solid foundation

[goodsamaritan]

I do fasts myself.
When I've been bad (I ate non-rpd food), I fast.
When I feel crappy, I fast.

My tools are: 3 day coconut juice fast, 3 orange juice fast or 14 day orange juice fast.

[Kristelle]

Personally, I think we ought to eat if we're hungry and if food is available. Fasting and hungry is just not right, in my book...done it and never will do it again unless I DON'T have a choice. I agree with rawrock.

I've eaten raw meats (including organs and seafood) from supermarkets, non-organic, grain-fed. Some actually tasted pretty delicious. Never had any problem. Did not see a difference (health or taste) with the time when I was eating exclusively organic grass-fed meats (bison, beef). Plus, it's cheaper.

My 2 cents...

[coconinoz]

"In the case of humans, in Palaeo times, many humans had to go without food for long periods, due to scarcity of prey. It's only in modern times, that an unnatural, plentiful supply of food is available - which is one reason for the rising levels of obesity etc., nowadays."

that's a statement made by a contemporary human being from his current angle -- so it seems

who really knows what 'paleo times' looked like?

i've heard that cro-magnon developed their sophisticated brains not in the desperation of survival angst but playfully while eating abundant enjoyable food...

1 may choose 1's favorite hypothesis or theory, of course

[TylerDurden]

"In the case of humans, in Palaeo times, many humans had to go without food for long periods, due to scarcity of prey. It's only in modern times, that an unnatural, plentiful supply of food is available - which is one reason for the rising levels of obesity etc., nowadays."

that's a statement made by a contemporary human being from his current angle -- so it seems

who really knows what 'paleo times' looked like?

i've heard that cro-magnon developed their sophisticated brains not in the desperation of survival angst but playfully while eating abundant enjoyable food...

1 may choose 1's favorite hypothesis or theory, of course

You're overlooked a few things:- Palaeo humans didn't have guns and even bows and arrows and traps came very late in the Palaeolithic era(c.60,000 years ago by anthropologists'  estimation due to the available evidence). So killing prey would have been difficult before that time, plus there was always the possibility(and fear of) injury - and that's not forgetting harsh climatic conditions(eg:- winter/Ice-Ages/bad weather such as storms) etc. which would have greatly depleted the food-supply or made it too difficult to hunt game effectively. So, by default, Palaeo-era hunters would have been forced to fast frequently, whether they liked it or not.

[coconinoz]

how about shellfish, small finfish, seaweed, snail, frog, small bird, egg...?

[TylerDurden]

how about shellfish, small finfish, seaweed, snail, frog, small bird, egg...?

Good point. However, Palaeolithic evidence indicates that, in most areas, either medium-sized or larger prey were consumed(eg:- equines(horses), bovines(aurochs) etc.) Searching for very small prey during those times when traps hadn't been invented yet, would require too much energy re hunting and too little return in terms of raw flesh obtained(eg:- frogs' legs), plus eggs are usually laid by wild birds only seasonally and usually in relatively inaccessible places such as trees or cliff-faces etc.

Shellfish/seaweed is another issue. Some people claim that shellfish was only initially consumed in relatively recent times(20,000 years ago), others claim 300,000 years ago or more. But, regardless, shellfish would only be relevant to those tribes right next to  coastal areas.

Deep-sea fish would definitely only have been consumed much later on when humans developed boats etc. Not sure re river-fish.

I don't deny that the above could have been a part of a Palaeo diet, but they would have been a more minor part than aurochs-flesh etc.

[Squall]

I think a relevant argument here is that if paleolithic man had to go without food for short periods of time frequently, then its most likely that over a long period of time (a million years?) natural selection would have provided him with a digestive adaptation to doing just that. Those that became too weakened from intermittent fasting would not have been able to hunt, eat, survive, and of course, reproduce. Those that did would have been our ancestors.

This argument presupposes that food was not always readily available. It might have been, and it might not have been. If it was not, then I think its safe to say that intermittent fasting is something the human body can easily cope with and might even be beneficial.

And for anybody that has ever been sick (which is just about everyone) how hungry were you? Some sicknesses might actually cause ravenous hunger prompting the person to eat and eat and eat. This would most likely be looked upon as instinct; the sick person is doing exactly what the body tells him or her because thats what it needs. Now how about the rest of the sicknesses that make the thought of food absolutely disgusting? Whenever I'm sick, eating is the last thing I'd like to do. Many people would contend that the sickness makes the body resistant to food. This assumption, IMO, is based on nothing but speculation. It is just as easy (maybe even easier) to say that the body does not want food because that will not help it. And why should the body, which normally does an excellent job of making the most of what it gets, fail to provide the proper signals when we're sick. I don't think instinct is selective. The fact that most people vomit upon eating while sick seems to indicate that their bodies do not need food, and that eating might make the healing process worse or slower. It would almost suggest that fasting for short periods of time under the proper conditions is necessary.

[TruthHunter]

"Shellfish/seaweed is another issue. Some people claim that shellfish was only initially consumed in relatively recent times(20,000 years ago), others claim 300,000 years ago or more. But, regardless, shellfish would only be relevant to those tribes right next to  coastal areas."
 
 Actually,  the lack of sea coast evidence in human history has to do with the fact that the oceans were up to 300 feet lower during the Ice ages.  Most of the evidence for the paleolithic lies  under water.

One of the earliest civilizations occurred in South America when the people discovered how to make nets of wild cotton. The resulting efficiency led to a highly developed culture.

Shellfish is so easy to gather that is would be absurd to assume that it wouldn't have been incorporated into diets very early. Merely copying other predators would have taught humans how to eat shellfish.

Many claims about what people did or didn't eat have little basis in fact. The lack of cited evidence doesn't mean  it didn't happen. 

TruthHunter

[rawrock2]

I don't see the difference between intentional and unintentional fasting. Either way, the animals or humans aren't eating as much as before. As regards humans doing IF, they are simply recreating the conditions their ancestors had in more "natural" Palaeolithic times - as a result, they become healthier.

Fasting is intentional. (by choice)  That's it.  There is no unintentional fasting.  Understanding that is key here.  Just because you don't have food does NOT mean you are fasting.

"In the case of humans, in Palaeo times, many humans had to go without food for long periods, due to scarcity of prey. It's only in modern times, that an unnatural, plentiful supply of food is available - which is one reason for the rising levels of obesity etc., nowadays."

that's a statement made by a contemporary human being from his current angle -- so it seems

I agree.  Where is this available plentiful supply of food?  As I mentioned before there are too many starving people in the world for a statement like that to be made.  Also, an abundance of food does not equate to unhealthiness by any means.

I've eaten raw meats (including organs and seafood) from supermarkets, non-organic, grain-fed. Some actually tasted pretty delicious. Never had any problem. Did not see a difference (health or taste) with the time when I was eating exclusively organic grass-fed meats (bison, beef). Plus, it's cheaper.

Yeah, I plan on only ordering foods online that I can't find at the supermarket.  Other than that, I'm just buying regular meat from my local stores here.  Honestly, unless one goes to where the supplier is and sees for themselves, you never really know if it is what they say it is anyway. (i.e. grass-fed, etc)  Could be a big scam. (like the organic movement in some ways)

[TylerDurden]

Fasting is intentional. (by choice)  That's it.  There is no unintentional fasting.  Understanding that is key here.  Just because you don't have food does NOT mean you are fasting.
that's a statement made by a contemporary human being from his current angle -- so it seems
I agree.  Where is this available plentiful supply of food?  As I mentioned before there are too many starving people in the world for a statement like that to be made.  Also, an abundance of food does not equate to unhealthiness by any means.Yeah, I plan on only ordering foods online that I can't find at the supermarket.  Other than that, I'm just buying regular meat from my local stores here.  Honestly, unless one goes to where the supplier is and sees for themselves, you never really know if it is what they say it is anyway. (i.e. grass-fed, etc)  Could be a big scam. (like the organic movement in some ways)

Fasting is intentional. (by choice)  That's it.  There is no unintentional fasting.  Understanding that is key here.  Just because you don't have food does NOT mean you are fasting.
that's a statement made by a contemporary human being from his current angle -- so it seems
I agree.  Where is this available plentiful supply of food?  As I mentioned before there are too many starving people in the world for a statement like that to be made.  Also, an abundance of food does not equate to unhealthiness by any means.Yeah, I plan on only ordering foods online that I can't find at the supermarket.  Other than that, I'm just buying regular meat from my local stores here.  Honestly, unless one goes to where the supplier is and sees for themselves, you never really know if it is what they say it is anyway. (i.e. grass-fed, etc)  Could be a big scam. (like the organic movement in some ways)

Well, we can argue about this forever. To me, the goal is the important point:- both fasting and starving achieve the same goal, lack of a sufficient food-supply. As regards an abundance of food, it has led to an avoidance of certain kinds of malnutrition(eg:- beri beri/kwashiorkor), but has also led directly to modern diseases such as diabates type 2.

[rawrock2]

Well, we can argue about this forever. To me, the goal is the important point:- both fasting and starving achieve the same goal, lack of a sufficient food-supply.

What 'goal'?  When a person is starving they are not achieving any goal!  Have you ever been starving because you couldn't eat not because you choose not to eat?  Also, that statement is false.  Starving = lack of a sufficient food supply, fasting = there is sufficient food available but one chooses not to partake it.

As regards an abundance of food, it has led to an avoidance of certain kinds of malnutrition(eg:- beri beri/kwashiorkor), but has also led directly to modern diseases such as diabates type 2.

Ridiculous.  How has the amount of food available related to disease?  I would think it's what you eat plus you can't assume that people are eating themselves to gluttony.

[TylerDurden]

What 'goal'?  When a person is starving they are not achieving any goal!  Have you ever been starving because you couldn't eat not because you choose not to eat?  Also, that statement is false.  Starving = lack of a sufficient food supply, fasting = there is sufficient food available but one chooses not to partake it.
Ridiculous.  How has the amount of food available related to disease?  I would think it's what you eat plus you can't assume that people are eating themselves to gluttony.

I've starved, years ago(during my student days), for days because I couldn't eat(I had no money whatsoever and was without other means/resources).
Re too much food:- It's a fact that too much food available makes it very tempting indeed  to overeat, thus leading to obesity, which leads to type 2 diabetes etc. etc. One only has to look at the US - Americans constantly refer to the ubiquity of fast-food restaurants everywhere selling junk-food in large, jumbo-sized portions, as being the primary  reason for the vast rise in obesity among US citizens since WWII.

[rawrock2]

I've starved, years ago(during my student days), for days because I couldn't eat(I had no money whatsoever and was without other means/resources).

So what goal did you achieve then, hum?  I bet when food was available, you eat and were happy.

Re too much food:- It's a fact that too much food available makes it very tempting indeed  to overeat, thus leading to obesity, which leads to type 2 diabetes etc. etc. One only has to look at the US - Americans constantly refer to the ubiquity of fast-food restaurants everywhere selling junk-food in large, jumbo-sized portions, as being the primary  reason for the vast rise in obesity among US citizens since WWII.

You said it right! ->  "makes it very tempting"  That does NOT mean people are or will overeat.  Now, you narrow it down to junk food instead of food in general.  Now admittedly I loathe junk food but even junk food is alright in the right portions.  The danger lies in consuming too much of it too often.

[TylerDurden]

So what goal did you achieve then, hum?  I bet when food was available, you eat and were happy.You said it right! ->  "makes it very tempting"  That does NOT mean people are or will overeat.  Now, you narrow it down to junk food instead of food in general.  Now admittedly I loathe junk food but even junk food is alright in the right portions.  The danger lies in consuming too much of it too often.

The goal is, of course, meaningless, as fasting or starving result in the same condition. As regards the issue of junk-food, sure a toxin in smaller amounts is less harmful than one in larger amounts, but that's irrelevant. You haven't answered my point that people link the overabundance of food to health-problems. This doesn't apply just to junk-food, anything eaten in excess is bad for you, there's a condition called hyponatraemia which is caused by drinking too much water. In short, most people tend to make greater use of resources when they're in abundance, this is only logical.

*Mind you, this is a pointless argument, as we're arguing from different premises/definitions*

[rawrock2]

As regards the issue of junk-food, sure a toxin in smaller amounts is less harmful than one in larger amounts, but that's irrelevant.

If that is irrelevant, then why bring up junk-food in the first place which is obviously bad for you.

You haven't answered my point that people link the overabundance of food to health-problems. This doesn't apply just to junk-food, anything eaten in excess is bad for you, there's a condition called hyponatraemia which is caused by drinking too much water. In short, most people tend to make greater use of resources when they're in abundance, this is only logical.

That is not a point you're making.  That's your opinion.  We all know that too much of anything is bad for you.  Where have you proven that people are overeating just because they have an abundance of food?

we're arguing from different premises/definitions

What premises would that be?

[boxcarguy07]

Where have you proven that people are overeating just because they have an abundance of food? 

I think that would be the obesity rates. If the food wasn't available the people couldn't overeat.    I guess you can't really prove cause and effect though.

That being said, I tend to agree with you. If I'm hungry and there's food available, I'm gonna eat. I tried IF for a while and I do better eating throughout the day.

There is a large difference between the abundance of paleo foods and junk foods. Saying that simply the abundance of food causes obesity and diabetes I don't agree with. I may be wrong, but no one's gonna get diabetes from eating too much raw meat.

[rawrock2]

I think that would be the obesity rates.

No way!  So, the sole cause of obesity is over consumption of foods?

I guess you can't really prove cause and effect though.

That's what I'm saying, it can not be proved at all.  Here we can make assumptions all day long but in the end who knows.

Mind you, this is a pointless argument,

Yes, because the bottom line is that fasting is NOT natural no matter how you look at it.  So, it shouldn't be written off or taken as something that is natural.  I continue to delve into this because my dietary foundation is rooted in being natural.  That is why I follow the raw paleo diet.  I don't listen to science or this or that.  They (scientists) are often wrong and don't even agree among themselves a lot of the time.  Mother nature has all of the answers we need pertaining to diet.  It is important to clearly identify the place of fasting here since so many others too are in search of that natural answer (diet) as well.  Yes, they can fast but they should know that doing so is NOT natural.

[Satya]

Yes, because the bottom line is that fasting is NOT natural no matter how you look at it.  So, it shouldn't be written off or taken as something that is natural.  I continue to delve into this because my dietary foundation is rooted in being natural.  That is why I follow the raw paleo diet.  I don't listen to science or this or that.  They (scientists) are often wrong and don't even agree among themselves a lot of the time.  Mother nature has all of the answers we need pertaining to diet.  It is important to clearly identify the place of fasting here since so many others too are in search of that natural answer (diet) as well.  Yes, they can fast but they should know that doing so is NOT natural.

Fasting is as about as natural as playing a musical instrument, buying food at a market, or using utensils.  Fasting is usually rooted in spiritual concerns, like vision quests, rights of passage, or preparing for a hunt.  It allows the practitioner to contemplate things other than food.  I don't know how far back in time and place it has been practiced, but I do believe that many hunter-gatherers in our time have gone in for choosing to abstain from food for a time, for whatever reasons.  So in that regard, it isn't really a dietary practice, even though temporary, periodic fasting has shown beneficial.

[Squall]

No way!  So, the sole cause of obesity is over consumption of foods?

Are you serious? So what else can cause obesity if its not related to eating too much?

I don't listen to science or this or that.  They (scientists) are often wrong and don't even agree among themselves a lot of the time.  Mother nature has all of the answers we need pertaining to diet.

I know that earlier you mentioned that you look to nature for your answers, not science. You appear to have an overall distrust of science. But what about anthropologists who are looking into the things this forum believes in? Are they not scientists, and are they not gleaning answers from historical questions? You've obviously come to the realization that eating raw is right? How did you get there? Did you deduce this by yourself, or did a chance reading of an anthropologists (scientists) article bring you to that conclusion? Chances are that scientists' studies of paleolithic man have influenced you. I doubt you'd be on this forum if anthropology never existed.

Yes, because the bottom line is that fasting is NOT natural no matter how you look at it.

You're kind of right. 'Fasting' is a conscious choice, and as a word, its applied only to human decision-making. This might not be natural. But going without food for short periods of time is. Like Tyler pointed out, animals still do it and most likely we did it a very long time ago. To animals now and people in paleolithic times, this is natural. Intermittent fasting is simply the recreation of a natural scenario that our ancestors were acquainted with. I fear you're getting hung up on semantics. Who cares what you call it? It happened in the past, and it happens now.

It is important to clearly identify the place of fasting here since so many others too are in search of that natural answer (diet) as well.  Yes, they can fast but they should know that doing so is NOT natural.

Who placed you in the position of final arbiter on what is and what isn't 'natural'. To my knowledge, the only things that can be considered natural regarding humans are those things that humans have been doing a long time, say on the scale of millions of years. Eating whenever they wanted did not happen in paleolithic times. It didn't even happen for the majority of neolithic times. To me this is 'natural'. Going without food for a few days would also be 'natural' in the sense that it was something that was dealt with regularly on a long time scale.

Mother nature has all of the answers we need pertaining to diet.

Yet Mother Nature is not a person or any such entity that readily yields answers to any who ask. Her answers are gleaned from study, and the studiers are anthropologists, or scientists, and the occasional lay person with the time and intellect to do their own research.

[rawrock2]

Are you serious? So what else can cause obesity if its not related to eating too much?

Yes, I'm very much serious.  Here in the Hawaiian isles, there are plenty of people who are considered 'obese' because of their weight yet they do NOT overeat and diet often.  For them, it is hereditary.  Maybe a google search on 'causes of obesity' would provide some enlightenment here.  I just did a very quick search and what popped up:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/health/webmd/main1757772.shtml  :

You appear to have an overall distrust of science.

I do distrust science for the most part. 

Chances are that scientists' studies of paleolithic man have influenced you. I doubt you'd be on this forum if anthropology never existed.

You couldn't be more wrong here.  Science has NOT influenced me to be here on this forum.  My life circumstances changed my view of diet.  Btw, you don't know anything about me including what brought me here.

I fear you're getting hung up on semantics. Who cares what you call it?

I care and obviously you do too since you're here engaged in this discussion.

Who placed you in the position of final arbiter on what is and what isn't 'natural'.

You did obviously.  I made a statement, it's up to you how you take it.

To my knowledge, the only things that can be considered natural regarding humans are those things that humans have been doing a long time, say on the scale of millions of years. Eating whenever they wanted did not happen in paleolithic times. It didn't even happen for the majority of neolithic times. To me this is 'natural'.

You don't know what happened then.  You weren't there, were you?  Neither was I so that is the reason I don't claim to know what went on then like it is fact.

Her answers are gleaned from study, and the studiers are anthropologists, or scientists,

your opinion, not fact.  If you want to listen to your scientists go ahead, no-one is saying that is wrong.  Personally, I don't need nor desire an anthropologist to prescribe a dietary outline for me.  I am perfectly able to do so myself.

I do believe that many hunter-gatherers in our time have gone in for choosing to abstain from food for a time, for whatever reasons.  So in that regard, it isn't really a dietary practice,

True, everyone may have times when they don't want to eat but their is a reason present for them to not want to eat.  This is not dietary practice (i.e. fasting) but because of an ailment or whatever other reason.  The moment they are back to normal they will in fact eat if they hungry.

[boxcarguy07]

Maybe a google search on 'causes of obesity' would provide some enlightenment here.  I just did a very quick search and what popped up:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/health/webmd/main1757772.shtml  :

I do distrust science for the most part. 

 :

[Satya]

You don't know what happened then.  You weren't there, were you?  Neither was I so that is the reason I don't claim to know what went on then like it is fact.your opinion, not fact. 

If you weren't there in Paleolithic times, and you don't know what went on, then how can you ever know what is natural?  You can't, you must assume, especially if you won't follow archaeological and/or anthropological evidence.  And really, if your diet must be strictly natural, then you must go hunt and gather your food directly.

[boxcarguy07]

Reading that "study" was pretty funny, I must say. Decreased smoking? Come on now.
Most of the things on that list pertain directly to lifestyle choices, which affect the metabolism, which affects the amount of calories one needs to intake to gain weight. It still boils down to eating too much.
The other things on the list can only show correlation but not causation, such as the age and race thing.

[rawrock2]

Maybe a google search on 'causes of obesity' would provide some enlightenment here.  I just did a very quick search and what popped up:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/health/webmd/main1757772.shtml    :

I do distrust science for the most part. 

  :

That link is for his reference not mine.  I know that obesity is not only caused by eating too much food.  I see it everyday.

If you weren't there in Paleolithic times, and you don't know what went on, then how can you ever know what is natural?

I never referenced Paleolithic times so I guess this comment isn't for me.  My reference to natural means here and now not thousands of years ago.

And really, if your diet must be strictly natural, then you must go hunt and gather your food directly.

Not that you said it or anything but I never stated my diet must be strictly natural, so... 

Reading that "study" was pretty funny, I must say. It still boils down to eating too much.

Well, that's your opinion then.  You see with science and diet it's pick or choose, a toss-up IMO.  I think that is what this forum is for.  For us to share our experiences and learn from each other.  Science doesn't bring me here, the fact that we all desire to pursue a raw paleo diet does.  That is why I tend to ignore the scientific matters posted here. 

[rawrock2]

You know, actually I don't hate all of science only when science involves diet.  I really like to build things and I love math hence my plans to major in mechanical engineering.  (but I digress  )