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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 75

 I can't believe how many people go on and on and on with a particular diet looking and feeling horrible because someone else told them it was good for them. It boggles my mind. Instincto's message, in my view, is that YOU are the guru. If you tune in and listen to your own body, you have all that you need to make the right decisions for yourself. I really love that. With Iguana as an example (ok - so he can't prove anything just like the rest), at least it can open your mind to a way which can then be a new choice and perhaps will give someone pause when they eat up whatever someone ELSE is trying to feed them and perhaps ask the question if it wouldn't be better to trust themselves knowing that others seem to have done that a long time and come out ok.

Dorothy I think maybe your ability to see good in things is clouding your observations here or perhaps you haven't witnesses enough proselytizing to understand you are citing the exact opposite of how it is.  - or my impression anyway.
More than any other person/ideology is there such a large percentage of posts about someone doing something wrong or harmful. Often the victim is a new member who never has a single other post or someone looking to tweak a single part of their diet in witch they have no interest in instincto. There is difference between making someone question their modern WOE and downright making a claim that what they are doing is incorrect. If people are not speaking from their own experience and want to push one thing over another thing don't you think it requires some kind of evidence? As I said/meant...many other people have seemingly good results and are not even aloud to have their say whatsoever on this forum..even with evidence. According to instincto..all of those WOEs are not different paths to success as you say but to disease of some sort, going against nature an' all.
I don't know what you mean about how others equally can't prove things. I guess it depends on what you mean by proof. Some basic stuff is good enough for me personally. It would be nice to have general standards and measurements we could all agree on but my expectation for evidence in this case is pretty lax. If people can simply provide documentation or even anecdotes about people on past diets and/or medical documents..doesn't sound like a whole lot to ask.  Of course its not really proof either..but better than what we have presently: the same credibility any fruitarian/breatharian has over the internet which is some kind of idea which proves the reality rather than the reverse. The point was more that 0 others are aloud the luxury on this forum to claim anything as having superiority without evidence. Notice claims of "the Bear" Aajonus etc.. consistently get shot down no matter how many examples of people's 'cures'. Of course in the case of "The Bear", this is a perfect example longevity might not be the best case if their are examples of cancer et al..which is why when people arn't 100% forthcoming about their health that seemingly perfect ideas can shed poor light.
So I think you missed the purpose of those specific examples. Yes we should be grateful to have long term examples of people eating raw animal foods..for the issues you brought up, but should we also be grateful to have examples of people that have eaten only fruits for decades or claim to drink only water to gauge what is potentially healthful or don't we need other basic evaluations for such people independent of what our disputed ancestral knowledge says? Afterall, even if we have a dimensional window into the past that proves man ate nothing but meats or nothing but fruits..does this immediately change what kind of life spans, energy level, joy, physique etc..people today experience?
I suggest looking at some of the other threads in this sub-forum and notice how like on frutarian forums that even if the few instincto members mention that they are doing their own interpretation or experimenting with leaving out this or that - they are immediately ridiculed as if paleo man ever did such things etc...

The issue is pretty simple. notice how many posts in other non-instincto forums plug the instinco diet directly, ignoring the subject at hand as bogus or downright saying it is harmful based entirely on instincto principles and not on past experiences.
[in a health forum on liver and gallbladder flushing]

I don't know what's that kind of diet you describe, but it looks fancy to me. All I can say is "eat instincto" and you would be all right.

but also as you say about blindly following a diet iregardless of physical outcomes..the setting for that is perfect.

If someone already follows and idea that 1.) everything in nature is perfect (no to little disease) 2.) that this also applies to modern situations. then of course the solution is only to attempt to restore some balance in nature. Other than this in itself being an idea that is seen by some as naive, it raises the problem you suggest that one can believe they are doing everything absolutely correct..shunting all the things they should and following all the rules...yet be pushed up a wall with no other options inside that idea.


 No one is saying - do it like me or you are doing it wrong.

By the way, I’ve been thinking for a long time that I should once denounce this idea commonly expressed here : "experiment and see what works for you." Because it’s impossible to notice the long-term harmful effects of a stuff and certain foods such as coffee, beer or even some drugs can cause a short-term sensation of well-being while being particularly noxious in the long-term.


Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: October 05, 2011, 12:22:50 am »
if you have the space you might just snag a Olympic barbell and some plates.

My gym lowered its cost pretty low and I enjoy the roaming room..and being able to use a few random things here and there.

Eventually though a little garage by a beach with a barbell and pullup bar would pretty much do the trick for me.

General Discussion / Re: Hard Fat on Beef Heart
« on: October 04, 2011, 08:40:07 pm »
I'm kinda the same. I eat it, but not a huge fan. generally tongue and heart there will be some wasted fat and other tissue, maybe like 10-15% of weight?

Hot Topics / Re: Pop Science for Pop supplements
« on: October 04, 2011, 08:34:59 pm »
yeah its confusing. I think its whether they think it works for whichever goal or condition so some things appear more than once. I think alot of this stuff is likely nonsense, but its interesting how many of which they actually agree.

I do believe some supplemental things are potentially beneficial, particularly for people that will not change their diet, and some on healthy diets that might need tweaks here and there.

KD: For me, it suffices (and is reassuring) to know that there are some long-term raw food dieters not DAMAGED by their raw food diet  ;D and not LESS healthy than standard western dieters.

ok. I'm just curious if you can list what criteria you are using to say even that. I assume you have met at meetups etc..?

You may be missing the point. On any health forum you can find people claiming the practice they have been doing is the best, the utmost healthy or the most efficient at this or that. This seems to be OK, or at least normal I guess. Then you have people that not only claim that this diet has provided THEM with health, but that regularly cite every other approach is actually unhealthy or harmful. Do you think this is ok? Without actual evidence it is ok to do this even though every possible WOE has such examples of being alive and typing? Not to mention many of  those examples are stricken from participating that way (due often to pressing over facts or evidence, even when they have it) and others exempt from any other standards or observations of what might be considered healthy?

Can't you see how there is massive contradictions with this way of thinking - that as long as people are not-unwell (which to me also requires proof, I've met plenty standard dieters healthier than raw foodists - due to  whatever factors) this makes it not only healthy but the absolute most healthy thing for everyone in every situation? As much so that when people are ill and looking for specific things they can do that this approach is literally given as the best solution? There must be some very specific thing, some exact experienced factor which makes it healthier or more healing than other options that have longevity - as per the few examples chosen - that makes it valid to discredit others? (which is different than citing satisfaction with ones own choices, or claiming to choose an OK approach)

It is apparently not ok for people to cite fruitarians or Aajonus or Art De Vany or any other person or gurus long term successes as even talking points in arguments on this forum..never-mind blanketly criticize any number of diets on raw paleo forum as being incorrect for not specifically following those diets.

Given your own..and the only other semi-member who qualifies as instincto but also questions some basic instincto tenets..and the fact that there seems to be no single other member since inception who has transitioned to pure instincto..It would seem people could be educated more on instinctos merits if there were at the very least examples of dieters once on other diets (raw paleo, primal, ZC etc...) to compare. That is, if not people actually making attempts to show and share their personal results..which is really what health forums are about, not about saying this or that is right indifferent to supplying or acknowledging evidence.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: October 04, 2011, 06:17:12 am »
spidermans till ~ failure
42" box jump x 10

deadlift 225lb x 5, 275lb x 3, 295lb x 1
dead hang pull ups - 15
zercher squat 155lb x 10
chins (close) 12
bicep curls with strait bar 90lbs x 8
thrusters (front squat to push press) - @ 90lb x 10
split rope curls from the floor, 85# plates x 7


no stops other than some breaks in between the deads

I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial.  ;)   

What is the standard here for 'perfectly proven' assuming this means over those other WOE's (often never even practiced)

Has Dr. Fred bisici 80 years old and 40+ years raw vegan perfectly proven the efficacy of a raw vegan diet low in fruit sugar?
Raw Life Video Show Episode #20 Fred Bisci Speaks about different diets

Can we assume Art De Vany has perfectly proven that people can eat cooked foods everyday as long as they are paleo and have seemingly excellent health into their 70's and 80's?

The New Evolution Diet - Episode 2

has Aajonus perfectly proven after 40 years that diets high in raw dairy are necessary for modern health?

I'm sure many will agree very much that people who live over 100 prove that cooked foods in general are healthy.

I'm guessing you think the answer is no to these in therms of PROOF, so I'm curious what the EXACT difference is without references to what theories say is good or bad in diet.

In other words, what are the vital statics, or other information used as  comparisons to raw paleo or primal dieters, raw vegans or standards dieters - of which there are some examples in the 40+ year range. Without citing the theoretical possibilities of the diet..what are the concrete measurable comparisons to another persons health both in long term and with greatest results in fixing problems in short term?

further clarifying:

If someone who eats raw dairy or raw vegan or cooked foods and is seemingly healthy for decades and can claim superior health on online forums, how does one prove without citing the theoretical tenants (what is good or bad to eat) of what the dieter believes..that the instincto dieter is physically/emotionally etc.. more healthy?

are people willing to put up blood work or other vitals, or paranoias aside about mainstream testing methods, at least simple images of their teeth, skin, hair, eyes etc.. for examination to gauge vs cooked fooders or other raw gurus?

can a new member join the forum and claim eating instincto for 50 years and also perfectly prove something? What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...

Journals / Re: Lifestyles of The Raw and Paleo
« on: October 01, 2011, 06:39:45 am »
on a related note, I just ordered some interesting gear from a raw vegan site. Some kind of bamboo charcoal purifying sack - thats supposed to top an air cleaner in every way, a fermented kelp chlorella product, and some kind of Polynesian nuts (havn't really been doing any nuts the last 2 years). This week I've dipped into my 2 month plus sheep liver, ate a whole beef heart, some local husk cherries - which are an awesome low-sugar fruit, a lb of liver, some sauerkraut and kim chi.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: October 01, 2011, 05:39:23 am »
did a very gym-y workout..only had 20 minutes or so before I had to head out

- lots of bear much as I could do, up, back side and side
- bench!
95x5, 5, 195 x 5, 245 x 5

- wide chest flies (machine): 205, 5 x 225, 1 x 240
- weighted dips [60 lbs]: 9, rest for a few sec then  x 5

- [front squat @ 90lb x 10 + skullcrusher @ 50lb x 10 ] x 2
- triceps pulldown

actually not too shabby considering I havn't done bench once in 4 months

Journals / Re: Lifestyles of The Raw and Paleo
« on: October 01, 2011, 05:36:23 am »
Hey KD,

Congratulations on finding your way. Not only do you look fabulous, but your intelligence and common sense in your writing shines through.

Thank you for sharing the pictures and your thoughts.

Thanks for the shout out Dorothy.

I sure have alot of thoughts.

but I know for sure that for whatever physical transformations I've gone through, my mental clarity and genuine peacefulness (usually despite whatever external crap) is at its height as I near entering my 7th year messing around with raw food. This is certainly worth noting because at many times in that period it was as far below normal as it gets. I try not to play pop-psychology, but quite often I find myself wondering which kind of programs seem to match up with which kind of mumbo jumbo.

I'm grateful we have you and an increasing amount of members like you that share new information and ask good questions.

I guess I assume people are on a forum because they have some mix of doubts (which we all should have) or curiosity about something, that they want to tweak and experiment and discover new information - whether things are working fantastic or not - and have a kind of self-honesty about those things. That kind of curiosity to me seems innately "paleo",  otherwise we wouldn't have got very far. Or perhaps that is hows we got addicted to all kinds of shiny and toxic crap! heh heh

Primal Diet / Re: Thin/Runny Honey Batch (Honey Pacifica)
« on: October 01, 2011, 05:24:33 am »

If you live in NYC and want a large selection of comb honey, there is a store in Brooklyn, on Atlantic Ave, next to I believe Union street or is it Carol? Anyways, on Atlantic Ave, not far from Fulton St. and the Manhattan Bridge. It's called Oriental imports I believe, it's right across the street from another store called Sahadis.

Oriental imports is amazing and they have tons of varieties of comb honey.

Hey I know that spot!

Why would comb honey be heated?  That's just more work.

I don't know the answer, but think of pasteurizing juices and stuff. Has cost and time involved there too. I assume if they do heat it, its shelf time with comb, but honey seems to have a decent shelf time as is. I generally wouldn't buy comb from the store, only keepers who specifically say they just cut it and put it in the package, to be 'safe'.

Journals / Re: Lifestyles of The Raw and Paleo
« on: September 29, 2011, 08:34:58 am »
Thanks KD. It's good to know that others went through a similar stage on this diet, too. I'll continue to work out a diet that focuses on my well-being and long-term sustainability while not trying to worry about my weight too much.

I noticed that I felt best on this diet when I first began, when I was transitioning from a vegetarian to a RAF diet. At this time I was still getting a lot of vegetables (cooked and raw) and then just a little bit of meat. Then I began the mistake of experimenting with RZC and wasn't able to stick it out. Now I find myself unable to justify eating a lot of vegetables or carbohydrates because of a mental stigma I've created in my mind. The idea of a balanced diet of all foods raw and cooked seems most pleasing to the mind, too. Especially now that it is getting colder, I wouldn't mind some a warm bowl of something to warm my bones.

I often see people saying they are embarking on a 'ZC' diet and I really don't know why..or what benefits they think they will get that won't come from eating a minimal to moderate range of carb foods, those that contain nutrients which even in an all wild meat diet might not be present in domestic ruminants muscle or even organs. Its a genuine curiosity of what those intentional reasons are. I don't think its 'bad' and would suspect that especially for short term it would be ok or good in comparison to alot of other diets. I can see people who can't seem to digest much else, I just don't get the thought process when you hear people who post that are already eating a range of raw and presumably cooked foods too. eating a raw diet (particularly 100%) is hard enough..socially, transitions, detox etc...without putting up unnecessary roadblocks unless there is some very pressing reason for not allowing for a gentle transition and functional WOE. Certainly warm bones beats pure diet, being able to go outside, hang out with your friends and to feel good about yourself beats pure diet...
I don't know or care if we would classify as 'carnivores' or not depending on how much meat and how little plants we are supposed to eat but I personally don't think carbohydrates or vegetables are toxic in the ways in which they are described here sometimes, and the degree to whether cooked foods are toxic is extremely relative to me in comparison to what else someone is eating. I mention that alot it seems.  
Its tough for me because on one hand I believe The Weston Price folks and 'real food' types overestimate the ability of that WOE to clean out and buffer toxins or do serious repair. Of course some people have lived more or less healthfully without medicine to 100 eating toast in bacon fat too. The key there likely is the joy in their lives, the purity of their environment (at least for a chunk of their development) and usually NOT doing whatever other factors. For our generation, Hoping to live that way is somewhat wishful thinking now with people today probably not being able to get away with bad foods so easily along with our genetic and environment inheritance as well as previous worse habits during most peoples early development. Folk like Daniel Vitalis and some other people I know of seem to in turn straddle that zone where my thoughts are and the ancestral cooked diet 'extreme'. When it comes down to it between a all raw diet and those folks...I think most people should not only be healthy eating in that range..but should also be able to reverse health problems that many raw food diets (even those including animal foods) might not.
I'm definitely way closer on the spectrum of thinking that raw foods - including animal foods can be pretty important to restoring health. The idea that our cooked paleolithic ancestors were toxic walking death however: pretty weak. I think most people on this forum can agree to that. Maybe where I disagree with some is that while I think alot of amazing things can be done with raw food, this idea that people eating a raw food diet late in life are going to transform and live -naturally- forever and much more healthfully than folks hundreds or thousands of years ago I think is sorely mistaken. In fact the only way I think this IS possible is if one takes in to account human technologies (not medicine and technology per se) but things like luxury and leisure, joy, spirituality etc..which seem to go a long with way in extending life say in pre modern Japan or something. This combined with some inteillgence about diet which shifts and changes with new knowledge that becomes available..whether its eating more fats or less meats or more of this or that miconutrient than we typically would because of depled soil excess of other heavy metals or any other factors.
There is no consensus really on health or nutrition. There is basically universal ignorance as to what foods and processes actually can help a modern person out of poor health and really only a range in credible observations and trends. I look to nature to see what kind of things might be ok in that vacuum of which it was..not which things necessarily reverse some crazy modern dilemma. You have to actually look at people's bodies today to figure that out.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: September 29, 2011, 08:07:23 am »
Damn,'re making me work harder!

well, good.

Did "pyramid" sets...

yeah these are rough, physically and psychologically. I'll give it a try now that I have access to a bar again. might crap out by that second 6

Journals / Re: Lifestyles of The Raw and Paleo
« on: September 29, 2011, 07:56:16 am »

I solved my weight gain thing with:
- probiotics overdosing which made my gut solid
- deworming... got rid of my tape worms
- raw wild honey (I make lemonade)
- durian season is great, this month is durian season, durian every day.
Aajonus says being a bit overweight is a good thing., So I'm gunning for 140 lbs.


I noticed that I felt best on this diet when I first began, when I was transitioning from a vegetarian to a RAF diet.  

ok heres some of my opinions on that:
my understanding of Aajonus' thing is that he does think its healthier to be somewhat heavier than what he calls 'fashion thin' . This has to do with buffering modern toxins. Worth noting is he's speaking about modern people in a modern environment, not HGs who are clearly lean, muscled, and sinewy BF wise.. More importantly He recommends (to my understanding) that people gain and lose weight so that toxins fill the fat stores and can be burned off.  
Theoretically, this seems to be one reason for doing a ketogenic or at least a low-carb paleo its should yield the similar results over a period of time whereas without doing the primal eating tons of honey, carby dairy.. it is likely not going to happen just eating fruit and meats if they are raw. cooked 'paleo' with starchy tubers might be different.
He says something about fatter people being generally happier and when they actually do lose weight that often they end up looking better than skinny people their same age...or something which seems empirically accurate to me. This agitation/unhappiness in skinny people he attributes to all kinds of toxic crap, but also carby diets, fermentation, blood sugar stuff etc... as well as lack of nutrition. Eating comparatively excess [raw] nutrition and/or staying away from toxic food doesn't necessarily address such things even in comparison to some healthy cooked diets that don't have the fermentation, blood sugar problems, can build adipose> etc....

I don't doubt that part of the issue for people is lack of proper bacteria..or even preexisting parasites that a huge % of the population probably does have that are indeed no good. Only a s system that is healthy is relatively immune to most parasites IMO and otherwise its not a great situation. There might be some kind of better transition or precautionary mesures or protocols  before eating heavy raw meats for people with compromised systems
A bigger reason I think...a good deal of it... is what Lex and others report..that when eating fats it can take years to properly transition to that kind of fuel...never mind the actual repair which takes precedence over cosmetic stuff. That or the body isn't 'programmed' to know the most efficient way to remove modern toxins, or unfortunately the body might 'know' on some level that it needs to but its not going to have that appetite or make use out of raw foods to always make storing fat happen.  This is where it gets into problems that AV touches on with damaging your organs or so forth when 'detoxing'..while actually eating raw, if there is no fat to store it so toxins coming out can be more damaging than ones going in.
With RAW carbs often people are not digesting them properly, absorbing the nutrition, or they just feed fungus and cause all kinds of they can't build healthy tissue at all never mind add fat or muscle. Look at the range of people in the real world and in the raw food world as a whole you are going to see certain people doing at least seemingly ok eating all kinds of diets and some people doing way better with different amounts and types of plant foods, fats etc... Its unfortunate that generally people that have more build up of crap are gong to have those poor conditions like candida..that will inevitably make high sugar diets not workable regardless of what the natural human diet is.  Its super ironic then that the people close to nature -presumably healthier -  are going to have less problems with raw sugary carbs and yet these people even in tropical areas eat a huge majority of cooked and starchy carb foods. Also that people that have the worst extreme problems are often seen as exceptions that needing to go on low carb approaches. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense... unless one is saying that for relatively healthy people it doesn't matter as much, which I would agree but this doesn't say much about what diet our natural diet is.

Hot Topics / Pop Science for Pop supplements
« on: September 28, 2011, 07:26:37 am »

Visual graph with links to various studies.

Journals / Re: Lifestyles of The Raw and Paleo
« on: September 28, 2011, 07:10:02 am »

I gotta' know: how did you go from a scrawny fruitarian to your present state? I find that (although I've just begun this diet in May and have been bouncing around without any stability) I can't seem to put on weight. I think I've lost more weight on a RAF diet than on a vegan diet.

Was it the food that sparked an increase in energy which you used productively to exercise and build your body? Or, did the muscle and bulk build up from the foods that your provided your body?

Could you describe this process of transition for you and some insight as to how I might achieve similar results?

When I first began eating RAF... which was years before I joined here I dropped down super low in weight.

It was awful

I don't want to be responsible for telling people that if they are in some slump that is just detox or tranition..that is all the rage on low fat fruit sites or whatever.

Unfortunately I believe there is some truth to it, and even when I settled on my current diet I really did not do good or feel good.

As for the muscle thing, if you ever come across a muscled assured these people had muscle prior to being on that diet. I more or less have been at periods having 0 muscle in the last 6 years or so..being at rediculously low weights 3-4 separate times. At the same time, i've been working out for 12 years (not super seriously...but still) so that is a factor that I can't attribute entirely to diet or my current know? theres some degree of muscle memory..or something I am sure...

Of course personally I believe the way that I eat is the smartest way for me to eat...for performance and health based on my prior experiences and assment of other people that I respect..either for their own experiences or the research they present. I have to assume that at least for where I am at..that this intake has served me well. Perhaps it will change. There are particulars in other places like "what foods are you eating" threads etc...

I generally wouldn't eat anything to aid my physique or performance if I thought it was bad for i certainly don't take any kind of supplements other than fermented fish oil (just recently) and some D3 (last winter and likely this winter). I have found eating some cooked vegetables and animal foods seem to have at least a cosmetic effect in this way, but its not super often that I'll eat those at least for these reasons.

The crappy answer is: time. I tend to agree with AV that 1.) being underweight is not good and 2.) that inability to put on weight is a poor sign of health and not a positive one..that it takes time to assess and resolve underlying things before people fill out..particulary on an all raw diet. You have these folks that say..oh I can eat all these carbs and not gain its only SAD diets or something where that is bad, but the thing are supposed to gain weight doing that, thats likely how our ancetors put on weight for the winters.

so if you are on a carb based diet I would suggest eating more starchy and assimilatable carbs..I don't know a bunch about that but I know for most people that eating fruits and meats will not pack on lbs. Most fruitarians that arn't anorexic eat bagels and shit and this is from eye-obserations. Part of this I believe is those diets that do not contain proper ammounts of fats or create intinsic body fat that can be burned - do not actually facilitate moving crap out of the body. There are other factors but this isnt' my approach to speak much more about.

on a fat based diet, you could try eating more carbs...which likely won't work, or eating a very diverse diet, including a variety of fat sources. Of course I'd be remiss or paleo-PC to not say that I find dairy fat (not milk) to work alot better than ONLY suet, marrow etc..that I can only get frozen. Of course like cooked-foods one could say that one puts weight on due to some toxcitiy or something, but i've come across so many raw foodists that now eat cooked foods to know that even if true this really doesn't matter. Having a sustainable diet that allows for that level of healing over time in addition to getting tons of sleep, rest and emotional support should work better than eating a random assortment of "non-toxic" food.. which very well might also be toxic.


There was no food that sparked energy..I think in my other journal I mentioned about feeling shitty and working out anyway. If you have ever been seriously depressed..maybe you can understand how that kind of thing perpetuates and flows into the positive.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: September 28, 2011, 06:29:11 am »
even though yesterdays workout destroyed my triceps..I decided to sign back up after work today at my 'globo-gym' and get back at the heavy lifts

Warmup: Samson stretches, stuttered bodyweight squats, latteral jumps

42" box jumps x 10
deadlift @ 225 x 10
zercher squat @ 155 x 10
overhead squat @ 85 - fizzled - 3 shitty ones maybe
overhead press @ 85 x 15
seated row (pully) 225 lbs x 5
12 close grip pullups
pully rope curls from the floor @ 100 lbs x 5
5 wide pullups

no rests

foam roll stretching


I took it easy on weight but my strength has clearly gone down in the last few months of doing more bodyweight and non powerliting exercise. Endurance and muscular endurance seemed to be going up for awhile... but seems to have gone down with increasing summer fruits and attemps at eating starchy carbs a few times a month. i.e. carb cycling...not that I ever ate enough that would have even theoretically made much of a difference.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: September 27, 2011, 12:13:42 pm »

one arm thrusters (front squat to overhead push press) - each arm - 41 lbs
skullcrusher - 41 lbs
dips - deep between chairs

3 rds, finishin with another round of burpees

100 burpees
15 thrusters each
30 skullcrusher
30 dips

didn't record - or make great time.

check out this maniac:

The internet is super humbling when it comes to sizing up ones fitness. On a good day I might be able to get 50 in that time. doing 30 in a row to start this workout almost did me in.

these simple fast paced workouts are killing me lately. out of shape I guess.

mostly been doing this

Primal Diet / Re: Thin/Runny Honey Batch (Honey Pacifica)
« on: September 26, 2011, 08:18:20 pm »
Quite possible, at any rate it's academic because the vids show how you can extract the honey without using heat and I doubt that every honey seller that claims their honey is unheated actually heats it. I suspect that most probably use heated decapping knifes, but that doesn't seem like it would have a big impact, and it does seem to be true that some don't use centrifuges that are alleged to mildly heat the honey. The first video shows that it's possible to use an unheated decapping scraper and thus not have any heating at all besides maybe a teensy bit of heating when the extractor spins the combs around.

I have found that standard unheated honey increases my dandruff and dry skin, but fermented raw honey has the opposite effect. Eating fermented raw honey has been the most effective thing I've tried for reducing dandruff, better than pine tar shampoo, zinc shampoo, coconut oil and other external treatments. I suspect that the microbiota in the honey kill dandruff-causing yeast, but it's just a guess.

The vids show how.

Correct, it looks like most beekeepers for raw brands may use an extractor. Plus, hives may be warmer than room temperature and the honey may thus be more liquid when it's originally extracted than after it's been sitting in a jar for a while and it may also crystallize in the jar, further thickening it. I've noticed that in videos showing hunter gatherers and chimps getting honey and honeycomb from hives and eating it, that the honey is rather liquid in the wild hive. It tends to drip from the combs as HGs eat it and it gets their hands messy. It also is liquid enough so that chimps can dip sticks into it and the honey coats the sticks with a liquid film that they lick off.

welll in fairness, I don't think those vids posted till your edit which was after I responded, but since the first seems to be a non-chemistry-grade centrifuge (uses centrifugal force to extract honey) and the other uses a heated knife I think its safe to stay its not an academic observation. I'd still say that unless a product can claim it is never heated (which some do) then even the mentions of 'cold-packing' and such might not be enough if one wants really pure honey. I wasn't saying that 'unheated' labeling is to be questioned per se..only that the other company you posted wasn't seemingly being honest with its terminology.

I hardley even eat honey so it might seem like fretting over nothing, but just for the sake of accuracy...just like steaming foods or whatever...the stock 'raw' answer has to do with whether one would put their hand in the steaming pot. I personally would not want to grab hold of that heating knife. Whether it is 100% necessary to use or one can crank the extractor at low speeds isn't the issue..its whether these specific companies are doing it or not. If a company is not even trying to call their product 'unheated' then the odds are it is not. and they use heat whenever they can for the highest temps they can get away with. What I said was I wasn't sure exactly how they were employing no heat at all, in the case of Honey Pacifica or Really Raw etc...and do it profitably, not wondering how  one could get some honey out of the comb...

when honey gets above room temps..its definitely really liquidy and gooey. They can heat the rooms and such as well. Granted the temps might not be damaging, but again if they are not specifying 'unheated'..and just going by 109 deg as 'raw' its fair game to do any number of things.

Theres been a few people mentioning that even non-fermented honeys work great for their candida. It could be that fermented or not..maybe it does not to ferment in the digest track like fresh fruits and the beneficial properties absorbed more efficiently. Of course like anything, fermenting the food beforehand should make it even more digestible and assimilable and perhaps bacterial that can break down internal crap, so that seems like something worth trying for some.

General Discussion / Re: The coconut
« on: September 26, 2011, 07:54:13 pm »
how much is enough? did you have the pecans and raisins waiting to tell you? the durian?

paleo man knew nothing about fats and carbs

or how to open jars

Now you are talking out of your rear. Or maybe I misinterpret?

Coconut butter is not processed in the way that many people think about processed foods. Its whole coconut that has the laxative liquid mechanically removed through cold pressing. It contains all the elements of a raw coconut without the laxative enzymes. Its not much different from drying or aging meat to make it more easily digestible.

I repeat, the results are freaking amazing, my health and vitality are at an alltime high and I have the pictures, blood work, and athletic vitality to prove it. I care not for any purist philosophical ideals expoused here, in regards to coconut butter , I Use my sense of well being to guild my decisions now, and I instinctively feel that eatting jars of coconut butter is fine. Personally speaking

was 100% sarcasm. I tried to modify it after the more 'serious' conversation started..but the edit is well under 24 hrs now it seems.

of course not only did ancient peoples know about how such things worked in their bodies, but also had huge limitations in terms of what types of things were available which led to making the best use of those things. Being far more natural than ranges/proportions of foods that would not exist.

Obviously the OP just wanted a sign off on whether it was ok to eat as a staple food, not philosophy as you say.

General Discussion / Re: The coconut
« on: September 26, 2011, 12:33:02 pm »
Good post KD.

eating nearly all tallow and ground animal parts..thats certainly processing. yet 99.9% of the all raw unprocessed diets seem to have less results

I think Lex had good results because he stuck with his diet for long periods of time so his body could adapt, not changing on a whim, and also because of the variety of organs in the diet. I don't necessarily think he'd get worse results eating whole organs, meat etc in the right proportions if that were convenient to do (which it can't be in this day and age really)

heh, yeah in most cases...there isn't going to be problems with eating only whole foods, except if it includes alot of foods that generally can't be assimilated well raw or there are other compromised issues. So youre right its more an issue of what takes most importance, not necessarily an issue of the processing being beneficial per se.  The mindset that one is definitively getting everything they need from what will inevitably be a modernized limited sampling of the nutrients to those found in nature - and dismissing other sources is another thing. I personally believe some people might in fact need those nutrients and minerals from those 'fractured' or processing of foods, even if our ancestors did not, but thats somewhat less important to what I was saying. Although its worth keeping in mind that all known humans on the timeline process some type of food...and usually quite a bit, so in the least some processes are clearly more disease forming than others and some diets no matter how raw or whole are going to be ineffective if they don't deliver the right nutrition for the current state of health.

So what I was saying was that you can find countless people over the internet claiming their raw whole foods diet is the natural human diet and all that is needed for a modern person - blasting any type of processing as unhealthy - and yet be presenting a diet that is not only ineffective but likely unnatural itself in its types and groupings of foods.

Primal Diet / Re: Thin/Runny Honey Batch (Honey Pacifica)
« on: September 26, 2011, 11:53:39 am »
Yeah, I'm skeptical about that one too, though they do say "While cold processing the raw honey by hand is time consuming, it ensures honey’s natural goodness is included in every bottle.  We would not have it any other way and neither should you!"

right, they say numerous times that they do not heat it for a particular process...but then they mention numerous times about not heating past X etc...that is typical shady type wording people generally should look for. It could be that they do not use heat at all getting their honey from comb to bottle..but doubtful.


Surely you'll agree that it's also more than just pure sugar. Whatever the reason, I fare a lot better when eating raw fermented honey than refined cane sugar, conventional heated honey, mildly heated centrifuged honey, or supposedly truly unheated honey that isn't fermented, with unheated honey being second best (least worst) among those options for me.

sorry, what I meant is the comb is just the purest form of honey, but when you get it in its raw form its not necessarily going to work magic and not create symptoms just because it is raw. If you don't have problems with one honey but had problems with others or honeycomb..that they all are sugar and not necessarily a factor of it being raw, not saying that honey is just sugar, without minerals, enzymes and such. Its true that some are very sensitive to whether a honey is truly unheated or not so that wasn't what I was saying either.

certainly Aajonus makes claims that truly unheated honey does not raise insulin? or something similar, but to my knowledge anything that is sweet (other then stevia I believe) is food for fungus and yeast etc..


the straining doesn't necessarily imply heating I guess, what I was saying was I don't even know how they get it into a jar, nevermind through a strainer at 65-70 F or so...
I think when i've had the Really Raw brand in the past...I can't pour it already removed at room temp...and being in a comb...

Now that I think of it, the guy that sells me dark almost black honeycomb has liquid clean honey in a jar that he sells as raw. he only sells in the winter but I'll ask him.

Primal Diet / Re: Thin/Runny Honey Batch (Honey Pacifica)
« on: September 26, 2011, 10:25:28 am »
True, and I'm well aware of the heat from centrifuging honey, but even Aajonus acknowledges that some non-comb honeys can be unheated and uncentrifuged and he personally recommends some of them (such as Really Raw), and truly raw honey can also apparently be liquidy. Why else would the same company sell both liquidy and thick honeys that they claim are both unheated (such as with Heavenly Organics)? Also, thickness doesn't guarantee total rawness, as perhaps you'll agree. I've tried several comb honeys and found that I fared better on raw fermented honey (I'm talking thick honey, not mead, which is an alcoholic beverage), so for me the fermentation aspect seems to be beneficial. Most of the comb honeys I tried were sickeningly sweet and basically inedible for me. Those tend to be light and clear and very liquidy. The best comb honey I tried had some of the darker color that Tyler talks about and was thicker and looked more like what one would expect a honeycomb in the wild to look like, but it was rather expensive and I haven't seen a fermented version of comb honey.

Here is an example of a liquidy honey that the maker claims is unheated:

They also sell a very thick, dense, creamy unheated honey.

Here's a honey brand I haven't tried whose seller claims their liquid honey is cold processed by hand:

Yeah I wasn't trying to say definitively that liquid = not raw, only that most honeys are indeed heated. I'm not an expert but read betwen the lines on that last one.

"Never heat pasteurized (flash heated to 145 to 160 degF)."

"Always preserve raw honey’s healthful antioxidants, important enzymes, vitamins, anti-microbial constituents, pollen and other beneficial attributes by never heating crystallized above 109 degF for our customers that prefer liquid honey year round."


honeycomb is still sugar..nothing magical about it. Never tried the fermented stuff.

personally I can't figure out how one would even get liquid honey into a jar out of a comb, obviously its strained in some way if it doesn't have chunks of stuff in it and unless it says specifically I can only guess they are using heat.

General Discussion / Re: The coconut
« on: September 26, 2011, 10:09:49 am »

I believe alot of the pro-cooking folks are correct in a sense, with many of the advancements of humans perpetuating differnt developments that would have not happened without sequential mastery of such things. On the physical level some of these were not perhaps great, but had certain necessities and results.

Now we have the luxury to assess which things yield negative or positive results, or what tools we can use to reverse certain problems created by having so many processes, chemicals etc..

Of couse meats and fruits tend not to need any processing (some argue meat does but whatever) but if people are to need other nutients or fuel sources from other things found in nature - because they are not comming form a place of health or a variety of other reasons-  often these have to be processed. Juice, fermentation, or cooking of herbs/vegetables to juicing,fermentation, processing of coconuts.

coconut oil/butter: I'm not a big fan of it personally, but the idea as I see it is to eat more than one would be able to get in nature. More calories of fat from coconuts... as fat from animals is sometimes hard to come by and/or provide additional concentrated nutrients. Perhaps the people who lived in the tropics had the time and metabolism and existing health to eat a high saturated fat diet that is high in carbs, but most people do not, so for them eating some non-100% ideal food that works as a fat is better than eating some non-ideal diet that is unprocessed.

Common sense says avoiding everything potentially harmful would be the best move..but not eating one thing means inevitably eating something else which also has its own consequences. Even if one can prove a certain kind of process is bad through some kind of isolated experiement or trends there is always going to be someone using that process to some effect that they find positive. Eating nearly all tallow and ground animal parts..thats certainly processing. yet 99.9% of the all raw unprocessed diets seem to have less results. Obviously certain things are more important than others. go figure

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 75
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk