Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Other Raw-Animal-Food Diets (eg:- Primal Diet/Raw Version of Weston-Price Diet etc.) => Primal Diet => Topic started by: PaleoPhil on April 19, 2010, 12:15:24 am
-
Plainfield, VT? Too bad I didn't know about this one. Is there an archive of the interview?
-
yes
-
I think I just got GS to post a link to the mp3 of that show re Tonio/AV just a couple of days ago.
-
I searched GoodSamaritan's last 20 posts and don't see a link to an Aajonus mp3. Does anyone have it?
-
I searched GoodSamaritan's last 20 posts and don't see a link to an Aajonus mp3. Does anyone have it?
It was good for seven days. I think tomorrow it will no longer be available.
Here:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/infonews-items/aajonus'-radio-interview-in-the-uk/ (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/infonews-items/aajonus'-radio-interview-in-the-uk/)
Oh, excuse me, here it is:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/primal-diet/download-mp3-of-aajonus'-most-recent-interview/ (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/primal-diet/download-mp3-of-aajonus'-most-recent-interview/)
-
Yes, thanks. I got the link to the MP3 from Rosy.
It had hosts Tonio Epstein and dentist Mark Harmon.
Some highlights of stuff Aajonus covered:
Something that Tyler won't like :) -- AV claimed in the interview that humans are carnivores, which is a view I didn't realize he held.
He views allegedly "allergic" reactions to raw milk (vomiting, diarrhea, nausea) as detoxes that will eventually pass (this is something Tyler has reported on, but the so-called detoxes did not pass for Tyler).
As evidence he pointed to the Filani (or Fulani?), Samburu and Masai tribes. He claimed the Samburu and Masai "have absolutely no disease whatsoever," which I seriously doubt.
Both hosts attested that raw meat is easier to digest for them than cooked. I can also attest to that.
AV mentioned the remote tribe in the Philippines again. He said they ate raw fish, coconut, raw pork, mango and banana. He claimed there were three interpreters. (Strange that with all these people visiting them, no one has revealed who this secret tribe with the amazing health is, AFAIK.)
Mark Harmon, who is a prison dentist, said his patients' teeth have been healing since he has been treating them (he didn't say how, but he indicated that he eats like Aajonus, so he may be using Aajonus' diet as one of his therapies).
AV: "The body is 99% bacteria." (I've seen reports of 90% total microbes, not 99% bacteria. He didn't provide a source.)
Raw butter is the main fat he recommends. He eats it year round and disagrees with Weston Price about the "x factor" (vitamin K2) in butter being important. He said has seen people have no better improvements on x-factor-rich raw butter than raw butter that is not rich in it. (Stephan Guyunet and Richard Nikoley would disagree strongly with this.)
AV also disagrees with Sally Fallon about freezing meats to kill bacteria and parasites being OK. He said he did an experiment on animals that showed that freezing meat produced worse results than unfrozen meat.
AV: Grinding meat makes it easier to digest (Aajonus grinds or finely chews all his meat--another issue on which Tyler disagrees with him).
-
Thanks for the summary.
Aajonus saying that the body is 99% bacteria is taken horribly out of context. True, bacteria could outnumber non-bacterial human cells 100:1, but this does not make the body 99% bacteria. Almost all bacteria is contained in the intestines is it not? They are much smaller than normal human cells and thus can manage much larger numbers.
-
AV: Grinding meat makes it easier to digest (Aajonus grinds or finely chews all his meat--another issue on which Tyler disagrees with him).
He does this because he said his stomach does not secrete enough acid and said that 'normal' people may not need to do that.
I think they could could have skipped the part where he talks about his past, since this was supposed to be more advanced.
-
Something that Tyler won't like :) -- AV claimed in the interview that humans are carnivores, which is a view I didn't realize he held.
He never mentioned this before. AV originally came to raw-meat diets via Natural Hygiene and related raw vegan practices so this is odd. It's even odder when one considers that his actual dietary recommendations in the books are far, far off any carnivorous ideals, with huge amounts of raw veggie-juice, raw nuts and raw honey and 5% fruit being recommended on a Primal Diet(30%+ of diet, as an absolute minimum). I suspect the raw carnivore claims he makes in that interview are solely aimed at wooing raw vegans to his camp, as otherwise he would be being hypocritical.
He views allegedly "allergic" reactions to raw milk (vomiting, diarrhea, nausea) as detoxes that will eventually pass (this is something Tyler has reported on, but the so-called detoxes did not pass for Tyler).
Well, it seems I was right after all in thinking that AV is sticking to the dairy-allergy always=detox myth, despite claims from a few others.
As evidence he pointed to the Filani (or Fulani?), Samburu and Masai tribes. He claimed the Samburu and Masai "have absolutely no disease whatsoever," which I seriously doubt.
Exactly. He's just making the same silly claims Weston-Price made re such tribes. I don't deny that they are healthier than modern settled peoples, but that doesn't mean they are free of atherosclerosis and other problems associated with cooked diets.
AV mentioned the remote tribe in the Philippines again. He said they ate raw fish, coconut, raw pork, mango and banana. He claimed there were three interpreters. (Strange that with all these people visiting them, no one has revealed who this secret tribe with the amazing health is, AFAIK.)
I'd like GS to check up on this so-called "fact" as I suspect it's one of Aajonus' rather unlikely tall tales.
AV: Grinding meat makes it easier to digest (Aajonus grinds or finely chews all his meat--another issue on which Tyler disagrees with him).
Again, there are plenty of RPDers whose experience goes directly against that.
-
AV originally came to raw-meat diets via Natural Hygiene
AV originally came to raw-meat via coyote.
He was wise or desperate enough to learn from nature (Natural Science!), not some blowhard.
-
He does this because he said his stomach does not secrete enough acid and said that 'normal' people may not need to do that.
I think they could could have skipped the part where he talks about his past, since this was supposed to be more advanced.
Yes, I know, thanks. Tyler doesn't agree with him that grinding meat makes it easier to digest.
AV originally came to raw-meat via coyote.
He was wise or desperate enough to learn from nature (Natural Science!), not some blowhard.
William, why not apply similar standards of skepticism to AV as well as Cordain? Maybe the coyote story is true, maybe not. AV has other stories too for explaining his enlightenment beyond the coyote and many of his ideas do come from natural hygiene.
-
He views allegedly "allergic" reactions to raw milk (vomiting, diarrhea, nausea) as detoxes that will eventually pass (this is something Tyler has reported on, but the so-called detoxes did not pass for Tyler).
I think this makes it sound more dubious that what he specifically said, which is [paraphrasing from memory] that casein builds up from years of pasteurized dairy, and that raw dairy has a knack for this stuff releasing and causing symptoms. This could be equally dubious, but I think its a huge difference in interpretation, especially if one goes on his record of 'conversions' of dairy intolerant people. Unless people have never taken in pasteurized dairy, I don't see how they can definitively deny that this could possibly have merit, other than to quote the conceptual ideas about eating another animals milk etc...of which he also covered. Especially when you consider the increasing rates of lactose intolerance, which isn't exactly correlating with an increase in the populace' health. If someone is getting these symptoms (vomiting, diarrhea, nausea) from raw dairy, and only got intestinal discomfort from pasteurized dairy, then this seems to be even more true.
-
I think this makes it sound more dubious that what he specifically said, which is [paraphrasing from memory] that casein builds up from years of pasteurized dairy, and that raw dairy has a knack for this stuff releasing and causing symptoms. This could be equally dubious, but I think its a huge difference in interpretation, especially if one goes on his record of 'conversions' of dairy intolerant people. Unless people have never taken in pasteurized dairy, I don't see how they can definitively deny that this could possibly have merit, other than to quote the conceptual ideas about eating another animals milk etc...of which he also covered. Especially when you consider the increasing rates of lactose intolerance, which isn't exactly correlating with an increase in the populace' health. If someone is getting these symptoms (vomiting, diarrhea, nausea) from raw dairy, and only got intestinal discomfort from pasteurized dairy, then this seems to be even more true.
I'm afraid this other explanation doesn't remotely convince either. You see, the body cannot possibly contain all this casein you mention over long periods. Besides, there are people like me who've gone several years doing raw vegan(ie no dairy at all) before trying the primal diet and then going rawpalaeo. More to the point, people generally experience far worse symptoms with pasteurised dairy re allergies than with raw dairy.
-
Its still a dubious claim without serious proof, but I think its unfair how it was characterized as 'just another detox' type excuse was my comment. I don't see why the body can't contain casein, how would one know what amounts are stored, how they get released and how much cause symptoms? If one is speaking of mercury, its not like they have huge rocks of the stuff in their bodies. I don't see how going without dairy (as many lactose intolerant and vegans would be doing before trying raw dairy) would matter if this also doesn't remove the casein according to this hypothesis. As for pasteurized dairy, exactly, one would think peoples symptoms would be way worse, so if you have people vomiting and so forth from raw dairy, and they have no memory of growing up vomiting from dairy, it seems to be more proof of this.
-
Well, many people find the mercury-claims to be completely bogus such as the notion of mercury-in-fish which has no decent proof in favour of it. it should be noted that all humans have microtraces of uranium in their body just like with mercury or pretty much any other element, but no one makes an issue of that.
The point is, though, that all toxins, even allergens, are gradually removed by the body over time. I, for example, experienced a very runny nose after consuming any dairy in childhood(unfortunately, I didn't think of it as a bad thing as I'd been assured by a multitude of people that dairy was super-healthy, especially for children). The mucus in the runny nose apparently resulted from all the casein I was ingesting at the time from dairy. So, once the toxins stop coming in, there's less and less of it in the body until it's eventually gotten rid of.
-
I'm really hoping you are right about mercury/fish as I have read this info, but thats besides the point as even if we could equally argue about the severity of mercury, many people DO have measurable amounts (not just trace) of things like mercury and other heavy metals - by medical detection and not just by quacks. My point was, in response to "the body cannot possibly contain all this casein" was that maybe it isn't a whole lot on physical observation but that it may remain in tissue nonetheless. I don't know about casein specifically But these types of things do stay in the body, even distributed over the cellular level.
Ajonous's main shtick is very anti-hygiene in that is that certain foods are necessary to pull various material from the cells, or to replace or absorb such things with animal fats and other protocols.
The point is, though, that all toxins, even allergens, are gradually removed by the body over time. I, for example, experienced a very runny nose after consuming any dairy in childhood(unfortunately, I didn't think of it as a bad thing as I'd been assured by a multitude of people that dairy was super-healthy, especially for children). The mucus in the runny nose apparently resulted from all the casein I was ingesting at the time from dairy. So, once the toxins stop coming in, there's less and less of it in the body until it's eventually gotten rid of.
this is the typical hygiene hypothesis. If all dairy is toxic, this would me Aajonus either would have 0% success rate at least with lactose-intolerant people and dairy, or that these people merely handled dairy better because they became more toxic, which is precisely what many hygienists say about all animal foods. I personally think there could be truth to the fact that pasteurized dairy leaves some kind of residue in tissue, that raw dairy might aggravate/ameliorate. I'm not convinced of this of course, but I think just the anecdotal evidence is enough to make me open to it.
-
Actually, it isn't just the mercury-in-fish notion that has been debunked. The mercury-amalagam notions have also been conclusively debunked:-
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html
At least, it's only the quack-doctors like Dr Wakefield who support such notions. And the only ones to have been shown to have genuinely suffered from mercury are those who've been exposed to truly massive doses of mercury, usually from spillage from industrial sites(Minamata Bay and a more recent incident in Romania near a mercury-using gold mine come to mind).
-
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html
Quackwatch is the junkiest of junk science.
-
I'm not aruging that one can dispute the damage of these things, just that they DO build up in the body. In the organs, fatty tissue, and cells. If this was not true, many modern diseases would probably not exist. Not to mention the reasons for not consuming grain-fed meats, if one believes their toxins do not get built up in such tissues. Are you saying you would eat factory farmed meats, if they were hijacked mid-life and fed a 100% natural diet for a number of years? And in this case we are talking merely grains, and not the chemicals of modern diets like acrylamide and formaldehyde and other massive quanitities of cooked non-biological foods and stress in modern humans.
-
I would of course be prepared to eat raw meats from 100% grassfed cattle even if they'd been grainfed up to 2 years before the grassfeeding period. This is, after all, plenty of enough time to get rid of all toxins from unhealthy diets.
-
Quackwatch is the junkiest of junk science.
Quackwatch is great for exposing quacks. Of course, quackwatch is anathema to creationists like you since it focuses on reason, not mythology.
-
Quackwatch is great for exposing quacks. Of course, quackwatch is anathema to creationists like you since it focuses on reason, not mythology.
In my opinion, Quack Watch is an agent of Western Medicine. Quack Watch IS the ENEMY. If quack watch reviews Raw Paleo Diet.com and Raw Paleo Forum. I perfectly know what those paid hacks will write about us.
-
In my opinion, Quack Watch is an agent of Western Medicine. Quack Watch IS the ENEMY. If quack watch reviews Raw Paleo Diet.com and Raw Paleo Forum. I perfectly know what those paid hacks will write about us.
They didn't even notice that Dr. Price was right about crooked teeth. That's like noticing that Isaac Newton was a weirdo, and missing the fact that he was one of the greatest scientists ever.
They miss the point. If you want to know the deeper truth of the Universe, you can't just ask conventional science. You'll get conventional answers. To know more, you must look more deeply. It takes work, which is the thing that most skeptics are deeply allergic to.
-
I highly doubt TD has read these quackwatch articles. The WAP article he has referenced in the past was so unbelievably ridiculous it's the only conclusion I could come to.
To GS I wouldn't be suprised, they seem to be written in rush.
-
I highly doubt TD has read these quackwatch articles. The WAP article he has referenced in the past was so unbelievably ridiculous it's the only conclusion I could come to.
To GS I wouldn't be suprised, they seem to be written in rush.
On the contrary I did read a number of those quackwatch articles. There is a burning need in the face of ludicrous claims by WP and others for a James-Randi-type to step in and provide a more sceptical viewpoint. I don't view Quackwatch as always(or even mostly) correct of course, but given that many in the RVAF diet movement view WP with unquestioned religious-like devotion, along with believing in silly conspiracy theories re mercury etc., quackwatch is a useful debunking site.
-
AV originally came to raw-meat via coyote.
He was wise or desperate enough to learn from nature (Natural Science!), not some blowhard.
Hi William. Who's a blow hard? Maybe express it in a maybe more civilized manor? Thanks William. I'm just not quite getting what you mean there.
-
Yes, for now there is a link on this page so you can hear the interview:http://www.wewant2live.com/site/811618/page/937343
Tonio, the interviewer, asked some questions to which Aajonus gave in-depth answers about the Primal Diet, and the time went so quickly that Tonio did not get a chance to ask the many questions he had prepared. Aajonus suggested they do another one dedicated only to question and answer. Once scheduled, this will be posted on the http://www.wewant2live.com/site/811618/page/937343 page.
-
He never mentioned this before. AV originally came to raw-meat diets via Natural Hygiene and related raw vegan practices....
Tyler, are you aware there is some raw meat eating going well back in the history of the Natural Hygiene movement and that the International Natural Hygiene Society (website established in 2003) states “that the optimal diet for humans equals the diet that ancient primitive peoples thrived on,” and that very different diets are promoted by various natural hygienists? The INHS says that one of their "dominant versions of the ultimate diet" is a “Paleolithic low-carb diet” (they also refer to it as a “primal diet,” as Aajonus does). It has similarities to Aajonus’ basic recommended diet (see http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet.html) and appears to combine influences from Natural Hygiene, Aajonus and "Weston Price research." They list one of its proponents as famous Natural Hygienist Dr. Stanley S. Bass. Indeed, natural hygienists, Aajonus and Paleo diet advocates all now agree on at least one thing: “to be healthy, we should eat foods of our biological adaptation.” The INHS even quotes Aajonus here:
There is also a new phenomenon - all-raw meat eating: "the primal diet". .... "I have seen that eating 1-3 pounds of raw meat daily helps regenerate, heal the body, and reverse the common toxic deterioration associated with aging and disease. ... I recommend only ocean wild-caught raw fish, ... including swordfish, which has the highest mercury content. When digested and made bioactive by plankton and eaten by fish, traces of mercury are great detoxifiers of toxic mercury in the body. ... When fish are cooked, mercury and other metallic minerals become free-radicals and toxic." --A. Vonderplanitz: "The recipe for living without disease"(http://naturalhygienesociety.org/past.html).
Plus by calling Aajonus' diet just a "Primal diet," this fails to distinguish it from the now better-known (outside this forum) Primal diet of Mark Sisson. Therefore, to distinguish AV's diet, I think of it as a combination of Natural Hygiene and Primal diet elements. I suppose I could call it a "NH Primal diet" or a "raw Primal diet" or call Mark Sisson's diet a "Primal Blueprint diet" to distinguish them from each other.
[P.S., plus Aajonus talks about having tried Natural Hygiene himself in the past. Plus a reasonable and intelligent raw vegan I know listened to one of Aajonus' interviews and remarked about how much it sounded like Natural Hygiene except for the meat aspect (this raw vegan didn't know that raw meat is not forbidden in Natural Hygiene) without anyone prompting him on this.]
-
the problem is - is that Aajnous's diet is diametrically opposed to the very concept of Natural Hygiene which is that the body repairs itself as a self healing organism and that only natural conditions (and not therapies or specific foods) facilitate this healing. Yes this involves a 'natural diet' but its subjectively chosen based on ideology more often than anthropology. They get around this like the instinctos by claiming that humans at one point degenerated to our meat heavy ancestors and once ate more like the great apes in total bliss and harmony.
in a sense one could see Mark Sisson's diet can be seen as the very opposite of say raw frutarianism because its a high fat diet that revolves mostly around cooked foods, even tho some raw is emphasized in plants. It doesn't have any of the healing voodoo of either frutarianism or Aajonus, so in that way its very different.
but more or less when it comes to healing specific foods and practices, Aajonus diet has way less in common with hygiene than standard paleo or instincto diets. The only major similarities being around salt, pill based supplementation, against various cleanses and is pro raw. Its similar to a degree in regard parasites. The very idea of eating a certain food as a remedy is null in hygiene. Aajonus came from fruitarian based hygiene diet, but many people come from a SAD diet...I would say very few to none of his ideas actually come from hygiene that are not based on his own experimentation. The very crux of the primal diet is it is not about replicating any dietary habits specifically, only eating foods that can cleanse and build the body the best from a modern perspective as well as based in anatomy or anthropology of man.
-
They get around this like the instinctos by claiming that humans at one point degenerated to our meat heavy ancestors and once ate more like the great apes in total bliss and harmony.
I didn’t know that “the instinctos” claim that. ???
-
I did not know re NH and raw-meat-eating. I only heard about from AV who vaguely mentioned coming to raw meats via NH. As for the Primal Diet label, didn't AV come up with that term first?
-
Yes this involves a 'natural diet' but its subjectively chosen based on ideology more often than anthropology. They get around this like the instinctos by claiming that humans at one point degenerated to our meat heavy ancestors and once ate more like the great apes in total bliss and harmony.
I didn’t know that “the instinctos” claim that. ???
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg37786/#msg37786
You forget the statistics which have been done for example on chimpanzee’s diet in nature: the fruit share represents about two thirds, that of sheets and roots a quarter, and the remainder consists of proteins (oilseeds, meat and insects). However, the alimentary instinct’s experiment shows that humans come substantially at the same proportions simply by listening to their instinct ¬ subject to the few rules I developed to restore as far as possible an adequate nutritional environment.
were you objecting to the word 'once' believed? This is the only sound byte I could grab, but references to chimps being a working model for human diets seems to be common among both camps I mentioned. If people like they can cruise the other commonly spouted information about these links or the necessary tropical origins theories and more common and abundant vegetation year round that would be required for a high fruit diet.
Either way, removing the possible value of foods 'not found in nature' right off the bat and dismissing the fact that they could not be healthier for a modern person than any ratio or variety of foods deemed 'natural' or appropriate in nature is the very essence of Natural Hygiene. and I think is fair to include Instincto here, unless is equally open as Primal Diet in accepting other rationale in terms of selecting nutrition or medicine than what would be done naturally - not to mention animals regularly proved to not act in accordance with these natural rules when divorced of natural circumstances or even when honestly examined in natural ones. Whether the Instinco philosophy departs in other ways really isn't worth getting into to make this point about the Primal Diet's motivations.
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg37676/#msg37676
The point really is that unlike both Instincto and Hygiene, following the exact rules of nature to result in health is not at all the purpose of the Primal Diet, even if the core part of the nutritional philosophy is based on particular suitable foods and ratios of human tribes and animals of similar digestive tract etc.. Its possible to construct a Primal Diet that contains virtually little foods found in nature based around large quantities of eggs, dairy, coconut cream and vegetable juices and perhaps even refined nuts in combinations/formulas or starch and neglecting water, so obviously it has very little to do with how a person would eat daily in nature.
Mark Sisson or Nora Gedgaudas' diet is more or less about approximating nutrition rather than the intensive healing protocols of the Primal Diet, so basically its the same model of Cordain with The Paleo Diet -emulation albeit including things like dairy or supplements if they augment the natural diet. This is why 'Primal' is used here as opposed to a term that references something of a particular period, as it is more in its definition of 'basic' or essential nutrition. It has very little to do otherwise with PD.
-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg37786/#msg37786
were you objecting to the word 'once' believed?
No, I'm objecting to that:
(,,,) like the instinctos by claiming that humans at one point degenerated to our meat heavy ancestors and once ate more like the great apes in total bliss and harmony.
and specifically at the words "degenerated" and "in total bliss and harmony".
Of course, we once ate like some great apes because our ancestor were great apes - unless humans were created from scratch by God or ETs.
;)
Cheers
Francois
-
Of course, we once ate like some great apes because our ancestor were great apes - unless humans were created from scratch by God or ETs.
;)
Cheers
Francois
for one, as always, this is your opinion. Even within the accepted language of evolution you are leaving out multiple possibilities. You are also leaving out multiple other non-evolution theories. Also given the fact that all species in the evolutionary model came from single celled organisms, by this logic everyone should eat the way of the microbe. Does one need to research 25 million years into the evolution of a tiger to tell what kind of diet it evolved from which is the best to feed it currently? Again to put this in context of Primal Diet, it is irrelevant which actual foods were eaten by or ancestors if they are inefficient today in removing modern poisons and can corrupt faulty internal environments and metabolisms. The percentage of fats is what is observed as most healing and also ties with the more recent documented consumption of ancestors that requires less speculating. In this approach, choosing the foods/habits that facilitate healing are seen as more valuable then directly emulating the natural habits themselves. This is the rub in terms of both Hygiene and Instincto. Both dogmas remove possibilities right from the get go as to what creates or allows for health and won't accept dialogue with anything that goes counter to these notions. Aajonus is of course very dogmatic in other ways, but the principle of using tools and knowledge over blind faith in nature is what distances it greatly from Natural Hygiene and other potentially damaging concepts re: the ways of nature applied or twisted in inappropriate settings.
but back to the wordings I don't even see what you are protesting.
if humans at one point ate whatever diet you and the Hygienists recommend as drastically similar to a contemporary ape, surely the diet we can speculate on to a high percentage as eaten throughout the ice ages (heavy in meats) was a degeneration from that perspective. That part has nothing to do with my opinion on Instincto or Hygiene, just seems to be a fact.
as for "total bliss and harmony" I don't see why that wouldn't go hand in hand with the rest of the fantasy. I would say more or less alot of modern HGs live in a similar state, so I guess being deprived of dairy and cooked food and given a proper environment isn't enough to create peace and happiness?
-
I did not know re NH and raw-meat-eating. I only heard about from AV who vaguely mentioned coming to raw meats via NH. As for the Primal Diet label, didn't AV come up with that term first?
I think so. I assumed he came up with the term by getting a primal cut and letting it age in the fridge or sectioning in into clean peanut butter jars to make varying stages of highmeat.
Info on primal cuts:
The initial process is called Primary butchery. In this process, the butcher selects the carcass, its sides or quarters to be able to cut the meat and produce primal cuts with minimum wastage. The parts which are primarily taken off the carcass are known as primal cuts . The slaughterd animal is divided into different primal cuts and sub-primal cuts if the client specifies and demands for whole meat sides. For cows and horses, their carcasses are bisected then quartered, pig carcasses are only bisected while goats or sheeps are left whole.
Tools utilized by butchers are primarily composed of boning knives, meat hook, steel for whetting or honing the knives and a scabbard. As the butchery task differ on which part of the meat is to be processed, some butchers require food grade band saw and other types of knives. In compliance with safety it is recommended, that a butcher wear a belly guard and a safety glove. These two dress items are to be made of chain mail or Kevlar. A chain mail is a mesh-patterned metal rings linked together that serves as an armour while a Kevlar is a light yet strong synthetic fiber.
In primary butchery, primal cuts are trimmed and prepared for Secondary Butchery. Hygeinic and secured storing of cut meat also falls under Primary Butchery. Meats also undergo diverse processes like steam, hot water, and organic acids to decrease and eliminate the level of unwanted germ . Meats are storedin chillers and freezers to avert infestation of microcopic parasites and to diminish spoilage before distribution.
The next set of steps is called the Secondary butchery, where primal cut is boned and trim med in preparation for sale. This butchery's next process is conventionally done indoors, in refrigerated rooms where the grade of coldness is maintained at 2-4 degrees Celsius . These work areas should regularly be disinfected.
Again in Secondary butchery when primal cut trimmings are turned into ground meat to use all meat parts productively.
Read more at http://www.articlealley.com/article_1282366_26.html?ktrack=kcplink
It would probably be more efficient to get our meat this way, either buy it or share a whole animal with friends.
People's diets do evolve. What clicked with me reading about primal diet by av was nutritional similarities I saw in it to aw's living food lifestyle. She was personal friends with many of the historical greats of the nh movement. I interned under her direct direction. She was working on curing aids, along with helping people who had cancer and all manner of other disease so people can be self-sufficient and not be trapped in the SAD/SUKD etc systems, kind of like what a.v. is doing.
-
But can't AV sue Sissons for coopting the Primal Diet label? I know AV has the term copyrighted etc.
-
sisson calls it the primal blueprint, or primal for short as in "i eat Primal". honestly sisson's primal blueprint "diet"/way-of-eating and robb wolf's paleo solution way of eating are the same: modern paleo, an upgrade from cordain.
-
for one, as always, this is your opinion. Even within the accepted language of evolution you are leaving out multiple possibilities.You are also leaving out multiple other non-evolution theories.
No it’s not my opinion and I’m not sure that I have any definitive opinion. The one I favor for the time being is that we are apes or at least primates.
Yes, I forgot to mention other non-evolution theories. Mankind could be a perennial specie in the Universe, able to travel from a solar systems to another and therefore could have colonized the whole Galaxy. The red shift could mislead us and the Universe could be perennial , with no beginning and no end and thus life and mankind as well. I don’t know.
I wrote “our ancestor were great apes – unless (…)” because it’s the generally accepted theory and it seems very likely. By noticing that a “paleo diet” is good for our health, we substantiate this theory because if our ancestors were created by God, or by some ET, or came to Earth from an other solar system were they came form another and so on ever since an infinite duration in time, there would be no benefit of a RPD over a standard diet. Mankind would very probably have eaten cooked food and grain and… (sorry we are on the Primal Diet section, so…) for ever and would be adapted. God would likely as well have created human beings adapted to the food they would actually have, unless God were Evil.
Also given the fact that all species in the evolutionary model came from single celled organisms, by this logic everyone should eat the way of the microbe.
Yes and that’s what we do when we eat “instincto”: microbes eat what they like and so do we.
Does one need to research 25 million years into the evolution of a tiger to tell what kind of diet it evolved from which is the best to feed it currently?
No. I don’t understand the comment of GCB you quoted the way you do. As a matter of fact, we don’t look at what the chimps eat to know what we should eat. GCB just noticed that there’s a similitude between the diet of the chimps in nature and the average dietary proportions in most instincto’s diet. Nothing more.
And please, appreciate that what GCB says remains his own. It’s not because someone follows an instincto diet that such a person agrees with every single phrase and every single word he says.
Again to put this in context of Primal Diet, it is irrelevant which actual foods were eaten by or ancestors if they are inefficient today in removing modern poisons and can corrupt faulty internal environments and metabolisms. The percentage of fats is what is observed as most healing and also ties with the more recent documented consumption of ancestors that requires less speculating. In this approach, choosing the foods/habits that facilitate healing are seen as more valuable then directly emulating the natural habits themselves.
Yes. Except that everyone is different, especially in our modern world, and that a percentage of fat or whatever said to have been observed as most healing in average could not be the best suited in any particular case. Someone will need more fat while somebody else will need less fat. Moreover, the needed proportion will change over time according to the body state, activity, environmental conditions and so on.
This is the rub in terms of both Hygiene and Instincto.
Sorry, but English not being my mother tongue, I don’t catch what you mean by “rub” and my search on dictionaries remained fruitless.
Both dogmas remove possibilities right from the get go as to what creates or allows for health and won't accept dialogue with anything that goes counter to these notions.
What dogmas do you speak about? What allows you to state “won't accept dialogue with anything that goes counter to these notions.”? On the contrary, I’m glad to dialogue with someone countering any notion I may have at the moment. But I would appreciate if the criticism were based on a good knowledge of what is criticized so that this dialogue could be fruitful. That’s why I put up this poll http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/who-has-read-gc-burger%27s-first-book/ .
So far, it’s been viewed 55 times, but only 2 persons (including me) declared having read the book.
if humans at one point ate whatever diet you and the Hygienists recommend as drastically similar to a contemporary ape, surely the diet we can speculate on to a high percentage as eaten throughout the ice ages (heavy in meats) was a degeneration from that perspective. That part has nothing to do with my opinion on Instincto or Hygiene, just seems to be a fact.
I don’t recommend any diet, GCB neither AFAIK. Everyone should choose what is best for himself or herself at the moment, and it is precisely the main characteristic of an instinctive nutrition.
as for "total bliss and harmony" I don't see why that wouldn't go hand in hand with the rest of the fantasy. I would say more or less alot of modern HGs live in a similar state, so I guess being deprived of dairy and cooked food and given a proper environment isn't enough to create peace and happiness?
What fantasy are you talking about?
Good night!
Francois
-
No it’s not my opinion and I’m not sure that I have any definitive opinion. The one I favor for the time being is that we are apes or at least primates.
ok I think you need to sell crazy outside the primal forum. The expression was meant to state as usual that you make really definitive statements without acknowledging they might not be so definitive. The reason I know this 'is your opinion' is because obviously I believe it to be wrong and dismissive of other more than equally plausible realities. here is plain as day example of dogma as the only complete speculative idea that will never be conclusive in our lifetime you will accept is your own.
the other blatant much simpler theory even proposed by evolutionary scientists is that multiple species of humanoids sprouted at varying times and only the ones that adapted to large amounts of animal foods survived as full fledged humans. Even if these sub-humans at one point ate marginal amounts of animal foods ( of which again is speculative ) they never would have happened to exist as fruit eating humans as this 'evolution' is guessed to have taken place at stages way before what we would recognize as human. in other words just as 25 million years ago a tiger could have have some non carnivorous diet, as soon as we recognize it as a tiger it as more or less eating how it does today and the same can be applied to a true human, not ape. Also equally possible is some animals just began as carnivores and didn't evolve at all from plant eating species. The funny part, again is to me none of this matters what I choose to eat as that is based on what works, but I believe its fairly devastating to the idea that particularly a modern diet would in any way resemble a species so far removed in requirements for health. If this link is seen as coincidental or intentional - doesn't seem to matter.
as for this other disingenuous nitpicking, it matters not that you don't 'follow' GCB or that he doesn't 'model' his diet after apes, only whether one follows ideas about what is healthy based on concepts of nature as undeniably superior. I don't see why you refuse to stand behind this seeing since this flavors much of your posts particularly on new members and their diet choices and allows no other discussion on possible diets and processes as being helpful whether tied to the 'neolithic' or even the modern. This is what ties it to hygiene and this is why similarly the absolutest ideas are often a vulnerable house of cards, just as anyone successfully doing juices/cleanses/or large amounts of fats or animal foods disputes various theories of hygiene. You can defend your perspective of course as being 'open', but the similarities and closed doors again are obvious to me after spending years arguing with the same kinds of thinking. Its clear that if you cannot accept that diets other than those arrived at through instincto and strict adherence to its prerequisite diet exclusions could possibly have value, then there is no way to interpret this other than being dogmatic as that is basically the definition
a 'rub' is an idiom for crux or distinguishing marker. I can see from your perspective that your dogma allows for people to find their own unique diet per their own requirements. i jive with that in theory but I feel personally like i've already distinguished why that cannot be possible, particularly in our modern world. I've already argued this to the extent I cared to..you picked apart something totally minor and I responded. If you care to write commentary disproving that Aajonus is not a follower whatsoever of Natural Hygiene, or believe the comparison I made between Instincto and Hygiene is inaccurate, then by all means maybe talk about that instead of some external instincto defense..
People's diets do evolve. What clicked with me reading about primal diet by av was nutritional similarities I saw in it to aw's living food lifestyle. She was personal friends with many of the historical greats of the nh movement. I interned under her direct direction. She was working on curing aids, along with helping people who had cancer and all manner of other disease so people can be self-sufficient and not be trapped in the SAD/SUKD etc systems, kind of like what a.v. is doing.
I think you are right on in the Ann Wigmore comparison, but that seems be be the misunderstanding I often hear on RAF forums in linking Wigmore and juicing or sprouting with Hygiene. Yes there are some minority factions of the hygiene movement that include some meat, but if you go to rawfoodsexplained dot com or any similar outline in NH philosophy, any use of herbs, supplements, juices, cleanses and even sprouts are frowned upon in hygiene. The only accepted cures being from removal of the 'causes' of disease, usually in the form of fasting for extreme periods, and very little with any nutritional emphasis ( as a therapy ) other than what is needed for regular wellness.
-
Ok, KD, thanks to have answered in such a lengthy post. Sorry, but I won’t spend hours again painfully trying to clearly understand each of your points and answering to every one… with for results that again a few minutes latter I receive an equally lengthy, convoluted, wide of the mark and somehow insulting answer. I've got other things to do.
Good luck.
-
Ok, KD, thanks to have answered in such a lengthy post. Sorry, but I won’t spend hours again painfully trying to clearly understand each of your points and answering to every one… with for results that again a few minutes latter I receive an equally lengthy, convoluted, wide of the mark and somehow insulting answer. I've got other things to do.
Good luck.
ROFL
(couldn't help it!)
-
In my opinion, Quack Watch is an agent of Western Medicine. Quack Watch IS the ENEMY. If quack watch reviews Raw Paleo Diet.com and Raw Paleo Forum. I perfectly know what those paid hacks will write about us.
I'll drink to that GS.
QW is populated by folks who are cynical about everything. Sort of like the two old guys in the gallery on the Muppets.
I read QW to see what the cranks and people who make a living off of selling drugs and surgery have dreamed up to justify their story.
However they sometimes are right and this is the tough part. To comb through the chaff. These old goof balls at QW are Quacks and hacks from the pharmaceutical business who have made their fortune and now have nothing better to do with their time but look for research that supports their point of view........ just like everybody, (including me LOL) does on this website and every other website/forum/blog yada yada. LOL
-
Iguana, I'll take much of this as a compliment, as for missing the mark..i'm sure we will all get to witness whether this is true in your wonderful welcoming of new members here, and if we don't...perhaps my posts have some useful bullishness. I prefer to keep my insults direct towards individuals ideas as opposed to passive- aggressive slights that pretend as if I have no place in those confrontations. I consider the boxing out of possibilities of others based on ideas - particularly in regards to people pursuing health - to be about the absolute low in human ego.
-
I did not know re NH and raw-meat-eating. I only heard about from AV who vaguely mentioned coming to raw meats via NH.
Yes, the INHS also include in their history a NH guru who advocated raw meat back in the early part of the 20th century. So now you know that there is some raw meat advocacy within the big tent of NH and there has been since at least the early 20th century.
I've heard AV mention in at least a couple audio interviews and a written interview his trying a raw vegan version of NH in the past and not doing well on it until he added raw meat.
As for the Primal Diet label, didn't AV come up with that term first?
Yes, and like I said, there is now also Sisson's version, which is currently better known and with which I am more familiar (though I've recently been more thoroughly reading one of AV's books after skimming it before and I'm learning more about AV from others here, so I'm increasingly familiar with AV's version as well).
I wish Sisson hadn't adopted "Primal" as the description for his diet and I doubt that he was aware of AV's use of the term or even existence when he did [correction: after some investigating, I do think he was]. Unfortunately he did adopt it and we can't make him abandon it, so we need some way of distinguishing the two versions. Since you and KD seem to have a problem with mentioning the NH connection re: AV, I could use something else like AV Primal vs. Primal Blueprint. It's certainly not worth arguing over. I'm not into debating for debating's sake, only if I think I may learn something through it or clarify any of my points that have been misunderstood or share some info with someone who's interested.
Theoretically someone could even do a raw version of Primal Blueprint the way some do a raw version of WAPF and we could end up with a raw Primal Blueprint section here, though that would probably be a longtime off if ever.
But can't AV sue Sissons for coopting the Primal Diet label? I know AV has the term copyrighted etc.
Are you sure about that?
-
I think it was mentioned on the primal diet yahoo group that AV had copyrighted the primal diet as a label.
-
phil, if you are really curious, the reason why a raw version of Primal Blueprint would not be The Primal Diet is specifically what makes Primal Diet so distant from hygiene. Primal diet is more than just paleo + some raw dairy (on a side note with Sisson: dairy - particularly milk - is encouraged to make up not a huge portion of the diet). Primal diet is basically a series of protocols designed to heal. This is the no-no in hygiene which even when including meat states that NO foods ACT on the body to cleanse or heal and that the body is ALWAYS self-healing.
Often on Primal Diet these protocols can include anything from - eating only white meats, or eating only butter with honey, or rubbing some concoction on ones scalp, or not drinking any water whatsoever for two years, and all the whipworm ingesting/shit eating etc... and on and on designed to fix illness that is stubborn even after (or due to) undergoing extreme fasting and even eating 'naturally' in some cases.
While Primal Blueprint and Paleo Solution and all these other diets do have a focus in healing metabolism and other things, its similar to hygiene in that its believed if a natural diet can be achieved..the rest of the bodies problems should correct themselves at least in time. I'm not sure what Aajonus opinions would be about following a typical raw paleo diet (I've only heard him comment on excessive fruit eating which obviously doesn't sum up everyone at least on this site) or even raw paleo + some dairy, but i'd probably say at best he would consider them a 'maintenance diet' as opposed to a healing diet. Of course many would disagree...
the similarities that your buddy pointed out are as I mentioned the staunch views of Aajonus on salt, supplements, freezing, and most types of cleanses (including parasite cleanses of which fasting is seen as the better solution in hygiene to taking herbs or other concoctions) and raw of course, otherwise its more opposite than Primal Blueprint to hygiene.
hope this helps.
-
TD, I think you may have meant trademarked. Words can't be copyrighted, but special word combinations can be trademarked. So I looked up "Primal Diet" and "Primal Blueprint" at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp and found that AV and Mark Sisson have indeed trademarked those combinations. This explains why Sisson refers to his diet as "Primal" for short instead of "Primal Diet," and to "Primal foods," "Eat Primal," etc. So I'll try to remember to say "Primal Blueprint" for Sisson's version and "Primal Diet" or "AV Primal" for AV's version.
Sisson's company is even called "Primal Nutrition." He's big into marketing, so he says and writes "primal this" and "primal that" so often that he really drills it into peoples' heads. It's a common consistent brand building approach. AV only uses "primal" about 20 times in Recipe for Living Without Disease, whereas I would guess that Sisson uses it more than a couple hundred times in his "The Primal Blueprint" book and countless times on his blog. It's actually one of the things I find less appealing about Mark Sisson's approach--he tries to use "primal" everywhere he can so that it sounds awkwardly forced at times and I eventually get tired of hearing the word. However, he comes across as a relaxed, personable and not too pushy guy, so it hasn't bother me extremely.
phil, if you are really curious, the reason why a raw version of Primal Blueprint would not be The Primal Diet is specifically what makes Primal Diet so distant from hygiene. Primal diet is more than just paleo + some raw dairy (on a side note with Sisson: dairy - particularly milk - is encouraged to make up not a huge portion of the diet). Primal diet is basically a series of protocols designed to heal. This is the no-no in hygiene which even when including meat states that NO foods ACT on the body to cleanse or heal and that the body is ALWAYS self-healing.
I see. I don't mean the following to suggest that that stuff isn't useful or important to anyone--I do think this could help explain why I see less of a difference between AV's Primal Diet and NH than you: I find that healing protocol stuff to be one of the least interesting and important aspects of AV's approach for me personally. I skipped most of his section on healing protocols in my first reading, in part because most of them don't apply to me anyway. I don't see it as a major deal, but someone who does would of course see more differences between AV's Primal Diet and the Primal version of NH.
(I've only heard him comment on excessive fruit eating which obviously doesn't sum up everyone at least on this site)
Yes, and there are several Paleo diets where limiting fruit intake is recommended, such as PaNu.
or even raw paleo + some dairy
Yup, PaNu fits that bill again.
but i'd probably say at best he would consider them a 'maintenance diet' as opposed to a healing diet. Of course many would disagree...
That makes sense, since AV's focus seems to be on providing individual customized counseling re: healing therapy foods rather than spreading the word about the basic diet.
hope this helps.
Yes, that helps explain where you're coming from on that. Thanks for the easy-to-understand explanation, KD.
-
sure, I don't pretend to understand or take heed to much of the stuff myself
the other big departure with Hygiene of course is positive emphasis on fracturing (juicing), processing (blenderizing) and synchronistic food combinations (as opposed to mono eating). Aajonus is very anti whole vegetable fiber, whole nuts, and eating fruit alone. Although he supports alot of the basic food combining, there are certain combinations which are seen as better or essential to consuming them separately. Most of the cooked paleo/primal are very whole food oriented, have varying respect or disrespect for food combining.
-
the other big departure with Hygiene of course is positive emphasis on fracturing (juicing), processing (blenderizing) and synchronistic food combinations (as opposed to mono eating).
OK, I don't see those as hugely crucial to me either, so that further explains it. Although I do find benefits from pre-digesting foods with grinding, chopping, blenderizing, fermenting, etc. because of my still-suboptimal GI tract, so that is a significant difference between Primal Diet and NH from my perspective.
Aajonus is very anti whole vegetable fiber, whole nuts, and eating fruit alone.
Yeah, it's interesting that I've ended up independently partly following this aspect of his approach, though I sometimes eat a few nuts or eat fruit alone (but usually with fats).
And if we ever have a Mark Sisson section here, it could say "raw Primal Blueprint" to distinguish it from "Primal Diet."
-
Yes, and there are several Paleo diets where limiting fruit intake is recommended, such as PaNu.
Yup, PaNu fits that bill again.
I think I was unclear here maybe. I think 2 years ago a member here went on a radio show with Aajonus ( I remember because I was guesting the forum at the time) and he asked Aajonus directly what he thought of the 'raw paleo diet' and Aajonous just said something like.."ohh...all that fruit" heh. I'm sure he would consider PaNu to be a fairly worse diet...I was saying like..basically he probably wouldnt consider someone like me doing all raw but with some raw butter to be an accurate representation of his diet...particularly with the frozen stuff and some other indiscretions or differences of opinion -d. As for the healing specific stuff, I havn't found anything that I'm sure is incorrect or not helpful, more just over my head or as you imply - beyond my necessity most of the time.
-
Since you and KD seem to have a problem with mentioning the NH connection re: AV, I could use something else like AV Primal vs. Primal Blueprint.
Aajonus asked me to always call it "primal diet" or "pd". Since many people think I'm talking about a cooked diet, I distinguish it by calling it the raw primal diet, or the primal diet by av or the primal diet from the book "we want to live".
-
I do think this could help explain why I see less of a difference between AV's Primal Diet and NH than you: I find that healing protocol stuff to be one of the least interesting and important aspects of AV's approach for me personally. I skipped most of his section on healing protocols in my first reading, in part because most of them don't apply to me anyway. I don't see it as a major deal, but someone who does would of course see more differences between AV's Primal Diet and the Primal version of NH.
phil, Its important to realize how much these concepts exist in parallel competing universes.
While one does not have to prove that the practices of healing in Primal or Ann Wigmore or Gabriel Cousens or any other raw 'cleansing/healing' approach are all positive, the very possibly of any of the principles being superior to the systems of nature are basically devastating to 'natural health'.
The reason I used 'house of cards' earlier is:
If one think of the basic idea of 'medicine' one thinks of ancient systems of TCM or Ayurveda or systems based on people that are in history already removed form the ways of nature. The state of nature requires nothing other then perhaps rudimentary medicine, so it is interpreted that even with present inherited conditions and health, that there are no tools or discoveries of man that are useful at all in reversing disease. often the way one gets around any 'observed' improvement of therapies while keeping this ideology is to claim that people either 'remove' symptoms and thus the processes themselves are largely detrimental long term..or that the person got well IN SPITE of this intervention.
Again, in hygiene or similar philosophies, if health can be distilled completely to removing the causes of disease, there is no possible therapy other than providing the basic essence of raw material for the body to do its own thing.
It is concluded then that just as it impossible for even a natural food (but certainly a combination of natural or perhaps unnatural food like dairy) to cleanse the body in ways of which is does not do naturally, it is equally impossible that juicing, fermenting, blending or mixing of foods can add anything but detriment to natural processes. Accepting otherwise means that nature is either not perfect (can be improved by tools) OR that it is not enough just to follow nature to be well. both being quite devastating to these philosophies. From what I understand about the more alchemical aspects of Aajonous..alot of the way he 'uses' foods has very much to do with their ability to act as soaps (detoxes) lubricants (fats) and alcohols for dissolution (fruits). It also impacts his decisions to avoid water (solvents of healthy minerals). These of course are ridiculous to the hygienist as animals certainly do not eat for these purposes.
Anyway, this is why its quite common for instance for fruitarians in particular - other then the vegan issue- to attack other WOEs, because unlike peoples variations here on raw paleo, other peoples successes totally invalidate their rationale and definitions for health.
even in non frutarians you can see this same logic unfortunately
"in spite of X" or "people can be healthy even eating x." without ever acknowledging the foods or routines could be an essential part of the purifying/healing etc...that can not be created any other way.
-
OK, thanks for trying to explain further, KD. I can see how some factions would be at each other's throats.