Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thinking like a caveman, is it even possible?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
    I can appreciate how laid back you are, but you have to realize that this community is full of Type A personalities that would rather die of the stress of trying to optimize their health than relax and eat a cookie.
    Lol

    Interesting to read people's views on cravings. Actually, for the first time since I was 18 I'm allowing myself to eat everything (except wheat, which I have zero desire for). I've put on weight. But the weird thing is that I'm starting to think that I look better with a bit of extra body fat. I'm not sure yet if it's the blossoming of a healthier attitude to food, or complacency
    "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

    In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

    - Ray Peat

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
      So you agree that cancer feeds on glucose.

      That link is an abstract of a paper done by a couple of medical students ten years ago. Anybody can publish an abstract of any hair brained idea they thought they might pursue. Guess why it was never heard from again. Probably because it came to nothing. Being on PebMed does not make something scientific fact.

      Even they say that glucose and glutamine together are 40% of the picture while also saying that 65% of the fuel sources are "unknown". Last time I checked 65+40 =/= 100. Not the best research quality in the world.

      So, why are you still eating copious quantities of sugar?

      This is the caliber of research Peat uses to persuade the flock to follow. smh.

      And Otto Warburg's work is not being mis-interpreted by anyone. The quote I posted was in his own words. The guy with the Nobel prize.

      In case you missed it the first time:
      "Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." -- Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture [10]"
      Ignoring your comments on the research, because I'm not really understanding your nitpicking considering it states there is a turnover right there... That research also has nothing to do with anything Peat.

      Even if you stopped eating entirely, it would create it from something else was one point. It's an effect, not a cause. If you want to believe that starving rapidly growing cancer cells of sucrose, carbs, et al. they'll just die off and you won't just grow ever weaker, that's up to you.
      Last edited by Derpamix; 12-27-2012, 05:15 AM.
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
        IMO we are hard wired to want to eat things that taste good and to eat a lot. But paleo man didn't have foods that were bad for him available all the time. ...There were external restrictions that limited food intake, paleo man probably didn't have to self impose restrictions.
        Thank you for this post. It's the only post that seems to answer the original question. Basically, we can't think like a caveman, because a caveman didn't think! Nature did the thinking and the restriction for him. You can't crave a bagel if it doesn't exist. Sure, Grok craved sugar, but if the supply is restricted, wouldn't he get used to not having it? It's like me wanting a $100K Rolls Royce. If I know I can't have it, then after a while I stop wanting it. If I see one by the roadside, I think of it as a bonus.

        I agree with the OP that our modern restriction is definitely stressful in a way that caveman never knew. He probably had no sense of restrcition at all. I guess to him, Wonder bread would be like crack. Put Grok in a Safeway and he'd be obese in under a year.
        5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by oxide View Post
          Basically, we can't think like a caveman, because a caveman didn't think!
          I liked your analogy in the rest of your post, but I have to disagree with this. Given that their brains were larger than ours, and had a fully developed frontal cortex, I think cavemen DID think.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Him View Post

            The friend I mentioned above once explained his perception of the world to me this way, "Some things cause enjoyment. Most cause anti-enjoyment. (Him: his term) The misery of anti-enjoyment is 10 times worse than enjoyment can possibly be, so my actions are all based around avoiding anti-enjoyment." His body was either so different from mine, or he was so out of touch with it, that food cravings simply didn't enter into his behavior. Nor did health concerns.
            This is so interesting. I have a friend who has a similar restricted diet, which has always puzzled, and even saddened me. It seems (from my perspective) that she is cutting herself off from so much enjoyment, not to mention nutrition. But maybe she is optimizing her 'enjoyment'. It still seems a shame, but kudos to your friend for having the self-awareness to figure out why he is attached to this way of eating. I'll keep this in mind when I'm around her. Hopefully it will make me a more empathetic friend.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
              Well, of course this thread has nothing to do with the title, big surprise. You guys push sugar like freakin' drug dealers.


              So a "caveman" goes out to forage one day and comes upon this grain - let's call it wheat. Since he doesn't know how to process it, he just eats it as food. The next day he wakes up to a loud noise - that would be air escaping his anus. His mate giggles and then laughs even more loudly as he runs outside to take a huge liquid dump behind the nearest tree. Anything anyone eats that comes from wheat is a processed food and our caveman is the reason why. Wheat is for hooved creatures and rats, not for humans (no matter how rat like they may behave).

              This is great, JoanieL. Just because you CAN put it in your mouth, doesn't mean you SHOULD. And I agree about the sugar. Must every thread turn into a sugar debate?

              On the 'thinking like a caveman' topic: There's something I do, which I believe might be similar.

              Sometimes I will need an object that I don't have the funds for. Latest example: tent pegs. Instead of thinking, 'aaaugh, I need tent pegs' I will tell myself, 'I need a sharp item which can have something tied to it.'

              Voila! Marshmallow skewers will work in a pinch.

              I am looking at the NEED rather than the NAME. Of course, it is a very simplistic process that everyone does, but I think it might very well be an inherently human, and therefore, caveman, way of looking at things, that is, what does the SITUATION NEED?

              Comment


              • #52
                I'm not in love with the food reward hypothesis, but since the PHD was forwarded by Mark and is on my radar here we go....they do postulate that this is the reason we gravitate toward a 50% diet of carbs (not recommended, but a reason):

                "Those three evolutionary arguments were present in capsule form in the first edition, but the next one is entirely new to this edition: a discussion of the food reward system of the brain. Food reward evolved to motivate us to go seek out healthy, nourishing foods. If it evolved in the Paleolithic environment, then it tells us what foods were hard to get in the Paleolithic, but still necessary for health – these were the foods that Paleolithic foragers had to be motivated to work for.

                But in our modern world, all foods are easy to obtain; they are on the shelves of supermarkets. So those foods that were hard to get in the Paleolithic are going to be precisely the ones that we overeat today.

                The presence of an innate food reward system explains why peoples around the world eat very similar diets – almost always 50% carb, 15% protein, 35% fat, or close to it. If this food reward system evolved for the Paleolithic food environment, which was radically different from the modern agricultural and industrial global food production system, then we can’t trust our unconscious food buying impulses. If we just go to the supermarket and put whatever seems desirable into our cart, we will overeat all the things that our Paleolithic ancestors tended to undereat.

                Worse, we will be tempted to eat junk foods designed to appeal to the tastes that signal healthfulness to the food reward system, without supplying the nutrients that actually deliver healthfulness.

                On the other hand, this evolutionary argument is encouraging. It tells us that, if we eat Paleolithic foods and if we educate ourselves to select healthy foods in the optimal proportions, then we can be confident that our brains will find our meals to be delicious and satisfying.

                A healthy diet is also a delicious and satisfying diet! There is no need to suffer to be healthy. There is no need to suffer to lose weight. If you are suffering on a diet, you are doing something wrong."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                  I'm not in love with the food reward hypothesis, but since the PHD was forwarded by Mark and is on my radar here we go....they do postulate that this is the reason we gravitate toward a 50% diet of carbs (not recommended, but a reason):

                  "Those three evolutionary arguments were present in capsule form in the first edition, but the next one is entirely new to this edition: a discussion of the food reward system of the brain. Food reward evolved to motivate us to go seek out healthy, nourishing foods. If it evolved in the Paleolithic environment, then it tells us what foods were hard to get in the Paleolithic, but still necessary for health – these were the foods that Paleolithic foragers had to be motivated to work for.

                  But in our modern world, all foods are easy to obtain; they are on the shelves of supermarkets. So those foods that were hard to get in the Paleolithic are going to be precisely the ones that we overeat today.

                  The presence of an innate food reward system explains why peoples around the world eat very similar diets – almost always 50% carb, 15% protein, 35% fat, or close to it. If this food reward system evolved for the Paleolithic food environment, which was radically different from the modern agricultural and industrial global food production system, then we can’t trust our unconscious food buying impulses. If we just go to the supermarket and put whatever seems desirable into our cart, we will overeat all the things that our Paleolithic ancestors tended to undereat.

                  Worse, we will be tempted to eat junk foods designed to appeal to the tastes that signal healthfulness to the food reward system, without supplying the nutrients that actually deliver healthfulness.

                  On the other hand, this evolutionary argument is encouraging. It tells us that, if we eat Paleolithic foods and if we educate ourselves to select healthy foods in the optimal proportions, then we can be confident that our brains will find our meals to be delicious and satisfying.

                  A healthy diet is also a delicious and satisfying diet! There is no need to suffer to be healthy. There is no need to suffer to lose weight. If you are suffering on a diet, you are doing something wrong."
                  I was just about to comment on this thread until I read your post. Perfect, well said, its exactly the sentiment I was going to put forward, so naturally I thought it was brilliant...Ha Ha!
                  Recent Blog: http://www.peakperformanceradio.net/...y-john-saville

                  https://www.facebook.com/PaleoJourne...?ref=bookmarks

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by canuck416 View Post
                    I was just about to comment on this thread until I read your post. Perfect, well said, its exactly the sentiment I was going to put forward, so naturally I thought it was brilliant...Ha Ha!
                    Great minds........

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                      Ignoring your comments on the research, because I'm not really understanding your nitpicking considering it states there is a turnover right there... That research also has nothing to do with anything Peat.

                      Even if you stopped eating entirely, it would create it from something else was one point. It's an effect, not a cause. If you want to believe that starving rapidly growing cancer cells of sucrose, carbs, et al. they'll just die off and you won't just grow ever weaker, that's up to you.
                      Aw Derpy, weaksauce 4am argument.

                      Now that a dusty old research paper abstract by a couple of med students on a shelf somewhere at PubMed has been shown to be nonsense and not really even supporting your position, you try to distance it from the Holy man Peat. How loyal of you.

                      Yes, if you stopped eating all sources of sugar, the body would create some using gluconeogenesis. It would create just enough for the body to use, not surplus to feed the cancer cells. A person does not "grow weaker" by not eating sugar.

                      But getting back OT, I think Neckhammer's explanation of the food reward theory is one of the best I've read. Many try to simplify it down to, "Eat boring foods and you'll lose weight". This makes it more clear. That which was inherently scarce during our evolution tends to "tickle the taste buds" more. That doesn't mean we should indulge our Paleolithic taste buds with all the Neolithic foods or even the scarce Paleolithic ones such as sugar to excess. (I'm picturing Grok time transported into the honey aisle at the supermarket. Whoo Hoo!)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Mark's article for today is fairly relevant to this topic (embracing a caveman "lifestyle").
                        Depression Lies

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Zach View Post
                          Do you really, honestly not crave a grain
                          No. Never.

                          Originally posted by Zach View Post
                          sugar or fruit product?
                          Why is fruit unhealthy? Fruit is awesome. Eat lots of it. Sugar isn't unhealthy, either. Only in chronic caloric excess - but that can be said about any food. If you are not deficient in nutrients and not eating a caloric surplus, pure sugar cannot be harmful. It is simply in your best interest to eat high-satiety, nutrient-dense foods (like fruit) as a sugar source rather than low-satiety, nutrient-poor calories (like refined sugar). Similarly, replacing real food with oils can be detrimental as well to your health as you're adding hundreds or thousands of nutrient-poor calories in your diet and displacing real, nutritious foods with them. A nice-sized white potato or a huge mango weighing in at 120 calories is going to beat a tablespoon of olive oil every time.

                          Originally posted by Zach View Post
                          Im talking about this precieved notion that restricting food groups and calories is somehow mimicking our paleo ancestors when at least mentally it is anything but.
                          Our paleo ancestors didn't have grocery stores and sit on their butts all day in an office chair. They stalked and chased their prey for miles, and sometimes came up with nothing after expending hundreds or thousands of calories for a useless hunt. You can also bet your butt that Grok would have picked apples off a tree or dug potatoes out of the ground and eaten them preferentially over animal fat and protein - digging a tuber or picking an apple poses no hazard, while hunting an animal is dangerous and a ton of work. We probably burn carbohydrate over fat preferentially because we sourced carbohydrate over fat preferentially due to ease and safety of consumption. That's probably why there are way more high carb traditional societies than high fat traditional societies.

                          Calorie restriction is extremely important because you have the ability to eat whatever you want whenever you want with little to no effort. It was in Grok's best interest to gorge on every meal because he never knew when the next meal was coming. It's in your best interest to be mindful of portion control because weight loss and gain is entirely calorie-driven.
                          Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 12-27-2012, 11:23 AM.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sabine View Post
                            I will tell myself, 'I need a sharp item which can have something tied to it.'
                            What you are describing is well known in the contracting and subcontracting world: performance-based. Propose the problem and let potential suppliers propose their unique solutions.

                            As for Grok not thinking: I meant that Grok didn't think about food restriction. Of course he used his big brain for thinking about other things.

                            Joanie: Grok probably wouldn't have had that digestive reaction to wheat. Modern wheat is dward hybrid, ancient wheat is einkorn/emmer, Grok's wheat was even more wild. Wheat isn't great in any form, but the modern stuff causes the worst reactions.
                            5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                              ...
                              But getting back OT, I think Neckhammer's explanation of the food reward theory is one of the best I've read. Many try to simplify it down to, "Eat boring foods and you'll lose weight". This makes it more clear. That which was inherently scarce during our evolution tends to "tickle the taste buds" more. That doesn't mean we should indulge our Paleolithic taste buds with all the Neolithic foods or even the scarce Paleolithic ones such as sugar to excess. (I'm picturing Grok time transported into the honey aisle at the supermarket. Whoo Hoo!)
                              BTW...not "MY" explanation. This was from the PHD (giving credit where due)....and I do agree though that their explanation makes a whole helluva lot more sense the way that they represent it.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I think you're over-analyzing this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X