Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Greetings, this is a link to a good history lesson, I guess. page

  1. #1
    Jeeruid's Avatar
    Jeeruid is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    14

  2. #2
    cerebelumsdayoff's Avatar
    cerebelumsdayoff is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    486
    Thanks for sharing; these were interesting reads.

    They also go to show why contradictions are so prevalent in the context of dietary advice.The articles made very good points about the speculated variability in both the food consumed and the people that consume the food.

    I am intrigued by the possibility that human evolution may go beyond the simple out of Africa approach, but rather a more amalgamated view that people first came out of Africa, but then continued to evolve based on the environment to which they located.

    We are all different because we come from different ancestors who lived in different regions with different climates and food supplies. The basic principle that I got out of it is that variability in good wholesome food is key. The author suggests that people should not lock themselves in a camp of only eating several kinds of foods or even fearing specific macronutrients. Novelty truly is the spice of life.
    --
    Here it is, your moment of zen.

    It's a no brainer: The journal of the cerebelum

  3. #3
    Jeeruid's Avatar
    Jeeruid is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    14

    I guess so...

    Well, i'm glad you find it interesting. John Berardi is one of the best so far in terms of nutrition. I've followed his advice a lot of times when in terms of dieting and working out (exercising). He uses the multiple meal approach and advices eating vegetables and fruits at each meal and limits carbs (which includes grains by the way) to after the workout. Now, I know that the 'primal' society here is against grains---but that's his approach towards himself and his clients. But, vegetables and fruits will always beat the grains in terms of vitamins and minerals. I'm not so particular about cutting out grains (even if PB requires the cutting out of grains) and I like the frequent meal approach (because I like to eat a lot and frequently compared to fasting or doing IF).

    I guess, when you think about it, the body is very powerful that it stood against the test of time even with the mass consumption of grains. Seeing as though the scientific studies of post-workout being the best time to eat grains, veggies or any carb source out there, then, it's okay enough for me. I feel better when I eat grains after a workout. It makes me whole. But, if I don't move a lot and I just teach classes and don't exert myself. I do not see myself needing the grains when there are vegetables. That's John's take too.

    In terms of the article, love it to the bone. Most probably because John Berardi makes good points and at least excites the reader with the images of the neanderthal men in different depictions. Also, he adds appeal by using the context of the neanderthal man and providing statistics to measure the modern man. I think, though there is romanticizing action on that, it's still pretty cool. No one knows the Holy Grail exists, as well as Neanderthal (though there is scientific speculation). The most important thing is that it's something people find value in. That for me, is for me the great joys of living. hehehe.

  4. #4
    dragonmamma's Avatar
    dragonmamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,765
    Good read! Thanks.

  5. #5
    Grol's Avatar
    Grol is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    919
    He's heavily critical of 70s anthropologists who use an old crippled skeleton to recreate Neanderthal as smaller and weaker than he was. Then he later compares the femur of an 80 year old modern human to those of robust young early humans and neanderthal. I'm supposed to believe he makes a point when he does exactly the same thing he criticizes. Fun reads. Way incomplete and assumptive. I get the feeling the paleo diet movement caught him by surprise and this type of article is his defense for the failing ideas he promotes in Gourmet Nutrition, like multi meal frequency. Research has clobbered that foolishness. He also uses too many blanket statements but I'm getting used to that when anyone tries to show off a knowledge of anthropology in quick articles. Meh. Fun read. Full of more baloney than healthy meat though.

  6. #6
    Jeeruid's Avatar
    Jeeruid is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    14

    i guess it is...

    Hmmm. Well, Gourmet Nutrition is a wonderful book and I do not have a lot of negative things to say about Gourmet Nutrition personally since I've never found problems with it and with the Primal Blueprint.

    I wouldn't really give the multi meal approach a negative mark. For one, it's not foolish because it works and it works very well. Perhaps when people eat the way they do 'multiple meals a day' and its synonymous 'crappy' feeling. It is usually because of they are not used to eating that way---which is pretty much saying that you need to eat one meal or three meals or fasting a day to get used to them as well. Like Mark said, it's really a personal preference. But, overall, it's a good strategy to lose weight and be healthy and it's not foolish. Science may have proven it wrong, but certainly, the people of the world, have squashed science as well and proven 'science' wrong too, in my own humble opinion.

    I guess and know from Dr. John Berardi is that he's right to be assumptive. Yes, of course, it isn't scientific and the backup is unsupported---that is to say, it lacks a lot of support. But, I guess and perhaps it's merely that, assumptions. For me, that is the most important, to assume is to be a human being, to validate and comprehend is the same as well. Science, for me and in my own humble opinion, destroys the people, when used too much for they stop becoming human beings and they continue being 'robotic representations of humans' when used to too much science. It's as if life is a black and white situation wherein when one scientific truth is given more support by others, then it is accepted as the true way. For myself, that is very similar to mythology. Science itself is mythology. What separates the primitive mythology is that science is organized mythology---it still is the same with the former and therefore, relies upon assumptions---whether on a simple level or on personal bias.

  7. #7
    Grol's Avatar
    Grol is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    919
    Jeeruid, I disagree wholeheartedly about the multi meal approach. I don't want to get into debates here, but research has shown it foolish, imo, especially for weight loss. 5+ meals a day is part of the failed CW that has created a huge demographic of yo yo dieters flirting with metabolic syndrome. I was one of them. I know many more from a weight loss group. Those of us who gave up on multi meal frequency are seeing far superior results. It is probably a decent way to gain weight. I can understand a body building ectomorph with difficulty gaining relying on several meals a day. Don't mess with your blood sugar like that if you have weight loss issues though. There is a little Occam's razor at work here. Eat more or eat less to lose weight? I'm voting less.

    Berardi committed to the idea, like so many because it sounded good based on generating a faster metabolism, and that makes him need to keep pushing it. But the amped up metabolic rate they hype has been proven false. Intermittent Fasting is far superior for general health and weight loss. Research on IF has revealed a time lapse for body fat burning to kick in. Can you see the conflict with multi-meal frequency and weight loss? You prevent body fat fuel burning by constantly supply dietary fuel. You can prevent increases in important hormonal sensitivities too. You regularly spike blood sugar. You rarely eat to satiety with tiny meals. Nueroplasticity methods suggest you could be encouraging psychological eating disorders with several meals a day. Ghrelin signaling, which can be entrained to meal patterns, will be more frequent, thus making appetite a bigger issue. An 8 week study cited below did not prove that about ghrelin, but it probably takes more than 8 weeks to change the pattern. Ghrelin appears to be something we can manipulate.

    Possible entrainment of ghrelin to habitual meal patterns in humans

    Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.

    Martin at Leangains cites 28 more studies.


    Unbalanced serum leptin and ghrelin dynamics prolong postprandial satiety and inhibit hunger in healthy elderly: another reason for the "anorexia of aging"

    I think that last one on elderly anorexia, loss of appetite, provides a lot of things we can glean for weight loss if needed any time and weight maintenance later in life. Intermittent fasting lends itself to lean body mass and calorie restriction. Calorie restriction increases longevity. Long lived folks become very frail from the loss of appetite.

    "Molekular Grokologist to the courtesy phone."

  8. #8
    Jeeruid's Avatar
    Jeeruid is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    14

    True enough...

    I thank you for providing me that scientific analysis and data. I too, have not come to debate upon this as well. I used to be like you as well. I do not mean that you are stupid or anything. In no way, i am telling that you are like that. I deeply respect all people and their ideas. But, I have found and seen the cause of my ignorance. I do not believe in so to speak, mere science anymore. Nor in just too much common sense as well (this relates to conventional wisdom in some respects). Science cannot fully capture what living is because it is not living and conventional wisdom cannot capture the unpredictability of the body simply because it's conventional. Yes, I read and research a lot regarding the matters of leptin and ghrelin to which, are important hormones for weight management, this is supported also by Marco Borges. For that matter, I believe in the uniqueness of one meals such as in the Warrior Diet (i practice it about 3 times a week.) I love to enjoy the pattern of eating in which I eat 5 to 6 meals a day without any time limitation (I do not eat every 2 to 3 hours, but eat the 5 to 6 meals at my own pace.) I have found that to be satisfying along with balance meals of grains, lean meat, fish, vegetables, fruits in a balanced companionship. I eat my meals for about 3 hours with friends and family or with myself. So that entails that I eat after midnight as well. I also do primal phases of eating only veggies, fish, healthy protein, no grains, fruits, nuts and seeds. I also follow low-carb diets such as the TNT Diet phases as well as Atkins which uses net carbs and the former uses phases and you can choose the amount you want. I have been enlightened to what the Italians, Japanese and the Chinese eat which involves whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu,soy and meat and their eating habits which involve calorie restriction as well due to the calculation for the dishes.

    In truth, I have tried a lot of things in this 20 year old life that is still living. I have found what works for me and what does not work for me. I have found the pros and cons. Nature has taught me many things and still the lessons come. But, I am glad to have experienced such a life. That is why, I do not wish to debate. I am glad you have found your place here in this life with science,common sense and with the PB lifestyle as well. For me, I have found it to be like water---formless,shapeless but has ever adapting.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •