ps: thanks for a great write up i shared this on fb and had a great ol debate with a bunch of people who apparently cant read. lmao .they keep saying "so this stuff is making my colon rot?" lol x 10!!

Thanks for a great article

One idea: So bacteria, living inside us, feeds on complex carbs. So if we have none they starve and die off (going on a strict paleo/carnivorous plan)

Couldn't this be why carbs are addictive? The bacteria send signals...I'm hungry get me carbs.... which we have interpreted as an addiction. And then 3 days later the 'withdrawal symptoms' are gone as the bacteries are gone, as the carbs urges are gone.

(Same as when one breaks a fast, he has to build up his gut flora again....(but not his enzymes and bile??))

So carbs are actually not addictive, just the bacterias fighting for life???

What do you think? Guy

[...] Does Meat Rot In Your Colon?  No.  What Does?  Beans, Grains, and Vegetables! [...]

I see you're right! I had posted two comments on the website, the first never getting posted and second receiving a response that--sadly--portrayed the author's lack of reading comprehension.

The comment is toward the top of the comments if you'd be interested in seeing the discussion, but the response stood out to me:

"Hi Tyler:

You mentioned that you have seen "almost NOTHING but support for grass-fed and locally grown meat from proponents of the Paleo Diet." When Jon researched dozens of Paleo websites and forums across the net to get a better understanding of how people were actually implementing the diet, he found many sites that merely stressed the use of lean meat. Here, for example, is the Paleo Diet's main website http://thepaleodiet.com/steaks-health-benefits/

While that may be a flaw in the presentation on the website, it is not a flaw in the diet.

Regarding http://paleodietlifestyle.com, while Sébastien Noël is a proponent of the diet, he is NOT one of the leading voices on the diet. Not only that, it seems the author's reading comprehension failed him, as the website concludes:

"We learned that even if they are often loaded with vitamins and minerals, most nuts and seeds should be kept to a minimum on a healthy diet for a few main reasons:

-Most nuts contain lectins that can irritate the gut lining;
-Most nuts also contain phytic acid that bind to minerals and blocks their absorption;
-Most nuts are very high in total polyunsaturated fat and in omega-6 fat, two things that should be keept to a minimum;"

Hardly seems like a recommendation. Instead, the author has presented the information on all of the nuts--context building--and offered a position on their consumption, ultimately allowing the reader's new knowledge be the point of influence dictating their decision.

Cordain, whose position on saturated fats, dairy, and diet soda are objected to by others like Sisson, Wolf, and Harris to varying degrees, says in his book that we should only be eating Walnuts and Macadamias due to their omega-6:3 ratio... in small amounts (no more than 4oz at a time/day). So we have "contrasting" opinions... what now?

Another opinion?
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/nuts-omega-6-fats/

"My general take, as I see it, is that nuts shouldn’t make up the bulk of your caloric intake. It’s not that Omega-6s are inherently dangerous, especially bound up in whole food, nut form; nuts may even be beneficial to heart health, probably by decreasing systemic inflammation. It’s that they’re often too available, too plentiful, and way too easy to consume in excess."

Hmm...

By the author's omission, he made it appear as if, well, just let me quote: "Curiously, nuts are cool on the diet -- pretty much all nuts except cashews and peanuts, which are actually beans." Nuts are cool on the diet. No mention of moderation, which every source advocates. No mention the dire balance of omega-6:3's, which is a keystone to the diet and why Cordain chooses to restrict nut intake to those with a better 6:3 ratio. The author didn't even mention this balance anywhere in the article, which causes me to question whether or not he has even the most remote of understandings as to what the diet attempts to balance and accomplish.'

While I know this conversation on their website can be dismissed as moot, for it seems it can be argued that they are schilling for fear conversions to their diet, I thought it interesting how their arguments are so easily dismantled as there is a large amount of misrepresentation going on.

While schilly, it still offers a gross misrepresentation that, if people trust him, may do more harm than good. I am all for having the freedom to choose one's diet and how they live, but I have a low tolerance for blatant misleading and omission. I think that education really only works when people have facts that support reality.

That's all. Sorry for using your comments as a sounding board! Keep up the great work. 🙂

[...] 4. Meat Meat is great. Meat is the greatest. If you don’t like meat, fuck you. Meat gets a lot of shit, pretty much everything has said to make meat bad. It supposedly causes a shit load of health problems and limit it or eat very little and you’ll be healthier. BULLSHIT. There is nothing wrong with meat. Take this shit for example. It says meat just sits and rots in your stomach (LOL) and we’re actually herbivores, or close to it. This is retarded, and anyone with knowledge on human history or morphology knows better. Humans have incisors on both jaws, herbivores have it on the lower. Humans have ridged molars, herbivores have flat molars. Humans have canines, herbivores don’t. Our jaw movement is vertical and it tears and crushes while herbivores have rotary movements and grinding functions. Mastication is not important and we don’t ruminate. We have a small stomach capacity and it empties in 3 hours, while herbivores stomachs never empty. He have interdigestive rest, herbivores do not. Our stomach doesn’t have significant bacteria or protozoa while it is vital for herbivores. We have strong gastric acidity as opposed to the weak acidity for herbivores, and we CANNOT DIGEST CELLULOSE. Our stomach barely digests anything and we don’t absorpb anything from it; you can probably live fine without a stomach really. A herbivore cannot. Herbivores often don’t have gall bladders, and our digestive efficiency is over 2x as much. The only thing we mainly differ from carnivores in is that we have an appendix. But does it do anything, really? It seems like a remnant. As for the rotting, that’s false too. Meat doesn’t rot in our stomachs, that’s retarded, plants do. [...]

Food rots in your intestines. The process of bacteria and/or fungi "digesting" foods is called rotting. This is what happens in your intestines. The bacteria that live in the intestines of not only humans, but all animals, digest most of the nutrients that come from our stomach for us. This process produces various chemicals, which include methane.
This does not, however, happen in your stomach, because the stomach uses its acidic environment to mechanically tear apart the (chewed) foods that enter through the esophagus. This acidic environment is (with exception to some) unable to sustain the life of bacteria or fungi.
furthermore, plants do NOT rot in our intestines. The bacteria that live in our intestines are incapable of digesting plants and so are we. Cattle do have this ability, with the bacteria that have this ability living in one of their 4 stomachs.

Awesome. My annoying brother-in-law kept trying to tell me that meat rots in your gut. I LOVE when he's wrong and I can prove it!!!!!!

Really great post!!!
Just found it via a link from the Fat Head Blog. Before that I independently posted something with a similar punchline comparing the gorilla diet to the human diet recently:
http://www.lchf.com/?p=171