It's not refined carbs per se, the distinction is between fast and slow carbs. That's what the glycemic index is about. Some carbohydrates enter the bloodstream quickly, because they're easily digested. Sugar is simply the fastest carb of all.
I'll stick up for carbs. I'm a big fan of bread and pasta, and they don't seem to give me a lot of trouble, and everyone I know who has tried paleo has a) liked it b) has a hard time sticking with it.
Just eat less bread, yo. It's not evil!
Obviously that's not undisputed, but refined carbs are considered bad because they're fast carbs, as opposed to wholegrain bread etc.
32,000 years is "this morning" in terms of evolution. The big thing was the discovery of fire. If you cook stuff it gives you more calories, which is key if you are On The Veldt (c) Halford.
It's all about what fraction of your nutrition you get from carbs, not whether "carbs are Paleo."
The big thing was the discovery of fire.
Nobody needed to discover fire; making it useful was the breakthrough, probably by H. erectus/ergaster. What riles me about the "paleo diet" is that it's based on all these hard and fast rules, whereas ten seconds thought will convince you that palaeolithic people's diet was opportunistic, like every other omnivore. There's solid evidence (from fossilised dental calculus) that even Neanderthals cooked and ate cereal grains, although certainly not as many as we do.
Carbs is Heroin!
How Giving Up Refined Sugar Changed My Brain
Things changed radically on the second day. Even though I had had a filling breakfast and lunch (two oranges, eggs, and whole-grain rice with vegetables), around 2 p.m. I suddenly felt like I had been hit by a truck. I felt foggy and had a headache, which never happens on my normal diet. This fogginess and the headaches continued intermittently for the next two to three days. During that time, I had intense cravings for both soda and sugary treats. On the third day, I actually got the shakes for a period of time. It was very, very hard not to have something sweet.
As someone who intermittently goes radical Atkins, what I notice is that 1) at the peak of indulgent weight-gain, I become accelerating addicted and binge on carbs, as in the urge to eat an entire pint of ice cream or a whole loaf of whole grain bread, and 2) when dieting, I do not necessarily feel very bad, but I no longer feel real good. When on a binge, it isn't so much that excessive carbs taste good, it is that carbs make me feel good. I think they directly cause the release of endorphins.
Maintenance Atkins allows something like 100 gms a day, which is a fair amount of carbs.
I think one of the problems I have when dieting is that after a month or so I start feeling good, associate that semi-consciously with carbs, and just this once I'll splurge, go back tomorrow, etc.
I don't know if everyone has an addictive personality body, or if it is just me, or if it is a matter of degree on a continuum.
But in my Buddhist or materialist moods, the quest for happiness/ecstasy equals the physical craving for endorphins, and any moralistic ranking of "good" sources and bad seems in itself a delusional self-indulgence, probably releasing endorphins.
100 grams of carbs is like two bagels. That's nothing.
6. "discover fire." Picky, picky!
Neanderthals couldn't eat too many cereal grains because they hadn't discovered agriculture. Homo sapiens pre-agriculture may have hung around patches of grains, but compared to the bread aisle at the supermarket I suspect the pickings were slim.
8. Been there too. I don't think it's just carbs. A lot of delicious foods and drinks seem to just get more and more fun the more you eat ... until they aren't. Fats (bacon!) and booze come to mind in addition to carbs.
How do (Do?) paleo diets deal with the late appearance of certain vegetables? Like the broccoli/cauliflower/kohlrabi complex was only developed in the 1800s. Were our caveman ancestors eating weed brassica?
They ignore it and hate on beans because Pythagoreans or something.
Words cannot have captured my panting hunger, now satisfied, for the publication of the bob mcmanus diet.
Hunter gatherers favorite food is honey:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24746602
Honey with grubs but still. I still think sugar is the devil but actual paleo people would eat carbs when they could.
That abstract starts with "Honey is the most energy dense food in nature." Is that right? Does blubber not count as "in nature" because the rest of the whale comes with it or something? I thought anything that was close to pure fat would be more energy dense than something that is close to pure sugar.
Fat has more calories per gram, but maybe that gram is fluffier than the gram of sugar?
I suppose blubber has to be a bit fluffy because it's supposed to insulate.
11 - Probably? I think from what little we know the weed version of all those brassica vegetables would have looked/tasted something like a mediocre version of kale.
A proper version of 'eat the way paleolithic people did' would probably just mean 'whenever you have the option, stuff yourself almost uncomfortably full of whatever is the highest calorie food around you', which I think would be a pretty great diet.
move to italy, lose weight eating past and pizza...
Nobody needed to discover fire; making it useful was the breakthrough, probably by H. erectus/ergaster.
Do you ever wish more varieties of human had survived to the present day? I suppose of all the wishes I have this one is especially pointless. It just seems like life would be more interesting with a bunch of Homo erectuses running around.
move to italy, lose weight eating past and pizza...
Pray, Love.
20: That's the premise of a Michael Crichton novel/ Antonio Banderas movie. They were both not bad.
13:Let's rumble. Start with the crowd giving Flipper a stroke by saying I am the problem.
Socially approved malice is apparently a terrific source of endorphins. I wouldn't know, lacking the social part.
"Charity toward none and malice toward all*" forecloses the pleasures of ranking and hierarchy that are necessary to a social identity that enjoys. Imagine if one ate everything, anything, or nothing. Or liked everybody.
*more humble than the reverse, but likely equivalent in practice. Long story, but of course one includes oneself in the malice.
The McDiet
Dinner: 4 oz meat/fish, 4 oz salad, 1 tbs dressing, 3 oz fresh fruit, 2 oz cheese
Late snack, appetite increased cause dinner: 2 oz cheese, 2 oz fruit, 6 oz diet drink
breakfast/lunch, often skipped, because no appetite:1 oz meat, 1 oz cheese, 1 oz fruit
I don't know why I find it easy to fast, maybe cause of the hunger I experienced in early 20s, got down to 90 lbs, without speed or skag, just simply not moving from chair/books. "Cramps! Hallucinations! Neat!" Ignoring pain of all kinds is what life is about, and I not only take pride in it, I absolutely enjoy telling my body/world to fuck off. The "needs" to eat, drink, sleep, fuck, talk, huddle & cuddle feel like personal offenses and a failure of will. Of course, the bleating crowd claims these vices are virtues.
That's not even enough to stay alive on.
Just came inside after three hours of intense yardwork, done on zero calories for twelve hours. As for myself only, a lowest carb diet tends to make me compulsively active.
I am not sure what hungry means. Stomach growls is just itself, it doesn't make me eat. Faint and fall down? Get up, doesn't make me eat. A big problem I have if I get in the groove is losing weight too fast, down 14 lbs in 20 days this time. Usually, I say Wednesday is a day to go off, if I am doing well, and get the large cheeseburger and coke, but today I don't care.
It could be said, wrongly, that I am all mind and no body, but the above should make it obvious that I understand I have/am a body. The body wants to sleep, the body wants to eat, etc. Not "I" want to eat?
Is there an "I" that can say no the body? Dunno, decision stuff is tough.
Everybody knows the Cartesian mind/body split is the Patriarchy talking.
Let me see here, N Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman (title is ironic), Macy Conference 1947, Von Neumann, Norbert Weiner, Claude Shannon. McCulloch was in charge, he is a neuron guy.
It emerges by erasing particularity and looking for general forms. Rhetorically, however, McCulloch presents the theory as though it preexisted specific mechanisms and then was later imperfectly instantiated in them. This backhanded swing invests the theory with a coercive power that cannot be ignored, for it expresses "a law so general" that" every circuit built by God or man must exemplify it in some form."In a feminist critique of the history of logic, Andrea Nye traces similar Platonic backhands that were made to develop a logic coercive in its lawlike power. Nye points out that such moves are always made in specific political and historical contexts in which they have important social implications-implications that are masked by being presenting as preexisting laws of nature.
Now of course the mind/body split, with the mind reified and valued over the body, and the mind coded as male, is the Patriarchy in spades.
But saying that, it isn't as if the Patriarchy has strenuously resisted the idea of women as bodies, often with weak or nonexistent minds. An ideology of "Embodiment" is also and equally Patriarchal, simply as a mirror image.
Watched an anime last night, guy was all stoic after girlfriend died, crying won't bring her back, new girlfriend was all don't hide your feelings, you bastard, you liar, you schmuck...
What do you want of me? Falls down to the ground and bawls
She smiles and hugs. Dominance achieved, ideological embodiment triumphant.
To be fair, the smarter feminist philosophers are more nuanced, struggle with embodiment. It is still too dangerous a framework. But also bringing in Heidegger is embarrassing.
So "body/mind split" is a Patriarchal dichotomy to be abandoned. So then...we get body/community, body /Social Being, body/World. Now here we have some false dichotomies that can be useful.
So "The body is hungry but I don't eat." What does this mean? Social being tells me it is cool to eat when hungry, unless I'm a whale. Cause the community doesn't care, the world isn't hungry or care, but Social Being has a whole mountain of "shoulds"
You might be over-thinking things, even by local standards.
Weighed myself, down two pounds, ran down to get 3000 calories, to throw me out of ketosis. It was disgusting. The idea is to keep to my current habits. I'll fast tonight, go back to regular tomorrow dinner. What am I supposed to do, add a fucking twinkie to evening meal?
You might be over-thinking things, even by local standards.
I do not have the talent of moderation.
the paleo diet seems incomplete without the paleo- hunting, gathering, starving, bingeing, running-from-danger part of it.
Part of the fast/slow carb issue is the fineness of the flour grind. Flour ground by hand between stones, in addition to being whole grain, has a larger particle size. The ratio of volume to surface area is higher which means that enzymes take longer to break down the starch chains into sugar.
But modern machined "stone ground" flour is almost as fine as that milled by modern steep processors. Grains are OK, but pasta and white bread are relatively evil compared to coarseground, wholegrain breads.
It just seems like life would be more interesting with a bunch of Homo erectuses running around.
Only think of the wonderful ethical conundrums predicated on whether they were fully human or not!
|?
Since this is about to roll off the page, a couple irritants. From Senko Maynard, Linguistic Emotivity:
"To cite another example from visual aesthetics, recall the place-of-view editing. Instead of zooming in on an agent of action and understanding the visual image in terms of [agent-does], the place-of-view editing focuses on the entire scene. Within this place, participants are situated, often without movement, merged in the scene. In order to interpret the meaning of this landscape, one needs to view the scene from shared perspectives. This scene is the target of futaku, in a way resembling that of topic of the topic-comment dynamic. Scene, like a topic, is presented in discourse to be experienced in shared perspectives by way of the 〈perspectivized appearance〉 and by undergoing the 〈perspective of becoming〉. Place is critical in this experience."
RMC:"Place of view" opposed to "point of view." "Futaku" is a third object of interest or admiration that two people use to establish an emotional connection.
"The Japanese self that manipulates language is, for example, the kind of self that Morita (1995) refers to when he states that the Japanese language takes on a self-centered pattern (jikochuushingata). This self is the 〈feeling self〉 who describes the event on the basis of one's personal experience, from a personal point of view. Let me elaborate on this point further by referring to the sentence Morita uses, i.e., the initial sentence of Snow Country by Yasunari Kawabata as given in (1).
(1) Kunizakai no nagai tonneru o nukeru to yukiguni deatta.
border lk long tunnel O come.out when snow.country be
'(lit.) Coming out of a long tunnel at the border (of provinces), it was
snow country.' (Kawabata 1966:7)
(2) The train came out of the long tunnel into the snow country.
(Seidensticker 1956:11)
The self presented in (1) is the self who witnesses what happens in the context of a locale, a place, and describes it from a personal perspective. That is to say, it is the self that experiences and creates the initial sentence of Snow Country. Here, the narrator merely describes what he sees in the place, and does not refer to the event in the framework of [agent-does]. It is interesting to contrast this with its English translation given in (2). The English translation takes the [agent-does] structure; the ''train'' as an agent of action (i.e., came out) surfaces, although in the original Japanese, there is no mention of it."
End Maynard.
I think equally wrong would be something like:"As I passed through the long tunnel at the border, I saw I was entering Snow Country." Although this is more arguable.
This does connect to 26 above, I am interested in subjectivities, especially modernist subjectivities, and Japan affords some degree of contrast to the West, that helps me understand the West.
The "agent-based" or Cartesian ontological models are very fucking powerful and hegemonic, and resistance to them is usually characterized as ideology or Orientalism.
PS:Spending another month picking up some language. Every bit I learn seems to screw up my watching experience, as the grammatical syntactic conflicts between what I hear and what I read in the subtitles becomes glaring and distracting. Also, the more I learn, the more romaji bothers me.
|>