Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tarlach

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68
do u lose muscle on keto? I read these articles about carb loading once a week to keep muscle

I've been gaining muscle in ketosis and I don't carb load.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Effects of Kitosis
« on: March 18, 2010, 06:51:24 PM »
Ketosis does not cause a decrease in muscle mass or a sluggish brain.

Those are good posts by KGH, but who claims you can't store fat in an all meat diet? I've not seen that said on this forum, nor any other Paleo websites I've visited...
I have read that multiple times in this forum, people saying that you cannot gain weight in an all meat diet. Something along the lines of "you cannot gain weight if you don't eat carbs."

Maybe I am mistaken.

Anyways, we know it is fairly hard to overeat fat since it is so satiating.

I will say that you can't store excess body fat on meat only.  This is what Deans experiment showed.  He managed 3000-5000 calories of 80-88% fat for 5 weeks and lost 6.7kg (with zero exercise).  He found that dairy stalled weight loss, not fat.

Dr Eades also wrote a post about a substantial number of people who wrote to him saying they don't gain fat (or actually lose body fat) when eating over maintenance calories on a ketogenic diet.

The body will find a homeostasis point and sit there.  If you are 'overweight' you will lose body fat and if you are 'underweight' you will gain body fat.  You can not lose body fat past this point without making other dietary changes and body fat addition seems to be dictated by carb intake.
* I'm talking about a high fat diet and I'm not getting into non-paleo foods as they affect this also.

For me this point is about 10% BF at which I will drop to and sit at with little to no movement whilst eating a stupid amount of calories from meat and fat.   I only start accumulating BF when I start eating more carbs.

You have to be able to store fat on an all meat diet, otherwise carnivores couldn't grow or survive.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Mostly meat diet
« on: March 14, 2010, 05:05:20 PM »
Let's try to keep it civil. Was that last line really necessary ajmesa?

It is also be a violation of the site rules and should be removed by a moderator or result in the user account being closed:

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Mostly meat diet
« on: March 13, 2010, 07:30:26 PM »
I don't know about this site, but on a lot of sites posting the same offsite link in a bunch of different places would be considered spamming.

The appropriate way to handle it would be to post the offsite link in one single thread, then if necessary post within site links to that thread in other threads.

That was why I brought it up.  It's a mess when you end up with the same thread continuing in different places.

I just ended up with negative karma from ajmesa for bringing it up and trying to link them together  ???

Research / Re: Paleolithic Europeans
« on: March 13, 2010, 02:30:37 AM »
I think this series should be read by anyone considering a meat-only diet: (that's only part 3, read the other parts if interested).

Diet and nutrition / Re: Basically Meat-Only?
« on: March 13, 2010, 02:29:50 AM »
Why do we have to have the same post three times in different threads.  It wasn't that exciting.

Why is Don even trying to draw conclusions from PH?

It all sounds a bit vague and correlation does not prove causation. There are many other factors that need to be taken into account.

The Alaskan Eskimo population has the highest incidence of degenerative joint disease, while the Pecos Indian population experienced the least. This was explained by the possibility of less continuous stress among the latter (Jurmain 1991).

Here's the study:

Comparative osteological analysis of the knee, hip, shoulder, and elbow joints of 789 individuals from four human skeletal populations (Black and White Americans, Pueblo Indians, and Alaskan Eskimos) indicates that age of onset, frequency, and location of degenerative changes are directly related to the nature and degree of environmentally associated stress, as reflected by the variable life styles of the populations sampled

Functional stress, when constant and severe in nature, becomes the primary focus of degenerative disease, but other background contributing agents such as age, sex, and hormonal influence must not be ignored

There's certainly nothing in there that shown a high meat consumption causes osteoporosis.

It's just as much a stretch of the facts as his tubers argument.

I don't see any reason for taking any supplements either.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Mostly meat diet
« on: March 10, 2010, 09:09:04 PM »
"one of the most prominent lipid researchers in the world did an honest review of the observational studies evaluating the link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. Dr. Ronald Krauss's group has published a review article titled "Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease". As anyone with two eyes and access to the medical literature would conclude (including myself), they found no association whatsoever between saturated fat intake and heart disease or stroke:

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD."

Article and links:

Diet and nutrition / Re: Superfluous Quality Calories
« on: March 10, 2010, 09:04:46 PM »
so there was not one caveman who had fat on them? They were all lean and trim? It doesn't make sense. I'm convinced that we can store excess fat eaten

You can, by eating carbs at the same time.

Eating just fat won't allow you to store excess calories.

Recipes and meal photos / Re: Coconut milk kefir... ?
« on: March 10, 2010, 04:01:27 PM »
How can messing with your natural bacterial balance by dumping in a big load of foreign bacteria be a good idea?

Michael Wilson, Professor of Microbiology at University College London, said that the promotion of daily probiotics was devoid of robust scientific evidence that they improved health in any way. He added that while topping up on “good bacteria” might sound sensible for rebalancing or enhancing conditions in the human gut, it was based on “a lot of shaky understanding”.

“It’s all well and good saying that certain bacteria are good for you, but we don’t know about all the other species in the gut and how they all interact. We are basing a lot of probiotic understanding on shaky ground. You need to know you are using appropriate strains for appropriate conditions in appropriate people and we just don’t know those things.”

He said that there was some “instinctive sense” in thinking that manipulating the gut flora - or microbiota - might help with adverse events. But for people with compromised immune systems, increasing the bacterial load could risk problems such as septicaemia blood poisoning if there was a defect in the barrier in the gut separating bacteria from sterile tissue.

No bacterium is totally innocuous. If you are healthy there is probably no harm in taking probiotics, but there is also no benefit. But to increase the bacterial burden if you are immuno-compromised is asking for trouble.”Prof Wilson added that the possibility of problems linked to probiotics would not be picked up because doctors rarely considered them as a cause.

Probiotics, the potentially beneficial bacteria and yeasts available as diet supplements and in some foods, may not be as helpful as widely believed. A new study suggests that under certain circumstances, they can be deadly.

This study, was the largest randomized, double-blinded trial of its kind, and the authors found no other reason for the harmful effects.

The study:

probiotic prophylaxis with this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infectious complications and was associated with an increased risk of mortality

Food Journals / Re: J's journal
« on: March 10, 2010, 03:50:11 PM »
4600 calories today :D just had 1 lb of steak and 1 lb pork belly for dinner

 :o :o :o

That's a normal meal for me too.

I thought I might be eating too much though, when I ate about 3lb of steak for dinner the other night and then went looking for snacks   ;D.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Switching to high-fat and bloating
« on: March 06, 2010, 08:17:14 PM »
it's actually caused by increasing my consumption of fats (in pretty much whatever form - animal fat, oils, nuts, etc).

I had about 8 oz of salmon last night, and a few hours later I just about had to curl up in a fetal position my intestines were so upset.

Unless you deep fried it in lard, salmon isn't something that I would call very fatty.  You might have some other problem (that has little to do with fat)

Bloating is usually caused by grains, dairy or fiber.

Much more likely to be a gallbladder problem if it is pain caused by fat.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68