Paleo diet

Originally Posted by TrH

Click to expand...

There is a masterful quote by Gibonius (a most knowledgeable poster, I might add) in the sugar thread that sums up the attitudes perfectly.
Shouldn't you be off "pumping iron" or something?

Did I make an ad hominem argument there? I see no need for you to respond in kind. And yes, I do lift weights, which is evident to anyone frequently browsing this subforum.

Originally Posted by TrH

Click to expand...

Did I make an ad hominem argument there? I see no need for you to respond in kind. And yes, I do lift weights, which is evident to anyone frequently browsing this subforum.
Perhaps not, I am just simply sick of being made a mockery of for no actual reason other than the fact that my opinions and views run counter to the groupthink mentality of this forum. I've let it slide before, and now I'm just fed up with it.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Yes. I want a list (compiled alphabetically, please) of arguments I've made, and then the instance of evisceration of said arguments.

You don't even have points. you have hunches backed up by pseudoscience and naked conjecture that you are positing as revelations of some hidden truth. I think you are very young and that one day you will be embarrassed that you used to post nonsense like this.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

What about people living in the third world and the rapidly increasing world population? Won't it be necessary, at some point in time, that people live primarily off of nothing but grain?

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Right, but putting that aside, my question is: is it biologically possible for man to one day adapt to a diet of nothing but grains?

These are stupid questions. Cultured protein is easier to grow than grains as is algae. If you're going to go all future apoco on us get your facts straight.

Is there a mammal that lives off of nothing but grain? Then it's biologically possible.

Originally Posted by Sazerac

Click to expand...

Wait, you forgot the part of spending seven hours a day gathering and hauling firewood to have enough to get your family through another winter's night. Backbreaking toil tends to burn calories.

Good to hear a voice of reason in this thread, btw. Keep it up.

Christ, where do you and JM get your facts? Nobody was spending 7 hours a day just getting firewood. Nor were they in constant starvation. I've read any number of places that the hunter gatherer needed about 4 hours a day to meet their needs. Obviously this would vary but life was as brutal as you seem to think.

Originally Posted by TrH

Click to expand...

There is a masterful quote by Gibonius (a most knowledgeable poster, I might add) in the sugar thread that sums up the attitudes perfectly.

I really enjoy Gibonius contributions to these topics. Wish he posted more.

Originally Posted by JMRouse

Click to expand...

I really enjoy Gibonius contributions to these topics. Wish he posted more.
Gibonius is one of the few posters who knows how to argue in a respectable and civilized manner. Even if we don't agree on an issue, we've always been able to do so amicably and without the use of name calling and ad hominem attacks: a rarity in these parts. I like Gibonius.

Originally Posted by NorCal

Click to expand...

Christ, where do you and JM get your facts? Nobody was spending 7 hours a day just getting firewood. Nor were they in constant starvation. I've read any number of places that the hunter gatherer needed about 4 hours a day to meet their needs. Obviously this would vary but life was as brutal as you seem to think.

First of all, I said it taking 7 hours a day was an exaggeration. What I said was depending on where they lived with the tools they had, it could be challenging and take a lot of work.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that many were malnourished. This lead to extremely low body-fat levels, infant mortality and even miscarriages among pregnant women. Were they all like this? No, but this idealization of these people is a false one. As I said earlier, it seems some have this vision of them all looking like Daryl Hannah in a loin cloth.

As for how brutal the life was in general, that depends on your point of view. I think the fact that the average lifespan was in the 30's is a fairly clear indicator that times were harsh overall.

Ah shucks.

Lawl dis thred

Anyone here had biochem? Anyone passed genetics? Anthropology? Highschool?

i was a biochem TA and took genetics

havent taken anthropology. doesnt sound very fun

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that I actually have a reason to distinguish you from other members (constant unprovoked insults toward me and my intelligence), however, any reason you have for separating me from the rest of the board is coming internally from your own imagination, as I have remained calm and composed toward you, trying to be friendly, even after being called an idiot. Going so far as to send you a PM offering my thanks for taking the time to discuss, however rudely, a certain topic with me, which you couldn't even respond to. I'd say you have more of a problem with yourself than you actually do with me.

Oddest response to a compliment I have ever seen.

Interesting theory on the possible problems of a paleo diet.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978059/posts

People who know nothing about a topic, especially a very technical one that requires specific training, knowledge, and experience, are not due an opinion about that topic and are better served by being quiet when it is asked about or discussed. For example, when brain surgery, or string theory, or the NFL draft, or women's dress sizes, or white wine is being discussed, I remain quiet, odd though that may seem. But seldom is this the case when orthopedic surgeons, athletic trainers, physical therapists, or nurses are asked about full squats.

Click to expand...

rippetoe was talking about squatting here, but eh... feels relevant.