"Eating fat makes you fat"
- Thread starter _Simon_
- Start date
- Status
<div>
(nkl @ May 23 2008,4:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I use flax seed oil myself (in moderation). What I mean is that we should take care not to overdose with polyunsaturated fats, especially if there are in the hydrogenated form. Since this book was published the public awareness of trans fats have made products containing these unhealthy fats a lot fewer. But there are still media reports of hidden trans fats in various products popping up every now and then. The market is being sanitized.</div>
To an extent.
Very little publicity has ever gone around Uke's book, and most of his work is not exactly ranked highly...
he had little impact on anything happening around trans fat. I have never meet Uke, but one of my off-siders at work has, and even he was
The main problem with a lot of people who trash saturate/cholesterol type constructs are that the majority of the evidence base around saturates/cholesterol that they bash, falls into the same catagory of evidence base that supports their stance against trans fat.
Pot, kettle - that sorta thing...
(nkl @ May 23 2008,4:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I use flax seed oil myself (in moderation). What I mean is that we should take care not to overdose with polyunsaturated fats, especially if there are in the hydrogenated form. Since this book was published the public awareness of trans fats have made products containing these unhealthy fats a lot fewer. But there are still media reports of hidden trans fats in various products popping up every now and then. The market is being sanitized.</div>
To an extent.
Very little publicity has ever gone around Uke's book, and most of his work is not exactly ranked highly...
he had little impact on anything happening around trans fat. I have never meet Uke, but one of my off-siders at work has, and even he was
The main problem with a lot of people who trash saturate/cholesterol type constructs are that the majority of the evidence base around saturates/cholesterol that they bash, falls into the same catagory of evidence base that supports their stance against trans fat.
Pot, kettle - that sorta thing...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin Levac,May 22 2008,6:18
Milk contains lactose, a know allergen. It's not surprising that many of us become lactose intolerant after we've been weaned.</div>
If there is ANY question Martin has no clue what he is talking about, here is the proof folks.
Lactose is NOT an allergen, an allergic reaction is not the cause of lactose Intolerance. It's an enzyme deficiency of lactase that occurs as one gets older, rendering them unable to break down lactose, where it ferments in the gut and causes GI problems.
Lactose tolerance is considered to originally being a northern european gene mutation, allowing adults to maintain the ability to break down lactose.
Milk contains lactose, a know allergen. It's not surprising that many of us become lactose intolerant after we've been weaned.</div>
If there is ANY question Martin has no clue what he is talking about, here is the proof folks.
Lactose is NOT an allergen, an allergic reaction is not the cause of lactose Intolerance. It's an enzyme deficiency of lactase that occurs as one gets older, rendering them unable to break down lactose, where it ferments in the gut and causes GI problems.
Lactose tolerance is considered to originally being a northern european gene mutation, allowing adults to maintain the ability to break down lactose.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The main problem with a lot of people who trash saturate/cholesterol type constructs are that the majority of the evidence base around saturates/cholesterol that they bash, falls into the same catagory of evidence base that supports their stance against trans fat.
Pot, kettle - that sorta thing... </div>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean..? Uffe Ravnskov's book on the myths of cholesterol does not speak ill of saturated fats nor cholesterol (because the evidence don't). The book is a thorough examination of the evidence the scientific community have on the issues (is cholesterol good or bad? does it cause heart disease? what causes artherosclerosis? etc.). It is heavy on the references. The consensus of the book is that we always should look at all the studies if we are supposed to adhere to the scientific method, not just throw away or ignore one study (or most of them) only because it (they) may not agree with our beliefs. I have never met with Dr. Ravnskov, so I have no opinion of him, but that does not matter as in this case the evidence referenced tells the story. The book in itself never made a big impact, as you yourself said and the author himself observes in his foreword for the second edition. The global awareness of trans fat health risks is unrelated to the book, but it surely have some connection to the referenced studies presented therein.
Pot, kettle - that sorta thing... </div>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean..? Uffe Ravnskov's book on the myths of cholesterol does not speak ill of saturated fats nor cholesterol (because the evidence don't). The book is a thorough examination of the evidence the scientific community have on the issues (is cholesterol good or bad? does it cause heart disease? what causes artherosclerosis? etc.). It is heavy on the references. The consensus of the book is that we always should look at all the studies if we are supposed to adhere to the scientific method, not just throw away or ignore one study (or most of them) only because it (they) may not agree with our beliefs. I have never met with Dr. Ravnskov, so I have no opinion of him, but that does not matter as in this case the evidence referenced tells the story. The book in itself never made a big impact, as you yourself said and the author himself observes in his foreword for the second edition. The global awareness of trans fat health risks is unrelated to the book, but it surely have some connection to the referenced studies presented therein.
<div>
(nkl @ May 23 2008,11:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not exactly sure what you mean..? Uffe Ravnskov's book on the myths of cholesterol does not speak ill of saturated fats nor cholesterol (because the evidence don't). The book is a thorough examination of the evidence the scientific community have on the issues (is cholesterol good or bad? does it cause heart disease? what causes artherosclerosis? etc.). It is heavy on the references. The consensus of the book is that we always should look at all the studies if we are supposed to adhere to the scientific method, not just throw away or ignore one study (or most of them) only because it (they) may not agree with our beliefs. I have never met with Dr. Ravnskov, so I have no opinion of him, but that does not matter as in this case the evidence referenced tells the story. The book in itself never made a big impact, as you yourself said and the author himself observes in his foreword for the second edition. The global awareness of trans fat health risks is unrelated to the book, but it surely have some connection to the referenced studies presented therein.</div>
That comemnt had nothing to do with uke, it had to do with the demonization of trans fats utilizing the same research methodology that critics of the saturated fat/cholesteorl theory, say are garbage.
There is a reason that Uke is not taken seriously, its because even tho he claims to offer a rounded picture, hes as blinded as the other side. Some of his published (reviews/letters to editors) work is horrible, with giant leaps of faith taken to support his arguement, while ignoring everything that doesn't suit his model.
(nkl @ May 23 2008,11:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not exactly sure what you mean..? Uffe Ravnskov's book on the myths of cholesterol does not speak ill of saturated fats nor cholesterol (because the evidence don't). The book is a thorough examination of the evidence the scientific community have on the issues (is cholesterol good or bad? does it cause heart disease? what causes artherosclerosis? etc.). It is heavy on the references. The consensus of the book is that we always should look at all the studies if we are supposed to adhere to the scientific method, not just throw away or ignore one study (or most of them) only because it (they) may not agree with our beliefs. I have never met with Dr. Ravnskov, so I have no opinion of him, but that does not matter as in this case the evidence referenced tells the story. The book in itself never made a big impact, as you yourself said and the author himself observes in his foreword for the second edition. The global awareness of trans fat health risks is unrelated to the book, but it surely have some connection to the referenced studies presented therein.</div>
That comemnt had nothing to do with uke, it had to do with the demonization of trans fats utilizing the same research methodology that critics of the saturated fat/cholesteorl theory, say are garbage.
There is a reason that Uke is not taken seriously, its because even tho he claims to offer a rounded picture, hes as blinded as the other side. Some of his published (reviews/letters to editors) work is horrible, with giant leaps of faith taken to support his arguement, while ignoring everything that doesn't suit his model.
Aaron, have you read Anthony Colpo's GREAT CHOLESTEROL CON?? If so what was your impression of it?
And if you get a sec, can you look at the latest post on Hypertrophy-Research section on the protein drink thread??? I asked a question regarding muscle growth, leucine balance and repeat whey sipping from one study and wanted your feedback.
And if you get a sec, can you look at the latest post on Hypertrophy-Research section on the protein drink thread??? I asked a question regarding muscle growth, leucine balance and repeat whey sipping from one study and wanted your feedback.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(pete69 @ May 22 2008,3:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
If there is ANY question Martin has no clue what he is talking about, here is the proof folks.
...</div>
I smile when I read this:
Quote
"Hence, eat more food and absorb less, less potential for fat gain."
(pete69 @ May 22 2008,3:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
If there is ANY question Martin has no clue what he is talking about, here is the proof folks.
...</div>
I smile when I read this:
Quote
"Hence, eat more food and absorb less, less potential for fat gain."
<div>
(pete69 @ May 23 2008,1:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aaron, have you read Anthony Colpo's GREAT CHOLESTEROL CON?? If so what was your impression of it?</div>
I haven't ever read the document itself, just a synopsis. he appears to go along the same garbage a lot of them try to do, but that what it takes to sell
Which is why he has the same old garbage ad-copy that a whole bunch-a-money grubbers use.
Its a single risk factor, out of more than 20. its focussed on a lot because its an easy one to manipulate. Changing another risk factor, say gender, is a bit tougher.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And if you get a sec, can you look at the latest post on Hypertrophy-Research section on the protein drink thread??? I asked a question regarding muscle growth, leucine balance and repeat whey sipping from one study and wanted your feedback</div>
Will see what I can do
(pete69 @ May 23 2008,1:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aaron, have you read Anthony Colpo's GREAT CHOLESTEROL CON?? If so what was your impression of it?</div>
I haven't ever read the document itself, just a synopsis. he appears to go along the same garbage a lot of them try to do, but that what it takes to sell
Which is why he has the same old garbage ad-copy that a whole bunch-a-money grubbers use.
Its a single risk factor, out of more than 20. its focussed on a lot because its an easy one to manipulate. Changing another risk factor, say gender, is a bit tougher.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And if you get a sec, can you look at the latest post on Hypertrophy-Research section on the protein drink thread??? I asked a question regarding muscle growth, leucine balance and repeat whey sipping from one study and wanted your feedback</div>
Will see what I can do
This thread has confused me and left me wondering what, if anything, is healthy to eat.
I used to think:
trans=bad
saturated=bad
polyunsaturated=good
monounsaturated=good
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=good
It now seems you guys are saying:
trans=bad
saturated=good
polyunsaturated=badexcept omego 3's?
monounsaturated=good (no comment on that one)
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=maybe
Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...
I used to think:
trans=bad
saturated=bad
polyunsaturated=good
monounsaturated=good
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=good
It now seems you guys are saying:
trans=bad
saturated=good
polyunsaturated=badexcept omego 3's?
monounsaturated=good (no comment on that one)
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=maybe
Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...
stevejones
Member
<div>
(soflsun @ May 22 2008,9:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This thread has confused me and left me wondering what, if anything, is healthy to eat.
Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...</div>
LOL
welcome to bodybuilding
(soflsun @ May 22 2008,9:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This thread has confused me and left me wondering what, if anything, is healthy to eat.
Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...</div>
LOL
welcome to bodybuilding
<div>
(soflsun @ May 23 2008,3:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...</div>
Its because you are trying to place a label on foods, or specific macronutrients as good or bad, black or white.
Grey is an option
Lets take an initial look at your list
trans=bad Bad for ? what isomer, chain length, other unsaturation points, yada yada. Conjugated Linoleic acid is a trans fat (technically it has both cis and trans) which can possibly offer beneficial effects.
saturated=goodgood for? depends on the chain length etc, but some provide some pretty cool effects.
polyunsaturated=badexcept omego 3's?bad for? Its a bit rough when an essential fatty acid is bad, but an essential fatty acid is good? You need both (n6, n3)to survive, but its a matter of doseage. Typical modern processing has allowed a vast increase in the intake of n-6 fatty acids.
monounsaturated=good (no comment on that one)Good for? the major trans isomer found in processed food is a monounsaturated fat... but that aside, most monounsurates are good caloric fillers, especially when provides as something filled with other nutrients, nuts, olives etc.
suger=badonce again, bad for? context is a fine thing. As is doseage. Drinking 2gallons of coke with your Mchappy meal is one extreme, but is a spoonful of honey in your tea equally bad?
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=maybemaybe is possibly good. Vast quantites of completely processed grains are not a great source of nutrition. Fruits, veges and grains can be eating quite liberally, but they will still have to fall under overall requirements. And no, drinking 2litres of coke is not getting a grain, even if america produces their sugar from a grain.
Veges are great, especially the nutrient dense options. Fruits are great as well, but typically contain more energy but not always contain a great deal of other nutrients.
1) dont smoke
2) dont drink excessively
3) dont do drugs
4) do not get fat, do not get excessively large
5) do a reasonable quantity of different activities
6) Eat a good mixture of proteins
7) eat a good mixture of carbs
8) eat a good mixture of fats
9) while doing the last 3, get a high level of micronutrients, trace elements and other compounds.
10) dont drink 15 beers, a pizza and two Murderburger value super mega fat *** meals, followed by ice cream and a pie, and then blame the carbs for your issues.
11) dont eat 3 packages of jelly beans, drink 5 litres of gatorade, three packages of rice and a bacon sammich and blame the fat for your problems.
(soflsun @ May 23 2008,3:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...</div>
Its because you are trying to place a label on foods, or specific macronutrients as good or bad, black or white.
Grey is an option
Lets take an initial look at your list
trans=bad Bad for ? what isomer, chain length, other unsaturation points, yada yada. Conjugated Linoleic acid is a trans fat (technically it has both cis and trans) which can possibly offer beneficial effects.
saturated=goodgood for? depends on the chain length etc, but some provide some pretty cool effects.
polyunsaturated=badexcept omego 3's?bad for? Its a bit rough when an essential fatty acid is bad, but an essential fatty acid is good? You need both (n6, n3)to survive, but its a matter of doseage. Typical modern processing has allowed a vast increase in the intake of n-6 fatty acids.
monounsaturated=good (no comment on that one)Good for? the major trans isomer found in processed food is a monounsaturated fat... but that aside, most monounsurates are good caloric fillers, especially when provides as something filled with other nutrients, nuts, olives etc.
suger=badonce again, bad for? context is a fine thing. As is doseage. Drinking 2gallons of coke with your Mchappy meal is one extreme, but is a spoonful of honey in your tea equally bad?
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=maybemaybe is possibly good. Vast quantites of completely processed grains are not a great source of nutrition. Fruits, veges and grains can be eating quite liberally, but they will still have to fall under overall requirements. And no, drinking 2litres of coke is not getting a grain, even if america produces their sugar from a grain.
Veges are great, especially the nutrient dense options. Fruits are great as well, but typically contain more energy but not always contain a great deal of other nutrients.
1) dont smoke
2) dont drink excessively
3) dont do drugs
4) do not get fat, do not get excessively large
5) do a reasonable quantity of different activities
6) Eat a good mixture of proteins
7) eat a good mixture of carbs
8) eat a good mixture of fats
9) while doing the last 3, get a high level of micronutrients, trace elements and other compounds.
10) dont drink 15 beers, a pizza and two Murderburger value super mega fat *** meals, followed by ice cream and a pie, and then blame the carbs for your issues.
11) dont eat 3 packages of jelly beans, drink 5 litres of gatorade, three packages of rice and a bacon sammich and blame the fat for your problems.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1) dont smoke
2) dont drink excessively
3) dont do drugs
4) do not get fat, do not get excessively large
5) do a reasonable quantity of different activities
6) Eat a good mixture of proteins
7) eat a good mixture of carbs
8) eat a good mixture of fats
9) while doing the last 3, get a high level of micronutrients, trace elements and other compounds.
10) dont drink 15 beers, a pizza and two Murderburger value super mega fat *** meals, followed by ice cream and a pie, and then blame the carbs for your issues.
11) dont eat 3 packages of jelly beans, drink 5 litres of gatorade, three packages of rice and a bacon sammich and blame the fat for your problems. </div>
You should write a book: The 11 rules to Healthy Living for Retards.
2) dont drink excessively
3) dont do drugs
4) do not get fat, do not get excessively large
5) do a reasonable quantity of different activities
6) Eat a good mixture of proteins
7) eat a good mixture of carbs
8) eat a good mixture of fats
9) while doing the last 3, get a high level of micronutrients, trace elements and other compounds.
10) dont drink 15 beers, a pizza and two Murderburger value super mega fat *** meals, followed by ice cream and a pie, and then blame the carbs for your issues.
11) dont eat 3 packages of jelly beans, drink 5 litres of gatorade, three packages of rice and a bacon sammich and blame the fat for your problems. </div>
You should write a book: The 11 rules to Healthy Living for Retards.
<div>
(soflsun @ May 23 2008,3:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This thread has confused me and left me wondering what, if anything, is healthy to eat.
I used to think:
trans=bad
saturated=bad
polyunsaturated=good
monounsaturated=good
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=good
It now seems you guys are saying:
trans=bad
saturated=good
polyunsaturated=badexcept omego 3's?
monounsaturated=good (no comment on that one)
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=maybe
Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...</div>
We usually learn, after we have discussed a topic to ad nauceam, that moderation is the best way (reader must use discretion here).
Polys, as I said in my first post, is not evil if used in moderation. And that's generally the problem. n-6 rich polys has been used excessively and that is what the studies look into. Neither n-6 or n-3 are bad - they must balance themselves out. Their functions in our body depend on each other. Check this link out for an introduction to the interactions of n-6 and n-3. I could cite the whole page, but I won't (aren't you grateful?). It's very informative. It is better to understand the actions of a nutrient before condemning it.
Moderation is probably the best way concerning dietary fat, protein, and carbs as well. Natural unprocessed foods are probably more nutrient rich. But some processing may be of help for the digestive properties (making the nutriens more available). Again used in moderation. Too much tampering and the food will get degraded and looses valuable vitamins and other healthy properties. That goes for refined sugar and grains, fats and proteins as well.
The health issues becomes a focus when a person digest a lot of refined products, usually in abundance for a long time span. Who thinks a diet consisting of hamburgers, french fries, coke, pizza and doughnut are healthy these days? But once in a while?
(soflsun @ May 23 2008,3:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This thread has confused me and left me wondering what, if anything, is healthy to eat.
I used to think:
trans=bad
saturated=bad
polyunsaturated=good
monounsaturated=good
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=good
It now seems you guys are saying:
trans=bad
saturated=good
polyunsaturated=badexcept omego 3's?
monounsaturated=good (no comment on that one)
suger=bad
fruits,vegetables, grains hight in fiber=maybe
Can someome please guide me to a good resource that's willing to evaluate studies on both sides of the table. Health is my main concern...</div>
We usually learn, after we have discussed a topic to ad nauceam, that moderation is the best way (reader must use discretion here).
Polys, as I said in my first post, is not evil if used in moderation. And that's generally the problem. n-6 rich polys has been used excessively and that is what the studies look into. Neither n-6 or n-3 are bad - they must balance themselves out. Their functions in our body depend on each other. Check this link out for an introduction to the interactions of n-6 and n-3. I could cite the whole page, but I won't (aren't you grateful?). It's very informative. It is better to understand the actions of a nutrient before condemning it.
Moderation is probably the best way concerning dietary fat, protein, and carbs as well. Natural unprocessed foods are probably more nutrient rich. But some processing may be of help for the digestive properties (making the nutriens more available). Again used in moderation. Too much tampering and the food will get degraded and looses valuable vitamins and other healthy properties. That goes for refined sugar and grains, fats and proteins as well.
The health issues becomes a focus when a person digest a lot of refined products, usually in abundance for a long time span. Who thinks a diet consisting of hamburgers, french fries, coke, pizza and doughnut are healthy these days? But once in a while?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That comemnt had nothing to do with uke, it had to do with the demonization of trans fats utilizing the same research methodology that critics of the saturated fat/cholesteorl theory, say are garbage.
There is a reason that Uke is not taken seriously, its because even tho he claims to offer a rounded picture, hes as blinded as the other side. Some of his published (reviews/letters to editors) work is horrible, with giant leaps of faith taken to support his arguement, while ignoring everything that doesn't suit his model.
</div>
That is usually the case with sceptics that become strong proponents of a certain view and goes to war. Beware the blind devotees!
For Ravnskov's book I'm only aware of what he have made references to. I have not dug any deeper than to check the validity of one of his claims by reading the souces myself. His verison was correct in that case (actually not a small case - it was concering a health recommendation put forward by the authorities but lacking sound scientific evidence - it was based on review studies that turned out to distort/ignore the actual studies that were reviewed).
There is a reason that Uke is not taken seriously, its because even tho he claims to offer a rounded picture, hes as blinded as the other side. Some of his published (reviews/letters to editors) work is horrible, with giant leaps of faith taken to support his arguement, while ignoring everything that doesn't suit his model.
</div>
That is usually the case with sceptics that become strong proponents of a certain view and goes to war. Beware the blind devotees!
For Ravnskov's book I'm only aware of what he have made references to. I have not dug any deeper than to check the validity of one of his claims by reading the souces myself. His verison was correct in that case (actually not a small case - it was concering a health recommendation put forward by the authorities but lacking sound scientific evidence - it was based on review studies that turned out to distort/ignore the actual studies that were reviewed).
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">trans=bad Bad for ? what isomer, chain length, other unsaturation points, yada yada. Conjugated Linoleic acid is a trans fat (technically it has both cis and trans) which can possibly offer beneficial effects.
saturated=good good for? depends on the chain length etc, but some provide some pretty cool effects.
polyunsaturated=bad except omego 3's?bad for? Its a bit rough when an essential fatty acid is bad, but an essential fatty acid is good? You need both (n6, n3)to survive, but its a matter of doseage. Typical modern processing has allowed a vast increase in the intake of n-6 fatty acids.</div>
i'm not quite sure what you mean, so is it the type of trans fat the makes a difference? i generally thought all were bad.
saturated good? how is that if you don't mind me asking
i also thought polyunsaturated were quite beneficial, AH but like you say it really is about dosage, i mean too much of ANYTHING is harmful, too much water and that can be very bad for you
cheers!
saturated=good good for? depends on the chain length etc, but some provide some pretty cool effects.
polyunsaturated=bad except omego 3's?bad for? Its a bit rough when an essential fatty acid is bad, but an essential fatty acid is good? You need both (n6, n3)to survive, but its a matter of doseage. Typical modern processing has allowed a vast increase in the intake of n-6 fatty acids.</div>
i'm not quite sure what you mean, so is it the type of trans fat the makes a difference? i generally thought all were bad.
saturated good? how is that if you don't mind me asking
i also thought polyunsaturated were quite beneficial, AH but like you say it really is about dosage, i mean too much of ANYTHING is harmful, too much water and that can be very bad for you
cheers!
Martin, is this sort of where you are arguing from in relation to carbs?? that starvation then big eating causes you to store carbs as bodyfat??
this is also what prompted Jeff Anderson to create Optimum Anabolics (in which you undergo protein deprivation, then you start eating lots of protein and your gains come nicely, not sure if this actually happens in the way he describes however...)
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> The Mystery of Why You Gain Weight When You Hardly Ever Eat!
You're late for work and the kids are late for school, so you don't have time for breakfast. Work is really busy, so the only lunch you have time for is a bagel and a diet soft drink. Your body is in starvation mode, and your blood sugar is very low.
But when dinnertime comes, it's a different story. Now you're ready for a feast of roast beef, mashed potatoes and gravy, sweet corn and bread rolls with butter.
Your blood sugar soars, your insulin spikes, and here's what your body is thinking:
"We've been starving all day, and finally we got a decent meal. But who knows when we'll eat again? We should store all this food as fat. That way, we'll have a source of energy if we go back to starvation tomorrow."
So on the next morning, you step on the scales and you've gained weight! You say to yourself, "But how could that happen? I only ate one meal yesterday!".
How could it happen? It's your blood sugar, that's how!
Are you starting to understand why balancing your blood sugar is so important?
Doctors are beginning to realize that keeping a close eye on your blood sugar isn't just for diabetics anymore. It's for everyone - man, woman who wants to be fit, healthy, and live to ripe old age. </div>
this is also what prompted Jeff Anderson to create Optimum Anabolics (in which you undergo protein deprivation, then you start eating lots of protein and your gains come nicely, not sure if this actually happens in the way he describes however...)
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> The Mystery of Why You Gain Weight When You Hardly Ever Eat!
You're late for work and the kids are late for school, so you don't have time for breakfast. Work is really busy, so the only lunch you have time for is a bagel and a diet soft drink. Your body is in starvation mode, and your blood sugar is very low.
But when dinnertime comes, it's a different story. Now you're ready for a feast of roast beef, mashed potatoes and gravy, sweet corn and bread rolls with butter.
Your blood sugar soars, your insulin spikes, and here's what your body is thinking:
"We've been starving all day, and finally we got a decent meal. But who knows when we'll eat again? We should store all this food as fat. That way, we'll have a source of energy if we go back to starvation tomorrow."
So on the next morning, you step on the scales and you've gained weight! You say to yourself, "But how could that happen? I only ate one meal yesterday!".
How could it happen? It's your blood sugar, that's how!
Are you starting to understand why balancing your blood sugar is so important?
Doctors are beginning to realize that keeping a close eye on your blood sugar isn't just for diabetics anymore. It's for everyone - man, woman who wants to be fit, healthy, and live to ripe old age. </div>
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(_Simon_ @ May 23 2008,10:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin, is this sort of where you are arguing from in relation to carbs?
...</div>
No, that's not it. I'm arguing from the point of view that glucose is toxic in any quantity over normal. And normal blood glucose level is much lower and much more stable than the current perceived norm. It is for this reason, for instance, that we will switch very quickly to burning glucose when blood glucose level increases. Our lean tissue does this not because glucose is the preferred fuel but because it must dispose of the excess as quickly as it can to avoid organ damage. Three ways to do this: Burn it, store it as glycogen, store it as fat.
We have a limited capacity to burn it. We have a limited capacity to store it as glycogen. We have an almost unlimited capacity to store it as fat. And so the most obvious effect of eating carbs is obesity. But the most significant effect of eating carbs is insulin resistance. Lean tissue becomes insulin resistant over time in response to the chronic carbs intake. It does so to protect itself from the damage potential of glucose.
As our lean tissue becomes insulin resistant, our capacity to burn glucose diminishes accordingly. This means our glycogen stores is replenished more quickly. But as our lean tissue becomes insulin resistant, we also begin to lack energy and so we spend less energy so we become more sedentary, etc. This means our glycogen stores are almost always full. So we end up growing fat with the slightest amount of carbs we eat.
Hunger plays a role too. As lean tissue becomes insulin resistant, it acts as if there was less nutrients. In fact there is less nutrients in the blood because insulin level is so high so it prevents nutrients from being released from adipose tissue. As lean tissue acts as if there was less nutrients, it calls for more: Hunger. So we eat more. Yet, it's not because we eat more that we grow fatter. Yet again, as we eat more with a predisposition to store carbs as fat very quickly because of insulin resistant lean tissue and full glycogen stores, we grow fatter quicker.
What I explained above is called Metabolic Syndrome. Although I learned that it also includes a whole slew of other mechanisms and symptoms such as blood lipid profile, etc. The point is that this condition is brought about because glucose is toxic in any quantity above normal. If it was not toxic, it would not cause all this.
(_Simon_ @ May 23 2008,10:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin, is this sort of where you are arguing from in relation to carbs?
...</div>
No, that's not it. I'm arguing from the point of view that glucose is toxic in any quantity over normal. And normal blood glucose level is much lower and much more stable than the current perceived norm. It is for this reason, for instance, that we will switch very quickly to burning glucose when blood glucose level increases. Our lean tissue does this not because glucose is the preferred fuel but because it must dispose of the excess as quickly as it can to avoid organ damage. Three ways to do this: Burn it, store it as glycogen, store it as fat.
We have a limited capacity to burn it. We have a limited capacity to store it as glycogen. We have an almost unlimited capacity to store it as fat. And so the most obvious effect of eating carbs is obesity. But the most significant effect of eating carbs is insulin resistance. Lean tissue becomes insulin resistant over time in response to the chronic carbs intake. It does so to protect itself from the damage potential of glucose.
As our lean tissue becomes insulin resistant, our capacity to burn glucose diminishes accordingly. This means our glycogen stores is replenished more quickly. But as our lean tissue becomes insulin resistant, we also begin to lack energy and so we spend less energy so we become more sedentary, etc. This means our glycogen stores are almost always full. So we end up growing fat with the slightest amount of carbs we eat.
Hunger plays a role too. As lean tissue becomes insulin resistant, it acts as if there was less nutrients. In fact there is less nutrients in the blood because insulin level is so high so it prevents nutrients from being released from adipose tissue. As lean tissue acts as if there was less nutrients, it calls for more: Hunger. So we eat more. Yet, it's not because we eat more that we grow fatter. Yet again, as we eat more with a predisposition to store carbs as fat very quickly because of insulin resistant lean tissue and full glycogen stores, we grow fatter quicker.
What I explained above is called Metabolic Syndrome. Although I learned that it also includes a whole slew of other mechanisms and symptoms such as blood lipid profile, etc. The point is that this condition is brought about because glucose is toxic in any quantity above normal. If it was not toxic, it would not cause all this.
Simon, Jeff "the muscle nerd" Anderson have also stated that he refuses to acknowledge that we need progressive load to grow. I do not think he have all the facts on the table. I recently bought Advanced Mass Building from him, and that turned out to be some kind of progressive loading scheme, going from high repetition isolation work, to pre-post exhaust iso-compound and compound-iso work, to heavy compound work. Then a SD. Now, what does the man believe in?
The IF diet is used by several members on this forum (and over at Lyle's) and they are not gaining fat as Jeff describes it. Contrary to that, IF is a good way to burn fat.
The IF diet is used by several members on this forum (and over at Lyle's) and they are not gaining fat as Jeff describes it. Contrary to that, IF is a good way to burn fat.
- Status