Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 261 to 269 of 269

Thread: Why can't I look like Mark Sisson!?!?! page 27

  1. #261
    cori93437's Avatar
    cori93437 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,656
    Primal Fuel
    No... I'm talking the reasoning for results on average lab tests and you are talking outliers.

    What causes satiety for you might promote hunger and binging in another person.
    That is why N=1 is so important.

    The same things simply do not work equally well for everyone.
    Nothing you or anyone else says is going to change that.
    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.


  2. #262
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,357
    They can though. Only environmental factors can alter the way someone reacts to a substance. As an organism, we're not that different. It's just our experiences and habits that change that. In rare unfortunate cases, ailments and illnesses too. For the vast majority though, it simply isn't true.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  3. #263
    sakura_girl's Avatar
    sakura_girl is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    Before I went low carb I was trying to do some kind of low fat, high carb paleo-ish half-attempt. I had yogurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast, low fat salads or sweet potatoes with cheese for lunch and whatever regular stuff for dinner (pasta sometimes but I tried small portions, Trader Joe's packaged stuff). I struggled with hunger and often gave in to the siren call of the almond croissants down at the coffee cart. The high fat, low carb turned it off instantly and I have not had pasta or almond croissants ever since.
    Sounds like processed, not nutrient-dense, unfilling food, with a non-PB dinner to me. Where da meat?

    I'm not seeing your logic in how ONLY LCHF helped to heal your body.

  4. #264
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    They can though. Only environmental factors can alter the way someone reacts to a substance. As an organism, we're not that different. It's just our experiences and habits that change that. In rare unfortunate cases, ailments and illnesses too. For the vast majority though, it simply isn't true.
    Our metabolisms are a product of our gene-environment interaction. This interaction is complex and is a hot topic in epidemiology.

    Our behaviours cannot alter our genotype but they can alter some of our more volatile epigenetics (e.g. upregulating fat-burning metabolism over the course of just a few weeks through switching to a low to moderate carb and high fat diet).

    However, our behaviours cannot modify longer-term inherited epigenetic factors, i.e. those determined by the behaviours, ultimately the environment of our grandparents immediately preceding the conception of our parents. World War II rationing and post-war rationing have been identified in significant studies as being a contributing factor towards the current obesity epidemic among the middle aged via longer-term epigenetic modifications that attenuate after a few generations and promote the thrifty phenotype.

    Disentangling gene/environment influences is not a trivial matter. It turns out that Darwin and Lamarck were both correct regarding their postulated modes of inheritance. Even though Darwin vocally ascribed to Lamarck's theories, this was brushed over by binary-thinking theorists that came to dominate in his wake. They became mislabelled as 'Darwinists' - mislabelled because they made the completely unfounded assumption that Darwinism and Lamarckianism had for some crazy reason to be mutually exclusive.
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

  5. #265
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,357
    Quote Originally Posted by paleo-bunny View Post
    Our metabolisms are a product of our gene-environment interaction. This interaction is complex and is a hot topic in epidemiology.

    Our behaviours cannot alter our genotype but they can alter some of our more volatile epigenetics (e.g. upregulating fat-burning metabolism over the course of just a few weeks through switching to a low to moderate carb and high fat diet).

    However, our behaviours cannot modify longer-term inherited epigenetic factors, i.e. those determined by the behaviours, ultimately the environment of our grandparents immediately preceding the conception of our parents. World War II rationing and post-war rationing have been identified in significant studies as being a contributing factor towards the current obesity epidemic among the middle aged via longer-term epigenetic modifications that attenuate after a few generations and promote the thrifty phenotype.

    Disentangling gene/environment influences is not a trivial matter. It turns out that Darwin and Lamarck were both correct regarding their postulated modes of inheritance. Even though Darwin vocally ascribed to Lamarck's theories, this was brushed over by binary-thinking theorists that came to dominate in his wake. They became mislabelled as 'Darwinists' - mislabelled because they made the completely unfounded assumption that Darwinism and Lamarckianism had for some crazy reason to be mutually exclusive.
    I find your take on Darwin particularly interesting, thanks.

    I know that experiences and nutrition of a pregnant mother are known to affect the expression of genes in the offspring, like allergies, metabolic rate, brain size, and intelligence. I was pointing at that in my post, I just failed to be more specific or clarify.

    I've recently just read over Ray Peat's article on genes, co2, and adaptation.

    "One of the cultural trends that makes genetic determinism attractive is the theory of radical individualism, something that has grown up with protestant christianity, according to some historians. Roger Williams' work in nutrition seemed to be powered by this idea of individual genetic uniqueness, and in his case, the idea led him to some useful insights--he suggested that the environment could be adjusted to suit the highly specific needs of the individual. This idea led to the widespread belief that nutritional supplements might be needed by a large part of the population. Extreme nurturing of the deviant individual is the opposite extreme from the Lorenzian-Hitlerian solution, of eliminating everyone who wasn't a perfect Aryan specimen.

    But Williams' genetic doctrine assumed that our nutritional needs were primarily inborn, determined by our unique genes. However, there is a famous experiment in which rats were made deficient in riboflavin, and when their corneal tissue showed evidence of the vitamin deficiency, they were given a standard diet. However, the standard diet no longer met the needs of their eye tissue, and during the remainder of the observation period, only a dose of riboflavin several times higher than normal would prevent the signs of deficiency. A developmental change had taken place in the cornea, making its vitamin B2 requirement abnormally high. If we accept the epigenetic, developmental idea of metabolic requirements, our idea of nurturing environmental support would consider the long-range effects of environmental adequacy, and would consider that much disease could be prevented by prenatal support, and by avoiding extreme deficiencies at any time. Williams himself emphasized the importance of prenatal nutrition in disease prevention, so he wasn't a genetic totalitarian; combining the idea of unique genetic individuality with the recognition that malnutrition causes disease, led him to believe in the necessity for nutitional adequacy, rather than to the extermination of the sick, weak, or different individuals.

    The idea of "genetic determinism" says that our traits are the result of the specific proteins that are produced by our specific genes. The doctrine allows for some gradations, such as "half a dose" of a trait, but in practice it becomes a purely subjective accounting for everything in terms of mysterious degrees of "penetrance" of genes, and interactions with unknown factors. Proteins, that supposedly express our genetic constitution, include enzymes, structural proteins, antibodies, and a variety of protein hormones and peptide regulatory molecules. Every protein, including the smallest peptide (except certain cyclic peptides), contains at least one amine group, and usually several. Amine groups react spontaneously with carbon dioxide, to form carbamino groups, and they can also react, nonenzymically, with sugars, in the reaction called glycation or glycosylation. These chemical changes alter the functions of the proteins, so that hormones and their "receptors," tubules and filaments, enzymes and synthetic systems, all behave differently under their influences. (The proteins' electrical charge, relationship to water and fats, and shape, change quickly and reversibly as the concentration of carbon dioxide changes; in the absence of carbon dioxide, these properties tend to change irreversibly under the influence of metabolic stress.)

    This is the clearest, and the most powerful, instance of metabolic influence on biological structure. That makes it very remarkable that it has been the subject of so few publications. I think the absence of discussion of this fundamental biological principle can be understood only in relation to the great importance it has for a new understanding of development and inheritance--it is an easily documented process that will invalidate some of the most deeply held beliefs of most of the people who are influential in science and politics."

    Your take?
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  6. #266
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,664
    Quote Originally Posted by sakura_girl View Post
    Sounds like processed, not nutrient-dense, unfilling food, with a non-PB dinner to me. Where da meat?

    I'm not seeing your logic in how ONLY LCHF helped to heal your body.
    Meat at dinner. Yogurt, fruit, nuts, sweet potatoes, cheese, salad not primal blueprint approved? Not nutritious?

    I wasn't doing primal blueprint at first anyway. I was just trying to go a little more paleo than my usual, to see if trying to replace some of the wheat products with more paleo options might help.

    My usual at the time was yogurt, fruit and granola; pastries, cookies and candy, sandwiches, huge piles of pasta (sauce with sausage in it) or burritos (chicken fajita filling). Kinda typical sorta trying to be healthy, meat as a condiment, not too much fat, not on a diet CW.

    I switched to creme fraiche, cheese with butter, meat and bacon and low carb veggies at first. Hunger was gone. That's all I really wanted was to not be so hungry so I could exercise the weight off.

    I don't think anybody here has any idea what it's like to hike a long distance trail, what that hunger feels like. It is incredible. I called it The Beast. This hunger took a full year to subside after the hike was over but still was there any time I exerted myself. I could not exercise for fear of unleashing The Beast. I also couldn't go too hungry without unleashing The Beast. I felt resigned to slow weight gain forever if I could not find a solution.

    I don't know if LCHF is the ONLY thing that could have saved me, but it was the only thing I tried that actually worked. I tried a lot of things. LCHF actually killed The Beast. I could exercise again and the hunger wouldn't come back. I could fast and the hunger wouldn't come back. I could eat less, I could eat more. The weight reduced on its own. I don't know what else to tell you.

    I don't have to eat LCHF anymore but I'm really glad I found it. It will be my secret weapon for how to survive another long distance hike. I will bring as much fat with me as I can, gorge on protein whenever I can and when I get off the trail I will do LCHF to quickly recover and keep any lost weight off.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  7. #267
    YogaBare's Avatar
    YogaBare is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    . . .
    Posts
    4,540
    Quote Originally Posted by justyouraveragecavemen View Post
    Mark!!

    What kind of shampoo/conditioner do you use??
    LOL.

    (And that wasn't a lie )
    "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

    In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

    - Ray Peat

  8. #268
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    I find your take on Darwin particularly interesting, thanks.

    I know that experiences and nutrition of a pregnant mother are known to affect the expression of genes in the offspring, like allergies, metabolic rate, brain size, and intelligence. I was pointing at that in my post, I just failed to be more specific or clarify.

    I've recently just read over Ray Peat's article on genes, co2, and adaptation.

    "One of the cultural trends that makes genetic determinism attractive is the theory of radical individualism, something that has grown up with protestant christianity, according to some historians. Roger Williams' work in nutrition seemed to be powered by this idea of individual genetic uniqueness, and in his case, the idea led him to some useful insights--he suggested that the environment could be adjusted to suit the highly specific needs of the individual. This idea led to the widespread belief that nutritional supplements might be needed by a large part of the population. Extreme nurturing of the deviant individual is the opposite extreme from the Lorenzian-Hitlerian solution, of eliminating everyone who wasn't a perfect Aryan specimen.

    But Williams' genetic doctrine assumed that our nutritional needs were primarily inborn, determined by our unique genes. However, there is a famous experiment in which rats were made deficient in riboflavin, and when their corneal tissue showed evidence of the vitamin deficiency, they were given a standard diet. However, the standard diet no longer met the needs of their eye tissue, and during the remainder of the observation period, only a dose of riboflavin several times higher than normal would prevent the signs of deficiency. A developmental change had taken place in the cornea, making its vitamin B2 requirement abnormally high. If we accept the epigenetic, developmental idea of metabolic requirements, our idea of nurturing environmental support would consider the long-range effects of environmental adequacy, and would consider that much disease could be prevented by prenatal support, and by avoiding extreme deficiencies at any time. Williams himself emphasized the importance of prenatal nutrition in disease prevention, so he wasn't a genetic totalitarian; combining the idea of unique genetic individuality with the recognition that malnutrition causes disease, led him to believe in the necessity for nutitional adequacy, rather than to the extermination of the sick, weak, or different individuals.

    The idea of "genetic determinism" says that our traits are the result of the specific proteins that are produced by our specific genes. The doctrine allows for some gradations, such as "half a dose" of a trait, but in practice it becomes a purely subjective accounting for everything in terms of mysterious degrees of "penetrance" of genes, and interactions with unknown factors. Proteins, that supposedly express our genetic constitution, include enzymes, structural proteins, antibodies, and a variety of protein hormones and peptide regulatory molecules. Every protein, including the smallest peptide (except certain cyclic peptides), contains at least one amine group, and usually several. Amine groups react spontaneously with carbon dioxide, to form carbamino groups, and they can also react, nonenzymically, with sugars, in the reaction called glycation or glycosylation. These chemical changes alter the functions of the proteins, so that hormones and their "receptors," tubules and filaments, enzymes and synthetic systems, all behave differently under their influences. (The proteins' electrical charge, relationship to water and fats, and shape, change quickly and reversibly as the concentration of carbon dioxide changes; in the absence of carbon dioxide, these properties tend to change irreversibly under the influence of metabolic stress.)

    This is the clearest, and the most powerful, instance of metabolic influence on biological structure. That makes it very remarkable that it has been the subject of so few publications. I think the absence of discussion of this fundamental biological principle can be understood only in relation to the great importance it has for a new understanding of development and inheritance--it is an easily documented process that will invalidate some of the most deeply held beliefs of most of the people who are influential in science and politics."

    Your take?
    My take is - interesting post - yes our phenotype is very dynamic and I believe we have the power to shape it when we invest effort in doing so. I would become depressed rather quickly if I resigned myself to genetic determinism.

    My inclinations and philosophy are holistic and humanistic (if that's the right word) - I do not sit easily with reductionist thought or determinism on any level - political, scientific or otherwise (I'm essentially a libertarian/liberalist, and if that means sitting on the fence, so be it) Having said that I believe that an acceptance of fate on some levels provides sweet release.

    This reminds me of having long given up arguing with philosphers for the existence of free-will. Not because I can fault their arguments. An essential element of being human is to assert the existence of free will despite being unable to rationally argue for its existence.
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

  9. #269
    ToldUzo's Avatar
    ToldUzo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by justyouraveragecavemen View Post
    Mark!!

    What kind of shampoo/conditioner do you use??
    Well, if he is a true primal, he is no-pooing
    What on earth?! Take a walk on the wild side.

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627

Posting Permissions

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