My Theory On The Macros

[thebigpeatowski]

Of course it's almost necessary since we have modern foods that are potentially toxic like, seed oils which were never so abundant and weird gums and preservatives.

These modern inventions aren't really foods and no one who cares about their long term health should be eating them on a regular basis. Seed oils are added to everything to make junk taste better. It's all about money...making industrial foods (garbage) palatable is HUGE BUSINESS.

 

[Peatish Ninja]

Yea but salted or unsalted?

 

[schultz]

These modern inventions aren't really foods and no one who cares about their long term health should be eating them on a regular basis. Seed oils are added to everything to make junk taste better. It's all about money...making industrial foods (garbage) palatable is HUGE BUSINESS.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that we can't use our "instincts" as easily as people did thousands of years ago to guide our eating. Maybe I don't know what I was saying anymore lol. It's really hot out and I've been throwing bales of hay around all day... I've started using this forum as like a diary or something where I can just talk about random ***t that nobody else cares about. It's been therapeutic!

 

[thebigpeatowski]

Yea but salted or unsalted?

Yep, same for salt, it's added to all manufactured "foods" to increase palatability.

Salt free butter is not nearly as yummy.

 

[Blossom]

Salt free butter is not nearly as yummy.

I've noticed that too.

 

[James IV]

For most food, adding fat will increase the palability. And yes I agree, you can reprogram the taste receptors to enjoy more nuanced flavors, less spice, or less fat. However I think if you are going purely by instinct,most humans would lean toward a higher fat intake if available. Epedimiological studies usually show this. In developed countries where more fat is available, people tend to eat more fat.

Now as far as what's a natural human diet, I think WSP is right on the money. With a hot climate, and lots of sun exposure, fat needs would be lower. Largely due to the fact that calorie needs would likely be lower. A large part of calorie intake is used to keep the body warm after all. I also think activity in itself lowers blood glucose and mobilizes energy stores. the mental distraction may be a factor as well. Having come from a labor background, I know it's easy to get involved in a job, and go all day without eating. This is not to say however, that a high fat intake would be unhealthy in a hot climate. It would likely result in larger and stronger humans.
However, since the majority of modern people don't live in a tropical environment, do not spend days outdoors, or if they do, they block the sun from thier skin.
Any many do not spend their days using and moving thier bodies.
It's unlikely that they will thrive on a diet that is mismatched with thier environment. In fact it' will likely be harmful.

I think it's important to match our fuel to our lifestyle and environment. Which is why I repeatedly give advice to people to stop trying to research thier way to a healthy diet, and start paying attention to thier body.

Fat is not bad. Carbs are not bad. But each must be used appropriately. And the sources are a factor.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I think WSP is right on the money.

Thanks.

 

[zztr]

Hunter gatherer American Indians would kill bison and deer and elk, eat the marrow and other fatty organs like brain, render the fat deposits for pemmican, and often leave most of the rest of the carcass to rot. They didn't eat lean meat and a bunch of carbs. Read "Imagining Head Smashed In."

 

[zztr]

We’re tropical animals

Questionable. Various hominids and neanderthals, that DNA analysis now prove were among our ancestors, were living in colder ice age climes for 150k+ years. The story that humans recently emerged from tropical Africa is quite debunked by modern evidence.

I think that after 50k+ years of successful habitation you could say that modern European man is a European animal, for example. Would everyone be healthier living on the equator while eating coconuts and fruit? I know I'd fry to death pretty quickly from the sun.

 

[Electric Slim]

Would everyone be healthier living on the equator while eating coconuts and fruit? I know I'd fry to death pretty quickly from the sun.

The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land.

 

[smith]

There are good and bad versions of all of them. We can recycle amino acids which is why things like your eyes and organs can last such a long time even when eating low protein, though just like eating "no pufa" it's impossible to eat no protein in a common sense context. We can turn amino acids into glucose but only because we're not ingesting it. We have to have enough subcutaneous fat but no need for visceral outside of a famine. But all three are important. Imagine an obese man walking in the woods. He has a lot of fat tissue that's filled with a mixture of all types of fats. He gets eaten by a bear. The bear is then eating the mans fat, protein, and if the man still had glycogen in his muscles and liver then the bear would be getting some sugar too. He wouldn't be a free range human, but if the bear ate a high carb, and moderate protein/fat hunter and root digger, fruit picker human, the bear would be getting a more accurate and nutritious macro profile.

Thanks, do you know what specifically stimulates subcutaneous fat increase over visceral?

 

[Stramonium]

Questionable. Various hominids and neanderthals, that DNA analysis now prove were among our ancestors, were living in colder ice age climes for 150k+ years. The story that humans recently emerged from tropical Africa is quite debunked by modern evidence.

I think that after 50k+ years of successful habitation you could say that modern European man is a European animal, for example. Would everyone be healthier living on the equator while eating coconuts and fruit? I know I'd fry to death pretty quickly from the sun.

Light skin mutation allowed people to live in higher latitudes far from the equator making them more susceptible to sunlight thus being able to produce vitamin D far more easily than African/tropical deeper skin tones, which require longer sun exposure to produce the same amount of Vitamin D as a white person. Melanin acts as a natural sunblock in our bodies, so it was more a matter of natural selection to be distributed in relation to the sun incidence

 

[lvysaur]

Questionable. Various hominids and neanderthals, that DNA analysis now prove were among our ancestors, were living in colder ice age climes for 150k+ years. The story that humans recently emerged from tropical Africa is quite debunked by modern evidence.

Completely incorrect. The African human origin hypothesis is by far the most robust--the greatest diversity of ancient human fossils, despite having an hot environment that degrades specimens easily.

Not to mention Y haplogroup descent, where non-African haplogroups (CT, and also the D branch of DE) are known derivations of earlier African male lineages.

The neanderthal admixture in non-Africans is real, but it's even greater in Asians and Oceanians than in Europeans.

I think that after 50k+ years of successful habitation you could say that modern European man is a European animal, for example.

Not at all, since the average "native" European is ~40% Middle Eastern by ancestry. Even more when you realize that the "indigenous Europeans" were themselves Mideastern invaders (haplogroup IJ) who conquered and possibly mixed with more indigenously European inhabitants (haplogroup C)

There's a lot of pseudoscientific stuff posted about African human origins simply because there's a political market for it in the west.

 

[sladerunner69]

Completely incorrect. The African human origin hypothesis is by far the most robust--the greatest diversity of ancient human fossils, despite having an hot environment that degrades specimens easily.

Not to mention Y haplogroup descent, where non-African haplogroups (CT, and also the D branch of DE) are known derivations of earlier African male lineages.

The neanderthal admixture in non-Africans is real, but it's even greater in Asians and Oceanians than in Europeans.

Not at all, since the average "native" European is ~40% Middle Eastern by ancestry. Even more when you realize that the "indigenous Europeans" were themselves Mideastern invaders (haplogroup IJ) who conquered and possibly mixed with more indigenously European inhabitants (haplogroup C)

There's a lot of pseudoscientific stuff posted about African human origins simply because there's a political market for it in the west.

A diversity of human fossils withstanding, how does it indicate the time frame in which European humanoids departed the sub African continent and settled North?

The average European is ~40% middle eastern came from a study which seemed to suffer from confirmation bias in the pursuit of political goals. Remember, the study would likely not even had been published if they found no significant amount of middle eastern genes, because that would not have been seen as very friendly to the current waves of middle eastern immigrants. Anyways, the study primarily drew upon people who could technically be considered European but who were slavs or from the Balkan region.

 

[lvysaur]

A diversity of human fossils withstanding, how does it indicate the time frame in which European humanoids departed the sub African continent and settled North?

The time frame for the Asian-African split is definitely older than what used to be cited. I would say 200k years at least.

The average European is ~40% middle eastern came from a study which seemed to suffer from confirmation bias in the pursuit of political goals.

No, it comes from multiple component analyses of global populations. All analyses show anywhere from 30 to 60% of modern euro DNA being of Middle Eastern origin. It's an undeniable fact at this point, unless you want to accuse thousands of white "race realists" of setting up a conspiracy against whites.

It doesn't remotely draw upon "Slavs"; Slavs would be less Mideastern than western Europeans anyway. The "europeanest" people are from the Baltic, and the proportion of Mideast ancestry gets higher as you go toward the west and south.

A run taken from Dienekes: Imgur
The red component represents Levantine admixture (the farmers who colonised Europe), and the lavender component represents Caucasian admixture (which came from Indoeuropean conquerors). The light green could be called "indigenous European".

Caucasian, Levantine, and Arab (black component) are all Middle Eastern; they cluster closer to each other than to other components.

 

[sladerunner69]

The time frame for the Asian-African split is definitely older than what used to be cited. I would say 200k years at least.


No, it comes from multiple component analyses of global populations. All analyses show anywhere from 30 to 60% of modern euro DNA being of Middle Eastern origin. It's an undeniable fact at this point, unless you want to accuse thousands of white "race realists" of setting up a conspiracy against whites.

It doesn't remotely draw upon "Slavs"; Slavs would be less Mideastern than western Europeans anyway. The "europeanest" people are from the Baltic, and the proportion of Mideast ancestry gets higher as you go toward the west and south.

A run taken from Dienekes: Imgur
The red component represents Levantine admixture (the farmers who colonised Europe), and the lavender component represents Caucasian admixture (which came from Indoeuropean conquerors). The light green could be called "indigenous European".

Caucasian, Levantine, and Arab (black component) are all Middle Eastern; they cluster closer to each other than to other components.

The methoding in which they analyze DNA is far from complete at this point. Geneticists have found plenty of connections where none exist, for example, humans and chimpanzees being a near complete genetic match. I am not going to bother going down this path with a near complete stranger from a web forum, especially when I have finals in a couple weeks, but I would like to point out how the refutation of this 30-60% match chromosome analysis would NOT AT ALL REQUIRE ME TO CLAIM THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS ARE IN A CONSPIRACY. Scientists can be incorrect, can be wrong, can follow political and financial pressures, and can do so in droves and in large majorities.

I mean, first off, do you know what forum you are on? WELCOME TO THE RAY PEAT FORUM. This is where we discuss how sugar and saturated fats are bad for you, DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS THE PAST HALF CENTURY CLAIMING OTHERWISE. They did so through peer reviewed papers, published in respected journals and other "officiated" channels. So please don't think you will win me over simply by claiming authority.

In any event, having a look at the data you posted, I see numerous possibilities for confirmation bias and confounding variables. Now to mention lack of evidence. How was this data gathered in any case? What differentiated a "Levantine" (a term I have only come across on the internet) to a Caucasian (an almost meaningless term in itself)? How does a DNA sample account for gene mutations and transformations, which genetic scientists are finding to be ever more spontaneous and compounding? And how far back does an ethnic link have to be found before we declare it to be insignificant, by the standards of some of these scientists, all people on the planet are significantly African/arab because the first specimen of hominid moped around central Africa a few hundred thousand years ago. That is a moot point, in my book, considering significant evolution in transcription can occur within a single lifetime of one organism.

 

[lvysaur]

The methoding in which they analyze DNA is far from complete at this point.

Believe whatever you want. There's nothing left to say at this point, you'll never be convinced.

When identitarians confront conclusions they don't like, they nitpick the evidence for loopholes. When they come upon conclusions they like, they accept them at face value.