Has "Everything" You Learned About Nutrition Been Wrong?

**santa** · Sep 18th, 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by GThreepwood

Lean cuts of meat seem cool and at the same time, if you want to avoid "refined" foods, then you may want to cut down on lean muscle meats, cause you're essentially "refining" the animal down to one specific type of meat and only eating that. Just like refining sugar down to one part, or taking off the husk of rice and calling it "refined white rice" etc. The possible issue with only eating muscle meats is that their is a high concentration of tryptophan and cystine which can overburden your system. Tryptophan can convert to serotonin, which can be good potentially, probably mostly if it's in your *brain* (but that's even under debate) but most of the serotonin ends up in your gut, and too much can be a not-so-good-thing. Also cystine can be a thyroid antagonist and slow your metabolic rate and lead to other issues. Better "cuts" of meat are probably gelatinous cuts, like stuff you have to slow cook, or BBQ to break down the connective tissues. Those are much less rich in tryptophan and cystine, and still have all the protein goodness. They also have lots of "collagen" which can be really good for you as well.

Good quality organ meats is another option.
And also homemade bone broths.
Another option I use is having prebought gelatin with muscle meat meals, helps give a more rounded profile

**Lights** · Sep 20th, 2012, 10:02 PM

Yes.

Anorexia mindset, I repeat, mindset can help when losing weight. I lost 40 lbs with that mindset, but I took it "off" when I want to be normal. Sounds stupid. I know. I went to anorexic forums to lose weight after all. lol

Fasting is healthy in moderation.

Junk food is healthy in moderation. But not everyday, or even once a week.

Calories in versus Out is all that matters when it comes to weight lost.

**PatrickP** · Sep 20th, 2012, 10:05 PM

Yes but most likely a good amount of what you lost was muscle. Which means your slow metabolism is now slower and continue to decline every time you use that method.

Meaning every time you diet you will need to eat less and less to lose the same 30lbs. At your age your metabolism is currently the fastest it will ever be unless you do things to change your lifestyle.

What this means is as you age it will be next to impossible to lose weight unless the calorie range is in the 500 - 700 range.

**Lights** · Sep 20th, 2012, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by PatrickP

Yes but most likely a good amount of what you lost was muscle. Which means your slow metabolism is now slower and continue to decline every time you use that method.

Meaning every time you diet you will need to eat less and less to lose the same 30lbs. At your age your metabolism is currently the fastest it will ever be unless you do things to change your lifestyle.

What this means is as you age it will be next to impossible to lose weight unless the calorie range is in the 500 - 700 range.

It's not safe for someone who can get addicted to anorexia or stupid people who really get caught up in it.

This was 3 yrs ago. I have no regrets about it. Plus I'm not an anorexic either, so I wasn't starving myself. I fast like 3-5 days then eat like normal for a few days, then repeat until I lost about 40 lbs. As long as you don't get consume about it, and really become "anorexic" then it's ok. It just sounds stupid, but I couldn't lose weight doing normal dieting, still can't. I won't even bother. Dieting sucks. I don't like counting calories. I don't even own a scale, I just check the scale at a friends house or my aunt once a month to get a rough idea. if I am there.

I was at 220 lbs. I stop and went normal at 180. kept it off.

Nowadays I walk every other day, 2 miles here, 10 miles here. I don't keep track. I fast periodically to maintain my weight. I ate a whole pizza two days ago, I fast for two days. My eating pattern reflects my life; either you poop or get off the pot. I can't do anything sensible, eat big or nothing.

I'm around 150 lbs. My body rocks. My health is great (I can withstand 0 degrees weather with ease, or extreme heat). I have muscles. I am at the lowest weight I been since I was like 5th grade. But this was over 3 yrs now, the anorexic lifestyle helps me just to drop 20 lbs, but I am afraid of getting loose skin so I have to eat again. Loose skin is uglier than being fat in my opinion. lol... I think of loose skin as old grannies or old men, and obesity anyone can have

I'm not a doctor or anything, this work for me.

**GThreepwood** · Sep 20th, 2012, 11:09 PM

I do totally think that calories in calories out works. To a point...

It does seem to get progressively harder to do with "repeated use."

That being said, losing weight is a catabolic process.

Catabolic processes are usually very stressful to your body, and can end up doing long term harm.

Ideally, you want to be much more anabolic than catabolic, as catabolic processes are also really involved with aging, loose skin, etc.

Wrinkly loose skin and aging in general is in large part due to your body breaking down (catabolic) and not able to rebuild (anabolic) in the same way as before.

**Lights** · Sep 21st, 2012, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by GThreepwood

I do totally think that calories in calories out works. To a point...

It does seem to get progressively harder to do with "repeated use."

That being said, losing weight is a catabolic process.

Catabolic processes are usually very stressful to your body, and can end up doing long term harm.

Ideally, you want to be much more anabolic than catabolic, as catabolic processes are also really involved with aging, loose skin, etc.

Wrinkly loose skin and aging in general is in large part due to your body breaking down (catabolic) and not able to rebuild (anabolic) in the same way as before.

Have you ever look into CRON-diet. It's where you eat the most healthiest-nutritious food for the calorie amount, you get the most of the calorie in otherwords. It supposedly slows down aging.

I follow this sometimes.

**Felix II** · Sep 21st, 2012, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Lights

Yes.

Anorexia mindset, I repeat, mindset can help when losing weight. I lost 40 lbs with that mindset, but I took it "off" when I want to be normal. Sounds stupid. I know. I went to anorexic forums to lose weight after all. lol

Fasting is healthy in moderation.

Junk food is healthy in moderation. But not everyday, or even once a week.

Calories in versus Out is all that matters when it comes to weight lost.

Meet Staci: Your New Powerlifting Super Hero | Nerd Fitness
Leigh Peele » Blog Archive » Body Fat Pictures and Percentages

**AlasdairM** · Sep 21st, 2012, 08:35 AM

Diet is an extremely complex topic obviously, but I think what's good for one person is not necessarily good for another. We all have different body types.

For example, I used to have wickedly bad knee pain to the point that I could barely walk sometimes after hiking etc. After I stopped eating read meat (which produces uric acid in the joints), I was fine and have never had problems since. That includes some tough hikes as well.

Another example: A friend of mine had dangerously high cholesterol levels for genetic reasons. He decided to go on a more-or-less vegan diet and vigorous daily exercise after doing a bunch of research (wasn't happy with the possibility of having to take statins). He dropped his cholesterol by 50 points to safe levels. And this guy is very fit and extremely strong despite not taking in a lot of protein.

People react differently to food. You have to find what's right for you.

**Cparsons** · Sep 21st, 2012, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by GThreepwood

Now I think almost the exact opposite:

-Sugar is good
-Saturated fat is good
-Fish oil is bad
-Nuts and seeds are bad
-Lean cuts of meat are best in moderation (gelatinous cuts are better.)

Sugar is not "good", but it has a role in a healthy diet - post workout mostly, IMO.
Saturated fat is, indeed, good.
Fish oil itself isn't bad, but much of the cheap stuff out there is.
Nuts and seeds are okay - not particularly bad, but not really good for you either.
Lean meats are fine, if consumed with (naturally) fatty meats. It's the lack of fatty meats that is the problem.

**GThreepwood** · Sep 22nd, 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Lights

Have you ever look into CRON-diet. It's where you eat the most healthiest-nutritious food for the calorie amount, you get the most of the calorie in otherwords. It supposedly slows down aging.

I follow this sometimes.

I'm not personally so convinced that low calories extend lifespan.

What *may* increase life span is eating less "crappy" foods. So if you eat less of the researchers bad "pet food" then you live longer because of that, not because of the reduced calories.

They just did another study that says low calorie diets may not help as much as they thought: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/sc...pagewanted=all

**GThreepwood** · Sep 22nd, 2012, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by AlasdairM

For example, I used to have wickedly bad knee pain to the point that I could barely walk sometimes after hiking etc. After I stopped eating read meat (which produces uric acid in the joints), I was fine and have never had problems since. That includes some tough hikes as well.

Another example: A friend of mine had dangerously high cholesterol levels for genetic reasons. He decided to go on a more-or-less vegan diet and vigorous daily exercise after doing a bunch of research (wasn't happy with the possibility of having to take statins). He dropped his cholesterol by 50 points to safe levels. And this guy is very fit and extremely strong despite not taking in a lot of protein.

People react differently to food. You have to find what's right for you.

I'm glad you're feeling better!

And I hope you continue to feel better.

One thing to at least know about is that although uric acid gets a "Bad Rap" it's actually one of the most important antioxidants in your body. And higher uric acid has been linked to longer life span.

"In humans, over half the antioxidant capacity of blood plasma comes from uric acid." - Wikipidia Uric acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A positive correlation of serum concentrations with lifespan potential among mammalian species implicates uric acid as a longevity determinant." Serum uric acid: Correlation with behavioral, metabolic, age, and lifespan parameters among inbred mice | ResearchGate

Also, careful about lowering your cholesterol too much, high cholesterol may be a symptom of something else going on, but low cholesterol could be much worse. Here's just one example of many that shows lower cholesterol can be linked to higher mortality, especially in people after 50 years old.

A study of elderly women indicated that a cholesterol level of 270 mg. per 100 ml. was associated with the longest longevity. Link to study below, and quote here: "Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l [=270.6 mg%], 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account." Cholesterol as risk factor for mortality in elderly w... [Lancet. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI