ForumPublic Forum: Self-DevelopmentBest diet, food, or nutrition for …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Best diet, food, or nutrition for power

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 Posts

Empowered Member

#1 · August 16, 2020, 3:58 am

I have found, at least personally and for people I am friends with, that some ways of eating are more conductive to power (increased muscle mass, better cognitive functioning, more testosterone, better health, more free time to plot or strategize, etc) to me diets like the Carnivore nose to tail high quality animal feed an apropiate-species diet and the Ketogenic (being very carefull with plant toxins and antinutrients) diet are closer to achieve this purposes, and plant food being more like used in "tactical" situations. Some believe humans became the dominant species scavenging bones and skulls and craking open them to eat fat rich marrow and brains rich in DHA and other important and scarce nutrients, in that way we became Apex or Top predators, so I find it very interesting. Then our brains grow even bigger and we became better social hunters until megafauna got extinct and then whe started to hunt smaller prey. I think diet and nutrition, the food supply, (food for slaves and food for masters, etc) is very important for power in the long run, what do you believe?

Also the frequency, I personally have found one or 2 meals a day on a restricted window of time (intermiting fasting) better. Low carb may even make you stronger against pathogens as high glucose in blood seems to be relatively bad for inmune function.

As a side note, there is a theory that some forms of cannibalism were ways of demostrating the superiority/domination of a social class over the others, so it is also related, I am not saying it is ok, just and interesting fact to ponder.

Lucio Buffalmano@lucio

6,317 Posts

#2 · August 16, 2020, 5:06 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 16, 2020, 5:06 am
Hey Steph,

Yeah, this is super interesting to me to, since nutrition is, frankly, such a minefield.

Lots of nutritional gurus

There is not so much agreed upon wisdom, and the field is chock-full of "gurus" who peddle their products and their "system" as the best ones to follow.

I researched into this a year ago or so ago for personal development, and even compiled a metasummary of all I had all learned (now it's a sign up bonus for subscribers).

Don't believe we became dominant from marrow

Personally, I don't believe the theory that we became the dominant species by scavenging bones and skulls to eat fat-rich marrow and brains, because if that were the case, than any scavenging species should have become as dominant as humans, and albeit there are plenty of them, from hyenas to vultures, none have.

Intermittent fasting: works for many, not for me

I also tried the intermittent fasting, and it seemed like ended up losing weight and, I feel also muscle mass (but I don't measure myself in any precise way).
It's just not enough for me and I ended up feeling too full after the huge meal. But I still do it some days, just don't follow it religiously.

Low carb: yes

I did cut carbs a lot, yes, and that did help to spread my energy more evenly throughout the day. In the past, I'd always nap and always felt the urge to nap after lunch.
Not nearly as much these days.

Ketogenic & nose to tail: too much red meat?

Albeit some authors say that red meat is great for you, there remain several studies linking some forms of cancer to red meat. Especially cooked and "well-done" red meat.

So personally, while I still do enjoy a steak, I prefer white meats as my mainstay for meat.

Fruits: yes?

Some authors say to cut down on fruit as it contains too much sugar, while a staple of traditional nutritional advice was to eat plenty of fruits. I do eat fruits, but rarely smoothies.

Vegetables: yes?

Some nutritionist wrote books on how plants are bad for you because they developed toxins to avoid being eaten.
To me, that felt like fear-mongering and I personally think that vegetables are great, especially broccoli, green salads, spinach, etc.

Happy to read more personal experiences with nutrition.

Hey Steph,

Yeah, this is super interesting to me to, since nutrition is, frankly, such a minefield.

Lots of nutritional gurus

There is not so much agreed upon wisdom, and the field is chock-full of "gurus" who peddle their products and their "system" as the best ones to follow.

I researched into this a year ago or so ago for personal development, and even compiled a metasummary of all I had all learned (now it's a sign up bonus for subscribers).

Don't believe we became dominant from marrow

Personally, I don't believe the theory that we became the dominant species by scavenging bones and skulls to eat fat-rich marrow and brains, because if that were the case, than any scavenging species should have become as dominant as humans, and albeit there are plenty of them, from hyenas to vultures, none have.

Intermittent fasting: works for many, not for me

I also tried the intermittent fasting, and it seemed like ended up losing weight and, I feel also muscle mass (but I don't measure myself in any precise way).
It's just not enough for me and I ended up feeling too full after the huge meal. But I still do it some days, just don't follow it religiously.

Low carb: yes

I did cut carbs a lot, yes, and that did help to spread my energy more evenly throughout the day. In the past, I'd always nap and always felt the urge to nap after lunch.
Not nearly as much these days.

Ketogenic & nose to tail: too much red meat?

Albeit some authors say that red meat is great for you, there remain several studies linking some forms of cancer to red meat. Especially cooked and "well-done" red meat.

So personally, while I still do enjoy a steak, I prefer white meats as my mainstay for meat.

Fruits: yes?

Some authors say to cut down on fruit as it contains too much sugar, while a staple of traditional nutritional advice was to eat plenty of fruits. I do eat fruits, but rarely smoothies.

Vegetables: yes?

Some nutritionist wrote books on how plants are bad for you because they developed toxins to avoid being eaten.
To me, that felt like fear-mongering and I personally think that vegetables are great, especially broccoli, green salads, spinach, etc.

Happy to read more personal experiences with nutrition.

Stef has reacted to this post.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 PostsTopic Author

Empowered Member

#3 · August 16, 2020, 8:05 am

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 8:05 am
You raise a very interesting point, I have no idea if this other scavengers are able or not to crack open the skulls and get to the brain tissue as breaking bones of big animals is not easy withouth tools (but maggots surely get there sooner o later). In any case I dont want to imply, by any means, that eating brain or marrow was the single cause of our rise to the top, we already were in a good positions as bipedal apes capable of using simple tools, and throwing stones at very high speed plus precision (projectile throwing to defend and to attack), but it seems the plant base diet of other apes like chimps, even today, put limits to their brains (they would not be able to get enough calories to sustain a bigger brain, and they already eat like 6 to 9 hours per day).

The nap thing after meals is called postprandial somnolence and seems to be caused by the indirect effect of carbs on the brain: more tryptophan gets into the brain to be converted into melatonin (one of the sleep master hormones), carbs raise insuline and apparently this clears the blood from other competing amino-acids so more tryphtopane crosses the blood brain barrier.

Red meat is not mandatory on a carnivore diet, I supposed even fish eated nose to tail and maybe some eggs (an egg is almost a nose to tail animal organism if you also eat the egg shells) would do most of the trick, it is just read meat from ruminants seems to be more nutritious vis a vis pork or chicken (and less toxic specially if we are talking about grain feed animals) because ruminants have a very powerfull polygastric stomach capable of better transforming plant stuff into animal nutrients and neutralising toxins.

I eat my meat very rare, as cooking destroy many nutrients and creates toxic compounds. I dont have a definite possition here becuase it always seem like a trade off between better nutrition VS the risk of pathogens, etc.

Fruit is probably the better part to eat from a plant, since the plant "wants" us to eat the fruit to disperse the seeds, (seeds is the most nutritious part of the plant but simultaneously the most toxic and hard to digest because it is paramount for the plant survival that their seed do not get digested by plant predators), fruit in the past, in many parts of the world,was only available on certain seassons, many animals gorge on fruit and nuts to gain weight in the summer to prepare for the coming winter, usually gainning a lot of fat in the proccess (good for them in nature, not so much for many of us because winter in the sense of starvation or fasting does not come to us so many just keep perpetually ading fat pounds). Too much fructose, as in fruit sugar, seems to be not so great for the liver, but in low amounts (maybe around 20 grams per day) it is very well tolerated. (most people today get like 75 grams per day)

In regard to plant toxins, well from what I have seen some people do pretty well eating plants, but othe people are weaker, and plant toxins can be very powerful, some of this are capable of doing pretty nasty stuff even to the herbivores who are most adapted to eating them. Humans are oficially classified as omnivores but my personal belief, after a lot of research, it is that our needs put us closer to carnivores (we just have more plant tolerance than other carnivores). But I dont want to be dogmatic about it, and many traditionals tribes include plant foods in relatively high amounts with no apparent ill effect given they never stop having acces to a minimal sufficiente amount of high quality animal foods.

I will not try to induce fear in people, but I would recommend them to really get to know plant toxins and their possible effects, some are really mind-blowing. Brocolli for example was created by artificial selection and still it contains chemicals that can really harm the thyroid. After what I have read I can not underestimate plants chemical warfare capabilities: human liver is awesome doing its work so it would depend on the strengh of your liver I would say. And there is also the hormetic theory (small amounts of poison may have a good effect, but people in my opinion abuses from this concept). And to make it clear I would preffer, for sentimental reassons, that we were HERBIVORES, so I am supposed to be bias in the direction against my own conclussions, I find that kind of interesting.

Also from the more power move point of view, the political class has a big incentive in people going plant based, if that make people in the long run lest capable of rebelion and cheaper to feed, but I dont want to get to much into "conspiracy" theory terrain... just a seed for thought! thank you for your reply Luccio!

You raise a very interesting point, I have no idea if this other scavengers are able or not to crack open the skulls and get to the brain tissue as breaking bones of big animals is not easy withouth tools (but maggots surely get there sooner o later). In any case I dont want to imply, by any means, that eating brain or marrow was the single cause of our rise to the top, we already were in a good positions as bipedal apes capable of using simple tools, and throwing stones at very high speed plus precision (projectile throwing to defend and to attack), but it seems the plant base diet of other apes like chimps, even today, put limits to their brains (they would not be able to get enough calories to sustain a bigger brain, and they already eat like 6 to 9 hours per day).

The nap thing after meals is called postprandial somnolence and seems to be caused by the indirect effect of carbs on the brain: more tryptophan gets into the brain to be converted into melatonin (one of the sleep master hormones), carbs raise insuline and apparently this clears the blood from other competing amino-acids so more tryphtopane crosses the blood brain barrier.

Red meat is not mandatory on a carnivore diet, I supposed even fish eated nose to tail and maybe some eggs (an egg is almost a nose to tail animal organism if you also eat the egg shells) would do most of the trick, it is just read meat from ruminants seems to be more nutritious vis a vis pork or chicken (and less toxic specially if we are talking about grain feed animals) because ruminants have a very powerfull polygastric stomach capable of better transforming plant stuff into animal nutrients and neutralising toxins.

I eat my meat very rare, as cooking destroy many nutrients and creates toxic compounds. I dont have a definite possition here becuase it always seem like a trade off between better nutrition VS the risk of pathogens, etc.

Fruit is probably the better part to eat from a plant, since the plant "wants" us to eat the fruit to disperse the seeds, (seeds is the most nutritious part of the plant but simultaneously the most toxic and hard to digest because it is paramount for the plant survival that their seed do not get digested by plant predators), fruit in the past, in many parts of the world,was only available on certain seassons, many animals gorge on fruit and nuts to gain weight in the summer to prepare for the coming winter, usually gainning a lot of fat in the proccess (good for them in nature, not so much for many of us because winter in the sense of starvation or fasting does not come to us so many just keep perpetually ading fat pounds). Too much fructose, as in fruit sugar, seems to be not so great for the liver, but in low amounts (maybe around 20 grams per day) it is very well tolerated. (most people today get like 75 grams per day)

In regard to plant toxins, well from what I have seen some people do pretty well eating plants, but othe people are weaker, and plant toxins can be very powerful, some of this are capable of doing pretty nasty stuff even to the herbivores who are most adapted to eating them. Humans are oficially classified as omnivores but my personal belief, after a lot of research, it is that our needs put us closer to carnivores (we just have more plant tolerance than other carnivores). But I dont want to be dogmatic about it, and many traditionals tribes include plant foods in relatively high amounts with no apparent ill effect given they never stop having acces to a minimal sufficiente amount of high quality animal foods.

I will not try to induce fear in people, but I would recommend them to really get to know plant toxins and their possible effects, some are really mind-blowing. Brocolli for example was created by artificial selection and still it contains chemicals that can really harm the thyroid. After what I have read I can not underestimate plants chemical warfare capabilities: human liver is awesome doing its work so it would depend on the strengh of your liver I would say. And there is also the hormetic theory (small amounts of poison may have a good effect, but people in my opinion abuses from this concept). And to make it clear I would preffer, for sentimental reassons, that we were HERBIVORES, so I am supposed to be bias in the direction against my own conclussions, I find that kind of interesting.

Also from the more power move point of view, the political class has a big incentive in people going plant based, if that make people in the long run lest capable of rebelion and cheaper to feed, but I dont want to get to much into "conspiracy" theory terrain... just a seed for thought! thank you for your reply Luccio!

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 PostsTopic Author

Empowered Member

#4 · August 16, 2020, 8:32 am

found this summary from a recent study

"The habitual consumption of large-animal resources (e.g., similar sized or larger than the consumer) separates human and nonhuman primate behavior. Flaked stone tool use, another important hominin behavior, is often portrayed as being functionally related to this by the necessity of a sharp edge for cutting animal tissue. However, most research on both issues emphasizes sites that postdate ca. 2.0 million years ago. This paper critically examines the theoretical significance of the earlier origins of these two behaviors, their proposed interrelationship, and the nature of the empirical record. We argue that concepts of meat-eating and tool use are too loosely defined: outside-bone nutrients (e.g., meat) and inside-bone nutrients (e.g., marrow and brains) have different macronutrient characteristics (protein vs. fat), mechanical requirements for access (cutting vs. percussion), search, handling and competitive costs, encounter rates, and net returns. Thus, they would have demanded distinct technological and behavioral solutions. We propose that the regular exploitation of large-animal resources—the “human predatory pattern”—began with an emphasis on percussion-based scavenging of inside-bone nutrients, independent of the emergence of flaked stone tool use. This leads to a series of empirical test implications that differ from previous “meat-eating” origins scenarios."

Anon@anonymous_user

142 Posts

Empowered Member

#5 · August 16, 2020, 5:47 pm

Quote from Anon on August 16, 2020, 5:47 pm
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 16, 2020, 5:06 am

Yeah, this is super interesting to me to, since nutrition is, frankly, such a minefield.

It certainly is – until you find something actually reliable and then it all clears up – it was for me a bit like your emphasis on collaborative frames here on power-moves – social dynamics become way simpler to judge even with that fundamental perspective alone. But without it, it’s a confusing mess.

Let’s approach nutrition and food with the principles of the scientific method, and be rigerously and fundamentally sceptic, rely on reproduceable and especially verifyable observations, take biases into account and apply induction and dective reasoning.

This is quite empowering as one will become independent of all kinds of “experts” who claim something and of course countless other “experts” claiming the direct opposite, and be actually able to judge their claims on a solid fundament.

The very basis of what is healthy or not for humans relies on what the body demands and what nature made it capable of thriving on.

Not because “Nature is good, so let’s live as natural as possible” – as that would be the ‘appeal to nature’-fallacy, and nature is demonstratable and observable not at all “good”, but the opposite, because its standard modes of operation are murder, rape and torture, and an uncountable amount of victims suffered through these, even in the time it took to read this sentence.

But because if we want to avoid sickness and illness to greatest degree possible, we have to fulfill the needs of the body the appropriate way.

Though humans naturally have a pro-nature bias because it looks nice and it is what is healthy for us. If you have to choose between sitting some hours in a huge warehouse with bright, but unnatural lighting, and sitting at a tropical cliff surrounded by tropical plants, with a beach underneath it, your choice is obvious and instinctive.

These instincts are very important in determining the food that nature demands humans to eat, to suffer the least amount possible, but these instincts are easily tricked. Porn or VR are obvious examples, but there are many others.

Cows are obvious herbivores but are fed in the concentration camps soja (-parts), so they increase their weight quicker.

They wouldn’t naturally touch that stuff, their instincts protect them, so these very unnatural and unhealthy soja-based remnants are sprayed with chemicals (aroma) that make them smell and taste like grass (which makes it even more toxic obviously).

And then their instinct is tricked (because it would be unefficient to have an instinct taking something hugely specific like this into account, as they are in a very unnatural situation), and they accept it.

The same is true for humans. Why are all kinds of “foods” always treated with all kinds of chemicals that change it's taste a specific way (f.e. aroma) or even just cause craving like as a drug (f.e. artificial glutamate).

And then there are “condiments” (of which many are naturally originated, but not everything natural is food obviously, as "condiments" are irritating and toxic, and only tolerable in tiny, tiny amounts, chili and salt are 2 obvious examples), which is an euphemism for flavor-masking or -creating, and then of course mixing it all together some way (all the stuff may come from 4 different continents/climate zones thousands of miles apart and meets in your stomach).

If you have to mask the taste of the stuff you are about to ingest, or even have to artificially create it, because it is otherwise completely unappealing, can it be natural human food?

At the same time it takes away the very crucial ability to judge the quality of food. How do you know if you ingested something rotten if the taste is masked by something else entirely.

This question becomes very obvious if we look at what types of things human can ingest, that are:

naturally available

completely unprocessed and raw easily digestable

serve the nutritional and caloric needs of humans and make them thrive

naturally appealing, without any processing or flavor masking

If anything fits that, it would be natural human food, and if not, it wouldn’t.

Though, that doesn’t mean you will immediately drop dead if you eat something unnatural. Of course it depends on the specific toxicity of the ingested - you could likely even drink bleach without streight up dropping dead, as many small children have come to know.

But that very obviously doesn’t mean bleach were human food, and if you don’t abide by the demands of nature, you will get tortured through sickness, in case of the bleach example – immediately, with other toxins it will take (much) longer, but the outcome will be immense suffering eventually. Alcohol is an example of a less immediete toxin in smaller amounts but it obviously isn’t healthy at all.

Now if you think about a fresh, bright red, sweet watermelon, some sugary sukkari-dates, pineapple, papaya, honeymelons, mangos, oranges, grapes etc. – are they appealing – even to someone who is used to artificially flavour the stuff they ingest*?

Just reading these words may have caused some salivation in your mouth.

These are instinctively attractive for humans.

*And therefore has completely overstimulated tastebuds, like a porn-addict that isn’t really attracted to actual woman anymore because of it (but it’s reversible in both cases, I speak from experience of both).

Though you can survive on f.e. dates alone for quite some time, fat and protein are lacking. (As a seperate meal, otherwise it becomes hard to digest).

So if we think about (all raw!) Macadamias, Pistacios, Avocados, Coconuts, Almonds, Pecans, etc. – they all very clearly fit the stated criteria for natural human food together with sugary fruits.

And as they all are available in tropical or subtropical climates, it becomes clear that humans are tropical animals, and that’s the reason why we die quickly without clothing/fire/technology in winter in f.e. northern europe/america.

It’s not a natural human habitat and that’s why we need all kinds of technology to make it into an artificially tropical-temperated enviroment. But we still have to abide the demands of nature.

Now let’s apply our instincts as the criterias for natural human food some more:

Instinctivly apealing flavours for humans are generally “fruity” or “flowery” and flowers are the predecessors of fruits (nuts are biological also a fruit). There is no parfum that smells like rotting corpses or a fishmarket because humans instinctivly reject it. So it’s unhealthy to digest stuff like that anyway, even if you were a psychopath who gets a boner of how much the animals had to suffer to come to the plate, your body will punish you eventually and immensly (Diabetis, Dementia, Asthma, Digestive Issues, etc., etc.).

Corpses → very repelling for humans, even if they are conditioned from early on that eating (only specific parts!) of chemically altered corpses were normal. Humans can’t possibly be carnivores or omnivores (as the latter is often claimed but obviously nonsense) if they are repelled by their alleged food (and they need to chemically alter it (f.e. cooking) and mask it’s bland taste artificially because it is so very unnatural and unhealthy for humans).

But there is more, humans are repelled by hair in their mouth while eating, are extremely sensitive to toxins from flesh-eating bacteria (“food poisoning”), as well as flesh-related parasites, can’t even bite the (hairy!) skin of a rabbit (or “leather” in general), don’t salivate at the thought of a mouth full of bloody, warm intestines, have no actual predator instict whatsoever, don’t want to instinctivly kill at all nor have quick enough reflexes and movements to be able to, have no fangs at all, but hands that are in contrast to fangs, optimal for picking fruits of a tree*, etc.

fishmarkets → absolutely disgusting smell, risk of suffocation through fishbones

cooked potatos → probably not too toxic but certainly not natural human food, taste bland and unappealing without masking the taste (f.e. with addictive stone crumbles known as "salt", that make you reliably vomit if you eat a daily dose of them on their own in one sitting) and mixing it with other stuff

vegetables like celery, beets, cucumbers etc → bland and unappealing, doesn’t serve caloric needs at all, certainly not as “healthy” as it is claimed (“the best part of a cucumber tastes like the worst part of a watermelon”)

grains → again raw bland and unappealing, hard to digest, doesn’t make humans thrive, has to be heavily chemically altered (f.e. Maillard reaction) - which is a destructive process by the way.

*All of this makes it clear humans are natural frugivores (including nuts and fatfruits like avocados), and certainly not carnivores nor omnivores nor herbivores nor grainivores.

As it gets always dragged into this topic, could you, @Stef in this case, please explain how the theory of (makro-!)evolution, which basically claims, that dead matter structered and ordered itself randomly into more and more complex, fragile systems that became so utterly ordered and structured that they -somehow- gave birth to two whole new dimension (living things and also consiousness (the hard problem of consiousness)), that even constantly replicate themself – out of nowhere of course; can possibly coexist with the law of entropy which states that dead matter slowly goes to increasing disorder (higher entropy).

Because those two blatantly contradict each other, and only entropy is actually observable.

I mean no offense, and know I’m confrontational (on the topic, not on you) though the theory of (makro-)evolution has very serious flaws that poison your thinking if you uninspected take it at face value.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 16, 2020, 5:06 am

Yeah, this is super interesting to me to, since nutrition is, frankly, such a minefield.

It certainly is – until you find something actually reliable and then it all clears up – it was for me a bit like your emphasis on collaborative frames here on power-moves – social dynamics become way simpler to judge even with that fundamental perspective alone. But without it, it’s a confusing mess.

Let’s approach nutrition and food with the principles of the scientific method, and be rigerously and fundamentally sceptic, rely on reproduceable and especially verifyable observations, take biases into account and apply induction and dective reasoning.

This is quite empowering as one will become independent of all kinds of “experts” who claim something and of course countless other “experts” claiming the direct opposite, and be actually able to judge their claims on a solid fundament.

The very basis of what is healthy or not for humans relies on what the body demands and what nature made it capable of thriving on.

Not because “Nature is good, so let’s live as natural as possible” – as that would be the ‘appeal to nature’-fallacy, and nature is demonstratable and observable not at all “good”, but the opposite, because its standard modes of operation are murder, rape and torture, and an uncountable amount of victims suffered through these, even in the time it took to read this sentence.

But because if we want to avoid sickness and illness to greatest degree possible, we have to fulfill the needs of the body the appropriate way.

Though humans naturally have a pro-nature bias because it looks nice and it is what is healthy for us. If you have to choose between sitting some hours in a huge warehouse with bright, but unnatural lighting, and sitting at a tropical cliff surrounded by tropical plants, with a beach underneath it, your choice is obvious and instinctive.

These instincts are very important in determining the food that nature demands humans to eat, to suffer the least amount possible, but these instincts are easily tricked. Porn or VR are obvious examples, but there are many others.

Cows are obvious herbivores but are fed in the concentration camps soja (-parts), so they increase their weight quicker.

They wouldn’t naturally touch that stuff, their instincts protect them, so these very unnatural and unhealthy soja-based remnants are sprayed with chemicals (aroma) that make them smell and taste like grass (which makes it even more toxic obviously).

And then their instinct is tricked (because it would be unefficient to have an instinct taking something hugely specific like this into account, as they are in a very unnatural situation), and they accept it.

The same is true for humans. Why are all kinds of “foods” always treated with all kinds of chemicals that change it's taste a specific way (f.e. aroma) or even just cause craving like as a drug (f.e. artificial glutamate).

And then there are “condiments” (of which many are naturally originated, but not everything natural is food obviously, as "condiments" are irritating and toxic, and only tolerable in tiny, tiny amounts, chili and salt are 2 obvious examples), which is an euphemism for flavor-masking or -creating, and then of course mixing it all together some way (all the stuff may come from 4 different continents/climate zones thousands of miles apart and meets in your stomach).

If you have to mask the taste of the stuff you are about to ingest, or even have to artificially create it, because it is otherwise completely unappealing, can it be natural human food?

At the same time it takes away the very crucial ability to judge the quality of food. How do you know if you ingested something rotten if the taste is masked by something else entirely.

This question becomes very obvious if we look at what types of things human can ingest, that are:

naturally available
completely unprocessed and raw easily digestable
serve the nutritional and caloric needs of humans and make them thrive
naturally appealing, without any processing or flavor masking

If anything fits that, it would be natural human food, and if not, it wouldn’t.

Though, that doesn’t mean you will immediately drop dead if you eat something unnatural. Of course it depends on the specific toxicity of the ingested - you could likely even drink bleach without streight up dropping dead, as many small children have come to know.

But that very obviously doesn’t mean bleach were human food, and if you don’t abide by the demands of nature, you will get tortured through sickness, in case of the bleach example – immediately, with other toxins it will take (much) longer, but the outcome will be immense suffering eventually. Alcohol is an example of a less immediete toxin in smaller amounts but it obviously isn’t healthy at all.

Now if you think about a fresh, bright red, sweet watermelon, some sugary sukkari-dates, pineapple, papaya, honeymelons, mangos, oranges, grapes etc. – are they appealing – even to someone who is used to artificially flavour the stuff they ingest*?

Just reading these words may have caused some salivation in your mouth.

These are instinctively attractive for humans.

*And therefore has completely overstimulated tastebuds, like a porn-addict that isn’t really attracted to actual woman anymore because of it (but it’s reversible in both cases, I speak from experience of both).

Though you can survive on f.e. dates alone for quite some time, fat and protein are lacking. (As a seperate meal, otherwise it becomes hard to digest).

So if we think about (all raw!) Macadamias, Pistacios, Avocados, Coconuts, Almonds, Pecans, etc. – they all very clearly fit the stated criteria for natural human food together with sugary fruits.

And as they all are available in tropical or subtropical climates, it becomes clear that humans are tropical animals, and that’s the reason why we die quickly without clothing/fire/technology in winter in f.e. northern europe/america.

It’s not a natural human habitat and that’s why we need all kinds of technology to make it into an artificially tropical-temperated enviroment. But we still have to abide the demands of nature.

Now let’s apply our instincts as the criterias for natural human food some more:

Instinctivly apealing flavours for humans are generally “fruity” or “flowery” and flowers are the predecessors of fruits (nuts are biological also a fruit). There is no parfum that smells like rotting corpses or a fishmarket because humans instinctivly reject it. So it’s unhealthy to digest stuff like that anyway, even if you were a psychopath who gets a boner of how much the animals had to suffer to come to the plate, your body will punish you eventually and immensly (Diabetis, Dementia, Asthma, Digestive Issues, etc., etc.).

Corpses → very repelling for humans, even if they are conditioned from early on that eating (only specific parts!) of chemically altered corpses were normal. Humans can’t possibly be carnivores or omnivores (as the latter is often claimed but obviously nonsense) if they are repelled by their alleged food (and they need to chemically alter it (f.e. cooking) and mask it’s bland taste artificially because it is so very unnatural and unhealthy for humans).

But there is more, humans are repelled by hair in their mouth while eating, are extremely sensitive to toxins from flesh-eating bacteria (“food poisoning”), as well as flesh-related parasites, can’t even bite the (hairy!) skin of a rabbit (or “leather” in general), don’t salivate at the thought of a mouth full of bloody, warm intestines, have no actual predator instict whatsoever, don’t want to instinctivly kill at all nor have quick enough reflexes and movements to be able to, have no fangs at all, but hands that are in contrast to fangs, optimal for picking fruits of a tree*, etc.

fishmarkets → absolutely disgusting smell, risk of suffocation through fishbones

cooked potatos → probably not too toxic but certainly not natural human food, taste bland and unappealing without masking the taste (f.e. with addictive stone crumbles known as "salt", that make you reliably vomit if you eat a daily dose of them on their own in one sitting) and mixing it with other stuff

vegetables like celery, beets, cucumbers etc → bland and unappealing, doesn’t serve caloric needs at all, certainly not as “healthy” as it is claimed (“the best part of a cucumber tastes like the worst part of a watermelon”)

grains → again raw bland and unappealing, hard to digest, doesn’t make humans thrive, has to be heavily chemically altered (f.e. Maillard reaction) - which is a destructive process by the way.

*All of this makes it clear humans are natural frugivores (including nuts and fatfruits like avocados), and certainly not carnivores nor omnivores nor herbivores nor grainivores.

As it gets always dragged into this topic, could you, @Stef in this case, please explain how the theory of (makro-!)evolution, which basically claims, that dead matter structered and ordered itself randomly into more and more complex, fragile systems that became so utterly ordered and structured that they -somehow- gave birth to two whole new dimension (living things and also consiousness (the hard problem of consiousness)), that even constantly replicate themself – out of nowhere of course; can possibly coexist with the law of entropy which states that dead matter slowly goes to increasing disorder (higher entropy).

Because those two blatantly contradict each other, and only entropy is actually observable.

I mean no offense, and know I’m confrontational (on the topic, not on you) though the theory of (makro-)evolution has very serious flaws that poison your thinking if you uninspected take it at face value.

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 PostsTopic Author

Empowered Member

#6 · August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

many people find raw meat tasty, all primitive tribes hunted for food, no one thrive on fruit alone, even if we do not believe in evolution, it just make sense that if you eat another nose to tail animal you should get a lot of, or all, animal nutrients, and that is what an animal needs (animal nutrients), eating and digesting plants is way harder, that is why herbivores have more complex digestive systems and spend several hours per day eating and pooping. Entropy is not an increase in disorder, it is just an increase in possible micro states corresponding to a single macro state and in some theories of energetics living things increase the universe entropy by mere existing and their metabolism, but that is a topic for another place. I dont want to make this Carnivore VS Vegan...

Anon@anonymous_user

142 Posts

Empowered Member

#7 · August 17, 2020, 1:43 am

Quote from Anon on August 17, 2020, 1:43 am

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

"all primitive tribes hunted for food"

Well they certainly hunted for fruits and nuts, that’s what their ability to discrimate between colours (that carnivores lack by the way) and their overall anatomy is shaped for, from the muscles in the back that give them the ability to climb trees to the thumb that lets them peel fruits and much, much else.

But you claim as if you knew for absolute certain there wasn’t and isn’t a single primitive society in all of human history that didn’t eat corpses, even though their instincts demanded and enviroment provided them with food that actually tasted and digested well, and didn’t streight up instinctivly repulse them and made them sick.

And even if that were true, which it uttermost certainly isn’t, it’s still not an argument in favour of doing like they did, because it could have been because of food shortages, sadism or ignorance, or all of it combined. And otherwise you can also make a case for rape this way (that’s allways a good way to test your arguments' validity) and people in 1000 years from now can claim that eating at McDonalds is good becouse some ancestors did it so it must be good, etc.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“many people find raw meat tasty”

Are we both talking about unprocessed(!) parts of a corpse?

Well even more people don’t, so case closed? But no, muscle-flesh in supermarkets is already processed – f.e. it is chemically altered through being hung (has something to do with cadaveric rigidity and ph-value) – as it is even way more indigestable for humans directly from the corpse, or shortly after death; as well as throughly ground up to tiny pieces as humans otherwise have problems chewing and swallowing it; and also in most cases “seasoned”.

They certainly won’t find it tasty right off the corpse – especially if they first have to actually cause that bloody corpse, and further don’t even have the natural ability – to even catch a rabbit with bare hands, and if they still somehow managed to – then failing to bite through their hairy skin or rip it appart. (That’s also why guns are used to “hunt”, which is as impressive as driving 50km with a car and claiming you just did a marathon.)

And you are only referring to muscle-flesh, a carnivore or omnivore would instinctivly want and need to eat intestines and drink blood as well right from the corpse when the blood is still warm. So if humans were actual carnivores/omnivores, that would eat only raw muscle flesh, it would still be a very lacking diet!

But we obviously aren’t.

Have you ever smelled it when a dog has trouble holding back his lust for eating corpse parts like rumen in an enclosed room? The expression of utter disgust on your face will not even be consciously made, but purely instinctual.

Do you know people who find that smell salviating or find raw rumen tasty?

It’s especially insightfull to observe children, because they are still more instinctual, and I’m pretty sure children prefer to play with a rabbit, instead of ripping it appart bare-handedly - even if they were very hungry. And if you would take that rabbit and somehow manage to rip it appart - you would most likely utterly traumatize that child - like a true carnivore/omnivore would react to this as well, right? What more proof do you need.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“no one thrive on fruit alone”

What a claim again, you only deal in absolutes do you 😉

But seriosly how do you claim to know this?

Though that’s besides the point that I even agree, and outlined that nuts and fatfruits have to be included in the “fruit”-category as well (as it is in biology, but not in common language).

And if you include nuts and fatfruits in “fruits”, then of course one can thrive on that, and in fact only on that, as I (and others obviously, I didn’t realize this all myself) made the case for.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“I dont want to make this Carnivore VS Vegan…”

Me neither, let’s don’t and look what makes us most healthy, and therefore powerfull.

The stakes are very high, you eat every single day multiple times, and if you ingest actually biologically unappropriate stuff, you will suffer for it, so you really have to make sure you make the correct choices.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“eating and digesting plants is way harder, that is why herbivores have more complex digestive systems and spend several hours per day eating and pooping.”

There are many different forms of plants, a watermelon isn't hard to digest at all. And harder for whom, a herbivore?

But I get your point, jerbivores therefore have very long intestines and carnivores/omnivores have in comparison extremely short ones.

But it looks like you provide a false dichotomy here.

There obviously aren’t just carnivores and herbivores, and if you arent option a) you must be option b).

Thats actually another reason why humans can’t possibly be carnivores or omnivores because their digestive system is way too long for that, which causes all kinds of problems.

We need and digest sugar and fat, which happens to be in fruits and nuts that taste good in their raw, unprocessed state, so the category “frugivorous” is the closest actual biological fit - by far.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“and that is what an animal needs (animal nutrients)”

Do herbivores, grainivores and frugivores also need “animal nutrients”?

Interestingly, as humans are frugivores, they are in a win-win relationship with their food providing trees and bushes, and help them spread their seeds in exchange for food. Isn’t this symbiosis a great example of a collaborative frame.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“Entropy is not an increase in disorder”

It definitly is, and I took that part literally from wikipedia to be as exact as possible.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“it is just an increase in possible micro states corresponding to a single macro state and in some theories of energetics living things increase the universe entropy by mere existing and their metabolism”

You may want to read the article I took the defintion from because that seems not correct, or at most is only a part of it.

All it takes to observe entropy in action is dissolving smoke-particles, or the decaying ruin of what once has been a car.

If a torndado can’t just run through a junkyard and produce a brand new, fully functional car, then how likely is it that the tornade produces a car that also lives and replicates, multiplicates and changes from being a car to being a truck to being a plane and on top of it all even is selfaware. The process of evolution is even way more unlikely as that already utterly ridiculous scenario, as a junkyard already has all the necessary and fitting parts lying around ready to be used.

PS: A bit of structure would make it a lot easier to read your contributions.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

"all primitive tribes hunted for food"

Well they certainly hunted for fruits and nuts, that’s what their ability to discrimate between colours (that carnivores lack by the way) and their overall anatomy is shaped for, from the muscles in the back that give them the ability to climb trees to the thumb that lets them peel fruits and much, much else.

But you claim as if you knew for absolute certain there wasn’t and isn’t a single primitive society in all of human history that didn’t eat corpses, even though their instincts demanded and enviroment provided them with food that actually tasted and digested well, and didn’t streight up instinctivly repulse them and made them sick.

And even if that were true, which it uttermost certainly isn’t, it’s still not an argument in favour of doing like they did, because it could have been because of food shortages, sadism or ignorance, or all of it combined. And otherwise you can also make a case for rape this way (that’s allways a good way to test your arguments' validity) and people in 1000 years from now can claim that eating at McDonalds is good becouse some ancestors did it so it must be good, etc.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“many people find raw meat tasty”

Are we both talking about unprocessed(!) parts of a corpse?

Well even more people don’t, so case closed? But no, muscle-flesh in supermarkets is already processed – f.e. it is chemically altered through being hung (has something to do with cadaveric rigidity and ph-value) – as it is even way more indigestable for humans directly from the corpse, or shortly after death; as well as throughly ground up to tiny pieces as humans otherwise have problems chewing and swallowing it; and also in most cases “seasoned”.

They certainly won’t find it tasty right off the corpse – especially if they first have to actually cause that bloody corpse, and further don’t even have the natural ability – to even catch a rabbit with bare hands, and if they still somehow managed to – then failing to bite through their hairy skin or rip it appart. (That’s also why guns are used to “hunt”, which is as impressive as driving 50km with a car and claiming you just did a marathon.)

And you are only referring to muscle-flesh, a carnivore or omnivore would instinctivly want and need to eat intestines and drink blood as well right from the corpse when the blood is still warm. So if humans were actual carnivores/omnivores, that would eat only raw muscle flesh, it would still be a very lacking diet!

But we obviously aren’t.

Have you ever smelled it when a dog has trouble holding back his lust for eating corpse parts like rumen in an enclosed room? The expression of utter disgust on your face will not even be consciously made, but purely instinctual.

Do you know people who find that smell salviating or find raw rumen tasty?

It’s especially insightfull to observe children, because they are still more instinctual, and I’m pretty sure children prefer to play with a rabbit, instead of ripping it appart bare-handedly - even if they were very hungry. And if you would take that rabbit and somehow manage to rip it appart - you would most likely utterly traumatize that child - like a true carnivore/omnivore would react to this as well, right? What more proof do you need.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“no one thrive on fruit alone”

What a claim again, you only deal in absolutes do you 😉

But seriosly how do you claim to know this?

Though that’s besides the point that I even agree, and outlined that nuts and fatfruits have to be included in the “fruit”-category as well (as it is in biology, but not in common language).

And if you include nuts and fatfruits in “fruits”, then of course one can thrive on that, and in fact only on that, as I (and others obviously, I didn’t realize this all myself) made the case for.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“I dont want to make this Carnivore VS Vegan…”

Me neither, let’s don’t and look what makes us most healthy, and therefore powerfull.

The stakes are very high, you eat every single day multiple times, and if you ingest actually biologically unappropriate stuff, you will suffer for it, so you really have to make sure you make the correct choices.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“eating and digesting plants is way harder, that is why herbivores have more complex digestive systems and spend several hours per day eating and pooping.”

There are many different forms of plants, a watermelon isn't hard to digest at all. And harder for whom, a herbivore?

But I get your point, jerbivores therefore have very long intestines and carnivores/omnivores have in comparison extremely short ones.

But it looks like you provide a false dichotomy here.

There obviously aren’t just carnivores and herbivores, and if you arent option a) you must be option b).

Thats actually another reason why humans can’t possibly be carnivores or omnivores because their digestive system is way too long for that, which causes all kinds of problems.

We need and digest sugar and fat, which happens to be in fruits and nuts that taste good in their raw, unprocessed state, so the category “frugivorous” is the closest actual biological fit - by far.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“and that is what an animal needs (animal nutrients)”

Do herbivores, grainivores and frugivores also need “animal nutrients”?

Interestingly, as humans are frugivores, they are in a win-win relationship with their food providing trees and bushes, and help them spread their seeds in exchange for food. Isn’t this symbiosis a great example of a collaborative frame.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“Entropy is not an increase in disorder”

It definitly is, and I took that part literally from wikipedia to be as exact as possible.

Quote from Stef on August 16, 2020, 10:55 pm

“it is just an increase in possible micro states corresponding to a single macro state and in some theories of energetics living things increase the universe entropy by mere existing and their metabolism”

You may want to read the article I took the defintion from because that seems not correct, or at most is only a part of it.

All it takes to observe entropy in action is dissolving smoke-particles, or the decaying ruin of what once has been a car.

If a torndado can’t just run through a junkyard and produce a brand new, fully functional car, then how likely is it that the tornade produces a car that also lives and replicates, multiplicates and changes from being a car to being a truck to being a plane and on top of it all even is selfaware. The process of evolution is even way more unlikely as that already utterly ridiculous scenario, as a junkyard already has all the necessary and fitting parts lying around ready to be used.

PS: A bit of structure would make it a lot easier to read your contributions.

Stef has reacted to this post.

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 PostsTopic Author

Empowered Member

#8 · August 17, 2020, 3:28 am

all animals need animal nutrients, that is an absolute fact, herbivores just happen to have better mechanisms to transform plant nutrients into the animal version (and some eat insects in fruit like maggots or their own poop to supplement their diet with key nutrients absent in plants)

Wikipedia is not the best source for such a complex topic as entropy.

Nuts are seeds, and well, if you eat the whole fruit, yes seeds would be part of the menu, seeds are specially hard to digest raw and unprocessed and many are very very toxic, but to be fair some animals are also toxic (not the majority of them).

In relation to the lenght of our digestive track, there are many hypothesis of why it is longer than other meat eaters, and not all of them imply that we must be fruitarian... also, given you accept wikipedia as a valid source I am pretty sure Wikipedia classify humans as omnivores... something you deny.

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 PostsTopic Author

Empowered Member

#9 · August 17, 2020, 3:38 am

I have eaten directly from the bloody corpse, raw meat, guts and organs, damm even bone, eyeballs, brain tissue, nose to tail and I find it nice tasting... some kids would kill little birds and other cute animals, and many people are sadist, but those arguments are not key in my mind.

Stef@bucktickrammstein18

529 PostsTopic Author

Empowered Member

#10 · August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

if there only were one women in the world, and she would not have sex voluntarily, raping her would be a way of saving the human species from extinction I suppose (some would prefer human extinction to rape even in that scenario, and I can respect that.)

rape today is surely not a necessity, it is just forced sex, but we still need voluntary sex (not really as we can rely on artificial insemination I suppose), but is a different topic from diet because the food our ancestors ate may be key in understanding our current body needs and adaptations, the same can not be said in relation to rape, slavery, gratitious man on man violence...

cannibalism may be nutritious, luckily a cow seems to be more nutritious than a human being and with less risk of disease transmission, but because something is inmoral or disgusting (to most people) it does not mean it can not be healthy or nutritious.