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  299 300 ... 352
« on: November 03, 2009, 09:21:46 PM »
Cordain's data may be incomplete. A good table on acid and alkaline forming foods is here:http://www.trans4mind.com/nutrition/pH.html
Bananas and plums are among the acid forming fruit. Most of the remaining fruit are only slightly alkaline forming, which may not be enough to maintain the alkalinity needed in the blood.
Sweet potatoes are also acid forming.
« on: November 03, 2009, 07:59:22 PM »
So there are some of you; good. I was feeling intimidated by the bulk of the meat eaters, and was wondering if this was turning into a meat only site.
There aren't actually very many meat only people on the site. It's just that there are some anti-meat-only people so there's a lot of discussion about it when they interact with the people who eat only meat. Then there are folks like me, who eat some vegetables and fruit, but figure if meat only works well for the meat only folks, then they probably know how they feel better than I do. People probably think I'm on the "meat only" side when I'm actually on the "eat whatever version of paleo you want but don't expect everyone else to eat your way" side.
That said, every single diet description posted in this thread so far is low carb, which I think is interesting. I certainly wasn't low carb when I started paleo; for most of the first year I had half a dozen fruit a day, and I'm not talking about berries either. Given how negatively a lot of people here react to meat only, I'm surprised they aren't getting more of their calories from fruit.
What happened to me was that I was convinced to try out organic fruit, and found that in most cases, it tasted better and I only had to eat half as much to satisfy me. Then I continued cutting back on fruit from there. Now I eat the equivalent of maybe one normal sized fruit a day - maybe 10% of my calories. More than that gives me headaches unless I eat it right after anaerobic or extended aerobic exercise, when my blood sugar is depleted.
I've also been finding that as I eat less fruit, and perhaps less nuts, I also feel the need for less vegetables. I suspect this is because some of the fruit and nuts are acid forming in the blood, and compensating for acid forming foods is the primary purpose of green vegetables. Meat supposedly has acidic ash, but doesn't actually seem to be acid forming in the blood on diets without grains.
I'm not quite ready to go to meat only, because I've had mixed experiences when I go to very low carbohydrate levels. I felt terrific in the week when I pretty much just ate grass fed roast beef, but that's expensive. I don't get the same effect even with good quality grain finished roast beef, even if it's hormone and antibiotic free.
« on: November 03, 2009, 07:11:40 PM »
I didn't take any vitamins. I did start with the folate/iron tablet combo with #1 but got told my iron levels were getting high (because I eat a lot of steak probably) and so I stopped.
Oh, I forgot that part. My wife is taking prenatal vitamins with calcium and iron, so that's a bit of a cheat. The calcium is because I'm too lazy to make bone broth on a regular basis, and the iron is to keep the doctors happy as otherwise her normal iron levels look borderline anemic to them. We did want the folate because with her at 38, the baby would otherwise be at increased risk for neural tube defects relative to those of younger women.
« on: November 03, 2009, 06:47:15 PM »
There were two large jumps in brain size in human evolution. One occurred when we started eating meat. The other is when we started cooking it. Dogs, however, don't need to eat cooked meat because the size of their digestive system in proportion to their body is larger than humans.
Can you provide references for any of this? My understanding is that the first use of fire was about 2,000,000 years ago, which was at the end of the first big brain expansion, not the beginning.
Your link does substantiate the link between eating meat and brain size, but I don't see anything on cooking in it.
I do cook my meat, at least on the outside, but that's because of hygeine, not nutrition.
« on: November 03, 2009, 02:32:44 PM »
My wife is currently six months pregnant and really hasn't had any problems staying paleo. It's funny, because in her first pregnancy she had all sorts of cravings, especially for pickles, but not this time around. She did have some anticravings earlier in the pregnancy, and stopped eating meat and eggs for a while; she still isn't eating eggs.
One of the things she does is, when she does have a craving, she imagines whether paleo foods will satisfy the craving. If you're craving sweets, for example, perhaps some kind of fruit will satisfy the craving, and you won't have to abandon the diet.
Her workouts have toned way down. I don't think there's any avoiding that.
With respect to childbirth, our first child was born in a hospital but was a natural childbirth, with no pitocin, epidural, or any other drug or intervention. We did hire a doula who helped to fend off "helpful" suggestions from the hospital personnel.
Good for you for starting your baby off paleo and going for a natural childbirth.
« on: November 03, 2009, 12:51:32 PM »
I think the causes must be different for different people. For me, really bad smelling poop is generally associated with green vegetables. However, there's more to it than just that, since vegetables usually don't cause it for me - only occasionally. It might have to do with specific mixes of intestinal flora as well, for instance.
« on: November 03, 2009, 12:48:06 PM »
Children raised by older parents are generally happier, too. Older parents aren't as vain (pay better attention to the child) or impatient (has more effective, mature ways of dealing with misbehavior) than younger parents.
I think that's because older parents are quicker to realize it's the child that's actually in charge!
« on: November 03, 2009, 12:35:27 PM »
Chinese are not a good example because many ARE in caloric restriction (according to you)
The Chinese are in caloric restriction in the same sense that Kitavans are: they don't have unlimited food at their fingertips.
BTW, I didn't know Chinese lived mainly on wheat (that's what you posted), I thought it was rice. Am I mistaken or are you?
You are mistaken, or perhaps you just didn't read my post carefully, where I specified that it was northern Chinese that eat primarily wheat. It's the southern Chinese that eat primarily rice. Obesity is uncommon in both.
And I reiterate, I am not claiming anything about the Chinese, but rather about the Kitavans.
I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. You made a claim about lectins suppressing leptin response and the sense of satiety, thus contributing to obesity. Is that claim limited to the Kitavans only, and not to Chinese or the rest of the human race? And if the claim is so limited, how is it relevant to the question in the topic - are you assuming the original poster is Kitavan?
« on: November 03, 2009, 11:27:59 AM »
PS: what other data are you talking about?
The Chinese data is a good example of the data you are ignoring.
Also the actual papers on caloric restriction, as your description is inaccurate in a number of details.
Those are two examples among many, of course.
« on: November 03, 2009, 10:45:05 AM »
If you think I should not point out the obvious I am sorry because you are gonna keep seeing it.
That's fine. You just keep pointing out what you think is obvious, and I'll just keep pointing out that you're mistaken.
Average of averages: ~ 2,100 kcals. As you can see, caloric restriction is not in play here. The data is there, you can choose to ignore it, but I don't know how you can invalidate it.
Your error is in using data on caloric requirements, rather than data on ad libitum feeding levels, which can be much higher. The restricted animals in caloric restriction experiments obviously met their requirements, since they didn't starve to death.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what caloric restriction is. It isn't malnutrition; it's adequate nutrition while avoiding ad libitum levels of eating or overeating. The scientific experiments that showed the effects of caloric restriction ensured that the calorically restricted animals still got adequate amounts of necessary nutrients. The restricted animals merely ate less than the animals who could eat all they wanted, as the latter were eating more than they actually needed.
I am not talking about the Chinese or any other culture, would have to do more research about that since as we know, claiming assumption as facts (as you just did) is a dangerous thing. Lets not get into a whole Chinese discussion now, since, as I just proved above, Kitavans are not caloric restricted.
The Chinese data are factual and relevant to the issue: they show that a diet with significant grains does not automatically cause obesity because of the presence of lectins.
Warren, I am afraid the data is there. Please tell me if I missed something as I want to get to the bottom of this and try to find reasoning.
Since you ask, what you're missing is all the data you don't like the implications of. To get to correct conclusions, you have to look at all the data, not just the data that support your inital conjectures.
« on: November 03, 2009, 10:10:04 AM »
This is not a conversation I really want to be a part of, but I can't help saying something to the original poster:
So you are going to "slightly starve" your daughter so that she can live longer. That sounds like a miserable existence. She will just be hungry anyways and eat away from home etc.
I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions there.
I don't think the main dietary effect on height is hunger. I think the biggest effect is the amount of animal protein in the diet. I could adjust the distribution of lean meat, fat, and fruit available to my daughter without starving her, and it would still affect her height.
I'd be interested if the shorter ladies on the forum felt starved by their parents when growing up, though. Actually I'm be interested in the opinions of taller posters too - and of men as well as women since I also have a son on the way.
I'm also still undecided on the height versus longevity thing. While I'm interested in the results of the poll, I'm even more interested in the insights from the posts. Lots of people have brought up good points.
Height is genetic. Eating a meat based diet can allow optimal growth and therefore she might be a few centimeters taller than if you fed her a vegan diet (not that you would do the latter).
Japanese 18 year olds of both sexes are about 12 cm taller now than they were a century ago; that's likely all or nearly all environmental rather than genetic. Obviously that's less than the total height variation in the general population, even just within the U.S., but I think it's significant.
But really, I calorie restricted myself to the point where I got addicted to it and became anorexic. I don't think this is what you want to encourage in your daughter. I am much happier and healthier now that I can eat as much meat as I want (I am currently carnivorous).
That does sound like a bad way to restrict calories. However, the ladies who have food logs showing 1000 kcal/day on this forum do not appear to be anorexic. I don't think calorie restriction necessarily implies hunger or anorexia.
« on: November 03, 2009, 09:06:42 AM »
Samjohn, that's close but not quite complete.
Insulin sensitivity and resistance refer to how sensitive or resistant various tissues are to the presence of insulin. For example, high insulin sensitivity means that the muscle and fat cells pull sugar and other nutrients out of the blood stream rapidly for a given concentration of insulin. Insulin resistance means that the same concentration of insulin will cause less response on the part of the cells; it takes more insulin to dispose of the same amount of blood sugar, for example.
In diabetics, the pancreas initially compensates for insulin resistance by producing more insulin. I believe the technical term for this is insulinemia. Later on, it seems that diabetics' pancreases give out, which is why late stage diabetics require supplementary insulin.
I was sloppy in my earlier post; it's not really the effect of a higher insulin spike, but rather a stronger reaction to the same limited insulin spike, that can cause low blood sugar if one is more insulin sensitive.
« on: November 03, 2009, 08:48:23 AM »
Welcome back, Marika! Sorry about taking your thread off on a tangent while you were gone!
« on: November 03, 2009, 08:46:37 AM »
Again, infection is one of the main causes of death in all hunter-gatherers society, are you saying this is because they have a weak immune system?
As I pointed out, the evidence is that the main cause of death among neanderthals - an actual paleolithic population, recalling that this forum is about the paleo way of life - is trauma rather than infection. If the reference I gave you isn't enough, there's plenty more evidence out there to be found.
But hey, you asked the question; I just answered it. If you want to ignore the answer, that's your prerogative.
« on: November 03, 2009, 08:08:18 AM »
I figured if everyone was eating 2,200 calories and that was what I would recommend for a woman, that in order for the average for the entire tribe to be that low, the women had to have been eating only 1,800 and the men 2,600 or something close to that. So if 2,200 is average, then the woman must be eating less than the usual 2,200 that we think of for active women, and the men eating less than what we recommend for an active man, which would be closer to 3,000. However, I did not know the activity level nor the size of the Kitava so I'm glad ajmesa pointed that out to me. With knowing those two facts, I can no longer argue that they were calorie restricted.
The article ajmesa linked to does indicate the Kitavans have higher activity than modern couch potatoes, with an overall metabolic rate of 1.7 times basal versus 1.4. If you adjust the calories for that activity rate, for typical Americans who watch television as their primary leisure time activity, the Kitavan diet is the equivalent of 1800 kcal/day .
Whether or not that constitutes caloric restriction depends I suppose on one's definition of caloric restriction. As with other preindustrial agricultural societies, the Kitavans have to grow their own carbohydrate calories, rather than conveniently purchasing them. That means they aren't doing "ad libitum" feeding - they can't just eat whenever they feel like it on the assumption that there's always more - so they meet the original experimental definition of caloric restriction, albeit mildly.
I think the body size issue is likely a red herring. As I've pointed out elsewhere, small size is associated with caloric restriction, and is not an independent variable.
That is way Kitavans are leptin sensitive, because they don't consume lectins (not sure if sweet potatoes, fruits, and yams have lectins, if they do is a minuscule amount when compared to grains and legumes; white potatoes do contain lectins as far as I know, so this is not a good reference since it is a different family than sweet potatoes and yams).
The argument that Kitavans avoid obesity because of fewer lectins in their carbohydrates may have merit, but it must be pointed out that northern Chinese also avoid obesity, despite a diet based on wheat, which does have significant amounts of lectins. It may just be limitations on food availability that keep these populations from getting fat.
It should also be pointed out that not all lectins are bad; the body produces and uses lectins for a variety of necessary purposes. Some foreign lectins, such as those in grains and legumes, are likely bad for us, but some may be harmless.
Pages: 1 ... 296 297  299 300 ... 352