MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Nutrition Accuracy in Magazines
Author
Rating
Options

Ellington Darden

Any of you who are interested in the nutrition accuracy in popular men's and women's magzines should definitely read this evaluation article:

www.asch.org

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

DrFist

I'm getting a 404 error to that link mate.
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Try it now:

www.acsh.org

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

I'm not quite sure what that article means. Who is ACSH? From their site, I know that their "board" contains 350 "physicians" and that in their own humble opinion they are unbiased.

But the article fails to outline what garners a publication an "excellent" rating or a "poor" one. Without that, the article is utterly meaningless.

And if one is using "science" to determine proper diet, how about the science of archaeology? Ancient northern europeans were taller on average than us, had stronger bones and teeth and seem to have had a similar life expectancy. . .all without antibiotics, hospitals or Crest whitening strips. Their diets? Generally over 50% protein from either fish, sheep or wild game. They ate NO grain. In fact, the human body is woefully bad at digesting grain which is why the laxative aisle at most American groceries is larger than the meat counter.

When Jones / Darden, etc. say that the body doesn't need that much protein to make muscle, they are 100% correct. Your body will make muscle out of bisquick if it has too. But the science of biology (your digestive system PH and organ size is far more like that of a puma than of a gorilla or cow) and archaeology support the notion that your body is designed to consume primarily protein.

Arthur Jones said that just because your body can tolerate volume training doesn't mean that it's good for you (I paraphrase) and I agree. But by the same token, just because your body can tolerate food intended for cows and pigs, doesn't mean it's a good idea to eat it.
Open User Options Menu

Bob Wildes

That is a very interesting site. Thanks.
Open User Options Menu

gorlando

HSDAD wrote:

They ate NO grain. In fact, the human body is woefully bad at digesting grain which is why the laxative aisle at most American groceries is larger than the meat counter.


with the above i agree.


But the science of biology (your digestive system PH and organ size is far more like that of a puma than of a gorilla or cow) and archaeology support the notion that your body is designed to consume primarily protein.


no offense, but this just so wrong. pumas, gorillas, cows? what the heck are you talking about? human digestive system most closely matches the other apes, including gorillas. it is nothing like a puma or a cow. so the conclusion that we are to eat primarily protein is just absurd, since the apes eat virtually no "protein foods". in addition, to speak of "protein" as you have above is to show a lack of knowledge of what foods contain protein and what protein is. "protein" is a component of ALL foods. it is a structural component. the fact that some foods are higher in protein is irrelevant. protein inadequacy is UNknown and virtually impossible amongst people with enough calories. furthermore, Excess protein, while never considered by the protein-frenzied crowd, is a primary cause of illness and death. i'll spare myself and you-all of the voluminous mass proving the above, since you just want to find any justification to eat your meat, right mate?



But by the same token, just because your body can tolerate food intended for cows and pigs, doesn't mean it's a good idea to eat it.


now we're talking about cows and pigs? what happened to pumas? doesn't anyone care about the pumas?
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

The American Council on Science and Health is an excellent organization which acts as a watchdog on issues in food, nutrition, and health. The Web site, www.acsh.org, supplies plenty of information on the group (who, what, where, and so on).

The Nutrition Accuracy in Magazines article is also available from the Web site in full PDF, which includes all the charts. Just be patient and spend some time there. Doing so will be well worth it.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Folks,
My preferred source is the Harvard School of Public Health "Nutrition Source" page. Walter Willett works there. Best up to date info.
Regards,
Griff
Open User Options Menu

gorlando

karma50 wrote:
Folks,
My preferred source is the Harvard School of Public Health "Nutrition Source" page. Walter Willett works there. Best up to date info.
Regards,
Griff


think of it this way:

let's say you have no preferred sources, no experts to rely on.

let's say i lock you in a room by yourself with nothing else for 3 days. let's say you don't want to fast. let's say you can press a button and the following selections are dropped into the room. you can only press two buttons, just for a little variety. you are utterly alone in a barren secured room. the options below are the sources of most of the foods people eat, so you have plenty to choose from. no, you can't choose the boar and compel him to bust you out of the room. that's cheating, captain kirk!

button1 - 100 bananas
button2 - a male wild pig
button3 - a bale of wheat
button4 - 400 macadamia nuts in shell
button5 - 50 wild fowl
button6 - 500 potatoes
button7 - 5000 beans
button8 - 50 pounds green leaves

you say you want to cook something? why? how do the rest of the millions of "primitive" species thrive on this planet? are you so weak as to require something so contrived and artificial as a stove?

choose wisely.

Open User Options Menu

RyanWallace

Massachusetts, USA

I am curious...if 50% of your diet is protein...is that from animal source? Or a mix of difference sources?
Open User Options Menu

RyanWallace

Massachusetts, USA

I would go with the 50 pounds of green leaves..but that's me. Can I have some salad dressing with that?
Open User Options Menu

kevindill

Maryland, USA

I think Lou Schuler had an interesting take on this report.

http://www.louschuler.com/...ex.html#a001483
Open User Options Menu

EricB

Missouri, USA

gorlando wrote:

you say you want to cook something? why? how do the rest of the millions of "primitive" species thrive on this planet? are you so weak as to require something so contrived and artificial as a stove?

choose wisely.



What an idiotic argument. Humans aren't great cats in Africa or monkeys in South American rain forests. You're sounding like one of those raw food idiots who doesn't give much credit to the complexity of our biological system. Given your choices, I'll take the fowl, find me two sticks to rub together to make fire, and roast it. I will eat well.
Open User Options Menu

gorlando

EricB wrote:
gorlando wrote:





What an idiotic argument. Humans aren't great cats in Africa or monkeys in South American rain forests. You're sounding like one of those raw food idiots who doesn't give much credit to the complexity of our biological system. Given your choices, I'll take the fowl, find me two sticks to rub together to make fire, and roast it. I will eat well.


eric,

sorry, you failed and you starved. thanks for playing.

here's what you're saying... our delicate human system is so "complex" that we require fire before eating our food. not very convincing.

what you imply is that you are smarter than Nature/God (pick one) and that it was an ERROR that Nature/God distributed Food freely upon this magnificent planet in the form that it is in.
Open User Options Menu

BloodandGuts

gorlando wrote:
think of it this way:

let's say you have no preferred sources, no experts to rely on.

let's say i lock you in a room by yourself with nothing else for 3 days. let's say you don't want to fast. let's say you can press a button and the following selections are dropped into the room. you can only press two buttons, just for a little variety. you are utterly alone in a barren secured room. the options below are the sources of most of the foods people eat, so you have plenty to choose from. no, you can't choose the boar and compel him to bust you out of the room. that's cheating, captain kirk!

button1 - 100 bananas
button2 - a male wild pig
button3 - a bale of wheat
button4 - 400 macadamia nuts in shell
button5 - 50 wild fowl
button6 - 500 potatoes
button7 - 5000 beans
button8 - 50 pounds green leaves

you say you want to cook something? why? how do the rest of the millions of "primitive" species thrive on this planet? are you so weak as to require something so contrived and artificial as a stove?

choose wisely.

maybe it's just me but what the hell is your point??????
Open User Options Menu

EricB

Missouri, USA

gorlando wrote:
here's what you're saying... our delicate human system is so "complex" that we require fire before eating our food. not very convincing.

what you imply is that you are smarter than Nature/God (pick one) and that it was an ERROR that Nature/God distributed Food freely upon this magnificent planet in the form that it is in.


No... What I'm saying is that because of my larger than normal brain (evolutionary speaking) yes, I'm more than happy to use fire to survive. And if "nature" (I'm an atheist) magically mistaningly distribued equal food around the planet, then you're damn right I'll eat what I like. But it didn't and my food choices will be limited by the area in which I live (assuming it's not 2007).
Open User Options Menu

gorlando

EricB wrote:

No... What I'm saying is that because of my larger than normal brain (evolutionary speaking) yes, I'm more than happy to use fire to survive. And if "nature" (I'm an atheist) magically mistaningly distribued equal food around the planet, then you're damn right I'll eat what I like. But it didn't and my food choices will be limited by the area in which I live (assuming it's not 2007).


last time i checked, it was 2007.

i do not dispute that our colonization of the planet into areas that could not support us optimally diet-wise compelled us to cook our food and/or eat things that were not suited for our digestive system. survival is a different thing from thriving. or perhaps you would claim that our pathetic physical state today due to the ingestion of soda and pizza is optimal.

the point is that we have food distribution systems to remedy the situation you speak of.

i am once again confronted by diversions off topic that serve to avoid the original point.



Open User Options Menu

gorlando

BloodandGuts wrote:


maybe it's just me but what the hell is your point??????


my point is that instead of looking to "experts" to determine a simple act of what to eat, that we confront the reality of our physical adaptations to food acquisition and digestion in the food's natural state, and our natural state. this will answer our absurd questions of what to eat.
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

My point in using cows and Gorillas is that those are animals capable of digesting raw, cellulose rich plants. If you ate raw grain off the stalks, without grinding and cooking, you would crap most of it out as your body is incapable of digesting it.

Look at Casey viator in his prime doing a vacuum. Now get a gorilla of equal weight and have him do it. He can't, not because he's stupid and not because he's fat, but because his stomach and intestines are nearly three times the size of Casey's.

The paunch on a gorilla is oversized digestive organs necessary for digesting cellulose (a polysaccharide too complex for your body to digest). Cows equally have incredibly long digestive systems for the same reason.

Both creatures also produce significantly less stomach acid than you do. Why? Because the acid in your stomach is utterly useless on cellulose. But it will turn meat into an easily absorbable soup in your belly in no time. The amount of acid (PH) in your belly is nearly identical to that of a puma and nothing like that of a gorilla or cow (animals designed to eat the food recommended by the conventional dietary folks).

It is grain that requires industrial processing, not meat. Eskimos (inuits) survived for thousands of years on raw blubber and fish. Evidently they never figured out how to grow corn on pack ice. But their meat was rarely cooked because wood was a scarce and valuable commodity for them.

Try this experiment. Go to a nice restaurant that serves steak tar-tar. Have some. Examine your next BM and see that the meat is totally digested. All the amino acids that your body can't make are provided, extra nitrogen excreted by the kidneys and the left over CHO used by your cells.

Now try the same thing with raw wheat and or corn. You will see it come out much as it went in.

In the end I don't really care what you all eat. But I hate bad science. Government food recommendations, which is what these nutrition watchdogs hold up as gospel, are concocted to ensure that you eat food from the four basic food lobbies. Your nutrition is secondary to them. Notice that the obesity epidemic corresponds in time perfectly with the government's high carb, lowfat diet advice. When people used to eat bacon eggs for breakfast and steak for dinner, we were a much healthier people.
Open User Options Menu

gorlando

HSDAD wrote:
My point in using cows and Gorillas is that those are animals capable of digesting raw, cellulose rich plants. If you ate raw grain off the stalks, without grinding and cooking, you would crap most of it out as your body is incapable of digesting it.



you are correct that grains are not good for us. you are correct that we should not eat like cows or gorillas. so I don't know who you are arguing with on those points.

what you fail to see is that we are most similar to other apes, not including the gorilla.

your information is incorrect on ph. two links below.

a failure to differentiate between different kinds of carbs , good and bad, is a problem.

http://www.tierversuchsgegner....

http://www.geocities.com/...t/2062/ana.HTML
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

what you fail to see is that we are most similar to other apes, not including the gorilla.

your information is incorrect on ph. two links below.

a failure to differentiate between different kinds of carbs , good and bad, is a problem.

http://www.tierversuchsgegner....

A great deal of the information in these disagrees with what I have read:

Human stomach PH between 1 and 4 with specific enzymes for protein digestion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Human digestive tract differentiated with dog and sheep: http://www.geocities.com/...na.HTML[/quote]

But perhaps we're both just cherry picking our results.

Leaving anatomy for a moment, here's another angle. While I don't fully believe in evolution, the genetic selection within a species to select certain characteristics for survival is pretty much undeniable. The problem with humans is that we're too darned smart!

Since the domestication of animals and plants (agriculture), we have been basically isolated from natural selection. Most everybody survives to reproduce, passing their characteristics (however grotesque a mental picture that might paint in the case of some people).

The last time we were subject to genetic selection was in excess of 10000 years ago when the earth was a cold, dry place. Fruits and suculent vegetation suitable for our discriminating pallates were not in abundance. Survival on a global basis went to those who could most efficiently hunt, kill and DIGEST the creatures that COULD eat the local flora.

Inuits and African Bushmen, primitives who live much like their ice-aged ancestors, are testament to this. Their diets are nearly all protein and fat.

What I'm arguing with is the one piece of advice from Darden, Jones, Mentzer, et al. that I disagree with (in every other way, I'm a die-hard HITter). In so far as they all recommend(ed) a "balanced" diet, their carb recommendations are way out of line. They all recommend such things as bread, rice, pasta and potatoes.

I'm not a no carb person. But the sources should be ripe fruit and succulent, leafy greens (spinach, mustard, etc.). But most of the diet should be meat, eggs, etc. We have been genetically selected to eat primarily animals.
Open User Options Menu

gorlando

thanks for your comments.

you have used wikipedia as a source.

now look up the word carnivore there.

humans, which you clearly are labeling carnivores, are not under that category.

here is some information on uricase from another website

"Of all animals that include meat in their diet, man is the only animal that is unable to break down uric acid to allantoin. This is due to the fact that man does not possess the necessary enzyme uricase. This leads to an increased possibility of an accumulation of uric acid in the body when animal products are eaten. (Uric acid is an intermediary product of metabolism that is associated with various pathological states, including gout.)

http://www.healthpromoting.com/...les/protein.htm


your comments about the meat eating cultures is generalizing. there have been many that ate very little meat. in addition, even hunter gatherers eat minimal amounts of meat.

your comments about the stomach and its ability to digest protein are misguided . of course we need the ability to digest protein - all foods contain protein. you, like everyone else, thinks that meat/eggs=protein nonmeat/eggs=no protein . look up in the usda database various fruits and veggies.

adios
Open User Options Menu

Tom71

Just a thought. Maybe the "man is a meat-eater vs. man is a grain-eater" debate rages on is that we're functioning omnivores?

That said, I have a problem with looking at what cavemen and such ate and extrapolating to modern health. Don't forget, back then, the weak died. Many of us owe our existance today to modern science and technology and I tend to wonder how many fat cavemen with arthritis would have existed if they had access to even a handfull of our technology.

Nutrition is a complex question of course and I don't mean to over-simply. My basic thinking is that most would be just fine if they limit the sweets and fried foods. Which is admitedly simple...which may explain why many don't like such advice and crave more complicated answers

Tom
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Starr
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy