25 coaches online • Server time: 01:44
* * * Did you know? The best blocker is Taku the Second with 551 casualties.
Recent Forum Topics  War Drums? | Conceding v Goblins/... | Advice tabletop tour... |
2013-02-12 00:52:48
25 votes, rating 3.2
25 votes, rating 3.2
Savage and Free
I have been on a Paleo diet for one year now. I exercise less, feel more energetic, and my weight has fallen off while my strength stays the same. Doors of understanding have opened, and sympathy for my fellow man has settled in. I no longer wonder why people stay overweight. I know they simply can't keep weight off, and it's because no one they trust can tell them how. No one deserves to be jugded. Conventional wisdom is just plain wrong, and it leaves so many in the western world miserable. But the horizon is brightening, and month after month the medical community is coming around slowly. Evolving away from the old untruths. Websites like Marksdailyapple and popular books like "Wheat Belly" are just the tip of the iceburg.
One year ago I was inspired and created the team Paleolithic Pain Mongers. One year later I still believe, and have created another team. Savage and Free have a message for you. Here it is.. and I intend to smash up the divisions with these guys. Like I wish I could smash up the US Department of Agriculture. Poision mongers.
~~~~
Human beings are not broken and weak. We are all born hunters, strong and free. We need to fuel our bodies with the right kinds of food, eating like the predators we are, not like prey. Walk, explore, hunt for knowledge. Don't be a prisoner in your own body.. research how it evolved, and what it needs to thrive. (NO grain, NO Vegtable Oil, Minimize Sugar) Enjoy your human body.
Ask yourself the following question, then answer it for yourself.
What would happen to a society whose major food choices were actually very poor sources of nutrition. What would the effects be? What would that society look like?
Did you think about it? Then look around. Isn't that what you see? Do you see your predictions everywhere?
Grain, cooking oil, sugars.. these things give us the calories we need to survive and feed 5 billion people cheaply. But do they allow us to thrive as individuals?
No. Our brains tell us to keep eating tons of this garbage in an effort to get the basic nutrition we need to simply carry on in our everyday lives. We get more than enough useless calories, but not enough nutrition. So we are still hungry. Still we eat more. And exercise can make it worse. More garbage in to fuel an even bigger nutrition requirement. This is why poor diets fail. Our bodies won't let themselves die. Our will breaks to seek out more nutrition. We just eat the wrong things. We can break the cycle. Eat natural things that our bodies were designed to eat, can actually use, and can thrive on. Eat as much as you want. You will soon eat far less. Less calories. More nutrition. No hunger.
Every single human being is a descendant of a rugged survivor. A hunter. A killer. A beast. Don't let anyone tell you that you are broken in some way. Conventional wisdom is broken. If you want to lose weight, and have the energetic body your genitics mean for you to have, you need only shun garbage. Enjoy natural food, like bacon, butter, steak, eggs, meats and fish of all shapes and sizes, and leafy green things you could pull out of the ground yourself. Eat what your tribal ancestors ate. All you want. You could not be overweight eating just these natural things if you tried. Excessive exercise is not required. In fact, it's silly. Just walk. You were designed to walk. Lift some heavy things. Watch your muscles grow easily.
Do your own research. Do your own thinking. Don't believe any one person. Don't buy into any one thing. Find out what makes sense to you.
RELEASE THE BEAST.
~~~
One year ago I was inspired and created the team Paleolithic Pain Mongers. One year later I still believe, and have created another team. Savage and Free have a message for you. Here it is.. and I intend to smash up the divisions with these guys. Like I wish I could smash up the US Department of Agriculture. Poision mongers.
~~~~
Human beings are not broken and weak. We are all born hunters, strong and free. We need to fuel our bodies with the right kinds of food, eating like the predators we are, not like prey. Walk, explore, hunt for knowledge. Don't be a prisoner in your own body.. research how it evolved, and what it needs to thrive. (NO grain, NO Vegtable Oil, Minimize Sugar) Enjoy your human body.
Ask yourself the following question, then answer it for yourself.
What would happen to a society whose major food choices were actually very poor sources of nutrition. What would the effects be? What would that society look like?
Did you think about it? Then look around. Isn't that what you see? Do you see your predictions everywhere?
Grain, cooking oil, sugars.. these things give us the calories we need to survive and feed 5 billion people cheaply. But do they allow us to thrive as individuals?
No. Our brains tell us to keep eating tons of this garbage in an effort to get the basic nutrition we need to simply carry on in our everyday lives. We get more than enough useless calories, but not enough nutrition. So we are still hungry. Still we eat more. And exercise can make it worse. More garbage in to fuel an even bigger nutrition requirement. This is why poor diets fail. Our bodies won't let themselves die. Our will breaks to seek out more nutrition. We just eat the wrong things. We can break the cycle. Eat natural things that our bodies were designed to eat, can actually use, and can thrive on. Eat as much as you want. You will soon eat far less. Less calories. More nutrition. No hunger.
Every single human being is a descendant of a rugged survivor. A hunter. A killer. A beast. Don't let anyone tell you that you are broken in some way. Conventional wisdom is broken. If you want to lose weight, and have the energetic body your genitics mean for you to have, you need only shun garbage. Enjoy natural food, like bacon, butter, steak, eggs, meats and fish of all shapes and sizes, and leafy green things you could pull out of the ground yourself. Eat what your tribal ancestors ate. All you want. You could not be overweight eating just these natural things if you tried. Excessive exercise is not required. In fact, it's silly. Just walk. You were designed to walk. Lift some heavy things. Watch your muscles grow easily.
Do your own research. Do your own thinking. Don't believe any one person. Don't buy into any one thing. Find out what makes sense to you.
RELEASE THE BEAST.
~~~
Comments
Posted by studmandudebro on 2013-02-12 00:59:04
hmm no please work out and be shredded and aesthetic as fuarkk instead of some fad diet skinny fat
Posted by Araznaroth on 2013-02-12 01:02:45
Hate that were living in a society that prohibits use to grow the plants we desire yet poisons our food, water and air.
Posted by johnalex on 2013-02-12 02:26:45
Sources?
Posted by pythrr on 2013-02-12 02:36:02
So, so Sauces! Eat Natural!
Posted by JackassRampant on 2013-02-12 02:46:44
I'm more or less with you on that. I'm hardly religious about it: I do cook in oil when that's convenient, and I don't worry about what happens when I go to a restaurant (so long as I don't do it too often). I think if people were generally smart about not filling their bellies with grain and trying to get no more than 10-15% of their bellies with added sugar, we'd all be good.
I don't think you need to go to no grain. Heck, baboons eat grain: human civilization is based on grains and legumes, and they are fine if you use them right. I think a policy of budgeting processed grain as sugar, and ditto whole (or at least fiber-rich) grains unless you're preparing it as part of a complete vegetable protein, is probably the healthiest approach. Not least because meat is so environmentally inefficient: you really need to consume some grain for the health of those around and those to come as much as yourself.
I don't think you need to go to no grain. Heck, baboons eat grain: human civilization is based on grains and legumes, and they are fine if you use them right. I think a policy of budgeting processed grain as sugar, and ditto whole (or at least fiber-rich) grains unless you're preparing it as part of a complete vegetable protein, is probably the healthiest approach. Not least because meat is so environmentally inefficient: you really need to consume some grain for the health of those around and those to come as much as yourself.
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 05:03:21
As a way of reducing calorie intake this seems a fine idea but there is no evolutionary logic behind it whatsoever. A high protein low carb diet may also be less healthy than a balanced one that doesn't have too man calories in it. Clearly it is more healthy than eating too much...
Posted by Lorebass on 2013-02-12 05:36:21
umm, as someone who used to help people train their bodies for tournament fighting... eat white fish, chicken breast(baking is generally better for either). Avoid soy products which are sadly in nearly everything prepackaged or snacks... "Origional Style" Rolds Gold Pretzels are ok. And enjoy a walk for your lunchbreak, you can even snack while your walking!
but thats just the professional opinion of a guy that hasn't been a trainer in 8 years... darn kids.
but thats just the professional opinion of a guy that hasn't been a trainer in 8 years... darn kids.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 08:10:37
@JackAssRampant: Look up "Grassfarmer." Raising animals can be GREAT for the enviroment. The way we do it is, of course, broken, and based on cheapness. I hope to manage a piece of land as a grassfarmer when I retire. Good meat and eggs for my family.
@ Lorebass: Humans aren't meant to be tournament fighters. It's an unnatural thing your amazing body can adapt to. Not many Sports scientists have a Paleo background, so there isn't much research into fueling endurance athletes this way. Endurance athletics.. unnatural.
I think you are bang on about soy. A mild poision. But there isn't much in a chicken breast for one of your fighters, compared to say, some liver. The superfood. (tastes awful, makes you feel like an animal)
@ Lorebass: Humans aren't meant to be tournament fighters. It's an unnatural thing your amazing body can adapt to. Not many Sports scientists have a Paleo background, so there isn't much research into fueling endurance athletes this way. Endurance athletics.. unnatural.
I think you are bang on about soy. A mild poision. But there isn't much in a chicken breast for one of your fighters, compared to say, some liver. The superfood. (tastes awful, makes you feel like an animal)
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 08:39:10
@ jonalex: "Sources?" Marksdailyapple.com is a great place to start. That site gets more daily hits than CNN.com. It's a bit commercial, as it has books for sale, but he is a good researcher and writer with a good staff behind him. But look elsewhere as well.
@ JackAssPampant: I'm not religious about it either.. Mark has a pretty cool "80-20" rule that works mentally for alot of people. If you stick with it 80% of the time, it's going to be well good enough. (maybe a little more strict if you are actually trying to lose weight) What eighty percent means is up to you. It's your life. For me it means I drink and eat whatever I want when I go out. And I go out quite a bit!
The key to the front door is getting past the 1950's lie that saturated fat is bad for us. "Really? Cause.. my body MAKES saturated fat and stores it around my waist as an energy source. My body is stupid?" That makes no sense.
Only TV commercials, mindless health magazines, and outdated government info blames saturated fat for our culture's health problems. As if all saturated fats were the same.. which is grade school level science at best. The medical world is coming around slowly and starting to debunk this myth. (but who is going to help them? Food companies? The governments? why would they do that?)
Atkins wasn't a quack. He just got sick of dealing with an idiotic media and gave up publicly. (And died.. whoops) He actually funded some of the expensive research that proved some of his points.
@ JackAssPampant: I'm not religious about it either.. Mark has a pretty cool "80-20" rule that works mentally for alot of people. If you stick with it 80% of the time, it's going to be well good enough. (maybe a little more strict if you are actually trying to lose weight) What eighty percent means is up to you. It's your life. For me it means I drink and eat whatever I want when I go out. And I go out quite a bit!
The key to the front door is getting past the 1950's lie that saturated fat is bad for us. "Really? Cause.. my body MAKES saturated fat and stores it around my waist as an energy source. My body is stupid?" That makes no sense.
Only TV commercials, mindless health magazines, and outdated government info blames saturated fat for our culture's health problems. As if all saturated fats were the same.. which is grade school level science at best. The medical world is coming around slowly and starting to debunk this myth. (but who is going to help them? Food companies? The governments? why would they do that?)
Atkins wasn't a quack. He just got sick of dealing with an idiotic media and gave up publicly. (And died.. whoops) He actually funded some of the expensive research that proved some of his points.
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 08:39:27
Raising animals for a few million people would be fine, doing it for the number on earth just isn't possible.
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 08:42:37
There is a wealth of peer reviewed literature on saturated fat being harmful. This includes cohort studies, controlled trials and much work on possible modes of action.
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 08:45:37
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 08:44:34
Sorry to triple post but scientists shouldn't have a "background"they just do experiments and look at the results. Again the need for carbohydrates is well established, especially for endurance athletes.
Sorry to triple post but scientists shouldn't have a "background"they just do experiments and look at the results. Again the need for carbohydrates is well established, especially for endurance athletes.
Posted by Shraaaag on 2013-02-12 09:43:15
My marshmallow and bacon diet works out for me :)
Posted by Chainsaw on 2013-02-12 11:17:26
Fat people don't have anybody they can trust to tell them how to eat?
You can't be serious.
"It's not his fault he's ignorant, chows on McDonalds burgers inbetween meals, and watches Fox News."
Ignorance is a choice. As is doing something about it. Congratulations on not being a drone.
You can't be serious.
"It's not his fault he's ignorant, chows on McDonalds burgers inbetween meals, and watches Fox News."
Ignorance is a choice. As is doing something about it. Congratulations on not being a drone.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 11:22:56
@ Shraaag: If your diet is 80% bacon and 20% marshmellows, I bet studmandudebro would think you hella buff. Good work.
At SeventyOne: Agreed. Science should base knowledge on experiments. The problem is, our current conventional wisdom stems from one bad/fradulant study, and a multitude of other 'studies' and the resulting speculation. Studies examine the relationship between things, and seldom can establish cause and effect. Experimants do that. The planet just dosn't collectively have the will to conduct expensive, controlled, scientific experiments on humans and their diets.
Atkins began. More will follow. Stay tuned.
After some research I decided to do an "experiment of one." It has changed my life and nutrition understanding. To anyone else who has tried to alter their diet and failed, I humbley suggest this as an increasingly popular option
At SeventyOne: Agreed. Science should base knowledge on experiments. The problem is, our current conventional wisdom stems from one bad/fradulant study, and a multitude of other 'studies' and the resulting speculation. Studies examine the relationship between things, and seldom can establish cause and effect. Experimants do that. The planet just dosn't collectively have the will to conduct expensive, controlled, scientific experiments on humans and their diets.
Atkins began. More will follow. Stay tuned.
After some research I decided to do an "experiment of one." It has changed my life and nutrition understanding. To anyone else who has tried to alter their diet and failed, I humbley suggest this as an increasingly popular option
Posted by King_Ghidra on 2013-02-12 11:25:38
This is some pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-anthropological bullshit right here.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 11:32:03
@ chainsaw
People trust doctors. People trust twenty year olds if they have an internet 'Nutrition and Exercise' diploma. They trust personal trainers.
So for anyone who has followed the 'Eat Less, Exercise More', "Calories IN vs. Calories OUT" plan, touted by TV and current fitness wisdom, and not suceeded in keeping weight off, I am saying I UNDERSTAND. It was bound to fail. It dosn't make sense when you take a step back. It's simple math for an amazing complex machine. It's the 'Lose weight temporarily, gain even more after' plan. To suceed takes immense will power. Nature dson't require immense will power for you to be at your natural weight. It requires natural food.
Fat is society's fault. McDonald's tastes good. Too bad it's all bread and man made oil.
People trust doctors. People trust twenty year olds if they have an internet 'Nutrition and Exercise' diploma. They trust personal trainers.
So for anyone who has followed the 'Eat Less, Exercise More', "Calories IN vs. Calories OUT" plan, touted by TV and current fitness wisdom, and not suceeded in keeping weight off, I am saying I UNDERSTAND. It was bound to fail. It dosn't make sense when you take a step back. It's simple math for an amazing complex machine. It's the 'Lose weight temporarily, gain even more after' plan. To suceed takes immense will power. Nature dson't require immense will power for you to be at your natural weight. It requires natural food.
Fat is society's fault. McDonald's tastes good. Too bad it's all bread and man made oil.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 11:42:11
@ King Girda
EXACTLY! Our nutrition information is ALL pseudo science. Find ONE proper EXPERIMENT done with regards to anything related to the human diet. They just don't exist. It's all pseudo-science.
Men's Health magazine quotes a University study that looked at 20 other study's and finds a link between coffee drinking and healthy blood pressure. YAY! Coffee good. Two months later.. Men's Health Magazine quotes a University study that found a link between coffee consumption and increased insullen resistance. Boo! Coffee bad. It's rediculious.
Doctors don't do experiments. Doctors tell people about the latest conventional wisdom.
Funny.. Oprah's Dr. OZ keeps having a friend and guest on his show. This author toutes a paleo approach. He and Dr. Oz do a little dance before each segment saying how the Doc dosn't agree with what the author has to say, but he wants people to hear his message anyway. He also invites the author into his hospital to talk to all of his interns as well. Hmmm.. That's a bit odd.
As a Dr. he probablly can't risk being "discredited" by going against conventional wisdom on air, but he sure likes to get that message and option out to the public.
EXACTLY! Our nutrition information is ALL pseudo science. Find ONE proper EXPERIMENT done with regards to anything related to the human diet. They just don't exist. It's all pseudo-science.
Men's Health magazine quotes a University study that looked at 20 other study's and finds a link between coffee drinking and healthy blood pressure. YAY! Coffee good. Two months later.. Men's Health Magazine quotes a University study that found a link between coffee consumption and increased insullen resistance. Boo! Coffee bad. It's rediculious.
Doctors don't do experiments. Doctors tell people about the latest conventional wisdom.
Funny.. Oprah's Dr. OZ keeps having a friend and guest on his show. This author toutes a paleo approach. He and Dr. Oz do a little dance before each segment saying how the Doc dosn't agree with what the author has to say, but he wants people to hear his message anyway. He also invites the author into his hospital to talk to all of his interns as well. Hmmm.. That's a bit odd.
As a Dr. he probablly can't risk being "discredited" by going against conventional wisdom on air, but he sure likes to get that message and option out to the public.
Posted by Christer on 2013-02-12 11:42:21
Seventyone,
The "need for carbohydrates" for endurance athletes view is slowly shifting though. For example, The Western States 100 (100 mile race) last year was won by a person on a low carb diet.
In a sense, you're right though because people who do these super distance races do take in carbs over the course of the race, but it's nowhere near the amount that "traditional" carb-fuelling racers ingest.
Here's a very interesting and throught-provoking article about it:
http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/
In the end, however, it comes down to reading up on the topic and making up your own mind. I personally believe that we (modern humans) take in way too much carbs in general, and that the low-carb high-fat way is more healthy. This belief comes after a fair amount of reading up on the subject (including a couple of books by the two researchers in the above article). Now, if I could just kick my sugar addiction! :)
The "need for carbohydrates" for endurance athletes view is slowly shifting though. For example, The Western States 100 (100 mile race) last year was won by a person on a low carb diet.
In a sense, you're right though because people who do these super distance races do take in carbs over the course of the race, but it's nowhere near the amount that "traditional" carb-fuelling racers ingest.
Here's a very interesting and throught-provoking article about it:
http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/
In the end, however, it comes down to reading up on the topic and making up your own mind. I personally believe that we (modern humans) take in way too much carbs in general, and that the low-carb high-fat way is more healthy. This belief comes after a fair amount of reading up on the subject (including a couple of books by the two researchers in the above article). Now, if I could just kick my sugar addiction! :)
Posted by Verminardo on 2013-02-12 12:18:42
I've been reading a lot on nutrition for years, and have been intrigued by paleo diet ever since. I haven't come around yet because (a) I'm finding it too hard to integrate with my everyday life and (b) I just really love cookies and ice cream and pancakes and of course...
...wait for it...
pie. :D
Good luck with your Norses!
...wait for it...
pie. :D
Good luck with your Norses!
Posted by Chainsaw on 2013-02-12 13:04:57
You're making excuses for being fat, The_Murker.
"Diets don't work. You lose a bit of weight, then gain more."
Well, DURRR! You were fat before with your shit lifestyle; you go on a diet + excerise plan, increase your metabolism, then go back to your shit lifestyle, of course it will get worse!!!
If you are fat and want to lose weight, diet is the wrong word. Lifestyle change is the right one(s). If you want to lose weight and be healthy long term, you can't do it with a diet, you have to change the way you live.
Personally I hate the term 'weight'. Being fat is not about being overweight. It's about being unhealthy. I'd encourage anybody to look at it as healthy vs unhealthy. You can be very unhealthy and skinny. Not all weight loss is healthy. Diets promote weight loss, and not health improvement, which is the direction I would point people in (and the Palio diet is in line with that philosophy).
I still don't buy the, "It's societies fault." At some point, you become an adult, you become responsible for yourself. If you blame society, then you will never be able to take control of your own destiny.
"Diets don't work. You lose a bit of weight, then gain more."
Well, DURRR! You were fat before with your shit lifestyle; you go on a diet + excerise plan, increase your metabolism, then go back to your shit lifestyle, of course it will get worse!!!
If you are fat and want to lose weight, diet is the wrong word. Lifestyle change is the right one(s). If you want to lose weight and be healthy long term, you can't do it with a diet, you have to change the way you live.
Personally I hate the term 'weight'. Being fat is not about being overweight. It's about being unhealthy. I'd encourage anybody to look at it as healthy vs unhealthy. You can be very unhealthy and skinny. Not all weight loss is healthy. Diets promote weight loss, and not health improvement, which is the direction I would point people in (and the Palio diet is in line with that philosophy).
I still don't buy the, "It's societies fault." At some point, you become an adult, you become responsible for yourself. If you blame society, then you will never be able to take control of your own destiny.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 13:05:27
I love pie too! And am addicted to sugar in my coffee. Gotta live, right?
I didn't start myself for a long while because I was very skeptical. My mother had to start first. I felt I HAD to at that point, seeing as how I was the one talking to her about my interest in it.
I do many more chin-ups now than before.
I didn't start myself for a long while because I was very skeptical. My mother had to start first. I felt I HAD to at that point, seeing as how I was the one talking to her about my interest in it.
I do many more chin-ups now than before.
Posted by maysrill on 2013-02-12 14:26:18
Didn't they call this Atkins about 8-10 years ago?
Maybe this particular version is a little less draconian, but it certainly sounds similar from a layman's perspective. The exercise portion is certainly a difference, but I'm just talking about the dietary side.
(I don't diet. 6'1" 180#, not in shape, but not fat)
Maybe this particular version is a little less draconian, but it certainly sounds similar from a layman's perspective. The exercise portion is certainly a difference, but I'm just talking about the dietary side.
(I don't diet. 6'1" 180#, not in shape, but not fat)
Posted by PainState on 2013-02-12 15:31:58
Very strange indeed. Yesterday on Fox News they were talking about this very subject on their 7AM morning show.
Granted it was in relation to the new Fatwa's handed down by the govt as related to the public school breakfast/lunch programs.
Granted it was in relation to the new Fatwa's handed down by the govt as related to the public school breakfast/lunch programs.
Posted by Badoek on 2013-02-12 15:36:01
wait what's all this posting? I didn't know I logged in to alternativeweightwatchers.com! Firefox get me out of here!
Anyway, I'll open up a can of gooseliver tonight (that's liver too right?). Makes me feel like a man (A MONSTER!! A MONSTER!!!!).
Oh wait, we're having pancakes (pannenkoeken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannekoek) tonight. With bacon.
Anyway, I'll open up a can of gooseliver tonight (that's liver too right?). Makes me feel like a man (A MONSTER!! A MONSTER!!!!).
Oh wait, we're having pancakes (pannenkoeken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannekoek) tonight. With bacon.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 15:48:28
@ maysrill: Basically, yes. Atkins has for a very long time engouraged people to move away from carbs and not fear animal fats. The ins and outs of his several books I don't really care about, but he was very much in the spot-light a decade or so ago because his ideas were very unconventional and the media felt comfortable writing articles ripping them apart. He was in the spot light in the first place because he helped people lose alot of weight and keep it off, at the same time curing things like diabeties, arthritis, blagh, blagh, blagh. He gave up on the media. (I think after spending alot of money starting experiments/studies proving himself right. I don't know what happend to those after he died)
A decade later, it's harder to rip through anyone or their theories, as the science still isn't really there to back up any single one philosophy. Nobody really funds an experiment that will result in the entity providing the funding making less money. Companies do experiments. They own and keep the results.
Dr. Atkins found a truth about nutrition that worked, and most likely developed a system around it for the masses to impliment "easily", making money in the process. Just like every other diet book. He happened to be successful in the long term quite often with his patients, hence the publicity. But he dosn't own the truth that animal fat isn't the enemy. Or that most carbs are junk. If those things are true.. they are just true. Any jambonie can develop and pedal a system around that. It's just that you have to put "your own spin on it" to be able to make money and sell a book. That's the only thing I don't care for at Marksdailyapple.com. He twists the word Paleo into Primal and sells books. Great website though.
@ Chainsaw: I hear you. Lifestyle change. If I had a beer in my hand and 8 in my gut I'd be saying pretty much the same thing. But beople don't change their lifestyle often, because it's hard. Life is good. But some people get to a bad place and do try really hard to change. I now believe 98% of those people are doomed to failure. You body knows more about keeping alive and healthy that an exercise program designed by a Jerry College Nutrition graduate. So eating less and working out more fails. But bingeing on crap when your crap diet fails. People have to own up to that I guess.
If the binged on chicken breasts and lettuce they would be less fat and unhealthy, but the body would still crave real food. And they would eventually seek it out. (and eat the crap society puts in front of them) The sad thing is that at present, society tells us the things that are actually best are crap. It's so stupidly backwards its depressing.
Meat and greens. It's so simple. Real meat. Wild animals don't eat the white breast of a genetically modified chicken and throw away the rest. If you throw a dead deer in your back yard the very first thing your dog will do is eat the heart and liver. Then he'll crack open the easy bones and suck out the marrow. Animals know where the nutrition is and it tastes good to them. It's an unfortunate reality, but nothing on that dead deer will taste as good to us as MSG sprinkled potato chips.
Why is a corn kernal able to pass through my system and come out looking exactly the same as it went in? Because mother nature tried very hard to make seeds undigestable, that's why. 10'000 years ago we smart monkeys realised that if we grind up corn, seeds and grain we can get calories out of them. And that trick helped us make feed 5 billion people. But it dosn't change the fact that mother nature still didn't intend for us to eat that stuff. They are poor nutrition. You will still be hungry. That's why that plate armor in Windsor castle looks like it was built for midgets.
A decade later, it's harder to rip through anyone or their theories, as the science still isn't really there to back up any single one philosophy. Nobody really funds an experiment that will result in the entity providing the funding making less money. Companies do experiments. They own and keep the results.
Dr. Atkins found a truth about nutrition that worked, and most likely developed a system around it for the masses to impliment "easily", making money in the process. Just like every other diet book. He happened to be successful in the long term quite often with his patients, hence the publicity. But he dosn't own the truth that animal fat isn't the enemy. Or that most carbs are junk. If those things are true.. they are just true. Any jambonie can develop and pedal a system around that. It's just that you have to put "your own spin on it" to be able to make money and sell a book. That's the only thing I don't care for at Marksdailyapple.com. He twists the word Paleo into Primal and sells books. Great website though.
@ Chainsaw: I hear you. Lifestyle change. If I had a beer in my hand and 8 in my gut I'd be saying pretty much the same thing. But beople don't change their lifestyle often, because it's hard. Life is good. But some people get to a bad place and do try really hard to change. I now believe 98% of those people are doomed to failure. You body knows more about keeping alive and healthy that an exercise program designed by a Jerry College Nutrition graduate. So eating less and working out more fails. But bingeing on crap when your crap diet fails. People have to own up to that I guess.
If the binged on chicken breasts and lettuce they would be less fat and unhealthy, but the body would still crave real food. And they would eventually seek it out. (and eat the crap society puts in front of them) The sad thing is that at present, society tells us the things that are actually best are crap. It's so stupidly backwards its depressing.
Meat and greens. It's so simple. Real meat. Wild animals don't eat the white breast of a genetically modified chicken and throw away the rest. If you throw a dead deer in your back yard the very first thing your dog will do is eat the heart and liver. Then he'll crack open the easy bones and suck out the marrow. Animals know where the nutrition is and it tastes good to them. It's an unfortunate reality, but nothing on that dead deer will taste as good to us as MSG sprinkled potato chips.
Why is a corn kernal able to pass through my system and come out looking exactly the same as it went in? Because mother nature tried very hard to make seeds undigestable, that's why. 10'000 years ago we smart monkeys realised that if we grind up corn, seeds and grain we can get calories out of them. And that trick helped us make feed 5 billion people. But it dosn't change the fact that mother nature still didn't intend for us to eat that stuff. They are poor nutrition. You will still be hungry. That's why that plate armor in Windsor castle looks like it was built for midgets.
Posted by Verminardo on 2013-02-12 16:16:12
So you do still take sugar in your coffee and occasionally eat pie? That's interesting because a friend who has been practicing Paleo diet for many years always maintained that the effect on your metabolism was spoiled if you made exceptions. Insulin, blood sugar curve, you know the drill.
Posted by oryx on 2013-02-12 16:37:16
I'm with you... sort of. Show me how we're going to feed so many people on meat and I'll be sold on the meat eating. Until then, vegetables are a much more efficient way to grow food. I'm still on the fence about grains - a limited amount seems like a good thing to me.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 16:37:46
Occasionally eat pie? Are you kidding? I eat pie all the time. And if I couldn't put two stupid teaspoons of sugar into my two full-fat milk lattees every day I wouldn't care about a stupid Paleo diet.
Human Planet is an awsome TV series. I watched a 55 year old jungle man climb a 40 meter tree because his ork looking wife wanted some honey out of a hornets nest they spotted. Dude got stung, like, 300 times. Ork wife was happy. Humans rock. That's why I play humans.
Your friend might have been having fun tweaking a strict diet, or been going for some other real or perceived ZERO carb benifit I'm not aware of. (perhaps a short term one, like 'fat adapting' yourself) Obviously some people/diets feel the need to be very strict about certain things. You must evaluate the science or thinking yourself. Real science is often lacking. Just put your bullsheep meter on when you listen.
But cave men could deal with some honey, I'm sure. But they certainly didn't have it as a MAJOR source of calories or nutrition. If you base you diet on unreasonable and unnatural amounts of anything you can expect some kind of health rammification.
Everything in moderation, including moderation. Of course pie!
Human Planet is an awsome TV series. I watched a 55 year old jungle man climb a 40 meter tree because his ork looking wife wanted some honey out of a hornets nest they spotted. Dude got stung, like, 300 times. Ork wife was happy. Humans rock. That's why I play humans.
Your friend might have been having fun tweaking a strict diet, or been going for some other real or perceived ZERO carb benifit I'm not aware of. (perhaps a short term one, like 'fat adapting' yourself) Obviously some people/diets feel the need to be very strict about certain things. You must evaluate the science or thinking yourself. Real science is often lacking. Just put your bullsheep meter on when you listen.
But cave men could deal with some honey, I'm sure. But they certainly didn't have it as a MAJOR source of calories or nutrition. If you base you diet on unreasonable and unnatural amounts of anything you can expect some kind of health rammification.
Everything in moderation, including moderation. Of course pie!
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 16:40:24
This whole idea about a lack of evidence is just conspiracy theory rubbish I'm afraid. Governments the world over are funding research and its happening all the time. Here is an example: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026
Mother Nature doesn't exist and humans like very many other animals can digest and utilise a whole range of foods. The evolutionary idea just doesn't add up on a great many levels.
Mother Nature doesn't exist and humans like very many other animals can digest and utilise a whole range of foods. The evolutionary idea just doesn't add up on a great many levels.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 16:59:01
@ oryx: I wish the planet could feed all of it's 5 billion people in a healthy way. And if it were a top priority, and the planet depended on it, all of our efforts, resources, plus Bruce Willis and Beyonce woking together under a strict time limit could derive a system to get healty grass fed meat and leafy green organics to the population. But it simply isn't our collective priority.
I think what I have learned is true. My health and my family's is my priority. I care about them and will pay the extra money for free-range organic eggs, chicken, meat if I can find it etc. And I boil the bones in a slow cooker in my back yard for days, making the best bone broth soup I've ever tasted. And I care about anyone else who cares to try and become healthier themselves.
We can't feed beef to 5 billion people now. Grain made 5 billion people. And from that 5 billion will emerge great minds and thinkers. And these future leaders might get together and find a way. But why would they, if they think grass fed beef is unhealthy? Let's debunk this myth one family at a time.
Of the 5 billion people, people are starving and suffering from malnutrition all over the place. And wealthy countries are dying from their own obesity or health problems. I think grain, sugar, and cheap food is to blame. So do may others.
But the entire planet is too much for one dude to worry about. And making a less healthy diet work dosn't seem like the right answer. Especially if people required LESS food by eating the right things.
If you could wave a wand ONCE and give every family on the planet a small house, fresh water, and a year's supply of grain and tinned beans, would you? Would you be making 5 billion lives better? Or simply making 7 billion people to worry about feeding 2 years later?
I believe all solutions start with knowledge and education. And these things are only good when based on truth. We need to establish truth. Find what works for you. If you don't have health/witght/diet issue.. than you ROCK, human.
I think what I have learned is true. My health and my family's is my priority. I care about them and will pay the extra money for free-range organic eggs, chicken, meat if I can find it etc. And I boil the bones in a slow cooker in my back yard for days, making the best bone broth soup I've ever tasted. And I care about anyone else who cares to try and become healthier themselves.
We can't feed beef to 5 billion people now. Grain made 5 billion people. And from that 5 billion will emerge great minds and thinkers. And these future leaders might get together and find a way. But why would they, if they think grass fed beef is unhealthy? Let's debunk this myth one family at a time.
Of the 5 billion people, people are starving and suffering from malnutrition all over the place. And wealthy countries are dying from their own obesity or health problems. I think grain, sugar, and cheap food is to blame. So do may others.
But the entire planet is too much for one dude to worry about. And making a less healthy diet work dosn't seem like the right answer. Especially if people required LESS food by eating the right things.
If you could wave a wand ONCE and give every family on the planet a small house, fresh water, and a year's supply of grain and tinned beans, would you? Would you be making 5 billion lives better? Or simply making 7 billion people to worry about feeding 2 years later?
I believe all solutions start with knowledge and education. And these things are only good when based on truth. We need to establish truth. Find what works for you. If you don't have health/witght/diet issue.. than you ROCK, human.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 17:21:02
Hi Seventyone. You didn't reference an experiment. You referenced a study. A study looking at 40'000 Sweedish women. Of whom not very many died of heart related stuff in the 15 years. Studies prove nothing. Studies are great for helping for a hypothesis.
Of the small amount of women that died, regardless of the carbs or protien in their diet (which was being 'studied') how many smoked? How many exercised? How many slept 8 hours per night? The 'study' seems to point out a corelation between low carb and high death. But is there another co-relation? Like somking and death? How good was that diet questionaire? It might point in the right direction. It might not. You need experiments to answer the hypothesis proposed.
It was this low level thinking that led to the current Brit '5 a day' push. (eat more veg) In a similar study, there was a co-relation between low veg intake and death. The study was of about 50'000 or 500'000 people over a number of years. A few hundred of people died of cancer and cardio problems, etc. during the study. (which was studying something else, actually) Because more people in the low veg eating group died, (say 450) then in the high veg eating group group (say 200) the study concluded that eating veg is healthy. Eat more veg. And some very well intentioned government group uses this as their backing for the 5 a Day directive.
What they fail to bring to light is that the low veg eating group had 10 times as many smokers as the high veg eating group. WTF? That's kind of an important tidbit before we give vegtables all of the amazing life extending powers the study might want to bestow upon them.
Studys? What would Shadow say?
Of the small amount of women that died, regardless of the carbs or protien in their diet (which was being 'studied') how many smoked? How many exercised? How many slept 8 hours per night? The 'study' seems to point out a corelation between low carb and high death. But is there another co-relation? Like somking and death? How good was that diet questionaire? It might point in the right direction. It might not. You need experiments to answer the hypothesis proposed.
It was this low level thinking that led to the current Brit '5 a day' push. (eat more veg) In a similar study, there was a co-relation between low veg intake and death. The study was of about 50'000 or 500'000 people over a number of years. A few hundred of people died of cancer and cardio problems, etc. during the study. (which was studying something else, actually) Because more people in the low veg eating group died, (say 450) then in the high veg eating group group (say 200) the study concluded that eating veg is healthy. Eat more veg. And some very well intentioned government group uses this as their backing for the 5 a Day directive.
What they fail to bring to light is that the low veg eating group had 10 times as many smokers as the high veg eating group. WTF? That's kind of an important tidbit before we give vegtables all of the amazing life extending powers the study might want to bestow upon them.
Studys? What would Shadow say?
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-12 17:27:39
And I can't help but ask.. when you say that mother nautre dosn't exist, did you mean that in an,
"Evolution isn't real, God created everything." kind of way, or just in a,
"Murker, you know that there is no real fairy who goes around making seeds and fruit grow by tapping plants with her wand, right?" kind of way?
"Evolution isn't real, God created everything." kind of way, or just in a,
"Murker, you know that there is no real fairy who goes around making seeds and fruit grow by tapping plants with her wand, right?" kind of way?
Posted by dode74 on 2013-02-12 19:40:42
"Studies prove nothing."
They're all studies. The difference is whether they are observational or experimental in nature. Observational studies are those in which one cannot interfere or intervene in the process of capturing the data - a study of the properties of a distant galaxy would be an example of this, as would a survey of peoples' attitudes to something.
Experimental studies are those in which one can intervene - medical trials would be one such example. The difference, in terms of results, is that experimental studies are much more effective at sorting out causes. That doesn't invalidate observational studies, it just means that we can often be more confident in the cause/effect link in an experimental study than an observational study.
Most studies to do with humans are observational in nature. The last set of even truly experimental studies were done in the 40's on twins by a chap called Mengele (of whom you may have heard), and that sort of study is generally frowned upon nowadays. Dismissing a study because of its observational nature is nonsense.
They're all studies. The difference is whether they are observational or experimental in nature. Observational studies are those in which one cannot interfere or intervene in the process of capturing the data - a study of the properties of a distant galaxy would be an example of this, as would a survey of peoples' attitudes to something.
Experimental studies are those in which one can intervene - medical trials would be one such example. The difference, in terms of results, is that experimental studies are much more effective at sorting out causes. That doesn't invalidate observational studies, it just means that we can often be more confident in the cause/effect link in an experimental study than an observational study.
Most studies to do with humans are observational in nature. The last set of even truly experimental studies were done in the 40's on twins by a chap called Mengele (of whom you may have heard), and that sort of study is generally frowned upon nowadays. Dismissing a study because of its observational nature is nonsense.
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-12 21:23:38
Hi the_murker
Thanks for discussing your point of view. Are you aware of statistics? Haldane (a biologist) invented lots of them. They are mathematical ways of looking at whether differences observed are "really there" or not. Sadly certainty is never going to be possible, but what can we be certain of? To get anything published you have to have a 1 in 20 chance (or less) chance of the difference happening by chance. This approach has been enormously powerful in all kinds of scientific advances. Just look at cancer survival rates recently.
Evolution is a fact. Pretending that
1. Palaeolithic man had a uniform diet (they all ate basically meat and veg.)
2. That even if 1 was true grains are bad for us follows on necessarily
3. That 10,000 years isn't long enough for evolution
Are all just a bit silly.
Thanks for discussing your point of view. Are you aware of statistics? Haldane (a biologist) invented lots of them. They are mathematical ways of looking at whether differences observed are "really there" or not. Sadly certainty is never going to be possible, but what can we be certain of? To get anything published you have to have a 1 in 20 chance (or less) chance of the difference happening by chance. This approach has been enormously powerful in all kinds of scientific advances. Just look at cancer survival rates recently.
Evolution is a fact. Pretending that
1. Palaeolithic man had a uniform diet (they all ate basically meat and veg.)
2. That even if 1 was true grains are bad for us follows on necessarily
3. That 10,000 years isn't long enough for evolution
Are all just a bit silly.
Posted by JackassRampant on 2013-02-12 21:52:29
I think a lot of it is time of day too. My ex-gf would eat something sweet every time she felt sleepy and then go to bed at 6am and wonder why she was tired all the time. It was crazy. But she had to have her cocoa every night....
Wake up. Hang out a bit. Eat something. Do your thing. Eat a little more, and then you're done with stimulants. Do your thing. Eat again when you're done. Kick back, relax, have a nibble or a drink, then you're done consuming, air and water excepted. Kick back a little more, go to bed. Can end up anywhere from fit to skinny to pudgy doing that, can't get fat. It's when you mess with the order of operations that you start running into trouble.
Wake up. Hang out a bit. Eat something. Do your thing. Eat a little more, and then you're done with stimulants. Do your thing. Eat again when you're done. Kick back, relax, have a nibble or a drink, then you're done consuming, air and water excepted. Kick back a little more, go to bed. Can end up anywhere from fit to skinny to pudgy doing that, can't get fat. It's when you mess with the order of operations that you start running into trouble.
Posted by The_Murker on 2013-02-13 00:16:40
It's a good point about the studies. Different types. Different qualities of work. Different levels of validation. Having the whole picture as opposed to the highlight reel picked by someone with a point to make. Looking further into them is an important tool and it is always intersting to read different view points on what the data is or isn't saying.
On 71's last 3 points:
1) We can all be pretty sure about what he didn't eat. Avoiding or minimizing those things probablly makes alot of sense to most. Pretty sure he didn't use a bunch of stainless steel vats and organic solvents to magically make cooking oil out of canola plants.
2) Grains are BAD sounds extreeme. If I've sounded extreeme I apologise. It's the internet and I type fast. That extreeme view point is definatly out there. Some humans are living 70+ years with grain as a major food source. Bad is relative. I just feel there are so many things that are better. I percieve them as easy empty calories with a decent potential to have negative effects we don't yet understand. Eating them as a "good" source of nutrition dosn't make sense to me anymore.
3) Is 10'000 years long enough for some evolution... I wouldn't know. What would be the stressor pushing humans to evolve realtively "quickly" and better digest grains, which we know we can get calories from, and don't cause instant death? I'm sure we could think of a bunch, but 5'000 - 15'000 years dosn't sound like alot to me. And probablly not to someone with a gluten intollarance or full on Celiac disease. Quite possible we make better use of them than we did, sure. Does that make it good? Nah. Bad? Relative term.
Me silly? Absolutely.
On 71's last 3 points:
1) We can all be pretty sure about what he didn't eat. Avoiding or minimizing those things probablly makes alot of sense to most. Pretty sure he didn't use a bunch of stainless steel vats and organic solvents to magically make cooking oil out of canola plants.
2) Grains are BAD sounds extreeme. If I've sounded extreeme I apologise. It's the internet and I type fast. That extreeme view point is definatly out there. Some humans are living 70+ years with grain as a major food source. Bad is relative. I just feel there are so many things that are better. I percieve them as easy empty calories with a decent potential to have negative effects we don't yet understand. Eating them as a "good" source of nutrition dosn't make sense to me anymore.
3) Is 10'000 years long enough for some evolution... I wouldn't know. What would be the stressor pushing humans to evolve realtively "quickly" and better digest grains, which we know we can get calories from, and don't cause instant death? I'm sure we could think of a bunch, but 5'000 - 15'000 years dosn't sound like alot to me. And probablly not to someone with a gluten intollarance or full on Celiac disease. Quite possible we make better use of them than we did, sure. Does that make it good? Nah. Bad? Relative term.
Me silly? Absolutely.
Posted by Seventyone on 2013-02-13 20:24:41
1. How do your cells know it came from stainless steel vats?
2. Sorry I possibly jumped the gun a bit here but we had a nutritionist come an speak at the school I teach who was very anti grains I possibly got caught up in that. You do seem to be following a paleo diet which is definately anti grain.
3. Yes evolution can happen that quickly. It can happen in weeks in bacteria. It has happened in less time with evolution of lactase persistence in man.
On gluten clearly coeliac disease is an issue and there do seem to be some people who don't have this but do have gluten related ibs. However this does not mean that gluten insensitivity is common or that not eating gluten is a good idea.
Long live silliness!
2. Sorry I possibly jumped the gun a bit here but we had a nutritionist come an speak at the school I teach who was very anti grains I possibly got caught up in that. You do seem to be following a paleo diet which is definately anti grain.
3. Yes evolution can happen that quickly. It can happen in weeks in bacteria. It has happened in less time with evolution of lactase persistence in man.
On gluten clearly coeliac disease is an issue and there do seem to be some people who don't have this but do have gluten related ibs. However this does not mean that gluten insensitivity is common or that not eating gluten is a good idea.
Long live silliness!