or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Just finished a 20 day water fast
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Just finished a 20 day water fast - Page 9

post #121 of 198
Thread Starter 
I apologize for possibly not accurately naming the sources of my information, however, I never made a distinct claim that any piece of information came from a particular book. Dr. Loren Cordain's Primal Diet is where a good portion of the data on legumes/grain can be found, if you are interested. To be fair, can any of you back up your claims with empirical data and/or names of books?
post #122 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
Chicken can be consumed raw.
Go for it then. I think this statement from you pretty much sums it all up. Please cancel your health insurance though, other people shouldn't have to pay for your stupidity.
Quote:
Obviously, human digestive systems differ from that of dogs.
Then why look at legumes, or other food in general, in terms of its toxicity to "most mammals". I was pointing out the glaring flaw in your logic, or lack thereof. Good to know you still aren't catching on....
Quote:
Just because they have provided the backbone of the human diet for thousands of years does not mean that they are inherently healthy.
I...don't even know where to begin with this... Given that billions of people currently consume lentils on a mass scale, and have been doing so for a period of probably more than 10,000 years (your number), they would have been naturally selected to die out or show other weakness. Instead, they thrive (China, India), have long life expectancies (Japan), and are less obese than say, Americans. The bottomline is, the overwhelming bulk of evidence is against the complete bullshit you've been touting.
Quote:
On an evolutionary scale, thousands of years is a rather short period of time. The advent of agriculture, roughly 10,000 years ago, saw a huge shift in the human diet from mostly plants and vegetables to grains. This shift paralleled a reduction in average human life span as well as body and brain size, increases in infant mortality and infectious diseases, and the occurrence of previously unknown conditions such as osteoporosis, bone mineral disorders, and malnutrition.
Everything underlined is false. Life expectancy has increased, human brain size has in some cases increased, but largely stayed the same, body size has increased, and agriculture is responsible not only for increase nutrition, but the growth of civilization itself.
Quote:
With advancement in modern medicine, we now can live long enough to enjoy atherosclerosis, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes. Humans have simply not yet adapted to this diet.
Modern medicine has expanded our knowledge of nutrition, why some foods are healthy and others are unhealthy, especially in superfluous quantities. This is independent of "agriculture" and diet shifts that occurred in the stone age, as grains for the last 9900 years consisted of nothing more than the ground products of plants and seeds--which you claim make people "healthy". You are making up stuff to validate some absurd theory you concocted that ignores or conflicts with all that knowledge modern medicine has provided in the last 60 years.
Quote:
I don't believe carbohydrates are evil, as long as they are consumed with the accompanied fiber that nature paired them with, and are not processed or refined.
You mean like the pairing of starch carbohydrates with dietary and insoluble fiber...found in lentils? Seriously, you considering soaking something in water counts as being processed or refined? Do you avoid water as well, because you know, it's soaked in water? Again, some logic would be nice.
Quote:
A lot of the information I am reiterating comes from Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, by Dr. Jared Diamond and Richard Manning's Against the Grain
I'm going to refer to HB on Guns, Germs, and Steel. As for Manning? The guy is a quack--making claims based off no evidence, just wild theory that lacks any remote scientific evidence. I do appreciate his nostalgia for the American Prairie, but its akin to seniors' nostalgia for the "good ole days"--based off dreams, not reality. He makes large, generalized claims without an ounce of scholarship, and if it wasn't for the current market of agricultural conglomeration feasting off of subsidies for crops that we don't need, he would have no audience to pedal his fantasies.
Quote:
Because I offer a contrary opinion I am trolling?
No, because most of what you have said has been contrary to established consensus, you've offered no rational scientific explanation or background for any of your claims, and what argument you have provided is without any rational thought. These are the hallmarks of a fool or a troll. There is so much terrible "broscience" (great term, whoever coined it) here on the health section of these forums that it is honestly not worth the time or effort of people who do know better to try and expound the fraud and lies correctly. Normally, researchers lament when people read wikipedia or do a 1-page google search and skim through a couple of sites and claim to be an expert on something--but here, that would be a welcome thing judging from all the stupid. OKay, sorry to be a douche...you aren't stupid, but perhaps too gullible. I would suggest if you have interest, don't read a pop book on nutrition, but go into a college bookstore and buy a health and nutrition textbook there. A lot of the pop books sell because they make Dan Brown-ish claims, without a shred of evidence to support them, just because it will sell better.
post #123 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
I apologize for possibly not accurately naming the sources of my information, however, I never made a distinct claim that any piece of information came from a particular book. Dr. Loren Cordain's Primal Diet is where a good portion of the data on legumes/grain can be found, if you are interested.

To be fair, can any of you back up your claims with empirical data and/or names of books?

A book is not necessarily a credible source. There are a large number of self proclaimed health gurus with books. However, their claims are not backed by scientific evidence.
post #124 of 198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostFullBenefits View Post
Go for it then. I think this statement from you pretty much sums it all up. Please cancel your health insurance though, other people shouldn't have to pay for your stupidity.
The stuff you get at the supermarket doesn't really count as chicken, and I would never dare to eat it raw or cooked. In Japan, where chickens are raised a bit differently, toriwasa is considered a delicacy. I guess you didn't catch that ep of No Reservations.
Quote:
Given that billions of people currently consume lentils on a mass scale, and have been doing so for a period of probably more than 10,000 years (your number), they would have been naturally selected to die out or show other weakness. Instead, they thrive (China, India), have long life expectancies (Japan), and are less obese than say, Americans. The bottomline is, the overwhelming bulk of evidence is against the complete bullshit you've been touting.
The mere fact that billions of people even exist is due to the advent of agriculture. However, just because a food is energy dense, does not mean it is nutrient dense (hence "cheap source of calories") I am not trying to imply that eating lentils or grains alone will kill you, there are a myriad of other factors that contribute to the overall declination of health from their consumption, simply that they are less than beneficial for human health. Are you implying that because Asians eat lentils they have longer life expectancies than Americans? Perhaps you should consider that their longer life expectancies can be thanked for by the absence of a nutrient, rather than the presence of one--namely sugar. Yes, Japanese eat a tremendous amount of grain, in the form of rice, but their level of sugar intake is nowhere near ours. Honestly, I don't really believe this, but some say that the Japanese invention of High Fructose Corn Syrup back in the early 60's was their revenge on the US for Hiroshima. It can also be due to the higher rates of Omega 3 in the diet from fish to counteract the inflammatory properties of the Omega 6 in the rice, or that they eat more brown rice, with the fiber still intact, than white, it's hard to know.
Quote:
Everything underlined is false. Life expectancy has increased, human brain size has in some cases increased, but largely stayed the same, body size has increased, and agriculture is responsible not only for increase nutrition, but the growth of civilization itself.
Quote:
Modern medicine has expanded our knowledge of nutrition, why some foods are healthy and others are unhealthy, especially in superfluous quantities. This is independent of "agriculture" and diet shifts that occurred in the stone age, as grains for the last 9900 years consisted of nothing more than the ground products of plants and seeds--which you claim make people "healthy". You are making up stuff to validate some absurd theory you concocted that ignores or conflicts with all that knowledge modern medicine has provided in the last 60 years.
You really need to grab a copy of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Lot of bad science in the past 60 years.
Quote:
You mean like the pairing of starch carbohydrates with dietary and insoluble fiber...found in lentils? Seriously, you considering soaking something in water counts as being processed or refined? Do you avoid water as well, because you know, it's soaked in water? Again, some logic would be nice.
The logic behind this statement is that when carbohydrate is consumed with accompanied fiber, the fiber acts to slow down digestion and the conversion to glucose, thus lowering your overall insulin spike. You can eat all the sugarcane you want...it's a stick...when you refine it and take away the fiber is where the problem begins. I point you to the work of Dr. Robert Lustig for further information.
Quote:
No, because most of what you have said has been contrary to established consensus, you've offered no rational scientific explanation or background for any of your claims, and what argument you have provided is without any rational thought. These are the hallmarks of a fool or a troll. There is so much terrible "broscience" (great term, whoever coined it) here on the health section of these forums that it is honestly not worth the time or effort of people who do know better to try and expound the fraud and lies correctly. Normally, researchers lament when people read wikipedia or do a 1-page google search and skim through a couple of sites and claim to be an expert on something--but here, that would be a welcome thing judging from all the stupid.
While there is science to back up my claims (I know you will beg me to post my sources) I will simply say that I mostly speak from anecdotal experience. I have eliminated grains/legumes/starch/sugar from my diet and feel 10000000% better because of it. That is all the proof I need.
Quote:
OKay, sorry to be a douche...you aren't stupid, but perhaps too gullible. I would suggest if you have interest, don't read a pop book on nutrition, but go into a college bookstore and buy a health and nutrition textbook there. A lot of the pop books sell because they make Dan Brown-ish claims, without a shred of evidence to support them, just because it will sell better.
I am in college, and I have many a textbook on health and nutrition, thank you. I suppose at this point it would be best to just agree to disagree. Obviously my opinions are not shared by any other members of the board, so it seems futile for me to try to convince just one poster.
post #125 of 198
GG&S doesn't get into health or diet speculation, so far as I can remember.
post #126 of 198
I read an article today about Tom Naughton's try at fasting. It wasn't 20 days, but he did well for the length that it lasted.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/
post #127 of 198
But "Against the Grain" would probably support the claim HB had problems with.
post #128 of 198
post #129 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas_jack View Post
I stopped eating for 200 days. My skin feels great because I'm in heaven.

This is where I stopped reading.
post #130 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanth View Post
Both of us will be publishing in medical journals, in fact I think he may have already submitted.

You write clearly and I appreciate some of your points, but where are you going to publish your non-randomised non-controlled study with two subjects in two different treatment arms? Am J Anecdotal Cardiol.?
post #131 of 198
How was your pooping?
post #132 of 198
Runny I imagine...lol.
post #133 of 198
lol I just finished a 4 day water fast, really for no reason. I'm 6 foot and weigh 155. I was never hungry and I only started eating because a new restAurant opened in town. I still ran my 6+ miles a day and did pushups/sit-ups every day. Lost 4 pounds and look way more cut. I'll eat lean meat/ veggies and work out more than usual so I don't gain too much fat. I'll post more tomorrow about how addictive it is
post #134 of 198
post #135 of 198
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Just finished a 20 day water fast