Draper's Tuna & Water

Wedgewod

New Member
I just got through reading Brother Iron, Sister Steel by Dave Draper. Great book, killer attitude.

Anyway, he references a tuna and water cutting diet. Has anybody had any personal experience with this approach? I'm particularly curious how you implemented it. If I read Draper right, it's 3 days of tuna and water (6 cans a day, spread evenly throughout the day) followed by gradual inclusion of other lean protein sources after the third day.

Thanks,
BB
 
Yep pretty much..go visit irononline.com or davedraper.com (same place)..there's a lot of discussion there especially from the listserv he and Laree host. We're a buncha tuna nuts :)
Essentially, it's a short term ketogenic wake your @$$ up diet. I've done a variation with chicken and tuna and water; there are also other diet/fitness/nutrition types who recommend a three day meat and water fast. Tuna just happens to be cheap and low fat.
 
I recall reading somewhere in his site that he was reluctant to suggest this diet as it isn't "too scientific"... I also seem to recall that in the online article he suggested this approach only for the first day...

It isn't "too scientific", true, but it would certainly give you a great feeling since you'd lose lots of water pounds...
 
Tuna is probably the best protein source there is since chunk light tuna contains about 30g per small can and only 1.5g of fat and 0 carbs. Its some awesome stuff. As for the water weight I wouldn't worry about that I still lost water and fat using tuna.

I'd go farther though and mix it with eggs, pickles, mayo and 100% whole wheat and have a sandwich. Low cal meal with high protein and fiber. Using 3 eggs, 2 cans of chunk light tuna in water, 1 pickle chopped and 1.5 tbsp of mayo - divide it into 5 servings and with the 2 pieces of 100% whole wheat you have exactly:

258 cals, 8g fat, 23 carbs and 25g protein 6g fiber, much of that fat being mono and poly. Good stuff.
 
Terrible ideia in my opinion. At least add some cod liver oil to it. If it's a short term thing then I guess it wouldn't be a problem but living off tuna would not be a good ideia, if you really tried hard enough for long enough you could end up with mercury posoning. I've heard reported cases at 6-7 cans a day and the symptoms are not nice.
 
edziu. come on, are you serious? ive eaten ten cans a day with no problems. hell, i went almost a year once on mostly tuna and brown rice. i never suffered mercury poisoning. i think the whole mercury poisoning thing is overblown. ever known anyone personally who got mercury poisonoing from too much tuna? i doubt it. just some personal observations.
 
come to think of it this was the leanest time of my life. and i had no idea that i was dieting. just that tuna and brown rice is very cheap. i was as big as ive ever been too. 6 or 7 percent bodyfat. okay, i think i will repeat a disgusting part of my life and do another year of tuna and brown rice. yuk. im currently at 22 percent bodyfat.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]ive eaten ten cans a day with no problems

Mercury poisoning is not something that happens in a couple of days. And we are not talking here about symptoms of acute mercury poisoning. This would take extremely large amounts of mercury to happen. We are talking about chronic accumulation of mercury in human tissues.

Perhaps you don't understand the size of the industry we're dealing with. If chronic mercury poisoning was to be proved, the whole fishing and pharmaceutical industry would be shaken. But don't take anyone's word for granted: Just find for yourself the mercury content of fish and look at how much mercury can be excreted by the human body. What happens to the rest of it ?

There is special concern for the deleterious effects of mercury on infants, but since we have all left behind this tender age, I'll spare you these worries. For adults, chronic mercury poisoning is thought to be the cause of some extremely serious conditions like ALS, Lupus, Alzheimer etc. Do a web search and you'll see that there is a lot of concern. In order to prove such claims though, one would have to conduct unfeasible studies: How can we perform any type of controlled study for chronic contamination in a statistically significant number of people ?

Pharmaceutical companies may refute all these claims and laugh at them, but hey, so does tobacco industry about smoking. Living in drugs has taught me a couple of things about this industry... e.g. who would think that in popular multivitamin tablets one could find forbidden E numbers ?
 
Do a web search and there are plenty of people who are worried about everything.
From aliens attacking, to aspartame being the cause of everything, including causing hitler to be the way he was
wow.gif


There is little evidence of any of the supposed negative effects of mercury in fish. Remember I am also talking in a worldwide sense. Sure there is potential that the US may have certain industries forcing their viewpoint on the population, but not all countries are like this. Just because there is an FDA in the states, etc, doesnt mean that every country works that way.

If Tuna has as much mercury, and is consumed like kube said he did, ie his entire diet based around tuna for a year. There would be some chronic effects showing up. With the amount of fish that is eaten around the world, there be epidemic of mercury related problems.
I know its all well and good saying that it causes every disease under the sun, but so does aspartame, they cant both be the causes of them all

In terms of Alzheimers, I suspect the correlation between folate intake (and B6/B12) and risk of alzheimers (and all degenerative brain disorders like white matter infarts and the like) is extremely high compared to any correlation between fish consumption and Alzheimers.

In terms of research, the base information would be quite easy if fish is as contaminated as some 'cough' mercola 'cough' like to think. Take any large cohort, such as physicians health study, nurses health study, EPIC yada yada yada, take fish (and get as picky as the nutrition information allows to discriminate between types of fish) intake and compare this with various rates of diseases.
Considering fish intake is generally correlated with decreased rates of death, it cant be all bad
tounge.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Do a web search and there are plenty of people who are worried about everything.

True, people with serious diseases will always try to find a cause. They are desperate. This doesn't mean that there is not a cause. *There is* a cause.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Just because there is an FDA in the states, etc, doesnt mean that every country works that way
About every couple of years, mercury levels above normal are found in tuna here in Greece too. There's a lot of fuss for a week or so, then everyone forgets it.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If Tuna has as much mercury, and is consumed like kube said he did, ie his entire diet based around tuna for a year. There would be some chronic effects showing up. With the amount of fish that is eaten around the world, there be epidemic of mercury related problems.

He-he, but there have been epidemics:
"Exposure to methyl mercury in the diet (fish and contaminated grain) has caused epidemic poisonings in Iraq and Japan, characterized by severe developmental effects (impaired motor and cognitive functions) in infants of exposed mothers (Bakir et al., 1973; Amin-Zaki et al., 1974; WHO, 1976). The primary target organ for oral exposure to methyl mercury is the brain; the effects on this organ accounting for the developmental toxicity of the chemical (Magos, 1980; Goyer, 1991)."

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In terms of Alzheimers, I suspect the correlation between folate intake (and B6/B12) and risk of alzheimers (and all degenerative brain disorders like white matter infarts and the like) is extremely high compared to any correlation between fish consumption and Alzheimers.

They suspect a lot of things for Alzheimer, I don't say that it's caused by mercury, but it is one thing that should be considered. They blamed low folate for spina bifida too, and now they're saying that high folate may be the cause. You can't be sure of anything...

Mercola may be called a wacko, but at least one can't question his intentions. Let me tell you about the good doctor Stephen Barrett, author of Quackwatch, who has devoted himself to a crusade protecting us from every quackery. I've been watching his site and have noticed some strange things... he was saying for example that glucosamine is a quackery, but he "updated" his glucosamine page as soon as a major pharmaceutical company promoted glucosamine as a drug. Whoa! I have also mentioned the example of tobacco industry, there are a lot of sites out there claiming that tobacco adversaries are nuts and "pseudo-scientists". They also cite lots of studies... he-he....

Since we have an overabundance of information, we can find a study that will suport anything we want it to. So, let's just use our head. The half life of mercury in humans is approximately 70 days. So, does mercury accumulate or not ? If you want to believe that accumulated mercury is harmless, then be my guest...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 08 2003,12:36)]True, people with serious diseases will always try to find a cause. They are desperate. This doesn't mean that there is not a cause. *There is* a cause.
No doubt their are causes, but the chances of finding proof for some of them is very slim.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]About every couple of years, mercury levels above normal are found in tuna here in Greece too. There's a lot of fuss for a week or so, then everyone forgets it.

Normal, we have algae blooms over in NZ that usually decimate oyster and shellfish beds every few years. people forget those as well.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]He-he, but there have been epidemics:
Notice the age of the research. Probably from huge amounts of mercury, even large amounts compared to current levels. The iraq example was due to the grain being treated with an alkai mercury fungicide before sowing and the bread etc made from teh plants was a large percentage of their normal days food. And the amounts they got caused a very high fatality rate, so it wasnt a small amount.
If there was as much mercury in the fish stocks as mercola nd the other extremists say there is, there would be more current information other than a vauge base information about seafood and pregnancy etc.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They suspect a lot of things for Alzheimer, I don't say that it's caused by mercury, but it is one thing that should be considered. They blamed low folate for spina bifida too, and now they're saying that high folate may be the cause. You can't be sure of anything...
Uh, dont know where you are getting your information, but it is low folate intake, directed thru its effect on homocysteine metabolism. Apart from the occasional nut folate has consistently shown lowered incidence of neural tube defect, and from memory since the introduction of mandatory fortification in the USA, Neural tube defects have also gone down.
Homocysteine/folate is my thesis area, and folate/homocysteine is my supervisors area, so I have been reading the effects of this for the past 3-4 years.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Mercola may be called a wacko, but at least one can't question his intentions. Let me tell you about the good doctor Stephen Barrett
Some of the things, it makes you wonder about his intentions. Is he just trying to help, or get more people worried to keep his business going nicely.

As for Stephen Barrett. Did he change his perspective about glucosamine because of pharmacuetical pressure, or because more decent research came out about the subject?
A scientist will change his position on a subject if more information is brought about. Stephen Barrett is also very biased in other respects as well, just like his interactions/writings with Linus Pauling.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] have also mentioned the example of tobacco industry, there are a lot of sites out there claiming that tobacco adversaries are nuts and "pseudo-scientists". They also cite lots of studies... he-he....

Of course, and in the development of a public health strategie for smoking, there should be mention of both postive and negative studies about smoking, otherwise a potential industry may have limits/taxs/shutdown due to incorrect information. Most of the early work on smoking was negative. The early smoking studies were extremely interesting pieces of epidemiology.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]

So, does mercury accumulate or not ? If you want to believe that accumulated mercury is harmless, then be my guest...
Did I ever say mercury wasnt toxic. But, there is little evidence, that supposed buildups from normal intakes of fish do anything. If there was an interaction, fish wouldnt have the generally extremely postive health benifits that it has been shown to have time and time again.
Should it be avoided in specific circumstances, well at this stage, pregnant women are the best example, as mercury can cross thru the placenta quite nicely, and a developing fetus is very sensitive to increases in mercury because the brain is going thru very rapid growth.
But at this stage the extreme paranoia that is written everytime somebody mentions tuna, is completely unwarrented.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Uh, dont know where you are getting your information, but it is low folate intake, directed thru its effect on homocysteine metabolism. Apart from the occasional nut folate has consistently shown lowered incidence of neural tube defect, and from memory since the introduction of mandatory fortification in the USA, Neural tube defects have also gone down

Yes, this is the tendency right now, but:
"In addition to achieving significant protection against birth defects, women who take folic acid supplements during pregnancy have been reported to have fewer infections and to give birth to babies with higher birth weights and better Apgar scores.10 However, waiting to begin supplementation until pregnancy has been diagnosed may increase the risk of birth defects."

And also:
"For the women for whom folic acid does have a preventative effect, it is thought that the problem is not necessarily a deficiency in dietary folic acid but a difficulty with metabolism at the crucial time for the developing embryo. In these cases the folic acid works by overcoming a partial block in the metabolism of homocysteine, an amino acid. Recent research suggests that a genetic abnormality is at least partly responsible for this failure of proper metabolism."

I'm not endorsing this or that, I'm just showing how contradictious the literature may be.

As far as homocysteine is concerned, this is the new craze. You visit a cardiologist < 40 years old and they talk about homocysteine all the time. You go to a cardiologist > 50 years old and when you say "homocysteine" they think you're calling them names. Since the link between cholesterol and heart disease starts to prove rather weak, they have to find something else. How long before they discover that homocysteine is not the cause but just another symptom ? I give them 10-20 years, so that the industry can cash their studies on homocysteine- reducing drugs.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If there was as much mercury in the fish stocks as mercola nd the other extremists say there is, there would be more current information other than a vauge base information about seafood and pregnancy etc.

We're talking here about chronic accumulation, it could take 20 or 30 years before a serious disease appears and even then, it would be only in the genetically predisposed. It just can't be proved, because we don't have a large enough, controlled group of people that take high mercury doses every day.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As for Stephen Barrett. Did he change his perspective about glucosamine because of pharmacuetical pressure, or because more decent research came out about the subject? A scientist will change his position on a subject if more information is brought about.

If you read his pages (and I've read quite a few of them) he "exploits" and "uncovers" everyone under the sun: Chiropractors, Homeopathy, Iridology, Herbalists, Pharmacists, Supplement companies, Ayurveda, Aromatherapy, Dieticians, Nutritionists, Reflexology etc. The one thing he never touches, is physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Why doesn't he tell us about the quackery that Xenical is, but "exposes" Chitosan which does the same thing ? Why doesn't he tell us about how Astra is promoting Nexium instead of Losec when it is not any better (but Losec has a lot of generics now, right ?) Why doesn't he tell us about the tragic hoax of COX-2 specific inhibitors and the studies that were kept secret from the FDA ? He has a HUGE web site that deals with EVERYTHING, he has never touched not even remotely the pharmaceutical industry, and yet he is impudent enough to claim he has no financial ties with anyone! :mad:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Of course, and in the development of a public health strategie for smoking, there should be mention of both postive and negative studies about smoking, otherwise a potential industry may have limits/taxs/shutdown due to incorrect information.

Yeah, right, go ahead and read some stuff from FORCES, it really gives you the creeps. It's advertised as "a non-profit educational corporation" HA-HA-ROTFL! Tell me where the negative stuff is in their (huge) site.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But, there is little evidence, that supposed buildups from normal intakes of fish do anything. If there was an interaction, fish wouldnt have the generally extremely postive health benifits that it has been shown to have time and time again.

I assume you are talking about studies that take into account the nutritional habits as a whole, and not necessarily just the fish intake. You know how these studies fail to show us what can be attributed to what... Japanese may eat more fish and have less heart attacks, but they also eat a lot of different things and have higher rates of other diseases... not to mention the thing that studies are done in people that started eating fish 30 years ago, when contamination was much less of a problem.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The iraq example was due to the grain being treated with an alkai mercury fungicide before sowing and the bread etc made from teh plants was a large percentage of their normal days food.

Yes, but here's what happened in Japan:
"In 1953, an epidemic hit fishermen and their families in villages on Japan's Minamata Bay. A number of people who were highly dependent on seafood showed signs of brain damage. Some of these cases were fatal. An investigation revealed that a local chemical plant was discharging organic mercury into the bay. The fish in the area absorbed the mercury and eventually passed it on to the villagers."

This may be a case of acute poisoning, but shows the affinity between brain tissue and mercury...

As far as whether we sould be concerned or not, even the FDA has
recommended that pregnant women be warned about mercury in canned tuna. But let's skip the infants one more. If levels above normal are found in canned tuna, and if mercury is toxic, then it is my logical conclusion that I should be very-very careful. Otherwise, I don't see the meaning of maximum allowed merculry levels in canned fish.
 
I don't have anything to add on this, but until someone proves me that the rise in all the nervous system degenerative diseases is completely unrelated to mercury intake I'm keeping tuna under 4 cans a week. Mercury is toxic, has a relatively long biological half life and just because people don't die from it doesn't mean it harmless. And like I said a billion times before, I don't trust the FDA for a second.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm keeping tuna under 4 cans a week

And not just tuna, I believe that the foundation of a balanced diet is variety. If someone would ask me to condense a good diet in a few words, I would say:

1) Variety
2) Unprocessed foods
3) Low calories (this one doesn't apply to bodybuilders)

Even the best food should be avoided for extended periods of time. And we should always try foods we've never tasted until now. Just my .02 euros :)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 08 2003,12:59)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm keeping tuna under 4 cans a week
And not just tuna, I believe that the foundation of a balanced diet is variety. If someone would ask me to condense a good diet in a few words, I would say:
1) Variety
2) Unprocessed foods
3) Low calories (this one doesn't apply to bodybuilders)
Even the best food should be avoided for extended periods of time. And we should always try foods we've never tasted until now. Just my .02 euros :)
I agree, gone are the days when I ate the same thing everyday. Now I rotatee foods and don't eat the same thing two days in a row. I still could use some more variety though....
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 08 2003,4:07)]Yes, this is the tendency right now, but:
"In addition to achieving significant protection against birth defects, women who take folic acid supplements during pregnancy have been reported to have fewer infections and to give birth to babies with higher birth weights and better Apgar scores.10 However, waiting to begin supplementation until pregnancy has been diagnosed may increase the risk of birth defects."
I'm not endorsing this or that, I'm just showing how contradictious the literature may be.
This is why its not just pushed to pregnant women, and why there is such fortification. ITs because 1/3-2/3 of pregnancies are unplanned, nobody can get folate during organogenesis if they do not know they are pregnant. it is recommended that women of childbearing age get 200-400mcg folate(preferably folic acid) daily.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And also:
"For the women for whom folic acid does have a preventative effect, it is thought that the problem is not necessarily a deficiency in dietary folic acid but a difficulty with metabolism at the crucial time for the developing embryo. In these cases the folic acid works by overcoming a partial block in the metabolism of homocysteine, an amino acid. Recent research suggests that a genetic abnormality is at least partly responsible for this failure of proper metabolism."
What you mean like the very common MTHFR (methyl tetrahydrofolate reductase) c667t (forgive me if the number is wrong, my brain doesnt always remember codings perfectly). Homozygotes for this abnormality have raised homocysteine, inspite of folate status. But this doesnt mean that dietary folate doesnt have an effect, because it still does have an effect.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As far as homocysteine is concerned, this is the new craze. You visit a cardiologist < 40 years old and they talk about homocysteine all the time. You go to a cardiologist > 50 years old and when you say "homocysteine" they think you're calling them names. Since the link between cholesterol and heart disease starts to prove rather weak, they have to find something else. How long before they discover that homocysteine is not the cause but just another symptom ? I give them 10-20 years, so that the industry can cash their studies on homocysteine- reducing drugs.
Most physicians worth their salt will know homocsyteine quite well. It still nowhere near the level of evidence that cholesterol has (and it does, no matter what the anti-cholesterol nuts have to say). No one ever said that heartdisease wasnt multifactorial. Once you get the inflammatory effects, whatever effects that homocsyteine is having, as well as raised cholesterol levels, you have an exceedingly good test for risk of heart disease (even total:hdl ratio, combined with the hsCRP measure is awsome (high on both gives a (relative) risk of 13x of people with the lowest measures.

Oooo ooo, can i sell the best homocsyteine lowering drug currently available.
Ooo, too late

American already fortifies with this drug,
homocysteine levels in the american population have already decreased from its introduction
ooo

what it is

Folic acid.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]We're talking here about chronic accumulation, it could take 20 or 30 years before a serious disease appears and even then, it would be only in the genetically predisposed. It just can't be proved, because we don't have a large enough, controlled group of people that take high mercury doses every day.
this is the whole point of epidemiology, if there was something, a study along the lines of the physicians health/nurses health study would beable to pick something up.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Why doesn't he tell us about the quackery that Xenical is, but "exposes" Chitosan which does the same thing ?
xenical is a drug that (while worthless in my opinion) is a good way of crappin out oil. Chitosan is absolutely nothing like xenical, and to the most part absolutely utterly worthless.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why doesn't he tell us about how Astra is promoting Nexium instead of Losec when it is not any better (but Losec has a lot of generics now, right ?) Why doesn't he tell us about the tragic hoax of COX-2 specific inhibitors and the studies that were kept secret from the FDA ? He has a HUGE web site that deals with EVERYTHING, he has never touched not even remotely the pharmaceutical industry, and yet he is impudent enough to claim he has no financial ties with anyone! :mad:
Everything is a conspiracy theory to people....especially aspartame.:dozing
who cares about barrett. The pharmaceutical business has a strange practice in USA, a practice that isnt really done anywhere else in the world. In NZ it is nowhere like this.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Yeah, right, go ahead and read some stuff from FORCES, it really gives you the creeps. It's advertised as "a non-profit educational corporation" HA-HA-ROTFL! Tell me where the negative stuff is in their (huge) site.
how about not milk
or any of the meat kills, aspartame kills, splenda kills, fish kills, vegetables kills sites that are out there. Just because it is printed on the web, doesnt mean that the information is factual and correct.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I assume you are talking about studies that take into account the nutritional habits as a whole, and not necessarily just the fish intake. You know how these studies fail to show us what can be attributed to what... Japanese may eat more fish and have less heart attacks, but they also eat a lot of different things and have higher rates of other diseases... not to mention the thing that studies are done in people that started eating fish 30 years ago, when contamination was much less of a problem.
any country where they compare fish intake with health, fish intake is postively correlated with decreased risk of various disease states. YOu have to take into account the whole diet (this is why you adjust for various things that may affect the same disease states) because people never eat just fish.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Yes, but here's what happened in Japan:
"In 1953, an epidemic hit fishermen and their families in villages on Japan's Minamata Bay. A number of people who were highly dependent on seafood showed signs of brain damage. Some of these cases were fatal. An investigation revealed that a local chemical plant was discharging organic mercury into the bay. The fish in the area absorbed the mercury and eventually passed it on to the villagers."
This may be a case of acute poisoning, but shows the affinity between brain tissue and mercury...
Extremely old, and its a case of acute poisoning. Acute poisoning with methyl mercury is neurotoxic, symptoms can take a fair while to show up (150-200days) but this is still a symptom of acute poisoning.
There isnt any research showing effect of chronic exposure to much much lower levels of mercury.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As far as whether we sould be concerned or not, even the FDA has
recommended that pregnant women be warned about mercury in canned tuna. But let's skip the infants one more.
But you cant skip the infants, because during fetal development, they are going thru an extreme amount of growth and cellular reconstruction. They are effected by much lower amounts of mercury than an adult who's going thru next to nil growth.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If levels above normal are found in canned tuna, and if mercury is toxic, then it is my logical conclusion that I should be very-very careful. Otherwise, I don't see the meaning of maximum allowed merculry levels in canned fish.
There is a maximal allowance of many things in many foods. everything we eat contains different toxins, does that mean that we should stop eating them?
Gradient of risk. Fish for the most part makes up a relatively small amount of any normal persons diet. Even if it makes up 30-40% of someones protien intake, this level would be huge compared to normal people.
If your living on tuna, 24/7 then who knows, maybe they need their heads read.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 08 2003,11:59)]And not just tuna, I believe that the foundation of a balanced diet is variety. If someone would ask me to condense a good diet in a few words, I would say:
1) Variety
2) Unprocessed foods
3) Low calories (this one doesn't apply to bodybuilders)
Even the best food should be avoided for extended periods of time. And we should always try foods we've never tasted until now. Just my .02 euros :)
Keep that up, and you would start to sound like the majority of the food recommendations from around the world.
tounge.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ April 08 2003,10:10)]There isnt any research showing effect of chronic exposure to much much lower levels of mercury

So how come you're so sure it's safe?? Isn't it a bit incoherent to claim that a chronic low intake of an extremely toxic substance is safe due to the lack of controled studies proving it's dangerous when we're talking about a substance that is clearly hazardous to your health? In the lack of scientific evidence for either sides shouldn't we assume it is dangerous rather than it's safe? Like I said, unless you show me evidence that none of the current increases in nervous system degenerative diseases is completely unrelated to mercury in food I am continuing to play it safe.

And don't forget how this thread begun, we were talking about a tuna ONLY diet, and all I said was "if it's a short term thing then fine, but....".
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ April 08 2003,10:12)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 08 2003,11:59)]And not just tuna, I believe that the foundation of a balanced diet is variety. If someone would ask me to condense a good diet in a few words, I would say:
1) Variety
2) Unprocessed foods
3) Low calories (this one doesn't apply to bodybuilders)
Even the best food should be avoided for extended periods of time. And we should always try foods we've never tasted until now. Just my .02 euros :)
Keep that up, and you would start to sound like the majority of the food recommendations from around the world.
tounge.gif
It's always good advice, in my opinion.
 
Back
Top