19 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

@Waverunner

 

Out of curiosity what your stance on Melatonan II peptide.

 I considering this  substance as i got some discoloring in my face and I don’t like the real sun much and than this stuff gives me a sun tan look and it thickens my epirmedal skin also suppression of hunger and another side effect can be more frequent errections.

all-together i have taking meds with worse side effects than that.

Do you actually mean Melanotan II (not Melatonan II)?   If so, I don't think Melanotan II is made any more.  Maybe I'm wrong but I think anything that's being marketed now is a knock-off's in the name only (i.e.: Melatonan-2).

 

If you were referring to Melatonin, I don;t know of any variant called "Melatonin II", but Melatonin supplements seem to be one of those supplements that works for some and for others' it doesn't work at all. 

 

For those who claims it works, I have to wonder whether it's for real or just psychological because I've never seen any compelling scientific evidence that these supplements do what some claim they are able to do.  Just my opinion.  Personally I've tried it for sleep issues and it had no positive effect at all.

 

This in only my opinion but it seems to me that there are an awful lot of hormone-related supplements out there that just capitalize on how the body uses a particular hormone, and then infers that by taking it as a supplement, it's going to have a positive health effect.  More often than not, it's not true. 

 

Again...just my lay opinion since I'm not a physician or scientist. 

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Do you actually mean Melanotan II (not Melatonan II)?   If so, I don't think Melanotan II is made any more.  Maybe I'm wrong but I think anything that's being marketed now is a knock-off's in the name only (i.e.: Melatonan-2).

 

If you were referring to Melatonin, I don;t know of any variant called "Melatonin II", but Melatonin supplements seem to be one of those supplements that works for some and for others' it doesn't work at all. 

 

For those who claims it works, I have to wonder whether it's for real or just psychological because I've never seen any compelling scientific evidence that these supplements do what some claim they are able to do.  Just my opinion.  Personally I've tried it for sleep issues and it had no positive effect at all.

 

This in only my opinion but it seems to me that there are an awful lot of hormone-related supplements out there that just capitalize on how the body uses a particular hormone, and then infers that by taking it as a supplement, it's going to have a positive health effect.  More often than not, it's not true. 

 

Again...just my lay opinion since I'm not a physician or scientist. 

Sorry i keep writing it wrongly Melanotan 2 is what i mean..

I think this substance is still getting produced.

44 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Sorry i keep writing it wrongly Melanotan 2 is what i mean..

I think this substance is still getting produced.

This is from Wiki:

"...It was under development as drug candidate for female sexual dysfunction and erectile dysfunction but clinical development ceased by 2003, and as of 2018, no product containing melanotan II was marketed and all commercial development had ceased.^[1] 

 

Unlicensed, untested, or fraudulent products sold as "melanotan II" are found on the Internet, and purported to be effective as "tanning drugs", though side effects such as uneven pigmentation, new nevi(moles), and darkening or enlargement of existing moles are common and have led to medical authorities discouraging use.^[2][3]..."

 

"...A number of products are sold online and in gyms and beauty salons as "melanotan" or "melanotan-1" or "melanotan-2" in their marketing.^[15][16][17]

The unregulated products are not legal to be sold for human usage in any jurisdiction.^{[18][19][20][21]}.  Starting in 2007 health agencies in various countries began issuing warnings against their use.^{[22][23][24][25][26][27] ..."}

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II

 

Personally, I'd be wary of using any product marketed as "Melanotan II"  for anything at all, but that's just me.

On 6/2/2019 at 11:07 PM, robblok said:

@wavehunter

 

Sorry I agree with VincentJ your constantly shifting goal posts and have diverted away from what is generally understood with processed food.

 

That you have your own definition and agenda is nice but in a debate its nice if words mean what they should mean not what you think they should mean.

 

Vegetables with fertilizer is not processed foods in the general term neither is it when pesticides are used. 

A processed food is any food that has been altered in some way during preparation.

Food processing can be as basic as:

freezing

canning

baking

drying

1 hour ago, wilcopops said:

A processed food is any food that has been altered in some way during preparation.

Food processing can be as basic as:

freezing

canning

baking

drying

Sure but if you start to include pesticides and fertilizer you pretty much cover everything that is grown. That is what wave hunter implied. Personally I don't have a problem with freezing drying baking and heating. (in most cases)

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Sure but if you start to include pesticides and fertilizer you pretty much cover everything that is grown. That is what wave hunter implied. Personally I don't have a problem with freezing drying baking and heating. (in most cases)

There’s a big difference between natural, organic pesticides used in organic farming, and more advanced synthetic ones used in high-yield farming, as far as how the human body reacts to them when ingested.  

 

Plus, there are synthetic chemicals used in high yield agriculture and hybridization of crop seeds, designed to shorten crop turn-over time and increase yields that also can have negative effects on health.

 

All of these chemicals and seed alterations are a negative aspect of processed foods.

 

And just to set the record straight, how a food is processed by the consumer (I.e.: how it’s cooked) can have a significant effect on how nutritious it is when eaten!  That’s a “no-brainer”, but if you need scientific proof, look at the video that was posted about Gabor Erdosi by Fractured Rabbit, and by me in post #631 that you positively commented on.  So, if processed foods are further mishandled by the consumer that just multiplies the health concerns.

40 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

There’s a big difference between natural, organic pesticides used in organic farming, and more advanced synthetic ones used in high-yield farming, as far as how the human body reacts to them when ingested.  

 

Plus, there are synthetic chemicals used in high yield agriculture and hybridization of crop seeds, designed to shorten crop turn-over time and increase yields that also can have negative effects on health.

 

All of these chemicals and seed alterations are a negative aspect of processed foods.

 

And just to set the record straight, how a food is processed by the consumer (I.e.: how it’s cooked) can have a significant effect on how nutritious it is when eaten!  That’s a “no-brainer”, but if you need scientific proof, look at the video that was posted about Gabor Erdosi by Fractured Rabbit, and by me in post #631 that you positively commented on.  So, if processed foods are further mishandled by the consumer that just multiplies the health concerns.

Yes I watched the video, it kinda showed that low carb was not needed but that processed foods that have been altered chemically were to blame. Not carbs per se. I even made a post on how these views won't go down well with the low carb crowd.

 

My dad worked as an engineer in a fertiliser company and I can tell you nothing wrong with it that has been proven. Fertiliser is nothing more as getting some minerals back in the soil.

 

As for pesticides that is a whole different thing not going to get in a debate there as there are good and bad ones and that is about all i have to say about it.

 

As for altering seeds, what do you think humans have been doing since the begining of time ? Cultivating strains that gave the highest yield and were best resistance to certain insects. This is nothing new, only now its done in a laboratory instead of selection by farmers.

 

That is all what I am going to say about it bored of endless discussions that go nowhere.

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

There’s a big difference between natural, organic pesticides used in organic farming, and more advanced synthetic ones used in high-yield farming, as far as how the human body reacts to them when ingested.  

 

Are you sure? I remember many years ago coming across an Australian study from the 'Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research' organization ( CSIRO ), which explained how plants produced their own toxic substances to deter insect and bacterial attacks, and I wondered at the time whether such natural toxins could be just as harmful, and perhaps even more harmful to human health, than the recommended limit of synthetic pesticide residue.

 

It occurred to me that the application of synthetic pesticides would prevent the plants from producing their own natural pesticides, and that provided the synthetic pesticide was not overused, there might be no health advantage of the so-called 'organic' product.

 

Revisiting this issue right now, I found some interesting scientific opinions which are very relevant. The following Scientific American article summarizes the situation quite well.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/?redirect=1

 

"The purpose of this post is to briefly discuss the most common misunderstandings about natural and synthetic chemicals:
Misconception 1: Synthetic chemicals are more toxic than natural chemicals.
Misconception 2: Organically grown food is better for you because it’s all natural.
Misconception 3: Synthetic copies of natural chemicals are not as good for you."

 

Here's another article addressing the issue.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/06/13/9999-pesticides-we-eat-are-produced-plants-themselves-11415

 

"The word pesticide is misunderstood, nearly to the same extent as the word chemical. People have been led to believe, largely by the organic food industry and environmental activists, that pesticides are unnatural, dangerous, and do not belong in the food supply. But this defies a basic understanding of biology.

 

A pesticide is any chemical, natural or human-made, that is designed to kill another organism.
A paper co-authored in 1990 by the venerable Bruce Ames found that 99.99% of the pesticides we consume in our diet are produced by the plants themselves. Given the popularity of organic food and the unscientific mythology underlying it, his findings are more relevant now than ever."

 

And yet another:
https://chem.uiowa.edu/sites/chem.uiowa.edu/files/people/shaw/150928 - JE - Bad Science Pesticides.pdf

 

"Origin of Fears
• Overuse of pesticides during early era of modern usage – Led to killing off unintended populations, increased resistance in insects, human health effects.
• Historic bans due to unanticipated consequences (e.g. DDT) have supported mistrust.
• Concerns that synthetic pesticide residues found on fruits and vegetables cause cancer."
 

Everything now clear? ????
 

13 hours ago, robblok said:

Sure but if you start to include pesticides and fertilizer you pretty much cover everything that is grown. That is what wave hunter implied. Personally I don't have a problem with freezing drying baking and heating. (in most cases)

I don't think you understand the food industry, processing is quite a defined state.

the industry  tries to reduce the presence of pesticides and other residues.

Processing is the way most food is treated before you buy it.

If you are worried about unwanted chemicals etc you need to use a different vocabulary.

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Are you sure? I remember many years ago coming across an Australian study from the 'Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research' organization ( CSIRO ), which explained how plants produced their own toxic substances to deter insect and bacterial attacks, and I wondered at the time whether such natural toxins could be just as harmful, and perhaps even more harmful to human health, than the recommended limit of synthetic pesticide residue.

 

It occurred to me that the application of synthetic pesticides would prevent the plants from producing their own natural pesticides, and that provided the synthetic pesticide was not overused, there might be no health advantage of the so-called 'organic' product.

 

Revisiting this issue right now, I found some interesting scientific opinions which are very relevant. The following Scientific American article summarizes the situation quite well.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/?redirect=1

 

"The purpose of this post is to briefly discuss the most common misunderstandings about natural and synthetic chemicals:
Misconception 1: Synthetic chemicals are more toxic than natural chemicals.
Misconception 2: Organically grown food is better for you because it’s all natural.
Misconception 3: Synthetic copies of natural chemicals are not as good for you."

 

Here's another article addressing the issue.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/06/13/9999-pesticides-we-eat-are-produced-plants-themselves-11415

 

"The word pesticide is misunderstood, nearly to the same extent as the word chemical. People have been led to believe, largely by the organic food industry and environmental activists, that pesticides are unnatural, dangerous, and do not belong in the food supply. But this defies a basic understanding of biology.

 

A pesticide is any chemical, natural or human-made, that is designed to kill another organism.
A paper co-authored in 1990 by the venerable Bruce Ames found that 99.99% of the pesticides we consume in our diet are produced by the plants themselves. Given the popularity of organic food and the unscientific mythology underlying it, his findings are more relevant now than ever."

 

And yet another:
https://chem.uiowa.edu/sites/chem.uiowa.edu/files/people/shaw/150928 - JE - Bad Science Pesticides.pdf

 

"Origin of Fears
• Overuse of pesticides during early era of modern usage – Led to killing off unintended populations, increased resistance in insects, human health effects.
• Historic bans due to unanticipated consequences (e.g. DDT) have supported mistrust.
• Concerns that synthetic pesticide residues found on fruits and vegetables cause cancer."
 

Everything now clear? ????
 

very true - modern farming actually provides produce that is of much higher quality and nutritional value than anything produced 100 years ago.........

however one has to note the the continues use of DDT in Thailand is very disconcerting.

On 6/4/2019 at 1:01 PM, WaveHunter said:

I agree with what you say.  Nothing about fasting is etched in stone but it's something to consider by anyone who feels that their metabolic health is not what it should be.  I think it's especially true for those who are obese. 

 

Still, everyone reacts differently to the fasted state.  Some (like me) feel it has distinct health benefits.  Others do not.  It's really up to the individual to decide that for themselves.

 

I'm not a big fan of fad diets or any sort of weight loss diet at all for that matter.  If you are obese, that's an indicator of an underlying health issue, and that's what should really be addressed rather than simply going on yet another diet.  Many who are obese just go on one diet after another, loosing some weight and then gaining it all back.

 

This is just my personal opinion but one of the virtues of a short-term fast (i.e.: 72 hours) is that it sort of "resets" the metabolism.  It allows for a sort of "spring cleaning" of intra-cellular junks that has accumulated (i.e.: autophagy). 

 

At the end of the fast, if a person can then start eating in a healthy way for the long-term and becoming more physically active, natural loss of excess body fat can be achieved better than any fad diet can achieve.  Just my point of view, but I think it's a more healthy way to approach obesity than many of the fad diets that come and go.

 

Eating "healthy" means many different things to different people.  Some are into Vegan, some into Paleo, some are into Keto.  They each have pros and cons.  They all can be healthy.  It's just up to the individual to decide what works best for them. 

 

I think that all that's important is to avoid eating habits that are universally accepted as bad, such as too much sugar, too much processed foods, etc.  Everyone really knows deep inside what's bad for you.  Just learn listen to your body; it will tell you everything you need to know.

 

You haven't read the studies concerning low carb / Keto diets, have you? These aren't 'fad diets', they are well researched scientifically supported recommendations. Eating so many carbs is unnatural foe the body and causes a great deal of illness including diabetes and cardio-vascular problems. I have read criticisms of Keto coming from traditionally educated nutritionists and dietitians and every one of their points can be disproved. 

Never mind, things are changing and maybe even the American Heart Association is beginning to recognise the truth.

4 minutes ago, cooked said:

You haven't read the studies concerning low carb / Keto diets, have you? These aren't 'fad diets', they are well researched scientifically supported recommendations. Eating so many carbs is unnatural foe the body and causes a great deal of illness including diabetes and cardio-vascular problems. I have read criticisms of Keto coming from traditionally educated nutritionists and dietitians and every one of their points can be disproved. 

Never mind, things are changing and maybe even the American Heart Association is beginning to recognise the truth.

As long as you let the processed carbs go then carbs are not a problem (unless eaten in excess). There is even evidence that whole grains protect against diabetes.

 

There is also evidence that low carb leads to low testosterone and low thyroid function. You can say its been disproven but it has not. Its stil matter of debate. 

 

The more i listen to low carb guru's on the internet the more I think they are completely overstating the benefits. But exaggerating seems to work and makes for a big following. The same can be said for many other diets who seem to totally burn down anything that does not follow their rules.

 

Would be nice if people started to understand that different diets are good for different things and just removing processed carbs and processed foods is often already enough.

 

Cortisol up; testosterone down
Research consistently shows that people who exercise regularly need to eat enough carbs or their testosterone will fall while their cortisol levels rise. This is a sure-fire recipe for losing muscle and gaining fat.

Incidentally, it’s also a marker for excessive training stress.

In a study in Life Sciences, men who ate a high carbohydrate versus a low carbohydrate diet for 10 days had higher levels of testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin, and lower levels of cortisol.

A few years later, another study took this research a step further. This time the subjects included men and women who exercised regularly. And in addition to considering the effect of their diet on hormones, researchers put them through some performance tests.

Once again, when the subjects ate a low carb diet, their testosterone (and other anabolic hormones) went down, while their cortisol went up.

And, after following a low carb diet for just three days, only two of the six participants were able to complete the cycling test! Meanwhile, when following the higher carb diet for three days, all six participants were able to complete the test.

 

https://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

And, after following a low carb diet for just three days, only two of the six participants were able to complete the cycling test! Meanwhile, when following the higher carb diet for three days, all six participants were able to complete the test.

 

This is no way to do research unless you are financed by the processed foods industry. Anybody going onto low carb will tell you that until your body has adjusted itself your athletic performance, among other things, goes down. You would only publish results like this if you were aware that they should have waited three weeks at least. Timothy Noakes, one of the first sports doctors, made money from his book (Lore of running) recommending a high carb intake for runners.

He has since completely reversed his advice and tells people to burn his book. This is no minor fringe figure.

As I wrote before, carbohydrates will be of use in explosive sports, but low carb has proved itself in marathon running and the like, try

 

 

 

 

 

That is what I mean all research that goes again low carb is dismissed and acted like it does not exists. That is what i mean with low carb enthusiasts discrediting research that is not showing what they want. That is just as bad research wise then anything else. That is why i get sick of low carb advocates who make it sound as if there is no case to be made against low carb ever.

 

This research clearly shows that low carb is bad. Same like how low carb people always say that low carb burns fat faster but no reasearch in metabolic chambers backs it up. The research shows that there is no difference and then low carbers start to moan that the duration is too short (had to be half a year) they constantly change the rules when something they don't agree with is shown.

 

Boring to say the least.

 

I just moved around 19600 kg in an hour (not my body-weight but added weight) and I can tell you without carbs it would not have worked. 

@cooked

 

There are many people making loads of money of low carb, if this research is so wrong why don't they do their own research. In my opinion they don't because it wills how the same as this research and it will destroy the magic of low carb. I can't imagine an other reason why they won't do it its easier to comment on research and try to discredit it then do your own and with it destroy the magic of low carb and their income.

 

The sites I get this info from are not promoting processed carbs or high amount of carbs just normal amounts of whole grains and other "good" carbs. This has nothing to do with the food industry just with people who have moderate views.

 

Sometimes I feel that debating with low carb people is like debating with religious people. They too don't prove their point with research but say you have to have fait and point to failings in research without doing their own to prove their points.

 

I personally have nothing against low carb for people with metabolic problems. I am just an advocate for going unprocessed and moderate on carbs first. That will solve the problems for most of the people only a few need to go keto / totally low carb.

 

I know for a fact and research backs me up that weight lifting is one of the best exercises for weight loss and health. You don't hear me bring it up all the time because I know its not for everyone and not everyone can do it. People just have to accept there is no 1 diet or one kind of exercise for all.

 

Its nuance that I am missing in debate and that annoys me at least you accept that for explosive strength carbs are needed, just like I accept that for duration spots carbs are not needed.

 

But do remember we evolved with carbs, the hunter bringing back only meat is a myth. Much of our diet was starchy carbs not meat. Where it all went wrong was processed carbs combined with a sedentary life. 

46 minutes ago, robblok said:

@cooked

 

There are many people making loads of money of low carb, if this research is so wrong why don't they do their own research. In my opinion they don't because it wills how the same as this research and it will destroy the magic of low carb. I can't imagine an other reason why they won't do it its easier to comment on research and try to discredit it then do your own and with it destroy the magic of low carb and their income.

 

The sites I get this info from are not promoting processed carbs or high amount of carbs just normal amounts of whole grains and other "good" carbs. This has nothing to do with the food industry just with people who have moderate views.

 

Sometimes I feel that debating with low carb people is like debating with religious people. They too don't prove their point with research but say you have to have fait and point to failings in research without doing their own to prove their points.

 

I personally have nothing against low carb for people with metabolic problems. I am just an advocate for going unprocessed and moderate on carbs first. That will solve the problems for most of the people only a few need to go keto / totally low carb.

 

I know for a fact and research backs me up that weight lifting is one of the best exercises for weight loss and health. You don't hear me bring it up all the time because I know its not for everyone and not everyone can do it. People just have to accept there is no 1 diet or one kind of exercise for all.

 

Its nuance that I am missing in debate and that annoys me at least you accept that for explosive strength carbs are needed, just like I accept that for duration spots carbs are not needed.

 

But do remember we evolved with carbs, the hunter bringing back only meat is a myth. Much of our diet was starchy carbs not meat. Where it all went wrong was processed carbs combined with a sedentary life. 

<deleted>.

The research is there, and you're claiming it isn't. This is NOT scientifically disputable. The research is there and when people try to get a change in dietary guidelines, which are demonstrably NOT based on serious science, they are confronted with board members from the food and pharmaceutical industries. They have nothing to gain by telling people that by changing their diet they can reduce their meds or stop them altogether. They are the ones You are apparently completely ignorant of these facts.

People are making money from the low carb industry? Of course they are and I got them sussed out pretty quick. The current American dietary guidelines can be proven to be actually harmful, they don't work, look around you, pre- and post 1970's when we were told to stop eating fat and to eat more carbs. Those are the guys that are literally making a killing.

Sorry, I'm in a rage. Start again with your quote "if this research is so wrong why don't they do their own research. In my opinion they don't because it wills how the same as this research and it will destroy the magic of low carb." Pure ignorant BS, the research HAS and IS being done. The fact that you haven't come across it is proof of a remarkable determination not to consider the other argument.

AGAIN: the current dietary guidelines are NOT science based. They AREN'T.  If I thought you would actually follow  links I would give you some. Do you know how to read a scientific report further than the abstract? There are many cases in which the abstract expresses a conclusion which is NOT proved by the data, I have even seen: "however we will disregard these results as they don't correspond with conventional views" (or something like that).

 

@WaveHunter

 

Eating fewer carbohydrates can have negative effects on your energy levels and libido... That’s no me saying that but many many scientists say that in news articles and they are correct but since you’re doing TRT there for you don’t notice these negative side effects agree or?

Probably Keto is fine on TRT otherwise I won’t recommend it to anyone.

 

How the Keto diet negatively affects your sexdrive, according to the experts!

 

 

The supposed benefits of the ketogenic diethave been heavily debated for many years.

Numerous people have condemned the restrictive regime as being extremely detrimental for one’s overall health, with it even being dubbed the “worst fad diet” in an annual list released by the US News and World Report.

Some people claim that following the keto diet can boost your sex drive. However, a number of health experts staunchly disagree with this theoretical notion.

 

•  

3 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

@WaveHunter

 

Eating fewer carbohydrates can have negative effects on your energy levels and libido... That’s no me saying that but many many scientists say that in news articles and they are correct but since you’re doing TRT there for you don’t notice these negative side effects agree or?

Probably Keto is fine on TRT otherwise I won’t recommend it to anyone.

 

•  

Yeah well I also have read newspaper articles that say the opposite. I have also read scientific papers that say the opposite. I'm 71, there's nothing wrong with my libido, and I don't need TRT. I also started running 15 Km a week since I started Keto, never been so full of life. Try reading something else than Healthline or whatever commercial rag it is that you take as gospel truth.

I , as well as just about anyone else that has tried it, DO recommend Keto, I threw my blood pressure meds and statins away for a start, a common experience. 

15 minutes ago, cooked said:

Yeah well I also have read newspaper articles that say the opposite. I have also read scientific papers that say the opposite. I'm 71, there's nothing wrong with my libido, and I don't need TRT. I also started running 15 Km a week since I started Keto, never been so full of life. Try reading something else than Healthline or whatever commercial rag it is that you take as gospel truth.

I , as well as just about anyone else that has tried it, DO recommend Keto, I threw my blood pressure meds and statins away for a start, a common experience. 

 

Fyi The article was in the Independent UK.

Anyway its easy to test.

Let someone do a full blood sex hormone test right before starting with his keto diet. Then after 5 months doing his keto diet then he do the same blood hormone test again.

I confident his sex hormones are in a worse condition after the 5 months of Keto then prior.

 

99% of diets will decrease sex drive so  also the water fasting..

There are multiple reasons why you experience a low sex drive while dieting. But generally speaking, anytime you’re in a negative energy balance (taking in fewer calories than you burn), you enter a catabolic state and testosterone levels drop. In fact, if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, it actually makes complete sense that you would have a low sex drive while dieting. In times of famine when food shortages are short, there would be very little sense in reproducing.

So does this mean that you can’t get lean without losing your sex drive?

You definitely can get lean while maintaining a high sex drive! However, if you want to go the crash diet route and eat very little food, then be prepared for a very low sex drive. This is because big energy deficits crash testosterone and sex drive. That being said, I’d argue that leaning down to the 8-12% body fat range (men) is actually great for your testosterone levels and sex drive.

This is because body fat contains aromatase, an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen. As a result, having higher body fat levels equals more estrogen floating around and less testosterone. For this reason, maintaining a low body fat with sufficient calorie intake, should allow for higher testosterone levels.

Sounds nice but loosing the weight isn’t going to be fun..

as I always said all diets make ur homones go down unless doing TRT Ofcourse.

On 6/7/2019 at 4:17 PM, cooked said:

<deleted>.

The research is there, and you're claiming it isn't. This is NOT scientifically disputable. The research is there and when people try to get a change in dietary guidelines, which are demonstrably NOT based on serious science, they are confronted with board members from the food and pharmaceutical industries. They have nothing to gain by telling people that by changing their diet they can reduce their meds or stop them altogether. They are the ones You are apparently completely ignorant of these facts.

People are making money from the low carb industry? Of course they are and I got them sussed out pretty quick. The current American dietary guidelines can be proven to be actually harmful, they don't work, look around you, pre- and post 1970's when we were told to stop eating fat and to eat more carbs. Those are the guys that are literally making a killing.

Sorry, I'm in a rage. Start again with your quote "if this research is so wrong why don't they do their own research. In my opinion they don't because it wills how the same as this research and it will destroy the magic of low carb." Pure ignorant BS, the research HAS and IS being done. The fact that you haven't come across it is proof of a remarkable determination not to consider the other argument.

AGAIN: the current dietary guidelines are NOT science based. They AREN'T.  If I thought you would actually follow  links I would give you some. Do you know how to read a scientific report further than the abstract? There are many cases in which the abstract expresses a conclusion which is NOT proved by the data, I have even seen: "however we will disregard these results as they don't correspond with conventional views" (or something like that).

 

Sorry mate there are countless articles about the lower libido lower test and lower T3. Your claim that its all funded by big food is absurd. The fact is that its just research and low carb does nothing to counter these claims because they cant. I have yet to see good research done by the low carb scene themselves. Just tales and myths and exaggerations. 

 

Sure low carb is good for metabolically challenged people. I never dispute that. I dispute that there is a big difference between moderate healthy unprocessed carbs and low carb. I say both work the same for normal individuals. 

 

I also say there is a lot wrong with low carb and research shows this. You can put your head in the sand and ignore it and think that what the guru's say is the truth and all research that says otherwise is done by big food but that is just not true. The fact is that there is evidence against low carb too and without good research the debate will go on. I find its up to low carb with their claims to prove it. Like i said many people make loads of money from it and I thik they don't want the research as it destroys the magic of low carb. That is my opinion and I got the science to back it up. 

 

Low carb has its place but so do other diets, low carb is not much better then diets who cut out processed carbs (if the person is healthy). I will stand with this. 

 

I read research mate, just counter research instead of the low carb research. Fact remains that the results are inconclusive (meaning results from test vary and some go for low carb others don't) The ones I shown you definitely show problems with test and t3 when going low carb. There might be other research saying it is not true.. but that makes the point debatable unless real good research is done that puts an end to this and its not done... I would say low carb owes it to do that research to prove their claims. 

 

But lets leave it at this again I doubt we will ever see eye to eye. 

 

My point is low carb is good for metabolicly challenged people and sedetray people. For most normal people just cutting all processed carbs and go for whole grains and such (proven to protect against diabetice) does the same. Low carb or KETO is NOT normal nowhere in our evolution did we NOT eat carbs. We always ate loads of starchy carbs without any problems. They were just not processed as much as now and in the amounts we eat them now.

On 6/7/2019 at 7:00 PM, Destiny1990 said:

99% of diets will decrease sex drive so  also the water fasting..

There are multiple reasons why you experience a low sex drive while dieting. But generally speaking, anytime you’re in a negative energy balance (taking in fewer calories than you burn), you enter a catabolic state and testosterone levels drop. In fact, if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, it actually makes complete sense that you would have a low sex drive while dieting. In times of famine when food shortages are short, there would be very little sense in reproducing.

So does this mean that you can’t get lean without losing your sex drive?

You definitely can get lean while maintaining a high sex drive! However, if you want to go the crash diet route and eat very little food, then be prepared for a very low sex drive. This is because big energy deficits crash testosterone and sex drive. That being said, I’d argue that leaning down to the 8-12% body fat range (men) is actually great for your testosterone levels and sex drive.

This is because body fat contains aromatase, an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen. As a result, having higher body fat levels equals more estrogen floating around and less testosterone. For this reason, maintaining a low body fat with sufficient calorie intake, should allow for higher testosterone levels.

Sounds nice but loosing the weight isn’t going to be fun..

as I always said all diets make ur homones go down unless doing TRT Ofcourse.

Of course all diets make you lose sex drive.. its only logical. People claiming low carb somehow does not do this are crazy. It all depends on how much of a deficit you have. If you keep it moderate it won't be a problem. 

 

TRT can be an option. 

 

And no weight loss is never fun (the result is, the process is not). Even on TRT i have had periods of almost no mood sex wise but only when cutting calories a lot and exercising even more. (bad thing). I am not perfect sometimes I just push to hard and then the body pushes back. 

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Sorry mate there are countless articles about the lower libido lower test and lower T3. Your claim that its all funded by big food is absurd. The fact is that its just research and low carb does nothing to counter these claims because they cant. I have yet to see good research done by the low carb scene themselves. Just tales and myths and exaggerations. 

 

Sure low carb is good for metabolically challenged people. I never dispute that. I dispute that there is a big difference between moderate healthy unprocessed carbs and low carb. I say both work the same for normal individuals. 

 

I also say there is a lot wrong with low carb and research shows this. You can put your head in the sand and ignore it and think that what the guru's say is the truth and all research that says otherwise is done by big food but that is just not true. The fact is that there is evidence against low carb too and without good research the debate will go on. I find its up to low carb with their claims to prove it. Like i said many people make loads of money from it and I thik they don't want the research as it destroys the magic of low carb. That is my opinion and I got the science to back it up. 

 

Low carb has its place but so do other diets, low carb is not much better then diets who cut out processed carbs (if the person is healthy). I will stand with this. 

 

I read research mate, just counter research instead of the low carb research. Fact remains that the results are inconclusive (meaning results from test vary and some go for low carb others don't) The ones I shown you definitely show problems with test and t3 when going low carb. There might be other research saying it is not true.. but that makes the point debatable unless real good research is done that puts an end to this and its not done... I would say low carb owes it to do that research to prove their claims. 

 

But lets leave it at this again I doubt we will ever see eye to eye. 

 

My point is low carb is good for metabolicly challenged people and sedetray people. For most normal people just cutting all processed carbs and go for whole grains and such (proven to protect against diabetice) does the same. Low carb or KETO is NOT normal nowhere in our evolution did we NOT eat carbs. We always ate loads of starchy carbs without any problems. They were just not processed as much as now and in the amounts we eat them now.

All preventable.

I felt no discomfort at all losing weight, it was easy, three months of keto, lost 11 Kg, biometrics back to normal, no meds. I  am now in maintenance and haver upped my carb limit from 20 to 30 gm a day. Plenty of energy, working 8am to midday in the garden and on the house, preceded by a 1 - 3 Km run nearly every day. I'm 71.

 

Look at some of the Youtubevideos with Nina Teicholz, she has been rsearching the influence of big food and pharma for years. Analogous to the denials of the tobacco industry (in fact the same people).

I suggest that you stop using the reader's Digest as a basis for research, open your mind and start changing the input on your Google search box. I HAVE read the "counter research" much of which is easily debunked, laying this kind of evidence before the American Heart Association has been ignored with no scientific rebuttal. The current dietary guidelines are DEMONSTRABLY not science based. 

AGAIN: <deleted>! The research HAS and IS being done. 

Whole grains ... yes healthy, but most of the whole grains that you are I have access to go through a process that removes the germ and the bran, not much better than white flour when it comes to wheat.

Your remarks about us not eating carbs (and for most populations this means pre 1960's to some extent) is not scientific. You think people were wandering through the grasslands eating grass seeds? Fact is, carbs are the one macro that people don't need in their diet. There is evidence that when civilisations turned to agriculture because the game had been hunted out, many suffered a drop in population as their metabolisms didn't support carbs. Many people still can't.

Low carbs diet and or water fasting means low sex drive and it meshes up your sleep patterns too.

its probably much better to eat 3 normal meals a day with some bread some rice lots of veggies, meat olive oil. Etc

then avoid all snacks candies alchohol in between..

if you do that in a 8 hour eating window then u will slowly loose some weight without too much loosing libido!

Wavehunter makes Keto and waterfasting sounds wonderful but only on TRT that might be the case.

On 6/7/2019 at 5:14 PM, Destiny1990 said:

 

Fyi The article was in the Independent UK.

Anyway its easy to test.

Let someone do a full blood sex hormone test right before starting with his keto diet. Then after 5 months doing his keto diet then he do the same blood hormone test again.

I confident his sex hormones are in a worse condition after the 5 months of Keto then prior.

 

An 11 week study into a low carb, high fat diet reported that "total testosterone increased significantly".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271636/

22 hours ago, cooked said:

All preventable.

I felt no discomfort at all losing weight, it was easy, three months of keto, lost 11 Kg, biometrics back to normal, no meds. I  am now in maintenance and haver upped my carb limit from 20 to 30 gm a day. Plenty of energy, working 8am to midday in the garden and on the house, preceded by a 1 - 3 Km run nearly every day. I'm 71.

 

Look at some of the Youtubevideos with Nina Teicholz, she has been rsearching the influence of big food and pharma for years. Analogous to the denials of the tobacco industry (in fact the same people).

I suggest that you stop using the reader's Digest as a basis for research, open your mind and start changing the input on your Google search box. I HAVE read the "counter research" much of which is easily debunked, laying this kind of evidence before the American Heart Association has been ignored with no scientific rebuttal. The current dietary guidelines are DEMONSTRABLY not science based. 

AGAIN: <deleted>! The research HAS and IS being done. 

Whole grains ... yes healthy, but most of the whole grains that you are I have access to go through a process that removes the germ and the bran, not much better than white flour when it comes to wheat.

Your remarks about us not eating carbs (and for most populations this means pre 1960's to some extent) is not scientific. You think people were wandering through the grasslands eating grass seeds? Fact is, carbs are the one macro that people don't need in their diet. There is evidence that when civilisations turned to agriculture because the game had been hunted out, many suffered a drop in population as their metabolisms didn't support carbs. Many people still can't.

I think you and I should also stop discussing, i cant discuss with fanatics. I use pubmed and others to research and it shows low carb has serious faults. I have looked at youtube and other video's of those guru's and they are selling snake oil. Its fine you blame it all on big food and whatever. But its just not true.

 

You should really research things more we have always eaten carbs in fact its been in our diet always and now we dont need it all of a sudden. That is just crazy. The only change is that we processed the carbs too much and that made them bad. The evidence you quote is false. I wonder what your education was like for being so easily converted to something.

 

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2015/08/10/starchy-carbs--not-a-paleo-diet--advanced-the-human-race.html

12 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

An 11 week study into a low carb, high fat diet reported that "total testosterone increased significantly".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271636/

So we got studies proving it goes down and others it goes up.. funny isnt it. Of course you only believe those that show the values go up instead of being moderate and accepting its unclear as different studies give different values. 

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think you and I should also stop discussing, i cant discuss with fanatics. I use pubmed and others to research and it shows low carb has serious faults. I have looked at youtube and other video's of those guru's and they are selling snake oil. Its fine you blame it all on big food and whatever. But its just not true.

 

You should really research things more we have always eaten carbs in fact its been in our diet always and now we dont need it all of a sudden. That is just crazy. The only change is that we processed the carbs too much and that made them bad. The evidence you quote is false. I wonder what your education was like for being so easily converted to something.

Insulting people always proves a point. Carbs were always eaten... not like today, this is new, in fact hunters would have eaten almost exclusively meat, the womenfolk would have collected what they could, which depending on the season would have been very little with occasional feasts. 

As for my education I worked for many years as a translator for the Archeo-botanical Institute at Basel, and this kind of thing was something we often discussed. Fanatic? Not at all. I don't accuse you of bering a fanatic, just of rejecting what IS in the next ten years become a lot more than a fad. 

Timothy Noakes was taken to court in South Africa, basically because of his stance on carbs, by nutritionists and dieticians. 

Low carbs are dangerous. Right. If I had followed doctor's advice I would now be taking statins and blood pressure meds, which are demonstrably harmful and can lead to diabetes. This is just my personal experience, but there are many more, meta analyses support me. Yes, being cured easily convinced me.

https://blog.virtahealth.com/2yr-t2d-trial-outcomes-virta-nutritional-ketosis/

 

1 minute ago, cooked said:

Insulting people always proves a point. Carbs were always eaten... not like today, this is new, in fact hunters would have eaten almost exclusively meat, the womenfolk would have collected what they could, which depending on the season would have been very little with occasional feasts. 

As for my education I worked for many years as a translator for the Archeo-botanical Institute at Basel, and this kind of thing was something we often discussed. Fanatic? Not at all. I don't accuse you of bering a fanatic, just of rejecting what IS in the next ten years become a lot more than a fad. 

Timothy Noakes was taken to court in South Africa, basically because of his stance on carbs, by nutritionists and dieticians. 

Low carbs are dangerous. Right. If I had followed doctor's advice I would now be taking statins and blood pressure meds, which are demonstrably harmful and can lead to diabetes. This is just my personal experience, but there are many more, meta analyses support me. Yes, being cured easily convinced me.

https://blog.virtahealth.com/2yr-t2d-trial-outcomes-virta-nutritional-ketosis/

 

You started insulting me, so i thought id return the favor (denigrating where i got my research). Again hunters don't exclusively eat meat it was actually the woman with their carbs that saved the day.

 

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2015/08/10/starchy-carbs--not-a-paleo-diet--advanced-the-human-race.html

 

Nobody says low carb is dangerous its your kind that says low carb is the cure all for everything and has no drawbacks. While I am far more moderate and say it has its drawbacks and don't believe everything those guru's write as i read the research that shows the bad side too.

 

I get tired of people claiming that low carb is some sort of miracle as its not and has drawbacks like any diet. Processed carbs are unhealthy, whole wheat carbs and other unprocessed ones are not. Why eliminate a total food source based on misinformation. 

 

I am pretty sure you would have had all the health benefits you have now if you just had cut processed carbs out and nothing more.

 

I have yet to see good evidence of low carb vs 40% carbs unprocessed and the rest from fats and proteins. The research i seen so far shows no proof that low carb works better (once processed carbs are removed).