Jared, you speak as though you know much about the Inuit.
No, I don't, I'm broadly speculating and taking for granted what people have said who've actually read the texts.
There's a lot of misinformation about Inuits and others out there, so if you're going to write about them then I recommend trying to get info as directly from the source as you can, rather than relying on what others have posted.
(On that note, I'll keep in mind that Tyler Durden said Stefansson may not be that credible).
Yes, I think Tyler does post a lot on the errors of people like Stefansson, WAP, Taubes and Wrangham. It looks like you agree with Tyler on some things, such as wanting to warn folks away from ZC, though Tyler disagrees with Matt Stone on several key issues.
Well, that's why I pointed people to Matt Stone, he's a bit more motivated to investigate than I am.
OK, then I guess we could say that Matt is the voice of dissent and he does fill the bill, because he disagrees with probably every other "expert" out there. I've been curious about cooked tubers and wondering about what their precursors were (perhaps wild African roots that are edible raw?), in large part because of the fact that every HG group that has access to tubers eats them. Interestingly, I learned that tubers can be made edible without cooking by drying and pulverizing them, which Wrangham conveniently doesn't appear to have mentioned in his book, if my search was thorough enough.
I think, however, that tubers probably became more important as the numbers of megafauna declined. What do you think hominids ate for starches before the advent of cooking? Was it sun-dried yams, wild roots, rhizomes, corms, ...?
I see that there are a lot of differing views on this forum as a whole,
Yup.
but when someone like me comes along who is completely sold on the Eades/Taubes insulin theory, and are just trying to get better, we tend to only read more about what fits in our current beliefs.
I can't speak for others, but that's not what I do.
I browsed this specific sub-forum to see if I could find any dissenting threads, and I didn't see any, so that's why I've posted.
Ah, that explains things. You'll find more dissents and trashing of ZC in the general discussion section.
A thread headline like mine would have really caught my attention, as it was the core belief of why I was forcing myself to eat low-carb.
This may be how you can provide the most value here--in sharing where you went wrong as a warning to others. I definitely don't think people should force themselves to continue a particular diet for an extended period if it isn't working for them and they continue to deteriorate. The only reason I do VLC is because nothing else has worked as well. If I could eat more carbs without any ill effects I would. I love fruits--especially berries and red grapes.
Well, I did come pretty sure about my position, and my goal was to help people get out of low-carb, who might not really be feeling all that great about it. But I was curious to see what information people might bring up.
FYI: folks tend to get turned off by people who are too sure of their position and seem to come across as lecturing them, no matter how well intentioned.
Sure, one of the main things I'm urging people to do is to trust their feelings more.
I think maybe you mean trust their experience/results more, as feelings may not always coincide with real results? For example, sometimes the results are hidden and aren't detected until a blood test or x-ray reveals them.
In my case though, low carb did not feel good, but I kept on with it because the evidence seemed unshakable.
This kind of sharing makes for some of the best posts. I agree that it's important to pay more attention to what your body is telling you than what a selection of studies says, especially in the longer term. There are studies and "experts" supporting every major dietary viewpoint.
A lot of people here are desperate too, if they are willing to depart from modern conventions so much.
Correct, as Tyler's quote says in my signature: "no one would touch this type of diet unless they'd tried everything else and this diet alone worked". It would be more accurate to say "unless they'd tried lots of other diets...," but the gist is right.
As short-sighted as I may have been, I did not believe there was an alternative to low carb.
You mean you never encountered vegetarianism, veganism, raw veganism, fruitarianism, 80-10-10, the USDA food pyramid, Ornish, Oz, DurianRider and other higher-carb approaches and proponents?
I don't mean to eradicate low-carb or carnivorous for everyone, but I'm at least challenging the idea that it should be for everyone.
I agree with that--do what works for you and also be aware of what your body is telling you. I would add that people may want to consider getting bloodwork and urinalysis testing done at least once after they've been on a new diet for a while to make sure they aren't running into any problems they don't notice. This is how many vegans end up either changing their diet or adding supplements.
Did you read any of my posts on giant pandas?
I did click a link you gave and found that it had already gone drastically off topic
OK, but did it start out with any relevant info? There are several. I don't mean any of my posts to be the final word, BTW. That's not the way I think (science is more about an endless series of questions, observations and hypotheses than achieving final answers) and there's a lot more I could learn about giant pandas and other animals.
Probably the most drastic difference from mainstream recommendations is the vegetable oil issue. Coming out of low-carb, it's hard to see that the woes of the world could be due to anything less than monumental, but really these oils do permeate the SAD. Also as he says, the mainstream does promote under-eating, over-exercising, over-working, abundant caffeine (and alcohol) usage, tons of sugar (which I don't think is too terrible in moderation), and RDAs that are far too low.
I think most LCers, including me, actually agree with him on all that. Did you get a different impression somewhere? As a matter of fact, I agree with him more than you on these issues, since you apparently partly disagree with him on sugar. Maybe I should be trying to convince you to listen to Mark?
Also what Matt doesn't go into is all the toxins in our world, which I think play a huge part in the diseases of civilization.
While I think this is overemphasized by a small fringe, my general approach is to skeptically question everything new. Once I realized that our modern diet was screwed up and that some aspects of ancient diets were beneficial, I wondered what else modern civilization had gotten wrong. I started questioning a lot of my basic assumptions and learned that there was indeed a LOT that modern Mother Culture got wrong. I'm thinking that maybe my book should be an encyclopedia that tries to catalogue as much of it as I can.
Some stainless steel alloys leach nickel, which is very toxic, according to Ray Peat. I would think that acidic things will leach the most. Ray Peat says that if the stainless steel is magnetic, then it's the type that doesn't have nickel in it.
FYI: Ray Peat and Matt Stone aren't particularly influential here, so if you want to persuade folks away from RZC, you're probably going to have to cite some other sources.
....
I even wonder why humans have such a sweet tooth, when apparently, at least in most places in the world, there is such a short supply of fructose.
I think that's why. Sweet foods were relatively scarce, so having a sweet tooth didn't cause major problems for our ancestors.
Well, with all of those graphs of how low sugar and honey consumption was pre-1850, I think one source they probably are not accounting for is jams and jellies. This is actually where I think people have been getting their fructose throughout history.
I think you mean since the invention of jams/jellies, rather than all history. Honey and whole fruit consumption goes much further back--predating H. sapiens.
And wasn't it the Native Americans that showed the Europeans how to make maple syrup? What should we trust more: the numbers or our senses?"
My senses tell me that jams/jellies, maple syrup and honey all effect me very negatively and are very addicting for me, for whatever reason. It stinks, because I really enjoy raw honey.
Well, I didn't want to start a thread refuting everything, but I did intend Matt Stone's site to change some minds about all types of restrictive eating,
Well, the least restrictive eating is the SAD. Don't you at least think we should be more restrictive than that? By now you should also realize that all of us here have tried less restrive eating in the past and it didn't work for us.
And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.
No offense intended, but I don't particularly care what you or anyone else "believes". Opinions carry little weight with me. I'm more interested in your actual experiences and any other evidence you can provide. Opinions are just so much hot air to me, except as speculations upon which to build and test hypotheses. They are usually a waste of bandwidth. I'd prefer to read more about what you're trying, how it's working for you, and anything unusual you've learned about the natural world.
Too much fat seems to decrease circulation, Klowcarb..
In my case increasing animal fat intake increased my circulation, for what it's worth. It's amazing how differently various people respond to macronutrients.
