Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: svrn on October 21, 2013, 07:43:12 am
-
I was going to do my own writeup on this topic but this woman did such a great job I could only make it worse.
http://drcate.com/is-dairy-paleo-revising-history-with-new-persectives-on-flocks-of-goats-femur-bones-and-feckless-nutritionism/ (http://drcate.com/is-dairy-paleo-revising-history-with-new-persectives-on-flocks-of-goats-femur-bones-and-feckless-nutritionism/)
http://drcate.com/is-dairy-paleo-part-2-revising-history-with-new-perspectives-on-flocks-of-goats-femur-bones-and-feckless-nutritionism/ (http://drcate.com/is-dairy-paleo-part-2-revising-history-with-new-perspectives-on-flocks-of-goats-femur-bones-and-feckless-nutritionism/)
when new evidence presents itself that contradicts the old we must revise our flawed presuppositions.
hopefully people will actually read the article and address actual points within the article without the expected insult hurling.
(historical revision in second link, first link simply describes the flaws in dairy science which i think we have debated enough so hopefully we can just stick to the historical aspect on this thread.)
-
"One of the reasons people eliminate dairy is that they can’t digest it very well. This begs the question, if dairy has been such a part of the human evolutionary narrative, why would it now give so many people tummy-troubles? That’s a good question. I addressed the lactose issue in last week’s post and will discuss other barriers to consuming dairy in the future, so stay tuned!"
Do you have this next part?
-
i dont know where the next part is but she discusses that issue here.
Before anyone jumps in to cite lactose intolerance, which is more common as we age, as an example of an age-related physiologic change let me put a stop to that. Lactase is an enzyme in the intestinal wall that enables us to digest the most abundant milk sugar, lactose. As with any enzyme in your body, lack of use will down-regulate it, and some people are genetically more prone to having this enzyme shut down than others. But even people with lactose intolerance can enjoy the wide world of fermented (yoghurt and cheeses) and other reduced-lactose dairy (butter and cream). In many areas of the world, dairy is drunk fresh only by young children, and everyone else consumes dairy only after some kind of fermentation. This is likely the reason lactase genes tend to shut down as people get older.
-
I can digest raw cheese + raw honey but I must make sure I consume raw fats too to prevent constipation "cheese plug".
Still... it depends on what stage of human progress people define paleo as!
I'll bet herding may not be defined as paleo by most.
This is why we have Aajonus' primal diet section here. Great guy that he was. Reverse engineered raw paleo diets... all roads lead to raw paleo diet.
-
yes aajonus mentioned cheese and constipation in his books several times
CHEESES, RAW, NO-SALT-ADDED, are made from raw milk and
there is no salt added to the milk. Similar to clay, cheese supplies
concentrations of minerals that bind with radicals and poisons that the
body dumped into the stomach and intestines. Also, cheese draws the
poisons from the blood, nervous and lymphatic systems as they pass
through the stomach and intestines. Unsalted raw cheeses act like a
sponge to absorb those toxins, relieving nausea. Since cheeses lack
most bioactive enzymes, causing dehydration, eating raw fat with
cheese, such as unsalted raw butter or coconut cream, helps prevent
constipation.
i personally have never gotten constipated since about 6 months after going fully raw. It was a really terrible problem for me before switching over however.
-
this womans article refers to the term paleo as a specific time period more than anything else. she sys humans have had dairy for about 40,000 years I believe so that would fit in her definition of paleo as being a time frame.
-
As far as I'm concerned, anything that happened after people starting cooking food was a dumb idea. I do use a little fermented cream and butter, but in moderation, and only as a supplemental fat source. If I could get easily more paleo fat sources, I would.
-
this womans article refers to the term paleo as a specific time period more than anything else. she sys humans have had dairy for about 40,000 years I believe so that would fit in her definition of paleo as being a time frame.
40,000 before the present time would place this transition at the very end of the paleolithic period, practically on the cusp of the mesolithic period. What's her point? Why is she so eager to justify dairy as one of mankind's ancestral foods? Personally, I find her leap from breastmilk-for-babies to other-species'-milk-for-adults to lack substance. Her argument for taller stature of milk-drinkers makes a better point for adequate protein in the diet than it does for milk per se.
-
And the debate about dairy rages on, with the extremists on both sides completely unwilling to listen to moderate points of view.
Wait, that sounds like a lot of issues.
-
none of this stuff personally means anything to me (except the first link which is solid) because its all based on the false premise of macro evolution.
I just posted it for those who still believe in that stuff to see there are opposing views even within their false paradigm.
-
I just posted it for those who still believe in that stuff to see there are opposing views even within their false paradigm.
This is what some members find annoying about your posts. The debate is always welcome and healthy. but the name calling is not: False Paradigm.
As discussed here there are grey areas about what is paleo, what era is paleo and if dairy is so good, why it doesn't work as well for most people when every other element like meat and blood and fat does.
You cannot claim you hold the entire truth and nothing but the truth and call everybody else's current point of view FALSE PARADIGM.
Remember that many older raw paleo dieters here have gone through the excitement and enthusiasm you have and have of course gone through many paradigm changes until they wind up here in raw paleo diet that currently works for them / me / us.
It is a-ok to have differences in paradigms / opinions or definitions.
But you do not have to say other people have FALSE PARADIGMS just because they are not in complete agreement with yours.
Raw paleo dieters are a small population. If you think you have a very strong personality because you became a raw paleo dieter, imagine you multiplying your same strong personality with minor differences in sex, experiences, geography and age.... this is the forum you are in.
Why we moderators have to find ways to have strong personalities and opinions get along.
As all self vouched raw paleo dieters, we have a lot of diet in common amongst us. And the differences in practice and point of views on diets may be smaller than you think or perceive especially coming from the point of view of people on SAD.
People on SAD may read arguments and disagreements in our forum and be clue-less what the arguing is all about when for them it is just splitting hairs.
-
BTW, dairy discussions are WELCOME in the PRIMAL DIET section / forum of Aajonus Vonderplanitz.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/)
-
the false paradigm i was referring to was the theory of macroevolution. Nothing else. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
and I posted this in hot topics because I figured theres no point in looking at this if you are already int he primal diet section of the forum.
also I may have only been doing raw animal foods for 2 years but iv been iv been involved in this stuff for about 8 years already when I first eliminated all chemicals from my diet. This isnt some new found enthusiasm for me, iv been learning about all of these things for a lot longer than iv been raw.
there also quite a few things im annoyed with myself such as the opposition to dairy while people post such blatantly non raw topics such as the promotion of chemical supplements and tea drinking without the slightest word of protest from anybody as well as many other problems i perceive.
I also do not rule out the possibility that I am socially retarded as well. THis may very well be the case.
At least I cant be accused of dishonesty.
-
I also do not rule out the possibility that I am socially retarded as well. THis may very well be the case.
At least I cant be accused of dishonesty.
Welcome... my wife thinks I'm socially retarded (says I'm tact less because I can't help digging at the truth) because I think differently from the masses. Relax. We are all raw paleo dieters here and we are all "special".
-
For what it's worth, I'm much less concerned about what's "Paleo" versus what's not, and much more concerned about what delivers good health outcomes for me today versus what doesn't. I don't eat much dairy, raw or otherwise, because it can't deliver good health outcomes compared to other sources of animal protein and fat. It would never occur to me to chastise someone who chooses to eat dairy, even if it caused terrible health outcomes for that person. It's their body, and their choice.
-
For what it's worth, I'm much less concerned what's "Paleo" versus what's not, and much more concerned about what delivers good health outcomes for me today versus what doesn't. I don't eat much dairy, raw or otherwise, because it can't deliver good health outcomes compared to other sources of animal protein and fat. It would never occur to me to chastise someone who chooses to eat dairy, even if it caused terrible health outcomes for that person. It's their body, and their choice.
Agreed.
-
For what it's worth, I'm much less concerned what's "Paleo" versus what's not, and much more concerned about what delivers good health outcomes for me today versus what doesn't.
Yep. People think I'm an extremist because I only eat cooked food for social occasions. It's hard to communicate to them that I'm afraid of the same old health problems creeping back up on me if I start eating more cooked food again. It's not extremist dogma. It's purely practical. I need to eat this way to be functional. I can cheat a bit, but too much cheating reactivates cravings, which then cause
1. stress if I don't give in to the cravings, or
2. worse and worse health, the more I DO give in.
-
This is what some members find annoying about your posts. The debate is always welcome and healthy. but the name calling is not: False Paradigm.
As discussed here there are grey areas about what is paleo, what era is paleo and if dairy is so good, why it doesn't work as well for most people when every other element like meat and blood and fat does.
You cannot claim you hold the entire truth and nothing but the truth and call everybody else's current point of view FALSE PARADIGM.
Remember that many older raw paleo dieters here have gone through the excitement and enthusiasm you have and have of course gone through many paradigm changes until they wind up here in raw paleo diet that currently works for them / me / us.
It is a-ok to have differences in paradigms / opinions or definitions.
But you do not have to say other people have FALSE PARADIGMS just because they are not in complete agreement with yours.
Raw paleo dieters are a small population. If you think you have a very strong personality because you became a raw paleo dieter, imagine you multiplying your same strong personality with minor differences in sex, experiences, geography and age.... this is the forum you are in.
Why we moderators have to find ways to have strong personalities and opinions get along.
As all self vouched raw paleo dieters, we have a lot of diet in common amongst us. And the differences in practice and point of views on diets may be smaller than you think or perceive especially coming from the point of view of people on SAD.
People on SAD may read arguments and disagreements in our forum and be clue-less what the arguing is all about when for them it is just splitting hairs.
You have a really good way of summing up the interpersonal issues that happen here, Edwin. That's really impressive, especially since english is your second language. Is your culture much better at talking about such things than American culture, or are you yourself just very naturally good at that?
-
The 2 articles are pathetic. I mean, there are plenty of far more scientifically rigorous articles which demonstrate that dairy consumption happened way, way later than 40,000 years ago. Even the 40,000 figure is a ridiculously low figure. I mean, we have not even adapted to cooked foods consumption yet after a quarter of a million years so claiming that we are all or mostly adapted to consuming raw dairy is plain stupid.
This gives a rough guide as to the real start of domestication:-
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab57 (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab57)
In actual fact, I recall a few articles in recent years stating that milk had only been introduced into Europe c. 5000 years ago, and Europeans are precisely the population with the least lowest rates of food-intolerance/allergy towards dairy.
. About 5,000 to 10,000 years ago,[9] this haplotype came under very strong selective pressure. This period matches the rise of dairy farming. As dairy farming originated in Europe, they were exposed to increased lactose nutrition provided by dairy products, resulting in positive natural selection
from:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence)
-
You have a really good way of summing up the interpersonal issues that happen here, Edwin. That's really impressive, especially since english is your second language. Is your culture much better at talking about such things than American culture, or are you yourself just very naturally good at that?
Filipino culture is varied. Maybe many people who head HR departments are good at interpersonal issues.
English is my first language and only language when it comes to writing. (I cannot blog in tagalog.)
I administer several forums.
I've managed several companies and a cumulative total of almost 200 employees, including maids and drivers for some 20+ years.
I have to be nosy and get into their personal lives and know their personal issues.
Plus I live in an extended family house hold with my in laws and my wife's sisters... and I believe in polygamous lifestyles with wives and children... ooopsss.... my wife might be reading this. :)
-
you can argue all you want about 40 years isnt long enough but the point of the article which is most pertinent in my opinion is that herding and dairying happened before any other form of agriculture.
also many archaeologists say we started cooking about 2 million years ago and many appear to have proof.
of course this all only matters if you believe the the revamped hinduism pushed on the masses by a man who married his first cousin while the rest of his family only interbred with the huxleys and mostly the wedgewoods for a very long time (the level of inbreeding with these people is outstanding, due to their contempt for the masses such as ourselves, many members of his family marrying their own aunts and uncles).
-
also many archaeologists say we started cooking about 2 million years ago and many appear to have proof.
What proof?
Even if it was true, who's to say that we are descendants of those individuals who cooked?
-
I dont think theres any real proof regarding any of this stuff, i think humans as we know them have been around for much longer than we are led to believe (millions of years)and that certain groups of them have been cooking for just as long. To me this does nothing to invalidate raw foods because the reason raw foods are health giving is because all of the enzymes and bacteria have remained intact and all of the nutrients are around to water bioactive and 100% utilizable by the body. This is the ACTUAL reason why raw foods are healing not because of some superstitions about some amoeba eventually magically morphing into a human being.
Like I said before I dont believe in the the religion of macroevolution/hinduism one bit so it is all irrelevant to me.
-
Like I said before I dont believe in the the religion of macroevolution/hinduism one bit so it is all irrelevant to me.
Maybe you can expound on this item in a separate thread?
-
yes I will post something on this when I have computer access again in a couple days.
-
also many archaeologists say we started cooking about 2 million years ago and many appear to have proof.
For the record, I find svrn's b#llsh#t about Hinduism and macroevolution really weird and is of no relevance to rawpalaeodiets. Secondly, for those who are interested, I have already fully debunked Wrangham's and others' claims re cooking having started 2000,000 years ago with plenty of evidence in my favour plus pointing out that even Wrangham has admitted that he has zero real evidence backing him. Here are 2 articles:-
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dangers-of-cooked-foods-an-extensive-collection-of-on-and-offsite-articles/debunking-non-wrangham-related-theories-of-cooking/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dangers-of-cooked-foods-an-extensive-collection-of-on-and-offsite-articles/debunking-non-wrangham-related-theories-of-cooking/)
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dangers-of-cooked-foods-an-extensive-collection-of-on-and-offsite-articles/advent-of-cooking-article/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/dangers-of-cooked-foods-an-extensive-collection-of-on-and-offsite-articles/advent-of-cooking-article/)
So, no, in fact MOST archaeologists are cited as being against the notion of cooking having got started 2 million years ago precisely because there is no evidence backing the claim. This is not just svrn being wrong, he is actually deliberately lying.
-
Nobody was cooking 2 million years ago. Our ancestors were barely more than monkeys at that time.
-
of course this all only matters if you believe the the revamped hinduism pushed on the masses by a man who married his first cousin while the rest of his family only interbred with the huxleys and mostly the wedgewoods for a very long time (the level of inbreeding with these people is outstanding, due to their contempt for the masses such as ourselves, many members of his family marrying their own aunts and uncles).
Darwin didn't get his ideas from Hinduism. He got them from his ancestor, Erasmus Darwin, and his own education, plus thinking things through for himself while on his journey on the HMS Beagle to the Galapagos and other places.
-
Darwin did not come up with evolution nor did he understand it as survival of the fittest is only one driver of evolution. Lamarck coined evolution and was much closer to the truth than Darwin. It seems pertinent to connect the Gaia theory. People who Denny macro evolution are totally rediculous. Woe to you oh scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!
-
Darwin did not come up with evolution nor did he understand it as survival of the fittest is only one driver of evolution. Lamarck coined evolution and was much closer to the truth than Darwin.
In the sense that SOMEthing besides random mutation seems to be driving evolution, yes, Lamarck was closer to the truth. As to exactly WHAT else is driving evolution, that's hard to say.
-
How about we make a thread to discuss this macro evolution thing?
-
as to tylers claim that im lying, all i stated was that some scientists claim cooking started 2million years ago. I have always maintained that I believe this to be wholly untrue as well as any other theory based in macro evolution. I maintain that humans cooking started far earlier than 2 million years ago and that humans in our current form as well as more advanced forms we may not be aware have existed for millions of years. This is a topic of great depth but if you would like to search about it more for yourself please look into the ancient histories of the troglodytes/horites/hamites as this will lead you to liely discovering these things on your own.
as far as the connection between hinduism and evolution and all occultism in general reaching down through the ages I will have redo some very long and tedious research I have done before to form a new thread on this but I feel as though i should maybe just write a book on it and make some money if I was to go through all that effort so we will see about that in the future.
but to just give you a little taste of the obvious link between hinduism and macroevolution I give you this brief video which may get you thinking. This is from a pro evolution theory source.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution & Hindu Dasa Avatharas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dqbfB7MO60#)
-
You have not proven a link between Darwin and Hinduism, nor does that video suggest any direct influence on Darwin by Hinduism. What evidence do you have that he was actually aware of Hinduism in anything but the vaguest way?
-
darwin himself was for the most part an idiot. Isnt it odd that he comes from a family of high ranking freemasons yet did not become one himself?
He was given this theory and had his name slapped on it much like the idiot einstein. His grandfather erasmus, and many people before him as well, who was himself a high ranking freemason published these theories long before his poor dimwitted grandson (too much inbreeding perhaps) came along so your obsession with charles darwin being so associated as the originator of theory shows a need for deeper study on the subject.
Rest assured that any 33rd degree freemason of the time would definitly know all about hinduism.
like I said this is a very complex subject and I was simply attempting to give a small taste of my point about hinduism to show people that the connection is really not so wierd...all the new agers are obsessed with both hinduism and macroevolution for a reason, it didnt happen by accident.
perhaps I can find someone who adequately explains the whole connection between ancient occultism and modern macroevolution theory. if not i will have to put something together myself but this will of course take a long time.
-
*sigh* More rubbish, I see. Hinduism and Darwinism, about as ridiculous a connection one could think of.
-
This topic has degenerated to "hinduism" and "macro evolution"... whatever those mean.
Dairy consumption is in this forum because of the great Aajonus Vonderplanitz who has seen it work for a good number of people. Dairy consumption is also in this forum via the raw weston price forum.
As far as pushing the topic of dairy being paleo or in agreed upon paleo times is unacceptable. The time lines do not support this notion. No need to bend the definitions. it is not paleo. Aajonus vonderplanitz never cared for any "paleo" timeline... all Aajonus cared about was that dairy worked for him and a good number of people.
Dairy works for some and does not work for some. When my son was sick and 10 yrs old dairy worked during the time he was very sick just to form good stools within 3 weeks of a 100% raw milk fast. Now at 12 and we buy sometimes, it's not so good anymore. Is he growing up?
I've done some 4 years of experimenting with raw dairy and it just tastes good but I can never digest raw milk happily... I just fart. Now the raw cheese + raw honey i found digestible.
But hey, lots of people cannot digest dairy properly, no matter with all the dairy pushing Aajonus and his followers would like us to do. And hell yeah, we diet experimentors gladly did those suggestions and more to just make dairy work... but it just does not.
So the dairy pushers need to just accept that a good % of people just cannot digest dairy.
Which is further proof that dairy is not "paleo".
Locking this topic for lack of merit.