Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: A_Tribe_Called_Paleo on October 19, 2015, 04:15:40 am
-
Just wondering what you guys think of Michael Greger, MD.
He runs http://nutritionfacts.org/ (http://nutritionfacts.org/)
Does anyone know anything about his background, who funds his work/research, his success rate, ect...
Id also like to hear weather you guys agree, or disagree with him, and why.
Thanks
-
From a quick look at his site, he seems fairly smart. Looks like he promoted a veggie-ish diet, though.
-
Yeah, he recommends a plant based diet. His research seems extensive, and very sound. I was wondering other opinions.
I will never again follow the advice of Aajonus. I do so much better with lots of fiber in my diet, mainly from fruits.
-
looks out of shape, maybe overweight, needs glasses, balding, high voice,, wonder how much was a result of going veg. He's very good at making fun of eating meat, as if he knows something imperical.
-
In east Africa there are two groups, the Kikuyu and the Masai, that have lived side-by-side for probably thousands of years. The Masai eat mostly meat, milk, and blood. The Kikuyu eat mostly fruits and veggies, with a little dairy and meat.
The Kikuyu have 13 times the rate of cavities as the Maasai. That's 1300%.
-
I`ve been over this subject before. The Maasai actually have always eaten some cereals as well. The difference is not what they eat but the fact that some of their food is eaten raw(ie blood and milk). The Kikuyu by contrast are a settled community so undoubtedly would hqve been eating lots of grains. Plus, being settled would not have been doing as much daily exercise as the Maasai.
As regards Michael Greger, he as usual like so many other researchers makes the mistake of pointing out the vast amounts of heqt-created toxins in cooked animal foods but fails to note that raw, high quality, unprocessed animal foods do not possess such toxins.
-
I`ve been over this subject before. The Maasai actually have always eaten some cereals as well. The difference is not what they eat but the fact that some of their food is eaten raw(ie blood and milk). The Kikuyu by contrast are a settled community so undoubtedly would hqve been eating lots of grains. Plus, being settled would not have been doing as much daily exercise as the Maasai.
As regards Michael Greger, he as usual like so many other researchers makes the mistake of pointing out the vast amounts of heqt-created toxins in cooked animal foods but fails to note that raw, high quality, unprocessed animal foods do not possess such toxins.
Yes, the Masai eat a small amount of grain/fruits/veggies, but their cavity protection is largely due to the much higher vitamin K2 and vitamin D content of their diet, as well as the larger amount of easily absorbed calcium, most likely. Raw doesn't help the teeth much beyond a certain point. Raw vegans don't usually have very good teeth, compared to cooked paleos. Several groups in Dr. Price's book had literally perfect teeth, but did not eat a lot of raw. I'm speaking of the Incans and the Maori.
-
looks out of shape, maybe overweight, needs glasses, balding, high voice,, wonder how much was a result of going veg. He's very good at making fun of eating meat, as if he knows something imperical.
Doesnt look out of shape or over weight to me.... definitely not the ideal athletic physic...but better than others highly touted on this forum like jack kruse... glasses is most likely due to the fact that hes a doctor, doing hours of close range research in an indoors environment... do you mean em·pir·i·cal*? his research seems pretty sound and well supported.
-
In east Africa there are two groups, the Kikuyu and the Masai, that have lived side-by-side for probably thousands of years. The Masai eat mostly meat, milk, and blood. The Kikuyu eat mostly fruits and veggies, with a little dairy and meat.
The Kikuyu have 13 times the rate of cavities as the Maasai. That's 1300%.
Sorry, no disrespect, but can you site a source to back your claim?
wouldnt cavities be due to lack of dental high gene, like brushing and flossing techniques rather than diet(which would have a smaller role). Many people on Aajonus's facebook forum are reporting terrible teeth problems...
-
I`ve been over this subject before. The Maasai actually have always eaten some cereals as well. The difference is not what they eat but the fact that some of their food is eaten raw(ie blood and milk). The Kikuyu by contrast are a settled community so undoubtedly would hqve been eating lots of grains. Plus, being settled would not have been doing as much daily exercise as the Maasai.
As regards Michael Greger, he as usual like so many other researchers makes the mistake of pointing out the vast amounts of heqt-created toxins in cooked animal foods but fails to note that raw, high quality, unprocessed animal foods do not possess such toxins.
He is mainly attacking saturated fat, and heme iron concentrations in meat. Can you site any sources that show the difference between raw and cooked animal fats...
-
Sorry, no disrespect, but can you site a source to back your claim?
wouldnt cavities be due to lack of dental high gene, like brushing and flossing techniques rather than diet(which would have a smaller role). Many people on Aajonus's facebook forum are reporting terrible teeth problems...
My source is Dr. Price's book. If you need a page number, I can give that as well.
As far as dental hygeine, none of the groups Dr. Price studied made much effort at it, but some groups literally had no one who had ever had a cavity, like the Inca and the Maori.
-
I dont have his book so a page number wont do me much good.
If you can find an online source thad be great, i cant find any.
-
I dont have his book so a page number wont do me much good.
If you can find an online source thad be great, i cant find any.
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html (http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html)
I can give chapter and page number if you need.
-
It's chapter 9, about 1/3 of the way down through the chapter. He mentions the Masai having a rate of cavities of 0.4% of all teeth, while the Kikuyu had 5.5% of all teeth with cavities.
-
Ok, thanks for the link, but i cant find the specific text your referring to, this is getting a little off topic from my original question. I am looking for evidence to disprove Michael Greger. Who is funding his work? What monetary incentive does he have for publishing his research? Is his research fraudulent?
I am suspect of the WAPF:
According to their website, the WAPF “has no ties with the meat or dairy industry, nor with any organization promoting these industries.” However, they list Green Pasture, Vital Choice, and U.S. Wellness Meats, (all peddlers of meat and dairy products) as sponsors of their 2009 conference. New Trends Publishing is also a sponsor, a company who happens to sell several books and DVDs by Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation. They even admit many of their members (a.k.a. sponsors) are farmers.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/who-is-the-weston-a-price-foundation.html#ixzz3p3RPnnF5 (http://www.care2.com/causes/who-is-the-weston-a-price-foundation.html#ixzz3p3RPnnF5)
-
It is not getting off topic. I am pointing out a huge flaw with a veggie, fruit, and grain-heavy diet versus one including lots of high-quality animal foods. If you want to question Dr. Price's integrity, go ahead. I suggest you read his book first.
-
And I'm done arguing with you. It's all there in black and white. Read it or not, but I've got nothing else to say on it.
-
Raw doesn't help the teeth much beyond a certain point. Raw vegans don't usually have very good teeth, compared to cooked paleos. Several groups in Dr. Price's book had literally perfect teeth, but did not eat a lot of raw. I'm speaking of the Incans and the Maori.
Hmm, looking at reports of the ancient Maori diet, they ate a lot of raw fish and raw shellfish. The trouble with Price's experiences was that they happened in the 1930s(?), long after most tribes had changed their ancestral diets. I recall reading an article online where it stated that the Maoris switched from their ancestral diet by 1900 already. I am sure that WP met people who still ate in an ancestral way but whether it was the same as what Maoris ate, say, 2000 years before, is debatable. But then I am no anthropologist.
In my own case, my teeth were badly damaged, always loose on a cooked, palaeolithic diet and remained so with no worsening in my subsequent raw vegan/fruitarian phase lasting 3 years. Indeed, one main reason I switched to raw vegan was because plant foods were much softer for the teeth. Then switching to raw organic/grainfed and then organic/grassfed meats was what healed my teeth a bit, and just in time as they were about to fall out at the time. Adding in raw dairy for 6 months swiftly caused my teeth to deteriorate very quickly all over again, before I cut the dairy out. 4 months later, my teeth were rock-hard on an attempt to do a raw version of Cordain's 65% animal food/35% plant food diet. In later years, I tried going raw zero carb with high quality grassfed meats and organs, and my teeth again started to deteriorate, at an astonishingly fast rate, after about 3 weeks into such a diet.
Ok, I am hardly representative of any group, but I get the impression that as long as my diet is at least 10% animal food, that my teeth etc. will be fine. The key with me is that most of the foods in my diet need to be raw and that I must avoid dairy and grains at all costs.
-
It seems that some of the information you requested from us in on his "ABOUT" page on the link you provided. His site says he gathers his information from peer-reviewed work and that he's funded by a particular non-profit. There was no mention of getting information from spurious sources - no coyote spirit guides or any other such nonsense - but he is probably some combination of alternative and mainstream.
You asked us about his success rate. His website says, "We believe that a significant part of the problem is that individuals who want to make the correct dietary choices for themselves and their families are faced with a deluge of confusing and conflicting nutritional advice. The goal of this website is to present you and your doctor with the results of the latest in peer-reviewed nutrition and health research, presented in a way that is easy to understand," from which I gather that he is more of an author and speaker than a practitioner. Do you know someone who is being treated by him?
Tell us more about your interest in Dr. Greger.
-
It seems that some of the information you requested from us in on his "ABOUT" page on the link you provided. His site says he gathers his information from peer-reviewed work and that he's funded by a particular non-profit. There was no mention of getting information from spurious sources - no coyote spirit guides or any other such nonsense - but he is probably some combination of alternative and mainstream.
You asked us about his success rate. His website says, "We believe that a significant part of the problem is that individuals who want to make the correct dietary choices for themselves and their families are faced with a deluge of confusing and conflicting nutritional advice. The goal of this website is to present you and your doctor with the results of the latest in peer-reviewed nutrition and health research, presented in a way that is easy to understand," from which I gather that he is more of an author and speaker than a practitioner. Do you know someone who is being treated by him?
Tell us more about your interest in Dr. Greger.
No i dont know anyone being treated by him. My interest comes from my previous constipation experience from the paleo diet, documented on the forum. after Discovering his work, and jeff leach of the human food project, i was able to return to normal bowel function, which many said was not possible. They both recommend daily fiber consumption to be around 100g per day.
I am also not so sure about the new research floating around about saturated fat all these low carb people are promoting. I think its possible a Plant based diet, with minimal amounts of animal products is best for majority of us.
-
Controversial topics should always be put in the hot topics forum. Done so now.
-
I think its possible a Plant based diet, with minimal amounts of animal products is best for majority of us.
But why ask us about Dr. Greger? I mean, you know this forum has many members whose diets wouldn't be categorized as containing minimal amounts of animal products, so how would advice from our perspective assist you? Do you just want to provoke someone to debate you?
-
Strict veganism will fuck your brain in it's metaphorical rectum. Add in even a small amount of raw or lightly-cooked animal products for the special fatty acids and B-12, and you can be, depending on the person, very healthy. However, some people will do better with a much larger ratio of animal to plant foods. A lot depends on the individual, and also on where the person's health is at the moment. Do not preach veganism here. We will laugh at you. Harder than any vegan could ever laugh at us.
-
That is the point, as CK pointed out. Most of us have previously gone through a vegan or raw vegan phase prior to trying out RVAF diets, and have failed miserably with such, so it is absurd to try to convert us all over again. We do have a few people here who are very successful healthwise doing a c.90% raw plant food/10% raw animal food diet, such as SkinnyDevil, but they are rare, and even they would not advocate a 100% plant food diet, however raw.
-
You said you had bowel issues that didn't seem to go away, but after eating more fiber they did go away. Fiber is directly indigestible. But indirectly, the gut bacteria, produce vital fatty acids from it. Indigestible carbohydrates like fiber, resistant starch, inulin, and others.
To some people minimal amount of animal products could be 300-500 grams of meat-organs-fat a day. Some up to 1kg a day, some 100-300grams a day or less.
People differ, bodies differ, metabolisms differ - and so needs differ. (A physically more active body also needs more animal products than one that is less active.) "Minimal" is determined by any individuals' body, not by anyone or anything else. Especially not by anyone who says things without seeing the true picture-meaning the words form and without understanding how those pictures-meanings fit into reality or not, and without first even seeing the "cornerstones" of our reality - the working "pattern" of our world.
Generally speaking, too low animal product consumption leaves the brain and nervous system with functioning issues, up to severe damage depending on how long the deficiencies occur, and up to potential lethalities.
But eating too much animal products is not good either.
That you start eating something less or more, does not necessarily mean the higher amount of one was the issue, or any other possibilities. You eat something more, but notice issues; then eat the first less but something else more, in the beginning no issues because have abundance of the first, but over a period issues start occurring again. Then what? Switch back? Maybe the problem was not the bigger amount of the first, but the too low amount of the second?
What seems to be the problem, might not always be the problem.
Best not to follow anyone or anyone's sayings, and instead find yourself, listen to your own body and learn to read and understand your own body. Others' sayings and thoughts can be of help when finding oneself, but they should not be just followed like some religion.
-
I dont know why i recieved such ignorant reposes to this question... never did i try and convert or even promote veganism... you guys have serious ego problems.
I was simply asking peoples opinions of Michael Greger, and maybe a little background information... like my background info on the WAPF, showing their studies could be flawed and biased due to the fact they receive funding from the meat and dairy industry... a valid argument
Have to say i am very disappointed with the responses i received on this post. It displays terrible ignorance of social behavior, and demonstrates this forums lack of real, unbiased, peer reviewed scientific data. All i recieved from you guys was harsh resistance, and a steady stream of logical fallacies.
I sited the work of TWO respected MDs that have sound evidence against low carb, promoting a high fiber plant based diet. Just one happens to be a vegan(Michael Greger). His dietary choices should not have any reflection on the results his research has produced... The second was Jeff Leach, of the humanfoodproject. He has spent extensive time studying the Hadza, he does not promote veganism, but still has evidence against low carb, and promotes a high fiber diet.
Judging by the responses, none of you took the time to evaluate either of these two MDs work. Furthermore, you all failed to provide evidence that could provide an alternative point of view.
Once again, i am very disappointed in everyone involved in this thread. Because of the extensive use of logical fallacies, and people's inability to control their egos, nothing was accomplished here. Good job everyone.
-
Judging by the responses, none of you took the time to evaluate either of these two MDs work. Furthermore, you all failed to provide evidence that could provide an alternative point of view.
How is that our responsibility? Looks like someone else displays terrible ignorance of social behavior. Do your own research, ATCP. We are not working for you. Maybe all that fiber has given you an inflated sense of entitlement.
-
Lex, who is a longtime member here, has thrived VERY well on a zero-carb diet for years. He eats almost nothing but meat and organs. He had many health problems for about 25 years on a cooked vegan diet that pretty much all went away when he switched to very-low-carb/zero-carb carnivorous. Lex posts his blood work numbers here every time he gets blood work done, and his numbers are excellent. He's been doing this carnivore diet for about 8 or 9 years now, I think.
Sabertooth, another long-time member here who eats very-low-carb with mostly meat/organs, has a very similar story. Eveheart eats like Sabertooth as well, and she has been doing this for at least 5 years, as has Saber.
We generally value anecdotal evidence here, plus studies of hunter-gatherer and other traditional diets. Peer-reviewed lab-based studies are not well-designed to look at the multitude of effects that any given diet will have, especially effects that take years to show up.
-
How is that our responsibility? Looks like someone else displays terrible ignorance of social behavior. Do your own research, ATCP. We are not working for you. Maybe all that fiber has given you an inflated sense of entitlement.
It's about to give him an inflated sense of what it's like to be banned by cherimoya_kid.
-
It's about to give him an inflated sense of what it's like to be banned by cherimoya_kid.
im not trying to be disrespectful here... but once again you gave a logical fallacy... it worked for this guy, so it should work for everyone....
Go ahead and ban me... i just ask that anyone who comes to this forum and has constipation problems, please guide them to the http://humanfoodproject.com (http://humanfoodproject.com), it could possibly save them lots of money on unnecessary medication.. could even save their life, prostate cancer claims many lives a year in my country.
-
im not trying to be disrespectful here... but once again you gave a logical fallacy... it worked for this guy, so it should work for everyone....
Go ahead and ban me... i just ask that anyone who comes to this forum and has constipation problems, please guide them to the http://humanfoodproject.com (http://humanfoodproject.com), it could possibly save them lots of money on unnecessary medication.. could even save their life, prostate cancer claims many lives a year in my country.
No, you are the one saying that fiber cured your constipation, so fiber will cure everyone's constipation. You are also trying to say that a veggie-heavy diet is ideal for everyone, but you simply lack the necessary intelligence, knowledge, curiosity, and reasoning skills to realize that our three anecdotal examples shows that there are definite exceptions to that rule. I don't have to ban you, because you're doing a better job of discrediting veganism than we ever could.
-
No, you are the one saying that fiber cured your constipation, so fiber will cure everyone's constipation. You are also trying to say that a veggie-heavy diet is ideal for everyone, but you simply lack the necessary intelligence, knowledge, curiosity, and reasoning skills to realize that our three anecdotal examples shows that there are definite exceptions to that rule. I don't have to ban you, because you're doing a better job of discrediting veganism than we ever could.
1) I never said it would cure everyones constipation. I presented research from 2 MDs that say high fiber diet will cure constipation, presenting an OPTION to the many people who get constipated on paleo diet. I did not say it was a cure all/cure everyone.
2) I do think a plant based diet, more fruits and tubers, minimal veggies, is ideal. This is based on my experience and the work of Jeff Leach. I never said people should go vegan, ever. I myself eat meat...
3) lack of curiosity? i have tried zero carb raw paleo, didnt work for me. Just came here to share information that sheds light onto the why...
idk why youre acting so defensive... i did not come here preaching veganism, i myself eat raw paleo... I did not viscously attack anyones lifestyle either... I just came here, presenting two MDs work on a high fiber diet(which can be paleo)...
-
Wait, you tried zero carb, got constipated, and now you're blaming us?
Sheesh. Now that's a logical fallacy for sure. Do not conflate us with a zero-carb forum. None of the mods here eat zero carb (or really even low-carb), and probably less than half of the members even eat low-carb. LOL
-
Wait, you tried zero carb, got constipated, and now you're blaming us?
Sheesh. Now that's a logical fallacy for sure. Do not conflate us with a zero-carb forum. None of the mods here eat zero carb (or really even low-carb), and probably less than half of the members even eat low-carb. LOL
Im not blaming anyone...
There is a zc section on this forum... and you were just giving examples of zero carb members...
I dont really care anymore man... some people get constipated on paleo... there are examples on this forum, and many other paleo forums....
Eating more fiber is a possible solution...
can we end this conversation lol...
-
Well, whatever. I didn't realize I moderated a low-carb website. Oh wait, I'm the guy always being skeptical about low-carb with Lex, Phil, etc..
*sigh* lol I can't win.
-
some people get constipated on paleo... there are examples on this forum, and many other paleo forums....
Eating more fiber is a possible solution...
Pushing fiber will relieve constipation mechanically, but that's not a solution. I was a high-fiber vegetarian for years and I was still constipated until I followed sensible ancestral-eating advice from this forum. If constipated members here follow that advice, I'm sure they will be fine. You could probably follow that advice with good benefit, instead of overloading your digestive tract all the time.
-
Pushing fiber will relieve constipation mechanically, but that's not a solution. I was a high-fiber vegetarian for years and I was still constipated until I followed sensible ancestral-eating advice from this forum. If constipated members here follow that advice, I'm sure they will be fine. You could probably follow that advice with good benefit, instead of overloading your digestive tract all the time.
I dont think im overloading my digestive track... I just followed the advice of Jeff Leach, microbiologist who has been studying gutflora of Hadza. http://humanfoodproject.com/ (http://humanfoodproject.com/)
-
No i dont know anyone being treated by him. My interest comes from my previous constipation experience from the paleo diet, documented on the forum. after Discovering his work, and jeff leach of the human food project, i was able to return to normal bowel function, which many said was not possible. They both recommend daily fiber consumption to be around 100g per day.
I am also not so sure about the new research floating around about saturated fat all these low carb people are promoting. I think its possible a Plant based diet, with minimal amounts of animal products is best for majority of us.
Congrats with your success, A_Tribe_Called_Paleo, and best wishes for future success! your experience matches up pretty well with my own. I prefer to call the beneficial elements other terms than just "fiber" (which is a vague and error-prone term), such as prebiotics, fermentable fiber, or Microbiota-Accessible Carbohydrates (MACs).
I also think that improving one's metabolism and nutrient status (so that one can dissipate energy efficiently without producing lots of toxic byproducts) is a good goal, and a major part of the overall picture. Of course, I could be wrong and YMMV, as always.
None of the mods here eat zero carb (or really even low-carb), and probably less than half of the members even eat low-carb. LOL
None of the mods eat low carb? That's interesting news. Strange that it seems like anyone who talks about a plant-rich approach eventually gets banned.
-
There's a difference between plant-rich and vegan. But you're right, most of the people far out on the veggie-ish end of the spectrum don't do well here. I think the main reason for that is that few people have enough intelligence, curiosity, and/or persistence to recognize that ethics and nutrition are not so simply linked as they at first seem to be. Therefore, people with a veggie-ish bent for emotional reasons relating to animal rights can get easily sucked into assuming a simple 1:1 relationship between veggie diets and ethical/moral superiority.
Assuming that people such as us just need more knowledge on these issues becomes an easy trap, then. LOL
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.
-
Skinnydevil is a high-raw-carber and has never caused any trouble, in fact he has been a worthy asset to rawpaleoforum. I banned a tribe called paleo because he was so obviously trolling; he was deliberately trying to create conflict, and was deliberately attacking both the concept of raw and the concept of palaeo while promoting cooked vegan diets. I know some people find trolls amusing, but they give an appalling impression to newbies who do not want to read lies about how they are all going to die from parasites or whatever from eating raw meats.
-
Skinnydevil is a high-raw-carber and has never caused any trouble, in fact he has been a worthy asset to rawpaleoforum.
Good to hear that at least one intelligent and polite high carber is still around to add some breadth to the forum so it doesn't become an experiment in groupthink. :)
I banned a tribe called paleo because he was so obviously trolling
OK, I'll take your and Cheri's word for it. I haven't read enough of TCP's posts to know.
-
He made the mistake I mentioned, I believe, of conflating veganism and ethical/moral superiority. It seemed that way, anyway. A lot of that type of eater tend to also conflate spirituality with veganism, like I think Dorothy does. It's easy to do, and a lot of super-bright, nice people do make those errors, but they are errors.
-
Ironically, Dorothy used to get harassed by some members at a vegan forum where the forum owner was tolerant of dieters of all stripes (which SkinnyDevil invited me to, coincidentally) because of her consumption of animal foods and I told her that her plant-rich omnivorous diet was closer to Paleo/primal than vegan and that she would likely be more welcome here. Turns out I was wrong. -[
-
He made the mistake I mentioned, I believe, of conflating veganism and ethical/moral superiority. It seemed that way, anyway. A lot of that type of eater tend to also conflate spirituality with veganism, like I think Dorothy does. It's easy to do, and a lot of super-bright, nice people do make those errors, but they are errors.
What I saw was ATCP's persistent posts that urged (almost begged) people to visit another website before they followed this forum's zero-carb approach. Of course, extremely few of us eat zero-carbs, but he went with that idea and ran with it. Dorothy, as I recall, turned every topic into a call for quark because she healed her mother's cancer with quark or something like that. I think this forum is fairly tolerant of diversity and innovation, but when variety turns into a call to abandon ship, that's both trolling and spamming.
-
I explained that I invited Dorothy (and one other chap who posted here a few times, IIRC) here from the forum that SkinnyDevil invited me to, so she was not remotely a troll or ship-sinker and in her private messages to me she was surprised at the hostile reaction she received here after I had pointed out to her that we have pro-dairy subforums, and thus her homemade raw quark and kefir should be acceptable here. It was quite clear in her private communications that she didn't intend any harm whatsoever and was actually trying to be a helpful, constructive contributor. I guess I was wrong about the acceptability here of raw dairy and am to blame for giving her a false impression. :( I figured Tyler would argue a bit with her and I think I warned her about that, but didn't expect nearly the negativity that arose. I think my assurances inadvertently inspired her to discuss dairy here more than she had at the vegan forum.
I actually personally benefited from some info she shared about blood oxygen, which she reported had helped her and her mother, and I learned a few other interesting things from her, despite disagreeing with her on much (after all, I think I was a dairy-free carnivore at the time :P ). So raw quark was not quite the end-all and be-all for her and I've found that I can learn and benefit from people who have different opinions and approaches than my own.
Another fellow (whose handle I unfortunately forget) I invited here from Skinny's forum also did not seem to feel welcome. He didn't do dairy, but he was big on fruits and other plant foods. He occasionally ate raw fish and eggs, IIRC, and he was well liked by many at Skinny's forum, so I figured he would be another good and welcome addition, but he returned to the other forum. I suspect he was scared off by the response to Dorothy, whom he got along well with at the other forum, and some of the anti-carb and anti-plant rhetoric.
Re: ATCP, I already accepted the judgement on him and consider that case closed unless someone care's to come to his defense with new info. I trust your judgment, Eveheart, and don't have inside info to the contrary, so I doubt such info will be forthcoming.
Speaking of SkinnyDevil. Where is he and how is he doing these days? Seems like if he is going to be the model example of this forum's embrace of active plant-positive members that someone should be able to fill me in on this or at least point me to some of his recent comments. I don't read all the threads, so maybe I missed them. It was nice of him to have invited me to that vegan forum despite my carnivory at the time (needless to say, I was quite surprised :) ).
---
Re: the forum topic, I can't stand the sound of Michael Greger's voice, so I wasn't able to listen to him for long. :P I have heard from others that he's pretty smart, though, so maybe some day I'll check out some of his written stuff.
-
I don't think ATCP was trolling. He just made the mistake of appearing too emotionally involved and too stubborn on some ideas of his, to the point of making dialog with him very difficult. He also criticized members for lacking something he lacked himself, which was a pile of peer-reviewed scientific papers to back up even the slightest intervention. I mean, last time he tried to scare people from eating "untreated" meat with a video of a gross parasite infection, except the parasites likely originated from infected soil, not infected meat*!
I'm not necessary saying he should not have been banned, especially if he kept on with this sort of attitude -and let's not pretend we're all saints here either-, but he has been around here for quite some time without causing any trouble in the past (that I can think of). It seems to me that you moderators were quick to pull the trigger on this one, and a serious warning would've been more appropriate.
*yes, I only read this info from the comment section. However, the person who posted the comment was not promoting a raw meat diet or anything, and gave a specific description of the parasite, which is what made me think he knew what he was talking about. Nobody disagreed with the person either.
-
Many people on Aajonus's facebook forum are reporting terrible teeth problems...
Aha, just noticed this and see that this suggests that this dude was indeed likely a troll, albeit an oddly long-lasting one, as he apparently didn't know that Aajonus is dead, and thus perhaps only pretended to have been a fan of him. What do you think, JeuneKoq?
-
I was ready to try to reason with him, but TylerDurden said he was really harsh and rude with a new member in a thread posted by that new member. It was apparently so out of line that he had to delete the thread. I'm not big on banning people who are into a sincere exchange of ideas, because there are dangers in eating raw animal foods, especially shellfish. I still eat them raw, mainly because I think the minerals are probably more available that way. Overstating the risks is not OK, though.
-
Aha, just noticed this and see that this suggests that this dude was indeed likely a troll, albeit an oddly long-lasting one, as he apparently didn't know that Aajonus is dead, and thus perhaps only pretended to have been a fan of him. What do you think, JeuneKoq?
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.
-
I was ready to try to reason with him, but TylerDurden said he was really harsh and rude with a new member in a thread posted by that new member. It was apparently so out of line that he had to delete the thread. I'm not big on banning people who are into a sincere exchange of ideas, because there are dangers in eating raw animal foods, especially shellfish. I still eat them raw, mainly because I think the minerals are probably more available that way. Overstating the risks is not OK, though.
Understood. I was not aware of this incident with the new member.
-
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.
-
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? :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Iona, beware that aronia berries are also called chokeberries for a reason--quite astringent and bitter. :P I see that the polyphenol "values are among the highest measured in plants to date," as I expected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronia (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 (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. ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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 (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:
(http://www.pressherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/portland-press-herald_3718522.jpg)