Raw foodist women who stop mentsruating are doing raw veg. - the word from tropical jungle-type hunters is that they can't make babies unless they eat meat.

Women who eat a neolithic diet stop menstruating, they also get sick and age rapidly.

This is well known.

In this context, what exactly do you mean by "neolithic diet"?

Interesting perspective, SI.

Also wondering, in regard to the "Farmers' thread, why you said (paraphrasing) "stop eating raw meat, it's full of parasites".

1) Assuming this to be true, do you think the human GI tract incapable of dealing with parasites?

2) Do you think parasites are dangerous to humans?

3) Do you eat raw meats?

4) What do you find acceptable from a paleo perspective? In other words, what do you think is the ideal diet?

New enough here to have missed round one, but I'm wondering why some folks dislike low carb.

Thanx for the reply, Phil!

Quinn is not someone I've read (though I've recently read about him), but is on my reading list. Jared Diamond is someone I've read. I especially liked "Guns, Germs, & Steel", but need to re-read his other stuff.

I like the breakdown between horticulture & agriculture. Nice cleaving.

I disagree that our world is evil, though.

That said, I think you're correct: we may see a snap-back fro organic due to population. Too bad. We keep on trying to find new ways to feed more people and hold it up as "saving lives" on one hand, but then we bitch about over-population on the other. I don;t think finding clever ways to feed more people is such a good thing. It just perpetuates the problem(s).

Over-simplifying, but....

Last month was very little veggie & fruit (except for 4 or 5 binges on fruit) and mostly eating meats.

This month (so far, anyway) is no meat at all and 100% raw vegan.

I'm wondering how I'll feel after 30 days. My typical diet is lots of green veggies, some fruit, lots of sashimi, and the occasional binges on red meats & such. No dairy, no eggs, no grains, blah, blah.

I'm also wondering if I can go 30 days with no meat of any kind, I usually get serious cravings.

I agree with you about Wikipedia. These “gate keepers” take themselves seriously as the guardian of the scientific orthodoxy and current beliefs. But in a sense that’s somewhat understandable for an encyclopedia : we must not expect too much of it.

Actually, the gatekeepers are only doing their jobs.

If one attempts to re-write the article with a particular unaccepted bias, one will find the ne material deleted quickly. If, on the other hand, one adds a section "criticisms" or alternative views that cite plenty of reputable sources, then the information will be left intact.

"Reputable sources" does not include "because it worked for me".

most of his claims re cooking supposedly "improving" raw foods, falls completely flat when one takes into account a palaeo diet rather than a vegan one.

For the record, most of his claims asserting that cooking vegan foods also falls completely flat.

Raw, in my experience, is superior to cooked whether one is vegan, paleo, or omni.

That said, "clean" cooked (primarily whole, unprocessed foods) are superior to SAD whether one is vegan, paleo, or omni. If you're gonna cook, cook whole unprocessed foods.

Beautifully said, Guitarman.

Josh,

You can become as "paleo" right now as you wish. You just have to get away from major urban centers and find a piece of public land (or buy your own).

Depending upon how one defines "paleo", it is not somehow UN-paleo to enjoy technology. Humans are by nature technological creatures (from fire and pointed sticks to the wheel to nuclear fusion and the WWW).

If it is risk you seek, there are a multitude of activities that can fulfill that need. But I have to ask: Is it risk in general or the rush you get from feeling risky (driving a car doesn't feel as risky as flying, but is more so)? Or, perhaps it's some specific type of risk (catching arrows is a different rush than, say, stepping into a boxing ring...which is a different risk than having indiscriminate sex or eating SAD)? If so, what type of risk do you crave?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw

Great responses.

My list (I've never written out a comprehensive list) includes things like:

Get up in the morning, go to bed at night.

Cook your food, 3 meals a day, brush your teeth.

Go to school, graduate, go to college, get a job.

Everyone thinks like you do. If not, there is something wrong with them.

If you're sick, go see the doc or the pharmacist.

Get married, raise a family.

Buy a house & a car.

Yawn....

I'm old enough to have read this sort of doom & gloom crap for a very long time. From biblical apocalyptica to economic apocalyptica to environmental apocalyptica....

YES, we have some idiots in power with voodoo economics (in the sense that their ideologies drive their economic policy rather than hard data - in fact, it is often in blatant opposition to the data) and their foolish welfare plans (whether it's corporate welfare in the form of bail-outs and subsidies or individual welfare n the form of useless stimulus packages and increased social safety nets)...and there will be a reckoning. It will happen when the dollar continues to devalue, robbing people of their savings & their earnings, and perhaps even collapses.

So what?

Will it suck? Sure. Will it be hard? Sure. Will the entire country collapse? No.

Remember "Future Shock" or "Entropy"? They were wrong then (we're still here) and they're wrong now (8 months in to 2009 and we still aren't seeing rich businessmen leaping from tall buildings or the unwashed masses carrying torches & pitchforks to the White House &/or Wall Street).

This is not to say we should ignore economic problems (or environmental problems or whatever). We should still work for positive change. We should still fight to educate our fellow man. But the pessimistic approach of "the sky is falling" is silly and counter-productive and ignores key facts like the human ability to innovate and to adapt.

The glass is half full.

Recent experience shows that ancient languages were more complex and sophisticated than modern, in Europe anyway, and if this were true of paleo times it would indicate that paleoman could differentiate between food and non-food much better than us.

What experience?

In what way were they "more sophisticated? Word count? Grammar?

Assuming such an assertion is true, what led to the decreased sophistication of language?