Total non-argument you have up until here. Yup, people only lived to be 30, but there are other factors like lack of technology, medical science, and such.
Point i'm making is at 30 a person is young enough that the effects of bad habits (dietary and otherwise) are not easily noticed. They died in the prime of their life.
When you're young, your body can handle a lot of stress, disease and load. When you get older, your body wears out and every little thing shows its effect much more. But a lot of the chronic deseases don't get diagnosed until the 30's, so one could pretend they never existed in those times simply due to the fact that everyone was young.
To say that the hunter-gatherer days were the best phase of human history nutrition-wise would be misleading. The food choices made then were based on what would yield the most calories and what was available at hand.
For the vast majority of human existence, we did not eat refined flour, plant oil, or large amounts of fructose ("neolithic agents"). No, early humans did not mainly eat fruit.
Never said we did. I said that the rest of primate population, which has very similar internal organs to ours still continues to.
If you're talking about evolution here, then one must realize that in the case of humans, what's evolved more than anything is the brain. Everything else had been compensated by technology, not bodyparts. So it's not the survival of those who are best equipped to eat meat, all primates are capable of it, but of those with the best tools and hunting strategies.
Food choices have not forced some to die and others to live. In those times, humans ate more meat than is healthy, but that was the most convenient source of food in terms of calories per pound. The body dealt with it. Now, the overload is on the carb side, and our bodies deal with it, since our digestive system has not switched from a fruit-eater's to a meat eater's, but still has both capabilities.
BTW, the brain is made up of more unsaturated fats than the sold, saturated fats in beef and lamb. So fish and plant oils are much closer to what is in the nerve tissues, and unless they are hydrogenated, which i'm totally against as it's truly unnatural, they do not form plaques inside the arteries.
Animal fats are much more calorie dense. People needed to survive an uncertain schedule of even having food to eat, their pack of people finding the next wild boar vs. you getting Tato Skins delivered to your doorstep 24/7.
First of all, i don't eat 'those things. Ick. Potato chips are full of empty calories. The key here is having the correct ratio of vitamins and minerals in their bio-available form to the amount of empty calories one consumes.
Yes, eating large amounts of either refined carbs, fats or proteins will deplete the micronutrients our body needs to function properly. So the problem is not that we eat things like that, but that commercially-farmed food does not have the full set of vitamins and minerals that it would have in nature. Chemical fertilizers for crops are the same as refined fats and carbs for animals, and actually yield them too.
Lack of physical activity is as much of an issue as lack of vitamins. The hunter-gatherer tribes did move around quite a bit.
You are just plain flat wrong. See here for more:
PaNu - P
PaNu - P
I eat fruit and carbs to some degree, but then my metabolism isn't broken. Based on genetics and other factors people can tolerate different amounts of these. You really ought to actually learn about what you are trying to argue against. No hurt feelings, I'm entirely used to people doing this.
Thanks for the links, will look.
But you must realize that people take advice at face value. Many people will assume that the page in your first link in this thread is the way it is. It is exactly right that people haven't learned the essense of that system, and if you're introducing people to, you have to realize that they DON'T know yet.
There's a difference in a newbie's perception of something versus someone that's spent years on the subject, so if you want to introduce people to some topic, start with something that isn't designed for the initiated, and is more in line with common sense.
That quote i showed you with 50-80% animal fat, that's something that will scare some people and make others very skeptical.
But for a person like you it's not as shocking considering you've read the book that tells you that olive oil is unhealthy, and you've read whatever is in those links you suggested to me now.
Regarding kidney stones, this mentions uric acid and lots of other posts of his as well. Again, you're clearly wrong.
PaNu - P
Good to know that he's aware of that.
But again for an outsider, the comment regarding how bad watermelon is, coupled with suggesting a diet that's 2/3 meat, sounds like the kidneys and bladder are bathed in a lot of metabolytes, hence the stones. Watermelon ond other juicy fruit, regardless of sugar content are good at flushing the kidneys ang bladder clean. You'd get bored trying to drink as much water as a watermelon contains, but eating one is a pretty fun procedure
Juicy fruit and vegetables, like the melon family, whatever it's called, are a source of clean (and microstructured, if you know what i mean) water. Things like Jicama are also good sources of clean water in desert environments where none is available. They have a taproot that can reach down many feet into the ground in search of a water source.
In absence of vegetable sources, water can be made from fats, but fats (if you care to research it), are used by animal bodies to also isolate and store toxins, but not by plants, which only store energy.
Hey, i've had cats since i was a kid, and i know how bad their urine smells when they stop drinking water for some reason (good fresh water too). Kidney problems are an irrevocable part of an aging cat
So i have real basis to question the advice from the page in your first link. Like it or not, what makes sense in the context of what you know, may sound completely crazy to the next person.
-[Arsenic]
