Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KD

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 75
Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 26, 2012, 07:57:32 pm »
The philosophy is actually that even if people were doing the exact 'holistic' stuff (which really is not emphasized at all) and were locked in the same room, they would still be optimizing their health with these foods over just muscle meats and fruits. If people disagree they should present their cases against the results of others, not their results on one program to another or based on how they feel without any objective analysis of their current health shared publicly.

Give a modern person the actual breakdowns of blood, whole animal parts, bugs, bacterias, sunshine, lack of environmental damage, and a supposed abundant food energy that an ancient person had, sure that can work. It still doesn't form a limit on whether it would even be the most optimal and people can still improve upon such if they desire.

People can have a variety of personal successes or failures, but when they start attacking this conceptual possibility they are clearly ignoring reality for beliefs. Mimicking/replacing these and doing things that heal/repair are always more important than restricting ones diet to suspected non-problematic foods. This is automatically conclusive if you have any examples of people who remove 0 such foods and have done better. This is especially true when people label things as 'natural' with known, and unknown consequences, like ocean fishing or eating exclusively muscle meats and eating without their corresponding bones/blood/organs - missing the very nutrients that were replaced throughout our history with things like milk and processing plant food. This 'wholeness', or at the very least nutrients and minerals (that are absent in meat and fruit), are essential for human health, often in any form one can get.

As for examples, there are plenty of people on to other things, or those failing to even have what would be a regular standard of basic health and rationalizing it with their following a set 'natural' program which 'must be good', and also lots about these programs which are actually great and thus can be plenty good for many folks. These positives have little to do with the purism aspect but with removing some obvious poor habits, adding in healthy proteins/fats/bacterias and so forth and the fact that not everyone is set up to do things like immediately manufacture lactase etc. and compounded with the possibility that alot of PD tools maybe arn't what people need either. Its making health decisions on a case by case basis that is important thing to walk away with..and making sure one actually gets proper nutrition over ideals, not that there has to be some magic to honey or dairy or whatever.

Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 25, 2012, 10:44:17 pm »
Yeah its fun to make up theories. In my near decade now of "health-book" reading and raw forum time-wasting, I have probably read every possible theory on eating, fasting, and natural healing. In that I've yet to come across a single person who can explain to me why you would want to limit yourself to what 'heathy' people did in nature to fix problems that these people wouldn't have had. Or someone who believed that limit was necessary who had much of anything positive to show for it over others, other than still being able to anonymously type on the internet. Cuz yeah, as we know in the real world, you can repair anything by just taking away the things you think damage it.

Not sure how I can say it any better.

There is only opposing evidence to any mechanism that the body heals best under 'natural' (pretentious) circumstances when in a contemporary setting, and there is no reason why an intelligent person would pick a historic person that supposedly didn't have a problem and assume this held the key to their complex problem or represents the optimum expression of health. People will disagree and cite a bunch of anecdotes, but it never lines up in disproving how people have used far more adverse things to their benefit. This is blatantly obvious when seeing how people have evolved rather than focusing on pathological negativity about humanity thats draws alot of people to this kind of non realistic thinking.

If these folks are right there should be 0 cases that exist in their world of people getting well without their concepts or only with new ones. Yet they prefer to be 'right' rather than put one example over another, and redefine even basic signs of health to suit their purposes or discount any kind of outliers as nonsense or 'freaks'. They claim stuff works better when often times it doesn't work at all or works just because the body can repair quite a bit of crap given the rest and opportunity. They leave out that this would probably happen whether they ate naturally or not but just gave up most crap.

People want to whine and scream about the wool over the eyes of 'da establishment' or whatever, but they completly ignore how most of the people that follow the ideas that 'the body heals itself or 'we are only adapted to certain foods' always come up short. It blatantly flies in the face of what we see in history, and even every day of our life in terms of what keeps people well, therefore is just wrong as a start point. Like I said, PD folks have a similar bias/animosity towards contrary concepts in reality if they don't fit their theory, they just acknowledge that people need more advanced help than just removing stuff from their diet.

Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 25, 2012, 02:44:35 pm »
the lacking of evidence is the legitimate criticism against AVs claims, doens't change his intentions or ideals, or the fact that he's still kicking (and well from most perspectives) from a diet that most camps would claim should rapidly deteriorate a person and not cure them. So its already a loss for them even if he died tomorrow compared to how many people talk about how detrimental these methods are and died even more prematurely and even others who had minimal preexisting problems. Most while in poor health the whole time like all the founders of natural hygiene and similar nonsense. Having something that gets you from A to B is all that matters ultimately and you can only narrow out things based on evidence, not prove things are good or sustainable. There is unfortunately no way to prove something is good, only correlate which things are helpful or not so great and have general standards of what is acceptable progress. Not 'hey I did all of this right by the evolution book and left out as many toxins therefore must be a healthy person'.

Same with looking at tribes or ancient history. You can claim which things are likely not bad like red-meat or dairy based on people not dieing form these things in nature, but to figure out what is workable you have to look at contemporary successes of failings, no matter where they match up with what you see in the past. You can't copy a tribe 100 years ago or 100000 years ago and expect you are going to do better than even some standard dieters today that have the right health practices, genetics, etc.. Heck people in nature did eat tons of dairy and/or honey and technically 0 known homo sapiens sapiens ate mostly raw meat and raw fruits.

And theres a difference between blanket faceless testimonials of some vegan site or like this site, and progress you can measure in a person you've kept in touch with for 2-3 years and seen where they've come or gone.

but if you are really in 'the body knows how to fix all its problems when you remove bad food' its kinda a non-starter of a conversation. I actually have a ton of PD criticisms to dish, but for all its wacky unprovable stuff, its in the ballpark at least with a number of its observations as far as healing people with tools and not evolutionary magic.

Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 25, 2012, 01:36:46 pm »
Sure, critics and proponents alike rave about his effortless, intuitive, cheap, legal food, easily obtainable in your local supermarket, perfect for that casual dieter looking to shed a few pounds. This is also why he keeps that stuff about rotten meat eating and eating your own semen super top secret.  oh wait. no. He says you should get fat and go through terrible pain and anguish in order for any actual progress and is very clear on that???..hmm sounds like it brings in the newbies at any cost.

I count at least 10 ex forum members here who eat large quanities of milk and claim their health is never better and have labs to prove this improvement. More notably how in dire straits they were following most health-guessing here. [of course any labs that says paleos iz not healthy are obviously faulty] . I also count a far greater number of main posters here who never actually share a single shred of documentable evidence about their own personal health, but who have tons of ideas on how things should be.

People who actually think there is an 'obvious' answer to what I posed above and therefore basically are totally useless for tweaking real heath decisions because they are too focused on whats 'wrong' with humanity or whatever pathology. Usually people that exhibit many of the opposite qualities one would want in health. I recommend people pay more attention to that, and not too personally interested in whether PD has 'the' answers or not otherwise. Just that people don't bring their own ideas when there are clear outlined reasons things are given as 'solutions'. Solutions being those things which generally-speaking arn't frowned upon by most non-ideologues, to offer a solution to a problem that isn't just framing and removing suspected causes.

If there are such clear superiority that paleo diets are working far better than these other nonsense approaches, surely these should be presented easily with evidence against long-term primal dieters?

how about this centered guy:



Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 25, 2012, 12:16:48 pm »
Yeah its fun to make up theories. In my near decade now of "health-book" reading and raw forum time-wasting, I have probably read every possible theory on eating, fasting, and natural healing. In that I've yet to come across a single person who can explain to me why you would want to limit yourself to what 'heathy' people did in nature to fix problems that these people wouldn't have had. Or someone who believed that limit was necessary who had much of anything positive to show for it over others, other than still being able to anonymously type on the internet. Cuz yeah, as we know in the real world, you can repair anything by just taking away the things you think damage it.

Here is one more likely reason. Following his instincts and natural eating and limiting to fruits and meats didn't work for him or his clients. If you start from a wide range of options and have problems with a particular approach, one can always do a more strict/i.e. 'paleo' version, fasting, urinating on themselves or whatever. But this is only true if people accept that this is one of many options. If they are sold on some cookie cutter version that the human race operates by while 100% neglecting reality, this isn't good. This is particularly important for when people have real life or death problems, and not a bunch of self-diagnosed diseases and 'cures' that flood diet forums.. PD (and of course WAPF) also carry a similar myopia at times, just less so compared to things we have no conclusive idea about, like what our original diet is and which aspects are most important to mirror or not.



Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 24, 2012, 09:28:29 pm »
As for transitional diet, its designed to simply be a better diet, correct or not. For some, things of course might be wrong or not applicable particularly since not everyone needs to do alot of complex stuff to be healthy. Also its not likely that one person understands this stuff completely accurately and will have their own bias. So what if some people can get by on any number of natural type things. Many people if they just starting following the food pyramid to  a T they would improve drastically, and that system couldn't be farther from the truth. So, like all diets, people have some relief seemingly from not-doing x, y and z and want to make a religion out of it. All of a sudden shit that noticeably works in the present or even for people for 1000's of years is just plain wrong.. hmm ok. Must be wrong...has to be. 'I ate milk once and got diarrhea and cavemen didn't have it', totally conclusive except for that thing how healthy thyroid means perfect production of lactase enzyme...

and with that and the 'can't improve on nature stuff' its less about the past and more about the examining the present results of present application. The ancetral swiss ate almost entirely mineral rich grains and dairy with next to no meat or fruit. One doesn't need to recomend that as a healthy diet (at least for today) to acknolwedge that this was a solution for them in their time to live ok into their 100s with no cavities or medical intervention, and just maybe it has something to do with minerals. Even though you'll have people dispute that they were 'healthy', you can find tons of people today recomending perfect diets of our ancestry with shitty teeth and have rampant signs of poor health disguised as 'feeling fine'. Nevermind how even lower paleolithic skulls of thirty year old men had disease destroyed teeth.

Simply put, people find some or all of the stuff is unnecessary or were problematic for them.  Which even if someone believes in the stuff, is not super shocking as just shedding the neurotic elements about it is probably very benefical. Saying otherwise about transitional approaches or to swaying cravings must be missing Aajonus himself dropping lbs of dairy and honey every day still after 40 years. If the purists actually want to present their results or at least show their pics and so forth and how drastically better they are over AVs personal successes so be it. Or if they want to just explain how it wasn't working for them, maybe thats more appropriate than their own private hypothesis of why people do what they do.

Primal Diet / Re: Questions about Primal Diet
« on: April 24, 2012, 07:43:57 am »
well, it could -diet wise- but theres quite a bit of differences in theory, particulary in the theories of disease and what are the greatest contributing factors.

they are totally similar in the ways that everyone else ^ completely misses the point. The answers being to all, that all that shit just works better. So if you have health issues (or just don't care to waste your time) you might want to go with things that work than what people with no preexisting health probems and a pristine environment could do to live more or less ok.

The peat stuff will give a sense the actual reasons perhaps AV would recommend what he does particularly with dairy. This is because healthy diets are high metabolism diets, and these require minerals like crazy. These arn't as present in modern 'paleo' diets, particularly those that don't employ bones and stocks (or tons of grains/veg which are problematic) and other things people in nature actually ate for those minerals. Also it would 'confirm' that people repairing shit need tons of constant proteins, minerals, and energy, and need fasting (metabolic ruin) and solvents (industrial mineral-poor water) like a hole in the head. Of course they disagree on salt, which is kind of a huge difference. Except when someone truly gets all their liquids from milk and juices and includes other sodium-veg/fruits, they would probably need salts.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 23, 2012, 11:31:06 pm »
swell , more de-railing and placing importance on one mis-selected and mis-interpreted quote of a forum poster.
Read it again. First of all mind the [...] and the context. Second, does it say that eating tons of fruit led to a big brain, or maybe just that fish eating is a poor candiate for our evolution based on what we know of our physiology? Pretty sure most 'peatards' are in the 'meat and saturated fat' and then also with 'cooked food' camps as spurning various developments...

Either way, all he's trying to do is bring skepticism to how people validate their diets (eating lots of non close-shore fish) based on 'evolutionary' ideas rather than the actual effects the diets create, which can in a way give us a better sense of what may have happened in the past.

Same principle every time, not very complicated. People could go on mostly raw fruits (without other needed materials or other negative factors of such) based on 'ideals' and then watch their thyroid/homrones etc.. go to shit, so still not exactly getting what he's talking about ( considering he is pro seafood and anti anything resembling vegan )as far as validating anything with postulates of the past. Notice not alot of peat folks eating fruit mono meals like in 'da nature' which should be the give away there.

The whole fatty fish thing with paleo is 100% rediculous anyway. Only certain types of fish are fatty and for the most part these are totally unavailable in any suspected areas of our early development or without hardcore technology. This is not only not a paleo thing, most premoden man  did not eat deep cold water ocean fish and Inuits ate mostly sea mammal meat last time I checked. But afterall, anythign natural that doesn't require processing is surely healthy and suitable, just remove cooked and neolithic food, totally good to go on whatever else you can put together for all your your nutrient needs and functioning. Make sure you eat a fair amount of plant seeds too. Surely the sign of using that increased intelligence.

And I can assure you, cavemen would not kill you and then eat your brain in order to try to understand and get at your magic flickering porn box. Ditto with your magical milking goat. Same with cooked foods. They would find these conveniences revolting. Also I suspect surely that their pure dispositions required  millennia of generations before these devolvements did not leave them constantly bedridden with discomfort that truly healthy people today experience after extended bouts on a pure diet.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 23, 2012, 12:44:16 am »
Well yeah, whether we are talking peat, vegan, paleo..whatever, its pretty clear that even after flip flopping one thing after another people are always sure they have the answer. Think I tried to say that in my first post in the thread here...

At least its a put-up-or-shut-up type model with the peat stuff, which seems to me just way more trustworthy when testing your health against than the more faith-based natural hygiene-type cult hypothesizing within veganism/paleo where its all "yeah your doctor might even tell you that you have all the signs of AIDS...but this is just you comming out of the 'low grade fever' (98.6) of teh cooked foods".  Of course people here generally arn't that extreme (which is practically an actual quote i've seen elsewhere) and may have legit empirical stuff too, but you do see similar comments to the former - and other left-field hypothesis - I'd say pretty regularly here.

Even though we can argue about what ideal trigs and BG and such, theres some markers and just common sense stuff which obviously indicate things going better or worse and their departures from an ideal, yet people will still want to argue and make excuses. When you have actual examples of these not matching up with the good/bad in diet choices it should present a problem to the simple models people love to cling to, otherwise we are never talking science or rationality but religion.

So, to me this too goes both ways and applies to any theories, natural or otherwise. Even Einstein's stuff is seen to be both genius, compelling, overarching, and wrong in many ways. There does seem to be evidence that like...bacteria might be sort of important and so forth amongst probably alot of things the subjects here have going for it, that may be missing in other philosophies and 'improve them' as I think you might have been getting at. But at the end of the day, do the majority of people need to be hitting every last thing right to improve their health (to limit say, as many AGEs as possible from food) ? OR do they need to focus on the general trends and WOEs that keep the body from producing its own destructive patterns ( their own AGEs etc...)? I think ultimately seems to be the difference in ways of thinking.

Other than the people sold in medical model food pyramid stuff, most others are far too brainwashed in this weird "well if I don't do the "bad crap"..the body knows what to do!" - stuff, which certainly can work, but is almost always clouded in ignorance as to what true trends sustain health in the real world. Whereas when understanding more how things work objectively, it is less of a mystery why many things that seem healthy or natural templates actually are anything but, or could theoretically be healthy due to hitting a lot of the 'goods', but maybe just isn't the right particular solution.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 21, 2012, 07:56:55 am »
People might admit they arn't 'full on savages' or whatever, but for the most part they arn't all that open to where not eating regular bugs, whole animals, blood, bones, and oher stuff you might actually have to eat neolithic foods, or at the very least process foods, and include things like salt or other supplemental stuff, to make that completely work for you. Not very common for people to agree with that or especially to agree at all that humans simply are capable of figuring out better ways of doing things... So I disagree that people don't think there is some kind magic just to removing neolthic and cooked foods as that makes up most of peoples logic here without any real mentioning of testing of the markers Peat or other less-fringe types associate with true health.

If someone presents the idea that (assuming other reasonably healthy habits) restricting a diet to raw and paleo will actually heal or fix things over other approaches (or is even some kind of requirement to be healthy) in this present moment..this is one and the same in my book, as it automatically conceptually makes any other ideas inaccessible.

Have any of the Peatatarian-type diet promoters here tried a fully raw Paleo/Primal version of it to compare and contrast the results and thus find out whether raw Paleo/Primal was really the problem for you or whether it was just the version you were doing? I know that the "You were doing it wrong (for your needs)" answer can be a way to excuse the failings of a misguided dietary approach, yet isn't it also possible that a raw Paleo/Primal version of Peatatarianism might work just as well?

pretty sure most of these people just don't post/spend time here anymore.

Also as I keep trying to say, there really is no paleo/primal version. Integral parts of the philosophy are basically antithetical to those things. Primal if you mean in the whole animals and fruits(ripe/juices) + dairy perhaps...without the drugs and refined stuff, but not likely in the 100% raw/disease-is-due-to-cooking-sense.

I suspect that more folks try various things to see what if anything helps and some come to find that raw Paleo helps, with perhaps some of those investigating further to find out why it works so much better than the diets the "experts" recommend and what other "expert" advice might be wrong.
Maybe. Where I am at personally is I do see the other end where say, criticism (Stone or perhaps Peat), may also appear totally reasonable (to the fantasy or whatever) and offer its own short term relief and yet perhaps those solutions fall short in their own ways. Then perhaps the 'all natural'/raw approach is indeed better. Its a matter of specifics ultimately and like above its more about never ruling out what you might need for your particular situation, or weighing honestly how all these approaches work out instead of being left holding a bunch of ideals. Similarly to above, I think you give people too much credit where you think people will readily entertain that their ideas about what is good or bad and the ways they validate their approach, are remotely incorrect. The thing is, is this is particularly entrenched when it gets wrapped up in how people believe things should be in nature.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 20, 2012, 11:18:00 pm »
Why does evolution have to be an underpinning for health? Peat is just claiming that health arrives from the organism functioning a certain way, you don't have to put evolution in there at all.
He probably hasn't done that, as, even if certain foods aren't replacing anything from paleolithic times, if they provide health, then that's what's important.

I personally do not see it as anti-evolutionary or whatever, just anti the idea that evolution and such is as static as some people insist on, despite ridiculous amounts of evidence showing the opposite, and since the term itself implies something not static...

I do think he has a sense and cares about what was needed and supplied in our natural environment and what is missing today from our eating or otherwise. This is particulary true in the ways some people choose to limit foods to X and Y based on some ideas and then call that a 'paleo' diet which likely is nothing like such whatsoever. Generally with every excuse in the book when its missing all kinds of crap or full of other crap because its "all natural". He's certaily spoken about it, whether its of utmost importance that foods need to match other foods, yeah probably not.

I'm sure when you get the larger points about whole animal protein, how pufas (in his research anyway) effect or inhibit various processes, the importance of and advantages of combining carbs/proteins terms of their real world effects, the other stuff loses more ground in terms of what our optimal 'blueprint' or whatever really is. We can spend our lifetime finding some peoples' here and there that ate entirely animal foods or mostly mongogo nuts without really seeing how these diets are working in the present day to produce a basic sex drive or pulse reading, and many alt-camps fall into this trap. We have people eating just fruits or sprouts or grainfed cooked meats or whatever, so the mere existing without meeting various markers for health, (particular when presenting a 'teh only' optimal vs disease type mindset) is also usually fairly useless information.

In terms of why one would make a 'peat' decision of coffee over raw cacao or  whatever, or even processed vs. whole, you'd have to read the material. Bringing up past cultures or past fictionlized 'paleos' only has limited value in the face of real world tweaks. Geneally the types of people who agree with that likely will sniff out more Peaty stuff, and the ones who insist on doing things 'all natural' are the ones who in my book shouldn't be needing to make any excuses about health markers and such as clearly they should be physiologically leaps and bounds over such 'nonsense'.  Usually not the case IME, but people just love their pet-theories of how looking healthy or having a high sex drive kills you and its fine to have kids that look like bird zombies or whatever, because that is likely how it should be without all the wrong stuff... Anyway, perhaps the importance of meeting his markers over others, or factors of 'toxicity' or whatever, or a lack of evidence of people doing well long term, is where I would be most critical too.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:38:39 pm »
Pretty sure the carbs thing is not set in stone, and certainly not 'high' as that usually implies both lowish fat and protein. Unless you are talking a large energy expenditure, these macros wouldn't in normal circumstances be 'low'. Kyle actually grabbed the main point which is to minimize use of ffas as up there in his hiearchy of importance as with oxidative metabolism or whatever. So, you don't need to eat tons of sugars, just enough and not be compensating with lots of incomplete proteins or unsaturated fats (high sat fat diets contian some PUFAS). Basically unless you are eating all the time you are going to be using ffas whether the diet is 'high' in paleo carbs or not, like with fasting and infrequent eating etc... This at times in history would have been a default state out of necessity, but isn't necessarily optimal. Hence back to that same 'argument' of natural vs optimal, particularly with poor health -> wellness, which as mentioned isn't really much of an argument for the already open minded.

you are still looking through it from different markers than is in the material which is why its never going to connect. There is no 'diet' specifically with macros or even foods in the typical way  (good or bad  perhaps, but differ quite greatly from 'natural' and not) .  You could even have an isocaloric diet that was peaty, as long as the protein was whole from dairy and whole animals.

So this lack of set WOE coupled with the larger deal of being within the main guidelines and markers as  being most important for health, is why it originally didn't make sense to try to take a daily breakdown of his or others' personal eating and then see what translates to paleo and raw.

Suggestion Box / Re: Better organization and a sticky board
« on: April 13, 2012, 08:23:24 am »
kinda agree with the above here. Generally stickies arn't composed top down only on forums so it just seems to be about writing something new or finding existing threads of relevance that could be stickied and/or moved. Folks seem amenable to that.

But also, yeah totally not many topics in complete agreement on this stuff and it seems far better to not promote much of anything as standard other then the very basics. People have very radically different perspectives within such a specific genre (and the few accepted tangent philosophies). I'm usually critical more since those few certain tangents are accepted here there ideally should be fairer freedom of expression within that, but the forum/mods is usually pretty good at routing out any irrelevant or totally outlying stuff for clarity purposes. Or its that it only attracts a certain type of person and also the occasional trolls, not sure. Plus there seems to be a trend of more respect with that as is. Anyway, Its automatically going to be slightly confusing when you have not one set ratio or disease theory or whatever that everyone on forum follows, and that likely is more ideal. Doesn't mean you can't write more clear points on things and see if they seem more relevant to be separated from other posts.

literally lol at "the overlord doesn't mind."

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 13, 2012, 12:50:06 am »
I really don't know  if any of these things are even accurate, but looking at a variety of things fairly, some make sense. I guess you do got to figure that alot of it is coming more from the science - lets fix things with more things - model, which is pretty much the antithesis of many (not all) raw and paleo models as is.  I'm not clearly not the type to dismiss it on those terms...

I think with the sugar thing, there seems to be a definite clause in the material that lots of sugar minus nutrients = really bad for health, but at a certain point, empty sugars arn't the devil they are made out to be. Say when perhaps they are refined of their anti-nutrients or otherwise problematic even some paleoish-folks believe with white rice vs whole (gut irritating) grains that contain more anti-nutrients. That is, one can eat these things to some degree only if the diet is otherwise flush with nutrition and is balanced in other ways. This also in a sense, explains the mystery why people can run intro trouble on all kinds of esoteric diets that more moderate SWD diets or traditional high carb diets, or athletes that also eat protein etc... don't, to me anyway. In my view people that eat the most seeming crap by most natural models usually don't seem to be the sickest of people one knows, compared to diets that clearly lack basic stuff, like eating tofu and noodles and veggies with no proteins or no animal based foods period. Of course many of those standard approaches would be just as criticized by Peat himself, but more for their huge amounts of pufa..lack of whole protein etc..than toxic cooked foods or whatever.

Anyway as per having a base of nutrition, and then added energy I don't think thats too dissimilar with the logic in high fat diets. I mean...if your diet has lots of quality protein and then is 'supplemented' with lots of pure animal fat for energy..and a variety of organs and plant foods for nutrients, at a certain many more nutrients are needed from that extra 1/4 kilo of fat, and how much is just basically functioning as calories? Of course fat is natural, and whole/unprocessed and so forth, but I see that pretty similarly.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 12, 2012, 02:10:13 am »
I'm guessing its fill-ins to a large degree. Thats why I made the AV comparison. Obviously people living on a beach in Papua New Guinea 5000 years ago is completely different, and didn't need to do much of this or that to be become healthier. Even if we were arguing transitioning from their cooking or whatnot in comparison to a modern person in current environment. Lack of minerals in foods or no longer having the ability to obtain them from change in our physiology or domesticity which limits or skews intake. In terms of 'paleo' It assumes a paradigm of eating smaller whole animals (or cooking/crushing large ones with big jaws), low-pufa seafoods, bugs, bones and organs, and ripe fruits as being essential components, so staying within that or replacing those with other sources is more essential than diets that just restrict to fruit, meat and vegetable.

Having now smaller jaws, change in out environment and gut environment etc..  make getting certain things more challenging particularly with one meal of meal of muscle meat or whatever. Just missing a huge spectrum of stuff either in vitamins and minerals and excess of unbalanced unnatural composition of diet or just plain lack of food, for energy/overall functioning of his systems or such.

Alot also seems to be like a mix of those 2, reconsidering what is appropriate and optimizing based on present circumstances.   I think most of those things you listed are indeed considered sub-par to actual ripe fruits or honey. But citing certain fruits, or transit or storage of fruits, or just the fiber he claims cause more problems than those chemicals or whatever, and wouldn't in nature with pure guts/ proper internal stuff/totally ripe etc...

so probably optional, but its also about pushing calories, whole proteins and saturated fats + eating so regularly etc..which was why I wrote the first thing I did here. You could potentially skew things on perhaps either a raw or paleo diet, but when you start doing the breakdowns it becomes like...eating constantly with 2 eggshells daily, tons of honey, and pristine tree ripened low-PUFA fruits and exclusively whole sea creatures and coconuts or something if one wanted to do without boiling down or refining stuff or including dairy. Maybe entire ground up raw cows... anyway, it ultimately seems more important to follow those things already listed ^ than consider the other crap I guess.

not ragging on anything my friend. Just pointing out what I understood to be the subject of the thread, the difference between following ones true intuition and instincts, and following those within a string of caveats and rules which those instincts have to follow.

Intuition and instinct without dogmas, with intellectual ability and freedom to access a full spectrum of tools, or respecting how humans and even ape like animals actually ate in nature without guess work or interpreting it through the same religious concepts of what is 'good', is something else entirely.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 11, 2012, 12:56:55 pm »
good  ;) j/k

the reasons for being blunt is simply that most people that come to these types of sites usually don't need more egging on to be more fringe or to go more extreme on taking out this and that, but that usually what they get. 1/3 of the posts here these days seem to be about Masons or something as is. Anyway, I don't discount those kinds of restrictions or radicalism as unimportant and likely can be helpful or necessary. Many things are extreme and also not necessarily wrong for it in my book. As an example, RP seems pretty extreme and just as ripe for neurosis and obsessiveness as any raw diet. Or following something like AV might be less extreme than paleo in some ways and way more extreme and obsessive in others. I personally don't get the anti-guru thing, never paid a guru and been fed just as much or more nonsense from people with nothing to gain. I think its sad when gurus or their followers clearly aren't living up to their own perfectionism and will still profess it as the only truth, but some just have interesting info or stuff that just makes sense or works measurably, no big deal.


I think anyone who claims raw or paleo isn't important or even inaccurate/bad - like peat essentialy does - obviously is going to get a great deal of flack here. I just don't think any kind of credentials would change that, probably would make it even more suspect, was basically what I had to say.

OK to eat a certain amount of off-plan foods.

Speaking not from my personal take, but the way I undersand it..its not so much on-diet off diet, but 'who gives a @&*&' if its not effecting the things he sees as important like minimizing pufa, tryptophan, keeping hormone levels optimal etc... If his or others notions of what heals metabolisms is wrong, thats more minor in a sense than the general point that these things and others deserve consideration when weighing the effectiveness of 'diets' or other overarching philosophies.

except for the fact that following ones taste, without actually following the tenents outlined by a bunch of other humans, isn't actually following many principles of instinctive nutrition. Nor is eating almost exclusively domesticated animals, not picking from a wide range of foods regularly, not eating sweet and/or tropical fruits, eating/praising packaged and refined foods like coconut products, ever being in ketosis which implies extended deprivation from plant foods, constantly crediting your carnivorous diet with your success etc...  Sorta like how between 200,000 b.c. and the 20th one ate instinctively as they were corrupted by cooked foods and/or diets and thus wern't healthy.

why not just mentally go back to three years ago, and exclusively run the exercises through your head surrounding your house with various foods likely regularly imported from other places, with the general understanding that your intake should roughly resemble that of a chimp as presented in this sub-forum's explanation series. Restricting yourself to following only to these ideas till you master your real instinct, with the understanding that everything else leads to unbalance, sickness and disease.  Making sure not to folow any other external ideas or philosophies around these are The Modern and that would contaminate you. Maybe not so much the same turnout possibly, but yeah, same principles.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 11, 2012, 12:05:35 am »
Ok, well I agree here somewhat. A good way to go about it is to see which common denominators are with this stuff and play the most angles. Having general awareness without expecting some kind of consensus or validation through the scientific literature, but also not playing the other approach of being able to dismiss every claim of researched problems of cooked bacon grease or low protein diets as big phrama/agra conspiracies.

Then again, theres always going to be lots of other arguments on specifics of all studies, from the obvious in how they are conducted, to equating types of processing with others or none, food quality, things eaten in context i.e. diets with other horrendous crap, then all the 'traditional peoples' shtick.

Still makes more sense to me to be aware of which things actually work to get the best results, rather than present how things should work in either a scientific or 'natural' model, and therefore take options off the table, which is what most people want to do. 'Science' or just general observation and critical thinking usually prevents this to some degree, so these things generally have to go out the window, at least when viewing raw or even paleo communities as a whole. Whether all Rays markers of pulse and such really matter I do not know, but if people present optimal approaches they should have better than average turnouts holistically, not just temporarily fix one or two ailments. In addition to all the non-conventional alt-health stuff which is probably ripe for criticism - like all fringe types - theres a simple point made though. That its very easy to leave out of many of the important specifics that were actually there in nature, or make assumptions that these factors are static or even most relevant, which are still at this point speculations.

If it matters, I actually wasn't referring to you. I assumed like most, that you were just stirring the pot with a bunch of nonsense as a joke.

I don't have a good answer to your other question, other than how people consistantly troll all the other sub-forums outside of this one with their religion, and refuse - like vegans - to give any concrete and visible evidence why their claims are better arguments often with such poor seeming negative results. Usually the same old things disguised as 'purity' to discount physical deterioration from even 'normals'. There should indeed only be criticism in certain threads and peace to various principles in the sub-forums, but that isn't always how it works here. This one already seemed critical and not an asking for specific advice.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 10, 2012, 08:53:41 pm »
Well of course I was BSing because people are totally hypocritical on this stuff. A few people want scientific evidence, but they want only the scientific evidence that backs up the claims they already believe. Most others - as you can readily see even on this forum of generally smarter raw foodists - can't wait to embrace anything that is not mainstream as the new holy grail and the fix to all their problems because yeah..they had already so carefully followed science to a T. Then dismissing how perhaps it might be better to maintain first the common sense stuff like having to have a functioning metabolism and hormones as a pre-requisite to health before thinking just 'removing stuff' heals you.

Unfortunately in the 'science' game you can find more articles to support hardcore veganism or at least not eating red meat, eating broccoli etc.. than any really making claims that lean meats and fruits contain all our needs. In fact there are 21 million 'citations' which is who knows how many articles on PubMed. This includes 8701 articles on coffee and an article called bust size and hitchhiking: a field study.

youre telling me you find more than .1 % of them to be accurate and reliable information on how the human body works, heals itself, which foods have the most useful antioxidants etc... despite the fact that one after the other says something entirely differnt? Surely we can pick a random 1000th of the articles there and they will support the majority of claims here.

With Peat or others, as soon as people have science based information that goes against their beliefs..or 'how I made up how nature works' these ideas are considered unacceptable and it could be completed by Harvard or any reputable agency. Don't see anyone here denying that.

 Other than that, just perusing the thread, most of the relevant points to this seem mentioned already. Pretty sure Peat is against grains and believes there obviously was a 'paleo' diet that was doable (even the inuits to some degree), just not as important or ideal as manipulating his thyroid hormones, oxidative metabolism, and 'real' paleo stuff like eating whole animal proteins and emphasizing minerals like calcium and zinc etc...

Just a different wacky way to look at things.

as a hint, maybe a good way to critique it is through the reliability of the experiments themselves he cites, but do not see how doing his own experiments within an academic environment would carry any more weight if the ideas were just as contrary. Don't think people are being honest if they say it would make any lick of a difference.

Hot Topics / Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« on: April 10, 2012, 11:20:45 am »
From what I gather, I'm pretty sure he's considered by his followers to be fringe + holding advanced degrees and scrutiny, and not put on a pedestal of a highly respected published scientist within academic circles. Kurt Harris mentioned something recently about them both being on PubMed.

but yeah Sisson, Kesser, AV, Minger, and Guyenet, totally discount those unpublished assholes too. Particulary since, what......99.9% of the medical/scientific establishment is poo-pooed by 99.9 % of raw foodists that leaves very litle breathing room for acceptable material done in an independent lab with zero agenda to consider.. oh well, at least we can assume if we leave out dairy and grains this will surely solve all health problems if we believe hard enough.

Also that Art De Vany guy, who is way outside of his area of expertise to have anything remotely of value to share... :'(

Why any of these 'experts' participate in nutrition discussion forums when they already have all the answers - 'answers' which implicitly aim to undermine the sharing of current information on nutrition to replace it with pure faith and fantasy- and not be referred to as trolls themselves, Is the real mystery.

Oh wait, people do love to sniff and then recycle their bullshit to believe it internally, thats the real human instinct apparently and one seen deeply in organized religion.

The ultimate truth IMO is that these folks and natural hygine raw vegans are one in the same in how they choose their 'truths' over others. Both prattle on about how this and that is toxic or wrong even in natural foods with little real evidence other than personal experience of un-healthy individuals. Both, usually have no real understanding of human physiology and substitute all kinds of conjectures and ultimately end up tipping their logic to some kind of natural paradigm guessing to apply to modern complex problems. Both spend most of their efforts online making-up excuses why their lifetimes of nonsense are well spent, and crafting fun theories why people *appear* healthy and fine on other diets, usually not taking time to even take a blood test, hormone panel, or even basic vitals and check if their diets do magically account for all their needs. Needs that others outside such dogmas can satisfy, but can become regular problems unecessarily. Both will knee-jerk against anything that seems foreign to their personal conception of nature which is rooted totally in the 20th century myopia of self-appointed gurus- and which virtually no experts on human anthropology or animals would agree is even accurate.

 Ironically these people should take responsibility for scarring people into the very extremes that they criticize, away from a balanced intake of foods, due to such similarities to long term raw vegans.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: April 10, 2012, 02:12:03 am »
Today I did Reverse Pyramid Training-
Incline DB press 1x 100lbs 8reps, 1x 90lbs for 8, 1x 80lbs for 9.
Military press 135lbs x 7, 120lbs x 7, 110 x 8
Dips 278lbs (bw + 100lbs) x 9, 248lbs x 8. 3rd set I just did body weight for 18 reps.
Skull crushers 100lbs x 10 for 3 sets.

This is pretty impressive.

I was doing RPT style for a bit after trying some A.J. High Intensity stuff. I suspect the latter is not good long term with LCing or in general, but just my opinion after experience and reading.

I've settled on something more moderate. Heavy lifts + volume assistance. I've gone way up in lower body exercises since adding in things like volume OHS and leg curl etc... heh heh

working on getting my OHP close to BW level, going up more in squat, and increasing mass somewhat.

Got my one arms chins up to 12 on the right side. Not much else to report except some volume PRs like 5 x 10 dips @ +50. Can do >+100 for maybe 10 or so but just once.

Pretty sure Iggy Pop knows more than most about mostly-veg nutrition as its always been combining carbs with proteins, eating dairy for necessary calcium and minerals in lieu of bones/blood, emphasing regular vit A, sodium etc...

plays that skinny/cut look better than any natural hygiene proponent I've seen in their 40-60's anyway, even with all his body trashing. @ 64 he was looking pretty good on 'Idol'

I guess trolling (even smart trolling) is not ok tho.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 75
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk