|
Post by ilya on Jan 24, 2024 19:00:55 GMT
Yes, sorry, I usually specify that when I refer to "toxic gluten grains" I'm talking about Barley, Rye, Oats, Wheat and Spelt. There are other grains containing gluten. I don't really know if it is the natural composition of those grains themselves or the way the entire human-contamination-process they go through from the ground and seed to the table. Plus, any other item presented to us as "food" by the food industry is suspect and can be heavily contaminated with soil amendments, argi-sprays, etc. This would include animals that we eat that have been fed these toxins, because we eat what they ate to some extent. Ideally, a person is wise to verify the source of their food and to what processes it has been exposed. I don't really care if the actual gluten in the BROWS is the actual toxin. I just avoid them completely and thus, avoid the negative health issues altogether concerning those particular insults. Got it. But, I don't think those grains are really the issue. I believe it is either the GMO crops and/or the sprays used on the crops. Humans thrived on grains for centuries and as mentioned, when in Europe and Asia I don't have any issues with breads, pasta, pretzels which was a welcome surprise. I've also tried Einkorn wheat -- hard to find -- also called Virgin Wheat, which is one of the original ancestral wheats. Interesting flavor (tasty), no issues. (As a quick side: also enjoyed the wine in Europe vs. the US as it doesn't have the sulfites our wine industry uses. Much better flavor.) Agree 100% with you -- read labels, check where the food is coming from. But, I've found ways to enjoy grains with no side affects. If they work for Clarence Bass, Cory Everson and millions around the world, good enough for me. Humans never "thrived" on grains. We know from skeletons before and after agriculture was invented that, before agriculture, humans were taller, had much stronger bones and joints, and had a bigger brain, than the people who came after. We only started to reach the physique of our hunter-gatherer ancestors thousands of years later when animal products became more common again. We still haven't reached the same cranial capacity that they had. Grains, especially wheat, have a massive amount of anti-nutrients, and have never been healthy, and all the pesticides just make them even worse.
|
|
TexasRanger
Caneguru
A little here, a little there...
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by TexasRanger on Jan 24, 2024 20:04:05 GMT
Humans never "thrived" on grains. We know from skeletons before and after agriculture was invented that, before agriculture, humans were taller, had much stronger bones and joints, and had a bigger brain, than the people who came after. We only started to reach the physique of our hunter-gatherer ancestors thousands of years later when animal products became more common again. We still haven't reached the same cranial capacity that they had. Grains, especially wheat, have a massive amount of anti-nutrients, and have never been healthy, and all the pesticides just make them even worse. <script src="moz-extension://b79c6eb6-3b94-464f-ae10-9eb6d9ea4e2b/js/app.js" type="text/javascript"></script> Hi Ilya, Fortunately, all of these claims have been shown to be either incorrect or partially correct and I can provide a brief example for each one. For example yes, you don't want to overdo calcium oxalate in any food. And you'd have to overeat big time on spinach, almonds, potatoes to acutally start creating problems. Hard to do with all of the bulk/fiber. But, dairy -- very common "food" in the US -- is considered the prime source of kidney stones by the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the National Urology Foundation, etc. Concentrated source of calcium in the diet vs. the plants listed. Lectins -- Dr. Stephen Gundry, MD, built a whole business spinning up fear and loathing of lectins, which is absolutely insane. First, if there are concerns about lectins in your food? Cook the food. (Even Gundry admits in his Plant Paradox soaking/cooking beans will virtually reduce the lectins to nothing if you're worried about them.) And why in the world would anyone not want to consume lectins as they're a very, very potent anticancer protein? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16183566/ In short, lectins inhibit cancer cells two ways: by inducing autophagy and ppoptosis. Why would you not want those benefits? Regardless, very little so-called anti-nutrient properties. Gut damage? That has been proven to be a myth -- vegans claim Paleo diets (high protein/SFA) cause gut damage due to the inflammation, the Paleo people claim plant foods create gut damage. The little I've read shows neither side seems to have all of the facts. IMHO, it is the garbage we eat that creates gut damage via the constant inflammation and exposure to artifical chemicals. Phytates? Actually, "Health Coach" Kait isn't quite right for two reasons. First, the alleged culprit is phytic acid. All you have to do is take any of these foods and prepare them -- very few are eaten raw. Cooking, put them in water to soaking for 12 hours, sprout them, fermentation, and pickled versions all break down phytic acid so that the phosphorus can be released and absorbed by the body. Native American nations who subsided on corn for centuries soaked it in lime, cleaned the product, cooked it and ate it with their (cooked) beans. This process was called Nixtamalization and was practiced forever throughout regions where corn was grown. And thank god for it as tamales (YUMMM!!) originated from these folks. Thrived? Yeper. Grains everywhere: there's the "Bread Basket" in the Middile East, has been there for +2000 years. Asia's had variations of wheat noodles forever. Einkorn has been around for thousands of years as our first ubiquitous grain. Aristotle referenced it in one of his works -- can't remember which one, the Celts and Picts in the UK used Einkorn as a mainstay of their diets. Have also seen the tales of the human brain, height, bones, etc. All incorrect as historians have shown. The Picts of Scotland, for example, were a bad__ tribe, as tough as the Arapaho in the US. So fierce the Romans finally gave up as they were tired of all of the losses...all of that grain fed those big bad dudes that in that tiny section of the UK that crushed Rome. Just one of many examples from around the world. Honestly, if these concerns were real, most of us would be sick and dead.
|
|
|
Post by ilya on Jan 24, 2024 20:45:33 GMT
For example yes, you don't want to overdo calcium oxalate in any food. And you'd have to overeat big time on spinach, almonds, potatoes to acutally start creating problems. Hard to do with all of the bulk/fiber. But, dairy -- very common "food" in the US -- is considered the prime source of kidney stones by the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the National Urology Foundation, etc. Concentrated source of calcium in the diet vs. the plants listed. Dairy, at least for milk, is never gonna cause kidney stones. On one hand, milk contains vitamin K, which is the vitamin that brings calcium to bones, and, on the other hand, milk has an enormous amount of water in comparison to the calcium it contains, which is good for the kidneys. Also, I realize that this is just anecdotal evidence, but nobody in my family ever had kidney stones, and we all eat a lot of dairy. On the other hand, my British friend, who never drinks milk because he hates the taste, had to be hospitalized for his kidney stones. The difference is that in my family we basically never eat vegetables, and my friend loves them, especially miso soup, which is full of oxalates. Dairy is unfairly blamed for everything and I'm really tired of it. Even if that were true, I'm more worried about lacking iron, phosphorus, and zinc than I am about cancer. Zinc especially is really important for men and often lacking. There's absolutely anti-nutrient properties to lectins. You say "all you have to do" and then proceed to describe a really tedious process. If you have to go through an entire project just to make your food less toxic, then maybe it's not meant for human consumption in the first place. It's true that civilization (not individuals) thrived with agriculture. That's not because grains are nutritionally superior, it's because they provide the most amount of calories on a large scale, and without the need to move around. This means that people could just settle down an area, and stay there forever, and keep exponentially growing so long as they still had good land to farm. The result was that people were more numerous, but individually weaker. Quantity vs quality. For thousands of years, this created a cycle where people would form agricultural communities, then those communities would be conquered by strong nomadic pastoralists, who then replaced the former ruling class and settled there, until hundreds or thousands of years later, new pastoralists would come and invade again. The Picts, like their Irish neighbours, were primarily pastoralists who thrived on cattle. The Romans, on the other hand, primarily ate wheat (mostly imported from Egypt), and as a result, were shorter and weaker than all of their Celtic and Germanic neighbours. "The importance of domesticated animals suggests that meat and milk products were a major part of the diet of ordinary people, while the elite would have eaten a diet rich in meat from farming and hunting.[57]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts
|
|
TexasRanger
Caneguru
A little here, a little there...
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by TexasRanger on Jan 24, 2024 22:46:37 GMT
(1) Dairy, at least for milk, is never gonna cause kidney stones. On one hand, milk contains vitamin K, which is the vitamin that brings calcium to bones, and, on the other hand, milk has an enormous amount of water in comparison to the calcium it contains, which is good for the kidneys. Also, I realize that this is just anecdotal evidence, but nobody in my family ever had kidney stones, and we all eat a lot of dairy. On the other hand, my British friend, who never drinks milk because he hates the taste, had to be hospitalized for his kidney stones. The difference is that in my family we basically never eat vegetables, and my friend loves them, especially miso soup, which is full of oxalates. Dairy is unfairly blamed for everything and I'm really tired of it. (2) Even if that were true, I'm more worried about lacking iron, phosphorus, and zinc than I am about cancer. Zinc especially is really important for men and often lacking. There's absolutely anti-nutrient properties to lectins. (3) You say "all you have to do" and then proceed to describe a really tedious process. If you have to go through an entire project just to make your food less toxic, then maybe it's not meant for human consumption in the first place. (4) It's true that civilization (not individuals) thrived with agriculture. That's not because grains are superior, it's because they provide the most amount of calories on a large scale, and without the need to move around. This means that people could just settle down an area, and stay there forever, and keep exponentially growing so long as they still had good land to farm. The result was that people were more numerous, but individually weaker. Quantity vs quality. For thousands of years, this created a cycle where people would form agricultural communities, then those communities would be conquered by strong nomadic pastoralists, who then replaced the former ruling class and settled there, until hundreds or thousands of years later, new pastoralists would come and invade again. (5) The Picts, like their Irish neighbours, were primarily pastoralists who thrived on cattle. The Romans, on the other hand, primarily ate wheat (mostly imported from Egypt), and as a result, were shorter and weaker than all of their Celtic and Germanic neighbours. "The importance of domesticated animals suggests that meat and milk products were a major part of the diet of ordinary people, while the elite would have eaten a diet rich in meat from farming and hunting.[57]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts(1) Dairy milk is just plain "bad" for humans. It was designed to put hundreds of pounds on a calf in less than a year and has completely different macros and even hormones than a woman's breast milk. And yes, all of that extra calcium has to go somewhere -- kidneys, arterial walls. And yep, a cow's milk does have K2 (plants have K1 which is converted to K2 to in the amounts actually needed), however humans aren't designed for the amount of K2 in cow's milk. Regardless, calcium does not go in the bones because K2 directs it there. Calcium is absorbed through the gut with help from D3 and is combined with phosphorus to form a sort of crystal to help build bone. Bones are generated primarily through stimulation such as weight bearing exercise, running/walking (impact from the movement), etc. Last X-Ray that I had my ortho said "you've got weight lifter's bones". MK-4 is what is involved with osteoblasts to help with the formation of bone. I tell every family member, friend and anyone else that will listen: if you don't consume cow's milk, don't start. And if you do, stop. I suggest eating beef would be a better idea than milk. (2) Well, you can worry about the alleged anti-nutrient properties of lectin. I'd rather worry about cancer. And if you can find a single peer reviewed study showing men suffering from lack of zinc due to lectins, would love to see it. I think this was another claim of Gundry, he was called out for it and retracted the claim. (3) Yep, all you have to do. Tossing some legumes in water to soak is tedious? Hmmm. Cooking them is tedious? Let me share: I'm in Texas. We are HUGE on BBQ down here -- I'm not. More of Tex-Mex guy. Anyway, I've gotten up at 4am to start the smoker so its ready by 4:30am to put the meat on for a July 4th party with friends and family. At Thanksgiving, I'm prepping the turkey the night before and then up at 6am to start the smoker. Lets talk tedious...prepping and cooking meat, pork or poultry properly is the definition of tedious and a fricking hassle to clean up. Or do you eat your meat raw? (4) "The result was that people were more numerous, but individually weaker. Quantity vs quality. For thousands of years, this created a cycle where people would form agricultural communities, then those communities would be conquered by strong nomadic pastoralists, who then replaced the former ruling class and settled there, until hundreds or thousands of years later, new pastoralists would come and invade again." Honestly, this sounds like it is straight out of "Paleo Talking Points 101". Not quite how history evolved, especially in the US. (5) The Picts' primary source of food was grain-based, barley, then meats, a little fish. Since 1/2 of my ancestry is from Scotland and a close friend/customer originally from Scotland, I've learned about my Clan and even had haggis (blech) on several occasions -- which is a grain-based meal made with other less appealing ingredients. As I shared with the friend, "now I know why Scotch was invented...to kill the taste of this ___." (He wasn't happy with me.) Romans were smaller not because wheat -- again, a Paleo tale that has been told so many times it is accepted as fact. They did eat meat, poultry, fish and allegedly cheese along with fruits, cereals from the wheat. Since they ate meat, was it the dairy that made them short? Seriously, nobody from that era was tall is the fact. Early humans were barely 5' and we didn't get into the 5'6" range until around 1100 - 1200 AD.
|
|
lardy
Caneguru
Posts: 576
|
Post by lardy on Jan 24, 2024 23:03:04 GMT
My dad was 5 ft 5, my mum is 5 ft 4. I'm 5 ft 9 reared on a diet of bread and butter, milky cups of tea, potatoes and beef obviously i'm not tall but tower over my parents. I think it's just humans are getting taller.
Women pre 1950's had a diet (where i'm from UK at least) of bread and potatoes and had a stronger grip than most men today.
I think the size argument isn't as straight forward as we think... modern day hunter/gatherer tribes are pretty short overall, most pastoralists are pretty short apart from a few groups in east africa with obvious predispositions to height, not forgetting they jump a lot causing micro tears in their legs, building back stronger and bigger yada yada.
I know nothing about diet but it's not as simple as meat or plant based = better.
|
|
Dave Reslo
Caneguru
Not quite severely obese
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dave Reslo on Jan 24, 2024 23:46:24 GMT
My doctor sent me to the hospital. The doctor there had a face full of spots despite being in her 40's. That did not give me any confidence in her abilities at all. She said I might have coeliac disease so she would get me tested for that. I said that I don't eat gluten so my problem isn't coeliac disease. She said that it still could be and that they need to do the test anyway to eliminate it as the cause. We then argued about it for a while until she stormed out of the office to speak to somebody else about it. When she came back I said "Well?" and she said that in my case coeliac disease was "Unlikely". A few months later I get an appointment from the hospital for a coeliac disease test that I didn't ask for or need so I told them to give the appointment to somebody that needed it. I went to the doctor about some digestive issues, ended up being told my back door needed examined. Was a bit nervous, asked where to put my clothes and he said "beside mine".
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Jan 24, 2024 23:47:32 GMT
*boner
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Jan 24, 2024 23:49:51 GMT
The diet of 20th and 21st century Scots is far removed from that of the Picts. Julius Caesar described the tribes he encountered in SE England as cattle herding pastoralists.
|
|
|
Post by ilya on Jan 24, 2024 23:58:13 GMT
(1) Dairy, at least for milk, is never gonna cause kidney stones. On one hand, milk contains vitamin K, which is the vitamin that brings calcium to bones, and, on the other hand, milk has an enormous amount of water in comparison to the calcium it contains, which is good for the kidneys. Also, I realize that this is just anecdotal evidence, but nobody in my family ever had kidney stones, and we all eat a lot of dairy. On the other hand, my British friend, who never drinks milk because he hates the taste, had to be hospitalized for his kidney stones. The difference is that in my family we basically never eat vegetables, and my friend loves them, especially miso soup, which is full of oxalates. Dairy is unfairly blamed for everything and I'm really tired of it. (2) Even if that were true, I'm more worried about lacking iron, phosphorus, and zinc than I am about cancer. Zinc especially is really important for men and often lacking. There's absolutely anti-nutrient properties to lectins. (3) You say "all you have to do" and then proceed to describe a really tedious process. If you have to go through an entire project just to make your food less toxic, then maybe it's not meant for human consumption in the first place. (4) It's true that civilization (not individuals) thrived with agriculture. That's not because grains are superior, it's because they provide the most amount of calories on a large scale, and without the need to move around. This means that people could just settle down an area, and stay there forever, and keep exponentially growing so long as they still had good land to farm. The result was that people were more numerous, but individually weaker. Quantity vs quality. For thousands of years, this created a cycle where people would form agricultural communities, then those communities would be conquered by strong nomadic pastoralists, who then replaced the former ruling class and settled there, until hundreds or thousands of years later, new pastoralists would come and invade again. (5) The Picts, like their Irish neighbours, were primarily pastoralists who thrived on cattle. The Romans, on the other hand, primarily ate wheat (mostly imported from Egypt), and as a result, were shorter and weaker than all of their Celtic and Germanic neighbours. "The importance of domesticated animals suggests that meat and milk products were a major part of the diet of ordinary people, while the elite would have eaten a diet rich in meat from farming and hunting.[57]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts(1) Dairy milk is just plain "bad" for humans. It was designed to put hundreds of pounds on a calf in less than a year and has completely different macros and even hormones than a woman's breast milk. And yes, all of that extra calcium has to go somewhere -- kidneys, arterial walls. And yep, a cow's milk does have K2 (plants have K1 which is converted to K2 to in the amounts actually needed), however humans aren't designed for the amount of K2 in cow's milk. Regardless, calcium does not go in the bones because K2 directs it there. Calcium is absorbed through the gut with help from D3 and is combined with phosphorus to form a sort of crystal to help build bone. Bones are generated primarily through stimulation such as weight bearing exercise, running/walking (impact from the movement), etc. Last X-Ray that I had my ortho said "you've got weight lifter's bones". MK-4 is what is involved with osteoblasts to help with the formation of bone. 1. You're right that human milk and cow milk have different macronutrients... cow milk is better, because it has a lot more proteins, less sugar, and roughly the same amount of fat. 2. Vitamin K does remove calcium from the body and brings it to the bones, according to this: www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-and-vitamin-k#Supplements-101:-Vitamin-D I know I read it somewhere else too, but that's the source I've got right now after a quick search. And by the way. Vitamin K is fat-soluble, so that's why you don't want to drink skim milk. I suspect that all of those studies proving that milk is bad were done with skim milk. 3. There's no toxic amount of vitamin K, so I don't see why you would claim we aren't designed for the amount in cow milk. I used to care about studies regarding nutrition, but not anymore, because with enough research I realized that you can find studies that say pretty much anything. They contradict each other all the time. I can't prove that it's specifically giving deficiencies, but nobody denies that they exist and that they have negative effects (hence the need to cook to try to lessen those effects). Most meat you can just put in a pan and fry and it only takes a few minutes. And yes, plenty of people eat raw meat with no issues. I know that you're an American, but keep in mind that History goes much farther back than the last few hundreds of years. I'm talking about the last 10 000 years here. This cycle of conquest and assimilation has repeated itself many times all over the world (usually with people from central Asia invading everyone around them), but gunpowder eventually changed that permanently. You're mixing up different periods together. You were originally talking about the people living in Scotland during the Roman era, who, by the way, weren't really "Picts", and much less Scottish (Scots came hundreds of years later as invaders who replaced the Picts). There's no way you can trace your clan history back to the Roman era, and you can't assume that people back them ate exactly as they did in the middle-age. It's also true to say that the Romans didn't eat only grains (you would die in a few months if you only ate grains, since they're not nutritious), but their diet was still heavily on that side, like every other civilized society of the time, compared to the barbarians around them. That's not true. Roman men were about that size, and they reported that Gauls were significantly bigger. As for early humans, how early are we talking about? Cro-magnon were also roughly that size.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Jan 25, 2024 0:07:46 GMT
An elimination diet was mentioned. An elimination diet is basically paleo and then you gradually try other foods to see how you react to them.
To do an elimination diet I would adivise to start with carnivore. Meat is usually well tolerated and you need protein so it's a good place to start. Gradually try out the following. Fish - eggs - dairy - fruit - starches - vegetables - nuts and seeds. It's a long process but often a lot quicker than continuing to eat all your usual foods and just eliminating one food for a few days.
The main thing is to find out what foods you personally can digest and do well on and to hell with what the Romans, Picts, Blue Zoners or Eskimos eat or ate, m8s.
|
|
|
Post by ilya on Jan 25, 2024 0:19:40 GMT
An elimination diet was mentioned. An elimination diet is basically paleo and then you gradually try other foods to see how you react to them. To do an elimination diet I would adivise to start with carnivore. Meat is usually well tolerated and you need protein so it's a good place to start. Gradually try out the following. Fish - eggs - dairy - fruit - starches - vegetables - nuts and seeds. It's a long process but often a lot quicker than continuing to eat all your usual foods and just eliminating one food for a few days. The main thing is to find out what foods you personally can digest and do well on and to hell with what the Romans, Picts, Blue Zoners or Eskimos eat or ate, m8s. History is my passion, so I'm fine with letting my own thread derail onto that topic. I got bored of talking about my digestion, anyway. I agree with you about the way to conduct an elimination diet, though. It's probably what I would do if I were to do one.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Jan 25, 2024 1:08:21 GMT
"History is my passion"
Same here, ilya m8! I listen to lots of historical stuff mostly on Youtube. Mainly things about the ancient middle east and also some Roman and Greek stuff.
|
|
TexasRanger
Caneguru
A little here, a little there...
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by TexasRanger on Jan 25, 2024 1:32:16 GMT
(1) Dairy milk is just plain "bad" for humans. It was designed to put hundreds of pounds on a calf in less than a year and has completely different macros and even hormones than a woman's breast milk. And yes, all of that extra calcium has to go somewhere -- kidneys, arterial walls. And yep, a cow's milk does have K2 (plants have K1 which is converted to K2 to in the amounts actually needed), however humans aren't designed for the amount of K2 in cow's milk. Regardless, calcium does not go in the bones because K2 directs it there. Calcium is absorbed through the gut with help from D3 and is combined with phosphorus to form a sort of crystal to help build bone. Bones are generated primarily through stimulation such as weight bearing exercise, running/walking (impact from the movement), etc. Last X-Ray that I had my ortho said "you've got weight lifter's bones". MK-4 is what is involved with osteoblasts to help with the formation of bone. 1. You're right that human milk and cow milk have different macronutrients... cow milk is better, because it has a lot more proteins, less sugar, and roughly the same amount of fat. 2. Vitamin K does remove calcium from the body and brings it to the bones, according to this: www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-and-vitamin-k#Supplements-101:-Vitamin-D I know I read it somewhere else too, but that's the source I've got right now after a quick search. And by the way. Vitamin K is fat-soluble, so that's why you don't want to drink skim milk. I suspect that all of those studies proving that milk is bad were done with skim milk. 3. There's no toxic amount of vitamin K, so I don't see why you would claim we aren't designed for the amount in cow milk. I used to care about studies regarding nutrition, but not anymore, because with enough research I realized that you can find studies that say pretty much anything. They contradict each other all the time. I can't prove that it's specifically giving deficiencies, but nobody denies that they exist and that they have negative effects (hence the need to cook to try to lessen those effects). (4) Most meat you can just put in a pan and fry and it only takes a few minutes. And yes, plenty of people eat raw meat with no issues. 5. I know that you're an American, but keep in mind that History goes much farther back than the last few hundreds of years. I'm talking about the last 10 000 years here. This cycle of conquest and assimilation has repeated itself many times all over the world (usually with people from central Asia invading everyone around them), but gunpowder eventually changed that permanently. 6. You're mixing up different periods together. You were originally talking about the people living in Scotland during the Roman era, who, by the way, weren't really "Picts", and much less Scottish (Scots came hundreds of years later as invaders who replaced the Picts). There's no way you can trace your clan history back to the Roman era, and you can't assume that people back them ate exactly as they did in the middle-age. It's also true to say that the Romans didn't eat only grains (you would die in a few months if you only ate grains, since they're not nutritious), but their diet was still heavily on that side, like every other civilized society of the time, compared to the barbarians around them. 7. That's not true. Roman men were about that size, and they reported that Gauls were significantly bigger. As for early humans, how early are we talking about? Cro-magnon were also roughly that size. 1. More protein is not "better". And we're not a cow which is why nearly 60% of the earth's population is lactose intolerant...can't drink milk designed for calves, which we're not. 2. Ahhhhhh...waiting for that marketing claim on K2. There were two or three papers released in the last two months that an MD discussed in his podcast that showed K2 did not live up to any of the claims which included pulling calcium out of arteries, off of a heart valve...places it shouldn't be...and put it in the bone. In one study, the researchers showed zero improvement. (Dr. Ford Brewer also discussed this study on a streaming video co-hosted with Dr. Gil Carvhalo, MD/PhD. Both agreed K2, per this study and several previous, that K2 doesn't act as advertised. The second study took two groups of patients -- gave one group placebos, the other high dosages of K2 + D3, which is needed or K2 won't work. Well, in the secnod study the outcomes were actually not so good and coronary calcification wasn't halted/reversed (the K2 didn't pull the calcium from the arteries, etc.) and there was zero improvement in bone density, people had side affects. 3. The human body, at no point of our evolution, was designed to consume high amounts of K2 in concentrated levels. So with K2 are there side affects from high/concentrated levels? Every paper I've read said there's more work needed to confirm what levels are toxic as it isn't known at this time. 4. Fry meat? Seriously? Do you know the damage, etc., done to it, including the proteins? And the SFAs in the meat are oxidized. Far safer ways to prepare it. I never expose my poultry or pork (no beef due to the friend dying from Mad Cow) to direct flame, would never fry. 5. Yep, but as most will tell you I'm an avid reader and study history, I've been to Europe many times, etc. Doesn't make me an expert but I have a pretty good knowledge. Having been in the miiltary, have also studied that stuff as part of the colleges we're required to attend, etc. Also, you'll also note I regularly refer to ancestral diet (whch had zero beef). 6. I didn't say I traced my ancestry back to the Picts. I traced one side of the family back to Scotland, right now the Robertson Clan appears to be in the lineage. And the "barbarians" around them were opportunistic omnivore gatherer hunters (not hunter gatherers). And yes, remember the Galls -- they were taller but a couple of inches. Oh...and on the research? There's pretty much ubiquitous agreement on diet. There are the outliers -- the carnivore claims, Atkins, the macrobiotic -- but if you look at the bell curve, there's agreement similar to what Moxy posted: - Vegetables and fruits for their amazing polyphenols and antioxidants - Lean animal proteins - Whole carbs vs. processed -- legumes, potatoes, grains, etc. - Fats primarily from plant sources, keep SFAs low and don't overheat them so they're not oxidized Otherwise, avoid junk foods, fried foods of all kinds, dump the dairy as fast as you can (ignore the dairy industry's marketing and lies), avoid processed oils including seed and MCT.
|
|
TexasRanger
Caneguru
A little here, a little there...
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by TexasRanger on Jan 25, 2024 1:33:14 GMT
"History is my passion" Same here, ilya m8! I listen to lots of historical stuff mostly on Youtube. Mainly things about the ancient middle east and also some Roman and Greek stuff. I knew I liked you for more reasons than your boyish good looks.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Jan 25, 2024 3:53:18 GMT
|
|