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.

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.

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.

Best,
Tim Footdale
Honey Pacifica

Sweet.

---

Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn't Honey : Ultra-filtering Removes Pollen, Hides Honey Origins by Andrew Schneider | Nov 07, 2011
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/hed-high-everything-diet-using-raw-paleo-food-high-metabolism-a-good-thing/msg42543/#msg42543

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.

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.

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.

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?

Löwenherz

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.

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) http://www.mercola.com/article/diet/caveman_cuisine.htm. Have to view behind the advert unfortunately..