Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
Beat Eater wrote:100 million Mexicans beg to disagree.
100 milliion Mexicans are also obese.
1. That would imply that they are in fact digesting the beans.
2. Correlation does not imply causation.
In conclusion, you are a dumb person.
Bean Eater wrote:
1. That would imply that they are in fact digesting the beans.
2. Correlation does not imply causation.
Beans are low fat, moderate protein, high carb. This will lead to weight gain and the Mexicans are proof.
Moron.
After reading all of these posts, I'll just go back to eating whatever I want.
Mexicans drink outrageous amounts of sugar. This is why they are fat. Meanwhile, a cup of beans has about 200 calories. Exactly how many beans do you think these people are eating?
I can point you to many examples of peoples eating high carb diets who are not fat, if that's something you would like to learn exists.
Star wrote:
After reading all of these posts, I'll just go back to eating whatever I want.
This is exactly what is dangerous. A typical runners diet high in grains will lead to increase triglycerides, SKINNY FAT appearance and lack of testosterone.
Had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. Will I die because of that?
I'm pretty sure I could go on an all-bean diet and lose outrageous amounts of weight. It only takes one serving of beans to make me feel ill and lose my appetite for hours. I'd probably die within a month.
xenonscreams wrote:
I'm pretty sure I could go on an all-bean diet and lose outrageous amounts of weight. It only takes one serving of beans to make me feel ill and lose my appetite for hours. I'd probably die within a month.
Everyone reacts this way, some more, some less. No on thrives on beans ...
So how much faster can the top Kenyans become if they ditched their whole grain-dominant diet? Can they go sub-2?
Running doesn't insulate one if one eats the western diet. Vegan runners are probably at low risk. I'm dubious about the research designs of these anti-running cardiac studies. Framingham remains the gold standard. Anecdotally, I see increasing numbers of fat runners, which would certainly color the picture. They are running away from heart disease, but they need to link that with diet, stress, etc.
Dubious?
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
Everyone reacts this way, some more, some less. No on thrives on beans ...
[citation needed]
Has exercise intensity ever been measured in one of these studies?
I'm coming off of an injury and started wearing a heart rate monitor. I found that when running slow, my HR is so low, like < 120, that i would be better off crosstraining to get a better workout. I now understand why there are so many "runners' who don't look that fit. they are kidding yourself thinking they are working so hard when they are probably not.
Is it possible that you actually have to suck air once in a while to get the cardiovascular benefits of running?
Is it possible that just LSD won't prevent the fat build up in the arteries because "the furnace doesn't get hot enough" with just LSD? It seems like this has not been addressed.
Thanks for your data point. Just curious - what kind of high complex carbs were you taking in after 40? Also, not to sound like a complete quack, but what's your blood type?
Without Mercy wrote:
Lifelong runner, 6 marathons by age 23,then injuries forced regrouping. Ran high-mileage training age 38-48 for shorter distance (up to 100-115/week, avg 60+). Five atrial fibrulations age 45-53. High carb diet most of this time (low sugar after age 40, but high "complex carbs"). Teeth/gums were problematic, and more injuries and allergies shut down my very promising masters career by 50 (when I ran 2:11 for 800m, and that was my second-best sport).
Now age 57, switched to low-carb, higher fat/protein two years ago. A number of maladies, including allergies, nagging pains and dental inflammation have improved, as has my ability to absorb training. Haven't had that calcium test, but am hoping that lower mileage (25-60, with cross-training) will keep a lid on the damage I did on high-carb diet, while possibly allowing me the fitness to approach age-group records by age 60.
If you run, you should look into low-carb options (yes, including red meat and high saturated fat in my case). I have never felt better in my life, and it shows in every aspect.
facetime wrote:
Has exercise intensity ever been measured in one of these studies?
I'm coming off of an injury and started wearing a heart rate monitor. I found that when running slow, my HR is so low, like < 120, that i would be better off crosstraining to get a better workout. I now understand why there are so many "runners' who don't look that fit. they are kidding yourself thinking they are working so hard when they are probably not.
Is it possible that you actually have to suck air once in a while to get the cardiovascular benefits of running?
Is it possible that just LSD won't prevent the fat build up in the arteries because "the furnace doesn't get hot enough" with just LSD? It seems like this has not been addressed.
But what about all the guys who were renowned for hard, even excessive training, who wound up with heart issues relatively early? I think at the very least we need to acknowledge that running won't make up for a bad diet if you've got heart disease genes.
Did those young guys have clogged arteries? i know there are young people who run hard and collapse but they have been found to have congenital heart defects.
Someone like McGillivary may train a lot but i wonder if threw in intense exercise?
I started thinking about this when my mom was diagnosed with the early stages of congestive heart failure. She claims to walk 3 miles a day but i know she just strolls.
kanny wrote:
Thanks for your data point. Just curious - what kind of high complex carbs were you taking in after 40? Also, not to sound like a complete quack, but what's your blood type?
[
I was eating gluten-free (which helped, along w/low sugar), so stuff like corn (chips/totillas), rice, beans, potatoes, etc.. Don't know my blood type.
Someone burn this heretic already.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
100 milliion Mexicans are also obese.[/quote]
Fast Dude Runner wrote:
Recommending eating "fruits and vegetables" is like saying that you should avoid "saturated and trans fat". One is good for you, the other one isn't.
Certain fruits in moderation (e.g. berries) is certainly good for you but you should fill up on oranges, apples and pineapple unless you want to risk CVD and diabetes.
Also, whole grains or white flour, not that big a difference. Huge insulin spike in both cases compared to fat and protein.
http://www.lauranaturopath.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/carbs-fats-protein.jpeg
Not a big difference eh? Let's see some evidence. The chart you link to says nothing.
While you're at it, explain the link between heart disease and whole grains.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
Ralph Wiggum wrote:A healthy well balanced diet. Key on well balanced. Fruits and veggies and zero saturated fats won't do you any good.
Right, basically, load up on saturated fats, add some n-3 fats for good measure from wild fish, then plenty of vegetables, some nuts ...
... and occasionally some fruit.
You spew your paleo pseudoscience crap here all the time. Got any links to real scientific studies endorsing your diet of choice? No links to "naturopaths", paleobloggers, or other charlatans please.
