What do you guys think of Michael Greger, MD

[TylerDurden]

It is true that ATCP had posted a lot before but this time he was recently overcome with a desire to convert, so there was no reasoning with someone who has supposedly discovered the "one true path" that everyone else has to follow. I do not mind others preaching about the benefits of cooked foods but they should do so on other pro-cooked boards. It is fine to sincerely question aspects of raw-meat diets in the Hot Topics forum (though not all the time!)but, even then, one should not preach but give a good anecdotal or science-backed reason as to why you think raw or palaeo is inappropriate for you and perhaps others. No diet is perfect, after all.


I never had an issue with dorothy other than that her posts were somewhat   unnecessarily "over-long".

SkinnyDevil was too busy and could not stay on the forum. Makes sense, most people, after they have finally found a diet that works for them re health, do not want to obsess about diet and so eventually leave to do other things.Some, like me, stay on to help the newbies avoid  the dumber mistakes they themselves made when starting the diet(such as my initial eating intensively-farmed, 100% grainfed meat and erroneously thinking that I was eating Instincto-like  ) or because they might come across something new that is health-related or whatever etc.

[PaleoPhil]

Well, I don't see how people reporting teeth problem on the AV forum has to do with ATCP being aware that AV is dead or not?

I mean, people can still follow his main guidelines regardless of him being alive or dead.

He wrote "Aajonus's facebook forum." Aajonus's forum, on Facebook, not some separate Internet forum by someone else about Aajonus' guidelines. How would a fan of Aajonus not notice that he had died a while ago and thus doesn't have an active Facebook forum, if he ever had one? Seems more likely a vegetarian-oriented guy that is just parroting what he sees AV fans write. It's not proof of anything, just circumstantial evidence, but it also fits in with the reports from Cheri and Tyler. At any rate it sounds like he would have been happier elsewhere anyway.


So who is the current high carb hero at this forum to try to fill SkinnyDevil's shoes? 

[PaleoPhil]

I never had an issue with dorothy other than that her posts were somewhat   unnecessarily "over-long".

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that you two did have any issues, if that's how you took it. I just figured you two might end up disagreeing. The actual conflicts turned out to be with others, rather than you, as I recall. Not trying to blame anyone. There were just unfortunate misunderstandings.

[Ioanna]

But for the record, I really don't think we have any low-carbers among the mods, except for Ioanna, and I think she's been having more carbs recently, if I remember right.

I have shifted from healing/curing myself to finding what feels best energetically. I realize the latter will shift too, but less dramatically, I'm thinking. The two goals are so very different. So long story, short, yes, adding more carbs. And if I knew then what I know now, I know which carbs I would have eaten from the beginning.

RS + fat has been so healing to my gi tract. I may not need this anymore, I'm not sure. I still do not digest fruits, not even a handful of berries, for example. Same for raw honey, and then any other sweet fruit I try.

There's a balance I'm still trying to figure out, and may ask for input soon. As for ZC/VLC, it really served me quite well. Was the first thing that helped me to even start healing, and I didn't experience any sluggishness or anything like that. I felt just fine, no cravings, and plenty of energy added to the happiness of feeling health restoration. I think as I felt better and better it got easy to eat too much protein. At least I smelled ammonia-ey when I'd work out so I didn't think I was fueling myself  properly.
   

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm glad the RS is working for you. It sounds like you and Phil probably share some genes. I just get cramps and gas from RS, but I do quite well on moderate carb these days. Sweet fruit is no problem as long as I get enough fat and minerals.

[PaleoPhil]

Ionna, FWIW, I have found the best tolerated berries for me (to the point of actual benefits) are the more-wild / less-domesticated ones, such as wild Maine blueberries, elderberries and aronia berries. I think Inger mentioned something along these lines too, IIRC. The latter two are a bit bitter or bland, and not very sweet, like many wild berries I have sampled, but I feel good after eating them. I suspect that they counter negative effects of too much lactate in the blood, though it's just a hunch based on how I feel after eating them.

Cheri, My genes are 99% Western European, including some Neanderthal, per 23andme testing. Glucose seems to be one of the most problematic food elements for my system to handle, which may explain why quick-digesting glucose-rich foods have been more of a problem for me than slower-digesting starchy foods (such as from tubers and starchy fruits) and fructose-rich fruits. Diabetes runs in both sides of my family (T1 on one side and T2 on the other), so it's not surprising.

Paleo books, blogs and videos (such as Prof. Cordain's writings and Dr. Lustig's video on fructose) sent me in the wrong direction of focusing on cutting out starch and fructose when glucose was actually much more the issue for me. Paul Jaminet even wrote that rice syrup should be a safe sugar, whereas I found it one of the most damaging foods I've tried (someone told me that he has since become more cautious about rice syrup) and honeys higher in fructose to be the least problematic. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not down on glucose for those who can handle it well and I'm trying to improve my glucose metabolism. Don't know how successful I'll be. I think it has improved some. Healthy people, especially young ones, reportedly have no problem metabolizing glucose, which is thus the optimal situation.

I agree that minerals are helpful, so I've been pleased to see indicators of my mineral levels improve.

[cherimoya_kid]

I don't think ethnic origin tracks all that well with carb tolerance. Blacks have a very high rate of diabetes, and they almost certainly have ancestry that ate more carbs. I am about 97% Northern European per 23andme, and 2.6% Neanderthal, and I don't have any real issues with carbs. I could see Middle Easterners having the best carb tolerance because of their longer history of heavy grain and date consumption, or maybe (South)East Asians for very similar reasons, but I don't know how true those guesses would be.

[Ioanna]

I'm a Mediterranean mix, mostly Greek and southern Italian.

Thanks PP, will try those berries sometime and report back. Would be fun to add berries to my diet!

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm a Mediterranean mix, mostly Greek and southern Italian.

Thanks PP, will try those berries sometime and report back. Would be fun to add berries to my diet!

And since those populations have eaten grain-heavy diets (and probably fruit-rich too) for so long, you should, by the ethnic origin theory, tolerate carbs well. Clearly  not, though, which doesn't lend any credence to that theory.

[TylerDurden]

And since those populations have eaten grain-heavy diets (and probably fruit-rich too) for so long, you should, by the ethnic origin theory, tolerate carbs well. Clearly  not, though, which doesn't lend any credence to that theory.

Paleophil already pointed out, years ago,  a brilliant point, namely that pandas have not changed their diet since they were giant pandas some 5 million years before or so. So, length of time is NOT a sign of dietary adaptation. Or of increased evolution even, but you did not get the point re this about the Out-of-Africa-theory /Multiregional Hypothesis theory.

The only caveat is that the Inuit do indeed seem to be proected against ZC diets with lots of raw in them, due to having extra-large livers.So, perhaps  some ethnic populations can indeed switch quite quickly to different diets, due to survival?

[cherimoya_kid]

No mammal would be able to quickly adapt to a bamboo diet. It just doesn't have much nutrition, and what little there is is protected by tough cellulose. It would require more than just a couple million years for a previous carnivore (which I believe pandas were) to adapt to an all-bamboo diet.

[cherimoya_kid]

And to say that length of time is not at least partial evidence of dietary adaptation is to pretty much deny the whole mechanism of gradual evolution at all. But you can do that if you want, I don't care much.

[PaleoPhil]

Iona, beware that aronia berries are also called chokeberries for a reason--quite astringent and bitter.   I see that the polyphenol "values are among the highest measured in plants to date," as I expected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronia

Paleophil already pointed out, years ago,  a brilliant point, namely that pandas have not changed their diet since they were giant pandas some 5 million years before or so. So, length of time is NOT a sign of dietary adaptation.

Thanks. That's stated more strongly than I intended it. I meant that long periods of consumption do not guarantee optimal adaptation. Plus, humans do seem better adapted to carby plant foods than giant pandas, which is not surprising given the differences in evolutionary history and physiology. You are correct in the sense that we can't assume that we are fully adapted to a food just because we have been eating it for some thousands of years.

Also, Don Matesz sort of turned my thought on its head, using the giant pandas as an example of how even carnivores can adapt to eating nearly only plants by utilizing commensal bacteria. http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2012/04/panda-paradox.html It was an interesting point highlighting the importance of the GI microbiome. BTW, bamboo is another source of resistant starch. 

The only caveat is that the Inuit do indeed seem to be proected against ZC diets with lots of raw in them, due to having extra-large livers.So, perhaps  some ethnic populations can indeed switch quite quickly to different diets, due to survival?

Yes, the harsh Arctic conditions probably forced accelerated evolution among the Inuit, though it would have started earlier than their North American habitation--in Northeast Siberia, where they came to N America from. More physiological differences are being found among the Inuit and Siberians vis a vis Europeans, so emulating Artic peoples' diets may not make a lot of sense for Europeans.

[sabertooth]

Humans to our credit are adaptivores..... while the pandas, lower primates, and a multitude of other species seem to change very little and very slowly there seems to be a much higher aptitude for adaptation in humans (an adaptitude)

This tendency to quickly adapt is likely due to the mutagenic properties of the vast variety of foods which our ancestors have foraged upon. Out of desperation to feed and maintain our abnormally larger and larger brains, a certain level of dietary flexibility had to be attained. Pre human hominids when faced with starvation would rack their brains to uncover any food source which would allow for survival, in a way that is truly unprecedented in the animal kingdom. The evolution of a conscious mind working in sync with the instinctive will to survive has lead to a quickening of evolutionary progress, in a way that modern science is not yet fully aware of. 

Instead of the instinctive avoidance of mutugenic dietary variations which directs most creatures toward homeostasis, our species in many ways are drawn to mutagenes..... our curiosity is constantly testing the limit of biological tolerances and leading us into new frontiers.....this has allowed our ancestors to cover the globe and subsist in virtually every terrestrial environment on the planet....adapting to the harshest of climates and thriving despite the most radical dietary changes, at an exponentially faster rate, than has ever been seen in this world.

There are subtle mechanics which enable the process of quickened adaptation in humans, that need to be further studied. I have a theory that our immune system has unique properties that are now somehow tied into the process of lamarckian evolution, in creatively intelligent ways ...reacting to mutagens and biologically active agents in synchronicity with an ever evolving creative intelligence, the human species has undergone some incredibly drastic immunoviral induced mutations. There must have been events which have lead to spontaneous and rapid adaptation within our species, throughout our evolutionary ascension.  From "the Small Pox of the dark ages to the chicken pox of our pre schools"..... "from meat to wheat".....from the "cold tundra to the hot desert" from "antigen produced within to mutagens encountered in from other beings"....our genetics are being shaped by forces we still have very little understanding of. These Quantum leaps in evolution are not documented.

The complexity of the subject is difficult to grasp, and its impossible to draw universal truths regarding optimal dietary protocol for individuals out of the mishmash of this emerging epigenetic, mutagenic, proactive evolutionary view, which runs contrary to what the establishment has been droning into us since darwin. '

This human as an adaptivore concept, being more or less understood.... we can now look to the factors which set limitations to what even the most adaptable creature on this planet can adapt too. There are indeed limits and it seems that some people are more limited than others in their capacity to tolerate and adapt to radical dietary change. The more out of sync with the natural world our biological beings become as a result of technologically adulterated environments the less our adaptitude will be able to bring us back into alignment.

 There is a huge rift dividing our species from its primal roots. Many of us feel like uprooted plants pulled out of our element by machines in order to make way for a highway of useless information.... The time has come for a new great divergence, not seen since our ancestors where forced out of the trees and began to walk upright..... those who hear the call must become wanderers of a new kind, and search for a balanced habitat that will nurture us into the next step in our evolutionary journey.... A place where the sun light, clean water and pure soil abound.... this is all that is primally necessary to realign and thrive... if we return ourselves to these basic conditions, then life will find its way, and there would be no need to search any longer for the perfect diet... for the providence of optimal sustenance would always be within reach.

[nummi]

Aronia berries are not astringent and bitter, I have 4 bushes in my own yard. They are somewhat sweet and nice tasting, perhaps a little sour. Though climate and soil and weather effect it a little, somewhat depends on the year.
It is probably called "chokeberry" because of the quality to get easily stuck in the throat if eaten many berries at once, nothing to do with taste. Quality that is mostly removed with freezing, and maybe with drying.

A related berry that definitely is quite (very) astringent and bitter is "rowan".
Another related berry grows on the tree "Swedish Whitebeam". Quite farinaceous and lightly sweet.

Rowan and aronia and swedish whitebeam berries look similar.

[TylerDurden]

And to say that length of time is not at least partial evidence of dietary adaptation is to pretty much deny the whole mechanism of gradual evolution at all. But you can do that if you want, I don't care much.

It is just that the length of time argument is often used as the main  point to discredit the Palaeolithic Diet and especially raw diets. The Panda example shows that there is no absolute and that therefore it is possible to not easily adapt from one diet to another. Also, dietary adaptation may be far more complicated and difficult to achieve than other kinds of evolution.

There are some amazing examples of adaptation in Nature. I just read about the greater bamboo lemur in Madagascar which  which exclusively eats one type of bamboo species which has enough cyanide at its roots to kill a human being. Scientists still don't know how the lemur manages to deal with the cyanide.

[TylerDurden]

Yes, the harsh Arctic conditions probably forced accelerated evolution among the Inuit, though it would have started earlier than their North American habitation--in Northeast Siberia, where they came to N America from. More physiological differences are being found among the Inuit and Siberians vis a vis Europeans, so emulating Artic peoples' diets may not make a lot of sense for Europeans.

Except that Caucasians are supposed to have originated in Siberia, so adaptation to meat-heavy diets is a likelihood for whites. Grains also did not even appear in the European diet until many thousands of years after the Middle-East got that started.

[sabertooth]

Except that Caucasians are supposed to have originated in Siberia, so adaptation to meat-heavy diets is a likelihood for whites. Grains also did not even appear in the European diet until many thousands of years after the Middle-East got that started.

Durring the ice ages northern Caucasian that where big game hunters must of in deed developed very similar adaptation to the meat based diets of the Inuit, and many subgroups may have never properly adapted to neolithic foods. This is one of the reasons why there was so much death and disease in feudal Europe, during the mini ice age that proceeded the black death. Once all the big game was hunted to extinction and the peasants had to live on agriculture there was a crisis, in which those who couldn't adapt quickly died off, whereas in the middle east the people where much more grain tolerant and already had adaptions to protect them from the adverse mutigenic effects of agricultural staples.

After a period of time even Caucasians have developed adaptation to grains, but I believe it is in a haphazard way that is often undermined in individuals who have undergone some damage, and thus for those individuals perhaps re adaptation to the meat based diets of their Siberian ancestors is the most optimal course to take.

[cherimoya_kid]

Caucasians have the lowest rate of diabetes of any ethnic group. Clearly the whole "Middle Easterners have adapted to grains more than other groups" theory has some holes.

[sabertooth]

The holes in the theory are do to a failure to understand the broader context of what actually had happened.

The middle eastern races had thousands of years to slowly adapt to grains, while still subsisting heavily on other foodstuffs like fish, Mutton, Fowl, and fresh produce.

The Caucasians on the other hand had a much rougher go at it in many ways. Drastic climate variation and the a absences of big game animals, left many in the north more dependent on exclusively cooked grain based diets. Whenever there was a mini ice age or just a bad season and other foods became scarce, entire populations had to subsist almost entirely on moldy grains. This lead to great mutigenic adaptations which were a result of the great the holocaust of the dark ages. Durring these great die off events there was a development of the Caucasians bionic liver and pancreas along with increased immune system capability which enabled many to live on alcoholic beverages and breads made with fermented grains as a staple food.

Other ethnic groups never had to undergo such radical and quick adaptations, so they never developed the bionic pancreatic function which many Caucasians possess. which is why we see diseases from diabetes to other degenerative conditions at higher rates in other ethic populations which have become introduced to processed high carb diets.

Its truly remarkable that my grandmother on my moms side could drink a 12 pack of beer a day and eat peanut butter sandwiches and macaroni and made it to 74, and my other grandmother lives on white bread, potatoes, gravy steak, and skim milk and is in her 90s. Most people in  my family eat prodigious amounts of carbohydrates, my mother drinks a 2 litter bottle of soda pop a day, and her blood sugars are fine. Though my great grandmother who was part native american and would eat sugar developed mild type two diabetes when she was in her 80s

This adaptation as seen through Sheldrakes theory of morphogenetic resonence, are not entirely stable nor are they universal amoung races, and under certain kinds of duress those adaptations in some individuals have entropied, and tolerance to carbs and grains(especially modern versions which are alien to our genetic experience) has been lost. For those individuals it may be of benefit to revert back to a diet which their ice age ancestors had been well adapted too.

[cherimoya_kid]

Hmm. Food for thought.

LOL

But seriously, it does make some sense. I'm just not sure that there's THAT big a difference between the grain-heavy diets of Middle Easterners for the last 6,000 years versus the forced grain-heavy diets of Northern Europeans for specific short time periods over the last 1,000 years. But perhaps the relatively small amount of non-grain foods that Middle Easterners always had access to, even in winter, made some difference.

Actually, I have a competing theory. Here we go--

Northern Europeans, for many millennia now, basically had to hibernate for several months a year, especially January and February. It was too cold to do much hunting/fishing, and there were no plants to gather, so lying by the fire, sleeping 20 hours a day, and therefore using as few calories as possible made a good strategy. They were still not fully hibernating, though, which means they still had to eat food. The total lack of physical activity combined with eating means their liver and kidneys had to deal with the excess blood sugar somehow. I think this is probably a bigger factor.

Note--we can see this tendency in ethnic Northern Europeans today, it's called Seasonal Affective Disorder. Also,  ethnic Northern European are far more prone to depression than other groups, which would actually have been adaptive in Northern winters during hunter-gatherer times.

[TylerDurden]

One caveat:- the "Middle-Easterners" of thousands of years ago(Sumer/Ancient Persia etc.) were mostly white/Caucasian with some Semites(arguably also a type of Caucasian). After the Arab invasions of 650AD onwards, ethnicity did of course change to a certain extent.

[PaleoPhil]

Humans to our credit are adaptivores..... while the pandas, lower primates, and a multitude of other species seem to change very little and very slowly there seems to be a much higher aptitude for adaptation in humans (an adaptitude)

Well put, Sabertooth!

Aronia berries are not astringent and bitter, I have 4 bushes in my own yard. They are somewhat sweet and nice tasting, perhaps a little sour.

The ones in my fridge are astringent and slightly bitter, and also mildly sweet, and result in some mild dryness in my mouth after eating them. It's probably partly due to the fact that I only started eating them this year, plus I'll bet there wasn't a frost before they were picked. It was explained in these articles:

<<The name "chokeberry" comes from the astringency of the fruits, which create a sensation making one's mouth pucker.>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronia

<<Aronia berries have a distinctive, pleasant flavor. Astringency is the sensation that most people notice first. They will make your mouth pucker. This dry mouth feeling is caused by chemicals known as tannins. Tannins make dry wines dry. Many people like that dry, mouth puckering quality of dry wines and aronia berries. Freezing reduces the astringency of aronia berries.>> "Aronia - A New Crop for Iowa". March 4, 2009. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/news/2009/mar/110401.htm

"The taste perception of aronia berries is also influenced by the age and experience of the person doing the tasting.  For example, younger people usually perceive aronia to be too astringent.  This is a natural, healthy reflex.  Children often spit out astringent and bitter plant parts.  That helps them to avoid eating anything poisonous.  (A large number of naturally astringent and bitter compounds are known to be toxic.)  Only in the course of becoming an adult do people realize that astringency and bitterness do not always indicate foods that are dangerous to eat.  Such foods can even be tasty.  This is also the reason why children usually dislike grapefruit, Brussels sprouts, coffee, and beer but later as adults they may enjoy them. ...  freezing ... reduces the astringency of aronia berries."
http://aroniainamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-do-aronia-berries-taste-like.html

   
I like aronia berries and the clean, fresh feeling they leave in my mouth and the feelings of muscle relaxation and well being that follow consumption.

Aren't rowan berries and Swedish whitebeam berries normally red? Do they eventually turn black or are there black varieties? The berries I have are black. They look like these: