Cycling and vegetarianism - Page 70 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

09-02-2004, 07:34 AM

Gawnsoft wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:09:49 -0500, Kevan Smith
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more or less):
>
>
>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:42:41 GMT, the black rose
>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> from Queen of the Night wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kevan Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:17:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> from
>>>>Posted via Supernews, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The trans-fats in turkey are in such amounts as to have no significance.
>>>>>Dietary cholesterol has little, if any effect on serum cholesterol. You're
>>>>>listening too much to the anti-animal crowd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I am a PETA supporter. I am also 30 lbs lighter and riding my bike
>>>>faster than ever. You can eat all the nasty meat you want. I'm taking a pass.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. That's fine, that's your choice. Calling the dietary choices
>>>of others "nasty" is ill-mannered at best.
>>
>>Tell Janet Jackson. Who's that eatin' that nasty food? Nasty boys!

Janet Jackson is a celebrity, not an expert. Rude is rude, no matter
who says it. You know as well as I do that Janet Jackson isn't going to
sit down and have a heart-to-heart chat with some housewife in upstate
NY. Ain't gonna happen.

>>>I'm allergic to soy, peanuts, beans and peas as well as being lactose
>>>intolerant. Eliminate the "nasty meat" and animal products from my
>>>diet, sir, and just how do I get enough protein to survive, pray tell?
>>
>>You still have plenty of other options, ma'am. Aside from the normal protien
>>in vegetables, which is sufficient for most diets, there are many protien-rich
>>grains you could eat. Then, products like TVP come to mind.
>
>
> TVP is a soya product.
>
> Soya is a legume.
>
> She's legume intolerant.

Very.

For example, my most recent run-in with soy was eating ONE SMALL BITE --
and I do mean small -- of a protein bar which itself didn't contain soy,
but which had been processed on machines used to process soy. Within 10
minutes I had severe intestinal cramps.

Don't try to give me options that make for a boring diet; I'm simply too
human to stick to a boring diet. Besides, I like meat.

And please, I know from personal experience that the protein in veggies
isn't enough to sustain my activity level (strenuous exercise 6
days/week). I'm Russian Orthodox and spend a significant percentage of
the year in a strict fast -- no meat, poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, olive
oil or alcohol, during Lent, usually most of June, the first 2 weeks of
August, and November 15th through December 24th. I can't get enough
protein from veggies and grains just during Great Lent when I'm
SEDENTARY to keep from getting sick, much less enough to keep me going
at my current activity level.

I'll be the first to say that it's entirely possible to be a healthy
vegan athlete.

But not if you can't eat legumes.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 07:34 AM

Gawnsoft wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:09:49 -0500, Kevan Smith
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more or less):
>
>
>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:42:41 GMT, the black rose
>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> from Queen of the Night wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kevan Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:17:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> from
>>>>Posted via Supernews, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The trans-fats in turkey are in such amounts as to have no significance.
>>>>>Dietary cholesterol has little, if any effect on serum cholesterol. You're
>>>>>listening too much to the anti-animal crowd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I am a PETA supporter. I am also 30 lbs lighter and riding my bike
>>>>faster than ever. You can eat all the nasty meat you want. I'm taking a pass.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. That's fine, that's your choice. Calling the dietary choices
>>>of others "nasty" is ill-mannered at best.
>>
>>Tell Janet Jackson. Who's that eatin' that nasty food? Nasty boys!

Janet Jackson is a celebrity, not an expert. Rude is rude, no matter
who says it. You know as well as I do that Janet Jackson isn't going to
sit down and have a heart-to-heart chat with some housewife in upstate
NY. Ain't gonna happen.

>>>I'm allergic to soy, peanuts, beans and peas as well as being lactose
>>>intolerant. Eliminate the "nasty meat" and animal products from my
>>>diet, sir, and just how do I get enough protein to survive, pray tell?
>>
>>You still have plenty of other options, ma'am. Aside from the normal protien
>>in vegetables, which is sufficient for most diets, there are many protien-rich
>>grains you could eat. Then, products like TVP come to mind.
>
>
> TVP is a soya product.
>
> Soya is a legume.
>
> She's legume intolerant.

Very.

For example, my most recent run-in with soy was eating ONE SMALL BITE --
and I do mean small -- of a protein bar which itself didn't contain soy,
but which had been processed on machines used to process soy. Within 10
minutes I had severe intestinal cramps.

Don't try to give me options that make for a boring diet; I'm simply too
human to stick to a boring diet. Besides, I like meat.

And please, I know from personal experience that the protein in veggies
isn't enough to sustain my activity level (strenuous exercise 6
days/week). I'm Russian Orthodox and spend a significant percentage of
the year in a strict fast -- no meat, poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, olive
oil or alcohol, during Lent, usually most of June, the first 2 weeks of
August, and November 15th through December 24th. I can't get enough
protein from veggies and grains just during Great Lent when I'm
SEDENTARY to keep from getting sick, much less enough to keep me going
at my current activity level.

I'll be the first to say that it's entirely possible to be a healthy
vegan athlete.

But not if you can't eat legumes.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 07:34 AM

Gawnsoft wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:09:49 -0500, Kevan Smith
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more or less):
>
>
>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:42:41 GMT, the black rose
>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> from Queen of the Night wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kevan Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:17:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> from
>>>>Posted via Supernews, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The trans-fats in turkey are in such amounts as to have no significance.
>>>>>Dietary cholesterol has little, if any effect on serum cholesterol. You're
>>>>>listening too much to the anti-animal crowd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I am a PETA supporter. I am also 30 lbs lighter and riding my bike
>>>>faster than ever. You can eat all the nasty meat you want. I'm taking a pass.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. That's fine, that's your choice. Calling the dietary choices
>>>of others "nasty" is ill-mannered at best.
>>
>>Tell Janet Jackson. Who's that eatin' that nasty food? Nasty boys!

Janet Jackson is a celebrity, not an expert. Rude is rude, no matter
who says it. You know as well as I do that Janet Jackson isn't going to
sit down and have a heart-to-heart chat with some housewife in upstate
NY. Ain't gonna happen.

>>>I'm allergic to soy, peanuts, beans and peas as well as being lactose
>>>intolerant. Eliminate the "nasty meat" and animal products from my
>>>diet, sir, and just how do I get enough protein to survive, pray tell?
>>
>>You still have plenty of other options, ma'am. Aside from the normal protien
>>in vegetables, which is sufficient for most diets, there are many protien-rich
>>grains you could eat. Then, products like TVP come to mind.
>
>
> TVP is a soya product.
>
> Soya is a legume.
>
> She's legume intolerant.

Very.

For example, my most recent run-in with soy was eating ONE SMALL BITE --
and I do mean small -- of a protein bar which itself didn't contain soy,
but which had been processed on machines used to process soy. Within 10
minutes I had severe intestinal cramps.

Don't try to give me options that make for a boring diet; I'm simply too
human to stick to a boring diet. Besides, I like meat.

And please, I know from personal experience that the protein in veggies
isn't enough to sustain my activity level (strenuous exercise 6
days/week). I'm Russian Orthodox and spend a significant percentage of
the year in a strict fast -- no meat, poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, olive
oil or alcohol, during Lent, usually most of June, the first 2 weeks of
August, and November 15th through December 24th. I can't get enough
protein from veggies and grains just during Great Lent when I'm
SEDENTARY to keep from getting sick, much less enough to keep me going
at my current activity level.

I'll be the first to say that it's entirely possible to be a healthy
vegan athlete.

But not if you can't eat legumes.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 07:37 AM

On 2004-09-02, Peter Cole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the US. As

I think that's where the Low Carb nuts (and yes, I'll call them nuts also,
equal opportunity) get it wrong. Low Fat hasn't helped people lose weight
because the way it was done or pushed on people (minimal exercise, lots of
sugary, high glycemic foods instead of fat) wasn't healthy either. I think
there's a happy medium between both extremes. Where you can cut down on
your fat intake (as I think any sane person would want to do for the
reasons you mention later) while also making sure to eat some of the
essential fat they need.

> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low fat
> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease. I have only one
> personal data point, my father, who after many years of poor diet, smoking,
> and no exercise, had an angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet
> (<10% fat), successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

I've heard that too. About the Ornish diet. It's backed up by plenty of
evidence. Not just "I feel good", but by thousands of people who have gone
from heart attack sufferers to functioning human beings. Ornish just isn't
a household name like Atkins because he doesn't slap his name on products.
Hard to do that when your "products" you push are fruits, veggies and
whole grains.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries for
> others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues regarding
> quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the current findings are
> hardly a "great lie". Most expectations of people adopting low fat diets

You don't understand, though. That's what makes the Low Carbers feel
better. They act like they've figured out something all those fancy-pants
doctors haven't figured out. I think it feels to some people to think
they're smarter than others, especially doctors. Me, I just want to base
my diet on solid science and evidence. And if that means I need a little
meat, so be it. If that means I stick mostly with carbs, however, same
thing, so be it.

> seemed to be for weight control, any nutritionist would tell you that total
> calories are what counts there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced
> calories varies among individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no
> clear statistical winner. The long term health consequences of some of these
> diets are unknown, which I think should temper the evangelicalism.

One would think. Although I have a relative on Atkins. She got her first
horrendous kidney stone about 5 months in. The verdict is out on whether
that's the fault of the diet, but my guess is that it is.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:37 AM

On 2004-09-02, Peter Cole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the US. As

I think that's where the Low Carb nuts (and yes, I'll call them nuts also,
equal opportunity) get it wrong. Low Fat hasn't helped people lose weight
because the way it was done or pushed on people (minimal exercise, lots of
sugary, high glycemic foods instead of fat) wasn't healthy either. I think
there's a happy medium between both extremes. Where you can cut down on
your fat intake (as I think any sane person would want to do for the
reasons you mention later) while also making sure to eat some of the
essential fat they need.

> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low fat
> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease. I have only one
> personal data point, my father, who after many years of poor diet, smoking,
> and no exercise, had an angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet
> (<10% fat), successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

I've heard that too. About the Ornish diet. It's backed up by plenty of
evidence. Not just "I feel good", but by thousands of people who have gone
from heart attack sufferers to functioning human beings. Ornish just isn't
a household name like Atkins because he doesn't slap his name on products.
Hard to do that when your "products" you push are fruits, veggies and
whole grains.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries for
> others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues regarding
> quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the current findings are
> hardly a "great lie". Most expectations of people adopting low fat diets

You don't understand, though. That's what makes the Low Carbers feel
better. They act like they've figured out something all those fancy-pants
doctors haven't figured out. I think it feels to some people to think
they're smarter than others, especially doctors. Me, I just want to base
my diet on solid science and evidence. And if that means I need a little
meat, so be it. If that means I stick mostly with carbs, however, same
thing, so be it.

> seemed to be for weight control, any nutritionist would tell you that total
> calories are what counts there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced
> calories varies among individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no
> clear statistical winner. The long term health consequences of some of these
> diets are unknown, which I think should temper the evangelicalism.

One would think. Although I have a relative on Atkins. She got her first
horrendous kidney stone about 5 months in. The verdict is out on whether
that's the fault of the diet, but my guess is that it is.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:37 AM

On 2004-09-02, Peter Cole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the US. As

I think that's where the Low Carb nuts (and yes, I'll call them nuts also,
equal opportunity) get it wrong. Low Fat hasn't helped people lose weight
because the way it was done or pushed on people (minimal exercise, lots of
sugary, high glycemic foods instead of fat) wasn't healthy either. I think
there's a happy medium between both extremes. Where you can cut down on
your fat intake (as I think any sane person would want to do for the
reasons you mention later) while also making sure to eat some of the
essential fat they need.

> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low fat
> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease. I have only one
> personal data point, my father, who after many years of poor diet, smoking,
> and no exercise, had an angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet
> (<10% fat), successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

I've heard that too. About the Ornish diet. It's backed up by plenty of
evidence. Not just "I feel good", but by thousands of people who have gone
from heart attack sufferers to functioning human beings. Ornish just isn't
a household name like Atkins because he doesn't slap his name on products.
Hard to do that when your "products" you push are fruits, veggies and
whole grains.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries for
> others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues regarding
> quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the current findings are
> hardly a "great lie". Most expectations of people adopting low fat diets

You don't understand, though. That's what makes the Low Carbers feel
better. They act like they've figured out something all those fancy-pants
doctors haven't figured out. I think it feels to some people to think
they're smarter than others, especially doctors. Me, I just want to base
my diet on solid science and evidence. And if that means I need a little
meat, so be it. If that means I stick mostly with carbs, however, same
thing, so be it.

> seemed to be for weight control, any nutritionist would tell you that total
> calories are what counts there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced
> calories varies among individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no
> clear statistical winner. The long term health consequences of some of these
> diets are unknown, which I think should temper the evangelicalism.

One would think. Although I have a relative on Atkins. She got her first
horrendous kidney stone about 5 months in. The verdict is out on whether
that's the fault of the diet, but my guess is that it is.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:37 AM

On 2004-09-02, Peter Cole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the US. As

I think that's where the Low Carb nuts (and yes, I'll call them nuts also,
equal opportunity) get it wrong. Low Fat hasn't helped people lose weight
because the way it was done or pushed on people (minimal exercise, lots of
sugary, high glycemic foods instead of fat) wasn't healthy either. I think
there's a happy medium between both extremes. Where you can cut down on
your fat intake (as I think any sane person would want to do for the
reasons you mention later) while also making sure to eat some of the
essential fat they need.

> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low fat
> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease. I have only one
> personal data point, my father, who after many years of poor diet, smoking,
> and no exercise, had an angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet
> (<10% fat), successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

I've heard that too. About the Ornish diet. It's backed up by plenty of
evidence. Not just "I feel good", but by thousands of people who have gone
from heart attack sufferers to functioning human beings. Ornish just isn't
a household name like Atkins because he doesn't slap his name on products.
Hard to do that when your "products" you push are fruits, veggies and
whole grains.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries for
> others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues regarding
> quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the current findings are
> hardly a "great lie". Most expectations of people adopting low fat diets

You don't understand, though. That's what makes the Low Carbers feel
better. They act like they've figured out something all those fancy-pants
doctors haven't figured out. I think it feels to some people to think
they're smarter than others, especially doctors. Me, I just want to base
my diet on solid science and evidence. And if that means I need a little
meat, so be it. If that means I stick mostly with carbs, however, same
thing, so be it.

> seemed to be for weight control, any nutritionist would tell you that total
> calories are what counts there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced
> calories varies among individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no
> clear statistical winner. The long term health consequences of some of these
> diets are unknown, which I think should temper the evangelicalism.

One would think. Although I have a relative on Atkins. She got her first
horrendous kidney stone about 5 months in. The verdict is out on whether
that's the fault of the diet, but my guess is that it is.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:48 AM

"the black rose" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:iQFZc.52851$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they
>>> can - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat
>>> intake. It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on
>>> low fat diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised
>>> immune system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the
>>> person on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth
>>> is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>> disease.
>
> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.

Most low fat food is mind-bogglingly high corn syrup food instead.

> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works
> if you don't eat more calories than you expend.

That's true but the point - as I keep saying - is that it's the high protein
and low sugars that produces satiety so most people naturally eat less.

> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.

Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:48 AM

"the black rose" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:iQFZc.52851$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they
>>> can - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat
>>> intake. It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on
>>> low fat diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised
>>> immune system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the
>>> person on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth
>>> is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>> disease.
>
> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.

Most low fat food is mind-bogglingly high corn syrup food instead.

> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works
> if you don't eat more calories than you expend.

That's true but the point - as I keep saying - is that it's the high protein
and low sugars that produces satiety so most people naturally eat less.

> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.

Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:48 AM

"the black rose" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:iQFZc.52851$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they
>>> can - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat
>>> intake. It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on
>>> low fat diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised
>>> immune system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the
>>> person on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth
>>> is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>> disease.
>
> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.

Most low fat food is mind-bogglingly high corn syrup food instead.

> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works
> if you don't eat more calories than you expend.

That's true but the point - as I keep saying - is that it's the high protein
and low sugars that produces satiety so most people naturally eat less.

> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.

Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?