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 - paleophil

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
Exercises / Re: The Third World Squat
« on: August 10, 2010, 06:22:03 PM »
Don't try to force yourself to do a full traditional squat sit within a short time frame. Give yourself time. There are several factors that can make full squatting difficult for modern people who aren't accustomed to it:

> age (the longer you've been sitting in atrophying Western chairs and not squatting, the harder it will tend to be to squat)
> tight or weak calves and/or hamstrings
> weak connective tissues
> joint pain, joint degeneration, fused bones and other musculoskeletal issues
> low torso/leg ratio

That being said, one fellow at the Raw Paleo Forum who has a low torso/leg ratio was told to do squats by the Crossfit instructors and he has made some impressive progress in short order. He is fairly young and fit, though.

The one benefit of chronic back pain in my youth was that I never gave up squatting when my mother started telling me to stop doing it (as do most American mothers at some point as their children age and it's no longer considered socially "appropriate"), because it relieved the back pain (and it also felt more comfortable and natural and required less shifting than chair sitting).

Diet and nutrition / Re: Paleo Experiment - Off The Nightshades.
« on: July 16, 2010, 09:49:18 AM »
Here's some info re: the antinutrients in nightshades:
Listen to Loren Cordain interview on Profound Paths website

"autoimmune patients should make some changes regarding The Paleo Diet:

    * Nightshade (potatoes, eggplants, peppers and tomatoes) should be removed from your diet as they contain harmful lectins and saponins." --Patrick Baker

Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet - Tue, 06/22/2010 - 09:40

"Hence, decreasing intestinal permeability is one of the treatment targets. There are several nutrients known to increase intestinal permeability that you may want to avoid, at least until symptoms subside. Here is a list, with the noxious substances in parentheses:

    * Cereal grains (lectins and gliadin)
    * Legumes, including soya and peanuts (lectins and saponins)
    * Tomato (tomato lectin and alpha-tomatin)
    * Potato (lectins and saponins)
    * Chili (capsaicin) ...."

Again, could you please cite the passage(s) you're referring to? For simplicity and to avoid tangents, let's please stick to the first article you mentioned for now.

I avoid judging what titles are "meant to imply".  Rather, I read the title literally:  "odds are, it's wrong" states that there are more incorrect results than correct results.
Oops, violated my own rule like a dunderhead, sorry. Instead of assuming I understand your meaning again, I'll ask a question to try to be sure I understand you...

It does cite one researcher saying there are more incorrect results, but then quickly points out how that conclusion was itself insupportible.
Would you please cite the passage you're referring to, so I can try to better understand what you mean?

Odds Are, It's Wrong: Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics
By Tom Siegfried
March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26),_Its_Wrong

This article doesn't really live up to its title.  It actually says statistics are fine; the problem is misuse and misunderstanding of statistics.  I do agree that to properly evaluate journal articles, one needs and understanding of the statistics used to test for significance.  I would agree that may explain why most people, who have no such statistical background, trust anecdotes more.
I think that's basically what the title was meant to imply--at least, that's how I took it. The title suggests to me only that science as it's currently practiced is failing to face the shortcomings of statistics as currently practiced--not that all science imaginable is bogus. One of my general rules is to try not to read things into what people are saying and to rely more on what they actually say and do, so that may be why I didn't read more into that title. For me, the article was what I expected. I also may have benefited from previously reading similar stuff written by Nassim Taleb and others. The fact that it was published in Science News, rather than Creation News, was another tipoff for me.

It looks like, for starters, that all three of us agree that our own anecdotal/experimental experiences provide useful information regarding ourselves, yes?

I wouldn't completely agree with that.  Personal experience can be extremely misleading.
I agree, so I'm not sure where you're disagreeing. I said that personal experiment provides "useful information regarding ourselves," not that it can never be misleading. I even considered mentioning my own early misguided experiments, but decided to keep it short. Perhaps I should have gone with my initial instinct.

For example, most people are far too willing to attribute causation to factors they happen to notice:  "within three days after I started eating acai berries, my diabetes completely cleared up", for example, while ignoring the fact that at the same time they started eating acai berries they also started eating more meat and fish and gave up all other forms of carbohydrates besides the berries.

One has to approach personal experience and anecdotes with skepticism, just as one approaches scientific findings.

Correct--well said and thanks for making my case for me. You apparently already understood my points before reading them, but I apparently failed to communicate them well to you. Maybe your wording of them will make more sense to other folks than mine did. I used your reply as inspiration for editing my above post in a way that I hope will make it more clear.

....So if scientific evidence is wrong a lot of the time, imagine how much more often anecdotal evidence is wrong. A hell of a lot more often.
You're on the right basic track, SamJohn--it's good to maintain a generous level of skepticism re: BOTH studies AND anecdotal evidence (particularly those studies funded by sources with a financial or ideological interest in particular results and those anecdotes reported by people with predetermined ideologies that the anecdotes serve). However, if there were no value at all to anecdotal evidence, you and I wouldn't waste much time at forums like this one where people share anecdotal experiences and ideas, would we? If studies were the end-all and be-all we could just search Pub Med and wouldn't need forums or anything else.

So if [we are correct in thinking--and if I read you right, I think I can include you in that we--that] both anecdotes (of others) and studies should not be relied on too heavily but can also not be dismissed completely [in an arbitrary, a priori fashion], then where does that leave us? I can share the approach that has worked best for me, if you're interested. What approach has worked best for you? It looks like, for starters, that all three of us agree that our own anecdotal/experimental experiences provide useful information regarding ourselves [not necessarily others], yes?


BTW, here's another good source I neglected to mention:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis

[Edited for what I hope is better clarity.]

This is a link to Luke's Psoriasis Cure Journal (2009 to 2010)
It shows people what it takes to be fully cured.
Luke lives in Poland he has his diet regimen in his journal.

I was just desperate, and like some of you here tried almost everything... and raw meat was the last thing to be tried.

Raw meat as food is not the officially accepted method of eating meat in this forum.

Nor is it seen as unacceptable, just most people don't like the idea and i personally have not seen any concrete evidence of benefit. Remember 'anecdotal evidence' is an oxymoron ....
Anecdotal evidence doesn't say much to those who aren't experiencing the anecdote, it's good to be skeptical of others' anecdotes, and the only claims I make based on my experience are regarding myself, but when the beneficiary of the anecdote is oneself, it's all the concrete evidence one needs. :D (See also the writings of Paleo-style dieters Nassim Taleb and Brent Pottenger re: evidence, if you haven't already, plus the links below; plus see Stephan Guyenet, PhD and cardiologist Dr. William Davis on the problems with high-heat cooking).

Besides, me mother used to tell me "Don't knock it 'till you've tried it" (like most parental rules, there are exceptions like "Don't try cooking an egg in the microwave"). Not that I care particularly whether other folks eat raw, cooked or mixed. Re: that, my philosophy is "to each his (her) own" (unless his own involves eating me, of course ;) ).

Some links on "scientific" evidence:

Odds Are, It's Wrong: Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics
By Tom Siegfried
March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26),_Its_Wrong

Everything is Dangerous: A Controversy
S. Stanley Young
National Institute of Statistical Sciences
June 2008
"We present evidence of a false discovery rate over 80%."

I used to have folliculitis, acne, eczema, the worst kind.
With the more raw versions of paleo diet you will see faster results.

Back in January, I was eating dominantly raw foods and only meat at dinner and my skin was clear within a week. It's just really inconvenient and expensive to do such. Maybe I'll try just for a week to get my skin in order.
My experience has been quite similar. My skin has also stayed clear on mostly raw VLC Paleo (I usually call it facultative carnivore) after decades of daily acne breakouts. When I cut out gluten years ago, my acne cleared up nearly completely. I further modified my diet by going standard cooked Paleo, including about 30-40% calories as carbs, and things were good for a while. Then my acne started coming back. I found that zinc supplements helped, but I didn't want to have to take them the rest of my life. Eventually I found that cutting out all carbs (yeah, I know, major bummer for a fruit lover like me, but carnivore turned out to be much more pleasant than I expected) finally cleared up my skin completely. Going raw and making sure I eat plenty of animal and fish fats seemed to provide some additional benefits for skin (such as clearing up of most of my dry skin) and general health.

Now the only time I get acne breakouts is if I eat some plant carbs--even fairly small amounts of supposedly healthy carbs like fresh, raw, ripe, organic, local berries. There is a small amount of zinc in my low-dose multivitamin/mineral from Dr. Ron's, which may also be helping, though I have skipped it some days without new breakouts. Some animal foods that contain carbs, like liver and shellfish, don't give me breakouts.

Exercises / Re: The Third World Squat
« on: July 09, 2010, 08:24:28 PM »
Hey, nice to find other so-called "third-world" (ie natural) squatters here. It has always been one of my favorite ways to sit (and, yes, I mean feet flat and ass on the grass and balanced and can sit this way for long periods). It became especially favored by me when I developed a curved spine and back pain in my teens, as I found it reduced the pain. My mother used to tell me to sit up on chairs, but I'm glad I kept squatting and stayed limber and it's neat to find out that nowadays scientists and Paleos are starting to recognize that it's healthy.

One caveat: it apparently can be more difficult to squat with heels flat if your leg/torso ratio is too high. The particularly long-legged among you may have to raise the heels or squat on an inclined surface. Can anyone here with long legs and short torso squat fully?

Research / Re: Early human ate fish..
« on: July 09, 2010, 08:02:32 PM »
It makes sense to me that early humans and proto-humans would have lived near the shores of lakes, ponds, streams and oceans so they could access water and/or seafood to supplement the foods on land--which would apparently fit the "shoreline hypothesis" (not to be confused with the strange "aquatic ape" hypothesis). A greater number of food options means less chance of malnutrition and starvation and more chance of plenty, which promotes fertility. The shoreline hypothesis is not necessary to account for brain-enriching omega-3 fats, however, as land mammal brains, particularly megafauna, suit that purpose well, and probably even more bountifully than fresh-water creatures.

....I really dig the way you eat Goodsamaritan. Not the raw part (crazy)....
Hmmm, so if raw food eating is crazy, does that mean that humans that cook most of their food are the only sane beings in the entire history of the planet?  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]