Competitive over 30s, what are you taking for joints?

I'm 50 and I don't take anything or follow any sort of special diet. My joints are fine as far as I know. I suppose I'm lucky. I'm competitive overall in small races, and in my AG in medium races (just ran a 18:51 5K and won my AG in a race with around 2000 runners). I typically run anywhere from 30-100 miles in a week (should have about 2600 for the year, although had about 1800 halfway through due to some goal races over the summer).

Our ancestors were eating average of 100g of fiber a day. I challenge you to see how much meat and dairy you can fit in on 100g fiber a day.

Nonsense wrote:

fisky wrote:

Each person has a diet or diets that work best for that person. While this diet might work for some runners, carbs are more inflammatory than healthy fats.

I went to a low carb/high healthy fat diet last summer with intermittent fasting (4-5 days/week of fasting from 7PM to 1PM or so with only a tablespoon of coconut oil in my morning coffee. I did this to address an inherited tendency towards hypoglycemia, but it also works for my other running friends.

This LCHF diet trend is nonsense. You should look up 'blue zones' and then try to explain why these people eating a mostly vegetarian HCLF diet are the longest lived people in the world and not LCHF dieters.

Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other factors to the blue zones life expectancy. One, they all live in close knit communities. Social isolation and depression is detrimental to your life expectancy. Second, they all live relatively active lives. Third, clean water and environment. Fourth, low caloric intake. Which, slows ageing.

Also, has there every been a study comparing a healthy low carb group to a high carb group? Most studies comparing these two dietary groups usually take average person diet and compare it to a high carb group. Well of course they are going be healthier. Most people eat junk in addition to there meat. Think about it, most people don't just eat meat. They usually have some fries, some kind of sugary drinks and have it on a bun.

Now as the demand for Vegan foods has increased. So too, has the supply of vegan junk food. I would not be surprised if future studies show vegans have worse health outcomes.

Now no one wants to talk about the detrimental effects of the vegan diet. One is being low in protien. Now we will have people say you only need 5% of your daily calories from protein. Or, that protien deficentcy is impossible if you eat enough calories. Or, that the Kenyan and Ethiopian runners eat a low protien diet. First, the minimum is not optimal. Sure, you can get by on a low protien diet. But does not mean it is optimal.

For example recent meta analysis on bone health of vegans/vegatarians vs omnivores(protein is important for bone health):

Protein above RDA is beneficial for bone health:

We got an expert over here wrote:

Our ancestors were eating average of 100g of fiber a day. I challenge you to see how much meat and dairy you can fit in on 100g fiber a day.

Not if your ancestors were the Mongols, Maasi or the Inuit.

Sure, there are other factors than diet in the blue zones. But for example the people of Loma Linda live an average of 10 years longer than other Americans. I am sure there are certain lifestyle things beyond diet affecting this, but 10 years worth?

I agree that vegan and vegetarian diets can be poor. No argument there. The argument is really what you said, compare a healthy HFLC diet to a 'healthy' LCHF diet. Honestly, both groups are pretty annoying, the bulk of the benefits of each diet is simply the reduction in junk food. But what I find even more annoying are these LCHF'r people that proclaim they 'used to eat vegan/vegetarian' it is such a cliche at this point and is an immediate red flag that they are full of sh*t.

Sand Dunes wrote:

We got an expert over here wrote:

Our ancestors were eating average of 100g of fiber a day. I challenge you to see how much meat and dairy you can fit in on 100g fiber a day.

Not if your ancestors were the Mongols, Maasi or the Inuit.

Great you named 3 groups out of...millions?

You don't have to take my word for it though, just do some googling. You will find humans from all over the world were eating 75-200g of fiber a day. Of course they were eating meat, I am sure on some occasions eating even more than your average American, but not on a consistent basis.

loma linda wrote:

Sure, there are other factors than diet in the blue zones. But for example the people of Loma Linda live an average of 10 years longer than other Americans. I am sure there are certain lifestyle things beyond diet affecting this, but 10 years worth?

.

Pretty sure not drinking, and not smoking could account for that extra 10 year life expectancy.

Sand Dunes wrote:

loma linda wrote:

Sure, there are other factors than diet in the blue zones. But for example the people of Loma Linda live an average of 10 years longer than other Americans. I am sure there are certain lifestyle things beyond diet affecting this, but 10 years worth?

.

Pretty sure not drinking, and not smoking could account for that extra 10 year life expectancy.

I suppose it could assuming one admits that a HCLF is not unhealthy, no?

LCHF is remedial for those damaged by veggie diets, and I am among them, and there are many willing to testify as to the damaging effects of HCLF veggie diets. The converse (LCHF > HCLF) only exist as troll posts, never an actual person stepping up to the plate. In other words, they speak from zero experience with a properly-formulated LCHF diet.

In the bigger picture however, modern "standard" diets have been a massive shift from relatively lower carb/higher meat consumption to higher carb/lower meat consumption and the result is a worldwide crisis of obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease and other metabolic diseases of hyperinsulemia and chronic inflammation.

That is complete fantasy. Meat and dairy consumption is at an all time high and growing everywhere as other countries adopt a western diet. But nice try bro.

nice try bro wrote:

That is complete fantasy. Meat and dairy consumption is at an all time high and growing everywhere as other countries adopt a western diet. But nice try bro.

Wrong,

So the Polish people eating less RED meat = the entire world is eating less MEAT.

Sorry, but I am not wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-meaty-new-year-americans-will-eat-record-amount-in-2018

no you're wrong wrote:

So the Polish people eating less RED meat = the entire world is eating less MEAT.

Sorry, but I am not wrong.

In the Western world(which is what I was talking about) meat consumption has been declining. In developing parts of the world their meat consumption has been increasing, because they are becoming more wealthy. However, as they are becoming more wealthy they are adopting a more western diet pattern. Which has more processed foods I.e. white refined flour/sugar and vegetable oil. This will increase their rates of western dieases. Which the vegans will twist this around and claim see meat damages your health.

Except that you are wrong. Red meat consumption has slightly declined which has just been replaced with others such as poultry. Meat consumption in general, has never been higher.

no you're wrong wrote:

So the Polish people eating less RED meat = the entire world is eating less MEAT.

Sorry, but I am not wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-meaty-new-year-americans-will-eat-record-amount-in-2018

Americans are eating 50% less red meat than in the early '70s. Lowfat chicken has more than made up for it in terms of meat consumption, but without the fat, it is the poorest form of meat.

Egg consumption has dropped from 350 per capita per year to 225 at the worst of the Cholesterol Scare, but is on the upswing due to the government backing off in the last few years.

Not sure where you get the 50% number from, but no matter, because it is wrong either way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

Meat is defined as beef, pork, veal, and lamb. Poultry is defined as chicken and turkey. And, fish is defined as fish. Meat consumption has been on the decline for decades. While poultry consumption has been increasing over the last few decades. Noticed something? As Americans switched from nice fatty cuts of red meat to poultry, they've been getting sicker.

once again...wrong wrote:

Not sure where you get the 50% number from, but no matter, because it is wrong either way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

This is the unbiased, properly drawn graph of U.S. meat consumption:

Your posted link is biased veggie BS, which can't even draw a graph properly. It's as abundant as poop in a vegan commune.

YMMV wrote:

Your posted link is biased veggie BS, which can't even draw a graph properly. It's as abundant as poop in a vegan commune.

Fake news right? Lol you guys have been fun. Enjoy your constipation.