About will power

"Luna" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder what the scientific process is in the body by which low-carb

increases will power, moral fiber, etc. Maybe there is a will power
section of the brain that remains dormant in the presence of excessive
carbohydrates? ;o)

Yes, carbs activate the same brain chemistry that morphine does.
Fortunately, so does exercise.

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

None Given said:

Yes, carbs activate the same brain chemistry that morphine does.
Fortunately, so does exercise.

And exercise increases the number of dopamine receptors so it can lessen
your addiction response.

"Luna" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder what the scientific process is in the body by which low-carb
increases will power, moral fiber, etc. Maybe there is a will power
section of the brain that remains dormant in the presence of excessive
carbohydrates? ;o)

My theory is this: People who have successfully kicked a bad habit,
dependency or addiction have done so because at some point they have really
faced up to the need to do so and made that decision. Couple of examples:
at one time I was a three pack a day smoker; I knew perfectly well it was
bad for me but I still carried on. Then one day I decided to stop because
somehow the reality penetrated my denial shield. That was twenty something
years ago and I haven't had a cigaret since. Another one: an alcoholic who
was close to me checked herself into rehab because she finally realised that
she was ruining her life. I visited her there and talked to some of the
staff. They said the recidivism rate was about 90% and this corresponded
roughly with the percentage of people who were there not of their own
volition but because they had been sent by the courts or their employer or
their family, but my friend, who had made the decision herself hasn't had a
drink for almost ten years. So I believe that no amount of nagging or
threatening will really help a person to give up eating or drinking too
much, he or she has to come to that conclusion alone. Afterwards, support
is helpful, but without the internal commitment there will be backsliding.
I decided to lose weight almost three years ago after years of denial; low
carb works for me because I found it relatively easy to give up sugar and
starch but I've stuck to it because I have committed for myself, not because
I'm trying to please someone else.

You raise some great questions Luna.

"Willpower" is often used to refer to the illusion that our conscious mind
can assert itself against hunger and the regulatory process that controls
our calorie intake. IMHO that regulatory system, over time, is much more
powerful than "willpower." Some call the regulation an "Appestat."

My guess is that high carbs somehow either imbalance the appestat, or
perhaps cause fat storage to occur without the calories being counted by the
appestat.

Cubit
311/177.9/165

"Luna" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in them.

We must have been weak willed, huh?

And then, interestingly, once we went low-carb, after a week or two
those cravings went away, and all of a sudden we were satiated on a lot
less food, and we started losing weight. And some of us even felt like
we had so much more energy that we started exercising, whereas before we
were just too tired. So, now, since we are eating less and exercising
more, and the only way to do that is through will power, we therefore
must now be stronger willed than before, right?

I wonder what the scientific process is in the body by which low-carb
increases will power, moral fiber, etc. Maybe there is a will power
section of the brain that remains dormant in the presence of excessive
carbohydrates? ;o)

Luna <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in
them.

I have my own thoughts on that. Purely my own.

It seems to me that the wonderful track records associated with vegan
and vegetarian lifestyles is that they have finally gotten things right.
The way nature intended it. (dont get mad yet, I will get to the
low-carbs)

Vegans say, eat no animal and animal by-products. Exercise A LOT. Drink
alot of water. And eat 5 or 6 times a day. Now to me, from my ecology
studies in school, that says "herbivore". It fits the herbivore
lifestyle completely. Herbivores are quite active and eat all day to
support themselves. No problem. Quite natural.

Vegetarians tend to say that fish and fowl are ok. And big on milk,
eggs, cheese, etc. But mostly non-meats. Not quite so big on exercise
unless you are trying to lose weight, just a "normal day" thing like 30
minutes 3x a week. And 3 "normal" meals a day. The basic government
recommendation. And ecologically, omnivore. Which probably (dont shoot
me on this) is what nature meant for man to be.

Now we get to low-carbs. And why I wandered in here. It would seem
logical along that same line that if the vegans (herbivores) and the
vegetarians (omnivores) are getting it right, that the low-carbs should
also IF my assumptions are correct that low-carb diet would be molded
after carnivores. What would that be? Mostly meat and meat by-products.
One meal a day (or even less). Not as much NEED for exercise altho
healthy and quite capable of it. At other times than the one meal there
would be roughage (which many carnivores get by eating more than just the
meat of a creature) and water.

And now why I decided to tag this onto your post.

Quoted message said:

A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in
them.

We must have been weak willed, huh?

And then, interestingly, once we went low-carb, after a week or two
those cravings went away, and all of a sudden we were satiated on a
lot less food, and we started losing weight. And some of us even felt
like we had so much more energy that we started exercising, whereas
before we were just too tired. So, now, since we are eating less and
exercising more, and the only way to do that is through will power, we
therefore must now be stronger willed than before, right?

Do you see how my thoughts fit along the lines of what you brought up? A
high carb diet must eat all day because (as any biologist, zoologist,
ecologist would tell you) its a less efficient food source. And they must
move all day to balance it out properly. A carnivore is getting the
results of that activity in a more effecient processed package.

Anyway, my thoughts about why some people DONT get low-carb diets to work
is... unlike the vegan diet which says 5-6 meals, and the vegetarian
which recommends 3, it would seem to me that low-carb 3x a day might not
work as well as it could. Personally, Ive been quite happy with one high-
protein meal a day and my doctors have no complaints about my health. Im
not losing any weight but then Im not trying to either.

Granted, Im not any kindof expert nor do I wish to be. It just seemed
worth getting a reponse on.

Gandalf Parker
-- 20 years in the military. No weight, no hair, no beard, no fun.
Then I retired and made up for all that. >🙂

Perdu <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

It's all social. We had lost our way. Some of us are finding this out
consciously or not, and making our way back to nature and finding a
balance between social circumstances and natural body management.

Ummmm ok. But Im not sure if you meant all that to be in support or in
disagreement with what I said. I understand the social thing. My theory is
that it would be very difficult to come up with a healthy lifestyle which
does not mesh with a one developed by nature ovver such huge periods of
time.

Gandalf Parker
-- If I knew more about the subject I could charge more for my answers.
What do I charge now? Oh this was offered for free.

"Gandalf Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now we get to low-carbs. And why I wandered in here. It would seem
logical along that same line that if the vegans (herbivores) and the
vegetarians (omnivores) are getting it right, that the low-carbs should
also IF my assumptions are correct that low-carb diet would be molded
after carnivores. What would that be? Mostly meat and meat by-products.

Huh? I'm eating more veggies than ever before.

Quoted message said:

One meal a day (or even less). Not as much NEED for exercise altho
healthy and quite capable of it.

And 4 meals a day, plus 1-2 hours of exercise daily.

Your low-carb model doesn't work for me.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/<6 Weight 95/76/72Kg
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004

Anthony said:

My theory is this: People who have successfully kicked a bad habit,
dependency or addiction have done so because at some point they have really
faced up to the need to do so and made that decision.

What makes food more difficult is that you must eat. With the
environment around us always tempting it's amazing people with a genetic
bias towards obesity aren't all obese. Though i guess we are getting
pretty close to that in the near future.

Perdu said:

It's all social.
We had lost our way. Some of us are finding this out
consciously or not, and making our way back to nature and finding a balance
between social circumstances and natural body management.

This natural eater line is just that, a line. Your body naturally eats
with abandon and has always counted on exercise to balance it out.
That's what going back to nature really means.

"Nicky" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3ci81aF6ollt3U1
@individual.net:

Quoted message said:

"Gandalf Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now we get to low-carbs. And why I wandered in here. It would seem
logical along that same line that if the vegans (herbivores) and the
vegetarians (omnivores) are getting it right, that the low-carbs should
also IF my assumptions are correct that low-carb diet would be molded
after carnivores. What would that be? Mostly meat and meat by-products.

Huh? I'm eating more veggies than ever before.

Quoted message said:

One meal a day (or even less). Not as much NEED for exercise altho
healthy and quite capable of it.

And 4 meals a day, plus 1-2 hours of exercise daily.

Your low-carb model doesn't work for me.

That would make sense. A lot of veggies, more meals, and exercise.
Especially if you are seeking to lose weight.

Gandalf Parker

Stacey Bender <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Perdu said:

It's all social.
We had lost our way. Some of us are finding this out
consciously or not, and making our way back to nature and finding a
balance between social circumstances and natural body management.

This natural eater line is just that, a line. Your body naturally eats
with abandon and has always counted on exercise to balance it out.
That's what going back to nature really means.

But how much? A natural picture would seem to say that more plant-life in
the diet goes hand in hand with more exercise. A more meat diet would seem
to be healthy with not so much exercise, unless trying to lose weight.

Gandalf Parker

Gandalf Parker said:

Quoted message said:

This natural eater line is just that, a line. Your body naturally eats
with abandon and has always counted on exercise to balance it out.
That's what going back to nature really means.

But how much? A natural picture would seem to say that more plant-life in
the diet goes hand in hand with more exercise. A more meat diet would seem
to be healthy with not so much exercise, unless trying to lose weight.

I am not sure how they go hand in hand. Do you mean in a hunter-gather
context?

A good paper on that is http://tinyurl.com/avrtv

Human eating behaviour in an evolutionary ecological context

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:59:47 GMT, Luna <[email hidden]> wrote:

=>A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
=>eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
=>again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in them.

It is an another myth that high carb causes weight gain and all kind of
diseases.
Look at people in the third world poor countries, they can only afford high
carb food. Do they look overweight to anyone?

It is high carb and fat cause weight gain.

Another myth is high fat causes weight gain and disease.

Atkins low carb dieters prove it wrong.

It is high carb and fat cause weight gain.

=>
=>We must have been weak willed, huh?
=>
=>And then, interestingly, once we went low-carb, after a week or two
=>those cravings went away, and all of a sudden we were satiated on a lot
=>less food, and we started losing weight. And some of us even felt like
=>we had so much more energy that we started exercising, whereas before we
=>were just too tired. So, now, since we are eating less and exercising
=>more, and the only way to do that is through will power, we therefore
=>must now be stronger willed than before, right?
=>
=>I wonder what the scientific process is in the body by which low-carb
=>increases will power, moral fiber, etc. Maybe there is a will power
=>section of the brain that remains dormant in the presence of excessive
=>carbohydrates? ;o)

See no evil, hear no evil, smell no evil, -> less tempting to eat evil.

Luna said:

A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in them.

We must have been weak willed, huh?

And then, interestingly, once we went low-carb, after a week or two
those cravings went away, and all of a sudden we were satiated on a lot
less food, and we started losing weight. And some of us even felt like
we had so much more energy that we started exercising, whereas before we
were just too tired. So, now, since we are eating less and exercising
more, and the only way to do that is through will power, we therefore
must now be stronger willed than before, right?

I wonder what the scientific process is in the body by which low-carb
increases will power, moral fiber, etc. Maybe there is a will power
section of the brain that remains dormant in the presence of excessive
carbohydrates? ;o)

For me it's not about strong willed, it's about picking up skill I have
somehow forgotten. I can still overeat on low carb unless I eat lots of
veg. With low carb I re-learn how a reasonable portion looks like. I
also started to exercise.

I started low carb again, when my father had a stroke.
It is really painful to the whole family. I have no control over my father,
but I have full control of my son's father.

We all know what we should do and should have done, the problem is the will of
execution.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:37:22 -0400, "Anthony" <[email hidden]> wrote:

=>
=>"Luna" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
=>news:[email hidden]...
=>>
=>> I wonder what the scientific process is in the body by which low-carb
=>> increases will power, moral fiber, etc. Maybe there is a will power
=>> section of the brain that remains dormant in the presence of excessive
=>> carbohydrates? ;o)
=>
=>My theory is this: People who have successfully kicked a bad habit,
=>dependency or addiction have done so because at some point they have really
=>faced up to the need to do so and made that decision. Couple of examples:
=>at one time I was a three pack a day smoker; I knew perfectly well it was
=>bad for me but I still carried on. Then one day I decided to stop because
=>somehow the reality penetrated my denial shield. That was twenty something
=>years ago and I haven't had a cigaret since. Another one: an alcoholic who
=>was close to me checked herself into rehab because she finally realised that
=>she was ruining her life. I visited her there and talked to some of the
=>staff. They said the recidivism rate was about 90% and this corresponded
=>roughly with the percentage of people who were there not of their own
=>volition but because they had been sent by the courts or their employer or
=>their family, but my friend, who had made the decision herself hasn't had a
=>drink for almost ten years. So I believe that no amount of nagging or
=>threatening will really help a person to give up eating or drinking too
=>much, he or she has to come to that conclusion alone. Afterwards, support
=>is helpful, but without the internal commitment there will be backsliding.
=>I decided to lose weight almost three years ago after years of denial; low
=>carb works for me because I found it relatively easy to give up sugar and
=>starch but I've stuck to it because I have committed for myself, not because
=>I'm trying to please someone else.
=>

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:59:44 GMT, Gandalf Parker
<[email hidden]> wrote:

=>Luna <[email hidden]> wrote in
=>news:[email hidden]:
=>
=>> A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
=>> eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
=>> again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in
=>> them.
=>
=>I have my own thoughts on that. Purely my own.
=>
=>It seems to me that the wonderful track records associated with vegan
=>and vegetarian lifestyles is that they have finally gotten things right.
=>The way nature intended it. (dont get mad yet, I will get to the
=>low-carbs)

It is because you have not seen FAT buddhist Monks yet.
Trust me, Carb + Fat will make people fat whether you are Vegans, Vegetarians
or not.

=>
=>Vegans say, eat no animal and animal by-products. Exercise A LOT. Drink
=>alot of water. And eat 5 or 6 times a day. Now to me, from my ecology
=>studies in school, that says "herbivore". It fits the herbivore
=>lifestyle completely. Herbivores are quite active and eat all day to
=>support themselves. No problem. Quite natural.

There are lots of FAT Herbivores.

=>
=>Vegetarians tend to say that fish and fowl are ok. And big on milk,
=>eggs, cheese, etc. But mostly non-meats. Not quite so big on exercise
=>unless you are trying to lose weight, just a "normal day" thing like 30
=>minutes 3x a week. And 3 "normal" meals a day. The basic government
=>recommendation. And ecologically, omnivore. Which probably (dont shoot
=>me on this) is what nature meant for man to be.

Your version of Vegetarians? The Vegetarians I know of, eat plants or plant
derived foods only.

=>
=>Now we get to low-carbs. And why I wandered in here. It would seem
=>logical along that same line that if the vegans (herbivores) and the
=>vegetarians (omnivores) are getting it right, that the low-carbs should
=>also IF my assumptions are correct that low-carb diet would be molded
=>after carnivores. What would that be? Mostly meat and meat by-products.
=>One meal a day (or even less). Not as much NEED for exercise altho
=>healthy and quite capable of it. At other times than the one meal there
=>would be roughage (which many carnivores get by eating more than just the
=>meat of a creature) and water.

We are neither herbivores nor carnivores. We are opportunists and
survior-nists. We change our mind all the time in order to survive. We are
flexible in order to cope with the change of environment.

If someday, low carb proved to be bad, we change our meal plans again.

=>
=>And now why I decided to tag this onto your post.
=>
=>> A lot of people here used to eat high-carb meals, and keep eating and
=>> eating, never feeling full. We'd eat and then an hour later be hungry
=>> again, even though our bodies had more than enough fuel already in
=>> them.
=>>
=>> We must have been weak willed, huh?
=>>
=>> And then, interestingly, once we went low-carb, after a week or two
=>> those cravings went away, and all of a sudden we were satiated on a
=>> lot less food, and we started losing weight. And some of us even felt
=>> like we had so much more energy that we started exercising, whereas
=>> before we were just too tired. So, now, since we are eating less and
=>> exercising more, and the only way to do that is through will power, we
=>> therefore must now be stronger willed than before, right?
=>
=>Do you see how my thoughts fit along the lines of what you brought up? A
=>high carb diet must eat all day because (as any biologist, zoologist,
=>ecologist would tell you) its a less efficient food source. And they must
=>move all day to balance it out properly. A carnivore is getting the
=>results of that activity in a more effecient processed package.

Some carbs are high efficient, but has less calories than fat.
Carb is not less efficient than other type of foods. Carb has less calories
than fat has.

=>
=>Anyway, my thoughts about why some people DONT get low-carb diets to work
=>is... unlike the vegan diet which says 5-6 meals, and the vegetarian
=>which recommends 3, it would seem to me that low-carb 3x a day might not
=>work as well as it could. Personally, Ive been quite happy with one high-
=>protein meal a day and my doctors have no complaints about my health. Im
=>not losing any weight but then Im not trying to either.
=>
=>Granted, Im not any kindof expert nor do I wish to be. It just seemed
=>worth getting a reponse on.
=>
=>Gandalf Parker
=>-- 20 years in the military. No weight, no hair, no beard, no fun.
=>Then I retired and made up for all that. >🙂

Stacey Bender <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Gandalf Parker said:

Quoted message said:

This natural eater line is just that, a line. Your body naturally
eats with abandon and has always counted on exercise to balance it
out. That's what going back to nature really means.

But how much? A natural picture would seem to say that more
plant-life in the diet goes hand in hand with more exercise. A more
meat diet would seem to be healthy with not so much exercise, unless
trying to lose weight.

I am not sure how they go hand in hand. Do you mean in a hunter-gather
context?

No I was shooting for something farther back than that. Hunter-gatherer
was also a human construct which worked out but does not necessarily mean
that it was inline with the physical design of their bodies.

I dont consider any of the present dieting plans to be "natural" in that
regard. But if the vegan lifestyle works, I feel its because they have
stumbled onto the general rules about the whys and wherefores of
herbivores. If the vegetarian lifestyle works then I feel its because
they have stumbled into the omnivorean rules. Along the same lines,
looking at a high protein diet might benefit from expanding the view to
the whys and wherefors that zoologists consider makes a carnivore work
well. Not just what they eat but why, and their exercise levels and why,
and their sleep levels and why.

One of the errors that I feel is pointed out by this theory is that the
"gluttony" people keep pointing at in others looks to me as a carnivore
who is eating 3 or more meals a day. Its not so much the diet as mixing
and matching it with pieces of lifestyle from the other categories.

Gandalf Parker

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:37:09 GMT, Perdu <[email hidden]>
wrote:

=>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:59:44 GMT, Gandalf Parker
=><[email hidden]> said :
=>
=>> Vegetarians tend to say that fish and fowl are ok. And big on milk,
=>> eggs, cheese, etc. But mostly non-meats. Not quite so big on exercise
=>> unless you are trying to lose weight, just a "normal day" thing like 30
=>> minutes 3x a week. And 3 "normal" meals a day. The basic government
=>> recommendation. And ecologically, omnivore. Which probably (dont shoot
=>> me on this) is what nature meant for man to be.
=>
=> snipped parts..
=>
=> In my opinion, what nature intended for us to be is very debatable. And
=>it is being debated even here. Let alone around the world and at
=>Universities and in publications of a million sorts.

What genes intend us to do is "reproduce" and have as many (genes)offsprings
as possible. If nature contradicts with gene, either gene suffers or nature
suffers.

=>
=> What my addition to this debate is that our predicament and lifestyle
=>is purely social by creation and not natural. If we would be doing what
=>nature originally intended for us, we'd still live in the wild. Not
=>changing for millions of years. Like sharks. Or insects.

Genes choose to live in the wild disappeared in the long run.
Genes choose to live in corporation have more chance to beat the odds.

=>
=> We had changed. We have socially evolved. And the word "evolve" is not
=>necessarily a better than before issue. We had evolved socially and had
=>changed. we no longer need to hunt our food. We buy it in the grocery
=>store. We spend no calories getting it. And instead of food being more
=>scarce now that we do not need as much, it is the opposite. Much more
=>available. Add to that designed foods like chips and bread and sugar and
=>processing of even meats.

Genes do not evolve. Genes mutate and crossover to create variety.
Genes wants to survive in maximum possibility, mathematically.

=>
=> It's all social. We had lost our way. Some of us are finding this out
=>consciously or not, and making our way back to nature and finding a balance
=>between social circumstances and natural body management.

Genes want to survive and spread.

Moon Shooter <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:59:44 GMT, Gandalf Parker
<[email hidden]> wrote:

=>It seems to me that the wonderful track records associated with
vegan =>and vegetarian lifestyles is that they have finally gotten
things right. =>The way nature intended it. (dont get mad yet, I will
get to the =>low-carbs)

It is because you have not seen FAT buddhist Monks yet.
Trust me, Carb + Fat will make people fat whether you are Vegans,
Vegetarians or not.

But most of those buddhist monks are not high on the exercise thing. It
would in fact fit with the theory that diet alone is not going to work
without the other factors that would naturally go with that lifestyle.

Quoted message said:

=>Vegans say, eat no animal and animal by-products. Exercise A LOT.
Drink =>alot of water. And eat 5 or 6 times a day. Now to me, from my
ecology =>studies in school, that says "herbivore". It fits the
herbivore =>lifestyle completely. Herbivores are quite active and eat
all day to =>support themselves. No problem. Quite natural.

There are lots of FAT Herbivores.

I have no problem with fat. However there are no unhealthy herbivores.
Hippos for example are high herbivore and low exercise. They are what
many people would consider to be a fat herbivore. However they also share
the #1 most dangerous animal slot in their part of the world (with
alligators). They are not considered unhealthy.

Quoted message said:

=>Vegetarians tend to say that fish and fowl are ok. And big on milk,
=>eggs, cheese, etc. But mostly non-meats. Not quite so big on
exercise =>unless you are trying to lose weight, just a "normal day"
thing like 30 =>minutes 3x a week. And 3 "normal" meals a day. The
basic government =>recommendation. And ecologically, omnivore. Which
probably (dont shoot =>me on this) is what nature meant for man to be.

Your version of Vegetarians? The Vegetarians I know of, eat plants or
plant derived foods only.

Im sorry. That was explained to me as the difference between a vegetarian
and a vegan. That Vegetarians allow a certain amount of fish/fowl/dairy.

Quoted message said:

=>>We are neither herbivores nor carnivores. We are opportunists and
survior-nists. We change our mind all the time in order to survive. We
are flexible in order to cope with the change of environment.

Agreed. We are now. Personally Im all for enjoying all food since it
would appear that we are at the peak of that "technology" and its all
downhill from here. It wasnt so much our choice of diets now as it was a
possible logic for what different people say will or will not work.

Quoted message said:

=>Do you see how my thoughts fit along the lines of what you brought
up? A =>high carb diet must eat all day because (as any biologist,
zoologist, =>ecologist would tell you) its a less efficient food
source. And they must =>move all day to balance it out properly. A
carnivore is getting the =>results of that activity in a more
effecient processed package.

Some carbs are high efficient, but has less calories than fat.
Carb is not less efficient than other type of foods. Carb has less
calories than fat has.

Suitable replacement foods are of course available. But in general a
scientist would say that an herbivore gets more exercise than a
carnivore, because it has to eat all day to sustain itself. In the vegan
diets that gets converted to "eat 4-6 times a day and get alot of
exercise" which seems to create their wonderful claims that it works so
well for them. All Im saying is that a carnivore which did that, would
not fair so well. But carnivores do well if their natural intake is
matched with the meal frequency, exercise, and a sleep that is associated
with carnivores

Gandalf Parker