: high in plant foods, and low in animal foods. I want to be one of these people.

During my journey to enlightenment on proper nutrition, I also identified a few individuals working hard to sabotage the truth. Their beliefs are recognized by names, such as, low-carb diet, Paleo, Primal, and Atkins. When these ideas win, people and the planet Earth suffer. One of the major efforts of believers in low-carb (high animal-food) diets has been to try to discredit respected scientists and their works. For example, Denise Minger, has spent the past several years trying to harm the reputation of T. Colin Campbell, PhD. Her writings distort the science, laying traps for death and disease for the general public that listens and follows. I have carefully read and analyzed the original science. My work has documented her inaccuracies and omissions, as well as untruths spread by many others in the low-carb camp.

Please consider my findings and conclusions in this first critique in a series to be published in the upcoming months in the McDougall Newsletter. If you judge my writings worthy, please share them with others. Also send questions directly to me at healthy.longevity@live.com. Your comments will also be published and questions answered in upcoming McDougall Newsletters.

*I have chosen to withhold my full identity for the time being because of my concern for my personal safety. Large amounts of money will be at jeopardy, as the truth becomes known.


Funniest thing I've read all day.

Charles Grashow said...

the link - in case you think I'm making it up

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/sep/120900.pdf

Jozef Varhaník said...

"Jozef,

Sounds like you are really afraid of not meeting your protein needs. That's just what the protein industries want. I can assure you I am doing quite well on this regime.

You might want to study some sports nutrition science textbooks." Etc.

Don,

as a matter of fact, I did. Not all, but at least a few. And that is why I really do worry about my proteins. You see, I don't jogg to keep myself in shape. But I don't do bodybuilding either. I do weightlifting. Heavy weightlifting. As in 30 sets of 1RM to 5RM per training session heavy. And what I've seen to observe is that for some reason, weightlifters do veeery well on animal foods. Now that might just be an observation and therefore bro-science, but hell damn me it works! I even see it on myself, I just had to try it. Up the protein and animal satfat and the weights go up. Lower the animal protein/fat and down the weights go. Sugar in super high amounts wasn't very helpful, but a moderate amount (200 - 300g, predominantly from fruit, I don't bother with "safe starches") seems to work fine. Now this also is a n=1 thing, which again proves squat (literally). But I've seen enough n=1 observations of this kind to make the equation start to look more like n=100.000. Now that kinda starts to border with epidemiological observation. Even "some" studies seem to prove that upping the protein above "RDA" amounts helps like a supercharger. I won't cite them, I don't hoard them nor remember them, but I'm sure you read them all in your "paleo" days and you since then have "debunked" them all ever since your farewell to paleo. Our discussion doesn't matter from the global perspective, humans are omnivores and I thing we really did prove that we can survive on everything. But I am interested in really thriving. If that means reasonable animal husbandry, so be it. I do not like cruelty so I do not promote it/try to avoid it, and this is where I end the "moral argument" against meat-eating - I'm trying to be rationally optimal with this stuff - therefore again - I do worry about my protein, I've found it such that when I stop caring, I stop thriving. I still have no clinical trials with double blind placebos to support my arguments though, we will have to wait for those. In the meantime, I stick with a lot of observation backed by a few reasonably done studies. It seems to work like a charm. :)

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.jbprimal.com/blogs/news/6656516-more-meat-for-all

Kushal Pandit said...

Thanx for your post, but i'm just telling you, protein powders are beneficial. They provide your body with protein that the food you eat may not be providing. healthgenie provides lots of health care & nutrition products at huge discount. you must take some proteins made buy vegetables.