Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 102

Thread: Thinking like a caveman, is it even possible? page 5

  1. #41
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    What Neckhammer linked showed that cancer does feed off of sugar not the opposite. I never said sugar *causes* the cancer in the first place, only that it feeds and nurtures it while it grows.
    You're misquoting it, like so many other people do then. Warburg's hypothesis was that cancer growth is caused when cancer cells are converted into glucose without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvic acid and oxygen, he suggests that since cancer cells do not oxidize pyruvic acid(sugar), cancer is considered a mitochondrial dysfunction.

    This is why dichloroacetate is effective against a variety of cancers.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  2. #42
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    You're misquoting it, like so many other people do then. Warburg's hypothesis was that cancer growth is caused when cancer cells are converted into glucose without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvic acid and oxygen, he suggests that since cancer cells do not oxidize pyruvic acid(sugar), cancer is considered a mitochondrial dysfunction.

    This is why dichloroacetate is effective against a variety of cancers.
    Read what I added to my above post. It's not controversial fringe science or anything. I'll take the word of a Nobel laureate over some guy with a blog any day. Ray Peat has twisted it around backwards to justify the sugar fest and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

  3. #43
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,292
    Well, of course this thread has nothing to do with the title, big surprise. You guys push sugar like freakin' drug dealers.

    Cravings are unnatural emotional responses. There are a couple of illegal drugs that I love. Should I give in to those cravings? But sugar isn't a drug and I'm just nuts. Except that to anyone who is 50% or more overweight, I would put forth that maybe sugar is a drug.

    As an adult, and someone who has been an adult for longer than a lot of posters have been alive, no one (except the occasional legal entity) forbids me to do or eat anything. I make choices. While it did take a little reading and learning for me to give up all wheat, it wasn't a big part of my diet before I found primal. Nor were beans. White rice I usually ate when I made salmon and I still occasionally eat it when I make salmon because salmon just seems to snuggle so nicely on a bed of white rice. I ate brown rice exactly twice - it tastes like crap and that's not what food should be. And the day I'm in the mood for a baguette and brie in the park, I'll go ahead and eat it.

    There's no stress in avoiding cookies. Dark chocolate was my chocolate of choice years before I knew it had some healthy properties. I also don't agree that wine is that great. It's good for cooking, and tastes good along side some foods, but for purity and lack of carbs, I'll choose clear spirits any day. So no primal evangelical here.

    What I know for me from experience is that when I tried Atkins years ago, I lost 40 pounds effortlessly and I wan't hungry. That was about 20 carbs per day. For me it wasn't sustainable much past that. Or maybe I just chose to go back to eating bread because I didn't know about the whole wheat thing back then.

    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).

    As for equating a cookie with a piece of fruit, surely you jest. Fruit is what our hypothetical caveman ate when he wanted something sweet, not Mrs. Fields (sorry Debby, I do admire your business acumen totally).

    I haven't read up a lot on cancer because (knock on wood) there hasn't been a lot of it in my family, especially the last two generations. And even before that, if someone is 86 and they die of cancer, well, they were going to die of something fairly soon. But if Paleobird says that sugar feeds cancer cells, I would bet your donuts to dollars that she's done the research and isn't just putting out some opinion.

    So, to answer the title, no, we can't think like cavemen. We have grocery stores, birth control, and electronic communication, just to name a few things. But we can think intelligently and see that the advice we've been given over the last 30 years has turned us into overweight diabetic allergic asthmatic messes. And the recommendation that we all eat like livestock is probably the most detrimental of all.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

  4. #44
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Read what I added to my above post. It's not controversial fringe science or anything. I'll take the word of a Nobel laureate over some guy with a blog any day. Ray Peat has twisted it around backwards to justify the sugar fest and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
    No, it's misinterpreted again.

    Contribution by different fuels and metabolic path... [Biochem J. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

    Cancer cells obtain their energy through both aerobic and anaerobic pathways. They require much more energy to rapidly divide, so cancer cells consume a lot more glucose to obtain energy from fermentation when oxygen is low.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  5. #45
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    No, it's misinterpreted again.
    Contribution by different fuels and metabolic path... [Biochem J. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
    Cancer cells obtain their energy through both aerobic and anaerobic pathways. They require much more energy to rapidly divide, so cancer cells consume a lot more glucose to obtain energy from fermentation when oxygen is low.
    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]"

  6. #46
    YogaBare's Avatar
    YogaBare is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    . . .
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote 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

  7. #47
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote 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 at 04:15 AM.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  8. #48
    oxide's Avatar
    oxide is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    MD/VA/DC
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote 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, 43 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Current weight: skinny-fat 106.5 lbs because of sugar cheating.

    MY PRIMAL: I (try to) follow by-the-book primal as advocated by Mark Sisson, except for whey powder and a bit of cream. I aim for 80-90 g carb/day and advocate a two-month strict adjustment for newbies. But everybody is different and other need to tweak Primal to their own needs.

  9. #49
    Sabine's Avatar
    Sabine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth Texas
    Posts
    5,203
    Quote 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.

  10. #50
    Sabine's Avatar
    Sabine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth Texas
    Posts
    5,203
    Quote 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.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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