General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

As an aside, this whole debate with regards to the 'best' diet/lifestyle choices pertains to the case about what exactly is 'good'.

How do humans define what is 'good'?

In general good is defined by various societies in different terms, but the one common denominator is that good can always be defined as within the constrains of what said society believes is the best and purest way of having the healthiest offspring.

This is the biggest aspect that is appealing to the majority of people when considering changing their diet (hundreds of thousands of years of history can't be wrong, right?!), and as such how their chances of mating with healthier genes can somehow improve.

It deserves another topic, almost as if it were the tree trunk and this topic was one of its branches, but it would be a short thread, aside from the case if random creationists get involved. As why we are here on earth is fairly obvious; Survive and Replicate!

by that logic, if i lie in bed for a long enough time, i should be able to run a marathon.

we're talking biology here, not the physics of inanimate objects.

No, you aren't applying the logic. What I'm saying is if you lie in bed for a long time, then get up and go to the store, you didn't just have a burst of energy. You got off your ass, that's all. If you do that everyday at say, 4 o'clock, you might conclude that something at 4 o'clock is giving you energy when there isn't support for that conclusion.

haha. Of course, but planning your life around it (how we evolved) is very dumb. Namely because we 'evolved' past that

we actually haven't. evolution moves in hundreds of thousands of years (or optimistically tens of thousands of years). homo sapiens sapiens is 250k years old. but we've only been eating grains and thus high carbs for the last 10k years. not enough time imo.

but if you think you might have evolved, and you feel healthy, go ahead. but metabolic syndrome doesn't happen overnight. it takes years to set in for some people (Taubes: malnourished babies, fat mothers).

No, you aren't applying the logic. What I'm saying is if you lie in bed for a long time, then get up and go to the store, you didn't just have a burst of energy. You got off your ass, that's all. If you do that everyday at say, 4 o'clock, you might conclude that something at 4 o'clock is giving you energy when there isn't support for that conclusion.

deciding to go to the store is a result of electrical impulses in the brain. we burn the glucose in our brain to fire the neurons. glucose = potential energy. fuel burned = kinetic energy?

i still have no idea what we're arguing about btw.

maybe we should use boolean math to explain biology as well?

listen to Taubes wrt how he feels about applying physics to the obesity problem, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4&t=21m17s

i can't tell if we agree or disagree right now because you're trying to argue something and not being very clear on what you're trying to argue.

listen to Taubes wrt how he feels about applying physics to the obesity problem, please.

time link fail. correct time link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4&t=35m25s

deciding to go to the store is a result of electrical impulses in the brain. we burn the glucose in our brain to fire the neurons. glucose = potential energy. fuel burned = kinetic energy?

i still have no idea what we're arguing about btw.

maybe we should use boolean math to explain biology as well?

listen to Taubes wrt how he feels about applying physics to the obesity problem, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4&t=21m17s

i can't tell if we agree or disagree right now because you're trying to argue something and not being very clear on what you're trying to argue.

If you look back up to where I quoted WoT I think you'll get what I'm saying. When one says, 'I have so much more energy now', how is that measured? It is possible people are giving phantom credit to a diet when they change their lifestyle, because while inactivity requires less energy than activity, it isn't correct to assume that one didn't have the energy in the first place as opposed to just not utilizing it.

we evolved in the savanna. and there's little harm in eating fresh kill raw. lots of cultures still do it as a delicacy. and ever heard of sushi?

and again, we run distance as good as the best animals. our distance running ability is not a theory. what it's good for is up for debate, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

Of course sushi and lots of fresh meat and even not so fresh meat can be eaten by us but animals can eat gnarly stuff. We are wayyyyyy at the bottom of the animal kingdom in terms of our ability to eat raw or contaminated foods.

As for this distance thing IDK how you prove that. I mean we can make conscious decisions to run long distances but that doesn't mean an animal can't- it just means they don't.

If you look back up to where I quoted WoT I think you'll get what I'm saying. When one says, 'I have so much more energy now', how is that measured? It is possible people are giving phantom credit to a diet when they change their lifestyle, because while inactivity requires less energy than activity, it isn't correct to assume that one didn't have the energy in the first place as opposed to just not utilizing it.

that's a valid question. i don't know why it seemed so confusing to me before.

but we have to get something clear. i'm only advocating diet changes for weight loss. it was other people who brought up exercise to get "healthy," and only then did i talk about my running hobby.

i'm with Taubes when he says increasing activity increases appetite, so exercise is actually what you don't want to do if you want to lose weight. if you try to exercise and eat the same amount of calories as before, you get tired and feel bad. rather, just make changes in the diet that decreases insulin response while maintaining the same caloric needs and the body naturally starts shedding fat.

if you go back through my posts, i only talk about exercise as a recreational activity for me. i'm pretty sure i've never said running makes me feel more energetic afterwards or speeds up losing weight (but feel free to call me on it). if i did, i had a brain fart.

running allows me to run better and to strengthen my body, but i get hungry and tired afterwards. now there are endorphins (natural painkillers) released during exercise that can make you feel good, but it's to offset the breakdown of the body.

if people say they have more energy during an exercise program, i agree they don't actually have more energy. they're simply stronger and able to do more with the same amount of energy as before. increasing efficiency in other words. but if they're eating the same calories as before but have ramped up energy expenditure, they should feel more tired, not less tired. and if they say otherwise, then it's cognitive dissonance.

