I've also heard from some people that certain foods are toxic to certain individuals. The person I heard this from can't tolerate cauliflower. I personally have to eat meat or animal protein at every meal. I can't get satisfaction without it. I've tried vegetarianism for about 3 weeks and the cravings for meat never went away and I was always hungry.
So, I listen to my body. I know eating sugars makes me groggy and meat makes me feel good. So along with the science that goes with most diets, also listen to how your body reacts to what you eat.
[QUOTE=eenu;974181]Wow, reoccurring theme here is peoples inane ability to read! [/QUOTE]
For someone critiquing reading ability, you produced a sentence quoted above that shows you use words without understanding their meaning. Inane means insubstantial, or silly. So your observation is that people have the insubstantial ability to read. What does that even mean?
[QUOTE=eenu;974181]...your only going to dismiss everything that I post.[/quote]
One might expect a post-doctoral researcher to be able to successfully contract "you" and "are." I've merely skimmed this thread and seen this crop up twice.
I'm not the grammar police by any means, but you undercut your argument through sloppy writing. I would have a difficult time trusting the insight of someone who consistently whiffs on English 101. JMHO.
[QUOTE=zoltankemeny;974190]Why don't you start doing the research yourself and stop expecting other people to do the work for you?[/QUOTE]
I have been doing research hence the whole thread! You completely miss the point regarding the tests and why they should be done and why random peoples random results in a forum is not conclusive evidence compared to published and peer reviewed research. Not even going to bother trying to explain, well done, your happy on the diet - bye bye!
[QUOTE=Finnegans Wake;974200]For someone critiquing reading ability, you produced a sentence quoted above that shows you use words without understanding their meaning. Inane means insubstantial, or silly. So your observation is that people have the insubstantial ability to read. What does that even mean?[/QUOTE]
Is that a genuine question or are you trying to be funny? You question my ability at English 101 but you have asked that question? Or is this a difference in US English and the people who invented the language, English UK?
Regarding the Your and You're mistake, I have auto correct on my mac enabled at OS level. You may also see 'pale' where it should be 'paleo'. I've made a nice text expander snippet to get round this issue to keep you happy.
EDIT: sorry maybe that was harsh so let me explain. If you have an inane ability to read I am criticising your reading ability in a negative way. I am saying you have an inability to read a.k.a your reading is not substantial which therefore means it is insubstantial another word for which is inane!
[QUOTE=eenu;974181]And yet a few posts back I was told I was talking crap because there was tons of archaeological evidence to prove I was talking crap!?
Wow, reoccurring theme here is peoples inane ability to read! Maybe some research should be conducted about Paleo diet and the loss of reading ability! I have said time and time again I will post the data, the only reason it is taking me so long is wingers like you. Therefore, I need to compile the best papers I can to stop you finding every excuse under the sun that your right and everyone else is wrong.
Oh and the video I posted above, that was basically linked to from someone here and is written by the apparent 'daddy' of paleo, its bunk and full of lies. But of course with your rose tinted specs on you can only see one way, right?
EDIT: In fact, is there any point me wasting my time posting it... your only going to dismiss everything that I post. Your a fanboy a cultist and you won't be shown anything that would dare contradict your precious Paleo. Any research I show you, you can come up with some level of disproof. Anyone reading my PhD thesis could do the same, as well as the 400 other thesis and research papers referenced within. I could link you to hundreds of research papers all of which show conclusive proof that red meat leads to an increased incidence of colon cancer, but you'd only have a smart comment or call it bunk and lies so what is the point!?[/QUOTE]
Keep making those claims it does show you for what you are.
Your big video that you claimed was research was full of misinformation in the first 7 + minutes. Many people here eat more veg than the average SAD eaters. All I have asked is for some research that you said you had but have not posted. If you can't provide it that is fine...I understand.
Perhaps this will help you understand the nuance of my criticism of how you've used inane:
[url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inanity&allowed_in_frame=0]Online Etymology Dictionary[/url]
Or perhaps not. Perhaps this is a difference in usage between US and UK English; fine. I've heard of things being described as inane, but never skills. [I]Their inane chatter forced me to change the channel[/I] but never [I]His inane ability to find the receiver was the reason the quarterback was benched.[/I] The latter usage is utterly foreign to me. If then it's merely differences and usage and auto-correct, fine. It just was a bad introduction to your thread.
Wasn't it only about two months ago there was a very similar thread posted about the medical wonders of a vegan diet? The person posting then was much the same as eenu here. The guy/person had never posted anything before, claimed to have been following a paleo-type diet, and then claimed to have come across new info about the benefits of a vegan diet.
[QUOTE=Scott F;974223]Wasn't it only about two months ago there was a very similar thread posted about the medical wonders of a vegan diet? The person posting then was much the same as eenu here. The guy/person had never posted anything before, claimed to have been following a paleo-type diet, and then claimed to have come across new info about the benefits of a vegan diet.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm having that same deja voodoo.
I call it 'Mark's Primal' diet however as there is enough evidence from world experts to suggest that meat was not a large component of 'groks' diet. But then that doesn't go on to mean that meat isn't good for you, since 'groks' lack of meat can be down to environmental conditions, ie lack of animals to hunt or lack of success in hunting it - compared to today where you pick it off a shelf.
[U][U]There is actually very, very little evidence in the archaeological record about what Grok really ate. They're not even sure if the first "Grok" (our human ancestor, as opposed to Neanderthals, Flores man, Lucy who may not be our ancestor, etc) lived in Africa, at this point.[/U] There is so little evidence that every time they discover a new bone they invent 4 new theories around it.[/U] In general, we know that omnivorous animals tend to favor meat when it's available over plants (Grizzly bear salmon fishing, etc.) that they hunt when they can, and scavenge when they can. Finally, we ARE much better designed for meat consumption than any of our great ape cousins in many ways, which suggests that we have a fairly significant meat eating past. Whether that means 10% of calories from meat or 90% is a dumb question. Almost certainly we sometimes had 20 and sometimes 80, and can do pretty well at either extreme. None of this even addresses the question of what is "optimal" for you though.[/QUOTE]
I think that to try and associate ourselves most comparatively with our oldest relatives and their diet is simply a mistake, and I've always wondered why people attempt to apply it. We are simply not our oldest 'relatives' at all... not homo habilis, not Homo erectus, not little Lucy, and not sturdy Neanderthals, etc. We are Homo sapiens and there is much more information about the dietary habits of hunter gatherer Homo sapiens, all of which include meat in the diet, as well as what little is known of the dietary habits of fossilized fire pits/hearths = meat consumption.
[QUOTE=eenu;974173]I follow the PB, I have noticed some health improvements, I have also noticed new issues. I lived for a good number of years before I even found this site following 95% of what is contained in the PB. So there is no point trying to burn me at the stake for raising questions about something I have been practicing for almost a decade and a site I have been following for over a year. I believe the diet is good but I still believe it has short comings, mainly in terms of quantities of animal products to consume on time scaled basis as well as the effects of [B]mycotoxins[/B] which I have been experimenting with for some months now and feel the bullet proof exec may actually have a point!
Just curious... if you are concerned where will you be getting your protein if you decide to eschew meats?
Mycotoxins are actually rampant in stored legumes and grain and anyone consuming grain/soy products will have an exposure many times that of a person who does not, particularly since the consumption of grains/legumes tends to be as a mych larger portion of the diet. [/B]
You have 3 main characters in the paleo arena, they are all making $$ from the likes of you and me. So why don't they take some of these $$ and invest them in some hard medical research? It would not be hard for the likes of Mark Sisson to do regular blood testing, ultrasounds and function tests to prove his claims as well as demonstrating the effects of certain things he is eating either in excess or being deficient on himself. The BPE does plenty of this, however, it is more in the area of mycotoxins and I would be interested to see data for the diet as a whole. Just because I feel good does not mean I am healthy, we have a TV show here that is based on nutrition (the name escapes me). They invited a guy into this food hospital to look at his diet, he was a fruitest. All he ate was fruit, like insane amounts. He said he felt amazing, the best he has ever felt. His medical tests said different.[/QUOTE]
I initially paid a whopping $2.99 for The Primal Blue Print as an e-book on sale almost 2years ago...
(I could have gotten all of what I needed to know free by reading the FAQ/Start Here and such on this site.)
Everything you need to know from the BPE, free by reading his site.
Everything I wanted to know about Cordain's Paleo, free by reading the site.
There are other great places to get FREE information too... better than BPE!
Also, I don't consider BPE a "main character"... at all... I honestly consider him a sideshow act at best.
I'm sure they are making money off advertisements due to traffic, and people who are the crash diet types who buy two books right now today at full price, and a shelf full of supplements and whey powders too though... *shrug*
This people also pay money to the hacks on Dr. Oz selling amazing "insert product of the week here" at least once a month though.
One place I will be spending some money...
I will be purchasing Primal Body, Primal Mind by Nora Gedguadas here in the next few days.
I'm doing this because I have specific medical issues which she has covered in some lectures, and since it directly concerns my health I'm interested in more/deeper information.
[QUOTE=eenu;974201]I have been doing research hence the whole thread! You completely miss the point regarding the tests and why they should be done and why random peoples random results in a forum is not conclusive evidence compared to published and peer reviewed research. Not even going to bother trying to explain, well done, your happy on the diet - bye bye![/QUOTE]
No, you are not doing the research. You are regurgitating the research other people have done and then expecting people like Mark Sisson and Robb Wolf to bankroll something you think is important. Why don't you do that yourself instead of expecting other people to do it for you? Why don't you provide a valuable service to millions of people and use that money to find the answers?
I respect the successful results of people in my life (and on the internet) more than I respect a study. Especially when the results of those studies contradict everything I and many others experience. It makes no sense! It's like studies coming out saying you should press the brake to accelerate on a car--it does not withstand reality. That is, the evidence in front of my eyes is more important than some grain and soy-funded university professor's findings.
Realize that many people on this forum think this scientism obsession is foolish in comparison to what actually works.