Peanut butter

The SAD is already heavily plant-based as it consists of 75% carbs and obviously, it's making people quite sick, overweight, insulin-resistant and unhealthy so how could a diet with even more grains and carbs possibly be healthy? Even if all of those carbs were made of fruits and vegetables, all of those lectins, oxalates and goitrogens found in plants would break havoc on your intestines, digestive system and kidneys.
That your body and brain run on glucose is partially true but it is actually not the only fuel source for your muscle and brain. Ketones from your stored body fat or dietary fat can also be used as fuel for the brain and muscles, even in the absence of glucose and glycogen.

Without that mechanism called ketosis, our ancestors would never have survived after going for days or even weeks without food (and obviously no glucose) so how could the foods that our ancestors survived on (i.e. meat, fish, eggs, milk, plus a few berries and seeds primarily) be unnatural or bad for us?
There is no such thing as a necessary carbohydrate that the body needs (name one) as you could survive and thrive fine on a carnivorous diet while an entirely plant-based diet would slowly starve and deplete you of plenty of at least two dozen nutrients that can't be found in any plant-based foods.

 

I don't recommend anyone to eat raw peanuts or peanut-butter at any time or circumstance (other than threatening starvation) as it's full of lectins that will poke a hole in your small intestine, allowing undigested food (i.e. fecal matter) going out to your blood-stream, causing a leaky gut.
Only use peanut-butter if making pans, stews (or similar) in which you heat it up or boil it as boiling removes most of the lectins.
Almond, pecan or pistachio-butter are much better alternatives to peanut-butter if you want a good and gut-healthier replacement.

 

Somebody likes keto

 

Preach !

; )

 

75% carbs? How do you figure? No one I know eats 75% carbs or plant based. There are several factors beyond carbs vs fats vs protein making people sick. Including factors that aren’t even dietary. You’re getting too caught up in theories. The theory that lectins are harmful is a far stretch. Lectins are in just about every single food. My intestines have been doing quite well eating a whole lot of lectins, oxalates and goiyrogens the past 5 years. I experience zero digestive discomfort unlike the mild bloating I used to have eating on no specific diet. In fact I know people who have reversed their chrons and colitis eating them as well.

I hear the same thing all the time.. well the body doesn’t have to run on glucose.. it can use ketones. Let’s talk about what’s ideal, not what’s possible. What makes you think ketones are the optimal fuel source for your brain and body?

How can you claim that people are perfectly capable of surviving on a carnivorous diet long term? There’s been not one person to prove that. You’re losing credibility when you drop random unfounded claims. There’s been plenty of plant based people.

 

All diets are sh!t if you stick long term to them. Just eat whatever the hell you want and need. If it's healthy, follows your body's thermodynamic needs, and nutritious and delicious, just consume it without regrets. This fanaticism with (insert XYZ system) diets is so damn twisted.

 

This. Know what to eat and when to eat and you'll be fine

 

what r thermodynamic needs?

 

I’m glad this thread isn’t what I thought it was going to be when I saw the title

 

How does water flush out toxins?

 

Calories in- Calories out

You keep a slight imbalance between these two values to either gain or cut weight accordingly.
Controlling the first one is way easier (and the smarter idea) than wrestling with the latter (which gives diminishing returns after a time).

 

Look at what the SAD food-pyramid (and the food pyramids in most Western countries) looks like today and do the math. If you eat according to it, the grain, vegetable and fruit group makes up at least 75% or more of it. Sadly, the reason as to why we have a metabolic pandemic these days is not only due toan over-consumption of processed foods and junk-foods but also because people over-consume grains and especially sugars (we all know what fructose and HFCS does to the body as soon as the glycogen storage is full):

It is not that far stretched since plants can't run away and don't want to be eaten by animals and humans. Hence, they have developed toxins that deter animals and humans from eating them and lectins is one of those toxins. Of course lectins are present in almost every vegetable, fruit, nut and seed out there but some do have a higher content than others which is why lectin heavy foods should be limited in any person's diet.
After I removed the most lectin-heavy foods from my diet (beans, peanuts, lentils and wheat), I noticed a significant improvement in my otherwise slightly irritated gut which is why I keep these foods to a very minimum and only use them in cooking once in a while and only after they have been soaked and heated properly.

How can the way the human specie have survived and thrived for the past million years or so (i.e. running on ketones for most of the time) not be optimal? If ketones made them survive days on end without food while keeping their minds sharp, it seems like evolution have favored this mechanism over constant glucose-intake, how could it not be ideal?
If ketones were not the optimal fuel-source for brain and body and not favored by evolution, we would feel very slow and sluggish after a day or two of fasting instead of sharp and alert. If humans throughout the ages had felt slow and sluggish after a few days of fasting, the human specie would never have survived but rather be extinct long time ago.
We all know that we feel the most sluggish, unmotivated and tired, shortly after eating a big meal. Especially if that meal contained a lot of grains and sugars that gives a great crash a few hours later.
Many of the sultans, kings, royalties and aristocrats from previous times ate a lot of grains and sugars (to flash their wealth) and had all of the health problems we see today. Obesity, digestive issues, gout and cavities.

Well, you sit here today because your ancestors a few thousand years ago survived on just eating meat, milk and fish (plus a few seeds and berries on the side possibly) so how could it be an unfounded claim?. Just look at nature and imagine what people might have eaten before the onset of agriculture (as hunter-gatherers). I can assure there wasn't a whole lot of grains and man-made vegetables in that diet.
Human biology still haven't adapted to all the grains and man-made vegetables that have only been around for the past 8000-10 000 years. The dentist, scholar and explorer Weston Price traveled all over the world 100 years ago and documented what dozens of native populations/tribes ate and those who sticked to their traditional diets (usually consisting overwhelmingly of animal-products) were also the healthiest while those who had started eating grains and sugars had lots of health issues that people on the traditional diets didn't have.

 

please support your claims with evidence. you provide only anecdotal evidence. also survival =/= healthy. ancient peoples/societies is a hard one to use as an example because how can you say for sure that their diet is the reason for X? otherwise it is just they were this and happened to eat X

 

As a med student, I can verify that all of @Angus McGyver 's content in the message you quoted is backed by scientific evidence.

The onus falls upon you to educate yourself to a level where you can hold a debate with him.

Also, little to none of his assertions are anecdotal. This is what "anecdotal" means:

I didn't see the words "I think" or "I believe" anywhere in his response.

 

I don't only provide anecdotal evidence. As a former chemist myself (having read a few books and research papers over the years), I find the thorough study done by Weston Price one hundred years ago to be quite reliable considering the few modern tools he had to work with back then. I strongly recommend reading his book "Nutrition and physical degeneration".
I also strongly recommend the books of the Russian-descendant physician Natasha Campbell McBride called "Gut and psychology syndrome" and "Vegetarianism explained" whose material is also well-researched over the past decades.
Dr. Steven Gundry's "The plant paradox" also goes into more detail about lectins and why they can be so detrimental to your health if consumed on a regular basis. Gluten is just one example of many potent lectins that is linked to inflammation and several auto-immune disorders (plus, wheat itself is very insulin-spiking and addictive).
Apparently, it is something we shouldn't eat at all and no serious scientists in the matter these days, say it's something we should consume.

 

do you mean active lectins or foods that contain lectins

 

welp just realized my response earlier hasnt been posted yet because it is waiting for mod approval? idk why

anyway,


gaundry is a doctor on goop a pusher of pseudoscience

his book is terrible and he sells "Lectin Shield" on his supplement website

confused about how Weston's work supports keto.
one MD critiqued his work : "Price made a whirlwind tour of primitive areas, examined the natives superficially, and jumped to simplistic conclusions. While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition. While praising their diets for not producing cavities, he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities." Barrett asserted that dental problems experienced by native peoples resulted from "abuse" of sweet, fatty, and salty food; exposure to new germs; inactivity; and alcoholism, and described Price's studies on bacterial leakage from root canals as "poorly designed""


haven't seen Dr Natasha's book. On her website she offers online training (paid) to become certified in her GAPS thing and also promises to help treat autism, ADHD, dyslexia etc. if you buy her books. Seems hella quack


careful of confirmation bias

 

Earlier post that didnt get posted because I think I replied to something with an attachment

I agree that a lot of his claims are supported by science:
-you can survive on keto (survival =/= healthy) as you can survive for awhile on most eating choices
-lectins can have negative effects
-his points in the first paragraph about over consumption of junk food/processed food/processed sugars being bad

Completely Anecdotal:

Questionable:

"The onus falls upon you to educate yourself to a level where you can hold a debate with him."
Ok. These forums have tons of misinformation on them so sometimes that is just my default response. Definitely should have read closer because there is some science in his post.



2nd paragraph:
Claim: Lectins in heavy quantities is bad.
Active lectins have negative effects. Can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. Can cause bloating, gas. Cell studies: Can hurt absorption of calcium, zinc, iron, phosphorous. Attach to digestive tract harming digestion and digestive flora.
Lectins can be an antioxidant. They prevent carbohydrates from spiking insulin/blood sugar levels by slowing digestion/absorption.


Food that contain lectins aren't necessarily bad (he didn't claim this but I want to address it):
Food can be prepared/packaged so that active lectin content is low. Canned beans have low amounts. Soaking/rinsing can remove lectins.
Lots of large studies (population based) have showed that lectin containing foods correlate with lower rates of t2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Contain B vitamins, protein, fiber, minerals, good fat.


3rd paragraph provides no evidence that ketones are optimal. Scientific research is lacking on long term effects of ketosis.
4th paragraph sure people could live on something long term and it not be healthy.

(posting link in seperate post so this gets posted):
"While in the short term the ketogenic diet may help one lose weight, this is not sustained over the long run. In addition, countless studies show that the diet is associated with many complications that often lead to emergency room visits and admissions for dehydration, electrolyte disturbances, and hypoglycemia"

 

You claim that these scientists/doctors are quacks without giving a single example of scientists who support your claims. At least it seems like all the doctors, nutritionists, scientists and Youtubers advocating a plant-based diet are even bigger quacks as they are often sponsored by those mock-meat companies who are in alignment with the grain-industry (the most powerful and influential industry there is in the world of agriculture and processed foods).
Assuming they all follow the diet they advocate to others, how can they seem to age so fast, lack energy, having visible signs of malnutrition, deficiencies and seem to dislike all the food they put on their plates?
I am not surprised since plant-based foods lack at least two dozen nutrients that can't be properly absorbed (or absorbed at all) on a plant based diet.
Taking a bunch of artificial and often toxic supplements (provided by BigPharma or smaller companies) to balance out all of the deficiencies doesn't sound like a sane and sound way to live in most peoples' opinion.
I know it sounds completely anecdotal but if a plant based-diet is so healthy, tasty and great, why do the health of all vegans seem to deteriorate in the long run and why do they always cover up their food with various spices, sauces and sugars (trying to resemble meat) if those are the foods humans naturally would crave in nature?
If you can't eat the food raw (as it is, without sauces, dips and spices) because it tastes too bitter and/or sour, it is a sign of the plant releasing many of its toxins (since it doesn't want to be eaten) as it wants to defend itself. So, how could it be healthy for a human being to eat these raw foods who send out all of these alarm-bells?

Sometimes, you can't rely on scholasitic medicine alone, even less epidemiology which is probably the most bogus field of study there is. You can claim cause and effect on almost any single food item without it necessarily being true at all. Most of those large epidemiology studies are also sponsored big BigPharma and large scale agriculture (i.e. the grain-industry) so the confirmation bias is even bigger in these.
I always say, look at nature, its cycle and what has shaped and sustained it (and humans) over the centuries. Most of the ecological disasters we see today are a result of large scale agriculture and grain production with mono-crops and synthetic fertilizers depleting and eroding the top soil completely.

 

First of all no one follows the food pyramid, so it’s irrelevant. As I said before no one, literally no one I know, or have known throughout all my years, eats 75% of their calories from carbs.

Many plants, such as fruits, want to be eaten as it means their seeds will spread. Secondly, when a plant is toxic, it is generally well known due to the immediate acute affects it would produce like nausea and the like. It’s pretty much how humans learned which plants can be eaten and which can’t over thousands of years.. to use your own argument against you, since you love to bring up ancestral behaviours. Thirdly, Plants that have been proven not to produce acute toxic affects in humans and animals, often only have defense mechanisms oriented towards things like microbes, viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc. Which is actually why they’re beneficial to consume as their anti-viral and anti-bacterial components do the same in our body. They are much less concerned with a human coming along and eating it, unless as I said they are blatantly toxic.

You are lumping in wheat which contains gluten.. a known allergen, with beans and lentils, and even peanuts which typically have other toxic elements to them based on growing methods and additives. If you want to be scientific you shouldn’t lump those in the same category and blame it on lectins, when it could have been the wheat and peanuts only causing your problems.

You have no idea with absolute certainty what humans consumed and how their brains functioned. You are completely theorizing. Not a single person on this earth can claim with certainty what our ancestors did. There is no video evidence. Even if there was, again, doing something for survival never implies that it’s optimal. Until you accept this fact, you will remain lost as to how human physiology works. I don’t need to bring up examples of what humans have done to survive that is clearly not healthy or ideal, as I’m pretty sure I already have in past arguments with you and yet you still ignore this fact.

Speak for yourself. I’ve not experienced this in years, and I eat extremely large meals.

It’s an unfounded claim because it’s impossible to know with certainty or accuracy what our ancestors consumed. You talk about this like it’s a fact.. it’s not. It’s theory. You also disproved yourself. Nuts and berries would make that an omnivorous, not carnivorous diet.

Do you consume wild animals only? All your animals are “man made” as well. The pigs you eat don’t exist in nature, they come from wild hogs. Selective breeding and hybridization is a completely natural process. Nothing negative about it. If you want to call something man made, you should refer to GMO foods only. That is the insertion of foreign DNA to modify the genetic code of something.

Anyways, hope this helps you realize that you live in a world of theory not fact. I hope to see your reply acknowledging this.