Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 11:51
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 9,027
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default When Food is Not Nutritious and Healthful

Given the endless irony by the presenter, though not specifically about low carb diets, but our American diet , Im putting this presentation here. May you enjoy this as much as I have. I would not have enjoyed this 10 years ago. WIthout the members of this forum, I would not have understood this message. Given that so many are still on this journey to find the truth, this section of the forum is for those still learning.


Enjoy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szIUeYWRFN8
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 13:01
Susky2's Avatar
Susky2 Susky2 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 88
 
Plan: Keto-ish
Stats: 339/286/245 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Central PA
Default

Wow...I don't know where to start with this guy.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 18:51
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,436
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

That video is not for me.

Anti-oxidants is an invention. We have lungs. Oxygen is our fuel. All metabolic processes occur by oxidation. Inhibiting oxidation inhibits all those metabolic processes. For example, white blood cells that fight off intruders perform this function by oxidizing the intruders directly. Or, all of our cells (with the exception of a few types) have upwards of several thousands of mitochondria, all of which perform their various functions by oxidation.

Phyto-nutrients is an invention. If the plants use that stuff to defend themselves against pathogens, it can't possibly be any better for us when we eat it. Plants can't run, they can only defend themselves by become toxic, especially to animals who eat them. Through cycles of natural selection and mutation, plants get more toxic, animals adapt to this, and so forth. We have not adapted to eat any toxic plant in that fashion. On the contrary, we have adapted our food supply to be less toxic and more edible. We have effectively reversed eons of natural selection in that respect, through aptly called artificial selection. If the argument is that the toxic stuff is phyto-nutrients, then we grow plants that contain much less of it precisely because it's toxic to us. It makes no sense to now claim that this toxic stuff somehow has become good for us.

When he talks about the guy who eats a burger for lunch, then he blames the meat itself but omits the bun, that's when I realized he's an idjit. The veggie oil stuff and the omega 3/6 stuff is a red herring because it allows to choose genuine non-food stuff if at least it's got more o3 than o6. The organic stuff vs whatever is bogus. It's simply not possible to get the same yield. Organic, as produced currently, just can't match retail price. Never mind that it's not yet demonstrated that organic wheat for example is any better for us if we eat as much of that as we do the industrial stuff. Organic sugar! What a joke.

As for the toxicity and deficiency argument, I agree to some degree. But, toxicity of what? Deficiency of what? Well, a priori, it's toxicity of non-food stuff and deficiency of genuine food stuff. For example, wheat is not food but nobody thinks of wheat like that, you know, as a drug rather than as food. So before we even begin to answer these two questions, we have to establish what is food and what is not, but then that's already a big problem for most who simply don't see it that way. This is how for example we came up with gluten sensitivity BS, when instead we could just plainly say wheat is not food, it's a drug, and it's toxic with years of consumption, and this toxicity then transmits to our offspring through generational epigenetics, who then develop symptoms of toxicity much sooner than we initially did.

The acidic vs alkalyne stuff is bogus, especially the part where alkalyne stuff is good while acidic stuff is bad. If that's the argument and if plant stuff gets a medal for it while meat gets a thumbs down, this means bye bye low-carb and all that fat. The guy even talks about fat-solubles, which would also get cut cuz the fat gets cut.

Wait a minute, I think I get it. He's arguing for a balanced diet where acid load and alkalyne load are balanced, favoring alkalyne. He's saying we're obligate omnivores cuz of that balanced stuff, but with a preference for mostly plants cuz of that alkalyne load in the colon. Ok, sure, but then why do we even need a gallbladder where bile is stored purely for the purpose of emulsifying fat? Why do we even need pancreatic enzyme lipase, and the common bile duct through which this enzyme travels, purely for the purpose of degrading triglycerides? And the guy even talks about that stuff.

Cognitive dissonance, prolly?

Ya, that video is really not for me.

Last edited by M Levac : Tue, Jul-03-18 at 18:56.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Jul-04-18, 07:50
Susky2's Avatar
Susky2 Susky2 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 88
 
Plan: Keto-ish
Stats: 339/286/245 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Central PA
Default

When he talks about curing cancer, and saying things like, "with a properly functioning pancreas, cancer can't exist" or something to that effect...that all I need to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Jul-04-18, 08:19
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,016
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I sort of agree with him on the "toxic environment" thing but disagree on a lot of what he thinks actually makes it toxic. The case against conventional meat, or for grassfed vs conventional meat is pretty weak. That "body by K-Mart," is body by WalMart any better? Because I'm pretty happy with mine. Quality matters, but frankly the most obviously effective quality of my diet that affects my health positively is the macronutrient content.

When it comes to alkaline nutrition--which? You can spare some potassium with sodium, but the various alkaline electrolytes aren't exactly interchangeable. Same with antioxidants, the ones that are vitamins, beyond being in the antioxidant class, also have fairly specific functions in the body, which is why they're all individually vitamins rather than being conditionally essential nutrients.

Quote:
If the plants use that stuff to defend themselves against pathogens, it can't possibly be any better for us when we eat it. Plants can't run, they can only defend themselves by become toxic, especially to animals who eat them.


I don't feel comfortable with first principle-ing my way to "plants are bad, animal foods are good." Currently I'm zero plant except for coffee and tea and diet cola. I'm doing better, but that doesn't mean there isn't some plant on the planet that would do me some good. Poisoning us isn't the only thing plants can do to protect themselves, and it's not like animals don't develop protection vs. plant toxins over long periods. Of course our brain is one, other animals develop a higher tolerance to tannins, we found ways to decrease the tannins in gathered plants, ways to free up niacin in corn so we wouldn't get pellegra, etc. Blueberries and raspberries very clearly aren't trying to kill us very hard, if at all.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Jul-04-18, 11:47
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 9,027
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Jul-04-18, 13:44
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,436
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
I don't feel comfortable with first principle-ing my way to "plants are bad, animal foods are good." Currently I'm zero plant except for coffee and tea and diet cola. I'm doing better, but that doesn't mean there isn't some plant on the planet that would do me some good. Poisoning us isn't the only thing plants can do to protect themselves, and it's not like animals don't develop protection vs. plant toxins over long periods. Of course our brain is one, other animals develop a higher tolerance to tannins, we found ways to decrease the tannins in gathered plants, ways to free up niacin in corn so we wouldn't get pellegra, etc. Blueberries and raspberries very clearly aren't trying to kill us very hard, if at all.

Within the context, rule of thumb. Plants become toxic, animals adapt to it. Except humans. Instead, we adapted our food supply to be less toxic.

Fruits and berries is a different story. Seasonal so even if they're very sweet it doesn't make much of a dent over a lifetime, sweet when ripe so we (and other animals) eat them (wait a little more to get a good buzz from the alcohol), but the seeds therein are toxic and/or indigestible, we crap them out, they sit in a nice and rich growth medium somewhere else. The rest of the plant is just as toxic (or simply inedible) as other plants that don't produce fruit, so we don't eat that.

So, those plants aren't out to kill us with their sweet fruit, on the contrary their fruit has adapted to make us eat them. Eat lots of those though, we get sick. But that's a new thing with industrial agriculture. Now let's imagine a similar adaptation where plants produce fruit all year long, and we eat them all year long, and it makes us sick cuz the sugar and stuff. Well, now since those fruits have become toxic just by virtue of sheer quantity (just as it is with industrial agriculture), species that get sick from that die off, those that adapt somehow survive. This sheer quantity then becomes the determinant of subsequent parallel adaptation. If the species that get sick from all that fruit die off, the plants no longer have a means to reproduce, they die off too. Either the plants adapt by producing fruit less often or fruit that's less toxic (get rid of glucose/fructose, use the stuff found in stevia instead), or animals adapt to eat less fruit less often or adapt some immunity. Think of it as the natural selection of low-carb. When we go low-carb today, we are in fact artificially selecting ourselves to survive our current food environment.

For adaptations other than becoming toxic, it's still the same principle of parallel adaptation from plants and the animals that eat them.

Anyways, it's just a side point to illustrate how dumb that phyto-nutrient stuff is.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Jul-05-18, 07:32
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,016
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Okay. I take a different stance, though it takes me to much the same place, as far as what I personally eat.

My big problem with phytonutrients is that plants like any living organism contain a massive number of metabolites that might have some effect when consumed by humans or other animals. Example--resveratrol. For a while, lots of people were blaming the French Paradox on resveratrol. Based on mouse studies, where the mice were given amounts of resveratrol so high that dosing with wine was implausible, mice or humans trying to repeat the experimental doses of resveratrol with red wine would die of alcohol poisoning before getting anywhere close.

There's so much stuff in plants, you're going to find something with a therapeutic effect, or at least with an effect people imagine to be therapeutic, just because there's so much stuff in there. Conversely, there's so much stuff in meat, you're going to find something that's apparently damaging, again in higher levels of intake than you'd ever get from the diet, in some mouse model. They find what they look for, and mostly they look for potential damage from red meat, and potentially beneficial substances in plants, and that's what they come back with.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Jul-05-18, 07:44
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,181
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser

There's so much stuff in plants, you're going to find something with a therapeutic effect, or at least with an effect people imagine to be therapeutic, just because there's so much stuff in there. Conversely, there's so much stuff in meat, you're going to find something that's apparently damaging, again in higher levels of intake than you'd ever get from the diet, in some mouse model. They find what they look for, and mostly they look for potential damage from red meat, and potentially beneficial substances in plants, and that's what they come back with.


Great point!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Jul-05-18, 11:13
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,436
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I agree with that, Teaser, with emphasis on therapeutic. Even traditional populations understand the distinction between food and medicine or even drugs as it were.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:52.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.