While raw carnivore is probably the most natural way to eat, there's a small problem people don't mention and is the rise of cortisol from lack of carbs. How is that supposed to be treated as many people experience problems with their sleep? It seems like honey is not enough, or perhaps?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
No one actually eats like that so I don't see a problem.
Why do you think so?
Why?
Isn't that going to cause hyperactivity?
>Why do you think so?
Because more people eat paper. It's completely ficticious diet for shock value on the internet.
If you eat raw carnivore then you deserve to perish from this earth within 2 years
fructose before bed.
czeched
Humans always ate fruit, honey, and leafy greens.
Wrong
Eat your butter
humans didn't eat butter for 99.99999% of their history
they had extremely fat animals they hunted. butter makes up for the lack of fat in modern breeds of ruminants
no empirical evidence of such claim, merely historical speculation
just blatantly false. heres a long list of references you will never read
>Cursorial predators typically target young and old prey, while ambush predators are not specific (M. C. Stiner, 2002). Humans seem to have preferentially targeted large animals and prime adult prey (Bunn & Gurtov, 2014; Muttoni et al., 2018; Speth, 2010; M. C. Stiner, 2002), which both have relatively higher fat reserves than younger, older, and smaller animals (Ben-Dor et al., 2011; Owen-Smith, 2002; Pitts & Bullard, 1967). Both behaviors can be interpreted as targeting fatter animals, and targeting prime adults may be energetically more expensive than hunting randomly-encountered prey as they entail forgoing encountered hunting opportunities. Ethnographic evidence of prey abandonment once it was deemed fatless (Coote & Shelton, 1992; Tindale, 1972) and evidence for targeting fat-bearing animals (Brink, 2008, p. 42; Rockwell, 1993) support this interpretation (see extended discussion in Speth, 2010, chapter 4). Humans are limited in how much protein they can convert to energy (35%–50% of normal caloric requirements) (Ben-Dor et al., 2016; Bilsborough & Mann, 2006; Rudman et al., 1973; Speth, 1989)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24247
no empirical data of the fat content of those animals, show me a comparative analysis of the fat content of those animals compared to modern animals
>Humans seem to have preferentially targeted large animals and prime adult prey (Bunn & Gurtov, 2014; Muttoni et al., 2018; Speth, 2010; M. C. Stiner, 2002), which both have relatively higher fat reserves than younger, older, and smaller animals (Ben-Dor et al., 2011; Owen-Smith, 2002; Pitts & Bullard, 1967)
like i said a bunch of papers you will never read. how about relatively modern accounts of hunting elephants or giraffes both have a lot of fat
none of those papers have empirical data of the fat content of those animals
>how about relatively modern accounts of hunting elephants or giraffes both have a lot of fat
lel no, elephant meat actually has little fat
>Nutrition: Elephant meat is high in protein and low in fat, making it a healthy option for those who are looking to avoid red meat.
>Elephant meat has very little fat, similar to the fat content in pigs.
https://meatsavory.com/what-does-elephant-meat-taste-like/
https://hopdes.com/exclusives/what-does-elephant-meat-taste-like/
>Elephant meat has very little fat
>lean meat is lean
you are incredibly stupid im sorry to say read this again a bit slower this time
seem to have preferentially targeted large animals and prime adult prey (Bunn & Gurtov, 2014; Muttoni et al., 2018; Speth, 2010; M. C. Stiner, 2002), which both have relatively higher fat reserves than younger, older, and smaller animals (Ben-Dor et al., 2011; Owen-Smith, 2002; Pitts & Bullard, 1967)
>lean meat is lean
that's the point idiot, elephant meat has little fat in general per serving, elephants themselves have little body fat whereas cows have double or triple the amount of fat, you made the claim they are a source of high fat, where is your evidence because there is nothing supporting your claim
>Humans seem to have preferentially targeted large animals and prime adult prey (Bunn & Gurtov, 2014; Muttoni et al., 2018; Speth, 2010; M. C. Stiner, 2002), which both have relatively higher fat reserves than younger, older, and smaller animals (Ben-Dor et al., 2011; Owen-Smith, 2002; Pitts & Bullard, 1967)
did they measure the fat content of those large animals they are talking about? no? then is not empirical
they did. its true of mammals in general not just elephants
oh yeah? tell me the empirical fat content of one (1) of the large animals they are talking about
10% for female elephants
that's very little fat compared to modern cattle, you even said here
that "butter makes up for the lack of fat" but elephants are nowhere near the amount of fat of butter, so where are is your evidence of those high fat animals that were hunted by hunter gatherers because elephants are clearly not them
they are large animals. 10% fat is a lot. you can selectively eat the fat you idiot
we can only eat so much protein. where did the rest of energy come from? carbohydrate foods are region and season dependant with some not eating them at all
looking at modern hunter gatherers we have a diverse range of consumption of energy, some little some high, obviously is dependant on the region they live in
>229 hunter-gatherer diets throughout the world and determined how differences in ecological environments altered carbohydrate intake.
> We found a wide range of carbohydrate intake (≈3%-50% of the total energy intake; median and mode, 16%-22% of the total energy). Hunter-gatherer diets were characterized by an identical carbohydrate intake (30%-35% of the total energy) over a wide range of latitude intervals (11°-40° north or south of the equator). However, with increasing latitude intervals from 41° to greater than 60°, carbohydrate intake decreased markedly from approximately equal to 20% to 9% or less of the total energy. Hunter-gatherers living in desert and tropical grasslands consumed the most carbohydrates (≈29%-34% of the total energy)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21745624/
>looking at modern
key word modern. as ive said earlier in the thread we've hunted the fattest animals to extinction tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of years ago. other researchers contest this even with modern hunter gatherers with a more limited access to fat animals
>Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22-40% of energy).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10702160/
>we've hunted the fattest animals to extinction
the study you are quoting is quite useless to answer such claim because plant material is not well preserved compared to animal material by default so you are looking at a biased guess of where energy may have came from in the past instead of anything empirically concrete
>biased guess
the stable isotope data is not a guess. the exact reason for those animals extinction is speculative. but the isotopes shows our diet was mostly meat. the structure of our gut is clearly that of carnivores. our stomach acid ph is of a scavenger even more acidic than carnivores
it is merely a guess we have no way to measure the amount calories or even less the fat percentage of energy that coming from any food, i have seen the same type of evidence for carbs like enzyme amylase being present in hunter gatherers but again is just guessing
Only thing I I know is I feel hornier when I eat meat and my doujins Say that sexual desire is a sign of good health
stable isotope is not a guess. if you eat differently it will come out differently. we were very clearly hyper carnivores. not that we ate zero plants just mostly meat or fish
Sure, paleolithic humans gathered modern bananas and sweet potatoes. I forgot the wild corn that they ground with spears and arrows
funny seeing morons not understand wild plants have almost no calories with the exception of some fruits dependent on specific climate and season. plant based diets are only possible with supermarkets and genetically engineered plants
That's the joke, moron
Who gives a frick if something is natural or not. Toxins and poison are natural.
well and you saying moronic shit on the internet is only possible thanks to technology as well so you are not saying much lmao
I made it up.
what a shit thread for this get.
maybe it's not the optimal way to eat if it's detrimental to health, brainlet.
Why is it the most natural way to eat when humans have never eaten this way? Our pre-human homonoid ancestors discovered fire and started cooking meat which is what we evolved to have smaller jaws amongst other things. We've (evolutionary "we") also always eaten tubers, fruits, grains, etc since before we were even modern humans
Nonsense. We ate raw carnivore nose-to-tail for millions of years before we started cooking. Even existing hunter-gatherer tribes like the Inuits and Hadza still eat some raw meat. We would have eaten seasonal fruit while we still lived near the equator, honey when available, and tubers as a last resort. Leaves and other parts of the plant qpuld've been used medicinally, not as daily food. And grains weren't part of our diet until ~15,000 years ago, a blip in the hominid evolutionary chain.
Blood provides electrolytes. Most people eating carnivore can't access blood. Also, the only person I know promoting raw carnivore is sv3rige, and he also promotes drinking fruit juice for electrolytes/hydration. Or even vegetable juice as a last resort.
>Nonsense. We ate raw carnivore nose-to-tail for millions of years before we started cooking
You have no source for this because its 100% made up
And you have no source for your original bullshit claim, so suck my dick, you dishonest c**t
>Even existing hunter-gatherer tribes like the Inuits and Hadza still eat some raw meat
They die early with severe atherosclerosis. Try again.
They literally don't. That's a myth for which there's no evidence. When introduced to our grain-based trash diets, they develop atherosclerosis, not on a carnivore diet.
Its well documented by doctors who went there and the studies are available but okay man
>We ate raw carnivore nose-to-tail for millions of years before we started cooking
Yeah, our pre-human ancestors did. Fire was discovered and used by homosexual erectus, at which point we started eating cooked meat and later evolved into homosexual sapiens. homosexual sapiens (humans) have never existed on a diet of raw meat, other than fringe groups like eskimos who have specific adaptations as a result that other humans do not.
Eskimos do not have unique adaptations to eating raw meat. That's a post hoc rationalization raw meat opponents make up to explain a case of modern humans thriving on raw meat. There's no evidence for it. It's just assume because otherwise you couldn't explain how healthy humans are eating raw meat. And eskimos are not the only case. There are plenty of other raw meat eaters like the Hadza and various other tribes. Also, "civilized" humans eat raw meat all the time in the form of foods like steak tartare and sashimi. You're just listing a bunch of bullshit arguments that aren't even coherent and don't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny. Also you are assuming that we cooked 100% of our meat the moment we discovered fire, which you also have no evidence for. And a few hundred thousand years of evolution doesn't wipe out 6 million years anyway.
>The researchers analysed the genomes of 191 Greenlanders with less than 5 percent of European ancestry and compared them to the genomes of 60 Europeans and 44 Han Chinese. They looked for mutations occurring in a large percentage of Inuit individuals but in few or no other groups, which indicates that the mutation spread throughout the Inuit because it was somehow useful to their survival while not essential in other groups.
>One cluster of mutations reduced the production of both omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which is thought to be in response to the high amount of these fatty acids coming from the Inuit diet. As changing the production of one fatty acid affects all fatty acids, it can cause knock-on effects including how growth hormones are regulated.
It's also worth noting that Eskimos generally have poor health and lower life expectancy even with their adaptations.
too much omega 3 is very bad for you. The japs have a high rate of stroke in part because they have high omega 3 and ultra low inflammation, which is as bad as high and makes your blood too thin.
As for your other "arguments":
>You're just listing a bunch of bullshit arguments that aren't even coherent and don't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.
Like what?
>Also you are assuming that we cooked 100% of our meat the moment we discovered fire, which you also have no evidence for.
>The evidence is that the fossil record shows adaptations such as smaller jaws and teeth and larger craniums coincidencing with the discovery of fire, because we were cooking meat which required less chewing and subsequently the improved energy to nutrition ratio allowed us to develop larger brains, similar to how switching from a plant based pre-homosexual primate diet to a meat one did.
>And a few hundred thousand years of evolution doesn't wipe out 6 million years anyway.
It's not a few thousand years, it's at least two million years ago by current estimates. The usage of fire literally predates the existence of our current species. Also if you're going by that argument when why stop at homosexual erectus (our last genetic ancestor to subsist on raw meat)? Why not go even further back to some rodent or primate that ate plants and insects? See how stupid your argument is?
The "smaller jaws and brains" thing is much more recent than 2.6mya. It's due to widespread consumption of grains.
>the most natural way to eat
>can't sleep
Yeah how about no. You need to be severely detached from reality and ignorant of 100% of biology and science to believe the most natural way to eat is just meat
Humans haven't eaten raw food since we mastered fire literally 1 million fricking years ago
Those weren't even humans, they were homosexual erectus. There was literally never a time when humans (homosexual sapiens) didn't have access to cooked meat. Our jaws, teeth and digestive system have all adapted to cooked meat.
>Adapted to cooked meat
How? Raw meat is literally easier to consume than cooked. It's juicy and slides down your throat and barely needs to be chewed at all. Raw meat is tougher, yet our ancestors had wider jaws and stronger teeth than us. Explain that?
>How? Raw meat is literally easier to consume than cooked.
It isn't though.
>It's juicy and slides down your throat and barely needs to be chewed at all.
You're either selecting very tender cuts and/or cutting your meat into small pieces. If you take a bite into a raw 2" thick ribeye it will be rubbery, cook it ti medium rare and you can cut it with a spoon. Compare something like a raw chuck roast to one you've smoked for six hours and the difference is even more dramatic.
>Raw meat is tougher
Correct
>yet our ancestors had wider jaws and stronger teeth than us. Explain that?
Because raw meat is tougher and requires more chewing and ripping apart
>While raw carnivore is probably the most natural way to eat
Stopped reading there
Liverking eats raw carnivore and works out like a caveman and he's ripped. That's all the proof I need to know this is how humans are supposed to eat.
The most hilarious thing about liver king wasn't even the steroids but the fact he was chugging 500g of dextrose a day.
ah yes the 8000+ dollar on gear caveman
>rise of cortisol from lack of carbs
is this real? my blood sugar is the same as when i ate carbs. why would this matter
You realize blood sugar isn't cortisol right
the lack of glucose is causing acute neuropathy in this one, get me some sodium pentathol and phenobarbital stat, the least we can do is put it out of its misery
>the lack of glucose
i just said my blood sugar hasnt changed
the argument ive heard is blood sugar goes too low and cortisol goes up. what am i missing
>the argument ive heard is blood sugar goes too low and cortisol goes up. what am i missing
Coritisol is a stress hormone. You can get high cortisol from getting in a fight with your girlfriend or losing your phone.
i was speaking to the argument that a lack of carbs causes high cortisol. what does fighting with my girlfriend have to do with not eating bread?
high intensity training
> be hunter
> walk big distances to prey on big game
> high intensity ambush
> kill the animal and feast
> cortisol down, hunter happy
WERE HONEYVORES
WE ONLY ATE MEAT WHEN HONEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE