[QUOTE=Sabine;944104]Okay, Blackcatbone, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. :)
But no video for me, please![/QUOTE]
Then there's this guy: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569272/Man-who-had-sex-with-bicycle-sentenced.html]Man who had sex with bicycle sentenced - Telegraph[/url]
[QUOTE=Timthetaco;943725]I'm sorry, I have to say it. This idea that blood sugar should never rise, ever, and carrying around a glucometer and ketone meter are the path to optimal health, and that ketogenic bliss somehow relates to "ancestral health" at large is a hefty, steamy pile of bullshit. I'm sure even the Massai and the Inuit would think this idea is bullshit. We need to abandon this Grass-Fed Atkins shit quick if we want any scientist worth their title to take this movement seriously. You can't model a diet based on evolutionary biology on the idea that glucose is poison.
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]anytime we eat ANYTHING, insulin rises, that's normal and healthy. nobody is saying it's not. but that is a far cry from the krazee spike induced by a 34 oz. blizzard or a box of oreos. what people ate pre-agriculture and pre-industrial society vs. our choices with grocers and restaurants and pepsico and general mills is like another world. they ate what was available, during the seasons and common to their area. western people now face choices of food so processed, so jacked with sugars and industrial oils and SO CHEAP it would boggle the mind of somebody from even 100 years ago, never mind 1,000 or 20,000.
other than diabetics, i don't know anybody with a glucose meter. and nobody is saying glucose is poison. you're being hysterical.
there are lots of folks here, and elsewhere, with severely deranged metabolisms and bodies from decades of eating sad. they are trying to heal and get healthy. one of the ways they do it is to get off the sugar merry-go-round.
in a past life, i could easily eat 300 gms of carbs just from fruit, on top of all the whole wheat and legumes i'd eat the rest of the day. i thought i was being healthy. it broke me.
as for veganism, many of its historical proponents felt consuming meat led to carnality -- wanton sexuality. so abstaining from meat and animal products was a way to promote and abet abstinence. this is not a way of life chosen by people who ever faced true starvation in the natural world.
have some bacon slathered in butter and calm down.[/SIZE][/FONT]
The sugar-addicted sure get angry when other people find their optimum health. It doesn't bother me if you want to eat tons of fruit and potatoes. Why does it bother anybody that I don't want to eat them?
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;943843]All I know is that over 50% of all girls I have known or met from these areas are [B]vegetarian[/B] or vegan. It seems like a majority, not a minority.[/QUOTE]1) Lacto-ovo vegetarianism (and pescatarianism) are nutritionally more like omnivory than either is like veganism. Lots of vegetarians get a significant portion of their nutrition from animal protein and fat, so only the vegans are relevant to this discussion, and vegans are usually a minority subset of the veg*ns. 2) Yeah, the college-age female set in CA is probably more vegan than usual--but I would bet a substantial sum that the majority of them won't stay vegan throughout their lives (only the hardcore will do that), and of those, only some of their children will do the same. So it's hardly a strongly-preserved cultural trait like, say, language or religion. Plus we're still only talking about a small subset of a larger general population, which is decidedly omnivorous.
I would also expect that any multigenerational family composed exclusively of vegans who only mate other vegans would be so sickly that by the second or third generation they would be incapable of having children.
Okay, so all of this banter is making me ask myself, why am I here? To lose weight, yes, but it is not what I should consume myself with. I am remembering Mark's "big picture" philosophy. What I am here to do, ultimately, is learn how to get stronger and more able to defend myself against the hungry saber tooth. Or drunk driver or mad cow or lunatic teenage skateboard user. I want to get healthy, so instead of worrying about numbers right at the moment (it's making me dizzy), I think I'm going to go climb a tree, who's with me?
[QUOTE=Uncephalized;944252]1) 2) Yeah, the college-age female set in CA is probably more vegan than usual--but I would bet a substantial sum that the majority of them won't stay vegan throughout their lives (only the hardcore will do that),
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]IF they do remain vegans they will be so sick, and so hormonally-imbalanced, upon entering middle-age, it will be like getting run over by a jet plane. few will have the critical thinking to retool their diet and so most will only get sicker. afflictions like type 2 diabetes, pcos, ibs, etc, are ALL diet-related, all curable, but even more importantly, avoidable.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[QUOTE=sbhikes;944241]The sugar-addicted sure get angry when other people find their optimum health. It doesn't bother me if you want to eat tons of fruit and potatoes. Why does it bother anybody that I don't want to eat them?[/QUOTE]
Ok, I agree that we have different ways of eating around here and that some people do well on carbs and some don't, and that's fine. But this "sugar addict!" language is just as inflammatory as the people throwing insults at the VLC folks. Some of us aren't doing VLC because it doesn't work for us and makes us feel sick--why do we deserve being insulted as addicts any more than you deserve being insulted for choosing VLC?
If you're going to call for a "live and let live" attitude, don't start throwing out phrases like that when you're doing it.
[QUOTE=Timthetaco;943725]I'm sorry, I have to say it. This idea that blood sugar should never rise, ever, and carrying around a glucometer and ketone meter are the path to optimal health, and that ketogenic bliss somehow relates to "ancestral health" at large is a [B]hefty, steamy pile of bullshit.[/B] I'm sure even the Massai and the Inuit would think this idea is [B]bullshit[/B]. We need to [B]abandon this Grass-Fed Atkins shit quick if we want any scientist worth their title to take this movement seriously[/B]. You can't model a diet based on evolutionary biology on the idea that glucose is poison.
I'm serious, Gary Taubes, Jimmy Moore and Ron Rosedale are the worst things that ever happened to paleo.
Or maybe I'm just cranky because the extra protein took me out of ketosis.[/QUOTE]
And you are going to have to start communicating in some way other than adolescent potty mouthed pouty tantrum mode if you want anyone to take your opinion seriously.
And +1 to what Branhamin said about binary extreme arguments. It's not either being interested in deep ketosis OR being 80/10/10. There are a lot of places in between that work well for a lot of different people, all Primal.
Calm down, Please.
Basically he's saying tracking numbers isn't primal
Whoever here that doesn't track something with numbers please cast the first stone. Some track calories, some track macros, some track nutrients, some track weightlifting goals, some track heart rate, some track speed running the mile. Why does tracking this one area offend some people so terribly much? Or is this just another example of someone thinking wow, that Nikoley and Kurt Harris are so cool and they talk a big bluster full of sneering insults so I'm gonna be like them and people will think I'm really cool too?