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
  #841   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 07:13
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

Regarding meat and too much acidity - maybe lots of animal fat buffers this?

Also, from everything I have read, it is magnesium that is more important than calcium for bone health - or rather, if you have a high calcium/low magnesium you get calcification of joints/organs etc. Green leafies are high in magnesium. This still doesn't really answer the question of why Bear has good bone health (let alone other issues of health) if his intake of these two minerals is 'low'.

I think on the Westonaprice.org they go into great detail about how real animal vitamin A is not toxic. Regarding vitamin C, the acu-cell.com site mentions how excessive vitamin C intake can lower the minerals zinc and copper in the body, which can actually increase infections. They mentioned ~1g vitamin C/day was not excessive. This is much more than one would get from animal products though.

Stefansson -

'The broadest conclusion to be drawn from our comfort, enjoyment, and long-range well-being on meat is that the human body is a sounder and more competent job than we give it credit for. Apparently you can eat 'healthy' on meat without vegetables, on vegetables without meat, or on a mixed diet....

...So you could live on meat if you wanted to; but there is no driving reason why you should. Moreover vegetables are fundamentally economical....

...The thing to do then, probably, is to go on as you have been doing, but adding to your mental equipment, if it be a novelty, the idea that several at least of the disadvantages of a meat diet are compensated for by advantages.'

?????
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #842   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 09:16
Rob21370's Avatar
Rob21370 Rob21370 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 225
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 336/297/140 Male 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Default

Sorry, but this whole acid/alkaline thing sounds like a chapter from a bad Kevin Trudeau book IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #843   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 10:24
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

First of all I don't want to insult anyone by saying this but anecdotal evidences don't equate to strong proofs. It's not necessarily a lack of faith as I do believe that many people are honest when they share their interpretation of what they feel and happened to them, but it is still interpretation, we could intepretate it in other way or we could miss all the vital factors explaining a situation. I've read several accounts of breatharians and fruitarians stating how great their health was, how good they felt after 30 years of eating nothing but bananas, how wonderful their bloodwork results were; just to meet them and find out that they were not that healthy, that they didn't looked healthy and finding out that after years and years they had a crisis and developed diseases and deficiencies.
If I had to change my whole lifestyle it must be because of more than few simple personal anecdotes, in fact many people who switched to a low-carb diet wanted more concrete proofs than just "I hate carbs, I didn't eat them and I feel great" there wouldn't be so many books and websites around otherwise.vive

I'm not saying that science is the only source of truth but that I believe in following a certain pattern of reasoning, if we're talking about science and we imply that as long as we're discussing about science we believe in the premises of that science so we have a point of reference to judge one study or theory fron another then I don't think it's right or reliable to throw into the discussion personal anecdotes that can't be proved. If we were talking about personal anecdotes on the other hand throwing science in the discussion wouldn't be fair since the premises would have been difference and we would judge what is being said according to a different point of reference.
That's why I can't answer questions like: why that guy that vegan fruitarian guy who eats nothing but bananas claims to be healthy looking, strong and have high bone density.

So far the highest amount of evidence is toward acid overload as the culprit for bad bones health. Stefensson himself noticed that Inuits looked way older than us at a relatively young age. This is the effect of acid overload, the tissue are slowly eroded and aging rate is increased. One could have strong bone for year and suddenly the body would collapse. Many modern researches focus on mineral unbalance as the condition that triggers all diseases especially cancer, so there's more to calcium and electrolite balance than strong bone, because strong bones are also the result of exercise or weight bearing workouts. This would increase the bone density in spite of an acid overload and would at least delay the bones weaking.

It's absolutely true that calcium intake per se is useless, that's exactly the point. Supplementing with high intake of calcium doesn't prevent osteoporosis or acidosis and the balance of calcium/magnesium is another important factor.
Increasing your calcium intake is useless not because calcium is useless and there's no need in the body for calcium but because not even a very high intake of calcium 3000 mg daily can prevent an acid overload. Besides it would be too long to list here but I would advise to everyone to look for all the processes minerals are involved. Calcium for the bones, iron for the red cell count, zinc for the growth are just the tip of the iceberg.

Among the first symptoms of protein deficiency there's brittle nail and thin hair. There are many reasons why we may need more proteins sometimes and less proteins other times, stress is known to be one of them. Finger nails grow faster and stronger where there are more protein available. I believe the RDA underestimates the protein need even of sedentary people. Consuming more meat may have decreased the intake of calcium, we don't even know, but the calcium intake per se was not important as preventing an acid overload. So yes, higher intake of protein, if needed by your body, would make your hair thicker and your fingernail stronger and would also heal wounds much faster while the decreased calcium intake is not a problem if you're in a net alkaline balance and you are. When they studied the population with lowest rate of osteoporosis they not only noticed their diet was net alkaline producing but the calcium intake was lower not higher.

Calcium intake is less important than maintaning a net alkaline balance. If you consume 2000 mg of calcium daily but your body is in an acid overload, even twice that amount would be useless, if you're in a net alkaline balance on the other hand even 1400 mg of calcium would be enough for your body.

This is evidence that calcium intake is not as important as maintaining a net alkaline balance. On the other hand the protein may have been important for several growth and repair processes your body needed to engage with.
Basides I don't think amino acids in the meat are turning on specific genes, an aminoacid is an aminoacid is an aminoacid. All foods contain all essential amino acids and there are very exceptions among vegetable and fruits were certain fruit are short of or completely lacking certain amino acids.
Still if you have a look at your essential amino acids need you will see that even eating nothing but lime beans would result in you getting at the end of the day more than all the essential amino acids you need. Besides amino acids are stored in the amino acid pool and are reutilized in the protein turnover for days, some last more and some last less. The longer lasting is lysine which can be stored for 9 days. Hence when you eat whatever food it is broken into singular amino acids which are then mixed with the amino acids pool to construct new proteints required to your body from scratch. Amino acids from a macadamia nuts don't have a different effect than amino acids from beef, the only difference is your chance to get all the essential amino acids you need but this is more a problem of mixed diet as even foods that are short of certain amino acids are still an adequate mono source, when you consume enough calories to sustain your body out of them, of all EAA.
Your nails are made essentially of protein while containing calcium too, but calcium intake doesn't affect their health only protein does.
The bulding of stronger tissue happened because of an increased protein intake that your body needed. The source doesn't really matter, you could have got that protein from dehydrated sunflowers the effect would have been the same: for plastic material available to the body.

I'm not sure about getting calcium from biting bones. All hunter-gatherer societies that get calcium from bones make collagenous broth from them boiling them for hours or even days. When the bones are not cooked and boiled enough the calcium content of the broth is irrilevant and this suggests that getting calcium from bones even small ones is harder adn biting them may not be sufficient.

As Jared Diamond wrote "ice age" is a misnomer. The earth slips on its axis periodically as ice accumulates in the poles so that those places on earth that were cold becomes warmer and those places in the earth that was hot became colder. To date there's no proof that the earth was covered in ice and most experts disagree. Since most paleolithic sites have been found of earth zones who are low-mild climate nowadays they were warmer and more abundant in fruits and vegetables, it is estimated that earlier humans had access to more than 500 varieties of fruits, nuts and vegetables. Of course those foods leave no trace so as Diamond as Twohig said the only way to have a better picture of the diet of that era is either through indirect tests (calculating average among the modern hunter-gatherer societies) or new DNA analsys of fossilized feces. Most of the high density bones have been found on sites who are mild climate right now, and rest of nuts shells have been found too. We don't know what zones where really cold and devoid of fruits and vegetables, we don't know if the unlucky ones living in those zones survived or evolved, we don't know whether their bones showed signs of diseases. I suppose those that survived up in the north eventually adapted anatomically to that kind of diet as happened with the Inuits, if they did survive.

Green leafy vegetables are however a better source than we may believe.
We should also keep in mind that wild green contain way more nutrients than our market green, they're especially higher in calcium. Also the absorption of calcium from those greens is higher than absoption from milk and a cup of dark green leafy vegetables contain as much available calcium as half a cup of milk. Greens are an exceptionally good source of calcium because they're both high in calcium and prevent calcium losses, whereas other foods are either low in calcium and prevent calcium losses or are high in calcium and increase calcium losses. For example cheese would provide xx mg of calcium
Speaking of protein: they are a very important component of bones.
When we speak of bones we must not think of calcium but of calcium, phosphorous, proteins and preventing and decreasing calcium losses increasing the amount of foods that have a positive effect on calcium balance.
When I said that high bone density of bone found in paleolithic sites prove they had a high intake of calcium I meant way higher than what a diet of meat and fat alone could provide. But still lower than what a milk and cheese diet would provide. The RDA is 1000 mg daily but even 2000 mg are not enough if the body is in acid overload, and less than 1000 mg are more than enough when the body maintain a net alkaline balance.
You said your diet is 1:2 so if you consumed nuts and greens too I can assure you got at least 600-800 mg of calcium from plant alone. If one needs more then bone broths can be added to the diet.
There are other factors too that influence calcium balance like sodium/potassium balance. Decreasing our dangerous salt intake is another good thing that we can do to retain more of the calcium we get from food.

But a net alkaline balance is more of a mean to maintain a general electrolites balance. We shouldn't focus on the effect of an acid overload per se but of electrolites deficiency which is considered by some the trigger of all diseases.
We've read lot of claims and theories about what causes "modern diseases" and I'm sure everyone as realized that both pro-vegan theories and pro-meat theories are biased and contradictory. For example modern Thailand has the lowest rate of cancer worlwide and is the diet highest in the GI. Yes, traditional Thailand cuisine included fat rich meat but the staple is still white refined rice. The Pima indians in Mexico consuming a diet comprised of foods with an high GI and mainly corn, tortillas and potatoes. Diabetes rate is one of the lowest there, when they move toward usa frontier and begin consuming a SAD diet they develop the same diseases that were unknown to them in mexico. Although many would agree that diverting from a natural diet is what is unhealthy per se, in other words the consumption of refined and non suitable for human organism foods, this doesn't seem to solve the contradictions surrounding the source of modern diseases, neither physical activity does nor smoking. Minerals balance and mineral deficiencies appear to be a more probable reason explaining the maintenance of health and the loss of health. This would be clearer to people is they had a look at all metabolic and physiological processes that requires minerals to function well and at the efforts that the body does to maintain a mineral balance at all cost.
I'm sure that if we repeated again the epidemiological studies worldwide just for alkaline balance vs. acid overload, that would explain more about the contradictions of those data and the reasons for the incidences of specific diseases in certain populations.

Vitamin A in high amount of toxic. Laboratory synthesized Vitamin A is toxic, period and more and more supplements companies are making vitamin A free supplements for this reason. For carnivorous animals not even high amount of synthesized vitamin A is toxic.
Vitamin C is indeed harmful when the intake is too high, such high intake could result only from either getting vitamin C from the food we eat and either synthesizing our own. That's why we don't synthesize it as vitamin C sources are suitable food for humans.

It's true that there are few studies about Inuits and all from 1920-1970 circa. The ones I know of discriminate between modern diet and traditional diet. The liver enlargement problem disappeared when they consumed less animal food. The Inuits consuming western food didn't suffer from this condition.
Even if those health problems were observed in modern Inuits eating a modern diet, nothing would explain the highest incidence of osteoporosis as by logic there should be many countries and populations before them having an higher incidences of those diseases because of an higher incidences of incrimated foods consumption. Even the modern Inuits eating a modern diet have not a special consumption of junk food, alcohol or refined grains. In that respect they are like many others countries and way better in their junk consumptions than many.
Nevertheless Inuits have adapted to that high animal food diet in a way that we will never do. The diet they traditionally consumed, and we're not talking about a simple meat diet but a a peculiar diet made of caribou and seal fat, fermented stomach content of their prey, fish organs soup, and their environement did caused an adaptation in their body which is demonstrated by their specific body fat distribution and metabolic rate. Stefansson eventually "claimed" that a diet of only meat could be suitable for humans but this is just a personal interpretation of what he saw; and what he saw is a population that generation after generation adapted physiologically and anatomically to a peculiar diet that they didn't chose but had to follow to survive where they lived. But the most important thing Stefansson said is that Inuits looked way more older than their age, this is the effect of an acid overload. The effect on the bones for example would be 1% loss of calcium from the bones each year. They would have the time to be the strongest people on earth in their 20s and look 70 when they're 40.
There's more to the effect of acid overload than the claims of Stefansson.
It's possible to detect whether an organism is maintaning a net alkaline balance or is in an acid overload, is possible to measure the increased calcium losses year by years and the electrolites unbalance when there's acidosis.
Weight bearing activities delay the effect of acid overload on the bones but not its effect on the rest of the body. Not to mention that Inuits even if partially had nonetheless adpated their anatomy and physiology to that kind of diet and environment generation after generation.
Also electrolites balance and increased mineral losses shouldn't be confused with other theories of acid/alkaline promoted in those books with the chart of acid fruits, alkaline fruits, acid nuts, alkaline nuts and so on.
When a serious factor is commercialized and spread like a kind of sci-fi nonsense it is normal that people are sceptic. But I do suggest people here who think of acid/alkaline as that kind of new age concept promoted in those books to spend a day reading pubmed results about acid overload and alkaline net balance it's effect on absorption of calcium from guts and on icreasing aging rate. It's a concept supported and proved by way more researches than Sears theories or certain Paleodiet authors theories about insulin and glucagon are and has nothing to do with the acid/alkaline foods charts and the Hay diet and whatnot.

David

Last edited by Davideb : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 10:31.
Reply With Quote
  #844   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 10:25
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 Rob21370
Sorry, but this whole acid/alkaline thing sounds like a chapter from a bad Kevin Trudeau book IMO.
No kidding!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 10:43.
Reply With Quote
  #845   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 11:02
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob21370
Sorry, but this whole acid/alkaline thing sounds like a chapter from a bad Kevin Trudeau book IMO.


The acid/alkaline theory you're talking about is indeed pseudoscience at best.
I'm talking about the "acid/alkaline diet" or "alkalinize or diet" especially the ones with charts and theories about changing the ph of the stomach.
What I'm talking about is mineral loss and mineral retainance caused by the body trying to maintain a balance which if not maintained would kill the body.
Yes the truth that those new-age theories about acid/alkaline don't tell is that small changes in the acidity of the body would kill you very soon as many body functions can only work at a certain body ph and this nothing but a fact. That's why the body tries at all cost to maintain the acidity or alkalinity that tissues require to function. That's why there's actually no change, the body has a mechanism to avoid this. This mechanism increases the loss of minerals and minerals are a major aspect of health since they're required for the most important body processes and functions. So it's a matter of how certain foods affect the mineral losses. For example foods rich in sodium increase mineral losses and so on.
If you look at pubmed you will see there's a pletora of published studies and researchers on this subjects and compared to the amount of scientific evidence there's about lectins effect this is almost a gospel truth.
This doesn't mean of course that the various new-age alkaline/acidic food charts, you're slightly acidic so goes and drink a glass of coral calcium, are not scientific. But the acid and alkaline terms are surrounded by confusion and the scientifically proved concept of increased mineral losses shouldn't be confused with Cooper or other diets.

btw: once one forgets about the pseudoscientific concept of acid and alkaline and understands how the proved concept of increased mineral losses is all about what it has got to do with acid and alkaline, one will also see that Dr Cordain is talking about the scientifical one supported by a pletora of rigorous studies and not the new-age sci-fi one of Cooper and others

David
Reply With Quote
  #846   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 11:38
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

So... bottom line, David... are you "embracing" Loren Cordain's WOE?
Reply With Quote
  #847   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 11:44
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
So... bottom line, David... are you "embracing" Loren Cordain's WOE?


I just think that Cordain had done his homeworks when he mentioned the importance of preventing mineral losses as observed in the majority of hunter-gatherer diet he researched.
He didn't when he said to consume only lean meat to avoid saturate fat

David
Reply With Quote
  #848   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 13:13
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 Davideb
I just think that Cordain had done his homeworks when he mentioned the importance of preventing mineral losses as observed in the majority of hunter-gatherer diet he researched.
He didn't when he said to consume only lean meat to avoid saturate fat

David
So, what type of diet do you advocate?
Reply With Quote
  #849   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 13:33
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
So, what type of diet do you advocate?


I support a natural, refined foods free, instinctive, micronutients-centered, omnivorous diet.
By instinctive I mean that instead of exact ratio of macronutrient I believe it's better to listen the momentary and unique needs of your body.
By omnivorous I mean that it takes into the account the anatomical and physiological facts that make human an animal both suited, and in need I believe, of plant foods and both suited, and in need I believe, of animal foods.
By refined food free I mean devoid of nutrient depleted and junk food.
By natural I mean that is takes into account what human is supposed to digest and need. Gluten for example is more a poison for the human body than a nutrient and generally I think that grains and lagumes are foods for birds that have anatomical characteristics that make them able to eat them, not for humans.
By micronutrients centered I mean that the food variety and choices are founded on maintaining a proper intake of essential minerals, vitamins, EFA, phytochemicals than on finding a "perfect" protein/fat/carbohydrates ratio.

David
Reply With Quote
  #850   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 13:38
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 Davideb
By micronutrients centered I mean that the food variety and choices are founded on maintaining a proper intake of essential minerals, vitamins, EFA, phytochemicals than on finding a "perfect" protein/fat/carbohydrates ratio.
Well, some think that animal FAT has many of these micronutrients you speak of (including the all evasive "phytochemicals")... and, of course, believe that plant food actually has so many anti-nutrients (including toxins) that it is best to avoid them. PLUS, modern day versions of plant food is really suspect, at best!
Reply With Quote
  #851   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 13:52
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
Well, some think that animal FAT has many of these micronutrients you speak of (including the all evasive "phytochemicals")... and, of course, believe that plant food actually has so many anti-nutrients (including toxins) that it is best to avoid them. PLUS, modern day versions of plant food is really suspect, at best!


Real antinutrients are only in certain foods and usually foods you would need to refine and cook to eat. They're mainly in certain bitter leaves and legumes.
Fruits of any kind are safe foods and nuts too as many healthy hunter-gatherer societies who base their diet on nuts as staple have never suffered from the effect on antinutrients, actually as I said those are the population with the lowest rate of osteoporosis and those antinutrients mainly bind to mineral preventing the body from absorbing them. There are studies that prove how high intake of almonds and legumes prevent absoption of mineral. But none that show that a normal consuption of other varieties of nuts and fruits could cause these problem, actually evidence says otherwise as those population who live on a diet rich in plant food have also the highest level of minerals or the lowest incidence of mineral deficiencies diseases.
If plant foods are suspect as you say then it should be the meat you eat since those animals are eating the same modern plants, from the same soil .. when they do.
Who found phytochemicals in animal fat? Just asking

phytochemicals are not that evasive, each of them has a name and a function even if of course not all of them are known or will ever be known.
Since we're clearly suited to plant food consumption as we have characteristics of herbivorous animals other than characteristics of carnivorous animals I think is also wiser to consume them knowing we were meant to than guessing whether certain classes of food contain all we need, you may do this with the nutrients we know, what about the who knows how many nutrients we don't know and may never find out?

David

Last edited by Davideb : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 14:12.
Reply With Quote
  #852   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 15:59
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

Oh I forgot, study after study has shown both the Masai and the Samburu, who eat no plant foods do not suffer from osteoporosis. Calcium leeching from all meat diets is nonsense. It's ridiculous to say that Cordain has 'done his homework'. What he has done is formulate a simplistic hypothesis and then proceed to conveniently ignore all the contrary evidence. Which you seem to be doing also David.
Btw. Weston Price actually thinks the Dinkas were healthier than the Samburu or the Masai for eating a lot of grain. But grains are also 'acid forming'.
Reply With Quote
  #853   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 17:00
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

I think there may be something to the theory of acid/alkaline balance, and I think in relation to the question of eating vegetation, it is probably how much is needed as opposed to needing it at all. I never got fat eating broccoli, for instance, and I never felt 'bad' after eating it - although I know people here have gotten used to eating mainly meat and fat and they feel bad after eating lots of fibre.

I personally don't need many veggies to feel good, but I do like a few non-animal products, particularly lemon juice in water, which is very alkalizing (sp). I feel fat and protein is more important, but I like to have a few plant things to feel best. Tomatoes and nuts are favourite.
Reply With Quote
  #854   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 17:02
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

I just meant to say - for ME it is a question of how much vegetation - I have no doubt some people here do fine on none at all. As usual, it's all down to the individual. I'm sure it's possible for me to eat pure animal stuff - just don't see the point.
Reply With Quote
  #855   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 17:58
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

One of the factors in the calcium bone leeching debate that is so often conveniently forgotten by people insisting that vegetation has to be part of the diet to prevent osteoporosis is that even mildly alkaline water will effectively more than buffer the acid load of an all meat diet. Once again more is not better. Just because a diet that includes some vegetation is more alkalizing than an all meat diet doesn't mean that it is healthier, as long as the net acid load on the ph homeostasis mechanism does not overwhelm the alkalizing elements - like for instance, alkaline water. Modern municipal water is usually treated with chlorine, which makes it very acid forming. But traditional living humans drinking water was predominantly alkaline.
Btw. Masai and Samburu tribespeople as well as suffering neither osteoporosis nor degenerative disease show none of the appearance of early aging that David is commenting on in Inuit. I think the harsh arctic weather extremes have more to do with the appearance of aging than their all meat diet.
Reply With Quote
  #856   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 18:26
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

I wonder what evidences Cordain is ignoring. Indirect data of few population living on a peculiar diet isn't an evidence against scientific data of the metabolic effect of foods and elements. The effect on the mineral balance of foods have been studied seriously so much that you can say how much for example calcium is lost when a food is eaten, gram of food per mg of calcium.
I have to admit I don't know much about Masai and Samburu but I suspect they eat milk too. Well, milk has a positive effect on the calcium balance other than being an high carb food and having nothing to do with a paleolithic diet or a natural human diet.
And alkaline water is not enough to buffer the effect of an acid overload, not even 3000 mg of calcium itself are not enough to.
But of course it would be naive to say the least to consider these indirect data about the diet of few traditional poulations as the basis to claim whether a pure carnivorous diet is the natural diet of humans.
There's more to understanding our natural diet than reading what Masai or even Bushmen (completely different diets, yet both population appear to be healthy) eat.
I think that in certain population living a peculiar lifestyle generation after generation there may have been physiological adaptation and also that humans being omnivorous can sustain their health for long period of time eating almost anything, there was a population in the Borneo who ate nothing but radishes and sweet potatoes and yet they were free of diseases and fit. Then again my granmother eat nothing but refined grain products, smokes a lot and drink alcohol and she is healthy in spite of her age.
These anedcdotal facts are totally useless, those are not the proofs that tell us what diet is healthy nor what diet is the natural one for humans.
Clearly there are people who in spite of eating nothing but cooked meat without consuming the whole animal raw still can sustain themselves for a long period of time.
And clearly we can totally divert from our real natural diet by adding food that we can obtain through human manipulation of nature, so for example a diet of meat and milk would provide what naturally the plant food should have provided.
But to say that humans are born to be carnivorous and are supposed from the first day they were put on earth to eat nothing but meat is really throwing the baby with the bath water and refuting the anatomical and physiological evidence, if the real human diet is totally carnivorous we should be completely different within and I don't think someone supporting this theory lacking any sort of anatomical, physiological, biological and scientifical evidence can call a theory supported by dozen of studies simplistic.
That's clearly double standards as nothing could be more simplistic and absolutely theoretical than claiming that humans are natural carnivorous meant to eat nothing but meat to be healthy.
Yes, humans fly but humans were never meant to have wings and anatomy and physiology couldn't be clearer about this.

David
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #857   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 19:10
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

David. I wonder which biochemical maths you are using to dispute that even mildly alkaline water is enough to buffer an all meat diet. You are wrong. But you are right in observing that both the Masai and Samburu consume copious amounts of milk. However I was under the impression that even copious amounts of dietary calcium are largely ineffective at buffering the bodily ph effect of acid forming foods. Something which an alkaline water supply does very well.

Nevertheless I take your point that the human body is designed to be able to survive and even survive well including a certain amount of vegetation. But survival to childbearing years has little to do with optimum health and longevity. I actually think a certain amount of vegetable foods make the human diet much more interesting and probably do little harm. But to extrapolate from that to a high vegetation intake being the healthiest is a little rich.
On a different 'paleo' paradigm tack, I think the condemnation of high dietary saturated fat intake being unhealthy because paleo humans had to really work hard to get it is another perfect example of the woolly thinking that equates survival design with optimum health. The many members of this forum who continue to demonstrate that copious quantities of dietary saturated fat in the context of a restricted carbohydrate diet (not just grains either, all carbohydrate) results in continually improving lipid profiles and signifigant improvements in a host of other health markers, are a testament to how flawed this logic is.

Last edited by kneebrace : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 23:02.
Reply With Quote
  #858   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 19:35
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,241
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/181/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 88%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Cordian's book shows that he has done a lot research. As with all researchers, he does allow his personal beliefs to influence his interpretation of the data. His recommendation on saturated fats is partially based on fat measurements on wild animals.
Reply With Quote
  #859   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 22:47
theBear theBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 311
 
Plan: zero-carb
Stats: 140/140/140 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

Would someone please explain to me why I am feeling forced to have to say this? Shouldn't it be obvious?

What Stef really said, was the the Inuit had older looking FACES for their ages- but had the bodies of youths much younger. The Inuit's face is always exposed to the weather and get massive amounts of sunlight directly and reflectively from ice and snow. Good for vit D- but hard on the appearance.

There is literally no such thing as 'acid-alkaline unbalance' in the body- it is nonsense. Your body is so well buffered that the small change in pH due to dissolved CO2 (carbonic acid) is sufficient to induce rapid and intense changed in the breathing rate.

A diet consisting entirely of straight muscle tissues with fat is complete, that word means it contains literally every nutrient and is sufficient or in excess of the necessary levels for perfect health. I defy you to find ANY example of someone with this longevity and contrary results. If you do not or cannot understand the preceding, then there is little hope for you - on this thread.

Why butt in on a thread with over 800 posts and with reading any of it, try to put forward such egregious nonsense which does none of us, including you any good? Ego? Find some other group to grandstand with, please.

I suggest that before making any more comments on what Stefansson said or wrote, and inaccurate statements about the Inuit, you should actually READ Stefansson's various books and articles. Inuit NEVER eat 'Fermented stomach contents, and their environment is basically tropical and very warm due to their 'perfect' clothes and lodgings. I do not understand why anyone would go to so much trouble to write such long diatribes filled with misinformation, misquotes, myths and downright lies.

Experience in this dietaryu path:

Also I HAVE EATEN A PURE DIET OF MUSCLE MEAT FOR 47, THAT IS: -FORTY SEVEN- YEARS. I eat nothing vegetal, no greens no fruit no nothing, I am comfortable, very fit and I have a body nearly identical to what I started with at age 23, only stronger and more muscular. I am 71. I have all my teeth.

You cannot simply make stupid, irrelevant contentions on health with ZERO experience on which to draw. You cannot get me to accept any 'research' found on the net or elsewhere as valid where it contradicts experience, and mate, I have LOTS of real life experience. In case you are not aware, the majority of 'research' done and published in recent times is suspect and much of it has been shown to be bogus, containing falsified data, massive editing and restrictive and false fundamental assumptions which form the basis of the studies. Why? MONEY and FAME. You can easily devise a 'study' which would 'prove' that pigs can fly.

If anyone truly believes that we are omnivores, which has no basis in our evolution or body structures, then why are you here?

Note, please- the title of this thread. If a person has any common courtesy, they would first READ the thread, in which all this nonsense has been thoroughly examined, before spouting off.

Bone loss with age is primarily hormonally driven, also related to reduced fresh meat (bio-calcium) in the diet- plus lack of sunlight (or Vit D).

Last edited by theBear : Thu, Mar-23-06 at 23:18. Reason: corrections
Reply With Quote
  #860   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 23:42
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear
...In case you are not aware, the majority of 'research' done and published in recent times is suspect and much of it has been shown to be bogus, containing falsified data, massive editing and restrictive and false fundamental assumptions which form the basis of the studies. Why? MONEY and FAME. You can easily devise a 'study' which would 'prove' that pigs can fly.


Cordain is only one example of personal bias getting very much in the way of sound experimental design, David. Have you ever investigated the way he actually came up with the data to support his hypothesis that traditional living Inuit suffer high rates of osteoporosis and fractures. On close examination, it's hardly rigorous. As Bear points out, researchers fall into the same traps of professional pride affecting their objectivity as any human being. They usually just manage to dress it up better. I once heard an interview with Cordain during which the very well informed science journo posed a question which drew his (Cordain's) attention to an aspect of ALL historical anti sat fat research involving the lack of controls for carb intake. He paused, reflected for a moment and then admitted that the role of carb intake, not sat fat, as THE causative factor in the development of CVD, in almost breathtakingly complex jargon, ' warranted further research'. I wanted to scream, but in the same moment I realized that the scientific community actually applauds such ass covering dressed up as professional caution.

Btw. you referred to 'a few' cultures who contradicted this meat diet/skeletal calcium leaching myth as somehow being on a credibility par with some spaced out fruitarian claiming he'd been on a diet of nothing but bananas for decades in perfect health. Also you seem to be intimating that the accumulated pile of flawed (believe me, Cordain's Inuit osteoporosis research is a joke) high vegetation intake paleo diet research somehow is more convincing than contrary reports of how healthy the Inuit actually were, or even individual experiences like the Bears over many decades.

David, basically it comes down to this. Either the Bear is lying (or at best misreporting his diet or his health), or 'paleo' researchers like Cordain need to get more accurate data and stop misinterpreting it, and you need to be a little more critical of 'scientific research'. I know who I find more credible.

But I'd like to refine the Bear's perspective on the dietary typing of homo sapiens a bit. I think we are certainly opportunistic omnivores, but optimal carnivores. Trust humans to work out a way of hedging their bets so they don't need to be obligate anything.

Last edited by kneebrace : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 00:20.
Reply With Quote
  #861   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 02:17
theBear theBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 311
 
Plan: zero-carb
Stats: 140/140/140 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

We humans have an remarkable ability to survive almost anything. As a species, we are indeed a truly special animal.

We are today attempting to become a kind of 'opportunistic' feeder, I guess similar to the dog, rat and pig, however unlike those animals, we are simply not as well equipped for the mixed diet. Our limited ability to tolerate and live on a mixed diet, especially when meat-deficient, brings massive health problems to the modern human.

Resorting to short periods of minimal quantities of vegetable foods,eaten in order to survive periods of poor prey availability, beginning in the later part of our paleolithic period certainly was of great benefit for human survival and migration. However that is NOT the optimal or best diet. Unless faced with starvation, we are all better off avoiding eating mixed.

Stefansson spent many paragraphs, in several of his works describing the extraordinarily thick and strong bones all Inuit people had, especially their skulls, one of the thinnest and lightest for its strength of the human bony structures. How can anyone give a moment's credence to anything said by a 'researcher' who claimed otherwise?

By the way, I have only suffered one fracture in my life, I fell 15 feet onto hard dirt, landing on my hands and bum- from a scaffold while moving a PA system, in 1974, at the age of 39. I broke my left ulna at the wrist joint. It healed very rapidly, I took the cast off in two weeks, the brace off in a month. I cannot even tell it was ever broken.

Last August while tensioning an aerial electric distribution cable on the edge of a roof 12 feet up, the anchor failed and I was jerked off the edge and went straight down, landing on my feet. No damage other than a slightly sprained muscle in my lower back, and one displaced vertebra necessitating a trip to the chiropractor. I have extremely heavy, dense bones at 71- like an Inuit. Could any of you reading this NOT have expected to have broken something?

Last edited by theBear : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 02:24. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #862   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 06:09
CharlyA CharlyA is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 28
 
Plan: wild
Stats: 145/145/145 Male 64"
BF:
Progress:
Location: WNC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear

By the way, I have only suffered one fracture in my life, I fell 15 feet onto hard dirt, landing on my hands and bum- from a scaffold while moving a PA system, in 1974, at the age of 39. I broke my left ulna at the wrist joint. It healed very rapidly, I took the cast off in two weeks, the brace off in a month. I cannot even tell it was ever broken.


I'm curious which show that was at?

02-22-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
02-23-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
02-24-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
03-23-74 Cow Palace, Daly City, Ca.
05-12-74 University of Nevada, Reno, Nv.
05-14-74 Adams Field House, U. of Montana, Missoula, Mt.
05-17-74 P.N.E. Coliseum, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
05-19-74 Portland Memorial Coliseum, Portland, Or.
05-21-74 Hec. S. Edmundson Pavilion, U. of Wa., Seattle, Wa.
05-25-74 Campus Stadium, U.C.S.B., Santa Barbara, Ca.
06-08-74 Oakland Coliseum Stadium, Oakland, Ca.
06-16-74 State Fairgrounds, Des Moines, Ia.
06-18-74 Freedom Hall, Louisville, Ky.
06-20-74 The Omni, Atlanta, Ga.
06-22-74 Jai-Alai Fronton, Miami, Fl.
06-23-74 Jai-Alai Fronton, Miami, Fl.
06-26-74 Providence Civic Center, Providence, R.I.
06-28-74 Boston Garden, Boston, Ma.
06-30-74 Springfield Civic Center Arena, Springfield, Ma.
07-19-74 Selland Arena, Fresno, Ca.
07-21-74 Hollywood Bowl, Hollywood, Ca.
07-25-74 International Amphitheatre, Chicago, Il.
07-27-74 Roanoke Civic Center, Roanoke, Va.
07-29-74 Capital Centre, Landover, Md.
07-31-74 Dillon Stadium, Hartford, Ct.
08-04-74 Civic Convention Hall Auditorium, Philadelphia, Pa.
08-05-74 Civic Convention Hall Auditorium, Philadelphia, Pa.
08-06-74 Roosevelt Stadium, Jersey City, N.J.
09-09-74 Alexandra Palace, London, England
09-10-74 Alexandra Palace, London, England
09-11-74 Alexandra Palace, London, England
09-14-74 Olympiahalle, Muenchen, West Germany
09-18-74 Parc des Expositions, Dijon, France
09-20-74 Palais des Sports, Paris, France
09-21-74 Palais des Sports, Paris, France
10-16-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
10-17-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
10-18-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
10-19-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
10-20-74 Winterland Arena, San Francisco, Ca.
Reply With Quote
  #863   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 08:05
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

There's a difference between these several statements: there difference between realizing that the less refined carbohydrate foods the better, that people who increase their sat fat intake and meat intake feel better, that grains are not meant for human consumption and that we've the evidences that an all meat diet is the optimum and natural diet for humans.

Maybe we are all under the illusion that there's a natural diet, while there are just diets we can consume.
Just consider the example of the white and brown bear.
They've identical anatomy and teeth structure.
Yet one consume mostly vegetation and only small animals, the other is carnivorous and eat small amount of berries.
The difference is their environment and what they can get from their envinronment. This difference brought also a certain degree of adaptation but we're talking basically of the same animal.
The bear is the true omnivorous archetype, so Huxley used to said. And the difference between the white bear and the brown bear shows to us what being omnivorous entails.
We omnivorous animals are meant by nature to be able to consume plant matter, that's why we have vegetation/fruits consumption characteristics that carnivorous animals don't have and to consume animal food, that's why we have mear consumption characteristics that herbivorous animals don't have.
This makes us opportunistic feeders who are able to consume from both the spectrums of our nature and even physically adapat to extreme conditions because of this.
So the "should" is less strong than the "be able to" and for all the world examples that one can bring of healthy populations living on nothing but fat, organs, blood and milk there as many example of people living on nothing but potatoes and coconuts or just 10% meat.
Both the ones pointing at the meat spectrum and calling that our natural diet and both the ones pointing at the starch/fruits spectrum and calling that our natural diet are blindly missing the obvious point.
The bear itself, funny, is the most important example that omnivorous can eat on either end of the spectrum.
The potatoes/coconut eating, the Borneo population, the Inuits and the Masai though are just extreme nonstatistical example that shows a certain degree of adaptation to extreme the conditions, but the vast majority of humans (hunter-gatherer) that didn't adapted to eather spectrum extreme eat a diet which is abundant in plant matter (fruits, nuts, leaves) and abundant in animal food (fish, meat, eggs)

What is most important is that not only did the ends of the spectrum adapt physically to their diet but that peculiar conditions and human manipulated means allow them to make those diets beareable. So the Inuits eat the fat and stomach content of caribous for example which has a nutritional content that your marker or grass diet meat will never have, Masai eat milk which is not a natural food for any kind of animal on planet and it's a mean to adapt to a certain diet. The same way the almost vegetarian populations adapted because of special plants or nuts that are able to make up for the other things they're missing because of their inuque nutritional profile.

When people on a law-carb diet begin claiming that it's the all meat spectrum the most healthy diet possible and the one humans have alwaus been meat to, they do exactly what their dectractors are doing; looking thoroughly for an healthy population at the end of the spectrum and calling it without evidences whatsoever and going against the most basic comparative anatomy facts the natural human diet.
Your detractor can then look thoroughly for another healthy population at the end of the spectrum near the equator and calling it the natural human diet.
Both have the same chances of being considered right and that's not the way to wake up people from the SAD diet and show them there're healthy ways of eating, that's just a dishonest game where someone is right because he/she says so and it's the same dishonest game of USDA, AMA, ADA & company.

Then again, making broad universal statements according to ones limited anecotes is even more dishonest and useless.
You can't make broad statements you would like to apply to human as a species based on your experiences, this is not only irrilevant at best but it's ecogentric as few thing can be.
It's a logical contradiction, as you can see that modern researches are suspect, everyone can say that your experiences and claim are suspect.
As for the title of the thread I didn't know this was a thread were you claim some universal truth based on your limited and statistical irrelevant experience and others are not allowed to reply unless they agree with you.
In fact this is not a thread for the ones who think that humans are carnivorous, the proof is that dozen of replies have been made by many posters to say that you're wrong. So if there's someone who has a problem with his ego that's you. You're posting under the delusion that this board is here to support you and that everyone is supporting you and I should post in other board if I don't believe your simplistic and irrelevant claims.
Sorry but not everyone here is supporting you and this board and this thread are not meat as a support chat for your claims. Speaking of egocentrism ...
You then keep contradicting yourself first by basically claiming that all you care is your experience because you don't trust modern studies and researches and then you defend your broad statements, whose foundation make them true statements just for you and your life not for others that can't clearly base their diet and your limited experience, speaking of anatomical and nutritional fact you mut have read somewhere even if you don't understand them, but that contradicts your lack of faith on those studies in the first place. You shouldn't even say that your diet provide you all the nutrients you need, because that would mean that you after all believe in those studies and researches that claim to have discovered and quantified those nutrients.
So, suit yourself, either you base your broad statements on your experiences an you must accept that those statements are limited to you and your life, or either you base them on scientific studies and researches too, and you must accept that that science proves you wrong totally, it doesn't prove that your experience is wrong but that your egocentric and unfounded broad statements are wrong.
To me you're wrong not because of the topic per se, you're wrong because you're making broad unsupported statements you want to back up with interesting anecdoted you tell to us, and what's funny is that this is the attitude of the low-carb detractors of the junk food industry and the nutritional political correct institutions. Way to go

David

Last edited by Davideb : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 08:55.
Reply With Quote
  #864   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 09:04
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

David, first of all the Inuit do not traditionally eat the stomach content of caribou. It is a myth perpetuated by researchers who desperately need to escape from the possibility that an all meat diet could maintain an entire population in remarkable good health for millenia. The fascinating thing for me is that someone like the Bear, who has no Inuit heritage but is probably human has fared so splendidly on an identical diet for most of his adult life. It is unfortunate that statistically he is an aberration. But as he pointed out enculturation in vegetation consuming habits has loaded the statistical dice somewhat. So what are we to do?. Disregard his story because he is a statistical anomaly in the West. Or look a bit more carefully at the cultures who thrive on an all meat diet and try to discover if the research discrediting this dietary approach as somehow inferior to a diet including some vegetation is sound. I've only taken a close interest in Inuit dietary research, because it seemed to conflict so starkly with Stefannson's first hand observations in the field. And I'm afraid the data collection methods and statistical analysis leading to the conclusion that traditional eating Inuit suffered premature aging or osteoporosis are entirely suspect. But if sober professional 'researchers' like Cordain can manipulate and distort shonky Inuit data to somehow support the calcium leeching hypothesis and get plaudits for good science then I think I'd rather go for the testimonial reports of an individual long term all meater like the Bear. But like you said that's not good science.

Soooo bad science pretending to be good science (like Cordain's Inuit osteoporosis hypothesis) is more convincing than first hand testimonials of a lifetime's experience (like the Bear's) which manifestly is hardly good science?.
Come on David, wake up!

And I'll try to get a response again. Do you think the Bear is lying about his excellent bone density (and extraordinary health) after 40 years of an apparently ' net acid load' diet?. Or are you just saying that because n equals one in this case it can just be conveniently ignored and put in the same basket as the fruitarian banana eater?. Or perhaps you may be suggesting that the Bear obviously just has an iron constitution and the damage he must have been doing to his body by eating nothing but meat for over 40 years just hasn't shown up. So come on, you obviously don't think an all meat diet is a particularly good way to maintain optimal health for life. So would you care to speculate on the Bear's experience?. I mean I think that he has been pretty honest from the start. He has tried to point out the shonky aspects of 'research' discrediting traditional Inuit diets as optimally healthy, while proferring his own (adult) lifetime's similar experience on a 'take it or leave it basis. You obviously would rather leave it. But the fact that one of the reasons you would rather leave it is spurious research on the traditional Inuit diet, is pretty troubling.

Btw. the Bone density of both Stefannson and his mate actually IMPROVED during their Bellevue Hospital all fatty meat sojourn. And one year is certainly long enough for a so called 'net acid load' diet to produce measurable changes in bone density.

Last edited by kneebrace : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 09:30.
Reply With Quote
  #865   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 09:48
Davideb Davideb is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 35
 
Plan: high fat BFL
Stats: 170/170/170 Male 1.80
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kneebrace
David, first of all the Inuit do not traditionally eat the stomach content of caribou. It is a myth perpetuated by researchers who desperately need to escape from the possibility that an all meat diet could maintain an entire population in remarkable good health for millenia.


I don't know whether I can agree with this or not, because you're not even sure. Stefansson is not the only "authority" about the Inuits, others have written and studied these populations. Could they have lied about them and created myths? Of course. But if we think that they could then we could easily think that even Stefansson did. I've never felt that those studies and researches on Inuits have been done in order to prove that their diet was unhealthy, I don't think anyone wanted to prove that. Several sources refer to Inuits traditionally eating the stomach content of their preys and those sources as far as we know are as much reliable or as much unreliable as Stefansson reports.

Quote:
The fascinating thing for me is that someone like the Bear, who has no Inuit heritage but is probably human has fared so splendidly on an identical diet for most of his adult life. It is unfortunate that statistically he is an aberration. But as he pointed out enculturation in vegetation consuming habits has loaded the statistical dice somewhat. So what are we to do?. Disregard his story because he is a statistical anomaly in the West.


Absolutely not, I've never meant to disregard his story, I will never disregard the personal story of an individual because that's the only truth, what is true for us personally, as long as we don't apply it to all humans that are not us taking away from them they same right to subjectivity we wanted for us.
But it must be admitted that our personal truths baked up by our experiences are not universal truths, they apply to us as long as they're founded on our life and our body. This is the core of freedom respect and empaty as well, to accept that what is your life and your body is just your life and your body and that you will never ever be in the mind and body of another person. This is why I both support the Bear in doing whatever he is doing and doesn't support he extrapolating his personal experiences to billions of humans.
That's what freedom and especially freedom from institution and cultural manipolation is all about, the opposite is dictatorship; the typical western dictatorship masked by liberalism.
I thrived on minimalist music when I was a child, didn't like any other kind of music and couldn't understand my peer that thought that music was boring.
I never made though any broad statement about my experience claiming that minimalist music was superior, that all children should listen to minimalist music, that since I was a child and minmalist music had a special meaning to me it's logical that it must have for all children but especially I didn't attempt to create any narrow theory based on my limited experience trying to use all possible and known to humankind rhetoric that state that minimalist music is the real music that humans are supposed to listen and it's way more healthy and natural than listening to both classical and rock or whatever.
That's what instead the dictator minds around me tried to do, you are a child hence you must listen to the music that other children are listening, because clearly you're a statistic not an individual so there's the music for children and then there are the abnormal children like you.
Whether ones wants to push the shaped majority on the individual or the individual into the shaped majority it's dictatorship nonetheless.
The funny thing is that this attitude that those who want to apply their limited experiences to all humans they don't know have is the same that allopathic medicine and orthodox nutrition has.

Quote:
Or look a bit more carefully at the cultures who thrive on an all meat diet and try to discover if the research discrediting this dietary approach as somehow inferior to a diet including some vegetation is sound. I've only taken a close interest in Inuit dietary research, because it seemed to conflict so starkly with Stefannson's first hand observations in the field. And I'm afraid the data collection methods and statistical analysis leading to the conclusion that traditional eating Inuit suffered premature aging or osteoporosis are entirely suspect. But if sober professional 'researchers' like Cordain can manipulate and distort shonky Inuit data to somehow support the calcium leeching hypothesis and get plaudits for good science then I think I'd rather go for the testimonial reports of an individual long term all meater like the Bear. But like you said that's not good science.


Cordain never used the rather irrelevant Inuits data. The studies and researches made that proves that certain foods does promote a negative calcium balance have nothing to do with Inuits.

Quote:
Soooo bad science pretending to be good science (like Cordain's Inuit osteoporosis hypothesis) is more convincing than first hand testimonials of a lifetime's experience (like the Bear's) which manifestly is hardly good science?.
Come on David, wake up!


But did I ever say that the Bear can't be living in an all meat diet? I think you're missing my point. You know what ampliative logic is? Bear experiences has logical premises that you may use to support certain statements: Bear diet is working good for Bear, Bear is suited to an all meat diet, the all meat diet certain end of the dietary spectrum thrive in is working better for Bear than the high-plant food diet that certain end of the dietary spectrum population thrive in, Bear found what worked for him and his unique body.
It can never never be use to support statements like this: therefore humans are carnivorous, therefore an all meat diet is healthier than an omivorous diet, therefore we've no omnivorous traits but only carnivorous ones, therefore people who are eating lot of fruits and nuts are diseased and sick, therefore all meat is the real natural diet of humans.
That's my point, and that stupid ampliative logic has been used to manipulate humankind endlessly and orthodox nutrition is just an example of it.
You would expect the opposite attitude from someone who has fred himself from the orthodox moulding.

Quote:
And I'll try to get a response again. Do you think the Bear is lying about his excellent bone density (and extraordinary health) after 40 years of an apparently ' net acid load' diet?. Or are you just saying that because n equals one in this case it can just be conveniently ignored and put in the same basket as the fruitarian banana eater?. Or perhaps you may be suggesting that the Bear obviously just has an iron constitution and the damage he must have been doing to his body by eating nothing but meat for over 40 years just hasn't shown up. So come on, you obviously don't think an all meat diet is not a particularly good way to maintain optimal health for life. So would you care to speculate on the Bear's experience?.


I just don't know, all I care is that it works for Bear and he is strong an happy, period. My dissapointament is for this attitude of taking your life experiences and make broad statements that should apply to all human beings, first claiming you ignore science because you'd rather care for your life experiences and then defending those experiences with science itself. But if they happened they don't need to be defended, the defend themselves just by happing but they will never logically prove the broad statement which is the title of this thread. The title itself is misleading in more than way: there's not a single good for everyone natural diet.

One exception is enough to destroy an universal broad statement, but that exception mustn't become in turn a new universal broad simplistic statement waiting for another exception to destroy it.

David

Last edited by Davideb : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 09:56.
Reply With Quote
  #866   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 11:42
Rob21370's Avatar
Rob21370 Rob21370 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 225
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 336/297/140 Male 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davideb
I thrived on minimalist music when I was a child, didn't like any other kind of music and couldn't understand my peer that thought that music was boring.
I never made though any broad statement about my experience claiming that minimalist music was superior, that all children should listen to minimalist music, that since I was a child and minmalist music had a special meaning to me it's logical that it must have for all children but especially I didn't attempt to create any narrow theory based on my limited experience trying to use all possible and known to humankind rhetoric that state that minimalist music is the real music that humans are supposed to listen and it's way more healthy and natural than listening to both classical and rock or whatever.
That's what instead the dictator minds around me tried to do, you are a child hence you must listen to the music that other children are listening, because clearly you're a statistic not an individual so there's the music for children and then there are the abnormal children like you.


Well, I never became obese listening to music, that's for sure.

In reality, it's less of a concern for me what people thousands and thousands of years ago ate than doing what works. And what works is eliminating all carbs from my diet period. Sure, I lost weight eating 30-50g of carbs a day, but in the long run I couldn't maintain the discipline because I can't tolerate carbs and with the constant ingestion of carbs I couldn't break the aculturation as Bear calls it.

I've spent 30 days on an all meat diet and I'm losing inches, feel better, and have greater energy. Unlike any other time I've done low-carb I haven't cheated or eaten anything from vegitation. I've gotten only a couple cravings for sweet and starchy things and have none of the food boredom. In fact I can't wait to have the next steak. I don't think "aw, steak again", rather it's like eating steak again for the first time. I've really gotten into the raw steak thing to. Searing the outside and leaving the inside raw gives an even sweeter taste. I left my steak on just a little to long last night and even though it was rare, the inside was a little too cooked. Totally bummed me out.

Bear is correct when he mentions that carbs to an obese person is like alcohol to an alcoholic. Even just a taste leads me to abusing carbs again. After 30 days I don't want to cheat and break my accomplishment thus far, whereas previously I would do stupid things like not eat carbs all day and then eat a Hersheys bar because it's 20g.
Reply With Quote
  #867   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 11:43
Rob21370's Avatar
Rob21370 Rob21370 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 225
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 336/297/140 Male 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Default

Duplicate from sever error

Last edited by Rob21370 : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 11:58. Reason: Duplicate from sever error
Reply With Quote
  #868   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 11:56
Rob21370's Avatar
Rob21370 Rob21370 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 225
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 336/297/140 Male 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Default

Duplicate from sever error

Last edited by Rob21370 : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 11:57. Reason: Duplicate from sever error
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 04:24.


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