# BELIAL's healthy milkshake thread



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

My favourite -

3-4 frozen Bananas.
300ml of Rice Milk
2-3 tbl spoons of Coco Powder 

Blend that shit.

Result - A really healthy and ice cold freshing beverage.

Gives you fucking energy. I blitz the treadmill after getting dat shit.











You can use chocolate milk also :3

#savage


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

This is the best one ever. I came across it at a restaurant, so I don't know what quantities to use, but it shouldn't be too difficult.

Avocado
Milk/ Filk
Ground Almonds
Dates

Blend.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

OMG, FOUND THIS NEW VEGAN ONE OMG - Tastes so fucking awesome -

2x frozen bananas
200ML rice milk
1 1/2 tbl spn of coco powder
40g of hemp seeds.

The flavours just mix so damn well together! It has the nutty tang to the chocolate!

Good protein, good healthy fat, calcium, vitamin d, Vitamin b's, vit C.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Truly depends on your definition of healthy..


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

My usual is 2 bananas + soy milk + cocoa powder
but i have IBS and smoothies don't agree with me very well

My all time favourite was banana + apple + pear + orange juice for liquid but it kills me now


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

B3LIAL said:


> My favourite -
> 
> 3-4 frozen Bananas.
> 300ml of Rice Milk
> ...


thanks, what is rice milk though? :crazy: don't mind, I'm stupid


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Felipe said:


> thanks, what is rice milk though? :crazy: don't mind, I'm stupid


A non-dairy form of milk. Look up Rice Dream.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Convex said:


> Truly depends on your definition of healthy..


Are you implying that your milkshakes aren't healthy, or do you have an issue with one of the ones that I've put down?


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

B3LIAL said:


> Are you implying that your milkshakes aren't healthy, or do you have an issue with one of the ones that I've put down?


It gives you energy because of the carbohydrates that fills your glycogen stores, and after those are depleted, you will feel hungry again, because of the insulin spike. This is not how we lived.. we hunted, we ate, and we hunted again. We did not snack, and for good reasons! We did not have access to carbohydrates like we do now due to the agricultural revolution. We used fats (from animal sources) as our energy sources because that kept us full, fats are designed for this. We are designed to eats fats, to utilize carbohydrates as a primary source causes a hormonal imbalance.

The fruits we have now are hybrids, back then, fruits had more fiber (which slowed the insulin spike), and less sugar. We had to compete with insects and birds, and they only had a small window because of seasonal selection! They did not have imports and exports. 

If evolution has not selected it for us, how are we certain it is healthy? I want people to look at this obesity epidemic with clear eyes, and bright minds. Calories in, calories out, they say.. while the American Diabetes Association visits the ATM. This is being anti-truth, you are contributing nothing but reductionist knowledge that we already know when you say this.

We need to look at this further, and use our individual minds.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Convex said:


> It gives you energy because of the carbohydrates that fills your glycogen stores, and after those are depleted, you will feel hungry again, because of the insulin spike. This is not how we lived.. we hunted, we ate, and we hunted again. We did not snack, and for good reasons! We did not have access to carbohydrates like we do now due to the agricultural revolution. We used fats (from animal sources) as our energy sources because that kept us full, fats are designed for this. We are designed to eats fats, to utilize carbohydrates as a primary source causes a hormonal imbalance.


That is actually very wrong.
Firstly, it depended on where every tribe lived and the season, but actually most humans were heavily plant-based. Glucose is our brain fuel and fats are not a good source for this, plus, the animal food they ate was quite lower in fat compared to the modern counterparts. We also evolved from a fruitarian/herbivore ancestor, so eating glucose is not unnatural at all, it's not coincindence our brains need a steady supply of it and our bodies primarily require plant material to function properly, i.e. get all the vitamins, minerals and glucose. 

this is a scientific, but easy to read article that is very interesting and informative: Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective


----------



## peter pettishrooms (Apr 20, 2015)

One banana with three spoonfuls of green tea matcha powder and coconut or almond milk. :tongue:


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> That is actually very wrong.
> Firstly, it depended on where every tribe lived and the season, but actually most humans were heavily plant-based. Glucose is our brain fuel and fats are not a good source for this, plus, the animal food they ate was quite lower in fat compared to the modern counterparts. We also evolved from a fruitarian/herbivore ancestor, so eating glucose is not unnatural at all, it's not coincindence our brains need a steady supply of it and our bodies primarily require plant material to function properly, i.e. get all the vitamins, minerals and glucose.
> 
> this is a scientific, but easy to read article that is very interesting and informative: Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective


Well, actually it wouldn't depend much on where every tribe lived, because the only primary energy they would have year-round would be from animal sources. How would glucose be our primary fuel when history shows that we have eaten primary meat? Meat has more calories for less work, because it's fattier than plants. Carbohydrates provide 4 calories per gram, while fat provides 9 calories per gram. Also, meat is the only nutritionally complete food, if you were to eat only meat in your lifetime, you would be healthy. (source: Meats - Diagnosisiet). You say our brain needs a steady supply of glucose, but I see no reason that we should consume it directly; have you ever heard of gluconeogenesis?

Here is an actual study, not a medial hypothesis like the link you shared, that concludes that Neanderthals and early modern humans primarily ate meat: Isotopic evidence for the diets of European Neanderthals and early modern humans



Red Panda said:


> I tried fasting for 24 hours lunch-to-lunch it didn't go that well. After a while all I could think about was food lol. And I felt very weak to do anything other than stay home and sit on the PC. I prefer fasting intermittenlty, usually from lunch to next morning or from evening to next lunch, but if I'm working and my stomach hurts and I feel weak I will break it. There's really no reason not to hear your body at that point and pretty much the only reason I do this is because I feel like it, I don't force it. Sometimes I do it out of laziness so there's that too.


See, this is because of the insulin spike. You feel hungry because the glycogen stores have depleted, and it spikes your blood sugar. Fats would have kept you full for longer, like how our ancestors almost always have done, because it does not spike your blood sugar, and keep glycogen stores steady with gluconeogenesis.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Convex said:


> Well, actually it wouldn't depend much on where every tribe lived, because the only primary energy they would have year-round would be from animal sources. How would glucose be our primary fuel when history shows that we have eaten primary meat? Meat has more calories for less work, because it's fattier than plants. Carbohydrates provide 4 calories per gram, while fat provides 9 calories per gram. Also, meat is the only nutritionally complete food, if you were to eat only meat in your lifetime, you would be healthy. (source: Meats - Diagnosisiet). You say our brain needs a steady supply of glucose, but I see no reason that we should consume it directly; have you ever heard of gluconeogenesis?
> 
> Here is an actual study, not a medial hypothesis like the link you shared, that concludes that Neanderthals and early modern humans primarily ate meat: Isotopic evidence for the diets of European Neanderthals and early modern humans
> 
> See, this is because of the insulin spike. You feel hungry because the glycogen stores have depleted, and it spikes your blood sugar. Fats would have kept you full for longer, like how our ancestors almost always have done, because it does not spike your blood sugar, and keep glycogen stores steady with gluconeogenesis.


Did you read the article? Please read the article.
Humans have primarily been plant-based with the exception of inuit. Animals were probably not available all year-round because of their breeding cycles and difficulties in hunting, I doubt getting game was a daily occurence, if you watch documentaries of modern hunter-gatherer societies that is evident. So while meat is a compact nutrient source, daily consumption of plant material would be necessary to maintain adequate nutrition as meat was simply not available as often and easily. Plus, like I said and it says so in the article as well, game meat back then was very low in fat, heck they probably ate more fat from nuts and seeds than meat.

(i have a degree in dietetics so i do know about gluconeogensis) Glucose IS our primary brain fuel there is no question for that, if levels drop we quite quickly suffer the effects, gluconeogenesis serves the purpose of maintaing adequate levels during absence of food. Consuming it directly is the best and most efficient way and it doesn't make sense evolutionary-wise that we'd evolve to rely so much on glucose if our bodies had to do a backwards chain of reactions for us to get it. 

The article you linked has little to do with our discussion, it merely compares the protein sources for Neanderthals and **** sapiens, to see what kind of proteins both ate: _"Isotopic analysis provides information about the sources of dietary protein over a number of years, even though *it does not measure the caloric contributions of different foods.* As the method only measures protein intake, many low-protein foods that may have been important to the diet (i.e., high caloric foods like honey, underground storage organs, and essential mineral and vitamin rich plant foods) are simply invisible to this method."_ 
It doesn't say that **** sapiens ate the same amount of protein as neanderthals, merely that it was primarly animal derived (which makes sense).

So again, please read that article.

Oh and it's unlikely that a meat-only diet would keep us healthy as we are not carnivorous animals. Vitamin C is an example of that, but also modern research on the effects of fiber on our gut health, cardiovascular disease and even cancer.


----------



## sink (May 21, 2014)

I thought this thread was about healthy milkshake recipes.

Pineapple chunks
Coconut water
A couple bananas
Ice (optional)

Piña colada without the alcohol!


----------



## Miniblini (Jun 4, 2014)

Will these milkshakes bring the boys to my yard? Last time they only brought bees.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Did you read the article? Please read the article.
> Humans have primarily been plant-based with the exception of inuit. Animals were probably not available all year-round because of their breeding cycles and difficulties in hunting, I doubt getting game was a daily occurence, if you watch documentaries of modern hunter-gatherer societies that is evident. So while meat is a compact nutrient source, daily consumption of plant material would be necessary to maintain adequate nutrition as meat was simply not available as often and easily. Plus, like I said and it says so in the article as well, game meat back then was very low in fat, heck they probably ate more fat from nuts and seeds than meat.
> 
> (i have a degree in dietetics so i do know about gluconeogensis) Glucose IS our primary brain fuel there is no question for that, if levels drop we quite quickly suffer the effects, gluconeogenesis serves the purpose of maintaing adequate levels during absence of food. Consuming it directly is the best and most efficient way and it doesn't make sense evolutionary-wise that we'd evolve to rely so much on glucose if our bodies had to do a backwards chain of reactions for us to get it.
> ...


Of course I read the article. It is a medical hypothesis, not a finding. You yourself are hypothesizing, and while doing so accusing me of being wrong! How absurd! If I watch this, if I read that, and listen to this. You don't give reasoning but of argumentum ad populum. If we did not find food often, why were you unable to fast for a measly 24 hours? I'll say it again, fruits we have now are hybrids, which means, more sugar and less fiber. We have tools, but our primary source of energy is of that is seasonal, less caloric, and in competition with insects and birds. 

A "backwards chain" as you call it, subtly attacking and argument without any actual reasoning. A process such as this would prove needed when we had long periods without food, which means, that we wouldn't be constantly snacking on rich carbohydrate food.

Ah yes, vitamin C. I was wondering when you were going to mention this. This is a study that concludes that an uptake of vitamin C is inhibited by, your favorite, glucose! Yes, this means that eating a diet of only meat would not give you scurvy as only looking at the surface details would lead you to conclude. Glucose would cluster the transporter for the ascorbic acid, and would make it tougher for them to pass through. This means either: bruteforcing your way by means of balance and consume more vitamin C , or clear the lane, and decrease your direct glucose uptake. Ever thought there was a reason why we lacked the enzyme to create vitamin C? I have, and it's all pointing to our rapid increase of carbohydrates.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Convex said:


> Of course I read the article. It is a medical hypothesis, not a finding. You yourself are hypothesizing, and while doing so accusing me of being wrong! How absurd! If I watch this, if I read that, and listen to this. You don't give reasoning but of argumentum ad populum. If we did not find food often, why were you unable to fast for a measly 24 hours? I'll say it again, fruits we have now are hybrids, which means, more sugar and less fiber. We have tools, but our primary source of energy is of that is seasonal, less caloric, and in competition with insects and birds.
> 
> A "backwards chain" as you call it, subtly attacking and argument without any actual reasoning. A process such as this would prove needed when we had long periods without food, which means, that we wouldn't be constantly snacking on rich carbohydrate food.
> 
> Ah yes, vitamin C. I was wondering when you were going to mention this. This is a study that concludes that an uptake of vitamin C is inhibited by, your favorite, glucose! Yes, this means that eating a diet of only meat would not give you scurvy as only looking at the surface details would lead you to conclude. Glucose would cluster the transporter for the ascorbic acid, and would make it tougher for them to pass through. This means either: bruteforcing your way by means of balance and consume more vitamin C , or clear the lane, and decrease your direct glucose uptake. Ever thought there was a reason why we lacked the enzyme to create vitamin C? I have, and it's all pointing to our rapid increase of carbohydrates.



It's not just a hypothesis, it's a review based on evidence done by someone on the field, not me. I'm not a paleoanthropologist so naturally I will read up what they have to say first. You are the one who's hypothesizing using virtually no arguments based on collected evidence. The only thing you've said is that we can do gluconeogenesis, but that is no argument that paleolithic people ate primarily animal fat. 

We did find food often, through gathering and foraging and apparently having forest gardens. Successful hunting was likely not a daily occurence. Fishing and gathering eggs were likely more frequent than eating land animals. 

I didn't attack your argument, gluconeogenesis is literally a backwards chain reaction to glycolysis. And yes that's exactly what I'm saying, it served to maintain glucose to the brain when lacking food, because glucose is the most important for our brain function (which you doubted). I never argued that people constantly snacked on carb-rich foods, just because you have the belief that people sustained themselves on animal fat doesn't mean I'm arguing for the exact opposite. Humans had a variety of diets according to where they lived and we are a highly flexible species, but we also not likely relied on animal fat as our primary source of fuel. 

I don't see how that article supports your argument, just because vit C competes for transport in the brain with glucose doesn't mean you can't get adequate amounts of it passing through if you eat an adequate amount of it. 
Our lack of vit C enzyme is because we ate a vit C-rich diet, nothing to do with carbohydrates since it goes way back in the past to our ancestors. The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates 

* *




"EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS
Explaining the frequent loss of GLO genes by saying that it only affects the production of a single compound also implies that losing the capacity to make this compound is not selected against, i.e., that such a loss does not cause any selective disadvantage. Since all species which have lost the capacity to synthesize vitamin C have a vitamin C-rich diet, this is the most common explanation brought forward to explain its frequent occurrence [8, 28, 29, 37, 58]. This explanation is consistent with the fact that wild anthropoid primates (unable to synthesize vitamin C) consume much more vitamin C than the recommended daily allowance for adult humans in the USA, about 1 mg/kg/day. For example, gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) consume 20-30 mg/kg/day, howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata) consume 88 mg/kg/day, and spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) consume 106 mg/kg/day [58]. The same is true with bats, with Artibeus jamaicensis consuming 258 mg/kg/day [58]. Although, minimum daily requirements have not been established for these wild species, it seems reasonable to assume that they obtain ample vitamin C supplies from their diets."




So eating only meat would very likely give you scurvy quickly, unless maybe you followed the exact diet of the Eskimos (though would give you other problems such as heart disease and bone loss)


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> It's not just a hypothesis, it's a review based on evidence done by someone on the field, not me. I'm not a paleoanthropologist so naturally I will read up what they have to say first. You are the one who's hypothesizing using virtually no arguments based on collected evidence. The only thing you've said is that we can do gluconeogenesis, but that is no argument that paleolithic people ate primarily animal fat.
> 
> We did find food often, through gathering and foraging and apparently having forest gardens. Successful hunting was likely not a daily occurence. Fishing and gathering eggs were likely more frequent than eating land animals.
> 
> ...


Likely, probably, maybe. This is hypothesizing. I also never doubted that glucose wasn't our most important for our brain, just that it was not needed to be taken directly. Did you even read the study? Yes, it's a study, not an article! It would answer your unfounded skepticism, right in the abstract even. I'll quote it for you title-reading fiends: 


* *






> Vitamin C concentrations in the brain exceed those in blood
> by 10-fold. In both tissues, the vitamin is present primarily
> in the reduced form, ascorbic acid. We identified the chemical
> form of vitamin C that readily crosses the blood–brain
> ...





Also, you should read the medically documented experience of ethnologist and explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who ate a meat only diet for a year. Somehow, I just knew you would stick with your dogmatism and doubt whatever I said, no matter how reasonable. This is especially true with professionals, I trust amateurs more. The love drives them.

The study itself proves which theory is correct about Vilhjalmur Stefansson!


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

Have a bacon shake ^_^

Okay I can't leave you with a troll soooo
How about a good strawberry banana shake ^_^


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

If we sold avacado shakes it would be nice but we'd have to jack the price to like $25 if you wanted any flavor


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Convex said:


> It gives you energy because of the carbohydrates that fills your glycogen stores, and after those are depleted, you will feel hungry again, because of the insulin spike. This is not how we lived.. we hunted, we ate, and we hunted again. We did not snack, and for good reasons! We did not have access to carbohydrates like we do now due to the agricultural revolution. We used fats (from animal sources) as our energy sources because that kept us full, fats are designed for this. We are designed to eats fats, to utilize carbohydrates as a primary source causes a hormonal imbalance.
> 
> The fruits we have now are hybrids, back then, fruits had more fiber (which slowed the insulin spike), and less sugar. We had to compete with insects and birds, and they only had a small window because of seasonal selection! They did not have imports and exports.
> 
> ...


What seems to matter the most is that we meet our nutritional needs. 

All I can really do is rely on blood tests which state that I'm meeting most of those, and also my experience that I feel great and have a lot of energy, and am maintaining a healthy weight.

I noticed the greatest increase in athletic performance when giving up meat, and an improvement in recovery time when consuming a lot more fruits/veg/beans/nuts, as well as minding plant based sources of Omega 3/6.

From what I know and experience, a plant based diet with plenty of carbs and healthy fats is the best thing for us.

I don't see the big deal in this high-fat vs high carb debate, because it really doesn't matter as long as you're eating healthy foods that are giving you what you need, but I eat around 2/3 calories from carbs, about 20-25% from fats and 10% from protein.

But this can change, I'm not that strict with it.

Calories in/out does seem to matter, but I believe the reason for the obesity epidemic is people are eating foods that are calorically dense but with little nutritional value, thus they'll need to eat more than their fair share in volume of food in order to feel fuller.

Diets that tend to be full of meat and dairy tend to do this. Animal products always have a negative to whatever positive they bring, so therefore cannot be considered health foods. They have little to no fibre, complex carbs, and are usually high in saturated fat, cholesterol and things that seem to contribute significantly to a lot of chronic illnesses and perhaps even certain forms of cancer.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> My usual is 2 bananas + soy milk + cocoa powder
> but i have IBS and smoothies don't agree with me very well
> 
> My all time favourite was banana + apple + pear + orange juice for liquid but it kills me now


Did you use crappy store bought orange juice, or did you just blend some orange?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

B3LIAL said:


> Did you use crappy store bought orange juice, or did you just blend some orange?


I squeeze oranges and add the juice, not the whole fruit. I've done it with store bought juice as well but obvi not as good.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

B3LIAL said:


> What seems to matter the most is that we meet our nutritional needs.
> 
> All I can really do is rely on blood tests which state that I'm meeting most of those, and also my experience that I feel great and have a lot of energy, and am maintaining a healthy weight.
> 
> ...


Our descent continues..


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

I'm going to try it with almond milk and rice protein. I just ordered rice protein which I'm pretty excited about because it's very versatile.


----------



## Zster (Mar 7, 2011)

Egg whites (1/2 cup, pasteurized)
Unsweetened Soy milk (1 cup)
Quick Oats, dry (2 Tbl spoons)
Powdered peanut butter (2Tbl spoons)
Sugar or other sweetener to taste (I add 2 Tbl spoons simple syrup)
1 banana
Vanilla extract (2tsp)
Ground cinnamon (to taste)
Ground nutmeg (to taste)


I swap or add different fruits, depending on the season. Cocoa powder is a tasty add, too. I've tried SunWarrior vegan protein powder, but find the taste and texture a bit off with it.

Ice if like cold out of blender. I suspect if one cut and froze the fruit first, that would have a similar effect, without watering it down or expanding the volume a lot.


----------

