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] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 75
Off Topic / Re: Too Many Pronouncements, Too Little Thought and Effort
« on: November 09, 2011, 01:58:49 pm »
Wouldn't you agree KD after pondering the emotional and social aspects of food that there are reasons to give up on diets that do work? 

There are social reasons to give up on diets that are working but not diets that have this proposed grandiose superiority to any alternative. If the margin is fairly small between working and semi-working obviously people will fudge more than between amazing and awful accelerated death as its painted here.

I really don't think sane people have in their mind that they eat food that is 100% bad for them on a daily basis to fit into society and that if they just ate raw that they would effortlessly return to being far healthier than anyone they know. No. I genuinely think there is a least an ambivalence or questioning at that point to what the real solution is. If there are people actually out there feeling in such a way that would be one more reason not to spread such ridiculous false discrepancies between raw and cooked dieters. I would like someone to give me the name and pictures of a single person who gave up a supreme sense of health, supremely healthy physique, and zen like disposition to be an all around unhealthy miserable slob for their loved ones.

Obviously what I'm trying to say is this hyperbole of ideal vs not ideal is the problem, not that people don't slide on their diet socially. Of course people go off raw and regret it or miss how they 'felt' . Some might leave a diet not in some kind of crisis either but odds are what they compromised with is not drastically differnt to what they were experincing on a raw diet OR what I was suggesting that often the previous result was fairly mediocre or poor. That said I always felt fantasitc up to the end on raw approaches that clearly were observed by others to not be working and yet things that were less optimal seemed to work on fixing things but not necessarly 'feeling' better and thus romanticizing those things.

Off Topic / Re: Too Many Pronouncements, Too Little Thought and Effort
« on: November 09, 2011, 03:20:13 am »
Yet more b*llsh*t from you, and, for god's sake, can't you say what you mean in a third of the text you usually use!?

ah, I though I was improving with those last apologies

You and others are in outright denial that 'eating raw' can't create problems for people that if they ate more intentional raw food OR seemingly less optimal cooked food apprached they could AVOID. This is based on a variety of super complicated internal things no one understands completely but should be discussed more often. Having to do without how this total shift-over in types of foods affects basic functioning and internal problems they interact with in non-paleo modern peoples. This is either excess of any number of things one needs to do to get enough food OR not enough of various things to account for the healing required when on raw diets...that doesn't seem to surface on cooked-stasis diets. This idea that the majority have left even this site never-mind the raw movement as a whole due to social pressures is so blatantly false that its shocking to hear from even you. Many people have a healing crisis and don't know how to get out of it or are just doing something wrong that ironically CAN be corrected with other systems that seem worse in terms of 'purity'. This represents most or the entirely of all diet change raw or otherwise (but mostly raw). Without any kind of crisis and experienceing total blissful health above what anyone else experiences, there is rarely social pressure that matters.

Ultimately many of these people that stress  your type of bullshit as opposed to mine have to cling to their bullshit as an abstract beacon to focus on because they are far less healthy than some that bring zero consciousness to their health, nevermind people that know what the right things are to focus on. Unfortunately when people arn't modeling (and being self-critical to) their own experience and contrasting it to others, they are inevitably talking about theory.  Even buttressed by 'science', personally saying this or that causes or removes symptoms or worked for people in the past does not contain all the solutions for creating true health.

Off Topic / Re: Too Many Pronouncements, Too Little Thought and Effort
« on: November 09, 2011, 01:55:50 am »
Its clearly problems that arise out from geting away from how HGs (and even less healthy cooked fooders) eat or not compensating for necessary added tools for a modern person as they stir up old problems - that you seem to have a total myopia around. Do you really suspect that everyone that has ever has sucess with a  raw diet for months, years, or decades goes off that diet because of desires to eat cooked foods? obviously when altering a whole way of eating many people are left with a diet that is no longer workable and thus take 'refuge' with other (likely cooked food) approaches . All you can talk is of theory and would never argue that people were necessarily healthier because they abstained from cooked foods when taking real life examples. You are seeing 'wrong' or 'right' merely like people are a tube with a food-absorption-systems instead of measurieng how people actually function in the real world. Eating various ways raw can cause more problems than other diets, its not an issue of which one is likely to yield even more. Particularly when you can have people criticizing one rawish approach because it contain cooked foods, when another totally raw (including animal food) one yields worse results.

Again I'm not interested in promoting cooked food as a solution. I'm suggesting the forum as others would be better, geared more to helping people work through these problems that come up on a raw diet and how to tweak their diet to get the most sucess rather than have a raw rah party about how people with cooked foods must be doing worse even when they have more other pieces of the puzzle, which is the farse.

Theres no way to argue this with you. As usuall I can only get out what I would think would seem totally reasonable as realistically pointing to which things yield sucess.

Off Topic / Re: Too Many Pronouncements, Too Little Thought and Effort
« on: November 09, 2011, 01:09:34 am »
Kindly keep such anti-raw rants to the hot topics forum, in future, KD.

Besides, all this guff attacking heat-created toxins is pointless:- not only do we have plentiful anecdotal evidence from many of this forum's members on how cooked foods harmed their health due to toxins therein, but there is now multiple scientific data on the negative health-effect of these cooked food toxins. So, pretending that these toxins are harmless is just foolish.

Thanks for the uncharacteristic minor lashing but it has nothing to do with pretending, or anti-raw. People can support the idea of raw and even all raw diets and recognize that certain aspects of diet and health are far more important than such in contrast to many ways to go about a raw diet wrong. That people do better when they focus on those things and that many people seem to love to critize others for things that do not matter often when they really have no leg to stand on but a bunch of theories. Knowing full well one's experience of something is negative and sharing that is another story, but even then has no way of knowing it translates to other people. Its a simple observation from like a decade of forum-ing: People have no shame in presenting ideas that they religiously belive in when they can't even hold up to what they are criticizing or even of course when its something one hasn't even implemented to any real extent.

If people want to promote how all one has to do is eat raw and their health will be way better than the average populace or HGs just hang out on a raw vegan site. You'll find plenty of people having plentiful experience knowing all the answers, guiding people away form meats, dairy, injesting clay, eating fat, the idea of eating specifc food to heal and any other number of things due to how they see nature. Just saying one can add animal foods corrects the problem of bringing it back into balance with how we would have eaten is to be one with this logic that is always going to be out of touch with how even total cooked food 'users' can increase their health. You'll even find people there saying they are speaking from their 10,20,30 years (alive and intact to some degree) experience finding ways to justify how lack of something harmful somehow makes up for not paying attention to things that matter.

Off Topic / Re: Too Many Pronouncements, Too Little Thought and Effort
« on: November 08, 2011, 03:25:13 pm »
Basically I think alot of this forums strengths become its weakness. Intelligent skepticism to 'snake oil' becomes cynicism towards any kind of healing tools. This applies to an increasing lack of talk on minuate of diteary factors, or even dismissal of discussions of various health crisis brought on by healthy eating, lack of discussion about other factors than diet, and most importantly a lack of tipping ones hat to people actually finding results with anything that diverges from some robotic: less poisons in a diet = the best regardless of what that 'diet' contains or what lifestyle factors it ignores or what specific components one needs for their health situation. 
Most people that seemed to have any real knowledge about basic functioning of the human body and how it processes fats, proteins, sugars, starches etc.. don't seem to post very much anymore and what you are left is largely philosophical bullshitting defending concepts on paper that SO rarely (statistically) see the light of day as noticeable and sustainable success.  At such a rate that most would admit its oddly weird or confusing rather than expected when people actually do suceed at some marginal level employing them - despite the fact that the data supporting it seems so conclusivly correct.

Why people are so cynical and skeptical of the medical establishment and then accept information by people with no real known record of creating health -matching nevermind a HG but some regular 21st century joe/sue- or have experience cureing a specific disease, is what is strange to me. I guess some people can't help but fall for the same old natural hygiene gag and then suddenly people are granted as having all the answers because of some picture they can paint about millions of years ago which now also for some reason also has all the soultions to deal with reversing some super complex problems. The body knows!?
On another forum I'm on you have to actually submit videos attesting to your abilities and knowledge before being verified as someone who actually has information worth giving to other people. Not totally applicable to a raw health forum but there seems to be 0 constraints here from someone being able to be laid up in a deathbed, talking about that anyone that steams a carrot is automatically less healthy. Showing all the known cooked food toxins in that carrot with no need to show how their health decisions have trumped everyone else on plant earth who likely does far worse crap.
Based on some of these totally bizzaro-world conversations about HGs, I'm pretty confident at this point if aliens came down to earth they would probably assume 'cooked food toxins' were some kind of miracle components that kept people happy, sane, withstanding the elements and at a normal to healthy bodyweight and musculature. "raw food health" would translate more like divine wishes or rants within an asylum from a white person about being Michael Jackson.

sorry, little drunk.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Free Weight Exercises!
« on: November 08, 2011, 04:43:01 am »
Well sure, but the idea that if failure is induced at 20 pulls that 100 has no strength value (other than cardio and endurance) as the end all be all of working out is what you are going to have to give up to be taken seriously. This idea that anything beyond a certain number of reps becomes detrimental is one of many philosophies on paper constantly being overturned in the real world. like with convincing BW folks, just because something is workable doesn't mean something else is unnecessary or detrimental. You need to prove it. I've done crossfit workouts that involve pullup after pullup after pullup interspersed with other exercises, doing so many that after awhile 2 or 3 was pure pain. . These workouts by far were more challenging and yielded better STRENGTH gains (not just cardio) then anything I've been able to rig up with lifts and low reps alone.

Anecdotally doing the standard powerlifting 3,3,3,3,3 or whatever variations indeed are always going to work better for serious strength which is why those are standard with people lifting way more than either of us. Perhaps at a certain point you will reach plateus with your own approach and be arguing something else never know. I like doing the 1 set thing but really is not generally more challenging for me nor would ever argue it as any better than anything else I've done nor would I try to argue what is clearly working for other people. I will argue with lifts as superior vs BW, but If the pure BW people can show me they can do heavy overhead squats, deadlifts, bench and the like...then its another story.

Whether they are necessary or not, high rep workouts do have the ability to build STRENGTH (not just endurance or cardio) and in cases better than 1 set up to failure. If we are talking what to do as the core of a strength approach, Iower rep higher weight is likely going to win out as most efficient. But painting them ONLY as conditioning is not accurate as they can allow for better strength gains, particularly when part of an otherwise reasonable program. My point seems more agreeable, that many approaches are workable, and that you need to compare which ones are going to be right for which goals.  That there isn't going to be a single package that works the best all the time, only factors that are more often more correct.

Primal Diet / Re: Thin/Runny Honey Batch (Honey Pacifica)
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:23:48 am »
Tim Footdale
Honey Pacifica


Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn't Honey : Ultra-filtering Removes Pollen, Hides Honey Origins by Andrew Schneider | Nov 07, 2011


In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration says that any product that's been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen isn't honey. However, the FDA isn't checking honey sold here to see if it contains pollen....

Concocting a sweet-tasting syrup out of cane, corn or beet sugar, rice syrup or any of more than a dozen sweetening agents is a great deal easier, quicker and far less expensive than dealing with the natural brew of bees.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Free Weight Exercises!
« on: November 08, 2011, 01:46:38 am »
I guess it doesn't seem to matter how much we agree or have similar personal approaches. As usual the point is your theory about what is necessary or unnecessary is as incorrect as saying BW exercises are efficient and sufficient. Everybody might get results following any approach, but to say in various instances that higher reps CAN'T trump lower reps and heavier weights for a desired result is outright false. These things just function differently and should be exploited as such. That said NOT doing high reps of course is OK and sufficient to build real strength and size...but other kinds of workouts have their place and CAN be superior for various things.

as for jumping up on a box, this is a non-weighted exercise thus can't be improved upon or made more intense - 'low rep' except through height. I've done alot of weighted lateral jumping and the risk of jumping upward with weights hitting a target height is insanely dangerous. On top of that it is unnecessary as boxjumps are far better for abs as well as working other exercises (calves) than any kind of other exercise I have come across. If someone like me is actually doing barbell lifts or any other kind of possible workout, these kind of high-rep exercises augment those workouts. by ripped I mean days following of pain and recovery across every aspect of the abdomen as opposed to rarely having such extensive super sore muscle groups after doing just heavy lifts OR even doing the higher more draining jumps which I can only do 10-15 or so comfortably. Its just an example of how in this case high reps caused more end stress and gains.

As for step ups, these are weighted exercises. Years of growth meaning constant growth with that exercise alone. That with continually adding weights to these, as with weighted bodyweight like chins or dips one can actually circumvent alot of barbell lifts if they wanted (real powerlifters doing other free-weighted leg work periodically instead of squats for instance). The combination WITH barbell lifts being likely closer to an ideal than BW or machines or lifting alone.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Free Weight Exercises!
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:20:10 pm »
as per the original post, I think you can find alot of exercises that you could get mileage out of smaller weights, even ones that are not high rep.

for me ~10 kg is plenty for doing Turkish Get Ups which is a bitch of an exercise. You can do this with free-weight if you aren't going super heavy. Anything involving shoulders being locked out overhead is going to be hell for most people, even strong guys generally that don't have alot of practice with it. Things like overhead squats which are harder with free weights than with a bar.

28 kg Turkish Get Up at 123 lbs bodyweight

Doing step ups on a high step (one where bent knee is completely parallel) using two 10 kg weights shouldn't be extremely easy to warrant 'too many' reps. Adding more weight like mentioned with a backpack could be enough for years growth. Lunges with the same setup should be safe as long as you step far with knee not going too past your foot.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Free Weight Exercises!
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:09:30 pm »
Let me attack it this way: just for the 'simple' goal of doing 20 handstand pushups and 20 deadhang pulls you are not going to want to just do handstand pushups and pullups. You'll get there much more efficiently doing overhead press, weighted pullup, deadlift, powercleans and possibly more isolated exercises like curls and shoulder work. There are also various tricks to enhance your core for that which are BW exercises like hollow rocks and wall running for HSPU. These in turn might aid with the heavier exercises etc...

Here is some more talk about which exercises can buttress even gains in BW stuff like handstand pushups


A place like cross-fit does air squats, handstand pushups, deadhang pull, pushups , burpees, pistols etc... as a significant portion of their program, but this is only in conjunction with heavy lifts, powerlifting etc... One doesn't have to ascribe to their model completely to realize that just doing BW exercises does not stress your body in the same way. This is not just to produce MORE muscle growth or size but general fitness. Its not about which things are possible with only BW (look at someone like Matt Fury who claims(ed) 3 specific bodyweight exercise: hindu squat, bridge, hindu-pushup) are all one needs for non-combat exercise) but which things work the best.

I'm not sure myself what the answer is, I know I disagree with HIT to some degree in many exercises or approaches being useless (say like kettlebells or some high rep things) but the idea that BW strength or fitness equates to powerlifting and the like is just not accurate. it isn't limited to abstracts about which kind of build one wants. There are indeed some people with great looking builds obviously not having alot of strength and tons of dudes at a gym with big arms but no real legs or core strength or ability to do real function exercise. Also some people with tons of strength per how much BW they can do but not translating strength to other things, or 'poor' builds arguably.

planche push up


I know just the workout I did the other day that did 100 box jumps and a handful of other exercises and this just ripped my abdomen up like no other heavy deadlift etc... combination I have done lately. My calves throbbing more than heavy calf raises. So my current conclusion is both is needed - and a variety in general of workout methods. but still would say definitively that including heavy lifts is important -regardless of body-type goal- to make consistent progress, and not have a plateau of 'good enough'.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: November 06, 2011, 03:27:41 am »
I think I finally learned my lesson in regard to strapping massive plates to my skinny waist. back has been all fucked since Thurs but seems to be close to healed today. I hardly ever get hurt but I can almost always trace it back to a day I use this stupid dangling weight belt. Going over 100 lbs added to BW, my strength has apparently gone over capacity to what my frame allows safely, unless I start to distribute better with a vest/backpack or buy a more ergonomic belt to what hangs around the gym.

Worked out today but avoided my circuit for obvious reasons. Tried something different

100 box jumps @ 24" [lower than usual - higher reps] - painful foam rolling in between
12 super wide pullups
5 split rope curls from floor - 90 lb plates x 3 rds with 2 more rds pullups [different grips]
30 russian step ups @ 18" [lower than usual - higher reps]  - with 16 kg kettle-bells each with as many shrugs and curls afterward. - painful foam rolling in between
12 russian step ups @ 24" - painful foam rolling in between

feel like I've left something out...but the jumps were hard today. Not staying in shape apparently.

Hopefully others will chime in as this is an important issue. Even arguing against the idea of macronutrient control or importance inevitably is going to be considered to be a carb-burning diet. Or is it?

It does seem so doing the math. Saying a moderate carb diet or lower fat higher protein diet is preferable is akin to saying a diet that burns fatty acids is bad as that implies low carb. It has to be OR it is saying -like Hannibal was - that one can indeed 'enjoy' a fat burning metabolism while taking in plentiful carbs at times (more than 'cheat days' on CKD etc..), or even at a higher than presented level on a regular basis.

Probably some good points there but the reason I wanted to have a discussion in this thread is because what if the issue isn't avoiding or handling the 'carbs' themselves but about the general idea of macronutrients in regards to energy.

The sensitivity thing seems to be one issue, with some level of carb sensitivity seemingly coming with a LC (or even lower carb approach) itself. I can say that in my approach I have indeed less sensitivity to carbs than when I started which was partially caused presumably by eating years of raw high carb raw or raw/cooked moderate carb,protein,fat and the underlying issues that existed before that . Issues that wern't corrected or made worse on lower fat approaches. I have to assume this lack of sensitivity  is good, and almost 'lucky'  as many people in years of LC sometimes still seem to struggle eating much of any carbs, sometimes even in small amounts.

I assume that is not the goal, unless one is sold on the point that carbs are poison and wants to rationalize it the way some do to sensitivities of other foods, like lightly cooked food or whatever.

I can tolerate any carb (cooked or raw) in small quantities. Eating large quantities of carbs is a different story (although doesn't always immediately create any kind of serious symptom). It isn't always as much an issue of feeling bad per se based on 'eating alot of carbs' but just an issue of how the body is said to manufacture energy.

I've been reading and experimenting for years now and still don't understand how half these diets people claim to be on work (or don't work) particularly for active people. The fat with fruit thing per meal is one thing, but what about diets of half a lb of ruminant fat with 10 pieces of fruit daily? Maybe someone that follows Primal or a similar diet with tons of honey, milk, vegetables/juice etc. that also contain high levels of fats can chime in. Even if these or higher quality fruits are arguably considered less 'damaging' carbs they contribute carbs which inevitability with accumulate in grams (although even I might disagree with whole fresh milk which also has issues of proteins) . Despite AV's claims about honey and insulin, it must still contribute calories as grams of carbs, due to the lack of protein and fat.

Your comment generally as with other conversations seems to be that macro 'extremes' should be avoided, at least for some. Most people seem to rationalize those extremes because the alternative is not workable, either causing outright negative symptoms or because of ideas based on 'science' of how these systems process energy. Mainly diets higher in carbs I guess (than whatever value associated with 'low') being inefficient at garnering energy from the larger volume of fats while simultaneously being too low in carbs for energy.

 i.e. that all 'moderate' carb diets are by default either too high or too low but still carb-based energy systems. I was more looking for a criticism of that or commentary on how that approach is indeed more workable.

generally, not going to extremes re: carbs/fats/protein is helpful for adrenal issues.
You've mentioned alot lately about this in regards to other issues or long term stability of those extremes. I was wondering if you can expand on that more in another thread. I know Hannibal for a time was claiming to switch between VLC and something of a higher carb (more than traditional LC values anyway) along with consistant 'high' fat and presumably still alot of protein. hey...high everything! :)

Not sure how this pans out in regards to whatever other theories are out there which seem to contradict that as dooable, despite being often the mode in cooked societies anyway. I'm sure more than myself would be interested. If you didn't want to start a new thread maybe you could comment here?

Health / Re: Side effects using Dr Rons adrenal with cortex supplement
« on: November 05, 2011, 09:19:39 pm »
generally, not going to extremes re: carbs/fats/protein is helpful for adrenal issues.

You've mentioned alot lately about this in regards to other issues or long term stability of those extremes. I was wondering if you can expand on that more in another thread. I know Hannibal for a time was claiming to switch between VLC and something of a higher carb (more than traditional LC values anyway) along with consistant 'high' fat and presumably still alot of protein. hey...high everything! :)

Not sure how this pans out in regards to whatever other theories are out there which seem to contradict that as dooable, despite being often the mode in cooked societies anyway. I'm sure more than myself would be interested. If you didn't want to start a new thread maybe you could comment here?

General Discussion / Re: Too Much Liver in Diet?
« on: November 05, 2011, 11:27:36 am »
I think they are very careful not to add enough liver that would poison dogs much smaller than you. That said if you are eating tons of liver on top of that it might not be the greatest idea. Probably just pay attention to those signals as you are doing and be aware of any actual signs of true poisoning, or just go on intentional breaks from the whole liver for a week or so every so often. A lb a day of that stuff is probably nothing. No clue on the D in relation to A but you could try the regular prescribed menu in food for minor amounts of D, like seafood, or for heavy doses take supplements like the oil or pills, or take a vacation in a sunny location.

Most people seem to start shitting their brains (ok, ingested liver, whatever) out prior to the problems you are speaking of.

Hot Topics / Re: Warm Breakfast in Fall
« on: November 05, 2011, 11:09:56 am »
And on the topic of oversight/moderation I feel that if we did create a vegan or vegetarian sub-forum that Skinny Devil would be an ideal face to lead it. He's eating almost vegetarian now but with some meat tossed in here and there. He's also in great shape and has a great outlook on life. Exactly who you want helping folks with that next step showing them it's not so scary. Then again I don't know if he's able to commit much time either.

Transitionary Diets:
Raw Vegetarian/Vegan
Cooked Paleo
(Do we include cooked Weston A. Price?)

The thing is if you have a vegan/veg forum within a transitional subheading obviously it demeans the diet as an actual practice and you aren't going to be attracting the right kind of people but just endless arguments about whether a veg diet is workable.

Better off just having a forum that is a transitional forum and a separate veg forum or even better yet just ONE general sub-forum which is heavily moderated from purists but isn't labeled transitional specifically.


As complained before by various people the existing breakdown and very important 'order' apparently already makes no sense for various reasons that aren't necessary to get into right now.

It might as well just have in the same listing (in whatever 'order' people don't cry about)

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet
Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach
Wai Dieters
Instincto / Anopsology
Primal Diet
Raw Weston Price (nix as it isn't technically a diet practiced by anyone on the forum or proposed by any WAPF people not to mention contradicts Price's findings ).
In its place:
Other Diets & Transitional Approaches
 (with the same caveat listed as hot topics "Raw vegan and Fruitarian topics may be discussed here but only here.")

or The Raw Paleo Diet

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet
Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach

with a new box with perhaps no heading

Wai Dieters
Instincto / Anopsology
Primal Diet
Other Diets & Transitional Approaches


could care less if this happens or not though, as likely no matter what most peoples rationalizations and approaches won't be tolerated, as per the already accepted non-'paleo'/raw ideas on this site.

Hot Topics / Re: Warm Breakfast in Fall
« on: November 05, 2011, 01:26:14 am »
The Fred Meyer dude must have been talking about sushi restaurants in the US as only being able to sell fish pre-frozen to the public raw. Maybe he was saying he thought one had to eat prefozen fish if it was raw for that reason. Generally fish markets sell fish right off the boat as well as frozen fish. Lots of people eat literally all these foods you talk about raw AND unfrozen, but your logic is reasonable and appreciated.

I've certainly made meals like that and would prefer to do so on occasion to eating 10 bananas or something (even though I've eaten literally thousands of bananas and eat pretty much all raw for most of my food) but other people have different preferences or ideas on which things are harmful. I think people just think when you post such things (particularly as the start of a topic) it makes it seem like you are promoting something or that other people who visit think 'we' eat that way or something. If you have a journal it would certainly be appropriate and people could comment about substitutions or changes etc. I've included some cooked stuff like veggies IICR in some of my food journaling. If not, i'll post some more.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 11:27:54 am »
I have to assume being on a diet with plentiful raw and cooked carbohydrates as well as adequate protein there would be basically no reason to create/make pemmican - a food meant to extend energy that would not be sustained with just lean dried meats. Seeing since there should be no 'problem' with eating fresh or dried meats with constant plentiful carbs, I'm not sure if it would have much of a function at all for carb based metabolisms other then the fact that one can store it perhaps better than some agrarian carb foods. I guess one could argue they only used it when traveling (or scarcity), but that doesn't seem to be the case. The very fact that they were able to make pemmmican (the kind not from marrow) would suggest that fats were somewhat plentiful at least at various times of the year. At the very least in the paleo period of fire/organization it would be plausible that fats could be stored that way, not to mention that fats also last quite a long time raw, particulary in cooler/cold temperatures.  Similary in regards to both the West and the North, Indians seemed to avoid hunting certain animals in lean times allowing them to fatten up through other seasons and scouted out fatty fish or marine mammals.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 08:31:20 am »
Are later Native American accounts after agriculture and the common use of cooking pertinent to RAW paleo? (I mean that as a serious question).

Here's another serious question: How much of our diets need to be modified to account for generations and early lifetimes of poor eating? Even if our ancestors did not eat much fat or get much fruit - does that necessarily mean that we shouldn't be?

I think she was just trying to say that their diet was not mostly fat or even mostly animal based, not what diet is ideal. The accounts to my understanding are not that homogeneous.

Personally I am in the camp that believes that people in nature have done well on fat based diets but that other people in the past likely achieved far better health than most people today doing a variety of things. The key is finding which variables are most tied to what is important in nature and not being too out of balance with that, but adapting these things, taking advantage of whatever circumstances are positive and as you say - accounting for various conditions of environment, inheritance etc... For that reason sometimes emphasizing things that seem natural (because they contain all natural foods...) are not as important or more detrimental than larger aspects of balance with what was actually working in nature or represent other necessary components of diet.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 08:05:23 am »
The point I'm thinking about is:

If there really WAS not 'enough' fat in wild animals the RAW paleo idea would be logically completely inconsistent (due to a lack of fruits) in comparison to Wrangham & Co.

Of course, such thoughts are irrelevant in our daily practise if you are not trying (like I have) to make a 100 % local VLC RAW paleo diet based on 100% wild game meat possible. Such dietary parameters require the domestication of animals in todays world.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if we are meant to eat from the proportions of tropics (many decedents of which still ate high fat) or meant to eat decaying meat, brains and bone marrow almost exclusively. We have records of humans eating the typical high fat 'paleo' diet and living without what most people will label as disease as well as contemporary people reversing disease often better than other approaches.  Because of that there seems to be plenty of good theories for eating larger quanties of fat than even HGs or ancient folks as well as reducing protein and carbs at least in some cases.

Many peoples WOULD and did indeed have had to consume cooked starches to survive in most non-tropical climates if they did not acess to sufficient fat. Despite this, there does seem to be people that did get adequate fat without resorting to extreme heavy protein and raw or cooked carbs in nature. So, just because one can get some lean game that this isn't necessarily accurate to what was actually acquired by some people in nature even without resorting to theories of mythical animals. Talking examples in the last 2000 years or so. Like you perhaps I do not believe this is sufficient in proving a high fat 'paleo' diet to be the best, healthiest, or even most accurate to how people actually ate in nature millions of years ago, only that there are examples of people doing so IN NATURE, that it isn't a construction purely of market availability.

Even if there is no 'protein ceiling' people have to realize that you have to use far more energy and time when you are actually acquiring food. These guys that trek through Antarctica and such are using 7000 calories a day just dragging their supplies around which is likely less weight than a heavy kill. The idea that one spends 2-3 k calories a day makes a diet with lower ranges of protein carbs and fats somewhat normal than the large deficit that would have to come from fat or carbs to survive various points in history.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 07:35:28 am »
This is simply not correct. AFAIK (almost?) all Indians in North America, except the Inuit, ate mostly plant foods; they grew domesticated plants such as corn (which was eaten by almost all tribes), pumpkin etc.; they traded, for example buffalo meat for corn, etc.

Its taken from a first hand account (book) written at the time so not sure what info you are using to contradict that there could be those large numbers eating almost entirely animal foods (which could still be small in comparison to total native population in North America) for parts of the year. The book very well might be entirely discredited, but I see no reason to believe this is so as there are plenty of other accounts one could choose from that equally paint various American  Indian tribes as 'guts and grease' dieters.  Maybe 250,000 or the lack of balance to the diet is an exaggeration. They all did eat plant food, with large demographics cultivating food maybe. The idea that they all ate 'mostly plant food' is actually what has been discredited to my knowledge.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 06:51:25 am »

How much fat in wild animals? The old miracle question here.
If even a super fat looking hippo is actually lean...

'Indeed totally possible'? Most readers here are  not convinced. What makes you sure about this question?


You seem to be playing devils advocate now. I don't see what there is to be convinced about. Regardless of how 'muscular' a hippo or a horse is there is tons of fat in grams there when accounting for the whole animal and not measuring against its entire lean mass. Talking about what is sustainable for 7 bil is not the same as diets that have history of actually getting that much fat in nature, which does indeed prove that you can live off the fat of animals in that range and as primary fuel without killing 100 large animals per person. Its plausible because it has actual precedent in nature with all wild animals in recorded history and not theory. Diets that eat only the muscle of animals without the organs. marrow etc..lacking significant carbs as a year round diet do not - to my knowledge - whether some at times lacking fat went on heavier protein benders or not.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 06:07:03 am »
Have you ever tried such a 73 percent protein diet? I would say that it is not possible over a prolonged time. I got massive heart problems on such experiments, even with 'only' 3-4 pounds of muscle meat from domestic animals.

right, well you may have missed that was not presenting that as adequate or at all a good idea. Generally above I was just being fair that no one knows for certain that 300,400,500+ grams of protein is bad or even unnatural, but does seem to be, scientifically, not to mention unnecessary or inefficient for energy. just another observation: cycling from mostly plant carbs to eating lots of lean meats I don't think requires the same (or any) transition as this is basically the same thing when contrasted with transitioning from that approach to a much lower protein and low carbs for extended periods or for fasting and exerting lots of energy.

thread should probably split off, maybe more people will weigh in then.

General Discussion / Re: What rawpalaeo foods are you eating right now?
« on: November 04, 2011, 05:32:26 am »
I appreciate your thoughts..

yep, this is the gist of what I personally believe. For people living in what is now the USA I would say its basically unlikely that these particular animals we see there always provided enough fat to exist year round on meat/fat only diets, which is why they didn't always do so. What we do see still in A.D. is people that prioritize fat and can obtain it.

“The buffalo meat, however, is the great staple and ‘staff of life’ in this country, and seldom (if ever) fails to afford them an abundant and wholesome means of subsistence.  There are, from a fair computation, something like 250,000 Indians in these western regions, who live almost exclusively on the flesh of these animals, through every part of the year.  During the summer and fall months they use the meat fresh and cook it in a great variety of ways, by roasting, broiling, boiling, stewing, and smoking; and by boiling the ribs and joints with the marrow in them, make a delicious soup, which is universally used, and in vast quantities.”

North American Indians by George Catlin  (A tribute to a lost way of life. From 1831 to 1837)

I don't think its necessarily a scenario of gathering tongues from a bunch of animals while discarding the rest in some spoiled dead animal anarchy. I think there is the idea that one CAN indeed prioritize fat without weighing in the entire % leanness in an animal and say that there is quite a bit of fat there in terms of calories from those fat sources.

Also all muscle meat contributes macrnonutrient fat and even 1lb of internal or external fat without the marrow ,organs etc.. therefore could go a long way towards catching something else. Most animals I assume have to have internal fat protecting the organs. Maybe someone could weigh in on how much kidney fat is in a deer. The larger ones that died out..probably had quite a bit being larger - no matter how lean. When that happened likely was it made sense to cook and pasture fattier food. :/

This doesn't mean that there weren't grazing animals in Africa or whatever other origin that did not supply such. The idea that all animals need to be lean to exist in nature to move around or whatever is obviously false. I guess dwelling on such unknowns however is akin to saying humans were always meant to live in a tropical environment. The point is, for a modern person they have a choice of what to eat, and choose what is most logical and available. The addition of cooked or raw carbs complicates that argument and of course could be argued as superior but it remains that one could get 60-80% fat in nature as indeed totally possible, where eating the reverse ratio in protein is possibly deadly.  Some references here to traditional peoples in relation to lean meats (not rabbit starvation) Have to view behind the advert unfortunately..

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 75
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk