Author Topic: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed  (Read 16656 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2011, 08:02:12 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?

Its possible, but I would consider that to be one and the same as the 'problem' with eating this way. Ironically the same can be said for anabolic diet. The more mineral rich dense fats and meats you eat, the less you are going to want to eat. This is one reason (other than the composition of the foods) that drinking raw dairy, honey, starches and all sorts of other things begin to become an asset. I already feel like I eat more than I care to. Again i'm not so much as bitching about progress or lack-there-of..quite the opposite. I'm only stating what I would think is the obvious that there are much easier ways of going about such things. For me I seem to be fairly limited still in what I can eat AND feel good, but for others they would certainly be selling themselves short thinking that eating the most limited raw nutritious foods will have the best gains. Certain things work well..and you can't always break down and substitute the foods/ratios etc...into raw and expect it to be the same. That said, I'm sure I will continue to make improvements, but then again I do a variety of the little things already that are different than a diet of just animal fats, meats, and fruits.


---

Just to be clear on the difference between caveman/Bruce-type builds and 'big'

here is a clip form Dragon: the Bruce Lee Story

http://movieclips.com/KTkA-dragon-the-bruce-lee-story-movie-im-bruce-lee/

now supposedly this is based on his life, but obviously for film purposes the Bruce character (who is is played by someone WAY bigger than Bruce was) is supposed to be the small person beating all the big gallutes. The tall blond guy and the black guy are probably no more fit/ripped than the Chinese actor here, but they are clearly 'big guys'. These are the kind of builds that raw paleo diets do not accommodate well I suspect.

heres some tremendous athletes and a few others with impressive builds that would never be considered 'big guys'.

rondo



tiger



Jake

Jake is basically my age and he probably has some of the same natural limitations. Whatever he is doing it certainly works better than myself and gauging by how he used to look was done in probably way shorter time.

Dave Chapell


pretty fit actually, yet no one would ever call Dave Chapell a 'big guy'. Compared to many folks he's lanky, but would probably pass for 'astonishing' on a raw food forum. My point is that if we have the code to the absolute best nutriton programs, there should be a way to tweak it for whatever purposes. For whatever reasons, my bet is people will continue to have better results in this particular area through non raw or at least non paleo stuff.

now here is Lebron James who is not some WWF wrestler but I would definitely be quite terrified of even wielding a knife.


Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2011, 08:31:06 am »
I absolutely agree on the difference between well muscled and just plain huge but I also believe with enough calories from various sources that one can get quite large on raw paleo. Armand Tanny wasn't eating 100% raw paleo but pretty close and he was Mr. USA. So its definately possible but if your body is telling you to slow up on the calories then I wouldn't go against it, but Bodybuilders do eat way past what their bodies naturally tell them to eat to get the results of getting bigger.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2011, 08:54:15 am »
I absolutely agree on the difference between well muscled and just plain huge but I also believe with enough calories from various sources that one can get quite large on raw paleo. Armand Tanny wasn't eating 100% raw paleo but pretty close and he was Mr. USA. So its definately possible but if your body is telling you to slow up on the calories then I wouldn't go against it, but Bodybuilders do eat way past what their bodies naturally tell them to eat to get the results of getting bigger.

hmm..my current belief is that eating a tremendous portion of raw foods mainly of animal origin is the best bet for health,strength,fitness/whathaveyou. Possibly for actual muscle growth as well. While Tanny is great representation for all natural and largely raw nutrition, I think its fudging somewhat to call what Tanny was doing 'raw paleo' per this particular conversation. My main point anyway is all those little things, the dairy, the occasional cooked foods, the food based supplements etc...do go a long way. Theres a number of actual competitive bodybuilders doing perhaps all raw...but them and Tanny is far closer to Primal I'd say. Theres people in the 100% cooked paleo camps likewise with amazing physiques, so it can't be seen entirely as an issue of lacking non paleo food either. What I am saying is that many things contribute, and that adding tons of calories of raw fruits, meats and fats isn't necessarily gong to make up for it. When I say this I do not mean just for getting scary big, but also muscular athletic builds, although the latter is definitely possible...just probably more challenging without those same tweaks...

Basically I'd wager your trainer is aware of such and doesn't think eating a tremendous amount of raw meat is ridiculous for health and that these other things are necessary for nutrition (ok likely he/she thinks this) but more that they will just work better for those goals.


the comparrisons were not directed at you btw, just generally speaking, and where I believe I fall in with the lean muscled-skinny-guy camp. ;)

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2011, 09:20:31 am »
Looking at your pics I would never say your a skinny guy in any way. However I do feel that even raw paleo nutrition is still missing something. Its not dairy but I'm starting to think some source of starch whether it be cooked or raw is a piece to the puzzle. As far as my studies have gone, basically all paleo tribes still in existance other than the carnivorous ones eat lots of root and tubers. Some raw some not but the question is can they be a healthy addition to the diet? So far the only ones ive ever really eaten is grains and potatos/sweet potatos which (correct me if im wrong) but were poisonous pre-genetic breeding. All three of these sources give me problems. However non grainy grains such as quinoa seems to not be as bad, as well as non-gluten grains such as rice.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2011, 03:44:14 pm »
Also KD forgot to ask the most basic question. What does your routine look like?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2011, 05:56:47 pm »
KD, again you did not start off by talking about getting to strength athlete levels you talked about a healthy size. So yes my responses were about that. Then you shifted to talking about something different and critisised my responses in terms of a strength athlete.

This is more for the record as I suspect you're being deliberately abrasive. I'm not interested in dick fencing, so i'll stick to the more measured discussions that used to be the mainstay on here.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2011, 12:15:44 am »
Looking at your pics I would never say your a skinny guy in any way. However I do feel that even raw paleo nutrition is still missing something. Its not dairy but I'm starting to think some source of starch whether it be cooked or raw is a piece to the puzzle. As far as my studies have gone, basically all paleo tribes still in existance other than the carnivorous ones eat lots of root and tubers. Some raw some not but the question is can they be a healthy addition to the diet? So far the only ones ive ever really eaten is grains and potatos/sweet potatos which (correct me if im wrong) but were poisonous pre-genetic breeding. All three of these sources give me problems. However non grainy grains such as quinoa seems to not be as bad, as well as non-gluten grains such as rice.

hmm..its hard to say. I think there is a difference between nutrition in whatever purists sense (toxins) or whatever...and what types of things are opportunistic. I think even traditional peoples are aware of such things and wouldn't sweat many of the other things. This is one reason cooking caught on...because in those environments it was beneficial in many respects and not as detrimental as it is for us trying to gain health. Most people are backtracking and trying to regain health so it makes sense, but I think for people already healthy and want the best performance its a tad different you know...But to say raw paleo will be the best..even for minor goals (as per above) is just wrong..it isnt'. I tend to find tubers to be basically hard to eat raw or cooked. Raw starch is bascially not healthy to eat as a mainstay. I went through a phase eating tons of cooked sweat potato and qunoia sprouted and also cooked. I really have a hard time eating these foods now for taste reasons alone..in addition to some general sugar issues. Right now if I eat cooked starch I will eat tubers I get locally and some varieties are ok. I've been 100% grain free for awhile now..but in the future I might consider eating rice (or some kind of fermented product) just because it tastes better. I always through those criticisms of grains needing spices or whatever to be palatable to be off.

Also KD forgot to ask the most basic question. What does your routine look like?
what you mean eating or working out?

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/exercisebodybuilding/today%27s-workout/380/



I'm not interested in dick fencing

you have like 5-6 posts with 0 content but insults, you started the argument with your 'assumptions' comment based on either something I wrote that was not at all an assumption..or some crack about your raw starch consumption..who knows what set you off. You keep saying i'm changing terms..but I literally mean for ALL goals not just steroid beasts..and I've said that numerous times, so you are wrong there as well. All types of goals it will be worse. ok? Either way you basically know nothing about the subject and are just another blind paleo cheerleader with 0 facts or experience. If anything that type of thing makes the site loose integrity. The point is we should stick to our facts about which diets promote the best health, but make distinctions when it comes to other things.  


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.


If you have any positive information to add, or really were 'done with arguing' I think that would have happened already.

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2011, 12:26:14 am »
Raw starch is bascially not healthy to eat as a mainstay. I went through a phase eating tons of cooked sweat potato and qunoia sprouted and also cooked. I really have a hard time eating these foods now for taste reasons alone..in addition to some general sugar issues. Right now if I eat cooked starch I will eat tubers I get locally and some varieties are ok. I've been 100% grain free for awhile now..but in the future I might consider eating rice (or some kind of fermented product) just because it tastes better. I always through those criticisms of grains needing spices or whatever to be palatable to be off.

    Similiar experience as me, raw starch doesn't usually go down too well.  Cooked plain grains worked for a while.  Spiced grains, no matter how ayurvedic or otherwise, I got acne and other health problems.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2011, 12:33:30 am »
   Similiar experience as me, raw starch doesn't usually go down too well.  Cooked plain grains worked for a while.  Spiced grains, no matter how ayurvedic or otherwise, I got acne and other health problems.

Sure..well the problem is even if you can eat in any quantity without gas and other such things...which would be rare...your body actually uses alot of energy trying to process it. So for people eating 100% raw and eating a little starch..that is fine...they might get some vitamins and some minerals without some of the issues of sweeter fruits. Basically it really won't be very usefull for 'bulking' in comparison to the same thing cooked and that is mostly what I am suggesting. That one cant take even the same menu of something that works in cooked bodybuilding/athleticism and apply it to raw, whether one wants to be Schwarzenegger or Erwan Le Corre.

Do you find cooked grains do better for you now then cooked tubers? (if you eat them still)?

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2011, 01:13:28 am »
Do you find cooked grains do better for you now then cooked tubers? (if you eat them still)?

    I tried them now.  Grains taste better cooked than tubers do cooked.  Grains just don't work though raw or cooked, they give me anxiety and more.  Good rejuvelac is ok though.  Raw tubers don't bother me, but I don't eat them in quantity if at all most of the time.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2011, 03:34:08 am »
what you mean eating or working out?

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/exercisebodybuilding/today%27s-workout/380/
Well its no wonder, your routine is optimized for building mass. If we are talking functional strength then your routine is fine but if your goal is to get big then you need to change it up big time.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2011, 11:50:23 am »
Well its no wonder, your routine is optimized for building mass. If we are talking functional strength then your routine is fine but if your goal is to get big then you need to change it up big time.

did you mean 'not optimized'?

Sure what I do might not be the best for bodybuilding and putting on weight..I do not know.
Ironically what I am doing now has had the best results so far but before I was doing cf and biking and all sorts of shit which wern't exactly conducive to weight gain. I've thought of another comparison though (I'm sure you are excited).

I have never really read up on too much weight training stuff to know what is good progress, but like I said - I have indeed experienced a number of almost freakish improvements on this diet. One of which is pretty noticeable by going to CF. When I started out for one I probably hadn't re-adapted to this type of diet..particular fat, but overall I could hardly compete in much of the workouts. Less than 6 months later I made just a ginormous amount of progress (i'd say more than others or was usual) in pretty much all avenues:endurance, strength, speed. To me although there are a number of things that set my diet apart to folks there other than just raw (grass-fed, high fat etc..) the raw thing seemed to be the main difference as a factor..other than perhaps my inherent drive or makeup or something..

but heres the thing...I... havn't really shifted that much in size, and although I have gotten way stronger...most of the other dudes will still get bigger and stronger than I will based on the way those diets (even paleo-ish) work. Its not about like being unable to do this or that...its just which things will work 'better' faster etc...

Like there is no way that I am going to compete with someone drinking 1 gallon of milk a day as far as building mass. I could try to eat 1/2 lb MORE of suet or 2/3 lb of butter or something, but it isn't going to work because these are different foods and work differently. Likewise if I eat 10 bananas its not going to be the same as 2 sweat potatoes or whatever. So yes I could be doing something different with calories..or routine..but what I am saying is it will not be 'easier' it will be 'harder' on a strict raw paleo diet. Once you set the bar at a certain level I am also saying it will be very unlikely, but prior to that it will still be less efficient even if your body is arguably more efficient and using better materials.

The one-day mandatory trainer at my new gym asked me what my goals were..and I said "I dunno like gain 5-10 lbs in the next year>" heh. I thoroughly enjoy working out, and coming from alot of fatigue issues leaving some kind of intense exercise leaves my body feeling fantastic, and my blood clean or something of that feeling. So at this point i'm just doing what seems to work and having fun. I can say tho that I don't believe if I cut out the raw butter and did just suet or if I didn't do some of the other things which are 'paleo' but not so often tied in like seaweeds, mushrooms, local herbs and grasses, lots of seafoods and organ meats.....and just ate suet, beef and fruit that I would be doing as well in athletics OR my health actually. I'll do a week with just suet or something and it isn't the same. Now looking at some of the people doing Primal bodybuilding and such, I'd say yeah they would have an edge on my edge that is more 'paleo-ish' diet, and likewise to the cooked food dudes. Thats pretty much what I am saying. Not that people wither and die on raw paleo. I already had said that even raw vegans can gain muscle mass. jIn regards to the trainer or in some of these other things...these ways will be 'better' for growth..no matter what end size we are talking about.


Offline kurite

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,270
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2011, 06:47:34 am »
Ha apparently raw paleo can cure a lot of things but not typos. Yah I meant its not optimized for building bulk, it is much more for strength which you had mentioned earlier as increasing without increasing the actual size of your muscles. I have read up quite a few bodybuilding books and would go as far to say that many natural bodybuilders eat a paleoish diet, however they won't say paleo simply because they don't know about the paleo diet.

I would also agree that raw paleo may not be optimal for getting larger especially for some such as forthehunt, but brother said he was making great gains on this diet. I personally am still not 100% raw paleo (I am 100% paleo though) so I won't report any results until Ive been lifting on 100% but I feel that paleo has helped quite a bit. Also what is cf?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Not all dieticians are as anti-paleo as I previously believed
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2011, 07:57:04 am »
but brother said he was making great gains on this diet. I personally am still not 100% raw paleo (I am 100% paleo though) so I won't report any results until Ive been lifting on 100% but I feel that paleo has helped quite a bit. Also what is cf?


I think you might want to double check what type of diet he is/or was doing.


cf is cross-fit which is a paleo/zone centered gym so its a more specifc base of comparrison per my point. I doubt the calorie ranges are that remakably differnt as these guys are not tradtional bodybuilder mindest types. Sorry, hope that makes more sense now. I had mentioned that in the workout thread alot so figured people knew I was involved with that. In a way I mispoke because its possible I actually gained more strength as a percentage than others..but that many people were still way stronger (as well as bigger). That part (strength) clearly isn't a detriment to raw, although size i'm guessing has some thershold for strength. You are right one can get stronger without bulking but the same applies that drinking a gallon of milk will probably get you both quicker. If I start benching over 300 lbs (which seems possible now) at my size that will be quite fantastic tho :). But yeah i'm not saying people will just get stuck in circles eating fruit meat and fat and working out...just that certain thigns work better than others, even if they just want a fit lean physique.

I think the key is in the 'ish'

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk