[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Perhaps this might be a counterpoint: People ALL over the world, whether meat eaters or plant eaters, were quite diminutive in size in general compared to today's man. So the general increase in height and weight may be correlated strongly to general increase in caloric intake rather than the change in diet. In fact the average height and weight of those places are still low where the diet in general is low in calories (again whether it is meat or vegetables).

True. But Japan's is well-accepted amongst evolutionary scientists. In case of India too I have read in newspapers that the average height in increasing, ascribed mainly to increase in high protein diet mainly milk, eggs, poultry and mutton along with cereals.

Originally Posted by alpha1

Now to examine the diet aspect: Mongolians, Eskimos, Inuits, Red Indians, Bushmen, Aborignals are/were primarily paleo style meat eaters. Not very imposing in size though!

Well... small games and primarily following hunter-gatherer lifestyle. But some examples defnitely not diminutive. And please don't construe me to mean that diet is the only factor, climate is much much more important.

Let me add one qualification that cultures which after leading settled lifestyle based their meals around meats had more musculature.

Very complex and confusing.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

1. But much of the fact you can easily extrapolate. See around you. Communities which are primarily vegetarian or consume fish lack in muscles. People where meat has been main food are better built. And by red meat it is not puny goats, it means beef, buffaloes, horses, camels etc. Look at groups, which have been following this diet for centuries a trend will emerge.

2.As far as our country is concerned, I base my hypothesis in the region I grew up; it is primarily a veg nation.

3. I would also suggest you to read Born to Run. In one chapter it has a very interesting study on the evolutionary aspect of running.

1. No seriously I don't see this anywhere - or I haven't paid attention so help me here with specifics. Here's one I have never really reconciled. I've seen areas of rural haryana where the average man is built better and as tall as the rural fishing communities of Tamil Nadu.
2. Interesting and mostly agree.
3. Read it a few times !

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

True. But Japan's is well-accepted amongst evolutionary scientists. In case of India too I have read in newspapers that the average height in increasing, ascribed mainly to increase in high protein diet mainly milk, eggs, poultry and mutton along with cereals.
Very complex and confusing.

Umm, it may just be related to total caloric intake (A1 agrees!) than what you say - correlation != causation sir!

Originally Posted by alpha1

Perhaps this might be a counterpoint: People ALL over the world, whether meat eaters or plant eaters, were quite diminutive in size in general compared to today's man. So the general increase in height and weight may be correlated strongly to general increase in caloric intake rather than the change in diet. In fact the average height and weight of those places are still low where the diet in general is low in calories (again whether it is meat or vegetables).

Now to examine the diet aspect: Mongolians, Eskimos, Inuits, Red Indians, Bushmen, Aborignals are/were primarily paleo style meat eaters. Not very imposing in size though!

Spot on - I had the same POV and had the same people in mind :-)

Have been through a discussion on a minimalist/paleo forum where a few seniors rubbished the relationship of height with meat etc going so far as to say being really tall etc means little from an evolutionary standpoint (IIRC). But that's totally OT so I'll stop here!

[rajushank84]

Let's not forget- it's not just intake, man was probably also burning a lot more calories back in the day. No cars. A lot more walking. Physical labor / farming.

That could be a reason my grandparents (and their parents too, from family photos) were slim/fit whereas my current and previous generations are both fat as hell. Same genetics but lot less calorie burning and more intake.

[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

1. No seriously I don't see this anywhere - or I haven't paid attention so help me here with specifics.

MODS – HEAVILY OT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

Human beings were primarily meat eaters. The real difference, I think would have come after the discovery of the practice of agriculture and consequently a settled lifestyle 10,000 years ago.

JAPAN’S CASE
The Japan’s study is a fact accepted by the evolutionary scientists. You are free to disagree. Just one point. As you say that increase in height could be due to transition from caloric deficit to caloric surplus—but why this surplus has to necessarily come from meat? The result of increase in consumption due to carb is not increase in height but girth and consequent problems.

HARYANA
The prosperity that you see in the region (includes Punjab and some parts of Western UP) is a recent phenomenon. Almost 50 years ago before the implementation of Green Revolution by Govt. this was a wretched land. To mention what they did to survive is no more politically correct. It has resulted in furor in Parliament and changes in history textbook of NCERT.

But they still were tall. How? This region was melting pot of culture. Settled by the Harappans and visited in pre-historic times by the Vedic people (Aryans) from Europe. In ancient times Kushans, Shakas, Hunas, Parthians, Indo-Greeks arrived. Medieval period saw the influx of Afghans, Persians, Turks, Uzbeks, Mongols and in modern times it was also occupied by the British (all of them perhaps meat eating cultures).

What do you expect from such a varied gene pool? Obviously the best of all the traits and now with modern training methods and proper nutrition they are leading India in strength sports.

EVOLUTIONARY BENEFIT OF TALLNESS
I don’t have the answer right now but please know for certain that tallness is a trait preferred by nature. I am not talking of external factors but something that happens inside ones genes. Say in a person’s genes defining height he has one dwarf and the other tall genes. The resultant individual will be tall, as nature prefers it and makes it a dominant trait (Mendel’s experiment with peas).

Culturally too there is strong preference for tall. Men want their girlfriends and wives to be tall. Women want their boyfriends and husbands to be tall. And both of them together want their daughter and sons to be tall.

Lets close this discussion and while I will keep an eye for facts that go against my thesis, you watch for facts the points otherwise and at some TBHP meet lets wallop each other’s brains out.

[CliffHanger]

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

World's strongest cultures have been (I am talking of scenarion hundred, two hundred years and before) those whose diet have been built around red meat (protein plus lots of fat), not the ones who consume vegetables and fish (protein with meagre fat) by tonnes.

The strongest living being on land is the Elephant and it is purely vegetarian!

[thoma]

Originally Posted by CliffHanger

The strongest living being on land is the Elephant and it is purely vegetarian!

You can't compare oranges with apple. It is fair to compare races but not humans with animals.

P.S: Just search the net for "strongest creature on earth" and you might want to be surprised.

[noopster]

Mod Note: Please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Some posts have been deleted.

[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by CliffHanger

The strongest living being on land is the Elephant and it is purely vegetarian!

Originally Posted by noopster

Mod Note: Please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Some posts have been deleted.

Sorry Cliff. Sorry Mod. And apologies to everyone here who might have felt offended.

I thought I was being humorous but guess, I stretched the rope.

Just to put on record elephants are not vegetarians but herbivores.

OT: Hey Cliff I was sending you a personal message but since your message box is full it is not being accepted.

[alpha1]

I would say that the argument about vegetarian and non veg is very much ON TOPIC.
We have BS being rammed down our throat that you must have XXX gram of proteins per lb of body mass.
And another BS about while cutting you must UP the figures otherwise you will lose all the precious muscles.
And finally the biggest BS of how extra proteins will give you the classical greek look come what may: http://www.realfitnessblog.com/wp-co...oryphoros2.jpg

Veg = more carb, less proteins
non veg = more proteins, no carbs

[rajushank84]

Why do you keep saying it's BS that you need protein to retain muscle? Don't you need protein + workout with weights to retain muscle as youre losing fat with a calorie deficit? (regardless of whether the protein comes from veg or nonveg)

And yes I agree this is very much on topic.

[Piyadassi]

A very interesting article on evolution of diet published in National Geographic magazine. Please go through and form your views.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/fo...ution-of-diet/

[amtak]

I was a regular at the local gym. Some health issues forced me to slow down my work outs and now the membership has been over for almost 6 months.

Thinking of resuming gymming shortly and shed the additional 10 odd kilos that I have added.

Any tips for a fresher (assuming I would start all over again)

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Why do you keep saying it's BS that you need protein to retain muscle? Don't you need protein + workout with weights to retain muscle as youre losing fat with a calorie deficit? (regardless of whether the protein comes from veg or nonveg)

And yes I agree this is very much on topic.

I keep saying that it is BS only because people are being forced to feed on extra protein like a hospital patient on saline drip.

Have you done AB comparison with respect to extra protein consumption?

Case A:
Normal food
Lift weights
Stay on caloric excess, so that you gain weight.
Note the increase in your strength levels after six months, as well as body measurements.

Case B:
Normal food + extra protein so that you reach 2 gram per lb or whatever rule of thumb you follow
Lift weights
Stay on caloric excess, so that you gain weight.
Note the increase in your strength levels after six months, as well as body measurements.


Similarly while cutting/dieting:
Case A:
Normal food
Lift weights
Stay on caloric deficit, so that you lose weight.
Note the decrease in your strength levels after six months, as well as body measurements.

Case B:
Normal food + extra protein so that you reach 2 gram per lb or whatever rule of thumb you follow
Lift weights
Stay on caloric deficit, so that you lose weight.
Note the decrease in your strength levels after six months, as well as body measurements.

Such simple impartial and emotionally unattached experiments on your own only will tell you what is BS and what is not. I would be alarmed if you based your purchases only based on magazines, fake research and bro science!

Unless you are on steroids, increased proteins is mainly hokum. If you are not, you are just feeding the body with expensive calories, the protein will ultimately be used by your body as glucose only.

Originally Posted by avingodb

1) Early dinners: Having dinner by 8 or 8.30

Though, I don't have any objection with early dinner philosophy, how does early dinner vs late dinner help in terms of weight loss?

[avingodb]

Originally Posted by amtak

Any tips for a fresher

Cycling worked for me until Delhi winters took over. I am yet to resume daily cycling but there were also other things that I was doing that helped me along the way.

1) Early dinners: Having dinner by 8 or 8.30 and then may be having half cup of milk (with no additives) before sleeping only if one is really hungry
2) Dry fruits: Handful of it, or may be a bit more, in a day with 70 percent of it being almonds. It keeps you full for longer time, and reduces sugar/sweet cravings.
3) Lots of water through the day. Adding lemon slice to it would help too.
4) Walking and adding more movement to daily routine.
5) Eating lots of fruits, something that keeps one away from junk/fried stuff.

good luck!

[avingodb]

Originally Posted by alpha1

how does early dinner vs late dinner help in terms of weight loss?

I think it has to do with helping you process more of your food and water while you are active before falling asleep, which means more time for digestion.

For me, it was also helping to get up early as I was able to fall asleep by 11, approximately 2 hours after dinner. I have experienced that late dinners keep you awake longer too.

Secondly, I can say that because I have dinners early, I control the portions of my evening snack, which ultimately means less calorie intake.