All of JosephBuchignani's Comments + Replies

  1. Longevity is not the only factor of interest.

  2. There's CR and CR. A paleo lifestyle will greatly increase natural tolerance to fasting, leading to longer periods without meals, up to one day at times. Deliberate CR is something different.

  3. CR doesn't show up among blue zones or the world's oldest people. Rather, the opposite - enjoyment of life.

  4. I read a chimp study that showed CR chimps lived longer but had terrible quality of life compared to the fat happy sly contented ad libitum eaters. That suggests it's a tradeoff between living longer slowly an

... (read more)
6gwern
Or living at all: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/07/calorie-restrictive-eating-for-longer.html

While the anecdote is interesting, cancer patients are perhaps not the best sample group for extrapolating to the healthy.

Many of the other extreme elimination diets I tried showed obvious signs of micronutrient deficiency. For example, I tried bread and water, lean meat and water, etc. It's easy to recognize signs of deficiency - fatigue, cravings, etc.

But I wouldn't say scallops have everything. I did lose weight. I think you'd have to add in some fish to get a complete diet. Not so much for vitamins or minerals, but for something related to satiety and macronutrient composition. It could be insufficient fats/oils, or maybe you can't get enough protein because it triggers s... (read more)

0Kevin
Why do you think it is that supplements are so much more toxic than food? Eat a dozen oysters, you'll get 1200% of the RDA of zinc and feel great. Eat 12 zinc pills, and you'll probably vomit within 5 minutes. What about food buffers the effects of minerals? I've come to understand that the ratios of minerals is of supreme importance and of course food has much more complex ratios of minerals, but I'm sure there is something else going on here.

Paleo is a big tent with many suboptimal stalls.

Plant nutrition is more difficult to optimize than animal sources. Plants are not strictly necessary, and become completely optional once comfortable starch intake is achieved.

Yes, paleo is great. No, it is not a fad, although it contains various fads.

Fad: "a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group."

Paleo is no more a fad than are herbal remedies. Neither are temporary phenomena.

Yes, you're right, I was wrong about that

I scored 1560 / 34 on SAT / ACT and 99th percentile on GMAT as well, if I recall correctly. I've never taken an IQ test. I was born in 1984, so by the time I took them the SAT's were less g-loaded.

I would say average, peak and trough performance all greatly improved, but I can't quantify it. I felt like a genius, relative to where I had been, and much quicker mentally.

I have no way of returning to my previous diet right now, so I can't rigorously test this.

In theory, any shellfish should do it. Shrimp don't have this property. Shrimp are scavengers, whereas shellfish filter water. The latter activity is what creates the high mineral content.

1[anonymous]
double posted
-3Alicorn
Clams?

Yes, although hunger decreased dramatically, so I didn't eat nearly as much scallops as you would think. Scallops have a major impact on food satiety and cravings, I've found. I suspect we tend to overconsume food to compensate for low density of key micronutrients.

My long term stable diet is 1. scallops daily, one package; 2. unlimited white rice; 3. lean fish - cod, perch or pollock; 4. shrimp for flavor/texture.

Diluting the scallop content brings down cost. The enhancement effect isn't quite as extreme, but it's still very good.

This diet has almost no... (read more)

3[anonymous]
I think you're overreaching the idea of adaptation there. Scallops and other bivalve molluscs contain a lot of dietary protein, and also a lot of nutrients we need; part of the reason we need many of those specific nutrients is that unlike even many of our closest relatives, we can't synthesize them internally. So it shouldn't be surprising that a food rich in those things, with very few "empty" calories and which is not too calorically dense would be beneficial...

I have experienced cognitive gains that would almost certainly show up on IQ tests by eating better animal sources of micronutrients. Studies would be great.

2John_Maxwell
What sources specifically?
1Douglas_Knight
How big cognitive gains are you talking about? IQ tests have poor test-retest reliability. Have you ever taken an IQ test? eg, SATs. If you did on your prior diet, you could take it again. Do you think that your peak performance has improved or just average?

I was driven to it by necessity, I have intraheptic cholestasis.

You aren't very familiar with the paleo literature. Conclusive evidence exists that human beings can consume just about any animal monotonically without suffering nutrient deficiency. Exceptions might be extremely simple animals like snails or maybe starfish that don't share enough similarity. But most seafood and land animals will work.

The major exception to this rule is that some animals don't have enough fat to sustain life, which leads to protein poisoning. The solution is to either eat ... (read more)

0[anonymous]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

I went a month eating nothing but boiled rice, scallops and water. It was the highest energy/mood/libido diet I've ever tried, but I couldn't maintain weight because it tasted gross.

6PhilosophyTutor
My prior probability that any diet consisting solely of rice, water and any one X is a bad idea is very high. I'd want to see very strong evidence that scallops really do contain everything a human needs to remain healthy.
0MixedNuts
That sounds extremely expensive. (And I know where to get cheap frozen scallops.) What's the next best cheap diet?
5wedrifid
That's an impressive feat! Unfortunately it tells us only a little about whether scallops give you all the vitamins and minerals you need. From what I understand you will not experience much in the way of scurvy after just one month of being deprived of vitamin C, let alone get a clear picture of the long term results of any lack in the more subtle deficiencies! I'd love to see some links too. I'd perhaps take for granted that scallops could give the basic minerals we require (seawater has most of the same salts that we need) but the vitamins I'd have expected to be a different story!
0[anonymous]
.

Actually, you can get all vitamins, minerals and micronutrients by eating scallops only. It's a whole animal and mineral rich due to inexhaustibility of ocean water (compared to soil mineral content).

But you still need rice and fish protein for nutritional bulk and flavor.

4[anonymous]
I love scallops, but I've never known someone to eat the whole animal. Unless you collect them yourself, I don't think you even could; I've only ever seen the adductor muscles for sale.
1Alicorn
Are there other foods with this property? I hate scallops. (And shrimp.)
Kevin100

Any citations or links?

"It will not be automatically dismissed, "

I'm more than satisfied with that. And I agree with the rest of your comment. As I said in the article, I think the company is a good idea.

5Zvi
This is a problem with asking practically any question about health, if you have the point of view espoused in your article/website regarding health. Not only will it be the response to any question on nutrition, most questions about other things will get an answer starting with "First, fix your diet!" I know this first hand, since several of my friends have similar points of view. Not that there's anything wrong with that! What you say is a valid hypothesis, and if that is what you believe than that is what you should answer with your own, different kind of research. It will not be automatically dismissed, and if you convince us that you're right, you'll win. I'd be disappointed if no one tried this in some form. Also note that even if everything you think about nutrition is correct, that doesn't mean that you can convince a given patient to follow your advice, so recommendations for the rest of us are still highly useful, and even if modern medicine was hopelessly broken a decision must still be made on what to do.