4 ms·

health is more than weight. nutirient density is somewhat important. "forget about macros" - > be conscious of the starch and sugars you intake. if you have

• 1_player 11y ago
  The consensus in bodybuilding is to eat your daily requirement of proteins, enough fats (fats are NECESSARY for hormones. Also, no cholesterol == no testosterone), and everything else is up to you. While I would tend to agree with you, apparently there's many people that thrive on starchy food (potatoes, rice). There's some unknown mechanism at work here, most probably it's the gut flora diversity.
  • noondip 11y ago
    > no cholesterol == no testosterone Complete nonsense. Cholesterol = animal products, which contain estrogen, which lower testosterone. You don't need cholesterol in a healthy diet, in fact it's completely antithetical to healthy eating.
    • 1_player 11y ago
      > Like other steroid hormones [i.e. estradiol/estrogens/progesterone], testosterone is derived from cholesterol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Biosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Biosynthesis
      • noondip 11y ago
        That's talking about the cholesterol made in your liver - the only cholesterol you need.
• noondip 11y ago
  What's wrong with potatoes? Why is getting calories from starch not ideal? Please link to peer reviewed research which supports these hypotheses.
  • basch 11y ago
    nutrient density. if you have the choice between spinach and potatoes, spinach has more other nutrients per calorie. http://www.peertrainer.com/gfx/en_us/nut_density.jpg http://www.peertrainer.com/gfx/en_us/nut_density.jpg is an example chart i found after 10sec of googling you might say potato is higher than chicken. but im not going to turn potato into muscle, i will turn chicken into muscle. at the end of the day, fat and protein are necessary to survive, starch is optional.
    • noondip 11y ago
      > spinach has more other nutrients per calorie Erm .. so? One can't survive on spinach alone, so I don't see this as a reason not to eat potatoes, or other starches. > im not going to turn potato into muscle, i will turn chicken into muscle. Well, why not? Every single whole plant food has a complete amino acid profile and sufficient protein (5-10% of calories).
      • basch 11y ago
        we are talking about losing weight, right? most american meals come with a side of fries, rice, pasta, or bread. digestible carbs like sugar and starch are the easiest thing to cut out of your diet with no other impact. you dont need to start eating some other food to make up for the nutrients you arent getting. you can just cut starches out of your diet. i am talking about being mindful. saying "dont worry about macros" is the antithesis of paying attention to what you eat. for the most part, starches are fillers.
        • noondip 11y ago
          > you dont need to start eating some other food to make up for the nutrients you arent getting. you can just cut starches out of your diet. If you cut out starches, you need to replace those calories with other food. If it isn't vegetables, it'll probably be animal products, which are way less healthy than the innocent potato. > for the most part, starches are fillers I don't think so. "THE potato is a very important constituent of the diet of many civilised nations, and it may be considered to furnish, with bread, the bulk of the food of the rural population of such countries as Poland and Russia. There is little doubt that the Polish or Russian peasant is nevertheless very healthy and able to do extremely hard work under trying conditions. Deficiency diseases such as beriberi, pellagra or scurvy are practically unknown in Poland." The value of whole potato in human nutrition https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1252113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1252113/