Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #813   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:22
ItsTheWooo's Avatar
ItsTheWooo ItsTheWooo is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,815
 
Plan: My Own
Stats: 280/118/117.5 Female 5ft 5.25 in
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwilightZ
No one stepped in because it's not ridiculous. My wife is 5'5" and weighs 100 lbs. and I can assure you that she is neither underweight nor anorexic. She eats like a truck driver--at dinner we evenly split 3 pounds of meat without difficulty. She was 105, and after eating VLC for a year (for health), dropped down to 100 and stayed there. It does depends on frame size, but barring an unusual disorder, as long as she (Fauve, that is) eats enough fat and protein she'll never be underweight. And if 105 happens to be underweight for her, she'll never achieve it anyway.

I happen to think that most of the goal weights here are set are too high, but I can understand wanting to set incremental goals for motivational purposes.


Just so you know, if your wife is a grown woman who is indeed 100 pounds at 5'5 and healthy, she is most definitely an anatomical anomoly. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm just saying it's really, really rare to the point of being pointless to the discussion. Especially when we have established Fauve's high weight is 195, implying she is NOT a tiny girl by design.

The vast majority of women who are 5'5 in height would be infertile, sickly, underweight and likely starved or afflicted with some kind of wasting disease to weigh 100 lbs. Again, this is a BMI of 16.6. That is an anorexic weight.

Fauve is counting calories. She is not eating ad lib. Therefore, she has the control to make her body the weight it's going to be. When you restrict intake, your weight is limited only by how little you eat. While I think she should go for the weight she wants to be (if 125 was a comfortable weight for you - try for it!) she should not be advised to aim for an underweight size.

It is irresponsible and frankly it scares me that so many in this thread are encouraging such actions. THen again, considering the thread I'm in... really it doesnt.
Going back to lurking now.
Reply With Quote
  #814   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:30
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsheets
I'll admit now, I've read a few posts on this thread but not all 7+ pages so sorry if this has already been discussed.
e,

How did you opt for so many posts on each page, if you only have 7 pages? I have mine set to 30 posts per page... giving me a bit over 27 pages! Just curious? I thought I had my options set to the most posts per page I could get. Can I set it to show more than 30 posts per page?

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Mar-21-06 at 20:39.
Reply With Quote
  #815   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:37
Fauve Fauve is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,141
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Victoria, BC
Default

Thank you all so very much for your concern.
I can assure you though that I will let my body dictate the best weight possible. I am NOT going to starve myself. I am eating about 1500 cals a day, 70% fat 30% protein, absolutely no carbs. I was eating basically the same way before Bear's post, except for the level of carbs (under 20 gms). I feel no hunger and I feel terrific for the moment, but if at some time that changes, I will reconsider. I am pretty good at listening to my body.
Thanks again, you are a terrific group.
Reply With Quote
  #816   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:39
BetyLouWho's Avatar
BetyLouWho BetyLouWho is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,980
 
Plan: between plans again
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 5' 9"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default

Quote:
How did you opt for so many posts on each page, if you only have 7 pages?

When you go to the first page of the thread the top looks like this:

1/2/3/4/5/6/7/>/Last>> I think that is where "7+" pages came from.

Yes, this thread does seem to have an excess of pages.
Reply With Quote
  #817   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:44
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fauve
I can assure you though that I will let my body dictate the best weight possible... I am pretty good at listening to my body.
This is the BEST advice! To hell with the scales... or "weight goals". The real goal should be to be healthy, and find your way there by listening to your body and trying to eat correctly for your body. Obsessions with numbers or time frames to get there are VERY unhealthy, IMHO!
Reply With Quote
  #818   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:50
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BetyLouWho
When you go to the first page of the thread the top looks like this:

1/2/3/4/5/6/7/>/Last>> I think that is where "7+" pages came from.

Yes, this thread does seem to have an excess of pages.
Thanks... now I get it. I am currently on page 28 in my view (with 30 posts per page!)... this post is #818! This thread may become the longest on the entire forum!
Reply With Quote
  #819   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:50
Ayustar's Avatar
Ayustar Ayustar is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,967
 
Plan: Human Experimentation
Stats: 170/100/105 Female 4'10
BF:
Progress: 108%
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Default

Woo, I was saying that she SHOULD go for a more realistic goal of like 125, I don't think she should go for 95 pounds!!! I think I would be ok at that, and to me that is stretching it...but not for her.

I thought a BMI of like 18 or 19 was ok? Because 16 IS underweight.
Reply With Quote
  #820   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 20:51
TwilightZ's Avatar
TwilightZ TwilightZ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 359
 
Plan: meat and meat by-products
Stats: 270/191/150 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: TwilightZone (Phila, PA)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
This is the BEST advice! To hell with the scales... or "weight goals". The real goal should be to be healthy, and find your way there by listening to your body and trying to eat correctly for your body. Obsessions with numbers or time frames to get there are VERY unhealthy, IMHO!

Deano, if enthusiasm is a measure of the success of not eating carbs, then you make a very good case for it!
BTW I'm on page 55!
Reply With Quote
  #821   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 21:08
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwilightZ
Deano, if enthusiasm is a measure of the success of not eating carbs, then you make a very good case for it!
Sorry. Just a little pet peeve of mine... people focused on weight instead of health. Hopefully, even someone who is really obese will benefit so much from eating properly, that they will be able to lose slowly, and therefore not have to worry about their present weight.

I'll stop the enthusiasm now!
Reply With Quote
  #822   ^
Old Tue, Mar-21-06, 21:43
ozarkren ozarkren is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 31
 
Plan: neanderthin
Stats: 183/137/115 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 68%
Location: SW Missouri
Default

When I was in my late teens early twenties, I weighed between 104 and 112. I am 5'5" and I have a very tiny frame. Recently, I have weighed as much as 183. Right now, I am trying to get back down to at least 120. Unless you are large framed at 5'3", I don't see any reason to not try for 105.

Bear- Thank you for this thread, it's been most informative.

Rain
Reply With Quote
  #823   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 05:08
dane's Avatar
dane dane is offline
muscle bound
Posts: 3,535
 
Plan: Lyle's PSMF
Stats: 226/150/135 Female 5'7.5"
BF:46/20/sliced
Progress: 84%
Location: near Budapest, Hungary
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo
I didn't respond earlier because I thought someone else would step in to correct that ridiculous statement. 95-105 pounds is considerably underweight for someone 5'3. 95 pounds is a BMI of 16, which is lower than the thresshold of anorexia. Even 105 pounds at 5'3 is still underweight. Your goal weight is slightly overweight, but it isa more realistic and healthy weight for you than 95-105.
I have to object to this assumption. This is not necessarily an "unhealthy" weight for that height. I have a weightlifting friend, a woman in her 50's, who is 5'2", and fluctuates between 100-103#. She is certainly not unhealthy or underweight, and is actually looking to drop another few pounds of fat. IMO, a 5'3" woman could hit this range just fine.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/attachme...achmentid=11952
Reply With Quote
  #824   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 07:23
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,089
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear

loops- If you eat at least a POUND of red meat a day, trust me, you will get all the Ca you need or can use. The body is very conservative with minerals as well as proteins. If you ate only meat from childhood you would have super-dense bones as did ALL the stone age Inuit. Recommendations for Ca in supplements use data based on chemicals, not bioactive Ca compounds. If you still feel some sort of Ca based fear, then take hydroxyapatite (or chew on bones)- it is better than mineral Ca, but is only a fraction as effective as the bioactive Ca in muscle tissues. The Ca in vegetables is practically worthless, it is as bad or worse than the mineral kind.

However, keep in mind that excess Ca intake is definitely not good for your health.


Bear -

this is definitely a problem for me then, as I am eating very high fat, and moderate protein. For me that means that I will have say 3-4 oz of meat at a meal but with a lot of added fat if the meat isn't fatty enough (like chicken etc). Breakfast is hard for me - I usually manage about 2 eggs with lots of butter but don't have an appetite at this time.

This is what I don't understand - how can I eat high protein and high fat? It is one or the other and I really can't eat that much protein or I don't feel great. A pound of red meat, unless I suppose it is ridiculously fatty is too much protein for me.

I too don't think too much calcium is good - I actually think magnesium is more important, but the two minerals do need to be balanced. I don't have issues with a low calcium diet - just a low magnesium one.
Reply With Quote
  #825   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 10:41
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default Some interesting stats on threads...

Currently this thread has 825 posts and 25,847 views.

Just browsing around the Daily Low-Carb Support sub-forum, I found three threads under a couple other "eating plan" sub-forums that have longer/more read threads.

Under the Semi Low-Carb Plans sub-forum there are two such threads:

GI Diet support here! thread
1,935 posts
41,312 views

Anyone do the Warrior Diet? thread
382 posts
41,611 views

And under the South Beach Diet sub-forum there is one thread, that for obvious reasons, has many posts/views:

South Beach Babes! thread
3,963 posts
109,459 views

Surely every male who has seen the title of that thread has "viewed" it... and undoubtedly were disappointed in not finding lots of pics!

Now, Bear, if only you'd named this thread Naked Cavewomen Only Eat Meat!... who knows how many views it would have by now!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Wed, Mar-22-06 at 11:51.
Reply With Quote
  #826   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 10:50
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Lots of views for this thread. Kinda like the compulsion to slow down as you pass the scene of an auto accident.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #827   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 14:00
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,498
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
Currently this thread has 825 posts and 25,847 views.

Just browsing around the Daily Low-Carb Support sub-forum, I found three threads under a couple other "eating plan" sub-forums that have longer/more read threads.

Under the Semi Low-Carb Plans sub-forum there are two such threads:

GI Diet support here! thread
1,935 posts
41,312 views

Anyone do the Warrior Diet? thread
382 posts
41,611 views

And under the South Beach Diet sub-forum there is one thread, that for obvious reasons, has many posts/views:

South Beach Babes! thread
3,963 posts
109,459 views

Surely every male who has seen the title of that thread has "viewed" it... and undoubtedly were disappointed in not finding lots of pics!

Now, Bear, if only you'd named this thread Naked Cavewomen Only Eat Meat!... who knows how many views it would have by now!


Our site was once the #7 result for "Free Movie Female oil wrestling"

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...light=wrestling
Reply With Quote
  #828   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 14:19
Fauve Fauve is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,141
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Victoria, BC
Default

You guys are soooo funny!
Reply With Quote
  #829   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 15:13
Hellistile's Avatar
Hellistile Hellistile is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,540
 
Plan: Animal-based/IF
Stats: 252/215.6/130 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 30%
Location: Vancouver Island
Default

At age 20, with no eating disorder, I stood 5' 4" and weighed 103 pounds on a medium frame. I had a large appetite, ate whatever I wanted and was very, very active. So 5' 5" and 100 pounds does not sound unreasonable for a small to medium boned woman in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #830   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 15:24
MissSherry's Avatar
MissSherry MissSherry is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 3,066
 
Plan: M&E Maintenance <5carbs
Stats: 170/109.5/115 Female 5'1"-5'2" w/ shoes
BF:31.1%/21.3%/19%
Progress: 110%
Location: By the beach in Florida
Default

I was 95 at 5'1" and very healthy. In fact at that time I got pg and ended up delivering a 9 lb baby Of course I was not 95 by the time I delivered but I think I only made it to about 120.

Oh how I wish for those days. Now he is 15. Need I say more...
Reply With Quote
  #831   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 16:22
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Since y'all seem to be into all these numbers... please go vote on this poll!

VOTE HERE!

Thanks for voting!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Wed, Mar-22-06 at 16:29.
Reply With Quote
  #832   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 17:22
theBear theBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 311
 
Plan: zero-carb
Stats: 140/140/140 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

BMI does not take into consideration that a person's weight is made up of both muscle mass as well as BF. I know many women of 5'2" to 5'3" who look and feel great at that weight range. My wife is 5'6" and when we met she was far from 'skinny'- at 115 lbs. I am 5'6-1/4, and was for a while was 167 lbs at 11% BF, but BMI said I was obese. I wish that the certain few readers would try to only engage in constructive comments rather than- as some individuals seem only to be able- constantly harping over microscopic detail- and trying to show me either as a liar, or badly misinformed. I am not.

A meat diet is far from 'boring (why do you look to your food as entertainment?), Each and every meal of meat , even the came cut from the same animal is as delicious as thr first time- trust me on this, variety is a result of learning to tolerate bad tasting or tasteless vegetables which require rotation and tons of spices.

IF you eat a pound of meat (which includes the fat) it is enough. If you eat just meat alone you will probably eat 2 or 3 lbs.day. Please, people- don't keep constantly looking for excuses not to follow this regime, meat is a complete food, and you can eat as much as you can and it is OK in all respects- no deficiencies occur on a straight meat diet so m=long as the meat is not cooked too much.

Curious, dean- how old were those longer threads?
Reply With Quote
  #833   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 17:25
MissSherry's Avatar
MissSherry MissSherry is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 3,066
 
Plan: M&E Maintenance <5carbs
Stats: 170/109.5/115 Female 5'1"-5'2" w/ shoes
BF:31.1%/21.3%/19%
Progress: 110%
Location: By the beach in Florida
Default

I agree Bear. I have not been bored at all and while you may not believe me I will do this for the rest of my life.
Reply With Quote
  #834   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 17:27
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

Coming from another low-carb forum and writing from Europe so forgive my english.
What I wanted to say is that I suggest anyone to read a great paleodiet book called "The Garden of Eating" by By Albert and Rachel Matesz.
The book is very political uncorrect providing evidences that saturate fats are harmless and essential for human body and that dietary cholesterol is not dangerous.
There was also an Ebook by researcher Dec Twohig which unfortunately is not online anymore.
While Matesz book provides the evidence for an omnivorous produce based diet Twohig DNA reseachers proved what others including the reseacher Diamond had already said: the diet of man in the paleolithic was not meat based by any extent, man was a fisher and scavenger and the gatherer foods like young leaves, fruits and nuts far from being a supplement to a meat centered diet were the staple of the diet.
And yes paleolithic man had access to a greater variety of fruits and nuts we have today, most of the zones where paleo-sites have been found not only are mild climate nowadays but were warmer in the past.
The Bushmen tribe in Africa comprised of healthy and fit individuals consume a diet which is 60% nuts. The bone density of paleolithic humans can only be achieved consuming an high amount of calcium while preventing the body from pulling calcium from the bone. Since they didn't abolutely consumed any milk at all such high intake of calcium could have only been provided by high amounts of dark green leafy vegetables.
But an high intake of calcium would have been useless if they didn't maintain a positive net-alkaline balance. This balance is achieved when the produce part of the diet is twice the meat part. This is less food than one may imagine, the consumption of 15 ounces of meat would requires 30 ounces of plantfood to maintain a net alkaline balance, and 1 medium banana is 9 ounces.

A net acid overload is more dangerous and unhealthy than many people could think. It can be considered the source of many degenerative and inflamatory diseases as it slowly erodes the tissues and force the body to pull calcium from the bone and the teeth.

Few have attempted to claim that humans are natural carnivorous and the reason is clear: human have nothing of the unique characteristics of obligate carnivorous animals. We don't even have the unique characteristics of hearbivorous animals. We have both characteristics that prove our need or ability to consume animal foods and characteristics our need or ability to consume plant foods.
If one want to be biased he/she could point out our meat eating characteristics, ignoring our plant eating characteristics and claim that we're carnivorous.
And of course one could point out our plant eating characteristics, ignoring our meat eating characteristics and claim that we're herbivorous.
Since we share characteristics from both realms we're more able to suit to different diets, we're less obliged to follow one diet and can divert from long period of times. Even the innuits could genetically adapt to an hard environment their body providing them with a unique fat distribution that is optimal for saving body heat and higher metabolism. In spite of this incomplete adapatation Innuits still suffer from liver enlargement (yes, I'm talking about the traditional ones) and have still high rate of osteoporosis whose rate is lower among Innuits that abandoned their traditional diets in favour of alcohol and modern foods. Stefansoon himself said that a 55 years old Inuit person looked like what an average 80 years old looks in america. The very high rate of aging which also explains the low bone density and fractures is caused by a steady net acid overload. Althought they consume on average 1900 mg of calcium daily that's not enough to counteract their acidosis. And keep in mind that traditional Innuits consume plants as they eat daily the stomach content of Caribou which contains the partly digested grass consumed by the animal.

If Innuits are proven to be physiologically and genetically adpated generation after generation to a peculiar lifestyle and diet few other hunter-gatherer societies who are known to consume a very high intake of animal foods either don't eschew from fruits and vegetables totally or consume non-pasteurized milk from escluvely grass fed animals. It isn't only an high sugar food but also high in net alkaline producing electrolites. Of course milk is not a paleo food. Even grains are more paleo than milk actually, since wild grains have been found on the ashes of paleolithic sites.

As for Vitamin C: preventing scurvy is the least important factor vitamin C is needed for. I would suggest everyone to read the research of Linus Pauling about vitamin C, which are anything but politically correct and are not motivated by economic gains. Vitamin C is a vital element in all animals, that's why all animals who are alive including primates like us are consuming or synthezing vitamin C. Innuits get their vitamin C from the subcutaneous fat of Caribou which is particularly high in ascorbic acid. All primates consume Vitamin C and carnivorous produce their own. The difference between us and other higher primates are not that big, we're both suited to a diet of both plant and animal foods and we have a similar anatomy. Nothing exists in humans that would suggest we overcame the need for Vitamin C, neither we're supposed to get it from food and neither we're supposed to synthezise our own. Nothing makes us that alien to differentiate that much us from other animals.
Either we're carnivorous and can synthesize our Vitamin C or either we're omnivorous, or gathere scavenger opportunistic primates who are both suited to animal food consumption and meat consumption, and we are natural eater of food rich in vitamin C so much that producing our own plus the one we get from the food we naturally eat would intoxicate us.
There's a reason why we see so many shades of colors and carnivorous don't. We need them to detect fresh fruits.
If there must be any debate whether eating only meat is cultural conditioning or eating fruits and vegetables is cultural conditioning the first one would result more close to the truth. We have a sweet tooth that carnivorous animals don't have and have a huge quantity of taste buds for sweet flavours, our milk is way more sweet and contains more sugar other mammals milk and we see colors whose only purpose for us as animals and primate is to detect fruits.

As for insulin: it's not true that without plant foods we would not produce insulin and would solve the problem of diabete.
In fact nothing could be farther from the truth: the author of the glycemic index himself found out that the GI is not a good predictor of insulin output. That's why he coined another index specific for insulin which is the Insulin Score. The insulin score unlike the GI tells how much insulin is produced after a certain food is ingested. I would advise anyone to take a look at the IS chart. Beef causes a greater insulin production than white refined pasta! Or in other words the body is forced to produce more insulin when beef in eaten than when white cooked refined high-carb pasta is eaten.
So much for the only meat = no insulin theory

An interesting aspect I find and that proves the body need for homeostasis is that if we look at the whole picture of our anatomy, or comparative anatomy evidences, and we see that we lack certain characteristic that all carnivorous animals must have to be such and we lack certain characteristics that all herbivorous animals must have to be such we see that our natural dietary guidelines are written within our physiology, anatomy and instinct and that it is more likely that kind of diet that paleolithic humans consumed according to modern evidences on analysis of fossilized feaces and that the majority of modern hunter-gatherer societies are consuming.
Carnivorous animals can't be harmed by a lack of alkaline net producing foods because of their physiology, we share certain traits of their physiology but not this one. Health and longevity in humans and other higher non-carnivorous primates depends on maintaining a net alkaline balance and avoiding a net acid overload. No wonder that many unorthodox modern researches on diseases are based on electrolites. According to Dr Beddoe for example all diseases in the human body are triggered by a lack of electrolites by a disequilibrium of minerals. The most important of which is a calcium balance, when enough calcium is consumed and no calcium is pulled from the bones and the teeth. When we think Paleo there is only a thing that meets these criteria: dark green leafy vegetables.
We can consider the electrolites balance and net alkaline terrain the most important factor to humans health. Such condition is met when plant food is twice the amount of animal food. That means fruits, nuts and dark green leafy vegetables. No wonder we have a sweet tooth, we see colors to detect fruits and can grasp, open and break things with our higher primate hands. No wonder we don't synthesize our own Vitamin C and no wonder human stomach is no more than 22% of the whole volume of the digestive tract with 70% located in the small intestine while real carnivorous stomach is 70% of the whole volume of the digestive tract with less than 30% located in the small intestine no wonder our appendix produce starch-splitting enzimes while carnivorous are born with no appendix at all and that our body, like other primates and no wonder we can synthesize niacin while carnivorous animals need to get it from meat and we can synthesize vitamin A and can toxify our body consuming excessive vitamin A while carnivorous animals need to get it from animal food and suffer no ill consequences when they consume huge amount of this vitamins.

Where the natural instictive balance I'm talking about?
The most significant difference between humans and carnivorous is that we need a net alkaline balance and are severely harmed by acidic averload, so much that new researches are focused on minerals unbalance as the condition that triggers all diseases especially cancer.
This in turn makes our body suited for the consumption of plant foods and provides us with features that only herbivorous animals and with characteristics that are meant to help us find and consume plant foods (ability to see colors, ability to grasp, break, and pick up with our hands, ability to taste sweet and have the sweetest mother milk)
This in turn makes us ill equipped to massive hunting and more suited for fishing and preying small mammals. Oh ... and insenct, insect meat is one of the most nutricious and it's very likely that most animal food consumed by paleolithic humans was insects.
This translates in animal food eating as the smallest part of the diet and gathering fruits, nuts and leaves as the larger part of the diet. The Bushmen who consumed 140 grams of protein daily and almost 2200 calories each and hunt very rarely and have a diet which is more than 80% plant food work 12 hours weekly on average. Yes, gathering enough food for everyone takes them 12 hours weekly which is less time spent working/surviving than any modern worker spend. The rest is free time. It has been estimated that if they increased their hunting the amount of work time would increase likewise. As humans they're best equipped to gathering and that's why it is so natural for them that even if they're been exiled in one of the least rich zone of the planet, they can get all their need to survive in a small amount of time, leaving the rest of their life to be enjoyed since they're healthy and fit.

What I mean by this is that if we remember our need to maintain a net alkaline balance by consuming twice the amount of animal food as plant food, which is what would naturally happen in the natural human environment having humans characteristics specific to plant consumption and to plant food attraction and being therefore best equipped to gathering, then aeverything else would sort out by itself.

You can try this with whatever realiable nutritional analisys software: make sure that daily the amount of plant food is twice the amount of animal food and see the result. You will see that not only an optimal amount of minerals, vitamins and phytonutrients is consumed but lot of health condition that are often seeked through complex calculus and diets are effortlessly and automatically met. The calcium intake will be optimal, the carbohydrate intake will be low and the protein intake will be high, vitamin C and vitamin A intake will be high but not toxic, sodium intake will be low and potassium intake will be high (another condition necessary for good health, health problems begins when we retain more potassium and excrete more sodium, in other words when sodium intake is high and potassium intake is low) and will achieve a net alkaline balance at the end of the day.
We shouldn't forget either the importance of phytonutrients. They have been considered non-vital elements, but this is going to change. Phytonutrients found only in plant foods not only are known to prevent the degenerative effects of free radicals and oxydization (which can't be prevented by consuming meat alone) but they also appear to be fundamental in helping the body completing several metabolic and physiological processes.

If we make sure to maintain a net alkaline balance by consuming twice the weight of meat and fish as fruits and veggies all the need of the body sort themselves automatically and all the criteria to maintain an healthy human body are met and in nature our instinct, physiology and anatomy would oblige us to maintain this balance by attracting ourselves to colored and sweeth foods, by equipping us with features specific to gathering while ill equipping us with features specific to big hunting.

My two cents
David
Reply With Quote
  #835   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 17:51
BawdyWench's Avatar
BawdyWench BawdyWench is offline
Posts: 7,124
 
Plan: Good question!
Stats: 202/192/170 Female 5'6
BF:Too much!
Progress: 31%
Location: Rural Maine
Default

I can't wait. This is going to be fun!
Reply With Quote
  #836   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 18:30
theBear theBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 311
 
Plan: zero-carb
Stats: 140/140/140 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

davideb: PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE PUTTING YOUR FOOT IN A BUCKET---PLEASE!

Your post is virtually total nonsense. Your 'two cents' are therefore, in 'counterfeit coin'
Reply With Quote
  #837   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 18:30
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

David,

Welcome to the ring (I mean the paleo forum!)...

Was wondering what you thought of people evolving for a long time during the ice age, way up north? I realize this is not everyone... but it does include quite a few people (including perhaps your ancestors, I think). These people certainly would not have had the access to plants, would they?

BTW... I would go get all the sources you can... NOW!

Yah... BawdyWench... I agree... this IS going to be FUN!
Reply With Quote
  #838   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 18:42
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear
Curious, dean- how old were those longer threads?
Well, one was about 2 years old, and the other two are nearly 1 year old.

I don't know, though... without renaming this thread, I don't see how you can compete with South Beach Babes!... especially considering it was started by someone named "foxgluvs"!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 10:05.
Reply With Quote
  #839   ^
Old Wed, Mar-22-06, 21:18
ItsTheWooo's Avatar
ItsTheWooo ItsTheWooo is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,815
 
Plan: My Own
Stats: 280/118/117.5 Female 5ft 5.25 in
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

David - Your post certainly makes a lot of sense and it is nice to hear a well thought out counter argument to the (IMO suspect) claim that an all animal product diet is health or even ideal.

I have a few questions though.
1) Green leafy veggies are a rather poor source of calcium. They do contain calcium but you would have to consume much too much of it volume wise for it to be a practical good source.
I have suspected that bone bits are probably a good source of calcium, and, early man probably got a lot of his minerals that way. It is well known that marrow is very nutritious. The soft spongy tip portion of bone (infused with marrow) as well as the bones of fish and small animals would be an excellent source, no?

2) Again, thank you for pointing out that meat DOES require insulin, and often a lot of it if you eat a lot. However insulin does more things than control blood sugar. After a high meat meal, your insulin level will be elevated (I am always very sleepy after I eat a lot of meat) but it is not the same thing as eating pasta. As much as insulin is a hypoglycemic hormone it is also a pro-anabolic one as well. Without insulin, you can't build any tissues fat or muscle. Needless to say, the actions of insulin following a very high protein meal are going to be decidedly different than what insulin is doing following a big bowl of pasta. In the former, it's mostly helping to build muscle tissue with amino acids and synthesize, build, repair tissues and so on. In the latter, it's more biased toward churning out fats from the sugar pasta.

3) I was not aware that traditional lifestyle Inuit had such a high rate of osteoporosis and liver enlargement. That to me sounds like the effects of alcoholism and modern lifestyle (which are problems among modern inuuit). Do you have a source to verify this statement?

4) You emphasize the importance of homeostasis of acid balance and mineral intake for health. Don't you think it is more logical to view this more a result, not a cause of health state?
Let me give an example. I have been increasing my protein (meat) consumption tremendously these past few days. Mind you I was not eating a low meat diet before, although, my calories were slightly lower. Because of my lower carbohydrate higher meat diet, I have decreased the amount of calcium I've consumed. In spite of this, I notice my nails are growing much faster than before. Now I've always been told calcium intake = nail growth. Bone and teeth, too. Obviously something about consuming more meat is making my body more pro-anabolic, even of tissues that require lots of calcium. This is leading to stronger, not weaker nails, in spite of less calcium. If we assume meat sucks calcium, wouldn't it follow that eating more meat would have a neutral or degenerative effect on nail, bone, and hair growth? This is not what I am observing.

There is more evidence that calcium intake isn't as important as the metabolic state (i.e. pro-anabolic via increased meat eating). Studies show giving calcium supplements and hormone replacement therapy does little to nothing to strengthen bones.
Protein, on the other hand, is shown to promote hormones that increase bone synthesis.

In my opinion, how much calcium (or any nutrient) you take in is less important than how pro-anabolic your body is, and that is a function which is primarily decided by nutrient status, energy status, and amino acids. The food we eat (or don't) turns on (or off) genes that control metabolic processes. Even if we assume meat contributes acid to our bodies (so do carbs BTW), the net result of a high meat intake might actually be stronger bones teeth and nails if the amino acids in the meat turn on genes that tell our body to build and strengthen tissues. The calcium I consume is being used more efficiently, because of what the increased meat is telling my body to do. It seems to only be helping me.


BTW, 1:2 ratio of meat:vegetative matter is pretty much what I seem to be clocking in now that I've raised my meat. I have consumed (today) 9ish oz of meat and 20 oz of vegetable matter, plus misc other foods (like a few oz dairy). Coincidence as my diet now seems to be extremely higher in meat than it was before.
Reply With Quote
  #840   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 05:44
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Hi David. I'm curious about your emphasis on the acid/ alkaline ratio making consumption of vegetation necessary to prevent calcium buffering from bones. I seem to remember the Bear mentioning that his bone density was excellent after over 40 years of consuming no plant foods whatsoever. Surely he shouldn't have any bones at all. Or at least suffer from some form of osteoporosis. I've always been curious about the claims that traditional Inuit suffered from osteoporosis. Very little data was ever collected from truly traditional Inuit. Stefansson was one of the few who would have been in an excellent position to observe traditional Inuit suffering high rates of fracture and he never mentioned it in his journals. Paleo authors like Cordain really want this acid/alkaline ratio thing to be true, so they are forever claiming that the Inuit are evidence to support this contention. But they're not.

What are you thoughts?

Last edited by kneebrace : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 05:50. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.