i have found when i go bush or anywhere wild, i always eye up the hunting options. even if i am not armed, i cant help myself. a few days ago we were all climbing around the rocks in the inner harbour with the kids. they are volcanic rocks so they are quite spikey. easy to grip to but no fun to fall on but also great fun to climb. i can see mussels, edible seaweeds, native spinach, cockles, slow moving fish, i know there are more interesting shellfish not that much further out, rock oysters, etc. so i say to the kids "if you got stuck here with no food, what would you do" and they listed all the foods, plus where to look for a spring, what plants to use to make snares or lines. i was so pleased with them!The pack that hunts together stays together.
I find it so interesting to read how people have evolved and tweaked their diet over time.
In my case, I started with CW and through sheer deprivation lost some of the pounds I needed to lose. Then on a friends suggestion I moved to Atkins, discovered that I was very carb sensitive and finally getting to a reasonable weight by keeping carbs very low. Despite the fact that Atkins encourages lots of vegetables, I found that any attempt to up my intake halted weight loss or produced frustrating weight gains. I rarely endulged in low carb products and over time dropped even those eating only real whole foods. I lost a few more pounds and now have a PBF of 19.4.
After reading PHD I experimented on adding "safe starches" ----not in the quantities recommended by Jaminet and definitely not even close to the potato pusher recommendations I read about on this forum. (Perhaps that works for the very young or those with drastically different metabolisms than mine). Small doses of these safe starches did contribute to improved satiation and improved disgestion/bowel movements, however, I know from long experience that my body simply cannot handle a large intake of such starches w/o weight gain.
So Paleobird -- you give me hope with your current n-1. I have given up attempting to eat the vegetables recommended everywhere. Nutritionists have been wrong about so much so it is easy for me to believe they are also wrong about how we need veggie "nutrition". For now I am doing my own n-1: my diet consists of quality protein, good fats, veggies only as they contribute to tasty sauces, occasional fruit (primal candy, as you say) and a 1/2 of a sweet potato or small scoop of rice to provide satiety and keep bowels working well (something they did not do with larger veggie intake).
Thank you for the inspiration to do what my body tells me is correct FOR ME, instead of following the theories of others. And yes, I am happy to eliminate kale and won't be planting it in this years garden, LOL.
1)Health Food CW most of my life (whole grains, lots of veggies, moderate animal protein, lots of soy)
2)Went "low carb" on the "No White Foods" plan and just eating bigger salads to fill in the gaps. Lost 30 lbs.
3)Found Primal, ditched the soy, fake sweeteners but acquired a taste for bacon and gained weight.
4)Figured out Primal Plus Portion Control and lost the last 35.
5)Moved toward ketosis for seizure control and found it to be great for maintaining weight w/o counting
6)Veggies seem to just be getting in the way, not adding much and taking up space so I started researching carnivorousness.
I see the recommendations for large amount of veggies to be the same kind of CW as 5-7 servings of healthywholegrains.
I stopped listening to Paul Jaminet when I found out that his main anti VLC "selling point" was that he got scurvy doing it. Think about it. The guy is supposed to be a doctor, right? But he doesn't know enough to get adequate vitamin C in his diet? I, who am not a doctor, can, with a quick google-fu, figure out the cause of scurvy and how to avoid getting it (every heard of lemon in your water and some liver or pate' now and then?) The fact that he screwed up his health with a stupid mistake (inadequate vitamin C) does not make VLC inherently harmful. It just makes him not a very competent "health professional".
sometimes it is better to have an enquiring open mind and good observation and research skills. day 13 of carnivory. still got a bit of a headache from two days ago which is more now just a brain fuzz.He's not a doctor, he's a scientist
well this is the funny bit. mine have been known to yell "no mum not organic fillet steak for breakfast again!". they are very into their starch. refuse to eat any of my kai moana. let alone my raw meat. however, they were spot on on their assesment of the situation for survival.Yay for Primal parenting. We will raise a new tribe the right way.
His wife, the co-author, is an PhD molecular biologist and cancer researcher.
Thus, I forgive the scurvy incident since neither have a background in nutrition....but agree a Google would have given necessary info on the subject. Having worked at a major university, however, I know how myopic PhDs can be......
Paul Jaminet, Ph.D. Paul was an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, became a software entrepreneur during the Internet boom, and now provides strategic advice to entrepreneurial companies while pursuing research in economics.
Okaaaay. I can see how he would not know much about scurvy. Too busy trying to decide on a career.
His wife, OTOH, is a molecular biologist and a cancer researcher. That I respect. It would have been nice if she had fixed him some pate' before he got scurvy.
It just seems to me like paleo (in the most broad umbrella sense) is becoming more and more accepted in the mainstream and so, in order to make a marketable "brand" of paleo, one has to do some twist or something to make it stand out. (think Kruse and his ice baths.) It seems like the PHD is being marketed as the "anti VLC diet". It's really hard to argue with healthy food and and balance and moderation in all things yada yada. But that is not really anything new, just advice Grandma could have given you. If you changed from SAD to the PHD you would be miles better off than where you started. No doubt.
I don't doubt that there are people who genuinely do not thrive on VLC. I do think, however that there are a lot of people who think they tried VLC and really did feel horrible and so are really glad to have the Jaminets come along and tell them to eat a pound of starch a day.
But why did they feel horrible? Was it really the VLC or could it have been something else?
Lots of people who think they didn't do well on VLC may have been experiencing nutritional deficiencies as Paul was.
Others may have been overdoing the protein portions and ending up in what Dr. Peter Attia calls "The Zone of Misery", never really getting over the carb flu because the excess protein is turning to glucose.
Others may have been having electrolyte imbalances which can occur when excess stored water weight is flushed out. Easily cured.
Others may simply not have given it long enough to really work or may have not really been honest with themselves about how "occasional" the occasional cheats may have been.
Also, some people are very stubbornly opposed to tracking food intake and so don't really have any idea of how much of anything they may be taking in.
I also think the PHD title is just a tad presumptuous. "Perfect"? Really? For everybody?
Last edited by Paleobird; 01-20-2013 at 01:39 PM.