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 ... 359
« on: November 22, 2009, 11:07:16 AM »
Is the Potassium RDA set abnormally high to make up for the Standard American Diet's high sodium intake?
So perhaps, if one doesn't add salt to one's food, a lower level of potassium is required than the RDA?
That's exactly what I was going to suggest.
« on: November 22, 2009, 11:04:34 AM »
What kind of results are you looking for?
If you are overweight and looking for fat loss, and if you are on a fully paleo diet - no grains, dairy, or legumes, and no sweets, soda, or juice, just fresh meat, fruit, and vegetables - you'll typically see several pounds of water weight loss in the first couple weeks, followed by one to two pounds weekly until you reach a stable weight. If you're not overweight, whether you lose weight will depend on your balance between meat and fruit.
If you're trying to gain muscle, I think the results take a bit longer, but some of the others here know more about that than I do.
Edit: if you want, take a picture now so you can have a nice comparison a few months from now!
« on: November 21, 2009, 12:28:21 PM »
It is understandable that eating meat and fat means slower digestion, so frequent meals may not be required as much, but is there any evidence that infrequent meals result in better functioning of the body and performance increasing? I can't imagine myself eating twice a day. I wake up early, at about 5am and I'm up until 9pm, I workout at 3pm. If I had a huge breakfast, I'd still be hungry until 3pm. Another option would be eating huge dinner before bed, and have breakfast only 3-4 hours after waking up, but I still don't get how this will help my performance or how my body will absorb nutrients better than it does when I eat more frequently.
I think the infrequent meal thing works better once you're actually on a paleo diet, and a low carb one at that.
For true intermittent fasting - which I think means a lot more than 24 hours between meals - the added benefit seems to be periods of catabolism, which seems to reduce aging by breaking down excess protein structures within the cells, including perhaps old, crosslinked proteins. That would imply that if your primary interest is in building your body, intermittent fasting may not be that great an idea.
« on: November 20, 2009, 01:25:33 PM »
About the nightshades, Mellivora:
I say go ahead and eat them occasionally if you really like them. You cant give up every single food you like and of course not having them is slightly better then having them but it is all about how far you want to go personally.
I tend to agree. Just remember the issue, and if you start getting joint pains 20 years from now, you can probably remove nightshades then and still get the benefit.
1 Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all flour
2 Start eating proper fats - Use healthy animal fats to substitute fat calories for carb calories. Drink whole cream or half and half instead of milk.
3 Eliminate grains
4 Eliminate grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils) Cook with butter, animal fats, or coconut oil.
5 Get daily midday sun or take 4-8000 iu vit D daily
6 Intermittent fasting and infrequent meals (2 meals a day is best)
7 Fruit is just a candy bar from a tree. Stick with berries and avoid watermelon which is pure fructose. Eat in moderation.
8 Eliminate legumes
9 Adjust your 6s and 3s. Pastured (grass fed) dairy and grass fed beef or bison avoids excess O-6 fatty acids and are better than supplementing with 0-3 supplements.
10 Proper exercise - emphasizing resistance and interval training over long aerobic sessions
11 Eliminate milk (if you are sensitive to it, move this up the list
12 Eliminate other dairy including cheese- (now you are "orthodox paleolithic")
Interesting. Personally I'd put that list in almost the opposite order.
« on: November 20, 2009, 01:13:07 PM »
Is your wife still eating the 600-800 calories like at 5 months?
She is eating more now. I think it's probably still under 1500 kcal/day, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly over 1000.
I'd love to hear how the birth goes if your willing to share at the time. I would guess that with her diet she would have a much easier time during labor that with a SAD.
I'll certainly share how it goes. I hope it goes easier, but I'm not certain that's one of the things paleo helps with. She was not paleo, albeit not exactly on a standard American diet, for her first pregnancy, and that seemed to go pretty well.
I would also think that colic should be almost an impossibility.
My wife went paleo soon after giving birth the first time, and breast fed exclusively for 9 months. We certainly never had a problem with colic with that baby. Part of that, though, is that we looked pretty hard for a cause whenever she cried - she never cried without a reason.
« on: November 20, 2009, 10:09:43 AM »
I'm not sure how that relates to the pdf that Tarlach posted. Are the hypotheses mutually exclusive or is there some way in which they can be reconciled?
Possibly humans are more efficient at walking than chimps, which is what your quote refers to, while humans are less efficient at running, which is what Tarlach's post addressed.
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:39:17 AM »
Now the same person is just willingly accepting studies performed on mice.
Since this person was me, I'll explain the points you missed.
The point is that one should look at all the evidence, in context, rather than just picking out the parts you agree or disagree with. Caloric restriction is about the amount of food consumed, and has been verified in studies from a huge range of animals, from paramecia to monkeys. Since mice and humans both consume food, there's some basis for extrapolation. Even then, I used the evidence only to confirm the existing data on long lived humans being smaller than average.
The mouse atherosclerosis data was claimed to be due to the types of food consumed, and not the total amount. When you're dealing with types of food, though, you can only extrapolate to other creatures that eat similar types of food. Mice and humans do not normally subsist on similar types of food, so the extrapolation is questionable. It would be like claiming that cows will die on a diet of grass because humans can't survive on grass. Again, all of the data is important, not just the sound bite.
I do see how people who are sloppy about data could miss those subtleties, but the fact remains that your examples merely illustrate proper analysis and how it takes into account all of the data, and not just sound bites.
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:28:48 AM »
Something else, if this was not important, then why did we developed bipedalism.
Current evidence is that we developed bipedalism while we were still in trees.
With respect to the efficiency of bipedalism, which several other people mentioned, the human form of bipedalism is not especially efficient. We're not really all that adapted to bipedal locomotion. If you want to look for efficient bipedal runners, the best extant model is the ostritch, which has legs rather different from ours.
« on: November 19, 2009, 06:44:31 PM »
Notice that all of the species that this tribe ate are low in fatty meat, and more abundant in very lean meat.
Pronghorn are not especially low in fatty meat, though the other animals mentioned are.
« on: November 19, 2009, 04:52:00 PM »
My wife is 5'7" and 157 pounds, but she is 7 months pregnant.
« on: November 19, 2009, 12:09:52 PM »
Here is the link to cordain's statement: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/10/22/paleo-diet-part-two.aspx
That's a good example. I can't find any cite to the original article about the 800 year old eskimo in this web page. In fact, I don't see any citations of peer reviewed articles at all on that page. It all comes down to whether I trust Cordain's unsupported assertions, and after reading Taubes's book, I don't trust anyone's unsupported assertions.
If you think that exercise is so important for preventing this, then I'm really scared now! I'm still recovering from adrenal fatigue and have not been able to exercise in many years and I'm not all that close to being able to do that now either (at least not aerobic stuff, definitely not sprints/intervals, but weights I do and I'm no negatively affected by). Would the saturated fat plus no exercise equal bad?
I would guess that saturated fat makes little or no difference: no fat plus no exercise would be bad, saturated fat plus no exercise would be bad, unsaturated fat plus no exercise would be bad. Add in exercise and things get better, even if it's only some walking. Again, though, this is just a guess.
« on: November 19, 2009, 07:04:08 AM »
Breastfeeding reduces your chances of getting pregnant. A lot of women on the standard American diet can still get pregnant, though, probably because the extra body fat tells the body it has enough reserves to produce a second baby. A paleolithic woman would not have had as much extra fat.
« on: November 18, 2009, 11:32:42 PM »
We do know that exhaustive hunting was one of the most primitive methods of hunting that our ancestors employed.
We don't know that at all. The direct evidence for persistence hunting comes from modern hunter gatherers, which are not even our ancestors in most cases. Neanderthals engaged in ambush hunting with nonmissle weapons farther in the past than that, though they weren't our primary ancestors either.
We really have no clue what Homo erectus was doing 2 million years ago. They could have been persistence hunting, but they could also have been ambush hunting or primarily fishing. If they were optimized for sweat cooling - and that would probably involve hair optimized for evaporative cooling, rather than bare skin from which sweat wastefully drips off - they could have been using that advantage to scavenge by getting to corpses first, rather than to hunt.
Anything before Homo erectus didn't really have legs long enough for persistence hunting.
« on: November 18, 2009, 11:20:39 PM »
I read that bit by cordain before and am a bit disturbed by it. Is anyone else worried about a diet that is probably giving us atheroclerosis?
I think "probably" is an exaggeration. That's a very broad conclusion to draw from only one example. For all we know, any atherosclerotic plaque in that one example was caused by lack of exercise rather than diet.
I also haven't seen a cite or an original article. If Cordain misinterpreted the evidence, it wouldn't be the first time he'd done it.
One thing to keep in mind is that atherosclerosis has never been linked to deaths from heart attacks in women, and the few studies that have looked at it in men have had contradictory results. It's also to be noted that different things can be interpreted as "atherosclerosis", ranging from fatty streaks that may be entirely harmless to fibroid plaques that are likely dangerous because pieces can break off and cause thrombosis or stroke.
Personally - and this is just a guess based on the limited evidence available - personally, I suspect that dietary composition may have little to do with risk of fatal heart attack. I suspect that exercise has a lot more to do with it. And I'll go even further against the accepted wisdom on this board, and say that for this particular issue, aerobic exercise is likely the best, as it likely promotes myoglobin in heart muscle that would allow the heart to survive a longer period without oxygen when thrombosis - a heart attack - does happen.
I'd love to see more actual facts and research on that, though.
« on: November 18, 2009, 12:22:16 PM »
OK, I just watched it again, it's around time market 27:00 in Part 2. They studied the divergence of head lice vs. pubic lice, using the molecular clock, and inferred that we lost our body hair around 3 million years ago.
What they're saying there is not quite accurate, though.
In fact, head lice and pubic lice diverged much more than 3 million years ago (Mya); head lice are more closely related to chimpanzee lice than they are to public lice, and pubic lice are more closely related to gorilla lice than they are to chimpanzee lice. The divergence that occurred 3 Mya was the divergence between pubic lice and gorilla lice.
That's been interpreted to mean that humans lost their body hair at least 3 Mya, enabling gorilla lice to jump to human pubic hair at that time. I don't think that's the only possible interpretation, though. These two different kinds of human lice could have inhabited different populations of hominids, making a jump onto a common host at some later time.
Pages: 1 ... 296 297  299 300 ... 359