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 - Paleo Donk

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26
Journals / Re: Round 2: From addiction to recovery
« on: July 24, 2010, 03:29:57 am »
Its really amazing the highs and lows of depression. One moment you feel like you have thoroughly convinced yourself that you are so worthless and will never make it anywhere and you have tremendous evidence to prove it so - and then the next you feel like you want to give the world so much love and be active in this world and connect with all the people around you. You also have this supremely confident self willing to take risks and fail. I continue to search my mind for wisdom that will keep me at peace, comfortable with what I am and what I have. This is what drugs do. They let you accept yourself. There is no more hate. The mind no longer focuses on the insignificant, the sheer pain it was once in. Things get done.

I've been having these moments at least once every few days where I will see something or think or about something that makes me cry. It feels wonderful to cry. I was watching the movie Invincible with Mark Wahlberg where he plays a 30 year old guy that makes it onto the Eagles during an open tryout. I want to be that guy. I cried so much watching that movie. Envisioning that success for me is extremely pleasant and comforting. Its funny because I'm 29 and would love to see where my athletic potential will take me.

And right when things start to look like they are picking up steam I'll have sat behind my computer for three days straight doing nothing, eating poorly and in lots of physical and mental pain. Its such a slow process I suppose. My commitment isn't quite there and I can convince myself of all things negative almost naturally now that making myself think positively can be a chore.

I'm looking to get away and scramble around for a living teaching english in vietnam for a year. I'm still feeling good about this and might be there in early october.

I have now been for a while it seems on the trail, so to speak, to find out what our optimal protein intake should be. It does seem that since humans are relatively poor at dealing with nitrogen end-products that minimizing this conversion rate would seem to be a decent idea. Though I doubt that it would be optimal to eat exactly the amount of protein needed to maintain nitrogen balance and then getting exactly the amount of glucose from carbs to feed the brain and then loading up on fat for the rest of the fuel. This is the idea behind the Kwasniewski's optimal diet -

I keep seeing that anywhere from 5-10% of the fat molecule, the glycerol (2 of them together) can be converted to glucose. It does seem absolutely necessary for the body to obtain at least 50g of glucose as this is the minimum amount oxidized in long term starvation studies(4+ weeks). Assuming that a long term ZC also has similar requirements to those in starvation and gets around 200g of fat a day which produces 10-20g glucose this still leaves around 40g of glucose to be manufactured from protein to be in a safe range and since about 1/3 of the energy is lost in this conversion(1 molecule of glucose produces 36 ATP and we lose 10-11 in conversion) you'd need about 60g of protein to be converted to glucose a day to meet the body's glucose requirements. So, a zc'er who is eating 90-100g (like Lex) of protein really only gets 30-40g of protein for maintaining nitrogen balance which seems to be in the low end of the range for maintaining balance.

I have seen some studies of nitrogen balance being achieved at low levels of protein, around 50g a day. I do need to double check the minimum glucose requirement of 50g because I recall nitrogen loss to be measured at just 3g/day in one long term starvation study which is equivalent to about 20g protein. But, then one would assume that when not starving glucose minimum requirement would be higher than optimal glucose.

Yea GS, good point. I don't have info on marconutrient change as the infants age. Colustrum, the liquid that mothers produce the first few days after birth is apparently much higher in protein than breast milk. These infants averaged 10 weeks of age so its possible that the protein content continually decreases as time goes on to the normal 1% level not around the 2% in the study above.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Instincto Debunker debunking
« on: July 22, 2010, 09:45:32 pm »
Heres my simplistic summary of what I think of intsincto.

I said this previously but I think its simply an initial values problem where the body will crave an energy source that can fuel it most efficiently at its present state. This happens to be glucose even when only small amounts are present in the diet. I don't believe there is anything special about these instincts that are claimed as so holy and like I just said, I think they are merely cravings. The only true instincts come alive when there is a severe nutrient deficiency such as the need to eat some animal protein. Once this has been satisfied you may go back to gorging on tremendous amounts of fruits and veggies again. So it seems to me this way of eating, which is like an optimal version of fruitarianism (and far superior) will simply ward off the worst health problems. Though it is completely raw and perhaps could be better than a cooked paleo diet heavy on the protein long term but substantially worse than a raw paleo diet.

I actually think instincto is very close to being right, it just manages to get its energy requirements backwards. No one has reported any of the issues that burger claims high intakes of raw fat will do and I doubt he has much experience with dieters eating lots of raw fats for any length of time. I actually think its quite possible Burger believes a low protein high-fat diet is superior but just can't admit it. This is my instinctual feeling from the messages he posted in the pro-instincto thread. He avoided my questions about fat at first and then when he did answer he was not as direct as his previous answers. They did not contain any solid evidence.

Also, the fact that there are a record of long term instinctos with "normal" BMI's tells us very little as this is subject to tremendous survivorship bias and does not account for all the others who have tried and quit or failed.

And any guru that claims to look up to 20 years younger should automatically be deemed suspect.

Thanks PP. Ok, finally found something that definitely indicates fat composition changes with respect to diet.

With regard to infants’ intake, the H-F diet induced a higher milk fat content (13%), a higher energy intake (7%), and a higher percentage of energy from fat (8%) than did the H-CHO diet.

Two groups of women were fed for 8 days a diet of 1800 calories which had the same amount of protein with different percentages of fat/carb. The high fat group was at 60% fat, 25% carb and the high carb was at 55% carb, 30% fat. The amount of carbs and protein in the milk remained remarkably similar and did not vary between the two groups. The total production of the HF group breast milk did not change either. It was just fattier by weight, which means some water mass got replaced by fat. A puzzling side not was that protein content of the breast milk was around twice as high for both milks than what I have seen reported throughout.

So the HF group milk by calories was 54% fat, 36.5% carb and 9.5% protein.

Journals / Re: Josh's Newbie Journal
« on: July 22, 2010, 10:32:30 am »
You need to be specific when you talk about beef tongue. The back third is vastly different than the front third. The very back part is quite fatty and so supremely soft and very easy to eat. It almost melts in my mouth and is easily one of my favorite cuts. The front third is perhaps one of the worst cuts and is extremely hard to eat and is a constant reminder of biting my own tongue which mentally makes it that much harder to consume. A number of occasions I have simply thrown it out. Perhaps tongue from the supermarket is different from the tongue from slankers in that slankers give you every last piece that can be considered tongue - all the tissue at the very back wherever it connects to the rest of the head. Its much thicker and does not resemble the thin surfboard that we normally think of as tongue. The back third has probably at least half the weight of the tongues I get and probably at least 2/3 the calories.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2
« on: July 21, 2010, 12:56:11 pm »
So, what about the infants that chose so much bone marrow? Didn't you say Inuits were instinctos yet they consume around 80% calories from fats?

The rations to which these criteria lead correspond closely enough to the nutritional standards, i.e. one eats definitely less fats than carbs, and than any variation compared to these values induce easily observable disorders. But once again, these disorders are observable only if basic balance is sufficiently precise so that these signs are usually not apparent, and can thus reappear in the event of overload. When we are permanently overloaded, a point of comparison is missing and we can be convinced to be in a correct balance whereas it is far from being the case.

Did Alphagruis hack into your account? This is a beautiful anti-theory.

And prepare to lose a LOT of muscle if you're doing such a lengthy fast. I lost around 15kg of muscle on my 14 day fast.

I cannot think of nice ways of disputing numbers that seem to be quite unreasonable. But losing 1kg of muscle a day is much higher than what is reported in starvation studies. Even for those extremely overweight who have lots of water weight to lose which I believe is counted as lean tissue do not lose this amount of weight. Perhaps you were super duper toxic and your body just rid itself of everything. Lex reported losing absurd amounts of weight during his water fast - about twice as much as what is to be expected from the literature.

I just don't know what to think of all this. Either you guys are bad at observing your own weight, are exaggerating or have some severe metabolic disturbance related to toxicity because literally no one loses that much weight in a controlled setting after the first few days. I recall one obese man in a starvation study who lost 9 pounds his first day and then another man on the protein sparing modified diet who was already in great shape lose 9 pounds (of water and reported through an online forum) during one of the first couple days of his "fast". But after the first few days weight loss slows to about a pound a day which much of that is fat tissue.

I'm not sure I have heard of anyone lifting while fasting for that length of time. It seems like lifting will only work to catabolize more muscle than what you already will be losing which from starvation studies seems to be at least 50g a day(iirc). I'm curious as to fasting with just small amounts of lean protein(say 200g lean beef) and a bit of carbs (around 50g) as this should theoretically spare your lean tissue while providing enough energy for proper brain function. Lyle McDonald wrote a book about a similar type diet (Protein sparing modified fast) though nearly every account of people who have tried it report being severely hungry. And my even stricter diet above would likely leave you even hungrier which with complete fasting is reported to go away entirely after 2-3 days.

Perhaps its not such a bad idea to completely fast and lose whatever muscle that goes along with that which for 2 weeks could be around the 5kg range and then rebuild from there.

Be careful though, many people have had horrible experiences fasting while others claim it to be a panacea of sorts so ymmv.

A better bet to find an answer would be the curezone water fasting forum.

First, I disagree with the statement that fruit is a more "efficient" source of calories relative to animal products (assuming a mix of muscle, organ and fat here).  Carbohydrates (from sugars, in this case) yield something like 5 calories per gram.  A chunk of the average cow (assuming 50% fat, 50% protein) yields something like 6-7 calories per gram.  So by the gram, you get more calories from animal food than from fruit.

Most of the sweet fruit I have looked up ranges from .4-.7 calories per gram as fruit is generally at least 85% water. Lean meat on the other hand is close to 75% water averaging around 1.5 calories per gram. Fattier cuts can be around 3 calories per gram. Lex rooker reports suet and back fat to be 6-7 calories per gram and I have seen reports for bone marrow to be around 5-7 calories per gram.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2
« on: July 20, 2010, 06:53:27 am »
Thanks again for the thorough response. But why is that carbohydrate from vegetation is preferred to animal fat? And what would be your objection to a more carnivorous diet that is high in animal fat and low in protein (say 10% of calories)? And going further, what if this diet were followed so that animal protein was only consumed 2-3 times per week?

Personally, I have what it seems chronic low white blood cell count as well as improper release of stomach acid (as tested from ingesting up to 10 HCL pills at once after a protein meal without a burning sensation) and believe that the simplest explanation would have it from the above that not fully digested chains of amino acids are triggering an immune response.

I agree that it will be quite interesting in 10-20 years time when we have a fuller account of the now quite large paleo crowd who have gone everyday eating significant quantities of cooked improperly fed domesticated animals.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Instincto Debunker debunking
« on: July 19, 2010, 09:19:07 pm »

Did you replace your fillings with anything?

Journals / Re: Round 2: From addiction to recovery
« on: July 19, 2010, 04:56:33 am »
I think my main philosophy when it comes to diet is that generally speaking I would like to provide my body with nutrition as efficient as possible, which implies putting my body through the least amount of work to obtain its necessary requirements. This is essentially the raw paleo mindset - in that cooking food places additional strain and energy requirements on the body to achieve the same amount of nutrition that is provided by raw foods. All the extra toxins and damaged molecules don't have to be dealt within the body. Excess protein conversion, I believe to be rather noxious as I will try to explain later when I get all my sources together.

It may be that all animals essentially eat a high fat diet when you take into account all the conversion of fiber and excess glucose to fat. So, why not provide the body with the fat already present? It would be very interesting to see how a gorilla would fare on a high raw animal fat diet. Perhaps they are better served turning fiber into fat than actually eating it? I'd also really be interested in seeing if pandas do well with raw fats. Actually if we can show that gorillas or other natural herbivores/omnivores survive in excellent health with a high raw animal fat diet then I might not need to read another study again as this would essentially prove to me that animal fat is the key. I kind of want to go buy some rodents right now and test this out.

It seems humans have a necessary glucose requirement of around 50g/day and so to me this would make sense to simply eat some carbohydrate. Perhaps higher activity levels would necessitate even more carbs. There are also plenty of vitamins and minerals that are scarce on a modern zero-carb diet that would seem to point us towards certain vegetation to obtain these nutrients.

It is true that an extremely high-fat diet would be difficult to obtain in nature and the idea is certainly rooted in the scavenging theory. I think its possible for a diet that is not obtainable naturally by animals to be substantially better than their natural diet. It could be that we always were on the look out for fat and simply substituted carbs whenever fat was not around.

Journals / Re: Round 2: From addiction to recovery
« on: July 19, 2010, 01:21:42 am »
I'm about to toss all my eggs into the low-protein basket as I have yet to see anything convincing me that any protein in excess of nitrogen balance is a good thing and nitrogen balance can be achieved in remarkably low amounts (30-50g/day). I'm really starting to believe that excess protein, especially cooked is as hazardous as the media portrays it and is the most overlooked aspect of the paleo crowd. I'm going to put all my thoughts together here in the week or so. This low-protein diet is more of a very long-term health issue as so many do very well with high-protein diets when young.

I wouldn't be surprised if an "optimal" diet was something like 5-10% animal protein with raw fat making up the vast majority of the rest of the diet and random leaves and fruit filling in the rest. It could even be better to eat the animal protein intermittently just a few days a week. If anything, I am very excited to try these things out once I finish up this yolk cleansing thing which is looking like it will take a very long time as I had some large cheats this weekend.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2
« on: July 19, 2010, 01:08:54 am »
I've seen GCB state that proteins should be around 1/12 of the diet. I keep finding more and more evidence to limit protein as there seems to be no need for excess protein once nitrogen balance is achieved.

I wonder why both GCB and Iguana have a bias against us raw paleos who consume much animal products. Is it simply because of the amount of animal protein that is a problem? What would you fellows say about a diet that limits animal protein to around 10% and supplies the vast majority of the rest of the calories from raw animal fats and also additional vegetation as needed?

Basically, is it the protein that is the problem or just the amount of animal matter in the diet that you think is the problem. I really am starting to believe that excess protein is a much bigger problem than we suspect, but that animal fat is not at all the problem. In the Clara Davis study, bone marrow(not sure if raw) was the highest chosen food for one of the infants.

Hot Topics / Re: Expensive tissue theory
« on: July 18, 2010, 11:06:28 pm »
I believe humans have sacrificed plenty of tissue for a larger brain - Yes gut size is one of them, but so is body hair, musculature (we are quite the weaklings), teeth size. Basically things that modern tools could replace so that our bodies did not have to do the work. Also other senses in the brain probably got substituted for higher level reasoning - smell being one of them.

Good points, it does make sense that the compounds manufactured from toxic intakes will show up in the milk (hopefully not to the degree as they were ingested by the mother) and I would guess the macronutrient ratio would remain relatively stable for a variety of diets at least for protein

Are you sure it's the most among all mammals? So far you've only mentioned cheetahs and cows, what about nonhuman primates? Data on pig, bear and canid mother's milk would also seem more relevant than cow's milk. Humans do seem to handle carby foods like fruits better than cats and canids, so it doesn't suprise me that human mother's milk would be more carby than that of cats, but it does surprise me that it's more carby than bovine milk--though I think I have read that before. Why would calves not need as much carbs as human infants, I wonder? Is it because the bovine diet is fiber-rich, instead of fruit-rich? If so, that would suggest that mountain gorilla mother's milk would be lower carb also and we should expect frugivorous chimp mother's milk to have more carbs than mtn gorilla milk.

I just found an interesting explanation for why species vary in their carbohydrate content.

Generally speaking, species that cache their offspring (leave them alone for hours at a time, like a deer leaving its fawn in the woods hidden, or a wolf leaving her pups in the den) have milk that is high in protein and fat and low in carbohydrate. The offspring may be nursed only a few times a day, getting a lot of milk at any one nursing. The high protein and fat content of the milk make it slow to digest, and it satisfies the baby's hunger for hours.

Other species are "continuous contact" species, either by virtual of the fact that the young are precocial (advanced at birth, like a horse, who can get up and run within the first hour) and can therefore "follow" the mother all the time (this would include almost all hoofed animals) or because the young are carried on the mother's body (marsupials, most primates, including humans). Chimpanzees, gorillas, organutans, and humans all fall in the "carry" category. And, by the way, chimp and gorilla mothers have to provide active support to the offspring for several months as they carry them, the babies can cling, but not strongly enough at first to just hang on all by themselves. Some anthropologists think the very first "tool" invented by humans was a baby sling. Getting far afield. . .

Continuous contact species have milk that is low in protein and fat and high in carbohydrates. The offspring tend to nurse very often, but not take much at any one nursing. The low protein and fat content of the milk make it quick and easy to digest, and the baby is quickly hungry again, but mom is right there, so it just nurses again. I have seen figures of 20 minutes as the length of time it takes a breast milk meal to clear the stomach. Chimp and gorilla babies nurse several times an hour during the day, and sleep with their mothers at night, so presumably nurse at night also.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it does make a good bit of sense, though I really need to have access to the macronutrient ratios and water content to see what "high-fat" means in that context. It doesn't seem like there are "continuous contact" carnivores in temperate areas to test whether the dietary differences will affect macronutrient composition. Polar bears and whales would probably be labeled "continuous contact" and I'm pretty sure they have milk very high in fat.

Just found a paper done comparing the differences in amino acids in breast milk among several primates(humans, chimps, gorillas, baboon, and rhesus monkey) and many other animals (elephant, horse, pig, rat, cow and more). The amino acid concentration among the primates was remarkably similar with humans and chimps being nearly identical. Primate amino acid concentration ranged from .85% to 1.2% while the range for non-primates was (1.6-8.7). Unfortunately there is no mention of carbohydrate or fat. So, even a gorilla that eats quite a bit of protein in the wild (according to this - still apparently needs little during infancy.

Also - heres a link that states great ape milk is similar in nearly every aspect to human milk, so carb and fat content are likely just as similar as protein and verifies that slow growing mammals do tend to have lower protein requirements.

Ahh...Apparently the statement above is false as gorilla milk seems to differ significantly with respect to fat and carb content with fat content only at 1.4%(compared to humans at 4%) and it has significantly more oligosaccharides (those prebiotic sugars  found in onions and asparagus and presumably other things gorillas eat that help maintain balanced gut-flora)

Also turns out that human breast milk is fattier the more often it is suckled. Feeding more frequently and on demand improves quality -

I have a haphazard proposal for attaining correct skin color and thus correct sun exposure.

You simply must get your skin color to match the color of your penis.

The skin of the penis is normally known to be quite a bit darker than the rest of the body. I think it could be the case that the penis has evolved in a manner where it was protected and thus not exposed to the same amount of sun that the rest of the body was. Humans have the largest penis among primates and would seem like it would get in harms way when hunting(do any men hunt naked now?). Perhaps men wore some kind of string bikini deal like I have seen some traditional groups doing. So to protect the penis from sunlight if and when it did get exposure it evolved with a tan to the degree of how much protection the rest of the skin had evolved to getting. Skin darker than that of the penis would be getting too much sun and be damaging and skin lighter than the penis would not be getting enough.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2
« on: July 18, 2010, 04:34:32 am »
Appreciate the responses GCB - I don't quite jibe with everything you say but I'll leave those criticisms for the other thread.

Another question - How big of a role does mercury amalgam fillings play in disrupting the alimentary instinct? I have ten right now and in the process of finding a way to get them removed. And once the fillings are removed is it possible to naturally chelate the heavy metals out through instincto eating of cilantro or other herbs known to chelate metals?

Phil, I too wonder if the mother's diet can influence the nutrient composition but if Mark Sissom's recent article is of any validity than it appears it does not matter much.

Apparently even under starvation conditions the milk will remain nutrient dense as the milk will strip the mother of nutrients regardless of her well being. The mother will lose lean body mass rapidly if she eats the RDA for protein. I still don't have a source for low-carb dieter milk composition and wonder if there would be any shift from carb to fat.

It is still quite puzzling that human breast milk contains so much carbohydrate (the most among mammals?) and so little protein (the least?). Infants drink about 700ml of breast milk a day for approximately 50g of carbs (mostly lactose). The adult human brain needs 50-60g of glucose per day to function properly and an infants brain is 30% the size of an adult brain at birth so I could guess that humans might need quite a bit more carb content just for proper brain function and this would be the reason for the relatively high amount in the milk.

This still leaves protein at a low amount - just 1g/100ml where as cow milk is 3.5g/100ml. The best way I can explain this is that humans grow so much slower than most(every?) other mammals. At least this shows that growth can take place with quite low amounts of protein - just 7g/day.

Nation, yea there are surely lots of other non-protein nitrogen containing compounds like hormones and enzymes. Wiki lists them to be at 25% of the total nitrogen amount.

This gives me even more reason to experiment with low-protein diets even when trying to add muscle as even during our most anabolic period in life we require little protein.

Also interesting - in one of the comments from the sissom article it states that additional calcium and magnesium supplements might be needed if the diet is too high in animal protein. Well this matches up with the inland inuit who experienced early onset bone loss, perhaps with a diet too high in protein. hmmm...

Also, can anyone give an explanation as to why our protein needs would change from such a low amount - 5 percent - to 10-20% range for adulthood??

Perhaps this has to do with efficiency. Mothers milk is probably supremely efficient at giving an infant exactly the kinds of proteins it needs so nothing at all is wasted. There are indigenous cultures that survive well off of 10% protein. Perhaps with raw it can be even less and then the difference would be negligible - though adults are no longer growing.

I'm wanting to discuss the differences in composition between milks of carnivorous mammals and humans and perhaps the implications of this towards what adulthood diets should be.

From wiki - human breast milk

After 3 to 4 days breasts will begin producing milk that is thin, watery, and sweet. This quenches the baby's thirst and provides the proteins, sugar, and minerals the baby needs. Over time the milk changes and becomes thick and creamy. This satisfies the baby's hunger.[15]
Foremilk, the milk released at the beginning of a feed, is watery, low in fat and high in carbohydrates relative to the creamier hindmilk which is released as the feed progresses. The breast can never be truly "emptied" since milk production is a continuous biological process.
The level of Immunoglobilin A (IgA) in breast milk remains high from day 10 until at least 7.5 months post-partum.[16]
Human milk contains 0.8% to 0.9% protein, 4.5% fat, 7.1% carbohydrates and 0.2% ash (minerals)[17] . Carbohydrates are mainly lactose; several lactose-based oligosaccharides have been identified as minor components.

If we take the average values reported here then by calorie content human breast milk is 56% fat, 39% carbs and 5% protein.

Now looking at cheetahs
Milk was obtained from two captive bred cheetahs. The nutrient content was 99.6 g protein; 64.8 g fat; and 40.21 g lactose per kg milk. Small amounts of oligosaccharides, glucose, galactose and fucose were noted

Which would make calorie content 51% fat, 35% protein and 14% carbs.

I've searched around a bit and the contents do seem to change for different species and even throughout the week (

The most striking difference is clearly with the protein content. The low amount of protein in human breast milk comes as a surprise for me as well as the high carb content - its quite a bit higher than cows milk. Will write more on this later.

Hot Topics / Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
« on: July 16, 2010, 10:00:58 pm »
Are you really trying to argue that the inuit lived with poor health and made it for thousands of years in the arctic with a poor diet that they were not adapted to? You won't find a group of people in perfect health if thats what you are looking for. The kitavans with all their potatoes and great health still die in their mid 50's on average, which is right about the average lifespan of pre-contact inuits iirc. You can quote all the negative information you want but it would be beneficial to weigh both sides equally. Clearly the inuit (as well as a multitude of other low-carb peoples) had many, many more positive signs of health than negative.

Matt Stone has very questionable logic and reasoning skills as I see mistakes quite often. He thinks that since mothers milk has carbohydrates that this proves that humans are designed to eat carbs as adults. The problem with this is that carnivorous mammal milk has significant carb content and herbivore milk has significant fat content, yet they each consume foods in adulthood that have little carbs or fat.

There are so many people across the board that do well with low-carb diets. You cannot argue that everyone does poorly with low-carb. This clearly isn't the case. I believe it would be more appropriate to say that there a multitude of diets that can lead humans to great health.  These diets have some things in common such as no processed sugars or oils and no processed grain products and food prepared using traditional methods.

Do you really think his low-carb bashing is completely reasonable and fair?

I'm not a low-carb(especially the way most SAD do it - heavily cooked grain fed meats and cheeses) fanatic and do realize the issues people face with it. I faired poorly on zero-carb, but I'm not going to senselessly bash it because it did not work for me and certainly not cherry pick the data until I find a solid case against it.

Hot Topics / Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
« on: July 16, 2010, 01:27:38 pm »
I'm starting to like Matt Stone less and less, though I am very thankful that I have read quite a bunch of his work. I think he is getting his nuts off in a huge way attacking low-carb. There are so many traditional peoples around the world from the inuits to the masai that are doing so well with low-carb that discounting it completely is very unfair and borderline fraudulent. I'm not denying that people (mainly previous western dieters - take me for instance) have issues with low-carb its just not so simple to discount an entire way of eating because he stumbled across some method that seems to work in the short run. Stone himself has barely been on the diet for more than a year and even his temperature dropped the last month before the milk diet. I think he gets away easy by blaming white sugar. I think those with issues with low-carb have much deeper lying metabolic disturbances that are masked by adding "good" and "clean" carbohydrate sources. I'll give him credit for coming up with something that is working in the short-run. But it is very far from being proven to work long term.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2
« on: July 16, 2010, 12:46:17 pm »
Ok I just came across Clara Davis' 1928 study "Self-selection of Diet by Newly Weaned Infants" from a pretty haphazard source - The book Elephants on Acid. I assume you have heard of the study. Well, in the excerpt the author describes how Davis had 3 different infants several months of age contained in a hospital where she would offer each infant a huge selection of foods and have the infant decide which foods it wanted. Of course there were cooked foods, grain products and whole milk but no junk foods. The nurses were instructed to let the infants pick out their own food. Two of the infants stayed on the diet for 6 months and the other for a year. The results of the study seem to point in the direction of instincto eating - The babies would spontaneously and unpredictably change their diets every few weeks.

One of the infants had rickets at the outgoing and a bowl of cod liver oil was placed on the tray and he consumed it for 3 months until the rickets went away and then stopped eating it.

Have you conducted any infant studies like the above?

Ok, I just found a summary of the study online.


In the 1920s and 1930s, the pediatrician Clara Davis conducted pioneering studies, now considered classic, and published at least 12 papers on the selection of diets by infants and young children (Davis 1928, 1934, 1938, 1939). In the first study (Davis 1928), three infants (7-9 months old) were involved, two for six months and the third for one year. In 1939, Davis reported in much less detail the results of a study involving 12 more children over a period ranging from 6 months to 4.5 years (Davis 1939). The research protocol was the same for both studies.

Of the 34 foods offered, 90% of the energy intake for all three infants was derived from 14 foods. Of these, 9 were preferred by all three infants (bone marrow, milk, eggs, banana, apples, oranges, cornmeal, whole wheat, and oatmeal). Bone marrow was the largest single source of calories (27%) for one infant, whereas milk provided the bulk of calories for the other two (19 and 39%). All three infants shared a low preference for 10 vegetables, as well as for pineapple, peaches, liver, kidney, ocean fish, and sea salt. These foods constituted less than 10% of the total energy intake.

Raw meat was apparently offered as there is a picture of it in my book. The infants still fell ill to influenze, whooping cough and chicken pox.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« on: July 14, 2010, 12:16:24 pm »
Its pretty well known that for a SWD that their sense of smell and perception of food is largely completely retarded. There have been numerous experiments where people are asked to taste one food and then given the exact same food to taste again and will rate one much different than the other. This is very common with liquids - soft drinks and wine where such things as the bottle, advertising brand and preconditioned ideas of taste (say where the experimenter tries the first drink and spits it out immediately before the tasters drink it) have such an enormous impact.

Has anyone done a blindfolded test with respect to instincto nutrition? Would eating blindfolded be a better way to choose your food for the day? Or better yet, have someone put your food up to your nose for you so that you can remove as many preconceived notions about the food you are about to eat.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk