Diet For Human Beings

It seems like everywhere you look, there’s a new pill or medicine that will ‘instantly cure’ your sickness, disease or health issue. And while taking a pill to cure what ails you might be convenient and simple, maybe it’s really time to sit down and take a good, long look at what you’re feeding your body, or as it might be, not feeding your body. Are you truly giving your body the nutrients it needs to take care of itself? Most of us find when we take a look at what we’ve been eating that the choices we’ve been making in the name of convenience, simplicity, or saving time have actually been detrimental to our overall health – body, mind and spirit.
Our modern day diet largely consists of excessive consumption of starch, sugar, fried and fatty foods. As a result, diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s and some cancers are becoming more and more common.
Healthy foods and good nutrition can not only help keep you fit, but treat disease as well. You may not even have to go to a health food store. You can purchase them right at your grocery store, or make a trip to your local farmer’s market. And if you focus on basing a healthy, well-balanced diet on the 14 “Superfoods,” the detrimental effects of these diseases can be slowed, stopped or even reversed.
And when you nourish your body physically with these nutrient-dense foods, your mental capacities increase, and your spiritual wellness is enhanced as well. In addition, since your spiritual health is optimal, it will shine through to the outside, and people will notice you’re happy, calm, and that your stress levels have decreased dramatically.
So look for ways to cut the junk out of your daily eating and replace it with members of the Superfoods group. Your body, mind and spirit will all be healthier as a direct result.

by: Dr. Donald A. Miller
I recently received an email offer for a hand held computer that contains food fact tables, non volatile memory to hold the user's input data (food types and amounts, height, frame type) and calculates the total calories or carbohydrates that the dieter might want to track or limit.

Rather clever, and it will probably sell well.

However, if the dieter chooses safe food types, he/she can eat huge amounts without ever counting either calories or carbohydrates, and still lose weight. Of course, limiting consumption to moderate amounts will speed weight loss, and allow stabilizing at one's ideal weight.

Rather than reduce or bypass parts of the digestive system, the most effective weight loss surgery is to staple ... the mouth.

Here's a useful secret. A small amount of fat can satisfy hunger better and longer than a large amount of low fat protein concentrate. Restrict that fat to low- or un- saturated types, such as available in nuts, eggs, legumes, perhaps an avocado (if you are near the low cost sources), and you won't put your cardiovascular system at risk. Some use of truly lean meats can be healthful, but don't overlook soy bean tempeh and similar high protein plant foods which have no saturated fat. Eat as much as you can hold of vegetables, fruits, and grain foods, prepared without added sauces, sugars, dressings, oils, butter, margarine, cheeses, and so forth.

Restrict your consumption on any high energy foods, such as alcohols, refined sugars, fats and oils -- especially the saturated fats. Eat the calories you need for the amount of your physical activity, but not more.

Such diets need not be boring. Fantastic recipes from around the world are now available on the internet. Just learn how to be selective, and/or to modify the ingredients to safe choices.

** Diet with FACTS, not MYTHS. **

About the author:
Dr. Miller is author of ""Easy Health Diet"" http://easyhealthdiet.com/diet.htm""Exercise for
Juniors to Seniors"" http://easyhealthdiet.com/JrSr.htmand numerous free articles on health http://articles.easyhealthdiet.com/ Seven of ten deaths are caused by preventable diseases.

by: A.M.Sall
Dr Atkins diet has been at the heart of heated controversy in recent times.

On May 26, 2004 A Florida businessman filed suit against the makers of Atkins diet, based on low carb recipes, as opposed to rival diets which favor low fat recipes.

The businessman claimed as a consequence of following Dr Atkins diet, he suffers from severe heart disease, necessitating angioplasty and a stent. He is seeking a court injunction banning Atkins Nutritionals from marketing its products without a warning of potential health risks and asks for compensatory damages.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM, www.pcrm.org) reported that :"about 30 percent of individuals on an Atkins diet experienced increases in LDL (“bad”) cholesterol of at least 10 percent in a study published May 18, 2004, in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Two study participants dropped out because of elevated cholesterol levels and a third developed chest pain and was subsequently diagnosed with coronary heart disease."

High protein low carb recipes based diets such as Dr Atkins diet have been criticized by major health organizations including the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Kidney Fund.

The Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism of the American Heart Association states, “High-protein diets are not recommended because they restrict healthful foods that provide essential nutrients and do not provide the variety of foods needed to adequately meet nutritional needs. Individuals who follow these diets are therefore at risk for compromised vitamin and mineral intake, as well as potential cardiac, renal, bone, and liver abnormalities overall.”

The PCRM also says they have received more than 560 complaints of illnesses and fatalities allegedly related to Atkins-type diets - low carb recipes - through an on-line registry...including more than two dozen reports of potentially life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias and the reported death of a 16-year-old girl in Missouri who was following a low carb diet

According to PCRM President Neal Barnard, M.D Atkins diet proponents "push dieters to avoid healthy foods, like rice, beans, and pasta, while ignoring the risks of high-cholesterol, high-fat meat and cheese. The idea that cholesterol and saturated fat don’t matter is a dangerous myth.”

In additon to CHD - coronary heart disease - Atkins diet has also been blamed for a number of other "atrocities", such as: colon cancer, impaired kidney function, osteoporosis, complications of diabetes, and to cap it all: constipation, headache, bad breath, muscle cramps, diarrhea, general weakness.

In an article titled: "Low Carb Diet Truth - Why Atkin's Low Carb Diet Doesn't Work", Keith Klein (www.ineedcarblo.com) notes that "Low carb diets don't produce long-term results. These diets do not work, and are bad for the health."

Also, "In the case of the low-carb diet, the down-side outweighs the up-side by a huge margin.

A problem that adds to the confusion is the simple fact that cutting back on carbohydrates works, at least for a quick drop in body fat and body water.

The piece of the puzzle missing for most dieters is the long-term effects on the body due to such a drastic reduction in carbohydrates."

To solve the long-term effects problem, low-carb diets such as the South Beach Diet introduce carbohydrates after the 14 days initial phase. But what does the other side say? As expected, we hear a totally different story.

One of the most articulate of the Atkins diet defenders is Anthony Colpo (www.theomnivore.com).

Here is a quick summary of his "6 myths" article:
1. Coronary heart disease (CHD)
If you want to maximize your chances of avoiding CHD, a diet high in antioxidants and phytochemicals, a low glycemic load, and regular consumption of omega-3 fats, appears to be just what Dr Atkins diet recommends.

A low carb diet based on paleolithic food choices, that is, a diet based on free-range animal products and low carbohydrate, low-glycemic plant foods, fits the bill quite nicely. So go ahead, eat your steak and salad!

2. Low-Carbohydrate Diets Contain Too Much Fat, and Fat Makes You Gain Weight

Some folks have been so inculcated with the simplistic "fat makes you fat" theory that they just cannot believe a diet high in fat can lead to a loss of bodyfat.

The fact is, high fat diets can result in spectacular fat loss - as long as carbohydrate intake is kept low. Eat a diet that is high in both fat and carbohydrate and your bodyfat percentages will head north real quick!

The Standard Western Diet (SWD) is typically high in both fat and carbohydrate - and often leads to obesity.


3. Low-carb, High-Protein Diets cause Osteoporosis

A review of the research in this area shows that high protein intake, in the presence of alkalinising fruit and vegetable intake and adequate calcium intake, either has no adverse affect on bone mass or has a positive affect on bone mass.

We can see that a low-carbohydrate, high fat, high protein diet is a far better choice for building strong bones than a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

It ensures adequate intake of protein; it replaces acid-forming, phytate-containing grains and legumes with alkalinising fruits and vegetables; and the fat content of such a diet assists the absorption of fat-soluble bone-building vitamins like Vitamin D and K.

4. High-Protein Diets Cause Kidney Disease

Bodybuilders and strength athletes have been consuming high-protein diets for decades. Given the widespread global participation in these activities, if the claims of kidney damage were true, by now there would be an enormous number of case studies of ex-bodybuilders and strength athletes afflicted with kidney disease.

Needless to say, this is not the case.

A comparison of healthy subjects eating 100g or more of protein per day with long-term vegetarians eating 30g or less of protein per day concluded that both groups had similar kidney function. The subjects were aged 30-80 and both groups displayed similar progressive deterioration of kidney function with age.

Individuals with healthy kidney function have little to fear from higher levels of protein consumption.

5; Low-Carbohydrate Diets Put You In Ketosis, And Ketosis Is Dangerous!

First of all, it should be pointed out that not all low-carb diets induce ketosis. Carbohydrates can be restricted, but not necessarily to the point where ketosis is induced (daily carbohydrate intake of 50g or less seems to be a reliable benchmark).

If carbohydrate intake is kept low enough however, one eventually enters a state known as ketosis, characterised by a measurable increase of ketones in the bloodstream. Ketones are an intermediate product of fat breakdown, and are an alternative source of energy to glucose. Ketosis indicates a heightened state of fat-burning.

Contrary to the alarmist claims of some critics, there is nothing dangerous about ketosis. One of the more important functions of ketones is to serve as an alternative fuel source for the brain - contrary to the claims of some that the brain can only use glucose for fuel.

Despite the hype, healthy people have little to fear from ketosis - unless they have a strong aversion to losing fat!

6; Low Carb Diets Are An Unproven Fad!

This has to be the most ridiculous criticism of all, especially when one considers its source.

The human species has been eating a meat-based diet for 2.4 million years, and analysis of the diets consumed by recent hunter-gatherer societies (the best available surrogate for paleolithic nutrition) shows that plant foods comprised, on average, one-third of daily food intake - the rest was derived from animal products.

What's more, the bulk of these plant foods were low-glycemic, low-carbohydrate items such as nuts, seeds, wild fruits and vegetables. Carbohydrate-rich cereal grains did not appear in any meaningful quantity in the human diet until the onset of the agricultural revolution some 10,000 years ago.

Humans evolved on meat-based, low to moderate carbohydrate nutrition, meaning that low carbohydrate diets are far more in accordance with man's genetic evolution than the low-animal fat, high carbohydrate nonsense that is currently espoused by mainstream authorities.

The anti-animal fat, high carbohydrate diet concept is a mere 4 decades old, nothing more than a speculative construct of mid-twentieth century researchers who were at a loss to explain the high prevalence of CHD in modernized countries.

While the paleolithic diet kept the human species thriving for over two-million years, the track record of the high-carbohydrate, grain-based diet movement is atrocious - their persistent, fanatical rantings against animal fats have been remarkably successful in driving people towards vegetable fats and carbohydrate-rich foodstuffs, the increasing consumption of which has been accompanied by alarming increases in the incidence of obesity and Type-2 diabetes

And here is his conclusion, which I quote as is:

"Those criticising low-carbohydrate diets often do so under false pretenses. They unfairly equate high-carb, high-fat diets with low-carb, high-fat diets, even though they have vastly different metabolic effects.

Another tactic employed by such critics is to create fear of possible adverse effects, which upon closer inspection only concern individuals with certain metabolic defects. As we have seen, this tactic is applied to claims of kidney damage and ketoacidosis, even though there is no evidence that low-carbohydrate diets initiate these ailments.

Indeed, hypertensive kidney damage and ketoacidosis are complications of diabetes, a disease associated with excessive carbohydrate intake.

Years ago, I believed the high-carbohydrate propaganda and followed a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet. When it became apparent that this diet was not conducive to optimal health and performance, I had no choice but to experiment. Through trial and error I adopted a paleolithic-style low-carbohydrate diet. The result has been a marked improvement in energy, mental focus, blood sugar control, and an ability to maintain year round single-digit body-fat levels. I encourage all my personal training clients to follow low-carbohydrate nutrition, and those who take my advice invariably experience benefits similar to my own."

There you are, with the pro and cons of Atkins diet.

About the author:
Drawing from his 30-year experience as a medical translator, teacher, traveler, musician, writer, deep multicultural awareness plus worldwide ancient spiritual traditions, A.M.Sall helps people "turn all their living days into quality time" in his self-development community at: http://www.health-beauty-wellness.com
Sign-up for free lifelong membership and claim your free "Healthy Foods" minicoudrse.

by: Will Brink
Copyright 2005 Internet Publications

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
"A calorie is a calorie"

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The "calories don't matter" school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

"Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"


This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:
"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).

Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:

An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!

There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.

Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like!

About the author:
See more excellent bodybuilding, fat loss, and sports nutrition articles from Will Brink here: http://www.brinkzone.com/onlinearticles.html And see Will's other websites here: http://www.dietsupplementsreview.com and http://www.musclebuildingguide.com