Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 80/10/10 Diet by T. Colin Campbell (The China Study)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    10% Protein?! That would mean roughly 40g of protein a day for me... no thanks!! I need much more than that!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
      Every thread becomes the same thread, with the same players.
      Quite a few "experts"
      Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

      Comment


      • #63
        How on Earth does a thread about 80/10/10 get so many responses? Baffling.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
          Not coconut, but here's an organic pig farm in south africa that raises a particular breed of little piggies on their natural diet: acorns. Oak Valley

          South Africa is ahead of the game with this food stuff.
          This article may be worth a read for you.

          Good Lard, Bad Lard: What Do You Get When You Cross a Pig and a Coconut? | Mother Nature Obeyed - Weston A Price Foundation

          Ironically, pastured pigs fed on a diet of acorns had more PUFA in their tissues than grain fed pigs.

          Raising pigs on pasture isn’t in itself a very effective way to reduce the PUFA content of lard. In one study (2), lard from pigs fed pasture and acorns was 8.7 percent PUFA while lard from pigs fed barley, wheat bran, soy meal, lard, and nutritional supplements was 6.9 percent PUFA. Grass has many benefits, but including it doesn’t lower the PUFA content of lard beyond what could be accomplished simply by banishing vegetable oils from these poor piggies’ diets.
          Remember, acorns are nuts, so they are rich in polyunsaturated fats. Grains are low fat, so pigs likely synthesize fats in their tissues similar to humans on low fat diets. Humans tend to synthesize mostly SFA's with some MUFA's, so perhaps pigs are similar. We definitely have similar tissue.

          Organic grain fed pigs aren't any worse than pasture raised pigs in terms of lipid profile. They may even be superior. I'm not sure what the micronutrient content is - while grain fed pigs may have a slightly better lipid profile, I'd venture pastured pigs are more nutritious, but that's just a guess. The issue with CAFO pigs are they are literally fed soybean oil to fatten them up and that destroys their lipid profile.

          I can find organic chicken. I can find organic beef. I can find organic lamb. I've never seen organic pork. I really try to avoid pork, it's a junk meat.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Grokkette View Post
            10% Protein?! That would mean roughly 40g of protein a day for me... no thanks!! I need much more than that!
            Don't forget, he is recommending vegan sources of protein, which are less bioavailable.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              You will not ever, ever, ever get me to smoke. We don't live on Kitava segregated from the rest of the world in a comparatively protective bubble. We don't have clean air. We don't have clean water. We have cellular and radio towers everywhere. Thousands of satellites orbit above us blasting us with God knows how much radiation. The foods we buy are regularly cross-contaminated with pesticides. We store our foods in plastics. There is literally an infinity of variables you cannot compensate for. Regardless of the PUFA content of your diet, cigarettes have been proven over and over again to be highly mutagenic. It is absolutely foolish to smoke in 100% of all cases, and even if you don't develop cancer, you still have to deal with the fact that you stink, your breath stinks, your teeth are yellow, the majority of the public hates your second-hand smoke and you piss away countless dollars on something that gives you absolutely nothing positive in return.


              Smoking for health is like fucking for virginity.
              Not really, smoking increases serum hemoglobin (oxygen transporter in red blood cells), increases testosterone and DHEA, raises gluthione and catalase, and stimulates the thyroid in addition to numerous neurological benefits.

              And, it lowers serotonin and raises dopamine.

              Smoking brain scans - Stock Image M370/0778 - enlarged - Science Photo Library

              This is usually why in a stressful state I naturally gravitate towards cigarettes. Of course, you could just chew nicotine gum too.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • #67
                I think that there are situations in which smoking may be more beneficial for a specific person than not smoking. Tobacco has different alkaloids (other than nicotine, but nicotine is a big one) that are neuroprotective. The neuroprotective properties of tobacco cannot be understated. It protects against neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and it protects against chemically induced neurodegeneration (usually caused by consuming certain drugs). Of course, it also increases the risk of developing cancer. So there are definitely pros and cons. In some situations, for some people, I believe that the pros may outweigh the cons. You can get some benefit by chewing nicotine gum or wearing a patch but not 100% of the benefit because there are other alkaloids in tobacco that work synergistically with nicotine to produce a neuroprotective effect.

                My journal

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by serenity View Post
                  I think that there are situations in which smoking may be more beneficial for a specific person than not smoking. Tobacco has different alkaloids (other than nicotine, but nicotine is a big one) that are neuroprotective. The neuroprotective properties of tobacco cannot be understated. It protects against neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and it protects against chemically induced neurodegeneration (usually caused by consuming certain drugs). Of course, it also increases the risk of developing cancer. So there are definitely pros and cons. In some situations, for some people, I believe that the pros may outweigh the cons. You can get some benefit by chewing nicotine gum or wearing a patch but not 100% of the benefit because there are other alkaloids in tobacco that work synergistically with nicotine to produce a neuroprotective effect.
                  Good post, I agree completely.
                  Make America Great Again

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    I'm going to go ahead and cherry pick this one sentence.

                    What you should have is an overall low PUFA diet. However, modern foods being the way they are, it rules out a lot of paleo foods. Not much fatty poultry, fatty pork, fatty fish, nuts or avocado. Ruminant meats, grassfed dairy, some eggs and coconut are fair game, but you have to get your calories from somewhere. In order to minimize PUFA, the best way is to overall cut fat from your diet. Since you need to get your calories from somewhere, fruit and starch are the logical choices. Glucose is, simply put, a superior fuel to fat. It is a much more efficient fuel source than fat, it is easier for the body to process, it better supports your thyroid function and due to the way the body converts glucose into fat in times of excess, it stores mostly as saturated fat with some monounsaturated fat.

                    The problem with your post is you put sugar in the context of being bad. Well, it's superior to fat, and you need your energy from somewhere.

                    I could just as easily say "Please provide any evidence that we need the high fat diet typical to MDA."
                    Okay, I don't get it. I thought Paleo people don't like PUFA's either (I"m still learning, please take that FWIW).

                    For example, this link from a Pro-Paleo website is against PUFA's as well (I wanted to find a link outside of this community, although I thought the rest of the Paleo community was anti-PUFA):
                    The Many Dangers Of Excess PUFA Consumption | Paleo Diet Lifestyle

                    I do see where you differ from this overall forum. You claim low fat, they claim high.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      As that article mentioned, 'excessive' PUFA's is the issue. A historical ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 of O3:O6 is now in the 1:15 or even 1:30 range in the western diet. These PUFA's are highly oxidative, so you don't want too many. Cutting O6 is generally considered the best way to balance the ratios

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        With all this fruit and sugar talk, what are ChocoTaco's views on the widely held view that fructose is more of the demon here when talking about sugar and its contribution to non alcoholic fatty liver disease?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by jackaaron View Post
                          Okay, I don't get it. I thought Paleo people don't like PUFA's either (I"m still learning, please take that FWIW).

                          For example, this link from a Pro-Paleo website is against PUFA's as well (I wanted to find a link outside of this community, although I thought the rest of the Paleo community was anti-PUFA):
                          The Many Dangers Of Excess PUFA Consumption | Paleo Diet Lifestyle

                          I do see where you differ from this overall forum. You claim low fat, they claim high.
                          I don't claim low fat. I just don't claim high fat. If you're asking me which is a better source of energy per calorie - fat or carbs - I'm going to tell you carbs. That doesn't mean I think fat should be very low.

                          Chicken, pork, eggs and nuts are all very high in PUFA's. The classic breakfast of eggs and bacon, especially from CAFO sources, is very high in PUFA. And when I see people making fake pancakes and breads out of nut meals and nut butters, I sort of get a chill down my spine. Fruits and starches store as saturated and omega 9 monounsaturated fats in tissues. Generally, paleo promotes a higher fat intake and a lower carb intake. A diet rich in fruits, starches and lean meats will naturally be much lower in PUFA than the classic paleo macronutrient spread because caloric surpluses in the fruits and starches will promote more saturated tissues in general (unless, say, one is doing a high fat diet composed solely of red meat, coconut and full fat dairy while avoiding poultry, pork, nuts and eggs, which is a rarity).
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            I don't claim low fat. I just don't claim high fat. If you're asking me which is a better source of energy per calorie - fat or carbs - I'm going to tell you carbs. That doesn't mean I think fat should be very low.

                            Chicken, pork, eggs and nuts are all very high in PUFA's. The classic breakfast of eggs and bacon, especially from CAFO sources, is very high in PUFA. And when I see people making fake pancakes and breads out of nut meals and nut butters, I sort of get a chill down my spine. Fruits and starches store as saturated and omega 9 monounsaturated fats in tissues. Generally, paleo promotes a higher fat intake and a lower carb intake. A diet rich in fruits, starches and lean meats will naturally be much lower in PUFA than the classic paleo macronutrient spread because caloric surpluses in the fruits and starches will promote more saturated tissues in general (unless, say, one is doing a high fat diet composed solely of red meat, coconut and full fat dairy while avoiding poultry, pork, nuts and eggs, which is a rarity).
                            So, you differ from the site in that you advocate far more fruits, and starches.

                            And, lean meats, but I don't think the site is anti-lean meats unless we have two different definitions of lean meats. I would ask what you think are lean meats, but I don't want to push!

                            I mean, top sirloin is a lean meat, there's no one that's Paleo here that's against that, I would think.

                            As far as starches, not sure exactly which ones I think you're advocating.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I tried this from Jan. 2013 to May 2013.

                              Pro's
                              I had regularity.
                              I lost a little weight at the beginning but it tapered off.

                              Con's
                              I didn't gain any visible muscle weight.
                              I was always bloated.
                              My weight seem to stay stagnate
                              The worse part was the dizzy's I got from the rush and drop of all the sugars I got when juicing.

                              My husband stuck to it for about 2 months and lost about 20 lbs but he also got small in muscle while before he use to be much more muscular. I thought he looked sick as if he was wasting away in a way I never seen his body/muscles.

                              That was our experience.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by jackaaron View Post
                                And, lean meats, but I don't think the site is anti-lean meats unless we have two different definitions of lean meats.
                                I'm definitely not an expert, but one reason is that many people make a distinction between the better sources of meat and the fats they contain, and cheaper feedlot meats and their fats. If you're getting your steak from a butcher that carries grass fed and grass fed beef from deliriously happy cows, then eat all the fat you want. But the crap and stress that cows deal with in a feedlot situation can make it's way into the fat and store there, so if you're eating junk beef from a antibiotic riddled cow that spend all day stuck in one mud piddle, which is sometimes all people can afford, then you should go for leaner cuts and get your fat elsewhere.
                                Durp.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X