People that have went to school to regurgitate government nutritional advice. Good call.

 

I don't mean to sound like a contrarian *******, but I read that whole article and I have utterly no idea what it was trying to convey. The only part that made any sense at all was when he quoted the Old Hybrid from Battlestar Galactica, who said "This has all happened before, it will all happen again"

(It was a slight mis-quote, but the general sentiment remained intact.)


I'm being serious. All I took away from that article was "this guy sounds like a delusional conspiracy theorist who is rambling on about the secret cabal which controls the media establishment." I have no opinion as to the scientific validity of... whatever he's trying to say, but my superficial impression is that he lacks credibility. People like this do harm to legitimate causes.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got to the end and actually said "What?" out loud.

To be fair, the author isn't actually trying to educate anyone. He's trying to verbally fellate everyone who already agrees with him because he understands what his readers like.

 

What part of the article? I ask because it's in response to a specific USNWR article, which ranked the paleo diet last...one year after UWNWR ran the same kind of article, which also ranked the paleo diet last.

I understand your need to debunk the usual "media bias" articles...but this isn't exactly the same thing. Wolf is responding to a specific article from a specific publication, that ran a very similar article a year prior.

 

This, I didn't actually read the Wolff article until now. I knew the survey and that is what folks usually use to advocate for the standard american diet. I wasn't shocked.

There are some points about the 100% paleo diet I am not quite on board with, but there is far more good than bad.

It overall looked like just another random paleo advocate fighting the man. Which is why I had such a hard time getting my head around it. Stuff like this polarizes folks such as myself, instead of spurring personal research. Reading through that I just felt like I was being forcefed something, whether I wanted it or not.

So overall, I feel that your statement is pretty valid.

 

Honestly, I'm past caring what peoples' "impressions" are at this point.

The information and research is available. If you're irritated by the tone of someone pointing you to the research, that's fine.

 

I expect you're right. The article seems to pre-suppose both a knowledge of past events and a shared communal bias against "legitimate" commercial media.

This is hardly a unique phenomenon, of course. You'd get much the same vibe from tuning into any random Rush Limbaugh rant, or picking up a piece of Black Panthers* literature. Regardless of the actual message itself, the tone serves to alienate large groups of the population who might be fairly described as "neutral" or "undecided."


Probably best that this not devolve into a political debate, though. Let us simply stipulate that mgeoffriau did not deliberately mean to derail the thread, and that we love and tolerate him in the finest Brony tradition.

 

After I did a bunch of blood glucose tests after eating starchy food such as potatoes, and ice cream, which showed my BG spikes are much lower now due to the raw potato Resistant Fiber I've been taking, I started eating more potatoes and desserts. Well, while my BG doesn't spike as much as before, I noticed that my appetite has increased - I get more hungry sooner after meals, and end up wanting to eat more. I still eat til I'm full, without over-eating. Surprise, I gained a pound in about a week. So, it's back to low-starch eating for me.

 

Different people define "paleo" differently. If you were to take a strict definition, i.e. dairy wasn't consumed by paleolithic humans... well, lots of people consider that diet to be a *starting* point. Lots of human populations for example do have a genetic mutation to digest lactose into adulthood. Tubers (potatoes) and white rice are well tolerated by most people, provided you don't eat enough to produce a large blood sugar spike, etc. From that said starting point, you have to tailor it to you as an individual. I for example, tolerate dairy well, but starches not. I seem to do well with nightshade veggies (a lot of people don't), cruciferous veggies, and nuts. Large amounts of wheat (a big paleo no-no), and hydrolyzed veg protein, gives me headaches. And so on.

 

I've eaten risotto 7 days in a row, when will I die?

 

When people start getting fat as they get older, it's because their metabolism starts breaking from doing that for decades.

 

Joe Perez, regarding vegetable (but also fruits) consumption, there are many positive benefits of eating veggies which are not limited to,

High fiber, high nutrients, verity of vitamins, antioxidants, easy to digest, filling, environmentally more sustainable than meat.

Let me point out, not only should one eat veggies, one should eat a good amount of "live" uncooked food also.This is about "antioxidants" and there is also research that points to caloric restriction leading to a longer life. I believe most of these things are intertwined and but my take on eating less food and or foods which are easier for the body to process, is that it is much kinder on the body. That's why I think fasting is also beneficial as it gives your stomach and body time to "rest."

I also believe that toxins build up not only in your organs but in your muscles and fat. I think this is another reason it is good to periodically detox your body by slimming down. That said, I fully understand the importance of fat and the role it plays in good health.

Joe Perez, sorry if I missed it but what are your goals for tinkering with your diet?

Also, ya'll should try coconut oil, it's the ****. Smells and tastes like butter and fruits and is healthy. It's also good lotion.

 

on saturday i ate nothing but a large cup of coffee with about a teaspoon of sugar in it until about 2:30pm when I had a small handful of trail mix. I did not eat a meal until about 7pm. I barely felt mental effects from this impromptu fast, but then again I was working fairly hard on a house project all day.

I did not get the shakes or the cold sweats but when I was all done and ready for dinner, I told my wife I wanted a huge serving of delicious, unhealthy I-dont-give-a-f*ck because I was quite famished.

 

Mostly scientific curiosity. There's been a lot written (and insinuated) bot here on the forum and in the pop-health field in general which suggests that certain types of foods are inherently evil (all grains, foods rich in starches, "fast" carbohydrates, etc) and that for various reasons, strict caloric intake is less a factor in determining body weight gain / loss than the type of calories consumed.

Examples of this type of thinking here from within this thread would be post #5 (Down with carbs), post #33 (Grains contain "anti-nutrients"), post #112 (Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition), etc.



Basically, I am skeptical about "magic bullet" diets, and while I'm certain that some of what was been written is indeed applicable to people with abnormal metabolic conditions, I suspect that in many such cases, causality is being reversed. (eg: A study finds that people who drink diet soda are fat, therefore, diet soda causes you to become fat. But what if, in reality, people who have unhealthy eating habits in the first place merely tend to drink a lot of sweet-tasting beverages in the first place, and therefore a large percentage of the subset "people who drink diet soda" are inherently going to fall into the set of "people with unhealthy eating habits.)


Examples which I'd site to support the skepticism would be things like post #117 (For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one [Twinkie] every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too. His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.)


Being open to new ideas, however, I've decided to actually test this theory on myself, by eating a high-calorie, high-fat, high-protein diet which is low in carbs (except for green vegetables, newly introduced), rather than just being a typical internet user and slinging around a bunch of conjecture.



Incidentally, over the course of the past week after having returned to this diet, I'm up from 215 to 217 lbs, which is easily a new record high for me.

 

The majority of low carb proponents don't recommend high protein, but rather a moderate protein intake.

 

This is the wierdest thread on this forum.


"How can that be?" you might inquire increduosly. After all, there have been all sorts of bizarre posts about My Little Ponies and the "brony" subculture, threads that you thought were doomed to failure but turned out pretty well (e.g. "Trubo.net, give me guidance on starting a new business"), FNG threads that went sideways with great humiliation and humor, and plenty more.

How can this seemingly benign thread that started out about "health food," be the wierdest thread on a Miata forum that has a thread dedicated to cats that is hundreds of posts long?


Because, in this thread, Joe Perez and JasonC have flipped roles with the former playing "intentionally obtuse and willfully ignorant" and the latter playing "surprisingly patient and genuinely attempting to educate." Adding fuel to the bizarro world fire, is Mark losing his patience and basically telling Joe to "**** right off, chap."

 

Bizarro, I love you!

 

I hear none of the ***** pills really work either!

 

but...

 

FWIW there are lots of fat people (with obviously broken metabolisms) who exercise a lot, eat low-fat, and don't lose weight.

BTW here's a guy who studied ketogenic dieting and did an Ironman event:
Low Carb Triathlon Training