@Chad
Running the numbers on Food Costs...
@Zev: brilliant article, thank you.
This professor must have exerted tremendous willpower to spike his insulin so many times throughout the day and resist the urge to bring his insulin up, post crash. I wonder if even he would have succeeded if there wasn't an external motivator, like being all over CNN for losing weight eating twinkies.
For your average, insulin resistant dieter, this diet is the kiss of death... I just cringe when I see someone trying to loose weight eating a 100 calorie pack of Oreos. Those small 100 calories are plenty to briefly bring blood sugar to elation, and then crash it to exhaustion.
Maybe they should just label them "Appetite Stimulant" and be done with it.
This professor must have exerted tremendous willpower to spike his insulin so many times throughout the day and resist the urge to bring his insulin up, post crash. I wonder if even he would have succeeded if there wasn't an external motivator, like being all over CNN for losing weight eating twinkies.
For your average, insulin resistant dieter, this diet is the kiss of death... I just cringe when I see someone trying to loose weight eating a 100 calorie pack of Oreos. Those small 100 calories are plenty to briefly bring blood sugar to elation, and then crash it to exhaustion.
Maybe they should just label them "Appetite Stimulant" and be done with it.
That's all fine and good, but the majority of that post is just "best guess." And, some of the assumed facts in that article have less scientific backing than a 1 man trial. I'm not advocating Twinkies or saying Paleo is bad. I just haven't seen any scientific studies that move calories from the number 1 variable in weight and health to one that doesn't matter much. Of course, the quality of the calorie matters in the end product, but if you were only allowed to pay attention to one variable, it appears calories make the most difference.
-
jeremymday
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:06 am
- Contact:
Wow, this Twinkie diet deal sent me off on over an hour of reading the associated blog articles and comments that went with it.
I'll save you the time and possibly help you reinforce what you already know...
Calorie Restriction works! Duh! Is it sustainable? No, your body will eventually adapt to calorie restriction by destroying your calorie hungry muscles and adding fat to help it better prepare for an environment where calories are few. Fat provides much more sustainable energy then anything else.
If you need to lose weight, great! Then restrict your calories because you are obviously eating too much.
If you are simply looking at ERE, you have to try and keep your calorie intake around your calorie burn. And make sure you are getting your necessary nutrients in the process.
And the whole idea of improving his "health" is misleading. He improved a few "bio markers" of health, but did he actually improve his health?
Seems like a lot of frustrated experts on health analysed this to death. The number one thing they said was... Wait a minute, why is this guy so fat in the first place? What was his diet like before? Perhaps eating twinkies is an improvement over another bad diet. hmmmm....
The final verdict is... find out what works for you... then make that your lifestyle. If you want to stay fat, thats fine, but suffer the consequences for it.
Here is a follow up article if you want to see one of the analysis's against this diet and if you scroll down you will see a comment from Dr. Haub himself where he comments about the diet...
http://hbfser.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/ ... -nonsense/
I'll save you the time and possibly help you reinforce what you already know...
Calorie Restriction works! Duh! Is it sustainable? No, your body will eventually adapt to calorie restriction by destroying your calorie hungry muscles and adding fat to help it better prepare for an environment where calories are few. Fat provides much more sustainable energy then anything else.
If you need to lose weight, great! Then restrict your calories because you are obviously eating too much.
If you are simply looking at ERE, you have to try and keep your calorie intake around your calorie burn. And make sure you are getting your necessary nutrients in the process.
And the whole idea of improving his "health" is misleading. He improved a few "bio markers" of health, but did he actually improve his health?
Seems like a lot of frustrated experts on health analysed this to death. The number one thing they said was... Wait a minute, why is this guy so fat in the first place? What was his diet like before? Perhaps eating twinkies is an improvement over another bad diet. hmmmm....
The final verdict is... find out what works for you... then make that your lifestyle. If you want to stay fat, thats fine, but suffer the consequences for it.
Here is a follow up article if you want to see one of the analysis's against this diet and if you scroll down you will see a comment from Dr. Haub himself where he comments about the diet...
http://hbfser.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/ ... -nonsense/
@Chad I have to wonder if diets are a personal matter. Folks I know are passionate about them, like they are passionate about their favorite sports team. I also agree that medicine just doesn't know enough to definitely say what's best for everyone (in more than dieting!).
That's why I find the Paleo diet intriguing, but the thought of all that meat makes my stomach do flips. I used to work in a meat shop and ate enough back then to make me lust for broccoli and hummus sandwiches.
I eat about 1/3 grains, 1/3 vegetables, and 1/3 nuts, meats, fish, and dairy*. Despite my eschewing restaurants, this food isn't particularly inexpensive at around $180/mo. (Much of it is in bulk from Costco.) According to my calculations, the biggest cost is the protein.
* On many work days I burn about 5k+ cal/day, so my single data point "thirds" diet may not be representative of a good diet for others.
To bring down costs, I've been experimenting with beans. I don't (yet) have a pressure cooker though, and overnight soaking with hours of boiling still results in beans that are too hard. I'm now reading the cooking with beans posts (like the thread Jacob referenced above), so I'm hoping I'll get the hang of it eventually.
That's why I find the Paleo diet intriguing, but the thought of all that meat makes my stomach do flips. I used to work in a meat shop and ate enough back then to make me lust for broccoli and hummus sandwiches.
I eat about 1/3 grains, 1/3 vegetables, and 1/3 nuts, meats, fish, and dairy*. Despite my eschewing restaurants, this food isn't particularly inexpensive at around $180/mo. (Much of it is in bulk from Costco.) According to my calculations, the biggest cost is the protein.
* On many work days I burn about 5k+ cal/day, so my single data point "thirds" diet may not be representative of a good diet for others.
To bring down costs, I've been experimenting with beans. I don't (yet) have a pressure cooker though, and overnight soaking with hours of boiling still results in beans that are too hard. I'm now reading the cooking with beans posts (like the thread Jacob referenced above), so I'm hoping I'll get the hang of it eventually.
-
jeremymday
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:06 am
- Contact:
@ SF - This is the kind of stuff I like to hear. And I want to hear more about how these diets are working for people.
You seem to have a great balanced diet at an affordable cost. I would say that you can get your costs lower if you tried.
I would also say that if you have never taken grains and dairy out of your diet, I would say experiment with it for a month and see what the results are.
I have what I consider to be a modified Paleo diet. I get a lot of my protein from other sources besides meat, such as from tofu or fish.
Again, experiment with it and find out what works best for you. Its just really bugging me when I hear people talk about things that they haven't proven in their own experience to be true.
Cheers,
Jeremy
p.s. yes, Im pretty passionate about this? can you tell?
You seem to have a great balanced diet at an affordable cost. I would say that you can get your costs lower if you tried.
I would also say that if you have never taken grains and dairy out of your diet, I would say experiment with it for a month and see what the results are.
I have what I consider to be a modified Paleo diet. I get a lot of my protein from other sources besides meat, such as from tofu or fish.
Again, experiment with it and find out what works best for you. Its just really bugging me when I hear people talk about things that they haven't proven in their own experience to be true.
Cheers,
Jeremy
p.s. yes, Im pretty passionate about this? can you tell?
I'd be seriously careful about the fish. Mercury content is a real problem, and is cumulative for the most part. I believe the FDA recommends no more than 2 servings per week (and we all know how small "servings" really are). Considering most people will be relying heavily on their brains in ERE, it's something worth seriously considering.
@SF
"@Chad I have to wonder if diets are a personal matter. Folks I know are passionate about them, like they are passionate about their favorite sports team. I also agree that medicine just doesn't know enough to definitely say what's best for everyone (in more than dieting!)."
I couldn't agree more with the sports team comparison, which is why gimmick diets like Paleo always raise a warning flag. Most people don't cheer for their sports teams in a rational way. If this type of passion is sliding into something else it causes me to doubt the passionate preacher more. In my mind if someone is using passion as a means of persuasion then the facts must be lacking in some way. Of course, this is not always the case, but it is my first reaction.
By the way, I don't use "gimmick" as a negative here. It just suggests what I call diets that have one obvious hard rule like don't eat grains, only eat cabbage soup, calories only matter if they come from fat, calories don't matter if they come from fat and protein, etc. This gimmick is basically a marketing tool, or at least appears to be from my vantage point.
"@Chad I have to wonder if diets are a personal matter. Folks I know are passionate about them, like they are passionate about their favorite sports team. I also agree that medicine just doesn't know enough to definitely say what's best for everyone (in more than dieting!)."
I couldn't agree more with the sports team comparison, which is why gimmick diets like Paleo always raise a warning flag. Most people don't cheer for their sports teams in a rational way. If this type of passion is sliding into something else it causes me to doubt the passionate preacher more. In my mind if someone is using passion as a means of persuasion then the facts must be lacking in some way. Of course, this is not always the case, but it is my first reaction.
By the way, I don't use "gimmick" as a negative here. It just suggests what I call diets that have one obvious hard rule like don't eat grains, only eat cabbage soup, calories only matter if they come from fat, calories don't matter if they come from fat and protein, etc. This gimmick is basically a marketing tool, or at least appears to be from my vantage point.
Jeremymday,
Be careful about your soy consumption, and try to use only fermented soy products.
http://natural-health-center.blogspot.c ... -tofu.html
I am curious to find out how you think we can best cut our grocery costs.
I eat too many dairy products like cheese, heavy cream, and sour cream. I have cut back some on these by adding extra fat to the things that I cook.
Be careful about your soy consumption, and try to use only fermented soy products.
http://natural-health-center.blogspot.c ... -tofu.html
I am curious to find out how you think we can best cut our grocery costs.
I eat too many dairy products like cheese, heavy cream, and sour cream. I have cut back some on these by adding extra fat to the things that I cook.
I agree that there isn't enough evidence to really "prove" hardly anything related to diet... So, I err on the side of caution and try to stick to what our ancestors ate. Evolution is a pretty good data set. Within reason, 80/20 is great and cost is something we all have to factor.
Am I passionate about it? Perhaps, because it's worked out so well for me, and everyone I know who's done it. I've been on it for almost 4 years (going on life). And while it may evolve, I'm 99% sure no new information will make me abandon it entirely... ERE people don't really seem like the fad/gimmick type. Seems like we strive for constant, steady improvement, not "giving 120%" to flounder to fail, repeat.
Am I illogical about it, like a sports nut? LOL, no.
Present me with better information and I'll change on a dime... Only problem with that, is the first sentence I wrote. The N=1 Twinkie diet certainly doesn't impress me. Although, I'm sure countless people are thankful for the justification to eat the junk food they crave.
Back OT: For those who like/spend a lot on dairy, you should look for a cow share. I pay $4/gallon. But from that $4 I get: coffee creamer, soup base, ice cream, butter, etc. You could easily make yogurt and cheese as well. So much more utility than store bought milk, not to mention the superior taste and nutrition.
Commercial dairy used to really inflame me (acne, excess mucus) but raw seems not to... GF is lactose intolerant, but doesn't have problems with the raw milk somehow. Even so, it's a luxury and not something I eat a lot of.
Am I passionate about it? Perhaps, because it's worked out so well for me, and everyone I know who's done it. I've been on it for almost 4 years (going on life). And while it may evolve, I'm 99% sure no new information will make me abandon it entirely... ERE people don't really seem like the fad/gimmick type. Seems like we strive for constant, steady improvement, not "giving 120%" to flounder to fail, repeat.
Am I illogical about it, like a sports nut? LOL, no.
Present me with better information and I'll change on a dime... Only problem with that, is the first sentence I wrote. The N=1 Twinkie diet certainly doesn't impress me. Although, I'm sure countless people are thankful for the justification to eat the junk food they crave.
Back OT: For those who like/spend a lot on dairy, you should look for a cow share. I pay $4/gallon. But from that $4 I get: coffee creamer, soup base, ice cream, butter, etc. You could easily make yogurt and cheese as well. So much more utility than store bought milk, not to mention the superior taste and nutrition.
Commercial dairy used to really inflame me (acne, excess mucus) but raw seems not to... GF is lactose intolerant, but doesn't have problems with the raw milk somehow. Even so, it's a luxury and not something I eat a lot of.
Ok..I get it..rice and beans and corn etc are the cheapest ways to eat ..but I must caution that for some of you this kind of a diet is going to be cheap in the short term but will eventually cost you more in health and other associated costs.
First, there is no one "right diet" for everyone. The only way to know what works for you is to experiment - try out different types of diets and see what works for you..this knowledge is very personal and while one can read all the blogs, articles, research etc..this is one area where there is no better substitute than experimentation. I did this for ~ 10 yrs and have finally landed on something that works for me.
Second, for any diest to be successful in the long term, it has to be fulfilling not just physiologically (adequate calories) but psychologically as well..this is often determined by the type of calories consumed.
I could eat 2000 calories in rice and beans and still feel massive hunger cravings, same with say eating chinese food..rice/noodles..cornstarch etc. On the other hand, I could eat 1500 calories via eggs, nuts (unsalted - I find excess salt creates cravings also), veggies and meat and I feel very satisfied and do not have hunger pangs during the day.
So basically, all calories are not equal and they impact different people in different ways depending on the metabolism. That is why I run across people who are lean and skinny and can eat pretty much any junk food without gaining weight and then there are others who have been eating low fat rice, beans, oatmeal etc. and still wonder why they are so much overweight.
Besides where did this concept of a calorie (as it relates to consumption of food by humans) come about as an absolute concept? The calorific value of a food is determined by burning it in a calorimeter. Now making the assertion that say a slice of white bread is say 70 calories and taking it as gospel truth, assumes that it is 70 calories for everyone. I think not. The human body does not burn food the way a calorimeter does, the chemical acidic and alkaline reactions that occur are different for different people. So remembering my high school physics here..to truly understand how much of the calories eaten are actually retained...one would have to calculate the net calorie difference between what one ate and what one excreted in waste (after all animal waste is used as fuel in many places). I bet the answer is different for different people.
Making a statement like a serving of rice or beans or whatever is X calories and using that to draw effective eating solutions is like, in ERE parlance, saying that someone earns $Y and leaving it at that to conclude their financial effectivenes. We all know that what matters is not only what you make but what you keep.
So I'd say, everybody should do their own research on food and the $ cheapest solution might not necessarily be the best for all.
First, there is no one "right diet" for everyone. The only way to know what works for you is to experiment - try out different types of diets and see what works for you..this knowledge is very personal and while one can read all the blogs, articles, research etc..this is one area where there is no better substitute than experimentation. I did this for ~ 10 yrs and have finally landed on something that works for me.
Second, for any diest to be successful in the long term, it has to be fulfilling not just physiologically (adequate calories) but psychologically as well..this is often determined by the type of calories consumed.
I could eat 2000 calories in rice and beans and still feel massive hunger cravings, same with say eating chinese food..rice/noodles..cornstarch etc. On the other hand, I could eat 1500 calories via eggs, nuts (unsalted - I find excess salt creates cravings also), veggies and meat and I feel very satisfied and do not have hunger pangs during the day.
So basically, all calories are not equal and they impact different people in different ways depending on the metabolism. That is why I run across people who are lean and skinny and can eat pretty much any junk food without gaining weight and then there are others who have been eating low fat rice, beans, oatmeal etc. and still wonder why they are so much overweight.
Besides where did this concept of a calorie (as it relates to consumption of food by humans) come about as an absolute concept? The calorific value of a food is determined by burning it in a calorimeter. Now making the assertion that say a slice of white bread is say 70 calories and taking it as gospel truth, assumes that it is 70 calories for everyone. I think not. The human body does not burn food the way a calorimeter does, the chemical acidic and alkaline reactions that occur are different for different people. So remembering my high school physics here..to truly understand how much of the calories eaten are actually retained...one would have to calculate the net calorie difference between what one ate and what one excreted in waste (after all animal waste is used as fuel in many places). I bet the answer is different for different people.
Making a statement like a serving of rice or beans or whatever is X calories and using that to draw effective eating solutions is like, in ERE parlance, saying that someone earns $Y and leaving it at that to conclude their financial effectivenes. We all know that what matters is not only what you make but what you keep.
So I'd say, everybody should do their own research on food and the $ cheapest solution might not necessarily be the best for all.
Actually, paleo does sound like a gimmick to me. It's not that I think it doesn't work per se. I'm open minded. But some people definitely lose objectivity... Saying it cured all their problems. I don't see why "what our ancestors ate" is a good baseline... Do you also sleep on what your ancestors slept on, wear no shoes, and use the same medical techniques? Did our ancestors live longer than us? Is it possible we face different challenges to longevity in the 21st century? Back then, mercury in fish, etc was not a problem for example and people probaby didn't live long enough to get cancer or heart disease.
Also, what "makes you feel better" is not necessarily a good indicator. Our bodies are programmer to like refined sugar and salt and fat. I feel great after I eat a donut, but that doesn't mean it's good for me. I also feel real nice after a morphine injection. You can eat red meat for years and feel great as your arteries slowly harden. Obviously this wisdom is in dispute but there is at least some evidence both ways and the real possibility of a "silent killer". Does everyone in paleo get regular cholesterol checks, etc? I would, and am considering it mostly because I like meat, which is why I think the diet is so popular generally.
Also, not all meat is the same... Someone mentioned bacon an eggs. I love love love bacon but there is a lot of evidence that it is ba bad ba because of nitrites AND salt content even if you get nitrite free. Also, there's a lot of cherry picking studies as mentioned previously. Ok rant off. Hope if didn't offend as was not my intent.
Also, what "makes you feel better" is not necessarily a good indicator. Our bodies are programmer to like refined sugar and salt and fat. I feel great after I eat a donut, but that doesn't mean it's good for me. I also feel real nice after a morphine injection. You can eat red meat for years and feel great as your arteries slowly harden. Obviously this wisdom is in dispute but there is at least some evidence both ways and the real possibility of a "silent killer". Does everyone in paleo get regular cholesterol checks, etc? I would, and am considering it mostly because I like meat, which is why I think the diet is so popular generally.
Also, not all meat is the same... Someone mentioned bacon an eggs. I love love love bacon but there is a lot of evidence that it is ba bad ba because of nitrites AND salt content even if you get nitrite free. Also, there's a lot of cherry picking studies as mentioned previously. Ok rant off. Hope if didn't offend as was not my intent.
@dragoncar
What did ancient wolves eat? Meat. What do modern wolves eat? Meat. What did ancient cattle eat? Grass. What do modern cattle eat? Grass. We are not that different than our ancestors. For 2 million years man ate mostly meat. The last ten thousand years man has grown grains for harvest. Only in the last 50 or so years has man eaten huge amounts of processed carbs.
I agree that no one diet is right for everyone, but we could all benefit from less consumption of highly processed carbs., including whole wheat products. It has been proven that we do not need to eat any carbs. in order to thrive.
Please show me any evidence that a very low carb high fat diet produces hardening of the arteries. As for Cholesterol, I have yet to see conclusive evidence that so called moderately high numbers relate to earlier death. I have seen evidence that taking statins to lower colesterol in women does not help prevent death from cardiovascular desease.
I do agree that nitrites are not good. I always use uncured nitrite free bacon and salami. I also mostly eat grass fed beef, organic poultry, and pork. I also try to buy raw milk cheese, raw nuts, organic butter, organic sour cream, organic heavy cream (raw milk products other then cheese are illegal to sell here in grocery stores, although you can buy them direct from farmers)
What did ancient wolves eat? Meat. What do modern wolves eat? Meat. What did ancient cattle eat? Grass. What do modern cattle eat? Grass. We are not that different than our ancestors. For 2 million years man ate mostly meat. The last ten thousand years man has grown grains for harvest. Only in the last 50 or so years has man eaten huge amounts of processed carbs.
I agree that no one diet is right for everyone, but we could all benefit from less consumption of highly processed carbs., including whole wheat products. It has been proven that we do not need to eat any carbs. in order to thrive.
Please show me any evidence that a very low carb high fat diet produces hardening of the arteries. As for Cholesterol, I have yet to see conclusive evidence that so called moderately high numbers relate to earlier death. I have seen evidence that taking statins to lower colesterol in women does not help prevent death from cardiovascular desease.
I do agree that nitrites are not good. I always use uncured nitrite free bacon and salami. I also mostly eat grass fed beef, organic poultry, and pork. I also try to buy raw milk cheese, raw nuts, organic butter, organic sour cream, organic heavy cream (raw milk products other then cheese are illegal to sell here in grocery stores, although you can buy them direct from farmers)
Again, I'm not a doctor, nutritionist, or anthropologist. And like any discussion on global warming, you can find smart people that disagree. Most of the studies I've seen reported (I say reported because I did not read the studies themselves and am not qualified to interpret them) are usually meta studies, and where they find no risk associated with red meat they are talking about average intake, maybe 100g per day. They still find that processed red meat is dangerous. Furthermore, meat is often prepared in a carcinogenic manner (grilled over high heat). I am by no means saying that your diet is more unhealthy than mine or anyone elses. It very well may be healthier, all factors considered, especially since you clearly do a lot of work to keep out extraneous chemicals and processing. But I think there is a lack of evidence convincing enough for me to go "all in" and that is why my personal choice is moderation in everything. I guess thats not very extreme by definition
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
@jeffb
There are a lot of conflicting reports about what is and isn't healthy for us, even in the scientific literature. Surprisingly even the scientific community, with all of its rigor and dedication to discovering the truth, still has to bow to economics and the people who sign their paycheck, which in this case are usually large food corporations promoting expensive meat and dairy products. The facts, beliefs, and opinions about health are so skewed that even reasonably intelligent people often can't agree on what is and isn't healthy for them, which this thread is a shining example of.
Following what our ancestors ate is a good rule of thumb, but I think you might have been misled as to what our ancestors actually ate. See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm for further reading.
There are a lot of conflicting reports about what is and isn't healthy for us, even in the scientific literature. Surprisingly even the scientific community, with all of its rigor and dedication to discovering the truth, still has to bow to economics and the people who sign their paycheck, which in this case are usually large food corporations promoting expensive meat and dairy products. The facts, beliefs, and opinions about health are so skewed that even reasonably intelligent people often can't agree on what is and isn't healthy for them, which this thread is a shining example of.
Following what our ancestors ate is a good rule of thumb, but I think you might have been misled as to what our ancestors actually ate. See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm for further reading.
You are correct that modern man appeared about 200,000 years ago, but The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.
From Wikipedia.
Homo erectus lived some 2 million years ago and is believed to be the first human to live in a hunter gatherer society.
The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.
From Wikipedia.
Homo erectus lived some 2 million years ago and is believed to be the first human to live in a hunter gatherer society.
Wow, this is quickly evolving into another paleo thread.
Eating meat for 200,000 years?! Try 2.5 million, a very key development as well.
Skepticism is good. But when exactly did skeptics start assuming everything was safe, unless evidence suggests otherwise? Seems like a dangerous outlook.
I'm going to assume if it didn't exist in some close approximation for the bulk of human evolution, then it's potentially not safe. And yes, there is huge variation, so experiment and observe your reactions.
I trust a couple million years of evolution over the assurances of the FDA or some BS food chemist working for Kraft (owns FDA).
I respect the early man. They only worked 20 hours a week, they were physically badass, masters of their environment and likely sexually active until their death... Sign me up!
EDIT: Anyone else remember reading a recent article about only a small handful of cancer have ever been found in all the thousands of cases of remains? I gotta run now, but will try to find it later.
Eating meat for 200,000 years?! Try 2.5 million, a very key development as well.
Skepticism is good. But when exactly did skeptics start assuming everything was safe, unless evidence suggests otherwise? Seems like a dangerous outlook.
I'm going to assume if it didn't exist in some close approximation for the bulk of human evolution, then it's potentially not safe. And yes, there is huge variation, so experiment and observe your reactions.
I trust a couple million years of evolution over the assurances of the FDA or some BS food chemist working for Kraft (owns FDA).
I respect the early man. They only worked 20 hours a week, they were physically badass, masters of their environment and likely sexually active until their death... Sign me up!
EDIT: Anyone else remember reading a recent article about only a small handful of cancer have ever been found in all the thousands of cases of remains? I gotta run now, but will try to find it later.