0
comments
Sorry, I got mixed up about who posted what about eggs.
As far as fiber being necessary, I guess that depends on necessary for
what. You could probably count on living long enough to breed with a
no-fiber diet, so I guess it isn't evolutionarily necessary. In terms
of my definition of basic health and quality of life, I consider it
necessary. It has been shown to improve GI health, regulate insulin
and glucose responses, reduce cardiac disease and cancer risks, and to
help prevent overeating by helping to make one feel full. I am
especially keen on the probable disease prevention benefit as my
father died of colon cancer at age 59.
Another way to think about it is simple common sense. Vegetables and
fruits have been staples of the human diet for as long as humans have
been - at least 100,000 years. We keep finding out more and more
about all the health-promoting substances in them - vitamins,
minerals, phytochemicals, etc... including fiber. It seems like a
good idea to eat them. This goes back to the simple principle that it
is better to eat in terms of foods and not nutrients. If you eat lots
of fruits, nuts, and vegetables, you'll get plenty of fiber along with
all the other good stuff, and won't ever have to think about fiber
again. Conversely, a no-fiber diet would necessarily be devoid of
unprocessed plant foods, and be deficient in a lot more than just fiber.
On the other hand, processed fiber-containing stuff like processed
grain foods, especially with concentrated bran additives, are an
extremely new invention, and there are some good reasons to think they
are hard to digest, non or anti-nutritious, and possibly even
approaching poisonous for many. I doubt the scientific findings about
health benefits I mentioned above went to a lot of trouble to test
fiber from different sources and in different overall dietary
contexts, so my bet is that the scientifically established benefits
represent a pretty substantial underestimation of the real world
benefits of eating lots of fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
My overarching principle of nutrition science is that there is way
more that we don't know than we do. It is in a relatively primitive
stage of development, and has been working with flawed paradigms for
most of its short existence. Because it has been largely based on
studying isolated nutrients and processed foods, most of what we do
know is of little practical importance to an individual trying to
decide what to eat. I consider any lack of nutrition science evidence
in this context, and stick with the big principles.
As far as GI upset issues go, increasing the unprocessed plant content
of your diet can cause temporary digestion problems. You either have
to transition slowly or wait until your body gets used to it. Once it
does, most people find lots of health problems disappearing,
especially GI problems.
Also, another thing I have found that irons out digestive problems to
a surprising extent is Kefir, a probiotic fermented milk drink. It
even did wonders for my dog. Start drinking some a few times per week
and your indigestion problems might be reduced, although I expect
reducing grain foods and other processed foods down to minimal levels
in your overall diet would help even more.
Kevin Wilbanks
Wisconsin, USA
--- In Supertraining@
<miguel.perez@
>
> Kevin,
>
> It seems you are attributing to me a statement made by Glen, namely
that eggs take more energy to digest than they provide. What I did
say is that I can't agree with that very statement.
>
> You make a good point when you say I shouldn't assume that the
problem with whole-wheat bread and oatmeal resides in their fiber
content. In truth, I came to this conclusion empirically, as I
noticed that eating white bread before bed does not give me heartburn
while eating whole-wheat bread does. Since eating oatmeal at this
time will often result in heartburn as well (in my case), I went and
assumed that it was the fiber that did me in.
>
> I have indeed noticed that when I minimize or eliminate grains from
my diet, things tend to work much better. And, I agree that grains
are not the best food choice for humans.
>
> That said, I am not aware of any evidence or proof that fiber from
any source is essential.
>
>
> Miguel Pérez
> Reynosa, Mexico
>
>
>
> PS - Does anyone have any info about Dr. Bruce Nadler? I read a
disturbing bit of news about him on the Internet yesterday and I
wonder if anybody here can offer any information.
>
> ____________
>
> From: Supertraining@
[mailto:Supertraining@
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:29 PM
> To: Supertraining@
> Subject: [Supertraining] Re: Counterintuitive Fatloss
>
> You can't disagree about the egg-calorie thing because you are
> demonstrably wrong. If you were right, an all-egg diet would have
> become the established champion weight loss diet decades ago, and it
> would be possible to starve to death in a day or two by gorging
> yourself on eggs.
>
> Second, what makes you think your problem with those foods is fiber?
> My first thought is that they are both grains. Grains are a very
> difficult to digest food for many people - especially when they are
> not soaked or fermented before eating, or if they are processed in any
> significant way. Grains contain an array of anti-nutrients that block
> vitamin and mineral absorption. Populations that eat diets composed
> of more than half whole grain end up with serious malnutrition
> problems. Food allegies to various substances in the grains is very
> common. Refined carbs from grains cause obesity and even diabetes in
> certain populations. The Navajo people used to be skinny and healthy
> until they started eating grains, now they have colossal rates of
> obesity and are a focal point for worldwide diabetes research.
>
> I don't think grains are an outright poison, but I think it is a
> mistake to make them a major component of your diet if you have a
> choice. Fiber, on the other hand, is essential. Try getting your
> fiber from fruits, nuts, and vegetables instead.
>
> Kevin Wilbanks
> Wisconsin, USA.
>
> --- In Supertraining@
<mailto:Supertraini
> <miguel.perez@
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > Thanks. Not sure I agree on the egg-calorie thing but I do know
> that my gut doesn't like fiber so much, especially in large
> quantities. I do better by taking it easy on the oatmeal and
> whole-wheat bread.
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation as to what you meant by high energy
> turnover foods.
> >
> > Miguel Pérez
> > Reynosa, Mexico
> >
> > ____________
> >
> > From: Supertraining@
<mailto:Supertraini
> [mailto:Supertraining@
<mailto:Supertraini
> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:07 PM
> > To: Supertraining@
<mailto:Supertraini
> > Subject: RE: [Supertraining] Counterintuitive Fatloss
> >
> > Miguel,
> >
> > Digestive stress and fatloss are two of the main conditions for
> which fibre, bran in particular, is recommended. In my experience,
> although it can be helpful for some, there are in fact other
> alternatives. I have found that fibre, particularly cereal fibre, may
> actually increase the risk of digestive stress. Although it is
> supposed to travel through the gut at a faster rate, it does not
> always do so and using it as a "stomach filler" when dieting is not
> always good either.
> >
> > Constipation is a frequent complaint when people who have eaten a
> high-fibre diet adopt a different macro percentage nutrition template.
> However, that does not mean that the new diet is at fault.
> Constipation is really caused by their previous diet. What happens is
> this:
> >
> > You eat food and the waste is moved along the bowel by circular
> muscles, in the same way as a worm moves. If you eat a high-fibre
> diet, the fibre itself forces waste through and the circular bowel
> action is made redundant. After a while it stops working. Now you
> change to a more natural diet with a lower fibre intake and your bowel
> muscles don't work as they should, so you get constipated. The muscles
> will recover if you keep eating appropriately, (lower-carb,
> higher-fat) and drinking more water. What you should not do is go back
> to the high-fibre regime that caused the problem in the first place.
> Obviously seasonal vegetables (raw & warmed) and fruits (raw,
> preferably with skin) are good, but not in the vast quantities some
> people suggest.
> >
> > One of the current and widely accepted nutritional strategies is to
> eat 5-6 small meals a day. In theory, this will minimize hunger, limit
> insulin spikes and raise metabolism. This strategy was born out of the
> body building culture where the requirement to maintain 250 plus
> pounds of body weight is only achieved through a huge food intake.
> Great if you're a lineman, shot putter or heavy weight category athlete.
> >
> > Frequent feeding is not necessary if fat loss is the goal and you
> have no desire to be heavy! Pre and post workout meals in theory are
> designed to offset training stress. Don't train on the nerve and you
> minimize one of the biggest muscle growth inhibitors..
> ingestion produces insulin (a fat utilization inhibitor). In a fasted
> state and a brief time after exercise, why not take advantage of
> elevated growth hormone and high enzyme activity (especially lipase),
> which mobilize FFA's. Obviously, food consumption is necessary, but
> more importantly eating after physical stress (exercise) &
> macronutrient depletion (fasting) will create a more efficient fat
> usage environment. Then when you do eat, consume high energy turnover
> foods. For example a standard chicken egg contains about 90 calories.
> To digest that egg requires about 100 calories! So if you consume
> foods that have high energy digestive requirements, you create an
> enhanced thermic effect (higher
> > metabolism) through nutrition. What are high energy turnover foods?
> Natural foods such as animal proteins and fats. One cyclic
> macronutrient breakdown will be approx 40% fat, 30% protein & 30%
> carbohydrates. If you consume fatty fish and fatty grains, along with
> good oils, nuts, avocados and full cream dairy your fat intake will
> become dominant.
> >
> > With this in mind however, just as feed forward tension re lifting
> is not well known or understood, so to the importance of fat in our
> nutrition is misunderstood. As cyclic training in sport is necessary,
> so to is nutritional cycling, macronutrient cycling, and phases of
> depletion and compensation important.
> >
> > Note a 12 hour plus fast might include night time sleep and 4 plus
> hours might be between meals.
> > ============
> >
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
March
0 comments: