3

votes

Can I thrive indefinitely on a rice and scallops only diet?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created September 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I have taken elimination diet to the extreme, out of necessity.

My current plan is white rice and scallops and water, and literally nothing else.

The aquatic ape theory and my self-experiments suggest that this is indefinitely sustainable. I'm curious what prevailing paleo wisdom says.

My self-experiments strongly indicate that scallops produce the highest vitality scores, while white rice is innocuous and carbs are crucial to sustaining the diet, in terms of craving and flavor and comfort and occasional logistical problems with making scallops when hungry at odd times.

I found a way to make scallops palatable, by cooking them in their own juice in a nonstick frying pan and stirring/shredding till crispy. The result is quite tasty when placed in a risotto. The reason I haven't gone pure scallops/rice earlier is I was boiling the scallops which resulted in a tasteless unappatizing meat that I could not adhere to eating daily.

I eliminated fish because it led to a temptation for excess fat consumption for flavor, and I can't deal with fat, because it gives me IBS-D. Other intolerances include fructose, lactose, vegetable fiber, processed foods, etc.

So, I plan to extend the scallops and white rice diet indefinitely.

Is it possible? Will I thrive? Make your predictions and let's falsify based on the results. I'm predicting yes, I will thrive and not develop cravings leading to a cheat.

Thriving is defined as: 1. Reasonable sleep needs 2. High energy throughout the day 3. Acne remission 4. High libido 5. High athletic performance 6. High work ethic 7. High mental performance

By the way, white rice purchased in restaurants is NOT pure - they add stuff to it, as I found out the hard way.

UPDATE

Day 0: Ate nothing but scallops and rice. Played heavy soccer. Suffered from previous fat infraction, IBS-D typical effects.

Day 1: Weird mixture of fatigue and high energy. Not sure if I'm recovering or getting into a new kind of trouble. I'll give it to day 3 and if no improvement call it a failure. Likely causes of potential failure - overcooking scallops or insufficient meat intake.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 19, 2011
at 10:29 AM

Anyone can convince themselves they are thriving untill they run into serious health consequences which happens with nutritionally restrictive diets. You probably won't last too long till severe cravings kick in.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 19, 2011
at 10:25 AM

Maybe you won't get scurvy but I'm sure nothing good can come from getting ~0% vit A

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:49 AM

no before bloodwork, maybe after if there's sufficient interest. it's not like this is a radical shift from my current diet; i'm just eliminating the remaining fat source. yes normally it would only prove that it works for me, however if a lot of people make falsifiable predictions this tells us something about the quality of their models.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:47 AM

interesting, so you're implying at some point it will become unsustainable but there will be a honey moon period?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:46 AM

fair enough, but i obviously won't extend the test if it's going poorly, so a shorter timeframe is implied for confirming or disconfirming. if you're saying negative effects won't show up until the one year mark, that's a far stronger endorsement than others are making. i'm looking for 1 month mark predictions. as for my attitude, walk a mile in my guts and see if your perspective doesn't change.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:40 AM

As for why I asked the question, there are two possibilities. 1. I am wrong. In this case, I've learned the worst case scenarios and can recognize the signs early and take appropriate corrections. 2. I am right. In this case the consensus will have a hard time ignoring the results since they made falsifiable predictions, which may help other sufferers being given bad advice, and generally advance the state of paleo knowledge. So I am surely in the right place.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:39 AM

Because you're not comfortable with pointed disagreement, Patrik? Melissa, I listed 7 objective criteria by which all of my previous diets have failed, the chances are that this one will fail as well. "Developing standards" is not science, running experiments is. If the test is successful then you can revise your micronutrient standards. The test is not for longevity, it is for quality of life. A similar test for rats would measure fertility, activity level, stress level, disease level, intelligence, etc.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:29 AM

Travis, I'm going to put you out of your misery on the scurvy issue right now: http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm Let's all remember the value of consensus when we count the votes for your scurvy warning.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:26 AM

I find it amusing that the paleo community is already so susceptible to credentialism and the fallacy of consensus. Melissa, it does not matter how "many" you've got, the mainstream consensus does not take paleo seriously as you very well know, which was my initial statement. Evolutionary anthropologists are not scientists because they do not use the scientific method, and the entire field is speculative fiction. Why anyone would bow down to their current papal bull is beyond me. One might as well accept post modernist readings because most lit phds swing that way.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on September 19, 2011
at 04:08 AM

The aquatic ape theory (we're talking about that hack Elaine Morgan here, right?) is absolute nonsense, and trying to liken opinions on it to academic opinions about nutrition is totally ridiculous. Apples and oranges, to say the least.

93ae9f2d376e5426e891a9b58d8302fa

(2936)

on September 19, 2011
at 03:24 AM

No no, I'm talkin' specifically, the theory that once we had attained bipedality, we were the masters of the midday savanna sun, able to run down all the prey because they suffered heat exhaustion from having horizontal postures, absorbing too much solar radiation. It explains durn near everything. Lakeshore life is just a sideshow. I'm interested in the main storyline. Doesn't anybody know what I'm talkin' about. I want a name for it, and a weblink would be great. Is this more arcane than I thought?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 19, 2011
at 03:05 AM

Check out Human Brain Evolution: The Influence of Freshwater and Marine Food Resources by Stephen C. Cunnane.I've blogged some of the papers from this book, it's very interesting. It's $$$$ but you can prob get it from interlibrary loan. Of course they weren't just eating scallops though, ancient Paleolithic hominids who lived by the water ate highly diverse diets of sedges, roots, insects, amphibians, fruits, nuts, rodents, water mammals, and shellfish. That is a diet most could be healthy on.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 19, 2011
at 03:02 AM

Falsifiable? May the ghosts of a million sailors haunt your dreams.

93ae9f2d376e5426e891a9b58d8302fa

(2936)

on September 19, 2011
at 02:44 AM

BTW, does anyone have a weblink to a good concise summation of the current upright-ape-in-the-midday-sun theory of hominid genesis? I really like that theory, but I don't even know what to call it. Maybe, "Thermodynamics rule, Dude!" Y'know, there is a little room for aquatic influence before the savanna sun played such a predominant role. I mean, wasn't there a swamp critter ape that showed the first stirrings of bipedality?  Never should have cancelled my subscription to Science News.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on September 19, 2011
at 01:44 AM

I concur. In fact I want to hear from those who do not.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:27 AM

@Joseph -- I know you are all fired up on falsification (and that I applaud) but this is a really low-quality hypothesis you are testing. Plus, your general attitude doesn't come off to super-duper....

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:25 AM

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaann -- why do I have the feeling that Joseph is gonna end up being deleted from PaleoHacks..................................

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:21 AM

@Joseph -- [*facepalm] YOU are the one who defined the time-frame as "indefinite" in the title of your question - "Can I thrive indefinitely on a rice and scallops only diet?"

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 18, 2011
at 11:19 PM

Thanks for deleting my comments, Melissa. Great use of moderation powers. There was no misinterpretation at all, which is why you had to edit your post. I still say a chill pill is in order for you. :-)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 11:10 PM

kilton you misinterpreted me, but I clarified in the edit

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:50 PM

"ANOTHER 'question' where someone asks 'Here is the diet I'm convinced is the best diet in the world, tell me how much you agree with it.'"

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 10:48 PM

Joseph, the paleo diet is taken seriously by many PhD nutritionists and anthropologists!

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 10:47 PM

Kilton, I don't know what you are talking about, I never accused him of that. There is no way to "falsify" the diet in the way he's putting up. Nutrition science doesn't work that way. You don't have some rats eating a scallop rice diet and see how long you live, you develop standards for specific micronutrients, a standard this diet does not meet.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 10:45 PM

Then Joseph, why did you ask this "question"? Maybe this is not the right place for you.

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:45 PM

Chill out Melissa. He makes no claim whatsoever about his proposed diet being the best.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:40 PM

As for my attitude, I'm glad to turn off people who "really want to discuss things" on this particular thread. I've suffered enough from bad advice to last a lifetime. If someone doesn't have a falsifiable prediction with which I can verify his model's accuracy, then he should talk to someone else. As stated in the question I cannot eat fruit. I don't share your rice calorie problem since I've been on a meat and rice diet for months and sustained normal muscle mass.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:33 PM

I don't think you read the "question" or you wouldn't be asking how I cook the scallops. This is an experiment with a falsifiable hypothesis, not an advertisement. Of course I think it's the best diet FOR ME, otherwise I would do something else. I've gathered useful info on what to watch for if it turns out I'm disastrously wrong, as I've been many times in the past. I've had no problem admitting prior failures, that's how I got down to such a limited menu. It is not orthorexia - if I fail to find a suitable diet my quality of life and capacity to work will be severely impaired.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:31 PM

Just to chime in about calories and seafood: I did a brief experiment -- cut short because I felt like crap -- where I ditched red meat and ate only poultry and seafood (being ZC, there were no starches or veggies involved). I had no idea why I felt crappy until after the experiment, when I decided to plug in my daily menu just to see if I'd been short on any nutrients. Nutrients hell; it turned out I was eating around 900 cals/day, down from my usual 1600-1800. I had no idea I was eating so short, as I felt pretty full.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:28 PM

Travis, thanks for the falsifiable prediction. Trust me I'll stop at energy loss long before my gums start bleeding, much less losing teeth.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:27 PM

For that matter, the paleo diet is not taken seriously.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 09:56 PM

The aquatic ape theory is not taken seriously, but there are some anthropologists and scientists who are proponents of the shoreline theory

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:31 PM

then you have no falsifiable prediction to make about this experiment? That doesn't signal much confidence in your dietary model.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:30 PM

however it does mean that the people who said this diet would produce scurvy are wrong. which is already known if they'd read the literature.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:29 PM

the reason I am focused on falsification rather than confirmation is that confirming something is nigh impossible due to potential confounding variables, but falsifying is easy.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:28 PM

I don't view falsification as antagonistic. I think it's a useful way to advance knowledge. If someone's not willing to make a prediction and expose themselves to potentially being wrong, they shouldn't be giving advice. I am impatient with certain aspects of paleo dogma certainly that have prolonged my search for a cure with bad advice. As for the reason I'm doing it, it is for my benefit and no other reason. You are correct to cite the stefansson example. If I thrive on this against all expectations, then that will challenge paleo notions and lead to a stronger synthesis.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:27 PM

First off, you will get scurvy since 1) you're starting out with tiny amounts of vitamin C in raw scallops, 2) freezing causes a significant decline in vitamin C and 3) vitamin C degrades significantly in the presence of heat, which is excessive with your cooking process. 1/4lb of liver a week isn't too fatty for you unless you're missing a gall bladder, and even then it'd be worth eating. I will gain zero satisfaction if your teeth fall out, but perhaps you could create a thread here that stresses the importance of vitamin C (and dangers of recalcitrance) when it does happen.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:24 PM

they keep it going with careful substitution for the nutritional elements in meat, or lack high performance. I will be playing soccer regularly and not using any supplementation.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:02 PM

Just because you don't have scurvy doesn't mean you're getting enough vitamin c for optimal functioning.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:44 PM

not really......

7767e05a8c4504f6be03f13ee40815cd

(1299)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:20 PM

Plenty of low-fat vegans can keep it going for years, but I think we would agree that is suboptimal.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:05 PM

ok, the definition of thriving is set, will let you know.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:04 PM

yes I am, and will be doing so throughout the duration. so that's another thing we can falsify.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:04 PM

oh come on, set a reasonable time frame. You're just dodging falsification. Normally on suboptimal diets energy effects show up after a week and are unsustainable after a month.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:03 PM

so if I thrive on this diet that would falsify your model of human nutrition? Or even if I simply don't get scurvy. It's very interesting to me that the paleo community is against the one thing that appears to be an effective cure.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:02 PM

so if I thrive on this diet that would falsify your model of human nutrition?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:01 PM

I believe the packages are 300-400 grams frozen, which includes water, and I'll probably eat 2-3 per day with rice. In meat weight it's well below a couple of pounds. I find the daily values to be deceptive because the key is bioavailability of the source. In fact I find them to be meaningless except as suggestive diagnostics. I will not get scurvy, as fresh meat is a cure for scurvy. I've gone the insufficient enjoyment route and believe me the flavor and comfort is there with this diet. I believe liver is too fatty for me. If my teeth start falling out I'll let you know you were right

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:56 PM

Yes they do Huey. It has to do with the following: shellfish are easily available shoreline food to hunter gatherers, and rice and other carbs are naturally occurring wetlands foods.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:44 PM

Didn't notice that the first time through; can't really thrive doing that.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:18 PM

I'd love to know what aquatic ape theory has to do with only eating scallops & rice.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:05 PM

i had similar thoughts when reading.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:58 PM

According to the USDA database, assuming he eats a couple pounds of scallops a day, he'll get plenty of all of the minerals. Retinol and b2 would be somewhat low, though. He'd get a fair amount of choline as well. This is definitely not an ideal diet, but sadly he'd probably have less severe deficiencies than most people

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:57 PM

According to the USDA database, assuming he eats a couple pounds of scallops a day, he'll get plenty of all of the minerals. Retinol and b2 would be somewhat low, though. He'd get a fair amount of choline as well. This is definitely not an ideal diet, but sadly he'd probably be have less severe deficiencies than most people.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:34 PM

"you'll get most other vitamins and minerals in sufficient amounts" Not really the combo is almost completely devoid of vit A, folate, calcium and is extremly low in b2, potassium, magnesium, zinc and choline. Its not a complete diet at all.

93ae9f2d376e5426e891a9b58d8302fa

(2936)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:27 PM

I was not aware that anybody still took the aquatic ape seriously.

  • 77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

    asked by

    (78467)
  • Views
    4.6K
  • Last Activity
    1286D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

12 Answers

10
Medium avatar

on September 18, 2011
at 06:27 PM

Well, you're looking down the barrel of a case of scurvy, but other than that, you'll get most other vitamins and minerals in sufficient amounts, assuming you eat enough food in general. One thing you may also become deficient in is enjoyment, but that's only conditionally essential.

Edit: If you really want to thrive, you should add at least 1/4 pound of ruminant liver per week to this protocol. You don't seem to have an aversion to disgusting food, so I don't see a potential problem. None of the problems you're addressing with this elimination diet should be negatively impacted with liver.

You still have the issue of vitamins C and D (if you are at a high latitude) but those could be easily addressed.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:28 PM

Travis, thanks for the falsifiable prediction. Trust me I'll stop at energy loss long before my gums start bleeding, much less losing teeth.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:58 PM

According to the USDA database, assuming he eats a couple pounds of scallops a day, he'll get plenty of all of the minerals. Retinol and b2 would be somewhat low, though. He'd get a fair amount of choline as well. This is definitely not an ideal diet, but sadly he'd probably have less severe deficiencies than most people

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 19, 2011
at 03:02 AM

Falsifiable? May the ghosts of a million sailors haunt your dreams.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:57 PM

According to the USDA database, assuming he eats a couple pounds of scallops a day, he'll get plenty of all of the minerals. Retinol and b2 would be somewhat low, though. He'd get a fair amount of choline as well. This is definitely not an ideal diet, but sadly he'd probably be have less severe deficiencies than most people.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 19, 2011
at 10:25 AM

Maybe you won't get scurvy but I'm sure nothing good can come from getting ~0% vit A

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:34 PM

"you'll get most other vitamins and minerals in sufficient amounts" Not really the combo is almost completely devoid of vit A, folate, calcium and is extremly low in b2, potassium, magnesium, zinc and choline. Its not a complete diet at all.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:27 PM

First off, you will get scurvy since 1) you're starting out with tiny amounts of vitamin C in raw scallops, 2) freezing causes a significant decline in vitamin C and 3) vitamin C degrades significantly in the presence of heat, which is excessive with your cooking process. 1/4lb of liver a week isn't too fatty for you unless you're missing a gall bladder, and even then it'd be worth eating. I will gain zero satisfaction if your teeth fall out, but perhaps you could create a thread here that stresses the importance of vitamin C (and dangers of recalcitrance) when it does happen.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:29 AM

Travis, I'm going to put you out of your misery on the scurvy issue right now: http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm Let's all remember the value of consensus when we count the votes for your scurvy warning.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:01 PM

I believe the packages are 300-400 grams frozen, which includes water, and I'll probably eat 2-3 per day with rice. In meat weight it's well below a couple of pounds. I find the daily values to be deceptive because the key is bioavailability of the source. In fact I find them to be meaningless except as suggestive diagnostics. I will not get scurvy, as fresh meat is a cure for scurvy. I've gone the insufficient enjoyment route and believe me the flavor and comfort is there with this diet. I believe liver is too fatty for me. If my teeth start falling out I'll let you know you were right

8
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 10:05 PM

ANOTHER "question" where someone asks "Here is the diet I'm convinced is the best diet in the world/for me to eat, tell me how much you agree with it." I have to wonder if such people are a self-fulfilling prophecy and they insist that they are thriving no matter what. Durianrider claims to thrive on an all-raw diet mainly fruit with a smattering of vegetables. In fact, he claims that he has a very high libido, high energy, yadda yadda. Your diet is interesting, but your attitude is a turn-off for people really wanting to discuss things. You honestly sound orthorexic.

So what percentage scallops? Raw or cooked? Raw is much more nutritious and raw is what the Inuit meant as "fresh meat" to prevent scurvy.

I have experience with a mainly shellfish and scallop diet and the reason I eventually crapped out was that I had trouble getting enough calories since rice is so filling for me. If you add in some fruit and different shellfish like oysters and prawns it will be easier and you also will cover more micronutrients.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:31 PM

Just to chime in about calories and seafood: I did a brief experiment -- cut short because I felt like crap -- where I ditched red meat and ate only poultry and seafood (being ZC, there were no starches or veggies involved). I had no idea why I felt crappy until after the experiment, when I decided to plug in my daily menu just to see if I'd been short on any nutrients. Nutrients hell; it turned out I was eating around 900 cals/day, down from my usual 1600-1800. I had no idea I was eating so short, as I felt pretty full.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 11:10 PM

kilton you misinterpreted me, but I clarified in the edit

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:40 AM

As for why I asked the question, there are two possibilities. 1. I am wrong. In this case, I've learned the worst case scenarios and can recognize the signs early and take appropriate corrections. 2. I am right. In this case the consensus will have a hard time ignoring the results since they made falsifiable predictions, which may help other sufferers being given bad advice, and generally advance the state of paleo knowledge. So I am surely in the right place.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 10:45 PM

Then Joseph, why did you ask this "question"? Maybe this is not the right place for you.

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 18, 2011
at 11:19 PM

Thanks for deleting my comments, Melissa. Great use of moderation powers. There was no misinterpretation at all, which is why you had to edit your post. I still say a chill pill is in order for you. :-)

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:50 PM

"ANOTHER 'question' where someone asks 'Here is the diet I'm convinced is the best diet in the world, tell me how much you agree with it.'"

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:39 AM

Because you're not comfortable with pointed disagreement, Patrik? Melissa, I listed 7 objective criteria by which all of my previous diets have failed, the chances are that this one will fail as well. "Developing standards" is not science, running experiments is. If the test is successful then you can revise your micronutrient standards. The test is not for longevity, it is for quality of life. A similar test for rats would measure fertility, activity level, stress level, disease level, intelligence, etc.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:40 PM

As for my attitude, I'm glad to turn off people who "really want to discuss things" on this particular thread. I've suffered enough from bad advice to last a lifetime. If someone doesn't have a falsifiable prediction with which I can verify his model's accuracy, then he should talk to someone else. As stated in the question I cannot eat fruit. I don't share your rice calorie problem since I've been on a meat and rice diet for months and sustained normal muscle mass.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:25 AM

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaann -- why do I have the feeling that Joseph is gonna end up being deleted from PaleoHacks..................................

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:33 PM

I don't think you read the "question" or you wouldn't be asking how I cook the scallops. This is an experiment with a falsifiable hypothesis, not an advertisement. Of course I think it's the best diet FOR ME, otherwise I would do something else. I've gathered useful info on what to watch for if it turns out I'm disastrously wrong, as I've been many times in the past. I've had no problem admitting prior failures, that's how I got down to such a limited menu. It is not orthorexia - if I fail to find a suitable diet my quality of life and capacity to work will be severely impaired.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 18, 2011
at 10:47 PM

Kilton, I don't know what you are talking about, I never accused him of that. There is no way to "falsify" the diet in the way he's putting up. Nutrition science doesn't work that way. You don't have some rats eating a scallop rice diet and see how long you live, you develop standards for specific micronutrients, a standard this diet does not meet.

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 18, 2011
at 10:45 PM

Chill out Melissa. He makes no claim whatsoever about his proposed diet being the best.

5
Medium avatar

(19469)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:50 PM

Based on your reply to the reasonable tone of the current responses (anything from "be aware of the risk of scurvy" to "teflon cookware might not be a good idea", etc.) it seems to me that you are pretty dead set on doing the rice & scallops thing and are pretty convinced of your reasons why it is going to work.

Turn of the century explorere Viljhalmur Stefansson thrived on a fish and water diet (albeit the fish were boiled and eaten whole) and posited that the Inuit didn't consume a whole lot more than animal fat/flesh, some bone, and the occasional organ or two.

So, who knows?

Don't do it to "falsify" someone else's definition of thriving, however. I would recommend that you keep objective tabs on your health by recruiting a physician who is willing to simply monitor your health as you go about this experiment.

Certainly, plenty of people in this day and age subsist for many years eating nothing more than fast food, diet sodas, candy, etc, which can't be any better than rice & scallops but there is no reason to push your luck.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:28 PM

I don't view falsification as antagonistic. I think it's a useful way to advance knowledge. If someone's not willing to make a prediction and expose themselves to potentially being wrong, they shouldn't be giving advice. I am impatient with certain aspects of paleo dogma certainly that have prolonged my search for a cure with bad advice. As for the reason I'm doing it, it is for my benefit and no other reason. You are correct to cite the stefansson example. If I thrive on this against all expectations, then that will challenge paleo notions and lead to a stronger synthesis.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:29 PM

the reason I am focused on falsification rather than confirmation is that confirming something is nigh impossible due to potential confounding variables, but falsifying is easy.

5
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:02 PM

I would say no. I agree with the scurvy. If I had to pick three foods. I would pick Bison, spinach and potatoes. (Although i would like to add in Salmon when it was in season).

I would try and talk you out of this.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:05 PM

i had similar thoughts when reading.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:03 PM

so if I thrive on this diet that would falsify your model of human nutrition? Or even if I simply don't get scurvy. It's very interesting to me that the paleo community is against the one thing that appears to be an effective cure.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:02 PM

Just because you don't have scurvy doesn't mean you're getting enough vitamin c for optimal functioning.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:30 PM

however it does mean that the people who said this diet would produce scurvy are wrong. which is already known if they'd read the literature.

4
93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:39 PM

Can you exist on this indefinitely? Sure.

Can you "thrive" on this indefinitely? Doubt it.

But go for it & tell us all about it a year from now.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:24 PM

they keep it going with careful substitution for the nutritional elements in meat, or lack high performance. I will be playing soccer regularly and not using any supplementation.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:46 AM

fair enough, but i obviously won't extend the test if it's going poorly, so a shorter timeframe is implied for confirming or disconfirming. if you're saying negative effects won't show up until the one year mark, that's a far stronger endorsement than others are making. i'm looking for 1 month mark predictions. as for my attitude, walk a mile in my guts and see if your perspective doesn't change.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:27 AM

@Joseph -- I know you are all fired up on falsification (and that I applaud) but this is a really low-quality hypothesis you are testing. Plus, your general attitude doesn't come off to super-duper....

7767e05a8c4504f6be03f13ee40815cd

(1299)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:20 PM

Plenty of low-fat vegans can keep it going for years, but I think we would agree that is suboptimal.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:04 PM

oh come on, set a reasonable time frame. You're just dodging falsification. Normally on suboptimal diets energy effects show up after a week and are unsustainable after a month.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:21 AM

@Joseph -- [*facepalm] YOU are the one who defined the time-frame as "indefinite" in the title of your question - "Can I thrive indefinitely on a rice and scallops only diet?"

4
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 18, 2011
at 06:15 PM

If you replaced rice with some sort of tuber it would be pretty good otherwise it doesn't have nearly enough nutrition.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 19, 2011
at 10:29 AM

Anyone can convince themselves they are thriving untill they run into serious health consequences which happens with nutritionally restrictive diets. You probably won't last too long till severe cravings kick in.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:44 PM

not really......

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:02 PM

so if I thrive on this diet that would falsify your model of human nutrition?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 09:31 PM

then you have no falsifiable prediction to make about this experiment? That doesn't signal much confidence in your dietary model.

3
26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

Yes, I am confident you will thrive for an unknown length of time on this restrictive diet.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on September 19, 2011
at 01:44 AM

I concur. In fact I want to hear from those who do not.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:47 AM

interesting, so you're implying at some point it will become unsustainable but there will be a honey moon period?

3
0a2dd50f2d3951bf3fb83fc4638c9512

(1960)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:52 PM

Gotta throw my hand in with the skeptics here -- you may survive, but you will hardly be thriving. Good luck with your n=1 though.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:05 PM

ok, the definition of thriving is set, will let you know.

2
Cd2d1fcf77345c9b2889ab56ecf5c842

(250)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:26 PM

You are cooking the scallops in a Teflon pan? :-(

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 18, 2011
at 07:44 PM

Didn't notice that the first time through; can't really thrive doing that.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 18, 2011
at 08:04 PM

yes I am, and will be doing so throughout the duration. so that's another thing we can falsify.

0
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on September 19, 2011
at 12:11 PM

This looks pretty sustainable. I don't know if you'll be able to see the recipe I ran on NutritionData. It's only seriously lacking in riboflavin, vitamin K, A, C and E. No worse than a lot of paleo diets I'd say and easily fixable.

0
B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on September 19, 2011
at 04:04 AM

will you be posting before and after blood work?

if it works for you the only thing you will prove is that it works for you; no? sorry i don't have an educated opinion to fly up the pole, but do understand your frustration at having so much shared knowledge not be the answer for you.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 19, 2011
at 07:49 AM

no before bloodwork, maybe after if there's sufficient interest. it's not like this is a radical shift from my current diet; i'm just eliminating the remaining fat source. yes normally it would only prove that it works for me, however if a lot of people make falsifiable predictions this tells us something about the quality of their models.

0
93ae9f2d376e5426e891a9b58d8302fa

(2936)

on September 19, 2011
at 02:57 AM

I'm sorry to copy this into the main thread from the little comments where it belongs, but the comments have overrun the display so it doesn't show up otherwise.

Here's the question:

Does anyone have a weblink to a good concise summation of the current upright-ape-in-the-midday-sun theory of hominid genesis? I really like that theory, but I don't even know what to call it. Maybe, "Thermodynamics rule, Dude!" Never should have cancelled my subscription to Science News.

Y'know, there is a little room for aquatic influence before the savanna sun played such a predominant role. I mean, wasn't there a swamp critter ape that showed the first stirrings of bipedality? 

93ae9f2d376e5426e891a9b58d8302fa

(2936)

on September 19, 2011
at 03:24 AM

No no, I'm talkin' specifically, the theory that once we had attained bipedality, we were the masters of the midday savanna sun, able to run down all the prey because they suffered heat exhaustion from having horizontal postures, absorbing too much solar radiation. It explains durn near everything. Lakeshore life is just a sideshow. I'm interested in the main storyline. Doesn't anybody know what I'm talkin' about. I want a name for it, and a weblink would be great. Is this more arcane than I thought?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 19, 2011
at 03:05 AM

Check out Human Brain Evolution: The Influence of Freshwater and Marine Food Resources by Stephen C. Cunnane.I've blogged some of the papers from this book, it's very interesting. It's $$$$ but you can prob get it from interlibrary loan. Of course they weren't just eating scallops though, ancient Paleolithic hominids who lived by the water ate highly diverse diets of sedges, roots, insects, amphibians, fruits, nuts, rodents, water mammals, and shellfish. That is a diet most could be healthy on.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!