You know what I mean; contrariness is contextual.

Anyway, if you're comfortable with the position that nutritional science from hundreds of years ago or even decades ago is equally valid and informative as current nutritional science, go for it.

I'm sure there is a medication for that.

so raising a baby we run into all sorts of info about how allergies are often the result of NOT introducing foods to your child early.

blows my mind.

No. But I'm pretty convinced I have a low-level wheat sensitivity based on symptoms.

I am also very sensitive to sugar and starch - I get reactive hypoglycemia (confirmed by a "glucose tolerance test"). This often leads to worsening blood sugar regulation over time. Indeed over the years my A1c was creeping up. And it was the latter that got me on a tear to study wtf is going on wrt nutrition.

Right now I'm addressing that and other minor issues ... heightened sensitivity to sugar and starch is often correlated with excessive blood iron, for example. (Other) food sensitivity testing is lower down the list, because my hs-CRP numbers (a marker for inflammation) is pretty low with my present low-gluten low-starch diet.

BTW for a while I did a lot of blood glucose testing, after meals, etc.

Starch is bad for me, so is beer. Fortunately gimlets and margaritas made with Stevia are nowhere as bad.

Several years ago when I would get a Jamba Juice for lunch, I would have serious sugar crashes in the afternoon. My blood sugar would tank down south of 70 or so (coworker with the diabeetus was helpful and had a meter handy).

Man that sucked. I'm still occasionally sensitive to junky meals but not nearly as bad as back then.

I do feel bloated and gross after carby meals. If there is a dinner option that includes carby starches, I'll usually either have a teeny portion or skip it. I'm trying to convince my wife to do the same because she frequently goes from fine to OMG HUNGRY TIME and seems to have issues regulating her blood sugar. She is still of the mind set that carbs are a significant portion of a meal. I usually don't prepare them and I usually make dinner. winner!

Only carbs I must have are potatoes and pasta/rice. Everything else I can do without. I try to limit pasta and rice though, and potatoes are pretty frequent, but in small portions. About to have some bolognese on some pasta. That'll be my only carbs of the day.

I am comfortable with that position, given that no actual hard science exists to refute it.

The current pop-sci trend towards the vilification of carbohydrates / grains / etc is essentially the result of an over-broad interpretation of clinical data concerning individuals with specific metabolic deficiencies which render them uniquely less able to process certain foods than a normal person.

This would really be no different than claiming nobody should drink milk based on the fact that in certain specific individuals (those who are deficient in the enzyme lactase), consumption of dairy products results in various digestive unpleasantnesses. Or that nobody should eat foods high in sucrose, because some people (those who have diabetes) cannot properly regulate their own blood sugar.

In other words, it doesn't matter how old the research is, if the only "facts" which contradict it are actually based on speculation, hysteria, slick marketing and misrepresentation of data for the purpose of selling self-help books and "lifestyle coaching."


Fun fact: diets high in animal protein are positively correlated with compensatory hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, key predictors of the development of Type 2 diabetes. (This is supported by actual science, not magazine articles.)

LOLOLOL

Okay.

there's no good reason for humans to drink milk after toddlerhood. for one, why should a mammal be inextricably tied to drinking the nursing milk of another mammal?

Who says? Are you implying that because it's not natural by other mammals that it is harmful or couldn't hold benefits? Not trying to say it's good, just asking why you say that. There are plenty of things that we do that aren't natural, or aren't like our ancestors did, but that doesn't mean that they lived better and healthier than we did.

Fun fact explained: the "actual science" behind your claim failed to distinguish between healthy sources of animal protein, and unhealthy sources of animal protein.

Conclusion: eat red meat and don't eat processed meats if you don't want diabetes. Yay!

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of i... [Circulation. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Ultimately, everyone is generalizing peoples specific dietary needs. We aren't assembly line manufactured machines. What works well for one person might kill another.

Ummm...it taste yummy.

Inextricably tied? That's like saying that I'm inextricably tied to good beer and cheap whiskey. I drink them because I enjoy them.

One of the advantages of being at the top of the food chain is that you can harvest the bodily secretions of pretty much any animal you want. Take honey, for instance. It's basically a thick pus that comes out of a bee's ass. It requires a lot of work to get, and the nutritional value isn't all that spectacular.

But it tastes good on biscuits.

Mmmm, ass pus.

Why cant people just make this so much simpler.

If you cannot tell how it's made don;t eat it.

If you cannot guess most of the core ingredients dont eat it.

Lift big,
Eat big,
Get big.

Easy.

Dann

Lift normal
eat big
stay about the same

You mean eat big lift normal get fat?

Dann

Not in my case anyway.