Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241   ^
Old Mon, Dec-27-10, 16:54
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
Or can you show that they didn't?

I showed that they could have eaten it for other purposes. Your turn now. Can you show that the Inuit ate plants for nourishment?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #242   ^
Old Mon, Dec-27-10, 16:57
mathmaniac mathmaniac is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,639
 
Plan: Wingin' it.
Stats: 257/240.0/130 Female 65 inches
BF:yes!
Progress: 13%
Location: U.S.A.
Smile

Caveman, with that response, did Mr. Le Vac answer your question?
Reply With Quote
  #243   ^
Old Mon, Dec-27-10, 19:16
tomsey tomsey is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 382
 
Plan: No caffeine, no alcohol
Stats: 175/154/150 Male 5'8
BF:
Progress: 84%
Default

maybe all that meat causes cognitive problems - neo
Reply With Quote
  #244   ^
Old Tue, Dec-28-10, 08:39
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

Wait.. does this matter anymore?
Reply With Quote
  #245   ^
Old Tue, Dec-28-10, 15:08
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LStump
Wait.. does this matter anymore?

It will continue to be one of the more important questions discussed on these forums, yes.
Reply With Quote
  #246   ^
Old Tue, Dec-28-10, 21:16
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

Guess I just ask because the conversation changed so much, which it should. I'm not sure what the question is anymore. Did they eat plants? Was it for nourishment? If it was, what'd they get from it? If it wasn't, what for then? And if not, are we sure they ate/eat them at all? Maybe I'm the only one lost... Which isn't entirely impossible
Reply With Quote
  #247   ^
Old Wed, Dec-29-10, 16:22
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LStump
Guess I just ask because the conversation changed so much, which it should. I'm not sure what the question is anymore. Did they eat plants? Was it for nourishment? If it was, what'd they get from it? If it wasn't, what for then? And if not, are we sure they ate/eat them at all? Maybe I'm the only one lost... Which isn't entirely impossible

And that makes two of us questioning the original assertion that the Inuit ate plants for nourishment. The answer isn't that obvious, is it? We eat plants for medicine, that might be it. We eat plants for pleasure, but then we process all kinds of crap into a beef broth just for taste using anything but beef.
Reply With Quote
  #248   ^
Old Thu, Dec-30-10, 06:20
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
And that makes two of us questioning the original assertion that the Inuit ate plants for nourishment. The answer isn't that obvious, is it? We eat plants for medicine, that might be it. We eat plants for pleasure, but then we process all kinds of crap into a beef broth just for taste using anything but beef.


I don't think comparing them to us really proves anything.. Other people eat wheat for "nourishment", does that mean Inuits do, too? We cook our meat in ovens, slow cookers, etc. They boil theres but most often, eat it raw. Just because we might not *NEED* vegetables or other plant matter doesn't meat we don't eat it for nourishment.
Reply With Quote
  #249   ^
Old Thu, Dec-30-10, 07:51
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LStump
I don't think comparing them to us really proves anything.. Other people eat wheat for "nourishment", does that mean Inuits do, too? We cook our meat in ovens, slow cookers, etc. They boil theres but most often, eat it raw. Just because we might not *NEED* vegetables or other plant matter doesn't meat we don't eat it for nourishment.

Wheat makes us sick and fat. Nourishment? Her point wasn't that we didn't need plants, but that we didn't need to know about plants in order to eat them for nourishment.
Reply With Quote
  #250   ^
Old Thu, Dec-30-10, 08:32
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

I was just responding to what you said. It sounded like you were saying no one eats plants for nourishment.
Reply With Quote
  #251   ^
Old Wed, Jan-05-11, 23:22
ImOnMyWay's Avatar
ImOnMyWay ImOnMyWay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,831
 
Plan: OWL
Stats: 177/168/135 Female 5'1"
BF:50.5/38/25
Progress: 21%
Location: Los Angeles
Default

Quote Angeline in post #136:

Quote:
If you can that an answer. I call it just more nonsense

Yeah, that's right. They ate plants because of course when you encounter something vegetable, the only reasonable course of action is to stuff it in your mouth for no good reason. And then you develop methods of preparing these plants that you pass on to your grand daughters and they in turn to their grand daughters down the generations, because well what else is there to do in the Great White North but to invent pointless methods for preparing food that have no value whatsoever.


The lady has a point. It is not beneficial to the hunter-gatherer to waste precious time and calories in acquiring plants which have no use. That they ate the plants, rather than use them to weave baskets, create art or clothing, or for some other non-nutritive function, is evidence that they found the plants nourishing, either physically, mentally or spiritually.

There are some who contend that one can acquire all the nutrients the body needs, indefinitely, strictly from animal products. This is not practical in the real world. Even if, say, an elk has everything a body needs, provided the organs are eaten, it still is not possible for a tribe to get all the nutrients it needs from the elk, because there's only so much brain, liver, etc. to go around. A few will get preferred treatment (say, a pregnant woman, or the warrior who kills the elk) and the others will have to be content with the rest. So, the others would have to get whatever vital nutrients are in the choicest parts from another source. It seems likely that that source is in the plants they consistently and persistently seek out.
Reply With Quote
  #252   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 01:57
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOnMyWay
The lady has a point. It is not beneficial to the hunter-gatherer to waste precious time and calories in acquiring plants which have no use. That they ate the plants, rather than use them to weave baskets, create art or clothing, or for some other non-nutritive function, is evidence that they found the plants nourishing, either physically, mentally or spiritually.

There are some who contend that one can acquire all the nutrients the body needs, indefinitely, strictly from animal products. This is not practical in the real world. Even if, say, an elk has everything a body needs, provided the organs are eaten, it still is not possible for a tribe to get all the nutrients it needs from the elk, because there's only so much brain, liver, etc. to go around. A few will get preferred treatment (say, a pregnant woman, or the warrior who kills the elk) and the others will have to be content with the rest. So, the others would have to get whatever vital nutrients are in the choicest parts from another source. It seems likely that that source is in the plants they consistently and persistently seek out.

Again with the "evidence that plants are nutritious". There is no such evidence. If there is any evidence, it can be used to support the idea that plants were used for therapeutic purposes and pleasure. Look again at one of the arguments in the original blog post: 7-10 times the vitamin C found in oranges. That's not nutritive level, that's therapeutic level. Then a couple more examples where plants are used as "treats". That's not for nutrition, that's for pleasure.

This is not a discussion about mental or spiritual nourishment.

That's a fine theory. The organs are eaten only in time of famine. One doesn't need to eat the organs to get all the nutrition of animal flesh. The most prized part of the animal is the fat. It seems unlikely that anybody would look for missing nutrition in plants when a complete food can be found in animal flesh. If it's complete, what's missing?

I agree, it's not practical to eat only animal flesh. Not because it can't be done, but because this is a high carb world where plants rule and meat is shunned. Even then, since fat is bad, fat meat is cheap. And fat meat is precisely what meat eaters want. If you're careful enough, you can eat meat every day for a few bucks a day by choosing the fattest parts.
Reply With Quote
  #253   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 08:25
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Martin, I think you're conflating evidence with proof. We know that plants contain nutrition. We know that these Inuit ate plants. This constitutes evidence that these Inuit may have eaten plants for their nutritional properties. No question of that. This is evidence that plants might have something to offer nutritionally, even on a very high-meat diet. Not proof, but evidence. Whether the plants that the Inuit in question ate were a necessary addition to their diet, whether there was any room for improvement over the all-meat diet, this is what's under debate.

For me, I haven't seen any proof that a little bit of tomato, onion and spinach added to an otherwise all-meat diet will be worse or better than just the meat. It seems just as plausible that these will help me as hurt me-- so I eat them mostly because I like them. (But my suspicion is that these do me more good than harm.) It's possible that this is the main reason that the Inuit ate plants; food is food, but it's also art. And it can also be an expression of love. (Maybe our corrupted food supply makes this look like an unhealthy way to express love? Comfort food shouldn't be a bad thing?)

Quote:
It is not beneficial to the hunter-gatherer to waste precious time and calories in acquiring plants which have no use.


We're talking about a successful culture here. In a sometimes brutal environment, but a successful culture nonetheless. They had time for art, they had time for things that weren't, strictly speaking, necessary to physical survival.
Reply With Quote
  #254   ^
Old Sun, Jan-09-11, 18:01
fishercat's Avatar
fishercat fishercat is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 345
 
Plan: CR Marine Paleoish
Stats: 130/100/105 Female 5 Ft 2.5 In
BF:
Progress: 120%
Default

The real question is why Martin hates treats so much
Reply With Quote
  #255   ^
Old Sun, Jan-09-11, 19:18
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishercat
The real question is why Martin hates treats so much

How far do you want your joke to go?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:38.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.