TOP 5 Vegetables

I am a newbie here. Trying to figure out what veggies to take in my diet along with the meat. I have seen a similar thread in the forum, but it was a few years old. There could be lots of new research since then, so just wanted to post this question in a new thread. I know everyone is different and what is good and OK for some is not for others. Just looking for some pointers here.

So please share the Top 5 vegetables that you frequently eat.

Thanks

In my particular case I have no fondness for vegetables, however, there are some that I like, although not eaten frequently.

The best ones I know for hair are not convenient to take everyday, therefore I take some actives that are more concentrated. Examples would be Broccoli sprouts (not easy to find in stores year around). About 18 years ago, I dived completely into trying to resolve hair loss with high nutrient dense vegetables. The conclusion is that diet helps to an extent, although there is more to it given the environmental factor we all have to handle.

kale, bok choi, etc. eating vegetable or any diet wont prevent your male pattern baldness but it could slow it marginally i dont think diet had ever been found as a factor in analysis that looked at environmental risk factors, short of malnourishment (anorexics lose their hair). heavy drinking and smoking were risk factors found in identical twins, and oddly getting divorced was a risk factor for women.

The conversation might be better if we include herbs also because there are several plant components that wouldn't be vegetables by definition but are very powerful. Things like garlic, turmeric root, cilantro, ginger root. Concerning just vegetables, kale and chard rank up there pretty high for me. Wild asparagus is magic.

For a while I thought eating massive amounts of raw vegetables would help my situation, mainly because i accepted the mainstream belief that vegetables are excellent for your health and that more is better. The problem is that raw vegetables are taxing on the digestive system, and when I was eating huge amounts I was actually setting myself back. I was experiencing anxiety due to the GI distress, but at the time I didn't realize that the vegetables were the culprit. I do well on cooked vegetables though. Nowadays i have no craving at all for raw vegetables, except for a few like carrots (which are actually root vegetables), peas, and tomatoes. The key is to listen to your body.

I agree with anthonyspencer54 on the herbs/spices. I consume a lot of ginger, turmeric, and cumin, and most notably these have helped with my digestion problems.

I have found something interesting. Eating a massive amount of raw vegetables in their normal state would give me digestive problems, most notably really bad gas and occaisional stomach upset. I recently purchased a Blendtec blender, which is pretty much capable of liquifying whatever you put in it as long as we're talking food. I have been making a daily smoothie of kale (probably 2 cups), 1 in. piece of ginger root, 1 whole lemon, 1 whole apple, a handful of berries, 1 tbsp. of flaxseed, 1 scoop protein powder, 1 lrg. chunk of aloe vera leaf, and a dash of cinnamon. This has not given me any problems short of a little bit of gas, and very little. If anything, its made my bowel movements very regular and smooth. I hear Peat's arguments against vegetables, and I understand them. But if you keep your vegetable intake to a reasonable level, the PUFA from them is relatively low, given than you are getting about .3 grams from a cup of a given green, on average. And in terms of toxins and antinutrients, there isn't any research to convince me that eating a moderate amount of vegetables is going to hurt me, just a lot of theory. For right now, the fact that things like kale are such good sources of key minerals is enough for me. This is especially true given that my budget doesn't permit me to eat the level of quality of some foods that I would normally demand.

blending it would definitely make it easier to digest as would cooking it. i just dismiss his rhetoric against vegetables. resveratrol causes torpor, its the caffeine and not the catechins of tea that give protection, and avacados cause cancer. give me a fucking break. he ignores the research so he can maintain the theoretical purity of his theory. everything points to those who eat more vegetables compared to those who eat fewer or none to being healthier overall.

heres an interesting video i watched the other day. havnt done any research to rule out any bias but seemed to make sense for the most part.

Are Humans Designed To Eat Meat?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH-hs2v-UjI&feature=related

nvm

I like sea vegetables, lettuce, onions, peppers, and carrots, but that's the extent of the veggies I eat regularly. I'm not including or excluding anything based on scientific analysis of their pros and cons, just by the way my body reacts to them, although the research that suggests that many vegetables are toxic does back up many of my choices.

Vegetables are toxic. Reallly. Come on Action.

I have been off this forum for to long I guess.

Sure, they are toxic. Write your congressman to get them to ban the systemic pesticides pushed so heavily by Monsanto and they will less toxic

Trace, you just might have missed the word "many" there, right before the word vegetables. And yes, many vegetables have some less than favorable chemicals in them as by products of them being metabolized, as additives, etc, nightshade veggies are a good example.

I drink the amazing grass superfoods green drink powder. It has alot of organic vegetable compounds, as well as wheat grass and a lot of other nutrient dense grasses.

I noticed a definately improvement in my energy and well being after starting on it.

Leeks
Onion
Squash
Celery root
Parsley root

Haha, I saw you up there ABC. Knew you'd love this topic

There have been many so-called antinutrients identified in plant foods and some are thought to be mutagenic and carcinogenic. The most notable would be the protease inhibitors and lectins found in beans and legumes and lentils (and note, that isn't to say all beans), glucosinolates in cabbage and related plants, glucosides in various beans and peas, glycoalkaloids from potatoes, hydrazine from certain mushrooms, and maybe theobromine from cocoa.

But there really isn't much research related to the long-term effects of ingesting these plants at safe levels, there just isn't a consensus on that. And what many of the people who hype up these chemicals tend to ignore is the fact that most of the plants that have them have a disproportionate amount of anti-carcinogens working in their favor: vitamin C & E, beta carotene, and selenium.

Just from the experience of observing and knowing people who consume a lot of vegetation, they have a great deal of vitality and by all appearances seem to be very healthy in comparison to their counterparts on a standard american diet. Now I know that isn't scientific and doesn't mean that a high vegetable intake is necessarily a foundation of the "optimum" diet, but can we intuitively say that eating plant food is harmful? Sure, I tend to avoid potatoes, beans/legumes, and peas, but there's a plethora of plant food out there and you can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Making broad generalizations based on looking at isolated plant chemicals in vitro doesn't begin to shine a light to the complex chemistry of consuming the entire matrix of the plant or to the long evolutionary relationship we have with plants.

He speaks on plant toxins during this lecture, veddy veddy interesting. Its not even an hour and is full of really important info, if nothing else, how we should be approaching supposedly scientific findings.

I really don't know where these claims are coming from. Perhaps it is in vitro that these things appear to be mutagenic, but in vivio the effect is different. Everything points to the inverse -- that vegetables and legumes are protective against cancers.

Our old friend Elsevier:

Abstract

In this review of the scientific literature on the relationship between vegetable and fruit consumption and risk of cancer, results from 206 human epidemiologic studies and 22 animal studies are summarized. The evidence for a protective effect of greater vegetable and fruit consumption is consistent for cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon. The types of vegetables or fruit that most often appear to be protective against cancer are raw vegetables, followed by allium vegetables, carrots, green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and tomatoes. Substances present in vegetables and fruit that may help protect against cancer, and their mechanisms, are also briefly reviewed; these include dithiolthiones, isothiocyanates, indole-3-carbinol, allium compounds, isoflavones, protease inhibitors, saponins, phytosterols, inositol hexaphosphate, vitamin C, D-limonene, lutein, folic acid, beta carotene, lycopene, selenium, vitamin E, flavonoids, and dietary fiber. Current US vegetable and fruit intake, which averages about 3.4 servings per day, is discussed, as are possible noncancer-related effects of increased vegetable and fruit consumption, including benefits against cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, obesity, diverticulosis, and cataracts. Suggestions for dietitians to use in counseling persons toward increasing vegetable and fruit intake are presented. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96:1027-1039.

Abstract

In order to examine the risks of cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract associated with food groups, a case–control study was conducted in Uruguay in the period January 1996–December 1997. All patients afflicted with cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus, were included in the study. Cases were frequency-matched with hospitalized patients on age, sex, residence, and urban/rural status. A strong association with red meat intake was observed (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2–4., whereas vegetables, fruits and legumes were associated with an inverse association (OR for fruits 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.6). Salted meat, a possible source of nitrosamines, was associated with an increased risk of 60% for esophageal cancer. Possible mechanisms for these findings are discussed.

That is something Matt was trying to point out in his lecture, that there are often large discrepancies between the effects of isolated chemicals tested in vitro or between different species versus the effects these chemicals have when consumed as part of an entire food.
There just isn't enough research on the subject, and frankly, given how complex and multivariate the calculations would have to be (given the numerous amount of different chemicals in a single food, the variables in the GI environment, and the amount of time that would need to elapse) it is almost impossible to do the type of research that would be necessary. You would need a computer model. You couldn't achieve the type of control needed using an intervention diet with a human being, and again, isolating specific chemicals tells us a whole lot of nothing. Add in the fact that there are so many variables that can enhance or nullify the effects of these compounds and you start to realize that its just beyond what we're capable of studying scientifically at this point in time. The only thing we are capable of saying right now is that some plants chemicals, prepared in certain ways, might have an effect on some part of the population sometimes and in some contexts. Is that enough for me to avoid plant food? No. But there is enough evidence for me to avoid certain foods, or at least not eat them in high amounts. But again, that is only based on a hypothesis, and that's where our individual choice and intuition has to play a role.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:That is something Matt was trying to point out in his lecture, that there are often large discrepancies between the effects of isolated chemicals tested in vitro or between different species versus the effects these chemicals have when consumed as part of an entire food.
There just isn't enough research on the subject, and frankly, given how complex and multivariate the calculations would have to be (given the numerous amount of different chemicals in a single food, the variables in the GI environment, and the amount of time that would need to elapse) it is almost impossible to do the type of research that would be necessary. You would need a computer model. You couldn't achieve the type of control needed using an intervention diet with a human being, and again, isolating specific chemicals tells us a whole lot of nothing. Add in the fact that there are so many variables that can enhance or nullify the effects of these compounds and you start to realize that its just beyond what we're capable of studying scientifically at this point in time. The only thing we are capable of saying right now is that some plants chemicals, prepared in certain ways, might have an effect on some part of the population sometimes and in some contexts. Is that enough for me to avoid plant food? No. But there is enough evidence for me to avoid certain foods, or at least not eat them in high amounts. But again, that is only based on a hypothesis, and that's where our individual choice and intuition has to play a role.

One of my favorite posts. If I've learned anything from this website its that different chemicals can have vastly different effects depending on the circumstances. I've been meaning to thank abc and all of the ray peat guys for getting me back on fruit actually, and I think this is a great place to do it, because the problems I used to have eating these foods are becoming a thing of the past, I've learned how to incorporate them into my diet and the payoff has been a much stronger metabolism, less adrenal trouble, etc. So, thanks!

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Haha, I saw you up there ABC. Knew you'd love this topic

.....

Edited because I can't be bothered reading for people or spending time making long posts to convince someone who has already closed his mind. What possible benefit is there for me?

a

One of my favorite posts. If I've learned anything from this website its that different chemicals can have vastly different effects depending on the circumstances. I've been meaning to thank abc and all of the ray peat guys for getting me back on fruit actually, and I think this is a great place to do it, because the problems I used to have eating these foods are becoming a thing of the past, I've learned how to incorporate them into my diet and the payoff has been a much stronger metabolism, less adrenal trouble, etc. So, thanks!

No problem

aA full pineapple abc?!

I envy you wholeheartedly, I'd be in a world of hurt if I tried to pull a stunt like that.

Do what reading? You are surely aware that the bulk of written scientific opinion on the matter supports the effects of vegetables on health are positive. Oh I didnt read everything your pet theorist has written on the matter, so I must be close minded?


lol whatever, man

This forum is so funny to read sometimes ..

Plant foods are *universially* beneficial for humans to eat.

Some requires cooking and should not be eaten raw.

Plant proteins are superior to meat proteins, why? Meat requires a long time to digest and
generates alot of acid underway. Plant proteins less time and less acid, and in the right combination is equal in quality to that of meat (beans or lentils and brown rice fx).

Do the reading, and thinking, that you are too intellectually lazy to do for yourself. I am not referring to just reading more of Ray Peat’s site (although that would be helpful because you seem to have misread, he recommends root vegetables).

The evidence that vegetables are good for you is as follows:

1) Epidemiological studies, like the ones you posted, which group vegetables with fruit (hint it’s the fruit).

A significant part of vegetable’s benefits comes from calorie displacement. If a population eats too much processed meat for example, the individuals in the population who eat more vegetables will show benefits.

2) Short term controlled studies showing an improvement of a marker.

If a controlled trial shows an improvement from eating vegetables (and they mostly include fruit in the feedings), it is almost exclusively from the fact that vegetables allowed for caloric restriction and hence weight loss.

This “vast” amount of scientific evidence suggests
1) Not being fat, by whatever means, is probably a good thing.
2) Our population eats a crappy diet.

This doesn’t give you license to infer that eating copious amounts of vegetables is required for good health, which is Peat’s point. He doesn't say don't eat vegetables ever. Peat recommends fruit as the optimal plant based carbohydrate. When you compare vegetables to fruit as food source, he would actually be justified to selectively bash certain vegetables.

LawOfThelema wrote:Do what reading? You are surely aware that the bulk of written scientific opinion on the matter supports the effects of vegetables on health are positive. Oh I didnt read everything your pet theorist has written on the matter, so I must be close minded?


lol whatever, man

Peat has mentioned that he doesn’t want to be viewed as an authority and is not out to prove anything. His site is to encourage discussion. If Peat makes a statement there is often a decent reason behind it. You have to look it up for yourself (I can tell you haven’t in several cases).

I am not going to do the research for you, unless you pay me for my time. This is my last post to you re: Peat.

Plant proteins aren't better than meat proteins. They are far less bioavailable and their amino acid sequences tend to be more difficult to break up enzymatically. This is one of the main issues with the anti-nutrients that have been discussed here. They are all proteins or proteins bound to sugars. The reason they CAN be a problem SOMETIMES is that they are not digested properly by our enzymes and make it to the gut where they can be bio-active. Gluten is perhaps the best example of this, but the others that have been mentioned are also important, lectin for example.

And what ABC is saying regarding calorie displacement is spot on. The reason vegetables are a beneficial food for those who thrive on them is because proportionally, vegetables offer a ton of micronutrients for relatively low caloric density. For the same amount of calories, vegetables are offering up more nutrition, at least in terms of micronutrients. This does not apply to macros (other than carbs), as I've already said plant protein is inferior.

The evidence that vegetables are good for you is as follows:

The evidence that anything is good for you follows the same structure, so why belabor.

High nutrient density on a per calorie basis is not argument against vegetables.

Its not all attributable to fruits either, nor can it be dismissed away as pure calorie intake restriction. While vegetables have been isolated as factors in disease prevention, it is fruits AND vegetables for a reason, not fruits alone. Much of the benefits come from synergies between phytochemicals found in different foods rather than the effect of a single isolated food.