[Zombicide]

Haha, seems like you can pretty much look into any subject and find the state practising its tyranny
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
maybe you'll go to jail or else be shot in the face by a SWAT team member for your raw foods.

---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 03:01 PM ----------

Though admittedly it was more about their lacking permits for selling raw foods but the fucking stores whole theme is raw foods, it's even named Rawesome, they don't need no fucking warning label.

[Deliberator]

	Originally Posted by ushop To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You ate too much fat.

That doesn't make any damn sense in context of what he said.

---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 06:50 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's all about proper balance.

This, also doesn't make any damn sense.

---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 06:53 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, how the hell would eating less fat help me gain weight? Going skeletor on 3000+ calories a day? C'mon. Some people just NEED a lot of cooked food. Eating fast food is the only thing that helps.

I think some of us just can't reap enough calories from fiber-rich diets. I know my system absolutely sucks at dealing with fiber, I do much better with just a moderate amount, and with plenty of high fat meat and dairy for energy.

---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 07:03 PM ----------

Originally Posted by jochexum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Basically, proponents believe that cooking food destroys the enzymes naturally present within the food. With no enzymes present in the food, your body (mainly the pancreas) has to produce its own enzymes in order to digest the food and extract nutrients. This is a very energy-intensive process, and why most people feel so sluggish after eating a large, cooked meal. Consistently requiring the body to expend vast amounts of energy to produce enzymes results in much of the body's energy being unavailable to deal with other matters. This results in sickness and disease.

teehee, people really think this stuff is true? Did you realize that it's actually quite normal for the pancreas to secrete lots and lots of enzymes? You also know that the enzymes you eat are mostly destroyed by your stomach acid... also notice you said "after a large, cooked meal". Not, you know, a "small, cooked meal". That's because it's eating too many calories at one time that actually causes the fatigue, not the fact that it's cooked. But it's that last sentence that kills me... somehow in one paragraph you have proven that the root of all human disease is lack of food enzymes. "Deal with other matters", lol.

---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 07:05 PM ----------

Originally Posted by animistoic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You could have ignored all the "good fats bad fats" bullshit and tried the 80/10/10 fruit based strategy before coming to the conclusion that a diet based on uncooked foods is bunk. People are having success with it, look it up. People are having 30 bananas a day. *gasp* There is a potato farmer in Idaho that got sick of all the recent starch hatin' in "health" circles and ate like 20 potatoes a day for some time. He consumed some oils if I remember correctly, but it didn't make the bulk of his calories. Look it up. His health improved and he actually lost some weight (but did not end up very skeletor). The only carbohydrate rich food you mentioned eating while doing it raw was banana. A diet with enough carbohydrate (and water, and minerals) is gonna be your best bet to put on lean muscle. You probably weren't even absorbing many nutrients on the high fat raw food diet. All of those nuts and seeds are trying to survive just like every other plant so it produces defensive toxins... these aren't very good for the gut and, over time, actually use up minerals from the body. These foods need to be processed. Yes, oils are a processed food, but most nut butters aren't processed correctly. You also weren't eating enough fiber. Fiber does wonders for the gut. Some of the stuff that isn't digested does a lot more than just bulk up your stool. It can be fermented into short chain saturated fatty acids that are very pro metabolic. Look it up. Look into dairy, as you can get this from natural butter... that way the cow does it for you. But eating massive amounts of butter or any fat is still not going to be good enough. You need to let your body have enough dietary variety to grow strong and put on weight. The same strategy actually works for dumping excessive bodyfat, interestingly enough. I gotta run so I'll cut this short, but there is no good reason to walk around under 100 lbs if you are consuming over 3000 calories. I agree that some cooked food, especially root vegetables, is where it's at. But don't neglect fresh raw fruits and veggies because you "tried the raw diet" and it didn't work while consuming mostly fat. Get yourself Cron o meter and put in the foods you used to eat... you can see the nutrition gaps.

She doesn't need lean muscle she needs body fat. Brilliant analysis that touched on absolutely nothing sircockburn said. Fiber! THAT's the reason she couldn't keep her weight up!! Like I said, genius.

[jochexum]

Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That doesn't make any damn sense in context of what he said. ---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 06:50 PM ---------- This, also doesn't make any damn sense. ---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 06:53 PM ---------- I think some of us just can't reap enough calories from fiber-rich diets. I know my system absolutely sucks at dealing with fiber, I do much better with just a moderate amount, and with plenty of high fat meat and dairy for energy. ---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 07:03 PM ---------- teehee, people really think this stuff is true? Did you realize that it's actually quite normal for the pancreas to secrete lots and lots of enzymes? You also know that the enzymes you eat are mostly destroyed by your stomach acid... also notice you said "after a large, cooked meal". Not, you know, a "small, cooked meal". That's because it's eating too many calories at one time that actually causes the fatigue, not the fact that it's cooked. But it's that last sentence that kills me... somehow in one paragraph you have proven that the root of all human disease is lack of food enzymes. "Deal with other matters", lol. ---------- Post added 08-05-2011 at 07:05 PM ---------- She doesn't need lean muscle she needs body fat. Brilliant analysis that touched on absolutely nothing sircockburn said. Fiber! THAT's the reason she couldn't keep her weight up!! Like I said, genius.

Ah yes! Just the kind of condescending feedback I was looking for! And you even managed to not provide a single bit of refuting evidence to back up your claims! Bravo indeed!

And thanks for mangling my post in your quote. Ya know, leaving out all the parts where I said "Here's what I read, it makes sense to me but I'm not proclaiming it as the gospel, just looking for constructive feedback."

But yes, lets get to your "facts."

Eating an all-fat diet (seeds and nuts, no less) with no carbs and losing weight makes no sense? Or excuse me. Doesn't make any damn sense. Actually, I believe that's called ketosis. But then again, I'm just an idiot who believes everything I read.

Yes, your stomach acid kills most enzymes as they're digested. That doesn't diminish the suggestion that your pancreas doesn't have to produce those enzymes in the first place, if they're present in the food to begin with.

Did I once say anywhere that I proved anything? Hell, did I even state that anything I was suggesting had been proven? No. But nice try. I said it seemed reasonable and you provided absolutely nothing to refute that suggestion. Excellent reading skills.

What really takes the cake though, is your suggestion for the energy-inducing, high-animal fat with dairy-diet. Why don't you let me know in 20 years how the butter and bacon diet is working out for ya. Until then why don't you find something better to do than crash threads with absolutely no evidence, just a bunch of fallacious arguments that prove nothing except that you're one angry individual who apparently got their heart broken or ass-kicked by someone who ate raw food. Grudge much?

Or hell, if you're going to call us all idiots why don't you at least try backing it up with some studies, research, or facts. Ya know, something that at least vaguely resembles science and an attempt at an adult discussion.

[animistoic]

Oh my my, what do we have here this fine evening... or morning rather.

	Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	She doesn't need lean muscle she needs body fat.

Humor me. Why wouldn't an adult of reasonable height under 100 lbs. find more lean muscle tissue useful? Is it because it would not be aesthetically pleasing to you?

More body fat? No shit. Muscle, fat, water. No one is assuming they're going to just throw on slabs of muscle without some fat and water. There are people who do just want mostly muscle and they have to work at that for years, some inject themselves with hormones, and it's still very difficult. That's not what I recommended. But even at sub 100 pounds, gaining ONLY bodyfat is not healthy weight gain. Eating more calories from a variety of foods leading to gradual weight gain is what's sustainable. Clearly the 90 something percent of caloric intake from lipids plan did not work, as mentioned. I strongly recommend they try something else, while still including raw plant foods like a salad or fresh fruit with their meals.

	Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Brilliant analysis that touched on absolutely nothing sircockburn said.

Why the sarcasm? Did I touch a nerve?

I actually did touch on several things sircockburn said (really? lol), and gave my own input. Most people don't do a raw food diet correctly because there isn't enough information out there on how to follow it properly. The web is flooded with superfood informercials and high fat luxury foods and mushroom supplement gurus. Not that those products are bad and unhealthy, they're probably nutrient rich (and expensive). But you can actually thrive by eating more fruit and leafy green vegetables than you're accustomed to. Like anything, it takes time for your body to adapt to it. After it does though, you can certainly thrive on it, especially if you're not dogmatic allow yourself other foods to meet nutrient needs, cooked or animal foods included. Being 100% raw and vegan is too much more most people I'm assuming.

What do you eat Deliberator?
Do you ever get insomnia?
Which of these foods do you eat on a weekly basis:
Corn, peas, carrots, potatoes, rice, oats, bread(any kind), whole gains(besides brown rice or whole oats), beans, lentils, bananas, yams, mango, melons(any).
?

	Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fiber! THAT's the reason she couldn't keep her weight up!! Like I said, genius.

U mad?

Please reread (or read for the first time as the case may be) my post.

Fiber supports a healthy metabolism, which in turn, supports stable weight (among other things, like staying alive). You have trillions of bacteria in your gut (or should anyway), they like some plant fibers, and you like them. Do the math. There is SO much more but you're not really paying me enough to spell it out for you, so do a little more research and don't assume you have all the answers. It's beyond boring.

Healthy glycogen stores also support life, so does a proper potassium to sodium ratio. Carbohydrate rich foods digested while the body is in a "low" fat state (30% or less from calories, for several days) will generally provide all of those things. Glucose, dietary fiber, and potassium. It's really not rocket science... (just regular science) The stuff just grows that way, it couldn't be easier. People get sidetracked by gurus and certain traditions, some less nourishing than they're made out to be. I'll say it again, it's not what's on the nutritional labels that's important (and raw plant foods don't grow with nutritional labels on them, a corporation adds that for you), it's what your body does with the food.

sircockburn, unless there is some medical condition or a parasite (physical or emotional) present, eating a balanced diet should help with weight gain. Just raise calories across the board, not just on one single macronutrient. That's doing it wrong. While fat is important, and some high fat foods are REALLY nutrient rich, your body needs carbohydrate for more than just fuel. And it can work wonders when trying to put on weight.

Do you eat eggs? Do you like fruit juice? Even if you only have time to make a big breakfast once a week it can be a great step in the right direction for gaining some weight. Pineapple juice is really nice. Avocados and tomatoes with scrambled eggs. Bacon. Get some whole grain flour and make pancakes. Fry up some potatoes. You don't have to miss the fat, just use less and make sure your eating carbs and protein. Try different oils, coconut is popular, ghee is too. Actually, those were always popular until seed oils became profitable. Make a rice dish for lunch. Have apples and bananas around. Eat grapes and raisons. Cut a melon every now and again. Make couscous. Drink fortified OJ (or even better, eat raw oranges). Get some oatmeal. Cream of wheat. Bread. Fruit spread for bread and for yogurt. These are all very good things. We know this because they fuel athletes and people who solve real world problems using abstract reasoning and logic. It's good food, I promise, and it will only help you get where you'd like to go. I know this might seem to be the equivalent of hooking yourself up to an IV of glucose if your coming from a high fat or low carb or a, arrughhh raw ground beef with three pints of cream in it, perspective. (not that beef or cream is bad) It's not going to be like that. And you can't just assume that you will digest a normal carbohydrate and fiber dense meal with perfection after recently eating tons of fat, either raw or from cook fastfood, and not experience digestion discomfort and missing some nutrients along the way. Take it slow and let your body heal, be good to it, and give it the correct nutrition.


I want some breakfast now.... soon... it will be mine soon. I am also a huge fan of gin and tonic right now, but that's not really "healthy" food... speaking of, you mentioned fast food. Hey, if it makes you happy and allows you to maintain weight, I can't really judge you for that. But see what you like and make it yourself once in a while. Make your own burgers and fries.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[mormeguil]

Well the raw diet does not seem detrimental to health (as long as someone doesn't stop taking some important medication, the pills people take after a transplant is a good exemple). I do think it seems overly complicated, but then again I know someone that went on all fruit diet and say she feel full of energy all the time.

So please go ahead and try it, I just don't see how it can be some sort of panacea.

[Deliberator]

Yeehaw, I gotsa sum people mad!


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


OK so y'all wrote waaaay more stuff than I care to sift through bit by bit, so I shall just say this: from the years I spent studying for my B.S. in nutrition, and from which I graduated top of my class, I have learned many things which are from many, many different sources. Shall I go find my Clinical Nutrition and Pathophysiology textbook and source that quote for you so you know I'm not pulling this out of my ass? Sorry, but I'm not going to, that sounds like a lot of work.

Anyway, the biggest logical fallacy I run into with proponents of ANY diet is that "when I switched to X diet suddenly I felt so much better! Therefore, it is this or indeed EVERY aspect of X diet which was responsible for making me feel better!" Clearly this is flawed because if many aspects of the diet changed they couldn't possible know for sure WHICH aspect it was that ultimately made the difference.

jochexum: I apologize that I could not resist making jabs at the ever-superior raw foodist argument; if you are offended because I think it's ridiculous that's too bad, because it wasn't an attack on you in the first place.
My personal (yes, personal) beef with rawness is that there are many very healthy, whole, natural foods I would not be able to eat unless they were cooked, including beets and eggs. Everyone is different, and for thousands of years we homo sapiens have been eating a cooked diet, so mutants like me who can't thrive on a raw diet have been able to survive and reproduce. 20,000 years is certainly enough time to change our dietary tolerances... it only takes one famine to kill off the cavemen who didn't figure out how to cook their food.

animistoic: perhaps one point of contention we have actually lies on the fact that you assume sircockburn ate no carbohydrate with that diet. I didn't assume this, personally. If it's true she didn't then it's possible that a state of ketosis could cause her to lose weight, particularly if she has issue with fat metabolism. Plant sources of fat are also usually fairly fibrous as well (my previous point), so the calorie counts for them aren't accurate since not all of the fat can be digested. But if you've ever read any of her other posts on this forum you would know that she has metabolism issues in general; she eats quite a lot every day and has trouble keeping on weight. Having been a female with a metabolic condition that resulted in muscle wasting and fat loss, I was moved to speak for her in empathy. See, you think you know what her problem is, and you really just don't. In the professional world of nutrition you don't design a meal plan for someone before you even know what a person's diet looks like, or before you've taken their body weight, height, sex, food allergies/intolerances, and medical conditions into account.

You spewed out a lot of other “look-at-me-I-know-shit” nutrition babble but I didn’t read all of it. Maybe later. Note, of course, that I (unlike you with me) never assumed that you don’t know anything about nutrition…

Anyway, this post is already longer than I had intended, so I shall desist for now. I shall continue the very interesting discussion about enzymes in food, fiber's effect on body weight, and dietary saturated fat later on.

[Feral]

Sooo... you've got some sort of nutrition degree, yet a 'balanced diet'... 'doesn't make any damn sense'.

THAT does not make any damn sense.

Also:

I apologize that I could not resist making jabs at the ever-superior raw foodist argument; if you are offended because I think it's ridiculous that's too bad, because it wasn't an attack on you in the first place. My personal (yes, personal) beef with rawness is that there are many very healthy, whole, natural foods I would not be able to eat unless they were cooked, including beets and eggs. Everyone is different, and for thousands of years we homo sapiens have been eating a cooked diet, so mutants like me who can't thrive on a raw diet have been able to survive and reproduce. 20,000 years is certainly enough time to change our dietary tolerances... it only takes one famine to kill off the cavemen who didn't figure out how to cook their food.

So you take condescending jabs at people who are able to live a different lifestyle simply because you aren't capable of doing so? That also doesn't make any damn sense.

Obviously, some people can do it just fine.
Obviously, some people cannot.

[sircockburn]

Whoa! I need to get to bed, but I'll read the details more closely tomorrow, and reply in more depth.

As for my diet, it definitely wasn't all-fat. I always saw carbs as very necessary. Ate plenty of sweet fruits (bananas, mangos, pineapple, etc), plenty of sprouted bread, and a TON of Larabars! Lots and lots of carbs. And protein - from nuts, seeds, flax, etc. Raisins, dates, cherries, etc.

And no, no parasites (I got tested, lol), no thyroid problems, or any other health issues (except heartburn, arrrgh). After long persistence at a "normal" (cooked/processed/fast food) diet, I'm stable and back at my high weight - 5'11 and 117 lbs.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 08-08-2011 at 01:06 AM ----------

Wait...did someone just say emotional parasite??
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Deliberator]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sooo... you've got some sort of nutrition degree, yet a 'balanced diet'... 'doesn't make any damn sense'. THAT does not make any damn sense.

The concept you don't seem to grasp is that when a person has a particular problem then saying "it's all about proper balance" doesn't help at all because what is "proper balance" for one person may be completely extreme for another.

Say you've got a person who says "I don't like eating dairy products because it makes me ill". You don't respond by saying "oh well it's just because you're eating too much fat, it's all about proper balance". No, the likelihood is that the person is lactose intolerant, hence the response is an inappropriate one... in other words, I'm saying that your analysis of the problem and the proposed solution made no sense in light of what her initial problem was. Got it?

I still can't believe you recommended salad and fruit to combat underweight. Really now? I wouldn't pay you for nutrition counseling. Do you really get money for it or were you just being haughty?

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you take condescending jabs at people who are able to live a different lifestyle simply because you aren't capable of doing so? That also doesn't make any damn sense. Obviously, some people can do it just fine. Obviously, some people cannot.

It isn't because I'm not capable of it that I take jabs at the flawed argument for raw foodism. I take jabs at the argument because the argument is such a poor one.

Hence why I pointed out that my personal beef with raw foodism was indeed just a personal one.

Now that I have perhaps established context for my admittedly obnoxious snobbiness, here are few points that add doubt to the raw foodist claims:
- There is no evidence to suggest that enzymes in food substantially lighten the workload of the pancreas.
- There is no evidence to suggest that the workload of the normally functioning pancreas within the context of a normal diet affects health to any significant extent
- Cooking plant foods increases bioavailability of minerals in food by neutralizing phytic and oxalic acids
- Cooking plant foods increases bioavailability of many nutrients, including protein, by breaking down the fibers that would otherwise remain encased around the nutrients

There is plenty of research to suggest that cooking can cause other problems such as lipid oxidation and production of mutagens, loss of nutrients, etc, but all the research I've seen seemed to involve very high cooking temperatures. I think it very unlikely that gentle cooking does anything except increase the nutritional quality of the food in question.