What is the REAL paleo diet?
Options
Replies
-
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
To your first response, I don't doubt it. To your second response, eating chocolate and wine shows he's not a purist and is dispositive of little else.
1. Reread the question and answer it.
2. Our guts are morphologically different, and it certainly isn't because of eating vegetables.
3. Humor me.
4. "Essentially?" How are they different?
5. Sussman's work is viewed as contrarian - wildly so. We obviously have a far different understanding of what "credible" means.
Okay, your response sucks. Like VOV says, if you have something to say, say it. If you want to have a real conversation, I am fine with that. If you want to act like a dork, fine but I am not participating.
Just for example, you implied that the author of that article was receiving money from raw foodist groups, which frankly I find totally absurd. But hey, that's your theory. THen when I point out he eats chocolate and wine, you say, "maybe he is not a purist." Wha??? Try to be logical. If he is getting funding from raw foodists give me some evidence. Otherwise you're just farting in the wind. Then you ask me for a credible theory that is opposed to the Man as a Hunter theory. I cite a Nature article and then you make some dumb condescending response. ("we have a different understanding of what credible means. ") Yeah right. Nature is a stupid rag whose editors are jerks. You know more than they do, right?
If you are trying to establish yourself as a pompous *kitten* you are doing a great job. I've answered your questions and if you want to discuss things fine. If you want to play games, play with yourself.
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
Man-up.
Spartan has spoon-fed us rhetorical questions and now razor-sharp vocabulary distinctions. I'm impressed. But, so far his offerings are a bit on the light side: like frisee lettuce with a splash of balsamic. What's the meat?0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
To your first response, I don't doubt it. To your second response, eating chocolate and wine shows he's not a purist and is dispositive of little else.
1. Reread the question and answer it.
2. Our guts are morphologically different, and it certainly isn't because of eating vegetables.
3. Humor me.
4. "Essentially?" How are they different?
5. Sussman's work is viewed as contrarian - wildly so. We obviously have a far different understanding of what "credible" means.
Okay, your response sucks. Like VOV says, if you have something to say, say it. If you want to have a real conversation, I am fine with that. If you want to act like a dork, fine but I am not participating.
Just for example, you implied that the author of that article was receiving money from raw foodist groups, which frankly I find totally absurd. But hey, that's your theory. THen when I point out he eats chocolate and wine, you say, "maybe he is not a purist." Wha??? Try to be logical. If he is getting funding from raw foodists give me some evidence. Otherwise you're just farting in the wind. Then you ask me for a credible theory that is opposed to the Man as a Hunter theory. I cite a Nature article and then you make some dumb condescending response. ("we have a different understanding of what credible means. ") Yeah right. Nature is a stupid rag whose editors are jerks. You know more than they do, right?
If you are trying to establish yourself as a pompous *kitten* you are doing a great job. I've answered your questions and if you want to discuss things fine. If you want to play games, play with yourself.
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
Man-up.
Spartan has spoon-fed us rhetorical questions and now razor-sharp vocabulary distinctions. I'm impressed. But, so far his offerings are a bit on the light side: like frisee lettuce with a splash of balsamic. What's the meat?
There is some irony in your last sentence. It goes a long way toward answering all of those supposedly unanswered questions as well -- like all of them.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
To your first response, I don't doubt it. To your second response, eating chocolate and wine shows he's not a purist and is dispositive of little else.
1. Reread the question and answer it.
2. Our guts are morphologically different, and it certainly isn't because of eating vegetables.
3. Humor me.
4. "Essentially?" How are they different?
5. Sussman's work is viewed as contrarian - wildly so. We obviously have a far different understanding of what "credible" means.
Okay, your response sucks. Like VOV says, if you have something to say, say it. If you want to have a real conversation, I am fine with that. If you want to act like a dork, fine but I am not participating.
Just for example, you implied that the author of that article was receiving money from raw foodist groups, which frankly I find totally absurd. But hey, that's your theory. THen when I point out he eats chocolate and wine, you say, "maybe he is not a purist." Wha??? Try to be logical. If he is getting funding from raw foodists give me some evidence. Otherwise you're just farting in the wind. Then you ask me for a credible theory that is opposed to the Man as a Hunter theory. I cite a Nature article and then you make some dumb condescending response. ("we have a different understanding of what credible means. ") Yeah right. Nature is a stupid rag whose editors are jerks. You know more than they do, right?
If you are trying to establish yourself as a pompous *kitten* you are doing a great job. I've answered your questions and if you want to discuss things fine. If you want to play games, play with yourself.
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
Man-up.
Spartan has spoon-fed us rhetorical questions and now razor-sharp vocabulary distinctions. I'm impressed. But, so far his offerings are a bit on the light side: like frisee lettuce with a splash of balsamic. What's the meat?
There is some irony in your last sentence. It goes a long way toward answering all of those supposedly unanswered questions as well -- like all of them.
Haha! I'm glad you caught that. It was an intentional play on words, though I actually meant something slightly different by it.
Edit: And, I might add that you are continuing to snipe at trifles, and are not offering us any summary of your thoughts. I really think if you can't pony up, I will hope to engage others who are willing to at least be straightforward and clear in their assertions.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.
Paleo is a major dietary trend. Why *not* discuss it?0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.
Paleo is a major dietary trend. Why *not* discuss it?
Even if it's a stupid/flawed premise, it's a decent diet.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.
I never once said the author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians. And I quoted from your own words. Really, if you think this discussion is unworthy of anyone's attention because the content is irrelevant, why are you here? And no, I'm not being flippant or 'catty'.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.
Every major study on meat eating since the Framingham study in the 1940's, The China Study, the Nurses Study dozens of studies from England, Germany and other places all disagree with you. Meat in quantities of more than 70 g per week is harmful to you (the amount varies with different studies, but the message is the same. Meat in more than superficial quantities kills. But that is neither here nor there. The subject of this thread is what was the true Paleo diet. I am not going to discuss studies on eating meat here. If you want to start a thread on that subject and invite me over, I will talk about it there.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Well I am at work, waiting on actual "work" to do, so I waste lots of time every day. I can't access Facebook from here, so stuck with MFP forums.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.
Paleo is a major dietary trend. Why *not* discuss it?
Even if it's a stupid/flawed premise, it's a decent diet.
So the theory behind it, its philosophical grounding, its raison d'etre is wrong, but the diet is good.
Holy miracle, Batman! Can you say wishful thinking?0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
This is all bluster unless you can SHOW us your dazzling knowledge. So do it already!0 -
Gosh.... just eat as clean as ya can, peeps
0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
This is all bluster unless you can SHOW us your dazzling knowledge. So do it already!
I already did. In the end, the answer to every question is "meat" or "fish" or "shellfish." I can't help you if you're unfamiliar with the theories cited. There have been entire books written about these theories.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.
I never once said the author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians. And I quoted from your own words. Really, if you think this discussion is unworthy of anyone's attention because the content is irrelevant, why are you here? And no, I'm not being flippant or 'catty'.
Well, now you have stopped making any sense whatsoever. Where do you get that I said that you said that the "author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians?" And where did you quote from my own words? I think that discussing the digestive system and our ability to eat new foods is relevant. Hence, why I said something. You are the one who told me to stop interrupting your thread about an article, even though I was discussing the article. So, you are either being catty or down right rude.0 -
Okay. As a reminder, this is a discussion of the article I linked to as my first post. Please read it, and discuss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions