SeanBissell

Is there any truly guilt free way to eat? Life feeds on life. You either eat an animal that ate a plant, or you eat a plant that ate an animal.

Totally agreed there

In regards to animal "foreboding", ever see an abused dog or cat? They seem to have the ability to "forebode."

Isn't taking a bath with oil thrown in wasting oil?

I agree, fat is super important, especially saturated fat. That being said, it's really hard for your body to make fat from other sources, and it doesn't happen extremely often. It appears that keeping oxidative metabolism is more important. Do you not use soap when showering?

I agree that fat is important. However too much can be problematic on many levels. High circulating free fatty acids are very linked to type 2 diabetes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028371 High circulating free fatty acids can block glucose metabolism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randle_cycle Relying on fat as your primary metabolic fuel can reduce your heart function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion Relying on fat as your primary metabolic fuel can damage your mitochondria. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/6/1412.full High fat meals can contribute to higher levels of circulating endotoxin. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210577

Maybe a brain is just a more complex way of channeling consciousness. But plants are said to have potential brains in their root structure. They have similar neuron firing abilities and roots are a complex structure. And walking on grass doesn't kill it right? Walking on baby chicks would most likely kill them.

I agree Steve, I don't think you can prove anyone has consciousness at all. So I personally don't see why plants wouldn't either. In a large part, I think we associate consciousness with a lack of predictability. So rocks don't have consciousness because you can predict what they'll do when you manipulate them almost 100% of the time. However, you can't predict what a human will do all the time. Plants feel more "predictable" because they're stuck in the ground, and they move really really slowly.

And thanks to you widiaz03, for hanging through this crazy thread On a side note, here's an interesting study I just saw, that came out about a week ago. It appears to show that high fat low carbohydrates do lower fasting blood sugar, but then make it hard for your cells to use insulin and carbohydrates when you eat them. http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/305/9/E1059 And this one is interesting as well, as it shows some potential link between omega-3 (polyunsaturated fatty acids) from fish might be linked to diabetes 2. Most likely due to mitochondrial damage due to lipid peroxidation. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/1/143.abstract?ijkey=a2e7eaaa26fc7ddf2423bab70544bf83a5402601&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I think one way to find out if you tolerate carbs well or not is to just see how you feel after eating them. Do you get tired, sluggish, etc? If so, that may be a sign of high blood sugar, and an indicator that you're not using the carbs your eating well, and they're "backing up" in your bloodstream. Otherwise, you could go "scientific" and get a blood glucose monitor and check your levels after you eat. I personally eat about 180-200 grams of sugar a day. Coming mostly from orange juice, honey, and refined sugar. On top of that I usually eat some starch, and carbs in milk as well. So my total carbohydrate intake is probably closer to 250-300 grams a day. But it varies.

I'll try and look through the thread. Thanks man

No I haven't, I'm new here, and you've got 1,656 posts to go though. Do you have a PDF compilation of the highlights?

Can you communicate with a chicken?

How do ya know plants aren't conscious? I'm being serious. How do we really know plants don't have consciousness? Plants respond to light, touch, sound, movement, etc. They also have a form of memory. They even appear to get stressed out when you mess with them. (The Mythbusters helped show that.) http://youtu.be/fStmk7e9lJo Just because they can't move from their spot in the ground, or communicate in "animal ways". Why don't they have consciousness?

What if his needs are to be soothed and bouncing soothes him?

wdiaz03, That's a bit of a tricky question. Everyone is different, some have "better" metabolisms than others. When your metabolism is "broken" or "compromised" then your mitochondria are likely to be damaged, or at the very least, not using their oxidative capacity fully. In the case of a damaged metabolism due to various factors (excessive dieting, low carbohydrates, chronic stress, excessive polyunsaturated fats, and others), you probably won't be using sugar optimally. What can happen in a cell's "damaged" state, is that you can only break glucose or fructose in half, which creates two 3 carbon chains (which is called glycolysis and does not require oxygen to do.) For glucose or fructose to be used fully it has to break into 6 separate carbons, and release 6 molecules of carbon dioxide. If your cell doesn't have enough oxygen, or isn't allowing pyruvate into your mitochondria then glucose/fructose can only break into two separate 3-carbon chains, and then those pyruvate "sugars" can't go through the krebs cycle, or the electron transport chain and create 36 more ATP from the sugar. So when pyruvate can't be processed by your mitochondria, then it turns into lactic acid and when it's built up then it will exit your cells, into your bloodstream, into your liver, and be processed back into glucose. Then that will likely start to raise your blood sugar because you're starting to "back stuff up." Kind of like a clogged drain with the water left on. Basically, in that case, where someone has damaged their mitochondria through those various factors listed above, then they would likely want to start with smaller amounts of sugar and increases over time as their body "heals." And they are able to restore more oxidative capacity, and the ability to generate more ATP. Instead of relying on mostly glycolysis for sugar metabolism. I guess that's a long way of saying... It depends on how well you feel you tolerate sugar or carbohydrates in general. If you're having problems with them, maybe start small and build up over time. I'm not a doctor, and I can't give anyone specific recommendations, but if anyone believes they're having troubles with sugar metabolism, it may be smart to work with a doctor to monitor blood sugar levels and other markers. Happy Tuesday!-Sean

If free will doesn't exist, then how do you know what determinism is? If something doesn't have an opposite how can it be known?

"Plants can feel, they can smell, they can remember, and they can talk to each other, where's your moral high ground now vegetarians?"

That's no fun you're frustrated man. That's not what I'm trying to do. I personally don't advocate HFCS, and I'm not focused on trying to defend it. I'm not sure where HFCS got the focus. I don't think it's super bad, but I don't think it's great either. I'm defending "sugar", half fructose, half glucose.

Wesley, The chart I posted wasn't random. It was said that sugar contributes to obesity, and then I showed a chart that had sugar and obesity together. That's very relevant, not random. Of course any hypocaloric diet will most likely lead to weight loss. I did show a study above that compared high sugar, high starch, and high fat diets. That study was *not* hypocaloric, it was "ad libitum" which means "at one's pleasure", or "unrestricted calories." Sugar built non-fat body mass whereas the others lost it. The others lost more fat, but also lost muscle and bone. Basically they were "wasting" away. Sugar prevented that from happening. In regards to dementia like Alzheimer's, it appears that it may be partly due to calcification of the mitochondria, which occurs when a cell is stressed, and can't use it's oxidative metabolism. This study shows that effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4004169 And if the cell is being stressed and the mitochondria is calcifying there is a very significant chance that it's due to pyruvate not getting into the mitochondria. Fructose can help re-activate that process and help get things kick started again. As shown in this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1130852/ Activating PDH means that pyruvate can get into the mitochondria better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvate_dehydrogenase And in regards to this study, sugar from orange juice can help prevent and reduce inflammation, not cause it: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss I agree, obesity is most likely a "lifestyle" disease, and "lifestyle" includes many more factors other than just sugar. Sugar is often paired with polyunsaturated fats (a Coke and some fries), which can block sugar from getting *into* your cells, therefore causing similar effects of not being able to get pyruvate into your mitochondria. That effect of fats competing for sugar in your bloodstream is called the "Randle Cycle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randle_cycle And inactivity can also mess with your oxidative capacity, which could also contribute to weird sugar metabolism (the pyruvate thing again.) There's many factors involved, not just sugar.

Hey widiaz03, I apologize for the file not showing, I thought that link would work, but apparently not Maybe this will work instead: Wow, that's big! Here's a link to a smaller version. http://www.screencast.com/users/SeanBissell/folders/Default/media/d269bfeb-7cf3-49af-9d5e-b0db557c6e63 At the moment my activity level is a *lot* lower than normal due to the new addition to the family, and helping my wife before while pregnant. But I lift weights maybe 20 minutes a day, 2-3 times a week at the moment. Used to do more biking, and also used to do Crossfit for a few years. My body fat is higher than my "leanest" point. I'm not sure what it is but it's probably around 15-20% right now. I plan on eventually bringing that down, but it's definitely not a priority at the moment. And thanks for the congrats Happy Sunday! -Sean

wdiaz03, Hope you're doing great! I honestly think it's tough to even have an opinion of Paleo at this point. There's so much disagreement in the "Paleosphere" on what Paleo even is. Some think you should only eat whole foods, no refined almond flowers, nut butters etc. Others rely heavily on almond and coconut flour. Others think coconut oil is a refined substance and avoid it. Some think potatoes and other tubers are Paleo, while others avoid them and think starch is not Paleo. Some people think fruit is Paleo, others avoid fruit. Some go crazy on bacon, others think that bacon is a processed meat and should be avoided. There's no "universal" definition of what Paleo is. From what I've seen, over the years of being part of the Paleo "community", the majority are scared of carbs, rely heavily on a high fat, high protein diet. And most rely heavily on nuts, nut flours, and nut butters. Personally, I think low carb and high fat, especially from nuts is not optimal. A low carb diet is stressful on your body because you rely on stress hormones to regulate blood sugar by turning protein into carbs through gluconeogenesis and that requires at least glucagon (a stress hormone) and usually cortisol as well (another stress hormone.) Also, unless you're actually allergic to dairy, I think avoiding dairy is potentially more harmful than helpful. (Many Paleo people avoid dairy.) And avoiding salt I think is potentially dangerous to your health. (Many Paleo people avoid salt.) There's lots of aspects of Paleo I don't agree with, but those are the main points. In regards to my diet... It varies, I'm not super-strict with my diet. That being said, here's the simplified diet "guidelines" I use for myself. Keep polyunsaturated fats low, carbs from sugar from fruit are best, but starch is cool too. Salt your food to taste. Don't rely too much on muscle meat for protein, and diversify protein with gelatin, dairy and shellfish. Don't eat protein without carbs. Eat organ meats, especially liver. Keep your calcium to phosphorus ratio about 1:1. Get about 200 grams of carbs at least, and 80 grams of protein (within fuzzy limits relative to your goals and how you feel.) Fill in fat wherever convenient, rely on saturated fat. Make sure to get enough calories to make you feel good. Raw carrots at any time a day, or drinking OJ with high fat meals is also cool to reduce endotoxins. Eat whatever foods you want to get there, and any further tweaks are in the category of "optimization." In regards to how I "look", I honestly don't think that matters much in the context of health (up to a point.) Because totally "shredded" people can look awesome, and be unhealthy. On the other hand, I don't believe being super overweight is healthy for most people. So being really lean and muscular can be misleading. I'm personally not focused on getting "shredded." My wife just had a baby 11 weeks ago, and I'm much more focused on stress reduction and health at this point in my life. But here's a recent picture of me if you need it

Rover, I'm definitely familiar with the Paleo diet, and with Dave Asprey Been down that rabbit hole. And... I don't think I'd go back at this point. And as a side note. I think Bulletproof coffee is one of the worst ideas ever Super high fat 80+ grams is not only going to just store as fat, but it's most likely going to release endotoxin into your bloodstream. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/2/375.full

In regards to obesity. Sugar consumption is going down. Including HFCS, and obesity is still rising. See graphic below: In regards to fatty liver disease, the numbers are way overblown to sound scary. There's a difference between fatty liver, and fatty liver disease, and then the actual negative effects of fatty liver disease. And then there's non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lots of people lump these together. You can have a fatty liver, and not have fatty liver disease. People with a fatty liver, probably also have a fatty stomach, and other "fatty" body parts. It's probably partly due to just being overweight. Here's an article that brings more reasonable numbers to the table: (2-5 percent.) http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/diabetes/articles/2009/04/10/nonalcoholic-fatty-liver-disease-5-tips-for-treatment-prevention No one has ever shown that fructose actually causes diabetes II, if anything it may help benefit those who have diabetes II, as shown in the previous link about recommending fructose to those who have diabetes. Diabetes II is most likely multiple factors all coming together to create a metabolic dysfunction, no one knows exactly what causes it. And how do you associate dementia with sugar, or accelerated aging, or gut inflammation? It seems like these are just negative things, but I don't know how they are caused by sugar.

But if you really want to go the HFCS route, this is a study that shows that there probably isn't much difference between sugar and HFCS, at least for weight gain/loss purposes. http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf I actually don't think fructose is preferable by itself. I think sugar can be beneficial because it has half glucose, and half fructose. Fructose on it's own should probably only be used as a medical intervention for diabetics who can tolerate it. Because fructose can get into your cell without insulin. And can help restore your oxidative metabolism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose