Continuing the Quest for Nutritional Truth in a World Gone Bonkers

I’ve never been a big practitioner of turning comment replies in previous posts into full blog article discussion, but lately I’ve felt the “bug” to do so. This started with the Finer Points of Nutrition, and it continues today. Hopefully I can keep things concise and to the point, unlike self-generated posts that turn into 8,000 word extended essays that seemingly try to debunk gravity =).

Reader Jeff says

Either way, I personally thrive on natural carbohydrate.

Actually, I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single human being on the planet that thrives off of carbohydrate instead of fat as their primary source of calories. Survive? Sure, couple billion people actually. But thriving and surviving are two very different concepts.

For example, I could probably survive off of enough insects in a starvation situation, but thrive? Doubtfully. Eating two thousand and something calories a day of roaches and worms would be a horrendous task given my cultural and “culinary” history, assuming I could even find that amount to begin with, and wasn’t throwing up half the time in the process.

Thriving on the other hand, is a different story. Like all humans, I thrive off of animals that preferably eat what they are meant to in the first place, and not what we shove down their throats and inject into them.

Why is this? Because humans are carnivorous by design, and omnivorous by necessity. When animals are not available, for whatever reason, we can temporarily survive off of plant based “foods”.

Again, preferably ones that do not play chemical and hormonal warfare with our bodies (in other words, plants that have been around for a very long time, and passing through our digestive tracks for a very long time, and have not been meddled with by modern technology to any significant degree).

Anyway, I think my point is clear.

As for an individual “thriving on natural carbohydrate”, I believe this could be more adequately labeled carbohydrate addiction.

This is not to single out Jeff, as this is (was) probably applicable to everyone reading this, myself included. From the day we are weaned off of human breast milk (assuming it was there to begin with), we are hooked onto a nutritional umbilical cord of carbohydrate.

From day one, the solid foods we eat are rich in the macro nutrient that was rarest in the human diet for millions of years. As a result, we become addicted. Our bodies learn to survive off this sub-optimal nutrient for energy, and we suffer as a result.

From obesity, to heart disease, diabetes … right down to our unnatural, ravenous, and frequent hunger for MORE carbohydrate, coupled with head aches and physical pain when we resist.

And the more we eat, the further we sharpen that sweet (or even not so sweet) tooth of carbohydrate addiction.

Day by day, month by month, year by year.

More and more carbohydrate, in amounts that were never even available pre-agriculture, from sources packed with all sorts of toxins (fatty and otherwise).

In any case, that was a long and drawn out way of telling you Jeff, that you do not “thrive” on carbohydrate, “natural” or otherwise. No one does. It is an unnecessary nutrient, and no where near as efficient at fat, especially the saturated kind. Is it inherently evil? No, unavoidable in fact. But that doesn’t change all that was just said.

Jeff says…

I have tried your preached ‘ketosis’ and perform much more poorly in anaerobic-sport competition when in this process. I THRIVE on carbohydrate. I agree SOME benefit, from ‘ketosis’. Others like myself, perform much more consistenly on carbohydrate. It all depends on the person.

“Your preached ketosis”?

Since when did I take ownership of this process and optimal adaptation? It was here long before I, or anyone else on the blogosphere was even born. I’m honored that you think I somehow invented or discovered ketosis, but I certainly did not.

As for performing poorly in “anaerobic” activity, I would bet my life that you were not keto-adapted. Adapting to produce ketone bodies and run primarily on fat for fuel takes at least a few weeks, if not longer, of limited carbohydrate consumption.

In the mean time, your brain is going to be starved for fuel as your body adapts to produce ketone bodies, which is made more troublesome by the commonly found SAD magnesium deficiency. Running around on a football field with “brain fog” and a possible head ache is not recommended during this interim period.

Your body is also learning how to run off of fat more efficiently in this multi-week process, in absence of the standard, yet abnormal consumption of vast quantities of carbohydrate, in all it’s forms. This is a pretty dramatic shift, and it takes time. Do not expect to go from Gatorade sugar/salt junkie to sweating butter in one days time.

As for any of this depending on the individual … perhaps to a small degree, but ultimately we all work and function as “healthy individuals”, relatively the same. Give it a fair shot. I promise it is well worth your time and effort.

With that said, carbohydrates never caused Diabetes for ANYONE. Chemical sugars like high-fructose corn syrup and refined starches, did.

If one lives off of nothing but oranges, watermelon, and apples, for a prolonged period of time, do you believe they will not end up with “diabetes”, or even dead? If so, you are sorely mistaken, and I would caution you to never try such an experiment. While I would agree that “sugar is not sugar”, and that things like agave nectar and high fructose corn syrup are especially bad “sugars”, any copious amount of carbohydrate is prone to causing problems in humans. The source is not as important as the amount, pure fructose aside. Carbohydrate from cane sugar and corn have the same effect on the human body, “natural” or otherwise. Eat 300 grams of the stuff every day like most Americans and you WILL have problems eventually (if not sooner from all of the other poison that will come along with that carbohydrate).

This is obvious as carbohydrate have existed for millions of years while diabetes did not originate until ~2,000 years ago.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but are you suggesting high fructose corn syrup was around ~2,000 years ago? Have to ask as that seems to be what you are implying with regards to your previous statement.

Recently over the summer, my best-friend died.

I too lost my best friend in the Summer of 2008. I am sorry to hear about your loss.

I totally understand where you’re coming from as it took an emotional toll on me. On that note, you need to put your emotions aside as the aversion to carbohydrate you yield is absolutely rediculous. After all, why would these exist if they did not have a prolonged dietetic purpose?

I eat carbohydrate all the time … in fact every day, as it is unavoidable in even meat and eggs. Even so, it’s frequent that I eat at least some direct source of carbohydrate, whether it be ketchup or some dark chocolate. Considering this, and my frequent statement that carbohydrate is not inherently “evil”, where’s the emotional aversion to carbohydrate present? I for one, am not seeing it.

As for your final statement in that paragraph, are you suggesting carbohydrate as a macro nutrient solely exists for human consumption? That’s what I take away from it, and I find it completely illogical.

I also agree ‘animals’ will always be a better-food choice. Point taken, this does NOT include feed lot animals! I’m talking wild-caught fish and game. If these cannot be caught, then plants make a legit supplement until real animal-meat can be obtained.

Well if you’re into supplementing, why not take fish oil when only “feed lot” animals are available? You seem to agree animals “will always be a better food choice”, so why not keep it all animal? If you suggest there is more wrong with conventional meat than the fatty acid profile, I would have to agree, but I would not agree that plants will be a defacto better choice, nor would I agree that there is a lot more than speculation on what other dangers grain feeding presents, nutritionally speaking.

As far as the debate on feed lot versus wild-caught animals, your argument is not even worth mentioning. A wild animal capable of surviving on it’s own is ALWAYS a better food-source compared to a dependently raised animal.

I’m not debating “feed lot” animals versus wild caught animals, I’m comparing “wild caught” versus pastured fed and finished animals. There is a major difference there, as pasture fed animal products go through rigorous inspection before being shipped and sold (while still retaining a proper nutrient profile for our consumption). Wild boar on the other hand (for example), may have a great fatty acid profile, is also prone to a variety of parasites. I’ll pass on the tape worm dinner.

And that bring us to the final topic. Saturated fats. And ‘dairy’– also known as cow sourced products.

Not necessarily, as “dairy” can also come from Goats, Sheep, and other animals.

You don’t support dairy yet you support ‘dairy fats’? Wow, talk about a contradiction!

I would urge you to further explain yourself, as there is a massive difference between all encompassing “dairy” and “dairy fat”, which in most cases is over 95% animal fat. And as you said, animals are always the superior source of nutrients. It seems my friend, that you may be the one contradicting yourself.

You are absolutely correct in stating that my point of milk being for baby cows is irrelevant. That is not what I was suggesting. The point I am making is I am no longer a baby and therefore do not drink milk. Milk is made for infants, regardless of species. PERIOD. Maybe you were not breast-fed enough, in younger years?

Actually, I was breast fed by my mother. To what age, I don’t know, but I will assume at least 1 year, if not two, based on my younger siblings experience’s that I witnessed as a child. As for your argument about milk only being for infants, this is the typical paleo argument. I would argue that while I am interested in eating like my ancestors, I am more interested in our modern understanding of metabolism, and as a result, re-creating the same dietary environment my ancestor’s enjoyed, with food substances available today.

That my friend, includes dairy fat.

I respectfully suggest that you browse through Superior Nutrition by Shelton in order to gain more insight. One of the few print-books worth mentioning. In turn, I will check out the website you suggested.

I’ve never heard of it. While skeptical based off the points you brought up in the above commentary, I will give it a look online, if possible.

P.S. Everyone knows saturated fats have documented proof of being counter productive. Unless of course these fats are in the form of medium-chain tryglycerides.

You lost me at “everyone knows”. I suggest in the future, during your own reading, that you be highly critical of ANYONE using such terminology, as “everyone knows” is often the equivalent of “nobody knows a damn thing save for the tiny minority shouting the truth like a crazed mad man”.

Jeff says in a new comment …

I’d like to clear-up and elaborate on the definition of ‘food’.

Food is any Plant or Animal in its wholesome, unaltered state.

Oh really? Because last I checked, if I ate a whole “unaltered” puffer fish, I’d be dead pretty quick. Same goes thousands of “whole and unaltered” wild plants. For the record though, the point of suggesting that people question what “food” is in the original Quest for Nutritional Truth post was so they would would do just that, question this abused and overlooked term, not dogmatically follow some specific set of words I assigned to the term. If anything, people simply looking at what is presented to them and asking THEMSELVES “Is this really food?”, would really make my day.

On that note, corn, wheat and soy are all classified as grains or legumes as Dream mentioned. What he failed to inform is these three Plants in their unaltered state are actually beneficial foods. Though not as high quality as vegetable-based starch or wild-animal, (see recent discussion) grains and legumes still provide a legit food source.

No, they aren’t, in any way, shape or form. In fact I’m fairly certain all three are inedible “whole and unaltered”, and if you do manage to shove them down your throat “raw”, can cause very serious and immediate medical issues. Where are you even finding this information Jeff?

The three aforementioned Plants are far from being the underlying issue causing nutritional deficiencies and diseases worldwide. The problem lies in the corrupt agricultural industry’s modern day processing. 99% of ‘foods’ commercially available are NOT actually foods!

Actually, from my understanding, they are very directly and indirectly responsible for a host of problems world wide, including but not limited to nutritional problems in humans, that ultimately lead to an early and probably uncomfortable death.

In whole form, corn, wheat, and soy are fairly nutritious as discussed previously. Unfortunately, the agricultural industry is logistically impaired and destroys the value of these foods on a daily-basis. Corn sugars, wheat breads and processed soybeans become engineered in labs and are NO LONGER what they once were. They have become imbalanced man made obstructions, which are ultimately counter-productive.

No, they are crap to begin with. The fact that we can make them even worse is just a testament to the bad side of human nature and outright stupidity.

It is near impossible to find wheat or soy that is still actually a food in recent times. That is why I understand where Dream’s misinformation is sourced. Even so, do not be confused by his implications as he was blindly referring to agriculturally altered VERSIONS of corn, wheat and soy.

You do realize corn doesn’t even exist in the wild, right? Nor has it ever. What we know as “corn” is a product of human meddling, now, and in earlier times.

Once again, food is any Plant or Animal in its wholesome, unaltered state. Grains and legumes such as corn, wheat and soy are all Plants and therefore foods.

I’ve already addressed this, but it bears repeating. Your definition of food includes poisonous plants and animals. Even a lot of the things you suggest as food directly, are poisonous in their “whole and unaltered state”, grains especially. Hell, wheat is probably poisonous no matter what you do (carbohydrate aside).

The critical problem with the American Food Supply lies in the hands of the FDA who are neglecting their regulatory responsibilities. Fortunately, Leaders such as those from my generation are stepping-up and providing awareness to make a lasting difference. It is only a matter of time until America is presented with wholesome, unaltered foods that truly deliver. In the meantime, utilize the dollar-vote! Create an impact.

I suspect you believe the federal government is capable of fixing problems it itself created. If so, I would have to strongly disagree. Government has never been capable of fixing problems it itself perpetuates. When the problem is government, more of it is never the answer. The federal government has no role in food production and even safety. It doesn’t know how to do anything effectively, not even deliver mail. Leave it to the states or private corporations (that will fear massive lawsuits should they screw up on the issue of safety).

Agricultural subsidies should not exist.

Finally, reader Ben says

I’d be interested in hearing more about ketosis. I’ve looked into it in the past and everything I read said that ketosis is bad. Your 36-day fast is intriguing, but anecdotal and without any scientific validity, to put it bluntly. Quite honestly, I don’t understand ketosis very well, and you definitely know more about nutrition than I, but to make a credible argument you need the scientific method.

First off, thanks for the kind words that I didn’t bother to include in this commentary Ben (this post is getting too long as it is!).

As for ketosis, I am in no way the definitive and go-to guy on the subject. I would strongly suggest you visit and search “ketosis”, or visit and do the same if you wish to read up on the subject (Mark for an introduction and Kurt for more in depth information).

You can also try visiting most anyone on their blog rolls, and searching for the same term. There are a million and one blogs that discuss the subject …

All that said, there is a plethora of information floating around about how terribly evil ketosis is. I would say to you that there is an even greater amount of information floating around the internet touting saturated fat as the anti-christ and cholesterol as Satan’s son.

Neither of which, are “bad” for you. In fact both nutrients are excellent for your health, not to mention necessary (which can’t be said for carbohydrate, “fiber”, and “anti-oxidants”).

Regarding the scientific validity of my previous statements about ketosis, I don’t believe I ever suggested the statements were scientific to begin with, nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist, “nutritionist” (all of which are essentially clueless), or medical doctor.

The next logical question to ask then is, does the way we eat need to be a scientific complex equation only a privileged few can understand and progress further?

I don’t think so. In fact, I think science has done nutrition a great injustice over the past few decades, and caused a few million deaths in the process. That of course was “bad” science, that is now being countered with “good” science, but never the less, it is science in both cases.

And unfortunately in the case of “good” science, it is an extremely up hill and entrenched battle. Idiots have a firm stranglehold on mainstream nutritional guidelines and food production for various reasons.

Anyway, I’m getting way off topic. Point being, I am not a scientist, and don’t pretend to be. If you want to understand nutrition in that sense, you will have to look elsewhere. In the meantime, I’ll use logic, reason, common sense, and critical thinking skills to maneuver my way through mountains of misinformation in search of gems.

In the case of ketosis, one suggesting that it is dangerous in any way, shape, or form, might as well tell me I should hold my breath multiple times per day to “alleviate oxidative damage”. It really is that ridiculous now to me.


Because being keto adapted is such a colossal advantage over being carbohydrate addicted, it’s not even funny.

The fact that people can go 36 hours (and longer) without food, and not experience physical pain, head aches, muscle cramps/aches, blurry vision, and other negative symptoms ― all the while engaging in rigorous physical activity ‒ is a testament to this simple truth.

Not to mention, carbohydrate simply isn’t available in the wild, in quantities that will keep large groups of people out of ketosis year round. There are exceptions to this rule (when tubers are plentiful in select locations for example), but ultimately this has been the rule for many thousands of years.

Wild vegetables are often inedible from my understanding, if you can even find them. Grains and beans hardly existed in our diets until some 10,000 years ago. Fruits? Not available year round, and when they were, they hardly resembled the “franken fruits” we have access to today – assuming you could even stomach them.

Nuts and seeds? Sure, they were around. Did they play a significant role in our diets? Doubt it. Gathering enough of them for a meal, and then extracting nutrients from them, was difficult and time consuming (lightly roasted in sea salt nuts were and are not “laying around” in the wild, unlike our local grocery stores). Their carbohydrate content isn’t especially high either.

Again, the human diet comes down to animals in an ideal situation. When they were sparse, plants sufficed, but were always secondary, and in many cases, probably temporary.

Regardless, living out in the wild made me realize that being keto-adapted has always been the natural state for human beings. Actually in ketosis? Not necessarily, but dipping in and out was easily the norm, if not there most of the year.

I don’t see how anything else is possible on a grand scale (excluding sweet potato land). You HAD to be keto-adapted in ancient times. Or are we really supposed to believe it’s possible to chase down and kill a large animal with a blazing head ache, cramping muscles, and lacking the ability to think straight? That would have been the norm on a carbohydrate addicted diet since ancient man constantly faced starvation (and few seem to dispute the fact that starvation was our biggest threat).

Considering this, why should we suspect ketosis to be in any way dangerous? Being keto-adapted or even in ketosis was not only the norm throughout our evolution, but a dramatically beneficial adaptation in daily life. We could not have survived without it.

Again, I do not even believe it to be possible not to be keto-adapted, without the aid of modern agriculture and technology ‒ the same way it’s not possible to be a vegetarian without modern food production.

How could an adaptation and state we would regularly (but not always) be in, without modern technology, be harmful to us?

I find it absurd.

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at and

105 Responses to Continuing the Quest for Nutritional Truth in a World Gone Bonkers

  1. Matt March 18, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    Maybe you were overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of BS, but I think you missed some of the more obvious reasons why Jeff was, in all cases, wrong–some of which I first learned about on this site. One example is his point about diabetes being around for only the last 2000 years (though I have NO idea where he go this number). I guess carbs were technically around for millions of years, but humans were simply not eating them unless they had no choice. We did not start eating them in bulk until the advent of agriculture.

    You know, I was going to go through his points and add on to what you said, but I see that some his points would merit their own blog posts. I mean, who could possibly think we eat wheat in an unaltered state? Are there bread plants somewhere that I don’t know about?

    I started with this comment thinking that there could have been more detail in your post, but I see this would require another 10,000 words. Good overview. Even better when combined with the first part of this series.

    • Dream March 19, 2010 at 12:03 am #

      “Are there bread plants somewhere that I don’t know about?”


      Ya I suppose so. Maybe cup cake plants too. Yum.

      As for the years, I thought about commenting further on it, but decided against it. I tend to be long winded as it is and it just didn’t seem necessary.

  2. Andy March 19, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    I was watching my Mother earlier today, she had eaten, for breakfast, 2 slices of toast. Lunch, a cheese sandwich, and dinner, masses of starchy vegetables and a tiny bit of meat (3 small sausages). She had a headache, she was tired all day and she has trouble sleeping.

    Then I realised this is pretty much everyday for the poor woman. She exists almost soley on carbohydrate, with tiny amount of fat and protein. Shes been trying to lose weight, doing nothing but cardio/yo yo dieting or attempting to starve herself on 800-1000 calories a day. She cant live without her bread and potatoes. She gets cravings if she doesent have them. So much so, she used to carry a small bread roll in her bag if she wanted a snack.

    I love my Mother to bits, and I pray to God she can fix her eating habits. Sadly, shes so bought into the mainstream idea of subsisting on cards and avoiding fat, and protein, incase she gets heavier.

    A local womens weight loss group even suggested to her to avoid protein incase she “bulks out like a man”. Crazy.

    • Dream March 19, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

      I bought the Diet DVD from Doug McGuff and gave it to my mother for her birthday (she is also overweight, significantly). I think it did her a lot of good, and I recommend doing the same (and no, I do not get any sort of commission on the DVD).

      As for the local weight loss group… that’s outright ridiculous, and aggravating. If anyone told my mother something that horrendous I’d go have a word with them, immediately.

      Good luck man.

  3. Chris March 19, 2010 at 2:48 am #

    Good post and although I do not totally agree with your ideas you have merit, The problem in being carbophobic is that more than half of our population have thrived on unrefined carbohydrates for thousands of years. Yes I say thrived as many have lived to an old age, while staying slim, active and happy. This to me is thriving. It is not the unrefined carbs that make us fat and sick but rather excess sugar and omega 6’s which throw our metabolism out of whack making us crave too many carbs.

    You seem to be an open minded guy and would suggest you have a look at Matt Stone’s stuff over at it may put a few doubts in your mind about the meat and fat diet….

    • Dream March 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

      I’ll take a look at Matts site, although I have looked over it before. If anything Chris, keep in mind that exceptions do not disprove a rule. I know people that don’t know the first thing about exercise, yet they continually increase their skeletal muscle mass, no matter what they do.

      Does this mean what they are doing is effective, efficient, or even safe? Hardly. It just goes to show that some people can get “results” doing anything, and some may not even experience problems.

      This doesn’t change the fact that it’s a big gamble to “exercise” like everyone else, and eat like everyone else too. For all we know we will end up with 57 different types of cancer – and they will end up lean and healthy as ever in their old age.

  4. youngblood.carl March 19, 2010 at 7:59 am #

    Kitavans and a lot of different easter cultures seem to do fine on carbs.

    If carbs are so unnatural, why does it take weeks to keto-adapt? Human physiology seems to quickly switch to carb metabolism when they’re available; this suggests they’ve been present for an evolutionarily significant part of our past. This is much different than how animals typically treat nutrients they genuinely never consumed (ie dogs excrete unmetabolized dietary fructose in their urine).

    Since you are qualified to diagnose carb addiction over the internet, I would like to offer my own in return: You’re clearly addicted to chocolate.

    • JEFF March 19, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

      “If carbs are so unnatural, why does it take weeks to keto-adapt?”

      GREAT point! I believe ‘ketosis’ existed as an emergency stage for those too weak to hunt and gather food. A backup plan, for ancestors who could not succesfully provide for themselves. It is esentially a last-minute chance to give one last shot to hunt and gather before death by starvation. By all means, not an ideal place to be!

      “Since you are qualified to diagnose carb addiction over the internet, I would like to offer my own in return: You’re clearly addicted to chocolate.”

      Hahaha I totally agree! It appears Dream has some quirks that need to be worked out ( :

      • Dream March 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

        For starters, keto-adaption and ketosis are two different things. You can be keto-adapted and not in ketosis for example (when you eat a handful of fruit for instance).

        As for ketosis being an emergency stage to hunt, that makes very little sense in the context you have used it, or are we “hunting” plants?

        A successful “hunt” would result in very little carbohydrate, just lots of fat and protein from an animal. Unless you’re counting the liver I suppose, but even then, the amount of liver you would need to eat to get out of ketosis for more than a brief stint may poison you.

        “By all means, not an ideal place to be!”

        How is it not an ideal place to be? Forget science, whats your basic reasoning? Once keto adapted I won’t be getting head aches after a 24 hour fast. A person who is not keto adapted will be moaning and groaning, if not worse, after 24 hours of no food – because their body is ill suited for going without carbohydrate.

        “Hahaha I totally agree! It appears Dream has some quirks that need to be worked out ( :”

        Why does everyone think I’m addicted to chocolate? lol. Watch out for my coffee addiction guys…

    • Matt March 19, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

      “If carbs are so unnatural, why does it take weeks to keto-adapt?”

      After spending YEARS being fed a diet of primarily carbohydrate and next to no fat (thanks Mom), the body produces significantly less of the enzymes needed to digest fat. It would be incredibly inefficient if it didn’t do this. Getting those enzyme levels from when fat was 0-5% of diet to 60-80% (by calories) is obviously going to take some time–especially when your body has been on a super-carb diet for decades.

      “Human physiology seems to quickly switch to carb metabolism when they’re available; this suggests they’ve been present for an evolutionarily significant part of our past.”

      No, this does not. (I am assuming that you meant that carbs were a significant part of the human diet, not just that they were present.) All it shows is that we can survive on carbs if need be. Let me ask you something: have you ever been camping in the wilderness? If you had, you would know that there is NO WAY you could get even a modest portion of your diet from carbs. The volume of wild plant matter you would have to find is insane.

      Oh, and for quickly switching to carbs, I am fully keto-adapted and I feel like shit if I eat a “regular” amount of carbs for even one meal.

      • Dream March 19, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

        “The volume of wild plant matter you would have to find is insane.
        Oh, and for quickly switching to carbs, I am fully keto-adapted and I feel like shit if I eat a “regular” amount of carbs for even one meal.”

        Couldn’t have said it better, and I too feel like crap if I eat even a “normal” amount of carbohydrate. “Normal” being anything over about 50 grams, and even thats pushing it.

      • Ben March 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

        I can vouch for that last part. Try the Anabolic Diet ( which is basically carb-up on saturdays and only fat and protein the rest of the week. Those carb-ups will force you to lay on the couch all day with a splitting head-ache, drifting in and out of sleep. It’s awful, and since I tried this diet last summer I stay away from carbs as much as possible.

        Since switching to (almost) full paleo, I eat 4-8 eggs w/ salsa for breakfast, dream shake or similar around 3pm, and meat for dinner, with almonds and pecans throughout the day. Sometimes I skip dinner, but I never feel the need to take an afternoon nap. In fact, the only days I nap are the days when I’m lazy and eat cereal or oatmeal for breakfast.

        • Dream March 19, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

          Just had a 6 egg ham/chees omelette with hot salsa, was awesome!

          Speaking of The Dream Shake, I’m about out of whey. Time to stock up.

    • Dream March 19, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

      I am well aware of the Kitavans, hence the “sweet potato land” remark in both recent posts on ketosis. As discussed, they are the exception, not the rule.

      “If carbs are so unnatural, why does it take weeks to keto-adapt?”

      A. People are literally addicted to carbohydrate. It’s difficult to break an addiction. Ask former smokers.

      B. The human body is lazy. Carbs are easy, yet inefficient fuel. Why produce ketone bodies when you don’t need them? Better yet, why would your muscles grow without a stimulus to do so? Just because they can doesn’t mean they will – again, our bodies are lazy.

      “Human physiology seems to quickly switch to carb metabolism when they’re available; this suggests they’ve been present for an evolutionarily significant part of our past.”

      Again, lazy. It’s cheap and easy fuel. Or would you rather wait in line at the gas station for 3 hours for premium grade fuel in your sports car? You wouldn’t and neither does your body. Little does it know it’s better fuel that in due time will be easy to use.

      “This is much different than how animals typically treat nutrients they genuinely never consumed (ie dogs excrete unmetabolized dietary fructose in their urine).”

      When did I say we never ate carbohydrate? I didn’t. Moot point. In fact I am sure we did, just not a lot, same as now if you went out into the wild and tried to find carbohydrate (in most locations).

      “Since you are qualified to diagnose carb addiction over the internet, I would like to offer my own in return: You’re clearly addicted to chocolate.”

      Are you mocking me and claiming that recognizing carbohydrate addiction is rocket science, in the same sentence? How hard is it to spot a genuine withdrawal symptom the minute a person resists eating an unnecessary nutrient? Which part of this escapes you, or is it rocket science and too advanced for the lay person (and chocolate addicts apparently) to understand?

  5. Phil March 19, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    On the question of animal vs. plant sources and which might have been preferred in paleo times, consider just how much processing is needed to make many plant “staple ” foods edible. It seems to me that the first people to work out how to eat cassava for example must have been starving to be that motivated. To me the effort says “desperation”. I think they figured out how to eat the stuff because they had to in order to survive, and I bet that was because there were no animals around to tear into. I am obviously speculating and there are many delicious plants, but imagine yourself in the wilderness (or actually go there if you can find any) and ask yourself what you are going to eat. From personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that you are not going to just collect a bunch of nuts and be happily munching. Try an acorn or walnut for example. Good luck with that.

    • Dream March 19, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

      Good points. Further proof that we don’t need doctorate degrees to figure out how to eat properly.

      • JEFF March 19, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

        Very true, man. At the same time, imagine how many rewarding changes could be led to action with an amazing career in Nutrition Education, PhD ( ;

        • Dream March 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

          I’ve taken nutrition classes at one of the largest universities in the country- pure hogwash. I got an A+, but the professor hated me, as I never paid attention, and when I was called upon gave answers that directly contradicted what she was preaching.

          In any case, I’d sooner pay for a PHD in basket weaving than nutrition.

  6. JEFF March 19, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    At this point it is most likely absurdly confusing to know which side to take. A plethora of interesting topics and points have arisen which completely contradict each other and lead to further misunderstanding. Thankfully, I am going to solve this dilemma right NOW.

    No matter which goals I choose to tackle in life, I always dedicate myself 110%. Whether it be academics, competitive fighting, nutrition or social psychology my focus is completely attuned. In my chosen profession in the health and fitness industry, I am frequently asked many great questions ranging from the logistics of weight training to the proper way of demonstrating a d’arce choke. These solid questions can be rooted to one central theme when it is all said and done: Which way is correct?

    There is a wide-variety of contrasting people who exist today. It is needless to say, there are a lot of DIFFERENT people out there. As a certified personal-trainer, I have seen a whirlwind of contrasting body-types. From overweight teenagers, to skinny and underweight mid age adults, to average body-type senior citizens, I have worked with them ALL. Let us quote the USDA’s view; stated at the core of their website– “One size does NOT fit all.”

    Once again, one size does not fit all. Now that we understand that there are many different types of people who REQUIRE different needs, let’s review a quick, basic fitness concept before moving on.

    There are three different body-types that exist. I became knowledgeable with these body-types after much observation and research with a successful body-builder, while working as a trainer at 24 hour. Without further delay they are: Ectomorph, Mesomorph, and Endomorph.

    Let us now cover a brief description of the spectrum. Ectomorphs have great difficulty gaining weight. They require 6+ meals per day. Mesomorphs are the naturals. They can simply gain OR lose weight with no problem. Finally, endomorphs struggle to lose any weight at all, even a pound. THESE, are the three body types in a nutshell. And so I ask which type are you?

    I am an ectomorph as I REQUIRE at least 6 meals a day and truly and honestly struggle to gain a pound. I will admit I was very underweight in high-school before I learned how to correctly apply nutrition according to body type. Dream on the other hand is the opposite, as a mesomorph / border-line endomorph. I can guarantee that he has never struggled with a weight-issue in his life like many of US have.

    Now, I am going to break it down as to why Dream has no credibility when it comes to the incredibly advanced topic of nutrition. HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL. Dream has NEVER worked with a wide-variety of clients and therefore does not know we all require different needs. HE BASES ALL OF HIS MISLEADING INFORMATION OFF HIM SELF. We know now that this is completely inaccurate for many of us, as we are not ALL Dream. (Though I will agree SOME of his insights are applicable. Read his work with caution and an open-mind)!

    We have already discussed at this point why we are all different. Thankfully, I UNDERSTAND those differences based on my years working as a professional and can tell that at least one third to half of people who read Dreams articles will be sent off in the wrong direction! STOP! At this point, you MUST determine which body-type you possess before reading on further. If you struggle to gain weight like myself, DO NOT follow Dream’s advice on fat based diet! You will get nowhere.

    Moving on, let us quickly cover which macronutrient to use for each body-type. Those who struggle to gain weight REQUIRE carbohydrate based diet. Those who cannot easily lose weight REQUIRE fat based diet. If you are a mesomorph and fall in the middle, experimentation is necessary to determine which side of the spectrum most closely matches your body.

    Carbohydrate or fat are the two paths to follow and basically each make up half of the population. With that said WE ALL REQUIRE both of these key-macronutrients. “Any extreme is never good,” to quote DJ Fuji. For those like me who are carbohydrate based we must still consume a small amount of fats! In turn for those who are fat based, a small amount of carbohydrate is also necessary.


    Even those on a fat based diet need some carbohydrate. Ketosis is the last-minute protection circuitry before starvation and is designed to save us as a last resort. In this modern day and age, it is COMPLETELY UNNECSSARY as no one will starve with the large availability of food present. For our hunter gatherer ancestors, what a true life-saver! Ketosis prevented death while they struggled to do their job. (Ultimately, to hunt and gather).

    Wouldn’t it be nice if eating was our only concern in this modern day and age? It was our ancestors JOB to eat. Luckily, we have made huge technological advancements and no longer need to starve ourselves with the out-dated process of ketosis. We have a wide-variety of foods available at every corner of the world!

    In the end, carbohydrate and fat based diets taken to the extreme is never a good thing. We are ALL different as one size does not fit all! With that said, carbohydrate AND fat are both required to fully meet our unique nutritional profiles and develop to maximum potential.

    It is now up to you to individually decide the CORRECT path for yourself. Don’t be afraid to experiment and try out new ideas and ways! On that note, do what works BEST for you ( :


    • Dream March 20, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

      “These solid questions can be rooted to one central theme when it is all said and done: Which way is correct?”

      I think what you are referring to is the search for “truth”, which I too am always on the look out for =).

      “As a certified personal-trainer”

      Not counting Super Slow certified trainers, I have never met a “certified” personal trainer in my life who knew the first thing about exercise or nutrition. This is not a personal attack, and some I’m sure exist, but out of the thousands I’ve bumped into and observed, virtually all are clueless. Considering this, I am doubtful the certification you hold is of any real merit.

      “Let us quote the USDA’s view; stated at the core of their website– “One size does NOT fit all.””

      This is true in government as well as other fields, but not nutrition. “One size”, for the most part, does fit all. There are minor differences in many cases (some people feel better eating no carbohydrate, some eating a little, some eating a moderate amount), but no major ones that I know of.

      It’s a catchy phrase for sure, but irrelevant none the less in this field of study.

      “I am an ectomorph as I REQUIRE at least 6 meals a day and truly and honestly struggle to gain a pound.”

      No, you don’t. You need 1, maybe two meals a day. 3 if you count a snack. No one needs to be eating more frequently than this, regardless of circumstances.

      “Dream on the other hand is the opposite, as a mesomorph / border-line endomorph. I can guarantee that he has never struggled with a weight-issue in his life like many of US have.”

      On the contrary, I was quite chubby growing up. I remember quite well what it’s like to be ashamed to take my shirt off, and have my sister make fun of my man boobs.

      Indeed, I have been overweight, and struggled to shed that fat. I’ve also worked as hard as anyone else for the skeletal muscle mass I currently enjoy.

      “Now, I am going to break it down as to why Dream has no credibility when it comes to the incredibly advanced topic of nutrition. HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL.”

      You dug your own grave on that one. “Professionals” for the most part, know nothing about nutrition. In fact, they know less than nothing, as their information is more harmful than even the norm of eating habits, such is the case with avoiding saturated fat and cholesterol.

      In any case, there is no truth in authority, only authority in truth. That my friend, is why this blog, and The 21 Convention have become so popular. I’m not always right, but I’ constantly in search of the truth, at all costs, including my former beliefs and blind spots.


      No, I don’t, nor is my information misleading. I won’t even discuss this further as you seem to refuse to think logically and rationally.

      “With that said, carbohydrate AND fat are both required to fully meet our unique nutritional profiles and develop to maximum potential.”

      As others have pointed out, carbohydrate is not a necessary nutrient. This is not open for debate with anyone who is even mildly educated on the subject. Again, where are you even getting this information? Not even the federal government claims carbohydrate to be a necessary nutrient.

      We need

      amino acids
      fatty acids
      sunshine (unless you’re eating a shit ton of fish)

      No debate, end of story. If you claim one of those substances can only be found in carbohydrate, that is a different story, and I would urge you to defend that claim.

      • JEFF March 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

        “We need

        amino acids
        fatty acids
        sunshine (unless you’re eating a shit ton of fish)”

        We do need all of these, AND GLYCOGEN! Especially athletes. Even average, sedentary americans require daily glycogen as well for energy!

        I suggest you go over this scientific study. Oblivious proof that carbohydrate are required by all:

        Dietary fat and protein are both key nutrients which Build body tissue. Carbohydrate on the other hand, (especially complex carb) are the primary nutrient for ENERGY and by far the best source to provide muscle glycogen.


  7. Claire March 19, 2010 at 5:18 pm #


    You seem to be basing your last statement solely on weight problems. How to gain and lose weight. You’re completely right too. A dude who has trouble gaining weight, suddenly starts eating a ton load of carbohydrate, I completely expect him to gain weight. In fact, if he’s very inactive, I expect him to become overweight in due time.

    I don’t think this issue is about weight loss/gain. It’s about how grains, and most legumes, just aren’t part of the human diet and how animal products should be the bulk of your diet. I think the best diet is an omnivorous one, but it’s tipped far more towards the carnivorous side, then vegetarian.

    • JEFF March 19, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

      “You seem to be basing your last statement solely on weight problems. How to gain and lose weight. You’re completely right too.”

      Thanks, you are spot on! Health (Nutrition) & Fitness are directly related and work synergistically to uncover the nutrional truth we are all seeking.

      “I don’t think this issue is about weight loss/gain. It’s about how grains, and most legumes, just aren’t part of the human diet and how animal products should be the bulk of your diet.”

      I completely agree! While carbohydrates and fats share their differences, plant and animal yield an entire seperate discussion!

      • Matt March 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

        You act so open-minded, yet you completely ignore any form of logical argument that goes against your view. Notice how, instead of completely ignoring opposing points, Dream goes through each of your points and attempts to logically debunk them (some commenters, myself included, have done the same with some of your points). Where are your answers? If he is so wrong, then shouldn’t it be easy to poke holes in his logic?

        Oh, and quoting Fuji out of context, on a subject he is not even speaking on, is not a form of logical argument.

        • JEFF March 20, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

          “If you have no ego at all, you shave your head and hide in the mountains of Tibet. If you have ZERO ego. Nothing in the EXTREME is ever good.”

          -DJ Fuji, 21 convention 2009 footage ( :


          Once again, Nutrition and Social Psychology are both high-caliber art forms.

          • Dream March 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

            In a not yet released video interview of Dj Fuji, he can also be quoted stating that extremes are necessary to create an equilibrium.

            Indeed, extremes are never good – including the extreme of avoiding all extremes for the sake of avoiding extremes based on advice not meant for nutrition.

            Say that 10 times fast.


            • JEFF March 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

              Good point, an initial extreme could prove to be useful in the BEGINNING to create a solid base.

              This also goes for Nutrition. Even so, this INITIAL extreme is short-term as it leads to an overall balanced well being!

  8. Izo March 19, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    It all boils down to insulin … so if anybody still thinks eating bowl after bowl of pasta and bread is good for you just try this experiment your self.

    1. Get a blood sugar tester the kind of diabetics have, you can get them cheap online (even get one free on some sites).

    2. Eat a slice of pizza or whatever processed carb. is your poison.

    3. And measure your blood levels for an hour every 15. min or so.

    And ya I know that a lot of pricks to the finger tips, but afterwords you will have a full understanding on what happens to your metabolism when ingesting quick absorption carbs (which are a staple in our modern diet)…

    Or don’t I’m just saying lol

  9. Robert March 19, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    I’ll make my own practices clear: I have an active lifestyle and consume some carbs the form of sweet potatoes and a little fruit post-workout. On rest days, I eat meat, eggs, vegetables, and maybe a little fruit. Sometimes I don’t eat anything. I can fast for 16 hours and feel fine. I’ve done longer fasts on occasion and felt fine as well. If I were to label myself as a “follower” of one expert, I’d say Robb Wolf. The key thing to remember is that the paleo diet, at its core, is high fat. You can tinker with the amounts of protein and carbs, but the fats should be high.


    I love the post. Solid content as usual. Controversial stuff makes for fun discussion.


    I understand where you’re coming from and I would say my own dietary habits fall somewhere between your’s and Dream’s, however, I think you’re portraying ketosis as a villain. For some good reading on keto, check out this article by Lyle McDonald:

    “My opinion on ketogenic diets is this: ketogenic diets are one of many (ok, three) dietary approaches available. They have advantages and disadvantages (like all diets). They are appropriate under some circumstances, relatively neutral under others, and entirely inappropriate under still other circumstances. They are not magic but they work tremendously well for some people and absolutely horribly for other. There are still questions regarding their long-term effects.”

    Lyle McDonald wrote a million page book only about keto. He’s the keto expert if there ever was one. Anyway, like most of the time, he concludes that most everything has an appropriate time and place. Ketosis has its time and place, IMO. Dipping in and out is healthy and probably good for you, which parallels how IF can produce health benefits in moderation.

    One story that you should know about before saying that certain people perform better eating lots of carbs or few carbs: Loren Cordain challenged the US Olympic triathlon coach to try the paleo diet. For the first two weeks, the coach felt like crap. After 20 days, he said he felt incredible. This is coming from a man that probably preached and ate high carb. It just goes to show you that it isn’t so black and white.

    Also, you are saying that carbs are “required.” I hate to nitpick, but they aren’t physiologically required by the human body. That alone shows that the body has adapted to functioning on VLC. Ketosis is not necessarily “starvation mode.” Any absence of carbs doesn’t mean starvation.


  10. Thom March 20, 2010 at 5:13 am #

    I’ve slowly been experimenting and adapting with these ideas – reading the suggested materials as I have a chance between work and school.

    Something I found incredibly interesting- a couple months ago I would have pigged out on some pasta before going to work (waiting tables) and easily be hungry an hour later. By the end of my shift I would be starving.

    This afternoon after sleeping in from a long work night I woke up and had a whole avocado with fresh lime juice and some almonds at about 12. It wasn’t meant to be a full fledged meal, but I just didn’t feel like cooking anything and was sick of eggs 😛

    Surprisingly today at work I was full of energy and did not even start to feel hunger until the end of my shift, about 12 hours later. I wasn’t at all trying to deprive myself of calories, and I certainly got myself something to eat afterwards. I did find that very interesting though, especially after reading Andy’s comment about his mother eating bread and feeling tired all day. Thanks for exposing myself and others to all of this information and way of thought. Keep up the good work!

    • Thom March 20, 2010 at 5:17 am #

      I wanted to add to this- that it wasn’t just my first day of randomly dropping out carbohydrates. I had been weening myself for a couple weeks now to a much lower intake.

  11. James Steele March 20, 2010 at 10:50 am #


    Love your blog as you seem like a very open minded guy but are able to think critically and state your beliefs. Its refreshing to see someone roughly my age who’s mind works this way. I have posted on here once before in reply to Bill DeSimone on another post and this is only my second post. A topic I am very interested in so I thought i’d chip in. Here goes.

    ‘Even those on a fat based diet need some carbohydrate. Ketosis is the last-minute protection circuitry before starvation and is designed to save us as a last resort. In this modern day and age, it is COMPLETELY UNNECSSARY as no one will starve with the large availability of food present. For our hunter gatherer ancestors, what a true life-saver! Ketosis prevented death while they struggled to do their job. (Ultimately, to hunt and gather).’

    Jeff you keep reffering to ketosis, Dream is talking about keto adaptation. Ketone bodies are produced through various metabolic pathways involving fatty acids and amino acids. When we are eating fats and proteins we are not in ketosis despite producing ketone bodies. We dont need to use them as we are eating to provide energy so we excrete most of them (hence the sweet smelling breath and urine). However if we were to go without food then we will have to make more use of these for providing energy. Ketone bodies can be used to provide energy for the brain as well as glucose. This is why you get the lag period wehn shifting from high carb to low carb as you have little glucose from your diet and are not apadted to producing ketones Ketosis in the extremes can lead to ketoacidosis which is bad. But no one here is advocating such an extreme form of starvation that would cause this.

    Jeff I have to agree with Matt, you are completely avoiding the logical path of this debate. You should be taking Dreams comments and providing direct evidence that refutes them if you disagree with them. Instead you seem to be sitting on the fence saying some should do this, whilst others should do that. Unless we have phylogentically diverged from a Homo Sapiens (which we haven’t as we all are still Homo Sapiens) into two seperate species, there is now way we could require such drastic differences in nutrition. Your quote from Fuji says avoid the extremes yet you are recommending we play around with either end of the extreme until we find something that works. Also using outdated somatotyping to prove a point when genetics has gone much further into identyfying individual differences between memebers of the same species is not a great way of proving your point. Izo talks about insulin being the key, and he is right. You say an ectomorph needs lots of carbs to gain weight. Most skinny guys eat a boat load of carbs when they are young and then suddenly get fat when they get towards their middle ages, now why is that. Could be something to do with a developing insulin resistance and then a sudden reduction in activity levels. This is going to cause their net fat storage to suddenly become positive and hey presto we get weight gain. It is the logical outcome based on what we know insulin to do, unless you are aware of any new research providing evidence for a different role for this hormone. I would also suggest reading some of Dr Harris’ blog as Dream mentioned, he has recently posted on this topic. Alternatively if you are in need of a more scientific read being a health and fitness professional then check out Peters blog at

    Anyway, I do thank you Jeff for posting an opposing argument as it makes us reassess our positions. But having been a carb advocater and being taught nutrition in that manner during my BSc I have seen the majority of that side of the argument and still fail to see any substantial supporting evidence from a scientific, evolutionary or logical perspective.



    • James Steele March 20, 2010 at 10:59 am #

      Sorry also to note on the topic of ketosis, there is evidence for ketones as a fuel source for both the brain and myocardium, improving their funtion. Haven’t got the papers to hand as they are on my USB but you’ll find them referenced somewhere on Dr Harris’ blog. Hmm, perhaps Ketosis is unnecessary for this day and age, but certainly keto adaptation is only beneficial.

    • Dream March 21, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

      Thanks for the kind words James. Have you ever considered starting your own blog or guest posting here? Based on what you’ve written so far I would be open to the idea.

      • James Steele April 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

        No worries man. Ha, it is something I have thought of but your the first to suggest it and im quite flattered. I am just finishing my Undergraduate degree and beginning my PhD so would be hard pressed for time to host my own blog, however I envisage a nice little lag period between the two in the next couple of months and so will look to keep an eye on how the current discussions develop so I can chip back in with a contribution.

        On a side note I’ve also started watching some of the footage from and am loving it. I couldn’t afford to come over for it this year, something i’m bummed about after seeing the lineup, but I hope I can afford it for next year as i’d love to experience the event and to meet yourself and other speakers.

        Take it easy, and keep up the good work.


  12. JEFF March 20, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    And now I will clear the air on the meaning of EXTREMES.

    A diet dominated by fats with ZERO carbohydrate is by no means beneficial, as it is a dark extreme. This is referred to as ‘ketosis’.

    With that said a diet dominated by carbohydrate with ZERO fats is also not beneficial, as it is an extreme as well. This is the carbohydrate version of ‘ketosis’, though it does not have a cool name. Maybe that is why so many are drawn to this ‘ketosis’ EXTREME. Good name!

    Regardless, both ways are over-dramatic on the spectrum scale and BOTH should be avoided.

    With this understood we can now cover the proper way to perform a carbohydrate or fat based diet. In order to do this, we must fall back on the FUNDAMENTALS.


    This has been known since the time we were kids. A well-balanced diet is the most obvious and logical way to reach our maximum potentials!

    On a fat based diet, it is necessary to consume a small amount of carbohydrate. This is around 30-40g per day. Many refer to this as being ‘keto-adapted’, which is absolutely ludicrous marketing! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEING ‘KETO-ADAPTED’. This is made-up term for simply eating a well-balanced diet with fat as the main energy source.

    On the other hand, the same principles apply to those of us on a carbohydrate based diet. We must consume 30-40g of fat per day. This could be referred to as the carbohydrate version of being ‘keto-adapted’ but we all know now this term is extinct. Once again, it must be the name causing people to flock to this method!

    To conclude we must ALL avoid extremes and incorporate basic principles, such as eating a well-balanced diet, in order to fully progress.

    Carbohydrate AND fat are both necessary, regardless of path chosen ( :

    P.S. The ‘paleo diet’ is officially outdated as it has been PROVEN wrong for those of us in intense anaerobic sport.

    Even the aerobic version of this cookie-cutter fad diet requires athletes to consume yams for starch! Can you say, contradiction?

    Our hunter-gatherer ancestors performed anaerobic sport exercise AS WELL. Hunting a wild animal? Sounds intensely anaerobic to me! Less time is needed in research of obvious faulty diets and more studies must take place to uncover the honest, modern TRUTH of correct and proper nutrition.

    • James Steele March 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

      ‘On a fat based diet, it is necessary to consume a small amount of carbohydrate. This is around 30-40g per day. Many refer to this as being ‘keto-adapted’, which is absolutely ludicrous marketing! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEING ‘KETO-ADAPTED’. This is made-up term for simply eating a well-balanced diet with fat as the main energy source.’

      Granted, It is probably a term that has been coined by us ‘Paleo’ dieters.

      Regardless you keep making arguments based upon logical fallacies with no real credible underpinning to support them. The statement ‘everyone knows’ is being used incorrectly here. Everyone doesn’t know, everyone believes and mostly without reason, so rather has faith. A ‘well-balanced diet’ is also the most arbitrary term I have ever heard and means absolutely nothing. It is completely open to anyones interpretation regardless of whether they have any prior knowledge or the topic. Do you honestly think what our mothers always taught us to be a ‘well-balanced diet’ is based upon a sound physiological underpinning which they themselves have researched and critically analysed in order to provide us with. I think not.

      Robert is also right, there is no physiological need for a dietary intake of carbohydrates. We are perfectly capable of creating glucose through gluconeogensis.

      ‘P.S. The ‘paleo diet’ is officially outdated as it has been PROVEN wrong for those of us in intense anaerobic sport.

      Even the aerobic version of this cookie-cutter fad diet requires athletes to consume yams for starch! Can you say, contradiction?’

      Also incorrect. There is no physiological basis for this assertion, unless you are applying to the period during which enzymatic processess that aid the metabolism of fats are up regulated i.e. the period of keto adaptation, and this is only due to a poor ability to synthesis glucose through gluconeogenesis coupled with little production of ketones. It just means theres not a lot of fuel for the brain.

      Even on a ZERO carb diet we are able to produce glucose via gluconeogenesis and can keep our muscle glycogen levels adequately filled. If you have a read through Body By Science you will see how the concepts of anaerobic and aerobic metabolism are very outdated in their descriptions and that the two essentially work in concert. That being said if your muscle glycogen can be kept full, in performing intense anaerobic exercise you will have sufficient glucose on tap to fuel glycolysis during exercise, coupled with a low level of serum insulin meaning that hormone sensitive lipase will help provide fatty acid cleavage for use in Beta oxidation.

      Then moving onto the recovery part of the equation. Dream was dead on with a previous post on recovery nutrition. In fact the argument I get into with most sports nutritionists is that you dot need to intake carbohydrates to replenish glycogen stores after intense activity. The cori cycle helps revert lactate from anaerobic metabolism back to pyruvate, to glucose and then back to glycogen. All you need is something to break down to provide the ATP for these reactions. Hmm now what provides a boat load of ATP when metabolised……oh yea fats, what a good idea, I can keep my serum insulin low so not promote any fat storage and yet still synthesise muscle glycogen.

      Jeff, as much as I like a good debate your arguments are full of logical errors. Have a read around the suggested sources and then make some logical and supported refutations against our evidence.



      • JEFF March 20, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

        “Also incorrect. There is no physiological basis for this assertion,..”

        I suggest you read ‘paleo diet for athletes’ before attempting to discuss any further. At this point, you are questioning and contrasting the PRINCIPLE beliefs of the ape-period diet.

        “Even on a ZERO carb diet we are able to produce glucose via gluconeogenesis and can keep our muscle glycogen levels adequately filled.”

        Thanks, exactly my point! As basically a professional fighter I am NOT looking to only be filled ADEQUATELY. I am in search of the BEST possible fuel to excel results in what I do– being a man! ( :

        • Dream March 20, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

          Jeff I’ve read a good deal of The Paleo Diet for Athletes. It’s riddled with misinformation and I don’t recommend others spend their time reading it.

          • JEFF March 20, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

            With fitness as a worldwide necessity, done is the case of the paleo diet.

            • Dream March 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

              Dude… what?

              • JEFF March 21, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

                Ha! Poor wording. The Fitness (athletic) community is a WORLDWIDE outlet.

                With your knowledge that ‘paleo for athletes’ has no merit, I’ve concluded the paleo diet useless in the quest for nutritional truth ( :

                • Dream March 21, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

                  “The Paleo Diet for Athletes” is a book written by Loren Cordain.

                  A “paleo” type diet for “athletes” is a completely different scenario and topic of discussion, since Loren’s book is only one approach (one that I find to be filled with mis information).

  13. Dream March 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    Man I had no idea this would cause such an uproar! Ha!

    If anyone has comments that did not get posted yet please contact me on Facebook or by Tweeting at me to let me know. I dug through the spam inbox and approved a few that were marked wrong but may have missed some. If so, my bad, and again, just let me know and I’ll take a look again.

  14. James Steele March 20, 2010 at 7:36 pm #


    ‘Thanks, exactly my point! As basically a professional fighter I am NOT looking to only be filled ADEQUATELY. I am in search of the BEST possible fuel to excel results in what I do– being a man! ( :’

    I will admit to the fact that carbs as a supplement to aid sports performance in competition is beneficial, there is plenty of evidence to attest to thissfact (albeit likely carried out upon carb heavy athletes anyway). However I think this topic originally applied to dietary concerns for health. As I doubt many of us are indeed professional level athletes then it makes no sense for us to be consuming carb heavy diets when the science shows we are far better off eating a high animal based fat diet. I would even suspect that the paleo type of diet would work extremely well for athletes also. The problem with applying it to athletes is that for starters, more often than not, their training is the biggest pile of psuedo science ever known to man (I can say I KNOW this because their is either little or no peer reviewed scientific evidence to support most recommended athletic training practices, therefore psuedoscience). Having worked with a variety of International level atheletes I can attest to this fact. It is my firm belief that if they were to train properly then they would likely not need such a high level of the so called ‘BEST’ fuel source. Instead they could consume a paleo style diet and supplement with carbs before or during competition. That way they would have up regulated their enzymatic processess involved with fat metabolism, and also would be able to make effective use of serum glucose during competition.

    I have not read The Paleo Diet for Athletes however will aim to take a look in the interest of understanding your side of this debate. At the moment however I don’t really understand it, a little more explaining would be useful for me.


    ‘Man I had no idea this would cause such an uproar! Ha! ‘

    Lol. I feel I have had a bit of blogorheoa now i’ve started. My girlfriend is pleased though, she feels it is a better outlet for my thoughts and feeling on the topic than over dinner with her. Sorry but now i’ve started, if I stop though you may have my girlfriend on here instead whining about how bored she is of hearing about it : )

    • JEFF March 31, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

      James, let’s be more specific here when talking about carbohydrate and I will try to keep this as simple as possible so everyone can understand. Fruits are simple carbs (monosaccharides). They are turned into glucose in the body and definitely beneficial for all of us, in moderation.

      Starches on the other hand are complex carbs (polysaccharides). These complex types of carb eventually get broken down into glucose as well, only they spare much longer as they are far more complex. Starches are the best source of glucose and therefore the best fuel for anaerobic glycolysis. (Which is the metabolic process used during ANY form of anaerobic exercise. Even a moderatly intense fast walk to class).

      And this brings us to my point. The more active our lifestyle, the more starch we require, regardless of diet. I live a VERY active lifestyle and therefore consume starch three times per day. Even on non workout days I still consume at least two- three times per day to meet my active needs. (i.e. playing racquetball, longboarding, tennis, skiing, riding jet skis etc, etc all dip into anaerobic glycolisis and require starch for max performance.)

      What I am trying to say is, we must all gauge our level of activity and in turn provide adecquate starch to meet our needs. If you live a completely non active sedentary lifestyle and sit down all day, chances are you do not need any. However, if you are like most who enjoy being active and moving around, then plan your starch intake accordingly. There is a pretty good chance that we all engage in at least some type of moderately intense exercise daily.

  15. Andy March 21, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Well, this is great lunchtime reading, ha! Now, if only Amazon would hurry up with my Primal Blueprint…

  16. Ben March 21, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    Just found this on CNN. So close to the truth, and yet so far….

    It’s about training, not diet, but still interesting. Obviously the doctor in the video doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He says “high-interval training” not “high-intensity interval training.” Also, no mention of strength training, but cycling and running and swimming were hot topics.

    Be sure to scan the comments. Some 40 y/o’s preaching circuit training and CrossFit and working out 2/hrs a day. Those 14 hours a week would be better spent educating themselves than tearing apart their muscles with endurance training.

    • JEFF March 21, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

      Off topic, but I totally agree!

      This type of training is IDEAL for those seeking cosmetic-based results. It is quickest and yields most noticeable progression.

      As for athletes, it depends on the sport. Obviously high-intensity interval training and anaerobic exercise are SYNONYMOUS. HIT training IS a fancy name for ANAEROBIC weight-training. Cagefighters like myself, progress optimally with this training style.

      Those who are endurance athletes on the other hand benefit much more from longer distance and lower intensity training.

      I personally find the explosive, hardcore elements of anaerobic exercise MUCH more enjoyable, such as in high-intensity training and fighting!

      Regardless, I am still in search of the truth as the best possible diet for Health AND Fitness endeavors! ( :

  17. Matt March 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    Jeff: You would get even better athletic results if you used steroids and amphetamines. Does this make them healthy?

    • JEFF March 21, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

      Not at all. Basically as a pro fighter, I get tested for these banned substances upon competition!

      Like all of you guys I am all about the smartest and most-natural method. ( :

      That said, the correct and proper way is yet to be uncovered in a world gone bonkers, as Dream stated!

  18. JEFF March 22, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    I will now give THE reason as to why we CANNOT conform to scientific-evidence lacking fad diets.

    Despite many failed attempts by practitioners i.e. vegan, vegetarian, raw food, paleo etc, etc, not ONE of these diets addresses ALL key issues related and pertaining to both Health AND Fitness, which are one in the SAME.

    With that said it is obvious ‘paleo diet’ or eating the way of cavemen is NO LONGER the optimal choice. A more realistic option is in between the sprung of agriculture, and this out-dated time frame.

    The introduction of agricultural foods sparked a rapid incline in a variety of diseases. Realistically before this, yet after the ape-period, our ancestors thrived on two things: Vegetable-based starches and Wild-caught animals.

    (And berries and melon, of course. These two fruits are REQUIRED for everyone no matter which diet path chosen. They are both chalked FULL of MUSCLE building amino-acids)!

    Moving on, game like elk and buffalo were hunted and cooked with fire (technology, the obvious demise to the paleo diet). Foods like plantains, yams, and squash were heated-up as well. What an accomplishment, being able to use our resources and advancements over the ages!

    Only as time goes on agriculture has taken technology the wrong way. In the last ten thousand years, they have completely modified the true structure of ‘foods’. Fire was an achievement. Contrastingly, agricultural technology was not. It has merely lead to the demise of proper human nutrition. Diabetes, cancer, and the obesity epidemic are proof!

    Once again, we cannot conform to scientific-evidence lacking fad diets.

    We MUST throw out what has been PROVEN wrong and continue looking for nutritional truth in humans– the time period of just over ~10,000 years ago.

    Before the coming of aforementioned diseases, before the spawn of agriculture, and much more recent than the MILLIONS of years ago ‘paleo diet’ was based. Agricultural interruptions must be reversed!

    THAT, is when and how OUR cultures excelled ( =


  19. JEFF March 22, 2010 at 2:32 pm #


    Tryptophan g 0.004
    Threonine g 0.030
    Isoleucine g 0.034
    Leucine g 0.065
    Lysine g 0.019
    Methionine g 0.018
    Cystine g 0.012
    Phenylalanine g 0.038
    Tyrosine g 0.013
    Valine g 0.046
    Arginine g 0.055
    Histidine g 0.016
    Alanine g 0.046
    Aspartic acid g 0.084
    Glutamic acid g 0.135
    Glycine g 0.046
    Proline g 0.041
    Serine g 0.033


  20. Claire March 22, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    I don’t think anyone’s arguing anything against blueberries, or even melons for that matter. Even yams, are considered “paleo.”

    They just shouldn’t be the bulk of where your calories are coming from. You keep stating it’s a fad diet, but it’s hardly a fad. A fad is usually popular, and 90% of people have no idea what a paleo diet is.

    • JEFF March 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

      “They just shouldn’t be the bulk of where your calories are coming from.”

      Absolutely correct! Starch AND/OR fat comprise the main-energy sources of our diets, as discussed previously. Fruit is merely the icing on the cake for BOTH parties!

      “A fad is usually popular, and 90% of people have no idea what a paleo diet is.”

      A fad diet is any diet created for the masses. These completely apprehend all creative, expressive outlets of nutrition which are yet to be uncovered!

      Now that we understand the irrelevance of specific diets, the actual debate continues on! Plant or Animal. Both seem truthfully promising! ( =

      P.S. ‘Dairy-fat’ is for kids!

  21. Claire March 22, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    “A fad diet is any diet created for the masses. These completely apprehend all creative, expressive outlets of nutrition which are yet to be uncovered!”

    Paleo isn’t that specific in what you should eat. I’ve seen a wide spectrum when it comes to paleo dieters. Guys that are zero carb eating only meat, guys like Dream eating some plants, and guys that have pretty big salads with their meat. Some will have dairy, starchy tubers, and nightshades, while others avoid them religiously.

    I wouldn’t call it a fad diet. That’s like calling strength training, a fad exercise program. Doesn’t make sense to me.

    “P.S. ‘Dairy-fat’ is for kids!”

    You’re the same animal. You haven’t warped into a new species.

    • Dream March 22, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

      ” That’s like calling strength training, a fad exercise program. Doesn’t make sense to me.”


    • JEFF March 22, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

      Strength training is a standard-physiological process. A fad exercise program would be more like: ‘billy blanks / russell simmons’!

      And even ‘high-intensity’ training talked about is a fad exercise program as well. On the other hand, fad DIETS are things more like the raw food diet, atkins, ape-period diet, or THE specific-carbohydrate diet!

      They are BEST avoided and once again, an open mind is necessary in order to spark the truth!

      • Dream March 22, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

        Jeff, I’m pretty sure “high intensity strength training” as a movement and exercise ideology has been around and more consistent and cohesive on principle than any other ‘exercise program’ in history (some ~40 years now).

        Feel free to suggest another that I am somehow unaware of.

  22. Aaron March 23, 2010 at 7:32 am #

    For the record, I’m on Dreams side of the nutritional debate (to give perspective on what I say). Also I JUST read through all of this and I’m a little delirious so if what I say is incoherent know that I’m usually a genius 😉

    Ketosis, we utilized it/couldn’t have survived without it and it was necessary and commonplace during our evolution.

    What about our lifespans (old age ones, the internetz say 30 or something but they factor in people getting eaten by tigers and other irrelevant bull), my light research on that subject has come up empty, if someone knows something reputable about it then please come forward as it kind of is a staple to my current wonderments (made-up word?).

    ANYWAYS, if we assume that modern man naturally lives longer than Paleolithic era man, what would we attribute that to? My current research endeavor is vitamins. I don’t know if we had them in sufficient amounts in the Paleo era, or if animal products and minor amounts of vegetables and fruits provide them. Now when I say sufficient amounts I mean that if the science behind the benefits to having extra calcium/magnesium/whatever is solid, then would we consider plentiful vitamins and minerals to modern medical science (sort of like super-hero pills, like we’ve found that having more carbohydrate [not SAD amounts] or giving ourselves more of something will allow our body to utilize it and give us stronger bones than Paleo era men).

    If you compare a perfectly healthy Paleolithic era human to one of us who utilizes nutrition advances, will the modern guy taking sufficient B-complex/whatever amounts have measurable physiological advantages. Will we be superior in health if we utilize the solid scientific knowledge or is all this vitamin research unnecessary and just compensating for all the deficiencies and crazy shit we’ve integrated into our lives?

    Is ketosis useful but unnecessary in the world today? It may have been Paleolithic and integral in our development but if we utilize what we’ve learned can we possibly hybridize the life spans of today with the basic nutrition of the Paleo era? Add on to the Paleo world with our science in order to become superior than we once were. It seems we’re looking to the past to re-educate ourselves and yet we don’t desire to become the past.


    And JEFF, seriously dude ease up on the exclamation marks, they feel condescending and it’s like you’re trying to sell me an e-book or something. Also comment on and refute the things you disagree with instead of exclaiming things about metamorphic (whatever the hell you were on about) people.


    • Dream March 23, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

      Ancient man’s lifespan was so short due to traumatic injury, frequent warfare, weather/the elements, and being eaten alive. If memory serves right, bone and joint problems aside, those who did die in old age then, died quite healthy and without the ailments we see today- not even tooth decay in most cases.

      • JEFF March 24, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

        Exactly! ( =

  23. Darwin001 March 29, 2010 at 3:40 am #

    Dream, I stumbled upon your video on Nutrition and Exercise and am personally attempting a total overhaul of my diet and exercise. I’m still waiting for Primal Blueprint, 150 Healthiest Foods, and Body by Science to ship and cant wait to read them. This whole new perspective has really opened my eyes and really changed my views.

    I went to the grocery store 3 times now looking for good food and honestly I am having GREAT difficulty finding anything without sugar, hydrogenated oils, and especially corn or soy products. My result is basically starving myself. Right now I’m living off Dried Fruit, Almonds, Jerky, and Eggs and am still disappointed because these still don’t seem like great food sources, the dried fruit having added sugar, the jerky has MSG, and the eggs come from corn fed chickens. It’s like a damn conspiracy man, I feel like it’s impossible to find good affordable food as a student.

    My questions are thus:
    Is eating corn fed meat still beneficial when grass fed is unavailable/unaffordable?

    Is Dried Fruit something to be avoided because of added sugar?

    Are Berries the only fruit I can eat? (what about apples, oranges, and bananas)

    Is Jerky bad unless all natural?

    How important is meat compared with fruits/vegetables/nuts?

    Is Eating Fresh Produce Aisle items going to be my new way of living?

    Really Appreciate the help, clearing up the confusion will really make life easier for me.

    • JEFF March 29, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

      I know these questions are from Dream, but they were some solid questions dude! I want to give you another cutting-edge viewpoint to base your decisions on.

      “It’s like a damn conspiracy man, I feel like it’s impossible to find good affordable food as a student.”
      I totally know how you feel as I’m in my third year of college. I’ve been working on this the entire time also. Fortunately, I’ve just recently mastered my diet and feeling great!

      “My questions are thus:
      Is eating corn fed meat still beneficial when grass fed is unavailable/unaffordable?”
      Absolutely not. I recommend you watch the compelling documentary, Food Inc, to see why. Even grass-fed is still chalked full of over 30 FDA approved steroids and hormones! Doesn’t sound like good meat to me.

      “Is Dried Fruit something to be avoided because of added sugar?”
      Not just that, there is a reason fresh fruit is FULL of water inside! I find the refreshing, hydrating benefits of whole fruit provides much more rewarding outcome.

      “Are Berries the only fruit I can eat? (what about apples, oranges, and bananas)”
      Berries rock out and you’re totally right about the others as well! I eat a wide-variety of fruits daily with bananas and oranges as some of my favorites. Mango, papaya, kiwi, and peaches as well as figs are all nutritional power-houses to incorporate. Black grapes as well work as an anti-estrogen compound!

      “Is Jerky bad unless all natural?”
      I would place it in the mediocre to below-average range as it’s very heavily processed from poor quality sources. Unless of course, it is homemade from wild-caught game! Wow you just gave me an awesome ideae dude. I’m going to go catch and make some homemade jerky! THAT, would be superfood. ( =

      “How important is meat compared with fruits/vegetables/nuts?”
      Crucial, as they are all equally important. Actually nuts and seeds ARE meat. Meat is a loose definition. Nuts and seeds make outstanding protein sources, much better than feed-lot game animals.

      “Is Eating Fresh Produce Aisle items going to be my new way of living?”
      Most likely! 90% of my diet comes from fresh, wholesome Produce Aisle. Just work on getting high quality Vegetable Produce which contain significant energy like plantains, squash, and yams.

      PLUS all of the other great Fruit Produce we just talked about.(And Nuts/Seeds + Wild game for protein!) Do this and you’ll be a stud in no time! Good luck dude

      • Dream March 29, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

        I don’t necessarily disagree or agree with everything Jeff has said in this comment Darwin, but I endorse none of it. I may answer your question more in depth when time allows. In the mean time search around and see what you can find on the blog =)

        • JEFF March 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

          JEFF YOST is in no way / shape / or form affiliated with The Dream Lounge (trademark). However, I do wholeheartedly support Dream’s skills as a creative writer and respect and value his opinion! ( =

    • mannik March 29, 2010 at 2:59 pm #

      Check Dream’s blog post “Why i eat the way I eat”. It will clear up a couple of those questions particularly importance of meat.
      I have recently begun to follow a ‘primal’ diet a la the Primal Blueprint, mostly from information found on his website because the primal blueprint is sold out atm,

      I would just say that you should be wary of the amount of fruits that you eat. They aren’t exactly deadly (although Dream may disagree with me) but they are high in sugar and carbohydrates.
      Go crazy with meats (animal meats that is, for pedantic Jeff), not only are they nutritious but also delicious. The major hassle will be finding some real and organic meat.

      • JEFF March 29, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

        “The major hassle will be finding some real and organic meat.”
        Agreed. Though I assume our late ancestors struggled with this as well. I prefer to stick to my roots and hunt my own game, silmilar to our well-developed ancestors who were master hunters!

        • Aaron March 31, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

          I’m not usually a stickler but you ab-so-lutely need to stop using exclamation marks so sparingly.

          It’s like I read what you say, feel I’ve misjudged you in some way and then, before I know it, the exclamation mark makes me feel like you’ve disregarded everything with a smug smile and religious fundamentalist-like attitude and have just continued saying what you already believe. It changes the whole tone of what you just said…much like emoticons can.

          I’m going to repeatedly burn your house down and murder your family.

          as opposed to

          I’m going to repeatedly burn your house down and murder your family! =P

          or I’m insane, I’M GAME FOR EITHER.

  24. Darwin001 April 2, 2010 at 5:26 am #

    I have been reading the Primal Blueprint and the author seems to endorse fruits and vegetables but the gist I’ve gotten from you is that Eat as much meat and fat as possible and use veges and fruit sparingly. Is this correct? If not how do you really feel about fruits and vegetables and their importance in nutrients OVER meat?

    • Dream April 2, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

      I don’t condemn fruits and veggies, I just don’t feel they’re necessary. Do I eat them? Sure, all the time, but in very small amounts. Its very rare I eat any significant portion of fruits or veggeies. If you want to though, and it doesn’t make you feel like crap, it’s probably not going to cause any major problems – high sugar and high fructose fruits in large quantities aside.

      As for the ‘importance’ of the nutrients in plants over meat – I don’t think it exists. They will never be as good a source of nutrients as animal products.

  25. Darwin001 April 6, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Making my way through The Primal Blueprint and got to supplements, I’m on his website right now trying to decide if supplements are essential. Even coming from Mark Sisson I’m unsure if its something money should be expended on. Dream, Do you recommend or take supplements yourself?

    • Dream April 7, 2010 at 2:19 am #

      Some yes, but for the most part I am ‘anti-pill’ if that makes any sense.

      The supplements I do take include cod liver oil and Vitamin D3. I hardly consider fish oil a supplement though, and Vitamin D3 is more of a hormone – and in that sense, taking it is more ‘augmenting’ than it is ‘supplementing’ since you don’t get it from food, for the most part, anyway. You should be getting it from sunlight, lots of it, which unfortunately even in Florida, I don’t get enough of.

      I am also keen on using iodized salt on my food, that is not more than a few months old.

      And, I would consider taking K2, but I eat a horrendous amount of milk fat, which has plenty =).

      • JEFF April 7, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

        “Some yes, but for the most part I am ‘anti-pill’ if that makes any sense.”

        Glad to hear that man, my answer would have been similar. Not too sure about your need for a vit D pill in Florida though. Contrastingly out here in Oregon, it’s pretty much required for us.

        On a side note you are on the path to a sudden heart attack with all that milk fat. Seriously Dream. Take the hint. Before college when I was bulking, I drank pure whole milk in insane amounts. I did gain A LOT of weight though this is the only time in my life where I was fairly chunky, (at 14-15% b fat). Not an ideal food source for anyone, except in very little moderation.

        • JEFF April 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

          P.S. Even ‘organic’ bought milk is littered with countless steroidal hormones and then ‘pasteurized’ to cover up the tracks. Pasteurization is the process of mass heating a product like milk to just below its boiling point. This is used to destroy harmful bacteria WHICH ARE CREATED from steroid administration process. These deadly bacteria are NOT originally found in non-commercial cows’ intestinal tracts.

          In addition, pasteurization destroys all micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) including calcium, originally found in cow’s milk.

          The absolute only reason the FDA mandates ‘pasteurization’ is to destroy the bacteria from COMMERICAL grown cows their farmers produce. These cows source all market milk (cow) products found around the nation and are grown so disgustingly, we die if we consume their ridden milk! This is why the FDA requires pasteurization, to cover for their lucrative, yet deadly, operation.

          By all means, a HOMEFED cow sourcing milk is a “super-food” which contains absolutely no hamful bacteria, assuming it is fed correctly. Thus, milk pasteurization is not required from wholesome, natural animals.

          With all this said: Am I going to own a homefed cow (or goat)OR settle for my creative diet which is milk-free and tailor-made for adulthood.

          Most likely the latter of the two. ( =


          • Dream April 7, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

            “Steroidal” is utterly misused in this context, or is the testosterone produced by my testicles also ‘steroidal’?

            Indeed milk has ‘hormones’ naturally occurring in it – including ‘organic’ which is void of any added hormones by law.

            Pasteurization is not used to ‘cover up the tracks’ of anything, let alone naturally occurring hormones. If anything ultra pasteurization is used to cover up low quality milk and milk products and extend their shelf life.

            Pasteurization does not destroy ‘all micronutrients’. Get off the alkalinity/raw milk zealot/conspiracy pedestal.

        • Dream April 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

          There’s not a snowballs chance in hell I’ll be having a heart attack from milk fat, any time soon, or ever for that matter. As usual (in a matter o fact sense), your facts are wrong.

          • JEFF April 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

            or is the testosterone produced by my testicles also ’steroidal’?”

            Probably more like flambuoyent. Little snowballs!

            There are over thirty FDA approved ‘steroid enhancement hormones’ fed to our cows, which feed us. Check your facts son.

            I eat duck eggs for protein any day over ‘wannabe’ milk.

    • JEFF April 8, 2010 at 12:04 am #

      Darwin, commercial ‘milk’ would make a pretty decent protein supplement, even better than isolated whey powder. I personally have numerous other, better sources and don’t waste the time.

  26. JEFF April 8, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    Recovery nutrition kicks ass, after powerful work outs.

  27. Darwin001 April 8, 2010 at 1:59 am #

    Considering I just dropped a substantial amount of money on unprocessed, grass-fed whey protein by recommendation I am disappointed to hear you say its a waste of time. What reasoning is behind you logic sir? @Dream opinion?

    • Dream April 8, 2010 at 2:52 am #

      Please don’t listen to Jeff. He is out of his mind. As for whey, you don’t necessarily need to make sure it’s grass fed, but if you can afford it I recommend it. Otherwise look for something you feel is ‘reasonable’ in price, and lacking questionable ingredients or processing. Whole Foods carries a brand that isnt bad.

      Speaking of whey, I had a very large whey shake today. It was good =)

      • Darwin001 April 8, 2010 at 7:05 am #

        Picked up Coconut milk, coconut oil, and coconut cream today(All Organic). Combined with the other ingredients of TDS it made for one of the most delicious things I’ve ever tasted. Why anyone would ever eat unhealthy when eating healthy tastes this good is beyond me 😉

        • Dream April 8, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

          Good point. Eating good most often tastes good =)

      • JEFF April 8, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

        I would classify Dream’s diet in the mediocre to average range. Hard to take him seriously as he is not an athlete, but rather a ‘pick-up artist’.

        That’s like taking Public Speaking advice from a shy, introvert. Gets you no where.

        With this said, I am in College for PhD in Nutrition Education. No, not to learn how to eat “healthy”. I am in this to demand America as a nation be presented with wholesome, quality foods with no shit ingredients in restaurants and products.

        TO CONCLUDE ON NUTRITION: Dream is an awesome guy but has absolutley no credibility on this topic. I am a lifelong athlete and, test every ‘diet’ thoroughly. We’re all much better off taking nutrition advice from Michael Pollen than Dream.

        His diet is basically ‘fast food’. Lazy and detrimental. ( =

        • Dream April 8, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

          When is the last time I claimed to be a ‘pick up artist’? Dude I don’t even know how to respond to such a statement, let alone the rest of your ill thought out comment. Please stop spamming my blog, and for that matter, stop studying a topic of zero value. A degree in ‘nutrition’ is less useful than a degree in basket weaving as far as I am concerned. Your time and money are much better spent elsewhere in college – or in life for that matter, as you would learn more about nutrition reading Kurt Harris or Mark Sisson’s blog for 30 minutes than in 30 formal (zombie/worker bee) classes about the subject.

          • JEFF April 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

            Once again, the purpose of PhD in Nutrition is not to learn about eating healthy. This is a blatantly obvious topic which does no require a degree. The purpose, is to lead the country to better health by bringing change to the American food supply.

            With all this said: I will no longer post on your blog.

            • Dream April 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

              Dude if I didn’t want you posting on TDL I would have started deleting your comments long ago… you just post way too many comments, often repeating the same thing over and over, and refuse to discuss a topic logically and rationally – at least from my little corner of the world.

              I’d have to suggest blogging over a PHD by the way. Ludicrous as it sounds, it’s about the only way to be heard over the government propaganda machine that is mainstream media.

              Stay out of the ‘belly of the beast’, and attack the core of the problem – too much government – don’t feed into it further.

              In other words, if government is the problem (as it is in nutrition), then the answer is NOT MORE government and gov. supporting institutions – it’s less, or none at all in the area of exercise and nutrition.

              Make sense?

              • James Steele April 8, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

                ‘Dude if I didn’t want you posting on TDL I would have started deleting your comments long ago… you just post way too many comments, often repeating the same thing over and over, and refuse to discuss a topic logically and rationally – at least from my little corner of the world.’

                Agreed, I got into my element discussing this topic to begin with you Jeff, however it has develoved into an illogical spam of repetition. Dream is an open guy, as he said, he doesn’t want to stopyou posting. Just think and be a little more critical of your current knowledge base before posting. It adds far more to the discussion when you provide evidence to refute someones opinions rather than just repeating that which has already been refuted by others.

                On the topic oh PhD’s aswell I just wanna point out that I am currently beginning mine. I have written up the study proposals myself and applied for the funding. The area I am researching (lower back pain rehabilitation, HIT guys might be interested to know it is a series of studies furthering knowledge into the clinical effects of the MedX lumbar extension) is another topic in which my views go against conventional wisdom. That being said I have gained the majority of my knowledge in the area from my own reading and critical analysis. I was questioning whether or not to bother with writing up a PhD as I was aware that I was already light years ahead of the majority of so called experts in the field. However I decided that I coud possibly be more influential in changing a current dogmatic paradigm by becoming more recognised through gaining a PhD. Also from my own selfish objectivist perspective a PhD gets me more pay once i’m established as a lecturer :D.

                The point i’m trying to make is that if we want current dogmas to be changed then there are two ways it can be done. Leave it to people to read more and take critical and rational choices about how to live their lives. Or based on what the majority of zombie/worker bee populations do, take out the current dogma by refuting it and trying to make those driving it change their perspectives(or replace them omce they are gone). Unfortunately either way one leads to dogmatic society as the majority of people will always just dutifully and unthinkingly follow. Perhaps I am the victim of my own confirmation bias here, though I like to think not based upon the drastic shifts in paradigms I have accepted after learning more, but I think on a larger scale that at least having someone rational setting out the recommendations for the irrational to follow is better than the irrational leading the irrational.

                Blind leading the blind.

                Wow that was more than I enivsaged writing. Anyway time to chill in the bath.


              • JEFF April 8, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

                I really want to be a Food scientist also, to research and uncover new useful data. I’m hoping to find how safe our “foods” really are, reveal it to the public, and in turn have the gov’t forced to change and regulate the industries (especially meat and agriculture).

                I’d like to hope the gov’t can change. You don’t think they could be influenced, to change?

                • JEFF April 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

                  I feel like if someone doesn’t stand up now, then the Food Supply will continue being f””d for our future generations to come.

                  • M.C. April 9, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

                    As long as you have corporations willing to do whatever it takes to make a profit, government can’t really do much about it. It’s not the government that’s selling the food.

                    Look at cigarettes. The government knows they’re bad for you, and so do people, but you still have people smoking. The government can only put an age limit on those so you can’t sell them to minors, but other then that, they’re never going to ban cigarettes as long as a corporation exists that stands to make millions or billions of dollars.

                    The influence of corporations over the government and scientists is bigger then many might think. The biggest difference we can make is with our food choices. You can’t convince the government cause the government stands to profit. You can however, convince the people.

                    • JEFF April 9, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

                      I don’t want to convince “the people”. There is nothing to convice!

                      I want QUALITY meat and produce in our stores / restaurants.

                      Looks like I’ll be working for the FDA. After all, someone has to regulate ( =

                    • M.C. April 9, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

                      Quality meat already exists. Restaurants aren’t going to start serving it, unless the people ASK for it. The more wild caught fish or grass fed beef is bought, the more inclined restaurants/stores are to stock up on that kind of meat.

                      Unless the people are convinced to buy more expensive, higher quality meat, restaurants or stores aren’t going to stock it.

                      And the FDA aren’t idiots. They know very well the shitty food out there. They’re not going to suddenly start caring about people’s health any time soon. Unless they can make money off it, of course.

                    • JEFF April 10, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

                      James, the people DO need to be taught how to eat properly. What I meant is, there is no need for persuasion once the truth is found. Though the utterly stubborn types may still need some convincing. As well as those skeptical of a healthy lifestyle. Either way, I am willing to teach others who want to learn. (THIS IS MY FIRST CAREER GOAL.)

                      MC, I agree quality meats exist out there. They are just hard to find. I guess a better way to say this would be, I am looking to STOP all of the fatal ingredients being served, Especially in Public schools. Mcd’s and T bell (and the like) also. (THIS IS MY SECOND CAREER GOAL.)

                      I will stop the industries from profiting in the wrong as well as teach others correct nutrition along the way!

                      And now, I want to watch this Dmitry Orlov video I’ve been putting off ( =

                    • Dream April 11, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

                      Why would the government ban cigarettes? Why should they have anything to do with what you choose to do with or put into your body? I’m as anti-smoking as the next person, but I am far more in favor of not granting federal or state governments the power to ‘ban’ smoking all together and decide (morally undermine) what YOU do with YOUR life and YOUR body.

                      Think about it – by the logic you presented the government could control what food we decide to eat… as they have currently tried to do in the UK with the proposed ‘butter ban’.

                      What if the US government decided to ban or limit your intake of saturated fat because it was ‘bad’ for you?

                      Tread carefully with good intentions MC, unintended consequences run amok more often than not without a strong sense of right and wrong fueling the decision.

                    • M.C. April 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

                      You’re right on that. Never really thought about them banning good things too. There’s just so much flawed/wrong information out there, that a government just can’t be trusted with what’s good/bad for us. Nor would I want them to decide what’s good or bad for me. They’d probably take away my scotch drinking, not that I drink much to begin with, but I’d still want the option.

                      *treading carefully*

  28. Darwin001 April 8, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    I was just at Market of Choice and checking out the “all natural” meat when the deli worker asks if her could help me. I asked him if their beef was grass fed and he said,”Yeah all of beef is grass fed… except for the last 8 weeks which we feed them grains of course” I was like,”8 weeks!?” Then he starts telling me “The meat is TOO lean if fed only grass and it’s actually better/healthier for the beef if it eats grains, marbalizing and adding fat or else it would be too lean” I stared at him in disbelief and found out the location of the local competition that had actual grass fed meat. As I walked away he starts telling his coworker about how I had gotten told. Grain fed healthier at last 8 weeks? This guy is obviously full of shit right?

    • Dream April 8, 2010 at 2:56 am #

      More or less, yes. Indeed conventional ‘beef’ is grass fed, until the last 6-8 weeks of it’s life, where it is then fed and often pumped all sorts of crap. The idea that feeding, fattening, and sickening an animal before slaughter with strange plants it was never meant nor is designed to eat, is preposterous though. Get grass fed and finished meat as often as is possible and feasible for you.

  29. JEFF April 8, 2010 at 2:49 am #

    Whole milk at least still has micronutrients intact, (according to Dream, even though it still has unnatural, added hormones). Whey powders are solely isolated and stripped of all the vitamins and minerals our bodies need to actually use the ingested proteins. I would just drink commercial milk which is ( 20 percent whey / 80 percent casein ), over fragmented supplements like whey isolate.

    That guy at Market of choice you mentioned was a tool. (well told story by the way!). I hate meat depratment guys, like that. They think they know everything there is. I feel like they are all blinded by their arrogance.

    8 week grain finished does NOT make meat healthier and I think Dream will agree. I’ve actually been searching for local butchers to provide my meat because realistically, I don’t know how to hunt, I’m not huge on nuts / seeds, and I just simply enjoy good animal meat. It’s just difficult to find quality sources. (No meathead market guys!).

    And now My order of food superiority is as follows: (starting with the best)
    Wild-caught Game –> Local, Butcher Game –> Wholesome, Fresh Plants.
    And then commercial animal products -like market milk- fall next on the list.

    I’m searching for a way to find fresh, local-grown animal game and will let you guys know when I accomplish.


  30. M.C. April 8, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Jeff, you need to stop the whole “I’m an athlete so I know more then you” talk. A lot of athletes have some of the most horrible diets I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen plenty of good fighters in the UFC eating pizza and burgers because they need to load up on carbs.

    They have nutritionists telling them to do this because it’s “healthy” for them. So your PhD in nutrition, and athleticism really doesn’t mean anything. EVERYONE can work out/train for a sport, and EVERYONE can go to college and memorize whatever information they throw at you to a pass a few tests.

    Some of us don’t see the point in getting a degree in government nutrition.

  31. James Steele April 9, 2010 at 6:46 pm #

    ‘I don’t want to convince “the people”. There is nothing to convice!’

    I take back my previous comment that people always follow without question. I do so as I dont wish for it to be confused with me beliveing that thought is impossible. I have to disagree with this comment, there is a lot to convince people of. To convince is to firm belief through use of evidence. We can spend a hell of a lot of time attempting to convince people. However we can only suceed if those who we are attempting to convince make use of their rational mind. I do not in anyway accept people to choose faith. To choose faith implies acceptance of belief without reason.To continue to hold beliefs even after evidence has been presented to refute them, in my opinion is even worse. It implies unwavering faith irrespective of reality.

    Unfortunately this is what current indoctrination in all fields results in and what we, the rational thinkers have to deal with (because these people are a part of reality despite them thinking they can live outside of it). But hey you can’t force a mind, it has to be consciously chosen. Still my objective value is to search for truth and so I’ll follow whichever path provides me with the relevant tools to do so (i.e. grant funded PhD) however I’ll always be flying the flag of my integrity high and letting ‘the man’ know where he can stick it if he stands in my way.


  1. Fat is the Regulating Nutrient for Body Composition, Not Protein | The Dream Lounge - September 3, 2010

    […] written about this ad infinitum on TDL before, both here and here. Long story short, I am utterly convinced humans evolved eating animals, lots of them, and mostly […]

Leave a Reply to Dream Cancel reply