187 replies to this topic

[Luna]

I think people here are mostly confusing healthy and weight control.

There was a video shown by duke, it was kind of to support the fat or sugar avoidance.
What it mainly said was three things:
1. A calorie isn't a calorie.
2. People who eat fructose are usually fat.
3. Fructose is causing unhealthy reactions in tee body.

Now after watching the all of the videos of the lecture, I came to the conclusion that a calorie is still a calorie in regard of weight control.
The problem is that according to the video fructose is making people eat more due to some reactions in the body.
Another problem is that fructose leaves some waste in the body which most people don't burn out and it then builds up in the liver and some other places.

About glucose, it didn't say much.

So in my opinion, yes, for weight control a calorie is a calorie BUT there might be foods that could make us feel hungry and if we don't control ourselves, we might eat more calories.
Another thing is, our body reacts to different food compositions differently, so what we eat can affect us in term of health even if we stay at healthy weight(? unsure about that still but seems logical).

Saying animals don't count calories is stupid, animals don't count calories, most humans don't. But they over-eat calories just like many humans and are also getting fat like human.. Where did that variable drop? convenient?

So if you want to be lean, eat whatever you want, just restrict your calorie intake. Oh but some diets might help you by making you feel full while others will make you feel hungry still even after eating the same calorie amount. Suit to your own mentality.

If you want to be healthy too, well.... That's a puzzle which sometimes I feel after reading here that I might just stop eating so I won't eat something wrong due to the disagreements by the experts and how we seem to have no idea of what is true and need to do a leap of faith with each and every diet.

What I do is eat what I want, follow my blood tests, enjoy my diet at the same time as adjusting parts to improve my blood tests. I hope this works but it's just another leap of faith On the bright side, I get to eat chocolate cakes!

[JLL]

This is why if you do CR your metabolism will slow and become more efficient,

I thought CR increased metabolism?

[RickSantos]

Remember we are talking about fat tissue control here, not weight. Losing FAT, not just weight.


Taubes presents a STRONG case against the classic caloric model of obesity.


*We have a worldwide epidemic of obesity in 6 month olds.

*We also have obesity and malnutrition strongly linked.

The energy balance hypothesis completely ignores this evidence.

The key is in the behavior of fat cells. If the cells are in a lipophylic state , which hormones and hormone mimickers can put them in, then they are going to accumulate lipids unless the organism is starved. Starving is not good for health. Neither is getting fatter. THE SOLUTION IS TO JOLT THE FAT CELLS OUT OF LIPOPHYLIA.

Gary Taubes' only fault is that he has not yet satisfied a replacement hypothesis. The blood insulin levels is the same throughout the body, so it can't explain why those pictures of the victims of lipodystrophy he showed were morbidly obese in the lower body and rail thin in the upper body and vice versa.

Science is moving forward very slowly on this. The funding comes from the industry. The industry LOVES the energy balance hypothesis. So don't expect anything different any time soon, but the standard worn out propagation of the majorly flawed Calorie Theory .

Edited by RickSantos, 28 January 2010 - 06:20 PM.

[TheFountain]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit.

The plant-food-only tent is collapsing:

Why the shift away from veganism in the raw world?

You talk about raw food veganism as if it was ever a widely accepted thing. It was always a fringe dietary phenomenon and never an ultra-popular thing. And as for your arrogant assertion about it's health benefits being nill, I think you are just covering up your own philosophical notions here (I.E veganism makes you feminine etc). Note I am referring to RAW veganism. But don't take it from me, take it from Dr. Brian Clement, a 60 something year old raw foodist who looks 10 years younger than you do!

I don't know, up close he doesn't look spectacular:
http://www.imref.org...ntBrian9x11.jpg

Could be UV damage, though? I doubt any diet will undo cumulative exposure to the sun.

By the way, I watched all three parts of those videos. Thanks for the recommendation.

He still doesn't have anywhere near as many wrinkles or as much sagging as most men in their mid-60s come on now. And he still looks younger than duke, and in my opinion mark sisson! And you're welcome. While I do not totally subscribe to all his tenets about spiritual well being and health being linked I do agree with the need for a healthy mind set while approaching any subject and that stress can cause any effort to remain healthy to fail.

Edited by TheFountain, 28 January 2010 - 06:30 PM.

[stephen_b]

I agree with a lot of what you said Luna. One thing to keep in mind that fructose accelerates aging more than glucose due to it being worse for glycation (ref), perhaps 10 times worse.

Another is about calorie equivalence. The energy taken to break down a calorie has to be taken into account. As an extreme example, some types of fiber have calories that a cow can extract but a human cannot. To a human, fiber is calorie free. Why should a calorie of glucose and a calorie of monounsaturated fat be equal when the energy extracted from each by the body is not?

[Skötkonung]

He still doesn't have anywhere near as many wrinkles or as much sagging as most men in their mid-60s come on now. And he still looks younger than duke, and in my opinion mark sisson! And you're welcome. While I do not totally subscribe to all his tenets about spiritual well being and health being linked I do agree with the need for a healthy mind set while approaching any subject and that stress can cause any effort to remain healthy to fail.

Yeah, Mark Sisson is very badly photo-aged. Can't really speculate on Scott Miller because I have never seen a large photo of him.

If you want to be healthy too, well.... That's a puzzle which sometimes I feel after reading here that I might just stop eating so I won't eat something wrong due to the disagreements by the experts and how we seem to have no idea of what is true and need to do a leap of faith with each and every diet.

What I do is eat what I want, follow my blood tests, enjoy my diet at the same time as adjusting parts to improve my blood tests. I hope this works but it's just another leap of faith On the bright side, I get to eat chocolate cakes!

Specific macronutrient ratios aside, if you focus on getting proper nutrition through whole foods, you will probably be on the safe side. Eat lots of green vegetables, fruits, berries, and raw nuts. Extra virgin olive oil, extra virgin coconut oil, and butter are probably best for most high temperature cooking. Grains and legumes, when eaten, should be minimally processed. Meat, if you choose to eat it, should include fish and probably be low to moderate in consumption. Processed foods rich in sugar and fat should be avoided. These include cake, most juices, pies, etc.

Sticking to basic nutritional guidelines like these and partaking regular activity will probably be more than enough to ensure a long and healthy life.

Regularly eating cake, however, isn't a leap of faith...rather a leap into the grave.

[niner]

He still doesn't have anywhere near as many wrinkles or as much sagging as most men in their mid-60s come on now. And he still looks younger than duke, and in my opinion mark sisson! And you're welcome. While I do not totally subscribe to all his tenets about spiritual well being and health being linked I do agree with the need for a healthy mind set while approaching any subject and that stress can cause any effort to remain healthy to fail.

How do you know that Clement is in his mid-60's? One of the oldest tricks in the book is for someone pushing a patent medicine, diet plan, or whatever to exaggerate their age. What if he's not 65 but 53? I have no idea how old he is; I looked a bit but didn't find a bio on him. The guy has good hair, and it's not gray, but how do you know he doesn't color it? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he did.

At his site, it says:

The Hippocrates plan, replete with fresh sprout and vegetable juices, wheatgrass, colorful salads, nuts, seeds, and fruit, supplies the oxygen, enzymes, alkalinity, and bioelectrical charges vital to cellular and general health.

WTF? Supplies "oxygen"? "bioelectrical charges"? What the hell are "bioelectrical charges"? This is the trouble with the Raw Veganism world. It's just shot full of nonsense like this. As I've said in the past, I am in favor of raw food. There are solid reasons why it is good. There's no need to resort to woo like this. Veganism, I'm not so crazy about. It's ok if you're willing to supplement, otherwise, it will probably damage your health in the long run. Ethically, I can understand not eating meat, particularly higher organisms, but I think that dairy can be done ethically. That's just my personal opinion.

[TheFountain]

He still doesn't have anywhere near as many wrinkles or as much sagging as most men in their mid-60s come on now. And he still looks younger than duke, and in my opinion mark sisson! And you're welcome. While I do not totally subscribe to all his tenets about spiritual well being and health being linked I do agree with the need for a healthy mind set while approaching any subject and that stress can cause any effort to remain healthy to fail.

How do you know that Clement is in his mid-60's? One of the oldest tricks in the book is for someone pushing a patent medicine, diet plan, or whatever to exaggerate their age. What if he's not 65 but 53? I have no idea how old he is; I looked a bit but didn't find a bio on him. The guy has good hair, and it's not gray, but how do you know he doesn't color it? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he did.

At his site, it says:

The Hippocrates plan, replete with fresh sprout and vegetable juices, wheatgrass, colorful salads, nuts, seeds, and fruit, supplies the oxygen, enzymes, alkalinity, and bioelectrical charges vital to cellular and general health.

WTF? Supplies "oxygen"? "bioelectrical charges"? What the hell are "bioelectrical charges"? This is the trouble with the Raw Veganism world. It's just shot full of nonsense like this. As I've said in the past, I am in favor of raw food. There are solid reasons why it is good. There's no need to resort to woo like this. Veganism, I'm not so crazy about. It's ok if you're willing to supplement, otherwise, it will probably damage your health in the long run. Ethically, I can understand not eating meat, particularly higher organisms, but I think that dairy can be done ethically. That's just my personal opinion.

Regardless of his psychological approach he looks excellent for his age because of raw food. Yes he is in his 60s because it has been mentioned in several interviews, just watch them on youtube. Did he not state in the particular video above that he'd been doing veganism for 40 years? So what he started at 10? No! And I also hear him state clearly in another interview that he did NOT color his hair. I imagine his high degree of phytonutrient intake has aided him here somehow. Or perhaps it is a lack of AGEs accumulation. On a side note, even if he was 53 instead of mid 60s he STILL looks better than mark sisson and other known paleo dieters face-wise. I mean most 45-50 year olds look worse than this guy! Raw food veganism works!

Edited by TheFountain, 28 January 2010 - 11:32 PM.

[wieder]

Regardless of his psychological approach he looks excellent for his age because of raw food. Yes he is in his 60s because it has been mentioned in several interviews, just watch them on youtube. Did he not state in the particular video above that he'd been doing veganism for 40 years? So what he started at 10? No! And I also hear him state clearly in another interview that he did NOT color his hair. I imagine his high degree of phytonutrient intake has aided him here somehow. Or perhaps it is a lack of AGEs accumulation. On a side note, even if he was 53 instead of mid 60s he STILL looks better than mark sisson and other known paleo dieters face-wise. I mean most 45-50 year olds look worse than this guy! Raw food veganism works!

Two of my best friends started their veganism before they had reached 10 years old. So that's not really an argument in support of his real age. Without corroboration it's a guess for us either way.

That said, none of us should take looks as the primary reason for choosing a lifestyle choice. People are different (to a point)... so we should all be focused on the *real* tangible health benefits that kill you or prevent you from living your life, and as Skotkonung said, if people at the very least make the switch to whole foods with minimal to no processing they are already making the biggest most important dietary jump they need to make. After that there are definitely better choices for different people, and we'll find out over time which is most effective for *most* people. For myself, I am utterly unconvinced that a raw vegan diet is going to be the most effective for most people compared to a more complete paleo/primal diet (physically and psychologically... both are just as important). Both at least remove the critical aspects that create the cycle of over-eating destruction.

It makes perfect sense that there are people around today who are surprisingly well adapted to a high grain diet (and thus paleo or raw vegan diets don't show the same massive improvements compared to other people)... just as there are going to be people who are well adapted to a raw vegan diet... and the laws of very large numbers means it's very likely that someone well adapted to a raw vegan diet will come along who also *finds out* that they are very well genetically setup for it, and will be the sort of person to promote it. That doesn't mean it is going to be effective for a large population... that's only going to show in the long term results.

There is a difference between saying "X works!" vs "Y works across the board" vs "Z works with most people, but everyone must still modify the specifics to suit their genes, current conditions, goals, economics, etc".

Edited by wieder, 29 January 2010 - 02:29 AM.

[wieder]

Yeah, Mark Sisson is very badly photo-aged. Can't really speculate on Scott Miller because I have never seen a large photo of him.

Something else I forgot when trying to make these "but my guy looks better than your guy" comparisons to try to add weight to someone's argument:

As Skotkonung is implying: Mark beat the heck out of his body for 40 years (most of that spent as an endurance runner which is not kind to anyone trying it). He didn't start his transition away from chronic exercise or carb consumption + excessive sun exposure until significant amounts of damage had already been done and he was already into the arthritis stage of chronic issues appearing.

That's why I feel even discussing wrinkles or skin color distracts from the information that will actually help people make a reasonable decision: What are these people's internal health markers? That's much more difficult for any of us to get our hands on, but it's not impossible to extract critical information (some, such as Mark, are more willing to openly share them). More importantly it's not difficult at all for all of us to spend a month or two trying them ourselves and testing our own markers to see what direction our body goes on them. Provided we place our diet high enough on our daily priority to make it possible to actually test them on ourselves.

[TheFountain]

Regardless of his psychological approach he looks excellent for his age because of raw food. Yes he is in his 60s because it has been mentioned in several interviews, just watch them on youtube. Did he not state in the particular video above that he'd been doing veganism for 40 years? So what he started at 10? No! And I also hear him state clearly in another interview that he did NOT color his hair. I imagine his high degree of phytonutrient intake has aided him here somehow. Or perhaps it is a lack of AGEs accumulation. On a side note, even if he was 53 instead of mid 60s he STILL looks better than mark sisson and other known paleo dieters face-wise. I mean most 45-50 year olds look worse than this guy! Raw food veganism works!

Two of my best friends started their veganism before they had reached 10 years old. So that's not really an argument in support of his real age. Without corroboration it's a guess for us either way.

That said, none of us should take looks as the primary reason for choosing a lifestyle choice. People are different (to a point)... so we should all be focused on the *real* tangible health benefits that kill you or prevent you from living your life, and as Skotkonung said, if people at the very least make the switch to whole foods with minimal to no processing they are already making the biggest most important dietary jump they need to make. After that there are definitely better choices for different people, and we'll find out over time which is most effective for *most* people. For myself, I am utterly unconvinced that a raw vegan diet is going to be the most effective for most people compared to a more complete paleo/primal diet (physically and psychologically... both are just as important). Both at least remove the critical aspects that create the cycle of over-eating destruction.

It makes perfect sense that there are people around today who are surprisingly well adapted to a high grain diet (and thus paleo or raw vegan diets don't show the same massive improvements compared to other people)... just as there are going to be people who are well adapted to a raw vegan diet... and the laws of very large numbers means it's very likely that someone well adapted to a raw vegan diet will come along who also *finds out* that they are very well genetically setup for it, and will be the sort of person to promote it. That doesn't mean it is going to be effective for a large population... that's only going to show in the long term results.

There is a difference between saying "X works!" vs "Y works across the board" vs "Z works with most people, but everyone must still modify the specifics to suit their genes, current conditions, goals, economics, etc".

So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet. That said, appearances do matter, because they are what lead people to take up lifestyle choices, for better or worse. Obviously a best case would be someone looking at a raw foodist and wanting to look 'that good' when they are 'that age'. A bad case would be someone looking at a body builder and then immediately inquiring where to find steroids. I don't see how a pro-growth diet can be good for longevity. And the Paleo diet seems hormonally imbalanced in favor of way too much testoserone. In my understanding so far pro-growth may mean pro-aging so one who seeks longevity should approach their diet with hormone balance in mind, as opposed to hormone escalation. It is no secret that the vast majority of paleo proponents are men. So I think at its core it is a psychological approach (fear of feminine traits, etc). Again, egos must be put in check for this reason.

[Luna]

Regardless of his psychological approach he looks excellent for his age because of raw food. Yes he is in his 60s because it has been mentioned in several interviews, just watch them on youtube. Did he not state in the particular video above that he'd been doing veganism for 40 years? So what he started at 10? No! And I also hear him state clearly in another interview that he did NOT color his hair. I imagine his high degree of phytonutrient intake has aided him here somehow. Or perhaps it is a lack of AGEs accumulation. On a side note, even if he was 53 instead of mid 60s he STILL looks better than mark sisson and other known paleo dieters face-wise. I mean most 45-50 year olds look worse than this guy! Raw food veganism works!

Two of my best friends started their veganism before they had reached 10 years old. So that's not really an argument in support of his real age. Without corroboration it's a guess for us either way.

That said, none of us should take looks as the primary reason for choosing a lifestyle choice. People are different (to a point)... so we should all be focused on the *real* tangible health benefits that kill you or prevent you from living your life, and as Skotkonung said, if people at the very least make the switch to whole foods with minimal to no processing they are already making the biggest most important dietary jump they need to make. After that there are definitely better choices for different people, and we'll find out over time which is most effective for *most* people. For myself, I am utterly unconvinced that a raw vegan diet is going to be the most effective for most people compared to a more complete paleo/primal diet (physically and psychologically... both are just as important). Both at least remove the critical aspects that create the cycle of over-eating destruction.

It makes perfect sense that there are people around today who are surprisingly well adapted to a high grain diet (and thus paleo or raw vegan diets don't show the same massive improvements compared to other people)... just as there are going to be people who are well adapted to a raw vegan diet... and the laws of very large numbers means it's very likely that someone well adapted to a raw vegan diet will come along who also *finds out* that they are very well genetically setup for it, and will be the sort of person to promote it. That doesn't mean it is going to be effective for a large population... that's only going to show in the long term results.

There is a difference between saying "X works!" vs "Y works across the board" vs "Z works with most people, but everyone must still modify the specifics to suit their genes, current conditions, goals, economics, etc".

So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet. That said, appearances do matter, because they are what lead people to take up lifestyle choices, for better or worse. Obviously a best case would be someone looking at a raw foodist and wanting to look 'that good' when they are 'that age'. A bad case would be someone looking at a body builder and then immediately inquiring where to find steroids. I don't see how a pro-growth diet can be good for longevity. And the Paleo diet seems hormonally imbalanced in favor of way too much testoserone. In my understanding so far pro-growth may mean pro-aging so one who seeks longevity should approach their diet with hormone balance in mind, as opposed to hormone escalation. It is no secret that the vast majority of paleo proponents are men. So I think at its core it is a psychological approach (fear of feminine traits, etc). Again, egos must be put in check for this reason.

uh huh. You can be optimized for one died but have desires for something else. Ever saw a mosquito fly into the fire? I don't think they are very optimized for surviving fire, but they are sure optimized for running into it

[wieder]

So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet.

No, and genetic variability is the *least* influential factor of the ones I listed. It doesn't mean "I'm a non-primal gene person"... it means that there is variability to how well different people will do on the outer reaches of dietary choices. There are people who will do well enough on a raw vegan diet to think it was just fine. However we have no idea whether Brian Clement's optimal body and mind expression is on his current choices, or if he would be even a step better on a primal choice. Edit: It also means there are people who do well enough on the current standard american diet while smoking every day. I don't think any of us would suggest this person is getting the most from their body (but if they don't *want* to... that's fine).

Humans are genetically adapted to survive on a wide variety of diets. That's what made it possible for us spread across the globe. This is why there are cultures that live entirely off of meat, while most others live off a more balanced. (I am not aware of any primitive or modern primitive cultures which subsist entirely on a vegan diet). That however, doesn't mean that the Inuit are getting the optimal results from their bodies on their entire meat and fat diets, just like it doesn't mean a raw vegan is getting the optimal results from their bodies.

Also, not even Duke is saying "Ever person needs to eat X grams of this exactly and Y grams of that" etc. Mark for example, calls it a blueprint on purpose. People who take it up use it as a starting point (with some areas that are out of bounds) and then adjust according to the results they are getting. Some people eat more protein, some eat less. A 4'11" woman is going to need different dietary choices from a 6'9" man. However the range of foods within that diet will simply change in amounts, not in types on a macronutrient scale.

That said, appearances do matter, because they are what lead people to take up lifestyle choices, for better or worse.

Yes, this is why people take on eating disorders. That does not make the decision a healthy one. The healthy choice must be based on the scientific results and genuine long term health of the individual... as well as monitoring the person's health indicators over time.

Obviously a best case would be someone looking at a raw foodist and wanting to look 'that good' when they are 'that age'. A bad case would be someone looking at a body builder and then immediately inquiring where to find steroids.

Neither indicate health, nor indicate results that will necessarily be indicative of themselves. So neither is a good reason to pick up any food choices. A best case would be someone who wants to look good at that age but understands that that's secondary to the underlying health and lifestyle issues.

I don't see how a pro-growth diet can be good for longevity. And the Paleo diet seems hormonally imbalanced in favor of way too much testoserone. In my understanding so far pro-growth may mean pro-aging so one who seeks longevity should approach their diet with hormone balance in mind, as opposed to hormone escalation.

"I don't see how man can arise from a microbe". "I don't see how smoking can be causing cancer".

You basically are telling us "*I* don't understand how this could work this way". And yes... I agree.. balance. I don't see how on earth including meats in a diet that includes vegetables and fruits is less balanced than a diet which does not include them. That seems like a contradiction from the start.

Wait: Do you believe that humans aren't evolutionarily designed to eat meat (I'm new here so I'm still trying to figure everyone out)?

It is no secret that the vast majority of paleo proponents are men. So I think at its core it is a psychological approach (fear of feminine traits, etc). Again, egos must be put in check for this reason.

It's a secret to me and the enormous number of women on Mark's website if that's true. I won't deny that there are probably *more* men, but to paint it as a men's club or one that doesn't appeal to women seems more like you're working from a limited sample set. It's also a secret to my girlfriend, and my step brother's wife who are also enthusiastically enjoying primal food habits. They *do* enjoy a different balance of things from me, but the general direction is still the same.

The discussion of feminine fear has never even entered into it for me and until I hit this thread I wasn't even aware it was taken seriously in terms of health and anything but muscle size. Perhaps it is for many others... I don't know. And neither do you.

Edited by wieder, 29 January 2010 - 04:38 PM.

[TheFountain]

uh huh. You can be optimized for one died but have desires for something else.

This makes no grammatical sense, please make the appropriate corrections.

[wieder]

Saying animals don't count calories is stupid, animals don't count calories, most humans don't. But they over-eat calories just like many humans and are also getting fat like human.. Where did that variable drop? convenient?

Are you talking about wild or domesticated animals? The only animals I know of where weight is an issue are ones under human control. Is there something I'm missing about an increasing rate of obesity in wild animals (that don't live off of humans)? If it's just domesticated or ones who live near us it is more of an indicator that it's *us* who are creating the problem... not them.

Edited by wieder, 29 January 2010 - 04:49 PM.

[TheFountain]

So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet.

No, and genetic variability is the *least* influential factor of the ones I listed. It doesn't mean "I'm a non-primal gene person"... it means that there is variability to how well different people will do on the outer reaches of dietary choices. There are people who will do well enough on a raw vegan diet to think it was just fine. However we have no idea whether Brian Clement's optimal body and mind expression is on his current choices, or if he would be even a step better on a primal choice.

Humans are genetically adapted to survive on a wide variety of diets. That's what made it possible for us spread across the globe. This is why there are cultures that live entirely off of meat, while most others live off a more balanced. (I am not aware of any primitive or modern primitive cultures which subsist entirely on a vegan diet). That however, doesn't mean that the Inuit are getting the optimal results from their bodies on their entire meat and fat diets, just like it doesn't mean a raw vegan is getting the optimal results from their bodies.

Also, not even Duke is saying "Ever person needs to eat X grams of this exactly and Y grams of that" etc. Mark for example, calls it a blueprint on purpose. People who take it up use it as a starting point (with some areas that are out of bounds) and then adjust according to the results they are getting. Some people eat more protein, some eat less. A 4'11" woman is going to need different dietary choices from a 6'9" man. However the range of foods within that diet will simply change in amounts, not in types on a macronutrient scale.

That said, appearances do matter, because they are what lead people to take up lifestyle choices, for better or worse.

Yes, this is why people take on eating disorders. That does not make the decision a healthy one. The healthy choice must be based on the scientific results and genuine long term health of the individual... as well as monitoring the person's health indicators over time.

Obviously a best case would be someone looking at a raw foodist and wanting to look 'that good' when they are 'that age'. A bad case would be someone looking at a body builder and then immediately inquiring where to find steroids.

Neither indicate health, nor indicate results that will necessarily be indicative of themselves. So neither is a good reason to pick up any food choices. A best case would be someone who wants to look good at that age but understands that that's secondary to the underlying health and lifestyle issues.

I don't see how a pro-growth diet can be good for longevity. And the Paleo diet seems hormonally imbalanced in favor of way too much testoserone. In my understanding so far pro-growth may mean pro-aging so one who seeks longevity should approach their diet with hormone balance in mind, as opposed to hormone escalation.

"I don't see how man can arise from a microbe". "I don't see how smoking can be causing cancer".

You basically are telling us "*I* don't understand how this could work this way". And yes... I agree.. balance. I don't see how on earth including meats in a diet that includes vegetables and fruits is less balanced than a diet which does not include them. That seems like a contradiction from the start.

Wait: Do you believe that humans aren't evolutionarily designed to eat meat (I'm new here so I'm still trying to figure everyone out)?

It is no secret that the vast majority of paleo proponents are men. So I think at its core it is a psychological approach (fear of feminine traits, etc). Again, egos must be put in check for this reason.

It's a secret to me and the enormous number of women on Mark's website if that's true. I won't deny that there are probably *more* men, but to paint it as a men's club or one that doesn't appeal to women seems more like you're working from a limited sample set. It's also a secret to my girlfriend, and my step brother's wife who are also enthusiastically enjoying primal food habits. They *do* enjoy a different balance of things from me, but the general direction is still the same.

The discussion of feminine fear has never even entered into it for me and until I hit this thread I wasn't even aware it was taken seriously in terms of health and anything but muscle size. Perhaps it is for many others... I don't know. And neither do you.

hmm first of all outward appearance IS an indication of internal health in most cases. If you have 50 year olds who are wrinkly, saggy, dried out raisins versus 50 year olds who have soft, moist, non-saggy skin you obviously are more curious what the better looking what is doing to maintain themselves than the other. In my observation most meat eaters look really crappy as they enter middle-age. I cannot imagine that a predominately testosterone precursor diet would yield anti-aging benefits merely on the basis of hormone escalation alone. Look at someone like Jared leto, who has been a vegan since he was a teenager. At almost 40 he looks younger than most 30 year old meat eaters. He also has hinted at partaking of a raw food diet as well. Show me pictures of 40 year old meat eaters who look as good/youthful as Leto. You cannot. It is because meat is pro-aging. The reason it is pro-aging is because it is pro-growth. Notice how letos body looks young as well. He doesn't have a frumpy appearance like most 40 year olds do when attempting to put on fashionable youth clothes.http://s11.bdbphotos...150bdlwfw5x.jpg

[wieder]

hmm first of all outward appearance IS an indication of internal health in most cases. If you have 50 year olds who are wrinkly, saggy, dried out raisins versus 50 year olds who have soft, moist, non-saggy skin you obviously are more curious what the better looking what is doing to maintain themselves than the other. In my observation most meat eaters look really crappy as they enter middle-age. I cannot imagine that a predominately testosterone precursor diet would yield anti-aging benefits merely on the basis of hormone escalation alone. Look at someone like Jared leto, who has been a vegan since he was a teenager. At almost 40 he looks younger than most 30 year old meat eaters. He also has hinted at partaking of a raw food diet as well. Show me pictures of 40 year old meat eaters who look as good/youthful as Leto. You cannot. It is because meat is pro-aging. The reason it is pro-aging is because it is pro-growth. Notice how letos body looks young as well. He doesn't have a frumpy appearance like most 40 year olds do when attempting to put on fashionable youth clothes.

http://s11.bdbphotos...150bdlwfw5x.jpg

Then we have reached an impasse and I wish you the best.

[James Cain]

For most people CR also results in increased hunger over time, again due to hormonal response to energy homeostasis and dietary nutrients (or lack thereof).

This statement is patently false, because it is probably based on a false notion of what exactly calorie restriction is.
To sum up calorie restriction it is firstly alot more than just denying oneself normal calories from common foods.

1) It is not false because it is not based on any "false notion." CR is CR. What you do in order to obtain that CR is independent of what I'm presenting. That brings me to...
2) I know what CR is. You are describing CRON, and I agree with everything you say. However, long-term CR will in most people result in an increase in hunger, regardless of macro- or micro-nutrient composition. As the body loses body mass and body fat, and based on various energy stores within the body (muscle mass, liver glycogen, total peripheral or central fat stores) the body will most definitely signal the body to be less active and to increase food intake, or more simply to be hungry. To say that you can restrict calories long-term while getting adequate/optimum nutrition (whatever that means depending on who you ask) that you will magically be less hungry and more energetic is indeed patently false. I'm talking basic endocrinological response to diet, with all psychological or social variables removed.

[James Cain]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit. My hypothesis is that the former group takes in less overall calories and less "crap" food

This argument is inconclusive and based on ones own opinion and personality bias. I hear this perspective all the time 'calorie restriction works because of other life-style variables' ad nauseum! It is the most condescending argument put forth by 1-men and 2-muscle men and 3-men who have a romantic connection with the paleo diet!

You don't know what category I fall in, so please don't make assumptions. I never said that CR works because of other life-style variable. In fact I disagree with this. I made the lifestyle variable argument with regards to Paleo vs. vegan vs. whatever.

Especially when studies show more benefits for longevity on CR than the diet you so arrogantly espouse!

I'm not talking CR, I'm talking food choices. You can do CR with Paleo, vegan, or any diet.

Besides your diet is pro-growth and there are several indications abroad that pro-growth=pro-aging (such as IGF-1 levels being higher in those who consume meat and dairy). So stop deconstructing the studies that show CR works and start deconstructing your own subconscious reasoning for doing so.

Oh, but we already know why you guys do it. CR and vegetarianism are feminine, they lead to feminine appearance, etc etc etc This is the real reasoning behind most of your positions. Get your egos in check!

I don't eat Paleo. I'm simply saying that doing CR on Paleo vs. vegan vs. whatever probably won't offer much difference. While food choices are important for health, the main outcomes of CR are most likely based on the calorie intake per se. However, eating a vegan diet for those with "normal" or excessive calorie intake is probably healthier compared to most people's interpretation of the Paleo diet.

We really don't disagree on anything that I've said, so if you're looking for drama then look elsewhere.

[James Cain]

I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit.

The plant-food-only tent is collapsing:

Why the shift away from veganism in the raw world?

My quote was taken out of context.

"I'll also add that the raw/vegan/whatever vs. "paleo" being better is probably complete shit. My hypothesis is that the former group takes in less overall calories and less "crap" food, but if you compare people in either group with similar low body weights then that person from either group will look just as good.

A whole-food paleo diet can be (and usually is) healthier than a vegan/vegetarian diet. It's the "usually" that I'm getting at. Most people who are vegan tend to avoid industrialized foods and thus avoid a lot of "bad" things, at least to a much greater extent than many other diets. Most vegans make their dietary decisions based on deeply ingrained spiritual or health reasons and are thus less likely to "cheat" on their diets compared to those following Paleo or whatever other diet, further limiting their intake of processed, "bad" foods.

I'd say that the majority of the health benefits from these comparisons are due to the removal of "bad" things instead of adding in "good" things.

[TheFountain]

For most people CR also results in increased hunger over time, again due to hormonal response to energy homeostasis and dietary nutrients (or lack thereof).

This statement is patently false, because it is probably based on a false notion of what exactly calorie restriction is.
To sum up calorie restriction it is firstly alot more than just denying oneself normal calories from common foods.

1) It is not false because it is not based on any "false notion." CR is CR. What you do in order to obtain that CR is independent of what I'm presenting. That brings me to...
2) I know what CR is. You are describing CRON, and I agree with everything you say. However, long-term CR will in most people result in an increase in hunger, regardless of macro- or micro-nutrient composition. As the body loses body mass and body fat, and based on various energy stores within the body (muscle mass, liver glycogen, total peripheral or central fat stores) the body will most definitely signal the body to be less active and to increase food intake, or more simply to be hungry. To say that you can restrict calories long-term while getting adequate/optimum nutrition (whatever that means depending on who you ask) that you will magically be less hungry and more energetic is indeed patently false. I'm talking basic endocrinological response to diet, with all psychological or social variables removed.

um the endocrinology of diets depend partly on phytonutrient density. It is not all macronutrients. In my view macronutrients are mainly transporters of phytonutrients. If you consume healthy ratios of both (which varies apparently) you will be fine. There are days wherein I consume no more than about 1700 calories and yet I have more energy than days wherein I consume 2700 calories. You're telling me my experience is false? Bullshit! I don't care if your malformed understanding of this leads you to x=y conclusion it is simply not an all encompassing model that can be applied to human populations at large. But let me get to the specifics. On the days I eat around 1700 calories, if I consumed most of those calories in the form of empty husk foods, then yes I would have no energy. But since most of those calories are macronutrient transporters (coconut milk, olive oil, nuts, seeds) and vital phytonutrient (green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, some fruits, berries, organic vegetable juice) I have an ENERGY SURPLUS! Well what do ya know, 2+2=5! haha! Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and raw veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you. And stop ignoring the link between aging and pro-growth, testosterone precursor foods. As more visual evidence of this correlation just look at sylvester stallone when he was taking large amounts of HGH! He had more wrinkles, puffiness, redness and poor complexion on his skin than he did when he was not using it!

Edited by TheFountain, 29 January 2010 - 07:46 PM.

[Luna]

uh huh. You can be optimized for one died but have desires for something else.

This makes no grammatical sense, please make the appropriate corrections.

As usual you are just avoiding.

Your metabolism can be optimized for a specific diet but at the same time your desires can be stronger for another.

[wieder]

Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and whole food veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you.

I honestly can't tell whether you're intentionally being ironic or not.

I also find your dependence on how celebrities look (who's lives depend on image) to back up your arguments to be unsettling.

Edited by wieder, 29 January 2010 - 07:48 PM.

[TheFountain]

uh huh. You can be optimized for one died but have desires for something else.

This makes no grammatical sense, please make the appropriate corrections.

As usual you are just avoiding.

Your metabolism can be optimized for a specific diet but at the same time your desires can be stronger for another.

Oh you're talking about psychological versus biological necessity. Well it's no different than materialism. Is it necessary/natural? Or is it an outgrowth of our conditioned psychological expectations when, once removed, no longer effect our daily lives? Sugar is a perfect example of this. Not necessary yet so many are addicted to it.

[TheFountain]

Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and whole food veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you.

I honestly can't tell whether you're intentionally being ironic or not.

I also find your dependence on how celebrities look (who's lives depend on image) to back up your arguments to be unsettling.

I actually find most celebrities to be average looking people with above average expectations attached to them. But there are several other 40 year old male celebrities who do not look as young and healthy as jared leto, and a few who do. Typically the ones who do are also vegetarians. The common denominator seems to be that meat is pro-aging. Could it be that meat was an evolutionary cul de sac? Sort of necessary for a little while but not needed any longer? I think so.

[wieder]

You really aren't intentionally being ironic. I shall move along then. Thanks for your time.

Edited by wieder, 29 January 2010 - 07:56 PM.

[Luna]

Your metabolism can be optimized for a specific diet but at the same time your desires can be stronger for another.

Oh you're talking about psychological versus biological necessity. Well it's no different than materialism. Is it necessary/natural? Or is it an outgrowth of our conditioned psychological expectations when, once removed, no longer effect our daily lives? Sugar is a perfect example of this. Not necessary yet so many are addicted to it.

You have the memory of what presumed to be the memory of a goldfish.

Let me remind you: You were saying "So you are claiming that genetics cause us to choose one diet over the other? that means that Duke's argument that we are adapted for a specific diet is false". So I told you that beings can very well tend to choose things which are damaging them over the things which are good for them.

Allow me to add a quote of part of your post.:

"So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet. "

What my answers means is that we can be adapted to one diet but desire a different one.

You are welcome.

P.S. You asked about genetics, I answered you about genetics, if you wish to blame "psychological conditioning" now, go ahead, have fun but realize it will be running away from your previous post saying "OH OK SO IT CAN HAPPEN! WELL I NEED TO BLAME SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE MY CONCEPT IS FAILING AGAIN". When the data doesn't fit the picture, people usually try to find a fault in the data.

I am not saying duke is right and I don't know if people are addicted to sugar due to genetics or psychology - I am saying that you need to realize how you are arguing in a completely wrong and biased fashion,

Oh, and researches did SHOW that there is some chemical feedback that causes people to eat more sugar, so it is not all mental.

Edited by Michael, 23 February 2010 - 05:43 PM.
Trim quotes

[James Cain]

You really aren't intentionally being ironic. I shall move along then. Thanks for your time.

Yeah, my conclusion as well.

[TheFountain]

Oh you're talking about psychological versus biological necessity. Well it's no different than materialism. Is it necessary/natural? Or is it an outgrowth of our conditioned psychological expectations when, once removed, no longer effect our daily lives? Sugar is a perfect example of this. Not necessary yet so many are addicted to it.

[...] Allow me to add a quote of part of your post.:

"So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet. "

What my answers means is that we can be adapted to one diet but desire a different one. [...]

P.S. You asked about genetics, I answered you about genetics, if you wish to blame "psychological conditioning" now, go ahead [...]

Oh, and researches did SHOW that there is some chemical feedback that causes people to eat more sugar, so it is not all mental.

Do you have some Vendetta against me from when I politely asked you not to speak to me on msn any longer? Your passive aggressiveness toward me seems indicative of some slight bitterness.

But to address your notions. You made a typo in your previous response to me which made your comment difficult to decipher. When you corrected it I presumed you may have been referring to psychological conditioning as opposed to biological necessity. Because what is eating a diet composed of pure garbage other than a form of psychological conditioning? Despite your proclamation that chemical imbalances can cause exacerbate such conditioning, it is still psychological in the outset.

Typically cause and effect goes something like this. A psychological decision is made and then acted upon which leads to a change of lifestyle, diet being the most obvious change taking place. Once this change is made, following the 'change in attitude' as many self help gurus put it, biological, and thus chemical changes take place. I do comprehend that in rare cases certain individuals require 'chemical assistance' (that is, psycho-active pharmacuticals) to survive mentally. But in most case I believe a change in perspective and diet cures a great percentage of such ailments. If only more people would try it.

Edited by Michael, 23 February 2010 - 05:48 PM.
Trim quotes!

[niner]

Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and raw veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you.

TheFountain, your gender dysphoria is showing. Again. (Not to mention here and here.)