Author Topic: Stefansson's book online  (Read 60668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pioneer

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2010, 08:59:21 am »
Thats interesting, I never knew that they could prove the era when cooking was introduced. When I talk about the diet however, I tell people to look at the tribes who eat raw today as a prime example of radiant health. In other words I tell people that evidence of the past can get confusing and there's evidence today staring right at us we just have to look for it. And I never meant exercise was not beneficial as stated previously. I meant that when in terms of calorie burning, diet plays a more important role. I.e. run an hour and burn 400kcal or just skip the dohnut, thats the point I am making. Surely exercise is essential for health purposes, just like just because someone is skinny doesnt mean they're healthy. Cavemen just didnt call it exercise, they called it hunting. I always like discussing topics cause I learn something every time. ???
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"There is a lot of pressure to be sexualized but not to actually be sexual."
- women's health member

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,347
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2010, 07:20:02 pm »
Cavemen did plenty of everyday exercise that didn't necessarily involve hunting. The point being that they practised physical activity on an almost  constant basis.

As for those tribes you mentioned, most such tribes are nowadays not fullyon their traditional diets(the Masai now eat lots of grains, for example), many are suffering from alcoholism(eg:- the Inuit and the Australian Aborigines), plus none of them ate more than c.50% raw foods anyway, even in their heydays. I'll grant that their diets were far better than modern SAD diets and that they of necessity practised certain routines such as feast-and-famine cycles and increased daily  physical activity which helped alleviate some of the negative effects of their ancestral diets(which were often filled with grains and dairy, let alone cooked foods). But, really, the only suitable truly excellent examples of human health would have been found in the Palaeolithic era, before the advent of cooking.


Offline pioneer

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2010, 10:49:14 pm »
We are not caveman however, well me and you can consider ourselves cavemen. But the general population cannot consider themselves caveman, they are weak compared to the strong caveman. One rule of thumb is unless your diet is sound your exercise doesnt mean jack squat. Our diets are sound so we have the ability to recover faster and dont drain out our immune systems after exercise. The point Im making is that most people view exercise today as a prime weight loss technique, most people dont even consider diet. My argument is that if your diet is sound E.g. RPD, you shouldnt need the extra exercise. I myself exercise strength training only 3x a week and get great gains now that Ive switched to RPD. But before, I was doing 6x a week and sleeping 8hrs a day getting no gains and it was truly frustrating. Also, my body was always drained every day, I started to lose muscle mass and I felt like shit all the time, probably weakened my immune system also. Conclusion- My diet could not support the amount of exercise I was doing and/or the amount of exercise I was doing was overkill and sapping my testosterone and raising cortisol. This is what happens when people overtrain, they have a constant high level of stress that has the opposite effect of exercise. Long story short, I switched to 3x a week on my cooked paleo diet and even started to see gains and fat loss so that tells me that it was more over training related than diet. Once I switched to RPD though, my strength and muscle gains took off, this tells me that RPD was sufficient in providing all the nutrients to support muscle growth and testosterone production. Could RPD be sufficient for 6x a week at the gym? Probably, but why go 6x a week when you feel great and get great gains only 3x a week for 30min sessions? Ive seen people over train time and time again and it ends up being worse for them than not exercising at all. We live in an era where sperm levels are 75% lower than in 1960, and Testosterone levels are around 25% lower, 20 year olds that "cant get it up", infirtility is rampant, drugged up nations, obesity, diabetes. These people dont need more exercise, exercise does not heal like diet does. RPD will heal most maladies out there alone. Exercise is secondary. In fact for the majority of the population, exercise more than 3x a week could be detrimental to their bodies. These people dont have an RPD diet and cannot recover from extensive exercise. More is not always better.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"There is a lot of pressure to be sexualized but not to actually be sexual."
- women's health member

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,347
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2010, 01:44:58 am »
While diet is more important than exercise, exercise is still absolutely necessary. The vast extra amounts of exercise that people did in the era before cooking would have made them far healthier and stronger than any of us modern rawpalaeos, though.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2010, 11:14:10 pm »
... It is simply a question of processing. In other words, someone eating mostly unrefined raw carbs and only a little cooked/processed fat would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly cooked/processed fat and only a few raw carbs. ....
I don't want to get involved in this debate, Tyler, but I would just like to qualify your statement and once again ask you to speak for yourself rather than everyone, because while your statement applies to you it does not apply to me, nor to some others here. Yes, raw is better than cooked, but unrefined raw plant carbs affect me much more negatively than cooked/processed animal fat. I do not vomit when I eat cooked fat like you report and I do not thrive on raw fruits as I believe you report (please do correct me if I err).

BTW, out of curiosity, how well do you handle the best raw comb honey? Do you thrive on that as well?
>"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 klowcarb

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #55 on: June 14, 2010, 01:58:29 am »
I would rather live on entirely cooked ZC and be active and never hungry that eat any raw plants and fruits and lose my abs and get that gnawing hunger back. No thanks! A lightly seared steak or cooked egg yolk is definitely healthier because these are foods for humans.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,347
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #56 on: June 14, 2010, 02:24:23 am »
I don't want to get involved in this debate, Tyler, but I would just like to qualify your statement and once again ask you to speak for yourself rather than everyone, because while your statement applies to you it does not apply to me, nor to some others here. Yes, raw is better than cooked, but unrefined raw plant carbs affect me much more negatively than cooked/processed animal fat. I do not vomit when I eat cooked fat like you report and I do not thrive on raw fruits as I believe you report (please do correct me if I err).

BTW, out of curiosity, how well do you handle the best raw comb honey? Do you thrive on that as well?
  The fact is that the majority of RVAFers have issues with cooked foods but not with raw carbs. Same applies to the SAD-eaters given that there are multiple health-problems for older people, directly associated with intake of heat-created toxins derived from cooked foods. By contrast,  judging from multiple studies, most SAD-eaters do better, healthwise, by upping their intake of raw fruits/vegetables  and lowering their intake of cooked animal foods.

Now, sure there is a minority who, for various reasons, have developed serious intolerance towards all carbs, even unrefined, raw carbs, but that has to do with very unusual combinations of genetics, circumstances, perhaps being brought up on diets of very highly refined carbs causing more than usually severe insulin-resistance or whatever etc. etc. But, otherwise, what I said holds true for most people.

I wonder if you would be so keen re the above statement if you were given a choice of a diet consisting solely of 100% (cooked-well-done), highly processed animal foods or a diet with a sizeable proportion of raw carbs along with the usual raw animal fat.

As for raw honeycomb, I'm fine with it as long as I don't eat ridiculously large amounts of it all the time. Perhaps an occasional  6-10 ounces  in a 24-hour period is fine, and I might have, maybe, max. 20 or so such boxes in the whole of a summer these days. I don't like the notion of relying on raw honey/honeycomb as a mainstay of the diet as , like with raw eggs, many Primal Dieters have complained in the past re side-effects from overindulging in it.

Offline Hans89

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2010, 05:12:58 am »
One rule of thumb is unless your diet is sound your exercise doesnt mean jack squat.

Exactly. Before I was eating raw meat, exercise just made my body painful for days, I didn't recover and couldn't improve after a certain point. I tried so hard to improve my health with exercise, but I actually felt better after giving it up.

Offline Hans89

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #58 on: June 14, 2010, 05:17:41 am »
I didnt say that cooked saturated fats were healthy, I simply stated that they dont correlate to heart disease. I'll tell ya what, I'd take cooked saturated fats over cooked grains and carbohydrates any day. The real correlation is within the inflammation, and yes I'd have to agree AGE's play a big factor. Im just saying that the US lives in a fat phobic society. What people have to realize is carbohydrates are 100 times worse than fats. Even Weston Price said that while sugar consumption in US increased fat consumption decreased, and heart disease is skyrocketing, so whats the real correlation? A 1902 study posted by the New York Times stated that since 1870 sugar consumption increased 8 times. Since 1902, it increased 7 times. So we're looking at a society that eats roughly 15 times the sugar today than it did in 1870, WOW  :o. However during this sugar increase, fat esp sat fat has decreased.

Actually WAP didn't make a case for low-carb, and he studied a lot of (cooked) high-carb-eating people with great dental and overall health.

Offline pioneer

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2010, 05:58:17 am »
True, however he stated that fat consumption is not the problem. Instead refined white and processed sugars, flours and other processed foods. I dont always use Weston as a source for RPD info but the guy had some superb discoveries and we should all thank him because without his research IDK if RPD would be like it is today.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"There is a lot of pressure to be sexualized but not to actually be sexual."
- women's health member

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2010, 06:29:01 am »
I wonder if you would be so keen re the above statement if you were given a choice of a diet consisting solely of 100% (cooked-well-done), highly processed animal foods or a diet with a sizeable proportion of raw carbs along with the usual raw animal fat.

Heh, I didn't think I was the only one - http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/raw-vegetarianism-or-cooked-paleo-diet/

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #61 on: June 14, 2010, 07:02:37 am »
 The fact is that the majority of RVAFers have issues with cooked foods but not with raw carbs.
I'm aware of that, and the fact also is that "majority" is not all and you know full well that there are multiple members here who don't do well on carbs, so please show a modicum of courtesy by stating "majority" if you mean it--especially here in the ZC forum. Frankly, at times you've used language that is decidedly unfriendly toward VLCers and ZCers, whether you mean to or not. I like having someone to debate with when I'm looking to explore a new or not fully hashed out subject, but it doesn't have to come with overly broad-brush or otherwise inconsiderate language. Sound arguments don't need that.

Quote
Same applies to the SAD-eaters given that there are multiple health-problems for older people, directly associated with intake of heat-created toxins derived from cooked foods. By contrast,  judging from multiple studies, most SAD-eaters do better, healthwise, by upping their intake of raw fruits/vegetables  and lowering their intake of cooked animal foods.
Again, most is not all. Not everyone does as well as you on raw fruits/vegetables, nor does everyone do as well on ZC/VLC as people like Pioneer, Katelyn, Lex, William and me. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the existence of people like us when you make statements about who does well/better on what.

Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if I reverse the language: I would not use the reverse broad-brush language of "someone eating mostly traditionally low-heat-cooked animal fat and only a little unrefined raw carbs would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly raw carbs and only a little traditionally cooked/processed fat." I would qualify it by referring only to myself or use other qualified language like "some people," or at least "most". You know that carbs vs. ZC/VLC is a contentious issue here and by using broad-brush language you encourage ZC proselytizers like Katelyn and William to make the opposite claims from yours. In other words, in addition to being inconsiderate, unqualified language incites your counterparts and starts up the old debates about carbs again.

Quote
Now, sure there is a minority who, for various reasons, have developed serious intolerance towards all carbs, even unrefined, raw carbs, but that has to do with very unusual combinations of genetics, circumstances, perhaps being brought up on diets of very highly refined carbs causing more than usually severe insulin-resistance or whatever etc. etc. But, otherwise, what I said holds true for most people.
Again, most is not all. If you mean most, then please say so in the future. I could live with that (even though I'm skeptical of the claim) and that's all I'm asking. I don't see it as a difficult request. An occasional ommission is understandable, but I've been here long enough to see that it has been a pattern for you to make statements that ignore the existence of people who do better on raw ZC/VLC than other raw diets. If you will not do it, that is your right, but it will signal that you do not wish to make ZCers/VLCers feel welcome here.

Quote
I wonder if you would be so keen re the above statement if you were given a choice of a diet consisting solely of 100% (cooked-well-done), highly processed animal foods or a diet with a sizeable proportion of raw carbs along with the usual raw animal fat.
My experience is similar to Lex's on this--if anything, he has reported fewer benefits from raw than I have. If the animal foods were cooked using traditional methods my guess is that I would fare better on that than on a diet high in raw carbs, based on my experience. In my case, eating raw instead of low-cooked provides a small additional benefit, but it doesn't come close to the benefit I've experienced by dramatically cutting down on plant carbs. You seem to find this hard to believe, but I believe you when your reports of your experience and try to show some civility by taking you at your word and I hope you will return the favor.

As for "well-done"--you didn't specify that (you wrote "only a little cooked/processed fat", which is what I was responding to) and I wasn't cooking well done before I went raw, it's unnecessary when cooking and even most many SAD advocates say not to overcook food, so it's irrelevant to my simple request on multiple counts. Changing the subject doesn't address my request.

Quote
As for raw honeycomb, I'm fine with it as long as I don't eat ridiculously large amounts of it all the time.
OK, thanks. I'm trying to get some sense of how other folks do on raw honeycomb and raw honey vs. raw fruits and where I fit in the spectrum of responses. Are there any differences between how you do on honey vs. fruit? Have you measured your 1 or 2 hour postprandial BG after eating either? I didn't buy any berries this week, so I didn't get a chance to test my PP BG after eating them, but still plan to do that.

Quote
Perhaps an occasional  6-10 ounces  in a 24-hour period is fine, and I might have, maybe, max. 20 or so such boxes in the whole of a summer these days.
Wow, that's actually more than I expected. How much do you pay for raw honeycomb (and sorry if you told me before)?

Quote
I don't like the notion of relying on raw honey/honeycomb as a mainstay of the diet as , like with raw eggs, many Primal Dieters have complained in the past re side-effects from overindulging in it.
I agree with you over AV on this. For me these seem secondary foods at best, rather than optimal foods as AV apparently sees them--though I leave open the possibility that they are optimal for some, as some people report thriving on them.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 07:26:32 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 TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,347
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #62 on: June 14, 2010, 05:24:49 pm »
I'm aware of that, and the fact also is that "majority" is not all and you know full well that there are multiple members here who don't do well on carbs, so please show a modicum of courtesy by stating "majority" if you mean it--especially here in the ZC forum. Frankly, at times you've used language that is decidedly unfriendly toward VLCers and ZCers, whether you mean to or not. I like having someone to debate with when I'm looking to explore a new or not fully hashed out subject, but it doesn't have to come with overly broad-brush or otherwise inconsiderate language. Sound arguments don't need that.
Well, you've also used such language as regards carb-eaters. That is inevitable since I've had bad experiences on RZC and you've had bad experiences on raw omnivorous. As for the issues re "majority", it's not necessary to mention such as I was talking in a general sense re the whole of humanity - obviously, in endless cases, there are always exceptions - for example, I could state, merely in passing, that it is characteristic for humans to have 2 legs and 2 arms, and get unfairly criticised by amputees, in a similiar fashion.

Besides, this was meant originally as merely a sticky topic for Stefansson's work, not as a discussion really, and should have been locked a long time ago(my fault). I only included the Stefansson reference as he is zero-carb and there are no raw, zero-carb gurus at present(well, Lex hasn't written a book as yet). Stefansson made many errors, including clearly deliberately false claims re the proportion of raw foods in the Inuit diet, and was ultimately a pro-cooked-food advocate.

Quote
Again, most is not all. Not everyone does as well as you on raw fruits/vegetables, nor does everyone do as well on ZC/VLC as people like Pioneer, Katelyn, Lex, William and me. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the existence of people like us when you make statements about who does well/better on what.

Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if I reverse the language: I would not use the reverse broad-brush language of "someone eating mostly traditionally low-heat-cooked animal fat and only a little unrefined raw carbs would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly raw carbs and only a little traditionally cooked/processed fat." I would qualify it by referring only to myself or use other qualified language like "some people," or at least "most". You know that carbs vs. ZC/VLC is a contentious issue here and by using broad-brush language you encourage ZC proselytizers like Katelyn and William to make the opposite claims from yours. In other words, in addition to being inconsiderate, unqualified language incites your counterparts and starts up the old debates about carbs again.
Again, most is not all. If you mean most, then please say so in the future. I could live with that (even though I'm skeptical of the claim) and that's all I'm asking. I don't see it as a difficult request. An occasional ommission is understandable, but I've been here long enough to see that it has been a pattern for you to make statements that ignore the existence of people who do better on raw ZC/VLC than other raw diets. If you will not do it, that is your right, but it will signal that you do not wish to make ZCers/VLCers feel welcome here.

Well, William and others have already used terms such as "evil carbs" and the like, in a rather more vehement way than raw omnivores have done as regards raw zero-carb. More to the point, I was merely stating a simple fact, that while everyone does worse with cooked foods to some extent, re increased aging spurred on by heat-created toxins etc., there are only a few who are affected badly by raw,unprocessed carbs. That was to show that cooking is a far bigger problem than carbs as such.And, incidentally, what about the minority who can handle carbs fine but who can't handle any fats at all? There are certain conditions which make that possible. Now I could, long-windedly qualify every statement I make by including every possible exception in my statements but that doesn't change the point, that the exceptions prove the rule.

The simple point is that my experience, along with a number of others, has been decidedly negative re RZC, so it is essential for such as us to warn about issues re such diets. Similiarly, some others, such as Lex and yourself, have not experienced the full benefits when eating raw carbs, so it is essential for you also to warn that raw carbs don't work for everyone. Either way, people benefit therefrom from 2 different viewpoints.


Quote
My experience is similar to Lex's on this--if anything, he has reported fewer benefits from raw than I have. If the animal foods were cooked using traditional methods my guess is that I would fare better on that than on a diet high in raw carbs, based on my experience. In my case, eating raw instead of low-cooked provides a small additional benefit, but it doesn't come close to the benefit I've experienced by dramatically cutting down on plant carbs. You seem to find this hard to believe, but I believe you when your reports of your experience and try to show some civility by taking you at your word and I hope you will return the favor.

As for "well-done"--you didn't specify that (you wrote "only a little cooked/processed fat", which is what I was responding to) and I wasn't cooking well done before I went raw, it's unnecessary when cooking and even most many SAD advocates say not to overcook food, so it's irrelevant to my simple request on multiple counts. Changing the subject doesn't address my request.

My challenge was actually quite appropriate. Simply put, a pro-cooked-food-advocate should be fine with "well-done" meats - any suggestion that "well-done" wasn't OK would imply cooking was bad. And the whole issue of the past argument in this thread re pioneer etc. is not what you suggest above but actually either that  raw is always better than cooking/processing, no matter how processed/cooked that diet may be, or that even highly-processed/cooked meats are always better than carbs, however raw. I seriously doubt you would be fine with hydrogenated lard or heavily hot-smoked meats, for example.


Quote
OK, thanks. I'm trying to get some sense of how other folks do on raw honeycomb and raw honey vs. raw fruits and where I fit in the spectrum of responses. Are there any differences between how you do on honey vs. fruit? Have you measured your 1 or 2 hour postprandial BG after eating either? I didn't buy any berries this week, so I didn't get a chance to test my PP BG after eating them, but still plan to do that.

I don't believe in measurements of the body as I don't believe they are of any real use, given all the widely different interpretations. As for fruit, I have only issues with tropical fruits, unless I go VLC for very long periods, in which case, my ability to handle fruits goes way down as the relevant bacteria etc/ are missing. Oh, I do get some sort of sudden shock to my mouth if I overindulge in raw honeycomb - feels as though my nerves are affected.


Quote
Wow, that's actually more than I expected. How much do you pay for raw honeycomb (and sorry if you told me before)?

c. 3 pounds sterling 50 pence per 8 ounces.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 06:26:42 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline pioneer

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #63 on: June 15, 2010, 06:34:38 am »
When "people like us" refer to evil carbs we are simply referring to cooked and esp refined carbs or anything with a lot of carbohydrates in it. I tend to use this kind of language only for sugar. I only use this language when talking to an uneducated person who thinks fat is bad. And when one thinks about it, no carbs are not bad, however what food is high in carbs and good other than fruit. I for one barely eat fruit, but I eat plenty of veggies but still dont reach 50g a day. In other words, I dont even consider veggies carbs. A carb is not a carb is not a carb just like a calorie isnt a calorie. Carbs is a vague word. Im sure 50g of veggie carbs would proceed to have very different physiological and psychological processes than 50g of grains or fruit in your body. Surely the 50g of veggie carbs is better, not to mention we utilize the veggie carbs better and they dont spike insulin at all so no fat storing. See where we're coming from.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"There is a lot of pressure to be sexualized but not to actually be sexual."
- women's health member

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,347
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #64 on: June 15, 2010, 05:23:58 pm »
Actually, William was referring to raw carbs when complaining about "evil carbs". And the cooked-low-carb crowd who go on and on about the supposed "evils of carbs" routinely include raw fruits in that category.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #65 on: June 26, 2010, 08:25:36 am »
...They had light that burned on fish or whale fat/oil for cooking and heat ...
Thanks for sharing that, Alpha. Could you expound on that a bit? In the past in this forum when I posted reports I found that various Arctic peoples at times used seal or whale oil to cook with it was greeted with derision. As I recall, I was told by the critics that it's not feasible to do any cooking with sea-creature oils and that they are only good for lighting. I don’t recall any counter evidence being offered.  I find it interesting that your report coincides with the written reports I found.
>"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 djr_81

  • Hakuna Matata
  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,201
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Facebook
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #66 on: June 27, 2010, 06:06:05 am »
Thanks for sharing that, Alpha. Could you expound on that a bit? In the past in this forum when I posted reports I found that various Arctic peoples at times used seal or whale oil to cook with it was greeted with derision. As I recall, I was told by the critics that it's not feasible to do any cooking with sea-creature oils and that they are only good for lighting. I don’t recall any counter evidence being offered.  I find it interesting that your report coincides with the written reports I found.

It would burn similar to a Sterno canister, IMO. It would be slow and not optimal to heat/cook something but it should work...
https://www.facebook.com/djr1981
As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler; solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness.
-Henry David Thoreau

Offline Robinlove

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2017, 09:46:15 am »
To summarize this hilarious thread... Continue to not see my husband - actually get divorced- eat only raw meat and eat lots of organs, and don't move in the Eskimos or I might turn into an alcoholic or get beat

Hahahaha this was amusing!!!

Offline Xisca

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Stefansson's book online
« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2018, 10:07:43 pm »
Here is the full online version of Stefansson's book "The Fat of the Land", posted as a sticky :-
http://www.zerocarbage.com/library/FOTL.pdf
The link does not work?

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk