Gyroscopic Investing

He's referring to the board I took that quote from, which is Lyle McDonald's board.  The board is often a good source of diet/nutritional info.  There are a lot of super knowledgeable people there (on nutrition, lifting, etc.).  They do have strong opinions and if you post there, a thick skin may come in handy.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: One good MR debate and we'll have him hooked and back making mile-long posts again!

OMG guys I think the government is going to run out of money. How can they spend more than they have?!The only thing to do is immediately run a huge surplus, abolish the Fed, and re-establish the gold standard.

Gold standard

Bankruptcy

Hyperinflation

Vegan

That's all I got folks.  I can't design the perfect mousetrap.

rocketdog wrote: Tofu and squash in lasagne?  Tofu on pizza or in a curry?  Not good.

Tofu can be good in lasagna and some curries, but not on pizza (I've never even heard of that!)
[/quote]

On the pizza it was in little chunks, fried maybe? and seasoned.  It looked a bit like chunks of mushroom with somewhat similar mouth feel but seasoned like sausage.

AgAuMoney wrote: On the pizza it was in little chunks, fried maybe? and seasoned.  It looked a bit like chunks of mushroom with somewhat similar mouth feel but seasoned like sausage.

Most tofu is way too soft or squishy, but there is extra firm which is thick, meaty and chewy so long as you drain it properly before cooking.  If soy wasn't so bad for you, I'd be eating that by the plateload.

Smoked tofu is meaty and chewy, too.  It's made of the firm and extra firm types of tofu, and can be grated or diced to put on pizza.

not sure this is referring to the study that started this thread, but it gives a critique of somebody's anti meat findings..http://www.anh-usa.org/latest-red-meat- ... ly-flawed/

l82start wrote: not sure this is referring to the study that started this thread, but it gives a critique of somebody's anti meat findings..http://www.anh-usa.org/latest-red-meat- ... ly-flawed/

If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that for every study there is an equal and opposite study. 

rocketdog wrote: If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that for every study there is an equal and opposite study. 

If there's one thing I've learned in life, people forcefully use their desire as a selection bias in what evidence is considered, allowed or presented.  So may I suggest you pay special attention to this unsolicitated statement:

Hi Paul, I’ve read both versions of your book, follow your blog, and even eat a diet very similar to your Perfect Health Diet. I have spent the better part of the last 6 months reading as much material on the subject of health and nutrition as I can (over 500 hours on pubmed alone and literally every mainstream book on the subject) and I’ve come to find your diet to be the closest thing to what the scientific literature indicates is the truly optimal diet.

MachineGhost wrote:

rocketdog wrote: If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that for every study there is an equal and opposite study. 

If there's one thing I've learned in life, people forcefully use their desire as a selection bias in what evidence is considered, allowed or presented.  So may I suggest you pay special attention to this unsolicitated statement:

Hi Paul, I’ve read both versions of your book, follow your blog, and even eat a diet very similar to your Perfect Health Diet. I have spent the better part of the last 6 months reading as much material on the subject of health and nutrition as I can (over 500 hours on pubmed alone and literally every mainstream book on the subject) and I’ve come to find your diet to be the closest thing to what the scientific literature indicates is the truly optimal diet.

How often do people write to diet book authors to tell them their diet advice sucks?  I'm sure if I contact the author of any random diet book they will share with me similar correspondence from their adherents. 

Also, there probably is no such thing as an "optimal diet" for everyone, or if there is there's no way to currently find out what it is.  Maybe someday we'll have nanobots floating around in our bloodstream that monitor our phsyiological needs on a day-by-day (or even minute-by-minute) basis.  But even then, someone would need to program the nanobot to know what "optimal" is, which brings us right back to where we started. 

rocketdog wrote:

Also, there probably is no such thing as an "optimal diet" for everyone, or if there is there's no way to currently find out what it is.  Maybe someday we'll have nanobots floating around in our bloodstream that monitor our phsyiological needs on a day-by-day (or even minute-by-minute) basis.  But even then, someone would need to program the nanobot to know what "optimal" is, which brings us right back to where we started.

After years and years of reading about nutrition and training, I think it just comes down to this.  The basics never change (caloric deficits are required to lose weight, the vice versa is also true, you need to eat enough protein, veggies are good, blah blah)... it really just comes down to finding what foods you like to eat, and not eating too many/too few of them for your current goals.

Kriegsspiel wrote:

rocketdog wrote: Also, there probably is no such thing as an "optimal diet" for everyone, or if there is there's no way to currently find out what it is.  Maybe someday we'll have nanobots floating around in our bloodstream that monitor our phsyiological needs on a day-by-day (or even minute-by-minute) basis.  But even then, someone would need to program the nanobot to know what "optimal" is, which brings us right back to where we started.

After years and years of reading about nutrition and training, I think it just comes down to this.  The basics never change (caloric deficits are required to lose weight, the vice versa is also true, you need to eat enough protein, veggies are good, blah blah)... it really just comes down to finding what foods you like to eat, and not eating too many/too few of them for your current goals.

True.  I think as long as we find the lower baseline of what the human body absolutely requires in order to survive, and the upper limit at which point excesses begin to have detrimental effects on the body, then everything in-between becomes academic.

rocketdog wrote:

Kriegsspiel wrote:

rocketdog wrote: Also, there probably is no such thing as an "optimal diet" for everyone, or if there is there's no way to currently find out what it is.  Maybe someday we'll have nanobots floating around in our bloodstream that monitor our phsyiological needs on a day-by-day (or even minute-by-minute) basis.  But even then, someone would need to program the nanobot to know what "optimal" is, which brings us right back to where we started.

After years and years of reading about nutrition and training, I think it just comes down to this.  The basics never change (caloric deficits are required to lose weight, the vice versa is also true, you need to eat enough protein, veggies are good, blah blah)... it really just comes down to finding what foods you like to eat, and not eating too many/too few of them for your current goals.

True.  I think as long as we find the lower baseline of what the human body absolutely requires in order to survive, and the upper limit at which point excesses begin to have detrimental effects on the body, then everything in-between becomes academic.

I don't know much about micronutrients (eat vitamin C to prevent scurvy!), but as far as macronutrients... the only things that have the word "essential" in them are 'amino acids' and 'fatty acids,.'  This is, incidently, the kind of thing I'm doing right now for some rapid fat loss.

Kriegsspiel wrote: I don't know much about micronutrients (eat vitamin C to prevent scurvy!), but as far as macronutrients... the only things that have the word "essential" in them are 'amino acids' and 'fatty acids,.'  This is, incidently, the kind of thing I'm doing right now for some rapid fat loss.

Essential in nutrition science doesn't actually mean what we think it means in English.  For instance, carbohydrates are not "essential" but they are required for good health as the body will become unbalanced and insufficient trying to produce it solely from protein.  So, what is required and what is optimal are pretty far apart.  I think the science is pretty much settled now on the macronutrients (see the The Perfect Diet thread), but micronutrients are still a vanguard field.

Realistically, an aggressive supplementation program will buy you 10-20 extra years and push off the time frame that diseases and chronic health conditions start, i.e. a squaring of the mortality curve (and save Medicare trillions!).  Beyond that, we're going to need new breakthroughs in stem cells and epigenetics to live past 122 and for de facto immortality.  If you're under 40, you'll make it if you don't engage in obviously stupid behaviors.

I have not read that thread, does it explain your second sentence?

But yes, I think rocketdog and I were only talking about necessary 'to not die,' not for 'optimal' performance/health.

Now you have to concern yourself for the antibiotic resistant superbugs as well:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100653575

The group found that NARMS had reported—but had not highlighted—that antibiotic resistant bacteria was turning up in 81 percent of raw ground turkey, 69 percent of raw pork chops, 55 percent of raw ground beef and 39 percent of raw chicken bought over the counter in 2011.

The rate of occurrence in salmonella superbug strains in chicken rose from 50 percent in 2002 to 74 percent in 2011.

Seems like big pharma and big farming are in bed together...

Nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics were administered to livestock in 2011, according to EWG, a 22 rise from 2005. Antibiotics used on food-producing animals account for nearly 80 percent of the total market for such drugs in the U.S., according to the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.

rocketdog wrote: there probably is no such thing as an "optimal diet" for everyone

*****  This is a super important statement, and I've said as much in several posts.

Ignoring what is absolutely required by the body, I think e.g. some people do better eating:

--larger amounts of healthy carbs vs lower amounts.  There was a guide to fine tuning your protein/carb ratio for you based on how you felt after eating that I once had.  I'll see if I can find it.

--more protein (animal) vs less (perhaps some thrive best on a vegetarian diet, I don't know)

There are probably others.

Fine tuning your diet for you is not easy but if you are sensive to your body and open minded, you can experiment and begin to notice what works and what does not.

MachineGhost wrote: Realistically, an aggressive supplementation program will buy you 10-20 extra years and push off the time frame that diseases and chronic health conditions start,

Maybe.  The guy in your thread was sure there was no proof that most supps do anything.

Should the average healthy 20-40 year old take any supps?

I would argue that most people should take Vit D (guided  by blood levels) and EPA/DHA (fish oil). 

Beyond that I would suggest people do as much as possible by diet (as mentioned in my other thread) e.g. colored fruits and veggies, etc (including beef if it works for you). 

Lipoic acid? probably.  Some basic multiple?  probably.  If you have any gut issues I would have a low threshold for adding simple flora e.g. acidophhilus/bifidus/fos (hope you got my PM on flora MG) given what I've recently concluded about people with f'ed up guts (see earlier in this thread).

If you are 40+ and/or have body weaknesses (either personally or family history) then there are supps/TCM tonics/therapeutics which might be worth taking. 

I think it is very seductive and very tricky taking the supplement of the month.  Even taking fish oil regularly long term you can cause an imbalance in Omega 3/omega 6 ratio. 

doodle wrote:

The group found that NARMS had reported—but had not highlighted—that antibiotic resistant bacteria was turning up in 81 percent of raw ground turkey, 69 percent of raw pork chops, 55 percent of raw ground beef and 39 percent of raw chicken bought over the counter in 2011.

The rate of occurrence in salmonella superbug strains in chicken rose from 50 percent in 2002 to 74 percent in 2011.

Seems like big pharma and big farming are in bed together...

Nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics were administered to livestock in 2011, according to EWG, a 22 rise from 2005. Antibiotics used on food-producing animals account for nearly 80 percent of the total market for such drugs in the U.S., according to the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.

This is an amazing stat.  I realize it's about animals, but in a country with a human population of 300 million, that's 0.1 pound (1.6 ounces or 45.36 grams)  of antibiotics per person.  No wonder MRSA is spreading among us.

Either these animals are very sick and infectious--and hence, not fit for human consumption--or there is something sinister going on between Big Pharma and Big Ag. Or both.  Either way it looks bad.

Also, turkey is promoted like a health food in the USA. If these numbers are to be believed, it's the sickiest animal of all.

Kriegsspiel wrote: I have not read that thread, does it explain your second sentence?

No, it was just the main talking points.  The details and science are in the actual book.

Benko wrote: Maybe.  The guy in your thread was sure there was no proof that most supps do anything.

That wasn't intelligence talking, just rote repetition of an pre-existing anti-supplement bias that is widespread in the medical-pharma-industrial complex.  Almost like an ad hominem attack except against ideals instead of people.  People like that make my eyes roll but radical tolerance equates to everyone having a soapbox and being heard.

smurff wrote: Also, turkey is promoted like a health food in the USA. If these numbers are to be believed, it's the sickiest animal of all.

I'd argue turkeys have been "genetically engineered" to be monster mutants that can't even stand on their own two feet.  Is it any wonder, then?

Fortunately, ground turkey contains a lot of toxic Omega-6, so its no loss to get it out of the diet.  Not sure on turkey breast though.

Antibiotics allow the animals to put all their energy into growing big.  No bio burden to fight off, no pathogens, no sickness.  That way the animal that is priced per pound can make the most pounds before going to the butcher. 

For anyone who's interested, US News did a study of 29 different diets.  They got a panel of nutritionists to critique the diets.  It's pretty interesting to read their findings:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

edsanville wrote: For anyone who's interested, US News did a study of 29 different diets.  They got a panel of nutritionists to critique the diets.  It's pretty interesting to read their findings:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

Interesting rankings.  But I get the impression they were judging the diets as though they are all intended to be followed as a new lifestyle.  Some diets are meant to be followed temporarily in order to correct a health problem, such as the Ornish diet (heart disease) or Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig (obesity).  I would assume that once the problem is corrected the person could then switch to a less restrictive maintenance diet that is easier to follow long-term. 

Incidentally, I was surprised to see the vegetarian and vegan diets on the list, since those aren't really structured "diets", but rather a lifestyle philosophy.  You could conceivably eliminate all animal products from your diet and still have a profoundly unhealthy diet (lots of junk foods are vegetarian and/or vegan).

Oh, and I should also point out that the Atkins diet ranked 3rd to last place while the Paleo diet came in dead last.