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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 17, 2013, 04:45:47 PM »
Thanks Eric.

Well, even just joking about trolling a feminist forum might serve only to confirm her negative opinions and turn off some other feminists to boot, though not enough to make a noticeable blip in the continuing rapid growth of the movement.

Besides, is Paleo/ancestral necessarily antithetical to non-extreme forms of feminism? Despite the "caveman" image that this forum and others have adopted, Paleo might actually be seen as more "feminist" than the common patriarchal societies of today, since many HG and even pastoral societies were not patriarchal and patriarchy didn't become dominant until the Neolithic, as pointed out here: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/12/why-does-it-always-have-to-be-cavemen/ and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy.

32
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 16, 2013, 11:36:26 AM »
What do you make of this? Marlene Zuk is described in one of her book bios as “a respected biologist and a feminist” (Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex from Animals
http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Selections-Learn-About-Animals/dp/0520240758), she reportedly calls herself a "feminist biologist" and "liberal feminist" (http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iaph/June25/Presentations/5, http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=A5708_0_1_0_M, http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/pdf/2.2/bookreview.pdf), and a graduate school classmate said she has "feminist politics" (http://www.ucpress.edu/excerpt.php?isbn=9780520240759).

It sounds like she may enjoy taking a combative approach:

   “A review once called her ‘snarky and a tad feminist,’” he said. “She was thinking of having T-shirts made up of it.” (http://www.mndaily.com/2012/05/30/cbs-hires-bug-sexpert-marlene-zuk). Snarky is defined as "Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide." (www.thefreedictionary.com/snarky)

Did she ever discuss feminism vis-a-vis Paleo here? Can someone please provide a link to any of her posts? I wonder if she sees Paleo diets/lifestyles as based on interpretations flawed by "sexist biases and stereotypes":

   "Anthropomorphism, however, can lead to flawed interpretations of animal behavior, particularly when combined with sexist biases and stereotypes. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California, Riverside, argues these points in an engaging, highly readable, and thoughtprovoking book, Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn about Sex from Animals, now available in paperback.The pitfalls of anthropomorphism are illustrated to great effect with a number of entertaining examples, many of which document a distinct male bias. Zuk argues that feminism can provide anthropomorphist biologists with the intellectual tools needed to cure their bad habits." (What We Can and Can’t Learn about Biology from Feminism, http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0182:NT]2.0.CO;2)

[Not that any of this would necessarily disprove any of her points re: Paleo nutrition, of course, but it does raise some questions.]

33
"There's treatment but no cure for it so far."

And now you know that most claims of "no cure" are wrong. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in cures for chronic illnesses, only in selling drugs indefinitely to people with chronic illnesses. "Cures" (therapies that produce remission of symptoms and restoration of health) for most chronic diseases are known and published on the Internet, including in scientific studies that few people read. The trick is figuring out which ones are valid (and trying to avoid quackery, scams and myths) and which will work for you. The evolutionary template can help with this, as it did in these psoriasis cases.

34
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 12, 2013, 06:04:42 PM »
The Paleoanthropological, archaeological and Paleontological record also shows that evolutionary change can provide positive adaptions from the start when the diet is improved, such as when hominins consumed more and more meat/fat and experienced only benefits, like increased brain and body size and strength, thicker bones, more sophisticated tool production and use, etc. Whereas the changes in the last 10-40 thousand years produced physical degeneration from the start. The degeration accelerated as agriculture intensified, then there was some regeneration in the world's wealthiest nations, but which have been experiencing increases in diseases of civilization over the last 30 years.

Interestingly, it occurs to me that there is no opposite/antonym for (physical) degeneration. It's not regeneration, because hominins didn't lose their brains or bodies and then regenerate them with increased meat/fat intake, they developed larger brains and bodies. Does anyone know of a word or phrase that means beneficial physical adaptive change from consuming a superior diet?

35
Research / Re: Hunting for hippo and horse 1.78 million years ago
« on: March 12, 2013, 04:31:53 PM »
Hippos are aggressive, but their relative lack of fear of humans and other predators seems to make them somewhat easy prey. I've seen several documentary videos where they just walked along or stood still or even continued to eat while lions were jumping on them and sinking their fangs into their backs or humans were stabbing them with dozens of spears.

36
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 12, 2013, 04:34:19 AM »
Another mistake people make who claim that rapid evolution means we are now optimally adapted is to assume that all evolutionary change is positive (as in larger brains, bigger, stronger, faster). It could also be neutral or degenerative (as in smaller brains, smaller, weaker, slower). Loren Cordain and Weston Price have argued that the evolutionary change of the last 10 thousand years has been degenerative, rather than positively adaptive, and the evidence supports that.

37
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 11, 2013, 07:57:09 PM »
I don't know why there seems to be such a widespread hard on for proving the Paleo diet wrong,
Maybe because there's little profit in Paleo and it challenges many huge international industries and the governments they pay for? I'm actually a mite surprised that they haven't started killing off Paleo proponents yet.

Quote
The evolutionary pressure to be able to eat grains without causing health issues would not be all that strong as the health problems caused tend to be cumulative, starting off quite mild but increasing through life to be felt in full force later on in life, past the age at which one would usually have had children.
And many people reach grandparent age despite having nasty chronic diseases, and they often even say things like "Oh I'm healthy, I just have arthritis, gout, high blood pressure, have to take medications for pain, anxiety and so I can sleep, etc., etc., etc. You know, the usual. I only take 12 medications, nothing beyond the ordinary."

What they don't realize is, "humans are not broken by default," as Angelo Coppola points out. We don't have to accept chronic diseases as a "normal" part of aging.

Quote
In that article Zuk is quoted as saying 10 thousand years is 'plenty of time' for humanity to select out an genetic issue with digesting grains and it might well be if certain conditions were met, but that does not mean that it did indeed happen, and interventional dietary studies show strong evidence that it did not.
10 thousand years certainly wasn't anywhere near enough time for giant pandas and their ancestors to optimally adapt to a new diet. Millions of years later, they still have difficulties with it. There's a dramatic difference between adapting enough to survive and pass on genes vs. adapting to the point of optimal health, but critics will try to cloud over this difference. Their profits and government jobs will depend on it.

Until recently, they largely ignored us as irrelevant. They are starting to take notice. Once they see us as a real threat, watch out.

38
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 11, 2013, 07:37:51 PM »
"The most persuasive argument Zuk marshals against such views has to do with the potential for relatively rapid evolution" (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/paleofantasy_stone_age_delusions)

Note that term--"rapid evolution"--well. Years ago I expected that this would become the primary argument of science-oriented and corporate Paleo critics and it's coming to pass. I even predicted that "rapid evolution" would be the term they would use (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/rapid-evolution-counterargument-against-rpd/msg27862/#msg27862). It's the only somewhat-logical argument they can use. It contains a shred of truth (and I knew the example of lactase persistence would be cited ad nauseum, however inconvenient for vegans), which is more than their other arguments contain. What it ignores is that even millions of years of adaptation to a novel food can sometimes not be enough. A fascinating example of this is the giant panda. After many millions of years of eating mostly bamboo, it still does not digest it very well. Nature does not work to ensure that we are optimally adapted to a novel food, and certainly not within the blink of an eye that 10 thousand years represents in evolutionary terms.

Most of us who eat "Paleo" will likely eventually be confronted with the "rapid evolution" argument.

39
Introductions / Re: Heyhey. Previous raw vegan here
« on: March 10, 2013, 07:09:10 PM »
Hello! I was vegetarian for 5 years and then mostly raw vegan for 3. I was 100% raw for two months. I have learned most of what I know from Youtube (liferegenerator, durianriders, rawbrahs, daniel vitalis, david wolfe, paul chek) L ...
Welcome. Coincidentally, the last I saw, rawbrahs, daniel vitalis, david wolfe, and paul chek had all added some animal foods back to their diets. DurianRider has attacked them all for it. Wolfe apparently banned DurianRider from his talks because of DRs criticisms on multiple issues.

40
Miscellaneous / Re: Paleofantasy
« on: March 04, 2013, 04:04:50 PM »
Here are some more Caveman forum folks that are mentioned in the book:

celticavegirl
Il Capo
smcdow
klcarbaugh
Destor

And some Paleo-friendly authors' names I recognize that were mentioned:

Loren Cordain
Mark Sisson
Jared Diamond
Christopher McDougall

41
Diet and nutrition / Re: Cod liver and butter oil
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:15:35 PM »
Green Pastures makes a combination CLO plus butter oil gels, including a flavored version, that don't taste bad to me, though they might to others. They also make a capsule version that has no taste at all. Here's one place that sells them: http://www.drrons.com/blue-ice-royal-fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-blend.htm

42
Diet and nutrition / Re: What to do if you don't eat much meat?
« on: March 04, 2013, 04:25:24 AM »
I thought I had that covered by writing "Paleo/primal-type" instead of "Paleo." I added emphasis and additional qualifiers to try to make it more clear.

I don't eat seeds myself, don't recommend particularly them, and no two people agree on which specific foods are fully Paleo. I only mentioned them because some seeds are cheap and many, though not all, prominent Paleo diet advocates (Cordain, Audette, Eaton, etc.) include non-grain seeds in their Paleo template and they are one of the few food categories that she didn't already rule out or mention eating. There's also the 80-20 rule for generally healthy people that Mark Sisson and others use and potential hormetic benefits (http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis, http://www.marksdailyapple.com/hormesis-how-certain-kinds-of-stress-can-actually-be-good-for-you/#axzz2MZvraRzh, ) from occasionally including seeds or even some of the less toxic legumes, such as those that are edible raw (like tamarinds, jicama, and fresh sugar snap peas). It may not be necessary for everyone to be 100% strict. Presumably partial Paleo would be better than totally giving up on it.

Ideally, one would start out as strictly Paleo as possible, then some weeks or months later experiment, one at a time, with any borderline foods one is interested in adding.

43
Diet and nutrition / Re: Why is quinoa bad?
« on: March 03, 2013, 05:38:26 PM »
Multiple Paleo, primal and ancestral diet advocates allow sweet potatoes for people who aren't trying to lose  body fat (and some even it allow it in that case), such as Paul Jaminet, Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, Kurt Harris, Stephan Guyenet and even Loren Cordain. Ray Audette is the only prominent exception I can think of. There are low-carb diet advocates who prohibit tubers for everyone in their recommended diets, but they tend to consider their approaches to be focused on low carb, rather than Paleo or primal.

That said, it sounds like Rose is going to have to decide whether she wants to follow her physician's recommended Autoimmune Hypothyroid Diet or some sort of Paleo diet, or perhaps something of her own choosing, such as a cross between the two.

Jean's point is a good one that forums are not places to go to for professional advice. Rather, they are places to share, explore and discuss.

It can be upsetting to learn that much of the advice that we have been given over the years by physicians and other "experts" has turned out to be utterly bogus. I was badly misled by most of my physicians and a nutritionist, who were schooled in outdated information they learned in academia. Often, I find the opposite of their advice to be true. Luckily, I eventually came under the care of a physician from Russia who had not been indoctrinated with the dogma of the standard American authorities and he was the first physician who was quite helpful for me.

44
Diet and nutrition / Re: What to do if you don't eat much meat?
« on: March 03, 2013, 05:31:45 PM »
OK, right, it's true that the doctor's advice was indeed nonsense, though so common that it was not surprising. I have only benefited from grass-fed red meat myself, despite having a family history of heart disease. High quality red meat has definitely been good for my health.

45
Diet and nutrition / Re: What to do if you don't eat much meat?
« on: March 03, 2013, 02:24:52 PM »
Regardless, it doesn't sound like rarose67 is going to eat red meat, no matter what anyone says. She explained that she hates the taste.

I hope this helps, rarose67--

Paleo/primal/ancestral foods you have ruled out:
beef/veal, lamb, pork
eggs
nuts
mushrooms

Paleo/primal/ancestral-type foods you have indicated a willingness to eat:
chicken
turkey
fish
veggies, sweet potatoes*
avocados
olive oil and coconut oil

The only Paleo/primal/traditional-type foods I can think of that aren't pricey and that you haven't already ruled out or mentioned as included in your diet are sweet or sour fruits/berries, seeds* (pumpkin, sunflower, flax, ...), animal fats and organ meats. My guess is that you aren't going to be thrilled with animal fats or organs.

*Many Paleo/primal/ancestral/traditional dieters do include sweet potatoes and other tubers and roots in their diets (even Loren Cordain allows sweet potatoes for those who aren't trying to lose body fat). Some include white rice. Not all include seeds.

Raw honey, seaweeds and top-quality dairy foods are considered acceptable on many "primal"/"ancestral" diets, but they tend to be expensive, so they may not fit into your budget.

Here are some blogs that are more in line with your preferences than the views commonly expressed at this forum:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
http://perfecthealthdiet.com

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8