Sunday, March 04, 2012

Fruit and vegetables

Still no net-time to speak of but life goes on. Look at these brightly coloured fruit and vegetables:



They look so good I just can't help myself. I just have to shred them



and feed them to the chickens



who can convert them to Food



Eggcellent (sorry)

Peter

OK, I do have to admit to eating the occasional vegetable as flavouring for Food.

105 comments:

George Henderson said...

I made a sauce for some slow-cooked lamb shoulder chops last night by adding one small sweet potato, quite a lot of lime juice, and a couple of shredded mandarins to the chops, cooked in the usual base of onions and garlic fried in olive oil, fish sauce, salt, pepper, and ginger.

Aaron said...

Food converters ... those look pretty neat. What will they think of next?

Ety said...

Hello,

Very interesting blog.

I wanted to ask you what you thought about the importance of dietary diversity in order to get the most diverse array of vitamins everyday. Being from the US, the notion that we should hit all of our daily vitamin recommendations with our diet is pounded into our head.

I guess I don't know where I stand with that. I eat a lower carb "paleo" sort of diet myself, so I guess I go against the system just in that I love saturated fat but what about vitamins, nutrients, etc?

I know you can get adequate amounts of nutrients without copious amounts of vegetables, but I was debating with my friend on this and I didn't know how to back myself up.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Chris

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Poor chickens! I hope they get to eat some bugs & grubs, too.

PierreLegrand said...

The wifey marinated a pork shoulder for a few days then cooked it using a Julia Child recipe...oh my! Porkcellent!

Peter what do you make of the idea that those carrying apoe4 single copy cannot eat a saturated fat diet for fear of driving their LDL through the roof...and quickly exploding their heart. I am trying to find the studies mentioned but haven't had any luck yet.

rahul said...

Thanks for great information you write it very clean. I am very lucky to get this tips from you



Weight Loss Glasgow

Vaporizer Reviews said...

Wow that looks great. Cant beat fresh!
Regards,
<a href="http://vaporizersfast.com/wispr-vaporizer>Iolite Wispr</a>

ralu said...

hahah You made my day !

Sidereal said...

LOL! This post cracked me up.

PierreLegrand said...

Found one of the studies I was referring too above.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/10/2517.full

This study for instance claims that people having both apoe3 and apoe4 genotypes will see smaller LDL particles if they follow a higher fat diet rather than a higher carb diet.

My concern is that none of the diets actually limit carbs as much as is commonly done these days in the VLC community. I seem to remember that eating carbs while consuming a lot of saturated fat was not a wise thing to do. Do you think that this is the cause of the problems this study is having?

Sorry to be so unclear but I run restaurants not research labs...though these days I seem to falling farther and farther down the rabbit hole of diet research.

FrankG said...

Love it Peter! As one might say in French "an oeuf is as good as a feast" ;-)

I am quite happy to get the benefit of what my "food" has eaten.

Elegant Axe Handle said...

I <3 you, and aspire to have my own food converters someday.

nancan said...

@FrankG: 'As one might say in French "an oeuf is as good as a feast"'

You made me laugh out loud!

pablo DLS said...

convert this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKaxZ8LKrAA


btw, peter that looks awesome and tips 4 building a coop like that? ( like what do you need? im guessing shelter, feeders, water, etc?)

pablo DLS said...

Also... Would you kindly take o pic of the egg yolks? I want to see the average size (20 grams?) and how do the look like, color, etc compared to my puny ones... THANKS!

nancan said...

I love home grown eggs, which happily I get from a local farm.
@Pablo-a fresh free range egg has a dark orange yolk, and the white stands up very firmly. A much prettier egg, and of course much tastier.

Yesterday I had shad roe (a type of herring eggs), which in the northeastern U.S. is a seasonal treat that I consider a kind of spring tonic.

H. said...

Peter, thank you for the good cheer. You've given many of us a nicer day. :)

cwaiand said...

why would you consider the produce not "food"for humans?picture an anciet man walking along on a hunt,ravinously hungry.he passes your pile of produce and thinks to himself "i am starving but that doesn,t look like food to me,i will leave it and hope an animal eats it. i will then eat the animal". seriously,people have been eating produce since the dawn of time.they also eat grubs and bugs and fish and meat and vegetables and fruit.

your view of what is "healthful" to eat is really odd.why if humans can and do eat a variety of foods do you think meat and meat fat are the only viable ones?i have yet to read anything on your blog that actually supports that position.

cj

Pieter said...

Funny, but ... do they really like that? It's a bit of a waste too :-)

I cut away the small bacon rind (skin) before baking (too tough for my taste). My chickens go crazy over that! They don't even see the rest of the food I throw at them.

I think they would rather have some worms. That's cheaper too.

Lay some concrete slab on the grass for a week or 2 (like the one your son is standing on). Then drag the slab to another position and let the chickens eat the worms that gathered under the slab. Repeat the next week ... . Nice exercise too ;-)

Pieter said...

While we're all having a laugh here:

As an experiment, this weekend I ate just one orange for breakfast, to see which effect this had on my blood sugar.

I'm not diabetic, and I don't have weight issues, but I notice that if I eat a "sugar load" all by itself, so not in the context of a meal with vegetables and some fat, I have a mild hypoglycemic reaction about 1.5 hour later.

In between measurements I searched the internet for others who have a similar reaction, and found this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_eating_an_orange_raise_blood_sugar

Question: Does eating an orange raise blood sugar?
Answer: No it cannot raise your blood sugar because the orange has vitamin c and d in it

HAHAHA!! :)

Ahhh, the Internet, you've got to love it :)

(Needless to say it did raise my blood sugar, as expected. And yes, I still eat oranges, but just not like that, that's a crappy breakfast :-p)

Kindke said...

Arent insects an important part of chickens diets?

arnoud said...

Peter, would it not be much more efficient to feed your food converters a daily ration of Florida orange juice and a can of V8?

It might not work....if you leave them to roam outside they perhaps might gorge on grubs and insects instead. Then what to do with all that produce?

Steve Cooksey said...

Nice Nigel. :)

Steve Cooksey said...

... my first thought? Et tu Peter?? :)

Peter said...

Steve, heee hee hee hee

Time to collect my son from school

Peter

BTW, cwaiand, what are you doing reading Hyperlipid? Please desist.

cwaiand said...

why should i desist?i,m hoping someday you might learn something and then post something that,s actually worthwhile.

your some kind of low carb /paleo guru,"read me only if you believe everything i say is fact.do not question the great peter".

Unknown said...

cwaiand, is peter telling you what to eat, in what quantities, and at what times? No. Is he discussing biochemistry? Yes. Is he talking about what he eats? Yes. Guru, no, but certainly a smart guy to use as a tool to make ones own decisions on food. I am pretty sure if you want to eat cabbage peter does not care.
Oh, and how would an ancient man have access to a cabbage that size without YEARS of selective breeding?

pablo DLS said...

u mad cwaiand... ? if you ask politely maybe peter´s has some room for u in that lovely flock!
j/K

Galina L. said...

@cwaiand,
Probably, you will have to check in Peter's archive Fruits and Vegetables posts and also FIAF posts in order to get more familiar with Peter's point of view on the subject.
I personally love my salads, fermented cabbage, beets, soups made of veggies and good broth, but sometimes it is a relieve to know that it is not an obligation to eat that staff, only a pleasure.

john said...

Dude, take a chill pill. Your comment about flaws in this post are about as productive as someone criticizing your grammar.

If you find nothing "worthwhile," then you should desist--duh.

arbo said...

Peter, how many eggs per day do you get and could you sometime tell us about your experience with raising chickens? I want to try to do this in the next month but I'm 22 and only have a few hundred dollars(US) to spend -- Thank you - Arbo

PierreLegrand said...

seriously,people have been eating produce since the dawn of time.they also eat grubs and bugs and fish and meat and vegetables and fruit

Really? What percentage of their diet was not meat or seafood?

cwaiand said...

really?what percentage of their diet was not plant based?

Exceptionally Brash said...

ha ha! I was just thinking the same thing the other day only I had a pile of snails.

ItsTheWooo said...

Look up humor and sarcasm in a dictionary you seem to be quite unfamiliar with it, sir.

ItsTheWooo said...

Oh snap! Peter just gave you a restraining order!

PierreLegrand said...

really?what percentage of their diet was not plant based?

A lot more than half based on the fact that our digestive track and the processes contained are very similar between carnivore and human and very disimilar between human and herbivore.

We probably evolved some capacity to process plant material as a fall back to prevent extinction. But we are not able to thrive on a plant diet.

cwaiand said...

you also will not thrive on an all meat based diet.you need to eat some plant based carbs."alot more than half" does not equal "eat no plants at all ever unless your starving and there,s nothing else around"

the leaps of logic on this site are astounding.

PierreLegrand said...

you also will not thrive on an all meat based diet.

What is your proof that a human needs plant material? Given that populations have indeed "thrived" on strict meat diets.

Furthermore many "thrive" on a strictly meat diet right now...

cwaiand said...

how many populations have thrived on an ALL meat diet?the inuit?why not look at the kitivans?your cherry picking to fit what you want to believe.many currently thrive on a mixed diet right now.

what is your proof that humans don,t need plants?your the one telling me to exclude something from diet .based on what ?don,t eat plants because you "believe it to be true"?i,ve never seen any evidence suggesting anything remotely close to that.ancient humans(our ancestors)developed near the equator.plenty of tubers and fruit around(along with meat grubs bugs shell fish ,fish eggs.)surly if your trying to base your eating "belief" on ancient humans you could only conclde we developed on a mixed diet.

PierreLegrand said...

what is your proof that humans don,t need plants?your the one telling me to exclude something from diet .based on what ?don,t eat plants because you "believe it to be true"?

Their digestive track is not set up to process plant material. But besides that you are the one who made the first claim that humans have been eating plant material since the dawn of time...if this were actually true why haven't our bodies adapted to eating plants?

cwaiand said...

and what evidence have you ever seen that shows we are not"adapted to eating plants"?that,s what i,m looking for the evidence that plants are a no go and are actually bad for you .i have never seen anything to make anyone believe that statement.our digestive track is certainly cabable of digesting and useing carbohydrates.tubers are easily processed by our bodies.

Asim said...

"Their digestive track is not set up to process plant material."

Just a side comment:

This is actually a rather humorous example of evidence. Our digestive tract also holds gut flora, which allows us to process those foods not part of our 'digestive tract'. Soluble fiber is the staple diet of these flora. And gut flora form a major part of the development of the immune system of the host.

This gut flora is one of the primary reasons which allow humans to adapt to all sorts of diets, no matter their location. It is also being demonstrated that gut flora are a major player in the field of obesity.

The notion that humans haven't been eating plants is a rather strange assertion, especially considering much of the knowledge of the hunter-gatherers lifestyle is purely speculative. I can't even determine what somebody ate last week from his poop, let alone somebody a million years ago. Absence of evidence does not make a fact, especially when we are refering to situations of common sense. Does one think a hunter-gatherer who was venturing in the forest didn't eat a brightly-colored orange when he saw it hanging from a tree?

Scholars and their ivory towers is a pretty good reason for stupidity among the common folk...

Unknown said...

He would not see a bright, shiny orange that has been bred to the size and color it is today. Ancient fruit was small..transports for seeds. I highly doubt if you were in the forest you would devote HOURS to gaining calories from small, tiny fruits when hunting provides a much more nutritious meal. We can eat plant matter, but just like many seasonal things, they are not available year round (unless tropical).

cwaiand: you are cherry picking as much as he is, kitavan, kitavan, kitavan, masai, masai, masai.

We can find so many variations on diets, but the biochemistry of nutrition should be our guide.

cwaiand said...

um bears eat tiny small berries but i guess they do it because they don,t feel like hunting.to claim humans would bi-pass food based on it,s size is retarded.we developed as a people in tropical regions,year round availabilty during development.

please show me your time machine which allowed you to travel back in time to see what the fruit used to look like.

and i,m cherry picking.your ideas are a belief or faith as there is absolutely no way to prove what you say.

Asim said...

Unknown...

The idea that ancient fruits were smaller and less rich than they are today is just patently absurd and is based not only on speculation, but total ignorance. For example, Denis Minger has already demonstrated this notion as entirely false:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

As far as seasonal changes, where is the evidence that the body has a way to differentiate between the type of energy it is getting? "Oh, I'm getting fruit and it's winter. Bad..."

Lionel said...

I'm with you on this one ewaiand, but I'm going to be even more indignant than you are regarding Peter.

Firstly, he has stated on more than one occasion that "there are no guru's" - that's just plain ridiculous really - how are we to start a new religion if we have no messiah?

Secondly, I really hate the way he has shown me how to look behind the headlines to deconstruct a study and look at the whole picture.

Thirdly, whilst Peter himself takes a harder line on what he 'inputs via mouth', I can now look afresh at the whole 'nutrition thang' with new eyes and know for sure that what we purport to know is mainly incomplete bollocks.

Lastly, I am in full agreement with you that Peter is espousing a belief system based on guruology with absolutely no scientific input whatsoever, until I actually read some of the blog that is.

Unknown said...

Wild apples, wild pears, broccoli, all those fruits and vegetables have had quick a bit of human intervention. Bears eat seasonal fruit, definitely, all day. Are you a bear? They gorge on salmon during a run too. Seasonal.

Asim, did I ever say they weren't as rich? Sure they have plant nutrients, probably more than now. All I said was they were generally smaller and not as abundant as say, an orchard? Cultivated crops anyone?

Again, I never said fruits and veggies had NO VALUE.

Cwaiand: Why don't you start a blog or some kind of information gathering to show evidence against peters, and many others, information?

I am surprised you read this blog at all considering your disdain for folks who enjoy the science and careful thought behind it.

All hail the messiah. And thank you to those who drive traffic to this site, this is one of the best out there.

cwaiand said...

the science?seriously?cherry picked faith is more like it.this site is like reading a religious site.blind faith followers and all.

peny113 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Why are you reading it then?

Even the raw food SOS blog stated that wild fruits are generally fibrous and generally difficult to eat, sweet fruits being in the minority. Reading through the comments doesn't make fruitarian levels of consumption very validated.

I'll continue to eat Food, and thank peter a valuable RESOURCE to use.

blogblog said...

Cwaiand,
humans evolved in the east African Highlands. Until about 10,000 years ago this was a cool dry grassland. Fruit and vegetables would have only been available in very small amounts for a few months each year.

ItsTheWooo said...

Speaking as a nurse, I shan't purchase any of your scrubs, as a matter of point.

The best nursing shoes are crocs anyway.

Chip Spitter said...

"The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" by Stephen Phinney and J Volek agrees with a lot of the theories on this blog and I can't see how anything they've written is cherry picked faith. Two scientests with decades of experience in the field.

Chip Spitter said...

They are also scientists.

ItsTheWooo said...

humans can thrive ona variety of diets! my cousin has lived to 35 on a diet of coca cola and cheetos and takeout pizza and subway sandwiches, and he hasn't died yet. so this means all diets are equal for health... vegan, frutarian, human CIAB, and yes even the dangerous to fat tissue ketogenic insulin suppressive diet. we need to stop trying to understand how the human body works and what nutritional requirements we have because it is obvious the kitavans eat carbs.

look eating lots of colorful fruit and vegetables and making sure to eat tough and chewy grains not only look very healthy on a plate, but they also make one feel good about themselves psychologically. This is similar to the positive feelings one has when they pay off a traffic ticket - knowledge that they are compliance with society and therefore safe!!11 from doom. it is an important part of a balanced diet to make sure you indulge psychological reactions rooted in gross ignorance.


a b12 deficient nervous system damaged psychotic man who only eats raw plants told me that modern fruits have not been engineered by industry, and are exactly the same humans have always ate. so i believe his word entirely, as it is clearly not at all biased and better than the overhwelming majority scientific opinion!

-cwaiand, genius, internet philosopher, all around expert in everything.

Anna said...

Dear cwaiand, our 'time machine' is Archaeology. We know exactly what Palaeolithic humans ate - demonstrated by the great corpus of data we have for ancient rubbish pits - even preserved pits, from the Palaeolithic onwards. The microfaunal and fill data, even in the Holocene - the current period of climatic optimum which followed the Glacial Period of intense proliferation in vegetation due to global warming (approx >11,600 yrs ago)- reveals that humans ate an almost exclusively meat-based diet. Even at the myriad megalithic sites in South-Eastern Anatolia, Iraq, and Northern Syria (the sites rival Stonehenge both in size and age: comprised of giant 9 metre-high, exquisitely carved limestone slabs, 8000 years older than their British counterpart) complex, organised groups of pre-agricultural, sedentary hunter-gatherers constructed enormous ritual centres whilst surviving solely on meat-based diets for fuel. Moreover, the Fertile Crescent and the Upper Mesopotamian region were prolific, fecund environments yet human groups CHOSE to subsist solely on meat sources. It was much more economic to casually spear an aurochs or two than spend all day foraging for berries or cereals that were most likely got to by a horde of herbivores before you ;). Hunting in the Palaeolithic - a skill which had been honed for almost 3 millennia! - was much easier for ancient humans (and still is, for modern HG societies) than we could ever imagine. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of years of hunting experience rendered Palaeolithic humans especially adept at knowing what food source would best nourish them at dinner-time. No wonder they always chose meat!

(I've excluded mention of the recent discovery of Lower Palaeolithic remains on Crete. These artefacts demonstrate non-accidental seafaring and navigation from northern Africa across the enormous expanse of the Mediterranean Ocean by PRE-modern humans! We were very complex, for a very long time, indeed!)

Anna said...

Moreover, if you were able to grab hold of some Palaeolithic bone data you would see that our meat-loving common ancient ancestors thrived on such a diet, as they lived equally long lives to us (that is, if they did not die earlier due to infection or accident) were of equal height, and had NO signs of modern disease. They also had perfect teeth. And they maintained optimal health for 2.5 million years... right up until the advent of agriculture. Extraordinary.

cwaiand said...

wow,you can read the past.deluded.talk about cherry picking to fit your needs.again this has become a religion as it is based on belief and not fact.

cwaiand said...

thank you for the compliment

cwaiand said...

nothing you have said in either post(or anyone else has said)tells me that produce(tubers fruits) are bad for me.it is just all pro-meat.well i,m pro meat too but i also believe humans evolved eating carbs in a signifcant amount.

SEE I CAN HAVE A BELIEF SYSTEM TOO.

that,s what i,m on about,people here pushing shit as fact when they cannot supply proof.

NOBODY HAS PROVIDED ANY PROOF PLANTS ARE BAD FOR HUMANS TO EAT.

Lionel said...

Actually, to be pedantic about it, it's more pro-lipids rather than meat. The blog is also not anti-plants or else it would probably have been called HyperWeedKiller, but if we were anti-plants then our food wouldn't have anything to eat.

Ah yes, humans - some of the most adaptive and diverse of all the species on the face of this planet. Some of us even survive for extended periods on just Big Macs. Gloriously adaptable aren't we?

cwaiand said...

and this whole thread is not about never to consume plants?the only take away message from this post is"plants are not food for humans".

Anna said...

Yes, pro-lipids. :) Quality, EPA and DHA nutrient-dense dietary fats present in the organ meats, fatty fish, marrow and tallow, consumed throughout extended periods of ice age, and responsible for the enlargement of the human brain. Yum.

We do have ample evidence that the consumption of 'fruits and tubers' are both novel, and not conducive to optimal health. The extensive data from human coprolites reveals a complete lack of plant material in many human diets. Many wild plants are essentially toxic - starchy roots and tubers especially so. Fruits were only consumed seasonally, and - on average - were smaller, exceptionally more fibrous, and contained much less fructose than mutated, modern versions. However, they were (and still are - more so) extremely glycating and damaging, raising uric acid levels. Tubers, of course, are insulinogenic and glycating - they can ilicit a rise in blood sugar faster than confectionary. Glucose is what ages us (AGE's ;)). How much insulin we produce determines how long we live.

Because of our ancestors exceptional health eating the diets - documented in the archaeological record - that they did, it is purely common sense that we attempt to replicate (and supplement) their diets best we can.

'Cwaiand' I think you'll find the evidence you seek explaining the ills of consuming 'fruits and tubers' right here on this blog. Moreover, you would do well to heed your own advice; perhaps your rebukes of 'delusion' and 'cherry picking' would be better directed at your own arguments. A little courtesy would go down well, too.

cwaiand said...

can you provide some of this "proof"of our ancestors exceptional health?how about the part where plants are "not conducive to optimal health?

all i see is more beliefs and NO PROOF.
the ice age made our brains enlarge to their current size?really?hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

and as far as courtesy goes,grow up.

Lionel said...

Well, I'm going to be even more pedantic here again. Sorry about that, but I think you might be 'reading into' things - possibly clouded by your own sense of deep injustice at Peter's Messiah status - though we categorically reject the concept of Guruism here.

I believe that the post above by Peter needs to be read in the wider context of the Whole Blog - to not do so would be to cherry pick a theory based on limited info although far more is plainly available.

I also belive that our non-Messiah did admit to the following - and I quote verbatim -"OK, I do have to admit to eating the occasional vegetable as flavouring for Food."

Furthermore, I might suggest that demanding proof is pretty pointless as by all accounts according to you, we are in fact, a religious sect. We still await our final approval from the revelant authorities to be registered as a religious non-tax paying charity and then our evangalists will go forth and spread the word of our non-Messiah - namely "Roots are bad, 4 legs good!"

Galina L. said...

It looks for me like people in all cultures are looking for more than nourishment from what they put into their mouths and able to enjoy all sorts of dope, capsaicin,spices, flavors repulsive for other leaving creatures(wild animals will never touch an orange in my garden, but consume almost all peaches). I live in Florida now and we have an evergreen plant Holy Tree that produces small red berries. Native people who used to live here had a very high regard for the berries because while not being tasty they have a capacity to induce vomiting after being eaten, and they believed it was cleansing for the body to vomit from time to time. It almost like toxicity being rewarding for humans. We enjoy it on a different level than a nourishment from an unadorned chunk of an animal. It is just my thought, but my guess is that many veggies(not tubers) are a cross between nourishing and toxic things in our diet.

Sam Knox said...

I'd just like to make the observation that we are now up to 67 comments on a blog post that consisted almost entirely of pictures of shredded plants, chickens, and eggs.

Lionel said...

Sam, just goes to show how fraught making a breakfast choice can be - especially when it's been embued with mystical properties.

Peter, I apologise for making a mess of this part of your blog. It's been a bit like shredded veg to a chicken for me.

Asim said...

Going from the existence of ritual-centres used for sacrifice of animals for a particular culture to an exclusive meat-based diet for that culture is a flaw in logic. It simply proves they ate meat, but like I said, I have yet to see a scientist look into the digestive tract of a pre-historic ancester and see what he ate before he died.

Humans eat and ate primarily to survive, meaning they ate what was available, and our 'pre-historic' ancestors probably had little knowledge about long-term metabolic disorders that were a result of diet.

Again, the idea that many wild plants are essentially toxic is erroneuous. There are toxic and non-toxic wild plants, rich and very sweet, while others are not. Some are high in fructose, others are not. Their usage throughout the seasons has already been demonstrated and further, the wild fruits themselves bloom in various seasons.

One can just as well argue that many of the wild species of living creatures are bad and toxic for a person. Chinese eat poisonous snakes, but they remove the poison. Based upon analogy, one shouldn't eat snakes.

Asim said...

Further, who is to say they ate anywhere as much meat as modern man does today? The supply of meat between pre-historic man and modern man would be significant. They didn't have access to refrigeration, had to hunt their animals themselves. They probably would have had to resort to intermittent fasting unintentionally.

cwaiand said...

i,ve always thought being hungry is probably the most important part of trying to eat "paleo".people want to eat low carb so they never feel hunger.i think almost constant hunger may have been a large part of human history.

about this post:it is a post about how fruits and vegetables are not food(what other conclusion to you come to?)this is a hypothesis,that is all,it is not proven.i bring this up in different ways and am berated .i,m basically told i,m wrong the "facts " are in.well,the facts aren,t in and this isn,t science.i was told to prove my point,what point?peter puts out a hypothesis,it,s up to him to prove it and not for me to disprove.it is a hypothesis that is probably never going to have proof.you can,t look at the past as to how we should eat now.the data from the past can,t tell us anything significant.study modern society,s ,see what theyp eat and how their health/longevity is.that is pertinent.okinawa natives eat high carb are healthy and live long.must be a fluke,don,t study them and move on to the inuit.
i,m saying you have to look at all of them and the human body for answers.not petrified POOP.

john said...

...Only a CarbSane sycophant can take a blog post with this tone and churn out a "well-thought," "hard-science" critique.

ItsTheWooo said...

Indeed. I suggested he pick up an english dictionary and look up humor and sarcasm but he still does not understand his folly.

George Henderson said...

"NOBODY HAS PROVIDED ANY PROOF PLANTS ARE BAD FOR HUMANS TO EAT."

Someone has not looked for it. There is a thing called the internet you know.
When I was learning nutrition, circa 1980, the textbooks contained many examples of diseases linked to vegetable consumption in populations that depend on staple crops; peanuts and liver cancer, bananas and heart disease, legumes and paralysis, wholegrain cereals and retardation.
(Come to think of it, that last one might explain a lot these days.)
Even cabbages (see humourous blog above that we are killing with these inanely serious comments) can cause goitre.

George Henderson said...

I know people can eat vegan and prosper. My great aunt Florence K. Henderson wrote the first ever vegan recipe book (I am not making this up). But some people (not, however, vegans) can run marathons regularly without carking it. Others seem to do well on heroin or methamphetamine. These things are tests of endurance, they should never be made a universal rule.

gallier2 said...

NOBODY HAS PROVIDED ANY PROOF PLANTS ARE BAD FOR HUMANS TO EAT.

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

cwaiand said...

if this was a "funny "anti-meat/meat fat post,you two would be all over it.low carb/paleo/=RELIGION.

Galina L. said...

@cwaiand,
I just started to use the Fitday after more than 4 years of being on a weight-loss diet. It is almost amazing how little veggies add to the nutritional content when listed. It is mostly fiber and a some carbs. I do love my veggies and know how to cook it, but according to the Fitday, Peter is right - it is not the real food, more like embellishments to make meat or fish even more palatable or a fat vessel.
The believe into the wonders of vegetable diet looks like religion more than what Peter said while being in a joking mood. I think no one except you mistaken the post for a diet plan.

cwaiand said...

i eat meat.i think humans must eat meat.i think meat/fat are the core of the human diet.i think peter,s post,(which clearly states that the fruit and vegetables shown are not food for humans)is a load of shit.that,s all i,m saying.no where can anyone prove that eating those items is not benificial or better yet prove they arte a detriment.

Galina L. said...

The post http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-and-vegetables-re-post.html is an example where Peter sites some studies that question the benefits of fresh produce for human's health, if it is what you are after. I assure you there is more on that subject in archive.

ItsTheWooo said...

cwaiand, apparently you need an autistic-like literal interpretation of the humor and sarcasm of this post. I will take the time to help you.

The past few weeks, many low carbers have been writing blog entries where they DISCOVER!!! that carbs are IMPORTANT!!
There have been many oh so dramatic blog entries of people rejecting low carb eating.

Peter posted this entry as a joke. Opening the link we are lead to believe he was one of the masses rejecting low carb, when scrolling down the page we find out he is still eating a very ketogenic diet.

When peter says fruit and veggies are "not food", he means for HIM, on HIS diet. Obvoiusly fruit and veggies are edible substances taht provide energy thus qualify as food, but to peter they are NOT food. Similarly, to an alcoholic, beer provides a great deal of caloric energy, but to a non-alcoholic, beer is not food.

Do you understand now, or do you need more help?

Martin Levac said...

Hi Peter, this is off-topic but I think you'll be interested.

Imagine obesity from the perspective of fuel supply and demand. With a car, when we want to increase the fuel supply to the engine, we put a bigger fuel pump, fuel tank, fuel line, etc. We'd want to increase the fuel supply if it was insufficient, and that's how we'd do it.

With obesity, there's an increase in fuel supply, i.e. fat tissue grows bigger in the amount of fat inside fat cells and in the number of fat cells, as well as the number of blood vessels supplying these cells with oxygen. This suggests that the real problem is that fuel supply is insufficient. It makes sense too. Insulin inhibits lipolysis and ketones production.

It's just a different way of looking at the problem.

Anna said...

FYI, 'animal sacrifice' was not a core part of the culture, nor what I was alluding to. The evidence is from the rubbish pits associated with the sites which yielded illuminating evidence pertaining to the workers' diets. The reason why the large amount of meat present in the diets is so extraordinary is because this was over a 3000 yr period where global warming reigned; vegetation would have been prolific. I have studied the digestive tract of palaeolithic humans on myriad occasions. Coprolites provide a wealth of information about diet, mineral make up, parasites, and domestication practices.

Of course humans ate wild plants; possibly even wild grains from time to time. The point is, they comprised a minuscule fraction of the ancestral human diet, especially seen from the perspective of 3 million years.

Anna said...

Certainly - on average - probably nowhere near as much meat. In the Epipalaeolithic and PPN of the holocene it would have been a different story, however.

Galina L. said...

I think the idea that some activities like eating unlimited fruits/veggies and exercising could cancel out bed behavior eventually contributed to the obesity epidemic. The message "eat less exercise more" was interpreted by many as "if you do some exercises you could pig out without any guilt". I also observed many times people who thought if they ate salad for lunch they deserved a cake , or donuts are canceled out by eating fruits later in the day.

cwaiand said...

i was unaware peter had a "diet".he seems to be telling people that his is the only correct wat to eat.

cwaiand said...

i think the "add snacks between meals to keep your metabolism reved up" bullshit caused many problems.people ate the same amount for their 3 squares and then added to the total calories with the snacks.healthy snacks or not it is all extra calories and no matter how you eat calories are king when it comes to gaining fat mass.

Galina L. said...

That too, a lot of health advice is pushing people just to eat more. They are scared not to get necessary nutrients or damage their metabolism and overeat as a result. BTW, it is easier to consume more meat or carbs together with veggies, when you are full after a meal but always have a room for a cake, it is also the true in the case of a fruit even though a fruit is a lighter version.
My husband for a while tried to consume 8 servings of fruits and veggies a day and managed to irritate his stomach to a degree that he had to have several appointments with GI specialist. Only then he managed to accept my plea to stop that orangutan-style fruits/veggies loading. How could innocent plants to be blamed for any troubles? Tell me about religious attitude toward food items. Too much claims about benefits of fresh produce is such BS, that I don't see any rationality in the jumping on the defense of that particular message. I eat my fresh produce but mentally list it in the indulgences category.

George Henderson said...

here's my "metabolism for kids" analogy:
(going free to a good home)
The body is like a hybrid car; you can fill it with petrol (carbs) but most of that will go to top up the battery (fats) which will run the car between gas stations.
Or, you can top up the battery directly from an electrical outlet (by eating energy as fats).
In that case, you still need a small amount of gas in the reserve tank to start the car (glycogen), but even so you can conserve that by getting out and crash starting it (ketone bodies).
In doing so, you may or may not burn off some energy yourself (metabolic advantage).
You're welcome.

George Henderson said...

@Ety,

the animals you eat went out and collected everything you need (bar maybe the ascorbate). They wouldn't have made it to market otherwise. Also, your reduced metabolism of carb means that the B and C vitamins in your diet go further. The need to eat a wide variety of (often exotic) foods to prevent deficiency (and ravage the planet by growing and transporting them) is a feature of vegetarianism.

Lionel said...

Yes, he does tend to keep that a bit of a secret, but it's available on Amazon now under the Title - "Heart Healthy PolyFats and The Miracle of Refined Sugar". A great read!

blogblog said...

Ther are at least one million described plant species. Only about 400 species are cultivated for human consumption. This suggests about 99.9% of plants are probably not edible.

peny113 said...

haha. It depends upon the preference,eh. You prefer crocs and some may prefer otherwise. :)

cwaiand said...

george henderson;

your analogy makes no sense.you want to top up fat stores by eating carbs?doesn,t work that way(unless grossly over- eating carbs and in a calorie surplus).carbs are stores as glycogen or burned.storing carbs as fat is a not often used pathway,especially if you are in calorie balance.

cwaiand said...

george henderson"

your hybrid car analogy is totally wrong.carbs are not stored as fat unless grossly overconsumed IN COMBINATION WITH CALORIE SURPLUS.the body stores carbs as glcogen or is used as immediated fuel.fat is stored as fat.
'

john said...

I thought this post Peter was supposed to be fun but when I read the comments it was yin and yang. Anna's comments made it worthwhile. cwaiand just had to balance out the good in this post. I hope you get your net problem repaired soon. Some of us miss your words. I agree on Lucas work you recently cited. His work is as good and in many cases superior to more heralded biochemists from the States in the paleo world.

cwaiand said...

blog blog...really...what the hell is the point of that comment?

how many species of animal are there on the planet?

how many animals does man "cultivate "for food?

this probably suggests 99.9%of animals are not edible.

i think i have just seen the most retarded "only eat meat plants are bad"comment i,ve ever read.

seriously blog blog ,step away from the key board and eat a banana.

cj

cwaiand said...

blog blog...really...what the hell is the point of that comment?

how many species of animal are there on the planet?

how many animals does man "cultivate "for food?

this probably suggests 99.9%of animals are not edible.

i think i have just seen the most retarded "only eat meat plants are bad"comment i,ve ever read.

seriously blog blog ,step away from the key board and eat a banana.

cj

goodwinnihon said...

@cwaiand
"your hybrid car analogy is totally wrong.carbs are not stored as fat unless grossly overconsumed IN COMBINATION WITH CALORIE SURPLUS.the body stores carbs as glcogen or is used as immediated fuel.fat is stored as fat."
|||
that's true, but what about the specific effect carbs in general and their refined variety in particular have on appetite regulation in a great majority of people (whether they realize that or not): the saying that 'one always has a room for a dessert' sums it up quite neatly: just think about what people with eating disorders tend to binge on - not ground beef - of which one can eat only so much, and stop; carbs, on the other hand, though may not be deleterious per se, are destined by our evolutionary layout to be craved for: old (=paleo) genes, but new environment (one doesn't have to climb a tree and endure bee stings to get some honey)

Weydon Barnes said...

@goodwinnihon I've actually going through a crisis. I've been a firm believer of low carb and high fat nutrition. Just recently having become more active through cycling I increased intake of carbs in the form of vegetables. I'm founding a baked potato or steamed cabbage most filling, along with apples. Especially if the veg has plenty of fat in the form of lovely butter and also cheese (double cream on the apples of course). Veg are an excellent conveyer of fat, and furthermore I've managed to maintain my (low) weight of 140lbs and quite frankly seem to be feel better (moodwise) for eating more carbs. Carb in the form of veg just doesn't have a lot of calories, yet my low carb diets have been derailed by eating too much "low carb" (nuts in particular) which are not a huge in quantity, but certainly pack a lot of carbs. If I do feel like binging however you can guarantee that two or three eggs, boiled or scrambled, once more with butter, will shut down appetite. I don't think it pays to be too dogmatic about all this. I've studied Peters diets but reckon I could still gain weight on them, evidently he doesn't, and not everyone would of course, but it would be too much for me.

Weydon Barnes said...

@goodwinnihon I've actually going through a crisis. I've been a firm believer of low carb and high fat nutrition. Just recently having become more active through cycling I increased intake of carbs in the form of vegetables. I'm founding a baked potato or steamed cabbage most filling, along with apples. Especially if the veg has plenty of fat in the form of lovely butter and also cheese (double cream on the apples of course). Veg are an excellent conveyer of fat, and furthermore I've managed to maintain my (low) weight of 140lbs and quite frankly seem to be feel better (moodwise) for eating more carbs. Carb in the form of veg just doesn't have a lot of calories, yet my low carb diets have been derailed by eating too much "low carb" (nuts in particular) which are not a huge in quantity, but certainly pack a lot of carbs. If I do feel like binging however you can guarantee that two or three eggs, boiled or scrambled, once more with butter, will shut down appetite. I don't think it pays to be too dogmatic about all this. I've studied Peters diets but reckon I could still gain weight on them, evidently he doesn't, and not everyone would of course, but it would be too much for me.

Fatisfied said...

I'd loved to know the various fates of each egg!

Patrick Finnegan said...

how would you eat if you are a type.1 diabetican?

im eating only.eating eggs tough i have crazy cravings for sugary stuff which is everywhere.
my blood sugar is good as long as i dont eat sugar then i have big problems controlling it.

obviously no one can help medicly. i would just love to hear an opionion on what might make the most sense eating...

Peter said...

Patrick,

http://www.diabetes-book.com/

Has most of the answers...

Peter