Look for that in the subtitles of this beautiful hang gliding video set to music. Then see what comes after. That's what it's all about for most of us, not adrenaline, as so many misunderstand.
(via The Oz Report)
Look for that in the subtitles of this beautiful hang gliding video set to music. Then see what comes after. That's what it's all about for most of us, not adrenaline, as so many misunderstand.
(via The Oz Report)
Arrived in San Antonio and settled in. Photo from the condo onto the River Walk on Facebook and TwitPic via Twitter. I'll post some photos here, too; tomorrow.
Amazing number of comments to review and weigh in on where needed; again: tomorrow AM. But carry on. We're headed out to find a big chunk of grilled meat.
It's great to spend a day traveling, only to arrive with high energy, ready to go.
I had hoped and planned to have laid the whole thing out for you, by now. But later today I'm headed to San Antonio, TX for a family visit. My wife's brother retired as a air traffic controller to SA and she's been vying for a visit for a while. I had the free miles, she made the arrangements to stay in a property along the River Walk through Friday, then onto New Braunfels for a couple of days, and then returning early Sunday.
So, I decided a couple of days ago to just wait to dive full force into this until I get back. In the meantime, I'll serve up some light blogging, maybe some photos (the on-the-fly pics typically get published to my Facebook page and to Twitter).
This will give me time to consider some of the input I've received through comments and email. And, I'm still trying to work on a name for the overall lifestyle and philosophy (diet, exercise, fasting). Surprisingly, I have received, save one comment, nothing but encouragement. That one commenter said it smacked of a "Scientology scam." While Scientology is indeed a scam, I deleted the comment for being such a stupid "argument." The commenter also said there are better blogs out there for free, which is stupid and non-sequitur. I have repeatedly emphasized that the blog won't change. It will always have relevant and current content, and will always be free and open, with no registration requirement. It's the hub, central to everything, and it is absolutely essential that it remain free and open. As it strands now, the comment content of this blog dwarfs what I write, in terms of quantity. It would be unbelievably stupid of me to throw that away.
Also, I agree there are better blogs out there. I hope there always will be. I'm quite well aware of most of them, read them regularly, and they always drive me to improve this one. I hope you see that.
I know there are a lot of people out there who support all or most of what I'm doing. Frankly, however, I would love nothing more than to get a rigorous, well-thought-out argument as to how I may be off base, missing something, taking the wrong approach, and so on. That would help me to make sure all my ducks are in a row.
It would be nice, but I simply can't take the absence of any such arguments against me as evidence that there simply aren't any. So, here's the chance to help improve things: what am I doing wrong? I need and want your help, if there's anything you can think of.
Chew on it, will yooz? Until then, onward.
After today’s earlier post, upon which I continue to fume: “TEEVEE Commercial Care.”
What defense has the average person? It’s hand in hand. Doc prescribes, and patients see it on TEEVEE!!!
Makes them feel special, important, and cared for, I suppose.
Zoo animals could feel so special, if they understood.
As I reported a while back, my mom, a Type 2 diabetic on insulin injections for years, has gotten off them as a result of a grain free, very low carbohydrate diet (duh, that's how they all do it, in contradiction to the advice of the American Diabetes Association, that seems intent on keeping people on these medications). I will add that, as you can see from her own story, linked above, this happened when she began following my dietary advice in blatant, explicit, in-your-face, doc, contradiction to the "medical" authorities. Is that a general qualification in my case? No, absolutely not. But most doctors know shit-all about diet, nutrition, and metabolism. They know drugs.
She has stayed off them and her blood glucose readings have stayed below 95. She's still on Metformin, an oral medication, but so far, so good.
However, she has been having problems with nausea and vomiting every morning when she gets up. She's going to see her doctor about that tomorrow morning. But here's an interesting datapoint: last weekend she went camping for four days, forget all medications, and felt great, with no nausea at all. Gets back, gets on the meds again, and guess what?
Anyway, she calls to set up her appointment this morning and has to go through the advice nurse, first. Nurse is not aware that mom has unilaterally gone off insulin and mom doesn't volunteer that info. Instead, says she has "reduced it" steadily (yea: to zero, now!).
Care to guess what "advice" mom gets, keeping in mind that she has kept her BG below 95 consistently? She's told to stop the Metformin between now and tomorrow's appointment. Good. Guess what else? "Eat 15-20 grams of carbohydrate every two hours. As long as your blood glucose says below 240 [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] keep eating the carbohydrates."
Am I crazy, or is Big Medical out to kill their patients?
Oh, also, and I hadn't know this, but they had mom on a Statin for total C of 220, in spite of the fact that no study has yet to show any benefit to women on statins, while some have demonstrated a weak association with increased mortality.
She was smart enough to stop the statin some time ago.
I've been reading The 10,000 Year Explosion over the last several weeks, nearing completion. It's been a while since I found a book so interesting and compelling. In contrast, though Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories is a watershed science of nutrition book that has yet to see the popularity it deserves and, I believe, will receive in time — I was already a "convert." So while I leaned a lot of specifics, nothing was particularly surprising.
This is not the case for the former. In fact, it has and is challenging some things that I, and I believe the "Paleo community" in general, hold dear. On the other hand, I was already going to some of these places. For example, I don't think it's primarily about the carbohydrate load, anymore (within reason: two Big Gulps per day and an order of Crispy Cremes is not what I mean). In fact, I have been pondering a name for my own particular approach to diet, exercise, and intermittent fasting, and I always come back to: The Ancestral Life. Why? Because what you can tolerate and what makes you at your best is not determined by the fact that you're an H. Sapiens, with a particular genome, but rather, party to one eventual group or another that left Africa 60,000 years ago, branched off, experienced great survival success in wildly different environments, and it's all written in your genes. So: where did you come from, say, in the last 50,000 years?
A personal case in point: I am of NW and Central Euro (Germanic) descent, my wife of American and South-Central American Indian (specifically: Mexican). Consequently, they lived for thousands of years in relative isolation, not mixing genes with tradesmen, travelers, or immigrants from other far distant regions (as Euros, Asians, and Middle Easterners — broadly speaking — did), and genetically adapting to different foods and environments. It has only been hundreds of years that their genome has become reacquainted with the descendants of their ultimate ancestors, the first being Spaniards. This is anecdotal, but my wife does not seem to be responding to the leaning nature of my high-fat diet, as I do — in fact she has put on some weight. There may be other things at work, including the ass-kicking workouts, and I'll eventually sort it all out, but what it is not is formulaic, as though we're all cut from the same genome.
I rather like to do a few substantive book reviews whilst I'm reading something worthy, rather than a general wrap up upon conclusion. So, this may just be the the first of a couple or more hits & run of what may be more — maybe not — substantive partial reviews. If you saw my Facebook and Tweet updates earlier, then you saw that I was spending my first afternoon of the year at the pool, scooping up Vit D. This is the book I was reading, and so began to think of some passages I clipped some days back.
First, I must back up to 1993, 16 years ago. I picked up a book by James Dale Davidson entitled The Great Reckoning: Protecting Yourself in the Coming Depression. Lest you think that he was so insightful as to predict what may be happening now, that's not it. In fact, in terms of investment advice, he missed by a million miles. But the book was still vastly interesting. It looked at all of modern history from a geo-political standpoint, i.e., how things like the stirrup (mobilize an armored army on horseback), gunpowder and assorted other things changed the world and set up a sort of ebb & flow, a push-pull between centralized or distributed control of violence (that which largely runs the modern world). Of everything I read, there was a single brief passage that so resonated with me that I have recounted it in paraphrase dozens and dozens of times in writing and in conversations over the last 16 years. It was about the invention of government, of the modern State.
It goes something like this. Before agriculture, people hunted, gathered, and migrated — probably often following herds of animals. They only "owned" what they could carry, which wasn't a lot. Consequently: little to nothing owned, so nothing to bother to steal. Populations were small, averaging 30 members. Along comes agriculture and, suddenly, people have to stick around to tend to fields, they begin to accumulate wealth, as they don't have to pick up and move all the time. It's not a great leap to imagine that some preferred to remain hunter-gatherers, but with a new prey: other humans.
So, they systematically raid settlements of other humans who have stores of grains, livestock, and other valuable things they have acquired or fashioned. But there's an inherent problem: disorganization among thieves. What happens if, after a four-day trek to loot the village you "visited" six months ago, you find that they have just been hit a few days prior by another "enterprising" band of thieves and there's nothing left worth stealing? Moreover, you're smart: you want to milk them, not kill them. You have a "long-term view."
What. Do. You. Do?
There's only one logical solution. You protect them from future marauders, but at a price (for you and your friends). This, my friends, is the ancient root of government: a protection racket by non-productive thieves for the benefit of themselves and other thieves.
Isn't it great to see that some things just don't change, even in 10,000 years?
OK, let's fast forward to a clip in The 10,000 Year Explosion that I recently read.
The sedentary lifestyle of farming allowed a vast elaboration of material culture. Food, shelter, and artifacts no longer had to be portable. Births could be spaced closer together, since mothers didn't have to continually carry small children. Food was now storable, unlike the typical products of foraging, and storable food could be stolen. For the first time, humans could begin to accumulate wealth. This allowed for nonproductive elites, which had been impossible among hunter-gatherers. We emphasize that these elites were not formed in response to some societal need: They took over because they could.
Combined with sedentism, these developments eventually led to the birth of governments, which limited local violence. Presumably, governments did this because it let them extract more resources from their subjects, the same reason that farmers castrate bulls. Since societies were generally Malthusian, with population growth limited by decreasing agriculture production per person at higher human density, limits on interpersonal violence ultimately led to a situation in which a higher fraction of the population died of infectious disease or starvation.
So, here you have the root of my decade-plus-long personal impatience with voters and voting.
I don't "vote" for thieves; neither do I lobby them or send them letters. As a matter of fact: I would rather that the full and complete consequences of their thievery bear full fruit, rather than persist in generation after generation of public delusion about who they are and what they're about. And I'm happy to take my chances with the obvious potential global pain that would cause.
Look paleo guys and gals: you did it for grains, legumes, vegetable oils, refined concentrated sugars and their highly processed derivatives. Why do you stop there? Government is an even newer "innovation" than agriculture. It is far more toxic, if you ask me.
Alright, here's a final interesting passage. Heretofore, everything I've read (including the foregoing mentioned Reckoning) sees modern history in terms of cultural change and technological innovation, as though human evolution stopped with the advent of agriculture rather than continued or, as 10,000 Year sets out to show, actually accelerated.
Over time, if our argument is correct, farming peoples should have become better adapted to their agricultural diets in many ways, and we might expect that some of the skeletal signs of physiological stress would have gradually decreased. Although such genetic adaptation clearly occurred, cultural changes that improved health must have occurred as well. For example, the adoption of new crops and new methods of food preparation would have improved the nutritional quality of the average peasant's diet. Of course, some of those new methods (polishing rice) and new crops (sugarcane)-actually made things worse. Adaptive change is slow and blind, but it is also sure and steady. Cultural change is less reliable.
But cultural change is important. Although many traditional archaeologists and anthropologists will probably see us as biological imperialists out to explain everything that ever happened with our pet genetic theories, we firmly believe that cultural change-new ideas, new techniques, new forms of social organization-were powerful influences on the historical process. We're simply saying that the complete historical analyst must consider genetic change as well as social, cultural, and political change. Once a list of battles and kings seemed plenty good enough, but life keeps getting more complicated.
Well, I don't know how long it will take for average people to become super tolerant to grains — much less to the point that they're nutritionally superior to, say, a big fat steak, but I'll take my steak. You all can do your part for the collective genome, if you like, but I'll take my big fat steak, 90% saturated fat coconut oil, my butter, ghee, lard, fatty fish, and my high-fat meat & fish sauces.
The first video is about food, the second about conditioning. The first video is about a sustainable, delicious, easy, fun, anti-inflammatory, and gene expressing way of eating that will shed fat, promote lean mass, and get rid of that awful "carb face" most of you start getting at age 40, or even before for the most serious carb junkies. The second video is about lazy, fake, fool yourself "conditioning" that, even beyond being a scam fraud, will once again reinforce the false notion that getting in shape requires inhuman drudgery rather than fun.
Carb face? I'll demonstrate. To the left is me, 2 1/2 years ago, age 45, on a trip to Europe. And to the right, age 48, just a month or so ago in Puerto Vallara.
What I did do is replace my cauliflower brain with a real brain (watch the video) and ate mostly in a way that Methuselah has outlined, and for exactly the same reasons.
What I didn't do was pretend to work out, like the folks pretending to jump rope using the "Jump Snap" and twirling their wrists.
As one commenter pointed out, "Why not just use two hair brushes and save the money?" That video is courtesy of the folks at Windy City Crossfit. What a laughable sad state of affairs.
Oh, and by the way? I have not one single time in the last two years worked out for more than an hour…per week. In fact, I'm down to about 50 minutes per week and on my way to 40, in two 20-minute sessions.
More intensity = less time = better results.
TV (and in general: video) can't be overlooked. The Internet is huge and growing — I've been on it since before you could read every website that existed (under 300) — and will someday surely eclipse television as the primary mode of information dissemination (it already has, amongst people with a true clue: you!).
The health, fitness, and diet industry is huge and homogenized. There are — and have been for years — people promoting health, fitness, and diet products and services via TV with only minor changes from the last promotion — and they make millions! Is that a good idea? It just is, and rule number one is to deal with the reality we've been dealt. Yea, changing it is a worthy goal, but you're more likely to do that by getting in the game.
Here's another reality: be perceived as an expert, guru…whatever, or perish at the hands of those who know how to get people to place an order. Here's what I think about "gurus," but, as a top-marketeer who I've been consulting with for months told me: you're going to be perceived as a guru whether you like it or not. And so are some of you other bloggers out there, or you're well on your way to that status. Do I like that? Unequivocally No. Is it probably true? Yes. Does explicitly going against that tide harm or help your effort? It probably harms it, because there's always someone ready to be the guru and exploit it.
So this is uncomfortable for me, and has been the chief obstacle to making something happen. It's very much outside my comfort zone, and if I am to use the notion of guru, then my preference is to make of everyone their own independent guru. I want everyone to be their own authority.
All that said in order to deliver the big positive: We can undercut all the rest. The paleo, Primal, EvFit lifestyle works. It works for everyone, every time, so long as people are willing to turn to a more natural mode of survival.
Just a minor market share can provide rapid revenue, along with the great personal satisfaction I crave by bringing this information into a more public airing, into the mainstream, witnessing people getting their health and longevity back. It'd be in the local market. I would quickly position myself as an authority in this area. Nothing else does it better or quicker! Once some authority has been established publicly, by the perverse means of having TV producers do that for you, the impact on the business end will be phenomenal. There will be interviews, lifestyle and dieting editors calling, and so on. Things will take off.
I'm going to make this installment short, because I want to focus on the power of television. It is essential. I had intended to cover several topics, but I'll instead cover them in Part 3. I'll close by quoting a comment from Aaron in Part 1. This is why your input is so critical. While this was already drafted in rough when that comment came in this morning, I had not thought of the comedic aspect.
If I took a shot in the dark about how to convince the mainstream masses that a paleo diet / lifestyle promotes perhaps the best health, then I think a cable-TV comedy show like "The Daily Show" would work better than books, websites, blogs, etc. These other outlets are great and necessary complements to a successful and stimulating and gut-splitting cable TV show, but the TV show is what keeps 'em coming back and spreads the gospel by word-of-mouth. Your angle has to be to make it about the evils (intended and otherwise) big pharma companies, the AMA and other government bodies, and the commercial food industry. You need to make fun of them in that sarcastic, yet oh-so-humorous way that John Stewart does and then offer the paleo approach (with the evidence to back it up–such as from your blog, Hyperlipid, Stephan's Whole Health Source, etc.) as the "like, duh, of course" alternative. In fact, you could bring proponents from both camps onto the show and roast the big pharma / empire AMA types but give special, fun, and entertaining roles to the paleo guests.
That, IMHO, is how you'd get mainstream America on board.
I was quite excited to read this, because my thinking has been more confined to just the business end of raising the money to get on (local) TV in the first place. I hadn't given much thought to what kind of format and I think this is an excellent idea.
Recently, owing to a post by Billy Beck on his blog, I've been mulling over the concept of "training."
They're trained, you see. This relieves them of the burden of thinking. This is especially handy for them in moral tests: they don't have to pause to evaluate the use of force. There is a training maxim that goes, "In a crisis, you don’t rise to the level of the situation, you sink to the level of your training." There is a very good Objectivist maxim that says, "Man is the only creature that can sink below his nature." Behold the terrible fix of these two X-lines on a graph: the ascent of anti-thought where thinking is most crucial — the application of force — and the sink of humans to the level of robots. These two lines cross at a concept of "training", which in this context and these applications is a rote substitution of formula in place of actual cognitive integration and ethical evaluation of all the facts at hand.
This really resonates with me and has wide application (and I think Billy's application to politics and the use of State force is spot on). We do use the concept of training quite a lot, and in particular, when we're talking about our workouts at the gym and so forth. So, there's an element of validity to it, I thought. Then I though otherwise.
Are wild animals trained? Of course not, and that goes to the principal distinction of wild vs. domesticated animals, or pets.
I also realized that my wife and I have never bothered to spend much time "training" our animals. I prefer to see them in a more natural state of behavior, and to actually take both verbal and non-verbal cues. I have never been overly impressed with animals that have been rigorously trained to jump through all sorts of hoops.
And so then I began to wonder at what concept we could arrive, where we take the good part of "training," i.e., acquired physical and mental skills, and ditch the bad, i.e., robotic unthinking. And that's when I arrived at a concept I believe fits the bill: practice.
Rather than training ourselves, like robotic zoo animals, performance animals, and State agents of force, how about we practice our skills in differing environments and circumstances, such that we are able to apply our skills to all of our perceptions, as gathered by our senses and integrated into a one-off context of reality at that moment in time — a moment and circumstances different than any other, before or after?
Imagine the hunter-gatherer as master of his domain with varying terrain, night, day, hot & cold weather, seasons, snow, ice, scorching heat, migrating animals, and all of these things and more combine into an impossibly complex array of possible scenarios at any given time. Now, add to that the element of survival, and how it's all up to him and perhaps a few fellow hunters (no social "safety net").
If he was "trained," rather than being superbly practiced over years and years to adeptly respond to and act (apply skills, knowledge, experience and principles to a moment-in-time context of facts and reality) in a wide range of different survival situations, then he would as surely perish as would a trained dog set into the wild.
"Training" is for domesticated, zoo humans. The wild human animal is highly practiced, competent, and independent.
First a bit of an administrative note. I am doing fewer posts that primarily highlight what another blogger posts. Want to still get wind of those great things I find out there? Then you can follow me on Twitter, Facebook, or both. That's now my primary means of disseminating worthy work by others.
If you don't want to follow both, all I can tell you at this point is that beyond announcing my blog posts and the good stuff from others that I find, on both, I do a few things differently. Facebook is more for interacting with friends and some family. A decent number of Facebook friends are readers of this blog. Twitter is more for what I call "diarrhea of consciousness." I'm more likely to post mundane updates and photos of what I'm up to on the weekends. Anyway, that's the current method. It will probably evolve. I thought I'd hate Twitter, but I actually don't and have begun to see its value to the purpose for which I am now am beginning to understand.
So, now to the meat of this post, which is an exception to all the above. Very simply, Stephan has an excellent entry on association and causality. It's of critical importance because, for one, you're constantly bombarded by "a new study" and you should know how to regard them critically, and two, because I use epidemiology a lot here. You should make of it only what it is, and no more.
Epidemiology is observational in nature. In other words, investigators gather data passively rather than manipulating variables. For example, if you want to know if people who wear tight shoes develop bunions, you would find a group of people who wear tight shoes and one that doesn't. You would try your best to make sure the groups are the same in every way besides shoe tightness: age, gender, weight, etc. Then you would follow them for 10 years to see how many people in each group develop bunions. You would then know whether or not wearing tight shoes is associated with bunions.
Observational data can never tell us that one thing caused another, only that the two are associated. The tight shoes may not have caused the bunions; they may simply have been associated with a third factor that was the true cause. For example, maybe people who wear tight shoes also tend to eat corn flakes, and corn flakes are the real cause of bunions. Or perhaps bunions actually cause people to wear tight shoes, rather than the reverse. Observational data can't resolve these questions definitively.
Now go read the rest.