Weston Price's book is public domain in many countries:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html

Aajonus' books, on the other hand, are not. I agree with djr_81.

actup90:
It would be nice if we lived in a utopia with no money, and everything and anything were freely available to everyone. But unfortunately, modern society does not work like this, and it's not going to change any time soon. Saying that "money is a joke" is very naive.

For the record -- a while ago, somebody posted links to pdfs of some copyrighted in-print low-carb books, and the mods/admins ended up deleting them.

Kidneys filter blood and make urine.

To reduce the smell, you can try soaking the kidneys overnight, either in salt water or in milk.

Kidneys are very nutritious:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3466/2
That data is for conventional feedlot beef. Grass-fed or wild will be even more nutritious.

But if you start getting too much of some of these nutrients (especially VitA), you might lose the taste for kidneys. That happened to me. When I started eating raw meat, I ate lots of organs on a regular basis, including kidney and liver. But now after ~3 years, I don't eat liver/kidney more than once a month.

Heart and tongue don't have such a high concentration of nutrients, so they can be eaten much more often.

I play piano. The last piece I learned was Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, and the easier parts of Waldstein. It took a lot of time and practice, but was well worth it.

I thought about taking a class like that "principles of nutrition", but thought it would be an everyday struggle like that. I wish I could get a degree in Nutrition but there is nothing out there that I can find, that would be even close to support primal nutrition.  Its like you would have to endure years of that to make someone believe in what you say. Logistics are can go ahead and die out, please.  

I have worked through parts of a book about nutrition and metabolism. There are some occasional remarks about politically correct nutrition (saturated fat bad, unsaturated fat good, meat bad, soy good, etc). But the vast majority of the book is very interesting. It describes nutrients at the molecular level, explains how they're digested and metabolized, etc. So don't be too quick to dismiss a course in nutrition. Find out what book they're using, take a look at it, and then decide. Or just learn nutrition on your own from a book.

The book I have is:
http://www.amazon.ca/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572/

What are your guys experiences with a type of fat like this from a poorly treated animal? i have not tryed the fat yet, but i am kind of skeptical. Does fat store toxins/high omega 6, or is it only goodness stored in fat?? (excuse my noobness plz  )

Ruminant fat is mostly SFA and MUFA, so omega-6 is not a big problem. It's only a problem for poultry and pigs fed grain. Fat can definitely store toxins.

Canadian cows are grainfed their whole life so the fat taste really bad, the worst i've had. Same with bone marrow. Food tasting this bad cannot possibly be healthy. If you don't have a good source of fat, find a grocery store that sells NZ shoulder lamb chops, they have a good amount of delicious fat.

Feeding cattle grain is very expensive. I was under the impression that cattle are fed grain only in the winter, and a few months before slaughter. I tried NZ lamb a few times, and found it disgusting. I prefer Ontario lamb.

ya i ate some organic grainfed cows, it tastes the same as grocery shit. i dont even think organic makes a dif as i threw up after having fat from both. it was disgusting.

I've never thrown up meat. I can definitely taste the difference between supermarket meat, and organic meat from a good butcher shop such as Cumbraes.

I guess raw liver could be not as soft but still easier to digest than cooked.  Perhaps as you said, I'm making some erroneous assumptions.  Yesterday I read an article by Mark Sisson citing a study that found that cooked egg protein is much more bioavailable than raw, and yet I'm certain that what happened to me last night with the raw egg would not have happened with a cooked one.  Not only did it clear my stomach and rejuvenate me, I actually slept last night after a day of maybe 700-800 calories, most of it raw honey.  No restless leg syndrome.  The one egg was my only fat and protein.  That's astonishing.

Risrosen,

Good to hear that you're feeling better. I remember reading a study about cooked vs raw egg white, it's probably the same one that Mark Sisson cited. The study was done on people who had their colons removed. At the end of the small intestine, the remainder of the food was analyzed for protein content. Higher protein was found for raw egg white than cooked. The conclusion was, that the raw egg white protein is not digested well (since protein digestion does not take place in the large intestine). Two things to keep in mind:

1. This study was done on sick people, who had their colons removed. Its results do not necessarily generalize to healthy people.

2. This study was done on people who are used to a standard diet. Their gut flora, and their tastebuds, were probably not used to raw eggs. So the results do not necessarily generalize to people who enjoy raw eggs, and eat them on a regular basis.


For people who have serious digestive issues, Aajonus often prescribes lots of eggs, butter, and honey, and not much else (because those foods are easiest to digest). Maybe a small fish meal or a bit of milk when you have the appetite for it. And only start eating meat when your digestion gets better.

About Aajonus vs Matt Stone --
Keep in mind that most diet gurus' advice is largely based on their own experience. I used to read Matt Stone's blog. He's a young man who never had any serious health problems. He has experimented with zero-carb, vegan, all-milk, and several other diets, and did OK on all of them. He has never been in the shoes of someone with a serious illness.
On the other hand, Aajonus had many illnesses, and an operation which turned off HCl secretion in his stomach. Consequently, he practically can't digest cooked food, and finds honey to be a miracle digestive aid.

About Aajonus' theories and ideas --
I suspect that when Aajonus writes books/newsletters or presents workshops, he deliberately oversimplifies some of his theories, to present a simple philosophy to help people get well. Most of his audience is not interested in a scientific debate/discussion about viruses and germs and enzymes and cooking.
Here's an older thread about this:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/allergic-to-cooked-green-and-red-vegetables/


About the coyote story --
I have no way of judging whether it's true or not. It certainly is possible for animals to act in unusual ways, and help and feed others. Take a look at this video, where a crow feeds and takes care of a kitten. In light of this, the coyote story is not completely implausible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo&feature=player_embedded

About cooked vs raw meat digestion --
Like many others, I also find that raw meat digests better than cooked. But it was not always like this. When I was starting out with raw meat, I went through periods where it did not digest so well. And I spent a few months on the "Wai diet" (fruit, eggs, and fish, and nuts, all raw) before eating raw meat. Although I see the Wai diet as being detrimental in the long-term, I think it can be a good "preparation" for raw paleo, to get your body used to raw animal foods in a gradual way.

GCB is much more logical:
A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL OF VIRAL PHENOMENA

Iguana,

That was interesting to read. Thanks for posting this. In a nutshell, it hypothesizes that viruses are tools for eliminating foreign molecules, rather than "inherently pathogenic". It's similar to AV's view, but is more conservative, and written in a more scientific way.

One factor that they didn't mention, is that the optimal diet consists of well-cooked food only. Kwasniewski explicitly says something along the lines "all food should be well-cooked, both animal and plant". This is said for religious, rather than scientific reasons -- cooking is what distinguishes humans from animals. This is about as "anti-raw" as it gets. Wrangham's and Stefansson's opinions are at least based on science/observation.

We could take an informal survey like:

Is your daily work: MENTAL? or PHYSICAL?
Are you on ZC, VLC, LC, High Everything?

Article says brain consumes much carbs.
So it's more likely brain workers need more carbs?

In my experience, "brain work" doesn't require much additional carbs. I'm a student, and if I'm studying very intensely, or working on a very hard problem, my appetite doesn't go up at all. The only thing that increases my appetite is anaerobic exercise.

You are mis-using the term "cause".

We already know what causes TB. It's called mycobacterium tuberculosis. That some immune systems are capable of fighting & killing it (or, instead, succumbing to it) is a function of the vitality of a given immune system.

AV did not say "cooked green vegetables are involved". He said cooked veggies cause TB. That is a claim I can easily dismiss. As to cooked foods, or veggies, or cooked veggies being involved - well, that is another matter. We already know that many things (including cooking food - especially when one burns it) can compromise an immune system, so that cooking is possible involved is not an assertion with which I dispute.

AV is a bright guy and certainly a ground-breaker, but he needs to be careful of how he uses words like "cause".

It is very rare for a disease to have only one cause. There are usually multiple causes. What one considers to be the primary cause is often a matter of philosophy. The philosophy of conventional medicine, is to blame infectious diseases on microbes/viruses, and degenerative diseases on genetics. The philosophy of naturopathic medicine, is to blame all diseases on toxins, diet, and lifestyle.

For example, T2 diabetes is caused by genetics, diet, and lifstyle. Conventional medicine considers genetics to be the primary cause, and spends billions of dollars on genetics research to find "diabetes genes", while dismissing the dietary component. When a conventional doctor diagnoses someone with diabetes, he might say "you got diabetes because of your genes -- your father had it, your grandfather had it, etc" without saying anything about diet or lifestyle. A naturopath, on the other hand, will tell someone to cut out sugary and starchy food, and not say anything about genetics.


Now, back to tuberculosis. We should be careful to distinguish between facts/observations, and explanations of these facts.

The facts are:

A. If we clinically examine patients with symptoms that we call "tuberculosis", we find damaged lung tissue, and a certain kind of bacterium in that tissue, which we call "mycobacterium tuberculosis".

B. Most mycobacterium tuberculosis infections in humans result in an asymptomatic, latent infection, and about one in ten latent infections eventually progresses to active disease.


Fact (B) implies that mycobacterium tuberculosis, in and of itself, does not cause tuberculosis.


There are two possible explanations/theories/philosophies:

1. The bacteria was floating around in the air, and the person breathed it in. The immune system wasn't able to fight it off, so the bacteria started multiplying, established itself in the lungs, started damaging the tissue, and the person became sick. In a nutshell, the bacteria is the primary cause, and environmental toxins don't play a big role.

2. The person was exposed to toxic substances (cigarette smoke, car exhaust, asbestos, etc.) which damaged the lungs. Some time later, when the body had enough strength and nutrient reserves, it decided to detoxify this damage. It created and/or activated "mycobacterium tuberculosis" to consume the damaged tissue. In a nutshell, the toxin caused the problem, and the body used bacteria as a tool to solve the problem.

(1) is the Koch-Pasteur theory, which has been adopted by modern medicine.

(2) is AV's theory, whose origins go back to Bechamp.

I used to be a fervent believer in AV's notion re germs until I got flu  after 4 years on RPD. This ws not a case of detox as the symptoms were full-blown and I had got it from my brother. So, while I am sure a raw diet does help considerably against disease, I am understandably somewht sceptical that it gives us immunity to germs.

AV's ideas about germs can be separated into 2 parts:

1. "Infectious" diseases are detoxifications, and if you let the disease run its course, the long-term result is better health, provided that you are on a good diet, and have enough body fat. If you are on a bad diet, or don't have enough fat, then the disease may end up killing you.

2. "Infectious" diseases are not contagious.

First of all, I think that it's a bit simplistic to make such sweeping generalized statements about ALL diseases. Most of the people who turn to AV for help have some serious disease, and conventional medicine has failed them. They don't want to learn and discuss complicated theories of disease. They just want a way of living and thinking that will heal them. I think that (1) and (2) serve this purpose very well, even if they're not completely true.

I think that there's a lot of truth in (1), but I disagree with (2).

If someone has the flu (detoxification of lungs), then they will cough out viral particles. When another person inhales these, and that person has damaged lungs, then they will also get the flu. In modern society, everybody is always breathing in car exhaust, second-hand cigarette smoke, and other poisons. Everybody's lungs are damaged to some degree, so that's why in the winter, flu spreads like wildfire.

They degenerate and their degenerated bodies are perceived as toxic.

But how is this degeneration different from the degeneration/decay of other meat?

I am not sure. If they are packed check the ingredients. If not, ask the butcher.

I think they do it to shrimp and scallops. Maybe clams and oysters too.

Scallops which have preservatives are called "wet", and preservative-free scallops are called "dry". I've seen this explicitly labelled at a fishmonger.
http://www.fishex.com/seafood/scallops/scallops-dry-vs-wet.html

If the clams and oysters are sold alive, then there's no way they have preservatives.

Since Coconut oil is recommended for dry scalp and hair. Would melting butter or animal fat and rubbing into hair work?

Keep in mind that butter and animal fat have much higher melting points than coconut oil. So after you rub it in and it cools down and solidifies, it might not look very pretty. Also, animal fat would have a strong smell. So if you want to try this, I suggest you do it on a day when you plan to stay at home.