haha. To be fair though, the last post had more to do with nutritional science and anthropology. But it's just a couple page of a thread. This thread has no specific topic, it can turn into whatever. You guys are free to start a discussion on whichever subjects you want, we don't have to all be discussing the same subject once it's brought up.
Of course when people want to engage me on those topics I'll respond, as I find them a lot more interesting and important than all of the political BS that we have no capacity to impact at all and which changes nothing in our individual lives.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
the videos were helpful tbh, I never questioned deeply Paleo but it makes sense, meat was probably a luxury food eaten often but not on daily basis for most tribes however Paleo is definitelly healthier than the average diet
There are basically 3 guys I learned paleo diet from: Rob Wolfe, Mark Sisson, and Tait Fletcher. This pile of red meat stuff may be part of the marketing but it is not particularly part of the practice, at least, not how I learned. Standard would be a reasonable piece of meat and tons of plant matter. It is possible to go HAM on some eggs and bacon and piles of steaks for meals but I do not think anyone is doing that. Well, someone somewhere definitely is but it's silly.
One point is that all meat and egg matter are not equal.
Examples:
I go up to secluded nature and kill an elk vs. farm inc. cow
I keep a coop of chickens and let them roam around eggs vs. farm inc. eggs
The illness is not just because of meat and eggs. It is farm inc. meat and eggs, It is total calories, it is sugar, it is carbohydrates, it is insulin sensitivity. Also, remember a big portion of paleo is about movement. Never mind, right now we are on diet but if anyone wants to start a movement discussion I am always down.
Another item that was not brought up was intermittent fasting. It is not directly related to food either but I am always down to discuss.
On the French Paradox:
That is hard to believe it is solely because a bunch of Doctor's lied on death certificates. *Shrug* oh well. But, how about those Japanese!?!?!?
Good question to ask yourself for sure. That's mostly how I eat.
One point is that all meat and egg matter are not equal.
Obviously. But that does not mean that once you've upgraded the nutrient density of those foods that they become what we are adapted to thrive on. Food is a package-deal: you can't just focus on specific beneficial nutrients and their levels, you have to take into account the potentially harmful stuff that comes with it. In the case of meat -- all meat, regardless of source -- the list of those negatives is fairly significant, even in the best case scenario once you remove the hormone issue and the slaughterhouse chemicals. You still have HCAs, PAHs, TMAO, heme iron, n-nitroso compounds, IGF-1, a reduction in protective gut bacteria, high levels of methionine, Neu5Gc, acidosis and fooda typically high in saturated fat and cholesterol. Proper cooking methods with low heat helps but only for the first two things in that list, so it's not going to make a world of difference. As for eggs, the list is also fairly significant.
It's also worth discussing that eating always involves an opportunity cost: by eating a certain meal, you're giving up the opportunity of eating something else which could have had all of the good stuff you need without any of the bad. In the case of meat and eggs, they are calorie dense foods, and so it's difficult to eat a lot of calories from plant foods alongside them, so it's an opportunity lost to eat a large meal full of antioxidants, phytonutrients, polyphenols, flavonoids and fiber (which is what the beneficial bacteria in your gut relies on to survive and proliferate). Remember that by our most recent estimates which we got from the few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes that still live off the land, they are consuming over 100g of fiber a day, so that opportunity cost is a lot more significant than those Paleo folks with meat-heavy diets would think it is.
it is sugar, it is carbohydrates, it is insulin sensitivity
These words get thrown around a lot in keto/paleo circles. They're really foundational and need to be explored in great length. Where people run in big trouble is when they accept the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis advocated by Gary Taubes and co without question. People are defending an outrageous theory which has next to no scientific backing. That and the idea that dietary cholesterol is good for us -- and even necessary -- goes against the current scientific consensus and should be treated with extreme skepticism. On the former theory: recently Kevin Hall completed a metabolic ward study with the NIH and NuSi (Gary Taubes' group) which effectively falsifies this theory.
This talk about "carbohydrates" is really quite meaningless and obfuscating. It invites confusion and is really self-defeating because it implies that all carbs are equal. We have to talk about foods as a whole, not macronutrients. White bread and purple sweet potatoes are both carbohydrates, yet one is a frankenfood which wrecks havoc on the body and is completely devoid of nutrients while the other is arguably the most perfect food for human beings-- it's the main staple in the traditional diet of the Okinawans, the second longest-lived population ever recorded next to the California Adventists (who also eat a predominantly plant-based diet).
Intermittent fasting is an interesting subject. It's not practiced in these populations, but it's a form of calorie restriction, which is something the Okinawans do practice and it does indeed seem to be longevity-promoting, but perhaps not the key to longevity. This video covers some of this nicely:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 24/07/2016 19:23
1
goose58 United States. Jul 26 2016 00:19. Posts 871
Possible ways that some humans hunted in prehistoric days(based off various studies/theories):
- Fishing or gathering clams/mussels/etc is technically meat, and pretty easy to do throughout history.
- Persistence hunting. Humans are incredible long distance runners and our ability to sweat is second to none. Chase an animal until it overheats.
- Rock throwing. Humans are incredible at aiming and throwing. One good connection can easily result in concussions or brain hemorrhage. Rocks were plentiful.
- Domesticating wolves and/or dogs and using them as hunting partners.
- Scavenging and/or poaching other animal's kills.
- Waiting / hiding / animal calls / laying traps / bait. Check out Ucles on youtube to see some of his strategies.
Animals were bigger and more plentiful throughout the past 2 millions~ years.
Of course vegetation was extremely important for our ancestors. Plants and animals. Some groups ate 90% vegetation and 10% animal/seafood. Other groups ate 90% animal/seafood and 10% vegetation. And everything in between. There was no one size fits all.
Fasting is built into all(?) species. But our ancestors called it "I'm fucking starving".
The new rage isn't paleo/low carb/whatever the fuck. IMO, it's genetic testing to find our personal "optimal diet".
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
there are very few things we know for certain about nutrition and most of what is said by experts is just their current best guess at a problem that needs a million more long term studies to reach any real conclusions on
also there is so much noise in this subject that it's very hard to know which information is credible unless you are actually reading each study released and can assess the validity of the method of science used (or have a source for your information that you trust can do this for you)
there are so many forces and incentives causing misinformation, big food companies that stand to gain from certain foods being perceived as healthy or unhealthy, cult like diet followers that twist data and present information in a way that supports their preconceived views
its quite sickening actually
IMO after a certain point, all the time spent optimizing your diet will not even yield a net return on length or quality of life
-
the average life expectancy in japan is 83.7 years, in USA it's 79.3 years -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
In most 1st world countries it's 80+, so not a significant difference with Japan (obviously there is more factors than just food causing this)
this puts things into perspective a bit for me, there isn't a huge difference between life expectancy of the longest lived country and any other 1st world country
there is only so much you can do to increase your life expectancy and the things you can do do not have a significant impact
as long as I'm eating reasonably healthy, ie. getting all the essential vitamins and minerals while not regularly consuming garbage, I'm happy spending my time on more rewarding and interesting topics than flipping coins on the latest nutrition beliefs
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I used to be kinda obsessed about nutrition and was logging everything on cronometer for a while now and think I have a rough idea about the basics. I wouldn't really recommend becoming so autistic about it.
Don't believe in any type of diet that eliminates food groups (except added / refined sugar, alcohol)
Variety is the key too much of anything is bad.
Fat is good for you and for testosterone levels don't believe the hype.
Yoghurt why would you eliminate this obviously healthy and beneficial food.
Potatos, get a bad rep but are full of potassium and minerals. Just boil them.
Seeds people forget about seeds put some sunflower seeds on your yoghurt for vitamin E and omega 6.
Bread is not inherently bad but some types are full of sugar, salt, E numbers and Soy be careful.
When I was logging I noticed that I wasn't getting enough calcium, potassium and vitamin E because I barely ate any nuts, seeds and was deluded in thinking that dairy is not that healthy. To get enough calcium from vegetables is pretty difficult and not sustainable same as veganism is not sustainable since you need to be on point with your diet and a lot of time is spent. To get enough potassium you might think you just need bananas but there is only around 10% in one banana if I'm not mistaken (I eat 3) so I added oranges, potatos, yoghurt, avocado.
Here's some examples of my staples I tried to make it simple
Yoghurt/ muesli
Potatos / Sweet
Bread *with liver pate, cheese, lamb, egg
Butter * try and get unsalted natural organic etc.
Lamb, FISH eat this more than meat, beef
Bananas, Oranges, Avocados, apple Spinach (you don't need to boil it just rinse with water to make it easier to eat or add olive oil, lemon juice and pepper), Broccoli boil this very briefly only get the water to a rolling boil and switch it off then leave for a few minutes.
Adding pepper on these may increase absorption.
Olive oil, almonds, sunflower seeds
Instead of drinking tea (avoiding caffeine) I like to make hot drinks with turmeric, lemon and ginger. You can also add fresh herbs.
Garlic a lot of garlic.
Going to start making more soups.
Keep in mind that butter, oils and cheese contain more calories than you might expect if you are worried about or don't get full easily.
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
I get where you're coming from, but this is only partly true. I think it's unrewarding to debate it since most people are too dogmatic, but it can be immensely rewarding to help educate people. It's especially rewarding if you directly work with motivated people who have lost their health and who you are able to help gain it back.
there are very few things we know for certain about nutrition and most of what is said by experts is just their current best guess at a problem that needs a million more long term studies to reach any real conclusions on
also there is so much noise in this subject that it's very hard to know which information is credible unless you are actually reading each study released and can assess the validity of the method of science used (or have a source for your information that you trust can do this for you)
I adopted this way of thinking not that long ago. In fact I took it further and I just resigned myself: there was too much contradictory information out there and I just stopped caring. It was a massive mistake and my health suffered immensely because of it. I realize now that this is exactly what Big Food wants. The longer we're confused or ignorant, the more they stand to make money off of us. So they fund these bogus studies which we will hear about on the news and it will be passed off as legitimate science on the blogosphere and through all social medias, and the average person who will not look at the funding and the methodology will not know what's happening. They are also co-opting policy makers and health professionals and they are lobbying politicians and public officials. It's a terrible situation.
If someone is genuinely interested in finding the truth though, there is an immense body of science to sift through, and it paints a very coherent picture. Sure, there is always a need for bigger and better studies, mostly because we are obsessed with establishing cause and effect through the discovery of specific mechanisms, but this isn't a necessary thing to establish if the goal is to guide us towards better choices. We didn't need to know exactly how it was that tobacco caused lung cancer before we issued public health warnings about it--which we failed to do for decades. We only needed to know that it increased risk, and the science was there for a long time before we did. What we had instead was a bunch of ads telling us that it was actually good for us, and how doctors and athletes preferred this brand or that brand. Millions of people lost their lives due to the deceptive tactics used by the tobacco industry, and these same tactics are right now being used by the big food industries.
When you combine the best of the reductionistic studies along with the largest observational (population) studies, there is plenty of 'beyond any reasonable doubt'-type conclusive data to be found about nutrition. In my experience, those who do spend a lot of time studying it usually end up into two camps. The largest group consists of those who believe low fat, low meat diets are optimal for health -- like all the major reputable health organizations believe we should aim for. The other group, which is fairly small in comparison, believe that there is a big governmental conspiracy going on and we're being lied to and the natural diet of human beings is one that is very low in carbohydrates and very high in fat (animal fat, more specifically). These individuals are often referred to as denialists. They built this entire conspiracy-theory narrative around the history of nutrition studies and it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
there is only so much you can do to increase your life expectancy and the things you can do do not have a significant impact
This is simply untrue. We have a lot more control than we think we have over our health destiny. And if you know me, then you know that this is coming from one of the most cynical and fatalistic person you'll likely ever meet. On this issue though I can't be, because it would be unreasonable considering everything I know. If you go through the list of the top 15 biggest killers in the US, you'll find that virtually all of them have a strong dietary component. Most of them can be prevented, treated or even reversed with the right lifestyle choices: plant-based diet, moderate physical activity, low alcohol consumption and smoking cessation.
the average life expectancy in japan is 83.7 years, in USA it's 79.3 years -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
In most 1st world countries it's 80+, so not a significant difference with Japan (obviously there is more factors than just food causing this)
You're drawing a conclusion and yet you also acknowledge that there are too many factors at play here to draw a proper conclusion. Total mortality per country is incredibly unlikely to be helpful to us if the question is, "what can I do to live a longer, healthier life?"; We can't use entire countries' mortality rates as a conclusive judgment on this issue for two reasons. First, the amount of people all over the world who are "doing it right" is so small that it will be averaged out into meaninglessness when taken in with the rest of the country. Secondly, the modernization of food affects all 1st world countries. Some more than others clearly, but still, we know this food is deleterious to health, so it's nonsense to say that we're interested in the potential of nutrition while we only look at the populations that eat this garbage and ignore those who have lived without it. If we do that it paints a very misleading picture and we can't help but have low expectations and feel quite powerless. We have to look at different periods of time and smaller groups of people who enjoy robust health and low morbidity rates in order to find out more about which foods can be protective. Which brings me to your second point:
IMO after a certain point, all the time spent optimizing your diet will not even yield a net return on length or quality of life
Quality of life is what really matters, not mortality rates. If you take heart disease for example, mortality rates have been steadily decreasing, but incidences haven't. They have gone up. Clearly, this is because we are able to care for people with heart problems better, and prolong their lives, but that doesn't translate to having a better quality of life, which is ultimately what we want.
-
as long as I'm eating reasonably healthy, ie. getting all the essential vitamins and minerals while not regularly consuming garbage, I'm happy spending my time on more rewarding and interesting topics than flipping coins on the latest nutrition beliefs
My 2 cents on this: the problem with the "don't worry, eat reasonably healthy" approach-- which is so similar to the ever so stupidly repeated "everything in moderation" approach-- is that it assumes that the average person is more or less aware of what is reasonably healthy on some objective scale. The average person is in fact incredibly ignorant when it comes to nutrition, and their estimates of whether they are eating reasonably healthy or not are really quite arbitrary. If a nutritionist is quizzing them, they'll typically only know what is extremely unhealthy and what is likely very healthy and that's it. A person like that can come to believe that the sugar in fruit is unhealthy, and they'll eat a cheese omelette in the morning and think it's the breakfast of champions.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 26 2016 03:51 Smuft wrote:
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
Word, I cant think of many topics more mindlessly boring than diet, it matters if you are obese or have a shit diet, but its not difficult to eat pretty decently, if eating goats cock and green leafs expends your life expectancy by 2 years and you have a 0.03% less chance of developing cancer according to whatever study I dont give a fuck.
Politics is potentially an interesting topic, but most people are plain stupid about it making it also a boring topic, in contract with religion which in fact has 0 potential for being interesting but peoples stupidity about it make it an amusing subject.
On July 26 2016 03:51 Smuft wrote:
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
Word, I cant think of many topics more mindlessly boring than diet, it matters if you are obese or have a shit diet, but its not difficult to eat pretty decently
Obesity is a big one (no pun intended, believe it or not), but it isn't a pre-requirement for most chronic diseases to develop. Most chronic diseases take many decades to develop and thus we typically have no care in the world in the first 2 or 3 decades of our lives. We have no clue what's coming unless someone close to us has suffered immensely from it, but even there, human beings are too subjective and irrational by nature and we tend to feel invincible until misfortune strikes us directly.
Also, I think eating "pretty decently" is extremely challenging/problematic for many people. In my experience, as soon as people give themselves permission to indulge, it becomes extremely difficult not to do so on a regular basis. We live in an artificial world now and our pleasure centers in the brain can easily be hijacked. I think a lot of people have the same problem with highly stimulating food as they would have with smoking cigarettes and they find that it's easier to stop completely than to try to moderate the bad habit.
There's more to diet than the "what can it do for me" aspect anyway. The politics are interesting and have far-reaching consequences for the world we live in. The philosophical and ethical considerations also play a very important part and it's an avenue where we can always better ourselves.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 26 2016 03:51 Smuft wrote:
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
Word, I cant think of many topics more mindlessly boring than diet, it matters if you are obese or have a shit diet, but its not difficult to eat pretty decently
Obesity is a big one (no pun intended, believe it or not), but it isn't a pre-requirement for most chronic diseases to develop. Most chronic diseases take many decades to develop and thus we typically have no care in the world in the first 2 or 3 decades of our lives. We have no clue what's coming unless someone close to us has suffered immensely from it, but even there, human beings are too subjective and irrational by nature and we tend to feel invincible until misfortune strikes us directly.
Also, I think eating "pretty decently" is extremely challenging/problematic for many people. In my experience, as soon as people give themselves permission to indulge, it becomes extremely difficult not to do so on a regular basis. We live in an artificial world now and our pleasure centers in the brain can easily be hijacked. I think a lot of people have the same problem with highly stimulating food as they would have with smoking cigarettes and they find that it's easier to stop completely than to try to moderate the bad habit.
There's more to diet than the "what can it do for me" aspect anyway. The politics are interesting and have far-reaching consequences for the world we live in. The philosophical and ethical considerations also play a very important part and it's an avenue where we can always better ourselves.
Its difficult because of discipline not because people dont know how to somewhat eat properly, same as tobacco, the problem is not that people dont know its effects on health, so my point about the discussion about diet still stands
On July 26 2016 03:51 Smuft wrote:
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
Word, I cant think of many topics more mindlessly boring than diet, it matters if you are obese or have a shit diet, but its not difficult to eat pretty decently
Obesity is a big one (no pun intended, believe it or not), but it isn't a pre-requirement for most chronic diseases to develop. Most chronic diseases take many decades to develop and thus we typically have no care in the world in the first 2 or 3 decades of our lives. We have no clue what's coming unless someone close to us has suffered immensely from it, but even there, human beings are too subjective and irrational by nature and we tend to feel invincible until misfortune strikes us directly.
Also, I think eating "pretty decently" is extremely challenging/problematic for many people. In my experience, as soon as people give themselves permission to indulge, it becomes extremely difficult not to do so on a regular basis. We live in an artificial world now and our pleasure centers in the brain can easily be hijacked. I think a lot of people have the same problem with highly stimulating food as they would have with smoking cigarettes and they find that it's easier to stop completely than to try to moderate the bad habit.
There's more to diet than the "what can it do for me" aspect anyway. The politics are interesting and have far-reaching consequences for the world we live in. The philosophical and ethical considerations also play a very important part and it's an avenue where we can always better ourselves.
Its difficult because of discipline not because people dont know how to somewhat eat properly, same as tobacco, the problem is not that people dont know its effects on health, so my point about the discussion about diet still stands
So you think people who are obese only have a problem with discipline?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 26 2016 05:29 Mortensen8 wrote:
Don't believe in any type of diet that eliminates food groups (except added / refined sugar, alcohol)
Variety is the key too much of anything is bad.
I was almost done writing a detailed response to many of your statements with a bunch of links to peer-reviewed scientific articles when my page refreshed for some reason and I lost everything. It was pretty time consuming and I'm not motivated to do it again, so this is going to be bad form, but I have to be brash and to the point: you are misinformed/have been misled. Your biggest mistake is believing in the food pyramid approach that says we need to eat from every food group for optimal health. This approach is utter bs. It's pretty simple to see why without even getting into the entire nitty gritty of it all.
Cardiovascular diseases are the number 1 cause of death throughout the world. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in Western industrialized countries, and it is a diet related disease. There is only one diet that's been proven to be able to significantly assist in preventing it, and even reverse it, and that is a low fat, whole foods, plant based diet. So, a diet based on exclusion. If your "variety is key", all-inclusive omnivorous diet was optimal, then it wouldn't be out-done by another diet when it comes to this leading killer. That's a no brainer. Not that this is the only thing this diet can do, it can do a lot more than that, but even if it was, it would be common sense to make it our default diet until we have enough evidence that shows that another diet can do better. It's not about belief, it's about making evidence-based decisions. The evidence in favor of this way of eating is currently overwhelming if you bother to search for it.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
you made good points loco but I will wait until i enter the deeper levels of hell before I enter a serious nutrition debate
instead of just being a negative Nancy, I will offer a topic change to something a little bit related and far more interesting IMO
has anyone heard the Aubrey de Grey quote "the first person who will live to be 1000 has already been born"?
Aubrey is at the cutting edge of human longevity, his mission is to "end aging" which would pretty much allow us to live forever. The way he proposes to do this is by developing treatments to regenerate our cells so that they will always be in a state of when we are 25 or so. Here is some more information on him:
Joe Rogan, I think this is the best way to learn about Aubrey's work because he's speaking to a lamen on the subject in a very candid manner and a lot of the common questions we'd all have come up
Not the highest quality of debate here but some interesting philosophical implications related to living forever come up
ted talk those who are interested but dont want to invest a couple hours into other options
I ran into that guy many years ago but didn't follow his work. I'll watch those later when I have time. On this topic and to tie in both subjects, I'll just post this here. Maybe it's been mentioned in his talks I don't know yet. It's an interesting pilot study which was co-authored by Nobel laureate Elizabeth Blackburn.
"The group that made the lifestyle changes experienced a “significant” increase in telomere length of approximately 10 percent. Further, the more people changed their behavior by adhering to the recommended lifestyle program, the more dramatic their improvements in telomere length, the scientists learned." Link
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 26 2016 03:51 Smuft wrote:
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
Word, I cant think of many topics more mindlessly boring than diet, it matters if you are obese or have a shit diet, but its not difficult to eat pretty decently
Obesity is a big one (no pun intended, believe it or not), but it isn't a pre-requirement for most chronic diseases to develop. Most chronic diseases take many decades to develop and thus we typically have no care in the world in the first 2 or 3 decades of our lives. We have no clue what's coming unless someone close to us has suffered immensely from it, but even there, human beings are too subjective and irrational by nature and we tend to feel invincible until misfortune strikes us directly.
Also, I think eating "pretty decently" is extremely challenging/problematic for many people. In my experience, as soon as people give themselves permission to indulge, it becomes extremely difficult not to do so on a regular basis. We live in an artificial world now and our pleasure centers in the brain can easily be hijacked. I think a lot of people have the same problem with highly stimulating food as they would have with smoking cigarettes and they find that it's easier to stop completely than to try to moderate the bad habit.
There's more to diet than the "what can it do for me" aspect anyway. The politics are interesting and have far-reaching consequences for the world we live in. The philosophical and ethical considerations also play a very important part and it's an avenue where we can always better ourselves.
Its difficult because of discipline not because people dont know how to somewhat eat properly, same as tobacco, the problem is not that people dont know its effects on health, so my point about the discussion about diet still stands
So you think people who are obese only have a problem with discipline?
On July 26 2016 03:51 Smuft wrote:
nutrition has got to be one of the least rewarding subjects out there (it's up there with politics)
Word, I cant think of many topics more mindlessly boring than diet, it matters if you are obese or have a shit diet, but its not difficult to eat pretty decently
Obesity is a big one (no pun intended, believe it or not), but it isn't a pre-requirement for most chronic diseases to develop. Most chronic diseases take many decades to develop and thus we typically have no care in the world in the first 2 or 3 decades of our lives. We have no clue what's coming unless someone close to us has suffered immensely from it, but even there, human beings are too subjective and irrational by nature and we tend to feel invincible until misfortune strikes us directly.
Also, I think eating "pretty decently" is extremely challenging/problematic for many people. In my experience, as soon as people give themselves permission to indulge, it becomes extremely difficult not to do so on a regular basis. We live in an artificial world now and our pleasure centers in the brain can easily be hijacked. I think a lot of people have the same problem with highly stimulating food as they would have with smoking cigarettes and they find that it's easier to stop completely than to try to moderate the bad habit.
There's more to diet than the "what can it do for me" aspect anyway. The politics are interesting and have far-reaching consequences for the world we live in. The philosophical and ethical considerations also play a very important part and it's an avenue where we can always better ourselves.
Its difficult because of discipline not because people dont know how to somewhat eat properly, same as tobacco, the problem is not that people dont know its effects on health, so my point about the discussion about diet still stands
So you think people who are obese only have a problem with discipline?
Most of them, yes.
Most of them? So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think there is a small minority of obese people that are affected by some "real" problem, I'm guessing you mean a severe disorder/addiction here, while the rest are perfectly free to make different choices but simply don't due to a lack of discipline? I think that's the most common opinion on the subject. Well, that and the opinion that all of them are just lacking discipline.
I don't think this view is representative of the reality of it at all. I believe that the problem lies in the foods we have created and made so available more than in the people who desire them. Obesity is the natural consequence of putting an animal in a modern, unnatural environment where it has access to an abundance of rich and artificial foods and where the consumption of these foods is normal and often encouraged. We are simply not biologically adapted to this, and our failure to stay healthy and lean in such an environment is not really ours, because our instincts are not of our own choosing, and they lead us into making bad choices. It becomes an urge or a compulsion rather than what we'd call a free choice.
Food and sex is what all animals have evolved to seek and enjoy. Our instincts tell us to get the most pleasure for the least amount of energy expenditure. In today's world, this becomes a problem. Throughout our evolution it was absolutely necessary for us to feast whenever possible because we rarely had access to concentrated sources of calories, and we needed to store fat as much as possible since periods of famine were so frequent. But now we have abundance, so we just keep storing fat for that next famine that never comes, and we die of diseases of excess.
There's a very helpful analogy that helps with understanding this problem. All of us have observed at some point moths flying into artificial lights or burning candles. Why do they do this? Well, there are competing theories, but this one makes the most sense to me.
"Moths zoom toward unnatural light sources because the lights throw off their internal navigation systems. Moths didn't evolve around bright lights, after all; they evolved at a time when all the light on Earth came solely from the distant sun, moon and stars. In a behavior called transverse orientation, some insects navigate by flying at a constant angle relative to a distant light source, such as the moon. But around man-made lights, such as a campfire or your porch light, the angle to the light source changes as a moth flies by. This confuses it."
It would be silly to say that a moth just lacks discipline when it is engaged in self-destructive behavior. It makes more sense to believe that it is confused. And that's my point. In today's world, we're easily hijacked into a pattern of pleasure-seeking that becomes our undoing. Eating should be pleasurable, but not so pleasurable as to be problematic and confuse our satiation mechanism. This happens when we introduce supernormal stimuli into our environment. I think discipline becomes much more involved once we are aware of this trap and we have tools to guard ourselves against it, but not so much before.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 26 2016 05:29 Mortensen8 wrote:
Don't believe in any type of diet that eliminates food groups (except added / refined sugar, alcohol)
Variety is the key too much of anything is bad.
I was almost done writing a detailed response to many of your statements with a bunch of links to peer-reviewed scientific articles when my page refreshed for some reason and I lost everything. It was pretty time consuming and I'm not motivated to do it again, so this is going to be bad form, but I have to be brash and to the point: you are misinformed/have been misled. Your biggest mistake is believing in the food pyramid approach that says we need to eat from every food group for optimal health. This approach is utter bs. It's pretty simple to see why without even getting into the entire nitty gritty of it all.
Cardiovascular diseases are the number 1 cause of death throughout the world. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in Western industrialized countries, and it is a diet related disease. There is only one diet that's been proven to be able to significantly assist in preventing it, and even reverse it, and that is a low fat, whole foods, plant based diet. So, a diet based on exclusion. If your "variety is key", all-inclusive omnivorous diet was optimal, then it wouldn't be out-done by another diet when it comes to this leading killer. That's a no brainer. Not that this is the only thing this diet can do, it can do a lot more than that, but even if it was, it would be common sense to make it our default diet until we have enough evidence that shows that another diet can do better. It's not about belief, it's about making evidence-based decisions. The evidence in favor of this way of eating is currently overwhelming if you bother to search for it.
I do not buy into this agenda. Comparing vegetarians who are health conscious to the average beer guzzling/ junk food eating westerner is not going to convince me. Eating lamb that is naturally reared, eats grass, lives outside and is full of omega 3. I don't buy it. I've heard this argument from vegans but I know that I would become sick if I were to try it. The people living on this island have been eating 90% animal foods. It's all about the quality of the food you are eating. Majority of people are eating junk food/soda/candy/chocolate/crisps/alcohol these are the real dangers not fish, lamb and dairy, only if you eat too much of it. Your body needs animal vitamin A, animal omega 3 and good luck getting the many complex proteins from plants only, not to mention b12. Your brain needs fat.
They are clearly pushing for people to become plant eaters and my conspiracy senses are tingling. This is their new world utopia of false love (self love) and almost all of the occult/new age garbage also wants you to be vegan in order to reach 'higher dimensions'
haha. To be fair though, the last post had more to do with nutritional science and anthropology. But it's just a couple page of a thread. This thread has no specific topic, it can turn into whatever. You guys are free to start a discussion on whichever subjects you want, we don't have to all be discussing the same subject once it's brought up.
United States. Jul 24 2016 03:13. Posts 8509
