We don't know what constitutes a true paleo diet!
Replies
-
wow that's incredibly ignorant.
Nice try.
The analogy stands.
Why should I change something that doesn't need to be changed?
K i'll ask for the fifth time.
How do you know it doesn't need to be changed? How do you know your body is operating 100% optimally? What is your frame of reference?
No one's body operates 100% optimally.
Have you ever lived as a woman? How do you know that you are in the correct gender if you haven't lived as a woman for awhile?
Because I have a frame of reference. I'm attracted to women and not attracted to men, though I've kissed both. I enjoy a good suit, and happen to have the correct genitalia for my body.
So now you give me YOUR frame of reference. I showed you mine, show me yours.0 -
not if you don't want to, which you clearly don't. lol this was never about YOU until you made it all about you. But hey I'm not really surprised - you seem to need the attention.You realize, of course, that you are my case in point?
Have you ever gone off grains to see what the difference is? If not, then how do you know your body hasn't needed a break?
They are right! You are hilarious!!!!!! Excellent job!!! :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:0 -
I question whether "slightly gluten sensitive" is even a thing. Either you have a reaction or you don't. I'm more in line with thinking that cutting out something like gluten makes a person "feel better" because they are either cutting those calories entirely, or replacing those calories with something other macro that their body needs.
It's certainly not a proven issue (yet), but there is a good deal of evidence out there that such things exist on a spectrum, with some having greater reactions and others having less. You see that with a variety of allergies and auto-immune disorders. I don't know anything about gluten that would preclude it from operating in a similar fashion.0 -
I've had to ask four times now and still no answer. How do you know you're not sensitive to gluten? Have you ever tried going without gluten to compare?
Why would you go gluten-free if you have no issues with it?
A lot of people don't realize they have issues with it until the don't eat it for a while. It's a pretty common experience.
This makes no sense to me. Like, at all. JoRocka's earlier post is coming to mind. Because of the possibility of smashing your finger, everyone should not have hammers.
Think about it this way - if you're slightly gluten sensitive but have been eating wheat all your life, are you going to know something is wrong? No. Because the way you feel on a day to day basis is the way you've felt your whole life and it's "normal" for you. Many MANY times people only realize there is actually a different normal (often better) when they cut out gluten for a month to see what happens.
Make sense? If you don't have anything else to compare with your experience of "normal" then you have no frame of reference to call it normal in the first place.
I question whether "slightly gluten sensitive" is even a thing. Either you have a reaction or you don't. I'm more in line with thinking that cutting out something like gluten makes a person "feel better" because they are either cutting those calories entirely, or replacing those calories with something other macro that their body needs.
how do you react when you come in contact with poison ivy?
a bee sting?
a mosquito bite?
do you think all people respond the same to each of those stimuli?0 -
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.
Nope. You said that.
You also said "the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years"
So according to you, I cheated evolution.
how do you know? have you tried going gluten free? again I ask you what frame of reference do you have? I'll ask this all day until you answer it.
do you have any credibility when it comes to this topic? do you know how your body would respond without gluten?
how do you know you cheated evolution?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
What credibility does he need? He's presenting the theories and explanations, not claiming to be the author of them. If it helps at all, I agree with the vast majority of what he has said and explained. I've read many of the studies and scientific literatue associated with them, and have a biology degree from one of the best research universities in the world. Is that credibility enough for a fitness website?
Why don't you re-read the exchange between reddy and I to get some context for my statements?
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
Oh, that and that I digest food properly. He can't seem to comprehend that I digest food adequately and am quite healthy. Perhaps you agree with that, also?
Hon, he's just yanking everyone around. He's being obtuse on purpose.
Faaaceeee paaalllmmmm - ouch that one really hurt.
That's what this whole thread is about - please I beg of you read the attached blog!!!0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?
your opinions are the ones in conflict with established scientific fact and yet you expect us to bear the burden of proof to convince you otherwise... :laugh:
explain to me how lactase persistence in peoples of European descent is in conflict with established scientific fact.
haven't you already posted a 1000 posts debating milk already?
what i'm referring to is the silliness about how the food supply is drastically different than it was just 50 years ago and that humans have not evolved to digest this "new" food yet. there is so much wrong with this notion that you stated as if it were established fact, that i could only assume you were joking.... have you not been doing stand-up comedy on this whole thread? i sure thought you were.
So you don't believe that wheat, milk, meat, and all animal products in the grocery stores today are vastly different than they were 50 years ago? Fine if that's too recent we can push it back to 100 years. I'm not picky.
We can push it back as far as we want if you don't provide any evidence.
Grass fed beef (the kind available exclusively 100-50 years ago) has more omega 3 fatty acids than omega 6s by a significant margine. Commercially produced beef available today flips that ratio on its head and there are now more omega 6's than 3's leading to the common heart health advice to "cut back on red meat"
do you want more examples?
People have been feeding grain to cattle for well more than 50 years.0 -
not if you don't want to, which you clearly don't. lol this was never about YOU until you made it all about you. But hey I'm not really surprised - you seem to need the attention.You realize, of course, that you are my case in point?
Have you ever gone off grains to see what the difference is? If not, then how do you know your body hasn't needed a break?
They are right! You are hilarious!!!!!! Excellent job!!! :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
do you mind including your quote that I was responding to? taking things out of context... you must be a republican too.
0 -
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.
Nope. You said that.
You also said "the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years"
So according to you, I cheated evolution.
how do you know? have you tried going gluten free? again I ask you what frame of reference do you have? I'll ask this all day until you answer it.
do you have any credibility when it comes to this topic? do you know how your body would respond without gluten?
how do you know you cheated evolution?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
What credibility does he need? He's presenting the theories and explanations, not claiming to be the author of them. If it helps at all, I agree with the vast majority of what he has said and explained. I've read many of the studies and scientific literatue associated with them, and have a biology degree from one of the best research universities in the world. Is that credibility enough for a fitness website?
Why don't you re-read the exchange between reddy and I to get some context for my statements?
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
Oh, that and that I digest food properly. He can't seem to comprehend that I digest food adequately and am quite healthy. Perhaps you agree with that, also?
Hon, he's just yanking everyone around. He's being obtuse on purpose.
Faaaceeee paaalllmmmm - ouch that one really hurt.
That's what this whole thread is about - please I beg of you read the attached blog!!!
Except that you are asserting that we evolved to eat the way described in the blog even though there was no period of time when we actually ate that way.0 -
\|At least I understand the connection between physics and evolution.
Unfortunately, you fail to understand the extremely basic concept of an analogy. But, thanks for making arguments that are completely irrelevant.
A battle of wits with the unarmed is not very sporting. Shame on me.
There is a direct physical link between atomic interaction and the expression of alleles in an environment. Since it seems that your awesome biology degree skipped over that, I have a hard time accepting your assertion of that degree as a source of expertise to provide credibility to your arguments.
Once again, not debating that. It was an analogy referencing different branches of science being different bases for a theory or evidence. That just because there isn't any evidence or studies supporting the idea of the Paleo diet in paleo-anthropology doesn't mean that there aren't other branches of science that do support the idea.
But, continue making completely irrelevant arguments that have no bearing on the previous assertion. It seems to make you feel better even if it makes you appear more foolish.0 -
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
Faaaceeee paaalllmmmm - ouch that one really hurt.
That's what this whole thread is about - please I beg of you read the attached blog!!!
No, that's not what this whole thread is about. That is one red herring some people like yourself tried to turn this thread into, but it certainly isn't focused solely on whether Paleo is a 100% scientifically appropriate label for the diet in every sense.
In fact, I think all the pro-Paleo people freely admitted that there were significant limitations and imperfections with the label, but that that did not necessarily negate all positive aspects of the diet.0 -
Grass fed beef (the kind available exclusively 100-50 years ago) has more omega 3 fatty acids than omega 6s by a significant margine. Commercially produced beef available today flips that ratio on its head and there are now more omega 6's than 3's leading to the common heart health advice to "cut back on red meat"
do you want more examples?
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
And yes, more examples, please. Everyone here keeps saying how wheat has changed...0 -
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.
Nope. You said that.
You also said "the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years"
So according to you, I cheated evolution.
how do you know? have you tried going gluten free? again I ask you what frame of reference do you have? I'll ask this all day until you answer it.
do you have any credibility when it comes to this topic? do you know how your body would respond without gluten?
how do you know you cheated evolution?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
What credibility does he need? He's presenting the theories and explanations, not claiming to be the author of them. If it helps at all, I agree with the vast majority of what he has said and explained. I've read many of the studies and scientific literatue associated with them, and have a biology degree from one of the best research universities in the world. Is that credibility enough for a fitness website?
Why don't you re-read the exchange between reddy and I to get some context for my statements?
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
Oh, that and that I digest food properly. He can't seem to comprehend that I digest food adequately and am quite healthy. Perhaps you agree with that, also?
Hon, he's just yanking everyone around. He's being obtuse on purpose.
Faaaceeee paaalllmmmm - ouch that one really hurt.
That's what this whole thread is about - please I beg of you read the attached blog!!!
Except that you are asserting that we evolved to eat the way described in the blog even though there was no period of time when we actually ate that way.
The assertion of the blog is we ate anything that moved and many things that didn't.
The primal diet has been design to be inline with what we didn't evolve to eat.0 -
I've had to ask four times now and still no answer. How do you know you're not sensitive to gluten? Have you ever tried going without gluten to compare?
Why would you go gluten-free if you have no issues with it?
A lot of people don't realize they have issues with it until the don't eat it for a while. It's a pretty common experience.
This makes no sense to me. Like, at all. JoRocka's earlier post is coming to mind. Because of the possibility of smashing your finger, everyone should not have hammers.
Just curious about this line of thinking. If one feels completely fine and healthy would it still be suggested to systematically cut out all foods that could cause sensitivities? Would you advise taking a month without gluten, then a month without dairy, etc. etc.? Or would you suggest just going full on paleo for a month, then adding things back, like gluten? What would be advised?
Easier to go full paleo and then slowly reintroduce and see how each thing affects you than it is to cut one thing out at a time. Would save you time this way too.
So having already trialed a paleo diet for a month and having gained weight (because I overate) and felt worse by the end of the month (probably just because I was fatter), would you call that experiment to test sensitivity concluded, or would you suggest a repeat with a calorie limit? Did the gaining weight negate the possible benefits of eating paleo?0 -
Because I have a frame of reference. I'm attracted to women and not attracted to men, though I've kissed both. I enjoy a good suit, and happen to have the correct genitalia for my body.
So now you give me YOUR frame of reference. I showed you mine, show me yours.
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.0 -
Grass fed beef (the kind available exclusively 100-50 years ago) has more omega 3 fatty acids than omega 6s by a significant margine. Commercially produced beef available today flips that ratio on its head and there are now more omega 6's than 3's leading to the common heart health advice to "cut back on red meat"
do you want more examples?
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
And yes, more examples, please. Everyone here keeps saying how wheat has changed...
Yes, it has less fat as well, but the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 is the big issue from what I understand.0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?
your opinions are the ones in conflict with established scientific fact and yet you expect us to bear the burden of proof to convince you otherwise... :laugh:
explain to me how lactase persistence in peoples of European descent is in conflict with established scientific fact.
haven't you already posted a 1000 posts debating milk already?
what i'm referring to is the silliness about how the food supply is drastically different than it was just 50 years ago and that humans have not evolved to digest this "new" food yet. there is so much wrong with this notion that you stated as if it were established fact, that i could only assume you were joking.... have you not been doing stand-up comedy on this whole thread? i sure thought you were.
So you don't believe that wheat, milk, meat, and all animal products in the grocery stores today are vastly different than they were 50 years ago? Fine if that's too recent we can push it back to 100 years. I'm not picky.
I am still waiting to see the Franken Cows and all that....o wait any modified animals have not been approved to eat. Franken fish (salmon) is on its way though.0 -
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.
Nope. You said that.
You also said "the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years"
So according to you, I cheated evolution.
how do you know? have you tried going gluten free? again I ask you what frame of reference do you have? I'll ask this all day until you answer it.
do you have any credibility when it comes to this topic? do you know how your body would respond without gluten?
how do you know you cheated evolution?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
What credibility does he need? He's presenting the theories and explanations, not claiming to be the author of them. If it helps at all, I agree with the vast majority of what he has said and explained. I've read many of the studies and scientific literatue associated with them, and have a biology degree from one of the best research universities in the world. Is that credibility enough for a fitness website?
Why don't you re-read the exchange between reddy and I to get some context for my statements?
I'm not asserting anything that requires "credibility" beyond the fact that the "Paleo" diet isn't an accurate representation of the diet of people living in the time period that it's named for.
Oh, that and that I digest food properly. He can't seem to comprehend that I digest food adequately and am quite healthy. Perhaps you agree with that, also?
Hon, he's just yanking everyone around. He's being obtuse on purpose.
Faaaceeee paaalllmmmm - ouch that one really hurt.
That's what this whole thread is about - please I beg of you read the attached blog!!!
Except that you are asserting that we evolved to eat the way described in the blog even though there was no period of time when we actually ate that way.
The assertion of the blog is we ate anything that moved and many things that didn't.
The primal diet has been design to be inline with what we didn't evolve to eat.
Then why don't we keep eating everything in sight (within moderation) if that is what we evolved to eat?0 -
So having already trialed a paleo diet for a month and having gained weight (because I overate) and felt worse by the end of the month (probably just because I was fatter), would you call that experiment to test sensitivity concluded, or would you suggest a repeat with a calorie limit? Did the gaining weight negate the possible benefits of eating paleo?
At the end of the day, when we're talking weight loss it's still all about total calories, so regardless of what some paleo aficionados will say, you do still need to keep track of your calories to make sure you're not overeating.
This is tough. You say you felt worse but you also gained weight - how much of it is psychological/phsyical... probably hard to say. To be honest I wouldn't suggest you jump immediately back into another month of paleo. I'd just eat whatever you want making sure to control portions and calories, and once you have that under control and are feeling good, then another experiment couldn't hurt, but it's totally your call.0 -
\|At least I understand the connection between physics and evolution.
Unfortunately, you fail to understand the extremely basic concept of an analogy. But, thanks for making arguments that are completely irrelevant.
A battle of wits with the unarmed is not very sporting. Shame on me.
There is a direct physical link between atomic interaction and the expression of alleles in an environment. Since it seems that your awesome biology degree skipped over that, I have a hard time accepting your assertion of that degree as a source of expertise to provide credibility to your arguments.
Once again, not debating that. It was an analogy referencing different branches of science being different bases for a theory or evidence. That just because there isn't any evidence or studies supporting the idea of the Paleo diet in paleo-anthropology doesn't mean that there aren't other branches of science that do support the idea.
But, continue making completely irrelevant arguments that have no bearing on the previous assertion. It seems to make you feel better even if it makes you appear more foolish.
Which branches of science support the idea that we didn't evolve to eat grain?0 -
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
The difference between grass-fed and feed-lot is very small. They are, for all practical purposes, nutritionally equivalent. Pretty much all farmed meat is basically the same.
The real difference is between wild meat and farmed meat - the change in composition of the meat between the two is staggering. If "paleo" mandated wild meat, then there might actually be some substance to it...but it doesn't, and there isn't.
(As a frame of reference - I actually raise organic, free-ranged meat. Which I love to eat. But the nutritional claims made for the product are by and large bull****.)0 -
So having already trialed a paleo diet for a month and having gained weight (because I overate) and felt worse by the end of the month (probably just because I was fatter), would you call that experiment to test sensitivity concluded, or would you suggest a repeat with a calorie limit? Did the gaining weight negate the possible benefits of eating paleo?
That's really going to depend on your goals. If you're looking to lose weight, you'll likely have to restrict carbs or calories, or both. Most find that when they're restricting carbs significantly, it's very hard to overeat (similar to folks on Atkins), but it certainly is possible. But, that's why many Primal/Paleo people don't feel the need to track calories/macros because their body signaling already does that for them. I personally track religiously, but it can go either way.
As for how you feel, that's also going to be depending on you. If you think it's from the weight gain, perhaps you should try it again if you feel it's worth it to you. If you don't, then don't.0 -
So having already trialed a paleo diet for a month and having gained weight (because I overate) and felt worse by the end of the month (probably just because I was fatter), would you call that experiment to test sensitivity concluded, or would you suggest a repeat with a calorie limit? Did the gaining weight negate the possible benefits of eating paleo?
At the end of the day, when we're talking weight loss it's still all about total calories, so regardless of what some paleo aficionados will say, you do still need to keep track of your calories to make sure you're not overeating.
This is tough. You say you felt worse but you also gained weight - how much of it is psychological/phsyical... probably hard to say. To be honest I wouldn't suggest you jump immediately back into another month of paleo. I'd just eat whatever you want making sure to control portions and calories, and once you have that under control and are feeling good, then another experiment couldn't hurt, but it's totally your call.
This goes for those that "feel better" after going on a restrictive diet as well.0 -
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
Well, it's considerably easier to try a month-long Paleo experiment than it is gender reassignment. Not exactly fair comparisons for that reason alone.0 -
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
The difference between grass-fed and feed-lot is very small. They are, for all practical purposes, nutritionally equivalent. Pretty much all farmed meat is basically the same.
The real difference is between wild meat and farmed meat - the change in composition of the meat between the two is staggering.
(As a frame of reference - I actually raise organic, free-ranged meat. Which I love to eat. But the nutritional claims made for the product are by and large bull****.)
Are you SURE you love to eat it? What proof do you have that you love to eat it? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
The difference between grass-fed and feed-lot is very small. They are, for all practical purposes, nutritionally equivalent. Pretty much all farmed meat is basically the same.
The real difference is between wild meat and farmed meat - the change in composition of the meat between the two is staggering.
(As a frame of reference - I actually raise organic, free-ranged meat. Which I love to eat. But the nutritional claims made for the product are by and large bull****.)
Are you SURE you love to eat it? What proof do you have that you love to eat it? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I love to eat a lot of things.
:smokin:
:drinker:0 -
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
Well, it's considerably easier to try a month-long Paleo experiment than it is gender reassignment. Not exactly fair comparisons for that reason alone.
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?0 -
Which branches of science support the idea that we didn't evolve to eat grain?
Loosely speaking, biology, chemistry, biochemistry and genetics -- arguably evolutionary biology/genetics as well depending on your definition thereof.0 -
Because I have a frame of reference. I'm attracted to women and not attracted to men, though I've kissed both. I enjoy a good suit, and happen to have the correct genitalia for my body.
So now you give me YOUR frame of reference. I showed you mine, show me yours.
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
God this is literally like arguing with a brick wall.
I get what point you're attempting to make, but if you are on this site in the first place, there must have been SOME point in time at which you didn't feel terrific, yes? There has been no point in my life when I've questioned whether or not I'm chemically a man. I'm not on a gender confusion message board we're on a food message board.
I have kissed a man and I know for a fact that I'm not attracted to men. That's a frame of reference. Have you tried being gluten free to know that it's something your body doesn't need?
anyway I think I'm done with this merry-go-round. you're perfect, you're doing great, there's nothing you could possibly do to improve how your body functions and I'm very happy for you.
:noway:0 -
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
The difference between grass-fed and feed-lot is very small. They are, for all practical purposes, nutritionally equivalent. Pretty much all farmed meat is basically the same.
The real difference is between wild meat and farmed meat - the change in composition of the meat between the two is staggering.
(As a frame of reference - I actually raise organic, free-ranged meat. Which I love to eat. But the nutritional claims made for the product are by and large bull****.)
Are you SURE you love to eat it? What proof do you have that you love to eat it? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I love to eat a lot of things.
:smokin:
:drinker:
C'mon by my profile... we've got King Cake.
0 -
Because I have a frame of reference. I'm attracted to women and not attracted to men, though I've kissed both. I enjoy a good suit, and happen to have the correct genitalia for my body.
So now you give me YOUR frame of reference. I showed you mine, show me yours.
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
God this is literally like arguing with a brick wall.
I get what point you're attempting to make, but if you are on this site in the first place, there must have been SOME point in time at which you didn't feel terrific, yes? There has been no point in my life when I've questioned whether or not I'm chemically a man. I'm not on a gender confusion message board we're on a food message board.
I have kissed a man and I know for a fact that I'm not attracted to men. That's a frame of reference. Have you tried being gluten free to know that it's something your body doesn't need?
anyway I think I'm done with this merry-go-round. you're perfect, you're doing great, there's nothing you could possibly do to improve how your body functions and I'm very happy for you.
:noway:
Well, this is getting more interesting . . .0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions