Author Topic: A day in the life of TylerDurden  (Read 235320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #125 on: August 22, 2009, 05:44:50 pm »
"Chemically, the best are long-chain fully saturated fatty acids, that is to say, solid fats of animal origin"
"The best fats are of animal origin, solid fats, eaten within natural animal tissues."

Butter does not qualify according to theses statements, it is why it is not the *main* fat in this diet, although it is indeed recommended.



Yet the above statement is directly contradicted by this statement in the same text:-

"The most suitable for humans are fats contained in the yolk of a hen’s egg. Those contained in quails' egg are similar, but these eggs are far more expensive. The real value of egg yolk fats, for our body, according to a reliable scientific investigation, is four times higher than the value of the fat from butter or cream, and dramatically higher than the biological (and factual) value of the remaining fats."

At any rate, judging from reports of what people eat on a standard Optimal Diet(eg:-

https://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-246339.html

dairy is clearly a very important component.

 
Quote
Stephen Byrnes had been diagnosed with AIDS and suffered numerous health problems until he died due to the drugs he was given.
Yes, I've read that claim before  by apologists from the cooked low-carb camp, like Barry Groves, but it is so absurd a claim, it can't be taken seriously. It reminds me of the pathetic PR attempt by the Atkins family to cover up the fact that Dr Atkins had heart-disease.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 05:58:15 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #126 on: August 22, 2009, 06:04:08 pm »
Re supplements:- As members know, I tend to take cod liver oil supplements(raw, fermented from Blue Ice) and dr ron's freeze-dried organs(as UK farms won't sell some organs). The cod-liver oil is to take into account occasional eating of grainfed meats, cooked meats, and to get my omega-3 levels as high as possible. I'm now taking a  krill oil supplement as well since it's now the next big thing, and accodring to mercola, better than cod liver oil.

. I'm not personally convinced re krill oil as it's never been a typical human food, like cod liver oil is, and it's hidesouly expensive. 1 cod liver oil bottle(liquid) from Blue Ice costs 29.99 pounds yet lasts(at 2ml serving a day) c.183 days. The krill oil supplement requires 2 capsules a day and lasts just a month as there are only 60 capsules a bottle.
. So, it does sound like a rip-off. Still, we'll see.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #127 on: August 29, 2009, 04:36:20 pm »
Hmm, it may only be a placebo-like effect but I'm feeling slightly more "on the ball" these past few mornings, after taking those krill oil supplements regularly(double the recommended daily dose re 4 capsules a day).
« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 04:48:57 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #128 on: August 30, 2009, 03:55:59 am »
Re the cholesterol issue:- While there were many studies backing both sides of the cholesterol debate, there are, by contrast, very few studies backing the notion that a low-carb cooked diet is healthy. That means that, so far, the only thing cooked low-carb proponents can resort to is citing lame conspiracy theories.
Aren't we all relatively low carbers here? Does anyone here actually eat as much carbs as the Standard American Diet (55% of calories, as defined by Barbara Gower, PhD, professor of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham)?

There is a growing mountain of evidence that cooked lower-carb is superior to cooked higher-carb (raw lower carb is of course even better). Garty Taubes wrote a massive book on the subject and referenced numerous studies. Here is just a sample of studies and reviews in the past decade:

Dr. Jay Wortman's current Health Canada study of Namgis First Nation and other residents of Alert Bay, http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/about/ (see also http://HTTP://WWW.CBC.CA/THELENS/BIGFATDIET/)

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study
Tommy Jönsson, Staffan Lindeberg et al
Received June 23, 2009; Accepted July 16, 2009
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2724493
"we found improved glucose tolerance independent of weight-loss after 12 weeks of Paleolithic diet compared to a Mediterranean-like diet"

Moderately Reduced Carbohydrate Diet Keeps People Feeling Full Longer
ScienceDaily (June 12, 2009)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090611142405.htm

Study finds Paleolithic diet can improve metabolic health
February 20, 2009, 2:59 PM
by Mark Sisson, LA Nutrition Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-1369-LA-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m2d20-Study-finds-Paleolithic-diet-can-improve-metabolic-health
(Studya; Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Sebastian, A. et al, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract)

Low-carb beats low-fat in diet duel: Those eating fewer carbs also had lower cholesterol, surprising study finds
The Associated Press
updated 6:48 p.m. ET, Wed., July. 16, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25708495

Low-fat Diets May Not Be Best For Weight Loss, Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (July 17, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716171134.htm  

Another China study
(the data of the China Study actually associates plant foods with obesity)
by Michael R. Eades, MD
July 2008
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/another-china-study/#more-1265

Low Carbohydrate Diets: Why You Don't Want the "Experts" to Tell You What to Eat
Richard D. Feinman, PhD
22 August 2007
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/12/25/5383/low-carbohydrate-diets-why-you-dont-want-the-experts-to-tell-you-what-to-eat/  

Diabetes Treatment Shocker: The Atkins Diet
Friday, June 09, 2006
Duke University Medical Center study headed by Eric Westman M.D., M.H.Sc.
http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/06/diabetes-treatment-shocker-atkins-diet.html
(See also Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat in Short Term Diet Comparison, by Becky Oskin, http://inside.duke.edu/article.php?IssueID=93&ParentID=6949)

Ketogenic diets and physical performance
Stephen D Phinney
Nutrition & Metabolism 2004
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

Fruit and vegetables re post (Polish Very Low Carb Female Athlete Study)
Hyperlipid
Monday, December 31, 2007
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-and-vegetables-re-post.html
(2002 study abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12172876?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance
by Loren Cordain, Ph.D.
1999
www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #129 on: August 30, 2009, 04:57:42 am »
The trouble is that the scientific evidence shows the exact opposite, that cooked low-carb diets ,while effective re a few carb-oriented conditions like diabetes, contribute heavily towards coronary heart -disease and many other health-problems. In short, the key factor re increased mortality re diet seems to be cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fat. Cooked plant-foods, by contrast, don't have the vast amounts of heat-created toxins, so are far less harmful(unless people are stupid enough to go 100% vegan, in which case, they eventually get nutritional deficiencies). In short, cooked low-carb diets are poison.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #130 on: August 30, 2009, 05:07:27 am »
I listed some of the best scientific evidence above, and at one of the links, your concern is addressed directly:

Quote
4. Will a low-carb diet increase my risk of heart disease?

This is another common myth. It is based on the notion that if you eliminate carbs as an energy source you will have to increase fat intake to compensate (there is a limit to how much protein you can eat). It was thought that an increase in fat would lead to high cholesterol which is associated with heart disease. When the studies were actually done on this, however, much to everyone's surprise, the opposite happened. People on a low-carb diet improved their cholesterol readings even when they increased their fat intake and even when their intake of saturated fat (the so-called bad fat) increased. It appears that when you body must rely on fat for energy, the saturated fat you eat gets burned up before it can cause any harm. Another factor that plays a role in heart disease is the level of inflammation in our system. If the markers of inflammation are high we recognize this as a sign of increased risk of heart disease. We commonly order a C-reactive protein test, a marker of inflammation in the blood, to assess a person's risk. A recent study showed that people on a low-carb diet demonstrated significantly reduced inflammatory markers.

Although there haven't been any long term studies yet to prove it, the existing science suggests that a low-carb high-fat diet may actually reduce the risk of heart disease.

http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/my-big-fat-diet-faqs/

Dr. Sears talks in The Anti-Inflammation Zone: Reversing the Silent Epidemic That's Destroying Our Health (2005) about the Lyon Diet Heart Study (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/6/779?ijkey=7a97766d6e0dafd3dcf3be42716bf48f283e8efa#R4) which found mortality benefits from a "Mediterranean diet," low in high-glycemic carbs: "Of course, your overall diet plays a major role in reversing heart disease risk. Powerful evidence of this comes from the Lyon Diet Heart Study.... In this study, heart attack survivors who followed a low glycemic-load diet (with very low levels of pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids) experienced a 70 percent reduction in fatal heart attacks compared to those who followed a high glycemic-load diet (with high levels of pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids). More striking, not a single sudden death (the primary cause of cardiovascular mortality from heart disease) occurred in the group with the low glycemic-load and low omega-6 fatty acid diet."

The early studies of low-glycemic (cooked) Paleo diets are finding it to be superior even to the Mediterranean (cooked) diet:

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study
Tommy Jönsson, Staffan Lindeberg et al
Received June 23, 2009; Accepted July 16, 2009
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2724493
"we found improved glucose tolerance independent of weight-loss after 12 weeks of Paleolithic diet compared to a Mediterranean-like diet"

Study finds Paleolithic diet can improve metabolic health
February 20, 2009, 2:59 PM
by Mark Sisson, LA Nutrition Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-1369-LA-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m2d20-Study-finds-Paleolithic-diet-can-improve-metabolic-health
(Studya; Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Sebastian, A. et al, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract)

So when it comes to cooked diets, the current science is supporting low-glycemic-carb, high-omega-3-fat Paleo diets as the best yet tested.

What portion of your diet, as a % of calories, is carbs, Tyler? Does anyone here eat more than 50% of their diet by calories as carbs, so they can speak from experience about whether a raw HC diet is superior to raw LC? When making comparisons, we should avoid confounding variables, so we should compare cooked LC to cooked HC and raw LC to raw HC, rather than cooked LC to raw HC or raw moderate-carb.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 05:40:11 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

William

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #131 on: August 30, 2009, 08:16:06 am »
In short, cooked low-carb diets are poison.

Banting

carnivore

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #132 on: August 30, 2009, 03:30:32 pm »
The trouble is that the scientific evidence shows the exact opposite, that cooked low-carb diets ,while effective re a few carb-oriented conditions like diabetes, contribute heavily towards coronary heart -disease and many other health-problems. In short, the key factor re increased mortality re diet seems to be cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fat. Cooked plant-foods, by contrast, don't have the vast amounts of heat-created toxins, so are far less harmful(unless people are stupid enough to go 100% vegan, in which case, they eventually get nutritional deficiencies). In short, cooked low-carb diets are poison.

Tyler,
If you want to be credible, you'll have to precise what cooking methods, temperature, length of cooking, etc. can make a low-carb diet poisonous.
Again, many cooked low to moderate carb diets (Cordain, Seignalet, Lutz, Kwasniewski, etc.) have proven to be healthy and have improved or cured many diseases including heart diseases...

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #133 on: August 30, 2009, 08:47:28 pm »
Yes, and it depends on what one means by "low carb," "moderate carb," and "high carb" of course. In general, when two or more diets have been tested against each other, the lower-carb, lower-glycemic diet has performed best.

My old Paleo diet varied between around 35 to 45% calories as carbs, which was a dramatic improvement for me over my earlier nutritionist-recommended diet at around 60+% carbs and the SAD at around 50 - 55% carbs, in particular because I eliminated gluten and dairy. When I went to a VLC cooked diet with some raw at around 5-10% plant carbs I experienced even more dramatic improvements and when I went 100% mostly-raw carnivore, with only small amounts of animal carbs intermittently, I fared still better, though it is still early.

In a couple of the studies I listed above, Atkins beat out Sears and Ornish. I don't know the exact macronutrient proportions in the studies, but here are the ratios for those diets, in general:
 
Diet                        Protein    Carbs     Fat
Atkins-type diets       18-23      4-26      51-78
Zone                       30         40         30
Dean Ornish              20         70         10

In the first two studies that tested Cordain/Lindeberg-type Paleo diets they beat first a SAD and then a Mediterranean diet. Here are the general proportions for those types of diets:

Diet                  Protein       Carbohydrate   Fat
Low-fat H-G diets   19-35         22-40         28-47
SAD                    15-20           49-55         30-34
Mediterranean      15-20         40-60         25-35

By "low-fat" hunter-gatherer diets, I mean lower than Arctic diets (they still have a higher maximum range of fat than most clinical diets). So the clinical studies seem to suggest that the lower carb diets tend to generally produce better results than the higher-carb diets, and of course all clinical studies involve largely cooked diets. Since most traditional peoples eat at least some raw meat/fish and all except some Arctic peoples eat raw plants, observational surveys in which traditional peoples' diets are analyzed and their health stats measured suggest that eating more raw foods than avg is at least not harmful and potentially beneficial.

I believe the Phinney, Wortman and Stefansson-Bellevue diets all involved less than 5% calories as carbs, as do Lex's and mine, and they appeared to produce positive results, with the possible exception of Stefansson's companion in his study, who had some negative health stats but reported feeling good, as I recall. Some of this data is from notes I've recorded in the past as I learned about the ratios of various diets, rather than from these specific studies. So if someone has more accurate detail re: these studies, feel free to report it.

BTW, I used to believe that the Cordain/Lindeberg model of around 30-45% of calories as fat was probably close to optimal, though I wasn't totally decided, because Ray Audette and the Inuit seemed to do well on higher proportions and I wasn't fully convinced that proportions were really all that important anyway. Since then I've moved in the direction of thinking that 65-85% of calories as fat is more optimal for most people, with some exceptions depending on individual pre-existing problems like gland problems. It's not set in stone for me. Just as before, I remain open to new information. There also seems to be remarkable resiliency and adaptability among people who eat hunter-gatherer type diets, with fat levels ranging from 28 percent all the way up to 85% producing results far superior to those of the SAD. So macronutrient proportions seem to be less important than the types of foods consumed.

So I believe the whole ZC vs VLC vs LC vs moderate carb vs high carb raging debate misses some of the more important points, such as wild vs farmed vs industrial foods, carnivore vs vegetarian and raw vs cooked.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 09:22:24 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #134 on: August 30, 2009, 09:45:11 pm »
There's that famous study which showed that the Masai had atherosclerosis tendencies in their arteries, despite(because of?) their low-carb diets:-

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26

Re the mention of exercise alleviating certain symptoms of inflammation/heart-disease:- 1 thing I get worked up about is  when others mention tribes like the Eskimoes or the Masai ignoring  the fact that such tribes all had a level of exercise/physical activity which was far greater than the sedentary lifestyle of Westerners, so that daily exercise would have helped alleviate some of their symptoms to a certain extent. Plus, all these hunter-gatherers tended to have very short lifespans so simply didn't have the time to develop the usual health-problems gained on a cooked diet in a Western nation, such as diabetes type 2 etc.This is why I'm so against the absurd starry-eyed Weston-Price-derived nonsense that is routinely peddled.

*incidentally, I should add that (cooked) ketogenic diets are well-known to produce side-effects. I believe kidney-stones are 1 frequently cited example, among others.

*1 other thing. As you stated above, most tribes like the inuit did eat fermented foods and raw meats(sometimes aged) which would offset nasty side-effects from eating cooked foods. Plus, they would have frequently had to resort to caloric restriction during famine-periods, and it's well-known that (other than eating raw) the only relatively effective way to reduce the load of heat-created toxins in the body(from eating cooked foods) is go in for caloric restriction.

The point is that cooked low-carb diets like Kwasniewski and Atkins are deeply problematic, not just because so many of the gurus recommend processed foods or supplements(atkins-style low-carb candy-bars for example) but also some of them like that fool Kwasniewski actually recommend dairy products heavily. I'll grant that something like Cordain's cooked palaeolithic diet is quite a lot better by comparison to the others as he routinely mentions ways to limit the creation of heat-created toxins via cooking, plus he warns people away from dairy, grains and legumes, something which, just by itself, would greatly lessen auto-immune-related symptoms. That said, the very fact that he recommends lightly-cooked meats means that people are still ingesting inflamation-causing heat-created toxins such as AGEs, so it's still pretty poor (though, again, unlike fools like Kwasniewski, Cordain at least has the sense not to promote consumption of vast amounts of cooked animal fats, no doubt partly because he is aware of the fact that heating animal fats causes far more heat-created toxins to form than in any other type of food.

Another obvious point is that even a cooked low-carb diet, however intrinsically unhealthy in the long-term, , may well potentially provide a few
 benefits in the short-term, simply by avoiding highly-processed foods/trans-fats and the like - but that's not an endorsement, really.

For me, the real test, though, is longevity. The   older people I knew who went on diets consisting of high percentages of cooked-meat(and admittedly (mostly pasteurised) dairy), in a Kwasniewski-like way, are now all dead from heart-attacks, strokes etc.
. By contrast, the ones I know who've survived the longest tend overwhelmingly to be ones favouring the consumption of plant-foods over cooked animal foods, and going in for caloric restriction.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 10:27:12 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #135 on: August 30, 2009, 11:45:14 pm »
Tyler, I hate to take up so much of your personal journal with scientific debate, so if you want to move this to a separate topic thread, feel free.

There's that famous study which showed that the Masai had atherosclerosis tendencies in their arteries, despite(because of?) their low-carb diets:-

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26
Yes, but they didn't develop heart disease or have high overall mortality rates from heart disease and other diseases of civilization. Plus, there is the confounding variable of high dairy consumption. Many of the studies I cite have zero to moderate dairy consumption and I don't eat dairy. So the clogged arteries of the Masai don't appear to be relevant to me, specifically.

Quote from: TylerDurden
Re the mention of exercise alleviating certain symptoms of inflammation/heart-disease:- 1 thing I'm annoyed about when people mention tribes like the Eskimoes or the Masai is that they mostly ignore the fact that such tribes all had a level of exercise/physical activity which was far greater than the sedentary lifestyle of Westerners....
Yes, there you have a good point. That is a potentially confounding variable. However, there is also evidence that exercise does not do much to improve heart disease survival rates:

Quote
Exercise no help for heart failure patients: 'Disappointing' study found that working out didn't improve survival rates
The Associated Press
updated 5:27 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 11, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27667661/

NEW ORLEANS - Exercise can do a lot of good for most people, but it apparently isn’t much help to those with heart failure, the fastest-growing heart problem in the United States.

Quote from: TylerDurden
Plus, all these hunter-gatherers tended to have very short lifespans so simply didn't have the time to develop the usual health-problems gained on a cooked diet in a Western nation, such as diabetes type 2 etc.
Wow, I can't believe that you as a Paleo dieter are bringing up that old canard again that was refuted long ago. Why do you eat Paleo if you don't believe that avoiding dairy, grains and legumes reduces the risk of diseases of civilization? Why not call your diet a raw nonallergenic diet or some such thing? Increasingly you've been sounding like the critics of Paleo dieting, but that may well be because we've only had a couple of posters here recently who advocated nonPaleo positions like near-fruitarianism and pro-raw-dairy and you haven't had a chance to defend Paleo against critics. Let me offer you an opportunity to be more positive about Paleo. You've spoken about what you find nonsensical about pro-Paleo diet arguments, what do you find makes sense about the Paleo aspect of RPD?

Actually, average human life expectancies DECLINED a bit when Stone Age hunter-gatherers adopted an agrarian lifestyle at the start of the Neolithic era. The later increases in life expectancy were mainly due to public health achievements such as better sanitation, safer food, effective systems of quarantine, immunizations and improved childbirth survival rates.

It is true that hunter-gatherers studied during modern times do not have as great an average lifespan as those values found in industrialized nations. However, most deaths among adults in hunter-gatherer societies are related to accidents and trauma from living in the wild without modern medical care, as opposed to the chronic degenerative diseases that afflict modern societies. Thirty three years was the AVERAGE life expectancy of a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer male, not the maxiumum life expectancy (and as William has pointed out, newer techniques of estimating age from bones are increasing the estimates of past lifespans). A hunter gatherer who survived childbirth, infectious disease, accidents, battles, and wild animals could be expected to live into his/her 60s and possibly beyond.

According to Loren Cordain, "In most hunter-gatherer populations today, approximately 10-20% of the population is 60 years of age or older. These elderly people have been shown to be generally free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease (obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels) that universally afflict the elderly in western societies. When these people adopt western diets, their health declines and they begin to exhibit signs and symptoms of 'diseases of civilization.'" (“FAQs,” http://thepaleodiet.com/faqs/)

See also:
Longevity & health in ancient Paleolithic vs. Neolithic peoples: Not what you may have been told
by Ward Nicholson
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml
    
EXCERPT: <<Special update as of April 1999: LATE-BREAKING ADVANCES IN PALEOPATHOLOGICAL AGE-ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES have suggested that studies based on earlier techniques (as in the paper discussed here) may underestimate the age at death of older individuals and overestimate that of younger individuals. It's possible the range of estimation errors involved could be substantial. Thus, the profile of age-distribution results in compilation studies like the one discussed below may be flattened or compressed with respect to "true age.">>

Paleo Longevity Redux
Letter to the Editor
By Jeff D. Leach
Public Health Nutrition: 10(11), 1336–1337
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHN%2FPHN10_11%2FS1368980007814492a.pdf&code=c563005ad02c96173592b187924f0996

Quote from: TylerDurden
This is why I'm so against the absurd starry-eyed Weston-Price-derived nonsense that is routinely peddled.
I think the reason that WAPF people tend to be so rabid and impervious to reason is that they have a powerful profit motive driving their support of raw dairy and whole grains (despite the fact that some of the peoples that Price studied ate neither): their organization is funded by raw-dairy and whole-grain farmers and many members are such farmers themselves. As a result, I have found it generally pointless to try to engage them in discussion about raw dairy or whole grains. I was shocked, for example, at the way Sally Fallon tore into Loren Cordain at a Paleo forum, despite his unflappable politeness. Their profit-generated zeal and rage often carry over to the rank-and-file that they convince. I sometimes try to engage these people, but generally regret doing so, including a very recent case.

So in a sense I don't blame the WAPF people, because they are trying to defend their economic survival. I don't agree with it, but it is understandable. It's easier for someone like Cordain or you or me to be reasonable about these matters because our livelihood is not based on the diets we advocate. Cordain, for example, is going to get his university salary regardless of what diet he promotes and if he modifies his dietary recommendations he could probably still publish an additional book or two (a la D'Adamo). In contrast, if Fallon were to abandon raw dairy and whole grains, the raw-dairy and whole-grain farmers would cease funding the WAPF.

Quote from: TylerDurden
*incidentally, I should add that (cooked) ketogenic diets are well-known to produce side-effects. I believe kidney-stones are 1 frequently cited example.
It's only anecdotal, but my dark, particle-filled urine and chronic kidney stones problems went away when I adopted a gluten-free, dairy-free cooked Paleo diet.

Quote
1 other thing. As you stated above, most tribes like the inuit did eat fermented foods and raw meats(sometimes aged) which would offset nasty side-effects from eating cooked foods. Plus, they would have frequently had to resort to caloric restriction during famine-periods, and it's well-known that (other than eating raw) the only relatively effective way to reduce the load of heat-created toxins in the body(from eating cooked foods) is go in for caloric restriction.
These are your best points yet and underline the need for more study. I agree with you that raw and low-cooked foods do seem to be healthier anecdotally and in population surveys than modern cooking techniques. We need clinical studies on this.

Quote
The point is that cooked low-carb diets like Kwasniewski and Atkins are deeply problematic,
I don't think people here disagree with you about cooked diets, it's your singling out of low-carb cooked diets that I think some of us take issue with, since high-carb cooked diets have been demonstrated time and again to be even more unhealthful than low-carb cooked diets. As I mentioned before, Gary Taubes wrote a massive (600+ page) book on the subject, though I suspect you might a priori dismiss his writings because he eats a cooked diet that includes dairy and he is dismissive of Paleo (his book gives focuses on one point which some Paleo researchers made that he disagrees with and ignores the more important contributions of the field, and it gives the impression that Boyd Eaton is the only major researcher in the field, giving short shrift to researchers who are currently more active in the field, such as Cordain, Lindeberg, Phinney and others). Despite these weaknesses, I find the book valuable for the extensive historical research it includes and the mountain of evidence it analyzes and references.

Your ignoring of the accumulating evidence on this is puzzling. I don't think you differ nearly so much in practice from us than you do in rhetoric. I suspect that your own diet is lower-carb than the SAD, Ornish and Mediterranean diets, yet for some reason you have failed to respond to my inquiries on this.

Quote
not just because so many of the gurus recommend processed foods or supplements(atkins-style low-carb candy-bars for example)
That's something I've heard conflicting stories on. I have no personal interest in defending Atkins (I think Atkins made a huge mistake by advocating unlimited dairy, for example--though my personal experience does bias me on that issue, as you've pointed out), but was it Atkins himself who advocated that candy bar crap, or the corporation that he sold the rights to his name to? At times it sounds like the Atkins Corp. may differ from Atkins himself in similar ways that the WAPF differs from Weston A. Price. I skimmed Atkins' first book and it's amazing how different it is from the popular perception in the mass media and from the processed products that the Atkins Corp. sells.

Quote
I'll grant that something like Cordain's cooked palaeolithic diet is quite a lot better by comparison to the others as he routinely mentions ways to limit the creation of heat-created toxins via cooking, plus he warns people away from dairy, grains and legumes, something which, just by itself, would greatly lessen auto-immune-related symptoms. That said, the very fact that he recommends lightly-cooked meats means that people are still ingesting inflamation-causing heat-created toxins such as AGEs, so it's still pretty poor (though, again, unlike fools like Kwasniewski, Cordain at least has the sense not to promote consumption of vast amounts of cooked animal fats, no doubt partly because he is aware of the fact that heating animal fats causes far more heat-created toxins to form than in any other type of food.
I agree, and here some of your reasons for supporting Paleo are revealing themselves--nondairy, no grains or legumes, and lower-cooked. So don't you then agree that the Paleo diets of Cordain, Lindeberg, Phinney and others that tend to be lower-carb, lower-glycemic, cooked at lower temps, and include less hydrogenated plant oil fats are likely healthier than the SAD and Mediterranean diets they have trounced in the studies and wouldn't you think that by avoiding dairy, grains and legumes we might lower our risk for modern chronic diseases and that this might help explain why the remains of Stone Agers older than 30 years have been found to be generally free of such diseases, except for rare cases of "wear-and-tear" arthritis?

Quote
Another obvious point is that even a cooked low-carb diet, however intrinsically unhealthy in the long-term, , may well potentially provide a few
 benefits in the short-term, simply by avoiding highly-processed foods/trans-fats and the like - but that's not an endorsement, really.
There is more study evidence for long term benefits of cooked low-carb diets (the Framingham study comes to mind, though it tends to get misrepresented by proponents of high-carb, who basically ignore what the actual data says) than for all-raw diets, yet I don't abandon raw dieting on that basis. This just points to the need for research on all-raw diets (but don't hold your breath waiting for that ;) ).

Quote
For me, the real test, though, is longevity.
I think that longevity is one of the great misleaders. Longevity tends to be promoted far more by sanitation, wealth, access to medical care, drugs and machines than healthy diets. But at a great cost of suffering from chronic disease. A better test, less confounded by such variables, is the rates of chronic disease at equal ages in populations on different diets. Even better is a clinical test in which most confounding variables are controlled for. Still better for my own personal needs is my own actual experience.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 11:53:23 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline razmatazz

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #136 on: August 31, 2009, 04:58:47 am »
good points paleophil.
Also, have you read Good calories Bad calories by Gary Taubes...that book contains all the scientific evidence you need that saturated fats do NOT cause any disease, whether it be diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc. There has never been a link, there never will be.
Tyler, you point to "studies" claiming that cooked saturated fats are bad...if you've read that book you will realise that many scientific studies that you refer to have either been misinterpreted, are biased, or have been reported badly by journalists who don;t know anything about science...which is why it's difficult to believe your claims are "based on science".
If cooked saturated fats were so bad, why was cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc extremely rare before the 19th century? afaik, people before then ate MORE cooked saturated fats in the form of lard, butter, tallow, etc (which aren't raw).
People have been consuming cooked animal fats for thousands of years, yet western diseases were rare to nonexistant, until only recently...

I agree that raw is better, obv, otherwise I wouldn;t eat this way, but there are FAR worse things to eat than cooked saturated fat.

Offline Hannibal

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #137 on: August 31, 2009, 02:20:32 pm »
People have been consuming cooked animal fats for thousands of years, yet western diseases were rare to nonexistant, until only recently...
But there were many other dangerous diseases that people were prone to. They were not so healthy, although healthier than contemporary people.
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #138 on: August 31, 2009, 06:51:13 pm »
Yes, but they didn't develop heart disease or have high overall mortality rates from heart disease and other diseases of civilization. Plus, there is the confounding variable of high dairy consumption. Many of the studies I cite have zero to moderate dairy consumption and I don't eat dairy. So the clogged arteries of the Masai don't appear to be relevant to me, specifically.

Actually, the dairy mention is very  relevant indeed  as dairy is such a major component of most cooked-low-carb diets(even Stefansson, the "ultimate" low-carb guru heavily advocates dairy-consumption. Your citing of dairy-free palaeo diet is rather disingenuous, therefore, as it is only a small subset of cooked low carb(dairy-inclusive) diets. As regards the heart-disease issue, it's made clear that heavy daily exercise protected them from heart-disease, not their diets by any means. Plus, as I've pointed out previously, the Masai have very short lifespans so quite a number of conditions that normally appear in old age would not necessarily affect them if they die before that point.

Quote
Yes, there you have a good point. That is a potentially confounding variable. However, there is also evidence that exercise does not do much to improve heart disease survival rates:

Well, 1 study doesn't prove anything. There was 1 recent claim for example that doing exercise didn't reduce weight, which was also misleading and attacked heavily by scientific critics re methodology. The key point is that the kind of heavy daily exercise practised by the Masai(and even more so by Palaeo-era tribespeople) is quite different, in terms of better fitness/health benefits, from the kind of poor levels of exercise as found in modern times.

Quote
Wow, I can't believe that you as a Paleo dieter are bringing up that old canard again that was refuted long ago. Why do you eat Paleo if you don't believe that avoiding dairy, grains and legumes reduces the risk of diseases of civilization? Why not call your diet a raw nonallergenic diet or some such thing? Increasingly you've been sounding like the critics of Paleo dieting, but that may well be because we've only had a couple of posters here recently who advocated nonPaleo positions like near-fruitarianism and pro-raw-dairy and you haven't had a chance to defend Paleo against critics. Let me offer you an opportunity to be more positive about Paleo. You've spoken about what you find nonsensical about pro-Paleo diet arguments, what do you find makes sense about the Paleo aspect of RPD?

Actually, average human life expectancies DECLINED a bit when Stone Age hunter-gatherers adopted an agrarian lifestyle at the start of the Neolithic era. The later increases in life expectancy were mainly due to public health achievements such as better sanitation, safer food, effective systems of quarantine, immunizations and improved childbirth survival rates.

It is true that hunter-gatherers studied during modern times do not have as great an average lifespan as those values found in industrialized nations. However, most deaths among adults in hunter-gatherer societies are related to accidents and trauma from living in the wild without modern medical care, as opposed to the chronic degenerative diseases that afflict modern socieities.


Look, I've been quoting/citing beyondveg.com and Cordain for years re such issues. That said, both pro-cooked-palaeo proponents and WAPF-followers all have this religious belief in the absurd notion that native tribes were all 100% free of disease. I back-checked some of the more extreme claims, on several occasions. I found out  that the Maoris actually suffered very poor health even well before the white colonists arrived(though not as much as after contact) - ironically, Maori health only really improved once they started turning to Western diets c.1900! Then I came across claims that the Native Americans and Inuit were 100% free of disease until white colonists arrived from Europe. I duly found a scientific paper stating that the Inuit did indeed have tuberculosis in pre-Contact times. So, I mean this whole "Noble Savage" myth truly annoys me as it is based on an absurd religious-inspired notion of some perfect (and mythical) "Garden of Eden" in the past. The palaeolithic era was filled with mass infanticide, cannibalism and other harsh ways of living and was by no means perfect.

Quote
I don't think people here disagree with you about cooked diets, it's your singling out of low-carb cooked diets that I think some of us take issue with, since high-carb cooked diets have been demonstrated time and again to be even more unhealthful than low-carb cooked diets. As I mentioned before, Gary Taubes wrote a massive (600+ page) book on the subject, though I suspect you might a priori dismiss his writings because he eats a cooked diet that includes dairy and he is dismissive of Paleo (his book gives focuses on one point which some Paleo researchers made that he disagrees with and ignores the more important contributions of the field, and it gives the impression that Boyd Eaton is the only major researcher in the field, giving short shrift to researchers who are currently more active in the field, such as Cordain, Lindeberg, Phinney and others). Despite these weaknesses, I find the book valuable for the extensive historical research it includes and the mountain of evidence it analyzes and references.

The reason I dismiss Taubes' writings is that, just like cooked-low-carb gurus, his only recourse in the end is to cite conspiracy-theories. Another point is that science is always on the side of the big battalions. In other words, when there are 1000s of studies damning (cooked) meats and just a handful favouring the other side, the general scientific concensus is on the side of the former. Now Taubes can make sensationalist claims re using the wrong methodology or even accuse some scientists of outright fraud(after all even scientists cannot be perfect). But he simply cannot convincingly denounce the 1000s of studies out there which focus on heat-created toxins in cooked animal fats, the higher mortality risk of  diets high in (cooked) meats etc Conspiracy theories might apply , to some extent, to Communist countries where restrictions applied to science, but not to the entire world!

Quote
Your ignoring of the accumulating evidence on this is puzzling. I don't think you differ nearly so much in practice from us than you do in rhetoric. I suspect that your own diet is lower-carb than the SAD, Ornish and Mediterranean diets, yet for some reason you have failed to respond to my inquiries on this.

I have many times been forced to go on weeks-long carb-binges(well raw fruit) when high-quality meat sources were difficult to obtain or for social reasons). I found no harm to my health as a result, yet, I have suffered a great deal from eating cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fats(negligible effects from cooked plant foods). So, I am perfectly well aware that high carb is not an issue, whereas going for cooked animal food is far worse. If it weren't that my food-costs would be even higher if I ate far more carbs, I wouldn't mind going for Instincto-like  diets(80% raw plant foods, 20% raw animal foods) -plus, of course, I'd spend too much of my time eating - at least with raw animal fats like suet, appetite is quickly dulled within 5 minutes.

The key for me is that raw plant foods, while perfectly healthy per se(ie they don't have heat-created toxins etc.), are not complete foods so that I have to supplement with raw animal foods to compensate.
Quote
That's something I've heard conflicting stories on. I have no personal interest in defending Atkins (I think Atkins made a huge mistake by advocating unlimited dairy, for example--though my personal experience does bias me on that issue, as you've pointed out), but was it Atkins himself who advocated that candy bar crap, or the corporation that he sold the rights to his name to? At times it sounds like the Atkins Corp. may differ from Atkins himself in similar ways that the WAPF differs from Weston A. Price. I skimmed Atkins' first book and it's amazing how different it is from the popular perception in the mass media and from the processed products that the Atkins Corp. sells.
I heard a very vague claim that Atkins supported Aajonus' raw-meat theories in private. No guarantee whether this is true or not. I do know that every guru, other than Aajonus, routinely peddles supplements as it's the easiest way to cash in(diet-books provide little profit, no doubt due to publishers getting most of it).

Quote
I agree, and here some of your reasons for supporting Paleo are revealing themselves--nondairy, no grains or legumes, and lower-cooked. So don't you then agree that the Paleo diets of Cordain, Lindeberg, Phinney and others that tend to be lower-carb, lower-glycemic, cooked at lower temps, and include less hydrogenated plant oil fats are likely healthier than the SAD and Mediterranean diets they have trounced in the studies and wouldn't you think that by avoiding dairy, grains and legumes we might lower our risk for modern chronic diseases and that this might help explain why the remains of Stone Agers older than 30 years have been found to be generally free of such diseases, except for rare cases of "wear-and-tear" arthritis?

Just because a cited diet is "less worse" than an even worse SAD-based diet doesn't make it healthy. And, come to think of it, trans-fats only form a very tiny percentage of daily-intake in SAD-diets, the rest of a SAD diet consists of cooked meats much like a cooked palaeo diet, just with extra unhealthy stuff like dairy and grains. I agree that cooked palaeo diets provide a reduced risk for
some auto-immune-related conditions, but they 're still very ineffective overall. I mean, cooked foods are supposed to be something 200 times more immunoreactive than raw foods, so raw foods diets would likely be more effective:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_endproduct
Quote
There is more study evidence for long term benefits of cooked low-carb diets (the Framingham study comes to mind, though it tends to get misrepresented by proponents of high-carb, who basically ignore what the actual data says) than for all-raw diets, yet I don't abandon raw dieting on that basis. This just points to the need for research on all-raw diets (but don't hold your breath waiting for that ;) ).

This is precisely my point. Ultimately, the fall-back argument of every pro-cooked-low-carb diet advocate is to claim conspiracy theories or nitpick the multitude of current anti-cooked-animal-food studies and/or cite glowing stories based on myths about the supposed perfect health of the Masai/Inuit/palaeo(take your pick).For me to be convinced re the supposed  health-benefits of a cooked diet, I would have to see solid evidence of the notion that humans can easily tolerate(or even require) the heat-created toxins found in cooked foods. Given the multitude of studies damning those very heat-created toxins, I rather doubt such evidence will ever come to light.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 06:11:15 am by TylerDurden »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #139 on: August 31, 2009, 07:11:33 pm »

Tyler, you point to "studies" claiming that cooked saturated fats are bad...if you've read that book you will realise that many scientific studies that you refer to have either been misinterpreted, are biased, or have been reported badly by journalists who don;t know anything about science...which is why it's difficult to believe your claims are "based on science".
Unfortunately, Taubes' claims are merely of a sensationalist nature. He is a fomer physicist who without any qualifications as a scientist in medine or biology deigned to make such controversial claims. He reminds me of that fool Linus Pauling who decided also to get away from his own speciality, and recommend vitamin C supplements en mass, despite not having any qualifications in the relevant subject of food-science. Admittedly, taubes' weird pronouncements, such as the claim that exercise doesn't reduce fat, tend to reduce his credibility big time.

Here's a relevant article criticising Taubes' methods which expose him for showing the same sort of negative tactics he accuses his opponents of :-
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28714.html

Quote
If cooked saturated fats were so bad, why was cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc extremely rare before the 19th century? afaik, people before then ate MORE cooked saturated fats in the form of lard, butter, tallow, etc (which aren't raw).
People have been consuming cooked animal fats for thousands of years, yet western diseases were rare to nonexistant, until only recently...

This is wholly misleading. For example most people suffer from cancer between the ages of 55-75, yet in past ages most people never managed to live that long to get cancer in the first place.As regards heart-disease etc, people in those days didn't eat trans-fats or refined sugars or highly processed meat products etc, so were "less unhealthy" than in modern times. That does not mean they were healthy because of cooked saturated fats(inspite of, rather). As I pointed out in previous posts, the notion of the "Noble, 100% Healthy savage" is just a myth. Native tribes in the past were subject to disease/epidemics(eg:- read about the mass plagues present in Ancient Rome and China etc.), and  were rather less healthy than Dr Price pretended to claim etc.Sure, such tribes had some things going for them:- they exercised far more and ate less food in general due to famine, and caloric restriction is proven as a way of reducing the levels of (cooking-derived)heat-created toxins in the human body. Plus, they also ate some raw foods which countered the negative effects of a diet high in cooked animal foods, to some extent. But the fact that such native tribes were "less unhealthy" than modern humans with the sedentary lifestyles of the latter etc. does NOT make cooked saturated fats healthy by any means.

of course, Dr Price is, ultimately, far more to blame for this religious myth of the Noble (100% healthy) Savage. Taubes is just a minnow by comparison.

[/quote]

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #140 on: August 31, 2009, 07:13:20 pm »
Well, I think I can recommend krill oil as a supplement. I did an experiment re drinking alcohol and swallowing 4 krill oil tablets some time afterwards, and the negative effects the next day were negligible. I think the extra omega-3 acids helped.

Offline Hannibal

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #141 on: August 31, 2009, 07:24:02 pm »
I have many times been forced to go on weeks-long carb-binges(well raw fruit) when high-quality meat sources were difficult to obtain or for social reasons). I found no harm to my health as a result, yet, I have suffered a great deal from eating cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fats(negligible effects from cooked plant foods). So, I am perfectly well aware that high carb is not an issue, whereas going for cooked animal food is far worse. If it weren't that my food-costs would be even higher if I ate far more carbs, I wouldn't mind going for Instincto-like  diets(80% raw plant foods, 20% raw animal foods) -plus, of course, I'd spend too much of my time eating - at least with raw animal fats like suet, appetite is quickly dulled within 5 minutes.
But you're not statistically representative, if I may say so
There're quite many people who could not handle raw fruits or any plants in such amounts (some do not handle them at all or handle only very small amounts), but they do handle quite well cooked animal products while being on low-carb. One of these people is me, as I usually do quite bad after eating greater amounts of fruits and I do quite good after eating good-quality cooked animal products (I eat them occassionally on some family meetings, parties, etc.)
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #142 on: August 31, 2009, 07:27:51 pm »
Well, I think I can recommend krill oil as a supplement. I did an experiment re drinking alcohol and swallowing 4 krill oil tablets some time afterwards, and the negative effects the next day were negligible. I think the extra omega-3 acids helped.

Interesting stuff...presumably the krill oil was heated and you accepted that? Or have you found a raw source?

Offline Hannibal

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #143 on: August 31, 2009, 07:30:45 pm »
Interesting stuff...presumably the krill oil was heated and you accepted that? Or have you found a raw source?
I think that Tyler was talking about this kind of krill oil - http://www.red23.co.uk/Krill-Oil-Pure-Antarctic-NKO_p_769.html
it has been cold extracted
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #144 on: August 31, 2009, 07:33:15 pm »
Interesting stuff...presumably the krill oil was heated and you accepted that? Or have you found a raw source?

It's endorsed by Dr Mercola who also recommends a cold-extracted raw(fermented) cod liver oil from Blue Ice. I generally trust Mercola re this.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 07:38:18 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #145 on: August 31, 2009, 07:49:09 pm »
But you're not statistically representative, if I may say so
There're quite many people who could not handle raw fruits or any plants in such amounts (some do not handle them at all or handle only very small amounts), but they do handle quite well cooked animal products while being on low-carb. One of these people is me, as I usually do quite bad after eating greater amounts of fruits and I do quite good after eating good-quality cooked animal products (I eat them occassionally on some family meetings, parties, etc.)

By definition, most people turn to raw diets precisely because they do worse on cooked foods than on raw, so you're in a minority. I'll accept a sizeable proportion of raw, zero-carbers given the palaeo nature of this forum, but , taking all raw diets into account(the ones with raw animal foods in them), you'll find, inevitably, that most do OK or fine on raw carbs(if not eaten in truly vast amounts) but do much worse on cooked foods.


Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,573
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #146 on: August 31, 2009, 10:15:15 pm »
  It's not cold processed.  I have called the processing company.  they won't tell me what temps it has seen, but will tell you heat has been used.

Offline Hannibal

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #147 on: August 31, 2009, 10:34:20 pm »
By definition, most people turn to raw diets precisely because they do worse on cooked foods than on raw, so you're in a minority. I'll accept a sizeable proportion of raw, zero-carbers given the palaeo nature of this forum, but , taking all raw diets into account(the ones with raw animal foods in them), you'll find, inevitably, that most do OK or fine on raw carbs(if not eaten in truly vast amounts) but do much worse on cooked foods.
No, I'm not in minority, as I do better with raw animal protein and fat, but on the other hand I do digest cooked ones quite well, without any stomach aches; but I definitely do better with low-carb than high-carb, and, as I see, most of the people on this forum made major improvements after switching even to cooked low-carb
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

William

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #148 on: August 31, 2009, 11:59:49 pm »
But you're not statistically representative, if I may say so


Yes, it does look like that.
TD, have you considered whether gallbladder/liver function might be different for you? The recent discussion on paleofood list makes me think of this. Apparently someone reacted very badly to cooked fat/butter.
Symptoms vary enough that it's hard to be sure, for instance my symptoms of appendicitis were not the usual ones, made life difficult for a time.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,225
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #149 on: September 01, 2009, 05:06:31 pm »
  It's not cold processed.  I have called the processing company.  they won't tell me what temps it has seen, but will tell you heat has been used.

That's not good! Aiieee! I'd always thought, previously, that Dr Mercola-recommended products of this sort were A-OK.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk