Eating The Whole Animal Back In The Days Containing Gluten And PUFA

[oxidation_is_normal]

What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries.

Do we really need models for intuition? That's a very vague statement. Almost all other cultures did not use dairy the way certain Euros did so there are more examples of "intuition" without dairy. I personally like dairy used in the right way for me so I'm not anti-dairy. The problem is that thinking about intuition when it comes to human food is pointless simply because there are only two sources of food; certain edible parts of plants and certain edible parts of animals. There's nothing to think about. Plants and animals. If there were 10 other elements that were human food, and disease was mostly a mystery, then I would agree that we need to look for intuition, but since there's only two elements of food I think there's nothing to think about. You can eat the "meat" of a fruit but you can't eat the seeds, meaning that your gut can't break them down and get nutrients from them. It's clear what part of the fruit is real food. Sure, certain seed such as sesame can be ground up and made into tahini but theres probably a reason why mixing it with chickpeas to make hummus is the most widely used version. You can eat the meat and organs of an animal but you can't eat the bones. You can crack them open and eat the marrow but you can't eat the actual bone. You can eat shellfish but you can't eat the shell. You can eat eggs but you can't eat the shell without a coffee grinder and even then eggshell powder is not an energy source, its a calcium supplement. In the wild there are plants and animals. You can't eat rocks, you can't eat bark, you can't drink sea water because you'll die. Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier. Even with cooking and processing, there is still only a very limited number of what is human food, even at present and far gone from the wild.

Animals like us operate off of intuition; it's something that needs to be accounted for, and even harnessed for its power. It's been the driving hunger - literally - in our feeding patterns since the beginning. Dogs eat grass when they have worms out of intuition... And what is this about the only being two elements of food? That sounds like alchemy. You said something about not eating seeds, and then you used coffee as an example - the seed of a coffee plant! We "changed our intuition" to drink coffee now that creating it is a common procedure.

 

[YuraCZ]

What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries.

Do we really need models for intuition? That's a very vague statement. Almost all other cultures did not use dairy the way certain Euros did so there are more examples of "intuition" without dairy. I personally like dairy used in the right way for me so I'm not anti-dairy. The problem is that thinking about intuition when it comes to human food is pointless simply because there are only two sources of food; certain edible parts of plants and certain edible parts of animals. There's nothing to think about. Plants and animals. If there were 10 other elements that were human food, and disease was mostly a mystery, then I would agree that we need to look for intuition, but since there's only two elements of food I think there's nothing to think about. You can eat the "meat" of a fruit but you can't eat the seeds, meaning that your gut can't break them down and get nutrients from them. It's clear what part of the fruit is real food. Sure, certain seed such as sesame can be ground up and made into tahini but theres probably a reason why mixing it with chickpeas to make hummus is the most widely used version. You can eat the meat and organs of an animal but you can't eat the bones. You can crack them open and eat the marrow but you can't eat the actual bone. You can eat shellfish but you can't eat the shell. You can eat eggs but you can't eat the shell without a coffee grinder and even then eggshell powder is not an energy source, its a calcium supplement. In the wild there are plants and animals. You can't eat rocks, you can't eat bark, you can't drink sea water because you'll die. Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier. Even with cooking and processing, there is still only a very limited number of what is human food, even at present and far gone from the wild.

Good post.. Btw how can we get up to 1000 mg of calcium per day (recommended dose) without dairy? Do we really need that much calcium? I started low fat diet and there is only one thing where I'm not sure and it's calcium.. It is better to take some eggshell calcium 1 or 2 teaspoons a day? I have problems with blood circulation and with spider veins and weak blood vessels. Btw I'm slow oxidizer and for slow oxidizer is recommended low fat diet. For maybe 20 months I was on keto/ paleo low carb, high fat and everything was worse and worse. Then I watch some videos my favorite YT celebrity Durianrider. Where he talks about fat makes red blood cells stick together. So now I'm only second day on low fat diet and my blood circulation in legs is already much better. I always felt that you can't eat high fat AND high carb diet. You must choose fuel for your body which depends on your specific needs. This is a big problem on Peat diet I think. High fat and high sugar food combinations. I think that this is probably the worst combo for cardiovascular system actually...

 

[EnoreeG]

Animals like us operate off of intuition; it's something that needs to be accounted for, and even harnessed for its power. It's been the driving hunger - literally - in our feeding patterns since the beginning. Dogs eat grass when they have worms out of intuition... And what is this about the only being two elements of food? That sounds like alchemy. You said something about not eating seeds, and then you used coffee as an example - the seed of a coffee plant! We "changed our intuition" to drink coffee now that creating it is a common procedure.

I agree that animals operate off intuition. And humans, off intuition first, and reason only if there's time to reason. Intuition is the paramount survival skill, that will save your life in an instant, way before you have time to think logically. I learned a lot from reading the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. Lots of well conducted studies are cited that show that very often, intuition is a better guide to the right conclusion than rational thought, and it happens in way less time. Not that we should abandon logic. Just trust your intuition and at least give it credibility.

 

[Stuart]

Haven''t read 'Blink'. But I'm reading ''What the Dog Saw' at the moment. Malcolm Gladwell is wonderful.
And since I've learn't to love and respect my amygdala, life makes a lot more sense.

 

[EnoreeG]

Haven''t read 'Blink'. But I'm reading ''What the Dog Saw' at the moment. Malcolm Gladwell is wonderful.
And since I've learn't to love and respect my amygdala, life makes a lot more sense.

And I need to read his other 2 earlier books!

 

[cantstoppeating]

Like usual with these types of arguments, people don't understand that they can't just look at the bacteria in breast milk for example and then conclude 'it must be good for us'. Just because something exists, and we consume it, doesn't automatically mean it's the most beneficial for our health.

But there is a difference with milk which makes it a more compelling intuition than the usual "populations seemed to do okay on starch so it can't be bad". Because babies have a high metabolism and breastfed babies specifically develop well, and in that sense they are models for your "maximal lifespan" aim. What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries. It turns out some of those eat all their dairy fermented, which increases both dietary milk bacteria and some types of prebiotics, although I think the other things in dairy alone might explain the benefits.

Maybe not everything can be extrapolated from babies to adults but whatever is fed to them, namely prebiotic'ed milk, can't be that bad. On that point I agree with Stuart. I would also add that milk composition seems carefully selected. This includes the anti-stress hormones that go in there, and calcium, lots of sat fats, physiological amounts of glucose, etc. If the bacteria and pre-biotics that are in there are not good, then it remains to explain why it got there at random why such babies seem to be so healthy...

@ Cantstop..
Listen carefully to the man. He explained it all far better than I could have .
Besides, ancestral living humans never went out of their way to eat feces AFAIK. Nicholas mentioned that the Hadza eat the colon wall of their slain prey after they've squeezed out as much poop as they can. So I suppose they would inadvertently have consumed traces of feces too. Didn't seem to do them any harm. Nor does the poop bacteria you consume every time you flush your own feces. We use a compost toilet, so I think you actually consume more poop than I do. And you're O.K. aren't you?
Honestly Cantstop.., your obsession with feces is a bit alarming. There's far easier ways to get your SBO's if you are worried that you are missing out.
No need to seek out poop to eat, I assure you.

I don't care what babies eat or about 'intuition', or about the Hadza tribe or about x, y and z people.

I only care about how our bodies work and giving it whatever it needs to operate at peak efficiency.

You can toil away years into studying all sorts of cultures and what our ancestors ate, about the types of bacteria in our guts (as products of evolution) and the only answers you'll find is what we've adapted to as a result of foods available (i.e. the environment) thousands of years ago -- we did the best with what we had so we could survive long enough to replicate.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

The fact that you guys don't understand this 'meta' argument is a shame, you're lost in the trees without any awareness of there being a forest.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Like usual with these types of arguments, people don't understand that they can't just look at the bacteria in breast milk for example and then conclude 'it must be good for us'. Just because something exists, and we consume it, doesn't automatically mean it's the most beneficial for our health.

But there is a difference with milk which makes it a more compelling intuition than the usual "populations seemed to do okay on starch so it can't be bad". Because babies have a high metabolism and breastfed babies specifically develop well, and in that sense they are models for your "maximal lifespan" aim. What other models do we have to turn to for intuition? I usually think of dairy tribes and some European countries. It turns out some of those eat all their dairy fermented, which increases both dietary milk bacteria and some types of prebiotics, although I think the other things in dairy alone might explain the benefits.

Maybe not everything can be extrapolated from babies to adults but whatever is fed to them, namely prebiotic'ed milk, can't be that bad. On that point I agree with Stuart. I would also add that milk composition seems carefully selected. This includes the anti-stress hormones that go in there, and calcium, lots of sat fats, physiological amounts of glucose, etc. If the bacteria and pre-biotics that are in there are not good, then it remains to explain why it got there at random why such babies seem to be so healthy...

@ Cantstop..
Listen carefully to the man. He explained it all far better than I could have .
Besides, ancestral living humans never went out of their way to eat feces AFAIK. Nicholas mentioned that the Hadza eat the colon wall of their slain prey after they've squeezed out as much poop as they can. So I suppose they would inadvertently have consumed traces of feces too. Didn't seem to do them any harm. Nor does the poop bacteria you consume every time you flush your own feces. We use a compost toilet, so I think you actually consume more poop than I do. And you're O.K. aren't you?
Honestly Cantstop.., your obsession with feces is a bit alarming. There's far easier ways to get your SBO's if you are worried that you are missing out.
No need to seek out poop to eat, I assure you.

I don't care what babies eat or about 'intuition', or about the Hadza tribe or about x, y and z people.

I only care about how our bodies work and giving it whatever it needs to operate at peak efficiency.

You can toil away years into studying all sorts of cultures and what our ancestors ate, about the types of bacteria in our guts (as products of evolution) and the only answers you'll find is what we've adapted to as a result of foods available (i.e. the environment) thousands of years ago -- we did the best with what we had so we could survive long enough to replicate.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

The fact that you guys don't understand this 'meta' argument is a shame, you're lost in the trees without any awareness of there being a forest.

While I agree with this distinction, I think it is useful to look back at every moment when someone has used this kind of technique for investigation, the one that recognizes that the closes part of our experiment is the one that we embody. This happened before us, regardless of technological status. You look back, then, not only to access a wealth of good clues, but to prove that useful information can be accessed at any time, and place, at any level of sophistication. This is entirely more robust than the so called "method" that people pretend to follow.

This is because the correct understanding of biological function comes necessarily in the eyes of a biological being, that is, the actual structure of a cell can be regarded as a certain kind of intelligence which evolves through a certain kind of inference, which can naturally be recreated in our organs of thought that have in that manner evolved, and which are thus the best organs possible to absorb, integrate, understand, and thus investigate such intelligence. What has been used in recent centuries has been a more "computerized" way of going forward, and it is actually not natural for the brain to work this way, or rather it is a reduced-capacity mode which sacrifices many of our eyes onto the world, first of all our bodies and minds. This sacrifice must have been made necessary in some time of scarcity, a scarcity of everything, a stress.

 

[jyb]

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

Observations and scientific studies are not mutually exclusive. The fact that babies seem to be close to "peak efficiency" means that their diet is interesting to think about. Looking at babies and some populations and their health gives observations to complement studies. Interesting opinions like Ray's articles try to explain both observations and scientific studies of cell health. I actually think milk gives better intuition than most studies I've read over the years. But many studies gives an interpretation that seems consistent with what's in milk being very useful, so it's not always contradictory.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

Observations and scientific studies are not mutually exclusive. The fact that babies seem to be close to "peak efficiency" means that their diet is interesting to think about. Looking at babies and some populations and their health gives observations to complement studies. Interesting opinions like Ray's articles try to explain both observations and scientific studies of cell health. I actually think milk gives better intuition than most studies I've read over the years. But many studies gives an interpretation that seems consistent with what's in milk being very useful, so it's not always contradictory.
Re: Eating the whole animal back in the days containing gluten and PUFA

Of course not but when posters like you and others in this thread keep invoking arguments for why products of evolution are good for us precisely because they're products of evolution, you're skipping the 'science' part and clinging onto the 'observation' part.

You and others completely miss the point that evolution is always happening and it's a two-way street between the organism and the environment. What was good for us then doesn't mean it's good for us now or will be good for us tomorrow.

And it's an interesting diet to think about insofar as you're a layman without any knowledge of biochemistry, evolution and critical thinking. I'm beginning to think these evolutionary debates are just conversational fillers for layman to mimic intellectual discourse.

 

[jyb]

And it's an interesting diet to think about insofar as you're a layman without any knowledge of biochemistry, evolution and critical thinking. I'm beginning to think these evolutionary debates are just conversational fillers for layman to mimic intellectual discourse.

What is unscientific is avoiding to explain an observation. In particular, if you believe that something in milk is not good, you have to try to explain why it doesn't seem to hurt babies, which have a high metabolism. Instead, you just stick a generic evolution label to it. It's fine to disagree that milk gives good intuition, but is it really so irrelevant and do you really need to use such invective tone as part of a discussion?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I don't care what babies eat or about 'intuition', or about the Hadza tribe or about x, y and z people.

I only care about how our bodies work and giving it whatever it needs to operate at peak efficiency.

You can toil away years into studying all sorts of cultures and what our ancestors ate, about the types of bacteria in our guts (as products of evolution) and the only answers you'll find is what we've adapted to as a result of foods available (i.e. the environment) thousands of years ago -- we did the best with what we had so we could survive long enough to replicate.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

Sounds a little authoritarian. Do you know of this quote from Peat?:

“For the present, the important thing is to avoid the use of the least appropriate food products, while choosing natural foods that have historical, epidemiological, and biochemical justification.” - RP

Notice the words “historical” and “epidemiological?”

“Much of my early nutrition investigation was how to get good nutrition at minimal expense, so that poor people could improve their energy and learning ability. The process of cooking corn in lime was discovered long ago, to get more nutrition with less expense. Getting ketoacids from potatoes is a similarly economical solution, that opens opportunities by improving functions while reducing expenses. Milk, rather than meat, is another ecological/economical alternative, that improves health, wealth, and longevity.” - RP

Pretty simple. No fancy biohacking with methylene blue.

“thousands of years ago “

No. More like only 50 years ago.

 

[cantstoppeating]

This topic needs a little more unnecessary debate, confusion and drivel...

Where is narouz?

 

[cantstoppeating]

I don't care what babies eat or about 'intuition', or about the Hadza tribe or about x, y and z people.

I only care about how our bodies work and giving it whatever it needs to operate at peak efficiency.

You can toil away years into studying all sorts of cultures and what our ancestors ate, about the types of bacteria in our guts (as products of evolution) and the only answers you'll find is what we've adapted to as a result of foods available (i.e. the environment) thousands of years ago -- we did the best with what we had so we could survive long enough to replicate.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

Sounds a little authoritarian. Do you know of this quote from Peat?:

“For the present, the important thing is to avoid the use of the least appropriate food products, while choosing natural foods that have historical, epidemiological, and biochemical justification.” - RP

Notice the words “historical” and “epidemiological?”

“Much of my early nutrition investigation was how to get good nutrition at minimal expense, so that poor people could improve their energy and learning ability. The process of cooking corn in lime was discovered long ago, to get more nutrition with less expense. Getting ketoacids from potatoes is a similarly economical solution, that opens opportunities by improving functions while reducing expenses. Milk, rather than meat, is another ecological/economical alternative, that improves health, wealth, and longevity.” - RP

Pretty simple. No fancy biohacking with methylene blue.

“thousands of years ago “

No. More like only 50 years ago.

Did the process of discovering and attaining ketoacids from potatoes and realising their beneficial effect on the body materialize out of thin air? Or would you have me believe some quantum leap in logic was made from an observation of some x tribe eating potatoes?

The very process of isolating the beneficial parts of a food, in this case ketoacids from potatoes, is a process that shows exactly what I'm talking about: findout how our bodies work (i.e. ketoacids are beneficial, starch is bad) and mold the environment to suit (i.e. isolate ketoacids from potatoes, eliminate the starch). This isn't something you'd conclude solely from observational or evolutionary lines of enquiry.

All you're doing is quoting Peat without actually thinking through his statements. Don't be lazy.

 

[narouz]

This topic needs a little more unnecessary debate, confusion and drivel...

Where is narouz?

Here, m'lord!
I think you should change your avatar, cant.
What with your 'just-the-facts-ma'am', 'cut the BS', 'actionable data only' preachings,
Mr. Webb fits you perfectly!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Twre6ItGEI

 

[Such_Saturation]

immanuel cant

 

[cantstoppeating]

This topic needs a little more unnecessary debate, confusion and drivel...

Where is narouz?

Here, m'lord!
I think you should change your avatar, cant.
What with your 'just-the-facts-ma'am', 'cut the BS', 'actionable data only' preachings,
Mr. Webb fits you perfectly!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Twre6ItGEI

 

[Amazoniac]

cantstoppeating's most empathic post so far, what a progress!

 

[Such_Saturation]

:10

 

[oxidation_is_normal]

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

Observations and scientific studies are not mutually exclusive. The fact that babies seem to be close to "peak efficiency" means that their diet is interesting to think about. Looking at babies and some populations and their health gives observations to complement studies. Interesting opinions like Ray's articles try to explain both observations and scientific studies of cell health. I actually think milk gives better intuition than most studies I've read over the years. But many studies gives an interpretation that seems consistent with what's in milk being very useful, so it's not always contradictory.
Re: Eating the whole animal back in the days containing gluten and PUFA

Of course not but when posters like you and others in this thread keep invoking arguments for why products of evolution are good for us precisely because they're products of evolution, you're skipping the 'science' part and clinging onto the 'observation' part.

You and others completely miss the point that evolution is always happening and it's a two-way street between the organism and the environment. What was good for us then doesn't mean it's good for us now or will be good for us tomorrow.

And it's an interesting diet to think about insofar as you're a layman without any knowledge of biochemistry, evolution and critical thinking. I'm beginning to think these evolutionary debates are just conversational fillers for layman to mimic intellectual discourse.

It's apparent that you just start attacking people on this forum when you don't agree with them. Not cool.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Meanwhile, I'll follow the latest scientific experiments using caffeine, aspirin, methylene blue, antibiotics etc that seek to alter our body through an accurate understanding of the cell in order to increase lifespan, cognition, fitness, vitality. No need to rely on x, y, z cultures or whatever else -- just peek into the body directly, remove inhibitors and introduce accelerators to establish a new baseline of work/productivity/efficiency.

Observations and scientific studies are not mutually exclusive. The fact that babies seem to be close to "peak efficiency" means that their diet is interesting to think about. Looking at babies and some populations and their health gives observations to complement studies. Interesting opinions like Ray's articles try to explain both observations and scientific studies of cell health. I actually think milk gives better intuition than most studies I've read over the years. But many studies gives an interpretation that seems consistent with what's in milk being very useful, so it's not always contradictory.
Re: Eating the whole animal back in the days containing gluten and PUFA

Of course not but when posters like you and others in this thread keep invoking arguments for why products of evolution are good for us precisely because they're products of evolution, you're skipping the 'science' part and clinging onto the 'observation' part.

You and others completely miss the point that evolution is always happening and it's a two-way street between the organism and the environment. What was good for us then doesn't mean it's good for us now or will be good for us tomorrow.

And it's an interesting diet to think about insofar as you're a layman without any knowledge of biochemistry, evolution and critical thinking. I'm beginning to think these evolutionary debates are just conversational fillers for layman to mimic intellectual discourse.

It's apparent that you just start attacking people on this forum when you don't agree with them. Not cool.

It's not an 'attack' to directly and bluntly say that your arguments and points are useless. You can't refute any of my arguments. cmon son.