Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Warren Dew

Pages: 1 ... 296 297 [298] 299 300 ... 375
4456
Diet and nutrition / Re: Confused about coffee
« on: January 22, 2010, 01:56:09 PM »
Wouldn't that be the creation of the brew? Since coffee beans/seeds come from coffee berries, wouldn't man have eaten the berries (and therefore the seeds)?
I think it's more likely we would have eaten the berries and spit out the seeds.

4457
Progress Reports & Photos / Re: One year
« on: January 22, 2010, 08:00:43 AM »
Congratulations!

4459
Miscellaneous / Re: Neanderthin
« on: January 21, 2010, 01:29:09 PM »
It is out of print.

4460
Miscellaneous / Re: Is Free The Animal wrong?
« on: January 21, 2010, 10:04:31 AM »
Cream and butter are dairy, and thus clearly nonpaleo.  However, some feel that small amounts are less bad than other forms of dairy because they are still animal fats and don't include the sugars and potentially allergenic proteins that milk does.  I don't think anyone would claim they are strictly paleo, but some consider them among the less harmful cheats.

Potatoes are questionable in a couple of respects.  First, they are a tuber - an underground plant reproductive organ - and there's an argument that unlike fruit, plants have evolutionary reasons to make such organs strongly deleterious to animals when eaten.  The evidence that humans ate any tubers during the paleolithic is also limited and equivocal.  Second, they are a new world plant, and thus from a group of plants that would not have been available to paleolithic humans; some feel they are not sufficiently closely related to plants we did eat during the paleolithic to be considered paleo.  However, some people do consider potatoes to be paleo, since neither of these arguments is black and white.

4461
Miscellaneous / Re: Time to move on
« on: January 19, 2010, 09:13:03 AM »
We're going to miss you!  Come back when you can!

4462
Introductions / Re: Life Time Carbs eater, until NOW!! (DAY 2)
« on: January 18, 2010, 10:10:50 PM »
Can one survive this eating only chicken, turkey, fish, etc?

Yes, you can.  I'd recommend eating pieces with the skin on as getting a little fat will help keep you from getting too hungry.

4463
Food Journals / Re: Vananners' Food Journal :-D
« on: January 18, 2010, 11:45:17 AM »
1-18-2010
 :'(  138 lbs :'(

How did I gain 2 pounds?!?!?

It could just be day to day variation.

It could also be the fruit making you hungry.  If 138 lb is overweight for you, you could try a day without fruit and see if that helps to avoid hunger.  You don't have to replace it with other food.

4464
Diet and nutrition / Re: Fatty Meat Makes Me Sick?
« on: January 18, 2010, 11:35:41 AM »
extremely fatty meat nauseates me.

Define extremely?

Ditto.

I like some fat in each bite of my meat, but big chunks of pure fat turn me off.

Also, the kind of fat matters.  Fat on grass fed beef tastes far better than the fat on grain fed beef.

I would not replace it with other fats if you don't like it; just eat less fat and more protein or fruit.

4465
Diet and nutrition / Re: So, nightshades...
« on: January 17, 2010, 09:41:48 PM »
That isn't really true evolution though is it? Instead of survival of the fittest you have survival of the most virile, regardless of how well adapted their genes are.

All evolution is "true" evolution; the resulting changes still happen, whatever the details of the selection process.

More specifically, both K-selected and r-selected species are evolved naturally.  "K-selected" is the term for species where competition is the primary driver of evolution.  "r-selected" is the term for species where reproductive rate is the primary driver of evolution.  Both situations do exist; lions are strongly K-selected, while most bacteria are strongly r-selected.

So another way of putting it is that humans have become more strongly r-selected in the last 10,000 years or so.

4466
Miscellaneous / Re: Tea
« on: January 17, 2010, 02:20:15 PM »
I drink tea several times a week.  I use chinese tea, which isn't as bitter as the popular western blends - in my case, specifically oolong, which is a semi-green tea - and I tend to brew it very weak, with just a few leaves per cup.

I too would be interested in wlfdg's article.

Someone posted a link here once to the site of someone who did some paleolithic boiling experiments.  The "suspend a skin of water over a fire" method turns out not to work very well, but the "throw hot rocks from a fire into a rawhide bowl of water" method does work surprisingly well.  I don't imagine they would have bothered just for a daily cup of tea, but I certainly think paleo man would have been smart enough to use medicinal herbs, boiling if necessary.

4467
Food Journals / Re: Renta's Roasts and other refreshments.
« on: January 16, 2010, 08:58:16 PM »
I am very low on vitamin D though. I will get a supplement

I've started having a teaspoon of cod liver oil on days I don't get any sunshine.

Someone - I think Marika - at one point came up with a paper that said the biological half life of vitamin D in the body was something like 3 months.  I sometimes wonder if we're designed to store enough up from summer sunshine to last us through the winter.

4468
Research / Re: Meta-analysis: saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
« on: January 16, 2010, 08:52:16 PM »
Did China traditionally eat white rice or brown rice?  I know Chinese restaurants here serve white rice but what is traditional?

White rice is traditional.  In fact, traditional Chinese recipes emphasize washing the rice before cooking, to remove as many traces of the hulls as possible.

However, it should be noted that rice is the primary source of carbohydrate only in southern China.  In northern China, the primary source of carbohydrate is wheat.

Deaths from heart attacks are more common in northern China than southern China.  This is the best evidence of a wheat specific effect.  However, heart attack deaths are still much lower in northern China than in western countries, so it isn't just an issue of wheat or carbohydrate proportion.  As I said, absolute amounts are important, too.

Quote
But, has anyone had Chinese candy?  I worked with a couple of Chinese people in my previous job.  Many times when they visited China or Taiwan while on vacation they would bring back some treats.  Chinese candy they brought back tasted like a rock! (perhaps not as sweet as a rock). ;D

Most Chinese sweets are cookies or other baked goods - not fortune cookies, but more substantial cakes.

The relation is more complicated than just a macro-nutrient ratio.

It's fairly clear that it's the total amount, not the ratio, that matters anyway.  China historically had high ratios of carbohydrates, but the total amount was not that high, as their total caloric intake was much lower on average than western countries.
So they ate low carb? lol. Yes, they ate less than a western country (all other countries eat less than any western country). This doesn't take away from anything. You have tried to fix everything that breaks your carb theory by caloric restriction, when this simply is not true (again, you tried to argued the same about Kitava, and as the research showed, they were not in caloric restriction). Eating huge quantities of food, no matter what food, is not beneficial, and is a big problem in western countries. That doesn't undermine what I previously stated.

Of course what I said doesn't undermine what you previously stated - since I was agreeing with what you said (it's not just macronutrient ratios), not disagreeing with you.

4469
Diet and nutrition / Re: So, nightshades...
« on: January 16, 2010, 08:28:16 PM »
"It's going to take a while to stabilize," he said. "By 'a while,' I'm talking tens of thousands of years."

So how is it speeding up if we still need tens of thousands of years to evolve???

Because tens of thousands of years is shorter than hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years, I believe.

Also, when Harpending talks about evolution being faster in "modern" humans, his definition of "modern" is "within the past 10,000 years or so", not "within the last 100 years or so".  He's not accounting for the effects of modern medicine.

That said, evolution can still happen even if modern medicine makes everyone survive to adulthood.  In this case, evolution will favor the genes of those that have more kids.  In addition, the genes of people who have no kids will be selected out - including, for example, a lot of my friends who have elected not to have kids.

4470
Research / Re: Meta-analysis: saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
« on: January 16, 2010, 04:43:13 PM »
The relation is more complicated than just a macro-nutrient ratio.

It's fairly clear that it's the total amount, not the ratio, that matters anyway.  China historically had high ratios of carbohydrates, but the total amount was not that high, as their total caloric intake was much lower on average than western countries.

Pages: 1 ... 296 297 [298] 299 300 ... 375