Once Again, Scientific Evidence Supports Bulletproof/paleo/high-Fat

12346»

Comments

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    And to sort of stay on topic for a little bit. MLS it looked like you were headed towards the darkside, but Im glad something in you decides to stick with it, you truly are the embodiment of the BP dogma. 




     


    It's not an option for me. It's really the only thing that works. If I ever get the mold out of my basement and start to recover from leaky gut from constant mycotoxin exposure, perhaps I'll be able to try some different things with diet, and maybe start lifting again (which would allow for more carbs, even in the morning). I've gotten fairly carb-tolerant though for sure, compared to where I was 3 years ago.

  • CallenCallen
    edited July 2016


    No, they don't make me more hungry, most people that would experience that issue are likely eating a low calorie meal, or low protein, or rapid digesting or all three.

     




    That's not my experience at all. Carbs definitely make me hungry. Others I know, both in real life and online, share that sentiment. I'm getting plenty of calories and protein, and I've timed my carb consumption in such a way to take them after workouts 'n all that.


     


    I'm not demonizing carbs, for I think they serve a great purpose and are essential (at least once a week in large amounts). But they definitely keep me satiated for far fewer hours than do fats.


  • Pre-BP, I used to train first thing in the morning, pretty hard for around an hour or so usually, then i'd have a monster smoothie with kefir, avocado, whey, and a ton of fruit...bananas, berries, a handful of dried fruit... then i'd have a major dip in energy, feel inclined to nap and stuff, feel a bit bloated, and maybe get a little more hungry than i should be. i think it was a combination of sub-optiminal workout timing and/or too much fat for a PWO meal (but avocados and kefir were so hip!). The only other instance of "carbs making me hungry" i think is having super tasty foods that are a combination of fat and carbs (ya know, ice cream and stuff) and wanting to eat too much of it because it tastes so good. 


     


    oh, and speaking of Chris Masterjohn, crossfit, and keto, he just did a podcast on that very topic. 


  • I always enjoy seeing people spending hours over many months debating topics. Believe what you believe and stop trying to ram it down other people's throats.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭

    @Jason Miller said:

    @GaryJetpack said:
    I always enjoy seeing people spending hours over many months debating topics. Believe what you believe and stop trying to ram it down other people's throats.

    Some feel that beliefs are greater than facts.

    You gather information and come to a conclusion. For instance, there is conflicting data on global warming, as well as evidence that it is being tampered. It is my belief that the climate change scare is a complete hoax, having gathered from all sources. Current scientific literature is conflicting in so many departments, that it may as well be religion. If you don't recognize that the data you're reading might amount to something more akin to hearsay than absolute truth, you're kidding yourself.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭

    @Jason Miller said:
    @Modern Life Survivalist l When you see a YouTube video or a junk study that agrees with your world view you say "see I told you so", when someone presents you with high quality facts and data that is in conflict with your world view you say "that's a conspiracy funded by elitists to oppress mankind". Unfortunately, your confirmation bias prevents you from learning anything other than what you want to believe. Personally I am completely indifferent to what the facts show as long as it is quality data, you are unable to produce data to support what you are saying, I am not.

    Always look at the source and who is pushing a narrative convenient to their agenda. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20171028Z1&et_cid=DM163343&et_rid=100402349

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 20

    @Jason Miller said:

    @Modern Life Survivalist said:

    @Jason Miller said:
    @Modern Life Survivalist l When you see a YouTube video or a junk study that agrees with your world view you say "see I told you so", when someone presents you with high quality facts and data that is in conflict with your world view you say "that's a conspiracy funded by elitists to oppress mankind". Unfortunately, your confirmation bias prevents you from learning anything other than what you want to believe. Personally I am completely indifferent to what the facts show as long as it is quality data, you are unable to produce data to support what you are saying, I am not.

    Always look at the source and who is pushing a narrative convenient to their agenda. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20171028Z1&et_cid=DM163343&et_rid=100402349

    That’s why it’s extremely important to educate yourself, be well familiarized with the tools of logic, and know how to read and interpret data instead of reading the intro and summary. If someone chooses to just parrot their favourite blogger or believe only that which agrees with their stance regardless of quality, the intellectual damage is far greater in those cases. If a high quality fact is presented, it does not matter who presents it. One of the worst examples of this is Gary Taubes, he straight up refuses to accept any data that goes against his belief, and it does not matter how high quality or who provides it, the cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    I'm sorry, while low-carb people can be quite fanatical, and wrong/unhealthy when it's done in extremes, like Jimmy Moore did, I don't think there is a low-carb mafia skewing studies. There is nothing to gain from that. Grain, GMOs, RoundUp, Monsanto all stand to gain from pushing the Standard American Diet. Also, Big Pharma, because they prescribe the drugs that treat people who suffer from complications from the toxicity of grains, as well as complications from the blood sugar spikes/insulin issues, and of course obesity from being overweight due to insulin resistance.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭

    @Modern Life Survivalist said:

    @Jason Miller said:

    @Modern Life Survivalist said:

    @Jason Miller said:
    @Modern Life Survivalist l When you see a YouTube video or a junk study that agrees with your world view you say "see I told you so", when someone presents you with high quality facts and data that is in conflict with your world view you say "that's a conspiracy funded by elitists to oppress mankind". Unfortunately, your confirmation bias prevents you from learning anything other than what you want to believe. Personally I am completely indifferent to what the facts show as long as it is quality data, you are unable to produce data to support what you are saying, I am not.

    Always look at the source and who is pushing a narrative convenient to their agenda. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20171028Z1&et_cid=DM163343&et_rid=100402349

    That’s why it’s extremely important to educate yourself, be well familiarized with the tools of logic, and know how to read and interpret data instead of reading the intro and summary. If someone chooses to just parrot their favourite blogger or believe only that which agrees with their stance regardless of quality, the intellectual damage is far greater in those cases. If a high quality fact is presented, it does not matter who presents it. One of the worst examples of this is Gary Taubes, he straight up refuses to accept any data that goes against his belief, and it does not matter how high quality or who provides it, the cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    I'm sorry, while low-carb people can be quite fanatical, and wrong/unhealthy when it's done in extremes, like Jimmy Moore did, I don't think there is a low-carb mafia skewing studies. There is nothing to gain from that. Grain, GMOs, RoundUp, Monsanto all stand to gain from pushing the Standard American Diet. Also, Big Pharma, because they prescribe the drugs that treat people who suffer from complications from the toxicity of grains, as well as complications from the blood sugar spikes/insulin issues, and of course obesity from being overweight due to insulin sensitivity.

    Edit:
    ***insulin resistance

  • @Jason Miller said:
    No citations provided on calories, only cholesterol studies.

    This is not based on any facts i looked up but simply my theory on this:

    The big companies selling grain-based products and all the marketing food companies wanted to he able to produce more for less and increase profit margins (when farming and harvesting became exetremely sustainable in western/European countries and food processes became the new industrial revolution for bulk production), so they focused on the fact those foods don't have as many calories, or less than fatty foods. It is also cheap to produce these for a huge public, add fillers and chemicals, and create in short periods. Everything is connected... this was the age all the TV dinners and such were gaining popularity.

    Meat is harder to do this with, as with the tropical fruits and veggies that provide the sacred Nutients BP People love: avocados, coconut, etc. And these are harder to get out to the public for "cheap" all the while maintaining purity and lack of harmful chemicals.

    So they chose to rely on a study that suited the low calorie idea to support the need to produce large amounts of carbohydrate-based nutritional foods, which the human body isnt really adapted to surviving on in mass quantities, clearly. Our ancestors hunted and could not keep meat for long (eaten fresh or as jerky of some sort), ate vegatables that were easy to grow and prepare, and used animal fat and salt. Other than the pilgrams and corn or the Irish and potatoes, meat and veg were the foods of choice, not grains in massive quantities or veg oils that pervert the process of preparing the vegetable, losing its nutrition. And they probably worked it all off, as well.

    It all has to do with how much money big Corp companies can MAKE over quality of food.

    Eating fats and good meats is truly a luxury of those who can afford it. It works but just like living in a gated community vs a run down cheap apartment, with food, we get what we pay for.

    Just my thoughts.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭

    @stunkard said:

    @Jason Miller said:
    No citations provided on calories, only cholesterol studies.

    This is not based on any facts i looked up but simply my theory on this:

    The big companies selling grain-based products and all the marketing food companies wanted to he able to produce more for less and increase profit margins (when farming and harvesting became exetremely sustainable in western/European countries and food processes became the new industrial revolution for bulk production), so they focused on the fact those foods don't have as many calories, or less than fatty foods. It is also cheap to produce these for a huge public, add fillers and chemicals, and create in short periods. Everything is connected... this was the age all the TV dinners and such were gaining popularity.

    Meat is harder to do this with, as with the tropical fruits and veggies that provide the sacred Nutients BP People love: avocados, coconut, etc. And these are harder to get out to the public for "cheap" all the while maintaining purity and lack of harmful chemicals.

    So they chose to rely on a study that suited the low calorie idea to support the need to produce large amounts of carbohydrate-based nutritional foods, which the human body isnt really adapted to surviving on in mass quantities, clearly. Our ancestors hunted and could not keep meat for long (eaten fresh or as jerky of some sort), ate vegatables that were easy to grow and prepare, and used animal fat and salt. Other than the pilgrams and corn or the Irish and potatoes, meat and veg were the foods of choice, not grains in massive quantities or veg oils that pervert the process of preparing the vegetable, losing its nutrition. And they probably worked it all off, as well.

    It all has to do with how much money big Corp companies can MAKE over quality of food.

    Eating fats and good meats is truly a luxury of those who can afford it. It works but just like living in a gated community vs a run down cheap apartment, with food, we get what we pay for.

    Just my thoughts.

    Finally, some people with some sense around here. Thanks my dude.

  • Shop www.moschinoonlinesale.com Moschino Outlet Store, Buy Moschino McDonald T-Shirt Red with Big Discount, Fast Delivery and Free Worldwide Shipping...

    moschino dress

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.