Author Topic: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat  (Read 48747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zbr5

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« on: October 11, 2011, 10:53:44 pm »
Most of you have probably already read Daniel Vitalis' post on "Vegans vs Carnivores": http://www.danielvitalis.com/2010/05/vegans-vs-carnivores/

It is a nice article that I mostly agree with. We as human beings need balance of veggies (for cleansing, detoxifing purposes) and meats (for building tissues). What makes me think though is his point that we humans adopted to Fire:

"Even more so than animals like the Bear that, while omnivorous, lack Fire, the Elemental tool that renders the inedible edible.  Sorry Rawfooders! We are a unique species, specifically adapted as omnivores, and with modifications to our anatomy that attest to this.  In fact, it seems to me that our anatomy demonstrates that we have adapted to Fire in the same way an organism like a fish might adapt to the Water, or a bird has adapted to the Air.  Our lack of hair being just one example.  Another is the fact that we have the smallest mouths and stomachs (compared to our body size) of any of the great apes seems to indicate a selection towards those who ate the softest and most condensed food sources.

A brief survey of those humans we call the “Indigenous” of the world, especially those who were Hunter/Gatherers reveals a diet that, while varying in the ratio of animal to plant food, still always contains both in ample degrees.  These people are always cooks, in that they are never found on “Raw Food Diets”.  They eat a mix of raw and cooked foods, as well as balancing animal foods against plant foods.  I know of no culture that is based solely on plant food, nor one built exclusively on animal foods."

If I understand it correct he suggests that we can thrive on meats as long as they are not overcooked. It is ok in his opinion to eat slightly processed meats (for example steamed salmon steak).

Is it really that straightforward as we think on this forum, that the less processed meat the healthier it is? Or maybe Daniel has some vaild points that meat is healthy as long as it is not cooked over  some threshold of time&temperture?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 03:56:58 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline zbr5

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2011, 11:36:45 pm »
http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/product-reviews/0465013627/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Daniel draws his conclusions from this book. Read best rated comment on Amazon to see what the book is exactly about.

Well...

"Wrangham reports that there are no known cases of a modern human surviving on raw food for more than a month.) "
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 02:17:00 am by TylerDurden »

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2011, 12:32:30 am »
    Didn't Daniel survive as a raw foodist for over a month among other raw foodists?

    Primates prefer the taste of cooked?  My cat prefers the taste of cooked, but it makes her very ill. People prefer to be high on crack, does that make it something good? Hence we call cooked food "cat crack" in my house.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline RogueFarmer

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2011, 02:23:05 am »
That book raises good arguments but I found it hard to believe what the book said back when I heard about it on NPR, before I ever was interested in raw foods besides raw milk.

Quote
Interestingly, Charles Darwin, while calling fire-making "probably the greatest [discovery], excepting language, ever made by man," thought that cooking was a late addition to the human skill-set without biological or evolutionary significance, and anthropologists agreed with him until quite recently.

The whole chewing argument seems pretty weak to me. Honestly, I swallow large chunks of meat most every day, they are always digested well.

Why is it that indigenous people bother to cook their meat? I would really like to know. Sushi had always been my favorite food. I never liked cooked meat, I was vegetarian for 6 years partly because of that. When I started eating cooked meat again I got really good at doctoring it up to make myself like it. With raw meat I love the taste of it plain.

I find cooked meat hard to digest, it gives me stomach upsets, makes me feel hot and angry and emotional. Raw meat is exactly the opposite.

I feel like cooking was mainly used originally for cooking inedible foods like acorns and tubers. Those cooked by themselves don't taste so good either so throw in some bones and some chewy scraps of meat why not?

Perhaps the arguments are valid with cooked plant matter, however I have to whole heartedly disagree with the cooked meat. I have experimented quite a bit eating cooked meat and raw meat back and forth. I digest raw meat much better, I feel better, I LOOK better, I gain muscle mass better, I have more energy and need less sleep, I sleep less, I feel a higher degree of mental clarity.

When I relapse and eat some cooked meat I INVARIABLY become anxious and nervous, not about food but my life in general. I begin to doubt myself. With raw meat I feel confident and self assured.

Cooked vegetables don't bother me so much, but cooked meat does. I don't know, perhaps it's because I am dealing with a wreckage of a digestive tract. I don't know.

Raw meat does taste better though, the more cooked a meat is, the more it tastes like cardboard. That is sufficient evidence for me that it is not as healthy.

Offline cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,513
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2011, 02:58:20 am »

"Wrangham reports that there are no known cases of a modern human surviving on raw food for more than a month.) "

Wrangham also reports that the moon is made of green cheese. 

Wow, is he ever going to feel stupid when he finds out how wrong he is.




Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2011, 07:49:26 am »
This is the closest thing I found in Wrangham's book to what the reviewer claimed:

Quote
"You might think that when humans are forced to eat raw, they would grumble at the loss of flavor but nevertheless be fine. However, I have not been able to find any reports of people living long term on raw wild food.

The longest case that I found of survival on raw animal foods lasted only a few weeks. ....

Their fantasies focused on cooked food." --Richard Wrangham, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, Basic Books, c. 2009
>"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 RogueFarmer

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2011, 08:06:42 am »
Didn't Inuits eat by far mostly raw before colonialists traded them iron pots?

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2011, 08:19:04 am »
Perhaps, but Wrangham didn't say "mostly raw." Anyone know of someone who lived on 100% raw, 100% wild foods for more than a few weeks? There must have been times when Inuit did this, but I don't recall seeing any documentation of it. It would be nice to have such documentation in our arsenal.
>"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 cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,513
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2011, 10:28:13 am »
Perhaps, but Wrangham didn't say "mostly raw." Anyone know of someone who lived on 100% raw, 100% wild foods for more than a few weeks? There must have been times when Inuit did this, but I don't recall seeing any documentation of it. It would be nice to have such documentation in our arsenal.

I have.  I've done it for about 2 months at a stretch when I lived in Costa Rica, and could have gone much longer.

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2011, 12:06:55 pm »
I have.  I've done it for about 2 months at a stretch when I lived in Costa Rica, and could have gone much longer.

Which foods exactly did you eat? Which fruits... which animals.. which fat? Did you loose weight?

Offline ezekiel

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,518
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2011, 02:47:51 pm »
He fails to mention that tools may be a reason why we didn't need bigger mouths. We could mince or chop things. Or even pound or tenderize.

Offline ezekiel

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,518
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2011, 02:53:13 pm »
Raw meat can be pretty easy to chew (or not need much chewing because of moisture), I'd rather eat cooked meat than no meat at all though. I have nothing against rare meats either. Just getting some high quality meat and fat in you is a good start. Whether it's cooked, rare, or raw.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2011, 04:33:40 pm »
First of all, never put anti-raw topics anywhere except in the Hot Topics forum. I'll move this topic there now.

Secondly, Daniel Vitalis is a somewhat retarded individual who clearly has not been reading much in the way of scientific literature on the damage caused by cooking.

First of all, there's the silly claim re us having the smallest stomachs of apes. Well, that is easily explained by scientists who have linked this to an increase in (raw)meat-consumption, well before the advent of cooking, which, apparently, led to bigger brains and smaller digestive systems as a result of eating calorie-high foods. The smaller jaws hypothesis could be explained by cooking or tool-use, but there are other ideas too re this.

Then there's the chewing claim by that village idiot, Richard Wrangham. This utter moron tried to claim that apemen would have had to chew raw meats for 5.7 to 6.2 hours in order to get enough calories each day. First of all, we rawpalaeos, RZCers or raw omnivores, certainly do not need to chew raw meats for that long to get enough nutrients, but, also, just like carnivores, we, mostly, just bolt the raw meats down after minimal chewing. So, this claim is particularly stupid and shows that Richard Wrangham has not even bothered to check with raw-meat-eaters such as Primal Dieters and the like.

His cooked tuber hypothesis has been debunked already by  beyondveg.com, which, amusingly, is anti-raw too:-

"Recent tuber-based hypothesis for evolutionary brain expansion fails to address key issues such as DHA and the recent fossil record. As a case in point, there has been one tentative alternative hypothesis put forward recently by primatologist Richard Wrangham et al. [1999] suggesting that perhaps cooked tubers (primarily a starch-based food) provided additional calories/energy that might have supported brain expansion during human evolution.

However, this idea suffers from some serious, apparently fatal flaws, in that the paper failed to mention or address critical pieces of key evidence regarding brain expansion that contradict the thesis. For instance, it overlooks the crucial DHA and/or DHA-substrate adequacy issue just discussed above, which is central to brain development and perhaps the most gaping of the holes. It's further contradicted by the evidence of 8% decrease in human brain size during the last 10,000 years, despite massive increases in starch consumption since the Neolithic revolution which began at about that time. (Whether the starch is from grain or tubers does not essentially matter in this context.) Meat and therefore presumed DHA consumption levels, both positive *and* negative-trending over human evolution, track relatively well not simply with the observed brain size increases during human evolution, but with the Neolithic-era decrease as well, on the other hand. [Eaton 1998]

These holes, among others in the hypothesis, will undoubtedly be drawing comment from paleo researchers in future papers, and hopefully there will be a writeup on Beyond Veg as more is published in the peer-review journals in response to the idea. At this point, however, it does not appear to be a serious contender in plausibly accounting for all the known evidence.
" taken from:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1f.shtml

Anyone trying to pretend that cooking is beneficial to humans, needs to look at the extensive number of studies showing seriously harmful, long-term effects from consuming heat-created toxins derived from cooking, such as advanced glycation end products, nitrosamines, heterocyclic amines and  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 06:04:03 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Löwenherz

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2011, 05:48:11 pm »
I find cooked meat hard to digest, it gives me stomach upsets, makes me feel hot and angry and emotional. Raw meat is exactly the opposite.

Same here. Furthermore cooked animals fats clog my intestines, make my skin sensitive to sunlight and cause brown spots on my forehead.

Löwenherz

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2011, 09:14:12 pm »
Boyd Eaton's comment is nice but could still be explained by a combination of cooking tubers (for more energy) and meat (containing therein the necessary brain building components).

Wrangham is taken very seriously in academia. I heard him on public radio a while ago (which basically means you're considered the leader in your field by the liberal media, a very strong force in American elite culture and academia) and a professor working at my University is testing his hypothesis and has no idea of alternatives to it. In other words guys like Eaton or Cordain or whoever else might disagree with him, their message isn't even getting to academicians.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2011, 09:45:15 pm »
I think we can agree that Wrangam has made enough unsubstantiated claims to make him fairly non-credible here..but that in the end does not mean some of the other ideas are definitively false.

DV (wrong or not) has been active in raw food for decades, eating raw animal food at least half that I think and meeting all kinds of people due to the very practice of his shtick. I don't think he has to believe Wrangam is unilaterally right to make his other observations nor do I think Wrangram is his only source for this idea that cooking is perhaps integral to the human experience or is ideal for human health.

Virtually anything can be proven to be harmful, its whether there are benefits that outweigh harmful things. I don't think he is saying that eating many foods raw (including meat) can't have value. What he is saying is that diets whos goal is to eat all raw might need to analyze how natural that diet is in the wild. That it has no real known precedent for any people eating a all raw diet (nevermind with the types of supermarket foods and monocrop agricultural foods) when using Wrangram's timeline (of sorts) of 'being human' and not some human precursor.

For most reasonable people here they are going to find at least one kind of raw diet which does not meet the minimums that another diet with some cooked foods can provide. These degrees of 'unnatural' whether its  veganism or other restriction for most will trump any  accepted knowledge of toxins through cooking in terms of long term harm. So a debate about whether one could provide a diet with no need for fire as more free of toxins or more suitable to people far in the past..I don't think is getting at the larger conversation. That of relating 'humanity' and its experiences to fire or how people might recieve benefits cooking food as opposed to other entire approaches which may be much more unnatural for them.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 09:56:40 pm by KD »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2011, 10:21:19 pm »
Boyd Eaton's comment is nice but could still be explained by a combination of cooking tubers (for more energy) and meat (containing therein the necessary brain building components).

Wrangham is taken very seriously in academia. I heard him on public radio a while ago (which basically means you're considered the leader in your field by the liberal media, a very strong force in American elite culture and academia) and a professor working at my University is testing his hypothesis and has no idea of alternatives to it. In other words guys like Eaton or Cordain or whoever else might disagree with him, their message isn't even getting to academicians.
  The notion that cooking meat allowed hominid brains to get bigger, due to releasing calories or some such nonsense, is debunked by the fact that studies by Oste et al show that cooking makes meat less digestible, not more:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking

(refs 95, 96 and 97).

I disagree that academics all agree with him. If you read online articles about Richard Wrangham, one constantly reads derogatory stuff about him. The Bigger Brains article has this excerpt, for example:-

"n the 10 years since coming on his theory, Wrangham has stacked up considerable evidence to support it, yet many archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists argue that he is just plain wrong. Wrangham is a chimp researcher, the skeptics point out, not a specialist in human evolution. He is out of his league. Furthermore, archaeological data does not support the use of controlled fire during the period Wrangham’s theory requires it to." Another major article states that "most other anthropologists" disagree with Wrangham etc.

The basic flaws behind the pro-cooking camp are as follows:-

a) Evidence of cooking is non-existent past 300,000 years or so. Past that point, evidence is extremely rare and seen as being inconclusive. So, cooking is highly unlikely to have influenced human evolution re bigger brains.

b) Cooking makes some foods(eg:- grains) more digestible  but other foods, such as raw meats become less digestible.

c) For someone to claim that humans are fully adapted to cooked foods they would have to prove that we are all somehow immune to the heat-created toxins in cooked foods or that we needed to eat some of those toxins in order to stay alive. A scientific impossibility, and one that Wrangham can't get round.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Löwenherz

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2011, 11:51:04 pm »
Wrangham is taken very seriously in academia. I heard him on public radio a while ago (which basically means you're considered the leader in your field by the liberal media, a very strong force in American elite culture and academia) and a professor working at my University is testing his hypothesis and has no idea of alternatives to it. In other words guys like Eaton or Cordain or whoever else might disagree with him, their message isn't even getting to academicians.

Could it be that all elite academias produce nothing else than massive amounts of nonsense?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2011, 12:07:01 am »
Could it be that all elite academias produce nothing else than massive amounts of nonsense?

Having seen all sorts of b*llsh*t being peddled as "truth" in academic circles such as Derrida's deconstructionism nonsense, I have to agree with that.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2011, 02:22:22 am »
a) Evidence of cooking is non-existent past 300,000 years or so. Past that point, evidence is extremely rare and seen as being inconclusive. So, cooking is highly unlikely to have influenced human evolution re bigger brains.
______________________________________________

c) For someone to claim that humans are fully adapted to cooked foods they would have to prove that we are all somehow immune to the heat-created toxins in cooked foods or that we needed to eat some of those toxins in order to stay alive. A scientific impossibility, and one that Wrangham can't get round.

a) Homo Sapiens are only estimated to have been around for 200,000 years
________

c) Why would we have to be fully adapted? We could just have become more adapted to cooked than to raw..
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2011, 03:02:39 am »
Archaic Homo Sapiens existed for a longer period. To be more full adapted to cooked than raw, we should have some sort of immunity to heat-created toxins in cooked foods - we do not have any such immunity.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2011, 03:17:27 am »
We could just have become more adapted to cooked than to raw..

    Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say I'm more adapted to cooked than raw, unless maybe vegetables.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2011, 07:13:57 am »
I have.  I've done it for about 2 months at a stretch when I lived in Costa Rica, and could have gone much longer.

Which foods exactly did you eat? Which fruits... which animals.. which fat? Did you loose weight?

Yes, which wild foods were you eating, how did you obtain them (foraging, hunting, fishing, wild game market, etc.) and did anyone witness you eating an all-wild raw diet for the 2 months?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 07:51:12 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

Offline cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,513
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2011, 11:04:13 am »
Yes, which wild foods were you eating, how did you obtain them (foraging, hunting, fishing, wild game market, etc.) and did anyone witness you eating an all-wild raw diet for the 2 months?

I ate mostly wild coconuts and mangos, and some wild greens (greenbriar, which grows wild throughout the Americas).  I also had wild figs and wild almonds. I got it all from foraging. 

I did have a friend who was with me for about 6 weeks of that time.  He was eating a very similar diet.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2011, 11:28:35 am »
So you were eating a raw wild vegan diet for a couple months at a time?
>"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

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk