Questforhealths plant-based diet thread
- This topic has 58 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 17, 2024 at 6:22 pm #2854Anonymous
I don’t know why. But I am being forced to go plant based. Animal products are just not working for me. OK maybe seafood is good but I don’t go fishing that often.
I read that if you eat a very LOW FAT diet, maybe some olive or coconut oil in the mix, your body makes the right fatty acids whether monounsaturated or saturated. Technically this means the saturation of cell membranes which is what Dr. Peat talked about being most important would be highest on a pure fruit + veg + bean + wholegrain diet as these items are very low fat in general? Although some beans and grains obviously have some.
I know Haidut, the researcher on RPF talked a lot about the benefits of vitamin E which is mainly found in plant food. Wholegrains. Wheat germ.
Dr Peat talked about the benefits of methionine restriction. Plant foods are lower in this generally. Beans are rich in protein, yet low in inflammatory amino acids.
Or what if PUFA from seeds/nuts aren’t that bad? But really, I don’t want to become like a hibernating squirrel. So probably avoid those?
What about soy? If I eat a lot it makes me depressed but otherwise it tastes good AND makes me feel very good?
Are wholegrains really that bad?
I’ve really begun liking the taste of OAT milk. This is a very sugary diet but according to peat that does NOT have to be bad, right? Oat milk is sweet but Dr Peat said sugar is good.
July 18, 2024 at 12:31 am #2857Anything high in PUFA is going to be anti-metabolic. If nuts and seeds are grown in tropical regions, they will have a higher amount of saturated fats which is safer. If soy is grown in tropical regions, it will be higher in saturated fats. From what I understand, soy in Asian cultures is not a staple for protein but more of a condiment. I could be wrong about this. I think soy is also pro estrogen.
Whole grains are high in methionine and contain anti-nutrients. The anti-nutrients block the absorption of minerals.
How do you milk oats? 😉
July 18, 2024 at 4:39 pm #2859When it comes to Fatty Acid Production, there are certain fatty acids that it can make, and some it can’t. Part of the reason that Omega 6 and Omega 3 fatty acids are considered “essential” is that there isn’t a known mechanism of how the body could create them.
There are established mechanisms for things like Palmitic Acid (the 16 carbon saturated fat) and Oleic Acid (the 18 carbon monounsaturated fat). Oleic Acid is made mostly by the SCD1 enzyme, and as Brad Marshall has pointed out, this enzyme is overexpressed in obesity and those gaining weight. So, context is important. High amounts of Oleic Acid are “right,” if you want to gain a lot of fat (and many organisms do have this goal, like animals that are preparing for hibernation).
Foods highest in Vitamin E tend to have high amounts of PUFA, so consider that in the context.
The studies that show benefits using Methionine restriction used lab created diets with very little methionine. Levels so low, that you would probably exceed them even on a very low protein diet. It’s not very practical to any sort of real world diet, but it might have hinted at another mechanism, like glycine to methionine ratio. Studies that added glycine to the diet do show similar benefits, so maybe both sorts of studies where showing improvements by increasing the glycine to methionine ratio. That you can do with diet.
If you’re interested in examining things like PUFA/SFA or glycine/methionine ratios in a diet (either theoretical, or actual feedback day to day from what you eat), Cronometer is an excellent tool, and for no cost. Just make sure you are using selections that have values for the nutrient fields you are looking for. The more generic foods taken from things like the USDA database tend to have more things listed (like, say, PUFA, glycine, and methionine), while items from restaurants and brand name entries tend to just have macros like protein and a handful of micronutrients listed.
July 18, 2024 at 8:25 pm #2861AnonymousI think i’ll make this my little expeirment. It’s the only thing that works for me. Milk gives me high estrogen symptoms oddly enough. Meat doesn’t really energise me or anything it just feels like a waste.
July 24, 2024 at 2:54 pm #2895AnonymousHad a dream I was swimming in a lake but the fish were beef steaks
I’m going to try some grass fed liver soon. I still think mostly plants is best for me. Animal foods only as a supplement? Like bonobos?
‘Bonobos primarily eat fruit and vegetation but will supplement their diet with invertebrates like caterpillars and earthworms.’
August 2, 2024 at 4:04 pm #2949AnonymousDo you know much about wheat. To bread or not to bread?? I saw wheat germ has LOADS of vitamin E so many reason to eat wholegrain wheat bread no? Or false??
August 14, 2024 at 2:37 pm #3085“Diet choices go with evolution—like the squirrel monkeys’ fruit diet, foods that support brain development have to be high in carbohydrate, easy to digest, abundant in the environment, and adequate in overall nutrient content and balance. A less concentrated diet, containing a lot of plant material, causes adaptive enlargement of the intestine -Ray Peat
August 14, 2024 at 2:44 pm #3087“In several parts of the world, desperately poor people sometimes eat clay, and even clay has been promoted as a health food. Almost anything becomes “food,” when people are under economic and social pressure. If these things aren’t acutely toxic, they can become part of our “normal” diet.”
-Ray PeatAugust 20, 2024 at 5:14 pm #3126AnonymousPoor people do live longer though. Didn’t medieval kings suffer from all sorts of diseases from their fatty, excessive diet? Meanwhile the peasants were in better health eating a less rich diet?
August 20, 2024 at 11:50 pm #3127“Poor people do live longer though. Didn’t medieval kings suffer from all sorts of diseases from their fatty, excessive diet? Meanwhile the peasants were in better health eating a less rich diet?”
This is wild, completely unsourced speculation. Really, it even defies common sense. Far more people in history have died due to starvation and famine than have ever died from a “fatty, excessive diet.”
And even if you demonstrated that kings of a time suffered from diseases or had a shorter life than the average peasant of the same time and place, why would you automatically assume that a better diet was the cause? There could be untold number of reasons for any sort of disease, not to mention that kings and rulers would be more frequent targets of poisonings and assassination attempts. These types of attacks could obviously lead to a shorter life, and compromised health, as well.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.