(Post dedicated to Mr. Lyle McDonald, who’s always been right about this)
Dismiss the unbridled deconstructionists and reductionists who say stuff like “we don’t burn calories, we metabolize molecules,” and other such twists on that.
It’s like saying there’s no point in using a ruler or tape measure because it’s all atoms and sub-atomic particles.
It’s worse than tossing the baby out with the bathwater. It’s failing to draw a distinction between babies and their baths, and the particular utility of the latter.
It’s like saying we don’t need a map because the map is not the territory.
It’s dumb. Caloric measurements, while just as imperfect in determining the precise metabolic goings on as the Stanley tape measure is in counting atoms between two points, is nonetheless the best tool we have and it’s good enough for rocket science…just like Newton.
For years and years, people have been asking me, “where is Art De Vany?” Right here.
Take an old narrative, make money and prestige off of it, then defend how right and just you were from the beginning, for the rest of your life.
I generally laugh at the idea. Sure, perhaps you’re Einstein and your ideas still stand up to thousands trying to falsify them. Rare. Usually, everyone including myself is always wrong. The challenge is never to be right, as that’s very elusive and generally unattainable. Rather, it’s just to be a little less wrong every day.
Dietary stuff—since dependent on so many other sciences from archaeology to anthropology—is markedly different. This is not to say that the Paleo narrative did not have great value from its primitive 1985 beginnings, up until 2007 where it had remained unchanged, then took off.
It wasn’t seriously tested in all that lead up, but it sure is now, and I’ve been happy to have a part in that endless questioning and skepticism—in an overall template that still holds lots of value.
But I hate intransigence more than anything.
…My entry into all that is Paleo took place via this blog in May, 2007, when a commenter told me some of the stuff I was intuiting on my own sounded like some dude by the name of Art De Vany. I Googled him; wrote a post. Here’s how I saw it then.
Art was out of the picture for a long while. He’s recently resurfaced on Facebook. Here’s how that went, in various posts and threads at his place and mine…
Richard Nikoley: In Arthur De Vany’s recent talk on cellular fortitude (he doesn’t like aging), one of the times I laughed out loud was when he said that maybe the healthiest thing about plants is their toxins.
Think about that. What if the reason to eat a wide variety of plants is the toxins and the hormetic benefit you get (what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger)?
The Duck Dodgers (a team of anonymous collaborators) has been chewing on an idea for a while. Not ready for press, yet, being vetted by others.
What if certain things like gluten, lectins, saponins…that are known to create gut issues actually allow us to better absorb some nutrients, particularly phytonutrients, polyphenols from plants?
Ben Salomon The narrative that the only reason we settled down into agriculture, and started cultivating and eating grains, was their energy density and storability, is certainly ripe for dismantling.
Ray Pepp Started to eat wheat again liberally and have never felt better. Homemade bread (5 ingredients), shredded wheat, muesli etc. Haven’t gained a pound and my stools are perfect.
Arthur De Vany So now you are a farmer rather than a hunter gatherer; this transistion could not have occured before 11,000 years ago. That leaves maybe 6 million years for your primary genes to be selected, 100,000 years for brain-development genes to come on the scene and about 100 years to adapt to modern commercial wheat and other foods. Get back to us in about 10 years. Nor have you told us what you switched from. So, it is hard to take your personal experience, which is not a guide for anyone but you, into account.
Richard Nikoley Hey Art, not to start any big argument or anything, but just something for you to chew on. My “Duck Dodgers” team of collaborators (one an Cambridge biochemist PHD who’s studied the mineral components of grains for three decades) looked into the actual history of wheat PRIOR to industrialization and fortification.
I have experimented with a bakery in Santa Cruz that mills its grains every morning in-house and uses the whole thing (including the bran and germ with the little fatty acids and other nutrients), then makes various breads.
I find them all excellent, no digestive issues, and especially, no imperative to keep eating and eating. A loaf lasts me about a week or more in the fridge.
Ray Pepp Art I literally have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. All I know is that I started to eat whole grains again after years of faileo, and have never felt better. Now when I say wheat I mean 100% organic wheat is the only ingredient. My health is fine,my bloodwork looks the best it has in years. Instead of being scared of foods (thanks Paleo) I eat what makes me feel good. Calories are king and always have been.
Arthur De Vany I like that “Faileo”. Best of luck; I know what the farmer’s skeletons looked like when agriculture began. If you don’t relate to that that is fine with me, but it may mean you don’t understand that basis of the diet/sleep/exercise/mood/fasting movement.
Tim Steele Arthur De Vany The problem with the “farmer’s skeletons” narrative is that it’s now obsolete.
The idea that grains are not a good food for humans comes from the study of ancient skeletons, as you point out. The bones of early farmers were found to have lesions which were thought to be due to iron deficiency as a consequence of eating grains instead of meat. It only became clear a few years ago that the lesions were not due to iron deficiency, making the original hypothesis rather flawed.
The skeletal lesions were perhaps due to episodes of starvation or something else. We don’t really know. But, I’m not sure why grains would be the culprit when all they did was end up powering the rise of Western civilization.
The point being that there are other variables besides grain that you haven’t considered for the issues you claim are due to grain. Famine and/or soil depletion seem like obvious culprits. Sand and grit in their flour, from poor milling standards, contributing to poor dental health and infections seems like another obvious problem. I wonder why you don’t consider that there are many other possible causes?
Arthur De Vany You do not know that I did not consider other factors. A short post is not full narrative. The facts are not in question; starvation, insufficient nutrition, poor mineral metabolism, insufficient vitamin D in the farmer diet seems to be a factor in the selection for pale skin, which is known have been under selective pressure for better vitamin D production. And, the list goes on. If you had read my book you would know that I point to arthritis in the knees and cevicle area of the spine in women from the grinding of cereals. I also mention wear and tear of the teeth. As for the porortic hyperostosis, the early skeletons found with that deficiency are in northern humans; meaning migrating to a low sun environment and feeding on agricultural foods hastened that condition. Again, I point to the burial trenches at Catyal Huk. The early layers are the hunter gatherer burials, the later are the farmers. Tim Steele, your arguments are good, but they assume I am not aware of these issues and others. I have decided not to consume grains and it is no bother to me that you decide otherwise. What I fail to understand is why “grain eaters” go to such lengths to defend their position. Do they know that they are frigthened of the prospects of a life without the insulin hit and heightened inflammation that grains provide. A quick flush from eating an inflammatory food becomes a boost that people do seek. Beer does the same thing to me, so I stopped consuming beer.
Tim Steele Arthur De Vany I never try to persuade anyone to change how they eat unless they are eating SAD, then I do everything I can to get them on a healthier path. I think the science behind our diet deserves attention, particularly co-factors that are almost exclusively found in whole grains. I find it short-sighted to call whole grains inflammatory when so much research shows otherwise, ie. “Diets low in glycaemic load and high in whole grains may have a protective effect against systemic inflammation in diabetic patients, as reviewed elsewhere( 81 ).
Ray Pepp Tim Steele – hes saying that people who eat grains defend it yet people that are die-hard Paleo make sure you know they eat Paleo. I know first hand because that was me. I’ll eat my flour everyday and be happy
Tim Steele Ray Pepp I never see people who eat whole grains “defending” that position, because it’s the diet eaten by the most long-lived people, mainstream nutritionists, and whole-food enthusiasts. There is no Whole Grain diet movement, just as there are no Drinking Water or Breathing Air counterinsurgencies. People have been trying to devise diets better than SAD and have come up with LCHF, LC Keto, LC Mediterranean, etc. Somewhere along the line, whole grains, starch, and “the carb” were demonized, quite unfairly I feel. My position is that these versions of Paleo would all be made healthier if they were to include some whole grains, or portions of grain, ie. bran, and some nutrient rich starchy tubers.
Arthur De Vany I don’t care about your position, just go to a site you are happy with. It seems evident that you, Ray and others are somehow determined to support what may be your carb craving. Go somewhere else.
Anand Srivastava Tim Steele: I think the initial Farmers were growing a form of wheat. Wheat causes low vitamin D and other problems. Over time they would have started drinking and able to digest milk then it would have become ok. Also some other adaptations would also have happened. I find it interesting that wherever wheat is eaten people can drink milk. Also only Europeans have the kind of white skin. I think it has something to do with wheat and lack of sun.
Tim Steele Anand Srivastava That would be fun to explore with Arthur De Vany who said last week he was interested in genetic roles of health, but apparently not if it will lead us to a position of grain-acceptance, lol. I shall not sully these waters any more.
Ray Pepp Tim Steele it’s hilarious how upset these Paleo people get. As soon as you challenge them that they might be wrong with facts (Thanks Tim) they say “I don’t care about your position, leave.” They refuse to believe that wheat might actually be healthy (hint hint, it is). Anand Srivastava ummm no sir, my vitamin D levels are just fine eating wheat. Actually had it tested a few weeks back, right at 50, which if you speak to every Paleo friendly doc, that’s where they want it. Damn right I have carb cravings Art, which are completely normal by the way.
Don Rodgers Indeed. “Paleo” is based on the Ambiguity Fallacy.
“Claim X is made. Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.”
“It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly how it began and exactly when.”
“All living beings come from other living beings. Therefore, the first forms of life must have come from a living being. That living being is God.”
“Some Neolithic skeletons at Catyal Huk showed sign of deteriorating health. Therefore, we are descended from carnivorous apes. We should eat mainly meat and fat.”
“A fringe theory suggests the Toba volcanic winter resulted in a genetic bottleneck of seaside hunter gatherers. Therefore, we must eat like those seaside hunter gatherers.”
Sounds utterly ridiculous when you can clearly see the fallacy. You can take any ambiguous data and then make any wild claim you like with it.
Anand Srivastava Ray Pepp: You must have a really dark skin because of how much Vit D you get. First understand what I am saying. No other people have the pasty white skin that Europeans have. You have a theory why it is like that? Not even Inuits have a skin like that. They get much lesser sun than the Europeans. There are other people also who don’t have that problem. I had seen a paper (thanks to Stephan Guynet) showing that whole wheat consumption caused more Vit D depletion than refined wheat.
Arthur De Vany Ray Pepp Be happy Ray. See you in 30 years. I am not paleo. I use paleo as a heuristic.
Arthur De Vany Tim Steele Another mistake. A genetic role does not lead to grain consumption, far from it. That’s not my Paleo you are discussing; my Paleo is based on genetic pathways, not some imaginary life style. Your potato is just about 8,000 years old in terms of human consumption. Every argument you give assumes some sort of ignorance on my or another person’s part. When I counter, you make another argument that is well-known and move the ground to that. Now you are on the ambiguity fallacy. First, your argument is wrong. Second, it would equally apply to potato consumption. Third, it, again, attributes stupidity or lack of sophistication to the other side. “Paleo types” is somewhat stereotypical and “Paleo” is not only not an ambiguity fallacy any more than the “Potato” narrative.
Arthur De Vany You or me Ray? Anyway, I have had these arguments before and they go nowhere. The science is not that far along. Potatoes might let you reproduce a bit more through closer birth spacing and that would mean you are less apt to live as long. If you understand evolutionary theory, that is. Grains are ambiguous in that respect because, there are no animals, but for cattle in commercial yards, for which grain consumption is tested; how would you test C. elegans for the effect of grains? It is however, true that lowering insulin signalling extends longevity in almost all creatures because it raises cell defenses through FOXO and other pathways. Grains and confinement are procedures for fattening cattle, which reduces their life expectancy. Centenarians have low insulin. Wheat endospore, the carbohydrate containing white part, stimulates insulin release; I have mentioned that the insulin index show white potato as second to glucose in its insulin-elevating power. Anand Srivastava clearly makes the vitamin D argument and gene profiling supports that; the early farmers were deficient in D and pale skin was a genetic adaptation to sustain life in a lowered vitamin D environment.
Richard Nikoley Not that it would necessarily change your view, Art, but it actually isn’t exclusively the grains that fatten the livestock. In fact, 100 years ago, livestock farmers had a tough time introducing grains to livestock. They would lose their appetites and would actually lose weight. They had to graze them periodically, only supplement with grains.
Then they began spiking the feed with B vitamins, and it was this supplementation that caused the livestock to overeat and get fat.
Arthur De Vany I did not know that. Of course, the grains would make them sick. The B would help them tolerate their illness, as in humans. Of course a feeding pen is one of the least healthy places on Earth. It resembles early human farming; knee deep in filth and deficient in essential nutrients, not to mention the rats that invaded the fields that were denuded of their natural plant cover and rat predators.
Tim Steele My only point in all of this is that “grain” is not all equal, and there is a place for “grain” in a healthy diet. Take corn for instance…fueled massive expansion of paleo-Indians in the Americas, but when sent to Africa, nearly decimated those that ate it. Why? It was not nixtamalized. and led to pellagra and kwashikor.
Same with wheat. Fueled the Industrial Revolution but soon over-industrialization changed the nature of wheat, stripping it of its bran and oils.
My secondary point is that dietary research should focus on what is required for a healthy gut flora.
Arthur De Vany More like a reasonable argument. One must check their basal insulin to see how grains and potatoes alter their readings to see how well they accommodate their consumption. I have a guess that Ray might be a bit insulin resistant because he expressed a sense of relief when he went back to flour. If basal insulin exceeds 3.5, it is out of the best range for health. Mine is 3.0, the bottom of the lab reading, which seems to be creeping upward as more and more people raise the average, creeping toward insulin resistance. The new “normal” creeps up closer to a range of insulin resistance. In addition, the lean body mass, not BMI, ought to be relatively high, say over 18; mine is 24, the range of athletes. You must have enough protein to reach that range.
Richard Nikoley Just anecdotal, Art, but for some years, both the wife and I were IR, physiologically from chronic LC. Morning fasting readings 115-130.
I fixed it by eating nothing but potatoes for about two weeks, salt and a sprinkle of malt vinegar only. Initially, I would get BG spikes to 200+ and it would take two hours to clear.
By about day three, I could eat 2-3 pounds in a sitting, top out 130-140, and be under 100 within an hour. Morning BG returned to the 80s.
I think a lot of VLC dieters are like the couch potato, elevator is broken, has to take the stairs, heart rate goes to 300 and he concludes he can’t handle any exercise. Similarly with physiological IR, people go ahead and have that birthday cake and, BG jumps to 200 and they have “confirmed” that they can’t handle any carbohydrate, not even from whole food.
…Though I haven’t tested it, I suspect the chief way to achieve low basal insulin has a lot more to do with space in-between two meals daily, and a daily overnight fast of 14-16 hours.
Arthur De Vany Richard Nikoley Yes, muscle type FT2a and 2x are fantastic glucose disposal machines. You need those intervals between insulin/TOR signaling to bring on lower basal insulin. Odd thing is that it was first body builders who thought of the long overnight fast or the narrow eating window, but most ignored in favor of 6 meals a day…
Scott Claremont Are you saying the introduction of wheat caused vit D depletion in euro’s and hence why they have pale skin?
Arthur De Vany Not me, the scientific articles do that. But, no one says wheat caused it, it being defficient D. It was caused, if that is the right word in this complex context, by the lack of sun exposure in the high latitudes of early agriculture combined with the dark skins of early farmers and the lack of D in wheat. So, it was several factors. Not long after, genetic duplications led to the development of light skin. Skin color is just climate engineering to achieve a photo reflective and D absorbing color in each climate that humans adapted to.
Scott Claremont Tim Steele what would you consider poop good ?
Scott Claremont Arthur do you yourself spend time in the sun? Also I think I am starting to understand what you have been saying.. that early farming was where man went “wrong” ?
Tim Steele Scott Claremont Well formed stools, not diarrhea-like, not constipated. Not smelly. One or two bowel movements a day. You would not believe the number of athletes that have contacted me complaining of foul, tarry stools and bad gas. Lean meat with low-fiber veggies is a recipe for poor digestion. What clears it up? Eating more starchy foods, green bananas, raw potatoes, fiber supplements. I had an email just today, “I finally see what a good shit is like! Thanks!”
Arthur De Vany I spend a lot of time in the sun being a blue-eyed, blond, white skinned Swede-German-French guy. It all started with farming but white skin caused nothing; it was an adaptation to climate. All earlier humans had dark skin. We are all derived from African hunter gatherers who survived the volcanic winter on top of the Ice Age. With the advent of farming, then while lives mattered. Before that, black lives mattered. All the same human species. There are no races, just human beings. Skin color is only skin deep and a late change in the species.
Don Rodgers Art, Tim didn’t say anything about Ambiguity Fallacy. I was the one who said it. Not your Paleo? Your stories about Toba and Catal Hayuk are based on ambiguous data and fringe interpretations that are used to justify your conclusions about diet. There’s no clear evidence that the Toba eruption resulted in a bottleneck where “just 2500 to 8000 humans made it through.” Most scientists don’t believe that theory anymore. It’s just a wild speculation. Nor is there conclusive evidence that the porotic hyperostosis at Catal Hayuk is due to nutrition. It *might* be. It *might* also be due to rampant infections (anemia of chronic disease). It could be due to massive hookworm infections. β-thalassemia (a.k.a. “Mediterranean anemia”) is also a prime suspect for porotic hyperostosis—related to the spread of malaria. Of course, you say you already know all this. Well, if you know how vague and ambiguous the conclusions are, then why do you tell these ambiguous stories to people in the first place? It’s misleading at best, and fraudulent at worst.
Toba super-volcano catastrophe idea ‘dismissed’ – BBC News
Arthur De Vany You making up all those comments Don. I made no other claim than to say the burial trenches contain damaged skeletons and that diseases crossed over to humans from their animals. As to the bottleneck, it is a small factor whether gene flow narrowed there or many flows narrowed in several places; I understand there is some dispute, which is healthy and a debate among the proponents is still in process. Ayala, Ambrose, Oppenheimer (the latter two being Brits, Ayala being one of the great biologists of our time) and more recent work resulted in the graph I showed of the bottleneck in my IHMC talk. That was not an imaginary graph, but you know so little of what I am saying that you are making attributions with no basis. And, other than stress resistance as a means of making it through the Ice Age and the climate volatility what claim might you think I am making? The BBC is your authority? Check Curtis Marean on life at the seashore (beginning about 164,000 years ago at Pinnicle Point, Still Bay and other sites), or Stewart, or Crawford. The figure in my aging talk is fresh from recent literature and shows the L3 mitochondrial haplotype dropping to a range of 2500 breeding age humans and then expanding from there. The southern migration route out of Africa also supports an Eastern African origin of modern humans and low population densities. Another chart in the talk shows the lowest temperature of the last 100,000 years ago occuring just after Toba and Rambino and others say the volcanic winter may have lasted 1000 years with great damage to plant life. There is ash over the Indian Ocean floor dated to Toba, which is the largest volcanic eruption of the last 2 million years. Like I said, you are making up claims I don’t make. As to what is fraud or not, let the readers decide. I have nothing to sell based on what I have written. You are making representations that are yours alone, and they are clearly false. Stay off of my Facebook page if you cannot be truthful. I have published close to 100 scientific papers and several books and refereed for most of the major economics and mathematical operations research journals. i refereed for the National Science Foundation for years and was co-editor of a quality journal. I know what science is and how to do it.
Tim Steele Arthur De Vany “Stay off of my Facebook page…” It would be more impactful if you added “whippersnapper” and shook your fist. But this is Richard Nikoley’s yard…
Dietary Patterns in Alzheimer’s Disease and Cognitive Aging.
Some may be better than others.
Don Rodgers Art, sorry but this is not your Facebook page. This is Richard’s. Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary (and are a sign of weakness). There are plenty of sources besides the BBC that dispute the fringe Toba theory. The Toba eruption theory Wikipedia page calls it “high controversial” and spends more time debunking it than supporting it. If you don’t like the BBC, do you prefer LiveScience?
Toba Supervolcano Not to Blame for Humanity’s Near-Extinction
Scott Claremont He’s gone Don
Don Rodgers And speaking of the ash on the Indian Ocean floor. If you cross the Indian Ocean, you reach Lake Malawi in Africa. Lake-floor sediments from Lake Malawi in East Africa shows no sign of a widespread volcanic winter following the Toba super-eruption 74,000 years ago, according to a new 2016 study.
Why not be more truthful and acknowledge that you are ignoring all the evidence that disputes Toba? As the Toba Wikipedia page points out, “Both the link and global winter theories are highly controversial.”
Surely you don’t expect people to buy into your ideas if there is so much doubt on the “highly controversial” interpretation you favor? Again, this all proves my point. You are relying on Ambiguity Fallacy to promote your diet (as is the whole basis of Paleo). Otherwise, there would be no need to mention such a disputed event in the first place.
Lake sediments suggest mild volcanic winter after massive Toba…
Arthur De Vany Remember what I said in my book; diversity your toxins, meaning eat a variety of plants, going by texture and color.
Richard Nikoley Also, consider that a whole plant has everything it needs to balance out its various toxic loads and oxidative stresses. This is especially true in the whole of grains and seeds, since that is the embryonic form of the next whole plant.
It’s fallacious to argue one shouldn’t eat grains if all you are eating is the endosperm, leaving aside the bran and the germ (the “egg yolk” as I like to call it), and basing it on that lopsided view.
Nobody has to eat grains any more than they have to eat any particular food, but the fact of industrial refining and spiking with b vitamins and other stuff is not an argument against grains, it’s an argument against industrial engineering and fortification policy.
In other words, you have to argue against the real thing, and most people have never actually had it.
Arthur De Vany Whatever.
Gregg Wolf It was my understanding that is what Art and others claimed archeology showed. As soon as we started using grains as a major food source, ancient Egypt for example, the skeletal remains showed signs of diabetes, CVD, tooth decay, skeletal problems, short life span etc.
Richard Nikoley There’s a LOT more to it than that simplistic Paleo narrative (which not many anthropologists buy). Just one for instance is tooth decay. It was caused by their primitive milling technology and inability to filter out sand and dirt. The tooth decay is mechanical wear (Weston Price also observed some of this in his travels), not the nutritional makeup of grains.
Arthur De Vany Wheat germ is the germ line of the plant and it is well known that germ line signalling is a primary aging pathway. Taking in plant DNA and RNA, if they survive digestion, sends plant RNA to the ribosome and no telling what proteins it may make as a result of that signalling. Eunichs live longer.
Richard Nikoley Well, all the Blue Zone populations of highest average longevity have grains and legumes in their diets.
Moreover, one needs to consider the element of quantity and frequency.
Lots of difference between people who smoke two packs a day (40 cigarettes) and those who smoke 4.
I make neither grains nor legumes a major part of my diet. Just some, sometimes. I have a loaf of organic, whole multi-grain in the fridge and after two weeks (to the day) a third of the loaf is still in there. Still a couple of portions left of my pot of split pea soup from 10 days ago. I’ll have to finish that off today.
Last week was my higher fat, lower carb week (keeping protein 30-40%) and this week is my higher carb, very low fat week, same protein target.
Arthur De Vany Whatever.
Don Rodgers Arthur De Vany 1) Strictly speaking, plants do not have germlines and form their gametes from gametophytes and multipotent stem cell lineages that also give rise to ordinary somatic tissues. It’s believed that germline sequestration first evolved in complex animals.
2) Virtually all plant toxins have dual roles in the body—binding free iron and/or killing/starving/inhibiting cancer cells, or de-calcifying our arteries, or acting as nano-particles to carry phenolics past the gut wall.
3) Real world evidence overwhelmingly shows whole grains and whole legumes promote health. (Few people eat whole grains. Over 90% of the flour consumed in the US is ultra-refined roller-milled white flour).
4) Up until the Industrial Revolution, it was common for adults to eat between 1 to 2 POUNDS of bread per day. The richer the person, the whiter and more refined the flour they could afford. According to the Paleo™ narrative, such high intakes of grain should have decimated Western civilization’s health. Yet, the medical minds of every era (Hippocrates, Aristotle, Avicenna, Paracelsus, von Linné, Hodgkin, etc.)—each of whom obsessed about food, preparation and digestion—all wrote that it wasn’t at all controversial that bread was widely known to be the healthiest of all foods. If grains were so deleterious, they would have noticed given the tendency for very high grain consumption.
Once the roller mill was invented, flour became utlra-refined and it then became obvious to health gurus in the 19th century that “bolted” (white) flour was indeed deleterious to people’s health. These modern health issues were quickly reversed with high fiber whole grain diets—most notably that of Sylvester Graham and John Harvey Kellogg. Interestingly, they too were obsessed with preserving human germlines—mainly by avoiding masturbation.
Anyhow, it should be noted that the great flaw in the Paleo™ narrative is the failure to distinguish the difference between whole foods and the refined foods that overwhelmingly dominate modern diets.
Arthur De Vany Don Rodgers But, what you ascribe as a flaw of Paleo is not a flaw; it is the singular insight, though not unique to Paleo, that whole foods are superior to processed food. Funny about the trademark you put there. I was referring to wheat germ by name, not gamete. I think we all know about the milling issue. My book makes none of those flaws and discusses extensively the unique foods humans eat now that were not part of the evolutionary experience. I admire all those scientific minds you list, but we are far from their state of knowledge now; no vital spirit, no humors, no phlogistum, we don’t bleed people now, we understand germs, inheritance, DNA, and on and on. Thanks for your thoughts, but the argument fails I think.
Ancient Starch Research. What role did plant resources have in the evolution of the human species? Why and…
What role did plant resources have in the evolution of the human species? Why and…
Arthur De Vany Furthering the toxin stress route to longevity, it may be that the grains, with toxins that can sterilize a bull, might be good for you.
Richard Nikoley But that makes no sense, Art, since fecundity increased tremendously with the introduction of grains in the diet. Even more when potatoes were introduced to Europe.
Arthur De Vany They entered the Malthusian pump. That all has to do with the availability of energy and the starch/insulin signalling. And fewer infants starved only to starve later when the crop failed.
Arthur De Vany This silly argument is my slight stress now.
Arthur De Vany Other than low insulin and a lean body, few other features identify centenarians; diet has not yet been shown to be determinative of longevity, though there are hints the Mediteranean Diet might protect health. Longevity is a stochastic process, health is too, but it is less random than longevity. So, diet may have impact on health but its effect on longevity would be buried in the random noise. And, diet is more than portions of macronutrients or amounts of calories. All we have been discussing in this extended argument is macro composition of the diet, with no other macro nutrients but starch. We first ought to discuss protein and then fat and carbohydrate take their lesser positions in the hierarchy.
Arthur De Vany Somebody needs to tell Ray Pepp that his reunion and happiness with flour suggests that he is insulin resistant and high glycemic flour is needed to release enough insulin to allow the glucose to penetrate into his cells. I would guess that his fasting insulin is at least 7, but I don’t wish that on him.
Richard Nikoley Well, now you have to go get the test, Ray.
Nobody ever, ever, ever, amongst the 120 billion people who’ve ever lived ate grains and was healthy and if they were, it was completely outlier on bell curves and genetically stochastic.
Arthur De Vany Richard, I get the parody, but Ray said he loved being back on flour. What do you think his insulin reading is? Hunter gatherers come in at about 5. Again, even you are making it up like Don Rodgers. Where do I say that? You two are a pair. Time for us to part.
[When I saw this comment next morning from Art, it curiously came with no ability to reply, even though it’s my own page, my own thread. Art had unfriended and blocked me. I must say, that in the context of the above, the victory goes to me and those other than Art in the thread.
You’re welcome to judge otherwise.
There were a couple of other discussions on Art’s Facebook page. Some are truncated, but you’ll get the gist.]
Arthur De Vany I NEVER eat grains; it is the easy way to grow a fat cow or bull and the bull, I am sure, regrets being emasculated and fat from the grains it is fed.
Let me simply explain my argument against grains. I have no argument with anyone who wants to eat them; whole grains are a lot better than plant starch, which is what you get when you eat milled grains.
First, plant starch is the plant version of fat. A plant makes few fats. But, starch is akin to the energy storage organ of …
Fredrick Hahn But lot’s of people eat grain and do not get fat and many have single digit body fat levels. It’s not grain per se – it’s the total amount of carbohydrate and whether or not your insulin resistant.
Tim Steele I’m against any grain that has been processed and especially enriched. I do not eat wheat, even whole grain wheat, because it seems to give me gout, which I discovered after experimenting with whole grain Farro and Kamut last year.
I eat oatmeal, in groat form, once or twice a week. I eat corn, buckwheat, and many grain-type seeds (quinoa, flaxseed, hemp, and chia) in my normal rotation of foods. My blood pressure is 115/75 or so, normal BMI, normal labs all around.
I do not eat grain for me, I eat it for my gut bacteria. They reward me in many ways. I do not eat grain in isolation, so I have no fear of becoming fat or emasculated, and I harbor no ill-will towards people who have fallen for the “grains are bad” mantra of Paleo dieting.
I believe that the beta-glucans found in oats and the resistant starch found in most whole grains outweigh any and all arguments counter to grain consumption. I feel that many minerals found in whole grains, ie. manganese, magnesium, iron, as well as vitamins and other chemicals found in whole grains are important co-factors in mitochondrial functioning.
Obviously that Art Arthur De Vany has survived many moons without grain shows me that they are not mandatory, but many cultures who subsist heavily on whole grains tell me they are not the death trap described above.
Arthur De Vany I described no death trap. But, phytate signaling blocks many of the factors you mention. For you, skipping wheat is a signal to me that you understand the argument. That you choose to go your own way is consistent with the libertarian stance most Paleo types take, especially me. Probably the last libertarian, with a small, “l” at the University of California.
Richard Nikoley Just to be aware, the science on phytate has changed. Gut bacteria to blame.
Arthur De Vany Good article that refers to phosphatases, not phytates. The micro biome never troubles me; but it used to when I ate breakfast cereal long ago, with milk. My PrePaleo days thankfuilly are now far behind me.
Richard Nikoley “They found, in one of the most prominent gut bacteria species, an enzyme able to break down phytate.”
From there it goes on to describe how they are converted to other nutrients.
Tim Steele Phytate is not limited to grain, also found in nuts…a Paleo staple. The biggest critique of phytates is that they prevent some mineral absorption, ie., iron and calcium. But phytic acid is also a powerful antioxidant and perhaps the minerals that are not absorbed help deliver these minerals to the colon where they are also needed. In developing countries where just getting enough calories is a problem, high grain diets can be problematic. In the context of a whole food Mediterranean style diet, whole grains should be appreciated, IMO.
“Important health benefits have been reported recently to phytate intake. This includes the prevention of pathological calcifications such as renal calculi, dental calculi and cardiovascular calcification, due its action as crystallization inhibitor of calcium salts, and as preventive of cancer.”
Scott Claremont Better than plant starch? Better than potatoes or tubers? You don’t eat potatoes Arthur?
Arthur De Vany Interesting remarks. It seems all seeds of plants contain phytates. But then, all seeds must protect themselves from their predators. It seems that might be a common plant strategy. Nuts are seeds of trees, beans are seeds of bean plants(?).
Arthur De Vany A famous line that. It’s that darn germ line in the end. My book might be the only one to discuss it; it is the gospel, if I thought there was one..
Gregory Hunter Hoeper Arthur De Vany how do you feel about resistant starch? Can be applied to whole food or supplemental form.
Steven Strittmatter I’ve been grain free for almost 20 years and have been completely free of sinus congestion, which had previously been a lifelong problem.
Arthur De Vany Steven Strittmatter I could have gone into allergies, a major component of the immune system activation in trying to clear the allergens grains contain.
Ray Audette Raw grains consists of flour,water and fiber. In France they call that paper-mache. Paper-mache will cause a potentially lethal bowel obstruction in any Primate but will be eaten with great relish by any ruminant such as a goat!
Richard Nikoley The French eat about 40% more wheat than Americans, which you can look up yourself at fao.org, and are yet leaner and healthier than Americans, and live longer on average.
So, you’re falsified. There are many different eating styles and in the end it …
Arthur De Vany Wheat again and for the last time.
I pointed to a known aspect of phytates and I end up getting posts from out there in the cyberspace about how good they are and they should not be demonized. Well, I did not demonize wheat, Loren Cordain published a good paper on the downside of wheat. I discussed some other aspects of wheat and there are many beyond phytates (think allergenic factors that challenge immunity, histimine and sneezing, and out and out immunity-derived inflammat…
Jordan Hedberg Cows on the other hand stress grass by eating it, which the grass responds to in an anti-fragile manner, sinking deeper roots and increased seed production. However, too much grazing will kill the grass so cows tend to wander a lot to give grass plants a break.
This is why I eat my cows but not the grass or its seeds….
Arthur De Vany Anti-fragile grass; I should have known. Nice point. Does grass secrete factors that make the cows wander, such as when a C. elegans roundworm moves away from heat not by thinking about it but because Heat Shock Proteins are secreted and impinge on the CNS?
Carlo Pagano The dilemma of medicine is that you can find experts who state that something is the truth and other experts who state that just the opposite is, e.g. Dr Loren Cordain Vs Dr McDougall…
Arthur De Vany Carlo Pagano Neither goes to the issues that are now becoming fundamental; things like the DNA damage response, autophagy, stem cell maintenance and proliferation, and all the deep aspects of cellular immunity.
Jordan Hedberg Art DeVany I had not thought about that, but what I can say from observation is that we have a rule of the “second bite” one bite from a cow is good stress, two is death for the grass plant.
Cattle do not like to take a second bite but if confined by barbwire they will, they cannot move on. Thats why we use electric fence to rotate. …
Richard Nikoley Hot off the presses and relevant to a discussion of grains.
“A high concentration of indolepropionic acid in the serum protects against type 2 diabetes, shows a new study. Indolepropionic acid is a metabolite produced by intestinal bacteria, and its production is boosted by a fibre-rich diet. According to the researchers, the discovery provides additional ins…”
Arthur De Vany “May” is always a turnoff for me. I, personally, have little confidence in the gut biome, it is so complicated and large in terms of creatures, about 37 trillion, who could understand it. Just in terms of numbers, EVERYTHING could be traced to some hum…
Richard Nikoley Well, they actually address this and acknowledge it in the paper. So, rather than ask which species is breaking down and producing what, they ask what things we know are in serum that are protective, go up or down with various dietary compositions.
It’s similar in knowing that SCFAs like butyrate feed colonocytes, so protective against colon cancer and the compromise of “tight junctions.” People think eating butter, coconut oil, and gulping MCT oil helps here, but it doesn’t. It’s all absorbed long before it gets to the colon.
To get it in the colon, it needs to be produced by the residents and the proven way to do that is by fiber. So, Kitavans, for instance, have a higher fat diet than observed by the late Lindeberg, but it’s SFCAs produced in the colon, virtue of the substantial amount of tubers consumed.
Arthur De Vany Yes, in the colon colony. Fibers seem to rule there.
Arthur De Vany Visa vi, Richard Nikoley’s post above. Rather than what MAY protect against diabetes there is what DOES protect against type 2 diabetes: eating less, exercising more, less carbohydrate, less simple sugar, and less fat. Simple as can be. The rest is just people who look for almost anything in order to avoid the proven answers listed above.
Tim Steele Or, one could muse: Diets that contain lots of plant matter, including wheat, seeds, and other whole grains confer long life, cardiovascular health, and low risk of diabetes. Could it be things like resistant starch and fiber that make this diet so he…See More
Richard Nikoley Tim Steele And added fat, especially the industrial machinery lubricant kind.
Scott Claremont “In the 1920s, “diabetes” was thought to be a disease of insulin deficiency. Eventually, measurements of insulin showed that “diabetics” often had normal amounts of insulin, or above-normal amounts. There are now “two kinds of diabetes,” with suggestions that “the disease” will soon be further subdivided.” RP
I was thinking the same in ref to the end of ref quote. More than one way to reach the same destination
Jordan Hedberg As Nassim Nicholas Taleb would say, “health is mostly found via negativa, through the removal, not the addition of substances.”
Scott Claremont Arthur what do you say to Ray Peats take re sugar and diabetes
Arthur De Vany Scott Claremont I’m not going to read it. Judge for yourself.
Jordan Hedberg Read Gary Taubes “The case against sugar” It’s a good history of Sugar and its increase around the world.
However people than go crazy and claim a fat only diet must be healthy, neither unlimited Sugar or Fat would have been “Paleo” in human evolution.
OK, so there you have it. Think what you want. It’s just for the record and I have no intention of making a bid deal about it.
My own opinion is that I don’t think Art De Vany is of much value in learning anything new about decent diets. His cellular aging and longevity stuff might have some value, though perhaps more if he were to study all the Blue Zone regions of highest average longevity.
I was on a forum the other day and someone posed the question: how might they gain weight on a ketogenic diet.
The answer to the question is obvious. Jimmy Moore is the world-champion for gaining weight on a low-carb or ketogenic diet. Nobody comes close to how many pounds he can pack on “gaining health” whilst fleecing sycophantic morons who lack so much core conscience that they don’t give a shit that the dude is a menace to innocent people.
Beyond that abject laughing stock, here’s evidence that Jimmy Moore and someone called Dr. Nallyare harming people via a forum I’m told is a joint effort.
One more pic.
The destruction of all that Jimmy Moore has been about is well underway. He needs to go broke and find honest work. Right? He should completely lose all income he derives from this. Right?
Every person who supports this shit has a fucking screw loose, and they ought not think I don’t know it. Everyone has their own level of outrage. This is true. The outrage with this monstrous bullshit is far beyond palpable. It’s veritably tangible.
Oh, cry me a river of orange-flavored exogenous ketone-drink, Jimmy.
What is it? Eight YEARS now, since 2008…you know, back when you were still doing reasonably decent with that 180-pound weight loss under your belt by following a sensible, Atkin’s style low-carbohydrate diet with adequate protein and sane amounts of fat and yes, even carbohydrate?
Hell, even your propensity toward a lot of packaged, low-carb junk food served you way better, back then.
And you were relevant in spite of struggling because at least you were maintaining, for the most part, and weren’t super far from your goal anyway. You had good guests on your show, myself included (twice). You brought in good guest hosts too, and I was happy to be one of them.
But in your zeal to let natural fats off the hook and not overly obsess about cholesterol levels, you completely went off the rails, and if that wasn’t enough, then you have to equate protein to “chocolate cake.” Why? Because you have allowed yourself to regard ketones as some primary cause, rather than as simply one of the effects of fat oxidation.
And why should I care? I don’t make a habit of going around fat shaming people for their problems. But you hold status and position and it’s perfectly reasonable to hold you to some standard of sanity.
Deana Callahan Wilisch As always, you are the epitome of grace under fire. Love all that you stand for! Hold your head high, Jimmy. The world is a better place because you’re in it. I’m SO glad God made you. ❤️
Like · 29 · April 18 at 4:50pm
Rachel M Lerma Reclaiming one’s health is a journey and often a very slow and laborious journey. People get hung up on the visual “proof” but ignore the other, often more important gauges of health–improved blood work numbers, improved energy, improved strength, improved mental and emotional health. Weight can be “perfect” while everything else is terrible. I’d much rather listen to you and your experience and your multitude of ways your health and wellbeing have improved than someone who views just a number on a scale as the benchmark!
Like · 9 · April 18 at 5:04pm
Luisa Gregory Well said Jimmy. Thank you so much for the compassion and love you show for human kind. Thank you so much for all the work you do. I’m a diabetic nurse and see so many people body shaming my patients. It’s not there fault they are sick or obese . No one ever told them how to fix there disease. People like you are out there spreading the health news and giving people hope. You inspired me to help change my patients lives. Keep up the great work and don’t let these bottom feeders put out your fire 🔥
Like · 8 · April 18 at 5:01pm
Beth Carr Loyd My heart hurts for how you are being treated. Remember Jimmy how much God loves you. You are helping so many people not by being perfect but by being human. Keep strong there are more for you than against you!
Like · 7 · April 18 at 5:26pm
As they say with regard to porn: you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Here, you’ve read them all. Not a single comment, so far, even gently and politely signaling that there’s clearly something wrong, Jimmy. You keep jetting all over the world to speaking engagements and to attend various conferences on the money you get from affiliate and advertising revenue, ultimately ponied up by the type of folks who still don’t know a damn thing about body recomposition, fat loss, adequate nutrition…and the list goes on…and in large measure, because you have a financial interest in keeping them in the dark so they’ll keep supporting the companies that foot the bill for your laughable guru lifestyle.
…And why so many other diet-and-health docs and researchers still go on your podcast is a mystery to me. I’ve known a few over the years who’ve told me they won’t go on, anymore, because of your demonstrated loss of all credibility.
I looked the other way—aw shucks—for years, Jimmy. Defended you countless times, even in my own blog comments. The final straw for me was when you tossed Paul Jaminet under the bus—one of the kindest gentlemen many of us have ever known. Why? Well, seems to me that had you been forthright and represented things as you did initially, on video for chrissakes, it would have undercut your whole business.
You’re exactly right that my goal has always been education and empowerment, which is also precisely why I’ve never made a serious business off this. It’s almost guaranteed to become an automatic financial and status conflict-of-interest if you do. It breeds a nefarious intransigence I just hate. And I’ve been around plenty long enough to see how staying the course with some narrative of dietary advice stalls and derails people all the time because of their level of trust.
I have always liked being wrong more than anything about this. It’s the only time you get to know you’re right (you’re right that you’re wrong).
Now, let’s close with a quick little primer on dietary fat intake in the context of losing body fat.
Dietary fat is the easiest of the macronutrients to store as body fat. It’s like beer in this regard—goes through you so quick and easy because it doesn’t have to change color.
Storing carbohydrate as fat (de novo lipogenesis) is neither an efficient nor common metabolic pathway and only happens with very high carbohydrate intake combined with significant overfeeding. It’s how bears get uber fat in advance of a 5-month fast: hyper overfeeding of both fat and carbs (fatty salmon skin…they toss the protein flesh to the birds…combined with carb gorging on wild berries). The true fat bomb: fat and carbs in hyper-caloric excess; and all you’ve done is cut out the carbs and just go total fat bomb.
Dietary fat is not satiating. Protein is. Carbohydrate can be, especially in a low-fat context (plain boiled potatoes are the most satiating food ever measured).
Dietary fat is THREE TIMES more calorically dense than protein, provided you get your protein intake to 30% + of caloric intake. Fat has only a 1-2% Thermic Effect of Food (“TEF”), meaning you get a full 9 calories per gram consumed. By contrast, protein has a TEF of about 20-30%, and the more protein in your diet, approaching 50% of calories, the higher the TEF so you’re getting only 3 calories per gram. Just do the damn math on that.
Higher protein intakes—even in the context of a low-carbohydrate diet—will be far more satiating than eating 1/3 the gram weight of less satiating fat and will more readily allow maintenance of a far more nutritious significant caloric deficit.
Fat has almost zero vitamins or minerals. Do the nutritional deficiency math on making fat the lion’s share of your diet, much less a crazy “epileptic diet” of 80-85% as so many are doing in order to “’cause’ things to happen” by being able to read their ketone levels.
You must run an average caloric deficit over a period of time in order to shed body fat. No exceptions.
Calories and doing the math is far more important than dietary style, with one caveat: protein is king and will always be king, whether you prefer low-carb or low-fat and which you choose will not make any difference if you maintain an average caloric deficit over significant time.
Enough with the bullshit.
UPDATE: Just dropped this, with the link to this post in the comments to Jimmy’s Facebook post:
I’m a weird guy. Apart from your commenters who seem to wish to just extend dispensation for your sins and failings (we’re all awful about it, including myself) and admonish you to carry on without even a modicum of tough love someone who actually cares about you would do (your “Like” on their comment is more important to them than you are, your health, your credibility and the success you could be).
I’m a meanie.
While not YOUR struggle, I’ve had my own, and it’s a way different one than dietary fat, just doesn’t show quite as much.
I would not even bother if I didn’t care.
But in the end, dude, you have to demonstrate effectiveness. You can “go back to church” all you want and find no end to choirs singing your praises. But those who truly care about you, those who truly understand your capacity and your prowess of influence, will tell you this:
It all began one late afternoon two months ago, February 12, 2017. While we have a doggie door and fenced area in back, they’re dogs. Periodically they must absolutely see if the rest of the yard checks out…not to mention the added necessity of marking a perimeter.
Those pungent aromas don’t last forever, you know. They require regular and continued maintenance.
So I let them down in front sometimes, the three little rat terriers. Because there are two large dogs (about 70 lbs each) across the cul-de-sac, mine often run across, barking—because the others have no right to exist, according to dog brain. Early on, when we began living here full-time last May, mine would encroach on their property, sometimes. But I had ended that some time ago (whereas, theirs still venture into our yard from time-to-time—which is fine with me). In this instance, I was unaware that one or both of their dogs were out. One of them, Moo, the female, ran out in a flash, picked out one of mine, Nuke, and chased her 30 feet across the cul-de-sac, then clamped down hard when she caught her.
My 11-yr-old girl Nanuka (“Nuke”)
Nuke was shaken up. Choncho, the Alpha, wasn’t much bothered, but junior male Scout was incensed beyond barks. He came up to the loft area, jumped up on the backrest of the sofa where he can see out across to where those dogs live and gave them a non-stop scolding for two hours or more. Outraged.
I saw the whole thing from the deck and while setting off to run down the stairs, yelled “Hey!” at the top of my lungs; Moo ceased the attack. There’s no certain way of knowing if she’d have pursued further, otherwise.
Nuke’s puncture bite did not appear to be super-serious or anything, so no need for emergency care. However, the next morning she was super sore, wouldn’t walk down the stairs (she normally bounds down 2-3 steps at a time), was reluctant to walk and when she did, did so obliquely, favoring one leg.
So I took her to the vet. Muscular-skeletal trauma. She got a few-day course of an anti-inflammatory, and it helped. $78. After a day, she began licking at it incessantly, so I called the vet who said to bring her on in. She shaved the wound area and gave a 7-day course of antibiotic. She advised against dressing or suturing the rather deep hole Nuke had created via 27/7 licking. First, it would require anesthetizing. Beyond that, she’d need to wear the collar and we’d have to clean the wound and watch it carefully for signs of infection. She was already keeping it “clean” by licking, so infection was unlikely to gain a foothold. Smart country vet. $112 total for the two visits and both meds.
Props to Arnold Pet Clinic.
That day, I reported the incident to the Calaveras County Animal Services. While there is no leash law in the county, there is a standard of reasonable control. Since the incident took place in the street, and neither of us was immediately present, we’re both at fault on that score. However, since there was a puncture, the neighbors were obliged to show proof of a rabies vaccine and could not, so Moo was taken away for an eight-day quarantine at their expense, according to Animal Services.
It’s important to note at this juncture that not once did the neighbors—a 24-yr-young woman and a 23-yr-young man—contact me to express any regret, inquire about Nuke’s well-being, offer to pay the vet bill, or offer any suggestions or signal any willingness to explore ways to minimize the risk of this, or worse, happening again.
And this is unsurprising. When we moved in permanently last May, Beatrice once saw her outside with the two dogs and went over along with our dogs to introduce herself and chat. After noticing for a while, I went over as well. The conversation was cordial enough and the dogs—under adult supervision—got along fine, typical dog banter. Curiously, however, her boyfriend sat up on their roof getting a sunbath or something and made no effort to be a little neighborly.
I spoke cordially with her a second time out front, sometime later. Then noticed odd things, like when one afternoon I was driving home and the both of them and the two dogs were out walking. I rolled down the passenger-side window and offered a greeting, “Hi folks. Hi Moo. Hi Stub.”
Nothing and in fact, he noticeably turned away.
And then there were the several incidents I witnessed first hand from the deck where, as he was coming from or going to work and the dogs were out, they’d run up barking as small dogs typically do. Rather than handle it in a common mature and adult manner by either laughing at the dogs or bending down to befriend them, he would run and stomp and kick at them.
So, all of this combined, and since they are renters (she and her father are on the lease, the boyfriend is not), I decided to inform the landlord of my wishes that he evict them and get new tenants with no dogs, or small dogs, since to the extent they are uncooperative, I have no means of minimizing risk short of leaving my dogs locked up all the time.
I mailed the landlord, outlining my concerns and wishes, attaching a copy of the report to Animal Services, the initial vet bill, and a picture of Nuke’s wound. After mailing it, I left a copy of all the foregoing outside on their truck.
Not long thereafter as I’m sitting out on my deck, she comes stomping up the stairs and the fist entitled screeching out of her is “are you seriously going to try to get us kicked out?” The conversation went downhill from there, with me treating her in kind and worse, being just as awful as I could be.
Once she left, I headed down to the market for a couple of things and when I returned, I went over and knocked on her door; she came out on the patio. Since I was at her place, I refrained from calling her any awful names, but I relayed to her that I’d forgotten to mention earlier that I’d seen her boyfriend stomp and kick at my dogs.
The next morning, I get an absolutely irate and unprofessional call from a deputy sheriff. He’d spoken with my neighbors and by damn I had better not “take matters into my own hands” and “I need to go through proper channels and due process.” I told him he had no fucking idea what he was talking about and that he ought to get off his ass, drive up here, and conduct a proper police investigation. “I don’t need to come up there. What you need to do…”
“I don’t need to to do fuck all. Click!”
An hour or so later, I call the sheriff, informed them that I had had an abrupt conversation with one of their deputies, and could they send a different deputy to my house to discuss it? A couple of hours later, I got a call from another deputy. We engaged in a cordial conversation where I explained the whole matter and got an Oh, ah.
And then nothing happens. In a week or so, I got a call from her landlord and we had a cordial conversation. Said he’d never seen the dogs, nor met the boyfriend. He also informed me that her father had co-signed the lease. He ended by saying he’ll contact them to see what could be done and contact me in a week’s time, which he did.
The second conversation was cordial as well, but nothing was accomplished. I reiterated my offer from the first conversation: that I would be willing to get with her or both of them to socialize all the dogs from time-to-time, under supervised conditions. I’ll supply the duck jerky treats, too. Nothing came of that either.
By now, it’s 2-3 weeks since the event. Fast forward 3-4 weeks and on a Thursday, March 30—a full six weeks since any contact whatsoever with the neighbor on February 13, I get a knock at the door and it’s a deputy sheriff. He has papers.
He’s there to personally serve me notice of a hearing in the Calaveras County Superior Court in San Andreas, on April 13, in the matter of my neighbor’s petition for a civil harassment restraining order. Her ex parte petition for a TRO (temporary restraining order) was denied on the basis that the evidence presented was not sufficient to merit it and that since it involved a dog complaint it should go through Animal Services for proper disposition.
Now I’m really pissed. See, when I’d spoken with the landlord a few weeks prior, he gave zero indication this was in the pipeline, so either his tenant wasn’t being forthright with him, or he was being disingenuous to me.
He promptly got a call, and I was surely at my most awful with him. Hung up on him before he got a chance to respond. He called back after a few minutes. I’d cooled down substantially. He said he’d call her father and see what was up. He called back Saturday night—a bit inebriated, I believe—to tell me he’d spoken to his attorney, has no liability, it’s between us and promptly hung up.
The petition filed by my neighbor is a piece of silly work, in my opinion. It’s essentially a plea that the government restrains me from calling her or her boyfriend bad names, not write anything about them on the internet, not contact her landlord, not call or email, and remain greater than 20 yards from either of them, their house, their truck, and their two dogs. Amusingly, if you were to step out the 20 yards out onto the street, I’d violate the order every time I left or came home.
It would also require me to surrender my guns and ammo for safekeeping, either to a licensed gun dealer or law enforcement for the duration of the order.
To support all of this was a narrative explaining the events of the evening of February 13. But in nowhere or case was she able to show any threat to her, et al, neither any pattern of harassment, stalking, obsessive behavior towards her, et al. She also attached 20-something pages of Facebook and blog posts variously labeled things like “sexist, anti-social, anti-police,” and so on.
My response to the petition largely consists of the foregoing, only with less style and more word economy.
The hearing took place yesterday morning, April 13. It was presided over by Judge Timothy S. Healy, Calaveras County Superior Court. Though one can never predict an outcome in court, I was pretty confident going in how things would roll, having been involved in many legal matters over 20 years, in connection with a company I owned. I’m also a bit better off than your average bloke with his Juris Doctorate from the Xfinity TV School of Law. And, I’m fortunate to have consulted with my cousin, who’s been a practicing attorney in complex business litigation in Los Angeles since the late 1980s.
Judge Healy opened the session by explaining that of the various kinds of restraining orders, civil harassment carries the highest burden of proof. He went on to note that the application for temporary restraint in advance of the hearing was a lower standard and that he had already denied that. He essentially sent her the message right off the bat that she’ll need to provide something new and very compelling.
…He also did note that he was unaware that Animal Control had acted on the matter even before she had filed the petition, and that he learned of that from my response (not a great way to begin, dear neighbor).
She was then given the opportunity to provide additional information, which amounted to a blog post I had written shortly after being served, that I had emailed her, and that I had called her on the phone last week.
Yep, I wrote an awful blog post. An emotional rant. Some of you read it. I took it down the next early morning on various grounds. Normally, I reserve my personally-directed vitriol for comment sections. When I do use awful language to judge or rant, there needs to be either some tongue-in-cheek or humorous element or righteous indignation that’s far more widely applicable than just my personal beef with someone.
I emailed her, basically, ‘hey neighbor, let’s have a calm conversation and see if we can find a solution. My primary concern is for all the dogs, so supervised socializing is a high priority.’ Received no response.
I called her last week, lasted 10 seconds. “Neighbor, can you tell me why Moo is in my front yard and my dogs are going crazy?” “Oh, sorry, I’ll call her back over.”
I presented a couple of new pieces myself. First, since she made such a big deal about my Facebook posts, none of which threatened or wished harm to them or their dogs, she has one talking about a bear on her front porch digging through their trash, lamenting that it wasn’t on my front porch eating my dogs.
She also made a big deal, from Facebook and blog posts, that I have guns, this makes her uncomfortable, etc. So, I was able to present a photo from her dad’s Facebook page of her shooting a handgun at a gun range.
The judged excused himself for 10 minutes to go backstage and read all the new material, saying he’d be ready to rule shortly after returning.
Upon his return, he asked the petitioner if she had anything else at all. She said yes, but really just reiterated stuff, as if trying one last time to pull off a Hail Mary.
But before he ruled, he did take time to, I think primarily, show her why, even though my deleted blog post was as awful as it was, using terms associated with sexism and misogyny, it was part factual, part emotional, but is protected speech, since it contained no express or implied threat to her.
He also interjected to me that I’m a good writer that had obviously spent a lot of time developing my style and in his opinion, that type of emotional vitriol is beneath that skill level. Kinda cool; a nice dispensation from the bench. I didn’t argue, even though I might have drawn a couple of distinctions. For example, using terms associated with sexism and misogyny against an individual does not mean you believe they apply to all individuals of that gender. But of course, longtime readers know that I get this all the time.
…Very ironically, I’ve paid for demographics of my blog traffic a number of times over the years and always, the top category is: “females over 25 with college or higher.” Ha!
So, the decision, as you’ve guessed by now: Petition Denied.
She asked if she could ask a question, and the judge said OK, but he can’t offer legal advice. She asked how she could stop me from posting about her on the Internet. She got a lesson in the 1st Amendment, drawing on the precise essential element of it: it’s there to protect speech people don’t like.
And that’s the whole story and nothing but the story.
…On the way home, Beatrice opined that it’s a good thing the standard of proof is so high; otherwise, there would be millions of restraining orders, including almost all the kids in her junior high. LOL.
Had they only been more neighborly when we initially reached out? It’s cool to have young folk around. I’d rather have taught them lessons in a much friendlier way.
Here’s a friendly one, and they can have a laugh, too.
In closing, I would encourage that any comments match my style, above.
I’ve already done all the venting and name-calling that’s “necessary” and there are a couple of rather distinct things about how I operate.
First, I go off with awful bluster because it often scares people off and if they’re too scared to waste my time with even more bullshit, it’s fine with me. Second, it intimidates and if you’re too intimidated to take me on, that’s a time-saver for me and I don’t give a shit that you feel slighted. Third, and most importantly—the thing so many miss—is that you know I’m not lying to you, blowing smoke rings up your ass.
Think about that. If I’m willing to essentially embarrass myself with awful, socially unacceptable vitriol, what are the chances I’m holding back anything material?
All that outlined, the one thing I am not and am essentially incapable of is going out of my way in vindication. I can’t hold a grudge. I can’t. It has always been out of reach for me and it’s perhaps my favorite quality about myself that I consider redeeming. Life is too short to stew over.
Low carb, obviously, but pretty modest fat, too. Only 1g of fat per ounce of New York cut (vs. 6g/oz in ribeye). King crab legs and three giant oysters with Mignonette.
Classic filet and broiled lobster tai. Kinda half & half fat and carb, wth mitigation (this is not religion). That’s low fat yogurt on the tater. Of the drawn butter, I only used half of it.
Ubiquitous grilled New York, mashed potatoes using only a splash of whole milk to mash up, and a quart of beef stock reduced to two servings, zero fat.
Roasted and then broiled chicken. The broil crisps the skin and leaves much of the fat on the cookie sheet. Frozen mixed veggies (so convenient), and home-made split pea soup via Instant Pot.
Steak au Poivre. Two filets totalling 2/3 pound on the nose. Sautéed mushroom and spinach in only 1 tsp of butter.
This last dish was helped quite a bit by how I use the Lose It! app, which is the subject of my next post. I sourced two recipes for Steak au Poivre (Alton Brown and Epicurious), but the sauce is like hyper-fat, like 2 Tablespoons butter and 4 ounces of heavy cream for just that one double-size portion (half of a recipe for four).
Two mitigate that I “dry sautéed” the chopped crimini mushrooms in just a pan-coating 1 tsp of butter, then flash sauté the spinach.
To mitigate the fat for the pepper “cream” sauce, I substituted whole milk for the cream. But, that’s going to require more reduction than for with the cream, for natural thickening, so, need more moisture, about an additional 1/4 cup, I figured. So, I reduces 2 cups of Kitchen Basics No Salt Beef Stock to 1/4 cup, achieving the deepest, most wonderful pepper sauce I’ve ever had.
So there you go. Next, how I’m now using the Lose It! app to meal plan my entire day before I even eat anything.
I was emailed by a friend yesterday asking what I think about this (links here and here):
Meh…all were doing is twiddling our thumbs right now. The welfare state (which is 200 trillion in debt), is in the process of collapsing in on itself (look at federal and state pensions currently going bankrupt and slashing pension payments because they’re underfunded by trillions of dollars).
Additionally, a second economic crash is inevitable. None of the structural problems that caused the recession have been fixed; they’ve only been amplified by the central banks throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the markets in order to postpone the Great Reset.
Basically, feminism has been allowed to flourish for the past sixty years because of the Great Society Welfare Plantation, and the “fat” that white men had been able to store up as wealth over the past two centuries.
All that wealth has been devoured, and the system, both publicly and privately, is collapsing in on itself. Oh, and the icing on the cake is the race war we’re going to have to fight because we’ve imported tens of millions of orcs who are simply accelerating the collapse of feminism’s beloved welfare state by demanding trillions more in entitlements.
White men can only stand so many tapeworms feeding off of them before they start pulling them off and throwing them into the fire.
Some leapfrogging in tech might help—you never know when or from where that might come, but who knows if it could overcome the omnipresent and ever growing desire and political agitation for everyone to live at everyone else’s expense?
The thing is, “wealth” is only one part of the equation. Without markets in which to freely produce and trade goods and services, you’re left with resources, not wealth. Look at Venezuela: lots and lots of resources, no markets to speak of, thus dirt poor. What is the New York City skyline really worth in terms of wealth, without at least quasi-free markets giving price signals to establish viable trade?
That’s were things are headed, without curbing the epidemic of economic, financial, social, and political parasitism. …And nobody is innocent, not even the largest producers of values for trade in existing markets. They all use all the political and legislative means at their disposal in rent-seeking behavior—using government for special favors, measures against smaller competition, and barriers to entry for potential competition.
Everyone wants in on the action. The flood of so-called refugees into Europe is a sham, of course, and in many ways. While some claim it’s to bolster a shrinking labor force and others insist it’s a religious-cultural invasion, I’m betting it’s all mostly a smoke screen to mask the more fundamental reason: the desire of these culturally primitive, socially parasitic organisms to be economic parasites as well.
Perhaps that’s why you hear nary a word from feminism’s spokesmen (hahaha), even in the face of the most dire brutality against women and girls any of us have been exposed to in our lifetimes, by magnitudes.
Loot the wealth, and to the extent that wealth is automatically associated with white males (ignoring the thousands of heiresses to great fortunes over centuries), then what’s grinding and chewing up a few million women and girls in the process? It’s for a “good cause.”
I can’t be sure what we’ll see first, second, third and so-on, but there will be plenty of blood. My gut feeling is that indiscriminate killing of Muslims in various places across Europe is not too far off—outrage over assaults against women and abuses of the social system increasing to fever pitch on various fronts. Whether another semi or full-on economic collapse in the US is imminent or not is anyone’s guess…or whether they’ll be able to temper it once again via “monetary policy” (an euphemism for inflation) or “financing” (an euphemism for more debt) is, again, anyone’s guess. I tend to eschew the “chart makers” nowadays.
This, at least, is true…though we don’t know how long “eventually” is, yet:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” — Margaret Thatcher
So this was the crappy news I got about this time yesterday.
Alex Tizon was the older bother of my close friend Ling Tizon Quillen during my time at Oregon State U, now my old friend, thanks to what’s good about Facebook—reconnecting with cool people after decades.
It’s a shame that it takes sudden and unexpected events like this to reflect on what impact a person had on your life.
While I was not a close friend of Alex, I did see him quite often when I visited the family home in Salem, OR, with Ling. As a lily white boy who grew up in Reno, NV, the Tizon’s were the first “ethnic” family I had an exchange with and it was a kick. Alex was a complete clown with his sisters, his mom, and his ‘aunt-mom-Lola’ who had immigrated with them from the Philippines in the mid 60’s and took care of the whole family, including the wonderful, fresh, homemade filipino food on offer every single visit.
Often, he and his sisters would do a bit of “Taglish’—Tagalog words interspersed with English, accent and all. And they all mimicked Lola with love and levity, because Lola had her permanent accent.
But Alex also had his very serious side. I recall one time, Ling and I went down to visit him in Eugene where he’d done his bachelor degree and I believe was undertaking graduate work. He was moving into a room and I noticed the relative austerity of it. He was serious and while I can’t recall specifics of the conversation, he listened intently to me and offered thoughts and questions back. And I saw him unpacking his books and while I recall no titles, it was evident that he had an intellectual and deeply curious side to him and so, it’s the first time I recall realizing that it can be cool to be intellectual.
It’s now particularly fortunate that I was able to see and chat with him in person a few years back, after 30 years. He was in the area on his book tour for “Big Little Man,” and I went to his reading and signing. It’s a cool and unique book. What he inscribed is private, but I’ll certainly treasure that signed copy.
…Perhaps it was this overall experience that eventually led to me marrying into an extended, loving Hispanic family. I was telling Beatrice last night that over the years, it was always amusing and touching both, how Ling’s family group photos posted to FB looked a lot like the ones Bea and her family post.
“Are you saying we all look alike?”
“No, but the love does.”
My heart is with my old friend Ling and her sister Maria, for their grave, sudden loss, and their loving family.
I was able to go through it this morning, with great interest. It was sent as a friendly counter to consider, against my post yesterday—and not as an appeal to authority (you’re wrong, here’s why). That’s always much appreciated. I don’t blog about 90% of the stuff I see out there, whether I agree by one bias, or disagree by another. As a non-geek who loves to synthesize geeks when I see constructive dots to connect, my greatest passion is to connect two opposing views—whether ideological, or biased, or whatever, with some synthesis (Hegelian dialectic) that makes sense to both.
The video immediately reminded me of a presentation I saw a few months back, by Arthur De Vany: Renewing Cycles, which compelled me to watch it again, back-to-back. I’ll embed both videos below, but before that, let me outline how I view them both, juxtaposed.
They both essentially rely upon the same established cellular biochemistry and genetic biology.
They come up with thoroughly different interpretations, though Ron is way more specific with proscriptions. Art is way more specific with prescriptions. In other words, Ron tells you what you should not do, while Art tells you what you should do (mostly by implication).
Here’s the two videos, embedded. Ron’s is just over 30-minutes, and Art’s, just over an hour (Art is just about 80 years old). The time tradeoff is a standard movie you might want to watch. The dollar tradeoff is the savings of $40 for two at the theater—after you’ve paid for tickets, popcorn, and drinks.
Hopefully, you watch both before taking in my bias in the matter. Please consider disciplining yourself to do that.
Stop Now!Watch both videos and develop your own biases, before reading mine, and also, since there are spoilers.
OK, here’s my take on the whole thing, beginning with what I would call my meta or macro view of things.
First, Ron’s presentation is, in my view, unbridled deconstruction, leading to dis-integrated reduction of picked elements. We see this all the time, Dave Asprey’s ironically named “Bulletproof Diet” being a prominent and popular manifestation. Pick things that can be called toxins or agitators (gluten, lectin, saponins, and on and on) and just avoid them and ironically claim “Bulletproof” status.
In Ron’s case, he sees some of the problems of both chronic consumption of carbohydrate and protein in which they could play a role. Well, that leaves one option. So, Ron’s proscriptions (avoid carbohydrate and too much protein) lead to a prescription by default, since you’re left with one “option:” eat isolated fat.
In a 10,000 foot view, you can see vegans doing better than many high-fat keto dieters, and vice-versa. Why? there is essentially no difference between them, but core ideology. Both often have gross acute nutrient deficiencies, on a quest to become chronic, and most will. It’s kinda too dumb for me to spend more than a 3-sentence paragraph on. Ok, four sentences: veganism suffers from missing dense micro-nutrients in animal products. High-fat keto suffers from a processed diet of isolated fat, and isolated fat has almost no micronutrients.
So let’s juxtapose that with Art’s presentation. It’s completely stochastic in approach (neither prescriptive nor proscriptive at the mean), which is another way of saying random—but in an existential context, as well as a human context: neither the universe nor Earth is particularly malevolent, and humans have an ability to play dodgeball. In other words, the human element of stochastics is that we can potentially identify patters and trends, and have a reasonable shot at some of us perceiving a limit. Fibonacci and Pareto are other means of slightly educated guesses at a limit, especially when human action is involved. Thankfully, survival as a human in tough circumstances—where limits are of crucial importance—are perhaps more widely reliable than options day trading.
Art’s is a completely different, infinitely more elegant approach. It’s reduction and deconstruction and avoidance (Ron) vs. integration, struggle, and embrace of survival through reduction of damage and repair of damage (Art).
It’s static and doctrine vs. yin-yang ebb and flow.
Everything we observe in nature points to the latter, not the former. Consider even the ebb and flood of ocean tides. I’m no marine biologist (but have had many successful salt-water aquariums, including reef tanks), but it’s not hard to imagine the ebb tide as a clearing out of concentrated degradation by-products (ammonia, nitrites, nitrates) to be diluted and processed for all the co-feeders in the open sea—including the biggest mammals on earth—while the flood tide brings in fresh nutrients—all while the surf action shakes everything up for renewal and regeneration. The moon may perhaps be the most fundamentally crucial thing to human development…not just something to walk on.
In terms of yin-yang, observe that it’s often reported that there’s a ‘J’ curve associated with alcohol consumption. Too much, too often, is bad, but moderate consumers often fair better than abstainers in epidemiological studies. The fable of the girl and the three bears is just right. What if, as a thought experiement, it turned out that someoone who smokes a cigarette or two per day lives longer on average than someone who smokes none?
In his presentation, one of Art’s best lines is that it may be the natural toxins in vegetables that may be why they’re healthy. He’s talking about hormesis, there, but what is the underlying mechanism? Well, its immune system exercise, for one. But, what else, perhaps? For example, what if the adverse effects of gluten is, say, loosening “tight junctions” in the gut, allowing for the acute, intermittent better absorption of phytochemicals and polyphenols?
Alright. What I think each dude means, if I were to discern proscriptions and prescriptions.
Minimize protein to bare minimum
Avoid losing lean mass
Avoid reconfiguring body fat composition from subcutaneous to visceral
Make up the rest of what you eat with fat (my biased interpretation: and unless you eat mostly coconut, palm fruit, and avocado, you’ll have to make up the difference with processed fat from animals).
Moderate your insulin and TOR baseline by having a good baseline feed/fast cycle. (my biased interpretation: 12/12 minimum, is a good place to start; 10 fed vs. 14 fasted is better)
Episodically, create a cascade of autophagic repair (my biased interpretation: a 24-48 hour zero calorie fast every week, to two, or a month)
After an acute period of starvation, repair (my biased interpretation: lots of lean protein, little fat…starch, little to no added fat, as preferred)
So, you have seen my bias and you’re welcome to argue against it. I’ve given you all the biases I can think of. What’s important is not what you think about that, but how you act.
I’ll give some meal samples in a bit, but we’re targeting two things here. The first is a high degree of satiation from the protein, which tends to reduce caloric intake. The second thing is to hopefully reprogram your natural setpoint. Whether that actually works or how long it might take to “keep” appears to not be certain at all, and there’s probably significant variation by individual. Stephan goes into some good detail on the mechanisms of set point in this post: The impact of weight loss on the drive to eat.
And here’s another clue: Meta-analysis: Impact of carbohydrate vs. fat calories on energy expenditure and body fatness. In this post, Stephan discusses a recent study by Kevin Hall where they looked at 28 controlled feeding studies that controlled for protein intake and it turns out that when protein is controlled, there’s no meaningful difference between subjects as to whether the rest of their diet was high fat or high carb. In fact, the higher carb showed a slight increase in energy expenditure over higher fat, but no big. Might one infer that perhaps the key to successful, more long-term loss might be upping the protein substantially?
So, as always, I’m more inclined to just wing it, see what happens. The first thing you need is a low-fat substrate of protein. So, think lean cuts of meat: New York Strip, skinless chicken, water-packed tuna and sardines, low-fat cottage cheese and yogurt, etc. Those are my typical choices, anyway, plus fresh fish broiled or grilled. And, this was surprising: ribeye steak has about 6 times the fat, ounce-for-ounce, as a New York strip (6g vs. 1g per pounce).
So, I went and got a some NY strips and a single ribeye to pair with a fattier, LC meal. Plus, I kept things simple. This is over the last few days.
New York Strip, about 10 ounces with a pat of butter, mixed LC vegetables with a pat of butter, a half avocado: higher fat, low carb.
Same basic grilled New York, no butter. 2 potatoes, mashed with only a splash of milk, 16-oz beef stock (zero fat) reduced to a sauce, no fat added: higher carb, low fat.
A 12-oz ribeye and two medium boiled eggs: higher fat, near zero carb.
Same basic New York, no added fat. Two potatoes tossed in 2 tsp coconut oil and oven fried. At least half the coconut oil remained on the cookie sheet: higher carb, low fat.
So, hopefully that conveys the idea if someone is looking to try this for themselves. I have quite been enjoying it, and it’s pretty much been one of these meals above as dinner in the evening and the rest of the intake throughout the day is comprised of things like tuna or sardines on some whole grain toast, fresh squeezed orange juice, low-fat cottage cheese, low-fat plain yogurt, low-fat kefir, and usually a pint to a quart of organic whole milk daily (raw preferred). Oh, and I’ll dabble at a few raw nuts in the shells (so you have to go to the bother of cracking them).
How much protein to target? Well, I like to keep that simple, too, so 1 – 1.5 grams per 2 pounds of bodyweight. So, a 200-pound person would be looking to get 100-150 grams per day.
I would be particularly interested in hearing from anyone who already has been eating somewhat similar to this for a while, and how it’s gone.
Oh, and if you have dogs, they will like this option, too.
We already know that a slave economy raises all non-slave boats.
The problem, economically, was that there were problems with the slave stock that were human in nature. Like pregnancy, slave-owner abuses over “insubordination,” as well as slave-owner sexual preferences over the wife unit… The list goes on.
Even if all that could be managed in purely economic terms, you still had the other problem that would never go away: morality and good will.
In that whole swath of rich history, morality won the day. Humanity, won the day. With many lines of opposition, the day finally came where, the clear economic benefit of owning human slaves got outweighed by a combination of industrial revolution, and morality, where the former gave strength to the latter to finally make a stand.
In other words, it was industry and the demonstration of what could be done by machinery and factories and picked, trained, skilled labor—who were paid a market wage—that got people to get all moral about slavery, finally.
So it’s not perfect.
But it’s still history.
While we still never ever hear the end of the injustice by descendants who never felt it, but figure themselves entitled—in a new context—anyway, it’s soon going to be superseded by a new class of slaves made of metal, and controlled by electronics and servo motors (electro-hydraulics for the big shit).
How far off from a brick layer, to a housemaid? Then, a chauffeur? Yard bitch?
And then, what’s next?
At this point, it’s humans still creating tools, but in essentials, isn’t it what’s been going on since the advent of civilization 10,000 years ago? Innovation is constant and unending, with a dual goal: save time and human labor, achieve more efficiency; which, in economies, means more dollars—if you are marketing what you produce. It also means more wealth and more leisure time, and that’s the Big Worry, as you’ll see.
Idle hands are the Devil’s playhouse, or something like that….
Humans make tools. Sometimes they make them to save themselves of labor or get more out of their labor. Sometimes they make them to relieve themselves of paying another human for their labor, since a machine comes with more predictable results and costs are more fixed.
…I’ve been self-employed since 1992. I sometimes think there are a lot of people who just can’t imagine a life where you just go it alone, without a paycheck. Who do you think signs paychecks? Well, people like me, who’s been self-employed since 1992. There were times I signed paychecks totaling $200k per month. But, now, I’d probably rather lease a “slave” at a fixed monthly cost of like $300-500, no healthcare other than standard maintenance, and no retirement (goes to the scrap heap when it’s done or obsolete).
Where do you think paychecks come from? Do they fall out of the sky? Why can’t you sign them too? And if you could, then you’d be able to lease 4 bots at the price of one entitled female, who might sue you, who thinks she’s a 10.0.
This isn’t rocket science now, nor is it going to be.
Why can’t you lease a robot, once they come? And what is materially different, that you couldn’t possibly use it to help you generate values you can trade with other humans in a human-economy of value exchange?
Do you imagine the coming robots that will be in place because minimum wage laws have made them cheaper, are going to suddenly take over the economic world?
…For months and I guess at least a couple of years, I have been reading various hand-wringing pieces from various intellectuals and wisdom gurus, where, we’re in the shit, because robotics and artificial intelligence are going to render all jobs—except theirs—obsolete.
I call it Neo-Ludditism.
In the plainest terms, humans create tools, then they trade tools. Then, they trade the products of their tools.
Humans are tool makers and traders. Between bouts creating tools to trade, they use them to create values and trade those, too.
Who’s going to buy all these robots and the AI, and with what?
It’s really easy to fuck with these hand-wringers, once you focus on essentials and ask pointed questions about the economies that buy all this futuristic utopianism. Are you telling me you’re going to develop, produce it, and then give it away? Who’s going to maintain it, and upgrade it? What, you don’t want to sell a 2.0 version?
Is that how Henry Ford saw getting two cars into every garage? Do you you wonder if there weren’t the same sort of “futurists” around at the time, wringing hands about how many people would be job upheaved by the advent of the automobile?
Your cars in the future will be robots themselves. They’ll talk to all the other robots, negotiate and collaborate, and you’ll race down the freeway at 70 mph with 2′ separation because it’s not really a hard problem if you take stupid brake and red-light humans and and the human traffic-jam cascade out of the equation.
My point is crazy simple. Humans have always made tools to help them do more with less, and while human slavery was an immoral digression, it nonetheless provides insights into what’s possible with quasi-intelligent robotics. So far, the tools humans have made have essentially done that—do more with less—and far from ever shutting out the human race, have instead offered it it more opportunity at literally every turn.
Yet, today, we have hand-wringing, Neo-Luddites, endeavoring to make you afraid and very afraid, with each contracted paid piece they write for $10-20K or more in each publication you see it.
They are getting paid to scare you, are willing to do it, and it’s an easy sell for a typical whore.
Don’t fall for it. Brightest future is always ahead. It’s simple human nature.
I had lots of other stuff to do today, since I just spent mind-numbing hours yesterday doing my “taxes” (euphemism). But how serendipitous, when the story of the day turned out to be Donald Trump’s 2005 tax filing, where he got hit for $38 Million. And me, yesterday? Uh, a bit less than that.
…What a silly shill, Rachel Maddow—Mad Cow. She cried on MSNBC on November 8, and now, 4 months later and last night, promised to drop a bombshell in the lede to her program, and now the internet is generally going nuts with laughter.
There are too many memes to put here. I’m collecting them in this Facebook post, should you care to look or add.
Here’s the gist, in light of Mad Cow showing that President Trump paid $38 million in federal taxes in 2005:
Here’s the real deal, though: Trump got hurt worse, and so did lots of others. He got more taken from him, which artificially limits what he does, and he does so, amongst the best: he creates shit and pays other people decent wages to create that shit.
You stupid, very and very more, stupid people out there.
Anyway, when she finally revealed what was in the taxes, it was not a huge deal. Trump earned about $150 million in income in 2005, and paid $38 million in taxes, thanks to the alternative minimum tax, which he wants to kill.
This gives Trump an effective tax rate of about 24 percent, which Johnston pointed out was roughly equal to what he and his wife, who are an upper middle class couple, pay.
And, sure, for a billionaire, you can argue that he should pay more in taxes. But, $38 million is a big number. As is $150 million in income.
There was speculation, fueled by Trump himself, that he wasn’t paying anything in taxes. That led to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton attacking him on that front.
It’s LOL. Do you remember that, during the debates and run-up? Instead of answering charges about paying little or no taxes, instead of saying “I pay millions every year,” he egged them on: “I’m smart,” which of course was bait, making them think he paid nothing.
Well, that’s all. Mad Cow is as Mad Cow does. Although, her net worth is estimated at $20 Million, and it’s widely reported that she earns $7 million annually from CNBC. ….Oops… “earns.”
Mammas, don’t let your girls grow up to be cowboys.
Otherwise, you get a “cute couple,” her and the obviously lovely Susan Mikula (go have a laf at what pops up at the link, today).
Woke up this morning to notification of yet another blog post by Mike Eades. In it, he points to a relatively short presentation (30 minutes) by Dr. David Ludwig of Harvard University at the Ambition Nutrition Conference.
Mike goes on to provide his notes on the presentation with time stamps. I found them intriguing enough to watch the presentation which I think is a good one, and jot off a bit of a post of my own. I’ll limit it to two high points of disagreement as I understand it from the presentation, and one point of solid euphoric enthusiasm.
On the issue of insulin driving fat storage, I think the gaping hole in the idea is that even if true, per se, it’s not asking the right question or making the correct identification, per se. Everyone is familiar with the phrase the dose makes the poison, but everyone also seems to disregard timeframe, or, time under dosing. In other words, we’re not fully taking into account that dose has two components: volume and time…v/t. And they are directly proportional. The higher the volume, the greater must be the time under administration; or, the lower the time interval, the smaller must be the volume of the dose.
Relating the analogy to insulin, I think there is far too much emphasis placed on the the dose one might get from a food, a meal, or even a few meals, and not enough on the frequency or periods of no dosing.
In specific terms, we were probably not “munching hunter-gatherers.” So, for example, you can show that Hadza eat about 18% of their annual calories in the form of honey. But, they tend to do so in a gorging fashion. When they find it, they eat it all, and we’re talking pints. So, they hit the “poison,” but then have extensive periods were there is little or none.
But how does this resolve to modern society with easy food at fingertips 27/7? Well, rather than CICO—and Ludwig makes an excellent case against that, with good data—how about self-imposed eating-windows? Rather than eating and snacking from 6-7am until 9-10pm every day, impose a 12/12 on yourself. Take note of the time you ate your last calorie every night, don’t eat another unit for a full 12 hours. I suspect that would go a long way towards solving obesity in America. Want to lose weight, then go 14, 16, or 18 hours.
Now, note that this raises another question: are the generally good results obtained in fat loss, weight maintenance, and health markers due to a likely slight reduction in average calories (say, measured over a month), or the fact that you are getting a zero food-induced dose of insulin for at least 12 hours per day?
Well, wouldn’t it be nice if folks on both sides of that debate were at least doing so in the face of actual proven results? So, then, let the debate rage on. Benefits everyone, no matter their bias.
In large part, one way to view this presentation is as one of making a valid distinction between kinds of carbohydrate in the diet. It’s almost the theme of it and while I don’t know how much Ludwig is, or not, a proponent of low-carb diets…then if so, this makes for good progress in terms of valid distinctions.
The original Atkins was pretty much agnostic in terms of food quality (it was the 70’s). You want your protein to come from Slim Jims and your fat, from soy-oil mayonnaise? Or, later, do you just want an Atkins shake with a 3″ list of “ingredients?” No problem. One value of Paleo is that it got many low-carbers to pay attention to food quality. So, everyone now knows the difference between the mystery meat in a Hot Pocket, and a pot roast. They know the difference between Mazola, and grass fed butter and lard.
And now, they need to continue on the path, recognizing the difference between a Coca-Cola and a baked potato. Ludwig cites the data in a number of studies to suggest just that: that while all protein and fat is not created equal, neither are all forms of carbohydrate.
I’m in league with Mike on the 16 ounce steak, though perhaps not for the same reason. Given his fondness for insulin playing a large role—which I’ve already mentioned—and knowing that protein can be insulinogenic, it smacks as though he seems to think moderate protein is the way to go, and then talk about fat (no impact on insulin) vs. carb (big impact), though with the nouvelles distinctions just mentioned.
But what if people focussed far more on protein from quality food sources and were more ambivalent about fat vs. carbs, but minimally cognizant enough to understand that perhaps an inverse relationship is in order?
There’s controversy over Kevin Hall’s NuSi funded study that showed no particular advantage to high-fat-low-carb diets, within the study design. BUT, the study design controlled for protein. I think it’s hugely important and may be a critical aspect that has been overlooked or regarded as inconvenient by some of Hall’s critics.
…A footnote here is that Ludwig spent good minutes talking about the neurological aspects inherent in chowing down on the junk food. Well, I’ve recently read and will review soon Stephan Guyenet’s The Hungry Brain: Outsmarting the Instincts That Make Us Overeat. There, you get about 10 solid chapters covering the neurological science of overeating. It’s cool that Mike saw this aspect in Ludwig’s presentation and highlighted it, “how palatability is not inherent in food.”
In your book which I blew through in four sittings over 2 days, I seem to get the impression that you are at least considering the possibility that higher intakes of protein might be key.
Is that a correct impression?
I’ve been dabbling with higher protein lately, about 30%, trading off carb and fat willy nilly as preferred, usually a few days at a time alternating. The higher protein seems to be so uniquely satiating that I wonder if the fat vs. carb war is rather pointless in that paradigm. This is in the context of mostly whole, “frugal” food.
I do think protein has a major impact on satiety and possibly the setpoint. I think this controlled feeding study was the most striking demonstration of the effect:
In the book, I argue that higher protein may actually be an “active ingredient” in low-carb diets, rather than lower carbohydrate itself– at least for moderate LC (as opposed to ketogenic diets). I don’t think the evidence is definitive, but it is suggestive. And yes, I do think that goes some way toward undermining the fat vs. carb war. Still, I recognize the possibility that people may respond differently to fat or carb such that they don’t respond in an “average” way.
I also think that diets at the extremes of macro composition, such as very-low-carb and very-low-fat (e.g., McDougall), may have certain advantages for metabolism and weight control that are not seen in more moderate versions.
Well, I must say that after hundreds of books and presentations over the years of almost everyone saying the same thing because everyone else is saying it—via lectures and books—I sense a lot more integration and synthesis, indeed honesty, in dealing with all the elements coalescing.
A few years before Super Size Me hit theaters in 2004, Dr. Paresh Dandona, a diabetes specialist in Buffalo, New York, set out to measure the body’s response to McDonald’s—specifically breakfast. Over several mornings, he fed nine normal-weight volunteers an egg sandwich with cheese and ham, a sausage muffin sandwich, and two hash brown patties.
Dandona is a professor at the State University of New York-Buffalo who also heads the Diabetes-Endocrinology Center of Western New York, and what he observed has informed his research ever since. Levels of a C-reactive protein, an indicator of systemic inflammation, shot up “within literally minutes.” “I was shocked,” he recalls, that “a simple McDonald’s meal that seems harmless enough”—the sort of high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal that 1 in 4 Americans eats regularly—would have such a dramatic effect. And it lasted for hours. […]
Over the next decade he tested the effects of various foods on the immune system. A fast-food breakfast inflamed, he found, but a high-fiber breakfast with lots of fruit did not. A breakthrough came in 2007 when he discovered that while sugar water, a stand-in for soda, caused inflammation, orange juice—even though it contains plenty of sugar—didn’t.
The Florida Department of Citrus, a state agency, was so excited it underwrote a subsequent study, and had fresh-squeezed orange juice flown in for it. This time, along with their two-sandwich, two-hash-brown, 910-calorie breakfast, one-third of his volunteers—10 in total—quaffed a glass of fresh OJ. The non-juice drinkers, half of whom drank sugar water, and the other half plain water, had the expected response—inflammation and elevated blood sugar. But the OJ drinkers had neither elevated blood sugar nor inflammation. The juice seemed to shield their metabolism. “It just switched off the whole damn thing,” Dandona says. Other scientists have since confirmed that OJ has a strong anti-inflammatory effect.
Orange juice is rich in antioxidants like vitamin C, beneficial flavonoids, and small amounts of fiber, all of which may be directly anti-inflammatory. But what caught Dandona’s attention was another substance. Those subjects who ate just the McDonald’s breakfast had increased blood levels of a molecule called endotoxin. This molecule comes from the outer walls of certain bacteria. If endotoxin levels rise, our immune system perceives a threat and responds with inflammation.
So that’s the new “gut connection” that attempts to explain the effect, which the rest of the article goes on into some detail.
So, the question is, what else in terms of fruit and vegetables might have similar effects?
For some time now, I’ve made orange juice a modest but regular part of most days. Probably less than 12 ounces, on average. The problem is, I’m not altogether than impressed with anything commercially available, since I’m not near a Whole Foods where they have the on-site fresh squeezed available (non-pasturized, as well).
Even though the labels on all the best products say “100% orange juice, never from concentrate,” they just always lack a lot of flavor and depth, for me.
Enter the BLACK & DECKER CJ630 32-Ounce Electric Citrus Juicer. It’s a ridiculous nineteen bucks. That and a 10-pound sack of oranges and man oh wow: it’s not even the same thing at all! no comparison. I use the highest pulp setting, but it’s not like there’s pulp floating around. It just makes the juice a bit thicker, more depth and body, like a nectar more than a watery juice. Also, I think having it at room temperature makes a big taste difference as well.
Three oranges renders a nice 8-10 ounce glass. Perfect for me. For other meals, I’ll typically do just one orange (3-4 ounces) right before a meal and I have noticed far better clearance of the meal with no boating or digestion discomfort. I never noticed such a thing from the pasteurized, bottled stuff from the market.
If you try, let me know what you think.
Elixa Probiotic is a British biotech manufacturer in Oxford, UK. U.S. Demand is now so high they’ve established distribution centers in Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey.
Still, sell-outs happen regularly, so order nowto avoid a waiting list.
On Friday, Feb 17, Beatrice got up here to the cabin. A week was in store for us and the doggies. It tuned into a 13-day family medical intervention. Here are the high points.
By Sunday, shit was looking grim. Her mom, mid-80s, with a non aggressive form of lymphoma that had been acting up, was under care and plan to deal with it. A low-dose chemo, pill form.
But, they thought some measures were called for before going on the regimen, and so there were additional prescriptions.
…And within two days, she became so demented she knew not her age, nor how many children she bore (six, is the correct answer), was in chronic pain, and other bad shit.
So, we headed out early Tuesday morning, intending to be back by Sunday, and Bea could get back to school Monday, as scheduled.
The next day, once set up in the AirBNB, I was casually exchanging email on current political events with my buddy Mike Eades, and with no intention whatsoever to ask for help, either I mentioned or he asked if she’s on a diuretic.
“She’s dehydrated,” Mike says, and adds that there are three classes of human that can get really dehydrated easy: old, young, sick.
It’s not all he wrote to me, but he gave me enough that within 2 hours, Bea’s mom was admitted to emergency with a husband imperative she be put on IV fluids immediately. She began to improve soon.
It’s so damn easy to understand, once you’re just given a clue into the essentials. She had a bit of leg edema. That’s why the diuretic. But it wasn’t managed. It fixed that, and overshot big.
Most infuriating to me was that the med staff did the tests and lied to Bea and the family. Did it come back as dehydration? Nope, of corse it didn’t. Came back as hypercalcaemia, which in addition to aligning with the onset dementia perfectly, is also chiefly caused by dehydration. Get it? So, “that’s her problem,” and not that they overshot and dehydrated her with a diuretic drug.
You can easily Google all this stuff. Dehydration can easily cause high calcium (any cook who reduced sauces ought understand this), and high calcium can cause your brain to screw up. Don’t know what units of measure, but she was at 14, where 8-10 is normal range. When hydrated enough to dilute calcium to 9, she began making sense again. At 8.1, we had mom back.
…The problem was that the process took a huge physical toll, and once out of the woods, she had to spend about a week in a rehabilitation center where she was too weak to do much of anything.
She’s back home, better, but still not where she was a couple of weeks ago. Do not get old people dehydrated. What in the hell, put an 85-yr-old on a diuretic?
Holy shit. Who is this chickie hot cake with a big smart brain?
Well, while Tucker Carlson is doing good work in the FOX slot formerly occupied by Megyn, this gal, with a fat contract, would better fill that role, since its traditionally a babe role, and you can easily tell she’s as good as Megyn in looks, better in brains.
I am an anarchist, philosophically. I do not believe in any imperative for a State, or a government that runs it; and I certainly reject the political philosophy that holds to the existence of some “social contract” (that’s really in competition with and contradicts the political philosophy of natural rights). And yet, the politically oppressive, rights-violating state is the given, and it has been for a long time. Still, when I look around, I usually—especially lately—find myself on more common ground and more in league with the generally religious, conservative, Republican right and classically liberal “right.”
Well, first of all, when I got into all this way back in 1990, a wise man once told me that the problem with many libertarians is that if you scratch them deeply enough, you find a totalitarian. It’s sort of an east meets west thing. Look at some of the rhetoric in use leading up to the Castro takeover way back. PGL: Pretty Good Libertarian. And, of course, Marxism was supposed to usher in an anarchist utopia where there would no longer be need of state or government and in many ways, the modifier Anarcho-Capitalism is explicitly designed to resolve this aparent ambiguity and draw a distinction away from Anarcho-Syndicalism (basically, commies).
Anyway, there are many forms of libertarian I have encountered over the many years. Here’s a very brief bullet-point rundown.
The “Randians” or Objectivists. While they reject libertarian anarchism and are statists, the principles they espouse can nonetheless be employed to argue for anarchy. But my biggest problem with them is that for so long as I have known them, what they care about most is pro-abortion and anti-religion. Way to go. Win friends and influence people.
The Libertarian Party. It’s a contradiction in terms. Silly and ridiculous.
The Consequentialists. These are those who tend to dismiss or ignore philosophical principles in favor of economics-based arguments (Chicago School, Austrian School, etc.) as a means of finding common ground amongst those who find principles important, and those who do not. It’s actually a tent of reasonable size. The Reason foundation and magazine is generally here, as are dudes like Friedman, Sowell, Rothbard, and hosts of others. It’s easy to be there because principles don’t really matter and so in the end, it largely reduces to getting naked in public and smoking dope (yes, I’m being facetious).
That’s all just a general, broad brush without tons of thought or analysis put to it. And, there’s plenty of crossover. Reason, for example, loves to champion the joke of the Libertarian party, and then employ principles when it comes to criticizing Trump policy that would employ the force of government to undo bad that was done via the force of government. Of course, two wrongs do not a right make, but as I wrote yesterday, it’s time to at least minimally make distinctions between tax-theft used to haul in immigrants who vow to kill us and change our general culture and society, spending billions to indoctrinate kids into “social justice,” pay people not to work or advance, pay people lavish retirements at the end of a 30-year bureaucratic make-work scam…and spending those spoils on bridges, roads, walls, pipelines, etc.
Is that goofy, silly, macho-man American Pride such a bad thing, compared to the androgynous alternative?
What I find most to my dislike over some years now is the nihilism, which I chalk up to frustration. I recognize it because I was there, and had to root it out of myself. It’s rooted in a misplaced longing for so-called cosmic justice. The Darwin awards on steroids. When you find yourself rooting for failure, for collapse, for civil war—just desserts and on and on—it might be time to reevaluate, in my humble opinion. Hate for humanity in general, is not healthy.
Odd, I know, coming from me, since so much of my schtick is rather curmudgeonly, bordering on misanthropy. But I think I’m better at it, now, and I channel an old saying from my fundamental Baptist upbringing: hate the sin, love the sinner...only for me, it’s hate the stupidity, help the stupid.
And it’s an important difference. If I do say so myself, my health, diet, food, and fitness blogging in over 2,500 posts since 2008 is testament, I think, to a desire to help people more than it is to make myself feel good by exposing their errors and stupidity. Most of us are smart, and stupid too. It just depends on the subject. Have a little patience and grace. Try to put at least as much oomph into solutions or better outcomes as you do cheering just failure and hoping for collapse.
Societal, cultural, and economic collapse—while offering a modicum of schadenfreude-like satisfaction to the “right-thinking” intellectual elite—is a bitch and there is no guarantee you’re not going down the shitter too. But I kinda see that level of suicide-like wishing often enough. ‘This shit is so fucked up—me with my great job, nice house, car, and vacations—because I See Stupid People, that I’ll burn it all to the ground just to feel right. Me and my principles.’
I see none of this in the religious or the conservative right. I see the exact opposite. In terms of the Jews, Christians, and Protestant Christians that form the mainstay of religion in America, I see religious culture that in fact, and owing to the 1st Amendment, lives in relative peace with the state. Curiously, many of them put faith and family ahead of state in their philosophical hierarchy, while at the same time, engage their ideas into the political process in a peaceful, procedural way…kinda like how it was intended.
They are more in league with their faith-based communities and families than with the state, but adept and conscientious enough that so long as they have the reasonable freedom to pursue their shared values in their loved and cherished communities, they’re fine and will do what’s necessary to preserve that protected way of life for themselves and their children.
This is the root of their conservatism. And I have come to better understand it, now applaud it, and am happy to conservatively support it.
This way of thinking began in primitive fashion back in about 2011 or so, and I was chewing on it so much that I proposed a presentation for AHS12 at Harvard that would deal with some of it. It was couched as a talk on epistemology from an evolutionary perspective (what is the quality of your knowledge?), but I still had not yet made the connection, nor made proper distinctions in the realm of religious faith.
It would be a bit different if I did that today.
I think it can be argued that in many ways, my term “Anarchy Begins At Home” is best promoted, championed, and conserved by the peaceful, wholesome value, religious folk of America.
Banal title. The pic is of the newest private rental we’ve scrounged while down here in SoCal, day 11 but under less than ideal circumstances. Things are better on that score.
Anyway, once I get back home to my office and huge-ass screen and pine wood plank floors and fresh ground coffee in the morning I’m going to do all this all different, but this is what I spouted on Facebook today, which will soon be individual blog posts.
Yawn. Hey, dumbasses, if you’re in business to make money, how about produce some stuff people actually want to watch and enjoy with their families? You have a full library of wildly successful family show templates to pattern after if you no longer employ anyone old enough to have watched any of them.
With actual “media,” the left is ultimately toast, at least in terms of popular support which Trump figured out better how to do.
There is a simple reason the left is effervescent in terms of name calling while the right has backed off on it. It’s all the left has. They are reduced to children. But THEIR children they counted on are beginning to grow pubic hair. Still fuzz, but it’s there. Cracks are showing, too.
You libertarians can call it a bag of shit all you want because Trump, and your Utopia has been postponed yet again, and I at least know what you mean, but can’t you at least find a little glimmer of hope in rollback and reset?
Let me advertise it this way. Lots of people just do the thing. They get married, screw, have kids and do what apes do. But human apes want to communicate with their little ape offspring and so-called Traditional American Values are actually a very proven and successful way to do that. And you can do it in the context of Judaism to Catholicism, to Fundamental Baptist (me, after all the Lutheran and Mormon baggage of my parents). You can be a secular humanist (I like how they raise their kids).
America always changes and evolves, because of its fundamental makeup. There are always limits to everything. “No Limits” is a marketing slogan from a company trying to sell you shoes for $100 that wear out as soon as possible.
I have always, always, always and always seen all of this as the limit being reached in outright destroying what is uniquely and quintessentially American, and it’s why I either scoff at or ignore libertarians, now, depending on the severity of their “euthamesia.” If you don’t get that, it’s a combo between suicide and the inability to remember shit. Or, it could be “ehphamesia,” which would be the use of euphemism in order to fool one’s self into forgetting what America is, fundamentally.
Be a bit weary of conspiracy theories from the right you might hear.
It works via 20/20 hindsight, where you go back on everything that has happened since November and maybe before, and weave a narrative in order to sell a genius conspiracy that was executed without a hitch, and you have to be worried, because it was flawless.
In a more Occam’s Razor view of things, it’s hard to view the left and be very impressed. It’s not hard to imagine them being opportunistic and grasping at anything and everything in an ad-hoc way.
This last example is easy, in my view.
Trump had a damn moment the other night. Now, no matter what you thought of it, you at least ought to understand the politics in play and since we’re not yet in a hunky-dory libertarian utopia, you serve yourself best if you at least observe and understand the actual reality.
When you have a CNN host saying “he became president,” then, the info deal thingy you had but were unsure of, becomes a use or lose deal. It just got a very short shelf life.
So use it, make the best of it. Give it hell all.
They had this before, but they knew it was weak.
It’s still weak. It’s all they have. That’s how pathetic these losers are.