Why the health appearance and physique of many LC authors is disappointing?
(98 posts) (46 voices)-
Niklas
MemberThanks for the replies so far.
First I agree with Milo: beauty and health are interwined and the reason why we're attracted to beauty it's because we're attracted to healthNow I agree that beauty is subjective in that we are attracted to different features. But this is merely a matter of eye color or shape, of facial expression, or hair style. I'm talking about attractiveness, since I'm judging males like myself.
But there are certain universal features of beauty that are also feature of health. Universally dark circles under the eyes, tired look in the face, a severe facial expression unable to smile spontaneously, a skinny fat body, a lack of muscular tone, a dull skin or eyes are considered ugly and signs of a lack of health. And these can be detected in both males or females or whatever age and nationaly regardless or your gender.
Shine I don't think there anything artificial in the "image of youth" (except surgery) People can look youthful in their 80's and moderately healthy people don't have to look like tired mummies even if they don't follow a perfect diet. If even people with bad diet can look good (not talking about subjective aestetic but universal traits of health and beauty) people on very healthy lifestyle should look even better. My perception is probably influenced by my living in Europe and not seeing the amount of obese sick people you claim to see daily at Costco.
@Griff
I agree that Mark looks good, that's was the question: will Mark maintain that healthy look his 70's? And if so what he will have done to be "better" than the average low-carb supporter who doesn't live up to his/her own very promises of fantastic body, skin, hair, mood, energy level?@dragonmamma
yes, you don't need to exercise has been a mantra of LC lately and there are lot of people claiming they're getting extremely muscular and lean from eating alone. Others even call exercise dangerous and say we should lay in the sun all day like lions.
Don't know what to make of this.@ASnutrition
Thanks for your reply, it makes a lot of sense.
Another thing I have noticed is that supposedly the ultimate reason to be healthy should be to enjoy life and hence to have more child-like awe and passion. But it seems to me that many forget why they wanted to be healthy in their first place since they seem to be grumpy, angry, bored all the time.
That's what I call the "unfullfilled snooty old school teacher" look.Unlike the others Mark talks about "playing", "having fun", "enjoying all the extra activities you can do with your health" and "opening your mind" but not only diet-wise. It's not health for the sake of it, it's health to enjoy all you can do and showing others how beautiful life can be. This too I suppose will affect how you look.
Sometimes the "orthorexic" looks worse than other people living an unhealthy lifestyle, because they seem to enjoy life more, to have more passion, to laugh more and to be less obsessed with just one side of their existence. What do you think?Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Niklas, I like your definition of good health. It made me think of my ex though whom was the exception to the rule and I always wondered about it, as he is celiac from birth, lactose intolerant and as a consequence suffered hideous and debilitating seasonal allergies and depression, but he was/is a beautiful looking man, ie, he glowed with sparkling Caribbean blue eyes, the whites were WHITE, olive glowing skin and white white teeth. he had no body odor, and I often wondered if he were a vampire as we were together for seven years and he never seemed to age either. he hadnt hit 40 the last time I saw him so things may have changed by now.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
BlazeKING
MemberThought this was interesting when reading the Warrior Diet by Ori Hofmekler...
"Carbs play a critical role in nourishing an important metabolic pathway in the liver. Called the pentose phosphate pathway, it is responsible for the synthesis of nucleotides, RNA, DNA, and energy molecules, as well as the most powerful endogenous antioxidant enzymes (glutathione and SOD). Chronic restriction of dietary carbs may shut down this important metabolic pathway, compromising the body's capacity to generate energy, rejuvenate, and resist aging."
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
BlazeKING
MemberWell he advocates a lot of cycling, including days of high fat/high protein/low carb and then days of high carbs and low fat keeping protein constant. Kind of like Lyle McDonalds Ketogenic diet. I know, for me, when I go 3 or 4 days of high fat and protein with no carbs I lose a lot of energy for workouts. Then I have a high carb day and instead of being able to do 7 pullups I can do 15. My workouts are better, the fat continues to melt off--with calorie restriction of course. He also advocates cycling undereating phases with overeating phases. It's an interesting read along with Mark's book.
My guess is his idea of chronic restriction is years of LC/ZC.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Anand Srivastava
MemberI think that a lot of reason would be that some of these proponents were quite fat before starting on low carb. To really lose the flab you must exercise a lot, along with the low carb. Like Super Mike. Only then you get rid of the last vestiges of fat, and only then the skin shrinks to become equal to the body. Before that is done the skin will remain wrinkly and look old.
One problem everybody has pointed out that most of the proponents think that LC is the be all and end all. They don't really care much about the constituents. We on the PB know that the source of food is much more important than the Carb content.
The third problem is that very Low carb does not provide everything. I know that it is controversial here, but I am pretty much sold on the idea that we did evolve on very frequent high carb binging. And I think our body needs those binges to feel better, and fill up our carb stores. Somebody had noted on these forums, that VLC diets make the body lose water, and give a very gaunt look. You might get lower weight, but is that the most important thing.
The fourth problem is that we have been conditioned by the media into thinking the very thin anaeroxic looks to be healthy. Likewise men think that six pack abs are an absolute must.
I think that Mark is not into VLC dieting. He works out hard and eats his carbs, as can be seen from the food he posts. He is probably the only LC proponent that also talks about getting carbs. He does look good because of this, and I think will look great later as well.
So in my opinion to look great you must have not been fat ever, or at least take pains like SuperMike to get rid of all fat once, to get a wrinkle free skin. Then you must not shun Carbs, and take enough, of course you must be zero carb during the time you are in the Super Mike phase. Thirdly eat only real food.
Many of the proponents don't follow these rules, and they don't look good. They will probably still be much better than the people on SAD. People on traditional diets will be better than them.
Finally genetics does play a big role, can't ignore that in looks department.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Niklas
MemberI had another thought.
We often hear not so healthy people lamenting that "they wish they could be 16 again"
Since in this society life at 16 sucks and you're trapped between condescendence and discriminaton, I don't think they really mean to come back to the lack of freedom and respect you had to endure at that age. They're talking about the fact that they wish they had the same energy, liveliness of those years.What really excites me is when I read people who switched to an healthier diet claiming that they feel like 16 again and that they have rediscovered all the enthusiasm and desire to be alive of those years.
What you notice when you look at those people is that they smile more, is that they use more humor, is that they don't feel "too formal" to sit on the floor casually like a young child would and if they have children you notice the relationship is more frendly and easygoing rather than bossy.
I always say that there's a difference between "serious" as in taking your responsabilities and be rational and being "hard-shelled, stiff-necked and flinty". The most silly and playful person might also be the most "serious" in reasoning and taking decisions, while the most stern, austere and formal person might also be the most immature.
I've always thought that getting old is a matter of attitude. If you start to cling to "your times" and forget to accept the modern culture, if you start to find excuses as to why your age impose you to be less enthused and more self-possessed, if you start to think of younger people and their culture as "them", if you start to have nostalgia of the past... then you've become old and it was just your choice.
I think this attitude to life will make a huge difference in how you look, how you age and how healthy you are (a study showed that people who use the most sarcasm and humor live longer and that their mind ages better) What I was sure is that getting the health benefit of healthy nutrition, would automatically confer such attitude.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
OnTheBayou
Member@Anand: I rather doubt Grok "frequently" loaded up on carbs, even though I've come to understand your general position due to amylase production indicating an ability to digest starches. I also think that the zero carb folks prove, again, the non-nessity of carbs, at least for them and many others.
@Niklas: "life at 16 sucks and you're trapped between condescendence and discriminaton" LOL! I HATED being sixteen! And even physically, I was so skinny that like a mental cancer, it effected my life in every capacity.
I think it's safe to say that as we get up in years the world looks a lot different and we make value judgments about "The New World Order." Grok's world was probably 95% the same as his great-great-great-etc.,whatever's. I'm 63, not quite ancient, but increasingly find myself overwhelmed with, or choosing to ignore, new technologies, for instance. And I have always been an ultra-uber-nerd and compared to most of my peers, way ahead on the adaptation curve. Now, for instance, I look at the Twitter phenomena, and am absolutely baffled. Ditto Facebook, et. al.
I'm horrified at the trend to be reclusive and do Facebook in lieu of real, social contacts. I think this is one of many reasons our mental health in America is so bad.
I see a huge shift away from quality to quantity, from a desire to be correct to "It doesn't matter" in so many areas. Lack of capitalization, using text spellings in non-texting situations, and pure total ignorance is rampant. And yes, there is a generational difference. I see so-called "journalists", more akin to stenographers, make huge factual errors all of the time. Or, they completely miss reporting one of the classic questions: Who, When, Why, Where, What. Hell, I learned that in 8th grade junior high newspaper club. Don't they teach them in college anymore?
When I listened to KROQ in Los Angeles twenty years ago and it was a flaky, very avant guard station, I won a contest for being the oldest listener. I really liked the music, I wasn't trying to prove anything to anyone nor myself.
I was an ancient 45.
Now, I don't even care a whole lot about music, and certainly not the music industry.
Aging gracefully is far more healthy than fighting the process. Fighting the inevitable is bad for the spirit and blinds one to the benefits and beauties that do arise.
A few couplets from a poem I wrote a few years ago on aging:
"It was then the hoary haired wagged and scolded,
As my own hair now becomes multi-hued and less,
I lift my finger and my tongue in warning.""Yet new companions
join my faltering gait.Wisdom
Peace
Creativity
Appreciation""I know what it is to be young;
I know what it is to defer to limits and oldness,
You do not know what I know, butYou will.
It’s OK."Posted 2 weeks ago # -
SerialSinner
MemberThis is one reason why SAD might take a permanent toll on our skin:
Fructose is avoided in the beef industry, because it causes rapid cross-linking of collagen and leads to tough meat. The same thing happens in humans who eat fructose, it causes aging of the skin and other tissues.
http://coolinginflammation.blogspot.com/2009/06/diet-nutrition-and-health.html
Also, I completely dissagree with Armand about humans having evolved to thrive in carbs for many reasons, some if which are:
- Our body can function perfectly without carbs
- We do not need any grains/tubers/sugar as source of any micro or macro nutrients.
- starch is inflammatory
- starch promotes chronic hunger
- the brain appears to work better and have a better long-term health on ketosis
- we need to heavily transform tubers through cooking or prolongued sun exposure in order to neutralize it's toxins. Raw tubers tend to be, at best, unpalatable, at worst, cause death.It would seem to me that tuber consumption is more aligned with surviving that thriving. I can't see how humans could have evolved to thrive on a plant component that demands such heavy transformation and has the potential of breaking so much physiological havoc on us.
I think Armand just loves his potatoes and is probably suffering from confirmation bias.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
hannahc
MemberSS that fructose bit is really interesting! I'm glad I lost my sweet tooth! I don't mean to say I'll never eat a piece of fruit to avoid wrinkles, but I'm glad I'm not eating 5-6 pieces of fruit per day anymore (that was in CW healthy diet days).
And Niklas, I agree with your last thought here, that people who are happier/more easy going/use humor and playful sarcasm/get down and play with their kids seem younger than they are. Additionally, a geniune smile makes any face look more attractive. Anyone too bogged down in dietary particulars, and who does not take the time to enjoy life because of their dietary restrictions will probably look older faster.
I definitely think Mark has a big leg up on some of the other LC proponents you've listed, because he strongly advocates for eating REAL foods, and not just "low-carb" or sugar free "foods". Sugar free ice cream and low-carb tortillas aren't doing anyone any favors. I also think that each of the pictures that have been posted look fine though, and am not sure what the original criticism was about. I've always been amused by Christina Pirello though, because she is the most unhealthy looking person I've ever seen trying to tell people how healthy it is to eat a vegan diet (while making vegan brownies/ice cream/chocolate shakes...).
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
BlazeKING
MemberErr I think the argument against fructose was centered around high fructose corn syrup not whole fruit. There is a huge difference between ingesting an apple and a coca cola.
