Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Paleo Donk on February 05, 2010, 08:45:49 pm
-
I'm looking to find a source of carbohydrate from the plant kingdom. I would like them to approximate the nutritional values found from paleolithic era plants. I can't seem to find what exactly they would be.
Berries seem like the obvious choice - black,blue,rasp,cran
What about roots, leaves, grasses, nuts, vegetables, fruit?
All the fruit and veggies in the markets today seem very highly modified from their original form and so I can't make an argument for eating them. Perhaps you guys can help me out.
-
I don't think it matters. Even specially bred fruits dsigned for a high sugar-content are not harmful in any way.
-
How come fruit/sugar causes me inflammation(muscular & skin) then?(however only really eaten fruit when eating cooked meat, and not raw)
btw, Tyler. Eating cooked meat I feel an irresistible(as if essential) urge to eat a substantial amount of fruit along with it... An urge I don't get with raw meat. After eating the fruit I'll get inflammation in the form of pain in the skin(acne), pain in the muscles, and the sort of muscle inflammation often described as 'cramp', or 'spasm'.
-
How come fruit/sugar causes me inflammation(muscular & skin) then?(however only really eaten fruit when eating cooked meat, and not raw)
btw, Tyler. Eating cooked meat I feel an irresistible(as if essential) urge to eat a substantial amount of fruit along with it... An urge I don't get with raw meat. After eating the fruit I'll get inflammation in the form of pain in the skin(acne), pain in the muscles, and the sort of muscle inflammation often described as 'cramp', or 'spasm'.
Well, I guess there are exceptions to every rule. But it seems to me that this thread is irrelevant to you as you seem to have a very rare food-intolerance towards fruit of all kinds.
-
I am wondering if you are eating the fruit right after eating meat?
-
How come fruit/sugar causes me inflammation(muscular & skin) then?(however only really eaten fruit when eating cooked meat, and not raw)
btw, Tyler. Eating cooked meat I feel an irresistible(as if essential) urge to eat a substantial amount of fruit along with it... An urge I don't get with raw meat. After eating the fruit I'll get inflammation in the form of pain in the skin(acne), pain in the muscles, and the sort of muscle inflammation often described as 'cramp', or 'spasm'.
When I eat cooked meat I get the same urge you do to eat fruits as I get really thirsty after cooked meat.
What fruits are you eating? Are they organic? Are they local? I think it matters that fruit is organic.
When I did my fruitarian for 2 months and wai diet for 3 months I had a good hard look at the choices of fruits and weeded out the bad ones.
There are fruit grown and sold that are organic by default in our country and those are the good ones. I just had to do trial and error.
I know these fruits are harmful to me:
- multinational branded pineapples
- small solo papayas
- multinational branded bananas
- yellow carabao mangoes that are ripened with gunpowder ingredient
These are the most highly commercialized philippine fruits.
We just cant say "fruits are harmful", we should be specific as to which fruits.
Same with meat, commercially farmed fish and poultry seem to be bad meat.
The other factor to eating cooked meats is condiments, condiments, condiments.
When I did my cooked pork meat 1 month experiment I did it with no condiments.
-
I'm looking to find a source of carbohydrate from the plant kingdom. I would like them to approximate the nutritional values found from paleolithic era plants. I can't seem to find what exactly they would be.
wodgina tried actually going into a wild place in Australia, and eating the edible plants he found. Reported here.
IIRC the experiment was a success for those who don't believe that we are made to eat plants.
So it looks like there weren't any paleocarbs, or, if there were, they are extinct.
Carb addicts must suffer the sugar bombs of the neolithic.
-
When I eat cooked meat I get the same urge you do to eat fruits as I get really thirsty after cooked meat.
What fruits are you eating? Are they organic? Are they local? I think it matters that fruit is organic.
When I did my fruitarian for 2 months and wai diet for 3 months I had a good hard look at the choices of fruits and weeded out the bad ones.
There are fruit grown and sold that are organic by default in our country and those are the good ones. I just had to do trial and error.
I know these fruits are harmful to me:
- multinational branded pineapples
- small solo papayas
- multinational branded bananas
- yellow carabao mangoes that are ripened with gunpowder ingredient
These are the most highly commercialized philippine fruits.
We just cant say "fruits are harmful", we should be specific as to which fruits.
Same with meat, commercially farmed fish and poultry seem to be bad meat.
The other factor to eating cooked meats is condiments, condiments, condiments.
When I did my cooked pork meat 1 month experiment I did it with no condiments.
What amount of fruits do you eat daily, and which fruits ?
-
This February 2010 the good fruit in season are:
- avocados (lagkitan variety, no veins)
- watermelon (the big solid dark green ones or striped green ones at 8+ kilos each)
- melons
- organic papayas (from far away Palawan, via my wife's connections to a foundation that grows them organically to teach their students, fertilized with a sack full of organic carabao sh*t )
- "indian" mangoes (wild stuff, grows in people's back yards)
- star apple / kayomito (wild stuff, grows in people's back yards)
- young coconuts always in season
What works for me.
Breakfast is either raw duck eggs if we got them or avocado + some papaya (1 to 2 slices each). I should take a picture.
When I get to the office I try to remind myself to drink at around 10am and get a break with young coconut with the meat.
At 12nn is lunch with raw beef or raw fish.
afternoon snack... usually skipped in the office... but at home, the kids would want a hydrating fruit (we live in a hot tropical climate) like watermelon or melon or lately indian mangoes.
Dinner is raw beef or raw fish. Unless I ate too much at lunch and decide to skip it.
I'm a computer nerd and not a sports or gym jock. Exercise I get is swimming and running around with the kids on weekends and roughing up my 2 little boys. Sex is good too sometimes.
---
* add native guavas to the fruit list, these are the small guavas that grow in people's yards and used for cooking, found in vegetable sections, but locals know it has the highest vitamin c as it is good for the SAD eaters who have colds and coughs. Guavas are snacks.
-
How come fruit/sugar causes me inflammation(muscular & skin) then?(however only really eaten fruit when eating cooked meat, and not raw)
btw, Tyler. Eating cooked meat I feel an irresistible(as if essential) urge to eat a substantial amount of fruit along with it... An urge I don't get with raw meat. After eating the fruit I'll get inflammation in the form of pain in the skin(acne), pain in the muscles, and the sort of muscle inflammation often described as 'cramp', or 'spasm'.
My cramps vanished after adding seafood, in the form of raw prawns or fish eggs & snacking on them through out the day, in between meals
Morning cramps & spasms i've had for about 10 years, vanished overnight after a couple of days of snacking on seafoods, in this case small tiger prawns none stop for a day or two
-
wodgina tried actually going into a wild place in Australia, and eating the edible plants he found. Reported here.
IIRC the experiment was a success for those who don't believe that we are made to eat plants.
So it looks like there weren't any paleocarbs, or, if there were, they are extinct.
Carb addicts must suffer the sugar bombs of the neolithic.
I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make such blanket statements that no one here agrees with without any evidence. You seem to be the only person who believes there weren'tany paleo carbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfood
Look there for information on the enormous variety of native plants to Australia. At the end of the article it lists about 100 or so fruits, veggies, seeds and nuts that are native to Australia. Theres even 20 that are found in the arid outback.
-
I don't think it matters. Even specially bred fruits dsigned for a high sugar-content are not harmful in any way.
I don't see how you can say this without saying more. A couple low-carb bloggers have commented on the fact that there is no "stop" for fructose. I notice this myself and can eat buckets of grapes until I feel sick and then still want more. This is actually true for just about every fruit, its very hard for me to stop eating if there are more around. Neolithic fruits have much higher fructose concentration I believe.
So, since there hasn't really been any actual answers - For those that eat vegetation, what exactly are you eating?
-
My point was that fruits, even Neolithic fruits, are very low in fructose by comparison to corn-syrup, plus they are accompanied by other substances such as antioxidants/vitamins etc., so it's not an issue on a rawpalaeodiet, besides the fructose in fruits is UNrefined natural fructose. So unless one is eating 100% fruitarian, there's no danger whatsoever. It's no coincidence that diets high in raw veg/fruit and low in cooked animal foods are healthier than other SAD-diets out there.
-
You are sounding extraordianarily biased and dogmatic right now. The point is whether or not what modern fruits fructose/other nutrient-level are relatively similar to that of paleolithic fruit, not compared to corn-syrup. I haven't seen a discussion here on it
How about other roots, leaves and veggies? We surely ate some of these. There must be some kind of neolithic equivalent.
-
I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make such blanket statements that no one here agrees with without any evidence. You seem to be the only person who believes there weren'tany paleo carbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfood
Look there for information on the enormous variety of native plants to Australia. At the end of the article it lists about 100 or so fruits, veggies, seeds and nuts that are native to Australia. Theres even 20 that are found in the arid outback.
Try eating them.
[/quote] The point is whether or not what modern fruits fructose/other nutrient-level are relatively similar to that of paleolithic fruit, not compared to corn-syrup.
How about other roots, leaves and veggies? We surely ate some of these.
Why? In a planet thick with delicious fat meat, why eat nasty veggies and sour fruit?
-
You are sounding extraordianarily biased and dogmatic right now. The point is whether or not what modern fruits fructose/other nutrient-level are relatively similar to that of paleolithic fruit, not compared to corn-syrup. I haven't seen a discussion here on it
How about other roots, leaves and veggies? We surely ate some of these. There must be some kind of neolithic equivalent.
There's certainly evidence that we ate lots of herbs in palaeo times. I referred to a previous study showing Neanderthals practised herbal medicine a while back. The search function of this forum is so shoddy, though, that no one's likely tio find it.
As regards allegations of bias, I'm merely stating the standard view, that fructose is only viewed as harmful if in large doses. Anti-carb fanatics tend to focus on conr-syrup when exclaiming about the dangers of fructose and that's not relevant to fruit which has much lower levels of fructose in the first place, and unrefined fructose at that.
-
My point was that fruits, even Neolithic fruits, are very low in fructose by comparison to corn-syrup, plus they are accompanied by other substances such as antioxidants/vitamins etc., so it's not an issue on a rawpalaeodiet, besides the fructose in fruits is UNrefined natural fructose. So unless one is eating 100% fruitarian, there's no danger whatsoever. It's no coincidence that diets high in raw veg/fruit and low in cooked animal foods are healthier than other SAD-diets out there.
Well I would believe that the amount of fruit is an issue - just because it's raw does not mean it's healthy; lots of blogs take about the fructose in fruit with out the thought of raw vs. cooked (or corn-syrup!)
Eating fruit your triglyceridescount shoots up...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/01/14/fructose-part-one.aspx
I know it's "only" Mercola but he is just one of the many.
Nicola
-
I just don't get how its just fine to eat a tremendous variety of fruits that vary drastically from their original evolved state in places on earth where they are nowhere to be found. There is no good argument so far, from a paleolithic pont of view, that makes me want to consume fruit or any vegetation.
But if its true that few/none of the people here that eat fruit have problems with them, and there is no evidence from science that states so then I would be fine with experimentation.
I do want to experiment eating fruit, lots of it actually, but also all other vegetation as well.
Maybe we can start another thread where we can ask what vegetation seems to be most harmful/beneficial. Some here have reported problems with nightshades, others with greens and others with nuts.
I suppose I'm looking for a more definitive list of vegetation that is recommended for raw paleo. Clearly raw grains are out but what is in, acai berry? pompegranite? Romaine lettuce?Portabella mushrooms? my all time favorite mango???
-
Well I would believe that the amount of fruit is an issue - just because it's raw does not mean it's healthy; lots of blogs take about the fructose in fruit with out the thought of raw vs. cooked (or corn-syrup!)
Eating fruit your triglyceridescount shoots up...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/01/14/fructose-part-one.aspx
I know it's "only" Mercola but he is just one of the many.
Nicola
The only mention of fruit in your link is : "this doesn't mean that one should avoid fruit, however. Eating small amounts of whole fruit will NOT provide tremendous amounts of fructose, and should not be a problem for most people, unless diabetes or obesity is an issue".
I would like to see studies using fruits as a source of fructose instead of artificial concentrated source like HFCS !
-
here's a list of fruits/veggies and the quantities that i eat occaissionally without issue:
whole cucumber
whole tomato
1 small apple
whole avocado
up to 10 berries (blue, rasp)
half clove garlic
slice of onion
handful of seaweed
half an orange
slice of grapefruit
a few cubes of pineapple
i actually think cucumber, avocado, and tomato feel the best after eating. seaweed is actually a really nice snack too when it's dried. really fun to chew up and it tastes good. for what it's worth, apples, oranges, and pineapples sit better with me than berries.
-
No such thing as "unrefined fructose" ... Once the cell walls surrounding the "SUGAR" in a fruit is destroyed, you get the same insulin response as any other sugar. The only difference with fruit are the glycaemic lowering nutrients contained within the fruit.
"unrefined fructose" is simply unscientific, sugar regardless of how a fruit mitigates the glycaemic load, eventually wrecks your blood sugar levels, causing everything from mood swings, unstable energy swings, & depression & hyper mania.
Anything which interferes with your blood sugar levels, even if consumed constantly for about a week, you're in danger of developing stuff like insulin resistance, the beginning of diabetes.
Concentrated fruits are ok, however, such as kumquats, berries, & green leaf veg.
If you want to consume fruit & veg, you'll have to research the glycaemic levels, & anti-nutrients, even then you cant digest a large portion of most fruits & veg, because of the large amounts of cellulose & the massive inability of the human body, to digest & use the nutrients in plants & vegetation, as well as herbivores can.
-
Thanks yy, that was exactly what I was looking for.
What are concentrated fruits? How are berries and green leaf veggies similar in this respect?
I didn't think many fruit had any anti-nutrients. The one antinutrient I know found in spinach is oxalic acid. I assume there are much more in veggies , nuts and grasses than in fruit.
Just found a good article on antinutrients found in plant foods - http://paleolithicdiet.wordpress.com/category/antinutrients/
Even berries have tannins that are antinutrients but apparently they have anti-cancer properties
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/chm/faculty/hagerman.htm http://www.spartafitness.com/anti-nutrients.pdf
-
I suppose I'm looking for a more definitive list of vegetation that is recommended for raw paleo. Clearly raw grains are out but what is in?
We don't know.
What you would have to look for is something that is high in minerals and low in antinutrients including fructose - note the informed opinion here:http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/2/5/180-180-360.html
" PaNu, Wholehealthsource and Peter at Hyperlipid all target fructose and linoleic acid as the main causes of metabolic disturbance in the western diet. Even Gary Taubes in his recent lectures has said "it may indeed all be fructose". None of us, read carefully, claims that "carbohydrates = disease"."
Raw seaweed seems right, maybe chokecherries, but we don't know the antinutrient content, and nobody thinks that they are food. The look like herbal medicine, and why do medicine unless you are sick?
-
We don't know.
What you would have to look for is something that is high in minerals and low in antinutrients including fructose - note the informed opinion here:http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/2/5/180-180-360.html
" PaNu, Wholehealthsource and Peter at Hyperlipid all target fructose and linoleic acid as the main causes of metabolic disturbance in the western diet. Even Gary Taubes in his recent lectures has said "it may indeed all be fructose". None of us, read carefully, claims that "carbohydrates = disease"."
Raw seaweed seems right, maybe chokecherries, but we don't know the antinutrient content, and nobody thinks that they are food. The look like herbal medicine, and why do medicine unless you are sick?
Modern processed carbohydrates always = disease
Low glycaemic wild carbohydrates ie roots, starches = eventually to disease
Medium glycaemic wild fruit = disease
Berries & small fruits like kumquats, are concentrated fruits, with low antinutrients & high naturally occurring agents in the plant to counter the antinutrients
Most seaweeds, are also bad for you, a few like algae, chlorella & spirulina even dried, are beneficial, but they do have moderate carbs & can be negative in the long term
They also thin your blood
-
Roony, what kind of vegetation do you eat throughout the year? You've said in the past you are omnivore.
Also, if its possible that its all about fructose, then you could make an argument that eating a bit of white rice would be one of the best sources of carbs since its stripped of most all its antinutrients and nutrients.
-
Roony, what kind of vegetation do you eat throughout the year? You've said in the past you are omnivore.
Also, if its possible that its all about fructose, then you could make an argument that eating a bit of white rice would be one of the best sources of carbs since its stripped of most all its antinutrients and nutrients.
It's not simply about fructose, its really about how you function in relation to your insulin & blood sugar levels, all carbs are SUGARS, bread grain, rice, potatoes, all function identical to sugar, affecting everything from renal, to adrenal glands, to arterial & vascolur damage,
sugar is unfortunately a very pervasive & endemic substance, regardless of its form or origin
Also ALL plants create carbohydrates using photosynthesis, its one its primary functions
I eat fruits very rarely now, i've replaced my fruit consumption with raw cream mixed with bee pollen & propolis & a drop of royal jelly
I'll be replacing the raw cream with kefir soon
I'm aware of the issues with dairy, i'd had to stop drinking raw dairy because it brought on very mild symptoms similar to chronic fatigue, & the excess mucus formation, in my clients too, makes it a pain to ingest
Cream is similar, to raw dairy, but i can tolerate that far better then raw milk, it also kills sugar & junk food cravings thanks to its high fat & lactose content, which is the main reason i eat cream
I've stopped craving for cooked foods & sugar, thanks to the cream & frozen bee pollen, the key is to ingest it in the morning & everytime you get a craving feeling
I also dont eat any vegetables now, havent eaten them for a long time lol, about a year now
I do however recommend, salads & a minor amount of fruit, about 2 apples a week, for beginners, & raw milk & dairy
As all salads & fruit, are great detoxants & help normalise a person from a cooked diet, in the short term
For chronic patients, i go for zero carb, high fat, with a very high percentage of bone marrow, suet, stomach lining & organs & sweet breads, all very palatable & tasty with the right sauces
-
So after denouncing zero carb a few weeks back you now recommend it to your patients? When did you start your practice and what do you do?
All carbs are not simply sugar.
Fructose does not raise insulin and there seems to be no off switch for it.
-
So after denouncing zero carb a few weeks back you now recommend it to your patients? When did you start your practice and what do you do?
All carbs are not simply sugar.
Fructose does not raise insulin and there seems to be no off switch for it.
Since when have i ever denounced zero carb?
Believe what you want ... ?
Go ahead join the fruitarians etc., they must be doing something right, right?
All carbs are sugar's, regards to how your body processes them
If you want to nitpick over the finer points of carbs, be my guest, a low glycaemic index doesnt make a carb any healthier
-
No such thing as "unrefined fructose" ... Once the cell walls surrounding the "SUGAR" in a fruit is destroyed, you get the same insulin response as any other sugar. The only difference with fruit are the glycaemic lowering nutrients contained within the fruit.
"unrefined fructose" is simply unscientific, sugar regardless of how a fruit mitigates the glycaemic load, eventually wrecks your blood sugar levels, causing everything from mood swings, unstable energy swings, & depression & hyper mania.
Anything which interferes with your blood sugar levels, even if consumed constantly for about a week, you're in danger of developing stuff like insulin resistance, the beginning of diabetes.
Concentrated fruits are ok, however, such as kumquats, berries, & green leaf veg.
If you want to consume fruit & veg, you'll have to research the glycaemic levels, & anti-nutrients, even then you cant digest a large portion of most fruits & veg, because of the large amounts of cellulose & the massive inability of the human body, to digest & use the nutrients in plants & vegetation, as well as herbivores can.
To equate the unrefined fructose in fruit to the refined fructose in corn-syrup is totally absurd. Not only does fruit contain far too little fructose to have any discernible effect but comes with antioxidants etc. which negate any possible negative effects, however minor.
-
Not only does fruit contain far too little fructose to have any discernible effect but comes with antioxidants etc. which negate any possible negative effects, however minor.
Wild fruits, such as berries, have got glucose/fructose ratio 1:1, which is very good for human health. The same is with a true organic honey/ honeycomb.
-
To equate the unrefined fructose in fruit to the refined fructose in corn-syrup is totally absurd. Not only does fruit contain far too little fructose to have any discernible effect but comes with antioxidants etc. which negate any possible negative effects, however minor.
Fructose isnt the only culprit in fruitarianism & vegan's, ALL photosynthesis creates carbohydrates
If fructose has no discernable effect, then why does breaking the cell walls surrounding the sugars in a fruit, when juicing fruits, cause the same insulin response as any other sugar & carb?
IF fruit has so little fructose content, then why is it's BRIX content, the measurement of sugar, as much as 2-5+ times the amount of regular vegetables high in fructose such as carrots?
But trying to put the blame on fructose & carbohydrates, is merely simple symantics
The main reason plants & fruits are unsuitable is the large amount of undigestible matter, ie cellulose & undigestible proteins & nutrients
The sugars & carb's simply compound the problem
-
I know these fruits are harmful to me:
- small solo papayas
Why do you think those are bad for you?
-
Fructose does not raise insulin levels, or nowhere near the level that pure glucose does. This is one of the reasons why glycemic index can be misleading and can be misinterpreted. Gary Taubes explains this thoroughly in GCBC and so fructose cannot be treated just as another sugar.
I thought you denounced zero-carb here but you were simply saying you believed a heavy muscle meat diet was not good. I remembered incorrectly and thought you were implying you thought it was necessary to consume vegetation.
oh my bad, i thought raw zero carb was another type of raw meat diet, i'll have to go look it up lol
erm no, the zerocarb diet is too mono, you need a large amount of organs & fats to build your vascolur system, eating a limited range of fatty muscle meats is actually bad for your health
Also he doesnt include high meats, so no zerocarb is no where as good as a regular RP diet
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/health/which-rawdiet-is-most-oxygenating-and-where's-the-proof/msg25605/#msg25605
Also, you ignored for the second time my question on what you do and how long you have been at your current practice.
I do like your idea of raw honey and kefir and hopefully try something like that in time.
-
I don't see how you can say this without saying more. A couple low-carb bloggers have commented on the fact that there is no "stop" for fructose. I notice this myself and can eat buckets of grapes until I feel sick and then still want more. This is actually true for just about every fruit, its very hard for me to stop eating if there are more around. Neolithic fruits have much higher fructose concentration I believe.
So, since there hasn't really been any actual answers - For those that eat vegetation, what exactly are you eating?
I have a different experience. I have a STOP for sweet fruits. And if it is too sweet it is immediate.
Also the heavily chemicalized fruits have an awful chemical taste that rpd people and provincial folk would instantly recognize and throw away the fruit.
Fruits are supposed to be delightful and unique in taste, not mere sources of sweetening.
-
I know these fruits are harmful to me:
- small solo papayas
Why do you think those are bad for you?
Small solo papayas belong to the big multinational corporate products. Heavily chemicalized, industrialized processes and probably genetic manipulation. Papayas are not supposed to be as small as solo papayas. In a papaya tree these small size fruit are the duds. In the market or more likely supermarket selling these solo papayas you'll see lots and lots of these small duds they try to pass out as "normal".
But when I was young, there were zero solo papayas in the markets. These solo papayas were bred for the new smaller household units with 1 or 2 people... thus solo.
Papayas are supposed to be FAMILY PAPAYAS. They are supposed to feed 4 to 6 people or more each.
Just like watermelons that are supposed to be at least 7 kilos in weight or heavier... any less than that means they marketers are merely targetting customers who cannot afford to buy the REAL THING.
Plus solo papayas taste bad compared to the REAL papayas.
It's those damn supermarket economics that make fruit look bad. My father in law just went to the supermarket in our new artificial city in fort bonifacio and bought the worst commercial fruits. At breakfast yesterday the family was so disappointed we saw "perfect" cavendish bananas... yuck. Then he had a normal sized papaya but it tasted bland... had a pale orange color in the meat... my eldest son took 1 bite and said blahh.... left it.
The only good fruit my father in law got in the supermarket were the star apples / kayomitos because that is not farmed. They are wild fruit that grow in the mountains and back yards or empty lots.
-
Fructose does not raise insulin levels, or nowhere near the level that pure glucose does. This is one of the reasons why glycemic index can be misleading and can be misinterpreted. Gary Taubes explains this thoroughly in GCBC and so fructose cannot be treated just as another sugar.
I thought you denounced zero-carb here but you were simply saying you believed a heavy muscle meat diet was not good. I remembered incorrectly and thought you were implying you thought it was necessary to consume vegetation.http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/health/which-rawdiet-is-most-oxygenating-and-where's-the-proof/msg25605/#msg25605
Also, you ignored for the second time my question on what you do and how long you have been at your current practice.
I do like your idea of raw honey and kefir and hopefully try something like that in time.
Try juicing an apple, orange etc., for the length of a week or so & measure your insulin levels
Do the same for honey
Prolonged large amounts of fruits & honey, will alter your insulin levels drastically
The research you're referring are tested in limited conditions, the conclusions they come to are theoretical & will never be as effective as the research suggests, due to the many extenuating variables in reality
On paper & in theory, it might work, as people like gary taubes point out, but there are EXTENUATING factors, mainly environmental factors, which drastically diminish the protective effects of plants grown in DEVELOPED countries & modern farmed honeycombs
Also you have to take into account, most people's immune systems are severely compromised from eating cooked foods, AGE's & carcinogens, can last upto over 40 years in human cells, so if you've been eating cooked foods upto the age of 20+, you'll need to hit 60 or 70 years of age, before your immune system can process products like honey, without the negative effects, most paleo dieters seem to be seeing today
In theory, yes fruits & honey should be good for you, but because of our poor environment & compromised immune systems, in reality the results will vary & the effects can be negative
I havent been able to test wild fruit & veg grown in optimal pristine conditions, ie a tropical jungle like the amazon, if you live there go nuts ...
Also i never suggested taking raw honey with kefir, as raw honey is unsustainable re. health
As for your question, consider it ignored for a 3rd time, as this is a public forum, but i can state, i've been a RP for about 3-4 years & i've researched the RP diet & health for 7+ years now
Feel free to pm if you have any personal questions
-
Try juicing an apple, orange etc., for the length of a week or so & measure your insulin levels
Do the same for honey
Prolonged large amounts of fruits & honey, will alter your insulin levels drastically
I dont see why bother with this. Juicing fruits is a bad idea. It will be too sweet. obviously.
I do diluted orange juice fasting... never juice feasting.
-
...I do want to experiment eating fruit, lots of it actually, but also all other vegetation as well.
Maybe we can start another thread where we can ask what vegetation seems to be most harmful/beneficial. Some here have reported problems with nightshades, others with greens and others with nuts.
I suppose I'm looking for a more definitive list of vegetation that is recommended for raw paleo. Clearly raw grains are out but what is in, acai berry? pompegranite? Romaine lettuce?Portabella mushrooms? my all time favorite mango???
Good question. I've been considering what fruits/veg I should experiment with this spring/summer. I'm thinking that the optimal fruits would have most of these elements:
> fresh
> local
> picked ripe
> wild or of older, less-modified varieties (closest to their wild origins and edible in their original wild forms)
> free of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (in other words, either untainted wild or organic)
> preferably something like them would have been eaten during the Paleolithic era (not necessarily the species of fruit itself, but related Old World fruits)
> they shouldn't have known seriously negative effects on human metabolic or immune system function and low in lectins and other antinutrients
> relatively low to moderate in fructose
> I like the taste
Local wild and organic berries and organic red grapes are the fruits I can think of so far that seem to meet many of these elements including taste. I'm not saying they are necessarily healthy, but they seem to be the best candidates for my fruit-reintroduction experiment. Doubtless I'll also grab fruits off trees I come across in my neighborhood and at my sister's house and parents' summer cottage (apples, pears and crabapples), for the fun of it, not for particular health reasons.
For veg I was thinking of trying organic spring greens again, as they didn't seem to cause me problems in the past (other than I did better when I eliminated them, but that could have been because I was improving irrespective of them) and they seem relatively Paleo and unlike most veg I like the taste a little. One problem with them is that they tend to rot before I can finish them and I don't like them enough to eat big quantities at one sitting. Greens would be more workable for me if I was living with someone else.
With those problems with fresh greens and having seen videos and stuff on the Inuit it occurred to me that I could try some dried kelp again. I don't like the taste much, but it wouldn't spoil (though it does lose nutrients when exposed to air) and I think it's richer in iodine. However, it is very expensive by weight. I wonder how it works out based on cost per bioavailable nutrients?
-
I dont see why bother with this. Juicing fruits is a bad idea. It will be too sweet. obviously.
I do diluted orange juice fasting... never juice feasting.
I wasnt suggesting anyone try this, i was simply making a point ...
-
For veg I was thinking of trying organic spring greens again, as they didn't seem to cause me problems in the past (other than I did better when I eliminated them, but that could have been because I was improving irrespective of them) and they seem relatively Paleo and unlike most veg I like the taste a little. One problem with them is that they tend to rot before I can finish them and I don't like them enough to eat big quantities at one sitting.
You can't just gather wild greens?
-
Good idea. What wild greens should I gather and where should I get them (I would think around my parents' lawn might be too toxic with lawn treatments and all)?
-
go to the library and pick up a book about edible and medicinal plants in your region
here in colorado there are a wealth of greens-amaranth, lambsquarter, purslane, some weird moutain spinach i think is called kettlewart?, cheese wheel, these grow every where, alleys, between sidewalk pavers, in fields...its easy to make a mental map of where they are growing, if there is traffic nearby(pollution) if its a public park or intentionally landscape(perhaps fertilized/pesticided) where the best crops grow, once you know its easy to pick enough and leave enough....
get a book though i am sure you will be surprised at how many plants are edible and how easy identification can be once you are aware of whats around you
you may also want to try and grow your own leafy greens, they are the easiest to grow, can be grown completely indoors or started outdoors early as they are partial to cooler temps and shade.....
-
I think my mother has a book like that, and I just remembered that she grows some greens too. I think last year it was swiss chard.
-
I think my mother has a book like that, and I just remembered that she grows some greens too. I think last year it was swiss chard.
You may want to just contact your local wild food club. They can suggest the best book, and may even have local walking workshops, where they actually take you on a foraging trip outside.
-
What wild greens should I gather and where should I get them ?
Ignore not the bumptious dandelion, imported from Europe as herbal medicine - leaves contain lots of good minerals, roots can be dried and used for tea. Bitterest tea ever, so it must be really good for something, eh?
Chamomile grows between cracks in sidewalks, and in my gravel driveway. Pleasant tea.
-
It is my understanding that vegetables have more a medicinal value than a nourishing value. You can't really feed yourself with wild plants, unless you cook (or juice) them. Many people can't digest raw vegetables.
Fruit is different because they are intended to be eaten, they don't contain toxins and antinutrients, and one can feed on wild fruits like berries...The sugar in fruits is glucose and fructose and, as long as they are not overeaten, does not elevate insulin in excess, contrary to starchy grain or tubers.
-
I dont see why bother with this. Juicing fruits is a bad idea. It will be too sweet. obviously.
I do diluted orange juice fasting... never juice feasting.
Precisely, it's absurd to equate eating raw solid fruits with drinking fruit-juice. I know plenty of people who eat veggie-juice in large amounts each day - not one of them would be able to eat that same amount in the form of solid veg. In short, the only possible danger might be if one is on a 100% fruitarian diet, given the common cravings one gets on such diets - but on a raw, omnivorous diet, it's just ridiculous to claim that raw solid fruits are a problem re fructose- it's commonly accepted within the scientific community that fructose in fruits is too low to be an issue.
-
Thanks for the tips gang. I found this http://www.squidoo.com/wild-edible-foods and it reminded me that I did try eating young raw fiddleheads last spring. Some restaurants even serve them here. I didn't care for the taste at all. I tried steaming them to see if that would help and still didn't care for them. I consider them nothing more than starvation food. On the other hand, Traditional Medicinal's organic roasted dandelion root tea is the best tasting tea I've ever tried, though not raw, of course.
The point about antinutrients in non-fruit plants is a good one (though I believe Tyler doesn't agree with it). The only reasons I can see to consider eating veg other than social or convenience reasons is as providing a safety margin in a VLC/carnivore diet, so as to perhaps be less prone to kidney stones, iodine deficiency, constipation and whatever other risks there might be. I'm not convinced it's really necessary, but I had planned on returning to trying some plant foods again as part of my overall experiment.
...but on a raw, omnivorous diet, it's just ridiculous to claim that raw solid fruits are a problem re fructose.
Whether its fructose or something else, I do get problems like acne, dry skin, scum on my teeth, poor sleep, etc. when I eat a sufficient amount of fruit that most people would consider very modest.
-
Whether its fructose or something else, I do get problems like acne, dry skin, scum on my teeth, poor sleep, etc. when I eat a sufficient amount of fruit that most people would consider very modest.
What amount of fruit did you eat, and what was your diet at this time when you got these problems?
Wai Diet is very efficient to cure skin troubles (among others) and is based on fruits and fat. It is a high carbs/fat and low protein diet.
-
What amount of fruit did you eat, and what was your diet at this time when you got these problems?
Wai Diet is very efficient to cure skin troubles (among others) and is based on fruits and fat. It is a high carbs/fat and low protein diet.
A single small-bowl-size amount of whole fruit was sufficient to give me acne breakout, dry skin, dental scum, morning breath, etc. the next day. That may be hard to believe for those who are less sensitive to carbs than me, but it was my experience. I tried a fruit-oriented diet at SuperInfinity's suggestion and found it to be very harmful to me. I've read other people's similar experiences with Wai and various frugivorous-oriented diets on the Internet in the past, so I'm apparently not the only one. Even GS reported that he's doing better on his current diet than he did on Wai. I'm not saying, though, that my experience necessarily applies to anyone else. Just sharing my experience that even whole fruits have negative effects on me. Even small amounts of any plant carbs give me acne breakouts and other symptoms and I've been able to repeat this experiment in myself numerous times.
I'm hoping that I'll be able to handle wild berries better, as I would like to be able to eat some occasional berries without annoying symptoms, but it's probably mostly wishful thinking on my part.
-
A single small-bowl-size amount of whole fruit was sufficient to give me acne breakout, dry skin, dental scum, morning breath, etc. the next day. That may be hard to believe for those who are less sensitive to carbs than me, but it was my experience. I tried a fruit-oriented diet at SuperInfinity's suggestion and found it to be very harmful to me. I've read other people's similar experiences with Wai and various frugivorous-oriented diets on the Internet in the past, so I'm apparently not the only one. Even GS reported that he's doing better on his current diet than he did on Wai. I'm not saying, though, that my experience necessarily applies to anyone else. Just sharing my experience that even whole fruits have negative effects on me. Even small amounts of any plant carbs give me acne breakouts and other symptoms and I've been able to repeat this experiment in myself numerous times.
I'm hoping that I'll be able to handle wild berries better, as I would like to be able to eat some occasional berries without annoying symptoms, but it's probably mostly wishful thinking on my part.
In Wai diet, fruits are always buffered with fat. What was precisely your diet when you had acne breakout ?
-
I did eat plenty of fat when I was doing SuperInfinity's experiment. No doubt 811ers would make a claim opposite to yours that the reason I developed acne was that I was eating too much fat. My rather frustrating experience with promoters of plant foods has been, that no matter what combination of foods you may follow, if you have problems with a plant-oriented diet they will say you did something wrong or that you are just detoxing and will never admit that most plant foods could be a problem for some people. There are numerous examples of this on the vegan forums, with people being persuaded to continue eating lots of plant foods and avoid animal foods even as their health deteriorates. SuperInfinity claimed his diet was fantastic and I happened to have most of his recommended foods on hand, so I followed his suggestion of eating more of them. Yet my problems worsened. I don't remember every detail of it and I don't care as it's irrelevant. The important thing is that raw carnivore completely cleared up my acne without the use of zinc supplements for the first time since I developed acne as a senior in high school and eating whole fruits--with no other change in my diet whatsoever--brings it back.
I occasionally cheat and when I eat any carb-containing food, whether it be fresh whole fruit, wine, raw honey, etc., I experience numerous mild symptoms that I can now recognize as being related because raw carnivore has cleared them up so that even subtle changes are noticeable. Why would I want to eat lots more plant carbs like on a Wai diet very high in fruits to keep acne away after discovering that fruits trigger my acne and when only a plant-carb-free diet has succeeded in clearing things up? Especially when one of our former Wai dieters, GS found it to be a detrimental diet for him? That would be like suggesting to a person with poor, uncorrectable vision who was injured in a motorcycle crash as a result of his poor vision to stop wearing helmets next time instead of to stop riding motorcycles. Some people have good vision and can ride motorcycles relatively safely. Others cannot. Experience suggests that I'm one of the ones who cannot.
-
I did eat plenty of fat when I was doing SuperInfinity's experiment. No doubt 811ers would make a claim opposite to yours that the reason I developed acne was that I was eating too much fat. My rather frustrating experience with promoters of plant foods has been, that no matter what combination of foods you may follow, if you have problems with a plant-oriented diet they will say you did something wrong or that you are just detoxing and will never admit that most plant foods could be a problem for some people. There are numerous examples of this on the vegan forums, with people being persuaded to continue eating lots of plant foods and avoid animal foods even as their health deteriorates. SuperInfinity claimed his diet was fantastic and I happened to have most of his recommended foods on hand, so I followed his suggestion of eating more of them. Yet my problems worsened. I don't remember every detail of it and I don't care as it's irrelevant. The important thing is that raw carnivore completely cleared up my acne without the use of zinc supplements for the first time since I developed acne as a senior in high school and eating whole fruits--with no other change in my diet whatsoever--brings it back.
I occasionally cheat and when I eat any carb-containing food, whether it be fresh whole fruit, wine, raw honey, etc., I experience numerous mild symptoms that I can now recognize as being related because raw carnivore has cleared them up so that even subtle changes are noticeable. Why would I want to eat lots more plant carbs like on an extreme Wai diet when only a plant-carb-free diet has succeeded in clearing things up? Especially when one of our former Wai dieters, GS found it to be a detrimental diet for him? That would be like suggesting to a person with poor, uncorrectable vision who was injured in a motorcycle crash as a result of his poor vision to stop wearing helmets next time instead of to stop riding motorcycles. Some people have good vision and can ride motorcycles relatively safely. Others cannot. Experience suggests that I'm one of the ones who cannot.
I try not to persuade you to eat more fruits or adopt Wai diet, I just want to be sure that it is indeed the fruits that give you acne, and not something else. Anyway, you didn't follow Wai Diet, so you can't judge this diet.
I also would be curious to know if GS strictly follows Wai diet (especially eating fat with fruits on several small meals a day and not overeating protein). Often people pretend that a diet does not work while they did not follow it strictly.
I can understand that carb-containing food is problematic, as it is also the case for me. I can't digest fibers properly.
-
...you didn't follow Wai Diet, so you can't judge this diet.
I appreciate your trying to help, but the Wai diet contains fruits, doesn't it? Fruits, even when eaten with fats (as I explained), trigger acne outbreaks in me (though who knows, maybe I'll become less sensitive in the longer run). I also tried to explain that I have found many claims of magical combinations of foods to offset their harmful effects, to not work in my experience, nor in that of countless other people, so I am skeptical of any claim that the Wai diet would clear existing acne in carb-sensitive people like me, rather than trigger it. I could be wrong, but given my experience with fruits and GS's with Wai, it's not a diet I would be remotely interested in. Like Dr. Harris, I also don't consider it Paleo, but that's another story. I'll give this for the Wai diet--it's at least vastly superior to an 811 diet.
None of us has tried every single diet. We make judgments based on the foods we have tried. I don't know exactly how I'd fare on Wai, but given that even a small amount of fruit triggers new outbreaks of acne in me, it isn't rocket science to judge that a heavy-fruit diet like Wai would cause even more acne in me. So based on my experience and some limited knowledge of human metabolic and immune system function, I do judge that diet, as does Dr. Harris (another somewhat carb sensitive person, BTW) despite his also never having followed it to the letter--though he knows much more about human biology than I do, so he is better qualified to judge it. If I had reason to believe that fruits were not actually a problem for me, that the Wai diet might somehow make sense for me, and if I had never tried anything similar to it, then I would reserve judgment before trying the explicit Wai diet. But that none of those factors apply in my situation.
Let's try it from a different angle. If someone like Tyler says to me that he doesn't do well on even small amounts of raw dairy, I don't then suggest that he increase his intake of raw dairy or offset it with special food combinations to overcome that problem. I figure he's probably wise in avoiding it. If he really wanted to eat dairy anyway and found that it was only lactose that was the issue, then he might be able to eat raw cultured butter. Similarly, I'm trying to find out if I can handle small amounts of certain fruits. For example, maybe it's just fructose that's the issue for me, so maybe I could handle some low-fructose fruits, but I wouldn't go wild and eat a ton of fruits and try to offset the damage with other Wai diet foods--especially given that I find I fare better on grassfed animal and seafood fats than I do on the olive oil of the Wai diet.
I also would be curious to know if GS strictly follows Wai diet (especially eating fat with fruits on several small meals a day and not overeating protein).
I can understand that carb-containing food is problematic, as it is also the case for me. I can't digest fibers properly.
He doesn't follow it now. He said he used to. As I understand it, he still eats plentiful fruits, but he found that adding raw meats to his diet was beneficial. He can correct me if I err.
If all carb-containing foods are also a problem for you, then I would never dream of suggesting that the Wai diet might clear up acne in you, even if you had never tried it. I suspect that the main reason it clears up acne in some people is because it eliminates some well-known triggers of acne like gluten-containing foods. For a carb-sensitive person like me, eliminating gluten was a great help but it didn't clear up the acne fully, whereas eliminating all carbs did.
-
I have the same as you, Paleophil. If you were physically active, you'd notice that at the same time as you get the acne, you'd start to get pains in your muscles too; as they're both caused by inflammation.
-
I appreciate your trying to help, but the Wai diet contains fruits, doesn't it? Fruits, even when eaten with fats (as I explained), trigger acne outbreaks in me (though who knows, maybe I'll become less sensitive in the longer run). I also tried to explain that I have found many claims of magical combinations of foods to offset their harmful effects, to not work in my experience, nor in that of countless other people, so I am skeptical of any claim that the Wai diet would clear existing acne in carb-sensitive people like me, rather than trigger it. I could be wrong, but given my experience with fruits and GS's with Wai, it's not a diet I would be remotely interested in. Like Dr. Harris, I also don't consider it Paleo, but that's another story. I'll give this for the Wai diet--it's at least vastly superior to an 811 diet.
None of us has tried every single diet. We make judgments based on the foods we have tried. I don't know exactly how I'd fare on Wai, but given that even a small amount of fruit triggers new outbreaks of acne in me, it isn't rocket science to judge that a heavy-fruit diet like Wai would cause even more acne in me. So based on my experience and some limited knowledge of human metabolic and immune system function, I do judge that diet, as does Dr. Harris (another somewhat carb sensitive person, BTW) despite his also never having followed it to the letter--though he knows much more about human biology than I do, so he is better qualified to judge it. If I had reason to believe that fruits were not actually a problem for me, that the Wai diet might somehow make sense for me, and if I had never tried anything similar to it, then I would reserve judgment before trying the explicit Wai diet. But that none of those factors apply in my situation.
Let's try it from a different angle. If someone like Tyler says to me that he doesn't do well on even small amounts of raw dairy, I don't then suggest that he increase his intake of raw dairy or offset it with special food combinations to overcome that problem. I figure he's probably wise in avoiding it. If he really wanted to eat dairy anyway and found that it was only lactose that was the issue, then he might be able to eat raw cultured butter. Similarly, I'm trying to find out if I can handle small amounts of certain fruits. For example, maybe it's just fructose that's the issue for me, so maybe I could handle some low-fructose fruits, but I wouldn't go wild and eat a ton of fruits and try to offset the damage with other Wai diet foods--especially given that I find I fare better on grassfed animal and seafood fats than I do on the olive oil of the Wai diet.
He doesn't follow it now. He said he used to. As I understand it, he still eats plentiful fruits, but he found that adding raw meats to his diet was beneficial. He can correct me if I err.
If all carb-containing foods are also a problem for you, then I would never dream of suggesting that the Wai diet might clear up acne in you, even if you had never tried it. I suspect that the main reason it clears up acne in some people is because it eliminates some well-known triggers of acne like gluten-containing foods. For a carb-sensitive person like me, eliminating gluten was a great help but it didn't clear up the acne fully, whereas eliminating all carbs did.
Well, GS apparently did not really do the Wai Diet :
"I used to do exclusive wai for 2 months, but not the eating schedule.
Call me lazy. I just want a few meals a day.
I added raw beef and cooked pork because I needed variety, it was getting pretty boring just limited to raw egg yolks and raw fish."
And raw meat is allowed on the Wai Diet.
Your analogy with butter is not relevant because butter is not a paleofood and contains many well-known detrimental components, especially for someone sentivite like TD. So obviously the less the better.
-
I try not to persuade you to eat more fruits or adopt Wai diet, I just want to be sure that it is indeed the fruits that give you acne, and not something else. Anyway, you didn't follow Wai Diet, so you can't judge this diet.
I also would be curious to know if GS strictly follows Wai diet (especially eating fat with fruits on several small meals a day and not overeating protein). Often people pretend that a diet does not work while they did not follow it strictly.
I can understand that carb-containing food is problematic, as it is also the case for me. I can't digest fibers properly.
I did Wai Diet for 3 months. It felt good after being malnourished on 2 months of fruitarian. I got bored with just sea food quickly. I read about Aajonus and Primal Diet.
-
Fruits is all I can imagine. If they were eaten I'd assume they were eaten as snacks. Found on the ground or low hanging trees while out hunting etc.
Some wild greens maybe as well, though practically all greens are inedible it would be difficult finding the edible kinds in the wild.
-
I just realised that this link might fit into this thread about Paleolithic carbs.
It's about the wild fruits of Africa (and some domesticated ones) found there today:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11879&page=186 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11879&page=186)
-
I did Wai Diet for 3 months. It felt good after being malnourished on 2 months of fruitarian. I got bored with just sea food quickly. I read about Aajonus and Primal Diet.
Isn't it contradictory to ""I used to do exclusive wai for 2 months, but not the eating schedule.
Call me lazy. I just want a few meals a day. " ?
Did you really do the stuff : eating a bit of fruits with olive oil or nuts every hour or so when you need energy ?
How did you feel during this experience (energy level...) ?
-
Isn't it contradictory to ""I used to do exclusive wai for 2 months, but not the eating schedule.
Call me lazy. I just want a few meals a day. " ?
Did you really do the stuff : eating a bit of fruits with olive oil or nuts every hour or so when you need energy ?
How did you feel during this experience (energy level...) ?
Always ate fruits with fat. I chose egg yolks or coconut meat. Also did various fishes.
Energy? I felt really good.
I had just come from 2 months of malnourishing fruitarian. So I suddenly felt alive!
-
I do think one can judge a diet even if one doesn't rigidly do it 100%. I mean gurus prescribe all sorts of ridiculous methods that few, if any, people can emulate in real life. For example, in the 1st edition of WWTL, Aajonus recommended truly vast amounts of food each day, with small meals being eaten practically every hour of each day, and getting up at night to eat etc - which most people can't do as they have to work etc.. When I did PD, I didn't include the raw coconut cream they usually eat nor the veggie-juice. I tried the veggie-juice 3 years later, albeit without the raw dairy, and that didn't help me either, just gave me diarrhea(solid raw veg was fine, though). So, I think I can be a reliable witness to what the PD is like.
-
I do think one can judge a diet even if one doesn't rigidly do it 100%. I mean gurus prescribe all sorts of ridiculous methods that few, if any, people can emulate in real life. For example, in the 1st edition of WWTL, Aajonus recommended truly vast amounts of food each day, with small meals being eaten practically every hour of each day, and getting up at night to eat etc - which most people can't do as they have to work etc.. When I did PD, I didn't include the raw coconut cream they usually eat nor the veggie-juice. I tried the veggie-juice 3 years later, albeit without the raw dairy, and that didn't help me either, just gave me diarrhea(solid raw veg was fine, though). So, I think I can be a reliable witness to what the PD is like.
Agree regarding silly methods like gorging on dairy, etc. that obviously are unhealthy.
But what about claims that seem extreme (like eating one meal a day, or 10+ small meals a day) ? How can you be sure that they don't work if you don't follow them seriously during enough time to see the outcome ?
-
Agree regarding silly methods like gorging on dairy, etc. that obviously are unhealthy.
But what about claims that seem extreme (like eating one meal a day, or 10+ small meals a day) ? How can you be sure that they don't work if you don't follow them seriously during enough time to see the outcome ?
Actually, when I first started the PD, I followed AV's rules re frequent small meals every day to the letter for several months. Did me considerable harm as my digestion was already pretty much shot after years on cooked-meat diets.
-
But what about claims that seem extreme (like eating one meal a day, or 10+ small meals a day) ?
One meal a day is definitely not extreme - it's a good comprimise
Eatinig once every week could be extreme
-
How many meals a day does Wai advocate anyway? I've seen some wild claims of up to 9 meals a day. I believe it likely that diets that advocate eating many small meals a day do so because they advocate excessive amounts of carby foods like fruit juices, sugary fruits, starches, etc. Some people tend to get hungry pretty quickly after eating carby foods. I think that anything over 3 meals and 1 snack a day is excessive, and less is probably better for people trying to lose or maintain weight.
I agree with Tyler that one can make at least a partial judgment about a diet if one follows it mostly (unless the one or two differences are major). It seems kind of nit-picky to claim that not eating the prescribed # of times means one can't make any judgment.
-
How many meals a day does Wai advocate anyway? I've seen some wild claims of up to 9 meals a day. I believe it likely that diets that advocate eating many small meals a day do so because they advocate excessive amounts of carby foods like fruit juices, sugary fruits, starches, etc. Some people tend to get hungry pretty quickly after eating carby foods. I think that anything over 3 meals and 1 snack a day is excessive, and less is probably better for people trying to lose or maintain weight.
I agree with Tyler that one can make at least a partial judgment about a diet if one follows it mostly (unless the one or two differences are major). It seems kind of nit-picky to claim that not eating the prescribed # of times means one can't make any judgment.
It I remember well, there are no really meals, just several small food intakes spread over the day when the need for energy is felt. It is like grazing, so the exact number of "meals" doe not matter. There is no excessive amount of carbs because the Waidieter eat only when he feels he needs some energy, and stop immediately when the energy is up again. The tiny amount of food does not trigger excessive insulin and BG stays within a normal range. It is the opposite of a carnivorous WOE (one big meal followed by a fast).
-
I forget his name, but the male partner of Wai, openly says he sips orange juice with added white sugar and olive oil every twenty minutes. He said that he had to add the sugar because he couldn't get enough calories in without it.
-
Grazing?! :o Opposite of carnivore?! :o :o Sips OJ with white sugar & olive oil every 20 minutes? :o :o :o What the heck? The Wai diet is more extremely opposite to my needs than I dreamed. I'd sooner eat my own foot than eat Wai. Please, no one even mention it in the same post as my name.
-
Has anyone yet listed paleolithic forms of carbs?
-
How many meals a day does Wai advocate anyway? I've seen some wild claims of up to 9 meals a day. I believe it likely that diets that advocate eating many small meals a day do so because they advocate excessive amounts of carby foods like fruit juices, sugary fruits, starches, etc. Some people tend to get hungry pretty quickly after eating carby foods. I think that anything over 3 meals and 1 snack a day is excessive, and less is probably better for people trying to lose or maintain weight.
I agree with Tyler that one can make at least a partial judgment about a diet if one follows it mostly (unless the one or two differences are major). It seems kind of nit-picky to claim that not eating the prescribed # of times means one can't make any judgment.
I really only know from my own experiences. Whatever I read, well, I don't fully know it till I try it.
When I was vegan I had to eat many times per day, or feel like I couldn't be. Switching to pd, I fully cultured cream and butter (with a drop of unheated honey mixed in), drank celery juice and all in all only ate one fruit per day. Of course I ate raw meat and lots of raw eggs. I ate three moderate size meals per day altogether, and never felt like I needed more, but felt satisfied. Actually, I'll go back to the vegan here for a second, after too long on that I still never felt satisfied but I couldn't eat more than like a bite in a day either.
I write this all past tense; because my diet is mixed now. All I ate since this morning is (all raw) 1 two oz fisheggs, 2 three oz bisonshoulder, 3oz unsalted grassfed hardish cheese, 4 four local eggs, 5 one oz cultured unsalted butter, 6 no water, that's it. I'm not really sticking with one diet. I am hoping to see if I can stay away from carbs healthfully. So far so good I guess, but I might change my mind tomorrow as to what to eat. I can't tell you. I've been varying a lot.
-
All I ate since this morning is (all raw) 1 two oz fisheggs, 2 three oz bisonshoulder, 3oz unsalted grassfed hardish cheese, 4 four local eggs, 5 one oz cultured unsalted butter, 6 no water, that's it. I'm not really sticking with one diet. I am hoping to see if I can stay away from carbs healthfully. So far so good I guess, but I might change my mind tomorrow as to what to eat. I can't tell you. I've been varying a lot.
I tend to it all in one meal, so could not eat tiny bits like that, but if it were all mixed together, it looks reasonable to me. Might taste good too.
Maybe taste even better if you add 5golden rings and a partridge in a pear tree. ;)
-
I tend to it all in one meal, so could not eat tiny bits like that, but if it were all mixed together, it looks reasonable to me. Might taste good too.
Maybe taste even better if you add 5golden rings and a partridge in a pear tree. ;)
I can tend to be a grazer, especially when I eat small bits or low Vitamin D food. The butter, fish eggs and cheese taste good together. Anyway, I'm sure in nature I wouldn't have found all those foods at the same time. BTW, my hamster ate a good portion of the butter today. The yolks tasted carby. Do they have sugar?
-
Has anyone yet listed paleolithic forms of carbs?
Fruits and nuts in the vegetal kingdom.
Liver, seafood, eggs, ... in the animal kingdom.
-
Liver, seafood, eggs, ... in the animal kingdom.
Which sugars do eggs have?
-
Which sugars do eggs have?
lutein? lol
-
lutein? lol
Ok. I hadn't thought of that as a sugar before. I know the yolks were sweet tasting today. I'm trying to avoid honey with meat etc. Maybe I'll see what happens if I go without it for a few weeks.
-
Fruits and nuts in the vegetal kingdom.
Liver, seafood, eggs, ... in the animal kingdom.
The fruits available in stores are said on good authority to be unlike anything paleoman could have found, being extensively selected for size and sweetness for many generations. Sugar bombs.
Looks like liver & eggs is it.
-
The fruits available in stores are said on good authority to be unlike anything paleoman could have found, being extensively selected for size and sweetness for many generations. Sugar bombs.
Looks like liver & eggs is it.
Just had some calf's liver. Tasted sour.
No fish really has carbs, right? except maybe organs or roe. It's hard for me to imagine to avoid an edible organ, even if it does have carbs. I guess I would think different if I was doing zc and it was working, but I'm not doing either yet.
Isn't lutein a protein or A vitamin? Is it really a carb? Or is it because of something special some chickens are fed. My chickens eat live bugs, grass and skim milk. Maybe the milk they ate made it sweet.
-
The fruits available in stores are said on good authority to be unlike anything paleoman could have found, being extensively selected for size and sweetness for many generations. Sugar bombs.
Looks like liver & eggs is it.
Fruits can also be found on the trees. That's where paleoman took them. And they were not sugar bombs for him because he did not overeat them as he ate them according to his need.
-
Has anyone yet listed paleolithic forms of carbs?
Just list all the organisms whether plants or animals living during paleolithic times :)
As simple as that. All living cells and organisms contain carbs. Necessarily. Just open a book of biochemistry. Many proteins are actually enzymatically glycated in a specific manner....
-
they were not sugar bombs for him because he did not overeat them
Paleofruit was not a sugar bomb because they had (and have) very little sugar in, and it is proposed that he did not overeat them because he could not. If you had ever eaten chokecherries you would understand.
he ate them according to his need.
What need? The human organism must have fats, proteins which suppy all the minerals vitamins enzymes microbes. If you know of a nutrient not on that list, please tell us.
-
Just list all the organisms whether plants or animals living during paleolithic times :)
As simple as that. All living cells and organisms contain carbs. Necessarily. Just open a book of biochemistry. Many proteins are actually enzymatically glycated in a specific manner....
Well, I believe the glycogen in meat disappears completely a few days after slaughter. The USDA nutrient database states 0g for carbs in all meats but 4g per 100 for liver so I'm not sure what is going on. Pehraps the intramuscular glycogen still thinks it can be used after slaughter while the glycogen in the liver has no need anymore.
Also, how do you justify eating so much fruit in the summertime? The fruit is drastically different than any paleolithic fruit, I think? Is it just the fact that you feel good. Maybe our bodies are so compromised by previous decades of eating that we need neolithic carbs to feel good. Maybe most of our bodies will never repair themselves to the point where they can feel good on zero or very low paleoish fruits and carbs.
-
PaNu Dr. Harris has bloged about the Kitavans and carbs
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/2/im-so-bored-with-the-kitavans.html
Nicola
-
Dr. Harris writes well, and in his interview with J. Moore he writes:
"I had forgot I called Zero Carb the "Hezbollah of the low carb movement". I like that."
Me too :) Hezbollah are righteous dudes, and so am I. ;)
-
If you had ever eaten chokecherries you would understand.
you are probably eating them at the wrong time of year...as far as over eating...very difficult without processing them somehow, but they do get sweet
perhaps animal meat was different back in the day and contained a different amount of carbs, vitamins, minerals or composition(not that muscle was made out of sugar and spice...but)? i think it certainly was much more potent and the fact it was from a less polluted environment, feed on a more nutritious food source and probably a lot more at peace in its habitat it was probably ridiculously ceremonious and satisfying, nourishing and healing and on many more levels to bite into and live off of such a source of energy....not saying we are comparing apples to oranges when comparing muscle meat but perhaps we are when we look at the wider spectrum of variables in comparing our life with theirs? maybe we have to be satisfied to do the best we can at this "point in time"
.........
-
Paleofruit was not a sugar bomb because they had (and have) very little sugar in, and it is proposed that he did not overeat them because he could not. If you had ever eaten chokecherries you would understand.
Finally you agree that fruits were a source of paleocarbs !
What need? The human organism must have fats, proteins which suppy all the minerals vitamins enzymes microbes. If you know of a nutrient not on that list, please tell us.
So our paleoancestors evolve to eat wild fruits but they didn't contain any valuable nutrients ???
-
Well, I believe the glycogen in meat disappears completely a few days after slaughter. The USDA nutrient database states 0g for carbs in all meats but 4g per 100 for liver so I'm not sure what is going on. Pehraps the intramuscular glycogen still thinks it can be used after slaughter while the glycogen in the liver has no need anymore.
Also, how do you justify eating so much fruit in the summertime? The fruit is drastically different than any paleolithic fruit, I think? Is it just the fact that you feel good. Maybe our bodies are so compromised by previous decades of eating that we need neolithic carbs to feel good. Maybe most of our bodies will never repair themselves to the point where they can feel good on zero or very low paleoish fruits and carbs.
The meat you eat is also drastically different than any paleolithic meat. So maybe maybe maybe...
-
Also, how do you justify eating so much fruit in the summertime? The fruit is drastically different than any paleolithic fruit, I think? Is it just the fact that you feel good. Maybe our bodies are so compromised by previous decades of eating that we need neolithic carbs to feel good. Maybe most of our bodies will never repair themselves to the point where they can feel good on zero or very low paleoish fruits and carbs.
I do not claim to be capable to justify theoretically anything about carbs in general and my eating of carbs in particular. In summertime I indeed may eat 1 or 2 kg of cherries at once when they are ripe on my trees (a short period once every year) as well as I may eat only oysters the day after. Could not see any adverse effect.
My posts up to now are just intended to point out the facts or observations, not yet to explain or make theories, its too early for that IMO. And the facts are obviously that we can live in a state of good health with very variable amounts of (raw) carbs in our diets.
Notice that I am also quite well on ZC or more correctly (ZC is impossible) on food of animal origin only as I checked recently during an experiment of about 20 days in december 2009. The only effect I could notice is somewhat slower bowel movements. Now I just don't feel any need to stay on this restrictive diet.
So I don't think that I "need neolithic carbs" because anything has been compromised by my previous diet. I rather guess on the contrary that a fraction of us (possibly those who get diabetes of type 2 when staying decades on SAD, not my case) have their sugar control mechanisms so impaired that they better stay away from fruit or even raw carbs for a while and so recover best on a LC diet.
Finally let me emphasize that there are not "neolithic carbs" on the one hand and "paleolithic ZC animal foods" on the other hand. Both animals and plants have evolved since paleotimes. Both have been domesticated. Beef for instance is meat from domesticated animal and I had the opportunity to compare it's taste to wild beaver or bear meat and fat. The difference seems to me comparable to the one between wild and man grown fruit.
Once more I'm a scientist very much interested in "ZC" experiments but not at all in ZC ideology.
-
try comparing beef to elk and you may find as I do that it is similar. Besides the fat content of present day beef, my guess is that nutrient for nutrient it is similar to yesteryear. But who's to know. What I think we keep forgetting is what Lex mentions routinely, that is, what we got away with when we were young is probably not the case as we age. One very large factor is insulin resistance and the fallout when it hightens. I think of the way I use to be able to unlimited amounts of cherries or figs or for that matter any sugary fruit. I think most will find that after a period on zc one will then begin to taste the amount of sugar in fruits. Before then, they simply taste pleasant or yummy.
-
Thanks alpha for the detailed response as usual. Perhaps I should have asked, if you were ok with not having good non-self-experimental evidence that neolithic carbs are fine to eat.
I generally agree that it would seem that we generally destroy our bodies to process carbohydrate and that it is more likely that we would have our sugar control mechanisms compromised but it could also be the other way somehow as well. Perhaps years of eating processed carbs can leave some of us with a lower limit on the amount of carbs we must consume for optimal health. Perhaps this is why so many people fail with zero carb. I like to call it "carnivore", even though carnivore implies eating very small amounts of vegetation as well. I'm guessing children would be much more likely to adapt to being carnivore than us.
I'm still not comfortable with the majority of the argument being based on self-experimintation. Seeing that everyone here who eats carbs feels good or better than they do as a carnivore. This is fine I suppose and I'm very soon going to tinker with adding vegetation but I was looking for more. I'd rather not end up completely bald with cancer at 56 because I felt the same eating vegetation as I did without and the only vegetation I did eat was the highly modified stuff of the 20th century. I know that sounds a bit absurd but if I'm in it for the long run I want to get it right. My 7 weeks of being carnivore hasn't gone all that well and I really want to tinker with it but I also haven't given it near enough time to work. I go back and forth on whether to add vegetation all the time now.
Finally let me emphasize that there are not "neolithic carbs" on the one hand and "paleolithic ZC animal foods" on the other hand. Both animals and plants have evolved since paleotimes. Both have been domesticated. Beef for instance is meat from domesticated animal and I had the opportunity to compare it's taste to wild beaver or bear meat and fat. The difference seems to me comparable to the one between wild and man grown fruit.
Once more I'm a scientist very much interested in "ZC" experiments but not at all in ZC ideology.
Sure both plants and animals have both changed drastically from paleo times but I agree with van that the nutrient profile of meat for most, if not all animals we eat today should be very similar to those of the past. The fruit on other hand has changed more drastically with respect to its nutrient profile and is much bigger, available year-round, more calorie dense, has more fructose with a lot of it changing even in the last 50 years. Perhaps someone can give a fuller more detailed unbiased argument here.
I like the link of the bushfood in Australia I posted earlier as vegetation that was much more similar to how it was in paleo times.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Alice_Springs4260.jpg)
-
Finally you agree that fruits were a source of paleocarbs !
Fruits were paleofruits. Nobody eats them anymore.
So our paleoancestors evolve to eat wild fruits but they didn't contain any valuable nutrients ???
If you look around you, and believe the evidence of your own eyes, you shall see that our ancestors evolved to eat Big Macs (TM), poutine and beer.
This is one more reason why I don't believe that evolution story.
-
If you look around you, and believe the evidence of your own eyes, you shall see that our ancestors evolved to eat Big Macs (TM), poutine and beer.
This is one more reason why I don't believe that evolution story.
That does not make sense, William...
-
That does not make sense, William...
It made sense to me, i'm amazed that Phelps can win gold medals by eating pizza, pasta and pancakes. Everyone around me eats like that too and appear to be in good health.
-
It made sense to me, i'm amazed that Phelps can win gold medals by eating pizza, pasta and pancakes. Everyone around me eats like that too and appear to be in good health.
The whole point is that we haven't evolved to eat big macs etc. That is, I find that all old people suffer some form of damage caused by cooking whether in the form of atherosclerosis tendencies, increased aging-rate, dementia etc. Now, many of these issues can be slowed down or even stopped via massive medication with drugs and frequent visits to hospitals for surgery re hip replacements etc., but that doesn't imply adaptation at all.
-
...So I don't think that I "need neolithic carbs" because anything has been compromised by my previous diet. I rather guess on the contrary that a fraction of us (possibly those who get diabetes of type 2 when staying decades on SAD, not my case) have their sugar control mechanisms so impaired that they better stay away from fruit or even raw carbs for a while and so recover best on a LC diet. ....
That's the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen raw fruit/carb problems suggested as possibly solely due to diabetes. I don't know where that view originates from, but I have problems with raw fruit and raw plant carbs of all types and I have never had T2DM or even pre-diabetes and I've seen many other non-diabetics report problems with raw fruit/carbs. I've even seen a few people report problems from the carbs in liver, though I haven't noticed that myself. I suspect that the [more common] issue is more to do with some sort of carb intolerance than diabetes, but that's just a wild guess on my part.
-
I think candida is also a major issue as regards who does well with carbs. The longer blood sugar stays high the longer candida has to flourish. obviously there are immune factors that play into candida. And intestinal flora, most likely the strongest from healthy breast fed babies. Phelps can eat whatever he wants because he exercises like no other and the fact that at his age (and exercise level) his insulin resistance is probably nil.
-
Fruits were paleofruits. Nobody eats them anymore.
If you look around you, and believe the evidence of your own eyes, you shall see that our ancestors evolved to eat Big Macs (TM), poutine and beer.
and don't forget cooked pemmican...
-
If you look around you, and believe the evidence of your own eyes, you shall see that our ancestors evolved to eat Big Macs (TM), poutine and beer.
My all time best three favorite foods, to avoid. Anyone of those would probably always had made me barf. I wouldn't know as I can't stand the smells. I must be un-evolved or devolved. Lowly me.
-
My all time best three favorite foods, to avoid. Anyone of those would probably always had made me barf. I wouldn't know as I can't stand the smells. I must be un-evolved or devolved. Lowly me.
No you are more highly evolved as you are a remnant from the Palaeolithic era which was the last period in which humans were subject to natural selection. It's the modern mutants who've adapted to dairy etc to a partial extent who have regressed in evolutionary terms.
-
That's the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen raw fruit/carb problems suggested as possibly solely due to diabetes.
This is not the idea I tried to convey, actually. I did not claim that "solely" people with T2DB have problems with even raw unprocessed carbs. I just said that among those who suffer from carb intolerance "possibly" are those who have genetic background that favors T2DB or preDB. There are probably many others, of course.
-
Sure both plants and animals have both changed drastically from paleo times but I agree with van that the nutrient profile of meat for most, if not all animals we eat today should be very similar to those of the past. The fruit on other hand has changed more drastically with respect to its nutrient profile and is much bigger, available year-round, more calorie dense, has more fructose with a lot of it changing even in the last 50 years. Perhaps someone can give a fuller more detailed unbiased argument here.
I like the link of the bushfood in Australia I posted earlier as vegetation that was much more similar to how it was in paleo times.
I've never had the opportunity to compare beef and elk, as suggested by van, but I've compared beef and deer. I find that beef is definitely "much easier" to eat raw than deer and contains actually much more fat. Notice by the way that in traditional cooked recipes fat from pork or beef is added to deer to make it taste much better and so neolithic people on standard diets are perhaps as addicted to excessive fat as to excessive suger . This is somewhat akin to too sweet man grown fruit "easier to eat" than wild fruit. In other words there is a tendency to eat much more domesticated than wild raw meat or fruit.
By the way the overall ratio of fat to protein in wild terrestrial mammals is in fact never the appropriate 70-80 to 20-30% for human "ZC" diet and this is a major reason IMO why our ancestors were most likely in general not "ZC" for mere ecological reasons (except inuits who based their diet on sea mammals where the ratio fat to protein is quite appropriate).
The main problem I see with man grown fruit as compared to meat, even man raised one, is that it lacks completely some major basic nutriments and nevertheless provides a lot of sugar and thus calories and this is certainly dangerous if overeaten because it is filling and thus prevents eating enough more nutricious food.
If you want to re-introduce some plant food into your diet, PaleoDonk, I suggest once every while ( as I do often around noon or so) a meal made of leafy weggies such as corn salad, dandelion or chicory with virgin olive oil seasoning (and a bit garlic, sea salt and herbs if you like it). This provides interesting nutrients (known and unknown) with most calories in the form of fat from oil and very little sugar.
-
phelps is young enough and has an amazingly swimmingly gifted body type and size (not undermining his talent, but he is genetically blessed... his first olympics he had among the worst technique i've scene in an olympic swimmer and still came out way ahead, his genetics certainly help)... he abuses several substances too, does that make them healthy or even ok?
has anyone else come to determine something along the lines of yon's response?.. that is a list of tolerated carbs/amounts?
couldn't one eating organs have as much as 30% carbs wo consuming any vegetation? any testimonials to this?
-
Phelps is just still young enough with good genetic background.
I had apparently no health problems too when I was in my twenties...
We are endowed in fact with general mechanisms that are capable to eliminate neolithic cooked food toxins as well as other toxins. Heat generated toxins are also formed at room temperature in very tiny quantities and we must be basically adapted to handle these small quantities since we were on a raw diet for millions of years. When we switch on SAD after weaning these mechanisms first work very hard as best as they can usually for a few decades but they are then progressively overwhelmed as we age because they are not "designed" from an evolutionary point of view to handle that much toxins.
Depending on genetic background these toxins then gradualy accumulate in the organism and perturb more and more its biochemistry and cause increasing more or less irreversible damage. This might explain why health problems appear progressively with age more or less rapidly and in a form that depend on genetic background and specific lifestyle.
-
Thanks again alpha, though I think your argument is not of your usual keen perceptive unbiased scientific assesment of the situation but leaning more towards a man of straw. From what I know humans ate some amount of bone marrow and brain, both sources rich in fat and this could probably make up a big chunk of the calorie content that is lacking in the muslce meat. Also, we don't know what percentage of the different types of animals we ate. Wooly mammoths and aurochs are probably fatty enough to get 70-80+% calories from fat without going for the marrow or brains.
Greens also provide almost no source of calories as they usually are around 95% water and contain around 20 calories per 100g. The fruit would similaly be not as calorie denese with more space taken up by seeds. Other primates seem to do find foraging vegetation so I suppose its possible that we did the same but I dont see that happening when we moved out of the tropics and especially during ice ages/winter.
Thanks for the recommendation on the greens, I will add those in sooner than later.
-
Notice by the way that in traditional cooked recipes fat from pork or beef is added to deer to make it taste much better and so neolithic people on standard diets are perhaps as addicted to excessive fat as to excessive sugar .
Not possible to be addicted to fat, as it is an essential nutrient, and eating too much make us nauseated.
Sugar/carbs are not only not essential, there is nothing to stop us from eating too much.
By the way the overall ratio of fat to protein in wild terrestrial mammals is in fact never the appropriate 70-80 to 20-30% for human "ZC" diet and this is a major reason IMO why our ancestors were most likely in general not "ZC" for mere ecological reasons (except inuits who based their diet on sea mammals where the ratio fat to protein is quite appropriate).
Those who were free to choose left the lean meat for the dogs and other carrion eaters, so our ecological function is to provide food for them.
-
Thanks again alpha, though I think your argument is not of your usual keen perceptive unbiased scientific assesment of the situation but leaning more towards a man of straw. From what I know humans ate some amount of bone marrow and brain, both sources rich in fat and this could probably make up a big chunk of the calorie content that is lacking in the muslce meat. Also, we don't know what percentage of the different types of animals we ate. Wooly mammoths and aurochs are probably fatty enough to get 70-80+% calories from fat without going for the marrow or brains.
The fat to protein ratio I invoked includes brain and bone marrow so it seems to me that my ecological argument is in fact a very serious one againt ubiquitous "ZC" during paleotimes. Only inuits with their see mammals had the right environment to be VLC. Just remember the problem of 'rabbit starvation" for natives relying on land mammals.
To see my point just imagine what would happen today if more than a tiny minority of people were to switch to "ZC". Where do you think all the necessary animal fat might be produced or come from? Lex can buy relatively cheap fat from Slanker's a priori because other customers buy the remaining lean meat.
-
The fat to protein ratio I invoked includes brain and bone marrow so it seems to me that my ecological argument is in fact a very serious one againt ubiquitous "ZC" during paleotimes.
Only if you ignore the notion that humans were wardens of the earth, and accepted responsibility for the welfare of all life on earth, including carrion eaters. IMHO this is the reason why the paleolithic age lasted so long, and why so many feel that ours is near the end.
Only inuit with their sea mammals had the right environment to be VLC. Just remember the problem of 'rabbit starvation" for natives relying on land mammals.
You are denying free will, in that we need not eat the whole animal, and assuming poverty, which is a neolithic phenomenon caused by overpopulation.
To see my point just imagine what would happen today if more than a tiny minority of people were to switch to "ZC". Where do you think all the necessary animal fat might be produced or come from?
The city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada runs its buses on biodiesel made of beef fat. It follows that scarcity of fat is politically contrived.
-
This is not the idea I tried to convey, actually. I did not claim that "solely" people with T2DB have problems with even raw unprocessed carbs. I just said that among those who suffer from carb intolerance "possibly" are those who have genetic background that favors T2DB or preDB. There are probably many others, of course.
Oh, sure there are countless chronic diseases and syndromes that reportedly do better on VLC/ZC/Carnivore. Diabetes is just one of many. I lost track of all the various health issues that improved from drastic carb reduction--raw as well as cooked--just in myself!
-
Only if you ignore the notion that humans were wardens of the earth, and accepted responsibility for the welfare of all life on earth, including carrion eaters. IMHO this is the reason why the paleolithic age lasted so long, and why so many feel that ours is near the end.
I do not ignore this possibility. I just doubt very much that your idyllic picture comes close to the truth.
If it was true that our ancestors were wardens of the earth, how do you explain that they were eventually quite unable to prevent the neolithic revolution and relevant catastrophe. Bad wardens, our ancestors ;)
You are denying free will, in that we need not eat the whole animal, and assuming poverty, which is a neolithic phenomenon caused by overpopulation.
I don't think so. Free will is not enough when drastic environmental constraints are at work. As they were usually in paleotimes. Rabbit starvation is certainly not just a myth.
The city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada runs its buses on biodiesel made of beef fat. It follows that scarcity of fat is politically contrived.
Just junk fat from grainfed beef. In other words a form of oil, the one necessary to grow the grain. Just a way to limit wasting of oil actually. Absolutely no future, we will eventually run out of oil.
-
If it was true that our ancestors were wardens of the earth, how do you explain that they were eventually quite unable to prevent the neolithic revolution and relevant catastrophe. Bad wardens, our ancestors ;)
They were unable to prevent the close approach of a planet-sized comet - I think Velikovsky and McCanney have it right.
-
I do not ignore this possibility. I just doubt very much that your idyllic picture comes close to the truth.
If it was true that our ancestors were wardens of the earth, how do you explain that they were eventually quite unable to prevent the neolithic revolution and relevant catastrophe. Bad wardens, our ancestors ;)
...
I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.
Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. I realize that this is an unpopular conclusion (especially with the afore-mentioned vegans and Paleo utopians like brother William), but it seems inescapable to me based on the evidence, and winning popularity contests has never been my goal. :)
-
Alphagruis, wasn't rabbit-starvation a modern thing? From those labourers who were fed only rabbit? They didn't choose what to eat, they were workers and this was the food they were given.
-
I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet.
So you favour the steady state hypotheses of dinosaur historians, in spite of the abundant evidence that massive extinctions were caused by unavoidable cataclysms.
I take the position that if our ancestors had been stupid enough to hunt their food to extinction, they would not have had anything to eat, and themselves suffered the boom and bust population cycles of predatory animals.
Looks like you've been infected with td's "nasty brutish and short" attitude towards paleoman.
Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants.
Wrong. No evidence until the beginning of the neolithic, and the bloody neolithic is because the human race has parasites.
-
Alphagruis, wasn't rabbit-starvation a modern thing? From those labourers who were fed only rabbit? They didn't choose what to eat, they were workers and this was the food they were given.
Well I'm afraid rabbit starvation was not just a modern thing.
As PaleoPhil clearly explains our paleo ancestors most likely exterminated first the big game so that they had to resort to smaller and smaller preys with less and less fat.... and possibly finally to agriculture. There is clear evidence for this for instance in the whole mediterranean area.
Unpopular conclusion indeed but inescapable, I agree with PaleoPhil and definitely disagree with the idyllic view of William .
-
ancestors most likely exterminated first the big game so that they had to resort to smaller and smaller preys with less and less fat.... and possibly finally to agriculture. There is clear evidence for this for instance in the whole mediterranean area.
This is a good description of the neolithic - note the extinction of the aurochs, caused by parasite-ridden starving farmers.
It's common to imagine that the paleolithic environment was the same as the neolithic, but it was not the same.
-
One thing I can't figure out about the modern use of the phrase "rabbit starvation" is that even lean beef has at least 30% fat which is far higher then what many people eat as a % daily (although I suppose less than the majority). Is the rabbit starvation more due to the excess protein if the meat was the only calorie source? the RS from what I've read is quicker death than fasting. I remember reading that Christian Bale for The Machinist just ate a can of tuna a day or something. If someone was traveling with just jerky, how long would it take to exhibit symptoms, and would this be avoided by having a minor carb source like berries or plant fat source?
-
Just make jerky with fat, or 'pemmican jerky'... and C.Bale ate a can of tuna and an apple. Rabbit starvation is from too much protein to fat/carbs ratio... And lean beef doesn't 'always have at least 30% fat', not in the retail cuts which are what is available to us. You get some with trace fat, 5%, 10%... 30% would be very high for a retail cut at least where most people live.
-
Yes, lean beef usually does have around 30% fat. Miles, you are not looking at it from a calorie point of view. Lean beef is usually at least 5% fat by weight, 20% protein. This would put fat, by calories of 5% beef to be around 30%.
KD,
I can tell you from my own adventure that when I was eating leaner cuts of beef for the first two months of going raw paleo with no carb intake that I was hungry quite often. I did not do this on purpose, just made a mistake not taking into account how much leaner grass-fed beef is. I was eating between 40-60% of calories from fat which apparently not enough. Amino acids are all converted to glucose or fat for energy after a certain point but not in a very efficient manner as gluconeogenesis is a destructive process that wastes a good deal of energy. For whatever reason, this turnover to glucose or fat isn't fast or good enough to optimally alleviate the body from hunger. Also, the liver can only provide 400g of glucose a day from amino acids so is limited by this amount.
I have since upped fat to greater than 70% with a huge relief from hunger.
-
Sorry Miles, I think we had this confusion before. I meant calories from fat as a %. It probably is true that it is less than the nutrition databases being grass-fed, but I was just trying to get across that it supplies more calories from fat -even as a percentage-than low fatters eat.
So I guess the problem in rabbit starvation is more those trying to eat and eat of the lean and having the excess protein, not someone who just underrate on food in general and basically just ate some very lean meat exclusively or with minor additions of other wild foods.
PD: At the moment I havn't done the exact calculations but I eat less than a lb a day of lean and seem to be hitting over 3000 cal. although I do also consume eggs and juices which have protein. I don't seem to get hungry, quite the opposite actually, but I do have very bubbly urine, which from your other post seems linked to excess protein?
Miles: I think I'll try to make some jerky successfully and see if it works for me before rendering any fat. its hard for me to get grassfed suet at the moment anyway.
I was more curious if one could eat the jerky (under a lb) with some minimum carbs or plant fats (say not for survival but traveling in a city) sneaking in the occasional RAF. I guess since I also do dairy, I could always just carry a cooler with butter, and this and jerky probably wouldn't offend my hosts.
-
Total calories are the most important factor when assessing hunger and so you will be satiated even on a high protein diet. It does take quite a bit more total food though to reach satiation as lean meat is about 80% water and fat is about 20% water and twice as calorie dense. So, when I was eating leaner cuts I was eating lots of food though not necessarily lots of calories.
At the moment I have this intense desire to test out whether or not excess protein can be a problem. Before doing any analysis, I strongly believe there to be a connection between excess protein and body-malfunction/disease. I have found a lot of evidence backing this up and so will set out to test whether or not I can sustain myself in good health on a low-protein diet. I am trying to remain open to being completely wrong, so that I can easily amend my assertions. This protein amount is much less than what is ever recommended for an athlete so I should have some pretty interesting results even in just a few weeks.
My urine is quite bubbly as well, though I'm horrible at making judgments of this sort because I don't really recall what my urine looked like a couple years ago. Yes, I think the bubbles are due to excess protein. Maybe, someone can help me out here to fill in the details.
-
just wanted to add that i apparently do very well with papaya. i had a craving for one so i picked up one of the large mexican papayas. i think it digests better than any other fruit i've eaten since going rpd. i ater probably 2 cups of it in one sitting and it didn't even aggravate any candida symptoms. im impressed. looking forward to eating quality papaya in thailand...
-
just wanted to add that i apparently do very well with papaya. i had a craving for one so i picked up one of the large mexican papayas. i think it digests better than any other fruit i've eaten since going rpd. i ater probably 2 cups of it in one sitting and it didn't even aggravate any candida symptoms. im impressed. looking forward to eating quality papaya in thailand...
Interesting. I might have to pick one up and give it a shot at some point. Thanks for the lead. :)
-
i've got some more to add to the list: radishes and onions.
i think i was overeating meat and fat the last few days and i was craving some sort of vegetable matter (and it was a specific craving vegetables, not fruit). kinda strange because i haven't really eaten a significant amount of veggies in a year or so. anyways, i found some two large radishes and an onion in my parents fridge. ate both radishes and a couple slice of onion. no problems whatsoever. and actually, i felt amazing after eating them. i might need to include more veggies in my diet...
-
I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.
Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. I realize that this is an unpopular conclusion (especially with the afore-mentioned vegans and Paleo utopians like brother William), but it seems inescapable to me based on the evidence, and winning popularity contests has never been my goal. :)
This is definitely not an unpopular motif, even in these forums. The idea that humankind is pervasively destructive with a past and present "drenched in blood" and a future full of doom and gloom with no way out is actually quite common. Its pretty much par for the course when you turn on the radio, TV, or read the latest NY Times bestseller. I've come to understand this reasoning as a form of sociopathy, or at the very least, self-loathing.
Unpopular conclusion indeed but inescapable, I agree with PaleoPhil and definitely disagree with the idyllic view of William
I don't think William's view of the pre-neolithic is idyllic at all. He seems to think mankind had an innate sense of conservation. Why would he not? He knew how to make tools, identify edible plants, harness fire, etc. He could conceptualize, vocalize, count, and make sophisticated art. But he couldn't forecast?
William also (though not explicitly) is pointing out a fallacious argument. Assuming that the past is as messed up as the present is just a form of argument from convention which is a non-sequitor. Do your progenitors some respect at least and show some evidence to back up your claims that they were so inherently destructive and blood-crazed. While you're at it, explain how you're here to explain all this given that you and the rest of the human race should have already perished.
I'm keenly aware that the dominant solution to the megafauna problem is over hunting, at least in uniformitarian circles. I'm also aware that megafauna were large, much larger than elephants which are probably the largest land animal. From my understanding, elephants are already pushing the limits of the strength-weight ratio, so I have no idea how animals significantly larger (like mammoths) even managed to lift themselves off the ground under current gravitational acceleration. I can easily imagine, however, a narrow-minded paleontologist making up a simple but lame theory about humans "killing too much" to answer a complex question.
Also, I wanted to caution many of you here about the doom and gloom. I usually look past it because I know there's good info here. However, more and more, posters are going off-topic with their personal views about how horrible the human race is. If these forums are here to serve people with questions of an RPD nature, then this off-topic nonsense should cease, or you're going to scare people away.
-
Was the main theory about size not that there was more oxygen in the atmosphere? That having more oxygen allowed the development of humongous species, even in the air?
-
The trouble with the higher oxygen notions is that humans aren't adapted to such high oxygen and their health would suffer as a result.
As regards the claims that humans are a very destructive species, it's very difficult indeed to disprove. I mean one only has to look around at the sheer destruction that humans have wrought on the environment to see how dangerous humans are. And the old notion that hunter-gatherers were somehow saintly beings far above modern man in terms of spirituality is merely one aspect of the fallacious Noble Savage myth. Humans are roughly the same the world over, in terms of ethics or lack thereof. If they were so saintly, how come cannibalism was widely practised in the Palaeolithic, how come entire hominid subspecies such as the Neanderthals got wiped out - climate change is too poor an excuse to give for extinction of a subspecies that was pretty much on the same intelligence level as modern humans.
-
From my understanding, elephants are already pushing the limits of the strength-weight ratio, so I have no idea how animals significantly larger (like mammoths) even managed to lift themselves off the ground under current gravitational acceleration.
Our mental models of paleolithic conditions are necessarily influenced by current realities, but this leads to assumptions that are not necessarily true, such as that gravity was the same then as now.
McCanney has said that planetary mass increases continuously; this seems reasonable given the composition of the solar wind. If we add acceptance of the evidence of cataclysms that increased sea levels (~200 feet?), the added mass should have increased gravity within the last ~10,000 years.
So paleolithic conditions of oxygen content of air, circulation of ocean water (gulf stream), polar location, geomagnetic field strength and even gravity were sufficiently different that we end up doing a lot of guessing of how life was then.
-
As regards the claims that humans are a very destructive species, it's very difficult indeed to disprove. I mean one only has to look around at the sheer destruction that humans have wrought on the environment to see how dangerous humans are.
Not humans. Shrunken and sickly (including mental) neolithic man includes the sub-humans who stupidly do mass murder such as the current slaughter in the middle east and the hundreds of millions of the 20th century.
Environmental destruction is caused by insanely greedy industrialists.
There is no evidence that such man-made destruction happened in the paleolithic.
-
Your previous ridiculous notion that palaeo humans had nothing to do with that is absurd, of course. Any significant evidence shows that humans wiped out huge amounts of megafauna c. 40,000 years ago, well within the Palaeolithic era.
-
Miles, the higher concentration of oxygen theory is one theory put forward to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs. I've never seen it related to paleolithic megafauna. However, it still overlooks the basic structural engineering principle that as the cross-sectional surface area of a support (muscle) increases, its volume, and therefore weight, will increase as the square. Put simply, if elephants were 10 times stronger, they would be 100 times heavier to accommodate the increased muscle mass. Conversely, if they were 1/10 their current strength, the amount of mass comprising that muscle would be approximately 1/100 of their current mass.
Your previous ridiculous notion that palaeo humans had nothing to do with that is absurd, of course. Any significant evidence shows that humans wiped out huge amounts of megafauna c. 40,000 years ago, well within the Palaeolithic era.
I think all that the evidence indisputably shows is that they were wiped out, period. The anthropogenic cause is merely a mental leap made by some paleontologists who, imo, are intellectually lazy, and probably have some deep-seated, self-destructive tendencies that lead them to blame themselves for every single environmental or ecological catastrophe. Seriously, as a collective whole, the human race seems to have an unfathomable obsession with playing the victim on a massive scale.
Tyler, I remember talking about cannibalism a while back, but I don't remember the verdict being that it was widely practiced. That it was practiced is most likely indisputable. That it was a normal course of paleolithic life seems far from true. Cannibalism being practiced on such a large scale would entail warfare on a large scale (unless we're to believe that the victims voluntarily yielded themselves up for the feast), and warfare on a large scale would have been impossible in times of such privation. The opportunity cost of working together, even inter-tribally, would have been so high as to make any other alternative seem positively ridiculous to our ancestors. People may value human life very cheaply today, and maybe that makes it easier for them to kill, but let's not make the fallacious argument that our ancestors had the exact same subjective valuations of life that some of their descendants do.
Also, I find cannibalism economically infeasible. Who makes the determination that its a better idea to kill and eat another hunter instead of working together with that person over years and years to make large kills? A few meals of a fellow human, or hundreds of more nutrient dense meals of megafauna that were the result of cooperation with a person you could've eaten? I know some here have discounted our ancestor's ability to forecast, but are we now discounting their ability to make simple economic decisions? The composite view being painted here is truly astonishing. I'm not sure how I could even be here typing on a computer connected to a vast, decentralized network of millions of others, if I was the descendant of such blood-thirsty, cannibalistic imbeciles.
-
Was the main theory about size not that there was more oxygen in the atmosphere? That having more oxygen allowed the development of humongous species, even in the air?
Do you think if we gave extra oxygen to a child all their growing up, they could get taller and bigger than otherwise? I'm thinking not only raw food being more oxygenating than cooked, but animal based food diet and much more so it raw is more oxygenating than plant based. Could this be part of why children raised on a raw animal food diet grow the biggest, the oxygen from burning this kind of fuel?
-
This is definitely not an unpopular motif, even in these forums.
this off-topic nonsense should cease, or you're going to scare people away.
If it's "not an unpopular motif, even in these forums" then why would it "scare people away" more than it would attract people in? Are you admitting that it's at least unpopular outside of these forums?
Also, I wanted to caution many of you here about the doom and gloom. I usually look past it because I know there's good info here. However, more and more, posters are going off-topic with their personal views about how horrible the human race is.
Are these words directed in part at me? If so, it's rather ironic, because I've also been accused of promoting a "noble savage" theory of an idyllic Stone Age. I can't be guilty of BOTH promoting a "doom and gloom" view of the Stone Age AND of promoting a "noble savage" view of an idyllic Stone Age. Since these criticisms are mutually exclusive at least one of them must be wrong and being attacked from both extremes would tell me that what I've actually been posting is probably somewhere in between the extremes and I'm probably hitting about the right balance.
I'm open to wherever the facts lead me. If you have SPECIFIC facts that point in a different direction, then by all means share them, otherwise you're posts will serve mostly as time-wasting rantings, though maybe they'll at least help convince Tyler that I'm not a blind devotee of a "noble savage" theory. :)
I've come to understand this reasoning as a form of sociopathy, or at the very least, self-loathing.
...some paleontologists who, imo, are intellectually lazy, and probably have some deep-seated, self-destructive tendencies....
This is one of the most common errors I've noticed in discussion forums--making negative assumptions about the motivations and thinking of others instead of investingating to find out what people's actual views and motivations are. I've noticed that when such assumptions are made that they are often the most negative imaginable, which seems more like ad hominem and setting up straw men than honestly addressing controversial issues. We've probably all made this error at some point in our lives, but surely it's best to try to avoid it as much as possible. If you have questions about why a specific person here or elsewhere finds overhunting to be a plausible important factor (not necessarily the only one) in the extinction of multiple megafauna or why someone is skeptical of some of William's extravagant claims about the Stone Age and Stone Agers, then feel free to ask them (or in the case of people outside this forum like published scientists, read their forum/blog posts, articles or books) instead of making assumptions. Then if you disagree with the reasons given, share why you do instead of just attributing their views to sociopathy, self-loathing, etc.
---*---
Do you think if we gave extra oxygen to a child all their growing up, they could get taller and bigger than otherwise? I'm thinking not only raw food being more oxygenating than cooked, but animal based food diet and much more so it raw is more oxygenating than plant based. Could this be part of why children raised on a raw animal food diet grow the biggest, the oxygen from burning this kind of fuel?
Yes, I think this could possibly be part of it, as animal fats are not only nutritious but also promote healthful aerobic cellular respiration.
-
William's extravagant claims about the Stone Age and Stone Agers
I claim that paleoman had neither the numbers nor the money required to make war, and did not suffer from malnutrition.
This does not make paleoman noble or savage, but in comparison to modern neolithics, paleoman is at least innocent of malice if not superior.
-
If it's "not an unpopular motif, even in these forums" then why would it "scare people away" more than it would attract people in? Are you admitting that it's at least unpopular outside of these forums?
I'm expressing my belief that outside of these forums its already an established and popular motif. In addition, I'm saying that this motif is creeping into this community where it doesn't really belong. Whether or not mankind is guilty of wholesale slaughter on an unprecedented scale bears little relation to the purpose of these boards, i.e. to assist those with questions regarding a diet of raw meat, fat, etc. I'm afraid that indulging this motif will scare away those who just want their questions answered, and draw in more people who just want to rant about their fellow man.
I can't be guilty of BOTH promoting a "doom and gloom" view of the Stone Age AND of promoting a "noble savage" view of an idyllic Stone Age.
For the record, I never accused you of either. I did however imply that you were in the doom and gloom group. The Noble Savage myth may be wrong on many counts, but at least its positive in nature. I'm all for staying on topic, but if anyone is to stray, I'd rather have them perpetuate a positive myth then a negative one, if only because many people come here looking for anything but more stress, guilt, etc.
If you have SPECIFIC facts that point in a different direction, then by all means share them, otherwise you're posts will serve mostly as time-wasting rantings ...
Read the following and tell me this isn't an instance of the pot calling the kettle black. When you're done, maybe you can explain how this advances the OP's questions regarding paleo carbs.
... our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.
Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. ...
This is one of the most common errors I've noticed in discussion forums--making negative assumptions about the motivations and thinking of others instead of investingating to find out what people's actual views and motivations are. I've noticed that when such assumptions are made that they are often the most negative imaginable, which seems more like ad hominem and setting up straw men than honestly addressing controversial issues. We've probably all made this error at some point in our lives, but surely it's best to try to avoid it as much as possible. If you have questions about why a specific person here or elsewhere finds overhunting to be a plausible important factor (not necessarily the only one) in the extinction of multiple megafauna or why someone is skeptical of some of William's extravagant claims about the Stone Age and Stone Agers, then feel free to ask them (or in the case of people outside this forum like published scientists, read their forum/blog posts, articles or books) instead of making assumptions. Then if you disagree with the reasons given, share why you do instead of just attributing their views to sociopathy, self-loathing, etc.
Although pervasive in society, the incessant attribution of every natural calamity to human beings is an incredibly negative viewpoint. To have such a perspective while discounting nature's obvious capriciousness, power, and unpredictability falls under the definition of sociopathy. IMO, many people look for any conceivable reason to blame mankind for anything. Over-hunting is one theory about why megafauna no longer exist. Changes in key environmental factors (which today preclude the existence of extremely large land animals) is another. They share the same evidence: a lack of megafauna today. Paleontologists more often than not choose the first, and educational curricula based on their theories don't even bother to inform students that other viable theories exist. This is a specific instance of the general format explained above.
I don't think questioning the bases of mainstream paleontologists' theories is constructing a straw man argument, especially given that relevant viewpoints aren't even considered for the most part: i.e. basic structural engineering principles.
Regarding assumptions, if you read my posts, you'll find that I make very few. About the only one made previously was that the tendency to blame humans for everything stems from a deep-rooted psychological distress. Good thing when I made that, I was sure to qualify it as an opinion. Those opinions, however, were not used as a basis for a counter-argument; they were attempts to ferret out why current theories exist, all within a similar (and macabre) vein of thought. My counter-arguments actually are just logical deductions that attempt to expose fallacies in the original. The most common fallacy I see here is the argument from convention. Aside from that, I've taken issue with discounting the ability of paleolithic man to properly rationalize his situation. So far, no one has answered why several people are doing this. Also no one has addressed the arguments from convention that both William and I have pointed out.
-
Miles, the higher concentration of oxygen theory is one theory put forward to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs. I've never seen it related to paleolithic megafauna. However, it still overlooks the basic structural engineering principle that as the cross-sectional surface area of a support (muscle) increases, its volume, and therefore weight, will increase as the square. Put simply, if elephants were 10 times stronger, they would be 100 times heavier to accommodate the increased muscle mass. Conversely, if they were 1/10 their current strength, the amount of mass comprising that muscle would be approximately 1/100 of their current mass.
This is just plain wrong reasoning.
What scaling theory in biology actually tells us can be learned here instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry
If just muscle cross-sectional area increases by a factor of 10 and its length remains unchanged it scales precisely as the volume or mass of the animal and everything would be OK. There is no factor of 100 in weight change.
Period.
I think all that the evidence indisputably shows is that they were wiped out, period.
This is just wishful thinking. Period.
As most of your post(s) about our species's so called "ability to forecast" what were the consequences of its behaviour and activities on the ecosystems it lived in. Very funny.
-
There are several obvious flaws in some of the above claims. First of all, elephants don't have the biggest size possible of all land animals. There were plant-eating dinosaurs of a far bigger size than mere elephants, so mammoths could easily live and survive with their much smaller size, by comparison. Another point is that climate-change is relatively slow, allowing creatures like mammoths plenty of enough time to migrate to other areas with better climates. Unless there is some sort of definite proof that some cataclysmic event occurred that suddenly cooled the world in a manner similiar to the dinosaur-extinction event, then the most likely explanation is that humans wiped out the mammoths. Humans have been able to carry out some remarkably sudden extinctions that would be extremely unlikely to occur in nature. A good example would be the passenger-pigeon extinction and many species on islands and elsewhere have been completely wiped out not just by aggression on the part of mankind, but simply due to the fact that humans travel all over the world and therefore bring numerous completely foreign species with them via ships etc. which then wipe out local fauna.
As for the cannibalism question, that's pretty difficult to disprove. There is evidence of cannibalism being practised by Neanderthals for example as an automatic part of their burial rites, so it was clearly a common aspect of their culture. Also, it makes perfect sense, economically and logically, for palaeo tribes to eat the flesh of any fellow tribal members who die in the hunt or from old age etc. Killing other tribes for food would provide a partial explanation for why palaeo populations stayed relatively static for long periods.
-
I claim that paleoman had neither the numbers nor the money required to make war, and did not suffer from malnutrition.
This does not make paleoman noble or savage, but in comparison to modern neolithics, paleoman is at least innocent of malice if not superior.
Sorry William, but I'm not convinced that Paleoman was innocent of malice and never suffered malnutrition. Unless you can provide extraordinary evidence to support those extraordinary claims, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on those. Re: war, it depends on what your definition of war is. During the Paleolithic there certainly weren't the large-scale wars of the Neolithic, so we can agree on that, but I do believe there were smaller-scale wars.
Quote from: PaleoPhil
If it's "not an unpopular motif, even in these forums" then why would it "scare people away" more than it would attract people in? Are you admitting that it's at least unpopular outside of these forums?
I'm expressing my belief that outside of these forums its already an established and popular motif. In addition, I'm saying that this motif is creeping into this community where it doesn't really belong.
Whether or not mankind is guilty of wholesale slaughter on an unprecedented scale bears little relation to the purpose of these boards, i.e. to assist those with questions regarding a diet of raw meat, fat, etc. I'm afraid that indulging this motif will scare away those who just want their questions answered, and draw in more people who just want to rant about their fellow man.
So your fear is not that it's going to "scare people away" in general, but rather that it's going to scare away the sort of people you want around and attract those you don't, yes? It sounds like you want the overall tone of the forum to be more positive, but insulting people isn't going to advance that cause and if you've read many of my past posts then you know that I've done more than my share of posting positive things about this WOE, the Stone Age, Stone Agers, etc. You only need to check out my journal, for instance, to know that. As I've mentioned, I've been so positive at times that Tyler accused me of promoting an idyllic "noble savage" view of Stone Agers. So I think your concerns are overblown in my case and re: the forum as a whole too. I wish we would do less criticizing of each other, which you have ironically now contributed to, and focus our ire more on those outside our group who promote unhealthy foods/diets. However, I favor honesty and facts over false hype and self delusion and that means acknowledging unpleasant facts rather than trying to cover them up or delude ourselves about them.
In this case I actually see the overhunting of megafauna as SUPPORTING a raw Paleo diet because it refutes the claims of those extreme vegans who say that Stone Agers were incapable of hunting and rarely or never ate meat. So if you thought I saw it as a weakness in the RPD or as an "attribution of every natural calamity to human beings," then you completely missed my point and it would explain your puzzling implied criticism that I've been overly negative about Stone Agers and the RPD when in fact Tyler's criticism that I've been overly positive is closer to the mark (though I would argue that he was off the mark with that as well and your criticism has at least served me in demonstrating that).
Quote from: PaleoPhil
I can't be guilty of BOTH promoting a "doom and gloom" view of the Stone Age AND of promoting a "noble savage" view of an idyllic Stone Age.
For the record, I never accused you of either. I did however imply that you were in the doom and gloom group.
And that was my impression. I actually prefer it when people address me directly and make a specific charge that I can respond to, rather than make vague charges applied broad brush to a group of people with the implication that I'm one of them. I respect critics more when they are more forthright and offer evidence instead of just ad hominem to support their arguments.
The Noble Savage myth may be wrong on many counts, but at least its positive in nature. I'm all for staying on topic, but if anyone is to stray, I'd rather have them perpetuate a positive myth then a negative one, if only because many people come here looking for anything but more stress, guilt, etc.
I prefer honesty and facts to myths. I think in the long run that will pay off more than trying to sugar coat things.
Tyler and Alphagruis are doing a sufficient job of refuting your unsupported claims re: megafauna extinction and related matters, so I'll leave it to them.
-
This is just plain wrong reasoning.
What scaling theory in biology actually tells us can be learned here instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry
If just muscle cross-sectional area increases by a factor of 10 and its length remains unchanged it scales precisely as the volume or mass of the animal and everything would be OK. There is no factor of 100 in weight change.
Period.
The subsection under that link entitled Isometric Scaling is precisely what I'm talking about. In fact what they call the square-cube law is another way of describing a strength-weight ratio.
You're understanding of proportionality is lacking. Let's use a cylinder as a test. The volume of a cylinder is computed as the product of pi, the square of the radius, and its height. If you were to increase the size of a cylinder by factor of 10, you would be increasing its radius and its height by the same amount. So a cylinder with a radius of 10cm and a height of 10cm would have a cross-sectional surface area of 314 square cm, and a volume of 3140 cubic cm. A cylinder with a radius and height of 100cm would have a cross-sectional surface area of 31400 square cm and a volume of 3.14 million cubic cm. Whereas the cross-sectional surface area changed by a factor of 100, its volume changed by a factor of 1000.
This is an important concept regarding muscles. The maximal strength a muscle can reach is a function of the cross-sectional surface area of the muscle at its thickest point. If one were inclined to double the strength of a muscle, its volume would increase as the square, yielding at least an increase of 4 units. The volume may have to increase further to keep the muscle stable, as thicker (and stronger) muscles need larger heads with which to attach to internal structures. Therefore, as muscles get larger, the volume they take up increases as well. That proportion is not linear though; in fact, its volume varies directly as the square of area.
I think all that the evidence indisputably shows is that they were wiped out, period.
This is just wishful thinking. Period.
Are you saying that the evidence does not indisputably show that megafauna were wiped out? Is there evidence that they were not wiped out?
As most of your post(s) about our species's so called "ability to forecast" what were the consequences of its behaviour and activities on the ecosystems it lived in. Very funny.
I'm not even sure I understand this question. If you're asking me what the consequences of paleolithic man's ability to forecast were, that seems kinda broad.
There are several obvious flaws in some of the above claims. First of all, elephants don't have the biggest size possible of all land animals. There were plant-eating dinosaurs of a far bigger size than mere elephants, so mammoths could easily live and survive with their much smaller size, by comparison.
I wouldn't use dinosaurs here to help the argument Tyler, as they exacerbate the problems with strength-weight ratios. Elephants (according to wikipedia) are the largest land animals today. They are quite ponderous and require extremely sturdy frames. The majority of their muscle mass is tied up in keeping them upright and building momentum when necessary. The tyrannosaurus (which is one of the smaller dinosaurs) was easily a match for an elephant in terms of average height and size. Clearly, much less muscle mass is being concentrated in the lower frame, and in fact, a major amount resided in the jaw alone. Yet we're to believe that the T Rex was able to execute extremely tight maneuvers in minimal time while hunting smaller, quicker prey? Now consider a massive sauropod. Even paleontologists were aware that there were some inherent difficulties in their existence. They used to reason it away by saying that they spent their entire lives in the water where their mass would be buoyed. That theory has been discarded in recent decades, however, as prolific fossilized sauropod footprints were found. Now the unstable structure implications are just ignored.
Also, it makes perfect sense, economically and logically, for palaeo tribes to eat the flesh of any fellow tribal members who die in the hunt or from old age etc. Killing other tribes for food would provide a partial explanation for why palaeo populations stayed relatively static for long periods.
Eating the dead makes sense in an odd way, at least when you don't consider the diseases that tend to be inherent in eating the flesh of the same species. Keep in mind, you're talking about a sub species that no longer exists. We aren't neanderthals, and they died out somehow. I've read quite a few theories. Honestly, they don't interest me, because we are not descended from them. However, tribes killing each other for food will never work out in the long run. Aside from destroying your trading partners, you're eliminating potential cooperative arrangements in hunting, as well as needlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own hunters. Hunters died during the hunt, no doubt. Those were due to enraged, cornered animals. Going up against other hunters seems like the potential loss of life would be markedly higher.
Like I said before, its very difficult for modern people to determine just how highly paleolithic man judged human life. I believe its value was considered high; you apparently disagree. Economics is on my side though, as the supply of food-gathers was very low then. Things which are scarce, are things which are conserved.
So your fear is not that it's going to "scare people away" in general, but rather that it's going to scare away the sort of people you want around and attract those you don't, yes?
Nice try. Let me ask you this: if I were a moderator and I told you that your negative ranting wasn't in the best spirit of the community, or, if a moderator told you the same thing that I did, would you ask them this same inane question?
Tyler and Alphagruis are doing a sufficient job of refuting your unsupported claims re: megafauna extinction and related matters, so I'll leave it to them.
How are they unsupported again? I've used math, logic, and basic economic principles to point out inconsistencies. Are these not sufficient? You may disagree with my positions, but at least do me the courtesy of recognizing that I'm supporting my arguments.
-
You are assuming entirely way too much and completely forgetting the interplay between the fascia and the muscles and the structural property called tensegrity.
Do you really not believe that extremely large dinosaurs did not exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensegrity
http://www.anatomytrains.com/explore/tensegrity
Fascia is the fascinating biological fabric and glue that holds us together. Long ignored, the fascial system is now getting its rightful due of attention, from both therapists and researchers.
Tensegrity is a model for understanding the geometry of the body, on both a micro- and a macro-cosmic scale, that leads to many new insights in terms of body connectivity, the relation between stability and movement, and how we can develop what might be called “Spatial Medicine."
With your logic, how would you explain a giraffe's neck? Wouldn't it collapse in on itself?
Heres a good thread on it - http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=44
and another - http://www.ttem.org/forum/index.php?topic=1807.0
THE ANOMALIES
If we accept the precepts of most present day biomechanical engineers a 100 kg weight lifted by your average competitive weight lifter will tear his erector spinae muscle, rupture his discs, crush his vertebra and burst his blood vessels (Gracovetsky, 1988). Even the less daring sports person is at risk. A two kg fish dangling at the end of a three-meter fly rod exerts a compressive load of at least 120 kg on the lumbosacral junction. If we include the weight of the rod and the weight of the torso, arms and head the calculated load on the spine would easily exceed the critical load that would fracture the lumbar vertebrae of the average mature male. This would make fly fishing an exceedingly dangerous activity. Pounded by the forces of the runner striking the ground and the first metatarsal head acting as the hammer and the ground as the anvil the soft sesamoids would crush. A batter striking a baseball traveling at one hundred miles per hour, (160km/h), will be sheared from the ground, spikes and all. A hockey player, striking a puck will be propelled backwards on the near frictionless ice, as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Fig. 1. competitive weightlifting is a mathematical absurdity. If we modeled the weightlifter using standard, Newtonian models, bones would crush and muscles would tear.
There is more to ponder. The brittleness of bones is about the same in a mouse as it is in an elephant, as the strength and stiffness of bones is about the same in all animals. Animals larger than a lion, for example horses, leaping on their slender limbs, would smash their bones with any leap (Gordon, 1988). According to the linear mechanical laws that dominate biomechanical thinking, animal mass must cube as their surface area squared and animals as large as an elephant will crush of their own weight. The large dinosaurs could never have existed, let alone be a dominant species for millions of years. Biologic tissues work elastically at strains that are about a thousand times higher than strains that ordinary technological solids can withstand. If they behaved as most non-biologic materials, with each heartbeat the skull should explode as the blood vessels expand and crowd out the brain and urinary bladders should thin and burst as they full. The pregnant uterus should burst with the contractions of delivery.
Not only mechanical but also physiologic processes would be inconsistent with linear physics. Pressure within a balloon decreases as it empties. Following the same physics the systolic pressure should decrease as the heart empties, it, of course, increases. We could never get the air out of our lungs or empty our bladders or bowels. If we functioned as columns and levers, our center of gravity is too high and our base is too small and weak for ordinary activities. When swinging an ax, sledgehammer, golf club or fishing rod our center of gravity would fall outside our base and topple us over. We could not lift a shovel full of dirt. The calcaneus is a very soft bone. Our heels should crush from the super incumbent load and could not sustain the load of a gymnast coming off a high bar. The ‘iron cross’ position, [fig 2] attainable by any competent gymnast, would tear him limb from limb unless he defied the cosine law taught in every basic physics course which, in effect, states that the forces pulling on a rope strung between two poles becomes infinite as the rope becomes straight.
<page continues at length >
[eg - ring any bones Da Cheng Chuan-ers ]
...Tendons and bone can store large amounts of energy and return it like a spring in leaps and bounds....
...Elastic structures when deformed store energy and as they return to their original shape, the energy is released. Much of the movement is with stored elastic energy. Stress, and resultant strain, stores energy within the system. In bone and tendons, this energy can be quite large and when modeled as tensegrity structures even more impressive because of its non-linearity and the resulting initial explosive force that automatically smoothes out as it reaches its resting state...
-
Sorry William, but I'm not convinced that Paleoman was innocent of malice and never suffered malnutrition. Unless you can provide extraordinary evidence to support those extraordinary claims, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on those.
I'll leave the convincing to others.
With reference to malnutrition, their bones are the reason why we try to copy the diet of paleolithic man, so that we might enjoy something approaching the same level of health as they did.
If you have knowledge of paleolithic bones that show malnutrition, please present that evidence here so that we can stop this difficult attempt to copy their diet.
With respect to malice, if you piss off your neighbour he is likely to refuse to go hunting with you. Man is a pack hunter. Lone hunting is a recipe for failure, resulting in malnutrition and possibly even death.
Re: war, it depends on what your definition of war is. During the Paleolithic there certainly weren't the large-scale wars of the Neolithic, so we can agree on that, but I do believe there were smaller-scale wars.
There are no marks of war on the bones. If there are please let us know the honest scientific study that tells of them.
I'm expressing my belief that outside of these forums its already an established and popular motif. In addition, I'm saying that this motif is creeping into this community where it doesn't really belong.
?No comprendo.
I wish we would do less criticizing of each other, which you have ironically now contributed to, and focus our ire more on those outside our group who promote unhealthy foods/diets. However, I favor honesty and facts over false hype and self delusion and that means acknowledging unpleasant facts rather than trying to cover them up or delude ourselves about them.
Yes, I agree with less personal criticism.
How about those inside our group who promote unhealthy foods/diets? I refer to Taubes, Stefansson, Blake F. Donaldson MD all of whom described proven healthy diets.
Let's clean up our act before we refer to other groups.
-
...Nice try. Let me ask you this: if I were a moderator and I told you that your negative ranting wasn't in the best spirit of the community, or, if a moderator told you the same thing that I did, would you ask them this same inane question?
You've made no serious effort to understand anything I've written and you've shown no inclination to be constructive, so I'm done discussing it with you. Rant on if you wish, I don't care. If Tyler and Alphagruis wish to continue, then feel free to debate with them.
------
I'll leave the convincing to others.
With reference to malnutrition, their bones are the reason why we try to copy the diet of paleolithic man, so that we might enjoy something approaching the same level of health as they did.
If you have knowledge of paleolithic bones that show malnutrition, please present that evidence here so that we can stop this difficult attempt to copy their diet.
With respect to malice, if you piss off your neighbour he is likely to refuse to go hunting with you. Man is a pack hunter. Lone hunting is a recipe for failure, resulting in malnutrition and possibly even death.
I'm aware that most Paleo bones were in better shape than today's average, I'm only saying that I'm not aware of any evidence that Paleo men never experienced malnutrition. If you have evidence to support that claim, then feel free to present it. I'm not making any claims regarding this, so no evidence is necessary from me.
Re: malice, I remain unconvinced, and if you're not trying to convince me, then I guess it's pretty moot anyway.
There are no marks of war on the bones. If there are please let us know the honest scientific study that tells of them.
I believe Tyler already presented evidence of warring and cannibalism in the past when debating this with you and me. He apparently believes there was more of it than I suspect, and I don't think all the evidence he presented was evidence of cannibalism or warfare, but some of it is compelling and there's no reason to believe that human beings never engaged in warfare when most traditional human societies and even chimpanzees have been observed engaging in small-scale warfare and murder. If chimpanzees can manage to engage in group hunting, group murder, group combat and even tribal wars of extermination, then surely Stone Age humans could have managed it. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that traditional humans are just as capable of managing small scale warfare as chimps.
Darwinian Evolution on Display in Chimp Group Raids (Team Aggression)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DTkhp9sv58
Jane Goodall
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/the-discover-interview-jane-goodall
Goodall said: "[Chimpanzees] have violent and brutal aggression, even a kind of primitive war. In all these ways, they’re very like us."
Of course, chimpanzee warfare is of a different character than modern human warfare, as Dr. Goodall pointed out: "I think modern warfare is very different from chimpanzee warfare. Chimpanzee warfare is not unlike gang warfare, but modern warfare is about economics. It isn’t about defending territory."
JANE GOODALL 1934-
by Adrian G. Weiss
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/janegoodall.html
"1974: Warfare--a war broke out between the Kasakela males and seven males of a splinter group. This lasted four years; the rival group was eradicated, except for a few females. This type of violence had not been recorded in chimpanzees."
(Squall wrote): I'm expressing my belief that outside of these forums its already an established and popular motif. In addition, I'm saying that this motif is creeping into this community where it doesn't really belong.
William wrote: ?No comprendo.
Squall wrote that.
Yes, I agree with less personal criticism.
How about those inside our group who promote unhealthy foods/diets? I refer to Taubes, Stefansson, Blake F. Donaldson MD all of whom described proven healthy diets.
Let's clean up our act before we refer to other groups.
That's a good point. Even our comments on outsiders should focus on their points and try to avoid ad hominem, though that is understandably more difficult when dealing with folks who disagree with us to a much greater extent than we do with each other and who use ad hominem against us, but I agree with your basic sentiments, though it's not likely that everyone here will ever agree with your ZC approach, however beneficial it has been for you. I know that from your perspective there are no Paleo carbs, but others feel there are, or that they can at least tolerate them.
-
The subsection under that link entitled Isometric Scaling is precisely what I'm talking about. In fact what they call the square-cube law is another way of describing a strength-weight ratio.
You're understanding of proportionality is lacking. Let's use a cylinder as a test. The volume of a cylinder is computed as the product of pi, the square of the radius, and its height. If you were to increase the size of a cylinder by factor of 10, you would be increasing its radius and its height by the same amount. So a cylinder with a radius of 10cm and a height of 10cm would have a cross-sectional surface area of 314 square cm, and a volume of 3140 cubic cm. A cylinder with a radius and height of 100cm would have a cross-sectional surface area of 31400 square cm and a volume of 3.14 million cubic cm. Whereas the cross-sectional surface area changed by a factor of 100, its volume changed by a factor of 1000.
Not even these statements are true. If, as you claim now you were talking about isometric scaling, increasing the muscle strength by a factor of 10 means that you increase muscle cross-sectional area by that factor of 10 or the linear scale by the square root of 10 i.e. by a factor of a bit more as 3.1. This implies with isometric scaling an increase in volume or weight of the animal by a factor about 31 and by no means a factor of 100 as you claimed erronously in your previous post.
Moreover allometric rather than isometric scaling obviously does take place in biology and so your argument is merely out of topic and irrelevant anyway.
-
This is just wishful thinking. Period.
Are you saying that the evidence does not indisputably show that megafauna were wiped out? Is there evidence that they were not wiped out?
I'm not even sure I understand this question. If you're asking me what the consequences of paleolithic man's ability to forecast were, that seems kinda broad.
I'm saying that we know much more about megafauna extinction and the major role our species played in this phenomenon, a reality at odds with your ridiculous and pretentious claims.
Moreover you've most likely perfectly well got my point and as PaleoPhil I'll spent no more time arguing with hypocrites.
-
The fact that huge dinosaurs were easily able to survive and breed for many millions of years shows that the standard ideas re structure etc. are quite wrong. Brontosaurus and other similiar species must have been able to have moved around with relative ease or they would have died out at a much earlier date than they did.
As for cannibalism and warfare issues, I think people are confusing them with issues of hatred etc. For example, human sacrifice has been common-place throughout history/prehistory - yet, on closer examination, a number of volunteers for human sacrifice were actually quite willing to be sacrificed as they were deeply religious and thought they'd get a better after-life as a result.
Similiarly, warfare does not have to be always hostile involving mass-murder. If one looks at tribes which have lasted to the present day, their behaviour varies considerably. The Bushmen for example are basically pacifistic while the Maori practised constant real warfare plus cannibalism etc., so those tribes show the huge variety in human behaviour. Plus, much intertribal warfare is highly ritualised and filled with taboos, with usually only small amounts of killing, with real warfare erupting every so often. All that said, wiping out entire (nonsentient) species is very easy for humans to do. It is telling that the mass extinctions of megafauna in the Palaeolithic era occurred some time after more advanced tools were created by humans c.60,000 years ago re development of traps/spears/nets etc.
-
How about those inside our group who promote unhealthy foods/diets? I refer to Taubes, Stefansson, Blake F. Donaldson MD all of whom described proven healthy diets.
Let's clean up our act before we refer to other groups.
Taubes, Stefansson and Blake F. Donaldson all described extremely unhealthy cooked diets. Stefansson and Blake F Donaldson were hypocrites who cited the Eskimoes as being supposedly "proof" of the so-called health of their cooked-meat diets, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Eskimoes lived on diets which were partially raw. In other words the raw component of the Eskimoes' diets made them a bit healthier than Westerners on SAD diets, with the cooked component of their diet harming their health to some extent.
I've already posted a critique of Stefansson, mentioning how he was openly accused of fraud on another issue, and mentioning his many faults and false assumptions re the cooked/raw issue and other matters. Taubes will be getting a rather harsher review given that he is prone to even more cases of exaggeration or dismissal of hard facts. First, I'll do reviews of Loren Cordain, AV, Wrangham and Weston-Price, though.
-
A previous poster mentioned that cannibalism can lead to brain-diseases(ie such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) ). However, Kuru is a prion-related disease very similiar to BSE and it is well-known that BSE-rates were heavily linked to cattle consuming rendered animal fats. In other words, if a rawpalaeo cannibal in ancient times ate fellow rawpalaeo cavemens' brains, then he would not get kuru. Eating the brains of a cooked-food-eater on the other hand would indeed lead to kuru outbreaks, after the advent of cooking.
-
Re: malice, I remain unconvinced, and if you're not trying to convince me, then I guess it's pretty moot anyway.
I believe Tyler already presented evidence of warring and cannibalism in the past when debating this with you and me.
What Tyler presents as "evidence" is peculiar to himself.
We are not animals, and never have been.
I know that from your perspective there are no Paleo carbs, but others feel there are, or that they can at least tolerate them.
Feel, shmeel.
Wrong again. I did not write that. There are indeed plenty of paleo carbs, and their wild form still exists today.
My point was that almost nobody eats them, and then not often. The carb addicts here are all eating neolithic.
For good reason, which has been explained by those who have tried paleo carbs.
-
Ah, William is as usual writing unscientific b*ll*cks, I see. All humans are animals, incidentally, we are living organisms and have much the same biological urges and instincts re competition and survival as any other species. Besides, we have the evidence of the ultimate extinction of other hominid subspecies such as the Neanderthals/Homo Erectus, as well as the extinction of megafauna in the Palaeolithic era, to show that humans were never idyllic saints.
The 2nd argument re "Neolithic carbs/palaeo carbs/paleo meats" has already been wholly refuted by another member. I believe it was pointed out that all those grassfed animals we RPDers now eat are the product of extremely intensive (in-)breeding over many millenia of domestication so that they do not even remotely resemble their much healthier ancestral animals that existed in the Palaeolithic era, in terms of nutritional quality.Only quality raw meat from wild animals could therefore be considered remotely "palaeo" by that absurd extremist assumption made by William. Few if any people eat such raw wild meats within the RVAF diet community, and certainly not the cooked-fat-addict William who mentions how he subsists on unhealthy, grainfed(!) meat and similiar cr*ppy food such as pemmican. Indeed(!), since I am one of the few who eats regular plentiful supplies of raw wild game, and raw wild berries and raw wild veg on the rare occasions when I can get hold of the latter, I can therefore lay a far more credible claim to be on an authentic palaeodiet than William can with his Neolithic grainfed meats from inbred animals.Same with rawpalaeo,as William commonly eats cooked cr*p such as pemmican.
In some ways, I rather appreciate William's usual unscientific claims. It actually makes the cooked-zero-carb community, and pro-cooked-diet-advocates in general, look bad as a result. That can only be a good thing.
-
Not even these statements are true. If, as you claim now you were talking about isometric scaling, increasing the muscle strength by a factor of 10 means that you increase muscle cross-sectional area by that factor of 10 or the linear scale by the square root of 10 i.e. by a factor of a bit more as 3.1. This implies with isometric scaling an increase in volume or weight of the animal by a factor about 31 and by no means a factor of 100 as you claimed erronously in your previous post.
Moreover allometric rather than isometric scaling obviously does take place in biology and so your argument is merely out of topic and irrelevant anyway.
Those statements were just an illustration of proportionality. Like PaleoDonk implied, there is much more going on in living organisms, the least of which is the fact that muscles don't typically assume simple geometric shapes (like cylinders). However, the scaling factors are of immense importance, and you still seem to not be understanding it.
From your own link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry)
Isometric scaling is governed by the square-cube law. An organism which doubles in length isometrically will find that the surface area available to it will increase fourfold, while its volume and mass will increase by a factor of eight.
From the embedded link to the square-cube law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law)
When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier.
And back again to your supplied link:
This can present problems for organisms. In the case of above, the animal now has eight times the biologically active tissue to support, but the surface area of its respiratory organs has only increased fourfold, creating a mismatch between scaling and physical demands. Similarly, the organism in the above example now has eight times the mass to support on its legs, but the strength of its bones and muscles is dependent upon their surface area, which has only increased fourfold. Therefore, this hypothetical organism would experience twice the bone and muscle loads of its smaller version.
So where you're having trouble with this completely escapes me. I've used your reference and the math is sound. If you don't like 10's, just redo the cylinder math I did above with 2's. You still have to square them, so instead of 100, you'll get 4. If all you're doing is arbitrarily picking one dimension and increasing it, then ya, it will increase linearly. But the result isn't an object of the same proportion, which is precisely what I and your own reference are talking about.
I'm saying that we know much more about megafauna extinction and the major role our species played in this phenomenon, a reality at odds with your ridiculous and pretentious claims.
Moreover you've most likely perfectly well got my point and as PaleoPhil I'll spent no more time arguing with hypocrites.
The least you can do is to address how my claims are ridiculous and pretentious, and how I am an hypocrite. But then I guess you're through with this thread. How convenient.
And as far as the "reality" of humanity's role in megafauna extinction, it wasn't my aim to debate its merits in this thread. However, that debate has happened, and since then I've found it engaging, though its burdening the original post. Therefore, I'll continue discussion in its own thread, which I have started here:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/what-are-the-evidence-that-humans-are-responsible-for-megafauna-extinction/ (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/what-are-the-evidence-that-humans-are-responsible-for-megafauna-extinction/)
-
OK Squall, I first thought you're just an hypocrite but you're obviously also an plain idiot.
-
OK Squall, I first thought you're just an hypocrite but you're obviously also an plain idiot.
Obviously. Welcome back in any case.
-
Modern processed carbohydrates always = disease
Low glycaemic wild carbohydrates ie roots, starches = eventually to disease
Medium glycaemic wild fruit = disease
Berries & small fruits like kumquats, are concentrated fruits, with low antinutrients & high naturally occurring agents in the plant to counter the antinutrients
Most seaweeds, are also bad for you, a few like algae, chlorella & spirulina even dried, are beneficial, but they do have moderate carbs & can be negative in the long term
They also thin your blood
blood is not supposed to be thin-ish ? to deliver nutrients and oxygen fast?