/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.5875001]

Please share your high protein low carb recipes

[Anonymous No.5875023]

>>5875001
Why would you want those, you fat or something? Skinny people eat like 60-70% carb diets you know?

[Anonymous No.5875032]

>>5875001
Grilled chicken

[Anonymous No.5875174]

>>5875001
keto isn't the way to lose weight, bro

DO NOT DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF CARBS

PLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS STOP WATCHING DR. OZ

[Anonymous No.5875300]

I believe low carb is the most intelligent, and most scientifically, beneficial way to eat. I believe there is too much bad information, that is purposely steering people in the wrong direction. Pharmaceutical companies, and enviro-nuts have their reasons to deter the public from meat.

4 chicken breasts (boneless and skinless)

4 Mozzarella Cheese sticks (cold)

4 thick cut slices of bacon

Sage, salt and black pepper

Preheat oven to 450 degrees

Mix 1tsp sage, 1tsp salt, and 1/2tsp black pepper in bowl.

Pound chicken breasts, flatten to 1/2 inch in thickness. Rub seasoning mixture is on both sides of the chicken breast. Place cheese stick in the center of breast, secure chicken around chicken, with toothpicks, wrap bacon around the rolled breast.

Place on baking pan, and roast for around 20 minutes, turn atleast once, getting bacon cooked evenly all, around, be sure bacon is more on the crisp side.

[Anonymous No.5875318]

>>5875300
>I believe low carb is the most intelligent

stopped there

nice try

[Anonymous No.5875343]

>>5875001
Just keep the meat and remove the carb source of any recipe?
Example: steak and kidney pudding. Remove the pudding and just eat a steak and kidney stew
Steak and chips becomes steak
Roast dinner minus the potatoes
Pasta bakes are a little tricky

[Anonymous No.5875381]

>>5875001
canned tuna

[Anonymous No.5875383]

>>5875300
>Pharmaceutical companies, and enviro-nuts have their reasons to deter the public from meat.

>eating a balanced diet of carbs, fats and protein is impossible you either have to be low meat or high meat

[Anonymous No.5875387]

cottage cheese with some pepper

[Anonymous No.5875422]

Git on it

[Anonymous No.5875744]

just eat fewer calories than you expend jesus christ

[Anonymous No.5875745]

>>5875300

>I believe low carb is the most intelligent, and most scientifically, beneficial way to eat.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's a really stupid thing to believe. Here's a whole book about it, originally published under the title "Carbophobia" and now made available for free online.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/pdf/atkins-exposed.pdf

Basically details the short and long term effects of a low carb diet and explains that virtually everyone in the medical community considers it a suicidal diet.

By all means, cut out white rice, white bread, soda, potato chips, etc, but it's not like the two options are white bread jelly sandwiches versus bacon/cheese/chicken casserole. Low carb seems to be the diet people go on when they're too lazy and lacking in willpower to adopt an actual healthy diet based on whole grains and legumes, and think if they just cut out refined high-carb junk food then they can eat all the greasy meats and cheeses they want and end up fine

[Anonymous No.5875760]

4 whisked eggs
can of tuna
salt+pepper
not great, but more palatable than just the tuna on its own

[Anonymous No.5875903]

>>5875745
One should not subscribe to an Adkins diet, AFTER one drops to a desired weight. Adkins may be the first step in dropping many pounds, quickly. But a diet rich in lean meats, veggies and fruit, with minimal bread, sugar and dairy is most sound. And an Adkins diet is far from lazy, you spend so much time preparing your own meat and veggies, I would hardly say it is a diet, of physical convenience.

Adkins can be related to heart disease, so it would be wise to move from such a high fat, intake. An average person' sway of eating is so high on refined carbs, they are everywhere, in every meal. Even little things like ketchup, and bbq sauce.

Even if one does not have weight issues, it is not wise to consume more than 40g sugar, daily. (Which is easier said than done) White sugar consumption, has direct links to diabetes, cancer and mental illness.

My advise is always do Adkins until desired weight is achieved, then broaden your menu to the Paleo diet. The Paleo allows those to burn fat, it increases energy and naturally dextoxifies your body, it has even shown to sharpen your mind. I stand by my original statement that a low carb way of eating is most intelligent, and scientifically most beneficial. By eating foods rich in:

Lean meats
Lugumes (bean, nuts)
Green Veggies
Berries/Melon
Dark chocolate with minimal sugar
40g of sugar maximum, daily

[Anonymous No.5875907]

>>5875001
I didn't believe it at first.

[Anonymous No.5875921]

>>5875903
>dextoxifiesand naturally dextoxifies your body

Do you lack a liver?

[Anonymous No.5875928]

>>5875903

I don't agree with you that an Atkins style diet should be used for weight-loss in the first place (you can lose weight on it, but obviously you could lose as much weight while eating a healthier diet, and continue the diet afterwards and keep the weight off)

I also half-agree with your diet views. Legumes are great, so are green veggies, berries/melons, even some dark chocolate (I prefer 100% cocoa powder), but I don't think there's a real case to make for lean meats, especially over whole grains. Lean meats are the "better" choice over fattier meats, but they don't really offer any benefits of their own. They still contain a lot of cholesterol and sometimes siginificant saturated fat even when lean, they have no fiber, they have little to no antioxidants, they have no phytochemicals, and they tend to contain carcinogenic agents and raise circulating levels of IGF-1, which also promotes the growth of tumors and cancers

[Anonymous No.5875949]

>>5875422
that actually looks pretty good. I would do without the bacon and cheese though.

[Anonymous No.5875970]

>>5875001

[Anonymous No.5875977]

>>5875928
>phytochemicals

You should eat some hemlock. I hear that has some great phytochemicals in it.

Why do people think that just because it's from a plant that's necessarily healthy?

[Anonymous No.5875992]

>>5875977

>Why do people think that just because it's from a plant that's necessarily healthy?

Because when we perform studies on these things and we find that they have anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, blood sugar regulating, blood flow improving health benefits, we label them "healthy."

[Anonymous No.5875993]

>>5875928
I don't agree with you, that one could lose as much weight, and as quickly, on a diet with carbs. No way. They are nothing but filler foods.

You can get calcium from spinach, fiber from fruits and vegetables. You just have to know what foods to use as substitutes to get all of your daily nutrients. I don't agree that eating carbs, is healthy at all. Studies have shown that one can have a bout of depression, from eating pasta. Carbs do not sharpen your mind or sense of awareness.

Adkins to Paleo will keep weight off because it is not a diet , but really a change in lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.5875996]

>when fatties go on atkins diet and eat a bunch of bacon and ham and shit because "it's okay, it's meat~"

[Anonymous No.5876004]

>>5875992

But you seem to be saying that ALL plant chemicals are healthy, which is clearly not true.

Why go around parroting "phytochemicals" while some of them can kill you, and a great many of them can make you sick?

shouldn't you be specifying exactly which ones are healthy rather than repeating "phytochemicals"? Or is is that you just don't know?

[Anonymous No.5876006]

>>5875993

>No way. They are nothing but filler foods.

What do you mean by that? Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but virtually every population of people in the world eating high carb (+ low fat) diets are thin.

> I don't agree that eating carbs, is healthy at all

What brought you to that conclusion? I have to ask what data you've seen that made you think all sources of carbohydrate should be avoided, since every major health organization recommends them to be the centerpiece of your diet. Where's the data that says oatmeal, barley, black beans, and lentils are anything but healthy?

[Anonymous No.5876012]

>>5875993
>Carbs do not sharpen your mind or sense of awareness.

Carbs our your natural energy source, they help energize your mind a lot more than being in ketosis.

[Anonymous No.5876013]

>>5876004

>But you seem to be saying that ALL plant chemicals are healthy

Where did I say that? I used the science term "phytochemicals" because that describes a range of plant compounds that have been identified and found to be beneficial to human health. Talking about poisons found in toxic plants doesn't really add to the discussion.

>shouldn't you be specifying exactly which ones are healthy rather than repeating "phytochemicals"?

It's much easier to just say "phytochemicals" instead of listing off the thousands of identified compounds, but if you're interested here's a paper that describes some phytochemicals found in common whole grains

http://omicsonline.org/whole-grain-cereal-bioactive-compounds-and-their-health-benefits-a-review-2157-7110.1000146.pdf

[Anonymous No.5876029]

>>5876013
>Where did I say that?

You didn't say it explicitly, but in 5875928 your wording implies that phytochemicals are desireable.

>> that describes a range of plant compounds that have been identified and found to be beneficial to human health

But that's not what phytochemicals means. It simply means chemicals found in plants; the term is not specific to the ones which have positive health effects.

>>It's much easier to just say

I realize that, but it also makes you sound like an idiot. Phytochemicals is a very generic term. Saying you should eat veggies because of phytochemicals is like saying that you should eat food because of chemicals. Some are good and some are bad. Lumping them all together like that doesn't help your case any. It makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.5876045]

>>5876012
Carbs, whole grains even, are linked to anxiety, depression, ADHD, headaches and dementia. You get much better, healthier fiber from fruits and vegetables.

Many RECENT studies conclude that high fat is better at combatting the western world's obesity/diabetes problem. And that on average, high fat diets lose 7% more weight.

The information is out there you just have to obtain it. Just compare low fat vs. low carb diets.

[Anonymous No.5876061]

>>5876029

>You didn't say it explicitly, but in 5875928 your wording implies that phytochemicals are desireable.

Because they are. I don't know where else you've heard the term phytochemical, but when people say "phytochemicals" they're generally refering to the wide range of beneficial compounds found in whole plant foods. I feel like you're harping on this because you didn't know what phytochemicals were, and now that I showed you a link detailing a huge array of beneficial phytochemicals in one group of foods, and you're starting to get it, you're realizing that what you said earlier looks dumb.

When I mention phytochemicals as a positive, I'm usually just going to say "phytochemicals" because that already makes the implication for me and for anyone who's familiar with the phrase "phytochemicals," rather than saying random science names that nobody would understand without using the term "phytochemicals" anyway for context

[Anonymous No.5876065]

>>5876045

Substantiate your claims. You might as well be saying "drinking water leads to premature death."

[Anonymous No.5876067]

>>5875174
Is that what Oz is promoting now? I don't follow the show, but he seemed against it when Taubes was on a few years ago and cringingly refused a blood test. I suppose he goes with whatever fad is trendy at the moment.

[Anonymous No.5876069]

>>5876045
>Carbs, whole grains even, are linked to anxiety, depression, ADHD, headaches and dementia.

There's no link to carbs causing dementia, there was a study that showed a low carb diet help relieve the symptoms of dementia however that does not mean carbs cause dementia or have anything to do with it.

I've not read about the others, if you have sources that would be helpful.

>You get much better, healthier fiber from fruits and vegetables.
You're not supposed to eat carbs for fiber, you eat them for glucose, for energy. Also fruits are carbs.

[Anonymous No.5876070]

>>5876045

> Just compare low fat vs. low carb diets.

Okay, here's a low fat diet curing America's leading cause of death

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863851
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500065

Does eating a lot of fat reverse atherosclerosis?

[Anonymous No.5876072]

>>5876045
>ADHD
>not a made up disease for dealing with problem children in America

[Anonymous No.5876076]

>>5876069

>You're not supposed to eat carbs for fiber

Fiber is a big benefit though. And as good as fruits and veg are, they offer comparatively little fiber, especially soluble fiber which is associated with decreased risk of colon cancer and has more cholesterol lowering effect. "Cereal fiber" offers its own health benefits.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14980987
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22074852
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14747241
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084154

[Anonymous No.5876079]

>>5876061
>Because they are.

Again, you seem to be putting all "plant chemicals" in the same box when that's clearly not true. Phyochemicals = plant chemicals. Some chemicals in plants are healthy. But on the other hand some of them can make you sick and others can kill you. Saying "because they are" is moronic--it's not desireable at all to eat a poisonous plant. and guess what makes that plant poisonous? A chemical it contains. e.g. phytochemical.

I think if you want to explain the health benefits of fruits or veggies you ought to point them out specifically. not just "because reasons".

I agree with you that fruits and veggies are very healthy. I also think it's pants-on-head retarded to use such a generic term when you're talking about any chemical found in a plant, you're talking about specific ones.

>>I'm usually just going to say "phytochemicals"...

And I'm pointing out that this makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not arguing against your point, I'm suggesting you might word yourself differently to avoid looking silly.

[Anonymous No.5876082]

>>5876072
Opinions do not matter, results do. You are biased because of your own feelings and preferences.

Results are conclusive, and low fat conquers obesity best. For every biased link you provide, for opinion, there are that many more that show an end result, otherwise.

You bread consumption is already leading you to distorted thinking.
Your opinion about grains are not of the 21st .

[Anonymous No.5876086]

>>5876082
HIGH FAT conquers obesity

[Anonymous No.5876090]

>>5876082
You could literally reverse everything you said for the opposing argument.

My diet is like 70/20/10 of carbs/protein/fat and I'm not obese and neither are the majority of the world that share a similar diet. So stay delusional fatty.

[Anonymous No.5876096]

>>5876079

>Again, you seem to be putting all "plant chemicals" in the same box when that's clearly not true. Phyochemicals = plant chemicals

Again, where have you ever heard the phrase "phytochemicals" that wasn't specifically talking about plant compounds that show observable health interactions with the human body when eaten? It's like criticising me for pointing out that food contains minerals by saying "lead and arsenic are minerals." Within the context of the discussion, it doesn't make sense to say.

>I think if you want to explain the health benefits of fruits or veggies you ought to point them out specifically

Which I would and do if asked for specific examples, but if you tell someone to eat kale and you just list the names of 45 random flavanoids that they've never heard of, you sound like a retard. Just saying "phytochemicals" lets the person know you're referring to potential health benefits, assuming they know what a phytochemical is, and if not they'll google it and learn basic biology.

[Anonymous No.5876129]

>>5876096
>Again, where have you ever heard the phrase

It's meaning clearly derives from its latin/greek roots. Photo plus chemical.

>>It's like criticising me for pointing out that food contains minerals....

Exactly. Saying "eat X because minerals" is indeed silly. Just like with phytochemicals it makes you sound like don't know what you're talking about because you're using a generic term in a specific situation. It would make a lot more sense to be specific: "eat bananas because of Potassium" "eat liver for vitamin A" and so on.

>>you just list the names of 45 random flavanoids that they've never heard of, you sound like a retard

And that's part of the point. When you are forced to be specific you are forced to examine exactly what vitamins, minerals, and so on are found in each food. There are an awful lot of misconceptions out there about how healthy different foods are. Being specific prevents us from falling into the trap of generalizing. If you have to list what flavanoids are in kale then that means you have to check which ones were and were not proven to be found in appreciable quantities and also what their purported benefits are.

[Anonymous No.5876130]

>>5875949
>lean bulking
never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.5876202]

>>5876129

>It's meaning clearly derives from its latin/greek roots. Photo plus chemical.

And I'm sure you know that a word can mean more than the literal root words its composed of. The word penis comes from the latin word for tail. Colloquialism is also a thing.

>Exactly. Saying "eat X because minerals" is indeed silly

I disagree with that completely, but let's set up the context here. Imagine someone is a breatharian who has no concept of vitamins or minerals. They ask "why would you eat food?" Are you going to just say "iron, calcium, tocopherols, ascorbate" and hope they understand what that's supposed to mean, or are you going to first say "vitamins and minerals," which can then be explained in detail once you establish what vitamins and minerals are in the context of the discussion? Now add onto this the fact that there are literally thousands of phytochemicals, very few people are educated on what they are or what they're called, it makes no sense at all to just start yelling "YOU NEED TO EAT THESE FOODS BECAUSE GAMMA-ORYZENAL, INOSITOL HEXAPHOPSHATE, ALKYELERESORSINOLS, COUMARIC ACID, PRO-ANTHOCANIDINS!"

Notice how in this thread I first said "phytochemicals," and then when you inquired I linked you to a giant article detailing a bunch of phytochemicals found in the foods I was talking about

[Anonymous No.5876211]

>>5876129
I'm not the guy you're talking to, but you are nitpicking and grasping at straws here. Pedantry and lack of contextual awareness is a sign of autism.

[Anonymous No.5876234]

>>5876130
>Turbo-perma bulking

Enjoy having to cut to look good.

[Anonymous No.5876369]

So what is a good and cool diet I'm getting lost in all this.

[Anonymous No.5876390]

>>5876369
Eat a well balanced diet, figure out your amount you need to maintain your current body (about what you're eating now unless you've been gaining weight), and reduce it by 500 calories. You'll eventually reach the point where that's not enough to keep loosing and you will have to restrict your intake a bit more. This is all assuming no exercise by the way. If you start exercising, you will loose more weight, and you can be slightly less strict with your calorie counting.

Fad diets and pills don't work.

[Anonymous No.5876415]

>>5876369

Rich in complex carbohydrates, mainly plant-based, lower in fat. As far as science can tell, that is vaguely the best sort of diet

[Anonymous No.5876492]

>>5876369
myfitnesspal.com

calories in < calories out.

Eat whatever you want, however greens and complex carbs will fill you up more than simple, refined sugars. For pure weight loss it doesnt matter, you can eat whatever you want as long as you have the willpower to stop once you've eaten your calories for the day. Remember though, just because you're losing weight doesn't mean you're eating a healthy diet.

[Anonymous No.5876542]

>>5876492
Well ok that sounds good then. I guess I'll go with an all ice cream diet but it'll be ok because I'm under my calories.

[Anonymous No.5876548]

>>5876542

Like the guy said, when it comes to weight loss you can eat virtually anything, but health is a different issue

[Anonymous No.5876550]

>>5876542
>I can't read.

[Anonymous No.5876569]

>>5876542
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/06/health/la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206

[Anonymous No.5876584]

>>5876569
>Twinkie Guy — also known as Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University — is the genius who lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats
>genius
>10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats

[Anonymous No.5876591]

>>5876584
To prove a point. What of it?

[Anonymous No.5876659]

>>5876492
>>5876415
>>5876390
Thanks a bunch for the suggestions. I'll make sure to follow your advice the best I can.

[Anonymous No.5876664]

>>5875032
you know, I really didn't believe it but... wow

[Anonymous No.5876669]

>>5876659

This image gets posted on the board sometimes. Modify it however you want, but this is a pretty accurate base for a good diet

[Anonymous No.5877515]

The thing with carbs that people overlook is its propensity for making you hungry. While on paper you can eat a high-carb diet and loose weight -- calories-in-vs-calories-out is the most important principle of weight control -- it would be easier if you didn't have to combat the hunger induced by decreasing blood sugar.

picture related: delicious and healthy for you

[Anonymous No.5877608]

>>5875001
Don't believe the hype!

[Anonymous No.5877616]

>>5877608
nice try, this is shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and having seen shops before.

[Anonymous No.5877620]

Bacon sammich
>cook bacon
>get bread
>replace bread with chicken breast
>consume

[Anonymous No.5877984]

>>5877515

>The thing with carbs that people overlook is its propensity for making you hungry

I challenge you to eat a 600 calorie bowl of barley in one sitting. Healthy carb sources tend to be full of fiber and water. You can eat huge volumes of them and not take in many calories, and they fill your stomach quickly. This is one of the reasons why no high carb society has an obesity problem.

[Anonymous No.5878016]

>>5875903
>lean meats
No god damn it thats fucking wrong.
FAT IS NOT BAD FOR YOU and it is not what makes you fat

[Anonymous No.5878175]

>>5878016

Substantiate that

[Anonymous No.5878379]

>>5877984
The point isn't about which food group has foods which are filling compared to the amount of calories. We need to have a more practical perspective; when giving dietary advice we need to restrict our selves to foods that people actually want to eat.

People would almost always prefer to eat eggs in the morning over barley.

[Anonymous No.5878409]

>>5878379

That's a bit patronizing and counter-productive, isn't it? People prefering unhealthy foods over healthy foods is why people are unhealthy in the first place. I think it's impractical to just give up on foods because you don't think anyone will want to eat them. To me it makes more sense to promote those foods, to make them more accessible and familiar, rather than putting the idea in peoples' mind that eating a barley salad for lunch is extreme and bland and unrealistic. Europe used to live primarily on barley/oats/wheat and vegetables.

Maybe oatmeal would be a more familiar breakfast food to compare to eggs, and plenty of people enjoy a bowl of oats with fruits and nuts

[Anonymous No.5878480]

eat 1 - 2 lbs of steak and 6 - 12 eggs a day fried in butter. every 6th day eat mainly carbs. make sure to drink a lot of water and you may need potassium supplements and extra sodium.

[Anonymous No.5878529]

>>5878409
Some people stomach oats in the morning, but most don't. Eggs are very healthy and will provide a lot of satiety and is something most people will enjoy.

This is usually the case when comparing two "foods"; one which is healthy and filling because it has lot of fiber and the other which is healthy and filling because it has a lot of animal protein. Usually people will prefer to eat the second one, and thus it constitutes a diet which is easier to adhere.
Eggs or oats? Grilled chicken salad or barley salad? Grilled steak salad or wild rice salad? Both alternatives are rich in nutrients and satiety compared to their calories - but one is far easier to sell to people. And I know which I personally prefer.

Low-carb-High-protein is a simply method to rule out a lot of the unhealthy food that would otherwise make it easy to overeat. Maybe going vegan is another way to do that, but it's no guarantee in my experience. Many of my vegans friends would regularly eat pasta with tomato sauce - as if it was a complete meal.

[Anonymous No.5878578]

>>5878529

>Eggs are very healthy

Check the little discussion in this thread >>5878328

>Eggs or oats? Grilled chicken salad or barley salad? Grilled steak salad or wild rice salad? Both alternatives are rich in nutrients

Except the plant-based options tend to lower risk your risk of cancer, heart disease, and chronic illnesses, while the animal-based foods tend to increase them. This is a fundemental disagreement we're going to have; you seem to have the Weston A. Price style wise traditions view of food where every food should be considered healthy and more-or-less equal as long as it's natural and unrefined, and therefore you can just go with your favorite ones which happen to be the animal-based foods, and I see food as more of a package deal where the negative qualities of the food may outweigh the positive qualities or atleast invalidate them, and some foods are better choices than others. Here's an interesting article by the former president of the country's top rated hospital for cardiac care

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1520-037X.2001.00538.x/pdf

[Anonymous No.5878701]

>>5878578
There has been much debate about these issues lately - and I'm far from an expert.You seem to be part of the old guard that advocates staying away from saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. My problem with the "science" that's been done on diet and health is that it's always of epidemiological nature. And the inherent flaw in epidemiological studies is that you can never determine cause and effect. Studies of that form would never be considered adequate for determining the effect of a drug. We need double blind studies before we can say anything for certain about diets that should sway us away from our anecdotal observations.

[Anonymous No.5878779]

>>5878701

In defense of epidemiology, if we keep getting the same data over and over from different studies on different people in different parts of the world over a number of decades, the conclusions reached can be considered convincing. With that said, it's not just epidemiology that supports those facts, it's a pretty well understood and well researched science.

Joseph Goldstein and Michael Brown received the nobel prize in 1985 for investigating and describing the mechanisms of cholesterol synthesis and the effects of diet on the ability of the LDL receptors to remove cholesterol from the blood, and scientists have performed thousands of direct studies that investigate the role of hypercholesterolemia on heart health. As the editor of the American Jounal of Cardiology said at one of his conferences: "Atherosclerosis is easily produced experimentally in herbivores (monkeys, rabbits) by giving them diets containing large quantities of cholesterol (egg yolks) or saturated fat (animal fat)"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603726/

On cancer, elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is universally recognized as a major promoter of cancer cell growth, and the Nathan Pritikin Research Foundation has done a lot of testing on the various effects of plant extracts on cancer inhibitation, and the effects of a plant-based diet on lowering the circulating levels of IGF-1

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-answer-to-the-pritikin-puzzle/

There's a whole mountain of science out there, it's just not being taught well enough to a large enough audience. Like you said, it's easier sell people on high-fat animal foods, so people tend to ignore health officials telling them to eat "boring" foods like whole grains, beans, and vegetables, and instead listen to the guys telling them pork chops and fried eggs are good for them

[Anonymous No.5879023]

>>5878779
Then please help me find some _non-epidemiological_ studies done on humans that demonstrates that increased intake of
1. dietary cholesterol or saturated fat (on an isocaloric diet) will cause a higher risk of heart disease.
2. animal protein (on an isocaloric diet) will cause a higher risk of cancer.

This is after all what you claim.

[Anonymous No.5879309]

>>5875422
That cheese on top looks horrible

[Anonymous No.5880190]

>>5879023

You're essentially asking for a controlled study in which scientists intentionally kill a human. Obviously that doesn't exist, which is why I pointed out that atherosclerosis is one of the easiest diseases to reproduce in a laboratory setting by feeding animals saturated fat and cholesterol to raise their serum cholesterol levels, leading to the development of atherosclerotic plaque in the arteries. If you won't accept any epidemiology and you won't accept experiments on non-human animals, the next best thing is to show the effects of elevated cholesterol levels in humans as a direct cause of the disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

In question #3, William C. Roberts talks about a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, which is an inherited high blood cholesterol due to a lack of LDL receptors. Homozygotes, which are more rare, are born with no LDL receptors and commonly have cholesterol levels above 800mg/dl at birth, and can even come out of the womb with plaque already on their arteries. Heterozygotes have 50% less LDL receptors than a normal person and normally maintain cholesterol levels around 300, which tends to kill them in their 30s, 40s, or 50s

Roberts points out that to prevent, arrest, and reverse plaque build-up, a person needs to maintain a total cholesterol level of less than 150mg/dl, with less than 80 LDL, which he says is nearly impossible for most people to achieve without a pure vegetarian diet. This was affirmed by Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic and Dean Ornish of the University of California, who were able to cure patients of severe atherosclerosis in two separate studies by putting them on a low fat, plant-based diet to bring their cholesterol down to a healthy level

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500065
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863851

[Anonymous No.5880193]

>>5879023

http://paleohacks.com/cholesterol

Now lurk around the paleohacks forum and gaze at their low-carb cholesterol levels. This is a forum where many people are dieting to lose weight, which is something that naturally helps to lower cholesterol, and they still commonly have LDL in the 150-200 range, some as high as 400mg/dl. The most depressing posts are those who list their cholesterol levels from when they ate a more normal diet, or even some who were on vegetarian/vegan diets with very low cholesterol, and then after switching to a fatty diet their cholesterol increased dramatically. Because this worsened cholesterol score is pretty much inevitable, they then resort to denialism and conspiracy theories to dismiss the Lipid Hypothesis so that they can pretend their fatty diet isn't killing them (look at all the advice people give to ignore doctors and reject treatment).

Jody Gorann once attempted to sue Atkins Nutritionals after he developed heart disease on the Atkins Diet.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/mceowen/Atkins%20Case.pdf

Originally had a total cholesterol of 146, two months on Atkins and it came up to 230, two years later he had angina and required surgical intervention to unclog his coronary artery. By that time, Atkins himself had already died, and his hospital report noted that he had a history of hypertension, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction. Similarly, Weston A. Price died of a heart attack, and two leaders of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Mary Enig and Steven Byrne, died of stroke. Prominent low-carb blogger Seth Rogers recently died of heart disease after boasting about how eating butter raises his IQ.

Now help me understand why you got the impression that a high fat, meat-based diet was a good idea.

[Anonymous No.5880194]

>>5880193

Oops, got his name wrong. Seth Roberts, it was

[Anonymous No.5880202]

>>5876664
you believe because someone darkened the b square and moved it closer? are you that gullible or are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.5880775]

FFS, can't we put nutritional politics aside and give what OP requested?

Thanksgiving's coming up next month and I have diabetic friends and family members, some of whom are insulin-dependent, and would like to have something to make for them that won't totally screw up their insulin levels. cauliflower instead of potatoes is an easy enough switch and it isn't like the non-diabetics are going to keel over dead from it. (I'll be out-of-state for the week of Thanksgiving, so it won't be entirely focused on turkey)

[Anonymous No.5880776]

>>5875343
zucchini, eggplant/aubergine, spaghetti squash, cauliflower (better for mac'n'cheese-style)... plenty of veg substitutions to go around!

[Anonymous No.5880779]

>>5880775
>FFS, can't we put nutritional politics aside and give what OP requested?

No, op has the wrong kind of diet and needs to be told as such.