OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 05:07:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nutrition and Diet  (Read 60287 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #630 on: May 27, 2012, 06:04:22 PM »

Marc please take your problems to this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44950.0.html

I'm sure our resident experts can help assist. In short I agree with you.

Or not. It's fun to see a ridiculous thread devolve even more.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #631 on: May 27, 2012, 06:06:25 PM »

Marc please take your problems to this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44950.0.html

I'm sure our resident experts can help assist. In short I agree with you.

Or not. It's fun to see a ridiculous thread devolve even more.


Not for the moderators, who have to work doubly hard to keep threads on topic.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #632 on: May 27, 2012, 06:10:27 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2012, 06:14:08 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #633 on: May 27, 2012, 06:32:16 PM »

Marc1152,

Just wondering what rules do you follow for capitalization of the first letter of a word or the entire word and for bolding for emphasis multiple paragraphs?

Is typesetting paleo?

I've seen posts by you so poorly written that they are totally unintelligible. So see to your own faults before taking pot shots at me.

Please  remove my name from your tag line. Thank you.  

I've read a substantial number of orthonorm's posts, and have yet to find any unintelligible; there is a difference between difficult to comprehend and incomprehensible.

He posted this just yesterday:

"And yet Zizek, to whom he posted a link, does absolutely not this. He is a thoroughly critical voice of communism, while being a communist."


 I wouldn't have ever mentioned it if he had not taken a pot shot at me.. This sentence is a bit garbled wouldn't you say?

This is a silly conversation. I suggest we all drop it and move on




Actually it makes perfect sense; I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding it.  What is "silly" is your assertion that his posts are ever incomprehensible merely because you are incapable of comprehending them.

Well of course. Clearly the problem is my lack of IQ. The grammar is perfect and the sentence reads like prose. Thank you for helping me to see that.


God bless you and all the good work you have been doing here.

"And yet Zizek, to whom he posted a link, does absolutely not this. He is a thoroughly critical voice of communism, while being a communist."


I didn't say it was perfectly clear, I said it makes perfect sense; I didn't say you were stupid, I said you are incapable of comprehending it.  If someone uses a word you don't understand, does it mean either the word is made up or that you are stupid for not understanding it?  Or is it possible that you simply hadn't heard the word before?  Likewise, the fact that you have difficulty understanding Orthonorm does not mean you are stupid.

I see now, thank you. You are very wise. Thanks again for your continuing constructive contributions.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #634 on: May 27, 2012, 06:35:53 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #635 on: May 27, 2012, 08:25:35 PM »

Does this mean I can eat as much sausage as I want? (In a non-homo kind of way.)
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #636 on: May 27, 2012, 11:24:46 PM »

Does this mean I can eat as much sausage as I want? (In a non-homo kind of way.)

YES..... Dream come true huh?

 Skip the hot dog rolls but eat all the sausages you can get your hands on.

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #637 on: May 27, 2012, 11:36:25 PM »

Does this mean I can eat as much sausage as I want? (In a non-homo kind of way.)

YES..... Dream come true huh?

 Skip the hot dog rolls but eat all the sausages you can get your hands on.

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g


According to this video, you can eat as much spam as you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

(Sorry, Marc, but you just opened yourself to this one. laugh)
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #638 on: May 28, 2012, 12:03:58 AM »

Does this mean I can eat as much sausage as I want? (In a non-homo kind of way.)

YES..... Dream come true huh?

 Skip the hot dog rolls but eat all the sausages you can get your hands on.

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g


According to this video, you can eat as much spam as you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

(Sorry, Marc, but you just opened yourself to this one. laugh)

I fart in your general direction !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #639 on: May 28, 2012, 01:28:31 AM »

Does this mean I can eat as much sausage as I want? (In a non-homo kind of way.)

YES..... Dream come true huh?

 Skip the hot dog rolls but eat all the sausages you can get your hands on.

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g


According to this video, you can eat as much spam as you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

(Sorry, Marc, but you just opened yourself to this one. laugh)

I fart in your general direction !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY


Well played, good sir! laugh laugh laugh
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #640 on: May 28, 2012, 03:35:55 AM »

Just one more thought about Weston Price vs. Paleo Diets.

In my personal opinion if your had a household where one person was eating by the principles of the Weston Price and the other by the principles found in the Paleo Diet ( a mixed marriage Smiley you would notice very little difference between what is on each person's plate from meal to meal. A few things here and there may be different but they could shop for food at the same places and share almost everything . The same if they were on the Atkins Diet. Looking at each plate day to day, meal to meal there would not be much difference between what you would see them eating for all practical purposes.

The difference is that the paleo-diet excludes perfectly healthy foods for no reason other than some mythology about the caveman diet while being content to eat foods that there is no way paleolithic people ate.  Fruit is a good example.  If you have ever tried to pick wild fruit, you'd know what I mean.  I spent nearly a year living near the home of the wild apple - the vast majority of wild apples range from disgusting to outright inedible.  It is neolithic agriculture that makes it possible to consume fruit on any sort of regular basis, and even this is only seasonal.  There is alcohol.  If you've ever played around with producing your own wine and beer, just something accidently fermenting is not going to be terribly tasty and going to yield very low alcohol.  The production of anything even resembling modern wine is only 8,000 years old.  Odd how you don't see many paleo-bloggers advocating people go teetotal.  As far as I can see paleo dieting is just picking and choosing and playing loose with science.  The only reason it looks so good is that relative to what many people eat these days it isn't terrible.  I've actually spent significant amounts of time living with what could be termed pre-modern groups.  Lots of dairy and grains.  If you want to just call the paleo-diet a fad diet to drop weight fine, but to claim it is a healthy lifestyle or somehow scientific that is a stretch. 

BTW, you overate your steak.  I thought the point of eating that much fat was to create a sense of satiety so that you wouldn't overeat?           
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #641 on: May 28, 2012, 04:02:38 AM »

Marc1152,

Just wondering what rules do you follow for capitalization of the first letter of a word or the entire word and for bolding for emphasis multiple paragraphs?

Is typesetting paleo?

I've seen posts by you so poorly written that they are totally unintelligible. So see to your own faults before taking pot shots at me.

Please  remove my name from your tag line. Thank you.  

I've read a substantial number of orthonorm's posts, and have yet to find any unintelligible; there is a difference between difficult to comprehend and incomprehensible.

He posted this just yesterday:

"And yet Zizek, to whom he posted a link, does absolutely not this. He is a thoroughly critical voice of communism, while being a communist."


 I wouldn't have ever mentioned it if he had not taken a pot shot at me.. This sentence is a bit garbled wouldn't you say?

This is a silly conversation. I suggest we all drop it and move on




Actually it makes perfect sense; I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding it.  What is "silly" is your assertion that his posts are ever incomprehensible merely because you are incapable of comprehending them.

Well of course. Clearly the problem is my lack of IQ. The grammar is perfect and the sentence reads like prose. Thank you for helping me to see that.


God bless you and all the good work you have been doing here.

"And yet Zizek, to whom he posted a link, does absolutely not this. He is a thoroughly critical voice of communism, while being a communist."


I didn't say it was perfectly clear, I said it makes perfect sense; I didn't say you were stupid, I said you are incapable of comprehending it.  If someone uses a word you don't understand, does it mean either the word is made up or that you are stupid for not understanding it?  Or is it possible that you simply hadn't heard the word before?  Likewise, the fact that you have difficulty understanding Orthonorm does not mean you are stupid.

I see now, thank you. You are very wise. Thanks again for your continuing constructive contributions.

I'm always glad to be of service.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #642 on: May 28, 2012, 04:03:33 AM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.

So if I eat six pounds of beef a day, I'll never gain any weight?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #643 on: May 28, 2012, 04:18:30 AM »

An interest article about paleofantasies.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #644 on: May 28, 2012, 04:38:58 AM »


Quite the enjoyable read.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #645 on: May 28, 2012, 09:46:19 AM »

Some good info with some crap. Must've been from the NYT...
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #646 on: May 28, 2012, 06:28:41 PM »

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

I was requested to supply a "Neglish" translation for this sentence. I do not know where people speak Neglish, but in English, it says, "There is no God but Atkins and Taubes is his prophet". So, good job, Neglish speakers.

Here is a website that some may find useful:

http://goo.gl/pcPaH
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #647 on: May 28, 2012, 07:04:05 PM »

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

I was requested to supply a "Neglish" translation for this sentence. I do not know where people speak Neglish, but in English, it says, "There is no God but Atkins and Taubes is his prophet". So, good job, Neglish speakers.

Here is a website that some may find useful:

http://goo.gl/pcPaH
I do not know for certain if your intent is to taunt the moderators for doing their job, but if this is your intent, be advised that such public shows of contempt for the moderators are not tolerated here.

For the record, this is an English-only forum. We do have a number of Foreign Language boards here where you can post in non-English languages as much as you want, but if you are going to post something in a language other than English outside of the Foreign Language boards, you are required to also post an English translation. It is your responsibility to post the translation, not ours to run your words through Google Translate.

If you wish to argue with this moderatorial statement, please take it up with me only via private message. Public discussion of this directive will not be permitted.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 09:08:25 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #648 on: May 28, 2012, 09:19:00 PM »

Just one more thought about Weston Price vs. Paleo Diets.

In my personal opinion if your had a household where one person was eating by the principles of the Weston Price and the other by the principles found in the Paleo Diet ( a mixed marriage Smiley you would notice very little difference between what is on each person's plate from meal to meal. A few things here and there may be different but they could shop for food at the same places and share almost everything . The same if they were on the Atkins Diet. Looking at each plate day to day, meal to meal there would not be much difference between what you would see them eating for all practical purposes.

The difference is that the paleo-diet excludes perfectly healthy foods for no reason other than some mythology about the caveman diet while being content to eat foods that there is no way paleolithic people ate.  Fruit is a good example.  If you have ever tried to pick wild fruit, you'd know what I mean.  I spent nearly a year living near the home of the wild apple - the vast majority of wild apples range from disgusting to outright inedible.  It is neolithic agriculture that makes it possible to consume fruit on any sort of regular basis, and even this is only seasonal.  There is alcohol.  If you've ever played around with producing your own wine and beer, just something accidently fermenting is not going to be terribly tasty and going to yield very low alcohol.  The production of anything even resembling modern wine is only 8,000 years old.  Odd how you don't see many paleo-bloggers advocating people go teetotal.  As far as I can see paleo dieting is just picking and choosing and playing loose with science.  The only reason it looks so good is that relative to what many people eat these days it isn't terrible.  I've actually spent significant amounts of time living with what could be termed pre-modern groups.  Lots of dairy and grains.  If you want to just call the paleo-diet a fad diet to drop weight fine, but to claim it is a healthy lifestyle or somehow scientific that is a stretch.  

BTW, you overate your steak.  I thought the point of eating that much fat was to create a sense of satiety so that you wouldn't overeat?            

It's obvious that you have not read any of the Paleo Diet books. You don't seem to know anything at all about what they advocate or why.

The best book about the Paleo Diet IMHO, is the recently published "The Paleo Answer" by Lorin Cordain. He also wrote the original "The Paleo Diet"
Robb Wolfe is also a good Paleo author, "The Paleo Solution"

I would suggest that you read something like Cordain's books first and then after that, make comments.

 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 09:29:54 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #649 on: May 28, 2012, 09:28:55 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.

So if I eat six pounds of beef a day, I'll never gain any weight?

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #650 on: May 28, 2012, 10:24:29 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.

So if I eat six pounds of beef a day, I'll never gain any weight?

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.

Six pounds of beef is going to be 4,500 calories, assuming broiled 95% lean ground beef. Most beef is going to be fattier than that. Do you really wish to say that a person can eat 4,500 per day and not gain weight? (this is assuming a normal person and not a Michael Phelps-type who is training all day long)

Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #651 on: May 28, 2012, 10:59:02 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.

So if I eat six pounds of beef a day, I'll never gain any weight?

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.

Six pounds of beef is going to be 4,500 calories, assuming broiled 95% lean ground beef. Most beef is going to be fattier than that. Do you really wish to say that a person can eat 4,500 per day and not gain weight? (this is assuming a normal person and not a Michael Phelps-type who is training all day long)



If nothing else is eaten but meat there will be little to no insulin pumped out. Insulin is what holds fat in your cells. You will not get fat if you eat large quantities of meat each day....Like I told you, it's been done.

Obesity is not a problem of how much you eat but rather what you eat. Obesity is not an imbalance of calories but rather an hormonal imbalance, too much insulin.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish

Vilhjalmur Stefansson (Icelandic: Vilhjálmur Stefánsson) (November 3, 1879 – August 26, 1962) was a Canadian Arctic explorer and ethnologist.

Stefansson is also a figure of considerable interest in dietary circles, especially those with an interest in very low-carbohydrate diets. Stefansson documented the fact that the Inuit diet consisted of about 90% meat and fish; Inuit would often go 6 to 9 months a year eating nothing but meat and fish—essentially, a no-carbohydrate diet. He found that he and his fellow European-descent explorers were also perfectly healthy on such a diet. When medical authorities questioned him on this, he and a fellow explorer agreed to undertake a study under the auspices of the Journal of the American Medical Association to demonstrate that they could eat a 100% meat diet in a closely observed laboratory setting for the first several weeks, with paid observers for the rest of an entire year. The results were published in the Journal, and both men were perfectly healthy on such a diet, without vitamin supplementation or anything else in their diet except meat and entrails.[12]
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 10:59:42 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #652 on: May 28, 2012, 11:02:25 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.

So if I eat six pounds of beef a day, I'll never gain any weight?

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.

Six pounds of beef is going to be 4,500 calories, assuming broiled 95% lean ground beef. Most beef is going to be fattier than that. Do you really wish to say that a person can eat 4,500 per day and not gain weight? (this is assuming a normal person and not a Michael Phelps-type who is training all day long)



If nothing else is eaten but meat there will be little to no insulin pumped out. Insulin is what holds fat in your cells. You will not get fat if you eat large quantities of meat each day....Like I told you, it's been done.

Obesity is not a problem of how much you eat but rather what you eat. Obesity is not an imbalance of calories but rather an hormonal imbalance, too much insulin.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish

Vilhjalmur Stefansson (Icelandic: Vilhjálmur Stefánsson) (November 3, 1879 – August 26, 1962) was a Canadian Arctic explorer and ethnologist.

Stefansson is also a figure of considerable interest in dietary circles, especially those with an interest in very low-carbohydrate diets. Stefansson documented the fact that the Inuit diet consisted of about 90% meat and fish; Inuit would often go 6 to 9 months a year eating nothing but meat and fish—essentially, a no-carbohydrate diet. He found that he and his fellow European-descent explorers were also perfectly healthy on such a diet. When medical authorities questioned him on this, he and a fellow explorer agreed to undertake a study under the auspices of the Journal of the American Medical Association to demonstrate that they could eat a 100% meat diet in a closely observed laboratory setting for the first several weeks, with paid observers for the rest of an entire year. The results were published in the Journal, and both men were perfectly healthy on such a diet, without vitamin supplementation or anything else in their diet except meat and entrails.[12]

How many calories per day did the two men (WHOPPING POPULATION SIZE) eat during the study?

Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #653 on: May 28, 2012, 11:22:35 PM »

I cooked some steaks on the grill for lunch, I overate. Back to my standard diet tomorrow.

 I ate steak Saturday. I really exceeded anything close to a normal portion. But I didnt have any carbs with the meal, except for some berry's and heavy cream ( an Atkins favorite low carb desert). I was down another pound this morning.

Meat and fat don't make you fat. Eat up, enjoy yourself.

So if I eat six pounds of beef a day, I'll never gain any weight?

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.

Six pounds of beef is going to be 4,500 calories, assuming broiled 95% lean ground beef. Most beef is going to be fattier than that. Do you really wish to say that a person can eat 4,500 per day and not gain weight? (this is assuming a normal person and not a Michael Phelps-type who is training all day long)



If nothing else is eaten but meat there will be little to no insulin pumped out. Insulin is what holds fat in your cells. You will not get fat if you eat large quantities of meat each day....Like I told you, it's been done.

Obesity is not a problem of how much you eat but rather what you eat. Obesity is not an imbalance of calories but rather an hormonal imbalance, too much insulin.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish

Vilhjalmur Stefansson (Icelandic: Vilhjálmur Stefánsson) (November 3, 1879 – August 26, 1962) was a Canadian Arctic explorer and ethnologist.

Stefansson is also a figure of considerable interest in dietary circles, especially those with an interest in very low-carbohydrate diets. Stefansson documented the fact that the Inuit diet consisted of about 90% meat and fish; Inuit would often go 6 to 9 months a year eating nothing but meat and fish—essentially, a no-carbohydrate diet. He found that he and his fellow European-descent explorers were also perfectly healthy on such a diet. When medical authorities questioned him on this, he and a fellow explorer agreed to undertake a study under the auspices of the Journal of the American Medical Association to demonstrate that they could eat a 100% meat diet in a closely observed laboratory setting for the first several weeks, with paid observers for the rest of an entire year. The results were published in the Journal, and both men were perfectly healthy on such a diet, without vitamin supplementation or anything else in their diet except meat and entrails.[12]

How many calories per day did the two men (WHOPPING POPULATION SIZE) eat during the study?



 It's irrelevant.

Inuits are a large population. Their Traditional dietary habits have been described as "Gorging" on meat and fat. It's called "the Eskimo Paradox"

Google around, you will find more about it I am sure 

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #654 on: May 28, 2012, 11:36:28 PM »

It's irrelevant.

Inuits are a large population. Their Traditional dietary habits have been described as "Gorging" on meat and fat. It's called "the Eskimo Paradox"

Google around, you will find more about it I am sure 

Actually, it is pretty relevant. There is no need to "Google around" because unlike you, I have actually read the study that you cite.

The study was a study of two men, not Inuits as a whole. The two men in this study ate an average of 1 lb 12 ounces of food per day with calorie intake ranging from 2000-3100 calories per day. The average meal was about 1/2 lb of meat. I do not know how you get from that diet to saying that four times that content will result in no weight gain. How do you reach that conclusion?

Here are some key sentences of the study you cite yet have never read:
"K. A. lost 2.4 kilos during the 3 weeks following the meat diet as the diets high in fat caused a loss of appetite resulting in diminished intake."
"The other losses of weight were definitely associated with diminished food intake."

Note that the study attributes the modest weight loss to diminished intake. I am sure you have a response involving magic, so let's hear what you've got from Hogwort's.

Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #655 on: May 29, 2012, 10:33:32 AM »

It's irrelevant.

Inuits are a large population. Their Traditional dietary habits have been described as "Gorging" on meat and fat. It's called "the Eskimo Paradox"

Google around, you will find more about it I am sure  

Actually, it is pretty relevant. There is no need to "Google around" because unlike you, I have actually read the study that you cite.

The study was a study of two men, not Inuits as a whole. The two men in this study ate an average of 1 lb 12 ounces of food per day with calorie intake ranging from 2000-3100 calories per day. The average meal was about 1/2 lb of meat. I do not know how you get from that diet to saying that four times that content will result in no weight gain. How do you reach that conclusion?

Here are some key sentences of the study you cite yet have never read:
"K. A. lost 2.4 kilos during the 3 weeks following the meat diet as the diets high in fat caused a loss of appetite resulting in diminished intake."
"The other losses of weight were definitely associated with diminished food intake."

Note that the study attributes the modest weight loss to diminished intake. I am sure you have a response involving magic, so let's hear what you've got from Hogwort's.



Let's just remind people of your qualifications. You are the only one here that seems to hold himself out as have expert status. You hold yourself out as if you are a Scientist. You have no such training, you are not a professional Scientist and when questioned specifically in the past about your claims to superior knowledge it turned out that you were relying on courses you took in High School.

I make no such claims.  When I refer in this thread to something I have read  all I am saying is that the arguments are logical and the evidence is compelling. I am doing no independent research. I have no laboratory. I am not dishonestly implying that I  have credentials I dont have. You however often imply that you have special knowledge and expert status.

Now, back to the subject. The principle that applies in my view is what you eat not how much. It is the action of insulin that causes your body to store fat. Not all calories are the same. Large amounts of calories from meat and fat do not have the same effect as consuming large amount of carbohydrates. (See Gary Taubes articles)

I can think of three scenarios to place your hypothetical meat gorging.

1. The meat is eaten along with Carbs. Lots of meat and lots of carbs concurrently. Then there would be insulin in high amounts around that could store the calories that have been eaten. = Not good.

2. If you have a steady high carbohydrate diet  you would have what Atkins and others call a "Sugar burning Metabolism". Once again, there would be high amounts of insulin available to store fat on the day you decided to gorge on meat. = Not good, don't do it    

3. If you have been strictly avoiding Carbohydrates in your diet and have converted your metabolism to what Atkins calls "Fat burning" in other words if your system displays Ketosis, you can sit down and gorge yourself on lots and lots of meat without harm to yourself. = No harm, no foul.

This is exactly how Eskimo's have been observed to eat. Long periods of  no carbs at all in their diet ( zero) along with occasional gorging.  

That is my best answer. I am not a Scientist but then again I am not pretending to be one.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 10:36:01 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #656 on: May 29, 2012, 05:09:48 PM »

It's irrelevant.

Inuits are a large population. Their Traditional dietary habits have been described as "Gorging" on meat and fat. It's called "the Eskimo Paradox"

Google around, you will find more about it I am sure  

Actually, it is pretty relevant. There is no need to "Google around" because unlike you, I have actually read the study that you cite.

The study was a study of two men, not Inuits as a whole. The two men in this study ate an average of 1 lb 12 ounces of food per day with calorie intake ranging from 2000-3100 calories per day. The average meal was about 1/2 lb of meat. I do not know how you get from that diet to saying that four times that content will result in no weight gain. How do you reach that conclusion?

Here are some key sentences of the study you cite yet have never read:
"K. A. lost 2.4 kilos during the 3 weeks following the meat diet as the diets high in fat caused a loss of appetite resulting in diminished intake."
"The other losses of weight were definitely associated with diminished food intake."

Note that the study attributes the modest weight loss to diminished intake. I am sure you have a response involving magic, so let's hear what you've got from Hogwort's.



Let's just remind people of your qualifications. You are the only one here that seems to hold himself out as have expert status. You hold yourself out as if you are a Scientist. You have no such training, you are not a professional Scientist and when questioned specifically in the past about your claims to superior knowledge it turned out that you were relying on courses you took in High School.

I make no such claims.  When I refer in this thread to something I have read  all I am saying is that the arguments are logical and the evidence is compelling. I am doing no independent research. I have no laboratory. I am not dishonestly implying that I  have credentials I dont have. You however often imply that you have special knowledge and expert status.

Now, back to the subject. The principle that applies in my view is what you eat not how much. It is the action of insulin that causes your body to store fat. Not all calories are the same. Large amounts of calories from meat and fat do not have the same effect as consuming large amount of carbohydrates. (See Gary Taubes articles)

I can think of three scenarios to place your hypothetical meat gorging.

1. The meat is eaten along with Carbs. Lots of meat and lots of carbs concurrently. Then there would be insulin in high amounts around that could store the calories that have been eaten. = Not good.

2. If you have a steady high carbohydrate diet  you would have what Atkins and others call a "Sugar burning Metabolism". Once again, there would be high amounts of insulin available to store fat on the day you decided to gorge on meat. = Not good, don't do it    

3. If you have been strictly avoiding Carbohydrates in your diet and have converted your metabolism to what Atkins calls "Fat burning" in other words if your system displays Ketosis, you can sit down and gorge yourself on lots and lots of meat without harm to yourself. = No harm, no foul.

This is exactly how Eskimo's have been observed to eat. Long periods of  no carbs at all in their diet ( zero) along with occasional gorging.  

That is my best answer. I am not a Scientist but then again I am not pretending to be one.

This still doesn't answer many important issues.  Is weight loss the only or even primary goal?  I'm a healthy weight and I eat a normal, moderate amount of carbs.  I really don't understand the obsession with weight loss.

Even if it is theoretically possible to eat a diet that mostly fat, is it desirable?  I probably eat more pure fat than many here (come holiday time salo is always on the table).  It's OK but it's not my favorite thing in the world.  I have trouble believing that nutritionally such a diet would work out long-term for most people.  Then there is the issue of cost and sustainability.  Can you feed 7 billion people on such a diet or is it another 1% fad diet like the paleo-diet? 
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #657 on: May 29, 2012, 06:27:04 PM »

It's irrelevant.

Inuits are a large population. Their Traditional dietary habits have been described as "Gorging" on meat and fat. It's called "the Eskimo Paradox"

Google around, you will find more about it I am sure  

Actually, it is pretty relevant. There is no need to "Google around" because unlike you, I have actually read the study that you cite.

The study was a study of two men, not Inuits as a whole. The two men in this study ate an average of 1 lb 12 ounces of food per day with calorie intake ranging from 2000-3100 calories per day. The average meal was about 1/2 lb of meat. I do not know how you get from that diet to saying that four times that content will result in no weight gain. How do you reach that conclusion?

Here are some key sentences of the study you cite yet have never read:
"K. A. lost 2.4 kilos during the 3 weeks following the meat diet as the diets high in fat caused a loss of appetite resulting in diminished intake."
"The other losses of weight were definitely associated with diminished food intake."

Note that the study attributes the modest weight loss to diminished intake. I am sure you have a response involving magic, so let's hear what you've got from Hogwort's.



Let's just remind people of your qualifications. You are the only one here that seems to hold himself out as have expert status. You hold yourself out as if you are a Scientist. You have no such training, you are not a professional Scientist and when questioned specifically in the past about your claims to superior knowledge it turned out that you were relying on courses you took in High School.

I make no such claims.  When I refer in this thread to something I have read  all I am saying is that the arguments are logical and the evidence is compelling. I am doing no independent research. I have no laboratory. I am not dishonestly implying that I  have credentials I dont have. You however often imply that you have special knowledge and expert status.

Now, back to the subject. The principle that applies in my view is what you eat not how much. It is the action of insulin that causes your body to store fat. Not all calories are the same. Large amounts of calories from meat and fat do not have the same effect as consuming large amount of carbohydrates. (See Gary Taubes articles)

I can think of three scenarios to place your hypothetical meat gorging.

1. The meat is eaten along with Carbs. Lots of meat and lots of carbs concurrently. Then there would be insulin in high amounts around that could store the calories that have been eaten. = Not good.

2. If you have a steady high carbohydrate diet  you would have what Atkins and others call a "Sugar burning Metabolism". Once again, there would be high amounts of insulin available to store fat on the day you decided to gorge on meat. = Not good, don't do it    

3. If you have been strictly avoiding Carbohydrates in your diet and have converted your metabolism to what Atkins calls "Fat burning" in other words if your system displays Ketosis, you can sit down and gorge yourself on lots and lots of meat without harm to yourself. = No harm, no foul.

This is exactly how Eskimo's have been observed to eat. Long periods of  no carbs at all in their diet ( zero) along with occasional gorging.  

That is my best answer. I am not a Scientist but then again I am not pretending to be one.

This still doesn't answer many important issues.  Is weight loss the only or even primary goal?  I'm a healthy weight and I eat a normal, moderate amount of carbs.  I really don't understand the obsession with weight loss.

Even if it is theoretically possible to eat a diet that mostly fat, is it desirable?  I probably eat more pure fat than many here (come holiday time salo is always on the table).  It's OK but it's not my favorite thing in the world.  I have trouble believing that nutritionally such a diet would work out long-term for most people.  Then there is the issue of cost and sustainability.  Can you feed 7 billion people on such a diet or is it another 1% fad diet like the paleo-diet? 

I think you are correct about weight loss. You may be an ideal weight. Some of this depends on your age. If you are young and eat a high carb diet you increase your risk for being overweight and having medical problems later in life. Some of this takes awhile to catch up to you. Your insulin receptors ware down over time with enough abuse. So do dopamine receptors that cause you to want sugar so badly. Over time, you will need a bigger and bigger hit in order to get pleasure from sugary foods.

I think the push to rediscover the most natural human diet is just the opposite of a fad. The idea is to find out what sustained human populations and kept them free of obesity, cancer and heart disease for hundreds of thousands of years and thereby help to figure out what has gone wrong recently.

Something like 60% of the adult population in the USA and also Brittan are either overweight or morbidly obese. Diabetes, heart disease and cancer follow obesity. There are tremendous costs involved that actually threaten the solvency of the nation. For example, we will never get a good handle on health care costs without ending the obesity epidemic.

So this is about much more that trying to stay slim just to look good. We are in the middle ( pardon the pun) of a modern epidemic that is a very serious matter.

Here is part four again of a talk Joe Salitan's  gave as he led a tour of his farm. He talks about sustainability via grass fed meat. I should give you hope that it can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFRlloCGA
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #658 on: May 29, 2012, 10:14:48 PM »

Let's just remind people of your qualifications. You are the only one here that seems to hold himself out as have expert status. You hold yourself out as if you are a Scientist. You have no such training, you are not a professional Scientist and when questioned specifically in the past about your claims to superior knowledge it turned out that you were relying on courses you took in High School.

I haven't held myself as any sort of expert. That is why I do not take on the experts. In other words, I do not challenge the scientific consensus because I do not know enough to do otherwise. It would be very arrogant to say that the experts are wrong when I have no expertise of my own.

Quote
I make no such claims.  When I refer in this thread to something I have read  all I am saying is that the arguments are logical and the evidence is compelling. I am doing no independent research. I have no laboratory. I am not dishonestly implying that I  have credentials I dont have. You however often imply that you have special knowledge and expert status.

I imply nothing of the sort. However, you cannot evaluate if the evidence is compelling because you lack a sufficient science background. I have no idea how you hand-wave away the fact that the evidence you find compelling does not lead the scientists in the field to the same conclusion. Amazingly, you determine that the problem is with them, not you.

Quote
Now, back to the subject. The principle that applies in my view is what you eat not how much. It is the action of insulin that causes your body to store fat. Not all calories are the same. Large amounts of calories from meat and fat do not have the same effect as consuming large amount of carbohydrates. (See Gary Taubes articles)

I can think of three scenarios to place your hypothetical meat gorging.

1. The meat is eaten along with Carbs. Lots of meat and lots of carbs concurrently. Then there would be insulin in high amounts around that could store the calories that have been eaten. = Not good.

2. If you have a steady high carbohydrate diet  you would have what Atkins and others call a "Sugar burning Metabolism". Once again, there would be high amounts of insulin available to store fat on the day you decided to gorge on meat. = Not good, don't do it    

3. If you have been strictly avoiding Carbohydrates in your diet and have converted your metabolism to what Atkins calls "Fat burning" in other words if your system displays Ketosis, you can sit down and gorge yourself on lots and lots of meat without harm to yourself. = No harm, no foul.

This is exactly how Eskimo's have been observed to eat. Long periods of  no carbs at all in their diet ( zero) along with occasional gorging.  

That is my best answer. I am not a Scientist but then again I am not pretending to be one.

Look, I read and am quoting from the meat-only study from the 1930s that you said was so awesome. So, all of your points about carbohydrates do not apply.

My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion.

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #659 on: May 30, 2012, 01:46:55 AM »

I think you are correct about weight loss. You may be an ideal weight. Some of this depends on your age. If you are young and eat a high carb diet you increase your risk for being overweight and having medical problems later in life. Some of this takes awhile to catch up to you. Your insulin receptors ware down over time with enough abuse. So do dopamine receptors that cause you to want sugar so badly. Over time, you will need a bigger and bigger hit in order to get pleasure from sugary foods.

You are still missing a huge point.  There is a difference between a potato and a twinkie.  Eating a diet with a healthy level of carbs is hardly the same as eating a diet full of sugar, processed sugar, etc.   

I think the push to rediscover the most natural human diet is just the opposite of a fad. The idea is to find out what sustained human populations and kept them free of obesity, cancer and heart disease for hundreds of thousands of years and thereby help to figure out what has gone wrong recently.

As has been noted before, the paleo-diet is just recycled atkins.  It bears little resemblance to what cavemen actually ate.  Then there are other factors including lifestyle, urbanization etc.  And you can read the article I linked from an actual evolutionary biologist on the topic.  Even 5,000 years is plenty of time to adapt to changes like dairy consumption.  Alcohol consumption is another example.  Walk around Ulaanbaatar in the evening and try to tell me there aren't differences between European and Mongolian alcohol consumption (the Mongolians didn't really have drinks stronger than kumiss until the Holy Russians brought them vodka).  And of course there is not one caveman diet, it varied incredibly from region to region.  Even if you spend some time with premodern groups now you'll see many different options and notice that they consume many foods that don't meet the paleo-diet.     

Something like 60% of the adult population in the USA and also Brittan are either overweight or morbidly obese. Diabetes, heart disease and cancer follow obesity. There are tremendous costs involved that actually threaten the solvency of the nation. For example, we will never get a good handle on health care costs without ending the obesity epidemic.

Again you are trying to say that because the atkins diet / paleo diet produces weight loss it is better than the diet of the average American and his twinkies and junk food, therefore your paleo diet is better than my diet which is a balanced and healthful diet.  That makes no logical sense.   

Here is part four again of a talk Joe Salitan's  gave as he led a tour of his farm. He talks about sustainability via grass fed meat. I should give you hope that it can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFRlloCGA

I've already responded to this clip.  He is talking about increasing the productivity of similar farms.  Industrial Feedlots exist because they are the cheapest way to produce a ton of beef.  I've yet to see a scientific study on the feasibility of increased meat consumption from sustainable farms.  A scientific study is not the owner of a farm promoting his own products on youtube.  Reducing consumption is a huge part of the solution.  Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

I'd also like a response to Sauron's question.  How do you figure that eating six pounds of meat a day will result in weight loss?   
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #660 on: May 30, 2012, 10:40:13 PM »

Let's just remind people of your qualifications. You are the only one here that seems to hold himself out as have expert status. You hold yourself out as if you are a Scientist. You have no such training, you are not a professional Scientist and when questioned specifically in the past about your claims to superior knowledge it turned out that you were relying on courses you took in High School.

I haven't held myself as any sort of expert. That is why I do not take on the experts. In other words, I do not challenge the scientific consensus because I do not know enough to do otherwise. It would be very arrogant to say that the experts are wrong when I have no expertise of my own.

Quote
I make no such claims.  When I refer in this thread to something I have read  all I am saying is that the arguments are logical and the evidence is compelling. I am doing no independent research. I have no laboratory. I am not dishonestly implying that I  have credentials I dont have. You however often imply that you have special knowledge and expert status.

I imply nothing of the sort. However, you cannot evaluate if the evidence is compelling because you lack a sufficient science background. I have no idea how you hand-wave away the fact that the evidence you find compelling does not lead the scientists in the field to the same conclusion. Amazingly, you determine that the problem is with them, not you.

Quote
Now, back to the subject. The principle that applies in my view is what you eat not how much. It is the action of insulin that causes your body to store fat. Not all calories are the same. Large amounts of calories from meat and fat do not have the same effect as consuming large amount of carbohydrates. (See Gary Taubes articles)

I can think of three scenarios to place your hypothetical meat gorging.

1. The meat is eaten along with Carbs. Lots of meat and lots of carbs concurrently. Then there would be insulin in high amounts around that could store the calories that have been eaten. = Not good.

2. If you have a steady high carbohydrate diet  you would have what Atkins and others call a "Sugar burning Metabolism". Once again, there would be high amounts of insulin available to store fat on the day you decided to gorge on meat. = Not good, don't do it    

3. If you have been strictly avoiding Carbohydrates in your diet and have converted your metabolism to what Atkins calls "Fat burning" in other words if your system displays Ketosis, you can sit down and gorge yourself on lots and lots of meat without harm to yourself. = No harm, no foul.

This is exactly how Eskimo's have been observed to eat. Long periods of  no carbs at all in their diet ( zero) along with occasional gorging.  

That is my best answer. I am not a Scientist but then again I am not pretending to be one.

Look, I read and am quoting from the meat-only study from the 1930s that you said was so awesome. So, all of your points about carbohydrates do not apply.

My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion.



I get it now. You never doubt the establishment... That is a personal philosophical choice and nothing more.   Perhaps you should consider  growing a back bone.

I have not challenged the Science with my own findings. I have pointed out that there are competing theories and in the case of Obesity there is a considerable faction with a well known alternate theory. It has nothing at all to do with my ability to evaluate the Science.

I am perfectly capable of understanding if an argument is logical. I am also perfectly free to consider evidence presented as being compelling.
You on the other hand insist that you can understand the Science even though you have no real training. For example you have stated that Paleo Diet advocates don't understand how evolution works.. How would you know? You have no credentials and no back ground. You do exactly as you accuse. You attach yourself to whatever sounds good to you and what fits your personal World View.  

So get off your high horse.


« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 10:41:11 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #661 on: May 30, 2012, 11:19:15 PM »

I get it now. You never doubt the establishment... That is a personal philosophical choice and nothing more.   Perhaps you should consider  growing a back bone.

This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with having a backbone. It has to do with humility. It is very arrogant for a person to challenge the authorities when he has no expertise of his own. If you want to take on the experts, that's fine, but first you need to become an expert yourself.

Quote
I have not challenged the Science with my own findings. I have pointed out that there are competing theories and in the case of Obesity there is a considerable faction with a well known alternate theory. It has nothing at all to do with my ability to evaluate the Science.

You need the ability to evaluate the science in order to evaluate which theories are rubbish and which are not. There will never be a perpetual motion machine, but that doesn't prevent some clowns from claiming otherwise every single year. I note that when they do so, they pat themselves on the back for their "backbone" in standing up to the establishment.

Quote
I am perfectly capable of understanding if an argument is logical. I am also perfectly free to consider evidence presented as being compelling.

The Dunning-Kruger effect allows you to make this statement.

Quote
You on the other hand insist that you can understand the Science even though you have no real training. For example you have stated that Paleo Diet advocates don't understand how evolution works.. How would you know? You have no credentials and no back ground. You do exactly as you accuse. You attach yourself to whatever sounds good to you and what fits your personal World View.  

So get off your high horse.

I know that the paleo diet is based on a false understanding of evolution because I have a high school student's understanding of biology. All one has to understand is how selective pressure works in order to see that the paleo theory is flawed. That you cannot see this speaks to your utter lack of even high school competency.

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #662 on: May 30, 2012, 11:54:06 PM »

I get it now. You never doubt the establishment... That is a personal philosophical choice and nothing more.   Perhaps you should consider  growing a back bone.

This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with having a backbone. It has to do with humility. It is very arrogant for a person to challenge the authorities when he has no expertise of his own. If you want to take on the experts, that's fine, but first you need to become an expert yourself.

Quote
I have not challenged the Science with my own findings. I have pointed out that there are competing theories and in the case of Obesity there is a considerable faction with a well known alternate theory. It has nothing at all to do with my ability to evaluate the Science.

You need the ability to evaluate the science in order to evaluate which theories are rubbish and which are not. There will never be a perpetual motion machine, but that doesn't prevent some clowns from claiming otherwise every single year. I note that when they do so, they pat themselves on the back for their "backbone" in standing up to the establishment.

Quote
I am perfectly capable of understanding if an argument is logical. I am also perfectly free to consider evidence presented as being compelling.

The Dunning-Kruger effect allows you to make this statement.

Quote
You on the other hand insist that you can understand the Science even though you have no real training. For example you have stated that Paleo Diet advocates don't understand how evolution works.. How would you know? You have no credentials and no back ground. You do exactly as you accuse. You attach yourself to whatever sounds good to you and what fits your personal World View.  

So get off your high horse.

I know that the paleo diet is based on a false understanding of evolution because I have a high school student's understanding of biology. All one has to understand is how selective pressure works in order to see that the paleo theory is flawed. That you cannot see this speaks to your utter lack of even high school competency.

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."

The people who are "Challenging authority" are perfectly well qualified to do so..

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."


I'll answer again but you really need to read more carefully this time. I pointed out that Eskimo's eat exactly in the way that silly hypothetical posed. That's the answer. Eskimo's occasionally gorge on meat with no apparent detriment.

Furthermore, there was a study that followed two men eating meat only for a full year. Did you really think I was saying those guys gorged themselves every single day of  the experiment?

The logical conclusion is:

1.  Eskimos are known to eat in a pattern suggested by that question and incur  no apparent harm. Therefore, this is evidence that suggests  meat eating even in large amounts does no harm.

2.There was also a year long experiment by the explorer who lived with the Eskimos and observed the almost total lack of carbohydrates in their diet. He attempted to mimic an all meat diet, also to no apparent harm to him or the other man who participated. This once again is evidence that eating meat long term does no harm and actually improves health since all of their health markers improved at the end of the year.


The question suggested that high calories from meat will cause you to gain weight. I have also answered to the best of my ability  why all calories are not the same in their effect on holding fat in your body. You can look back at that answer if you want to.

That is a pretty complete answer to a silly question.. If it is not good enough for you then I'll have to live with the disappointment of letting you down so terribly.

 
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 11:57:21 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #663 on: May 31, 2012, 05:41:44 AM »

I get it now. You never doubt the establishment... That is a personal philosophical choice and nothing more.   Perhaps you should consider  growing a back bone.

This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with having a backbone. It has to do with humility. It is very arrogant for a person to challenge the authorities when he has no expertise of his own. If you want to take on the experts, that's fine, but first you need to become an expert yourself.

Quote
I have not challenged the Science with my own findings. I have pointed out that there are competing theories and in the case of Obesity there is a considerable faction with a well known alternate theory. It has nothing at all to do with my ability to evaluate the Science.

You need the ability to evaluate the science in order to evaluate which theories are rubbish and which are not. There will never be a perpetual motion machine, but that doesn't prevent some clowns from claiming otherwise every single year. I note that when they do so, they pat themselves on the back for their "backbone" in standing up to the establishment.

Quote
I am perfectly capable of understanding if an argument is logical. I am also perfectly free to consider evidence presented as being compelling.

The Dunning-Kruger effect allows you to make this statement.

Quote
You on the other hand insist that you can understand the Science even though you have no real training. For example you have stated that Paleo Diet advocates don't understand how evolution works.. How would you know? You have no credentials and no back ground. You do exactly as you accuse. You attach yourself to whatever sounds good to you and what fits your personal World View.  

So get off your high horse.

I know that the paleo diet is based on a false understanding of evolution because I have a high school student's understanding of biology. All one has to understand is how selective pressure works in order to see that the paleo theory is flawed. That you cannot see this speaks to your utter lack of even high school competency.

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."

The people who are "Challenging authority" are perfectly well qualified to do so..

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."


I'll answer again but you really need to read more carefully this time. I pointed out that Eskimo's eat exactly in the way that silly hypothetical posed. That's the answer. Eskimo's occasionally gorge on meat with no apparent detriment.

Furthermore, there was a study that followed two men eating meat only for a full year. Did you really think I was saying those guys gorged themselves every single day of  the experiment?

The logical conclusion is:

1.  Eskimos are known to eat in a pattern suggested by that question and incur  no apparent harm. Therefore, this is evidence that suggests  meat eating even in large amounts does no harm.

2.There was also a year long experiment by the explorer who lived with the Eskimos and observed the almost total lack of carbohydrates in their diet. He attempted to mimic an all meat diet, also to no apparent harm to him or the other man who participated. This once again is evidence that eating meat long term does no harm and actually improves health since all of their health markers improved at the end of the year.


The question suggested that high calories from meat will cause you to gain weight. I have also answered to the best of my ability  why all calories are not the same in their effect on holding fat in your body. You can look back at that answer if you want to.

That is a pretty complete answer to a silly question.. If it is not good enough for you then I'll have to live with the disappointment of letting you down so terribly.

You are still missing the point.  The total number of calories was still low.  Meat is not magical.  Eat enough of it and you will have health problems.  The study didn't research an all meat diet that was high in calories.  This also doesn't show the eating a balanced diet is worse than eating an all meat diet.  There are Kitavans who eat no meat, so clearly gorging on meat isn't the only answer.  And all 7 billion people on the planet eating only meat just ain't gonna happen - it's not sustainable. 
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #664 on: May 31, 2012, 08:53:26 AM »

The people who are "Challenging authority" are perfectly well qualified to do so..

You should not count yourself among the numbers of the "well qualified".

Quote
I'll answer again but you really need to read more carefully this time. I pointed out that Eskimo's eat exactly in the way that silly hypothetical posed. That's the answer. Eskimo's occasionally gorge on meat with no apparent detriment.

Ok, and guess what else the "Eskimos" do? They bust their humps to hunt that food. You can't adopt the diet and think it is somehow magical without adopting the rest of the lifestyle.

Of course, that was all in the wondrous past. Today, Eskimos have no trouble getting fat:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10951530
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9571343
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10702767

Note the study on Eskimo diabetes since it involves your favorite magic potion, diabetes.

Quote
Furthermore, there was a study that followed two men eating meat only for a full year. Did you really think I was saying those guys gorged themselves every single day of  the experiment?

You used that study to make the following stupid claims:

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.

Well, you never ended up finding the reference; I did. There is nothing about that study, where do men ate meat at maintenance levels of calories, to support your claim regarding "very large quantities". You have shifted your ground, and all can see it.

Quote
The logical conclusion is:

1.  Eskimos are known to eat in a pattern suggested by that question and incur  no apparent harm. Therefore, this is evidence that suggests  meat eating even in large amounts does no harm.

2.There was also a year long experiment by the explorer who lived with the Eskimos and observed the almost total lack of carbohydrates in their diet. He attempted to mimic an all meat diet, also to no apparent harm to him or the other man who participated. This once again is evidence that eating meat long term does no harm and actually improves health since all of their health markers improved at the end of the year.

See above. The Eskimo are dealing with diabetes and obesity. As a more general note, when one looks to lists of the "world's healthiest people", one never finds the Eskimo there. It's the usual suspects: Okinawans, Hunza, and so on. Eskimo do not live very long. In Canada, they live about 10 years less than the poutine-eating Canadians:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080123/dq080123d-eng.htm

I think I have already pointed out that the people in the 80-year-old study ate at maintenance levels. Has anyone ever replicated it? If you had taken any science classes, you would know that one study does not proof make.

Quote
The question suggested that high calories from meat will cause you to gain weight. I have also answered to the best of my ability  why all calories are not the same in their effect on holding fat in your body. You can look back at that answer if you want to.

That is a pretty complete answer to a silly question.. If it is not good enough for you then I'll have to live with the disappointment of letting you down so terribly.

The disappointment is that you have to live with yourself every day.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #665 on: May 31, 2012, 09:58:06 AM »

I get it now. You never doubt the establishment... That is a personal philosophical choice and nothing more.   Perhaps you should consider  growing a back bone.

This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with having a backbone. It has to do with humility. It is very arrogant for a person to challenge the authorities when he has no expertise of his own. If you want to take on the experts, that's fine, but first you need to become an expert yourself.

Quote
I have not challenged the Science with my own findings. I have pointed out that there are competing theories and in the case of Obesity there is a considerable faction with a well known alternate theory. It has nothing at all to do with my ability to evaluate the Science.

You need the ability to evaluate the science in order to evaluate which theories are rubbish and which are not. There will never be a perpetual motion machine, but that doesn't prevent some clowns from claiming otherwise every single year. I note that when they do so, they pat themselves on the back for their "backbone" in standing up to the establishment.

Quote
I am perfectly capable of understanding if an argument is logical. I am also perfectly free to consider evidence presented as being compelling.

The Dunning-Kruger effect allows you to make this statement.

Quote
You on the other hand insist that you can understand the Science even though you have no real training. For example you have stated that Paleo Diet advocates don't understand how evolution works.. How would you know? You have no credentials and no back ground. You do exactly as you accuse. You attach yourself to whatever sounds good to you and what fits your personal World View.  

So get off your high horse.

I know that the paleo diet is based on a false understanding of evolution because I have a high school student's understanding of biology. All one has to understand is how selective pressure works in order to see that the paleo theory is flawed. That you cannot see this speaks to your utter lack of even high school competency.

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."

The people who are "Challenging authority" are perfectly well qualified to do so..

By the way, I believe this is now the fourth time I will pose this question to you. Please do not ignore it as you have the past several times:
"My question was pretty simple. The study you said what so great involved two men who ate about 1.5 lbs of meat per day. For some reason, you think think this study means that a person can eat six pounds of meat per day and they will not gain weight. Please explain the logical chain that brings you to this conclusion."


I'll answer again but you really need to read more carefully this time. I pointed out that Eskimo's eat exactly in the way that silly hypothetical posed. That's the answer. Eskimo's occasionally gorge on meat with no apparent detriment.

Furthermore, there was a study that followed two men eating meat only for a full year. Did you really think I was saying those guys gorged themselves every single day of  the experiment?

The logical conclusion is:

1.  Eskimos are known to eat in a pattern suggested by that question and incur  no apparent harm. Therefore, this is evidence that suggests  meat eating even in large amounts does no harm.

2.There was also a year long experiment by the explorer who lived with the Eskimos and observed the almost total lack of carbohydrates in their diet. He attempted to mimic an all meat diet, also to no apparent harm to him or the other man who participated. This once again is evidence that eating meat long term does no harm and actually improves health since all of their health markers improved at the end of the year.


The question suggested that high calories from meat will cause you to gain weight. I have also answered to the best of my ability  why all calories are not the same in their effect on holding fat in your body. You can look back at that answer if you want to.

That is a pretty complete answer to a silly question.. If it is not good enough for you then I'll have to live with the disappointment of letting you down so terribly.

You are still missing the point.  The total number of calories was still low.  Meat is not magical.  Eat enough of it and you will have health problems.  The study didn't research an all meat diet that was high in calories.  This also doesn't show the eating a balanced diet is worse than eating an all meat diet.  There are Kitavans who eat no meat, so clearly gorging on meat isn't the only answer.  And all 7 billion people on the planet eating only meat just ain't gonna happen - it's not sustainable. 

Did you really think I was advocating eating an all meat diet?

None of the Diets I have mentioned do that. Not Atkins, or the Paleo Diet or Weston Price or Gary Taubes etc.

They say  to get your carbs from vegetables. The question was about goring on meat. I pointed to an example of people who ate a nearly all meat diet and who were observed to occasionally gorge on it. They did fine.

Interpret that information however you want.

Raising meat naturally, on their natural feed, which is grass, looks to be sustainable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFRlloCGA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAHGbbjenhI


Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #666 on: May 31, 2012, 10:01:05 AM »

The people who are "Challenging authority" are perfectly well qualified to do so..

You should not count yourself among the numbers of the "well qualified".

Quote
I'll answer again but you really need to read more carefully this time. I pointed out that Eskimo's eat exactly in the way that silly hypothetical posed. That's the answer. Eskimo's occasionally gorge on meat with no apparent detriment.

Ok, and guess what else the "Eskimos" do? They bust their humps to hunt that food. You can't adopt the diet and think it is somehow magical without adopting the rest of the lifestyle.

Of course, that was all in the wondrous past. Today, Eskimos have no trouble getting fat:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10951530
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9571343
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10702767

Note the study on Eskimo diabetes since it involves your favorite magic potion, diabetes.

Quote
Furthermore, there was a study that followed two men eating meat only for a full year. Did you really think I was saying those guys gorged themselves every single day of  the experiment?

You used that study to make the following stupid claims:

If you eat nothing but meat, even in very large quantities, all of your health markers would improve. Your cholesterol would go down. Your level of inflammation would improve. Your insulin would remain steady and your weight would be normal.

This has actually been done experimentally. Six months of supervised all meat meals in a closed setting. I will see if I can find the reference for you.

Well, you never ended up finding the reference; I did. There is nothing about that study, where do men ate meat at maintenance levels of calories, to support your claim regarding "very large quantities". You have shifted your ground, and all can see it.

Quote
The logical conclusion is:

1.  Eskimos are known to eat in a pattern suggested by that question and incur  no apparent harm. Therefore, this is evidence that suggests  meat eating even in large amounts does no harm.

2.There was also a year long experiment by the explorer who lived with the Eskimos and observed the almost total lack of carbohydrates in their diet. He attempted to mimic an all meat diet, also to no apparent harm to him or the other man who participated. This once again is evidence that eating meat long term does no harm and actually improves health since all of their health markers improved at the end of the year.

See above. The Eskimo are dealing with diabetes and obesity. As a more general note, when one looks to lists of the "world's healthiest people", one never finds the Eskimo there. It's the usual suspects: Okinawans, Hunza, and so on. Eskimo do not live very long. In Canada, they live about 10 years less than the poutine-eating Canadians:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080123/dq080123d-eng.htm

I think I have already pointed out that the people in the 80-year-old study ate at maintenance levels. Has anyone ever replicated it? If you had taken any science classes, you would know that one study does not proof make.

Quote
The question suggested that high calories from meat will cause you to gain weight. I have also answered to the best of my ability  why all calories are not the same in their effect on holding fat in your body. You can look back at that answer if you want to.

That is a pretty complete answer to a silly question.. If it is not good enough for you then I'll have to live with the disappointment of letting you down so terribly.

The disappointment is that you have to live with yourself every day.

Thanks for all your input.

Are we done now?
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #667 on: May 31, 2012, 10:38:02 AM »

NVM
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:57:07 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #668 on: May 31, 2012, 11:00:43 AM »

Did you really think I was advocating eating an all meat diet?

None of the Diets I have mentioned do that. Not Atkins, or the Paleo Diet or Weston Price or Gary Taubes etc.

They say  to get your carbs from vegetables. The question was about goring on meat. I pointed to an example of people who ate a nearly all meat diet and who were observed to occasionally gorge on it. They did fine.

Interpret that information however you want.

Raising meat naturally, on their natural feed, which is grass, looks to be sustainable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFRlloCGA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAHGbbjenhI

Please address my points regarding life expectancy, obesity, and diabetes among Eskimo populations. I think you particularly need to address the gap in life expectancy between Eskimos and non-Eskimo Canadians.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #669 on: May 31, 2012, 11:23:56 AM »

Did you really think I was advocating eating an all meat diet?

None of the Diets I have mentioned do that. Not Atkins, or the Paleo Diet or Weston Price or Gary Taubes etc.

They say  to get your carbs from vegetables. The question was about goring on meat. I pointed to an example of people who ate a nearly all meat diet and who were observed to occasionally gorge on it. They did fine.

Interpret that information however you want.

Raising meat naturally, on their natural feed, which is grass, looks to be sustainable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFRlloCGA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAHGbbjenhI

Please address my points regarding life expectancy, obesity, and diabetes among Eskimo populations. I think you particularly need to address the gap in life expectancy between Eskimos and non-Eskimo Canadians.


That's easy. Like all native populations in North America (who were only very recently hunter gatherers) they particularly suffer when the Western Diet , sugar, soda, breads etc are introduced. Diabetes and obesity soar. Add to this very high incidence of alcoholism and it's not a pretty picture.

Recently there have been attempts to return natives to their Traditional Diets with great success. The weight drops off, the diabetes is stopped cold.. The case of Eskimo's and other Native Americans is a great living experiment that is cited time and again by Paleo Diet and Weston Price advocates and such the like as evidence for the health sustaining benefits of their recommendations.

I found this interesting article which addresses the Eskimo situation:

http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/

The Inuit ate a diet high in meat and fat, low in fruits and vegetables and still had low rates of heart disease and cancer (sadly only recently when more modernization came to them in the form of convenience stores, soda and other processed foods did you see the illnesses start to increase. Once sugar came to them….things went sour)

 
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:24:35 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #670 on: May 31, 2012, 11:29:58 AM »

That's easy. Like all native populations in North America (who were only very recently hunter gatherers) they particularly suffer when the Western Diet , sugar, soda, breads etc are introduced. Diabetes and obesity soar. Add to this very high incidence of alcoholism and it's not a pretty picture.

If they are eating the same as Canadians, why are they so much worse off than the Canadians? Please provide real data, and not some idea that sounds good to you as you have done above.

Quote
Recently there have been attempts to return natives to their Traditional Diets with great success. The weight drops off, the diabetes is stopped cold.. The case of Eskimo's and other Native Americans is a great living experiment that is cited time and again by Paleo Diet and Weston Price advocates and such the like as evidence for the health sustaining benefits of their recommendations.

I found this interesting article which addresses the Eskimo situation:

http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/

The Inuit ate a diet high in meat and fat, low in fruits and vegetables and still had low rates of heart disease and cancer (sadly only recently when more modernization came to them in the form of convenience stores, soda and other processed foods did you see the illnesses start to increase. Once sugar came to them….things went sour)

They why don't they live as long as everyone else? If what you say is true, Eskimos should have had some of the best life expectancy in the world, then have it brought down to the regular Canadian level (which is already among the highest). But, that is exactly what didn't happen. Why?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #671 on: May 31, 2012, 02:41:42 PM »

I found a link to the recent Gary Taubes article in Newsweek:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-the-campaign-to-stop-america-s-obesity-crisis-keeps-failing.html?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_oneline
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #672 on: May 31, 2012, 02:52:31 PM »

That's easy. Like all native populations in North America (who were only very recently hunter gatherers) they particularly suffer when the Western Diet , sugar, soda, breads etc are introduced. Diabetes and obesity soar. Add to this very high incidence of alcoholism and it's not a pretty picture.

If they are eating the same as Canadians, why are they so much worse off than the Canadians? Please provide real data, and not some idea that sounds good to you as you have done above.

Quote
Recently there have been attempts to return natives to their Traditional Diets with great success. The weight drops off, the diabetes is stopped cold.. The case of Eskimo's and other Native Americans is a great living experiment that is cited time and again by Paleo Diet and Weston Price advocates and such the like as evidence for the health sustaining benefits of their recommendations.

I found this interesting article which addresses the Eskimo situation:

http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/

The Inuit ate a diet high in meat and fat, low in fruits and vegetables and still had low rates of heart disease and cancer (sadly only recently when more modernization came to them in the form of convenience stores, soda and other processed foods did you see the illnesses start to increase. Once sugar came to them….things went sour)

They why don't they live as long as everyone else? If what you say is true, Eskimos should have had some of the best life expectancy in the world, then have it brought down to the regular Canadian level (which is already among the highest). But, that is exactly what didn't happen. Why?

1. Recent hunter gatherers are hit harder by a sudden shift to a western diet. They will have more diabetes and heart disease than people who have been civilized for many generations.
2. They are far more impoverished than most Canadians by far.
3. They live in isolated regions. How long does it take to get to a hospital in Toronto vs upper nowhere iceshelf?
4. How many Pakistani/Canadian's fall through ice in the spring? How many are mauled by polar bears? How many hunt whales in small boats?
5. What is the rate of sever alcoholism among Eskimo's vs other Canadian? Multiple times as high , right?

So you are comparing a desperately impoverished  population who live in severe weather conditions, alcoholism is rampant, with scant access to modern resources like good hospitals and you cant figure out why their life expectency is shorter? Really?

What you should take note of is when they go back to their Traditional diet they get healthier.

I'll make is simple for you:

Hunter Gatherer Diet = Good Health... Western Diet = Bad Health ...Go back to Hunter Gatherer Diet = Good Health Again
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #673 on: May 31, 2012, 02:53:21 PM »


Does he explain why Canadian Inuit live a decade less than other Canadians?

Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #674 on: May 31, 2012, 03:05:31 PM »


Does he explain why Canadian Inuit live a decade less than other Canadians?



I think he is smart enough to figure that one out ( see post above)..The real question is why you would throw your glove down about something so easy to understand...


This article is from 1975 so the average ages should be adjusted up some but you'll get the point. Alcoholics live about 10 years less than nonalcoholics

http://bioinst.cm.utexas.edu/williams/255.htm
Alcoholics Anonymous indicate that the average life span of the alcoholic male is about 55 or 56 years, whereas life of the non-alcoholic male averages 66 or 67 years)

There are three other diseases whose toll is as great as that of alcoholism�heart and circulatory disease, mental disease, and cancer. We do not have the necessary knowledge to prevent these diseases, and a great deal of research must still be done to obtain it. But we already know how to prevent alcoholism; all that is needed is to put this knowledge into practice.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 73 queries.