Jump to content

theantilibrary

Member
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

theantilibrary's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. #3 (House on Fire) is by my great uncle! Awesome, awesome guy. He knows Gates well and says Gates reads more than he thought a human possibly could.
  2. "But I'm fairly sure that I could fund it with at least $140k right away -- my wife and I can each put in $14,000 a year without triggering any gift taxes, and you are allowed to put in the first 5 years on day one. So $14,000 each going into this account per year for 5 years, meaning I could put $140k into it on day one. Plus, we could also set up an account for my wife to inherit. That's another $140,000 minimum on day one. Together, $280,000 on day one. Potentially, we could be looking at $600,000 on day one with both accounts combined (not sure about that gift tax situation)." This is my understanding. You can contribute, as you stated, the first 5 years ($14,000 X 5 each for you and your wife... $140,000 total) all on day one. I believe that anything above that, at that time, will be subject to gift taxes. Some resources: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i709.pdf
  3. I very much liked your article. I was not arguing the fact that humans got the majority of their calories from meat in prehistoric times. The calorie density of animal sources of food is much higher than that of plant sources so naturally humans would eat meat if they could catch it. The 65:35 ratio means animal calories were easier to come by than plant calories. Prehistoric humans were eating what was available not what was healthy. Regardless if the majority of their food came from animals or plants they made it to a reproductive age. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to select humans that die after their reproductive years so they do not hinder the strength and fertility of the group. There is no evolutionary advantage for a prehistoric human to live much past their prime age of 35 to 40. I agree that primitive people's health goes downhill when they start eating a western diet. We all agree post 1950’s processed food is terrible for you. My concern comes from the ratio of meat guided by the Paleo diet. The 65:35 ratio of animal vs. plant based calories contradicts the majority of what I have read about long lived people today. I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea. The virtue of the Paleo diet is it teaches you to avoid eating processed starches and sugars. Cutting out the majority of processed food and white carbohydrates Western civilizations eat agrees with the recommendations most informed nutritionists would make. Ross, not sure I would agree that evolution would select for humans that die after their reproductive years. Would accumulated knowledge and wisdom count for nothing? Here is an article discussing why women outlive their fertility: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-origin-of-menopause Sorry to go a little off the food topic (this is a great thread!) I just thought this was an interesting point for discussion as well.
×
×
  • Create New...