/* * Patch for filter_var() */ if(!function_exists('filter_var')){ define('FILTER_VALIDATE_IP', 'ip'); define('FILTER_FLAG_IPV4', 'ipv4'); define('FILTER_FLAG_IPV6', 'ipv6'); define('FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL', 'email'); define('FILTER_FLAG_EMAIL_UNICODE', 'unicode'); function filter_var($variable, $filter, $option = false){ if($filter == 'ip'){ if($option == 'ipv4'){ if(preg_match("/(\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3})/", $variable, $matches)){ $variable = $matches[1]; return $variable; } } if($option == 'ipv6'){ if(preg_match("/\s*(([:.]{0,7}[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}){1,8})\s*/", $variable, $matches)){ $variable = $matches[1]; return $variable; } } } if($filter == 'email'){ if($option == 'unicode' || $option == false){ if(preg_match("/\s*(\S*@\S*\.\S*)\s*/", $variable, $matches)){ $variable = $matches[1]; return $variable; } } } } }
I wasn't seeking perfection, merely the acknowledgement that HG diets are highly flawed."Highly flawed" seems like your usual hyperbole to me. There are a great variety of HG diets, including some that include lots of raw animal foods, so it seems like you're also oversimplifying by lumping everything together in this way.
Besides, Vitalis and other gurus who talk about eating raw meat usually state that "since" HGs cooked much of their food that "therefore" cooking was OK, and that people shouldn't avoid cooking entirely.Yes, that's unsupported extrapolation and cooked Paleo diet guru Matt Lalonde, who has a PhD in biochemistry, showed in thorough detail in his presentation at the Ancestral Healthy Symposium why we shouldn't do that and why it's not good science (http://www.thehealthyteacher.com/2011/09/05/mat-lalonde-ancestral-health-symposium/ (http://www.thehealthyteacher.com/2011/09/05/mat-lalonde-ancestral-health-symposium/)). Did you watch it? Of course, even Matt doesn't follow his own suggestions 100% consistently, such as in regards to cooking, but that's something that we raw Paleo dieters can help the cooked Paleos see, by encouraging them to apply Matt's suggestions to cooking along with everything else.
any benefits gained are usually quite slight. ...If that were true, there wouldn't be much of a Paleo diet movement. Robb Wolf alone claims that thousands upon thousands of people have sent him emails reporting improvements, including extraordinary ones, (http://www.robbwolf.com/tag/success-stories/ (http://www.robbwolf.com/tag/success-stories/)) and he says he has 30,000 more emails from people who are interested and want help that he doesn't have time to read. He and other Paleo diet gurus (like Ray Audette, Loren Cordain, Mark Sisson, etc.) and Paleo dieters report dramatic improvements in Rheumatoid arthritis (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/rheumatoid-arthritis/msg86265/#msg86265 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/rheumatoid-arthritis/msg86265/#msg86265)), osteoarthritis (my father and other people I know, for example), epilepsy, diabetes (especially type II, but also type I), overweight/obesity, multiple sclerosis (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110416/COLUMNIST/110419739/1004?Title=Here-Now-Paleo-diet-intense-workouts-halt-progress-of-MS- (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110416/COLUMNIST/110419739/1004?Title=Here-Now-Paleo-diet-intense-workouts-halt-progress-of-MS-)), Menieres disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia, right bundle-branch block, depression, GERD, IBS and bloating, acne, PCOS, infertility, autism, asthma, allergies, chronic headaches, hypertension, ectopic eyelash, overlapping toes, inguinal hernia, clogged sinuses and post nasal drip, tetany, and on and on!
"Highly flawed" seems like your usual hyperbole to me. There are a great variety of HG diets, including some that include lots of raw animal foods, so it seems like you're also oversimplifying by lumping everything together in this way.That's a childish accusation, my point was a dead-accurate description. The fact is that even the HG diets which include lots of raw animal foods have some intrinsic problems. For example, the Inuit/Arctic diets generally involved a zero-carb approach. For people like me, ZC is an absolute disaster. Also another point is that HG tribes usually had to make nasty compromises with their diets just in order to survive(such as eating tubers instead of less-accessible meats etc.), so it would be the height of stupidity to just blindly copy their diets.
That's a childish accusation,Ridiculous spitefulness resorted to when you disagree with and can't refute what someone says, such as your use of the exaggerated language, "highly flawed," without even bothering to compare it to anything. Pale diet gurus and research are usually comparing HG diets to SAD, not to some ideal of perfection from some noble savagerer theory notions of pre-cooking Stone Age days (if using data from HG's who did any cooking is somehow part of "the noble savage theory," then claims without evidence that some pre-cooking Stone Age diet of your imagination must be even better might be called "the noble savagerer theory," since you're harkening back to even more "savage" earlier days). To call HG diets highly flawed in the usual context of comparison to SAD or no context at all is hyperbole.
For people like me, ZC is an absolute disaster.That's irrelevent to what I wrote. You're off on a tangent about your own experience with a diet that no HG society has ever been observed engaging in over the longer run, not addressing actual HG evidence. Even the Inuits didn't traditionally restrict themselves to zero carbs. The lowest figure I've seen yet for any Inuit group was 1% carbs, and that was after the introduction of some modern imported foods. Plus, the Inuit had access to certain special foods that we moderners don't that some scientists and knowledgeable commentators have hypothesized may have been part of the key to their relative low carb success. Besides, most cooked Paleo diet gurus also do not advocate very low carb diets and Cordain's team even removed the Inuit data from the HG evidence, because they thought it was too much an outlier and don't recommend it for people today, including in the very report that Löwenherz linked to above. So you could hardly be more irrelevant.
Also another point is that HG tribes usually had to make nasty compromises with their diets just in order to survive(such as eating tubers instead of less-accessible meats etc.)As I've reported in this forum before, according to the latest science, hominins have been eating tubers and roots since at least Australopithecus, millions of years ago, and even chimps have been observed digging up and eating tubers, so this is more irrelevancy, as Stone Agers ate tubers too.
so it would be the height of stupidity to just blindly copy their diets.Irrelevant yet again. Most of the cooked Paleo diet gurus warn against blind re-enactment and I didn't argue for blindly copying HG diets any more than you argued for blindly copying pre-cooking Stone Age diets that no one has ever observed, so you're completely off course from any point I made. Refuting straw men is a lot easier than addressing people's actual points.
As for so-called paleolithic diet "success", the studies on that diet tend to show some benefits(more usually only alleviations of certain conditions/diseases rather than all-out cures) and the alleviated diseases/illnesses are usually mainly only "modern" ones like type 2 diabetes or auto-immune diseases.You're of course conveniently ignoring the other diseases and disorders I listed. No surprise there. Of course they're going to tend to be "modern" diseases, as that's what Tanchou's "diseases of civilization" hypothesis and Boyd Eaton's hypothesis of "biological discordance" are all about--that modern foods are a factor in modern diseases and disorders. Are you not aware of that?
Also, I've been on plenty of cooked-palaeodiet forums in the past as well as raw food diet forums, and have noticed that while the raw food diet forums(even raw vegan forums as regards people only a few months into RV) all routinely had glowing testimonials about recovering from multiple unusual diseases(I've even come across claims by some people of no longer getting symptoms of a particular genetic disease as a result of going RVAF!), the testimonials from the cooked-palaeolithic diet forums were far fewer and pretty pathetic.More hyperbole, and it's not at all childish to point out that fact. Your assessment is more negative than what I've observed and I've observed raw Paleo, raw vegan, cooked Paleo, cooked zero carb, cooked facultative carnivore, and cooked vegetarian forums, as well as the experiences of myself and friends, relatives and acquaintences who have tried cooked Paleo. I recommend that anyone who thinks Tyler's propaganda might not be exaggerating to go check out Robb Wolf's success story archive, for example. You seem to see only what you want to see, Tyler.
For most RVAFers, they report that going raw resulted in most of their health-problems disappearing whereas cooked-palaeolithic diets merely provided perhaps 10% of the answer to their improved health, at best.Multiple people have told a different story, including Lex Rooker and myself and others here in this very forum, yet you go on like we never said anything. No doubt some don't even speak up because they don't wish to be harrassed by you, as some former members of this forum have complained. Plus, limiting yourself to just the reports of RVAFers who report at RVAF forums is a ridiculously unscientific, biased approach. We represent much less than one tenth of one percent of the world's population. Why don't you try making these claims at cooked Paleo and other dietary forums and blogs and see how many people agree with you? Every dietary forum has plenty of "Our approach is best" back-slapping and yes-men agreement. It's hardly solid proof of anything. I do think our forum has more positive reports overall than most other dietary forums, but it's not 100% success and your portrayal of cooked Paleo forums is ridiculously negative. Have you ever tried to claim at Paleofood or the Caveman forum or one of the blogs, like Mark Sisson's or Robb Wolf's that cooked Paleo only provides minor improvements and nowhere near what rawness offers, instead of just preaching to the converted? I think you'd find a lot of disagreement. And again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Ridiculous spitefulness resorted to when you disagree with and can't refute what someone says, such as your use of the exaggerated language, "highly flawed," without even bothering to compare it to anything. Pale diet gurus and research are usually comparing HG diets to SAD, not to some ideal of perfection from some noble savagerer theory notions of pre-cooking Stone Age days (if using data from HG's who did any cooking is somehow part of "the noble savage theory," then claims without evidence that some pre-cooking Stone Age diet of your imagination must be even better might be called "the noble savagerer theory," since you're harkening back to even more "savage" earlier days). To call HG diets that in the usual context of comparison to SAD or no context at all is hyperbole.You are, of course, the only one here spouting pure b*llsh*t and lying like a trooper, as well, about my views.
That's irrelevent to what I wrote. You're off on a tangent about your own experience with a diet that no HG society has ever been observed engaging in over the longer run, not addressing actual HG evidence. Even the Inuits didn't traditionally restrict themselves to zero carbs. The lowest figure I've seen yet for any Inuit group was 1% carbs, and that was after the introduction of some modern imported foods. Plus, the Inuit had access to certain special foods that we moderners don't that some scientists and knowledgeable commentators have hypothesized may have been part of the key to their relative low carb success. Besides, most cooked Paleo diet gurus also do not advocate very low carb diets and Cordain's team even removed the Inuit data from the HG evidence, because they thought it was too much an outlier and don't recommend it for people today, including in the very report that Löwenherz linked to above. So you could hardly be more irrelevant.Not irrelevant at all. For one thing, I get the distinct impression that the Inuit diet generally only included plants in the summer season so they were zero-carb the rest of the year. But let's suppose you can find evidence of an exception(should you take the time to do some basic research to back up your claims), there still remains the fact that I and some others don't do that well on RVLC either. In my case, my physical performance on <2% carbs goes way down, for example. Plus, ZC is a pretty important variation of cooked-palaeolithic diets, not a tiny minority any more.
As I've reported in this forum before, according to the latest science, hominins have been eating tubers and roots since at least Australopithecus, millions of years ago, and even chimps have been observed digging up and eating tubers, so this is more irrelevancy, as Stone Agers ate tubers too.You are, as usual, completely missing the point. I never stated that just because hominids ate a particular food before 250,000 years ago, that they must be adapted to it. That's lame, cooked-palaeolithic-diet thinking. Somewhat ironically, you yourself debunked this sort of notion with your past point re pandas not being adapted to their diet of bamboo even after millions of years. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for going against your own past principles just in a failed attempt to win an argument with me.
Irrelevant yet again. Most of the cooked Paleo diet gurus warn against blind re-enactment and I didn't argue for blindly copying HG diets any more than you argued for blindly copying pre-cooking Stone Age diets that no one has ever observed, so you're completely off course from any point I made. Refuting straw men is a lot easier than addressing people's actual points.Not irrelevant since many palaeolithic diet gurus routinely subscribe to the Noble-Savage theory and hold up HG tribes as embodiments of perfection. Ron Hoggan of the PaleoFood list is one notorious example thereof but there are plenty others who are noble-savage adherents to a lesser extent, simply because there is more (albeit flawed) data about modern HGs than there is of palaeo HGs.
Of course they're going to tend to be "modern" diseases, as that's what Tanchou's "diseases of civilization" hypothesis and Boyd Eaton's hypothesis of "biological discordance" are all about--that modern foods are a factor in modern diseases and disorders. Are you not aware of that?The whole point is that such diseases are only a small part of the diseases/health-problems that humans have which wild animals on natural, raw diets don't. As I have already pointed out there are a hefty amount of diseases/health-problems which studies have shown are directly linked to the amounts of heat-created toxins in a human body. A cooked, palaeolithic diet may have fewer of those toxins(if the relevant dieters believe in HG-style slow-cooking etc.) but it can't properly solve health-problems caused by such heat-created toxins.
More hyperbole, and it's not at all childish to point out that fact. Your assessment is more negative than what I've observed and I've observed raw Paleo, raw vegan, cooked Paleo, cooked zero carb, cooked facultative carnivore, and cooked vegetarian forums,Pure b*ll. I have seen plenty of these cooked-palaeo forums, and while they do sometimes report some success with a few auto-immune diseases, they usually merely report slight alleviations of such diseases, and my own contact on- and off-line with other RVAFers and people who've tried other cooked diets(cooked-palaeo or otherwise) indicates far, far bigger success on a RVAF diet, even non-palaeo ones than on cooked-palaeolithic diets. The irony is that, technically, the cooked-palaeolithic diet theory sounds a hell of a lot better than RVAF diets(even rawpalaeo), if only on the surface, but, in actual practice, it often turns out to be a waste of time re health.
Multiple people have told a different story, including Lex Rooker and myself and others here in this very forum, yet you go on like we never said anything. No doubt some don't even speak up because they don't wish to be harrassed by you, as some former members of this forum have complained. Plus, limiting yourself to just the reports of RVAFers who report at RVAF forums is a ridiculously unscientific, biased approach. We represent much less than one tenth of one percent of the world's population. Why don't you try making these claims at cooked Paleo and other dietary forums and blogs and see how many people agree with you? Every dietary forum has plenty of "Our approach is best" back-slapping and yes-men agreement. It's hardly solid proof of anything. I do think our forum has more positive reports overall than most other dietary forums, but it's not 100% success and your portrayal of cooked Paleo forums is ridiculously negative. Have you ever tried to claim at Paleofood or the Caveman forum or one of the blogs, like Mark Sisson's or Robb Wolf's that cooked Paleo only provides minor improvements and nowhere near what rawness offers, instead of just preaching to the converted? I think you'd find a lot of disagreement. And again, we'll have to agree to disagree.That would be stupid. In the past, I have often provided endless scientific data to back up my claims re raw, palaeolithic diets being far more effective than cooked, palaeolithic diets. And those on the other side would routinely just spout b*ll without any added scientific references, because they felt I had somehow violated their "religion" - besides, it makes more sense for me to read the occasional pro-cooked-palaeo testimonials that come up, as they are far more likely to be authentic than biased, imaginary rubbish dreamed up by people on the spur of the moment purely in answer to my challenge. As regards people on this forum, there have been only a tiny few who have suggested that they only benefitted slightly from raw foods as opposed to cooked-palaeo - and you can't pretend that my presence scared off the others, since I had no problem with Lex and the other one or two posters making that claim. Interestingly, so far the tiny, tiny few who have made such claims have all been from the tiny RZC minority, (with you being slightly less RZC in recent times, presumably, in a dubious, rather cynical attempt to not seem too fanatical re diet). Also, it's rather telling that a significant proportion of members come to RVAF diets or the raw, palaeolithic diet precisely because cooked, palaeolithic diets failed to give them any health-benefits or only a very few.
