Re: Absolutely No Grains, Paleolithic anyone?(was: Getting bett

[Guest guest]

How the Hell did he beat cancer anyway? Is he going to beat heart disease too?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2009, at 8:26 AM, " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> However, it's all just theorybright now. There is no proof.

> If it did work, why doesn't Lance Armstrong or

> other high competitive athletes do it?

See my comment on the difference between athletics for health, versus elite

athletics for money. Plus athletes are susceptible to trends in nutritional

thinking too. Why did they all jump on carb loading at the first signs of carb

research? Really because every single person got increased performance? I

wonder. If Lance hadn't fixated on his training years ago, and tried adapting to

fat with enough carb for the mountains, who knows.

And don't get me started on Lance Armstrong. In my opinion he is not being

honest about the association between endurance biking and cancer. (he wasn't the

only one). Or else he doesn't notice and doesn't care (probably more likely).

All that matters is winning.

Connie

[Guest guest]

> How the Hell did he beat cancer anyway?

Interestingly enough he changed his training to slower and less intense. Don't

know about medical treatment.

[Guest guest]

It would probably be a good idea with any sport to just decrease the amount you

practice. Maintain your strength with weights, a balanced midset, and a quality

diet.

If you train right you don't need to train as frequently.

I have been following this with bodybuilding. That's how Arthur used to

train his guys. The more advance they were the less they lifted.

Olivia lifted weight only about 3-4 times every two weeks. He spent

about 40 minutes a week training while under Arthur .

They had a steroid free guy that trainined this way too. Casey Viator. He was

huge.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2009, at 12:49 PM, " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> How the Hell did he beat cancer anyway?

Interestingly enough he changed his training to slower and less intense. Don't

know about medical treatment.

[Guest guest]

,

> It would probably be a good idea with any sport to just decrease the amount

> you practice. Maintain your strength with weights, a balanced midset, and a

> quality diet.

>

> If you train right you don't need to train as frequently.

I'm not sure most people reading this board need to " train " at all, at

least not in the way you are using the term.

> I have been following this with bodybuilding. That's how Arthur used

> to train his guys. The more advance they were the less they lifted.

>

> Olivia lifted weight only about 3-4 times every two weeks. He spent

> about 40 minutes a week training while under Arthur .

>

> They had a steroid free guy that trainined this way too. Casey Viator. He

> was huge.

Yes but shot to fame before he met Arthur and his diet

wasn't, at least by WAP standards, remotely optimal. Casey Viator

never became a big star and I think he met late in his career as

well. How do you know he was steroid free?

Sorry for jumping ahead, but I'm still stuck on a couple of posts from

early in this thread that are begging for a different point of view,

so I will engage soon enough.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

I'm going by Ellington Darden's story of Casey Viator. He is one ugly fellow.

With those genetics could he be a top competing bodybuilder? He trained with

when he was 19. At the time he was steroid free.

Olivia trained with in the 1971 competition. He did take steroids. I

believe he was #2 to Arnold that year. Arnold worked out 12 hours a week,

worked out 40 minutes a week.

If you get a chance read The New High Intensity Training by Ellington Darden.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2009, at 1:50 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> It would probably be a good idea with any sport to just decrease the amount

> you practice. Maintain your strength with weights, a balanced midset, and a

> quality diet.

>

> If you train right you don't need to train as frequently.

I'm not sure most people reading this board need to " train " at all, at

least not in the way you are using the term.

> I have been following this with bodybuilding. That's how Arthur used

> to train his guys. The more advance they were the less they lifted.

>

> Olivia lifted weight only about 3-4 times every two weeks. He spent

> about 40 minutes a week training while under Arthur .

>

> They had a steroid free guy that trainined this way too. Casey Viator. He

> was huge.

Yes but shot to fame before he met Arthur and his diet

wasn't, at least by WAP standards, remotely optimal. Casey Viator

never became a big star and I think he met late in his career as

well. How do you know he was steroid free?

Sorry for jumping ahead, but I'm still stuck on a couple of posts from

early in this thread that are begging for a different point of view,

so I will engage soon enough.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

,

> I'm going by Ellington Darden's story of Casey Viator. He is one ugly

> fellow. With those genetics could he be a top competing bodybuilder? He

> trained with when he was 19. At the time he was steroid free.

Okay, thanks for clarifying but it also further illustrates my point,

he didn't become a star under .

> Olivia trained with in the 1971 competition. He did take steroids. I

> believe he was #2 to Arnold that year. Arnold worked out 12 hours a week,

> worked out 40 minutes a week.

Again, by the time he met he was already a 3-time Mr. Olympia

and never won again. He should have beaten Arnold in 1972, but due to

other factors that wasn't about to happen. I saw a re-run with my mom

of the 1972 Olympia. We were blown away with 's development,

especially when he did his back to the camera overhead lat pose.

Unbelievable! It was no wonder they called him " The Myth " .

> If you get a chance read The New High Intensity Training by Ellington

> Darden.

I have read much of Ellington Darden over the years. I doubt there is

anything sufficiently new in his writings to compel me to drop $15 on

a rework of one of his earlier books. Besides, I simply abhor most of

the bodybuilding philosophy of training anyway, although like all

things there are a few nuggets here and there.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

I feel weightlifting has it's benefits, and Arthur is my favorite. I like

the fact that it's not time consuming and involves high effort.

Ellington went one step further and goes only one set per exercise. Whereas

went 2 sets.

Weightlifting can me very useful for cross training too.

I think there is something to learn from his philosophy and apply it to all

training regimens.

I personally get the best results when I vary my activities and not spend too

much time on each one. Even mental exercises.

Thank you,

Holt

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:31 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> I'm going by Ellington Darden's story of Casey Viator. He is one ugly

> fellow. With those genetics could he be a top competing bodybuilder? He

> trained with when he was 19. At the time he was steroid free.

Okay, thanks for clarifying but it also further illustrates my point,

he didn't become a star under .

> Olivia trained with in the 1971 competition. He did take steroids. I

> believe he was #2 to Arnold that year. Arnold worked out 12 hours a week,

> worked out 40 minutes a week.

Again, by the time he met he was already a 3-time Mr. Olympia

and never won again. He should have beaten Arnold in 1972, but due to

other factors that wasn't about to happen. I saw a re-run with my mom

of the 1972 Olympia. We were blown away with 's development,

especially when he did his back to the camera overhead lat pose.

Unbelievable! It was no wonder they called him " The Myth " .

> If you get a chance read The New High Intensity Training by Ellington

> Darden.

I have read much of Ellington Darden over the years. I doubt there is

anything sufficiently new in his writings to compel me to drop $15 on

a rework of one of his earlier books. Besides, I simply abhor most of

the bodybuilding philosophy of training anyway, although like all

things there are a few nuggets here and there.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

I got the best results when I had a related program. I went overkill however.

The way I was taught was to lift heavy and work up to my max weight. I would

also go to failure with each max set. Then I would caught it to 60% and go to

failure twice. I would do a total of 6 exercises 2-4 times a week.

I would cheat up the weight too. This made it very difficult because I put on a

heavy workload and had to go to failure.

My back actually felt better doing it.

I have a strong foundation. I ate like crap too.

Thank you,

Holt

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Holt <danthemanholt@...> wrote:

I feel weightlifting has it's benefits, and Arthur is my favorite. I like

the fact that it's not time consuming and involves high effort.

Ellington went one step further and goes only one set per exercise. Whereas

went 2 sets.

Weightlifting can me very useful for cross training too.

I think there is something to learn from his philosophy and apply it to all

training regimens.

I personally get the best results when I vary my activities and not spend too

much time on each one. Even mental exercises.

Thank you,

Holt

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:31 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> I'm going by Ellington Darden's story of Casey Viator. He is one ugly

> fellow. With those genetics could he be a top competing bodybuilder? He

> trained with when he was 19. At the time he was steroid free.

Okay, thanks for clarifying but it also further illustrates my point,

he didn't become a star under .

> Olivia trained with in the 1971 competition. He did take steroids. I

> believe he was #2 to Arnold that year. Arnold worked out 12 hours a week,

> worked out 40 minutes a week.

Again, by the time he met he was already a 3-time Mr. Olympia

and never won again. He should have beaten Arnold in 1972, but due to

other factors that wasn't about to happen. I saw a re-run with my mom

of the 1972 Olympia. We were blown away with 's development,

especially when he did his back to the camera overhead lat pose.

Unbelievable! It was no wonder they called him " The Myth " .

> If you get a chance read The New High Intensity Training by Ellington

> Darden.

I have read much of Ellington Darden over the years. I doubt there is

anything sufficiently new in his writings to compel me to drop $15 on

a rework of one of his earlier books. Besides, I simply abhor most of

the bodybuilding philosophy of training anyway, although like all

things there are a few nuggets here and there.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

>

> > I haven't done any research on this topic so I can't make a claim,

> > but I'd be very curious to see studies comparing high carb to high

> > fat diets in both endurance and power athletic performance.

>

> Such studies are just now being done. Search Pub Med. Phinney, who does study

athletes and low carb, made an off-hand comment in an interview that the last 30

years have been heavy on studying ALL about glucose pathways. Thinking that

because more sugar is used the higher intensity you go, that sugar must be the

most important thing. It's not quite that simple it turns out.

>

> Now people are starting to study the interaction between dietary fuels, stored

fuels, and what you're habituated to. There is evidence that low carb people

" spare " glucose so a little goes a longer way.

>

> Connie

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think it's impossible to have a high fat, high carb diet.

>

> You must mean, a healthy high fat, high carb diet.

> I could do it easily, but not healthily.

>

I guess I'm assuming that a diet " high " in one macro nutrient means over 50% of

fat, protein or carbs.

I don't think a 40% fat, 40% carb, 20% protein diet is high fat or high carbs.

Even a 45% fat, 45% carb, 10% protein diet still isn't high fat or carb.

So what would you consider a high fat, high carb diet?

[Guest guest]

I think that elite athletics may not lead to improved health of longevity.

Arthritis appears to be more common as high grip strength. And high calorie

diets will most likely lead to early enzyme exhaustion. I'm surprised I don't

hear about more enzyme supplementation among elite athletes. Of course most

don't advertise what they do for competitive reasons.

>

> > However, it's all just theorybright now. There is no proof.

> > If it did work, why doesn't Lance Armstrong or

> > other high competitive athletes do it?

>

> See my comment on the difference between athletics for health, versus elite

athletics for money. Plus athletes are susceptible to trends in nutritional

thinking too. Why did they all jump on carb loading at the first signs of carb

research? Really because every single person got increased performance? I

wonder. If Lance hadn't fixated on his training years ago, and tried adapting to

fat with enough carb for the mountains, who knows.

>

> And don't get me started on Lance Armstrong. In my opinion he is not being

honest about the association between endurance biking and cancer. (he wasn't the

only one). Or else he doesn't notice and doesn't care (probably more likely).

All that matters is winning.

>

> Connie

>

[Guest guest]

> So what would you consider a high fat, high carb diet?

I would count in grams of micronutrients, not percents.

Percent implies a fixed calorie amount.

So, high protein is over 1.5 grams per pound of LBM,

high carbs is 150 or more.

High fat would depend on what is left over for the person's energy needs.

I realize it is common to use percents but I believe that is based on a such a

flawed premise - that we can predict calorie needs - when the equations and

measures are based on sugar burning (respiratory quotient 1) and not as well

tested for fat burners (respiratory quotient .7), plus they can be up to 30%

off. So I ignore percent for myself.

[Guest guest]

Regardless of the unit of measure I don't think a diet can be high in two

macronutrients pretty much by definition.

Think of a triangle with fat, pro. & carb at each point. If you're in the

center, you have an equal balance.

If you move to any given point your high in that macronutrient.

You could move from the center to the middle of any side and you'd be higher in

two than the remaining third, but your still half way between the two extremes.

>

> > So what would you consider a high fat, high carb diet?

>

> I would count in grams of micronutrients, not percents.

>

> Percent implies a fixed calorie amount.

>

> So, high protein is over 1.5 grams per pound of LBM,

> high carbs is 150 or more.

> High fat would depend on what is left over for the person's energy needs.

>

> I realize it is common to use percents but I believe that is based on a such a

flawed premise - that we can predict calorie needs - when the equations and

measures are based on sugar burning (respiratory quotient 1) and not as well

tested for fat burners (respiratory quotient .7), plus they can be up to 30%

off. So I ignore percent for myself.

>

[Guest guest]

> Regardless of the unit of measure I don't think a diet can be high in two

macronutrients pretty much by definition.

>

> Think of a triangle with fat, pro. & carb at each point. If you're in the

center, you have an equal balance.

I think we basically agree but I am thinking in 3 dimensions.

I'm assuming you're picturing the triangle as flat, right?

If you make a diet that is high in two macronutrients - say fat and carb - then

think of adding a third dimension, height, where you can ingest calories way

beyond the body's energy needs.

Even if you are between the two extremes of carb and fat, it can be too high.

That is too high in two macronutrients, taking advantage of excess carb removing

the satiety brakes and fueling hunger.

Or another way: " too high " for what? I was thinking one way to be too high in

two macronutrients, is to have " too big " a triangle.

Oh it is late to be annoyingly splitting hairs

[Guest guest]

I have been following this thread with interest. I am a 51 yr old woman who

through lack of exercise and good diet has gotten very out of shape. My goal is

to get back to the awesome shape I have been in a few times in my life. (late

teens and early 30's)

I have been going to the gym and it has helped a lot. I'm training for a 10K at

the moment and wonder if you could share a source for information on training

and nutrition.

Thanks

>

> It would probably be a good idea with any sport to just decrease the amount

you practice. Maintain your strength with weights, a balanced midset, and a

quality diet.

>

-Anne

[Guest guest]

I wasn't aware there was any controversy about how to measure the energy content

of food. I'm pretty sure there isn't any. Oxidation liberates energy at a

predictable rate as far as I know.

That being said, perhaps you're referring to the flawed " a calorie in is a

calorie out " foundational principle of obesity.

The problem with this principle is that it doesn't take into account the high

degree of variability among individuals as to where the energy goes and how each

macro-nutrient in uniquely metabolized. For example insulin appears to turn on

fat storage and simple carbs cause a disproportional rise in insulin compared to

fat and protein.

When someone eats food, the energy can go into four places: heat, work, fat,

muscle. Each person has a unique distribution profile.

This explains why we see obese people that remain obese while eating small

amounts of food and skinny people who can eat as much as they want. This is why

we see the obese person expend less energy and the skinny person expend more. In

the case of the obese person, more calories are directed to fat storage and

work. In the case of the skinny person, more calories go to heat and work.

People tend to be more active because they're skinny. They're not skinny because

they're more active. This is a hard concept to accept but the science is pretty

clear on this point. It also explains why some people seem to just grow muscle

with little effort in the gym while others can work much harder and get far less

spectacular results.

This is all explained in " Good Calorie, Bad Calorie " .

Cheers,

>

> > So what would you consider a high fat, high carb diet?

>

> I would count in grams of micronutrients, not percents.

>

> Percent implies a fixed calorie amount.

>

> So, high protein is over 1.5 grams per pound of LBM,

> high carbs is 150 or more.

> High fat would depend on what is left over for the person's energy needs.

>

> I realize it is common to use percents but I believe that is based on a such a

flawed premise - that we can predict calorie needs - when the equations and

measures are based on sugar burning (respiratory quotient 1) and not as well

tested for fat burners (respiratory quotient .7), plus they can be up to 30%

off. So I ignore percent for myself.

>

[Guest guest]

> I'm training for a 10K at the moment

> Thanks

Did you read the articles at Mark's Daily Apple?

That's where I would start. He was a competitive runner so maybe there's a 10K

training program article there....

[Guest guest]

I¹ve read some of them. There certainly is a LOT of information. I

haven¹t found anything for running training, but will keep searching.

On 3/14/09 12:51 PM, " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>> > I'm training for a 10K at the moment

>> > Thanks

>

> Did you read the articles at Mark's Daily Apple?

> That's where I would start. He was a competitive runner so maybe there's a 10K

> training program article there....

>

>

>

>

-Anne

[Guest guest]

,

> I think it's impossible to have a high fat, high carb diet. Protein is the

> least forgiving macro nutrient. Too little or too much within a fairly

> narrow window can cause a variety of health problems. Carbs or fat on the

> other hand have a much bigger window.

I guess that depends on how you define " high " . I really think you are

a paleo parading under the guise of being a WAPer in all honesty. :-)

It is certainly possible to have a high carb high saturated fat diet.

For example the Kitavans have a diet of 69% carbs, 21 percent fat, and

10% protein. Now the total fat looks low until you realize 98% of

their fat is saturated fat which is higher than most high fat diets.

The Tokelauans come in even higher while still having what is

considered a low protein high carb diet.

> Like you can't be healthy on a diet that is 80% protein and 20% fat. You

> also can't be healthy on a diet that is low fat like 80% carbs, 20% protein.

> Pritkin found out the hard way on that one. A 33/33/33 diet is not high in

> anything.

Except those aren't the only ratios possible. And who is talking about

those kind of ratios anyway. You can certainly be healthy if you are

70% carbs or fat. It is the protein, as you noted above, that is

rather unforgiving, at least on the high end. Some groups thrive on

what in the west we would consider a low protein diet.

> Taubes shows that carb quality is important, but more important than that is

> what your insulin response is to the carbs. And everyone has a different

> insulin response and even for one person it can change over time.

Like I said before, I think Taubes paints too broad a brush. I think

there are some other factors at play other than insulin. His

conclusions don't explain the South Sea Islanders or the Bantu, for

example.

> Like I said before I haven't seen any research about how well fat and carbs

> support athletic activity.

>

> Have you seen any research on this topic? I'd love to read some if you have.

I think Barry Groves refers to several studies.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

The Masai warriors had 7 quarts of milk a day. They are tall and strong. They

were only 140 pounds.

280g of protein

280g of fat

294g of carbs

8400mg of calcium

8400mg of potassium

10,000iu of vit a

1000 iu of vit d

All in one day...

They were considered very healthy by Weston Price. Did they have kidney failure

due to high protein intake? Price felt they had the strongest constitution of

any men he had seen.

Thank you,

Holt

On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:20 AM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> I think it's impossible to have a high fat, high carb diet. Protein is the

> least forgiving macro nutrient. Too little or too much within a fairly

> narrow window can cause a variety of health problems. Carbs or fat on the

> other hand have a much bigger window.

I guess that depends on how you define " high " . I really think you are

a paleo parading under the guise of being a WAPer in all honesty. :-)

It is certainly possible to have a high carb high saturated fat diet.

For example the Kitavans have a diet of 69% carbs, 21 percent fat, and

10% protein. Now the total fat looks low until you realize 98% of

their fat is saturated fat which is higher than most high fat diets.

The Tokelauans come in even higher while still having what is

considered a low protein high carb diet.

> Like you can't be healthy on a diet that is 80% protein and 20% fat. You

> also can't be healthy on a diet that is low fat like 80% carbs, 20% protein.

> Pritkin found out the hard way on that one. A 33/33/33 diet is not high in

> anything.

Except those aren't the only ratios possible. And who is talking about

those kind of ratios anyway. You can certainly be healthy if you are

70% carbs or fat. It is the protein, as you noted above, that is

rather unforgiving, at least on the high end. Some groups thrive on

what in the west we would consider a low protein diet.

> Taubes shows that carb quality is important, but more important than that is

> what your insulin response is to the carbs. And everyone has a different

> insulin response and even for one person it can change over time.

Like I said before, I think Taubes paints too broad a brush. I think

there are some other factors at play other than insulin. His

conclusions don't explain the South Sea Islanders or the Bantu, for

example.

> Like I said before I haven't seen any research about how well fat and carbs

> support athletic activity.

>

> Have you seen any research on this topic? I'd love to read some if you have.

I think Barry Groves refers to several studies.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

,

> The Masai warriors had 7 quarts of milk a day. They are tall and strong.

> They were only 140 pounds.

>

> 280g of protein

> 280g of fat

> 294g of carbs

> 8400mg of calcium

> 8400mg of potassium

> 10,000iu of vit a

> 1000 iu of vit d

> All in one day...

>

> They were considered very healthy by Weston Price. Did they have kidney

> failure due to high protein intake? Price felt they had the strongest

> constitution of any men he had seen.

What's your point? In terms of percentages it looks like they were

getting about 1/3 of each macro-nutrient. Nothing wrong with that.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

I'm not making a point, more of an observation.

I wonder if that high protein shortened their lifespan. Weston Price never took

note of that.

High protein intake can create dificiencies, but with all those nutrients it may

have counterbalanced it. They had milk every 3 days, and all meat the fourth

day.

They probably refueled their nutrients with liver, bones, blood, etc. On the

fourth day. Do you have anything to add? That's all I know about them. It's

crazey that they had so much protein at such a low bodyweight...any thoughts?

One thing you have got to realize, they adapted over generations to handle the

lactose in milk.

Thank you,

Holt

On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:51 AM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> The Masai warriors had 7 quarts of milk a day. They are tall and strong.

> They were only 140 pounds.

>

> 280g of protein

> 280g of fat

> 294g of carbs

> 8400mg of calcium

> 8400mg of potassium

> 10,000iu of vit a

> 1000 iu of vit d

> All in one day...

>

> They were considered very healthy by Weston Price. Did they have kidney

> failure due to high protein intake? Price felt they had the strongest

> constitution of any men he had seen.

What's your point? In terms of percentages it looks like they were

getting about 1/3 of each macro-nutrient. Nothing wrong with that.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

--- Holt <danthemanholt@...> wrote:

> 280g of protein

> 280g of fat

> 294g of carbs

> All in one day...

, using the standard estimates of calories per gram, this diet in terms of

calories comes out to a total of 4,816 calories and:

percent of total calories

23.3 protein

52.3 fat

24.4 carbs

So, if these figures are correct, the Masai diet is fairly low-carb percentage

wise, but very high in overall calories.

For comparison here are the percentages of calories for milk alone.

Holstein milk (3.7% milk fat)

19.0 protein

51.0 fat

30.0 carbs (all lactose)

Jersey milk (5.1% milk fat)

18.3 protein

56.9 fat

24.8 carbs (lactose)

Source of raw data:

http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/dairy/404-232/404-232.html

The USDA nutrient data base shows for percent of total calories:

whole milk (3.25% milk fat)

21.4 protein

48.6 fat

30.0 carbs (lactose)

Of course, milk has no fructose, which I find very interesting from a nutrition

and health perspective. Milk is certainly not a high-carb food, with only

25-30% of calories as carbs, but I suspect that any traditionally successful

high-carb diet would also be low in fructose, but haven't researched it.

[Guest guest]

,

I'm not a paleo spy ;-) I am eating a low carb diet that is consistent with the

principles of WAPF.

I don't know much about the paleo movement, but I do think that the predominant

food of our ancestors was meat--when it was available.

But I also get the impression that a common paleo mis-perception is that ancient

people's didn't eat many carbs. When meat wasn't available in sufficient

quantities, they still had eat so carbs were a fall back or a filler. As it

still is to this day--why do add oatmeal to meatloaf? Meat was frequently in

short supply so I think paleolithic people ate a lot of carbs.

I do think that most primitive groups will eat mostly meat if it's available.

Stefansson claims that no skulls were found with cavities in Iceland for the 600

year period before grains were introduced into the diet. The inhabitants at the

time ate what he called a " hunters " diet or a " herdsmans " diet. This means meat

and dairy with some vegetables, but no grains.

Price observed some groups that eat mostly meat and other's that eat meat once a

week and both seemed healthy until sugar and white flour showed up.

But of course Price found lots of people with good teeth that ate grains so I

think that all the advice from WAPF about proper grain processing are well

founded.

To me a balanced diet is just that, no single macro nutrient over 50% of

calories. a diet high in one macronutrient would be over 50%. What else could

high mean? You can't have more than 100% :-)

Cheers,

>

> ,

>

> > I think it's impossible to have a high fat, high carb diet. Protein is the

> > least forgiving macro nutrient. Too little or too much within a fairly

> > narrow window can cause a variety of health problems. Carbs or fat on the

> > other hand have a much bigger window.

>

> I guess that depends on how you define " high " . I really think you are

> a paleo parading under the guise of being a WAPer in all honesty. :-)

> It is certainly possible to have a high carb high saturated fat diet.

> For example the Kitavans have a diet of 69% carbs, 21 percent fat, and

> 10% protein. Now the total fat looks low until you realize 98% of

> their fat is saturated fat which is higher than most high fat diets.

> The Tokelauans come in even higher while still having what is

> considered a low protein high carb diet.

>

> > Like you can't be healthy on a diet that is 80% protein and 20% fat. You

> > also can't be healthy on a diet that is low fat like 80% carbs, 20% protein.

> > Pritkin found out the hard way on that one. A 33/33/33 diet is not high in

> > anything.

>

> Except those aren't the only ratios possible. And who is talking about

> those kind of ratios anyway. You can certainly be healthy if you are

> 70% carbs or fat. It is the protein, as you noted above, that is

> rather unforgiving, at least on the high end. Some groups thrive on

> what in the west we would consider a low protein diet.

>

> > Taubes shows that carb quality is important, but more important than that is

> > what your insulin response is to the carbs. And everyone has a different

> > insulin response and even for one person it can change over time.

>

> Like I said before, I think Taubes paints too broad a brush. I think

> there are some other factors at play other than insulin. His

> conclusions don't explain the South Sea Islanders or the Bantu, for

> example.

>

> > Like I said before I haven't seen any research about how well fat and carbs

> > support athletic activity.

> >

> > Have you seen any research on this topic? I'd love to read some if you have.

>

> I think Barry Groves refers to several studies.

>

>

> --

> It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

> many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

> to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

> you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

> percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

> personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

>

> - Ferriss

>

[Guest guest]

Dan the man :-)

> I'm not making a point, more of an observation.

>

> I wonder if that high protein shortened their lifespan. Weston Price never

> took note of that.

I'm not sure why it would. As a percentage of calories their protein

consumption wasn't all that bad.

> High protein intake can create dificiencies, but with all those nutrients it

> may have counterbalanced it. They had milk every 3 days, and all meat the

> fourth day.

Perhaps their is an absolute limit on the amount of protein one can

ingest without problems, but as a percent of their diet, there is no

reason why protein would cause problems.

> They probably refueled their nutrients with liver, bones, blood, etc. On the

> fourth day. Do you have anything to add?

Yes, why would they be refueling their nutrients on the fourth day?

What exactly were they missing the first three days? IIRC blood was

used only in emergencies and the fat content of their milk was far

beyond anything we drink today.

> That's all I know about them. It's

> crazey that they had so much protein at such a low bodyweight...any

> thoughts?

>

> One thing you have got to realize, they adapted over generations to handle

> the lactose in milk.

I'm not sure I realize that. I have often wondered how this adaptation

thing works. Did generations of Masai endure sickness and disease

eating foods they were not adapted to because that is all that was

available? Or were there former Masai who ate " correctly " alongside

those who ate " incorrectly " by consuming milk, but eventually paved

the way for all Masai to drink large quantities of milk? Does it mean

one day the human race will be genetically adapted to handle junk

food?

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer