[QUOTE=Blackcatbone;944119]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]
ROFLMAO! If he's to be believed then that was a great prank! Cleaning ladies never saw it cumming.
[QUOTE=Gadsie;944444]Basically he's saying tracking numbers isn't primal[/QUOTE]
Well, how else are you going to know where you are on the "carbohydrate curve"? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=onalark;944669]Well, how else are you going to know where you are on the "carbohydrate curve"? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Haha yeah I remember when I thought that when you eat 150g carbs you would maintain and over you would gain, under you'd lose for SURE.
Btw, I don't remember who, I think it was Taubes or Lustig, he said "even if you eat a little sugar once a week you are addicted to sugar."
[QUOTE=Gadsie;944444]Basically he's saying tracking numbers isn't primal[/QUOTE]
How does one go 80/10/10 without counting something? *I* thought he was whining about making Primal more acceptable to mainstream media.
[QUOTE]We need to abandon this Grass-Fed Atkins shit quick if we want any scientist worth their title to take this movement seriously. [/QUOTE]
The fact that he used that extreme stance to represent all of Primal/Paleo that - um - doesn't, and offered raw veganism as the ideal alternative? Unless you're referring to someone other than the OP, I call shenanigans on the *counting isn't primal* interpretation.
One man's bullshit is another man's treasure. Myself, I am not a big fan of nutritional ketosis, especially a long-term one but hey if it works for some people, good for them.
And Atkins, except for its initial phase is not that different from the PB so I don't get all the bashing either, but whatever.
[QUOTE=sbhikes;944545]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?[/QUOTE]
I've read a lot of Nikoley's posts and I've read a lot of your posts, and I can say definitively that not only is Nikoley far more balanced, but he also throws around far, far, far less insults. You certainly suffer from "special flower syndrome." You're a self-proclaimed exception to every rule. Personally, I don't think you know what truly works best for you because you're so entrenched in your ways it's become more of a religious crusade than open-minded self-experimentation.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;945135]I've read a lot of Nikoley's posts and I've read a lot of your posts, and I can say definitively that [B]not only is Nikoley far more balanced, but he also throws around far, far, far less insults. [/B] You certainly suffer from "special flower syndrome." You're a self-proclaimed exception to every rule. Personally, I don't think you know what truly works best for you because you're so entrenched in your ways it's become more of a religious crusade than open-minded self-experimentation.[/QUOTE]
You've got to be fucking kidding me. Between this and the post you made with the letter you sent to him, um . . . you've got some serious fan-boy adulation going on, speaking of religious crusades . . .
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;945135]I've read a lot of Nikoley's posts and I've read a lot of your posts, and I can say definitively that not only is Nikoley far more balanced, but he also throws around far, far, far less insults. You certainly suffer from "special flower syndrome." You're a self-proclaimed exception to every rule. Personally, I don't think you know what truly works best for you because you're so entrenched in your ways it's become more of a religious crusade than open-minded self-experimentation.[/QUOTE]
OMG, are you for serious? Nikoley is nothing BUT insults anymore. Unless you're saying the insults don't count if it's a woman. Zing!
Nikoley's beating his chest and his drum and proud of it. His comment threads are nothing but insults to anyone who dares question his infinite wisdom. He encourages his readers to pile on. There are whole tumblrs dedicated to just what an asshole he is. Ugh. I pity the people who view him as a role model. They have a lot to learn about the world.
A bit of confusion here.
1. I'm not sugar addicted. Nor am I carb addicted, if such a thing even exists.
2. I'm not advocating raw veganism. I was comparing two extreme eating plans which are an almost identical mirror image of one another. 80/10/10 is only "more paleo" in the sense that there are more hunter gatherers today that eat closer to that macronutrient ratio than the other. Perhaps it's more out of necessity than taste, but they still don't suffer from any "diseases of insulin" that you would expect from such high consumption of carbohydrates. I could be a real pain in the ass and point out that durianrider's diet is actually less extreme than Jimmy Moore's if only because he allows more leeway with fat - up to 10% of calories.
3. Sago palm: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FVIbUIbvPM]Kombai Women Collecting Sago - YouTube[/url] - That's a bad video, and a better example can be found in the movie Pururambo. It's available for instant watch on Netflix. It's an interesting process that really shows how enterprising we are as a species, and it kind of redefines "processed food" in my mind.
4. There's nothing wrong with ketosis. I enjoyed it quite a lot back when I thought a rise in blood sugar was the most dangerous thing in the world. My issue is with this new concept of nutritional ketosis - which came straight out of the Atkins camp, by the way - as the solution for failed low carb dieting. I had to scoff when listening to Stephen Finney tell someone that even though they haven't reached their goal weight on a (more than probably) ketogenic diet, what success they did have was impressive and they should be pleased with the results despite the stall. And that story is more common than you would think, but the failure of the diet to deliver results all the way down to goal are always blamed on the mystical "metabolic derangement," which no one ever seems to want to define.
Even if that's just a fancy term for insulin resistance, low carb diets do not restore insulin sensitivity. Avoiding glucose will absolutely lower your A1C and control your blood sugar, but it won't allow you to eat a potato without consequence. Jimmy Moore's been on the Atkins diet for near of a decade now, yet he still refers to himself as metabolically broken (but somehow extremely healthy at the same time). If low carb "paleo" is the healthiest way to eat, why does it not repair this elusive metabolic damage?
I guess ketosis just wasn't ketotic enough. Too much protein, maybe. Or maybe it's all just bullshit.
I actually got into an argument with him a while back. He was saying that there was definitely no god and the people who say there is a god are closed minded. I said if he wasn't willing to admit the possibility that he was wrong then he was just as closed minded.
The funny part was when I called him a zealot. You could almost hear the cursing, even though it was a typed argument.