Low Carb - High Fat diet

[d000hg]

God, we're going to miss him.

See if you can take a few of them with you when you go, doobab.

Well I find it disturbing and very distasteful so time for me to log off for a while, might check back in after xmas.

Looks like it's working.

[Old Greg]

Wow, that's a new low on here, disgusting.

Don't panic! I'm happy to let natural selection take its course in your case.

[expat]

So how long did people live on their diet of thousands of years ago?

Actually at least as long as today, in some cases longer and better, except when cut short by non-dietary accidents. Unless you count being eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger as a dietary accident.

Some populations have still not regained, for example, the height of their distant ancestors before they started eating grain.

See e.g. Jared Diamond, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race.

[expat]

*Bangs head on desk - repeatedly*

No actually, it is seriously suggested that when calorie reduction diets work, at least a large part of the reason why is that the carbohydrate intake is reduced.

[expat]

I should have said compared to thousands of years ago, all fruits and veg sold to us are designed to be more palatable and have much more sugar, try eating a wild banana full of seeds.

True, and full of fructose specifically, which goes straight to triglycerides and into your fat store, not even stopping at the liver.

[MyUserName]

No actually, it is seriously suggested that when calorie reduction diets work, at least a large part of the reason why is that the carbohydrate intake is reduced.

Read the rest of our exchanges. Reducing carbs, especially from processed food is rarely going to be a bad thing from a weight loss point of view.

However my point was that for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time cutting down on calories with a healthier diet is the cornerstone of weight loss, there is no need to over complicate things.

[Mich the Tester]

Actually at least as long as today, in some cases longer and better, except when cut short by non-dietary accidents. Unless you count being eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger as a dietary accident.

Some populations have still not regained, for example, the height of their distant ancestors before they started eating grain.

See e.g. Jared Diamond, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race.

Well fair enough, but according to the article they ate a high protein diet and not a 70+ % fat diet like russell's considering.

[expat]

Well fair enough, but according to the article they ate a high protein diet and not a 70+ % fat diet like russell's considering.

there is some argument about that. I think there is a widespread assumption that paleolithic hunters would go for the fillet steak same as we would, but it is widely observed in modern hunters/meat eaters that they eat the fat and offal for preference, which would give them a high fat intake.

[Mich the Tester]

there is some argument about that. I think there is a widespread assumption that paleolithic hunters would go for the fillet steak same as we would, but it is widely observed in modern hunters/meat eaters that they eat the fat and offal for preference, which would give them a high fat intake.

Wouldn't they eat the whole damn lot?

[Dallas]

there is some argument about that. I think there is a widespread assumption that paleolithic hunters would go for the fillet steak same as we would, but it is widely observed in modern hunters/meat eaters that they eat the fat and offal for preference, which would give them a high fat intake.

welcome to paleo

apparently really hard to convert to, but once you are there the smug-ometer peaks

if only KFC were paleo