|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068377 - 02/25/08 12:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Excess calories AND excess simple carbs are both problems with the Standard American Diet.
Your can of Spam had about 1020 calories, 85% of which were from saturated fat. By contrast, an equal portion of firm tofu is 186 calories, 52% of which are from mono/polyunsaturated fats. It would be equally filling to eat 12 oz. of tofu, resulting in a natural limitation of consumption. The difference is, the natural limitation on Spam would result in consuming 834 more calories. (Not to mention the sky-high sodium. )
People DO NOT need to consume more calories, more saturated fat, more protein, more sodium, or more of the toxins contained in animal organs.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068396 - 02/25/08 12:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Um, no.
Sorry, but I can eat WAAAAY more tofu than spam. The body isn't a machine that gets satisfied simply by attaining a certain amount of mass in the stomach.
The whole "fill yourself up with pounds of spinach!" thing is bullshit. You body gets satiated when it gets what it wants.
Yesterday I ate a whole bag of rice noodles (very not nutritious) and still was ready to eat afterwards because I didn't get much of a nutritional satisfaction.
The toxins in animal organs you talk about are just there because of this steroid and antibiotic phase which I hope dies out real soon. Organs have been a great sustanance for many years until we decided to mess it all up.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068413 - 02/25/08 12:28 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, the sensation of fullness in the stomach DOES signal the body to stop eating. I'm not sure where you are getting your info on human physiology, but it is not accurate. Simple carbs are less satisfying because they are quickly digested & converted to glucose. Your rice noodles were not satisfying for this reason, not because you required more nutrients.
SOME of the toxins in animal organs are due to medications administered to the animals, and SOME are there because of the natural function of the organ. (i.e. filtration). To state that cessation of steriod use and antibiotic dosing will render animal organs non-toxic is incorrect.
It seems to me that your enthusiasm for various organ meats is based on incorrect information and internet hype from organizations such as the Weston A. Price Foundation. It is too bad that so much misinformation is propagated on the web, as it has so much potential to be a resource for accurate research.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068435 - 02/25/08 12:36 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Do you think all that rice was digested and properly evacuated within the hour? My body wanted a better source of eneregy, which IS a nutrient by the way (albeit a macro), and probably was looking for something else too. I instantly craved ice cream which tells me it was looking for fats for satiation and probably other things that I don't understand. My stomach was full but I was still hungry.
I'd like to see where you're going with this Weston stuff because it isn't true. People have benefited from organ meats for so long. I don't see why you think this is new and controversial information.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068457 - 02/25/08 12:46 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It's not new or controversial, just incorrect. Occasional consumption of organ meats may have sustained our ancestors through times of famine, but regular consumption of these products NOW, when most people are sedentary & the animals are pumped full of toxic chemicals, is unwarranted and dangerous.
None of the healthiest cultures in the world consume organ meats. For more info. about what DOES work, I suggest "Healthy at 100" by John Robbins.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068462 - 02/25/08 12:48 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What about the inuits? They still are very healthy, and most still stick to organ meats. I don't see why you say famine, either. People perferred fattier animals and organ meats to stay fed. Not out of depseration.
The only reason organ meats could be unhealthy today is because of the altering chemicals.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068543 - 02/25/08 01:14 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
They are also unhealthy because we are NOT roaming across vast stretches of frozen tundra on a daily basis. The sedentary lifestyle of most Americans does not require supplementation with high-fat, high-calorie, low-bulk organ meats.
Even someone who is more active than average would be hard-pressed to burn off the calories and saturated fat contained in the organs of ranch-raised meat. The result is weight gain, as the excess calories WILL be stored as fat. Calories are calories, and eating too many of them leads to increased body fat AND increased health risks.
BTW, the Inuits have a shorter lifespan than the average Canadian, by about 15 years, so I would not promote their lifestyle as one which adds to health and longevity.
Edited by Veritas (02/25/08 01:19 PM)
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068567 - 02/25/08 01:24 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why do inuits have shorter lives? Is it because they live more primitive lifestyles in the middle of all that crazy life while most Canadians stay down south comfy in their homes? Also, don't inuits ditch their old after awhile or am I thinking of some other group?
I don't really think sedentary has to do with it. Exercise is healthy to an extent, but isn't what will make you thin and healthy. Sustained elevated blood sugar is what puts you at risk for damages, not exactly high lipid levels. So if we were debating the need for exercise, it would apply much more for those eating high sugars than high fats.
Again, organ meats are high calories, but try eating a lot of it. You won't get too far. Therefore, it will usually balance out.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068590 - 02/25/08 01:31 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You're not really saying that lack of exercise is not related to obesity and poor health, are You?? 
Exercise burns calories, excess calories are stored as fat...you do the math. The more concentrated sources of calories one consumes, the higher the overall caloric intake.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068595 - 02/25/08 01:32 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why just not eat those calories in the first place?
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
Edited by PyroBurns (02/25/08 01:37 PM)
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068602 - 02/25/08 01:34 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What do you mean? It is far easier to restrict caloric intake than it is to burn off all the excess calories through exercise. It is important to do BOTH in order to prevent weight gain as we age & our basal metabolic rate decreases.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068610 - 02/25/08 01:36 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Or you could just eat at maintenance?
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068643 - 02/25/08 01:47 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, the tough part is that our caloric needs decrease as we age, though our needs for nutrients stay the same. This means that we need to concentrate more and more nutrition into fewer calories. If we eat empty calories, or low-bulk, high-calorie foods, we will find it more difficult to include other nutritious foods without consuming excess calories & thereby gaining weight.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068653 - 02/25/08 01:51 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I still don't think low bulk high calorie foods are a danger. Especially if they are nutritious. So I still don't get your calorie argument.
I'm STILL not hungry and only had 1,129 calories today. Some of that was shoved down because I was concerned. I haven't even had a pound of food yet. BTW I've been up since 7AM and it's now 4PM. My eating cut off time is 6 (digestive reasons), so I need to start trying to get more in soon.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068712 - 02/25/08 02:16 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Realize that your appetite is not the norm. If we regularly consume low-bulk, high-calorie foods, it is likely that we will consume more calories than someone who eats high-bulk, fiber-rich, low-calorie foods. Fiber is more filling per calorie than fat, so increasing fibrous foods will lower caloric intake.
Additionally, the low-bulk, high-calorie organ meats you are recommending have the added risk of toxic chemicals. Even if we discount the health risks of consuming such extreme amounts of saturated fat, organ meats are not health-promoting foods. Particularly the organs of animals which have been living in crowded conditions, fed grain with pesticide residues, dosed daily with antibiotics and growth hormones, and then slaughtered with the maximum degree of pain and stress.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: Veritas]
#8068726 - 02/25/08 02:22 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe my appetite is the norm. Many people on very low carb diets report being satisfied much more of the time. And those who get hungrier, usually turn around and become more like us as they adapt. I've never really heard of a starving high fat dieter.
Why aren't organs health promoting foods?
You bring up the chemical thing again, but I've already said I wished it would go away. I currently eat as natural meat as I can get. That spam I talked about earlier was just because I was stuck in public. Not something I usually eat, even though it was pretty tasty.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Would you eat swill and stuff that was good for you? [Re: PyroBurns]
#8068805 - 02/25/08 02:49 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Organs are not health-promoting foods because they are the garbage dumps of the body. If the animal is super-healthy and happy, their organs will STILL be moderately toxic, as these are the processing and filtration centers of their body. When an animal is killed, putrefactive bacteria exit the colon & begin to decompose the animal from the inside outwards. The organs are closest, so they receive the first influx of putrefactive bacteria. By the time you eat that liver, pancreas, kidney, or whatever, it is teeming with both bacteria AND the toxins it was filtering or processing at the time the animal died.
|
|