ok I'm distorting your views yet you dedicated paragraphs to saying the same things basically that people cannot rivial raw palelos without use of artificial drugs and if they do that they are lieing? This was the worst post thus far and well illustrates my point.
I simply said that most current professional athletes use drugs/steroids so that that aspect definitely contributes partially to their sporting success. That's a simple fact, due to the excess competition in current times. Palaeos did not have access to such drugs, yet showed bone-structure etc. at least as good as those of modern athletes.
not only can you not accept being wrong on this, you can't accept anyone has positive results cooking foods, using dairy etc...and have to basically come up with tons of inplausible reasons why everyone should fail dong things you don't agree with. Because he cooks he must have all these health problems and therefore he is not to be trusted even though there is a long list of people who have met the guy in person and seen in action. You have tremendous logic issues going on here and elsewhere which are quite visible in that link , the 'how big?' thread, and here without any writing I could supply to distort it. you have mentioned average palos had more strength than any possible training we can come up with in modern times. and that modern training provides poor functional strength. You are wrong and the experts you posted say you are wrong. Anyone can read the comment about the pygmy in reference to being 120 lbs and see a straw reaching contest.
It is quite clear from the above that you are hopelessly biased on this issue. First of all, I have actually stated, in the past, that some people are better adapted towards raw dairy or cooked foods, so that is a definite example of terminological inexactitude. Secondly, the main point I was making is that 100s of other gurus, diet-oriented or otherwise, show similiar physically enhanced bodies and beautiful photos, all of whom practise widely different diets. To suggest , based on a vague(most likely photoshopped)photo that someone must be following a perfect diet is just a perfect example of gullibility. Similiarly, Schwarzenegger looked great in his time, but then he developed heart-trouble etc., later on, as a result of steroids. So, basing one's views on photos when there are 1000s of similiar photos of gurus just like that , is ridiculous. As for the long list of people, so have many others met other gurus like Cordain or Dr Atkins, argument invalid as they can't determine steroids used in privacy etc.
And the palaeo evidence re bones/fossils shows beyond doubt that they had an advantage over us re physical exercise. Yes, some modern athletes might use specific weights to enhance 1 particular muscle better than palaeos etc., but that still doesn't get round the fact that palaeos had superior functional strength. And, I say once again, functional strength is not the same as vague "general" strength, in the muscle-bound, modern weightlifter-sense.
as I already mentioned the point of showing the juxtaposition was not that one person was healthier based on how they looked (it included information as well), it was that a range of actual practiced habits can yield better results than natural theories even if they seem more sound scientifically and anthropologically. Of course 9/10 we are deciding this science and anthropology as amateurs on this forum, so some guys like deVany might manage to get their versions to work even better despite our best arguments and 'proof' - no cheating required. It wasn't a comparison of whos internal organs are healthier due to cooking or processing, only how people held up at higher ages. Which was totally acceptable in other threads comparison to other 'veg' gurus...
Artificial, unnatural methods, whether in the form of steroids or anything else, by definition, exact a penalty later on(steroids for example damage testes etc.). It makes far better sense to try natural methods which have no nasty side-effects in the future. Besides, muscles were designed by evolution to be used in natural ways. So, the closer we imitate evolutionary designs the better off we are.
Also, photos are useless for determining how fast people age, as not only aspects like AGEs in foods are important, but also peoples' individual genetics/lifestyles etc. - all of which mean that photos cannot be considered remotely reliable .
your double standard is always using conveniences or confusion against things that present conflicting successful arguments. If you had a photo of a caveman lifting a car like our current strongmen you would probably plaster it all over the site. Just like that article that blew up in terms of proving modern training poor when in reality it was all the genetic and nutritional things we can all agree on. When it doubt throw some completely unprovable monkey wrench into any well argued point.
the idea that all photos arn't reliable as information is just nonsense, this coming from someone who actually said things like "well I've heard reports on (from RPD message boards? from uncle charlie?) of instintos looking healthier than primal dieters at American potlucks" and actually mean it seriously as an argument.
That's just childish as usual - besides, it's foolish to assume that any particular photo is a valid example, as there are 100s of other gurus with similiar physiques - in other words, if you honestly believe DeVany on the strength of that photo, then, to be consistent, you must believe in every other guru that has similiar photos with great physiques. Now that's just gullible as hell.
. As for that, I merely made that comment as I'm familiar with that person in the past years and he was least likely of all people to make outlandish comments, given his past. More to the point, I have frequently come across Primal Dieters with severe health-problems from raw dairy etc., and my own experience re primal diets(and instinctoish phases re raw high fruit/low meat diets), so all that is all in full agreement with the claim.
