Anyone who wishes to report their fat intake?

Because if you're not getting 15%-20% then apparently you're in trouble according to a recent reference here.

Don't know the exact % but this is what O eat ~ overt fats:

everyday:

some flax seeds on a smoothy
1 big handfull of almonds
1 big handfull of walnuts
bunch of chia seeds on salad

week:

one or two avocados

it seems a lil higher than the 80/10/10 (maybe 12-15%). I eat no oils and I have very good results (but do lots of exercise). You need some fat for the hormones, etc.

I'm trying to eat fewer nuts, but my ideal daily intake is:

1 avocado, 1-2 tbs coconut/olive/flax oil, 1/4c whole nuts/seeds OR 1/2c fermented nut/seed yogurt

This does not include seed milks in soups or with breakfast.

For the benefit of the readers,

1) In relation to the statement by fresh above, please note that this is not what the 2008 reference said. For the direct, exact quote, refer to this discussion. In there, you will also find my explanation of why it is not a good idea to rely on one quote only. Further, note that minimum recommendations are usually derived using statistical analysis and should be intrepreted in terms of risks, rather than caregorical statements.

2) One cannot calculate their exact percentages due to any "calculators" used being prone to significant errors as well as due to significant human errors, see my article Calorie counting or Hunger? for some explanation. If you are interested in some analysis of such percentages on wider population and its discussion, I recommend the article below and related literature:
Intake of fatty acids in general populations worldwide does not meet dietary recommendations to prevent coronary heart disease: A systematic review of data from 40 countries
Harika R.K., Eilander A., Alssema M., Osendarp S.J.M., Zock P.L.
(2013) Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 63 (3) , pp. 229-238.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Today, my fat intake included 1/4 cup chia (soaked), 1/8 cup sunflower seeds, 1/8 cup whole sesame seeds, and 1 small avocado.

I used that energy (along with energy from fruits) for yoga, study, running, and weights.

(I don't know what my macro percent was, sorry. Maybe I'll check later.)

Fresh, you forgot to give us your own. Or do you never ever eat any nuts/seeds/avos/cocos?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2014 07:56AM by suncloud.

Hey Gosia,

Why did you use the Harris-Benedict equation for BMR when it does Not incorporate Lean Body Mass as part of its equation?

When I tried to guesstimate how much I needed to eat when I was playing competitive tennis and was exercising 7 to 8 hours every day, the only formula I found that made sense was by the American College of Sports Medicine because it was based on Lean Body Mass and NOT simply on total weight.

For example, two people could both weigh 200 pounds where one was 5% Body Fat and the other was 50% Body Fat. Using the Harris-Benedict equation for BMR we end up with the same amount of Calories for both people, but when we use the American College of Sports Medicine formula, there's a 1241 Calorie difference between the two!

Hi John

I used it merely for ease of illustration, not because it is better than others. I agree that considering lean body mass instead of weight is a better idea. I am not surprised at the difference!

According to Cronometer, my daily fat intake is around 5-6 % (I have no overt fats, this is just from fruits/veggies).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Raw vegan for life. Vegan for the animals. Raw for my health.

John Rose,

I just quickly glanced on Scopus. It seems that another method would be to use a body-worn sensor:
<<One challenge in weight control is the difficulty of tracking food calories consumed and calories expended by activity. This paper presents a system for automatic monitoring of calories expended using a single body-worn accelerometer. Our system uses activity inference combined with signal analysis to estimate calories expended in realtime using regression formulas developed by the American College of Sports Medicine. To validate our system, we have collected data from 51 subjects in a laboratory setting using a treadmill and a more natural field test. Actual caloric expenditure was determined using the medical "gold standard" measurement, of oxygen consumption. We are able to achieve 89% accuracy with lab data and 79% with field data - both high enough to be useful in practice.>>
Validated caloric expenditure estimation using a single body-worn sensor
Lester J., Hartung C., Pina L., Libby R., Borriello G., Duncan G.
(2009) ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, , pp. 225-234.

Also, the American College of Sports Medicine formula is prone to error too, for example:
<<The inaccurate prediction by the American College of Sports Medicine formula was associated with an underestimation of the net VO2 per meter (p<0.001), and this was higher for participants with multiple sclerosis (p<0.007).>>
Prediction of oxygen uptake during level treadmill walking in people with multiple sclerosis
Agiovlasitis S., Motl R.W., Fernhall B.
(2010) Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42 (7) , pp. 650-655.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2014 12:56PM by rawgosia.

Well, certainly your comments may have some validity gosia.
But that is not the point here at all.

the point is, during a discussion about fat intake, you made a reference which stated at a MINIMUM that fat should be 15 for men and 20% for women, as a way to counter my assertions.

So at least ONE person here is in big trouble according to you.

And I assume that YOU eat at LEAST 20% FAT, right?

I will respond further later.

Thanks for the responses, very interesting.


rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the benefit of the readers,
>
> 1) In relation to the statement by fresh above,
> please note that this is not what the 2008
> reference said. For the direct, exact quote, refer
> to this discussion. In there, you will also find
> my explanation of why it is not a good idea to
> rely on one quote only. Further, note that minimum
> recommendations are usually derived using
> statistical analysis and should be intrepreted in
> terms of risks, rather than caregorical
> statements.
>
> 2) One cannot calculate their exact percentages
> due to any "calculators" used being prone to
> significant errors as well as due to significant
> human errors, see my article Calorie counting or
> Hunger? for some explanation. If you are
> interested in some analysis of such percentages on
> wider population and its discussion, I recommend
> the article below and related literature:
> Intake of fatty acids in general populations
> worldwide does not meet dietary recommendations to
> prevent coronary heart disease: A systematic
> review of data from 40 countries
> Harika R.K., Eilander A., Alssema M., Osendarp
> S.J.M., Zock P.L.
> (2013) Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 63 (3)
> , pp. 229-238.

Gosia,

Thanks for the feedback on the American College of Sports Medicine formula. Obviously, some guesstimates are going to be better than others and no guesstimate is perfect, which is why we have to incorporate a safety factor.

For example, even though I was consistently eating ~1000 Calories less than I needed every day, I was also consuming ~175% of the Carbohydrates I needed every day, which sort of flies in the face with your statement below.

<<<The long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is unsound and is going to lead to digestive issues (primary cause of B12 deficiency) at the least.>>>

the brain is dependent on glucose to function properly. If brain glucose decreases, adrenaline (irritability, etc) and glucagone are releseased. The chronic condiction of low glucose is called hypoglycemia (the opposite of diabetes). Stay carbed my friends



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2014 03:52PM by Panchito.

Gosia says we should not rely on one source, and it's hard to get accurate data.
The thing is, the source that gosia is using to support her statements (in lieu of actually reporting any facts) is the LOWEST that you will find. If you were to include other sources, the average minimum fat intake would be HIGHER across all sources.

Secondly, as I showed by the reference earlier, overall fat recommendations have zero confidence with respect to any health indicators. Only EFA recommendations have any confidence , and those numbers are around 3% total for EFAs.

The concerns noted for overall fat intake are for Coronary Heart Disease, assimilation of fat soluble vitamins, and overall "energy" intake.

The problem is the people making these recommendations are unable to conceive of someone eating as we do here, so they can't imagine getting enough "energy" without eating FATS.

FATS that are UNAVAILABLE in the wild.

Where would all of you people get your fats in the wild? You think you would be able to get all those nuts and seeds? big avocados? You ever see a wild avocado?

You would be forced to consume animals to satisfy this alleged fat requirement, or be superior hind gut fermenters.

So the only conclusion that we can make is that those who say 15%, 20% and up is REQUIRED for health, is that
they think that humans CANNOT survive in a wild environment, at least without animal FAT intake, or abundant nuts, which are also unavailable widely.


The coronary heart disease concerns are baseless as well, being caused by other factors. And there is NO indication that fat soluble vitamins have any trouble being absorbed on low fat diets. These are just vague unscientific concerns until shown otherwise.


>>Fresh, you forgot to give us your own. Or do you never ever eat any nuts/seeds/avos/cocos?


Probably because it's irrelevant to me. There are other ways to determine what to eat. Fat intake is subordinate to these other factors.

I used to eat nuts and seeds, but now only when part of figs/straws, etc. Still eat some avos and cocos, but just the coco water and once in a while the young fat (rarely).

I would say it varies between 4 and 15% fat intake by percent of calorie.
I have not tracked it over time.

Why are the people who see people failing on allegedly low fat diets able to provide any facts or see that B12 or other factors may be the issue?

Why when questioned, do they get defensive and make baseless claims about allegedly "derogatory" comments? While speaking condescendingly about supposed scientific understanding of the questioner?

The dishonesty and evasiveness is unfortunate, and I should not be criticized for asking for evidence. NONE of the evidence presented so far supports the assertions made, especially the WHO reference.

Since Gosia does not read my posts, perhaps someone here could ask her why she has not posted her fat intake AFTER posting a reference indicating that 20% for women is the MINIMUM.

By the way, a 20% fat intake is at least TWO AVOCADOS each and every day and/or quite a few nuts/seeds, just for illustrative purposes. for a person on a fruit based diet like the lovely gosia is, while occasionally eating veggies as she has stated.

So what about Ela? what do you recommend, dr gosia?
you're aware of course of the negative aspects of higher fat intake than necessary, on oxygen transport and such...

And of course that crazy T colin campbell , recommending 801010.

Better give him a talking to....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2014 05:33PM by fresh.

John Rose

By the "needs of the body" I would mean what the body actually needs, not what some prone to error 'calculator' estimates. The in-build capability of our body to evaluate our needs far exceeeds that of any 'calculator'. This is because the body has the full picture of its state, while 'calculator' takes into account only a limited (and insufficient) number of variables. This is why I think that listening to the body is a good idea.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

<<<The long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is unsound and is going to lead to digestive issues (primary cause of B12 deficiency) at the least.>>>

<<<By the "needs of the body" I build capability of our body would mean what the body actually needs, not what some prone to error 'calculator' estimates. The in- to evaluate our needs far exceeeds that of any 'calculator'.>>>

Gosia,

You claimed that “long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is unsound” and that statement is FALSE. As I pointed out in my example, it’s actually possible to consume less total Calories than we expend and still consume an excess of Carbohydrates (which is where a lot of us are getting most of our Fat via De Novo Lipogenesis).

For example, if YOU are consuming 10% Protein and 20% Fat, then YOU are consuming 70% Carbohydrates and if YOU are consuming what your Body actually needs (NOT based on any estimates), then you are consuming ~140% to ~175% of the Carbohydrates YOU need every day.

Please don’t think that I am disagreeing with your point that we need to rely on the Aliostatic Taste Change, but your claim that “long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is unsound” is FALSE and this has NOTHING to do with Errors in “Caloric Estimators”!

John,

Points to explain my thinking on this:

1) Let me explain this using logic. Define the following statements:
P - “long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is unsound”
Q - "it’s actually possible to consume less total Calories than we expend and still consume an excess of Carbohydrates".

To prove that P is FALSE, one needs to prove that the opposite is TRUE, that is that the statement:
P' - “long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is not unsound”.

Note that Q is not logically equivalent to P'. Thererefore Q being TRUE does not prove that P isn't.

2) Assume that the definition of NEED is per what the body actually needs. Then, IF one consumes more carbs than they need long-term, while simultaneously providing its body less fuel than it needs, THEN this is going to lead to health problems, and is therefore unsound.

3) <<your claim that “long-term consistent daily consumption of carbs above the needs of the body is unsound” is FALSE and this has NOTHING to do with Errors in “Caloric Estimators”!>>

The reason why this has something to do with errors in estimators is the following. If someone assumes that such estimators are sound and uses them as a way to decide what and how much to eat, while simultaneously ignoring their body needs (AS HAS BEEN ADVISED BY SOME ON SOME FORUMS), then doing this long-term is going to lead to health problems.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

One thing to keep in mind regarding ratios: If a person ate 1 avocado and only a few fruits/veggies during the day, they might end up with a fat percentage of 50%/day. However, if they added just a few more bananas, they could end up with 20% fat/day with that same 1 avocado.

Basically, percentages aren't particularly useful unless we look at calories also. BUT there seems to be no 100% reliable means for figuring the amount of calories we each require, with the science we have available today.

In case anyone is interested:

The "gold standard" cited in gosia's study (above) refers to "indirect calorimetry", which measures oxygen expenditure to determine calorie expenditure.

Indirect calorimetry was originally designed to find resting metabolic rate (RMR) - meaning that the equipment could only be used while a person was resting. Hospitals have used it to help measure calorie requirements for tube- or intravenous feedings.

Gosia's study discusses a relatively new technique that allows indirect calorimetry to be utilized while a normal healthy person is moving around. Here's a short PDF on the technology:

[www.unm.edu]

As people might notice, it's all very complicated; and the science is evolving. There's really no calculator that can determine with 100% reliability or accuracy exactly how many calories each of us requires. Probably the most accurate way to measure the appropriate intake is by observing what/how much we eat and weighing ourselves the next morning.

From Nutrition Therapy and Pathophysiology (Nelms, et al 2011), "The total amount of energy required by an individual consists of three basic components: ...basal energy expenditure (BEE) + energy for physical activity or exercise (PA) + thermic effect of food (TEF) = total energy expenditure (TEE). Basal energy expenditure is defined as energy used for physiological functions to maintain life, such as respiration and heartbeat. Basal energy expenditure accounts for approximately 60% of an individual's energy requirement."

I'm interested in the reference to "thermic effect of food (TEF)". Usually, this accounts for a pretty small energy requirement, but does TEF vary with type of food consumed? What is the effect of PA on TEF? What is the effect of different food combinations on TEF and ultimately on TEE? Is it cumulative, averaged, synergistic? So many unanswered questions....

In my humble opinion, nutrient content of foods and nutrient requirements are more soundly established for at least some nutrients, although science continues to evolve there as well. Luckily, we do know about certain things, such as relationships between folic acid - spinal bifida, thiamin - beri beri, Vit C - scurvy, zinc - stunted growth, niacin - pellagra, etc.

We have SCIENCE to thank for our knowledge of those nutrients, which has enabled us to prevent much suffering!

Not that we all have to reach the RDA every day for every nutrient. RDA is intended to ensure meeting the needs of 95% of the population.

EAR might be more realistic for many of us, since this is the "estimated average requirement" and intended to ensure the needs of 50% of the population. WHO is a good source for EAR.

Then there is AI (average intake). This is for nutrients when the requirement is not yet known. It's just determined from what the average "healthy" person eats.

In the US, total fat falls into the AI category, as does linoleic acid (omega 6) and linolenic acid (omega 3). There is no established RDA or EAR for those nutrients. We only know there is a healthy range. Too much is not good if it accumulates and leads to disease. Too little is not good, because we need fats for producing healthy cell membranes (including nerve cells), and for absorption of fat soluble vitamins A, E, D, and K.

Basically it seems that most of us here on the raw food forum do as rawgosia suggested. We listen to our bodies. Hungry? -> EAT! (Eat whole vegan foods that make us UNhungry that also feel good). Then exercise.

Unfortunately, much of the "guru" stuff comes from unproven, under-referenced hypotheses. I've noticed that references may be taken out of context to such extremes that some even say the opposite of what the "guru" is claiming.

If any particular diet leaves a person feeling hungry all the time no matter how much they eat, something is missing. Don't ever blame yourself. Try something different that will hopefully include a sufficient variety.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2014 01:33AM by suncloud.

In other way, to convince myself that P' is TRUE, I would like to find an argument that explains that consuming more carbs that the body (actually) needs on long term basis, can be a sound way of operating. By sound I would mean, a way of operating that would be fine for someone who is interested in maintaining good health.

This discussion could obviously venture into more deep issues, such as what is health, what is good health, how do we assess it, and so on. Ultimately, we need to accept however, that there are limits to what such discussions miigh be able to achieve.

Hi rawgosia,

I think our posts almost overlapped, timewise!

discussion in real time

<<<In other way, to convince myself that P' is TRUE, I would like to find an argument that explains that consuming more carbs that the body (actually) needs on long term basis, can be a sound way of operating. By sound I would mean, a way of operating that would be fine for someone who is interested in maintaining good health.>>>

Let me say the same thing I said above, but in a slightly different way to show you why your claim is FALSE.

Since YOU are consuming 20% Fat, as in the example I gave, and since you are consuming what your Body actually needs (NOT based on any estimates), then the only way that you would NOT be “consuming more carbs that the body (actually) needs” would be if your Fat % went up from 20% to 40% - 50%.

So Gosia, if YOU are a High Carboydrate Burner coming in on the High end at 50%, you are already consuming ~140% of the Carbohydrates YOU need every day!!! And if YOU are a Low Carboydrate Burner coming in on the Low end at 40%, you are already consuming ~175% of the Carbohydrates YOU need every day!!!

So what is my PROOF?!?!?!

YOU!!!!!!

It’s what YOU are doing by consuming only 20% Fat and burning 40% -50% Carbohydrates. Remember, you are consuming 70% Carbohydrates!!!

70 / 50 = 140%

70 / 40 = 175%

These are YOUR STATS!!!

YOU are consuming ~140% to ~175% of the Carbohydrates YOU need every day.

As I pointed out to you in my Post above, YOUR statement is FALSE because YOU are guilty of what you say is unsound!

So the reason why “consuming more carbs that the body (actually) needs on long term basis can be a sound way of operating” is because that’s what YOU are doing!!!

Raise your Fat % to 40-50% and consume what your Body actually needs (NOT based on any estimates), and you will NOT “consume more carbs that your body (actually) needs.

Once again, what is my PROOF?!?!?!

YOU!!!!!!

YOU are consuming ~140% to ~175% of the Carbohydrates YOU need every day, unless you are eating a lot less than your body needs or you’re eating 40-50% Fat, which you are NOT!!!

Remember, I was able to eat 1,000 Calories less every day and still consume ~175% of the Carbohydrates I needed every day and that’s because I was only consuming ~5% Fat. When you eat less Calories than you burn, you have to eat Low Fat to protect youth Lean Body Mass from Gluconeogenesis. Since I’m not a competitive athlete anymore, my Fat % is more like 15%.

Anyway, I’m enjoying our discussions and I’m looking forward to reading more of your work. I only wish we could do this in person because it’s so difficult to communicate on the Internet. If we were in person, we could interject when we see that we were misunderstood or when the other person clearly is missing an important Piece to the Puzzle.

By the way, I would love to hear what you have to say about looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures. Do you understand what that statement means and do you agree with it? If not, I would love to hear your take on it.

John,

I am finding it hard to follow your argument. Let's make it simple.

I am going to try an argument that is self-contained and explicit.

START
Assume that some person consumes more carbs than their body (actually) needs long term.

Suppose that all nutritional and energy needs are met, and there is no excess or lack of anything. That is, the body gets all its needs met as required. This contradicts the assumption.

Therefore, there must be excess or lack of something, in terms of the needs of the body. This is unsound.
END


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

<<By the way, I would love to hear what you have to say about looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures. Do you understand what that statement means and do you agree with it? If not, I would love to hear your take on it.>>

Techincally, "looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures" is not a statement. In logic, a statement needs to be a declarative sentence that we can say is either true or false. So I can't say whether I agree with it or not.

Perhaps you could give a link to the details of the actual claim you are interested in?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Yes, talking in person offers a lot opportunities that typing does not. That would be nice John.

Fresh, I hope you don't mind if I respond to a portion of your post.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> FATS that are UNAVAILABLE in the wild.
>
> Where would all of you people get your fats in the
> wild? You think you would be able to get all
> those nuts and seeds? big avocados? You ever see
> a wild avocado?
>
> You would be forced to consume animals to satisfy
> this alleged fat requirement, or be superior hind
> gut fermenters.
>
> So the only conclusion that we can make is that
> those who say 15%, 20% and up is REQUIRED for
> health, is that
> they think that humans CANNOT survive in a wild
> environment, at least without animal FAT intake,
> or abundant nuts, which are also unavailable
> widely.

Fats are available in the wild, in abundance.

Ask any squirrel who has ever stored a nut. In fact, due to the storage capabilities of nuts and seeds, they are actually more naturally available than fruits during many months of the year - IF a person lives away from the tropics.

But lets step into the tropics for a moment. Tropical climates are a good natural environment for humans, because we can stay warm. Here, we have never required animal furs for warmth. And it turns out, we don't need to eat animals either - because edible plants, including those wonderful healthy fats, grow everywhere!

For example, you asked where we would get those big avocados and if we've ever seen a wild one.

You poor Mainland person. Are you kidding? They grow all over the place! You can't throw a seed on the ground without it turning into a tree - unless you keep it mowed. Ever seen a Linda avocado? As big as a football! There are literally unlimited avocado varieties because they don't grow true to seed. Commercially, they are grafted, and only a very few varieties are sold on the Mainland. But in Hawaii, they grow wild just about everywhere (under maybe 1200 feet elevation). They're all along the sides of the roads. Avocados have a variety of seasons too, usually depending on where they happen to be on the island. Where I live, they are harvested best from October to May. 10 miles down the road, they're harvested in summer.

My dog pulls them off the trees and gnaws on them like a bone.

Oh my gosh! And coconuts?! I loved when I first came here, all the signs posted around hotels and such, saying "Beware of falling coconuts". Now they cut the coconuts down all the time to keep people from getting konked on the head. Fresh spoon meat coconut: incredible.

Macadamia nuts: They preserve themselves and are therefore handy year round. Some even cling dried to the tree. Actually, they're kind of rubbery when just picked up fresh, but taste sweeter and better with a little maturing. Coconuts and macadamia nuts. Every animal in the vicinity comes running to eat the scraps when we open them up outside. Macadamia nut, hammer, rock: the perfect combination. And made even better with a few apple bananas.

You poor mainland person. You need a coconut, a machete, and a great big flower lei!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2014 11:07AM by suncloud.

Gosia,

YOU are consuming ~10-20-70 (P-F-C) and are expending ~10-40-50 or ~10-50-40 and therefore are consuming less Fat at 20% and more Carbohydrates at 70% while your EXCESS Carbohydrates are converted to Fat, which as I mentioned above is where a lot of us are getting most of our Fat via De Novo Lipogenesis.

The only way that you could NOT be consuming EXCESS Carbohydrates (assuming that you are consuming what your Body actually needs) would be if you increased your Fat intake to 40-50% to match your expenditure.

You keep claiming that this is unsound and yet, it is exactly what YOU are doing!!!

Once again, if you expend 10-40-50 or 10-50-40 and consume 10-20-70 (P-F-C), your Fat consumption (20) is lower than your expenditure (40 or 50) and your Carbohydrate consumption (70) is higher than your expenditure (50 or 40) and, therefore, YOU are consuming more Carbohydrates than YOU need every day keeping in mind that the EXCESS Carbohydrates are converted to Fat via De Novo Lipogenesis.

By the way, the ONLY WAY your argument would be true would be if you increased your Fat intake up to 40% or 50% to match your expenditure. As long as you consume 20% Fat and burn 40-50% Fat, you are under eating Fat and over consuming Carbohydrates, which is NOT unsound as you keep insisting!!!

Gosia wrote:

<<<Techincally, "looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures" is not a statement. In logic, a statement needs to be a declarative sentence that we can say is either true or false. So I can't say whether I agree with it or not.>>>

I wrote:

<<<By the way, I would love to hear what you have to say about looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures. Do you understand what that statement means and do you agree with it? If not, I would love to hear your take on it.>>>

Tell me Gosia, would you waste your time looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems that already have an Invalid Structure?

By the way, I was very explicit throughout this Post about wasting time looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures. For you to then say that I have not made a declarative sentence makes me wonder if you have been reading my Posts.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh, I hope you don't mind if I respond to a
> portion of your post.
>
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > FATS that are UNAVAILABLE in the wild.
> >
> > Where would all of you people get your fats in
> the
> > wild? You think you would be able to get all
> > those nuts and seeds? big avocados? You ever
> see
> > a wild avocado?
> >
> > You would be forced to consume animals to
> satisfy
> > this alleged fat requirement, or be superior
> hind
> > gut fermenters.
> >
> > So the only conclusion that we can make is that
> > those who say 15%, 20% and up is REQUIRED for
> > health, is that
> > they think that humans CANNOT survive in a wild
> > environment, at least without animal FAT
> intake,
> > or abundant nuts, which are also unavailable
> > widely.
>
> Fats are available in the wild, in abundance.
>
> Ask any squirrel who has ever stored a nut. In
> fact, due to the storage capabilities of nuts and
> seeds, they are actually more naturally available
> than fruits during many months of the year - IF a
> person lives away from the tropics.
>

When I say available, I mean available, AND in suitable quantities
and appropriate for the organism in question.

so while there are small primates who specialize in storage unit ingestion, we are talking about humans - my point being that the primary non animal foods available that have the best qualities for sustaining humans as far as gathering, calories, nutrients, digestions, etc are fruits and leaves and wild celery and other plant parts that are eaten by large primates.


> But lets step into the tropics for a moment.
> Tropical climates are a good natural environment
> for humans, because we can stay warm. Here, we
> have never required animal furs for warmth. And it
> turns out, we don't need to eat animals either -
> because edible plants, including those wonderful
> healthy fats, grow everywhere!
>
> For example, you asked where we would get those
> big avocados and if we've ever seen a wild one.
>
> You poor Mainland person. Are you kidding? They
> grow all over the place! You can't throw a seed
> on the ground without it turning into a tree -
> unless you keep it mowed. Ever seen a Linda
> avocado? As big as a football! There are
> literally unlimited avocado varieties because they
> don't grow true to seed. Commercially, they are
> grafted, and only a very few varieties are sold on
> the Mainland. But in Hawaii, they grow wild just
> about everywhere (under maybe 1200 feet
> elevation). They're all along the sides of the
> roads. Avocados have a variety of seasons too,
> usually depending on where they happen to be on
> the island. Where I live, they are harvested best
> from October to May. 10 miles down the road,
> they're harvested in summer.
>

yes, but again, my point is more with respect to ancient fruit (how tiny those avos were), and "how would humans have survived all those millenia" with this alleged 15-20% fat requirement without animal products.

If the answer is that we could not have survived without animal products (because plant fatty foods simply are not available widely enough and in enough abundance), then one could simply say so.


> My dog pulls them off the trees and gnaws on them
> like a bone.
>
> Oh my gosh! And coconuts?! I loved when I first
> came here, all the signs posted around hotels and
> such, saying "Beware of falling coconuts". Now
> they cut the coconuts down all the time to keep
> people from getting konked on the head. Fresh
> spoon meat coconut: incredible.
>
> Macadamia nuts: They preserve themselves and are
> therefore handy year round. Some even cling dried
> to the tree. Actually, they're kind of rubbery
> when just picked up fresh, but taste sweeter and
> better with a little maturing. Coconuts and
> macadamia nuts. Every animal in the vicinity
> comes running to eat the scraps when we open them
> up outside. Macadamia nut, hammer, rock: the
> perfect combination. And made even better with a
> few apple bananas.
>
> You poor mainland person. You need a coconut, a
> machete, and a great big flower lei!

I do need a lei, yes.

and what I am saying is that overall, across a wide variety of environments, did humans eat 20% over the millenia since most claim that we need to eat that much?

<<Tell me Gosia, would you waste your time looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems that already have an Invalid Structure? >>
Define "Systems with Invalid Structure". Give the link to that definition so that I can understand what you mean.

As far as <<YOU are consuming ~10-20-70 (P-F-C)>> not sure where you are pulling this from, but that is incorrect. Your are arguments make no sense to me. Yes, I read them.

Regardless of that, it is clear to me that your understanding of what "need" and "excess" means is different from mine. I had tried to explain this to you, but my message did not get through.

Here is my final attempt.

Below, copy of the argument I used, I labelled the sentences. 1 and 2 are merely assumptions. 3 is just 2, reworded/clarified. 4 is obvious. So is 5. Do you disagree with 6? Why? If not, please note that 1 implies 6.

START
(1) Assume that some person consumes more carbs than their body (actually) needs long term.

(2) Suppose that all nutritional and energy needs are met, and there is no excess or lack of anything. (3) That is, the body gets all its needs met as required. (4) This contradicts the assumption.

(5) Therefore, there must be excess or lack of something, in terms of the needs of the body. (6) This is unsound.
END

In particular, 1 implies that there must be either excess or lack of something, as undesrtood in terms of what I perceive as the correct definition of "need". What the BODY needs, not what the calculator states. For example, when cronometer states I had 200% of nutrient X, that does not mean to me that I had twice as much as I need of it. Rather, it is cronometer not perceiving the actual needs of my body correctly.

That is all.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams