Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??

[JaredBond]

And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.

Can you elaborate on that?

Well, as Paleo Phil will point out, it is just my unfounded supposition, but I brought it up because it goes hand in hand with the carb issue.  Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)  It was, for me, one of the main pillars of why people were never intended to eat carbs.  But once the other pillar was shaken (insulin fear), I realized that this one is not too substantial either.  Now, I know this must be rustling feathers here, being that this is the RAW Paleo Forum.  If you want to argue about AGEs and enzymes, that's a different matter.  What I'm concerned with here is, did people do it?  Maybe even, did hominids do it?  And for me, it seems very plausible that, as early as the brain capacity could allow, hominids could recognize the value of fire for warmth and light at night.  And cooking probably came soon after.  Root vegetables being the easiest-- you just sit them by the fire.  I don't really see why, if people had fire, they wouldn't cook them.  It frees up so many more calories and neutralizes the toxins.

The evidence, as far as I know, is scant on the issue either way.  I actually did take an anthropology class, and the only thing they mentioned for how we "know" when they started using fires was the lowest depth of ash layers at hominid sites.  And maybe they didn't find charred bones before a certain time period (if at all?).  There are too many holes to say that we really know anything.  As if a handful of sites can give us an accurate picture of what was going on everywhere.  For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

Also, there may be no need for dietary carbohydrates.  But most will agree there is such thing as too much protein.  So, if we figure that we do in fact need a lot of calories, as Matt Stone proposes, that leaves us eating a lot of butter or tallow, and so on.  Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?), but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?  I don't know.  Also, as Matt Stone points out, why is it that a baked potato alone is not very appetizing, but it is with some butter and sour cream?  There's got to be a good reason (actually potatoes are supposedly a moderate source of protein), but all I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.

[Savage]

but all I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.

If you feel better with starches, eat them.

This is where you need to be: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/

Do carbs also cause a difficulty with English and/or mental retardation ? Or is it an individual thing?

[pioneer]

I dont know about the mental retardation-carb correlation but surely the degeneration of the last few generations with white sugars, flours, and other cooked carbs accompanied with the ridiculous amount of vaccines are causing ADD, ADHD, and many mental issues including autism.

[actionhero]

Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?)

Really? LOL

Data from the 2007 National Diabetes Fact Sheet (the most recent year for which data is available)

Total: 23.6 million children and adults in the United States—7.8% of the population—have diabetes.

Diagnosed: 17.9 million people

Undiagnosed: 5.7 million people

Pre-diabetes: 57 million people

no problem?

but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?

Because saturated fat is extremely powerful. Just a little bit can power a body for a loooong time and give insane amounts of both constant and explosive energy. Sugar doesn't even come close to what it's like to be fueled by raw saturated fat.

If you want to keep eating cooked food and weird plants it's OK but don't pretend that it will give you more health, energy and vitality because it won't.

[PaleoPhil]

Well, as Paleo Phil will point out, it is just my unfounded supposition, but I brought it up because...

Why would you bring something up and lecture others about it that is based on your "unfounded supposition". I'm slightly interested to learn what motivates people to do that, because I've noticed it a lot in forums--especially fruitarian and raw vegan forums, for some reason. Do you feel compelled to do it?

Try putting the shoe on the other foot--ask yourself if you would like to be lectured about the benefits of LC and the horrors of high carb by someone who was basing it on their unfounded supposition and doing so in a forum section dedicated to high carb diets.

it goes hand in hand with the carb issue.  Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.

Perhaps you can't, but I can. I recommend replacing your "you's" with "I's". Like most free human beings, I don't appreciate being dictated to and I'm losing interest in your posts.

...What I'm concerned with here is, did people do it?  Maybe even, did hominids do it?  And for me, it seems very plausible that, as early as the brain capacity could allow, hominids could recognize the value of fire for warmth and light at night.  And cooking probably came soon after.

You still haven't answered the question posed by at least two people of when "time immemorial" was. How long ago do you think cooking started?

Root vegetables being the easiest-- you just sit them by the fire.  I don't really see why, if people had fire, they wouldn't cook them.

Yesterday I learned that African yams are often sun-dried and pulverized, then commonly eaten without cooking (though the mash can also be cooked and boiling yams is more common than sun-drying them). So fire-cooking tubers is not essential.

It frees up so many more calories and neutralizes the toxins.

100% of the toxins?

Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?), but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?

Who is we? That's not true for me. You're starting to sound like an 811er.

...I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.

Good, that's the sort of honest sharing that is generally much more valued than dictating to others what is good for them.

As others have suggested, I think you would be more at home at a different forum. Why are you wasting time here?

[goodsamaritan]

Jared,

You may not have noticed it but this is the Zero Carb section of this forum.

Come join us at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/ if you need plant matter in your diet.

[KD]

Painful!!
Can not eat delicious food.
The body is very thin.

cool haiku

Shouldn't this whole thing just be moved to Hot Topics instead? The main points seem to be not at all about raw-omnivory, but the pros and cons of raw, and the analysis of things like cooked starches in regard to insulin, which is really a challenge to conventional LC wisdom and deals little with ZC or raw.

I think Jared makes intelligent points but there is too much subject matter being battered around. Too much confusion with grouping criticisms by suggesting what could give possible health and not necessarily remarks about how doable ZC or LC is. There is plenty of criticism of various LC or ZC methods on RPF, including peoples personal experiences without the need for 'shepards', so I think its better to concentrate on 'small'  (ha) topics like above, in general sub-forums, especially if it is going to degenerate into hashing out these ideological issues.

[pioneer]

If a high carb diet suits you well than fine, but dont lecture me about the dangers of low or zero carb, my friend had horrible digestive problems and she couldnt heal it without going low carb. Diabetics need low carb diets. For seizures and epilepsy, the keto (ZC) diet is used. In fact, when the atkins diet was introduced it saved many people's lives with epilepsy and it wasn't even raw. Dont lecture us that ZC or low carb is unhealthy, I think there is plenty of proof that says otherwise. However just as I am saying that Low carb diets work for some people, some people as yourself either dont favor well on them or just convince themselves that they dont because they cannot see a world with low carbs in it. I mean hell, carbs are everywhere, some people just cannot quit them. Sugar is after all a class 1 drug, literally. That's the very reason they put sugar in cigarettes, because it is addicting. People who go on low carb initially have sugar withdrawal effects. You cannot eat a significant amount of carbs in nature. Jared, have you ever been out in the wild for a period of time. If you had, you should have found that it is nearly impossible to get much carbs. Try finding carbs in the winter, they're nowhere in sight, and trust me, I've tried. Is this to say that we humans were meant to die, or be really unhealthy in the winter because we have ZC diets? I highly doubt it. It seems to me that carbs is only a seasonal thing for the most part. It is also a earth positional factor as well, like how people closer to the equator have more access to carbohydrates than people up north.

People generally tend to forget that we were once bare ass naked in the woods with only a few tools to hunt with, not all the agricultural tools we have today. Therefore one should know that we would never have a significant access to carbs in nature.

It just all makes sense to me and I dont understand how some people cannot see it. We are closest related to carnivores. Our digestive system was not meant do digest cellulose by fermentation like other animals such as cows do. Last time I checked, we only have one stomach like lions, wolves, and bears, not like herbivores. Think about it like this ya'll: SHit feeds microorganisms, fungus and humus, fungus and humus feed plants, plants feed herbivores, and herbivores feed omnivores and carnivores.

[rawlion]

Jared,

As a victim of LC/ZC, what macronutrient ratio do you find optimal for your health now?

thnx

Yuri

[klowcarb]

You cannot eat a significant amount of carbs in nature. Jared, have you ever been out in the wild for a period of time. If you had, you should have found that it is nearly impossible to get much carbs. Try finding carbs in the winter, they're nowhere in sight, and trust me, I've tried. Is this to say that we humans were meant to die, or be really unhealthy in the winter because we have ZC diets? I highly doubt it. It seems to me that carbs is only a seasonal thing for the most part. It is also a earth positional factor as well, like how people closer to the equator have more access to carbohydrates than people up north.


It just all makes sense to me and I dont understand how some people cannot see it. We are closest related to carnivores. Our digestive system was not meant do digest cellulose by fermentation like other animals such as cows do. Last time I checked, we only have one stomach like lions, wolves, and bears, not like herbivores. Think about it like this ya'll: SHit feeds microorganisms, fungus and humus, fungus and humus feed plants, plants feed herbivores, and herbivores feed omnivores and carnivores.

Fantastic!

[PaleoPhil]

....Shouldn't this whole thing just be moved to Hot Topics instead? The main points seem to be not at all about raw-omnivory, but the pros and cons of raw, and the analysis of things like cooked starches in regard to insulin, which is really a challenge to conventional LC wisdom and deals little with ZC or raw.

Good point. Since Jared is really using this thread to promote the Matt Stone diet that is neither raw, nor Paleo, I've moved it to Hot Topics and added "Matt Stone HED" to the title to clarify it.

[Side note: it is possible, however, to make a raw version of the Matt Stone diet, I think, by sun-drying tubers and eating raw dairy products instead of pasteurized, but Jared hasn't argued for that.]

[Hans89]

It just all makes sense to me and I dont understand how some people cannot see it. We are closest related to carnivores.

Umm no... our digestive tract resembles that of an omnivore, not that of a carnivore.

Our digestive system was not meant do digest cellulose by fermentation like other animals such as cows do. Last time I checked, we only have one stomach like lions, wolves, and bears, not like herbivores. Think about it like this ya'll: SHit feeds microorganisms, fungus and humus, fungus and humus feed plants, plants feed herbivores, and herbivores feed omnivores and carnivores.

Yet there are animals such the maned wolf that doesn't do well on an all-meat diet even though he seems to be a carnivore. The distinction isn't as easy as you think - carnivore vs. herbivore. That's why the whole thing is so damn confusing.

[Hans89]

Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)

There are wild tubers like sago or arrowroot that could have been used pre-farming afaik

For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

IMHO it would make a lot of sense that people cooked tubers first and ate their meat raw, as cooking improves tubers A LOT and does nothing to make meat more digestible or nutritious, the opposite is the case.

[Hans89]

Yesterday I learned that African yams are often sun-dried and pulverized, then commonly eaten without cooking (though the mash can also be cooked and boiling yams is more common than sun-drying them). So fire-cooking tubers is not essential.

So interesting. Where did you find this?

[goodsamaritan]

Well, as Paleo Phil will point out, it is just my unfounded supposition, but I brought it up because it goes hand in hand with the carb issue.  Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)  It was, for me, one of the main pillars of why people were never intended to eat carbs.  But once the other pillar was shaken (insulin fear), I realized that this one is not too substantial either.  Now, I know this must be rustling feathers here, being that this is the RAW Paleo Forum.  If you want to argue about AGEs and enzymes, that's a different matter.  What I'm concerned with here is, did people do it?  Maybe even, did hominids do it?  And for me, it seems very plausible that, as early as the brain capacity could allow, hominids could recognize the value of fire for warmth and light at night.  And cooking probably came soon after.  Root vegetables being the easiest-- you just sit them by the fire.  I don't really see why, if people had fire, they wouldn't cook them.  It frees up so many more calories and neutralizes the toxins.

The evidence, as far as I know, is scant on the issue either way.  I actually did take an anthropology class, and the only thing they mentioned for how we "know" when they started using fires was the lowest depth of ash layers at hominid sites.  And maybe they didn't find charred bones before a certain time period (if at all?).  There are too many holes to say that we really know anything.  As if a handful of sites can give us an accurate picture of what was going on everywhere.  For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

Also, there may be no need for dietary carbohydrates.  But most will agree there is such thing as too much protein.  So, if we figure that we do in fact need a lot of calories, as Matt Stone proposes, that leaves us eating a lot of butter or tallow, and so on.  Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?), but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?  I don't know.  Also, as Matt Stone points out, why is it that a baked potato alone is not very appetizing, but it is with some butter and sour cream?  There's got to be a good reason (actually potatoes are supposedly a moderate source of protein), but all I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.

What I can contribute to this topic is that concept of Jared Diamond in Guns Germs and Steel.

The healthiest, most peaceful, most long lived people are no match for the thugs, the war freaks, the invaders who had superior foods such as potatoes and other high carb portable sources.  Jared Diamond gave examples of tribes who wiped out the neighboring tribes because they had this warfare advantage.

So abundance of food is one thing.  It's not ideal food.  These high carb stuff may not be optimal, but it is good at warfare.  We need to think of evolution multi-dimensionally.

[pioneer]

Umm no... our digestive tract resembles that of an omnivore, not that of a carnivore.

Yet there are animals such the maned wolf that doesn't do well on an all-meat diet even though he seems to be a carnivore. The distinction isn't as easy as you think - carnivore vs. herbivore. That's why the whole thing is so damn confusing.

Well when you put it like that, believe me I do realize that in nature there is no such thing as a 100% carnivore except maybe a few animals. Wolves even eat grass from time to time, and bears eat berries. I get that. However, we could debate about this all day and I'm sure you've heard this before: our stomachs are longer than that of other carnivores yes, however, we have the same amount of hydrochloric acid as many other carnivores such as wolves. Yes wolves stomachs are shorter than ours and have a higher concentration (this is what so many vegans and vegetarians argue) however our stomachs have just as much hcl even though it is longer. When you say our tract resembles that of an omnivore, please elaborate on this. I am not saying that we are 100% carnivore, but ask yourself to pick between a herbivore and a carnivore and we are definitally closer to the carnivore.

[Hans89]

I am not saying that we are 100% carnivore, but ask yourself to pick between a herbivore and a carnivore and we are definitally closer to the carnivore.

That argument is just ridiculous though. Say your trying to classify a mule. You can classify it as a horse, a donkey or as a mule. Your argument is like saying "but it's more like a donkey" instead of saying "it's a mule." It doesn't matter if you think humans are closer to carnivores or to herbivores. Humans are omnivores, period.

[miles]

Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?

[pioneer]

Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?

exactly, this discussion is preposterous. Like trying to differentiate a mule with a horse? I dont see how that has any relevance to this topic, nor a good analogy for the matter. Just like you're saying I "think" we're carnivores, I can turn that around and say you "think" we're omnivores but it doesnt change the facts one bit. Once again, could you please elaborate on how we resemble omnivores more than carnivores. I.E. the best way to go about that would be to give me an example of an omnivore in nature and show me how we are closer to the omnivore than the carnivore.

Remember, like actionhero once said, and this is my favorite quote: animals are real food, plants and everything else is just supposed to keep us alive till we find real food.

[pioneer]

so a lion is an omnivore because it sometimes eats fruit?
a dog is an omnivore because it sometimes eats grass?
I guess chimps and gorillas are omnivores too because they sometimes eat flesh?
Hell! EVERYTHING IS AN OMNIVORE!

[Hans89]

Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?

No.... no idea where you got that from...

[Hans89]

exactly, this discussion is preposterous. Like trying to differentiate a mule with a horse? I dont see how that has any relevance to this topic, nor a good analogy for the matter.

Is it that hard? You're comparing humans to herbivores and carnivores, which ignores the existence of another category, omnivores, which humans are considered to fall into.

Just like you're saying I "think" we're carnivores, I can turn that around and say you "think" we're omnivores but it doesnt change the facts one bit.

Yes, and the fact most everybody agrees on is that humans are omnivores. I haven't really seen anybody contest this, except for vegans and people talking about how humans are more like a wolf than a cow, conveniently leaving out that there is a third category. Both appear to considerably push the facts in order to make them fit their agenda.

Once again, could you please elaborate on how we resemble omnivores more than carnivores. I.E. the best way to go about that would be to give me an example of an omnivore in nature and show me how we are closer to the omnivore than the carnivore.

carnivores have short bowels and round stomachs, herbivores have bigger stomachs or several of them and long bowels. Human stomach shape is in between, as is the length of the bowels. Human teeth are also a mixture. Incissors and molars look very much like the teeth of sheep, which are notably missing the canines humans have. Dogs (carnivore) have premolars which humans don't have and only a few molars far back. Obviously, the human digestive tract is between the two, as is that of other omnivores like pigs, mice etc.

[Hans89]

I was mentioning the maned wolf, because from his appearance, he is a carnivore (I'm not sure how he is classified normally.) But in spite of that, he eats up to 50% vegetable food! And he needs vegetable food to be healthy. Doesn't this somewhat fly into the face of meat being the only "real" food?

[goodsamaritan]

Humans should be thankful to be omnivores. Because of this ability, we can survive during harsh times without animal food. Even without much water, we can drink animal blood.  When we dream of our best meals it always turns out to be some animal feast.

But we are getting off topic.

Shouldn't we go back to Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??

[pioneer]

Doesn't this somewhat fly into the face of meat being the only "real" food?

not really because you can survive entirely on meat, but you can't survive entirely on vegetables. Steffannson proved that at bellevue hospital.