The Culprit Is PUFA And I Will Remove Them Fast. (Severe Acne, IBS, Fatigue)

[charlie]

Interesting, but I don't think it holds much evolutionary merit. You've got to take into consideration the fact we came from frugivores, we didn't evolve into frugivores. The evolutionary spark from primates into homos happened rather quickly, and can't be explained by our fruit diets which we had already been eating for several million years.

 

[TeaRex14]

I mean, believe what you like. I'm just saying if we examine the evolutionary timeline then it's really hard to conclude fruit consumption played a vast role in our mental evolution as a species. Why is it that for about 12 million years primates' evolutionary phases were very slow and stagnant? And then around the time we started including more animal proteins in our diets we started evolving exceedingly fast over a 4 million year period. Not denying the importance of glucose or fruit consumption, but it seems the addition of animal proteins played a pivotal role here.

 

[opson123]

My digestion has been extremely bad for 5 years and as a result about 2 years ago after being exhausted from trying all kinds of diet voodoo, I found out I had tolerable gut issues with milk chocolate so I switched to a diet of only chocolate, for 2 years I've eaten 200g or 300g of milk chocolate once a day and nothing else. Unexpected side effect is that my comedo acne on my back and forehead has cleared completely, a really smooth skin now. Of course my acne wasnt nearly as bad as OP's, but I had really bumpy skin and literally thousand+ blackheads.

Even with milk chocolate I feel like ***t 247, but suffering from lack of food is easier than suffering from horrible indigestion and related symptoms. I'm also able to sleep 8+ hours compared to something like 2-4hours. Recently I've tried introducing peaty foods, but with poor success.

 

[Whichway?]

Fruit Might Be Responsible For Our Bigger Brains

I don’t think that study supports that fruitarianism is the ideal for humans. It simply states that in 4 types of monkeys, eating fruit is associated with a larger brain than eating LEAVES.

 

[Alpha]

Interesting, but I don't think it holds much evolutionary merit. You've got to take into consideration the fact we came from frugivores, we didn't evolve into frugivores. The evolutionary spark from primates into homos happened rather quickly, and can't be explained by our fruit diets which we had already been eating for several million years.

There is no evidence that "animal protein" is responsible for our brains getting "bigger", whatever that means. I'm not even entirely sure that evolution is a valid theory anymore. For all we know, our seemingly instant evolution to Homosapiens or Neanderthals was due to extra-terrestrial breeding and inoculation.

All the diets from historic records show very little protein in the diet (<10%), and even less animal protein.

 

[jimisonthenet]

I haven't read through all of the pages yet, but going from the first page, it sounds like you need to eradicate endotoxin. I would recommend a nice strong brew of cascara segrada and/or some activated charcoal. Raw carrot salads with olive oil and salt are surprisingly delicious, and one of those for breakfast every day even for just a day or two should make a noticeable difference.

I have chronic fatigue issues which took what felt like a long long time to resolve, and this worked for me. I think that both acne and chronic fatigue would be related to endotoxin in the gut.

I hope this helps. Again, I only threw this in there because I was surprised it hadn't mentioned on the first page. Take care mate, all the best.

 

[TeaRex14]

There is no evidence that "animal protein" is responsible for our brains getting "bigger", whatever that means.

I said cooked animal protein, and cooked foods in general (but specially protein). The average protein consumption was 25%, some higher, some lower, depending on geographical location. And virtually every credible mainstream paleontologist agrees with this.

I'm not even entirely sure that evolution is a valid theory anymore.

Evolution is not a religion. Believing it or not believing it is irrelevant. Evolution does not require someone's faith to be real, it's real regardless. The non believers are simply proven wrong with time. It's also important to note that evolution does not, and has never, explained creation or the origin of life. Evolution is simply the adaptation and survival of a species. If you think evolution isn't real stick your hand underwater for fifteen to twenty minutes. The skin (on your hand) becomes shriveled and accustomed to the water. That's evolution in work, your hand adapting to it's new environment.

For all we know, our seemingly instant evolution to Homosapiens or Neanderthals was due to extra-terrestrial breeding and inoculation.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but I for one find the Ancient Astronaut Theory more believable then any mainstream religion such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Mainstream religions are just "rip offs" of older more ancient beliefs. But whether gods and aliens exist or not is completely redundant to evolution, evolution is very real.

 

[jimisonthenet]

I know that the further you delve into the pages on a topic, the further you go away from the original subject, but this has probably gone the most off topic I have ever seen

 

[TeaRex14]

I know that the further you delve into the pages on a topic, the further you go away from the original subject, but this has probably gone the most off topic I have ever seen

Who, me or Alpha?

 

[RWilly]

My son had very bad acne on his face and back for years. At one point, he started bringing a container of baby carrots to school for snacking (without even doing that for health reasons). Surprisingly, the acne on his face and shoulders went away.

 

[Alpha]

I said cooked animal protein, and cooked foods in general (but specially protein). The average protein consumption was 25%, some higher, some lower, depending on geographical location. And virtually every credible mainstream paleontologist agrees with this.

That might be true. But if you also look at Roman or Greek athletes, they had very little meat as part of their diets, and that was a situation where they could have had more of any type of food that would boost their athleticism.

Evolution is not a religion. Believing it or not believing it is irrelevant. Evolution does not require someone's faith to be real, it's real regardless. The non believers are simply proven wrong with time. It's also important to note that evolution does not, and has never, explained creation or the origin of life. Evolution is simply the adaptation and survival of a species. If you think evolution isn't real stick your hand underwater for fifteen to twenty minutes. The skin (on your hand) becomes shriveled and accustomed to the water. That's evolution in work, your hand adapting to it's new environment.

I'm not sure why you used that example as an explanation for evolution. It doesn't shrivel because it becomes accustomed to the water, and if it did, evolution is a mutation on the DNA level, not a 15 minute time frame.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but I for one find the Ancient Astronaut Theory more believable then any mainstream religion such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Mainstream religions are just "rip offs" of older more ancient beliefs. But whether gods and aliens exist or not is completely redundant to evolution, evolution is very real.

Yes I'm serious. There's plenty of evidence that our seemingly discrete development was thanks to an external intervention. The same could be said for instantaneous appearance and disappearance of civilizations. I believe that we have been bred out of primates with some other intelligent specimen, for what purpose, possibly multiple, but nothing I can say for sure.

 

[TeaRex14]

That might be true. But if you also look at Roman or Greek athletes, they had very little meat as part of their diets, and that was a situation where they could have had more of any type of food that would boost their athleticism.



I'm not sure why you used that example as an explanation for evolution. It doesn't shrivel because it becomes accustomed to the water, and if it did, evolution is a mutation on the DNA level, not a 15 minute time frame.



Yes I'm serious. There's plenty of evidence that our seemingly discrete development was thanks to an external intervention. The same could be said for instantaneous appearance and disappearance of civilizations. I believe that we have been bred out of primates with some other intelligent specimen, for what purpose, possibly multiple, but nothing I can say for sure.

It was a simplistic example sure, nevertheless it shows how a specific organism adapts to a new environment. Drastic changes in the evolutionary processes are exceedingly slow in comparison to human lifespan. Thousands of years is a very long time for humans, much less millions of years. But to earth's lifespan that's like advancing five minutes on a clock, lol. It's easy for someone who lives to be 80 years old to say evolution isn't real, much harder to say this if you could somehow live to be 800,000 years old. Also RNA and DNA sequencing can reliably show us the evolutionary cycle of organisms.

 

[lvysaur]

I said cooked animal protein, and cooked foods in general (but specially protein).

It wouldn't be specially protein. It would be specifically starch.

Eating some meat probably helped by finding a denser source of calories, but cooking meat does not unlock many more calories. cooking starch unlocks tons of calories.

 

[TeaRex14]

It wouldn't be specially protein. It would be specifically starch.

Eating some meat probably helped by finding a denser source of calories, but cooking meat does not unlock many more calories. cooking starch unlocks tons of calories.

The problem with this theory is starch was not in abundance before agriculture. You would find some wild tubers here and there, but they are smaller, more fibrous, and less abundant then modern day potatoes and whatnot. Not to mention they weren't all edible, some wild tubers are toxic. The optimal foraging approach would pretty much rule out any sort of starch based diet, until the agricultural revolution of course. Cooked meat would be very dense in calories considering ancestors ate the fattiest parts of the animal.

 

[lvysaur]

The problem with this theory is starch was not in abundance before agriculture.

It was though. There are plenty of wild tubers out there, and even if they were less nutrient-dense than today's, they were a much more reliable find than an animal kill.

When you cook an animal, nutrition improves by maybe 20%. When you cook a tuber, it improves by way more. Cooking's most salient effect was unlocking plant nutrients.

 

[Richiebogie]

so I switched to a diet of only chocolate, for 2 years I've eaten 200g or 300g of milk chocolate once a day and nothing else.

Are you taking vitamin c supplements?

Even with milk chocolate I feel like ***t 247, but suffering from lack of food is easier than suffering from horrible indigestion and related symptoms.

Sounds rough, but well done pioneering the milk chocolate OMAD diet!

What time of day is your milk chocolate meal?

Is there no other food you can tolerate?

A couple of bananas with some tinned peaches should provide a few missing nutrients like vitamin C, niacin, folate, vitamin b6...

Maybe you could drizzle them with melted chocolate or have them at a different time of day...

or even alternate between chocolate days and banana-peach days!

 

[Runenight201]

It was though. There are plenty of wild tubers out there, and even if they were less nutrient-dense than today's, they were a much more reliable find than an animal kill.

When you cook an animal, nutrition improves by maybe 20%. When you cook a tuber, it improves by way more. Cooking's most salient effect was unlocking plant nutrients.

The plant theory fails to consider the DHA component of brain development and structure, which sea food in abundance would have helped develop significantly, much more so than any plant could.

Cooking starch for sure helped. So did cooking animals. They both contributed. Arguing about which one contributed more is a pedantic one to make, usually rooted in dietary prejudices.

 

[lvysaur]

The plant theory fails to consider the DHA component of brain development and structure, which sea food in abundance would have helped develop significantly, much more so than any plant could.

I never claimed anything against meat. Only that cooking is a far greater boon for otherwise indigestible plant foods. Both contributed, and one contributed more.

 

[CLASH]

Doubt the evolutionary change in humans was brought on by starch. I have read some of the hypothesis pieces on this though. It seems more likely that a move towards more agrarian societies lead to a decrease in brain size, which is what we have now.

For me, I think its more plausible that meat spurned evolution. Since it was adressed from a caloric standpoint, fat is much more caloric dense than both meat and starch. If you look at native populations, the fattiest meats were prized and sought after. Even current hunter gatherer populations today seems to prioritize meat, particularly the fatty cuts over every other food source with perhaps the exception of honey. A close second seems to be fruit and the last option, which is generally seen as a famine food, is starchy tubers. Not neccesarily an ideal argument but if any of us where to go into the wild “naked and afraid” style, regardless of the climate I would estimate the only real food sources most of us would seek out would be either fruit or meat with a last resort on some fibrous tuber. I also doubt that starchy tubers would be more plentiful than meat and thus a staple back in the day, as has been mentioned. Considering the context of the past I would think that animals and fruit would be the most plentiful food source for us, particularly if you believe we evolved out of Africa. The wild fruits that grow in africa, are abundant, can be very sweet, and some can grow up to 30lbs. A current hunter gatherer population, the hadza, rely mostly on baobab fruit, honey and meat with tubers as a back up. The northern cultures relied almost entirely on meat/ fish and eventually dairy. The island populations relied mostly on fish, fruit and coconut with some yams. I dont really see where starch plays in here, especially considering that in the neolithic period we seem to have regressed physically based on the skeleton studies I’ve seen.

My overall estimation is that we came from frugivores, but we evolved later into part carnivore. We moved out of the trees and starting hunting big game on the savannah, especially during the ice age periods we went through; homo-carnivorous. Our GI tracts have a mixed function with an acidic stomach (carnivore), with a large small intestine/ a gallbladder (fruitivore- carnivore) and a small colon (fruitivore- carnivore). The adapation that allowed for our increased brain size was less reliance from fermentation of indigestible fibers to fatty acids in our colons to more reliance on absorption of fatty acids and sugars from our small intestine. This allowed for a more efficient gut that requires less energy such that more energy can be diverted towards other functions I.e. the central nervous system. To counter the “CNS only uses glucose comment”, yes this is correct for the most part no doubt and it actually fits in nicely in my mind. I think the large portion of fatty acids actually spares precious glucose for the central nervous systems, hence why on an all fruit diet most people are eating fruit so often. They are essentially running out of sugar to oxidize since thier sugar oxidation is so elevated and they arent ingesting any fatty acids so if they dont constantly supply the system with sugars they wind up getting slammed with an adrenaline rush to push out fatty acids and glycogen to supply themselves (i experienced this myself on a low fat diet that was most fruit and juice with some meat). Another thing to consider along this train of thought is almost every large mammals diets seems to rely on a large portion of fatty acids for functioning, either via fermentation with large plant eaters converting plant fibers to fatty acids (or arthropod eaters in which the chitin shell is fermented to fatty acids) such as cows, goats, elephants, moose, deer, certain whales, or via the ingestion of said fatty acids directly with wolves, lions, certain whales etc. So it seems to me that the ideal human diet is a fruit and meat (fat) based diet, with perhaps statchy tubers and dairy being a grey area based on tolerance.

As for the acne issue being discussed, and fruitarian diets healing it, atleast in my estimation, In the absence of excess dairy consumption (modern dairy hormones seems to reliably cause acne in susceptible people, myself included) any gut dysbiosis can upregulate the adrenal glands directly which can lead to elevations in cortisol and also DHEA. Considering the bodies context and the elevated DHEA I would venture to say the increased DHEA and conversion products would be increasing peoples acne. The reason the fruitarian diet may fix the issue in my opinion is due to a correction in the dysbiosis. The PUFAS I think have more of a long term damaging effect cumulatively. Many vegans/ fruitarians are switching to carnivore now and finding that they can thrive just as well on animals products particularly eggs and red meat. I think many would find in the longer run they would do better if they ate both meat and fruit or maybe fruit juice but it seems currently that dogma with a little bit of experience is prevailing as opposed to just experience. Once these people run into issues with long term keto, I think they will have to drop the dogma and will find a nice balance with meat and fruit.

Edit: I added the acne section to avoid derailing the thread entirely.

 

[Runenight201]

Doubt the evolutionary change in humans was brought on by starch. I have read some of the hypothesis pieces on this though. It seems more likely that a move towards more agrarian societies lead to a decrease in brain size, which is what we have now.

For me, I think its more plausible that meat spurned evolution. Since it was adressed from a caloric standpoint, fat is much more caloric dense than both meat and starch. If you look at native populations, the fattiest meats were prized and sought after. Even current hunter gatherer populations today seems to prioritize meat, particularly the fatty cuts over every other food source with perhaps the exception of honey. A close second seems to be fruit and the last option, which is generally seen as a famine food, is starchy tubers. Not neccesarily an ideal argument but if any of us where to go into the wild “naked and afraid” style, regardless of the climate I would estimate the only real food sources most of us would seek out would be either fruit or meat with a last resort on some fibrous tuber. I also doubt that starchy tubers would be more plentiful than meat and thus a staple back in the day, as has been mentioned. Considering the context of the past I would think that animals and fruit would be the most plentiful food source for us, particularly if you believe we evolved out of Africa. The wild fruits that grow in africa, are abundant, can be very sweet, and some can grow up to 30lbs. A current hunter gatherer population, the hadza, rely mostly on baobab fruit, honey and meat with tubers as a back up. The northern cultures relied almost entirely on meat/ fish and eventually dairy. The island populations relied mostly on fish, fruit and coconut with some yams. I dont really see where starch plays in here, especially considering that in the neolithic period we seem to have regressed physically based on the skeleton studies I’ve seen.

My overall estimation is that we came from frugivores, but we evolved later into part carnivore. We moved out of the trees and starting hunting big game on the savannah, especially during the ice age periods we went through; homo-carnivorous. Our GI tracts have a mixed function with an acidic stomach (carnivore), with a large small intestine/ a gallbladder (fruitivore- carnivore) and a small colon (fruitivore- carnivore). The adapation that allowed for our increased brain size was less reliance from fermentation of indigestible fibers to fatty acids in our colons to more reliance on absorption of fatty acids and sugars from our small intestine. This allowed for a more efficient gut that requires less energy such that more energy can be diverted towards other functions I.e. the central nervous system. To counter the “CNS only uses glucose comment”, yes this is correct for the most part no doubt and it actually fits in nicely in my mind. I think the large portion of fatty acids actually spares precious glucose for the central nervous systems, hence why on an all fruit diet most people are eating fruit so often. They are essentially running out of sugar to oxidize since thier sugar oxidation is so elevated and they arent ingesting any fatty acids so if they dont constantly supply the system with sugars they wind up getting slammed with an adrenaline rush to push out fatty acids and glycogen to supply themselves (i experienced this myself on a low fat diet that was most fruit and juice with some meat). Another thing to consider along this train of thought is almost every large mammals diets seems to rely on a large portion of fatty acids for functioning, either via fermentation with large plant eaters converting plant fibers to fatty acids (or arthropod eaters in which the chitin shell is fermented to fatty acids) such as cows, goats, elephants, moose, deer, certain whales, or via the ingestion of said fatty acids directly with wolves, lions, certain whales etc. So it seems to me that the ideal human diet is a fruit and meat (fat) based diet, with perhaps statchy tubers and dairy being a grey area based on tolerance.

As for the acne issue being discussed, and fruitarian diets healing it, atleast in my estimation, In the absence of excess dairy consumption (modern dairy hormones seems to reliably cause acne in susceptible people, myself included) any gut dysbiosis can upregulate the adrenal glands directly which can lead to elevations in cortisol and also DHEA. Considering the bodies context and the elevated DHEA I would venture to say the increased DHEA and conversion products would be increasing peoples acne. The reason the fruitarian diet may fix the issue in my opinion is due to a correction in the dysbiosis. The PUFAS I think have more of a long term damaging effect cumulatively. Many vegans/ fruitarians are switching to carnivore now and finding that they can thrive just as well on animals products particularly eggs and red meat. I think many would find in the longer run they would do better if they ate both meat and fruit or maybe fruit juice but it seems currently that dogma with a little bit of experience is prevailing as opposed to just experience. Once these people run into issues with long term keto, I think they will have to drop the dogma and will find a nice balance with meat and fruit.

Edit: I added the acne section to avoid derailing the thread entirely.

I disagree with the premise that we hunted big game to evolve, especially given the fact that we would have been really bad hunters initially, until we had the more developed homo brain to hunt intelligently.

I think it’s much more likely we ate easy to capture and abundant sea food along the coasts and rivers of Africa, and this supports the notion of an expanding brain which would need protein and especially DHA, which is found in abundance in sea food, which wild game wouldn’t be able to support unless we ate a ton of animal brain.

I see dairy as the next evolutionary advantageous food. Not necessary but more optimal than eating a ton of meat, in my opinion. Perhaps we will engineer a new food in 100 years time which will evolve our species to the next level.