Canadian Swine Flu Video Nov 10, 2009 | Uncategorized | 29 comments Share post on ...I’ve gotta give it up to Merc Daddy for posting this to his newsletter. This is truly a solid video. Top notch. 180 fully endorses it. 29 Comments Jennythenipper on November 10, 2009 at 5:25 pm Hey Matt: Check it out, it's like the wind river diet without the oatmeal: http://northcountrytrailnews.blogspot.com/ 36 days on what he could fish, shoot, or gather. Man, give this guy some pemican! Reply Michael on November 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm Very funny video. I posted it in September along with a very eye-opening article about flu shots: Exposed: The Swine Flu Hoax MichaelNutrition and Physical Regeneration Reply Michael on November 10, 2009 at 8:25 pm Jenny said: Man, give this guy some pemican! Indeed! He had granola and jerky as a backup???!!!!! MichaelNutrition and Physical Regeneration Reply chlOe on November 11, 2009 at 2:38 pm HAHAHAHAHA Reply Jennythenipper on November 11, 2009 at 3:15 pm I think he also "cheated" a few times and ate burgers and fries. I can't blame the guy. Reply Mike C on November 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm Matt, Thanks for the video share and very cool on your new blog. I had a sort of general question I was thinking about this morning. Chloe and Jenny I would very much welcome any input from you guys as well. This is probably going to sound stupid, but here it goes: Ok let's say you switch over to a very healthy diet in comparison to 95% of the world. Which is nearly void of all processed sugars like HFCS. A diet that pretty much makes garbage food like this a distant memory: http://diet-fucked.blogspot.com/2009/11/tasteful-memories-shit-weve-eaten.html I have really improved my diet the past year or so. Since I have a 9-5 job now and I'm less active I've made it a goal to improve my diet. I'm not bad about keeping active, but I surely can't play tennis 2 hours a day like the glorious college years. Here's the thing: if I ate half of the stuff mentioned on the recent post of "Diet-Fucked" on a consistent basis I think I would feel really sick. But when I was younger I crushed foods like that, and it never really seemed to bother me. I turned out very healthy as well. Once you turn away from food like that I think its that much harder to go back to the terrible habits you had. But, wouldn't this be a sign that your body was in a way adapting to your terrible eating habits? Or is this logic ridiculous? One of the most attractive girls I know used to eat poptarts and cookies for half of her dinners, didn't seem to affect her. Do you understand my point? I used to read marksdailyapple some, because I think it had some valid points. Not always, but its a good starting point for the majority of the population. I remember one of his followers talking about how a piece of birthday cake made him intensly ill, once he had reverted to the "primal diet" for an extended period of time. It's like ok if you ate a piece of birthday cake and you nearly shat your pants and had a seizure this is a sign that you REALLY aren't that healthy, I don't care what you say. Something is up homie! Maybe a small balance of "junk food" would make our bodies more able to handling this sort of thing? I don't want to recommend people eat unhealthy I'm just bringing up a point. I mean I am guilty of an occasional meal of pizza for dinner or even breakfast. I know terrible with all that white flour used. But it doesn't make me feel bad, and it is in MODERATION. Like you mentioned before I think its hard for a healthy individual to drastically screw up their metabolism if they practice moderation. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, sorry for running on. Reply chlOe on November 11, 2009 at 5:10 pm Well when I ate that stuff I was a lot sicker than I was now and heading for hell, so I'm not sure if I was ever 'adapted' to it. Maybe the adverse reactions to those foods are a good thing?It could also be that a slower metabolism or imbalance/deficiency will cause someone to react in such a bad way to the additives or chemicals in junk food that were voided out of their diet for so long. I read about a fruitarian who reacted to a vaccine like he was about to die. Sounds like an immune system problem; could be similar in these people, to a much lesser degree. I guess it could largely depend on their diet and lifestyle, there may be more to this than just a tolerance level. It could also be the synthetic vitamins added to those foods playing a part, not just the ingredients. Duno, I think moderation is a good thing, and no one should intentionally fear anything on rare occasion [big IF] they're healthy. Reply Mike C on November 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm Hi Chole, No worries on the double- thanks for the quick response. “Well, when I ate all the junk I was way worse off and headed for hell. – So it sounds like you experienced a situation where something prompted you to actively change your lifestyle and diet. I have never had this, but I think this is how most people get into improving their diet and lifestyle. They wait around until to a point where they have already massively screwed themselves up, and its that much harder to get back on the right course. Not saying that you massively screwed yourself up in the past, I was just making a huge generalization regarding why people begin to actively seek improving their diets. I fail to see how synthetic vitamins would explain how some people can have such a “terrible diet” by our standards and be completely healthy and fine. Maybe a variety of people have bodies that respond differently to the lack of certain vitamins? Kid’s may have better metabolism’s, that is a valid point. Maybe metabolism starts unraveling after years of solid abuse. I think certain people are just better equipped to handle the abuse. Maybe when you remove that abuse, the body can react in a bad way. I knew someone who drank heavily and partied crazy for much of his life. I knew him back in high-school. One day he quit cold-turkey. About a week later he had a heart attack and died. He was 25 years old. Did he have a heart attack because his body was so used to the alcohol that it went into shock because of the immediate removal. Did he train his body to need that substance to survive? Or was it an inevitable build-up from the years of the abuse? Or maybe it had nothing to do with the alcohol consumption or lifestyle at all, maybe it was a fluke thing. Anyways this example is a little extreme, but it is somewhat related. Can someone adapt to co-existing with refined and processed foods, while living a normal healthy life? That is what the root of my question or pondering boils down to. In some cases I think I would have to argue YES, certain people could live functionally and be healthier than average, but I wouldn’t recommend this lifestyle. Even if so, I would argue that the discussed individual would have been X amount healthier if they avoided refined foods, processed foods, and sugar except from fruits their entire lives. Yet that would be a very difficult argument to prove. What is your take here? All who follow the unhealthy path are doomed? Or they can somewhat live a healthy lifestyle in comparison to the general population? This is why I am VERY reluctant to give health advice to friends or people I know unless they ask me. A lot of this isn’t 100% proven, I think it’s one’s personal responsibility to find their own path, and what works for them. Besides they could get hit by a car tomorrow, who am I to tell them they can’t enjoy a mountain of ice-cream topped with candy, chocolate, and caramel if it makes them happy? I personally wouldn’t do that, but hey who am I to tell the ice-cream lover that my way is better. -Mike Reply Matt Stone on November 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm Mike C – I think about this a lot actually. My mission of late is to really go with this "toughening up" approach to food. I have a strong desire to conquer things that I know challenge me. It's really been a liberating and empowering mindset towards food. You wouldn't believe what I can put in my stomach without having sluggish digestion, bloating, feeling tired, or indigestion. I can't gain another ounce of fat from what I have now even if I'm stuffing myself to my physical maximum. This is a strong, confident, and empowered way to be. I'm loving it, and hardly can believe it myself. It's the 180 Hollow Leg diet! I do think damage is done by eating a truly nutritionally inferior and toxic diet. There's no question about it. Even the most physically healthy person I've ever met, Layla who I talk about in some other posts, has children that represent the damage of a candy and Lucky Charms diet. But I truly am loving the new mindset. I don't know if I'm ready for cookies and doughnuts yet, or if I ever will be, but not only do I eat pizza – I actually use it as a strength-builder. Hope I can make you guys proud in my local town's pizza eating contest next year. Reply Matt Stone on November 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm Humans probably will adapt one day to this junk diet. We adapt. That's what we do. Don Gorske is a living legend of junk-food adaptation. He's as healthy and vibrant for his age as 90% of supposed health gurus. But refined crap has been well-proven to destroy the majority of us. It is not even a matter of lifetime accumulation, but multi-generational accumulation as Weston A. Price has shown. I think I'd have to see a bunch of kids popping out and growing up to have 32 straight, cavity-free teeth to really be confident that adaptation is a truly plausible thing. Until that happens though, we've got a lot of infertility, birth defects, diabetes, obesity, emotional and mental disorders, etc. to deal with. Great point on not telling others what to do unless asked. That's the only way you get through to people anyway. When people become curious, they ask questions and are receptive to new ideas and life change. Just because I love writing about it doesn't mean I beat up trick-or-treaters when they come to my house, take their candy, and spank them and their parents and shout "don't you know what this does to you and future generations!?" Reply chlOe on November 11, 2009 at 6:43 pm I doubt people adapt to it, just because of the fact of how terrible health is getting (the increase in heart attacks, obesity, and diabetes, for example, each year in America). I think even people who seem ok with the food would eventually create weaker generations. It's not like we have every drop of information on people eating junk food. They could have problems we don't see on the outside. They could develop some disease –seemingly out of no where, but I doubt it's as sudden as you'd like to believe with your alcoholic friend; more likely than not there's other factors in that situation. For example, my mom told me about some guy that died of a heart attack after dropping alcohol, working out more, counting calories. It probably creates stress (dropping an addictive substance and taking a wrong path to get better) which is a major catalyst for a lot of problems. I think a lot of people want to believe nature doesn't rule over what we, as humans, say or act on goes. I mean, that's people for you. If we saw what Price discovered, how generations immediately were worse of, I don't know why anyone would feel the need to even want to mimic that. Thyroid problems and things can be traced back quite a lot of years ago. Harper read Mark Starr's book and he talked about how Egyptians had symptoms of hypothyroidism. I think flat out it's not just the surface that some people seem tolerant to junk food. It's too simple to say that. It's hard to say anything is ever one hundred percent correct. I don't recommend anything to people unless they ask, for the simple reason that interest and willingness to learn is the biggest factor in how well they will listen or can figure out their own health situation and not just half ass it or give up when they get frustrated, or put too much reliance on me instead of themselves. I brought up synthetic vitamins because, depending on what type it is, some can be harmful (such as the easily absorbable iron in common cereals and pastas). It was random, not necessarily in reply to immediate effects of junk food someone experiences, just another bad thing that's in them. Reply Ryan Koch (Health Matters to Me) on November 11, 2009 at 9:16 pm Just because I love writing about it doesn't mean I beat up trick-or-treaters when they come to my house, take their candy, and spank them and their parents and shout "don't you know what this does to you and future generations!?" Well, if you don't do this, then some might call you apathetic. That's why I always resort to physical violence and scolding to get my point across — to show I care. :-) Reply Half Navajo on November 11, 2009 at 9:20 pm I keep some crap in my diet about twice a week, pizza, burgers at breweries, some micro-brew(not that i think its crap), burritos…. and eat homecooked, organic, etc.etc. meals the rest of the time. I really have no desire at all for sodas, chips, fried food in vegetable oils, etc. I think its important to stay flexible with food,it really is good exercise for the digestion. I think matts nailed it on the head with diet, to be able to eat real food in all combinations to satisfaction, with perfect digestion. Chloe, i checked out lita lees blog… very nice. I actually have her book the enzyme cure… man its old, very good though. I think i may not be that damaged metabolically, from years of taking enzymes. I also like ray peats advice on iron, i regularly give blood and plasma sometimes, while doing a cleanse also, to get the iron and toxins out. troy Reply Mike C on November 11, 2009 at 9:43 pm Matt, I know what you mean with the “Toughening up” approach. With me my body could always handle anything and I’ve been healthy. So I step back sometimes and wonder “wait a minute why the heck am I wasting my time eating better again”? That’s right part of the reason was because the last time I went to the dentist I had three cavities, which caused me to do tons of research, which led me to Weston Price, which eventually led me to your site. I stepped back, wait why the hell do I have three cavities? It’s not like I don’t brush my teeth once or twice a day? I think a lot of the problem was indeed my sugar consumption unchecked over a span of many of years. Way to much candy and other sweets/beverages containing HFCS. I also think part of it was passed down, as poor nutrition causes our health to decay with each passing generation. Yes I read the studies by Price and they were ground breaking. I also agree a nutritionally inferior and toxic diet is generally not the way to go, despite how healthy you are or seem to be. Cookies and donuts will now pretty much never enter my diet, but I can handle them (ok well maybe not my teeth). Pizza is amazing, I have always had trouble pinpointing the difference between picking up a fresh pizza from the local pizzeria, or stocking up on “health foods” from Whole Foods or a comparable place. I think it’s a very minimal difference sometimes. Don Gorske is an example of someone who for whatever reason HAS physically adapted to the junk diet. Maybe certain strands of genes in some lines of generations make certain people more adaptable to junk diets. Maybe this is a realm that we really don’t have close to an understanding of. Hell we are still arguing with some groups that refined is yes indeed VERY BAD, first thing is first right? Let’s pinpoint what is bad, and worry about why a very small percentage of certain people might be immune or adapted to live off garbage later. I completely understand loving to write about concepts that could change people’s lives for the better. Hahaha well put with the trick-or-treaters, that isn’t your responsibility. It’s good that you aren’t over-bearing or all knowing with your ideas which is awesome. Chloe,I agree most people don’t adapt to it, but I think there are some exceptions, and some lines of lineage will adapt. Human’s have adapted to much crazier circumstances, say an Ice-Age for example? From a macro-standpoint survival of the fittest could still apply to future generations, and maybe that will eventually boil down to having the fittest genes that can withstand the change of a diet consisting of nutrient-deficient foods. Weston Price brings solid evidence to the argument that generations will be weaker, regardless of whether the parents or whoever seemed ok with the food. But maybe you don’t ever plan on having kids and are healthy. So then I guess you wouldn’t care so much about weaker offspring right?The problem with my friend was an extreme example indeed. Other factors could always play a huge role, and the stress created by the sudden cold-turkey strategy is probably a major factor. When it comes to health, I wouldn’t recommend any immediate MAJOR changes. My approach is to always gradually go into new things and feel the situation out for yourself. Well I’m glad we all agree on not recommending anything to people unless they ask! Cheers, Mike Reply trix on November 11, 2009 at 10:11 pm Matt and others, What do you think of Dr. William Davis's opinion of wheat?: "Wheat is among the most destructive ingredients in the modern diet, worse than sugar, worse than high-fructose corn syrup, worse than any fat." and that is causes a multitude of diseases. Dr. T/Nephropal: "I owe it to Dr. William Davis of the Heart Scan Blog in opening my eyes to the awful effects of wheat/grains on the body." Stephen Guyenet: "I believe wheat is a uniquely unhealthy food, that promotes inflammation and general metabolic havoc over a long period of time. This probably relates at least in part to its gluten content, which is double that of rye. Dr. William Davis has had great success with his cardiac patients by counseling them to eliminate wheat. He agrees based on his clinical experience that wheat has uniquely damaging effects on the metabolism that other sources of starch do not have." I am conflicted about whether or not to give up wheat…whether it is necessary. I doubt I have celiac…if anything I may get a bit constipated from too much wheat. I've been making sourdough bread for the past few years…most of the time it has been fresh ground rye, whole wheat,and about half unbleached white flour. I've thought that because it is sourdough it is ok. Is is worth the bother to give up pasta…or go to pasta alternatives like rice pasta? Both my parents died from colon cancer. If wheat contributes to the risk of getting colon cancer or other diseases it may be worth eliminating it from my diet…I am just not wholly convinced that is the culprit. Opinions? Another question comes up: Many of you guys are my kids ages or younger. Do you think age makes a difference with an HED diet. My husband is 60 and I've been reading lots of about low carb…then I come here and get less resolved that low carb is the only way he'll be able to keep his weight off. Is there hope? Reply chlOe on November 11, 2009 at 11:27 pm We adapted to an ice age? How exactly did we do that. Grow a fur coat? The key word there is seemed, people seem to look healthy. The definition of health in Don Gorske's case is not OCD and 'perfect' cholesterol levels (by doctors terms). It's also said he walks ten miles a day. There's sites that conflict that where they state he says he does no exercise (though, that he works overtime as a prison guard). I've also read he eats around 1000 calories a day (at least, since or in 2003)..if I would have to guess, 2 big macs and a large coke (that isn't diet) is like 1500 or less. More if he drinks more. Keep in mind, supposedly this is all he eats. Yeah..sounds like a real adaptation to junk food. Standing and or walking a lot and eating limited calories. Cholesterol and appearance is not the only thing that has to do with health. If his body were to conserve what nutrients he has (made easier with such little amount of calories) it could appear that he's not about to keel over. Keep in mind his height (around 6 feet) and the amount of food he eats. Though, this could have all changed since, well hell, I don't know him; but to look at the guy and have one or two facts about him, or jumbled facts, and say he's some sort of genetic mutation that can eat junk food sounds honestly bogus to me. Not just because genes aren't mythical things that tell you what you can and can't eat, but because of the limited information on him. Whatever the mother eats has an impact on the newborn's health, and genes themselves are effected by the environment they're in. Personally, I know no one who can eat whatever they want and remain extremely healthy. Just because someone eats junk food doesn't mean they don't control how much they eat of it, or if they don't crave it, or if they don't have other hidden problems that are not obvious. I think saying we can adapt to junk food and not only limited nutrition but manmade chemicals is like saying if enough people jump of a building, then we'll eventually fly. I guess some would survive after they hit the ground, but I don't get what that has to do with the adaptation part. The point is there's a complete lack of science on this theory, and a complete lack of evidence. It's a philosophical question at best, not to sound harsh or anything. This is just what I think. Reply trix on November 12, 2009 at 12:07 am Matt, I read you today's post on your new 180 kitchen where you mention the Hunza's etc. By what do the others/paleos base their claims against wheat? Could it be other ingredients in the commercial breads and wheat based product that are the culprits or the refined wheat products? Dr Kurt Harris practically guaranteed that wheat consumption would lead to my getting cancer. I am pretty sure my paternal grandparents ate wheat and they lived to their nineties. My mom was only 52 when she died. Lucy Reply Mike C on November 12, 2009 at 3:29 am “We adapted to an ice age? How exactly did we do that. Grow a fur coat?” Yes humans did in fact ADAPT to survive the last ice age. More than 100 years ago scientists were noting that humans from colder regions were bulkier and had relatively shorter arms and legs. Beyond this there is evidence of biological adaptation to the ice age regarding mutations in the mitochondrial DNA of human cells. These mutations allowed humans to produce more body heat during colder winters. Here is an article explaining the mutation in depth: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040114075853.htm An adaptation allowed some of our ancestors to produce additional body heat during a winter ice age. So adaptations can allow human’s metabolisms to operate differently based on NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, it doesn’t matter if we have now removed the natural environment (with AC or heating 24/7), our metabolism’s are still acting accordingly. Genes can adapt over hundreds or even a thousand years, but not in a lifetime. There is also an important theory (covered in this article) that people with certain ancestral history could be more susceptible to certain diseases: “When heat and cold are managed by technology, not metabolism, and people from warmer climates are eating the high fat and calorie diets of northern climates, there is a rise in obesity and the age-related degenerative diseases” “The caloric intake and local climate of many individuals are out of balance with their genetic history. Thus, our genetic history is linked to our current diseases, resulting in the new field of evolutionary medicine” This theory has some serious implications that people should know about. If your metabolism is screwed up you might want to figure out where your ancestral history originated first. There are 82 genes associated with energy metabolism, and widespread correlations have been found between the frequencies of certain genetic variations and colder climates. It is foolish to disregard human’s gene adaptations when talking about our diets. This could be the main reason why different diets work for different people. I find it interesting Don Gorske can live off Big Macs and cokes for 30 years, but someone else may follow this path a year and a half and have a heart attack. And yes he is living a functional life, especially if his diet is giving him the energy to walk “ten miles a day”. Sounds like it could be a slight variation of a gene somewhere, doesn’t sound bogus to me at all. Agree to disagree. Genes may not tell you specifically what you can and can’t eat (YOU WILL NOT EAT CHOCOLATE CAKE, YOU HAVE NO FREE CHOICE), but variations of certain genes have been proven to have a role in how much you can or can’t eat without putting on excess weight. I don’t see how argument that “a variation in a gene could impact how humans handle certain foods”, is anything like saying “if enough people jump off a building, then we’ll eventually fly”. If you have a list handy of every single gene that is linked to human’s ability to digest certain foods and can scientifically write off every one of them as 100% irrelevant then by all means prove me wrong. All theories start somewhere. The claim that “the world is round” or “the Earth isn’t the center of the universe” seemed much more “bogus” not so long ago. Reply Matt Stone on November 12, 2009 at 4:37 am Man I love this place. Battles above rumble, oscillating back and forth between the world record holder for Big Mac consumption and ice age adaptation. That is priceless. I think one of Gorske's best adaptation tools is eating the exact same thing every single day. If something is going to help you adapt, it is precisely that, although calorie restriction certainly lightens the trans fat and HFCS load. Lucy, I don't mean to be overly dismissive of the wheat phobes out there. I do think many people do have issues digesting gluten as well as casein, which is an almost identical protein found in dairy foods. There are circumstances to avoid it, and allergy to it would definitely cause blood sugar spikes, inflammation, and so forth. But I think the true health destroyers like refined sugar, too much refined grain, and oxidized vegetable oils are more likely to harm the metabolism, screw up the body, and make all kinds of things, wheat included, poorly tolerated (and I believe it to happen in that order). If you want to test your husband on HED, keep track of biomarkers like postprandial and fasting glucose, blood pressure, and body temp. Odds are, at an older age, a series of short fasts will probably be more therapeutic, but I can't say that for sure. I think the older a person is, the more urgent it is for them to revitalize the metabolism. Fewer will succeed with diet alone, and a greater number will depend on glandular supplementation. But either way, it should be acted upon. When the metabolism is within the ideal range, you can eat whatever amounts of whatever wholesome foods you want – and in any combination. Reply Nell on November 12, 2009 at 11:27 am I can speak to the gluten issue. I had been eating pretty healthily for years (except for too much chocolate) when it was pointed out to me that I had many symptoms of gluten intolerance, so I took the GI panel from Diagnos-Techs. Positive for gliadin antibodies. It took me a year to go GF all the time. I was in France and kept cheating. Which turned out to be helpful, in an experimental sort of way. I found that within hours of eating gluten, I would get really fatigued and really irritable. Didn't want anyone to touch me or talk to me. It happened so reliably that when I was tempted to cheat (croissants warm from the bakery!) my children would shout, "Noooo, no don't eat it! No gluten for you!" I'm really hoping that if I can get my gut healed up, I'll be able to tolerate it again. I don't look at wheat as evil (although I wonder about the differences between modern wheat and the stuff before all the gene manipulation) and I hope I'll be able to eat it again eventually. The DTI GI panel has a wealth of information. You can see exactly which bacteria, parasites, and fungi have colonized your small intestines, if that happens to be a problem. And it has markers for enzyme output, colonic inflammation, overall immunity, and on and on. Reply trix on November 12, 2009 at 2:05 pm Nell, did you have to go through a doctor/health practitioner to get the DTI GI panel done or could you do it on your own? It sounds like it may be something I should try to get sometime: about how much did it cost? I don't notice gluten or casein symptoms because I am more prone to constipation from too much bread or cheese than diarrhea. I guess it could be that way too? Gluten/casein intolerance has really become the latest 'thing' and I'd rather not define myself that way unless I have enough compelling evidence. I don't think that gluten/casein intolerance is the only reason all those guys are opposed to wheat but the 'dangerous lectins' and all that can encompass. Lucy Reply Mike C on November 12, 2009 at 3:07 pm Sorry for turning your blog comment section into a war-zone. It got a little crazy above, but I find humanities ability to adapt on a biological level incredible. It does seem logical that eating the same thing everyday for 30 years will help the body to adapt to whatever substance. If he reproduces the kids might be mutants based on Weston Price's studies, but maybe he doesn't care. It also makes sense that calorie restriction would lighten the trans and HFCS load, further allowing him to live a somewhat functional existence. Reply Nell on November 12, 2009 at 3:24 pm Lucy, Yes, you do have to go through some health practitioner to order it. I see a nurse-midwife who does it for me. DTI has a practitioner list on their website that might be helpful. My GI symptoms while eating gluten were kind ofalternating constipation and diarrhea, but it was only occasionally. My main problem is fatigue and being GF makes a big difference with that. Also I've been able to lower my hydrocortisone almost by half, so I think the inflammation etc was doing a number on my adrenals. God luck! Reply chlOe on November 12, 2009 at 8:29 pm When you use the term "we" and "ancestors" as adapted to the ice age (the cold), it sounded as if you were assuming everyone can now automatically tolerate cold weather. I know plenty of people around me shivering their balls off because of how cold they are, and I'm like wtf. Thinking of a short stocky Inuit (and a body structure changing is ENTIRELY different from diet), I guarantee if their metabolism was slowed down through whatever means (maybe the common rabbit starvation), they would not like the cold as much. My point is, we as people (and all of general nature) seem to all have the same basic metabolism. I don't see any exception in the animal kingdom that can survive on such little nutrients without being very fat, or sleeping an assload to slow down their metabolism to extremes. It's universal in nature. That's why I'm saying people think we can fool nature or whatever with our machines and chemicals and synthetics and vaccines and shit. Such an example of an animal attempting low nutrition is the Panda. Choosing to eat nothing but bamboo, when it has the build and structure of a carnivore and no where near four stomachs, they have an extremely low libido (can't imagine why) and are not social beings. They avoid steep slopes so they don't use up energy. To believe people will or to hint that they will adapt to a diet (just because Don Gorske, who again, we know nothing about, can eat big macs and coke (which are not even completely devoid of nutrients)), when we see how it continues to get worse every year, and is spreading around the world, doesn't make sense to me. Actually, it may be a good way to really cut down our population; we've figure out ways to stay out of natural disasters and starvation — population has to stay down some how! No but really, when I go work at my job at the kennel, none of the many different dogs there have specifics to what they have to eat from what whoever the hell their ancestors ate. There's short, tall, stocky, long coated, short coated dogs. All of them can eat the same thing, except ones that are sick or have allergies (things that can be caused by their environment). The human egg is not told what to do by genes, it's formed by it's environment and what it's mother eats (therefore, some dude I'm related to from thousands of years ago did not birth me and his diet has nothing to do with what I can and can't eat right now, or should eat in general). The substances that nurse the eggs surrounding shape it. People who focused on genetics believed and probably still believe each synapse of a nerve directed the genes, and that no experience (i.e. food), say in a womb, would change this. Price, just as one example, has clearly shown that that is false. Reply trix on November 13, 2009 at 12:41 am Matt, I think I remember you saying to use coconut milk without guar gum. What symptoms have you had with that. I am trying to narrow down two bad episodes (last night and a pnce few months ago) I've had after having some coconut milk ice cream with guar gum in the ingredients. I can't think of anything else I had eaten that would have given me a reaction. (vertigo, nausea/vomiting etc. (no actual griping) for a couple of hours) Reply Matt Stone on November 13, 2009 at 3:52 am Good point on the dogs Chloe. I feel the same way about humans. We don't have to have such specific diets that are in alignment with some kind of nebulous evolutionary past. Give us the basic substrates of life in any form without harmful junk thrown in there and we can usually pull it off quite well. There are lots of healthy diets out there that could work. Lucy, I haven't had very specific reactions to guar gum and carageenen other than generally feeling more full, sluggish, and ill after eating too much of it. I buy really cheap Chaokoh brand coconut milk without these gummy emusifiers. I'd guess that was your problem though. Reply trix on November 13, 2009 at 2:05 pm The other day I found some additive free coconut milk in the freezer section of a Japanese market. I'll try using that instead of the canned. The cans that don't have guar gum,or carageenan have that sodium meta bisulfite stuff in it. Lucy Reply Nell on November 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm Trix, Would you report back on the frozen stuff? Between the metabisulphites, guar gum, and bisphenol-A, I'm ready to try making my own milk from coconuts. But it would be great to have an alternative. Hey Matt, Any thoughts on using coconut oil on the skin? I used it yesterday for moisturizer after a bath, and was wondering whether any of the good effects would work if it isn't eaten. Seems like it made my skin all rosy much longer than usual after getting out. Plus I smelled like a pina colada. Reply Matt Stone on November 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm Coconut oil is about the only thing I ever use on my skin. I think it's great for the skin, but I doubt it soaks in and is metabolized somehow like you had eaten it. Reply Submit a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.