Rugged Vs Soy Boy

[gaze]

Can confirm, no father figure, androgynous body growing up. Was bullied for sure by all the farmers who hit puberty super early and acted tough all day. I now have a strong masculine face tho, and I’m very much into girls. Not so much the good ones... At least I’ve become aesthetic with lean mean muscles on that skinny frame. But it’s not BIG. I don’t really care anymore anyway.

Perhaps Zuckerberg and the legit low T modern young guys didn’t even grow up in a hard environment. Just tons of soft lil good boys surrounding them.

that doesn’t explain guys like lebron james and a lot of poor folks who grow up to be 6’10 athletic freaks who got raised by single mothers. At the end of the day it all has to do with testosterone which is related to being breast fed instead of formula fed, how well thyroid is genetically, and avoiding pufas growing up. also sports helps burn pufa instead of storing it so hormones develop more properly

 

[Elkman]

This debate has been hashed out repeatedly - the nature vs. nurture. It's totally circular argument and I can see the validity of your own points but not the absolutism.

There is a simple explanation for homosexuality that is very unpopular but everyone knows is true - father deprivation. Well, if a lot of men died in the war...

There are well nourished men who still have a soyboy aura. I'll see scrawny, stressed out country boys who still look tough.

And by the way - look at some of the 'intellectuals' of the old era. You won't see many soy boys.

Check out Ernest Hemingway.

Urban life wasn't so soyboy inducing because people would walk miles and miles everyday in cities. Well our cities were destroyed and surburbia churns out soyboys because young boys aren't doing anything.

No you’re absolutely right. I meant to say that, in regards to the OP, the chasm between someone like Mark Zuckerberg and John Travolta is too vast to be explained away by lifestyle and it’s influence on hormones. Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t have a Ramus to his jaw... working on a farm in his early childhood wasn’t going to grow him one if the template wasn’t put there from birth. It wasn’t going to grow him a ruddy beard, either.

I do agree however, to take Zuckerberg again as an example, that he would have probably looked more masculine than he does currently had he endured a life of heavy labour and physical exertion. But he would just be a more masculine version of Mark Zuckerberg. There’s only so much you can change after birth.

I’m not one to agree with the whole farther absence causes homosexuality (although I am a Freudian for the most part). It reminds me of the “refrigerator mom causing autism” phase in psychology. Things like autism and homosexuality are too far away from the norm neurologically to be chalked up to anything other than in-utero changes to brain function.

 

[Elkman]

that doesn’t explain guys like lebron james and a lot of poor folks who grow up to be 6’10 athletic freaks who got raised by single mothers. At the end of the day it all has to do with testosterone which is related to being breast fed instead of formula fed, how well thyroid is genetically, and avoiding pufas growing up. also sports helps burn pufa instead of storing it so hormones develop more properly

I like how you use Lebron James as an example and then not even mention genetics lol. My thyroid was excellent growing up, I was always extremely lean with a six pack even in childhood just from sports. Even now if I take something like K2 on its own my temps can get to 37.8 C during the day. Avoided PUFA. Played sports all day everyday. I have a very fine bone structure and am only 6 foot. So.... genetics. It also depends what our great great great great great grandparents ate/ did growing up.

 

[nbznj]

This always cracks me up

a lot of poor folks who grow up to be 6’10 athletic freaks who got raised by single mothers

Name them. At best a handful per decade

 

[Viiiiyu]

what about traps?

 

[gaze]

This always cracks me up



Name them. At best a handful per decade

kevin durant, shaq, lebron, a-rod, larry bird, colin kaepernick, mike tyson, ray lewis

There’s a lot. you’d be surprised how common single mothers are.
Either way, I shouldn’t have to provide evidence proving men raised by single mothers arent soy boys, it should be the other way around because that’s a theory that sounds good with no evidence. All the “feminine” guys i’ve ever met in my life had a father. it’s a diet and toxic environment thing, not having no dad

 

[TheBeard]

that doesn’t explain guys like lebron james and a lot of poor folks who grow up to be 6’10 athletic freaks who got raised by single mothers. At the end of the day it all has to do with testosterone which is related to being breast fed instead of formula fed, how well thyroid is genetically, and avoiding pufas growing up. also sports helps burn pufa instead of storing it so hormones develop more properly

There’s a bit more to it than the single mother raising.

Curtis « 50 cent » Jackson was raised by a single mom, but it was in Queens and she had to sell crack. He went on to sell crack as well at 12. Tough youth.

Tyson was doing booze and drugs at 9 in Brooklyn, fighting other kids. He weighted 80kg at 13. Father left at birth, mom died when he was 10. Tough youth.

BUT.

Marshall « Eminem » Mathers: single mom, tough youth, did drugs, lived in a trailer park home. Has had an effeminate face most his life.
So I believe genetics still play a huge role.


Or maybe M&M just didn’t take the right drugs ^_^

 

[redsun]

I like how you use Lebron James as an example and then not even mention genetics lol. My thyroid was excellent growing up, I was always extremely lean with a six pack even in childhood just from sports. Even now if I take something like K2 on its own my temps can get to 37.8 C during the day. Avoided PUFA. Played sports all day everyday. I have a very fine bone structure and am only 6 foot. So.... genetics. It also depends what our great great great great great grandparents ate/ did growing up.

Because the main determinant of height is protein content of diet, not thyroid or exercise or genetics. True there could be an inclination based on ancestry for increased height, but that means nothing without protein. The more protein, especially if one is younger, the taller you'll be. You of course cannot grow that much after a certain point in your life because your body is already done. If you were to take a young child and make it in a way so his diet was incredibly high in protein while giving ad libitum access to energy calories in the form of saturated fats and carbohydrates(starch and sugar), he would end up very tall. 30% calories from protein or more for a kid at a young age will make him tall.

The easiest way to do it is to have a diet that is centered on animal foods. I have yet to meet a child that does not like meat or any animal foods, we as humans have a natural inclination for high protein and children especially as they haven't lived long enough to have their instincts repressed. This is why in America the average height is so short and why we as humans are on average are shorter, weaker, less androgenic then our ancient human ancestors who lived off whatever they killed. And at 22, the generation of kids right after me are generally shorter and this is largely do to the fact that the American diet is heavily plant based. High in grains, starches, sugars, vegetables, low in dairy and especially low in meat, eggs, seafood.

Animal fat which provides a source of fat solubles is replaced with vegetable oils which makes it even worse. And when meat is consumed it is usually high fat processed meats like hot dogs, sausage, bacons, burger patties, not high protein fresh quality meats.

I can give an example where I personally saw this for myself. Right before I turned to the carnivore diet as a teenager at the age of 16-17, I was average height and felt like I was lacking heightwise. 2 years of carnivore diet(which still provided some sugars) and I gained basically all the height I ever would gain by age 18 when I went back to more normal(but still meatcentric eating). From 18-22 I gained possibly an inch and a half eating normally but 4-5 inches on carnivore for the short bout I was on it. High protein diet in action and I plan on doing the exact same thing with my own children and I know 100% they'll much taller then me because they'll have access to tons of quality protein. Lots of high protein animal foods with ad libitum quality carbs.

I am sure someone is going to want to say I just happen to hit a growth spurt when I was carnivore dieting, I say that is a crock of ***t. I grew like crazy because when you forcibly make meat, eggs, and dairy your main foods to rely on, you naturally get more protein in the diet. Off carnivore I only ended up with 100g-120g at age 19-20 while on it 3 years younger I easily got over 150g even though I weighed 20lbs less. I also have to mention I gained weight on carnivore(which coincides with increased height).

If I stayed on a meat centric high protein carnivore type diet from 16-20 instead or stopping after 2 years... Easily would be 6 foot if not taller. I only realized this in retrospect unfortunately and didn't realize it when I got off carnivore.

 

[lampofred]

Because the main determinant of height is protein content of diet, not thyroid or exercise or genetics. True there could be an inclination based on ancestry for increased height, but that means nothing without protein. The more protein, especially if one is younger, the taller you'll be. You of course cannot grow that much after a certain point in your life because your body is already done. If you were to take a young child and make it in a way so his diet was incredibly high in protein while giving ad libitum access to energy calories in the form of saturated fats and carbohydrates(starch and sugar), he would end up very tall. 30% calories from protein or more for a kid at a young age will make him tall.

The easiest way to do it is to have a diet that is centered on animal foods. I have yet to meet a child that does not like meat or any animal foods, we as humans have a natural inclination for high protein and children especially as they haven't lived long enough to have their instincts repressed. This is why in America the average height is so short and why we as humans are on average are shorter, weaker, less androgenic then our ancient human ancestors who lived off whatever they killed. And at 22, the generation of kids right after me are generally shorter and this is largely do to the fact that the American diet is heavily plant based. High in grains, starches, sugars, vegetables, low in dairy and especially low in meat, eggs, seafood.

Animal fat which provides a source of fat solubles is replaced with vegetable oils which makes it even worse. And when meat is consumed it is usually high fat processed meats like hot dogs, sausage, bacons, burger patties, not high protein fresh quality meats.

I can give an example where I personally saw this for myself. Right before I turned to the carnivore diet as a teenager at the age of 16-17, I was average height and felt like I was lacking heightwise. 2 years of carnivore diet(which still provided some sugars) and I gained basically all the height I ever would gain by age 18 when I went back to more normal(but still meatcentric eating). From 18-22 I gained possibly an inch and a half eating normally but 4-5 inches on carnivore for the short bout I was on it. High protein diet in action and I plan on doing the exact same thing with my own children and I know 100% they'll much taller then me because they'll have access to tons of quality protein. Lots of high protein animal foods with ad libitum quality carbs.

I am sure someone is going to want to say I just happen to hit a growth spurt when I was carnivore dieting, I say that is a crock of ***t. I grew like crazy because when you forcibly make meat, eggs, and dairy your main foods to rely on, you naturally get more protein in the diet. Off carnivore I only ended up with 100g-120g at age 19-20 while on it 3 years younger I easily got over 150g even though I weighed 20lbs less. I also have to mention I gained weight on carnivore(which coincides with increased height).

If I stayed on a meat centric high protein carnivore type diet from 16-20 instead or stopping after 2 years... Easily would be 6 foot if not taller. I only realized this in retrospect unfortunately and didn't realize it when I got off carnivore.

The "steak and potatoes" type of people I know who eat meat every day are often short and stocky (but physically very strong), whereas the low protein, vegetarian leaning people I know are tall and slender (but with less functional strength).

 

[Elkman]

Because the main determinant of height is protein content of diet, not thyroid or exercise or genetics. True there could be an inclination based on ancestry for increased height, but that means nothing without protein. The more protein, especially if one is younger, the taller you'll be. You of course cannot grow that much after a certain point in your life because your body is already done. If you were to take a young child and make it in a way so his diet was incredibly high in protein while giving ad libitum access to energy calories in the form of saturated fats and carbohydrates(starch and sugar), he would end up very tall. 30% calories from protein or more for a kid at a young age will make him tall.

The easiest way to do it is to have a diet that is centered on animal foods. I have yet to meet a child that does not like meat or any animal foods, we as humans have a natural inclination for high protein and children especially as they haven't lived long enough to have their instincts repressed. This is why in America the average height is so short and why we as humans are on average are shorter, weaker, less androgenic then our ancient human ancestors who lived off whatever they killed. And at 22, the generation of kids right after me are generally shorter and this is largely do to the fact that the American diet is heavily plant based. High in grains, starches, sugars, vegetables, low in dairy and especially low in meat, eggs, seafood.

Animal fat which provides a source of fat solubles is replaced with vegetable oils which makes it even worse. And when meat is consumed it is usually high fat processed meats like hot dogs, sausage, bacons, burger patties, not high protein fresh quality meats.

I can give an example where I personally saw this for myself. Right before I turned to the carnivore diet as a teenager at the age of 16-17, I was average height and felt like I was lacking heightwise. 2 years of carnivore diet(which still provided some sugars) and I gained basically all the height I ever would gain by age 18 when I went back to more normal(but still meatcentric eating). From 18-22 I gained possibly an inch and a half eating normally but 4-5 inches on carnivore for the short bout I was on it. High protein diet in action and I plan on doing the exact same thing with my own children and I know 100% they'll much taller then me because they'll have access to tons of quality protein. Lots of high protein animal foods with ad libitum quality carbs.

I am sure someone is going to want to say I just happen to hit a growth spurt when I was carnivore dieting, I say that is a crock of ***t. I grew like crazy because when you forcibly make meat, eggs, and dairy your main foods to rely on, you naturally get more protein in the diet. Off carnivore I only ended up with 100g-120g at age 19-20 while on it 3 years younger I easily got over 150g even though I weighed 20lbs less. I also have to mention I gained weight on carnivore(which coincides with increased height).

If I stayed on a meat centric high protein carnivore type diet from 16-20 instead or stopping after 2 years... Easily would be 6 foot if not taller. I only realized this in retrospect unfortunately and didn't realize it when I got off carnivore.

Well then what about short bodybuilders like Lee Priest who started working out at a very young age, and thus learned about the importance of tons of protein for muscle growth? I think he was like 5’4. Same WRT Trystan lee. You better believe these guys were pounding back protein, eating tons of calories and carbs, engaging in highly Androgenic/ anabolic activity daily, and all during the most important growth window for a man, from age 12 to early twenties. They are still dwarfs.

How do you explain African American football and basketball stars who came from very poor background who speak of living off cereal and putting sugar in bread for meals? Where’s the protein? Quality protein is expensive. And yet they are fully grown athletic giants/ gladiators.

How do you explain the phenomenon in families of decreasing height in second and third siblings in comparison to the first born? Surely you don’t think later borns eat less? It has to do with nutritional stores of the mother while pregnant. The blueprint for the body is laid down then. Sure high protein and quality carbs helps you reach your full potential, but that genetic limit was determined in utero, so it’s certainly no guarantee of being “tall.”

On top of nutritional status of pregnant mothers, just plain old genetics accounts for a ton. I would say your nutrition growing up doesn’t account for nearly as much as you are implying.

In regards to your growth spurt, I have friends that shot up 4-5 inches during that timeframe, some even after high school. It had nothing to do with eating more meat.

In summary, the main determinant of your height is your plain old genetic lineage and the nutritional status of your mother’s and father’s sex cells when they conceived you. I would say after that, comes protein content during childhood in importance.

 

[redsun]

Well then what about short bodybuilders like Lee Priest who started working out at a very young age, and thus learned about the importance of tons of protein for muscle growth? I think he was like 5’4. Same WRT Trystan lee. You better believe these guys were pounding back protein, eating tons of calories and carbs, engaging in highly Androgenic/ anabolic activity daily, and all during the most important growth window for a man, from age 12 to early twenties. They are still dwarfs.

How do you explain the phenomenon in families of decreasing height in second and third siblings in comparison to the first born? Surely you don’t think later borns eat less? It has to do with nutritional stores of the mother while pregnant. The blueprint for the body is laid down then. Sure high protein and quality carbs helps you reach your full potential, but that genetic limit was determined in utero, so it’s certainly no guarantee of being “tall.”

On top of nutritional status of pregnant mothers, just plain old genetics accounts for a ton. I would say your nutrition growing up doesn’t account for nearly as much as you are implying.

In regards to your growth spurt, I have friends that shot up 4-5 inches during that timeframe, some even after high school. It had nothing to do with eating more meat.

In summary, the main determinant of your height is your plain old genetic lineage and the nutritional status of your mother’s and father’s sex cells when they conceived you. I would say after that, comes protein content during childhood in importance.

Are you serious? Lee priest started bodybuilding young and if you see pictures of him at in his teens(even have a pic of him at 12 in bodybuilding shape), he is lean and muscular and over the years gets even more muscular and low body fat. No doubt he was put on calorie restrictive and generally restrictive dieting with leaning and bulking(which is terrible for growing teens). Your body prioritizes survival over growth(height). It will allocate resources to build muscle tissue and bone density(which is different from height and is needed to lift heavy weights) because it thinks it needs it to survive, height takes the backseat and is why he ended up short as hell. The lower body fat which was forcibly lowered through dieting and likely heavy training(which is stressful to the body, especially a teenager's body) also didn't help his height as well.

I said it was the main determinant, not the only one. The supposed "phenomenon" of younger siblings being shorter then the older ones can be attributed largely to the mother's nutritional status. The firstborn gets lucky here and gets all the nutrients the mother is supposed to normally give to a newborn. Our modern trashy diets drains pregnant women of nutrition and they are not able to restock nutrients between children, hence the next children aren't provided with enough nutrients as they are supposed to have. This can still be somewhat remedied if the child ended up eating a better diet than their mother(which never happens, children eat what parents eat for the most part). In a family with parents who were on a nutrient dense diet consisting of meat, organs, eggs, seafoods, fruits (and likewise her children also followed similar eating) and in general no shortage of calorie(think poverty, lack of money for food), you would not observe this. This is so common in the modern day because of the modern diet not because of genetics. Genetics plays a role, but protein content and nutrient density play a much bigger one.

 

[Elkman]

The "steak and potatoes" type of people I know who eat meat every day are often short and stocky (but physically very strong), whereas the low protein, vegetarian leaning people I know are tall and slender (but with less functional strength).

My family is very blue collar steak and potatoes type, had meat 4-5 days a week for dinner, from pork chops to chicken to steak to veal. And we’re all tall. I am the shortest of 6 male siblings in my extended family at 6’.

However it means nothing. I have friends who are also steak and potatoes types, and their family line is around average in height. So clearly there is more at play than protein content.

Are you serious? Lee priest started bodybuilding young and if you see pictures of him at in his teens(even have a pic of him at 12 in bodybuilding shape), he is lean and muscular and over the years gets even more muscular and low body fat. No doubt he was put on calorie restrictive and generally restrictive dieting with leaning and bulking(which is terrible for growing teens). Your body prioritizes survival over growth(height). It will allocate resources to build muscle tissue and bone density(which is different from height and is needed to lift heavy weights) because it thinks it needs it to survive, height takes the backseat and is why he ended up short as hell. The lower body fat which was forcibly lowered through dieting and likely heavy training(which is stressful to the body, especially a teenager's body) also didn't help his height as well.

I said it was the main determinant, not the only one. The supposed "phenomenon" of younger siblings being shorter then the older ones can be attributed largely to the mother's nutritional status. The firstborn gets lucky here and gets all the nutrients the mother is supposed to normally give to a newborn. Our modern trashy diets drains pregnant women of nutrition and they are not able to restock nutrients between children, hence the next children aren't provided with enough nutrients as they are supposed to have. This can still be somewhat remedied if the child ended up eating a better diet than their mother(which never happens, children eat what parents eat for the most part). In a family with parents who were on a nutrient dense diet consisting of meat, organs, eggs, seafoods, fruits (and likewise her children also followed similar eating) and in general no shortage of calorie(think poverty, lack of money for food), you would not observe this. This is so common in the modern day because of the modern diet not because of genetics. Genetics plays a role, but protein content and nutrient density play a much bigger one.

Look man, I get what you’re saying, I too was on the carnivore diet and believe in the melding off Ray Peats nutritional philosophy with the carnivore way, ESPECIALLY for growing children. I plan on doing the exact same for my own.

But you are speaking in absolutes. You are saying you would not observe progressively smaller siblings if they grew up on nutrient dense diets. That the size discrepancies would even out over time given proper nutrition? That doesn’t make logical sense because the older brother with the better starting point would also be eating the better diet, and so the chasm in height would still be maintained. It’s not like the younger brother will “catch up” with proper nutrition and the older ones height is genetically “maxed out.” So still, the determining factor in height is still pre-natal.

I have blue collar friends who’s older brothers are 3-4 inches taller, wider, almost twice as large skulls, thicker bone structure and natural muscle mass. One in particular grew up eating TONS of meat (beef, chicken), and even beef liver once a week. Literally that’s all he ate. I hated the liver I used to eat at his house. His old school dad, much like my own, barbecued meat almost everyday. He had huge meat sandwiches for lunch everyday at school. He is actually quite small on average overall with a smaller than average head (working out and steroids reversed this perception quite a bit) and is 5’8. He and his brother have maintained the size gap they’ve always had. He basically ate exactly what you are claiming would make children tall adults, and yet he is average. He definitely ate abundant calories. He always had baby fat from grade school up until early twenties, whereas I was basically a skeleton and definitely didn’t eat enough calories, and I’m just under 6’.

As my own example, I was known to eat twice as much as my older brother at dinner. My appetite was simply much greater than his. I probably didn’t eat enough during the day though. He’s always been bigger than me by 2-3 inches, and much wider shoulders.

The things you are saying sound great theoretically and you should definitely apply it to your own children but I still maintain the main determinant of your height are the in-utero and even pre-conception factors.

You can kind of tell which babies/ young kids are going to grow into big strapping adults just by looking at their faces. The signs are there from the beginning.

Where I think we can find middle ground is that inter-generational nutrition, or genetic momentum (from good nutrition over successive generations), is the main determinant of height. Basically I’m agreeing that nutrition influences genes in a massive way and will lead to massive changes in offspring over time given the right conditions, but this takes some time. I don’t believe proper nutrition can make up for either genetic or inter-generational nutrition limitations which are almost too strong to be overcome in one single generation.

 

[gaze]

I feel like our generations have access to so many calories (big mac with large fries and a large soda, for example) that it will either lead people to grow taller then usual, way fatter then usual, or both. I guess if your lucky it goes towards height but if not towards fat. Both cases are accompanied with high estrogen as an adult though

 

[redsun]

My family is very blue collar steak and potatoes type, had meat 4-5 days a week for dinner, from pork chops to chicken to steak to veal. And we’re all tall. I am the shortest of 6 male siblings in my extended family at 6’.

However it means nothing. I have friends who are also steak and potatoes types, and their family line is around average in height. So clearly there is more at play than protein content.


Look man, I get what you’re saying, I too was on the carnivore diet and believe in the melding off Ray Peats nutritional philosophy with the carnivore way, ESPECIALLY for growing children. I plan on doing the exact same for my own.

But you are speaking in absolutes. You are saying you would not observe progressively smaller siblings if they grew up on nutrient dense diets. That the size discrepancies would even out over time given proper nutrition? That doesn’t make logical sense because the older brother with the better starting point would also be eating the better diet, and so the chasm in height would still be maintained. It’s not like the younger brother will “catch up” with proper nutrition and the older ones height is genetically “maxed out.” So still, the determining factor in height is still pre-natal.

I have blue collar friends who’s older brothers are 3-4 inches taller, wider, almost twice as large skulls, thicker bone structure and natural muscle mass. One in particular grew up eating TONS of meat (beef, chicken), and even beef liver once a week. Literally that’s all he ate. I hated the liver I used to eat at his house. His old school dad, much like my own, barbecued meat almost everyday. He had huge meat sandwiches for lunch everyday at school. He is actually quite small on average overall with a smaller than average head (working out and steroids reversed this perception quite a bit) and is 5’8. He and his brother have maintained the size gap they’ve always had. He basically ate exactly what you are claiming would make children tall adults, and yet he is average. He definitely ate abundant calories. He always had baby fat from grade school up until early twenties, whereas I was basically a skeleton and definitely didn’t eat enough calories, and I’m just under 6’.

As my own example, I was known to eat twice as much as my older brother at dinner. My appetite was simply much greater than his. I probably didn’t eat enough during the day though. He’s always been bigger than me by 2-3 inches, and much wider shoulders.

The things you are saying sound great theoretically and you should definitely apply it to your own children but I still maintain the main determinant of your height are the in-utero and even pre-conception factors.

You can kind of tell which babies/ young kids are going to grow into big strapping adults just by looking at their faces. The signs are there from the beginning.

I talk in absolutes but in reality nutrient density/nutrient content is much more complicated then that.

• What was the mother's nutritional status before pregnancy(how much storage of iron she had which is super important, storage of other vital nutrients like zinc, b12, folate)? Any deficiencies or suboptimal levels make a serious difference. Hypothyroidism in the mother affects offspring negatively.
• What was her diet during pregnacy? Did she get enough nutrients for herself and for the baby or did she barely ger enough, leeching more nutrients from her body then normal which affects future children. Again having nutrient deficiencies before the pregnancy can make it worse as its very unlikely to remedy during pregnancy as nutrient requirements are even higher.
• Time span between children?
• How nutritious was the mother's diet during breastfeeding?

I think you get the point. There are so many variables that can affect nutrition and this is just talking about the mother. The nutrition habits of a child from the time he can eat to adulthood play a role.

The thing is meat itself provides a lot of nutrients but is also lacking in quite a few. Particularly folate, fat solubles, calcium, vitamin C. Folate and vitamin C are especially problematic nutrients to get. Tons of meat doesn't guarantee height because lacking in any one nutrient and going over the top with others can actually deplete the others quicker and then height and growth can easily plateau. Eating only steak for example(which some idiots actually do on carnivore) will make you anemic because of lack of folate especially. Even a protein heavy diet that has "adequate" daily folate can cause imbalances in folate and other micronutrients(e.g. fat solubles) because of the large influx of certain nutrients of muscle meats that depletes the other nutrients and hence slow growth. This is where organs trump muscle meats, when we want to grow.

I think you and I can both agree based on our carnivore diet background that originally, the human diet was supposed to be organ based, and high in fat solubles and an abundance of calories would also be necessary for maximal growth in ancient humans. Who truly eats like that anymore? Almost no one. Do you need to to be tall? I don't know. Theoretically we can somewhat match intake of all micronutrients that is comparable to the ratios of organs and surely enough there are people that are incredibly tall that dont eat organ based but we definitely cannot come close to our ancient human ancestor's nutrient dense diets. Perhaps some humans are better off at holding onto to nutrients then others, hence do better with less nutrients then others. We do know there are genetic conditions that affect conversion of certain vitamins to active form(think MTHFR, less available methylfolate and B6 conversion rates) which likely play a role as well.

 

[Elkman]

I talk in absolutes but in reality nutrient density/nutrient content is much more complicated then that.

• What was the mother's nutritional status before pregnancy(how much storage of iron she had which is super important, storage of other vital nutrients like zinc, b12, folate)? Any deficiencies or suboptimal levels make a serious difference. Hypothyroidism in the mother affects offspring negatively.
• What was her diet during pregnacy? Did she get enough nutrients for herself and for the baby or did she barely ger enough, leeching more nutrients from her body then normal which affects future children. Again having nutrient deficiencies before the pregnancy can make it worse as its very unlikely to remedy during pregnancy as nutrient requirements are even higher.
• Time span between children?
• How nutritious was the mother's diet during breastfeeding?

I think you get the point. There are so many variables that can affect nutrition and this is just talking about the mother. The nutrition habits of a child from the time he can eat to adulthood play a role.

The thing is meat itself provides a lot of nutrients but is also lacking in quite a few. Particularly folate, fat solubles, calcium, vitamin C. Folate and vitamin C are especially problematic nutrients to get. Tons of meat doesn't guarantee height because lacking in any one nutrient and going over the top with others can actually deplete the others quicker and then height and growth can easily plateau. Eating only steak for example(which some idiots actually do on carnivore) will make you anemic because of lack of folate especially. Even a protein heavy diet that has "adequate" daily folate can cause imbalances in folate and other micronutrients(e.g. fat solubles) because of the large influx of certain nutrients of muscle meats that depletes the other nutrients and hence slow growth. This is where organs trump muscle meats, when we want to grow.

I think you and I can both agree based on our carnivore diet background that originally, the human diet was supposed to be organ based, and high in fat solubles and an abundance of calories would also be necessary for maximal growth in ancient humans. Who truly eats like that anymore? Almost no one. Do you need to to be tall? I don't know. Theoretically we can somewhat match intake of all micronutrients that is comparable to the ratios of organs and surely enough there are people that are incredibly tall that dont eat organ based but we definitely cannot come close to our ancient human ancestor's nutrient dense diets. Perhaps some humans are better off at holding onto to nutrients then others, hence do better with less nutrients then others. We do know there are genetic conditions that affect conversion of certain vitamins to active form(think MTHFR, less available methylfolate and B6 conversion rates) which likely play a role as well.

Well sure my friend as the example didn’t eat lots of organ meats but we can safely assume he didn’t have any major or glaring nutritional deficiencies, because his diet was balanced out with lots of carbs, fruits, veggies, milk, etc.

But I can see what you mean about the limitations of the carnivore diet when organ meats are excluded, however that’s an extreme diet and nobody would raise a kid on a meat-only diet. So for the purposes of our original discussion in relation to height attainment, it doesn’t change my opinion much.

In terms of why nutrients muscle meats lack, I think The carnivore people often explain away their importance. I do agree with them on the idea that we tend to over-intellectualize things like micronutrients and ratios, etc., and yet you have tribal societies who just eat meat and they’re all tall, robust, and healthy. So their argument is, focus more on foods we were designed to eat and just eat them, and worry less and micro nutrient interactions which can drive you crazy and which no healthy primitive society had access to and yet they were fine.

For example they tend to explain away the importance of vitamin C (that you don’t need it) and even calcium. For the latter they say bones are made up mostly of protein and not calcium, and so protein is more important for building strong bones. They have a point, I mean our bones, skin, teeth, hair, muscles are all made primarily of protein, clearly we need that nutrient in abundance. But I’m still undecided on which is more important; I know RP is huge on calcium.

It’s also true that primitive societies simply didn’t need to worry about micronutrient ratios because they ate the whole animal - head to toe, organs and muscles, even the bones in soups and blood for salt. And so they’re still probably very important if you’re not eating exactly like a cave person would.

A problem with raising a kid on an organ-meat dense diet is, will they eat it? I don’t know man, I couldn’t handle fish or liver at all as a kid. It was revolting to me. I would get sick. I don’t know how I’d feel about being told to eat brains, kidneys, and fish eggs, lol.

Interesting point about some humans maybe being better off on less nutrients so that they don’t push other nutrients further out of portion.... do you really believe that?

 

[redsun]

Well sure my friend as the example didn’t eat lots of organ meats but we can safely assume he didn’t have any major or glaring nutritional deficiencies, because his diet was balanced out with lots of carbs, fruits, veggies, milk, etc.

But I can see what you mean about the limitations of the carnivore diet when organ meats are excluded, however that’s an extreme diet and nobody would raise a kid on a meat-only diet. So for the purposes of our original discussion in relation to height attainment, it doesn’t change my opinion much.

In terms of why nutrients muscle meats lack, I think The carnivore people often explain away their importance. I do agree with them on the idea that we tend to over-intellectualize things like micronutrients and ratios, etc., and yet you have tribal societies who just eat meat and they’re all tall, robust, and healthy. So their argument is, focus more on foods we were designed to eat and just eat them, and worry less and micro nutrient interactions which can drive you crazy and which no healthy primitive society had access to and yet they were fine.

For example they tend to explain away the importance of vitamin C (that you don’t need it) and even calcium. For the latter they say bones are made up mostly of protein and not calcium, and so protein is more important for building strong bones. They have a point, I mean our bones, skin, teeth, hair, muscles are all made primarily of protein, clearly we need that nutrient in abundance. But I’m still undecided on which is more important; I know RP is huge on calcium.

It’s also true that primitive societies simply didn’t need to worry about micronutrient ratios because they ate the whole animal - head to toe, organs and muscles, even the bones in soups and blood for salt. And so they’re still probably very important if you’re not eating exactly like a cave person would.

A problem with raising a kid on an organ-meat dense diet is, will they eat it? I don’t know man, I couldn’t handle fish or liver at all as a kid. It was revolting to me. I would get sick. I don’t know how I’d feel about being told to eat brains, kidneys, and fish eggs, lol.

Interesting point about some humans maybe being better off on less nutrients so that they don’t push other nutrients further out of portion.... do you really believe that?

A lot of foods are acquired taste. I do believe if one was taught to eat liver when they were young they would actually like it and there's something to be said about humans organ eating habits that have been a part of our history for awhile. Also grass fed organic liver supposedly tastes much better and I believe all organs are better tasting organic.

Yes, it's not just belief. As I said MTHFR mutation which reduces activity of that enzyme can reduce available methylfolate for the methylation cycle is one proof of this. Chris Masterjohn said increased B2 can help normalize MTHFR enzyme in those with mutations who eat just like everyone else. B2 intake is much lower nowadays because almost no one eats liver regularly(greater then once a week) or makes eggs and/or milk a big part of their diet not too mention milk loses some B2 because B2 is destroyed by sunlight exposure. Lower B2 intake is not as much a problem if you dont have MTHFR mutations which reduce MTHFR activity, and hence less methylfolate from folic acid and less recycling of methylfolate that you already have in you. If you do, that can mess with your methylation cycle big time.

As for B6:

"Vitamin B6 is found in plant and animal sources. Plants contain mostly pyridoxine and animals contain mostly pyridoxal. These two forms need to be converted to its active form, pyridoxal 5 phosphate (PLP), by the enzyme, pyridoxal kinase, for it to perform its many important functions. The recommended intake for B6 is 1.7mg daily. However in most people, the enzyme pyridoxal kinase, isn’t functioning properly, and the conversion of B6 to its active form is 1:5-10 and sometimes close to zero. As seen here, there was only a 33% increase in PLP, with those who have liver damage. Plus urinary excretion of pyridoxic acid increased significantly. The less conversion you are able to do, the more wasting takes place. "

Top 7 vitamin B6 benefits. #7 is increased dopamine synthesis

That's just B6 and folate. So if one is better at conversion to active forms, and doesn't have unfavorable mutations, that would have better nutritional status in the case of B6 and folate. I am sure there are other nutrients that are like this that I don't recall or there are yet to be any discoveries on conversions differences between different people for those micronutrients.

Since ancient humans had such high nutrient density in their diets because it was organ based, unfavorable mutations and genetic differences in micronutrient utilization and excretion weren't bred out because they didn't matter.

Also forgot too mention that the amounts of mental, emotional, and physical stress one human deals with on a daily basis can also determine which and how much nutrients are depleted. We know already that hypothyroidism causes excess loss of Magnesium, one of the most vital minerals for oxidative metabolism.

 

[Sheik]

You could have picked anyone from a pool of hundreds of millions. Choosing that particular teenager is inflammatory and runs the risk of derailing your own thread.

It's pretty cheeky though.

 

[Jing]

Because the main determinant of height is protein content of diet, not thyroid or exercise or genetics. True there could be an inclination based on ancestry for increased height, but that means nothing without protein. The more protein, especially if one is younger, the taller you'll be

My older brother is a few inches taller than me, he ate less food than I did growing up, also less protein because I was into lifting weights.

 

[milkboi]

In my experience, height is mostly determined by genetics.