Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Caveman on February 19, 2011, 11:06:01 pm
-
http://www.thebestdayever.com/news/podcast/podcast-52-david-wolfe-and-daniel-vitalis/#comments (http://www.thebestdayever.com/news/podcast/podcast-52-david-wolfe-and-daniel-vitalis/#comments)
Here's a really recent interview done by David Wolfe, discussing some very interesting questions with Daniel Vitalis.
There's a small part about evolution and the commonly accepted Darwinian theory, and once again, I completely agree with Daniel. I still really haven't heard him say anything which I disagree with, which is very surprising to me.
I'm still listening to it and really enjoying it..
-
vitalis is a genius
-
He's definitely the most inspiring "Diet Guru" I know of right now. Maybe he'll write the first Raw Omnivore book?
-
I heard that Durianrider is challenging Daniel to a face off.
-
He's definitely the most inspiring "Diet Guru" I know of right now. Maybe he'll write the first Raw Omnivore book?
There are several raw omnivore books out there already: Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Guy-Claude Burger, and Thijs Klompmaker aka "Wai Genriiu".
-
He's definitely the most inspiring "Diet Guru" I know of right now. Maybe he'll write the first Raw Omnivore book?
I don't believe he's raw any more. I was quite surprised to see him argue in his "The Great Health Debate" video that human beings have evolved to adapt to cooking. Presumably no one here would agree with that.
-
Is the great health debate on youtube?
-
I don't believe he's raw any more. I was quite surprised to see him argue in his "The Great Health Debate" video that human beings have evolved to adapt to cooking. Presumably no one here would agree with that.
I and my kids certainly heal on raw food.
The advice I give to people who got well were all about incorporating raw food, raw fat in their diet.
Are there any HEALERS amongst these debaters?
Cousens? Who else?
-
Is the great health debate on youtube?
No, it was a one time event. Every debate was up on the site for 24 hours, I think. To listen to them now, you need to pay, but that's not worth it in my opinion.
-
Cousens? I thought he was vegan? Although he did agree with Mercola that raw eggs are a "great source of protein" (why do so many people focus on the protein in animal foods and ignore what hunter gatherers value more--the fat?) but said that he doesn't eat them because they are gross or something like that, I think. Cousens also argued that eating animal foods hurts one karmically, IIRC.
You may find some of GHD interview on Youtube, but Gianni now requests that people pay to see the videos (http://www.renegadehealth.com/ghd/blog/) after the initial 48 hour free viewing, although maybe Youtube videos might convince you to buy the GHD CDs. The "debates" were mostly just interviews of each of the gurus with them summarizing their views and not actually debating much. Vitalis did very well, I thought, except for his surprisingly enthusiastic embrace of cooking, a few minor errors and maybe a touch of unintended condescension. A couple of the things that people thought were good points by Vitalis were:
> Many of the plant foods that vegans/vegetarians eat were not nearly as palatable in their wild form.
> No large human society has ever tried veganism, so vegans are asking people to experiment on themselves with a largely untested diet. The closest thing is the vegetarian Hindu society and they eat lots of (raw) dairy products.
> Have you ever seen a squirrel (or any other wild animal) with crooked teeth? No, nor do skeletal remains of Stone Age humans show crooked teeth, yet we modern humans are plagued with crooked teeth and not even enough room in our jaws for our teeth.
Unfortunately, most people see the choices as raw vegan vs. cooked omnivore and don't even consider that raw omnivore might be an option. Daniel seems to have skipped over raw Paleo omnivore and instead embraced cooking and dairy along with the meats.
Kevin Gianni asked T. Colin Campbell about raw meat and Campbell simply dismissed it out of hand. I do recall Mercola discussing raw eggs but forget whether he covered other raw animal foods or not.
-
Cousens? I thought he was vegan? Although he did agree with Mercola that raw eggs are a "great source of protein" (why do so many people focus on the protein in animal foods and ignore what hunter gatherers value more--the fat?) but said that he doesn't eat them because they are gross or something like that, I think. Cousens also argued that eating animal foods hurts one karmically, IIRC.
They focus on protein more for two reasons IMO. First is the lack of protein in raw and especially fruitarian diets, other than RAF which is still not even close to mainstream raw. It is also largely ignored because all of the studies that supposedly show that fat causes cancer and heart disease blah blah blah.
-
Yeah, and I think the second reason is probably the biggest. It has caused a ridiculous fat phobia.
Here's Vitalis' comment on cooking from the Great Health Debate: "we must look at the fact that Homo sapiens developed cooking before they were actually Homo sapiens. I mean it really comes to us from Homo erectus. So our ability to reduce and process food with fire really did allow us to adapt in a different way than other species."
-
Here's Vitalis' comment on cooking from the Great Health Debate: "we must look at the fact that Homo sapiens developed cooking before they were actually Homo sapiens. I mean it really comes to us from Homo erectus. So our ability to reduce and process food with fire really did allow us to adapt in a different way than other species."
He never specifically said he cooks his meat, but has said that vegetables are best cooked.
Since January I added in cooked veggies to raw meat and dairy. Gained 20 lbs of muscle and skin is much better.
You groupies may enjoy these videos. ;) ;D
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6F67B0AAD53EFDB438257ADCA63EF0A0 (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6F67B0AAD53EFDB438257ADCA63EF0A0)
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9612BDB9A13DD9766B5E2368596D6A87 (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9612BDB9A13DD9766B5E2368596D6A87)
-
Thanks for the links. So is he eating all his meats raw and just cooking the veggies? Do you agree with him that other than young greens, veggies are better cooked? If any food is better cooked, I would have to guess mature, fibrous and antinutrient-rich veggies and bones. I might consider eating more cooked mature veggies if it weren't for the fact that I don't tend to care for the taste or digest them very well. I know that according to Wrangham and others, we are supposed to be better adapted to cooked veggies and digest them much better, but for as long as I can remember I preferred the taste of raw or lightly steamed or sauted veggies to thoroughly cooked veggies. I used to secretly wish that my mother would serve raw carrots or broccoli instead of boiled ones. Am I the only one?
-
I only find vegetables to taste better when cooked if they taste really foul when raw. It's only the antinutrient-heavy raw vegetables like broccoli etc. that I can only eat in cooked form, if at all.
-
I am curious to know how much meat he eats, cause maybe if he doesn't eat lots, he may have a lot of vegetables andfinds difficulties to digest its.
-
Thanks for the links. So is he eating all his meats raw and just cooking the veggies? Do you agree with him that other than young greens, veggies are better cooked?
Your very welcome, there are a bunch of DV interviews on that web site that were previously unknown to me.
I think he takes the Mercola route, he probably eats cooked and raw but does not want people think he is nuts. Remember the bison video, back in the beginning stages I felt that way. Just wanted to share the knowledge, regardless of who thought what. Now that my brain is significantly rebuilt, I don't think it is that great of an idea to push into normal people's faces. Maybe he now understands raw meat scares people :D So he tells people just to cook less. This is what I tell most people. I wouldn't want them to gain an edge on my anyway ;)
Yes I do agree with him. When I was doing strict raw paleo eating a salad was a literal pain in the butt. Even when I ate cultured veggies, they would slow down my gut flow. I do fine with just raw meat(not very good with fruit at all) but I wanted to gain weight, sprouted/boiled wild rice/potatoes, or steamed veggies helped incredibly. I would say that 20 percent calories would be cooked veggies and properly prepared wild rice. 5 percent of diet being cultured veggies which I eat with the cooked. The rest would be raw animals foods. That is what I have been doing since mid January. All good thus far.
-
He never specifically said he cooks his meat, but has said that vegetables are best cooked.
Since January I added in cooked veggies to raw meat and dairy. Gained 20 lbs of muscle and skin is much better.
You groupies may enjoy these videos. ;) ;D
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6F67B0AAD53EFDB438257ADCA63EF0A0 (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6F67B0AAD53EFDB438257ADCA63EF0A0)
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9612BDB9A13DD9766B5E2368596D6A87 (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9612BDB9A13DD9766B5E2368596D6A87)
Very interesting! Do you really think the cooked vegetables helped that much? What sort of vegetables and how did you cook them?
EDIT: Ok, I see you steam veggies and are into wild rice as well.. you really have not experienced any digestive problems from the rice and veggies? Do you follow food combining rules?
-
Given that Vitalis is so stupid as to arbitrarily give credence to Wrangham's fraudulent claims, he has no credibility, as far as I am concerned.
-
Given that Vitalis is so stupid as to arbitrarily give credence to Wrangham's fraudulent claims, he has no credibility, as far as I am concerned.
I am not sure who Wrangham is, but I know that raw vegetables use take more energy for me to digest than it is worth. When I eat cooked veggies I actually feel net positive effects from them.
Very interesting! Do you really think the cooked vegetables helped that much? What sort of vegetables and how did you cook them?
EDIT: Ok, I see you steam veggies and are into wild rice as well.. you really have not experienced any digestive problems from the rice and veggies? Do you follow food combining rules?
If I eat veggies (Kale, cauliflower, beets, etc) they are typically boiled in spring water. I rarely eat those though as the whole hybridized non medicinal aspect has planted itself deep in my brain. As I would prefer to have them cultured which is more of a bacteria food. Fermented broccoli sour kraut is awesome. Wild rice however I eat on an almost daily basis, covered in butter, also with some cultured wild mustard greens I harvested last month.
-
Why is it that i hear from a lot of people that they do not 'bulk', or gain weight, unless they eat some kind of plant foods as well?
Is 'bulking' something that isnt good for you and you're kinda getting fat with muscles, instead of fat?
or does most peoples bodies just run more optimal adding plant foods into their diets too?
-
I would say that some cooked or cultured plants are best for me. Though it has only been 1.5 months.
There is very little fat on my body.
I feel that it just gives me something to burn so I can use more meat for building.
Still eating about 500grams to 1 kilogram of raw meat each day, with duck eggs and dairy.
If I get fat I would not be surprised, but it would be easy to notice and switch back to RPD.
If I feel toxic I would also stop, but no such feeling yet...
-
It doesn't really seem to me that people have sorted through much of his actual information. I don't know how much raw meat he eats presently and how much he cooks, but since his break with raw veganism which was years ago I'm pretty sure he has embraced the power of cooking as a tool in terms of increasing nutrition. I'm not sure if he believes nutrition is more available in meats after being cooked, but I suspect he is speaking more in general as applied to the role of fire to make certain types of foods edible. He is also (I believe) saying that this can be far more of value even than many diets consisting of 100% raw food, (including animal food diets). This to me is not the same as saying cooked diets are better than raw..its that cooking plays an integral roll in optimal health (for him).
In a nutshell what it seems to be his motivation other than whatever is working for him..is to dispel some relatively artificial ideas about health, particularly between cleansing and building approaches.
replacing: limiting your exposure to harmful foods as a path to health
with: eating a wide spectrum of healthful foods in abundance
Raw foodists love to shun certain science, but then will present all kinds of information on paper that conflict with peoples actual results that one can also measure with science ironically.
What we see is on paper that eating raw foods like fruits or whatever would add all kinds of nutrients and vitamins to our diet, but when you actually dissect both the science and the anecdotal evidence the net results is not so simple or good. Discounting all the modern reasons for such in peopels systems...as presented over an over ...true people living in nature will opt for cooked starch sources over the actual available wild fruits even when they exist in abundance. Many of which are basically inedible and even if their tart taste is appealing..its nearly impossible to use foods like wild grapes or berries as any sustainable calorie source. Because of that, I think the simplest response to why he's 'skipped over' raw omnivore, is that such a thing is impossible living outdoors in Maine for instance. Its sounds paradoxical, but If you are eating plant food year round in nature, you are going to have to use some kind of processing.
In a way I think he is just pro tools, ie, not just cooking but other processes of fermentation and the like. People if they choose can avoid cooking and use some kind of raw fermented foods or vinegars to help digest and assimilate the maximum amount of nutrition from the herbs, fungi, and weeds and seaweeds that are readily available in nature today as in the past. It could be true that If people are eating the actual clean wild ruminant diets that their ancestors ate, perhaps these can become less than necessary. But why did people employ them anyway when they had access to such things? People can ruminate all they want and toss things up to addictions or passed down habits but obviously it isn't so simple. Even someone like Aajonus who believes pretty much all cooking to be harmful, sees some value in processing plant foods that can either supply minerals that we need generally that is lacking in modern foods, OR have some roll in healing/rebuilding of unhealthy people.
I'm not sure if he believes at all in abstaining from cooked food anymore, but for me raw food and abstaining from cooked food is basically a kind of strategy to reverse illness, but this is not the same as a diet of the highest nutrition. For me I believe a diet that is 100% RAF with some chosen plant foods can possibly be the best diet, but it certainly is not for every goal as even many of the people on this forum point out.
at a certain point, it becomes confusing because virtually everyone seems to 'get by' on next to no real nutrition, so its hard for say someone eating far less crap and eating raw food is suffering from lack any specific type of nutrition found in processed plant foods, but obviously if people can employ them to superior results then the initial argument that says a 100% raw diet is always superior is somewhat flawed.
Personally, i'm against the idea that if you take a regular unhealthy American, that just giving them 'real food' like WAPF or whatever that this will be the ticket to health, but the people that exist as HGs or pre agrarian societies certainly were adapted to cooking in some respect that they did not suffer the diseases of civilization. That by and large I think is enough of a goal for most people I think.
Its not to say that further back in history people were not much healthier, but that many such people had envious health and vitality. So again while raw foods might be crucial for health, its silly to argue that people were unwell just because they cooked foods when the evidence does suggest cooking made homo sapiens what they are for better or worse. Wrangham's conclusions obvious have bias, but the root seems to be accurate in what DV is expressing: that all of homo sapiens have employed cooking having begun actually with homo erectus. Cooking (all types) certainly can be linked disease or toxicity, but malnutrition also causes disease as well as a vast array of other psychological or physiological factors. People eating raw food diets certainly are not devoid of nutritional issues, so the idea that cooking can't possibly help play a roll to correct that is just blatantly false. It might be entirely unnecessary, but ultimately this is a untested and unproven battleground as suggested.
-
Daniel spoke more specifically about how he thinks cooking is particularly important for the harder-to-digest vegetables in this video that Actup provided a link to: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6F67B0AAD53EFDB438257ADCA63EF0A0
-
No, the idea that cooking can play a role in health is blatantly false. You are making all sorts of obviously false assumptions. You , for example, state blindly that HGs following Weston-Price-style cooked diets in the past were super-healthy, which just isn't true - I mean, all these native peoples died like flies when exposed to diseases transmitted by colonials, hardly a sign of a super-healthy immune-system, plus actual data such as Mann's study on the Masai(re atherosclerosis in the Masai), and other data I read on the Maori, for example(I had a few past threads on that subject), show quite clearly that they had all sorts of health-problems . I mean I know some people worship Weston-Price as some sort of infallible deity but he was just a mere mortal who made many mistakes/errors of assumption. He did a whirlwind tour of the world without any serious checking of his claims.
Then there's that nonsense claim that cooking got started with homo erectus. Only that fraud Wrangham dares to actually make that claim, among scientists - the vast majority of palaeoanthropologists state clearly that cooking occurred c. 250,000 years ago, which is actually about the same time as archaic homo sapiens appeared, which was not much different from modern humans, evolutionarily-speaking(Wrangham is merely a chimp-researcher by actual past expertise given his CV so cannot be remotely trusted). More to the point, PP has already cited that point about giant pandas which demonstrated that a creature can evolve into a different species while still remaining unadapted to a particular diet(in this case, bamboo), despite millions of years of evolution. If the giant panda could not adapt to a raw food like bamboo after such a long time, then it is very highly unlikely that humans have adapted to cooked foods.
The other point is that there isn't anything that a cooked diet can provide that a raw one can't. At the very least, a raw diet can provide the same benefit as a cooked diet, and, in most cases, will be superior to a cooked diet.
Whatever the case, we can rest assured that if DV is so craven as to believe in Wrangham's unscientific drivel, then he cannot be taken seriously any more.
-
He seems sane enough by my standards, I was thinking that someone like him could be made respectable and as long as we had some additional specialist and scientific advocates that were respectable and could back up what our gurus say, then its a good start.. I am not sure if there is a perfect guru out in the woodwork. Celebrities like Mel Gibson are also judged to wacky to be taken seriously. What; Does it take some buttoned down collage professor type person to sell this diet to the masses?
I posted this over a month ago before I really heard much of what he has said recently. I still stand by much of what Danniel has discovered since his conversion to our side and I find him very righteous and rational.
He is also a good sales man, and for some curious reason I now want to go out and get some cacao, I have heard it goes well with coconut, and I eat a lot of coconut.
I also could go for some raw water right now
-
I Think his view that eating traditionally perpared meals with the highest quality ingredients along with large servings of raw or rare meats may at least be a good beginning for the masses that would never go for totally raw. I kind of have a feeling that he is still playing the sales man and he has different messages for different audiences. Most of those health freaks he is Trying to educate are to hung up on somethings to ever accept that raw carnivorous diets are healthy, so he sells a more moderate message , even if he himself is eating raw meat by the pound and only uses cooked and fermented plant as condiments.
-
He's still a hypocrite, then. I mean, one can sell stuff to the masses while still making it clear that raw is better and doing mostly raw oneself - Mercola is such an example.
-
No, the idea that cooking can play a role in health is blatantly false. You are making all sorts of obviously false assumptions. You , for example, state blindly that HGs following Weston-Price-style cooked diets in the past were super-healthy, which just isn't true - I mean, all these native peoples died like flies when exposed to diseases transmitted by colonials, hardly a sign of a super-healthy immune-system, plus actual data such as Mann's study on the Masai(re atherosclerosis in the Masai), and other data I read on the Maori, for example(I had a few past threads on that subject), show quite clearly that they had all sorts of health-problems . I mean I know some people worship Weston-Price as some sort of infallible deity but he was just a mere mortal who made many mistakes/errors of assumption. He did a whirlwind tour of the world without any serious checking of his claims.
yes, we've heard that all HGs and people in the last 250,000 years have all been tremendously unhealthy, one big crapshoot of disease.
I already agree that adopting a HG diet for a modern person probably is not enough to correct problems
I also agree in that we don't need to dwell on what we don't know or that is speculative/romantic, just what we can prove.
Look at people today. Whenever people are cited to living long and eating garbage..what do we/they say.."well they ate organic real food growing up". did they eat raw meat? raw fat? Likely they did eat raw milk and dairy and probably even some of stuff DV recommends. I honestly now find it unbelievable that I used to argue the same that people were not 'adapted' to cooked foods and that cooking was some fall from grace that distorted everything. Perhaps the wording is not right in the biological sense of adaptation, but people can create all the aspects of what it is to be healthy and reproduce for generations while eating cooked foods. They cannot on poor nutrition programs, even those that are raw. Many of the programs people present as raw and healthy do not seem to create the health of HGs (in my estimation) in terms of being actually able to survive based on internal and external robustness in the wild, so the fact that HGs health was not up to a certain standard shows really negative light on such diets I would think. Luckily I do suspect HGs were fairly healthy, so I'm not too upset that as a modern person with poor inheritance and health that my present state from eating raw is not so shabby in comparison. Again the point really is not that raw food diets are bad (although just speaking for myself here), but that cooking is not valueless.
Then there's that nonsense claim that cooking got started with homo erectus. Only that fraud Wrangham dares to actually make that claim, among scientists - the vast majority of palaeoanthropologists state clearly that cooking occurred c. 250,000 years ago, which is actually about the same time as archaic homo sapiens appeared, which was not much different from modern humans, evolutionarily-speaking(Wrangham is merely a chimp-researcher by actual past expertise given his CV so cannot be remotely trusted). More to the point, PP has already cited that point about giant pandas which demonstrated that a creature can evolve into a different species while still remaining unadapted to a particular diet(in this case, bamboo), despite millions of years of evolution. If the giant panda could not adapt to a raw food like bamboo after such a long time, then it is very highly unlikely that humans have adapted to cooked foods.
yeah, I have no idea, I don't see how one can prove him any more wrong than he thinks he is right or how it matters if its more than 200,000 years anyway. Its not important whether a physiological adaptation is necessary..because the foods are still the same foods, just altered.
So likely these were foods we have always eaten as homo sapeins which separated us from the previous model. Makes sense to me. There is in fact measurable detriments I guess one could call it..but then again you can see worse detriments and worse processing manifesting in different kinds of human traits today very quickly which shows how less adapted we are to those. In addition, modern science and medicine certainly believes in these kinds of adaptations and mutations as happening all the time, so I think as usual you are picking and choosing what is 'scientific'. Havn't you admitted that some people have adapted to dairy and others have not? Even if this is a 'mutation' (in other words not a good type of adaptation) the people seemed to have a pretty big advantage when it came to..uh living. as with cooking in regard to harsh climates. Of course this does not prove it is good like with dairy and other things. I don't place a value on it either way..just seems to indeed happen as a phenomena.
The other point is that there isn't anything that a cooked diet can provide that a raw one can't. At the very least, a raw diet can provide the same benefit as a cooked diet, and, in most cases, will be superior to a cooked diet.
Its absolutely impossible to quantify this other than peoples experiences. Particularly for people that do eat raw meat (ie not adversed to it) I think it makes sense to tip ones hat somewhat to someone in trusting that they perhaps will eat other foods for nutrtional reasons. If you have ever had 'maca' you would know what I mean.
The whole point however is its either impossible or detrimental to try to eat the vast majority of plant foods raw, and many of the varieties that can be eaten raw are entirely artificial and harmful for people to eat the way they do. We already know your opinions and disagreement on these issues but to say these things are 'the same' is just inaccurate. how are they possibly the same if they contain completely different foods and have different results...even on predominantly raw eaters that implement them. I can add one type of mushroom to my diet, and there is no organ meat or fruit that will have similar nutrient profiles. How is it possible that my diet (in a nutrition sense, not 'toxicity') is the same eating the same exact stuff, plus other stuff?
of course you are missing the boat on why this perspective is valuable for people that want to increase their health without the same old dogma and rules.
Just as a vegan will claim they can get all their vitamins and proteins from plants ( even disregarding the accuracies of that) the important thing for them to recognize is the materials in animals and plants are different. So even on RAF if one could get the various nutrients from regular consumption of organ meats they are not the same as the nutrients in those plant foods. I have no problem with people claiming to get all their nutrition from raw animal foods, but clearly certain processed plants (raw, fermented, cultured) will give nutrition that added raw plants or fruits or even certain organ meats will not. These are totally different nutrients even if they are the same A,C,K etc... Afterall the organs will likely be from pasture and not wild sources so they actually arn't up-taking and processing these plants as usually stated.
on paper of course a raw diet should have more nutrition than a cooked diet, but the diets automatically become limited for one, and two from a omnivore spectrum the raw plant sources won't provide the minerals and vitamins from the plants that must be processed, either cooked, juiced or cultured in some way.
Whatever the case, we can rest assured that if DV is so craven as to believe in Wrangham's unscientific drivel, then he cannot be taken seriously any more.
seems harsh
-
You've made a number of errors of assumption re the above post. First of all, your claims that raw plant foods are all bad is merely a pro-ZC bias, which is flawed. Granted, cooking makes some plant foods more nutritious by reducing the antinutrient-levels but this benefit is cancelled out by cooking as cooking also gets rid of all the enzymes, all the bacteria, and adds some nasty extra heat-created toxins to boot. The very lame argument you and others have used before is to state that modern cultivated raw fruits are nothing like raw, wild fruits, but not only does the exact same argument apply to raw domesticated animal foods as well as regards raw wild meats, but cooking merely makes things worse by adding heat-created toxins etc - besides, no one with any common sense advocates cooking raw fruits, only that cooking raw veg is best, as fruits' nutrients are very easily destroyed by cooking. Plus, most such pro-cooked-food-advocates are not advocating eating cooked wild game or cooked wild plant foods, but are advocating eating cooked grainfed meats and the like.
The other thing is that I am not suggesting that raw is always good in any combination nor that cooking is entirely valueless - after all, some people here have got 90 percent of their benefits from going cooked-palaeo and only 10 percent from going raw. So cooking, if carefully carried out, can provide a few benefits, but, of course, nowhere near as many health-benefits as going rawpalaeo would, as all cooked diets add a hefty burden of heat-created toxins to the human body in question, let alone other aspects such as loss of enzymes/bacteria etc. Now, one can do gimmicks such as exercise or caloric restriction in order to reduce the levels of those toxins a bit, but the only truly effective way to get rid of almost all the toxin-load in the body is to go rawpalaeo. So things like atherosclerosis etc. are inevitable on any cooked diet.
The other point re cooked veg is that, sure, cooking makes some previously inedible raw vegetables more digestible, but that, of course, has resulted in huge health-problems in the case of grains. Citing raw mushrooms is pointless as they are a rather poor food, nutrionally-speaking, even when cooked, sort of famine-food. Same applies to cooked tubers - I recall, in the last month or so,pointing out, via a study, to PP in a previous discussion that a tribe he cited as being hefty tuber-consumers actually viewed them as an inferior, last-resort food even when cooked. So the fact that cooking makes some wholly unsuitable, unhealthy foods release a bit more in the way of nutrients(vitamins /minerals) as a result of destroying the antinutrients is irrelevant.
As for my criticism of DV's praise of Wrangham's notions, that's justified. Any careful perusal of the few key articles on Wrangham shows that the scientific community views Wrangham as a fraud, so DV is simply pandering to the public - he knows that if he praises cooking he will get more followers of his diet, so he's willing to be dishonest for purposes of profit.
And cooked foods are not merely the same foods mildly altered. Cooked foods are entirely different kinds of foods from raw foods re category as they contain heat-created toxins, lack bacteria/enzymes etc.
As for the claims re mutation/adaptation, they are not relevant. First of all, as I pointed out on another thread, if dairy-adaptation really was so useful for mankind's survival then one would logically expect to find that most humans are fully adapted to all dairy. Yet, 75 percent of the world's population are lactose-intolerant, proving the opposite. Plus, one can reasonably argue that dairy was merely used as an inferior, substitute low-quality food to replace the past large amounts of meats HGs ate in pre-Neolithic times. And there are indications that dairy-consumption is directly linked to schizophrenia and other kinds of conditions, so some nasty side-effects result therefrom.
The notion that cooking improves survival in harsh climes is, of course, somewhat negated by the evidence of the Eskimoes who ate large amounts of raw meats despite living in arctic conditions. At best, one could claim that if an HG tribe lived in desert-like conditions that they would be forced to cook in order to deal with previously inedible vegetables, but, of course, such an HG tribe would be better off, healthwise, living elsewhere and eating raw, high-quality foods instead, as things like grains, tubers are suboptimal foods.
-
heh, yes me and my ZC notions. I think if we were to actually gather the statistics of this site, most peoples diets would be fairly restrictive of raw plant foods (mainly fruits) with sort of either a visible indifference or enthusiastic support to non-sweet, wild, fatty or cooked, juiced or brewed plants, herbs, and fungi. I don't see what most cooked food advocates have to do with anything since that doesn't seem to be the discussion. You do peruse and generalize in regards to Wrangham and others. If you actually read DV's info he is talking about cooking wild foods and (probably cooking) game foods and not grain-fed meats and avoiding things in the supermarket (or farmers market that has similar hybrid foods). He advocates eating very little domesticated foods, he just happens to place a different hierarchy on which things produce health with natural/wild foods and quantities instead of the converse which is unnatural but raw foods/quantities. Everyone can jump on this with his/her own experiences, but its not wrong by default just because it embraces cooking..one has to actually look at which things predate and casuate to health and disease.
If 25% of people are not lactose intolerant late in life..then it would seem its possible for human beings to develop adaptations to foods that did not exist as foods millions of years ago. I'd say that is fair closure to that discussion. Many scientists believe that not only are we adapted to cooking, but also micro processing into pills which despite their lacking of any natural enzymes of fibers do seem to be assimilated and cause various things to happen inside the body. To me we should be focused on what the consequences of cooking (both con and pro) as opposed to sweeping statements about adaptation. Of course Wrangham is doing the same but whether Wrangham has any ground to stand on at all from a scientific standpoint I do not know, but it certainly seems to be accurate in terms of being able to uptake nutrition even with enzymeless food etc..
The thing that bothers me is that you are now citing Eskimos as healthy. Anyway I wasn't talking talking about Eskimos..but todays people eating RAF. I've eaten raw meats outside in below freezing temps and its pretty rough. If I was eating cooked meats it might not make much of a difference, but the point is is that the Eskimos obviously had a heartiness that many people will lack despite how raw their diet is, so the idea that that HGs were unhealthy is sort of ridiculous if we are to define what contemporary people eating all raw propose as 'health'. As for the pox infected blankets thing, to my knowledge one of the main pillars of raw foodism is that infectious disease does not exist, so I at least have always been under the impression that these people did not die out immediately, but through slower term integration of western habits or were just plain murdered. I really don't know myself, but inclined to believe that this isn't really a good case against the Native American's health either way.
Some raw fruitarians in Europe I have spoken to actually do cook fruits, particularly since many 'vegetables' are in fact fruits and do need to be cooked (to be assimilated healthfully), but I agree by and large that we are talking about making fruit and veg edible that would not be otherwise. Removing such, you have a very limited spectrum of foods and many of these are problematic (in mine and others opinions and experiences). This is sort of indisupted and has nothing to do with ZC In fact there are plenty of people way more omnivorous then me that consume ~0 sweet fruits, as there are raw plant based dieters that consume ~0 sweet fruits. The idea that we are going to eat domesticated meats so who cares is actually not appropriate criticism of this..uh criticism. As pointed out by many people even on these forums, The dietary compositions are what is important. I know you disagree, but the tools and processes have been with us for up to 250,000 years plus now. So basically what this boils down to is that eating cooked animal fats or raw diary fats seem to deliver for many people far better for these compositions than excessive quantities of modern sugary fruits that would not exist in nature. One can certainly avoid these things (cooked fat, dairy) but I believe the phenomena is correct and well documented. The idea that these things also carry (possible) detriments does not discount that these diets will work even if there are better solutions. More importantly, people that do have such 'problems' with sweet fruits, usually can even eat high-glycemic cooked starches, so that is a particular case where cooking can not be dismissed if one chooses to eat the sugary/starchy plant foods. Obviously if people can use these things and experience greater health, then they arn't useless. Merely stating one can get by on raw food diets without such is exactly the argument people can use to justify any cooked or processed diet leading to longevity. The key is which strategies actually are going to work in the real world.
As to DV getting more followers to his diet, you have to actually look at what he sells..which is really just a handful of stuff. There are some diet gurus that vehemently propose an entirely different diet with 0 products. Just because someone is not selling anything doesn't mean they have the right answers or vice versa.
-
This site is hardly representative of RVAF diets as a whole, being just a tiny sliver of the RVAF diet community worldwide. Most RVAFers generally only eat a small amount of raw animal foods(raw dairy and raw eggs being the most common RAF foods eaten). We just represent the meat-heavy camp.
My comments re most pro-cooked-food-advocates favouring unhealthy supermarket. grainfed meats mostly is pertinent as you are, somewhat hypocritically, accusing raw food dieters of often not caring about the quality of their raw foods, despite the fact that most raw foodists constantly harp on about the issue of grassfed meats, organic fruit etc. - DV is a rare exception to the usual pro-cooked-advocate but that's all.
Re adaptation:- You are quite clearly confused as to what adaptation actually implies. Genuine full adaptation requires the food to be easily digested without problems, without any side-effects at all. Cooked foods contain heat-created toxins which harm human health over time, and, so far, not one single study has shown that we either are immune to all heat-created toxins or that we need to consume any heat-created toxins for health reasons. Similiarly, giant pandas can eat and digest raw bamboo more or less, but, becasue they have a naturally carnivorous digestive system, they are still ill-adapted to digesting bamboo. As regards enzymes, the point is not that one needs enzymes to digest cooked foods, but that, because cooked foods contain no enzymes, the body is forced to produce far more enzymes from its own organs than necessary to digest the relevant cooked food, which leads to the wearing out of such organs, thus accelerating aging of such organs, and other long-term side-effects.
Also lactose-intolerance is only one tiny aspect of problems with dairy. Other issues include lactose inhibiting copper-intake, the skewed calcium:magnesium ratio of dairy causing magnesium-deficiency( I have come across people who were never lactose-intolerant who got magnesiul-deficiency as a result of consuming dairy). And then there's the hormonal issues, plus dairy has been linked to the incidence of conditions like schizophrenia etc.
Re Eskimoes:- I did NOT state that the Eslimoes were healthy, merely that, directly contrary to your claims, they survived quite well in a very harsh climate on a diet consisting of large amounts of raw meats, thus showing that cooked foods are not required in a harsh, Arctic environment.
Re "pox-infected blankets":- That notion re blankets may be correct:-
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
Whatever the case, smallpox-infected blankets were not used in other contacts between Europeans and native HGs in other countries, yet the HGs there also died like flies, very soon after contact, not just after decades of adopting "white-man"s food". As to the notion of infectious diseases not existing, that is not a RVAF diet belief, merely something that Aajonus primarily believes in - and even he states that such diseases came about as a result of eating cooked foods.
The fact that a minority of raw vegans never eat fruit is irrelevant - many RVAFers eat raw fruits without issues, and most raw vegans actually eat a diet very high in raw fruits. And the fact that a tiny number of fruitarians cook a tiny number of their fruits is meaningless - besides, even cooked-foodists usually eat their fruits raw, not cooked.
As for your claims re raw foods/cooked-foods:- I did NOT state that one can "get by" on raw foods, I made it very, very clear that raw foods are WAY superior to cooked foods. The only exceptions are unhealthy things like grains or other antinutrient-heavy plant foods which should not be eaten in either cooked or raw form. Calling raw foods "problematic" is moronic as that only applies to things like raw grains that virtually no one eats. Most fruits can be eaten raw without any issues, apart from a tiny number of (R)ZCers in a population, and some veg can be eaten raw without issues(ie all those without high antinutrient-levels). So, cutting out raw broccoli and such antinutrient-heavy veg is hardly a limited diet when there are raw meats, raw organ-meats, some raw veg, raw eggs, raw honey, some raw mushrooms and raw fruits available. Sure, cooking allows extra (poor-quality) foods to be made more edible, such as tubers, but why waste effort on pointless cooking when one can eat much higher-quality raw foods instead?
More to the point, given that 75 percent of the world's population suffer from lactose-intolerance and ALL cooked-food-eaters suffer from problems in old-age gained from decades of absorbing heat-created toxins from cooked foods(re arthritis etc.), it is ridiculous to suggest that cooked animal foods or raw dairy are superior to raw fruits when food-intolerance to raw fruits is correspondingly tiny by comparison.
A guru who doesn't sell something has no real vested interests, and will therefore be far less corruptible than a guru who makes lots of money from his followers and who will therefore always try to sell people the most expensive supplements available. Didn't someone mention DV selling really expensive crap such as deer antlers in a recent post? Whatever the case, DV took the easy route in order to gain more followers - it wouldn't surprise me if he only ate raw meats in public solely for shock value so as to generate media attention.
-
our foods are not as nutritious as those of the Inuit, so therefore theres a total possibility that we need to find those nutrient sources elsewhere then pastured meats and organic fruits. To me this is a reasonable concept. It doesn't make cooking foods (particularly meat) necessary, it just means people should be open minded in regards to their nutrition and tools for reversing illness and creating health. I know personally that I would have a hard time surviving in MY climate nevermind the Inuit's from a pure perspective of health or as I labeled internal and external robustness. I'm not talking about needing to warm up from cooked foods, nor a skill set or food availability. I'd wager that many people are in the same boat who claim that they are eating the most superior diet, that is all that I said regarding that.
you just constantly are making sweeping remarks: reducing 'vegetables' to broccoli, calling mushrooms a non-nutritous food when fungi represent an ENIRE KINGDOM of life flush with nutrtion not found anywhere else, that 'fruit intollerance' is small etc....These are just huge exaggerations or underestimations. Your facts and 'history' is also inaccurate. Most of the major camps (natural hygiene, instincto, Primal, many independt folks here) within raw do not believe in infectious disease and not just Aajonus. Eating a heavily raw fruit diet is a very recent resurgence of an old concept, prior to that >5 years ago virtually all raw vegetarians limited fruit consumption and now the same major players preach the same thing backed up by 1000s of peoples experiences and lab data. you can't just wave this off, sorry. Its impossible to eat modern fruits 'without issues' and theres acres of research on that from all the LC camps as well as the long term raw vegans which includes massive research there too. On Fruit..not just table sugar. You can certainly do what you want, other than label these things 'fringe' or inconsequential or pick and choose between the science and lab results that can literally see blood turn to shit.
Its certainly nothing to stress over. I eat some fruits but not because I believe they are optimal sources of nutrition, other than a few vitiams that arn't easy to get. The problem is people that choose to ignore the research and peoples results are under the false assumption that raw fruits are unequivocally superior to other foods or that they are more natural than other sources of nutrtion hundreds of thousands of years old, which they arn't in either respect. If they actually looked at things rationally or simply went outside this would be quite clear.
Also I would argue that very few healthful foods would be able to fit your definition of what we are actually adapted to eating as virtually anything can cause both symptoms and actual disease. Most people that eat plant foods accept that nutrition is valuable only in certain doses. If cooking could be absolutely proven to cause detriments, this will never translate as poorly as people eating diets that go against people's actual needs , alter their metabolism negatively or feed internal problems. Its hard to speak towards everyone on the planet, but plenty of people even from raw backgrounds have adopted Mark Sisson's approach and increased their health. increasing their raw fruit consumption is disastrous->ineffective at best. Its irrelevant how 'unhealthy' such diets can seem from a raw perspective, as the only point is you can't unilaterally say a raw fruit (because it is raw) is better than a cooked vegetable or raw dairy fat. In fact i''ve said this so many times its becoming ridiculous. How is even a single persons experience not valid enough for you to change your mind here? The caveat has to be larger than 'ZCers that have problems'. These foods are completely different and much more nutritional rich regardless of any health problems..just particularly better for any specific health problems.
As for which individual foods are better than other foods, i'm not going to argue that any further, the proof is in peoples health. I never said people on "RVAF' diets don't care about the quality of their foods, only that they can choose nutrient poor or destructive choices based on total fictions. On top of that its my personal belief that many times people don't even score basic assessments on what it means to be healthy, and then will try only to 'prove' such by listing 'facts' about raw rather than actual results. Raw is an excellent tool to create results and perhaps the best diet, but people need to prove this in every case and every goal if they want to criticize others. This is particularly true if the criticized have extended experiments in raw and raw animal foods. To criticize people as being unhealthy or providing an unhealthful message based on what one thinks conceptually..rather than actually witnessing some of the contradictions of such beliefs or the fact that they actually ARE healthy..makes no sense to me.
That is unless there is some way for them to prove that the criticizers have the healthiest tissues, internal and external organs, metabolism, endurance, speed, reproductive abilities, emotional poise, quality of life etc...
-
Re wild-meats claims/domesticated meats:- This is meaningless. After all, RVAFers, far more than cooked-foodists, as a whole, try to go for higher quality foods such as raw wild fruits/raw wild game plus they actively seek out domesticated raw grassfed meats which are superior to other kinds of domesticated raw meats. Now, for one to suggest that all raw, domesticated meats, however grassfed, cannot heal by comparison to raw wild game(such as eaten by the Inuit) smacks of orthorexia.
Re mushrooms etc:-
It is irrelevant that mushrooms consist of an entire kingdom. As a whole, they are a food rather lacking in nutrition, therefore being merely a last-resort food, at best. The claim re raw vegans only eating raw fruit in very recent times sounds truly laughable as a claim. I mean, rawists/raw vegans have been eating raw fruits for decades. And the notion that raw fruits cause all these mythical health-problems is similiarly biased. Only a few people get such issues - which is why raw omnivores outnumber RZCers by far.
As for your claims re raw fruits, you are again falsifying my claims, as usual. I have not compared single raw fruits to single cooked meats. What matters is an overall diet. So a raw 100 percent fruitarian diet does not , over time, provide one with all the nutrients one needs. Similiarly, a cooked-palaeo diet will add on large amounts of heat-created toxins, thus burdening the body with all sorts of health-problems over time. Besides, I have come across far more reports of real improvement in health on raw diets whereas reports of recovery on cooked-palaeodiets are pathetic, if only by comparison to raw(ie better than SAD, and that's it).
As for the notion that RVAFers don't believe in infectious disease, like I said, this is primarily an Aajonism; with, granted NH and Instincto being also adherents. The rest of the RVAF diet world don't give it much credence as a notion.
Arguing that raw foodists can make bad choices about which foods are really healthy for them is, of course, utterly irrelevant - after all, the exact same point applies also(and to a greater extent) to cooked-palaeos. After all, many cooked-palaeos don't care how much they cook their meats, some even happily eat unhealthy, cooked grainfed meats, and most don't care about raw wild game, other than a tiny few like Cordain. By contrast, RVAFers are mostly into organic/grassfed/raw/wild etc.
-
Tyler, if I am ever foolish enough to get into a 'conversation' with you again, perhaps you could do me the service of just talking about the individuals in question, or perhaps the other people on this board. I can't exactly be responsible for what everyone in every camp eats nevermind the mystical band of RVAFers you keep hidden from us. We are talking about basically what one person is promoting or my own comments. I can say I've met quite a few long term raw foodists who they themselves interacted with tons of people. I've also met some cooked paleo dieters which I consider to be fairly healthy for modern people. I turn and talk about what people on this forum are actually engaged in and you bring up a bunch of other people i've never heard about or met. If people HERE are employing things to their benefit when they wern't previously eating meat and fruit, obviously we can't promote such diets as always being superior to help every issue. Its not that just meat and fruit DON'T cure things or even just meats..its that other things can potentially have value. again..seems not very confrontational to me.
as for mushrooms being a last resort food, that doesn't even make sense because like wild fruits they actually arn't capable of providing significant energy. These things - as with herbs - in nature were eaten with intelligence and with purpose, not as major sources of energy. For whatever reasons people at some point began to harness even more energy from plants through cooking, of which some things are arguably worse than others. Now people try to replicate the same dependence on those plant sources of energy with raw fruits..which isn't realistic or accurate. On top of that there are the other issues I suggested, but that alone is the hypocrisy in criticizing the other methods outright that are more accurate to our history and environment, as well as the foods we can source locally.
You made a claim about NAs that i'm sure very few raw foodists i've ever spoken to would be on board with so I really again don't know who these other raw foodists are - particularly meat eaters - who see natives as unhealthy. I can appreciate you questioning the health of HGs and particularly how their diets can or cannot translate to health today, but you artn't exactly engaging with the premis which was to state that most people today eating raw can not survive in nature probably AT ALL never-mind trying to replicate how they eat through just raw food that would be available (even then). To me this is totally fine, who cares really. at the same time doing so has certain repercussions. Even if one is to deny this, the very unnatural design of such diets provides very little leverage to criticize methods that have been part of the human race very much since practically the beginning of our 'humanity'. Now if we are going to talk about how eating raw over cooked is beneficial..that is fine...but one does not have to go to extremes to see that certain types of processing can have value over diets that contain even a seemingly healthful grouping of modern fruits and pastured meats.
-
the mystical band of RVAFers you keep hidden from us
Just wish to clear this up, that Geoff / Tyler has been promoting raw paleo diet for a long time. He started this forum. And prior to this forum manages a thriving raw paleo diet at yahoo groups has a good number of members for many years before this forum even got started. Plus Geoff served for quite some time at All Experts re raw paleo diet.
A lot of people aren't into forums even if they are raw paleo dieters.
Just so we understand where Geoff is coming from.
-
A lot of people aren't into forums even if they are raw paleo dieters.
the whole context of that was me talking about people on this forum and what they either were or were not doing and if they were as healthy as HGs basically. Also on the majority how people here tend to limit fruit - even when they arn't 'zero carbers'. So obviously this would mean people are either misguided or that there is some kind of intelligence of experience guiding them to that decision. It happens to be both fact and experience based, so bringing in people that are not on record to speak for themselves or provide any sense or proof of their health is pretty much less reliable than citing HGs as having healthy diets to emulate.
Even when one can see RZC as a legitimate strategy, there seems to be a blind spot that people that are omnivores can have better results limiting fruit and eating other types of plant foods with more significant sources of nutrition and less detriments. Lets not forget that the Primal Diet is one such diet that is not 'RZC' but limits fruit and that there are plenty of 'paleo' diets that do such and give people better results than a variety of other diets some of them raw.
The other context was saying that only Aajonus was putting forth the idea that there was no such thing as infectious disease. Every concept I've ever been introduced to with raw foods on an individual level and on the internet the last 5-6 years has tended to state nutritional problems and cooking as the cause of many 'infectious disease'. GS I though to include you in my 'guru' grouping above. I personally remain skeptical in some respects, but this is not an idea that is absent in any way of raw eating that I have come across. To take a leap and say that the cooking that Native Americans were involved in was enough to make them even less healthy than people that heavily cooked their food and ate neolithic food is even more of a brainscratcher.
The other issue is that I've gotten into the same argument with is veganism and limited fruit diets. No quantity of RVAFers distorts this statistic. I can say that 5-6 years ago with absolute certainty there really was an extremely small presence of people promoting a high fruit diet, this is a fact in the raw world. Many years prior there was more with Ehret and other movements later in the 60s that died off. Anyway, the amounts of RVAFers i'm quite positive was smaller than that of raw vegans even prior to the mid naughts, with a huge percentage - if not the bulk- at one point being on The Primal Diet given the statistics and #s there. Since then many people promoting diets high in fruit have either died or moved on the Primal Diet or perhaps raw zc or other diets or cooked. Some have improved their health somewhat sticking ot raw vegan diets of sprouts and other dense green foods thus displaying the problems are not unique to deficiencies as every such 'guru' will agree . This is just the reality of the percentages.
like I said tho..since most people are just on their personal experiment here and no one knows any of this stuff for sure, its much better to just respect that people have success with certain things - when they can actually back it up with evidence anyway - instead of just assuming things should fail or be worse based on hypothesis that DV wisely says are basically untested.
-
I like a lot of what Vitalis says, not very much what Wolfe says. It seems like Wolfe is prompting him on a lot of things too.
-
The very lame argument you and others have used before is to state that modern cultivated raw fruits are nothing like raw, wild fruits, but not only does the exact same argument apply to raw domesticated animal foods as well as regards raw wild meats, ....
I haven't seen anyone in this forum make that point. I've only seen you misunderstand and then misrepresent on that. If you have a post where someone made that argument, then please provide it. In my case, for example, I try to eat as much of my meats in wild, old-breed, 100% grassfed, pastured, free-range, local small farm, etc. forms as I can afford. Same with the plants--I try to get wild, heirloom, 100% organic, etc. plant foods. It's not practical for me to get all my food in wild, Stone Age forms, so I make do. It's basically the old-world gourmet way of eating. I suspect that this is only a small factor in actual health anyway, but I do notice differences in taste and how I seem to feel after eating the higher quality versions of foods, plus I figure it's generally better not to mess with nature any more than one has to, because it has unknowable consequences.
As KD pointed out, DV actually acknowledged in that video (and in other videos) that the same argument applies to meats to a certain degree re: wildness as applies to plants and so he reports that he tries to eat as much wild, near-wild and 100% grassfed meats as he can, to come as close to a wild dietary model as is practical for him (if what he says is true, of course, and if you accept that he really believes that his colostrum and other junk is close to the quality of wild foods, which I'm skeptical of, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just misguided and not trying to mislead people, unless someone has evidence to the contrary). The two points are not mutually exclusive but in fact part of the same basic point that foods have been altered by humans in ways that we don't fully understand and can't possibly ever understand 100%. BTW, this is one reason why I don't buy the ZIOH argument that grainfed meat is just as good as 100% grassfed or wild, as we don't fully understand what changes we humans do to animals when we selectively breed them and feed them diets different from their natural diets. I find the most interesting part of DV's videos to be when he reveals the history of a plant or animal.
If you're going to make comments re: DV's videos, wouldn't it help if you watched them first?
the whole context of that was me talking about people on this forum and what they either were or were not doing and if they were as healthy as HGs basically. Also on the majority how people here tend to limit fruit - even when they arn't 'zero carbers'. ...
Interesting hypothesis. Does anyone here eat a high fruit diet, say more than 50% of your calories from fruits?
Just wish to clear this up, that Geoff / Tyler has been promoting raw paleo diet for a long time. He started this forum. And prior to this forum manages a thriving raw paleo diet at yahoo groups has a good number of members for many years before this forum even got started. Plus Geoff served for quite some time at All Experts re raw paleo diet.
A lot of people aren't into forums even if they are raw paleo dieters.
Just so we understand where Geoff is coming from.
And don't forget his participation at the Paleofood forum, GS. I wonder if Tyler lashes people there even more mercilessly than us, because they are mostly the dreaded cooked foodists? (shiver) :P
-
I wonder if Tyler lashes people there even more mercilessly than us, because they are mostly the dreaded cooked foodists? (shiver) :P
We should raise funds by selling WWTDD wristbands. Durden, knower of all and corrector of opinions.
All in fun, Geoff! :D
I like a lot of what Vitalis says, not very much what Wolfe says. It seems like Wolfe is prompting him on a lot of things too.
Durianrider actually put together a decent montage of DW blasphemies. I think it is titled "david wolfe on levitating mushrooms".
-
I like a lot of what Vitalis says, not very much what Wolfe says. It seems like Wolfe is prompting him on a lot of things too.
I think they are good friends and I think david wolfe is open to the concept of meat eating now.
Maybe he is a covert RPD member here in this forum.
-
I think they are good friends and I think david wolfe is open to the concept of meat eating now.
Maybe he is a covert RPD member here in this forum.
Did you listen to the (not-so)Great Health Debate GS?
I think he said something like "meat needs to be cooked to take out the karma".
He once said that he eats ants, but I don't think he eats mammals.
-
I listened to david and daniel in a podcast together.
He was letting daniel explain his return to the wild.
That his cleansing, vegan time was what prepared him for healthy meat eating.
Couldn't catch those health debates. been busy.
david and daniel seem to be warm buddies.
-
I haven't seen anyone in this forum make that point. I've only seen you misunderstand and then misrepresent on that. If you have a post where someone made that argument, then please provide it.
That is disngenuous - not only are you such a regular member that you cannot have failed to have noticed various threads in the last year in which several people complained about the awfulness of domesticated fruits but never mentioned the raw wild game aspect until I raised the subject - but also, you are well aware that the search-engine of this site is so appalling that it would waste precious hours of my time to find it. Timewasting, unscrupulous nonsense, in other words. ;) l)
As for DV, I did watch one or two of his videos, but I do not have time to watch every single video of his I come across on this and other forums, and, anyway, DV activated my bullsh*t detector in various ways, so that I haven't bothered to look at them all.
-
the whole context of that was me talking about people on this forum and what they either were or were not doing and if they were as healthy as HGs basically. Also on the majority how people here tend to limit fruit - even when they arn't 'zero carbers'. So obviously this would mean people are either misguided or that there is some kind of intelligence of experience guiding them to that decision. It happens to be both fact and experience based, so bringing in people that are not on record to speak for themselves or provide any sense or proof of their health is pretty much less reliable than citing HGs as having healthy diets to emulate.
Even when one can see RZC as a legitimate strategy, there seems to be a blind spot that people that are omnivores can have better results limiting fruit and eating other types of plant foods with more significant sources of nutrition and less detriments. Lets not forget that the Primal Diet is one such diet that is not 'RZC' but limits fruit and that there are plenty of 'paleo' diets that do such and give people better results than a variety of other diets some of them raw.
The other context was saying that only Aajonus was putting forth the idea that there was no such thing as infectious disease. Every concept I've ever been introduced to with raw foods on an individual level and on the internet the last 5-6 years has tended to state nutritional problems and cooking as the cause of many 'infectious disease'. GS I though to include you in my 'guru' grouping above. I personally remain skeptical in some respects, but this is not an idea that is absent in any way of raw eating that I have come across. To take a leap and say that the cooking that Native Americans were involved in was enough to make them even less healthy than people that heavily cooked their food and ate neolithic food is even more of a brainscratcher.
Well, it seems I have inadvertently answered a later question. Well, i'll do this one now and the earlier one afterwards.
First of all, your claim re people here limiting fruits is, of course, meaningless as this forum is merely a tiny sliver of the RVAF diet community online, and doesn't even cover the far greater number of RVAFers who don't even frequent online forums like this one.The rawpaleoforum, by its very nature/ideology, is, unlike the rest of the RVAF diet community, heavily biased towards eating raw and palaeo foods, whereas the rest of the RVAF diet community happily go in for raw fruits or raw dairy etc. It is therefore dishonest to cite it as a typical example. Also, like I said previously, there seem to be more raw omnivores than there are RVLCers or RZCers here combined. Of course, it all depends on what one's definition of "RVLC" is. I take it to mean carbs being 1-2 percent or less of a raw diet, though some others, bizarrely, suggest that "VLC" means carbs being less than 10-15 percent of a diet with "LC" being defined as carbs forming only less than 40(!) percent of a particular diet.
-
As for the previous post, I've been surfing RVAF diet forums for 9-10 years now(and raw vegan ones before that) and one of the biggest concerns mentioned in raw vegan circles was that raw vegan dieters routinely ate most of their intake in the form of raw fruits - not surprising, really, as raw veg is somewhat bland in taste.
The argument that raw-foodists couldn't survive in the wild is , of course, a meaningless argument as the exact same applies to cooked-palaeodieters given that a) the current environment, due to human destruction of it, is rather devoid of easily obtainable sources of raw wild game, let alone raw wild fruits, so that people could not easily survive on a cooked-palaeodiet if shoved out into the modern New Forest, for example; and b) modern peoples, regardless of diet, do not have the survival skills that HGs had in palaeo times.
The claims re high-fruit-diets only appearing en masse in the last 5-6 years is false. Fruitarianism has been around for far, far longer, as a diet, than any raw-meat-diet, more lika century or so:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism#Notable_adherents
And, like I said, many raw vegans have complained, in the past, that most raw vegans go in too much for raw fruits(it's a classic excuse to blame only a specific type of raw plant foods(raw fruits in this case) in order to obscure the fact that raw plant foods, as a whole, do not provide all the nutrients a human body needs over the span of many years).
Now, one can claim that interest in high-fruit-diets wax and wane all the time, but that happens to all other types of diets, even RVAF diets or cooked-paleodiets - after all, the sudden popularity of diets coincides with the latest book of a guru etc. I have heard that a book generates renewed interest in a particular type of diet for a span of c.7 years, no more.
-
Quote from: PaleoPhil on Yesterday at 10:46:22 PM
I haven't seen anyone in this forum make that point. I've only seen you misunderstand and then misrepresent on that. If you have a post where someone made that argument, then please provide it.
That is disngenuous - not only are you such a regular member that you cannot have failed to have noticed various threads in the last year in which several people complained about the awfulness of domesticated fruits but never mentioned the raw wild game aspect until I raised the subject -
Not mentioning the wild game vs. grain fed domesticated animals aspect is not the same as believing that there is no difference. I never imagined that anyone here would think that because there are many posts from you, me and others about the benefits of wild and pasture-fed animals over feedlot cattle. I didn't think this was even much a matter of controversy here. I only see it as a controversy at ZIOH and semi-controversial at Dirty Carnivore (and even at DC the forum founder and others argue in favor of pasture fed animals).
but also, you are well aware that the search-engine of this site is so appalling that it would waste precious hours of my time to find it. Timewasting, unscrupulous nonsense, in other words. ;) l)
LOL Actually, I haven't had that much problems with it and there are two search engines if you don't like one.
As for DV, I did watch one or two of his videos, but I do not have time to watch every single video
I didn't say you did. I just suggested it might be helpful to you if you watched the ones you comment on.
of his I come across on this and other forums, and, anyway, DV activated my bullsh*t detector in various ways, so that I haven't bothered to look at them all.
To a certain degree he activated mine as well, given that he, like Mercola and others, has a vested interested in the products he sells. It doesn't prove anything, but it does raise my level of skepticism.
-
Well, there were threads on the perils of domesticated fruits in some forums, but deliberately without mention of the perils of domesticated meats, until I stepped in.
As for DV, I generally loathe gurus, as in all cases, I have found them, at least some(sometimes all) of the time to promote stuff that didn't ever work for me and many others. I realise people have to make money to live, but I prefer integrity over profit.
-
Domesticated animals aren't hybridized for certain macronutrients like fruit, they are hybridized for other reasons. If they hybridized cows to have more fat or protien that would be similar to hybridized plant foods but they don't afaik. The composition of domesticated fruits is radically different than wild fruit, the same can't be said for domesticated animals.
Check out how different wild fruits are compared to domesticated
%water %lipid %protein %sugar %fiber
wild fruit 81.0 4.9 9.5 13.9 33.6
domestic fruit 84.8 2.5 5.5 34.0 10.0
domestic
vegetables 90.3 1.9 18.8 24.0 10.0
http://cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html
-
Well, it seems I have inadvertently answered a later question. Well, i'll do this one now and the earlier one afterwards.
First of all, your claim re people here limiting fruits is, of course, meaningless as this forum is merely a tiny sliver of the RVAF diet community online, and doesn't even cover the far greater number of RVAFers who don't even frequent online forums like this one.The rawpaleoforum, by its very nature/ideology, is, unlike the rest of the RVAF diet community, heavily biased towards eating raw and palaeo foods, whereas the rest of the RVAF diet community happily go in for raw fruits or raw dairy etc. It is therefore dishonest to cite it as a typical example. Also, like I said previously, there seem to be more raw omnivores than there are RVLCers or RZCers here combined. Of course, it all depends on what one's definition of "RVLC" is. I take it to mean carbs being 1-2 percent or less of a raw diet, though some others, bizarrely, suggest that "VLC" means carbs being less than 10-15 percent of a diet with "LC" being defined as carbs forming only less than 40(!) percent of a particular diet.
The whole point was to discuss why people on this forum do what they do and its similarities to DV philosophies, not other cooked foodists or other raw foodists that you are bringing in constantly to talk about again one persons philosophy that you arn't even looking at or has any correlations to such. I gave honest stats prior to 2005 of the raw vegan community that anyone can verify because you constantly downplay that most people that eat the majority of their foods as plants will cite specifically the problems associated with fruits as opposed to raw sprouts or even cooked starches. Its only recently in the last few years that there has been a resurgence against that often making the same claims that people are trying to sell products. but the concept is serious and has nothing to do with malnutrition of vegan diets generally but the fruit sugars interaction with internal problems and this is where the documentation is. Many leaders are forced to recommend steamed foods over raw foods despite them being raw leaders and thus seems ridiculous to many people because it sort of is. Anyone can verify this. The fact that peopel in 'RVAF' communities might eat some liberal amount of fruits by comparison to members here is not to say that they do not limit fruits to less than a significant portion of their calories.
To me if someone runs the math on this forum there are roughly 2-5 actually year round zero carbers with some of which eating some plant food. 2-5 instinctos with 2-3 of which actually claiming to limit fruits. Then there are a few full on omnivores that perhaps don't consciously limit anything. Virtually every other person will limit fruit in the sense where they bring some consciousness in terms of eating it or essentially eat next to no fruits. You mentioned that DV and Wangram are pulling form unknowns of HGs and you presented us with some unknown set of people that totally skirted the question anyway, which had to do specifically with people here and whether you actually thought that HGs had inferior health to people doing a contemporary raw paleo diet. It has nothing to do with cooking, but your comment that was rather outrageous if people are calling certain dedications to abstractions as health without any of the abilities or health of HGs to actually survive in nature. In skirting such, either you think that the vast majority of people are pursuing a unhealthful diet fueled by ignorance, or you are just bringing up other people for absolutely no reason. There is absolutely no way that I buy that there is any significant RVAF communities that are eating the bulk of their foods as fruits and dairy that are not eating some kind of Primal Diet or largely Weston Price diet influenced diet or a significant portion of calories from avocados, nuts and seeds, sprouts and/or cooked foods.
-
Even people that believe fruit should represent 90% of the diet calorically believe there are vitamins and minerals present in vegetables that are not in fruits. Because they do not eat ruminant diets high in animal fat, they miss out on some of these plant nutrients that are more readily available there for humans than eating 'salad' or 'kale smoothies' or something. But the fact remains is that a.) some people are not eating the ruminant meats found in nature (that actually eat the wild untainted plants) or sometimes the correlations of fats found for energy. As I said if people are choosing to make up this detriment of energy with modern fruits...they arn't eating a natural diet in any sense to criticize these other methods hundred of thousands of years old. If people choose to do something different, it is certainly appropriate for them who believe we are omnivores to search out these minerals and nutrients in supplemental plant foods actually eaten by many (perhaps not all) of our ancestors in the last 200,000 years. Its certainly not mandatory as people will show and experience, bu we are talking range of nutrition. Obviously the larger population can get by on none of the foods we might talk about as being healthful for extended periods of time.
Ironically, orthorexia is a term devised specifically to target raw diets and any diet that latch on to concepts of what is healthy even when they fly in the face of peoples diminishing health. People that are trying to search out nutrition by emphasizing wild food or traditional processes are far from orthorexic. Its critical thinking that says 'hell if I cannot be the absolutely healthiest person I can be doing this particular program interpreted by a few contemporary people..that allows me to keep a healthy weight, level of energy, sense of well being and actually exude health then perhaps its worth exploring other supplemental things or different concepts that people are claiming are bad that can only be suggested on paper when such things are isolated in a vacuum"
If people want to go a step further and question that since we are not HGs and don't live in a pure environment and are actually starting at a way lower level of health - that we should eat far more of our foods raw or exclusively raw...or eat even higher raw animal fat diets that can be readily supplied in nature because its shown to heal and remove disease in contemporary people..then heck thats probably even smarter.
What DV is presenting is just totally rational information that actually requires very little speculation as suggested and states the obvious that these diets are totally sufficient for absorbing the proper nutrition people as a default need to survive and thrive as human beings. If people are in totally poor health, or want to live 5000 years, perhaps then its worthwhile pursuing something with way more consciousness towards cooking and employing some kind of contemporary raw technology as well as other detox strategies. I mean..I do that.. but still then it might be superior to eat some kind of raw, fermented or otherwise cooked/processed wild plant matter in lieu of larger wild ruminant fat diets and to avoid the common all raw diets of cultivated and limited or disproportionate foods.
-
Domesticated animals aren't hybridized for certain macronutrients like fruit, they are hybridized for other reasons. If they hybridized cows to have more fat or protien that would be similar to hybridized plant foods but they don't afaik. The composition of domesticated fruits is radically different than wild fruit, the same can't be said for domesticated animals.
Check out how different wild fruits are compared to domesticated
%water %lipid %protein %sugar %fiber
wild fruit 81.0 4.9 9.5 13.9 33.6
domestic fruit 84.8 2.5 5.5 34.0 10.0
domestic
vegetables 90.3 1.9 18.8 24.0 10.0
http://cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html
Not at all. You see, domestication of animals has directly led to severe inbreeding, which, naturally, ruins the quality/taste(and therefore nutrient-profile) of the raw meats. I noticed, for example, that the (farmed/grainfed) wild boar I ate in the UK, while not tasting anywhere near as good as genuine raw wild boar, still tasted WAY better than domesticated, raw grainfed pork, by comparison.
The inbreeding has, of course, gotten even worse in the last few decades due to the odious practice of using the semen of just 1 bull to father 1,000s of cattle at a time, thus leading to sickly, inbred animals with no resistance to disease of any note. One other aspect are the udders of domesticated cows which are far larger, due to millenia of inbreeding, than the tiny, almost invisible udders of aurochs females in palaeo times.
-
The whole point was to discuss why people on this forum do what they do and its similarities to DV philosophies, not other cooked foodists or other raw foodists that you are bringing in constantly to talk about again one persons philosophy that you arn't even looking at or has any correlations to such. I gave honest stats prior to 2005 of the raw vegan community that anyone can verify because you constantly downplay that most people that eat the majority of their foods as plants will cite specifically the problems associated with fruits as opposed to raw sprouts or even cooked starches. Its only recently in the last few years that there has been a resurgence against that often making the same claims that people are trying to sell products. but the concept is serious and has nothing to do with malnutrition of vegan diets generally but the fruit sugars interaction with internal problems and this is where the documentation is. Many leaders are forced to recommend steamed foods over raw foods despite them being raw leaders and thus seems ridiculous to many people because it sort of is. Anyone can verify this. The fact that peopel in 'RVAF' communities might eat some liberal amount of fruits by comparison to members here is not to say that they do not limit fruits to less than a significant portion of their calories.
Yet you have made absurd generalised remarks about rawists in general not surviving in the wild not just forum-members etc., and foolish remarks re raw fruits being dangerous despite the fact that most RVAFers are actually fine on raw fruits, aside from the RZC minority. The simple fact is that some people do indeed thrive on fruitarianism minus any cooked foods, it is simply that, in the long-term(months/years, depending on the individual), most fruitarians will suffer from nutritional deficiencies due to raw plant foods not providing absolutely all the nutrients a body needs - the body can make substitutes for some missing nutrients at extra effort on its part, but eventually, nutritional deficiencies will occur. I'm a classic case - I did c.2-3 years of raw veganism, most of which was 100 percent fruitarian, and, while I did not solve my worst health-problems via that diet, my health did not deteriorate as fast as it did on a diet rich in cooked animal foods - I, in the end, gave up on fruitarianism only because it wasn't getting rid of serious issues such as anxiety/teeth-issues/CFS etc. and because I developed massive hunger-pangs as a result, despite some benefits such as slimness etc. By comparison, cooked animal foods gave me chronic constipation, rectal bleeding, obesity, and such painful stomach-aches that it felt almost like I was being disembowelled, etc.
Well, this explains your past bias against Instincto - you really don't like the notion of Instinctos ( some of whom are on c.10 percent raw animal food/c.90 percent raw plant foods) being healthy, as that refutes your notions re raw fruit).
On a side-note:- I was interested, at one point, to read a comment by a RVAFer on another forum, years ago, who stated that the Instinctos he saw at one RVAF diet party were far healthier-looking than the raw-meat-heavy Primal Dieters he saw there at the same gathering.
As for the other claims, actually it is far more common for RV gurus to recommend eating a little cooked animal food or, rarely, raw animal food like raw dairy - which makes more sense, of course, as regards combatting nutritional deficiencies. The notions re cutting down on raw fruits, such as choosing low-sugar ones are just standard excuses given to RVers who eventually find that they are getting nutritional deficiencies over time. Incidentally, note that some RVers/Fruitarians live very healthily even after a decade or so, thus casting doubt on this silly notion that fruit-sugars are deadly.
To me if someone runs the math on this forum there are roughly 2-5 actually year round zero carbers with some of which eating some plant food. 2-5 instinctos with 2-3 of which actually claiming to limit fruits. Then there are a few full on omnivores that perhaps don't consciously limit anything. Virtually every other person will limit fruit in the sense where they bring some consciousness in terms of eating it or essentially eat next to no fruits. You mentioned that DV and Wangram are pulling form unknowns of HGs and you presented us with some unknown set of people that totally skirted the question anyway, which had to do specifically with people here and whether you actually thought that HGs had inferior health to people doing a contemporary raw paleo diet. It has nothing to do with cooking, but your comment that was rather outrageous if people are calling certain dedications to abstractions as health without any of the abilities or health of HGs to actually survive in nature. In skirting such, either you think that the vast majority of people are pursuing a unhealthful diet fueled by ignorance, or you are just bringing up other people for absolutely no reason. There is absolutely no way that I buy that there is any significant RVAF communities that are eating the bulk of their foods as fruits and dairy that are not eating some kind of Primal Diet or largely Weston Price diet influenced diet or a significant portion of calories from avocados, nuts and seeds, sprouts and/or cooked foods.
Well, the above is, of course, utter nonsense. For one thing, interest in raw-animal-food-heavy raw diets only really grew in the 1990s with Aajonus's book on the Primal Diet(c.1997 published I think?). Before that, communities like Pangaia(which switched to the primal diet later on and then raw veganism) mostly just flirted with Instincto, with an emphasis on raw plant foods, mainly.Weston-Price diets are not really raw, but cooked diets so cannot be included as a raw diet - after all, the only raw components of a Weston-Price diet are usually raw dairy and occasional RAF foods like raw liver - otherwise, Sally Fallon et al all insist on mainly cooking their foods, albeit lightly - indeed, Sally Fallon wrote an essay attacking Aajonus over the issue of raw versus cooked.
-
Actually, in the past, I have known of one or two orthorexic people who emphasised raw or cooked wild game over other meats. It's inevitable that someone seeking perfection will be aiming for the most high-quality foods within their diet.
Orthorexia is, of course, not merely a raw-diet phenomenon but exists in similiar proportions in other diets.
As for the other comments, while I concede that a seemingly healthy person should not be bothered with a RVAF diet and could perhaps go cooked-palaeo for a time, inevitably, such a person would benefit from a RVAF diet more than a cooked one, once he reaches old-age. The main harm caused by cooked-diets seems to occur from the age of 40 onwards, as masses of studies done on heat-created toxins show, clearly, that old-age is made worse by these toxins re increases in rates of atherosclerosis/arthritis etc.
While this is not relevant to the thread, I did ages ago show an article on a study ages ago which indicated that the advent of cooked foods in the palaeolithic era might have led to rises in schizophrenia and other mental conditions. It suggests to me that cooked-foods, even cooked-palaeo foods might have many other hidden nasty side-effects on people, as opposed to just harming general health.
-
Not at all. You see, domestication of animals has directly led to severe inbreeding, which, naturally, ruins the quality/taste(and therefore nutrient-profile) of the raw meats. I noticed, for example, that the (farmed/grainfed) wild boar I ate in the UK, while not tasting anywhere near as good as genuine raw wild boar, still tasted WAY better than domesticated, raw grainfed pork, by comparison.
The inbreeding has, of course, gotten even worse in the last few decades due to the odious practice of using the semen of just 1 bull to father 1,000s of cattle at a time, thus leading to sickly, inbred animals with no resistance to disease of any note. One other aspect are the udders of domesticated cows which are far larger, due to millenia of inbreeding, than the tiny, almost invisible udders of aurochs females in palaeo times.
Healthy grass fed animals don't equal sickly grainfed animals. My point was that healthy animals whether hybridized or not will have essentially the same nutrient composition, if you have evidence against this claim I would love to see it. You can have healthy hybridized fruits but the nutrient composition will still be skewed towards less nutrients/fiber and more sugar
-
Healthy grass fed animals don't equal sickly grainfed animals. My point was that healthy animals whether hybridized or not will have essentially the same nutrient composition, if you have evidence against this claim I would love to see it. You can have healthy hybridized fruits but the nutrient composition will still be skewed towards less nutrients/fiber and more sugar
The whole point is that most modern cattle, however grassfed, are severely inbred(and therefore unhealthy) so as to provide far inferior meat to raw wild game. Besides, feeding on grass does NOT mean they are on the same level as raw wild animals as, say, a wild aurochs in palaeo times would have had access to plants(ie herbs) other than just grass/hay. I've been told by 1 grassfed-meat (rawpalaeo)farmer that adding herbs like clover makes a hell of a difference to the nutritional profile of his grassfed meats, for instance.
-
Yet you have made absurd generalised remarks about rawists in general not surviving in the wild not just forum-members etc., and foolish remarks re raw fruits being dangerous despite the fact that most RVAFers are actually fine on raw fruits, aside from the RZC minority.
For one thing, interest in raw-animal-food-heavy raw diets only really grew in the 1990s with Aajonus's book on the Primal Diet(c.1997 published I think?). Before that, communities like Pangaia(which switched to the primal diet later on and then raw veganism)
The question wasn't who does poorly with fruits but who restricts them for health reasons. Again who is this 'RZC minority' and why does it include almost everyone on this board? People don't have to 'have problems with fruits' to restrict them for dietary gain given the overwhelming sample right here.People also don't have to be 'ZC' to eat high fat diets..even though you constantly equate people that require healthy levels of fats as ZC dieters when most people tend to recommend eating high fat is one is restricing carbs. Virtually everyone also eats well over half their calories from fats, so this is not a minority either (on this forum). Since you don't do this, its apparently the right way for everyone to not require high fats
note that some RVers/Fruitarians live very healthily even after a decade or so, thus casting doubt on this silly notion that fruit-sugars are deadly.
yeah and how many of these people have you actually MET?
What standard, What scientific and measurable data, medical data, or just visual standard of tissue quality and overall fitness are you using to actual assess who has health and who doesn't? Which indigenous people have you spent time with? It sounds like virtually every one of your accounts is some anecdotal thing that your friends uncle who attended a potluck of primal dieters and instinctos once said or someting you have pieced together off the internet. As even you pointed out all those communities and people have MOVED ON to other diets. None of these people are or ever were healthy by any standard that would impress anyone that isn't incredibly unhealthy and desperate themselves. Why is my slight against modern people (including myself) that practice raw diets health unfair in comparison if you are citing HGs are unhealthy when clearly their teeth and bone structures alone will likely never be able to be cured/reproduced in one generation of raw eaters? I'm not suggesting some cooked diet will correct these things. I'm suggesting that the claims for raw foods are hyperbolic and naive. We need to supply accurate information and advtanges that people actually experience through raw foods, not report on the things they SHOULD experience or lower the standards and deinitions of such words like health until they fit our purposes.
If we are talking about HGs in pure environments that hardly ate any of the damaging cooked food in comparison to modern people from birth to death were LESS HEALTHY(??) then people who switched to eating raw and organic food midlife? Please! if you honestly believe this then we must get you and all your internet RVAFers on the TODAY show so they can wow the populace with their extraterrestrial beaming health. My 'comment' is always the same and gets shot down the same way. put the money where the mouth is and use all the technologies available to prove your diet will produce better results than the diet you are criticizing. you will say all the tests and such that one can 'prove' such things are unreliable or biased.
People can maintain health on a variety of approaches for the exact same reasons people can on SWD diets can or conceivably more so due to lack of crap. Some can have benefit but the detriments are not limited to defficiences as peole can run into all kinds of problems even eatng healthy raw foods nevermind just supplementing the 'missing nutrients'. People 'fail' all the time even on the most healthful of approaches and likely because they follow some IDEA of what is right rather than what they need to solve their particular problems.
The sad thing is DV presents exactly the proper counterpoint to all this bullshit that keeps people running in circles and claiming they are healthy because such and such is supposed to be this or that way.
He has had decades of experience on raw diets and has traveled all over the world meeting people. Yet he quoted Wangram so obviously he knows nothing of use to anyone. umm ok? Just lacking crap is not enough or people to get well, I believe this is in his information as well. People don't have to obsess over eating wild foods or vegetables or dairy or cooked foods any other thing, they just have to recognize these things are helpful in certain circumstances. People need to question the realities of so called 'health' programs when the people proposing such are not even healthy. Peple promote Walt Disney like realities where if they just this and that - that all there troubles will go away. My problems with those strategies above isn't that people CANNOT be healthy, its that they have no right to tell people other methods are not healthful when people blatantly achieve superior health doing so. If people want to claim they are doing fantastic on breatharianism. I seriously can't argue that is not true because I do not know, but if people want to rave against tallow or something (which i don't currently eat) and eat a lb. of dates and then claim this is the way we are supposed to eat than there is an obvious problem of logic there. No one can prove which way is 'better', we can just observe the results and acknowledge what the more natural solution actually is, which may or may not be the healthiest for every person.
-
I think they are good friends and I think david wolfe is open to the concept of meat eating now.
Maybe he is a covert RPD member here in this forum.
When I listen to David Wolfe I get the feeling everything he says is tinged with trying to sell products. He comes off to me as a sleezy used car salesman, putting the force of his will on everything he says. It has been very effective, I'm sure he's a millionaire from his product sales and seminars etc, I just don't think he really is on the same kind of wavelength as I am. Especially when he prompts Daniel Vitalis to reject Darwinism, while Vitalis is basically using evolutionary nutrition (paleo) as the basis for most of his ideas.
-
I know this was put together by Bananarider, but it drives your point home Kyle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuGgzI--9ZQ&feature=player_detailpage
-
Well, there were threads on the perils of domesticated fruits in some forums, but deliberately without mention of the perils of domesticated meats, until I stepped in.
How do you know that the absence of mention was deliberate or meant to mean anything? Maybe people were focused on discussing the topic of fruits. There are separate threads on grassfed vs. grainfed meats and the like, though probably with less interest.
I don't believe that all meats are equal but I vaguely remember you jumping to that assumption re: me in the past just because I didn't mention meats in a discussion of fruits.
-
When I listen to David Wolfe I get the feeling everything he says is tinged with trying to sell products. He comes off to me as a sleezy used car salesman, putting the force of his will on everything he says. It has been very effective, I'm sure he's a millionaire from his product sales and seminars etc, I just don't think he really is on the same kind of wavelength as I am. Especially when he prompts Daniel Vitalis to reject Darwinism, while Vitalis is basically using evolutionary nutrition (paleo) as the basis for most of his ideas.
I think David Wolfe's salesmanship works with vegans.
Seems we raw paleo dieters are too boring as a crowd.
Maybe our intellects have gone up beyond the salesmanship of David Wolfe's.
-
The whole point is that most modern cattle, however grassfed, are severely inbred(and therefore unhealthy) so as to provide far inferior meat to raw wild game. Besides, feeding on grass does NOT mean they are on the same level as raw wild animals as, say, a wild aurochs in palaeo times would have had access to plants(ie herbs) other than just grass/hay. I've been told by 1 grassfed-meat (rawpalaeo)farmer that adding herbs like clover makes a hell of a difference to the nutritional profile of his grassfed meats, for instance.
My mistake when I said nutrient, I meant to refer to macro-nutrient. The macro-nutrient content of animals never changes(unless fed grains), of course the domestic meat is probably less micronutrient dense but this is an assumption. Hybridized fruits have a different macro-nutrient and micro-nutrient makeup then wild fruit, 75% of the carbohydrates are fiber compared to the 20ish% in cultivated fruits. Wild fruit is nearly inedible to humans, especially without processing. Can the same be said for wild game?? :) I don't think you get that we can feed the cultivated cows wild foods and they will end up with similar nutrient content to wild aurochs, this isn't the case for cultivated fruits.
-
Well, some people would heavily disagree with you re domestic fruits not being able to be improved, notably those who are fascinated by brix-meters etc. These people theorise that most modern fruit is very nutrient-poor due to demineralised soil etc., so they go in for dumping mineral powders which then slowly get absorbed.
I have not personally found wild fruits to be "nearly inedible". I've tried wild blackberries and wild garlic leaves which were very nutritious indeed.
-
I don't think you get that we can feed the cultivated cows wild foods and they will end up with similar nutrient content to wild aurochs, this isn't the case for cultivated fruits.
I read somewhere that they tried to get the aurochs back in Germany(i think) with no success.
-
I read somewhere that they tried to get the aurochs back in Germany(i think) with no success.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1961918,00.html
-
Gracias
-
The question wasn't who does poorly with fruits but who restricts them for health reasons. Again who is this 'RZC minority' and why does it include almost everyone on this board? People don't have to 'have problems with fruits' to restrict them for dietary gain given the overwhelming sample right here.People also don't have to be 'ZC' to eat high fat diets..even though you constantly equate people that require healthy levels of fats as ZC dieters when most people tend to recommend eating high fat is one is restricing carbs. Virtually everyone also eats well over half their calories from fats, so this is not a minority either (on this forum). Since you don't do this, its apparently the right way for everyone to not require high fats
yeah and how many of these people have you actually MET?
What standard, What scientific and measurable data, medical data, or just visual standard of tissue quality and overall fitness are you using to actual assess who has health and who doesn't? Which indigenous people have you spent time with? It sounds like virtually every one of your accounts is some anecdotal thing that your friends uncle who attended a potluck of primal dieters and instinctos once said or someting you have pieced together off the internet. As even you pointed out all those communities and people have MOVED ON to other diets. None of these people are or ever were healthy by any standard that would impress anyone that isn't incredibly unhealthy and desperate themselves. Why is my slight against modern people (including myself) that practice raw diets health unfair in comparison if you are citing HGs are unhealthy when clearly their teeth and bone structures alone will likely never be able to be cured/reproduced in one generation of raw eaters? I'm not suggesting some cooked diet will correct these things. I'm suggesting that the claims for raw foods are hyperbolic and naive. We need to supply accurate information and advtanges that people actually experience through raw foods, not report on the things they SHOULD experience or lower the standards and deinitions of such words like health until they fit our purposes.
If we are talking about HGs in pure environments that hardly ate any of the damaging cooked food in comparison to modern people from birth to death were LESS HEALTHY(??) then people who switched to eating raw and organic food midlife? Please! if you honestly believe this then we must get you and all your internet RVAFers on the TODAY show so they can wow the populace with their extraterrestrial beaming health. My 'comment' is always the same and gets shot down the same way. put the money where the mouth is and use all the technologies available to prove your diet will produce better results than the diet you are criticizing. you will say all the tests and such that one can 'prove' such things are unreliable or biased.
People can maintain health on a variety of approaches for the exact same reasons people can on SWD diets can or conceivably more so due to lack of crap. Some can have benefit but the detriments are not limited to defficiences as peole can run into all kinds of problems even eatng healthy raw foods nevermind just supplementing the 'missing nutrients'. People 'fail' all the time even on the most healthful of approaches and likely because they follow some IDEA of what is right rather than what they need to solve their particular problems.
The sad thing is DV presents exactly the proper counterpoint to all this bullshit that keeps people running in circles and claiming they are healthy because such and such is supposed to be this or that way.
He has had decades of experience on raw diets and has traveled all over the world meeting people. Yet he quoted Wangram so obviously he knows nothing of use to anyone. umm ok? Just lacking crap is not enough or people to get well, I believe this is in his information as well. People don't have to obsess over eating wild foods or vegetables or dairy or cooked foods any other thing, they just have to recognize these things are helpful in certain circumstances. People need to question the realities of so called 'health' programs when the people proposing such are not even healthy. Peple promote Walt Disney like realities where if they just this and that - that all there troubles will go away. My problems with those strategies above isn't that people CANNOT be healthy, its that they have no right to tell people other methods are not healthful when people blatantly achieve superior health doing so. If people want to claim they are doing fantastic on breatharianism. I seriously can't argue that is not true because I do not know, but if people want to rave against tallow or something (which i don't currently eat) and eat a lb. of dates and then claim this is the way we are supposed to eat than there is an obvious problem of logic there. No one can prove which way is 'better', we can just observe the results and acknowledge what the more natural solution actually is, which may or may not be the healthiest for every person.
Well, that was a lot of useless hyperbole. I suppose I should address what few points lie therein among all that excess verbiage:-
1) Talking about this forum alone is dishonest as rawpaleoforum is only a tiny sliver of the whole RVAF diet community. In other words, those who do fine on diets high in raw plant foods, but low in raw animal foods, are unlikely to congregate here, due to the inherent meat-heavy bias on this site.
2) Even here, the RZC community is smaller than the raw omnivore community. Even taking into account the raw omnivores who heavily restrict raw carbs( less than 5 percent), the raw omnivore component who don't care about raw carb-issues is still larger:-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/are-you-a-zcer/
Kind of interesting, don't you think, that a raw-meat-biased site like this one still has more raw omnivores than other categories?
3) Your naive view on the supposed superiority of health of HGs on lightly-cooked diet is touching and a clear example of the idiocy of the Noble-Savage theory. There is already evidence that the life of HGs was not idyllic, despite Weston-Price's laughable claims, such as Mann's study on the Masai re their atherosclerosis:-
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.short
And the Maoris were shown to be hardly that healthy on their own pre-colonial diets etc.
4)
The serious problem you have is that there is precious little scientific data on the supposed health of HGs, but there is a vast amount of scientific data on the harmful effect of heat-created toxins generated by cooking foods.
As for DV, his fanatical support of Wrangham's claims makes it very clear that he hasn't done much research on the subject, as Wrangham's notions are easily debunked with only a tiny bit of research.
-
...As for DV, his fanatical support of Wrangham's claims makes it very clear that he hasn't done much research on the subject, as Wrangham's notions are easily debunked with only a tiny bit of research.
Yes, it's been disappointing to see scientists, physicians and intelligent amateurs jump on the coctivore bandwagon (humans as adapted to optimally eat cooked foods) after just reading Wrangham's book or, worse, just seeing one of the articles on his work. I suspect the main reason is because most of them already eat cooked food and so welcome a justification of it--aka confirmation bias.
-
yeah, again could you answer the ACTUAL quesitons and comments. Please report how you measure health of anyone or yourself other than the actual theories of heat created toxins AND how this would say a diet high in fruits is healthier than a diet that contains emphasis on foods eaten in nature for the last 200,000 years+ - that is if you want to be taken seriously at all.
Fred Bisci, Robert Young, Gabriel Cousens, and Brian Clement, not to mention Aajonus each have 30-40 years practicing in this field seeing literaly 10's of thousands of 'patients' (many of which are raw fooders of various persuasions) EACH in that period. People like Kurt Harris, Eades and others have massive evidence as well regarding this issue. This is EVIDENCE that you dismiss. You are citing selected studies that can prove or disprove ANYTHING including often any source from cooked paleo dieters that fits your conclusions you already have.. then citing people you have never met or observed serious information on as 'healthy' based on the same diets you are trying to defend. This is CIRCULAR LOGIC. I don't care how healthy HGs are...only complete confidence that there is no way that the people you are claiming as 'healthy have are in any position to make judgments on such processes or actual diets found in nature considering your GREATER lack of evidence.
If you want to dismiss any of this with a wand..you actually have to deliver the actual evidence and not just say that people are 'doing fine'. Since when did 'doing fine' translate as what the absolutely optimal daily diet for human beings is - is beyond me. Also for the last time if you restrict fruit carbs you ARE NOT a 'ZC'er. The question on the link you posted asked if 'you were a ZC'. How does this reveal anything relevant about who is a high fruit omnivore who does not restrict fruit. How does this even remotely address how these RVAFers not here are healthy or not? you are totally incapable of responding to the actual information hand. Obviously there are more people limiting modern fruits then not, what this says is, very few people believe this is a non-issue, that is all that is important, not who is 'right'.
You implied Weston Price gave a cursory glance on the health of such people - which is totally possible- and yet you haven't even begun to open your eyes at all, which is the irony. You didn't respond to anything because you know you entirely base the success of a diet based on how it adheres to certain principles rather than the actual health people actually exhibit. Because there is such complete stupidity in the raw world and on this site that believes similar circular logic, we should be pretty grateful to have people like DV and others on this board actually questioning such things.
Well, that was a lot of useless hyperbole. I suppose I should address what few points lie therein among all that excess verbiage:-
2) Even here, the RZC community is smaller than the raw omnivore community. Even taking into account the raw omnivores who heavily restrict raw carbs( less than 5 percent), the raw omnivore component who don't care about raw carb-issues is still larger:-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/are-you-a-zcer/
Kind of interesting, don't you think, that a raw-meat-biased site like this one still has more raw omnivores than other categories?
4)
The serious problem you have is that there is precious little scientific data on the supposed health of HGs, but there is a vast amount of scientific data on the harmful effect of heat-created toxins generated by cooking foods.
-
Wild fruit is nearly inedible to humans
Hi cliff,
Do you have a source for this claim? I thought so too but was surprised that at least the Hadza manage to find plenty of edible and nutritious wild berries.
-
Wild fruit is nearly inedible to humans, especially without processing.
Wild fruit inedible to humans?
That's a wild and untrue statement.
I just hiked up the slopes of mount pinatubo and we tasted wild strawberries and they were delicious.
There was another kind of berry on a tree and that was delicious too.
(http://www.myhealthblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/07b-wild-strawberries-e1296952751585.jpg)
from http://www.myhealthblog.org/2011/02/06/my-mount-pinatubo-trek-hike-pictures/
-
Wild fruit inedible to humans?
That's a wild and untrue statement.
I just hiked up the slopes of mount pinatubo and we tasted wild strawberries and they were delicious.
The issue is not that wild fruits are inedible, its that many fruits in their true wild state would be inedible or at the very least less appealing and more trouble to find and eat. Wild grapes would be even more difficult to acquire in the past..surrounded by all kinds of briars and thickets and spiders for little caloric reward... This is speaking in comparison to the 'wild' ones from 'wild' areas today nevermind the grafted ones removed of seeds and growing in orchards which I hope no one is recommending...
Also what people experience now as 'wild' fruits are certainly more nutritious, but often these are pollinations from fruits that have been bred for thousands of years prior to modern agriculture. Possibly they are breeds from the last hundred or so years that are merely not kept by man.
I've lived on a tropical fruit farm and even with hundreds of trees of different varieties you can't even get a significant sources of fruits every week per the entire year that way for one person, nevermind a large tribe of people. This is only possible with modern agriculture and travel of fruits. People have this vision of wandering individual people coming across fruit trees and plants, but there are no singular areas that could sustain a modest populace on fruits year round even in tropical areas. This is one of many reasons people do not eat this way. Even on 'beyond organic' farms like I experienced and visited, many fruit trees were just massively infested with insects, fire ants and mosquitoes. People claim there was no containers to house milk from wild animals so similarly In an area with larger predators (and prey!), there would hardly be enough spare time to spend casually eating a large part of ones calorie needs (which would be even more with natural activity) from fruits, and this is even in the most tropical areas of which we have no record of humans origins beginning.
This is just one piece of the argument that one can indeed subjectively dismiss for their modern needs (although not if they are claiming the most natural diet over herbs and other -processed- plant foods). The other more crucial argument being how modern high sugar fruits ( or even excess wild fruits) interact in the modern human body that is already damaged in a variety of ways. Even if you could find traditional peoples eating the majority of their diet of fruits instead of meats or other cooked or raw starches (which you can't) this wouldn't be a helpful model for a modern person who has different needs. If the remnants of such a people were discovered, I'm sure people would jump to claim how healthy they were however.
People should still seek out wild fruits, but these still are not of more value necessarily then other -wild or otherwise- plants or animal foods. Each food has different values for different people.
-
Regarding wild fruits having little caloric reward, ever wandered into a blackberry patch when they're ripe? Talk about being surrounded by calories...
Besides this, acquiring calories is only one reason why one might eat a food. Humans can't live on just calories, we need a range of micronutrients, macronutrients, and amino acids too. If life was just about calories, then the smart thing to do would be to just eat fat all the time. No one does this, and I'd certainly never recommend it.
I doubt there are many places in the world where one could make a living on fruit without importing it. There are places all over the world though where fruit--particularly wild fruit--makes a great nutritional supplement, delivering specific phytochemicals that one might not get from animal foods, or at least might not get in the same concentrations. That's why I use fruit, and vegetables in general (mostly wild). I treat them as supplements...
-
Regarding wild fruits having little caloric reward, ever wandered into a blackberry patch when they're ripe? Talk about being surrounded by calories...
Besides this, acquiring calories is only one reason why one might eat a food. Humans can't live on just calories, we need a range of micronutrients, macronutrients, and amino acids too.
You are totally right on but I did mention alot of that earlier as with my last statement above. I was speaking that many of the types of fruits people eat in wild form would provide less edible food for more effort than eating fruits today - if you could get them at all on a regular basis. One example being bigger seeds and 'less sugar', the other availability and the other factors I mentioned. If you happened to land in a durian patch you would be flush with even more calories for a period of time although much of it on the ground and seemingly ripe would be fermented and filled with bugs. When fruits were in season on the tropical farms its the same thing (although sometimes its like a trickle), but I was pretty much speaking of what people would be doing on a daily basis year round.
as re: to the berries in general:
Calories aren't the end of it but berries happen to be the least changed fruits (although no guarantee that they aren't variations that have been bred over the centuries) and generally seen as a fruit that can't make much a difference calorically for a modern persons diet or any persons diet. These are the reasons why they are usually recommended as reliable sources of nutrition for conscious diets over other fruits , precisely because they avoid many of the problems of modern fruits even when grown agriculturally - depending on who you ask- and are hard to overeat.
yes you could find a area theoretically with tons of 'calories' of berries, but how many would be eaten in one sitting by one person? Based ion my experiences and all the little seeds, its not exactly like a modern banana or watermellon in terms of ones capacity to eat alot of them. And how many would be eaten by the extra wild animals and birds that would probably actually populate those areas in the past and pick the bushes clean before humans? Also if we are talking human tribes we are seeing groups of people harvesting berries and likely represent even lower percentage of their intake individually, likely if they had technology/tools/containers of some kind being able to transport and then probably be engaged in some kind of drying and mixing with some other food to keep those nutrients for extended periods.
-
yeah, again could you answer the ACTUAL questions and comments. Please report how you measure health of anyone or yourself other than the actual theories of heat created toxins AND how this would say a diet high in fruits is healthier than a diet that contains emphasis on foods eaten in nature for the last 200,000 years+ - that is if you want to be taken seriously at all.
Well, let's see, we have literally thousands upon thousands of studies which prove the negative effect on health of heat-created toxins derived from cooking. Not just theories, but published data proving the point that cooking is harmful. We also have countless other studies showing that peoples' health on a SAD diet improves once they eat more fruit and veg(fruit is usually eaten raw even by SAD-eaters), and it is routinely recommended to only lightly steam the vegetables or eat them raw in order to retain their nutrients- unsurprising, as more fruit/veg in the diet means eating less cooked animal foods which, in turn, means taking in smaller amounts of heat-created toxins.So, it's your POV, not mine, that is seriously lacking in credibility.
As for the mention of 200,000 years, that is meaningless - I have already cited PP's point re giant pandas eating raw bamboo for millions of years despite having a carnivorous digestive system and therefore never properly adapting to eating bamboo.
Fred Bisci, Robert Young, Gabriel Cousens, and Brian Clement, not to mention Aajonus each have 30-40 years practicing in this field seeing literaly 10's of thousands of 'patients' (many of which are raw fooders of various persuasions) EACH in that period. People like Kurt Harris, Eades and others have massive evidence as well regarding this issue. This is EVIDENCE that you dismiss. You are citing selected studies that can prove or disprove ANYTHING including often any source from cooked paleo dieters that fits your conclusions you already have.. then citing people you have never met or observed serious information on as 'healthy' based on the same diets you are trying to defend. This is CIRCULAR LOGIC. I don't care how healthy HGs are...only complete confidence that there is no way that the people you are claiming as 'healthy have are in any position to make judgments on such processes or actual diets found in nature considering your GREATER lack of evidence.
These gurus are mostly fraudulent in one way or another, so are lacking in credibility. Aajonus has his laughable coyote stories plus his disgraceful pretence that raw-dairy allergies always go away and then there's his absurd claim that his laboratory results which supposedly prove his diet can only be obtained from someone else with a payment of millions etc., Kurt Harris blithely dismissed the notion that heat-created toxins are harmful in his blog without actually providing any evidence against the notion, Bisci appears to promote the ketogenic diet which is well-known to cause a number of nasty side-effects, and I'm sure the others are equally dodgy. I realise it is quite usual in the field of alternative diets for many people to worship certain gurus as though they were some sort of infallible deity, but, you know, they are just mere mortals, with failings just like everybody else.
If you want to dismiss any of this with a wand..you actually have to deliver the actual evidence and not just say that people are 'doing fine'. Since when did 'doing fine' translate as what the absolutely optimal daily diet for human beings is - is beyond me.
Now that statement is definitely orthorexic - "the absolutely optimal diet"! l) Trying to constantly seek perfection in a world where perfection does not exist is a fruitless pursuit.
Also for the last time if you restrict fruit carbs you ARE NOT a 'ZC'er.
I didn't say that, you are just making it up. That poll just asked if people were eating raw carbs in general or not. Rawpaleoforum is pretty much the most extreme raw-meat-oriented forum on the Web(other than dirtycarnivore) with most other RVAF groups focusing on much higher amounts of raw fruit/veg in their diet, yet raw omnivores outnumber the RZCers even here. If most RVAFers truly believed in your notions that raw fruit was a deadly poison, one would naturally expect the RZC portion to be much higher. And, like I said before, as this is a "palaeo" site as well as a "raw" one, naturally the people here automatically eat more raw animal foods than raw plant foods anyway, without necessarily viewing raw fruits as "evil", just limiting them because they do not provide sufficient calories or because they are not "complete foods" in the way raw animal foods are, or because they more quickly feel fuller on a meal of raw meat/fat than on raw fruit.
You implied Weston Price gave a cursory glance on the health of such people - which is totally possible- and yet you haven't even begun to open your eyes at all, which is the irony. You didn't respond to anything because you know you entirely base the success of a diet based on how it adheres to certain principles rather than the actual health people actually exhibit. Because there is such complete stupidity in the raw world and on this site that believes similar circular logic, we should be pretty grateful to have people like DV and others on this board actually questioning such things.
B*llsh*t , of course. My views on diet are based purely on mine and many other RVAFers' experiences/health-recovery, not on some naive ideology based on flawed gurus, like yours are. I realise that there will always be naive people helping DV and others get rich by buying their deer-antler extracts and other such nonsense, can't be helped.
-
I don't have a cynicism to the idea of people achieving health on a variety of raw and non raw approaches. Eating small amounts of animal foods is not a problem. People claiming one HAS to do this or that in order to be healthy is a problem and disservice to peoples health, particularly when it goes against other peoples results doing the opposite even on this site with less variables and more things in common that end up refuting such one sized fits all mentalities and arguments. Statistically on the internet, people saying the MOST things people should or should not do are probably the least healthiest people one could ever meet and generally have huge mental blocks in terms of understanding that many different types of things can be of value or be deceivingly harmful. You can see this phenomena all the time in generic health (tofu, whole grains etc..) or in clearly unnatural raw food ideologies/communities and yet people have blocks in accepting 'natural' foods can be bad..even when they are anything but natural.
Now that statement is definitely orthorexic - "the absolutely optimal diet"! l) Trying to constantly seek perfection in a world where perfection does not exist is a fruitless pursuit.
You are the one presenting people as having optimal health over the diets DV is presenting - this is obvious - even though this diet is clearly at the very least improvements over societal norms. Many of the such people you are praising probably don't have better health or longevity than people on SWD or as I said - anything a normal person would recognize as health. So, that is the murky area you are in between theories..and practical application. The idea the others are orthorexic is ridiculous and some kind of bizarre attack - as essentially we are talking entirely -as usual on this site - about people that do not meet YOUR standards for healthy improvement.
I don't pursue what is the highest diet, I pursue and recommend people choose diets that will give them results and not strive for artificial IDEAS that can produce actually poor results. That and I recommend not choosing massive cynicism and attacking of others who have information of value as a 'staff of life' either.
yeah, again could you answer the ACTUAL quesitons and comments. Please report how you measure health of anyone or yourself other than the actual theories of heat created toxins AND how this would say a diet high in fruits is healthier than a diet that contains emphasis on foods eaten in nature for the last 200,000 years+ - that is if you want to be taken seriously at all.
You didn't respond to anything because you know you entirely base the success of a diet based on how it adheres to certain principles rather than the actual health people actually exhibit.
Well, let's see, we have literally thousands upon thousands of studies which prove the negative effect on health of heat-created toxins derived from cooking.
Seeing since you answered in the most ridiculous fashion to whether or not you and others were actually healthy, I would also love to see these "thousands and thousands" of studies on cooked food by cooked food users that will suggest that ANY permutation of 100% raw diets under the sun will provide better health diet than those that are structured around natural eating contain marginal amounts of cooking in addition to raw food. This is what we are speaking of and not grain-fed cooked diets or any other such thing these studies isolate.
and I'm sure the others are equally dodgy.
Again, if you can not respond with your actual concrete and not anecdotal health or that of others that have suffered at DV's particular program or the other people mentioned (and not any other cooked or raw permutation) you DON"T have any integrity to take in this discussion as you are talking about something unrelated and ignorant of these issues.
---
Since I know you will not provide this above requrest on the health of yourself or on any of these so called 'success stories' of people you have never met I suggest the best way to resolve this is for me to actually try to contact Daniel and say that basically one of the founders of rawpaleoforum and 'raw paleo diet' all-expert thinks the information he supplies is totally not worth considering and the reasons why and that you would love to engage with him in a recorded debate over youtube the next time he is in London. I'm sure that would prove entirely fascinating and probably an eye opener for both his supporters and the members on this site.
---
I will try to set this up, just let me know.
-
I don't have a cynicism to the idea of people achieving health on a variety of raw and non raw approaches. Eating small amounts of animal foods is not a problem. People claiming one HAS to do this or that in order to be healthy is a problem and disservice to peoples health, particularly when it goes against other peoples results doing the opposite even on this site with less variables and more things in common that end up refuting such one sized fits all mentalities and arguments. Statistically on the internet, people saying the MOST things people should or should not do are probably the least healthiest people one could ever meet and generally have huge mental blocks in terms of understanding that many different types of things can be of value or be deceivingly harmful. You can see this phenomena all the time in generic health (tofu, whole grains etc..) or in clearly unnatural raw food ideologies/communities and yet people have blocks in accepting 'natural' foods can be bad..even when they are anything but natural.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. I am not, incidentally, suggesting that no other diet will ever work for curing health-problems, merely that a raw, palaeolithic diet works better than other diets at getting rid of other health-problems in most cases. I have, after all, come across various people in the past who have reported recovering their health after eating just raw, grainfed meats or people who have gotten rid of certain conditions with the help of a cooked-palaeolithic diet or whatever. It all depends on the person; if the individual is only suffering from a very mild condition, then numerous diets, whether raw or cooked, will likely solve the problem.
Of course, you are at a bit of a disadvantage here, as most people who come to RVAF diets usually do so only after having tried all other kinds of diets around and failing on the latter as regards improving their health. After all, eating raw meat is the biggest dietary obstacle a human can encounter, on a psychological level.
You are the one presenting people as having optimal health over the diets DV is presenting - this is obvious - even though this diet is clearly at the very least improvements over societal norms. Many of the such people you are praising probably don't have better health or longevity than people on SWD or as I said - anything a normal person would recognize as health.
This is all just hopelessly biased, and, besides, I was pointing out that you were using terms which only an orthorexic would use, not others like DV - I am sure that he is just another unscrupulous guru on the make, not an orthorexic.
Seeing since you answered in the most ridiculous fashion to whether or not you and others were actually healthy, I would also love to see these "thousands and thousands" of studies on cooked food by cooked food users that will suggest that ANY permutation of 100% raw diets under the sun will provide better health diet than those that are structured around natural eating contain marginal amounts of cooking in addition to raw food. This is what we are speaking of and not grain-fed cooked diets or any other such thing these studies isolate.Again, if you can not respond with your actual concrete and not anecdotal health or that of others that have suffered at DV's particular program or the other people mentioned (and not any other cooked or raw permutation) you DON"T have any integrity to take in this discussion as you are talking about something unrelated and ignorant of these issues.
Well, clearly you have no integrity whatsoever, as, first of all, I never did suggest that absolutely ALL types of raw combinations are 100 percent healthy, or that absolutely all cooked diets are always 100 percent unhealthy in all respects - you are twisting my words as usual. I have been the first to admit that some cooked diets have worked for some people as regards getting rid of some health-problems, I am simply highly sceptical that they are as good or better than a raw, palaeolithic diet, given so many reports from RVAFers about how useless
other cooked diets were as regards improving their health.
There is a degree in everything, of course. Some people will do wrong things on a raw diet(such as only eating raw plant foods or eating raw foods they are allergic to etc.) but the exact same applies also to those on cooked diets who will also freely make mistakes.
---Again, if you can not respond with your actual concrete and not anecdotal health or that of others that have suffered at DV's particular program or the other people mentioned (and not any other cooked or raw permutation) you DON"T have any integrity to take in this discussion as you are talking about something unrelated and ignorant of these issues.
Since I know you will not provide this above requrest on the health of yourself or on any of these so called 'success stories' of people you have never met I suggest the best way to resolve this is for me to actually try to contact Daniel and say that basically one of the founders of rawpaleoforum and 'raw paleo diet' all-expert thinks the information he supplies is totally not worth considering and the reasons why and that you would love to engage with him in a recorded debate over youtube the next time he is in London. I'm sure that would prove entirely fascinating and probably an eye opener for both his supporters and the members on this site.
---
I will try to set this up, just let me know.
Well, first of all, I am not a diet-guru so hardly have to justify my criticism - it is Vitalis, if anyone, who should be explaining why he supports Wrangham's ideas despite Wrangham's notions being ridiculed by most other palaeoanthropologists for a number of scientific reasons - nor do I have Vitalis's charisma so what would be the point of an open debate? Such debates are not won by the guy with the most points in his favour, but by the most charismatic speaker. So, even if DV is a complete and utter fraud, he could easily win the debate by playing to the gallery, being dishonest etc.
Incidentally, your mention/dismissal of studies done on (cooked)grainfed meats is irrelevant as heat-created toxins are formed by cooking any foods, even 100 percent grassfed meats.
So, to cut things down to the essentials:-
1) Vitalis has blindly supported Wrangham despite Wrangham's theories not having any credibility in the scientific community. Suggests that DV is not strong on the scientific aspect of things.
2) Has Vitalis ever referred to the heat-created toxins in cooked foods? If not, that's one more strike against him as even Loren Cordain has referred to them(Wrangham even did once, very, very reluctantly in one interview, when pressed!)
3)Endless numbers of studies have shown that peoples' health deteriorates as the amounts of heat-created toxins in their bodies rises. Similiarly, studies have also shown that when levels of those heat-created toxins are reduced, the person's health-problem is alleviated in tandem.
Incidentally, I am not so bothered with DV personally - I just find this blatant need for guru-worship within all dietary communities to be a bit absurd.
-
I think its good to have Disciples of different RAF camps getting mainstream attention. Once a guru draws someone to the basic principles of raw animal foods then its up to the individual to take the next step, which is to awaking the inner shaman and start to follow what works best. There has never been a single dietary method that was universally successful, so no matter how healthy the Guru is, there will be no guarantee that his or her diet will be universally successful among even the loyalist of followers.
The tribal elders and shamans of paleo times had to find a way of life that was particular to the needs of the community as well as the wants of individuals. The early Gurus were experienced elders of the tribal community and their experiences were more in tune with the nature of their disciples because they shared both environmental habitat and specific genetic traits. The Gurus of today are far more removed from their followers than the shamans were to their tribes people of paleo times and so its more important than ever for us not to follow a Guru blindly. Once you become initiated into raw animal food adaption, then you should work on awaking your inner shaman, so that you can structure your optimal diet based on your own intuition.
I really understood what DV was saying about his shamanistic nutrition vision of using your inner shaman to discover a diet that best fits your needs. Shamanistic states of being can be developed and used to seek out health and wellness, Early man communed with nature in this shamanistic realm and developed ways of living in biological harmony and learned what to eat and what to avoid. The shaman develops these powers of discernment by learning from and paying close attention to interactions with the natural environment.
There was never a single dietary practice that could be universally applied to everyone.Paleo Man had seek out an individual path that had to be flexible and adaptive to environmental variables The many ordeals presented by natures variations had to be dealt with by shamanistic nutrition. Perhaps the larger brains of our ancestors had a more highly developed limbic system that was more geared to the development of instinctive intuition. They had a more developed shamanistic power of divining what the body and mind require in relation to whatever environment they were confronted with. I find it promising to think that it is possible to rediscover the shamanistic nature of oneself and use it to guide us back to a path where our health can reach fullest potential.
-
Denise Minger may be a better representative guru for RPD-type views than Daniel Vitalis:
A word on cooking
Although we have adapted to the energy density of cooked food, we haven’t necessarily adapted to all the new substances cooking produces. Charred meat, for instance, contains compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) known to contribute to cancer in humans. Acrylamide, another human carcinogen, occurs when many starch-based foods are heated. Maillard molecules and glycotoxins crop up in browned foods, and these suckers contribute to inflammation and other unpleasant conditions (research here is still in its infancy). And eating high-temperature cooked food may also accelerate aging due to advanced glycation end products.
In other words, there’s good reason to include plenty of fresh, raw foods in your diet even if you don’t jump on the 100% raw bandwagon. And high-temperature cooking seems to stir up all sorts of trouble, so if you prefer to eat some cooked food, gentle methods like steaming are the safest way to go. --Denise Minger, http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/03/18/what-is-the-optimal-diet-for-humans-part-2/
-
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/03/08/what-is-the-optimal-diet-for-humans-part/
Raw vegan history goes something like this. Once upon a time, early humans lived in a gentle, beautiful, tropical paradise. We frolicked, we played, we loved, we laughed. And nature catered to our whims. We spent our sun-dappled days picking ripe fruit off of trees, living long, disease-free lives and dying quietly on beds of mango peels. We rarely had to kill other creatures for our own survival—not with all that luscious fruit around!—so we adapted to a mainly vegan diet. Then one day, someone started cooking and the whole world went to sh**. The end. Denise Minger
I like her sense of humor
I find her Ideas refreshing and down to earth, they seem to mirror many of my own discovery's.
-
I know this was put together by Bananarider, but it drives your point home Kyle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuGgzI--9ZQ&feature=player_detailpage
I sum up David Wolfe's business model "omne ignoratum pro magnifico"
-
Denise Minger may be a better representative guru for RPD-type views than Daniel Vitalis:
A word on cooking
Although we have adapted to the energy density of cooked food, we haven’t necessarily adapted to all the new substances cooking produces. Charred meat, for instance, contains compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) known to contribute to cancer in humans. Acrylamide, another human carcinogen, occurs when many starch-based foods are heated. Maillard molecules and glycotoxins crop up in browned foods, and these suckers contribute to inflammation and other unpleasant conditions (research here is still in its infancy). And eating high-temperature cooked food may also accelerate aging due to advanced glycation end products.
In other words, there’s good reason to include plenty of fresh, raw foods in your diet even if you don’t jump on the 100% raw bandwagon. And high-temperature cooking seems to stir up all sorts of trouble, so if you prefer to eat some cooked food, gentle methods like steaming are the safest way to go. --Denise Minger, http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/03/18/what-is-the-optimal-diet-for-humans-part-2/
Now that's impressive. Very few of the pro-cooked diet gurus will admit that heat-created toxins derived from cooking are a problem. The only other honourable exception I can think of is Loren Cordain who similiarly suggests things like slow-cooking at a lower temperature to reduce toxin-formation. I mean there is now so much scientific data out there on the negative effects of cooking that it's just dishonest not to address some of it.
-
Incidentally, I am not so bothered with DV personally - I just find this blatant need for guru-worship within all dietary communities to be a bit absurd.
sigh,
Like many people on this forum or other 'health' forums with legitimate experience and with 'unwanted' discoveries, Daniel is an experienced (10+ year) raw fooder that does indeed have experience with raw meat diets, so obviously knows most the arguments for heat created toxins. Many people here also have experiences with 100% raw meat oriented diets, have read the articles on cooked food toxins of course and will concur that cultured, juiced, brewed or cooked vegetables and starches (if not some outright arguing for benefits cooked fats or even meats over a diets high in fruits ) have advantages and value over other unnatural totalities of other raw diets. This is a unknown and open discussion. People can talk about this openly but one does not 'lose' an argument based on which diet has more measurable toxins in it.
One does not have to promote at all that cooking can 'add health' to notice that by at least the conventional definition of the term health.. ..humans have indeed adapted to cooking far better than to other things that are clearly not food, even raw materials, like certain plant matter, minerals directly from rocks, and full on photosynthesis. Unless one is to give a caveat that humans have not evolved to living 100% optimally eating cooked food the evidence currently suggests that people can build tissues with cooked foods that they cannot with things that are obviously not food, even when naturally occurring.
Many people's health have not increased eating diets devoid of toxins, even people here eating self-described healthy ones that contain the 'right' nutrients'. Because of this - which is one of the only things I can reasonable say in regards to health is a 'fact' right now- one needs to greatly alter this definition of a health forming diet to be inclusive of any strategies that have the potential to create health.
We should not take a definition of health out of the incredibly abstract as to entirely lose its meaning and only praise things that fit this definition if we are citing that people in the last 200,00o(!) years were not optimally healthy humans.
--
as I tried to point out quite clearly, the issue of integrity is that you are doing precisely what you are accusing those who promote cooking as acceptable: you are citing a theory of why people should be healthy rather than providing any actual evidence of health people actually exhibit, other than what people including myself usually claim which is that raw or all-raw can be used as a tool to increase health. Anyone who presents vitamins and drugs could also easily use this mode of 'scientific' reasoning if we are not actually looking at the results of such practices.
You make wide reaching comments all over this thread as per usual like you recent cold defies what all the /raw food/instincto/Primal/theories of illness as detox, which again no one can label as 'wrong' but obviously is neither a open, genuine, or scientific form of reasoning, never-mind one that most 100% raw camps and individuals here would agree.
You refer to ZC diets as viable strategies when it is convenient for an argument (at least for people that 'don't handle carbs well') whatever that means ..and just above say all ketogenic diets are harmful even though all zero carbs diets, and many of the diets practiced on this page are ketogenic or at least in ketonuria. So obviously based on your arguments with many people eating such diets, you don't particularly respect those as optimal strategies -particularly when they embrace cooking. I cited an argument that suggested very few of the people that are 'omnivores' including VLC dieters eat a high percentage of their foods as fruit sugars, and you gave a bunch of really outright incorrect information as to why people did that or what percentages they were based on the number of people identified as ZC'ers.
FYI Fred Bisci is a 40+ year 100% raw foodist that does not recommend a ketogenic diet like you say above, so I will continue to believe that you have actually never invested in studying any of those individuals writings or studies on high fruit diets in regard to the blood and tissue qualities. He is someone who observed that people eating 100% raw 'pure of toxin' fruit oriented diets can become so blood toxic that they become incapable of building health, that are then reversed without adding any animal foods but going off such diets completely, and not just adding more varieties of foods. Ditto all the other people mentioned including Aajonus, who obviously uses additional nutritional tools.
-
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. I am not, incidentally, suggesting that no other diet will ever work for curing health-problems, merely that a raw, palaeolithic diet works better than other diets at getting rid of other health-problems in most cases.
How is anyone now to trust this overture now to cooked diets just being 'sub-par' in comparison to a 'raw paleo diet' - with today's materials and problems on in today's environment - if you are saying that people who lived in pure environments like the Inuit and the plains Indians were outright-not healthy. By this statement, it actually would be fairly unlikely to build health with some poor imitation of such a diet.
I asked what standard people exhibit that IS healthy other the IDEA that they avoid cooked food toxins. I put forth what to me is a rather uncontested idea (although not possibly 100% known) that people's practices of the last 100's nevermind thousands of years exhibited health far beyond what many today could hope to experience eating 100% raw, and also that most people on this forum will cite HGs as some rationality or point of proof for for such a diet. I do not believe replicating what they did will get those results, but do believe very few people will be able to obtain such health merely eating a raw food diet and believe the proof is in the pudding there if we were actually to compare peoples' true state of well being and physical tissue.
I was never contesting that toxins wern't found in cooked grass-fed meat or that raw diets can't indeed be used to create the best health or even a health that hasn't' been seen in 100,000 of years..Its possible, I just believe this to be incredibly unlikely that most (perhaps not all) people participating in such 'pure' diets are personally exhibiting health of people even hundreds of years ago that were largely removed from civilization. This also applies to even some rare people today that for whatever reason are able to maintain some non-vegan/raw-ideology of health when eating what we could call complete garbage. I was pointing out the obvious that people avoiding toxins will not automatically be healthy and that people eating even the most of these toxins can live a life of higher health and longevity than diets than those that Daniel points out remain are largely untested scientifically on contemporary humans.
What is so clear with his thinking is that if these proposed optimal diets are not working to give us the best health improvements, then the intelligent decision is to adapt whole diets and lifestyle that actually are the most likely to make those changes. People can disagree as to what those diets are, but this statement is clearly 100% correct.
Even people like myself who basically eat all raw have plenty to learn from this person. And as I pointed out, many people here will certainly respect many issues that are being presented. One such issue is the advantage from a nutrtional AND health standpoint in eating dense vegetation and starches cooked over massive quantities of fruits..which can't possibly mirror the nutrition or work the same metabolically and are noted to provide many internal issues. If these strategies both scientifically and experimentally...If these ideas...can be used to promote superior health among ANY humans right now, particularly on this forum doing such model diets, then obviously these ideas have value.
Its not that cooked food doesn't contain toxins, its basically that it is capable of increasing the nutrition of food which in fact is widely accepted by scientists. He is saying: lets look at the models in nature that are workable, and in particular lets look at what is working now. If someone is eating 100% raw and actually exhibits excellent health they can simply pick and choose what other information he has available of value.
If aliens were to find out there was a species that drank fluoridated water and ate meats and plants with serious amounts of environmental pollution, and shared this mindset of merely avoiding toxins to create health (which I believe they would not) they might make a claim that there was no way such people could actually be healthy, without ever actually assessing whether these people could thrive, have families, and be happy for a century or more.
-
sigh,
Like many people on this forum or other 'health' forums with legitimate experience and with 'unwanted' discoveries, Daniel is an experienced (10+ year) raw fooder that does indeed have experience with raw meat diets, so obviously knows most the arguments for heat created toxins. Many people here also have experiences with 100% raw meat oriented diets, have read the articles on cooked food toxins of course and will concur that cultured, juiced, brewed or cooked vegetables and starches (if not some outright arguing for benefits cooked fats or even meats over a diets high in fruits ) have advantages and value over other unnatural totalities of other raw diets. This is a unknown and open discussion. People can talk about this openly but one does not 'lose' an argument based on which diet has more measurable toxins in it.
One does not have to promote at all that cooking can 'add health' to notice that by at least the conventional definition of the term health.. ..humans have indeed adapted to cooking far better than to other things that are clearly not food, even raw materials, like certain plant matter, minerals directly from rocks, and full on photosynthesis. Unless one is to give a caveat that humans have not evolved to living 100% optimally eating cooked food the evidence currently suggests that people can build tissues with cooked foods that they cannot with things that are obviously not food, even when naturally occurring.
I see that you have deliberately avoided addressing DV's praise of Wrangham's evidence in the face of most other palaeoanthropologists denouncing him as a fraud and providing evidence to debunk his claims(re mentions in articles that he is not a palaeoanthropologist, just a chimp researcher etc. etc.). There can be only two possible conclusions to be draw re DV's support for Wrangham:-
1) DV has done so little research on cooking in general that he just blindly has taken Wrangham's word on it.
2) or DV knows damn well that Wrangham is a scientific fraud, but chooses instead to pretend that Wrangham is correct, as promoting a raw food diet would mean fewer people becoming customers of his products, as raw diets are denounced by mainstream nutritionists on spurious grounds.
Re meaningless lenght of time/experience paragraph:- This is just vague, dubious guesswork on your part. I have in the past come across numerous long-term(decades-long) rawists who either had never read up on the scientific data on the negative effects of cooked foods as they were too new-age-oriented to be interested in facts/logic, or who stated, blindly, that since they (falsely) believed that most scientific studies were somehow "against" them that therefore they didn't believe in any of them at all, and thus chose to never read them, as they paranoidly believed such studies were only ever made by a combination of fake scientists/government conspiracies/industry capitalists out to sabotage the public's health. The cooked-pro-saturated fat crowd are also like that. As for the experience you claim, this is purely based on your own heavily biased notions of what is the "supreme, orthorexic ultra-perfect diet". For example, one of the commonest complaints on a RVAF diet is that peoples' health has suffered if they consumed raw veggie-juice in sizeable amounts each day.
Re cooking paragraph:- Again, you are giving irrelevant examples. Sure, cooked meat is not like granite or sand or whatever, but no one has suggested that cooked-food is not food, we have merely stated that it is not as healthy as cooked foods. And in all those lame examples you can give in which cooking removes antinutrients(applies to grains in particular) and thus boosts the levels of some of the nutrients, there are additional disadvantages created by cooking such as the loss of enzymes, the loss of bacteria and the addition of heat-created toxins via the cooking-process, and, ironically, also a loss of nutrients caused by the cooking process - plus many of those plants which can be improved by cooking, such as grains, re increases in some nutrients, still manage to cause horrible health-problems for people such as IBS/Crohn's etc. etc.. So, it is patently foolish to eat something that may provide a few more nutrients given all the many negative aspects that cooking introduces as well into the bargain. If a particular food cannot be eaten raw and be healthy(eg:- pebbles/grains/cassava or whatever) then it shouldn't be eaten at all(well, unless one is in a desert without access to raw foods or some such siutation)
Many people's health have not increased eating diets devoid of toxins, even people here eating self-described healthy ones that contain the 'right' nutrients'. Because of this - which is one of the only things I can reasonable say in regards to health is a 'fact' right now- one needs to greatly alter this definition of a health forming diet to be inclusive of any strategies that have the potential to create health.
Obviously, it is physically impossible for any diet to cure people 100 percent all the time. Hypochondriacs can, of course, never be cured with people with non-physically-related problems needing other non-dietary help to some extent, and I suspect that people with genetic diseases could only, at best, have some of their symptoms relieved via a diet. Plus, individuals make mistakes and choose foods that are wrong for them re allergies(like my own experiences with raw coconut oil and raw dairy - indeed my own and some others' experience with raw coconut oil just illustrates the point about how even mild processing of a still-raw product can be harmful to one's health. But even taking all those things in account(all equally present in other dietary communities to the same extent), RVAF diets provide far greater, more widespread health benefits than other diets, overall. Now, naturally each individual has to alter their particular raw diet to make it work for them(some find their health actually increases when they up their raw plant food-intake, while others need to increase their raw animal food intake etc.), but that also applies to every other diet, anyway.
200,00o(!) years were not optimally healthy humans.
Again, the 200,000 figure is irrelevant in the light of the fact that other animals have failed to adapt even to another type of raw diet in millions of years(the giant panda example I gave earlier). As for people not succeeding on a diet, so what, the failure-rates on cooked diets are far greater with people on cooked VLC diets being notorious for quitting within weeks of doing such a diet etc.And the potential health-benefits are greater for rawists than for cooked-foodists, given anecdotal and scientific reports re collagen etc.
as I tried to point out quite clearly, the issue of integrity is that you are doing precisely what you are accusing those who promote cooking as acceptable: you are citing a theory of why people should be healthy rather than providing any actual evidence of health people actually exhibit, other than what people including myself usually claim which is that raw or all-raw can be used as a tool to increase health. Anyone who presents vitamins and drugs could also easily use this mode of 'scientific' reasoning if we are not actually looking at the results of such practices.
All we really have available to us re analysing/checking health is either scientific studies(mostly favouring us as regards the issues of heat-created toxins etc.) or anecdotal reports from other RVAFers or our own individual experiences via experimentation with certain foods/diets or reports of blood-pressure tests/other medical tests from RVAFers like Lex Rooker. I presume you consider only the last category to have any validity, which is, of course, absurd. One problem with relying solely on medical tests is that the science behind these medical tests is still pretty dodgy(an example being the cholesterol-issue which is still being heavily debated). Also, focusing too much on artificial methods, such as counting calories or measuring one's body-fat, leads to excess obsession. Plus, I, like many RVAFers, have had too much previous contact with self-proclaimed "health-experts"(ie "doctors") who were so incompetent despite their medical degrees, that they failed to diagnose or properly treat many RVAFers' conditions.
You make wide reaching comments all over this thread as per usual like your recent cold defies what all the /raw food/instincto/Primal/theories of illness as detox, which again no one can label as 'wrong' but obviously is neither a open, genuine, or scientific form of reasoning, never-mind one that most 100% raw camps and individuals here would agree.
It is perfectly OK to express an opinion based on one's personal experience, especially when the issue has not been fully resolved either way - the whole point of this forum is that people read about others' experiences/opinions and compare them to their own experiences/opinions in order to find what works for them. In my own case, I freely accept that others have differing views on this issue. I even accept that it is possible(though unlikely) that my occasional intake of cooked foods here and there might set off a detox.
As for my other comments on Wrangham/heat-created toxins, these are not opinions but facts based on scientists' data/studies etc.
You refer to ZC diets as viable strategies when it is convenient for an argument (at least for people that 'don't handle carbs well') whatever that means ..and just above say all ketogenic diets are harmful even though all zero carbs diets, and many of the diets practiced on this page are ketogenic or at least in ketonuria. So obviously based on your arguments with many people eating such diets, you don't particularly respect those as optimal strategies -particularly when they embrace cooking. I cited an argument that suggested very few of the people that are 'omnivores' including VLC dieters eat a high percentage of their foods as fruit sugars, and you gave a bunch of really outright incorrect information as to why people did that or what percentages they were based on the number of people identified as ZC'ers.
First of all, my data was correct, unlike yours and you are , as usual, missing the point. I strove to point out , via a poll you clearly never had bothered to previously read, that there were far more raw omnivores than RZCers. This clearly demonstrated that there were far fewer of those here who couldn't handle raw plant foods at all. Now, if your thesis that raw plant foods need to be cooked for health-reasons was correct(you suggest that raw fruits are super-bad and that one should eat cooked starches instead and such nonsense), then it is logical to assume that the RZC component of rawpaleoforum should instead be much larger than the raw omnivore component, with the RVLC component being somewhere inbetween. Yet, when one looks at RVAF diets as a whole(not just this meat-heavy forum), one actually finds far more people eating raw plant foods and only a few raw animal foods than the other way round. As for the absurd claim that I don't respect RZCers' choices, that's not true, of course - I have always happily accepted that some people thrive better on only raw animal foods. My own RZC experiment never worked, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone has a different health-background/bodily-processes. As for the ketogenic diet references, I should have made it clearer that I was specifically referring only to the cooked ketogenic diet which is a very artificial diet involving artificial sweeteners etc. has been used to treat epileptics and has resulted in numerous nasty side-effects such as kidney-stones etc.
FYI Fred Bisci is a 40+ year 100% raw foodist that does not recommend a ketogenic diet like you say above, so I will continue to believe that you have actually never invested in studying any of those individuals writings or studies on high fruit diets in regard to the blood and tissue qualities. He is someone who observed that people eating 100% raw 'pure of toxin' fruit oriented diets can become so blood toxic that they become incapable of building health, that are then reversed without adding any animal foods but going off such diets completely, and not just adding more varieties of foods. Ditto all the other people mentioned including Aajonus, who obviously uses additional nutritional tools.
Oh, I merely googled him after hearing you mention him, I loathe gurus, and my own experimentation with raw veganism mainly concerned the actual scientific data/studies behind raw veganism:fruitarianism and what benefits I might get from them etc. rather than the gurus' many silly claims. You do appear to have a very unhealthy obsession with diet gurus re the need to worship your particular guru of the moment etc. It's a strategy designed for failure as no one person can ever be 100 percent correct.
-
Ty, Swap out the word guru for elder and all of a sudden you're saying you loathe elders, which is of course foolish since most everything you've learned you learned from someone else.
These guru's/elders are there to spread the message and wake people up, not to be followed blindly. No one can be 100% about what optimal health because every single person on the planet is genetically programmed or sensitive to certain foods and not to others. This means that the only one who can determine your ideal foods is you, the gur-elder is there to provide a frame of reference for you to think and to facilitate your progression towards and autonomous thinking machine.
Most of us have been raised learning what to think instead of how to think. After a few decades of that it can really take a lot to get the gears of free and independent thought turning. It's ok to admire these gur-elders but not to idolize or worship at their alters.
I love Aajonus, owe him my health and to some extent my ability to think for myself, and am ever grateful for that, but when he says things like " you should drink raw dairy" I think he should be saying, "dairy might work for you, try a small amount and see what it does to you or for you, stop if it seems to cause harm"
-
How is anyone now to trust this overture now to cooked diets just being 'sub-par' in comparison to a 'raw paleo diet' - with today's materials and problems on in today's environment - if you are saying that people who lived in pure environments like the Inuit and the plains Indians were outright-not healthy. By this statement, it actually would be fairly unlikely to build health with some poor imitation of such a diet.
What utter balderdash. I presume, from the last paragraph, that you erroneously believe that solely because the current environment may be slightly polluted that we cannot lived as healthily as the HGs did 200 years ago on their partially-cooked diets. First of all, I have previously shown in the last few months studies that indicated that toxins derived from air-pollution were taken into the human body in smaller amounts/levels on a daily basis than the toxins which were derived from cooking - (incidentally, 2 of the heat-created toxins derived from cooking, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are also primary components of air-pollution. This means that eating all-raw would be way more effective for one's health re reducing toxin-intake than living in a pristine, unpolluted environment. The remark re fluoridation is irrelevant to RVAFers(but not, incidentally, to most cooked-palaeodieters) as RVAFers usually avoid drinking altered tapwater in favour of drinking mineral-water or using filters to remove such chemical traces from their tapwater.
Re cooked-diets of hundreds or thousands of years ago:- If one looks at the data, one actually finds that length of time does not justify the value of a diet. For example, when people switched to a cooked, Neolithic diet c.10,000 years ago once the palaeolithic era ended, human health sank considerably, with a major decrease in average height etc.. These peoples went in big for cooking, and especially in terms of processing plant foods in a big way, but this led directly to their subsequent ill-health:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml
Re 3rd para:- No one is disputing that there are non-dietary approaches to health. We have all heard of the power of positive thinking and it is obvious that the reduced stresses of modern life and extensive medical technology have helped people live far longer than previously possible. But this has nothing to do with diet. As for emulating HGs/palaeos, I doubt we will ever be able to perfeclty emulate them in terms of the vast amounts of physical exercise they did every day(exercise is at least part of the health-equation) and I doubt we could ever emulate the sheer richness and variety of the real palaeodiets of yore. On the other hand, many of us are doing better than palaeo HGs in the last 10 percent of the Palaeolithic era, as we are not eating the same daily amounts of cooked foods as they were, and we have access to better foods in some cases(eg:- we get more nutritious raw plant foods than palaeo-era raw tubers, for example).
As for the other paragraphs, your notion that cooked starches/vegetables are better than raw fruits is merely an opinion of yours. Many RVAFers are fine with raw fruits and quite a number of RVAFers do badly on cooked vegetables - I am in that category, more or less:- that is, I have no real problems with raw fruits, except possibly after years of being 100 percent fruitarian, and I don't thrive at all on cooked vegetables - they don't do me any relatively fast harm as generally happens with cooked animal foods, but they cause minor issues. Eating them never makes me feel as satisfied nutritionally as eating raw plant foods.
As for cooking increasing the nutrition of foods, I already pointed out in the previous post that cooking also creates further disadvantages re loss of enzymes/bacteria and the addition of heat-created toxins, plus while cooking certain key antinutrient-heavy foods such as grains may generate more nutrients at first, as the cooking temperature goes up, that benefit is quickly lost as cooking, as a whole, is a process that leads to a loss of nutrients due to heat.
-
Can anyone point out when or where DV talks about cooking meat?
-
Can anyone point out when or where DV talks about cooking meat?
That's what I'm saying...
It never happened.
-
That's what I'm saying...
It never happened.
Wrong. DV has mentioned, here and there, that cooking is great and that "all HGs cooked their foods" thus implying that it is somehow necessary to eat cooked foods -
"A brief survey of those humans we call the “Indigenous” of the world, especially those who were Hunter/Gatherers reveals a diet that, while varying in the ratio of animal to plant food, still always contains both in ample degrees. These people are always cooks, in that they are never found on “Raw Food Diets”. They eat a mix of raw and cooked foods, as well as balancing animal foods against plant foods. I know of no culture that is based solely on plant food, nor one built exclusively on animal foods."
taken from:-
http://www.danielvitalis.com/tag/meat-eater/
And here he mocks the notion that cooked food is harmful:-
http://www.danielvitalis.com/2010/03/hunter-safety-why-i-am-not-a-vegan/#
Notice how the 1st excerpt is also exactly what Wrangham has stated, suggesting that DV is just blindly parroting Wrangham's notions without thinking. DV only includes raw animal foods solely because HGs ate them as well. In other words, he is just a deluded believer in the Noble-Savage-theory, like Weston-Price was, and just assumes, without thinking, that HGs must have been 100 percent healthy merely because they did not have the same rate of unusual, modern diseases to the same extent as more settled, modern societies have.
Bit of a fool, DV. He claims no culture has ever been on an all-animal food diet. What about the Inuit, they came pretty close to 100 percent with perhaps just a few occasional berries/seaweed in the summer if that, especially the most northerly ones.
-
Danielvitalis 10 months ago in reply to mathewmilligan
"Hey Mathew!
I love raw meat when the quality is right! I am not afraid to cook it too. Smoking sounds amazing, but I have never tried it.
Bone I will use as broth... (and for some tools), and sinew for cordage and for hafting a primitive Obsidian knife I am making!
My friends at www.primitiveskills,com are showing me how to use everything!
I bet your smoke house is outstanding!
~D"
http://www.danielvitalis.com/2010/03/hunter-safety-why-i-am-not-a-vegan/
pwned ;D
-
ahh.. So I guess he is not as neurotic as most of us are! LoL! ;)
-
ahh.. So I guess he is not as neurotic as most of us are! LoL! ;)
No, he is just a deluded moron who is terrified of having an original, creative thought not sanctioned by the masses of sheeple out there, as well as being a deluded believer in the laughable Noble-Savage theory given PP's post above.
-
No, he is just a deluded moron who is terrified of having an original, creative thought not sanctioned by the masses of sheeple out there, as well as being a deluded believer in the laughable Noble-Savage theory given PP's post above.
Not that you're jealous or anything... >D
-
Not that you're jealous or anything... >D
Now you're being REALLY stupid. I have no jealousy issues with DV. After all, for me, there would be nothing more humiliating than to be a diet-guru like him. Some various foolish members here have previously suggested that I was a diet guru - but, to be a genuine diet-guru, I would have to a) be like the corrupt DV and others and promote the selling of expensive raw supplements like deer antler extracts for my own personal financial benefit and b) I would have to make lots of lying statements about mythical missing laboratory results or I would have to pretend that cooking was beneficial so as to generate a bigger audience for my particular dietary inclinations etc. DV is one of the worst gurus out there, as he has no interest in proving his allegations, he's just in it for the money. Worthless scumbag! -v -v -v -v -v l) l) :o :o ;) ;) >D >D
-
Live and learn from fools and from sages.
I am happy for the guy, I think its wonderful that he has manged to break free of the vegan cult and discover the wonders of raw meat. Even if he is still lost in other respects, such as advocating a partly cooked diet.
Dream on noble savages.
I have personal become more conflicted myself recently about being an advocate of noble savage nostalgia. There is also this new feeling of exuberance that makes me wild with a desire to rave maniacal about the benefits of my raw carnivorous experience to anyone who will listen. I can feel the barbarian within myself emerging. I am sometimes fearful of unleashing such power into the hands of those with less noble intentions or being ridiculed by those who would mock my enthusiasm. Maybe I should covet the secret of the diet and only advocate to people who have good nature to begin with. I often wonder about how this diet does bring out a shamanistic nature within some people, and I assume others like DV and Av and the instinctos have felt this as well.
This awakened nature is something between two worlds, (the new concept of a pseudo noble- semi civilized savage is beginning to form), its combines the empirical mind of modern man with a reincarnation of the intuition and physical prowis of Paleo man, Its a really an unknown and under investigated phenomenon(perhaps its the rediscovery of the Great spirit of the Hunter Gatherers), this new age paleo prototype, like many people on this forum, would be hard for the uninitiated to understand. AV may not have all the facts nor does DV but there is a spirit of rejuvenation and a love of life that seems to shine through. This emerging culture is promising but has not yet evolved into a place where we can all commune on a similar wavelength. But so far I like where some of the more colorful ones have been exploring. And I am always learning from all extremities of experience. I would like to find some more more rock steady and moderate way of paleo living.
The more Guru-Guinea pigs we have to use as whipping boys for arguments for positive affirmations and negative reinforcements, the better.
-
...DV is one of the worst gurus out there, as he has no interest in proving his allegations, he's just in it for the money. Worthless scumbag! -v -v -v -v -v l) l) :o :o ;) ;) >D >D
Don't hold back now. Tell us what you really think. ;D
-
Now you're being REALLY stupid. I have no jealousy issues with DV. After all, for me, there would be nothing more humiliating than to be a diet-guru like him. Some various foolish members here have previously suggested that I was a diet guru - but, to be a genuine diet-guru, I would have to a) be like the corrupt DV and others and promote the selling of expensive raw supplements like deer antler extracts for my own personal financial benefit and b) I would have to make lots of lying statements about mythical missing laboratory results or I would have to pretend that cooking was beneficial so as to generate a bigger audience for my particular dietary inclinations etc. DV is one of the worst gurus out there, as he has no interest in proving his allegations, he's just in it for the money. Worthless scumbag! -v -v -v -v -v l) l) :o :o ;) ;) >D >D
He has to make a living and that is his way.
Let's just be glad we do other things for a living.
-
Live and learn from fools and from sages.
The more Guru-Guinea pigs we have to use as whipping boys for arguments for positive affirmations and negative reinforcements, the better.
+9001 internets for Aerosmith reference. ;D
Anyways, I really doubt gurus would admit that they were wrong, when their health starts to fail. Human beings tend to really dislike "losing face."
-
There is no way for anyone to "prove" anything to you or me or anyone else.
Studies don't mean a damn thing. People are only capable of sharing interpretations.
Take it for what it's worth, there is nothing to accomplish in arguing about someone else's interpretation/claims. I eat raw meat because I love it, not because I am convinced by someone else's research. I have no obligation to provide my reasoning or "proof" to anyone.
Why does it bother you TD? Because people are trusting him and following him word for word. Sheep will be sheep. At least those people are not guzzling fluoride for all of it's "health benefits"
-
There is no way for anyone to "prove" anything to you or me or anyone else.
Studies don't mean a damn thing. People are only capable of sharing interpretations.
Take it for what it's worth, there is nothing to accomplish in arguing about someone else's interpretation/claims. I eat raw meat because I love it, not because I am convinced by someone else's research. I have no obligation to provide my reasoning or "proof" to anyone.
Why does it bother you TD? Because people are trusting him and following him word for word. Sheep will be sheep. At least those people are not guzzling fluoride for all of it's "health benefits"
I agree that DV is "less worse" than many other gurus. What I dislike is the notion that DV is flawless or offers a better diet than ours as several ideas of his would have wrecked my own health if I had tried them in the past. As for studies, I find them very useful actually. Sure, some studies are too vague or focus on the wrong aspects but we have a hell of a lot of decent studies backing a raw, palaeolithic diet, albeit mostly inadvertently. And I loathe the sappy New-Age, largely evidence-free approach of people like DV.
-
I think that the real danger in people like DV and AV hogging all the spot light is the fact that they may be the only resources that some people will have to base their diets on , and if those people happen to be intolerant to milk or have other serious issues , then the protocol they try to follow may not give them the best results.
From the mountain view that the people of this forum share, the antics of people like DV seem quaint and novel, but heaven help the fools in the valley that take him too seriously, and have no other resource to balance out the new age nonsense with down to earth proven effective protocols. Thats why its important to build up a thriving paleo culture that is much larger and complete than the visions of the particular gurus.
-
I think that the real danger in people like DV and AV hogging all the spot light is the fact that they may be the only resources that some people will have to base their diets on , and if those people happen to be intolerant to milk or have other serious issues , then the protocol they try to follow may not give them the best results.
From the mountain view that the people of this forum share, the antics of people like DV seem quaint and novel, but heaven help the fools in the valley that take him too seriously, and have no other resource to balance out the new age nonsense with down to earth proven effective protocols. Thats why its important to build up a thriving paleo culture that is much larger and complete than the visions of the particular gurus.
Then I guess thank you baby jebus ;D >D for this site as i think most people in their beginning "newbie" phase of this diet would easily take everything AV or DV says for fact
-
IMHO, Geoff Purcell aka GP aka Tyler should be enshrined like DV and AV.
Enshrined for OPENNESS.
people may not like his criticisms or comments sometimes, but Geoff is a lot more open minded because this open minded forum was his idea, his steering, his pushing.... wai diet is here, AV primal diet is here, weston price is here, zero carb is here...
And Geoff has been preaching the gospel of raw paleo diet for FREE for a long time.
-
There is nothing more frustrating or embarassing than to be thought of as a guru or a saint after years of criticising gurus -[ -[ l) :o. I don't even have a philosophy/info of my own, even, as it's all borrowed from a dozen different gurus like Cordain or Weston-Price or Aajonus etc., or taken from the RVAF dieter masses as a whole.
-
I am kind of surprised not to have more health gurus at least visit here as a resource for personal growth and to learn how to participate in more open minded discussions so as to better spread the word. Are we really that far out in the boondocks that people like Dr. Mercola, or other top ranking nutritional talking heads can't find this place. Or perhaps they have heard faint whisperings of the raw paleo diet underground, but are not willing to seek it out for themselves.
Should we have someone send out some invitations to influential people to take these discussions to a different level?
Or are we content to have a quiet corner with a forum based on regular people who wish to seek out truth of this diet for themselves , without being sold out by shady characters with financial agendas, and wacky ideas. I like the general tone of the forum here and think there are plenty of checks and balances by which one can use to keep from falsely believing that one person has all the answers.
-
I suspect a lot of these diet gurus do come here. They probably don't sign up to post, they just lurk, or if they do sign up it's not under a name we'd be able to associate with them.
Think about it. Their name is their brand name. If their brand name is associated with a free website, it's lost a lot of its earning potential. Even if they mine websites like this for their wisdom, they can't be associated with it and still make a living.
-
Sitting Coyote is right on the money about the gurus and the authors.
We are not regular people.
We are special people.
Collectively we make this forum a world treasure.
-
So how can I turn my specialnessess in diet into success into other areas GS?
-
So how can I turn my specialnessess in diet into success into other areas GS?
I just recently got on rpd (3 years) and being healthy has helped me:
- become more intelligent.
- have the energy to do much more work trying to run my business and my family.
- not get sick
- cure other people, especially my family.
The holy grail is really about how to make tons of money.
Well, we figured out the health puzzle, you and I will figure out the money puzzle... eventually.
Maybe I can export skilled workers to your country?
Since we are an international forum, we could get into import and export.
Business....
-
I'm with you there GS, you know I'm working on it ;)