Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=3539&start_row=61


raw food diet/alkaline/recipes

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Anishinaabeg Jiisakiwinini Sent: 8/22/2015 8:41:20 AM
Reply

Yes I ! Haile up I Idren. Here is a interesting point of view on the sugar and carb discussion. Remember not all carbs are the same (some complex some simple etc..) I do not think I should take more than 100 gram of carbs per day generally. This article is referencing a person on Babylon poison diet not carbs from Ital diet tho. What do my Bredren and sistren think on this article? Give thankhs for consideration, its kinda long but itsa complex issue.

Article:
On August 6th, a Science Daily article was released titled, “Paleo diet: Big brains needed carbs.” At the time I was coincidentally down in Florida visiting a close family member painfully dying from Alzheimer’s disease. Upon surreptitiously checking my iPhone for messages there I found I was suddenly receiving a barrage of emails from fans pointing out the just published article, wondering what I thought. My first thought upon reading the title was “Seriously? You have GOT to be kidding!” The article itself had me shaking my head in utter bewilderment and disbelief. This passes for science?

The premise of this article was clearly predicated on the mistaken idea that glucose is meant of absolute necessity to be “the” human brain’s primary source of fuel. In fact, most everything about the article was based upon this primary assumption. It is among the most commonly misleading foundational ideas taught in medical schools and to mainstream dietitians/nutritionists everywhere: that notion that the brain and body must of necessity rely upon glucose as its primary source of fuel. Unfortunately, this misguided assumption is in fact only conditionally true. It is only true if a human being has cultivated a rather unnatural dependence upon glucose as their primary source of fuel by what they choose to habitually eat.

Nature would never have been so stupid as to force a primary dependence upon so volatile and unreliable a source of fuel as blood sugar. Our brains are actually designed to make use of more than one type of major fuel: sugars (glucose) and fat (in the form of ketones). Fat is at base the human brain’s preferred and most efficient superfuel, but a diet significantly high in carbohydrates (anything close to and over roughly 100 g per day) forces the brain to adapt instead to a less efficient or dependable reliance on sugar. Thanks to aggressive government-controlling transnational Big Agribusiness interests, large multinational chemical industries (marketing fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, etc.) and corporate food industry efforts, our modern day diet is largely based in sugar and starch-based carbohydrate foods (refined and otherwise) – for the very first time in all of human history. We are officially told we need them in order to be optimally healthy—even though a distinct lack of actual science exists to corroborate such an assertion.

Glucose, a fuel otherwise meant to be an auxiliary or supplemental form of kindling/rocket fuel for bursts of emergency anaerobic energy (with only very small amounts actually required for fueling our red blood cells) has turned into something it was never meant to be. Today people everywhere are relying on tidal waves of insulin to manage unnatural, chronic blood sugar surges resulting from such diets, with decided consequences. Our otherwise overburdened stress management system (i.e., stress hormones) have been chronically and unnaturally tasked in modern times with dealing with the subsequent chronic insulin-induced plummets in blood sugar, leading to roller coastering moods, energy, neurological stability and, yes, cognitive function. We have our modern day carbohydrate-based diet to thank for the increase—not in our brain size- but in metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, and the progressive neurodegenerative characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease and dementias.

It was never “protein” that was the source of our “initial accelerated expansion of brain size” in early humans/pre-humans (as the article contends), but instead high amounts of its accompanying dietary brain-building fat. The human brain is made up of at least 60 to 80% fat by dry weight and relies upon the dietary fat and cholesterol (yes, eeevil cholesterol) we supply it with in order to maintain its structure and energy-intensive function. Carbohydrates, conversely, provide zero meaningful brain structure. Fat supplies more than twice the calories per gram than even the starchiest carbohydrates ever could, and (when one is well adapted to doing so) provides a steady and reliable, efficiently stored source of fuel for this critical organ—even in the absence of regular meals. Glucose dependence derived from the chronic consumption sugars and starches, on the other hand, is a highly volatile and unreliable form of fuel that must be constantly and vigilantly resupplied and managed to prevent loss of function. This of course is a highly profitable form of metabolic enslavement for the industries that produce and market this type of food. The added problem, unfortunately, is that glucose (and other sugars, such as particularly fructose) also generates a form of cumulative damage known as glycation over time—something that the human brain is significantly susceptible to. Cumulative (non-enzymatically controlled) glycation and advanced glycation/glycosylation end-products (A.G.E.’s) are known to be responsible for premature aging, adverse metabolic changes and loss of tissue function in diabetes/aging and their various complications. Alzheimer’s disease (something rather close to home for me right now) is, in fact today being referred to as “type III diabetes,” and recent studies are clearly showing pathophysiological changes in the Alzheimer’s regions of brains in those having higher blood sugar levels—even in those presenting with supposedly “normal”, acceptable, non-diabetic fasting blood sugar ranges.

If starch in any form were so healthy for the human brain, then certainly more would be better and the human brain today—given the uniquely starch-based diet of our times—would be even larger–growing by leaps and bounds–and better than ever. But the opposite is actually true.

We humans have literally lost just over 10% of our brain volume over the last 10,000 years since the development of agriculture, where cheap and easy to produce starch became a much more prevalent part of the human diet. One might attempt to reason some manner of “improved brain efficiency” with this recently reduced brain size of ours – but this seems more of a rationalization than a viably supportable hypothesis.

That humans have consumed starch as seasonally/climatically available since the universal adoption of fire as a food preparation tool (much more recent in our evolutionary history), particularly in Neolithic times is not necessarily the subject of that much debate. No doubt our Neolithic predecessors spent many a night farting around the campfire during times when starchy tubers were plentiful. Since the advent of agriculture, however, we literally shifted from a diet comprised of close to 90% animal source foods rich in brain-building fats to as little as 10%, in favor of starch—and this has yielded some rather obvious consequences (case-in-point: the popularity of tabloids and “reality TV”).

Nonetheless, no human dietary requirement for any form of carbohydrate has ever been established by science in any medical textbook or textbook of human physiology. Seems like quite the oversight for something that is supposedly responsible in some fundamental way as THE primary fuel for advanced human intelligence…

I’m not buying it.

Stable isotopic evidence from human bone collagen remains representing vast periods of human history show an unmistakable (if not overwhelming) primary dependence upon animal source foods during the rapid encephalization of the human brain roughly two million years ago (well before we would have had universal access to fire for cooking), however, and have never shown evidence for a starch-based diet throughout ancient prehistory in any truly meaningful way. As wild humans attempting to eek out our existence in a harsh and uncertain environment, we would have certainly eaten whatever we had or needed to in order to survive. The fact that our Paleolithic ancestors were able to consume starches (or anything else we were able to put in our mouths in order to survive) by no means provides conclusive evidence that these foods were in any way optimal for our physiological or brain health, much less that we were even able to make meaningful use of them (one reason why the subtitle of my book, Primal Body, Primal Mind reads, “Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life.”). In my book I was able to demonstrate how human longevity research actually lends better clues toward what is and isn’t optimal relative to Paleolithic principles. But I digress.

Intense and prolonged heat is required to transform raw starchy tubers through a process called “gelatinization” into anything remotely digestible by us. Once converted into more digestible starch through extensive cooking, the rest of the process would have required viable amylase genes and their active genetic expression in order to actually process this available dietary starch within the human body in any meaningful way with respect to energy. We really didn’t even have that ability to cook with fire consistently until far more recently in our evolutionary past (not much more than an estimated 75,000-100,000 years ago). By that time our brains were already fully modern, if not even a bit larger than they are now. Non-gelatinized (a.k.a., “resistant”) raw starch-based foods may have provided significant fodder for certain types of gut microorganisms along the way (as does other simple fibrous plant material), but nowhere near in the capacity typically exhibited by those animals actually designed to eat a carbohydrate-based diet in the first place. Ours is a hydrochloric acid and not fermentative-based digestive system, after all. Also, raw starch foods would have lacked any real nutritional (much less caloric) value for us, given their exceedingly poor digestibility.

Unlike our Great Ape ancestors, we have a greatly expanded small intestine and greatly shortened large intestine consistent with a diet much higher in meat and fat. Where our ape ancestor’s brains utilize perhaps 8% of their total metabolic energy requirements, the human brain demands a whopping 25% or more of our total daily energy needs. Dietary (and ample stored) fat is effortlessly poised to supply this need with more than double the efficiency of any carbohydrate-based food, and the human body’s fat reserves (in a healthy state of natural, ketogenic adaptation) are far more readily able to maintain steady and ample fuel supplies than comparatively paltry glycogen stores could ever hope to. Our advanced brains would have required consistency of availability for their structural building/maintenance materials and fuel supply—something fat would have been in an infinitely superior position to provide.

The development of amylase genes in humans (along with the availability of starch-based foods) was far more highly variable throughout global people groups than basic human brain size or intelligence, yielding a rather poor correlation here. By far the greatest consistency throughout human Paleolithic history was a dependence upon—first and foremost—animal source foods. And ample dietary animal fat (and its critical 20- and 22-carbon fatty acids, arachidonic acid/AA, as well as docosahexanoic acid/DHA) consumed with such foods, more than any other source of nourishment, would have provided the necessary available substrate and energy to both construct and fuel the uniquely and voraciously demanding human brain.

The “expensive tissue hypothesis” postulating the importance of increased dietary meat and fat toward the rapid enlargement of the human brain during human evolution is a well-established and well-accepted concept in the field of paleoanthropology and (for good reason) isn’t particularly controversial. We are unique among all primates in our advanced adaptation to high meat and fat diets; and this, more than any other distinguishing characteristic has contributed to what (up until about 10,000 years ago, anyway) was an unprecedented explosion of brain growth and unparalleled functional sophistication. Although high amounts of protein are ultimately not necessary for optimal health (moderation seems to be significantly more beneficial), fat-based diets–in the absence of high sugar/starch–demonstrate significantly superior cognitive and metabolic efficiency over carbohydrate-based diets—something not accounted for in the weak hypothesis proposed by the Science Daily article.

Innumerable corporate interests stand to profit handsomely by investing in the promotion of carbohydrate-based diets for every man, woman and child on planet Earth. They are enormously cheap to produce, highly profitable and they keep everyone perpetually hungry. Certainly Monsanto and the unscrupulous, profit-hungry multinational Food Industry it supplies have got to LOVE that. Ka-CHING! Carbohydrate-based diets are also increasingly recognized as responsible for the modern-day explosion of metabolic diseases, obesity, cancers, heart disease and chronic inflammatory conditions (nice for the profit-based Medical Industry and Big Pharma that drives it). The chronic demand for endogenous insulin production—highly correlated with sugar and starch consumption–is directly correlated to premature aging and age-related decline, as well as many of the aforementioned metabolic diseases. Add to this the commonly addictive nature of dietary sugars/starches, and you have a recipe for officially sanctioned/popular ongoing carbohydrate fixation and cravings (regardless of the abundant evidence to the contrary) embraced by many wanting to rationalize them as either benign or somehow beneficial. And those promoting carbs are far more likely to win popularity contests than those questioning their health effects. It’s simply the nature of the Beast.

Let’s just say that SOMEONE is clearly benefitting from all this marketing, rationalization and promotion, but it isn’t the vulnerable consumers or their brains.

The bottom line is this: we were exquisitely forged by Nature as Paleolithic hunter-gatherers to be primarily “fat-heads” and not “potato heads” or “grain brains.”

I’ll personally skip the potatoes, thank you very much.



Messenger: reasoningtime Sent: 8/22/2015 5:44:18 PM
Reply

give thanks! alright, blackheart. nice argument!

you know what...i just stay how i am. i eat rice etc. but i just check if its really ITAL and things like bread are the best if you just do it yourself. i think eating too much of one thing can cause problems but youre right. i still eat rice. babylon bun (and cheese) and coffee is stil lwrong to me but i rice is natural, ital and everything coll about it.

give thanks for the reasoning...


Messenger: reasoningtime Sent: 8/22/2015 7:48:26 PM
Reply

ive just read your other post, blackheart. the joke is that many magazines etc. actually advice you to follow a low carb aka caveman aka paleo diet whichs says you should only eat fruit and meat.

but im not sure that what i wanted to say and how i see things now was made that clear by me.

when it comes to weath and gluten ive just told all of you what ive read in a local article. of course there are many doctors wholl tell you that as long as you dont show allergic reactions you can eat as much weath as you want but beside the thing about gluten and the damage it maybe can do to your stomach and bowel i know that some rastas prefer wholemeal bread anyways because of the fiber etc. one superficial reason to eat wholemeal products too is that it will stop your hunger better than simple weath products.

when it comes to carbs all i want to say is i dont like this low carb diets like ive mentioned before (what about the cholesterol level, certain nutrients...) but this is where weath and other cerreals come into play again. personally, what i see as a problem is that weath buns and noodles etc. have become a main part of the nutrition of mankind and i see that food like this can be a problem for people in the west who eat chocolate bars and fast food or pizza every day and BESIDE that they ONLY eat bread in the morning and in the evening or maybe some noodles for dinner. so i think if you arent that conscious about your food and you pollute your body with TONS of weath products or noodles or too much rice every day it cant be good. becuse it hasnt that much nutrients. so we have to eat more varied. but people who follow a ital diet already can eat some rice of course. but bread from the supermarket doesnt deliver what your body needs and rice isnt always ital. but weve talked about that already.

so i continue to eat rice, rice isnt really the problem to me (if you dont eat 3000 calories of rice every day to eat a chocolate afterwards), but i think products like weath toast, burger buns etc. are just a waste of calories. those are the cerreals im worried about. and if you buy bread in a supermarket you might find certain chemicals and even hogs bristles if you check the ingredients. itll make you sick. at least in germany and some other european countries. thats a statement i will always agree with.

another thing i can tell you is a few years ago i had followed a real diet. because back then i wanted to lose some pounds. i never followed a fat based diet or carb bases diet. ive jsut counted the calories and i was more into certain sports back then. i think the key word is you have to eat a litte varied. its not good to say no, i avoid as much carbs as possible or to eat ONLY meat or ONLY salat. there are even people who only eat cookies to lose weight. i thin we all agree that this cant be the answer.




Messenger: Humble one Sent: 8/23/2015 1:55:30 AM
Reply

Yes, I agree with you. Perhaps the west tends to overemphasize carbs as a food group in the west, making up perhaps more than half of diets in a lot of cases.

I think a healthy amount is around 30% of the diet, perhaps varying depending on the person. As you said though, you cannot ignore them completely. This would surely lead to malnutrition some time down the line.

All the best,

Joe


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 8/23/2015 4:05:31 AM
Reply

A balanced diet is the most important thing

FYI - the outer shell of rice if not removed - phytate - BLOCKS the body from absorbing other key nutrients; even if you eat veggies with your rice


Messenger: reasoningtime Sent: 8/23/2015 4:04:20 PM
Reply

instead of me saying "hey, ive heard gluten and too much rice cant be good" ive finally found the time to give you some translated notes from an european article ive read recently. i admit it was posted by a german youtuber in german, a "free journalist" who also deals with "esoteric" teachings and his thoughts on all kind of problems in our system and conspiracy theories but he did his homework when it comes to the aspect of science. and hes not that unknown here in germany.

here is what he says about cereals like mice, rice etc. and especially weath products like bread, baguette, burger buns and pizza. just like me, you can critize this arguments or rethink certain things:

GRAIN (PHYTIC ACID & CARBS)

- mankind wasnt genetically designed to digest bread because the breed of cereals as it is manifested today only exists for 20.000 years (weath would be known for around 7000 years and became a main part of our nutrition in the 19th century).

- phytic acid is a part of grain (its part of weath, rye, spelt, oat, mice and rice for example) and once its in your body your body wouldnt be able to profit from nutrients any longer.
everyone would statistically consume around 220 pounds of grain so this would be where nutrient deficiency comes from in many cases.

- one of our main problems would be that statistically everyone of us consumes 77 pounds of sugar so thats why we would all be in danger of nutrient deficiency and diabetis and its symptoms.

- eating too much grain would be a waste of calories because it wouldnt have any vitamins or nutrients. producers would even lie to claim products like bread would be full of vitamin b for example.

- eating too much carbs in form of grain would be able to cause diabetis too.

- consuming too much of the wrong fatty acids in form of grain as well would be like poisoning our bodies so we couldnt be astonished when it comes to the inefficiency of the youth of today.

- tooth decay, metabolic disorders, allergies, digestions problems, headache, bone problems and even the alzheimers disease would all also be caused by consuming grain (and sugar).

- there wouldnt be any diseases caused by the lack of carbs. the youth of today is poisoned by too much grain and sugar (phytic acid, carbs and pure sugar).

- bread would be like pure sugar because the carbs will be transformed into sugar directly.

GLUTEN

- gluten (part of weath for example) would be responsible for digestion problems and nutrient deficiency as well.

- producers would even lie about it. the church would help to eliminate mankind by saying prayers like "give us our daily BREAD" (bread would be poison).

- gluten would be antibodies which would fight our own system and they would produce autoimmune diseases. because our bodies would treat bread like an "enemy" and our immune system would fight everything we let in our bodies while we are eating bread which includes gluten.

- gluten would be able to survive the process of digestion and they would attack your small bowel afterwards directly. this would be responsible for certain bowel diseases.

BREAD

- in germany until 2001 they would have used hair of corpses to get the protein out of it in a laboratory to soften the dough. today they would use hogs bristles and it would be all legal. in some areas they still use the hair that was left on the floor of barber shops. when you read the ingredients look out for "l-cysteine".

SEITAN

- seitan products would be an invention to pollute vegetarians and vegans because its full of gluten. maybe the word would even be a joke. seitan = satan.

POISON

- everything on earth including fruit and vegetables is designed to fight for their lives. even fruit wouldnt want to "die" and vegetables wouldnt want to be eaten. so things like phytic acid would be a defensive mechanism. we just have to check which ones of those are dangerous for the human body and which arent.

heres the guy talking about it in german: i think hes actually a singer. i admit he deals with a lot of conspiracy theories.

lie, false facts or truth...you decide.


























Messenger: Black heart Sent: 8/24/2015 11:33:37 PM
Reply

Reasoningtime. I told yu dat if yu are to be an Italist then yu haffe lern from animals dat are Italist. If yu are a true vegetarian yu can't avoid carbs. Why are yu confusing people & yoself? How can a vegan get advice from anti-vegan magazines? It is clear to everyone dat those magazines yu talk about are spreading anti-vegetarian propaganda, so why can't yu just stop spreading dat babylon confusion. I told yu its only meat eaters dat can try & avoid carbs. I promote Ital livity not meat eatin


Messenger: Black heart Sent: 8/25/2015 12:21:34 AM
Reply

Yu keep on tellin us about bread & other processed non ital stuffs from de shops, why? We know dat bread from de shops ain't ital so why do yu keep on tellin us about its problems? We know when we want bread we just bake de Ital one. Rice & other carbs are not an issue to Ital man fo Ital man eat only Ital rice which is always vital. As an Italist I eat whole food so no high blood sugar from I high carb diet. If yu realy want to lose wight then adopting de Ital diet can help yu not yo meat promo



Messenger: reasoningtime Sent: 8/25/2015 6:37:39 AM
Reply

no. i dont lose weight. ive already done that.

i dont think its about propaganda. those low carb diet people and people like the guy who wrote that article ive mentioned before are just ONE SITE, the site which sees phytic acid, high carb diets and gluten as something absolutely negative which is to avoid, but like ive said before as well there also is another site. the main stream site. doctors and all kind of gouvernment institutions tell us that we can eat it but we must be careful about it.

so speaking about phytic acid, carbs and gluten is not complete nonsense. its just the truth. even italists, no matter if in new york city or deep down in africa, have to decide how they want to deal with it.

i dont think every italist has the same opinion on carbs. everybody has to decide for his own. gouvernment instituitons and nutritionists for example will tell you that 60 % of what your body gets out of your food should be carbohydrates. a high carb diet would also be helpful when it comes to precaution regarding the alzheimers disease for example.

but there are single parties, a whole lot of doctors who have written books about it like the i has mentioned who has posted the article about potatos or the whole paleo diet site, who will tell you that the opposite is the case and we should make sure that carbs are only around 20 % of what we get out of our food.

neutrally said, phytic acid wont do anything to you IF YOU chose your food consciously. youre right. many italists in here already do so but its also a fact that phytic acid CAN CAUSE nutrient deficiency AND other diseases once you suffer from it so if you eat most of your veggies and fruits with grains it might be dangerous. the reason ive posted something in here in the first place was to speak about maffe. i think maffe is delicious, you can eat it but IF you eat it to get nutrients and vitamins its foolish. because you prepare sweet potatos, carrots and salat for your lunch but you wont profit from their nutrient and vitamins because of the rice youll eat as well. this is why i have said if i want to eat maffe more often i better replace the rice.

and just to bake your own bread might not protect you from the dangers of grains. if you use weath or rye of oat for example to bake something and you eat too much of it the whole heap of carbs (and phytics acid again) cant be good for you even though i admit there are statistics which say that wholemeal bread might be helpful when it comes to the precaution regarding bowel cancer. but the gluten will enter your small bowel and mash it up. too much gluten are just dangerous thats just a fact.

so...personally i think even as an italist we can still read about developments, statistics and articles which deal with the effect of certain ingredients and nutrients. but you always have to listen to both sites or all sites and have an own opinion. to me the key word is a VARIED diet. i dont check if carbs are bulding 20 % or 60 & of my food. i eat rice and potatos and even wholemeal bread (or quinoa bread) here and there. ill always do so. but i dont eat too much of it. AND I NEVER EAT IT ALONG WITH VEGGIES AND FRUITS. i eat maffe but if i eat it more often i will skip the rice. thats what we really should avoid. carbs deliver power, you can follow your own concept but what ive learned of the whole discussion is that neither too much or avoiding it at all is good for you when it comes to carbs and GRAINS AND VEGGIES together arent good for your uptake. babylon bread and gluten are dangerous in deed. even youre doctor will tell you about the dangers of eating too much weath toasts etc.

so i just wanted to tell you why fast food is so dangerous and everybody can have his own opinion on nutrients and carbs. i think it was interesting to reach a higher level of looking at things with humbleone who said that to him even grain is a living, god blessed food or the one who told us about his experience with the alzheimers disease. i think youre right, blackheart, carbs will keep us going but grains are a special topic and when it comes to science there is not only ONE TRUTH about carbohydrates. we have to decide what we eat.





Messenger: Black heart Sent: 8/26/2015 11:39:49 PM
Reply

De problem with yu reasoningtime is dat yu talk but yu don't live ital dats why yo talk is full of theories. What I man talk about is I livity not theories dat promote meat eating. If yu were true Italist or vegetarian yu would have known dat those theories about avoiding carbs are misleading. Grains are healthy solong as its whole grains. I & I ina Africa eat grains almost everyday yet we don't experience phytic acid & gluten problems. Yu realy don't know what yu talk about, go & reserch


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I