Of course sushi and lots of fresh meat and even not so fresh meat can be eaten by us but animals can eat gnarly stuff. We are wayyyyyy at the bottom of the animal kingdom in terms of our ability to eat raw or contaminated foods.

what evidence do you have for this conclusion that animals can live healthy lives on contaminated foods? or that humans cannot digest fresh, raw meat? i'm not advocating eating raw meat however. industrial food sourcing is not safe to do this today imo.

As for this distance thing IDK how you prove that. I mean we can make conscious decisions to run long distances but that doesn't mean an animal can't- it just means they don't.

they don't because they can't. most animals build up heat too quickly to outrun humans at long distances. you can overheat your dog if the distance is long enough or the weather hot enough.

it was in the article.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_running_man_revisited/

Drawing on Harvard’s extant cache of locomotion data, Lieberman began crunching numbers comparing speed, body temperature, and body weight of humans and various conceivable prey. A deer and a decently fit man, Lieberman discovered, trot at almost an identical pace, but in order to accelerate, a deer goes anaerobic, while the man remains in an oxygenated jogging zone. The same is true for horses, antelopes, and a slew of other four-legged creatures. Since animals can run anaerobically only in short bursts before they must slow down to recover, a human in pursuit may have the final advantage. And because quadrupeds can’t pant while they run, they also quickly overheat. To run down dinner, Lieberman realized, might simply have been a matter of spurring the poor beast into a sprint enough times to make it collapse from hyperthermia.

but we have to get something clear. i'm only advocating diet changes for weight loss. it was other people who brought up exercise to get "healthy," and only then did i talk about my running hobby.

@ Nawhead:
So you are advocating LCHF for weight loss? I would advocate it as a very well balanced diet for overall health - not solely for weight loss. I weight 160lbs at 5'11 - I am definitely not trying to lose weight but rather the opposite - some gains in muscle mass. (balanced = good range (ratio) of calories from carbs, fat, and protein)

Would you consider eating dog meat, whale meat or dolphin meat? I have eaten them all and they are very satisfying. At what point does the human view an animal as too special or sacred to eat? I have eaten these legally btw, in cultures which have no taboo against it (Korea, Thailand and Japan). Slaughter of cows is an extremely provocative issue for many Hindus for instance, yet westerners eat beef almost every day. /tangent

@ nawhead- I'm just making the point that as humans our brains are our advantage, our bodies are essentially useless in a natural environment.

As for the animal thing- obviously most animals can handle far more bad food than we can. I don't need a scientific study to prove that many animals can eat rotting food/garbage/ whatever and be completely fine whereas humans can't.

I never said we couldn't eat raw meat btw- I eat sushi and raw steak all the time at Asian restaurants. If that fish or steak sits out for any length of time though someone is going to get sick.

@ Nawhead:
So you are advocating LCHF for weight loss? I would advocate it as a very well balanced diet for overall health - not solely for weight loss. I weight 160lbs at 5'11 - I am definitely not trying to lose weight but rather the opposite - some gains in muscle mass. (balanced = good range (ratio) of calories from carbs, fat, and protein)

i think LCHF is the best way to eat, period, to maintain and repair the body (losing weight would be repairing the body imo) for optimal health.

the point i was trying to make in my response to Steppin was if the primary goal is to lose weight, make diet changes rather than diet changes + intense exercise. the exercise is going to complicate things because you get tired and get hungry (if you eat the same amount of calories) and then think losing weight sucks.

but it's really hard to get someone to understand this unless they see the deep flaw in the "calories in = calories out" model. if you can't do that, you'll keep thinking burning energy and not taking in energy will be the best way to lose weight.

but if you just focus on the adiposity model rather than the calories model--that carbohydrates drives insulin drives fat accumulation--then you realize it's just the food that matters. once you change the diet, the weight loss (body metabolism and fat accumulation normalizing) happens by itself without any real effort.

@ nawhead- I'm just making the point that as humans our brains are our advantage, our bodies are essentially useless in a natural environment.

the evidence for humans being able to run down animals to death had no effect on you then? you think it's bad logic or lies or what?

As for the animal thing- obviously most animals can handle far more bad food than we can. I don't need a scientific study to prove that many animals can eat rotting food/garbage/ whatever and be completely fine whereas humans can't.

well ok. you're entitled to your opinion. but belief is not evidence of fact.

Would you consider eating dog meat, whale meat or dolphin meat?

when in Rome... but i wouldn't go looking for it otherwise.


quoting myself:

unless they see the deep flaw in the "calories in = calories out" model

brain fart. i meant "calories in, calories out" model.

the whole equation being, "fat = calories in - calories out"