What are you doing at this very moment?

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Saya

This is why the paleo diet makes me sad, as a former anthropology major. We have no fucking clue what our ancestors relied on, and different groups around the world had different diets. We don't have much info to go on, but someone did find pre-agriculture evidence that our ancestors were making breads out of grains.

Plus, we did evolve. People evolved to tolerate lactose as we started consuming dairy, and most people around the world are gluten tolerant.

If we were going to have our "original" primate diet, we'd be exclusively frugivores and take a chance with carrion now and then. Or eat brains to get DHA since fishing is relatively pretty new.

Not quite. We can tell what humans ate by studying their remains. It's fairly easy, and it's been replicated in more recent history as hunter/gatherer tribes begin incorporating grains into their diet. They get shorter. They get sicker. Their bone density decreases, as does their muscle mass. We have found evidence of grains being milled prior to the dawn of agriculture, but that a) doesn't automatically mean they were eaten and b) doesn't change the fact that they're a survival food. You can live on grains. You can't thrive on grains. Use your own bloodwork, if you'd like to test it. Cutting out grains and sugar will lower your cholesterol, triglycerides, and your fasting blood sugar. It reverses most autoimmune disorders (not sure where the "most" estimate comes from re: gluten tolerance, but many experts now estimate as many as 1 in 3 humans are gluten intolerant to some extent - most autoimmune disorders are tied to the effects of gluten and similar indigestible proteins found in grains).


To simplify, two questions:

If your body was meant to use carbohydrates as the primary source of fuel, why does it store fat so easily? Your body keeps enough glycogen in your muscles to get you through about 20-40 minutes of intense, all-out exercise. You store enough fat to survive for years. Why would we store secondary fuel first? From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't make sense.

If grains and legumes are more healthy, why are we getting progressively sicker as our consumption increases? We consume more wheat and corn than any society in history. We're not just getting fat, we're getting cancer, diabetes, dementia, and a host of other illnesses previously completely unheard of.

I don't think everyone has to eat the way I do...but you can't argue from a health standpoint.

[Kasdeja]

Waking up and contemplating making coffee.

[Spadille]

...listening to the Dresden dolls (sheep song) and signing up for the literary gothic community place thing...

[Grausamkeit]

Moonie, I think you need to take an A&P course. It should answer those questions for you. It does make sense to store a secondary fuel source for the times we don't have the carbs easily accessible to turn into glucose which is what the body runs on.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Moonie, I think you need to take an A&P course. It should answer those questions for you. It does make sense to store a secondary fuel source for the times we don't have the carbs easily accessible to turn into glucose which is what the body runs on.

Your body can convert fat into glucose. Without all the nasty hormonal side effects that come along with eating sugar, like increasing your insulin levels so much that you wind up hungry again after a few hours. That ability is why you store fat as fuel. Just because most of us do use carbohydrates as a primary source of fuel doesn't mean we're actually meant to. If we were, we'd be a hell of a lot healthier. There are essential amino acids (proteins), vitamins and minerals. There's no such thing as an essential grain, legume, or sugar. Your body doesn't need them.

[Grausamkeit]

If our body wasn't meant to process them, then it wouldn't. It's pretty simple. I'd like to see some actual scientific research on the 'nasty hormonal side effects' that prove ingesting carbs is totally wrong for us.

As long as people moderate themselves then there shouldn't be any problems.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by wolf moon

Not quite. We can tell what humans ate by studying their remains. It's fairly easy, and it's been replicated in more recent history as hunter/gatherer tribes begin incorporating grains into their diet. They get shorter. They get sicker. Their bone density decreases, as does their muscle mass. We have found evidence of grains being milled prior to the dawn of agriculture, but that a) doesn't automatically mean they were eaten and b) doesn't change the fact that they're a survival food. You can live on grains. You can't thrive on grains. Use your own bloodwork, if you'd like to test it. Cutting out grains and sugar will lower your cholesterol, triglycerides, and your fasting blood sugar. It reverses most autoimmune disorders (not sure where the "most" estimate comes from re: gluten tolerance, but many experts now estimate as many as 1 in 3 humans are gluten intolerant to some extent - most autoimmune disorders are tied to the effects of gluten and similar indigestible proteins found in grains).

We know they were more than milled, they were made into bread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/19bread.html

As for cholesterol, I don't think you can lower that eating raw dairy (which is really dangerous and illegal to sell for a reason) wrapped in bacon either. Far more people are lactose intolerant than they are gluten intolerant, i.e. anyone not of European or Indian descent. The health benefits from the paleo diet are often because they're supposed to avoid fatty meats, so you don't seem to be doing it right.

Many people thrive on grains. Most of the world depends on them for their primary source of energy, and have for thousands of years. Its cheap, fast energy that your body doesn't have to strain to digest and procure calories from like it does from protein. We were able to start civilization and our health improved, I don't yearn for the days where we were cave men and we only lived to thirty or forty. Where I live, very little grows so traditionally, more babies here were born with way more spina bifida than anywhere else in Canada, our diet just didn't have enough folic acid, and too much meat and fish. Our saving was actually vitamin enriched flour.

Besides, refined white flour is very different from whole grain rice, quinoa, and legumes are very healthy. I'm not going to get a heart attack eating hummus.

To simplify, two questions:

If your body was meant to use carbohydrates as the primary source of fuel, why does it store fat so easily? Your body keeps enough glycogen in your muscles to get you through about 20-40 minutes of intense, all-out exercise. You store enough fat to survive for years. Why would we store secondary fuel first? From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't make sense.

Wut? Again, carbs are cheap fast energy, pretty handy if you're a nomadic tribe. Fat needs to be stored for later, if you're not sure where your next meal is coming from like hunters and gatherers had little control over. You need something to keep you warm and to keep you alive in the winter.

You don't store enough fat to live for years. You could starve to death pretty quickly.

If grains and legumes are more healthy, why are we getting progressively sicker as our consumption increases? We consume more wheat and corn than any society in history. We're not just getting fat, we're getting cancer, diabetes, dementia, and a host of other illnesses previously completely unheard of.

When most of your population dies in infancy, its hard to expect dementia in a population where your life expectancy is 35 years for a woman. Cancer wasn't unknown, cancer is found in a lot of animals and plants, but it was a long time before we could figure out what it was and its hard to tell from a few bones whether a cave man died of cancer.

Sedentary has a lot to do with it. I don't hunt or forage in the forests, I get up, go to the fridge, pop something in the microwave, and expend little calories doing so. The SAD is pretty bad but the emphasis on meat and white bread and potatoes doesn't mean rice and chickpeas are going to give you diabetes.

I don't think everyone has to eat the way I do...but you can't argue from a health standpoint.

I easily can. Studies on it are often flawed and short term, and even then there's often a problem with people giving up on it mid study. Also from an environmental standpoint, since its insanely unsustainable, very bourgeois, most of the world could never afford it, and its a colonialist view on history and pre-history. We look to cave men to provide the next fad diet when they had very varied diets that varied in health benefits.

Anthropologists don't have a ton of evidence to show what everyone was eating exactly 20,000 years ago, and the info changes all the time. When I was in anthro five years ago, we learned Neanderthals ate almost all meat diets. I got corrected a little while ago, new evidence shows their diet had far more plant variety than previously thought. Anthropologists also make their guesswork by looking at hunter gather tribes today, which has a ton of problems that anthropologists admit, such as assuming these groups never changed since ancient times, when we often know they have (i.e. the Inuit haven't lived in polar regions very long and depend exclusively on blubber because of the environment, not health).

[Saya]

Originally Posted by wolf moon

Your body can convert fat into glucose. Without all the nasty hormonal side effects that come along with eating sugar, like increasing your insulin levels so much that you wind up hungry again after a few hours. That ability is why you store fat as fuel. Just because most of us do use carbohydrates as a primary source of fuel doesn't mean we're actually meant to. If we were, we'd be a hell of a lot healthier. There are essential amino acids (proteins), vitamins and minerals. There's no such thing as an essential grain, legume, or sugar. Your body doesn't need them.

These things have protein (gluten is almost pure protein), vitamins and minerals. Again, Newfie babies were often born with faulty spinal cords and mentally retarded because we didn't eat enough folic acid. Beans and rice give you all the amino acids you need, quinoa also has all of them.

We also really need the fiber to poop. We can't digest fiber or get much from it, but man, we need to poop, which is why diets high in meat and low in fiber often lead to colon problems, including colon cancer.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Saya

As for cholesterol, I don't think you can lower that eating raw dairy (which is really dangerous and illegal to sell for a reason) wrapped in bacon either...The health benefits from the paleo diet are often because they're supposed to avoid fatty meats, so you don't seem to be doing it right.

Actually, yes, you can. You can also check out Kendrick's MONICA study for an interesting perspective on why the French, Swiss, Russian, Scandinavian "Paradox" isn't paradoxical at all... the lipid hypothesis is just wrong. I'm assuming "avoid fatty meats" is a reference to Cordain's paleo diet for endurance athletes. Which means you possibly haven't researched it as well as you think you have. Try reading Sisson or Wolf instead - they're writing for "real" people. Not that endurance athletes aren't people too, but their dietary requirements are a little different.

Originally Posted by Saya

Besides, refined white flour is very different from whole grain rice, quinoa, and legumes are very healthy. I'm not going to get a heart attack eating hummus.

They aren't, and you might. Legumes and grains are high in lectins, which is why the chickpeas that turn into your hummus, if bought fresh, would have a giant "CAUTION: DO NOT EAT RAW" warning on them. Cooking, soaking, and canning significantly reduce the lectin content of most grains and legumes, but don't completely eliminate them. Meaning they're still mildly toxic to the lining of your intestines, and will still reduce your leptin sensitivity - making it more difficult for your body to recognize you're fed and should stop eating. Leptin insensitivity has a great deal with why so many overeat.

Originally Posted by Saya

Again, carbs are cheap fast energy, pretty handy if you're a nomadic tribe.

Again, not really. This doesn't make sense. If you're a nomadic tribe, with no idea when your next meal is going to happen, the last thing you want is the increased hunger levels brought on by blood sugar fluctuations. When you eat any sugar (and yes, even whole grain bread is sugar), your blood glucose levels go up, causing your body to release insulin, causing your blood glucose levels to fall again. Which makes you hungry (sugar crash, I'm sure you've had some). I can easily skip meals (even an entire day of eating) without getting hungry. My body doesn't run on sugar, it runs on fat; this means if I'm not eating it, I just burn what I have stored. This would be an advantage to a nomadic tribe... feeling hungry a couple hours after your morning bagel? Probably kind of detrimental, I'd think.

Originally Posted by Saya

When most of your population dies in infancy, its hard to expect dementia in a population where your life expectancy is 35 years for a woman.

You're referencing the wrong era here. Paleolithic humans had a life expectancy of 35, but this due primarily to the significantly higher likelihood they'd get eaten by a giant cat (or otherwise die violently. but cats are funnier). High infant mortality rates are actually associated with an increase in grain consumption. The paleolithic humans that didn't die in an accident/animal attack/whatever generally lived well into old age, and left dense skeletons, indicating they didn't suffer the rapid decline in health we now associate with aging.

Originally Posted by Saya

Also from an environmental standpoint, since its insanely unsustainable, very bourgeois, most of the world could never afford it

Um... I'm guessing you didn't really read my description of how I eat. For comparison: the average American goes to the grocery store, buys highly processed foods imported from all over on gas-powered vehicles. They eat the corn and soy directly responsible for the invention of CAFO breeding and various other atrocities, sometimes while convincing themselves that they're doing less harm if they don't buy the meat, ignoring the fact that they're still supporting the industrial food system when they buy soy milk. I: go to the farmer's market. I buy organic vegetables, grassfed beef, pastured pork and eggs directly from the small-scale farmers who raised them in a method sometimes jokingly referred to as "grass-farming" (read up on Joel Salatin and PolyFace for the most famous example of this. I'm assuming you haven't already), which actually improves the land it's on. (Corn and soy deplete it.) My husband and I spend about $40 a week on our food. All of it, since we don't go out, snack, drink coffee, etc. Additionally, since we don't get sick (No, really. No colds, flus, strep, or allergies. Ever.) we don't have to pay doctor's bills. Or buy vitamins. So which is more sustainable again?

Originally Posted by Saya

I got corrected a little while ago, new evidence shows their diet had far more plant variety than previously thought.

This isn't terribly new information. Ancestral health experts have known this for a while. The average paleo eater consumes significantly more vegetables than the average vegetarian.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Saya

We also really need the fiber to poop. We can't digest fiber or get much from it, but man, we need to poop, which is why diets high in meat and low in fiber often lead to colon problems, including colon cancer.

Ahem. Go to fitday.com (or nutritional-info site of choice). Look up some vegetables. Look up some fruits. Look up some grains. Calorie for calorie, fruits and vegetables have significantly more fiber (and vitamins. and minerals) than grains.

[Kasdeja]

Eating a peanut butter and honey sandwich.

[Saya]

For real, raw milk is very dangerous.

If you think eating bacon is going to lower your cholesterol...do you understand what saturated fat is? You know the fat that goes solid in the pan after you fry it? You do realize that's what it does in your veins?

A widespread misconception has been developing among the Canadian public and among physicians. It is increasingly believed that consumption of dietary cholesterol and egg yolks is harmless. There are good reasons for long- standing recommendations that dietary cholesterol should be limited to less than 200 mg/day; a single large egg yolk contains approximately 275 mg of cholesterol (more than a day's worth of cholesterol). Although some studies showed no harm from consumption of eggs in healthy people, this outcome may have been due to lack of power to detect clinically relevant increases in a low-risk population. Moreover, the same studies showed that among participants who became diabetic during observation, consumption of one egg a day doubled their risk compared with less than one egg a week. Diet is not just about fasting cholesterol; it is mainly about the postprandial effects of cholesterol, saturated fats, oxidative stress and inflammation. A misplaced focus on fasting lipids obscures three key issues. Dietary cholesterol increases the susceptibility of low-density lipoprotein to oxidation, increases postprandial lipemia and potentiates the adverse effects of dietary saturated fat. Dietary cholesterol, including egg yolks, is harmful to the arteries. Patients at risk of cardiovascular disease should limit their intake of cholesterol. Stopping the consumption of egg yolks after a stroke or myocardial infarction would be like quitting smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer: a necessary action, but late. The evidence presented in the current review suggests that the widespread perception among the public and health care professionals that dietary cholesterol is benign is misplaced, and that improved education is needed to correct this misconception.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21076725

Again, not really. This doesn't make sense. If you're a nomadic tribe, with no idea when your next meal is going to happen, the last thing you want is the increased hunger levels brought on by blood sugar fluctuations. When you eat any sugar (and yes, even whole grain bread is sugar), your blood glucose levels go up, causing your body to release insulin, causing your blood glucose levels to fall again. Which makes you hungry (sugar crash, I'm sure you've had some). I can easily skip meals (even an entire day of eating) without getting hungry. My body doesn't run on sugar, it runs on fat; this means if I'm not eating it, I just burn what I have stored. This would be an advantage to a nomadic tribe... feeling hungry a couple hours after your morning bagel? Probably kind of detrimental, I'd think.

Uh, I get pretty full on what I eat. And its not healthy to go days without eating, honestly that's kind of a disordered eating habit.

You're referencing the wrong era here. Paleolithic humans had a life expectancy of 35, but this due primarily to the significantly higher likelihood they'd get eaten by a giant cat (or otherwise die violently. but cats are funnier). High infant mortality rates are actually associated with an increase in grain consumption. The paleolithic humans that didn't die in an accident/animal attack/whatever generally lived well into old age, and left dense skeletons, indicating they didn't suffer the rapid decline in health we now associate with aging.

No, infant mortality was a pretty big deal at the time. Don't forget that infanticide was a form of birth control for a long time as well. And bad bone density is often associated with diets high in protein. Protein leeches calcium from the bones, too much protein in the diet often causes kidney stones and is one of the reasons osteoporosis is more prevalent in developed nations.

I: go to the farmer's market. I buy organic vegetables, grassfed beef, pastured pork and eggs directly from the small-scale farmers who raised them in a method sometimes jokingly referred to as "grass-farming" (read up on Joel Salatin and PolyFace for the most famous example of this. I'm assuming you haven't already), which actually improves the land it's on. (Corn and soy deplete it.) My husband and I spend about $40 a week on our food. All of it, since we don't go out, snack, drink coffee, etc. Additionally, since we don't get sick (No, really. No colds, flus, strep, or allergies. Ever.) we don't have to pay doctor's bills. Or buy vitamins. So which is more sustainable again?

I spend a hundred dollars a month on groceries, sometimes less. Meat is very taxing, unless grass fed beef is all you eat, pigs are omnivorous and need a lot of food, hay has to be grown for the cows to eat in the winter when there is no grass, chickens also cannot live off of grass. Cows need to be kept pregnant to give milk, and they are not beef cattle, when they are spent they become low grade hamburger meat. Half of the US's corn goes to feeding livestock, and 90% of the world's soy. By refraining from eating meat, you contribute also the the decrease of demand for corn and soy. Meat is also subsidized and a luxury in countries where the price of meat is reflected of the input. Factory farming exists because of our booming population and our habit of focusing so much of our diet on meat, if everything went small scale, only the very rich could afford to eat it every day, meat was often rationed in war time and the promise of meat at least once a day was a means to recruit soldiers up until we could promise them free tuition.

This is actually why fish isn't considered a meat to the Catholic church; meat was a luxury and as such giving it up in holy days was a sacrifice, but fish was readily available to anyone and it was unfair to rob the poor of an essentially free food. But now most of our fish are poisoned and populations is down. Shit's fucked, yo. And meat is responsible for much of our greenhouse gases and desertification.

And all Canadians need to take vitamins. We don't get enough sun.

I also dont' get why grains are the devil but dairy, which was introduced ten thousand years later, is fine. Especially when its swimming in bacteria.

They aren't, and you might. Legumes and grains are high in lectins, which is why the chickpeas that turn into your hummus, if bought fresh, would have a giant "CAUTION: DO NOT EAT RAW" warning on them. Cooking, soaking, and canning significantly reduce the lectin content of most grains and legumes, but don't completely eliminate them. Meaning they're still mildly toxic to the lining of your intestines, and will still reduce your leptin sensitivity - making it more difficult for your body to recognize you're fed and should stop eating. Leptin insensitivity has a great deal with why so many overeat.

You're also not supposed to eat milk, eggs or meat raw. Or you can, you know, die.

Anyway, cannot find a serious source that says leptins in cooked beans are harmful. All I can find is quack sources saying its going to kill you and make your son gay. When I look for "are beans healthy"? I just find peer reviewed papers saying diets that focus on grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are healthy, good for you and particularly good if you want to avoid cancer.

[Solumina]

Wow I really feel like a tight ass for my food budget, I only spend about $100 a month on food for me and Jake (although it tends to be more in the form of about $150 to stock up for about two months on shelf stable and/or easily frozen items and then I just get perishables as they will be used), I mean I knew I was good at stretching my budget but I don't get a lot of perspective on it.

[Saya]

I used to be the queen of frugal, but now I'm just too busy, and when I'm not I'm too tired to cook from scratch. And my sister makes the mistake of lending me her debit card, giving me a grocery list and telling me to get whatever I want while I'm there XD

I never go near her budget limit, but I might take the opportunity to buy shit I don't really need. And produce is getting more expensive Its already more expensive here because of all the shipping, but dayum.

And I went to a farmer's market, ITS MORE EXPENSIVE THERE WHAT THE SHIT.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Wow I really feel like a tight ass for my food budget, I only spend about $100 a month on food for me and Jake (although it tends to be more in the form of about $150 to stock up for about two months on shelf stable and/or easily frozen items and then I just get perishables as they will be used), I mean I knew I was good at stretching my budget but I don't get a lot of perspective on it.

I don't mind spending money on food... it's the thing that keeps me alive and healthy. If given the choice between two organic, local pears, I'll choose the less expensive one, but I won't buy non-organic or imported to save money. I consider it a trade off - I'm putting money into my food now rather than medical bills later, and supporting my local community at the same time. It's just a matter of different priorities.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Saya

If you think eating bacon is going to lower your cholesterol...do you understand what saturated fat is?

I understand what saturated fat is, but I don't think you do. I'm guessing you didn't actually look into any of those articles about the false science behind the lipid hypothesis. New links anyway: Saturated fat is completely unrelated to heart disease, oxidized polyunsaturated fatty acids are not. Polyunsaturated fatty acids are found in canola, peanut, soy, safflower, corn, and other cheap industrial oils. They are HIGHLY sensitive to heat, and oxidize almost immediately when exposed to it. This forms tight, dense LDL molecules that are sorta sticky. They get lodged in the epithelial lining of your arteries, causing immune response and inflammation, causing even more tiny LDL molecules to get stuck. That is how your arteries get clogged, my dear. Saturated fats don't oxidize when heated (because they are saturated!), resulting in big, "puffy" LDL molecules. Which are used to transport fat and vitamins around your body. Little tiny LDL = heart disease. Big, puffy LDL = decreased body fat, happy heart. Your doctor can test to see which is more present in your bloodstream. If you eat a lot of vegetable oils in processed foods, it's probably the little ones. You can read Know Your Fats by Dr Mary Enig if you want the long version of that. Or Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (you read books about things before forming opinions, right?)

Originally Posted by Saya

Uh, I get pretty full on what I eat. And its not healthy to go days without eating, honestly that's kind of a disordered eating habit.

Skipping a day of eating is actually quite healthy. "intermittent fasting reduces oxidative stress, makes the animals more resistant to acute stress in general, reduces blood pressure, reduces blood sugar, improves insulin sensitivity, reduces the incidence of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and improves cognitive ability". It also decreases cancer risk, and slows aging. It's just really, really hard to do if your insulin and blood sugar levels aren't kept at a steady low - you'll get hungry, dizzy, and nauseated if you try intermittent fasting on a sugar-heavy diet. Also, eating enough protein and fat for breakfast that I don't have to spend my precious lunch break at work sitting around eating, and can instead read or play outside? It's awesome.

Originally Posted by Saya

Meat is very taxing, unless grass fed beef is all you eat, pigs are omnivorous and need a lot of food, hay has to be grown for the cows to eat in the winter when there is no grass, chickens also cannot live off of grass. Cows need to be kept pregnant to give milk, and they are not beef cattle, when they are spent they become low grade hamburger meat. Half of the US's corn goes to feeding livestock, and 90% of the world's soy. By refraining from eating meat, you contribute also the the decrease of demand for corn and soy. Meat is also subsidized and a luxury in countries where the price of meat is reflected of the input. Factory farming exists because of our booming population and our habit of focusing so much of our diet on meat...And meat is responsible for much of our greenhouse gases and desertification.

I still don't think you're reading carefully. Grassfed and pastured meats, along with organic vegetables and fruits are all I eat. I do not go to the grocery store. I do not participate in the industrial food chain or CAFO industry. At all. Ever. The things you're arguing about are the result of grain-fed CAFO animals. They're completely unrelated to what I'm talking about. Again, research Joel Salatin and PolyFace if you want to have an idea of what you're talking about. CAFOs exist because of corn and soy production, not the other way around. We started overproducing corn and soy in the 40's, when government subsidies really kicked in, and the incentive to grow diverse crops all but disappeared. CAFOs got their start in the 50's and took off in the 70s as a solution to the overproduction problem. It was impossible to raise animals on a large scale when they needed healthy, green grass to survive. The excess corn and soy made it possible to cram them into tiny spaces and feed them inside. The corn and soy industry is what created CAFOs, not the other way around. The soy in your "milk" and the soy being force-fed to the baby cows and pigs comes from the same farm.

Originally Posted by Saya

I also dont' get why grains are the devil but dairy, which was introduced ten thousand years later, is fine. Especially when its swimming in bacteria. You're also not supposed to eat milk, eggs or meat raw. Or you can, you know, die.

Most (rough estimate based on my experience) paleo eaters don't consume milk. Those who identify as primal rather than paleo are more likely to consume full-fat, raw dairy. I drink it occasionally (also, you don't seem to already know this: grassfed raw milk is a seasonal food, usually produced May-September). Interestingly, I am actually one of those "lactose-intolerant" people you keep referencing. Meaning I can't break down lactose because my body doesn't produce lactase. Funny thing? Neither can cows. No seriously... cows, by our definition, are lactose intolerant. Which is why milk naturally contains lactase - it digests itself. Of course, lactase is killed in the pasteurization process, so unless you produce your own you can't drink pasteurized milk. Most people (including me) who become ill when consuming pasteurized dairy do just fine when it's raw. Most bacteria is very good for you - raw milk dramatically improves guy health (healthy bacteria colonies in your intestines keep away all sorts of illness; particularly mental illnesses... research GAPS for more information). Also, I've always assumed this was common sense, but maybe it isn't... pathogens (disease-causing bacteria) only come from unhealthy animals. Like, you cannot possibly catch salmonella or listeria from the eggs, meat, or milk of a healthy animal. Pasteurization exists because commercial dairy is produced on such a large scale, in such an unhealthy environment, that it's not possible for them to make sure the animals are clean and healthy. So they just heat up the milk enough to kill the pathogens before serving it. Raw animal products from healthy animals are perfectly fine (Pasturization has been the standard for about a 100 years... you think just everybody died back then?). We wouldn't have survived as a species if we needed our food pasteurized and irradiated before we could eat it. Those methods are a response to industrial agriculture, which I don't participate in. I eat raw eggs all the time. Of course, I can choose my own eggs while chickens (they do eat grass, by the way - they're omnivorous. though they prefer little fly larvae. and sweet clover) stomp around happily in the field behind me.

Originally Posted by Saya

Anyway, cannot find a serious source that says leptins in cooked beans are harmful. All I can find is quack sources saying its going to kill you and make your son gay. When I look for "are beans healthy"? I just find peer reviewed papers saying diets that focus on grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are healthy, good for you and particularly good if you want to avoid cancer.

Lectins are harmful toxins. Leptin is a hormone in your body that signals you to stop eating when you're full. Lectins decrease sensitivity to leptin, but they're drastically different things. Lectins in cooked and soaked legumes are exactly the same as lectins in raw legumes, they're just present in much smaller amounts. So, you know, you only get a little cell death in your intestinal lining and only some proteins get into your blood to cause immune response.

You can eat whatever you like - have a big dollop of hummus and soybean oil on whole wheat pita bread every day if it makes you happy. I never said anybody had to eat the way that I do. I answered some questions that were asked of me. You got upset, and I responded with my reasons for my lifestyle choices. If you don't want to give up processed foods, by all means, have at them. But you're never going to convince an extremely healthy person that they are not, in fact, extremely healthy. Particularly since I spent over a decade eating the way you advocate and researching it thoroughly (and was terribly sick pretty much the entire time). You don't seem to have attempted or researched the way that I live at all. So I'm not sure why you seem to take it so personally.

[Spadille]

eating tambrin sour

[Saya]

Listen, you want to listen to crackpot conspiracy theory quacks, and link to their websites (got any peer reviewed studies?) that's fine, but actual science has shown that saturated fats are awful for you, raw milk is dangerous and beans are perfectly healthy.

I didn't get upset, paleo diets make me roll my eyes because it has nothing to do with what people may have eaten. Even the fact that hey, they actually did eat bread! Just gets mulled over because someone who wrote a book said there's a conspiracy to kill us all by making us afraid of cholesterol.

When I see bad information, I correct it. I'll have to refer you to the PSA if you take it personally.

[Grausamkeit]

Someone needs a Butthurt Form?

Listening to some Lenny Kravitz(sexy mofo!) and trolling the religious troll.

[Saya]

You know, I think Lenny Kravitz might have been the first dude I ever had a crush on. Thought he was gorgeous when I was a kid (is he still?)

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by Saya

You know, I think Lenny Kravitz might have been the first dude I ever had a crush on. Thought he was gorgeous when I was a kid (is he still?)

Two words:

NIPPLE RINGS!



Also...he's always had that fuckin' body.... *droolz*

[Spadille]

nahhh... i never liked Mr. Kravitz myself.... not sure... he looks the same...

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Saya

...because it has nothing to do with what people may have eaten. Even the fact that hey, they actually did eat bread!

When I see bad information, I correct it. I'll have to refer you to the PSA if you take it personally.

Wait... we don't know what they ate but they definitely ate bread? Huh. Science.

It's not really your place to try to correct people about things you aren't necessarily educated or informed about. I know you believe yourself to be well educated on the topic, but I'm going to guess your actual books read and hours logged on research regarding ancestral health are pretty minimal. And I can't link you to peer-reviewed studies unless we both have access to the same academic journal databases... however, everything I linked for you was thoroughly documented, so all you have to do is scroll down to sources lists and search. But I got the impression you didn't want to read. So that's okay.

I've never been terribly interested in debating my lifestyle. It only happens when someone sitting near me (or reading...I guess? I've never had anyone get internet-mad about it before) while someone else is asking me questions and winds up getting defensive, even though I never respond to questions with "You should be like me!". It happened when I was vegan. It happens now. Seriously, you probably don't want to be that person. That person sorta sucks.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Two words:

NIPPLE RINGS!



Also...he's always had that fuckin' body.... *droolz*

OMG, do you remember that music video in which you could kinda see his butt? I don't remember the song, but that butt... it lives on.

[Grausamkeit]

Which one?