Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: nicole on May 11, 2010, 08:26:42 am
-
Would raw unfertilized organic eggs from the health food store be good to eat if I'm in a pinch? How do most paleos react to them?
Thank you
-
For me they are really easy to digest and gives a quick boost of energy. Ive never had problems eating 2 a day.
-
I always prefer one organic raw egg with a glass of milk as it is is good source of instant energy and it will definitely fulfils requirements of proteins and other stuff that are require the most. Daily two eggs are very much necessary for keeping your body fit.
Thanks
-
Raw organic egg yolks are toothsome, but I don't do very well when I eat too much of them; for example over a ten.
-
I've been eating them for a couple months now from a local farm that I trust. I notice nothing from taking them and eat up to ten at a time and probably average 4-6 a day. I think I might have felt slightly bad the first few times I ate them but this feeling has gone away or was just a figment of my imagination. Supposedly they are good for cleansing the liver. Hell if I know.
-
I think I might have felt slightly bad the first few times I ate them but this feeling has gone away or was just a figment of my imagination.
I don't think it's imaginary. I had problems eating whole raw eggs before, too, but they went away after some time.
-
I don't remember having any trouble when I began eating raw eggs, although I don't eat a lot. Perhaps 3 each day. And my eggs are fertilized. I don't know if that makes any difference.
-
raw organic eggs whites are better as its yolk contains the food for an unfertilized egg so better is to avoid egg yolk
-
raw organic eggs whites are better as its yolk contains the food for an unfertilized egg so better is to avoid egg yolk
Eating the white without the yolk leads to biotin deficiency (due to avidin). Bad idea.
By the way, why do you have links to some ab gadgets in your signature?
-
Yes, I think the links should go. They do look suspiciously spammer-ish!
-
Do you think its a problem if I felt a little mucus in my throat after eating them?
-
Probably just the eggwhites
-
Yeah, try it without the egg-whites. However some people have a food-intolerance even to raw eggs so it's not a good idea to overindulge in them.
-
Organic eggs are not quite as bad as other commercial eggs, but still it’s better to totally avoid them once we eat 100% raw. « Organic » hens are fed with organic poultry feed, which is processed, heated and very often contains wheat. They may also be fed with organic bread or other cooked stuff since organic farmers are unaware of the molecular damages done by heat. Damaged molecules may accumulate in the food chain, just like heavy metal, organochlorinated pesticides and radioactive elements >D. Thus, eating raw eggs laid by poultry fed heated food is much like eating cooked food.
It’s the same problem as with “organic” meat.
Of course, the disappearance of any bad feelings after you get used to it is no proof at all that they are ok. It’s most probably due to habituation, just like one get accustomed to cooked food, coffee, alcohol or any drug -d.
-
Organic eggs are not quite as bad as other commercial eggs, but still it’s better to totally avoid them once we eat 100% raw. « Organic » hens are fed with organic poultry feed, which is processed, heated and very often contains wheat. They may also be fed with organic bread or other cooked stuff since organic farmers are unaware of the molecular damages done by heat. Damaged molecules may accumulate in the food chain, just like heavy metal, organochlorinated pesticides and radioactive elements >D. Thus, eating raw eggs laid by poultry fed heated food is much like eating cooked food.
While I agree with the general idea that poultry or any other animals should be fed exclusively raw food this stance (originally from Burger) is much too pessimistic because it is highly oversimplified and overlooks some basic physics and biology:
-First, it is not because humans or other mammals such as ruminants cannot digest properly grains such as wheat that poultry or other natural seed predating species (granivory) a priori cannot do it. It is much more likely that they can digest raw wheat quite well. Wheat or other grains merely should not be the main part of their food as they often are in agro practices.
-Second, fortunately damaged organic molecules from processing by heat or otherwise do not merely accumulate in environment ( soils, animals, plants etc) as do indeed heavy metals or very long period radioactive elements. Bacteria, fungi and other primitive forms of life unlike man or higher forms of life are actually capable to rapidly adapt and use them as "food" in a very effective way. This finally destroys or recycles these molecules more or less rapidly. May I recall here once more that these damaged molecules continuously form also at room temperature in small amounts and if Burger's stance were true they would long have accumulated to dangerous levels since life exists on earth i.e. over a period as long as several billions years.
-Third, it is fortunately too pessimistic to say that "eating raw eggs laid by poultry fed heated food is much like eating cooked food". This is because poultry like man provided they are not too old and thus more or less sick are quite capable to get rid of these damaged molecules to a large extent. They act like very effective filters and do not merely accumulate the damaged molecules they ingest in their flesh or eggs. And poultry laying eggs are generally young animals so that these detox mechanisms are very effective a priori. And organic egg production often involves only a small part or little or no heated or processed food. So that it is not unlikely that such eggs may contain no more residual heat generated poisons than conventional fruits or vegetables contain residual pesticides.
-
The trouble with the above is that it's been pointed out that the nutritional profile of meats from animals raised on only partially grainfed meats is not that different from animals fed on standard, unhealthy grainfed diets. So, clearly, eating unnatural foods or heated foods does change the nutritional profile quite remarkably. I certainly notice a major difference in taste between organic, commercially-raised chickens/ducks and wild mallard duck carcasses so I'm sure that organic eggs from pastured or wild birds are superior to organic eggs from grainfed birds. That said, some wild omnivores such as wild boars(or wild jungle fowl) do indeed eat a few grains on occasion as part of their diet.
Same principle re meats from animals raised on unhealthy diets applies to cannibalism. The Kuru disease, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29 , is supposed to be caused by prions much like the CJD/mad cow's disease. As CJD/mad cow's disease is said to have arisen as a result of cows eating rendered animal fats it is reasonable to assume that part of the problem re Kuru was the ingestion of cooked animal foods.
-
TD, all "pastured" poultry is usually fed a least a substantial amount of grain. Just ask the farmers. Such birds and their wild ancestors are by nature seed predators and this is therefore probably quite fine if they forage the rest of their diet (greens and plant matter, insects, worms, wild seeds etc..) on pasture.
This must be carefully distinguished from grainfef ruminant meat or dairy. These animals are not granivores by nature and wild ancestors and should therefore certainly not be fed any substantial amount of grains.
-
TD, all "pastured" poultry is usually fed a least a substantial amount of grain. Just ask the farmers. Such birds and their wild ancestors are by nature seed predators and this is therefore probably quite fine if they forage the rest of their diet (greens and plant matter, insects, worms, wild seeds etc..) on pasture.
I quite agree that so-called pastured poultry is often fed on quite a lot of grains along with the worms, grass etc., (I was thinking of pastured in the "100% grassfed" sense). However, that is solely because feeding them grains allows the birds to lay eggs for most of the year. I'm sure the occasional eggs laid seasonally by wild birds would be nutritionally superior to organic eggs from pastured birds.
As for seeds, aren't they in a different category from grains? I mean sprouted seeds for example are easily digestible by humans, for the most part, unlike grains.
-
Well, grains are a domesticated form of wild seeds. In principle sprouted grains are also easily digestable by humans because sprouting destroys the enzymes inhibitors and antinutrient factors such as phytic acid and breaks down proteins such as gluten.
The problem is with digestion of dry grains or seeds. Only some species have apparently managed to adapt and properly digest them such as specific birds or rodents.
-
I've found none of the arguments around egg whites to be very convincing, other than one potentially which suggested that fertilizing the egg makes all the difference in its digestibility. I havn't decided that to be personally true, howver even with quality unfertilized pasture eggs, any difficulties I have as far as digestive or eliminative ills tend to go away in time. Although wild eggs would clearly be superior, and there is some tampering with the life cycle as suggested, I think the habituation excuse as to why some might not do well/poorly with eggs is really dodgy. People have used this argument over and over to talk about all animal foods, that people are too toxic and therefore need meats etc...You can take someone is excellent health who hasn't had eggs in years and is all raw, and someone in poor health and there is probably no greater percentage that the eggless healthy person would have a reaction similar to cooked eggs and that the person in poor health will feel well. Its possible eggs in general are just mediocre nutrition, but I don't think this has do with with partially grain fed birds, who with access to pasture and insects, estimates a fairly natural diet for a bird that has been bread far from its wild counterparts.
it hypothesized my many that eggs pull toxins from the body and are particularly in regards to the liver. This could be totally wrong, but a true test in this case would be to eat a large quantity of wild eggs. I suspect in most cases the wild eggs will be even more volatile as the bacteria in the egg seems to be a major culprit in most symptoms, rather than its toxicity or digestibility. This is just my opinion and I have not done any tests myself.
-
Thanks Alphagruis for you elaborate answer. I was expecting such comments from you since we discussed that matter in the past.
-First, it is not because humans or other mammals such as ruminants cannot digest properly grains such as wheat that poultry or other natural seed predating species (granivory) a priori cannot do it. It is much more likely that they can digest raw wheat quite well. Wheat or other grains merely should not be the main part of their food as they often are in agro practices.
Isn’t there a problem downstream of digestion ? Concerning poultry, I agree and I give myself some millet to mine, but it is unheated. Grain is almost ever dried, perhaps at 65°C or more, be it organic or not.
-Second, fortunately damaged organic molecules from processing by heat or otherwise do not merely accumulate in environment ( soils, animals, plants etc) as do indeed heavy metals or very long period radioactive elements. Bacteria, fungi and other primitive forms of life unlike man or higher forms of life are actually capable to rapidly adapt and use them as "food" in a very effective way. This finally destroys or recycles these molecules more or less rapidly. May I recall here once more that these damaged molecules continuously form also at room temperature in small amounts and if Burger's stance were true they would long have accumulated to dangerous levels since life exists on earth i.e. over a period as long as several billions years.
Of course, these damaged organic molecules decay. But the experience shows they are still present in meat and in eggs. The problem here is not their accumulation (or rather non accumulation) in the environment, but as you mention, their presence in higher forms of life such as humans, mammals, poultry and their eggs !
-Third, it is fortunately too pessimistic to say that "eating raw eggs laid by poultry fed heated food is much like eating cooked food". This is because poultry like man provided they are not too old and thus more or less sick are quite capable to get rid of these damaged molecules to a large extent. They act like very effective filters and do not merely accumulate the damaged molecules they ingest in their flesh or eggs. And poultry laying eggs are generally young animals so that these detox mechanisms are very effective a priori. And organic egg production often involves only a small part or little or no heated or processed food. So that it is not unlikely that such eggs may contain no more residual heat generated poisons than conventional fruits or vegetables contain residual pesticides.
Perhaps my wording was somewhat exaggerated and too pessimistic. At least we can hope so. But it is clear that some of these damaged molecules remain in the flesh and in the eggs. See for example the state of that “Mr Pasteur” calf (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/raw-weston-price/raw-vs-pasteurized-milk-feeding-experiment/). It was not an old animal !
You can do another experiment by feeding a little too much fish to your hens : a fish taste is found again in the eggs yoke. You can store those eggs for weeks, no matter, the fish taste remains.
-
Isn’t there a problem downstream of digestion ? Concerning poultry, I agree and I give myself some millet to mine, but it is unheated. Grain is almost ever dried, perhaps at 65°C or more, be it organic or not.
You can still sprout them though, so I think they are fine...
-
Iguana,
I essentially agree with your comments.
As to the accumulation of heat generated toxins in environment, it seems however that Burger clearly stated somewhere his great concern about this issue and I just pointed out that fortunately for us things are probably not so dramatic.
Similarly I think it's important to notice that wheat or grain may be good food for birds like hens and bad for us or ruminants.
As to the fact that specific food components are undoubtedly retained in meat or eggs I also agree of course. My father raised rabbits and some molecules from specific herbs such as origan in their food could clearly be recognised in taste or smell of their meat.
Mr Pasteur calf is indeed a very nice example of the effects of even moderate heat denaturation. In the report on the experiment it is observed that, as compared to Mr Raw calf, initial growth was quite comparable up to the end of the first 4 weeks of the experiment. I'm inclined to believe that this most likely can be traced back to the very effective detox mechanisms at work in Mr Pasteur's organism so that basic vital organs such as liver or kidneys are still healthy enough to not markedly impair normal growth. Yet a small part of the poisons is inexorably retained day after day and thus progressively accumulate in his organism. By the end of the 4th week some threshhold is apparently reached where detox mechanisms are impaired, the organs become sick and an "overall break down" takes place. Their function is then so drastically altered that from now on growth is definitely impaired so that Mr Pasteur ends with a weight of 115 kg as opposed to Mr Raw's 200 kg 2 months later !
This illutrates the picture I developped in my previous post. Mr Pasteur "remains young or healthy" during 4 weaks only.
-
The Kuru disease, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29 , is supposed to be caused by prions much like the CJD/mad cow's disease. As CJD/mad cow's disease is said to have arisen as a result of cows eating rendered animal fats it is reasonable to assume that part of the problem re Kuru was the ingestion of cooked animal foods.
Actually, CJD (called "scrapie" in sheep) has been endemic in sheep populations for several hundred years. I'm not sure it has anything to do with food quality.
-
Actually, CJD (called "scrapie" in sheep) has been endemic in sheep populations for several hundred years. I'm not sure it has anything to do with food quality.
I am aware that wild animals can get it. However, it appears that the practice of providing rendered animal fats to (grainfed) cattle made things much worse and caused the current epidemics. As for BSE, there are countries like New Zealand where BSE hasn't appeared at all, because the animals were all 100% grassfed.
-
I read with great interest this discussion about the toxic molecules possibly conveyed by the eggs of hens fed with food unsuited to their metabolism. Since my name has been brought forward, I’d like to point out some distortions of my ideas. It seems to me that the three remarks of Alphagruis, although partly quite relevant, involve the following reasoning errors.
1: The capacity of birds to assimilate seeds existing in nature doesn’t mean that a capacity is granted to assimilate without troubles all the substances found in seeds appeared more recently, for example in seeds genetically modified or victims of mutations. The quantity or the quality of the gluten contained in wheat may well exceed the limits of adaptability of our hens. One cannot be satisfied with a probability (“it is much more likely that…”) to infer that a food is safe.
2: The ability of hens to degrade the amounts of new chemical species produced by agriculture or thermal denaturation cannot be deduced from a necessary capability of the environment to degrade the molecules damaged under natural conditions. Concerning the environment: it is entirely possible that the amounts of abnormal molecules resulting from human artifices exceeds the degradation capacity of the natural environment. It is both an issue of quantity and quality: there can be too many manmade molecules while at the same time they resemble the natural damaged molecules; there can be new ones which do not resemble natural molecules. Concerning poultry: it’s not because bacteria or other organisms are able to degrade some molecules that the body of galliformes would definitely be able to degrade them without damage and without any diffusion in the albumin or vitellus of the egg.
3: The fact that the layers are young animals could on the contrary have for consequences that they accumulate less toxic molecules in their body and eliminates them in larger amounts in their eggs. The assumption that organic eggs do not contain more toxic residues than conventional fruit and vegetables contain pesticides is far from being ascertained, and even if it were the case the reference would not be very engaging for someone who wants to avoid poisons in his/her food. If not, why bother to eat organic fruit and vegetables…?
Concerning Mr Pasteur calf, the fact to remain young during 4 weeks with a pasteurized diet (therefore less with a cooked diet) doesn’t restore my confidence in my life expectancy with a diet of doubtful eggs… ;)
GC Burger
-
I forgot to ask: Iguana, where would I have said or written that “eating eggs off poultry fed cooked stuff is much like eating cooked food"?
-
Well, it’s me who wrote that : it’s not from you ! I exaggerated somewhat to emphasize my point.
By the way, welcome here !
-
Burger,
I leave to those rare forumers ever interesting in such details to find out who distorts the ideas or statements of whom and consequently ridiculously pontificates about supposed "reasoning errors" of it's interlocutor.
-
Since you call "pontifications" the simple hygiene of the reasoning, I will pontificate further for those “rare forumers” which the subject interests more than the controversy. On the other hand, I would be delighted if my interlocutors specify my possible errors of reasoning rather than bask in sterile dialectic.
Here’s a summary of my point of view (see also on my website “Instinctothérapie” the page “The theory in short”, not yet translated in english): current knowledge supports the assertion that the phenomenon is possible, i.e. some “non original” molecules that the hen’s assimilation system would be unable to degrade correctly are likely to accumulate in the body of the bird or to pass in her eggs. Such reasoning is however relevant from the qualitative point of view only: it doesn’t allow to predict the extent of the phenomenon.
It could be that the molecules of a given type, escaping normal degradation, accumulate partly in the hen’s body, others in her fat and that others are still eliminated by the intestine wall or others emunctories. The bulk will most probably be distributed between these various routes. But nothing excludes that some harmful substances pass in the eggs. The mucous membranes can certainly recognize the molecules which they are supposed to control, but they base on some characteristics of the molecules and can, like any system of information reading, be induced in error.
What then can we theoretically expect to find in eggs: either non-degradable residues deriving directly from the daily feed, or of matters accumulated in the hen’s body and rejected occasionally into the circulatory system during a “detoxination” reaction. One can fear that the concentration of undesirable matters is greater in the second case.
How to know what really happen? To search for these molecules by analysis, we would have to identify them, i.e. predict at least some of their chemical characteristics. Research knocks against the fact that they result from unforeseeable chemical reactions at the time of random molecular shocks produced by the temperature rise. It is thus definitely impossible to envisage their structure as there will always be some which could be different from those we would have identified their characteristics.
Moreover, the world of science was hardly concerned with the nutritional problem under the angle of the inadequacy of traditional food to the genetic data of the metabolism. There is hence a large delay in research. It is very recently only that the presence of AGE and ALE in processed food began to be taken into account. Even more recently still, it’s been shown that these molecules of culinary origin can find their way in the circulatory system, accumulate in living tissues and be excreted latter by various emunctories. The egg white and yolk being made by mucous membranes, we can predict without much risk of being mistaken that the latter can give way to abnormal molecules present in the serum.
The empirical observation remains. What are the effects that non-degradable molecules contained in eggs might have on the consumer body? Will it be the same effects as direct ingestion of the kind of food ingested by the hen? In fact, the problem is extremely complex, because some of the “nonoriginal” molecules contained in poultry feed can be degraded partially, have at first some specific toxicity (for example a neurotoxicity) which won’t be found in the partially degraded form, while at the same time this degraded form may have other harmful effects (to be carcinogenic), etc.
The neurotoxicity can be observed very directly, at least in some cases, whereas the carcinogenicity is expressed generally after several years only. Systematic epidemiological studies, which were never undertaken due to a lack of awareness of the problem, are needed to put some light in this area. The eggs issue hardly interested the toxicologists, considering its minor impact in the traditional food context where many other factors are by far more urgent.
Facing this imbroglio, the instinctotherapy provides us an experimentation ground unique in its kind: the removal of all factors of toxicity related to the culinary denaturizing or to the use of “new” food such as grain and milk, enables us to highlight in a much clearer way the effects of a toxic food. Bodies nourished on the natural mode for a sufficient time, if possible ever since birth, make it possible to see things much more clearly – since there’s no interferences with abnormal molecules accumulated before and rejected into the circulatory system. Experiments on animals raised with raw food for several generations (or on wild animals) will immediately highlight a neurotoxicity.
I for example raised cats under conditions as close as possible to nature, feeding on pine voles or other small rodents present in natural areas (forest, natural meadow, no agriculture nor manure, etc). I chose several of criteria of behavior, in particular: yawn, stretching, vibrations of the tail, back arching, manner of rubbing our legs or of thrusting their claws in our trousers, level of agitation during the paradoxical sleep, crying eyes (mucus on the corner of the eye), hair quality, level of aggressiveness at the approach of a dog, vomiting, odor and consistency of droppings, urines odor, sexual behavior (growls during coupling due to the fact that the male attacks the female without her being sufficiently in rut).
I then gave to my cats by short alternate periods, hen eggs either nourished on the natural mode or alternatively receiving wheat or food denatured by heat. The results convinced me that the egg is carrying certain toxic molecules resulting from the poultry feed. I also compared the effects of the same eggs on human beings, particularly on the level of the “fixing” (excitation of the nervous system) and noted a clear parallelism. The eggs which disturbed the behavior of my cats had similar effects on humans: agitated sleep, disordered dreams, irritability, depression, sexual overexcitation, pestilential gases, eczema, etc.
A more direct experiment, based on organoleptic localization, consisted in giving fresh fish left overs in excessive amounts to hens. We could then regularly observe that the eggs gets a fish flavour, testifying the passage of some aromatic molecules through the different filters and barriers. One can easily check that the hens manage “to assume” a definite proportion of fish in their food, beyond which parasitic odors appear in their eggs. Therefore some molecules can be degraded below a particular concentration threshold and not beyond a line where the possibilities of the species and/or of the body are overwhelmed. Considering it rests on very general basis, the same model of reasoning applies very likely to other molecules like AGEs resulting from culinary denaturations or cereal’s hot drying.
It can be inferred that hens nourished in a way closer to their metabolic capacities, for example with organic food and searching for worms in free range, should lay eggs containing definitely less poisons than industrial eggs. The poisons concentration in egg is certainly not proportional to the introduced quantities, but increases quickly as soon as the threshold of adaptability of the bird is exceeded. But if we want to be sure of what we do and knowing that minor amounts of antigenic molecules can have important effects on the immune system, warden of our health (for example allergies, maintenance of tolerances), we of course have the greatest advantage in avoiding unknown factors which consequences in terms of health are unidentified, and therefore to eat exclusively eggs form sources as perfect as possible.
-
GCB,
Love your theory. Thank you very much.
This is why our primary source of eggs are fertilized duck eggs from the remote province of Palawan, the last frontier in the Philippines. It is raised by a duck herder who lets the ducks forage for their food daily. My wife visited the lady and saw how she did her business daily.
P.S. Are you Guy-Claude Burger??? Wow!
-
I will pontificate further for those “rare forumers”
Please do it, Burger
I can't wait to read your future pontifications :D
-
Burger's scenario seems pretty doomsdayish. How long would we have to wait before commercial hens can no longer produce healthy offspring because of the accumulated toxins? Or are commercial hens hatched from good sources, so the cycle of accumulated toxins does not continue? But if todays commercial eggs are produced from many generations of chickens fed a horrible diet then it seems the tipping point is far off.
Also, wouldn't the eggs be the last place a hen would want to excrete its toxins into? Perhaps the taste difference that is reported does not correspond to toxins.
I think humans are well underway to not being able to reproduce children and the tipping point where accumulated toxins reach a point of no return (as when mr. pastuer calf was 4 weeks old) is soon approaching. I see this all day here in America. Obese diabetic teens have essentially no chance at reproducing. Maybe we'll have a huge population drop. Well, asians must get fat first, but it is coming.
-
One of the most shocking things I saw in the US was the sight of hideously obese teenaged women looking like what some women in Europe only look like around 40ish. Absolutely terrible. No wonder there are so many American RPDers, as a reaction to this sort of thing.
-
I think humans are well underway to not being able to reproduce children and the tipping point where accumulated toxins reach a point of no return (as when mr. pastuer calf was 4 weeks old) is soon approaching. I see this all day here in America. Obese diabetic teens have essentially no chance at reproducing. Maybe we'll have a huge population drop. Well, asians must get fat first, but it is coming.
Yes, just look at the steadily growing number of humans in developed countries who have to resort to medical crutches such as in vitro fertilizations to reproduce, because impaired fertility of either man or woman or both. In the sense of getting definitely sick as Mr Pasteur calf at 4 weaks age people in developed countries get sick at ever decreasing age as ever more inappropriate and toxic nutrition and ways of life are adopted generation after generation. A substantial part of them soon won't even reach the age of reproduction healthy enough to be capable to achieve this characteristic feature of life. Just the beginning of the end for them.
-
The poisons concentration in egg is certainly not proportional to the introduced quantities, but increases quickly as soon as the threshold of adaptability of the bird is exceeded. But if we want to be sure of what we do and knowing that minor amounts of antigenic molecules can have important effects on the immune system, warden of our health (for example allergies, maintenance of tolerances), we of course have the greatest advantage in avoiding unknown factors which consequences in terms of health are unidentified, and therefore to eat exclusively eggs form sources as perfect as possible.
Other than the last sentence, which makes perfect sense, I found the summary way more complicated than the original, and what seemed in total (both passages) to be a condemnation of all eggs to then be a minor criticism of eggs of 'organic' and commercial varieties.
prior to that my summary was
a.) that chickens are fed unnatural diets, have for ages, and therefore make for poor quality food. We cannot know for certain what is passed through to the egg. and b.) that ANY symptoms from taking in eggs among modern humans - even those raised on 100% pasteurized and cooked foods but are currently consuming natural diets/supposedly reversed to some degree such unhealthy origins, OR animals that have also been succumb also to some degeneration, but are currently consuming natural diets - is a solid indicator that chickens eggs, no matter what source can ever regain their healthfulness on natural pastured diets. This seems to be a heavy contradiction of definitions of health, the attainability of health through diet and natural living, and questions the very symptoms or lack that indicate health/ailment.
Since merely having an effect on the nervous system among many systems, and thus vast amounts of associated symptoms, is in no way an indicator that the food is in fact harmful - as any shift in bacteria, particularly in a unhealthy vessel, can create such symptoms - experiencing any negative symptom ever on a natural diet would be equally suspect as being caused by a problematic food. If no amount of breeding and diet shift of chickens can create a healthy bird and offspring, there is absolutely no chance a human in their lifetime can take some stance of health snobbery when experiencing negative symptoms over another individual who can consume natural food with no symptoms, as we can do any number of studies on vegetarians with high or past-due meats and illustrate. Any useful study in this regard cannot account for anything other than with a perfect being within a perfect environment and a perfect lineage as a test subject. If our gut instincts and taste were truly enough to ward us from such things without the use of our rational or scientific brain, then in proximity to this ideal, Mr. Coyote, not only routinely eats eggs, but caches eggs for further eating. So obviously either desperation has clouded their sense of healthfulness, or the effect of civilization has rendered the instincts of such a feral animal fairly inept, even with a conscious? decision to return to the same exact grouping of food, therefore not acting on impulse. Either way, this bodes poorly for the degenerate humans of today, at least in suppressing their brains, if not their hope for survival and healing through a natural diet, as already mentioned
-
Hans89,
concerning seeds which germinate in spite of a temperature rise during drying: the fact that a seed manages to germinate doesn’t mean it has not been altered. Some molecules damaged by the thermal shocks can have a certain toxicity for the consumer, without this toxicity preventing germination. Moreover, the germ can appear and be apparently normal, whereas the growth of the plant will be defective thereafter.
Paleo Donk wrote:
Burger's scenario seems pretty doomsdayish. How long would we have to wait before commercial hens can no longer produce healthy offspring because of the accumulated toxins?
Commercial hens live one year only and get replaced. No problem with accumulated toxins.
In contrast, we humans accumulate toxins from eggs and toxins from meat and we live much longer, so that the problem isn't the same.
Or are commercial hens hatched from good sources, so the cycle of accumulated toxins does not continue? But if todays commercial eggs are produced from many generations of chickens fed a horrible diet then it seems the tipping point is far off.
Every commercial hen comes from an egg and accumulates the toxins brought by her food. An single egg represent a quite minor input of toxins relatively to the 2 kg of the hen. The cycle begins every time anew. The problem is for the human consumer.
Also, wouldn't the eggs be the last place a hen would want to excrete its toxins into?
In the past, confectioners tested the smell of each egg before using it and they threw away those having a bad smell. It looks like a hen eliminates her toxins in about one egg on 25, which wouldn't be available for reproduction. Nobody knows really what happens with these bad eggs, but it's better to avoid them (their taste is anyway discouraging when eaten raw).
Perhaps the taste difference that is reported does not correspond to toxins.
It’s likely that the taste of fish doesn't reveal toxic molecules. However, such a molecular phenomenon is independent of the fact that the substances are noxious or not for man. Therefore the phenomenon which is possible with aromatic molecules is also likely with toxic substances.
gcb
-
In the past, confectioners tested the smell of each egg before using it and they threw away those having a bad smell. It looks like a hen eliminates her toxins in about one egg on 25, which wouldn't be available for reproduction. Nobody knows really what happens with these bad eggs, but it's better to avoid them (their taste is anyway discouraging when eaten raw).
Thanks for the responses. This makes heaps of sense that the organism would dump all its toxins in just one egg and not equally. In the book Vegetarian Myth, the author describes how certain species of trees will purposefully let one amongst a group die off and get eaten by invaders as so that these invaders do not evolve immunities to the trees defenses. Pretty clever.
I just smoked a bowl so take the following lightly. I did a quick googling and there are supposedly reports (probably just anti-gay propaganda) that gay men have significantly shorter life spans. For this thread's purpose perhaps the gay person is comparable to a "bad egg" and they are more easily susceptible to disease or anything really that leads to an early death. I could argue more, but this would derail the thread more.
-
ok wait a minute. i been eating ( cooked ) eggs a lot in the past, up to about 10 per day. i never noticed any adverse side effects and it was always absolutely one of my favorite things to eat. so what is wrong with eating raw ones ? why should i experience problems ?
also how should i eat them raw - any tips on making them more palatable ?
-
I only eat the yolks. Adding squeezed citrus makes them decent. Adding honey makes it taste pretty good. I also like warm (leave them out at room temperature) yolks better than cold.
-
I only eat the yolks. Adding squeezed citrus makes them decent. Adding honey makes it taste pretty good. I also like warm (leave them out at room temperature) yolks better than cold.
but is honey paleo ? i know people always used honey but IN WHAT QUANTITIES ?
regardless to me honey is just a souped up sugar. i don't eat sugar so i can't eat honey either.
if only i could use sugar i remember when i was a kid i used to blend raw egg yolks with sugar - it was AWESOME.
hm ... what about mayo ? ( home made )