Re: The Anti-Fat Pill and the Bushmen

[Guest guest]

-

>Eating low carb is very difficult for most people. Bread, pastry,

>potatoes are omnipresent in our society.

I guess that would explain the stunning popularity and effectiveness of

Atkins dieting nowadays -- but note that I qualified my statement by saying

that ease in giving up addictions requires sufficient fat (which is to say

lots and lots of it) and quality foods, factors many Atkins dieters

neglect. Whenever my fat consumption dips, my cravings come back.

-

[Guest guest]

> Mike,

>

> I don't see anything hilarious about this. Especially for those

> practicing CRON, this is a near god-send. Sure it's not the only way

> to lose weight/eat less, but it seems like a good way to do so.

> Perhaps you have no problem eating less, but a cursory glance at the

> obesity epidemic in modern nations leads me to believe that

> over-eating is an easy thing to fall prey too. If what has been

> discovered about the cactus is true (and no ill-effects are reported

> in the next few years) this may potentially save millions of people

> from early deaths and eradicate the obesity epidemic. I know I'd use

> it as a way to fast every second day or so. Or perhaps 2-3 days in a

> row, per week. Am I the only one enthused by this discovery?

>

> -

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

what i thought was hilarious was the way it was discussed and the

claims made for it; i didn't even give a second's thought about the

value of the hoodia itself, since it's obviously not necessary for

most of the world's population to thrive, and doesn't interest me at

all. WE ALREADY HAVE A " CURE " FOR OBESITY AND OVER-EATING, BUT MOST

PEOPLE EITHER DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT OR CHOOSE NOT TO IMPLEMENT IT.

the " cure " is multi-dimensional, of course, involving multiple

aspects of diet, exercise, lifestyle, psychological health, social

structure, etc. we don't need any magic bullets, and probably basic

nutrition would be enough. maybe you're right, though, that this

might be good for some people, like CRONers, who might need a little

extra help with appetite control. certainly i'm skeptical about the

net worth of something with such an exotic pharmacological effect.

variety, adaptation, flexibility, multiple solutions, etc... i can't

make too many judgements...

i agree with your response to that we can't assume any

correlation between the healthfulness and difficulty of a practice.

people make such a big deal about CR, when it's just eating a little

bit less. maybe i'm just lucky, but i'm sure most people can adapt

to it within a few years if they wanted to. , in your posts

expressing frustration with various dietary experiments, i don't see

how you could draw too many conclusions about certain things after

only a few months or so, especially what i'm assuming has been a time

of intense experimentation with food selection and eating habits.

patience! i think one of the reasons why my appestat is so robust

is that in my early undergrad years i frequently didn't eat more than

one meal a day, typically in the evening, because i would always be

finishing difficult math problems and stuff at the last minute,

pulling all-nighters, etc, and let myself fall into situations where

i couldn't take a single minute to even think about eating.

DISTRACTION IS THE ULTIMATE APPETITE SUPPRESANT!! that might be a

more general principle, though, because i've also found that when i'm

enjoying stimulating social interactions--the synergy of a handful of

close friends having a sprawling late-night conversation, a date, etc-

-i can go hours and hours without sleep or food and not even notice

it at all, whereas if was alone i would be either starving or

asleep. the pressure of finishing assignments for a class

definitely shuts off the food intake system! maybe this is a special

case of the primitive behavioral mode shifts of the " four F's " ...

now that i'm a gruff, grumpy, stuffy, arrogant old hermit , hardly

any of these things apply to my current lifestyle, but the point i

wanted to make is that my body experienced these irregular, slightly

WD-ish (maybe AWD--academic warrior diet??) eating patterns for

several years, not just a few months, and maybe even going back

through the teen years i never followed any regular habits either,

never ate breakfast, etc. maybe patience, adding in some obsessive

hobbies, and plenty of dietary fat/bulk is really what you need!

mike parker

[Guest guest]

>The problem is that I'm not convinced that the body actually 'knows'

>what is best for it. Clearly appestats easily get messed up as

>evidenced in modern societies. Primitive societies gave up delicious

>wholesome foods for empty disease inducing filth. Why? I cannot

>conceive of the body as some omnipotent being which understands what

>it should and shouldn't it. Most obese people feel hungry yet clearly

>don't need any more food. I guess there is some truth to what you're

>saying...but I've yet to discover how to figure out what exactly.

>

>-

There is actually a fair bit of evidence of exactly that. Most animals, and

people, will normally eat EXACTLY what they need to an amazing amount

of precision. The fact that we in America do not, is exceedingly WEIRD.

There are lots of theories for that weirdness, but it is being studied

as an anomoly.

One theory is that the problem is our low-nutrient density food,

which makes us eat more calories to get more nutrients.

Another is that allergens cause us to overproduce cortisol, which

triggers hunger.

Another is the " junk food " somehow causes hormonal imbalances

(shown on rats: rats fed junk food overeat, but with regular

rat chow they do not).

People in this group seem to have shown these three to be

true in at least some cases: eating high-nutrient good food

that one is not allergic to causes hunger to go away.

But if a pill just " turned off " the hunger, the the person

would just be eating, say, low nutrient density food which

would cause problems later.

On the other hand, can you truly believe we would be

so oddly designed as to be in a constant state of

hunger NORMALLY? That would mean that the choice

is for folks to either be overweight or constantly

hungry. That just does not make sense!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

>and fast our way to hungerless nirvana,

How about eating our way to hungerless nirvana instead?

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

> " Tell me about it. I cook lunch for 5 people, and don't eat it! "

>

>I'm glad you can manage it. Most people, from my experience, could not

>manage it...nor would they want to fight temptation the way you do.

>It's dangerous to assume everyone can eat the way you do.

Quoting :

" Since I adopted NT, and

did the Garden of Life protocol, the desire for candy has all but

disappeared. I actually looked at a bowl of candies the other day

and remembered what it was like to want them, but didn't

actually want them! This is a miracle for me! "

If your body is balanced, food cravings really DO go away.

I do not fight temptation -- I do snack on whatever I'm

cooking, I'm just not motivated to eat much. If I really

craved it, I'd go ahead and eat it!

A few years ago I was ALWAYS hungry and had to measure

what I ate to keep from becoming a total pig.

Now if I had a pill to stop the hunger, I might

never have experimented to figure out WHY.

Using hoodia would not be about 'fixing' the problem. The problem is

>there, and you want to avoid it. Oh sure, maybe some of us can

>construct the perfect diet and fast our way to hungerless nirvana, but

>this isn't the case for most. If the problem is no longer there...why

>fix it??

" Hungerless nirvana " is the normal way of life for a human, or a rat

for that matter. Living in constant hunger is not normal. It would

be like having chronic back pain -- if you HAVE chronic back pain,

sure, take painkillers. But I'd at least try to figure out why the

pain is there and see if it can be fixed. That's probably what irritates

me about diet remedies in general. They are saying that unless

you do XYZ, you will be fat, that people normally overeat and

are normally fat, without special products. Historically this

is just not true.

> " Now it could be that this cactus does in fact fix the underlying

>problem, but my guess is it just masks it, and the hunger comes back

>(maybe even more so) when you stop taking the pill. "

>

>My question is: so what? It's like eating healthy: once you stop

>eating healthy negative symptoms re-appear.

Which makes you a great target audience. They can sell these pills to you

forever, at $30 a month, $365 a year. It's a great market!

> It ELIMINATES the problem! Who cares about fixing it? I realize it's

>somewhat sad that it should come to this...but if an easy solution

>comes along I see no reason to fight it and try to force a harder

>solution upon everyone (which has not and will never work within our

>modern framework).

How does it eliminate the problem? It just gives a person a pill to take so

their low-nutrient, probably low fat, allergenic, toxic diet kills them slower.

The modern French and Japanese eat within a modern framework and do much better

than modern US folks. ly I find the idea of a good French meal much better

than the idea of taking a pill.

>CR, in the VAST majority of people leads to hunger. There are some

>exceptions...but I'm certain most people would feel hungry on a

>calorie restricted diet (even the most nutrient dense one).

In that case I'd doubt the use of CR -- or that it is being done right. But if

in fact it makes people live longer than the Feast/Fast diet (which does not

involve hunger as far as anyone has said here) then I'd cede the point, if the

only way to do CR is to be hungry all the time. I'd have to say that living

longer wouldn't be much compensation for living hungry always.

You're fighting a straw man. Of course we'd both prefer that everyone

>had a perfectly functioning appestat and was eating the NT way. But

>that is not the case. So which do you prefer: the way people eat

>now... or people eating like they are now, but eating less??? And once

>people lose weight, it also enables them to exercise and gain self

>esteem.

Oh, I'm not preferring other people do anything. The question was,

" is no one else excited about this? " and my answer was, why I'm not

excited. I've seen large numbers of weight loss schemes come

and go, and this is another one and I'm not excited about it. The WD

I AM excited about because it is fundamentally a different concept.

Weight loss pills are, well, " ho hum " .

>But if Hoodia is what they say it is, it'll be completely different.

>You won't feel hungry, and there will BE NO SIDE effects. Come to

>think of it, it's sorta of like taking a hypothetical smart pill

>everyday. I know I'd sure as hell do it...even if when I stopped

>taking it I became my usual dumb self again. That's no argument

>against using it.

I'm not sure the body is that stupid though. It's like the fat blocker

pills. Yeah, they block fat. Then the body adapts and eats more

fat.

Suppose I do take these pills and I eat 1,000 calories less per day.

So I lose 1/3 lb of fat per day. Or, I lose muscle because that is

way too much cut in calories. 1/3 lb of fat a day releases a lot

of toxins. But eventually, my body says " ok, we aren't getting

enough nutrients here " and scales back my metabolism. So

now I'm running " cold " and won't gain muscle. I adapt to 2,000

calories a day, and stop losing fat. My body, being in " survive the

famine " mode, will store fat when it can.

Anyway, I lived on 1,200 calories a day for over a year. It can be

done. It didn't do me any good. If other folks want to do it,

great! It's your experiment. I'm healthier now.

> " It isn't marketed as a cacti leaves. It is marketed as pills. "

>

>It's not being marketed at all. Pfizer holds the rights to it and

>won't come out until 2004-2007. I'm sure some crooks are selling

>'hoodia' but it's probably a scam.

Seriously? That is interesting.

> " Now coffee is a food too, but it's also a drug. It works by acting on

>the brain. From the sounds of this Hoodia, it too works on the brain.

>Hence, it is a drug. "

>

>That seems like very specious reasoning to me. Something that acts on

>the brain is a drug? Is playing video games a drug? Is eating pasta?

Some people claim so! (Pasta especially!). I don't know how you define " drug "

but usually it means, in the colloquial sense, some kind of mind-altering

substance. Food gives nutrients, drugs change the brain. A lot of foods act as

drugs.

>I'm not saying it cures any of the problems we're experiencing. But

>it's a HUGE step in the right direction.

??? So what is the right direction? Just eating fewer calories? I don't see

how that will help if the quality of the food doesn't improve.

>Personally, I'd love it only because I hate worrying about food. I

>hate getting nagging cravings during the day. I'm quite lean in fact,

>get plenty of exercise, and it clean (no sugar icecream is as

>unhealthy as I get). For me, it's just a convenience thing.

I enjoy not worrying about food too. Why are you worrying about it?

If you are lean, why not just eat?

> The talk about drugs which make sleep obsolete excite me even more!

Oh sheesh, does that mean do away with sleep? I hope not!

I love sleeping ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Eating low carb is very difficult for most people. Bread, pastry,

>potatoes are omnipresent in our society.

>

>-

They ARE omnipresent, but at my age, anyway, a LOT of

people somehow manage to " Do Atkins " quite easily.

Shoot, go into a restaurant and order steak with salad.

Or buy hamburger at the grocery.

(I don't personally believe low-carb is the optimal

answer, but it works for some folks, and is

relatively easy in a moderate income bracket).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

ly, I think CR is tantamount to a religious movement, and there's no

arguing with the faithful over matters of faith.

>At what point does it become apparent that CRON might be a sub-

>optimal choice for most people when they need such an obscure and

>rare molecule in order to practice it effectively and retain their

>happiness?

-

[Guest guest]

I agree,

Perhaps most who attempt Atkins continue down that road (I didn't).

But many people don't even try it. Hoodia is an easy fix for these

people. Obviously, getting them to ditch their junk carbs is even better.

-

> -

>

> >Eating low carb is very difficult for most people. Bread, pastry,

> >potatoes are omnipresent in our society.

>

> I guess that would explain the stunning popularity and effectiveness of

> Atkins dieting nowadays -- but note that I qualified my statement by

saying

> that ease in giving up addictions requires sufficient fat (which is

to say

> lots and lots of it) and quality foods, factors many Atkins dieters

> neglect. Whenever my fat consumption dips, my cravings come back.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

I'm not disputing the fact that obesity can already be resolved and

without all that much sacrifice. Afterall, many NT foods are more

delicious than the commercial junk people are buying. But my point was

that, within our societal framework, major changes WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Hoodia, a quick fix, is the only thing which I see making an impact.

Everything else, so far, has failed miserably.

You raise a good point; I have only tried several food lifestyles for

a few months. Perhaps that isn't long enough. I can see how the body

might adapt to eating less over the course of several years. I guess

since I'm still young, I'm just experimenting with everything a little

bit. When I move out I'll try to settle my diet down.

You're right about distraction making fasting very easy. Happens to me

all the time during school. Contrary to you, though, I don't thrive

under stress. I work beforehand these days and try to do things ahead

of time. I try to get plenty of sleep. My problem with cravings really

only arises during weekends. It's not a huge hindrance or anything...I

just find it annoying. All the talk about my body NEEDING that food

for some or other reason is confusing me. I'm not sure whether my body

is craving something in particular because it needs it, or simply

because the presence of food has made me hungry (and those extra

calories provide me with nothing beneficial).

-

---------

> what i thought was hilarious was the way it was discussed and the

> claims made for it; i didn't even give a second's thought about the

> value of the hoodia itself, since it's obviously not necessary for

> most of the world's population to thrive, and doesn't interest me at

> all. WE ALREADY HAVE A " CURE " FOR OBESITY AND OVER-EATING, BUT MOST

> PEOPLE EITHER DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT OR CHOOSE NOT TO IMPLEMENT IT.

> the " cure " is multi-dimensional, of course, involving multiple

> aspects of diet, exercise, lifestyle, psychological health, social

> structure, etc. we don't need any magic bullets, and probably basic

> nutrition would be enough. maybe you're right, though, that this

> might be good for some people, like CRONers, who might need a little

> extra help with appetite control. certainly i'm skeptical about the

> net worth of something with such an exotic pharmacological effect.

> variety, adaptation, flexibility, multiple solutions, etc... i can't

> make too many judgements...

>

> i agree with your response to that we can't assume any

> correlation between the healthfulness and difficulty of a practice.

> people make such a big deal about CR, when it's just eating a little

> bit less. maybe i'm just lucky, but i'm sure most people can adapt

> to it within a few years if they wanted to. , in your posts

> expressing frustration with various dietary experiments, i don't see

> how you could draw too many conclusions about certain things after

> only a few months or so, especially what i'm assuming has been a time

> of intense experimentation with food selection and eating habits.

> patience! i think one of the reasons why my appestat is so robust

> is that in my early undergrad years i frequently didn't eat more than

> one meal a day, typically in the evening, because i would always be

> finishing difficult math problems and stuff at the last minute,

> pulling all-nighters, etc, and let myself fall into situations where

> i couldn't take a single minute to even think about eating.

> DISTRACTION IS THE ULTIMATE APPETITE SUPPRESANT!! that might be a

> more general principle, though, because i've also found that when i'm

> enjoying stimulating social interactions--the synergy of a handful of

> close friends having a sprawling late-night conversation, a date, etc-

> -i can go hours and hours without sleep or food and not even notice

> it at all, whereas if was alone i would be either starving or

> asleep. the pressure of finishing assignments for a class

> definitely shuts off the food intake system! maybe this is a special

> case of the primitive behavioral mode shifts of the " four F's " ...

> now that i'm a gruff, grumpy, stuffy, arrogant old hermit , hardly

> any of these things apply to my current lifestyle, but the point i

> wanted to make is that my body experienced these irregular, slightly

> WD-ish (maybe AWD--academic warrior diet??) eating patterns for

> several years, not just a few months, and maybe even going back

> through the teen years i never followed any regular habits either,

> never ate breakfast, etc. maybe patience, adding in some obsessive

> hobbies, and plenty of dietary fat/bulk is really what you need!

>

> mike parker

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

What evidence? I've never run across any. If you have any

revolutionary evidence about how our appestats function, please share

it!

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm not anti-NT. You

are fighting a straw man. What I'm saying is: people eat LOADS of

crap. With hoodia they eat less crap. Certainly, having them eat

perfect diets is better, but it is unrealistic.

And I don't aboard the subject of human motivation for food from a

teleological perspective. We evolved at a time when food was scarce.

It makes sense that we eat attempt to eat CONSTANTLY. This is not an

ideal mechanism because of the negative consequences of over-eating.

But one can postulate that because this was such a rare occurrence in

evolutionary times, this negative aspect never showed up sufficiently.

My point: evolutionary arguments on this can run both ways on this. I

certainly don't think we can say " Look, overeating is bad, and the

body doesn't want you to overeat, so we evolved with perfect appestats " .

-

------

"

> There is actually a fair bit of evidence of exactly that. Most

animals, and

> people, will normally eat EXACTLY what they need to an amazing amount

> of precision. The fact that we in America do not, is exceedingly WEIRD.

> There are lots of theories for that weirdness, but it is being studied

> as an anomoly.

>

> One theory is that the problem is our low-nutrient density food,

> which makes us eat more calories to get more nutrients.

>

> Another is that allergens cause us to overproduce cortisol, which

> triggers hunger.

>

> Another is the " junk food " somehow causes hormonal imbalances

> (shown on rats: rats fed junk food overeat, but with regular

> rat chow they do not).

>

> People in this group seem to have shown these three to be

> true in at least some cases: eating high-nutrient good food

> that one is not allergic to causes hunger to go away.

>

> But if a pill just " turned off " the hunger, the the person

> would just be eating, say, low nutrient density food which

> would cause problems later.

>

> On the other hand, can you truly believe we would be

> so oddly designed as to be in a constant state of

> hunger NORMALLY? That would mean that the choice

> is for folks to either be overweight or constantly

> hungry. That just does not make sense!

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

"

Which makes you a great target audience. They can sell these pills to

you forever, at $30 a month, $365 a year. It's a great market! "

I personally couldn't care less if corporate greed factors into this.

The benefits for society are too huge. OF COURSE THIS ISN'T IDEAL. But

look at our modern framework! Perhaps it's a tragedy that it has come

to this, but this is absolutely the best solution out there. Or do you

plan on convincing the entire world that they should eat NT? Hell, raw

milk isn't even legal...

" How does it eliminate the problem? It just gives a person a pill to

take so their low-nutrient, probably low fat, allergenic, toxic diet

kills them slower. The modern French and Japanese eat within a modern

framework and do much better than modern US folks. ly I find the

idea of a good French meal much better than the idea of taking a pill. "

Look, the French or Japaneese don't live any longer than Americans so

their habits are not what I strive for personally. But you fail to see

my point. Hoobia eliminates the problem of hunger. Sure people still

eat crap, but they eat less of it. I, contrary to you, appear to be

realistic about this. There will not be any NT utopia any time soon.

" In that case I'd doubt the use of CR -- or that it is being done

right. But if in fact it makes people live longer than the Feast/Fast

diet (which does not involve hunger as far as anyone has said here)

then I'd cede the point, if the only way to do CR is to be hungry all

the time. I'd have to say that living longer wouldn't be much

compensation for living hungry always. "

Which is where Hoobia comes in!! And doesn't it stand to reason that

eating less, by definition, than your appestat would want you to,

would cause hunger??

" I'm not sure the body is that stupid though. It's like the fat blocker

pills. Yeah, they block fat. Then the body adapts and eats more fat. "

The body is not some omnipotent being. Are you claiming that after

eating hoodia the body would magically compensate and make you eat

more? The whole point is that this DOES NOT happen!

" So what is the right direction? Just eating fewer calories? I don't see

> how that will help if the quality of the food doesn't improve. "

Would you rather people consume 140lbs of sugar a year...or 70?

" I enjoy not worrying about food too. Why are you worrying about it?

If you are lean, why not just eat? "

I find food to detract from other aspects of life. I also hate the

cravings triggered while EATING food.

-

[Guest guest]

I sometimes get that feeling as well, about some CRONies, but I'd

consider that statement quite offensive. If you think people like Mike

take CR on faith, you're sadly deluded.

I don't even read some calorie restriction boards because the science

is too advanced for me.

-

> Chris-

>

> ly, I think CR is tantamount to a religious movement, and

there's no

> arguing with the faithful over matters of faith.

>

> >At what point does it become apparent that CRON might be a sub-

> >optimal choice for most people when they need such an obscure and

> >rare molecule in order to practice it effectively and retain their

> >happiness?

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

,

>my point was

>that, within our societal framework, major changes WILL NOT HAPPEN.

>Hoodia, a quick fix, is the only thing which I see making an impact.

>Everything else, so far, has failed miserably.

True, changes will not happen for any so called fat society until optimal,

individualized health is the purpose and not generic, one size fits all

miracle products or foods whose purpose is profit to the developer. Quick

fixes are convenient. They are competitive, give ownership and continue the

cycle of tunnel vision, looking at minute pieces not what makes up the

whole puzzle.

Watched this documentary. The San did claim hoodia to be an aphrodisiac.

Not that it gave you the energy or desire to not sleep. The BBC reporter

and the human rights lawyer both tried hoodia from the plant. One noted no

aphrodisiac effect and no hunger for about 24 hours. The other got the

aphrodisiac effect and went unhungry for around 30 hours. The San men found

hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't

got any meat to bring home.

If I understand correctly you're doing a caloric restriction diet, Its my

experience that restricting either calories, fat and/or protein will make

you hungry or thinking of food. Was computerless for two months recently.

Came back having missed the Warrior Diet thread. Found it interesting in

that the cycle of eating is how I've eaten for the last 30 years pretty

much. My health problems were from eating too many simple carbohydrates in

the undereating phase or not eating in that phase. When it included low fat

and protein in the overeating phase it made me crave more simple carbs. Do

you use coconut milk and or oil? These were the first and only new

additions to my diet two years ago. Within 2 days l found that for all

those years l'd experienced not true hunger to what l really needed just a

gnawing need for whatever was available quick. On workdays I'm out the door

with black, organic coffee and 1/4 of a Thai Kitchen 5.5 oz. coconut milk

can in me. Am fine 3 hours later after doing 2-3 hours of physical work.

Have an avocado, four slices of raw cheese, another coffee before the next

3 hours of work. Don't have the 3 PM hypoglycemic crash that would send me

to whatever store l was driving by on the way home for a pastry or candy

bar. At night we have a high protein, fat, low carb home cooked meal

instead of the old high carb, low protein, fat home cooked meal. Don't

gorge to fill up like l used to when the carbs didn't tell my stomach it

was full. Only protein and fat do that. Am fine after that. Still have a

cup of herb tea when l sit down before going to bed. More of a ritual than

need. Daughter in high school and husband either dislike breakfast or

prefer very little. Same with lunch. We eat more calories with less food.

Major changes can happen if only on an individual basis when the quality

replaces quantity.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>

>Heidi,

>

>What evidence? I've never run across any. If you have any

>revolutionary evidence about how our appestats function, please share

>it!

I'll have to look them up. It's not new stuff, they've been

studying it for years.

>I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm not anti-NT. You

>are fighting a straw man. What I'm saying is: people eat LOADS of

>crap. With hoodia they eat less crap. Certainly, having them eat

>perfect diets is better, but it is unrealistic.

I'm not really fighting. I just type a lot. But low calorie diets don't

work, long term, for weight loss. They mess up your metabolism,

as many of us older folks know. Cutting down calories by taking

a pill -- any pill -- will cause short term weight loss and long

term metabolic problems. Once your metabolism drops a person

can gain weight off tiny amounts of food.

>And I don't aboard the subject of human motivation for food from a

>teleological perspective. We evolved at a time when food was scarce.

>It makes sense that we eat attempt to eat CONSTANTLY. This is not an

>ideal mechanism because of the negative consequences of over-eating.

>But one can postulate that because this was such a rare occurrence in

>evolutionary times, this negative aspect never showed up sufficiently.

>My point: evolutionary arguments on this can run both ways on this. I

>certainly don't think we can say " Look, overeating is bad, and the

>body doesn't want you to overeat, so we evolved with perfect appestats " .

If that were true, then that perspective is totally logical. It's not true

though.

SOME folks in the past were constantly starved, and I don't think most

snacked all day (see WD posts). Basically Prices' folks often had all the

food they wanted, and the French and Japanese certainly do. The newer

perspective is in fact that if the appestat works, no one will overeat

regardless, and unless you have a tumor or other major disease,

the appestat SHOULD work.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

Many people don't try Atkins because of the culture of fear surrounding at

and the vast official and institutional support for high-carb diets. That

doesn't account for all the people who don't try low-carbing, but believe

me, it covers an awful lot of them. And how much better off are people

really going to be if the only change they make to their SAD habit is to

cut down a bit?

>But many people don't even try it. Hoodia is an easy fix for these

>people. Obviously, getting them to ditch their junk carbs is even better.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>But my point was

>that, within our societal framework, major changes WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Major changes happen all the time. Low-carbing is a really major change,

and it's happening -- and at least at the moment, it looks like

institutional medicine may be forced to change its stance if more and more

studies keep coming in supporting that manner of eating. But even if

low-carbing doesn't become accepted immediately, other factors will force

change: declining fertility, the continuing skyrocketing of obesity,

diabetes, and other syndromes.

-

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>The San men found

>hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't

>got any meat to bring home.

That kind of usage makes a lot more sense to me -- as an occasional crutch

when you have to go longer than usual without eating. Since I am terribly

hypoglycemic, I have real problems going anywhere for an appreciable amount

of time unless I can bring food with me or find an adequate source of food

where I'm going, because otherwise, I'm going to crash and then have real

problems. If hoodia worked to stave off disaster, then depending on side

effects I might carry some around with me for emergencies. But as a daily

supplement? No way. And in support of CR, which strikes me as rank idiocy

unsupported by meaningful evidence and probably founded on foolish

moralistic fantasies? Never.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>>The San men found

>>hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't

>>got any meat to bring home.

>

>That kind of usage makes a lot more sense to me -- as an occasional crutch

>when you have to go longer than usual without eating. Since I am terribly

>hypoglycemic, I have real problems going anywhere for an appreciable amount

>of time unless I can bring food with me or find an adequate source of food

>where I'm going, because otherwise, I'm going to crash and then have real

>problems. If hoodia worked to stave off disaster, then depending on side

>effects I might carry some around with me for emergencies. But as a daily

>supplement? No way. And in support of CR, which strikes me as rank idiocy

>unsupported by meaningful evidence and probably founded on foolish

>moralistic fantasies? Never.

Know what you mean. Don't want to be driving on auto pilot. Tried the six

small meals a day suggested for hypoglycemia but was eating the wrong

foods. Still was always hungry and loagy not only from food but likely

excess digestion. To me there is definitely something there with the

Warrior Diet, sympathtic nervous system predominance during the day of

undereating in relationship to my being a sympathetic dominant protein type

metabolically. All those trying it here seem to be metabolic protein types.

Can't see a carb type going through the undereating phase with less than

30% of calories from fat.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

I'm interested in it too, because when I eat a very big, fatty low-carb

meal at night, I'm often not hungry the next morning until lunch, and big,

fatty low-carb meals are what let me go for up to, I don't know, six hours

without needing to eat.

>To me there is definitely something there with the

>Warrior Diet,

-

[Guest guest]

"

> I'll have to look them up. It's not new stuff, they've been

> studying it for years. "

Make sure to post it...

" Cutting down calories by taking

> a pill -- any pill -- will cause short term weight loss and long

> term metabolic problems. Once your metabolism drops a person

> can gain weight off tiny amounts of food. "

You can take this pill indefinitely. I made a point about taking a

smart pill everday, which I think is quite analogous. You're point

would only be correct if people planned on using hoodia and then

stopping, which would be relatively pointless.

" It's not true though.

> SOME folks in the past were constantly starved, and I don't think most

> snacked all day (see WD posts). Basically Prices' folks often had

all the

> food they wanted, and the French and Japanese certainly do. The newer

> perspective is in fact that if the appestat works, no one will overeat

> regardless, and unless you have a tumor or other major disease,

> the appestat SHOULD work. "

You're assuming that because people are thin they are consuming

optimal amounts of calories.

-

[Guest guest]

,

If I honestly believed you could transform the entire food industry,

I'd definitely agree that hoodia doesn't serve much purpose. But that

is not the case yet (for reasons you mention).

-

> -

>

> Many people don't try Atkins because of the culture of fear

surrounding at

> and the vast official and institutional support for high-carb diets.

That

> doesn't account for all the people who don't try low-carbing, but

believe

> me, it covers an awful lot of them. And how much better off are people

> really going to be if the only change they make to their SAD habit

is to

> cut down a bit?

>

> >But many people don't even try it. Hoodia is an easy fix for these

> >people. Obviously, getting them to ditch their junk carbs is even

better.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

You need to read up on the literature. It makes you look ignorant to

defiantly bash CR without any facts.

-

> Wanita-

>

> >The San men found

> >hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they

hadn't

> >got any meat to bring home.

>

> That kind of usage makes a lot more sense to me -- as an occasional

crutch

> when you have to go longer than usual without eating. Since I am

terribly

> hypoglycemic, I have real problems going anywhere for an appreciable

amount

> of time unless I can bring food with me or find an adequate source

of food

> where I'm going, because otherwise, I'm going to crash and then have

real

> problems. If hoodia worked to stave off disaster, then depending on

side

> effects I might carry some around with me for emergencies. But as a

daily

> supplement? No way. And in support of CR, which strikes me as rank

idiocy

> unsupported by meaningful evidence and probably founded on foolish

> moralistic fantasies? Never.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

How do you know?

>You can take this pill indefinitely.

-

[Guest guest]

I'm assuming that's the case. If it is not the case, it becomes an

almost meaningless product (an no discussion is necessary).

-

> -

>

> How do you know?

>

> >You can take this pill indefinitely.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

Well, no offense, but if you're just making an assumption, then you

shouldn't phrase it as a declarative statement of fact.

>I'm assuming that's the case.

-