Hi Rick,


On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:57:56 -0800, Rick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The book I was referring to was "Lights Out" by Formby and Wiley
>(errata: t'was not Elliot as I previously stated)
>The authors, between them, have biochemical degrees and medical
>anthropological backgrounds. Their research, hard-core science, was
>drawn from the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the
>American Medical Association, oncological journals, etc.  The
>reference section is approximately 2/5 worth of the book, not an
>add-on to the appendices.


Indeed. Somebody actually sent me a synopsis of that book about 2 months
ago. I haven't read the book.


>I mention the above only by way of pointing out that, in this
>particular case, these authors really do have their act together.


Yeah -- I would hope they're getting enough quality sleep. ;^)


>As far as "natural" light is concerned, there really is no such thing
>as artificial light.


But according to John Ott and other researchers, there is. There is a
significant difference between natural full-spectrum light (i.e. sunlight)
and artificial lighting.


>Short circuiting the nervous system, and, hence,
>the attendant hormonal releases, by exposing the skin and eyes to a
>"white-light day" using light bulbs is uncontestable.  The jury's not
>out on this one.
>
>The opposite theory is just that -  a theory.  Empirical data, in this
>case, do not suggest - they illustrate.  I invite all curious
>bystanders to pick up the book.  It deals specifically with cancer,
>heart disease, diabetes and, my particular affliction, sugar
>addiction.  The common denominator is insulin.  Mess with that and
>Momma Nature ain't gonna love ya no more.


OK. I'm gonna wager a guess here and speculate that the "bottom line" gist
of the book is that we need to get optimum amounts of sleep, and of high
quality, as an important factor in support of optimal health and wellness.
And the sleep should be in total darkness, so that melatonin production can
be optimally facilitated. Is that about right?

On the other side of the coin, we also need to expose ourselves to plenty of
natural (sun)light, to support and facilitate optimum health and well-being.
But don't do it while trying to sleep. :^)


>----------------------------------------------------
>> as for "fattening up" via eating lots of
>> carbohydrate, well, I haven't had any such problem in relation to
>getting
>> about 66% of my calories from fresh fruit. My body is lean, toned,
>etc.
>
>The carbos we're referring to here are junk food, not the complex
>carbs found in fruits, etc.


And yet the carbs found in (most) fruits are not "complex"; they're in the
form of simple sugars. Complex carbs are found in starchy foods such as
grains and tubers.


>Junk food will put on too many pounds.
>This has more to do with a sugar's glycemic index.  Complex carbs do
>not trigger a spike of insulin the way a chocolate milk shake will.
>This insulin spike is what gets us into trouble.


And there might be more to the story than just glycemic index, but that's a
whole 'nother subject.


>-------------------------------------------------------------
>> The overweight issues with regard to carbohydrate consumption
>> appear to be directly correlated with eating cooked carbohydrates,
>> especially grains (and of course also various "refined" junk
>carbohydrates).
>> So, while it's evident that eating bread can pack on the fat, I have
>yet to
>> see any evidence that eating fresh raw apples (for example) will do
>the same.
>
>Agreed - to a point.  Bread is definitely a fat packer-on'r.  Again,
>what differentiates it from real food is the spike of insulin bread
>(and pasta) generate.


Again, I'll toy with the idea that there's more to the story than just
insulin spikes.


>BTW, south Indians, vegetarians almost to a one, have the shortest
>life span in the world.  It's that damned cooking.  Personally, I have
>faith in the veggie part.


An interesting statement (about the "veggie part"), given your "going out on
the limb" pro-high meat diet arguments...Unless you were being facetious.


>------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >According to
>> >anthropologists, virtually all primitive tribes, and, judging by
>the
>> >historical evidence, early Man, ate a diet comprised of roughly 70%
>> >animal products.
>>
>> Perhaps during a certain portion of human history, that occurred.
>Whether or
>> not it was optimal for health is up to you to decide. From what I've
>read,
>> the amount of animal products included in the diet varied/varies per
>tribe.
>> Most of this high % animal product ingestion supposedly occurred in
>fairly
>> recent history, in the grand scheme of things.
>
>Well, again, are we trying to fit a theory to the evidence or the
>other way around?  Evidence put forth by scientists from varying
>disciplines (that snookers a conspiracy) has shown that both
>historically, and with contemporary hunter-gatherers, the meat-eating
>ratio is in the neighbourhood of 70%, give or take a few bagels.


But you know what, I've read other percentages on the meat consumption. And
I made the point previously that we really don't know for sure just what
humanity ate over the course of the past millions of years, and exactly how
much. Certainly there is evidence to support that some of humanity did just
what you say they did. But are you ultimately stating to me here that all of
humanity, over the entire vast expanses of time and space, ate a diet
comprised of about 70% meat? I certainly beg to differ with that, as well as
with your "certainty" (were you around back then and observed it all, after
all? ;^) ).


>That is one huge chunk of humanity.  Like, all of it.


Ahem. Alrighty. So, were you there, did you observe it all, and/or did you
dig through millions of years worth of evidence, including going
who-knows-how-deep into the Earth to find all the buried evidence (that
could be down dozens of feet at this point), including seeing whatever
evidence is lost in the oceans, etc., etc.? I don't think you did.
Therefore, you're citing the findings of some archeologists who have
uncovered evidence of what SOME of humanity has been found to have done, in
terms of what they ate. That's just one needle in the haystack, as far as
I'm concerned. Now tell me, what evidence is there to suggest that that type
of diet (often dubbed "paleo") was and/or is _optimum_ for human health and
well-being? Especially considering that those folks didn't exactly live very
long lives, so the story/evidence goes... ;^)


>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>I suppose we could speculate
>> that it occurred in response to needing to eat what was available,
>for
>> survival. Spanning millions of years of "human" existence, with
>perhaps 99%
>> of the evidence of past human dietary behavior being unavailable,
>much is
>> indeed open to endless speculation and presumption.
>
>Sorry, beg to differ again.  Evidence of past dietary choices is well
>documented.  Bone analysis, jaw structure, tooth condition, etc. are
>just some examples of hard core research that's been conducted.
>Combine the archaeological studies with the anthropological studies,
>mix them together with contemporary studies of hunter-gatherers, and
>it's mighty hard to come to any other conclusion than what the
>evidence states.  A priori beliefs notwithstanding.


I don't deny that it was done, and still is done by various tribes. Again,
where's the evidence to show me that it's best or optimum. I don't see any.
Most of these hunter/gatherers supposedly don't live very long. Nor do they
appear to me to be in a state of stellar health. These people eat what they
have available. It's about nourishing their bodies. They use what they have.
I agree it's healthier than the SAD.

And keep in mind that the paleo people were likely a lot more physically
active than most of today's humanity. And likely got more sunshine, and were
more in harmony with Nature in general. There's a lot more to it than just
the diet. How many "paleo dieters" are encompassing the big picture here?
How many are driving around in polluted traffic in big cities, while we're
at it? ;^)


>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------
>
>However, a study
>of
>> anatomy and physiology appears to reveal that the human body is
>designed as
>> a frugivore, with possible adaptations to some animal products.
>
>If you're referring to the length of the intestines, etc., consider
>that cooking alone changes the length as well as the function of
>intestines.


By how much and how significantly?


>Now, I have to wonder about anatomy.  My canines were not
>designed to chew paper.  Canines are not exactly a casual adaptation.


I don't understand your point here.

Let's talk a little physiology. According to several sources that I've read,
human mother's milk contains just 5% of its calories as protein. A human
infant grows and develops rapidly aided by this small amount of protein. As
adults, would it be safe to assume that we need no more than 5% of our daily
calories as protein, and possibly even less (since we're not rapidly growing
anymore)? Something to think about. It seems that, physiologically, human
beings are a low protein species. We're not designed for high amounts of
protein. The evidence as I've read it in various sources, suggests that high
amounts of protein have various toxic and degenerative (long-term) effects
on the human body. This points more to human = frugivore, rather than
carnivore ("faunavore"), in my mind. Also note the anatomical and
physiological similarity of the human liver, with that of the other
frugivorous anthropoid primates. Is that just a coincidence, or could it be
that we, like them, are optimized for a frugivorous diet? We also have 32
adult teeth, just as they do. As for the canines, human canines have the
dullest canines of all the primates, for whatever that's worth. And there
are other similarities, but we can ponder on these.

>Secondly, the fruiting season, be it the far north or the tropics of
>South America, occurs during a very short period of the year.


Can you share with me some data on this? My understanding is that
chimpanzees eat 60-70% of their diet as fruit, and that's a year-round
average. Bonobos are in the neighborhood of 80-90% of their diet as fruit,
also a year-round average. Humans are said to be extremely similar,
anatomically and physiologically, to bonobos, as well as chimps (but are
closer in similarity to bonobos).

Given all the fruit available to me year-round, it seems it must be growing,
somewhere, year-round. ;^)


>The rest of the year the natives are "forced" to subsist on whatever they
>can literally dig up, trap or spear.


Yeah, like i said, they eat what they have to eat so they can physically
survive. If I had to, I guess I'd be eating frogs and snails, too. Not that
I'd particularly enjoy it or necessarily optimally thrive with it either. I
don't know if I'd exactly "enjoy" the slime of a fresh and raw snail or frog
sliding down my throat (parasite and other issues aside...), but hey, each
to his/her own. ;^)


>> I have and have read that book. Nowhere did he indicate that almost
>all the
>> people he studied ate 70% of their foods as meat.
>
>My apologies.  I shouldn't have combined that statement with Price's
>work.  The actual ball park figure of  70% was from the other sources
>mentioned above (anthro, archeo, etc.).  Price did in fact mention
>that higher meat consumption was found only in the healthiest
>populations he studied.


Maybe we read a different Weston Price. ;^)  The Price I read stated that
those who included seafood in their diets, were the ones with the healthiest
teeth and bones (not just a coincidence when considering the high mineral
and trace element content of sea foods). He also wrote about how those who
ate higher amounts of meat, were those who were the most aggressive and
war-like, often dominating the less aggressive tribes. That in particular
doesn't equate to being more healthy. An argument could be made to the contrary.


>Some ate more animal products than others. He stated
>that
>> those who included seafood (plant and/or animal) in their diets had
>the best
>> bones and teeth.
>
>Again, Price's observations are important here:  Animal products are
>critical to our well being.


I do know of various apparently healthy long-term vegans who would contest
your statement, but I'm not here to talk about them.


>I do have a couple of comments:  Has anyone picked up on the
>popularity of retro-anthropomorphism?  Meaning, we've taken
>contemporary beliefs and back dated them to include the cavemen.
>Since when did early man have to fight for his survival?


Maybe since the destruction of Atlantis. ;^)


>It seems that if we imagine ourselves with no grocery stores or
>electricity, life MUST have been brutal.  Um, if contemporary
>hunter-gatherer societies are any indication, life was not all that
>tough.


No doubt. Hey, it's no "picnic" out there. I just got done hiking in
sub-zero temperatures (with tremendous blowing winds), so I can imagine that
the native americans that lived primitively up here until about 100 years
ago, didn't exactly have a whole lot of fun. And what of the Neanderthals? I
read they became extinct. Might that have had anything to do with their diet?


>Second point: Again, well documented, fruitarians and vegans are
>REALLY sick people.  Check out the evidence, not the anecdotal stuff.


Hey, that's a cheap shot, now. ;^)  While I don't consider myself to be a
quote-unquote "fruitarian", nor a vegan, I nonetheless eat a helluva lot of
fruit and do quite excellently aided by it. Perhaps I'm doing things
differently than the decrepit "fruitarians" you refer to. Most of those
people who suffer the problems are experiencing deficiencies, due to doing
the diet inadequately. Much of it has to do with minerals and trace
elements, but there's more to it than just that. And of course, there's more
to the issue than just diet.


>My inclination is that fruitarians and vegans, once having sworn off
>junk and cooked food, would naturally see an incredible improvement in
>their well-being.  HOWEVER, there's a caveat here: Over the long term,
>a fruitarian diet is just plain and simple triggering off the wrong
>mechanisms.  You can't survive well if insulin from fruit sugar is
>constantly being pumped into the blood stream.  And, you're setting
>yourselves up for all sorts of nasties if you insist on living that
>way as a life style.


Are you speaking from personal experience here with a fruitarian diet? Or
are you speculating? The whole insulin subject is multi-factorial, in terms
of diet, lifestyle, and one's biochemistry.


>If I'm not mistaken, didn't Berger's wife (Instinctive Nutrition) die
>of cancer?  Did she truly eat as an Instincto?  Did she stay up late
>at night with the lights burning bright so that her hormones were
>shot?


I'm not at liberty to comment on her situation, as I wasn't privy to it.


>One parting note:  Mothers often put on weight once they've given
>birth.  And, they keep putting it on.  Ever wonder why?


Cuz they're eating unhealthy food?


>Think about it:  Mom has Baby.  Baby keeps mom and dad up late, every
>night.  For two years give or take.  Then, baby number two comes
>along.  Gestation plus two more years, 5 years.  One more kid,
>gestation plus two years, 8 years straight of staying up late - with
>the white lights on.  Three kids later, mom is exhausted.  Late nights
>equal simple carbohydrate consumption equals chronic insulin spikes
>equal fat, diabetes and cancer.


Interesting theory, but I know of women who were raw foodists when they had
their children (and afterwards), and they didn't get fat and stay fat, so
... Oh and BTW, they say that the childbirth was fairly easy and painless,
compared to when eating cooked.


>White light = 12 month sugar craving = chronic insulin spikes = messed
>up hormones = diabetes, brain fog, cancer, cardiac problems, etc.


You can speak about your experience, but that doesn't "vibe" with mine.

Consider that those "sugar cravings" you speak about could simply be the
body telling you something: "feed me fruit!". I mean, what if, eh? People
naturally enjoy sweet-flavored things. People naturally have that "sweet
tooth", which I suppose could be dubbed "fruit tooth". Perhaps that's
because our natural diet includes healthy sweet food, i.e. fruit. Wild,
uncultivated tropical fruits are naturally very sweet, BTW.


>Combine that with transfatty acids, high homocysteine levels, poor HDL
>/ LDL ratios, adrenal exhaustion, insufficient melatonin production
>and so forth and you end up dead - or insane.  Point in fact:  Every
>effective anti-psychotic is - are we paying attention? - a sleep
>regulator.


Sounds like a nightmare! Well, I'd have to agree with you that getting
optimum sleep in terms of quality and quantity is indeed very important for
health and sanity. So is sleeping in a dark environment (which is part of
the aforementioned "quality" factor). Maintaining a consistent circadian
rhythm is also important.

Final comment: If meat is as important to health as you say it is, then why
am I doing better in every way, without it? Instead of 70% meat, it's more
like 0% meat with me.

Wes