Author Topic: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed  (Read 16641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« on: February 05, 2011, 07:53:17 am »
I have been working with my trainer (who is also a dietician and naturopath) for tennis related stuff. I decided I want to start getting big and grow some real muscles. Anyway his reaction was no problem, but its just as much diet as it is lifting (he doesn't know Im raw paleo). So he goes I want you to start eating lots of fat and protein as well as fruit and vegetables. I raised my eyebrow as I asked if he meant animal protein and fat. He said absolutely, theres nothing better then animal fat and protein, and the closer to its natural state the better. My next question of course was what about raw. He said he thinks it would be fine as long as the animal is grass-fed organic. He still wants me to eat gluten free grains and raw grass fed goat dairy but I don't plan on adding that to my diet. Nevertheless I was very impressed.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline ForTheHunt

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2011, 08:32:02 am »
That's pretty cool. But starches are pretty essential if you intend to gain size.

But you're strict on no, then google the anabolic diet.
Take everyones advice with a grain of salt. Try things out for your self and then make up your mind.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2011, 08:59:35 am »
That's pretty cool. But starches are pretty essential if you intend to gain size.

But you're strict on no, then google the anabolic diet.

I don't want to derail this thread, but If you are doing some kind of raw/mostly raw version of anabolic it would be intersting to see perhaps in another thread in 'hot topics'.

FWIW I have to concur that you probably arn't going to get bigger without starch (or raw dairy anyway). You can certainly 'grow real muscle' though. I experiment here and there with starch, but for the most part i'm probably like 98% raw by calorie still. I get stronger and fitter but stay mostly the same size. I'm one of 'those guys' at the gym..cept just running around crazier.

Offline laterade

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2011, 01:00:35 pm »
With 100% primal I was very content energy/healthwise but I also wanted to grow a bit of mass.
I have gained at least 5-10 pounds in January eating some cooked starches. Yams/ zizania/ broccoli/ radishes/ carrots
Sleep a little bit more but still feel great. I would probably go all raw for a while if I became ill or sluggish, maybe develop cycles, but so far it has worked out great.

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2011, 02:23:32 pm »
Yah he seems pretty bent on getting some starches in me. Im wondering if their are any raw sources? I guess I could always sprout some quinoa or something. Also forthehunt and KD what is your cal intake look like? It seems even fruitarian can gain some muscle if they eat 6000+ cals a day so Im sure raw paleos could do it in like 4000.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline Nation

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2011, 03:31:37 pm »
Are raw tubers considered a source of starch? That's raw paleo in my book.

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2011, 04:24:55 pm »
Yah but as far as I know most raw starch is mostly undigestable. I know Jerusalem Artichokes and yukons are raw edible but they are sweet and don't have as much starch as a potato.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline ForTheHunt

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2011, 07:28:41 pm »
Yah but as far as I know most raw starch is mostly undigestable. I know Jerusalem Artichokes and yukons are raw edible but they are sweet and don't have as much starch as a potato.

Don't bother with raw starches, I've been down that road. 

As far as your calories go, don't bother with counting calories. Eat small frequent meals and just eat at maximum capacity. But don't over eat.

Take everyones advice with a grain of salt. Try things out for your self and then make up your mind.

Offline achillezzz

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2011, 07:34:54 pm »
If you look for optimum health you  can  minimize stratches intake.

On the other side they can be used as steroids.
I belive that if you go on 1Meal at the end of the day which consists of high fat protein and another meal of high carbs at the midday you can seriously boost your hormones if ofcourse all the rest of the time you fast.

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2011, 11:41:13 pm »
Quote
Don't bother with raw starches, I've been down that road. 

I've been getting on well with raw butternut squash actually. That's somewhat starchy. I've eaten up to 1 kg a day.

Actually I've just looked at the nutrition data and it doesn't make sense. It says 12g carb per 100g. 2g sugar, 2g fiber but ~ symbol for starch.

So I guess it's 8g per 100g. Anyone know what's going on with that?

Offline laterade

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2011, 12:31:40 am »
Home made sour kraut it a great addition to starches if you plan on going that route. This aids digestion tremendously for me.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2011, 01:16:45 am »
I've been getting on well with raw butternut squash actually. That's somewhat starchy. I've eaten up to 1 kg a day.

Actually I've just looked at the nutrition data and it doesn't make sense. It says 12g carb per 100g. 2g sugar, 2g fiber but ~ symbol for starch.

So I guess it's 8g per 100g. Anyone know what's going on with that?

alot of it is water. By the time you finish eating the thing you've made 'negative calorie soup' in your stomach. Heh. Although I'm biased like above and think raw starches are probably only of value as some kind of mineral supplement.

Yah he seems pretty bent on getting some starches in me. Im wondering if their are any raw sources? I guess I could always sprout some quinoa or something. Also forthehunt and KD what is your cal intake look like? It seems even fruitarian can gain some muscle if they eat 6000+ cals a day so Im sure raw paleos could do it in like 4000.

low by comparison then I guess. maybe ~2600-3500

What fruitarians are building size on 6000 cals a day? Its certainly possible to build muscle on vegan diets, but raw fruits present an obstacle in a number of ways I think. Certainly cooked vegans can get large and even defined muscles, probably less than on other cooked diets, but nonetheless, the secret has something to do with the carbs and some might argue some stored bulk toxins in the cooked foods. I can see how some people can manipulate the same thing with just raw fruits if they are massively overdosing on calories, but even then its gong to be rare because most people arn't digesting much of that shit.

For me, it could very well be true in the future that once my body is totally healthy I will be able to put on weight even easier doing my same program. Its already happening to some degree and I think i'm now at my heaviest weight (while raw) in 5 years. Or I could try to force feed raw food now, at the same time, its never going to compare to whatever Christian Bale does or whatever.


but anyway, as a simple answer..you can gain muscle MASS on a variety of approaches, but likely not limited to meat and including perhaps fruit. I know someone doing just raw vegetarian (dairy, honey) that is very muscular and actually has a normal human size otherwise, but that seems fairly rare. Of note I guess is most carnivorous animals are fairly lean, although none of them look 'skinny' to my knowledge like the bulk of humans who restrict their diets to raw plants and/or meats. Just cooking the same foods (or likely a wider mix of paleo foods) obviously seems to make a difference when looking at alot of the cooked paleo/cf people. Although this likely carries other consequences that most raw foodists would like to avoid.


To me, it seems unfortunate in this as with other raw camps that most people would rather fuss how raw or how healthy their diet is on paper rather than actually bring down the results where it matters. After being on a variety of unhealthy 'health' programs that likely were not going to give me any more longevity then the average bird, it made more sense to me that I would only do things that made my life worth living in the present. As a young unmaried person, this included having a build that is at least presentable in society as 'healthy' as being fairly important, and being less fussy in social situations if need be. The point being in regard to starch, is that although we can't comment on traditional peoples in a WAP style to say that 'this' will correct all our health issues, at the same time if we can use any of these tools to our advantage, and are otherwise in a good state of health, it makes alot of sense to do so, rather than holding on to mere ideas of what is healthy without the results we really want.





Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2011, 01:55:53 am »
KD, By all means do what works for you, but I don't buy the assumptions. If you see old pictures of Inuit they're often big strong guys. In terms of predators Lions are massive (but lean yes).

Maybe it's different if you don't grow up on a raw diet, but IMO you can put on at least a 'healthy' amount of muscle mass on raw paleo, and maybe more.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 02:29:58 am by Josh »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2011, 02:10:05 am »
By all means do what works for you, but I don't buy the assumptions. If you see old pictures of Inuit they're often big strong guys. In terms of predators Lions are massive (but lean yes).

Maybe it's different if you don't grow up on a raw diet, but IMO you can put on at least a 'healthy' amount of muscle mass on raw paleo, and maybe more.

The state of health of the tissue has alot to do with it. Often for most people in regard to building muscle...this will just be another holy grail like waiting for one's weight to 'balance out' on a low-cal or vegan diet. I don't know if your comment was directed at me or just generally, but I've actually made certain results on this type of diet, and just describing some likely limits and what I believe are realistic expectations. If you have not, its sounds like you are the one making the assumptions based on other people/animals etc.. and not your own experiences. When you put on serious mass in a 1-2 month period eating just meats and fruits like people do all the time on other approaches...drop me a line. I just threw in the animals thing myself actually as a counterpoint to the argument that I was making that in a sense said that most people attempting to eat like wild animals...arn't necessarily going to look like the healthiest natural human..whatever that is. Even common people might assume that if you eat tons of meat your are going to get huge, but it doesn't seem to work this way when eating raw and a large part of that is the body has alot of crap going on. I personally don't feel the need to bulk up on tons of starches or cooked foods or whatever, but saying that people will do so just eating raw paleo is disingenuous per the topic and that is all there is to it.

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2011, 02:25:03 am »
KD: Well I think we're talking at cross purposes about the amount. You said a healthy amount of bulk for our society, and I assumed you meant an average person lifting weights and getting bigger.

I could buy that perhaps you can't reach bodybuilder or world class powerlifter levels without eating cooked starches. I don't think putting on a good amount muscle mass through weights and eating is necessarily a problem on raw paleo, although different people are different. In fact when I started training before Christmas I was all raw and I hypertrophied very quickly in that time. (I'm bigger than the pic, and my nose has been broken since then!)

Obviously it depends how you define healthy, but I'd be happy if I was as bulky as an Inuit at my height.

Lets be honest, neither of us has any evidence either way it's just broscience and speculation, so maybe you have your opinion and I have mine.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 02:30:19 am by Josh »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2011, 02:41:53 am »
Plenty of professional bodybuilders built up massive muscles when on raw diets during the pre-steroid era from c. 1900  to 1970 or so. People like Armand Tanny etc.  Perhaps the gross, unnatural sizes that modern bodybuilders have would be unattainable on rawpalaeo, but reaching that size requires all sorts of very unhealthy behaviours( re constant dehydration before a competition for definition etc.)
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2011, 02:53:06 am »
 Perhaps the gross, unnatural sizes that modern bodybuilders have would be unattainable on rawpalaeo, but reaching that size requires all sorts of very unhealthy behaviours

Yes I'm talking about the modern ones. Tanney actually looks very good, looks like he ate raw milk products as well as this lot though.

Quote
n 1948 he shut off his stove and ate just about everything raw from then on--tuna, beef, liver, lobster, oysters, clams, nuts, seeds, fruits and vegetables. Armand recalls wading out into the surf along the Santa Monica Pier and using his feet to kick up 6- to 7-inch Pismo clams, smashing them together to get at the pink and white flesh. Armand also took brewer’s yeast, desiccated liver, yogurt, black strap molasses and wheat germ oil, all recommendations of Gaylord Hauser
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 02:58:44 am by Josh »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2011, 03:09:07 am »
Lets be honest, neither of us has any evidence either way it's just broscience and speculation, so maybe you have your opinion and I have mine.

the difference is your opinion is based on some theory of what you expect raw paleo to do for you, wheras mine has to do with the level it is working for me. I wasn't looking at you pic to gauage whether you knew what you are talking about or not, as I already know what the general situation is as will apply to most people. Like I said, my goals are fairly satisfied, but the thing per the topic is that while nutrition experts might not know the best way to cure of avoid disease, they often know what works for many fitness and atlethic things that won't necessarily translate to raw. Just thinking that raw foods supply more nutrition or this that or the other things..is the WRONG way of thinking about this stuff.

Personally I have found eating basically 100% raw has been beneficial for my strength, fitness and physique, but it has limits on what it can do in terms of making my body any bigger in the near future. For people with goals of 'getting big' this does not have to be Olympic or just competitive builds and usually just want 'average' healthy male builds, so you are being unnecessarily hyperbolic in comparison to most peoples goals. The truth is..I am smaller than 80% of males that work out and exercise and do all that crap that it says to do in health magazines. It doesn't mean that my build isn't good or desirable or whatever..just closer to the 'bruce lee' kind of model, which is fine by me honestly. But is any of this my opinion? not really.. just my experience and knowledge of other people often in the same circumstance. I don't see what having a broken nose means, but here is a pic of mine that is pretty new @ around 170, I took it 5 minutes ago.






« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 03:15:09 am by KD »

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2011, 03:21:56 am »
KD, again we are talking at cross purposes. I already agreed that there might be limits. However, you mentioned a healthy level of muscle. From what I can see you do have a 'healthy' level, you're quite a big guy.

If you want to look like the other guys in the gym, that's up to you, but the point is your physique is far from abnormally small. If you see it that way, then without wishing to offend you maybe you should look at that.

People reach plateaus that are not all about diet, and have to change up their training.

A lot of guys in the gym are juiced as well, so comparing to them is pointless.

Quote
the difference is your opinion is based on some theory of what you expect raw paleo to do for you, wheras mine has to do with the level it is working for me

I have to take issue with that as you did not talk in terms of what was working for you, you said 'often for most people' which is a misleading phrase as we don't have evidence of 'most people'.

My opinion is not based on 'theory' either, it's based on my experience of gaining weight quickly before Christmas.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 03:30:31 am by Josh »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2011, 04:05:24 am »
ok it is somewhat clear that you jsut want to play the same cards over and over without actually showing examples of either yourself or other people actually gaining size in comparison to other programs. To me this is the crux of this debate and not how 'bad' raw paleo is for muscle growth.

Who said abnormally small? I said many people that try to do copycat diets end up alot 'skinnier' than the lean animals or people they emulate, and that this has alot to do with health generally. I said people can gain muscle, but they won't reach past a certain capacity eating all raw paleo. And then I said 80% of dudes my the gym from regular joes to juicers have a larger build then me. didn't say cut, or strength, or fitness, as most are in the dust there. I'm talking like taking a tape measure to the situation.

There are plenty of ways to objectify size, like measurements etc. I'm very proud of my build, but to me I like it because it is very streamlined and cat like, some people do not want that. So actually I have  a high opinion of it, but wearing clothing and to others its not very impressive if I was to categorize myself as the healthiest person doing every thing possible for the best health. Catch my drift?

Of course i'm not at the average for one because average is more or less overweight. If I was to get measured by a tailor or something it would be apparent I can practically wear small size clothing. Point being, I am not 'big' per the conversation as I understood it, and was speaking of 'getting big' on raw in comparison to suggestions of a trainer. As I see it from a purely objective standpoint, raw paleo would be inferior. Of course this is discounting health and other things.



My opinion is not based on 'theory' either, it's based on my experience of gaining weight quickly before Christmas.

ok, then you must have documented your size at that point  if you had such miraculous results. This isn't subjective conversation here. its about which methods work the best. I already know I'm not going to beat out Christian Bale and his contemporary nutrition programs. I know how to work my routines and get the best results I can, yet acknolwedge various things which can be helpful to accept for others.

before your edit, you asked where I live, well heck I live in freakin' America man. Average dude in my neighborhood is probably twice my size eating ghetto food and just shooting baskets for exercise. You think I intimidate them? hehe

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2011, 04:16:14 am »
I'm sorry but I'm not really enjoying debating with you because you have a tendency to both ignore what I'm saying and shift the goalposts.

You did not start out by saying 'in comparison with other programs'

I don't know where to start replying because you're either misreading what I say or using an aggressive debating tactic designed to win crowds, not actually shed light on issues.

Wish you well mate, but not gonna discuss it further.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2011, 04:34:12 am »
I'm sorry but I'm not really enjoying debating with you because you have a tendency to both ignore what I'm saying and shift the goalposts.

You did not start out by saying 'in comparison with other programs'

I don't know where to start replying because you're either misreading what I say or using an aggressive debating tactic designed to win crowds, not actually shed light on issues.

Wish you well mate, but not gonna discuss it further.

lol thats me, the crowd pleaser.


start out?
I don't want to derail this thread, but If you are doing some kind of raw/mostly raw version of anabolic it would be intersting to see perhaps in another thread in 'hot topics'.

FWIW I have to concur that you probably arn't going to get bigger without starch (or raw dairy anyway). You can certainly 'grow real muscle' though. I experiment here and there with starch, but for the most part i'm probably like 98% raw by calorie still. I get stronger and fitter but stay mostly the same size. I'm one of 'those guys' at the gym..cept just running around crazier.


basically since you can't come to the table with any hard evidence, and want to redefine basic things like measurements and weight gain, what tactic do I need there to spin that around ? How much weight did you gain? I can tell you i've spent years trying to gain like 10 lbs of muscle, with some people following some trainers advice probably getting that in one-two months. IICR you are the one using a similar devils advocate tactic as in the past, as you have no actual knowledge whatsover or experience with this issue.

the story is simple. Theres a trainer and someone with an idera of what will give them the best results, but actually the trainer is correct. this is the lesson. Doesn't mean 100% raw paleo diets arn't the best overall, but not for serious muscle growth, for whatever that is worth.


Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2011, 04:41:42 am »
How many times can I say it? You didn't start off talking about serious muscle growth, you were talking about a 'healthy size'

You keep demanding evidence, but it's not a matter for that since I already agreed there may be some practical limits to growth on a raw paleo diet.

And you already conceded that you can get quite big on raw paleo.

I conclude you're willfuly ignoring what I say to win percieved points. I'm not really interested in this 'alpha male' game playing, so if you think you've won enjoy it hotshot.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2011, 04:52:03 am »
How many times can I say it? You didn't start off talking about serious muscle growth, you were talking about a 'healthy size'

You keep demanding evidence, but it's not a matter for that since I already agreed there may be some practical limits to growth on a raw paleo diet.

And you already conceded that you can get quite big on raw paleo.

I conclude you're willfuly ignoring what I say to win percieved points...with this kind of game playing I can't really count you as a friend on here. Good day to you sir.

dude, its because you arn't saying anything of use. I've listed my experiences and tremendous amount of information on way It would be wise to reconsider a purist approach for ALL fitness, size and strength goals. All you have given is theories as to how people SHOULD DO FINE, which is precisely the problem I am putting forward. You won't post any progress shots, because you basically did not put on size doing what you were doing, and thus are upset about your theory not working out and the fact that I am probably correct. So now you want people to acknowledge it anyway? seems odd.

When have I conceded you can get big on raw paleo? That precisely what I am not saying. Its possible but incredibly unlikely, and why bother if ones goal is the size/sport anyway. There are people eating just raw paleo that don't even work out that have normal healthy impressive builds, but this isn't the conversation at all, and that is also not the norm unfortunately.

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2011, 07:35:39 am »
Hey sorry Ive been gone all day so I didn't get to post to much. KD, even normal bodybuilders strive for more calories then what you are getting. Sure 3500 is way above the minimum value needed but in terms of getting larger muscles you need to consistently present your body with 4000 cals+. You said somedays you were down to 2600 cals. This could be  a huge hindrance. Also I realize most raw paleos don't count cals but forthehunt do you have any idea of your calorie intake?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk