Homo diet

[instant]

anyone familiar with this diet?
Dr. Jan Kwasniewski.
The Optimal Diet

http://homodiet.netfirms.com/

 The ideal proportion between the main food components of protein, fat and carbohydrates should be in the range of:
 1 : 2.5 - 3.5 : 0.8

[TylerDurden]

LOL, I did a double-take when I first saw the title of this thread. I'd assumed it would start another flame-war, like on previous occasions re that other subject. The correct title is the "Homo Optimus Diet".

Anyway, the Homo Optimus diet is pretty crap advocating humungous amounts of unhealthy cooked animal fat whether in the form of meat-fat or dairy-fat/egg-fat.I have yet to see any evidence of grassfed meats mentioned in that diet.

[instant]

apparently his success rate is high.. not sure how true this is.

[TylerDurden]

apparently his success rate is high.. not sure how true this is.

Any diet that avoids some processed foods is going to be healthier than the junk food diets that most people eat(after all, even on homo optimus, trans-fats and preservatives are avoided, margarine as well I'm sure, and so on). That doesn't mean it's a healthy diet, merely that it's slightly "less worse" than the worst kind of diet.

[popeye]

I'm familiar with Jan Kwasniewski.  I'm not sure how animals are farmed in Poland but here in the USA they are fed copious amounts of grains and soy.  I can imagine the fat of such animals would be significantly less nutritious than if they were fed a proper diet.

The gentleman at http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ eats this way.

[TylerDurden]

Popeye, the guy who started this thread turned out to be a troll. He was constantly trying to suggest that cooked, low-carb diets were healthy, without any genuine evidence.

[goodsamaritan]

anyone familiar with this diet?
Dr. Jan Kwasniewski.
The Optimal Diet

http://homodiet.netfirms.com/

 The ideal proportion between the main food components of protein, fat and carbohydrates should be in the range of:
 1 : 2.5 - 3.5 : 0.8

I tried this homo optimus diet last year 2008 for 1 full month using cooked fatty pork.
My pork was not organic.
My pork was usually cooked via charcoals / roasting.
I felt so awful at the end of the 1 month experiment I had to stop it.

I felt so relieved going back to raw beef and raw ocean fish.

I believe the ratios have something to them and the principles can be applied to raw paleo as well.

[popeye]

I tried this homo optimus diet last year 2008 for 1 full month using cooked fatty pork.
My pork was not organic.
My pork was usually cooked via charcoals / roasting.
I felt so awful at the end of the 1 month experiment I had to stop it.

I felt so relieved going back to raw beef and raw ocean fish.

I believe the ratios have something to them and the principles can be applied to raw paleo as well.

My low carb diet has up until recently been very similar to the optimal diet.  I ate a bit more protein, however.
I was eating loads of dairy (probably half of my caloric intake or more) and I just never felt good on it.  And almost all of the food was well cooked and farmed.  I thought my lack of improvement was strange considering the testimonials of 60 year olds with atherosclerosis claiming that they felt great after being on the diet for a week.  I've concluded after being on the internet for a while now that going by testimonials alone is a very, very bad idea.  There are testimonials online for all sorts of horrible things.

If there's one thing I do agree with the diet about, it is that eating a lot of fat is important in a low carb diet.

[TylerDurden]

If there's one thing I do agree with the diet about, it is that eating a lot of fat is important in a low carb diet.

Yes, but it has to be 100% raw and 100% grassfed to be effective.

[PaleoPhil]

Popeye, the guy who started this thread turned out to be a troll. He was constantly trying to suggest that cooked, low-carb diets were healthy, without any genuine evidence.

Wait, what? Where has he constantly posted that? He just got here. We tolerated SuperInfinity a lot longer than that. How many trolls post their bloodwork numbers, photos of them making high meats, etc?

[TylerDurden]

Wait, what? Where has he constantly posted that? He just got here. We tolerated SuperInfinity a lot longer than that. How many trolls post their bloodwork numbers, photos of them making high meats, etc?

Err, I was referring to "instant" as being the former troll, not popeye. I was talking TO popeye about "instant" starting this thread,  not talking about popeye!

[Hannibal]

Jan Kwasniewski' diet is generally low-protein and low-carb and after years people experience many side-effects.
Only minority do quite good.
Jan Kwasniewski said that cooked foods have higher biological value and are easier do digest so he strongly advocated eating cooked meals.

[PaleoPhil]

Err, I was referring to "instant" as being the former troll, not popeye. I was talking TO popeye about "instant" starting this thread,  not talking about popeye!

Oh    I take it then that Instant was only interested in promoting the Optimal Diet.

Jan Kwasniewski' diet is generally low-protein and low-carb and after years people experience many side-effects.
Only minority do quite good.
Jan Kwasniewski said that cooked foods have higher biological value and are easier do digest so he strongly advocated eating cooked meals.

Oh oh! Lex's and my diets are somewhat low in protein and have essentially no carbs! But we eat raw.

[Hannibal]

Oh oh! Lex's and my diets are somewhat low in protein and have essentially no carbs! But we eat raw.

I meant 40-50 g of protein a day! As I know you eat a little bit more

[TylerDurden]

Oh    I take it then that Instant was only interested in promoting the Optimal Diet.

He promoted any diet as long as it wasn't raw. So he went on about the Optimal Diet and the Okinawan diet and stated that cooked meat wasn't unhealthy and other blatant nonsense. Basically, he was a devotee of that fool Gary Taubes and blindly believed every word of that guru re the stance on cooking etc. and wanted to convert us(hypocritically calling us "extremist" despite his attempt at proselytizing. That's one reason, among many, why I'm going to debunk Taubes' nonsense in a future article.

[PaleoPhil]

OK, thanks for the explanation.

BTW, I don't agree with Taubes on everything, but I am living proof that he is right about excess carbs being bad for at least some people, and he certainly didn't invent the idea. To consider all of what Taubes says to be total nonsense would require convincing oneself that I and Lex and other successful VLCers/ZCers don't exist.

[TylerDurden]

OK, thanks for the explanation.

BTW, I don't agree with Taubes on everything, but I am living proof that he is right about excess carbs being bad for at least some people, and he certainly didn't invent the idea. To consider all of what Taubes says to be total nonsense would require convincing oneself that I and Lex and other successful VLCers/ZCers don't exist.

Even frauds like Dr Atkins or  David Wolfe or Sally Fallon have something useful to say, somewhere in their drivel, which is beneficial for some people. That doesn't make them any less of a fraud.

[PaleoPhil]

Even frauds like Dr Atkins or  David Wolfe or Sally Fallon have something useful to say, somewhere in their drivel, which is beneficial for some people. That doesn't make them any less of a fraud.

Since when does being right on something not make one less of a fraud? You are basing this on your opinion, not some objective scientific standard.

The things that bother me most about Fallon and Atkins were that their recommendations appeared to line up neatly with their financial interests. This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask: how does one raise the question of potential conflict of interest without appearing to engage in ad hominem attack? For example, how do I legitimately question the WAPF's funding from raw dairy farmers and the Atkins Corporation's profits from highly processed low-carb candy bars without engaging in ad hominem?

[TylerDurden]

Since when does being right on something not make one less of a fraud? You are basing this on your opinion, not some objective scientific standard.

I'm simply stating the obvious, that no one human is 100% right, and that no one human is 100% wrong. In the case of gurus, whether they are Sally Fallon or Gary Taubes or Aajonus Vonderplanitz, they all have a specific axe to grind and their own agenda re profits or politics, so , inevitably they are going to have major faults in their reasoning and massive flaws in their data etc, so that they are all fraudulent in some way or other. It's just that Gary Taubes has more flaws than most. Which is why I'm going to do a high-grade slash 'n'burn review of him, sooner or later.

[popeye]

I'm simply stating the obvious, that no one human is 100% right, and that no one human is 100% wrong. In the case of gurus, whether they are Sally Fallon or Gary Taubes or Aajonus Vonderplanitz, they all have a specific axe to grind and their own agenda re profits or politics, so , inevitably they are going to have major faults in their reasoning and massive flaws in their data etc, so that they are all fraudulent in some way or other. It's just that Gary Taubes has more flaws than most. Which is why I'm going to do a high-grade slash 'n'burn review of him, sooner or later.

If I've learned one thing on the Internet it's to take gurus with a grain of salt, and just go with what works for you.  I got into raw veganism due to zealously listening to a particular guru, and it nearly did me in.

[Paleo Donk]

What is Taubes' agenda? And what are his most serious flaws? I guess I should just wait for the article. But, I have yet to seen any serious legitimate criticism and would love to hear a good critical review. GCBC absolutely changed my life and I am eternally grateful that I read it. It literally changed every aspect of my life for the better.

[William]

What is Taubes' agenda?

To make money. How else does a reporter get by?

 

And what are his most serious flaws? I guess I should just wait for the article. But, I have yet to seen any serious legitimate criticism and would love to hear a good critical review. GCBC absolutely changed my life and I am eternally grateful that I read it. It literally changed every aspect of my life for the better.

Flaws? Who cares? He made an honest presentation of the arguments pro and con, so that you and we could make up our own minds.

[TylerDurden]

What is Taubes' agenda? And what are his most serious flaws? I guess I should just wait for the article. But, I have yet to seen any serious legitimate criticism and would love to hear a good critical review. GCBC absolutely changed my life and I am eternally grateful that I read it. It literally changed every aspect of my life for the better.

For one thing he appears to have wrongly stated that cooked meat is better than raw meat. He has also , wrongly, criticised multiple studies damning the consumption of cooked meats, on entirely spurious grounds.