So if there are no nutrients we can obtain exclusively from vegetation, can we still provide our bodies everything it needs without resorting to an Extreme animal diet? For example, eating eye-balls, brains, raw bone marrow, toe nails etc...

See what I'm getting at? Wouldn't it be awesome if you could live on just cheeseburgers and poached eggs and pass on the chicken livers?

WTG Sherry. People here need to lighten up on eachother and take this thread as it started, as one persons experiences being shared with others they believed might benefit from the information. By trying to put down that persons beliefs and opinions, or anyones for that matter, you diminish what this forum is supposted to be about. People have the right to respectfully disagree and realize that other peoples experiences are not going to be the same as your own. That is how we learn from other people. Listen, share, disagree and question, but show some respect for other people's right to live their own life, have an opinion differnt from yours and don't be insulting if they don't agree with you. Just my opinion. I personally enjoy hear/reading points of view other than my own. It is one way that I learn, grow and gain knowledge to use as I choose to improve my own life.

Well said Lynnp. There seems to be a lot of shoving going on here. This site is very informative and everyone seems to be so intelligent. Why worry who's on top on the hill?
I've learned a great deal but I still like eating a varied diet which includes vegetables, a bit of fruit, nuts and lots of meat and fish. I don't care how much I weigh, around 190 I think, what is really important is feeling good and being healthy, and enjoying life. And the best way to do that is to educate ourselves in respect to diet and exercise and mental outlook. I really appreciate Bear's experience and intelligence but I don't totally agree, and thats fine, I don't have to. Everyone has so much to offer here, lets all just get along.

I feel that this thread has been very interesting and thought provoking. TheBear has kindly shared his type of diet with us, and his experience and the way it related to him just like the rest of us do throughout this whole site. It is probably one of the more thought provoking and controversial threads there are and has given us all a lot to think about. I personally find his ideas very interesting and enlightening. I know that if I want to find out more on some of his points I can Google it. I don't need to have links all over the post to feel that he has validated his ideas. I am an independent and resourceful person and have the knowledge to seek further info on the subjects myself. The fact that it works for him is good enough for me. He's happy, so am I. Other people have other things that work for them, I'm happy for them too! Life and diet is not a one size fits all deal.

Excellent and very salient point to which I could not agree with more.

In my experiences of participating in Internet chats and forums for almost 10 years now, there are few exchanges of contrasting views that fall within the spirit of a conducive debate meant to be mutually beneficial, but rather invariably turns into a “line by line” picking about of words arguing over semantics, veiled personal attacks, and disingenuously imposing an opinion aggressively upon another.

It usually starts like this. John posts, “oh, by the way, I have these wonderful black pants I just bought. Do you guys think it looks ok to wear black pants?”

Windsor replies, “Definitely not! Black pants are a fashion faux-pas only worn by waiters, service men, chauffeurs and the like, but never by a gentleman.”

John replies, “what? You snob! I think black pants are fine. I can’t believe how you people are!

Why ask in first place? Obviously, most questions are posed as a means to validate our own views—nothing more and nothing less. Whenever we read of other’s whose views are in direct contrast to the ones we hold dear especially when offered with almost absolute conviction, there exists a natural urge—in most people—to challenge, strike out against, and seek to discredit another view that is in such contrast to our own.

For example, if I were to say, I don’t think it’s necessary to drink 100 gallons of water while adding 20 tablespoons of oil to every meal. Furthermore, should I present that personal preference with strong conviction, the individual dissenter who has passionately practiced 100 glasses of water with 20 tbs of oil, will feel a need to discredit the view, if only to reinforce the notion to himself or herself that his or her practice isn’t some kind of mythical folly. Then comes the, “show me proof!” Give me a “link” or “scientific study.”

The example above is an opinion. It is true for me, nothing more and nothing less. To what end should a link or scientific date proven empirically further strengthen the veracity of the mutual exchange of views in this scenario?

With kindest regards,

Frederick

You offer a very astute observation here.

Clearly, when it comes to a subject as fraught with uncertainty as nutrition, it’s almost always an exercise in futility challenging what is absolutely right, or what is absolutely wrong. Instead, these forums are ideally suited to offer a great number of contrasting opinions collected into a single easy to find area for others to peruse, read, consider, and decide if it makes sense to adopt.

All the…er...extracurricular stuff regarding who is on the top hill serves only serves to detract and diminish what is the main purpose of Internet forums—an efficient and convenient exchange of differing opinions.

Personally, whenever I receive a reply which I think is meant to incite, to draw into an argument for whatever reason, my policy is to merely ignore and not engage.

I learned that from past experience, nothing good can come of arguing for the sake of arguing, especially on an Internet forum.

Bear has shared his experience of what has worked for him for 47 years! Just the fact that he was able to eat this way for 47 yrs gives it some merit in my eyes. I have found his ideas very interesting. How many people on this forum can even say they have low carbed for 47 years, let alone ate only meat products that long. None that i know of! Since low carbing is a fairly new idea to our society, many are much against it. We all know this. We all hear "your diet isnt balanced" .."you should be eating fruit". "your cholesterol is gonna shoot through the roof" blah blah blah! Society is still against low carbing for the most part. Like Bear said in an earlier post, He is just at the extreme end of it..no carb. So some low carbers are not able to accept his extreme, FINE. All i know is i will listen to someone with 47 yrs experience and learn from him. thats me!

Even if our ancestors ate non-animal foods from their environment (but if game was plentiful, I don't see why they would have), the amount of sugar in that stuff was so minuscule that it made little difference. And, their bodies quickly turned that sugar into saturated fat, which they quickly used for fuel, considering all the physical exercise they were certainly getting. You see, our bodies do have defense mechanisms to deal with toxins.

The human body does have a way to deal with sugar intake, and that is to convert it to saturated fat. We then use this fat for fuel. However, not only is the insulin that is required to do this conversion very destructive to our bodies, but the sugar itself running through our bloodstream is also damaging to our bodies. Hence, one of the best things you can do for your health is to keep your sugar intake as low as possible. Put another way, it would be a good idea, health wise, to keep your exposure to this toxic material as low as possible.

Our needing any vegetation for nutrients is ridiculous. We can easily get all the nutrients our bodies need from animal food. It is no accident that all these antinutrients are being discovered in non-animal food, and that elaborate preparation measures are required to even make them edible, as Nourishing Traditions goes into. However, Nourishing Traditions also points out that we must have animal food (especially animal fat) for optimal health. We need high amounts of animal fat; 60-80% of our calories should come from animal fat. Without this fat we will simply die. If you ate pure fat you could live for quite a while. If you only ate pure protein or carbs you would die very easily. So much for all the fat phobia.

Plant matter contains such small amounts of nutrients, it's laughable. Even herbivores get their true nutrients from the microscopic animals that live on the plants... the stuff we are so diligent to wash off. The nutrients the plant has is actually there for the benefit of these microscopic animals that inhabit this world. This proves that all animals are actually carnivorous. But, ruminant animals have ways to deal with (break down) the other matter in these plants. Humans don't have the elaborate digestive systems that they do. Nevertheless, our cells are very similar.

We are only after the sugar because we crave it. Like a drug, it is addicting. That is why vegetation was bred to be so sweet. Sugar is the drug. Sugar is the disease. Sugar has a nasty history, if you check into it's connection with slavery. Just say NO to sugar (in ALL it's forms). Sugar… we can live without it!

All these facts have gotten so skewed and obfuscated by the financial interests of those supposedly in fields that should be truly concerned with health care. Of course, many of them have been duped by rigged studies and other means of deception. It is a shame, but we can learn and we can turn this whole thing around. If we are willing to take the blinders off.


Disclaimer…. The information contained in this post is meant for informational purposes only. Please consult your physician, minister, mystic, or personal guru if you have any doubt as to it's scientific authenticity. My cats will be happy you did!

Thankyou, Paleo, for your more-than-welcome enlightenment on vegetation. It would be interesting to see a 47-year vegan veteran stand side by side with our Bear!

But still, any thoughts on whether we need to eat eyeballs and assholes for proper nutrition, or will the average mass-meat-market shelves suffice?

I do hope you're not asserting that all humans would be better off without any sugar in their blood whatsover or any insulin as well.
The fact of the matter is that neither sugar in the bloodstream nor insulin in the bloodstream are destructive to our bodies in and of themselves; in fact, they are an absolute requirement to life and with a quantity of zero of either, we would all die in short order (ask any type 1 diabetic about this if you don't believe me). It's when those things are present chronically in excess that the body is damaged. One more example of 'too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing'.



True enough, but from an evolutionary standpoint, why would we have those if we never consumed any?

We don't need any dietary sugar. My cats will concur. And, sorry, I simply cannot argue with them.

This was all their design, remember?

I agree.

In this forum, we all not only believe in the self-evident benefits of low-carbing, but have adopted it as a way of life. I’m reticent to use that phrase, but I think for this thread, it may be warranted.

In this WOL, irrespective of our philosophical or palate differences, the common universal truth we all share equally is our strong conviction that eating “carbs” has adverse effects to our ideal physical health. If we limit carbs—again for whatever respective reason—it must be that we all agree that carbs per se is bad, period, and end of discussion. There can be no dispute, disagreement, or obfuscation on this simple truth we all embrace.

If we agree that carbs per se are unnecessary for optimal health, I am puzzled by the “good” carb and “bad” carb rationalization. The “good” carb advocates make a fairly strong argument. In their view, they insist that the nutrients in certain carb foods (veggies are especially espoused in this category) are beneficial since the nutrient density in these foods outweigh the relative amount of carbs the said food contains. Furthermore, they insist the inherent fiber in these foods further reduces the deleterious effects of the carb intake. This is why veggies are so favored over fruits, I’d imagine. Of course, the “bad” carbs are simply…well…carb foods with no nutrient value. Soda, granulated sugar, and white bread come to mind.

In essence, we should choose those carb foods where the rewards (nutrients) exceed the harmful (carbs) effects. The ideal foods in this category would be garlic, spinach, onions, and the like since they have the most nutrients with the least amount of destructive carbs.

Seems very reasonable and very logical.

However, if we question the merits of fiber, then veggie intake would have a higher carb intake than we had anticipated. If we can find all of these nutrients, or absorb them more readily and more efficiently in other foods, what are these veggies value? If a veggie’s nutrient density carb ratio is no longer necessary (if we get our nutrients in all other non-carb foods), why eat it? If that is the case, is not the nutrient value of veggies completely neutralized leaving us with only the harmful effects of its carb intake?

Moreover, if nutrient intake and absorption are no longer issues, what is the difference between taking in 50 carbs of veggies, as opposed to 50 carbs of fruits? 50 carbs of chocolate? Or, even 50 carbs of powdered sugar? If nutrient density is no longer an issue, and if we, for the moment, dismiss the fiber hypothesis, what reason do we have to choose a plate of spinach over a chocolate cake? Perhaps, to take in less calories and more nutrients, which if we’re already taking in all the nutrients we need from non-carb sources, the extra would surely epitomize the concept of diminishing returns.

All things being equal (assuming the above if we were to get all necessary nutrients from non-carb sources and that fiber is unnecessary), our respective bodies treat carbs in the same manner whether it is from sugar, veggies, fruits, rice, grain, bread, ice cream, chocolate, or anything else from where carbs can exist.

In that case, if I must pay the price for carbs, then I shall echo Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake!”

With kindest regards,

Frederick

PS: For those who wish to pick this post apart, I know very well that the beheaded Austrian Queen of France never made that statement. So, pick apart something else!

Well, I guess it would be because we did.

Very well put, Frederick. I have been very guilty of espousing this very philosophy of "good carb versus bad carb". The authors of "Life Without Bread" make no such distinction, and I always wondered why. However, they "recommend" 72g of the stuff a day. Don't quite understand this. Perhaps they are, as Bear has said of Atkins, "diet-wusses".

Really? Well, just read this.