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.


Pages: [1] 2 3
Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Eating Animals vs Plants
« on: July 03, 2010, 12:52:46 pm »
the simplest way to answer this without getting into ethics or really complex biochemical processes or human physiology is just to observe the natural food chain.

One example is the Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Giant Anteater)

The anteater consumes up to 30,000 ants and termites a day. Every one of those bugs in turn probably breaks down lots of cellulose and earth fiber (or from other insects and greasy decayed matter from ants) which is completely impossible for it to eat. It also eats beetles, insect larvae; and occasionally some fruit and that is its diet. It fulfills it's need for water by licking wet vegetation but abstains from actually eating any leaves.

They also eat pebbles and dirt to help break down their food because they don't have teeth (again a reason why it needs ants that break down other omni food), so in a way this doesn't rule out your idea of using processing to help break down your foods. The idea that the lowest end of nutrition spectrum is the highest and the most efficient fuel for all species contradicts pretty much all of nature even when it looks good on paper for humans. I'm all for some tampering with nature in a modern context but also your point about animals adding nothing to nutrition is really hyperbolic, I mean I'm sure you know that at the very least the macronutrient ratios of the food shift dramatically, and there are plenty of known micro-nutrients say: CLA which are incredibly rare or absent in most plant foods. Also you are factually wrong in that likely little of the ingredients you are using in a vitamix are suitable food for most wild or pastured animals (even those that are indisputably herbivores or omnivores) so that is also something to think about. GS was probably just saying that it made more sense for the chicken to eat the hemp (being seed eaters) and processing the food in the same way you are criticizing, not that hemp fed omega eggs were ideal.

Another example would be a polar bear. Would you want to spend every second of your day in deep frozen ocean water in attempt to eat enough plankton to fill your stomach, or will you consume a whale that gets too close to the ice that eats up to 5000 lbs a day? Its also noted that some types of plankton are similar to plants in that they absorb sun energy as food, but this isn't the kind that whales eat and it certainly wouldn't be food for the polar bear.

i am all for concentrating nutrients.  to me something like liver does accomplish that - it is a concentrated source of essential nutrients.

so is whey protein, so are chia or hemp seeds.

but lard is not.  lard is a concentrated source of calories, not nutrition to me.

what i am against is this blind religious belief that animal food is ALWAYS superior to all other forms of food ( plant AND supplements ).  this is not a reflection of reality - but a reflection of the desire of people for SIMPLICITY.  people prefer simple explanations to correct ones, and i am fighting that :)

somehow our ancestors were smarter than you people.  they would kill their enemy, eat his heart and drink his blood.  they would not focus on his fat.  why is it that they could think straight and you can not ?  they ate his heart because they wanted a stronger heart.  they drank his blood because they realized that blood is what gives life.  but they were not particularly obsessed with his fat because they didn't really want to be fat all that bad.

it appears that the ONLY logic behind the advise to eat more fat tissue is a childish rebellion against the conventional advice to avoid it.  can't we do better than that?  just because conventional diet is wrong doesn't mean that the opposite of it is right.  reality is not 1-dimensional.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Eating Animals vs Plants
« on: July 03, 2010, 10:33:38 am »
Yup. Fails miserably in the long-term from what I've seen.

those morons at fail not because it can't be done but because they are idiots.  if they weren't idiots they wouldn't have banned me.  they simply refuse to face reality.  they actually believe that your body does not need protein.  they banned me for saying that you need protein.

every forum has its own mythology.  the mythology of rawfoodtalk was that people don't need protein and that plants are a better source of protein than animals.  this forum's mythology is that lard is the best possible nutrition.  over at cavemanforum the mythology is that cooking food is healthy and paleo.

i am offering you a chance to to get your head out of the sand and look at the facts.  the morons at RFT blew theirs.

Hot Topics / Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
« on: July 03, 2010, 10:14:07 am »
High fat, low carb has helped my 5 year old girl control her tooth decays.

my grandma had her first tooth filling at age 33.  my friend is 30 years old and never had one, and he doesn't even brush his teeth.

i don't understand what is such a big deal about controlling tooth decay in a 5 year old.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Eating Animals vs Plants
« on: July 03, 2010, 09:53:47 am »
Our stomachs and intestines can't process grass.
The ruminants we consume have 4 stomachs which they use to break the grass down into usable nutrients. The ruminants aren't just containers, they're processors.
By all means blend grass up in your blender and drink it down. It will unfortunately not sustain you but some people need to experience for themselves. :)

have you ever heard of JUICING ? :D

i just came up with a joke:

how many stomachs does it take to process a glass of juice ?


Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Eating Animals vs Plants
« on: July 03, 2010, 09:33:45 am »
Nutrients can be essential or nonessential.  Essential nutrients are ones that cannot be manufactured by the body and must come from diet.

We know that you are what you eat, and this is the argument for eating animals.  We are animals therefore the argument goes we should eat animals as we are are going to be made out of them.  If we were to eat grass we would become grass - and if you look at raw vegans that's exactly what they look like - like leaves.

Now here is the problem.  Since we are the animals we eat, and they are us, it follows that whatever nutrients are essential to us are also essential to them - that is they can not manufacture them either.  They can't manufacture the nutrients that we need and the nutrients that we eat them for !  

Instead ALL of the essential nutrients in those animals we eat have come form PLANTS.  The animals have only acted as CONTAINERS for them.  They have added NOTHING to the nutrition in the plants they consumed that our own bodies could not manufacture.

And now we look for grass fed beef and omega 3 eggs - why ?  If we already know precisely WHAT plants the animals must be fed in order to absorb the nutrients that we need in them - WHY NOT EAT THOSE PLANTS DIRECTLY ?

Goodsamaritan explained to me that i should buy only Omega 3 eggs because they are made by hens who were fed flax seeds.  That's great.  But i can just drink flax seed oil directly.

Why is it acceptable to use animals to process and package the nutrients in plants but not acceptable to use a Vita-Mix to do the same ?

With beef or eggs i have to take the farmer's word for what went into that animal.  With a Vita-Mix i put the ingredients in MYSELF.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: A Few Questions
« on: July 03, 2010, 09:18:12 am »
If your body agrees with grains, why are you even here?

because i am a genius, i am better than everybody else, and everything that has to do with me must be better than everything about other people.

i don't understand the idiotic notion that you have to get sick first in order to start taking care of your health.  some humans have a BRAIN.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Splain this to me Lucy
« on: July 03, 2010, 05:59:48 am »
i have another even more trollish question in mind.  i'm gonna start a different thread about it :)

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Splain this to me Lucy
« on: July 03, 2010, 01:25:20 am »
This question is for people on the weight loss diet.

Let's make 2 assumptions:

1 - you are more intelligent than a cow
2 - you have more money and freedom than a cow

Then your diet should be better than that of a cow.  Then your own adipose tissue should contain higher quality fat than adipose tissue of a cow.

By eating the adipose tissue of cows ( or any other animals ) you are telling your body - keep that high quality fat you have where it is - in form of a huge belly.  Use this low quality fat instead.

So instead of being healthy and lean as you would be if you skipped that fat in your diet you are instructing your body to be fat and less healthy.

Now explain to me - where is the logic in this ?

PS:  yes this is a troll.  unfortunately you still have to answer :)

stevia "tasted bad", because i was adapted to white sugar "tasting good".

you have a point there.  when i used to have sodium salt ( table salt ) i thought potassium salt tasted bad.  but in reality i was just used to the taste of sodium salt.  now i use Morton Lite salt ( which is a 50/50 mix ) and i think it tastes perfect.

i might look into honey again. 


the good thing about fat is it would let you relax a bit.

Too much protein stresses the organs

no doubt too much is no good.  ronnie coleman i think for example used to have 600 grams of protein per day.

is that unhealthy ?  yes.  but you would need to eat 6 pounds of lean raw meat per day to get that much.

i think you should eat various animal bodyparts in the same proportions in which they actually occur in the animal.  there is no need to emphasize either lean parts or fatty parts IMO.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Calories
« on: July 02, 2010, 07:28:40 am »
I don't think so. Caloric measurement isn't the amount of energy food gives a human body, it's a measurement of how much energy can be derived from the food by burning. Variances in the way different animals or even different people metabolize food would probably lead to different energy amounts gathered from those same caloric amounts.

damn !

that was like way too smart.

i agree.

the body is not 100% efficient.  if it was our bodies would be at room temperature.  the heat our bodies produce are the inefficiency of our body's metabolism.  some processes are more inefficient than others.  i would guess that if your food goes directly to use it would be more efficient than if it had to first be converted for storage, stored, and then converted back for use or something like that.

since protein cannot be either used for energy directly or stored directly i would assume that calories from protein don't go as far as say calories from glucose which can be burned directly or calories form fat that can be stored directly.

why all this obsession with fat ?  the body is mostly protein - both ours and that of the animals we eat.  so why would 40% protein be too high ?

i think if there is anything too high in most people's diets its the total calories.

General Discussion / Re: Reaction to rice
« on: July 02, 2010, 05:30:24 am »
How did you "need" carbs?

i was thinking about it as well lol.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: A Few Questions
« on: July 02, 2010, 04:46:31 am »

I just started researching the paleolithic diet (from researching high meat).
Most if it jives with me really well; even though the information against grains and potatoes is really surprising.

I was wondering if I would still be able to eat wheat bread that I would make myself, or would it interfere with the cycle that
the diet would engage in?

Once your body adapts to the raw/high meat and absence of grains, is it arbitrary to include such things sparingly?

screw wheat, corn, soy, rice, beans and all that garbage.

have you EVER heard of anybody getting healthier after adding or increasing any of those in the diet ?

use your brain ...

General Discussion / Re: Reaction to rice
« on: July 02, 2010, 04:26:35 am »
Damn you people scare me.

I will soon need to drive cross country and eat various GARBAGE from places like Wendy's and Seven-Eleven along the way.  I wonder how i will survive that LOL.

I think i will need to have a meal or two at Wendy's or Seven-Eleven before i set out on my way to test the waters so to speak.  Better to be vomiting into my beautiful toilet than all over myself on the highway !

try this: 3 raw egg yolks from pastured and fertilized chickens (farms or farmers markets), some ground up cacao beans or nibs, and then just a bit of some protein powder, water or coconut milk, and a sweetener. make it simple.

how about - egg yolks, honey and


problem is i would not eat honey - it's not conductive towards my weight loss goals.  i am predisposed towards weight gain.  when i eliminated all sugars from my diet it was the first time i actually started losing weight without deliberately starving myself.

i tried stevia once and found it to be more or a flavoring than a sweetener.  if stevia works for your taste buts - by all means.

this is my first raw animal food.  i went out to trader joes and got some organic plus omega 3 eggs.

i blend them into my usual protein shake.  instead of having 2.0 scoops of protein in the shake i now have 0.7 to 1.0 scoops of protein and 1 to 2 raw eggs in it.  so i am keeping overall calories similar but now my shake has more fat and less protein.

but perhaps more importantly now my diet has animal fat, because before ALL the fat in my diet was plant.

so the actual contents of the shake are:

* chia seeds ( about an ounce ) // omega 3
* hemp seeds ( about two ounces ) // omega 3 and 6
* some inexpensive nuts or seeds // calories, fat
* a scoop of whey protein // ~ 20 grams protein worth
* organic raw egg // fat, vitamins
* cacao powder
* splenda

yeah i know splenda is not exactly for purists ;) but IMO compared to sugar it is the lesser evil.  at least splenda does not cause a narcotic like reaction in my body like sugar does.  and the shake comes out to a delicious chocolate taste and texture - it tastes just like really fatty chocolate ice cream that was allowed to melt.

i have to say though that if Omega 3 is what you're after Chia seeds are TWENTY PERCENT ( 20% ) OMEGA 3 BY WEIGHT while an "omega 3 egg" only has 0.3 gram of omega 3.  if you love to mega-dose nutrients as i do you should really consider it ;)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: How big?
« on: July 01, 2010, 08:05:41 pm »
Of course, but what I'm saying is you seem to be just shifting within the same paradigm. In a sense this is like your average inactive person, thinking if they spend all their time on a treadmill and avoiding high fat snacks that they will look younger and feel more energetic. Just a bit wishful especially when people cross over into some kind of illness of injury. There are going to have to be other diet and lifestyle factors and rest involved for any serious recovery. You might associate your problems with past types of activity, and thats fine, no one knows better than you on that I suppose, but just shifting your activity is not (likely) going to be the panacea to your problems. So in short, it makes way more sense to just halt most (or all) activity and rest, eat healthful food ( ditch all the performance related 'food) and try to heal your injuries and health issues, don't punish yourself into some body-makeup that statistically has better health or whatever using the same tactics and chemicals and protein excess. That makes no sense and sounds alot like the gym-rats you speak of's wives. Plus, losing weight on raw is just plain easy, hell I could probably be satisfied on 1400 cals a day, I eat like its my friggen job.

i know you're right.  its a psychological problem for me.  i just see myself as an "athlete" in my own mind, and to me that means doing all those things - train, supplement etc.  it's hard to stay perfectly objective.  most people are driven to some extent by their own self-image. 

my self image is a product of all those years when i felt competitive with others going into a gym for a workout, which is probably from about age 15 to 25 or so.  that's why i am trying to tell you people not to get competitive in the gym, not think of a workout as a war ( like many do to psych themselves ), not make friends with other crazy folks who scream while lifting etc.  just try to maintain sanity.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: How big?
« on: July 01, 2010, 10:46:32 am »
concentrating on health.

i don't believe in health for health's sake, or for the sake of living longer.  to me health is only a means to achieve higher quality of life.  quality over quantity.

what changed in recent years is now i no longer think that quality of life is a function of muscle size.  now i think it is a function of energy levels and having a physique that is lean - the two being closely related.

you see kids growing up want only one thing - to get bigger faster.  older people also want only one thing - and that's to be younger.  to be leaner and have greater energy IS in a way to be younger - and that's what i am working on now.  that's why i cycle 15 - 20 miles per day now at fairly high intensity, instead of lifting weights at the gym.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: How big?
« on: July 01, 2010, 10:28:39 am »
I think you have me mistaken for somebody that has not been around lifting much. I know for a fact who is natural and who is not in my group, not only because of being friends in and outside of the gym, these same friends are competition in tested powerlifting divisions. Some also do not compete in tested divisions. I have a friend that is closing in on a legit 600lb raw competition bench, I would not believe it either until I knew him well and went to tested powerlifting meets with him. In the same group we have a guy who is 165lbs closing in on a 400lb touch and go bench.

I also know a lot of guys who are on gear who are nowhere near those strength levels. Point being, strong is relative, and you don't need to be on stuff to be strong. Strongest? yes, but its unfair to call somebody out on drugs because they have a 600lb deadlift--there are lots of guys who have hit 600+ deadlift without drugs.

edit: just to add, in groups of powerlifting--we all know who is on stuff and who isn't, its not a secret. Bodybuilding is totally different.

edit2: wanted to also add--you have a good point though, and I know your view to be true 99% of the time... some guys just wont admit it, especially bodybuilders and gym rats. They all want you to think they got to where they are naturally, and its rarely not a lie.

i was chronically overtrained.  i could have been much stronger if i knew about periodization etc.  also i was a bodybuilder, not a powerlifter although my training was somewhat powerlifter-like.

most my lifts were quite weak.  my squat was a nonexistent.  but i was quite strong on chin-ups, on shoulder press ( 140 lb dumbbells for 10 reps, or 150 lb dumbbells for 2 or 3 reps, my working weight was 130 ) and on bent over rows ( 5 plates per side for a few reps once, 4 plates was my working weight ).  i also did 7 plates on the icarian T-Bar machine for reps. 

so my lats were always my strongest point - they were also the first muscle i started training all the way back as a kid.  i was overweight as a kid in USSR and i was the ONLY overweight kid in my class.  most my classmates could do chin ups but i couldn't due to my weight.  i was attending a gym at age 11 or 12 where i would swim laps ( to lose weight ) and do pull downs so i could learn to do chin ups.  but swimming in itself works lats too, and later on i was on a high school swimming team.  so my lats got consistent training since age 11 or so while for example i did not start doing squats and deadlifts until age 18 or so ( my parents told me i would not grow up vertically if i did them as a kid ).  and in case of squats i stopped soon after i started because they were impinging some nerve in my neck.

as for shoulders - steroids help with that a lot.  my back strength was quite good before steroids, and remained decent after steroids as well.  my shoulder strength was 100% steroidal though.  it came and left with them. 

i don't remember the details of my routine but it was something like 2 - 3 hours a day 6 - 7 days a week with very long breaks between sets - like 5 minutes.  i would do sets of 5 - 6 reps and i would do about 3 sets per exercise.  i would train at about 90% of my max all the time.

also i did a lot of pyramids.  that is for example i would start with 60lb dumbbells, work up to 130 ones and then, work back down to 80 lb ones.  i would not go to failure until i would hit the highest weight i was going to do that day ( say 130 lbs ) but once i hit that weight i would go to failure on every set so to failure on 130, then to failure on 110, then to failure on 80 or so.

i really took overtraining to another level :)

but since i was always on 2 or 3 pills of ephedrine in the gym i didn't feel overtrained.

i did not do any cardio and very little ab work.  for abs i would do sit ups on an decline bench with either a 45 lb plate in front of me or a 10 or 25 lb plate behind the head.  i did not do many reps.  i did not believe in reps back then - i believed that growth comes from tension.

my highest one-arm pull down at 220 lbs actually came a few years AFTER quitting steroids when i have already lost half of the muscle.  i managed to increase my strength while losing muscle simply because by that time i understood overtraining. 

when on steroids i did not understand overtraining at all.  one time i had to spend a week in the hospital and it was driving me insane that i couldn't be in the gym.  as soon as they let me out i went straight to the gym and set personal records on everything i lifted that day.  i thought it was "strange" that my strength increased across the board after a week in bed under an IV.  of course that's what was SUPPOSED to happen, but i didn't know it then.

wouldn't it be nice if you could live twice and apply everything you learned in the first life to your second ?  i learned a lot about this sport over the years but i no longer have the health to try what i know on myself any more.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: How big?
« on: July 01, 2010, 06:59:39 am »
Hmmmm Neuro I am just not quite sure what to think of you yet  :D (no offense of course)

In one hand I think its possible you never gave eating properly and training properly a good chance, and went straight into drugs and supplements. It's possible your beef is with drugs and supplements, and not with being big or lifting weights.

The reason I mention this is because you mention strange things (could be a coincidence). But all the serious lifters I know have stats they are very proud of, even if it was in the past of the squat, bench, and deadlift...and you give me a stat on pullups. Maybe you are just trying to give something everyones familiar with, I don't know but thats fine.

Then you mention going to your doctor and he has you convinced its the WEIGHT your lifting is whats the big problem. To be honest this is the first time I have ever heard anything about that and it sounds kind of silly. I know many many people out there including myself that lift weights well over 300lbs every workout, and everyone I know is natural, with no health problems.

But I will say its very hard to get the whole picture over the internet, and things are not always what they seem. I just hope that your not blaming the wrong things.

what i could lift is simply irrelevant because you were not there to see it.

i don't want to be like an old fart that tells kids "when i was your age so and so".

90% of your friends that are "natural" are on steroids.  all of my friends in the gym were on steroids and all of them said they were natural.  they also all sold steroids to each other.

this last clown i was friends with ( i am not at that gym any more, otherwise would still be friends with him ) was 29 years old and claimed that he started working out at 28.  he said he was a natural.  he was deadlifting 600 pounds and his face was BLACK from acne.  natural my ass.  also when we talked we talked only about steroids.  all he wanted to know was more information about steroids - all the while repeating about how he doesn't use them.

when a guy tells another guy in the gym "i am natural" it's like when a guy tells his girlfriend "i love you".  it doesn't mean anything.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: How big?
« on: July 01, 2010, 01:27:43 am »
Raw Paleo is never about religious fanaticism, this board is about GETTING HEALTHY RESULTS.
A good number of us turned to raw paleo because we were sick on the "other" diets.

With your current resting blood pressure of 135 = this is a total disaster and one you have to solve quickly.

Whatever you are doing now is dangerous for your health given that blood pressure.

i'm 29 now and my blood pressure is like i said significantly lower than it was when i was 23.

there is zero reason to believe that my current diet caused my high blood pressure.

now when i developed this problem originally i was doing a lot of unhealthy things at the same time - steroids, stimulants, very large doses of protein, and extreme training.  which one did it ?  i don't know.  

i agree with you that protein could be a contributing factor, and as precautionary measure i will try to reduce it.

just stop talking about it.  my grandfather had high blood pressure and he never exercised and barely had any proteins in his diet.  his blood pressure was extremely high during his last few years ( going up to as much as 180 at times ) and in the end he died from something else altogether - prostate cancer.

ok it's time for my bike ride.

General Discussion / Re: bad mistake
« on: July 01, 2010, 01:22:31 am »
Well i hear what you're saying Moon.  I think SOME foods might be quite hard on their own.  For example nuts.  If you have a pound of nuts all by themselves in one shot you're looking at some serious discomfort at best :)

Also a food consisting entirely out of spinach or celery is likely to leave you starving to death.

Some mixing can be a good thing i guess - for example i like to blend spinach with apples.  But i wouldn't try to blend spinach with eggs for example.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: How big?
« on: June 30, 2010, 11:05:11 pm »
but.. what... The palaeolithic diet is not named after someone, it's not a thing someone came up with and sold. The palaeolithic diet is 100% right. Not that anyone of us is eating the palaeolithic diet, we're just improving our health by following its' principles... It is the based on the principles of evolution and adaptation, of nature. How can you even compare it to vegetarianism? There is no sense to say that our diet should be of grass... Our head is far from the ground, we have one stomach etc... It would seem that you do not understand what the Palaeolithic diet really is... Vegetarians like to come up with these new super-foods all the time at random, because none ever give them what they want... What is the reasoning behind Hemp and Chia seeds being beneficial to you? There is none... What is the reasoning behind the Palaeolithic diet? It is its own reasoning...

any religious fanatic can come up with ways to explain why his religion is true and other religions are evil and false.

and yet statistically agnostic people have highest IQ and religious people lowest ( regardless of religion ) while atheists are in the middle.

i prefer to stay agnostic on this issue.  you *may* be right.  you could also be wrong.

think of how many things the humanity was able to improve since paleo days - roads, cars, houses, computers.  yes it is true that modern diet is utter SH1T compared to paleo diet - there is no argument about that.  but that doesn't mean that all of our knowledge and technology COULD NOT be used to IMPROVE UPON the paleo diet.

yes the humans evolved to conform their bodies to the paleo diet, but the paleo diet did not evolve to conform to the human body !  today we have the option to do that - to "evolve" our diet to match our bodies needs.  unfortunately we don't know what our needs are that's why all modern diets fail.  but that only proves that we don't know anything - it doesn't *prove* that we know paleo is ideal.

get it ? :)

paleo is not the ultimate destination - it is the logical starting point.  you start with a paleo diet because quite frankly there is nowhere else to logically start.  i have no doubt that paleo can be improved upon.  i just don't know HOW to do it.  i also know that in the past all attempts to improve our diets have made it worse.  but as Morpheus said to Neo "where others have failed you will succeed" HAHAHAHA ! ! !

Pages: [1] 2 3
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk