sometimes I have dreams where I realize it's a dream, and stuff starts getting weird and creepy, and so Im like FUCK WAKE UP MICHELLE WAKE UP, and bam, I wake up.
Spoon says they're lucid dreams, and I think they're neat!
Printable View
sometimes I have dreams where I realize it's a dream, and stuff starts getting weird and creepy, and so Im like FUCK WAKE UP MICHELLE WAKE UP, and bam, I wake up.
Spoon says they're lucid dreams, and I think they're neat!
This is where you busted, amirite?Quote:
Originally Posted by kmind
facial imo
you're doing it wrong. when you realize its a dream is when you can take control and do whatever you want. start flying around or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Flying? Seriously? Ygos? Lucid dreaming is for fufilling kinky sexual fantasies and that is all.
Kinky sex stuff? What's wrong with you? I can enjoy that any time I want; non-assisted flight is for real men.
so about 930 at night spoon took me to the store to get stuff to make a taco salad. so so sweet.
also - im going to start trying to be healthy, like eating and stuff.
Taco salad /= healthyQuote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
taco salad = healthy if made to be healthy
c cups ≠ still there if you become healthy
FOXNews.com - Elin Nordegren Gets $750M, Custody of Kids in Exchange for Silence in Tiger Woods Divorce
WTF 750 MIL
750
3/4 BIL HOLY
AH HA! SO THATS WHO THAT CAT IS
/me is now enlightened
This story is from June 30th. And there is no way she got 750milQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
you mean typical FOX bullshit? then how much did she get?Quote:
Originally Posted by JL
I can guarantee that a taco salad made in North Carolina was not made healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I have a friend named Peter Griffin who can't sign up for facebook with his real name. I'm sure he could send them copy of his ID or something, but I found this pretty lol.
I have a friend who had brain surgery a few years ago and there are physical damages obviously to his head. Facebook deemed his profile as a joke and deleted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
people really give their real names to facebook?
the internet has made me an awful person i laffed at kminds friend story
Of all the friends I have on facebook (a lot ldo), only one of them uses a fake name.Quote:
Originally Posted by flomo
wtf is facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiMark
i know, it makes me sad, but i'm hoping they will stay and the little tummy i have will go away. im so tired of feeling like a fat cow.
post pics now just in case they do go away
so i played baseball for 15 years (into college, the 1 year that i went), and my first (slow pitch, co-ed) softball game is tomorrow.
i'm right-handed, and was never a switch-hitter in baseball, but i can do things pretty decently with my left as well. for example, i can also play ping pong pretty decently left-handed and can consistently line a soft-ball into right field i'm sure.
so i had this truly random idea about 3 minutes ago, when the other team starts doing a hard shift into left field, i was thinking i would just switch sides in the middle of the bat (i.e. between pitches). if they want to run back and forth every time, so be it, but i doubt it.
if this is likely to be against co-ed softball rules, i will not do this.
if this is against softball etiquette and will make me look like a giant tool, i also will not do this.
what say the legion of softball experts on ftr?
spoon and i are going to the beach this weekend with my parents, woohoo!
I don't know of a rule that says you can't do it, provided you ask the ump for time before leaving the box (or is this cheap beer league with no umps?). I do think you'd look toolish though if this is even a semi-serious league and besides, it's slo-pitch, it's not too tough to hit the other way with power. In fact, it's probably preferable to have them shift on you and then poke it down the RF line, especially if there is a slow chick playing there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
YouTube - Herding Cats
Cats are the shit.
Richard Feynmen explains trees. I shat a physical brick.
YouTube - Feynman 'Fun to Imagine 2: Fire
YouTube - Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)
I'm just shitting bricks all over the place this morning.
Trees come from the air. Brix Shat
And fire is releasing stored solar energy of the wood by combining the oxygen and carbon that the sun's light helped the tree split apart.
Feynman's the man.
"Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman" is a sweet read, too.
Linky?
oh It's a whole book and not an internet webpage. I am now interested in reading it.
Feynmann is pretty cool, but I might suggest that he's being a little cocky or dense with his tirade about 'why'. He's right, but he's also dismissing that what he said applies to virtually everything. It was kind of a weird rant too because it was about two separate issues attempted to be molded into one i.e. 1) a sort of infinite causality, 2) point of reference
Not to mention, he didn't answer the man's question. Magnetism may be one of a kind with no analogy and gaps in understanding, but there's still a shitload of 'what is happening' that can be explained.
okay so for the last three days now, whenever i search on piratebay, i get prompted that theres a virus on the page
Yeah, it's less "head asplot this is how the world works" and more amusing anecdotes from his life, but as you've gathered he has a fun way of expressing himself so I enjoyed reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
internet archive saves the day. text copy of the book: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"
Same. Im dumb though and ignored it. Lucky for me my comp sets automatic daily restore points.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Holy crap I can't stop watching!
^^^ play this song while watching and shat shall be bricked
YouTube - Benny Hill Theme
lol, too epicQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._7184396_n.jpg
There was more lettuce but I put it between two of the corn chips and ate the salad like a corn chip sandwich.
But overall I think this is a pretty healthy meal. Even if it isn't, at least it has lettuce in it, haha.
That lettuce is water. Add spinach, mushrooms, peppers, corn, black beans, or a healthy salsa for some nutritional value.
Also, use ground turkey or corn tortillas to make it healthier.
Rightness confirmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
I've never had mushrooms on any kind of salad, however, I do usually add it to my broccoli and put a tiny bit of soy sauce on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
I am a very plain person when it comes to eating any kind of salad, really. Usually my salad consists of Lettuce, cheese, ham or turkey, and cucumbers when I feel like it.
Also - I don't like peppers, because I'm a weird eater, and I've never heard of black beans.
If the little grocery store would have had some ground turkey I would have probably gotten it, because the taste isnt much different, but I did drain and wash off the hamburger, or well, Spoon did, so it didn't have all that fat in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
:P
Yeah, Chelle, kidding aside, the birthday boy bigred is right. There's a lot of fat, especially saturated fat, and sodium in prepackaged tortillas, the ground beef, cheese and the seasoning. Even so-called lean ground beef has 20%+ fat. Canned refried beans are excellent for fibre but also high in sodium.
Bigred mentioned some great subs, I'll just add that pretty much any lettuce is going to have loads more nutritional value than iceberg. Generally, the greener, the better. There's no good sub for cheese (even low-fat cheese is pretty much just chemicals and oils you can't digest well) just don't load up on it.
It's not necessarily bad to eat this stuff, everything in moderation and all that business, but if you're really wanting to eat healthy, this probably won't help you do that.
damnit. well that sucks.
The good news is I ate more lettuce than I did anything else, so at least I'm not hogging down on the beans, meat, and cheese.
What about those no yoke noodles with a cube of that chicken seasoning in it. I had that last night.
Basically I'm trying to watch what I put into my system, because of my meds and my eating habits I've gained about 30 lbs. I'm so used to not having to watch what I eat, because of my metabolism being so great, I ate myself into having a size 10 ass instead of a size 0. I know I wasn't healthy when I was a size 0, because I was too small, but now I feel like a whale, and I'm trying to get back down to at least 110. I've cut out all the soda in my life, and I'm drinking stuff that doesn't have a shit load of calories. I was gaining 3 lbs monthly in just my beloved Pepsi.
Anyway, I've been walking more than I had been before, which helps. I need to get my bike back working so I can ride up and down the road on it. I've been really down on myself because of the weight I've gained, because I'm so used to being a twig that now that I have a belly, it totally grosses me out, and so I'm trying to not beat myself over stuff, and trying to get back in shape.
However! The good thing that came along with gaining a little weight is my C cups, and well obviously Spoon isn't complaining about that, haha!
Wow this is a big post. Sorry about that!
The cubes of seasoning are usually all salt but not a big deal if your salt intake was minimal the rest of the day. Nothing wrong with noodles but it kinda depends what else you had earlier and how many noodles you ate. Eating healthy is about balance and carbs can be part of that balance. But say you had 2 white toast for breakfast, a turkey sandwich for lunch and 2 cups of no-yolk cooked noodles for dinner with no snacks. On the surface, that sounds like a reasonable amount of food and someone counting calories might think she did well. Really though, you'd just have a big lump of pasty white flour in your gut and you'd have a hard time digesting it. Your blood sugar would be all over the place during the day and you'd generally feel like shit most of the time. The other thing with a really carb heavy diet is you burn them so quickly, you'd be really prone to wanting to snack throughout the day and it's easy to fail large when chasing snacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
So, yeah, balance. Combine that with your awesome walking and soda-avoidance and you're golden. Try to pick good, fresh foods and make sure you're getting sufficient protein, fibre and fruits/vegetables. Canned and pre-packaged foods are just generally bad choices but if you have to because of time or not feeling well or whatever, just make sure you read labels and avoid ridiculous amounts of sugar, salt and saturated & trans fats. Contrary to what a lot of people think, fat is actually a good and necessary part of a balanced diet (rabbit poisoning, ftw), you just want to make sure it's unsaturated fat and eaten in a reasonable amount. Don't just balance what you eat but also when you eat as well. Ppl who eat only one huge meal a day are just asking to be fat.
There's tons of resources online to help you eat better but I wonder if your doctor for your DID can refer you to a nutritionist. That stuff is free in Canada so not sure if that's super expensive in the States or not.
When in doubt: vegetables, vegetables, vegetables.
Looking around the net on healthy eating tips, it says "avoid fried veggies". What's the difference in healthiness between fried veggies and boiling them in a pot or roasting them or whatever the alternative may be? Does the tablespoon of olive oil in which they're fried just fuck everything up, or are they assuming I'm gonna be frying them in butter or what's the deal?
My guess is a combo of the oils used in frying them and "possibly cooking off vitamins and nutrients". Quoted portion could be made upQuote:
Originally Posted by kiwiMark
Usually when I eat veggies they're from a can. Which I know is bad.
However, when I eat broccoli it's fresh, but I put it in the microwave or steam it on the stizzove.
Also - wtf would a mushroom even be. Fungus. mmmm sounds healthy.
i ate this, is that wrong?
mhttp://lh6.ggpht.com/_85U_IIVGKTk/TI...0/IMG_6520.JPG
you are a good white girlQuote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
Is it possible that the fried is referring to deep fried? Sauteing or stir frying vegetables in a small amount of oil is relatively healthy and most vitamins are retained if you don't cook for an extended time...it's certainly no worse than roasting, could even be better than if you roast to mush, and is far better than boiling vegetables for nutrient retention.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiMark
Cooking vegetables, tomatoes and spinach are a couple that come to mind, sometimes acts as a way of processing minerals into a form more easily absorbed into the body. So, it's not always true that raw is a better way to eat veggies.
It's wrong that you didn't share, fucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by flomo
so it's a healthy diet that sharpens benny and bigred's wit, eh?
Nah, dude, it's from us seeing your Mom naked. *bigred high five*Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiMark
My healthy diet just keeps me regular. And honestly, I don't stick to a strict healthy regimen or anything...I like good food way too much for that...I just know how to balance it all out so I can stay slim like jim.
Beware of buzzwords or buzz-ideas that have roots anywhere in popular sources with regards to health and diet. There are about as many myths in this topic as with religion.
On the topic of cooking and nutrition, sometimes it kills some nutrients in some food, but it's often necessary to 'activate' nutrition as well.
Michelle, generally, focus on eating denser foods. What this means is more vegetables and meat, and fewer carbs, sugars, and oftentimes dairy. Humans have not evolved as well to foods like grains and dairy as we have to meat and vegetables, and the health shows. On top of that, the nature of nutrient density and fiber differences between different types of foods mean that you can eat 'fewer' meats and vegetables yet get a higher level of nutrition and satisfaction than otherwise
Also, if you're not exercising, you're kidding yourself. And not just some exercise, but well-meaning stuff that gets you tired. The vast majority of adults can't achieve close to the kind of physiques they want without getting that ass in the gym and working it. When you see people who can get away without hard exercise it's either the very rare ones with super high metabolisms or the other rare ones who simply never eat that much at all.
Thanks for all the helping guys <3
while you're there guys, what's the science on vitamin supplements like berocca, not as a replacement for real food but before a night out or when you're feeling a bit weak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
aren't those the times that you just do a little bump or two?
Give it a try. If you're better off with it, keep it; if not, don't keep itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
The science is
1. Food nutrition is better than supplement nutrition. When you eat food you know you're getting the good plus more, when you supplement you have no clue if it's not snake oil, you're not getting any unknown extras that we're continually finding in food, and there's research that some standard supplements may actually deter health
2. Placebo effect is still effect. Everybody gets it, if you think you don't you're wrong and you don't understand what placebo is. You almost want to not know anything about placebo because then you can more easily buy into the hype of some new supplement that's actually benign yet you get something out of it because of how your mind thinks.
3. Some supplementation is good because it's virtually impossible to eat all the kinds of foods we need for optimal performance. This kind of thing can be found in fish oils for the DHA and EPA that are super good yet you don't get unless you eat a lot of salmon, high concentration of vitamin D that is super good yet don't get enough unless you get ~20 min of noonday sun or drink like five cups of milk, or a fiber supp like psyllium husk that is important if you don't eat a whole bunch of roughage with every meal. Even something like a whey shake each morning because most of us don't get enough protein
4. Supplements are not drugs, and they're not food, yet they're marketed as both. They are an add-on that can be used to help a poor diet or a relatively strong diet that is still naturally deficient in some areas (like if you live in Japan you probably won't need to supplement fish oils but if you live in Colorado you probably will)
5. Supplementation is something for regularity. Drugs are what helps when you go above and beyond what your body can take. Like a caffeine/ephedrine stack will help ward off a night of drinking much better than something like berocca. Also, if you want to beat a night of drinking preemptively, you have to either 1) not drink too much, or 2) do things like drink excess fluids before and during, or make sure you're getting enough protein. Personally, I'll drink a few glasses of milk before a night of drinking and end up much better off
An important point to take away is that supplementation should be treated as supplementation of known issues. Research is always developing about all this important stuff that isn't reflected in supplementation, yet is if you simply just ate right. A great example is the research on vitamin D over the last few years. We had no clue that virtually everybody is heavily deficient on vit D, and no supplements accounted for that until recently. The reason for the deficiency is lack of sun, yet we only just figured out that the amount of vit D we get from good sun exposure is far beyond what we naturally get in other ways, and is very important for things like cancer prevention
I'll just leave this here:
Most fucked up joke you know? : AskReddit
thanks wuf, really appreciate it
it's interesting to read what you say about protein, i've found that since i did dumbells, i feel like i need a fuckload of protein, even if i'm too lazy to lift these days - i tend to have tuna & roughage for lunch just out of sheer craving
so many people i know are able to eat an unbalanced diet, but nowadays i feel really wrong if i fail to eat at least 3 fruit & veg and/or no meat/fish
I get the impression that you feel that in a meal of meat, potatoes and vegetables, potatoes are the least important part?
I'd rather classify potatoes as vegetables. Our meal choices often give them a much larger portion than they should, but potatoes are great as long as you're getting other stuff as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
Think of this: brand new research is showing that people who consume more tomato paste or sauce (like in spaghetti or pizza) have a lower incidence of cancer. We didn't know about this until recently, and there is reason to believe that this kind of value exists in a bunch of different foods. It's best to hedge your bets by consuming a variety of food
I'm buying a Vitamix and I'm so excited about it!
I disagree with some of this. Humans have not evolved well to meat eating. I recall reading that our carnivore friends (wolves, lions, etc) have 10-20 times the acidity (needed for meat digestion) in their digestion systems. We're not meant to be the super meat eaters we think we are which is why we have such bad health problems (obviously also caused by fatty food, drinking, smoking, etc but meat is still a big influence). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a vegetarian in any way but I will never advise someone who wants to eat healthier to eat more meat. Maybe I'll advise them to eat leaner meat (turkey, beef, fish, etc) but not substitute out carbs for meat. That's dangerously close to the Atkins diet which is nothing more than a cheap trick on the body and incredibly unhealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
As for grains, I'd argue it has less to do with that we're not able to digest it well so much as the actual grains we eat and the process we use to harvest and make these grains. The reason people tell you to eat multi grain or whole wheat bread is because it still has a large amount of vitamins and nutrients. When "bad carbs" are made (white bread, etc, etc) all these nutrients are stripped during the process and you're essentially eating dead calories. The same goes for brown rice versus white rice. White rice is mainly dead calories.
My best health advice is vegetables, vegetables, and more vegetables. Start trying things like eggplant, mushrooms, brussels sprouts, peppers, and others. They're fantastic for you. Throw in brown rice or whole wheat grains. Eat meat but stick to turkey and fish and have red meat occasionally. Occasionally means once or twice a month...not a week. Oh, and stop drinking (I'll never do this) or switch to mainly red wine. Beer is terrible for you. Hard alcohol is worse.
We have strong evolutionary adaptation to meat, despite the fact that it may not be to as great a degree as some carnivores. Our ancestors' consumption of meat was absolutely necessary for the survival of the species. Nature creates literally nothing nearly as potent as animal flesh, and our primate ancestry that clued into that ended up stronger, faster, more capable, and had much more time on their hands to progress in other areas. Herbivores have such trouble with nutrient density that they eat virtually nonstop. Without meat, we wouldn't be here today.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Grains, particularly heavy agricultural production of grains, is viewed as a sort of evolutionary problem in human history. It was a boon because it drastically improved ecological carrying capacity while drastically reducing energy output, but in turn, many biologists believe that humans had problems adapting to mass grain consumption, and that most of us never really adapted but simply deal with the problems (think: things like allergies). Similar can be said for dairy.
Meat, vegetables, and fruit is the diet of all of our ancestry. Only about 10k years ago did we start picking up grain and dairy, and we did it in a ginormous way. The story of human diet can be broken down into such: we're meant for meat, vegetables, and fruit, but we're still capable of getting on with grains and dairy. The only reason we're even capable of grain consumption is mass control, production, and processing. The difference between white bread and whole grain bread isn't nearly what popular culture believes, and most of it is just lies anyways. Our history is mainly vegetables and fruit, then as we became better at adding meat we became much more fit, and that combination provided us with the capacity to get to the point that we could discover farming and fuck things up by introducing grain and dairy
But this doesn't mean that people don't eat too much meat, or too little. Lots of Americans consume too much meat, and some hippies consume too little. The thing is that these diets perpetuate because they're not so bad that they significantly reduce survival. But if you take a hippie vegetarian and put him in human life 30k years ago, he will get his ass handed to him virtually every which way possible. He'll find he spends too much time searching for food, that he has nutritional deficiencies, that he has reduced energy, etc, but in modern society people can get away with inferior diets.
Some of the opinion you've expressed is a product of popular culture, not scientific literature. A lot of that stuff has an aura of being half right and missing the point. For example, Atkins is problematic, but not for the reasons expressed in popular media. The focus on dense protein and low carbs is a great thing about Atkins, but leave it up to retards to not do it right and fuck everything up then point the blame in the wrong place. There's a big fat difference between a terrible high protein low carb diet and a smart high protein low carb diet. Atkins dieters notoriously preferred the former but then blamed the latter
Wuf is pretty much spot on. Don't underestimate the differences in the meat we are eating now from what we ate in the long past as well when it comes to the problems we are having, health wise. Also, the fat found in natural proteins has never been cause for concern. Your body is built on saturated fat and cholesterol. It knows how to deal with it. It can't deal with it in the same capacity while it's trying to convert and burn the insane amounts of Carbohydrate we now ingest on a daily basis.
Comparing vegetarians of the past (I think you said 10K years ago) to meat eaters of the past and how eating affected survival is pretty irrelevant to the argument I'm making about eating healthy. It does make cases for the evolution of what we can eat, etc but we're losing sight of the ultimate goal which is eating healthy. I'm not disagreeing that meat eaters were better survivors long ago. However, I wouldn't completely agree that it's a nutrient issue so much as it's an access issue. To get your entire nutrient fill from vegetables, you do need a diverse and broad collection that wouldn't be available to an ancient gatherer. Your arguments are more valid in a world where you can only survive on your surroundings. I live in NYC and have access to thousands of different vegetables.
Also, while you guys are continuing to bash carbs, you're still lumping good and bad carbs into the same category. What Jyms is arguing above is our body trying to deal with dead calorie, low nutrient processed carbs. I'm still arguing that whole wheat, brown rice, etc are great for your nutrition.
To make another point, let's look at different societies of the past, their food consumption, and their general healthiness. While your hunters and meat eaters were superior survivors in the sense of energy intake, this isn't what I would consider healthy. They probably still had a very low life expectancy (I realize this is from many other factors too). If you look at Asian cultures, very low meat intake, it's not uncommon to hear about people living very long lives thousands of years ago. They did have meat a few times a month...maybe. The soldiers ate meat because they needed it to grow strong quickly but that's not what I would consider healthy. We don't need to fight wars. Most of us have a 9-5 job with little to no physical activity. High protein diets don't make sense even in the case of going to the gym and lifting every day since you're only doing it for a few hours.
I'm only arguing these points because I've started to doubt my views on nutrition (very similar to what you posted above) and would like to see where this conversation goes playing devil's advocate.
Also, as for Atkins, my basic understanding is that you're shocking the body and mostly losing water weight. I can't remember exactly how the process goes but it has something to do with a lack of carbs that cause your body to begin to dump excess fluid. It's a temporary fix to a long term problem (eating healthy).
Also, I quit caffeine this week. So far it's been good. I drink water instead and feel much better. Even on Thursday when I was beyond hungover and had no sleep, I did not miss caffeine at all.
You just weren't a very good addict then.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Quitter.
Yeah, I only drank like 2 cups (iced coffee a day) and usually none on the weekends besides an occasional rum and coke. It was pretty easy.
Well, then I just gave up smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Nobody likes a quitter.
As for atkins, it actually worked as a diet to lose more than just the water weight. The loss of water weight was something that helped the diet work by providing a large motivation to stay on it. People had seen fast result early, and also saw large rebounds if they stopped. A big myth of atkins was that you would gain all the weight back very fast if you stopped but that was only the initial weight drop of water. Most of anything you lost was permanent weight loss after that first week. The diet mainly served as a low calorie diet since appetite suppression is huge on low carb diets, coupled with the lack of food options, people ate less, and a lot less of the foods that caused their weight gain or cravings. The other thing was the use of the ketostix. Having the ability to actually see evidence that you were burning fat was a great motivator as well to stay on the diet.
I hate to use the Atkins model as a guide for eating a more carb free diet though, and I think there are better choices out there albeit, it's better than some of the more mainstream ideas.
I was just trying to give Chelle some practical advice, didn't mean for this to turn into a wugwugypowwow, but what he and Jyms are alluding to wrt grains is a few problems. I was getting at the effect of this stuff in in my post to Chelle about feeling like crap after eaten scads of carbs. The first problem is what carbs, so-called "good" or bad ones, do to your insulin levels. Insulin triggers your body to store food energy as either fat or to go into your glycogen stores, readily available for your organs and muscles to function. If you've been active, ie. depleted your glycogen stores, the energy is used up pretty rapidly, not that big a deal. But who among us is that active, really, to require the large amount of carbs that ppl generally eat? You're sitting around, don't require all the glycogen, your insulin spikes and the remaining food energy is then stored as fat.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Second is gluten. Your body's natural immune response to gluten is to interpret it as a foreign body. It tries to fight it as it would a bacteria or virus. Now imagine the compounding effects...your food energy was simple carbs rather than complex proteins or denser foods and so was processed rather quickly, filling your glycogen stores, and your body has starting to store the remainder as fat. It takes many hours now to digest the rest, which your body sees as something it needs to attack. The attack requires energy and your glycogen stores get depleted, causing you to feel sluggish, like you need to EAT SOMETHING. And what do you eat? Probably more carbs and the cycle starts again.
Lastly, theres something fround in grains (and legumes and nuts for that matter, so the few proteins vegetarians have at their disposal compound the issue) called phytates. They end up binding with minerals in your food, stuff you need like iron and calcium, making them difficult to be absorbed within your body. This is why enriched bread or rice is a joke, because the very nature of the flour used in the food makes the addition of minerals an entire waste of effort.
When it comes to evolution, we've only been eating grains for a very small blip on the evolutionary scale, as I think wugwugy mentioned. We haven't evolved to have the proper insulin response to carbs or the desired response to gluten and the other crap found in all grains.
Look for info on Paleolithic diet on Wiki or whatever for more info.
Thanks, Benny. This makes a lot more sense to me.
great posts wuf and jyms... quoting this for emphasis:
i'll add eggs (preferably organic), cooked in coconut oil. fish too.Quote:
Meat, vegetables, and fruit
and nuts, and a bunch of other things.
speaking of nuts (not those nuts), i've noticed that i like walnuts, almonds, pistachios, macadamias, pretty much everything, but not peanuts so much.
yet natural peanut butter tastes so delicious. what gives?
I'm exactly the opposite. I love peanuts, but don't generally care for other nuts. A small amount of pistachios and cashews are OK, but thats about it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
I pretty much count eggs as meat and eat them at any meal. The whole paleo diet is definitely what I prefer as a regular regimine, I just don't like the gimmicky-ness of the way it's been spun as a diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by courtiebee
*sigh*.. I'm jealous.. and I bit resentful because I know you wont use it to its fullest capabilities, but instead just to make puree based soups and smoothies. I'm lusting after the vita-prep 3, but just don't have 4-500$ to invest in one right now :(
The distinction you've made is an important one, but I was referencing history to help provide perspective on why certain foods are healthier than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Well, you're sorta right. It is a nutrient issue, but also an access issue. The main access factor has more to do with density of nutrients and energy expenditure. We got more time on our hands when we started hunting for more meat, and then we got an astronomically higher amount of time on our hands when we began cultivating grains. The nutrition from the meat was both an increase in nutrition and access, while the nutrition from the grains was more a decrease in nutrition but an overwhelming increase in access. Ecological carrying capacity is improved by both, yet overall health is decreased by the latter.Quote:
However, I wouldn't completely agree that it's a nutrient issue so much as it's an access issue.
This isn't true. Vegetables provide crap for protein and no essential fats. Vegetables provide most vitamin and mineral needs, but not allQuote:
To get your entire nutrient fill from vegetables, you do need a diverse and broad collection that wouldn't be available to an ancient gatherer. Your arguments are more valid in a world where you can only survive on your surroundings. I live in NYC and have access to thousands of different vegetables.
Here's an example that also exemplifies why I was going over evolution: Fish oils, EPA and DHA, are found nowhere else other than a couple different fish like salmon, and they are essential to human health. Can you get by without them? Yes. But can you achieve optimal health without them? Absolutely not. Our ancestry evolved on those fish, we evolved to work best on those particular fats, and as is with many things, they're not found elsewhere. This also applies to a host of different nutrients. We're pretty much always deficient in a bunch of different stuff. Like, the reason Europeans evolved white skin was because they needed the vitamin D from the sun that rarely shined because they couldn't get it elsewhere. I don't know exactly, but if you want to eat 'naturally', in order to get enough vitamin D from vegetables you'd have to consume something stupid like twenty pounds of green leaves daily. Other nutrients like vitamin b12 just cannot be absorbed through plants.
The good vs bad carb thing is a myth. The reason that some carb sources are healthier than others has to do with packaging, structure, and other nutrients, not that some are worse than others. First off, they're all non-essential, not all of them are usable for energy, and the distinction between simple and complex carb hasn't shown any difference in health effects. People confuse this because they see that people who consume more simple carbs are less healthy than those who consume complex carbs, and it's true. But the reason isn't because of the carbs, but because of what else is going on. If you eat rice you're getting good fiber and some nutrition, if you drink soda you get shit. People have confused themselves by claiming an important difference between rice and soda is carb, but it's not, it's the fiber and nutrition of one and lack in other that's important.Quote:
Also, while you guys are continuing to bash carbs, you're still lumping good and bad carbs into the same category. What Jyms is arguing above is our body trying to deal with dead calorie, low nutrient processed carbs. I'm still arguing that whole wheat, brown rice, etc are great for your nutrition.
Also, a lot of the 'health' from whole grains or brown rice or whatever is just lies. A lot of enrichment simply doesn't work (like vit b12 enrichment cannot be absorbed), or things like coloring grains or sugars so they can sell them as 'healthier'.
The best of our science today has the healthiest known diets being extremely similar to that of our ancestry. With a few tweaks.Quote:
To make another point, let's look at different societies of the past, their food consumption, and their general healthiness. While your hunters and meat eaters were superior survivors in the sense of energy intake, this isn't what I would consider healthy. They probably still had a very low life expectancy (I realize this is from many other factors too).
Life expectancy changes in history has little to do with diet, and more to do with sanitation and medicine and peacetime.
Most of this is myth, but some asian cultures (primarily Japanese) do have a wee bit higher life expectancy than average. We don't know exactly why, but very important reasons have to do with lack of pollution, higher fish consumption, and lower calorie consumption. Add in maybe something like lower body weight and a fraction of unknowns that provide a fraction of results, and you've got the solution. But no, if you ever hear about miraculous feats or results from thousands of years ago, it didn't happen. These kinds of myths are abundant everywhere.Quote:
If you look at Asian cultures, very low meat intake, it's not uncommon to hear about people living very long lives thousands of years ago.
Well, too high of protein doesn't make sense, but adequate protein does. If you don't eat meat or low fat dairy, you're not getting nearly optimal protein unless you want to get fat and tired by eating a loads and loads of high carb sources. Protein has been stereotyped as the 'bodybuilding' food, but that's retarded. Protein is one of the most essential nutrients, it's important for so much, and most people consume notoriously low levels or percentages. If you eat the standard American diet or the 'healthy' hippie diet, you're getting way too low protein if you're lean, but maybe getting closer to enough if you're a fatass, but then again you're a fatass.Quote:
They did have meat a few times a month...maybe. The soldiers ate meat because they needed it to grow strong quickly but that's not what I would consider healthy. We don't need to fight wars. Most of us have a 9-5 job with little to no physical activity. High protein diets don't make sense even in the case of going to the gym and lifting every day since you're only doing it for a few hours.
That's good. Take my word for it, there's about as much myth in the diet world as in religion. Most of the industry runs on lies in order to make money. Not all, but most. The lies run really deep tooQuote:
I'm only arguing these points because I've started to doubt my views on nutrition (very similar to what you posted above) and would like to see where this conversation goes playing devil's advocate.
Here's an example: organic food? What, as opposed to inorganic food? Did nobody take a chemistry class, or perhaps know what the word 'redundancy' means? Food = organic. Not the stuff you buy at the hippie market. That stuff is just as organic as any other food, it's just more expensive because people think they're paying for better, sometimes they actually are paying for higher quality but still not 'higher organic-ness', there's usually more exotic stuff, more regional stuff (which is actually good), and people love tricking themselves into misplacing value. And they use 'organic pesticides'. More like they use pesticides, but sell their product by claiming it's better and people buy the hype.
If I want to eat organic I'll eat food, if I want to eat inorganic I'll eat a bucket of sand
The diet works because of calorie reduction. When you don't eat carbs, you end up eating less but getting more. The reason the diet is highly problematic is because Americans are dumbfucks who think "durrrrr i can eat all da meat and fat i want." Then their fatasses pile it on, they remain oblivious to the fact that low carb != low vegetable/low fiber, and they end up pushing forward in their unhealthy choices.Quote:
Also, as for Atkins, my basic understanding is that you're shocking the body and mostly losing water weight. I can't remember exactly how the process goes but it has something to do with a lack of carbs that cause your body to begin to dump excess fluid. It's a temporary fix to a long term problem (eating healthy).
But yeah, the diet works with losing weight pretty much because when people eat low carb high protein, they end up inadvertently consuming less. I don't know too much about ketosis for weight loss and that stuff, but I do know it's a rather small factor in the overall picture of calorie consumption
i lold at wufwugypowwow
I now have mad respect for Monica Lewinski. Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 1 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 9/16/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
^^^ I was gonna mention that if you didn't, but I figured you'd get around to it
Extremely excellent interview. What Clinton says is hard to falsify, is more aligned with the Obama Admin than with the liberal sphere, and I really like seeing this type of thing because frankly I've found the liberal sphere sometimes goes too far and gets stuff a sort of half-wrong.
An example is the health care thing. In the liberal media sphere it was all about public option, public option, public option....but reality is that a public option is truly unnecessary theoretically and demonstrably. However, a problem is that all the ways in which Obama's bill does or could dramatically improve the system are very rarely ever expressed. In fact, Clinton said two different things about the health care bill that I've never heard before (despite the fact that I'm a politics whore), but have suspected the bill included things like that.
I really want to see Clinton's explanation as to what he did wrong or simply didnt do right with regards to signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which was basically the first big step in allowing the banks to commit the legal fraud that caused the crash and recession. In the liberal sphere, Clinton was a bad guy for signing the act, but I've long suspected that the problem could have more to do with not keeping up to date with regulations and agencies, but finding explanations of that is very hard. But it's simple things like creating 'financial insurance' known as credit default swaps that, due to technicality, do not fall under 'insurance' regulation, and thus the entire banking monster crisis is formed using 'legal' fraud. One reason I really want to see Elizabeth Warren in as head of CFPB because I think her forming and heading the agency would pretty much ward off any colossal financial abuse for many decades to come. But watch as Obama backs on that one too. And fuck Chris Dodd and every other whore who's coming out hard against her
In retrospect, I should have gone with "wigwigypowwow".Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Warren didn't get the job.Quote:
I really want to see Elizabeth Warren in as head of CFPB
Harvard professor picked to build consumer bureau (9/17/10) -- GovExec.com
edit wait, I dunno why I thought I read that she didnt. Apparently, she did.
edit edit oh yes, here it is >He promised that she will play a pivotal role in picking the bureau's director.
It's been a long day.
This is a complicated issue, IMO. It's hard to say exactly what this means or what will happen, but this could be a big victory. On the one hand, Wall Street, Republicans, and conservadem corporate sellouts hate Warren's guts more than anybody because she fucks their shit, so her getting through nomination right now could be a disaster. OTOH, her role could be a sort of defacto chair, I think the rules of the bureau sorta allow for that, and it doesn't discount she could be nominated later. In a way, this could be construed as a big FU to the banks and their backersQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I like TYT's interpretation of the event. They'll have it up on youtube in a few hours.
i'm envious, if that is that awesome blender, if not , still cool,Quote:
Originally Posted by courtiebee
Tacoma Rainiers - Pacific Coast League Champs!!
WOO HOO!!!
(That's the Mariners AAA team)
HAHAHAHAHAHAH hawkfan.
Have you ever seen a chicken?
Got my first ftr tshirt in the mail today, Wore it out to the bars, I looked fucking awesome.
Yeahh I definitely won't get as much out of it as you would. I just wanna see it blend up an avocado pit!Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
If you had one, what would you mostly use it for?
I wish they would hurry up and deliver it to me.
I've made a HUGE mistake.