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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 75
351
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Don't eat carbs before workout its all bullshit
« on: May 25, 2011, 09:25:00 pm »
I'm not really in a position to defend that a LC,VLC,or ZC diet will be the best for say a professional basketball player, I just don't really see a convincing argument for why it wouldn't be other just the general challenges of converting and staying on such a diet. Being a certain required size I imagine would be more of an issue.

Quote from: HIT_it_RAW on May 25, 2011, 09:06:38 pm
I agree larger glycogen store can be a benefit. But actually its the other way round.

This my impression based on what i've read that its basically the reverse. There just happens to be a shortage of people doing endurance activities in the present on such a diet, but one can just extrapolate from traditional peoples that these things are not an issue for activities that would have required both. Now for really building serious strength and mass or amazing feats of modern athletics I can only guess carbs and 'neolithic' foods in particular are a huge bonus, and likely one of the reasons they 'caught on'. People have to decide for themselves what is most natural activity or goal, but surely if one has those goals they should pick what works.

I havn't had issues with either going anywhere but up, but of course there is always room for improvement or doing something differently if needed. My strength always goes up in some increment and the other late night I was forced to run through a bad neighborhood home from a bus stop over one mile, ran full speed and generally the only running I do is a 500 k warmup run every so often at cf and my box jumps, metacon stuff.


352
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: May 25, 2011, 06:31:44 am »
warmup
spiderman strech, under the hurdles, spiderman, pvc strech. double dutch with the heavy rope about 2 mins

here is what I tried:

- power clean 115 x 7
- deficit dead-lift (35 plates instead of 45) - 235 x 7
- chin ups x 15
- split rope pully curl (from floor) max plates + 5 lbs = 100 lbs x 8
- perpetual rope pulldown machine (best machine ever) 2 minutes max level
- press 90 x 10
- front squat 90 x 15
- calf raise 295 x 15

didn't time it but I'm used to the 20-30 min CF stuff with absolutely no breaks. I estimate 10-13 mins

heres an old workout
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/exercisebodybuilding/today%27s-workout/msg50535/?topicseen#msg50535

fairly intense hehe.

353
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 25, 2011, 02:20:43 am »
ah the Bill Clintons of the paleo world.

ok then in closing, anyone can see that there is no need to compare which diets are 'least plaeo' to say that the wai diet as described by its gurus and main practitioners is not a paleo diet whatsoever and furthermore that the definitions given to establish what is 'paleo' basically have nothing to do with what is healthy or natural. In addition the 'paleo version' of wai theorized by people on RPF and practiced by no known modern or ancient person (other than potential AV tribe) is not a diet people of the paleolithic would have eaten. It is also not a suitable diet long term for optimal health and since people will inevitably be encouraged or desperate to add other animal foods or do other modifications the diet is not a 'paleo diet' itself because a true plaeo diet, a true healthy diet, would be a diet that one could raise generations of people following without modification to its priciples.


Quote from: goodsamaritan on May 25, 2011, 02:10:57 am

*** Not eating sea food is bad for my health FYI.  There is something in the sea food that really rocks.  Sea food is more wild than any beef source I have right now.


being on the east coast of the US I also like seafood and fruit

354
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 25, 2011, 01:58:06 am »
Quote from: KD on May 25, 2011, 01:11:05 am
while neglecting all ruminant meats and fats. Would your health improve going back to a wai diet or not?

355
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 25, 2011, 01:44:58 am »
Quote from: goodsamaritan on May 25, 2011, 01:18:42 am
The way I see it is you and Phil are riled up because some of these Wai dieters got into a refined sugar craze.... I think they are idiots too!

This isn't at all my opinion. I've stated quite a few things that you never even addressed. The sugar was one issue. now Ive turned and already said if the diet only contained seafood and fruit and no 'neolithic food' it is unsustainable, which was dodged as with all the other points because there is no answer only that there is a incredible bias/blind-spot to these issues of common sense. Generally it looks bad to promote things you do not believe are optimal or sound decision making.

Quote from: KD on May 25, 2011, 01:11:05 am
?

I'm not talking about environmental sustainability. I'm talking about living in optimal health while neglecting all ruminant meats and fats. Would your health improve going back to a wai diet or not? would paleo ancestors do better just eating seafoods and fruits to justify it being labeled a diet of the paleolithic? why pussy-foot around this stuff? Its a simple point. If a diet is seen as not healthy long term, how is it a paleo diet?

this is minor qubbling? that a diet is be proposed as a paleolithic option on a health forum that is anchored in potentially unhealthy concepts and of which no one sees as a long term solution or prefered over what they are currently doing - unlike adherents to ZC, primal, instincto etc... It isn't a matter of which is the worst offender. its that on top of the 'minor exceptions' of neolithic and modern processes (which are really ARE staples of wai) the principles of the diet are not those of a healthy 'paleo' diet and are not healthy.

356
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 25, 2011, 01:11:05 am »
?

I'm not talking about environmental sustainability. I'm talking about living in optimal health while neglecting all ruminant meats and fats. Would your health improve going back to a wai diet or not? would paleo ancestors do better just eating seafoods and fruits to justify it being labeled a diet of the paleolithic? why pussy-foot around this stuff? Its a simple point. If a diet is seen as not healthy long term, how is it a paleo diet?

357
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 25, 2011, 01:00:49 am »
ok from my perspective the point is you are trying to rationalize the wai diet being a paleo diet when it does not meet your own definitions of being a paleo diet nevermind mine and others. First you said it has to do with what it leaves out, now you are saying if it is largely paleo foods it can contain neolithic foods which I assume would also include dairy in small quantities. Both you and GS either here or in your journals have already suggested that a 'wai diet' whether it is the official version (that includes processed and neolithic foods) or some unofficial 'paleo' version here of seafood and fruit that it is not sustainable long term as a diet. Its seems rather disingenuous to promote something as a 'paleo diet' if not only it is something that our ancestors could not permanently subsist on nor is it something people are showing to create health long term. Particulary if refined foods like oils are needed to balance the diet out.

 For this reason it doesn't seem to be nitpicking to suggest if someone really wanted to be accurate that it would be listed amongst 'other RVAF diets' or something similar which would include the others. Whether something like 'instincto' ends up with a product remotely similar to how our ancestors would have eaten I do not know..but at least it doesn't carry an extreme mixed message which what types of things or ok to fudge on with 'paleo' and which things are not.

Theres also a larger point that these definitions often attempt to discredit workable concepts while promoting others that are either unimportant or neglectful of whether the end product is a healthy diet at all, and this includes cordain et al.

358
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 25, 2011, 12:27:45 am »
how many grams or calories of table sugar is small enough to make it a condiment? 1000 kcal? 300 kcal?



http://www.waiworld.com/waitalk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2460&p=26611&hilit=+grams+of+sugar+#p26611

---

so it is ...that if the mainstay of a diet is meat (or sorta meat) and veg its fine to not only include but advocate non-paleo foods within a paleo diet. Also we can take away that ANY diet that excludes dairy foods, includes seafoods and fruits in whatever quantities and sort of limits grain foods is a paleo diet regardless of how much of that food is processed, refined, or resembles anything found in nature.

359
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 24, 2011, 11:46:50 pm »
What does this even mean? is there a general unfair percentage of wai dieters on this forum getting ostracized than dairy consumers?

You asked about processed and refined sugars and other modern foods prominence in the diet. If these aren't disqualifiers then the only focus comes down to which diet has dairy in it..and not what diets are actually healthful or how much the rest of the diet represents anything natural whatsoever. Seems glaringly obvious.

If you add up the story, wai diet being raw is no more a 'paleo diet' to a cooked meat dairy slathered diet. This is what people are suggesting. It's true that AV Primal Diet has very little bearing of how one would eat in nature but it has no pretense of that. As for Weston Price it involves cooking and other neolithic foods but it generally stays away from processed foods and is based on study of actual peoples in nature.

360
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 24, 2011, 10:46:35 pm »
I could care less about the politics of it, although if you asked me honestly if I thought wai being elevated over other diets (even non raw versions) as 'more paleo' reflects poorly on the site I would say yes.

My position is I'm open to something like refined sugar or dairy or bloodletting or any other relatively natural thing if it works for them and there are actually examples of such doing more good then harm. Unfortunately, ancient 'foods' or their derivations employed arbitrarily do not equal health and theres no points to be gained by neglecting just measurable inaccuracies regarding such.

On top of that...one doesn't even have to attack the diets effectiveness as either a healthy diet or transition diet to see that it does include a large portion of processed foods, modern foods, and some allowance to grain foods making it only similar to a 'paleo diet' described here in that it excludes dairy and vegetables(?) and includes some select non ruminant(?) animal products and attempts to eat much of these things raw.

Since this is mainly a paleo forum it makes sense that certain things are praised or excluded but the whole point is there is a double standard to what is considered possible avenues for health considering all RVAF diets are theoretically represented on the site.

When I think of Primal Blueprint folks cooking ruminant meat topped with Crème fraiche and some 'neolithic' vegetables I don't think immediately that what these people are eating is some bastardization of a natural way of eating. I do think this when people are eating trail mix and lean white meat and fruit oil calling this a 'paleo diet'. With something like Wai or fruitarianism I also instantly have that impression that these are concepts created by modern people that are judging things not by real world information. Even if one could prove that all of these things were actually eaten by humans they would still be operating under an  ideology invented by humans excluding likely necessary intrinsic and therapeutic food sources.

People get stung up on details like how many years back a human might have gone from ingesting ounces of milk on occasion to raising animals for dairy or to when they used fire to cook them. I'm still trying to figure out how I can get a mango, jackfruit, or avocado seed down my throat and out my digestive tract, not that I would bother to call these things 'non paleo' or unhealthy.

---

I can't find the original sources of people i knew doing wai as its on a forum where when people leave the forum (go to other diets) their posts disappear. heres some of many in a whole section dedicated to oils and processed sugars on the wai site. I guess the question of how 'paleo' it is could be answered by if someone posted in the welcoming forum here that they were excited about finally being able to eat as much fruit juice, table sugar, and olive oil as they want.

http://www.waiworld.com/waitalk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2001

http://www.waiworld.com/waitalk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2678

http://www.waiworld.com/waitalk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2334

http://www.waiworld.com/waitalk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2307

361
Health / Re: Women are weaker these days... grandmas were much stronger.
« on: May 23, 2011, 11:54:04 am »
says here "Japan faces the same problems that confront urban industrialized societies throughout the world: over-crowded cities and congested highways." Its like 3 people per square inch there. Perhaps its as simple as people not having the extra pod to stash a baby in or they can't even find a spare place above the washing machine to make love on. Even in the mainstream consciousness Japan is seen as having problems in this regard and using them as an example suggests that other places are in far less crisis yet this very link says population has gone down 0.22% last year and less than .5% in 5 years. Worldwide its true the growth RATE goes down but the expected population still increases to obscene projections, its just the rate of increase which is going down in some places and not even in others. The world has increased in population over 4 billion people or almost 5 times the size in the period since they invented photography, so this is hardly a significant decrease and any old ways clearly worked better in times where other rules applied. From a health perspective people are losing the ability to conceive a child naturally but this hardly impacts the eventual success through technologies, perseverance, or inexperienced young people deprived of birth control or common sense or other life goals or under the infulence of religion.

I think in its simplest form. many people here are or were recently in their teens, twenties, and early thirties and understand that making decisions like marriage and children (even with financial security which is not so common these days) is just not something one rushes into or often is even capable of dealing with at that age. This is based on basic observation of other people and honest assment of themselves which obviously would carry on to much younger people. Since people here are actually on a natural diet, are comparatively free of most general social programming and still have hangups about their own abilities to raise children properly I think that is pretty significant. Its certainly easier to say things should be a certain way when in fact they arn't that way.

growing up almost everyone in my lower middle class school came from broken homes. I knew very few people whos parents were still together. Most of these people were 2nd generation. so their parents were born here but were likely products of old world thinking and were one of many neglected children themselves. When I got to college was when there was actually a surprising number of people whos parents were still together. Often times it was because people came from more 'professional' households were their parents were much older when they conceived and likely wanted to have kids after much thought and planning and were not old-school. I remember soccer games and such where the parents were like in their late 20's or early 30's. When I me peoples parents in college they were always in their late 50's or 60's. Anyway, even now most of the people I went to college with are not married even though many are in monogamous relationships and like everyone I went to high school with is on their first or second marriage. its monkey see monkey do with this stuff. There is a natural urge to procreate but there is an intrinsic part of humanity that is about curiosity and experiences. People seek out partners and children to share experiences and to have new ones, not to split off cell fragments and form other amoebas.


362
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: May 23, 2011, 11:25:01 am »
I'm good on the rings as far as just bodyweight dips. I doubt I could put nearly as much weight on though.

we did this pretty cool ring move the other day called 'skin the cat' which is like a 270 deg somersault on the rings back and forth.

I can finally get muscle ups on the rings..sort of ugly tho. need more hip action.

363
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: May 23, 2011, 06:34:07 am »
Quote from: pioneer on May 21, 2011, 09:22:32 pm
Thanks a lot KD, I am doing HIT it Raw's style workout and I think I like it more than anything I've ever done. I like the idea of giving your workout your all, not prefatiging yourself or doing several sets that are basically warm up sets. This way I can train at my absolute freshest state. I love HIT

yeah sounds fun. I do something similar but clearly not the same. I'll certainly give it a shot soon. I'm moving to a new place that has a gym in the building which is going to be SWEET. Its small and likely i'll be there by myself most times so I can do crazier stuff. Most guys at Golds have never seen a power clean and therefore just walk up all close to me while i'm about to violently throw steel in the air...CF is crazy in its own way and 'high intensity' but yeah this sounds worth experimenting with.

I assume you are always doing your absolute max in reps for those lifts? makes sense to me to do that combined with the occasional 3s, or 1s at max perhaps...

I did 8 weighted dips with a 75 lb hanging dumbbell today.. that was probably a PR. rings would have killed me. :)

364
Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: What plants do you eat?
« on: May 23, 2011, 06:04:29 am »
plants:

raw or juiced (using teeth mechanically at the moment) sorrel, miners lettuce, dandelion, other herbs liek parsley, sage, cilantro, kale flower, celery, mizuna and other posh greens at the farmers market, cultured veggies. I use acv with raw veggies

cooked: artichoke(yum), nettle tea, mushrooms, (trumpet, chartreuse, shitake, oyster), okra, cabbage. dislike any cooked sweet potatoes or yams..make me gag.

fruits: pretty much anything in small quantities but pineapple and berries seem to be winners. most cultivated fruits taste like crap to me and I have very little desire for fruit sugars generally which is a great feeling. Now and then I like a banana and avocado works ok for me so I eat those too when they don't cost $1 per hundred calorie. and peppers. cucumber does not work for me but going to try how tomato goes again this summer.

365
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Don't eat carbs before workout its all bullshit
« on: May 23, 2011, 05:37:51 am »
if you surveyed all the top athletes surely most of these would be using carbohydrate as their primary fuel source. For our purposes since there are plenty of examples of people eating no or little dietary carbohydrate it is factually correct that such are unnecessary for either endurance or strength or any other athletic trait. In other words the anecdotal evidence as well as the labratory/medical requirements are what suggest this. When it comes down to what is optimal for such, you are going to get a wide range of opinions but even these won't correspond necessarily with what is healthy long term nor are there any definitive answers. The definitive is that people do not require carbohydrates for any athletic pursuits so the argument is then in the direction of if they are optimal or not for best health or performance.

Most people that take things to such extremes like a mostly pure animal fat diet arn't usually going to do so based on some edge in performance. The reason is these things can be achieved much easier through short burst toxic foods and supplements as well as illegal drugs and that doing so is incredibly arduous for most both physically and otherwise. Again for our purposes, many times people that do choose such would not be able to perform athletically at all on higher carb diets. For them eating excessive carbs would merely cause a wide spectrum of problems and most importantly primarily inhibit proper assimilation of necessary fatty acids for healing..never-mind the extra efficiency needed for athletics which can take months/years - the main reason why most people bail on such attempts (particularly athletes).

For those that are without many health problems a CKD (Cyclical Ketogenic Diet) is still seen by some as an optimal way to put on body mass and in a way similar to how meat/high carb eaters (if/when they existed) could have eaten in nature. So even if there is value to overfilling glycogen with dietary carbs there is still suggestion that primary adaptation to fatty acids is best for our makeup, overall health, AND best athletic performance.

The ideal may be some varying level of carbs for the activity level of the person. It might be an issue of glycogen OR it could just be avoiding heavy protein need as a replacement, or in the advantages of the nutrition in the carbs themselves, but having excessive dietary carbohydrate is simply not necessary for either basic endurance or strength training.

In regards to what to eat before or after or such things..I have no idea but here are some other folks who are low to no carb. If I was anything other than a total hack non-athlete..I would probably refer to a guy like this for micromanaging my intake:

Keith Norris

http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/what-to-eat-prior-to-a-workout/

As well as others who restrict all types of carbs to various levels:

Ultramarthoner Jonas Colting:

http://www.carbwire.com/2009/06/15/swedish-triathlete-jonas-colting-low-carb-high-fat-diet-extending-my-athletic-career

ZC Marathoner Charles Washington


Kieba (endurance swimmer, bodybuilder)


then other Primal Diet BB's like Randy Roach (50) and Josh Trentine





---

of course some of these are not technically low carb by the strict definitions, and many of these people might intentionally use some carbs for their performance (as opposed to just eating them or for other health, nutritional purposes, or addictions) but they are all extremely low compared to other athletes int heir respective fields.

Also worth noting is almost all Mark Sisson and co and cross-fit type folks are low carb-ish, and not dealing with excessive glycogen through dietary carbs. These folks generally have both cardio and strength than your average amateur runner or athlete in my experience and seem much happier and healthier.

Again as per the point about Bass's article, I can't vouch for the healthful of any of these peoples' programs..only that they can and will perform on lowish carb to VLC to ZC.

People can also look to whatever other examples are on this forum as there is at least a few endurance and strength folks on some level.

Personally so far I have yet to figure out if dietary carbs have any potential positive effect at all on performance, just the obvious that eating such inhibits my ability to properly uptake the fatty acids which would make eating the way I do fairly non productive.


366
Health / Re: Do women have lower sex drives these days???
« on: May 23, 2011, 04:52:19 am »
Quote from: pioneer on May 23, 2011, 04:00:02 am
I personally am for better or worse not a virgin
Sorry i wasn't accusing you of being a virgin man, I was just saying that with that added info about her it made total sense to me why she could say she wants something and still have a physiological response due to fears/ hangups etc...and that it is likely not a physical issue unless she is showing extreme depression or other symptoms of really poor health. My experience with girls on drugs/crappy foods, long term vegetarian, way older etc...never had to use some kind of lube. I have though encountered girls that are just plain damaged from past experiences etc...and that is pretty hard to deal with. Perhaps there is something else going on. Has she talked to her friends and stuff about it? what do they think?

Quote from: pioneer on May 23, 2011, 04:00:02 am
maybe with my experience I intimidate her, but I am a good guy and am pretty patient. I reassure her that everything is okay and when she's ready is best for the both of us. I try really hard to not give her any pressure. And to be honest, this girl is the coolest girl Ive ever hung out with. I really enjoy spending time with her and she feels the same way about me. Totally the opposite of superficial and respects a strong man with character, which is what women should respect.

it sounds like you got something good. Sans pressure, maybe tequila is in fact the answer. its gluten free. If you have that strong connect, I really suspect once things do happen that after a few awkward starts it should be great.

367
Wai Dieters / Re: Count me in on this Wai Diet thing...
« on: May 22, 2011, 10:37:25 am »
My understanding based on ex-vegans on other forums and such doing wai was the main daily staple consisted of orange juice, EVOO and many teaspoons of table sugar. The idea that this is considered a natural diet is discouraging. The idea that it is automatically a healthier or more therapeutic diet over non-raw and non-paleo diets is also fairly discouraging. Above, refined sugar is listed as a 'macro-nutrient' which means its being eaten as a food in quantity as a calorie source discounting any negative affects of it being a modern processed food. Sugarcane is a pain in the ass to chew and generally needs to be refined, juiced, or boiled. Even with the idea that refining food is ok, the idea that you can eat refined food (like oils as well) and place it higher in value to other foods or approaches because it can somehow be traced to what people MIGHT HAVE HAD ACCESS TO represents a huge problem in conceptualizing healthy food. This includes the whole Cordain definition of 'paleo' ...which is entirely flawed and ignorant in terms of finding out which foods are truly healthy for people to eat and how much.

Saying that this is closer to a diet of our ancestors because it leaves out certain foods is just unfortunate and bad logic. Countless examples can be made that anyone can understand are not a healthy way to construct a diet...never-mind one that approximates true paleo peoples' intake.  Its like saying that doing The Master Cleanse three days a week then eating a bag of almonds, a jar of olives, 8 brussel sprouts, and a few chicken eggs is a 'paleo' diet and that adding some quality raw meat makes it a complete and 'healthy' diet. Food isn't just stuff that evaporates in your stomach and the particles either add or subtract from health. Even if a food is suitable for consumption in some form and amount for an ancient person it can easily cause all kinds of problems in varying amounts or particularly so for a modern people with chaotic internal environments. Eating in such a way also could neglect huge components of diet that people truly require. This is also after making a huge assumption that many such ancient foods were EVER regular foods for humans - after all, other species eat natural stuff too.

To get away from sugar...I don't know what animal eats olives in abundance or how old they are but I can gauge pretty easily that a diet of 98% olive oil and 2 percent choice wild venison is not something humans thrive on. As with other examples, Its curious to see what other evidence on top of diet experiments for the last 100 years people require that will dispel the emphasis on such natural=healthy simplicities particularly when discounting actual availability, seasonality or practicality.

If a diet matches the compositions/processes/habits of ancient or traditional peoples it can be seen as a diet suitable for us to adapt to our needs and with the foods we have available which mimic those compositions if need be. If 'paleo' is just an arbitrary or inaccurate grouping or assessment of foods based on their age on the planet..it isn't really a diet at all nevermind one unique to any particular period. A proper diet is something that people can measurably thrive and heal on while doing the least damage..not some loose organization of what is volatile or safe on paper regardless of the actual documented effects on the body.

368
Health / Re: Women are weaker these days... grandmas were much stronger.
« on: May 22, 2011, 02:54:57 am »
having large families is a symptom and luxury of lock and key style civilization...so its not exactly our natural urge to have (and raise anyway) as many children as possible. When people can store resources and wealth removed from labor they start to overreach their boundaries. With indigenous people being either nomadic or static is just not feasible to have constantly expanding generations and historically its those that exploit resources which have overpowered those that live naturally. So often these arguments are just a mix of traditionalist thinking being confused as 'natural' like the idea that "sex is just for procreation"..even though plenty of animals engage in sex for pleasure..then humans are supposed to be more refined or something..constant contradictions there.

Its just not practical in nature or in present civilization for most people to have lots of children. The largest booms of course tied to explosions of wealth, technology, land distribution and exploitation of resources or in skirting the likely death of many offspring due to harsh circumstance or industrial problems of that wealth. That and just plain lack of birth control. Also included would be regal or religious zealotry (as observed today in Muslims, Jewish, and Christian sects) in terms of breeding out other races and beliefs. Not exactly great company.

However since plenty of people cannot seem to raise children healthfully or opt out, there plenty of room for people to choose AS INDIVIDUALS to have many children if they can support them. The assumptions on value systems and such i'd still say is pretty questionable as women as little as 100s of years ago essentially just had zero rights (sometimes even not a choice in mate at all)..and with no massive media network still could understand that things were not exactly copacetic.

I think what is objectionable or amoral is instilling ideas into children that they need to do this or that..this is likely what made people rebel against such..have shit relationships..family life etc because they were doing what they thought was right as opposed to what they wanted..I can only guess you instil proper values in general as far as respect and understanding that they will mature to seek out meaningful relationships that they find appropriate.


369
Health / Re: Do women have lower sex drives these days???
« on: May 22, 2011, 02:25:57 am »
in regards to the question..its possible that some women today have less sex drive but not something i've experienced much. Although I wasn't around years ago it seems like alot of arguments suggest people are overstimulated into having/desiring more sex by both society and 'toxins' or whatever..which I think is generalizing. Certainly since sex is a major source of pleasure itself theres all sorts of potential for it to be over or under-active to fulfill some need or be absent due to physical issues or traumas of other kinds.

If you hadn't said you have had no actual intercourse and that she was a virgin I might be on board..but it sounds very much some kind of psychology around the issue. Never had sex with a virgin myself, but certainly if there is any kind of build up or pressure in a situation it makes things more challenging in the physical in my experience. It might be a matter of some of the..uh..'work' above but I think its going to be more a matter of convincing the mind that either your bond is genuine..or that she should just get over these hangups and try something very normal with someone she trusts. If you continue with this person I can only guess sex will be more enjoyable. If after 10 or so times you still have dry patches (sorry) then maybe troubleshoot her diet etc...

370
Off Topic / Re: People call me I'm a fruit for talkng about this stuff but here's Kurt Harris
« on: May 21, 2011, 09:48:29 am »

these guys are hardly positive-thinking gurus...its less that people are going to heal things with a positive attitude and more that people can sabotage themselves and ignore the important aspects of life and health by depending on hypothesis in diet as some panacea. Most of the examples were anxieties worsening symptoms..and only one (IICR) which someone got better merely by removing those pressures..not that the person created peak health in any respects.

I think most folks here would agree that many other seemingly healthy diets do not go far enough to restore or ensure health (at least in their experiences), but that doesn't mean people will inevitably focus on what is important for them based in reality or that many peoples experiences or symptoms are not possibly psychosomatic or fabricated based on things they read. People across the board seem to often focus on minutiae or ideologies they already vibe with while there are obvious other things which are then hidden or ignored which could fix the situation in some cases. Thats extremely common..but combined with all the diet wars back and forth its a problem for smart people searching for that 'heart of gold' /holy grail or whatever. Too much passion means something else inevitably is neglected..not to mention it being really devastating if those miracles don't come true..or make things worse...

371
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Today's workout?
« on: May 21, 2011, 07:53:51 am »
Quote from: SkinnyDevil on May 16, 2011, 08:49:02 pm
Calorie row???

yeah..just a row on the machine. in the 20 second work of the tabata..you are not likely going to get in double digits in calories burned, so its a useful SCORE as opposed to distances or something. Basically it ensures a simple recordable number.

Quote from: pioneer on May 20, 2011, 05:19:13 am
Wednesday:
Squat ATG:         265lb x10
1 leg calf raises:   50lb x15
chin ups;             80lb x6
Press:                125lb x5
Bent Row:          180lb x8
Ring Dip;            75lb  x8
Deadlift;            295    x6

Workout time=27 minutes 30 seconds

you are making great progress man. keep it up.


---

new cool exercise:
round' the world plank:
feet up on a box of some kind. plank position moving laterally in a circle...with a big ass weight on your back :)

372
Off Topic / Re: People call me I'm a fruit for talkng about this stuff but here's Kurt Harris
« on: May 21, 2011, 07:45:28 am »
by and large people seem more practical/grounded here, but people do generally let their passions/constructs and beliefs of what is some kind of unbelievable diet create huge expectations for that filling gaps in other places. Basically following a perfect diet will never ensure health or even health progress..and often the pursuit of the perfect diet and rationalizing or subverting other issues will inevitably create problems. This is also assuming one is doing even that proper diet for all the million factors that are going on at any given time in the body and not just some idea of what a good diet should be or sounds appealing in a theoretical way.

Orthorexia can be defined a number of ways..one of which will unfairly and inevitably include anyone who is very conscious about their food choices to the extent that it shifts their lifestyle dramatically. The more serious form is when people will obsess over details of their diet to the point where it effects either their health OR their life drastically. That or following a specific program when it clearly to others is not yielding forward progress. This one also can be unfair in the short term I suppose as some things are slow changing.

If one is able to do something entirely extreme but not have it effect their social relationships/interactions/outlook etc...then I guess they can claim that their diet is not creating any weak links in that regard. Seems fairly difficult...

There is no real way one should live I suppose, but to putter around the house all day eating the perfect diet..just to live 10 years longer or to spend that time monastically pain free does not make a whole lot of sense. Life is about experiences. Doesn't mean people have to go to every wine and cheese tasting, but eating alone because 'no one understands' or 'everyone is sick and eats dead food' or always thinking that the world is somehow bad because of cooked foods or something obviously is not a healthy mindset and will effect health on top of happiness.

As for the mind-body thing, the podcast gave a couple of pretty conclusive examples. there also a pretty interesting comment below in regard to aborigines who use some kind of curse that usually results in physical death because of its effect on nerves and assimilation...which was circumvented by medical IVs which avoids internal functioning to absorb foods and liquids.

I think some people can take the mind stuff to an extreme as well (as mentioned with gurus constantly getting cancer and other maladies of which I also have observed/researched), I mean sure some people can get better on the pizza and beer thing, but obviously if there were not other consequences of such things many people we know would be extremely healthy...instead of just healthier than most health obsessed people...heh heh

Kurt to me represents balance and the very far endpoint of medical type mind..which I think is incredibly useful for the vast majority of people in improving their health. I do not see this as some mediocre compromise..but something that will work optimally over many other programs for people already without serious acute symptoms. Once people step into raw or other things..theres a whole lot more stresses and factors and health troubleshooting and all the other issues we are discussing, so its unfair to say everyone following a paleo diet (like Robb Wolf) would automatically be doing better on raw. Unless people absolutely need to take on such things and are willing to pay as much attention to their diet compositions..many other things (even gluten free etc..)are not worth sweating 100% generally. Saying such is not an attack on how useful a proper raw diet can be..or even that the actual possibilities of such are really unknown in terms of benefits. Certainly theres lots of things re: raw food and health that is beyond his purview.

basically what is comes down to is priorities and focusing on which things are most important and which things need work. As long as someone is honestly following that process and honestly tracking progress or lack of..that will inevitably lead them to the right diet..% raw food etc...


373
Health / Re: Depression
« on: May 16, 2011, 09:07:51 am »
I think the main thing I can remember about depression is that there is a FEELING not a thought or belief...but a feeling that things can only stay the same or get worse - that there is no way out. People can sit there and list all your accomplishments and good qualities and potentials on the horizon and these things are like mirages and everything is quicksand. The thing is - life IS meaningful and there is some purpose for everyone, at least a small purpose where people can express their creativity and originality and just plain enjoy who they are.

positive thinking can often be challenging or impossible in some states but its important to remember/believe at least one positive thing which is that things do have the incredible capacity to get better.

Particularly for younger people. I mean...being young and smart and under-appreciated with no place to go plain sucks. Even with shittier things in my life/lack of good things I think I've gotten happier and more content with myself every year.

Without depression you can still get glum, lonely, nervous and angry at the world/self etc...but the best part about tackling depression is you become better equipped to deal with these things that everyone has to deal with in some way. its that self consciousness which is the reward but many times its the instigator. If its some kind of consciousness or awareness that causes you to hate the world or yourself and feel stifled or whatever than it IS about tuning down that awareness, being selfish enough to give yourself happiness.

374
Hot Topics / Re: Danger of Raw Food Products Made from Raw Milk (Yogurt, Cheese, and Butter)
« on: May 16, 2011, 08:41:59 am »
TD does seem to give more credence to a possible universe of which dairies usefulness exists than some..after some prying anyway. On top of that there is personal bias but its true that dairy proponents will have their own biases and viewpoints on various symptoms and so forth. Based on this sites origins as and as a balance opposed to a Primal forum (although which there isn't a similar one to RPF) it seems OK to me that dairy should have a guilty until proven innocent kind of status..but even accepting that often times i'm certainly like "woah..."

I can't say reasonable is the first word that comes to mind....
Although I can't say I am entirely reasonable on this or other issues either. I mean I have my own few hot-button issues but other than that I don't really comment about someone praising say.. stored coconut products even though I think these are crap foods. I don't avoid 'aisle 3' because of fear of 'the plague'. I just avoid eating them and if I eat them and I do so thinking they are second rate foods. Unless someone has some kind of complaint that I can direct towards what they are eating or is just vehemently arguing they have some magic potion then there is really no foul by me.

I also have my own ideas of why people might do poorly on specific types of dairy foods, but I generally don't mention what those are for the same reason that people arn't looking for that information usually and also other than my own experiences and others teachings I can't say for sure. I know for myself that I seem to do better with dairy fats than strictly frozen marrow and/or suet which I will do from time to time. Possibly if I wasn't doing those animal fats (due to them being frozen or some other idea) maybe I similarly would be doing not as well but for me butter actually ranks last taste-wise. I spent quite a few years without dairy and on raw carbs and I find that dairy-or-not fats are the way to go at least in my present situation. So that brings me back to the above comparison where dairy foods are top functioning and not chosen for other reasons or preferences. Its important to be informed on all sides of things, and certainly if there were apparent problems that outweighed benefits I'd have plenty of other foods to eat that I prefer anyway. Also I believe if I had tried a 'milk and meat' diet before (and likely now still) I would have been off the diet along time ago with terrible problems...so basically that is where I am coming from regarding the OP issue.

Other than what I already said with paleo 'trumps' type arguments, the main area of concern is in the Welcoming Forum where often people are just listing what they are doing. These folks obviously are already interested in raw and paleo concepts and probably aware of paleo definitions and yet have to be inundated with such flak even when they aren't reporting any kind of problems or symptoms or desire for such information. All this does is bring 'fanatics' and arguments into that forum and likely push people away.

I think it was Yuri (rawlion) IICR that said even the dead can digest butter. heh heh. good times. I wouldn't say he is a fanatic by any means...

375
Hot Topics / Re: Danger of Raw Food Products Made from Raw Milk (Yogurt, Cheese, and Butter)
« on: May 15, 2011, 09:10:10 pm »
sure, particularly since its a paleo centered forum. The issue is more when people state that dairy has no use for anyone (or in a discussion thread that it is inevitably automatically worse than X paleo food/quantity) and then cite things that really are tautological arguments since they use the very principles/logic of the diet itself - and are not expressed as opinions.

As for allergies. Being skeptical of all claims of 'health experts' I no longer have a grasp of what an allergy or food intolerance even is. It seems like all my allergies unilaterally go away as time goes on so I don't see the allergies to supposed harmful things becoming less acute and less sensitive while others go down and health goes up.

I think people that have intolerances to fruit or seafood should be able to reverse those if they desire. So to me this criticism is also just a blanket extension of the observation that we have not been eating it for all eternity so that the intolerance is beneficial or something whereas seafood or fruit allergies are the only things in the realm of modern toxicity because these of course are healthful in any type or quantity... I mean I thought red meat was the only thing generally people could not be allergic to, but there are beef allergies.

I don't have all the data, but it seems like quite a few people even on this site consume dairy products including people who were not using dairy products for some time and now are again. People don't have to claim one can eat whatever while acknowledging that this is true and that not all these people are following any particular system or always rationalizing detoxes and the like.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 75
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk