Pork is tricky; when done right it shouldn't be chewy, but tender. At least you didn't over-cook it though. Nothing worse than a chalk-center pork chop overcooked because the restaurant is worried about trichinosis.
Throughout this document I’ve referred to my vitamin A elimination diet. This was really just started as a very long-shot type of experiment, with the only goal of maybe reducing my eczema condition. Have you ever heard of a person adopting a vitamin A elimination diet? Or a person with an autoimmune disease adopting such a diet? I’ve documented this diet, and my experiment with it, over on my eczema posting. The short version is shown below.
My vitamin A elimination diet:
White or Brown Rice ( not yellow or golden! )
Beef ( steak, roast, no sauces, or spices other than salt and black pepper if wanted)
Olive Oil ( 2 teaspoons per day )
Black Coffee if wanted ( no milk, no cream, no whiteners )
Vitamin C supplements ( recommended )
Cashews ( 5-10 per day, recommended)
NOTHING COOKED WITH BUTTER or COCONUT OIL. No sauces, no ketchup etc!
This is 3 meals a day, 7 days per week. Eat as much as you need to; but more is not better.
That’s it! Absolutely nothing else! No fish, fish oil, no fruits or vegetables. No cod liver oil, no omega 3/6 etc. from fish sources. No multivitamins, No coconut oil. NOTHING, Absolutely NOTHING else!. Not a single bite, not a speck, not a crumb of anything else. Yes, this is extreme. Admittedly maybe too extreme. However, until we get to the bottom of it; take no chances. If someone knows of a more sensible, and safe means of detoxing off this; I am all ears. Just to be clear, the maximum extent of my medical knowledge is putting on band aids. So, please apply your own good judgment to this.
But, here’s the kicker in all of this. Let’s just say for argument sake that I am completely, and totally wrong about this theory of subclinical toxicity of retinol buildup. Let’s say it is something else that I’ve removed from my diet; like sugar, or gluten. Let’s say that Vitamin A has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Flippantly, I might say who cares what it is?
What I do know with 100% certainty, that by adopting this diet I eliminated chronic fatigue and inflammation on my brain. I eliminated brain fog. Does anyone think that sustained inflammation on the brain is a good thing? We are not talking about resolving a case of foot fungus here.
I eliminated the inflammation on my brain in 3 weeks with a diet change. It is a completely harmless, and simple diet change that anyone should feel comfortable trying for say at least 4 – 8 weeks.
you can grow it in volume and store it in volume and have a large sedentary population fed with it. Grains are a form of social evolution, not a form of individual evolution.
The carnivore diet is unnatural (for most of us here).
The carnivore diet is unnatural (for most of us here).
Are you of European, middle eastern, north Asian, or Indian decent? If so, your ancestors have been surviving off grain-based diets for thousands of years. Our digestive systems are meant for it. Compare this to people who never developed agriculture. They become obese when they eat grain.
Civilized man is not meant to sustain off of meat /animal products alone.
This is incorrect. The couple thousand years since the invention of agriculture pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of years our ancestors spent eating meat. The distance between now and the invention of agriculture is a metaphorical blink of an eye in evolutionary time.
Our ancient ancestors probably ate plenty of plants and fungi as well, so humans might not be entirely or specifically adapted to a diet solely composed of animal foods, but their diet was almost certainly MOSTLY animals.
Humans have continued to evolve since the agricultural revolution, and you're correct that if your ancestors adapted to a certain type of diet that you're more likely to do well eating it (e.g. more Dutch on average can digest lactose than, say, the Japanese). But to insist the last few thousand years alone shaped and defined human dietary evolution is to truly miss the bigger picture here. Zoom out.
It is a theory that we had ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is also a theory of what they ate and how they lived. It's fine if you believe those theories, but they are not facts.This is incorrect. The couple thousand years since the invention of agriculture pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of years our ancestors spent eating meat.
What did the ancent greeks eat? And the romans? And the medieval folks? grain.Egyptians, one of the first to adopt agriculture, had heart disease. I think this development was a step backwards, like TicTok or OnlyFans.
First, I’ve already done that (thanks to what white people have taught me, since you want to bring race into it).What did the ancent greeks eat? And the romans? And the medieval folks? grain.
If your username is accurate, you should consider ditching this white trait of grain, and return to a diet more suited to your hunter-gather African roots.
It is a theory that we had ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is also a theory of what they ate and how they lived. It's fine if you believe those theories, but they are not facts.
It is a secular viewpoint that we "developed" agriculture and "evolved" from the ape man to current man.
Entirely false. I wrote this article when I was beginning to doubt evolution:Roosh, what's your stance on evolution - "false" or "mostly false"? Subtle changes over generations through selective breeding, such as in dogs and agriculture, seems to obviously be true, but that doesn't exactly prove a shrew can turn into a human given enough time.