Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Exercise / Bodybuilding => Topic started by: Josh on April 09, 2011, 03:48:10 am
-
Is glycogen stored in skeletal muscles on a zero carb diet?
I'm thinking about the potential to produce short bursts of energy.
According to 'body by science' FWIW this can be accomplished by glycogen in skeletal muscles instantly converting to glucose for energy.
Some zero carbers report diminished ability to sprint etc.
Thoughts?
I am finding carbs get on my nerves and enjoying zero. However, short bursts important to martial arts etc. which I do.
-
i've not had any problems with my energy in any way, including sprints. my endurance comes and goes depending on how much i've been training, just like in college days.
i am not a world-class athlete by any means, but i did qualify for olympic trials for a few consecutive years, so i know what i'm capable of and i'd notice if i couldn't sprint.
-
Yes, I am zero carb as well, sometimes maybe eating fruit a few times per week at most, many weeks I dont consume any carbs. I have found that as long as I eat enough, I will not have diminished energy, and even if I dont eat enough, as long as I sleep enough I will be fine. Sprints are faster than ever with me. Glycogen can be stored via gluconeogenesis, why doesnt anybody know this. 57% of the amino acids you eat have the ability to convert to glucose and be stored as glycogen. The body doesnt let you control it. The body does not play games. If you are ketogenic (zero or low carb) and if your workout regimen requires your body to have more glycogen, your body will either make it from the protein you supply it with through eating, or the protein from your own muscles by breaking your muscles down and converting it to glucose. It is imperative that enough protein is eaten if you are zero carb as the amount of protein you may think you are getting, you really are not.
-
if you are an athlete eat your carbs along with proteins and fats you need it.
However if you have health problems then its a problem because you cant go that dip into athletics to a level where you need some carbs.
soaked oatmeal is good choice with raw honey if you can mix it with raw milk its even better!!
Imagine soaked oats with honey blueberies raw milk and raw cheese for breakfast
for launch you can eat avocados and eggs maybe some cooked chiken
for dinner meattt and fat
this is a diet that will work great for professional athlets who need carbs and maintain good health that I promise!!
-
Sounds great Achileziz! Ill get right on that Grains, Dairy and Sugar breakfast! That sounds like an absolutely fantastic way to start the mornings!
but wait!
Some cooked chicken for lunch? FANTASTIC! mabye all those stomach cramps will be making me pump my legs faster during sprints!
How many weeks do i have to eat desert for breakfast before i start to notice my althaleticism gaining in leaps and bounds?!
-
Whether or not carbs are good on paper...zero carb is working out for me at the moment, so that's all I can go on.
Thanks Pioneer. Do you have a link about muscle glycogen and gluconeogenesis by any chance? I am aware of this process, but thought it was only used occasionally by the body.
Ioanna interesting to hear about your athletics. I'll stick with it for now and see what happens.
-
soaked oatmeal is good choice with raw honey if you can mix it with raw milk its even better!!
Imagine soaked oats with honey blueberies raw milk and raw cheese for breakfast
for launch you can eat avocados and eggs maybe some cooked chiken
for dinner meattt and fat
this combination would make me totally unable to do anything after breakfast...honestly i think a lot of us stray away from these foods and combinations because they do not work for our bodies or lives...each person is an individual and i think the focus is not on finding a universal diet, feeling our health and listening to our bodies and finding what works best for each individual. rpd's seem to get lost in a lot of science and dont take into account their own bodies signals...which is hard if your health has been damaged by poor diet/habit in the past but something that is worth patiences and cultivation so that each time you eat you do not have to consult a manual
-
Sounds great Achileziz! Ill get right on that Grains, Dairy and Sugar breakfast! That sounds like an absolutely fantastic way to start the mornings!
but wait!
Some cooked chicken for lunch? FANTASTIC! mabye all those stomach cramps will be making me pump my legs faster during sprints!
How many weeks do i have to eat desert for breakfast before i start to notice my althaleticism gaining in leaps and bounds?!
LOL
Man real soaked oats are good... raw honey is not sugar it improves digestion and raw milk is a miracle for some..
-
try eating carbs only before and after workout - that's what i would do if i was more disciplined about my diet.
if your glycogen stores are already full any additional carbs are just going to go into getting fat and diabetic, but if your glycogen stores are empty you are catabolizing muscle, ESPECIALLY if they are empty while you are exercising.
so i say load up with glycogen before a workout, and then replenish it after a workout. stay low carb the rest of the time - especially before bed.
-
raw honey is not sugar
honey may have similar macronutrient profile as sugar but it isn't some chemically bathed bleached industrial chemical. if the taste of honey isn't going to interfere with the recipe i would definitely go with honey over sugar.
i use four things for sweetening right now:
1 - honey
2 - dates
3 - raisins
4 - agave nectar
of course you have to blend dates and raisins - they're not just going to dissolve on their own :)
-
stay low carb the rest of the time - especially before bed.
Carbs before bed can help you with serotonin production and improve your sleep!!
But we are all different go figure -\
-
Carbs before bed can help you with serotonin production and improve your sleep!!
Also you must eat a big meal before you start your day or you can not function, animal fats are bad, whole grains and vegetable oils are heart healthy, you should take medication for any ailment, sanitising everything with Detol will make your children healthy, cooking all your meat thoroughly is important to prevent you dying, chicken is healthier than sheep, you must be digesting food constantly or you will have no energy and waste away, fluoride in water is good for your teeth, etc..
-
Carbs before bed can help you with serotonin production and improve your sleep!!
But we are all different go figure -\
The reason why it increases seretonin temporarily is because it is a quick stimulant that makes you feel good. Same as nicotine or cocaine as well, but that does not mean nicotine or cocaine would help you sleep now would it?
-
Well carbs can make you feel fine if you eat a carb based diet to be honest, but you have to decide if you want/believe in the long term health problems from eating a lot.
And if you're raw paleo, do carbs work out for digestion etc.
-
Also you must eat a big meal before you start your day or you can not function, animal fats are bad, whole grains and vegetable oils are heart healthy, you should take medication for any ailment, sanitising everything with Detol will make your children healthy, cooking all your meat thoroughly is important to prevent you dying, chicken is healthier than sheep, you must be digesting food constantly or you will have no energy and waste away, fluoride in water is good for your teeth, etc..
I never claimed that kind of bullshit..
I said a fruit before bed can make you feel good...
In my case its an egg yolk and a banana.
-
Well carbs can make you feel fine if you eat a carb based diet to be honest, but you have to decide if you want/believe in the long term health problems from eating a lot.
And if you're raw paleo, do carbs work out for digestion etc.
Sorry but for the most part, you are wrong. Many people like me are basically carbohydrate intolerant. Saying that "we" can feel fine on a carb based diet is a blanket statement. A great way to easily disprove this is looking at the American diet for the past 30 years. As the carbohydrate % keeps raising, Americans keep getting sicker and sicker. Most people I talk to about their diets know that carbs make them very sleepy after consumption, and often very bloated, but of course if varies with grains, fruit, and vegetables. Most of the diseases of now manifest from an over consumption of carbohydrates. Diabetes, obesity, low testosterone, earlier andropause and menopause, irritable bowel, inflammation, even cancer. Granted, there are carbs that are ok to eat in quantity for SOME like fruit, and there are bad carbs to eat like grains for all.
Whether you are raw paleo or not, it does not make a difference in whether you will digest certain food better or worse. All we can digest well is what our human physiology permits by our ancestry and human evolution/epigenetics. Eating a raw paleo diet will not help us digest grains better. Going even further than that, for many, giving up eating many carbs can be very beneficial for those with yeasts and parasitical manifestations in their bodies. With nothing to feed off of, they cant survive.
-
I said it 'can' make you feel fine. So not a blanket statement, as 'can' means it is possible.
I also mentioned long term health problems. They may come sooner as in your case or later.
I was prescribed to eat 1/4 protein, 1/4 veggies and 1/2 starchy carbs on each plate by a nutritionist, and while eating that I've never felt better. So no, I'm not wrong that it 'can' make you feel great.
I don't do it because I don't believe it will be good in the long run.
-
The carbophopia some of you have is pretty hilarious.
@pioneer- What are the symptoms of carb intolerance and have you ever contemplated it's you and not the carbs that is the problem?
Every hunter gatherer society has always eaten carbs, even the inuit (which are an extreme example) ate some carbs. For the people who think carbs are evol where are these magical zero carb HGs? HG's typically eat the liver fresh after a hunt, liver is the richest animal source of carbs as far as I know.
If you feel you have explosive strength on zero carb that's fine but if you feel lacking don't be afraid of carbs. I personally don't get why you would want to put extra stress on your body to convert protien and lactate versus just eating some carbs which happen to provide nutrients lacking in a pure carnivore diet.
Just my 2 cents.
-
A great way to easily disprove this is looking at the American diet for the past 30 years. As the carbohydrate % keeps raising, Americans keep getting sicker and sicker.
Detailed dietary assessments have been conducted in the UK since the turn of the century. Carbohydrate intake represented over 60% energy in the 1920's, and apart from a plateau and even a rise, due to rationing during and after the Second World War, carbohydrate intake continued to decrease in the UK, reaching a low of 45-46% energy in the 1950's, 60's and 70's (21,22). With interest in dietary fibre in the 1970's and more recently a renewed interest in starch, intakes of carbohydrate in the UK in the late 1980's, early 1990's have risen to about 48% energy (21,22)
Carbohydrate consumption has decreased but refined carbohydrate consumption has increased i.e. Carbs that actually have nutrition have been replaced with nutritionally devoid products.
Another interesting trend is that Grain consumption has increased since 1960 but has never reached the amount that was eaten in the early 1900s. THe grain of choice was white flour at that time yet no obesity epidemic.
Carbs don't cause problems its the refined seed oils and combinations they are put in that cause problems.
-
Ah, my brother is now also on an "evil carbs" warpath. Silly, really. It's refined carbs that are the real problem, in most cases, not unprocessed carbs.
-
Ah, my brother is now also on an "evil carbs" warpath. Silly, really. It's refined carbs that are the real problem, in most cases, not unprocessed carbs.
you won't become diabetic by eating tree bark that's for sure.
-
Ah, my brother is now also on an "evil carbs" warpath. Silly, really. It's refined carbs that are the real problem, in most cases, not unprocessed carbs.
True, but you are on a fairly low carb diet, no, compared to what standard eaters consume?
-
True, but you are on a fairly low carb diet, no, compared to what standard eaters consume?
Only due to personal taste and convenience, really. I tend to overeat far too much if I eat mostly raw fruit and raw veg, which is a waste of money, plus if I eat mostly raw meats/organ-meats, I feel sated much earlier and don't need to eat throughout the day, which saves time. That said, I have had times when I was forced to eat only raw plant foods when raw animal foods were unavailable for up to a fortnight, and that did me no harm. I would not view raw plant food as useful for actually rebuilding my body re health, but, for keeping my body at the same level of health without deterioration, they are fine(assuming I don't do something stupid like eat 100 percent raw vegan for several months plus, at a time).
-
Detailed dietary assessments have been conducted in the UK since the turn of the century. Carbohydrate intake represented over 60% energy in the 1920's, and apart from a plateau and even a rise, due to rationing during and after the Second World War, carbohydrate intake continued to decrease in the UK, reaching a low of 45-46% energy in the 1950's, 60's and 70's (21,22). With interest in dietary fibre in the 1970's and more recently a renewed interest in starch, intakes of carbohydrate in the UK in the late 1980's, early 1990's have risen to about 48% energy (21,22)
Carbohydrate consumption has decreased but refined carbohydrate consumption has increased i.e. Carbs that actually have nutrition have been replaced with nutritionally devoid products.
Another interesting trend is that Grain consumption has increased since 1960 but has never reached the amount that was eaten in the early 1900s. THe grain of choice was white flour at that time yet no obesity epidemic.
Carbs don't cause problems its the refined seed oils and combinations they are put in that cause problems.
We also can't forget the much higher fructose consumption. Fructose syrup is found in pretty much everything nowadays.
-
We are talking about natural carbs like REAL soaked oats..
The only problem with oats is the phytic acid, soaking in mild acid enviorement will deal with the phytic acid....
Real oats dont contain gluten its only the ones that come from factories because of contamination ...
now wtf is wrong with soaked oats?
-
Sounds great Achileziz! Ill get right on that Grains, Dairy and Sugar breakfast! That sounds like an absolutely fantastic way to start the mornings!
but wait!
Some cooked chicken for lunch? FANTASTIC! mabye all those stomach cramps will be making me pump my legs faster during sprints!
How many weeks do i have to eat desert for breakfast before i start to notice my althaleticism gaining in leaps and bounds?!
I just explained the thing with oats...
But hey honey and milk? in raw form those are miracle foods man...
-
now wtf is wrong with soaked oats?
why would anybody want to eat oats ?
honey and milk? in raw form those are miracle foods man...
you seem to be stuck in the traditional Russian diet way of thinking. you probably also eat 3 meals a day starting with soup. you're like my parents. all my father eats is oats, honey and "sgushenka"
-
no lol I have 2 workouts a day I need carbs fuck sgoushonka
-
Oats are a horrible food, loaded with PUFAs and not raw(I assume you eat the rolled oats? which are steamed). If your gonna eat cooked carbs Underground storage organs are by far the best option.
FYI soaking oats doesn't do anything, especially if you using rolled oats as oats are very low in the Phytase enzyme.
-
no lol I have 2 workouts a day I need carbs fuck sgoushonka
to be honest i find it hard to think of any good raw source of starch ( glucose polymers ) other than bananas. if anybody has any ideas i would be interested too.
-
well, there seems to be a little more than 'carb-phobia' to this concept
there are some actual prejudices against the components of plant carbs (fructose, fermentation of fresh fruit, in-adaptability to grains or whathaveyou) then you have the basic macro-nutrient concerns.
These would not only include criticism of high carb diets (regardless of source) but more importantly for many people this would mean not efficiently breaking down fats (and proteins to a lesser degree) as fuel, making a diet that depends on the nutrition and raw materials of large quantities of animal based foods to be fairly inefficient for even basic energy concerns - nevermind serious performance.
If one is not limiting carbs to whatever magic number is agreed upon 0g, 30g, 100 g etc..then essentially no matter what the makeup of the diet, the way their body processes energy is akin to a SWD diet or veg diet or any other diet. Being low in carbs at that point would then be providing not only a lesser amount of energy for physical activity but would result in the same kind of uncomfortable symptoms of a SWD (and quicker) when these stores are depleted. The advantage then of eating very little or any plant carbs would then be the eventual efficient conversion of the fats they consume (minus carbohydrates) as usable energy. Theres plenty of other arguments re blood sugar and other things but essentially after carb intolerance or whatever this seems to be the major reason for limiting carbs.
the actual science and practice will show that carbs are the only non-essential macro-nutrient, while its impossible with whole food to construct a diet that contains no protein or fat.
now this doesn't account too well for some of the possible issues of micro nutrient deficiency, absorption of high meat/fat diets, or practicality of long term practice for modern humans that might have damaged organs and glands and so forth or poor quality meat..nor does it account for the fact that carbs (specific kinds) seem to provide the mechanism for manipulating circumstances in the body, allowing it to perform and grow to degrees it probably would not eating just meat and fat in nature with whatever seasonal carbs might be available.
---
unless I switched my diet radically, I probably wouldn't eat oats myself, but this idea that you are going to replace oats with raw foods and have skyrocketing performance or even health is just incorrect. Theres massive amounts of research in raw food camps to paleo nutrition into what types of foods are damaging to the body or better at providing the right kinds of components for muscle gain. Even in the raw camps from all the long term raw vegan practitioners to Primal Diet to cooked paleo/primal camps will agree that even processed starches can be less damaging than fresh fruits. Also worth noting is clearly when you look at anyone in the athletic fields they are not even remotely engaged in some of the suggested practices as far as their optimal performance. You could inject whatever 100% raw person you like with steroids and HGH and I can pretty much guarantee if they are eating just within the categories of fruits and meats that they will not ever grow to the size of a competitive bodybuilder..perhaps not even an "all natural" bodybuilder who knows all the other tricks of such manipulations.
Basically this idea that one is going to avoid 'toxic' food and both their performance and health will increase is just as wrong. If the body doesn't have the right components to actually detoxify and build new materials...and is constantly engaged in the same kinds of insulin type reactions as people on SWD diet then its just as possible that all these raw materials are just stirring around old wastes in the body and not helping the situation any more than a bunch of oats. In fact eating as bunch of dense crappy food seems to keep the majority of the population at a pretty even homeostasis where they can build muscle and things quite well albeit probably at some long term expense.
-
whatever seasonal carbs might be available.
Carbs are always available in the tropics and even most temperate climates and they can be stored for prolonged periods. I.E. underground ground storage organs and certain fruits like baobab
long term raw vegan practitioners to Primal Diet to cooked paleo/primal camps will agree that even processed starches can be less damaging than fresh fruits.
Who says this and what is it based on? Are they claiming white flour is better then fruit because it has no simple sugars??
Basically this idea that one is going to avoid 'toxic' food and both their performance and health will increase is just as wrong.
Carbs aren't toxic... -d
-
Who says this and what is it based on? Are they claiming white flour is better then fruit because it has no simple sugars??
It isn't a 1:1 thing as in eating ONE piece of fruit vs 1 ounce of bread but how how foods over time effect the body and how much. As for individuals..pretty much everyone who has ever wrote on nutrition or performance including the the entire low fat movement except Natural Hygienists. Aajonus, Kurt Harris, Mark Sisson, Gabriel Cousens, Brian Clement, Fred Bisci, all the ZC 'gurus', conventional medicine, a large section of athletes and strength trainers etc...will agree in the very least that this is a relative issue based on how much of each you were speaking of. For the more scientific and study minded in the raw community who analyze how the body is effected by raw food/cleansing etc...its based on how certain foods effect the bodies internal terrain through various research and blood tests and peoples actual results when not thriving on such diets....even as opposed to other diets (even other vegan diets sharing similar deficiencies) high in processed food and grain foods.
Carbs aren't toxic... -d
never said they were. I implied those who pursue the ideas of avoiding toxic foods without considering of how to actually remove toxins from the body will remain perpetually confused as to why many people can live long healthy lives free of most of this 'knowledge' not to mention totally burn them on athletic performance.
it really matters little if carbs are 'toxic', only if there are advantages for restricting them. If people don't care about those/don't believe in those, threres certainly plenty of carb options for people that live in today's world..whether they live in the tropics or not. Personally I think vegetables and fruits are fairly free of 'toxins' other than whatever environmental factors of which they are grown, the contemporary (non caveman/islander) body just seems to have alot going on that doesn't always seem to benefit from such foods in the way we think.
anyway, this is a performance thread
for something diametrically opposite to what I just said above
here is probably the ideal if one was to eat without discrimination to carbs and wanting their best results. yes it is this complicated :)
"In an ideal situation, I’d like to place approximately 80% of the day’s total calorie intake in the post workout window. As a consequence, the pre-workout meal is often the “fast breaker” on workout days. For the pre-workout meal I usually recommend a meal consisting of an equal carb/protein ratio – for example, 50-60 g carbs, 40-50 g protein and some fat for taste (about 500 kcal total). The goal of this meal is to provide satisfaction, provide enough carbs to fuel the workout, and maximize protein synthesis for the workout (another reason for the high protein intake is to induce satiety).
One of my typical pre-workout meals may consist of 8 oz lean meat with veggies or potatoes and a large apple. A bit of fructose might mediate the effect of the post-workout feeding, since liver glycogen is beneficial to hormones involved in anabolism, therefore the fruit. Keep in mind that the pre-workout meal is dependent on training volume, but I’ve found that these general guidelines work for most people doing moderate volume resistance training (about 10-15 sets of 6-10 reps, per workout, in total). Athletes and others, subjecting themselves to a greater training load than the average weight trainer, require different pre-workout guidelines.
The post workout meal is, ideally, a high carb, moderate protein and low fat feeding. This is what I have found most beneficial in terms of maximizing growth, recovery and limiting whatever extra fat might get stored during hyper caloric conditions. The absolute majority of carbs should be starch based, since we want carbs that gets stored as muscle glycogen primarily, but as noted before, some fructose might also be beneficial to allow for muscle growth processes to occur. The post workout meal should be the largest of the day and you may split your remaining calorie intake as you see fit. I usually have two substantial meals post-workout; one directly following the workout and another one an hour before going to bed."
Martin Berkhan
http://hbfser.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-exercises-that-count-what-the-top-minds-say/
-
Aajonus, Kurt Harris, Mark Sisson, Gabriel Cousens, Brian Clement, Fred Bisci, all the ZC 'gurus', conventional medicine, a large section of athletes and strength trainers etc
All these people eat fruit though and none eat processed carbs. There is no scientific evidence or real life evidence that processed carbs>fruit. Robert Lustig the authority on fructose thinks there is nothing wrong with eating very large quantities of fruit. Unless your a total fructose phobe I don't get how anyone could ever claim that processed carbs are better then fruit. I guarantee you that if 811ers did processed carbs instead of fruit they would be majorly fcked.
-
All these people eat fruit though and none eat processed carbs. There is no scientific evidence or real life evidence that processed carbs>fruit. Robert Lustig the authority on fructose thinks there is nothing wrong with eating very large quantities of fruit. Unless your a total fructose phobe I don't get how anyone could ever claim that processed carbs are better then fruit. I guarantee you that if 811ers did processed carbs instead of fruit they would be majorly fcked.
Quite correct. Most RVAFers find that eating raw fruits is far healthier than eating processed carbs.
As for Aajonus, he used to recommend a little cooked starch to slow down detoxing, but doesn't any more.
-
heh... well I can tell you for sure that many of these people eat some processed carbs including the only people that generally disagree that there are any problems with eating modern fruits or claim to eat all or mostly fruit.
To me there is nothing wrong with eating fruit. I believe there is something wrong with the idea that just because it can be guessed that our ancestors ate something that this food is AUTOMATICALLY appropriate for all contemporary peoples in all circumstances. I particularly think that when we are talking about performance..which is essentially an issue of manipulation of materials weighed against risk. Also on top of that...with the original foods of our ancestors and how they might have eaten one has to account for the qualities and types of things available today and labeling them as being 'natural foods'.
Interesting enough I have lived in the tropics and grown fruit in one of the highly most dense fruit growing areas with a variety of artificially abundant growing and even jumping into other peoples property there is many times in the year where there is not enough fruit in season for 1 person..never-mind 100s of people that are non-nomadic.
Fructose is really a small piece of the puzzle. I have met a large portions of long term soy eating processed food eating vegans and i'd say few of these people are as ill as many high fruit eaters I have met. At that point it has little to do with carbs or no carbs..but exactly what all the raw figureheads above will tell you which is that these raw foods can feed all kinds of internal problems and incite issues that traditional carb based diets do not even when they also see those as bad. Some of these raw leaders might not eat white flour but they do eat grain based foods. Aajonus seems to have been big on white flour at least in the past and I have read some cooked paleo teachings that considers white rice superior to brown etc (of course both being 'bad')..
anyway, I don't really care who or what science acknowledges this. I think the health people actually exhibit or not speaks a lot to these things.
but yeah I think in general it would benefit a lot of people to try to figure out why and what results people get from doing things..rather than try to debunk them through some kind of 'understanding' of what may or may not happened millions of years ago.
like for me, I'm not so convinced about liver cleanses and that sort of thing, but I have the mindset where if someone could document what they did and show me images of the stones and medical sign off as to being actual thing from their liver..i'm not exactly going to go around saying theres no epson salt trees in nature of where they would extract enough olive oil to do such a thing.
so yeah to me I am more interested in the advantages or risks involved in eating very low or no carb diets and not so much whether the rationalizations behind these things have to do with certain possible myths around fructose or processed/nonprocessed kind of stuff.
-
No, Aajonus only recommended a little cooked starch, solely in order to slow down detox, hardly a sign that he thought it was a health-food l) . He did NOT recommend it as a staple, and has since discontinued this advice, for obvious reasons re health.
Personally, I would rather take GS's word for it re the sheer abundancy of fruit in tropical areas. Most people foolishly assume that, despite the fact that the vast majority of the world's surface is now highly "managed" by humans, that the wild areas of modern times are somehow reminiscent of what they were like in palaeolithic times, which is , of course, laughable.
-
actually the above is not true in that he still prescribes some cooked starch to certain individuals as with the nut-formulas and similar things and this is as a type of detox and not to slow down detox.
also worth noting is Aajonus has not wavered from recommending a single fruit a day on average (expect for certain circumstances) in like 30-40 years.
all the other people mentioned that are in the raw community have 40+ years experience as practitioners seeing 10,000s of raw foodists some with records of 100,000s of people on various diets in regards to blood work. Robert Young having the most recorded data saying he has never seen healthy blood of a higher fruit eater and that its basically mutated and diseased. I've had physical conversations with other people in the movement for decades who say the same things. You cannot continue denying these statistics without actually doing the research and contacting these people and hearing what they have to say.
You have never met a single one of these so called rvafers or attribute any sensible assessment any sensible person would believe as to what is healthy and what is not..relying entirely on adherence to a raw diet as a sign of 'success' in how toxic a person is. The very fact you accept massive amounts of 'evidence' you have read or heard off the internet merely from other individuals say so is actually what is unacceptable. All of these people I mentioned including AV see tons of people and make the concluions that they make. One doesn't have to agree with them but to say that some unknown people who aren't presenting their actual statistics or evidence debunk their notions is ridiculous.
GS buys food at markets. there isn't sustainable wild uncultivated food anywhere for even the smallest populations. I bet there is not a single RAW vegetation farm in the Philippines with is entirely self sustainable for even just the people that run it. Any speculation of the past is just speculation. If there is a dearth in fruit production when there is acre after acre of diversified tropical fruit plants then I suspect even in the most wild humid areas that there would be periods with no fruit and the body would be forced to go into some horrid ketosis will all kinds of terrible symptoms from lacking carbs....Also as I experienced..the most unkempt wild fruit areas that are unsprayed are mostly filled with rotted decomposing fruit and insects.
---
Even the high fruit promoters would say that eating sustainable amounts of fat (anything over a very low percent) inhibits sugar absorption and feeds fungal issues. Therefore by that definition its unhealthy to consume more than small amounts of fruit on diet that includes animal foods. Even if they are wrong there, the issue at hand is that if one is eating large ammounts of animal fats for health it doens't make sense to then eat any more than very lowest maintenance levels of carbs for basic health or physical performance because at whatever breaking point they won't be able to function as well doing so, making it fairly non-productive.
-
the problem KD with trying to squeeze all your protein post workout is that muscle recovery begins roughly 3 hours after workout and lasts for weeks.
i like to focus my protein and carb intake post workout simply because that's when insulin sensitivity is likely to be shifted towards the muscle so the muscle will absorb the food like a sponge before it can get stored as fat.
but the muscle will continue to need protein around the clock for weeks for the recovery to complete. so i use protein all the time, i just use MORE of it post workout.
Ronnie Coleman didn't use any post workout shakes but he had 7 meals a day or so each consisting of basically a truck load of chicken with something starchy like grits. in other words he was growing around the clock rather than just post workout.
-
the problem KD with trying to squeeze all your protein post workout is that muscle recovery begins roughly 3 hours after workout and lasts for weeks.
I agree.
I'm not personally a huge supporter of IF. It was more an illustration that even for people who choose to eat carbs there is all this complicated shit to how food interacts in the body. It's not a matter of supplying adequate calories or other concepts you see thrown around.
I tend to eat 3-4 meals a day including fat and some proteins perhaps a smaller 'meals' of plant foods, eggs things like that. I might eat more or less frequency if I was trying for some kind of goal. At the moment I ted to think its only a small amount of protein that is necessary and that carbs don't combine very well with proteins (obviously not in line with Martin's stuff.) I think clearly my diet is not the most efficient for athletics, but it seems to be for the time being the best way to build health and to make some fairly significant gains in regards to such things.
your body uses protein not just to rebuild muscle but all kinds of processes including healing and repair on the more microscopic level. Whatever advantages of IF..the body is resting but not necessarily providing the materials it needs to create healthful processes. It will burn fat and other things when on a carb/protein based diet so that seems to be a motivator for many people - probably not raw folks. Its also one of those things that of course is incredibly rational as part of nature...when talking about truly healthy humans..although even then probably not yield the most athletic bodies.
anyway this is supposed to be about whether people can perform certain types of feats on next to no carbs. So again it seems to be not a question of whether this is something that is necessary for survival or that everything else is wrong but whether it is something that works. The science and peoples experience seems to suggest that when you eat more than some set minimum of carbs that it ceases to burn fats efficiently as its fuel and from a performance level that your body will not have consistent energy and wll store some combination of fats and carbs as fat if not targeted intelligently like the way athletes do. Being raw some people might not experience any kind of weight gain or whatever but that doens't mean they using the energy from the fats they eat efficiently..which one can find out very easily by removing most carbs on an extended trial and eating whatever they believe to be an abundant calorie level from fat.
-
actually the above is not true in that he still prescribes some cooked starch to certain individuals as with the nut-formulas and similar things and this is as a type of detox and not to slow down detox.
Yet in the closed primal diet yahoo group, it has been mentioned by his acolytes that Aajonus recommends cooked starches in order to slow down detox.Seems schizophrenic of Aajonus. I'll check back with them to see what their verdict is as several actually know Aajonus personally.
all the other people mentioned that are in the raw community have 40+ years experience as practitioners seeing 10,000s of raw foodists some with records of 100,000s of people on various diets in regards to blood work. Robert Young having the most recorded data saying he has never seen healthy blood of a higher fruit eater and that its basically mutated and diseased. I've had physical conversations with other people in the movement for decades who say the same things. You cannot continue denying these statistics without actually doing the research and contacting these people and hearing what they have to say.
No doubt, just like with Aajonus, this data cannot be obtained without paying some million dollars to a mysterious owner of the documents etc. *Sigh* It's not wise to spout such nonsense claims, when they are easily disproven just by contacting a raw vegan long-termer like DurianRider or the multitude of raw omnivores here who do fine on plenty of raw fruits as long as they are eating some raw meats as well.
You have never met a single one of these so called rvafers or attribute any sensible assessment any sensible person would believe as to what is healthy and what is not..relying entirely on adherence to a raw diet as a sign of 'success' in how toxic a person is. The very fact you accept massive amounts of 'evidence' you have read or heard off the internet merely from other individuals say so is actually what is unacceptable. All of these people I mentioned including AV see tons of people and make the concluions that they make. One doesn't have to agree with them but to say that some unknown people who aren't presenting their actual statistics or evidence debunk their notions is ridiculous.
That, of course, is an outright lie as I have actually met a few RVAFers in person. Not many, as I am in the UK, of course, but that means nothing. I have also communicated with multitudes of people via private e-mails over a long period, and also on other rvaf diet groups, so I am rather more sure of my position than you are.Besides, the whole point of rawpaleoforum is that gurus like Aajonus are wholly misguided on many issues such as raw fruit amounts, raw dairy etc., and that their claims are often at odds with what the RVAF diet community, as a whole, experience.
GS buys food at markets. there isn't sustainable wild uncultivated food anywhere for even the smallest populations. I bet there is not a single RAW vegetation farm in the Philippines with is entirely self sustainable for even just the people that run it. Any speculation of the past is just speculation. If there is a dearth in fruit production when there is acre after acre of diversified tropical fruit plants then I suspect even in the most wild humid areas that there would be periods with no fruit and the body would be forced to go into some horrid ketosis with all kinds of terrible symptoms from lacking carbs....Also as I experienced..the most unkempt wild fruit areas that are unsprayed are mostly filled with rotted decomposing fruit and insects.
Wrong again, or perhaps "nearly right" as some very amusing US-based teachers like to say instead. GS has pointed out how abundant wild fruit is in his country and how he uses it from time to time:-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/share-your-typical-menu-for-the-day/10/?wap2
Simply put, all your foolish claims are based on the here and now, so have absolutely no validity. One only has to look at the Czernobyl area re wildlife documentaries to see just how quickly the wildlife regenerates once the human population collapses in numbers. Therefore, logically, raw plant foods would have been far more easily accessible in palaeo times when a) the human population was much lower and b) the humans in those times did not have the technology available to raze all the plant life and replace it with cultivated fields.
Even the high fruit promoters would say that eating sustainable amounts of fat (anything over a very low percent) inhibits sugar absorption and feeds fungal issues. Therefore by that definition its unhealthy to consume more than small amounts of fruit on a diet that includes animal foods. Even if they are wrong there, the issue at hand is that if one is eating large amounts of animal fats for health it doens't make sense to then eat any more than the very lowest maintenance levels of carbs for basic health or physical performance because at whatever breaking point they won't be able to function as well doing so, making it fairly non-productive.
The point is that the human body, despite such naive claims, is a hell of a lot more adaptable to a varied diet - if it hadn't been, we would have died out long ago. One only has to look here, where many people simply do not do well on RZC, or even RVLC, in quite a number of cases.
-
there isn't sustainable wild uncultivated food anywhere for even the smallest populations.
I'm sure you've searched every inch of earth and have found this to be true... l)
Are you just talking about fruit? Because there are plenty of sustainable plant foods that could sustain the whole world, cattails being the biggest example.
It seems you have a major bias against plant foods and fruits because you think they fucked you up? You speak as if you have authority but in reality you have no idea what you're talking about and how could you when no one really knows.
-
I'm sure you've searched every inch of earth and have found this to be true... l)
Are you just talking about fruit? Because there are plenty of sustainable plant foods that could sustain the whole world, cattails being the biggest example.
It seems you have a major bias against plant foods and fruits because you think they fucked you up? You speak as if you have authority but in reality you have no idea what you're talking about and how could you when no one really knows.
Well, hate to burst your bubble, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. If you're saying that he has to search every inch of earth to find this to be true, you are also implying that fruit and cultivated edible plants are not abundant in most places, which is true. Sure, fruit is available in the tropics all year, but what about the northern areas? What about the areas of colder climates? And dont start with that BS of how humans are "supposed" to live in tropical areas. Humans can live wherever they want as long as there is food there, and regardless of what that food is. If the area just so happens to have a lot of fruit, fruit will probably make up some portion of their diet. If the area happens to have very little edible plant/fruits and a lot of animals, then animals will make up a lot of their calories.
And he may not in fact have a major bias towards fruit, he just recognizes the fact that fruit as a large portion of the diet is just not possible for the paleolithic human. Recognize the fact that fruit was bred to be larger and have more sugar hundreds of years ago. Also recognize that without the use of modern technologies such as GMO and pesticides, fruit and veggies would absolutely not be able to sustain the whole world. I'm sticking up for KD here and saying no, he's not an authority, and nor is he acting like one, he just recognizes the obvious fact that the paleolithic ancestor simply could not have obtained a large portion of his/her diet from fruit and vegetables. It just is not possible. This is also not to mention the amount of antinutrients vegetables have, but that is a whole other argument...
We are not saying that carbs are bad, or fruit is bad and whatnot. When I say carbs are bad, Im speaking of 99% of carbs people consume, which are those such as HFCS, grains, dairy sugars, dextrose, etc... I am not talking about fruit, even though fruit can still cause insulin issues if consuming high glycemic fruits in large quantities, in a short period of time with little to no fat or protein to slow the insulin spike.
-
when they are easily disproven just by contacting a raw vegan long-termer like DurianRider or the multitude of raw omnivores here who do fine on plenty of raw fruits as long as they are eating some raw meats as well.
I'm sure you've searched every inch of earth and have found this to be true... l)
Are you just talking about fruit? Because there are plenty of sustainable plant foods that could sustain the whole world, cattails being the biggest example.
It seems you have a major bias against plant foods and fruits because you think they fucked you up? You speak as if you have authority but in reality you have no idea what you're talking about and how could you when no one really knows.
Cliff, mostly what you have done is attack extraneous parts of comments that were replies to some stuff that you said....that you are right...no one really knows. You picked apart a number of these things again and than I addressed these things to the best I could and now you are basically saying this weakens my other arguments that you didn't even bother to take apart that actually have to do with why someone would restrict carbs.
If you or Tyler truly think many of these people are truly well (based on their lack of cooked foods) are automatically healthier than regular prescription free people that populate the planet, or that their problems are merely because they lack b-12 and other animal foods, I'm basically suggesting you think again and use at least the same level of scrutiny a regular person would use in addressing whether someone is physically, spiritually, and mentally healthy. To me, I believe many of these people are far sicker than when they started (due not just to 'fruits' but carelessness to proper cleansing) , and this was information I had before my own experiments..and seems more and more clear.
Regarding to your initial point about why people would choose to do low carb diets. I think I addressed that a number of ways. Whether there is abundant foods now or in the past this really isn't that related to why some people chose to remove carbs form their animal foods diet. I don't know that a diet that restricts carbs is long term healthy and don't claim that. The only claim that seems to ring true is that there are certain things that take place when the body restricts carbs that have little to do with what types of carbs that they are or what nutrients or toxins they provide.
I don't pretend to be the authority on wild foods. I hope its possible to cultivate all kinds of plant foods that will feed people. I said there aren't farms that produce enough foods that are eaten 100% raw year round. Of course there are sustainable farms with starchy or animal foods. But yes i'm talking about peoples assumptions that areas would be abundant in easily obtainable sources of fruit that would be edible, tasty, present in huge quantities and sizes, and not picked clean by birds and insects. Even many leaders in the fruit movement will agree that modern shipping technologies and increased sweetness of fruits allow for their diet to be possible when it wouldn't be as easily done in nature or as enjoyable. Usually when people are suggesting there was some pure environment.they aren't accounting for....fire ants.
-
Well, my own experience was that cooked food was far worse for me, healthwise, than eating raw fruits, especially cooked animal foods of any kind. Raw fruits did me no specific damage when I was fruitarian, indeed a small handful of my health-problems, pre-RPD diet, went away completely on a 100 percent fruitarian diet. It was a concern over potential nutritional deficiencies, after a couple of years or so,and a realisation that my main health-problems weren't improving one bit that made me change from 100 percent Fruitarian to a RVAF diet . I also have noted that most people who go fruitarian report getting some initial improvements in health - this is unsurprising as they are no longer taking in heat-created toxins in a big way, plus they are getting some enzymes and bacteria with their raw fruits.
Now, I happily grant that some people cannot endure a 100 percent fruitarian diet for any serious length of time. GoodSamaritan is a typical example, only being able to handle it for 2 months. But most people who come here have varying intolerances to all sorts of different foods. Some may only have a slight food-intolerance to raw dairy and handle lightly-cooked animal foods reasonably fine, while others like me find cooked animal foods and raw dairy to be the worst offenders re health etc.Put it this way, if the raw aspect of rawpaleoforum truly was so inferior/unnecessary by comparison to the palaeo aspect of rawpaleoforum re popularity/effectiveness, most of us long-termers would be cooked-palaeo by now, since it's a lot easier for us to eat cooked meats than to eat raw meats, on a social level.
-
In order to 'debunk' something you don't just find a single outlier that applies (if it even -objectively- does) but that the original concept has no merit or value for anyone. No one here I think doubts the potential for a raw diet of our ancestors to be the healthiest diet (or at least a very healthy diet) hopefully for both general wellness and reversal of disease. Personally I think its fairly wise to be skeptical on the latter part considering many people seem to accomplish these things many different ways - sometimes not even involving diet. Its actually these people that 'debunk' the notions that 'all one has to do is this' or 'all one has to do is not do this'.
I would really like to see how people actually define 'success' when we are talking about high fruit diets in comparison to cooked primal blueprint diets and cooked zero carb diets or other things I don't necessarily stand behind but acknowledge. This perhaps has alot to do with the health of people going into those very programs but certainly many of these 'cooked' camps contain ex raw foodists of various persuasions. Yes these people could then be getting some more nutrition from animal foods..but obviously there is more at play than that. After that then one could do a comparison to the people on the actual diets that should have been in question here in terms of results compared to these 'high carb' versions.
The issue is people are not currently supplying the type of data that anyone can reasonably assess as wellness. Not having symptoms is not wellness. there are people who have been upwards of 40+ years on raw vegan diets, so by that logic even the the idea that people need small amounts of meat or need to eat organ meats or high fat or some carbs or any other thing would become just arbitrary discussion if one isn't actually defining what that health is with concrete information. So someone adds meat to such a diet. Would that make their diet automatically healthy if they didn't pass just basic benchmarks for health, weren't reversing any problems that they have, or visibly not thriving in the same ways as other raw foodists that didn't have a 'balanced diet'?
What the people I pointed above out would say is that things can deteriorate in ways that don't manifest necessary as negative symptoms (although often they do and people cover them up) but that over time people actually start developing issues FAR GREATER even than massive deficiency and toxic food would 'stir up'. To me if this is present in a single person (never mind thousands)...this 'debunks' the notion that fruit is by default healthy to eat even if our ancestors ate ENTIRELY fruit.
We already know that people that actually live in jungles and what they eat and what they don't eat...it never lines up with ANY of these methodologies or ideas. It may be true that people in the past adapted to a large variety of foods and could 'switch' between foods but this is the same argument for promoting 'neolithic' foods. People today can get away with eating less of these kinds of foods and having reasonable health because their systems are not in order. So therefore the very same logic is true that people aren't as able to say eat tons of animal fat for days and then binge on fruits like our ancestors might have done..because of those very internal distortions. Also its the science that shows in terms of burning ketones there really is not a lot of fudge room to say that our ancestors functioned that way where they regularly ....as in :through the year....ate both high amounts of fat and plant carbs.
Basically what it comes down to is what I said before. It not that this or that (carbs, not eating carbs) is 'bad' its that having some blanket IDEA that something SHOULD be good based on x,y,z ...is bad. So the purists of any theory are equally guilty when referencing things that aren't lining up with physical data.
anyway, it would be good if more people shared their experience of both (extended) low carb trials or with high carb diets in terms of performance and athletic ability.
-
I merely gave myself as an example.The serious problem you have is that cooked-palaeodiets are notorious for only providing some minor benefits re health, in most cases. Testimonials from raw food diet forums of every type are rather more impressive by contrast. I'll grant that, later on, reports of fruitarians/raw vegans get progressively worse, but that is understandable given nutritional deficiencies gained in the long-term.
The ex-raw-foodists/ex-raw vegans who go cooked-palaeo usually do so only because they either have never heard of raw animal food diets in the first place or because they have some irrational phobia towards raw meats re bacteria/parasites.
My own symptoms were easy to distinguish. On a cooked-palaeodiet, I got massive stomach-aches after consuming any cooked animal food whatsoever. The more cooked animal food I ate, the worse it got. I also got extra symptoms such as chronic constipation, rectal bleeding, huge weight-gain etc. into the bargain. Not one of these symptoms did I get on a 100 percent Fruitarian diet. So it was pretty easy to work out that a 100 percent Fruitarian diet was "less worse" than a cooked-palaeodiet one.
As for your claims re other issues appearing, aside from the long-term nutritional deficiencies, while that certainly applies to those RZCers here, for example, who cannot tolerate any carbs, however raw, it doesn't apply to those raw omnivores like GS who can eat lots of fruit(but not 100 percent fruit long-term) without any health-problems gained from such.
The point of rawpaleoforum is, anyway, not to state that any and all raw foods are fine, given that some are best suited for RZC diets. But we also have to acknowledge that there are those who do not thrive on raw, low-carb diets, let alone cooked, low-carb diets.
As for HGs in palaeo times after cooking arrived, it seems that they sometimes ate things like cooked tubers. These were not ideal foods given a study I cited a while back, and I'm sure they would rather have eaten raw or cooked animal foods instead but during times of famine/winter.....
-
I think everyone needs to look at things on the epigenetic level and look at the work of Dr. Peter Rouse and other geneticists. Epigenetically speaking, any diet devoid of meat that may or may not make one healthy now, will be negatively effecting one's children and grandchildren. It may not always be "you are what you eat," but rather "you are what your grandparents ate." If your ancestors live in a stressful environment, your body will have excess cortisol because it thinks it will live in a stressful environment. This was shown in the concentration camps when Jews of later generations were smaller and weaker than their previous counterparts who were in concentration camps.
That being said, I dont think that an experimental fruit only or vegetable only diet will be a sustaining diet for future generations. An all fruit diet or vegetation only diet will be no doubt degenerating. Id like to see fruitarians live past 4 generations. On another note, most contemporary societies have been eating cooked meat for thousands of years and many generations.
Point is, whether meat is cooked or not, it is essential for the healthful life of humans and anytime we abandon it we experience degeneration.
-
The whole point is that cooked meat is also degenerative re health. The fact that we have eaten it for thousands of years is irrelevant in view of the fact that most HGs also ate some raw animal food as well, which helped to counteract some of the negative effects of cooked meats. Since we humans mostly, unlike HGs in the past, no longer go in for caloric restriction or exercise, and also go in for increasingly heavily cooking/processing our meats, our susceptibility towards the harmful effects of cooked meats is ever-increasing.
Basically, what you lot are saying is that cooked animal food is "less worse/less unhealthy" than raw plant foods, so that, therefore, it must be healthy. This is such deluded, illogical reasoning, it's absurd. It also ignores the multitude of RVAFers who do fine on lots of raw plant foods provided they also eat some raw animal foods as well. KD and others blithely ignore that most RVAFers today are(happily) of the high-raw-plant-food/low-raw-animal-food-variety such as Carol Alt deal with.
-
At what point does warming meat in a pan turn to cooking? A genuine question. I do not really like my meat cold, and I hate raw eggs. So I semi-cook!
-
Well it would have been 37 degrees c ish to start with, so reckon heating up to there is fine.
How many eggs do you eat out of interest klowcarb?
-
40 degrees centigrade/104 degrees fahrenheit is the upper limit.
-
Basically, what you lot are saying is that cooked animal food is "less worse/less unhealthy" than raw plant foods, so that, therefore, it must be healthy. This is such deluded, illogical reasoning, it's absurd. riety such as Carol Alt deal with.
No, if you please reread my post, I said that whether meat is cooked or not, it is essential for optimal health. The degeneration of having a diet totally devoid of meat is a lot worse than having a diet full of raw fruits/veggies and cooked meat. I am not saying that cooked meat isnt degenerating, because it definitely is. I am saying that if we look back into history, all the records show humans eating cooked meat for long durations, however no group of humans survived for generations with diets completely devoid of meat or animal byproducts. Veganism and fruitarianism are seriously experiments, and not conducive to health long term or for generations to come. Even the hindus who grew strong ate milk and eggs in large quantities so a vegetarian diet or a partially vegan diet with some animal products shows some merit. However, even if a vegan or vegetarian looks and claims to be healthy now, even for decades or their whole lives, the epigenetic factor tells us that their kids and grandkids will be affected for their misguided dietary wrongdoings.
-
Obliviously no one here is advocating veganism. We have tons of examples of people procreating generation after generation on largely plant based diets. We are tropical creatures for the most part and even if we aren't, like I said carbs are always available in almost every temperate climate, maybe if you have some inuit fantasy that you feel like living out I guess you can copy them but I don't know who would want to do that.
We already know that people that actually live in jungles and what they eat and what they don't eat
Enlighten us please.
From what I remember that so-called undiscovered amazon tribe(not really undiscovered) had plantains, papaya and cassava. Who cares what they eat though?
I find you guys really fall for the if its wild its good fallacy which is absolutely false imo.
HG's exploited hundred if not thousands of plants, they had a vast knowledge of the ecosystem. I can hardly take a westerner serious who claims there is not one sustainable wild plant that could sustain people(I'm not talking about just eating that one plant either because that's stupid). Its an absolutely idiotic claim especially coming from some random on the internet.
I'm not attacking you either I'm just stating my thoughts, you can take them however you want.
-
At what point does warming meat in a pan turn to cooking? A genuine question. I do not really like my meat cold, and I hate raw eggs. So I semi-cook!
When it gets hotter than the natural body-temperature of that animal. But it could be cooked on the outside and raw on the inside.
-
No, if you please reread my post, I said that whether meat is cooked or not, it is essential for optimal health. The degeneration of having a diet totally devoid of meat is a lot worse than having a diet full of raw fruits/veggies and cooked meat.
This is a false, wholly dishonest comparison. A genuine comparison would be between a diet of 100 percent raw fruits/veggies and a diet of 100 percent cooked animal foods. Well, with the first type of diet, I would do OK, but slowly deteriorate over several
years due to nutritional deficiencies - with the latter type of RZC diet, I would waste away and die at a far faster rate, as I simply cannot handle going RZC for long periods as I progressively get very serious health-problems therefrom within weeks. Other raw omnivores here have similiar experiences.
Anyway, like cliff said a) No one here is advocating the eating of 100 percent raw plant food diets, we are merely stating that high-raw-carb diets are "less worse" for many people than cooked-palaeodiets involving lots of cooked animal foods and b) there are many cases of tribes etc. doing fine on diets high in plant foods/low in animal foods - no wonder, since cooked plant foods generate far fewer heat-created toxins than cooked animal foods.
-
the only reason i avoid carbs is for weight loss. i don't think there is anything wrong with carbs if they aren't making you gain weight. a 100% fruitarian diet is crap not because its high in carbs but because its low in everything else.
-
All these people eat fruit though and none eat processed carbs. There is no scientific evidence or real life evidence that processed carbs>fruit. Robert Lustig the authority on fructose thinks there is nothing wrong with eating very large quantities of fruit. Unless your a total fructose phobe I don't get how anyone could ever claim that processed carbs are better then fruit. I guarantee you that if 811ers did processed carbs instead of fruit they would be majorly fcked.
Fruits are better than cooked starches AS LONG AS your body is able to handle the fructose. People with Fructose Malarbsorption (like me) can get in serious trouble when eating more than small amounts of fruits. In such cases fruits can show really toxic effects whereas cooked starches are relatively harmless. And there are MANY people with FM issues...
Löwenherz
-
...The advantage then of eating very little or any plant carbs would then be the eventual efficient conversion of the fats they consume (minus carbohydrates) as usable energy. Theres plenty of other arguments re blood sugar and other things but essentially after carb intolerance or whatever this seems to be the major reason for limiting carbs.
Exactly!
I have seen again and again that fruits destroy my body's ability to digest fats und use fats as energy source. This effect can be confirmed by most '801010' - dieters. After a while on this high fruit diet many of them report that even half an avocado (!) per day becomes too much fat for them.
I think we all agree here that animal fats are superior to any sugar.
Löwenherz
-
I think we all agree here that animal fats are superior to any sugar.
Löwenherz
No, since some of us have greater, nastier side-effects from cooked animal fats than we get from raw plant sugars....
-
...like I said carbs are always available in almost every temperate climate, maybe if you have some inuit fantasy that you feel like living out I guess you can copy them but I don't know who would want to do that.
Cliff,
could you please show me where I can find "ALWAYS available carbs" in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand or Argentina?
Löwenherz
-
No, since some of us have greater, nastier side-effects from cooked animal fats than we get from raw plant sugars....
I thought that this is a RAW FOOD forum. I never talked about cooked fats.
Löwenherz
-
so i say load up with glycogen before a workout, and then replenish it after a workout. stay low carb the rest of the time - especially before bed.
I agree. Very intens HIT-workouts using heavy weights are impossible on low carb, have tried extensively my body would not adapt. So now I'm low carb @~40gr a day. On weight training days(once a week) I have a meat breakfast followed by 500gr grapes with raw milk for lunch than workout in the afternoon. These are just enough carbs to be able to workout (for me). Post workout shake: 1ltr raw milk + 6 whole eggs + 2 teaspoons honey. This shake is so incredibly anabolic, since using it I've reduces my muscular soreness the day after to almost nothing. The soreness used to be crippling!
to be honest i find it hard to think of any good raw source of starch ( glucose polymers ) other than bananas. if anybody has any ideas i would be interested too.
Grapes/pineapple are a great carb source if you can burn them shortly after consuming. Would never eat them and than sit on my ass.
-
Cliff,
could you please show me where I can find "ALWAYS available carbs" in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand or Argentina?
Löwenherz
The underground rootes of our native Phragmites australis supply starch year round. The above ground stalks are also starchy almost year round. Both raw and cooked edible.
-
This is pretty much the last of what I can say on this. The very fact that people cannot comprehend how junk foodists or cooked vegans can avoid these issues with probably worse deficiencies or toxicity means people don't have alot of what I would consider knowledge around these kinds of health paradigms which people have witnessed for like 100 years now.
Carol Alt would never recommend a diet of all fruits with some meats.
Her diet isn't 'diversified' the way it simply because she' likes to eat entertainment foods'. She was treated by Dr. Timothy Brantley. who recommendeds mostly a low fruit high veg and veg fat diet that includes animal protein for repair.
Regardless of what peoples stance on non fruit items in the 'raw paleo' world....when people eat all the denser types of plant foods it totally shifts the paradigm and has nothing to do with people taking it upon themselves through theories and extrapolating on that..and then trying to eat 'light' diets that don't have heavy fats and other binders never-mind other health protocols she has taken advantage of. Its when people think.."oh this must be better because it has none of these toxic foods and my body must regenerate this way" that they run into problems.
the problem is: stirring around ancient putrefactive waste with no carrier or binder to bring it out of the body and the obvious that the body is not a clean tube to just uptake minerals and nutrients from food..but a situation where even natural foods don't always feed the right kinds of cells and organisms.
for the denser type of toxic junk food folks...they arn't really involved as much in that process.. so at that point they are just suffering the problems of those foods (toxins)..and the deficiencies therein . The people that eat sprout diets and green juice diets and all these other things which would include less toxins from the junk folks will similarly suffer a lack of animal fats and other proteins but these people have a larger chance of avoiding the exact symptoms that many of these long term 'success stories' exhibit on diets unconscious of how fruits work in the body.
People can eat very little meat and not mystify me with that at all. Lacto-ovo folks do well...if one is using the same yardstick one is assessing many of these rawfoodists. Again the issues is if people with health issues can repair their health that way. meat or not..these people often share the same characteristics and attitudes towards health even when others clearly use other tools to their advantage.
Traditional peoples of tropical areas don't eat all raw food..I thought that was self explanatory. On the topic..these people understand what types of foods actually build the body and they often don't even 'take advantage' of even all the raw wild uncultivated fruits in the area as nutritional staples. If we are talking about people that are relatively pure of modern problems..this wouldn't apply to us anyway.
When we are talking about athletics and performance..people really do need to look at the types of carbs and ways that these things augment such things. Of course this is not the same as the healthiest in all probability ..but we know that different 'carbs' have different properties..and that when you lower carbs to a certain level certain things are going to change metabolically too..so it doens't have to have anything to do with what is theoretically right in nature (or which carbs are 'toxic')..its just happens to be a likely way that humans existed at least during the various ice ages and things when we 'moved away from our original environment"
So if you are looking for rationale as to why people would limit fruit. here are some reasons that may or may not vibe for you. So by that token whether a diet high in veg fats and vegetables or a meat/fat person person would not just add say 10 pieces of fruit to their diet daily and expect health or performance just because they (theoretically) gain minerals and vitamins and calories. Doing these types of things effects the very programs for fitness and their health at the very least in an arbitrary way. This doesn't say given the proper strategies someone CAN'T do well on even tons of fruit..its just a matter how how they are thinking about these issues and what their strategies are and how/if they are indeed clearing old wastes and building new tissues.
-
This is the reply I finally got from the Primal Diet yahoo group on Aajonus's stance re cooked starches. It seems that raw nuts are preferred to cooked starches for detox, and cooked starches, as I'd thought, were viewed as being problematic. Haven't got the book with me, perhaps someone could cite the exact passage from the 2005 edition or a later one:-
"Dear Geoff,
It is my understanding that one of the big differences between "We Want
To Live"
(1997) and and "We Want Want To Live: the Primal Diet" (2005) is this
important
starches issue.
Look at p. 183-184 of the 2005 edition for a complete explanation.
I'm surprised no one answered you about this by now. Regarding the
http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p80.htm
website, I think that is quite old. It think this predates the 2005 edition.
If Karl wants to be current with this information, I hope he will run it
by Aajonus to see if it is correct, especially the paragraph on cooked
starch in number 6.
In some of the workshops, Aajonus specifically addressed the issue
of starches. As it is nicely put in the 2005 edition, carbohydrates for
detox
can be found in nuts that don't have the drawbacks of cooked starches.
So when detox of that kind is needed, use the nut formula, not cooked
grain or potatoes.
The exceptions to this are, according to Aajonus' experience as he
related it in the workshops, quite rare."
-
Well, KD, I think we all agree that plant foods can't rebuild the body anywhere near as well as animal foods. I would disagree re the detox issue as detox can occur if one only eats raw plant foods, for example. At least it's often mentioned by raw vegans and I experienced something of the sort in my own raw vegan/fruitarian days.
HGs are a rather bad example as they simply took whatever was in their environment, so they had to eat cooked tubers and the like even though they appear to have considered them their least favourite foods. Also, when faced with famine, I'm sure it made more sense for them, calorie-wise, to eat animal foods than plant foods if they had a choice. If they didn't, I suspect they would have happily eaten any raw fruit available.
-
Cliff,
could you please show me where I can find "ALWAYS available carbs" in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand or Argentina?
Löwenherz
Underground storage organs, cattails and probably many more I don't even know about. Just because you think they don't exist doesn't mean anything. Hg's utilize thousands of plants in there local environment, you would have to do the research for yourself. A lot of Carb sources can also be stored for prolonged periods without detriment(even fruits like the baobab can be stored for very long time)
-
Underground storage organs, cattails and probably many more I don't even know about. Just because you think they don't exist doesn't mean anything. Hg's utilize thousands of plants in there local environment, you would have to do the research for yourself. A lot of Carb sources can also be stored for prolonged periods without detriment(even fruits like the baobab can be stored for very long time)
These plants make a low carb diet possible, but not more. We were talking about diets based predominantly on carbs...
Löwenherz
-
Quote from: Löwenherz on Yesterday at 06:46:35 pm
Cliff,
could you please show me where I can find "ALWAYS available carbs" in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand or Argentina?
Löwenherz
Underground storage organs, cattails and probably many more I don't even know about. Just because you think they don't exist doesn't mean anything. Hg's utilize thousands of plants in there local environment, you would have to do the research for yourself. A lot of Carb sources can also be stored for prolonged periods without detriment(even fruits like the baobab can be stored for very long time)
Acorns are another example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn#As_food
http://www.calorie-counter.net/nuts-calories/acorns.htm
http://www.rohkostszene.de/godo-gehen-t1232,highlight,eicheln.html
Perhaps PaleoPhil knows other examples?
-
Well, KD, I think we all agree that plant foods can't rebuild the body anywhere near as well as animal foods. I would disagree re the detox issue as detox can occur if one only eats raw plant foods, for example. At least it's often mentioned by raw vegans and I experienced something of the sort in my own raw vegan/fruitarian days.
thanks for the bit on Aajonus..and not ripping apart my post. I was aware that he doesn't believe all starch is 'healthy'..only that many kinds still could be useful and there was one of these minorities that relayed to me he was doing this (rice not wheat) under 'supervision' to what he believed to be productive. I do also suspect as before that when not talking 1:1 that he would rather see someone eat some poor quality starch to tons of fruit regularly. I guess that is not important to some and I'm not sure i'm 100% on board with all those ideas myself but I don't question the potential to trump the kinds of basic requirements of the original healthy humans. In the same vein, by and large what the issue is...is people objecting to what could possibly be useful OR detrimental..because it doesn't fit whatever their idea of healthful nutrition is. It is to me sort of the same as copying an HG diet..and expecting to be even close to the health of an HG..which is largely based on their inheritance and healthful environment. I guess this would particularly true if people didn't see HGs as healthy to begin with...I tend to just assume they would be at least starting from a point where some things might not be as damaging as to modern people.
I'm aware I'm not exactly giving off evidence to prove any of my other more adventurous claims either (although I do think some at least are fairly self-evident), but the thing is..is that there are more health authorities other than Aajonus that even when they see fruit as healthful food and are not ZC or even low carbers..often do have their own rationalizations of other fats or proteins or plant carbs over fruits. These people don't ever recommend indiscriminate attitudes towards such regardless of how many other nutrients they are eating. This is particularly true in the athletic fields...I don't think anyone can dispute that part.
Basically my original point is that in a way it doesn't make a lot of sense to come at VLC/ZC from these arguments of what is even the most abundant 'nutritionally' (as why not eat carbs if they are natural and non toxic) if one can point to how some of these other factors impact health and if there are advantages of such diets...
-
This is a false, wholly dishonest comparison. A genuine comparison would be between a diet of 100 percent raw fruits/veggies and a diet of 100 percent cooked animal foods. Well, with the first type of diet, I would do OK, but slowly deteriorate over several
years due to nutritional deficiencies - with the latter type of RZC diet, I would waste away and die at a far faster rate, as I simply cannot handle going RZC for long periods as I progressively get very serious health-problems therefrom within weeks. Other raw omnivores here have similiar experiences.
Anyway, like cliff said a) No one here is advocating the eating of 100 percent raw plant food diets, we are merely stating that high-raw-carb diets are "less worse" for many people than cooked-palaeodiets involving lots of cooked animal foods and b) there are many cases of tribes etc. doing fine on diets high in plant foods/low in animal foods - no wonder, since cooked plant foods generate far fewer heat-created toxins than cooked animal foods.
Im curious and have always been curious on the "studies" or information base you are using to PROVE that cooked meat is bad. Everywhere I have ever searched leaves me at dead ends. Are there really any studies or food tests showing the damage done to cooking meat at low temps besides the fact that it produces carcinogens at higher temps?
-
WHAT THE FUCKKKKKKK
IM SO CONFUSED NOW
This thread makes me want to keep my diet simple just eat cooked paleo 2 meals a day and some fruits carbs after a workout with cold water... and once a week raw paleo meal.
-
Are there really any studies or food tests showing the damage done to cooking meat at low temps besides the fact that it produces carcinogens at higher temps?
Cooking denatures proteins making the meat more tough and less digestible, it inactivates certain nutrients, creates toxic compounds etc. Cooking at low temps or just lightly searing might mitigate some of these effects but it still has consequences.
-
Cooking at low temps or just lightly searing might mitigate some of these effects but it still has consequences.
i was thinking about getting a slow cooker like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Hamilton-Beach-Forget-6-Quart-Programmable/dp/B001AO2PXK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302819496&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.com/Hamilton-Beach-Forget-6-Quart-Programmable/dp/B001AO2PXK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302819496&sr=8-2)
do you think it would be a waste ?
-
WHAT THE FUCKKKKKKK
IM SO CONFUSED NOW
This thread makes me want to keep my diet simple just eat cooked paleo 2 meals a day and some fruits carbs after a workout with cold water... and once a week raw paleo meal.
Nah man dont do that, raw paleo is still the way to go as you are getting as close as natural as you possibly can. Also, the bacteria will help digest the meat. Problem is that even though I am a proponent of eating raw meat, many on this forum such as TylerDurden purport all of these claims like lightly cooked meat is horrible for us without anything but empirical knowledge and even inferences/ simple assumptions to back it up. I am not hating on Tyler at all, but everything, even our own theories should be backed. For instance, how do we know the enzymatic content of raw meat? It was found in the 60's and 70's that if you pick a fruit off of a tree, 30 minutes later the enzymes once in the fruit would be about half. Is this the same with meat? We just dont know. If anybody can prove me wrong on any of this and show me any kind of evidence proving that cooking meat at low temps causes cancer and releases toxins, please do so. I welcome challenges. I am not on this forum to make friends, I am on it to learn from others with similar experiences and be proven wrong if necessary. Anyone who makes a claim without being able to back it up and then gets angry when I ask them for the evidence is simply just lost in their own theories/ too set in their theories/religion to challenge it for the fear of their very foundations to crumble.
I have been studying cholesterol for years and giving lectures on the myth of it being harmful for years, but if I was shown undeniable evidence that it did cause heart attacks, I would give up my stance. Same concept.
-
I'm using a slow cooker at the moment while I eat cooked food.
-
Im curious and have always been curious on the "studies" or information base you are using to PROVE that cooked meat is bad. Everywhere I have ever searched leaves me at dead ends. Are there really any studies or food tests showing the damage done to cooking meat at low temps besides the fact that it produces carcinogens at higher temps?
I am none too pleased with your above foolish comments since I have already answered this question before on other threads on several occasions while you were a member here. For the umpteenth time, all those heat-created toxins are created even at lower temperatures, it is merely that, the lower the cooking-temperature used, the fewer heat-created toxins are produced. Here's a few links and tables showing that even boiled foods contain heat-created toxins which are carcinogenic among many other harmful effects:-
http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/1/6/1293.full
This one mentions the amounts on boiled chicken re AGEs.
http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/976/&page=
from the above:- "The Mount Sinai researchers have shown previously that it is possible to vary the AGE content of the diet by as much as five-fold, by varying the cooking time and temperature" In other words, cooking always creates toxins, it is merely that cooking less severely reduces the levels thereof. Nothing more.
Also:-
http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/09/age-content-of-foods.html
I think that came from this study:-
http://www.mendeley.com/research/advanced-glycoxidation-end-products-commonly-consumed-foods/
-
I am none too pleased with your above foolish comments since I have already answered this question before on other threads on several occasions while you were a member here. For the umpteenth time, all those heat-created toxins are created even at lower temperatures, it is merely that, the lower the cooking-temperature used, the fewer heat-created toxins are produced. Here's a few links and tables showing that even boiled foods contain heat-created toxins which are carcinogenic among many other harmful effects:-
http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/1/6/1293.full
This one mentions the amounts on boiled chicken re AGEs.
http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/976/&page=
from the above:- "The Mount Sinai researchers have shown previously that it is possible to vary the AGE content of the diet by as much as five-fold, by varying the cooking time and temperature" In other words, cooking always creates toxins, it is merely that cooking less severely reduces the levels thereof. Nothing more.
Also:-
http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/09/age-content-of-foods.html
I think that came from this study:-
http://www.mendeley.com/research/advanced-glycoxidation-end-products-commonly-consumed-foods/
Thanks Tyler, but my main question is about enzymes. How do we really know if the enzymes are still present in raw meat hours or even days after a kill. It seems that in fruit, the enzymatic content lowers by the hour after picking.
-
Thanks Tyler, but my main question is about enzymes. How do we really know if the enzymes are still present in raw meat hours or even days after a kill. It seems that in fruit, the enzymatic content lowers by the hour after picking.
Because meat softens if you let it be. This is mostly because the enzymes present start "digesting" the meat. bacterial activity helps of course but thats mainly at the surface. Butchers have known this for very long thats why good quality meat are hang for ~14days(beef) prior consumption. this makes the meat more tender.
The hanging is done in a cool flies free place of course otherwise other more visible creatures aid in digestion ;D
-
Precisely, one of the main reasons for hanging meats for 3 to 4 weeks is to allow the enzymes to predigest the raw meats.
-
Precisely, one of the main reasons for hanging meats for 3 to 4 weeks is to allow the enzymes to predigest the raw meats.
Thanks Hit it Raw and TylerDurden. Tyler, I have a lot of respect towards you but am a little suspicious when I hear gurus like Aajonus speaking of all of the "tests" and "experiments" he's done to validate his studies and research. I know that you are not like this at all. Sorry if I came off as an ass...
One of the things you have said in the past just doesnt logically make sense to me though. If freezing meat is so bad, what happens in the winter when you kill an animal after days of hunting and then eat some, but hours later it freezes? Is the meat bad then? Will you be causing harm to your body if you eat it? Were the eskimos wrong for eating meat after it froze on the tundra floor? I've heard you speak of this in the past. Does the theory of freezing meat causing harm to the food have any validity?
-
One of the things you have said in the past just doesnt logically make sense to me though. If freezing meat is so bad, what happens in the winter when you kill an animal after days of hunting and then eat some, but hours later it freezes? Is the meat bad then? Will you be causing harm to your body if you eat it? Were the eskimos wrong for eating meat after it froze on the tundra floor? I've heard you speak of this in the past. Does the theory of freezing meat causing harm to the food have any validity?
Freezing temperatures are absolutely 'natural', even in HG countries like Botswana. Just for this reason there should be no problems with prefrozen meats, I guess.
Have you experienced ANY bad effect when eating prefrozen meats?
Löwenherz
-
Freezing temperatures are absolutely 'natural', even in HG countries like Botswana. Just for this reason there should be no problems with prefrozen meats, I guess.
Have you experienced ANY bad effect when eating prefrozen meats?
Löwenherz
I have never experienced any negative effects with frozen meats. However, the best healing benefit I get from meat is when I let it sit out on my counter for days or weeks. This I presume is the bacterial contents multiplying and digesting it.
-
I have never experienced any negative effects with frozen meats.
Same here.
The only thing I have heard about bad effects from prefrozen meat are skin problems, without knowing any details. Therefore it would be interesting to know why Aajonus dislikes prefrozen meat so much.
Löwenherz
-
One of the things you have said in the past just doesnt logically make sense to me though. If freezing meat is so bad, what happens in the winter when you kill an animal after days of hunting and then eat some, but hours later it freezes? Is the meat bad then? Will you be causing harm to your body if you eat it? Were the eskimos wrong for eating meat after it froze on the tundra floor? I've heard you speak of this in the past. Does the theory of freezing meat causing harm to the food have any validity?
Freezing causes some harm to foods. First of all, freezing turns water to ice, thus tearing cell-membranes/cell-walls apart. This means that nutrient-loss occurs much faster when the food is thawed, plus I think there is some minor damage to nutrients as a result of freezing. At any rate, many people find prefrozen meat to taste less good once thawed compared to nonfrozen raw meats. I've also heard that enzymes are slightly damaged by freezing, though the extent of that is unclear.
Since only very few RVAFers report issues with prefrozen meats, it's generally recommended by us most times.
-
It has occurred to me that bee pollen can be a pretty good source of carbs ?
are there any known issues with consuming large quantities of it ?
-
It has occurred to me that bee pollen can be a pretty good source of carbs ?
are there any known issues with consuming large quantities of it ?
Well I got some bizarre feelings of intense heat after eating sundried bee-pollen. No idea re others' experiences.
-
At any rate, many people find prefrozen meat to taste less good once thawed compared to nonfrozen raw meats. I've also heard that enzymes are slightly damaged by freezing, though the extent of that is unclear.
Since only very few RVAFers report issues with prefrozen meats, it's generally recommended by us most times.
You surely are right about that, frozen meats definitely dont taste as good as fresh meat, that's for sure.
-
i've not had any problems with my energy in any way, including sprints. my endurance comes and goes depending on how much i've been training, just like in college days.
i am not a world-class athlete by any means, but i did qualify for olympic trials for a few consecutive years, so i know what i'm capable of and i'd notice if i couldn't sprint.
i think i want to change my answer now that i've been eating on workout occasions some raw honey. wow, it's so much easier sustain (happily :D) my endurance/sprints with just a little bit of carbs in my diet. i'd say i eat about 2T raw honey now about 30min before practice/workout. this little bit is enough to change something that i can sprint without having to guzzle tons of water. if practice is mostly moderate, then i probably won't need much water at all; whereas zc i was drinking tons of water no matter how little my heart rate increased. this would be for an evening workout within a few hours after eating meat/fat. a morning workout would probably be different (assuming i hadn't eaten yet) in terms of water guzzling, but i don't remember bcz i keep changing things.
i'm lucky that i don't have candida issues, that's not why i gave up carbs in the first place. so that i'm tolerating (at least one brand) of raw honey is nice.
-
That's interesting Ioanna. Similar to the 'Targeted Ketogenic Diet' which Lyle describes. I'm trying something similar to the cyclic one that lyle describes but with more moderate cabs (and protein 0.9g/lb is too much food for me)
I think the inuit must have had top notch sprint fitness on zero carb,but maybe they did have minor adaptions, who knows.
-
That's interesting Ioanna. Similar to the 'Targeted Ketogenic Diet' which Lyle describes. I'm trying something similar to the cyclic one that lyle describes but with more moderate cabs (and protein 0.9g/lb is too much food for me)
I think the inuit must have had top notch sprint fitness on zero carb,but maybe they did have minor adaptions, who knows.
oh, you're right. i wasn't doing that on purpose, but i see that is targeted... i was thinking that if i still keep my carbs low enough i should stay in ketosis?
how much protein do you usually eat? and what happens if you eat too much? for me, eating too much protein means my body is heating me up way to much.. which i don't like when that happens during summer or while i'm at work.
the thing is, the workouts i do first thing in the morning (usually weekends) are fasted and those are the best for me. even in college, i didn't eat before our morning practices (4 of them per week), and i did this consciously because i felt better that way.
-
I don't know. TBH I haven't got it all worked out yet.
I'm pretty sure if you keep your carbs as they are you will stay in ketosis. Eating 30-50g carb around a workout is exactly what Lyle McDonald recommends for this purpose.
He says you could eat them after a workout as well as before so if you wanted to do it fasted no probs.
He recommends to eat 0.9g protein/lb body weight every day. During the first three weeks of ketosis, eat at least 150g protein if your figure comes to less than this. For me that figure is about 900g fatty lamb meat a day say which is on the high side but not impossible. I've found it hard to eat that much on a daily basis. I just feel like I don't want to eat until I've processed it.
He is talking about standard foods...the books not written for raw paleo. One thing that comes to mind is that eating cooked meat and a lot of fibre it's all moving through the gut quickly so they may not fully digest it compared to a raw eater.
I do feel that this targeted or cyclic stuff is a good way forward for me at the moment.
-
I did a cooked ketogenic diet for a while and tried the 30-50 grams of carb prior to work out. Didnt work for very intense weightlifting I need more carb or workout intensity has to go down(which is unacceptable). Now i eat ~30 grm of carb a day. On workout days i eat lots of fruit 2 hrs prior to working out and 30-50 grams carbs immediatly prior to the workout.
On a regular day I eat ~130-150 grm prot, ~25-40grm carb, ~180-210 grms fat = ~2200 - 2700 cals
My current bodyweight is 99.5kg@1,78m (220lbs@5ft10in)
So according to lyle i should eat 0.9 x 220 = 198 grms prot. However for every grm carb you can reduce prot somewhat. I dont feel i need more prot.
-
I did a cooked ketogenic diet for a while and tried the 30-50 grams of carb prior to work out. Didnt work for very intense weightlifting I need more carb or workout intensity has to go down(which is unacceptable). Now i eat ~30 grm of carb a day. On workout days i eat lots of fruit 2 hrs prior to working out and 30-50 grams carbs immediatly prior to the workout.
On a regular day I eat ~130-150 grm prot, ~25-40grm carb, ~180-210 grms fat = ~2200 - 2700 cals
My current bodyweight is 99.5kg@1,78m (220lbs@5ft10in)
So according to lyle i should eat 0.9 x 220 = 198 grms prot. However for every grm carb you can reduce prot somewhat. I dont feel i need more prot.
Your a big guy. What weight were you when you started?
-
68kg = 152lbs
-
How long did it take for you to go from 68 to 99 kilos?
-
On workout days i eat lots of fruit 2 hrs prior to working out and 30-50 grams carbs immediatly prior to the workout.
Is your digestion ok eating a lot of fruit some days and not others? I tend to think from my experience that it might make me constipated on non-fruit days as my gut has expanded.
-
How long did it take for you to go from 68 to 99 kilos?
a few years, 3 i think. but it was a experimental progres i was still learning. knowing what i know now i would have done it in 1,5yr. my progress was always steady, than i would learn something which made my gaines skyrocket for a while.
@josh no problems with digestion. i've a long history of constipation but as long as its raw i can digest anything well.