Resources to go vegan.

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hmmm. How much of it is beef and how much of it is rice?

0 fiber diet with perfect digestion, to the dismay of psychedeliceagle

2MAD

note: If I was able to consume dairy or organs, I wouldn't have half of these supplements. so this stack is idiosyncratic spot-supplementation.

[aurum]

@RendHeaven more carbs than I thought, especially since you're obvious not going for micronutrients. What's the rationale?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@RendHeaven How old are you?

 

[RendHeaven]

@aurum carbs are generally preferable for male hormone optimization (keto will crush testosterone). Which means you want at minimum 100g carbs to escape ketosis. but that is a mixed-signal limbo state that risks low-energy crashes. So 200g carbs is where you start to feel really good in a sustainable way. But then if you're in the gym every day as I am, there is higher muscle glycogen demand to keep up the intensity and recovery. Thus 300g. At 350+g, I start to pack on fat fast (mostly a calorie issue). Thus 300g is where I achieve energy equilibrium

starch beats fructose for muscle recovery. hence i eat white rice rather than a bunch of grapes and pineapples (to paul saladino's dismay). and I choose white rice over brown rice to reduce phytic acid and arsenic, which is concentrated in the outer shell. white rice is a processed food that I stand by lol. Potatoes are a strong runner-up contender behind rice. It's really hard to go wrong with meat & potatoes... but the oxalates slightly concern me, personally

I also wonder if having japanese genetics gives me an innate compatibility with rice. I feel significantly better on rice than bread, pasta, or potatoes, it's not even close

@Natasha Tori Maru 25. I started eating beef and rice every day at age 22. Going into my 4th year now. Only green lights so far

Edited yesterday at 11:10 AM by RendHeaven
added detail ab potatoes

[daydrinking]

4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

looks great, i'm impressed. what's the reason for zero fiber, if i may ask?

[RendHeaven]

@daydrinking feels better, less bloat. simple as that

fiber acts as a genuinely powerful shield. it cleans out blood sugar spikes, endotoxins, excess estrogen, oxidized bile acids, etc.

Basically if you're prone to pounding sugar, junk food, alcohol, pro-oxidative inputs (seed oils, burnt or processed meat, smoking, etc.), or you're fat/estrogenic (especially high in visceral fat) with low movement or low antioxidants, or you just indulge in standard western diet cheat meals (even if rarely), then you should get more fiber.

So yeah most people would benefit a lot from fiber, and dieticians are not wrong for pushing that narrative.

Personally, I am none of the above so being shielded or not makes little difference.

Think of fiber as a fire hydrant. If you're on fire, you want to drown out the fire with water.

But if you're not on fire, then whether or not you spray water makes no difference. If anything, it makes you soggy and uncomfortable (bloated, farting, etc.)

but then again, some people swear by high-fiber and I don't want to downplay that either. And if you're a fan of plants, fiber is inevitable. Even though I prefer a beef-centric omnivore approach, plant-based (Mediterranean/whole foods vegetarian) diets still mog standard western diets, don't get it twisted

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Basically if you're prone to pounding sugar, junk food, alcohol, pro-oxidative inputs (seed oils, burnt or processed meat, smoking, etc.), or you're fat/estrogenic (especially high in visceral fat) with low movement or low antioxidants, or you just indulge in standard western diet cheat meals (even if rarely), then you should get more fiber.

So yeah most people would benefit a lot from fiber, and dieticians are not wrong for pushing that narrative.

Personally, I am none of the above so being shielded or not makes little difference.

Viewing these things as "shields" and not things that give an additive effect seems a bit self-serving in your case. There are other sources of pathology than diet that can be offset by fiber and related phytonutrients (free radicals from stress etc.). Also, do you always move or work out after your meal, and if not, do you experience side effects due to post-prandial glucose? Do you generally experience side effects due to post-prandial glucose? And how often do you eat?

Edited yesterday at 03:01 PM by Carl-Richard

[aurum]

Apparently "fibermaxxing" is a trend:

 

Edited 19 hours ago by aurum

[RendHeaven]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Viewing these things as "shields" and not things that give an additive effect seems a bit self-serving in your case.

I have no interest in defending my worldview. just offering the most comprehensive explanation we've got

the mainstream narrative that fiber is a pure net positive of additive effects is incomplete

Basically, the whole carnivore community is proof that fiber is unnecessary, if not suboptimal. The amount of people that say they cut out plants entirely and their gut digestion got better is jaw dropping. But since pro-fiber advocates cannot explain this, they usually end up denying the evidence or saying "we can't trust anecdotes" or "the studies say otherwise" or even worse, they'll say that carnivore advocates are a "special case" of broken people with IBS who need extreme measures but don't reflect on the rest of us "normal" people. Now that would be self-serving.

Although I'm not carnivore, I make sure my paradigms account for the realities of all eating styles. You should be able to explain why carnivore works (and doesn't), as well as why vegan works (and doesn't), and everything in between. From that angle, it's impossible to maintain that all humans must fibermaxx for better outcomes.

Thinking of fiber as a shield perfectly explains why most people gain benefits from fiber while some specific groups of people can feel even better on 0 fiber. Note that 0 fiber is not for everybody. To pull off 0 fiber, you need a meat-rich, mostly-single-ingredient minimalist diet. You can't just eat whatever you feel like

regarding the claim that "fiber feeds good bacteria and produces beneficial short chain fatty acids," it's not so clear to me how necessary that is. Even short chain fatty acids are a sort of shield. they repair your gut lining and fight inflammation. But personally I would rather just not damage or inflame my gut in the first place

[aurum]

17 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

and I choose white rice over brown rice to reduce phytic acid and arsenic, which is concentrated in the outer shell

I don't follow that part.

Phytic acid is an anti-nutrient, but I would think you're still likely going to end up with more minerals overall compared to eating white rice.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

18 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

@Natasha Tori Maru 25. I started eating beef and rice every day at age 22. Going into my 4th year now. Only green lights so far

I want to see how you are doing at 35-40.

Only because youth can carry you hard, and at the above ages the body changes quite suddenly.

I've done lots of diet changes to address Hashimoto's.

At the moment I only eat meat, eggs, vegetables, black coffee and green tea. Some cottage cheese added in also. I feel amazing - but boy oh boy people cannot stand someone so disciplined around food. Even when you don't push anything on others.

[RendHeaven]

9 minutes ago, aurum said:

I don't follow that part.

Phytic acid is an anti-nutrient, but I would think you're still likely going to end up with more minerals overall compared to eating white rice.

@aurum basically all of my micros come from beef + eggs + salmon + spot supplementation

the addition of white rice is completely benign in terms of micro nutrients. It adds nothing (maybe a bit of manganese), but also robs nothing.

the addition of brown rice is far more complex. it adds more magnesium, phosphorus, manganese, zinc, B vitamins, and some fiber compared to white rice. but the phytate content (~1–1.5% by weight) is enough to rob half or more of the dietary zinc, iron, calcium, and magnesium found in both the brown rice and the meal it's in.

Sounds conspiratorial, but I have good reason to believe that eating beef and eggs by itself will yield more total micronutrients than combining that meal with brown rice when you count the final tally of what your body is actually absorbing. This is why micronutrient RDAs for pure carnivores are actually lower than omnivores and avid plant eaters, and this explains why people like Shawn Baker can thrive on steak and eggs alone for 10+ years.

Ok, but let's double back and recheck what brown rice would've added:

• more magnesium
  • but I already supplement this anyway. Magnesium is one of the few micros that I believe should be supplemented even if you already get it from whole foods sources. this has to do with depletion of minerals in our modern soil. If you look up "magnesium rich foods," you will be directed to nuts, seeds, beans, whole grains, dark leafy greens, etc. But you best believe that black beans 100 years ago had significantly more magnesium than they do today. this is pretty much universal, unless you grow your own plants with good soil management. I'm lazy so I just lean on modern technology once again. But there is still further discernment. Cheap magnesium supplements will use magnesium oxide which is basically unusable by the human body, it's a complete scam. Which is why I invest in an amino acid chelated form.
• more phosphorus
  • beef has this
• more manganese
  • this is the one micronutrient that white rice actually has anyway
• more zinc
  • beef has so much zinc that I risk overdosing on zinc, and I take a copper supplement to offset that
• B vitamins
  • beef eggs and fish cover most B vitamins nicely. I do have lower thiamine (B1) and folate (B9) but that hasn't proven itself to be an issue yet
• fiber
  • ..eh

given my specific stack, brown rice basically adds nothing and wrecks absorption.

By combining white rice (+ pomegranate!) with my animal-based diet, I get the benefits of carnivore without the downsides (keto is suboptimal for hormones and training, and the nonexistent antioxidants will accelerate disease risk)

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

I have no interest in defending my worldview. just offering the most comprehensive explanation we've got

You don't have to, just acknowledge that while you avoid the negatives of fiber (bloating, etc.), you also avoid the positives. 

 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

the mainstream narrative that fiber is a pure net positive of additive effects is incomplete

That's not my claim.

 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Basically, the whole carnivore community is proof that fiber is unnecessary, if not suboptimal. The amount of people that say they cut out plants entirely and their gut digestion got better is jaw dropping. But since pro-fiber advocates cannot explain this, they usually end up denying the evidence or saying "we can't trust anecdotes" or "the studies say otherwise" or even worse, they'll say that carnivore advocates are a "special case" of broken people with IBS who need extreme measures but don't reflect on the rest of us "normal" people. Now that would be self-serving.

"Digestion issues"? Is it bloating? Loose stools? General GI discomfort? These arguments don't seem very well-defined, maybe because they are anecdotes. Also, "digestion issues" is one thing. Some also experience symptoms like low energy and fatigue. That also has to be explained (and it can be, by e.g. a lack of fiber). But trying to "explain anecdotes" is different from finding specific scientific mechanisms. There might be interesting mechanisms associated with only consuming meat. But those have to be discovered scientifically.

 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Although I'm not carnivore, I make sure my paradigms account for the realities of all eating styles. You should be able to explain why carnivore works (and doesn't), as well as why vegan works (and doesn't), and everything in between. From that angle, it's impossible to maintain that all humans must fibermaxx for better outcomes.

Paradigm: carnivore might avoid some of the negatives of fiber and some of the positives. And people report different things. And different people have different predispositions.

 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Thinking of fiber as a shield perfectly explains why most people gain benefits from fiber while some specific groups of people can feel even better on 0 fiber.

If you clearly identify the symptoms and you identify the positives and negatives of each, I think that gives a clearer picture.

 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

regarding the claim that "fiber feeds good bacteria and produces beneficial short chain fatty acids," it's not so clear to me how necessary that is. Even short chain fatty acids are a sort of shield. they repair your gut lining and fight inflammation. But personally I would rather just not damage or inflame my gut in the first place

Inflammation can come from non-dietary sources, and fiber has effects that extend outside its local effects on gut lining.

 

I think the best heuristic you can use in health is "everything is interconnected". Then the details simply tell you how much.

Edited 16 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[RendHeaven]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I want to see how you are doing at 35-40.

@Natasha Tori Maru I'll ping you in 15 years lol :]

6 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Only because youth can carry you hard, and at the above ages the body changes quite suddenly.

Yes

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I've done lots of diet changes to address Hashimoto's.

At the moment I only eat meat, eggs, vegetables, black coffee and green tea. Some cottage cheese added in also. I feel amazing

Yep that wins

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

but boy oh boy people cannot stand someone so disciplined around food. Even when you don't push anything on others.

people cannot believe i've eaten beef and rice twice a day every day for 3 years straight. that's 2000+ reps back to back lol (365*2*3)

my motivation is very simple. I just do what gives me the best results. If I ever find even better results, I will quickly do that other thing instead.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

my motivation is very simple. I just do what gives me the best results. If I ever find even better results, I will quickly do that other thing instead.

I get around it. I am similar in mindset.

You're method, I imagine, would also serve other purposes. 

My diet is simple, structured, regimented. I don't need to think about it. I just do it. 

It frees up an unimaginable amount of time and energy. No thinking. Just being and doing. Better on the wallet.

Honestly most people just have NFI how much time and energy they spend on thinking about food. What to have? The next meal. Using it as a reward. Cooking, shopping... etc. All related to decision fatigue. Endless options. 

You might not be like this. People don't understand how I do so much with my time. But it comes down surgically removing anything that wastes energy.

[RendHeaven]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

you also avoid the positives. 

I'm open to that.

I've tested fiber on top of my current diet by flirting with root vegetables like potatoes and carrots, as well as incrementally introducing inulin powder, but so far it adds nothing in terms of gut and digestion

and fibermaxxing is out of the question because I'm not willing to pound leaves and stems and seeds (I grew up on a plant based diet, it's not right for me)

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

and it can be, by e.g. a lack of fiber

How would lack of fiber be causative of low energy? genuinely curious

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There might be interesting mechanisms associated with only consuming meat. But those have to be discovered scientifically.

Good point

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Paradigm: carnivore might avoid some of the negatives of fiber and some of the positives. And different people have different predispositions.

True. But don't dismiss the shield paradigm entirely. Many of fiber's positive mechanisms are protective by nature. This is just a fact.

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Inflammation can come from non-dietary sources

Yes

[aurum]

20 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

but the phytate content (~1–1.5% by weight) is enough to rob half or more of the dietary zinc, iron, calcium, and magnesium found in both the brown rice and the meal it's in.

That sounds somewhat exaggerated.

Phytic acid barely even binds to heme-iron as far as I know. It's mostly about plant-sources.

You might be right overall though, it could be superior to just eat the white rice if you feel like meat already gives you everything you need.

[RendHeaven]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Phytic acid barely even binds to heme-iron as far as I know.

@aurum My bad, you're right

Switching to white rice (in my unique case) preserves Calcium, Magnesium, and Zinc specifically

Edited 16 hours ago by RendHeaven

[RendHeaven]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I get around it. I am similar in mindset.

You're method, I imagine, would also serve other purposes. 

My diet is simple, structured, regimented. I don't need to think about it. I just do it. 

It frees up an unimaginable amount of time and energy. No thinking. Just being and doing. Better on the wallet.

Honestly most people just have NFI how much time and energy they spend on thinking about food. What to have? The next meal. Using it as a reward. Cooking, shopping... etc. All related to decision fatigue. Endless options. 

You might not be like this. People don't understand how I do so much with my time. But it comes down surgically removing anything that wastes energy.

@Natasha Tori Maru Yes, my current way of eating is the nexus of time-efficiency, mental-energy-efficiency, cost-efficiency, tastemaxxing, moodmaxxing, gymmaxxing, and sustainability.

I plan to eat this way for the rest of my life, unless something goes wrong and an issue arises (in which case I will admit "I was wrong" and make appropriate adjustments) or otherwise an even better way of eating is discovered and I will jump on that (doubt it. I've already personally experimented with most other ways of eating, and decided they're not for me)

I am a strong believer in different needs for different people. If someone just tried to copy my cronometer diet from that screenshot, they will probably have a bad time, because it's so hyper-tailored to me.

Still - some principles are universal nonetheless. Generally speaking, if you eat whole-foods single-ingredient meats and plants, you will thrive in comparison to the default paradigm which is buying premade meals and snacks in boxes and bags + eating out or ordering from restaurants (God knows what shit they put in there)

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

How would lack of fiber be causative of low energy? genuinely curious

What's the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy person? A big factor is vibrancy, energy. Fiber and the other phytochemicals that usually come with it have many health effects (we have gone through some of them here; anti-inflammatory, pro-microbiome), so that's how it's causitive of energy. Is it the same as eating readily digestible carbohydrates? No, but many unhealthy people do that.

If you want to be very detailed-oriented, do some ChatGPT for that possibility space.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard