Quote from: KayXo on December 07, 2014, 03:30:12 PM
When I ate normally, in other words higher carb and lower fat, I still did not get much feminization from lower levels of E although you might have a point that going higher FAT and lower CARB will thin you out, give one a more angular face and body so that it might reveal the more masculine bone structure under the skin. Indeed, you might have a point. So while I eat plenty of fat, I also eat carbs to avoid this.
Eating too much fat (100+ g/day) seems to enlarge my face vertically, giving it a more masculine shape. A few days on a lower-fat diet (<50 g/day)reverses that effect for me.
QuoteThis injection is subcutaneous and might contain something that causes pain. If estradiol injection contains no preservative, alcohol that you are allergic to, is injected intramuscularly into butt where plenty of fat, done well, then there shouldn't be pain.
Actually, my T blocker was given by an experienced doctor as an intramuscular injection into the butt, and I am not allergic to any of its contents. I still had pain, but no swelling.
QuoteLOL. The same happens with injections. I didn't see results over night!
You probably would have seen very rapid results had you used injections sooner, like at my current stage in the process. As I understand it, you used injections at a later stage, after some feminization had occurred already, when lower levels were no longer effective enough. As one becomes more feminine, it may require higher levels to induce further feminization by changing features that are resistant to lower levels. I have nothing against that approach provided that it is done safely under a doctor's supervision, but it would be wrong to assume that injections would produce slow progress in an early stage just because they produced slow progress in a later stage.
QuoteWhy aren't carbs filling? Empty calories?
Carbohydrates leave the stomach faster; the reduced fullness is largely due to a higher rate of gastric emptying. Indeed, many of the "carbs" eaten today are added sugars and heavily processed foods like bleached flour that have little nutritional value, and are thus empty calories. Switching to unrefined, complex carbs that come with their nutrients and fiber intact, like whole grains, instead of typical processed foods can reduce gastric emptying rates and increase nutritional value. The problem with carbohydrate consumption therefore lies not in the carbs themselves, but rather in the way that modern food processing has stripped carbohydrate-rich foods of their nutritional value.
QuotePutting the body into fat storage mode so that sugar is nature's way of safeguarding against later periods of lower available amounts of food?And suddenly when fat is available and freely eaten, there is no fat storage anymore because the body's signal is plenty of food right now.
I think that theory was debunked in the article I provided. The body stores fat easily regardless of whether a diet is high-fat or high-carb, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. When the body's signal is "plenty of food right now," it tries to store fat because, in the past, there was no guarantee it would stay that way.
QuoteIt is true that when one eats more fat and less carbs, hunger goes down, we eat less but also fats contain much more calories per gram, more than twice as much as carbs.
There are plenty of overweight people on low-carb diets.
QuoteI question this. I'll have to reread Taube's book also and really take a note of studies, etc. Have you personally read the book?
No, but I have looked at many studies directly, and that is my conclusion. I prefer to avoid books by people who have an agenda of advancing any particular diet, because they tend to 'cherry pick' portions of studies that support their conclusion, while ignoring parts that contradict it.
Furthermore, most studies finding superiority of a low-carb diet relative to a low-fat diet are invalid because they also change a third variable, protein, simultaneously. It could be that the small benefit of low-carb diets often observed is due to their higher protein content, and indeed that is what many authors are concluding. It is not necessary to go low-carb in order to eat more protein.
QuoteHow can protein be more satiating than fat? Protein is mostly for rebuilding muscle, not used for energy.
Protein has fewer than half as many calories per gram, so that it can still be more satiating on a per-calorie basis despite being less so on a per-gram basis. The same cannot be said about carbs because they empty from the stomach more quickly. The satiating effect of protein is further enhanced by thermogenesis. Protein can be used for energy when fats and carbs are in short supply, but much less efficiently. This lower efficiency also makes it more difficult to convert protein to body fat, relative to other calories. Protein also tends to promote muscle rather than fat, and muscle tissue is more thermogenic. As a result, an increased-calorie diet could be expected to cause less weight gain when more of the extra calories come from protein. Therefore, it may be helpful in the prevention of obesity.
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2003/11000/The_significance_of_protein_in_food_intake_and.5.aspxQuoteA high protein diet is DANGEROUS. People have died or had major health complications from such a diet. They will start craving fat/carbs after awhile and for a very good reason.
I never recommended a high protein diet, but merely increasing the protein content of a standard diet, kind of like in this study where they found that doubling the protein content of a standard diet led to lower overall calorie consumption, a likely explanation for any benefit of low-carb diets, which tend to be higher in protein.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41.longQuoteI'm talking about a high fat/low protein diet so your argument doesn't hold. Up to 85% of calories from fat and the rest from protein. You go lower than 65% of calories of fat and you start getting into a dangerous zone.
Such a diet would be unhealthy because it is so restrictive on the food choices available. Perhaps that is why there is insufficient evidence from comparative studies involving a high fat/low protein diet to evaluate your conclusion; it would be probably be considered unethical LOL. My conclusion therefore holds when realistic scenarios are used.
QuoteTake the Inuit population from the past and the doctors/explorers that observed their health and wrote reports or books....they ate no (or barely any) fiber and plenty of fat, some saturared, some mono and some poly. But, mostly fat. The incidence of heart disease was inexistent.
The Inuits also had some of the shortest life expectancy on Earth; their low rate of heart disease was largely because heart disease is an age-related illness and very few of them lived long enough to develop it. If my grandfather had died of an accident at 45, he never would have had a heart attack, and therefore would not have contributed to the status of heart disease as the #1 killer, but it is hard to see how that would have been a good thing.
QuoteOnly in the short-term. Stick with it, give your body time to adapt and things improve.
Bowel problems often do persist long-term because a certain amount of fiber is required to promote regularity.
QuoteThe human body is omnivorous because fat wasn't always available so that if starches were available, it would be useful to avoid starvation. Also, they might be traces from a past when we ate more vegetables, similar to some our primate cousins.
Perhaps we could learn something from those primates. Eating more vegetables is routinely linked to good health in humans, and some evidence suggests it can help with weight loss, too:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1465.shortQuoteAmericans eat much more carbs than most Europeans and also much less fat...since the low fat propaganda, weight problems have continued to increase in N. America.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/500181-what-is-average-caloric-intake-of-people/A difference of 3 percentage points in fat (18% vs. 21%) is rather small. Americans also consume more total Calories and more sugar. It is unlikely that the lower fat:carb ratio can explain America's weight problems given the small difference and the presence of other explanatory factors.
Furthermore, low-fat propaganda is irrelevant because most Americans do not follow a low fat diet. Low-carb diets have been growing in popularity even as America has become fatter. If low-fat diets really caused weight problems, then most vegans would be fat and that is clearly not the case.
QuoteIn poor populations that don't have much to eat but eat mostly carbs including starches, you will notice plenty of fat people, especially women while their richer counterparts who have access to meat, and more fat are in a better predicament.
Protein deficiency occurs in those places and contributes to high weight and body fat percentage. That problem can usually be corrected with a small amount of inexpensive beans. It does not require a high fat or meat-rich diet, which many people in poor countries cannot afford.
QuotePoor people are also usually more active and yet more obese.
Most poor people in America are very sedentary; physical activity is reserved for those who can afford it.
QuoteAt one time, 80% of my calories came from fat and my T remained low. I had no signs of androgenization. I ate this way for at least 1 year and a half. At that time, my E levels were VERY low too.
Fat intake seems to have little, if any, effect on my measured T level now while on blockers, but it still increases masculinity for me. That could be because of my stomach condition, which makes it difficult for fat and fiber to exit my stomach. Also, eating too many calories does make me feel like my T production is spiking, and I tend to eat more calories when I eat more fat.
QuoteHow would creating more bulk decrease constipation
It is stimulating, which is not necessarily irritating. Stimulation is only irritating if it occurs in excess.
Quoteit might actually make things worse by creating some sort of congestion where intestines are overwhelmed.
In certain extreme situations, yes. I would not recommend consuming 100+ grams per day. At healthy doses, however, that is unlikely to occur.
QuoteIt is a well-known fact that fiber irritates the lining of intestines, ask biologists and that's why it helps to move things along.
If I were to accept that as fact, it would not prove that such irritation necessarily has any negative health effect.
QuoteWrong. Animals like herbivores which eat plenty of fiber have a digestive system very much UNLIKE ours. Ours resemble more what the pigs (omnivores) and even carnivores have like the lions or wolves.
While it is true that humans lack a multi-chambered stomach, not all herbivores have that. Carnivores have much shorter intestines and much more acidic stomachs than us, which is why humans need to worry about acute meat-borne illness and carnivores do not. The human body is clearly not adapted for meat consumption.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pe0FdA6CnGAhDUhKknqQGKdPmwWqEvWi8cYMZc5zZZg/preview?pli=1QuoteWhich our species have not had time to adapt to and I'm talking about grains here, not fruits.
Thousands of years is long enough to adapt. We saw that occur with lactose tolerance, which did not exist before the rise of cattle ranching.
Quoteon a healthy diet of high fat, low protein, you won't need antioxidants as cancer is much less likely, it appears.
High fat consumption increases the rate of oxidative damage, thereby increasing the rate of aging and some cancers. The evidence is so compelling that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration even endorses this claim on certain low-fat products: "A diet low in total fat may reduce the risk of some cancers, which depends on many factors."
QuoteLow fat stuff where they take away the fat and replace it with chemicals to still make it taste good, has been stripped away from its nutrients and becomes unhealthy because of all those chemicals. It's quite untasty as well, if you ask me.
I would have to agree, unless the chemical is salt. I love my salt and the science against it is rather weak in my opinion. However, the same can also be said of low carb stuff where they use flavor enhancers and artificial sweeteners to make it taste good. Processed food is unhealthy, regardless of which diet it is compatible with.
QuoteI believe fried foods are unhealthy and these have no relation to saturated fatty acids which are present in nature. Trans fatty acids are transformed fats, man made fats, unnatural and I wouldn't be surprised to see a negative direct association between them and health complications. But they are not the same as saturated.
Trans fats are rarely used in frying these days, at least in the USA. The problem with fried foods is that the added fat offers nothing but calories. Even if it is 'healthy' fat, nutrient density of any diet is lower when such 'empty calories' are added.
QuoteFat achieves the same and delivers nutrients, without irritating bowel. 
Certain nutrients, like vitamin C, are not found in high-fat foods.
QuoteThis contradicts what you said earlier, about how the reason why people lose weight on higher fat is because they eat LESS calories because now you are actually asserting that you eat MORE calories when you eat MORE fat. (
?)
Regarding weight loss, I was referring to a higher fat diet with a prescribed limit on calorie intake. The effect of an uncontrolled increase in fat on calorie consumption is likely to vary from one person to another, depending on food choices and sensitivity to eating cues. For me personally, the link between more fat and more calories is clear, but I am a binge eater so my case may not be generalizable to those who eat 3+ normal-sized meals per day. I tend to eat until my stomach cannot hold any more, and since fat is more energy-dense, it makes sense that my stomach can hold more calories in one session when the energy density of the food is higher, ie. when there is more fat.
QuoteYou should really consider reading the book Fat of the Land (Not By Bread Alone) by Stefansson available for free as pdf. You might reconsider your assumptions.
Too much of anything
is bad. Eat too much at once, and vomiting will occur. Even water, the most essential substance for life on Earth, can be fatal in cases of overdose. It is common sense among scientists and nutritionists that calorie intake is the primary factor in weight changes. That is why almost all scientific research comparing diets controls for calorie intake. If calories did not matter, then scientists would not be so concerned about making sure their subjects consume a precise number of calories, and dieticians would not be so concerned about portion size.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0804748Lastly, I will leave you with some food for thought: Carbs, mostly from grains, have been an important part of the human diet for millennia, yet obesity was almost nonexistent until the last century. What has changed in recent decades? Higher calorie consumption and intensive food processing that strips food of its nutrients and renders it less filling. And it is not just carbohydrate calories that have increased, but meat consumption too. Interesting...
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
