An eggs, cheese and beef diet

moonage

If a person was stranded on a desert island for six months with only eggs, cheese and beef to eat, how healthy do you think they'd be at the end of it?

I think they'd be quite healthy, probably healthier than the average man/woman in the street. And if they started out being overweight they'd more than likely end up being close to their ideal weight.

What do you think?

>>>>

EileenG

Almost certainly.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson was one of the first researchers of the Inuit. When he come back and reported they ate almost no veg or fruit or other carbs, but still remained healthy, the medical establishment called him a liar or a sloppy researcher. They said it wasn't possible. To prove them wrong, he and a fellow researcher checked into a New York hospital where they were constantly supervised by the American Medical Association, and they ate nothing but meat for a year. They checked out a year later, lighter but both perfectly healthy.

Of course, the boredom factor is likely to be huge.

jam_mac_jam

you would want to make sure that you eat all the organs as well.

moonage

I've just read a book called Trick and Treat by Barry Groves in which he says carbohydrates are not biologically necessary and fruit and vegetables may not be biologically necessary, or are at least overrated.

So, what we're told to eat the most of(carbs) we don't even need for survival or optimal health. Amazing.

>>>>

metamorphosis

moonage wrote: »

I've just read a book called Trick and Treat by Barry Groves in which he says carbohydrates are not biologically necessary and fruit and vegetables may not be biologically necessary, or are at least overrated.

So, what we're told to eat the most of(carbs) we don't even need for survival or optimal health. Amazing.

>>>>

Id agree with some of the sentiments. I personally could never live on that diet with the training i do and i believe that green leafy non root veg are excellent for everyones diet but i would echo that the diet above would be healthy.

When i undertook low carb when injured last year, i not only lost a fair bit of weight while sedentary ... i also did it eating a fair amount of food, a few times a day. My tummy cramps went away as did bloating in my stomach (IBS runs in the family), and my skin was glowing. I was astounded. Gotta love tuna and full fat greek yogurt and double cream :P

batperson

For that to really work all those food sources would have to be organic as factory hens eggs, and beef injected with the usual mix is not healthy. But since it's a desert island, I guess organic is more likely;)

The only reason I say this, is because it is becomming really challenging to find good organic beef in dublin without taking out a second mortgage

dxhound2005

moonage wrote: »

If a person was stranded on a desert island for six months with only eggs, cheese and beef to eat, how healthy do you think they'd be at the end of it?

I think they'd be quite healthy, probably healthier than the average man/woman in the street. And if they started out being overweight they'd more than likely end up being close to their ideal weight.

What do you think?

>>>>

What do you base your assertion about health on? I do hope you have no intention on of going on that diet. Someone living in the Arctic or on a desert island won't have the same range of foods available as we have in Ireland. I am quite worried about some of the stuff I read on this forum especially people recommending Atkins or variation of it.

Everyone should eat a balanced diet including some carbohydrate in every meal and do some exercise. I have been given advice on diet by a qualified nutritionist in the local hospital and it is broadly in line with the advice on this link.

http://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/071102BalanceRight.pdf

moonage

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What do you base your assertion about health on? I do hope you have no intention on of going on that diet. Someone living in the Arctic or on a desert island won't have the same range of foods available as we have in Ireland. I am quite worried about some of the stuff I read on this forum especially people recommending Atkins or variation of it.

Everyone should eat a balanced diet including some carbohydrate in every meal and do some exercise. I have been given advice on diet by a qualified nutritionist in the local hospital and it is broadly in line with the advice on this link.

http://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/071102BalanceRight.pdf

No, I'm not going on that specific diet, although it's not that far off. I'm moving towards a low carb/moderate protein/high fat diet, so mostly eggs, dairy, meat, fish and fowl (and a little bread so I'll have something to put lots of butter or soft cheese on).

Protein and fat are essential for life and health; carbohydrates are not biologically necessary. Our distant ancestors ate little, if any, carbs.

The "balanced diet" you speak of, which is high carb/low fat, is a fairly recent phenomenon but obesity, diabetes and many other diseases are continually rising since its introduction.

Iristxo

EileenG wrote: »

Almost certainly.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson was one of the first researchers of the Inuit. When he come back and reported they ate almost no veg or fruit or other carbs, but still remained healthy, the medical establishment called him a liar or a sloppy researcher. They said it wasn't possible. To prove them wrong, he and a fellow researcher checked into a New York hospital where they were constantly supervised by the American Medical Association, and they ate nothing but meat for a year. They checked out a year later, lighter but both perfectly healthy.

Of course, the boredom factor is likely to be huge.

Hang on a second. I really don't get this. No carbs from sugar or flour, that seems logical, because of the insulin reaction, I buy that totally. Soya, legumes, etc, can be harmful because of such and such, ok with that. At a push, I can even understand that the fructose in fruit can be harmful. But all of a sudden we don't NEED green veg? Like, the one, THE ONE, group of foods that absolutely everyone that I know, vegetarian or not, raw-foodist or not, tell you to pile on? What about all the nutrients in vegetables?

And also, if yo don't do carbs at all, them what are the ratios? Temple Grandin says it would be fairly difficult to do as much as 40% protein in one meal, so without veg what do you do, like 60% fat and 40% protein? Or like 50% protein and 50% fat? Or what? I mean, in my book, this is crazy. What about vitamins? All the range of vitamins that we need are in eggs, beef and cheese (which is not particuarly good for all the lactose-intolerant anyway)?

Heheh THIS IS NOT DIRECTED TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR but, really, I think this is loosing the plot altogether. My two-cent.

jam_mac_jam

Iristxo wrote: »

Hang on a second. I really don't get this. No carbs from sugar or flour, that seems logical, because of the insulin reaction, I buy that totally. Soya, legumes, etc, can be harmful because of such and such, ok with that. At a push, I can even understand that the fructose in fruit can be harmful. But all of a sudden we don't NEED green veg? Like, the one, THE ONE, group of foods that absolutely everyone that I know, vegetarian or not, raw-foodist or not, tell you to pile on? What about all the nutrients in vegetables?

And also, if yo don't do carbs at all, them what are the ratios? Temple Grandin says it would be fairly difficult to do as much as 40% protein in one meal, so without veg what do you do, like 60% fat and 40% protein? Or like 50% protein and 50% fat? Or what? I mean, in my book, this is crazy. What about vitamins? All the range of vitamins that we need are in eggs, beef and cheese (which is not particuarly good for all the lactose-intolerant anyway)?

Heheh THIS IS NOT DIRECTED TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR but, really, I think this is loosing the plot altogether. My two-cent.

I agree, and any way I would much rather eat veg than meat all the time anyway. I dont know if I am convinced that beans and legumes are bad for you anyway.
This is a completely unrealistic way of eating, disgusting and expensive. I cant imagine your bowels would thank you for it either.

jam_mac_jam

moonage wrote: »

No, I'm not going on that specific diet, although it's not that far off. I'm moving towards a low carb/moderate protein/high fat diet, so mostly eggs, dairy, meat, fish and fowl (and a little bread so I'll have something to put lots of butter or soft cheese on).

Protein and fat are essential for life and health; carbohydrates are not biologically necessary. Our distant ancestors ate little, if any, carbs.

The "balanced diet" you speak of, which is high carb/low fat, is a fairly recent phenomenon but obesity, diabetes and many other diseases are continually rising since its introduction.

So you will be eating meat, dairy and some bread, but not vegetables, I am sorry I am lost on the logic there.

Iristxo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

This is a completely unrealistic way of eating, disgusting and expensive. I cant imagine your bowels would thank you for it either.

I would not buy non-organic meat personally cos the diet that you guys talk about would not work with non-organic meat. We're a family of four: if we were to eat organic beef and eggs all the time our food bill would run into the thousands. It's pretty high as it is! (all the dairy and the little meat that we eat is always organic)

Iristxo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

So you will be eating meat, dairy and some bread, but not vegetables, I am sorry I am lost on the logic there.

Me too.

dxhound2005

moonage wrote: »

No, I'm not going on that specific diet, although it's not that far off. I'm moving towards a low carb/moderate protein/high fat diet, so mostly eggs, dairy, meat, fish and fowl (and a little bread so I'll have something to put lots of butter or soft cheese on).

Protein and fat are essential for life and health; carbohydrates are not biologically necessary. Our distant ancestors ate little, if any, carbs.

The "balanced diet" you speak of, which is high carb/low fat, is a fairly recent phenomenon but obesity, diabetes and many other diseases are continually rising since its introduction.

I wouldn't worry too much about your distant ancestors but if I was a relation of yours now I would be very worried about the effect on your health of what you propose. You should consult your doctor or a qualified dietician before you do something drastic like that.

moonage

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

So you will be eating meat, dairy and some bread, but not vegetables, I am sorry I am lost on the logic there.

How are you lost?

I'm not totally ruling vegetables out. I might ocassionly eat small portions but I think they're overrated. Most of the vitamins and minerals can be got from meat, dairy, eggs etc.

We're supposed to have 5 portions of fruit and veg a day but how did they arrive at this number. They plucked it out of the air.

EileenG

I never said I recommended an all egg and meat diet, but I do know people who do it and thrive on it, And I reported one of the earliest cases of someone who did it under scrutiny to prove a point.

I like my veggies far too much to do this, but the evidence so far is that it won't do any harm.

Iristxo

moonage wrote: »

We're supposed to have 5 portions of fruit and veg a day but how did they arrive at this number. They plucked it out of the air.

It's actually more like minimum 11 but they kept it at 5 cos they thought it was more achievable for people. But you do go ahead and get all the range of vitamins, minerals and nutrients needed for health out of that diet. I hope you revert back to us in 20 years time and tell us that your health is the best of all of us, although somehow I doubt it.

Iristxo

EileenG wrote: »

I never said I recommended an all egg and meat diet, but I do know people who do it and thrive on it, And I reported one of the earliest cases of someone who did it under scrutiny to prove a point.

I like my veggies far too much to do this, but the evidence so far is that it won't do any harm.

I actually put incredible time and effort every day into cooking as many vegetables and as wide a variety a possible for me and my kids and "convince them" to eat them. Believe me it is hard when you have two under-threes and work part time and you have to cook at least twice a day. If only I'd known I was wasting my time!

Sapsorrow

moonage wrote: »

We're supposed to have 5 portions of fruit and veg a day but how did they arrive at this number. They plucked it out of the air.

Eh no they didn't.

Sapsorrow

If you're interested in what our ancestors ate or what we evolved to eat then why include dairy?

Jesus Wept

So it we don't need to eat veg?
I'm confused.

Sapsorrow

I can't say I've ever looked into it but I really can't imagine there's much research done on this and certainly not enough to say without a doubt that it's safe. Changing your way of eating so drastically after reading ONE book (I assuming) on the topic is a bit mad, anyone can write a book on nutrition and it's very hard to be able to objectively judge scientific research without a good background in biology, physiology and biochemistry. Maybe you have that ability I don't know I'm just saying if you don't have that background understanding you're pretty much just taking their word for it that they're accurately presenting the evidence with no bias or misunderstanding of their own. I think it's a bit absurd and I'd imagine it would be very important that the meat be eaten raw and that plenty of organ meats were eaten. Also people like to romanticise about what are ancestors ate but we are undeniably under very different stresses and strains in the modern world and I'm very much inclined to think that the bioactive compounds in fruit and vegetables are extremely important for us to able to withstand these stresses whether emotional, physical, chemical or whatever.

Sapsorrow

The-Rigger wrote: »

So it we don't need to eat veg?
I'm confused.

Don't believe everything you read

EileenG

Let's just say that normally I'm a huge advocate of eating lots of veggies. But if you were stranded on a desert island, or on a strange planet, and didn't know what plants were safe to eat, you wouldn't die if you stuck to meat and fish.

Iristxo

EileenG wrote: »

Let's just say that normally I'm a huge advocate of eating lots of veggies. But if you were stranded on a desert island, or on a strange planet, and didn't know what plants were safe to eat, you wouldn't die if you stuck to meat and fish.

Yes but your health would not be ideal either, which is what all of us here are trying to achieve. MOST people on Standard European Diet do not die straight-away either, western-world diseases are slow killers, that does not mean their diet is the healthiest.

EileenG

True, but the original question was about a desert island.

Sapsorrow

Iristxo wrote: »

Yes but your health would not be ideal either, which is what all of us here are trying to achieve. MOST people on Standard European Diet do not die straight-away either, western-world diseases are slow killers, that does not mean their diet is the healthiest.

Ya I see what you mean, I would have to see some seriously good big long-term intervention trials before I'd accept this diet as safe. I don't think a year of two of a trial using only one person (or was it two?) is evidence of much really. I also don't put much stock in comparing extremely different cultures either, the inuit and others may be perfectly well adapted to eating a predominantly meat diet without getting heart disease but that doesn't necessarily translate that we can do the same, we're obviously genetically distinct. Also I'd like to know how their risk factors for other chronic diseases vary compared to traditional people who do eat a lot of plant foods. I think not needing carbs and not needing vegetables are two very different things. Veg offers more to the diet than just energy, also I'd be very interested to see just how well someone would feel on a long term ketogenic diet in terms of energy, mental capacity etc. I can't imagine it would feel great at all. Must look into it when I've more spare time.

Khannie

moonage wrote: »

Protein and fat are essential for life and health; carbohydrates are not biologically necessary. Our distant ancestors ate little, if any, carbs.

If we never ate any carbs there wouldn't be so many biological facilities for dealing with them and using them as an energy source. Fruit tastes good for a reason.

There's just not enough fibre in that diet for anything approaching the medium term. Bowel cancer ahoy. There wasn't too much cheese around in your distant ancestors time either.

A bit of balance people. Please. The crossfit advice is about the simplest and best I've seen anywhere:

base your diet on garden vegetables, especially greens, lean meats, nuts and seeds, little starch, and no sugar

Win. Link.

I take the "no sugar" to mean "no refined sugar". Fruit in moderation ftw.

While it's paleo-esque, it's not fanatical.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I am quite worried about some of the stuff I read on this forum especially people recommending Atkins or variation of it.

Starting to get that way myself. There's a very heavy atkins bias on this forum now.

Iristxo

Khannie wrote: »

Starting to get that way myself. There's a very heavy atkins bias on this forum now.

+1

Sapsorrow

Khannie wrote: »

If we never ate any carbs there wouldn't be so many biological facilities for dealing with them and using them as an energy source. Fruit tastes good for a reason.

There's just not enough fibre in that diet for anything approaching the medium term. Bowel cancer ahoy. There wasn't too much cheese around in your distant ancestors time either.

A bit of balance people. Please. The crossfit advice is about the simplest and best I've seen anywhere:



Win. Link.

I take the "no sugar" to mean "no refined sugar". Fruit in moderation ftw.

While it's paleo-esque, it's not fanatical.



Starting to get that way myself. There's a very heavy atkins bias on this forum now.

+1 the basis of good nutrition in one sentance I love it! I hope this post inspires people more so than the original posts in this thread. It worries me that people read this stuff and assume it's safe.

metamorphosis

Khannie wrote: »

Starting to get that way myself. There's a very heavy atkins bias on this forum now.

+ 1million

Sapsorrow

Khannie wrote: »

There's a very heavy atkins bias on this forum now.

Yup and at least Atkins doesn't dis veggies!

Iristxo

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Yup and at least Atkins doesn't dis veggies!

True

EileenG

Nobody is dissing veggies.

moonage

Eating vegetables is fine, and I sometimes eat small amounts myself, but some of you seem to attribute certain magical powers to them that they don't have.

Almost all vitamins and minerals can be obtained from eggs, dairy, meat etc (even Vitamin C).

As regards an "Atkins bias" there probably is but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Most humans have been eating a high fat/low carb diet for tens of thousands of years and have thrived on it. It's not as if R. Atkins invented it; he just repopularised it.

corkcomp

Khannie wrote: »

Starting to get that way myself. There's a very heavy atkins bias on this forum now.

+1
TBH I dont read this forum half as much as i used to before because the obsession with atkins is getting boring now:rolleyes: this is a diet and nutrition forum so it really shouldnt be swinging towards any specific diet, aside from an overall healthy one (and i know opinions will vary on what such a diet should consist of) the ONLY way anybody can eat unlimited quantities of fat is if they dont eat ANYTHING that is likely to cause an insulin spike.

Sapsorrow

But I don't think any of the regulars here are on Atkins? We discuss carb moderation a lot but I don't consider myself to be an Atkins advocate or follower. Isn't Atkins only 40g of carbs a day or something like that?

corkcomp

tbh a lot of the atkins stuff should be confined to the O/T thread, not everyone who posts looking to lose weight is going to want to be told to cut down fruit and root veg and some of the other advice given. (im not a fan of white / processed grains, just for the record). the level of carbs atkins recommends is down to which phase you are on, but i dont want to get into a discussion on that.

brianthebard

Iristxo wrote: »

It's actually more like minimum 11 but they kept it at 5 cos they thought it was more achievable for people. But you do go ahead and get all the range of vitamins, minerals and nutrients needed for health out of that diet. I hope you revert back to us in 20 years time and tell us that your health is the best of all of us, although somehow I doubt it.

Tbh I think you need to start plugging some foods into fitday and see what macros and more importantly vitamins and minerals would be ingested on the op's hypothetical diet. I'm not suggesting that someone should live off those three items and nothing more but your incredulity is a bit over the top.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Eh no they didn't.

In fairness they sort of did.

brianthebard

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Isn't Atkins only 40g of carbs a day or something like that?

How can you say there is an atkins bias in this forum when you don't even know what it is properly? I don't think people should have to justify or defend the posts they make based on an op's question, that's how a discussion goes. If someone begins with a question about 'why the sky is blue?' you don't answer by saying 'but what about the blueness of the sea, can't you see more than one thing can be blue??' or something similar. And that is not directed at you specifically but at anyone who takes these uncompromising positions in a thread which rarely actually relate to the original point.

moonage

corkcomp wrote: »

+1
TBH I dont read this forum half as much as i used to before because the obsession with atkins is getting boring now:rolleyes: this is a diet and nutrition forum so it really shouldnt be swinging towards any specific diet, aside from an overall healthy one (and i know opinions will vary on what such a diet should consist of)

So instead you'd prefer a bias towards the traditional food pyramid diet(the so called healthy one)? High carb/low fat?

corkcomp wrote: »

the ONLY way anybody can eat unlimited quantities of fat is if they dont eat ANYTHING that is likely to cause an insulin spike.

I don't follow. Anyway, who would want to eat unlimited fat?

Sapsorrow

corkcomp wrote: »

tbh a lot of the atkins stuff should be confined to the O/T thread, not everyone who posts looking to lose weight is going to want to be told to cut down fruit and root veg and some of the other advice given. (im not a fan of white / processed grains, just for the record). the level of carbs atkins recommends is down to which phase you are on, but i dont want to get into a discussion on that.

Fair enough. God I never would have thought my diet qualified as atkins! Bizarre, I didn't think it was possible for a vegetarian! When people ask for advice though we all offer what we think will work best and what has worked for us and it's up the the op to decide for themselves what changes they incorporate into their diets. If they're not interested in cutting fruit so be it they're not under any pressure, I think people usually get a great balance of perspectives when the ask for help.

Sapsorrow

brianthebard wrote: »

How can you say there is an atkins bias in this forum when you don't even know what it is properly? I don't think people should have to justify or defend the posts they make based on an op's question, that's how a discussion goes. If someone begins with a question about 'why the sky is blue?' you don't answer by saying 'but what about the blueness of the sea, can't you see more than one thing can be blue??' or something similar. And that is not directed at you specifically but at anyone who takes these uncompromising positions in a thread which rarely actually relate to the original point.

I was responding to corkcomp with that not the op's question there, I should have been more clear, I think there is a bias to an eating style similar to Atkins although not quite as low carb I would have thought. Apparantly I eat in lines with Atkins which is news to me as I only tried counting my days carbs for the first time yesterday! I know atkins is in the range of 20g or so for the initial phases to induce ketogenesis but I didn't know off hand what the reccomended maintenance level was I seem to remember it being between 40 and 60g?

Fair enough though, you're right about going off topic and the blueness of things I have a bad habit of doing that but sometimes you just get carried away with these more unusual topics!

brianthebard

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I was responding to corkcomp with that not the op's question there, I should have been more clear, I think there is a bias to an eating style similar to Atkins although not quite as low carb I would have thought. Apparantly I eat in lines with Atkins which is news to me as I only tried counting my days carbs for the first time yesterday! I know atkins is in the range of 20g or so for the initial phases to induce ketogenesis but I didn't know off hand what the reccomended maintenance level was I seem to remember it being between 40 and 60g?

Ok that's fair enough if you were having a different discussion and I didn't realise that, sorry.
It just irks me when labels are applied without reason, I mean you're not following atkins, whether you eat a similar amount of carbs or not shouldn't really matter should it?
I guess part of the reason it annoys me is atkins generally has a bad name and might be used in a somewhat derogatory fashion - I don't think that's what you're doing, but I think putting labels on these things is a bit reductionist and doesn't serve to enhance debate.

I mean everyone who replied positively to this thread clearly said they wouldn't fancy the op's hypothetical diet or they didn't recommend it, but this seems to have gone over the heads of a lot of posters.

moonage

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Apparantly I eat in lines with Atkins which is news to me as I only tried counting my days carbs for the first time yesterday! I know atkins is in the range of 20g or so for the initial phases to induce ketogenesis but I didn't know off hand what the reccomended maintenance level was I seem to remember it being between 40 and 60g?

Low carbs is only one side of if. High fat is the other (and moderate protein).

Low carb/low fat won't be as healthy.

I prefer to call it a low carb/high fat diet rather than Atkins.

Darkginger

I would urge those of you who have concerns about low carb eating (and I understand why so many have concerns, given that the 'professionals' have been urging us to eat according to the Food Pyramid for the last few decades), to read Gary Taube's 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' - or at least the notes to it, which can be found here.

That book (or those notes) might help you to see 'our' side of the argument a bit - there have been considerably more than one or two studies of eating a low carb diet, and its long term effect on health.

When it comes down to it, it's up to each of us to research for ourselves, and then make an educated choice based on what we discover. Any anecdotal posts about personal experiences here or on any other discussion board should never form the basis of such an important choice. I don't advocate low carb, I advocate research

corkcomp

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Fair enough. God I never would have thought my diet qualified as atkins! Bizarre, I didn't think it was possible for a vegetarian!

i dont know where you got that idea tbh, i wasnt commenting on your diet at all, i was originally replying (in agreement) to Khannie's post

Sapsorrow

moonage wrote: »

Low carbs is only one side of if. High fat is the other (and moderate protein).

Low carb/low fat won't be as healthy.

I prefer to call it a low carb/high fat diet rather than Atkins.

True! Low carb AND low fat sounds like a disaster to me! Low fat in any ways bad really imo.

Sapsorrow

corkcomp wrote: »

i dont know where you got that idea tbh, i wasnt commenting on your diet at all, i was originally replying (in agreement) to Khannie's post

Oops sorry I misinterpreted you, heads not right today obviously :rolleyes:

Edit: actually I just reaslised I completely misread you! I'm gonna stick to writing my lit review and not try and do this at the same time it's obviously not working out very well for me!

Iristxo

When we said there's an "Atkins bias" we meant that a lot of the advise in this forum goes on that low-carb/high fat sort of direction, which makes the whole thing a little one-sided. And I do feel it is like that. Maybe it is because the non-low-carbers are not so out-spoken but it is definitely a big bias in this forum.

Iristxo

moonage wrote: »

Eating vegetables is fine, and I sometimes eat small amounts myself, but some of you seem to attribute certain magical powers to them that they don't have.

According to most nutritionist in the world they do actually have magical powers. Up until today I have heard of many people of hundreds of different types of diet bash about every single food there is in the world for one reason or another (even water believe it or not). The one, I mean the one food group that everyone seem to agree that there is literally no down-side to, is green veg.