Eating healthy help?

[Jeff the Green]

Yes. I say it's that Americans consume a stupid amount of meat because our military made up good sounding heuristics, not that meat is unsustainable and should be hazed out entirely. That's all.

Ah, we were talking past each other, then.

You do realize that the agriculture and ranching industries are complimentary to one another, and have been for thousands of years, right?

To a degree, yes. But the vast majority of nitrogen fertilizer comes from us extracting it from the atmosphere rather than manure, and the whole point is that animals consume a stupid amount of agricultural product compared to what you can get from just plants.

People always say you can get all the protein you need from beans and such, but take a look at 100g of kidney beans, cooked.

23g carbs, 9g protein, 0g fat

Compare to 100g of roasted sirloin trimmed to 0" of fat.

0g carbs, 26g protein, 11g fat

Changing bean type and fermenting them (e.g. tofu) vastly improves the protein:carb ratio to 5:1, which is far higher than you need. And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

Again, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, but with careful nutrition it is possible for pretty much everyone to go to a vegetarian diet. Which shouldn't be surprising given that people of all walks of life (peasant to soldier, not just ascetics) who follow religions originating in India have vegetarian lifestyles and gladiators (at least in Ephesus) ate almost no meat.

[Spiryt]

And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

If someone already has pretty significant amount of muscle mass, with low amount of fat, is already doing heavy exercise and yet wants to body build further, then yeah, then supplement is likely needed.

On 'earlier state' probably not.

And one has to be careful with things soy due to their isoflavones content.

[Crow]

Yes, you are correct about the manure. That is because we use virtually all of our manure already. The agricultural product consumed by lifestock is a moot point right now too. Not only do we produce plenty already, but we produce enough to feed places in the world that do not. There are about a dozen things we need to do in order to reduce our environmental impact before we start worrying about ranching. Nevermind that human agriculture hasn't exactly been good for the environment either.

Changing bean type and fermenting them (e.g. tofu) vastly improves the protein:carb ratio to 5:1, which is far higher than you need. And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

Because when you start supplementing with soy, here comes the estrogen. The only athletes using soy are the ones who can't consume whey for whatever reason.

It can work, but you run the risk of developing undesirable effects from the estrogen. Using concentrated soy protein is the worst way to use soy as an athlete. You also need to supplement with BCAAs and other compounds for you body to use that soy efficiently.

Again, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, but with careful nutrition it is possible for pretty much everyone to go to a vegetarian diet. Which shouldn't be surprising given that people of all walks of life (peasant to soldier, not just ascetics) who follow religions originating in India have vegetarian lifestyles and gladiators (at least in Ephesus) ate almost no meat.

Those were matters of availability in ancient times. I am not saying that present peoples from all walks of life can't live on a vegetarian diet, obviously they do. But if I'm on patrol and come up on a whacked out junkie, I want the guy who eats meat and potatoes for a partner before the the guy who lives a vegan lifestyle.

[Jeff the Green]

And one has to be careful with things soy due to their isoflavones content.

Data's preliminary, but so far it looks like they have very little effect. Contrary to popular belief, estrogen doesn't actually affect muscle growth, it's only the fact that high estrogen tends to go with low testosterone.

Those were matters of availability in ancient times. I am not saying that present peoples from all walks of life can't live on a vegetarian diet, obviously they do. But if I'm on patrol and come up on a whacked out junkie, I want the guy who eats meat and potatoes for a partner before the the guy who lives a vegan lifestyle.

Why? I mean, both are police officers who presumably keep in shape. When it's trivial to get enough protein from plant sources, there wouldn't be a difference unless the meat-eating guy had a stun gun.

[Crow]

Data's preliminary, but so far it looks like they have very little effect. Contrary to popular belief, estrogen doesn't actually affect muscle growth, it's only the fact that high estrogen tends to go with low testosterone.

As I said, it can work if you're willing to add even more supplements; but high estrogen causes undesirable effects in males.

Why? I mean, both are police officers who presumably keep in shape. When it's trivial to get enough protein from plant sources, there wouldn't be a difference unless the meat-eating guy had a stun gun.

Because speed, strength, and power aren't binary values and you can't just tase or OC every guy who resists. If a vegan diet was effective in increasing measurable performance indicators, such diets would be widespread and popular among people looking for performance. It's been tried and people have tried to make it work for half a century. In the end, meat does it better.


Something that I forgot to mention earlier is that I do support the rollback of the ranching industry, but as it relates to factory farming. I find the conditions that these factory farmers keep their livestock in deplorable. I try to get all my meat from local ranchers who allow their animals and birds to live free range. This makes it a bit more expensive, and I think that would actually be a good way to break this country of its addiction to uneccessary meat consumption, while also ending a horrendous industry practice.

*Yes, I am one of those crazies who cares more about animals than "people".

[Spiryt]

As I said, it can work if you're willing to add even more supplements; but high estrogen causes undesirable effects in males.
.

No way it's really indifferent to women either.

Data's preliminary, but so far it looks like they have very little effect. Contrary to popular belief, estrogen doesn't actually affect muscle growth, it's only the fact that high estrogen tends to go with low testosterone.

Even if it doesn't directly, muscle growth is the last thing to worry about here.

Staying in 'body growth' extra estrogen will likely cause fat to deposit in... places.

Not to mention other adverse effects of unbalanced hormonal levels...

There are many things around today that can be harmful to hormonal health already, no point in risking further, even if it's theoretically small risk.

[SiuiS]

First of all, that is only half the story. An athlete subsisting on Joe Schmoe levels of protein is going to waste away. The timing between meals, and timing of meals in relation to that exertion can greatly increase absorbtion, as well as what you eat with it having an effect, specifically post-exertion. Not to mention an athlete playing their sport and training for their sport are two entirely different things. Training is generally harder than the demands of the game.

Beyond that, rest is also a huge factor.

Right, I actually had a thing about absorption, use, excretion, and I take rates synchronized for results across a timespan in there before I got sort of drunkenly obsessed with finding the exact value a 20g protein bar could support before giving up and working backward from a bodyweight considered average on the street.

Certainly rest, intensity, duration, specific works, specific goals all have different permutations. I'm looking into that now actually, since the recommended 48 hour rest period is good but specific to strength gains and I need other stuff as well (ie drills and practice).

Even if it that number were universally accurate, which I am unsure it is, it would still be better to get that additional protein from meat.

"The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for both men and women is 0.80 g of good quality protein/kg body weight/d and is based on careful analyses of available nitrogen balance studies.".[10] "In view of the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, no additional dietary protein is suggested for healthy adults undertaking resistance or endurance exercise."[11]

No consensus has been reached in determining whether or not an individual in exercise training can benefit from protein and amino acid supplements.[12]

¹⁰ Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients), 2005, 589 [2]
¹¹ Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients), 2005, 661 [3]
¹²Nutrition Working Group of the International Olympic Committee (2003). IOC Consensus Conference on Nutrition for Sport.


If you've got more extensive stuff I'm all ears. I'm fairly confident about the .8g per kilo because it's been suggested for a long time and routinely examined. I've been following along half-heartedly for over a decade, not just saying "Wikipedia says". Specific trumps general, though, and I've only got general :)

Really though, I don't think it will be a factor for you. You have a fairly nebulous goal.

Indeed. For now, my goal is to get back to normal health from
My current lack. In the next two years my goal is, basically, "pass basic training et al (U.S.) as that guy that keeps speaking up and getting hammered down", which is more mental than physical for sure, but is still physical.

Ah, we were talking past each other, then.

Okay. :)

To a degree, yes. But the vast majority of nitrogen fertilizer comes from us extracting it from the atmosphere rather than manure, and the whole point is that animals consume a stupid amount of agricultural product compared to what you can get from just plants.

Wait. The United States central area produces enough food in corn and similar crops to feed a population of 21,000,000,000 – end world hunger three times over. They don't because of economics and politics, but basically, worrying about how we get the animals fed is backwards. It's better to use that food and economize it than to pay farmers to let their crops rot on the vine.

Changing bean type and fermenting them (e.g. tofu) vastly improves the protein:carb ratio to 5:1, which is far higher than you need. And if you're body building you pretty much have to supplement anyway, so why not use soy protein powder?

Interesting.

Why? I mean, both are police officers who presumably keep in shape. When it's trivial to get enough protein from plant sources, there wouldn't be a difference unless the meat-eating guy had a stun gun.

Agreed. Both anecdotal and minor experiential data suggests a better diet will (up to a point) make you better able to utilize the mechanism you have, your body. Meat and potatoes is good and hearty, but it weighs you down and can leave you loagy, the physique that comes with it weighs you down, and it's harder to get a good police officer physique out of it compared to same exercise and "better" diet (caveat for power lifters and such, who develop fat as part of their body padding or whatnot).

I dunno. Without a citation this seems like opinion bantering. Probably best to wrap up without a study to show, on either side.

Because speed, strength, and power aren't binary values and you can't just tase or OC every guy who resists. If a vegan diet was effective in increasing measurable performance indicators, such diets would be widespread and popular among people looking for performance. It's been tried and people have tried to make it work for half a century. In the end, meat does it better.

The science is contradictory, in part because of dubious ethics and in part because it's cherry picked by people making claims to back a product.

I think the misunderstanding between me and you (green Jeff excluded) is that it's not binary. It's not neat or no meat. It's a broad and variegated buffet of choice.

Jeff is indeed saying no meat / meat dichotomy do I don't speak for him :P

*Yes, I am one of those crazies who cares more about animals than "people".

Respect.

There are many things around today that can be harmful to hormonal health already, no point in risking further, even if it's theoretically small risk.

Last time someone brought up papers it was to show that the amounts were negligible compared to what your body produces and regulates anyway. Why should we be concerned?

[Spiryt]

Last time someone brought up papers it was to show that the amounts were negligible compared to what your body produces and regulates anyway. Why should we be concerned?

Different countries and entities are citing different papers, and battling over it quite furiously, and result is that there are different laws as far as this goes at different places.

No one is really sure.

'Negligible amounts' can very well be not that important, because with mechanism as subtle as endocrine system, it's quite possible that even small deviations from the 'norm' can make the difference.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/scienti...exposure/2507/

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/...0/er.2011-1050

In any case, without more solid data, it's understandable to don't bother with meat hormones etc.

But soy products are actually one that have clearly and obviously non - negligible amounts of hormones in them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321163

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science/Study-links-low-sperm-with
-high-soy-consumption

Soy consumption influence on lactation, breast cancer, sperm productions is very visible.

Of course, someone may don't care either, I'm just saying - especially in case of some protein shake/gainer/supplement/Dat dere Cell-tech it's probably better to just take non soy one.

[Crow]

The only place I am finding the .8 figure is the center for disease control, and that is an RDA for "healthy adults". Whether you agree with that figure is likely to be dependent upon what you think of their other RDAs and their economically and lobby-funded "food pyramid". The Journal of Sports Sciences, and the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition recommend 1.8 to 2 per kilo for athletes, but do suggest going over 2.0 per kilo provides no additional benefit. Even the CDC fanboys over at LiveStrong say that athletes should consume 1.1 to 1.8 per kilo.

With the conflicting information and studies that are out there, I have to fall back on my own (and those I learned from) experience in training athletes. Now I am not a doctor; just a dude that owns a gym that other people run for me. I work a "normal" job, but coach strength for high school and collegiate athletes in the summers. So I'm not an expert by any means, but everything that I have seen in front of me over the last 12 years has pointed to the CDC RDA being too low for training.

[Jeff the Green]

Wait. The United States central area produces enough food in corn and similar crops to feed a population of 21,000,000,000 – end world hunger three times over. They don't because of economics and politics, but basically, worrying about how we get the animals fed is backwards. It's better to use that food and economize it than to pay farmers to let their crops rot on the vine.

Since the 1970s the problem hasn't been that there isn't enough land to grow food. The problem is that it takes an enormous amount of fossil fuel to cultivate that land. It takes more land to grow food for cows than food for people, so a pound of beef releases 14 times the amount of carbon as a pound of tofu. (The same thing is true to a lesser degree for other sources of animal protein. Insects are by far the most efficient.) Same thing with water; even where I live, a freaking temperate rainforest, there are areas where we're pumping more water out of the aquifers than is going in (though agriculture isn't the primary determinant, it's a major factor). Beef takes something like five times as much water as soy beans, six times if you go by grams of protein rather than weight.

[SiuiS]

Different countries and entities are citing different papers, and battling over it quite furiously, and result is that there are different laws as far as this goes at different places.

No one is really sure.

Okay. The citation in question was from Anders, about the levels of hormone available from distilled pregnant mare's urine, and related tangents. So it's likely not a US centric documentation, but that's all I've got.

Soy consumption influence on lactation, breast cancer, sperm productions is very visible.

That claim seems sufficient.
I'm curious though. This has come up before, with soy being an embattled topic. It seems that you can't have it both ways, but that both are accurate; soy has enough estrogen to begin mild feminization of a cissexual male but also soy does not have enough estrogen to begin feminization of a transsexual female? I am dubious that the branch of research that would be most interested in an answer doesn't have one while this other branch of research does.

The only place I am finding the .8 figure is the center for disease control, and that is an RDA for "healthy adults". Whether you agree with that figure is likely to be dependent upon what you think of their other RDAs and their economically and lobby-funded "food pyramid". The Journal of Sports Sciences, and the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition recommend 1.8 to 2 per kilo for athletes, but do suggest going over 2.0 per kilo provides no additional benefit. Even the CDC fanboys over at LiveStrong say that athletes should consume 1.1 to 1.8 per kilo.

Two factors at work there, from my understanding. The first is lack of specificity; I didn't quote it but the suggestion for athletes varies on type, with .96g/kg for strength based and 1.4~1.6 for endurance based, as a generalization. This shows that type of athleticism matters, and as you've said training versus acting is different, too.

The second factor is just hype. It's so ingrained that protein is what you need, protein is good, more protein, more! That it's easier to rationalize, round up, to "be safe, just in case" that people have a culture of suggesting protein as an athletic panacea. There's no opacity, no questioning. Is that 1.1g/kg because of depletion, absorption or use? How can you be sure 1.1 is good if there's no guideline to account for maximum absorption per unit of time?

Not that I'm being argumentative for it's own sake. I've been given fish for too long, I want to learn how to fish now! So I'm taking apart all the information I'm given. If only the RDA says that then I'll look closer at the studies done that produced those numbers if I can find them again. Who knows? Maybe the 1.1 balances out to .8 after absorption stuffs?

It looks like I'm going to have to build up my knowledge of this from scratch if there's no clear scientific results. Does anyone know where I can find digestion and absorption rates of different proteins? I lost all my old resources and I cobbled those together by luck >_<

[Crow]

It is altogeter possible that because you can't be sure what your absorbtion will be after any given meal, that they suggest going higher so as to ensure enough available for absorbtion to avoid muscle loss.

[Jeff the Green]

Soy consumption influence on lactation, breast cancer, sperm productions is very visible.

That is exactly the opposite of true. (At least for men. There's very weak evidence it might have some effect on breast cancer. As in "epidemiological and in vitro" weak.)

[SiuiS]

It is altogeter possible that because you can't be sure what your absorbtion will be after any given meal, that they suggest going higher so as to ensure enough available for absorbtion to avoid muscle loss.

So half a gram per pound is just about right, being 1.1/kilo, if you can space it out. Means there's still room for science in the department of front-loading digestion to have more available at certain times, and when and how to spread, but that's enough focus on the one macronutrient I think. Animal sources aren't bad if one needs protein But aren't the sole best choice because of lifestyle. I can work with that. I'm also going to do the honey and almonds thing suggested last thread.

Now I need to build a sustainable meal plan with enough leafy greens and oranges and reds to satisfy while leaving room for fats and fruits...

[Jermz]

Not really sure where this fits into the discussion, but:

Now eat pizza at least five times a day!!

Also, some mathematics.

This made me pretty sad when I read it. I guess it shows how totally uneducated the public is (in this case in the UK, but probably stands for most places in the Western world) regarding healthy eating habits.