It's easiest if you include lean animal products in your diet, but you could do it on a veg*n diet by relying on fat-free soy products.

Jay

Who said anything about God? I'm just saddened that my fellow climbers have so much faith in a theory that has been virtually disproved by the physics and mathematical scientific community.

Beans have protein, you can have fat-free as well.

I do think there is some quality fish if its wild and from an area like Alaska or Canada.
I going back to eating fish, the problem is alot of places have farm raised in California, and I like sashimi. Or they have fish from Vietnam.
In the east coast the fish was better quality. I don't understand why California can't get wild fish from Hawaii.

I don't like tofu much and recently I've heard a study where there's a correlation between too much soy and breast cancer.
Furthermore, I was totally exhausted from riding a bike for a couple of hours yesterday.
Generally I have more endurance and recovery the next day.
I just don't think I'm getting enough protein.
Of course that's not vegetarian.
Its alot healthier than meat, with hormones, antibotics, and aren't there studies that show a correlation between cancer and eating meat?
I feel bad for cows and birds, somehow I don't think fish feel pain.

The eggs I'm still on the fence about. They seem to have alot problems with freshness and people getting sick from salomenella.

Any helpful information regarding these topics are appreciated . thanks

oh yur jus jellus that we got hueco...

On the veagn athelete front, some great info can be found in Brendan Brazier's "The Thrive Diet". He's a professional ironman triathelete who is also vegan. I'd wager to say that he is fitter than the vast majority of people here.

Probably:



Must be pretty galling to feel the (perhaps silent) reproach of your own child at every meal, and then, on turning to your sanctum, your place of greenness, be confronted with more of the same.

We should just do a straight up trade with Mexico - Texas for Baja.

I'm not going to inflict anything like a horde of overweight, ignorant, repressive texans on poor mexico...

You know a thread belongs in community when dr_feelgood and Toast are main contributors.

Josh

Hueco is not in Texas. Try to keep up, please.

You know a thread belongs in community when dr_feelgood and Toast are main contributors.

Josh

Its alot healthier than meat, with hormones, antibotics, and aren't there studies that show a correlation between cancer and eating meat?

The eggs I'm still on the fence about. They seem to have alot problems with freshness and people getting sick from salomenella.

This is still an open question. Studies, have shown conflicting results, and many of the studies had weak designs. There seems to be a weak relation between red meat and colorectal cancer, and a somewhat stronger correlation specifically for processed red meats.

There is a new very large well-designed study with nearly 100,000 subjects, including a large number of vegetarians, which should help clarify the situation when it begins reporting results in the next few years.


If you thoroughly cook eggs and wash your hands after handling raw eggs, you won't get salmonella from them.

Jay

I've been wanting to ask you about your opinion on the Cordain style Paleo diet which boils down to no grains, no legumes and no dairy.

Seems like some solid science behind it which calls into question the bean based diet that is necessary for veg*ns. How large is the anti-nutrient effect of beans?

There is generally no science behind any diet that starts with a capital letter

That's funny. Your post is number 186. Prior to it, I posted three times. A bit of really simple math shows that I contributed less than 2% of the total amount of posts. I think Tiff has more posts on several pages than I did prior to this one.

Just because I get bored by the redundant threads in the general forums does not make me a harbinger of thread movement.

I can't assess the diet because just telling me what's not in it isn't enough. I'd have to know at least semi-quantitatively what the composition of the diet is. My guess, though, is that it would be too high in red meat to be taken seriously, given the body of literature of the effect of saturated fat on heart disease risk, and, with no dairy, way too low in calcium. The diet sounds like a recipe for osteoporosis.

I don't see any reason that the average person should not eat whole grains, legumes, and low-fat dairy products. Objects to these foods are largely made up.


There is generally no science behind any diet that starts with a capital letter, and the Paleo diet is no exception. Assuming your conclusion, and then cherry picking the literature for studies that superficially seem to support it is not doing science. There is no support for the existence of a nutritionally significant antinutrient effect of legumes, to the best of my knowledge.

What proportion of Paleo dieters are women, I wonder. I only hear guys talk about it. I wonder to what extent it's just an excuse to go hunting.

Jay

I assumed you would have known about it. If you do want to read the summary it's here:
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century

The diet is generally something around 20:50:30 carbs:fat:protein by energy based on evolutionary and anthropological arguments assuming that the Paleolithic man ate a diet appropriate to our bodies. Saturated fat accounts for about 25% of the total calories. It's basically a low carb diet. Vegetables and fruit are also emphasized and make up the bulk of the volume eaten even though they don't contribute much to the total energy. A lot of Paleo diet people miss this point.

There have been a number of studies that have shown huge improvements in a broad range of health indicators by going to this diet. Dietary saturated fat is definitely correlated with heart disease and certainly a part of the equation but saturated fat alone is not a direct cause of heart disease AFAIK.

As for calcium, the claim is that eating enough fruit and veggies is sufficient for maintaining the proper balance.

My feeling is that it forces people to eliminate grains and sugars from their diet which cause a lot of problems in excess and the general population seems incapable of controlling the intake of these. It also appears that the gluten sensitivity is more widespread than originally thought. Similarly a lot of people are sensitive to dairy depending on their ancestry so cutting that out makes sense for those individuals. I'm not really sold on the legume argument, as I said.

I tried the diet and didn't like it so I'm back to eating grains, dairy and legumes but in lower quantities. More of a compromise that strict adherence which I think is excessive not to mention boring.

Like I said, I figured you would have had a cursory look at it before and could give a quick answer. No need to waste time on the question.

I assumed you would have known about it. If you do want to read the summary it's here:
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century

The diet is generally something around 20:50:30 carbs:fat:protein by energy based on evolutionary and anthropological arguments assuming that the Paleolithic man ate a diet appropriate to our bodies. Saturated fat accounts for about 25% of the total calories. It's basically a low carb diet. Vegetables and fruit are also emphasized and make up the bulk of the volume eaten even though they don't contribute much to the total energy. A lot of Paleo diet people miss this point.

There have been a number of studies that have shown huge improvements in a broad range of health indicators by going to this diet. Dietary saturated fat is definitely correlated with heart disease and certainly a part of the equation but saturated fat alone is not a direct cause of heart disease AFAIK.

As for calcium, the claim is that eating enough fruit and veggies is sufficient for maintaining the proper balance.

My feeling is that it forces people to eliminate grains and sugars from their diet which cause a lot of problems in excess and the general population seems incapable of controlling the intake of these. It also appears that the gluten sensitivity is more widespread than originally thought. Similarly a lot of people are sensitive to dairy depending on their ancestry so cutting that out makes sense for those individuals. I'm not really sold on the legume argument, as I said.

I tried the diet and didn't like it so I'm back to eating grains, dairy and legumes but in lower quantities. More of a compromise that strict adherence which I think is excessive not to mention boring.

Like I said, I figured you would have had a cursory look at it before and could give a quick answer. No need to waste time on the question.

Some science in the historic diet: http://www.nature.com/...l/news.2010.549.html

Pssst... Paul... It's just outside of El Paso.

I know there are other circumstances involved, other than that of diet, but they didn't live very long back then... In fact, we live longer now than we ever did.

There are people on this planet who still eat a more hunter-gatherer type diet, comparable to that of prehistoric times, so I would be curious as to their longevity, especially the ones who do have some access to medical care.