Also the author writes "Fat accumulation is dependent on dietary carbohydrates and insulin. Fat and serum lipids accumulates with a high carbohydrate diet and decrease on a low carbohydrate diet. This is more important than the number of calories consumed."
This is entirely false. I've known plenty a bodybuilder who has gotten lean on eating high carbs but keeping the calories low. This type of dieting isn't optimal or really healthy but you can lose weight. It's claims like fat accumulation is dependent on carb intake and not calories that makes me skeptical of what the author writes on anything else, even though I do agree with a lot of it.
Id like to see the studies showing eating fruit leads to aging of the skin.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Milo
Member@kuno: Ditto
@hannahc: Christina Pirello and I used to work out in the same gym, so I've seen her up close, and I was taken aback by how different she looks in person. She writes articles for various publications about how meat and dairy make you fat, while vegan whole foods keep you slim and healthy; and meanwhile this woman looks neither slim nor healthy.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Tundra Tomte
MemberNiklas mentioned Clarence Bass in the original post. I wanted to comment on that because Bass is really an enigma to me.
I actually found CB's site before this one. I liked it because he reviews original research and conducts his own interviews with experts, and adds his own two cents in a thoughtful, intelligent way. Really good stuff on HIIT and tabata, for example.
But the most compelling aspect of the site are the photos of Bass himself. (No judgement from me about whether one ought to try to look like Bass at 70 - but clearly saying he looks fit would be an understatement). Either he's a genetic freak, uses banned substances (I don't believe that), or has the time and ability to maintain a very intense workout routine. Diet? Hard to tell; obviously he's not overeating frankenfoods and HFCS and bagels. But a lot of his material is dedicated to bashing High Protein and/or Low Carb advice.
Here's his nutshell summary of his diet:
"my eating style is low in fat (not too low), high in natural carbohydrates (carbs, the right kind, are not fattening) and near vegetarian (small amounts of meat and fish)."
I haven't read his books, so I'm not sure what his idea of the "right kind" of carbs is. Elsewhere on the site it sounds like he goes with the "vegetables and unprocessed whole grains" approach. He also states that he gets about .83 grams of protien per pound of bodyweight per day. Not sure how you do that with a "near vegetarian" diet. So either his diet is closer to Primal than it first appears, or if I buy the MDA approach (and I do), he's getting that ripped look despite burdening his system with grains, too little fat, and perhaps too much sugar from fruit.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
chocolatechip69
MemberAfter reading the entire thread I've came to a personal conclusion that the original author is a child of CW, and I'm not refering to food aspect of it. Today's society has a lot to do with shaping our perception of reality but often times we couldn't be further away from it.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Niklas
Member@Tundra
The pics of Clarence Bass when he was young seems to rule out the chance of a genetically superior body.
High-carb doesn't work for me: it makes me hungry, it diregulates my blood sugar and makes me body store fat all in the midsection. But it's hard for me to believe that it doesn't work for few others, because there are enough successful high-carbers to claim it doesn't. Let's just say some of us are adapted to eating more starches, what's relevant at this point is avoiding the other big stuff like refined oils, trans fats, fructose drinks and sugar.@chocolatechip6
I don't think you can claim I have a CW mentality for stating the obvious about how bad some LC proponents look. My perception of reality could be as warped as yours but I have enough real life examples of not even so healthy people to compare so I'm not comparing to absurd standards but to the average human. Besides the ability to determine traits of health are pretty universal in humans, we all know the face of someone with 104 F degree fever and a chronic cough.Posted 2 weeks ago # -
If you had spoken to me a year ago, I'd have told you all the benefits of a vegan lifestyle. Strict, mostly vegetable + oatmeal, vegan eating made me feel a lot better than the diet I gravitated toward naturally (flour & sugar). I can understand why people believe in it.
On the other hand, a mostly meat diet is much, much, easier, my health is better when I'm 80% on this than it was when I was a perfect vegan, I don't have to spend as much time on the toilet, and I'm not constantly hungry now.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Geoff
Member@TT
I too found Clarence Bass's materials before I found Mark's site. He's an impressive guy. In addition to his website I've read 4 of his books (Ripped, Ripped 2, Lean for Life, and Challenge Yourself).
As he recounts in "Ripped," Bass briefly used steroids in the late 70s. He admitted it long before it was fashionable and admitted it was a mistake. I take him at his work that he's now "clean."
He advocates a diet that includes whole grains as a central element, but he also eats large quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables and not much meat. His diet isn't high carb, but it's not low carb either. He also eats pretty much the same meals all the time. He knows the calorie content of his regular meals and balances caloric intake with energy expenditure - he's a big believer in calories in/calories out and avoiding sugars and processed foods. He's tested annually at the Ken Cooper's clinic and has received outstanding results year after year.
I agree that it seems he is getting his look despite the grains. If he's a genetic anomaly it may be in his ability to handle grains.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Tundra Tomte
MemberThanks for the follow up Geoff (and Niklas). Interesting about the anabolics in the 70s. Was he practicing law then? If he was a litigator, I wonder if it affected his ability to maintain proper courtroom decorum!
Sounds like Bass's secret might be simply dedication to having a ripped body. If I start eating grain-based foods, it's a short, slippery slope from a few crackers to chips to ben and jerry's cookie dough. Apparently Bass can mix in whole grains and still stick to what is otherwise a healthy unprocessed diet (and avoid huge carb-related caloric overages!). And work out like a fiend.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Anand Srivastava
MemberIt is true we can learn a lot from the Inuits, but we can also learn a lot from Kitavans. In any theory every element must be explained. You cannot have a proper theory if it doesn't explain a tiny thing. It will then just be an approximation, on the way for the better theory.
Low Carb is an approximation of the correct theory of healthy eating. You have to factor in the experience of Kitavans to get the real theory.
Kitavans show us that the right kind of carbs are good for us. What are the right kind of carbs depends on a number of things. I am a fan of Stephan, and follow his quest for ways to incorporate grains and lentils in a healthy way. It is also very important for our people, who are set into vegetarian foods. I have to see how they can be healthy.
I just don't believe that the prodigious quantities of Vegetables and nuts that LC people eat can be healthy. I am OK with the Zero carb people, they are doing one aspect correctly.
But people who have too much vegetables and nuts as in using Cauliflour flour and Almond flour, cannot be doing things correctly. Those flours are not primal in any way. If you ferment these flours then they might be OK.
Fermented Rice and peeled (with some flesh) Sweet Potatoes on the other hand are mostly safe, with very little levels of dangerous plant chemicals.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
AS - I'm intrigued why you think that cauliflower and almond flours would not be primal?
I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be the basis of the diet - mostly because they are a step on the slope to "frankenfoods". Only a small step though! But to modify treats, or favourite meals, then fair enough.But if nuts are allowed, then why are ground nuts different? Personally, I have to keep an eye on nut consumption as they make me "snacky".
Same with cauliflower - the vegetable is okay, so why is the crushed vegetable not okay?
Can I ask what you eat if not veggies?
:)
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Anand Srivastava
MemberI eat veggies, and probably lot more than other people I know around me. I am thinking about the science here. It is not what I do. I eat plenty of grains too :-(.
My point is that Cauliflower could not be cooked on an open fire. Cauliflower are also not healthy eaten uncooked (goitrogenic). This means they could not be a part of primal diet.
They are not something that our digestive system has adapted to. I am pretty sure that our digestive system has a higher chance of being adapted to Sweet Potatoes than Cauliflower.
Similarly leaves are very good, and can be eaten cooked well. They can also be eaten raw, but since they do not provide sufficient calories, they could not have been eaten for the calories. The only other alternative is that they were eaten for some nutrients, that were low in our diets. I don't think there are many nutrients that we don't get from a meat diet. I think they were used as medicines. I have seen photos of chimpanzees using leaves for stomach pains.
You might want to read Top 10 problems of Paleolithic Diets by Don at Primal wisdom.
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/07/top-ten-problems-with-applying.htmlMy issue mostly with Nuts is that they are seeds. Seeds I believe are parts of plants that they don't want to give, and would use the maximum chemical effect to prevent them being eaten.
I actually think nuts are not very far from grains. They are very nutritious, that is the only thing good about them.
I have nuts rarely, and only in small quantities. Primarily because of the PUFA issue. I like to keep my Omega6 low, I get so much from other sources, that this is important.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
You make a good point :)
The nut thing, I "get" you on this, similar to why I've always been wary of raw plant foods magically providing the critical enzymes needed for their own digestion (why, how kind of the carrot to kill itself!).
I can't personally handle raw cauliflower, but assumed it was just a quirk, as others recommended it raw.
I'll read through the link, thank you :)
Posted 1 week ago # -
Anand Srivastava
MemberMy thinking about healthy eating is that you want to maximize the nutritional elements and minimize the toxic elements.
So I try to avoid all seeds. They are the most toxic elements. I cannot avoid grains or legumes completely, but I try to ferment them as well as I can. I also avoid nuts.
Vegetables are nutritious but contain a lot of toxins. So they must be cooked properly. So I cook them well.
Raw Cauliflower and Cabbage can be quite dangerous. It is known to harbour some deadly worms. I had a collegue get it and it went to his brains.
I do take some fruits for the water soluble and perishable vitamins.
I also eat meat, but I eat much less than what I would ideally want to. And I am not able to eat less cooked meat. I have to get adapted to that :-(.
I supplement what I can. Fish oil, Mg, I, K2, and D3.
Posted 1 week ago # -
Geoff
Member@TT - I don't know him personally, but from his writing he sounds like an extremely dedicated person. His system is clearly working for him, but I think that's because he's really "owned" it (or as we would say here on PB, he's "grokking" it).
His workouts are certainly intense, but infrequent. He practices HIT - short near-maximal workouts (he doesn't go to failure) with lots of recovery - plus sprinting about once a week. Slow walking is also a big part of his training now, at least an hour most days.
In his writing that I've read, he didn't admit to any issues with "'roid rage." In fact, the only outburst to which he admits was at a time when he was not using steroids but, rather, radically depleting carbs and intensely tanning in preparation for a big competition.
As a lawyer by training, I've often wondered how he juggled the demands of his practice, his family, and his competitive and business ventures.
Posted 1 week ago # -
OnTheBayou
Member@Anand, you don't give up, do you? (I'm saying that with laughter, since one can't tell in the written word!) The only problem I have with tubers is the amount of carbs when trying to lose weight. It helps me if I keep the carbs way down.
Oh, BTW, I think the words you are looking for are hypothesis and theory, the former turning into the latter with proof. And the theory being modified with new evidences.
There are a LOT of foods available today that either Grok never saw, or perhaps never saw in quantity. Cauliflower, broccoli, brussel sprouts, so many more are surely the results of hundreds or thousands of gnerations of see selection. I don't see the choice presented as one of "Did Grok eat this or not?", but "Is it essentially the same as other primal foods, an analogue?" Cheese falls into that category, for instance.
Posted 1 week ago # -
one_eye_mike
Member"Raw Cauliflower and Cabbage can be quite dangerous. It is known to harbour some deadly worms. I had a collegue get it and it went to his brains."
I asked my brother-in-law, a Phd food scientist for 25 years, about this and it was news to him. I eat raw broccoli and cabbage all the time and have for many, many years. Guess I've norrowly escaped brain worms.
Posted 1 week ago # -
twa2w
MemberThis is one reason why SAD might take a permanent toll on our skin:
Fructose is avoided in the beef industry, because it causes rapid cross-linking of collagen and leads to tough meat. The same thing happens in humans who eat fructose, it causes aging of the skin and other tissues.
http://coolinginflammation.blogspot.com/2009/06/diet-nutrition-and-health.html
I have to call you on this one. What do you think feedlots feed cattle to fatten them up? Corn. Where does high fructose corn syrup come from? corn.
Just more evidence of the crap thats on the internet.
Cheers
JPosted 1 week ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.