You are, of course, the only one here spouting pure b*llsh*t and lying like a trooper, as well, about my views.Applying your own language to your extreme extrapolations from data on lab animals and modern peoples (which the scientists themselves who conducted the studies don't make and would probably consider unscientific) as somehow strong evidence in favor of pre-cooking Stone Age purely raw diets is no more outrageous than your own claims directed at me and others for daring to mention at times scientific evidence on and observations of HG and traditional populations as somehow motivated by or promoting a vague "noble savage theory".
First off, I have no real interest in the past before HG diets, and rely on modern scientific evidence to prove my points, mainly, as well as anecdotal evidence from RVAFers and others.
there's the multiple anecdotal evidence from RVAFers etc. re the lack of success of HG dietsAnd there's much more anecdotal of people experiencing benefits on HG-type diets, as I've already documented.
I mean, comparing HG diets to junk-food diets is pretty pathetic....The SAD is what most Americans eat today, so it's typically what other diets are compared to in studies and it's relevant in any dietary analysis for the USA and any nation that eats a similar diet, and it's the most common diet that cooked Paleos switch to, so of course it's relevant to many cooked Paleos and people in the USA and likely Europe too. Surely even you recognize that.
the Inuit diet generally only included plants in the summer season....Again with the Inuit canard. As was already pointed out to you, Cordain's team removed their data in the above research and most cooked Paleo diet advocates don't advocate an Inuit-type diet. So you're wasting your time tilting at windmills.
I never stated that just because hominids ate a particular food before 250,000 years ago, that they must be adapted to it. That's lame, cooked-palaeolithic-diet thinking. Somewhat ironically, you yourself debunked this sort of notion with your past point re pandas not being adapted to their diet of bamboo even after millions of years.It's not ironic, because I disagree with that notion, and as you (ironically) pointed out, I refuted it, and I even noted in my very last post that cooked-Paleo-diet advocate Matt Lalonde argued against that sort of thinking. I can tell that you haven't watched his presentation.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for going against your own past principles just in a failed attempt to win an argument with me.Patently false. The shame is all yours.
Not irrelevant since many palaeolithic diet gurus routinely subscribe to the Noble-Savage theory and hold up HG tribes as embodiments of perfection. Ron Hoggan of the PaleoFood list is one notorious example thereof but there are plenty others who are noble-savage adherents to a lesser extent, simply because there is more (albeit flawed) data about modern HGs than there is of palaeo HGs.I suspect Ron would disagree with you on this. Have you asked him at Paleofood if he supports this thing you call a noble savage theory? Any other examples beyond Ron? You still haven't addressed the fact that Matt Lalonde (as well as Dr. Kurt Harris and other cooked Paleos) have argued against the very things you claim "many" cooked paleo diet gurus promote.
The whole point is that such diseases are only a small part of the diseases/health-problems that humans have which wild animals on natural, raw diets don't.You already pointed out that wild animals have just as much cancer as cooked foodists, did you not? So rawness apparently doesn't help with at least cancers, in your view, correct? Are you claiming that raw Paleo will cure even more diseases than the diseases of civilization, including substantially more than cooked Paleo can? If so, could you please name some of them?
to the amounts of heat-created toxins in a human body. A cooked, palaeolithic diet may have fewer of those toxins(if the relevant dieters believe in HG-style slow-cooking etc.) but it can't properly solve health-problems caused by such heat-created toxins. Pure b*ll.Good scientists are not in the habit of assuming things "can't" be. Science involves investigating to find out whether things can be or not. With those statements, you're leaving science and entering the land of idealistic speculation that you decry in others.
I have seen plenty of these cooked-palaeo forums, and while they do sometimes report some success with a few auto-immune diseases, they usually merely report slight alleviations of such diseases,Again, try making these claims of the poor to mediocre results from cooked Paleo in those forums instead of here, and we'll see what response you generate. Ranting about it here is hardly convincing. You can point me to the link. I'd be interested to see it.
I have often provided endless scientific data to back up my claims re raw, palaeolithic diets being far more effective than cooked, palaeolithic diets.Sometimes when I have looked at your cited sources, they don't fully support your claims. Let's not rehash that, though. We can agree to disagree on the extent of the conclusions you've drawn, since I agree that there is decent evidence for harm from cooking, especially certain forms of cooking, I just don't carry it to the extremes that you do.
And those on the other side would routinely just spout b*ll without any added scientific referencesYes, I give you credit for at least looking up and sharing the studies and at least reading some of the abstracts and perhaps more, and I do agree with you that the cooked Paleos tend to dismiss without good reason the evidence on cooking vs. raw and types of cooking. I just don't think it helps our case when you carry it further into giving the impression that the Paleo aspect of raw Paleo (ie, the choice of foods eaten) contributes very little and that cooked Paleos have experienced very little in the way of benefits when they've switched to it from the SAD, and when you come across like you're speaking for all of our experiences, when yours is quite different from mine, Lex's and others.
and you can't pretend that my presence scared off the othersI have read in private PMs from other people and in their posts in other forums that you basically did scare them off or they went silent and gave up on trying to discuss with you, because they found it fruitless, and another person at a forum advised others not to waste time bothering to debate you. I suspect there may be still others who haven't spoken up, though I don't know that for sure, of course. Usually when some people complain there are many more who are silent, but we can't know for sure, of course.
, since I had no problem with Lex and the other one or two posters making that claim. Interestingly, so far the tiny, tiny few who have made such claims have all been from the tiny RZC minority,Because the Paleosphere is divided into raw and cooked camps, the people who think that rawness is the biggest factor are of course going to self-select themselves to this forum. To hear from the people who don't think rawness is uber important, you'd need to survey the cooked Paleo and cooked LC forums.
(with you being slightly less RZC in recent times, presumably, in a dubious, rather cynical attempt to not seem too fanatical re diet).What utter dross. And you complain about childishness?
Also, it's rather telling that a significant proportion of members come to RVAF diets or the raw, palaeolithic diet precisely because cooked, palaeolithic diets failed to give them any health-benefits or only a very few.Don't worry, I'm not arguing that cooked Paleo is just as good as raw, just that you're going overboard, like with these juvenile theatrics:
As regards your previous, appalling tuber-comment, "May God have mercy on your soul".You're either lying or acting imbecilic here. I suspect the former, since I don't consider you that dense. I don't consider them my personal gods, nor worship them, any more than you do when you mention or quote Cordain or some other prominent person or any of their work.
Addendum:- What really disgusts me re the above comments of yours and elsewhere is your clear need for "guru-worship". I mean, ever since the Enlightenment, it has been considered more sane to not believe in some "higher power", but to just rely on one's own intuition and other reports from the general public. Citing Robb Wolff or Vitalis or whoever as though they were your personal "gods" is pretty silly.
I wonder what this forum looks like to someone who isn't already numb to health forum trolling? I can't imagine it would feel very inviting...Somewhat highly dubious and seriously hypocritical a comment, since, for various well-thought-out past reasons, you yourself have been previously accused of being a troll.
Quote from: Eric on Today at 07:06:47 pm
I wonder what this forum looks like to someone who isn't already numb to health forum trolling? I can't imagine it would feel very inviting...
Tyler wrote: Somewhat highly dubious and seriously hypocritical a comment, since, for various well-thought-out past reasons, you yourself have been previously accused of being a troll.Not good, based on that reply, LOL Point taken. I was planning on wrapping it up soon, and I guess this is a good indicator for sooner than later. I was almost going to suggest to Tyler the old idiom that he could attract more flies with honey, but then I realized how futile that would be.
Applying your own language to your extreme extrapolations from data on lab animals and modern peoples (which the scientists themselves who conducted the studies don't make and would probably consider unscientific) as somehow strong evidence in favor of pre-cooking Stone Age purely raw diets is no more outrageous than your own claims directed at me and others for daring to mention at times scientific evidence on and observations of HG and traditional populations as somehow motivated by or promoting a vague "noble savage theory".*edit* The spectacular disingenuousness etc. on your part is amazing. The fact that I use modern scientific studies which prove, beyond doubt, that heat-created toxins are a problem for human health is damning against your claims. The fact that there is no scientific study comparing rawpalaeodiets to cooked, palaeodiets is completely irrelevant. That is solely due to retarded health-and-safety regulations which forbid scientific studies to be done on those eating raw meat diets. So far, as a result, there have only been a tiny few studies done on raw dairy consumption, that's about it.
And there's much more anecdotal of people experiencing benefits on HG-type diets, as I've already documented.The trouble is that such "anecdotal" evidence is very sparse and only covers very minor health-issues, for the most part. RVAF diets have far better anecdotal reports re health-recovery.
Now you're just ranting nonsense. The SAD is what most Americans eat today, so it's typically what other diets are compared to in studies and it's relevant in any dietary analysis for the USA and any nation that eats a similar diet, and it's the most common diet that cooked Paleos switch to, so of course it's relevant to many cooked Paleos and people in the USA and likely Europe too. Surely even you recognize that.I made a very pertinent point, that junk-food diets are so very bad for human-health that even minor, crappy diets that involve slightly less processing than junk-food diets, such as cooked, palaeolithic diets, are "less worse" than junk-food diets, without necessarily being any good at all.
Again with the Inuit canard. As was already pointed out to you, Cordain's team removed their data in the above research and most cooked Paleo diet advocates don't advocate an Inuit-type diet. So you're wasting your time tilting at windmills.Pure hypocrisy there. I mean, when you want to promote the idea of Noble-Savagery(despite pretending not to in the past) you can't very well arbitrarily, for no valid reason, eliminate the Inuit Diet from all the other HG diets. That would involve pure hypocrisy.
It's not ironic, because I disagree with that notion, and as you (ironically) pointed out, I refuted it, and I even noted in my very last post that cooked-Paleo-diet advocate Matt Lalonde argued against that sort of thinking. I can tell that you haven't watched his presentation.It is ironic, since you previously advocated the panda/giant panda theory, yet, hypocritically, falsely accused me of this very notion. As for Matt LaLonde, forgive me, it seems I have not paid sufficient reverence/prayer to this other dietary guru of yours, who you clearly worship, among others.
A blatant lie. The shame is all yours.No lie, I'm just accusing you, rightfully, of hypocrisy.
I suspect Ron would disagree with you on this. Have you asked him at Paleofood if he supports this thing you call a noble savage theory? Any other examples beyond Ron? You still haven't addressed the fact that Matt Lalonde (as well as Dr. Kurt Harris and other cooked Paleos) have argued against the very things you claim "many" cooked paleo diet gurus promote.
It's quite true that scientists know way more about recent HGs than about pre-cooking HGs. Why do you say "simply because"? Do you consider that fact irrelevant? Multiple people here have mentioned that we can't know with clarity what ancient Stone Agers ate and seem to consider this a relevant fact. In contrast, scientists can directly observe today's HGs and see what they are eating. I thought you had at least a modicum of respect for Cordain. Do you think he would waste time with the HG data if it was irrelevant?
You already pointed out that wild animals have just as much cancer as cooked foodists, did you not? So rawness apparently doesn't help with at least cancers, in your view, correct? Are you claiming that raw Paleo will cure even more diseases than the diseases of civilization, including substantially more than cooked Paleo can? If so, could you please name some of them?I made a good number of examples in the raw foodism page in the "potential harmful effects of cooked diets" section. And being ethical, unlike some sick pro-cooked-palaeolithic-diet gurus, I don't pretend that raw, palaeolithic diets will automatically protect against all diseases, even cancer.
Good scientists are not in the habit of assuming things "can't" be. Science involves investigating to find out whether things can be or not. With those statements, you're leaving science and entering the land of idealistic speculation that you decry in others.B*llsh*t again. I have shown again and again, via endless refs, that scientific data shows that many health-problems are improved if the amounts of diet-derived heat-created toxins in the body were reduced. So your arguments are disproven.
Again, try making these claims of the poor to mediocre results from cooked Paleo in those forums instead of here, and we'll see what response you generate. Ranting about it here is hardly convincing. You can point me to the link. I'd be interested to see it.Again, like I said before, this would be highly stupid since any rebuttals would, of necessity, be damage-control of a dubious nature. I might even get banned. Far better to wait and get genuine, honest testimonials on the very rare occasions they do appear.
Sometimes when I have looked at your cited sources, they don't fully support your claims. Let's not rehash that, though. We can agree to disagree on the extent of the conclusions you've drawn, since I agree that there is decent evidence for harm from cooking, especially certain forms of cooking, I just don't carry it to the extremes that you do.The B*llsh*t factor again, on your part. The amount of evidence I cite re scientific studies is way too great to honestly debunk. I mean, by now, there are tens of thousands of studies done on the harmful effect of advanced glycation end products, for example, so this is pure dishonesty on your part.
Yes, I give you credit for at least looking up and sharing the studies and at least reading some of the abstracts and perhaps more, and I do agree with you that the cooked Paleos tend to dismiss without good reason the evidence on cooking vs. raw and types of cooking. I just don't think it helps our case when you carry it further into giving the impression that the Paleo aspect of raw Paleo (ie, the choice of foods eaten) contributes very little and that cooked Paleos have experienced very little in the way of benefits when they've switched to it from the SAD, and when you come across like you're speaking for all of our experiences, when yours is quite different from mine, Lex's and others.The big problem with the above is that most RVAFers' experiences on this and any other RVAF forum are not in line with Lex's, yours' or the very few others' experiences. So your argument is invalid.
I have read in private PMs from other people and in their posts in other forums that you basically did scare them off or they went silent and gave up on trying to discuss with you, because they found it fruitless, and another person at a forum advised others not to waste time bothering to debate you. I suspect there may be still others who haven't spoken up, though I don't know that for sure, of course. Usually when some people complain there are many more who are silent, but we can't know for sure, of course.I strongly suspect this is a sudden, false invention on your part. The most obvious reason being that, given a multitude of reports on other RVAF diet forums, most rawists are , at least partially, if not wholly, in line with my particular ideology, and most being wholly opposed to the foolish notion that cooked, palaeolithic diets(or any other cooked diets) have any value at all, healthwise.
Because the Paleosphere is divided into raw and cooked camps, the people who think that rawness is the biggest factor are of course going to self-select themselves to this forum. To hear from the people who don't think rawness is uber important, you'd need to survey the cooked Paleo and cooked LC forums.
I've noticed that a number of the people who claim that rawness is the key come from other raw or mostly-raw diets, where they assumed that most of their benefit was from going raw, such as raw vegan and raw Primal. As Denise Minger and others have pointed out, by going raw and/or vegan, they also eliminate many of the nonPaleo foods, like grains. So there are confounding variables they aren't taking into account when they assume that most or all the benefit came from rawness (or eliminating meat, for that matter).
What utter dross. And you complain about childishness?I am merely pointing out that, ever since I caught you out defending the retarded Noble-Savage theory, you tried to back-pedal and pretend that you weren't a fanatic.
You're either lying or acting imbecilic here. I suspect the former, since I don't consider you that dense. I don't consider them my personal gods, nor worship them, any more than you do when you mention or quote Cordain or some other prominent person or any of their work.[/quote] The big difference between you and me is that I mention gurus on a much rarer basis than you, and when I do, my praise is often intermixed with criticism of such. I have simply come across too many seriously flawed gurus for me to have much faith in them. Yet many dieters insist on "following the faith".
Ray peat says that all this enzyme talk is an overblown hype shit and our bodies are well capable in manufacturing those digestive enzymes by it's own.Howell and others have pointed out that ray Peat's ideas are horsesh*t. They point out that enzymes take c. 30 minutes before they end up in the lower stomach and get destroyed, enough time for them to carry out their functions a little bit. Alphagruis also pointed out that the body''s enzymes are designed to deal with raw foods, not cooked foods, since cooked foods are too denatured. What this means is that the body has to create way more enzymes in order to deal with cooked foods properly, so that the body's pancreas gland gets overworked and destroyed partially. This is why older people benefit a lot from taking extra enzyme supplements with their foods, as their pancreas has more or less been ruined.
I wonder what this forum looks like to someone who isn't already numb to health forum trolling? I can't imagine it would feel very inviting...
People might think that a diet based on raw animal fats makes our life nasty and brutish again, at least on a verbal level.Not everything has a dietary origin. In fact it is this type of reasoning that makes a lot of serious people frown upon our community. Some people just cannot let go regardless of diet.
But what is the cause of overheated discussions?
Irritability and angriness.
In my case it's caused by red meat and fat from domesticated animals.
Löwenherz
..
Let's face it, the diet you promote is even more ancient and therefore more "savage" than the cooked Paleo diet you frequently deride and you twist the studies with all sorts of contortions to try to make them appear as if they go beyond the actual written conclusions to support your fully raw diet notions.
Some fruit trees can grow in pretty cold climates, like apples/pears.
I can remember when I first started eating raw meat in good amounts. I felt the anger come on. My partner also noticed it. Iguana might chime in here. I really think there are two reasons. One is that it was often said with the Instincto group, Nicole especially, that raw proteins are much more aggressive as cleansers than raw fruit sugars. Hence, the raw meat proteins were (in theory) cleansing my body of all the years of eating denatured cooked proteins from meat. The other reason is too often we eat more than our digestive ability can handle, hence undigested proteins leading to putrification in the large intestines, which in my experience can make me irritable. Now, when respecting my limits, not overeating protein, I believe I am many more times calm than having up and down blood sugars.
Hey, please don't cheat! :)
Paleo people have NEVER eaten apples and pears. BTW: Wild apples are inedible..
Löwenherz
I guarantee you plenty of paleo people ate blueberries, blackberries, persimmons, pawpaws, raspberries, strawberries, and plenty of other fruits.
PLENTY of fruits? In warm regions: Yes, of course. But I was referring to cold regions..
Löwenherz
I can remember when I first started eating raw meat in good amounts. I felt the anger come on. My partner also noticed it. Iguana might chime in here. I really think there are two reasons. One is that it was often said with the Instincto group, Nicole especially, that raw proteins are much more aggressive as cleansers than raw fruit sugars.For me it is the opposite, raw red meat and raw (long chain) animal fatty acids (suet, fatty fish, etc.) calm me more than anything I've ever tried, including raw organic fruits. They have been a godsend for me. I suspect that it is because I have a damaged gut and gut flora that don't enable me to digest fruits properly. I'm trying to heal that.
I suspect that it is because I have a damaged gut and gut flora that don't enable me to digest fruits properly. I'm trying to heal that.I don't think you need any specific gut flora to digest fruits.. fruits are basically simple sugars and free amino acids in water, that's as easy to digest as it can be.
I also do badly on tropical fruits, whereas fruits from more northerly climes(berries, apples, pears and the like) I do fine on.Plus, fermented raw honey causes me much less of these problems than unfermented raw honey. The only apparent difference between the two that I'm aware of is the fermentation, and thus the flora and some predigestion of the honey that the flora does, so I don't understand why you would assume that flora and/or the predigestion that they do are not a factor in fruits. I've noticed that many raw vegans, including especially 80-10-10ers, recommend letting fruit get super-ripe (and thus apparently predigested into simpler sugars and maybe even partly fermented) before eating it, so even they appear to recognize that the predigestion into simpler sugars by microbiota make fruits easier for even longtime vegans to digest. Thus, one possible reason that some people get negative symptoms from fruits while others don't could theoretically be differences in flora in the body.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/msg46448/#msg46448 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/msg46448/#msg46448)
... and fermenting fruit doesn't seem to get rid of all the issues for me, so I suspect that my system is damaged in such a way and to such a degree
Yeah, I almost always buy the best of whatever is available to me. I've never seen bananas labeled as "Thai bananas" here.
PP, could fructose malabsorption in some degree be involved in your case?That's what I was thinking of, I mean I associate digestion problems with bloating, cramping, diarrhea, etc.
On the other hand fats like coconut milk and olive oil actually improve my ability to digest fruits. Furthermore fats from wild animals like wild boar and wild pheasant don't have negative impacts on my GI system.How are fats from coconut milk and from coconut oil different?
PP, could fructose malabsorption in some degree be involved in your case?It's possible and I have read up on that in the past, and reviewed it again to refresh my memory, but the symptoms don't match well to mine, as aLptHW4k4y pointed out. However, there is an interesting fair amount of correlation with which fruits trigger the most symptoms for me, though not perfect correlation.
Here is my own experience with fruits on a raw paleo diet:It's a plausible possibility and I explored this somewhat in the past and reported my findings, which didn't match up well with that. I actually seem to fare just as well or better with fruits on days and weeks that I include plenty of animal fats, including those rich in saturated fats, than when I don't, and I have done stretches where I didn't eat much animal fat. I do often eat fruits by themselves, rather than with a lot of animal fat in the same meal, which coincidentally matches the GAPS diet recommendation, but I don't notice any ill effects when I do eat them together, such as in my versions of Eskimo agutuk (mixtures of animal fat with berries and other foods--even mixing honey with animal fat didn't cause any noticeable problems) or putting olive oil on a salad that contains fruits. Coconut and avocado are the exception to this for me. They contain both fats (though not animal fats) and sugars within the same food, and they both give me some negative symptoms, including when I eat the portions of coconut that contain both carbs and fats and when I ate some berries with coconut milk, but it's the case even when I eat the coconut fat separately from any carby foods. I haven't noticed any negative symptoms from avocado oil, so I suspect that something else in avocado is causing me the mild symptoms from it.
In the last years I noticed (again and again) that I can't handle more than one or two pieces of fruit per day AS LONG as I eat very saturated animals fats (usually from beef and lamb) on a regular basis.
On the other hand fats like coconut milk and olive oil actually improve my ability to digest fruits.I am currently experimenting with coconut milk and coconut water, so I hope that will work for me too. It looks like my tolerance for coconut milk is still limited. I thought I was handling it well, so I increased my intake and ended up vomiting when eating raw cheese and some berries with plenty of coconut milk, which is a very rare occurrence for me and took me sufficiently by surprise that I just barely made it to the toilet in time to avoid a mess. I seem to be handling coconut water rather well (perhaps because it is lower in the MCT fats that seem to generate nausea in me?) and can mix it with other foods with no problems.
Quote from: Löwenherz on Today at 05:43:04 am
PP, could fructose malabsorption in some degree be involved in your case?
That's what I was thinking of, I mean I associate digestion problems with bloating, cramping, diarrhea, etc.Except that I don't get the typical allergic reaction symptoms like anaphylaxis either. Plus, fructose malabsorption isn't the only issue with digestion and absorption. Maybe my use of the word "digestion" is causing the hangup here? Absorption or processing or some other term or a mixture of terms may be better when it comes to fruits than digestion. I just meant that I don't process fruits as well as most people and I and my mother and other relatives have multiple issues that have been tied to suboptimal gut flora, so it seems possible that that may be a factor. I didn't mean to imply that I think it's the only factor, but didn't word it clearly. I hope this clarifies things better.
The symptoms Phil is listing indicate something like an allergic reaction, I'm not sure how's digestion connected here.
Most probably the bacteria consumed some of the sugar in fermented honey (just as it happens in yogurt) so it's lower than normal honey.It seems likely, though not absent. It would be interesting to learn what the sugar content is in fermented honey.
If you eat red meat you'll get plenty of zinc.Quite right. I found raw red meat to be the most beneficial food of all with regards to my symptoms that are connected to low zinc.
How do you know you're zinc deficient?Years ago I found that there was a strong correlation between multiple of my symptoms and zinc, including scientific studies, medical reports, patient anecdotes, etc., so I tried supplementing and found that it helped greatly with some of them, and also found that when I stopped supplementing that the symptoms returned to their original full extent. I learned that a cousin of mine was also found to be very zinc deficient. Recently I confirmed the connection with a zinc tally test, which a Chris Kresser podcast tipped me off about when he mentioned that a study found it to be an effective test, as did some of his patients.
I still think it's some sort of an allergic reaction to something. Histamine is usually released as a response to an allergen, here's some of the symptoms, are they similar to what you get? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histamine#Effects_on_nasal_mucous_membrane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histamine#Effects_on_nasal_mucous_membrane)
Effects on nasal mucous membraneI experience no runny nose or watery eyes and no sneezing whatsoever after eating fruits, despite a past history of "hay fever" type "allergies" which resulted in me being put on a long-term course of allergy shots as a child. I sneeze so rarely since going raw Paleo that it's now a notable event when I do sneeze (and it's extremely rare for me to sneeze more than once at a time), whereas many of my coworkers sneeze at least a few times a day, often in bursts of two, three or more sneezes, and think nothing of it. I joke when they sneeze three times or more that it means there will be rain (my mother used to say that when I was a child and sneezed repeatedly quite a bit).
Increased vascular permeability causes fluid to escape from capillaries into the tissues, which leads to the classic symptoms of an allergic reaction: a runny nose and watery eyes. Allergens can bind to IgE-loaded mast cells in the nasal cavity's mucous membranes. This can lead to three clinical responses:[9]
- sneezing due to histamine-associated sensory neural stimulation;
- hyper-secretion from glandular tissue; and
- nasal congestion due to vascular engorgement associated with vasodilation and increased capillary permeability.