Gyroscopic Investing

Gumby wrote: Traditional cultures often used pickling and fermentation to preserve their foods, before refrigeration existed

I got the Sandor Katz book on fermentation a month or two ago and have been trying my hand at making homemade fermented food. Looking forward to my first batch of sauerkraut, then kimchi.

I think a lot of this is bunk and am hugely skeptical of fad diets. Why do we get fat (and I am speaking from experience)? Because we eat like pigs, we eat incredibly crappy food and our idea of exercise is going to the kitchen for another glass of soda or bottle of beer.  If you want to lose weight here is my 3 step program which I guarantee will work or your money back...

1. Stop eating like you are gong to the electric chair in an hour. Seriously. Most people who are fat eat twice as much in a given meal as they need to.
2. Stop eating crappy food with little or no nutritional value... fast food, junk food (candy potato chips deserts etc.) and especially ditch the soda and similar high sugar drinks. DO EAT normal healthy meals and just skip the seconds.
3. Get of your a$$ and exercise! That means minimally an hour of cardio a day five days a week. But if you are serious about taking the weight off I suggest two hours a day six days a week. You don't need to buy a gym membership, a treadmill or a fancy bike. The only investment you need to make is a good pair of walking shoes and the 1-2 hrs a day. But you do have to exercise. There is no pill or diet that can remove that from the equation. Any weight loss accomplished without it is purely temporary and doomed to failure.

At the beginning of the year I weighed around 250 lbs. As of last month I am down to around 190. I banished the crap food and soda from my diet and started walking. I started with about 30 minutes a day because, to be blunt, it's all could handle at first. By the end of February though I was up to six miles a day which is what I generally do six days a week.

What don't I do?

I don't count calories, I don't do fad diets and I don't weigh myself daily or even weekly. I weigh myself once a month at the most.

I second Ad Orientem's experiences. In college I walked everywhere, and due to a bad food-sharing situation, I didn't eat a lot, but what I did eat was generally Real Food. As a result, I felt physically great, had a nice toned body, and maintained my healthy weight of 135. After I graduated and got a real job, I bought a car, drove to work every day, and steadily started eating more convenience foods. I started to look pudgy, my feelings of health declined, and I started to inch up to 150. I recently started walking to work every day and that stopped the weight gain. Now, after a few months of eating a lot more vegetables, taking a daily fish oil supplement, and cutting out the packaged pasta dinners and canned soups, I'm down to 140-something. I didn't have to reduce my intake of rice or bread, although I'll admit most the bread is sourdough and about half the rice is brown.

I've never been into sugary or carbonated drinks or fast food, and I credit this fact alone with a great deal of my health. Even if I pig out on ice cream once in a while, it really seems like coke, beer, and McDonalds are some of the real killers.

Ad Orientem,
Congrats on your weight loss and return to a healthier lifestyle.  Unfortunately, most overweight people lack the will power and discipline to eat healthy and exercise regularly.  They prefer to rely on pills and fad diets to fix the problem and they rarely if ever do.  When asked how I maintain my weight and body toning, I tell them the same things you related to in your post.  Also, I will tell them that it is a permanent change of lifestyle that is necessary, not a temporary 30 or 60 day thing.  Most cannot phathom living their lives in such a manner and continue on their unhealthy paths. 

Reub wrote: Gumby are you sure that you weren't really drugged? A man with your vast knowledge has to be very careful these days.

Gumby's knowledge is not only vast, but it seems to be increasing.

Trying to keep up with his posts these last two years has been an experience similar to reading Flowers For Algernon.

Very impressive.

Ad Orientem wrote:I think a lot of this is bunk and am hugely skeptical of fad diets.

You have it backwards. A low carb diet is not a "fad" diet. Humans evolved for thousands of years on a low carb diet. If anything, refined grains and refined sugar are the "fad" of this past century:

[align=center][/align]

Ad Orientem wrote:Why do we get fat (and I am speaking from experience)? Because we eat like pigs, we eat incredibly crappy food and our idea of exercise is going to the kitchen for another glass of soda or bottle of beer.

It's more complex than that. People eat like pigs because a diet of refined grains and refined sugar is highly addictive, not very satisfying, and not very nutritious — which often results in fatigue, loss of energy, lots of inflammation and many chronic problems. Primitive humans had access to far more naturally available nutrition than we do today:

[align=center][/align]

Ad Orientem wrote:If you want to lose weight here is my 3 step program which I guarantee will work or your money back...

1. Stop eating like you are gong to the electric chair in an hour. Seriously. Most people who are fat eat twice as much in a given meal as they need to.

Restricting calories often results in "yo yo" dieting. It's not sustainable. Furthermore, low carb diets allow people to feel satiated and satisfied — making it much more sustainable over a lifetime.

Ad Orientem wrote:2. Stop eating crappy food with little or no nutritional value... fast food, junk food (candy potato chips deserts etc.) and especially ditch the soda and similar high sugar drinks. DO EAT normal healthy meals and just skip the seconds.

The meal you are describing is basically a low carb diet (since refined grains and sugar have no nutritional value). When you eat high nutrition, your body becomes satiated more easily and your body doesn't crave enormous quantities.

Ad Orientem wrote:3. Get of your a$$ and exercise! That means minimally an hour of cardio a day five days a week.

That kind of intensive routine is unnecessary. And frankly, anyone eating a "starvation" type diet would not be able to sustain an hour of intensive cardio very easily. Many people give up such routines.

Athleticism is a relatively new concept in human history. Most primitive humans were certainly in better shape than modern humans, but ancient cultures also fed themselves a lot of natural fat, protein and vegetables which gave them enormous amounts of fuel to sustain their active lifestyles.

But, if by "cardio" you mean "walking", then yes... people used to walk a lot more. Most people don't think of walking as "cardio." But, I agree, walking is fantastic. It's known as pedestrianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrianism

...and it was the original track and field event (no joke).

Ad Orientem wrote:But if you are serious about taking the weight off I suggest two hours a day six days a week. You don't need to buy a gym membership, a treadmill or a fancy bike. The only investment you need to make is a good pair of walking shoes and the 1-2 hrs a day. But you do have to exercise. There is no pill or diet that can remove that from the equation. Any weight loss accomplished without it is purely temporary and doomed to failure.

Two hours a day of cardio on a starvation diet would be difficult for many to achieve over a long term. People obviously need some exercise, but it's not always necessary to do that much exercise on a low carb diet. For instance, many ancient cultures had scholars, royalty (pharos), monks, writer and artists, who performed very little exercise and were not "fat". The reason is because these ancient cultures obtained relatively few calories from refined grains or sugar. Excessive amounts of exercise is not mandatory on a low carb diet. Again, athleticism is a relatively new concept in human history — likely a response to a poor modern diet. But, I wholeheartedly agree that walking is something people need to do more of.

A low carb diet is relatively easy to maintain (healthy portions, high nutrition) and weight comes off very easily once your body normalizes. Not very much exercise is required.

Ad Orientem wrote:At the beginning of the year I weighed around 250 lbs. As of last month I am down to around 190. I banished the crap food and soda from my diet and started walking. I started with about 30 minutes a day because, to be blunt, it's all could handle at first. By the end of February though I was up to six miles a day which is what I generally do six days a week.

Congrats. That's great! But, keep in mind that when you reduce "crap" food and "soda" from your diet, you are obviously reducing the amount of "refined" foods in your diet — which is basically the goal of a low carb diet. By reducing the quantity of refined foods in your diet, you have essentially lowered your carb intake. You could easily increase your intake of vegetables, meats and natural fats and still see weight loss or maintenance.

Ad Orientem wrote:What don't I do?

I don't count calories, I don't do fad diets and I don't weigh myself daily or even weekly. I weigh myself once a month at the most.

Sounds a lot like many low carb dieters. Again. Congrats! That's really fantastic.

Pointedstick wrote: I second Ad Orientem's experiences. In college I walked everywhere

I love walking. It really is the best exercise.

MediumTex wrote:Trying to keep up with his posts these last two years has been an experience similar to reading Flowers For Algernon.

Heh.. Hopefully it doesn't turn out the same way

But, I owe it to you, craig, and everyone on this forum. Seriously. I used to get all my information from mainstream sources. But, ever since I discovered the Permanent Portfolio, I realized that there is an enormous value to investigating the contrarian view of everything — Fluoride, fat, cholesterol, soy, salt, investing, inflation, gold, bonds, the National Debt... you name it.

The contrarian view always seems crazy to everyone — including all mainstream "experts". But, if nothing else, the PP taught me to seek out and learn the contrarian view before making life-altering decisions. More often than not, the contrarian view has validity and the "mainstream" view is often influenced by money.

The conversations on this board — with so many cordial and intelligent people here, all with so little in common — has given me the encouragement to learn and discuss these contrarian views in a great virtual setting. When I have these same conversations with people in person (including the PP) everyone thinks I'm totally nuts. So, to me, this forum has been a huge help — since most people here are at least open to hearing contrarian views on almost everything.

Whether the contrarian view is ever correct or not is anyone's guess. I just enjoy understanding the contrarian view before making decisions.

+1 Gumby.  I really have learned a ton from your posts, about MMT/MMR, to saturated fats, etc.  It's made me rethink some things.

I think there can be a danger in being contrarian too often.  Sometimes the contrarian view is contrarian because it's wrong.  I'm not exactly sure that cooking in lard and eating butter is the best thing for your heart, but, all things in moderation - as part of a healthy and mostly vegetable and fruit diet, saturated fat is not necessarily a bad thing.

Storm wrote:I think there can be a danger in being contrarian too often.  Sometimes the contrarian view is contrarian because it's wrong.

I completely agree. That's why I do my best to refute the contrarian view. I look at the historical record and I ask people on this forum — and anyone who is willing to listen — to refute the contrarian view. We have an amazing group here. If anyone can find evidence to support or refute something, I think this would be a good starting place.

Storm wrote:I'm not exactly sure that cooking in lard and eating butter is the best thing for your heart, but, all things in moderation - as part of a healthy and mostly vegetable and fruit diet, saturated fat is not necessarily a bad thing.

Yes. A balanced diet is a must. I wholeheartedly agree. Though, I still haven't found a shred of solid evidence that supports the mainstream theory. There is far more solid evidence to support the contrarian perspective — including the historical record...

See: http://www.dietheartpublishing.com/diet-heart-timeline

Heart disease was very rare before 1900 — and the beginnings of an epidemic of arteriosclerosis (the hardening of arteries) was just starting to be observed in autopsies across the country shortly after the mass production of table sugar was introduced in the late 19th century. Arteriosclerosis is very easy to spot in an autopsy and doctors during the late 1800s couldn't figure out what was causing the rise in arteriosclerosis even in relatively young men. The historical record clearly refutes the mainstream diet-heart hypothesis.

So, while it's always crucial to be cautious about the contrarian view, it appears that historically lard and butter have a far better track record than modern edible oils. The mass production of sugar coincides perfectly with the rise in arteriosclerosis. And the increased consumption of modern edible oils coincides with the significant rise in heart attacks. So, it's not surprising that corporate interests have tried to deflect the blame onto animal fats. Use modern/refined vegetable oils at your own risk.

Gumby,

While we may have been eating meat for the last several thousand years, that's a pretty small piece of our evolution.  Most carnivores have very simple digestive systems (think crocodiles), but ours are much more complex, and we are descendents of herbivores.  I don't know when along the evolutionary scale we started eating meat, but I'm quite sure there were a lot more years that our "ancestors" were eating veggies than meat, and I'm not sure which should have more weight, given the thousands of years of recency of our meat-heavy diets.

I don't know if it's skepticism or confusion that guides me, but I tend to think a diet of vegetables, lean meats, and enough fruit to get whatever vitamins and minerals we need, along with plenty of exercize of both cardio and weight training, would probably be the best.

I have a really hard time believing that steak, bacon, and eggs every day is really any better than pasta and pepsi, but I really feel like I'm in "pre-Permanent-Portfolio-ville" when it comes to dieting.  So much noise and I haven't hit on anything that really makes sense and I can get behind.

Then again I respect the hell out of your opinion so if you'd be so kind as to toss out your ideal diet (not that you haven't somewhere else on this board) I'd be grateful.  Of particular interest:

- Green Tea
- Protein powder shakes with frozen fruit (love these, plus it's the only way to get me to eat a lot of fruit on the cheap)
- Lean vs fatty meat
- Weight training vs cardio

moda0306 wrote:While we may have been eating meat for the last several thousand years, that's a pretty small piece of our evolution.

Moda, where did you get the idea that meat-eating humans have been around for only the "last several thousand years"? That's incorrect. Our paleolithic ancestors have been eating meat for over 2 million years.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

moda0306 wrote:Most carnivores have very simple digestive systems (think crocodiles), but ours are much more complex.

Moda, you have it backwards. Herbivores use fermentation to digest plant cellulose — which is far more complex. We do not. Ruminant herbivores have four stomachs to break down cellulose — done through various bacterial and regurgitation actions. I would argue that four stomachs is very complex. Non-ruminant herbivores (the kind you are referring to) pass quite a lot of undigested food out of their bodies. They have to spend about three quarters of the day feeding and rely on fermentation to digest plants. So, no, we are not related to those kinds of herbivores either. Our digestive system is most similar to that of a dog — which is designed to be carnivorous.

If nothing else, the presence of a gall bladder in our bodies should be a signal that we are literally designed to digest natural fat. Not to mention our "canine" teeth and sharp incisors to tear meat.

moda0306 wrote:and we are descendents of herbivores.

Not directly. Homo erectus was meat eating. According to the Smithsonian Institution...

The tall bodies and large brains of Homo erectus individuals required a lot of energy on a regular basis to function. Eating meat and other types of protein that could be quickly digested made it possible to absorb nutrients with a shorter digestive tract, making more energy available faster.  There is also speculation that honey and underground tubers may have been significant food sources for Homo erectus.
Source: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... mo-erectus

Even Homo habilis — from 2.6 million years ago — specialized in meat eating.

Another line of evidence for the diet of H. habilis comes from some of the earliest cut- and percussion-marked bones, found back to 2.6 million years ago. Scientists usually associate these traces of butchery of large animals, direct evidence of  meat and marrow eating, with the earliest appearance of the genus Homo, including  H. habilis
Source: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... mo-habilis

Furthermore, the microwear of Australopithecus dental fossils — from between 2 to 4 million years ago — show that Australopithecus ate tougher foods. And the strontium/calcium ratios in Australopithecus fossils indicate that they may have eaten animal foods, when available. The "canine" teeth present in Australopithecus afarensis fossils also indicate the potential for meat eating.

According to the Smithsonian Institution...

Au. afarensis had mainly a plant-based diet, including leaves, fruit, seeds, roots, nuts, and insects… and probably the occasional small vertebrates, like lizards
Source: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... -afarensis

There is also evidence that early humans first migrated out of Africa to follow animal migrations, for hunting.

moda0306 wrote:I don't know when along the evolutionary scale we started eating meat, but I'm quite sure there were a lot more years that our "ancestors" were eating veggies than meat, and I'm not sure which should have more weight, given the thousands of years of recency of our meat-heavy diets.

Your facts are all off. Our ancestors have been eating meat for at least 2.6 million years — and probably scavenged some meat as far back as 4 million years ago, when their ancestor brains were the size of chimpanzees. We evolved to eat meat and fat by growing a gall bladder and meat-tearing teeth. The very fact that we evolved with those features proves that we evolved to eat meat. We are truly omnivores.

moda0306 wrote:I don't know if it's skepticism or confusion that guides me, but I tend to think a diet of vegetables, lean meats, and enough fruit to get whatever vitamins and minerals we need, along with plenty of exercize of both cardio and weight training, would probably be the best.

Not even 200 years ago lean meat would have been considered foolish if fatty meat was available. And it's actually very difficult to obtain lots of vitamins from fruit and vegetables without proper preparations. Our bodies can't break down the cellulose to unlock those vitamins. You would need to ferment those foods in some way (or have the correct bacteria in your gut) to break down cellulose.

A million years ago, our ancestors celebrated the kills of wooly mammoths and savored every morsel of the animal. It would have been ridiculous to throw away the fatty parts of the animal. In fact, the "lean" muscle meat is the least nutritious part of the animal (the fat soluble vitamins are stored in the fat and the organ meat)!

moda0306 wrote:I have a really hard time believing that steak, bacon, and eggs every day is really any better than pasta and pepsi, but I really feel like I'm in "pre-Permanent-Portfolio-ville" when it comes to dieting.  So much noise and I haven't hit on anything that really makes sense and I can get behind.

Eggs have sustained human life for millions of years. Bacon fat (i.e. lard) contains a good amount of Vitamin D — which is essential to human nutrition. You can't get vitamin D from pasta and pepsi.

moda0306 wrote:Then again I respect the hell out of your opinion so if you'd be so kind as to toss out your ideal diet (not that you haven't somewhere else on this board) I'd be grateful.

My "ideal" diet (and I'm still learning) is a traditional diet. It's a mixed and balanced diet with plenty of access to natural animal fats. So...plenty of traditionally-cooked vegetables (preferably lacto-fermented to unlock nutrients and disable anti-nutrients). I don't do very much vegetable lacto-fermentation right now, but that would be ideal. Plenty of pastured animal fats, which are rich in vitamins and co-factors. Also, you are more likely to absorb fat soluble vitamins A, D, K, and E in the presence of natural animal fat. (In other words, add pastured butter to your vegetables to assist with vitamin absorption.) Raw whole dairy, butter and yogurt. Pastured eggs. Avoid refined sugar and refined grains. When eating grains, prepare them in a traditional manner to disable the anti-nutrients (soaking, fermentation). Basically, traditional nourishing foods that have had a long track record of success around the world for centuries. There's nothing "fad" about that.

moda0306 wrote:Of particular interest:

- Green Tea

Not sure. Probably good, but maybe too much fluoride in your body if you drink this too often.

moda0306 wrote:- Protein powder shakes with frozen fruit (love these, plus it's the only way to get me to eat a lot of fruit on the cheap)

Bad. The proteins are often fragile and are damaged by processing into powder form. It's not a natural food that our ancestors ever ate. That's for sure. All of the naturally occurring co-factors are missing. Plus, eating lots of ground up fruit probably isn't good. All the fiber is shredded and your mouth never gets to pre-digest them with enzymes. So, you just end up pouring more fructose directly into your stomach than you would ordinarily eat. Not good. It's better to chew fruit — secreting digestive enzymes and sending signals to your stomach and brain on how much to consume.

moda0306 wrote:- Lean vs fatty meat

Lean meat isn't very nutritious. Fatty meat is far more nutritious, so long as the meat came from a pastured animal. If you were a hunter gatherer a million years ago, you would have been very disappointed if you killed a lean animal. You would have gotten far more nutrition from a fatty animal. That's why wooly mammoths and other fatty animals were targeted by early humans (rather than frogs and pigeons). They obtained more energy and vitamins from fatty animals.

moda0306 wrote:- Weight training vs cardio

Both have their advantages. It probably depends on your genetic makeup (fast-twitch, slow-twitch, etc.).

Again, I'm still learning, but this is what my historical research has shown so far.

Wow... just... wow.

Gumby,

Apparently on our lineage & diet I was way off.  I was basing off of misconceptions I guess.


"So...plenty of traditionally-cooked vegetables (preferably lacto-fermented to unlock nutrients and disable anti-nutrients)."

Um, could you explain what a "traditionally-cooked vegetable" is, as well as wtf, "lacto-fermentation" is, and what in God's name an "anti-nutrient" is?

I'm about to hijack this thread to MMT/MMR just to keep things understandible!!!

Gumby wrote:
Lean meat isn't very nutritious. Fatty meat is far more nutritious,

Please tell me what EXACTLY you mean by this?  What am I not getting by eating skinless chicken breast that I get if I eat chicken thigh?  Or by eating super lean beef vs more fatty beef?

moda0306 wrote:Um, could you explain what a "traditionally-cooked vegetable" is.

Again.. I'm still learning. But, I believe cooking vegetables slowly in stews, where the cellulose in vegetables break down and release their vitamins would be one example of traditionally-cooked vegetables. But, my understanding is that it's still rather difficult to absorb all of the vitamins from plants. A lot of it stays locked in the cellulose and is only unlocked by beneficial bacteria — which most westerners lack in their gut. This is where lacto-fermentation comes in...

moda0306 wrote:as well as wtf, "lacto-fermentation" is

Lacto-fermentation is a traditional way to preserve food involving beneficial bacteria. All indigenous cultures across the globe used some form of Lacto-fermentation to preserve and prepare foods. This has been well documented. Sauerkraut, Kimchi and Beet Kvass are examples. Yogurt is another. Eating those foods populates your gut with beneficial flora — which is crucial for good digestion and absorption. And the lacto-fermentation process unlocks the vitamins from the plant — sometimes quadrupling the vitamin absorption from what I understand. So, a properly prepared sauerkraut or kimchi (not overly processed or heated) is chock-full of vitamins and nutrients.

moda0306 wrote:and what in God's name an "anti-nutrient" is?

An anti-nutrient is a protective poison in plants and grains.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient

It protect the plant from animals. For instance, soy is highly toxic in its raw form. Really terrible stuff. But soy is in everything these days. It's really bad for you when those anti-nutrients are still present. Many cultures used fermented soy for centuries with great success. Those cultures fermented soy to preserve their foods, and the fermentation processed neutralized many of the anti-nutrients, making soy safe to digest. Miso, soy sauce, natto and tempeh are all examples of traditional fermented soy foods.

Phytic Acid is an anti-nutrient found in many plants, legumes and grains. Google "phytic acid" and you'll see what I mean. Traditional preparation of grains involved overnight soaks in acid baths, or leaving porridges out overnight in the embers and reheating in the morning before heading out to the fields. The soaking in acid (perhaps a little buttermilk) neutralized the phytic acid and made the grains more digestible. Even Native American Indians would soak their grains before eating them!

Benko wrote:

Gumby wrote:
Lean meat isn't very nutritious. Fatty meat is far more nutritious,

Please tell me what EXACTLY you mean by this?  What am I not getting by eating skinless chicken breast that I get if I eat chicken thigh?  Or by eating super lean beef vs more fatty beef?

Well, first of all, the very idea of a "low fat diet" didn't exist until a few decades ago. It's effects have never been fully researched on a population — particularly children. Children need fat. In a sense, it's sort of criminal to withhold fat from children. Since the "low fat" guidelines were introduced in the late '70s obesity has more than doubled in the United States. Something is not right. That's an enormous change, and it coincided perfectly with the introduction of those "low fat" guidelines.

According to Katherine Flegal, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of obese Americans stayed relatively constant through the 1960's and 1970's at 13 percent to 14 percent and then shot up by 8 percentage points in the 1980's. By the end of that decade, nearly one in four Americans was obese. That steep rise, which is consistent through all segments of American society and which continued unabated through the 1990's, is the singular feature of the epidemic. Any theory that tries to explain obesity in America has to account for that. Meanwhile, overweight children nearly tripled in number. And for the first time, physicians began diagnosing Type 2 diabetes in adolescents. Type 2 diabetes often accompanies obesity. It used to be called adult-onset diabetes and now, for the obvious reason, is not.

...

It began in January 1977, when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its ''Dietary Goals for the United States,'' advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of ''killer diseases'' supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat had become ''this greasy killer'' in the memorable words of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter -- a dubious feast of refined carbohydrates.
Source: NYTimes: Gary Taubes: What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

How is it that the moment senators (likely encouraged by corporate interests) tell us to stop eating fat, Americans start getting fat more rapidly? Because we became less satiated by our food and replaced fats with more and more carbs and processed foods of poor nutrition.

Vitamins A, D, K and E are what is known as "Fat Soluble Vitamins". They cannot be stored, transported or absorbed without the presence of fats. Fat is where these vitamins are stored — as well as in organ meats. If you starve your body of fat or organ meats, your body will go into starvation mode and try to retain its own emergency stores of those vitamins in fat for survival. Whereas if you give your body plenty of those fat-soluble nutrients, by eating regular doses of animal fat and/or organ meats, your body will recognize that there is a steady supply of fat-soluble vitamins and will release those fat stores (provided you keep your insulin spikes under control). There is no reason to be starving your body of fat-soluble vitamins. Cannibals literally killed other humans to eat their organ meats — where all the energy and nutrients were stored in healthy humans with very little body fat. Cannibals reportedly prized the livers of fishermen who had access to a lot of seafood in their diets and concentrated the energy (as vitamins) in their livers.

Additionally, fatty acid degradation is the process in which fatty acids are broken down into a main source of energy. Fats are essential for human life. Brain cells are largely composed of fat.

Eating natural animal cholesterol is also essential to life. All cells require cholesterol. Your brain requires cholesterol. Your body also uses cholesterol to produce serotonin (the "feel good" hormone) and to heal itself. Your body combats stress with cholesterol. The more natural cholesterol your body obtains from food, the less it has to work to make its own. People often report feeling happier and relaxed on a high fat diet because their brain is actually able to produce healthy levels of serotonin from the available cholesterol. Restricting cholesterol makes people depressed and agitated. Very low cholesterol is actually associated with suicide and depression.

Note that "oxidized cholesterol" is terrible for you. It causes arteriosclerosis. Almost all studies that attempt to prove that cholesterol is bad are performed with oxidized cholesterol — which is a highly processed form of cholesterol. Skim milk is a highly processed milk. Milk producers often add powdered milk to skim milk to give it body, color and flavor. The powdered milk has oxidized cholesterol in it, which is not good. Raw whole milk is unadultered and has the full spectrum of essential fats, cholesterol, enzymes and co-factors that are passed on to calfs.

Lean meat is mostly just protein and lacks the important fat-soluble vitamins and nutrients. Lean meat is more difficult to digest and actually depletes the fat-soluble vitamins from your body — particularly vitamin A.

It's also worth pointing out that human breast milk — often cited as the "perfect" food — has lots of fat and cholesterol in it. Kids thrive on natural fat.

Alanw wrote: Congrats on your weight loss and return to a healthier lifestyle.  Unfortunately, most overweight people lack the will power and discipline to eat healthy and exercise regularly.  They prefer to rely on pills and fad diets to fix the problem and they rarely if ever do.  When asked how I maintain my weight and body toning, I tell them the same things you related to in your post.  Also, I will tell them that it is a permanent change of lifestyle that is necessary, not a temporary 30 or 60 day thing.  Most cannot phathom living their lives in such a manner and continue on their unhealthy paths. 

In fairness, when the mind is under stress, it can only handle doing one thing at a time.  So if fat people are chronically overstressed, forgetaboutit.

Nonetheless, I think the easiest way for anyone to lose weight is to simply cut out all the sugary drinks.  That alone adds 30lbs a year on average.  And those extra calories may be the real source of America's obesity epidemic.

Reub wrote: Gumby are you sure that you weren't really drugged? A man with your vast knowledge has to be very careful these days.

Gumby is the Prodigal son I've never had!

Gumby wrote: Moda, you have it backwards. Herbivores use fermentation to digest plant cellulose — which is far more complex. We do not. Ruminant herbivores have four stomachs to break down cellulose — done through various bacterial and regurgitation actions. I would argue that four stomachs is very complex. Non-ruminant herbivores (the kind you are referring to) pass quite a lot of undigested food out of their bodies. They have to spend about three quarters of the day feeding and rely on fermentation to digest plants. So, no, we are not related to those kinds of herbivores either. Our digestive system is most similar to that of a dog — which is designed to be carnivorous.

http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/reach ... r-cow.html

Gumby wrote: Again.. I'm still learning. But, I believe cooking vegetables slowly in stews, where the cellulose in vegetables break down and release their vitamins would be one example of traditionally-cooked vegetables. But, my understanding is that it's still rather difficult to absorb all of the vitamins from plants. A lot of it stays locked in the cellulose and is only unlocked by beneficial bacteria — which most westerners lack in their gut. This is where lacto-fermentation comes in...

I think taking a broad probiotic or soil-based organisms supplement with each meal is alot easier than the hassle of going hippie, wearing Birkenstocks and lacto-fermenting vegetables left and right.  You can buy unpasteurized sauerkraut in the fridge section, Bubbie's is one brand.  I fondly remember the days when I would grow wee little sprouts in my indoor sprout garden...

But, what you say could be a compelling inducement to just slow cook everything.  Not only is it easy (set it and forget it), you won't have to worry about heating the food past point boiling causing all manner of protein-sugar crosslinking and carcinogenic, mutagen baddies.  That's the final frontier for me.

Gumby wrote: It protect the plant from animals. For instance, soy is highly toxic in its raw form. Really terrible stuff. But soy is in everything these days. It's really bad for you when those anti-nutrients are still present. Many cultures used fermented soy for centuries with great success. Those cultures fermented soy to preserve their foods, and the fermentation processed neutralized many of the anti-nutrients, making soy safe to digest. Miso, soy sauce, natto and tempeh are all examples of traditional fermented soy foods.

Have you come across anything that chelates anti-nutrients out of the body?  I've tried fermented miso and Nama Shoyu (unpasteurized soy sauce), but I still react to the soy in it, so those aren't going to work for any alleged irradiation benefits.

Gumby, do you have any website you would recommend as a good place to start if we want to ferment our own vegetables?

Interestingly enough, I have been turning my nose up at all of the canned fermented vegetables my relatives from Taiwan eat - "those come from a can; they can't possibly be as good as fresh vegetables."  Little did I know...

I figured that the preservation techniques used by Asian cultures for centuries are obsolete now that we have modern refrigeration and fresh food year round.  This just goes to show you that we shouldn't throw away centuries of wisdom just because we think we are technologically superior to them.

MachineGhost wrote:

Gumby wrote: It protect the plant from animals. For instance, soy is highly toxic in its raw form. Really terrible stuff. But soy is in everything these days. It's really bad for you when those anti-nutrients are still present. Many cultures used fermented soy for centuries with great success. Those cultures fermented soy to preserve their foods, and the fermentation processed neutralized many of the anti-nutrients, making soy safe to digest. Miso, soy sauce, natto and tempeh are all examples of traditional fermented soy foods.

Have you come across anything that chelates anti-nutrients out of the body?  I've tried fermented miso and Nama Shoyu (unpasteurized soy sauce), but I still react to the soy in it, so those aren't going to work for any alleged irradiation benefits.

MG, you would know better than I would. I'm just starting to learn about traditional cooking. If you figure it out, let us know!

I was under the impression that anti-nutrients simply screw up our organs and then leave the scene of the crime. I know that anti-nutrients block absorption of key vitamins and minerals and stress our organs.

Anti-nutrients are pretty bad for society, but the biggest problem is probably infant formula. It's absolutely criminal that companies sell soy-based infant formula. I was furious when I discovered this too late to do anything about it for my kid. If anybody is expecting a child, please do your own research on the dangers of soy in infant formula. Companies are basically playing massive experiments on the entire population by feeding soy to children. From what I can tell, soy likely plays a big role in childhood physical and mental development issues by blocking nutrients and harming the gut. This isn't exactly a secret in the scientific community. Many, many researchers understand this all very well. But corporations have done an excellent job of hiding the problems of soy, and other anti-nutrients in our food supply, as it is a multi-billion dollar business.

Again, a low carb diet just tends to avoid a lot of these foods (assuming you avoid soy). But, I do believe that traditionally prepared grains and legumes can play a healthy role in the body. Unfortunately, it just takes a little time to plan meals out properly.

Storm wrote: Gumby, do you have any website you would recommend as a good place to start if we want to ferment our own vegetables?

Smurff, on this forum is a huge resource for traditional cooking. He knows far more about this stuff than I do. As a starting point, he recommended... http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/

That website is run by Sarah Pope, who is a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation — which advocates for traditional foods. I know MG has been critical of WAPF, but I'm still not seeing how the criticism against WAPF holds up. Most of the criticism against WAPF seems to be based on corporate-based junk science as far as I can tell. Again, I could be wrong, but it's hard to argue that traditionally-prepared foods didn't sustain cultures around the world for very long periods of time. If anything, every aspect of the modern diet seems to be the problem (soy, anti-nutrients, lack of healthy fats, lack of natural cholesterol, too much refined sugar and carbs). Nothing about modern food seems to have helped our population become healthier as far as I can tell.

Also.. Here is a brief overview of Lacto Fermentation, its historical significance, how to do it, and why it is important...

http://www.westonaprice.org/food-featur ... rmentation

The Nourishing Traditions Cookbook, by Sally Fallon is also a good resource. (Fallon founded the Weston A. Price Foundation along with Mary G. Enig, the highly criticized researcher who helped pioneer the science against Trans Fats.)

But, you will find countless videos on YouTube of people showing you how to lacto-ferment anything. Just make sure you use sea salt and organic vegetables from a good source.

Hopefully Surff can chime in with some pointers. Many farmers' markets sell lacto-fermented foods for a premium if you're too lazy (like me) to do it on your own. One of these days I'm going to try it. It actually does look pretty easy.

Storm wrote:Interestingly enough, I have been turning my nose up at all of the canned fermented vegetables my relatives from Taiwan eat - "those come from a can; they can't possibly be as good as fresh vegetables."  Little did I know...

Well, I think the container does matter. Not sure if I would lacto-ferment in an aluminum can . Glass is typically used.

Also soaking grains is pretty easy. I do that occasionally. The Healthy Home Economist has a good video on that.

Storm wrote:I figured that the preservation techniques used by Asian cultures for centuries are obsolete now that we have modern refrigeration and fresh food year round.  This just goes to show you that we shouldn't throw away centuries of wisdom just because we think we are technologically superior to them.

Yes! Refrigeration has definitely played a roll in allowing anti-nutrients into the food supply. Taubes also recently wrote another contrarian article (he freely admits that he is contrarian) in the NYTimes about how salt has never been proven to be bad for us. If you look at the historical record, you will find that people ate at least twice as much (sea) salt as we do now — to preserve their foods before refrigeration — and hypertension is a much bigger problem now than it ever was. There are prisoner of war records from the War of 1812 where prisoners were complaining about the barbarically low quantities of sea salt in their diet. The amount they were complaining about was about the average amount that people eat now. So, the idea that natural sea salt is bad for you is likely a myth as well. Sea salt has important trace minerals in it.

During the Fall, people used to salt a barrel of pork or beef and keep it for the winter. It was very salty!

Ad Orientem wrote: I think a lot of this is bunk and am hugely skeptical of fad diets. Why do we get fat (and I am speaking from experience)? Because we eat like pigs, we eat incredibly crappy food and our idea of exercise is going to the kitchen for another glass of soda or bottle of beer.

Pointedstick wrote: I second Ad Orientem's experiences. In college I walked everywhere, and due to a bad food-sharing situation, I didn't eat a lot, but what I did eat was generally Real Food.

Agreed.  There's no need to make this stuff complex!  Weight loss may not be easy, but it is simple.  If you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight.  You must create a calorie deficit.  All diets are beholden to this rule.

This will be much easier and healthier if you stick with nutrient-dense whole foods.  Get sufficient protein in every meal.  Get your carbs from fibrous fruits and veggies whenever possible but no need to get overly freaky about this.  Potatoes and brown rice are just fine.  Up your omega-3 intake.  Avoid highly processed foods.  Always chew your calories and drink plenty of water.

Then, build up your strength by learning to pick up really heavy stuff safely.  Get up and move around.  This will ensure that you lose fat rather than just "weight".  Try to become stronger than you ever imagined that you could.  Don't forget that you're still an animal and you are meant to live your life as agile and strong as you can be.  It's not just about taking less space.

So many approaches work.  Low carb diets do some important things right:

• Provide sufficient protein
• Cut out processed sugars and highly refined grains, which provide very little nutrition or satiety
• Get sufficient quantities of fats, which are also very satisfying, particularly when coupled with protein

However, many people (myself included) only thrive with a much higher carb intake and an "omnivorous" diet.  An eating plan of whole, nutrient-dense foods that leaves you with a calorie deficit is nutritionally all that you need.  It can take many forms.  Nobody ever got fat because they couldn't stop eating hard apples and blueberries.

In Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything, he points out that we live on this planet because bacteria allows us to. In fact, bacteria seems to have a symbiotic relationship with every living being on the planet. The flora in your gut pretty much determines what happens in your brain as there is a huge gut-brain connection that scientists are just beginning to understand. Your gut has as many receptors as your brain. It seems that beneficial flora play a key role in consciousness — or at least how your body processes and manages consciousness. The gut contains 100 million neurons – that's more than the spinal cord! Many people have believed (for centuries) that the gut is our second brain.

There is a medical doctor in Boston, named Dr. Natasha Campbell-Mcbride who believes that all mental illnesses are caused by bad flora in the stomach — due to the modern diet. Her book, Gut & Psychology Syndrome explains all the stuff I've been explaining in this thread (how natural fats are good, and vegetables are hard to digest without the proper bacterial action, etc). Supposedly she has been able to cure autism in her own children by significantly improving their gut flora with traditional foods and probiotics — and she has a growing following of supporters. I know it sounds crazy, but she presents some very compelling evidence that most mental and sensory disorders begin in the gut. For instance, all autistic children have a lot of toxic flora in their stools. She argues that the glueten-free/casein free diet for autistic children only works along as you stay on that diet (the bad flora reactivate in those children when gluten and casein are consumed). But, if you can repair the gut, an autistic children can fully recover from their disorder. The gut really is our second brain, and there appears to be a very close connection between the gut and the brain. The two are tied together with a huge bundle of relay neurons. It's like two brains tied together.

So, when gut flora is trashed (as all modern diets allow) the brain is vulnerable to all sorts of mental disorders. Crazy stuff!

If you google "gut-brain connection" you'll find all sorts of interesting stuff. Recently, the NYTimes had a great article on how researchers are just beginning to understand the human "microbiome"

See: http://nyti.ms/LYaNDD

Apparently, we wouldn't exist if it weren't for the estimated 100 trillion bacteria that make our bodies work.