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
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #856   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 19:26
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, 20:10
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 : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 00:02.
Reply With Quote
  #858   ^
Old Thu, Mar-23-06, 20:35
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is online now
Posts: 8,757
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
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, 23:47
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 : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 00:18. Reason: corrections
Reply With Quote
  #860   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 00:42
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 01:20.
Reply With Quote
  #861   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 03:17
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 03:24. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #862   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 07:09
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, 09:05
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 09:55.
Reply With Quote
  #864   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 10:04
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 10:30.
Reply With Quote
  #865   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 10:48
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 10:56.
Reply With Quote
  #866   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 12:42
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, 12:43
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 12:58. Reason: Duplicate from sever error
Reply With Quote
  #868   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 12:56
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 12:57. Reason: Duplicate from sever error
Reply With Quote
  #869   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 13:08
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
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'm glad it is working for you, but you can't label absolute, not that you're doing it's just an example, what you're doing and extrapolate it to billions of other humans and of course someone an all meat diet didn't work for can't extrapolate his/her experience to all other humans including you denying thus your truth of what is working for your body. The title of this thread does exactly that, that was my point ...

David
Reply With Quote
  #870   ^
Old Fri, Mar-24-06, 13:51
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,

This acid/alkaline balance thing is totally ridiculous! You really only need to check out any basic physiology book to see that.

As far as your LONG rambles which repeat the same themes... they are really just not necessary. You may think people are "getting brainwashed" by Bear, or some other such nonsense... or that that is Bear's purpose for this thread. You are SO off the mark on this, it is a total joke! "Sieg Heil, Bear"! Give me a break! None of us on this forum are robots! Do you honestly think that people are just flocking mindlessly to what Bear says? The people who agree with him have been doing YEARS of OTHER research (including, most importantly, trials on their own bodies!), and what Bear says is clicking into those concepts! Just because they don't click into yours, does not mean the rest of us are puppets or something!

The BEST, most nutrient dense food is animal food... especially the FAT! I would venture to guess that if you took any new born human that was healthy at birth, and raised them on an all animal diet (with lots of animal fat), they would THRIVE! However, if you raised them on fruit... they would be DEAD in no time! So, let's get REAL, shall we?!

I know crazy cat owners (who are vegans!) who feed their cats fruit and veggies and SWEAR it is good for them! The cats eat it! And, there are so many cats eating CORNMEAL it is disgusting! Now... I guess, by your logic, this makes them "opportunistic omnivores" or some other such ludicrous label! GIVE ME A BREAK... a cat is an obligate CARNIVORE... no matter how INSANE their vegan owners might be!

And, you should read accounts of REAL fruitarians. OMG! They are SO SICK and psychotic on that type of diet! I will search for some links... it will blow your mind!

I think Bear is rightfully using empirical data over research and perhaps you should try to do the same. I will be glad to add to the empirical data and be just one more person that eats this way. I robot. I eat meat. Sieg Heil, Bear! RIGHT! Hey... here's a novel idea... why don't YOU try this diet out for a month, and see how you FEEL! Have you EVER done that?

And, Bear is correct... if you took the time to READ...

Really... in the END... we all MUST decide what WOE we want to ADOPT... whether we would "bet the farm" on our "belief" in it or not! I think that's what this forum is really about!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Fri, Mar-24-06 at 14:49.
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 06:08.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.