Page 6 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 269

Thread: Why can't I look like Mark Sisson!?!?! page 6

  1. #51
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    It doesn't matter if humans don't "need starch". There's no reason sweet potatoes would give a healthy individual explosive diarrhea. Whether it's something simple like gut flora or a more serious disease of the bowel, the guy needs a fucking doctor.

  2. #52
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Thank you for commenting without reading what I've actually written. But to address your concern - if you cannot digest a certain food group (of real food), the fault is your body, not the food. At this point, it is best to explore options to correct this and heal yourself, not just swear off a completely healthy food altogether. And what you don't seem to understand is the typical sentiment around here does not allow everyone to try everything. Most people do not know what works best for them because they haven't found it yet.

    Nothing bugs me. As you are always the one coming at me, I can only assume it's me that makes you feel threatened.
    Faulty assumptions are your continuous M.O. Assuming that everybody needs every kind of food and that the inability to digest one is a pathology. We developed symbiotic bonds with our friendly little gut flora buddies to digest food that is not optimal human food. We can digest meat and fat just fine without their help. So, if you are going to continue feeding your body sub optimal food, then yes, getting a thriving colony of bacteria to help you out with that difficult to digest food is a good thing. But WHY?

    ...you are always the one coming at me", But, Teacher! She started it! Yeah, yeah. Quit whining you little wuss.

  3. #53
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Sweet potatoes causing explosive diarrhea is pathology. Starch is not difficult to digest.

  4. #54
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    "Surviving" versus "thriving." There is a difference between living and living optimally. You will not achieve your maximum potential on an exclusionary diet. If you want to be a fraction of what you could be, then remove perfectly healthy food from your diet and avoid your problems instead of fixing them. I choose to give my body what it needs in whole form so it is not forced to use secondary metabolic pathways to convert an overabundance of something it doesn't need into something it needs desperately to survive. If you choose to run on half a tank of gas and survive on life processes your body doesn't prefer to survive on, it's your freedom to do so. I choose to perform as well as I can, look as good as I can and minimize stress. That's why I do what I do.
    Surviving vs thriving is my point exactly. You are making the unsubstantiated assumption/claim that it is not possible to thrive while excluding certain things that can theoretically be food. My reality begs to differ. I thrive by maximizing my intake of the optimal foods for my body (Notice I did not claim it was optimal for your body too. This is where you need to back off.)

  5. #55
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    It doesn't matter if humans don't "need starch". There's no reason sweet potatoes would give a healthy individual explosive diarrhea. Whether it's something simple like gut flora or a more serious disease of the bowel, the guy needs a fucking doctor.
    Right. Thank you for understanding. This is potentially a serious medical condition, which is why it needs special attention. Simply avoiding the food isn't going to correct the issue, only lessen the side effects.

    GET HEALTHY is the main takeaway here!
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #56
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Surviving vs thriving is my point exactly. You are making the unsubstantiated assumption/claim that it is not possible to thrive while excluding certain things that can theoretically be food. My reality begs to differ. I thrive by maximizing my intake of the optimal foods for my body (Notice I did not claim it was optimal for your body too. This is where you need to back off.)
    You spend most of your time working out of a secondary metabolic pathway. Being that you are a cancer survivor and have epilepsy, it makes sense for you to do what you do because for you, it is medicinal. Protecting your overall health and well-being at this point is probably more important than becoming a world class sprinter. The point I'm trying to make is you make up a very, very small slice of the pie. Very few people will function better doing what you're doing, and it doesn't make sense for them.

    This is why context is so important. Is the average person more like you or more like me?

    And no, it is not an assumption. It is a fact that ketosis is a secondary metabolic process. It is not ideal for the human condition. It only becomes preferable if you have been compromised in a very specific way. If we were made to function best running on ketosis, that would be our preferred metabolic process. How a community can embrace the "evolutionary eating" paradigm of avoiding grains and vegetable oils but have trouble grasping this is beyond me.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #57
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Faulty assumptions are your continuous M.O. Assuming that everybody needs every kind of food and that the inability to digest one is a pathology. We developed symbiotic bonds with our friendly little gut flora buddies to digest food that is not optimal human food. We can digest meat and fat just fine without their help. So, if you are going to continue feeding your body sub optimal food, then yes, getting a thriving colony of bacteria to help you out with that difficult to digest food is a good thing. But WHY?

    ...you are always the one coming at me", But, Teacher! She started it! Yeah, yeah. Quit whining you little wuss.
    It's posts like this that severely hamper your credibility.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  8. #58
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,089
    Lets agree that it's pathology.

    A person has options:

    Option 1: don't eat starch -- it's easy enough to avoid and not required for nutrition. This doesn't assert that it's categorically unhealthy, it simply asserts that the *individual* chooses not to eat starch.

    Option 2: individual takes pre/pro-biotic (and or goes through a gut-flora recolonization process) and slowly introduces starch -- easy enough to do in a variety of ways

    Option 3: person goes for expensive, experimental medical procedure called a "fecal transplant" because a ya-hoo on the interwebz is completely freaked out that someone would choose option 1 or 2.

    Here is a simple reality: Humans are omnivores.

    There is a lot of information about the fact that humans can survive and thrive on a variety of diets from the largely-carnivorous maasai diet (milk, blood, meat/organs/bones plus a modest amount of tubers/veg) to a kitivan diet (mostly vegetarian with some seafood). And, there are lots of diets "in between."

    Truly, there's a miracle in neolithic foods as well. That miracle is the ability to support large populations and create in the way that Ancient Egypt did. Likely wouldn't have been possible without the miracles of pastoralism and agriculture.

    Thus, is wheat/grain "evil poison -- don't eat!!!!?" Only for people who are pathological, really. After all, we are omnivores and human society has been graining-it for several thousand years.

    What we know is that it is a sub-optimal food. It's less nutrient dense and it requires a fair amount of processing in order to overcome it's anti-nutrients. And, according to some rat studies, creatures will eat more of nutrient-poor foods, increasing calorie intake, in order to get the nutrients that they need. When food source is limited, they likely "feel hungry" and when food source is unlimited, they are likely to eat to "satiety" -- which is likely greater than their caloric need (but not their nutrient need). Whereas, when the animals eat nutrient-rich foods, then they eat fewer calories and tend to maintain normal weight (and/or loose weight to normal weight). (sources at WAPF web site, Seth Robert's website -- available in shangrila diet thread).

    So, a person can simply choose to eat less nutrient poor foods (or no nutrient poor foods) in favor of nutrient rich foods -- which is really the underlying "science" or "theory/idea" behind paleo/primal, as opposed to some "brain washing" or "special flower syndrome" or "caveman reenactment. "

    I have noticed since going from vegan (where I was lean and healthy until hypocholesterolemia) that I ate more calories as a vegan than I do now as a paleo/primal. I'm currently consuming about 1500 cals/day of nutrient rich foods. It's very satiating. As a vegan, I was usually hungry, ate around 2200-2500 calories per day. And, as I said, ran into some health problems.

    The reality is that I don't think that I"m a "special flower." Instead, I am observing what works for me and what I like. I look at my son and how healthy he is, and my husband and how healthy and lean he is since we went paleo (and he does have a health issue that we are treating/solving at the moment and this is facilitating the process -- I've been open about this as well).

    There is nothing wrong with a person making their own choices about their diet and espousing those choices to others to assert what they do and how it works for them. No one is "phobic" about fat or carbs (or protein for that matter).

    We are just making choices and sharing what works for us. And, we can make decisions tha tmake our lives easier. For me, it's easy enough to avoid grains or starch or meat or whatever I want to avoid for whatever reasons than it is for me to go "you know what, that's a pathological problem. I need medical assistance!" Why not just avoid what gives me tummy troubles when it is possible to be *just as healthy* or healthier on something else?

  9. #59
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Right. Thank you for understanding. This is potentially a serious medical condition, which is why it needs special attention. Simply avoiding the food isn't going to correct the issue, only lessen the side effects.
    Oh boy, that sounds dire! Or it could be that his digestive system is just not used to having to extract nutrition from such a bio-unavailable source.

    Why do you need to make anyone who doesn't do it your way into a pathological case?

  10. #60
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    It's posts like this that severely hamper your credibility.
    hehe....Lighten up, kiddo! You take yourself way too seriously.

Page 6 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •