Glycogen is not as reduced as fatty acids are and consequently not as energy rich. Why do animals store any energy as glycogen? Why not convert all excess fuel into fatty acids? Glycogen is an important fuel reserve for several reasons. The controlled breakdown of glycogen and release of glucose increase the amount of glucose that is available between meals. Hence, glycogen serves as a buffer to maintain blood-glucose levels. Glycogen’s role in maintaining blood-glucose levels is especially important because glucose is virtually the only fuel used by the brain, except during prolonged starvation. Moreover, the glucose from glycogen is readily mobilized and is therefore a good source of energy for sudden, strenuous activity. Unlike fatty acids, the released glucose can provide energy in the absence of oxygen and can thus supply energy for anaerobic activity.
The two major sites of glycogen storage are the liver and skeletal muscle. The concentration of glycogen is higher in the liver than in muscle (10% versus 2% by weight), but more glycogen is stored in skeletal muscle overall because of its much greater mass. Glycogen is present in the cytosol in the form of granules ranging in diameter from 10 to 40 nm. In the liver, glycogen synthesis and degradation are regulated to maintain blood-glucose levels as required to meet the needs of the organism as a whole. In contrast, in muscle, these processes are regulated to meet the energy needs of the muscle itself.
Stress prevents to restore body’s energy reserve. (With energy reserve here is meant the glycogen reserve in liver and muscles.) Low energy reserve enforces stress reaction and leads to cognitive tunneling.
Things to keep in mind
Focus on People and Environment around you to manage stress.
Focus on Yourself to restore body energy reserve.
Look for social acceptance. Most of the Stress is caused by disdainful attitude of people around you, especially the closest ones. Someone might insult, criticize, admonish, complain or ignore you. And they would dare to do that if you’ll not look big, balanced and powerful enough. Enough means more than the abuser. People expose disdainful attitude (contempt, disdain, scorn) to force others into humility. Just because this makes them feel better. When the victim obeys it, attacker might follow up with mercy and tolerance. From this perspective mother Theresa is a real beast. 🙂 Monitor constantly for respectful attitude from others. Good looking, high energy would prevent from being abused in this stressful way.
Remember to breath as this would use body’s fat for energy instead of precious glycogen. You need it to cover intense load of brain and anaerobic work of muscle.
Mange stress: Make other males stressed about things you care. Call them, write them, meet them. Ask what you want.
Manage energy: Eat the first meal after some job is done, physical exercising – cold bath – running is accomplished. After meal take warm bath and a nap for 0.5 hour or more.
Eat carbohydrates separate from protein. If mixed, it would lead to higher blood glucose level. Protein would increase insulin resistance, thus glucose will not get into cells to create glycogen. For example 2 day carbohydrates, one day protein.
Eat everything with fat – lard, butter, coconut oil.
After long exhausting activities eat carbohydrates first, protein next day.
After sprint activities eat protein and relax for couple of hours.
Take warm bath before sleep, no matter what a clock it is. Take it.
In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) is likely to be a myth.
The study discovered that short men were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height. The experiment involved subjects dueling each other with sticks, with one subject deliberately rapping the other’s knuckles. Heart monitors revealed that the taller men were more likely to lose their tempers and hit back.
University of Central Lancashire lecturer Mike Eslea commented that “when people see a short man being aggressive, they are likely to think it is due to his size, simply because that attribute is obvious and grabs their attention.”
The Wessex Growth Study is a community-based longitudinal study conducted in the UK that monitored the psychological development of children from school entry to adulthood. The study was controlled for potential effects of gender and socioeconomic status, and found that “no significant differences in personality functioning or aspects of daily living were found which could be attributable to height”; this functioning included generalizations associated with the Napoleon complex, such as risk-taking behaviours.
Abraham Buunk, a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claimed to have found evidence of the small man syndrome. Researchers at the University found that men who were 1.63 metres (5 ft 4 in) were 50% more likely to show signs of jealousy than men who were 1.98 metres (6 ft 6 in).
‘Short man syndrome’ is a condition in which a person has to deal with a feeling of inadequacy which can come from a lack of height – or a perceived lack of height. This is particularly common in men who gain a lot of confidence and status from physicality and who often gain pleasure from being able to feel physically imposing.
Short man syndrome is an informal term and not a medical or psychological condition and goes by other names such as ‘Napoleon complex’. Technically it is a form of inferiority complex in which the person attempts to overcompensate for their perceived shortcoming. The term is often used as a derogatory term also to describe those who are perceived as acting this way.
Short Man’s Syndrome deffinitions from urbandictionary.com
An angry male of below average height who feels it necessary to act out in an attempt to gain respect and recognition from others and compensate for his abnormally short stature. Also synonomous to little man syndrome.
The phenomenon of appearing overly aggressive or assertive. This may be a reaction after repeatedly suffering height discrimnation (heightism) in the workplace, in relationships with women, or elsewhere during socialisation.
A term used to dehumanize short men. On the basis of this prejudiced term, a short man isn’t allowed to do anything assertive, confident, or generally masculine without being accused of overcompensating or having short man’s syndrome.
Whereas if a taller man exhibited the same exact behavior, nobody would bat an eyelash. I rudely shoved that short guy at the bar out of my way, and he got all angry about it. Talk about short man’s syndrome!
A demeaning phrases to explain the everyday behaviour or reactions of a shorter man. This circular definition is very much like the black man’s supposed “chip on the shoulder,” or a female’s “penis envy”.
It is a device to excuse discrimination by blaming the recipient of that discrimination.
– “Hey, that guy got angry when I ridiculed him for being short.”
– “He did? I guess that must be short man’s syndrome.”
A story made up by tall guys with small dicks who have nothing else going for them than their height. The same insecure guys will come up with stories to put down men of all shapes, sizes, looks, professions, talents, and intelligence levels in an attempt to make themselves look better, and still wonder why we women won’t go for them.
Jason: “How did that short man end up with that girl!! I have to bring it to her attention that her guy has short man’s syndrome! Also check out that fat guy with the beautiful woman; he must have fat guy’s syndrome. How about that smart guy? What a nerd! And that overly tall dude?! What a sasquatch! Don’t even get me started on redhead men!”
Jennifer: “Get a life! And grow some balls so you don’t need to put others down to feel better about yourself”
– Often seen “hanging out” at that bar, either sitting bolt upright on a bar stool or slouching in a booth, bragging loudly and buying anyone/everyone drinks and then getting really annoyed when no-one reciprocates
Aggression is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, whenever the interests of individuals conflict. In contests between animals, the larger opponent is often victorious. However, counter intuitively, an individual that has little chance of winning (generally smaller individuals) sometimes initiates contests.
A number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain this behaviour, including the ‘desperado effect’ according to which, the likely losers initiate aggression due to lack of alternative options. An alternative explanation suggested recently is that likely losers attack due to an error in perception: they mistakenly perceive their chances of winning as being greater than they are. We show that explaining the apparently maladaptive aggression initiated by the likely loser can be explained on purely economic grounds, without requiring either the desperado effect or perception errors.
Using a game-theoretical model, we show that if smaller individuals can accurately assess their chance of winning, if this chance is less than, but close to, a half, and if resources are scarce (or the contested resource is of relatively low value), they are predicted to be as aggressive as their larger opponents. In addition, when resources are abundant, and small individuals have some chance of winning, they may be more aggressive than their larger opponents, as it may benefit larger individuals to avoid the costs of fighting and seek alternative uncontested resources.
Male-male conflict is common among animals, but questions remain as to when, how and by whom aggression should be initiated. Factors that affect agonistic strategies include residency, the value of the contested resource and the fighting ability of the two contestants.
We quantified initiation of aggression in a fish, the desert goby, Chlamydogobius eremius, by exposing nest-holding males to a male intruder. The perceived value of the resource (the nest) was manipulated by exposing half of the residents to sexually receptive females for two days before the trial. Resident male aggression, however, was unaffected by perceived mating opportunities. It was also unaffected by the absolute and relative size of the intruder.
Instead resident aggression was negatively related to resident male size. In particular, smaller residents attacked sooner and with greater intensity compared to larger residents. These results suggest that resident desert goby males used set, rather than conditional, strategies for initiating aggression. If intruders are more likely to flee than retaliate, small males may benefit from attacking intruders before these have had an opportunity to assess the resident and/or the resource.
In almost every society men are the ones who are overwhelmingly involved in wars, in all kinds of intergroup aggressions and intragroup homicide; they mobilize themselves in armies of violent fans, in criminal gangs, in bands of thugs, etc. These observations are as old as the world and have allowed us to create a clear distinction between male and female sexes regarding their predisposition to violence. Wars are a biosocial product of men and a field for male’s manifestation [Goldstein, 2001]. The same thing is true of crime and cruelty, which are closely linked to masculinity.
. . .
All of these anatomical, hormonal, behavioral and evolutionary factors demonstrate the biological, instinctual inclination of men to be more combative. Therefore, on an individual and social level, men are involved in acts of violence and crime. The social environment only cultivates and points out these predispositions towards fighting and aggression.
Are all short men little Napoleons? It’s often said smaller men tend to be chippy and aggressive. But what’s the scientific evidence?
The name of one of greatest military leaders lent to the Napoleon Complex
Syndrome where pint-sized men overcompensate for their lack of stature with self-importance, jealousy and aggression
Stalin was said to suffer from it, as did Mussolini and Attila the Hun
But critics say people often too quick to link personality defects to height
Napoleon Bonaparte’s legacy is immense. He reformed the Continental legal system, ensured that Europe, and most of the world, drives on the right and, until his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo 200 years ago this month, was one of the greatest military leaders in history.
The French dictator also lent his name to something less impressive — the Napoleon Complex, the syndrome where pint-sized men overcompensate for their lack of stature with blustering self-importance, jealousy and aggression.
Stalin was said to suffer from it, as did Mussolini and Attila the Hun. Some critics say it helps explain the behaviour of 5ft 5in former French president Nicolas Sarkozy.
Last month, singer Art Garfunkel reignited the debate over the Napoleon Complex by accusing his erstwhile partner Paul Simon — all 5ft 3in of him — of being a sufferer. ‘I think you’re on to something,’ Garfunkel reflected, looking back on years of in-fighting and estrangement. ‘I would say so, yes.’
So is there really such a thing as a short man syndrome? And can height really influence our pesonality?
The Napoleon Complex was identified in 1926 by the Austrian psychoanalyst Alfred Adler, who also came up with the notion of the inferiority complex, where sufferers demonstrate a lack of self-worth.
In its classic form, personified by Captain Mainwaring in Dad’s Army (who is regularly taunted as a ‘Napoleon’ by Warden Hodges), short men overcompensate for their lack of height by being extra-assertive and chippy.
The name, actually, is a bit of a misnomer. Although Napoleon is assumed to have been short, he was 5ft 6in, around average for a man in the late 18th century. The confusion arose from portraits of the dictator standing alongside unusually tall guards.
The complex has divided psychologists for more than a century. Some say it describes a real phenomenon; others believe there is no evidence it exists.
What is beyond doubt, is that short men have every reason to be fed-up with their lot. Study after study shows that tall people are wealthier, more successful at work, healthier and even enjoy better love lives than their smaller counterparts.
A 2004 study by psychologist Timothy Judge found that tall people earn more. He calculated back then that every inch of height added $789 (£505) to someone’s annual salary every year so that, on average, a worker who was 6ft earned $5,525 (£3,535) more than someone who was 5ft 5in.
When author Malcolm Gladwell polled the management of half the top U.S. companies, he found that 58 per cent of chief executives were at least 6ft tall, compared to just 14 per cent of the population.
Since 1916 — the era when our politicians have appeared on cinema screens and TV — the taller U.S. presidential candidate has won 17 times; the shorter candidate just six. Other studies have shown tall men are more likely to find a long-term partner and taller teenagers have more dates.
Short people are more likely to become crooks, they’re more likely to develop heart disease, they tend to be more unhappy and they don’t live as long. No wonder vertically challenged people feel they are getting short shrift.
No one really knows why tall people — and particularly tall men — do so well in life. It may be partly to do with evolution. Tall men are seen by women as being healthier, fitter and stronger, looking all round the better catch.
Tall people may be more confident, safe in the knowledge they will never be overlooked. That confidence may translate into better exam results, career prospects and love lives.
But what evidence is there that these inequalities are matched by seething resentment and anger among short men? One study suggesting the short man complex is real came from Professor Abraham Buunk, of Holland’s University of Groningen.
He interviewed 100 men and 100 women in relationships and found that men around 5ft 4in tall were more likely to suffer from jealousy than those measuring 6ft 6in.
For women, the results were different: tall and short women both showed more signs of jealousy than women of average stature.
But other experiments have not found compelling evidence for a Napoleon Complex.
Psychologist Dr Glenn Wilson says: ‘For every nasty little Napoleon or Hitler, there’s an equally nasty Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi who is tall. It’s easy to think of case examples but scientific evidence is very limited.’
In 2007, researchers at the University of Central Lancashire found that tall men — not short ones — were quicker to lose their rag when provoked.
In an unusual — and slightly silly — study, men of different heights duelled with wooden sticks. In each fight, they were battling a stooge who was told to provoke a response by deliberately rapping their opponent across the knuckles.
Dr Mike Eslea, who carried out the study, showed it was the taller men who were more quick to fly off the handle. And when researchers at Southampton University compared the personality types of 48 short and 66 average height people in their late teens in 2003, they found no link between personality and height.
Critics of the theory say people are often too quick to link personality defects to height. If a 5ft 10in man is bossy or angry, no one links it to their size.
Yet when a 5ft 4in man displays the same characteristics, they are accused of overcompensating.
And there are plenty of shorter men who are easy-going and passive. Gandhi was just 5ft 3in.
If the evidence for Napoleon syndrome in men is weak, it’s virtually non-existent in women. Some studies have shown shorter women feel less confident — which helps explain why so many women feel the need to wear high heels to boost their self-esteem.
Oxford University academic Professor Daniel Freeman tested how height affects personality in 2013. He invited 60 women to take a simulated underground train journey while wearing virtual reality glasses.
The Tube trip was as realistic as possible — with noisy rumbling and swaying motion — and the carriage was populated by computer-generated people. The volunteers took two journeys — one at normal height and another with their viewpoint altered to replicate how the journey would look if they were about a head shorter.
‘It was clear that being lower made people feel less confident in themselves,’ says Prof Freeman. ‘There was an increase in feelings of inferiority. And, with this added sense of vulnerability, the participants felt more mistrustful of the people around them. This happened in a virtual-reality simulation but we know people behave in VR as they do in real life.’
The Napoleon Complex has divided psychologists for more than a century. Some say it describes a real phenomenon; others believe there is no evidence it exists.
Yet revealing that a woman feels less confident when she’s shorter doesn’t mean that she also becomes more aggressive, pompous or chippy. Women are expected to be shorter in our society.
In 97 per cent of UK couples, the man is on average five or six inches taller.
Psychologist Dr David Lewis claims to have identified a ‘Tinker Bell Complex’, named after the feisty fairy in Peter Pan. Women who are petite are often infantilised — treated like children by men, or so the theory goes. As a result, they can develop a sense of rebellion and resentment that makes them more flamboyant and ambitious.
Candidates for the Tinker Bell Complex include Lady Gaga (5ft 1in), Barbara Windsor (4ft 10in) and Lulu (5ft 1in). Unlike the Napoleon Complex, it’s not seen as a negative trait but an asset that helps them succeed.
At the other end of the scale, tall women — like tall men — seem to do better at careers and earning money. But tall people don’t get it all their own way.
They may have the money and the relationships. But according to a University of Aberdeen study, they are also more likely to be bitten by midges.
Napoleon Bonaparte and Captain Mainwaring would be no doubt be delighted to hear it.
It might be, that a healthy diet is one that helps to maintain or improve overall health.
Various nutrition guides are published by medical and governmental institutions to educate individuals on what they should be eating to promote health. Nutrition facts labels are also mandatory in some countries to allow consumers to choose between foods based on the components relevant to health.
Healthy diet is simple, according to Marion Nestle, who expresses the mainstream view among scientists who study nutrition::10
The basic principles of good diets are so simple that I can summarize them in just ten words: eat less, move more, eat lots of fruits and vegetables. For additional clarification, a five-word modifier helps: go easy on junk foods. Follow these precepts and you will go a long way toward preventing the major diseases of our overfed society—coronary heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, stroke, osteoporosis, and a host of others…. These precepts constitute the bottom line of what seem to be the far more complicated dietary recommendations of many health organizations and national and international governments—the forty-one “key recommendations” of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, for example. … Although you may feel as though advice about nutrition is constantly changing, the basic ideas behind my four precepts have not changed in half a century. And they leave plenty of room for enjoying the pleasures of food.:22
David L. Katz, who reviewed the most prevalent popular diets in 2014, noted:
The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.
Eat at least 400 grams of fruits and vegetables per day (potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava and other starchy roots do not count). A healthy diet also contains legumes (e.g. lentils, beans), whole grains and nuts.
Limit the intake of sugar. A 2003 report recommends less than 10% of calorie intake from simple sugars.
It emphasizes both health and environmental sustainability and a flexible approach: the committee that drafted it wrote: “The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet. This pattern of eating can be achieved through a variety of dietary patterns, including the “Healthy U.S.-style Pattern,” the “Healthy Vegetarian Pattern,” and the “Healthy Mediterranean-style Pattern”. Food group amounts are per day, unless noted per week.
American Heart Association / World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research
The American Heart Association, World Cancer Research Fund, and American Institute for Cancer Research recommend a diet that consists mostly of unprocessed plant foods, with emphasis a wide range of whole grains, legumes, and non-starchy vegetables and fruits. This healthy diet is full of a wide range of various non-starchy vegetables and fruits, that provide different colors including red, green, yellow, white, purple, and orange. They note that tomato cooked with oil, allium vegetables like garlic, and cruciferous vegetables like cauliflower, provide some protection against cancer. This healthy diet is low in energy density, which may protect against weight gain and associated diseases. Finally, limiting consumption of sugary drinks, limiting energy rich foods, including “fast foods” and red meat, and avoiding processed meats improves health and longevity. Overall, researchers and medical policy conclude that this healthy diet can reduce the risk of chronic disease and cancer.
In children, consuming less than 25 grams of added sugar (100 calories) is recommended per day. Other recommendations include no extra sugars in those under 2 years old and less than one soft drink per week. As of 2017, decreasing total fat is no longer recommended, but instead, the recommendation to lower risk of cardiovascular disease is to increase consumption of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats, while decreasing consumption of saturated fats.
Choose good carbohydrates: whole grains (the less processed the better), vegetables, fruits and beans. Avoid white bread, white rice, and the like as well as pastries, sugared sodas, and other highly processed food.
Pay attention to the protein package: good choices include fish, poultry, nuts, and beans. Try to avoid red meat.
Choose foods containing healthy fats. Plant oils, nuts, and fish are the best choices. Limit consumption of saturated fats, and avoid foods with trans fat.
Choose a fiber-filled diet which includes whole grains, vegetables, and fruits.
Eat more vegetables and fruits—the more colorful and varied, the better.
Include adequate amounts of calcium in the diet; however, milk is not the best or only source. Good sources of calcium are collards, bok choy, fortified soy milk, baked beans, and supplements containing calcium and vitamin D.
Prefer water over other beverages. Avoid sugary drinks, and limit intake of juices and milk. Coffee, tea, artificially-sweetened drinks, 100-percent fruit juices, low-fat milk and alcohol can fit into a healthy diet but are best consumed in moderation. Sports drinks are recommended only for people who exercise more than an hour at a stretch to replace substances lost in sweat.
Limit salt intake. Choose more fresh foods, instead of processed ones.
Drink alcohol in moderation. Doing so has health benefits, but is not recommended for everyone.
In addition to dietary recommendations for the general population, there are many specific diets that have primarily been developed to promote better health in specific population groups, such as people with high blood pressure (as in low sodium diets or the more specific DASH diet), or people who are overweight or obese (in weight control diets). However, some of them may have more or less evidence for beneficial effects in normal people as well.
The DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) is a diet promoted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (part of the NIH, a United States government organization) to control hypertension. A major feature of the plan is limiting intake of sodium,and the diet also generally encourages the consumption of nuts, whole grains, fish, poultry, fruits, and vegetables while lowering the consumption of red meats, sweets, and sugar. It is also “rich in potassium, magnesium, and calcium, as well as protein”.
The Mediterranean diet, which includes limiting consumption of red meat and using olive oil in cooking, has also been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
Diets to promote weight loss are divided into four categories: low-fat, low-carbohydrate, low-calorie, and very low calorie. A meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials found no difference between the main diet types (low calorie, low carbohydrate, and low fat), with a 2–4 kilogram weight loss in all studies. At two years, all calorie-reduced diet types cause equal weight loss regardless of the macronutrients emphasized.
There may be a relationship between lifestyle including food consumption and potentially lowering the risk of cancer or other chronic diseases. A diet high in fruits and vegetables appears to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease and death but not cancer.
A healthy diet may consist mostly of whole plant foods, with limited consumption of energy dense foods, red meat, alcoholic drinks and salt while reducing consumption of sugary drinks, and processed meat. A healthy diet may contain non-starchy vegetables and fruits, including those with red, green, yellow, white, purple or orange pigments. Tomato cooked with oil, allium vegetables like garlic, and cruciferous vegetables like cauliflower “probably” contain compounds which are under research for their possible anti-cancer activity.
A healthy diet is low in energy density, lowering caloric content, thereby possibly inhibiting weight gain and lowering risk against chronic diseases. Chronic Western diseases are associated with pathologically increased IGF-1 levels. Findings in molecular biology and epidemiologic data suggest that milk consumption is a promoter of chronic diseases of Western nations, including atherosclerosis, carcinogenesis and neurodegenerative diseases.
The Western pattern diet which is typically eaten by Americans and increasingly adapted by people in the developing world as they leave poverty is unhealthy: it is “rich in red meat, dairy products, processed and artificially sweetened foods, and salt, with minimal intake of fruits, vegetables, fish, legumes, and whole grains.”
Popular diets, often referred to as fad diets, make promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science, and in many cases are characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices.:296 Celebrity endorsements (including celebrity doctors) are frequently associated with popular diets, and the individuals who develop and promote these programs often profit handsomely.:11–12
Fears of high cholesterol were frequently voiced up until the mid-1990s. However, more recent research has shown that the distinction between high- and low-density lipoprotein (‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol, respectively) must be addressed when speaking of the potential ill effects of cholesterol. Different types of dietary fat have different effects on blood levels of cholesterol. For example, polyunsaturated fats tend to decrease both types of cholesterol; monounsaturated fats tend to lower LDL and raise HDL; saturated fats tend to either raise HDL, or raise both HDL and LDL; and trans fat tend to raise LDL and lower HDL.
While dietary cholesterol is only found in animal products such as meat, eggs, and dairy, studies have not found a link between eating cholesterol and blood levels of cholesterol.
Vending machines in particular have come under fire as being avenues of entry into schools for junk food promoters. However, there is little in the way of regulation and it is difficult for most people to properly analyze the real merits of a company referring to itself as “healthy.” Recently, the Committee of Advertising Practice in the United Kingdom launched a proposal to limit media advertising for food and soft drink products high in fat, salt or sugar. The British Heart Foundation released its own government-funded advertisements, labeled “Food4Thought”, which were targeted at children and adults to discourage unhealthy habits of consuming junk food.
Cultural and psychological factors
From a psychological and cultural perspective, a healthier diet may be difficult to achieve for people with poor eating habits. This may be due to tastes acquired in childhood and preferences for sugary, salty and/or fatty foods.
Animals that are kept by humans also benefit from a healthy diet and the requirements of such diets may be very different from the ideal human diet.
Jump up^Melina, Vesanto; Craig, Winston; Levin, Susan (December 2016). “Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets”. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 116 (12): 1970–1980. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025.
Jump up^Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ (May 2006). “Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data”. Lancet. 367 (9524): 1747–57. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9. PMID16731270.
Jump up^Jennifer Robbins, Silvina Pugliese, Diana Cullum-Dugan, Carine Lenders, Kathy Gorman Ireland Popular Diets Page accessed Jan 28, 2016
Jump up^Tina Gianoulis, “Dieting” in the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture Ed. Thomas Riggs. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 2013. p106-108. ISBN978-1-55862-847-2
While vegan works and has some productivity, predator sleeps after the meal and does nothing. Accomplish more while eating carbs throughout the day. Have protein rich diet before going to sleep what will enhance body’s recovery during the night.
William Howard Hay (known for the ‘Hay diet‘, a food-combiningdietary system) suggests that when starches and proteins are eaten together, the body is not able to digest the foods correctly. It turns out that starches take 2 hours to digest, and proteins take about 4 hours, but when eaten together, it could take up to 13 hours for the food to digest.
Bread is mixture of carbs and protein.
Bread and any cereal food contains both carbs and protein – avoid it. There is a good book on it: David Perlmutter’s book “Grain Brain” explains why not to eat bred.
Dr. Vasant Lad (Executive director of Ayurvedic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico) warns against pairing protein-rich foods, such as eggs and meat, with carb-containing foods, such as fruit or starches. (www.livestrong.com)
Nutritional therapist Kerry Torrens explains why balance and moderation is key… (bbcgoodfood.com)
Body prefers carbohydrates (fruits and vegetables) over the fat as source of energy. And our brains, in particular, need carbs to maintain alertness and concentration. If you loose carbs from your diet completely, it can be detrimental to health.
We all need some protein (whether from meat, fish, dairy or grains) for strong muscles and bones, hormonal health and immunity.